chuse their Pastors and it is a grievance to have a Pastor set over them by the Bishop or Patron without their Consent And that tho' it is their Wisdom to consent a post facto if the man be qualified yet till they consent explicitly or implicitly they are under no tye to own that Man as their Minister However they may lawfully receive the Ordinances from him Let us now hear what our Apologist hath to say on this Head He first bringeth some argumenta ad hominem As that Popular Elections could not be had for a Presbyterian in the North. A. This is not universally true But where it is so the Church will not obtrude a Pastor on that Flock unless they neglect to chuse a person whom the Presbytry on tryal may find to be qualified and this neglect continueth for the time appointed by the Law And then the Election in all reason as well as by the Law of the Nation devolveth into the hands of the Presbytry And when the Presbytry hath set a Man so over a People such of them as will not own him as their Minister I see not how he is obliged to own them as his Flock further than to do what he can to perswade them to good and to restrain them from Sin Next he tells us of many Remonstrators inducted by Cromwell's Troopers A. I never thought that a Pastoral Relation could be founded on such induction where no consent of the People was either antecedent or consequent to it He 3 dly mentioneth That the same was done in the old Colledge of Aberdeen without regular and Collegiate Election and without Tryal or Examination A. It is a wise Argument from a Colledge to a Church The Affairs of the one are to be regulated by the Laws of the Nation the other by the Institution of Christ. In that Colledge by a Visitation in a Legal and Orderly way the Principal and Sub-Principal and two of the Regents were deposed To supply the two Regents places all who would offer themselves were invited by a Program to dispute six or seven appeared after several days disputation two of them were chosen as having fairly won these places by the Masters of the Colledge with some who were by Publick Authority to assist them The Principal and Sub-Principal did notwithstanding Officiate till two years after by the Authority of Oliver Cromwell who then was owned as having the Supreme Authority de facto A Visitation was appointed and these two Places were found Vacant and a Minister of Aberdeen was put into the Principal 's place and one of the two Regents who had entered as abovesaid and had taught Philosophy two years was made Sub-Principal What is there in all this that can be blamed further than that it was the general Calamity of the Nation to be under a Forreign Power by whom all the places of the Nation were then disposed of I know our Author would not have so impertinently digressed but that he would have a fling at a Person for whom he seemeth to have no kindness and whose having a Room in a Colledge is an Eye-sore to him § 17. Now the Author will no more trisle as hitherto he hath indeed done let us then hear his solid and serious Reasons He giveth a long account of the way of Admission in the Episcopal Church against which I could object several things but I shall only take notice of what is to our present purpose viz. That an Edict is served and the People allowed to object against the Candidate whom the Patron hath chosen for them Even this is often so done that it were as good it were not done as when Mr. Mckenzie's Edict to be Minister at Kirklistoun was served at St. Andrews about twenty six Miles distant But supposing it were always duly managed it doth not sufficiently answer the right that the People have to chuse their own Pastors His Argument from disorders happening upon popular Election is fully answered Rational defence of Nonconform Part 5. § 6. p. 207 208. But it is like the Apologist cannot read such Books as that without the Indecency of Passion Tho' he is pleased to bring a passage out of it when he fancieth he can expose the Author by it It is his way here and elsewhere to assert strongly the conclusion without taking notice of Reasons against it That this as all Christs Institutions managed by sinful Men may be abused we deny not Hath not Prelatical Power often degenerated into Tyranny and yet I suppose he would not have it abrogated It is denied which he saith cannot be denied That the methods of Election differed often in divers Ages and Countries since the first plantation of Christianity Unless he understand this of the more degenerate Ages of the Church after the eighth Century Before that it was uniform and constant viz. It was done a clero populo as it is abundantly proved in the Book cited p. 201. c. It is also false That no Christian Church came nearer the Apostolick Method than the Church of Scotland under the Episcopal Constitution For it is evident that in the Apostolick and Primitive Church there was no Election made by a Patron The Act of the General Assembly depriving a disaffected Parish of the Power of Eâ—ection maketh nothing for his design For it is without question that Peoples Rights and Church Priviledges may for some Causes be Suspended by Authority of the Church His account of the Election of Leith is most false Mr. Gray had not one of the Legal Eldership for him nor the Magistrates of Leith who represent the Heritors and a great body of the People did oppose him with what Brow then can our Author say That this Election was unanimous For Muslebrugh and Tranent none hath to this day been Elected in a Legal way that is by the Heritors and Elders That Patronages were not taken away in Scotland till 1649 proveth no more then that Presbyterians think it not unlawful to own a Man who is not antecedently Elected by the People and this was never denied by us Only it was pleaded that when the People had other objections against a Minister this might fortify their aversion from him that he had not entered in a due way Presbyterians did always think Elections by Patrons to be a great Grievance Yet they bare it till it could be removed by Law The reason of his following discourse I cannot comprehend viz. How it should come to pass that so many Artifices are needed to promote a Clergy Man if Popular Election take place And that it is otherwise where the Patron chuseth Nothing is more evidently false then are both parts of this Assertion For our way is when a Parish is Vacant the Presbytry sendeth two or three or more by turns to preach among them if the People desire to hear yet others it is granted And the People chuse whom they like best Where doth the Artifice lie that the Candidate
extraordinary Meetings whether of Church or State That Meeting did indeed Vote it self a General Assembly For in the second Session it was concluded that this Meeting should have the force and strength of a General Assembly and that all things may be treated and ended therein that use to be treated and ended in a General Assembly Also that the Moderator of the last Assembly shall continue till the next ordinary Assembly in March And that all present should be there also So both the Historians last cited All this sheweth that this was no Assembly cloathed with the Authority of the Church of Scotland and therefore its Acts were Null and not binding Besides that it is expresly told us That they who there met were only Commissioners from some Towns and Churches with the Superintendents and Commissioners for Visitation 3 What was there concluded was not by that Convention of Church men but seven of them were delegated who or any four of them should meet with such of the Secret Council as the Regent should appoint and these were they who made this Innovation in the Church by the Articles above mentioned I hope none will say that this was a Church Meeting or what they did was the deed of the Church 4. It is certain that this was not lookt on by the Church of Scotland as one of her General Assemblies Not only because the General Assembly appointed by the former Assembly met at St. Andrews a few Weeks after that Convention at Leith viz. March 6. but likewise they took no notice of the Arch. bishop of St. Andrews tho' he sat among them but chused Mr. Robert Hamiltoun Minister of St. Andrews to be their Moderator Which they could not have done had they owned a Prelacy in the Church 5. It is known that this Act at Lioth was disliked and witnessed against by such as were not influenced by the Court and by some Noble Men who were making their own Gain by this new Constitution And that it raised great Division Patrick Adamson in a Sermon distinguished My Lord Bishop viz. Such as were in the Popish Church My Lords Bishops viz. Such as the Lords had now devised for their own advantage And The Lord's Bishop that is every Minister of the Gospel Mr. Knox having preached in St. Andrews the Earl of Mortoun being present refused to inaugurate the new chosen Bishop of St. Andrews Mr. John Doâ—glas And he denounced Anathema to the Giver and also to the Receiver On this occasion Beza writ to Mr. Knox his Epistle is extant among his Epistles it is dated April 12. 1572. applauding The pure Religion and good Order that were settled in Scotland and beseeching that they would hold fast these two and to remember that if the one be lost the other cannot long continue The following words of that Epistle are remarkable As Bishops brought in the Papacy so false Bishops the Relicts of Popery shall bring in Epicurism to the World They that desire the Churches good and safety let them take heed of this Pestilence And seing ye have put that plague to flight timously I heartily pray you that ye never admit it again albeit it seem plausible with the pretence or colour of keeping Unity which pretence deceived the ancient Fathers Yea even many of the best of them 6. The Bishops that then were set up had little more than the Title and therefore were called Tulchau Bishops For the Church had the power The Bishops power being expresly made no greater than that of the Superintendents and being subject to the Church And the Noblemen had the better part of the Benefices 7. At the same time were brought in also Abbots and Priars as well as Bishops and for the same end viz. That some Great Men under their shadow might reap the profits only the Name and some small Rent remaining to them So that this whole contrivance was purely and evidently a piece of State Policy not any inclination of the Church of Scotland to cast off Presbyterial Government altho' some Church Men were drawn into it 8. This Constitution never obtained in the Church of Scotland For not only the names of Arch-bishops and Deans were protested against in the Assembly March 6 1572. But never a Bishop was suffered to Moderate in any of the subsequent General Assemblies and in several Assemblies Acts were made against Bishops till at last the General Assembly at Dundee which begun July 12 1580 did absolutely condemn the Office of Bishop as then used and commanded all Bishops to forbear the exercise of such Power And to this effect appointed them to appear before the several Provincial Synods where they lived And afterward Ann. 1592 Presbyterial Government was fully settled 9. The Account given of Mr. Melvil is not fair not only in that his opposition to Bishops is imputed to his not being preferred For he was zealously opposite to Episcopacy before and when he came to Scotland he refused Preferment at Court when offered But also that the opposition that Mr. Dury and others made to Episcopacy is abscribed to his instigation These Learned and Worthy Men acted from their own light and were not Tools to be used by another Aâ— opposition was made to Episcopacy before Mr. Melvil came to Scotland as is clear from what is above said Wherefore it was not the first starting of that Debate when Mr. Dury appeared in the Assembly 1575. § 50. I could not have expected from a Person of Honour and Learning such an account of the Book of Policy made in the year 1578 As That it was stuffed with the Spirit of Mr. Andrew Melvil himself it was rather a proposal for overthrowing of all Just Authority than an Establishment of a Religious Government That it could not even in these distracted and furious times obtain approbation of any Authority But was lookt on as a Rapsody of groundless Assertions and full of mischievous Novelties This is not to write like an Historian His Author Spotswood speaketh with more modesty of this matter That the Book of Policy being presented to the States they had not then leasure to peruse it but gave a Commission to some of their number to conferr with the Commissioners of the Church And if they did agree to insert the same among the Acts of Parliament So he p 289. That it was not rejected with such disdain as his Lordship is pleased to express is evident not only in that nothing of such resentment of it when proposed is left on Record by any Historian but is the fierce Zeal of a new set of Episcopalians not the temper of the old Protestant Church of Scotland but Archbishop Spotswood p. 289. to 302. Setteth down all the Articles of that Book at length and on his Margine noteth what was agreed to what was referred to farther reasoning and what amendements of it were desired by the other Party It is also observed by Calderwood p. 116. That the delay of ratifying the
by good Men And even in Parliament it met with such opposition that they hardly carried it Yea the making the Voter in Parliament for the Church perpetual and that he should not be chosen yearly was carried but by three Votes However this was the beginning of that Apostacy that afterward came to a greater height and the design of setting up Bishops did soon appear however they for a time did labour to cover it That which I chiefly observe here is that this stickle that then was made for setting up some Ministers to Vote in Parliament is an evidence against the whole of this Manuscript viz. That Bishops did not then nor always exist in the Reformed Church of Scotland For if they had they were the Men who should have sat in Parliament to represent the Church and there needed not such steps for bringing them into the Church The story of Mr. Dury's Recantation at his Death and owning Episcopacy I find not in any of the Historians that I can meet with neither hath our Author directed us where to find it And if it were true it proveth no more but that all and every one of the Presbyterians were not faithful to the end For the General Assembly at Brantisland 1601 which he mentioneth I have nothing to observe about it For he alledgeth nothing there done toward the advancing of Episcopacy Next he telleth us of an Assembly at Holyrood House and of the Kings Clemency to some Ministers And his proposals for Provisions both for Bishops and Presbyters this was 1602. Here is a great mistake The King did not mention Bishop in his Proposals as they are set down by Spotswood p. 468. The overtures about this were made by the Assembly at the Kings desire Neither are Bishops there mentioned The words are Thaâ— Prelacies should be disponed to actual Ministers Churches annexed thereto being provided sufficiently and the tenth of the Superplus paid to the King or otherwise that all the great Benefices be dissolved thâ— Prelate enjoying the Principal Church and Temporal Lands and the Churches annexed disponed to Ministers Both they and the Prelate paying a yearly duty to the King Where I take notice 1. That Prelate in the Dialect of that time did rather signifie an Abbot or Prior than a Bishop At least when ever it is used in the History of that time especially by Spotswood it comprehendeth all the three Wherefore 2. It cannot be gathered from this passage that Bishops did otherwise exist than Abbots and Priors That is that some Church-men had the Titles and some States men had the Revenues but neither of both had Church Authority above ordinary Ministers And 3. This is clear that before this Men had these Prelacies who were not actually Ministers Which maketh plainly against the existence of Diocesan Bishops with Governing power at that time 4. The dissolution of all great Benefices that is there propounded by way of Alternative doth shew that it was not the mind of that Assembly that either Bishops or Abbots or Priors should continue so much as to enjoy the Temporalities that formerly they possessed so far is it from designing that Bishops should be provided for and advanced as such It only provideth for the Minister of the place where a Lord Bishop once ruled § 57. His Assertion of the activity of hot headed Presbyters in stirring up prejudices against the Church of England And his high Elogies of that Church which he insisteth on p. 66. I shall not stand upon seing he hath neither mentioned particulars nor given any ground for what he affirmeth If Presbyters were then active to preserve the Government of the Church then established it was a seasonable and necessary duty that every one was bound to make Conscience of in his station For then might they rationally fear that the King who had been influenced by some Corrupt Men to oppose the settling of Presbytry would now be more bent and had more advantage to overturn it as indeed it fell out In the business of the Assembly at Aberdeen which he aggravateth with all his Rhetorick I shall not interpose my Opinion I find it diversly represented by divers Historians I am sure whatever he make of it he cannot draw from it this conclusion that Episcopacy then took place in Scotland which is the design of his Manuscript The tale that concludeth the Manuscript about the Chancellour and the Ministers I find not in History nor are we directed where it is to be sought for and therefore I neglect it being assured that these Men who had appeared so much and with so much hazard against Popery would not be guilty of conniving at it § 58. The Apologist having transcribed this Manuscript from p. 67. maketh a number of Inferences from it All which do fall to the ground by the answers already given to the Paper it self which is the foundation of them And most of them are particularly obviated in what hath been said The 1. is answered § 47. where it is shewed our Martyrs had no occasion to consider the Government of the Church being exercised about greater points that needed Reformation That the first Reformers submitted to the Episcopal Jurisdiction of Protestant Bishops is absolutely false For he cannot make it appear that any such Jurisdiction was exercised at or soon after the Reformation The 2 d. That Episcopacy was never legally abolished is disproved § 54. That Presbyterians always watched the difficult Circumstances of the King which is the third is not true They did in all Circumstances endeavour to settle the Discipline and Order of the Church His fourth asserting the Presbyterians pleading exemptions from the Secular Powers as the Papists is not only false but shamelesly affirmed The 5 th is answered § 54 The 6 th Episcopacy was not quarrelled as unlawful in it self in these times Not only is no way deducible from any thing said in the Manuscript But is false and affirmed against the clearest light that such a matter is capable of Doth not even the Book of Discipline in which all the Presbyterians of these times agreed declare Episcopacy to be contrary to the word of God while cap. 2 d. it saith He God willeth that they should rule with mutual consent as Brethren with an quality of Power every one according to their Function And there are four ordinary Offices in the Kirk of Christ the Office of Pastor Minister or Bishop the Doctor the Presbyter or Elders and the Deacon And after no more Offices ought to be received or suffered in the Church of Christ established according to his word § 59. For the Eighth Whatever he fancy of the Royal Authority being forced to all that was granted to the Presbyterians Let him answer for this Imputation of Hypocrisie and Dissembling in the King that then was It is enough to us that the Church Power was granted to Presbyterians by King and Parliament and that they declared they did it willingly and sincerely The Tenth according to his wonted Charity and Candor maketh the Vindicator's Book to be one intire shuffle from top to bottom And his ground is the Presbyterians of old did some very ill things And yet the Vindicator would perswade the World that Presbyterians are not capable of such Villanies as the rabbling of the Clergy I wish he would learn to speak Truth and to use a little more Reason in his Discourses The Vindicator hath said nothing of the Capacity of Presbyterians They are sinful Men and capable of very bad things if the Lord leave them All that was asserted and it is made evident against all hâ—s attempts is that the Presbyterians did not do such things as he and others of his Gang charge them with For these odious things that he chargeth the Presbyterians of the former age with Enough hath been said for their Vindication by others tho' I had been silent Let him read Mr. Baillies pieces and answer them if he can His impugning of the distinction between Cameronians and Sober Presbyterians hath been answered before but he loveth to repeat rather than to say nothing The Eleventh Inference is That Presbyterians have no principle of Unity because the lesser number may remonstrate against the greater so as to stop the course of Discipline This last Clause is groundless For the greater part of a Church meeting may go on in the exercise of Discipline whatever be remonstrated to the contrary by the lesser part nor doth the Manuscript give any ground to think that Discipline could not be exercised because some did remonstrate against it For the former part of his Inference I gladly would know whether that principle of Unity be owned among his Party that none may remonstrate against what the Bishop or the greatest part of the meeting doth If so then the Consciences of Men like Issachar's Asse must tamely couch under the burden of whatever is imposed And if my Lord Bishop and the plurality of his Clergy decide all the Controversies between us and Papists on the side of the Romish Synagogue no man may mutter or reclaim It was an ancient Maxim even in the Canon Law Cuivis supplicare protestari licet To deny this is to banish Conscience or to bring in that Atheistâ—cal Principle that our Actions must be directed not by our own but by the publick Conscience The last Inference doth not differ from the former but to make up the round dozen he hath put it in other words which labour under the same evil that he there chargeth others with viz. General words which at the bottom have no particular signification For he chargeth us with Tyranny Disobedience poisonous Principles that we slie in the face of Authority c. And all this made out by the protestation against the General Assembly 1651 which he setteth down at length We have now through the mercy of God buried that unhappy difference And the Revivers of it should reflect on the Builders of Jericho I shall only say as before that to condemn all Protestations and Remonstrances against any company of Men who pretend to Church Authority or against whatever a Lawful Authority doth is to take from Ministers and People the liberty of professing and owning the Truth of God I have now done with this Apology The Postscript I meddle not with it is in answer to a Paper The Author of which can make a Reply if he thinketh fit FINIS