to take the Test and had generally done it That the Clergy stood all for Episcopacy There being of about a thousand scarcely twenty Trimmers betwixt the Bishop and the Presbyterian Moderator which twenty together with all the Presbyterian Preachers could not make up the fifth part of such a number as the other side amounted to That in all the Vniversities there were not four Masters Heads or Fellows inclined to Presbytery That the Colleges of Iustice and Physick at Edenburgh were so averse from it that the Generality of them were ready last Summer viz. 1689 to take Arms in defence of their Episcopal Ministers c. This Book was published I think in the beginning of the year 1690. What greater Demonstration could any Man desire of the truth of the Negative if all here alleged was true And what greater Argument of the truth of every one of the Allegations than the Confession of a right uncourteous Adversary G. R. I mean who in Answer to this Book wrote his first Vindication of the Church of Scotland as it is now by Law Established as he calls it Published at London about the end of the year 1690 and Reprinted at Edenburgh in the beginning of 1691. But did he indeed acknowledge the truth of all the Allegations Yes he did it Notoriously He yielded to his Adversary all the gang if the Clergy except a few The Vniversities and the College of Iustice at least as lately stated He was not so frank to part with the Physicians indeed because if we may take his word for it There are not a few worthy Men of that Faculty who are far from Inclinations towards Prelacy But he durst not say it seems that either the major part or any thing near the half was for him He also yielded the Generlity of the Burgesses All the dust he raised was about the Nobility and Gentry But what nasty dust it was let any sensible man consider As for the Nobility he granted there were only a few who took not the Test But then he had three things to say for them who took it 1. They who took the Oaths did not by that shew their inclination so much as what they thought fit to comply with rather than suffer But what were they to suffer if they took not the Oaths The loss of their vote in Parliament and a small fine which was seldom if at any time exacted But if they were to suffer no more could their Fears of such sufferings force them to take Oaths so contrary to their inclinations Abstracting from the impiety of mocking God and the wretchedness of crossing ones light which are conspicuous in swearing against mens perswasions could such sufferings as these incline any man to swear to support ane interest which he lookt on as so great and insupportable a Grievance and Trouble to the Nation But this is not all for he added 2. How many of these now when there is no force on them shew that it was not choice but necessity that led them that way I know he meant that many of these Nobles have now broken through these Oaths Let them Answer for that But what had he to do in this case with his old friend Necessity What Necessity can force a man to do ane ill thing Besides can he prove that it was Choice and not that same kind of Necessity that led them in the way they have lately followed That men can be for this thing to day and the contrary to morrow is a great presumption that they do not much regard either But I think it will be a little hard to draw from it that they look upon the one as a great and insupportable Grievance more than the other But the best follows 3. Many who seem to make Conscience of these Bonds yet shew no inclination to the thing they are bound to except by the constraint that they brought themselves under After this what may not our Author make ane Argument that Prelacy is such ane ill-lik't thing as he would have it Seeing he has got even them to hate it who are Conscientiously for it Neither is he less pleasant about the Gentry He acknowledges they as generally took the Test which was enough for his Adversary as hath appeared But how treats he the other Topick about their not going to the Presbyterian Meetings when they had King Iames his Toleration for it Why A silly Argument Why so Many did go But did his Adversary lie grossely or calumniate when he said that not 50 Gentlemen in all the Kingdom out of the West forsook their Parish Churches and went to Conventicles Our Vindicator durst not say he did And has he not made it evident that it was a silly Argument But Most other clave to the former way he means the Episcopal Communion Because the Law stood for it and the Meeting-houses seem'd to be of uncertain continuance But would they have cleaved to the former way if they had thought it a great and insupportable Grievance and Trouble Would they have so crossed their Inclinations as to have Adhered to the Communion of the Episcopal Church when it was evident the sting was taken out of the Law and it was not to be put in Execution Were they so fond or so affraid of a lifeless Law if I may so call it that they would needs conform to it tho' they had no inclination for such conformity Tho' what they conform'd with in obedience to that Law was a great and insupportable Grievance to them Did our Author and his Party reckon upon these Gentlemen then as Presbyterians And what tho' the Meetings seem'd to be of uncertain continuance How many of the Presbyterian Party said in those days that they thought themselves bound to take the Benefit of the Toleration tho' it should be but of short continuance And that they could return to the Church when it should be retracted Might not all men have said and done so if they had been as much Presbyterians 'T is true our Author has some other things on this subject in that first Vindication But I shall consider them afterwards This was G. R.'s first Essay on this Controversie Another Parity man finding belike that neither the Plain Dealer nor the Vindicator had gained much credit by their performances thought it not inconvenient for the service of his Sect to publish a Book Entituled A further Vindication of the present Government of the Church of Scotland And therein to produce his Arguments for Determining this Controversie It was Printed in September I think in the year 1691. 'T is true he wrote something like a Gentleman and spake discreetly of the Episcopal Clergy He had no scolding in his Book and was infinitely far from G. R.'s flat Railwifery And I think my self obliged to thank him for his civility But after all this when he came to his Arguments for proving the point about the Inclinations of the People I did not think that he
concern'd for is this that If they kept a Correspondence there at that time if they got encouragement or Advice thence to comply with the Toleration If they were instructed to comply with it in subserviency to the ensuing Revolution If these things were I say then what a villany was it in them to Address to K. I. in such a manner If they had known nothing of any Designs for setting him beside his Throne If they had been privy to no intriques against him If it had been nothing but a surprize occasioned by such ane unexpected Liberty that prevailed with them to Address to him in such Terms as they did on that occasion something might have been pleaded to extenuate their guilt at least tho' they had complyed with the Designs of the Revolution afterwards when they saw it prevailing Their Ignorance of Intrigues and the Politick Designs were then on foot and the possibility of their having been sincere when they Addressed so to him might have been pleaded in Alleviation of the Dishonesty of their not performing what they promised in their Address And it might have passed on with the common croud of infirmities which usually surprize men of weak resolution in such Critical junctures But to be on Plots and Intrigues against him To snatch at his Concessions that they might be in a condition to ruine him and in the mean time to make such protestations to him to flatter and cajole him at such a rate meerly of Design to wheedle him into a deep security that they might the more expeditely and effectually supplant and ruine him was such ane instance of iniquity of Antichristian craft of rank and vile cheatry as can scarcely be parallell'd in History And so I leave it Thus I have given half a dozen of instances which might be sufficient in all reason for exposing our Authors goodly Impudence And yet they may be reckoned amongst the most innocent of many scores that might be collected in his writings But 't is not my present purpose to pursue him in all his wild careers I shall therefore insist only on three or four things more which as I take it may be sufficient to give the world a surfeit of him The things I am to to take notice of are some Impudent shifts he has betaken himself to for extricating himself when at any time he or his Cause was put to it by any present difficulty In such Cases no Rule obliges him no Law binds him no Equity bounds him no Shame bridles him no sense of Reputation over-aws him Thus e. g. 7. Before he shall be forced to yield in his Argument or seem to be non-plus't he shall not fail to furbish his Talent and make it keen enough for combating the Common sense of the whole Nation It were ane endless work to trace him thro' all instances he has of this Nature What possessions have any of the Episcopal Clergy been deprived of unless for Crimes against the State 2 Vind. p. 6. now who knows not that more than 300 who were outed by the Rabble were deprived of their Possessions and that by ane Act of Parliament without so much as being Charged with any Crime or tryed by any Court Again The Author of the Second Letter had called it K. I.'s Retirement when he left England and went to France So he Termeth says G. R. 2 Vind. p. 23 that which the Parliament called King James's abdicating the Government Now his Author was a Scottish man and writing upon Scottish Hypotheses and about Scottish affairs so that if G. R. spake sense he spake of the Scottish Parliament But I am satisfied that the world reckon me as Impudent as G. R. is really if there is so much as one syllable or any thing that looks like ane intimation of King I.'s either Abdicating or Deserting the Government in any Scottish Declaration or Law or Claim of Right In any publick Deed done by the Nation Again 2 Vind. p. 36. He says That most of them who were thrust out by the Rabble were put out by their own Consciences But after this what might he not have said To trace him thro' all such instances I say would be ane endless work I shall therefore confine my self to two One a Matter of Fact Another a Matter of Right or rather a mixt matter in which both Right and Fact are concerned The Matter of Fact shall be that story he so frequently insists on about my Lord Dundee's 2000 men c. in his Second Vindication About the time the Convention of Estates was to sit down a Design was discovered framed by the Viscount of Dundee and others to surprize and seize the Convention and for this end had secretly got together of K. J. 's disbanded Souldiers and others about 2000 strangers in Edenburgh p. 11 This Plot did our Author a great many services It occasioned those of the West to gather as many into Edenburgh to oppose them and secure the Convention ibid. Mark here they were those of the West who Gathered the Rabble into Edenburgh and this Gathering was only occasional and of their own proper motion Mark these things I say and compare them with what follows Again That there was a Design to fall on the Ministers of Edenburgh is affirmed on no ground and without any Truth Or that the Colledge of Justice Arm'd in their Defence It was rather on the same Design on which the Viscount of Dundee had gathered forces into the Town and it was for opposing of them and not for Assaulting the Ministers of Edenburgh ibid. 39 And p. 40 The thanks the Rabble got was for their zeal in Defending the Convention from that opposite Rabble viz. the 2000 men Dundee and others had gathered into Edenburgh to have seized the Convention Again p. 96 That the Western Rabble which came to Edenburgh in the time of the Convention were in Arms against Law says he is false for they were called by the Authority of the Estates as their Guard when their Enemies had gathered a formidable party into Edenburgh And tho' they were together before the Earl of Levin got the command yet not before they were called together by the Estates ibid. And p. 110 He Dundee had gathered a formidable party to destroy the Convention of Estates and they gathered a force for their own security Now One who is a meer stranger to Scottish affairs finding this Plot of Dundee's so confidently asserted so frequently insisted on made use of to serve so many turns would seem to have Reason to believe that there was really such a Plot and that all this was uncontrovertible Matter of Fact For how is it to be imagined that one who undertook to be the Vindicator of the Kingdom of Scotland should talk so boldly of such a Recent Matter of Fact if there was no such thing really And yet The whole Nation knows this whole Matter is as Notorious Figment as Arrant Poesie as is in all
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