chuse their Pastors and it is a grievance to have a Pastor set over them by the Bishop or Patron without their Consent And that tho' it is their Wisdom to consent a post facto if the man be qualified yet till they consent explicitly or implicitly they are under no tye to own that Man as their Minister However they may lawfully receive the Ordinances from him Let us now hear what our Apologist hath to say on this Head He first bringeth some argumenta ad hominem As that Popular Elections could not be had for a Presbyterian in the North. A. This is not universally true But where it is so the Church will not obtrude a Pastor on that Flock unless they neglect to chuse a person whom the Presbytry on tryal may find to be qualified and this neglect continueth for the time appointed by the Law And then the Election in all reason as well as by the Law of the Nation devolveth into the hands of the Presbytry And when the Presbytry hath set a Man so over a People such of them as will not own him as their Minister I see not how he is obliged to own them as his Flock further than to do what he can to perswade them to good and to restrain them from Sin Next he tells us of many Remonstrators inducted by Cromwell's Troopers A. I never thought that a Pastoral Relation could be founded on such induction where no consent of the People was either antecedent or consequent to it He 3 dly mentioneth That the same was done in the old Colledge of Aberdeen without regular and Collegiate Election and without Tryal or Examination A. It is a wise Argument from a Colledge to a Church The Affairs of the one are to be regulated by the Laws of the Nation the other by the Institution of Christ. In that Colledge by a Visitation in a Legal and Orderly way the Principal and Sub-Principal and two of the Regents were deposed To supply the two Regents places all who would offer themselves were invited by a Program to dispute six or seven appeared after several days disputation two of them were chosen as having fairly won these places by the Masters of the Colledge with some who were by Publick Authority to assist them The Principal and Sub-Principal did notwithstanding Officiate till two years after by the Authority of Oliver Cromwell who then was owned as having the Supreme Authority de facto A Visitation was appointed and these two Places were found Vacant and a Minister of Aberdeen was put into the Principal 's place and one of the two Regents who had entered as abovesaid and had taught Philosophy two years was made Sub-Principal What is there in all this that can be blamed further than that it was the general Calamity of the Nation to be under a Forreign Power by whom all the places of the Nation were then disposed of I know our Author would not have so impertinently digressed but that he would have a fling at a Person for whom he seemeth to have no kindness and whose having a Room in a Colledge is an Eye-sore to him § 17. Now the Author will no more trisle as hitherto he hath indeed done let us then hear his solid and serious Reasons He giveth a long account of the way of Admission in the Episcopal Church against which I could object several things but I shall only take notice of what is to our present purpose viz. That an Edict is served and the People allowed to object against the Candidate whom the Patron hath chosen for them Even this is often so done that it were as good it were not done as when Mr. Mckenzie's Edict to be Minister at Kirklistoun was served at St. Andrews about twenty six Miles distant But supposing it were always duly managed it doth not sufficiently answer the right that the People have to chuse their own Pastors His Argument from disorders happening upon popular Election is fully answered Rational defence of Nonconform Part 5. § 6. p. 207 208. But it is like the Apologist cannot read such Books as that without the Indecency of Passion Tho' he is pleased to bring a passage out of it when he fancieth he can expose the Author by it It is his way here and elsewhere to assert strongly the conclusion without taking notice of Reasons against it That this as all Christs Institutions managed by sinful Men may be abused we deny not Hath not Prelatical Power often degenerated into Tyranny and yet I suppose he would not have it abrogated It is denied which he saith cannot be denied That the methods of Election differed often in divers Ages and Countries since the first plantation of Christianity Unless he understand this of the more degenerate Ages of the Church after the eighth Century Before that it was uniform and constant viz. It was done a clero populo as it is abundantly proved in the Book cited p. 201. c. It is also false That no Christian Church came nearer the Apostolick Method than the Church of Scotland under the Episcopal Constitution For it is evident that in the Apostolick and Primitive Church there was no Election made by a Patron The Act of the General Assembly depriving a disaffected Parish of the Power of Eâ—ection maketh nothing for his design For it is without question that Peoples Rights and Church Priviledges may for some Causes be Suspended by Authority of the Church His account of the Election of Leith is most false Mr. Gray had not one of the Legal Eldership for him nor the Magistrates of Leith who represent the Heritors and a great body of the People did oppose him with what Brow then can our Author say That this Election was unanimous For Muslebrugh and Tranent none hath to this day been Elected in a Legal way that is by the Heritors and Elders That Patronages were not taken away in Scotland till 1649 proveth no more then that Presbyterians think it not unlawful to own a Man who is not antecedently Elected by the People and this was never denied by us Only it was pleaded that when the People had other objections against a Minister this might fortify their aversion from him that he had not entered in a due way Presbyterians did always think Elections by Patrons to be a great Grievance Yet they bare it till it could be removed by Law The reason of his following discourse I cannot comprehend viz. How it should come to pass that so many Artifices are needed to promote a Clergy Man if Popular Election take place And that it is otherwise where the Patron chuseth Nothing is more evidently false then are both parts of this Assertion For our way is when a Parish is Vacant the Presbytry sendeth two or three or more by turns to preach among them if the People desire to hear yet others it is granted And the People chuse whom they like best Where doth the Artifice lie that the Candidate
was as needless as when it is appointed a Tree shall be cut up by the Roots another injunction be given that the Tree shall fall Was not Episcopacy effectually rooted up in Scotland when all Church Power was put in the hand of Church Judicatories where all Memberâ— acted in Parity That a Bishop baptized Prince Henry is an odd Argument to prove that Episcopacy was the Government of the Church of Scotland If the King was pleased to chuse a Man who oncâ— exercised Episcopal Jurisdiction for that service especially when Ambassadours were present some of which lived where Episcopacy was exercised it doth not follow that either this Bishop or any other of his Character did govern the Church It is said without all warrant p. 63. That when three Lords were tried the Ministers would needs order the Process and stirred up the Rabble to back them nor would they disband tho' prohibited by Proclamation from King and Council The true History is some Popish Noblemen were known all the Nation over to be guilty of dangerous plotting against the Reformed Religion and designs to ruin the Professors of it They had Friends at Court so that they had too much advantage to carry on their designs All the found Protestants in the Nation observed this and saw the danger that they and the true Religion was in wherefore a Meeting of Barons Ministers and Burgesses which when challenged by the King for their meeting offered to make it appear that it was with sufficient warrant and advice from his Majesty did petition the King that those Lords might be brought to Tryal which was appointed to be done the Protestants resolved to meet before hand to appoint some to prosecute the Criminals which they did Neither can it be made appear that any violence was offered to any Person and all that Spotswood saith of it is p. 399. that great Companies came to Edinburgh without mention of Arms or Violence And indeed the danger was such as it is no wonder that they who had Zeal for the true Religion were forward to cry for Justice when they evidently saw that all Methods were used for palliating the matter land protecting these Criminals to the manifest hazard of Church and State The Issue was the Convention called by the King for trying these Lords referred the matter to a Commitee where they allowed some Ministers whom they named to be present and to propose what they should think fit Here is nothing of Ministers ordering the Process nor of a Rabble in Arms. § 55. After all this our Author doth still maintain that in the years wherein Presbytry had moâ—â— the ascendent yet Bishops did exist by Law enjoyed their Rents and Preached in their Churches foâ— which he produceth many passages out of the Records of Parliament It is well our debate is come to this issue if this be all that he would prove he shall not find us to oppose him Our question is only whether the Protestant Church after her Reformation was governed by Bishops or by Presbyters acting in Parity I know that long after the Reformation even Popish Bishops sat in Parliament enjoyed their Temporalities And that in 1572 an image of Bishops was restored and also oâ— Abbots and Priors but even their pretended Power that they then got was soon taken away Anâ— that many States-men who reaped most of the profits of these places made a great stickle to hold up that image yea and to give them more power in the Church than was due But that in these times Bishops had ruling Church power except in 1572 as is said I utterly deny Wherefore most of his Citations are wholly beside the purpose I shall then only examine such of them as seem to make against what I have asserted He saith p. 64. That the Authority of the Bishops is owned by Act 63. Parl. 5. Jac. 6. Ann. 1575 of which none of our Histories do take any notice And the Act it self is anent the visitation of Hospitals all that is said of Bishops is that they and other Commissioners of Diocesses shall visit Hospitals I hope here is no Church power allowed them In the year 1579 Act 71 Parl. 6. Jac. 6. there is no more said but that young Noblemen or others who had been out of the Country for their breeding shall at their return go to the Bishop or Superintendent or Commissioner of the Kirk Neither is this any governing Authority over the Church The two following Citations are only to shew that Bishops continued 1581 so that of 1587 and several others of his Quotations design no more but that Bishops existed by Law sat in Parliament some were presented to rich Benefices All which is wide from the purpose He saith that 1584 Act 132 Parl. 8. Jac. 6. the Bishops Authority is fully owned It is indeed said in that Act That Ministers may be deprived by the ordinary Bishop of a Diocess or others the Kings Majesties Commissioners to be constituted in Ecclesiastical Causes Where it is evident that Church power is placed in the King rather than in the Bishop Who can by this Act do nothing but as he is the King's Commissioner even in censuring of Ministers If this be a full owning of Episcopal power let him enjoy it This making them the King's Bishops not Christ's nor is there any thing beside in that Act which alloweth them any Church power But we have another Answer to this Quotation That Parliament saith Spotswood p 333 was declared Current at that time for the more speedy dispatch of business whereas the former was in October 1581 and is called in the Records the seventh Parl and this is called the eighth Parliament which is inconsistent with its being Current or the former Parliament yet subsisting But some things were to be done that could not pass in a full Parliament and therefore as Calderwood hath it p. 155 there was no intimation by Proclamation before the meeting of it nor reasonable time granted according to the accustomed order It was almost ended before it was heard of The Lords of the Articles were sworn to keep secret the matters to be treated One of whom tho' he would not reveal particulars wrote to a Minister that the whole intent of that Parliament was against the Kirk and the Discipline of it These are the Methods by which Episcopacy and Erastianism behoved to be supported in these times when they could have no Countenance from the Church nor from the Nation § 56. He next citeth a Conference at Falkland 1596 where some Articles were agreed on about some Ministers having Vote in Parliament and that these were confirmed by an Assembly at Montross 1600 and there some Bishops Elected for Diocesses It is not to be denyed that there was a working toward Prelacy among some Courtiers and Ambitious Churchmen about that time And one of their Methods was to get some Ministers to Vote in Parliament the tendency of this was seen and the thing opposed
by good Men And even in Parliament it met with such opposition that they hardly carried it Yea the making the Voter in Parliament for the Church perpetual and that he should not be chosen yearly was carried but by three Votes However this was the beginning of that Apostacy that afterward came to a greater height and the design of setting up Bishops did soon appear however they for a time did labour to cover it That which I chiefly observe here is that this stickle that then was made for setting up some Ministers to Vote in Parliament is an evidence against the whole of this Manuscript viz. That Bishops did not then nor always exist in the Reformed Church of Scotland For if they had they were the Men who should have sat in Parliament to represent the Church and there needed not such steps for bringing them into the Church The story of Mr. Dury's Recantation at his Death and owning Episcopacy I find not in any of the Historians that I can meet with neither hath our Author directed us where to find it And if it were true it proveth no more but that all and every one of the Presbyterians were not faithful to the end For the General Assembly at Brantisland 1601 which he mentioneth I have nothing to observe about it For he alledgeth nothing there done toward the advancing of Episcopacy Next he telleth us of an Assembly at Holyrood House and of the Kings Clemency to some Ministers And his proposals for Provisions both for Bishops and Presbyters this was 1602. Here is a great mistake The King did not mention Bishop in his Proposals as they are set down by Spotswood p. 468. The overtures about this were made by the Assembly at the Kings desire Neither are Bishops there mentioned The words are Thaâ— Prelacies should be disponed to actual Ministers Churches annexed thereto being provided sufficiently and the tenth of the Superplus paid to the King or otherwise that all the great Benefices be dissolved thâ— Prelate enjoying the Principal Church and Temporal Lands and the Churches annexed disponed to Ministers Both they and the Prelate paying a yearly duty to the King Where I take notice 1. That Prelate in the Dialect of that time did rather signifie an Abbot or Prior than a Bishop At least when ever it is used in the History of that time especially by Spotswood it comprehendeth all the three Wherefore 2. It cannot be gathered from this passage that Bishops did otherwise exist than Abbots and Priors That is that some Church-men had the Titles and some States men had the Revenues but neither of both had Church Authority above ordinary Ministers And 3. This is clear that before this Men had these Prelacies who were not actually Ministers Which maketh plainly against the existence of Diocesan Bishops with Governing power at that time 4. The dissolution of all great Benefices that is there propounded by way of Alternative doth shew that it was not the mind of that Assembly that either Bishops or Abbots or Priors should continue so much as to enjoy the Temporalities that formerly they possessed so far is it from designing that Bishops should be provided for and advanced as such It only provideth for the Minister of the place where a Lord Bishop once ruled § 57. His Assertion of the activity of hot headed Presbyters in stirring up prejudices against the Church of England And his high Elogies of that Church which he insisteth on p. 66. I shall not stand upon seing he hath neither mentioned particulars nor given any ground for what he affirmeth If Presbyters were then active to preserve the Government of the Church then established it was a seasonable and necessary duty that every one was bound to make Conscience of in his station For then might they rationally fear that the King who had been influenced by some Corrupt Men to oppose the settling of Presbytry would now be more bent and had more advantage to overturn it as indeed it fell out In the business of the Assembly at Aberdeen which he aggravateth with all his Rhetorick I shall not interpose my Opinion I find it diversly represented by divers Historians I am sure whatever he make of it he cannot draw from it this conclusion that Episcopacy then took place in Scotland which is the design of his Manuscript The tale that concludeth the Manuscript about the Chancellour and the Ministers I find not in History nor are we directed where it is to be sought for and therefore I neglect it being assured that these Men who had appeared so much and with so much hazard against Popery would not be guilty of conniving at it § 58. The Apologist having transcribed this Manuscript from p. 67. maketh a number of Inferences from it All which do fall to the ground by the answers already given to the Paper it self which is the foundation of them And most of them are particularly obviated in what hath been said The 1. is answered § 47. where it is shewed our Martyrs had no occasion to consider the Government of the Church being exercised about greater points that needed Reformation That the first Reformers submitted to the Episcopal Jurisdiction of Protestant Bishops is absolutely false For he cannot make it appear that any such Jurisdiction was exercised at or soon after the Reformation The 2 d. That Episcopacy was never legally abolished is disproved § 54. That Presbyterians always watched the difficult Circumstances of the King which is the third is not true They did in all Circumstances endeavour to settle the Discipline and Order of the Church His fourth asserting the Presbyterians pleading exemptions from the Secular Powers as the Papists is not only false but shamelesly affirmed The 5 th is answered § 54 The 6 th Episcopacy was not quarrelled as unlawful in it self in these times Not only is no way deducible from any thing said in the Manuscript But is false and affirmed against the clearest light that such a matter is capable of Doth not even the Book of Discipline in which all the Presbyterians of these times agreed declare Episcopacy to be contrary to the word of God while cap. 2 d. it saith He God willeth that they should rule with mutual consent as Brethren with an quality of Power every one according to their Function And there are four ordinary Offices in the Kirk of Christ the Office of Pastor Minister or Bishop the Doctor the Presbyter or Elders and the Deacon And after no more Offices ought to be received or suffered in the Church of Christ established according to his word § 59. For the Eighth Whatever he fancy of the Royal Authority being forced to all that was granted to the Presbyterians Let him answer for this Imputation of Hypocrisie and Dissembling in the King that then was It is enough to us that the Church Power was granted to Presbyterians by King and Parliament and that they declared they did it willingly and sincerely The Tenth according to his wonted Charity and Candor maketh the Vindicator's Book to be one intire shuffle from top to bottom And his ground is the Presbyterians of old did some very ill things And yet the Vindicator would perswade the World that Presbyterians are not capable of such Villanies as the rabbling of the Clergy I wish he would learn to speak Truth and to use a little more Reason in his Discourses The Vindicator hath said nothing of the Capacity of Presbyterians They are sinful Men and capable of very bad things if the Lord leave them All that was asserted and it is made evident against all hâ—s attempts is that the Presbyterians did not do such things as he and others of his Gang charge them with For these odious things that he chargeth the Presbyterians of the former age with Enough hath been said for their Vindication by others tho' I had been silent Let him read Mr. Baillies pieces and answer them if he can His impugning of the distinction between Cameronians and Sober Presbyterians hath been answered before but he loveth to repeat rather than to say nothing The Eleventh Inference is That Presbyterians have no principle of Unity because the lesser number may remonstrate against the greater so as to stop the course of Discipline This last Clause is groundless For the greater part of a Church meeting may go on in the exercise of Discipline whatever be remonstrated to the contrary by the lesser part nor doth the Manuscript give any ground to think that Discipline could not be exercised because some did remonstrate against it For the former part of his Inference I gladly would know whether that principle of Unity be owned among his Party that none may remonstrate against what the Bishop or the greatest part of the meeting doth If so then the Consciences of Men like Issachar's Asse must tamely couch under the burden of whatever is imposed And if my Lord Bishop and the plurality of his Clergy decide all the Controversies between us and Papists on the side of the Romish Synagogue no man may mutter or reclaim It was an ancient Maxim even in the Canon Law Cuivis supplicare protestari licet To deny this is to banish Conscience or to bring in that Atheistâ—cal Principle that our Actions must be directed not by our own but by the publick Conscience The last Inference doth not differ from the former but to make up the round dozen he hath put it in other words which labour under the same evil that he there chargeth others with viz. General words which at the bottom have no particular signification For he chargeth us with Tyranny Disobedience poisonous Principles that we slie in the face of Authority c. And all this made out by the protestation against the General Assembly 1651 which he setteth down at length We have now through the mercy of God buried that unhappy difference And the Revivers of it should reflect on the Builders of Jericho I shall only say as before that to condemn all Protestations and Remonstrances against any company of Men who pretend to Church Authority or against whatever a Lawful Authority doth is to take from Ministers and People the liberty of professing and owning the Truth of God I have now done with this Apology The Postscript I meddle not with it is in answer to a Paper The Author of which can make a Reply if he thinketh fit FINIS
a Rabble of such as were the likeliest to be the Executioners of what they feared Also it were the way to excite men to make a Massacre as also to give some colour for Justifying it thus to assault them who were living in peace 3 That there was a Night spent in such confusions or that there were such Screeching and Terrour in the City on this occasion I cannot find by the best Information Only such a fancy is Subservient to our Authors design and it seems he can serve himself with truth or untruth as need requireth 4. That a report was spread that some were Killed who were not Killed is not denied but that this Report was the contrivance of the Presbyterians to animate the People to rifle the King's House is one of the grossest of Falsehoods And that few of the Students of the Colledge were there is not true 5. That this Tumult was concerted by the Presbyterians he endeavoureth to prove Because the Master of F. and several others whose Names he thinketh fit to conceal were present I know that many Men of good Note did appear after the killing of the Boyes and that by Authority Wallace was ordered to remove with his Guard The acting of these Men was not concurring with the Rabble the one acted without Authority the other with it but that any such Persons either appeared with the Rabble and without Command from Superior Powers or had any hand in defacing any part of the Abbey he shall never be able to prove If he can either by confession of Party or any probable Evidence make it appear that G. S. or Mr. M were the Contrivers of this Tumult or that they glory in it as he would have us believe he shall have the better in this particular but if there be no Truth in this as indeed there is not then the Reader may know who best deserveth to be thus branded that the spirit of Lies and Vanity runneth through his Book The Plea of an Advocate at the Tryal of Mr Wallace is a ridiculous Argument to prove what it is brought for every Body knoweth that in their Pleadings they consider only what may make for the Cause which they are Patrons of He unwaâ—ily and ominously maketh this Essay at Edinburgh but the Preface to what they intended to the Clergy in that place As insinuating that the Popish Clergy whom the Rabble had spoiled of their Superstitious Trinkeâ—s and the Episcopal Clergy of Edinburgh were to be considered alike were managing the same designs and had the same Friends and Foes If the Ministers at the Trone Church thanked God for a glorious Reformation he had many other Causes for so doing then this Rabbling and it is evil surmising to ascribe such a sense to his words unless he had either named the Rabbling or by Circumlocution particularized it § 11. He maketh p. 10. the Vindicators next Plea to be that there was an interregnum when these things were acted It had been some Candor if he had pleased to tell his Reader to what end and how far this Plea was used It was never brought to justifie what was done by the Rabble But on the contrary it is expresly said 2 d Vindic. p 26. where that Plea is mentioned that what they did was not allowable but that it was not to be wondered at considering what provocations the People had by their former Sufferings and saw no way of Legal Redress How impertinent then are his Reasonings against this Plea that these Men were not loosed from the Law of God which should have restrained them Did his Antagonist ever say so or did he use words to that effect And that he is pleased to impute these Rabblings to Saints and to Godly and Zealous Presbyterians is no sign of that regard to Truth that is fit nor of that respect to serious Religion which might be expected from every Christian much more from a Minister and Doctor of Divinity The Peoples being injured and provoked by the Clergy he bringeth as another Plea used by the Vindicator And the same is to be observed concerning it which is said of the former Plea it was never used to justifie the Actors of these disorders We think they should have committed their Case to him who judgeth Righteously and that in the use of Orderly and Legal means for redressing their Grievances Undeâ— this Hâ—ad our Apologist maketh a saint denyal of matter of Fact He knoweth not what the Clergy did in the West though al Scotland know that many of them did severely persecute their People and did stir up the Magistrate to ruin them But he never knew one that presecuted the Dissenters without great reluctancy but many that did them kindnesses Others can â—ell of some in the City where he lived who delated Meetings and them who came not to Church with great forwardness and zeal and multitudes of Instances in most parts of the Country of their persecutions against Dissenters are in Print That to deny it deserveth other words then I lift to use even such as himself liberally bestoweth on them who affirm what disliketh him We never did Charge all with this practice nor did ever deny but that some of them did shew kindness to Dissenters § 12 Next he defendeth the Clergies prosecuting Dissenters according to Law p. 11. and that with a Haâ—anguâ— pretending to somewhat of Argument but cloathed in words becoming this Authors Genius and of some other Pamphleteers of the Party But of which I am sure Sober Episcopal Men will be â—shamed Such as Dark and Enthusiastical Principles a Career of insolence and Villany Bouâ—efeues and incendiaries who were to be lashed with greater Severities Speaking evil of Dignities took place of the ten Commandments c. His first Argument for the persecution by the Clergy is The Peace of the Nation endangered the Government by frequent shakings in hazard to relapse into a Civil War c. If this Argument have any force it is only for the Clergies discovering such as had risen in Arms or were acting or contriving what was of that tendency But many of our Clergy were instrumental in persecution long before there had been any Insurrection or before they were injoyned to delate the People to the Circuit Courts And they did â—veâ— many who never had hand in any of these Risings against the King And indeed it was the intollerable Oppressions the People suffered which caused these Tumults and Troubles which might seem to shake the Government wherefore here is non causa pro causa Another Argument is the Souls of People were poisoned with dark and Enthusiastick Principles I wish he had named them It is true some wild Principles were taught by some who separated themselves from the generality of the Presbyterians as well as from the Episcopal Church But with what Brow can he impute this to Presbyterians without exception and set the Dogs on them all to worry them because of these mens Principles And
occasion of this quarrel with his Antagonist out of the first What he insisteth against is the Vindicator had asserted that the Church of Scotland before Popery entered into it and in the first time of its being Christian was not governed by Bishops but by the Pastors of the Church then called Culdees acting in Parity This he alloweth to be of some consideration not for any Historical Truth that is in it but because the Learned Blondel made use of it Yet he calleth it an imaginary Hypothesis And laboureth to run it down after his wont with very severe words As if he would Hector us out of our Principles What is the strength of his Arguments we shall try To vilisie Blondel's Authority He telleth us that he met it in Buchanan and that that Learned Historian took it from his contemporary Monks Boetius and others This is either from our Apologists superficial reading of what he would refute or not reading it but taking it on trust or disingenuity in â—oncealing what was needful to set the matter before the Reader in its true light For Blondel Apolog. prosententia Hieron p. 314 315. Citeth Fordon Joan. Major Boet. Wherefore he took it not from Buchanan alone It is also an odd blunder to say that Boetius and the others that Buchanan had it from were his contemporary Monks For Boetius and Major were not Monks nor were they contemporary with Buchanan And Fordon was far removed from his time Nor did any two of these mentioned live at the same time He doth also deal unfairly and not as a Disputant with the Vindicator for he taketh no notice of what grounds he brought for what he affirmed viz. That Palladius was the first Bishop in Scotland and yet Christianity was pubâ—ickly professed in it above three hundred years before his time This is proved out of Baronius Spondanus Beda and others But it was his wisdom to take no notice of this His first and chief Argument against our Assertion is there were none that lived near that Age who writeth the History of it and the Monks who wrote any thing were extreamly ignorant Wherefore this story of the Culdees ruling the Church hath no Credibility This is the substance of what he discourseth at length p. 52 53. In answer to which 1. This is at one blow to raze the Foundation of the History of our Nation and of that of most others And to make them all to be Fools who have enquired into these Antiquities that concern our Nation and others Such as Fordon Major Beda Usher c. Yea Baronius the Centuriatores of Magdeburgh and such famous Historians have spent their time in vain if this new Judge of Learning may be heard 2. he might have taken notice that Prosper was cited out of Spondanus by his Antagonist And he wrote about the year 420. not far from the time that he telleth us Palladius was made the first Bishop of Scotland It is ridiculous to talk of the Acts of the Assemblies in that ancient period p. 53. For we do not assert as is expresly said first Viâ—â— p. 4. that they had all the same modes of Presbyterian Government which we now have That they had no Bishops but that they had equal power in governing the Church is all that we aim at which is not disproved by such silly mocking as this is He telleth ibid. of his Opinion if he dare interpose it that the Monks advanced this Fable to gratify the Pope in his design of keeping the Bishops low And yet with the same Breath this is so known that it needeth neither proof nor illustration How to reconcile this timidity and this confidence is beyond my Capacity § 43. Another thing like Argument is p. 54. All the known Records of the Christian Church unanimously declare for the Hierarchy in the 2 d. and 3 d. Centuries A. 1. This is denied and the contrary hath been proved It is too much confidence to assert this till our Author take time to answer all that the Learned Blondel and many others have written 2. Do any of these known Records speak of a Hierarchy in the Christian Church of Scotland If they do not this Argument mistaketh its conclusion that it should lead us to For our present debate is what Church Government was in Scotland about the 2 d and 3 d Centuries What followeth is built on the same bottom and falleth by the answer already given Had Scotland saith he any other Church Government than what was received in the Christian Church when they were Converted It is said that no parallel instance can be given He here still supposeth that which he knoweth we debate against the Prelatists which is no good way of Argumenting Let him read Blondell from the beginning to the end and he shall find instances in all the Christian Churches in Asia Europe and Africa He should have answered all that he such written in his Apology before he had complained that no instance can be given of a Christian Church without a Hierarchy It is still to the same purpose when he asketh by whom were they the Scots Converted Is it not reasonable to think that they who Converted them would plant that Church Government among them that they were acquainted with themselves A. If he can prove that they were Converted by Prelatists or Prelats he gaineth what is now in debate Spondanus out of Prosper saith that Palladius was the first Bishop who came among them And Baronius sheweth that they were Converted some Centuries before his time As was shewed in the very place our Author pretendeth to refute It is a great mistake in our Author p. 54. That we appear with our Culdees against the undoubted Records of Fathers Councils c. For these Records have been examined and found not to be so undoubtedly on his side But this he hath a mind to suppose Again we bring not the Culdees or their Authority for proving what we say It is the Testimony of others concerning them Beside all this the Fathers Councils c. say nothing of the Church Government of Scotland in the first Ages of its Christianity which is the thing now in debate His last effort under this head is If he confess there were some Priests in Scotland before Bishops yet those had their Ordination and Mission from Bishops in other places to whom they might give account of their Travels and Success And this was ordinary before Nations were Converted but when they received the Faith then were Bishops c. placed among them A. This doth no way meet with the case in hand for it is proved first Vindic. p. 4.5 That not only some were become Christians but the Kings of Scotland and the body of the People had received the Christian Faith upward of three hundred years before Palladius their first Bishop came among them Did they all this time continue not an Organical Church and without Church Officers and Government I hope
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
in concurrence with the King and Estates of the Nation whether the King did really think what he expressed or what he acted was the effect of his restraint it was not their part to consider He quarreleth also with the Ministers appointing a Fast when the King desired the Magistrates of Edinburgh to Feast the French Ambassadours These Ambassadours came to overturn what the States of the Nation called by the King had concluded and were odious to the Nation The King was moved to appoint this Entertainment by some Merchants who Traded with France The Fast was appointed by the Session of Edinburgh the Presbytry was free of it as was afterward publickly declared § 53. Mr. Andrew Melvil's declining of the King as Judge in prima instantia of what is preached by Ministers in publick which he bringeth as an accusation against the Presbyterians p 61. is as far from the purpose as what was formerly observed It doth not shew any step of the prevalency of Presbytry and Episcopacy per vices which is pretended to be the design of the Manuscript For the thing it self I shall not give my Opinion but only relate the Grounds all edged by him on which he built this his practice which were not only the word of God but Acts of Parliament and a late Conference betwixt some Lords of the Privy Council and some Ministers and the practice ensuing thereupon that when a Minister is delated for any thing spoken in Preaching or Prayer he is first to be tryed by his Ordinary whether Provincial or General Assembly Also he pleadeth the Priviledge of the University of St. Andrews lately confirmed by his Majesty that when Offences were committed in the University by Masters or Students the Rector and his Assistants should be Judges in prima instantia p. 61.62 He heapeth together a great multitude of reproaches against Mr. Andrew Melvil and others of the faithful Servants of God who could not comply with the actings of the Court nor designs of some about it to overturn the Religion setled in the Nation but he giveth so indistinct an account of things and so partially that there is no other way to answer what he saith but by a full History of these times which it is needless for me to transcribe The Reader may be satisfied of this Authors unfair dealing even out of Spotswood's History though his account of things might in some things be examined But more fully out of Calderwood and Petrie I do not deny but that in the years 1585 and some that followed there were great Animosities in Church and State one Party endeavouring to preserve the reformed Religion and the Discipline of the Church that had been used in Scotland from the Reformation and was practised in almost all the Reformed Churches The other Party labouring to overturn the one and to weaken and undermine the other And it is like these heats did drive both Parties to some Excesses and undue Practices But unbyassed Men will see that the Presbyterian Party shewed all respect to Authority even when they could not comply with its Injunctions and what they did that is by some constructed Unpeaceableness was from the aw of God obliging them to appear in their Stations for his Ordinances I except the imperfections and overlashes that sinful Men are liable to in managing that Zeal which is for God I never thought that good Men did always manage a good Cause with that perfection of discretion that is to be wished He concludeth this Accusation of the Brethren p. 62. with an account of his design which is to shew the ground of their dislike of Parity And as before setteth in opposition to it Scripture Apostolick Practice Fathers Councils and all well established Christian Churches and that there is no imaginable warrant for it from any of these This is partly answered above For what he addeth to what he had said before of well established Churches he doth wisely in putting the Emphasis on Well and therefore putteth that word in another Character For if we object most of the Churches of the Reformation he will deny them to be Well Established because they want Bishops Whatever they have beside to commend them If we should muster up all the miscarriages of the Episcopal Party and the Immoralities of Ministers and People that hath been among them and the Pride Tyranny and Oppression of the Bishops and the steps by which that interest hath been managed in Scotland and should give a just Character of the States-men and Church-men by whom it hath been carried on It is like we might give a ground of our dislikes of Episcopacy not inferiour to what he mentioneth and much more weighty with all the true Lovers of serious Religion but this way of Arguing is not what we lay much weight on in debate with our Adversaries Tho' I doubt not but that there is reason to think that that which is Christs Institution is usually found to be a more effectual mean for advancing true Religion in the Church than that which is a device of Man § 54. Our Author near the end of p. 62. maketh a great Concession as he seemeth to imagine when he telleth us that in 1591 1591 and 1602. The King being so often brought into danger and trouble by the Seditions of Mr. Andrew Melvill and his fiery Complices did consent to grant a great deal of Jurisdiction to Presbytries Synods and General Assemblies Here I take notice 1. That when he cannot get the Truth denied he endeavoureth to smother it for not only a great deal of Jurisdiction was granted to the Presbyterian Church 1592 but all Church Power that any Presbyteriaâ— did lay claim to was by Law settled on the Presbyterian Church Judicatories and none at all wiâ—â— either given or left to Bishops For what else can be understood by ratifying all immunities and Freedoms whatsoever given and granted by his Highness his Regents in his Name or any of his Predecessours and at the same time ratifying and approving General Assemblies appointed by the saiâ— Kirk and Synods and Presbytries and particular Sessions as the words of the Act of Parliamenâ— are Moreover that Act is conceived in a stile that supposeth Presbytry to be then and to have been before the Government established in the Church of Scotland while it giveth those Libertieâ— to the True and Holy Church presently established within this Realm His pretense that this was a force on the King to prevent Seditions is a groundless assertion For the King had often shewed dislike of the one way and the other and was for either of them as his interest led him not being convinced of the Jus Divinum of either way The story he telleth of Chancellour Maitland's advice to settle Presbytry in hope that they would make themselves odious was but his Opinion anâ— in this he proved no true Prophet That there was no Act for the abolishing Episcopacy as p. 63. iâ— was no wonder for it