of the first Act continues to have a Supremacy over all Esâ—…ates Ecclesiastical as well Civil and over all Peâ—…sons and Causes thereto relating and thâ—… Clergy of Sâ—…otland arâ—… as much bound to own this Supremacy as those of 〈◊〉 â—…ere I cannot but observe how visibly the Disloyalty and 〈◊〉 of this Paâ—…ty to all Civil Government does appear Thâ—…y endeavour under pretence of lodging all Ecclesiastical 〈◊〉 in tâ—… Church to divest the King of that Power in the externâ—…l ordâ—…ing of Church Matters which does duly belong to him as being the supreme Governor within his oâ—…n Dominions and yet they aâ—…e so sar from settling the whole Ecclesiasâ—…ical Jurisdiction in tâ—…e hands of Spiritual Persons as they pretend that they have not so much as one Judicatory but what does consist of at least 〈◊〉 as many Laicks as those who pretend to be Ecclesiasticks They 〈◊〉 not allow the King so much Power as to Convocate the Clergy soâ—… the 〈◊〉 of Matters about Religion when he thinks fit or to â—…ommand them faithfully to discharge their Duties and Functions which he may lawfully do by virtue of his Civil Power over their Persons as his Subjects and yet they allow the lay-Lay-Elders in their General Assemblies to share with them in the Authority of inâ—…licting Spiritual Censures which properly belongs to none but Spiritual Persons and their indulging the Laity this Power in spiritual matters is more than what they can well account â—…or according to the first Institution of thâ—… Ministry In their General Assemblies there is no Minister dâ—…prived of hiâ—… function no Sentence of â—…xcommunication passed no â—…eretick condemned nor any thing of moment transacted but what thâ—…ir Lay-Elders share in as much as their Teachers and yet is the King should 〈◊〉 any such Power in their Meetiâ—…gs they would be apt to â—…ly in his Face as an Oppressor and Persecutor of the Cause of God but methinks they might at least indulge him the 〈◊〉 of being one of their Ruling Elders That the Church has Power of calling her Assemblies and exercising â—…er Discipline in some extraordinary Cases even contrary to the Command of the Civil Magistrate is what we do not deny as this Author is pleasâ—…d to alledge The Apostles and Primitive Christians did in a direct opposition to the Roman Emperours and Jewish Sanhedrim frequently meet together to perform the Religious Exercises of Devotion and determine such Controversies as then happened to arise among their Bâ—…ethren and this they did without thinking that they encroached in the least upon the just Rights of the lawful Powers then in being And what was lawful for them to do is still lawful for the prâ—…sent Châ—…rch in the same Circumstances for the Magistrates being now Christian can Intitle him to no grâ—…ter Power in Church 〈◊〉 by Virtue of his Civil Authority than what did bâ—…ong to the Heathen Magistrates The Church may indeed upon prudent Moâ—…ives indulge the Christian Magiâ—…trate a greater Power of 〈◊〉 in Ecclesiastical matters than whâ—…t had been 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or â—…afe to intrust the Heathen Emperours wiâ—…h but this Power which the Church Grants to the Magistrate does no ways belong to him by 〈◊〉 of â—…is Civil Authority it is only Indulged â—…im by the Church in prospect of his Temporal Protection and thereâ—…ore 〈◊〉 he instead of a Nursing Faâ—…her to her shall turn an oppressing 〈◊〉 or when the Church shall see it any way necessary sor the well being and safety of Religion she may recal it again at her pleasure But as we allow the Church to have the sole Power and Authority in matters purely Spiritual so we deny that any such 〈◊〉 Jurisdiction belongs to her as to exâ—…mpt the Bodies of the Clâ—…gy from Subjection to the Civil Powers They owe their Sovereign the same Duty and Obedience with the rest of his Subjects are as much under the Jurisdiction of his Civil Courts as liable to the Temporal punishments which he inflicts as the persons of the Laiâ—…y sor otherwise the Civil Magistrate could have no security for hiâ—… Government We do not allow the Clergy to be Judges of every thing done by themselves in the first instance which is the height of the Popish Usurpation and Supremacy and makes Church-men no Subjects And herein it is that we differ from the Presbyterians in asserting the Jurisdiction of the Church they together with the Papists carry it to such a height as to claim an exemption for the Clergy of their not being answerable to the Civil Courts of the Nation but only cognizable by themselves they deny the secular Magistrate any Power to punish the persons of the Clergy for Rebellion and Treason preached openly from their Pulpits or any other Crime till they once be Convicted of the Crime and Condemned therefore by a sentence of an Ecclesiastick Judicatory That this is or at least was always wont to be the constant Principle of the Presbyterian Party is so Notorious that I admire this Author should ever attempt to conceal it Was it not their proceeding to practice upon these principles which gave the first Rise to that Act of Parliament in K. James VI's Reign ratifying the King's Supremacy For one Mr. And. Melvil a Presbyterian Minister having declaimed â—…requently against the King for which being called before the Council he boldly declined the King and Council as Judges in prima instantia of what is Preach'd in the Pulpit even tho' it were High Treason and so he fled into England Whereupon the Nation Assembled in Parliament in the year 1584 in a just Resentment of thâ—…se Seditious Doctrines and Practices did pass the abovementioned Act of Supremacy and it was by Vertue of that very Act that Mr Ja. Guthrie a Presbyterian Minister was anno 1661 hanged for declining the King's Authority The Presbyterian Ministers declaimed against and reproached this Act of Parliament and in opposition thereto one of their Number Mr. Dav. Black having Railed against K. James and Queen Elizabeth from the Pulpit as Enemies to God being called before the King's Council he not â—…nly declined the King's Power of judging him until he was first Condemned by his Brethren but United most of the Ministers of Sâ—…tland most tumultuously in his Defence and some of them who were then residing at Edinburgh stirred up the multitude to such a Rage and Fury upon this occasion that they presently leapâ—… to Arms and came to the Street in great Numbers crying The Sword of the Lord and of Gideon it shall either be theirs or ours And taking their March streight to the Session-House where the King and his Counsellors were then met would in all probability have forced the Doors which upon the Noise of the Tumult were shut and done no small mischief were it not that by the Providence of God a Loyal party drawn together by the Deacon Conveener of the Trades kept them back for a while till their Fury cooled a little and in
his Church as a Society and invested it with peculiar Priviledges belonging thereto he must be allowed to have settled and established a distinct Order of Persons for the governing it and for admitting Members to a right to all those Priviledges which he has appropriated to the Members of the Society And if he has separated a certain Order of Persons for this Office and impowered them and them alone to seal his Covenants in his Name it must needs be Sacriledge in the highest degree for any to usurp that Office without a due and legal Call from those whom God has appointed to conveigh his Authority And God can never be obliged by the acts of those Persons whom he never authorized to represent him no more than a King can be said to be under any obligation to ratiâ—…ie the acts of any one that usurps his Authority and falsly pretends to be his Ambassador So that to alter the Government of the Church from what it was at first constituted by our Saviour is nothing less than to underminâ—… the whole ground of our Salvation since we can have no Title to the Benefits of the Gospel but as we are Members of Christ's Church here on Earth and we cannot pretend to be Members unless we bâ—… admitted into the Society by those Persons whom God has delegated to that Office and intrusted with that Power But notwithstanding the impertinence and weakness of this Argument in Vindication of the Church-Government yet since our Author insults so mightily upon it I shall comply with him so fâ—…r as to consider the grounds of his Assertion only I would caution the Reader never to lay stress on such kind of Arguments as are altogether incompetent and of no force to prove the Truth of any Principle of Religion For there is no Doctrine which is in it self false that can be justified by never so general a reception of it and therefore it can be no Argument of the lawfulness of any form of Church Government that it is the most agreeable to the Inclinations of the People All his Evidences to prove that Presbytery is more popular in Scotland than Episcopacy amount to no more than this that the Presbyterians have made more Insurrections in behalf of their Government than the Episcopal Church ever thought fit to do And that this is not sufficient evidence enough to prove their point will easily appear from hence The Principles of our Presbyterians with respect to Monarchy are of a very large extent they make the Supreme Power of the Nation accountable to his Subjects and allow he may be resisted and Dethroned for his Male-Administration So that if the Sovereign shall at any time think sit to mâ—…ke such Alterations either in Church or State as do not exactly quadrate with the Wild Humours and Fancies of that Party then they instantly betake themselves to Arms and resolve to involve the Nation into Blood and Confusion rather than fail of having their unaccountable Humours gratified But the Episcopal Church of that Kingdom have greater restraints upon them they own in Consormity to the Laws of the Reaâ—… and to the Laws of God in his â—…irst Institution of Government that the Supreme Power is irresistable and cannot for any Male Administration be Dethroned by his Subjects that if he be guilty of any Illegal or Unjustifiable Actions in his Government he is accountable to none for them but to God alone And therefore although the Sovereign should chance to â—…stablish such Constitutions either in Church or State as are contrary both to the Laws of God and the particular Laws of the Realm yet by reason of their strict Obligations to absolute submission they are not at Liberty to Rise in Arms and assert their Rights that are thus encroached upon They may indeed veâ—…y lawfully refuse their actual concurrence and compliance with these sinful Constitutions but to resist or Dethrone their Sovereign upon that Account is what they are not able to Justifie either by the Laws of God or the Laws of the Nation This is and has been the constant Principle and Doctrine of our Church and if any of its Members have Acted contrary thereto they have in so far deserted the Principles of their Church and slighted their Sacred Vows and Obligations and therefore ought in Conscience speedily to return to their Duty The Reason why the Episcopal Church Act more submissively to the Lawful Powers than the Presbyterians is not that there lie stricter Obligations to Obedience upon the one Party than the other no they are both subject to the same Laws are obliged to own the same Prince and are under the same Obligations and Ties of Conscience to submit and adhere to him But the difference lies here that the Episcopal Church make some Conscience of performing their Duty and of Walking answerably â—…o their Vows and Obligations and resolve in Conformity to their â—…imitive Ancestors rather to suffer Peâ—…secution than be guilty of Rebellion On the contrary the Presbyterians sacrificâ—… aâ—…l Duties to the Interest of their Party and where that is concerned make light of all Obligations So that whoever considers the different Principles of both these Parties will never conclude from hence that Presbytery is more popular in Scotland than Episcopacy meerly because there have been more popular Insurrections for it than for the other since the Presbyterians think it lawful to Rebel upon that account and the Episcopal Church look upon it as altogether unjustiâ—…iable to resist the lawful Powers upon any account even of Religion it self As for what our Author urges concerning the great Party that appeared for the Presbyterian Government in this last Convention which Abolished Episcopacy and Established Presbytery I shall plainly make it appear that this can be no Argument that they have the Majority of the Nation on their side At the time when this Convention was called in Scotland the Affairs of our Nation were in such a distracted condition as made the Event altogether uncertain and upon this account many of the Episcopal Gentlemen who were wont formerly to be Members of Parliament thought it safer to keep out of publick business and therefore refused to be Elected by those Shires and Burroughs whom they used always to represent in Parliament Nay some of them were so averse from being Elected themselves that they would not so much as be present to Vote at the Election of othâ—…rs thinking it to be a direct breach of their Ties and Oaths to the Government and particularly that of the Test to meet or consult about the Aâ—…airs of the Nation without the consent of the King So that at many of the Elections one third part of the Members concerned therein refused to be present and the Episcopal Gentlemen declining to be Elected there was no opposition made to any that would stand and this was certainly the Reason why more Presbyterian Members â—…rept into this Convention than ever durst appear in the like
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
Kingdom defeated our Forces and oppressed all that stood in any sort suspected of the Crime of Loyalty But it is evident from the History of these Times that the generality of the Presbyterians were so far from being forward in owning the King's Interest that at the same time when Cromwel was so successful in the South of Scâ—…tland as to have all besouth Forth under his Dominion great numbâ—…rs of them were assembled in Arms in the West and remonstrated against the Nation for owning the King's Interest And this much of the Loyalty of our Presbyterians This Author Pag. 53. to justifie the Procâ—…dings of their late General Assembly in refusing to admit some of the Episcopal Clergy into a share of their Government upon the Terms desired by K. William urges That they did noâ—…hing but what the Church of England Convocâ—…tion had done 〈◊〉 them who 〈◊〉 to admit thâ—… 〈◊〉 on the same King's dâ—…sire It were no small presumption in me to offer any Vindication of the Proceedings of those learned and worthy Meembers of the Convocation in England who at that time opposed the designed Comprehension of the Dissenters but I think I may be allowâ—…d to say that they wâ—…nt upon far better Grounds than our pretended General Assembly who refused to receive such of the Episcopal Clergy as condescended to address them upon that account I am not concerned here to enquire into the â—…awfulness of what these â—…piscopal Addressers did in desiring to be united with the Prâ—…sbyterians in the Government of the Church I shall not here so much as enter upon that Question My business at present is only to shew that the 〈◊〉 of Scotland are â—…ar more inexcusable in denying the Request of these Episcopal Ministers that addressed them than those of the English Convocation who obstructed the Union with the Dissenters upon the Terms that were then proposed and my Reasons are these First The Dissenters in England never offered any Address to the Convocotion declaring their Willingness to return to the Churches Communion upon her laying aside the use of these innocent Ceremonies which they pretend they cannot in Conscience comply with Had the Presbyterians given but the least intimation of their readiness to abandon their Schism upon the making of these Alterations the Clergy perhaps to further so desirable a Work might have easily been induced to grant them some Ease as to their unreasonable Scruples about those harmless Rites used in our Worship which tho' indisferent in their Nature yet are very signiâ—…icant in their Use. But it is to no purpose ever to expect to reclaim the Presbyterians from their Schism upon such Terms since they declare against the whole Body of the Common-Prayer and the Order of Episcopacy as unlawful and therefore to make Alterations in the manner of our Woâ—…hip which could have no other esfect but to create more Enemies to our Communion was no ways consistent with the Prudence that is required in Ecclesiastical Governours Now this is what the Scâ—…ts Assembly cannot urge in their Defence since those of the Lpiscopal Clergy who had the freedom to joyn with them in the Government of the Church Petitioned them upon that account and declared their readiness to concur with them in maintaining the Discipline of the Church and punishing scandalous and contumacious Offenders which were all the Acts of Government they deâ—…ired to share with them in As for their Presbyterian Ordinations they did indeed declare positively against them and refused to joyn with them in any such Acts as they thought to be direct Encroachments upon the Episcopal Power But Secondly There is another Reason which may have influenced the â—…nglish Convocation to oppose the Alterations in the form of our Worship which K. William did then desire them to make and that is Tâ—…e Preservation and Safâ—…ty of the whole Liturgy They were â—…t that time sensible of the fatal overthrow of their Neighbouring Church of Scâ—…tland how the Order and Constitution of its Governmâ—…nt was â—…uite overturned by the Presbyterians and not only the Biâ—…hops turned out both of their Spiritual and Temporal Rights but 〈◊〉 the greatest part of the Clergy most barbarously Treated â—…nd driven from their Houses and Churches This cruel Treatment which their Brethren in 〈◊〉 received from that Dissenting Party might juâ—…tly aâ—…arm the English Clergy to expect the same Usage from the Pâ—…esbyterians here as soon as they could thrust themselves into 〈◊〉 power of doing thâ—…m any mischief And therefore considering the great Interest the Presbyterians had in that â—…irst Parliament aâ—…ter the Revolution it was no ways safe for the Convocation to consent to the Dissolving of the present Act of Uniformity lest they should meet with such Obstacles in establishing another as they were hardly able at that time to grapple with The Presbyterian Members of that Parliament were so numerous that had the present Act of Uniformity been once dissolved they would have thâ—…own in so many Stops and Hinderances against a new Establishment of the â—…urgy by Act of Parliament they would have started so many new Scruples of Conscience to be solved about it and by this means occasioned such infinite deâ—…ys therein as would have made the Re-settlement of our Liturgy a tâ—…ing almost impossible If the Parliament had offered to ratisie the Service-Book with the Alterations the Convocation should think fit to make therein before they Dissolved this present Act of Uniformity I cannot tell but many Members of that Convocation might have been prevailed with to Consent to some Alterations in those indisferent Ceremonies the Presbyterians so groundlesly exclaim against that for the future they might not have the least pretence for continuing in their notorious and wretched Schism But for the Convocation to consent to the Dissolving the present Establishment without having any security for another is what none could expect from any prudent or reasonable Society Thirdly The Convocation in England might perhaps be the more remiss in promoting an Union with the Diâ—…senters upon the Terms proposed because they saw no probability of preserving thereby the Unity of the Church as long as the Presbyterians profess to own no common Principles of Unity with us that may still oblige them to remain in the Communion of the Church Unless they acknowledge our Biâ—…hops to be the Principles of Unity and that it is necessary for every one that intends to continue a Member of the Catholick Church to be united in their Communion I say unless they own these Catholick Painciples of Unity in common with us we can have no security that they will remain ours any longer than their Interest shews them their Duty And therefore an Union with them upon any other Terms in stead of preserving the Unity of the Church would be a ready way to enable them to make a greater rent and breach in our Communion whenever they should see it their Interest again to erect Altar against Altar But our Scots