dayly look for our final Deliverance by the coming again of our Lord Iesus c. Thus it was prayed I say in great Solemnity at that time and every Petition is a Confirmation of Buchanan's Fidelity and my Assertion Further yet 3. In the Old Scottish Liturgy compiled in these times and afterwards used publickly in all the Churches There is a Thanksgiving unto God after our Deliverance from the Tyranny of the Frenchmen with Prayers made for the Continuance of the Peace betwixt the Realms of Scotland and England wherein we have these Petitions offered Grant unto us O Lord that with such Reverence we may remember thy Benefits received that after this in our Default we never enter into Hostility against the Realm and Nation of England Suffer us never O Lord to fall to that Ingratitude and detestable Vnthankfulness that we should seek the Destruction and Death of those whom thou hast made instruments to Deliver us from the Tyranny of Merciless Strangers Dissipate thou the Counsels of such as Deceitfully travel to stir the hearts of the inhabitants of either Realm against the other Let their malicious practices be their own confusion and grant thou of thy Mercy that Love Concord and Tranquillity may continue and increase amongst the Inhabitants of this Isle even to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ by whose glorious Gospel thou of thy Mercy dost CALL US BOTH TO UNITY PEACE AND CHRISTIAN CONCORD the full PERFECTION whereof we shall possess in the fullness of thy Kingdom c. Here is a set of Demonstrations to the same purpose also And now let any man lay all these things together The Letter to Cecil The Confederacy betwixt Scotland and England Buchanan's Testimony and these Thanksgivings and Prayers and then let him judge impartially whither or not there is reason to believe that in those days there was a good Agreement between the Scottish and English Protestants as to Religion and Church Matters Thus I think I have sufficiently cleared that our Reformers Generally if not Vnanimously lookt upon the Church of England as so well constituted that they acknowledged her Communion to be a Lawful Communion But before I proceed to other things I must try if I can make any more advantage of what has been said And I reason thus Was there not here truely and really a Confederacy ane Oath A Solemn League and Covenant betwixt the Scottish and the English Protestants Were not these English Protestants then united in that Society which at that time was and ever since hath been called The Church of England And was not the Church of England of that same very constitution then that it was of in King Charles the First his time for example Anno 1642 But if so then I ask again was not this Solemn League and Covenant made thus by our Reformers with their Brethren in England as much designed for the Security the Defence the Maintainance of the Church of England as then by Law established as for the Establishment of our Reformation Did not our Reformers promise Mutual Faith to the English as well as the English promised to them Would it have been consistent with the mutual bonds and obligations of this Confederacy this Solemn League and Covenant for the Scottish Reformers to have raised ane Army at that time against Queen Elizabeth to invade her Dominions in order to ruine the Church of England I cannot imagine any sober person can grudge to grant me this much also But if this be granted then I ask in the third place Did not that Solemn League and Covenant made by our Reformers with those of the Church of England run in a direct opposition to the Solemn League and Covenant made by our Scottish Presbyterians with a Factious Party in England for destroying the Church of England in King Charles the First 's time Nay did not our Scottish Presbyterians in that King's time by entering into that Solemn League and Covenant directly and effrontedly break through the Charge and Commandment which our Reformers left to their Posterity That the Amity betwixt the Nations in God contracted and begun might by them be kept inviolate for ever Nay further yet did not our Reformers solemnly pray against those who made the Solemn League and Covenant in the days of King Charles the First Did they not address to God that he would dissipate their Counsels and let their Malicious Practices be their own Confusion And now let the world judge what rational pretences these Presbyterians in that Holy Martyrs time and by consequence our present Presbyterians can make for their being the only true and genuine Successors of our First Reformers Expecting solid and serious Answers to these Questions I shall now advance in the prosecution of my main undertaking on this Head which was to shew how our Reformers agreed with the Church of England in several momentous matters Relative to the Constitution and Communion the Government and Polity of the Church c. But because I have insisted so long on this general one which I have just now taken leave of I shall only instance in two or three more and dispatch them as speedily as I can 2. Then it is evident and undeniable that our Scottish Protestants for some years used the Liturgy of the Church of England in their publick Devotions Indeed The very first publick step towards our Reformation made by the Lords of the Congregation was to appoint this Liturgy to be used It was ordered upon the third day of December 1557. as both Knox and Calderwood have it Take the Ordinance in Knox his words The Lords and Barons professing Christ Iesus conveened frequently in Councel in the which these Heads were concluded First It is thought expedient advised and ordained That in all Parishes of this Realm the Common Prayer be read weekly on Sunday and other Festival days publickly in the Parish Churches with the Lessons of the Old and New Testament conformable to the Book of Common Prayers And if the Curates of the Parishes be qualified that they read the same And if they be not or if they refuse that the most qualified in the Parish use and read the same c. Spotswood and Petrie give the same account But such is the Genius of Mr. Calderwood that you are to expect few things which may make against the Presbyterian Interest candidly and sincerely represented by him For instance in his overly account of this matter he quite omits the mention of other Holy days besides Sundays These consistent Testimonies of all those four Historians are so full and plain a Demonstration of the Matter of Fact that I cannot foresee so much as one Objection that can be made or one Evasion that can be thought on unless it be That it is not said by any of them that it was the Book of the Common Prayers of the Church of England But this difficulty is soon removed For 1. It was either the Book
First Book of Discipline Head 9. We think necessary that every Church have a Bible in English and that the People conveen to hear the Scriptures Read and Interpreted that by frequent Reading and Hearing the gross ignorance of the People may be removed And we judge it most expedient that the Scriptures be read in order that is that some one Book of the Old and New Testament be begun and followed forth to the end For a good many years after the Reformation there was ane order of men called Readers who supplyed the want of Ministers in many Parishes Their Office was to Read the Scriptures and the Common Prayers The Scriptures continued to be Read in Churches for more than eighty years after the Reformation In many Parishes the old Bibles are still extant from which the Scriptures were Read Even the Directory it self introduced not before the year 1645. appointed the Scriptures to be Read publickly in Churches one Chapter out of each Testament at least every Sunday before Sermon as being part of the publick worship of God and one meanâ— Sanctified by him for the Edifying of his People Yet now what a Scandal would it be to have the Scriptures Read in the Presbyterian Churches The last days Sermons taken from the mouth of the powerful Preacher by the inspired singers of Godly George or Gracious Barbara in some Churches of no mean Note have been Deem'd more Edifying than the Divine Oracles The Scriptures must not be touched but by the Man of God who can interpret them And he must Read no more than he is just then to interpret What shall I say Let Protestant Divines Cant as they please about the Perspicuity of the Scriptures 't is a dangerous thing to have them Read publickly without Orthodox Glosses to keep them close and true to the principles of the Godly And who knows but it might be expedient to wrap them up again in the unknown tongue But enough of this 2. As for Sermons c. The First Book of Discipline gives us the sentiment of our Reformers thus The Sunday in all Towns must precisely be observed before and after noon before noon the word must be Preached Sacraments Administred c. After noon the Catechism must be taught and the young Children examined thereupon in audience of all the People This continued the manner of the Church of Scotland for full twenty years after the Reformation For I find no mention of afternoons Sermons till the year 1580 that it was enacted by that same General Assembly which Condemned Episcopacy That all Pastors or Ministers should Diligently travel with their Flocks to conveen unto Sermon after noon on Sunday Both they that are in Landward and in Burgh as they will answer unto God The whole Kingdom knows Lectures before the forenoons Sermon were not introduced till the days of the Covenant and Directory Yet now a mighty stress is laid upon them and I my self have been told that they were one good Reason for forsaking the Episcopal Communion where they were not used and going over to the Presbyterians where they were to be had I am not to condemn a diligent instruction of the People But to speak freely I am very much perswaded the Method of our Reformers in having but one Sermon and Catechising after noon was every way as effectual for Instructing the People in the substantial knowledge of our Holy Religion and pressing the practice of it as any method has been in use since Much more might be said on this subject But from what I have said 't is plain there is a great Dissimilitude between our Modern Presbyterian and our Reformers even in this point and that is enough for my purpose 4. They have as little stuck by the Pattern of our Reformers in the Office of Praise Our Reformers beside the Psalms of David had and used several other Hymns in Metre They had the Ten Commandments the Lords Prayer the Creed Veni Creator the humble suit of a sinner the Lamentation of a sinner the Complaint of a sinner the Magnificat the Nunc Dimittis c. They never used to conclude their Psalms without some Christian Doxology The Gloria Patri was most generally used In the old Psalm Book it is turn'd into all the different kinds of Measures into which the Psalms of David are put that it might still succeed in the conclusion without changing the Tune It was so generally used that as Doctor Burnet in his Second Conference tells us even a Presbyterian General took it in very ill part when it begun to be disused Yet now nothing in use with our present Presbyterians but the Psalms of David and these too for the most part without Discrimination The Gloria Patri recovered from Desuetude at the last Restitution of Episcopacy and generally used in the Episcopal Assemblies these thirty years past was a Mighty Scandal to them So great that even such as came to Church hang'd their Heads and sate silent generally when it came to that part of the Office Having mentioned Doctor Burnet's Conferences I will transcribe his whole Period because some other things than the Gloria Patri are concerned in it When some Designers says he for popularity in the Western Parts of that Kirk did begin to disuse the Lord Prayer in worship and the singing the conclusion or Doxologie after the Psalm and the Ministers kneeling for Private Devotion when he entered the Pulpit the General Assembly took this in very ill part And in the Letter they wrote to the Presbyteries complained sadly of a Spirit of Innovation was beginning to get into the Kirk and to throw these Laudible practices out of it mentioning the three I named which are commanded still to be practiced and such as refused Obedience are appointed to be conferred with in order to the giving of them satisfaction And if they continued untractable the Presbyteries were to proceed against them as they should be answerable to the next General Assembly Thus he and this Letter he said he could produce Authentically Attested I doubt not he found it amongst his Uncle Waristown's Papers who was Scribe to the Rampant Assemblies from the year 1638 and downward I wish the Doctor had been at pains to have published more of them If he had imployed himself that way I am apt to think he had done his Native Countrey better service than he has done her Sister Kingdom by publishing Pastoral Letters to be used he knows how But even from what he has given us We may see how much the disusing of the Lords Prayer and the Doxologie is a late Innovation as well as a Recession from the Pattern of our Reformers And as for the decent and Laudable custom of kneeling for private Devotion used by the Minister when he entered the Pulpit It may be reckoned 5. Another Presbyterian late Recession It is certain it was used by our Reformers It is as certain it continued in use till
the late Revolution should be lookt upon as undone and that the settlement of the Church should again depend upon a new free unclogg'd unprelimited unover awed Meeting of Estates I am very much perswaded that a plain candid impartial and ingenuous Resolution of these few Questions might go very far in the Decision of this present Controversie And yet after all this labour spent about it I must confess I do not reckon it was in true value worth threeteen sentences As perchance may appear in part within a little And so I proceed to The Fifth Enquiry Whither supposing the Affirmatives in the proceeding Enquiries had been true they would have been of sufficient force to infer the Conclusion advanced in the Articles viz. that Prelacy c. ought to be Abolished THe Affirmatives are these two 1. That Prelacy was a great and Insupportable Grievance c. 2. That this Church was Reformed by Presbyters The purpose of this Enquiry is to try if these were good Reasons for the Abolition of Prelacy without further Address I think they were not Not the First viz. Prelacy's being a great and insupportable Grievance and Trouble to this Nation and contrary to the Inclinations of the Generality of the People Sure I am 1. Our Presbyterian Brethren had not this way of Reasoning from our Reformers For I remember Iohn Knox in his Letter to the Queen Regent of Scotland rejected it with sufficient appearances of Keenness and Contempt He called it a Fetch of the Devils to blind Peoples eyes with such a Sophism To make them look on that Religion as most perfect which the Multitude by wrong custom have embraced or to insinuate that it is impossible that that Religion should be false which so long time so many Councils and so great a Multitude of men have Authorized and confirmed c. For says he if the opinion of the Multitude ought always to be preferred then did God injury to the Original world For they were all of one mind to wit conjured against God except Noah and his family And I have shewed already that the Body of our Reformers in all their Petitions for Reformation made the word of God the Practices of the Apostles the Catholick Sentiments and Principles of the Primitive Church c. and not the inclinations of the People the Rule of Reformation Nay 2. G. R. himself is not pleased with this Standard He not only tells the world That Presbyterians wished and endeavoured that that Phrase might not have been used as it was But he ridicules it in his first Vindication in Answer to the tenth Question thoâ— he made himself ridiculous by doing it as he did it The Matter is this The Author of the ten Questions finding that this Topick of the inclinations of the People was insisted on in the Article as ane Argument for Abolishing Prelacy undertook to Demonstrate that tho' it were a good Argument it would not be found to conclude as the Formers of the Article intended Aiming unquestionably at no more than that it was not true that Prelacy was such a great and insupportable Grievance c. and to make good his undertaking He formed his Demonstration as I have already accounted Now hear G. R. It is a new Topick says he not often used before that such a way of Religion is best because c. This his Discourse will equally prove that Popery is preferable to Protestantism For in France Italy Spain c. not the Multitude only but all the Churchmen c. are of that way Thus I say G. R. ridiculed the Argument tho' he most ridiculously fancied he was ridiculing his Adversary who never dream'd that it was a good Argument But could have been as ready to ridicule it as another However I must confess G. R. did indeed treat the Argument justly For 3. Supposing the Argument good I cannot see how any Church could ever have Reformed from Popery For I think when Luther began in Germany or Mr. Patrick Hamilton in Scotland or Zuinglius or Oecolompadius or Calvin c. in their respective Countreys and Churches they had the inclinations of the People generally against them Nay if I mistake not our Saviour and his Apostles found it so too when they at first undertook to propagate our Holy Religion and perchance tho' the Christian Religion is now Generally Professed in most Nations in Europe some of them might be soon Rid of it if this Standard were allowed to take place I have heard of some who have not been well pleased with Saint Paul for having the word Bishop so frequently in his Language and I remember to have been told that one not ane Vnlearn'd one in a Conference being prest with a Testimony of Irenaeus's in his 3 Cap. 3 Lib. Adversus Her for ane uninterrupted Succession of Bishops in the Church of Rome from the Apostles times at first denyed confidently that any such thing was to be found in Irenaeus and when the Book was produced and he was convinced by ane ocular Demonstration that Irenaeus had the Testimony which was alleged he delivered himself to this purpose I see it is there Brother but would to God it had not been there Now had these People who were thus offended with St. Paul and Irenaeus been at the writing of their Books is it probable we should have had them with their Imprimatur as we have them Indeed for my part I shall never consent that the Bible especially the New Testament be Reformed according to some Peoples inclinations For if that should be allowed I should be very much affraid there would be strange cutting and carving I should be very much affraid that the Doctrine of self-preservation should justle out the Doctrine of the Cross That Might should find more favour than Right that the Force and Power should possess themselves of the places of the Faith and Patience of the Saints and that beside many other places we might soon see our last of at least the first seven verses of the 13 th Chapter to the Romans I shall only add one thing more which G. R.'s naming of France gave me occasion to think on It is that the French King and his Ministers as much as some People talk of their Abilities must for all that be but of the ordinary Size of Mankind For if they had been as wise and thinking men as some of their Neighbours they might have easily stopt all the mouths that were opened against them some years ago for their Persecuting the Protestants in that Kingdom For if they had but narrated in ane Edict that the Religion of the Hugonots was and had still been a great and insupportable Grievance and Trouble to their Nation and contrary to the Inclinations of the Generality of the People ever since it was Professed amongst them their work was done I believe G. R. himself would not have called the Truth of the Proposition in Question How easy were it to
They came not up it seems to the full Measures of Rigiditie which the Spirit of the Assembly required For whoso pleases to turn over in the Register to the 31 st of Ianuary 1648 9 shall find that the Commission of the Kirk the Authentick Vehicle of the publick Spirit of the Kirk during the Interval between Assemblies wrote a Letter to the Presbytery Requiring greater accuracy in the Tryal of Malignants and admitting People to the Renovation of the Covenant prohibiting Kirk-Sessions to meddle in such Matters and Ordering all to be done by the Presbyteries themselves Except very difficult Cases which were to be referr'd to the Commission of the Kirk And to secure this side also let him turn over to the Acts of the General Assembly Anno 1649 and he shall find First Act Intituled Approbation of the proceedings of the Commissioners of the General Assembly by which Act that Assembly Acted by that same Spirit with the former found that the Commissioners appointed Anno 1648. had been zealous diligent and faithful in the discharge of the trust committed to them and therefore did unanimously Approve and Ratify the whole Proceedings Acts and Conclusions of the said Commission Appointing Mr. John Bell Moderator pro tempore to return them hearty thanks in the name of the Assembly for their great pains travel and fidelity If it be said farther that our present Presbyterians require not now that condition of taking the Covenant of those they admit to the Sacrament I reply 1. do not the Cameronians who in all true Logick are to be reputed the Truest Presbyterians observe it punctually 2. How can our present Regnant Presbyterians justify their Omission of it By their own principles the Act binds them for it stands as yet unrepealed by any subsequent General Assembly By the common principles of Reason they are bound either to obey that Act or Reprobate the Assembly which made it This I am sure of they can neither plead the Dissuetude of that Act nor any Peculiarity in the Reason of it for their neglecting it more than many other Acts which they own still to be in vigour But I am affraid my Reader has too much of this Thus I have shewed in part how much our Presbyterian Brethren have Deserted the Rules and Rites of our Reformers about the Sacraments proceed we now to other Liturgical Offices 8. Then our Reformers not only appointed a form for the Celebration of Marriage to be seen in the Old Liturgy but in that Form some things agree word for word with the English Form Particularly the charge to the Persons to be Marryed to Declare if they know any impediment c. A Solemn Blessing was also appointed to be pronounced on the Married Persons and after that the 128 Psalm to be sung c. Besides it was expressly appointed by the First Book of Discipline that Marriages should be only Solemnized on Sunday in the forenoon after Sermon Cap. 9. And this was so Universally observed that the Introduction of Marrying on other days is remarkable For it was proposed to the General Assembly holden at Edenburg Iuly 7. Anno 1579 as a doubt whither it was Lawful to Marry on week days a sufficient number being present and joyning Preaching thereunto and the General Assembly Resolved It was Lawful But Our present Presbyterians if I mistake not make it rather a Doubt whither it be Lawful to Marry on Sunday Sure I am it is inconsistent with their principles to do it by a Form As sure I am tho' they were for a Form they could not well digest the Form of our Reformers which smell'd so rankly of the English Corruptions I know not if they use solemnly to Bless the Married Pair If they do it not I know they have Deserted their own Second Book of Discipline I think they will not deny but the singing of the 128 Psalm in the Church immediately after the Persons are Married is out of fashion with them 9. They have also forsaken our Reformers in the Burial of the Dead 'T is true indeed the First Book of Discipline seems to be against Funeral Sermons neither doth it frankly allow of Reading suitable portions of Scripture and singing Psalms at Burials Yet it was far from Condemning these Offices We are not so precise in this say the Compilers but that we are content that particular Churches with Consent of the Minister do that which they shall find most fitting as they will Answer to God and the Assembly of the Vniversal Church within this Realm But the Old Liturgy which was Authorized by two General Assemblies which the First Book of Discipline could never pretend to has not only a Form for visiting the Sick not observed I am sure by our present Presbyterians but expressly allows of Funeral Sermons These are its very words about Burial The Corps shall be Reverently brought to the Grave accompanyed with the Congregation without any further Ceremonies which being Buried the Minister if he be present and required goeth to the Church if it be not too far off and maketh some Comfortable Exhortation to the People touching Death and the Resurrection Then Blesseth the People and dismisseth them To our present Presbyterians Funeral Sermons are as the worshipping of Reliques They are every whit as ill as Praying for the Dead and the Doctrine of Purgatory One thing more I shall take notice of in the Old Liturgy It is 10. The Form and Order of the Election of the Superintendent which may serve in Election of all other Ministers I shall not repeat what I have already observed as to this point concerning our Presbyterians Condemning the Office of Superintendents and their forsaking our Reformers as to the Ceremony of imposition of hands in Ordinations a point wherein our Reformers I confess were somewhat unaccountable That which I take notice of now is that that Form continued at least for sixty years to be used in Ordinations Particularly it was in use even with the Parity men Anno 1618 as is evident from Calderwood and it was insisted on by them then as a Form which was to be reputed so venerable and of such weight that any Recession from it was ane intollerable innovation And yet I refer it to our present Presbyterians themselves if they can say that they have not intirely Deserted it Because the Designation of the Person to be Ordained is Prior in order of nature to his Ordination I shall add as ane Appendage to this Head the Discrepance between our Reformers and our present Presbyterians about Patronages and Popular Elections of Ministers Our present Presbyterians every body knows are zealous for the Divine Right of Popular Elections The Power of Choosing their own Ministers The Persons who are to have the charge of their Souls is a Priviledge which Christ by his Testament hath Bequeathed to his People It is his Legacy to them ane unalienable part of their Spiritual Property It cannot be
the year 1560 till the year 1616. Our Presbyterian Brethren may be ready to reject its Authority if it Militates against them I give My Reader therefore this brief account of it It was transcribed in the year 1638. when the National Covenant was in a flourishing state For I find at the end of it the Transcriber's Name and his Designation written with the same hand by which the whole M S. is written And he says He began to transcribe upon the 15th day of Ianuary 1638. and compleated his work on the 23d of April that same year He was such a Reader as we have commonly in Scotland in Country Parishes It is not to be imagined it was transcribed then for serving the Interests of Episcopacy For as Petrie and the Presbyterians generally affirm The Prelates and Prelatists dreaded nothing more in those days than that the Old Registers of the Kirk should come abroad And it was about that time that Mr. Petrie got his Copy from which he published so many Acts of our Old General Assemblies Nor is it to be doubted but that as several Copies then were so particularly that which I have perused was transcribed for the Ends of the Good Old Cause This I am sure of the Covenant as required then to be subscribed by the Green Tables is set down at full length in the Manuscript Besides The Stile and Language testify that there is no Reason to doubt That the Acts of Assemblies which it contains have been transcribed word for word at first from the Authentick Records And if Calderwood's or Petrie's Accounts of these Acts deserve any Credit My M S. cannot be rejected for it hath all they have published and for the most part in the same Terms except where these Authors have altered the Language sometimes to make it more fashionable and intelligible sometimes to serve their Cause and the Concerns of their Party It hath Chasms also and Defects where they say Leaves have been torn from the Original Registers And I have not adduced many Acts from it which either one or both these Authors have not likewise mentioned in their Histories Calderwood has indeed concealed very many having intended it seems to publish nothing but what made for him tho I think even in that his Iudgment hath not sufficiently kept pace with his Inclinations Nay His Supplement which he hath subjoyn'd to his History as well as the History it self is lame by his own Acknowledgment For these are the very first words of it I have in the preceeding History only inserted such Acts Articles and Answers to Questions as belonged to the Scope of the History and Form of Church Government Some few excepted touching Corruptions in the Worship of God or the Office and Calling of Ministers But because there are other Acts and Articles necessary to be known I have SELECTED such as are of greatest Vse passing by such as were TEMPORARY or concerned only TEMPORARY OFFICES c. Here is a clear Confession that he has not given us all the Acts of Assemblies Nay that he has not given all such as concerned Temporary Offices and amongst these we shall find him in the following Sheets more confidently than warrantably reckoning Superintendency and the Episcopacy which was agreed to at Leith Anno 1572. I have mentioned these things that the World may see it cannot be reasonable for our Presbyterian Brethren to insist on either Calderwood's Authority or Ingenuity against my Mss. How ingenuous or impartial he has been you may have opportunity to guess before you have got through the ensuing Papers Petrie hath indeed given us a great many more of the Acts of General Assemblies than Calderwood hath done as may appear to any who attends to the Margin of my Book But he also had the Good Cause to serve and therefore has corrupted some things and concealed other things as I have made appear However he has the far greater part of what I have transcribed from the Mss. Spotswood hath fewer than either of the two Presbyterian Historians yet some he hath which I find also in the MS. and which they have both omitted In short I have taken but very few from it which are not to be found in some One or More of these Historians Neither have I adduced so much as One from it nor is One in it which is not highly agreeable to the State and Circumstances of the Church and the Genius of the times for which it mentions them So that Upon the whole matter I see no reason to doubt of its being a faithful Transcript And I think I may justly say of it as Optatus said of another MS. upon the like occasion Vetustas Membranarum testimonium perhibet c. optat Milev lib. 1. f. 7. edit Paris 1569 It hath all the Marks of Antiquity and Integrity that it pretends to and there 's nothing about it that renders it suspicious The other Book which I said required some farther consideration is The History of the Reformation of the Church of Scotland containing five Books c. Commmonly attributed to Iohn Knox by our Presbyterian Brethren That which I have to say about it is chiefly That Mr. Knox was not the Author of it A. B. Spotswood hath proven this by Demonstration in his History pag. 267. his Demonstration is That the Author whoever he was talking of one of our Martyrs remitteth the Reader for a farther Declaration of his Sufferings to the Acts and Monuments of Mr. Fox which came not to light till some twelve years after Knox's Death Mr. Patrick Hamilton was the Martyr and the Reference is to be seen pag. 4. of that History I am now considering Besides this I have observed a great many more infallible proofs that Knox was not the Author I shall only instance in some 3 or 4. Thus Pag. 447. The Author having set down a Copy of the Letter sent by the Church of Scotland to the Church of England of which more by and by Tells how the English Nonconformists wrote to Beza and Beza to Grindal Bishop of London which Letter of Beza's to Grindal he says is the Eight in order amongst Beza's Epistles And in that same page he mentions another of Beza's Letters to Grindal calling it the Twelfth in Number Now 't is certain Beza's Epistles were not published till the year 1573. i. e. after Knox's Death It may be observed also that he adds farther in that same page That The sincerer sort of the Ministery in England had not yet assaulted the Iurisdiction and Church Government which they did not till the year 1572. at which time they published their first and second Admonitions to the Parliament but only had excepted against Superstitious Apparel and some other faults in the Service Book From which besides that 't is Evident Knox could not be the Author we may Learn from the Authors Confession whoever he was That the Controversies about Parity and Imparity c. were not so early in
Lutet 1551. p. 36. And having told how he himself came to the knowledge of Christianity he subjoyns p. 37. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I have found Christianity to be the only infallible and useful Philosophy and on its account I own my self a Philosopher Photius in this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Discoursing of the same Iustin as may be seen at the beginning of Iustin's works Describes him thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He was a man of our that is the Christian Philosophy Origen in his Learned work against Celsus Edit Cantab. 1658. p. 9. tells him if it were possible for all men laying aside the cares of this life 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to apply themselves to the Study of true Philosophy what a blessing would it be to the world And the very next words Declare what Philosophy he meant 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. For there may be found says he in Christianity most Noble and Mysterious disquisitions c. Again Pag. 144. Celsus had alledged that the Christians took pains to Proselyte none but young People Ignorants Ideots c. And Origen Replys it is not true They call all men 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wise and foolish to the acknowledgement of Christ And what evil is there in instructing the Ignorant Do not you Heathen Philosophers the same 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Or is it allowable in you O Heathens to call young men and servants and ignorant people to the Study of Philosophy But we Christians when we do the like must be Condemn'd of inhumanity Once more Pag. 146. Celsus had objected that the Christians taught privately c. And Origen Answers they did not refuse to teach publickly and if people would come to them they would send them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be taught Philosophy by the Prophets of God and the Apostles of Jesus Whoso pleases to peruse that Excellent Apology for Christianity may find much more to the same purpose Nay farther St. Chrysostom one of G. R's good acquaintances has this Heretical Phrase ane hundred times over e. g. In the page immediately preceeding that in which the Testimony is which his Learn'dness Glosst so singularly the Holy Father zealous against such as were Christians in profession only without a suitable practice Argues thus what can one say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. When he sees us not in works but in words only pretending to be Philosophers Or for all is one with Chrysostom to be Christians In his sixth Hom. on St. Matt. He says God permitted the Jews for a time to offer Corporal Sacrifices c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. Thâ—t by degrees he might lead them to the Elevated i. e. the Christian Philosophy And doth not the same Father in the same Homilies on Matt. call our Saviours Sermon on the Mount 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Top of all Philosophy And in his 4 th Hom. on 1 Cor. He discourses elegantly how Christ by the Doctrines of the Cross and Evangelical Polity and true Godliness and the future judgment c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath made all men Rusticks Ideots c. Philosophers Neither is this Phrase less frequent with the Latin Fathers I shall only instance in two but such two as most men use at least ought to Read who have a mind to know any thing of Antiquity St. Cyprian I mean and Vincentius Lirinensis St. Cyprian in ane Epistle to Cornelius the 57 in number if I remember right according to Rigaltius Characterizes Novatianus to this purpose Magis Durus Secularis Philosophiae pravitate quam Philosophiae Dominicae lenitate Pacificus And in his Excellent Sermon De Patientia Nos autem Fratres Charissimi qui Philosophi non verbis sed factis sumus c. We Christians who are Philosophers not in words but in deeds c. And Vincentius in the 30 th Chapter of his Commonitorium admires the Coelestis Philosophiae Dogmata the Doctrines of the Heavenly i. e. the Christian Philosophy Indeed Some of these primitive Glory 's of the Church give us a Solid Reason for both the Orthodoxy and the Propriety of the Phrase I cannot tell what notion G. R. has of Philosophy But I am pretty sure according to S. Iustin's and St. Augustines notion of it it is a most proper name for our Holy Religion Iustin ut sup p. 33. tells Trypho thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 True Philosophy is the Richest and most Honorable possession in the sight of God 'T is that which brings us near and commends us to him And they are all truely holy who apply themselves seriously and heartily to the practice of true Philosophy And pag. 34. he defines Philosophy thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Philosophy is the Knowledge of God and the acknowledgment of the Truth i. e. of Christ as I take it and happiness is the reward of this wisdom and knowledge And St. Austin with whose works G. R. should have been well acquainted when he adventured to give him the Commendation of being the great Light of the Latin Church as he doth in that same 24. Sect. in the first cap. of his 8 th Book De Civitate Dei Discourses thus Cum Philosophis est habenda Collatio quorum ipsum Nomen si Latine interpretemur amorem Sapientiae profitetur Porro si Sapientia Deus est per quem facta sunt omnia sicut Divina Authoritas veritasque monstravit verus Philosophus est Amator Dei The word Philosophy says he signifies the Love of Wisdom But God is Wisdom as himself hath said in his word and therefore a true Philosopher is a lover of God And In the ninth Chapter of that same Book Philosophari est amare Deum Vnde Colligitur tunc fore beatum Studiosum Sapientiae id enim est Philosophus Cum frui Deo Coeperit i. e. To Philosophize is to love God One is then a true Philosopher when he begins to enjoy God c. Nay Tho G. R. should reject the Authority of these and twenty other Fathers who have used and justified the Phrase it were no difficult task to find enough of Modern Writers who have used it tho' they were neither Stoicks Platonists nor Socinians But I shall only recommend to him two who were his Predecessors in that same Chair which he now so worthily possesses Doctor Leighton I mean in his Valedictory Oration lately published and Mr Colvil in his Treatise about Christian Philosophy And now Let our Authors Ignorance and his Ill-nature debate it between them to whither he was most obliged when he so fiercely scourged the poor Epistler for talking so Heretically of Christian Philosophy By this time I think the Reader may have got a sufficient Taste of our Renowned Vindicators singular Learning Proceed we now II. To his next Cardinal Virtue Profound Learning such as our Authors is a teeming Mother and commonly produces Congenial Brood plentifully Indeed never was Author's more Prolifick His Learning has
generally is against using the Lords Prayer the only Prayer I can find of Divine Institution in the New Testament as to the MATTER FRAME COMPOSURE and MODE of it Consider 3. that our Author would be very angry and complain of horrid injustice done him if you should charge him with Quakerism or praying by immediate inspiration For who so great enemies to Quakers as Scottish Presbyterians Consider 4. if his Arguments can consist any better with Extemporary Prayers which are not immediately inspired and by consequence cannot be of Divine Institution as to MATTER FRAME COMPOSURE and MODE than with Set-forms which are not of Divine Institution as to MATTER FRAME COMPOSURE and MODE Consider 5. in consequence of these if we can have any publick Prayers at all And then consider 6. and lastly if our Author when he wrote this Section had his zeal tempered with common sense and if he was not knuckle-deep in right Mysterious Theology But as good follows For 4. Never man spoke more profound Mysteries than he hath done on all occasions in his surprizing accounts of the Church of Scotland He tells us of a Popish Church of Scotland since the Reformation and a Protestant Church of Scotland He tells us 1 Vind. Answ. to Quest. 1. § 10. Presbyterians do not say that the Law made by the Reforming Parliament Anno 1576 took from them the Popish Bishops the Authority they had over the Popish Church but it is Manifest that after this Law they had no Legal Title to Rule the Protestant Church This same for once is pleasant enough The Reforming Parliament while it defined the Church of Scotland and it defined it so as to make it but one as is evident from Act. 6. which I have transcribed word for word in my Book allowed of two Churches of Scotland two National Churches in one Nation But this is not all He hath also subdivided the Protestant Church of Scotland into two Churches of Scotland The Presbyterian Church of Scotland and the Episcopal Church of Scotland He insists very frequently on the Presbyterian Church of Scotland Thus in his Preface to his First Vind. of his Church of Scotland in great seriousness he tells the world that that which is determined concerning all them that will live Godly in Christ Iesus that they must suffer persecution is and has long been the lot of the PRESBYTERIAN Church of Scotland And in his Preface to his 2 Vind. § 7. I have in a former paper pleaded for the PRESBYTERIAN Church of Scotland against ane Adversary c. And in Answer to the Hist. Relat. of the Gen. Ass. § 12. his Adversary had said that General Assembly was as insufficient to represent the Church of Scotland as that of Trent was to represent the Catholick Church And G. R. readily replys but he cannot deny that it represented the PRESBYTERIAN Church and was all that could be had of a PRESBYTERIAN Assembly He is as frank at allowing ane Episcopal Church of Scotland Thus in True Represent of Presb. Governm in Answ. to OB. 10. The Ministers that entered by and under Prelacy neither had nor have any Right to be Rulers in the PRESBYTERIAN Church Whatever they might have in ANOTHER Governing Church i. e. the Episcopal Church that the State set up in the Nation c. And more expressly in Answ. to the Hist. Relat. of the Gen. Ass. 1690. § 3. Again says he tho' we own them the Prelatick Presbyters as Lawful Ministers yet we cannot own them as Ministers of the PRESBYTERIAN Church They may have a Right to Govern the EPISCOPAL Church to which they had betaken themselves and left the PRESBYTERIAN yet that they have a Right to Rule the PRESBYTERIAN Church we deny By this time I think the Reader has got enough of Scottish National Churches and their distinct Governours and Governments The Popish Clergy even since the Reformation was established by Law have Right to Rule the Popish National Church of Scotland The Protestant Episcopal Clergy have Right to Rule the Protestant Episcopal National Church of Scotland The Protestant Presbyterian Ministers have only Right to Rule the Protestant Presbyterian National Church of Scotland By the way May not one wish that he and his party had stood here For if the Episcopal Clergy have Right to Rule the Episcopal Churh and if it was only Right to Rule the Presbyterian Church which they had not why was their own Right to Rule themselves taken from them Are not the Presbyterians unrighteous in taking from them all Right to Rule when they have Right to Rule the Episcopal Church of Scotland But this as I said only by the way That which I am mainly concern'd for at present is that the Reader may consider if there is not a goodly parcel of goodly sense in these profound Meditations Yet better follows After all this laborious clearing of marches between Scottish National Churches particularly the Episcopal and Presbyterian National Churches of Scotland He tells you for all that they are but one Church of Scotland But in such Depth of Mystery as perchance can scarcely be parallell'd Take the worthy speculation in his own words True Rep. ad OB. 10. Let it be further Considered says he that tho' we are not willing so to widen the difference between us and the Prelatick party as to look on them and our selves as two distinct Churches Yet it is evident that their Clergy and we are two different Representatives and two different Governing Bodies of the Church of Scotland And that they who are Members of the one cannot at their pleasure go over to the other unless they be received by them Well! Has he now Retracted his making them two Churches You may judge of that by what follows in the very next words For thus he goes on These things thus laid down let us hear what is objected against this Course the Course the Presbyterians were pursuing with Might and Main when he wrote this Book viz. That the Government of the Church might primâ instantiâ be put in the hands of the known sound Presbyterian Ministers c. First this is to set up Prelacy among Ministers even while it is so much decryed That a few should have Rule of the Church and the rest excluded Answ. It is not Prelacy but a making distinction between Ministers of one Society and those of another Tho' they be Ministers they are not Ministers of the Presbyterian Church They have departed from it we have Continued in the good old way that they and we professed for who can doubt that all the Scottish Prelatists were once Presbyterians It is not then unreasonable that if they will return to that SOCIETY they should be admitted by it c. Now What can be plainer than it is hence that they must be still two Churches He makes them in express terms twice over two distinct SOCIETIES He makes one of these Societies the Presbyterian Church Of necessity therefore the
other must be the Episcopal Church And is not this unavoidably to make two Churches Yet neither is this the true yolk of the Mystery as I take it That lyes here That the Episcopal Clergy and the Presbyterian Clergy are two different Representatives two different Governing Bodies of the one Church of Scotland I remember our Author in his Rational Defence of Non-Conformity c. Exercised Dr. Stillingfleet to purpose for talking of something which he thought lookt like two Convocations in England viz. the Vpper and the Lower Houses He seems above says G. R. to make such Convocations and so there must be either two Churches of England and why not as well as three of Scotland Or the one Church of England must be Biceps and so a Monster Thus our Author there p. 195. I say and it seems he was mindful of it when he wrote his True Representation of Presbyt Governm For he was careful indeed to avoid the making of his one Church of Scotland Biceps and made it something else But what thing Your pardon for that I have neither Latin nor English name for it I thought once indeed on Bicorpor But I found it could not do For he makes not his one Church two Bodies What then I told you already I can find no name for it But if I have any Idea of this his one Church she is such a thing as this A Body Govern'd by two different Governing Bodies without ane Head That she is a Body I think cannot be Controverted for all Churches are commonly own'd to be Bodies That she is Govern'd by two different Governing Bodies is clear from the Text For thus it runs We will not so widen the difference between us and the Prelatical partie as to look on our selves and them as two distinct Churches Yet it is evident that their Clergy and we are two different Representatives and two different Governing Bodies of the Church of Scotland That she is Govern'd by these two different Governing Bodies without ane Head is likewise evident for there is not so much as one syllable about ane Head in the Text And there 's all the Reason in the world for it For besides the difficulty of joyning one Head conveniently with two Bodies to what purpose ane Head for her when she is so well stored of Governing Bodies Are they not received maxims that Non sunt multiplicanda entia sine necessitate and Deus natura nihil faciunt frustra The Definition then is unquestionable Well! Perhaps the Reader may be curious to know how G. R. came by this super-fine Idea of a Church I have had my conjectures about it And the most probable that offered was this No doubt he is wondrously well acquainted with Plato otherwise how could he have made the singular discovery that Socinians and Stoicks were Platonists Now Plato Conviv p. 322. Edit Lugd. 1590. as I remember has a pretty story about a certain Species of Rational Animals which were early in the world and which he calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as if you would say Man-woman or so This Creature had two Faces two Noses four Hands c. in a word it was a round Body which contained both Sexes in it Man and Woman as it were united by their backs It was a vigourous sturdy kind of Animal and Iupiter turn'd afraid of it and therefore to weaken it and make it more toward and subdueable he took ane Ax or some such sharp instrument and clave it from top to bottom in the very middle as if you should cleave ane egg into two equal halves And then being as you know a nimble Mountebank he drew together the skin on each back in a trice and applyed some Soveraign Medecines and both backs were made sound immediately and the divided parts of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being now 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Man and Woman and having the felicity to look one another in the face they fell in Love with one another And this was the Original of Love and Courting and Marriage and all that Now I say The most probable conjecture I can make of the way how G. R. came by his surprizing Idea of the one Church with the two different Governing Bodies is that when he Read this story in Plato it made a deep impression on his imagination and he labouring to out do Plato at nimbleness of design and invention fell upon this stranger and more surprizing Notion of a Church But however this was I think our Author had Reason to say Animad on Iren. p. 51. That a Church is a singular Society and of another nature than other Societies and therefore she ought to have a singular Government For sure I am he has given the one Church of Scotland a Government which is singular enough One thing is certain At this rate she wants not Government nor Governours And of all the Churches in the world she is likest to have the best Canons and the justest Measures prescribed to her For if the one Governing Body prescribes wrong the other must readily prescribe right For never were two Governing Bodies of one Society in greater likelyhood of contradicting one another 'T is true the Governed Body may be sometimes puzled about its obedience and reduced to a state of Hesitation about the opposite prescriptions whither of them it should follow But that 's but a small matter Our Authors invention is not yet so far decayed but that I can promise for him if he pleases he shall as easily extricate it out of that difficulty as he can give ane intelligible account of this his one Church with the two different Governing Bodies Only one thing thing more I add Our Learned Author tells us in his Preface to this his Book in which he has this Mystery that it was a work not undertaken at first of his own private motion and that before it was published it passed ane Examen Rigorosum of not a few Brethren Now if he spake truth here as I am apt to believe he did not the world may judge of the accuracy of some mens Rigorosa Examina And so much for a Taste of our Authors second Cardinal Virtue Proceed we now to III. The third which tho' it looks as like Ill-nature as ever egg was like another in complyance with our Authors generous inclinations I am content should pass under the name of his Excessive Civility I allow it this name I say because our Author himself hath so Dubb'd it For thus he tells us 2 Vind. Pref. § 6. I have treated the Adversaries I deal with as Brethren Desiring rather to EXCEED than come short in CIVILITY and fair dealing with them Never was Author more plentifully furnished with this Ingenuous Quality than G. R. Take a Specimen of it from his Second Vindication c. Edit Eden Anno 1691 And consider with what Excess of Civility he treats his Adversaries
such Members sate there but they had been most unjustly Forfeited in the Late Reign Even Parliamentary Forfeitures you see were most Vnjust Forfeitures and there was no Reason that they should exclude these Gentlemen from their Iust and Antient Rights and Priviledges But when he was pressed by the Author of the Case of the Afflicted Clergy c. with this That many Ministers Benefices were unjustly and illegally kept from them he got his Cloak on the other Shoulder as we say if the Authority of the Nation in the convention or Parliament have Determined otherwise I know not where their Legal Right can be founded p. 96. § 6. It was not so much as Knowable to our Author in that Case that there might be most Vnjust Parliamentary Determinations It were ane endless work to adduce all such little Squabbles as these between himself and himself I shall Insist therefore only on two more which are a little more Considerable And First Our Author was not at more pains about any one thing in his Answ. to D. Still.'s Irenicum than the Inseparableness that is between the Teaching and Ruling power of Presbyters He spent no less than 8 or 9 pages about it Stretching his Invention to find Arguments for it Whoso pleases to turn to page 79 may see the whole Deduction He is as earnest about it in his True Representation c. These are his words prop. 13 There being no Disparity of power amongst Ministers by Christs Grant of power to them No man can make this Disparity by setting one over the rest Neither can they Devolve their power on one of themselves For Christ hath given no such warrant to men to dispose of his Ordinances as they see fit And power being Delegated to them by him They cannot so commit it to Another to Exercise it for them as to deprive themselves of it Also it being not a Licence only But a Trust of which they must give ane account They must perform the work by themselves as they will be Answerable Now it is not possible for one to contradict himself more than he hath done both Indirectly and Directly in this matter He hath Contradicted himself Indirectly and by unavoidable Consequence in so far as he hath owned or owns himself a Presbyterian and for the Lawfulness not to say the Necessity of Scottish Presbyterian General Assemblies of the present Constitution For are all the Ruling Officers of Christs appointment Both Preaching and Governing Elders allowed to be Members of General Assemblies Do they all discharge their Trust and perform their work by themselves there as they will be Answerable to him from whom they got their Trust Doth not every Presbytery consisting of 12 16 or 20 preaching and as many Ruling Elders Send only some Three or Four Preaching Elders and only One Ruling Elder to the General Assembly Do they not Delegate these and Devolve their power upon them and Constitute them their Representatives for the Assembly Let their Commissions be Inspected and let it be Tryed if it is not so Now How is such a Delegation Consistent with our Authors position about the Indevolvibility or Indelegability of such a power It were easy to pursue this farther in its Consequents Now what an ill thing is it for a man thus to sap and subvert all his own Foundations To Contradict the fundamental Maximes of his own Scheme by such unadvised propositions But this is not the worst of it He hath contradicted himself most directly in that same Individual True Representation c. in Answ. to the 10th Objection and in his 2 Vind. p. 154 155. For in both places he endeavors to justify the Taking of all Ruling power out of the hands of the Episcopal Ministers and the putting it only in the hands of the Known sound Presbyterians Reserving to the Episcopal Ministers their Teaching power only 'T is true 'T is evident that he found himself sadly puzled in the Matter and was forced to bring in his Good Friend Necessity and the Old Covenant-Distinction of Status Ecclesiae turbatus and paratus to Lend him a Lift. I have considered his Friend Necessity sufficiently in my Book and thither I refer the Reader for satisfaction about it But what to do with his Praesens Ecclesiae Status I do not so well know Only this I dare say granting it to be so nimble as to break Scot-free through Divine Institutions Yet it can neither by itself nor with Necessity to help it reconcile notorious Contradictions The other Instance I shall adduce is in a very important matter no less than the Presbyterian Separation from the Episcopal Church of Scotland He was put to it to defend it in both his Vindications of his Church of Scotland First Vind. in Answ. to Quest. 4. 2 Vind. in Answer to Letter 2. § 3. All the Reasons he has for that Separation may be reduced to these Three 1. Episcopacy 2. The Episcopal Ministers were Vsurpers or Intruders For 3. They had not the Call of the People and so the People were not bound to own them as their Ministers These are his Grounds I say on which he justifies their Separation from us Now hear him in his Rational Defence c. published as I have told since the beginning of the Late Revolution by Consequence after the Scottish Schism was in its full Maturity Hear him there I say and you never heard Man reject any thing more fairly more fully or more directly than he hath done these his own Grounds Let us try them one by one 1. For Episcopacy turn first to pag. 95. And you shall find these very words Whatever fault we find with the Ministers of the Church and the Hierarchy we do not separate because of these we would joyn with you the English Church for all these Grievances if you would but suffer us to do it without sinning against God in that which is our personal Action Turn next to pag. 150. There he offers at enumerating the Causes that cannot justify a Separation and he talks particularly about Episcopacy thus We are grieved with Prelatical Government and taking away that Parity of Power that Christ hath given to the Ordinary Ministers of his Church This we cannot approve and therefore Ministers ought rather to suffer Deprivation of the publick Exercise of their Ministry than own it And People also ought not to own that their Lordly Authority that they Exercise Yet because this is not Required to be acknowledged as a Lawful Power in the Church by the People I see not that we should withdraw from the Publick Assemblies meerly because there are Diocesan Bishops set over the Church Except our owning them by submitting to their Iurisdiction is Required as one of the Terms of Communion with the Church Who so pleases may find more to the same purpose pag. 157 275 c. Nay So condescending is he in that Book p. 159. that he can allow Bishops their Temporal Honours and Dignities
Four Letters The Case of the Afflicted Clergy and the Late Letter For he hath engraven on it such indelible Characters of Disingenuity Partiality Injustice Unfair Dealing Effrontery Ridiculousness c. as perhaps never Book was injur'd or bespattered with since writing of Books was in fashion The Reader may think this is a very strange Charge But I can make it good to a Demonstration by a very plain and obvious Deduction Thus Some of the Episcopal Clergy thought themselves obliged for their own Vindication to give some short Representations of their Circumstances and the Unkindly Treatment they had met with from the Presbyterian Party An. 1688 1689 c. The whole Nation knows they were so far from feigning instances or aggravating the circumstances of their Sufferings that they told not the twentieth part of what they suffered nor represented what they told in all its proper Blacknesses However so much was told as was enough to represent the Presbyterian Temper in no very Lovely Colours The Party were sensible of this And therefore it was necessary to try if there was a possibiltty of Collecting and Connecting some Rags to cover their Shame and Nakedness The Expedient they agreed to was that the Accounts given by the Episcopal Clergy should be Answered and Refuted But then the Difficulty was to find ane Author who had Talents proper for such a Task It was committed first to Mr. Alexander Pitcairn But after he had thought some time about it it seems It stood with his Stomach He had not so far abandoned all Principles of Truth and Honesty and Ingenuity as was necessary for such ane Undertaking he resign'd the imployment therefore into the hands of another General Meeting of the Party and told them He would have nothing to do with it This no doubt was a Discouragement to all others of any Wit or Probity to undertake it For if it was to be done to any good purpose at all Pitcairn was as fit for doing of it as any of the Sect And if he gave it over after so much Deliberation about it it was to be presumed there was Frost in it it was not safe to meddle with it Thus it fell to the share of G. R. as he tells himself both in his Preface and in the Beginning of his Book Such ane Odd Undertaking did indeed require a suitable Undertaker and now it had one as oddly qualified for it as the world has heard of For if we may believe himself in his Preface to his Anim. on D. Stillingfleet's Irenicum for who but himself would have been at pains to write Prefaces to his Books He died a worthy and much lamented Author Anno 1662. And so far as I can learn he continued thus in the state of the dead till towards the end of the year 1688. i. e. about 26 years Then indeed he return'd to Life Now it is not to be imagin'd his Soul all this while was either in the Regions of Eternal Rewards or Eternal Punishments for then how should it have returned Doubtless therefore it was in some Purgatory But what Purgatory is not easy to determine I am confident it was not the Ordinary Purgatory in which People are purg'd from the Dregs of Corruption they carry out of this world with them for he came alive again more corrupted and vicious than ever Possibly he has been in some New Purgatory which the Pope built lately for keeping a Seminary of such as he lets out upon Occasion for Plagues to the Protestant Churches Whatever Purgatory it was Our Author came out of it purged pretty clean of all principles of Sense or Shame or Honesty And now who fitter than he to be the Vindicator of the Kirk of Scotland Before his Death he wrote only such Books as were little in their own Eyes Pref. to Anim. on Irenicum but he ventured on writing such Books as his Second Vindication after his Resurrection I have given this Account of our Author and the Occasion of his writing the Book for fixing the Readers attention that he may consider it with the greater Application Now in this Book His Second Vindication I mean he rejected by the Bulk all the Matters of Fact which were contain'd in the Four Letters because they were not Attested as if forsooth the Writers of the Letters had had opportunity to have had all the particular Cases Tried in formal Courts before Indifferent Judges and with all the Usual Solemnities of Process As if it had been their Intention by their Letters to have made formal Pursuits for the Injuries had been done the Clergy As if the World could not have easily Discerned That all their purpose in writing these Letters was not to sue Legally for Redress but to represent to their Friends Matter of Fact in the common way of History Well! To mend this however The Case of the afflicted Clergy gave him Attestations enough in all Conscience But did that satisfy him No more than if he had got none at all for they were not worth a Button they were not probative they were but partial he had reason to reject every one of them Thus When the Author of the Case c. cited D. Burnet G. R. reply'd in these words He farther proveth our Persecution by citing some passages out of Doctor Burnet whom being a party we are not to admit as a Witness against us 85 What No not D. Burnet No not the Son of such a Mother No not the Nephew of such ane Vncle No not the Brother of such a Brother No not the Cousin German of such a Cousin German No not the Man who has all alongst advised the Scottish Prelatists particularly Mr. Malcome one of the Ministers of Edenburgh to return to their Native Country and submit to the Ecclesiastical Government Now Established Do you reject even him as a party But to proceed If the person who was barbarously used by the Rabble gave an Account of his own Usage and who could do it better and subscribed his name to it This was such ane Attestation as G. R. thought fit to reject with a Fie upon it It was Teste Meipso p. 88. and so not worth ane half-penny As if it had been possible for a Minister when the Rabble surprized him and came upon him unawares still to have had witnesses at hand for Attesting all their Rudenesses as if it had not been enough for all the design of such Accounts that a Man of known Probity and Reputation subscribed his own Narration of a Matter of Fact which so nearly concerned himself and thereby declared his Readiness to make the Matter appear as far as he was capable If the Rabbled Minister adduced Witnesses as was done in the Case c. in several Instances And they subscribed the Account was he then satisfied Never ane Ace more than before All of his Witnesses are the sworn Enemies of Presbyterians and in a Combination to defame them p. 88. And again p.
was such a Fool as to stumble upon the same Methods himself condemn'd most in his Adversaries when he had any Matter of Fact to Attest He was very careful as he tells frequently to have his particular informations from all Corners concerning all the Instances of Rabbling which were represented in the Prelatick Pamphlets But from whom had he these Informations mostly From the very Rabblers themselves It were both tedious and unprofitable to trace him through all instances One may be sufficient for ane example And I shall choose the very first that is to be found in his Book viz. That of Master Gabriel Russel Minister at Govean The Author of the Second Letter had given a brief and a just Account of the Treatment that poor Gentleman had met with And G. R. convels it thus To this I oppose says he The Truth of the Story as it is attested by the Subscriptions of Nine Persons who were present i. e. Nine of the Rabblers for so Mr. Russel himself assured me repeating over these very names which G. R. has in his Book And is not this a pleasant Attestation Is it not pleasant I say to rely upon the Testimony of such barbarous Villains and take their own word for their own Vindication Yet there 's one thing a great deal more pleasant yet in the Story The Author of the Second Letter had affirmed that Mr. Russel was beaten by the Rabble But they the nine whom he adduces utterly deny That any of them did beat him And 't is true indeed none of these nine did beat him but 't is as true that he was beaten And one Iames Colâ—uhoun was the person who did it and therefore his Name was concealed and not set down with the other nine And now I refer it to the Reader if it is not probable that he has got a parcel of sweet History from G. R. in his Second Vindication But I go on As he thus adduced the Rabble witnessing for themselves so when he was put to it he never stood on adducing the Testimonies of single Presbyterian Ministers witnessing for the Honesty and Integrity of the Rabblers or in opposition to the Prelatical Relations Thus In White 's Case p. 32. he adduces five Men testifying that the Accounts of White 's Sufferings were false c. And for the Honesty of these five he tells us They have all their Testimony from their Minister that they are credible and famous Witnesses And P. 105. He rejects Bullo's account who was Episcopal Minister at Stobo in one word thus In this Narrative are many Lies which is attested by Mr. William Russel Presbyterian Minister at Stobo But the best is After he had run down all the Prelatical Accounts by this Upright Dealing of his and concluded them all most horrid Liers and Calumniators and all their Relations most horrid Lies and Calumnies He tells you gravely in his Preface § 6. That the Truth of Matters of Fact asserted in his Book is not to be taken from him but from his Informers That he pretends to personal Knowledge of few of them That therefore not his Veracity but theirs is pledged for the Truth of the Accounts he has published That if they have deceived him or been deceived themselves he is not to Answer for it Let the World judge if this was not a sure foot for supporting such Superstructures as he rais'd upon it and if his Second Vindication is not a pleasant Book Was it possible for him to have Farced it with more bare-faced Iniquities What picqu'd the Man so at his own Book as to publish it with so many fair Evidences of Disingenuity Partiality Effrontery and Downright Ridiculousness about it What could move him to treat his own Brat with so little compassion Was not this even in a Literal sense Male Natum exponere foetum Or rather what meant he by treating himself so unmercifully For who sees not that all the Infamy terminates on the Author in the Rebound But perchance now that he is a profound Philosophick Head of a Colledge he may fall on a way to distinguish between his own and his Books Credit Perchance he may think his own Credit secure enough whatever hazard his Books may run Well! He may try it if he will but I would advise him not to be rash in falling out so with the Book For as sorry a Book as it is yet I perceive that with the assistance of a Neighbour Book it can serve him a Trick that may be sufficient to put even his impudent self a little out of Countenance I 'll be so kind to him as to let him see where the Danger lies He may remember That the Author of the Second Letter which by the most probable Calculation I can make was written in December 1689 or Ianuary 1690. endeavoured to make it appear as probable That the Leading Men in Government were then very much inclined to Iustify the Expulsion of the Clergy by the Rabble and sustain their Churches vacuated by that Expulsion and thereby cut off these poor Men from all hopes of being restored to their Churches or Livings tho they had neither been Convicted of any Crime nor Deprived by any Sentence Now There 's another Book called Ane Account of the Late Establishment of Presbyterian Government by the Parliament Anno 1690. which gives a full and fair Account how the thing was actually Done how the Expulsion of the Clergy by the Rabble was actually Iustified by that same Act of Parliament which established Presbyterian Government If G. R. has not seen that Book or is resolved to reject its Testimony because probably written by a Party I can refer him to the Universal Conviction of the whole Nation that such a thing was Done by that Act of Parliament Nay I can refer him to the Act of Parliament it self That Book tells also a shrewd story concerning a Presbyterian Minister called Mr. Gilbert Rule who preached a Sermon before the Parliament on the 25 of May being the Sunday before the Act was Voted in the House And before he published it wrote a Preface to it after the Act was Voted in which he thanked the House very heartily for Voting such ane Act And if G. R. distrusts that Book I refer him to Mr. Rule s printed Preface to his Sermon where I am confident he may find satisfaction Nay I dare appeal to G. R. himself if he knew not all these things to be true before he wrote one Syllable of his Second Vindication For these things were transacted every one of them before the middle of Iune 1690 and his Second Vindication came not abroad till more than a year after Well! But what of all this how can this assist G. R.'s Book against himself if it should be irritated to serve him a Trick Why turn over to p. 43 44 c. and consider how it discovers in him such a Brawny Impudence as never Ghost appearing in humane shape was guilty
against Prelacy it was not according to much Knowledge Mr. Petrie mentions only two of our Reformers as Divine Right-of Parity Men The Earl of Murray who was Regent and Mr. Knox Calderwood insists on Knox but doth not mention Murray Petries Evidence about Murray is That he hath read of him that by his Letter he did inform Queen Elizabeth of the Honor and Happiness that would attend her Crown and State upon the Establishment of Christs Government And of the profitable Vses whereunto the Rich Benefices of Bishops might be applied But I. He tells not in what Author he read this And none who knows Mr. Petries Byass will think it unreasonable to require some other thing to rely on than his own Bare Authority 2. If we should rest on his Authority and allow that Murray wrote so because Mr. Petrie said it yet how will it follow that his Lordship was for the Divine Right of Parity Might not he have been against the Temporal Dignities and the rich Benefices of the English Bishops without being against Prelacy How many have been so Indeed 3. There is all the Reason in the world to believe That if Murray did write so to the English Queen this was all he aim'd at For had he been for the Divine Right of Parity would he ever have so much countenanced Imparity in the Church of Scotland Was not he one of the Subscribers of the First Book of Discipline wherein Imparity was so formally established Was not he Regent in December 1567 And did not he then give the Royal Assent to some Acts of Parliament made clearly in favour of Imparity Or did he extend the Royal Assent to these Acts in Despight of his Conscience 'T is true indeed Time has been when some Men have had such Ductile Consciences that picq't the one year for not having so much favour at Court as they thought they deserved they could boldly stand up in Parliaments against iniquous Laws and tell their fellow Members That such Laws reflected on the Iustice of the Nation and what not And yet the next year when the Court smiled on them and gave them Preferments and Pensions to satisfy their Ambition or their Avarice they could retract all their former Niceness so much that if they had got the management of the Royal Assent they would have made no scruple to have Applied it for the Ratification Approbation and perpetual Confirmation of the same Laws in their whole Heads Articles and Clauses which seemed to themselves so scandalous and wicked But the Earl of Murray while Regent had no such temptations I believe he had no such yielding Conscience if he had I don't think his Authority was much to be valued Once more I think 't is very strange that he should have been for the Divine Right of Parity and yet should never have spoken so much out considering his occasions except in his private Letters to Queen Eliz. The only person now to be considered is Iohn Knox. He was certainly a prime instrument in the Advancement of our Reformation His Authority was great and his Sentiments were very influential And it is not to be denied but it is of some weight in the present question to know what was his judgment I shall therefore endeavour to account for his principles a little more fully and â— shall do it by these steps 1. I shall shew the insufficiency of the arguments that are adduced by our Brethren to prove him Presbyterian 2. I shall adduce the Arguments which incline me to think he was not The great Argument insisted on by the Author of the Course of Conformity and Mr. Petrie is taken from a Letter of Knox's directed to the General Assembly holden at Stirling in August 1571. The words are these Vnfaithful and Traitors to the Flocks shall ye be before the Lord Jesus if that with your consent directly or indirectly ye suffer unworthy men to be thrust in within the Ministry of the Kirk under what pretence that ever it be Remember the Iudge before whom ye must make an Account and resist that TYRANNY as ye would avoid Hell fire So the Author of the Course of Conformity without the least attempt to let the world see where the Argument lay Mr. Petrie is indeed a little more discreet He tells us where it lies Iohn Knox in his Letter to the Assembly by the word Tyranny meaneth Episcopacy So he but without any fuller deduction And is not this a Demonstration that Knox was Presbyterian And yet after all this it is not possible to make more of the Letter when it is narrowly consider'd than That Knox deem'd it a pernicious and Tyrannical thing for any person or persons whatsoever to thrust unworthy men into the Ministery of the Church and Ministers who would make Conscience of their Calling and Trust must resist such encroachments with all possible concern and courage No man I say can make more of the Letter And who doubts but Mr. Knox was so far in the right But then let any man who looks not through Mr. Petries Spectacles tell me what this has to do with Parity or Imparity The next argument is insisted on both by Petrie and Calderwood It is that Knox was at St. Andrews in Feb. 1571 2 when Douglas was advanced to that See That he refused to inaugurate him Nay that in the Audience of many then present he denounced Anathema to the Giver and Anathema to the Receiver And if you ask Calderwoods Evidence for this he tells you He found it in a certain Manuscript than which what can be more Apodectick To be short tho we had reason to give credit to Calderwood and his uncertain Certain Manuscript and to believe that the Matter of Fact is true and that Knox said and did so yet by what consequences will it follow that he was for the Divine Right of Parity To deal frankly 't is like enough that Knox said so and 't is very probable he had reason to say so in that instance For at that time dreadful Invasions were made upon the Patrimony of the Church None more deep in that Iniquity than the Earl of Morton then Chancellor by whose influence Douglas was preferred to that Archbishoprick And so 't is like enough that Knox who all his life was singularly Zealous for the Rights of the Church upon suspicion if not certain knowledge of some dirty Bargain between Morton and Douglas expressed suitable Resentments But that it was not from any perswasion he had of the Unlawfulness of Prelacy is clear even from what Calderwood and Petrie themselves have recorded within a pag. or two For both tell us that when the next Assembly continued Douglas in the Rectorate of the University of St. Andrews a Station he had been in before he was raised to the Archbishoprick Iohn Knox Regrated that so many Offices were laid on one Old Man which scarcely 20 of the best gifts were able to bear For as
a New Meeting of the States is called and Cassils is return'd to England with Commission to tell Henry That the Scottish Lords are content to Relinquish the French on Condition the Match with the Princess Mary were secured 'T is true nothing followed upon this Treaty but a Truce for three years for what reason I know not But from the Deduction I have briefly made it may sufficiently appear how weak the French and how strong the English interest was then in Scotland so very strong as clearly to overcome and almost quite extirpate the other Well! did Francis nothing to recover the Scottish amity Alas at that time he had greater matters to imploy his thoughts He lost his Liberty at the Battel of Pavia Anno 1525 and became the King of Spain's Prisoner and was not Restored to his Freedom till Henry interposed with a powerful Mediation For which He entered into another League with Henry 1527 without minding the Scots or being concern'd for their security This was a third slight put upon the Scots by the French in their Treaties with England 'T is true indeed Francis did not enter into this League with Henry over-awed by his Threats but constrain'd by his Kindness and Good Offices in his Liberation from his Spanish Captivity But it was all one to the Seâ—ts for what reason it was if they were Deserted 'T is true indeed When Iames came to full age he had strong inclinations for renewing the Old Amity with France and no wonder considering how much he was manag'd by the Clergy who abhorred Henry for shaking off the Popes Authority and thought themselves concern'd with all their Might to guard against Henry's contagious influences as they deem'd them But however the King and Clergy were inclined 't is evident the Body of the Nation continued constant in their so frequently provoked Coldness to the French interests and in their good Affection towards England so much that they would never thereafter at least all the time our Reformation was a carrying on follow either King or Regent to invade England Thus When Iames the Fifth Anno 1542. was very earnest for it the Nobility generally declined it and he was forced to dismiss them And when shortly after that his Earnestness that way it seems increasing he ordered ane Army to meet at Carlaverock intending therewith to enter England so soon as Oliver Sinclare was declared Chief Commander and the Kings intentions were made known all threw away their Arms and suffered themselves to be taken prisoners And When the Earl of Arran Regent Anno ..... went with a goodly Army to besiege the Church of Coldingham which the English for the time had fortified he was forced to run for it abruptly fearing as Buchanan says his friends pretended lest his Army should betray him into the hands of the English And Anno 1557 when the Queen Regent Mary of Lorrain was most earnest to have had England invaded thereby to have made a Diversion and eased France of the English Force which was assisting Philip the Second of Spain against Henry the Second of France the Nobility could by no means be gain'd to do it as all our Historians tell us I could have insisted on this Deduction far more largely but I think what I have said may be sufficient for my purpose which was to shew how much Scotland was disengaged of Foreign Influences and by consequence how much it was disposed to receive English impressions from the very Dawning of our Reformation till its Legal Establishment 1560. Let us next try if according to these Dispositions the English influences were Communicated and made suitable impressions And I think in the 1st place No man can reasonably doubt but that 't is fairly credible they did For no man can deny that the Reformation made a considerable figure in England more early than it did in Scotland When Light was thus arising in the Isle it was natural for it to overspread both Nations And it was as Natural that the more and sooner Enlightned Nation should be the fountain of Communication that is in plain terms that Scotland should derive it under God from England Especially considering how at that time they were mutually disposed towards one another Indeed 2. 'T is certain Books deserve to be reckoned amongst the prime Vehicles of such Light as we are now considering and 't is as certain That the first Books which enlightned Scotland were brought from England Tindal translated the New Testament into English Anno 1531. And Copies of it were dispersed here in considerable plenty and other useful Books were then written also in the Vulgar Language which was common to both Nations which coming from England had great success in Scotland as is evident even from Knox's History But this is not all The truth of all this will appear more fully if 3. We consider That King Henry had no sooner begun his Reformation such as it was in England than he Endeavoured to transmit it into Scotland He shook off the Popes Supremacy Anno 1534. And he sent the Bishop of St. Davids to his Nephew Iames of Scotland Anno 1535. with Books written in English containing the substance of Christian Religion Earnestly desiring him to read them and joyn with him in carrying on the Reformation And Herbert says Henry was vastly sollicitous To draw James on his side as knowing of what Consequence it was to keep his Kingdom safe on that part And therefore Laboured still to induce him to abrogate the Papal Iurisdiction in his Dominions And tho this Embassy of St. Davids had not success yet Henry gave not over but continued to write Letters to Iames insisting still upon the same Requests Petrie has transcribed one from Fox wherein Henry Premonishes requires and most heartily prays Iames to consider the Supremacy granted by the Holy Scriptures to Princes in Church matters To weigh what Gods word calleth a Church To consider what Superstitions Idolatries and blind abuses have crept into all Realms to the high Displeasure of God and what is to be understood by the Censures of the Church and Excommunication for the Pope had then Excommunicated Henry and how no such Censure can be in the power of the Bishop of Rome or of any other man against him or any other Prince having so iust ground to avoid from the Root and to abolish such ane execrable Authority as the Bishop of Rome hath usurped and usurps upon all Princes to their Great Damage Requesting him for these Reasons to ponder of what hazard it might be to Iames himself if he agreed to such Censures and by such example gave upper-hand over himself and other Princes to that Vsurper of Rome to scourge all who will not Kiss and Adore the foot of that Corrupt Holiness which desires nothing but Pride and the universal Thrall of Christendom c. Here was Earnestness for Reformation in Scotland with a witness And
of the Common Prayers of the Church of England or the Genevian Liturgy For we no where read of a Third ever pretended to have been used in those times in Scotland Now that it was not the Liturgy of Geneva is plain for besides that it is utterly incredible that there could have been so many Copies of the Genevian Form in the vulgar Language then in Scotland as might serve so many Parish Churches Nay that 't is highly probable there was not so much as one Besides this I say in the Genevian Form which was afterwards used in Scotland there is no Order for no footstep of the observation of other Holy-days besides Sunday Neither is there any Order in it for Reading of Lessons of the Old and New Testament except in the Treatise of Fasting which was not compiled till the year 1565. There indeed Lessons are appointed such and such Psalms and such and such Histories in the Old but not so much as one Tittle of the New Testament In all the rest of the Book a deep Silence about Lessons than which there cannot be a clearer Demonstration that the Book appointed to be used in December 1557 was not that of Geneva Indeed 2. None of our Presbyterian Historians neither Petrie nor Calderwood have the confidence to pretend nay to insinuate the possibility of its being the Common Order of Geneva which 't is very probable they would have done if they had had the smallest hopes of making it feasible On the contrary Calderwood seems fairly to acknowledge that it was the English Liturgy but then this acknowledgement lies at such a distance from the year 1557. that no doubt he thought himself pretty secure that few Readers would reflect upon it as ane acknowledgment he doth not make it till he comes to the year 1623 when he had occasion to tell how the use of the English Liturgy was brought into the New Colledge of St. Andrews Take it in his own words Upon the 15 th of January Master Robert Howie Principal of the New College of St. Andrews Doctor Wedderburn and Doctor Melvin were directed by a Letter from Doctor Young in the Kings Name to use the English Liturgy Morning and Evening in the New College where all the Students were present at Morning and Evening Prayers Which was presently put in execution notwithstanding they wanted the warrant of any General Assembly or of any CONTINVED PRACTICE OF THE FORM in time by-past since the Reformation Where you see he lays the stress of his Argument against it on its nor having had a continued Practice since the Reformation which is a clear concession that at the Reformation it was in practice tho that practice was not continued But whither he acknowledged this or not is no great matter we have sufficient Evidence for the point in hand without it For 3. Buchanan's Testimony which was adduced before about the Scots subscriving to the Worship and Rites of the Church of England is unexceptionable And yet it is not all For 4. The Order as you see it appointed by the Lords of the Congregation Decem. 3d 1557. is That the Book there authorised be used in all Churches from that very date but we find by the First Book of Discipline That the Order of Geneva was only coming in to be used then in some of the Churches i. e. 1560. And it had nothing like a public Establishment till the General Assembly holden at Edenburgh Dec. 25 1652. For then and not till then It was concluded that ane Vniform Order should be kept in the Ministration of the Sacraments Solemnization of Marriages and Burial of the Dead according to the Kirk of Geneva So it is in the Mss. and so Petrie hath it But Nature works again with Calderwood For he has no more but this It was ordained that ane Vniform Order be kept in the Ministration of the Sacraments according to the Book of Geneva Omitting Marriage and the Burial of the Dead Marriage I believe to bear the other Company for the Burial of the Dead was the Dead Flee Why The Book of Geneva allowed of Funeral Sermons as he himself acknowledgeth A mighty Superstition in the opinion of Prerbyterians so that it would have been offensive to the sincerer sort as he commonly calls those of his own Gang and inconsistent with the Exigences of the Good Cause to have let the world know that A General Assembly had ratified the Order of that Book about Burials and thereby had justified the Superstition of Funeral Sermons Nay 5. It seems this Act of the General Assembly Decem. 1562. has not been strong enough for turning out the English Liturgy and introducing the form of Geneva For if we may believe Calderwood himself The General Assembly holden at Edenburgh Decem. 25. 1564. found themselves concerned to make another Act ordaining Every Minister Exhorter and Reader to have one of the Psalm books lately printed at Edenburgh and use the Order contained therein in Prayers Marriage and Administration of the Sacraments Where observe further that Prayers not mentioned in the Act 1562. are now put in from which it may be probably conjectured that as much as Knox was against the English Liturgy he found many difficulties to get it laid aside so many that it has not only been used by some few or many I cannot tell in the Ministration of the Sacraments c. after the Act 1562. But the Clergy have not found themselves obliged to forbear the use of it in the publick prayers so that it was needful in this Assembly 1564 to make a New Act restricting them both as to Prayers and other Ministrations to the Order of Geneva And if this holds we have the English Liturgy at least seven Years in continued practice in Scotland But it is enough for my main purpose that it was once universally in use which I think cannot be denied by any who impartially considers what hath been said And now 6. May not I adduce one Testimony more 'T is true it is of a latter date But it is very plain and positive and what I have adduced already is security enough for its Credibility It is the Testimony of the Compilers of our Scottish Liturgy which made the great Stir in the year 1637. And was made one of the main pretences for the first Eruptions of that execrable Rebellion which ensued The Compilers of that Liturgy I say in their Preface to it tell us That it was then known that diverse years after the Reformation we had no other Order for Common Prayer but the English Liturgy A Third Principle wherein our Reformers agreed with the Church of England and which stands in direct contradiction to the Principles of our Presbyterians is that they own'd the Church had a great Dependance on the State That it belong'd to the Civil Magistrate to reform the Church That People might appeal from the Church to the Civil Magistrate c. I
5. Neither will it be found of any force to say that Buchanan has not the Article nor Spotswood whose interest it was to have had it if such a thing had been considering his Principles and what was one of his principal designs in writing his History This is of no force I say for 1st as for Buchanan it is evident from the whole tract of his History That he aim'd principally at Matters of State bringing in Church Matters only by the by as we say so that it is no wonder if he did not record them accurately and with all the preciseness of Nicety And yet even as he summs up the Petition he has something in it which plainly imports the Petitioners had no thought to interrupt the Continuation of Imparity for thus he puts the last Article If by the Negligence of former times ignorant or wicked men had been advanced to Ecclesiastical Dignities they might be removed and others substituted in their Offices In which words 't is plain that as there had been HONORES Ecclesiastical Dignities and MINISTERIA different Offices amongst the Clergy before so now there was nothing like petitioning for abrogating any of them But that these Dignities might be better bestowed and these Offices better provided The Dignities and Offices were to continue no Change to be made but of the Dignitaries and Officers 2. As for Spotswood as I grant it had been very proper for his purpose to have taken notice of the Article as it is in Lesly so that he took no notice of it is no argument that Lesly was in the wrong for besides that there is no colour of reason for discrediting one Historians accounts because another is silent about them the truth is whosoever reads Spotswoods History and compares it with the rest of our Histories will find a very great many such Defects And we shall have a very clear as well as a very considerable instance by and by when we come to the next Petition In the mean time let me add another irrefragable Evidence so I think of Leslies integrity as to this Article It is 6. That when our Reformers had carried the day and so came to establish the Government of the Church they exactly reduced to practice that which they had petitioned for in the Article in the Election of Superintendents as is clear both from the First Book of Discipline and the Form of Electing Superintendents as it is to be seen both in the Old Scottish Liturgy and in Knox his History In the Fifth Head of the First Book of Discipline it was appointed That the Council should nominate the Superintendents or give Commission to men of best Knowledge and who had the fear of God to do it the Gentlemen and Burgesses of Towns within the Diocesses being always made privy to the Election And In the Order for Electing Superintendents as 't is both in the Old Liturgy and Knox's History we are told that the Council having given charge and power to the Churches of Lothian to choose Master John Spotswood Superintendent sufficient warning was made by publick Edict to the Churches of Edenburgh Linlithgow Sterling Trenent Hadingtown and Dumbar as also to Earls Lords Barons Gentlemen or others that had or might claim to have Voice in Election to be present c. This was done in the beginning of the year 1561. Now Lay these two things together and what is the Result what else than giving power to the Nobility and Gentry of the Diocess to elect their Bishop according to the Article as Lesly hath it in his Breviate of the Petition Thus we have found Lesly honest and his account just and genuine and thereby as I take it this proposition fairly demonstrated that our Reformers were so far from being Presbyterian so far from being for the divine institution and indispensable right of Parity that on the contrary they were clear for Imparity for Episcopacy But this is not all The Second Petition which I mentioned and which is set down in full form in Knox's History tho it doth not name Bishops is every whit as plain and decretory that the sentiments of our Reformers were no ways inimicous to Prelacy if I may make use of a word made fashionable by a Nobleman of the fashion But on the contrary that they were plainly for it This I take to be so fully and fairly exprest in the fifth and last Article of that Petition that I will here transcribe it word for word Lastly we require most humbly that the wicked slanderous and detestable Life of Prelates and of the State Ecclesiastical may be reformed that the people by them have not occasion as of many days they have had to contemn their Ministery and the preaching whereof they should be Messengers And if thâ—â— suspect that we rather envy their Honours or covet their Riches and Possessions than zealously desire their Amendment and Salvation we are content that not only the Rules and Precepts of the New Testament but also THE WRITINGS of the ANCIENT FATHERS and the GODLY and APPROVED LAWS of JUSTINIAN the EMPEROR decide the Controversie betwixt us and them And if it shall be found that either malevolently or ignorantly we ask more than these fore-named have required and continually do require of able and true Ministers in Christs Church we refuse not Correction as your Majesty with right Iudgment shall think meet But if all the fore-named shall condemn THAT which we condemn and approved THAT which we require then we most earnestly beseech your Majesty that notwithstanding the long Custom which they have had to live at their lust they be compelled either to desist from Ecclesiastical Administration or to discharge their Duties as becometh True Ministers So that the GRAVE and GODLY FACE of the PRIMITIVE CHVRCH being REDVCED Ignorance may be expelled true Doctrine and good Manners may once again appear in the Church of this Realm Here our Reformers lay down a complexe Rule according to which they crave the Church and the Ecclesiastical State may be Reformed This complexe Rule is made up of the Rules and Precepts of the New Testament the Writings of the Antient Fathers and the Godly and Approved Laws of the Emperor JUSTINIAN This is that solid orthodox proper and adequate Rule of Reformation which I mentioned before as Vincentius Lirinensis his Rule and the Rule wherein our Reformers agreed with the English Reformers By this Rule our Reformers are content that all the Controversies betwixt them and the Papists be deâ—ided they refuse not Correction if they ask more than this Rule requires they condemn no more than this Rule condemns This Rule approves all they are asking In short they require no more than that according to this Rule the grave and godly Face of the Primitive Church may be restored as it was in JUSTINIAN's time Let the Ecclesiastical State be reduced to that Frame and Constitution and the Clergy live and rule and discharge their
Trusts and Offices as the Clergy did then and they are satisfied And now if these Reformers who thus petitioned and in their Petition thus reasoned and agreed to such a Rule of Reformation were for the divine institution of Parity and the sacred Rights of Presbytery nay if they were not not only for the Lawfulness but the Continuance of Prelacy I must confess my ignorance to be very gross and so I refuse not Correction For this Evidence as I said we are beholden to Knox and to Knox only 'T is true indeed Calderwood gives us the Abstract of this Petition but he conceals and suppresses the whole pith and marrow of this Article summing it up in these few ill-complexion'd words That the slanderous and detestable life of the Prelates and the State Ecclesiastical may be reformed which at first view one would imagin lookt kindly towards Presbytery but I am not surprized to find him thus at his Tricks 't is but according to his Custom To have set down the full Article or to have abridged it so as that its force and purpose might have been seen had been to disserve his Cause and do ane ill Office to his Idol Parity And Petrie as I have said was so wise as not to touch it at all lest it had burnt his Fingers but that Archbishop Spotswood should have overlookt it both in his History and in his Refutatio Libelli c. seems very strange For my part I should rather think we have not his History intire and as he design'd it for the Press for which I have heard other very pregnant presumptions than that so great a man was guilty of so great ane Oscitancy But whatever be of this Knox has it and that is enough and Calderwood has abridged it and that 's more than enough for my Presbyterian Brethren The Third Petition which I promised to adduce is that which was presented to the Parliament which established the Reformation Anno 1560. for which we are obliged to Knox alone also at least so far as the present Argument is concerned For tho both Spotswood and Petrie make mention of the Petition or Supplication yet neither of them has recorded that which I take notice of and Calderwood is so accurate ane Historian as to take no notice of the Petition That which I take notice of in it as it is in Knox is That when our Reformers came to crave the Reformation of the Ecclesiastical State they bespoke the Parliament thus And lest that your Honours should doubt in any of the premisses they had affirmed before That the Doctrine of the Roman Church contained many pestiferous errors that the Sacraments of Jesus Christ were most shamefully abused and profaned by the Roman Harlot that the true Discipline of the antient Church amongst that Sect was utterly extinguisht and that the Clergy of all men within the Realm were most corrupt in life and manners c. we offer our selves evidently to prove that in all the Rabble of the Clergy there is not one Lawful Minister IF GODS WORD THE PRACTICES OF THE APOSTLES THE SINCERITY OF THE PRIMITIVE CHVRCH AND THEIR OWN ANCIENT LAWS SHALL IVDGE OF THE ELECTION Here I say our Reformers insist on that same very Rule for finding if there be Corruptions in and by consequence for reforming of the Church on which they insisted in the aforementioned Petition from which 't is evident they persisted of the same sentiments and 't is easy to draw the same inferences Such were the sentiments of our Scottish Reformers before the Reformed Religion had the countenance of the Civil Government and Acts of Parliament on its side and was made the National Religion Let us try next what kind of Government they did establish when they had got Law for them Whither they established a Government that was to be managed by Ministers acting in Parity or in Imparity And here I think the Controversy might very soon be brought to a very fair issue The First Book of Discipline the Acts of many General Assemblies the Acts of many Parliaments Both without interruption the unanimous Consent of Historians and the uncontroverted Practice of the Church for many years all concurring to this Assertion That the first Establishment was of a Government which was to be managed by Superintendents and Parochial Ministers Elders and Deacons acting in Subordination not in a State of Parity with but in a State of inferiority in Power and Iurisdiction to these Superintendents This Establishment I say is so clear and undoubted from all these fountains That no more needed be said upon the whole Argument But because our Presbyterian Historians and Antiquaries tho they cannot deny the thing do yet endeavor with all their Might and Cunning to intricate it and obscure it I shall further undertake two things I. I shall give the world a fair prospect of the power of Superintendents as they were then established and of the Disparities betwixt them and Parish Ministers II. I shall endeavour to dissipate these Mists whereby our Presbyterian Brethren are so very earnest to involve and darken this Matter As for the I. The world may competently see that Superintendents as established in Scotland at the Reformation had a considerable stock of Prerogatives or Preheminencies call them as ye will which raised them far above other Churchmen far above the allowances of that Parity our Presbyterian Brethren contend for so eagerly from the following Enumeration 1. They had Districts or Diocesses of far larger extent than other Churchmen Private Ministers had only their private Parishes and might have been as many as there were Churches in the Kingdom But according to the Scheme laid down by our Reformers in the First Book of Discipline Head 5. only ten or twelve Superintendents were design'd to have the Chief Care as it is worded in the Prayer at the Admission of a Superintendent of all the Churches within the Kingdom Indeed ten are only there design'd but it was because of the scarcity of qualified men as we shall learn hereafter 2. As they had larger Districts than Parish Ministers so there were correspondent Specialities in their Election Parish Ministers were to enter to such Churches as had Benefices by presentation from the Patron and Collation from the Superintendent as is evident from Act 7. Parl. 1. Iam. 6. and many Acts of Assemblies as shall be fully proven afterward If they were to serve where the Benefice was actually possessed by a Papist they were to be chosen by the People of the Congregation by the appointment of the First Book of Discipline Head 4. But the Election of Superintendents was quite different they were to be nominated by the Council and elected by the Nobility and Gentry c. within their Dioceses as hath been already considered 3. There was as great a difference in the matter of Deposition if they deserved it Parish Ministers by the First Book of Discipline Head 8.
were deposable by the Superintendent of the Diocess and the Elders of the Parishes where they were Ministers but of this more hereafter But by that same First Book of Discipline the Superintendent was to be judged by the Ministers and Elders of his whole Province over which he was appointed and if the Ministers and Elders of the Province were negligent in correcting him one or two other Superintendents with their Ministers and Elders were to conveen him providing it were within his own Province or Chief Town and inflict the Censure which his Offence deserved Of the Reasonableness of this afterward 4. There was as remarkable a difference in point of Ordination which in the then Scottish stile was called Admission Private Ministers were to be admitted by their Superintendents as we shall find afterwards But by the First Book of Discipline Head 5. Superintendents were to be admitted by the Superintendents next adjacent with the Ministers of the Province 5. In the case of Translation the General Assembly holden at Edenburgh Decem. 25. 1562. Gives power to every Superintendent within his own bounds in his Synodal Assembly with consent of the most part of the Elders and Ministers of Kirks to translate Ministers from one Kirk to another as they shall consider the Necessity Charging the Minister so translated to obey the Voice and Commandment of the Superintendent But according to the First Book of Discipline Head 5. No Superintendent might be translated at the pleasure or request of any one Province without the Council of the whole Church and that for grave Causes and Considerations 6. A special care was to be taken of his Qualifications and Abilities for such ane important office for thus it is appointed by the First Book of Discipline Head 5. That after the Church shall be established and three years are past no man shall be called to the Office of a Superintendent who hath not two years at least given a proof of his faithful Labours in the Ministry A Caution simply unapplyable to Parish Ministers 7. He had a living provided for him by the First Book of Discipline Head 5. about five times as much yearly as was alotted for any private Minister And it is to be observed that this was in a time when the Popish Bishops still brooked their Benefices But when the Resolution was Anno 1567 to deprive all the Popish Clergy it was agreed to in the General Assembly by the Churchmen on the one hand and the Lords and Barons on the other That Superintendents should succeed in their places as both the Mss. and Spotswood have it expresly 8. Superintendents by vertue of their Office were constant Members of the General Assemblies Therefore the General Assembly holden at Perth Iune 25. 1563. statuted That every Superintendent be present the first day of the Assembly under the pain of 40 sh. to be given to the poor without Remission So it is in the Mss. but Petrie has it barely That they shall conveen on the first day of every Assembly And it seems because that punishment had not sufficient influence on them it was again ordained by the G. Ass. at Edenburgh March 6. 1573. That they shall be present in the Assembly the first day before noon under the pain of losing one half of their stipend for a year c. So both the Mss. and Petrie But as we shall find afterwards such presence of Parish Ministers was not allowed far less necessary 9. It belonged to them to try those who stood Candidates for the Ministery thus 1. B. of Disc. Head 4. Such as take upon them the Office of Preachers who shall not be found qualified therefore by the Superintendent are by him to be placâ—d Readers And again Head 5. No Child nor person within the age of 21 years may be admitted to the Office of a Reader but such must be chosen and admitted by the Superintendent as for their Gravity and Discretion may grace the Function that they are called unto And the Ass. at Edenburgh Dec. 15. 1562. Ordains That Inhibition be made against all such Ministers as have not been presented by the people or a part thereof to thâ— Superintendent and he after Examination and Tryal has not appointed them to their Charges So the Mss. and so Petrie and Spotswood cites another Act of the General Assembly at Edenburgh 1564. to the same purpose 10. As appears by that Act of the Assembly Decem. 25. 1562. just now cited and the 7 Act Parl. 1 Iac. 6. cited before also Superintendents had the power of granting Collations upon presentations And the Assembly at Perth holden in Iune 1563. appoints That when any Benefice chances to vaik or is now vacant that a qualified person be presented to the Superintendent of that Province where the Benefice lyeth and that he being found sufficient be admitted c. So I find it cited by the Author of Episcopacy not abjured in Scotland 11. A Superintendent had power to plant Ministers in Churches where the people were negligent to present timeously and indeed that power devolved much sooner into his hands by the First Book of Discipline Head 4. than it did afterwards into the hands of either Bishop or Presbytery for there it is ordered That if the people be found negligent in electing a Minister the space of forty days the Superintendent with his Counsel may present unto them a man whom they judge apt to feed the flock c. And as he had thus the power of trying and collating Ministers and planting Churches in the case of a Ius Devolutum So 12. He had the power of Ordination which as I said was then called Admission as is evident from the First Book of Discipline cap. 5. and several Acts of Assemblies already cited 13. All Presbyters or Parish Ministers once admitted to Churches were bound to pay Canonical Obedience to their Superintendents Thus in the Assembly at Edenburgh Iune 30. 1562. It was concluded by the whole Ministers assembled that all Ministers should be subject to the Superintendents in all lawful admonitions as is prescribed as well in the Book of Discipline as in the Election of Superintendents So the Mss. And by that aforecited Act of the Assembly at Edenburgh Decem. 25. 1562. Ministers translated from one Church to another are commanded to obey the Voice and Commandment of the Superintendent Indeed it was part of ane Article presented by the Church to the Council May 27. 1561. That ane Act should be made appointing a civil Punishment for such as disobeyed or contemned the Superintendents in their Function 14. He had power to visit all the Churches within his Diocess and in that Visitation they are the words of the First Book of Discipline Head 5. To try the Life Diligence and Behaviour of the Ministers the Order of their Churches the Manners of their People how the Poor are provided and how
the Case of the Countess of Argyle Anno 1567. She had been guilty of a mighty scandal in being present at the Christening of the Prince afterwards Iames the Sixth which was performed after the Popish manner she behoved therefore to give satisfaction to the Church And was ordered to do it by the General Assembly in such manner and at such time as the Superintendent of Lothian within whose bounds the Scandal was committed should appoint So both Spot and Pet. 26. Another branch was to restore Criminals to the Exercises of their Offices if they had any dependance on the Church after they had performed their Pennance and received Absolution Thus Thomas Duncanson Reader at Sterling had fallen in the Sin of Fornication for this he was silenced He had performed his Pennance and was absolved Then the Question was put to the General Ass. met at Eden Decem. 25. 1563. Whither having made publick Repentance he might be restored to his Office And the Assembly determined He might not till the Church of Stirling should make Request to the Superintendent for him 27. To the Superintendents was reserved the power of Excommunication in Cases of Contumacy c. Thus it is statuted by the Gen. Ass. at Eden Iuly 1. 1562. That in Cases of Contumacy the Minister give notice to the Superintendent with whose advice Excommunication is to be pronounced So the Mss. and both the Mss. and Petrie have another long Act of the Assembly holden at Eden Sept. 25. 1565. to the same purpose 28. It belonged also to them to delate Atrocious Criminals to the Civil Magistrate that condign corporal punishments might be inflicted on them To this purpose I find it enacted by a Convention of the Kirk as it is called in the Mss. met at Eden Decem. 15. 1567. to wait on the motions of the Parliament That Ministers Elders and Deacons make search within their bounds if the crimes of Incest or Adultery were committed and to signify the same to the Superintendent that he may notifye it to the Civil Magistrate Such was the power of Superintendents in the Government of the Church and her Discipline But because several things may have relation to the Church tho not formally and directly yet reductively and by way of Analogical Subordination their power extended even to these things also I shall only instance in two 29. Then because Vniversities Colleges and Schools are the Seminaries of Learning and by consequence Nurseries for the Ministry the power of Superintendents over them was very considerable Thus by the First Book of Discipline Head 5. if e. g. The Principal or Head of any College within the University of St. Andrews died the Members of the College being sworn to follow their Consciences were to nominate three of the most sufficient men within the University This done the Superintendent of Pife by himself or his special Procurators with the Rector and the rest of the Principals were to choose one of these three and constitute him Principal And when the Rector was chosen he was to be confirmed by the Superintendent by that same Book And again by that same Book The Money collected in every College for upholding the Fabrick was to be counted and employed at the sight of the Superintendent Further the Gen. Ass. conveened at Eden Ian. 25. 1565. presented this Article in a Petition to the Queen That none might be permitted to have charge of Schools Colleges or Vniversities c. but such as should be tryed by the Superintendents So 't is in the Mss. 'T is true it was not granted at that time but it shews the inclinations of our Reformers as much as if it had been granted And because it was not granted then it was proposed again in the Ass. in Iuly 1567. and consented to by the Nobility and Gentry and ratified by the Eleventh Act of the First Parliament of King Iames the Sixth in December that same year And accordingly we find the Laird of Dun. Superintendent of Angus and Mearns in Iuly 1568. holding at Visitation of the University of Aberdeen and by formal sentence turning out all the Popish Members The very air and stile of the Sentence as Petrie hath it is a notable Evidence of the paramount power of Superintendents for thus it runs I John Areskin Superintendent of Angus and Mearns having Commission of the Church to visit the Sheriffdoms of Aberdeen and Bamf by the Advice Counsel and Consent of the Ministers Elders and Commissioners of the Church present decern conclude and for final Sentence pronounce That Master Alexander Anderson c. 30. Because bad Principles may be disseminated by bad Books and thereby both the Purity and Peace of the Church may be endangered the Revising and Licensing of Books was committed to the Care of the Superintendents by the General Ass. holden in Iune 1563. whereby it is ordained That No work be set forth in Print neither yet published in Writ touching Religion or Doctrine until such time as it shall be presented to the Superintendent of the Diocess and advised and approven by him or by such as he shall call of the most learned within his bounds c. Thus I have collected no fewer than Thirty Disparities betwixt Superintendents as they were established in Scotland by our Reformers and private Parish Ministers each of them a Demonstration of inequality either of power or figure perchance a more nice and accurate Enquirer may find out more But methinks these may be sufficient for my purpose which was to give the world a fair prospect of the Preheminence of Superintendents and of the Differences betwixt them and other Churchmen And having thus perform'd the first part of my Undertaking it is obvious to all who can pretend to be of the thinking part of mankind that the second part is needless For if these 30 Disparities amount not to ane invincible proof that our Church at the Reformation was not govern'd by Ministers acting in parity I may justly despair of ever proving any thing Yet because I know many simple and less thinking people are imposed on by the Noise and Dust our Presbyterian Brethren have raised about this matter I shall proceed to the next thing I undertook which was II. To dissipate these Mists wherewith our Parity-men are so very earnest to involve and darken this Prelatical power of Superintendents They may be reduced to these Three 1. The Establishments of Superintendents was only temporary and for the then Necessities of the Church Superintendency was not intended to be a perpetual standing Office 2. It was not the same with Episcopacy 3. It was never established by Act of Parliament 1. 'T is pleaded that Superintendency was only design'd to be a temporary not a perpetual standing Office in the Church Thus Calderwood speaking of the First Book of Discipline we may safely say says he the whole was recommended to be perpetually observed except some few things as the
Office of Superintendents whereunto they were forced as they thought by necessity c. And in his Breviate of the first book of Discipline he offers at a Reason why it was so They make a Difference at this time among Ministers some to be Superintendents some to be ordinary Ministers not because Superintendents were of divine institution as ane Order to be observed perpetually in the Kirk but because they were forced only AT THIS TIME to make the Difference lest if all Ministers should be appointed to make continual Residence in several places when there was so great Rarity of Preachers the greatest part of the Realm should be destitute of the preaching of the word And G. R. in his first Vindication of the Church of Scotland printed at Edenburgh 1691. in answer to the first of the ten Questions following Calderwood exactly as indeed he doth all alongst and it seems he has never read another of our Historians so that he had some reason to call him THE HISTORIAN ibid. delivers it thus 'T is true the Protestant Church of Scotland did set up Superintendents but this was truly and declared so to be from the Force of Necessity and design'd only for that present Exigency of the Church c. And more pointedly in his true Representation of Presbyterian Government printed at Edenburgh 1690. prop. 18. where he lays it down as ane undoubted truth That Superintendency was only established throught necessity when a qualified Minister could scarcely be had in a Province c. And Petrie seems to aim at the same way of Reasoning Now 1. Supposing all this true what ground have they gained by it Do they not fairly acknowledge that the Prelacy of Superintendents was established at the Reformation And is not that all I am concerned for For the Question is not whither Superintendency was design'd to be perpetual or temporary but whither it was a Prelacy And if it was a Prelacy the Church of Scotland was not then govern'd by Ministers acting in parity The Perpetuity or Temporariness of it doth not affect its nature If it was a Prelacy at all it was as really a Prelacy tho it had lasted but for a Day as it had been tho it had lasted till the Day of Iudgment Just as our Presbyterian Brethren were as really Addressers to K. I. by addressing once as they should have been tho they had continued addressing to him till this very minute This alone in all conscience might be enough for discussing this Plea Yet that I may not offend the Party by seeming to think so meanly of this mighty argument I shall insist a little longer and consider 2. If they have any sufficient Fund in the Records of these times for this pretence And 3. What Force or Solidity is in the reason insisted on to make this pretence seem plausible As to the first viz. Whither there is any sufficient Fund in the Records of these times for this pretence All I have observed insisted on for this is only one phrase in the fifth Head of the First Book of Discipline AT THIS TIME Take the whole period as it is in Petrie for he censures Spotswood for curtailing it As Petrie has it it runs thus If the Ministers whom God hath endued with his singular Graces among us should be appointed to several places there to make their continual Residence the greatest part of the Realm should be destitute of all Doctrine which should not only be the occasion of great Murmur but also dangerous to the Salvation of many and therefore we have thought it a thing expedient AT THIS TIME That from the whole number of Godly and Learned Men now presently in this Realm be selected Ten or Twelve for in so many Provinces we have divided the whole to whom Charge and Commandment should be given to plant and erect Kirks to set order and appoint Ministers to the Countries that shall be appointed to their care where none are now This is the whole foundation of the Plea for the Temporariness of Superintendency but if I mistake not the true Gloss of this period will amount to no more than this That because there were then so few men qualified for the Office of Superintendency tho Ten or Twelve were by far too small a number for the whole Kingdom yet at that time they thought it expedient to establish no more And tho when the Church should be sufficiently provided with Ministers it would be highly reasonable that the Superintendents should have places appointed them for their continual Residence yet in that juncture it was necessary that they should be constantly travelling thro their Districts to preach and plant Churches c. That the period will bear this Gloss is obvious to any who considers it impartially And that this and not the Presbyterian is the true Gloss I hope may competently appear if these things be considered 1. It is notorious that the Compilers of that First Book of Discipline were generally to their dying day of Prelatical Principles They were six as Knox tells us Mr. Iohn Winrame who died Superintendent of Strathern Iohn Spotswood who was many years a Superintendent and a constant Enemy to parity as appears from his Sons account of him Iohn Willock who died Superintendent of the West Iohn Dowglas who died Archbishop of St. Andrews Iohn Row who was one of the three that defended the Lawfulness of Episcopacy at the Conference appointed by the General Assembly 1575 and Iohn Knox of whom we have said enough already Now I ask is it credible that these men all so much for Prelacy all their Lives without any constraint on them As 't is certain there was none should while digesting a Model of Policy have been only for a Prelacy that was to be laid aside within God knows how short a time so soon as the Parish Churches could be planted with Ministers I know nothing can be said here unless it be that Knox was not so prelatical as the rest and he would have it so and the rest have yielded But there 's no ground for this For 2. Even Knox himself if he was the Author of the History which bears his Name amongst our Presbyterian Brethren assigns a quite other reason than the then Necessities of the Church for the Establishment of Superintendency Superintendents and Overseers were nominated says he that all things in the Church might be carried with order and well A Reason which as it held since the Apostles times will continue to hold so long as the Church continues And is it not told again in that same History That at the Admission of Spotswood to the Superintendency of Lothian Iohn Knox in his Sermon asserted the Necessity of Superintendents or Overseers as well as Ministers The Necessity I say and not the bare Expediency in that juncture Further now that I have Knox on the Stage I shall repeat over again a Testimony of his which I
have once transcribed already from his Exhortation to England for the speedy embracing of Christs Gospel Let no man be charged in preaching of Christ Iesus says he above that which a man may do I mean that your Bishopricks be so divided that of every one as they are now for the most part may be made ten and so in every City and great Town there may be placed a godly learned Man with so many joyned with him for preaching and instruction as shall be thought sufficient for the bounds commited to their Charge Than which testimony it is not possible to find a better Comment upon that period of the First Book of Discipline penned also by Knox himself which is the subject of our present Controversie and it agrees exactly with my Gloss For from this Testimony it is clear that he was for a great number of Bishops and little Diocesses and that in a Church sufficiently provided with Ministers the Bishop should not be obliged to travel from place to place for preaching but might stay at the Chief City or Town of his Diocess What I have said might be sufficient for preferring Mine to the Presbyterian Gloss But I have more to say For 3. This sense of the period accords exactly with the whole tenour of the First Book of Discipline in which there 's not another syllable the most partial Reader can say favours the mistaken Conceipt about the Temporariness of Superintendency but much to the contrary Thus In the Head of the Election of Superintendents the very first words are Such is the present Necessity that the Examination and Admission of Superintendents cannot be so strict as afterwards it must Clearly importing that as Necessity forced them to establish a small number at first so also to take them as they could have them but that a stricter accuracy in their tryal would be needful when the number of qualified men should increase which runs quite counter to the whole design of the Presbyterian Gloss. Again If so many able men cannot be found at present as Necessity requireth it is better that these Provinces wait till God provide than that men unable to edify and govern the Church be suddenly placed in the Charge c. Another Demonstration why at that time they established so few Superintendents Again If any Superintendent shall depart this life or happen to be deposed Rules are laid down for supplying the Vacancy But to what purpose if Superintendency was to be of so short continuance Farther yet After the Church shall be established and three years are past no man shall be called to the Office of a Superintendent who hath not two years at least given a proof of his faithful Labours in the Ministery of some Church What could more plainly import that the Office was to be durable Once more When this Book of Discipline comes to the business of the Vniversities it supposes that Superintendents and Colleges were to be of equal continuance for the Superintendent was still to be at the choosing and installment of Principals and Rectors and the Moneys collected for upholding the Fabrick were to be counted yearly upon the 15th day of November in the presence of the Superintendent of the bounds and imployed with his advice c. Neither is this all yet For 4. The Form and Order of the Election of the Superintendent to be found both in Knox's History and the Old Scottish Liturgy is every way as patt for the continuance of the Office as the First Book of Discipline For the first thing we meet with there as I have already observed is The Necssity of Ministers and Superintendents oâ— Oversecrs without any Exception or Speciality about the one more than the other And as our Reformers had petitioned the Government for the Establishment of a Method to be observed in the Election of Bishops and Presbyters without any intimations of the Temporariness of either Office as we have shewed before so here we find it put in practice as hath likewise before been observed without so much as one syllable favouring the Presbyterian side of the present Controversie but on the contrary all alongst for mine Thus The People are asked If they will obey and honour him as Christs Minister and comfort and assist him in every thing pertaining to his Charge And their Answer is They will and they promise him such Obedience as becometh Sheep to give unto their Pastor not so long as the present Necessity forceth or the present Exigence requireth but so long as he remaineth faithful in his Charge In short the Order or Form for admitting a Superintendent and a Parish Minister was all one and there was nothing in it importing the one Office to be temporary more than the other And however Calderwood thought fit to affirm That Superintendents were not then established as of Divine Institution yet in all this Form the divine Institution of their Office is as much to be found as the divine Institution of Ordinary Ministers The People as we had it just now were asked if they would obey him as Christs Minister And he himself was asked If he knew that the Excellency of this Office to the which GOD CALLED HIM did require that his Conversation should be irreprehensible And again it was asked the People Will ye not acknowledge this your Brother for the Minister of Christ Jesus Your Overseer and Pastor Will ye not maintain and comfort him in his Ministry and Watching over you against all such as wickedly would rebel against God and HIS HOLY ORDINANCE And in the Prayer after his Instalment we have this petition Send unto this our Brother whom IN THY NAME we have charged with THE CHIEF CARE of thy Church within the bounds of Lothian c. Thus our Reformers thought of Superintendency when they composed this Form Now if they lookt upon it as Gods Ordinance c. with what reason can it be said they design'd it meerly to be temporary and for the then Necessities of the Church I think it will be hard to prove that it was the Divinity of these times that men might dispense with divine Institutions but of this more afterwards In the mean time proceed we to a further and indeed ane irrefragable Topick for confirming my side of the present Controversie and that is 5. That as the First Book of Discipline and the Form of admitting Superintendents do both fairly import that our Reformers intended nothing less than the Temporariness of Superintendents so 't is as clear from a vast number of Acts of General Assemblies Most of these Acts I have already adduced for shewing the Disparities between Superintendents and Ordinary Ministers when they are seriously considered will be found uncontrovertibly to this purpose But there are many more for example consider these following The Assembly May 27 1561. addressed to the Council That special and certain provision might be made for the Maintenance of the
Superintendents Ministers Exhorters and Readers and that Superintendents and Ministers might be planted where none were The Assembly at Eden Decem. 25. 1562. as the Mss. has it enacted That notwithstanding the proponing and nominating of the Superintendents for Aberdeen Bamf Jedburgh and Dumfries appointed before in the Third Session and the days appointed for the Election of the same the further Advisement and Nomination of the persons should be remitted to the Lords of the secret Council providing always that the days appointed for their Election be not prolonged Observe here that Aberdeen and Bamf were now design'd each to have their Superintendent whereas both were to be under one by the first Nomination in the Book of Discipline One of the Articles ordered by the Assembly at Eden Decem. 25. 1564. to be presented to the Queen was To require that Superintendents might be placed in the Realm where none were viz. in the Mers Teviotdale Forest Twedale and the rest of the Dales in the South not provided with Aberdeen and the other parts of the North likewise destitute So it is in the Mss. Petrie has it only in short That Superintendents be placed where none are But as it is in the Mss. it shews plainly that now that the Church was of four years standing and the number of qualified men was increasing the Assembly were for increasing proportionably the number of Superintendents As is demonstrated thus by the Establishment in the First Book of Discipline the Superintendent of Lothians Diocess comprehended the Sheriffdoms of Lothian Stirling Mers Lauderdale and Twedale Spotswood was set over this Diocess in March 1560 1. He was still alive and in the Exercise of his Office and yet here now the Assembly craves that Superintendents may be placed in the Mers and Twedale and the rest of the Dales From which it follows that that which was but one Diocess Anno 1560. when qualified men were few was design'd by the Assembly Anno 1564. when the number of qualified men was somewhat increased to be divided at least into three or four Exactly agreeable to what I have all along asserted In the Assembly at Eden Iuly 20. Anno 1567. That famous Assembly whereof Buchanan was Moderator and which tumbled Queen Mary from her Throne it was agreed by the Nobility and Barons on the one hand and the Church on the other That all the Popish Clergy should be dispossessed and that Superintendents Ministers and other NEEDFUL MEMBERS of the Kirk should be planted in their places So it is in the Mss. and so Spotswood hath it But both Calderwood and Petrie tho they mention the thing yet labour to obscure it for they do not so much as name Superintendents far less take notice that they are reckoned amongst the Necessary Members or were to succeed the Popish Bishops Farther by the Ass. at Eden Iuly 1. 1568. it is resolved To advise with my Lord Regent his Grace and Council that in the Rowms and Countreys where no Superintendents are they may be placed So the Mss. and Pet. Nay Doth not Calderwood himself tell us that the Ass. holden at Eden March 1. 1570. when it appointed the Order to be observed thereafter in handling affairs brought before General Assemblies ordained in the sixth place That the Complaints of Countreys for want of Superintendents should be heard and provided for c. Further doth not the same Calderwood record that when in the year 1574. the Superintendents of Angus Lothian and Strathern would have dimitted their Office the Assembly would not admit of their Dimission but ordered them to continue in their Function For what reason they offered to demit perhaps we shall learn hereafter All I am concerned for at present is that the Assembly would needs continue them in their Office now fourteen years after the first legal Establishment of the Reformation The truth is this Assembly was holden in March and Master Andrew Melvil the Protoplast Presbyterian in Scotland came not to the Kingdom till Iuly thereafter By this time I think I have made it appear that our Reformers intended nothing less than to make Superintendency only temporary and subservient to the then pretended Necessities of the Church And likewise I have sufficiently made it appear that it was merely for scarcity of qualified men that so few Superintendents were at first design'd by the First Book of Discipline which was the one half of my Gloss upon the controverted period in that Book The other half which was that when once the Church was competently provided with Parish Ministers the Superintendents were no longer obliged to their Evangelistical way of travelling constantly through their Diocesses to preach c. is plain from what both Petrie and Spotswood agree in as contained in the Book viz. That they were to follow that method no longer than their Kirks were provided of Ministers or at least of Readers Thus I have dispatched the first thing which was proposed to be enquired into viz. Whither there was any sufficient fund in the Records of these times for believing that our Reformers intended that Superintendency should only be temporary It remains now that we should consider the 2. viz. What Force or Solidity is in the reason insisted on by our Presbyterian Brethren to make this pretence seem plausible The reason insisted on by them is The Force of Necessity there being so few men then qualified for the Ministery scarcely one in a Province c. Now who sees not that this so often repeated reason is intirely naught and inconsequential For what tho in these times there were few qualified men for the Ministery How follows it that therefore it was necessary to raise up Superintendents and set them above their Brethren If the principles of parity had then been the modish principles could not these few who were qualified have govern'd the Church suitably to these principles Suppose we Twenty Thirty Forty men in the Kingdom qualified for the Office of the Ministery could not these 20 or 30 or 40 have divided the Kingdom into a proportionable number of large Parishes And still as more men turn'd qualified could they not have lessened these greater Parishes till they had multiplied them to as great a number as they pleased or was convenient It was easy to have done so so very obvious as well as easy that it is not to be doubted they would have done so if they had been of these principles Why might not they have done so as well as our Presbyterian Brethren now adays unite Presbyteries where they have a scarcity of Ministers of their Perswasion Where lies the impossibility of Vniting Parishes more than uniting Presbyteries Indeed This way of reasoning is more dangerous than it seems our Presbyterian Brethren are aware of for it quite cuts the sinews of Parity and demonstrates irrefragably that it cannot be the Model our blessed Lord instituted for the Government of his Church For who can
Policy and Government Indeed to make Governours subject to the Censures and Sentences of their Subjects what is it else than to subvert Government to confound Relations to sap the Foundations of all Order and politick Establishment It is as King Iames the sixth has it in his Discourse about the true Law of Free Monarchies and I cannot give it better to invert the Order of all Law and Reason to make the commanded command the Commander the judged judge their Iudge and them who are governed to govern their time about their Lord and Governour In short to give a just account of such a Constitution it is very near of Kin to that bantering Question I have sometimes heard proposed to Children or Ideots If you were above me and I above you which of us should be uppermost I add further 2. That as I take it our Reformers put this in the Constitution that they might appear consequential to a principle then espoused and put in practice by them about Civil Government which was that the King was superior to his Subjects in their distributive but inferior to them in their collective Capacity This principle I say in those days was in great Credit Knox had learned it from the Democratians at Geneva his Authority was great and he was very fond of this principle and disseminated it with a singular zeal and confidence Besides our Reformers were then obnoxious to the civil Government the standing Laws were against them and the Soveraigns perswasion in matters of Religion jumpt with the Laws This Principle therefore had it been a good one came to them most seasonably and coming to them in such a nick and withal meeting in them with Scotch Mettal they put it in practice and being put in practice God suffered it to be successful and the success was a new Endearment and so it came to be a Principle of Credit and Reputation Indeed they had been very unthankful to it and inconsequential to boot if they had not adopted it into their Ecclesiastical as well as their Civil Systeme and the Superintendents having had a main hand in reducing it to practice against the Prince could not take it ill if it was made a Law to themselves it was but their own measure This I say I take to be the natural History of this part of the Constitution Nay 3. So fond it seems they were of this principle that they extended it further so far as even to make Ministers accountable to their own Elderships So 't is expresly established by the First Book of Discipline Head 8. The Elders ought also to take heed to the Life Manners Diligence and Study of their Minister And if he be worthy of Admonition they must admonish him if of Correction they must correct him and if he be worthy of Deposition they with the Consent of the Church and Superintendent may depose him Here was a pitch of Democracy which I think our Presbyterian Brethren themselves as self denied as they are would not take with so very kindly And yet I am apt to believe the Compilers of the Book never thought on putting these Elders in a state of parity with their Ministers tho this is a Demonstration that they have not been the greatest Masters at Drawing Schemes of Policy But to let this pass 4. Tho this unpolitical stroke to call it no worse was made part of the Constitution by that Book as I have granted yet I have no where found that ever it was put in practice I have no where found that De Facto a Superintendent was judged by his own Synod whether it was that they behaved so exactly as that they were never censureable or that their Synods had not the insolence to reduce a Constitution so very absurd and unreasonable to practice I shall not be anxious to determine But it seems probable it has been as much if not more upon the latter account than the former for I find Superintendents frequently tried and sometimes censured by General Assemblies and there was reason for it supposing that General Assemblies as then constituted were fit to be the supreme Judicatories of the National Church For there was no reason that Superintendents should have been Popes i. e. absolute and unaccountable so that if I am not mistaken our Brethren raise Dust to little purpose when they make so much noise about the Accountableness of Superintendents to General Assemblies as if that made a difference between them and Bishops For I know no man that makes Bishops unaccountable especially when they are confederated in a National Church But this by the way That which I take notice of is That seeing we find they were so frequently tried by General Assemblies without the least intimation of their being at any time tried by their own Synods it seems reasonable to conclude that it has been thought fit to let that unreasonable Stretch in the first Constitution fall into Dissuetude But however this was I have all safe enough For 5. Such a Constitution infers no such thing as parity amongst the Officers of the Church Those who maintain that the King is inferiour to his Subjects in their Collection are not yet so extravagant as to say he is not superior to every one of them in their Distribution They acknowledge he is Major Singulis and there 's not a person in the Kingdom who will be so unmannerly as to say that he stands upon the same Level with his Soveraign But what needs more These same very Presbyterian Authors who use this Argument even while they use it confess That Superintendents and ordinary Parish Ministers did not act in parity and because they cannot deny it but must confess it whether they will or not they cannot forbear raising all the Dust they can about it that unthinking People may not see clearly that they do confess it And had it not been for this reason I am apt to think the world had never been plagued with such pitiful jangle as such Arguments amount to Neither is the next any better which is 3. That Superintendency was never established by Act of Parliament This is G. R.'s Argument in his learned Answer to the first of the ten Questions for there he tells us That Superintendency was neither brought in nor cast out by Act of Parliament And what then Doth he love it the worse that it was established purely by Ecclesiastical Authority How long since he turn'd â—ond of Parliamentary Establishments I wonder he was not affraid of the Scandal of Erastianism But to the point 'T is true indeed it was not brought in by Act of Parliament but then I think he himself cannot deny that it was countenanced allowed and approven by more than half a Dozen of Acts of Parliaments which if our Author understands any thing either of Law or Logick he must allow to be at least equivalent to a Parliamentary In-bringing I have these Acts in readiness to produce when
I shall be put to it But I think his own Act which he cited tho most ridiculously as shall be made appear afterwards in the immediately preceeding paragraph may be good enough for him For He concludes it as evident that Episcopal Jurisdiction over the Protestants was condemned by Law in the Parliament 1567. because it is there statute and ordained that no other Iurisdiction Ecclesiastical be acknowledged within this Realm than that which is and shall be within this same Kirk established presently or which sloweth therefrom concerning preaching the Word correcting of Manners administration of Sacraments and Prelatical Jurisdiction was not then in Scotland So he reasons Now I dare adventure to refer it to his own judgment whither it will not by the same way of reasoning follow and be as evident that the Iurisdiction of Superintendents was allowed of by this same Act seeing he himself cannot have the Brow to deny that it was then in its vigor and daily exercised I think this is Argument good enough ad hominem But as I said we shall have more of this Act of Parliament hereafter Thus I have dispelled some of these clouds our Presbyterian Brethren use to raise about the Prelacy of Superintendents perhaps there may be more of them but considering the weakness of these which certainly are the strongest it is easy to conjecture what the rest may be if there are any more of them And thus I think I have fairly accounted for the Sentiments of our Reformers in relation to Parity or Imparity amongst the Governors of the Church during the First Scheme into which they cast the Government of the Church BEFORE I proceed to the next I must go back a little and give a brief Deduction of some things which may afford considerable Light both to what I am now to insist on and what I have insisted on already Tho I am most unwilling to rake into the Mistakes or Weaknesses of our Reformers yet I cannot but say that our Reformation was carried on and at first established upon some principles very disadvantageous to the Church both as to her Polity and Patrimony There were Mistakes in the Ministers on the one hand and sinister and worldly designs amongst the Laity on the other and both concurred unhappily to produce Great Evils in the Result There was a principle had then got too much sooting amongst some Protestant Divines viz. That the best way to reform a Church was to recede as far from the Papists as they could to have nothing in common with them but the Essentials the necessary and indispensable Articles and Parts of Christian Religion whatever was in its nature indifferent and not positively and expresly commanded in the Scriptures if it was in fashion in the Popish Churches was therefore to be laid aside and avoided as a Corruption as having been abused and made subservient to Superstition and Idolatry This principle Iohn Knox was fond of and maintained zealously and the rest of our reforming Preachers were much acted by his Influences In pursuance of this principle therefore when they compiled the First Book of Discipline they would not reform the Old Polity and purge it of such Corruptions as had crept into it keeping still by the main Draughts and Lineaments of it which undoubtedly had been the wiser the safer and every way the better course as they were then admonisht even by some of the Popish Clergy But they laid it quite aside and instead thereof hammered out a New Scheme keeping at as great a distance from the Old one as they could and as the Essentials of Polity would allow them establishing no such thing however as Parity as I have fully proven And no wonder for as Imparity has obviously more of Order Beauty and Vsefulness in iâ—â— Aspect so it had never so much as by Dreaming entered their Thoughts that it was a Limb of Antichrist or a Relique of Popery That our Reformers had the aforesaid principle in their view all alongst while they digested the First Book of Discipline is plain to every one that reads it Thus In the First Head they condemn Binding Men and Women to a several and disguised Apparel to the superstitious observing of Fasting Days Keeping of holy days of certain Saints commanded by Man such as be all these THE PAPISTS HAVE INVENTED as the Feasts of the Apostles Martyrs Christmas c. In the Second Head The Cross in Baptism and Kneeling at the Reception of the Symbols in the Eucharist In the Third Head they require not only Idolatry but all its Monuments and Places to be suppressed and amongst the rest Chappels Cathedral Churches and Colleges i. e. as I take it Collegiate Churches And many other such instances might be adduced particularly as to our present purpose They would not call those whom they truly and really stated in a Prelacy above their Brethren Prelates or Bishops but Superintendents They would not allow of Imposition of hands in Ordinations They made Superintendents subject to the Censures of their own Synods they changed the bounds of the Diocesses they would not allow the Superintendents the same Revenues which Prelates had had before They would not suffer Ecclesiastical Benefices to stand distinguished as they had been formerly but they were for casting them all for once into one heap and making a new Division of the Churches Patrimony and parcelling it out in Competencies as they thought it most expedient In short A notable instance of the prevalency of this principle we have even in the year 1572. after the Restauration of the Old Polity was agreed to For then by many in the General Assembly Exceptions were taken at the Titles of Archbishop Dean Arch-Deacon Chancellor Chapter c. as being Popish Titles and offensive to the Ears of good Christians As all Historians agree Buâ— then As they were for these and the like alterations in pursuance of this principle so they were zealous for and had no mind to part with the Patrimony of the Church Whatever had been dedicated to Religious Uses whatever under the notion of either Spirituality or Temporality had belonged to either Seculars or Regulars before they were positive should still continue in the Churches hands and be applied to her Maintainance and Advantages condemning all Dilapidations Alienations Impropriations and Laick Usurpations and Possessions of Church Revenues c. as is to be seen fully in the Sixth Head of the Book Thus I say our Reformers had digested a New Scheme of Polity in the First Book of Discipline laying aside the Old one because they thought it too much Popish And now that we have this Book under consideration it will not be unuseful nay it will be needful for a full understanding of what follows to fix the time when it was written Knox and Calderwood follows him says it was written after the Dissolution of the Parliament which sate in August 1560. and gave the legal Establishment to the
Reformation But Petrie says it is expresly affirmed in the beginning of the Book it self that the Commission was granted for compiling it on the 29th of April 1560. and that they brought it to a Conclusion as they could for the time before the 20th of May a short enough time I think for a work of such importance So Petrie affirms I say and it is apparent he is in the right for his account agrees exactly with the First Nomination of Superintendents which both Knox and Spotswood affirm to have been made in Iuly that year And besides it falls in naturally with the Series of the History for the Nobility and Gentry's having seen the Book and considered it before the Parliament sate according to this account makes it fairly intelligible how it was intirely neglected or rather rejected not only so far as that it was never allowed of nor approven by them as we shall learn by and by but so far that in that Parliament no provision at all was made for the Maintainance and Subsistence of the Reformed Ministers For understanding this more fully yet It is to be considered that there had been Disceptations and Controversies the year before viz. 1559. about the Disposal of the Patrimony of the Church This I learn from a Letter of Knox's to Calvin dated August 28. 1559. to be seen amongst Calvin's Epistles Col. 441. wherein he asks his sentiments about this question Whither the yearly Revenues might be payed to such as had been Monks and Popish Priests even tho they should confess their former errors considering that they neither served the Church nor were capable to do it And tells him frankly that he had maintained the negative for which he was called too severe not only by the Papists but even by many Protestants From which 't is plain not only that there were then Controversies about the Disposal of the Patrimony of the Church as I have said but also that Knox and by very probable consequence the Protestant Preachers generally was clear that the Ecclesiastical Revenues had been primarily destinated to the Church for the ends of Religion and therefore whatever person could not serve these ends could have no just Title to these Revenues By which way of reasoning not only ignorant Priests and Monks but all Lay men whatsoever were excluded from having any Title to the Patrimony of the Church Now While this Controversie was in agitation as to point of Right the Guise was going against Knox's side of it as to matter of Fact For in the mean time many Abbeys and Monasteries were thrown down and the Nobility and Gentry were daily possessing themselves of the Estates that had belonged to them and so before the First Book of Discipline which was Knox's performance and so no doubt contain'd his principle was compiled they were finding that there was something sweet in sacrilege and were by no means willing to part with what they had got so fortunately as they thought in their Fingers Besides They foresaw if Knox's project took place several other which they judged considerable inconvenients would follow If the Monks and Priests c. who acknowledged their former errors should be so treated what might they expect who persisted in their adherence to the Romish Faith and Interests Tho they were blinded with Superstition and Error yet they were Men they were Scottish men nay they were generally of their own Blood and their very near Kinsmen And would it not be very hard to deprive them intirely of their Livings and reduce them who had their Estates settled upon them by Law and had lived so plentifully and so hospitably to such ane Hopeless State of Misery and Arrant Beggary Further by this Scheme as they behoved to part with what they had already griped so their Hopes of ever having opportunity to profit themselves of the Revenues of the Church thereafter were more effectually discouraged than they had been even in the times of Popery The Popish Clergy by their Rules were bound to live single they could not marry nor by consequence have lawful Children to provide for The reformed as the law of God allowed them and their Inclinations prompted them indulged themselves the Solaces of Wedlock and begot Children and had Families to maintain and provide for there were no such Expectations therefore of easy Leases and rich Gifts and hidden Legacies c. from them as from the Popish Clergy Add to this the Popish Clergy foresaw the Ruine of the Romish Interests they saw no likelihood of Successors of their own Stamp and Principles They had a mighty spite at the Reformation It was not likely therefore that they would be anxious what became of the Patrimony of the Church after they were gone It was to be hoped they might squander it away dilapidate alienate c. without difficulty as indeed they did And who but themselves the Laity should have all this gain Upon these and the like Considerations I say the Nobility and Gentry had no liking to the First Book of Discipline And being once out of Love with it it was easy to get Arguments enough against it The Novelties and the numerous needless Recessions from the Old Polity which were in it furnished these both obviously and abundantly So it was not only not established but it seems the Nobility and Gentry who have ever the principal sway in Scottish Parliaments to let the Ministers find how much they had displeased them by such a Draught resolved to serve them a Trick Indeed they served them a monstrous one for tho in the Parliament 1560. they established the Reformation as to Doctrine and Worship c. and by a Legal Definition made the Protestant the National Church yet they settled not so much as a Groat of the Churches Revenues upon its Ministers but continued the Popish Clergy during their Lives in their possessions 'T is true indeed thro the importunity of I. Knox and some others of the Preachers some Noblemen and Gentlemen subscribed the Book in Ianuary 1560 1. But as they were not serious as Knox intimates so they did it with this express provision apparently levelled against one of the main designs of the Book That the Bishops Abbots Priors and other Prelates and Beneficed Men who had already joyned themselves to the Religion should enjoy the Rents of their Benefices during their Lives they sustaining the Ministers for their parts c. But it was never generally received on the contrary it was treated in Ridicule and called a DEVOVT IMAGINATION which offended Knox exceedingly Nay it seems the Ministers themselves were not generally pleased with it after second thoughts or The Laity have been more numerous in the General Assembly holden in December 1561. For as Knox himself tells us when it was moved there that the Book should be offered to the Queen and her Majesty should be supplicated to ratify it the Motion was rejected The Reformation thus established
and convince them from Scripture and Antiquity and Ecclesiastical History c. that Episcopacy was of divine Institution or the best or a lawful Government of the Church If I mistake not such Topicks in these times were not much thought on by our Statesmen But if they were such Arguments as I have given a Specimen of which they insisted on as no doubt they were if they insisted on any then I would fain know which of them it was that might not have been as readily insisted on by the Clergy as by the Statesmen Nay considering that there were no Scruples of Conscience then concerning the Lawfulness of such a Constitution how reasonable is it to think that the Clergy might be as forward as the Statesmen could be to insist on these Arguments Especially if it be further considered that Besides these and the like Arguments the Clergy had one very considerable Argument to move them for the Re-establishment of the Old Constitution which was that they had found by Experience that the New Scheme fallen upon in the First Book of Discipline had done much hurt to the Church as I have already observed that by forsaking the Old Constitution the Church had suffered too much already and that it was high time for them now to return to their Old Fond considering at what losses they had been since they had deserted it And all this will appear more reasonable and credible still if two things more be duely considered The First is That the Six Clergymen who were commissioned by the Assembly on this occasion to treat with the State were all sensible men men who understood the Constitution both of Church and State had Heads to comprehend the consequences of things and were very far from being Parity-men The Second is The Oddness to call it no worse of the Reason which our Authors feign to have been the Motive which made the Court at that time so earnest for such ane Establishment namely that thereby They might gripe at the Commodity as Calderwood words it That is possess themselves of the Churches Patrimony What Had the Clergy so suddenly fallen from their daily their constant their continual Claim to the Revenues of the Church Had they in ane instant altered their sentiments about Sacrilege and things consecrated to Holy uses Were they now willing to part with the Churches Patrimony Did that which moved them to be so earnest for this Meeting with the State miraculously flip out of their Minds so that they inconcernedly quate their pretensions and betrayed their own interests Were they all fast asleep when they were at the Conference So much asleep or senseless that they could not perceive the Court intended them such a Trick On the other hand If the Court had such a design as is pretended I must confess I do not see how it was useful for them to fall on such a wild project for accomplishing their purposes Why be at all this pains to re-establish the Old Polity if the only purpose was to rob the Church of her Patrimony Might not that have been done without as well as with it Could they have wished the Church in weaker circumstances for asserting her own Rights than she was in before this Agreement Was it not as easy to have possest themselves of a Bishoprick ane Abbacy a Priory c. when there were no Bishops nor Abbots nor Priors as when there were What a pitiful politick or rather what ane insolent wickedness was it as it were to take a Coat which was no mans and put on one and possess him of it and call it his Coat that they might rob him of it Or making the uncharitable supposition that they could have ventured on such a needless such a mad fetch of iniquity were all the Clergy so short-sighted that they could not penetrate into such a palpable such a gross piece of Cheatry But what needs more 'T is certain that by that Agreement the Churches Patrimony was fairly secured to her and she was put in far better condition than she was ever in before since the Reformation Let any man read over Calderwoods account of the Agreement and he must confess it And yet perhaps the account may be more full and clear in the Books of Council if they be extant 'T is true indeed the Courtiers afterwards played their Tricks and robb'd the Church and it cannot be denied that they got some bad Clergymen who were subâ—ervient to their purposes But this was so 〈◊〉 from being pretended to be aim'd at by 〈◊〉 Courtiers while the Agreement was a mâ—kâ—ng It was so far from these Clergy-mens minds who adjusted matters at that time with the Laity these Courtiers to give them the smallest advantages that way to allow them the least Scope for such Encroachments That on the contrary when afterwards they found the Nobility were taking such Methods and plundering the Church they complained mightily of it as a manifest breach of the Agreement and ane horrid iniquity But whatever Truth is in all this Reasoning I have spent on this point is not much material to my main purpose For whither at that time Episcopacy was imposed upon the Church or not or if imposed whither it was out of a bad design or not affects not in the least the principal Controversie For however it was 't is certain the Church accepted of it at that time which we are bound in Charity to think a sufficient Argument that she was not then of Antiprelatical principles She had no such Article in her Creed as the Divine Right of Parity which is the great point I am concerned for in all this tedious Controversie 3. The Third Plea is The Limitedness of the Power which was then granted to Bishops They had no more Power granted them by this Establishment than Superintendents had enjoyed before This all my Authors insist upon with great Earnestness And I confess it is very true This was provided for both by the Agreement at Leith and by ane Act of the Assembly holden at Eden March 6. 1574. But then 1. If they had the same power which Superintendents had before I think they had truly Prelatic Power they did not act in Parity with other Ministers 2. Tho they had no more power yet it is certain they had more Privilege They were not answerable to their own Synods but only to General Assemblies as is clear even from Calderwoods own account of the agreement at Leith In that point the absurd Constitution in the First Book of Discipline was altered 3. One thing more I cannot but observe here concerning Mr. Carlderwood This judicious Historian when he was concerned to raise Dust about the Prelacy of Superintendents found easily 7 or 8 huge Differences between Superintendents and Bishops And now that he is concern'd to raise Dust about the Prelacy of Bishops he thinks he has gain'd a great point if he makes it the same with the Prelacy of
Stipends be assigned to them Ane Article visibly levell'd as the former 5. That Doctors may be placed in Vniversities and Stipends granted them whereby not only they who are presently placed may have occasion to be diligent in their Cure but other learned Men may have Occasion to seek places in Colleges Still to the same purposes viz. the finding reasonable Uses for the Patrimony of the Church 6. That his Grace would take a General Order with the poor especially in the Abbeys such as are Aberbrothoick c. Conform to the Agreement at Leith Here not only the Leith-Agreement insisted on but farther pious Vse for the Churches Patrimony 9. That his Grace would cause the Books of the Assignation of the Kirk be delivered to the Clerk of the General Assembly These Books of Assignation as they call them were the Books wherein the Names of the Ministers and their several proportions of the Thirds were Recorded It seems they were earnest to be repossessed of their Thirds seeing the Regent had not kept promise to them But The Eighth Article which by a pardonable inversion I hope I have reserved to the last place is of all the most considerable It is That his Grace would provide Qualified persons for Vacant Bishopricks Let the candid Reader judge now if Episcopacy by the Leith-Articles was forced upon the Church against her Inclinations If it was never approven when Bishops were thus petitioned for by a General Assembly If it be likely that the Assembly in August 1572. protested against it as a Corruption If the Acts of the last Assembly declaring Bishops to have no more power than Superintendents had and making them accountable to the General Assembly proceeded from any Dislike of Episcopacy If this Assembly petitioning thus for Bishops believed the divine and indispensible institution of Parity If both Calderwood and Petrie acted not as became Cautious Pretbyterian Historians the One by giving us None the other by giving us only a Minced account of this Petition Well! By this time I think I have not intirely disappointed my Reader I think I have made it competently appear That the Agreement at Leith was fairly and frequently allowed approven and insisted on by not a â—ew subsequent General Assemblies I could adduce some Acts more of the next Ass which met at Eden March 7. 1575. But I think I have already made good my Undertaking and therefore I shall insist no further on this point Only One thing I must add further It is this After the most impartial narrow and attentive Search I could make I have not found all this while viz. from the first publick Establishment of the Reformed Religion in Scotland Anno 1560. so much as One Indication of either publick or private Dislike to Prelacy But that it constantly and uninterruptedly prevailed and all persons chearfully as well as quietly submitted to it till the year 1575. when it was first called in Question And here I might fairly shut up this long and perhaps nauseous Discourse upon the Second Enquiry which I proposed For whatever Men our Reformers were whatever their other principles might be I think I have made it plain that they were not for the Divine Right of Parity or the Vnlawfulness of the Superiority of any Office in the Church above Presbyters No such principle was prosessed or insisted on or offered to be reduced to practice by them Before At or full fifteen years After the publick Establishment of the Reformation And if this may not pass for sufficient proof of the truth of my Resolution of the Enquiry I know not what may However because THE SECOND thing I promised to shew tho not precisely necessary to my main design may yet be so far useful as to bring considerably more of Light to it and withal give the world a prospect of the Rise and Progress of Presbytery in Scotland I shall endeavour to make good my Undertaking which was that after Episcopacy was question'd it was not easily overturn'd Its Adversaries met with much Resistance and Opposition in their Endeavors to subvert it I shall study brevity as much as the weight of the matter will allow me In short then take it thus Master Andrew Melvil after some years spent at Geneva returned to Scotland in Iuly 1574. He had lived in that City under the influences of Theodore Beza the true parent of Presbytery He was a Man by Nature fierce and fiery confident and peremptory peevish and ungovernable Education in him had not sweetned Nature but Nature had sowred Education and both conspiring together had trickt him up into a true Original a piece compounded of pride and petulance of jeer and jangle of Satyr and Sarcasm of venome and vehemence He hated the Crown as much as the Mitre the Scepter as much as the Crosier and could have made as bold with the Purple as with the Rochet His prime Talent was Lampooning and writing Anti-tami-Cami-Categorias's In a word He was the very Archetypal Bitter Beard of the Party This Man thus accoutred was scarcely warm at home when he began to disseminate his sentiments insinuate them into others and make a party against Prelacy and for the Genevian Model For this I need not depend on Spotswoods Authority tho he asserts it plainly I have a more Authentick Author for it if more Authentick can be I have Melvil himself for it in a Letter to Beza dated Novem. 13. 1579. to be found both in Petrie and in the Pamphlet called Vindiciae Philadelphi from which Petrie had it of which Letter the very first words are we have not ceased these five years to fight against Pseudepiscopacy c. Now reckon five years backward from Novem. 1579. and you stand at November 1574. whereby we find that within three or four Months after his arrival the Plot was begun tho' it was near to a year thereafter before it came above-board Having thus projected his work and formed his party the next care was to get one to Table it fairly He himself was but lately come home he was much a Stranger in the Country having been ten years abroad He had been but at very few General Assemblies if at any his influence was but green and budding his Authority but young and tender It was not fit for him amongst his First Appearances to propose so great ane Innovation And it seems the Thinking Men of his Party however resolutely they might promise to back the Motion when once fairly Tabled were yet a little shy to be the first Proposers So it fell to the share of one who at that time was none of the greatest Statesmen Iohn Durie one of the Ministers of Edenburgh was the person as Spotswood describes him A sound hearted Man far from all Dissimulation open professing what he thought earnest and zealous in his Cause whatever it was but too too credulous and easily to be imposed on However that I may do him as much justice as
Spotswood has done him before me A Man he was who thought no Shame to acknowledge his Error when he was convinced of it For so it was that when after many years Experience he had satisfied himself that Parity had truly proved the Parent of Confusion and disappointed all his Expectations and when through Age and Sickness he was not able in person to attend the General Assembly Anno 1600. he gave Commission to some Brethren to tell them as from him That there was a Necessity of restoring the Ancient Government of the Church c. Such was the Man I say to whose share it fell to be the first who publickly questioned the Lawfulness of Prelacy in Scotland which was not done till the Sixth day of August 1575. as I said before no less than full fifteen years after the first legal Establishment of our Scottish Reformation And so I come to my purpose On this Sixth of August 1575. the Gen. Ass. met at Edenburgh according to the Order then observed in General Assemblies the First thing done after the Assembly was constituted was the Tryal of the Doctrine Diligence Lives c. of the Bishops and other constant Members So while this was a doing Iohn Durie stood up and protested That the Tryal of the Bishops might not prejudge the Opinions and Reasons which he and other Brethren of his Mind had to propose against the Office and Name of a Bishop Thus was the fatal Controversie set on foot which since hath brought such Miseries and Calamities on the Church and Kingdom of Scotland The Hare thus started Melvil the Original Huntsman strait pursued her He presently began a long and no doubt premeditated Harangue commended Durie's Zeal enlarged upon the flourishing State of the Church of Geneva insisted on the Sentiments of Calvin and Beza concerning Church Government and at last affirmed That none ought to be Office-bearers in the Church whose Titles were not found in the Book of God That the the Title of Bishops was found in Scripture yet it was not to be understood in the Sense then current That Iesus Christ the only Lord of his Church allowed no Superiority amongst the Ministers but had instituted them all in the same Degree and had endued them with equal power Concluding That the Corruptions which had crept into the Estate of Bishops were so great as unless the same were removed it could not go well with the Church nor could Religion be long preserved in Purity The Controversie thus plainly stated Mr. David Lindesay Master George Hay and Master Iohn Row three Episcopalians were appointed to confer and reason upon the Question proponed with Mr. Andrew Melvil Mr. Iames Lawson and Mr. Iohn Craig two Presbyterians and one much indifferent for both sides After diverse Meetings and long Disceptation saith Spotswood after two days saith Petrie they presented these Conclusions to the Assembly which at that time they had agreed upon 1. They think it not expedient presently to answer directly to the First Question But if any Bishop shall be chosen who hath not such Qualities as the word of God requires let him be tryed by the General Assembly De Novo and so deposed 2. The Name Bishop is common to all them who have particular Flocks over which they have particular Charges to preach the Word administer the Sacraments c. 3. Out of this Number may be chosen some to have power to Oversee and Visit such reasonable Bounds beside his own Flock as the General Kirk shall appoint and in these bounds to appoint Ministers with Consent of the Ministers of that Province and of the Flock to whom they shall be appointed Also to appoint Elders and Deacons in every principal Congregation where there are none with Consent of the People thereof and to suspend Ministers for reasonable Causes with Consent of the Ministers aforesaid So the Mss. Spot Pet. Cald. 'T is true here are some things which perhaps when thoroughly examined will not be found so exactly agreeable to the Sentiments and Practice of the Primitive Church However 't is evident for this Bout the Imparity-men carried the day and it seems the Parity-men have not yet been so well fixed for the Divine and indispensible Right of it as our Modern Parity-men would think needful otherwise how came they to consent to such Conclusions How came they to yield that it was not expedient at that time to answer directly to the first Question which was concerning the Lawfulness of Episcopacy Were they of the Modern Principles G. R's Principles Did they think that Divine institutions might be dispensed with crossed according to the Exigencies of Expediency or Inexpediency What ane Honour is it to the Party if their first Hero's were such Casuists Besides is not the Lawfulness of imparity clearly imported in the Third Conclusion Indeed both Calderwood and Petrie acknowledge so much Calderwood saith It seemeth that by Reason of the Regents Authority who was bent upon the Course i. e. Episcopacy whereof he was the chief Instrument that they answered not directly at this time to the Question Here you see he owns that nothing at this time was concluded against the Course as he calls it whither he had reason to say It seemed to be upon such ane account shall be considered afterward Petrie acknowledges it too but in such a passion it seems as quite mastered his Prudence when he did it for these are his words Howbeit in these Conclusions they express not the Negative because they would not plainly oppose the particular interest of the Council seeking security of the Possessions by the Title of Bishops yet these Affirmatives take away the pretended Office Now let the world consider the Wisdom of this Author in advancing this fine period They did not express the Negative they did not condemn Episcopacy because they would not plainly oppose the particular interest of the Council seeking Security of the Possessions c. Now let us enquire who were these They who would not for this reason condemn Episcopacy at that time It must either belong to the Six Collocutors who drew the Concusions or to the whole Assembly If to the Collocutors 't is plain Three of them viz. Row Hay and Lindesay were innocent they were perswaded in their Minds of the Expediency to say no further as well as the Lawfulness of Episcopacy and I think that was reason enough for them not to condemn it The Presbyterian Brethren then if any were the persons who were moved not to condemn it because they would not plainly oppose the particular interest of the Council c. But if so hath not Master Petrie made them very brave fellows Hath he not fairly made them such friends to Sacrilege that they would rather baulk a divine Institution than interrupt its Course and offend its Votaries If by the word They he meant the General Assembly if the whole Assembly were they who would not express the
have fully proven and which was all I still aim'd at yet it is easy to Discover they were very far from keeping Closely by the Principles and Measures of the primitive constitution of Church Government This is so very apparent to any who Reads the Histories of these times and is so visible in the Deduction I have made that I shall insist no longer on it Secondly The truth of my charge may further appear from the Instance of Adamson advanced this year 1576 to the Archbishoprick of St. Andrews That Nature had furnished him with a good stock and he was a smart Man and cultivated beyond the ordinary Size by many parts of good Literature is not denyed by the Presbyterian Historians themselves They never attempt to represent him as a Fool or a Dunce tho' they are very eager to have him a Man of Tricks and Latitude Now this Prelates ignorance in true Antiquity is Remarkably visible in his subscribing to these Propositions Anno 1580 if we may believe Calderwood The Power and Authority of all Pastors is equal and alike great amongst themselves The Name Bishop is Relative to the Flock and not to the Eldership For he is Bishop of his Flock and not of other Pastors or fellow Elders As for the Preheminence that one beareth over the rest it is the Invention of Man and not the Institution of Holy Writ That the ordaining and appointing of Pastors which is also called the laying on of hands appertaineth not to one Bishop only so being Lawful Election pass before but to those of the same Province or Presbytery and with the like Iurisdiction and Authority Minister at their Kirks That in the Council of Nice for eschewing of private ordaining of Ministers it was statuted that no Pastor should be appointed without the consent of him who dwelt or remained in the Chief and Principal City of the Province which they called the Metropolitan City That after in the latter Councils it was statuted that things might proceed more solemnly and with greater Authority that the laying on of hands upon Pastors after Lawful Election should be by the Metropolitan or Bishop of the Chief and principal Town the rest of the Bishops of the Province voting thereto In which thing there was no other Prerogative but only that of the Town which for that cause was thought most meet both for the conveening of the Council and Ordaining of Pastors with common Consent and Authority That the Estate of the Church was corrupt when the name Bishop which before was common to the rest of the Pastors of the Province began without the Authority of Gods Word and ancient Custome of the Kirk to be attributed to one That the power of appointing and ordaining Ministers and Ruling of Kirks with the whole procuration of Ecclesiastical Discipline was now only devolved to one Metropolitan The other Pastors no ways challenging their Right and Privilege therein of very slothfulness on the one part And the Devil on the other going about craftily to lay the ground of the Papistical Supremacy From these and such other Propositions sign'd by him at that time it may be judged I say if this Prelate did not bewray a very profound ignorance in true Ecclesiastical Antiquity Ane Arrant Presbyterian could not have said could not have wished more Indeed 't is more than probable as perchance may appear by and by that these Propositions were taken out either formally or by collection of Mr. Beza's Book De Triplici Episcopatu Now if Adamson was so little seen in such matters what may we judge of the rest But this is not all For Thirdly There cannot be a greater Evidence of the deplorable unskilfulness of the Clergy in these times in the ancient records of the Church than their suffering Melvil and his Party to obtrude upon them The Second Book of Discipline A split new Democratical Systeme a very Farce of Novelties never heard of before in the Christian Church For instance What else is the confounding of the Offices of Bishops and Presbyters The making Doctors or Professors of Divinity in Colledges and Vniversities a distinct Office and of Divine Institution The setting up of Lay-Elders as Governours of the Church Jure Divino Making them Iudges of mens Qualifications to be admitted to the Sacrament Visiters of the Sick c. Making the Colleges of Presbyters in Cities in the primitive times Lay Eldership Prohibiting Appeals from Scottish General Assemblies to any Iudge Civil or Ecclesiastick and by consequence to Oecumenick Councils Are not these Ancient and Catholick Assertions What footsteps of these things in true Antiquity How easy had it been for men skilled in the Constitution Government and Discipline of the Primitive Church to have laid open to the Conviction of all sober Men the novelty the vanity the inexpediency the impoliticalness the uncatholicalness of most if not all of these Propositions If any further doubt could remain concerning the little skill the Clergy of Scotland in these times had in these matters it might be further Demonstated Fourthly from this plain matter of Fact viz. that that Second Book of Discipline in many points is taken word for word from Mr. Beza's Answers to the Questions proposed to him by The Lord Glamis then Chancellor of Scotland A fair Evidence that our Clergy at that time have not been very well seen in Ecclesiastical Politicks Otherwise it is not to be thought they would have been so imposed on by a single stranger Divine who visibly aimed at the propagation of the Scheme which by chance had got footing in the Church where he lived His Tractate De Triplici Episcopatu written of purpose for the advancement of Presbyterianism in Scotland carries visibly in its whole train that its design was to draw our Clergy from off the Ancient Polity of the Church and his Answers to the Six Questions proposed to him as I said by Glanus contain'd the New Scheme he advised them to Now let us taste a little of his skill in the Constitution and Government of the Ancient Church or if you please of his accounts of her Policy I take his Book as I find it amongst Saravia's works He is Positive for the Divine Right of Ruling Elders He affirms that Bishops arrogated to themselves the power of Ordination without Gods allowance That the Chief foundation of all Ecclesiastical Functions is Popular Election That this Election and not Ordination or Imposition of hands makes Pastors or Bishops That Imposition of hands does no more than put them in possession of their Ministry in the exercise of it as I take it the power whereof they have from that Election That by consequence 't is more proper to say that the Fathers of the Church are Created by the Holy Ghost and the suffrages of their Children than by the Bishops That Saint Paul in his first Epistle to the Corinthians in which he expressly writes against and condemns the
may believe Calderwood but neither the MS. nor Petrie hath it 2. The Archbishop of St. Andrews being absent full power was given to M. Robert Pont M. Iames Lawson David Ferguson and the Superintendent of Lothian conjunctly To cite him before them against such day or days as they should think good to try and examine his entry and proceeding c. with power also to summon the Chapter of St. Andrews or so many of that Chapter as they should judge expedient and the Ordainers or Inaugurers of the said Archbishop observe here the Bishops in these times were Ordained or Inaugurated as they should find good for the better tryal of the premisses And in the mean time to discharge him of further visitation till he should be admitted by the Church Here indeed the Melvilians obtain'd in both Instances that which was refused them by the last Assembly However nothing done Directly as I said against the Episcopal Office On the contrary Adamson it seems might exerce it when admitted by the Assembly May I not reckon the Fast appointed by this Assembly as a third step gained by our Parity-men A successful Establishment of perfect Order and Polity in the Kirk was one of the reasons for it And ever since it hath been one of the Politicks of the Sect to be Mighty for Fasts when they had extraordinary projects in their heads and then if these Projects however wicked nay tho' the very wickedness which the Scripture makes as bad as witchcraft succeeded To entitle them to Gods Grace and make the success the Comfortable Return of their pious Humiliations and sincere Devotions I find also that Commissioners were sent by this Assembly to the Earl of Morton to acquaint him that they were busy about the matter and argument of the Polity and that his Grace should receive Advertisement of their further proceedings and that these Coâ—â—issioners having returned from him to the Assembly reported That His Grace liked well of their travels and labours in that matter and required expedition and haste Promising that when the particulars should be given in to him they should receive a good Answer So Calderwood and the MS. From which two things may be observed the First is a further Confirmation of the suspicion I insisted on before viz. That Morton was truly a Friend to the Innovators The second that the Second Book of Discipline had hitherto gone on but very slowly Why else would his Grace have so earnestly required Expedition and hasty Outred as the MS. words it i. e. Dispatch and promised them a good answer when the particulars should be given in to him The truth is there was one good reason for their proceeding so leisurely in the matter of the Book Beza's Answer to Glamis his Letter was not yet returned Thus two General Assemblies passed without so much as offering at a plain a direct Trust against Imparity Nay it seems matters were not come to a sufficient Maturity for that even against the next Assembly It was holden at Edenburgh Octob. 25. 1577. And not so much as one word in the MS. Calderwood or Petrie relating either directly or indirectly to the main Question But two things happened a little after this Assembly which animated Melvil and his Party to purpose One was Morton's quitting the Regency For whatever services he had done them he was so obscure and Fetching in his measures and so little to be trusted that they could not rely much upon him And now that he had demitted they had a fair prospect of playing their game to better purpose than ever They were in possessions of the Allowance he had granted them to draw a New Scheme of Policy They had a Young King who had not yet arrived at the twelfth year of his Age to deal with By consequence they were like to have a divided Court and a Factious Nobility and they needed not doubt if there were two Factions in the Kingdom that one of them would be sure to Court them and undertake to promote their Interests The other encouragement which did them every whit as good service was Beza's Book De Triplici Episcopatu Divino Humano Satanico with his Answers to the Lord Glamis his Questions which about this time was brought to Scotland as is clear from Calderwood Beza it seems put to it to Defend the Constitution of the Church of Geneva had imployed his wit and parts which certainly were not contemptible in patching together such a Scheme of principles as he thought might be defended That 's a method most men take too frequently First to resolve upon a Conclusion and then to stretch their inventions and spend their pains for finding Colours and plausibilities to set it off with Beza therefore I say having been thus at pains to digest his thoughts the best way he could on this subject and withal being possibly not a little elevated That the Lord High Chancellor of a Foreign Kingdom should Consult him and ask his Advice concerning a point of so great importance as the constitution of the Government of a National Church Thought it not enough it seems to return an Answer to his Lordships Questions and therein give him a Scheme which was very easy for him to do considering he needed be at little more pains than to transcribe the Genevian Establishment But he applied himself to the main Controversie which had been started by his Disciple Melvil in Scotland and 't is scarcely to be doubted that it was done at his instignation and wrote this his Book wherein tho' he asserted not the absolute Vnlawfulness of that which he called Humane Episcopacy he had not brow enough for that as we have seen already yet he made it wonderously dangerous as being so naturally apt to Degenerate into the Devilish the Satanical Episcopacy This Book I say came to Scotland about this time viz. either in the end of 1577. or the beginning of 1578. and tho' I have already given a Specimen of it who now could hold up his head to plead for Prelacy Here was a Book written by the Famous Mr. Beza the Successor of the great Mr. Calvin the present great Luminary of the Church of Geneva our Elder Sister Church the Best Reformed Church in Christendom Who would not be convinced now that Parity ought to be Established and Popish Prelacy abolished And indeed it seems this Book came seasonably to help the good new cause for it behoved to take some time before it could merit the name of the good old one for we have already seen how slowly and weakly it advanced before the Book came But now we shall find it gathering strength apace and advancing with a witness Nay at the very next Assembly it was in a pretty flourishing condition This next Ass. met Apr. 24. Anno 1578. And Mr. Andrew Melvil was chosen Moderator the Prince of the Sect had the happiness to be the Praeses of the Assembly and presently
to take the Test and had generally done it That the Clergy stood all for Episcopacy There being of about a thousand scarcely twenty Trimmers betwixt the Bishop and the Presbyterian Moderator which twenty together with all the Presbyterian Preachers could not make up the fifth part of such a number as the other side amounted to That in all the Vniversities there were not four Masters Heads or Fellows inclined to Presbytery That the Colleges of Iustice and Physick at Edenburgh were so averse from it that the Generality of them were ready last Summer viz. 1689 to take Arms in defence of their Episcopal Ministers c. This Book was published I think in the beginning of the year 1690. What greater Demonstration could any Man desire of the truth of the Negative if all here alleged was true And what greater Argument of the truth of every one of the Allegations than the Confession of a right uncourteous Adversary G. R. I mean who in Answer to this Book wrote his first Vindication of the Church of Scotland as it is now by Law Established as he calls it Published at London about the end of the year 1690 and Reprinted at Edenburgh in the beginning of 1691. But did he indeed acknowledge the truth of all the Allegations Yes he did it Notoriously He yielded to his Adversary all the gang if the Clergy except a few The Vniversities and the College of Iustice at least as lately stated He was not so frank to part with the Physicians indeed because if we may take his word for it There are not a few worthy Men of that Faculty who are far from Inclinations towards Prelacy But he durst not say it seems that either the major part or any thing near the half was for him He also yielded the Generlity of the Burgesses All the dust he raised was about the Nobility and Gentry But what nasty dust it was let any sensible man consider As for the Nobility he granted there were only a few who took not the Test But then he had three things to say for them who took it 1. They who took the Oaths did not by that shew their inclination so much as what they thought fit to comply with rather than suffer But what were they to suffer if they took not the Oaths The loss of their vote in Parliament and a small fine which was seldom if at any time exacted But if they were to suffer no more could their Fears of such sufferings force them to take Oaths so contrary to their inclinations Abstracting from the impiety of mocking God and the wretchedness of crossing ones light which are conspicuous in swearing against mens perswasions could such sufferings as these incline any man to swear to support ane interest which he lookt on as so great and insupportable a Grievance and Trouble to the Nation But this is not all for he added 2. How many of these now when there is no force on them shew that it was not choice but necessity that led them that way I know he meant that many of these Nobles have now broken through these Oaths Let them Answer for that But what had he to do in this case with his old friend Necessity What Necessity can force a man to do ane ill thing Besides can he prove that it was Choice and not that same kind of Necessity that led them in the way they have lately followed That men can be for this thing to day and the contrary to morrow is a great presumption that they do not much regard either But I think it will be a little hard to draw from it that they look upon the one as a great and insupportable Grievance more than the other But the best follows 3. Many who seem to make Conscience of these Bonds yet shew no inclination to the thing they are bound to except by the constraint that they brought themselves under After this what may not our Author make ane Argument that Prelacy is such ane ill-lik't thing as he would have it Seeing he has got even them to hate it who are Conscientiously for it Neither is he less pleasant about the Gentry He acknowledges they as generally took the Test which was enough for his Adversary as hath appeared But how treats he the other Topick about their not going to the Presbyterian Meetings when they had King Iames his Toleration for it Why A silly Argument Why so Many did go But did his Adversary lie grossely or calumniate when he said that not 50 Gentlemen in all the Kingdom out of the West forsook their Parish Churches and went to Conventicles Our Vindicator durst not say he did And has he not made it evident that it was a silly Argument But Most other clave to the former way he means the Episcopal Communion Because the Law stood for it and the Meeting-houses seem'd to be of uncertain continuance But would they have cleaved to the former way if they had thought it a great and insupportable Grievance and Trouble Would they have so crossed their Inclinations as to have Adhered to the Communion of the Episcopal Church when it was evident the sting was taken out of the Law and it was not to be put in Execution Were they so fond or so affraid of a lifeless Law if I may so call it that they would needs conform to it tho' they had no inclination for such conformity Tho' what they conform'd with in obedience to that Law was a great and insupportable Grievance to them Did our Author and his Party reckon upon these Gentlemen then as Presbyterians And what tho' the Meetings seem'd to be of uncertain continuance How many of the Presbyterian Party said in those days that they thought themselves bound to take the Benefit of the Toleration tho' it should be but of short continuance And that they could return to the Church when it should be retracted Might not all men have said and done so if they had been as much Presbyterians 'T is true our Author has some other things on this subject in that first Vindication But I shall consider them afterwards This was G. R.'s first Essay on this Controversie Another Parity man finding belike that neither the Plain Dealer nor the Vindicator had gained much credit by their performances thought it not inconvenient for the service of his Sect to publish a Book Entituled A further Vindication of the present Government of the Church of Scotland And therein to produce his Arguments for Determining this Controversie It was Printed in September I think in the year 1691. 'T is true he wrote something like a Gentleman and spake discreetly of the Episcopal Clergy He had no scolding in his Book and was infinitely far from G. R.'s flat Railwifery And I think my self obliged to thank him for his civility But after all this when he came to his Arguments for proving the point about the Inclinations of the People I did not think that he
taken from them without a Direct crossing of Christs institution and the horrid sin of Robbing his People of their indisputable Priviledge Patronages are ane Intollerable Grievance and Yoak of Bondage on the Church They have been always the cause of Pestering the Church with a bad Ministery They came in amongst the latest Anti-Christian Corruptions and Vsurpations c. This is their Doctrine tho' 't is obious to all the world they put strange Comments on it by their Practice Well! What were the sentiments of our Reformers in this Matter The First Book of Discipline indeed affirms Head 4. That it appertaineth to the People and to every several Congregation to Elect their own Minister But it has not so much as one syllable of the Divine institution of such a Priviledge On the contrary in that same very breath it adds and in case they be found negligent therein the space of 40 days the Superintendent with his Council may present a Man c. If this Man after tryal is found qualified and the Church can justly reprehend nothing in his Life Doctrine or Utterance then We judge say our Reformers the Church which before was destitute unreasonable if they refuse him whom the Church doth offer And that they should be compelled by the Censure of the Council and Church to receive the Person appointed and approved by the Iudgment of the Godly and Learned unless that the same Church hath presented a Man better or as well Qualified to Examination before that the aforesaid tryal was taken of the Person presented by the Council of the whole Church As for Example the Council of the Church presents a Man unto a Church to be their Minister not knowing that they are otherwise provided In the mean time the Church hath another sufficient in their judgement for that charge whom they present to the Learned Ministers and next Reformed Church to be examined In this case the presentation of the People to whom he should be appointed Pastor must be preferred to the presentation of the Council or greater Church unless the Person presented by the inferiour Church be judged unable for the Regiment by the Learned For this is always to be avoided that no man be intruded or thrust in upon any Congregation But this Liberty with all care must be reserved for every several Church to have their voices and suffrages in Election of their Ministers Yet we do not call that violent intrusion when the Council of the Church in the fear of God regarding only the salvation of the People offereth unto them a man sufficient to instruct them whom they shall not be forced to admit before just Examination So that Book Add to this this consideration That at that time the Popish Clergy were in possession of all the Benefices the Reformed Clergy had not then so much as the prospect of the Thirds which I have discoursed of before These things laid together 't is obvious to perceive 1. That it was only from Prudential Considerations our Reformers were inclined to give the People so much Power at that time It was much for the Conveniency of the Ministers who were to live by the Benevolence of the Parish c. They did not grant them this Power as of Divine Right No such thing so much as once insinuated as I have said 'T was plainly nothing but a Liberty And no injury no violence was done to a Parish even in these circumstances of the Church when the Council of the Church gave them a Minister without their own Election 'T is as plain 2. that so far as can be collected from the whole Period above our Reformers the Compilers of the Book I mean abstracting from the then circumstances of the Church were more inclined that the Election of Ministers should be in the hands of the Clergy than of the People Which I am much inclined to think was not only then but a long time after the prevailing sentiment And all the world sees I am sure it was a sentiment utterly inconsistent with the opinion of the Divine Right of Popular Elections I have been at pains to set the First Book of Discipline thus in its due light that our Brethren may not complain it was neglected not that my Cause required it For that Book was never Law either Civil or Ecclesiastical and so I might fairly have omitted it Let us try next what were truly the publick and Authoritative sentiments of our Reformers The first which I find of that nature is the sentiment of the General Assembly holden in September 1565. The General Assembly holden in Iune immediately before had complained that some vacant Benefices had been bestowed by the Queen on some Noblemen and Barons The Queen answered She thought it not Reasonable to deprive her of the Patronages belonging to her And this General Assembly in September answer thus Our mind is not that her Majesty or any other Person should be defrauded of their just Patronages but we mean whensoever her Majesty or any other Patron do present any Person unto a Benefice that the Person presented should be tryed and examined by the judgement of Learned Men of the Church Such as are for the present the Superintendents And as the presentation of the Benefice belongs to the Patron so the Collation by Law and Reason belongeth to the Church Agreeably we find by the 7 Act 1 Parl. Iac. 6. Anno 1567. The Parliament holden by Murray Regent It was enacted in pursuance no doubt of the Agreement between the Nobility and Barons and the Clergy in the General Assembly holden in Iuly that year That the Patron should present a qualified Person within six Months to the Superintendent of these parts where the Benefice lyes c. And by the Agreement at Leith Anno 1572 the Right of Patronages was reserved to the Respective Patrons And by the General Assembly holden in March 1574 it was enacted that collations upon presentations to Benefices should not be given without consent of three qualified Ministers c. The General Assembly in August that same year supplicated the Regent that Bishops might be presented to vacant Bishopricks as I have observed before By the General Assembly holden in October 1578 It was enacted that presentations to benefices be directed to the Commissioners of the Countreys where the Benefice lyes 'T is true indeed the Second Book of Discipline Cap. 12. § 10. Condemns Patronages as having no ground in the word of God as contrary to the same and as contrary to the Liberty of Election of Pastors and that which ought not to have place in the Light of Reformation But then 't is as true 1. That that same General Assembly holden in April 1581 which first Ratified this Second Book of Discipline Statuted and Ordained That Laick Patronages should remain whole unjoynted and undivided unless with consent of the Patron So that let them who can reconcile the Acts of this Presbyterian
Assembly For to my skill which I confess is not very great it seems as we use to say to have both burnt and blown Patronages blown them by this Act and burnt them by Ratifying the Book which Condemn'd them But whatever is of this that which I observe 2. is far more considerable For tho' the Book Condemned Patronages yet our Presbyterian Brethren of the Modern Cut have no great advantage by it for it had nothing less in its prospect than to Condemn them for making way for Popular Elections Indeed it gave no countenance to such Elections far less did it suppose or assert them to be of Divine Right This is its Determination in the 9 th § of that 12. Cap. The Liberty of Electing Persons to Ecclesiastical Functions observed without interruptions so long as the Church was not corrupted by Anti-Christ we desire to be restored and retained within this Realm So as none be intruded upon any Congregation either by the Prince or any other inferior Person WITHOUT LAWFUL ELECTION and THE ASSENT OF THE PEOPLE over whom the Person is placed according to the Practice of the Apostolick and Primitive Church Now 1. considering that it was the common talk of the Presbyterians of these times that Antichristian Corruptions began to pester the Church so soon as Episcopacy was introduced It is clear that that which they call the Vninterrupted Practice of the Church must have descended according to themselves but for a very few years and I shall own my self their humble servant if our present Presbyterians shall prove that Popular Elections were in Vniversal uninterrupted Practice during that interval of their own making the interval I mean which they make between the Apostles times and the first Introduction of Episcopacy Indeed 2. the Book plainly distinguishes between LAWFUL ELECTION and THE ASSENT OF THE PEOPLE and all the world knows they are naturally distinguishable and whosoever knows any thing of the Monuments of these Primitive times knows they were actually distinguished and that all the Peoples Priviledge was to ASSENT not to ELECT They were not in use of Electing if I mistake not till towards the end of the third Century So that if we can believe the Compilers of the Book if they were for restoring the Primitive Practice 't is easy to understand that they meant no such thing as to restore Popular Elections Especially if 3. it be considered that we have one very Authentick Explication of this 9 th Article of the 12. Cap. of the Second Book of Discipline handed down to us by Calderwood himself The story is this King Iames the Sixth continually vext with the Turbulency of the Presbyterian temper caused publish 55 Questions and proposed them to be sifted thinking that clear and distinct Resolutions of them might contribute much for ending many Controversies agitated in those times between the Kirk and the Crown They were published in February or Ianuary 159◠They are to be seen both in Spotswoods and Calderwoods Histories I am only concerned at present for the third Question which was this Is not the Consent of the most part of the Flock and also of the Patrons necessary in the Election of Pastors Now Calderwood says that there were Brethren delegated from every Presbytery of Fife who met at St. Andrews upon the 21. of February and having tossed the Kings Questions sundrie days gave Answers to every one of them particularly to the third this was their Answer The Election of Pastors should be made by those who are Pastors and Doctors Lawfully called and who can try the Gifts necessarily belonging to Pastors by the word of God And to such as are so chosen the Flock and Patron should give their Consent and Protection Now this I say is a very Authentick Explication of the words of the Book for these Delegates Meeting at St. Andrews it is not to be doubted but Mr. Andrew Melvil at that time principal of the New College was with them probably they met in that City that he might be with them for sure I am it was not otherwise the most convenient place of the County for their Meeting And having him with them they had one than whom none on earth was capable of giving a more Authentick Sense of the words of the Book It were very easy to adduce more Acts of General Assemblies to this purpose But I am affraid I have insisted too much on this subject already In short then the Groundless Fancy of the Divine Right of Popular Elections is more properly ane Independent than a Presbyterian principle The English Presbyterians of the Provincial Assembly of London wrote zealously against it in their Ius Divinum Ministerii Evangelici It is truly inconsistent with the Old Presbyterian Scheme It obtain'd not generally amongst our Scottish Presbyterians till some years after 1638. It was not adopted into their Scheme till the General Assembly 1649. Patronages were never taken away by Act of Parliament till of late i. e in the year 1690. 'T is true G. R. in his True Rrepresentation of Presbyterian Government says they were taken away by Law meaning no doubt by the Act of the pretended Parliament Anno 1649. But he had just as much Reason for calling that Rout a Parliament or its Acts Laws as he had for making the suppressing of Popular Elections of Ministers a just Cause for separating from the Communion of a Church Thus I have insisted on the Recessions of our present Presbyterian Brethren from the sentiments of our Reformers about the publick worship of the Church and some of its Appendages Perchance I have done it too tediously if so I shall endeavour to dispatch what remains more curtly III. They have also Deserted our Reformers in the Discipline of the Church The particulars are too numerous to be insisted on Let any man compare the two Books of Discipline The First compiled by our Reformers Anno 1560 The Second by the Presbyterians of the first Edition and Ratified by Act of the General Assembly holden in April 1581 and he shall find no scarcity of differences He shall find Alterations Innovations Oppositions Contradictions c. Let him compare the Acts of Assemblies after the year 1580 with the Acts of Assemblies before and he shall find many more Indeed Our present Presbyterians have made not a few notorious Recessions from the Second The Presbyterian Book of Discipline To instance in a few The Third Chapter of the Second Book of Discipline is thus Intituled How the Persons that bear Ecclesiastical Function are admitted to their Offices This Chap. treats of such Persons in the general The particular Orders of Pastors Doctors Elders c. are particularly treated of in subsequent Chapter◠This Third Chapter treating thus of Ecclesiastical Officers in the general makes two things necessary to the outward call Election and Ordination § 6. It defines ordination to be the separation and sanctifying of the Person appointed by God and his
Church after that he is well tryed and found qualified It ennumerates Fasting Prayer and imposition of hands of the Eldership as the Ceremonies of Ordination § 11 12. Now the whole Nation knows no such thing as either Tryal Fasting or imposition of hands are used by our present Presbyterians in the Ordination of Ruling Elders The Sixth Chapter is particularly concerning Ruling Elders as contra-distinct from Pastors or Teaching Elders And it determines thus concerning them § 3. Elders once Lawfully called to the Office and having Gifts of God fit to exercise the same may not leave it again Yet nothing more ordinary with our present Presbyterians than laying aside Ruling Elders and reducing them to a state of Laicks So that Sure I am if ever they were Presbyters they come under Tertullians Censure De Praescrip Hodie Presbyter qui cras Laicus A Presbyter to day and a Porter to morrow By the 9 th § of that same Chapter It pertains to them these Ruling Elders to assist the Pastor in examining those that come to the Lords Table and in visiting the Sick This Canon is not much in use I think as to the last part of it as to the first it is intirely indesuetude Indeed some of them would be wondrously qualified for such ane Office The Seventh Chapter is about Elderships and Assemblies By § 2. Assemblies are of four sorts viz. either of a particular Congregation or of a Province or a whole Nation or all Christian Nations Now of all these indefinitely it is affirmed § 5. In all Assemblies a Moderator should be chosen by common consent of the whole Brethren conveened Yet no such thing observed in our Kirk-Sessions which are the Congregational Assemblies spoken of § 2. But Ma◠Iohn takes the Chair without Election and would not be a little grated if the best Laird in the Parish should be his Competitor Crawford himself the First Earl of the Kingdome had never the Honour to be Moderator in the Kirk Session of Ceres The 14 th Canon in the same 7 th Chapter is this When we speak of Elders of particular Congregations we mean not that every particular Parish Church can or MAY have their particular Elderships especially to Landward but we think three or four more or fewer particular Churches may have a common Eldership to them all to judge their Ecclesiastical Causes And Chapter 12. Canon 5. As to Elders there would be in every Congregation one or more appointed for censuring of manners but not ane Assembly of Elders except in Towns and Famous Places where men of Iudgement and Ability may be had And these to have a common Eldership placed amongst them to treat of all things that concern the Congregations of whom they have the Oversight But as the world goes now every Parish even in the Country must have its own Eldership and this Eldership must consist of such a number of the Sincerer sort as may be able to out-vote all the Malignant Heritors upon occasion as when a Minister is to be chosen c. So long as there is a precise Plough-man or a well-affected Webster or a covenanted Cobbler or so to be found in the Parish such a number must not be wanting The standing of the Sect is the Supreme Law The good cause must not suffer tho' all the Canons of the Kirk should be put to shift for themselves IV. The last thing I named as that wherein our present Presbyterians have forsaken the principles and sentiments of our Reformers was the Government of the Church But I have treated so fully of this already that 't is needless to pursue it any farther I shall only therefore as ane Appendage to this represent one very considerable Right of the Church adhered to by our Reformers but disclaim'd by our present Presbyterians It is her being the First of the three Estates of Parliament and having vote in that great Council of the Nation It is evident from the most Ancient Records and all the Authentick Monuments of the Nation That the Church made still the First of the Three Estates in Scottish Parliaments since there were Parliaments in Scotland This had obtained time out of mind and was lookt upon as Fundamental in the Constitution of Parliaments in the days of the Reformation Our Reformers never so much as once dream'd that this was a Popish Corruption What Sophistry can make it such They dream'd as little of its being unseemly or scandalous or incongruous or inconvenient or whatever now adays men are pleas'd to call it On the contrary they were clear for its continuance as a very important Right of the Church The First Book if Discipline Head 8 th allowed Clergy-men to Assist the Parliament when the same is called 'T is true Calderwood both Corrupts the Text here and gives it a false Gloss. Instead of these words when the same is called he puts these if he be called and his Gloss is Meaning with advice says he not by voice or sitting as a Member of that Court I say this is a false Gloss. Indeed it runs quite counter to all the principles and practices of these times For not only did the Ecclesiastical Estate sit actually in the Reforming Parliament Anno 1560 and all Parliaments thereafter for very many years But such stress in these times was laid on this Estate that it was generally thought that nothing of publick concern could be Legally done without it The Counsel of the Ecclesiastick Peers was judged necessary in all matters of National Importance Thus Anno 1567. when the Match was on foot between the Queen and Bothwell that it might seem to be concluded with the greater Authority pains were taken to get the consent of the principal Nobility by their susbcriptions But this was not all that all might be made as sure as could be All the Bishops who were in the City were also Convocated and their subscriptions required as Buchanan tells us And Anno 1568. when the Accusation was intented against the Queen of Scotland before the Queen of England's Arbitrators that it might be done with the greater appearance of the Consent of the Nation That it might have the greater semblance of a National Deed as being a matter wherein all Estates were concerned the Bishop of Orkney and the Abbot of Dunfermline were appointed to represent the Spiritual Estate Again Anno 1571. when the two Counter Parliaments were holden at Edenburg those of the Queens Faction as few as they were had the Votes of two Bishops in their Session holden Iuly 12 as is clear from Buchanan and Spotswood compared together In their next Session which was holden at Edenburg August 22 that same year tho' they were in all but five Members yet two of them were Bishops as Spotswood tells But Buchanan's account is more considerable For he says one of these two was there unwillingly so that it seems he was forced by the rest to be there out
of a sense they had of the Necessity of the Ecclesiastical Estate Now 't is to be Remembred that those who appeared for the Queen were Protestants as well as these who were for her Son No Man I think will deny but the subsistence of the Ecclesiastical Estate and their Vote in Parliament was confirmed and continued by the Agreement of Leith Anno 1572. Indeed When the Project for Parity amongst the Officers of the Church was set on Foot by Melvil Anno 1575 and some of the Clergy were gained to his side and they were using their utmost endeavours to have Episcopacy overturned it seems this was a main difficulty to them a difficulty which did very much entangle and retard their purpose This I say that the overturning Prelacy was the overturning one of the three Estates of Parliament This is evident not only from Boyd Arch Bishop of Glasgow his Discourse to the General Assembly Anno 1576. mentioned before but also from the two Letters I have often named which were written to Mr. Beza the one by the Lord Glamis Anno 1576 or 1577 the other by Mr. Melvil Anno 1579. Because they contribute so much light to the matter in hand I shall once more resume them Glamis was then Chancellor of Scotland It is manifest he wrote not indeliberately or without advice Undoubtedly he stated the Question according to the sense the Generality of People had then of it Now he states it thus Seeing every Church hath its own Pastor and the Power of Pastors in the Church of Christ seems to be equal The Question is whither the Office of Bishops be Necessary in the Church for convocating these Pastors when there is need for Ordaining Pastors and for Deposing them for just Causes Or whither it be better that the Pastors Acting in Parity and subject to no Superiour Bishop should choose Qualified Men for the Ministery with consent of the Patron and the People and Censure and Depose c. For Retaining Bishops we have these two Motives One is the stubbornenss and ungovernableness of the People which cannot possibly be kept within Bounds if they are not over-awed by the Authority of these Bishops in their visitations The other is that such is the constitution of the Monarchy which hath obtain'd time out of mind that as often as the Parliament meets for consulting about things pertaining to the safety of the Republick nothing can be determined without the Bishops who make the Third Estate of the Kingdom which to change or subvert would be extremely perilous to the Kingdom So he from which we may learn two things The First is a farther confirmation of what I have before asserted to have been the sentiment of these times concerning the Election of Pastors namely that it was that they should be Elected by the Clergy and that the People should have no other Power than that of Consenting The other is pat in Relation to our present business namely that the Ecclesiastical Estate was judged Necessary by the constitution of the Monarchy It could not be wanting in Parliaments It was to run the hazard of subverting the constitution to think of altering it or turning it out of doors And Melvil's Letter is clearly to the same purpose We have not ceased these five years to fight against Pseudepiscopacy many of the Nobility resisting us and to press the severity of Discipline We have presented unto his Royal Majesty and three Estates of the Realm both before and now in this Parliament the form of Discipline to be insert amongst the Acts and to be confirmed by publick Authority We have the Kings mind bended towards us too far said I am sure if we may take that Kings own word for it but many of the Peers against us For they alledge if Pseudepiscopacy be taken away one of the Estates is pulled down If Presbyteries be erected the Royal Majesty is diminished c. 'T is true Melvil himself here shews no great kindness for the third Estate But that 's no great matter It was his humor to be singular All I am concerned for is the publick sentiment of the Nation especially the Nobility which we have so plain for the Necessity of the Ecclesiastical Estate that nothing can be plainer Nay So indisputable was it then that this Ecclesiastical Estate was absolutely necessary by the constitution that the Presbyterians themselves never called it in Question never offered to advance such a Paradox as that it might be abolished After they had abolished Episcopacy by their Assembly 1580 the King sent several times to them telling them He could not want one of his three Estates How would they provide him with ane Ecclesiastical Estate now that they had abolished Bishops Whoso pleases to Read Calderwood himself shall find this point frequently insisted on What returns gave they Did they ever in the least offer to return that the having ane Ecclesiastical Estate in Parliament was a Popish Corruption That it was ane unwarrantable constitution That it was not Necessary Or that the constitution might be iâ—â—ire enough without it No such thing entered their thoughts On the contrary they were still clear for maintaining it They had no inclination to part with such a valuable Right of the Church Their Answer to the Kings Demands was still one and the same They were not against Churchmens having vote in Parliament But none ought to vote in name of the Church without Commission from the Church And this their sentiment they put in the very Second Book of Discipline for these are word for word the seventeenth and eighteenth Articles of the eleventh Chapter 17. We deny not in the mean time that Ministers MAY and SHOVLD assist their Princes when they are required in all things agreeable to the word of God whither it be in Council or Parliament or out of Council Providing always they neither neglect their own charges nor through slattery of Princes hurt the publick Estate of the Kirk 18. But generally we say that no Pastor under whatsoâ—ver Title of the Kirk and specially the abused Titles in Popery of Prelates Chapters and Convents ought to attempt any thing in the Churches name either in Parliament or out of Council without the Commission of the Reformed Kirk within this Realm And It was concluded in the Assembly holden at Dundee March 7. 1598. That it was NECESSARY and EXPEDIENT for the well of the Kirk that the Ministery as the third Estate of this Realm in name of the Church have vote in Parliament So indubitable was it in these times that the Ecclesiastical Estate was necessary and that it could not be wanting without the notorious subversion of the constitution of Parliaments Indeed it was not only the sentiment of General Assemblies whatever side whither the Prelatical or the Presbyterian prevailed but it was likewise the sentiment of all Parliaments It were easy to amass a great many Acts of a great many Parliaments to
the Youth are instructed c. And further In these Visitations he had power particularly to take account of what Books every Minister had and how he profited from time to time by them By Act of Assem at Edenburgh Iune 29. 1562. So 't is in the Mss. 15. He had power to depose Ministers that deserved it as appears from the First Book of Discipline Head 8. already cited And by the Assem at Edenburgh March 6. 1573. It is statuted that if any Minister reside not at the Church where his Charge is he shall be summoned before his Superintendent or Commissioner of the Province to whom the Assembly gives power to depose him c. So the Mss. and Potrie 16. He had power to translate Ministers from one Church to another as appears from the Act already cited Num. 4. and by ane Act of the Assembly at Edenburgh Iune 25. 1564. It is concluded that a Minister being once placed may not leave that Congregation without the Knowledge of the Flock and Consent of the Superintendent or whole Church i. e. a General Assembly So the Mss. had so Pet. These are all powers methinks scarcely reconcileable with ane opinion of the Divine Right of Parity but there are more and perhaps more considerable as yet to follow For 17. He had power to nominate Ministers to be Members of the General Assembly This is clearly asserted by the Acts of two General Assemblies The first at Edenburgh in Iune 1562. where it was ordained That no Minister leave his Flock for coming to the Assembly except he have complaints to make or be complained of or at least be warned thereto by the Superintendent So 't is in the Mss. and Spotswood cites it in his Refutatio Libelli c. The other Act was made by the Assembly holden at Edenburgh Iuly 1. 1563. which I find thus worded in the Mss. fairly agreeing with Spotswood Anent the Order hereafter to be used in General Assemblies They all voted and concluded as followeth viz. That if the Order already received pleases not by reason of the Plurality of Voices it be reformed in this manner First That none have place to vote except Superintendents Commissioners appointed for visiting the Kirks and Ministers brought with them presented as persons able to reason and having knowledge to judge with the aforenamed shall be joyned Commissioners of Burghs and Shires together with Commissioners of Vniversities Secondly Ministers and Commissioners shall be chosen at the Synodal Convention of the Diocess by Consent of the rest of the Ministers and Gentlemen that shall conveen at the said Synodal Convention c. From which it is plain that the Superintendent or Commissioner who was a temporary Superintendent nominated the Ministers they brought with them to the Assembly and that the rest of the Ministers c. had only a power of consenting and so it was thereafter practised unquestionably And if there were need of more Light it might be copiously received from the Lord Glamis his Letter to Mr. Beza Anno 1576. wherein he tells him that it had been the Custom ever since the Reformation that the Superintendents or Bishops still nominated the Ministers who met in the General Assemblies than which nothing can be more distinct and plain And this Testimony is the more considerable that it was not Glamis his own private deed but that which was the Result of a considerable Consult as we shall learn hereafter This was such a Branch of Episcopal power as mightily offended our Presbyterian Historians it seems for they have endeavoured to obscure it as much as they could Neither Calderwood nor Petrie mentions the first of these two Acts they mention the second indeed but how Calderwood huddles it up thus It was thought meet for eschewing of Confusion that this Order be followed That none have place nor power to vote except Superintendents Commissioners appointed for visiting of Kirks Ministers Commissioners of Burghs and Shires together with the Commissioners of Vniversities Ministers and Commissioners of Shires shall be chosen at the Synodal Convention of the Diocesses with consent of the rest of the Ministers and Gentlemen c. Leaving out intirely these words brought with them i. e. with the Superintendents and Commissioners of Kirks presented as persons able to reason and having knowledge to judge whereby the power of the Superintendents and Commissioners for visiting of Kirks is quite stifled and the whole sense of the Act perverted for what sense is it I pray to say that the Ministers were to be chosen by consent of the rest of the Ministers when you tell not who was to choose or who they were to whose Choice or Nomination the rest of the Ministers were to give that consent But it is no strange thing with this Author to let sense shift for it self if the good Cause cannot be otherwise served Neither is Petrie less unfaithful for he not only draws the Curtain over the whole power of the Superintendent c. so that you cannot have the least Glimpse of it from his account But he intermixes lies to boot only he stumbles not on Nonsense He accounts thus Because heretofore all Ministers that would come were admitted to vote not one word of this in the Narrative of the Act as it is in the Mss. or any other Historian and it is directly contrary to the Act 1562. already mentioned so that 't is plain it is a figment of his own And now the Number is increased and Commissioners of Shires were chosen in the Sheriff Court no other Historian or Record I have seen has one syllable of this either tho 't is probable enough it was so This Assembly makes ane Act of three parts concerning the Admission of Members 1. That none shall have place to vote but Superintendents Commissioners for visiting Churches Ministers and Commissioners of Shires and Burghs chosen as follows together with Commissioners of Vniversities 2. Ministers and Commissioners of Shires shall be chosen at the Synod of the Bounds by the Ministers and Gentlemen conveening there c. Not with the consent of the rest of the Ministers c. you see as Calderwood ridiculously had it but chosen by the Ministers c. without the least syllable that might import the Superintendents having any and far less the principal power in that Election This is clean work of it Thus I say these two Historians of the Party treat this notable branch of the power which our Reformers thought reasonable to confer on Superintendents but we shall not want occasions enough for admiring their ingenuity Return we now to our task 18. They had power to hold Diocesan Synods Ordains further they are the words of ane Act of the Ass. holden in Decem. 1562. as 't is both in the Mss. and Pet. That the Superintendents appoint Synodal Conventions twice in the year viz. in the months of April and October on such days of the said