cap. 7. intituled of Ecclesiasticall Discipline in the second book of Discipline every where and most frequently by all Ecclesiasticall writers and therefore those who have obeyed and received Bishops are not perjured nor have broken that oath whereby they did swear to adhere to the Discipline of the Church of Scotland But on the contrary those of this Assembly who have deposed and excommunicated with such precipitation so many Bishops and Ministers without observing in their proces these formes prescribed by the Discipline of the Church of Scotland are evidently perjured according to their own grounds Secondly the word Discipline is taken at some times in a more large and ample signification for the whole Policie of the Church which in the second book of Discipline cap. 1. is defined to be An order or form of Spirituall Government which is exercised by the members thereto appointed by the Word of God for the we â—ll of the whole bodie which policie cap. 2. is divided first in regard of the persons in that part which concerneth Rulers and that which concerneth them who are ruled secondly in regard of the thing subject to this Policie in three parts 1. The policie which concernes the preaching of the Word and the administration of the Sacraments 2 That which concerneth the censures of the Church or Discipline so properly called 3. In that which concerneth the collecting and distributions of Almes and â—ent of the Church Now if any will be so obstinate as to contend that the word Discipline is taken in this large sense in the Oath of the Covenant for their satisfaction likewise we must consider that in this Discipline or Policie it is requisite that we distinguish the points which are essentiall and perpetuall from the points accidentall and mutable or as it is expresly distinguished in the first book of Discipline cap. 9. Intituled of the Policie of the Church in things utterly necessary without the which there is no face of a visible Church and in things profitable and not meerly necessarie the points utterly necessary are those which are prescribed by Gods Word to endure perpetually as that there be Pastors Teachers and Rulers in the Church that Gods Word be truely taught and Sacraments administred according to Christs Institutions and that the censures of the Church be exercised against scandalous persons and such other like things The points not meerly necessary but profitable are those which are not particularly prescribed by Gods Word but left to the libertie of the Church to constitute by Ecclesiasticall Canons setting down the formes Ceremonies and Orders to be observed in Gods worship and ruling of the Church according as the divers circumstances of time place and persons doe require Such as how many Pastors under what names and titles they ought to bear rule in the Church over what bounds or what particular persons they ought to have charge when where in what order gesture or what habite they ought to preach pray or administer Sacraments and exercise their Authoritie and divers other Ecclesiasticall Constitutions concerning their particular manner of Government The first sort ought not to be altered or changed in substance since they are appointed by God to be perpetuall in the Church and the oath taken in Baptisme or entrâ—e to a calling doth oblige every one within the Church according to their place and station therein to observe them perpetually albeit there had been no other Oath But so it is that this power and preheminencie here condemned is not contrary to any of these essentiall points of the policie of the Church appointed by Gods word but most conforme therto according to the practice of the Church both under the Old and New Testament And therefore in swearing to adhere to these points of Discipline none have abjured this power and preheminence but therewith have retained those essentiall points without change or Alteration There be other points of Episcopacie which are comprehended under the accidentall parts of the Policie of the Church such as are by what titles or names those who bear chief rule in the Church ought to be called Whether Bishops or Superintendents or Commissioners or Presidents or {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} or Moderatores by whose advice they should exercise their Authoritie whether by Chapters or Synods or Presbyteries or by other wise godly and learned men assumed by their own choice to be their Câ—uncell Albeit indeed it be more expedient to use these titles and names which have ever been used in the Apostolick and Primitive Church and continued by long prescription in after ages than those new invented titles by men affecting Singularitie These points being alterable in their own nature as not being precisely commanded in Gods word may be changed by the Church in whose libertie they were left and therefore no Oath could bind any man to the perpetuall observation thereof in case it pleased the Church for reasons of expediency to alter them for according to that Common Regula Iuris Iuramentum sequitur naturam actus super quo interponitur if the things we swear unto be of their own nature perpetui Iuris the oath taken thereupon biâ—des to the perpetuall observation and no Creature is able to absolve us of that Oath But if it be Iuris positivi and onely a Constitution of the Câ—urch or Common-wealth concerning these things 〈◊〉 are left to the libertie of the Church or Supreme 〈…〉 then certainly the oath taken thereupon 〈…〉 longer than the Constitution standeth in force but being altered by that same lawfull Authoritie whereby it was established all are ipso facto loosed from the bond of that Oath yea all those who have sworn to adhere to the Discipline of the Church of Scotland are bound by vertue of that oath to follow the Church in the alteration she makes in those mutable points and to obey the new Acts and Constitutions that concerne the same Although they be different or contrary to the former Acts and all those who disobey therein contemptuously are guiltie of perjurie Therefore since the Church hath altered upon good and grave reasons those formes and Constitutions of Presbyteriall Government established for a time not upon so good grounds unto the ancient approved manner of Episcopall Government all those within the Church are obliged notwithstanding of their former oath to follow the Church in her change without fear of perjurie And on the contrary all our Covenanters who before the lawful abrogation of the Constitutions of the Church established by lawfull Authoritie have not conformed themselves thereto but disobeying them in their own persons and by their exemplary practice intised yea compelled others to disobey and rebell to the disgrace of their mother their Church and breaking of the bond of peace whereby the Unitie of the Spirit is conserved doe lye under a fearfull perjurie untill they doe seriously repent CHAP. XI Answering to the Acts of the Generall Assemblies produced against Bishops untill
untill the year 1590. towit ten years after the setting down and swearing of this Abjuration And therefore this power and preheminence which is the point in controversie cannot be understood to have been then condemned in the Abjuration 1580. 1581. for otherwise the Church should have condemned that which in the mean time they did approve and practise Thirdly notwithstanding that Act 1580. condemning Episcopacie as it was then used in Scotland yet these points of the power and preheminence of one Pastor over others and charge over moe particular flocks was not condemned but expresly acknowledged to be lawfull by that whole Assembly wherein Episcopacie was called in Question Anno 1575. 1576. as shall be evidently cleared when we shall come to discusse the Acts of those Assemblies Fourthly those points of Papistrie in generall and the particular heads damned and confuted by Gods Word and Kirk of Scotland were only such as were opposite to the doctrine contained in the principall Confession of the Church of Scotland then of a long time professed by the Kings Majestie and whole body of the Kingdome as it is expresly set down in the same place of the Covenant But so it is that there was no Doctrine contained either in the Confession of Faith or professed now for a long time by the King and whole body of the Kingdome contrary to these points of power and preheminence of one Pastor over other Brethren or moe particular flocks therefore these are not points of Papistrie abjured by the Covenant as being damned then by Gods Word or the Church of Scotland and so this passage doth not more serve to prove their purpose than the former CHAP. IX Containing an Answer to the third Passage THe third Passage is in those words We detest the Roman Antichrist his worldly Monarchie and wicked Hierarchie In this passage indeed there is no false citation as in the former two yet is there as great impertinencie in applying it to their purpose for I cannot see what they can assume upon this proposition to conclude the point in Controversie except they would say that all power and preheminence of one Pastor over his Brethren or over more particular flocks is an Antichristian worldly Monarchie and all degrees of Ecclesiasticall persons is an Antichristian wicked Hierarchie and therefore detested and abjured But if this Assumption were true then the high priest in Ierusalem constituted by God himself had been an Antichristian Monarch and the divers degrees of Ecclesiasticall persons distinguished by God himself had been an Antichristian wicked Hierarchie for it is most certaine that the High priest had power and preheminencie over his Brethren and charge over all the particular flocks in Iudea The Apostles likewise in the Christian Church and their fellow-labourers Titâ—u Timothie and others had been Antichristian wordly Monarchs for it is most certaine that they had power and preheâ—ninence over their Brethren and charge over moe particular flocks as Bishops have now which may be qualified by the writings of the Apostles and the testimony of all the Venerable Fathers of the Primitive Church who lived either in the dayes of the Apostles or neer to them So likewise those Reverend â—â—thers themselves as Polycarpus Ignatius Cyprian Austin Ambrose Chrysostome c. should be esteemed no better yea likewise our Superintendents or Comâ—issioners of Provinces should have been Antichristian worldly Monarchs So that the worthy Instruments of God in the reformation of the Church of Scotland must be thought to have instead of a laudable reformation brought in an Antichristian worldly Monarchy in the Church of Scotland But the principall words which they doe most urge is the last câ—â—â—se of this passage His wicked Hierarchie by which words it was made cleer as they alleage in the Assembly that Episcopacie was abjured what was made cleer in the Assembly we know not but we shall make it cleer God willing to 〈◊〉 whose eyes are not blinded with partiall affection that those reasons produced in the Act in the end thereof at length which doubtlesse were the most weighty they could bring are foolish childish and ridiculous unworthy of such men as they would be accounted amongst the people But before we enter to discusse their reasons we must first explaine the word Hierarchie and shew what Hierarchie is here condemned first the word {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} amongst the ancient Grocians was used to signifie a certaine Magistracie the charge whereof was to have a 〈◊〉 of Sacred and Holy things as of Temples Altars and Sacrifices and from thence was translated by anâ—ient Christian writers to signifie the sacred orders of Rulers in the Church Now that there is an holy order of Rulers in the Church I think no man can deny even in Presbyteriall Government there are three orders of Ecclesiasticall persons who bear rule in the Church and have charge of sacred things of distinct power and authoritie towit Pastors Elders and Deacons and so those orders may be â—afely called an Ecclesiasticall Hierarchie they who understand the Greek word knowes perfectly that it signifies no other thing but 〈◊〉 of sacred things or a holy Government they cannot deny but these Ecclesiasticall functions have every one their own point of Government and that about sacred and holy things why then should they abhorre the word since they acknowledge the thing signified thereby to be competent to their Ecclesiasticall functions Is it because the word is borrowed from Ethnicks It should not be abhorred for this cause more than the words Episcopus Presbyter and Pastor which did signifie also amongst the Ethnicks certaine offices or magistracies as is well known to those who are versed in their writings Or is it because it hath been abused by the Papists neither can it for this cause be rejected taken in a right sense and separating Papisticall corruptions from it more then the other titles given to Ecclesiasticall officers which all have been abused in the Popish Church and that this word Hierarchy may be used to signifie the orders of Ecclesiasticall rulers in the Christian Church I will bring no other testimony than that of Calvin who was the first Author of Presbyteriall Government he in his Treatise De Nâ—cessitatâ— refâ—rmanda Ecclesia speaking of the Popish Hierarchy saith If they will set us down such an Hierarchie wherein Bishops have so preheminence that they refuse not to be subject to Christ depending from him as from their head and referring all to him wherein they doe so entertaine Societie amoâ—gst themselves that they be no otherwise bound but by his truth Then I must acknowledge that thâ—se are worthy to be called exâ—crable who will not reverence such an Hierarchie and with all humble obedience receive the same Where we see that Calvin doth acknowledge that there may be a lawfull Hierarchie neither wicked nor Antichristian and such was this Hierarchie in the Church of Scotland consisting of Bishops Presbyters and Deacons wherein Bishops
therefore the oath is not broken 11. Discipline is again distinguished in these points which are essentiall and perpetuall and those which are accidentall and mutable 12. The first sort are prescribed by Gods Word and were not abolished by Episcopall government but observed inviolable 13. The other sort is left to the libertie of the Church and therefore alterable by the Church 14. To the observation of those the Oath bindeth so long as the Constitution of the Church standeth in force but being abrogate by a new Constitution the Oath thereto is dissolved 15. Whosoever doth not follow the Church in those Alterations doe against their oath CHAP. XI An Answer to the Acts of the generall Assemblies alleaged contrary to this point untill the year 1580. wherein are these particulars 1. That no Act of Assemblie is nor can be produced before that year 1575. 2. The occasion of impugning Episcopacie at that time 1. some fierie humours lately come from Geneva and zealous of Geneva Discipline 2. The Kings minoritie 3. Factions amongst the Nobilitie and Courtiers 4. The Sacrilegious greedinesse of those gaping after the Church rents who for their own ends abused the simplicitie of some Ministers and pride of others 3. That Bishops were not only tollerate but approved by the Church untill this year 1575. 4. At this Assemblie in August 1575. was the first motion against Episcopacie in the Church of Scotland 5. The proceeding of this Assemblie declared at length whereby it is cleered that this point here in controversie was not challenged therein but expresly approved by all 6. Nothing in substance concluded against Episcopacie for five years after 7. A notable dissimulation of our Covenanters in citing an Act of this Assembly CHAP. XII Answering to the Acts of Generall Assemblies for establishing the second book of Discipline wherein are these particulars 1. This book was brought in by the same occasions whereby Episcopacie began to be challenged 2. This Discipline was never fully agreed unto by the Church some points thereof never practised and those which were practised but of short continuance 3. They doe not themselves nor will not approve some points in this book but refuse obedience thereto instanced in three particulars 4. This book nor any part thereof had any strength of a Law before the injoyning of the Oath 5. It is defective in the most substantiall points of Discipline and superabundant in points not pertaining to Ecclesiasticall discipline 6. And therefore the Discipline therein contained cannot be that whereunto we are sworn to joyne our selvs precisely CHAP. XIII Answering to the Act of the Assembly at Dundee 1580. condemning Episcopacie together with the Act at Glasgo 1581. explaining the same containing these particulars 1. Albeit they condemned in these Acts Episcopacie as it was then used in Scotland as unlawfull in it self yet did they not condemne these points here controverted 2. Neither did the Church then condemn any substantiall point of Episcopacie except they did contradict themselves instanced in six principall points of that Doctrine 3. They condemn only the corruptions which were at that time in Bishops themselvs whereof some are only supposed corruptions some corruptions indeed but only personall and not essentiall to the office 4. The principall point they condemn in Bishops is that they received not their Commission from the Church to exercise their charge and yet it is evidently proved that they had Commission from the Church to exercise all the points of their function CHAP. XIIII Answering to the rest of the Acts here cited 1. Their Acts can be of no greater force than the former whereupon they are grounded and therefore refuted by the same reasons 2. Some particular observations upon these Acts whereby it is shewed that they make more against them nor for them 3. Many of these Acts shews that they were concluded expresly against the Kings Majesties intention 4. The reason why that Act of Parliament 1592. Establishing Presbyteries was suffered to passe by the King and the three Estates 5. It was not because they did approve the same but for eschewing of greater evils which were justly feared 6. That Presbyteriall Government in Scotland did not indure in full force above ten years 7. An Act of that Assembly 1589. disgracefull to the Church of Scotland CHAP. XV Discussing the Conclusion of this Act wherein are contained these particulars 1. Their Hyperbolicall magnifying of their accurate proceeding in concluding this Act not like to be true 2. The proposition of the Question by the Moderator informall obscure ambiguous sophysticall and such as could not be answered Categorically 3. The causes why they did so unanimously agree in their voycing was because all were debarred whom they suspected would make any contradiction 4. The voyces as they are here declared doe neither fully answer to their proposition nor condemn any thing in Episcopacie as it is now in Scotland 5. They cannot excuse this but by laying the fault upâ—n the Printer which is not like to be true for many reasons EPISCOPACY NOT ABIVRED IN SCOTLAND CHAP. I. A Comparison betwixt this Assembly and the Councell of Trent THat turbulent and seditious Conventicle of Covenanting Ministers and mis-ruling Elders assembled at Glasgow Novemb. 1638. can be compared to none of that kind so well as to that infamous Councell of Trent which as it hath for a long time troubled the whole world Emperors Kings and Princes fo this hath vexed mightily the Kings Majestie our dread Soveraigne disturbed both Church and Common-wealth and hath led all his Subjects in Scotland blind-fold to Rebellion given evill example to other Kingdomes and brought an evident Scandall upon the reformed Religion There hath been no lesse humane or rather Satanicall policie and subtile close conveyance practised by the chiefe Rulers in that Assembly of Glasgow both in the Preparation Prosecution and Conclusion thereof yet in this more malice and lesse respect to the Supreme Magistrate and present established estate of the Church than in that of Trent First as the Pope and his Cardinalls in the Consistorie professed that they desired a generall Councell and did openly exhort the Emperor Kings Princes and Republiques to concurre with them yet they declared evidently by their dealing that they desired either not at all a Councell or not such an one as should be assembled by the Authoritie of the Emperor and Kings or that any of them or their Ambassadors should have suffrage therein and much lesse presidencie according to the ancient Custome of the Church esteeming that their Authority suffrage or presence would crosse their particular ends Even so our Covenanters albeit they often petitioned his Majestie for the libertie of a generall Assemblie yet they declared plainly by their proceedings that they did not desire such an one as should be either convocated by his Majesties Authoritie or wherein he his Commission or Councell should preside or give suffrage or be present if it had been in their choice accounting it so
not to be a free Assembly Secondly as the Pope and his Cardinalls in the Consistorie used Politick meanes that none or few of these Prelates whom they supposed in any wayes would crosse their designes should appeare in the Councell although publikly they did admonish all yet by private threatnings and distastes hindred from comming many of the Bishops of Germany France and Spaine but on the contrary allured by divers means those whom they supposed would favour their designes as all the Bishops of Italy so that when the Councell was at the greatest there were above 150. Italian Bishops whereof many were at the Popes charges yet not above 60. of all other Nations So in this at Glasgow politick meanes were used that none should be chosen Commissioners except Covenanters and of those only the strongest and most obstinate who had solemnely already sworn unto these things they intended to conclude and on the other part meanes were used that all those who were suspected to be averse from their designes or not forward enough shoud be excluded as is evident by the particular Instructions sent from the Tables of the Covenant unto all the Presbyteries of Scotland which were discovered by the care and diligence of his Majesties Commissioner and produced in open Assembly to their great confusion whereby it was appointed that care should be taken that none should be chosen as Commissioner for the Ministers or ruling Elders but Covenanters and those wel-affected to the busines And if that any other happen to be chosen by the greater part that all the best affected protest against them and processe them before the Assembly that they might be excluded from voycing and for that effect also directed an informall and illegall Citations against all the Bishops to exclude them from having place or voyce in their assembly who ought to have been by the present lawes of the Church of Scotland and continuall practice of the universall Church in all ages the principall members thereof Thirdly as in the Councell of Trent the Pope of Rome to have more voices favouring his designes did create many titular Bishops who had no Christian slock and had never so much as seen that Church which they did represent So likewise in this Assembly were brought in many Titular Lay-elders as Commissioners from Presbyteries wherein they had no habitations nor ever did sit therein to exercise their rule of Elder-ship before the day of their election to be Commissioners to the Assemblie Fourthly the Pope and his Cardinalls did complaine that the Emperor and Kings would have prelimitate the Councell by their directions yet the Ambassadors and Prelates did in every Session and Congregation complain more justly that the Councell was not free being strangely prelimitate by the Pope and Consistory of Rome both in the members and matters to be proposed as also in framing of the Canons So our Covenanters did require a free assembly affirming that as farre as the assembly should be prelimitate either in the members or matters to be treated so farre the necessary ends of the Assembly and good of the Church was hindred accounting it a most dangerous usurpation to any person or Iudicatoriâ— whatsoever to impose any such limitations except an Assembly it self And therefore did most grievously complaine against his Majestie although unjustly for he required no limitations but such as were prescribed by former lawfull assemblies Yet his Majestie and the whole Kingdome may more justly complaine of them who refusing the reasonable prelimitations of other former assemblies did neverthesse admit strange limitations from the Tables of the Covenant which was neither a lawfull Assembly of the Church nor had any authority over the same and those also against the established Constitutions of former generall Assemblies and Lawes of the Kingdome as appeares evidently by those foure papers of Instructions sent to every Presbytery according to the which the Assembly was limitate both in the members and matters Fiftly as in the Councell of Trent nothing was admitted to Consultation but Proponentibus Legatis which gave occasion of offence to many no Bishop no Prelate no Regall Embassador nor any good Christian had liberty to propose any thing onely the Popes Legates had this Power who did propose every thing as they received instructions from 〈◊〉 even so in this Assemblie nothing was admitted to Deâ—â—beration but Proponente Moâ—â—ratorâ— And he likewise was confined to the Ordinance of the Tables who had before set down every Article which was to be treated All propositions of any other whatsoever though flowing from his Majestie by his Commissioner or Councell were contemptuously rejected Sixtly as in the Councell of Trent let the Fathers and Doctors deliberate and reason Pro Contra as they pleased yet nothing was concluded untill it was first agreed unto by the Pope and his Cardinalls at Rome and their determination who never heard the reasoning was sent to Trent to be enacted and that no otherwise then it was set down by them which gave occasion to that common proverbe That the holy Spirit whereby the Councell was directed came from Rome in a Câ—og-bag So likewise all that which was done in this Assembly was fore-ordained by the Tables of the Covenant in Edinburgh For there were all the members of the Assembly constituted though contrary to the perpetuall practice of the Church there were all the Commissions framed and a Cople thereof sent to every Presbyterie as appeared by the production since never one of them was different in one Syllable from another there also was the whole order of the Assemblie set down and accordingly observed there were all things which were to be proposed in the Assembly discussed and concluded by the Rulers of the Covenant who for the most part were Lay-persons Noblemen Gentlemen Burgeâ—â—es and some few Ministers most forward in the cause therefore it may be justly said that the Spirit whereby those holy Brethren of the Assembly were ruled came not from Heaven but directly from Edinburgh I leave you to imagine by the effects what Spirit that was which hath stirred up such Sedition Rebellion Disorder and Confusion both in Church and Common-wealth Then although in these points of Corruptions and many other which for shortnes we omit this Assembly at Glasgow was not unlike that Councell of Trest yet I will be bold to say and that truely that in some substantiall points that Councell was more formall than this Assemblie For the Councell of Trent in the Externall order and Constitution of the members thereof keeped more formality and decency according to the order of the Church many ages before 1. There was none admitted to that Councell except Prelates of the Church Ambassadours of Princes and the most learned Doctors in all Europe for the time And such as the Prelates thought fit in the bounds of their Iurisdiction to reason in weighty points of Doctrine 2. In their Congregations and Sessions they did sit every man in his owne
place according to his degree with such gravitie modestie and decencie as did become Reverend Fathers distinguished one from another by their habits appointed by the Canons of the Church making it appear to the beholders a Venerable Assemblie 3. In their proceedings were appointed the wisest of the Bishops and most learned amongst the Doctors to frame the Articles and being framed were particularly one by one discussed by weighty reasons maturely in severall dayes and diets all doubts particularly moved and Objections solidly answered according to their grounds using not onely the testimony of former approved Councels Fathers and learned Schoolemen but also very frequently the Authority of Sacred Scriptures So that if in their conclusions they had pondered well the reasons alleaged and had concluded according to the same and not according to the Popes sole Authoritie that Councell might have had a more happy event for the weell and peace of the Christian Church But in this Assemblie at Glasgow was not observed that forme order or decencie which did become a venerable Ecclesiastick meeting for first these who were ever esteemed the Principall members of all generall or Nationall Councels to wit the Reverend Bishops of the Church were excluded a company of Lay-men Earles Lords Gentlemen and Burgesses without warrant Authoritie or example of the ancient Church were thrust in their roomes bearing chiefe Sway in the Assembie carrying all matters violently for their own ends so that it was remarked by wise and grave men that one Earle and one Lord made more speech in the Assemblie than all the Clergie except the Moderator 2. In their Sessions no order or decencie observed all sitting pel-mell without distinction of Degrees save onely that Lay-Noblemen and Gentlemen occupied the chiefest roomes with their swords and pistolls by their sides The Ministers mixt amongst Burgesses Merchants and Noblemens servants hardly to be discerned from them by their Habite or Carriage Many of the Ministers in coloured clothes all in short cloakes except the Ministers of Glasgow who had their Gownes so that unlesse one had known their persons before they should scarcely have discerned the Ministers from the Merchant or Taylor 3. The Ministers were not there by the approbation of their Bishops according to the custome of the Primitive Church and Acts of the generall Assemblies of Scotland long after the Reformation as for instance in that Assemblie at Edinburgh Iuly 1568. It was expresly ordained that no Minister should leave his Flock except such as were chosen by their Superintendants but by Commissions from their new invented form of Presbyteries wherein Lay-men had the greatest rule or rather from the Tables of the Covenant who did not choose the most wise modest and learned Brethren but the most turbulent seditious and bold to oppose Authoritie fit members indeed of such an Assemblie 4. In discussing of the matters which were concluded no reasoning but superficiall no carefull pondering of the Reasons but all taken Implicit fide which had any shew no exact distinguishing of the Articles but many matters of different nature were hâ—dled up together confusedly and with great precipitation were voyced and concluded The Assembly continued onely a moneth and a great part of that time to wit from the 21. of November to the 4. of December was consumed in circumstantiall points concerning the persons to be admitted to have voice in receiving and discussing their Commissions in Contestations betwixt the Commissioner and the Covenanters in excluding some of his Majesties Counsellors authorized by him to have voyce in the Assemblie contrary to the Practice of all Ancient approved Councels either Generall or Nationall in rejecting most just protestations of divers Presbyteries against this Assemblie as that of the Presbyteries of Glasgow of Pâ—ables of Aberdeine of the Channonry of Rosse in refusing to heare read the most just declinature and protestations of the Bishops And finally in declaring certaine books of the former Assemblies to be Authentick registers At last the fourth of December they enter to the principall matters for which this Assembly was required beginning at the condemnation of the six last generall Assemblies conveened continued and concluded by the Kings Majesties Authoritie and full consent of the Church and ratified by the whole bodie of the Kingdome in Parliament which they did in shorter space then could suffice to reade them over so precipitate were they in condemning absolutely so many grave Assemblies with such unanimous consent as never one was called but without reason or judgement condemned them all in one word by implicite faith given to some few neither of the most wise or learned of the company who had a Committee to invent some apparant reasons to anull the same and that is most certaine that the two part of those who voyced against them had never seen the Acts and the proceedings of these Assemblies or at least had never read nor perused them But out of a blind zeal and Iesuiticall obedience did it only because they were so directed by the Tables of the Covenant and their rebellious Leaders In another Session they deposed and excommunicated summarily fourteen Bishops upon a pretended false Libell produced before the Presbytery of Edinburgh against them which by no law or reason could be competent Iudges to their processe without lawfull citation contrary to the Acts of many generall Assemblies the Books of Discipline and perpetuall practice of the Church For the Church of Scotland was never accustomed no not in the most strict times of Presbyteriall government to proceed so summarily to the sentence of excommunication against most notorious offenders without mature deliberation and long space granted to the Accused either to justifie himself or declare his repentance 1. There was used three private personall Citations to appear before the Presbytery next if those were not obeyed three publik Citations one three severall Sabbaths 3. Followed three publik prayers for their conversion and if at any of these times they did appear either to purge themselves of the crime imputed to them or submitting themselves to the censure of the Church The sentence of excommunication was not pronounced against them In another Session they condemned with one voyce the Book of Common Prayer the Book of Canons the Book of Ordination of Ministers and Consecration of Bishops together with the Court of the High Commission which space was not sufficient to have read over all those books muchlesse to peruse them throughly and discusse the controverted points therein which was necessarily requisit to be done before they had been absolutely rejected But this is strange that the principall and most weighty point for the which chiefly they did procure this Assembly should have been so slightly with such precipitation handled to wit whether Bishops should be reteined or removed forth of the Church of Scotland A Doctrine so universally approven by the whole Christian Church even in her purest time since the Apostles dayes and allowed in Substance by
the reformed Church of Scotland for many yeares after the reformation And though repressed for a time yet re-established again by divers more lawfull Assemblies than this ratified by divers Act of Parliament and continued now for many yeeres by-gon there behoved to be many and weighty reasons why such a Doctrine should be conversed with a serious deliberation to ponder and consider them yet neverthelesse in this Assembly in one short Session the whole matter was proponed discussed voiced concluded and a large Act past thereupon CHAP. II. Concerning the Act against Episcopacie ALbeit it were an easie matter to refute all the controverted Acts of this Assemblie yet leaving the rest at this time we intend onely to examine that Act Sess. 26. Decemb. 8. Against Episcopacie And that for two reasons especially First because the grounds whereupon this Act is concluded are the self-same whereupon all the rest of the controverted Acts are grounded and therefore these grounds being declared evidently to be infirme and weak it will also appear that together with this Act of Episcopacie All the rest of their Acts depending thereupon shall be found to be ruinous as I trust their fall shall be suddain Secondly because the principall aime of the most and chiefest of these who were members of that Conventicle was to suppresse Bishops because they esteemed them chiefly to have crossed their Sacrilegious and ambitious 〈◊〉 I or â—efore Bishops were re-established the Noblemen and Baroâ—s both possessed the substance of the Church renâ—s and also ruled the whole Eâ—tate at their pleasure in Councell and Parliament by their own voyces and voyces of the Gentry and Borroughs whom those factious 〈◊〉 did depend for the most part upon one Noble man or other then finding that by the re-establishing of Bishops their rents were taken out of their hands and that they were like to loose their Abbeyes and Prioâ—ies also and finally that their particular ends not alwayes tending to the weell of the Church or Kingdome or Honour of the Prince were crossed by the estate of Bishops no marvell then though they be moved by all meanes possible to suppresse them and for that effect have laboured to make use of the simplicitie of some of the Ministrie and proud humours of others impatient of Subjection to lawfull Authoritie of whom some having aimed in vaine at Bishopricks as is well known of divers of the Ring-leaders of that Faction thought it best for their credit to declare a great contempt of that estate which they had with much labour sought after without the desired effect according to the fable of the Fox others by their former misdemeanors both against the Church and Regall Authority being past hope of further advancement did easily condescend to shake off that yoak which their turbulent humours could never suffer them patiently to bear those were made to blow the trumpet of Rebellion both in their Pulpits and private conferences drawing the people after them and the simplest sort of Ministers also who did not judiciously remark their secret ends cloaked under the colour of Religion and libertie of the Church by which meanes this condemning of Episcopacie was brought in head with all the consequences thereof This is the point we mean to examine for the present and that you may see the weaknes of their reasons the better we shall set down verbatim the Act it self as it was conceived by them Act of the Assemblie at Glasgow Sess. 16. Decemb. 8. 1638. Declaring Episcopacie to have been adjured by the Confession of Faith 1580. And to be removed out of this Kirk THe Assemblie taking to their most grave and serious Consideration first the unspeakable goodnesse and great mercie of God manifested to this Nation in that so necessarie so difficult and so excellent and divine work of Reformation which was at last brought to such perfection that this Kirk was reformed not onely in Doctrine and Worship but also after many conferences and publik reasonings in divers Nationall Assemblies joyned with solemn humiliations and prayers to God the Discipline and Government of the Kirk as the hedge and guard of the doctrine and worship was prescribed according to the rule of Gods word in the book of Policie and Discipline agreed upon in the Assemblie 1578. and insert in the Register 1581. established by the Acts of the Assemblies by the confession of Faith sworn and subscribed at the direction of the Assembly and by continuall practice of this Kirk Secondly that by men seeking their own things and not the things of Iesus Christ divers Novations have been introduced to the great disturbance of this Kirk so firmely once compacted and to the endangering of Religion and many grosse evils obtruded to the utter 〈◊〉 of the work of Reformationâ— and change of the whole form of worship and fâ—ce of this Kirk commanded to receive with reverence a new Book of Common prayer as the onely form to be used in Gods publik worship and 〈◊〉 Contraveeners to be condignely censured and punished and after many supplications and complaints knowing no other way for the preservation of Religion were moved by God and drawn by necessity to 〈◊〉 the Nationall Covenant of this Kirk and kingdome which the Lord since hath blessed from Heaven and to subscribe the confession of faith with an Application thereof abjuring the great evils wherewith they were now pressed and suspending the practice of all Novations formerly introduced till they should be tryed in a free generall Assembly lastly that some of his Majesties Subjects of sundry ranks have by his Majesties command subscribed and renewed the confession of Faith without the former explication And that both the one and the other Subscribers have subscribed the said Confession in this year as it was professed and according to the meaning that it had in this Kingdome when it was first subscribed â—581 and afterward The Assemblie therfore 〈◊〉 by the Subscription of his Majesties high Commissioner 〈◊〉 of the Lords of secret Councell Sept. 22. 1638. and by the Acts of Councell of the date foresaid bearing that they should subscribe the said Confession and ordaining all his Majesties Subjects to subscribe the same according to the foresaid date and tenor and as it was then professed within this Kingdome As likewise by the protestation of some of the Senators of the Colledge of Iustice when they were required to subscribe and by the many doubtings of his Majesties good subjects especially because the Subscribers of the Confession in February 1638. are bound to suspend the approbations of the corruptions of the Government of the Kirk 〈◊〉 they be tryed in a free generall Assemblie finding it proper for them and most necessarie and incumbent to them to give out the true meaning therof as it was at first profest that all his Majesties Subjects in a matter so important as is the publik Confession of Faith so solemnly sworn and subscribed may be of one mind and one heart and have 〈◊〉 satisfaction
Covenant consists 1. in the Authoritie whereby it is concluded 2. In the parties betwixt whom 3. In the matter or Articles whereunto they bind themselves 4. In the end for the which it is contracted but in all these points this Covenant is different from the former injoyned by King Iames of hâ—ppy memory First the Kings Covenant was injoyned by the Authoritie of the King and his Councell who only under God hath power to bind all his Subjects but this was onely framed and urged by private men upon those over whom they had no lawfull Authoritie civill or ecclesiasticall Secondly in that Covenant the parties were the Kings Majestie our dread Soveraign on th'one part and all his Subjects on th' other part in this the parties are some particular private persons Noblemen Barrons Gentlemen Ministers Burgesses and Commons amongst themselves excluding the Kings Majestie Thirdly the matter and Articles whereunto all are bound in the first Covenant are the maintenance of true Religion according to the Confession of Faith Abjuration of all Antichristian and Popish errors the defence of the Kings Majesties person Authoritie and estate but in this albeit they pretend to bind themselves by oath to the defence of all these yet is it but a pretext to cover their Rebellion and Protestatio contra factum for it is evident that they have in this very Fact many wayes incroached upon the Kings Majesties Authoritie and estate contrarie to the fundamentall Laws of the Kingdome but the principall Articles whereto they bind themselves is 1. To stand together in the mutuall defence one of another against all persons whatsoever 2. To the maintenance of their false Applications of the Confession of Faith added thereunto like the Glosse of Orleans destroying the meaning of the Text 3. To forbear the practice of all those things which they call Novations constituted by the consent of the Church ratified in Parliament and commanded by the King which is directly to swear disobedience both to the King and the Church and consequently to God also 4. To reject the present Government of the Church established by the Kings authoritie consent of the Church in divers generall Assemblies and of the whole estates in Parliament finally to suppresse one of the three estates oâ— Parliament thereby destroying the fundamentall Laws of the Kingdome Fourthly the end of the first Covenant was to maintaine peace and concord both in Church and Common-wealth which was many wayes disturbed in those times and defence of the Kingdome from externall Invasions and inward Seditions which were upon too evident grounds then feared but in this their Covenant the chief intended end was to disturbe the peace both in the Church and Kingdome by stirring up seditious factions therein against the King and his Loyall Subjects that in those troubles as fishing in troubled waters they might work their own particular ends and not to exclude externall invasions but rather to open a gate for strangers to enter and if their secret practices with the King of France and the Estates of Holland could have prevailed as they were confident they should to have brought in forraigne forces within the bowells of the Kingdome But praised be God those Estates were wiser than so as to assist Subjects in their unjust Rebellion against their naturall Prince Finally we must not omit their foolish and vaine boasting here and in their other pamphlets often repeated usque aâ— Nauseam that their Rebellious Covenant hath been by the Lord blessed from Heaven they conceive so because of the great applaâ—se it hath had amongst themselvs and the prosperous succeâ—â—e they have found in their enterprizes against the Kings Castles in putting their Armies to the field and harming the Kings loyall Subjects without present damage to themselves but let not him that putteth on his Armour boast himself as he that putteth it off Chore Dathan and Abirars had good successe at the first and drew after them in their Rebellious Covenant two hundred and fiftie Princes of the Assemblie famous in the Congregation and men of Renoune as it is written Numb. 16. 2. And a great many of the people against Moses and Aaron the Prince of the people and the high Priest of the Lord whom God had set over them So that Moses being greatly astonished fell down most abjectly upon his face before them and could not know how to represse that Sedition except the Lord had comforted and directed him these men might have thought as our Covenanters doe that the Lord had blessed their enterprize from Heaven yet ere it was long they found Gods just Iudgement and Curse both from Heaven and Earth for the Earth swallowed up some of them quick and others were destroyed by fire from Heaven Let all Seditious Rebells therefore learne by this example to repent in time and not to boast too confidently of their present successe but fear the end The fourth and last Consideration is because his Majesties Commissioners and Councell by the Kings Commandment and others of his Subjects by ordinance of the Councell had subscribed the Confession of Faith without their Applications and that both the one the other Subscribers had done it according to the date tenor and meaâ—ing it had An. 1581. there for they considered that it was expedient and proper for the generall Assemblie to declare the true meaning thereof as it was at first professed to the end that all his Majesties Subjects may be one mind and heart and have full satisfaction to all their doubts Concerning this Consideration we must observe that howsoever the subscribers of that rebellious Covenant did understand the Confession of Faith yet those who did subscribe the Kings Covenant at his Majesties command both first and last could not lawfully swear to it in any other sence than the King who required the oath did understand the same for this is most certaine That all oathes required by a magistrate should be taken in the direct and explained meaning of him who required the oath But it is evident that his Majestie declared himself plainly enough that he did not require his Councell nor his other subjects to sweat this Confession in such meaning as therby either Episcopacy or the other established Constitutions of the Church should be abjured for otherwise it had been a deluding of his Majesties Command by a Iesuiticall equivocation who teach their Supposts that Axiom Vnto dangerous interrogatories one may frame to himself a safe sense and swear thereto thought it be contrary to the meaning of him who required the Oath Therefore I cannot conceive that those judicious and discreet Noblemen would practise Iesuiticall tricks to elude his Majesties Command in swearing that Confession and Covenant in another sense than they knew his Majestie intended 2. Albeit that in their subscribing and swearing they had all added expresly that restriction According to the meaning it had Anno 1581. yet will it not follow that they had any doubt of the true
was not a point controverted betwixt the reformers of Religion who set down the Confession and their Adversaries the Papists And therefore needed not to be mentioned in the Confession and by consequent albeit there was no such Bishops according to the Confession yet it is not necessary that they should be abjured Then there is as little coherence betwixt the last two questions for although it had been abjured at that time yet will it not follow necessarily that it be now removed out of the Church for two reasons first because then it might have been abjured wrongfully and out of Ignorance but afterwards men comming to better and sounder knowledge that which rashly hath been abjured before may be lawfully restored now Next because if there had been a Law and Constitution against it for certaine reasons of not expediencie the Church might have abjured it for that time yet that Law being abrogated by lawfull Authoritie it may be received againe by the Church for it is holden as granted by all that Oaths given to humane positive Laws either Civill or Ecclesiastick obliges no longer than the Law stands in force Now therefore since the Law forbidding preheminencie of one Pastor over others if any such Law was being now abrogated and the contrarie established this preheminencie ought not to be removed now though formerly abjured Secondly There is great Ambiguities in the termes of the proposition themselves yea almost every word hath its own Ambiguitie for 1. the word Confession is ambiguous for although there be two writs which by some are called Confessions yet there is one onely proper and perfect profession of Faith of the Church of Scotland neither ought there to be any more in one Church to wit that large Confession set down at the beginning of the reformation wherein is contained all the positive Doctrine maintained by that Church which was acknowledged received in the general Assembly An. 1560. and ratified by the whole body of the kingdom in Parliament 1567. and inserted verbatim in the body of the Act that other which is called the negative Confession is only an Appendix of the former containing an abjuration of certaine speciall Errors of the Romane Church so it is doubtfull which of those Confessions is here understood 2. There is likewise an Ambiguity in that word According to the Confession because it may be understood diversly for either it implies that it is expresly contained therein and so it is properly according to the same or otherwise it may signifie onely that it is not contrary thereunto though not particularly expressed now Episcopacie in the first sense perhaps is not according to the Confession because it is not expressly mentioned therein which is no absurditie as we have shown before yet is it according to it in the second sense because not contrary thereunto 3. There is ambiguitie in the words As it is professed Anno 1580. c. For either it must be signified as it was then proposed in writ or print and so certainly it was no otherwise professed at that time than it was from the beginning and is now at this present but hath been ever conserved unaltered or uncorrupted in the Registers of the Church and Kingdome so that the particular restriction to those years 1580. 1581. 1590. is needlesse and superfluous or by Profession is signified the sense or interpretation thereof as it was understood and interpreted An. 1580. and thus also that restriction of the profession to those years is no lesse superfluous for it could not be or at least ought not to have been by any otherwise interpreted in these years or now then it was understood at the beginning by those who set it down for as we say unusquisque est optimus suorum verborum interpres and the first Reformers who framed that Confession did interpret it in the first book of Discipline and Acts of divers Assemblies thereafter so as it did approve the power of one Pastor over others Therefore if any did interpret it in a contrary sense they wronged greatly the worthy Reformers of the Religion and we are not now obliged to imitate them in their wrongfull dealing 4. There is Ambiguitie likewise in the word Bishop which sometimes is taken in a generall sense as it is attributed to every Pastor in the Church who hath power to oversee the actions of the people in Spirituall affaires sometimes more particularly as it signifieth those that have Iurisdiction both over moe pastors and people of a certaine bounds called a Diocese as it hath been taken in all Churches since the Apostles dayes untill this former age but because this is discussed in the Question it self I speak no more of it Finally there is Ambiguities in those words A particular flock for a Diocese is the particular flock of a Bishop aswell as a Parish is the particular flock of a Minister many more Ambiguities might be remarked in the words of this Question which for briefues we omit here but shall be God willing discussed as occasion serves in the subsequent discourse Thirdly it is also subtle Sophysticall dealing that they have drawn the Question à Thesi ad Hypothesin they doe not aske whether Episcopacie be lawfull in it self or not but whether it should be retained or removed in regard of the Confession of Faith and of the Covenant and that only as the Confession was understood An. 1580. 1581. 1590. involving the Question in divers intricate suppositions which they have done subtilly for their own ends first because they were not able to bring any solid testimony of Scripture or approved Fathers or practice of true antiquitie to prove the unlawfulnesse of that office and therefore neither in this Act nor in any other Act of this Assembly is there one syllable produced out of Gods Word to approve their conclusions but all their proofes are from their Negative Confession of Faith impudently wrested from the true meaning thereof from the Oath of the Covenant strangely mis-applyed and from certaine Acts of late Generall Assemblies which all at the best are but humane testimonies and such manner of proofes is not consonant to their ordinary exclamations against humane ordinances and Traditions of men continually pretending to all their speeches and actions Gods Word and Conscience which only is to be grounded thereupon 2. They have framed the Question so restricting the meaning of the Confession to the year 1580. c. because it is evident that from the reformation untill that time they could not alleage any Act of Assembly or Book of Discipline shewing that the Church had any such intention as absolutely to condemne Episcopacie but by the contrary the Church had declared both by the first book of Discipline and Acts of divers Assemblies as shall be fully made clear that she did so explaine her meaning in the Confession of Faith concerning the point of Government as she did approve expresly this power and preheminence and charge over
doctrine contained in the Confession of Faith From this then that we have shown to be true we may bring a forcible argument to prove that by this abjuration the power and preheminence of Bishops is not abjured For this abjuration being but an Appendix deduced by necessary consequence it could not of it self have another meaning or at least not a contrary sense to that Confession whereupon it depends but so it is that the meaning of the Confession of Faith as it was explained by the Church was no other but that it was lawfull for one Pastor to have this power preheminencie over others c. Therfore the abjuration could not have a contrary meaning towit that this power and preheminencie was unlawfull in it self The assumption of this argument is already sufficiently qualified in the former Chapter by the book of Discipline Acts of divers generall Assemblies and long continued practice of the Church The proposition is evident in it self for it is an absurd thing to say that an Appendix should have a contrary sense to the principall proposition from whence it is deduced by necessary consequence all good Logicians know this of which number to my knowledge the Moderator is one who hath in his time composed many accurate propositions with their Appendices and would not have suffered one of his Schollers with patience to set down their Thesis with so evill knit consequences as they would make us beleeve is betwixt the confession of Faith and the Abjuration of the Covenant depending thereupon I can finde no reason why he and other learned men of that Assemblie should be so farre misled against all true Logick and sound reason except it be as appeares that they have captivated their understanding to the Tables of the Covenant that for obedience thereto they have forgot all rules of Logick to advance per fas nefas their Idoll of Presbyteriall Government But our Covenanters objects that albeit the Confession of Faith might have been understood so by those who have set it down and so interpreted by the Church for a long time as that thereby this power and preheminency was not condemned yet the Generall Assembly of the Church to whom it appertaines to interpret the Confession of Faith might understand and interpret it otherwise as it did in that Assembly at Dundie 1580. wherein Episcopacie was condemned and now in this Assembly at Glasgow 1639. To this we answer first It is possible indeed that men might understand it otherwise then it was understood at the beginning yea in a contrary sense as the Covenanters doe interpret it now But the Question is whether both those contrary sense can be the true meaning of the Confession I hope they will not judge so except they would make the Confession of Faith like a nose of wax as some blasphemous Papists speak of the Scripture or that they would make the Confession which ought to be a firme and constant rule to try the doctrine of all within the Church like a Lesbian rule which may be applyed both to crooked and straight lines or to contrary and contradictory senses Then if it be so it may be asked which of those is the true meaning Certainely there is no reasonable man but will esteeme that to be the true meaning which is intended and expressed by the author thereof For as we say Vnusquique est suâ—ruâ—â— verborum optimus interpres except such a one as speaketh non-sense but so it is that they that framed the Confession of the Church of Scotland and the Church who received the same did declare their meaning therein to be such as that thereby this power and preheminencie was not damned but directly approved Therefore that contrary meaning which they ascribe to the Church in the year 1580. 1581. 1590. must needs be false Secondly This Covenant and abjuration therein was neither framed by the Authoritie of the Church or generall Assembly nor was the Oath required by their Authoritie but both was done by the Authoritie of the King and Councell at whose direction this Covenant and abjuration was framed and the Oath and subscription thereto required of all his Subjects by his Commandment therefore it appertaineth onely to his Majestie and Councell to declare the meaning thereof and in what sense he did require the Oath of all his Subjects For this is a most true Axiom agreed unto by all orthodox writers That all Oathes required by a Magistrate should be taken according to the direct and plaine meaning of him who requireth the same But it is most manifest that neither the King nor Councell did require that oath in such a sense as thereby Episcopacie should be condemned for he and his Councell did plainely declare before that time at that same very time and many times afterward that his expresse meaning purpose and constant intention was to continue the estate and office of a Bishop in the Church of Scotland and to withstand all motions tending to the overthrow thereof as we shall shew more particularly For first that this abjuration was set forth by the King and Councels appointment and that by his Authoritie onely the Oath was required is manifest both by that Act of Councell March 5. 1580. which they have prefixed before their Rebellious Covenant pressing thereby to make people beleeve that it was authorized by the King as likewise by the Acts of Assembly cited here by themselves wherein is declared That the Kings Commissioner presented to the Assembly in April 1581. the Confession of Faith subscribed by the King and his houshold not long before and in that Act approving this Confession cited here by them it is expresly acknowledged that it was set forth by the Kings Majestie Next that it was to be understood according to the Kings Majesties meaning appeareth also by the same Act where it is said That it should be followed out efoldly as the same is laid out in the Kings Proclamation for that word Efoldly signifieth that they should follow not onely the words but likewise the sense and meaning which was intended in his Majesties proclamation not in a twofold sense as if the Assemblie would intend one sense and the King another but simply and sincerely by all in the same words and meaning which his Majestie did expresse in his Proclamation Thirdly that his Majestie did not intend that it should be sworn and subscribed in such a sense or meaning as that thereby Episcopacie should be condemned is also most manifest 1. By his Majestie and Councell often rejecting the instant petitions of divers Assemblies for establishing the second book of Discipline whereby the power of Bishops is impaired and absolute paritie of all Pastors established as they acknowledge themselves by that Act of the Assembly at Glasgow 1581. cited here by them wherein are these words Because divers suits have been made to the Magistrate for approbation to the book of Policie which yet have taken no great effect Then because
his Majestie both before this time at this time and after did shew evidently that he did approve the office of a Bishop as he testified by his divers protestations against those Assemblies which pressed to suppresse the same and by his presentation of Bishops to the places whensoever they hapned to be vacant as he did at that same very time present M. Rob. Montgomery to the Archbishoprick of Glasgow and by that Act of Parliament 1584. whereby the whole Iurisdiction of Bishops was ratified by his Majestie with consent of the whole estates of the Kingdome Seeing then that this Abjuration or Confession call it as they please was framed by the Kings Majestie appointed to be subscribed and sworn by his Authoritie and that in such a sense as that thereby Episcopacie was not understood to be abjured It must be also presupponed that all those who did swear or subscribe the same did it in no other sense or meaning otherwise they did swear falsly sophystically and by Equivocation therefore it must necessarily be concluded that by that Oath of the Covenant 1580. 1581. 1590. and 1591. Episcopacie nor the power and preheminence of one pastor over others or moe particular flocks than one was not abjured by honest men who had an efold and upright meaning in taking their Oath Neither can the interpretation of this Assemblie at Glasgow 1639. give any sure warrant to those who hath sworn in a sense contrary to the Kings meaning for if this Abjuration or Covenant had been the Act of the Church properly there had been some appearance that a lawfull generall Assembly now might give forth the true interpretation thereof but since it is the King and Councels Act and the Oath thereto required of all the Subjects by his Authoritie it doth not appertaine to the Generall assembly especially such an unformall and unlawfull one as this to declare in what sense it should be understood So that it is but false and vaine fear wherewith they would burden the consciences of all the Kingdome of Scotland as being fearfully perjured by establishing contrary to the pretended oath of the Covenant the office of Bishops in Scotland and giving obedience unto them But on the contrary they are rather forsworn and perjured who contrary to the meaning of their first oath have by their new rebellious Covenant and ordinance of their Assembly abjured Episcopacie And of this no man needeth to doubt but that all those who have acknowledged Bishops and have taken their oath of Canonicall obedience and now by perswasion of their Leaders have broken their solemn Oath in disobeying and contemning their authoritie and ratifying their disobedience by another Oath are evidently forsworn as most of the Ministers of that Assembly have done Let them in sincerity of mind search their own consciences in this point and I doubt not that if it have any life therein they will finde themselves sensibly pricked thereby CHAP. VII VVherein is answered to their Argument taken from foure severall sentences of the Abjuration and particularly to the first HAving now shown that neither by the principall Confession of Faith nor by the Appendix thereof called Abjuration nor by the first book of Discipline nor by any Acts of Assemblies nor practice of the Church many yeers after the reformation this power and preheminency of Bishops here controverted is condemned it rests that we answer to those Arguments which are brought by them in the body of the Act to prove the determination of the Assembly which are neither brought from the Word of God nor from the testimonie or practice of the primitive Church immediately after the Apostles dayes nor from any words of the perfect Confession of Faith in the Church of Scotland but all their Arguments are of a later foundation and may be in summe reduced to three sorts first they bring certaine broken sentences â—ut of the Abjuration in the Covenant which they call the Confession then some Acts of their late Generall Assemblies and thirdly some passages out of the second book of Discipline to the which we shall answer in their own order And first they bring foure severall sentences out of the Abjuration or negative Confession falsifying and wresting them strangely as to make them appeare to have some shew of proving their determination The first passage is in these words We professe that we detest all Traditions brought into the Kirk without or against the Word of God and Doctrine of this reformed Kirk The second is We abhorre and detest all contrary Religion and Doctrine but chiefly all kind of Papistry in generall nad particular heads as they were then damned and confuted by the Word of God and Kirk of Scotland when the said Confession was sworn and subscribed Anno 1580. and 1581. 1590. and 1591. The third is That we detest the Roman Antichrist his worldly Monarchy and wicked Hierarchie The fourth is That we joyne our selves to this reformed Kirk in Doctrine Faith Religion and Discipline promising and swearing by the great name of God that we shall continue in the Doctrine and Discipline of this Kirk and defend the same according to our vocation and power We answer first in generall to all these passages that by none of them is either Episcopall Government abjured for first in the words themselves there is no mention either of Bishops or their power and preheminency over others or their charge over moc particular flocks or of Presbyteries of absolute parity of Pastors Therefore except they have recourse to some secret meaning these passage can serve nothing to their purposes and we have shown before both by the meaning of the principall Confession of Faith whereof this Abjuration is an Appendix and by the explained meaning of his Majestie by whose appointment this abjuration is framed and who required the oath and subscription thereunto that it cannot be understood in such a sense as that this power and preheminencie of Bishops should be thereby abjured and therefore neither the words nor the sâ—nse can be able to pâ—ove their purpose Secondly we prove the same by the Confession of the Moderator M. Alexander Henrison and his Associats the Apostles of the Covenant for they in their Disputes with the Doctors of Aberdeene doe confesse plainly that by swearing this Confession of Faith Episcopacie was not abjured and that any man might safely swear that Confession and their Covenant also without abjuring Episcopacie and by this profession they entised many to sweat and subscribe their Covenant who otherwise would nâ—t have done it Now either they spake sincerely at that time according to their knowledge and conscience and so did flatly contradict this position That by swearing the Confession of Faith Episcopacie was abjured or else by dissembling policie they did so professe contrary to their own mind to serve their own designes in advancing per fas nefas their rebellious Covenant And so did shew themselves Iesuiticall temporizers and time-servers En graine abusing
people most impudently to promote their own ends Albeit this that we have spoken already may suffice to cleer that Abjuration and Covenâ—â—t or any part thereof of any such meaning as they pretend yet that the matter may be more evident we shall examine particularly every one of these foure sentences cited by them shewing that all of them are either falsly or impertinently alleaged by them to prove such a conclusion As to the first sentence here produced by it we may judge tanquam ex ungue Leonem what we mâ—y expects of the rest of these reverend Fathers 〈◊〉 they begin with a manifest falshood and we 〈…〉 divers more in that kind the words according to that citation are We professe that we detest all traditions brought into the Kirk without or against Gods Word and Doctrine of this Reformed Kirk Whereas in the Covenant it self it is otherwise for there the words are And finally we detest all his to wit the Roman Antichrists Traditions without or against Gods Word First we answer that there is a great difference betwixt All Traditions absolutely and the Roman Antichrists traditions for albeit we detest as sincerely as they doe all Antichristian traditions yet doe we not so detest all traditions absolutely which have not expresse or particular warrant from Gods Word if they be not repugnant thereto the Traditions of the Roman Antichrist are those which are invented by him for upholding his tyrannie over the consciences of men made equall to Gods word and intruded upon the Church as parts of Gods worship those we detest and abhorre from our very heart but to abjure absolutely all Traditions which are not expressed in Gods Word it was never the meaning of the reformed Church of Scotland nor of any well reformed Church for all the ancient Fathers of the Primitive Church and all Neoterick Orthodox writers doe teach that some Apostolicall and Ecclesiasticall traditions are not onely profitable but also almost necessary to be retained in the Chruch Necessary I say if not ad esse simplicter yet ad bene esse such as are according to these generall rules of the Apostle 1 Cor. 14. According to decency and good order and tending to Edification and such as are according to that rule of S. Austin lib. 4. contra Donat. cap. 41. Quod universa tenet Ecclesia nec concilijs constitutum semper retentum est non nisi Apostolicà authoritate traditum rectissimè crediture of which there are many profitably reteined in the Church both concerning doctrine manners government and circumstances of Gods worship as the distinction of Canonicall books from Apocrypha the Constitutions of the Apostolick Creed the manner of the celebration of Marriage before the Church the sprinkling of water upon the head of the Child in Baptisme to be sufficient the gesture of kneeling in the Supper of the Lord the time and place of the ordinarie Celebration thereof in the morning and in the Church and such likewise are the Appropriating of the name and title of Bishops to these Pastors who are set in Authority over others and divers Ecclesiasticall Canons concerning the manner of their Government Secondly albeit it had been so that all Traditions had been simply abjured which men of understanding would not have done yet this sentence could not have served to prove their Conclusion for although some of the points of the office of a Bishop now appertaining thereto be by Apostolick tradition or Ecclesiasticall constitution yet this point here called in Question that one Pastor may have power and preheminencie over others or over more particular flocks is not a Tradition either against or without Gods Word and Doctrine of this reformed Church but first it is a most certaine written veritie approved by Gods Word expresly and the Constant practice of the Church of God from the very first Constitution of the visible Church and publik exercise of Gods worship not only under the old Testament but under the new also continued in all Churches untill this lust age which cannot be denied without great impudencic then it is not against the doctrine of the reformed Church of Scotland but most conformable thereunto as we have sufficiently declared before therefore it is manifest that this passage can prove nothing for their purpose but is both falsly and impertinently produced by them CHAP. VIII VVherein is answered the second Passage of the Covenant THe second passage cited from the Negative Confession or Abjuration is no lesse falsified than the former both in the change of words and addition of others not contained in the Originall the words of their citation are We abhorre and detest all contrary Religion and Doctrine but chiefly all kind of Papistrie in generall and particular heads as they were then damned and confuted by the Word of God and Chruch of Scotland when the said Confession was sworn and subscribed Anno 1580. and 1581. 1590. and 1591. But the words in the Originall are only these As they are now dawned and confuted by the Word of God and Kirk of Scotland So that they change that particle now in then and adde more which is not in the Originall when the Confession was sworn and subscribed Anno 1580. 1581. 1590. 1591. Albeit this Alteration seemeth but small to change now in then yet in effect it is very matteriall and subtilly made to wrest the meaning of the words to their own purpose contrary to the intention of those who framed this Abjuration in making this Now relative to the damning of Episcopacie in that Assemblie at Dundie 1580. and others thereafter albeit it be evident that there was no such thing intended in the framing of this Abjuration for divers reasons First that now in the Kings Covenant is not to be understood of that present definite time then when the Covenant was framed or subscribed but as it is expresly exponed a little before Now for along time to wit from that time when the large Confession of Faith was set forth Anno 1560. and approved by the Generall Assembly and ratified in Parliament 1567. By the which Confession those particular heads of Papistrie were condemned and confuted and the true Doctrine opposite thereunto Now for a long time openly professed by the King and whole body of the Kingdome as it is expresly set down in the same place of the Covenant therefore it is manifest that this Now is not relative to that Condemnation of Episcopacie 1580. which was not then for a long time condemned but only for that present yeer Secondly albeit we should grant that this Now was not to be understood of that definite time yet doth it not serve to prove the point in Controversie for albeit by that Assembly 1580. Episcopacie as it was then used in Scotland was condemned yet this power and preheminence by approbation and practice of the Church of Scotland were standing in force in the persons of Superintendents Commissioners or Visitors and not abrogated
not to distinguish the Hierarchie in the Popish Church from any other as lawfull But that the Hierarchie wheresoever it is is called His is most false and all the reasons they bring to prove it are as false and impertinent First they say as Invocation of Saints Canonization of Saints c. are called his not that there is any lawfull Invocation or Canonization of Saints but wheresoever they are they are his even so would they say the Hierarchie is called his not as if there were any other Hierarchie lawfull but all Hierarchie wheresoever it is is the Popes therefore abjured A solid reason indeed and worthy of such an Assembly for first they may aswell conclude that all wordly Monarchy is abjured because the Popes worldly Monarchie is abjured and so be of the Anabaptists opinion that there ought to be no King in a Christian Church and indeed it is to be lamented that their words writings and practice doe bewray their mind that they approach too neer to those damnable opinions Secondly this is a manifest putid Sophisâ—â—â— A dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter All Antichristian wicked Hierarchie is abjured Ergo All Hierarchie is abjured simpliciter A child or an ignorant that knew never a word of Logick may see by naturall reason evidently the absurditie of this Argument for albeit all wicked and Antichristian Hierarchie is unlawfull and therefore to be abjured but since there may be a lawfull Hierarchie in the Church as we have shown which therefore needs not to be abjured simpliciter as if one should reason thus God hateth all wicked men ergo He hateth all men simpliciter This Sophisme is like that which is in their next Act against the Articles of Perths Assembly to prove that Confirmation of Children is abjured The Popish five bastard Sacraments are abjured but Confirmation is one of the five bastard Sacraments ergo abjured It is abjured indeed to be a Sacrament but not therefore simply for so they may conclude aswell upon that ground that Marriage is abjured because Marriage is one of these five bastard Sacraments albeit perhaps the Moderator has abjured marriage yet I hope all the rest of the Brethren of the Assemblie will not doe so I marvell indeed that men esteemed for learned and wise should have blotted paper with such trash and put such childish Arguments in print as if they had to deal with none but fools or Ignorants Thirdly there is a great difference betwixt Canonization or Invocation of Saints and an Hierarchie for Invocation and Canonization are sunply evill in themselves as against Gods Word albeit they had never had the Pope for their Author But an Hierarchie or order of sacred Rulers in the Church is not in it self evill but onely in regard of the Corruptions thereof in the Roman Church for which respect it is called Antichristian and wicked and therefore only abjured though in it self separating these corruptions from it it may be lawfull and reteined Secondly they bring a reason to prove this that all Hierarchie is the Popes in these words Whatsoever corruption was in the Kirk either in Doctrine Worship or Government since the mystery of iniquitie began to work and is retained and maintained by the Pope and obtruded upon the Church by his Authoritie is his but all Hierarchie is such Ergo c. I answer that neither the Hierarchie in it self that is the order of Ecclesiasticall Rulers nor the power and preheminencie of one of these orders above others is a corruption of the Church but a perfection thereof as we have shown before nor was it brought in since the mystery of Iniquity began to work but established by God himself long before that mysterie of Iniquitie And albeit it was retained and maintained by the Pope yet for that is it not to be rejected more than divers sound points of Doctrine which are as yet retained and maintained by the Pope God forbid we should think that all which the Pope retaines and maintaines were wicked and properly Antichristian finally neither is it obtruded now upon the reformed Church by the Popes Authoritie but restored to the former perfection by the lawfull Authoritie of the Kings Majestie with consent both of Civill and Ecclesiasticall Supreme â—udicatorie of Generall Assemblies and Parliaments Therefore this Hierarchie in our Church is neither to be accounted the Popes nor Antichristian Thirdly they alleage a passage out of the Historie of the Councell of Trent to prove this Where it is related that the Councell would not define the Hierarchye by the seven Orders and that we have in our Confession the manifold orders set apart and distinguished from the Hierarchie Ergo Glâ—ke I professe I doe not understand what they would conclude upon these words but of this I am assured they can conclude nothing that serves to prove their conclusion It hath need of a sharp wit to finde any cleer consequence thereof pertinent to the purpose and since they have set downe no consequence themselves it were an idle thing for me to trouble my braines to search it out and therefore untill it be better explained I leave it Lastly they alleage a passage out of their second book of Discipline Cap. 2. in the end thereof Therefore all the ambitious titles invented in the Kingdome of Antichrists and in his usurped Hierarchie which are not of one of these foure sorts towit Pastors Doctors Elders and Deacons together with the offices depending thereupon in one word ought to be rejected If they would conclude upon this that the ambitious title of Bishop and the office depending thereupon is therfore to be rejected for I can see no other consequence that can be deduced of these words pertinent to the purpose in hand I answer first that they have used as great falshood in this citation as they have done in divers others before for in that same very place cited by them the title of Bishop is one of these which they acknowledge is given to signifie a Pastor of the Church for a little before they number these titles to be Pastor Minister Bishop Doctor Presbyter Elder and Deacon and yet they here in their citation reckon onely foure titles whereas in the book it self in the Chapter cited by them seven are reckoned whereof the title of Bishop is one and therefore not to be rejected as an ambitioâ—s title nor the office depending thereupon Secondly the title of Bishop is not an ambitious title invented in the Kingdome of the Antichrist or the Popes usurped Hierarchy but is a title given by the Spirit of God in the Scripture to signifie a Spirituall function in the Church Acts 1. 20. Acts 20. 28. 1 Tim. 3. 1 2. And therefore this Citation out of the Book of Discipline is both false and impertinent Thirdly Albeit it were truely alleaged and did prove the point directly yet we account not the Authoritie of that Book so authentick asto make it an Article of our
Beleife whatsoever is said there CHAP. X. Containing an Answer to the fourth place cited out of the Abjuration THe fourth and last passage of the Abjuration or Negative Confession whereby they alleage that Episcopacie is abjured is We professe that we joyne our selves to this reformed Kirk in Doctrine Faith Religion and Discipline promising and swearing by the great Name of God that we shall continue in the Doctrine and Discipline of this Kirk and defend the same according to our Vocation and power all the dayes of our life First we must remark that by these foure distinct terms are not signified foure severall distinct things but by doctrine Faith and Religion is signified one and the self-same thing for Doctrine to be beleeved is the object of Faith and Religion consists in the practice of this Doctrine and Discipline is the meanes to conserve Doctrine Faith and Religion and so we see in the next words containing the promissary part of the Oath they are all reduceed to two Doctrine and Discipline Secondly we must consider what doctrine and discipline this is whereunto they swear It is not every point of doctrine which hath been taught in the pulpits of Scotland nor every point of Discipline which hath been practised in their Sessions Presbyteries Assemblies for then God knowes how doubtsome and uncertaine an Oath this should have been because those points have been often changed and some directly contrary to other the matter of an Oath should be so clearly and particularly set down as is possible for it be set down indefinitely men may involve themselves rashly in a contradictory Oath And therefore those who framed this Oath have wisely and considerately set down divers limitations of the matter of the Oath whereby it is made clear and evident what doctrine and discipline it is whereunto they promise by their oath to joyne themselves But our Covenanters have dissembled subtilly those necessary limitations and set it down in generall and indefinite termes only naming in generall the Doctrine and Discipline of the Church of Scotland Now that we may know more evidently what Doctrine and Discipline is here meaned I shall set down at more length the words of the Oath as they be in the Originall We beleeve with our hearts and confesse with our moâ—thes c. that this is the onely true Faith and Religion pleasing God and bringing salvation to man which is now by the mercy of God revealed to us by the preaching of the blessed Evangel and received beleeved and defended by many notable Churches and Realms and chiefly by the Church of Scotland particularly expressed in the Confession of Faith established and publikely confirmed by divers Acts of Parliament and now of along time publikely professed by the King and whole body of the Kingdome In these words are comprehended foure necessary limitations of the matter of this Oath without the bounds of which it is not to be extended Albeit it were sufficient to shew that Episcopacie was not abjured by this Oath if we prove that by any one of these limitations it can be excluded yet to make the probation more full we shall make it evident that not by one onely but by all these foure limitations this point That it is not lawfull for one Pastor to have power and preheminence over his Brethren or over more particular flocks than one is excluded from this Oath and therefore not abjured as a Popish error The first limitation is that they only did swear to adhere to that Doctrine which is revealed by the preaching of the blessed Evangel or by Gods Word But so it is that no doctrine condemning this power and preheminencie is revealed by the Gospel or expressed by Gods Word or depending thereupon by necessary consequence therefore by that Oath none was sworn to adhere to any such Doctrine condemning that point But the contrary doctrine is so clearly testified by the whole course of Scripture both in the old and new Testament that it is lawfull for one Pastor to have power and preheminence over others or over moe particular flocks that we much admire why men so versed in Scripture can be so blinded as not to soe so cleer a Truth or if they see it to be so impudent and without conscience to abjure it as a damnable Heresie compelling others to abjure the same by so solemn and fearfull an Oath wherein they move them really to perjure themselves for eschewing a supposed perjury The second limitation is that the Doctrine whereunto they swear to adhere was that Which was received beleeved and defended by many notable Churches Realms then when this Oath was first made But so it is that this Doctrine declaring it to be unlawfull that one Pastor should have power and preheminence over others c. was not received beleeved and defended by many notable Churches and Realms at that time for we can shew that the most of the reformed Churches and Realms at that time did professe and practise the contrary as all the Churches of High-Germany Rohemia Denmark Sweden Norway Poland Hungaria Helvetia England Ireland and our own Church of Scotland they cannot produce one Realm nor any Church that had at that time imbraced fully presbyteriall Government except one City of Geneva which notwithstanding did not so absolutely condemne Episcopacie as they doe as we have shown by the Testimonie of the two cheifest members of that Church Calvin and Beza There are now some Churches which have received the Geneva Discipline as the Palatinate in High-Germany the consederate Provinces of Lower-Germany and the reformed Church of France which notwithstanding had not that Discipline nor a full established Church amongst them at that time for the Palatinate continued in the Doctrine and Discipline of the Augustâ—ne Confession untill the year 1584. when Iohn Cassitmere Prince Elector after his Brother Lâ—dâ—wick's death brought in Calvinisme as Lucus Oâ—iander in his Epitom Histor Eccles. Ceâ—t 26. lib. 4. cap. 20. doth testifie In the Low Countries albeit there were many protestants before yet had they not an established Church untill the year 1583. when as they renounced the Authoritie of the King of Spaine neither had they of France an established Church untill the raigne of Henry the Fourth Reade over all the Confessions of Reformed Churches contained in that Syâ—tagâ—â—â—â—onfessionum you shall not finde one of them condemning this power and preheminence or Episcopacie absolutely But on the contrary many of them doe expresly approve it Therefore since there was not many notable Churches and Realmes which received beleeved and defended that it was unlawfull for one Pastor to have power and preheminence over others or over moe particular flocks it is manifest that this point was not abjured by the Oath of the Covenant Thirdly the matter of the Oath is expresly restricted to that Doctrine and Discipline Which is particularly expressed in the Confession of Faith set down Anno 1560. And ratified publikly by divers Acts
that Act at Dundee 1580. HAving disoussed those passages alleaged out of the Abjuration of the Covenant it rests that we answer in like manner to the Acts of divers generall Assemblies produced to prove that the Church hath condemned this power and preheminence of one Pastor over another and over moe particular flocks albeit a sufficient answer may easily be gathered by the judicious Reader out of that which we have said already yet because many are moved by the Authority of those Assemblies who doe not understand the manner of their proceedings we must consider them more particularly to the end than we may shew what weight and force they ought to have in the Church Those Acts here cited by them for the more commodious answering without Tautologie may be disposed in three Ranks first some of them containe only preparations to the condemning of Episcopacie as those from the year 1575. to the 1580. next there are some that tend directly to the establishing of the second book of Discipline transferring the power of Bishops to Presbyteries thirdly others are such as condemne Episcopacie which all we shall examine particularly in their own order And first we must observe that they never alleage one word of any Assembly since the Reformation untill that at Edinburgh 1575. albeit there were thirtie generall Assemblies in Scotland before that time more uncorrupt holy and venerable than any of those which are alleaged of them for why they were not able to shew by any probabilitie that before that time the Church of Scotland did think any evill of this power and preheminencie but did continually and constantly approve the same both by her Constitutions and practice Next we must consider the causes and occasions moving the Ministers at that time to alter their judgements in this point and if we remark the estate of the Church and Kingdome of Scotland at that time as it is known to all these who have taken paines to understand the true history of the Church and Kingdome of Scotland in those dayes we shall finde evidently the occasions of this alteration of Iudgement First there were at that time some men of learning but of fiery and violent humours come into Scotland from Geneva who because of their travels abroad and learning were had in great esteeme and they being themselves greatly in love with Geneva discipline did labour by all manner of perswasions to move others to like both of the Clergie and Laitie especially Noblemen to a liking therof also at lest by intreaties perswasions and some shew of reason made secretly amongst themselves a reasonable number both of Nobility and Ministry who carried a great sway in generall Assemblies and were able to make a partie if the former Government were called in Question Secondly they thought the time fit to further their designe in regard of the Kings Majesties minoritie being then about ten yeers of age at most and therefore not capable of the knowledge of that which was most fit for the Government either of the Civill or Ecclesiastick estate governed himself by divers men of divers humours Thirdly there was a great furtherance to this Alteration in regard of the great troubles divisions and factions at that time amongst the Nobilitie and Courtiers every one striving to thrust out his Neighbour from that imployment he had about the King and Court as witnes the violent death of three Regents and the fourth like enough had gone the same way if his Govermneâ—t had indured longer and many of the Nobility cut off by particular quarrells some justly some unjustly under colour of legall proceeding as witnes likewise an Act of the Assemblie at Edinburgh 1578. whereby a solemn Fast was injoyned for divers reasons Especially because of the â—ivill and intestine ungodly Sâ—ditions and Divisions within the Bowells of the Kingdome Some Noblemen therefore and Courtiers in those factious times as fishing in troubled waters to further their own ends did labour to make some pretext of Religion and therefore did strive to haâ—e the Church upon their side abusing the simplicitie of some of the Ministrie zealous of the new Discipline and the pride of others impatient of subjection to their Bishops or Superintendents stirring them up to cast off their yoak knowing that they by their Sermons and private practices might doe much to make the people incline to which faction they pleased best And by that meanes to force the Kings Majestie for fear of a generall insurrection to grant them whatsoever they desired which policie our Covenanting Noblemen have carefully practised now with great but a dangerous effect there was never yet in those times so bold a Traitor but he found Ministers of that sect to Countenance him and approve his doings both privately and publikly as witnes their applauding the Earle of Bothwell in his treasonable attempts for it is certainly known that of those moneyes which was collected by the Ministers for the relief of Geneva a part was imployed to wage souldiers for him I know and could name if I pleased both the deliverers and Receivers thereof It is known also that Ministers of that Sect had a chief hand in all those attempts which commonly are called Roads as at the road of Stritilling the road of Leith and the Abbey road and at the 17. day of December the Earle of Gowry found one of the prime Ministers of that Sect to justifie his cause and refuse to give thanks to God for the Kings Deliverie from that treasonable Attempt Finally it is well known how King Iames of happy memory was vehemently troubled and vexed most unjustly by that Sect during the time of that Anarchie of the Church as he himself left in record in his Basilicon Doron Fourthly to those occasions another was joyned to further the ruine of Episcopacie towit the Sacrilegious greed of some of the Nobilitie and Courtiers gaping after the Church-rents which they perceived they could never obtaine so long as the Authority of Bishops did subsist and therefore did use the uttermost of their endeavour to bear down that estate pushing forward the Ministers to cry out against the Bishops and to blue abroad their personall faults both in their Assemblies Pulpits and private conference to make the very office it self 〈◊〉 to the people It is therefore more than manifest that those troublesome and factioâ—s times cannot be accounted a good prâ—sident for the Government of the Church in after ages for shall a few turbulent Assemblies backed and 〈◊〉 forward by factious humours and sacrilegious greed of Noblemen and Courtiers in the miâ—orage of the Supreme Magistrate constituting a new Discipline by the example of one small Citie of Geneva confirmed onely by the practice of fourteen or fifteen yeers at most be able to counterpoize Gods Word the continuall practice of the Church of God both under the old and new Testament and the example of the blessed Apostles and their Successors the venerable Pastors of the Primitive Church continued
in after ages in all Christian Nations untill this last age yea retained by the first reformers of the Church of Scotland and approved by the Church therein for many yeers thereafter So that the Authoritie of these Assemblies ought not to move judicious men judging without partiall affection This much in generall concerning those Assemblies whereby the estate of Bishops was opprest in those dayes yet to remove all scruple we shall discusse particularly all the Acts alleaged here out of these assemblies shewing that they serve little or nothing to the present purpose First they alleage that Bishops were tollerated from the year 1572. untill this year 1575. But by their leave they were tollerated from the very first years of the Reformation for so many of them as did joyne themselves to the reformed Religion retaining the title office and Benefice of a Bishop did exercise their jurisdiction 〈◊〉 all the Pastors aâ—d people within their Diocese by approbation of the generall Assemblies of the Church as we have shown before Cap. 5. So that this was not as they alleage a meer tolleration but a full consent and approbation at least in regard of their power and preheminence above Ministers and charge over moe particular parishes It is true that Anno 1572. there were divers Bishopricks vacant and that my Lord Regent did excuse himself to the Assembly that they had been so long void as appears by an Act of that Assemblie at Edinburgh August 1572. wherein it is recorded that Alexander Hay Clark of the Councell presented some Articles in name of the Regent to the Assembly whereof one is My Lord Regent his grace mindes that with all convenient diligence qualified persons shall be presented to the Bishopricks now vacant the delay whereof has not been by his owne default but by reason that some enteresse â—as made to those livings in favour of some Noblemen before his acceptation of the Regencie yet his Grace is perswaded that qualified persons shall be speedily presented and in case of failâ—iâ— will not faile without the others knowledge or consent to present So it appeares by his excuse and promise of diligence in times to come that this was not a tolleration onely but an earnest suit of the Church that qualified persons should be presented as they were shortly after and accepted by the Assemblie The Regent at this time was the worthy Mathew Earle of Lenox a man of a noble and generous disposition who bent himself to wrest the Church Livings out of the Noblemens hands and to establish the Church in her proper lustre which doubtlesse he had effectuate if he had been suffered longer to live and so settled things therein as King Iames of happy memory and King Charles now raigning should not have had so much trouble and turmoile in redressing the estate thereof againe But not long after this he was traiterously murthered at 〈…〉 and after his death another wind blowing all his designes were reversed Episcopacie born down and the Church brought to miserable povertie The first Assembly alleaged to prove their conclusion is that in August 1575. which notwithstanding doth nothing make for them but against them rather as we shall make manifest by the proceeding of that Assemblie and Conclusion thereof according as we have faithfully extracted them out of the Register of the Assemblies At this Assemblie indeed was made the first publik motion against Episcopacie although they had before laid privately their plots in their own conventicles at the very beginning of the Assembly when they were calling the Roll of their names the Bishops according to the accustomed order in former Assemblies being first called the promoters of Geneva discipline set forward one Iohn Durie a man neither of the wisest nor most learned of the Ministrie but of great boldnesse which happily he had learned in the Cloister having been sometime as I have heard a Monk in Dumfermling he rising up made a Protestation That the calling of the Bishops in the Assemblie should not prejudge the opinions and reasons which he and other Brethren of his mind had to oppone against the office and name of Bishops this Protestation being vehemently seconded by others the question was proposed to the Assemblie in these termes Whether the Bishops as they are now in Scotland have their function of the word of God or not a more formall proposition indeed than this in the Assemblie of the Covenanters albeit it have some ambiguitie also they thought it not sit to put the matter presently to the voycing untill it were sufficiently discussed by reasoning pro contra and for that effect there are three appointed upon every part to reason the matter and to report their judgement and opinion to the Assemblie and how farre they could agree the reasoners against Episcopacie were Mâ— Andrew Meltin Principall of the Colledge of Glasgow who was the chief man in this cause Mâ— Iames Lawson Minister at Edinburgh and M. Iohn Craig Minister at Aberdeene on the other part for Bishops were appointed M. George Hay Commissioner of Caithnes M. David Lyndsay Minister at Leith M. Iohn Roâ—â— Minister at Pâ—rth they together having conferred and reasoned the matter at length could not agree upon the Principall question and therefore the Assembly determined by an Act That they think it not expedient presently to answer to the Principall question yet they who were appointed to reason the matter reported to the Assembly that they had agreed altogether in certain points First that the name of Bishop is common to all them which have charge of a particular flock to preach the Word and administer the Sacrament which is their chief function by the Word of God Secondly That out of this number may be chosen one to have power to visite such reasonable bounds as the Assemblie shall appoint Thirdly That he may have power in these bounds to appoint Ministers with consent of the Ministers of that province and of the flock to which they are appointed Fourthly That he may have power to appoint Elders and Deacons in every particular Congregation with consent of the people Fiftly That he may have power to suspend and depose Ministers for reasonable causes with consent of the Ministers aforesaid The which points of agreement were ratified and approved by the next Generall Assembly in April 1576. whereby it is evident that they did not intend to diminish that power and preheminence which Superintendents had before over private Ministers or over the particular Congregations within their bounds which as we have shown before was no lesse than thaâ— which Bishops now doe require to have in the Church And therefore that this Assemblie concluded directly against them who condemne the power and preheminence of Bishops over Ministers and over moe particular flocks than one Secondly we must remark a subtill dissimulation of our Covenanters who in the Citation of this Act remember only one point of this Agreement towit That the Name of a Bishop
they condemn Episcopacie in any point as it was then used in Scotland or in the primitive Church As for the first that it doth not answer directly to the proposition I prove it in two substantiall points for first as we declared before in setting down of the state of the question the Moderators proposition included three distinct questions 1. Whether according to the confession of Faith as it was professed anno 1580. 1581. 1590. there be any other Bishop but a Pastor of a particular flock having no preheminence nor power over his Brethren 2. Whether by the confession of Faith as it was then professed all other be abjured 3. Whether all other ought to be removed out of this Kirk or not But in voycing they answer only to the last two omitting altogether the the first which notwithstanding is the ground of both the other And indeed considering the informalitie of the proposition I esteeme that they had good reason to answer so for if they had done otherwise their voices had been as informall and intricate as the proposition was because they could not answer Categorically to all three at once for why according to their grounds they behooved to answer to the first Negatiâ—â— and to the other two affirmativè and therefore lest their answers should have been obscure and intricate including both a negative and affirmative voyce they did wisely to answer to those questions only to the which one affirmaâ—ive voyce might serve 2. The propoâ—ition containeth two points of Episcâ—pacie to wit Charge over moe particular flocks and power and preheminence over other Brethren demanding if both these points be abjured or not and both to be removed But in voycing they determine only the first point concerning their charge over moe particular â—locks than one not a word of their abjuring or removing their power and preheminence over their 〈◊〉 which notwithstanding is the chief point that doth most grieve our â—ovenenters and for removing whereof they have raised all this trouâ—lâ— Be it therefore known to all that this Assembly which was 〈◊〉 conveâ—ned to condemn Episcopacie did 〈…〉 this power and preheminence over their 〈…〉 therefore that this standing still in force in the Church of Scotland whosoever yeeldeth not due obedience to the Bishops according to their oath are evidently perjured and are not absolved from their oath by this Assembly except they would say that they have extended the Conclusion further then all their unanimous voyces could suffer which as they must confesse is the greatest iniquitie which can be committed by any Assembly whatsoever Finally if it be so that no episcopacie is here condemned except that which is different from a Pastor of a particular flock there is nothing here condemned in the Bishops either as they were of old in the pâ—imitive Church or were of late in Scotland and are as yet in England and Ireland yea no Episcopacie is here abjured except that of the Bishop of Rome who only arrogats to himself to be the Pastor of the universall flock all other Bishops requires no more but to be a Pastor of a particular flock and as Cyprian faith Episcopatus 〈◊〉 est cujus à singulis in solidum pars tenetur there is no bounds prescribed by Gods word of a particular â—lock but the Church by the Authority of the Magistrats for the more commodious ruling of the Church and for conserving unitie have divided Kingdoms in provinces and provinces in particular Dioceses and Dioceses in particular parishes appointing to every part their own rulers so that as a parish is the particular flock of a Presbyter or Minister even so a Diocese is the particular flock of a Bishop the province the particular flock of an Archbishop and the Nation or Kingdome in regard of the universall Church is the particular flock of a Primate Neither may any Bishop lawfully usurpe charge over the particular flock of another Bishop without his consent Their Apostles of the Covenant who went through the Country to preach not the Gospel of peace but their seditious Covenant and mortall warre against the King and all his Loyall Subjects albeit they pretend to be Pastors only of a particular parish yet did violently intrude themselves to exercise charge in the parishes of other pastors without warrant or Authoritie or lawfull calling from the Church and contrary to the Constitutions of the Church of Scotland established even then when presbyteriall government was in greatest force drawing after them many thousands of people to disobedience and open Rebellion and by consequent to perdition except they repent and yet who dare be so bold as to say to any of them cur ita facis I cannot see what they can answer to this grosse and absurd escape in not answering by their voices fully to the proposition and extending the determination of the Assembly further than the voyces can suffer except that they would alleage that it is a fault in the Printer and that it was otherwise in the originall Register which is not like to be true for these reasons first because if it had been so that they had answered fully to the proposition their suffrages should not have been Categoricall but very informall and intricate including both a negative and an affirmative voyce 2. Their Clerk M. Archibald Iohnstone hath testified the contrary by adding to this printed Coppie and all other which I have seen his signe and Manuall subscription testifying thereby that they are printed according to the originall Acts contained in the Authentick Register out of the which he affirmes he hath not only collected and extracted these Acts but also visied them to see if the extract was according to the originall if he had committed such an absurd escape in omitting the very principall point whereupon the whole Act doth depend and being that Act also for the which the Assembly was chiefly conveened he hath certainely shown himself a very Asse unworthy of that trust which the whole Assembly did commit unto him by an expresse Act constituting him the only visitor and approver of all things that are to be printed concerning the Church or Religion 3. Albeit it had been true that Iohnstone might â—ave overseen himself so far yet how could it be possible that the Moderator and others committed to visite the Acts should have suffered such a fault as reverseth the whole Act about the which greatest care was taken to passe forth before it was diligently corrected Therefore I cannot but beleeve assuredly that there was no fault committed by the Printer but that the Act was printed according to the originall Register and that it was so written in the Register as it was voyced unanimously in the Assembly and that the voycers had no other meaning then their words did expresse and therefore that nothing in effect was concluded in this Act against Episcopacie as the title of the Act beares And so we may conclude justly in these words of the Satyrick Poet Parturiunt moutes nascitur ridiculus mus FINIS