dwell longer on this subject But I am affraid I have noticed it too much already To conclude then What is this Standard else than the Fundamental principle of Hobbism that Holy Scheme for Brutalizing Mankind and making Religion Reason Revelation every thing that aims at making men Manly to yeild unto at least to depend on the Frisks of Flesh and Blood or which is all one Arrant sense and ungovernable Passion And so I leave it But is the Second Reason any better If this Church had been Reformed by Presbyters would that have been a good Argument for Abolishing Prelacy Who sees not that it is much about the same Size with the former Indeed I am apt to think had the several Churches in the world erected their Governments by this Rule we should have had some pretty odd Constitutions Thus the Church collected of old amongst the Indians by Frumentius and Aedesius should have been Govern'd still by Laicks For Frumentius and Aedesius were no more than Laicks when they first converted them Thus all Xaverius's Converts and their Successors should have been always Govern'd by Iesuits For 't is past Controversie Xaverius was a Iesuit Thus the Churches of Iberia and Moravia should have been Govern'd by Women For if we may believe Historians the Gospel got first footing in these parts by the Ministery of Females Indeed if the Argument has any strength at all it seems stronger for these Constitutions than for Presbytery in Scotland inasmuch as it is more to Convert Infidels than only to Reform a Church which tho' Corrupt is allowed to be Christian. Nay which is more and worse more contrary to the Inclinations of Scotch Presbyterians and worse for Scotch Presbytery By this way of Reasoning Episcopacy ought still hitherto to have continued and hereafter to continue the Government of the Church of England Because that Church was Reformed by her Bishops But if so what can be said for the Solemn League and Covenant How shall we defend our Forty-three-men and all the Covenanting work of Reformation in that Glorious Period And if it must continue there what constant Perils must our Kirk needs be in especially so long as both Kingdoms are under one Monarch What I have said I think might be enough in all Conscience for this Fifth Enquiry But because it is obvious to the most overly Observation that the Framers of the Article have not been so much concerned for the strength and solidity of the Reasons they choosed for supporting their Conclusion as for their Colour and Aptitude to catch the vulgar and influence the populace and because our Presbyterian Brethren have of a long time been and still are in use to make zealous Declamations and huge noises about Succession to our Reformers Because the clamour on all occasions that those who stand for Episcopacy have so much forsaken the principles and maximes of the Reformation that they Pay our Reformers so little Respect and Deference That they have Secret Grudges at the Reformation That they would willingly return to Popery And what not Whereas they themselves have a Mighty Veneration for those who Reformed the Church of Scotland They are their only true and Genuine Successors They are the only Men who stand on the foot of the Reformation the only sincere and heart-Protestants the only Real Enemies to Antichrist c. For these Reasons I say I shall beg the Readers patience till I have discoursed this point a little farther And to deal frankly and plainly In the first place I own those of the Episcopal perswasion in Scotland do not think themselves bound to maintain all the principles or embrace all the sentiments or justify all the Practices of our Reformers 'T is true I speak only from my self I have no Commission from other men to tell their sentiments Yet I think the Generality of my Fathers and Brethren will not be offended tho' I speak in the Plural number and take them into the reckoning And therefore I think I may safely say Tho we think our Reformers considering their Education and all their disadvantages were very considerable men and made very considerable progress in Reforming the Church yet we do not believe they had ane immediate allowance from Heaven for all they said or did We believe they were not endued with the Gifts of infallibility inerrability or impeccability We believe and they believed so themselves that they had no Commission no Authority to Establish new Articles of Faith or make new Conditions of Salvation We believe they had no Power pretended to none for receding from the Original and immovable Standard of Christian Religion In consequence of this We believe and are confident that where they missed and being Fallible it was very possible for them to do it of Conformity to that Standard we are at Liberty to think otherwise than they thought to Profess otherwise than they professed We are not bound to follow them To instance in a few of many things We own we cannot allow of the principle of Popular Reformations as it was asserted and practised by our Reformers We own indeed 't is not only Lawful but Necessary for every Man to Reform himself both as to Principles and Practice when there is Corruption in either And that not only without but against publick Authority whither Civil or Ecclesiastical Farther we own 't is not only Lawful but plain and Indispensible Duty in the Governours of the Church to Reform her Acting in their own Sphere even against humane Laws in direct opposition to a thousand Acts of a thousand Parliaments I say Acting and keeping within their own Sphere i. e. so far as their Spiritual Power can go but no farther Keeping within these their own bounds they may and should condemn Heresies purge the publick worship of Corruptions continue a Succession of Orthodox Pastors c. In a word do every thing which is needful to be done for putting and preserving the Church committed to their Care in that State of Orthodoxy Purity and Vnity which Iesus Christ from whom they have their Commission and to whom they must be Answerable has Required by his holy Institution But we cannot allow them to move Excentrically to turn Exorbitant to stir without their own Vortex We cannot allow them to use any other than Spiritual means or to make any other than Spiritual Defences We think they should still perform all dutiful submission to the Civil Powers Never Resist by Material Arms never absolve subjects from their Allegiance to their Civil Sovereign Never Preach the Damnable Doctrine of Deposing Kings for Heresie never attempt to make those whom they should make good Christians bad Subjects But to teach them the great and fundamental Doctrine of the Cross and Exemplify it to them in their Practice when they are Called to it This we Profess And we do not think it Popery But our Reformers taught a quite different Doctrine Their Doctrine was that it belong'd to the Rabble to
Britain as our Presbyterian Brethren are earnest to have the present Generation believe Again Pag. 449 The Author Narrating how Henry Queen Mary's Husband c was buried Adds in Confirmation of his own Veracity Thus. If there had been any Solemn Burial Buchanan had wanted Wit to Relate otherwise Seeing there would have been so many Witnesses to testify the Contrary Therefore the Contriver of the late History of Queen Mary wanted Policy here to convey a Lie Thus I say the Author vouches Buchanans Authority And it must be Buchanans History that he Refers to For there 's not a Syllable about Henry's Burial to be found in any of his other writings Now Not to insist on the incredibleness of Knox's running for Shelter to Buchanans Authority concerning a matter of Fact so remarkable in its self and which happened in his own time in that very City in which he lived and was Minister Not to insist on this I say Buchanan himself in his Dedication of his History to King Iames 6th Clearly decides the matter He tells his Majesty there were two Considerations which chiefly put him upon writing his History First He perceived his Majesty had Read and Understood the Histories of almost all other Nations And it was incongruous and unaccountable that he who was so well acquainted with Foreign Affairs should be a Stranger to the History of his own Kingdom Secondly He was intrusted with the Kings Education He could not attend his Majesty in that important Office by Reason of his Old Age and Multiplying infirmities He applyed himself therefore to write his History thereby to Compense the Defects of his Non-Attendance c. And from both Reasons it is evident that Knox was Dead before Buchannan applyed himself to the writing of his History For Knox dyed Anno 1572. K. Iames was then but Six years of Age And is it Credible that at that Age he had Read and got by heart the Histories of almost all other Nations Indeed Buchanan survived Knox by ten years And for a good many of them was able to wait and actually waited on the King So that 't is clear 't was towards the end of his days and after Knox's Death that he applyed himself to his History And 't is very well known it was never published till the year 1582. But this is not all The Author of that which is called Knox's History adduces Buchanan's Authority for Convelling the Credit of the Contriver of the Late History of Queen Mary which was written I cannot tell how long after Buchanan was Dead as well as Knox. Further Pag. 306. The Author discourses thus The Books of Discipline have been of late so often published that we shall forbear to print them at this time Now there were never more than two Books of Discipline and the Second was not so much as projected till the year 1576 i. e. 4 years after Knox had departed this life Once more Pag. 286. We read thus Some in France after the sudden Death of Francis the Second and calling to mind the Death of Charles the Ninth in Blood and the Slaughter of Henry the Second did Remark the Tragical ends of these three Princes who had persecuted Gods Servants so cruelly And indeed the following Kings of France unto this day have found this true by their unfortunate and unexpected Ends. Now Charles the Ninth died not till the 30th of May Anno 1574. i. e. 18 Months after Knox. The following Kings of France who made the Vnfortunate and unexpected Ends were Henry the Third and Henry the Fourth Henry the Third was not Murthered till the year 1589. Henry the Fourth not till May 1610. The former 17 the latter 38 years after the Death of Knox. From this Taste it is clear that that History at least as we now have it was not written by Knox. All that can be said with any Shadow of probability is that Knox provided some Materials for it But Granting this how shall we be able to separate that which is Spurious in it from that which is Genuine All I can say is this 'T is plain to every one that Reads it That he has been a thorough-paced Presbyterian who framed it as we have it By Consequence its Authority is stark naught for any thing in it that favours Presbytery or bespatters Prelacy And if it ought to have any credit at all it is only where the Controversies about Church Government are no ways interested or where it mentions any thing that may be improven to the Advantages of Episcopacy just as the Testimonies of Adversaries are useful for the interests of the opposite party and not an Aâ—e farther So that I had reason if any Man can have it to insist on its Authority as I have frequently done But no Presbyterian can in equity either plead or be allowed the same priviledge I could give the Reader a surfeit of instances which cannot but appear to any considering person to be plain and notorious Presbyterian corruptions in it But I shall only represent One as being of considerable importance in the Controversie which I have managed in my Second Enquiry and by that the Reader may make a Judgment of the Authors Candor and Integrity in other things The English Non-conformists zealous to be rid of the Vestments and some other Forms and Ceremonies retained by the Church of England which they reckoned to be scandalous impositions wrote earnestly as is known to several Reformed Churches and Protestant Divines beseeching them to interpose with the Church of England for an ease of these burdens It seems they wrote to some in Scotland also probably to Mr. Knox He was of their acquaintance and they could not but be secure enough of his inclinations considering how warm he had been about these matters at Francfort However it was the Church of Scotland did actually interpose The General Assembly met at Edenburgh Decem. 27. Anno 1566 ordered Iohn Knox to draw a Letter to the English Clergy in favour of those Non-conformists This Letter was subscribed and sent Now consider the Tricks of the Author of the History attributed to Knox. The Inscription of the Letter as it is in Spotswood Petrie and the Manuscript Copy of the Acts of the General Assembly's is this The Superintendents Ministers and Commissioners of the Church within the Realm of Scotland To their Brethren the Bishops and Pastors of England who have renounced the Roman Antichrist and do profess with them the Lord Iesus in sincerity wish the increase of the Holy Spirit Thus I say Spotswoâ—d hath it pag. 198. And the MS. and Petrie Tom. 2. p. 348. have it in the same words only where Spotswood hath wish they have desire which makes no material Difference But the spurious Knox has it thus pag. 445. The Superintendents with other Ministers and Commissioners of the Church of God in the Kingdom of Scotland To their Brethren the Bishops and Pastors of Gods Church in England who profess with us
swatch pardon the word if it is not English of both his Historical and his Argumentative Skill a talent he bewails much the want of in his Adversaries as may make it appear just and reasonable for any man to decline him But lest he is not represented there so fully as he ought to be so fully as may justify my declining of him I shall be at some farther pains here to give the Reader a fuller prospect of him To delineate him minutely might perchance be too laborious for me and too tedious and loathsome to my Reader I shall restrict my self therefore to his four Cardinal Virtues his Learning his Iudgment his Civility and his Modesty Or because we are Scottishmen to give them their plain Scotch names his Ignorance his Non-sence his Ill-nature and his Impudence Perhaps I shall not be able to reduce every individual instance to its proper Species 'T is very hard to do that in matters which have such affinity one with another as there is between Ignorance and Non-sence or between Ill-nature and Impudence But this I dare promise if I cannot keep by the Nice Laws of Categories I shall be careful to keep by the Strict Laws of Iustice I shall entitle him to nothing that is not truely his own So much for Preface come we next to the Purpose And in the 1. Place I am apt to think since ever writing was a Trade there was never Author furnished with a richer stock of unquestionable Ignorance for it To insist on all the Evidences of this would swell this Preface to a Bulk beyond the Book I omit therefore his making Presbyterian Ruling Elders as contradistinct from Teaching Elders of Divine Institution his making the SENIORES sometimes mentioned by the Fathers such Ruling Elders and his laying stress on the old blunder about St. Ambrose's testimony to that purpose vide True Represent of Presbyterian Government prop. 3. These I omit because not peculiar to him I omit even that which for any thing I know may be peculiar to him viz. That his Ruling Elders are called Bishops and that their necessary Qualifications are set down at length in Scrip. e. g. 1 Tim. 3.2 and Tit. 1.6 ibid. Prop. 3.4 I omit his Learn'd affirmative that Patronages were not brought into the Church till the 7 th or 8 th Centurie or Later And that they came in amongst the latest Antichristian Corruptions and Vsurpations ibid. Answ. to Object 9 th I omit all such Assertions as these that the most and most Eminent of the Prelatists acknowledge that by our Saviours appointment and according to the practice of the first and best Ages of the Church she ought to be and was Governed in Common by Ministers Acting in Parity ibid. Prop. 12. That Diocesan Episcopacy was not settled in St. Cyprian 's time Rational Defence of Nonconformity c. p. 157 That Diocesan Episcopacy prevailed not for the first three Centuries and that it was not generally in the 4 th Centurie ibid. 158. That the Bishop S. Cyprian all alongst speaks of was a Presbyterian Moderator ibid. 179. That Cyprian Austine Athanasius c. were only such Moderators ibid. 175 176 177 178. I omit his insisting on the Authority of the Decretal Epistles attributed to Pope Anacletus as if they were Genuine ibid. 202. And that great Evidence of his skill in the affairs of the Protestant Churches viz. That Episcopacy is not to be seen in any one of them Except England ibid. p. 10. Nay I omit his nimble and learned Gloss he has put on St. Ierom's Toto Orbe Decretum c. viz. That this Remedy of Schism in many places began then i. e. in St. Ierom's time to be thought on and that it was no wonder that this Corruption began then to creep in it being then about the end of the fourth Centurie when Jerome wrote c. ibid. 170. Neither shall I insist on his famous Exposition of St. Ierom's Quid facit Episcopus c. because it has been sufficiently exposed already in the Historical Relation of the General Ass. 1690. Nor on his making Plutarch Simonides Chrysostom c. Every Graecian speak Latin when he had the confidence to cite them These and 50 more such surprising Arguments of our Authors singular learning I shall pass over And shall insist only a little on two or three instances which to my taste seem superlatively pleasant And 1. In that profound Book which he calls a Rational Defence of Nonconformity c. in Answer to D. Stillingfleet's Vnreasonableness of the separation from the Church of England pag. 172. He hath Glossed St. Chrysostom yet more ridiculously than he did St. Ierom. The passage as it is in Chrysostom is sufficiently famous and known to all who have enquired into Antiquity about the Government of the Church The Learned Father having Discoursed concerning the Office and Duties of a Bishop Hom. 10. on 1 Tim. 3. and proceeding by the Apostles Method to Discourse next of Deacons Hom. II. started this difficulty How came the Apostle to prescribe no Rules about Presbyters And he solved it thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 St. Paul says he did not insist about Presbyters because there 's no great difference between them and Bishops Presbyters as well as Bishops have received Power to Teach and Govern the Church And the Rules he gave to Bishops are also proper for Presbyters For Bishops excel Presbyters only by the Power of Ordination and by this alone they are reckoned to have more Power than Presbyters Vide Edit Savil. Tom. 4. p. 289. Now 't is plain to the most ordinary attention That in the Holy Father's Dialect 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies the Power of conferring Orders just as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signify the Powers of Teaching and Governing Consider now the Critical Skill of G. R. Bellarmine had adduced this Testimony it seems to shew that there was a Disparity in point of Power between Bishops and Presbyters and had put it in Latin thus Inter Episcopum atque Presbyterum interest fere nihil quippe Presbyteris Ecclesiae cura permissa est quae de Episcopis dicuntur ea etiam Presbyteris congruunt Sola quippe Ordinatione Superiores illi sunt So G. R. has it I know not if he has transcribed it faithfully 'T is not his custom to do so Nor have I Bellarmine at hand to compare them Sure I am the Translation doth not fully answer the Original But however that is go we forward with our Learned Author These are his words What he Bellarmine alledgeth out of this citation that a Bishop may Ordain not a Presbyter the Learned Fathers expression will not bear For Ordination must signify either the Ordination the Bishop and Presbyter have whereby they are put in their Office to be different which he doth not alledge Or that the difference between them was only in Order or Precedency not in Power or Authority Or that it
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
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
Canterbury To the Bishop of London To Ithavius Bishop of Vladislavia dated Decem. 1. An. 1558 Or his Resolution of that Case if a Bishop or Curate joyn himself to the Church c. Or lastly his Epistle to the King of Poland wherein he tells him That It was Nothing but pride and ambition that introduced the Popes Supremacy That the Ancient Church had indeed her Patriarchs and Primates for the Expedition of Discipline and the Preservation of Unity As if in the Kingdom of Poland one Archbishop should have the precedency of the rest of the Bishops not that he might Tyrannize over them but for Orders sake and for Cherishing Unity amongst his Collegues and Brethren And next to him there should be Provincial or City Bishops for keeping all things orderly in the Church Nature teaching says he that from every Colledge One should be chosen who should have the chief Management of affairs But 'T is another thing for one Man as the Pope doth to arrogate that to himself which exceeds all humane abilities namely The Power of governing the whole Universe Whoso shall perpend these writings of Mr. Calvins I say shall find that he was very far from maintaining the Vnlawfulness of Prelacy Nay farther yet I challenge my Presbyterian Brethren upon their ingenuity to tell me weither it was not a good many years after 1560. that Beza himself the true founder of their Sect condemn'd Prelacy if he did condemn it I say if he did maintain the Necessity of Parity and condemn'd Prelacy For however he may seem upon several occasions not only to give the preference to Presbyterian Government and represent it as the most eligible But to endeavour to found it on Scripture And represent Episcopacy as an humane invention yet I have not observed that any where 〈◊〉 calls it absolutely or simply Unlawful On the contrary he says in express terms That it is Tolerable when it is duely Bounded when the pure Canons of the Ancient Church are kept in vigour to keep it within its proper Limits Sure I am he was not for separating from a Church as our modern Presbyterians are upon the account of its Governments being Episcopal as might be made appear fully from his Letters so that whatever greater Degrees of Dislike to Episcopacy he may have discovered beyond his Predecessor Mr. Calvin yet it is not unreasonable to think that his great aim was no more than to justify the Constitution of the Church he lived in and recommend it as a pattern to other Churches The Scope of this whole Consideration is this That if what I have asserted is true if there was no such Controversie agitated all the time our Church was a Reforming nor for a good many years after Then we have one fair Presumption that our Reformers were not Presbyterians It is not likely that they were for the Indispensibility of Parity that being the side of a Question which in these times was not begun to be tossed And this Presumption will appear yet more ponderous if II. It be considered that we have no reason to believe that our Reformers had any peculiar Motives or Occasions for adverting to the pretended Evils of Prelacy or any peculiar interests to determine them for Parity beyond other Churches or that they were more sharp-sighted to espy faults in Prelacy or had opportunities or inclinations to search more diligently or enquire more narrowly into these matters than other Reformers The truth is The Controversies about Doctrine and Worship were the great ones which took up the thoughts of our Reformers and imployed their most serious Applications This is obvious to any who considers the accounts we have of them so very obvious that G. R. himself fairly confesses it in his First Vind. ad Quest. 1. where he tells us That the Errors and Idolatry of that way meaning Popery 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 From which 't is plain he confesses the Reformation of the Churches Government was not the subject of their Main Thinking which indeed is very true and cannot but appear to be so to any who considers what a Lame Scheme was then drest up by them But however this was 't is enough to my present purpose That our Reformers were more imployed in reforming the Doctrine and Worship than in thinking about Church Governments From which together with the former presumption which was that our present Controversies were not begun to be agitated in these times one of two things must follow unavoidably viz. either 1. That if they were for the Divine and indispensible Right of Parity 't is no great matter their Authority is not much to be valued in a Question about which they had thought so Little Or 2. That it is to be presumed they were not for the Divine Right of Parity That being the side of a Question which was not then agitated in any Protestant Church and as Little in Scotland as any To be ingenuous I think both inferences good tho 't is only the Last I am concerned for at present But this is not all For III. So far as my opportunities would allow me I have had a special eye on all our Reformers as I found them in our Histories I have noticed their sentiments about Church Government as carefully as I could And I have not found so much as one amongst them who hath either directly or indirectly asserted the Divine and Vnalterable Right of Parity By our Reformers here I mean such as were either 1. Martyrs or 2. Confessors for the Reformed Religion before it had the countenance of Civil Authority or 3. Such as lived when it was publickly established and had a hand in bringing it to that perfection Such I think and such only deserved the Name of our Reformers And here again I dare be bold to challenge my Presbyterian Brethren to adduce clear and plain proof that so much as any one man of the whole Number of our Reformers was of the present principles of the party Some of them indeed seem to have laid no great stress on Holy Orders and to have been of opinion That personal Gifts and Graces were a sufficient Call to any man to preach the Gospel and undertake the pastoral Office Thus that excellent person Mr. George Wishart who in most things seems to have juster notions of the Gospel Spirit than most of our other Reformers when at his Tryal he was charged with this Article That every man was a Priest and that the Pope had no more power than another man answered to this purpose That St. Iohn saith of all Christians He hath made us Kings and Priests And St. Peter He hath made us
a Kingly Priesthood That therefore any man skill'd in the Word of God and true Faith of Christ had power given him of God But he that was unlearned and not exercised in the word of God nor constant in the Faith whatever his state or order was had no power to bind or to loose seeing he wanted the word of God which is the Instrument of binding and loosing And 'T is probable This was a prevailing opinion in those times from the too common practice of it But hath this any relation to the Divine Right of Parity Doth it not strick equally against both Orders that of Presbyters as well as that of Bishops Is it not plainly to set up the Ius Laicorum Sacerdotale in opposition to both And who can say but this Opinion might have been in a Breast which entertain'd no scruples about the Lawfulness of Episcopacy No doubt it might and no doubt it was actually so with this same holy Martyr For he was not only willing that the then Bishops tho Popish should be his Judges He not only gave them still their Titles and payed them all the Respect that was Due to their Order and Character homages infinitely scandalous with our modern Presbyterians as is to be observed thro all the steps of his Tryal But in his last Exhortation to the People at the very Stake he bespake them thus I beseech you Brethren and Sisters to exhort your Prelates to the Learning of the Word of God that they may be ashamed to do evil and learn to do good and if they will not convert themselves from their wicked Errors there shall hastily come upon them the wrath of God which they shall not eschew Here you see the Dying Martyr was earnest that the Popish Prelates might quit their Errors not their Prelations What is there here that looks like a Divine-Right-of-Parity-man Indeed he was none of that Principle He had had his Principles from England as we shall find hereafter Only one thing more about him here He was not for Club law Reformations He was neither for violent Possessions of Churches not for propagating the Cause by Rabbles if we may belieâ—â— Knox's accounts of him Others again of our Reformers Declaim'd loudly against the Bishops of these times and condemn'd them severely and perhaps too deservedly But what is this to the Order Doth every man condemn the Office who condemns this or that Officer If so then sure the Order of Presbyters was as bad as the Order of Bishops in the judgment of our Reformers For instance hear Walter Milne in his Exhortation to the People at his Martyrdom Therefore as ye would escape Eternal Death be no more seduced with the Lies of whom of Bishops only No but of the whole collection of the Priests Abbots Monks Friars Priors Bishops and the rest of the Sect of Antichrist But 't is needless to adduce the Testimonies of private persons we have the publick Deeds of the Protestants of these times very clear to this purpose Thus They directed a Declaration of their minds to the Popish Clergy under this Title To the Generation of Antichrist the pestilent Prelates and their Shavelings within Scotland c. And were not Presbyters of the number of these Shavelings And what can be more part to this purpose than the Supplication which was presented by our Reformers to the Parliament Anno 1560 There they tell the Estates That they cannot cease to crave of their Honours the Redress of such Enormities as manifestly are and of a long time have been committed by the Place-holders of the Ministery and others of the Clergy They offer evidently to prove that in all the Rabble of the Clergy there is not one Lawful Minister And therefore they crave that they may be decerned unworthy of Honour Authority Charge or Care in the Church of God c. Whoso pleases may see more of their publick Representations to this effect in Knox's History Now what can be more clear than that all this work was against Presbyters as much as against Bishops and by consequence against Both Offices or against neither as indeed it was against neither as I shall afterwards demonstrate from this same Petition In short nothing can be more evident to ane attentive Reader than that in all these Efforts of the Zeal of our Reformers against the Popish Bishops it was only the Popery and not at all the Prelacy that was aim'd at They never condemned Bishops as Bishops but only as Popish Bishops I have insisted the more largely on these things because I know People are apt to mistake in this matter who do not sufficiently attend to the Dialect of these times Especially when they read the History which is commonly called Iohn Knox's I return now to my purpose and repeat my assertion viz. That our Presbyterian Brethren cannot adduce so much as one of our Martyrs our Confessors or those who had any remarkable hand in the Establishment of our Reformation in the year 1560 who was of the Modern Presbyterian Principles Three Authors have indeed attempted it The Author of the Pamphlet entituled The Course of Conformity Mr. Calderwood and Mr. Petrie The Author of the Course of Conformity in his 4 th Chap. reckons up a full Dozen of such as he says gave Evident and full Testimony against Bishoprie as he calls it But he has not recorded the Testimony of any One except Knox. All the rest he proves to have been enemies to Prelacy by this one Argument They preached zealously against Popery And Bishoprie is one of the greatest Errors and Corruptions of that He neither offers at proving his Subsumption nor at adducing any other Topick And has he not proven the point demonstratively Besides some of his Dozen were not heard of till several years after the Reformation and so cannot be brought in Barr against my Challenge Further He has had the ill Luck to name such for the half of his Dozen as would have laught heartily to have heard themselves cited as Patrons of the Divine Right of Parity Particularly Mr. Willock who lived and died Superintendent of Glasgow Mr. Pont who died Bishop of Cathnes Mr. Row who was one of the Three who stood for the Lawfulness of Episcopacy when it was first called in question at the Assembly in August 1575 Mr. Craig whom Calderwood himself censures severely for his forwardness to have the Brethren subscrive That they should give obedience to their Ordinary's and charges with making bitter invectives against the sincerer sort as he calls the Non-Subscribers I may add Mr. Knox as shall be made appear by and by But I have taken but too much notice of The Course of Conformity which is truly one of the weakest Pamphlets was ever seen in print And if that part of it which is against Episcopacy was written by Mr. Iames Melvil as Calderwood affirms It is a Demonstration That whatever his Zeal was
Petrie adds He was now Archbishop Rector of the Vniversity and Provost of the New College of St. Andrews From this I say it is plain That Knox did not resent Douglas his advancement from any opinion of the Vnlawfulness of Episcopacy for no such word so much as once mutter'd by him but from a perswasion he had that no one man was fit for such a Multitude of Offices And I shall readily grant that Knox was not for Largo Diocesses such as St. Andrews was then as we shall learn by and by tho I am afraid little to the comfort of my Presbyterian Brethren But I have not yet dispatched the whole Argument 'T is said He refused to inaugurate the Bishop Be it so but may not the grounds I have laid down already make it reasonable for him to have done so tho he had no quarrel with imparity What ane Argument is this Iohn Knox a Presbyter refused to consecrate a Bishop Ergo he was a Presbyterian This is upon the supposition that Calderwood and Mr. Petrie have told us true Matter of Fact And yet I must confess I see not the probability of its being true That Knox was desired to inaugurate him For how is it imaginable that he would be desired to perform that Office when there was a Bishop and a Superintendent at hand to do it and who actually did it as both Authors acknowledge But that is not all There is another Argument insisted on by both Authors viz. That Mr. Iohn Ruther-foord Provost of the Old College alledged that Mr. Knox 's repining proceeded from Male-Contentment And Knox purged himself next Sunday saying I have refused a greater Bishoprick than ever it was which I might have had with the favour of greater men than he hath his I did and do Repine for Discharge of my Conscience Now what more is there in all this than That Knox his Conscience would not have allowed him to take a Bishoprick with so much prejudice to the Rights of the Church for any mans feud or favour as he suspected Douglas had done in compliance with the Earl of Morton Can the world see any thing here that lookt like the Divine Right of Parity But Calderwood has yet a more wonderful Argument to prove Mr. Knox one of his party Mr. Beza forsooth being informed by Mr. Knox as appeareth of the Intention of the Court to introduce Bishops wrote a Letter to him wherein he told him That as Bishops brought in the Papacy so false Bishops the Relicks of Popery would bring in Epicurism to the world and therefore prayed him that Episcopacy might never be re-admitted into Scotland c. Petrie indeed mentions the same Letter but he had not the courage it seems to say that it appeared to have been occasioned by a Letter of Knox's to Beza concerning the intentions of the Court to introduce Episcopacy Indeed no such thing appeareth from any sentence phrase or syllable in all Mr. Beza's Letter How it came to appear to Mr. Calderwood whether by some certain or uncertain Manuscript I know not but however it was make the supposition That Knox did write so to Beza where is the consequence of the Argument And if he wrote not and 't is impossible to make it appear from Mr. Beza's Letter that he did Why was Calderwood at such pains to give the world a citation out of Beza's Letter against Episcopacy was that a good proof that Knox was Presbyterian that Beza sent him such a Letter The truth is if any thing can be collected from that Letter concerning Knox's sentiments it seems rather that he was for Prelacy For Beza seems clearly to import that Knox needed to be caution'd against it For thus he writes One thing I would have you my dear Knox and your Brethren to advert to as being very obvious it is That as Bishops brought forth the Papacy c. But if Knox needed this Commonitory I think 't is no great Argument that he was Presbyterian so much at least as Beza would have had him But to do Mr. Calderwood justice he seems to have laid no great stress on this Argument and so I leave it So much for the Arguments insisted on to prove that Mr. Knox was for Parity I come now to the Arguments which incline me to think he was not When we are enquiring after ones sentiments about a point in controversie It is not reasonable to build much on far fetcht consequences or refine upon incidental sayings which may be very frequently the Results of Negligence or Inadvertency It is not proper to fasten on indirect propositions or snatch at this or that indeliberated phrase or expression which might have dropt unwarily from his tongue or pen. Following such measures we may easily strain mens words beyond their meaning and make them speak Nonsense or innumerable Contradictions when we have a mind for it The solid measure is to weigh a mans deliberate and serious thoughts if any where he has exprest them To consider his Reasonings when he treated directly on the controverted Subjects or any thing that stands so nearly related to it that one cannot readily discourse the one without reflecting on the other To trace him through his life if the controverted point is Relative to Practice and try what was his Behaviour when he had occasion to declare his mind concerning the matter in question This as I take it is the true Rule Now allowing this Rule to take place I am very much mistaken if Knox shall be found to have been for the Divine Institution of Parity and the Vnlawfulness of Prelacy Had he been so perswaded how seasonable had it been for him to have spoken out so much when he was brought before King Edwards Council The question was then put to him Whether he thought that no Christian might serve in the Ecclesiastical Ministration according to the Rites and Laws of the Realm of England Here was a proper opportunity for him to have declared himself against Prelacy if he had been really against it How natural had it been for a sincere Parity man on that occasion to have told that Council That no Christian could theâ— serve with a safe Conscience as a Pastor of the Church of England because according to the Laws of that Realm he behoved to serve as a Member of ane Vnlawful Hierarchy yet he answered nothing but that No Minister in England had Authority to separate the Lepers from the whole which was a Chief Part of his Office Plainly founding all the Vnlawfulness of being a Pastor of the Church of England not on the Vnlawfulness of the Hierarchy which he spoke nor one word about but on the Kings Retaining in his own hands the Chief Power of Ecclesiastical Discipline as it is known he did When was it more opportune for him to have expressed these sentiments if he had had them than when he was at Frankfort Yet not one word of the Divine Right of
Parity or the Vnlawfulness of Prelacy in all these controversies He was warm enough then and eager enough to have found faults in the English Constitution yet he never charged her with the horrid guilt of Prelacy Not so much as one word of that in any Account I have seen of these Troubles How suitable had it been for him to have declared himself in this matter in his Appelation from the cruel and most unjust sentence pronounced against him by the false Bishops and Clergy of Scotland as he calls them published by himself Anno 1558 yet in all that Appellation not one syllable to this purpose On the contrary he plainly supposes the Lawfulness of the Episcopal Office all alongst throughout it He appeals to a Lawful General Council Such a Council as the most Ancient Laws and Canons do approve And who knows not that the most Ancient Laws and Canons made Bishops the Chief if not the only Members of such Councils He says if the Popish Clergy his Adversaries are for it He is content that Matters in Controversie between him and them be determined by the Testimonies and Authorities of Doctors and Councils Three things being granted him whereof these are two 1. That the most Ancient Councils nearest to the Primitive Church in which the Learned and Godly Fathers examined all matters by Gods word may be holden of most Authority 2. That no Determinations of Councils nor Men be admitted against the plain verity of Gods word nor against the Determinations of the four chief Councils Would he if he had been Presbyterian have agreed so frankly to have stood by the Determination of these 4 Chief Councils Could he have expected they would have favoured the Divine Right of Presbyterian Parity Will any Scottish Presbyterian now adays stand to the Decision of these 4 Councils Farther In that same Appelation he requires of the Nobility that the Bishops be compelled to make answer for the neglecting their Office which plainly supposes the Lawfulness of the Office and charges Guilt only on the Officers When had it been more seasonable than in his Admonition to the Commonalty of Scotland published also Anno 1558 His great design in it was to excite them to a Reformation by loading the Papistical Clergy with every thing that was abominable Yet not a Syllable of it here neither nothing but a farther and a clearer Supposition of the Lawfulness of Prelacy You may says he in a peaceable manner without Sedition withhold the fruits and profits which your false Bishops and Clergy most unjustly receive of you until such time as they shall faithfully do their Charge and Duties which is To preach unto you Christ Jesus truly Rightly to minister the Sacraments according to his Institution And so to watch for your Souls as is commanded by Christ c. If this supposes not the Innocency of the Episcopal Office in it self I know not what can Had he been for the Divine Right of Parity how unfaithful had he been in his Faithful Admonition to the true Professors of the Gospel of Christ within the Kingdom of England written Anno 1554 His great work there was to ennumerate the Causes which in Gods righteous judgment brought Queen Mary's Persecution on them But he quite forgot to name the Sin of Prelacy as one Assuredly he had not done so had he been of the same sentiments with our Famous General Assembly 1690. How unfaithfully was it done of him I say thus to conceal one of the most Crimson Guilts of the Nation But this is not the worst of it In that same Admonition he has a most scandalous Expression sure he was not then sufficiently purg'd of Popish Corruption God gave says he such strength to that REVEREND FATHER IN GOD Thomas Cranmer to cut the Knots of Devilish Sophistry c. To call an Archbishop a Reverend Father in God what was it else but the plain Language of the Beast How Rankly did it smell of the Whore How seasonable had it been in his Letter to the Queen Regent of Scotland written Anno 1556 and published by himself with additions Anno 1558 He talked very freely about the Popish Bishops in it but never a Tittle of the Vnlawfulness of the Office It is plain from that Letter he never dream'd of the Doughty Argument so much insisted on since against Prelacy viz. That it is a Branch of Popery and Bishops are Limbs of Antichrist For having stated it as one of the Popish Arguments That their Religion was ancient and it was not possible that that Religion could be false which so long time so many Councils and so great a Multitude of Men had authorized and confirmed He gives his answer thus If Antiquity of time shall be considered in such Cases Then shall not only the Idolatry of the Gentiles but also the False Religion of Mahomet be preferred to the Papistry For both the one and the other is more ancient than is the Papistical Religion Yea Mahomet had Established his Alcoran before any Pope of Rome was crowned with a Triple Crown c. Can any man think Iohn Knox was so very unlearned as to imagine that Episcopacy was not much older than Mahomet or knowing it to be older that yet he could have been so Ridiculous as to have thought it a Relict of Popery which he himself affirmed to be younger than Mahometism whoso pleases may see more of his sentiment about the Novelty of Popery in his conference with Queen Mary recorded in his History One other Testimony to this purpose I cannot forbear to transcribe All that know any thing of the History of our Reformation must be presum'd to know That Superintendency was Erected by Mr. Knox's his special advice and counsel That it was in its very height Anno 1566 is as indubitable Now we are told that Knox wrote the 4 th Book of his History that year Hear him therefore in his Introduction to it We can speak the Truth whomsoever we offend There is no Realm that hath the Sacraments in like Purity For all others how sincere that ever the Doctrine be that by some is taught Retain in their Churches and in the Ministers thereof some Footsteps of Antichrist and Dregs of Popery But we all Praise to God alone have Nothing within our Churches that ever flowed from that Man of Sin Let any man judge now if Mr. Knox lookt upon imparity as a Dreg of Popery Thus we have found Knox when he had the fairest occasions the strongest temptations the most awakening calls when it was most seasonable for him to have declared for the Divine Right of Parity and the Vnlawfulness of Prelacy still silent in the matter or rather on all occasions proceeding on suppositions and reasoning from principles fairly allowing the Lawfulness of Prelacy But is there no more to be said Yes More with a witness In his Exhortation to England for the speedy Embracing of Christs Gospel
dated from Geneva Ianuary 12 Ann. 1559. Amongst many other Reformations He is for Reforming their Bishopricks indeed But how By abolishing them Nothing like it How then Take it in his own words Let no man be charged in preaching of Christ Iesus above that a man may do I mean That your Bishopricks be so Divided that of every one as they are nâ—w 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 joined with him for preaching and instruction as shall be thought sufficient for the Bounds committed to their Charge So he And let our Parity-men if they can give this Testimony a Gloss favourable to their side of the Question without destroying the text The Truth is this Testimony is so very nicking that I am apt to apprehend it might have been for its sake That this whole Tractate was left out of the Folio-Edition of Knox's Works printed at London Anno 1641. However the Inquisition it seems has not been so strict at Edenburgh for there it escap'd the Index Expurgatorius And yet tho it had not the Good Cause had not been one whit the Securer For Knox's practice would have sufficiently determined the matter For Did not he compile the First Book of Discipline And is not Imparity fairly Established there Did not he write and bear the Letter sent by the Superintendents Ministers and Commissioners of the Church within the Realm of Scotland to their Brethren the Bishops and Pastors in England Anno 1566 Did not he in that same Title of that same Letter acknowledge that these Brethren Bishops and Pastors of England had renounced the Roman Antichrist and professed the Lord Iesus in sincerity And doth not the Letter all alongst allow of the Episcopal Power and Authority of these English Bishops Did not he publickly and solemnly admit Mr. Iohn Spotswood to the Superintendency of Lothian Anno 1561 Did not he Concur at the Coronation of King Iames the Sixth with a Bishop and two Superintendents Anno 1567 Was not he some time a Commissioner for Visitation as they were then called i. e. a Temporary Bishop And did not he then Act in a Degree of Superiority above the Rest of his Brethren within the bounds of his Commission Did not he sit and vote and concur in many General Assemblies where Acts were made for performing Canonical Obedience to Superintendents In fine doth not Spotswood tell us That he was far from the Dotages wherein some that would have been thought his followers did afterwards fall That never man was more obedient to Church Authority than be That he was always urging the Obedience of Ministers to their Superintendents for which he caused diverse Acts to be made in the Assemblies of the Church And That he shewed himself severe to the Transgressors I have insisted the longer on this instance of Knox because he made a Singular Figure amongst our Reformers Besides having so fully evinced that he whom our Brethren value so much was no Divine-Right-of-Parity-Man I think it may readily pass for credible that neither were any of the rest of our Reformers of that opinion And now to bring home all this to my main purpose if not so much as one of our Reformers no not Knox himself was for the Divine Right of Parity I think it may amount to an undeniable evidence at least to a strong Presumption That they were not of the present Presbyterian Principles and all this will appear still farther unquestionable when it is considered in the IV. place How much reason there is to believe That our Reformers proceeded generally on the same principles with the Reformers of England where the Government of the Church by imparity was continued without the least opposition This is a Consideration which I am afraid may not relish well with the Inclinations of my Presbyterian Brethren yet withal may be of considerable weight with unprejudiced people and bring light to several things about our Reformation which even those who have read our Histories and Monuments may have passed over inadvertently And therefore I shall take leave to insist upon it somewhat fully And I shall proceed by these steps 1. I shall endeavour to represent how our Reformation under God was principally Cherished and Encouraged by English influences 2. I shall endeavour to represent how in Correspondence to these Influences our Reformers were generally of the same mind with the Church of England in several momentous instances relating to Constitution and Communion the Government and Polity of the Church wherein our present Presbyterian Principles stand in direct opposition and contradiction to her If I can make these two things appear I think I shall make a Considerable Advance towards the Determination of the Second Enquiry 1. I say our Reformation under God was Cherished and Encouraged principally by English influences That Scotland barring foreign influences is Naturally dispos'd for receiving English impressions cannot but be obvious to common sense We not only live in the same Island separated from all other Neighbourhood we not only breath the same air and speak the same language and observe the same customs and have all the opportunities of Reciprocating all the Offices which can result from daily Commerces and familiar acquaintances and easy Correspondences and Matrimonial Conjunctions and innumerable other such Endearing Relations and Allectives to Mutual Kindness but also Scotland is the lesser England the larger Scotland the more barren England the more fertile Scotland the poorer England the richer Scotland the more penurious of people England the more populous Scotland every way the weaker England every way the stronger Kingdom and by consequence Scotland every way the more apt to receive and England every way the more apt to give impressions And Nature in this is fully justified by Experience For what Scottish man knows not that when the late Revolution was a carrying on as England cast the Copy to Scotland so it was used and prest as one of the most popular and influential Topicks to perswade the Scots to follow the Copy That England had done it and why should Scotland follow a separate Course Was not England a powerful and a wise Nation what Defence could Scotland make for it self if England should invade it And how was it to be imagined that England would not invade Scotland if Scotland did not follow England's Measures So that to stand by K. I. when England had rejected him what was it else than to expose the Nation to unavoidable Ruine Who knows not I say that this was one of the most prest because one of the most plausible Arguments in the beginning of the late Revolution And who sees not that the Force of the Argument lay in Scotland's obnoxiousness to England's impressions Let no true hearted Scottish man imagine 'T is in my thought to dishonour my Native Country I have said no more than all
was done and as it were only by the by The occasion on which he records this is when in the year 1569. the tenth year after this Confederacy between the Scots and the English was concerted as I take it the Earl of Murray then Regent had gone to the Northern parts of the Kingdom to settle matters there Accounts were brought to him of the Duke of Norfolk's Conspiracy which was so well compacted and so deep laid that it was judged morally impossible to disappoint it and Murray's friends were earnest with him to retreat in time and disengage himself of the opposite party with whom he had hitherto sided and so when Buchanan comes to give the History of this juncture he to find a just rise for his Narration returns no less than ten years backward discoursing thus The State of English affairs oblige me to look back a little because in these times the interests of both Kingdoms were so twisted that the concerns of the one cannot be represented without the other The Scots some years before being delivered from the Gallican Slavery by the English assistance had subscribed to the Religious Worship and Rites of the Church of England and that surprizing change in Affairs seem'd to promise to Britain quietness and rest from all intestine Commotions and Factions c. Here you see the thing is plainly and undeniably asserted Yet so careless to say no worse have all our Historians been that not one of them mentions it but he and he does no more than mention it and to this minute we are generally in the dark when how by whom and with what Solemnities it was done Buchanan's words would seem to import that it was done after that our Deliverance as he calls it was accomplisht But not one word of it in the Treaty concluded at Leith and proclaim'd Iuly 8th 1560. which succeeded immediately upon the back of that Deliverance not one word of it I say in that Treaty as it is ether in Buchanan Knox or Spotswood or any other Historian I have had occasion to see neither have we any other publick Transaction or Deed that mentions it I find it told by several Historians that the Earls of Morton and Glencarne were sent to England after that our Deliverance to return thanks to Queen Elizabeth for her assistance 'T is possible it might have been done then for as Spotswood has it After the Professors heard of the cold Entertainment that Sir Iames Sandilands who went to France to give ane account of the Treaty had got at that Court their minds were greatly troubled for they were seasible of their own weakness and doubtful of Support from England if France should again invade because of the Loss the English had received in the late Expedition Neither says he had the Earls of Morton and Glencarne who upon breaking up of the Parliament were sent into England to render thanks to the Queen and to entreat the Continuance of her Favour given any advertisement of their acceptance If upon this occasion Commission was sent to these two Earls to subscribe in name of the rest of the Protestants to such ane Vnion in Religion it exactly answers Buchanan's Account but no such thing is so much as insinuated to have been done on that occasion For my part I humbly offer it to be considered whither it is not possible that Buchanan intended not to lay any such stress upon the word LIBERATI as thereby to import that it was after the Accomplishment of our Deliverance that the Scots subscribed But bringing in the whole matter occasionally where he mentions it and intending to dispatch it in as few words as he could he did not stand nicely upon the wording of it And if t is holds the most Rational and Natural Account will be that Secretary Maitland and Sir Robert Melvil who were sent by the Scottish Lords in the beginning of November 1559. to implore the Queen of England's Assistance were impowered to agree in name of the whole body to this Union of Religion if it should be demanded That the Secretary had power to treat and agree to and sign Articles is certain for amongst the Instructions given to the Commissioners for concluding the Treaty at Berwick dated at Glasgow Feb. 10. 1559 66. I find this as one Item If it shall be desired of you to confirm for us and in our Name the things past and granted by our former Commissioner the young Laird of Lethington ye shall in all points for us and in our Name confirm the same so far as it shall make either for the WELL and CONJUNCTION of the two Realms or this PRESENT CAUSE or yet for the security of our part for fulfilling of the same This I say is one of the Articles of these instructions from which it is evident that Lethington had signed Articles in England tho we are no where told what they were And may it not pass for a probable conjecture that that concerning Vnity in Religious Worship and Ceremonies was one of them But whensoever or by whomsoever it was done is not the Critical Hinge of the Controversie We have Buchanan's word for it that it was done and I hope my Presbyterian Brethren will not hastily reject his Authority especially considering that his Veracity in this matter is so much assisted and made credible by the strain of the Letter directed to Secretary Cecil on which we have already insisted Neither is this all For 2. The publick Thanksgiving and Prayers made with great Solemnity in St. Giles's Church in Edenburgh after the Pacification at Leith in Iuly 1560 amount to no less than a fair Demonstration of ane intire Vnion between the two Nations as to Church Matters and Religion for on that occasion it was thus addressed to Almighty God with the common Consent and as a publick Deed of our Scottish Reformers Seeing that nothing is more odious in thy presence O Lord than is Ingratitude and Violation of ane Oath and Covenant made in thy Name and seeing thou hast made our Confederates in England the Instruments by whom we are now set at this Liberty and to whom in thy Name we have promised mutual Faith again Let us never fall to that Vnkindness O Lord that either we declare our selves unthankful unto them or Prophaners of thy holy Name Confound thou the Counsel of those that go about to break THAT MOST GOGLY LEAGUE CONTRACTED IN THY NAME And retain thou us so firmly together by the power of thy holy Spirit That Satan have never power to set us again at Variance nor Discord Give us thy Grace to live in that Christian Charity which thy Son our Lord Jesus Christ hath so earnestly commanded to all the Members of his Body that other Nations provoked by our Example may set aside all Ungodly War Contention and Strife and study to live in Tranquillity and Peace as it becometh the Sheep of thy pasture and the People that
Having thus removed this seeming difficulty I return to my purpose The Earl of Lennox was then Regent He was murthered in the time of the Parliament So at that time things were in confusion and these Commissioners from the General Assembly could do nothing in their business The Earl of Mar succeeded in the Regency Application was made to him It was agreed to between his Grace and the Clergy who applied to him that a Meeting should be kept between so many for the Church and so many for the State for adjusting matters For this end ane Assembly was kept at Leith on the 12 of Ianuary 1571 2. By this Assembly Six were delegated to meet with as many to be nominated by the Council to treat reason and conclude concerning the Settlement of the Polity of the Church After diverse Meetings and long Deliberation as Spotswood has it they came to an Agreement which was in effect That the Old Polity should revive and take place only with some little alterations which seemed necessary from the Change that had been made in Religion Whoso pleases may see it more largely in Calderwood who tells us that the whole Scheme is Registred in the Books of Council more briefly in Spotswood and Petrie In short It was a Constitution much the same with that which we have ever since had in the times of Episcopacy For by this Agreement those who were to have the Old Prelatical power were also to have the Old Prelatical Names and Titles of Archbishops and Bishops the Old Division of the Diocesses was to take place the Patrimony of the Church was to run much in the Old Channel particularly express provision was made concerning Chapters Abbots Priors c. That they should be continued and enjoy their Old Rights and Priviledges as Churchmen and generally things were put in a regular Course This was the Second Model not a new one of Polity established in the Church of Scotland after the Reformation at a pretty good distance I think from the Rules and Exigencies of Parity The truth is both Calderwood and Petrie acknowledge it was Imparity with a witness The thing was so manifest they had not the brow to deny it all their Endeavours are only to impugne the Authority of this Constitution or raise Clouds about it or find Weaknesses in it So far as I can collect no man ever affirmed that at this time the Government of the Church of Scotland was Presbyterian except G. R. who is truly singular for his skill in these matters But we shall have some time or other occasion to consider him In the mean time let us consider Calderwood's and Petrie's Pleas against this Establishment They may be reduced to these four 1. The Incompetency of the Authority of the Meeting at Leith in January 1571 2. 2. The Force which was at that time put upon the Ministers by the Court which would needs have that Establishment take place 3. The Limitedness of the power then granted to Bishops 4. The Reluctancies which the subsequent Assemblies discovered against that Establishment These are the most material Pleas they insist on and I shall consider how far they may hold The 1. Plea is the Incompetency of the Authority of the Meeting at Leith Ian. 12. 1571 2. which gave Commission to the Six for agreeing with the State to such ane Establishment It is not called ane Assembly but a Convention in the Register The ordinary Assembly was not appointed to be holden till the 6 th of March thereafter As it was only a Convention so it was in very great haste it seems and took not time to consider things of such importance so deliberately as they ought to have been considered It was a corrupt Convention for it allowed Master Robert Pont a Minister to be a Lord of the Session These are the Reasons they insist on to prove the Authority of that Meeting incompetent And now to examine them briefly When I consider these Arguments and for what end they are adduced I must declare I cannot but admire the Force of prejudice and partiality how much they blind mens Eyes and distort their Reasons and byass them to the most ridiculous Undertakings For What tho the next ordinary Assembly was not appointed to meet till March thereafter Do not even the Presbyterians themselves maintain the Lawfulness yea the Necessity of calling General Assemblies extraordinarily upon extraordinary occasions pro re nata as they call it How many such have been called since the Reformation How much did they insist on this pretence Anno 1638 And What tho the Register calls this Meeting a Convention was it therefore no Assembly Is there such an opposition between the words Convention and Assembly that both cannot possibly signify the same thing Doth not Calderwood acknowledge that they voted themselves ane Assembly in their second Session Doth he not acknowledge that all the ordinary Members were there which used to constitute Assemblies But what if it can be found that ane undoubted uncontroverted Assembly own'd it as ane Assembly and its Authority as the Authority of ane Assembly What is become of this fine Argument then But can this be done indeed Yes it can and these same very Authors have given it in these same very Histories in which they use this as ane Argument and not very far from the same very pages Both of them I say tell that the General Assembly holden at Perth in August immediately thereafter made ane Act which began thus Forasmuch as the Assembly holden in Leith in January last c. But if it was ane Assembly yet it was in too great haste it did not things deliberately Why so No Reason is adduced no Reason can be adduced for saying so The Subject they were to treat of was no new one it was a Subject that had imployed all their Heads for several months before Their great business at that time was to give a Commission to some Members to meet with the Delegates of the State to adjust matters about the Polity and Patrimony of the Church This Commission was not given till the Third Session as Calderwood himself acknowledges Where then was the great haste Lay it in doing a thing in their Third Session which might have been done in the First But were not these Commissioners in too great haste to come to ane Agreement when they met with the Delegates of the State Yes if we may believe Petrie for he says That the same day viz. January 16. the Commissioners conveened and conclued c. But he may say with that same integrity whatever he pleases For not to insist on Spotswood's account who says it was after diverse Meetings and long Deliberation that they came to their Conclusion not to insist on his authority I say because he may be suspected as partial doth not Calderwood expresly acknowledge that they began their Conference upon the
Superintendents What a mercy was it that ever poor Prelacy out-lived the Dint of such doughty Onsets But it seems it must be a tough-lived thing and cannot be easily chased out of its Nature There is another considerable Thrust made at it by Calderwood and his Disciple G. R. which may come in as a Succedaneum to the former Argument What is it 〈◊〉 is even that in the Gen. Assembly at 〈◊〉 March 6. 1573. David Ferguson was chosen Mâ—â—â—rator who was neither Bishop nor Superiâ—tenâ—ent And so down falls Prelacy But so was 〈◊〉 George Buchanan in the Assembly holden in Iuly 1507. who was neither Superintendent Bishop nor Presbyter and so Down falls Presbytery Nay Down falls the whole Ministery Is not this a hard Lock Prelacy is brought to that it shall not be it self so long as one wrong step can be found to have been made by a Scotch General Assembly I have adduced and discussed all these Plea's not that I thought my Cause in any hazard by them but to let the World see what a party one has to deal with in his Controversie Whatever it be Sense or Nonsense if their Cause requires it they must not want an Argument But to go on But 4. The Fourth and greatest Plea is That this Episcopacy was never owned by the Church It was never allowed by the General Assembly It was only tolerated for three or four years It was protested against as a Corruption As these Articles were concluded without the Knowledge of the Assembly so the whole Assembly opposed them earnestly They were obtruded upon the Church against her Will. The Church from the beginning of the Reformation opposed that kind of Bishops The Church did only for a time yield to Civil Authority yet so that she would endeavour to be free of these Articles These and many more such things are boldly and confidently asserted by Calderwood Petrie and the strenuous Vindicator of the Church of Scotland who seldom misses of saying what Calderwood had said before him and I shall grant they are all said to purpose if they are true But how far they are from being that may sufficiently appear I hope if I can make these things evident 1. That the Agreement at Leith was fairly and frequently allowed approven and insisted on by many subsequent Assemblies 2. That after Episcopacy was questioned and a Party appeared against it it cost them much strugling and much time before they could get it abolished 1. I say The Agreement at Leith was fairly and frequently allowed approven and insisted on by many subsequent Assemblies This Assertion cannot but appear true to any unbyassed Judgment that shall consider but these two things 1. That in Every Assembly for several years after that Establishment or Agreement or Settlement at Leith Bishops were present and sate and voted as such and as such were obliged to be present and sit and vote c. As both Calderwood and Petrie acknowledge and shall be made appear by and by 2. That these two Authors have been at special pains to let the world know how punctually they were tryed and sometimes rebuked and censured for not discharging their Offices as they ought to have done Both Authors I say have been very intent and careful to represent this in their accounts of the subsequent Assemblies I know their purpose herein was to expose the Bishops and cast all the Dirt they could upon Episcopacy But then as I take it their pains that way have luckily furnished me with a plain Demonstration of the falsehood of all they have said in this Plea I am now considering For Would these Assemblies have suffered them to be present and sit and vote as Bishops Would they have tryed and censured them as Bishops Would they have put them to their Duty as Bishops if they had not own'd them for Bishops And was there any other Fond for owning them for Bishops at that time except the Agreement at Leith This alone might be sufficient I say for dispatching this whole Plea Yet 3. To put this matter beyond all possibility of ever being with the least colour of probability controverted hereafter I recommend to the Readers consideration the following Series of Acts made by subsequent Assemblies The Agreement at Leith as was observed before was concludâ—d 〈◊〉 the First day of February Anno 1571 2. 〈◊〉 Ordinary Assembly met at Saint Andrews on the Sixth of March thereafter The Archbishop of St. Andrews newly advanced to that See by the Leith Agreement was present and the first person named as Calderwood himself hath it to be of the Committee that was appointed for Revising the Articles agreed upon at Leith And ane Act was made in that Assembly as it is both in the Mss. and Petrie Ordaining the Superintendent of Fife to use his own Iurisdiction as before in the Provinces not subject to the Archbishop of St. Andrews and requesting him to concur with the said Archbishop in his Visitations or otherwise when he required him until the next Assembly And in like manner the Superintendents of Angus and Lothian without prejudice of the said Archbishop except by Vertue of his Commission By the Assembly holden at Perth August 6. 1572. this Act was made Forasmuch as in the ASSEMBLY not the Convention of the Church holden at Leith in January last Certain Commissioners were appointed to deal with the Nobility and their Commissioners to reason and conclude upon diverse Articles and Heads thought good then to be conferred upon according to which Commission they have proceeded in sundry Conventions is this consistent with Petrie's assertion that the same day they met and concluded and have concluded for that time upon the Heads and Articles as the same produced in this Assembly proport In which being considered are found certain Names as Archbishop Dean Archdeacon Chancellor Chapter which Names are thought slanderous and offensive in the Ears of many of the Brethren appearing to found towards Papistry Therefore the whole Assembly in one voice as well they who were in Commission at Leith as others solemnly protest that they mean not by using such Names to ratify consent or agree to any kind of Papistrie or Superstition wishing rather the said Names to be changed into other Names that are not scandalous and offensive and in like manner they protest That the said Heads and Articles agreed upon be only received as ane Interim until farther and more perfect Order be obtained at the hands of the Kings Majesties Regent and Nobility For the which they will press as occasion shall serve Vnto the which Protestation the whole Assembly in one voice adhere So the Mss. Spot Cald. Pet. This is the Act on which Calderwood Petrie and G. R. found their assertion That Episcopacy as agreed to at Leith was protested against and earnestly opposed by a General Assembly but with what Shadow of Reason let any Man consider For what can be more
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
which are in Print and I think his citation shall scarcely be found amongst the unprinted ones but could not find this citation of our Author's What was next to be done I knew that full well I turn'd to the 43. page of his Historian Calderwood and there I found it word for word Well! But is there no such Period to be found in the Acts of that Parliament Not one indeed 'T is true there is ane Act the sixth in number Intituled Anent the true and Holy Kirk and of them that are declared to be of the same which Act I find insisted on by the Covenanters Anno 1638. in their Answer to the Marquis of Hamiltons Declaration at Edenburgh in December that year as is to be seen in the large Declaration as condemning Episcopacy 'T is very probable this might be the Act Calderwood thought he abridged in these words borrowed from him by G. R. I shall set it down word for word that the world may judge if Episcopacy is Condemned by it Forasmuch as the Ministers of the blessed Evangel of Iesus Christ whom God of his mercy hath now raised up amongst us or hereafter shall raise Agreeing with them who now live in Doctrine and Administration of the Sacraments as in the Reformed Kirks of this Realm they are publickly Administrate according to the Confession of Faith Our Soveraign Lord with advice of My Lord Regent and three Estates of this present Parliament has declared and declares the aforesaid Persons to be the only true and Holy Kirk of Iesus Christ within this Realm And Decerns and Declares that all and sundrie who either gainsay the word of the Evangel received and approved as the Heads of the Confession of Faith Professed in Parliament before in the year of God 1560. years As also specified in the Acts of this Parliament more particularly doth express and now Ratified and approved in this present Parliament Or that refuses the Participation of the Holy Sacraments as they are now Ministrate to be no Members of the said Kirk within this Realm presently Professed so long as they keep themselves so divided from the Society of Christs Body This is the Act Now here not one word of Ecclesiastical Iurisdiction either Foreign or Domestick Not one word of any Iurisdiction within this Realm or in the Kirk within this Realm or that should ever flow from the said Kirk Not one word of Correcting of Manners From which it is evident that if this was the Act Calderwood aim'd at he gave the world a very odd abridgement of it And G. R. should consider things a little better and not take them upon trust to found Arguments on them so Ridiculously But doth not this Act condemn Episcopacy Let the world judge if it doth what can be more plain than that all this Act aims at is only to Define that Church which then was to have the legal Establshment and the countenance of the Civil Authority This Church it Defines to be that Society of Pastors and People which professed the Doctrine of the Evangel c. according to the Confession of Faith then Established 'T is plain I say this is all that Act aims at Not one word of Iurisdiction or Discipline of Government or Polity of Episcopacy or Presbytery of Prelacy or Parity of Equality or Inequality amongst the Governours of the Church Whatever the Form of Government was then in the Church or whatever it might be afterwards was all one to this Act so long as Pastors whither Acting in Parity or Imparity and People kept by the same Rule of Faith and the same manner of administting the Sacraments What is there here like a Condemnation of Episcopal Iurisdiction Is this the way of Parliamentary Condemnations to Condemn ane Office or ane Order or a Jurisdiction call it as you will without either naming it or describing it in terms so circumstantiated as the world might understand by them that it was mean't To Condemn a thing especially a thing of so great importance without so much as repealing any one of many Acts which Established or Ratifyed it before Surely if this Act Condemned Episcopacy this Parliament happened upon a New Stile a Singular Stile a Stile never used before never used since Besides If this was the Act G. R. intended I would earnestly desire him to name but any one Man who lived in these times and understood Episcopacy to have been Condemned by this Act. How blind was Master Andrew Melvil How blind was all the Presbyterian Fraternity that all the five years they were fighting against Prelacy could never hit on this Act and prove that it ought to be no longer tolerated seeing it was against ane Act of Parliament Were they so little careful of Acts of Parliamant that they would not have been at pains to cite them for their purpose Mr. Andrew Melvil in his so often mentioned Letter to Beza dated Novemb. 13. 1579. writes thus 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 many of the Peers against us For they allege if Pseudepiscopacy be taken away one of the Estates is pulled down c. Now how easy had it been for him to have stopt the mouths of these Peers by telling them that it was taken away already by this Act of Parliament What a dunce was the L. Glamis Chancellor of Scotland by consequence one obliged by his station to understand something I think of the Laws of the Nation and all those whom he consulted about the Letter he wrote to the same Beza that neither he nor they knew any thing of this Act of Parliament but told the Gentleman bluntly that Episcopacy subsisted by Law That the Prelates made one of the three Estates that nothing could be done in Parliament without them and that the Legal Establishment of the Order and its lying so very near the foundation of the Civil Constitution made it extremely dangerous to alter it far more to abolish it But what needs more Let the Reader cast back his eyes on the Articles agreed on betwixt the Church and the Nobility and Barons in Iuly 1567 that same year by which it was provided that all the Popish Bishops should be deprived and that Superintendents should succeed in their places And then let him consider if it be probable that Episcopacy was Condemned by this Act of Parliament But G. R. continues I hope says he none will affirm that Prelatical Iurisdiction then was or was soon after Established in the Protestant Church of Scotland Was not our Author pretty forward at hoping Will none affirm it I do affirm it and I do affirm that if our Author had but lookt to the very next Act of that Parliament the seventh in number nay if he had but cast his eye some ten lines upward in that same 43. page of Calderwoods History he would have seen the Prelacy of
Majesty to suppress such as fight against his Glory Albeit that both NATURE and GODS MOST PERFECT ORDINANCE REPUGNE to such Regiment More plainly to speak If Queen Elizabeth shall Confess that the EXTRAORDINARY DISPENSATION of Gods great Mercy makes that LAWFUL unto HER which both NATURE and GODS LAW do DENY unto all Women Then shall none in England be more willing to maintain her Lawful Authority than I shall be But if GODS WONDROUS WORK set aside She ground as God forbid the justness of her Title upon Consuetude Laws and Ordinances of Men then I am assured that as such foolish presumption doth highly offend Gods Supreme Majesty so I greatly fear that her Ingratitude shall not long lack punishment This was pretty fair but it was not enough He thought it proper to write to that Queen her self and give her a Dish of that same Doctrine His Letter is dated at Edenburg Iuly 29. 1559. In which having told her He never intended by his Book to assert any thing that might be prejudicial to her Iust Regiment providing she were no◠found Unfaithful to God he bespeaks her thus Ingrate you will be found in the presence of his Throne if you transfer the Glory of that Honour in which you now stand to any other thing than the DISPENSATION of his Mercy which ONLY maketh that Lawful to your Majesty which NATURE and LAW denyeth to all Women to command and bear Rule over Men In Conscience I am compelled to say that neither the consent of People the Process of time nor Multitude of Men can Establish a Law which God shall approve but whatsoever he approveth by his Eternal word that shall be approved and stay constantly firm And whatsoever he Condemneth shall be Condemned tho' all Men on Earth should travel for the justification of the same And therefore Madam The only way to retain and keep the Benefits of God abundantly of late days poured upon you and your Realm is unfeignedly to render unto God to his Mercy and undeserved Grace the whole Glory of all this your Exaltation Forget your BIRTH and all TITLE which thereupon doth hang It pertaineth to you to ground the JUSTICE of your Authority not on that LAW which from year to year doth change but upon the ETERNAL PROVIDENCE of him who CONTRARY to the ORDINARY course of NATURE and without your deserving hath exalted your Head If thus in Gods presence you humble your self I will with Tongue and Pen justify your Authority and Regiment as the Holy Ghost hath justified the same in Deborah that Blessed Mother in Israel But if you neglect as God forbid these things and shall begin to Brag of your Birth and to Build your Authority and your Regiment upon your own Law flatter you who so listeth your Felicity shall be short c. Let Contentious People put what Glosses they please on Bishop Overal's Convocation Book sure I am here is the Providential Right so plainly taught that no Glosses can obscure it Here it is maintain'd in plain terms and Resolutely in opposition to all the Laws not only of Men but of God and Nature Thus I have given a taste of such principles as the Prelatists in Scotland profess they disown tho' maintain'd by our Reformers It had been easy to have instanced in many more But these may be sufficient for my purpose which was not in the least to throw dirt on our Reformers to whom I am as willing as any man to pay a due reverence but to stop the mouth of impertinent clamour and 〈◊〉 the world have occasion to consider if it is such a scandalous thing to think otherwise than our Reformers thought as our Brethren endeavour on all occasions to perswade the populace For these principles of our Reformers which I have mentioned in Relation to Civil Governments are the principles in which we have most forsaken them And let the world judge which set of principles has most of Scandal in it Let the world judge I say whither their principles or ours participate most of the Faith the Patience the Self-denyal c. of Christians Whither principles have least of the love of the world and most of the image of Christ in them Whither principles have greatest affinity with the principles and practices of the Apostles and their immediate successors in the most afflicted and by consequence the most incorrupted times of Christianity Whither principles have a more natural tendency towards the security of Governments and the peace of Societies and seem most effectual for advancing the power of Godliness and propagating the Profession and the life of Christianity I further subjoyn these two things 1. I challenge our Presbyterian Brethren to convict us of the Scandal of receding from our Reformers in any one principle which they maintain'd in Common with the Primitive Church the Universal Church of Christ before she was tainted with the Corruptions of Popery And if we have not done it as I am Confident our Brethren shall never be able to prove we have our receding from our Reformers as I take it ought to be no prejudice against us I think the Authority of the Catholick Church in the days of her indisputed Purity and Orthodoxy ought in all Reason to be deem'd preferable to the Authority of our Reformers especially considering that they themselves professed to own the Sentiments of the Primitive Church as a part at least of the Complexe Rule of Reformation as I have already proved 2. I challenge our Presbyterian Brethren to instance in so much as one principle in which we have Deserted our Reformers wherein our Deserting them can by any Reasonable by any Colourable construction be interpreted ane approach towards Popery I think no Man who understands any thing of the Popish Controversies can readily allow himself the Impudence to say that to dislike Tumultuary Reformations and deposing Sovereign Princes and subverting Civil Governments c. upon the score of Religion is to be for Popery Or that the Doctrine of Submission to Civil Authority the Doctrine of Passive Obedience or Non-resistance or which I take to be much about one in the present case the Doctrine of the Cross are Popish Doctrines Or that to Condemn the Traiterous Distinction between the Person and the Authority of the Civil Magistrate as it is commonly made use of by some People and as it is Condemned by the Laws of both Kingdoms is to turn either Papistical or Iesuitical Let our Brethren if they can Purge their own Doctrines in these matters of all Consanguinity with Popery And now after all this 3. I would desire my Readers to remember that this Artifice of Prejudicating against principles because different from or inconsistent with the principles of our Reformers is none of our Contrivance Our Presbyterian Brethren not we were the First who set on foot this Popular tho' very pitiful way of Arguing By all the Analogies then of equitable and just Reasoning they ought to
was by the Ordination or appointment of the Church not Christs Institution But it can never signify the Power of Ordaining Are not these pretty pleasant Criticisms on 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But the best follows He gives a Demonstration that Ordination as mentioned by Chrysostom can never signify the Power of Ordaining For then â—says he Chrysostom who was sufficiently a Master of words would have said mark it beloved he would have spoken Latin and said Potestate Ordinandi not Ordinatione And have we not our Author now a Deep-learn'd Glossator I cannot promise a better instance of his Critiâ—al Skill But I hope the next shall not be much wâ—rse 2. Then in that same Rational defence c. p. 199. Sect 4. He undertakes to prove the Divine institution of Popular Elections of Ministers His first Argument he takes from Acts 14.23 The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must needs do it Now 't is none of my present task to prove that that word cannot do it Whosoever has considered how t is used in the New Testament may soon perceive that and if our Author had but Read the Book called Ius â—ivinum Ministerii Evangelâ—i written by a Provincial Assembly of his own friends he might have seen that even they were Confident it could not do it Nay He himself in that same 4 th Section acknowledges it cannot do it I deny not says he that this word is some times used figuratively for potestative Mission the effect or consequent of Election and that by one Person without suffrages as Acts 10 41. And I think after this it was pleasant enough to make it do it for all that But as I said 't is none of my present business to debate the force of the word with him All I am concerned for is to represent his superfine Skill in Critical learning For He tells us gravely The word is most commonly used in his sence viz. as it signifies to chuse by suffrages And he proves it but how These two wayes 1. Of all the instances that Scapula in his Lexicon giveth of the use of the word not one of them is to the contrary Twenty disparate significations you see would have imported nothing And who can doubt but Scapula's Lexicon is ane Uncontroverted Standard for the Ecclesiastical significations of words But our Author proceeds 2. It cannot be instanced that ever the word is used for laying on of hands Lifting up and laying them down being so opposite it is not to be imagined that the one should be put for the other And what needed more after this Yet lest this was not profound enough our Author plunges deeper He will needs have both the suffrages of the People and the Imposition of the Apostles hands to be signified by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in that same Text Act. 14.23 The Apostles appointed by Ordination Elders for the People upon their Electing them by Suffrages And then in the close of the Section I conclude this being done 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in every Church the People Respective chusing their Pastors and the Apostles ordaining them it is clear to have been generally the practice of these times and so the Institution of Christ. I told when I began with him there might be Instances I might have occasion to adduce which it might be difficult to reduce to their proper Categories And I am affraid this is one The truth is 't is very hard to determine whither Ignorance or Non-sense can plead the better Title to it For my part let them share it between them I shall only insist a little on one thing more 3. Then one of his Adversaries whom he took to task in his Second Vindication of his Church of Scotland the Author of the Second Letter had used the Phrase Christian Philosophy when G. R. thought he should have said Christian Divinity but if I mistake not G. R. when he wrote his Answer thought it had been for that Authors credit to have foreborn using such a Phrase For never did Cock crow more keenly over Brother Cock when he had routed him than G. R. did over the Letter-man on that occasion He told him 2 Vind. ad Let. 2. § 24. p. 62 63. Edit Eden He thought the Commendation of a Minister had been rather to understand Christian Divinity than Christian Philosophy but we must not wonder says he that men so strongly inclined to Socinianism speak in the Socinian Dialect For indeed that which goeth for Religion among some men is nothing but Platonick Philosophy put into a Christian dress by expressing it in words borrowed some of them from the Bible And the Preaching of some men is such Morality as Seneca and other Heathens taught only Christianized with some words c. In short he pursued the poor Epistler as he calls him so unmercifully that he never left him till he concluded him ane Ignorant Talker for using that Phrase Now Judicious Reader was it not indeed a Demonstration of Deep thinking and a penetrating wit to make such a plain discovery of such a prodigious Spawn of Heresies crowded into one single Phrase consisting of two words or rather in one Solitary Vocable I say one Vocable for it was the word Philosophy which was the Lerna I cannot think the word Christian was either Art or Part. Socinianism Academicism Stoicism consistent or inconsistent was all one to our Author all throng'd together in one so innocent like ane expression Sad enough How sad had it been for sorry Epistler if there had been a greater confluence of such isms in our Authors learned Noddle when he wrote that Elaborate Paragraph Had they been in it 't is very like they had come out However even these were enough especially having in their Society the fundamental Heresie of Ignorance And yet after all this I am apt to believe the poor Epistler was Orthodox and Catholick in his meaning I believe he lookt on it as a very harmless Phrase and intended no other thing by it than that which is commonly called Christian Divinity 'T is twenty to one he used it as having found it used before him by very Honest men who were never suspected of any of these Dreadful Heresies The Ancient Lights I mean and Fathers of the Church who had scarcely another Phrase which they used more frequently or more familiarly Of this I am sure If it was not so it might have been so with him My present circumstances do not allow me to Cite them so plentifully as might be done yet I think I can adduce the Testimonies of half a dozen whose Authority might have stood between the Epistler and all Hazard e. g. Iustine Martyr in his Excellent Dialogue with Trypho the Iew not only asserts the insufficiency of the Platonick the Peripatetick the Pythagoraean the Stoick Philosophies c. But expressly makes the Ancient Prophets who were inspired of God the only true and infallible Philosophers Iust. Opp. Graec. Edit Rob. Steph.