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
Mers Winram for Fife the Laird of Dun for Angus and Merns Willock for Glasgow and Carsewell for Argyle and the Isles These are all who are reckoned up by Knox and Spotswood And Spotswood adds With this small Number was the Plantation of the Church at first undertaken And can we think tho all these had been Presbyters duly ordained That they were the only men who carried on the Scottish Reformation Farther yet 4. Petrie tells us that the First General Assembly which was holden in Dec. 1560 consisted of 44 persons and I find exactly 44 Names Recorded in my Mss. Extract of the Acts of the General Assembly's as the Names of the Members of that Assembly But of all these 44 there were not above Nine at most who were called Ministers so that at least more than Thirty were but Lay-Brethren according to the then way of Reckoning probably they were generally such if you speak in the Dialect and reckon by the Measures of the Catholick Church in all Ages In short 5. There is nothing more evident to any who considers the Histories of these times than that they were generally Laymen who promoted our Violent and Disordered Reformation as Spotswood justly calls it And 't is Reasonable to think the Sense of this was One Argument which prevailed with our Reformers to Declare against the Antient Catholick and Apostolick Ceremony of Imposition of Hands in Ordinations as is to be seen in the 4 th Head of the First Book of Discipline and as is generally acknowledged Thus I think I have sufficiently deduced Matters as to my First Enquiry It had been easy to have insisted longer on it but I had no inclination for it considering that there is a kind of Piety in Dispatch when the longer one insists on a subject of this Nature he must still the more Expose the Failures of our Reformation and the Weaknesses of our Reformers Proceed we now to The Second Enquiry Whether our Scottish Reformers whatever their Characters were were of the present Presbyterian principles Whether they were for the Divine Institution of Parity and the Vnlawfulness of Prelacy amongst the Pastors of the Church THis Enquiry if I mistake not is pretty far in the interests of the main Question For the Article as I am apt to take it aims at this That our Reformation was carried on with such a Dislike to Prelacy or the Superiority of any Office in the Church above Presbyters as made Prelacy or such a Superiority ever since a great and insupportable Grievance and Trouble to this Nation c. But if this is the Sense of the Article what else is it Than that our Reformers were Presbyterian But whether or not This was truly intended as 't is truly very hard to know what was intended in the Article This is Certain this Enquiry is material and pertinent And if it faces not the Article Directly Undoubâ—edly iâ— doth it by fair Consequence 'T is as certain our Presbyterian Brethren use with confidence enough to assert that our Reformers were of their Principles This is One of the Main Arguments by which they endeavour on all occasions to influence the Populace and Gain Proselytes to their Party And therefore I shall endeavour to go as near to the bottom of this Matter as I can and set it in its due Light And I hope It shall appear to be competently Done to all who shall attentively and impartially weigh the following Deduction And I. Let it be considered That while our Reformation was on the Wheel and for some years after its publick Establishment there was no such Controversy agitated in Europe as this concerning The Divine Institution of Parity or Imparity amongst the Pastors of the Church The Popes pretended universal Headship was Called in Question indeed And Called in Question it was run down with all imaginable Reason some years before the Settlement of our Reformation That Controversie was One of the First which were accurately ventilated by the Patrons of Reformation And it was very natural that it should have been so considering what stress was laid upon it by the Pontificians 'T is likewise true That the Corruptions of the Ecclesiastical Estate were Enquired into in most Provinces every where where the Truth began to Dawn and the Reformation was Encouraged And it was not to be imagined but in such Scrutinies Bishops would be taken notice of for their general Defection from the Antient Rules and Measures of the Episcopal Office and the vast Dissimilitude between them and those of the same Order in the primitive times both as to the Discharge of their Trust and their Way of Living And who doubts but in these things the Popish Bishops were too generally culpable 'T is farther true That some Countries when they reformed Religion and separated from the Church of Rome did set up New Models of Government in the Churches they erected as they thought their civil Constitutions could best bear them And having once set them up what wonder if they did what they could to justify them and maintain their Lawfulness Thus for instance Mr. Calvin erected a Model of the Democratical Size at Geneva because that State had then cast it self into a Democracy And the Protestants in France partly for Conveniency partly in imitation of Calvins Platform fell upon a method of governing their Churches without Bishops And so it fared with some other Churches as in Switzerland c. while in the mean time other Churches thought it enough for them to Reform the Doctrine and Worship without altering the Ancient form of Government But then 'T is as evident as any thing in History that all this while from the first Dawnings of the Reformation I mean till some years after the publick Establishment of our Reformation That there was no such Controversie insisted on by Protestants either in their Debates with the Papists or with one another as that about the Divine and Vnalterable Institution of parity or imparity amongst the Pastors of the Church And I dare confidently challenge my Presbyterian Brethren to produce any One Protestant Confession of Faith for their side of the Question Nay more I dare challenge them to instance in any One Protestant Divine of Note who in these times maintained their side of the Controversy who maintain'd the Vnlawfulness of Imparity amongst Christian Pastors before Theodore Beza did it if he did it Sure I am They cannot without the greatest impudence pretend that Mr. Calvin the only Transmarine Divine I can find consulted by our Reformers about matters relating to our Reformation was of their Principles For whoso shall be pleased to consuâ—t his Commentaries on the New Testament particularly on 1 Cor. 11.2 Or some Chapters in the beginning of his 4 th Book of Institutions Or his Book about the Necessity of Reforming the Church Or his Epistles particularly his Epistle directed to the Protector of England dated Octob. 22. 1548. Or to Cranmer Archbishop of
were deposable by the Superintendent of the Diocess and the Elders of the Parishes where they were Ministers but of this more hereafter But by that same First Book of Discipline the Superintendent was to be judged by the Ministers and Elders of his whole Province over which he was appointed and if the Ministers and Elders of the Province were negligent in correcting him one or two other Superintendents with their Ministers and Elders were to conveen him providing it were within his own Province or Chief Town and inflict the Censure which his Offence deserved Of the Reasonableness of this afterward 4. There was as remarkable a difference in point of Ordination which in the then Scottish stile was called Admission Private Ministers were to be admitted by their Superintendents as we shall find afterwards But by the First Book of Discipline Head 5. Superintendents were to be admitted by the Superintendents next adjacent with the Ministers of the Province 5. In the case of Translation the General Assembly holden at Edenburgh Decem. 25. 1562. Gives power to every Superintendent within his own bounds in his Synodal Assembly with consent of the most part of the Elders and Ministers of Kirks to translate Ministers from one Kirk to another as they shall consider the Necessity Charging the Minister so translated to obey the Voice and Commandment of the Superintendent But according to the First Book of Discipline Head 5. No Superintendent might be translated at the pleasure or request of any one Province without the Council of the whole Church and that for grave Causes and Considerations 6. A special care was to be taken of his Qualifications and Abilities for such ane important office for thus it is appointed by the First Book of Discipline Head 5. That after the Church shall be established and three years are past no man shall be called to the Office of a Superintendent who hath not two years at least given a proof of his faithful Labours in the Ministry A Caution simply unapplyable to Parish Ministers 7. He had a living provided for him by the First Book of Discipline Head 5. about five times as much yearly as was alotted for any private Minister And it is to be observed that this was in a time when the Popish Bishops still brooked their Benefices But when the Resolution was Anno 1567 to deprive all the Popish Clergy it was agreed to in the General Assembly by the Churchmen on the one hand and the Lords and Barons on the other That Superintendents should succeed in their places as both the Mss. and Spotswood have it expresly 8. Superintendents by vertue of their Office were constant Members of the General Assemblies Therefore the General Assembly holden at Perth Iune 25. 1563. statuted That every Superintendent be present the first day of the Assembly under the pain of 40 sh. to be given to the poor without Remission So it is in the Mss. but Petrie has it barely That they shall conveen on the first day of every Assembly And it seems because that punishment had not sufficient influence on them it was again ordained by the G. Ass. at Edenburgh March 6. 1573. That they shall be present in the Assembly the first day before noon under the pain of losing one half of their stipend for a year c. So both the Mss. and Petrie But as we shall find afterwards such presence of Parish Ministers was not allowed far less necessary 9. It belonged to them to try those who stood Candidates for the Ministery thus 1. B. of Disc. Head 4. Such as take upon them the Office of Preachers who shall not be found qualified therefore by the Superintendent are by him to be placâ—d Readers And again Head 5. No Child nor person within the age of 21 years may be admitted to the Office of a Reader but such must be chosen and admitted by the Superintendent as for their Gravity and Discretion may grace the Function that they are called unto And the Ass. at Edenburgh Dec. 15. 1562. Ordains That Inhibition be made against all such Ministers as have not been presented by the people or a part thereof to thâ— Superintendent and he after Examination and Tryal has not appointed them to their Charges So the Mss. and so Petrie and Spotswood cites another Act of the General Assembly at Edenburgh 1564. to the same purpose 10. As appears by that Act of the Assembly Decem. 25. 1562. just now cited and the 7 Act Parl. 1 Iac. 6. cited before also Superintendents had the power of granting Collations upon presentations And the Assembly at Perth holden in Iune 1563. appoints That when any Benefice chances to vaik or is now vacant that a qualified person be presented to the Superintendent of that Province where the Benefice lyeth and that he being found sufficient be admitted c. So I find it cited by the Author of Episcopacy not abjured in Scotland 11. A Superintendent had power to plant Ministers in Churches where the people were negligent to present timeously and indeed that power devolved much sooner into his hands by the First Book of Discipline Head 4. than it did afterwards into the hands of either Bishop or Presbytery for there it is ordered That if the people be found negligent in electing a Minister the space of forty days the Superintendent with his Counsel may present unto them a man whom they judge apt to feed the flock c. And as he had thus the power of trying and collating Ministers and planting Churches in the case of a Ius Devolutum So 12. He had the power of Ordination which as I said was then called Admission as is evident from the First Book of Discipline cap. 5. and several Acts of Assemblies already cited 13. All Presbyters or Parish Ministers once admitted to Churches were bound to pay Canonical Obedience to their Superintendents Thus in the Assembly at Edenburgh Iune 30. 1562. It was concluded by the whole Ministers assembled that all Ministers should be subject to the Superintendents in all lawful admonitions as is prescribed as well in the Book of Discipline as in the Election of Superintendents So the Mss. And by that aforecited Act of the Assembly at Edenburgh Decem. 25. 1562. Ministers translated from one Church to another are commanded to obey the Voice and Commandment of the Superintendent Indeed it was part of ane Article presented by the Church to the Council May 27. 1561. That ane Act should be made appointing a civil Punishment for such as disobeyed or contemned the Superintendents in their Function 14. He had power to visit all the Churches within his Diocess and in that Visitation they are the words of the First Book of Discipline Head 5. To try the Life Diligence and Behaviour of the Ministers the Order of their Churches the Manners of their People how the Poor are provided and how
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
Reformers were more prying in such matters than the Reformers of other Churches I have made it appear that there is not so much as a syllable a shew a shadow of ane Indication That any of those who Merited the Name of our Reformers entertain'd any such Principle or maintain'd any such Article I have made it appear that our Reformation was carryed on much very much by the Influences and upon the principles of the English Reformers amongst whom that principle of parity had no imaginable footing These are at least great presumptions of the Credibility of this That our Reformers maintain'd no such principle Agreeably to these presumptions I have made it appear that our Reformers proceeded de Facto upon the principles of Imparity They formed their petitions for the Reformation of our Church according to these principles The first Scheme of Church Government they erected was Established upon these principles Our Superintendents were notoriously and undeniably Prelates The next Establishment in which the Prelates resumed the old Names and Titles of Archbishops and Bishops was the same for substance with the first At least they did not differ as to the point of Imparity I have made it appear that this second Establishment was agreed to by the Church unanimously and submitted to calmly and peaceably and that it was received as ane Establishment which was intended to continue in the Church At least no Objections made against it no appearances in opposition to it no indications of its being accepted only for ane Interim upon the account of Imparity's being in its constitution I have made it appear that Imparity was received practised owned and submitted to and that Prelates were suitably honoured and dutifully obeyed without reluctancy and without interruption for full fifteen years after the Reformation and I have made it appear that after it was called in Question its Adversaries found many Repulses and mighty difficulties and spent much travel and much time no less than full five years before they could get it Abolished and if the Deduction I have made puts not this beyond all doubt it may be further confirmed by the Testimonies of two very intelligent Authors The first is that ingenious and judicious Author who wrote the accurate piece called Episcopacy not Abjured in Scotland published Anno 1640. Who affirms positively That it was by Reason of opposition made to the Presbyterians by many wise learned and Godly Brethren who stood firmly for the Ancient Discipline of the Church that Episcopacy was so long a condemning It appears from his Elaborate work that he was ane ingenuous as well as ane Ingenious Person and living then and having been at so much pains to inform himself concerning not only the Transactions but the Intrigues of former times it is to be presumed he did not affirm such a proposition without sufficient ground But whatever dust may be raised about his Credit and Authority Sure I am my other witness is unexceptionable He is King Iames the Sixth of Scotland and the First of England This Great and Wise Prince lived in these times in which Presbytery was first introduced and I think it is scarcely to be Questioned That he understood and could give a just account of what passed then as well as any man then living and he in his Basilion Doron affirms plainly That the Learned Grave and Honest Men of the Ministery were ever ashamed of and offended with the Temerity and Presumption of the Democratical and Presbyterian party All these things I say I think I have made appear sufficiently and so I am not affraid to leave it to the world to judge Whither our Reformers were of the present Presbyterian principles Only one thing more before I proceed to the next Enquiry Our Presbyterian Brethren Calderwood Petrie and G. R. as I have already observed are very earnest and careful to have their Readers advert that when Episcopacy was Established by the Agreement at Leith Anno 1572. the Bishops were to have no more Power than the Superintendents had before and indeed it is true they had no more as I have already acknowledged But I would advise our Brethren to be more Cautious in insisting on such a dangerous point or Glorying in such a Discovery hereafter For thus I Argue The Episcopacy Agreed to at Leith Anno 1572 as to its Essentials its Power and Authority was the same with the Superintendency Established at the Reformation Anno 1560. But the General Assembly holden at Dundee Anno 1580. Condemned the Power and Authority of the Episcopacy Agreed to at Leith Anno 1572. Ergo they condemnd the Power and Authority of the Superintendency Established by our Reformers Anno 1560. Ergo the Assembly 1580. not only forsook but Condemned the principles of our Reformers But if this Reasoning holds I think our present Presbyterian Brethren have no Reason to Claim the Title of Successors to our Reformers They must not ascend so high as the year 1560 They must stand at the year 1580 For if I mistake not the Laws of Heraldry will not allow them to call themselves the True Posterity of those whom they Condemn and whose principles they Declare Erroneous In such Moral Cognations I take Oneness of principle to be the foundation of the Relation as Oneness of Blood is in Physical Cognations Let them not therefore go farther up than the year 1580. Let them date the Reformation from this Assembly at Dundee and Own Master Andrew Melvil and Iohn Durie c. for their First Parents When they have fixed there I shall perchance allow them to affirm that the Church of Scotland was Reformed in their sence of Reformation by Presbyters that is Presbyterians Proceed we now to The Third Enquiry Whether Prelacy and the Superiority of any Office in the Church above Presbyters was a great and insupportable Grievance and trouble to this Nation and contrary to the inclinations of the Generality of the People EVER since the Reformation Considering what hath been Discoursed so fully on the former Enquiry this may be very soon dispatched For If Prelacy and the Superiority of other Officers in the Church above Presbyters was so unanimously consented to and Established at the Reformation If it continued to be Owned Revered and Submitted to by Pastors and People without interruption without being ever called in Question for full fifteen years after the Reformation If after it was called in Question its Adversaries found it so hard a task to subvert it that they spent five years more before they could get it subverted and declared Vnlawful even as it was then in Scotland If these things are true I say I think it is not very Credible that it was a great and insupportable Grievance and trouble to this Nation and contrary to the Inclinations of the Generality of the People EVER since the Reformation This Collection I take to be as clear a Demonstration as the subject is capable of But beside this we
the late Revolution should be lookt upon as undone and that the settlement of the Church should again depend upon a new free unclogg'd unprelimited unover awed Meeting of Estates I am very much perswaded that a plain candid impartial and ingenuous Resolution of these few Questions might go very far in the Decision of this present Controversie And yet after all this labour spent about it I must confess I do not reckon it was in true value worth threeteen sentences As perchance may appear in part within a little And so I proceed to The Fifth Enquiry Whither supposing the Affirmatives in the proceeding Enquiries had been true they would have been of sufficient force to infer the Conclusion advanced in the Articles viz. that Prelacy c. ought to be Abolished THe Affirmatives are these two 1. That Prelacy was a great and Insupportable Grievance c. 2. That this Church was Reformed by Presbyters The purpose of this Enquiry is to try if these were good Reasons for the Abolition of Prelacy without further Address I think they were not Not the First viz. Prelacy's being a great and insupportable Grievance and Trouble to this Nation and contrary to the Inclinations of the Generality of the People Sure I am 1. Our Presbyterian Brethren had not this way of Reasoning from our Reformers For I remember Iohn Knox in his Letter to the Queen Regent of Scotland rejected it with sufficient appearances of Keenness and Contempt He called it a Fetch of the Devils to blind Peoples eyes with such a Sophism To make them look on that Religion as most perfect which the Multitude by wrong custom have embraced or to insinuate that it is impossible that that Religion should be false which so long time so many Councils and so great a Multitude of men have Authorized and confirmed c. For says he if the opinion of the Multitude ought always to be preferred then did God injury to the Original world For they were all of one mind to wit conjured against God except Noah and his family And I have shewed already that the Body of our Reformers in all their Petitions for Reformation made the word of God the Practices of the Apostles the Catholick Sentiments and Principles of the Primitive Church c. and not the inclinations of the People the Rule of Reformation Nay 2. G. R. himself is not pleased with this Standard He not only tells the world That Presbyterians wished and endeavoured that that Phrase might not have been used as it was But he ridicules it in his first Vindication in Answer to the tenth Question thoâ— he made himself ridiculous by doing it as he did it The Matter is this The Author of the ten Questions finding that this Topick of the inclinations of the People was insisted on in the Article as ane Argument for Abolishing Prelacy undertook to Demonstrate that tho' it were a good Argument it would not be found to conclude as the Formers of the Article intended Aiming unquestionably at no more than that it was not true that Prelacy was such a great and insupportable Grievance c. and to make good his undertaking He formed his Demonstration as I have already accounted Now hear G. R. It is a new Topick says he not often used before that such a way of Religion is best because c. This his Discourse will equally prove that Popery is preferable to Protestantism For in France Italy Spain c. not the Multitude only but all the Churchmen c. are of that way Thus I say G. R. ridiculed the Argument tho' he most ridiculously fancied he was ridiculing his Adversary who never dream'd that it was a good Argument But could have been as ready to ridicule it as another However I must confess G. R. did indeed treat the Argument justly For 3. Supposing the Argument good I cannot see how any Church could ever have Reformed from Popery For I think when Luther began in Germany or Mr. Patrick Hamilton in Scotland or Zuinglius or Oecolompadius or Calvin c. in their respective Countreys and Churches they had the inclinations of the People generally against them Nay if I mistake not our Saviour and his Apostles found it so too when they at first undertook to propagate our Holy Religion and perchance tho' the Christian Religion is now Generally Professed in most Nations in Europe some of them might be soon Rid of it if this Standard were allowed to take place I have heard of some who have not been well pleased with Saint Paul for having the word Bishop so frequently in his Language and I remember to have been told that one not ane Vnlearn'd one in a Conference being prest with a Testimony of Irenaeus's in his 3 Cap. 3 Lib. Adversus Her for ane uninterrupted Succession of Bishops in the Church of Rome from the Apostles times at first denyed confidently that any such thing was to be found in Irenaeus and when the Book was produced and he was convinced by ane ocular Demonstration that Irenaeus had the Testimony which was alleged he delivered himself to this purpose I see it is there Brother but would to God it had not been there Now had these People who were thus offended with St. Paul and Irenaeus been at the writing of their Books is it probable we should have had them with their Imprimatur as we have them Indeed for my part I shall never consent that the Bible especially the New Testament be Reformed according to some Peoples inclinations For if that should be allowed I should be very much affraid there would be strange cutting and carving I should be very much affraid that the Doctrine of self-preservation should justle out the Doctrine of the Cross That Might should find more favour than Right that the Force and Power should possess themselves of the places of the Faith and Patience of the Saints and that beside many other places we might soon see our last of at least the first seven verses of the 13 th Chapter to the Romans I shall only add one thing more which G. R.'s naming of France gave me occasion to think on It is that the French King and his Ministers as much as some People talk of their Abilities must for all that be but of the ordinary Size of Mankind For if they had been as wise and thinking men as some of their Neighbours they might have easily stopt all the mouths that were opened against them some years ago for their Persecuting the Protestants in that Kingdom For if they had but narrated in ane Edict that the Religion of the Hugonots was and had still been a great and insupportable Grievance and Trouble to their Nation and contrary to the Inclinations of the Generality of the People ever since it was Professed amongst them their work was done I believe G. R. himself would not have called the Truth of the Proposition in Question How easy were it to
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
in Scotland the Truth of Iesus Christ. Now consider if there are not Material Differences between these two Inscriptions By the Inscription as it is in Spotswood Petrie and the MS. the Dignity and Superiority of the Scottish Superintendenâ—s above the rest of the Clergy is clearly preserved By the other account it is sadly obscured and they are made at least very much to stand on a level with other Ministers c. By the Inscription as in Spotswood c. The Sentiments Our Scottish Clergy had then about the English Reformation and Constitution are very plain genuine and charitable They were satisfied that the Bishops and Pastors of the Church of England had Renounced the Roman Antichrist and that they professed the Lord Iesus in SINCERITY And they had for them suitably the Christian and Brotherly Charity which the Orthodox and Sincere Christians of one Church ought to have for the Orthodox and Sincere Christians of another Church They wished or desired to them The Increase of the Holy Spirit How highly this was agreeable to the sentiments of the then Protestants in Scotland I have made fully appear in the Discussion of my Second Enquiry But To the Pseudo-Knox it seems it lookt highly scandalous to own That the Bishops and Pastors of England had Renounced the Roman Antichrist or that they professed the Lord Jesus in sincerity How could these things be said so long as they retained Antichrists Hierarchy or had so many Romish Mixtures And therefore to wish them the increase of the Holy Spirit was too bold a prayer It was founded on a false hypothesis It supposed they had the Holy Spirit already How suitable is all this to the Presbyterian temper and principles And by consequence is it not evident that these alterations were not the effects of negligence or inadvertencie but of the true Spirit of the party But this is not all In the body of the Letter as recorded by the Pseudo Knox there are several other Corruptions I shall only point at one but it is a considerable one The General Assembly which sent the Letter after a Digression concerning the care that ought to be had of tender Consciences c. Resume their main purpose thus We return to our former humble supplication which is that our Brethren who amongst you refuse these Romish Rags may find of you who are the PRELATS such favour as our Head and Master commandeth every one of his members to shew to another So it is not only in the MS. Spotswood and Petrie word for word but also in a virulent Presbyterian Pamphlet called Scotidromus directed to all Noble Scots and kind Catholicks zealous for the Romish Religion written Anno 1638 to cast dirt at that time upon Episcopacy and render it odious to the People which Pamphlet I have by me in Manuscript But The Supposititious Knox has it thus Now again we return to our former Request which is that the Brethren among you who refuse the Romish Rags may find of you not the PRELATES but who VSE and VRGE them such favour c How unfit was it for the world to know that a Scottish General Assembly had own'd the Bishops of England as PRELATES It was scandalous no doubt to the Godly It was expedient therefore to falsify a little and foist in more useful Epithets to call them not PRELATES but USERS and URGERS of the Ceremonies I have insisted the longer on this Book because our Presbyterian Brethren are so earnest to have the world believe that it was written by Knox Particularly G. R. in his First Vindication c. in Answer to Quest. 1. § 8. where too observe by the way how extravagantly that Author blunders His words are Anno 1559. The Protestant Ministers and People held a General Assembly at St. Johnstown saith Knox Hist. Lib. 2. p. 137. Now there is not so much as one syllable of a General Assembly in the Text. Upon the Margin indeed there are these words The first Assembly at St. Johnstown But no Presbyterian I think unless he is one of G. R.'s kind will be so impudent as to say that all that 's on the Margin of that Book was written by Knox. And that Meeting which was then at Perth was nothing like that Court which we call a General Assembly But enough of this To conclude tho' I am firmly perswaded that Knox was not the Author of this History yet because it passes commonly under his name I have still cited it so on my Margin The Edition I have used is that in 4 to published at Edenburg Anno 1644. The other Treatises attributed to Knox and I know no Reason to doubt their being his from which I have cited any thing are in ane Appendix to the History I have not made it my work to cite Acts of Parliaments and represent the favourable countenance Episcopacy hath had from the State so much as to consider the sentiments of our Reformers and those who succeeded them in their Ecclesiastical capacity partly because the Acts of Parliament have been diligently collected before Particularly whoso pleases may see a goodly train of them from the year 1560 till the year 16â—7 in the Large Declaration pag. 333 c. Partly because our Presbyterian Brethren are in use to insist more on the Books of Discipline and the Acts of General Assemblies c. than on Acts of Parliaments One advantage amongst many disadvantages I think I have it is that the Authors I have most frequently cited were Presbyterians by consequence Authors whose Testimony 's can least be called in Question by my Presbyterian Brethren I do not pretend to have exhausted the subjects I have insisted on Any Reader may easily perceive I have been at a loss as to several things in History Perchance I have sometimes started some things New and which have not been observed before I wish I may have given occasion to those who are fitter and better furnished with helps for such Enquiries to consider if they can bring more light to our History In the mean time I think I have said enough to convince the Reader that our Presbyterian Brethren have not reason to be so confident as commonly they are for their side of the Controversies I have managed Yet after all this I am not secure but that they will endeavour to have my Book Answered for all Books most be Answered that militate against them and they can still find some G. R. or other who has zeal and confidence enough for such attempts Upon the supposition therefore that I must have ane answer I do for once become ane earnest suiter to my Presbyterian Brethren that they would imploy some Person of ordinary sense and discretion to Answer me and not their common Vindicator of their Kirk G. R. for I have got enough of him and I incline not to have any more meddling with him Whoso reads the following papers I think may find such a sample of him such a
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.
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
be the Vindicator of their Kirk If they can imploy any civil discreet ingenuous person to write for them I shall be heartily satisfied and for his Encouragement I do promise if he falls to my share I shall treat him suitably Nay After all if even G. R. himself will lay aside such Qualities as I have demonstrated adhere to him if he will undertake to write with that Gravity and Civility that Charity and Modesty that Honesty and Ingenuity which may be thought to become One of his Age and Character I can as yet admit of him for my Adversary for I think the Party cannot assign me a weaker one And I do hereby promise him ane Equitable Meeting FINIS ADVERTISEMENT THis Book was designed for the Press December 1693. The Article That Prelacy and the Superiority of any Office in the Church above Presbyters is and hath been a great and insupportable Grievance and Trouble to this Nation and contrary to the Inclinations of the Generality of the people ever since the Reformation they having Reformed from Popery by Presbyters And therefore ought to be Abolished THis Article was Established in our Claim of Right April 11 1689. By vertue of this Article Prelacy was actually Abolished by Act of Parliament Iuly 22. 1689. Upon the foot of this Article Presbyterian Government was Established Iune 7. Anno 1690. This Act Establishing Presbyterian Government was Ratified in the whole Heads Articles and Clauses thereof Iune 12. 1693. It is indisputable then That This Article is the Great Foundation of that Great Alteration which hath been made in the Government of the Church of Scotland since the Beginning of the Late Revolution Whether therefore This is a Solid or a Sandy Foundation cannot but be deem'd a Material Question And I think I shall bid fair for the Determination of this Question if I can give clear and distinct Satisfaction to these following Enquiries I. Whether the Church of Scotland was Reform'd solely by persons cloath'd with the Character of Presbyters II. Whether our Scottish Reformers whatever their Characters were were of the present Presbyterian Principles Whether they were for the Divine institution of Parity and the unlawfulness of Prelacy amongst the Pastors of the Church III. Whether Prelacy and the superiority of any Office in the Church above Presbyters was a great and insupportable Grievance and trouble to this Nation and contrary to the inclinations of the generality of the people ever since the Reformation IV. Whether it was Such when this Article was Established in the Claim of Right V. Whether supposing the premisses in the Article were True They would be of sufficient Force to infer the Conclusion viz. That Prelacy and the Superiority of any Office in the Church ought to be abolished The Determination of the main Question I say may competently result from a perspicuous discussion of these five Enquiries And therefore I shall attempt it as fairly as I can leaving to the world to judge equitably of my performance And without further prefacing I come to The First Enquiry Whether the Church of Scotland was Reformed solely by persons cloath'd with the Character of Presbyters IF the Framers of the Article meant that it was in these words They having Reformed from Popery by Presbyters I think I am pretty sure they meant amiss For there is nothing more obvious to one who reads and compares our Histories than That persons standing in other stations and cloath'd with other Characters had a very great hand and were very considerable Instruments in carrying on our Reformation Particularly 1. There were Prelates who concurred in that work as well as Presbyters Knox says there were present in the Parliament holden in August 1560. which Parliament gave the first National Establishment to our Reformation The Bishop of Galloway the Abbots of Lundoris Culross St. Colmes-inih Coldingham Saint Mary-isle and the Subprior of St. Andrews with diverse others And of all these he says That they had Renounced Papistrie and openly professed Jesus Christ. Spotswood reckons up no fewer than Eight of the Spiritual Estate all Protestants chosen at that time to be Lords of the Articles Namely the Bishops of Galloway and Argyle the Prior of St. Andrews the Abbots of Aberbrothoik Kilwinning Lundors Newbottle and Culross Lay these two Accounts together and you shall have at least a Round Dozen of Reforming Prelates 'T is True Spotswood says The Popish Prelates stormed mightily at such a Nomination for the Articles alledging that some of them were meer Laicks But what if it was so I am apt to think our Presbyterian Brethren will not be fond to make much advantage of this I am apt to think they will not say That all those whom they allow to have been Reforming Presbyters were Duely and Canonically Ordained That they were solemnly seperated for the Ministery by such as had Commission and Power to Separate them and in such Manner as had Universally obtained from the Apostles times in the Separation of Presbyters for their holy Function The plain truth is 2. Our Reformation was principally carried on by such as neither Did nor Could pretend to be Canonically promoted to Holy Orders Knox himself tells us that when the Reformation began to make its more publick Advances which was in the Year 1558. there was a great Scarcety of Preachers At that time says he we had no publick Ministers of the word Only did certain Zealous Men among whom were the Laird of Dun David Forress Mr. Robert Lockhart Mr. Robert Hamilton William Harlaw and others Exhort their Brethren according to the Gifts and Graces granted to them But shortly after did God stir up his Servant Paul Methven c. Here we have but a very Diminutive account of them as to Number And such an Account as in its very Air and Countenance seems to own they were generally but Lay-Brethren They were but Zealous Men not Canonically ordained Presbyters And if we may believe Lesly Paul Methven was by Occupation a Baker and William Harlaw a Taylor The Laird of Dun that same very year was Provost of Montrose and as such sent to France as one representing not the First or the Spiritual but the Third Estate of Parliament the Burrows to attend at the Celebration of the Queens Marriage with the Dauphine of France He was indeed a Gentleman of good Esteem and Quality and he was afterwards as Superintendent but it no where appears that he was ever Received into Holy Orders Nay 3. After the pacification at Leith which was concluded in Iuly 1560 when the Ministers were distributed amongst the several Towns we find but a very small Number of them Iohn Knox was appointed for Edenburgh Christopher Goodman for St. Andrews Adam Herriot for Aberdeen Iohn Row for Perth William Chrystison for Dundee David Ferguson for Dunfermline Paul Methven for Iedburgh and Mr. David Lindesay for Leith Beside these Five were nominated to be Superintendents Spotswood for Lothian and
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
of England e. g. Friar Alexander Seaton when he was forced to flee in King Iames the 5th's time went to England and became the Duke of Suffolk's Chaplain and died in that service Alexander Aless was in great favour with King Henry and called the King's Schollar He was a Member of the English Convocation and disputed against Stokesly Bishop of London and maintain'd there were but two Sacraments Baptism and the Eucharist Anno 1536 or 37 And he it was that first turn'd the English Liturgy into Latin for Bucer's use Anno 1549 as both Heylin and Burnet in their Histories of the English Reformation tell us Iohn Fife and one M' Dowdal stayed as long in England as Aless did And 't is not to be doubted that they were of the same principles Iohn M' Bee during his abode in England was liberally entertained by Nicol. Saxton Bishop of Salisbury who made much account of him which is no argument I think that he was a Presbyterian Sir Iohn Borthwick was charged with Heresie Anno 1640 for maintaining That the Heresies commonly called the Heresies of England and their New Liturgy was Commendable and to be embraced of all Christians And That the Church of Scotland ought to be govern'd after the manner of the Church of England i. e. under the King and not the Pope as Supreme Governor Friar Thomas Guillam the first publick Preacher of the Reformed Religion in Scotland He by whose Sermons Iohn Knox got the first lively impressions of the Truth This Guillam I say after Arran the Regent Apostatized withdrew and went into England and we hear no more of him From which 't is reasonable to conclude That he kept the Common Course with the other Reformers there Iohn Rough was the Regents other Chaplain while he was Protestant He likewise fled to England tho sometime after Guillam He preached some years in the Towns of Carlisle Berwick and Newcastle and was afterwards provided to a Benefice by the Archbishop of York where he lived till the Death of King Edward When Mary's Persecution turn'd warm he fled and lived some time in Freesland He came to London about some business Anno 1557. was apprehended and brought before Bonner Questioned if he had preached any since he came to England Answered he had preached none But in some places where godly people were Assembled He had read the Prayers of the Communion Book set forth in the Reign of King Ed. VI. Question'd again what his Judgment was of that Book Answered He approved it as agreeing in all points with the word of God And so suffered Martyrdom I think this man was neither for Parity nor against Liturgies But to proceed The excellent Mr. Wishart as he had spent some time in England as was told before so it seems he returned to Scotland of English I am confident not of Presbyterian Principles For he was not only for the Lawfulness of Private Communion as appeared by his practice but Knox gives us fair intimations that he ministred it by a Set-form I know King Edward's Liturgy was not then composed But it is not to be imagined That the Reformers in England in Wishart's time administred the Sacrament without a Set-form The Extemporary Spirit was not then in vogue And why else could Sir Iohn Borthwick have been charged with the Great Heresy of Commending the English Liturgy However I shall not be peremptory because I have not the opportunity of enquiring at present what Forms the English Reformers had then All I shall say is if they had a Liturgy 't is very probable Wishart used it For as Knox tells us when he celebrated the Eucharist before his Execution After he had blessed the Bread and Wine he took the Bread and Brake it and gave to every one of it bidding each of them Remember that Christ had died for them and feed on it spiritually so taking the Cup he bade them Remember that Christs Blood was shed for them c. So Knox word for word which account I think seems fairly to intimate that Wishart used a Form but if he did what other could it be than such as he had learned in England I have accounted already how Iohn Willock and William Harlaw had served in the English Church before they came to Scotland I might perhaps make a fuller Collection But what needs more Even Knox himself lived in Communion with the Church of England all the time he was in that Kingdom He went not there to keep Conventicles to erect Altar against Altar to gather Churches out of the Church of England to set up separate and schismatical Churches as some of our present Parity-men have sometimes done No he preached in the publick Churches and in subordination to the Bishops and he preached before King Edward himself as he himself tell us in his Admonition to the Professors of the Truth in England which it is very improbable he would have been allowed to have done if he had Condemned the Communion of the Church of England as it was then established For who knows not that in King Edwards time all Schism and Non-Conformity were sufficiently discouraged And through that whole Admonition he still speaks of himself as One of the Ministers of the Church of England Nay If it be Reasonable to Collect mens Sentiments from their Reasonings I am sure in that same Admonition I have enough for my purpose For he reasons upon suppositions and from Principles which clearly condemned Separation from the Church of England as then established For when he gives his thoughts of that fatal Discord which happened between the two great men Somerset and the Admiral as I take it He discourses thus God compelled my tongue says he openly to declare That the Devil and his Ministers the Papists Intended only the Subversion of Gods true Religion by that Mortal Hatred amongst those who ought to have been most assuredly Knit together by Christian Charity And especially that the wicked and envious Papists by that ungodly Breach of Charity diligently minded the overthrow of him Somerset that to his own Destruction procured the Death of his innocent friend and Brother All this trouble was devised by the Devil and his instruments to stop and lett Christ's Disciples and their poor Boat i. e. the Church What can be more plain I say than that Knox here proceeds on suppositions and reasons from Principles which condemned Separation from the Church of England as then established Doth he not suppose that the Church of England as then established was Christ's Boat his Church And that the Sons of the Church of England were Christ's Disciples Doth he not suppose that these two Brothers as Sons of the Church of England ought to have been assuredly knit together by Christian Charity That the Breach between them was ane ungodly Breach of that Charity by which Members of that same Church ought to have been assuredly knit together And
am not now to enter into the Controversie concerning the Dependence or Independence of the Church upon the State that falls not within the compass of my present Undertaking Neither will I say that our Presbyterians are in the wrong as to the true substantial Matter agitated in that Controversie All I am concerned for at present is that in these times those of the Church of England own'd a great Dependence of the Church upon the State and that our Reformers agreed with them in that Principle and I think I may make short work of it For That that was the Principle of the Church of England in these times I think no man can readily deny who knows any thing about her at and a good many years after her Reformation All my business is to shew that our Reformers were of that same Principle And I think that shall be easily made to appear For As to the Civil Magistrates power to reform the Church what can be more clear than the Petition presented to the Queen Regent in November 1558 There our Reformers tell her Majesty that Knowing no Order placed in this Realm but her Majesty and her grave Council set to amend as well the Disorder Ecclesiastical as the Defaults in the Temporal Regiment they do most humbly prostrate themselves before her Feet asking Iustice and her Gracious Help against such as falsely traduced and accused them as Hereticks and Schismaticks c. In which Address we have these two things very clear and evident 1. That they own'd that the Civil Magistrate had power to amend Ecclesiastical Disorders as well as Temporal 2. That in consequence of this they applied to the Civil Magistrate for protection against the pursuits of the Church And in their Protestation given in to the Parliament about that same time They most humbly beseech the sacred Authority to think of them as faithful and obedient Subjects and take them into its Protection keeping that Indifferency which becometh Gods Lieutenants to use towards those who in his Name do call for Defence against Cruel Oppressors c. Meaning the then Church-men Indeed None clearer for this than Knox himself as is to be seen fully in his Appellation from the cruel and most unjust Sentence pronounced against him by the False Bishops and Clergy of Scotland as he himself names it For there He lays down and endeavours to prove this Assertion That it is lawful to Gods prophets and to Preachers of Christ Iesus to appeal from the Sentence and Iudgment of the visible Church to the Knowledge of the temporal Magistrate who by Gods Law is bound to hear their Causes and to defend them from Tyranny And in that same Appellation he largerly asserts and maintains the Dependance of the Church upon the State The Ordering and Reformation of Religion with the instruction of Subjects he says doth appertain especially to the Civil Magistrate For why Moses had great power in the Matters of Religion God revealed nothing particularly to Aaron the Church-man but commanded him to depend from the Mouth of Moses the Civil Magistrate Moses was impowered to separate Aaron and his Sons for the Priesthood Aaron and his Sons were subject to Moses Moses was so far preferred to Aaron that the one commanded the other obeyed The Kings of Israel were commanded to read the Book of the Law all the days of their Lives not only for their own private Edification but for the publick preservation of Religion so David Solomon Asa Iehosophat Hezekiah Iosiah understood it and interested themselves in the Matters of the Church accordingly From which it is evident saith he That the Reformation of Religion in all points together with the Punishment of false Teachers doth appertain to the power of the Civil Magistrate For what God required of them his justice must require of others having the like Charge and Authority what he did approve in them he cannot but approve in all others who with like Zeal and Sincerity do enterprize to purge the Lords Temple and Sanctuary Thus Knox I say in that Appellation I do not concern my self with the truth or falshood of his positions neither am I to justify or condemn his Arguments All I am to make of it is to ask my Presbyterian Brethren whither these Principles of Knox's suit well with declining the Civil Magistrate as ane incompetent Iudge in Ecclesiastical matters with refusing to appear before him prima instantia for the tryal of Doctrines preacht in the Pulpit with the famous distinction of the Kings having power about Church matters Cumulative but not Privative c. I am affraid it shall be hard enough to reconcile them I shall only instance in one principle more which seems to have been common to our and the English Reformers but it is one of very weighty consequence and importance to my main design It is Fourthly That Excellent Rule of Reformation viz. That it be done according to the word of God interpreted by the Monuments and Writings of the Primitive Church That antient solid approven Rule That Rule so much commended by that excellent Writer Vincentius Lirinensis That Rule which the common sense of mankind cannot but justify when it is considered soberly and seriously without partiality or prejudice A Rule indeed which had the Reformers of the several Churches followed unitedly and conscientiously in those times when the Churches in the Western parts of Europe were a Reforming we had not had so many different Faiths so many different Modes of Worship so many different Governments and Disciplines as Alas this day divide the Protestant Churches and by consequence weaken the Protestant Interest A Rule which had the pretenders to Reformed Religion in Scotland still stood by we had not possibly had so many horrid Rebellions so many unchristian Divisions so many unaccountable Revolutions both in Church and State as to our sad Experience have in the Result so unhing'd all the Principles of natural justice and honesty and disabled nay eaten out the principles of Christianity amongst us that now we are not disposed so much for any thing as downright Atheism But were our Reformers indeed for this Rule That shall be demonstrated by and by when we shall have occasion to bring it in again as naturally to which opportunity I now refer it in the mean time let us briefly sum up all that hath been hitherto said and try to what it amounts I have I think made it appear that while our Reformation was a carrying on and when it was established Anno 156â— there was no such Controversie agitated in the Churches as that concerning the indispensible necessity of Presbytery and the Vnlawfulness of Prelacy concerning the Divine Right of Parity or the Vnallowableness of imparity amongst the Governors of the Church I have said enough to make it credible that our Scottish Reformers had no peculiar occasions opportunities provocations abilities for falling on that Controversie or determining of it more
than the Reformers of other Churches In consequence of this I have further shewed that from all the monuments of these times I have seen not so much as One of our Reformers can be adduced as asserting the Presbyterian side of this Controversie Lastly I have I think made it evident that our Reformers went very much upon the same Principles on which the English Reformers went who still continued Episcopacy unquestionably on many Principles of great weight and importance as to the Constitution and Communion the Government and Polity of the Church which staid in direct opposition and contradiction to the Principles of our present Presbyterians And now let any judicious and impartial person lay these things together and then let him ingenuously determine whether it be not highly incredible that our Reformers were for the divine institution and indispensible Right of Parity and the Vnlawfulness of Prelacy which is the Principle at least the Profession of our present Presbyterians Yet after all this I must tell my Reader that I have insisted on these things so much as I have done principally for smoothing the way for the Evidences I am yet to produce for the certainty of my side of the Second Enquiry And I am content that these things I have already discoursed should pass for no more than Rational Presumptions till I have tried if more strength can be added to them and they can be rendered more cogent and concluding by a succession of plain positive direct and formal proofs of my Assertion And to engage my Readers attention I dare adventure to promise him that to as high a degree as the nature of the thing is capable of at least can reasonably bear And so without further address I thus proceed Before our Reformation was established by Law our Reformers addressed to the Government by several Petitions that Religion and the Church might be reformed I shall take notice of Three all pertinent to my purpose One of them is no where that I have seen set down at length the other two are in Knox his History That which is no where set down at length is to be seen abridged in Buchdâ—aâ— Lesly and Spotswood but with some little variation For Buchanan has given that Article which I am at present concerned aboutâ— according to his way in general terms Thus Vt Ministrorum Electio juxtà antiquam Ecclesiae consuetudinem penes populum esset Spotswood has translated Buchanan's words faithfully enough in this matter as he doth in many other things but Lesly gives it a little more distinctly thus Vt EPISCOPI deinceps PASTORES illi Dominorum ac Nobilium cujuscunque DIOICESIS hi PAROCHORVM assensione ac voluntate ad BENEFICIA cooptentur That this Petition thus abridged by these three Historians was a Petition different from that which we have published at length in Knox seems unquestionable for that which is in Knox has not one syllable about the Election of Ministers and beside Buchanan fairly insinuates that there was another distinct from that which he had abridged tho not much different For thus he discourses Papani Edinburgi ad eadem FERE postulata quaeper Nobilitatem ad eam Reginam proregem sunt delata PENE paribus usi sunt Responsis Now if it had been the same Petition why would he have said ad eadem FERE postulata and PENE paribus Responsis This I take notice of that my Presbyterian Brethren may not have occasion to â—avil at the Article as it is in Lesly as if it were not genuine because it is not in the Petition recorded by Knox and from him most imperfectly abridged by Calderwood their two great and authentick Historians For as for Mr. Petrie he was so wise as not to trouble himself with either of these Petitions perceiving belike that neither of them was favourable to his beloved Parity To proceed now with the Article as it is in Lesly If he has set it down faithfully I think we have a fair account of the sentiments of our Reformers concerning Mother Parity so very fair that he who runs may read it The Question then is whither Lesly has faithfully transmitted this Article to us And for the affirmative I offer these Reasons 1. There 's no reason to doubt of his integrity in this matter he was a zealous Papist and a Bishop to boot And it is evident as he was either of these it was not his interest to make our Reformers such friends to Episcopacy if they were not such really For if they had not made that Distinction between Bishops and Presbyters if they had professed the Divine Right of Parity he had had good ground for accusing them of receding from the undoubted principles and universal practice of the Catholick Church in all times and in all places in a point of so great weight and consequence in the Government of the Church Ane occasion which one of his Zeal for his party would not probably have neglected to take hold of far less would he have lied so palpably to save the Reputation of his Adversaries 2. As he had no temptation to falsify in this matter so he had all other Qualifications of a credible Witness He lived in these times he himself was a Clergy man then probably he was a Member of that same Convocation to which the Petition was offered and I think no man will doubt of his Abilities to comprehend such a matter Indeed 3. If he forged this Article he was ridiculously impudent at Forging for as he did it without any imaginable necessity without any shadow of a degree of subserviency to his Cause so he put himself upon a necessity of forging more even a good long Answer which he says was return'd to that Article by the Convocation viz. That it was not reasonable they should alter the Method of Electing Bishops and Presbyters prescribed by the Canon Law especially in the time of the Queens Nonage Her Prerogative was interested in the matter She with the Popes Consent had power to nominate the Prelates and to take that Power out of her hands without her Consent or before she came to perfect Age was notoriously as well as undutifully to invade her Royalty Ane Answer indeed exactly fitted for the Article as he hath transmitted it But the truth is 4. That he neither forged the Article nor the Convocations Answer to it we have further undoubted Evidence for I have seen ane Old Manuscript Scottish History which I can produce if I am put to it which exactly agrees with Lesly as to the Article for thus it hath it The Election of the Bishops and Kirkmen to pass by the Temporal Lords and People of their Diocesses and Parishes And Buchanan upon the matter gives that same account of the Convocations Answer affirming that As to the Election of Ministers they answered That such Matters were to be regulated by the Canon Law or the Decrees of the Council of Trent
have once transcribed already from his Exhortation to England for the speedy embracing of Christs Gospel Let no man be charged in preaching of Christ Iesus says he above that which a man may do I mean that your Bishopricks be so divided that of every one as they are now for the most part may be made ten and so in every City and great Town there may be placed a godly learned Man with so many joyned with him for preaching and instruction as shall be thought sufficient for the bounds commited to their Charge Than which testimony it is not possible to find a better Comment upon that period of the First Book of Discipline penned also by Knox himself which is the subject of our present Controversie and it agrees exactly with my Gloss For from this Testimony it is clear that he was for a great number of Bishops and little Diocesses and that in a Church sufficiently provided with Ministers the Bishop should not be obliged to travel from place to place for preaching but might stay at the Chief City or Town of his Diocess What I have said might be sufficient for preferring Mine to the Presbyterian Gloss But I have more to say For 3. This sense of the period accords exactly with the whole tenour of the First Book of Discipline in which there 's not another syllable the most partial Reader can say favours the mistaken Conceipt about the Temporariness of Superintendency but much to the contrary Thus In the Head of the Election of Superintendents the very first words are Such is the present Necessity that the Examination and Admission of Superintendents cannot be so strict as afterwards it must Clearly importing that as Necessity forced them to establish a small number at first so also to take them as they could have them but that a stricter accuracy in their tryal would be needful when the number of qualified men should increase which runs quite counter to the whole design of the Presbyterian Gloss. Again If so many able men cannot be found at present as Necessity requireth it is better that these Provinces wait till God provide than that men unable to edify and govern the Church be suddenly placed in the Charge c. Another Demonstration why at that time they established so few Superintendents Again If any Superintendent shall depart this life or happen to be deposed Rules are laid down for supplying the Vacancy But to what purpose if Superintendency was to be of so short continuance Farther yet After the Church shall be established and three years are past no man shall be called to the Office of a Superintendent who hath not two years at least given a proof of his faithful Labours in the Ministery of some Church What could more plainly import that the Office was to be durable Once more When this Book of Discipline comes to the business of the Vniversities it supposes that Superintendents and Colleges were to be of equal continuance for the Superintendent was still to be at the choosing and installment of Principals and Rectors and the Moneys collected for upholding the Fabrick were to be counted yearly upon the 15th day of November in the presence of the Superintendent of the bounds and imployed with his advice c. Neither is this all yet For 4. The Form and Order of the Election of the Superintendent to be found both in Knox's History and the Old Scottish Liturgy is every way as patt for the continuance of the Office as the First Book of Discipline For the first thing we meet with there as I have already observed is The Necssity of Ministers and Superintendents oâ— Oversecrs without any Exception or Speciality about the one more than the other And as our Reformers had petitioned the Government for the Establishment of a Method to be observed in the Election of Bishops and Presbyters without any intimations of the Temporariness of either Office as we have shewed before so here we find it put in practice as hath likewise before been observed without so much as one syllable favouring the Presbyterian side of the present Controversie but on the contrary all alongst for mine Thus The People are asked If they will obey and honour him as Christs Minister and comfort and assist him in every thing pertaining to his Charge And their Answer is They will and they promise him such Obedience as becometh Sheep to give unto their Pastor not so long as the present Necessity forceth or the present Exigence requireth but so long as he remaineth faithful in his Charge In short the Order or Form for admitting a Superintendent and a Parish Minister was all one and there was nothing in it importing the one Office to be temporary more than the other And however Calderwood thought fit to affirm That Superintendents were not then established as of Divine Institution yet in all this Form the divine Institution of their Office is as much to be found as the divine Institution of Ordinary Ministers The People as we had it just now were asked if they would obey him as Christs Minister And he himself was asked If he knew that the Excellency of this Office to the which GOD CALLED HIM did require that his Conversation should be irreprehensible And again it was asked the People Will ye not acknowledge this your Brother for the Minister of Christ Jesus Your Overseer and Pastor Will ye not maintain and comfort him in his Ministry and Watching over you against all such as wickedly would rebel against God and HIS HOLY ORDINANCE And in the Prayer after his Instalment we have this petition Send unto this our Brother whom IN THY NAME we have charged with THE CHIEF CARE of thy Church within the bounds of Lothian c. Thus our Reformers thought of Superintendency when they composed this Form Now if they lookt upon it as Gods Ordinance c. with what reason can it be said they design'd it meerly to be temporary and for the then Necessities of the Church I think it will be hard to prove that it was the Divinity of these times that men might dispense with divine Institutions but of this more afterwards In the mean time proceed we to a further and indeed ane irrefragable Topick for confirming my side of the present Controversie and that is 5. That as the First Book of Discipline and the Form of admitting Superintendents do both fairly import that our Reformers intended nothing less than the Temporariness of Superintendents so 't is as clear from a vast number of Acts of General Assemblies Most of these Acts I have already adduced for shewing the Disparities between Superintendents and Ordinary Ministers when they are seriously considered will be found uncontrovertibly to this purpose But there are many more for example consider these following The Assembly May 27 1561. addressed to the Council That special and certain provision might be made for the Maintenance of the
believe he would institute a Model of Government for his Church which could not answer the ends of its institution And is it not plain that Parity cannot answer the ends for which Church Government was instituted if the Church can be reduced to that State that the Governors thereof forced by Necessity must lay it aside and for a time establish a Prelacy Besides What strange Divinity is it to maintain that Parity is of divine Institution and yet may be laid aside in Cases of Necessity 'T is true G. R. in his True Representation of Presbyterian Government cited before is bold to publish to the world such Divinity But let him talk what he will of the Case of Necessity the Force of Necessity the Law of Necessity let him put it in as many Languages as he pleases as well as he hath done in Latin telling that Necessitas quicquid coegit defendit tho I must confess I have seen few Authors more unhappy at Latin And all that shall never perswade me ought never perswade any Christian that any Necessity can oblige Christians to forsake far less to cross Christs institutions for if it can oblige to do so in one Case why not in all Cases Indeed to talk of crossing Christs institutions when forced to it by the Laws of Necessity what is it else than to open a Door to Gnosticism to Infidelity to Apostacy to all imaginable kinds of Antichristian Perfidy and Villany But enough of this at present That which I am concerned for is only this that being it was so very obvious and easy for our Reformers to have cast the very first Scheme of the Government of the Church according to the Rules and Exigencies of Parity if they had believed the divine and indispensable institution of it and being that they did it not we have all the reason in the world to believe that they believed no such principle For my part I am so far from thinking it reasonable that Prelacy should be only needful where there is a scarcity of men qualified to be Ministers that on the contrary I do profess I am of opinion that Prelacy seems to be every whit as needful and expedient if not more supposing we had it in our power to cut and carve as we say on Christs institutions where there are many as where there are few Ministers Sure I am Experience hath taught so and teaches so daily and as sure I am it can with great reason be accounted for why it should be so but if it is so I think it is only help at a dead Lift as we say to say that Superintendency was established at our Reformation only because of the Scarcity of men qualified to be Ministers And so I proceed to our Brethrens next Plea which is SECONDLY That Superintendency was not the same with Episcopacy Calderwood assigns seven or eight differences between Superintendents and Bishops and his faithful Disciple G. R. in his First Vindication in answer to the first Question resumes the same Plea and insists mostly on the same Differences Calderwood reckons thus 1. In the Election Examination and Admission of Ministers the Superintendents were bound to the Order prescribed in the 4 th Head of the First Book of Discipline which is far different from the Order observed by Prelates 2. Superintendents kept not the bounds nor the limits of the old Diocesses 3. Superintendents might not remain above twenty days in any place till they had passed through the whole bounds must preach at least thrice in the week must stay no longer in the Chief Town of their Charge than three or four Months at most but must re-enter in Visitation of the rest of the Kirks in their bounds Bishops think preaching the least of their Charge 4. The Election Examination and Admission of the Superintendent is set down far different from the Election Examination and Admission of Bishops now adays c. 5. Superintendents were admitted without other Ceremonies than sharp Examination c. To the Inauguration of a Bishop is required the Metropolitans Consecrations 6. There were no degrees of superior and inferior provincial and general Superintendents It is otherwise in the Hierarchy of the Prelates c. I have set down these six huge Differences without ever offering to consider them particularly are they not huge Differences Behold them examine them carefully is not each of them as essential and specifick as another Think not courteous Reader it was Malice or Ill-will to Episcopacy made our Author muster up these Differences These make but a small number if he had been acted by passion or vicious Byass if his Malice had been vigorous and earnest to discharge it self that way he could have easily reckoned six hundred every whit as considerable Differences He might have told them that Bishops wore Black Hats and Superintendents Blue Bonnets that Bishops wore Silks and Superintendents Tartan that Bishops wore Gowns and Cassocks and Superintendents Trews and slasht Doublets and God knows how many such differences he might have readily collected And if he had adduced such notable differences as these he had done every way as Philosophically and as like a good Difference-maker But in the mean time what is all this to Parity or Imparity amongst the Governors of the Church Do these differences he has adduced distinguish between Bishops and Superintendents as to preheminence of power and the essentials of Prelacy Do they prove that Superintendents had no Prerogative no Authority no Jurisdiction over Parish Ministers I have treated him thus coursly because I know no other way of treatment Authors deserve who will needs speak Nonsense rather than speak nothing 'T is true indeed One difference he has mentioned which seems something material and therefore I shall endeavor to account for it with some more seriousness It is that by the Constitution as we have it both in the First Book of Discipline and the Form and Order of electing Superintendents Superintendents were made obnoxious to the Tryal and Censures of the Ministers within their own Diocesses This I acknowledge to be true and I acknowledge further that herein there was a considerable difference between them and Bishops as Bishops stood eminenced above Presbyters in the primitive times and as they ought to stand eminenced above them in all well constituted Churches But then I have these things to say 1. I shall not scruple to acknowledge that herein our Reformers were in the wrong and that this was a great Error in the Constitution I do avowedly profess I don't think my self bound to justify every thing that was done by our Reformers If that falls to any mans share if falls to theirs who established this Article in the Claim of Right which gave occasion to this whole Enquiry That our Reformers herein were in the wrong I say I make no scruple to acknowledge and I think it cannot but be obvious to all who have spent but a few thoughts about matters of
Policy and Government Indeed to make Governours subject to the Censures and Sentences of their Subjects what is it else than to subvert Government to confound Relations to sap the Foundations of all Order and politick Establishment It is as King Iames the sixth has it in his Discourse about the true Law of Free Monarchies and I cannot give it better to invert the Order of all Law and Reason to make the commanded command the Commander the judged judge their Iudge and them who are governed to govern their time about their Lord and Governour In short to give a just account of such a Constitution it is very near of Kin to that bantering Question I have sometimes heard proposed to Children or Ideots If you were above me and I above you which of us should be uppermost I add further 2. That as I take it our Reformers put this in the Constitution that they might appear consequential to a principle then espoused and put in practice by them about Civil Government which was that the King was superior to his Subjects in their distributive but inferior to them in their collective Capacity This principle I say in those days was in great Credit Knox had learned it from the Democratians at Geneva his Authority was great and he was very fond of this principle and disseminated it with a singular zeal and confidence Besides our Reformers were then obnoxious to the civil Government the standing Laws were against them and the Soveraigns perswasion in matters of Religion jumpt with the Laws This Principle therefore had it been a good one came to them most seasonably and coming to them in such a nick and withal meeting in them with Scotch Mettal they put it in practice and being put in practice God suffered it to be successful and the success was a new Endearment and so it came to be a Principle of Credit and Reputation Indeed they had been very unthankful to it and inconsequential to boot if they had not adopted it into their Ecclesiastical as well as their Civil Systeme and the Superintendents having had a main hand in reducing it to practice against the Prince could not take it ill if it was made a Law to themselves it was but their own measure This I say I take to be the natural History of this part of the Constitution Nay 3. So fond it seems they were of this principle that they extended it further so far as even to make Ministers accountable to their own Elderships So 't is expresly established by the First Book of Discipline Head 8. The Elders ought also to take heed to the Life Manners Diligence and Study of their Minister And if he be worthy of Admonition they must admonish him if of Correction they must correct him and if he be worthy of Deposition they with the Consent of the Church and Superintendent may depose him Here was a pitch of Democracy which I think our Presbyterian Brethren themselves as self denied as they are would not take with so very kindly And yet I am apt to believe the Compilers of the Book never thought on putting these Elders in a state of parity with their Ministers tho this is a Demonstration that they have not been the greatest Masters at Drawing Schemes of Policy But to let this pass 4. Tho this unpolitical stroke to call it no worse was made part of the Constitution by that Book as I have granted yet I have no where found that ever it was put in practice I have no where found that De Facto a Superintendent was judged by his own Synod whether it was that they behaved so exactly as that they were never censureable or that their Synods had not the insolence to reduce a Constitution so very absurd and unreasonable to practice I shall not be anxious to determine But it seems probable it has been as much if not more upon the latter account than the former for I find Superintendents frequently tried and sometimes censured by General Assemblies and there was reason for it supposing that General Assemblies as then constituted were fit to be the supreme Judicatories of the National Church For there was no reason that Superintendents should have been Popes i. e. absolute and unaccountable so that if I am not mistaken our Brethren raise Dust to little purpose when they make so much noise about the Accountableness of Superintendents to General Assemblies as if that made a difference between them and Bishops For I know no man that makes Bishops unaccountable especially when they are confederated in a National Church But this by the way That which I take notice of is That seeing we find they were so frequently tried by General Assemblies without the least intimation of their being at any time tried by their own Synods it seems reasonable to conclude that it has been thought fit to let that unreasonable Stretch in the first Constitution fall into Dissuetude But however this was I have all safe enough For 5. Such a Constitution infers no such thing as parity amongst the Officers of the Church Those who maintain that the King is inferiour to his Subjects in their Collection are not yet so extravagant as to say he is not superior to every one of them in their Distribution They acknowledge he is Major Singulis and there 's not a person in the Kingdom who will be so unmannerly as to say that he stands upon the same Level with his Soveraign But what needs more These same very Presbyterian Authors who use this Argument even while they use it confess That Superintendents and ordinary Parish Ministers did not act in parity and because they cannot deny it but must confess it whether they will or not they cannot forbear raising all the Dust they can about it that unthinking People may not see clearly that they do confess it And had it not been for this reason I am apt to think the world had never been plagued with such pitiful jangle as such Arguments amount to Neither is the next any better which is 3. That Superintendency was never established by Act of Parliament This is G. R.'s Argument in his learned Answer to the first of the ten Questions for there he tells us That Superintendency was neither brought in nor cast out by Act of Parliament And what then Doth he love it the worse that it was established purely by Ecclesiastical Authority How long since he turn'd â—ond of Parliamentary Establishments I wonder he was not affraid of the Scandal of Erastianism But to the point 'T is true indeed it was not brought in by Act of Parliament but then I think he himself cannot deny that it was countenanced allowed and approven by more than half a Dozen of Acts of Parliaments which if our Author understands any thing either of Law or Logick he must allow to be at least equivalent to a Parliamentary In-bringing I have these Acts in readiness to produce when
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
plain than that they receive the substance of the Articles and only protest against the Scandalousness of the Names used in them What reason they had for that besides the over-zealous Principle I mentioned before let the curious enquire That 's none of my present business But They protest that they receive these Articles only for ane Interim True But how doth it appear that they received them only for ane Interim out of a Dislike to Episcopacy Had they believed the Divine Right of Parity how could they have received them so much as for ane Interim How could they have received them at all The Truth is there were many things in the Articles which required amendment even tho the Gen. Ass. had believed the Divine Right of Episcopacy And that they did not receive them for ane Interim upon the account of any Dislike they had to Episcopacy shall be made evident by and by In the mean time we have gained one point even That they were received by this Assembly unless receiving for an Interim be not receiving But if they were received I hope it is not true that they were never allowed by a General Assembly And if Episcopacy was not protested against at all and if there was no such word or phrase in the Act as had the least Tendency to import that they judged it a Corruption I hope it may consist well enough with the Laws of Civility to say that G. R. was talking without Book when he said It was protested against as a Corruption by this General Assembly I doubt if he had found any of the Prelatists talking with so much Confidence where they had so little ground he would have been at his beloved Lies and Calumnies But enough of this proceed we in our Series By the Vniversal Order so it is worded in the Mss. of the General Ass. holden at Eden March 6. 157â— 3. It was Statuted and Ordained that all Bishops Superintendents c. present themselves in every Gen. Ass. that hereafter shall be holden the first day of the Assembly before Noon c. Again It is thought most reasonable and expedient That Bishops c. purchase General Letters without any delay commanding all Men to frequent Preaching and Prayers according to the Order received in the Congregations c. In the Ass. holden at Eden Aug. 6. 1573. The Visitation Books of Bishops c. were produced and certain Ministers appointed to examin their Diligence in Visitation In that same Assembly Patoun Bishop of Dunkeld was accused that he had accepted the Name but had not exercised the Office of a Bishop not having proceeded against Papists within his bounds He was also suspected of Simony and Perjury in that contrary to his Oath at the receiving of the Bishoprick he gave Acquittances and the Earl of Argyle received the Profits If these things were true he was a foolish as well as a bad Bishop But then it was evident that this Assembly fairly own'd Episcopacy Further that by the Agreement at Leith express provisions were made against Simony and Dilapidation of Benefices and that Bishops should swear to that purpose c. which I think is not well consistent with the Plea insisted on before viz. That the Agreement at Leith was forced on the Clergy by the Court out of a design it had upon the Revenues of the Church I find these further Acts made by this Assembly in the Mss. Touching them that receive Excommunicates the whole Kirk presently assembled ordains all Bishops c. to proceed to Excommunication against all Receivers of Excommunicate persons if after due Admonition the Receivers rebel and be disobedient The Kirk ordains all Bishops c. in their Synodal Conventions to take a List of the Names of the Excommunicates within their Iurisdictions and bring them to the General Assemblies to be published to other Bishops and Superintendents c. That they by their Ministers in their Provinces may divulgate the same in the whole Countries where Excommunicates haunt The Kirk presently assembled ordains all Bishops and Superintendents c. to conveen before them all such persons as shall be found suspected of consulting with Witches and finding them guilty to cause them make publick Repentance c. That Vniformity may be observed in processes of Excommunication It is ordained that Bishops and Superintendents c. shall direct their Letters to Ministers where the persons that are to be Excommunicated dwell commanding the said Ministers to admonish accordingly and in Case of Disobedience to proceed to Excommunication and pronounce the Sentence thereof upon a Sunday in time of Preaching and thereafter the Ministers to indorse the said Letters making mention of the days of their Admonitions and Excommunication for Disobedience aforesaid and to report to the said Bishops c. according to the Direction contained in the said Letters Petrie has the substance of most of these Acts but has been at pains to obscure them And no wonder for here are so many Branches of true Episcopal power established in the persons of these Bishops that it could not but have appeared very strange that a General Assembly should have conferred them on them if there was such ane aversion then to the Order as he and his Fellows are willing to have the world believe there was But Honest Calderwood was wiser for he hath not so much as ane intimation of any one of them And Calderwood having thus concealed them nay generally all alongst whatever might make against his Cause as much as he could what wonder if G. R. who knows nothing in the matter but what Calderwood told him stumbled upon such a notable piece of Ignorance in his first Vindication as to tell the world That Nothing was restored at Leith but the Image of Prelacy That these Tulchan Bishops had only the Name of Bishops while Noblemen and others had the Revenue and the Church all the power Nay That notwithstanding of all was done at Leith The real Exercise of Presbytery in all its Meetings lesser and greater continued and was allowed But of this more hereafter The Assembly holden at Eden March 6. 1574. Concluded concerning the Iurisdiction of Bishops in their Ecclesiastical Function that it should not exceed the Iurisdiction of Superintendents which heretofore they have had and presently have And that they should be subject to the Discipline of the General Ass. as Members thereof as Superintendents had been heretofore in all sorts And again This Assembly Ordains That no Bishop give Collation of any Benefice within the bounds of Superintendents within his Diocess without their Consent and Testimonials subscribed with their hands And that Bishops within their Diocesses visit by themselves where no Superintendent is and give no Collation of Benefices without the Consent of three well qualified Ministers Here indeed both Calderwood and Petrie appear briskly and transcribe the Mss. word for word Here was something like limiting the power of
the Bishops and that was ane opportunity not to be omitted But as I take it there was no very great reason for this Triumph if the true reason of these Acts be considered as it may be collected from Spotswood and Petrie which was this The Earl of Morâ—on then Regent and sordidly covetous had flattered the Church out of their Possession of the Thirds of the Benefices the only sure Stock they could as yet claim by any Law made since the Reformation of Religion promising instead thereof to settle local'd Stipends upon the Ministers but having once obtain'd his end which was to have the Thirds at his Disposal he forgot his promise and the Ministers found themselves miserably trickt Three or four Churches were cast together and committed to the Care of one Minister and a Farthing to live by could not be got without vast attendance trouble and importunity Besides the Superintendents who had had a principal hand in the Reformation and were Men of great Repute and had spent liberally of their own Estates in the Service of the Church were as ill treated as any body For when they sought their wonted allowances they were told there was no more use for them Bishops were now restored it was their Province to govern the Church Superintendents were now superfluous and unnecessary The Superintendents thus Mal treated what wonder was it if they had their own Resentments of it So when the General Assembly met Areskin Spotswood and Winram three of them and by that time 't is probable there were no more of them alive came to the Assembly offered to dimit their Offices and were earnest that the Kirk would accept of their Dimission They were now turn'd useless Members of the Ecclesiastical body their Office was evacuated they could serve no longer The whole Assembly could not but know the matter and as they knew for what reasons these ancient and venerable persons were so much irritated so their own concern in the same common interest could not but prompt them to a fellow-feeling they knew not how soon the next Mortonian Experiment might be tryed upon themselves they therefore unanimously refuse to accept of the Dimission and whither the Superintendents will or not they continue them in their Offices and not only so but they thought it expedient to renew that Article of the Agreement at Leith viz. That Bishops and Superintendents stood on the same Level had the same Power the same Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction and were to be regulated by the same Canons Importing thereby that both were useful in the Church at such a juncture and that the Church had not received Bishops to the Exauctoration of the few surviving Superintendents and now in their old age rendring them contemptible And who could condemn the Assembly for taking a course that was both so natural and so obvious Nay it was even the Bishops interest as much as any other Assembly-mens to agree to this conclusion For the great business in hand was not about Extent of Power or Point of Dignity had no Incentive to Iealousie or Emulation in it but it was about the Revenues of the Church To secure these against the insatiable Avarice of a Griping Lord Regent A point the Bishops were as nearly concerned in as any Men For if these three Superintendents who had so long born the heat of the day and done such eminent and extraordinary services to the Church should be once sacrificed to Mortons Covetousness how easy might it be for him to make what farther Encroachments he pleased How easy to carry on his project against other men who perhaps had no such Merit no such Repute no such Interest in the Affections of the People This I say was the Reason for which these two Acts were made in this Assembly and not that the Assembly were turning weary of Bishops or were become any way disaffected to them So that Calderwood and Petrie had but little reason to be so boastful for these two Acts. That it was not out of any Dislike to Episcopacy that these two Acts were made is clear as Light from the next Assembly which met in August 1574. For therein the Clergy manifestly continuing of the same Principles and proceeding on the same Reasons order a Petition consisting of Nine Articles to be drawn and presented to the Regent Calderwood indeed doth not mention this Petition But it is in the Mss. and Petrie talks of it but disingenuously for he mentions it only Overly telling That some Articles were sent unto the Lord Regent and he sets down but two whereas as I said there are Nine in the Mss. and most of them looking the Regents Sacrilegious inclinations even Staringly in the Face I shall only Transcribe such of them as cannot when perpended but be acknowledged to have tended that way They are these 1. That Stipends be granted to Superintendents in all time coming in all Countreys destitute thereof whither it be where there is no Bishop or where there are Bishops who cannot discharge their Office as the Bishops of St. Andrews and Glasgow who had too large Diocesses This Article Petrie hath but Minc'd Indeed it is a very considerable one For here you see 1. That in contradiction to the Regents purposes the Assembly owns and stands by the Superintendents They are so far from being satisfied to part with the Three they had that on the contrary they crave to have more and to have provisions for them and that in all Countries where Bishops either are not or are but have too large Diocesses 2. They crave these things For all times coming a Clause of such importance to the main Question that Petrie has unfaithfully left it out And truly I must confess if it were lawful for Men to be Vnfaithful when it might serve that which they conceived to be a Good End he had great Reason to try it in this instance For this Clause when not concealed but brought above board gives a fatal Overthrow to all these popular Plea's of Episcopacy's being then obtruded on the Church forced upon her against her Will tolerated only for a time c. For from this Clause it is as clear as a Clause can make it that this Assembly entertain'd no such imaginations They supposed Episcopacy was to continue for all time coming For for all time Coming they petition that provision may be made for Superintendents where no Bishops are or where their Diocesses are too large for them 2. The Second Article is That in all Burghs where the Ministers are displaced and serve at other Kirks these Ministers be restored to wait on their Cures and be not obliged to serve at other Churches c. Directly striking against the Regents politick of Uniting three or four Churches under the Care of one Minister The 4. Which Petrie also hath is That in all Churches destitute of Ministers such persons may be planted as the Bishops Superintendents and Commissioners shall name and that
Stipends be assigned to them Ane Article visibly levell'd as the former 5. That Doctors may be placed in Vniversities and Stipends granted them whereby not only they who are presently placed may have occasion to be diligent in their Cure but other learned Men may have Occasion to seek places in Colleges Still to the same purposes viz. the finding reasonable Uses for the Patrimony of the Church 6. That his Grace would take a General Order with the poor especially in the Abbeys such as are Aberbrothoick c. Conform to the Agreement at Leith Here not only the Leith-Agreement insisted on but farther pious Vse for the Churches Patrimony 9. That his Grace would cause the Books of the Assignation of the Kirk be delivered to the Clerk of the General Assembly These Books of Assignation as they call them were the Books wherein the Names of the Ministers and their several proportions of the Thirds were Recorded It seems they were earnest to be repossessed of their Thirds seeing the Regent had not kept promise to them But The Eighth Article which by a pardonable inversion I hope I have reserved to the last place is of all the most considerable It is That his Grace would provide Qualified persons for Vacant Bishopricks Let the candid Reader judge now if Episcopacy by the Leith-Articles was forced upon the Church against her Inclinations If it was never approven when Bishops were thus petitioned for by a General Assembly If it be likely that the Assembly in August 1572. protested against it as a Corruption If the Acts of the last Assembly declaring Bishops to have no more power than Superintendents had and making them accountable to the General Assembly proceeded from any Dislike of Episcopacy If this Assembly petitioning thus for Bishops believed the divine and indispensible institution of Parity If both Calderwood and Petrie acted not as became Cautious Pretbyterian Historians the One by giving us None the other by giving us only a Minced account of this Petition Well! By this time I think I have not intirely disappointed my Reader I think I have made it competently appear That the Agreement at Leith was fairly and frequently allowed approven and insisted on by not a â—ew subsequent General Assemblies I could adduce some Acts more of the next Ass which met at Eden March 7. 1575. But I think I have already made good my Undertaking and therefore I shall insist no further on this point Only One thing I must add further It is this After the most impartial narrow and attentive Search I could make I have not found all this while viz. from the first publick Establishment of the Reformed Religion in Scotland Anno 1560. so much as One Indication of either publick or private Dislike to Prelacy But that it constantly and uninterruptedly prevailed and all persons chearfully as well as quietly submitted to it till the year 1575. when it was first called in Question And here I might fairly shut up this long and perhaps nauseous Discourse upon the Second Enquiry which I proposed For whatever Men our Reformers were whatever their other principles might be I think I have made it plain that they were not for the Divine Right of Parity or the Vnlawfulness of the Superiority of any Office in the Church above Presbyters No such principle was prosessed or insisted on or offered to be reduced to practice by them Before At or full fifteen years After the publick Establishment of the Reformation And if this may not pass for sufficient proof of the truth of my Resolution of the Enquiry I know not what may However because THE SECOND thing I promised to shew tho not precisely necessary to my main design may yet be so far useful as to bring considerably more of Light to it and withal give the world a prospect of the Rise and Progress of Presbytery in Scotland I shall endeavour to make good my Undertaking which was that after Episcopacy was question'd it was not easily overturn'd Its Adversaries met with much Resistance and Opposition in their Endeavors to subvert it I shall study brevity as much as the weight of the matter will allow me In short then take it thus Master Andrew Melvil after some years spent at Geneva returned to Scotland in Iuly 1574. He had lived in that City under the influences of Theodore Beza the true parent of Presbytery He was a Man by Nature fierce and fiery confident and peremptory peevish and ungovernable Education in him had not sweetned Nature but Nature had sowred Education and both conspiring together had trickt him up into a true Original a piece compounded of pride and petulance of jeer and jangle of Satyr and Sarcasm of venome and vehemence He hated the Crown as much as the Mitre the Scepter as much as the Crosier and could have made as bold with the Purple as with the Rochet His prime Talent was Lampooning and writing Anti-tami-Cami-Categorias's In a word He was the very Archetypal Bitter Beard of the Party This Man thus accoutred was scarcely warm at home when he began to disseminate his sentiments insinuate them into others and make a party against Prelacy and for the Genevian Model For this I need not depend on Spotswoods Authority tho he asserts it plainly I have a more Authentick Author for it if more Authentick can be I have Melvil himself for it in a Letter to Beza dated Novem. 13. 1579. to be found both in Petrie and in the Pamphlet called Vindiciae Philadelphi from which Petrie had it of which Letter the very first words are we have not ceased these five years to fight against Pseudepiscopacy c. Now reckon five years backward from Novem. 1579. and you stand at November 1574. whereby we find that within three or four Months after his arrival the Plot was begun tho' it was near to a year thereafter before it came above-board Having thus projected his work and formed his party the next care was to get one to Table it fairly He himself was but lately come home he was much a Stranger in the Country having been ten years abroad He had been but at very few General Assemblies if at any his influence was but green and budding his Authority but young and tender It was not fit for him amongst his First Appearances to propose so great ane Innovation And it seems the Thinking Men of his Party however resolutely they might promise to back the Motion when once fairly Tabled were yet a little shy to be the first Proposers So it fell to the share of one who at that time was none of the greatest Statesmen Iohn Durie one of the Ministers of Edenburgh was the person as Spotswood describes him A sound hearted Man far from all Dissimulation open professing what he thought earnest and zealous in his Cause whatever it was but too too credulous and easily to be imposed on However that I may do him as much justice as
Spotswood has done him before me A Man he was who thought no Shame to acknowledge his Error when he was convinced of it For so it was that when after many years Experience he had satisfied himself that Parity had truly proved the Parent of Confusion and disappointed all his Expectations and when through Age and Sickness he was not able in person to attend the General Assembly Anno 1600. he gave Commission to some Brethren to tell them as from him That there was a Necessity of restoring the Ancient Government of the Church c. Such was the Man I say to whose share it fell to be the first who publickly questioned the Lawfulness of Prelacy in Scotland which was not done till the Sixth day of August 1575. as I said before no less than full fifteen years after the first legal Establishment of our Scottish Reformation And so I come to my purpose On this Sixth of August 1575. the Gen. Ass. met at Edenburgh according to the Order then observed in General Assemblies the First thing done after the Assembly was constituted was the Tryal of the Doctrine Diligence Lives c. of the Bishops and other constant Members So while this was a doing Iohn Durie stood up and protested That the Tryal of the Bishops might not prejudge the Opinions and Reasons which he and other Brethren of his Mind had to propose against the Office and Name of a Bishop Thus was the fatal Controversie set on foot which since hath brought such Miseries and Calamities on the Church and Kingdom of Scotland The Hare thus started Melvil the Original Huntsman strait pursued her He presently began a long and no doubt premeditated Harangue commended Durie's Zeal enlarged upon the flourishing State of the Church of Geneva insisted on the Sentiments of Calvin and Beza concerning Church Government and at last affirmed That none ought to be Office-bearers in the Church whose Titles were not found in the Book of God That the the Title of Bishops was found in Scripture yet it was not to be understood in the Sense then current That Iesus Christ the only Lord of his Church allowed no Superiority amongst the Ministers but had instituted them all in the same Degree and had endued them with equal power Concluding That the Corruptions which had crept into the Estate of Bishops were so great as unless the same were removed it could not go well with the Church nor could Religion be long preserved in Purity The Controversie thus plainly stated Mr. David Lindesay Master George Hay and Master Iohn Row three Episcopalians were appointed to confer and reason upon the Question proponed with Mr. Andrew Melvil Mr. Iames Lawson and Mr. Iohn Craig two Presbyterians and one much indifferent for both sides After diverse Meetings and long Disceptation saith Spotswood after two days saith Petrie they presented these Conclusions to the Assembly which at that time they had agreed upon 1. They think it not expedient presently to answer directly to the First Question But if any Bishop shall be chosen who hath not such Qualities as the word of God requires let him be tryed by the General Assembly De Novo and so deposed 2. The Name Bishop is common to all them who have particular Flocks over which they have particular Charges to preach the Word administer the Sacraments c. 3. Out of this Number may be chosen some to have power to Oversee and Visit such reasonable Bounds beside his own Flock as the General Kirk shall appoint and in these bounds to appoint Ministers with Consent of the Ministers of that Province and of the Flock to whom they shall be appointed Also to appoint Elders and Deacons in every principal Congregation where there are none with Consent of the People thereof and to suspend Ministers for reasonable Causes with Consent of the Ministers aforesaid So the Mss. Spot Pet. Cald. 'T is true here are some things which perhaps when thoroughly examined will not be found so exactly agreeable to the Sentiments and Practice of the Primitive Church However 't is evident for this Bout the Imparity-men carried the day and it seems the Parity-men have not yet been so well fixed for the Divine and indispensible Right of it as our Modern Parity-men would think needful otherwise how came they to consent to such Conclusions How came they to yield that it was not expedient at that time to answer directly to the first Question which was concerning the Lawfulness of Episcopacy Were they of the Modern Principles G. R's Principles Did they think that Divine institutions might be dispensed with crossed according to the Exigencies of Expediency or Inexpediency What ane Honour is it to the Party if their first Hero's were such Casuists Besides is not the Lawfulness of imparity clearly imported in the Third Conclusion Indeed both Calderwood and Petrie acknowledge so much Calderwood saith It seemeth that by Reason of the Regents Authority who was bent upon the Course i. e. Episcopacy whereof he was the chief Instrument that they answered not directly at this time to the Question Here you see he owns that nothing at this time was concluded against the Course as he calls it whither he had reason to say It seemed to be upon such ane account shall be considered afterward Petrie acknowledges it too but in such a passion it seems as quite mastered his Prudence when he did it for these are his words Howbeit in these Conclusions they express not the Negative because they would not plainly oppose the particular interest of the Council seeking security of the Possessions by the Title of Bishops yet these Affirmatives take away the pretended Office Now let the world consider the Wisdom of this Author in advancing this fine period They did not express the Negative they did not condemn Episcopacy because they would not plainly oppose the particular interest of the Council seeking Security of the Possessions c. Now let us enquire who were these They who would not for this reason condemn Episcopacy at that time It must either belong to the Six Collocutors who drew the Concusions or to the whole Assembly If to the Collocutors 't is plain Three of them viz. Row Hay and Lindesay were innocent they were perswaded in their Minds of the Expediency to say no further as well as the Lawfulness of Episcopacy and I think that was reason enough for them not to condemn it The Presbyterian Brethren then if any were the persons who were moved not to condemn it because they would not plainly oppose the particular interest of the Council c. But if so hath not Master Petrie made them very brave fellows Hath he not fairly made them such friends to Sacrilege that they would rather baulk a divine Institution than interrupt its Course and offend its Votaries If by the word They he meant the General Assembly if the whole Assembly were they who would not express the
Negative because they would not oppose c. I think Mr. Petrie were he alive would have enough to do to prove that that was the Reason they were determin'd by What Had the whole Church quate all their pretensions they insisted on so much on every Occasion Had they now given over their Claim to the Revenues of the Church Shall I declare my poor opinion in this matter I am apt to believe that it was one of the great Arguments insisted on by the Three Episcopalian Collocutors at that time That if Episcopacy should be concluded unlawful and by consequence overturned the Patrimony of the Church would undoubtedly go to wreck The hungry Courtiers would presently possess themselves of the Revenues belonging to the Bishops Sure I am as things then stood there was all the Reason in the world for insisting on this Argument But to pass this Petrie it seems was not content with giving the quite contrary of that which in all probability was the true Reason at least one of the true Reasons for not overturning Episcopary at that time But he behoved to add something more Extravagant He behoved to add That the Affirmatives in the aforesaid conclusions took away the pretended Office of Episcopacy What might he not have said after this It seems that in this Authors opinion all is one thing to assert the Lawfulness of ane Office and thereupon to continue it and to take it away But perhaps I may be blamed for taking so much notice of ane angry mans Excesses For no doubt it was anger that such conclusions should have been made that hurtied him upon such Extravagances and therefore I shall leave him and return to my threed By what I have told it may be easy to judge how cold the first Entertainment was which Parity got when it was proposed to the General Assembly and so much the more if it be further considered that by this same Assembly some 8 or 9 Articles were ordered to be presented to My Lord Regents Grace whereof the First as I find it in the MS. and in Petrie himself tho' neither so fully nor so fairly was this Imprimis for planting and preaching the word thro' the whole Realm It is Desired that so many Ministers as may be had who are yet unplaced may be received as well in the Countrey to relieve the charge of them who have many Kirks as otherwise throughout the whole Realm with Superintendents or Commissioners within these Bonnds where Bishops are not and to help such Bishops as have too great Charges And that Livings be appointed to the aforesaid Persons and also payment to them who have travelled before as Commissioners in the years of God 1573. and 1574. and so forth in time coming without which the travels of such Men will cease This I say is the First of many Articles ordered by this Assembly for the Regent From which it is Evident not only that Mr. Melvils Project made little or no progress at this time but also that the Assembly continued firm and stedfast in the same very intentions and of the same very Principles which had prevailed in former Assemblies viz. to stop the uniting of Churches to multiply the number of persons cloathed with Prelatick power To continue that power in the Church and by all means to secure her Patrimony and guard against and Exclude all alienations of it Melvil and his Partisans thus successless in their first attempt but withal once engaged and resolved not to give over began it seems against the next Assembly to reflect on what they had done and perceive that they had mistaken their measures And indeed it was a little precipitantly done at the very first to state the Question simply and absolutely upon the Lawfulness or Vnlawfulness of Episcopacy in the General as they had stated it It was a new Question which had never been stated in the Church of Scotland before And it could not but be surprizing to the greatest part of the Assembly Thus to call in Question the Lawfulness of ane Office which had been so early so universally so usefully so incontestedly received by the Catholick Church This was a point of great importance For to Declare that Office Vnlawful what was it else than to condemn all these Churches in the primitive times which had own'd it and flourish't under it What else than to condemn the Scottish Reformation and Reformers who had never Question'd it but on the contrary had proceeded all alongst on principles which clearly supposed its Lawfulness if not its Necessity Nay was it not to condemn particularly all these General Assemblies which immediately before had so much Authorized and confirm'd it Besides as hath been already observed to Declare Episcopacy Vnlawful was unavoidably to stifle all these projects they had been so industriously forming for recovering the Churches Patrimony And not only so but to expose it more and more to be devoured by the voracious Laity It was Plain it could no sooner be declared Vnlawful than it behoved to be parted with and turn out the Bishops once and what would become of the Bishopricks Nay to turn them out what was it else than to undo the whole Agreement at Leith which was the greatest security the Church then had for her Patrimony For these and the like reasons I say laying aside the impiety and insisting only on the imprudence of the Melvilian Project it was no doubt precipitantly done at the very first to make that the State of the Question And it was no wonder if the Assembly was unanimous in agreeing to the conclusions which had been laid before them by the six Collocutors Nay it was no wonder if Melvil and his Party sensible of their errour and willing to cover it the best way they could yielded for that time to the other Three who had so visibly the advantage of them at least in the point of the Churches interest And therefore At the next Assembly which was holden at Edenburgh April 24. 1576. they altered the State of the Question as Spotswood observes and made it this Whether Bishops as they were then in Scotland had their Function warranted by the word of God But even thus stated at that time it avail'd them nothing For as it is in the MS. The whole Assembly for the most part after Reasoning and long Disputation upon every Article of the Brethrens viz. the six Collocutors opinion and advice resolutely approved and affirmed the same and every Article thereof as the same was given in by them And then the Articles are Repeated Calderwood and Petrie do both shuffle over the state of the Question but upon the matter they give the same account of the Assembly's Resolution However I thought fit to take it in the words of the MS. the very stile importing that they are the most Authentick And in this Resolution we may observe these three things 1. That whatever the Melvilian Party might then be They
may believe Calderwood but neither the MS. nor Petrie hath it 2. The Archbishop of St. Andrews being absent full power was given to M. Robert Pont M. Iames Lawson David Ferguson and the Superintendent of Lothian conjunctly To cite him before them against such day or days as they should think good to try and examine his entry and proceeding c. with power also to summon the Chapter of St. Andrews or so many of that Chapter as they should judge expedient and the Ordainers or Inaugurers of the said Archbishop observe here the Bishops in these times were Ordained or Inaugurated as they should find good for the better tryal of the premisses And in the mean time to discharge him of further visitation till he should be admitted by the Church Here indeed the Melvilians obtain'd in both Instances that which was refused them by the last Assembly However nothing done Directly as I said against the Episcopal Office On the contrary Adamson it seems might exerce it when admitted by the Assembly May I not reckon the Fast appointed by this Assembly as a third step gained by our Parity-men A successful Establishment of perfect Order and Polity in the Kirk was one of the reasons for it And ever since it hath been one of the Politicks of the Sect to be Mighty for Fasts when they had extraordinary projects in their heads and then if these Projects however wicked nay tho' the very wickedness which the Scripture makes as bad as witchcraft succeeded To entitle them to Gods Grace and make the success the Comfortable Return of their pious Humiliations and sincere Devotions I find also that Commissioners were sent by this Assembly to the Earl of Morton to acquaint him that they were busy about the matter and argument of the Polity and that his Grace should receive Advertisement of their further proceedings and that these Coâ—â—issioners having returned from him to the Assembly reported That His Grace liked well of their travels and labours in that matter and required expedition and haste Promising that when the particulars should be given in to him they should receive a good Answer So Calderwood and the MS. From which two things may be observed the First is a further Confirmation of the suspicion I insisted on before viz. That Morton was truly a Friend to the Innovators The second that the Second Book of Discipline had hitherto gone on but very slowly Why else would his Grace have so earnestly required Expedition and hasty Outred as the MS. words it i. e. Dispatch and promised them a good answer when the particulars should be given in to him The truth is there was one good reason for their proceeding so leisurely in the matter of the Book Beza's Answer to Glamis his Letter was not yet returned Thus two General Assemblies passed without so much as offering at a plain a direct Trust against Imparity Nay it seems matters were not come to a sufficient Maturity for that even against the next Assembly It was holden at Edenburgh Octob. 25. 1577. And not so much as one word in the MS. Calderwood or Petrie relating either directly or indirectly to the main Question But two things happened a little after this Assembly which animated Melvil and his Party to purpose One was Morton's quitting the Regency For whatever services he had done them he was so obscure and Fetching in his measures and so little to be trusted that they could not rely much upon him And now that he had demitted they had a fair prospect of playing their game to better purpose than ever They were in possessions of the Allowance he had granted them to draw a New Scheme of Policy They had a Young King who had not yet arrived at the twelfth year of his Age to deal with By consequence they were like to have a divided Court and a Factious Nobility and they needed not doubt if there were two Factions in the Kingdom that one of them would be sure to Court them and undertake to promote their Interests The other encouragement which did them every whit as good service was Beza's Book De Triplici Episcopatu Divino Humano Satanico with his Answers to the Lord Glamis his Questions which about this time was brought to Scotland as is clear from Calderwood Beza it seems put to it to Defend the Constitution of the Church of Geneva had imployed his wit and parts which certainly were not contemptible in patching together such a Scheme of principles as he thought might be defended That 's a method most men take too frequently First to resolve upon a Conclusion and then to stretch their inventions and spend their pains for finding Colours and plausibilities to set it off with Beza therefore I say having been thus at pains to digest his thoughts the best way he could on this subject and withal being possibly not a little elevated That the Lord High Chancellor of a Foreign Kingdom should Consult him and ask his Advice concerning a point of so great importance as the constitution of the Government of a National Church Thought it not enough it seems to return an Answer to his Lordships Questions and therein give him a Scheme which was very easy for him to do considering he needed be at little more pains than to transcribe the Genevian Establishment But he applied himself to the main Controversie which had been started by his Disciple Melvil in Scotland and 't is scarcely to be doubted that it was done at his instignation and wrote this his Book wherein tho' he asserted not the absolute Vnlawfulness of that which he called Humane Episcopacy he had not brow enough for that as we have seen already yet he made it wonderously dangerous as being so naturally apt to Degenerate into the Devilish the Satanical Episcopacy This Book I say came to Scotland about this time viz. either in the end of 1577. or the beginning of 1578. and tho' I have already given a Specimen of it who now could hold up his head to plead for Prelacy Here was a Book written by the Famous Mr. Beza the Successor of the great Mr. Calvin the present great Luminary of the Church of Geneva our Elder Sister Church the Best Reformed Church in Christendom Who would not be convinced now that Parity ought to be Established and Popish Prelacy abolished And indeed it seems this Book came seasonably to help the good new cause for it behoved to take some time before it could merit the name of the good old one for we have already seen how slowly and weakly it advanced before the Book came But now we shall find it gathering strength apace and advancing with a witness Nay at the very next Assembly it was in a pretty flourishing condition This next Ass. met Apr. 24. Anno 1578. And Mr. Andrew Melvil was chosen Moderator the Prince of the Sect had the happiness to be the Praeses of the Assembly and presently
People engaged in their Rebellious and Schismatical Confederacy they took off the Mask and condemned Episcopacy in their pack't Assembly Anno 1638 Declaring with more than Iesuitish impudence that notwithstanding of their protestations so frequently and publickly made to the contrary it was abjured in their Covenant And yet I dare advance this Paradox that even then it was not ane Insupportable Grievance to the Presbyterians themselves far less to the whole Nation I own this to be a Paradox and therefore I must ask my Readers allowance to give my Reason for which I have dared to advance it It is this Considering how much Prelacy affects the Church as a Society Of how great consequence it is in the Concerns of the Church whatever it is in itself it cannot in Reason be called ane Insupportable Grievance to such as are satisfied they can live safely and without sin in the Communion of that Church where it prevails If such can call it a Grievance at all I think they cannot justly call it more than a Supportable Grievance I think it cannot be justly called ane Insupportable Grievance till it can Iustify and by consequence Necessitate a Separation from that Church which has it in its Constitution How can that be called ane Insupportable Grievance especially in Church matters where Grievance and Corruption if I take them right must be terms very much equivalent to those who can safely support it i. e. Live under it without sin and with a safe Conscience continue in the Churches Communion while it is in the Churches Government How can that be called insupportable which is not of such Malignity in a Church as to make her Communion sinful How can that be called insupportable in Ecclesiastical concerns or Religious matters to those who are perswaded they may bear it or with it without disturbing their inward Peace or endangering their Eternal Interests Now such in these times were all the Presbyterians at least Generally in the Nation They did not think upon Breaking the Communion of the Church upon separating from the solemn Assemblies under Prelacy and setting up Presbyterian Altars in opposition to the Episcopal Altars They still kept up one Communion in the Nation They did not refuse to joyn in the Publick Ordinances the Solemn worship of God and the Sacraments with their Prelatick Brethren all this is so well known that none I think will call it in Question Indeed that Height of Antipathy to Prelacy had not prevailed amongst the party no not when Episcopacy had its fetters struck off Anno 1662. for then and for some years after the Presbyterians generally both Pastors and People kept the Vnity of the Church and joyned with the Conformists in the publick Ordinances And I believe there are hundreds of thousands in Scotland who remember very well how short a time it is since they betook themselves to Conventicles and turn'd avowed Schismaticks I Confess the reasoning I have just now insisted on cannot militate so patly against such For if they had reason to separate they had the same Reason to call Prelacy ane insupportable Grievance No more and no other But I cannot see how the Force of it can be well avoided by them in respect of their Predecessors who had not the Boldness to separate upon the account of Prelacy But it may be said that those Presbyterians who lived Anno 1637. and downward Shook off Prelacy and would bear it no longer and was it not then ane insupportable Grievance to them True indeed for removing the pretended Corruptions of Prelacy they then ventured upon the really horrid sin of Rebellion against their Prince they embroyled three Famous and flourishing Kingdoms They brake down the Beautiful and Ancient Structures of Government both in Church and State They shed Oceans of Christian blood and made the Nations welter in gore They gave up themselves to all the wildnesses of rage and fury They gloried in Treason and Treachery in Oppression and Murther in Fierceness and Unbridled Tyranny they drench't innumerable miss-led souls in the Crimson guilt of Schism and Sedition of Rebellion and Faction of Perfidy and Perjury In short they opened the way to such ane Inundation of Hypocrisie and Irreligion of Confusions and Calamities as cannot easily be Parallell'd in History And for all these things they pretended their Antipathies to Prelacy and yet after all this I am where I was Considering their aforesaid principles and practices as to the Vnity of the Church they could not call it ane Insupportable Grievance They did not truly find it such Had they really and sincerely in true Christian simplicity and sobriety found or felt it such they would no doubt have lookt on it as a forcible ground for separating from the Communion in which it prevailed as the Protestants in Germany found their Centum Gravamina for separating from the Church of Rome To have made it that indeed and then to have suffered patiently if they had been persecuted for it without turning to the Antichristian course of Armed Resistance had had some colour of ane Argument that they deem'd it ane insupportable Grievance But the Fiercest fighting against it so long as they could allow themselves to live in the Communion which own'd it can never infer that it was to them ane insupportable Grievance at most if it was it was to wanton humour and wildfire only and not to Conscience and real Christian Conviction And so I leave this Argument I could easily insist more largely on this Enquiry but to avoid tediousness I shall advance only one thing more It is a Challenge to my Presbyterian Brethren to produce but one publick deed one solemn or considerable Appearance of the Nation taken either Collectively or Representatively which by any tolerable construction or interpretation can import that Prelacy or the superiority of any Office in the Church above Presbyters was a great and insupportable Grievance and trouble to this Nation and contrary to the Inclinations of the Generality of the People for full thirty years after the Reformation The Learned G. R. thought he had found one indeed it seems for he introduced it very briskly in his first Vindication of the Church of Scotland in Answer to the first Question § 9. hear him It is Evident says he that Episcopal Iurisdiction over the Protestants was condemned by Law in that same Parliament 1567 wherein the Protestant Religion was Established What No less than Evident Let us try this Parliamentary condemnation It is there Statute and Ordain'd That no other Iurisdiction Ecclesiastical be acknowledged within this Realm than that which is and shall be within this same Kirk Established presently or which floweth therefrom concerning Preaching the word Correcting of manners administration of Sacraments So he No Man who knows this Author and his way of writing will readily think it was ill manners to examine whither he cited right I turn'd over therefore all the Acts of that Parliament
Superintendents expressly own'd and supposed in being by ane Act of that same Parliament in the matter of granting Collations upon Presentations And now I leave it to the world to judge if G. R. has not been very happy at citing Acts of Parliaments against Prelacy But Being thus engaged with him about Acts of Parliament I hope it will be a pardonable digression tho' I give the world another instance of his skill and confidence that way The Author of the ten Questions had said in his Discussion of the first Question That the Popish Bishops sate in the Parliament which settled the Reformation A matter of Fact so distinctly delivered by Knox Spotswood and Petrie but passed over by Calderwood that nothing could be more unquestionable Nay even Leslie himself has it for he tells us that the three Estates Conveened and I think in those days the Ecclesiastical Estate was one the first of thee three I think also That Estate was Generally Popish Yet however plain and indisputable this matter of Fact was our learned Author could contradict it Take his Answer in his own words To what he saith of the Popish Bishops sitting in a Reforming Parliament I oppose what Leslie Bishop of Rosse a Papist hath de Gest. Scotorum lib. 10. pag. 536. that Concilium a Sectae Nobilibus cum Regina habitum nullo Ecclesiastico admisso ubi Sancitum ne quis quod ad Religionem attinet quicquam novi Moliretur Ex hac lege inquit omne sive Haereseos sive inimicitiarum sive seditionis malum tanquam ex fonte fluxit Now in the first place I think it might be made a Question for what Reason our Author changed Leslies words Might he not have given us the Citation just as it was Leslie has it thus Convenientibus interim undique Sectae Nobilibus Concilium nullo Ecclesiastico viro admisso Edinburgi initur In eo Concilio in primis Sancitum est ne quis quod ad Religionem attineret quicquam novi moliretur Sed res in eo duntaxat Statu quo erant cum Regina ipsa in Scotiam primum appulisset integrae manerent Ex hac Lege tanquam fonte omne sive haereseos sive inimicitiarum sive Seditionis malum in Scotia nostra fluxit Because Leslie was a Papist must his very Latine be Reformed If this was it if I mistake not a further Reformation may be needful for if Leslie was wrong in saying in eo Concilio I think our Author has mended it but sorrily by putting ubi in its stead i. e. by making ane Adverb of place the Relative to Concilium And let the Criticks judge whither G. R's attinet or Leslies attineret was most proper But perhaps the true Reason was that there was something dark in these words Sed Res in eo duntaxat Statu quo erant cum Regina ipsa in Scotiam primum appulisset integrae manerent 'T is true indeed this Sentence quite subverts our Authors purpose for it imports that there had been some certain sort of Establishment of Religion before the Queen came to Scotland which was not judged fit then to be altered Now that this Learned man may be no more puzzled with such ane obscure piece of History I will endeavour to help him with a Clue Be it known to all men therefore and particularly to G. R. the Learned and renowned Vindicator of the Church of Scotland That the Parliament which Established the Reformation and in which the Popish Bishops sate was holden in August 1560 That Queen Mary returned not to Scotland till August 1561. That this Council which Leslie speaks of met after the Queens return as is evident from Leslies words and that it was at most but a Privy Council and nothing like a Parliament Have we not G. R. now a very accurate Historian And so I leave him for a little and proceed to the Fourth Enquiry Whither Prelacy and the Superiority of any Office in the Church above Presbyters was a great and insupportable Grievance and Trouble to this Nation and contrary to the Inclinations of the Generality of the People when this Article was Established in the Claim of Right THis Enquiry is about a very recent matter of Fact the subject will not allow of Metaphysical Arguments It is not old enough to be determined by the Testimonies of Historians It cannot be decided by the publick records or Deeds of the Nation For if I mistake not there was never publick deed before founded mainly and in express terms upon the Inclinations of the Generality of the People and I do not think it necessary by the Laws of Disputation that I should be bound by the Authority of a publick deed which I make the main thing in Question The Method therefore which I shall take for discussing this Enquiry shall be to give a plain Historical narration of the Rise and Progress of this Controversie and consider the Arguments made use of on both sides leaving it to the Reader to judge whither side can pretend to the greater probability The Controversie as I take it had its Rise thus The Scottish Presbyterians seasonably forewarned of the then P. of O.'s designs to possess himself of the Crowns of Great Britain and Ireland against his coming had adjusted their Methods for advancing their interests in such a juncture and getting their beloved Parity Established in the Church They were no sooner assured that he was in successful circumstances than they resolved on putting their projects in execution The first step was in ane hurry to raise the Rabble in the Western Counties against the Episcopal Clergy thereby to Confound and put all things in Disorder The next it seems amidst such confusion to endeavour by all means to have themselves elected members for the Meeting of Estates which was to be at Edenburgh upon the 14 th of March 168â— In both steps the success answered their wishes and it happened that they got indeed the prevailing sway in the Meeting and in gratitude to the Rabble which had done them so surprizing service they resolved not only to set up Presbytery but to set it up on this foot That Prelacy was a great and insupportable Grievance and Trouble to the Nation and contrary to the Inclinations of the Generality of the People If this was not it that determined them to set up their Government on this foot I protest I cannot conjecture what it might be that did it Sure I am there was no other thing done then that with the least shew of probability could be called ane Indication of the Inclinations of the People They could not collect it from any clamours made at that time against Prelacy by the Generality of the People There were no such clamours in the mouths of the twentieth part of the People They could not collect it from the Peoples separation from the Episcopal Clergy during the time of K. I.'s toleration The tenth part of the Nation had not
frequented or encouraged and that on the South side of that River except in the five Associated Shires in the West the third man was never engaged in the Schism This was Matter of Fact And if true a solid Demonstration that Prelacy and the Superiority of any Office in the Church above Presbyters was not then a great and insupportable Grievance and Trouble to the Nation and contrary to the inclinations of the generality of the People For had it been such how is it imaginable when there was such ane Ample Toleration such ane Absolute and Vnperplex't Liberty nay so much notorius encouragement given by the then Government to separate from the Episcopal Communion that so few should have done it Whoso pleased might then have safely and without the least prospect of worldly hazard joyn'd the Presbyterians yet scarcely a fifth or a sixth part of the Nation did it I am not sure that the nature of the thing was capable of a clearer evidence unless it had been put to the impracticable Fancy Let us next consider G. R.'s Answers and judge by them if the Epistler was wrong as to the matter of Fact He hath some two or three we shall try them severally The First to the purpose is If there be many in the Northern parts who are not for Presbytery there are as few for the present settlement of the State To what purpose is the present settlement of the State forced in here Was the Controversie between him and his Adversary concerned in it in the least What impertinent Answering is this Is there so much as one syllable here that Contradicts the Epistlers position But 2. We affirm says G. R. and can make it appear not only that there are many in the North who appeared zealously for Presbytery as was evident by the Members of Parliament who came from these parts Very few of them were otherwise inclined and they made a great figure in the Parliament for settling both the State and the Church If one were put to it to examine this Answer particularly and minutely I think he might easily make even G. R. himself wish that he had never meddled with it It were no hard task to give a just account how it only happened that there was so much as one Northern member who was not such by birth of the Presbyterian perswasion in the Meeting of Estates It were as easy to represent what Figures some of them made or can readily make Vncouth Figures truly All this were very easy I say if one were put to it But as it is not seasonable so it is not needful For 't is plain nothing here contradicts the Epistlers position Tho' the Northern members of the Presbyterian perswasion had been twice as many as they were and tho' they had made greater figures than can be pretended yet it may be very true that there were so few separatists in the Northern Counties as the Epistler affirmed there were And for the respect G. R. owes to his Northern Friends and Figure-makers I would advise him never again to insist on such a tender point And so I leave it and proceed to what follows 3. There are very many Ministers in the North and People that own them who tho' they served under Episcopacy are willing to joyn with the Presbyterians and whom the Presbyterians are ready to receive when occasion shall be given and those of the best Qualified among them How such Ministers as have joyn'd or are ready to joyn with the Presbyterians can be called the best Qualified amongst the Episcopal Clergy so long as integrity of life constancy in adhering to true Catholick Principles ane hearty abhorrence of Schism Conscience of the Religion of Oaths Self-denyal taking up the Cross patiently and chearfully and preferring Christian Honour and innocence to worldly conveniences can be said to be amongst the best Qualifications of a Christian Minister I cannot understand I understand as little what ground our Author had for talking so confidently about these Northern Ministers Sure I am he had no sure ground to say so And I think the transactions of the last General Assembly and the unsuccessfulness of Mr. Meldrum's Expedition to the North this Summer are Demonstrations that he had no ground at all to say so But whatever be of these things I desire the Reader to consider impartially whither supposing all were uncontroverted truth our Author asserts so confidently here this Answer convells the Matter of Fact asserted by the Author of the Letter What is there here that looks like proving that the Schism was greater in the North than was asserted by the Epistler Or what is there here that can by any colour of consequence infer that Prelacy in these Northern parts was a great and insupportable Trouble and Grievance and contrary to the Inclinations of the Generality of the People Doth not our Author acknowledge that these Ministers served under Episcopacy and that their People own'd them without any Reluctancies of Conscience But the Epistler had said there were not above 3 or 4 Presbyterian Meeting-houses on the North side of the Tay and the Vindicator says they far exceeded that number How easy had it been for the Vindicator to have given us the Definite number of Presbyterian Meeting-houses in these parts during the time of the above-mentioned Toleration He who was so very exact to have his informations from all corners might one would think have readily satisfied himself in this instance and fairly fixt one lie on the Epistler And is it not a great presumption that the Epistler was in the Right and that the Vindicator who was so anxious to have all his Adversaries Liers was hardly put to it in this Matter When he could do no more than oppose ane Indefinite number to the Epistlers Definite one For my part I think it not worth the while to be positive about the precise number But I can say this without Hesitation that all who separated from their Parish Churches on that side the River would not have filled four ordinary Meeting-houses From what hath been said I think 't is clear the Epistler was honest enough in his reckoning for the North side of the Tay. Can all be made as safe on the South side The Epistler had said that except in the West the third Man was never engaged in the Schism G. R. Answers We know no Schism but what was made by his party But that the plurality did not suffer under the horrid persecution raised by the Bishops Doth not prove that they were not inclined to Presbytery But either that many Presbyterians had freedom to hear Episcopal Ministers or that all were not resolute enough to suffer for their principle So that this is no Rational way of judging of the Peoples inclinations I will neither engage at present with him in the Question who is the Scottish Schismatick Nor digress to the point of the horrid Persecution raised by the Bishops Another occasion
may be as proper for them But I desire the Reader again to consider this Answer and judge if it keeps not a pretty good distance from the Epistlers position Is any thing said here that contradicts that looks like contradicting the Matter of Fact What new fashion of Answering is this to talk whatever comes in ones head without ever offering to attack the strength of the reasoning he undertakes to discuss By this Taste the judicious Reader may competently judge which is the right side of the present Controversie and withal if I mistake not he may guess if the Presbyterian Kirk in Scotland was not well provided when it got G. R. for its Vindicator Shall he furnish thee O patient Reader with any more divertisement If thou canst promise for thy patience I can promise for G. R. This Learned Gentleman found himself to puzzled it seems about this part of the Article that he was forced to put on the Fools-cap and turn Ridiculous to mankind However it was even better to be that than to yeild in so weighty a Controversie than to part with the Inclinations of the People that Articulus Stantis Cadentis Ecclesiae But is there a Play to succeed worthy of all this Prologue Consider and judge He has so limited and restricted the Generality of the People to make his cause some way defensible that for any thing I know he has confin'd them all within his own doublet At least he may do it before he shall need to yeild any more in his Argument He is at this trade of limiting in both his Vindications I shall cast them together that the world may consider the Product 1. There are many ten thousands who are inconcerned about Religion both in the greater and the lesser truths of it And it is most irrational to consider them in this Question 2. There are not a few who are of opinion that Church-Government as to the species of it is indifferent These ought not to be brought into the reckoning 3. There are not a few whose light and conscience do not incline them to Episcopacy who are yet zealous for it and against Presbytery Because under the one they are not censured for their immoralities as under the other These ought to be excluded also So ought all 4. Who had a Dependance on the Court And 5. All who had a Dependance on the Prelates 6. All Popishly Affected and who are but Protestants in Masquerade 7. All Enemies to K. W. and the present Government I am just to him all these Exclusions out of the reckoning he has if he has not more And give him these and he dares affirm That they who are Conscientiously for Prelacy are so few in Scotland that not one of many hundreds or Thousands is to be found 1 Vind. They who are for Episcopacy are not one of a Thousand in Scotland 2 Vind. Now not to fall on examining his Limitations singly because that were to be sick of his own disease In the first place one would think if he had been allowed his Limitations he might in all Conscience have satisfied himself without begging the Question to boot Yet even that he has most covetously done For I think the Question was not who were Conscientiously for Prelacy or inclined for Episcopacy But whither Prelacy and the Superiority of any Office in the Church above Presbyters was a great and insupportable Grievance and Trouble to the Nation and contrary to the inclinations of the Generality of the People And there is some difference as I take it between these Questions But let him take the State of the Question if he must needs have it I can spare it to him Nay if it can do him service I can grant him yet more When the Matter comes to be tryed by this his Standard I shall be satisfied that it fall to his share to be judge He should understand his own Rule best and so may be fittest for such Nice Decisions as a point so tender must needs require Tho' I think He may take the short cut as we say and give his own judgment without more ado For thither it must recur at last Only I cannot guess why he excluded all Popishly affected c. Was it to let a friend go with a fee I think he might have learned from History if not from Experience that Papists have been amongst the best friends to his Interest and very ready to do his party service upon occasion which it is not to be thought they would have done for nothing But however this is Having granted him so much I think he is bound to grant me one little thing I ask it of him only for peace I can force it from him if I please It is that all his Limitations Restrictions Exclusions Castings-out Settings-aside or what ever he pleases to call them were adduced by him for setting the Article in its Native and proper light and as it ought to be understood But if so I cannot think he himself can repute it unfair dealing to give the world a fair view of the Article as thus explained and enlightened And so digested it must run to this purpose as I take it That Prelacy and the Superiority of any Office in the Church above Presbyters is and hath been a great and insupportable Grievance and Trouble to this Nation and contrary to the inclinations of the Generality of the People Excluding from this Generality of the People 1. All these many ten thousands of the People who are unconcerned about Religion both in the greater and lesser truths of it 2. All these many of the People who are of opinion that Church-Government as to the species of it is indifferent 3. All these other many of the People whose Light and Conscience do not incline them to Episcopacy who are yet zealous for it and against Presbytery because under the one they are not censured for their immoralities as under the other 4. All such of the People as had any dependance on the Court. 5. Or on the Prelates 6. Or are Popishly affected and Protestants only in Masquerade And 7. All such as are Enemies to K. W. and the present Civil Government Ever since the Reformation They i. e. such of the People as are not excluded from the Generality of the People by any of the aforesaid Exceptions having Reformed from Popery by Presbyters and therefore it ought to be Abolished So the Article must run I say when duely Englightned by our Authors Glosses and when a New Meeting of Estates shall settle another New Government and put such ane Article in another New Claim of Right I do hereby give my word I shall not be the first that shall move Controversies about it But till that is done G. R. must allow me the use of a certain sort of Liberty I have of Thinking at least that his wits were a wool-gathering to use him as mannerly as can be done by one of his own
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
which is extant in Print before the Psalm Book i. e. the old Liturgy according to which as I have always done so now I Minister that Sacrament In short It continued to be in use even after the beginning of the Horrid Revolution in the days of King Charles the First and many old People yet alive remember well to have seen it used indifferently both by Presbyterians and Prelatists But it is not so now Our Modern Presbyterians do not only Condemn the Liturgie of the Church of England used as I say by our Reformers calling it a Dry lifeless service a spiritless powerless service ane unwarrantable service ane ill-mumbled mass a farce of Popish Dregs and Reliques a Rag of Romish Superstition and Idolatry and God knows how many ill things But they Generally Condemn all Liturgies all set-forms of publick worship and devotion They will admit of none All to them are alike odious and intolerable Herein I think there is a palpable Recession from the principles of our Reformers about the publick and solemn worship of the Church and that in a most weighty and material instance But this is not all They have not only deserted our Reformers and Condemn'd them as to Forms But they have made very considerable and important Recessions from them as to the matter both in the substance and circumstances of Liturgical Offices and here I must descend to particulars 1. Then our present Presbyterians observe no Forms in their publick Prayers either before or after Sermon For the most part they observe no Rules They Pray by no Standard Nay they do not stick by their own Directory All must be Extemporary work and the newer the odder the more surprizing both as to matter and manner the better If any Brother has not that fire in his temper that heat in his blood that warmth in his Animal-spirits that sprightlyness and fervour in his fancy or that readiness of elocution c. If he wants any one or two of these many Graces which must concur for accomplishing one with the ready Gift and shall adventure to digest his thought and provide himself with a Premeditated Form of his own making He shall be concerned likewise to be so wise and wary as to provide himself either with a variety of such Forms or many disguises for his one form or he shall run the hazard of the success of his Ministery and his Reputation to boot He is a Gone-man if the Zealots of the gang smell it out that he prayed by Premiditation Fore-thought Prayers are little less Criminal than fore-thought Felony He wants the spirit and deserves to be ranked amongst the Anti-Christian Crue of Formalists Nay so much are they against set-forms that 't is Popery for any thing I know to say the Lords Prayer Our Reformers never met for publick worship but they used it once or oftner And they used it as in obedience to our Saviours Commandment Take for a taste these instances which I have collected from the old Liturgy The Prayer for the whole Estate of Christs Church appointed to be said after Sermon is Concluded thus In whose name we make our humble petitions unto thee even as he hath taught us saying Our Father c. Another Prayer to be said after Sermon has the Lords Prayer in the very bosom of it The Prayer to be used when God threatens his Iudgements concludes thus Praying unto thee with all humility and submission of minds as we are taught and commanded to Pray saying Our Father c. The Prayer to be used in time of Affliction thus Our only Saviour and Mediator in whose name we Pray unto thee as we are taught saying Our Father c. The Prayer at the Admission of a Superintendent or a Minister thus Of whom the perpetual increase of thy Grace we crave as by thee our Lord King and only Bishop we are taught to Pray Our Father c. The Prayer for the Obstinate in the order for Excommunication thus These thy Graces O Heavenly Father and farther as thou knowest to be expedient for us and for thy Church Vniversal we call for unto thee even as we are taught by our Lord and Master Christ Iesus saying Our Father c. The last Prayer before Excommunication thus This we ask of thee O Heavenly Father in the boldness of our Head and Mediator Iesus Christ praying as he hath taught us Our Father c. The Confession of sins c. in time of publick Easts thus We flee to the obedience and perfect Iustice of Iesus Christ our only Mediator Praying as he hath taught us saying Our Father c. The Prayer of Consecration in Baptism thus May be brought as a lively Member of his Body unto the full fruition of thy joys in the Heavens where thy Son our Saviour Christ Reigneth world without end In whose name we Pray as he hath taught us saying Our Father c. So many of the Prayers used by our Reformers were concluded with the Lords Prayer And it is obvious to any body that sometimes 3 or 4 of them were to be said at one Assembly And still when the Lords Prayer is brought in you see 't is plainly in Obedience to our Saviours Command from which 't is clear our Reformers lookt on the using it as not only Lawful but Necessary Our present Presbyterians will not only not use it but they Condemn and writ against the using of it Indeed They have not retained so much as one Form except that of Blessed use by Saint Paul 2 Cor. 13.14 This indeed they commonly say tho' I am not sure they say it in the Form of a Blessing before the Dissolution of the Assembly But why they have kept this and rejected all other Forms or how they can reconcile the retaining of this with the rejection of all other Forms I confess I am not able to tell Let themselves answer for that as well as for retaining set-forms of Praise while they Condemn set forms of Prayer 2. Our Reformers in their publick Assemblies never omitted to make a solemn and publick Confession of their Faith by rehearsing that which is commonly called the Apostles Creed It was said after the Prayer for the whole Estate of Christs Chruch and it was introduced thus Almighty and Everliving God vouchsafe we beseech thee to grant us perfect continuance in thy lively Faith augmenting the same in us dayly till we grow to the full measure of our perfection in Christ whereof we make our Confession saying I believe in God the Father c. Herein they are intirely deserted by our present Presbyterians also 3. The Preaching of the word may be performed two ways By the publick Reading of the Scriptures and by Sermons c. founded on the Scriptures Our present Presbyterians in both these have Receded from our Reâ—â—â—mers 1. As for the Reading of the Scriptures our Reformers delivered themselves thus in the
of a sense they had of the Necessity of the Ecclesiastical Estate Now 't is to be Remembred that those who appeared for the Queen were Protestants as well as these who were for her Son No Man I think will deny but the subsistence of the Ecclesiastical Estate and their Vote in Parliament was confirmed and continued by the Agreement of Leith Anno 1572. Indeed When the Project for Parity amongst the Officers of the Church was set on Foot by Melvil Anno 1575 and some of the Clergy were gained to his side and they were using their utmost endeavours to have Episcopacy overturned it seems this was a main difficulty to them a difficulty which did very much entangle and retard their purpose This I say that the overturning Prelacy was the overturning one of the three Estates of Parliament This is evident not only from Boyd Arch Bishop of Glasgow his Discourse to the General Assembly Anno 1576. mentioned before but also from the two Letters I have often named which were written to Mr. Beza the one by the Lord Glamis Anno 1576 or 1577 the other by Mr. Melvil Anno 1579. Because they contribute so much light to the matter in hand I shall once more resume them Glamis was then Chancellor of Scotland It is manifest he wrote not indeliberately or without advice Undoubtedly he stated the Question according to the sense the Generality of People had then of it Now he states it thus Seeing every Church hath its own Pastor and the Power of Pastors in the Church of Christ seems to be equal The Question is whither the Office of Bishops be Necessary in the Church for convocating these Pastors when there is need for Ordaining Pastors and for Deposing them for just Causes Or whither it be better that the Pastors Acting in Parity and subject to no Superiour Bishop should choose Qualified Men for the Ministery with consent of the Patron and the People and Censure and Depose c. For Retaining Bishops we have these two Motives One is the stubbornenss and ungovernableness of the People which cannot possibly be kept within Bounds if they are not over-awed by the Authority of these Bishops in their visitations The other is that such is the constitution of the Monarchy which hath obtain'd time out of mind that as often as the Parliament meets for consulting about things pertaining to the safety of the Republick nothing can be determined without the Bishops who make the Third Estate of the Kingdom which to change or subvert would be extremely perilous to the Kingdom So he from which we may learn two things The First is a farther confirmation of what I have before asserted to have been the sentiment of these times concerning the Election of Pastors namely that it was that they should be Elected by the Clergy and that the People should have no other Power than that of Consenting The other is pat in Relation to our present business namely that the Ecclesiastical Estate was judged Necessary by the constitution of the Monarchy It could not be wanting in Parliaments It was to run the hazard of subverting the constitution to think of altering it or turning it out of doors And Melvil's Letter is clearly to the same purpose We have not ceased these five years to fight against Pseudepiscopacy many of the Nobility resisting us and to press the severity of Discipline We have presented unto his Royal Majesty and three Estates of the Realm both before and now in this Parliament the form of Discipline to be insert amongst the Acts and to be confirmed by publick Authority We have the Kings mind bended towards us too far said I am sure if we may take that Kings own word for it but many of the Peers against us For they alledge if Pseudepiscopacy be taken away one of the Estates is pulled down If Presbyteries be erected the Royal Majesty is diminished c. 'T is true Melvil himself here shews no great kindness for the third Estate But that 's no great matter It was his humor to be singular All I am concerned for is the publick sentiment of the Nation especially the Nobility which we have so plain for the Necessity of the Ecclesiastical Estate that nothing can be plainer Nay So indisputable was it then that this Ecclesiastical Estate was absolutely necessary by the constitution that the Presbyterians themselves never called it in Question never offered to advance such a Paradox as that it might be abolished After they had abolished Episcopacy by their Assembly 1580 the King sent several times to them telling them He could not want one of his three Estates How would they provide him with ane Ecclesiastical Estate now that they had abolished Bishops Whoso pleases to Read Calderwood himself shall find this point frequently insisted on What returns gave they Did they ever in the least offer to return that the having ane Ecclesiastical Estate in Parliament was a Popish Corruption That it was ane unwarrantable constitution That it was not Necessary Or that the constitution might be iâ—â—ire enough without it No such thing entered their thoughts On the contrary they were still clear for maintaining it They had no inclination to part with such a valuable Right of the Church Their Answer to the Kings Demands was still one and the same They were not against Churchmens having vote in Parliament But none ought to vote in name of the Church without Commission from the Church And this their sentiment they put in the very Second Book of Discipline for these are word for word the seventeenth and eighteenth Articles of the eleventh Chapter 17. We deny not in the mean time that Ministers MAY and SHOVLD assist their Princes when they are required in all things agreeable to the word of God whither it be in Council or Parliament or out of Council Providing always they neither neglect their own charges nor through slattery of Princes hurt the publick Estate of the Kirk 18. But generally we say that no Pastor under whatsoâ—ver Title of the Kirk and specially the abused Titles in Popery of Prelates Chapters and Convents ought to attempt any thing in the Churches name either in Parliament or out of Council without the Commission of the Reformed Kirk within this Realm And It was concluded in the Assembly holden at Dundee March 7. 1598. That it was NECESSARY and EXPEDIENT for the well of the Kirk that the Ministery as the third Estate of this Realm in name of the Church have vote in Parliament So indubitable was it in these times that the Ecclesiastical Estate was necessary and that it could not be wanting without the notorious subversion of the constitution of Parliaments Indeed it was not only the sentiment of General Assemblies whatever side whither the Prelatical or the Presbyterian prevailed but it was likewise the sentiment of all Parliaments It were easy to amass a great many Acts of a great many Parliaments to