Selected quad for the lemma: lord_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A57855
|
A defence of The vindication of the Church of Scotland in answer to An apology of the clergy of Scotland.
|
Rule, Gilbert, 1629?-1701.
|
1694
(1694)
|
Wing R2219; ESTC R11970
|
78,851
|
50
|
extraordinary Meetings whether of Church or State That Meeting did indeed Vote it self a General Assembly For in the second Session it was concluded that this Meeting should have the force and strength of a General Assembly and that all things may be treated and ended therein that use to be treated and ended in a General Assembly Also that the Moderator of the last Assembly shall continue till the next ordinary Assembly in March And that all present should be there also So both the Historians last cited All this sheweth that this was no Assembly cloathed with the Authority of the Church of Scotland and therefore its Acts were Null and not binding Besides that it is expresly told us That they who there met were only Commissioners from some Towns and Churches with the Superintendents and Commissioners for Visitation 3 What was there concluded was not by that Convention of Church men but seven of them were delegated who or any four of them should meet with such of the Secret Council as the Regent should appoint and these were they who made this Innovation in the Church by the Articles above mentioned I hope none will say that this was a Church Meeting or what they did was the deed of the Church 4. It is certain that this was not lookt on by the Church of Scotland as one of her General Assemblies Not only because the General Assembly appointed by the former Assembly met at St. Andrews a few Weeks after that Convention at Leith viz. March 6. but likewise they took no notice of the Arch. bishop of St. Andrews tho' he sat among them but chused Mr. Robert Hamiltoun Minister of St. Andrews to be their Moderator Which they could not have done had they owned a Prelacy in the Church 5. It is known that this Act at Lioth was disliked and witnessed against by such as were not influenced by the Court and by some Noble Men who were making their own Gain by this new Constitution And that it raised great Division Patrick Adamson in a Sermon distinguished My Lord Bishop viz. Such as were in the Popish Church My Lords Bishops viz. Such as the Lords had now devised for their own advantage And The Lord's Bishop that is every Minister of the Gospel Mr. Knox having preached in St. Andrews the Earl of Mortoun being present refused to inaugurate the new chosen Bishop of St. Andrews Mr. John Doâ—glas And he denounced Anathema to the Giver and also to the Receiver On this occasion Beza writ to Mr. Knox his Epistle is extant among his Epistles it is dated April 12. 1572. applauding The pure Religion and good Order that were settled in Scotland and beseeching that they would hold fast these two and to remember that if the one be lost the other cannot long continue The following words of that Epistle are remarkable As Bishops brought in the Papacy so false Bishops the Relicts of Popery shall bring in Epicurism to the World They that desire the Churches good and safety let them take heed of this Pestilence And seing ye have put that plague to flight timously I heartily pray you that ye never admit it again albeit it seem plausible with the pretence or colour of keeping Unity which pretence deceived the ancient Fathers Yea even many of the best of them 6. The Bishops that then were set up had little more than the Title and therefore were called Tulchau Bishops For the Church had the power The Bishops power being expresly made no greater than that of the Superintendents and being subject to the Church And the Noblemen had the better part of the Benefices 7. At the same time were brought in also Abbots and Priars as well as Bishops and for the same end viz. That some Great Men under their shadow might reap the profits only the Name and some small Rent remaining to them So that this whole contrivance was purely and evidently a piece of State Policy not any inclination of the Church of Scotland to cast off Presbyterial Government altho' some Church Men were drawn into it 8. This Constitution never obtained in the Church of Scotland For not only the names of Arch-bishops and Deans were protested against in the Assembly March 6 1572. But never a Bishop was suffered to Moderate in any of the subsequent General Assemblies and in several Assemblies Acts were made against Bishops till at last the General Assembly at Dundee which begun July 12 1580 did absolutely condemn the Office of Bishop as then used and commanded all Bishops to forbear the exercise of such Power And to this effect appointed them to appear before the several Provincial Synods where they lived And afterward Ann. 1592 Presbyterial Government was fully settled 9. The Account given of Mr. Melvil is not fair not only in that his opposition to Bishops is imputed to his not being preferred For he was zealously opposite to Episcopacy before and when he came to Scotland he refused Preferment at Court when offered But also that the opposition that Mr. Dury and others made to Episcopacy is abscribed to his instigation These Learned and Worthy Men acted from their own light and were not Tools to be used by another Aâ— opposition was made to Episcopacy before Mr. Melvil came to Scotland as is clear from what is above said Wherefore it was not the first starting of that Debate when Mr. Dury appeared in the Assembly 1575. § 50. I could not have expected from a Person of Honour and Learning such an account of the Book of Policy made in the year 1578 As That it was stuffed with the Spirit of Mr. Andrew Melvil himself it was rather a proposal for overthrowing of all Just Authority than an Establishment of a Religious Government That it could not even in these distracted and furious times obtain approbation of any Authority But was lookt on as a Rapsody of groundless Assertions and full of mischievous Novelties This is not to write like an Historian His Author Spotswood speaketh with more modesty of this matter That the Book of Policy being presented to the States they had not then leasure to peruse it but gave a Commission to some of their number to conferr with the Commissioners of the Church And if they did agree to insert the same among the Acts of Parliament So he p 289. That it was not rejected with such disdain as his Lordship is pleased to express is evident not only in that nothing of such resentment of it when proposed is left on Record by any Historian but is the fierce Zeal of a new set of Episcopalians not the temper of the old Protestant Church of Scotland but Archbishop Spotswood p. 289. to 302. Setteth down all the Articles of that Book at length and on his Margine noteth what was agreed to what was referred to farther reasoning and what amendements of it were desired by the other Party It is also observed by Calderwood p. 116. That the delay of ratifying the
Book of Policy by the State was much occasioned by what is contained in the eighth ninth and Tenth Chapters of it concerning the disposing the Church Rents otherwise than some great Men desired and to their disadvantage as they imagined A piece of manifestly false History followeth viz. Ann. 1580. An Assembly met at Dundee called by Mr. Andrew and his Associates without a shadow of any permission from the Civil Authority Where they declared the Office of a Bishop to be without warrant from the Word of God That they had not the Magistrates allowance is not only said without the Authority of any Historian and is a pure invention of this Author But it is certain that then they had their Assemblies in Course by the States allowance and that the succeeding Assembly was appointed at the dissolution of the former It is also asserted by Calderwood p. 89. That the King sent two the Prior of Pittenweens and the Laird of Lundie instructed with power to assist the Assembly with their Presence and Counsell from all which it is also evident to be a mistake that this Assembly was called by Mr. Melvil and his Associates The observation of our Author on the Assemblies declaring against Bishops is the ordinary Gang of his Party that it is against plain Scripture the Doctrine of the Apostles how this differeth from the former I know not and of the Fathers and the Canons of all Oecumenical Councils and the rule of Apostolical and Primitive Practice If he or any else will prove all this our Cause must needs fall to the ground But I have often read and heard such confident Assertions but never yet saw sufficient proof of them It offendeth him highly that in the end of the Act against Bishops the Assembly referreth to the next Assembly to reason upon the disposing the Patrimony of the Kirks possessed by the Bishops as if in this they usurped on the Kings Regale But here is not one word of considering how They should dispose of this Patrimony and I hope it is no Usurpation in Church-men to advise and reason in order to give their Opinion and putting up their Supplication to them to whom it belongeth to dispose of it § 51. His History of one Montgomery who was zealous against Bishops and yet did afterward Simoniacally bargain for a Bishoprick I regard not Not knowing the truth of it nor being directed by him where to find it And if it were true it signifieth no more but that once a professed Presbyterian was an Apostate Which is so insignificant a story and so little Argumentative in our Debate that it is not worthy the writing He misrepresenteth the procedure of the Church against Montgomery as if when they were called to answer for illegal invasions on the Kings Authority they did boldly protest that tho' they compeared in Civility to the King yet they did not acknowledge the Kings â—on Councils right in any Ecclesiastical matter I wish this Author had either read Spotswood's History for others it is like he will not regard them more carefully or represented what account he giveth of this matter more faithfully Which is p. 316. c. that Mr. Robert Montgomery Minister at Stirling having made a vile Simoniacal bargain for the Bishoprick of Glasgow was quarrelled by the Church for this and other gross things were also laid to his charge The King allowed them to proceed against him on any thing they could charge him with in his Life or Doctrine But would not permit them to censure him for accepting the Bishoprick Whereupon he was accused of gross Crimes his Libel was sent to the King The King left him to make his own Answer After this the Presbytry of Stirling suspended him for disorderly Baptizing he slighted this Sentence and exercised his Ministry Whereupon he was cited to appear before the Synod of which the King being informed warned the Synod to appear before him at Stirling and discharged all proceeding against him some of them appeared and protested that tho' in Obedience not Civility as our Author hath it they had compeared yet they did not acknowledge his Majesty and the Council Judges in the matter it being a Cause Ecclesiasticall They did not say as the Manuscript hath it that they did not acknowledge the King and Councils right in any Ecclesiastical matter I shall say no more of this purpose save that not only the Presbyterians but also not a few Episcopalians especially when the Civil Authority acteth against their Interests and Inclinations do controvert whither the Magistrate can hinder the Church to censure her own Members when the matter is purely Ecclesiastical I wish our Author would shew us what Invasion is made on the Kings Authority when the Church censureth any person for Immoralities that are manifest Scandals to the People and do no way touch the Civil State § 52. He next p. 61. maketh an odious representation of the Kings being made Prisoner at Ruthven by some of the Nobility and the General Assemblies approving of this Fact It is here in the first place to be observed that this is wide from the design of the Apologist in transcribing this Manuscript The tendency of it is indeed to set forth the Presbyterians in as ugly a shape as is possible which I confess our Apologist is passionately bent upon but it no way contributeth to shew the Vicissitudes of Presbytry and Episcopacy in the Church of Scotland for which he bringeth this Manuscript Next I take notice that he who wrote this Paper doth not give so fair account of this Affair as his Author Spotswood doth who informeth us p 320. c. That some of the Nobility combining themselves for defence of Religion and the liberty of the Kingdom as they pretended did seize the King and restrained the Duke of Lennox and the Earl of Arran whose Counsels had given great discontent to the Nation from the Kings presence That the King by a Proclamation approved of the Act discharged rising of Men to rescue him commanded the Duke and Earl to depart out of the Nation That the Queen of England advised the King to take in good part what the Lords had done because of the danger that the perverse Counsels of the Duke of Lennox and Earl of Arran had brought the Nation into That the Noblemen desired the General Assembly to approve this deed of theirs which the Assembly would not do till they consulted with the King himself and till he desired them to do it Confessing to them that Religion was in hazard and indirect Courses taken to overturn it and that his own hazard was joyned with that of Religion And desiring that they for their own part would help to remove the same He sheweth also that this deed of the Lords was fully approved by a Convention of Estates at Edinburgh called by the King Let it then be considered whether it be so monstruous a thing for the Church to shew her Opinion when required