for the former part of the assertion the Acts other things by me premised do abundantly clear it As for the latter that the King hath no such power in and over the Church it being uncontroverted in the Presbyterian perswasion and the Supremacy made the ground of the abovementioned Act of Restitution being to them a greater cause of offence then any of these difficulties in this matter of conjunction with Presbyteries Synods intended by the Accommodation it was the part of the Accommodators either by conviction or condescendence to have removed it However I may not digresse only I am assured if these three things be considered which I am readie to demonstrat against whatsoever Opponent 1. That this Ecclesiastick power is the sole prerogative of Iesus Christ whereof the administration was committed by our Lord to his Church when no Magistrat was a Member thereof and that upon the Magistrats becoming Christian there is no ground adduceable whereupon it could accrease to him 2. That all the power of the Magistrat is under God from the People and in such things over and about which the original power was to them competent to which this Church-power can in no sort be reckoned 3. That all the extraordinarie interpositions of good Kings and Emperours in matters of Religion did no wayes flow from any inherent right or prerogative they had conversant in these matters but were the pure product of necessitie sustained by the righteousness of the work deficiency of the more proper means These things I say being duely considered I am very confident that all the pretensions of the Supremacy will very quickly evanish and therefore it inevitably followes that seeing the Kings Supremacy is a high usurpation against our Lord Master all Courts depending thereon and acknowledging the same partaking therein what ever opinion a man do reserve or whatever declaration be made anent it must also be rejected But here there ariseth a great noise and clamor what are the present Presbyteries and Synods no Presbyteries and Synods then are the present Ministers no Presbyters But their is no such haste neither have these things any further connexion then that the present Ministers are not Presbyters in so far as the same denotes a power of ruling committed by Iesus Christ which truly I think in ingenuitie they can not deny specially seing that although they hold themselves to be Ministers by mission from Christ yet they do nevertheless acknowledge their power of Ecclesiastick Government and Iurisdiction to be from the King on whom they grant that the Ministerie as to other things doth not in such a manner depend Whereupon it evidently followeth that if the power of government do as well and in the same manner flow from Iesus Christ as the power of order as the Schools speak doth and that thereby true Presbyteries and Synods do only subsist then these meetings which recognosce his Majesty as Supreme for and in the exercise of the power which they acclaime can no more be truly such then he who by vertew of his Soveraign's mission would pretend himself to be a Minister But what need of more words if the present conform Ministers and there meetings have disclained Iesus Christ for their immediat Head in matrer of Government and owne no power thereof but what acknowledgeth a dependence upon and subordination to his Majesty as Supreme wherewith nevertheless he himself is not at all vested and if on the other hand we do disallow all Church-Government and medlings and meetings thereof which do not hold their commission and warrant from Christ alone as the Head of the Body what concurrence can we make in on and the same Assembly Or by what salvo may my sitting and acting be justified in a meeting in the power whereof I hold it unlawful to partake For my part since in the matter of Ecclesiastick Government they do not hold the true Head but have betaken themselves to another to whom they do referr are accountable for all their power if we who in Conscience do both detest this usurpation and disclaime all share in any power save what our Lord hath committed unto us desire to be excused from these Assemblies I think until they first convince us of our mistake in these things they cannot rationally blame us for Separation And therefore what ever may be the effect of an entrie qualified either by declaration or protestation in order to the freeing of the partie from an apparent constructive accession to certain accidental corruptions that may be in a meeting to which he is otherwise obliged to joine yet sure I am in this case where the very constitution it self is so unwarrantable and corrupt that non can actively partake therein without sin this remedie here offered is altogether insignificant The next thing that here occurres is that although this reservation of opinion and declaration permitted could be a salvo as to the evills of the constitution yet without doubt there is a consideration to be had in such conjunctions of the persons also with whom it is to be made There may be an Assembly nay a Presbyterie or Synod of evill doers which we are bound to hate and even the Assembly of the wicked who inclosed him and pearced his hands and his feet wanted not a specious name yea it was the house of his friends sure no man will think that a simple protestation may warrant constant presence in these cases but rather encline with Ieremiah to leave and to draw from an assembly of treacherous men What for assemblies the present Church-meetings are I can be no more tender then it is superflous to utter only this I will say that if it be once granted that such may be the condition of a meeting by reason of the quality of its members that no declaration can warrant any fellowship therein I am certain that the subsumption viz. that such are the Courts to which we are invited may be to the satisfaction of all unbyassed men upon these sufficient grounds of notorious perjury intrusion profanitie and insufficiencie unquestionably made out But I proceed to the next Article bearing That all Church-affaires shall be managed in Presbyteries and Synods by the free vote of Presbyters or the Major part of them This is indeed the main principal condescendence and it is to this place that aswel for the satisfaction of such Brethren as possibly will not so easily at first admit of the foregoing reasons as for a full answere to all that can be said for this Accommodation I have reserved to discourse upon it at more length and on all fair and probable Suppositions In supplement therefore of this Article and to take it in the most advantageous sense that the Proposers can desire I adde that consistently therewith it seems the Bishop is to be reduced to a constant Moderator whence in prosecution of my declared purpose waving any further exceptions against the nullity of
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
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
all these things or to contend for them blindfold without knowing them wheâ—her this be lawful righteous whether the common People be more knowing in their own Liberties and their representatives Privileges or conforming Ministers in his Majesties sublime prerogatives and extensive Iurisdictions I leave it to every impartial discerner But 3. What strange hodge podge indeed do we find in this ingagement all things spiritual ecclesiastick and temporal confounded in the Supremacie is not enough but the poor Intrant must further abjure all forreign Powers and â—urisdictions swear to defend all his Majesties Authorities and Privileges acknowledge upon Oath that he holds the Church and his possession of it if of the King's presentation under God of his Majestie doing homage unto the King and not unto God for the same if at the presentation of another under God by the King of the Patron thereof And lastly swear obedience to his Ordinarie in all lawful things even his Majesties authority though just now so fully recognosced not excepted Is not this an odde medly to be hudled up in a sacred oath Whereof whether every Article therein be more impertinent for an Intrant Minister of the Gospel or in it self more obscure and indistinct really I can not define But the Author goes on and tells us that It were ingenuously done to take some notice of any point of moderation or any thing else commendable even in our enemies and not to take any partie in the World for the absolute Standart and unfailing rule of truth and righteousnesse in all things And so it were indeed but I freely appeal to all ingenuous men if ever they heard ingenuitie exhorted to by two such disingenuous insinuations As first to recommend the moderation of a partie who after that they themselves had perjuriously broken their Covenant both to God and their Brethren did in such manner instigat the Powers to rigours exclusions and persecutions against all who in conscience did only refuse to owne and countenance their wicked Apostasy as had almost ruined a great part of the Kingdom and did at length wearie the very Actors And next to give out as if we were so implicitly wedded to our partie whereof the least Argument or vestige hath not been made appeare no nor is so much as alledged but but as al men do sufficiently know these restraints of want of power in the Clergieâ— and of better considerations in our Rulers that have produced the apparent quiet which is here pretended for moderation so we hope that by a full manifestation of the truth and righteousnesse of our way we have in such sort commended our selves to every mans conscience in the sigâ—t of God as there to leave this accuser of the brethren convicted and confounded boâ—h â—or his open perjury and craftâ— calumny But the Author as it seems fearing such a replyâ— provided a retrâ—at concluding But oh who would not long for the shadows of the evening and â—o bâ— at rest from all these poor childish trifling contestâ— I shall not say that since he walks so much in darknesse it is little wonder that he longe for shaddes But of this I am very certain that if he had laboured as seriously upon his Masters mâ—ssion to reconcile souls unto God as he seemeth to have travelled upon his Majesties commission â— to patch up a sinful Accommodation his hope of rest had been both more sweet and more assured and in place of the shadows of â—he evening he might have promised to himselfe the lâ—ght inaccessible for his everlasting refreshment But seing these very poor childishâ— trifling contests whereby he would cuningly decry all the just oppositions of the faithful to his evil course are in effect his own devices against the â—ingdome of our Lord Iesus the day wherein every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour shall make his work manifest when the fire shall try it And I heartily wish that the burning thereof may be all his losse After the body of one of these Letters we have a Postscript that is to say for all the longings for rest we just now heard of another whife As we know who once characâ—ered the Lords Servants when with much travel laâ—ouring in his work and herein the Author complementing wiâ—h an Apology otâ—er Churches joining Rome with England as is most supposible whâ—rein Episcopal-government is otherwiâ—e exercised wishes that â—he Aâ—gument ad hominem as he calls it by him used may be brought to the knowledge of such as know least of it and need it most And one part of his wish I am sure I have served by a very candid representation If the event misgive he must blame himself his design is to allay mens extreme fervor by the consideration that this very form which to us is hateful is to English Presbyterians desireable and that upon inquiry the Reformed Churches abroad will be found â—o be much of the same opinion But seeing I have already demonstrat our present form as established and exercised to be not only meer Prelacy but the very absurd usurpation of tâ—e Supremacy and have also at large excepted against â—he fixed Presidency of late proposed and shewed both what the soundest Presbyterians in England do think and all of them ought to think anent it Why doth our Author by such weak repeâ—itions pretend under the name of exâ—reme fervor to condemn an aveâ—sion which alas is in all to remisse One thing I shall only adde that whatever may be the thoughts of Presbyterians in England â— yet sure I am that their ingagements in order to Scotland are the same with ours and what these do import is already sufficiently declared As for the Reformed Châ—rches I neither decline nor use their testimonies We are fixed on surer foundations yet of this I am most perswaded that as abstracted general questions are but lame and blind discussions of cases of this nature so whereever our case shall be fully and clearly represented we shall report the assent of all the lovers of our Lord Iesus Châ—ist 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in incorruptness But we are told that perâ—aps it were not only lawful but expedient that these who now govern in â—his Church should in some insâ—ances use a little moâ—e authoriâ—ie then they do provided they applied their power â—o advance what is good and not at all againsâ— the truâ—h but alwayes for it And that all things being so far out of course the present condition of our Church Bâ— reason of the irreligion and profanitie that are gone forth from its Prophets unto the whole Land Doth require an extraordinary remedy I wish the Author were as sensible of â—he cause as he seems to be of the symptomes of the malady but to think that the present Church-governours in the conviction of all sober observers the main if not the only Authors of this mischief should be intrusted with the cure what more hopelesse or what more
backsliding and overtâ—rning of our dayesâ— their godly sorrow would work in them a carefulnesse a clearing of themselves an inâ—ignation a fear a vehement desire a zeal yea and a revenge above all the detestation that our Author and his followers do commonly calumniat as fury amongst us And Cyprian in place of his particular above cited Conâ—titutâ— c. opposed to the then aspiring Prelaâ—y would become a Presbyterian of the strictest form and therefore though I do not owne these accusations of schism total breach of communion with the Church wherein the Authour is pleased to state and phrase the difference of present practice from that of the ancient Church But on the contrary I have often and plainly declared that the sin attending the compliance urged is the plain cause and measure of our withdrawing Yet that our abstaining from the present Church-meetings so widely differing from these of the ancient Church and invironed with circumstances no lesse variant doth not give ground to so much as that seeming opposition in practice which the Author objects But on the contrary is the very same which all the faithful therein would have chosen upon the like exigence I am confident all true and serious observers will very readily acknowledge and consequently that this the Authors one and last word notwithstanding of the enforcing epithets of undeniable and very considerable wherewith he seconds it is neverthelesse nothing singular from all the rest premised Having thus largely digressed in the review of these Papers and therein discussed most of the arguments used for this Accommodation it remains that I follow forth the second Article where I left And though for the better reaching of the outmost of our Adversaries pretensions I have supposed Prelacy to be thereby reduced to a simple Presidency and in this sense argued against it yet since it is certain that the nomination and election of the Episcopus Praeses who when present is to preside and when absent doth at best only permit a precarious suffection is not to be committed to the Presbyteries suffrage but absolutely reserved to his Majesty and next that the general of all Church-affaires and what may be meant by management whether the decision only when proposed to the Assembly or both the proposing and deciding do seem to require a further explication I think the Article is further liable to these exceptions I shall not here repeat what I have said against the unwarrantablenesse and inevitable prejudice of the abridgement of tâ—e Churches just liberty in the choise of its Moderators in its several Assemblies and his Majesties usurpation in this point the thing which I at present note as defective and which was also much desiderat is a clear explanation whether the power and liberty of proposing be aswel offered in this Article to the free vote of the meetings as the power of deciding seems thereby to be conceded or whether according to the scheme of our National Synod as now setled by Authority of Parliament the power of proposing is not still to be the privilege of the constant moderatorâ— or rather his Majesties prerogative to be exercised by the meer intervention of the fixed Praeses as his instrument I shall not criticize nor ask how the proposal came to be set down in these terms That all Church-affaires shall he managed in Presbyteries Synods by their free vote rather then thus that they shall be managed by Presbyteries Synods their free vote Onely this I may affirme that the second member of my doubt is no lesse probable consonant to the tenor and prescript of the Act mentioned then evidently elusory of all the other liberties proposed But wherefore do I hesitat in these smaller mattersâ— The thing here principally to be observed is that as by the present establishment annexing Church power and jurisdiction to the Kings Crown and Prerogative and thereby subverting all true Church-government and making the pretended Presbyteries and Synods only the â—ing and the Prelats their pitiful Conventicles the first Article inviting to Presbyteries Synods is rendered vain and void all its cautions impertinent So the Supremacy now more then ever prevalentâ— is with this second article and all the offer of liberty therein held out plainly inconsistent for proof whereof I only desire that the two may be impartially compared The Article sayes that all Church-affaires shall be managed in Presbyteries or Synods by their free vote And the Act of Supremacy statutes that his Magesty may enact concerning all meetings and matters Ecclesiastick what in his Royal misdome he shall think fit How then can these two consist or in what manner can they be reconciled If these Meetings and the power of the Supremacy were both of the same kinde and did stand in the same line I know the subordination of Synods and Presbyteries to General Assemblies might easily explain the difficulty but seing a subordination of this â—ort betwixt these Courts and this high prerogative would in effect distroy their true being and essence and on the other hand to imagine that by this Accommodation there is any derogation of the Supremacy intended so much as to be connived at were foolish and presumtuous It is clear that the Supremacy and the liberty here pretended cannot rationally be composed if therefore the Accommodators would deal uprightly in this affair let them first shew us where these Presbyteries and Synods are to which they would have us to come and next cause us to understand the truâ—h and reality of the just liberty they seem to offer and then boast of their condescendencies But while they suppose things for uncontroverted grounds which are warrantably and plainly by us denied and then would ingage us by a form of specious concessions wanting al real foundation they only discover their own palpable weaknesse or more unpardonnable disingenuity The third Article bears If any difference fall out in the diocesian Synods betwixt any of the members thereof it shall be lawful to appeal to a Provincial or their Committy That this Provincial is founded upon and overswayed by the Supremacy and therâ—by manifestly disprovable as neither a true Ecclesiastick-Court nor enjoying any competent measure of power liberty is abundantly confirmed by the arguments above adduced against the preceeding articles The singularites that here occurre are that the constitution of a Provincial Assemâ—ly being a Court not in use amongst us should have been expresly declared 2. That if we may guesse at this by Vshers reduction and according to the present establishment it must consist of members viz. the Bishops and Deans or constant Moderators of the province both more unwarranâ—able as to their office and corrupt in their practices then the ordinary constituents of inferior meetings 3. That this provincial is to have a Committie which being yet very unlawfully established for a perpetual Court can only conduce to the greater strengthening of the Archbishop's primacy and the oversway of
yet I am assured that as in it self it is most sound and rational so it may testifie on our part a most fair and ingenuous candor in asmuch as although the Englishes did first seek to us and willingly freely ingaged with us to the maintainance of the reformation whereunto we had then attained yâ—t in the confidence of the truth wherein it was bottomed and that it might appeare to the world how little we were either addicted to any thing as our own or inclined to abuse and impose upon their distress we agreed to Covenant to the endeavours of their reformation not precisely according to our example though vve vere fully persvvaded of its divine vvarrant but according to the unerring rule of the word of God to which we vvere alwayes and are still ready to submit all our ingagments and persvvasions and the example of the best reformed Churches the best arbiter of all exterior indifferences Now after this cause follows the obligation to Uniformity in these termâ—s And shall endeavour to bring the Churches of God in the three Kingdomes to the nearest conjunction and uniformity c. Which being the part of our Oath whereon our Author doth at present trifle I shall not trouble my Reader to rectifie his misrepresentation as if it were the common work of uniformity and not Englands particular Reformation that were referred to the Word of God But seeing by the obvious tenor of the whole Article the preservation of the reformed Religion in Scotland and the Reformation of England and Ireland according to the Word of God are premised as midses conducing and tendencies certainly concentring in this conjunction wished for I am confident every ingenuous man must acknowledge both the consistency of our Oath and the vanitie of our adversaries sophistrie And therefore it is answered 1. That suppose the intended uniformity and conjunction did require an alteration yet seeing the disconformity of either part maketh place for it even perfection it self imperfection by reason of their disconformity are capable of such a designe the necessity of an alteration to be made on both parts cannot be thence inferred So that the Author's conclusion from the unalterableness of Scotlands frame that the Article of uniformity is illusorie and in plain terms a perfect cheat is pitifully claudicant and unworthy of both his judgment and gravity 2. Although that the things Covenanted to be preserved in Scotland as being very acuratly tried and convincingly found to be agreable to the word of God are in effect both from their vvarrant and our Oath unalterable yet seeing that by reason of our sublunary state there are several external circumstances attending the worship aswell as the discipline and Government of the Church neither positively determined by the vvord of God nor comprehended in this our Oath for preservation that in these there is a latitude on all parts left to the improvement of providence and gratification of charitie for the more easie and happie obtaining of the uniformitie Covenanted is in itself evident and the very subject and intendment of this last clause as to any thing which may be thereby imported over above what the preceeding parts of the article do contain But 3. The palpablâ— fallacie of the Author's objection is that he falsely supposeth not only that the word of God may in order to uniformitie call for an alteration in Scotlands frame covenanted to be preserved but that even the swearers of this oath did thereto referre as not being fully ascertained and ultimatly determined as to the congruitie of that very establishment which in the same article they sweare to mantain whereas it is manifest from the tenor of the article and all other circumstances that as we in Scotland were assuredly perswaded that the things whereunto we had attained and which we sweare to preserve were according to the word of God and England also by concurring with us in the same ingagement did thereunto assent so it was in the same common perswasion that we engadged to endeavour Englands reformation according to the same rule and did in the holding and not altering of these obligations with a just accommodation of undetermined circumstances jointly vow and hope for the above mentioned uniformitie 4. As the certain conformitie of Scotlands then reformation to the word of God doth directly contradict the Authors supposition and the alterableness of the then constitution of Government in so far as we are sworn to preserve it is very consistent with the vowed uniformitie whereby the Authors argument is utterly ruined so we do constantly acknowledge the same word of God to be the supreme and unerring rule whereunto we heartily submit and therefore if the Author can shew that this rule either upon the account of uniformity or any other doth require an alteration of that Government whereunto we are bound it is in vain to redargue us from pretended inconsistencies in the words and contexture of our Oath seeing this is a direct and plain method by vvhich vve are most vvilling to be tryed The Author addes that if no hoofe or hair of the Scottish modell can be altered though both Scripture the example of the best reformed Churches and the vowed uniformity should require it then ought it in stead of according to the vvord of God c. to be rather according to the present forme of the Church of Scotland But 1. Waving the fraud and scorn of the Author's hoofes and haires vvhereof it is certain that his fixed Presidency unless so far as it is an excrementitious superfluity can be called none vvhy doth the Author cavil If the Scripture and the example of the best Reformed Churches do require an alteration of our modell let him shevv it and there is an end 2. I have already given a cleare account vvherefore the ingagment in the Covenant to Reformation in England did referre to the word of God c. rather then to any particular example 3. If upon the matter Englands covenanted Reformation in Discipline Government according to the Word of God c. do in effect resolve in an exact conformity to our then constitution doth it therefore follow that this part of our Oath is either a cheat or an abuse God forbid the Rule is too sacred to give ground to such a consequence And certainly the Author's second thoughts will correct his rashness But the Author subjoines that how this understanding of the Rule of Englands Reformation according to the VVord of God as certainly introductive of the then Scottish model would have past with our English Brethren and particularly with these present at the framing of that Covenant may easily be imagined It is answered 1. The question here mainly agitat is neither how the Englishes understood the ingagment of the Covenant in order to their own Reformation nor yet what may be its real import but plainly what we stand bound to by vertue of that article obliging us to preserve the Reformed