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
our Author what kind of Scene he took it to be Whither was it Tragical or Comical or Both Tragical to the Prelatists and Comical to the Presbyterians It were worth enquiring likewise whom he meant by Sober Presbyterian Preachers If there are any such in the Nation How many Where do they preach c. But I insist not on these things because the Secret is not amongst them Yet The next thing he produces is worth the Noticing And they The Sober Presbyterian Preachers if they had preached against Rabbling the Clergy Should have lost their SWEET WORDS Now here is subject afforded for several weighty Controversies For it may be made a Question Whither it be the duty of Sober Presbyterian Preachers to preach Righteousness to a Rebellious people whither they will Hear or whither they will Forbear It may be made another Whither our Author here gave up all the Rabblers to a reprobate Sense 'T is possible he meant so For the Sweetest words the Soberest Presbyterians can utter in their preachings are not too precious to be spent on such as are in a state of Reclaimableness But that which I take to be the most proper Question the Question that ariseth most naturally from the Text is Whither Presbyterian Words are not Sweeteer than that they should be Spent on such needless purposes as the Recommendation and Assertion of Righteousness and the Condemnation of Iniquity Whither it had not been ane unaccountable prodigality in them to have lost their Sweet words about such Trifâ—ing concerns as these But neither is the Secret here But it follows now These practices of the Rabble were publickly spoken against by Ministers both before they were Acted for preventing them and after for Reproving them and preventing the like Here it is I say Has he not here discovered ane important Secret of his party Has he not discovered that the Rabbling of the Clergy was not the product of Chance or Accident but a Deliberated a Consulted ane Advised politick Has he not discovered that even the sober Presbyterian Ministers were privy to the plot of it Has he not told that they spake against it before it was Acted for preventing it And doth it not follow clearly that they knew of it before it was Acted for if they had known nothing of it how could they have spoken against it for preventing it But tho they knew of it that it was to be done yet it seems They Consented not that it should be Done For they spake against it for preventing of it But I am afraid our Author here turn'd weary of his Sincerity For who spake publickly against these practices of the Rabble Or where or when were they spoken against before they were acted I dare challenge him to name one of his most sober Presbyterian Ministers who preached publickly against them for preventing of them When I am put to it I can name more than One or Two who pretend to be of the First Rank of the Sober Presbyterian Ministers who knew of them indeed and Consulted privately about them and said It was the surest way to have the Curates once dispossessed Because Once dispossessed they might find difficulties in being Repossessed But I never heard of so much as One who preached against them before they were Done I am very confident G. R. cannot name One. Indeed Seeing as our Author Grants they knew of the Rabbling before it was Acted If they had been so serious against it as they should have been and as our Author would have us believe they were how natural and easy as well as Christian and Dutiful had it been to have given Advertisements to the poor men who were to suffer it about it Was ever any such thing done But it seems Presbyterian words were Sweeter to Presbyterian palates than Common humanity or Christian Charity They were too Sweet to be Lost in such Advertisements By this time the Reader I think has got a proof of G. R.'s tenderness even to his own Herd when the Argument of ane Adversary pinched him But this is not the Highest stept For 10. If ane Argument straitens him He never stands to baffle and expose and contradict and make a Lier of his own Learned Sensible Civil Modest Self And here again One might write a large volume but I shall confine my self to a Competent number of instances First then you never saw a Prelatist and a Presbyterian Contradicting one Another in more plain opposite and peremptory Terms than he has done himself on several occasions Take this Taste In his Answer to D. Stillingfleet's Irenicum p. 64 He is at great pains to prove that where Episcopacy is Presbyters have no power Particularly he has these two profound Arguments for it 1. If Bishops be set over Presbyter they must either be only Praesides which is not contrary to Parity or they must have Authority above and over their Brethren And if so They may rule without their Brethren Seeing they may command them c. 2. If Presbyters under a Bishop have ruling power either they may Determine without or against his consent or not if so The Bishop is but a President If not The Presbyters are but Cyphers Now who would think that one of G. R.'s Courage would ever have parted with such ane important proposition especially having such impregnable Arguments for it Yet Consider if he has not done it most notoriously in his Answer to the Doctors Vnreasonableness of the separation c. pag. 182. where he has these express words He The Doctor Vndertaketh to prove that the English Episcopacy doth not take away the whole power of Presbyters we do not alledge that it taketh away the whole power of Presbyters for that were to reduce them into the same order with the rest of the people but wee say it usurpeth ane undue power over them c. Again In his First Vind. of his Church of Scotland His cause led him in Answ. to Quest. 10. to say That K. Is. Tolleration was against Law He was pressed with this Argument about the Inclinations of the people That not fifty Gentlemen in all Scotland out of the West did upon the Indulgence forsake the Churches to frequent Meeting houses And his Answer was They clave to the former way i. e. Continued in the Episcopal Communion Because the Law stood for it Is it not plain here that the Meeting houses were contrary to Law Hear him now in his 2 vind p. 43 44. passim when he was prest with the Scandal of his party 's Complying with the dispensing power and erecting Meeting houses contrary to Law He affirmed boldly that the Dispensing power was according to Law And K. I. was enabled by Law to Grant his Toleration Again In his 2. vind in Answ. to Letter 1. § 9. p. 12. when he had the Meeting of Estates to Apologize for for suffering and allowing persons to sit as Members who were not Qualified according to Law He Granted some
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
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
5. Neither will it be found of any force to say that Buchanan has not the Article nor Spotswood whose interest it was to have had it if such a thing had been considering his Principles and what was one of his principal designs in writing his History This is of no force I say for 1st as for Buchanan it is evident from the whole tract of his History That he aim'd principally at Matters of State bringing in Church Matters only by the by as we say so that it is no wonder if he did not record them accurately and with all the preciseness of Nicety And yet even as he summs up the Petition he has something in it which plainly imports the Petitioners had no thought to interrupt the Continuation of Imparity for thus he puts the last Article If by the Negligence of former times ignorant or wicked men had been advanced to Ecclesiastical Dignities they might be removed and others substituted in their Offices In which words 't is plain that as there had been HONORES Ecclesiastical Dignities and MINISTERIA different Offices amongst the Clergy before so now there was nothing like petitioning for abrogating any of them But that these Dignities might be better bestowed and these Offices better provided The Dignities and Offices were to continue no Change to be made but of the Dignitaries and Officers 2. As for Spotswood as I grant it had been very proper for his purpose to have taken notice of the Article as it is in Lesly so that he took no notice of it is no argument that Lesly was in the wrong for besides that there is no colour of reason for discrediting one Historians accounts because another is silent about them the truth is whosoever reads Spotswoods History and compares it with the rest of our Histories will find a very great many such Defects And we shall have a very clear as well as a very considerable instance by and by when we come to the next Petition In the mean time let me add another irrefragable Evidence so I think of Leslies integrity as to this Article It is 6. That when our Reformers had carried the day and so came to establish the Government of the Church they exactly reduced to practice that which they had petitioned for in the Article in the Election of Superintendents as is clear both from the First Book of Discipline and the Form of Electing Superintendents as it is to be seen both in the Old Scottish Liturgy and in Knox his History In the Fifth Head of the First Book of Discipline it was appointed That the Council should nominate the Superintendents or give Commission to men of best Knowledge and who had the fear of God to do it the Gentlemen and Burgesses of Towns within the Diocesses being always made privy to the Election And In the Order for Electing Superintendents as 't is both in the Old Liturgy and Knox's History we are told that the Council having given charge and power to the Churches of Lothian to choose Master John Spotswood Superintendent sufficient warning was made by publick Edict to the Churches of Edenburgh Linlithgow Sterling Trenent Hadingtown and Dumbar as also to Earls Lords Barons Gentlemen or others that had or might claim to have Voice in Election to be present c. This was done in the beginning of the year 1561. Now Lay these two things together and what is the Result what else than giving power to the Nobility and Gentry of the Diocess to elect their Bishop according to the Article as Lesly hath it in his Breviate of the Petition Thus we have found Lesly honest and his account just and genuine and thereby as I take it this proposition fairly demonstrated that our Reformers were so far from being Presbyterian so far from being for the divine institution and indispensable right of Parity that on the contrary they were clear for Imparity for Episcopacy But this is not all The Second Petition which I mentioned and which is set down in full form in Knox's History tho it doth not name Bishops is every whit as plain and decretory that the sentiments of our Reformers were no ways inimicous to Prelacy if I may make use of a word made fashionable by a Nobleman of the fashion But on the contrary that they were plainly for it This I take to be so fully and fairly exprest in the fifth and last Article of that Petition that I will here transcribe it word for word Lastly we require most humbly that the wicked slanderous and detestable Life of Prelates and of the State Ecclesiastical may be reformed that the people by them have not occasion as of many days they have had to contemn their Ministery and the preaching whereof they should be Messengers And if thâ—â— suspect that we rather envy their Honours or covet their Riches and Possessions than zealously desire their Amendment and Salvation we are content that not only the Rules and Precepts of the New Testament but also THE WRITINGS of the ANCIENT FATHERS and the GODLY and APPROVED LAWS of JUSTINIAN the EMPEROR decide the Controversie betwixt us and them And if it shall be found that either malevolently or ignorantly we ask more than these fore-named have required and continually do require of able and true Ministers in Christs Church we refuse not Correction as your Majesty with right Iudgment shall think meet But if all the fore-named shall condemn THAT which we condemn and approved THAT which we require then we most earnestly beseech your Majesty that notwithstanding the long Custom which they have had to live at their lust they be compelled either to desist from Ecclesiastical Administration or to discharge their Duties as becometh True Ministers So that the GRAVE and GODLY FACE of the PRIMITIVE CHVRCH being REDVCED Ignorance may be expelled true Doctrine and good Manners may once again appear in the Church of this Realm Here our Reformers lay down a complexe Rule according to which they crave the Church and the Ecclesiastical State may be Reformed This complexe Rule is made up of the Rules and Precepts of the New Testament the Writings of the Antient Fathers and the Godly and Approved Laws of the Emperor JUSTINIAN This is that solid orthodox proper and adequate Rule of Reformation which I mentioned before as Vincentius Lirinensis his Rule and the Rule wherein our Reformers agreed with the English Reformers By this Rule our Reformers are content that all the Controversies betwixt them and the Papists be deâ—ided they refuse not Correction if they ask more than this Rule requires they condemn no more than this Rule condemns This Rule approves all they are asking In short they require no more than that according to this Rule the grave and godly Face of the Primitive Church may be restored as it was in JUSTINIAN's time Let the Ecclesiastical State be reduced to that Frame and Constitution and the Clergy live and rule and discharge their
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
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.
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
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
dayly look for our final Deliverance by the coming again of our Lord Iesus c. Thus it was prayed I say in great Solemnity at that time and every Petition is a Confirmation of Buchanan's Fidelity and my Assertion Further yet 3. In the Old Scottish Liturgy compiled in these times and afterwards used publickly in all the Churches There is a Thanksgiving unto God after our Deliverance from the Tyranny of the Frenchmen with Prayers made for the Continuance of the Peace betwixt the Realms of Scotland and England wherein we have these Petitions offered Grant unto us O Lord that with such Reverence we may remember thy Benefits received that after this in our Default we never enter into Hostility against the Realm and Nation of England Suffer us never O Lord to fall to that Ingratitude and detestable Vnthankfulness that we should seek the Destruction and Death of those whom thou hast made instruments to Deliver us from the Tyranny of Merciless Strangers Dissipate thou the Counsels of such as Deceitfully travel to stir the hearts of the inhabitants of either Realm against the other Let their malicious practices be their own confusion and grant thou of thy Mercy that Love Concord and Tranquillity may continue and increase amongst the Inhabitants of this Isle even to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ by whose glorious Gospel thou of thy Mercy dost CALL US BOTH TO UNITY PEACE AND CHRISTIAN CONCORD the full PERFECTION whereof we shall possess in the fullness of thy Kingdom c. Here is a set of Demonstrations to the same purpose also And now let any man lay all these things together The Letter to Cecil The Confederacy betwixt Scotland and England Buchanan's Testimony and these Thanksgivings and Prayers and then let him judge impartially whither or not there is reason to believe that in those days there was a good Agreement between the Scottish and English Protestants as to Religion and Church Matters Thus I think I have sufficiently cleared that our Reformers Generally if not Vnanimously lookt upon the Church of England as so well constituted that they acknowledged her Communion to be a Lawful Communion But before I proceed to other things I must try if I can make any more advantage of what has been said And I reason thus Was there not here truely and really a Confederacy ane Oath A Solemn League and Covenant betwixt the Scottish and the English Protestants Were not these English Protestants then united in that Society which at that time was and ever since hath been called The Church of England And was not the Church of England of that same very constitution then that it was of in King Charles the First his time for example Anno 1642 But if so then I ask again was not this Solemn League and Covenant made thus by our Reformers with their Brethren in England as much designed for the Security the Defence the Maintainance of the Church of England as then by Law established as for the Establishment of our Reformation Did not our Reformers promise Mutual Faith to the English as well as the English promised to them Would it have been consistent with the mutual bonds and obligations of this Confederacy this Solemn League and Covenant for the Scottish Reformers to have raised ane Army at that time against Queen Elizabeth to invade her Dominions in order to ruine the Church of England I cannot imagine any sober person can grudge to grant me this much also But if this be granted then I ask in the third place Did not that Solemn League and Covenant made by our Reformers with those of the Church of England run in a direct opposition to the Solemn League and Covenant made by our Scottish Presbyterians with a Factious Party in England for destroying the Church of England in King Charles the First 's time Nay did not our Scottish Presbyterians in that King's time by entering into that Solemn League and Covenant directly and effrontedly break through the Charge and Commandment which our Reformers left to their Posterity That the Amity betwixt the Nations in God contracted and begun might by them be kept inviolate for ever Nay further yet did not our Reformers solemnly pray against those who made the Solemn League and Covenant in the days of King Charles the First Did they not address to God that he would dissipate their Counsels and let their Malicious Practices be their own Confusion And now let the world judge what rational pretences these Presbyterians in that Holy Martyrs time and by consequence our present Presbyterians can make for their being the only true and genuine Successors of our First Reformers Expecting solid and serious Answers to these Questions I shall now advance in the prosecution of my main undertaking on this Head which was to shew how our Reformers agreed with the Church of England in several momentous matters Relative to the Constitution and Communion the Government and Polity of the Church c. But because I have insisted so long on this general one which I have just now taken leave of I shall only instance in two or three more and dispatch them as speedily as I can 2. Then it is evident and undeniable that our Scottish Protestants for some years used the Liturgy of the Church of England in their publick Devotions Indeed The very first publick step towards our Reformation made by the Lords of the Congregation was to appoint this Liturgy to be used It was ordered upon the third day of December 1557. as both Knox and Calderwood have it Take the Ordinance in Knox his words The Lords and Barons professing Christ Iesus conveened frequently in Councel in the which these Heads were concluded First It is thought expedient advised and ordained That in all Parishes of this Realm the Common Prayer be read weekly on Sunday and other Festival days publickly in the Parish Churches with the Lessons of the Old and New Testament conformable to the Book of Common Prayers And if the Curates of the Parishes be qualified that they read the same And if they be not or if they refuse that the most qualified in the Parish use and read the same c. Spotswood and Petrie give the same account But such is the Genius of Mr. Calderwood that you are to expect few things which may make against the Presbyterian Interest candidly and sincerely represented by him For instance in his overly account of this matter he quite omits the mention of other Holy days besides Sundays These consistent Testimonies of all those four Historians are so full and plain a Demonstration of the Matter of Fact that I cannot foresee so much as one Objection that can be made or one Evasion that can be thought on unless it be That it is not said by any of them that it was the Book of the Common Prayers of the Church of England But this difficulty is soon removed For 1. It was either the Book
of the Common Prayers of the Church of England or the Genevian Liturgy For we no where read of a Third ever pretended to have been used in those times in Scotland Now that it was not the Liturgy of Geneva is plain for besides that it is utterly incredible that there could have been so many Copies of the Genevian Form in the vulgar Language then in Scotland as might serve so many Parish Churches Nay that 't is highly probable there was not so much as one Besides this I say in the Genevian Form which was afterwards used in Scotland there is no Order for no footstep of the observation of other Holy-days besides Sunday Neither is there any Order in it for Reading of Lessons of the Old and New Testament except in the Treatise of Fasting which was not compiled till the year 1565. There indeed Lessons are appointed such and such Psalms and such and such Histories in the Old but not so much as one Tittle of the New Testament In all the rest of the Book a deep Silence about Lessons than which there cannot be a clearer Demonstration that the Book appointed to be used in December 1557 was not that of Geneva Indeed 2. None of our Presbyterian Historians neither Petrie nor Calderwood have the confidence to pretend nay to insinuate the possibility of its being the Common Order of Geneva which 't is very probable they would have done if they had had the smallest hopes of making it feasible On the contrary Calderwood seems fairly to acknowledge that it was the English Liturgy but then this acknowledgement lies at such a distance from the year 1557. that no doubt he thought himself pretty secure that few Readers would reflect upon it as ane acknowledgment he doth not make it till he comes to the year 1623 when he had occasion to tell how the use of the English Liturgy was brought into the New Colledge of St. Andrews Take it in his own words Upon the 15 th of January Master Robert Howie Principal of the New College of St. Andrews Doctor Wedderburn and Doctor Melvin were directed by a Letter from Doctor Young in the Kings Name to use the English Liturgy Morning and Evening in the New College where all the Students were present at Morning and Evening Prayers Which was presently put in execution notwithstanding they wanted the warrant of any General Assembly or of any CONTINVED PRACTICE OF THE FORM in time by-past since the Reformation Where you see he lays the stress of his Argument against it on its nor having had a continued Practice since the Reformation which is a clear concession that at the Reformation it was in practice tho that practice was not continued But whither he acknowledged this or not is no great matter we have sufficient Evidence for the point in hand without it For 3. Buchanan's Testimony which was adduced before about the Scots subscriving to the Worship and Rites of the Church of England is unexceptionable And yet it is not all For 4. The Order as you see it appointed by the Lords of the Congregation Decem. 3d 1557. is That the Book there authorised be used in all Churches from that very date but we find by the First Book of Discipline That the Order of Geneva was only coming in to be used then in some of the Churches i. e. 1560. And it had nothing like a public Establishment till the General Assembly holden at Edenburgh Dec. 25 1652. For then and not till then It was concluded that ane Vniform Order should be kept in the Ministration of the Sacraments Solemnization of Marriages and Burial of the Dead according to the Kirk of Geneva So it is in the Mss. and so Petrie hath it But Nature works again with Calderwood For he has no more but this It was ordained that ane Vniform Order be kept in the Ministration of the Sacraments according to the Book of Geneva Omitting Marriage and the Burial of the Dead Marriage I believe to bear the other Company for the Burial of the Dead was the Dead Flee Why The Book of Geneva allowed of Funeral Sermons as he himself acknowledgeth A mighty Superstition in the opinion of Prerbyterians so that it would have been offensive to the sincerer sort as he commonly calls those of his own Gang and inconsistent with the Exigences of the Good Cause to have let the world know that A General Assembly had ratified the Order of that Book about Burials and thereby had justified the Superstition of Funeral Sermons Nay 5. It seems this Act of the General Assembly Decem. 1562. has not been strong enough for turning out the English Liturgy and introducing the form of Geneva For if we may believe Calderwood himself The General Assembly holden at Edenburgh Decem. 25. 1564. found themselves concerned to make another Act ordaining Every Minister Exhorter and Reader to have one of the Psalm books lately printed at Edenburgh and use the Order contained therein in Prayers Marriage and Administration of the Sacraments Where observe further that Prayers not mentioned in the Act 1562. are now put in from which it may be probably conjectured that as much as Knox was against the English Liturgy he found many difficulties to get it laid aside so many that it has not only been used by some few or many I cannot tell in the Ministration of the Sacraments c. after the Act 1562. But the Clergy have not found themselves obliged to forbear the use of it in the publick prayers so that it was needful in this Assembly 1564 to make a New Act restricting them both as to Prayers and other Ministrations to the Order of Geneva And if this holds we have the English Liturgy at least seven Years in continued practice in Scotland But it is enough for my main purpose that it was once universally in use which I think cannot be denied by any who impartially considers what hath been said And now 6. May not I adduce one Testimony more 'T is true it is of a latter date But it is very plain and positive and what I have adduced already is security enough for its Credibility It is the Testimony of the Compilers of our Scottish Liturgy which made the great Stir in the year 1637. And was made one of the main pretences for the first Eruptions of that execrable Rebellion which ensued The Compilers of that Liturgy I say in their Preface to it tell us That it was then known that diverse years after the Reformation we had no other Order for Common Prayer but the English Liturgy A Third Principle wherein our Reformers agreed with the Church of England and which stands in direct contradiction to the Principles of our Presbyterians is that they own'd the Church had a great Dependance on the State That it belong'd to the Civil Magistrate to reform the Church That People might appeal from the Church to the Civil Magistrate c. I
Office of Superintendents whereunto they were forced as they thought by necessity c. And in his Breviate of the first book of Discipline he offers at a Reason why it was so They make a Difference at this time among Ministers some to be Superintendents some to be ordinary Ministers not because Superintendents were of divine institution as ane Order to be observed perpetually in the Kirk but because they were forced only AT THIS TIME to make the Difference lest if all Ministers should be appointed to make continual Residence in several places when there was so great Rarity of Preachers the greatest part of the Realm should be destitute of the preaching of the word And G. R. in his first Vindication of the Church of Scotland printed at Edenburgh 1691. in answer to the first of the ten Questions following Calderwood exactly as indeed he doth all alongst and it seems he has never read another of our Historians so that he had some reason to call him THE HISTORIAN ibid. delivers it thus 'T is true the Protestant Church of Scotland did set up Superintendents but this was truly and declared so to be from the Force of Necessity and design'd only for that present Exigency of the Church c. And more pointedly in his true Representation of Presbyterian Government printed at Edenburgh 1690. prop. 18. where he lays it down as ane undoubted truth That Superintendency was only established throught necessity when a qualified Minister could scarcely be had in a Province c. And Petrie seems to aim at the same way of Reasoning Now 1. Supposing all this true what ground have they gained by it Do they not fairly acknowledge that the Prelacy of Superintendents was established at the Reformation And is not that all I am concerned for For the Question is not whither Superintendency was design'd to be perpetual or temporary but whither it was a Prelacy And if it was a Prelacy the Church of Scotland was not then govern'd by Ministers acting in parity The Perpetuity or Temporariness of it doth not affect its nature If it was a Prelacy at all it was as really a Prelacy tho it had lasted but for a Day as it had been tho it had lasted till the Day of Iudgment Just as our Presbyterian Brethren were as really Addressers to K. I. by addressing once as they should have been tho they had continued addressing to him till this very minute This alone in all conscience might be enough for discussing this Plea Yet that I may not offend the Party by seeming to think so meanly of this mighty argument I shall insist a little longer and consider 2. If they have any sufficient Fund in the Records of these times for this pretence And 3. What Force or Solidity is in the reason insisted on to make this pretence seem plausible As to the first viz. Whither there is any sufficient Fund in the Records of these times for this pretence All I have observed insisted on for this is only one phrase in the fifth Head of the First Book of Discipline AT THIS TIME Take the whole period as it is in Petrie for he censures Spotswood for curtailing it As Petrie has it it runs thus If the Ministers whom God hath endued with his singular Graces among us should be appointed to several places there to make their continual Residence the greatest part of the Realm should be destitute of all Doctrine which should not only be the occasion of great Murmur but also dangerous to the Salvation of many and therefore we have thought it a thing expedient AT THIS TIME That from the whole number of Godly and Learned Men now presently in this Realm be selected Ten or Twelve for in so many Provinces we have divided the whole to whom Charge and Commandment should be given to plant and erect Kirks to set order and appoint Ministers to the Countries that shall be appointed to their care where none are now This is the whole foundation of the Plea for the Temporariness of Superintendency but if I mistake not the true Gloss of this period will amount to no more than this That because there were then so few men qualified for the Office of Superintendency tho Ten or Twelve were by far too small a number for the whole Kingdom yet at that time they thought it expedient to establish no more And tho when the Church should be sufficiently provided with Ministers it would be highly reasonable that the Superintendents should have places appointed them for their continual Residence yet in that juncture it was necessary that they should be constantly travelling thro their Districts to preach and plant Churches c. That the period will bear this Gloss is obvious to any who considers it impartially And that this and not the Presbyterian is the true Gloss I hope may competently appear if these things be considered 1. It is notorious that the Compilers of that First Book of Discipline were generally to their dying day of Prelatical Principles They were six as Knox tells us Mr. Iohn Winrame who died Superintendent of Strathern Iohn Spotswood who was many years a Superintendent and a constant Enemy to parity as appears from his Sons account of him Iohn Willock who died Superintendent of the West Iohn Dowglas who died Archbishop of St. Andrews Iohn Row who was one of the three that defended the Lawfulness of Episcopacy at the Conference appointed by the General Assembly 1575 and Iohn Knox of whom we have said enough already Now I ask is it credible that these men all so much for Prelacy all their Lives without any constraint on them As 't is certain there was none should while digesting a Model of Policy have been only for a Prelacy that was to be laid aside within God knows how short a time so soon as the Parish Churches could be planted with Ministers I know nothing can be said here unless it be that Knox was not so prelatical as the rest and he would have it so and the rest have yielded But there 's no ground for this For 2. Even Knox himself if he was the Author of the History which bears his Name amongst our Presbyterian Brethren assigns a quite other reason than the then Necessities of the Church for the Establishment of Superintendency Superintendents and Overseers were nominated says he that all things in the Church might be carried with order and well A Reason which as it held since the Apostles times will continue to hold so long as the Church continues And is it not told again in that same History That at the Admission of Spotswood to the Superintendency of Lothian Iohn Knox in his Sermon asserted the Necessity of Superintendents or Overseers as well as Ministers The Necessity I say and not the bare Expediency in that juncture Further now that I have Knox on the Stage I shall repeat over again a Testimony of his which I
and through the Badness or at least the Disagreeableness of the Scheme laid down in the Book on the one hand and the Selfish and Sacrilegious Ends of the Laity on the other no provision made for the Ministers it was unavoidable that they should be pincht And pincht they were indeed to purpose For for full Eighteen or Nineteen Months after the Reformation was established by Law they had nothing to live by but Shift or Charity and which heightned the Misery all this time of Want they had little or no prospect of the end of it For when a Parliament so much Protestant as in the Queens absence to establish the Purity of Doctrine c. had treated them so unkindly what was to be expected now that she was at home every inch Popish and zealously such Tho a Parliament should now incline to pity them yet how could it meet Or what could it do without the Soveraigns Allowance And what ground had they to hope that she would be friend them Indeed nothing was to be attempted that way it was not to be expected that the Popish Clergy should be dispossessed of the Revenues of the Church and the Reformed entituled to them by Act of Parliament Another project was to be fallen upon The Project fallen upon was That the Council then intirely Protestant should deal with the Queen to oblige the Popish Clergy Possessors of the Benefices to resign the Thirds of them into her Majesties hands that they might be a fond for the Maintainance of the Protestant Ministers The Nation was then generally Protestant and that Interest was too strong for the Queen so that they were not to be too much provokt Besides one Argument was used which prevailed much with her Majesty The Revenues of the Queen were then very low and she loved to spend and pains were taken to perswade her that beside what would be subsistence enough for the Ministers she would be sure to have what might considerably relieve her own Necessities This was a taking proposition so the project succeeded The Popish Clergy were put to it and resign'd the Thirds Collectors were appointed to bring them in to the Exchequer The Ministers were thence to receive their Allowances Well! Were they well enough provided now Alas Poor Men It was but little that was pretended to be provided for them the Thirds of these Benefices which the Laity had not already swallowed And yet far less was their real portion They found by sad experience that it was not for nothing that the Thirds were ordered to be brought into the Queens Treasury For when they came to be divided how mean were their Allotments Ane hundred Merks Scottish i. e. about 5 l. 11 sh. English to ane ordinary Minister in the Country Three hundred saith Knox was the highest that was appointed to any except the Superintendents and a few others All this the Ministers indeed resented highly Iohn Knox said publickly in his Sermon If that Order for maintaining the Ministers ended well his judgment failed him for he saw two parts freely given to the Devil the Popish Clergy and the third must be divided betwixt God and the Devil i. e. betwixt the Protestant Ministers and the Popish Queen And no doubt her Share was truely considerable But neither did the Misery end here As poor as these small Pittances were they could not have them either seasonably or fully paid The Thirds came in but slowly and the Queens Necessities behoved to be first served by which means the Ministers were forced to wait many times very long for their Money And sometimes to take little rather than want all In short their sense of the treatment they met with was so lively that this turn'd to a Proverb amongst them The Good Laird of Pittaro was ane Earnest Professor of Christ but the Great Devil receive the Controller Thus poor Men they were hardly treated they had great Charges and a weighty Task and they were ill provided and worse paid This bred them much work in their Gen. Assemblies For scarcely did they ever meet but a great part of their time was spent in forming Petitions and importuning the Government for Relief of their Necessities but all in vain they were never the better no not so much as heard almost till Iuly 1567. Then the Nobility and Gentry resolved to lay aside the Queen from the Government and finding it necessary to have the Ministers of their side began to bespeak them a little more kindly Then indeed it was made the Second Article of that League into which they entered That the Act already made by the Queen and Council concerning the Thirds of the Benefices within this Realm principally for sustaining the Ministers should be duely put in Execution according to the Order of the Book of the Appointment of Ministers Stipends as well of them that are to be appointed as of them who are already placed and that the Ministers should be first duely answered and sufficiently sustained of the same to the Relief of their present Necessity ay and while a perfect Order might be ta'ne and established towards the full Distribution of the Patrimony of the Kirk according to Gods word c. So I read in the Mss. and Spotswood has the same upon the matter But this was not all Burnt Bairns Fire dread The Ministers sensible it seems of the mean and uncertain way of Living they had had before resolved now to make the best advantage they could of that opportunity and so they obtain'd this likewise for another Article of that Confederacy and the Nobility promised That how soon a lawful Parliament might be had or that the Occasion might otherwise justly serve they should labour at their uttermost that the Faithful Kirk of Iesus Christ professed within this Realm might be put in full Liberty i. e. possession of the Patrimony of the Kirk according to the Book of God and the Order and Practice of the Primitive Kirk and that nothing should pass in Parliament till the Affairs of the Kirk were first considered approved and established and also that they should reform themselves in the Matters of the Church for their own parts Ordaining the Contraveeners and Refusers of the same to be secluded from the Bosom of the Kirk c. So the Mss. and Spotswood also Here were fair promises indeed Were not the Ministers well enough secured now Was not the Patrimony of the Church now to run in its Right Channel Alas All promises are not performed No sooner had these Nobles and Barons carried their main point which was the dethroning of the Queen to which also the Ministers were forward enough than they quite forgot their promises For tho the Parliament met in December thereafter and tho the Restitution of the Patrimony of the Church was promised to be the first thing that should be done in Parliament yet nothing like performance Nay tho ane Act was made for putting the
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
former proceedings and fairly advised them to shew more temper and proceed more deliberately Calderwood calls it ane Harsh Letter It is to be seen word for word both in him and Petrie But what had they to do with the Kings of this World especially such Babie Kings as King Iames was then they I say who had now the Government of Christs Kingdom to settle However no more was done against Prelacy at this time than had been ordered formerly Indeed there was little more to be done but to declare the Office abolished But that it seems they were not yet Ripe for Perchance the Corruptions mentioned before had proved a little Choaking and peoples stomachs could not be so soon disposed for another dish of such strong meat in ane instant so that was reserved till the next Assembly Nevertheless In the mean time take we Notice of one thing which we never heard of before which started up in this Assembly and which must not be forgotten It was proposed by the Synod of Lothian saith Calderwood That a General Order might be taken for Erecting of Presbyteries in places where publick exercise was used until the Polity of the Church might be Established by Law And it was Answered by the Assembly That the exercise was a Presbytery A Presbytery turned afterwards and now is one of the most specifick essential and indispensible parts of the Presbyterian constitution Provincial Synods can sit only twice in the year General Assemblies only once according to the Constitution 'T is true 't is allowed to the King to Convocate one extraordinarily pro re natà as they call it And the Kirk claims to have such a power too as she sees occasion But then 't is as true that Kings have been so disgusted at such meetings that they have hindred General Assemblies to meet for many years So that their meetings are uncertain and in innumerable cases there should be too long a Surcease of Ecclesiastical Iustice if Causes should wait either on them or Provincial Synods The Commission of the General Assembly as they call it is but ane accidental thing The suddain dissolution of a General Assembly can disappoint its very being as just now there is none nor has been since the last Assembly which was so surprizingly dissolved in February 1692. When there is such a Court it commonly sits but once in three Months and it meddles not with every matter Besides many of themselves do not love it and look upon it as ane error in the Custome of the Kirk for it was never made part of the Constitution by any Canon of the Kirk nor Act of Parliament But A Presbytery is a Constant Current Court They may meet when they will Sit while they will adjourn whither when how long how short time soever they will They have all the substantial Power of Government and Discipline They have really a Legislative Power They can make Acts to bind themselves and all those who live within their Jurisdiction and they have a very large Dose of Executive power They can Examine Ordain Admit Suspend Depose Ministers They can Cite Iudge Absolve Condemn Excommunicate whatsoever Criminals The Supreme power of the Church under Christ is Radically and Originally in them It is in General Assemblies themselves Derivatively only and as they Represent all the Presbyteries in the Nation and if I mistake not if a General Assembly should Enact any thing and the greater part of the Presbyteries of the Nation should Reprobate it it would not be binding and yet how necessary how useful how powerful so ever these Courts are tho' they are essential parts of the constitution tho' they may be really said to be that which Specifies Presbyterian Government This Time this seventh or eighth or tenth of Iuly Anno 1579 was the first time they were heard of in Scotland That which was called the Exercise before was nothing like a Court had no imaginable Iurisdiction Could neither Injoyn Pennance to the smallest Offender nor Absolve him from it It could exert no Acts of Authority It had not so much Power as the meanest Kirk-session It was nothing like a Presbytery and however it was said in this Assembly That the Exercise was a Presbytery yet that saying as omnipotent as a Presbyterian Assembly is did not make it one That was not a Factive proposition There were no Presbyteries erected at this time The First that was erected was the Presbytery of Edenburg And if we may believe Calderwood himself That Presbytery was not erected till the thirtieth day of May 1581. more time was run before the rest were erected They were not agreed to by the King till the year 1586. They were not Ratified by Parliament till the year 1592. And now let the Impartial Reader judge if it is probable that our Reformers who never thought on Presbyteries were of the present Presbyterian principles Were they Presbyterians who never understood never thought of never dream'd of that which is so Essential to the constitution of a Church by Divine Institution according to the present Presbyterian principles But doth not G. R. in his First Vindication of the Church of Scotland in Answer to the First Question § 8. tell us that the Real Exercise of Presbytery in all its meetings lesser and greater continued and was allowed in the year 1572 c. True he saith so But no Man but himself ever said so But I know the Natural History of this Ignorant blunder His Historian Calderwood had said that the Kirk of Scotland ever since the beginning had four sorts of Assemblies and this was enough for G. R. For what other could these four sorts of Assemblies be than Kirk-Sessions Presbyteries Provincial Synods and General Assemblies But if he had with the least degree of any thing like attention read four or five lines further he might have seen that Calderwood himself was far from having the brow to assert that Presbyteries were then in being For having said there were four sorts of Assemblies from the beginning he goes on to particularize them thus National which were commonly called General Assemblies Provincial which were commonly called by the General Name of Synods Weekly Meetings of Ministers and Readers for interpretation of the Scripture whereunto succeeded Presbyteries that is Meetings of many Ministers and Elders for the Exercise of Discipline and the Eldership of every Parish which others call a Presbytery In which account it is evident that he doth not call these weekly Meetings for interpretation of the Scriptures Presbyteries But says that Presbyteries succeeded to these weekly Meetings and he gives quite different Descriptions of these weekly Meetings and Presbyteries making the weekly Meetings to have been of Ministers and Elders for the interpretation of Scripture and Presbyteries to have been as they still are Meetings of many Ministers and Elders for the Exercise of Discipline 'T is true he might have as well said that Presbyteries succeeded to
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
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
which are in Print and I think his citation shall scarcely be found amongst the unprinted ones but could not find this citation of our Author's What was next to be done I knew that full well I turn'd to the 43. page of his Historian Calderwood and there I found it word for word Well! But is there no such Period to be found in the Acts of that Parliament Not one indeed 'T is true there is ane Act the sixth in number Intituled Anent the true and Holy Kirk and of them that are declared to be of the same which Act I find insisted on by the Covenanters Anno 1638. in their Answer to the Marquis of Hamiltons Declaration at Edenburgh in December that year as is to be seen in the large Declaration as condemning Episcopacy 'T is very probable this might be the Act Calderwood thought he abridged in these words borrowed from him by G. R. I shall set it down word for word that the world may judge if Episcopacy is Condemned by it Forasmuch as the Ministers of the blessed Evangel of Iesus Christ whom God of his mercy hath now raised up amongst us or hereafter shall raise Agreeing with them who now live in Doctrine and Administration of the Sacraments as in the Reformed Kirks of this Realm they are publickly Administrate according to the Confession of Faith Our Soveraign Lord with advice of My Lord Regent and three Estates of this present Parliament has declared and declares the aforesaid Persons to be the only true and Holy Kirk of Iesus Christ within this Realm And Decerns and Declares that all and sundrie who either gainsay the word of the Evangel received and approved as the Heads of the Confession of Faith Professed in Parliament before in the year of God 1560. years As also specified in the Acts of this Parliament more particularly doth express and now Ratified and approved in this present Parliament Or that refuses the Participation of the Holy Sacraments as they are now Ministrate to be no Members of the said Kirk within this Realm presently Professed so long as they keep themselves so divided from the Society of Christs Body This is the Act Now here not one word of Ecclesiastical Iurisdiction either Foreign or Domestick Not one word of any Iurisdiction within this Realm or in the Kirk within this Realm or that should ever flow from the said Kirk Not one word of Correcting of Manners From which it is evident that if this was the Act Calderwood aim'd at he gave the world a very odd abridgement of it And G. R. should consider things a little better and not take them upon trust to found Arguments on them so Ridiculously But doth not this Act condemn Episcopacy Let the world judge if it doth what can be more plain than that all this Act aims at is only to Define that Church which then was to have the legal Establshment and the countenance of the Civil Authority This Church it Defines to be that Society of Pastors and People which professed the Doctrine of the Evangel c. according to the Confession of Faith then Established 'T is plain I say this is all that Act aims at Not one word of Iurisdiction or Discipline of Government or Polity of Episcopacy or Presbytery of Prelacy or Parity of Equality or Inequality amongst the Governours of the Church Whatever the Form of Government was then in the Church or whatever it might be afterwards was all one to this Act so long as Pastors whither Acting in Parity or Imparity and People kept by the same Rule of Faith and the same manner of administting the Sacraments What is there here like a Condemnation of Episcopal Iurisdiction Is this the way of Parliamentary Condemnations to Condemn ane Office or ane Order or a Jurisdiction call it as you will without either naming it or describing it in terms so circumstantiated as the world might understand by them that it was mean't To Condemn a thing especially a thing of so great importance without so much as repealing any one of many Acts which Established or Ratifyed it before Surely if this Act Condemned Episcopacy this Parliament happened upon a New Stile a Singular Stile a Stile never used before never used since Besides If this was the Act G. R. intended I would earnestly desire him to name but any one Man who lived in these times and understood Episcopacy to have been Condemned by this Act. How blind was Master Andrew Melvil How blind was all the Presbyterian Fraternity that all the five years they were fighting against Prelacy could never hit on this Act and prove that it ought to be no longer tolerated seeing it was against ane Act of Parliament Were they so little careful of Acts of Parliamant that they would not have been at pains to cite them for their purpose Mr. Andrew Melvil in his so often mentioned Letter to Beza dated Novemb. 13. 1579. writes thus We have not ceased these five years to fight against Pseudepiscopacy many of the Nobility resisting us and to press the severity of Discipline We have many of the Peers against us For they allege if Pseudepiscopacy be taken away one of the Estates is pulled down c. Now how easy had it been for him to have stopt the mouths of these Peers by telling them that it was taken away already by this Act of Parliament What a dunce was the L. Glamis Chancellor of Scotland by consequence one obliged by his station to understand something I think of the Laws of the Nation and all those whom he consulted about the Letter he wrote to the same Beza that neither he nor they knew any thing of this Act of Parliament but told the Gentleman bluntly that Episcopacy subsisted by Law That the Prelates made one of the three Estates that nothing could be done in Parliament without them and that the Legal Establishment of the Order and its lying so very near the foundation of the Civil Constitution made it extremely dangerous to alter it far more to abolish it But what needs more Let the Reader cast back his eyes on the Articles agreed on betwixt the Church and the Nobility and Barons in Iuly 1567 that same year by which it was provided that all the Popish Bishops should be deprived and that Superintendents should succeed in their places And then let him consider if it be probable that Episcopacy was Condemned by this Act of Parliament But G. R. continues I hope says he none will affirm that Prelatical Iurisdiction then was or was soon after Established in the Protestant Church of Scotland Was not our Author pretty forward at hoping Will none affirm it I do affirm it and I do affirm that if our Author had but lookt to the very next Act of that Parliament the seventh in number nay if he had but cast his eye some ten lines upward in that same 43. page of Calderwoods History he would have seen the Prelacy of
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
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
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
endure the Tryal of their own Test. And this brings me to Enquire whither they have stuck so precisely by the principles of our Reformers that they are in Bona Fide to insist on such a Topick And I think they will not be found to be so if I can make it appear that they have Notoriously deserted the principles of our Reformers I. In the Faith II. In the Worship III. In the Discipline And IV. In the Government of the Church I. I say they have forsaken our Reformers as to the Faith of the Church Our Reformers digested a Confession of Faith Anno 1560. They got it Ratifyed in Parliament that same year It was again Ratifyed Anno 1567. and in many subsequent Parliaments It continued still to be the publick Authorized Standard of the Faith of this National Church for more than eighty years Our Reformers design'd it to be a perpetual and unalterable Standard of the Faith of this National Church for ever When the Barons and Ministers gave in their Petition to the Parliament for ane Establishment of the Reformation Anno 1560. They were called upon and Commandment given unto them to draw into plain and several Heads the sum of that Doctrine which they would maintain and would desire the Parliament to Establish as wholesome true and only necessary to be believed and to be received within the Realm And they willingly accepted the Command and within four days presented the Confession which was Ratified and that its Establishment might pass with the greater solemnity and formality of Law The Earl Marshal protested that it might never be altered Yet now Our Presbyterian Brethren have set up a quite different Standard of Faith namely the Westminster Confession and have got it now Ratifyed by this current Parliament Anno 1690. it was never before Ratified by Act of Parliament I call it a quite different Standard of Faith Indeed whosoever diligently compares both Confessions shall readily find it such He shall not only find many things kept out of the Westminster Confession which are in the Confession of our Reformers and many things put in the Westminster Confession which were not in the Confession of our Reformers and many things nicely minutely precisely and peremptorily determined and that in the most Mysterious matters in the Westminster Confession which our Reformers thought fit as was indeed proper to express in very General and Accommodable Terms But he shall meet with not a few plain evident and irreconcileable Contradictions And now by this present Parliament in its Last Session particularly upon the twelfth day of Iune Anno 1693 it is statuted and ordained That no Person be admitted or continued for hereafter to be a Minister or Preacher within this Church unless he subscribe the Westminster Confession declaring it to be the Confession of his Faith and that he owns the Doctrine therein contained to be the true Doctrine to which he will constantly adhere And by unavoidable consequence he is bound to subscribe to and own God knows how many propositions not only not required nor professed by our Reformers but directly contrary to their Faith and principles And now let the world judge if our Presbyterian Brethren are the Successors of our Reformers in point of Faith II. They have forsaken them yet more in the point of Worship and here a vast field opens For to this head I reduce artificially or inartificially is no great matter if I adduce nothing but wherein our Brethren have deserted our Reformers the publick Prayers the publick Praises the publick Preaching of the word the administration of the Sacraments c. with all their Ceremonies Solemnities and Circumstances c. Generally whatever uses to be comprehended in Liturgies 1. In the General our Reformers were far from Condemning Liturgies or Set-Forms in the publick Offices of the Church There 's nothing more plain than that they preferred publick Composures to these that were private Composures digested by the publick Spirit of the Church to Composures digested by the private Spirit of particular Ministers and Premeditated and well digested Composures tho' performed by private persons to the too frequently Rash indigested incomposed performances of the Extemporary Gift They preferred Offices which were the productions of grave sedate well pondered thoughts to Offices which were mostly the productions of Animal Heat and warmth of Fancy Iohn Knox himself one who had as much Fire in his temper and was as much inclined to have given scope to the Extemporary Spirit I am apt to think as any of our Reformers had even a set form of Grace or Thanksgiving after meat he had a set-form of Prayer for the publick after Sermon and he had set-forms of Prayers read every day in his Family In conformity to this principle ouâ— Reformers for seven years together used the Liturgy of the Church of England as I have fully proven When by the importunity and perswasions of Iohn Knox principally I am sure if not only they resolved to part with the English Liturgy they continued still as far as ever from Condemning Liturgies They did not lay it aside to take up none They choosed another to succeed it they choosed that which went then generally under the name of the Order of Geneva or the Book of Common Order Since under the name of Knox's Liturgie or the Old Scottish Liturgie This Liturgie continued in use not only all the time the Government of the Church subsisted by Imparity after the Reformation But even for many Decads of years after the Presbyterian Spirit and Party turn'd prevalent It was so universally received and used and in so good esteem that when it was moved by some in the Assembly holden at Burnt-Island in March Anno 1601. That there were sundry Prayers in it which were not convenient for these times and a change was desirable the Assembly rejected the motion and Thought good that the Prayers already contained in the Book should neither be altered nor deleted But if any Brother would have any other Prayers added as more proper for the times they should first present them to be tryed and allowed by the General Assembly Here indeed was caution and concern about the publick worship worthy of a General Assembly Nay The First-Rate Presbyterians themselves used the Book as punctually as any other People When Mr. Robert Bruce of whose zeal for the good cause no Man I think can doubt was relegated to Innerness Anno 1605. He remained there four years Teaching every Sabbath before noon and every Wednesday And exercised at the Reading of the Prayers every other night And Master Iohn Strimgeour another prime Champion for the cause when he appeared before the High Commission March 1. Anno 1620 and was challenged for not putting in practice the five Articles of Perth Particularly for not Ministering the Eucharist to the People on their knees answered there is no warrantable form directed or approven by the Kirk besides that
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
First Book of Discipline Head 9. We think necessary that every Church have a Bible in English and that the People conveen to hear the Scriptures Read and Interpreted that by frequent Reading and Hearing the gross ignorance of the People may be removed And we judge it most expedient that the Scriptures be read in order that is that some one Book of the Old and New Testament be begun and followed forth to the end For a good many years after the Reformation there was ane order of men called Readers who supplyed the want of Ministers in many Parishes Their Office was to Read the Scriptures and the Common Prayers The Scriptures continued to be Read in Churches for more than eighty years after the Reformation In many Parishes the old Bibles are still extant from which the Scriptures were Read Even the Directory it self introduced not before the year 1645. appointed the Scriptures to be Read publickly in Churches one Chapter out of each Testament at least every Sunday before Sermon as being part of the publick worship of God and one meanâ— Sanctified by him for the Edifying of his People Yet now what a Scandal would it be to have the Scriptures Read in the Presbyterian Churches The last days Sermons taken from the mouth of the powerful Preacher by the inspired singers of Godly George or Gracious Barbara in some Churches of no mean Note have been Deem'd more Edifying than the Divine Oracles The Scriptures must not be touched but by the Man of God who can interpret them And he must Read no more than he is just then to interpret What shall I say Let Protestant Divines Cant as they please about the Perspicuity of the Scriptures 't is a dangerous thing to have them Read publickly without Orthodox Glosses to keep them close and true to the principles of the Godly And who knows but it might be expedient to wrap them up again in the unknown tongue But enough of this 2. As for Sermons c. The First Book of Discipline gives us the sentiment of our Reformers thus The Sunday in all Towns must precisely be observed before and after noon before noon the word must be Preached Sacraments Administred c. After noon the Catechism must be taught and the young Children examined thereupon in audience of all the People This continued the manner of the Church of Scotland for full twenty years after the Reformation For I find no mention of afternoons Sermons till the year 1580 that it was enacted by that same General Assembly which Condemned Episcopacy That all Pastors or Ministers should Diligently travel with their Flocks to conveen unto Sermon after noon on Sunday Both they that are in Landward and in Burgh as they will answer unto God The whole Kingdom knows Lectures before the forenoons Sermon were not introduced till the days of the Covenant and Directory Yet now a mighty stress is laid upon them and I my self have been told that they were one good Reason for forsaking the Episcopal Communion where they were not used and going over to the Presbyterians where they were to be had I am not to condemn a diligent instruction of the People But to speak freely I am very much perswaded the Method of our Reformers in having but one Sermon and Catechising after noon was every way as effectual for Instructing the People in the substantial knowledge of our Holy Religion and pressing the practice of it as any method has been in use since Much more might be said on this subject But from what I have said 't is plain there is a great Dissimilitude between our Modern Presbyterian and our Reformers even in this point and that is enough for my purpose 4. They have as little stuck by the Pattern of our Reformers in the Office of Praise Our Reformers beside the Psalms of David had and used several other Hymns in Metre They had the Ten Commandments the Lords Prayer the Creed Veni Creator the humble suit of a sinner the Lamentation of a sinner the Complaint of a sinner the Magnificat the Nunc Dimittis c. They never used to conclude their Psalms without some Christian Doxology The Gloria Patri was most generally used In the old Psalm Book it is turn'd into all the different kinds of Measures into which the Psalms of David are put that it might still succeed in the conclusion without changing the Tune It was so generally used that as Doctor Burnet in his Second Conference tells us even a Presbyterian General took it in very ill part when it begun to be disused Yet now nothing in use with our present Presbyterians but the Psalms of David and these too for the most part without Discrimination The Gloria Patri recovered from Desuetude at the last Restitution of Episcopacy and generally used in the Episcopal Assemblies these thirty years past was a Mighty Scandal to them So great that even such as came to Church hang'd their Heads and sate silent generally when it came to that part of the Office Having mentioned Doctor Burnet's Conferences I will transcribe his whole Period because some other things than the Gloria Patri are concerned in it When some Designers says he for popularity in the Western Parts of that Kirk did begin to disuse the Lord Prayer in worship and the singing the conclusion or Doxologie after the Psalm and the Ministers kneeling for Private Devotion when he entered the Pulpit the General Assembly took this in very ill part And in the Letter they wrote to the Presbyteries complained sadly of a Spirit of Innovation was beginning to get into the Kirk and to throw these Laudible practices out of it mentioning the three I named which are commanded still to be practiced and such as refused Obedience are appointed to be conferred with in order to the giving of them satisfaction And if they continued untractable the Presbyteries were to proceed against them as they should be answerable to the next General Assembly Thus he and this Letter he said he could produce Authentically Attested I doubt not he found it amongst his Uncle Waristown's Papers who was Scribe to the Rampant Assemblies from the year 1638 and downward I wish the Doctor had been at pains to have published more of them If he had imployed himself that way I am apt to think he had done his Native Countrey better service than he has done her Sister Kingdom by publishing Pastoral Letters to be used he knows how But even from what he has given us We may see how much the disusing of the Lords Prayer and the Doxologie is a late Innovation as well as a Recession from the Pattern of our Reformers And as for the decent and Laudable custom of kneeling for private Devotion used by the Minister when he entered the Pulpit It may be reckoned 5. Another Presbyterian late Recession It is certain it was used by our Reformers It is as certain it continued in use till