Britain as our Presbyterian Brethren are earnest to have the present Generation believe Again Pag. 449 The Author Narrating how Henry Queen Mary's Husband c was buried Adds in Confirmation of his own Veracity Thus. If there had been any Solemn Burial Buchanan had wanted Wit to Relate otherwise Seeing there would have been so many Witnesses to testify the Contrary Therefore the Contriver of the late History of Queen Mary wanted Policy here to convey a Lie Thus I say the Author vouches Buchanans Authority And it must be Buchanans History that he Refers to For there 's not a Syllable about Henry's Burial to be found in any of his other writings Now Not to insist on the incredibleness of Knox's running for Shelter to Buchanans Authority concerning a matter of Fact so remarkable in its self and which happened in his own time in that very City in which he lived and was Minister Not to insist on this I say Buchanan himself in his Dedication of his History to King Iames 6th Clearly decides the matter He tells his Majesty there were two Considerations which chiefly put him upon writing his History First He perceived his Majesty had Read and Understood the Histories of almost all other Nations And it was incongruous and unaccountable that he who was so well acquainted with Foreign Affairs should be a Stranger to the History of his own Kingdom Secondly He was intrusted with the Kings Education He could not attend his Majesty in that important Office by Reason of his Old Age and Multiplying infirmities He applyed himself therefore to write his History thereby to Compense the Defects of his Non-Attendance c. And from both Reasons it is evident that Knox was Dead before Buchannan applyed himself to the writing of his History For Knox dyed Anno 1572. K. Iames was then but Six years of Age And is it Credible that at that Age he had Read and got by heart the Histories of almost all other Nations Indeed Buchanan survived Knox by ten years And for a good many of them was able to wait and actually waited on the King So that 't is clear 't was towards the end of his days and after Knox's Death that he applyed himself to his History And 't is very well known it was never published till the year 1582. But this is not all The Author of that which is called Knox's History adduces Buchanan's Authority for Convelling the Credit of the Contriver of the Late History of Queen Mary which was written I cannot tell how long after Buchanan was Dead as well as Knox. Further Pag. 306. The Author discourses thus The Books of Discipline have been of late so often published that we shall forbear to print them at this time Now there were never more than two Books of Discipline and the Second was not so much as projected till the year 1576 i. e. 4 years after Knox had departed this life Once more Pag. 286. We read thus Some in France after the sudden Death of Francis the Second and calling to mind the Death of Charles the Ninth in Blood and the Slaughter of Henry the Second did Remark the Tragical ends of these three Princes who had persecuted Gods Servants so cruelly And indeed the following Kings of France unto this day have found this true by their unfortunate and unexpected Ends. Now Charles the Ninth died not till the 30th of May Anno 1574. i. e. 18 Months after Knox. The following Kings of France who made the Vnfortunate and unexpected Ends were Henry the Third and Henry the Fourth Henry the Third was not Murthered till the year 1589. Henry the Fourth not till May 1610. The former 17 the latter 38 years after the Death of Knox. From this Taste it is clear that that History at least as we now have it was not written by Knox. All that can be said with any Shadow of probability is that Knox provided some Materials for it But Granting this how shall we be able to separate that which is Spurious in it from that which is Genuine All I can say is this 'T is plain to every one that Reads it That he has been a thorough-paced Presbyterian who framed it as we have it By Consequence its Authority is stark naught for any thing in it that favours Presbytery or bespatters Prelacy And if it ought to have any credit at all it is only where the Controversies about Church Government are no ways interested or where it mentions any thing that may be improven to the Advantages of Episcopacy just as the Testimonies of Adversaries are useful for the interests of the opposite party and not an Aâ—e farther So that I had reason if any Man can have it to insist on its Authority as I have frequently done But no Presbyterian can in equity either plead or be allowed the same priviledge I could give the Reader a surfeit of instances which cannot but appear to any considering person to be plain and notorious Presbyterian corruptions in it But I shall only represent One as being of considerable importance in the Controversie which I have managed in my Second Enquiry and by that the Reader may make a Judgment of the Authors Candor and Integrity in other things The English Non-conformists zealous to be rid of the Vestments and some other Forms and Ceremonies retained by the Church of England which they reckoned to be scandalous impositions wrote earnestly as is known to several Reformed Churches and Protestant Divines beseeching them to interpose with the Church of England for an ease of these burdens It seems they wrote to some in Scotland also probably to Mr. Knox He was of their acquaintance and they could not but be secure enough of his inclinations considering how warm he had been about these matters at Francfort However it was the Church of Scotland did actually interpose The General Assembly met at Edenburgh Decem. 27. Anno 1566 ordered Iohn Knox to draw a Letter to the English Clergy in favour of those Non-conformists This Letter was subscribed and sent Now consider the Tricks of the Author of the History attributed to Knox. The Inscription of the Letter as it is in Spotswood Petrie and the Manuscript Copy of the Acts of the General Assembly's is this The Superintendents Ministers and Commissioners of the Church within the Realm of Scotland To their Brethren the Bishops and Pastors of England who have renounced the Roman Antichrist and do profess with them the Lord Iesus in sincerity wish the increase of the Holy Spirit Thus I say Spotswoâ—d hath it pag. 198. And the MS. and Petrie Tom. 2. p. 348. have it in the same words only where Spotswood hath wish they have desire which makes no material Difference But the spurious Knox has it thus pag. 445. The Superintendents with other Ministers and Commissioners of the Church of God in the Kingdom of Scotland To their Brethren the Bishops and Pastors of Gods Church in England who profess with us
mistake not it may try his Reconciling Skill to make what he says here and what he said on these occasions piece well together Proceed we now to what he has said more about Strachan's Defence The Nations Representative says he had then own'd him W. as their King and therefore it was a contempt of the Authority of the Nation for any man to refuse to own him when called to do so Now what could move our Author to such a stretch of his main Talent as thus to say that the Representative of the Nation had owned him as their King I confess I am not able to fathom For how could they own him as King so long as he had not taken the Oath nor Agreed to the Claim of Right If they own'd him as King before that was he not King before that But if he was King before that where is the use of the Oath or the Claim of Right The Estates indeed upon the 11 th of April Declared W. and M. to be the Persons to whom they had resolved to Offer the Crown upon such and such Conditions as is evident from that day's Proclamation But the â—etter of the Estates by which they actually made the Offer of the Crown on these Conditions was not written till April 24. and the return bearing that They had Accepted of the Crown on these Conditions is dated May 17. And was not Doctor Strachan Deprived even before the Letter of the Estates was sent to London Were not more than 24 Ministers Deprived before their Majesties return came to Edenburgh Besides G. R.'s Impudence as sturdy as it is did not serve him it seems to give a faithful Account of D. Strachan's Defence and grapple with all the force of it For the Doctor if the Author of the Second Letter was right made the supposition that W. and M. might refuse to take the Crown with such Conditions This was so far from being ane Impossible that it was truly a very Reasonable a very Equitable a very Dutiful supposition Now suppose they had done so would they have been K. and Q. for all that by vertue of the Declaration of the Estates of the 11 th of April If so I ask again what the Coronation Oath or the Claim of Right signified Or were the Estates to make them K. and Q. whither they would or not If upon that supposition they had not been K. and Q. as undoubtedly they had not been then what can be more evident than that the Proclamation of the 11 th of April did no more than Nominate them to be K. and Q. upon their Agreeing to such Conditions So that G. R. was even himself when he said that the Nations Representative had own'd them as K. and Q. before the 13 th of April I add further What tho' they had own'd them as K. and Q. by their Proclamation of the 11 th of April Did not the whole Drift the whole Design the whole Train the whole Tendency the whole Aspect and the whole Circumstances of the Deliberations Resolutions and Conclusions of the Estates evidently propose it to the dullest apprehension that the Crown was not to be granted to them but on such and such Conditions This Question I propose for vindicating D. Strachan from the guilt of Contempt of the Authority of the Estates with which G. R. charges him For if the affirmative in the Question be true and I think G. R. himself dares not to say 't is false then I ask how it could be called a Contempt of the Authority of the Nation to have refused then to own W. and M. as K. and Q. How can he be said to Contemn the Authority of the Nation who Reasons upon the Nations Authority Who Reasons upon the Force of all the Deliberations Resolutions and Conclusions of the Representative Body of the Nation If doing so he doth yet Contemn the Authority of the Nation I am apt to think it cannot be his Fault He doth but what a man must needs do when the Nation makes Repugnant and Contradictory Determinations But after all this is it not pleasant that G. R. forsooth should so zealously exaggerate the Crime of Contemning the Authority of the Nation Good Man He paid it a wonderful Dutifulness all his life Far was it still from him to treat it with such Contempt as Dr. Strachan's amounted to But he has not yet done He Answers further that it is a Material mistake of the words of the Claim of Right that was alledged in Strachan's Defence which doth not say none can be King or Queen but that none can exercise the Regal Power till they have taken the Coronation Oath It is certain that on the death of a King his Rightful Successor is King and may be prayed for as such and such praying may be injoined even before taking of the Oath The same may be said of one Chosen and Proclaim'd by the Supreme Authority of the Nation which is the Case now in hand Here is a piece of as odd stuff as one would wish to see For if it was a Material mistake to say none can be King or Queen when it should have been said none can exercise the Regal Power it seems to me to have been a mistake made of very Mathematical Matter not of the solid sensible Matter which can be felt and handled For my part I cannot forbear thinking it must be compounded of Negative Quantities till I shall learn how one can be a King i. e. a Person who has Right to Rule and Act as King who has yet no Right to exercise the Regal Power or Act as King I know one may be Physically incapable of exercising the Regal Power and Acting as King by himself in several Cases such as that of Infancy c. yet even then he has Right which is not a Physical but a Moral Quality Now I say I would fain understand how one can be a King without this Moral Quality or how he can have this Moral Quality called Right and yet be Morally incapable of exercising it I shall own G. R. is good at Metaphysicks if he can give ane Intelligible Account of these things Well! But it is certain that on the death of a King his Rightful Successor is King and may be Prayed for as such and such Praying may be injoyned even before taking of the Oath All this is true But then I affirm it is as true that that Rightful Successor who is King may and can exercise the Regal Power and Act as King before he takes the Oath So I am sure our Scottish Monarchs have done So the Law allows them to do so of necessity they must do For instance they are not bound by Law to take the Oath but at their Coronation And not to speak of other things I think it is truly ane exercising of their Regal Power and Acting as Kings to appoint the preparations for the day the place the solemnities c. of their own
of England e. g. Friar Alexander Seaton when he was forced to flee in King Iames the 5th's time went to England and became the Duke of Suffolk's Chaplain and died in that service Alexander Aless was in great favour with King Henry and called the King's Schollar He was a Member of the English Convocation and disputed against Stokesly Bishop of London and maintain'd there were but two Sacraments Baptism and the Eucharist Anno 1536 or 37 And he it was that first turn'd the English Liturgy into Latin for Bucer's use Anno 1549 as both Heylin and Burnet in their Histories of the English Reformation tell us Iohn Fife and one M' Dowdal stayed as long in England as Aless did And 't is not to be doubted that they were of the same principles Iohn M' Bee during his abode in England was liberally entertained by Nicol. Saxton Bishop of Salisbury who made much account of him which is no argument I think that he was a Presbyterian Sir Iohn Borthwick was charged with Heresie Anno 1640 for maintaining That the Heresies commonly called the Heresies of England and their New Liturgy was Commendable and to be embraced of all Christians And That the Church of Scotland ought to be govern'd after the manner of the Church of England i. e. under the King and not the Pope as Supreme Governor Friar Thomas Guillam the first publick Preacher of the Reformed Religion in Scotland He by whose Sermons Iohn Knox got the first lively impressions of the Truth This Guillam I say after Arran the Regent Apostatized withdrew and went into England and we hear no more of him From which 't is reasonable to conclude That he kept the Common Course with the other Reformers there Iohn Rough was the Regents other Chaplain while he was Protestant He likewise fled to England tho sometime after Guillam He preached some years in the Towns of Carlisle Berwick and Newcastle and was afterwards provided to a Benefice by the Archbishop of York where he lived till the Death of King Edward When Mary's Persecution turn'd warm he fled and lived some time in Freesland He came to London about some business Anno 1557. was apprehended and brought before Bonner Questioned if he had preached any since he came to England Answered he had preached none But in some places where godly people were Assembled He had read the Prayers of the Communion Book set forth in the Reign of King Ed. VI. Question'd again what his Judgment was of that Book Answered He approved it as agreeing in all points with the word of God And so suffered Martyrdom I think this man was neither for Parity nor against Liturgies But to proceed The excellent Mr. Wishart as he had spent some time in England as was told before so it seems he returned to Scotland of English I am confident not of Presbyterian Principles For he was not only for the Lawfulness of Private Communion as appeared by his practice but Knox gives us fair intimations that he ministred it by a Set-form I know King Edward's Liturgy was not then composed But it is not to be imagined That the Reformers in England in Wishart's time administred the Sacrament without a Set-form The Extemporary Spirit was not then in vogue And why else could Sir Iohn Borthwick have been charged with the Great Heresy of Commending the English Liturgy However I shall not be peremptory because I have not the opportunity of enquiring at present what Forms the English Reformers had then All I shall say is if they had a Liturgy 't is very probable Wishart used it For as Knox tells us when he celebrated the Eucharist before his Execution After he had blessed the Bread and Wine he took the Bread and Brake it and gave to every one of it bidding each of them Remember that Christ had died for them and feed on it spiritually so taking the Cup he bade them Remember that Christs Blood was shed for them c. So Knox word for word which account I think seems fairly to intimate that Wishart used a Form but if he did what other could it be than such as he had learned in England I have accounted already how Iohn Willock and William Harlaw had served in the English Church before they came to Scotland I might perhaps make a fuller Collection But what needs more Even Knox himself lived in Communion with the Church of England all the time he was in that Kingdom He went not there to keep Conventicles to erect Altar against Altar to gather Churches out of the Church of England to set up separate and schismatical Churches as some of our present Parity-men have sometimes done No he preached in the publick Churches and in subordination to the Bishops and he preached before King Edward himself as he himself tell us in his Admonition to the Professors of the Truth in England which it is very improbable he would have been allowed to have done if he had Condemned the Communion of the Church of England as it was then established For who knows not that in King Edwards time all Schism and Non-Conformity were sufficiently discouraged And through that whole Admonition he still speaks of himself as One of the Ministers of the Church of England Nay If it be Reasonable to Collect mens Sentiments from their Reasonings I am sure in that same Admonition I have enough for my purpose For he reasons upon suppositions and from Principles which clearly condemned Separation from the Church of England as then established For when he gives his thoughts of that fatal Discord which happened between the two great men Somerset and the Admiral as I take it He discourses thus God compelled my tongue says he openly to declare That the Devil and his Ministers the Papists Intended only the Subversion of Gods true Religion by that Mortal Hatred amongst those who ought to have been most assuredly Knit together by Christian Charity And especially that the wicked and envious Papists by that ungodly Breach of Charity diligently minded the overthrow of him Somerset that to his own Destruction procured the Death of his innocent friend and Brother All this trouble was devised by the Devil and his instruments to stop and lett Christ's Disciples and their poor Boat i. e. the Church What can be more plain I say than that Knox here proceeds on suppositions and reasons from Principles which condemned Separation from the Church of England as then established Doth he not suppose that the Church of England as then established was Christ's Boat his Church And that the Sons of the Church of England were Christ's Disciples Doth he not suppose that these two Brothers as Sons of the Church of England ought to have been assuredly knit together by Christian Charity That the Breach between them was ane ungodly Breach of that Charity by which Members of that same Church ought to have been assuredly knit together And