Uprightness of that Great and Wise Prince than is decent for a dutiful Subject to be guilty of § 2. Let us now hear how he will prove first That King James Anno 1592 Then that King Charles Anno 1639 Assented to Presbyterial Government unwillingly and by constraint His proofs are first King James in Basil. Dor. L. 2. p. 28. speaketh with great bitterness against the Presbyterians and their Way Ans. This doth indeed prove that he had changed his thoughts of that Way Not that he was never of another mind It were not hard to cite words of his as much to the commendation of Presbytery as these in Basil. Dor. are against it But that Way and its opposite standeth or falleth by the sentence of a higher Authority than that of men 2ly He thinketh it against Reason and Charity to think That this being his thought of Presbytery he would settle it in the Church without some kind of compulsion Ans. It is little more charity to think That a man of any degree of Conscience or Religion would have so eminent a hand in plaguing the Church with that which he looked on as so pernicious as the words cited by our Author do express Yea the fear of God would restain one from such an act even under the highest kind of compulsion 3ly He next objecteth the Preamble to the Act for Restoring of Episcopacy Anno 1606. Ans. Who can doubt that when men had a mind to set up that Government they would say all the good of it that they could devise and speak to the disadvantage of the contrary what could be thought upon but this signifieth no more than that they were changed from what once they were and they who do so say and unsay are unfit to give decisive Testimony about any point of Truth 4ly He ascribeth K. James's assent to Presbytery to his Youth Ans. He was no Child in 1592 having been married to Queen Ann three years before viz. in 1589. He was at least 30 years of age 5ly He pleadeth from the unsetled condition of his Affairs but doth not shew wherein they were unsetled It 's true the King then had some trouble with the Earl of Bothwell but it is well known that Bothwell was no Presbyterian and setling of Presbytery could not tend to quiet him But I am weary of such silly Arguments which deserve no answer What he maketh the King alledge That the Presbyterians were always ready to joyn with any Faction in the State is as groundless as any thing can be spoken They never owned any but such as owned the interest of Christ and his Truth Their appearing against his Grand mother and Mother was only in defence of Christ's Truth which these two Queens did labour to extirpate And what is said of inordinate and popular Tumults reflecteth upon Procestantism rather than on Presbytery It 's a strange Insinuation that he hath in the end of the paragraph pag. 4. That that young King was forced to settle Presbytery in the Church that thereby he might bring off Presbyterians from joyning with the Acts of their Kirk to unsettle his Throne Here is Malice twisted with incoherent Imaginations For nothing but Malice can make any think that Presbytery is an Enemy to Monarchy but what dirt he casteth on us of this kind afterward shall in its place be wiped off It 's also a strange fancy that if K. James lookt on Presbytery as capable by the Acts of their Kirk to unsettle his Throne that he should put it in that capacity by setling it by Law with a design to secure the Throne It is as if a man should let in the Thief at the door that he might sleep the more securely in his house § 3. What King Charles says for Prelacy to which all know that he ever was a constant friend is much more modest than what we heard before And we deny not but what countenance he gave to Presbytery was in condescendency to his People Yet from the transactions of these times we may confidently infer That the Nation both in its diffusive and its representative Body the Parliament was for Presbytery And what our Author says of the Tumults of these times which were sad and lamented by all good men layeth more load on Prelacy The Tyranny and Innovations of the Church-Rulers of which way did force the people either to see first the purity of Gospel Ordinances taken from them and then their Religion destroyed by a popish Faction as of later years appeared more convincingly when the designs of these men were more ripened or stand in their own defence So that what our Author gaineth by this passage is that Episcopacy raised a Tumult which ended in its own ruine QUEST III. THE Scope of his Third Question and of the Resolution of it can be no other but to render Presbyterians odious not to disprove their Cause nor to refute their Principles It is Whither the Principles of Scottish Presbytery grant any Toleration to Dissenters Quis tulerit Gracchos de seditione loquentes His party are above all men except Papists in mala fide to blame others in this matter Among what party of men hath uniformity and conformity to all the Canons of their Church and that in things confessed by them to be indifferent that is needless been pressed with more severity imposed by more unmerciful Laws and urged by more inhumane and cruel execution of them That there hath been excesses among Presbyterians in this we deny not but lament it humanum est Labi Moderation is not an easie Lesson nor so often practised as it should be when men forget that the Lord is at hand as the best are apt to do when they are at ease But all unbyassed men who know and have observed the way of the one and of the other party while they alternatively had the ascendant will say that the little finger of the meanest Prelate and his Underlings was heavier than the loyns of the greatest Assembly of the Presbyterian Church As an impartial and true Account of the Sufferings in both Cases will evince Which on our part I hope may be given in due time But on theirs an Account is given as remote from truth and candor as any thing that ever came from the Press which it is like e're long may be made evident But we desire not to recriminate though necessity is laid on us by their false History of things far less intend we to retalliate though it should be in the power of our hand But we leave our Cause to him that judgeth righteously § 2. It is well that our Adversary is so favourable to that Institution of Christ The Government of his House by Presbyters without a Bishop That we own in that he doth not blame it generally or in its most extensive notion Not Presbytery as such but as Scottish Let the Ordinance of Christ escape his lash and we are the less solicitous what he says against the
under Presbytery And for the rest of the Clergy none of them were cast out for complyance with Prelacy but they generally retained their places wherefore this is a most untrue Allegation A Third thing he saith is That the Presbyterians at the Revolution 1662. were not so dealt with that is were continued in their places Impudence it self could affirm nothing more false Were not above the third part of all the Ministers of Scotland and so in England thrown out by one Act of Parliament For two thirds complyed and by that means kept their places and the few in Scotland that could not be reached by that Act were laid aside by the Bishops and the Council by more slow steps § 6. The Acts of Assemblies that he citeth are Act Aug. 17. 1639. Appointing all in Office in Church and Schools and all Members of this Kirk to subscribe the National Covenant And an Act 1642. for intimating the abovesaid Act and proceeding to Church-censure against them that refuse such Subscription And an Act 1644. appointing strict enquiry and censure against disaffected persons to the Covenant And some other Severities he mentioneth truly or falsely I know not for he doth not direct where such Acts may be found which may be acknowledged as no Pattern for after-ages to go by It is like if that Oath of God had been less universally and less severely imposed it had been better kept by many What he alledgeth That the Assemblies Aug. 1642. do order the persons of them who are Excommunicated to be imprisoned and their Goods to be confiscated is most false never any Assembly in this Church did make Laws for Civil punishments All that I find to this purpose for he is not pleased to be distinct in his Citations is that August 3. 1642. the Assembly Petitioned the Council to put the Laws in execution against Excommunicated Papists All this considered I hope the Impartial Reader will not be imposed on by what this man hath said to think that the Principles of Presbyterians are inconsistent with what Toleration is due to Dissenters Nor will blame them that they are not for a vast and boundless Toleration nor because they cannot bear them who are evil but do try them who say they are Apostles and are not and find them lyars Rev. 22. QUEST IV. Whether from the Year 1662 to the Year 1689 Presbyterian Separatists were guilty of sinful Separation AWise Question indeed He supposeth them Separatists which by no Author was ever accounted vox media or taken in a good sense and yet Querieth whether they sinned in separating But to let this pass he telleth us of Doctrine taught in our larger Catechism from which may be demonstrated how necessary it is to Salvation that every Person keep Communion with the particular Church established by the Laws of the State that he liveth in unless she either enjoyn in her Canons any sinful term of Communion or propose in her Confession any Heretical Article or prescribe in her Directory for Worship any Idolatrous Impurity To this I repone a few things First according to his loose and indistinct way of Writing he neither telleth us what these Doctrines are nor in what place of the Catechism they are to be found we must take his Word for all this and we utterly deny what he saith to be true All that that Catechism saith that could be imagined to have that tendency is That the visible Church hath the Priviledge of being under God's special Care and Government of being protected and preserved in all Ages notwithstanding the Opposition of Enemies and of enjoying the Communion of Saints the ordinary means of Salvation the offers of Grace by Christ to all the Members of it in the Ministry of the Gospel testifying that whosoever believeth in him shall be saved and excluding none that will come unto him Now it is evident that all this is said of the Universal Church not of any Particular Church far less can this passage be understood of a particular Church as established by the Laws of the State wherein it is No Scripture ever made such Laws essential to the Notion of a true Church from which none may separate Neither did ever any Divine talk at this rate except Episcopalians and among them I remember of none that so express themselves but this Man and Dr. Stillingfleet He doth indeed express three Cases that excuse from sin in separating from a true Church but how these can be drawn from the Larger Catechism I understand not § 2. How far we allow a Separation from the late Episcopal Church of Scotland and maintain it not to be sinful in us but sinfully caused by them I shall declare We affirm it to be no Schism but a necessary Duty that the Presbyterian Ministers did not own Episcopal Government nor either directly or indirectly countenance the Authority of Bishops above Presbyters He telleth us of a Letter for Union March 1689. wherein it is said and not answered that never any Confession of Faith in our Reformed Church avowed a Divine Right for a parity among all Church-Officers This Letter I never heard of before but it seemeth the Author of it and the Writer of this Pamphlet have Talents equal for Controversal Scribling For whoever said that there is a Divine Right for Parity among all Church Officers We know that by Divine Right Ruling Elders also Deacons are not equal in Church power with Preaching Presbyters And for the parity of Ministers if it be not found in any Confession of Faith it 's enough that it 's found in the Scriptures But we affirm that the Divine Right of it is also found in the Confession of Faith sworn to by the King and his Houshold and by the Nation wherein they abjure the Hierarchy or distinction of Degrees among Ministers He saith the Solemn League did not abjure the President Bishop Answ. We know no such Bishop the President or Moderator hath no Jurisdiction over his Brethren And he will not say that the Bishops restored 1662. to whom we could not yield subjection was no more but a President Bishop if he do all the Nation will cry shame on him and his own Tongue will condemn him Page 1 2. of his Book What some in England Petitioned for we are not concerned if he had told us what concessions the body or generality of Presbyterians in that Nation had made also let us know where we might find such Concessions an Answer might in that case have been expected from us But what he presumeth about the Repentance of Scots Presbyterians for not submitting to Episcopacy as established in Scotland is without ground and absolutely false § 3. What we further declare concerning the Separation that he speaketh of is that Presbyterians generally did not think it unlawful to hear these Ministers that had complyed with Episcopacy and often did occasionally hear them whatever was the practice of some among us yet the best of the Ministers in
Spondan exit Annal. Baron ad Annum Christi 431. p. mihi 592. hath these words Sanctus Prosper missum ait Palladium ordinatum primum Episcopum ad Scotos He was sent thither by Pope Celestine who ascended that Chair Anno 424. So that the Scotch Christians lived without Bishops for about 320 years until Popery and its Appendices did overspread the World What is alledged by some that Palladius was sent to convert the Scots is contrary to Beda who tells us lib. 1. cap. 13. that he was sent ad Scotos in Christum credentes And what others alledge that he was sent to the Irish in Ireland who then were called Scots is without ground For 1. Beda Hist. lib. 1. c. 12. sheweth whom he meaneth by Scots to wit those that were separated from the Britains by the two Seas which he sheweth to be Clyde and Forth 2. Patrick was sent to them at the same time viz. Palladius was sent to Scotland Anno 431. and Celestine died in the beginning of 132. who yet sent Patrick to Ireland and there is sufficient ground for this from Balaeus cited by Sir G. Mekenzie against St. Asaph where it is said that Palladius was sent to Scotland that Claruit Anno 434. and therefore could not dye to make room for Patrick in Ireland 431. and that he died at Fordon in the Mernes in Scotland Also Tertullian who lived in the beginning of the Third Century speaketh of the Scots as then Christians Britannorum Romanis inaccessa loca Christo vero subdita which Baronius applieth to the Scots and to no other in that Ifle it can be applied Spanhem Epit. Isag. ad Hist. N. T. Saecul 3. Sect. 2. distichon hoc dicit esse Vulgatum Christi transactis tribus Annis atque ducentis Scotia Catholicam coepit habere fidem Besides this it is clear from Beda Hist. lib. 3. c. 25. lib. 5. c. 16. 22. how averse the Scots were from the practises of the Romish Church in the Observation of Easter and the Tonsure And that Venerable Author taxeth them as ignorant of the Canons and that they knew nothing but the Writings of the Apostles Which may give good ground to think that it was long before that Church-Domination Prelacy which at last they were forced to submit to got place among them § 7. That Bishops were setled in Scotland with the beginning of Christianity Arch-Bishop Spotswood doth boldly assert but doth not bring any Vouchers for what he affirmeth Neither doth he name any one of these Bishops till Amphibalus who he saith sat first Bishop in the Isle Iona or Icolmkill But this was long after Christianity came into Scotland to wit all the time was now lapsed that the Culdees remained in the Isle of Man where Crathelinth little less than a hundred Years after Donald and the entrance of Christianity built a Church for them called Fanum Sodorense so that they were at least above a Hundred Years without a Bishop Again Spotswood is alone in this all other Historians making Palladius the first Bishop Neither is there any ground to think that Amphibalus was in any degree of Jurisdiction above other Culdees but that he was a Famous Man and the first of them that is expressed by Name in History This Author telleth also of other Bishops but giveth no ground to believe any more of them than that there were Men so named who were Famous among the Scotch Christians and it is like were their Preachers We conclude then that the Christian Church of Scotland was governed by the Culdees who are sometimes called Priests sometimes Monks sometimes Bishops Neither is there any ground to think that this Name was appropriated to any of them secluding the rest till Palladius came to Scotland far less that any of them had Jurisdiction over the rest What may be met with concerning any Famous Man that was Head over the Society at Icolmkill or elsewhere maketh nothing for Episcopacy for he was there the Head of a School where Students were bred for the Ministry but that he had Jurisdiction over the Culdees who either there or through the Country preached the Gospel to the People hath no semblance of truth Yea we further assert that however a Prelacy together with other Romish Innovations was brought into the Scotch Church with Palladius yet Episcopacy as our Pamphleteer pleadeth for it and as it was lately in Scotland was not known in this Church for a long time after For Constantine the Second King of Scots in the Ninth Century made a Law against Church-men's medling with Secular Business so that they could not sit in Parliament And it was Malcolme Canmore in the Eleventh Century who as he brought in new Titles of Honour into the Civil State so he changed the Discipline of the Church and brought Episcopacy to its 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 § 8. The second thing that we above have asserted is That when the Reformed Religion was brought into Scotland and Popery cast out of it this Protestant Church was not setled under Episcopal Government but under Presbytery and did so continue for many years till by the secret practices and at last by open force of ambitious men the Government was changed to the great disquiet of the Nation Although the knowledge of the Truth did begin privately to creep into Scotland and spread among the People more early even in the Reign of K. James the Fifth and made greater advances under his Daughter Queen Mary yet the first publick step of the Reformation that is found in History was in 1540. when in a Parliament the rigour of Acts against them who have English Bibles was taken off and liberty was granted to read the Bible in their Mother-Tongue also to read other Treatises this was 1543. After this for divers Years many of the Nobility Gentry and Commons owned the true Religion tho' the publick Profession was still Popish Yea by many of the Nobility and Gentry a Bond was solemnly entred into for the defence of the Truth and adherence to it Anno 1557. In the same Year the Queen granted Liberty for Publick Administration of the Word and Sacraments as was desired by a Petition of the Protestants Anno 1559. the Protestant Ministers and People held a General Assembly at St. Johnstown saith Knox Hist. lib. 2. 137. at which I. Knox was present All this while there was no Episcopal Authority owned or submitted to among the Protestants however Bishops still retained their places in the Romish Church and in the State In the Year 1560. July 17. in a Parliament held at Edenburgh the Confession of Faith containing the Heads of the Protestant Religion was by Law established August 24. an Act past against saying of Mass. The same Year the Pope's Authority in Scotland was abolished by Act of Parliament Anno 1561. the first Book of Discipline was presented to the Convention of Estates but delayed and not approved nor condemned at that time yet soon
after it was approved by the Authority of the Council and in it Presbyterian Government approved for it owneth no fixed Officers in the Church but Pastors Teachers Elders and Deacons what is to be thought of the Superintendents therein mentioned is after to be considered this Discipline and the Book containing it was subscribed to in January 1561. 1560. stilo vetere by a great part of the Nobility December 1560. a General Assembly was held where sat no Church-men but Ministers Another General Assembly was held Decemb. 25. 1562. where Bishops are so far from Church-Domination that they and other Ministers who had not entred by the Order in the Book of Discipline are inhibited till further Tryal 1563. A General Assembly at Perth about the end of June gave the same Power or Commission for planting Kirks suspending depriving transplanting Ministers c. to some Ministers that had been given to Superintendents And it is noticed by the Historian that Presbyteries were not yet constituted because of the scarcity of Ministers What is there in all this that looketh like Episcopal Government Another General Assembly met June 1565. also Decemb. 25. of the same Year where the Power of Superintendents was a little clipt also about the end of June 1567. At a Parliament held at Edenburgh Decemb. 15. 1567. several Acts were made about Church Affairs where not only mention is made of Synods and General Assemblies but Appeals allowed to the latter and from it Appeals are forbidden and a Commission appointed to enquire into what Points should belong to the Jurisdiction of the Church and all Church-Jurisdiction forbidden but what is or shall presently be established Another General Assembly Decemb. 25. 1567. also July 1568. in both which Superintendents were censured and a Bishop to wit who had been such deposed from the Ministry In the last Assembly it is appointed who shall Vote in Assemblies and not one word of Bishops Another Assembly July 1569. Another March 1st 1570. where Order is set down about chusing the Moderator there was no Prelate to pretend to that Priviledge Another in the beginning of July 1570. Another in the beginning of March 1571. where again Superintendents are limited In January 1572. a Convention of Church men met at Leith who were too much influenced by the Court The Council also with the Regent appointed Articles to be drawn for the Policy of the Kirk and after approved them By them was restored the Image of Prelacy yet the real Exercise of Presbytery in all its Meetings lesser and greater continued and was allowed for these called Tulchan Bishops were set up who had the name of Bishops while Noblemen and others had the Revenue and the Church had the Power This cannot be pretended to be a restoring of Prelacy more than of Popish Abbacies and Priories which were then the same way brought in This Constitution was never allowed by the General Assembly and it lasted but three or four years and as a Corruption was protested against by the General Assembly 6th of August 1572. In an Assembly at Edenburgh March 6. 1573. David Ferguson was Moderator tho' neither Bishop nor Superintendent Another Assembly August 6. Mr. Alexander Arbuthnot Principal of the old Colledge of Aberdeen was Moderator Assemb 1574. concluded that the power of Bishops should be no more than that of Superintendents In many of these Assemblies the Policy of the Church was revised and still carrying on toward perfection After this in other Assemblies pains was taken to perfect the Policy of the Church which at last came forth in the Second Book of Policy agreed on in the General Assembly Octob. 25. 1577. Also 1578. at several Assemblies Acts were made against Bishops the revising of the Book of Policy was delayed in a Parliament at Sterling Castle 1578. called the Imprisoned Parliament General Assembly July 13. at Dundie 1580. condemned the Office of Bishops as unlawful Another at Edenburgh Octob. 20. appointed a platform to be drawn for Presbyteries 1581. The second Confession of Faith was subscribed by the King and his Houshold Where Episcopacy is condemned under the Name of the Hierarchy it being declared that no other Church policy was to be allowed save that which then was used which every one knoweth was Presbytery The same Year the Assembly caused Registrate the Book of Policy among their Acts. In May 1584. some Acts of Parliament were made derogating from the Liberties of the Church but so little weight was laid on them that by the King's Command some Ministers were appointed to make Animadversions on them to which the King answered explaining and smoothing most of these grievous Acts. In the Assembly 1586. Commissions for Visitations were taken from Bishops Superintendents and others and the Church in several Meetings declared against Prelacy Much Contention there was between the Church in her lesser and greater Assemblies and a Court-Faction about Prelacy which yet was never re-established but at last in the Parliament begun 29 of March 1592. it was utterly abolished and Presbyterial Government fully settled which Arch-Bishop Spotswood in his History tho'he cannot deny yet doth most disingenuously labour to obscure § 9. Let us now consider what grounds the Pamphleter lays for his Conclusion and what is the Conclusion he buildeth on them the latter of these I first consider In it I observe first he is out in his Arithmetick for between 1567 and 1592. are not 35 but 25 Years Another thing to be observed is that it can make nothing for his Design that Presbyterian Government was not presently established by Law with the Protestant Religion because then the Nation having so lately been wholly Popish and but few of the Clergy or other Learned Men converted to the True Religion there could not be a competent number of Ministers got who were tolerably qualified either to rule the Church or to administer other Ordinances and the space of 25 years was not long for growing up of such an increase of useful Plants as might furnish Churches and constitute Presbyteries every where in the Nation especially if we consider what opposition was made to this settlement by the Court and its dependents and how some unfaithful preachers complied with the Court in hope of preferment from the year 1584. it was rather to be wondered at that this work was so speedily brought to such issue and through such opposition Let him make what advantage of his conclusion he can it is evident from what hath been said that Episcopacy never took place in the Protestant Church after the Reformation till Presbytery was fully setled also that the Inclinations of the protestant people of Scotland to speak in the dialect of our time were always for Presbytery and strongly against Prelacy and that whatever the State did to retard this work the Authority of the Church was always on the side of Presbytery It is also evident that Episcopal Jurisdiction over the Protestants was condemned by Law in that same Parliament
1567. wherein the Protestant Religion was established for it is there statute and ordain'd that no other Iurisdiction Ecclesiastical be acknowledged within this Realm than that which is and shall be within this same Kirk established presently or which floweth therefrom concerning preaching the Word correction of Manners administration of Sacraments Now I hope none will affirm that prelatical Jurisdiction then was or was soon after established in the protestant Church of Scotland § 10. The Foundations on which he buildeth his Conclusion make as little against what we hold he saith the Constitution of Bishops having then the Publick Authority the Popish Bishops sitting in this Parliament which setled the Reformation must in the Construction of the Law be confest to remain firm from 1567 to 1592. Ans. It is not denied that the Constitution of Bishops in regard of their Temporalties such as sitting in Parliament c. remained after 1567. yea neither do we say that that Law took from them the Authority they had over the Popish Church so far as then 't was in being for this Law did not pretend to unbishop them or make them no Priests nor did it touch their pretended Indelible Character But it is manifest that after this Law they had no legal Title to rule the Protestant Church and that by this nor any other Law no other Bishops were put in their room for the ruling of the Church To what he saith of the Popish Bishops sitting in a reforming Parliament I oppose what Leslie Bishop of Rosse a Papist hath De gest Scotorum lib. 10. pag. 536. that concilium à sectae nobilibus cum Regina habitum nullo ecclesiastico admisso ubi sancitum ne quis quod ad religionem attinet quicquam novi moliretur ex hac lege inquit omne sive haereseos sive inimicitiarum sive seditionis malum tanquam ex fonte fluxit Another thing he alledgeth or rather insinuateth viz. in the 1st Book of Policy a Superintendency which is another Model of Episcopacy was set up Ans. It is true the Protestant Church of Scotland in its infancy it was neither by an Act of Parliament that it was brought in nor that it was after cast out did set up Superintendents but this was truly and was so declared to be from the force of necessity and designed only for that present exigency of the Church Neither was it ever intended to be the lasting way of managing the Affairs of that Church At that time it was hard in a Province to find two or three men qualified for any more work toward the edifying of the Church than reading the Scripture to the people and therefore they found it needful to appoint one qualified man in a Province and at first fewer only five in all Scotland who had Commission from the Church to go up and down and preach to visit Churches to plant and erect Churches they acted only as Delegates from the Church and were accountable to every General Assembly where they were frequently censured and ordinarily the first work in the Assemblies was to try their Administrations as the number of Ministers grew their power was lessened and at last wholly taken away their Commission was renewed often other Commissioners also beside them were sometimes appointed with the same power They were never designed to be instead of Bishops for they did not keep to the old division of the popish Diocesses They might not stay above 20 days in one place in their Visitations they must preach thrice a Week at least In their particular Charge they must not remain above three or four Months but go abroad to Visitation again they must be subject to the Censure of the Church in her provincial and general Assemblies All this considered let any one judge with what candor our Author calleth a Superintendency a New Model of Episcopacy It is evident from our Church Histories that the Protetestant Church of Scotland was so far from that sentiment that they had a strict eye over Superintendents lest their power should have degenerated into a lordly Prelacy and that they laid aside the use of Commissions to Churchmen and giving them such power as soon as the Church could be provided with such number of Ministers as was needful QUESTION II. HAving brought his first Question to so wise a conclusion he advanceth to a second which is Whither ever Presbytery was setled in the Church of Scotland without constraint from tumultuous times What advantage to the Cause of Prelacy or detriment to Presbytery is designed by this Question and the Answer of it is not easie to divine Is every thing bad that hath been done in tumultuous times Doth not the Lord say Daniel 9. 25. That he will build his House in troublous times Will this man therefore condemn the Reformation from Popery in Scotland for this That it was setled against the will of the Queen and the popish Grandees and some pretended but unfaithful Protestants in a very tumultuous time It may be he will and his Citation pag. 4. out of Basil. Dor. Lib. 2. seemeth to import no less But if he thence conclude That Popery is the Truth and Protestantism an Error we shall then know where to find him And if he do not all that he here saith is extra oleas vagari But it may be the strength of his ratiocination lieth in this That Presbytery was setled by constraint And these by whose authority it was done were by the tumults of the people forced to it Let us a little examine this First Is every thing bad that men are forced to Ill men do few good things willingly and of their own proper motion By his way of reasoning the will and inclination of great men must be the standard of good and evil 2ly Presbytery had a twofold Settlement in Scotland One by Church-authority After searching the Scripture the General Assemblies of this Church did find Prelacy unwarranted there And that it was contrary to that Form of Government that the Apostles setled in the hands of the ordinary Office bearers of the House of God And this they declared authoritatively in the Name of Jesus Christ I hope he will not say that this was done by constraint Another Settlement it had by the Authority of King and Parliament giving their civil Sanction to it Neither can he alledge That the Parliament was any way constrained to this Or that any force was put on them Nothing appeareth but that the Parliament 1592. which made this Settlement was as free in the Election of its Members in their Consultations and Votings as any that have been since And some will say more-free than these Parliaments which since have undone what they did It resteth then That he must mean That the King was some way violented in that he assented to this Act contrary to his own sentiments and inclinations But this resteth to be proved beside that it is a greater reflection upon the Conscientiousness and
Scots in their management of the Government of Christ's House He knows that Scotland is but one and a small part of the Reformed Church in which that Government hath been and is practised If there be any blame then in the practices of former times when Presbytery was ascendent let it be imputed rather to the praeservidum Scotorum ingenium in which they of the other party have far outgone ours than to the Ordinance of Christ I mean that Government of his House that we own But even Scottish Presbytery or that Government as exercised in that National Church will be able to stand before his Arguments Though it be hard for any thing though never so good to bear up against Lies and Reproaches § 3. He should have considered That there may be other Dissenters living among Presbyterians than Episcopal men whereas all that he saith on this Head doth only relate to them There may be a peculiar reason for their not bearing with them who own Prelacy viz. Because their Church-Government doth necessarily overtop bring into subjection and root out that Government of the Church which we own as Christ's Institution It is against their principle to suffer Ministers and Elders to live beside them who will adventure to govern any part of the Church without subordination to the Bishops And whatever Indulgence hath been in by past years given to Presbyterians as we know it was designed for no advantage to us without judging the secrets of any bodies heart so we know that not only it was not the act of our Church-men but nothing was more grievous to them and nothing they did more actively oppose Notwithstanding it is the principle and purpose of Presbyterians not to exclude any of them from their religious Assemblies nor from any of the Ordinances of God in them for their principle about Church-Government wherein they differ from us And for Ministers among them we are ready to give the right hand of fellowship and to admit to all the parts of the exercise of their Function among us such of them as shall not be made appear to be insufficient scandalous or erroneous or to be void of that holiness of life that becometh a Minister and who shall be found willing to secure the Government of the Church that we own and to prosecute the ends of it and not to exclude any simply for his opinion about Church-Government though the mean while we are not willing that all who will profess to own our Church-way should have a share in managing it with us because many such might be a scandal to it others might betray it neither can we allow that any of them should exercise a prelacy over us or over the people of our charge Further Never any Church or State gave Toleration to Dissenters from the established Church-way but as it might rationally be thought a necessary relief to tender consciences But this reason for suffering Episcopal men to practise their way among us at this time cannot without the greatest impudence and hypocrisie be pretended For refusing to receive the Ordinances from Presbyterians because they want Episcopal Ordination this cannot be from conscience seeing it was their constant practice when Prelats ruled this Church they never required any of them to be re-ordained who had been ordained by Presbyters and after complied with Episcopacy Neither can they pretend conscience for having a Worship different from ours I mean the English Liturgy for when it was in their power to use it they never did Wherefore there can be no pretence on which they can plead for tolleration in these things but humor and design and I hope it will not by impartial beholders be judged rigidity if the State deny a liberty to such persons to make such Innovations as never yet could get place in this Church especially when it is too apparent that they who are most forward for such a liberty give ground to think that a design against the present civil Government is at the bottom they being such as have no liking to the present Establishment § 4. But this Author hath a mind to represent us in other colours And for a Foundation of this his Essay he saith That the Solemn League and Covenant is the Canon and the Acts of the General Assemblies the Comment of the Principles of Scottish Presbyteries This is false the Rule that we Judge by in the Matter of Church Government as well as in other things is the Word of God and we use no other Comments for our help to understand that Rule but such as are founded on the Word it self and which we give sufficient Warrant for I hope the Reader will look on this loose talk as Railing not Arguing He may know that Presbytery was long in Scotland before that Covenant had a being And for Acts of General Assemblies they are no further our Rule than they are agreeable to the Supreme Rule The Word of God and to the Principles of Right Reason Neither do we look on them as Infallible as he foolishly feigneth pag. 6. What he or any other can make appear in them to be unwarranted we are ready to disown And we know they may be changed by the same power that made them when any thing in them shall be found to be amiss or inconvenient for the present state of the Church § 5. He quarrelleth with three Articles of the Covenant viz. The 1st about preserving the Government and Discipline of the Church The 2d that is against Episcopacy and its Dependents The 3d for defending one another in their adherence to this Bond. Let any judge what is here consistent with a moderate and duly limited Toleration of Dissenters Is there no Toleration of men who hold Prelacy to be lawful without allowing of Prelacy it self and submitting to its domination Next he will prove his point from some Acts of General Assemblies but this he prefaceth first with the peaceableness of the Prelatick Clergy in and after 1639. when their Church-Goverment was destroyed in that they neither raised Tumults nor wrote Books It is true they raised no Tumults but they did what they could to raise War for continuing on the necks of the people that Yoak that they had wreathed on them And did effectually draw on a bloody War which had very sad effects and issued in the ruine of them and Presbyterians too for a time and shewed well enough to raise Church-Tumults by their protesting and disobedience to the Sentence of the Church for their not writing Books who hindred them Unbyassed men will impute it to somewhat else rather than to their peaceableness Another part of his Preface That they were not suffered to continue in their Cures This is indeed true of the Bishops as such They were not permitted to exercise a Prelacy over their Brethren for that was inconsistent with the Government then established Yet as Ministers of the Church none of them were deprived who were willing to preach
A VINDICATION OF THE Church of Scotland BEING AN ANSWER To a PAPER Intituled Some Questions concerning Episcopal and Presbyterial Government in SCOTLAND WHEREIN The Latter is Vindicated from the Arguments and Calumnies of that Author and the former is made appear to be a Stranger in that NATION By a Minister of the Church of Scotland as it is now Established by Law LONDON Printed for Tho. Salusbury at the Sign of the Temple near Temple-Bar in Fleetstreet 1691. THE PREFACE THat which is determined concerning all them that will live Godly in Christ Jesus that they must suffer Persecution is and hath long been the Lot of the Presbyterian Church of Scotland and a Generation of Men have thus exercised her for many Years by Severities hardly parallell'd among Protestants And now when their Hands are tyed that they can no more thus afflict her their Tongues and Pens are let loose to tear her without mercy by the most virulent Invectives and the most horrid Lies and Calumnies that their Wit can invent there are more ways than one by which the Serpent casteth out of his mouth waters as a Flood that the Woman may be carried away of it We hoped in the little reviving that the Lord hath given us from our Bondage to have had no diversion from feeding the Flocks over which the Holy Ghost hath made us Overseers But our Adversaries will force us unto a less pleasing Work which is yet also necessary for the continuence of the Truth and Purity of the Gospel with the People of God They are the Assailants and we must act the part of Defendants without which necessity I should not have troubled the Reader with the following Sheets It was judged necessary not by me only but by them whose Opinion and Authority I do justly reverence in obedience to which it was written five or six Months agoe but was by several Accidents hitherto kept from coming forth to the Light We are for Peace even with them who have not only differed from us but dealt hardly with us and are willing to receive such of them as are qualified to be Ministers of the Gospel but when we speak yea tho' we are silent and neither speak nor act against any of them but such as the Gospel declares to be unsavoury Salt they are for War and labour to make us odious to Mankind but especially to our Rulers Beside this Pamphlet several other Prints have been emitted by these Men containing partly Historical passages full of Lies and Reproaches and partly false and spightful representations of our Principles and way To which an Answer such as they need or deserve shall e're long be given if the Lord permit That this hath not sooner been done hath been in a great measure caused by the multitude of matters of Fact narrated in them said to be done in divers places of the Nation far remote one from another to all which it was necessary to send for getting a true Account of these things and there being but one Copy of each of these Books that we could find in all Scotland the several passages for the divers parts of the Country behoved to be transcribed and dispersed before Information about them could be bad which could not shun to require a long time and when these Informations were obtained some other things fell in which did yet longer retard the Answer which is now intended to be hastened as soon as may be In this matter our Adversaries have used a piece of Cunning which is that these Books were spread in England only where the things contained in them could not be known nor examined But in Scotland where most Readers could have discovered the falshood of their Allegations there never was one of them to be found in a Book seller's Shop But veritas non quaerit Angulos I shall not anticipate what is to be said in answer to the Books mentioned as also to a Letter of the same strain very lately come from the Press only it may be thought strange that the Men with whom we have to do should make such Tragical Outcries about their Sufferings when it may be made appear that in the late Times when Presbyterians suffered from their hand any one of many who may be instanced suffered more Hardship and barbarous Cruelty than all of them have endured It is also unaccountable that they should on this occasion so reproach the Church as they do while very few not above a dozen if I mistake not have suffered by the Sentence of any Church Iudicatory and these for Scandals that no man will have the brow to plead for And if two or three of them have been censured on slender grounds as is alledged not only our Church did give express warning to Presbyteries against this Practice But the late General Assembly hath Committed it to some of the gravest and most experienced of their number to review such Processes where Appeal or Complaint hath been made and to relieve them who are injured And it is evident to all who know our practices and can judge of them without partiality that the Presbyterian Church in Scotland hath at this juncture used all due means to make her Moderation known to all Men believing that the Lord is at hand who will judge between us and them who shew such spight against us to whose Iudgment and to the Censure of unbyassed Men when they have heard both Parties and understood our matters we refer our Cause A VINDICATION of the Church of Scotland Being an Answer to a Paper Intituled Some Questions concerning Episcopal and Presbyterial Government in Scotland wherein the latter is vindicated from the Arguments and Calumnies of that Author and the former is made appear to be a stranger in that Nation SO apparently weak and inconsequential are the Reasonings of this Pamphleter that nothing could make it reasonable for a Man who hath few spare hours from more necessary work to undertake an Answer except the Advice that the Wise man giveth Prov. 26. 5. for we find it to be the Genius of some of his Party when they find that Scripture and Reason cannot and Authority will not support their tottering Cause to betake themselves to clamorous lies and railing and charging others as sometimes Children do with the same thing in which themselves are most culpable as in a late Piece intituled An Account of the present Perscutions of the Church in Scotland by the Presbyterians And to write with or without reason seemeth to be much the same with them something that may prevail with their easie and biassed Disciples for some men are more ashamed to say nothing then to say nothing to purpose § 2. He beginneth in his Title page with some Testimonies of King James VI. against the Presbyterians To which two things may be said 1. That King James in an after Edition of his Basilicon Doron did declare he meant none but such as Anabaptists and Familists 2. We set
in opposition to this Assertion another saying of the same Royal Author mentioned a little below § 3. His Preface taketh notice of two opposite Narratives concerning Episcopacy the one to the Act restoring it 1662. the other to the Act by which it was abolished 1689. whether of these contain most Truth and Sincerity is not to be judged of but by entring on the Merits of the Cause and his Pamphlet with this Answer to it may contribute some light to it But that he supposeth Episcopacy to be best fitted to keep out Heresie is gratis dictum and the falshood of it is manifest if we accompt Popery to be Heresie the Abominations of which arose and grew up under that Government of the Church in this Nation what might be its effects in other Churches we do not now consider And our Experience may inform us what steps have been made not only toward the Superstitions but even the Doctrines of Popery under its Wings since its restauration And how Arminianism hath been warmed and got life by its influence in Scotland is too well known He cannot be ignorant of what K. James VI. whose Authority in matters of Truth he often brings as an Argument used to say of Presbytery as managed in Scotland That no Error could get footing there while Kirk-Sessions Presbyteries Synods and General Assemblies stood in their force What evil speaking and reviling there is in the Brief and True Account of the Sufferings of the Church of Scotland occasioned by the Episcopalians since the Year 1660. I know not not having seen that Book But I am sure his Party is in mala fide to challenge it their stile being such to the Life not in this Pamphlet only but especially in those before mentioned § 4. The first of his Questions is Whether Presbytery as contrary to the Episcopacy restored in Scotland 1662. was settled by Law when the Protestant Religion came to have the Legal Establishment in that Kingdom Which Question may be two ways understood and neither of them much to his purpose either whether the Protestant Religion when it was setled by Law found Presbytery already established which is a foolish Question for who ever heard of Presbytery under regnant Popery we deny not Episcopacy to be as old as Popery or whether Protestanism and Presbytery were by Law established at the same instant neither is this Question to the present purpose for it is enough to shew the Opinion of the Church of Scotland as soon as reformed about Church Government if our Adversaries cannot make it appear that she chused to be governed by Bishops And if we can shew that Presbytery was the Government practised in her from the beginning of the Reformation and that it was by Law established as soon as any fixed Government could be settled And good Reasons may be given why it was not done at the very first First The Errors and Idolatry of that way were so gross and of such immediate hazard to the Souls of People that it is no wonder that our Reformers minded these first and mainly and thought it a great step to get these removed so that they took some more time to consult about the reforming of the Government of the Church Secondly It was possible at first when the Nation was scarcely crept out of Popery to get a competent number of Ministers and Elders who might manage the Government of the Church but this behoved to be a work of time But what they did in this and what was their Sentiments about Church Order we shall after have occasion to discourse § 5. Toward the Resolution of his first Question he tells us in several particulars wherein all the dispute is that is intrinsick to the Notion of a Church Government which his Question he stateth with no great shew of understanding in these Controversies But that I insist not on that which is here chiefly to be observed is that he overlooketh that which is the chief yea the only Question on which our Controversie with the Prelatists doth turn viz. Whether the Government of the Church should be in the hands of a single Person or of a Community whether the Rulers of the Church ought to manage that Work in parity or one should manage it as Supreme and the rest in Subordination to him The distorted notion of a Moderator in Church Meetings that he hath taken up seemeth to mislead him in this matter for we will not yield that the Moderator qua talis is a Church Governour nor that he hath any Jurisdiction over his Brethren his power is meerly ordinative not decisive to be the Mouth of the Meeting not to be their Will or commanding Faculty to keep order in the manner and managing what cometh before them not to determine what is debated among them The Author talketh at random not knowing what he saith nor whereof he affirmeth when he speaketh of our election of a Moderator as done by the Clergy as he speaketh Lay-Elders and Deacons For where was it ever heard of that Deacons had a Vote in Presbyteries or Synods among Scotch Presbyterians we count them though they are Officers of Divine appointment yet the Servants of the Church not her Rulers they are employed about her Goods not in the Government § 6. He asserteth that the Protestant Religion was by Law established in Anno 1567. and the Constitution of Bishops remained as the Legal establishment and that Presbytery was not legally settled till 1592. His proofs for this and Objections that he obviateth against it I shall consider after I have given a true Historical Accompt of the being and establishment of Presbytery in this Nation Two things we maintain as to this the former is That not Episcopacy but a Government managed by the Teachers of the Church acting in commune and in parity had place in the Church of Scotland with its first Christianity and some Ages after The other is That not Episcopacy but Presbytery was the Government of the Church of Scotland as soon as it was reformed from Popery For the former Though we assert not that the first Christians in Scotland had Presbytery in all the Modes of it as we have neither can we attain the distinct Knowledge of the Actings of these Times by any Records that are left us yet that there was a Parity and no Prelacy among the Church Rulers in Scotland For all agree that Donald who entered upon the Government in the Year 199. was the first Christian King in Scotland though it is rationally thought by the best Historians that Christianity was embraced by many of the people before that And Baronius affirmeth That the Scots received the Christian Faith from Pope Victor had he said in his time we should have assented fully but what he saith is enough to our purpose who was Bishop of Rome from 194. to 203. And it is clear from Baronius and the current of Historians that Palladius was the first Bishop of the Scots
were throughly Episcopal to say no worse must be fined for their Wives non-complyance which put Men on this sore Dilemma either unnaturally to put force on his Wives Conscience which may be he could not Command or be undone Beside this which is the second thing above-mentioned it cannot be denyed that the Privy-Council gave Order not only to Officers of the Army but to every private Souldier empowering them when they met any Person on the High-way to examine them whether they were coming from or going to a Conventicle And if they would not by Oath clear themselves they were allowed to take from them their upper Garment Yea afterward the Officers I know not whether the Souldiers had that Power were warranted to kill whomever they met with who should refuse to give them satisfaction about abjuring the Sanquhair Declaration It is true sober Men did not refuse to take that Abjuration but it was an unparallel'd Act to commit the lives of Men to Souldiers to kill at their pleasure Men living in Peace and going about their Lawful Employments without proof of a Crime or due course of Law August 3. 1682. Major White in many Counties and the Laird of Meldrum a Captain of Horse in other Counties are empowered to act as Sheriffs tho' the ordinary Sheriffs and their Deputies were executing the Laws and to keep Justice Courts so that the Lives and Fortunes of People were at the mercy of these two Souldiers Sept. 9. the Laird of Claverhouse a Souldier is empowred to put the Laws in Execution against withdrawers from the Church A Commission for judging and executing the Laws even to death is given to Crawford of Ardmillan Novemb. 9 and 16 days the like to the E. of Linlithgow I conclude with what is wisely observed by the Prince of Orange now our Gracious Soveraign in his Declaration for Scotland about Imprisonments without cause alledged forcing many to swear against themselves imposing Arbitrary Fines intercommunings on the slenderest pretences making Men incur the danger of Life and Fortune for most innocent converse with their Relations outlawed of which the Counsellers themselves were guilty and behoved to procure Pardons By empowring Souldiers to act the greatest Barbarity on Persons living in quiet hanging drowning or shooting without any course of Law The Third thing is That the Execution did exceed both the Laws and Orders of Council Multitudes of Instances may and I hope ere long will be given of Men pistolled or hanged in cold Blood by the High-way on the Fields about their Work or drag'd out of their own Houses because they refused to declare their Opinion of the Murther of the Arch-Bishop of St. Andrews Of the Insurrection at Pentland and Bothwell-Bridge or of the Covenant It is true it doth not reflect on the Laws but it sheweth what spirit they were of who made them in that they employed such Men and did not punish them for such Facts but rather countenanced them § 8. He cometh now to his Conclusion to clear the Laws from Persecution And here he addeth some Considerations that he taketh for Argumentative As that three Rebellions were raised in the space of 23 Years But if these Rebellions were the Effects rather than the Causes of that Severity as indeed they were then his Argument is inconcludent That it was so with the former two I have observed before for the third it may be he is not ignorant how it was influenced by that unparallel'd and ridiculous but that it was on a mournful Subject Libel wyer-drawn against that Noble Earl that was the Head of that Insurrection making him guilty of Leesing-making and lyable to Death for what unbyassed Men and even some of his Enemies judged to be below the least of Crimes He saith none ever suffered for mere Separation but in Purse But is it not Persecution to be turned out of a Man's Livelyhood and made a Beggar for worshipping God He saith likewise That none suffered that way but such as came to Church to save their Money notwithstanding of pretended scruple of Conscience This is spoken at random many suffered sadly for Conventicles who did not so comply And I am bold to say he knoweth the contrary of what he here affirmeth He will have his Conclusion to stand Unless we will derogate from the Authority of King and Parliament That is a mistake We question the Justice of their Laws not their Authority to make Laws We may say Nero and Domitian were Persecutors without questioning whether they were Lawful Emperors QUEST VI. IT may be observed from this Author's Conduct in his Pamphlet what it is to be fleshed in bold averring of what all the World knoweth to be manifest untruths Some by boldness and frequency in telling Lies have come at last to believe them as Truths what else could make him propose this Question and answer it Negatively Whether the Episcopal Clergy in Scotland from the Year 1662. to the Year 1686. shewed any thing of the Spirit of Persecution against Presbyterians We affirm that they did He denyeth it To prove what we assert we might bring a Volume of Historical instances which now to adduce should swell this Paper to an undue bigness and would anticipate what it is like will be amply performed in the History of the late Times A few things I hope will not be denyed by any Impartial Person that knoweth Scotch Affairs and will be sufficient to evince what we hold in this One is the Bishops of this Church sat in Parliament when the above-mentioned Laws were made did any of them either Reason or Vote against any one of them Yea it is known that they were active Promoters of them yea our Author denyeth not their consenting and advising to them tho' he will not own their being the first Movers of them The former is enough to our purpose and the latter is rationally suspected both from the active influence that some of them had in the Government and from the spight that on all occasions they shewed against Men of our way Another Evidence of this is the Church-men in their Publick Sermons did frequently inflame both the Magistrates and Souldiers to execute the Laws against Dissenters and helped them by Direction Intelligence and all the ways that they could as thousands of Instances might make appear A Note of a Sermon was much talked of wherein the Judges of Assize or Circuit-Court before whom it was preached were advised to dye their Scarlet Robes yet more red in the Blood of these Men. Again it is known that the Ministers were the Informers against such as did not comply with the Laws It is true this was enjoyned them by the Rulers But conscientious Men would not have persecuted them that feared the Lord at the Command of Men whereas most of them gave ready chearful and forward Obedience to these Injunctions He speaketh of some of them who did not but were chid by the Iudges And we confess they were not