Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A57855
|
A defence of The vindication of the Church of Scotland in answer to An apology of the clergy of Scotland.
|
Rule, Gilbert, 1629?-1701.
|
1694
(1694)
|
Wing R2219; ESTC R11970
|
78,851
|
50
|
was as needless as when it is appointed a Tree shall be cut up by the Roots another injunction be given that the Tree shall fall Was not Episcopacy effectually rooted up in Scotland when all Church Power was put in the hand of Church Judicatories where all Memberâ— acted in Parity That a Bishop baptized Prince Henry is an odd Argument to prove that Episcopacy was the Government of the Church of Scotland If the King was pleased to chuse a Man who oncâ— exercised Episcopal Jurisdiction for that service especially when Ambassadours were present some of which lived where Episcopacy was exercised it doth not follow that either this Bishop or any other of his Character did govern the Church It is said without all warrant p. 63. That when three Lords were tried the Ministers would needs order the Process and stirred up the Rabble to back them nor would they disband tho' prohibited by Proclamation from King and Council The true History is some Popish Noblemen were known all the Nation over to be guilty of dangerous plotting against the Reformed Religion and designs to ruin the Professors of it They had Friends at Court so that they had too much advantage to carry on their designs All the found Protestants in the Nation observed this and saw the danger that they and the true Religion was in wherefore a Meeting of Barons Ministers and Burgesses which when challenged by the King for their meeting offered to make it appear that it was with sufficient warrant and advice from his Majesty did petition the King that those Lords might be brought to Tryal which was appointed to be done the Protestants resolved to meet before hand to appoint some to prosecute the Criminals which they did Neither can it be made appear that any violence was offered to any Person and all that Spotswood saith of it is p. 399. that great Companies came to Edinburgh without mention of Arms or Violence And indeed the danger was such as it is no wonder that they who had Zeal for the true Religion were forward to cry for Justice when they evidently saw that all Methods were used for palliating the matter land protecting these Criminals to the manifest hazard of Church and State The Issue was the Convention called by the King for trying these Lords referred the matter to a Commitee where they allowed some Ministers whom they named to be present and to propose what they should think fit Here is nothing of Ministers ordering the Process nor of a Rabble in Arms. § 55. After all this our Author doth still maintain that in the years wherein Presbytry had moâ—â— the ascendent yet Bishops did exist by Law enjoyed their Rents and Preached in their Churches foâ— which he produceth many passages out of the Records of Parliament It is well our debate is come to this issue if this be all that he would prove he shall not find us to oppose him Our question is only whether the Protestant Church after her Reformation was governed by Bishops or by Presbyters acting in Parity I know that long after the Reformation even Popish Bishops sat in Parliament enjoyed their Temporalities And that in 1572 an image of Bishops was restored and also oâ— Abbots and Priors but even their pretended Power that they then got was soon taken away Anâ— that many States-men who reaped most of the profits of these places made a great stickle to hold up that image yea and to give them more power in the Church than was due But that in these times Bishops had ruling Church power except in 1572 as is said I utterly deny Wherefore most of his Citations are wholly beside the purpose I shall then only examine such of them as seem to make against what I have asserted He saith p. 64. That the Authority of the Bishops is owned by Act 63. Parl. 5. Jac. 6. Ann. 1575 of which none of our Histories do take any notice And the Act it self is anent the visitation of Hospitals all that is said of Bishops is that they and other Commissioners of Diocesses shall visit Hospitals I hope here is no Church power allowed them In the year 1579 Act 71 Parl. 6. Jac. 6. there is no more said but that young Noblemen or others who had been out of the Country for their breeding shall at their return go to the Bishop or Superintendent or Commissioner of the Kirk Neither is this any governing Authority over the Church The two following Citations are only to shew that Bishops continued 1581 so that of 1587 and several others of his Quotations design no more but that Bishops existed by Law sat in Parliament some were presented to rich Benefices All which is wide from the purpose He saith that 1584 Act 132 Parl. 8. Jac. 6. the Bishops Authority is fully owned It is indeed said in that Act That Ministers may be deprived by the ordinary Bishop of a Diocess or others the Kings Majesties Commissioners to be constituted in Ecclesiastical Causes Where it is evident that Church power is placed in the King rather than in the Bishop Who can by this Act do nothing but as he is the King's Commissioner even in censuring of Ministers If this be a full owning of Episcopal power let him enjoy it This making them the King's Bishops not Christ's nor is there any thing beside in that Act which alloweth them any Church power But we have another Answer to this Quotation That Parliament saith Spotswood p 333 was declared Current at that time for the more speedy dispatch of business whereas the former was in October 1581 and is called in the Records the seventh Parl and this is called the eighth Parliament which is inconsistent with its being Current or the former Parliament yet subsisting But some things were to be done that could not pass in a full Parliament and therefore as Calderwood hath it p. 155 there was no intimation by Proclamation before the meeting of it nor reasonable time granted according to the accustomed order It was almost ended before it was heard of The Lords of the Articles were sworn to keep secret the matters to be treated One of whom tho' he would not reveal particulars wrote to a Minister that the whole intent of that Parliament was against the Kirk and the Discipline of it These are the Methods by which Episcopacy and Erastianism behoved to be supported in these times when they could have no Countenance from the Church nor from the Nation § 56. He next citeth a Conference at Falkland 1596 where some Articles were agreed on about some Ministers having Vote in Parliament and that these were confirmed by an Assembly at Montross 1600 and there some Bishops Elected for Diocesses It is not to be denyed that there was a working toward Prelacy among some Courtiers and Ambitious Churchmen about that time And one of their Methods was to get some Ministers to Vote in Parliament the tendency of this was seen and the thing opposed
Book of Policy by the State was much occasioned by what is contained in the eighth ninth and Tenth Chapters of it concerning the disposing the Church Rents otherwise than some great Men desired and to their disadvantage as they imagined A piece of manifestly false History followeth viz. Ann. 1580. An Assembly met at Dundee called by Mr. Andrew and his Associates without a shadow of any permission from the Civil Authority Where they declared the Office of a Bishop to be without warrant from the Word of God That they had not the Magistrates allowance is not only said without the Authority of any Historian and is a pure invention of this Author But it is certain that then they had their Assemblies in Course by the States allowance and that the succeeding Assembly was appointed at the dissolution of the former It is also asserted by Calderwood p. 89. That the King sent two the Prior of Pittenweens and the Laird of Lundie instructed with power to assist the Assembly with their Presence and Counsell from all which it is also evident to be a mistake that this Assembly was called by Mr. Melvil and his Associates The observation of our Author on the Assemblies declaring against Bishops is the ordinary Gang of his Party that it is against plain Scripture the Doctrine of the Apostles how this differeth from the former I know not and of the Fathers and the Canons of all Oecumenical Councils and the rule of Apostolical and Primitive Practice If he or any else will prove all this our Cause must needs fall to the ground But I have often read and heard such confident Assertions but never yet saw sufficient proof of them It offendeth him highly that in the end of the Act against Bishops the Assembly referreth to the next Assembly to reason upon the disposing the Patrimony of the Kirks possessed by the Bishops as if in this they usurped on the Kings Regale But here is not one word of considering how They should dispose of this Patrimony and I hope it is no Usurpation in Church-men to advise and reason in order to give their Opinion and putting up their Supplication to them to whom it belongeth to dispose of it § 51. His History of one Montgomery who was zealous against Bishops and yet did afterward Simoniacally bargain for a Bishoprick I regard not Not knowing the truth of it nor being directed by him where to find it And if it were true it signifieth no more but that once a professed Presbyterian was an Apostate Which is so insignificant a story and so little Argumentative in our Debate that it is not worthy the writing He misrepresenteth the procedure of the Church against Montgomery as if when they were called to answer for illegal invasions on the Kings Authority they did boldly protest that tho' they compeared in Civility to the King yet they did not acknowledge the Kings â—on Councils right in any Ecclesiastical matter I wish this Author had either read Spotswood's History for others it is like he will not regard them more carefully or represented what account he giveth of this matter more faithfully Which is p. 316. c. that Mr. Robert Montgomery Minister at Stirling having made a vile Simoniacal bargain for the Bishoprick of Glasgow was quarrelled by the Church for this and other gross things were also laid to his charge The King allowed them to proceed against him on any thing they could charge him with in his Life or Doctrine But would not permit them to censure him for accepting the Bishoprick Whereupon he was accused of gross Crimes his Libel was sent to the King The King left him to make his own Answer After this the Presbytry of Stirling suspended him for disorderly Baptizing he slighted this Sentence and exercised his Ministry Whereupon he was cited to appear before the Synod of which the King being informed warned the Synod to appear before him at Stirling and discharged all proceeding against him some of them appeared and protested that tho' in Obedience not Civility as our Author hath it they had compeared yet they did not acknowledge his Majesty and the Council Judges in the matter it being a Cause Ecclesiasticall They did not say as the Manuscript hath it that they did not acknowledge the King and Councils right in any Ecclesiastical matter I shall say no more of this purpose save that not only the Presbyterians but also not a few Episcopalians especially when the Civil Authority acteth against their Interests and Inclinations do controvert whither the Magistrate can hinder the Church to censure her own Members when the matter is purely Ecclesiastical I wish our Author would shew us what Invasion is made on the Kings Authority when the Church censureth any person for Immoralities that are manifest Scandals to the People and do no way touch the Civil State § 52. He next p. 61. maketh an odious representation of the Kings being made Prisoner at Ruthven by some of the Nobility and the General Assemblies approving of this Fact It is here in the first place to be observed that this is wide from the design of the Apologist in transcribing this Manuscript The tendency of it is indeed to set forth the Presbyterians in as ugly a shape as is possible which I confess our Apologist is passionately bent upon but it no way contributeth to shew the Vicissitudes of Presbytry and Episcopacy in the Church of Scotland for which he bringeth this Manuscript Next I take notice that he who wrote this Paper doth not give so fair account of this Affair as his Author Spotswood doth who informeth us p 320. c. That some of the Nobility combining themselves for defence of Religion and the liberty of the Kingdom as they pretended did seize the King and restrained the Duke of Lennox and the Earl of Arran whose Counsels had given great discontent to the Nation from the Kings presence That the King by a Proclamation approved of the Act discharged rising of Men to rescue him commanded the Duke and Earl to depart out of the Nation That the Queen of England advised the King to take in good part what the Lords had done because of the danger that the perverse Counsels of the Duke of Lennox and Earl of Arran had brought the Nation into That the Noblemen desired the General Assembly to approve this deed of theirs which the Assembly would not do till they consulted with the King himself and till he desired them to do it Confessing to them that Religion was in hazard and indirect Courses taken to overturn it and that his own hazard was joyned with that of Religion And desiring that they for their own part would help to remove the same He sheweth also that this deed of the Lords was fully approved by a Convention of Estates at Edinburgh called by the King Let it then be considered whether it be so monstruous a thing for the Church to shew her Opinion when required