an inquirie And therfore omitting to preface any thing upon the first proposal of this Treatie and the methods of its prosecution that have since been practised I shall take its termes from their most assured warrant viz. the Articles lately given in at Paseley to the Mimisters there conveening under the title and of the tenor following Articles proposed by the Bishop of Glasgow to the dissenting Brethren 1. THat if the dissenting Brethrâ—n will come to Presbyteries and Synods they shall not only not be oblidged to renounce their own private opinion anent Church-government and swear or subscribe any thing thereto But shall have libertie at their entrie to the said meeting to declare and enter it in what form they please 2. That all Church affairs shall be managed in Presbyteries or Synods by the free vote of Presbyters or the major part of them 3. If any difference fall out in the Diocesian Synods betwixt any of the Members thereof it shall be lawfull to appeal to a Provincial Synod or their Committy 4. That Intrants being lawfully presented by the Patron and duely tryed by the Presbyterie there shall be a day agreed on by the Bishop and Presbytrie for their meeting together for theiâ— solemn ordination and admission at which there shall be one appointed to preach and that it shall be at the Parish Church where he is to be admitted except in the case of impossibility or extream inconvenience And if any difference fall in touching that affair it shall be referable to the Provincial Synods or their Committy as any other matter 5. It is not to be doubted but my L. Commissioner his Grace will make good what he offered anent 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 Law and that the Bishop shall humbly and earnestly recommend this to his Grace 6. That no Intrant shall be engadged to any Canonical Oath or Subscription to the Bishop and that his opinion anent that Government shall not prejudge him in this but that it shall be free for him to declare These being the conditions offered in order to the intended Accommodation it is evident that for a due understanding of their import we ought first to know what is the nature of these Meetings called Presbyteries Synods and Provincial Assemblies to which the Brethren are invited And for that end we must not only transpose the fifth Article to the first place and supplie it with such other probabilities as may be had but also arise a little higher to remember the changes that we have lately seen and from what and to what they have carried us For seing our joyning in the present Presbyteries and Synods with or under Bishops as they are offered to be reduced is that which is principally demanded of us it is so little possible without this previous examination rightly and fairly to define the case in contratraversie that I can hardly acquit the preposterousness and deficiencie in the Articles of a greater error then a common mistake The thing then which comes first to be noted in point of fact and which I shall represent with that truth and impartiality that I hope none shall deny it is that this Church having in the Year 1638. abrogat and abjured the Government of the Kirk by Bishops and set up Presbyterian Government in its purest simplicity and paritie we together with the renewing of the National Covenant solemnly engadged Constantly to adhere unto and defend the true Religion then established in Doctrine Worship and Government contrary to all the novations and corruptions from which it was at that time reformed and to labour by all means for the purity and liberty of the Gospel as it was established and professed before these novations After which time the Church in our acknowledgement did enjoy a Ministrie and Government truely Ecclesiastick committed to them by and depending upon our Lord Iesus Christ alone as King in Zion and Head of his Church Thereafter by an Act Rescissorie it was declared and statute by both King and Parliament in the Year 1640. and 1641. agreeably to the Oath formerly taken that the sole and only power and jurisdiction within this Kirk did stand in the Kirk of God as it was then reformed and in the General Provincial and Ptesbyterial Assemblies with the Kirk Sessions established by Act. P. 1592. in like manner by the Solemn League and Covenant entred into in the Year 1643. the whole Kingdome doth again swear to the preservation of the Reformed Religion of the Church of Scotland in Doctrine Worship Discipline and Government and to extirpate Popery Prelacie Schism Superstition Profannesse and whatsoever shall be found contrary to sound Doctrine and the Power of Godliness Which engagement we are bound all the dayes of our life zealously aud constantly to continow in against all opposition and to promove the same according to our power Thus matters stood both in obligation and general observance until the Year 1661. At which time the Parliament then sitting having prepared their way by exalting of the prerogative in opposition to and for the overthrow of the practices of bygone times specially that of entering into Leagues and Bonds they at one blow rescinde all Parliaments after the year 1633. and the Government of the Church being thereby wholly deprived of the civill sanction and its continowance by another Act permitted and declared to be only precarious during the Kings pleasure Afterward all Ecclesiastick meetings in Synods Presbytries and Sessions are by proclamation the 9 Ianuary 1662. discharged untill they should be authorized and ordered by the Archbishops and Bishops then nominat by his Maiestie upon their entering into the Government of their respective Sees By which means the former Government being overturned and razed unto the very foundation at least as much as the wit and power of man could effectuat the next thing that offers is the new structure and frame that is raised in its place And in the year 1662. the Parliament again meeting by their first Act for re-establishing of the Government of the Church by Bishops laying it for the ground That the disposal of the external Government of the Church doth properly belong unto his Majestie as an inherent right of the Crown by vertew of his Supremacie They do thereby redintegrat the estate of Bishops not only to their places in Parliament and their accustomed dignities and priviledges but also to their Episcopal function Presidency in the Church and power of Ordination Censures and all Church-discipline to be performed by them with the advice of such of the Clergie as they should find to be of known loyalty and prudence And for removing of all scruples the Parliament doth furder rescinde all former Acts by which the sole and only power and jurisdiction within this Church doth stand in the Church and
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-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 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
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-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
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
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
obligation and in that seem invincibly perswadedâ— it is very pertinent if true to declare the consistencie of the present government even with that obligation 'T is answered these insinuations of irregularity and violence being only general without so much as a condescendencie let be any verification I might very justly neglect them but being made by a person who after being eye witnes to the courses which he reproacheth did both take the Covenant himself and administrat it to others and now notwithstanding that all the cavillations and objections of adversaries have been answered without reply hath under his hand renounced it I can not pasâ—e them without â—ome admiration of such inconscionable insolence of which â— do hereby defye the Author to acquit himself by any rational and probable instanceâ— we â—ave indeed heard the proud calumnies of prevailing Adversaries but seing these are certain truths viz. â— That this Landbeing in the beginning lawfully ingaged in the National Covenant did upon the occasion of the ensuing and growing defections and novations very justly both renew and explaine their ingagements and also censure such who by refusing their assent did evidently declare their apostasie 2. That not only the communion of Saints but the very force of that obligement of constant defence and adherence contained in the National did so constrain us to make the League and Covenant as the visibly necesâ—ary mean for that end and without which conjunction the prelatick partie in England which had twice from thence perfidiously attacâ—qued us prevailing there had in all probabilitie overwhelmed us that the refusal of this second Covenant by any who had taken the first could not but be construed a breach thereof and expose them to condigne punishment 3. That the countenance and confirmation of Authority being demanded and unjustly refused to that for preservation and maintenance whereof Government it self was set up can not in reason make the deed so done for want thereof unlawful And 4. That the sufferings of recusants in our former times were either for the merit or number of the delinquents very small and inconsiderable and have been by the renversings and persecutionâ— of these laâ—e times so many degrees exceeded that it is ashame for any person of ingenuity by accusing the past and owning the present to shew such partialitie These I say being certain truths and so fully held out by several writings on our side it is impossible but the same being duely perpended all the vapour of this smoak must instantly evanish But in the next place comes the Authors kindnesse and charitie to relieve such who labour under an apprehended inconsistencie of these their Oaths with this fixed Presidencie in prosecution hereof he sayeth That if men would have the patience to inquire this our Episcopacie will be found not to be the same with that abjured for that is the government of Bishops absolutly by themselves and their Delegates Chancellours Archdeacons c. As it is expressed in the Article was on purpose expressed â—o difference that frame from other forms of Episcopacie particularly from that which is exercised by Bishops joyntly with Presbyters in Presbyteries and Synods which is now used in this Church And here I might again take notice of the grossness of this mistake supposing our present Church-government because forsooth it is not exercised by Chancellours Archdeacons and the rest expressed in the second Article of the Covenant therefore not to be that which was abjured but a distinct from managed by Bishops joyntly with Presbytersâ— whereas it is evident as the Sun-light that our Parliament did not only in preparation to the late change make void the obligation of our Covenants and all the Acts and Authority of former Parliaments whereby Episcopacie had been abrogate But also restore and redintegrat the estate of Bishops to a more full injoyment of Church power and prerogatives then formerly was granted unto them yea unto the sole possession and exercise thereof under his Majesty above all that their Predecessors did ever acclaim As both from the Act of Restitution and the consequent practices of our Bishops I have already plainly evinced that so it is beyond all controversie that the same Episcopacy abjured what ever it was was by our late Parliament again restored But Secondly admiâ—ting that our present frame were in esse such as it is represented or at least by the proposal of Accommodation offered As the mistake or rather wilfull error of this passage doth borrow its colour and preâ—ext from the second Article of the Covenant obliging us to the extirpation of Poperie and Prelacie that is to say c. according to the description there set down so the thing obvious to be observed for clearing thereof is that in order to our case in Scotland it is not the obligation of this second Article to extirpate that we are principally and in the first place to regard but it is the positive ingagement of the first binding as to Scotland to preserve and as to England and Ireland to reforme that is in a manner the key of the whole in as much as by the Church of Scotland and to endeavour the seâ—lement of the Church of England the second Article is manifestly subjoined by way of execution viz. that for attaining the ends of the first we should endeavour the extirpation of all things therein either generally or specially enumerat which two Articles the one to preserve the then constitution of our Church with so great contendings lately reformed from this corruption amongst others of the Bishops their constant Moderatiship and the otheâ— to extirpate every thing found to be contrary to sound doctrine and the Power of Godlinesse as Episcopacy in all its degrees had been by our Church declared to be doth certainly make up an obligation most directly opposite to and inconsistent with this Presidencie re-obtruded Thirdly If thir luk-warm Conciliators were as mindful to pay their vows to the most High as they are bold to devour that which is holy and after vows to make inquiry in place of this impertinent wresting and misapplication of these obligements in the League and Covenant which do more properly concerne the at-that-time-unsetled Estate of England and Ireland then the established condition of the Church of Scotland as we shall immediatly hear they would rather consider their own and our obligations by the National Covenant and how in that day of our distresse and wrestlings from under the yoke of Prelacie we swore unto the Lord to defend that Reformation whereunto we attained and constantly to reject and labour against all these Novations and corruptions from which we were then delivered Under which Head of Novations and Corruptions I am assured that every considerat person will so easily perceive this Presidencie and Moderatorship oâ— Bishops to have been abjured that he will almost as much wonder at the heedlesse expositions of our Adversaries put upon these Covenants as pity the sin of their
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
therefore once for all review and summe up the manifold and manifest evils of this device not more conceited and boasted of by its contrivers the Servants of men then deservedly rejected by all the true Ministers of our Lord Iesus Christ Notwithstanding of all the specious pretexts and fair smoothings that have been adhibite for triming up this Accommodation to an alluring and taking condescendence yet I am perswaded that who ever seriously ponders what hath been said upon it will be quickly convinced that the difficulties following do still remain as invincible impediments to all conscientious men First That a conjunction with and in the present Church meetings is a certain acknowledgment of and participation with the present Ecclesiastick-government which in effect is not truly such but a meer politick constitution wholly dependent upon and resolving in the Supremacy wherein no faithful Minister can take part Seconâ—ly That this conjunction doth evidently infer a consent and submission to this Supremacy as arrant an usurpation upon the Kingdom of Iesus Christ in and over his Church as ever did dare the King of â—ings and Lord of Lords in any age Thirdly That though this consent could not be objected yet such is the present elevation of this all-swaying Prerogative not intended to be depressed that all other concâ—ssions though in themselves satisfying would thereby be deprived of any consistent assurance and rendered wholly elusory And really when I reflect upon these particulars I cannot forbear to ask with what conscience can Ministers rather partake in Church-meetings framed by and under the power of the Supremacy then if the Bishops were therein still to domineer after the rate of the highest Prelacy Or what delusion can be more ridiculous then that men excepting against meetings because of the Bishops usurpation therein should upon the vacating and reassuming of this power by the King as Supreme be thereby entised unto a compliance But Fourthly as these meetings are founded upon and absolutely subjected unto the Supremacy so the often cited Proclamation and Act of Resâ—itution tell us that they are authorized and ordered by the Archbishop and Bishop and consequently do in such manner derive their Authority from them that the Members do only act therein as the Bishops their Delegates or rather as the subdelegates of his Majesties Delegates a strange accumulation of absurdities which I am certain this constitution standing cannot be salved by any overture whatsomever Fifthly The meetings whereunto we are invited do consist of â—uch members for their perjurious intrusion and canonical servitude to say nothing of their more extrinseck delinquencies of profanity insufficiency and irreligion as may not only warrant a non-conjunction but a positive separation And certainly if the lower degree of these crimes in the time of the former Biâ—hops did even under that different constitution offend some of the Lords faithful servants to an abhorrent with drawing how much more should their brimful measures in our dayes with the duty of a testimony which our Covenant and mens unparalleled backslidings do now require justify our detestation It is true G. B. tells us that under this there may be a fear in us that we shall not carry things as we would which he thinks is very little suitable to the patience we pâ—ead for But really so long as our will is moved and directed by the Rules and in order to the ends which our Lord hath appointed to these Courts I see not how this fear can be condemned as either ambitious or disagreeable to our principles Sixtly Notwithstanding of any thing conceded by the Articles and over and above all that hath been said against an Epâ—scopus Praeses even in the most moderate acceptation the â—iâ—hop as offered to be reduced is repugnant both to Scripture purer antiquity and our solemn Oaths and Ingagements inconsistent with he principles of Presbytery and in effect very little lowed from any of these powers and hights which he acclaimes in asmuch as he is still at the King's nomination and not subject to either the censure or control of the meetings over which he doth preside 2. He retaineth all his vain and absurd temporalities 3. As constant Moderator the power of proposing and the method of handling and voting any matter controverted with the care and direction of the execution of any sentence pronounced pertaineth to him solely 4. For any thing as yet declared the Bishop must have at least a more eminent power and suffrage in the matter of Ordination and Excommunication and in this point not only the Articles are most suspitioâ—sly reserved and obscure but if we take notice of the Accomodators their other discourses and writings we have little reason to doubt that the power of both is to abide with him as it was established by the Act 1612. and observed before 1638. So that in my opinion all the ease offered by the Accomodation may be very quickly calculat and in a word amounts to this only that where now these meetings do by a precarious tolerance consult and determine in lesser matters and in things more weighty do rather prepare and ripen to the Bishop's decision who also ordaines and censures with very little ceremony by this Treatie and its Articles over and above the wretched salvo of a pactioned and contrariant protestation this tolerance is to be changed into a more assured liberty as to the Bishop but every whit as dependent upon the King as Supreme And the acts of ordination and excommunication are to be passed and performed more publickly and with greater solemnity Which observation I must confesse is to me so obvious that it hath been alwayes attended with no lesse perswasion that if the Bishop did not judge our consciences as peevish and fickle as he asteemeth the matters in difference frivolous and empty trifles he would not have this risced his own reputation in all the business and stir he hath made about such a nothing of condescendence Of which I am the more confirmed that though the papers which I have discusâ—ed were by the Bishop acknowledged to have been written some years ago and do all along conclude a conformity to the present establishment yet the Bishop very justly though imprudently supposing the case to be still the same hath made much use of them of late without the least alteration to ingage us unto the terms of his new agreement Seventhly This Accommodation utterly disowns cuts off the Ruling Elder an officer not only clearly warranted from Scripture and the nature of the Churches constitution and singularly commended by his usefulness but in some respect countenanced even by the mixtures we see in his Masters ecclesiastick commission Eightly The Terms offered being proposed with this expresse condition Episcopacy being alwayes preserved and in effect so fully retaining the substance of all the corruptions and grievances of that model and frame by us very solemnly and often abjured both by the National and the Solemn League and
for the preservation of that which we mostly intended In return whereunto I need not say that every inconsideration is not an just exception to make void an Oath the Authors own inconsideration in this very allegeance is too manifest to reduce us to that strait He saith in effect That the present Episcopacy is not inconsistent with Presbyterian Government And is it not a lamentable thing that thir Churches and Nations should have been so long in so fatal a distraction meerly for want of such a happie discoverie nay that the very vexed Bishops should not for their own peace have been so wise as still to bear with and maintain a thing nothing repugnant to their pretensions But to be a little more serious I say true Presbyterian-government doth not admit amongst the Lords Ministers of any stated imparity either in power prerogative or presidency one or all of which is the very form of the controverâ—ed Episcopacie therefore they are what all men hitherto constantly deemed them to be utterly inconsistent But the Author sayes That Episcopacy by preserving union is perfective of Presbyterie And I grant that any lawful mean preserving Union is indeed perfective of this as of all other Government But seeing that Episcopacie is not only not at all a mean subservient to Presbyterie or its Union what ever it may be to Government or its Union in general but is also in it self unwarrantable and unlawful and in effect as to Union never found to be otherwise more conducible then Presbyterie but either by the destroying or tyrannous suppressing of truth and the love thereof by which the right side of all contentions are maintained I can scarce refrain from censuring the Authors fore going observe as pitifully groundless It is true our Presbyterie did not retain union as it was desired but what then If our corruptions and sins do either frustrat the efficacy or avert the blessing of the best of meanes is therefore the mean it self to be condemned Or if where the Lord hath left no choise a mean shall be devised by man more promising in appearance as to that wherein the mean ordained hath not through our fault been so succesful and withall if this invention shall be inâ—allibly attended with far mâ—re pernicious consequences ought we either in conscience or prudence to shufle out the former to make place for the later Certainlie as these things do exactly quadrat to the case of our accidental differences here objected so the changing of the Lords ordinance for a humane device upon such a pretence is liker to Ieroboam's policie who for the establishment and quiet of his Kingdome set up his Calves in liew of the Lords Sanctuarie then that paritie and straightness of heavenlie wisdome which the Lord requires I might here adde that the want of the Lords blessing and the parties their greater power and for the most part insolent pride being duely cousidered the Oligarchik model of the Author's Episcopoacie seemes to be far more obnoxious to the objected divisions then the lowly and equall Presbyterie that our Lord hath institute And that de facto there is nothing in that state whereunto we can referre their prevention except unto the over-awe either oâ— the papal Tirannie or of a more absurd Supremacie which we see every where to be the ultimat progress of these vain delusions But having formerly met with almost the same alledgeancee I proceed The Authour ads And again they would consider that if the substance be salved in the present model their obligation is abundantly preserved 'T is Ans. Seeing the thing to be principally attended both in the interpretation and observation of an Oath is that which was chiefly intended in the â—raming and taking of it and which is indeed the substance of the Oath although of its subject abstractly considered it may be only a circumstance the â—istinction as here applied appeares to be more captious then pertinent Novv that the thing chieflie intended in that article to preserve the Discipline and Government of the Church of Scotland as then in being was to preserve Presbyterie from the reinvasion of all these corruptious from which it had been before so latelie vindicat and reformed and that of these corruptious the controverted presidencie or constant Moderatorship was one and that the very first is so certain and notour that I cannot but marvel at the Authors so perverse disputings in the contrarie But he sayes If no chip nor circumstance of the then Presbyterian government might be altered even to the better then is the next part of the Article anent uniformity according to the word of God and the example of the best reformed Churches illusorie and a perfect cheat in as much as though the same rule should in order to uniformity call for an alteration yet there could be no receeding from the then frame of the Church of Scotland Thus the Author according to his accustomed deceit when he would perswade to an alteration notwithstanding that he and his associats do manifestly intend and prosecut it with all the might and craft that they can adhibit yet for to delude us to a compliance sâ—icketh not by insinuating the things in controversie to be but chips and circumstances flatly to contradict and condemne the violence of their own practices But seeing that I have alreadie proven from cleare Scripture undeniable reason that this constant presidency in steed of being a chip or circumstance is in effect repugnant to that paritie which our Lorth hath commanded and wherein true Presbyterie is essentially founded and therefore was by us ejected and the discipline and Government sworn to be preserved in the Covenant established in its place 't is evident that all here excepted by the Author is but a meer cavillation In answer whereunto it may well be affirmed that it â—aires vvith the Covenant as with the Truth it self no such redargution of all calumnies objected as by its own evidence The article questioned binds in the first place to the preservation of the reformed Religion in the Church of Scotland in Doctrine VVorship Discipline and Government against the common enemy wherein it is certain that as the truth in all the heads discovered by divine light and after much wrastling recovered from mens corruptions was directly and plainly ingaged unto so such extrinseck and lesser circumstances as are in their own nature variable and only determinable by a prudence regulat by the General Scripture-rules of order and edification and vvere not at that time either questioned or reformed are not in this obliton of our Oath oâ—hervvise comprehended or thereby rendred unalterable In the next place the Article obliâ—ges to the endeavour of reformation in the Kingdomes of England and Ireland in the same points according to the word of God and the example of the best reformed Churches Which qualification adjected alâ—hough through the deceitfulness of men it hath given the principal occasion both to perversions and calumnies