in opposition to this Assertion another saying of the same Royal Author mentioned a little below § 3. His Preface taketh notice of two opposite Narratives concerning Episcopacy the one to the Act restoring it 1662. the other to the Act by which it was abolished 1689. whether of these contain most Truth and Sincerity is not to be judged of but by entring on the Merits of the Cause and his Pamphlet with this Answer to it may contribute some light to it But that he supposeth Episcopacy to be best fitted to keep out Heresie is gratis dictum and the falshood of it is manifest if we accompt Popery to be Heresie the Abominations of which arose and grew up under that Government of the Church in this Nation what might be its effects in other Churches we do not now consider And our Experience may inform us what steps have been made not only toward the Superstitions but even the Doctrines of Popery under its Wings since its restauration And how Arminianism hath been warmed and got life by its influence in Scotland is too well known He cannot be ignorant of what K. James VI. whose Authority in matters of Truth he often brings as an Argument used to say of Presbytery as managed in Scotland That no Error could get footing there while Kirk-Sessions Presbyteries Synods and General Assemblies stood in their force What evil speaking and reviling there is in the Brief and True Account of the Sufferings of the Church of Scotland occasioned by the Episcopalians since the Year 1660. I know not not having seen that Book But I am sure his Party is in mala fide to challenge it their stile being such to the Life not in this Pamphlet only but especially in those before mentioned § 4. The first of his Questions is Whether Presbytery as contrary to the Episcopacy restored in Scotland 1662. was settled by Law when the Protestant Religion came to have the Legal Establishment in that Kingdom Which Question may be two ways understood and neither of them much to his purpose either whether the Protestant Religion when it was setled by Law found Presbytery already established which is a foolish Question for who ever heard of Presbytery under regnant Popery we deny not Episcopacy to be as old as Popery or whether Protestanism and Presbytery were by Law established at the same instant neither is this Question to the present purpose for it is enough to shew the Opinion of the Church of Scotland as soon as reformed about Church Government if our Adversaries cannot make it appear that she chused to be governed by Bishops And if we can shew that Presbytery was the Government practised in her from the beginning of the Reformation and that it was by Law established as soon as any fixed Government could be settled And good Reasons may be given why it was not done at the very first First The Errors and Idolatry of that way were so gross and of such immediate hazard to the Souls of People that it is no wonder that our Reformers minded these first and mainly and thought it a great step to get these removed so that they took some more time to consult about the reforming of the Government of the Church Secondly It was possible at first when the Nation was scarcely crept out of Popery to get a competent number of Ministers and Elders who might manage the Government of the Church but this behoved to be a work of time But what they did in this and what was their Sentiments about Church Order we shall after have occasion to discourse § 5. Toward the Resolution of his first Question he tells us in several particulars wherein all the dispute is that is intrinsick to the Notion of a Church Government which his Question he stateth with no great shew of understanding in these Controversies But that I insist not on that which is here chiefly to be observed is that he overlooketh that which is the chief yea the only Question on which our Controversie with the Prelatists doth turn viz. Whether the Government of the Church should be in the hands of a single Person or of a Community whether the Rulers of the Church ought to manage that Work in parity or one should manage it as Supreme and the rest in Subordination to him The distorted notion of a Moderator in Church Meetings that he hath taken up seemeth to mislead him in this matter for we will not yield that the Moderator qua talis is a Church Governour nor that he hath any Jurisdiction over his Brethren his power is meerly ordinative not decisive to be the Mouth of the Meeting not to be their Will or commanding Faculty to keep order in the manner and managing what cometh before them not to determine what is debated among them The Author talketh at random not knowing what he saith nor whereof he affirmeth when he speaketh of our election of a Moderator as done by the Clergy as he speaketh Lay-Elders and Deacons For where was it ever heard of that Deacons had a Vote in Presbyteries or Synods among Scotch Presbyterians we count them though they are Officers of Divine appointment yet the Servants of the Church not her Rulers they are employed about her Goods not in the Government § 6. He asserteth that the Protestant Religion was by Law established in Anno 1567. and the Constitution of Bishops remained as the Legal establishment and that Presbytery was not legally settled till 1592. His proofs for this and Objections that he obviateth against it I shall consider after I have given a true Historical Accompt of the being and establishment of Presbytery in this Nation Two things we maintain as to this the former is That not Episcopacy but a Government managed by the Teachers of the Church acting in commune and in parity had place in the Church of Scotland with its first Christianity and some Ages after The other is That not Episcopacy but Presbytery was the Government of the Church of Scotland as soon as it was reformed from Popery For the former Though we assert not that the first Christians in Scotland had Presbytery in all the Modes of it as we have neither can we attain the distinct Knowledge of the Actings of these Times by any Records that are left us yet that there was a Parity and no Prelacy among the Church Rulers in Scotland For all agree that Donald who entered upon the Government in the Year 199. was the first Christian King in Scotland though it is rationally thought by the best Historians that Christianity was embraced by many of the people before that And Baronius affirmeth That the Scots received the Christian Faith from Pope Victor had he said in his time we should have assented fully but what he saith is enough to our purpose who was Bishop of Rome from 194. to 203. And it is clear from Baronius and the current of Historians that Palladius was the first Bishop of the Scots
Scots in their management of the Government of Christ's House He knows that Scotland is but one and a small part of the Reformed Church in which that Government hath been and is practised If there be any blame then in the practices of former times when Presbytery was ascendent let it be imputed rather to the praeservidum Scotorum ingenium in which they of the other party have far outgone ours than to the Ordinance of Christ I mean that Government of his House that we own But even Scottish Presbytery or that Government as exercised in that National Church will be able to stand before his Arguments Though it be hard for any thing though never so good to bear up against Lies and Reproaches § 3. He should have considered That there may be other Dissenters living among Presbyterians than Episcopal men whereas all that he saith on this Head doth only relate to them There may be a peculiar reason for their not bearing with them who own Prelacy viz. Because their Church-Government doth necessarily overtop bring into subjection and root out that Government of the Church which we own as Christ's Institution It is against their principle to suffer Ministers and Elders to live beside them who will adventure to govern any part of the Church without subordination to the Bishops And whatever Indulgence hath been in by past years given to Presbyterians as we know it was designed for no advantage to us without judging the secrets of any bodies heart so we know that not only it was not the act of our Church-men but nothing was more grievous to them and nothing they did more actively oppose Notwithstanding it is the principle and purpose of Presbyterians not to exclude any of them from their religious Assemblies nor from any of the Ordinances of God in them for their principle about Church-Government wherein they differ from us And for Ministers among them we are ready to give the right hand of fellowship and to admit to all the parts of the exercise of their Function among us such of them as shall not be made appear to be insufficient scandalous or erroneous or to be void of that holiness of life that becometh a Minister and who shall be found willing to secure the Government of the Church that we own and to prosecute the ends of it and not to exclude any simply for his opinion about Church-Government though the mean while we are not willing that all who will profess to own our Church-way should have a share in managing it with us because many such might be a scandal to it others might betray it neither can we allow that any of them should exercise a prelacy over us or over the people of our charge Further Never any Church or State gave Toleration to Dissenters from the established Church-way but as it might rationally be thought a necessary relief to tender consciences But this reason for suffering Episcopal men to practise their way among us at this time cannot without the greatest impudence and hypocrisie be pretended For refusing to receive the Ordinances from Presbyterians because they want Episcopal Ordination this cannot be from conscience seeing it was their constant practice when Prelats ruled this Church they never required any of them to be re-ordained who had been ordained by Presbyters and after complied with Episcopacy Neither can they pretend conscience for having a Worship different from ours I mean the English Liturgy for when it was in their power to use it they never did Wherefore there can be no pretence on which they can plead for tolleration in these things but humor and design and I hope it will not by impartial beholders be judged rigidity if the State deny a liberty to such persons to make such Innovations as never yet could get place in this Church especially when it is too apparent that they who are most forward for such a liberty give ground to think that a design against the present civil Government is at the bottom they being such as have no liking to the present Establishment § 4. But this Author hath a mind to represent us in other colours And for a Foundation of this his Essay he saith That the Solemn League and Covenant is the Canon and the Acts of the General Assemblies the Comment of the Principles of Scottish Presbyteries This is false the Rule that we Judge by in the Matter of Church Government as well as in other things is the Word of God and we use no other Comments for our help to understand that Rule but such as are founded on the Word it self and which we give sufficient Warrant for I hope the Reader will look on this loose talk as Railing not Arguing He may know that Presbytery was long in Scotland before that Covenant had a being And for Acts of General Assemblies they are no further our Rule than they are agreeable to the Supreme Rule The Word of God and to the Principles of Right Reason Neither do we look on them as Infallible as he foolishly feigneth pag. 6. What he or any other can make appear in them to be unwarranted we are ready to disown And we know they may be changed by the same power that made them when any thing in them shall be found to be amiss or inconvenient for the present state of the Church § 5. He quarrelleth with three Articles of the Covenant viz. The 1st about preserving the Government and Discipline of the Church The 2d that is against Episcopacy and its Dependents The 3d for defending one another in their adherence to this Bond. Let any judge what is here consistent with a moderate and duly limited Toleration of Dissenters Is there no Toleration of men who hold Prelacy to be lawful without allowing of Prelacy it self and submitting to its domination Next he will prove his point from some Acts of General Assemblies but this he prefaceth first with the peaceableness of the Prelatick Clergy in and after 1639. when their Church-Goverment was destroyed in that they neither raised Tumults nor wrote Books It is true they raised no Tumults but they did what they could to raise War for continuing on the necks of the people that Yoak that they had wreathed on them And did effectually draw on a bloody War which had very sad effects and issued in the ruine of them and Presbyterians too for a time and shewed well enough to raise Church-Tumults by their protesting and disobedience to the Sentence of the Church for their not writing Books who hindred them Unbyassed men will impute it to somewhat else rather than to their peaceableness Another part of his Preface That they were not suffered to continue in their Cures This is indeed true of the Bishops as such They were not permitted to exercise a Prelacy over their Brethren for that was inconsistent with the Government then established Yet as Ministers of the Church none of them were deprived who were willing to preach
after it was approved by the Authority of the Council and in it Presbyterian Government approved for it owneth no fixed Officers in the Church but Pastors Teachers Elders and Deacons what is to be thought of the Superintendents therein mentioned is after to be considered this Discipline and the Book containing it was subscribed to in January 1561. 1560. stilo vetere by a great part of the Nobility December 1560. a General Assembly was held where sat no Church-men but Ministers Another General Assembly was held Decemb. 25. 1562. where Bishops are so far from Church-Domination that they and other Ministers who had not entred by the Order in the Book of Discipline are inhibited till further Tryal 1563. A General Assembly at Perth about the end of June gave the same Power or Commission for planting Kirks suspending depriving transplanting Ministers c. to some Ministers that had been given to Superintendents And it is noticed by the Historian that Presbyteries were not yet constituted because of the scarcity of Ministers What is there in all this that looketh like Episcopal Government Another General Assembly met June 1565. also Decemb. 25. of the same Year where the Power of Superintendents was a little clipt also about the end of June 1567. At a Parliament held at Edenburgh Decemb. 15. 1567. several Acts were made about Church Affairs where not only mention is made of Synods and General Assemblies but Appeals allowed to the latter and from it Appeals are forbidden and a Commission appointed to enquire into what Points should belong to the Jurisdiction of the Church and all Church-Jurisdiction forbidden but what is or shall presently be established Another General Assembly Decemb. 25. 1567. also July 1568. in both which Superintendents were censured and a Bishop to wit who had been such deposed from the Ministry In the last Assembly it is appointed who shall Vote in Assemblies and not one word of Bishops Another Assembly July 1569. Another March 1st 1570. where Order is set down about chusing the Moderator there was no Prelate to pretend to that Priviledge Another in the beginning of July 1570. Another in the beginning of March 1571. where again Superintendents are limited In January 1572. a Convention of Church men met at Leith who were too much influenced by the Court The Council also with the Regent appointed Articles to be drawn for the Policy of the Kirk and after approved them By them was restored the Image of Prelacy yet the real Exercise of Presbytery in all its Meetings lesser and greater continued and was allowed for these called Tulchan Bishops were set up who had the name of Bishops while Noblemen and others had the Revenue and the Church had the Power This cannot be pretended to be a restoring of Prelacy more than of Popish Abbacies and Priories which were then the same way brought in This Constitution was never allowed by the General Assembly and it lasted but three or four years and as a Corruption was protested against by the General Assembly 6th of August 1572. In an Assembly at Edenburgh March 6. 1573. David Ferguson was Moderator tho' neither Bishop nor Superintendent Another Assembly August 6. Mr. Alexander Arbuthnot Principal of the old Colledge of Aberdeen was Moderator Assemb 1574. concluded that the power of Bishops should be no more than that of Superintendents In many of these Assemblies the Policy of the Church was revised and still carrying on toward perfection After this in other Assemblies pains was taken to perfect the Policy of the Church which at last came forth in the Second Book of Policy agreed on in the General Assembly Octob. 25. 1577. Also 1578. at several Assemblies Acts were made against Bishops the revising of the Book of Policy was delayed in a Parliament at Sterling Castle 1578. called the Imprisoned Parliament General Assembly July 13. at Dundie 1580. condemned the Office of Bishops as unlawful Another at Edenburgh Octob. 20. appointed a platform to be drawn for Presbyteries 1581. The second Confession of Faith was subscribed by the King and his Houshold Where Episcopacy is condemned under the Name of the Hierarchy it being declared that no other Church policy was to be allowed save that which then was used which every one knoweth was Presbytery The same Year the Assembly caused Registrate the Book of Policy among their Acts. In May 1584. some Acts of Parliament were made derogating from the Liberties of the Church but so little weight was laid on them that by the King's Command some Ministers were appointed to make Animadversions on them to which the King answered explaining and smoothing most of these grievous Acts. In the Assembly 1586. Commissions for Visitations were taken from Bishops Superintendents and others and the Church in several Meetings declared against Prelacy Much Contention there was between the Church in her lesser and greater Assemblies and a Court-Faction about Prelacy which yet was never re-established but at last in the Parliament begun 29 of March 1592. it was utterly abolished and Presbyterial Government fully settled which Arch-Bishop Spotswood in his History tho'he cannot deny yet doth most disingenuously labour to obscure § 9. Let us now consider what grounds the Pamphleter lays for his Conclusion and what is the Conclusion he buildeth on them the latter of these I first consider In it I observe first he is out in his Arithmetick for between 1567 and 1592. are not 35 but 25 Years Another thing to be observed is that it can make nothing for his Design that Presbyterian Government was not presently established by Law with the Protestant Religion because then the Nation having so lately been wholly Popish and but few of the Clergy or other Learned Men converted to the True Religion there could not be a competent number of Ministers got who were tolerably qualified either to rule the Church or to administer other Ordinances and the space of 25 years was not long for growing up of such an increase of useful Plants as might furnish Churches and constitute Presbyteries every where in the Nation especially if we consider what opposition was made to this settlement by the Court and its dependents and how some unfaithful preachers complied with the Court in hope of preferment from the year 1584. it was rather to be wondered at that this work was so speedily brought to such issue and through such opposition Let him make what advantage of his conclusion he can it is evident from what hath been said that Episcopacy never took place in the Protestant Church after the Reformation till Presbytery was fully setled also that the Inclinations of the protestant people of Scotland to speak in the dialect of our time were always for Presbytery and strongly against Prelacy and that whatever the State did to retard this work the Authority of the Church was always on the side of Presbytery It is also evident that Episcopal Jurisdiction over the Protestants was condemned by Law in that same Parliament
1567. wherein the Protestant Religion was established for it is there statute and ordain'd 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 floweth therefrom concerning preaching the Word correction of Manners administration of Sacraments Now I hope none will affirm that prelatical Jurisdiction then was or was soon after established in the protestant Church of Scotland § 10. The Foundations on which he buildeth his Conclusion make as little against what we hold he saith the Constitution of Bishops having then the Publick Authority the Popish Bishops sitting in this Parliament which setled the Reformation must in the Construction of the Law be confest to remain firm from 1567 to 1592. Ans. It is not denied that the Constitution of Bishops in regard of their Temporalties such as sitting in Parliament c. remained after 1567. yea neither do we say that that Law took from them the Authority they had over the Popish Church so far as then 't was in being for this Law did not pretend to unbishop them or make them no Priests nor did it touch their pretended Indelible Character But it is manifest that after this Law they had no legal Title to rule the Protestant Church and that by this nor any other Law no other Bishops were put in their room for the ruling of the Church To what he saith of the Popish Bishops sitting in a reforming Parliament I oppose what Leslie Bishop of Rosse a Papist hath De gest Scotorum lib. 10. pag. 536. that concilium à sectae nobilibus cum Regina habitum nullo ecclesiastico admisso ubi sancitum ne quis quod ad religionem attinet quicquam novi moliretur ex hac lege inquit omne sive haereseos sive inimicitiarum sive seditionis malum tanquam ex fonte fluxit Another thing he alledgeth or rather insinuateth viz. in the 1st Book of Policy a Superintendency which is another Model of Episcopacy was set up Ans. It is true the Protestant Church of Scotland in its infancy it was neither by an Act of Parliament that it was brought in nor that it was after cast out did set up Superintendents but this was truly and was so declared to be from the force of necessity and designed only for that present exigency of the Church Neither was it ever intended to be the lasting way of managing the Affairs of that Church At that time it was hard in a Province to find two or three men qualified for any more work toward the edifying of the Church than reading the Scripture to the people and therefore they found it needful to appoint one qualified man in a Province and at first fewer only five in all Scotland who had Commission from the Church to go up and down and preach to visit Churches to plant and erect Churches they acted only as Delegates from the Church and were accountable to every General Assembly where they were frequently censured and ordinarily the first work in the Assemblies was to try their Administrations as the number of Ministers grew their power was lessened and at last wholly taken away their Commission was renewed often other Commissioners also beside them were sometimes appointed with the same power They were never designed to be instead of Bishops for they did not keep to the old division of the popish Diocesses They might not stay above 20 days in one place in their Visitations they must preach thrice a Week at least In their particular Charge they must not remain above three or four Months but go abroad to Visitation again they must be subject to the Censure of the Church in her provincial and general Assemblies All this considered let any one judge with what candor our Author calleth a Superintendency a New Model of Episcopacy It is evident from our Church Histories that the Protetestant Church of Scotland was so far from that sentiment that they had a strict eye over Superintendents lest their power should have degenerated into a lordly Prelacy and that they laid aside the use of Commissions to Churchmen and giving them such power as soon as the Church could be provided with such number of Ministers as was needful QUESTION II. HAving brought his first Question to so wise a conclusion he advanceth to a second which is Whither ever Presbytery was setled in the Church of Scotland without constraint from tumultuous times What advantage to the Cause of Prelacy or detriment to Presbytery is designed by this Question and the Answer of it is not easie to divine Is every thing bad that hath been done in tumultuous times Doth not the Lord say Daniel 9. 25. That he will build his House in troublous times Will this man therefore condemn the Reformation from Popery in Scotland for this That it was setled against the will of the Queen and the popish Grandees and some pretended but unfaithful Protestants in a very tumultuous time It may be he will and his Citation pag. 4. out of Basil. Dor. Lib. 2. seemeth to import no less But if he thence conclude That Popery is the Truth and Protestantism an Error we shall then know where to find him And if he do not all that he here saith is extra oleas vagari But it may be the strength of his ratiocination lieth in this That Presbytery was setled by constraint And these by whose authority it was done were by the tumults of the people forced to it Let us a little examine this First Is every thing bad that men are forced to Ill men do few good things willingly and of their own proper motion By his way of reasoning the will and inclination of great men must be the standard of good and evil 2ly Presbytery had a twofold Settlement in Scotland One by Church-authority After searching the Scripture the General Assemblies of this Church did find Prelacy unwarranted there And that it was contrary to that Form of Government that the Apostles setled in the hands of the ordinary Office bearers of the House of God And this they declared authoritatively in the Name of Jesus Christ I hope he will not say that this was done by constraint Another Settlement it had by the Authority of King and Parliament giving their civil Sanction to it Neither can he alledge That the Parliament was any way constrained to this Or that any force was put on them Nothing appeareth but that the Parliament 1592. which made this Settlement was as free in the Election of its Members in their Consultations and Votings as any that have been since And some will say more-free than these Parliaments which since have undone what they did It resteth then That he must mean That the King was some way violented in that he assented to this Act contrary to his own sentiments and inclinations But this resteth to be proved beside that it is a greater reflection upon the Conscientiousness and