been formerly Instruments to bring us under Popery and Slavery and whether this be not such a Reflexion on the present Government as does concern it to Punish severely I leave my Reader to judge since to accuse the Chief Ministers of State under any Government of such odious Crimes as Enslaving their Country is a direct Insinuation against the Government it self as if it by employing such kind of Instruments did really design those Mischiefs against the Nation with which they upbraid their Chief Ministers of State And here I cannot enough admire the Impudence of this Author to quarrel with the English Peers for medling in the Affairs of the Church of Scotland when he very well knows that the greatest Encouragement and Support the Presbyterian Party in that Kingdom have is from the inâ—…luence of some foreign Presbyterians And I would gladly know why an English Nobleman has not as good Right to concern himself in the Affairs of our Church as any Dutch Presbyterian But to take off all Church of England men from having any Pity or Compassion upon the Distressed State of our Church he endeavours to perswade them that the Constitution of Episcopacy in Scotland is so very sar disferent from that of England that although our Clergy are Sufferers sor the Primitive and Apostolical Government of Episcopacy by Law established in that Nation yet they cannot be said â—…o suffer for the Government and Discipline of the Church of England and so not deserve that Fellow-feeling and Countenance which some worthy Members of her Communion are pleased to shew them His first Instance to shew the dâ—…erence betwixt the two Constâ—…tutions is this That ours in Scotland was 〈◊〉 upon us by the Tyrâ—…nny of our 〈◊〉 Now suppose his Asseâ—…tion were tâ—…ue yet methinks 't is a very odd consequence that two Constitutions must needs be disferent in their Nature because disferent means were used to setâ—…le them in a Nation Could not the Tyranny of our Rulers have forced upon us the same Constitution with that of England as easily as one that is disferent But his Assertion is as notoriously false as the Consequence he endeavours to draw from it for in the Insancy of the Reformation our Church was governed by Bishops and Supâ—…rintendents and that form of Government was appâ—…oved of by the Unâ—…nimous Consent of the whole Nation both Clergy and Laiâ—…y* And as to these later Times our publick Records of Parliament can yet testifie that the Episcopal Government was so far from being sorced upon the Nation against their Will and Consent that it has been established and confirmed by Twenty seven successive Legal Paâ—…liaments It 's known that at the Restoration of the Royal Family the whole Nation having long groaned undâ—… the Yoke of 〈◊〉 they were very desirous to have their Primitive and Ancient Government of Episcopacy restored that they might be rescued fâ—…om the Tyranny and Confusion of the Presbyterian Anarchy under which tâ—…y had so severely smarted during their Usurpation and a great many of the Clergy I am sure the whole Diocese of Aberdeen almost to a Man addâ—…essed Hiâ—… Majesty upon this account His next Instance is That Presbytery being Engrafâ—…ed with our Reformation Prelacy could never attain to a kindly nor plenary Possession And to prove this he instances in our retaining of Kirk-Sessiâ—…ns Presbyteries and Synods even under Bishops That the Presbyterian Government had no Settlement in our Church for many Years aâ—…ter the Reformation I shall hereafter prove to the conviction of the most Obstinate But that Presbyters had a great Hand in Reforming us from the Errors and Superstitions of the Romish Church both in Scotland and other Nations where the Reformation happily prevailed is what we do not deny But does it hence follow that because Presbyters were more instrumental than Bishops in Promoting that great Work of the Reâ—…ormation that therefoâ—…e the Presbyterian Government ought to be Established wherever the Reformation obtains and that of Episcopacy overturn'd Or because Presbyters had the Happiness to be concerned in so good a Work does that therefore Authorize them to Usurp the Sacred Oâ—…fice of a Biâ—…hop without bâ—…ing duly Called and Ordained thereto by those whom our Saviour has appointed to convey that Authority Although some Bishops may chance to be backward and negligent in doing their Duty as those Popish Bishops â—…ho opposed the Reformation yet 't is altogether unreasonable that the whole Order should suffer for the Crimes of some particular Members of their Fraâ—…ernity What our Author means by saying Episcopacy never attained to a Plenary Possession among us I do not well apprehend â—…or ' â—…is plain the Constitution of our Episcopacy is such that thâ—… Biâ—…hop is â—…nvested with the sole Power of Ordination and Jurisdiction within his own particular District the whole Presbyters of his Diocese are subject to his Authority and own him for their Chief Governor in Matters purely Spiritual there is no Act of Discipline put in execution by the Inferior Clergy but by the Allowance and Approbation of their Diocâ—…san and I think this is such a full and plenaâ—…y Possession as may justly entitle them even to a through Setâ—…lement As â—…or his Instances of our Kirk-Sessions Presbyteriâ—… Synods Prâ—…vincial and National because this is a part of our Constitution not so very well known here in England I shall trouble my Reader wiâ—… this short account of them That which he calls the Kirk 〈◊〉 iâ—… a Court of Judicature established in every Parish consisting of the Minisâ—…er and some few Laicks of good Reputation that aâ—…e his Parishioners whom he associates to himself for giving him inâ—…ormation of the Manners and Conversation of his People that so he â—…eceiving from these Men exact Information of the state of â—…is Parish all scandalouâ—… and vicious Persons may be brought to condign Punishmâ—…nt The Presbyteries are a sort of Judicatory under the Episcopal Constitution consisting meerly of the Clergy â—…or every Diocese is divided into several Presbyteries each of which consist of about 12 Ministers or thereby some of them being more numerous than others This Judicatory meets at least once a Month and their chief business is to consult and advise about Affairs relating to their several Churchès and to examine the Qualifications of those that design to enter upon the Holy Ministry the Bishop never admiting any to Holy Orders but such as have their Approbation after several Exercises done before them If there happen any Matter of great Consequence and Importance in any Parish which the Minister is not willing to meddle in without the Advice of his Brethren he bâ—…ings it before this Judicatory and laying open the whole matter to them desires their Counsel and Direction how to proceed in such a weighty Affair of Punishing an obstinate Offiender who refuses to submit to the Censures of the Church This kind of Judicatory was not indeed known in our Church till near 26 Years
Assembly could have no such Pretence against those few Episcopal Clergy that â—…esired to be United to them in a share of the Government They were willing I suppose to own the same common Principles of Unity with the Presbyterians in reference to the Discipline of the Church that is to be governed by the major part of all their Assemblies and to submit always to what is carried by a Plurality of Voices in their Meetings though sometimes they themselves when they see it for their Interest destroy this Principle of Unity so fundamentally neceâ—…ary to all Democratical Societies and allow the lesser Number to preponderate the greater as in the Case which happened in the Synod of St. Andrews an 1591 about settling a Minister at Leuchars And this methinks is enough to shew that the Church of England had far more reasonable Grounds to oppose the Comprehension with the Dissenters than the Scots Presbyterians had to reject the desire of the Episcopal Addressers But this Author will needs have the Disadvantage appear wholly on the Church of England's â—…ide and therefore we must consider a little the Reasons he brings for his Assertion His first Reason is Because the King is really the Fountain of all their Church Power as â—…aving the making of the Bishops and does still remain Head of thâ—…ir Church whereas he hath actually renounced Name and Thing in Scotland where the whole Ecolesiastical Jurisdiction is by Law settled in the Church The King is indeed owned by the Church of England to be in his own Dominions Supream over all Persons and in all Causes Civil and Ecclesiastical but that he is the Fountain of all their Church Power is what I believe the most Erastian Principled among them never dreamed Their 37th Article asserts the contrary in as plain words as can be desired where it is said ' ' That they give not to their Princes the Ministring either of God's Word or of the Sacraments but that only Prerogative which they see to have been always given to all godly Princes in holy Scriptures by God himself that is That they should rule all Estates and Degrees committed to their Charge by God whether they be Ecclesiastical or Temporal and restrain with the Civil Sword the stubborn and evil Doers From whence 't is plain that the Church of England in her Articles allows the Civil Magistrate no Power or Jurisdiction in Matters purely Spiritual he cannot Administer the Sacraments nor Consecrate either Bishops or Priests neither can he inflict any Spiritual Censures upon obstinate Offenders The Civil Power may for strengthening the Hands of the Church and making her Discipline the more dreaded and regarded inforce her Spiritual Censures with Secular Punishments but can lay no claim to the Power of the Keys as his own Right It is from him the Church derives that Power of having Civil Penalties inflicted on such as contemn and despise thâ—… Ecclesiastical Censures as in the case of Excommunication which renders the Party excommunicated obnoxious to Temporal Imprisonment and incapacitates him from carrying on any Suit or Action in the Civil Courts The Church cannot by her own Authority use the Civil Sword to punish the stubborn and evil Doers and therefore in so far as the Civil Magistrate extends the Churches Jurisdiction to some Secular Matters and impowers her to inflict Civil Penalties for the better preserving of her Ecclesiastical Discipline the Clergy must own the King to be the Fountain from whence they derive this Power But as for their Spiritual Authority and Jurisdiction which only can be called properly the Church Power they derive it from a higher Original from God himself who is the true â—…ead of our Church and it cannot be conveyed to us by the Hands of any Lay-Person God has instituted a distinct Order of Men in our Church whom he has authorized to transmit this Spiritual Power down through all the Ages of Posterity that there might still be a constant Succession of Pastors and Governors in the Church to administer his Worâ—… and Sacraments to his People And it is from this Sacred Order of the Divine Appointment that our Clergy derive their Spiritual Power it is from their hands they receive Holy Orders and a Power of Ministring in Holy Things and none but they alone can Divest them of this Authority Our Author's Expression of the King 's having the making of the Bishops is somewhat ambiguous If he means that the King is allowed by the Church of England a Power to Consecrate and Separate the Bishops for their Sacred Function it is such a notorious Falshood as needs no Confutation the practice of the Church to the contrary being so visible But if his meaning is That the King has Power to Nominate any Clergy-man to a vacant Bishoprick it is no more than what they themselves allow to the Laity in their popular Elections And if the Laity in these Elections may be allowed to Nominate their own Pastor and Spiritual Guide I see no reason why the Church should be blamed for allowing the King to Nominate and Recommend to them a Person â—…itly Qualiâ—…ied for the Sacred Office of a Bishop especially since 't is to his Bounty they owe all the Temporal Priviledges and Honours which are annexed to the Episcopal Sees The same Power in the external ordering of Spiritual Matters with which the â—…ing is Invested by the Constitutions of this Church and Nation does likewise belong to him by the Laws of Scotland â—…e has the Power of Nominating the Bishops and 't is by his Authority the Clergy of that Kingdom are allowed to meddle in Secular Matters and to inâ—…lict any Civil Penalties upon such as dâ—…spise their Spiritual 〈◊〉 What this Author alledges about the Resâ—…inding of the whole Supremacy in Scâ—…tland by Act of Parliament since this Revolution is a gross mistake as may easily appear fâ—…om this short Narrative thereos By the 129th Act Parl. 8. â—… Jamâ—…s VI. the King 's Royal Prerogative of Supremacy over all Estates as well Spiritual as Temporal is acknowledged and ratiâ—…ied and it iâ—… dâ—…clared That none shall dâ—…cline the â—…ing's Power in 〈◊〉 Premisses under the pain of Treason Thereafter by the â—… Aâ—… 2. Parl. K Charlâ—…s II. there is an Expâ—…ication of this Act and Prerogative whereby it is declared That whatever Constitution the King sâ—…all make concerning the ordâ—…ing and disposing of the external Government of the Church shall be obeyed as Law This last Act was thought to give â—…he King too much Power since he might thereby have aboliâ—…hed the Government of the Church by his own immediate Authority and so there was some pretext for Rescinding this last Act and it is Rescindâ—…d by the first Act of the second Session of Parliament of â—… Wâ—…lliam but the â—…irst Act is not Rescinded and there was an 〈◊〉 Order to the Commissioner not to consent to any Act in prejâ—…dice theâ—…eof So that the King then by virtue
Errors and Superstitions should be allowed to exercise their Spiritual Jurisdiction in the Church and therefore they were excluded therefrom and others of the Reformed Communion being Vested with Episcopal Authority were surrogated in their stead and called by the Name of Superintendents the Sees of the Popish Bishops not being Esteemed void but supplied by Protestant Superintendents who did not enjoy any of the Temporal Priviledges and Honours annexed to the Bishopricks For although the Popish Bishops were restrained from the exercise of their Spiritual Power yet such respect was had to them that they were allowed during their Lives to possess all the Revenues of their Bishopriâ—…ks and to Sit and Vote in Parliament as Peers of the Realm But such of the Bishops as went along with the Reformation were allowed not only to enjoy all their Temporal Priviledges but likewise to exercise their Spiritual Authority in the Church and no Superintendants Named for their Diocefes as was for those of the Popish Bishops Now although we should grant our Author that their Form oâ—… Ordination was not diâ—…ferent yet it cannot be denied that they were invested with the whole Episcopal Authority and Jurisdiction over the Clergy of their several Dioceses which is the only Bugbear in Episcopacy with which the Presbyterians pretend to Quarrel because they Usurp Lordship and Dâ—…minion over their Brethren They were cloathed with full Power of Ordaining Presbyters of Suspending and Deposing them from their Sacred Function of censuring and punishing the Clergy according to their several Crimes and all this they were Authorized to do without asking the Advice or Consent of the rest of the Clergy which is more than our Bishops at present do ‖ All Appeals from Presbyters and the Inferiour Clergy were to be made to the Supâ—…rintendents they were to decide all Controversies in the Discipline of the Church to preside in Synods and to direct the Church Censures inslicted by the rest of the Clergy All the Presbyters within their Dioceses were required under the pain of Deposition to be subject to their Government and Authority and were not allowed without the consent and approbation of the Superintendents to transact any thing of moment in the Church So that they were invested with the whole Power and Jurisdiction that belongs to Bishops and this methinks should be enough to stop the Mouths of the Presbyterian Party who as I have already said exclaim against nothing in this Sacred Order but the Authority which Bishops are allowed to have over the rest of the Cleâ—…gy And as for their Ordinaâ—…ion it seems at lest that it was different from that of other Ministâ—…rs since those who were Nominated to be Superintendants were chose out of the Number of such as had already received the Orders of a Presbyter and yet upon their Election to a Superinâ—…endency they were again solemnly set apart by Prayer for â—…hat Oâ—…ice Now it cannot be imagined that they should again receive the same Orders of a Presbyter which had been already conferred upon them and therefore this second Mission mentioned upon their being chose Superintendents can be meant of nothing else but Episcopal Consecration or something in the sense of the Church at that time equivalent to it They â—…ad long before received the Ordination of Presbyters and now when they were Elected Superintendents they were set apart for that Office by certain solemn Rites and Ceremonies which is a plain Demonstration that they were in a manner Consecrated anew to that Sacred Function Besides it is not to be conceived how they above other Presbyters could be invested with this Power of conferring Orders and exercising other Acts of Jurisdiction which belong only to Bishops unless it were by having this Episcopal Authority conferred upon them by the hands of other Bishops and this they could without any difficulty obtain from the hands of those Bishops in Scotland who had imbraced the Reformed Communion However it is not peremptorily said here that the Ordination of Superintendents to the Episcopal Ofâ—…ice was altogether â—…anonical It is enough for our purpose that they being of new solemnly set apart for a more eminent Oâ—…ice in the Church The Clergy and Laiâ—…y had such a regard for the â—…piscopal Order That they considered the Superintendents as such and payed the same deference to them that formerly was due to the Bishops so that tho their distinct Ordinations would not bâ—… madâ—… evident from Hiâ—…tory to be Canonical yet their Power was undoubtedly Episcopal There is nothing more notoriously false than what this Author urges in the second place against the Superintendents That their Office was Temporary during the Exigence of the Church For in the Form of Church Policy which the Protestant Clergy offered to the Parliament in the year 1561 one of its Heads is concerning Superinâ—…endents and it is there appointed that the Election of Superintendants in after times should be stricter than the present circumstances would allow and the last Head of that Policy prescribes some conditions to be kept in future Elections of 〈◊〉 which is an evident proof that our first Reformers did not look upon the Office of Superintendents only as a Temporary thing The Name I grant indeed to have been temporary and to have laâ—…ted no longer in the Church than during the Natural Lives of the Popish Bishops For while they were alive their Bishopricks with respect to their Temporalities were not esteemed vacant and the Protestants who were set over their Dioceses were called by the Name of Superintendents they not being invested with the Temporal Priviledges of a Bishop but only with the spiritual Authority and Jurisdiction belonging to that Office but upon the Death of the Popish Bishops we find that whosoever was presented to any of these Dioceses now falling void by their Death they were not presented under the Name of Superintendents as thâ—…y had been formerly while the Popish Bishops were alive but had now the Title of Bishops given them and were invested with all the temporalties annexed to the Bishopricks Thus it is we sind in the Infancy of the Reformation both Bishops and Superintendants contemporary in the Church but in a few years after we have no mention of Superintendents and all the Governours of the Church go under the Name of Bishops And this I should think were enough to convince any unbyassed Reader that in those days the Office of Episcopacy and Superintendency were both the same The Third Argument which he brings against the Superintendents is That they were accountable to the Presbyters which is altogether inconsistent with Episcopacy Although Bishops at their first Institution were invested with an Absolute Power over their Flocks independent of any Authority but that of Jesus Christ their Head and were accountable to none for their right Administration of their Office but to him alone Yet in after Ages by a mutual compact among themselves they did agree that for the
better preserving the Unity and Discipline of the Church each Bishop should be accountable for his Administration to the whole Colledge of Bishops And therefore although the Bishops should yield up some of their Right and for the entertaining the better correspondence with the Clergy of their Dioceses condescend to give them an Account of their diligence in the Offices of their Function yet this could not be supposed to degrade them of their Office or make them to be no Bishops We grant that the Superintendents did yearly give an Account of their Diligence in their Functions to a National Synod but this Synod consisted of none but the Superintendents and Bishops of the other Dioceâ—…es and of the most Eminent of the Presbyters who were allowed by the Superintendants to sit in that Meeting There was no Minister permitted to be a Member of that Synod till he was first approved of by the Superintendants as a person sitly qualified to judge of such matters as were brought beâ—…ore that Assembly And I would willingly know of this Author whether the Superintendants were any more aâ—…countable to this National Synod than the Bishops who went along with the Reformation and notwithstanding of this their being accountable were still looked upon as Bishops and left in full possession of all their Temporal and Spiritual Rights which they enjoyed before the Reformation And if those Men who were acknowledged on all hands to be Bishops were as much accountable as the Superintendâ—…nts then it is no Argument that the latter were no Bishops The next instance which this Author brings of the Episcopal Party their bearing an inveterate Malice against the Presbyterians is a long Enumeration of the Laws and Statutes made by King Charles II. and his Parliaments for suppressing the many Seditions and Rebellions raised against his Government by the Presbyterian Faction He sums up all the Acts of Parliament made against that Rebellious Crew and these he highly aggravates as the greatest instances of Cruelty in any Government But as to this point the Learned and Worthy Sir George Mackenzie has quite stopt the Mouths of this clamouring Party by his excellent Treatise wrote in defence of the proceedings of the Government of K. Charles II. against the Presbyterian Dissenters He has there given us a summary account of the mild and calm Methods used by the Government to reclaim this obstinate Party who were even hardned in their Rebellious Principles He shews that the enacting of these Penal â—…aws against them which this Author has scraped together was nothing but what the Governours of any Nation would have been out of absolute necessity forced to do for its safety and security He has collected the most considerable of the pretended instances of Cruelty against particular persons which the Presbyterians do now most grievously complain of and do mostly insist upon in their Railings and Belchings against the Government To all these instances he has given such a full and satisfactory Answer that every impartial Reader must needs own and acknowledge that these persons met with no severity but what their Rebellious and Treasonable Actings against the Government did justly deserve that the punishments inslicted upon them for their opâ—…n and avowed designs of subverting the Monarchy were conform to the Laws of the Nation and the proceedings in their Tryals very fair and legal and that the Methods of proceeding in our Criminal Courts of Scotland which this Author so grosly belies pag. 30. 31. are the fairest and justest and the Pannaâ—…s indulged the greatest advantages for their own defence of any Nation in Europe All which he has clearly demonstrated to the conviction of every disiâ—…teressed person who upon Reading the History of these times will be apt to say that the mildness and clemency of that Government towards the Rebellious Sectaries was its greatest Cruelty So that it is but Labour in vain for this Author to be so sull and copious in relating these sufferings of his Party unless he can disprove what Sir George Mackenzie and others have demonstrated against them of their being guilty of such srequent Seditions and Rebellions against the State as would have provoked the mildest Government on Earth to have quite extirpated them But all the Attempts which either this Author or another who pretends to Answer the Vindication of K. Charles II. Governmâ—…nt makes that way are only some weak esforts upon Sir George's personal â—…ame and Reputation which are sounded upon such a Rock as the greatest Malice of this party is not able to undermine His admirable qualities of Learning Loyalty and Religion have so justly recommended him to the Favour and Esteem of all Virtuouâ—… and Ingenious Men that for these Scriblers to Attempt the blemishing of his â—…ame is to as little purpose as the Dogs barking at thâ—… Moon What this Author alledges against Sir George's ingenuous dealing in his Vindication of Printing some Fanatical Covenants and Declarations published by the Presbyterians and the urging these as â—… ground â—…or enacâ—…ing those severe Laws against them although the Laws werâ—… made long before the publishing of thâ—…se Declarations I say what he alledges on this score is most notoriously false For these Covenants and Declarations were only annexed to Sir Gâ—…orge's Vindication of the Government by the Publisher and that with design to let the World see with what impudence this Party did accuse the Government of severity when it appears from their own Authentick Declarations that they were still peâ—…sisting obstinately in their Wicked and Rebellious Practices against the State There was no necessity of recurring to these Posteriour Declarations of Rebellion to justifie the making of these Laws against the Presbyterians since their former Treaâ—…onable Actings under the Reigns of K. James VI. and K. Charles I. were sufficient grounds to direct the Wisdom of the Nation to enact such Laws as might tend most â—…o suppress the sedition of Rebels and secure the Peace and Quiet of the Kingdom Their srequent Insurrections against K. Jamâ—…s VI. in laying violent hands on his person at the Castle of Ruthven in the year 1582 and keeping him Prisoner thâ—…re for several Months together in raising an Army against him in the year 1585 in the South parts of the Kingdom and advancing therewith streight towards Stâ—…rlin where the King then was and in tumultuously getting to Arms at Edinburgh and there Besieging the Session-House where the King and his Counsellors were met together and by that Insurrection had like to have done considerable mischief had not their Rage been stopt by the Loyalty of some Citizens who instantly Assembled together in Defence of the King's Person and the many other Commotions they raised against his Government by their Seditious Libels and Sermons besides that the whole Reign of King Charles the First that moâ—…t just and clement Prince was nothing else but a perpetual Succession of Rebellions raised against him by these Presbyterian Votaries I say all these