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
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
the present Presbyteries and Synods I clearly state the Question thus Whether a constant Moderator or fixed Proeslos for terme of life in Church-meetings be a thing in it self lawful And how far it is by us admissible And what complyance we may have â—or it And because there are some papers gone abroad from the Bishop of Glasgow as is supposed upon this subject and that the current of the speeches at Pasely wereof the same strain I conceive for rendering of the debate more certain it will not be amisse that I bring them to a particular and exact review And in the beginning of these Papers we find it asserted That Episcopal Government managed in conjunction with Presbyters in Presbyteries and Synods is not contrary either to the rule of Scripture or the example of the primitive Church but agreeable to both That this position doth hold forth no more then the lawfulness of an Episcopus Praeses that upon negative grounds giving the asserter the easier part of defence is obvious to the first observation To have affirmed an obligation to this model though the Author's choise had not been convenient the thing which hath been it is that which shall be and an agreeablenesse to Scripture and antiquitie is for the time a very colourable pretension and all that the Author dare adventure to affirme But that as much may be said for a Presbyterian paritie exclusive of this presidencie I think our adversaries themselves will not deny And it is very evident that it is the thing they have no inclination to redargue Which advantage lying equally and fairly on our side and being confirmed by possession strengthned by an Oath and to the present conviction of all mostly arising from the contrary effects of Episcopacie sealed with the seal of good Gospel fruits one of the great evidences produced by Paul for his Apostelship how much it doth impugne the late change and justifie the aversion and non-compliance of all good men therewith all rational men may discerne But seeing our cause is not as theirs leaning only to negative probalities and the power wherewith it is supported to deal clearly in this matter though we do not pretend to a positive expresse and particular Scripture-precept as well against the presidencie as for the parity pleaded yet that we have an equivalent divine warrant more pregnant then what in other particulars is acknowledged for such even by our Opposites The following heads do plainly evince And first That Iesus Christ King in Zion sitting and ruling upon His Throne to whom all Power is given and who is the Head of the Body when He ascended on high sent forth His Apostles to gather feed and rule His Church promising to be with them to the end of the World and thereby hath appointed a Government in His house suitable to these holy ends for which it is designed is not more evidently founded upon the Scripture-grounds insinuat then firme in its connexion and inference 2. As the Apostles and their Successors were the only perpetual Pastors ordained by our Lord for as for the mission of the Seventy what ever allusions after Ages according to their then model did draw from it without all peradventure accòrding to is own tenour it did expire before our Lords suffering so they were by him constitute in an exact paritie as Brethren and because of this equality and the nature of their Ministrie our Lord forbids among them all distinction of authoritative Superioritie the very name of Rabbi and Master then abused and all ambition affectation of these or any other elating dignities and titles but they are only commanded to outstripe and exceed on another in that diligence and humilitie recommended to them in that common service whereunto they were destined 3. According to this command given so they conversed and behaved in the Church of God without the least vestige of imparity either in power or presidencie Nay on the contrary with a manifest equality except it be in some notes of apparent preheminence in these by men esteemed inferior expresly as it seems recorded to counter-ballance the vanity of ambition of after Ages who in favour of others might imagine a Superiority And such are the principal resort made to Iames his moderating rather then Peters in the meeting at Ierusalem Pauls resistance to Peter and the right hand of fellowship given to him by Iames Cephas and Iohn and the like 4. The pastors appointed by the Appostles being their successors both in their ordinarie power and blessing whatever might be the inequalitie betwixt them and the Appostles either from the immediacy and extent of the Apostles their mission their infallible assistance and greater eminency of gifts or by reason that the Apostles were the Lords chosen witnesses and authors of conversion to most of them whom they ordained yet as to the perpetual and ordinary power given to and transmitted by them in the Church it is evident from Scripture that in that they neither claimed nor exercised either superiority or presidencie over other Ministers Hence it is that as they call and account them their brethren partners fellow-labourers and themselves fellow-elders with them so we finde that what in on place Paul ascribes to the laying on of his own hands in another he attributes to the laying on of the hands of the Presbyterie And the same Paul who was not a whit behind the very chiefest Appostles receiving a solemn mission from a Presbyterie not consisting of Fellow-apostles but of other Prophets and Teachers Gifts there fore were indeed diverse and unequal and imploiments also were various in the dayes of the Apostles according to the then exigence of a growing spreading Church but that either among the Apostles themselves or them and the Pastors by them ordained or among the Pastors themselves there was the least imparity in respect of that ordinarie and standing power continued in the Church as the passages mentioned do plainly confirme the negative so there can no instance be adduced from Scripture in the contrary We know Timothie Titus the Angels of the Churches are much talked of as the first superior Bishops and to this it is as easily reponed 1. That there is nothing enjoyned or recommended in Pauls Epistles to Timothie which is not proper for every Pastor unlesse what is evidently referable to his office of an Evangelist there expressed 2. The command given to Titus to ordain Elders was by way of expresse commission and not in the least exclusive of the concurrence of other Elders where they might be found in the place 3 That it is in these very Epistles more then any where els in Scripture that both the names of Bishops and Elders are promiscuously used and the thing and office thereby signified held forth to be the same And lastly that the known use elegancie of the singular number for the plural with the figurative speech and tenor of the seven Epistles in the Revelation do no
exigent not admitting of any other is greatly diminished impaired Notwithstanding of all which this man whose manner is to multiply assertions without reason tells â—s in this place that When he hath streached his subtilty on the â—enter-â—ooks he can not devise why we may not joyn in these meetings under the abovementioned restraint and againe concludes that if after all that he hath said we do still scruple either we must be darkened or he must have owls eyes to see clearly where there is no light But it were endlesse to take notice of all his tatle and therefore I returne to my Author who proceeds in his charge against many of us for separating from the publict worship and whole communion of of the Church because of some degree of wrong done them as they think in that point of power â— It is answered although to render a solid reason of mens practices specially when the same are only negative forbearances whereunto even the forbearers scrupling and doubting doth in a manner and â—or the time oblige be not my undertaking yet that the accusation here implâ—ed is very unjust both in the extent and cause of the separation objected is no hard matter to make out And first it is certain that the allegeance that many of us separate from the publick worship and whole communion of the Church hath no better ground then that some of us because of a just detestation of the perjury intrusion profanity and insufficiency of the Curats do withdraw from their Ministrie specially our true Ministers still remaining though removed to corners and our attendance on the Curats their Ministrie being expresly required as a due acknowledgement of and compliance with his Majesties government Eccleastick O strange and Civil now whether this reason will infer the conclusion made against us or on the contrary doth not rather warrant the abstinence reproached as sinful separation to be duty let the impartial judge I shall not tell you that â—the assuming of the name of the Church and accusing discountenancers of Separation have been the common artifices by which every prevailing sect or party have endeavoured to render their opposites odious But of this I am very assured that untill the Author do prove that the possession of Gods house which the Curats have taken to themselves and the concurrence of Authority wherewith they are supported doth make them and their meetings the only Church his objection of separation is lame and inconcludent And therefore seeing that the broken Ministry scattered Flocks and secret meetings of the Lords faithful people in this Land are still his true Church both suffering and witnessing against the defection and intrusion of transgressors and seing that the forbearance excepted against is only the effect of a just and hesitant aversation against the pretended Ministery wiâ—hout either disproving the substance of the Worship or rejecting and dividing from others that find a greater liberty his charge of separation is in this its extent palpably iniquous As for the cause assigned for â—ur alledged withdrawing not from their Ecclesiastick Courts for this point is already discusâ—ed but from the publick Worship Church-communion viz. That it is because of some degree of wrong done us as we think in the point of power â—oth the known truth of the matter and what I have already said do plainly disprove it The perjury intrusion profanity and insufficiency mentioned can not be in this manner palliate And I heartly wish that the Author who labours so much by his extenuation to cloak the Apostasy whereby he and others have rebelled against God broken the Covenant and changed the Ordinances would yet seriously consider that God will not thus be mocked I grant there may be cases Wherein we may sufficiently acquit ourselves by a free declaring of our opinion and a modest desiring and waiting for a redresse and so continuing in the performance of our own duty though others do or seem to transgresse theirs But as it were ridiculous to make this a salvo for all cases and in effect it doth only hold where our silence at another's transgression by breaking that command Thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy brother and not suffer sin upon him may strengthen the sinners hand and scandalize others So I have already proven the insinuation here made of our deserting of our duty to be such an absurd calumny and the compliance required of us such a manifest partaking in other mens sins that I wonder at the Author's disingenuity and weaknesse in attacquing us by such generals What can be then said to what he subjoines viz. Otherwise if we think our selves obliged for every thing that is or that we judge faulty in other persons or the frame of things in the Church to relinquish either our communion with or our station in it what will there be but endlesse swarms of separation and division in any Church under the sun Surely this as to us must be a very pertinent and convincing reflection seingâ— in the undervaluing sense of any Papist it would as easily redargue all the Protestant Churches of their separation from Rome But if in certain clear exigences either of testifying against or not partaking of other mens sins there may be a necessity of a proportional withdrawing are therefore all measures broken and must we be held for relinquishers on every occasion Or because we are violently expressed must we therefore be repute wilâ—ul deserters Who would not pity such dissolute folly And yet it is all the concludency of the Authors Argument wherebâ— he would represente us as Patronizers of endlesse divisions But if he minde to deal seriously in this matter all we desire is that he would first lay down his rules that we may know the latitude of his comprehension and then fairly sâ—bsume against us and if I do not unanswerably prove either his excesse in the former or calumny in the latter then let him glory over us In the next place he again essayes to remove the great stick as he termes it the Covenant and here waving forsooth its irregularities whereof notwithstanding their insinuat weight number and influence upon such wise and good men as himself he neither doth adduce nor can he make out one And supposing the Oath still to be binding and that the present Episcopacy in the Church is the same that was abjured he tells us that the Article against it doth only oblige every man in his calling and station to extirpate it but not to extirpate themselves out oâ— their calling and station if such an Episcopacy shall be introduced and continued against their will 'T is answered not to repete what I have so often declared anent the present constitution quite different in its establishmentâ— and many degrees worse then the former and our obligation by the Covenant against it the whole of this objection is very readily granted But seing it is notourâ— that the far greater part of us were at once
thereof upon practice or upon the right or wrong management of affaires may be the better apprehended it would be considered that almost in every trust and employment let be in this which we treat of there are below that excess of malversation which can be charged and proven to be a fault to conclude a removel a great many inferior degrees of mal-administration which though by reason of their quality they do not amount to a just cause of rejection yet may nevertheless be of singular prâ—judice and just as a free election doth deliberat upon proper and improper so may these smaller transgressions very rationally require a charge without meriting deposition Whence it easily follows that beside the diminution of the Presbyteries power and priviledge this fixed Proestos doth also impose upon them an inconvenient restriction of their just liberty of change which in many cases may prove singularly prejudicial 4. I observe That as the fixed Praeses is constitute not by an arbitrary mandat but by a proper right resulting from the erection of the office in the manner that I have described so the office it self consisting in a priority of direction and conduct it certainly thereunto addeth a peculiar dignity I say the office consisting in a priority of direction for that there are subservient offices such as that of a Clark or Recorder which may be fixed and enjoyned by a proper right and have also the general esteem of praise worthy employments and yet do not intitle to any eminency is sufficiently explained and its difficultie removed out of my way by the simple proposal But the thing here remaâ—ked and wherein the difference of the Proestos and Presbyerian Moderator is further apparent is that the former hath by vertue of his right of presidencie a concomitant special honour above his Brethren which cannot be denied to him without a gross sâ—lecisme in prelatick hâ—rauldrie The temporary Moderator is indeed attended by an agreable respect but as he is vested with no proper right to the place wherein he simplie officiats by the Assemblies free nomination and as its instrument and mouth which during pleasure it chooseth for the more orderlie management of its affaires so the estimation and honor that accompanieth the employment is of no higher degree and equally transient whereas the fixed Praeses being rather set up to be a head for Governing the assembly and its actions must of necessitie on this account be adorned with a more high and permanent dignitie But it may be objected that it is an easie matter to represent the controverted Praeses in as diminishing characters and by saying that he simplie officiats at least enters unto the office by the free vote of the meeting and as its mouth and not its head by them thereto elected for time of life to resolve all the difference of the two and this eminencie of respect appropriat to the fixed unto the bare specialitie of the distinct period set to his continuance and no doubt words are easily turned but as it must be acknowledged that these things viz. for one to be set though by a free suffrage in a place formed and erected in an ordinarie office with its known special powers and priviledges and to posâ—ess by the right thence resulting and to be intrusted with the same employment but only by the way of a free and revocable mandat and commmission absolutly depending at the constituents pleasure are widely distant so particular distinguishing qualities of the Proestos in his proper right and power his exemption from an arbitrary removal and his more advanced dignity are thereby notablie declared And therefore seeing he doth injoy his place jure suo as Lawyers speak and doth not precariouslie hang â—or the continuance of its exercise upon the Presbyteries free and simple goodwil as our changeable Moderators do he cannot in this respect be said to be only an instrument for order dignified with no higher esteem but is in â—ffect by vertue of his right and the power thereto pertaining rendered the chief and head and accompanied with a peculiar honor inseparable from such a Superiority If it be further alledged that even in our own custome the Moderator once elected did alwayes continue out his couâ—se and that it is not so easie to give one instance of this arbitrary putting off here so much spoken of I shall not answer that his time bâ—ing short and not ad vitam there could scarce be any necessitie for making of such changes But the truth is the not making thereof is so far â—rom impugning that it much commends the differences by me explained for if the quality of the office as by us used the certain time thereto appointed and the Presbyteries reserve of an absolute control have been of that efficacie as even to prevent the occasions of exercising this laâ—t pâ—iviledge no doubt it is more concludent in our behalf then if the Presâ—yteries had made many removes It is not therefore as I said before the electing aâ—d desigâ—iâ—g for a câ—rtain space and a not altering observance that do signifie any thing in this affaire no but as the Presbyteries retaining of the absolut power over their Moderator is both their priviledge by the Lords appointment and also the great check of all abuses incident through his weakness or malice so it is the setting up of a Praeses over them with a power appertaining to him as his proper right during life and not committed to him by a revocable mandat that not only elevats the Episcopus Praeses to his distinguishing Superiority and Dignity but in effect contains the seminal cause of most of the evils that have thereon ensued Now from these things thus explained the differences of the fixed Praeses â—rom our Moderator appeare maniâ—estly to be 1. That the former imports an ordinary setled office including a proper right and power to the person thereto appointed whereas the later doth only imply a bare exercise wholly dependent upon the Presbyteries pleasure 2. That the setting up of the first doth derogat from the Presbyteries right by transferring it upon him whereas after the nomination of the second the Presbyteries right remaineth still entire and neither is nor can be impaired by the intrusting of a particular Member with its meer actual exercise 3. The fixed Praeses deprives the Presbytery of a great measure of their libertie he being exempted from their arbitrarie control and power of changing whereas our Moderator is altogether obnoxious to their determination 4. The fixed Praeses is created by a deed convoying a right whereas our Moderator is made by simple mandat imparting nothing save a precarious trust 5. Iâ— an allusion may adde light the Praeses is set up as it were to be Head whereas the Moderator is in a manner only appointed to be the Mouth of the meeting 6. The Praeses his right and power and Superioritie do necessarilie attribute unto him a special eminency of dignity whereas our Moderator
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