swatch pardon the word if it is not English of both his Historical and his Argumentative Skill a talent he bewails much the want of in his Adversaries as may make it appear just and reasonable for any man to decline him But lest he is not represented there so fully as he ought to be so fully as may justify my declining of him I shall be at some farther pains here to give the Reader a fuller prospect of him To delineate him minutely might perchance be too laborious for me and too tedious and loathsome to my Reader I shall restrict my self therefore to his four Cardinal Virtues his Learning his Iudgment his Civility and his Modesty Or because we are Scottishmen to give them their plain Scotch names his Ignorance his Non-sence his Ill-nature and his Impudence Perhaps I shall not be able to reduce every individual instance to its proper Species 'T is very hard to do that in matters which have such affinity one with another as there is between Ignorance and Non-sence or between Ill-nature and Impudence But this I dare promise if I cannot keep by the Nice Laws of Categories I shall be careful to keep by the Strict Laws of Iustice I shall entitle him to nothing that is not truely his own So much for Preface come we next to the Purpose And in the 1. Place I am apt to think since ever writing was a Trade there was never Author furnished with a richer stock of unquestionable Ignorance for it To insist on all the Evidences of this would swell this Preface to a Bulk beyond the Book I omit therefore his making Presbyterian Ruling Elders as contradistinct from Teaching Elders of Divine Institution his making the SENIORES sometimes mentioned by the Fathers such Ruling Elders and his laying stress on the old blunder about St. Ambrose's testimony to that purpose vide True Represent of Presbyterian Government prop. 3. These I omit because not peculiar to him I omit even that which for any thing I know may be peculiar to him viz. That his Ruling Elders are called Bishops and that their necessary Qualifications are set down at length in Scrip. e. g. 1 Tim. 3.2 and Tit. 1.6 ibid. Prop. 3.4 I omit his Learn'd affirmative that Patronages were not brought into the Church till the 7 th or 8 th Centurie or Later And that they came in amongst the latest Antichristian Corruptions and Vsurpations ibid. Answ. to Object 9 th I omit all such Assertions as these that the most and most Eminent of the Prelatists acknowledge that by our Saviours appointment and according to the practice of the first and best Ages of the Church she ought to be and was Governed in Common by Ministers Acting in Parity ibid. Prop. 12. That Diocesan Episcopacy was not settled in St. Cyprian 's time Rational Defence of Nonconformity c. p. 157 That Diocesan Episcopacy prevailed not for the first three Centuries and that it was not generally in the 4 th Centurie ibid. 158. That the Bishop S. Cyprian all alongst speaks of was a Presbyterian Moderator ibid. 179. That Cyprian Austine Athanasius c. were only such Moderators ibid. 175 176 177 178. I omit his insisting on the Authority of the Decretal Epistles attributed to Pope Anacletus as if they were Genuine ibid. 202. And that great Evidence of his skill in the affairs of the Protestant Churches viz. That Episcopacy is not to be seen in any one of them Except England ibid. p. 10. Nay I omit his nimble and learned Gloss he has put on St. Ierom's Toto Orbe Decretum c. viz. That this Remedy of Schism in many places began then i. e. in St. Ierom's time to be thought on and that it was no wonder that this Corruption began then to creep in it being then about the end of the fourth Centurie when Jerome wrote c. ibid. 170. Neither shall I insist on his famous Exposition of St. Ierom's Quid facit Episcopus c. because it has been sufficiently exposed already in the Historical Relation of the General Ass. 1690. Nor on his making Plutarch Simonides Chrysostom c. Every Graecian speak Latin when he had the confidence to cite them These and 50 more such surprising Arguments of our Authors singular learning I shall pass over And shall insist only a little on two or three instances which to my taste seem superlatively pleasant And 1. In that profound Book which he calls a Rational Defence of Nonconformity c. in Answer to D. Stillingfleet's Vnreasonableness of the separation from the Church of England pag. 172. He hath Glossed St. Chrysostom yet more ridiculously than he did St. Ierom. The passage as it is in Chrysostom is sufficiently famous and known to all who have enquired into Antiquity about the Government of the Church The Learned Father having Discoursed concerning the Office and Duties of a Bishop Hom. 10. on 1 Tim. 3. and proceeding by the Apostles Method to Discourse next of Deacons Hom. II. started this difficulty How came the Apostle to prescribe no Rules about Presbyters And he solved it thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 St. Paul says he did not insist about Presbyters because there 's no great difference between them and Bishops Presbyters as well as Bishops have received Power to Teach and Govern the Church And the Rules he gave to Bishops are also proper for Presbyters For Bishops excel Presbyters only by the Power of Ordination and by this alone they are reckoned to have more Power than Presbyters Vide Edit Savil. Tom. 4. p. 289. Now 't is plain to the most ordinary attention That in the Holy Father's Dialect 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies the Power of conferring Orders just as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signify the Powers of Teaching and Governing Consider now the Critical Skill of G. R. Bellarmine had adduced this Testimony it seems to shew that there was a Disparity in point of Power between Bishops and Presbyters and had put it in Latin thus Inter Episcopum atque Presbyterum interest fere nihil quippe Presbyteris Ecclesiae cura permissa est quae de Episcopis dicuntur ea etiam Presbyteris congruunt Sola quippe Ordinatione Superiores illi sunt So G. R. has it I know not if he has transcribed it faithfully 'T is not his custom to do so Nor have I Bellarmine at hand to compare them Sure I am the Translation doth not fully answer the Original But however that is go we forward with our Learned Author These are his words What he Bellarmine alledgeth out of this citation that a Bishop may Ordain not a Presbyter the Learned Fathers expression will not bear For Ordination must signify either the Ordination the Bishop and Presbyter have whereby they are put in their Office to be different which he doth not alledge Or that the difference between them was only in Order or Precedency not in Power or Authority Or that it
our Author what kind of Scene he took it to be Whither was it Tragical or Comical or Both Tragical to the Prelatists and Comical to the Presbyterians It were worth enquiring likewise whom he meant by Sober Presbyterian Preachers If there are any such in the Nation How many Where do they preach c. But I insist not on these things because the Secret is not amongst them Yet The next thing he produces is worth the Noticing And they The Sober Presbyterian Preachers if they had preached against Rabbling the Clergy Should have lost their SWEET WORDS Now here is subject afforded for several weighty Controversies For it may be made a Question Whither it be the duty of Sober Presbyterian Preachers to preach Righteousness to a Rebellious people whither they will Hear or whither they will Forbear It may be made another Whither our Author here gave up all the Rabblers to a reprobate Sense 'T is possible he meant so For the Sweetest words the Soberest Presbyterians can utter in their preachings are not too precious to be spent on such as are in a state of Reclaimableness But that which I take to be the most proper Question the Question that ariseth most naturally from the Text is Whither Presbyterian Words are not Sweeteer than that they should be Spent on such needless purposes as the Recommendation and Assertion of Righteousness and the Condemnation of Iniquity Whither it had not been ane unaccountable prodigality in them to have lost their Sweet words about such Trifâ—ing concerns as these But neither is the Secret here But it follows now These practices of the Rabble were publickly spoken against by Ministers both before they were Acted for preventing them and after for Reproving them and preventing the like Here it is I say Has he not here discovered ane important Secret of his party Has he not discovered that the Rabbling of the Clergy was not the product of Chance or Accident but a Deliberated a Consulted ane Advised politick Has he not discovered that even the sober Presbyterian Ministers were privy to the plot of it Has he not told that they spake against it before it was Acted for preventing it And doth it not follow clearly that they knew of it before it was Acted for if they had known nothing of it how could they have spoken against it for preventing it But tho they knew of it that it was to be done yet it seems They Consented not that it should be Done For they spake against it for preventing of it But I am afraid our Author here turn'd weary of his Sincerity For who spake publickly against these practices of the Rabble Or where or when were they spoken against before they were acted I dare challenge him to name one of his most sober Presbyterian Ministers who preached publickly against them for preventing of them When I am put to it I can name more than One or Two who pretend to be of the First Rank of the Sober Presbyterian Ministers who knew of them indeed and Consulted privately about them and said It was the surest way to have the Curates once dispossessed Because Once dispossessed they might find difficulties in being Repossessed But I never heard of so much as One who preached against them before they were Done I am very confident G. R. cannot name One. Indeed Seeing as our Author Grants they knew of the Rabbling before it was Acted If they had been so serious against it as they should have been and as our Author would have us believe they were how natural and easy as well as Christian and Dutiful had it been to have given Advertisements to the poor men who were to suffer it about it Was ever any such thing done But it seems Presbyterian words were Sweeter to Presbyterian palates than Common humanity or Christian Charity They were too Sweet to be Lost in such Advertisements By this time the Reader I think has got a proof of G. R.'s tenderness even to his own Herd when the Argument of ane Adversary pinched him But this is not the Highest stept For 10. If ane Argument straitens him He never stands to baffle and expose and contradict and make a Lier of his own Learned Sensible Civil Modest Self And here again One might write a large volume but I shall confine my self to a Competent number of instances First then you never saw a Prelatist and a Presbyterian Contradicting one Another in more plain opposite and peremptory Terms than he has done himself on several occasions Take this Taste In his Answer to D. Stillingfleet's Irenicum p. 64 He is at great pains to prove that where Episcopacy is Presbyters have no power Particularly he has these two profound Arguments for it 1. If Bishops be set over Presbyter they must either be only Praesides which is not contrary to Parity or they must have Authority above and over their Brethren And if so They may rule without their Brethren Seeing they may command them c. 2. If Presbyters under a Bishop have ruling power either they may Determine without or against his consent or not if so The Bishop is but a President If not The Presbyters are but Cyphers Now who would think that one of G. R.'s Courage would ever have parted with such ane important proposition especially having such impregnable Arguments for it Yet Consider if he has not done it most notoriously in his Answer to the Doctors Vnreasonableness of the separation c. pag. 182. where he has these express words He The Doctor Vndertaketh to prove that the English Episcopacy doth not take away the whole power of Presbyters we do not alledge that it taketh away the whole power of Presbyters for that were to reduce them into the same order with the rest of the people but wee say it usurpeth ane undue power over them c. Again In his First Vind. of his Church of Scotland His cause led him in Answ. to Quest. 10. to say That K. Is. Tolleration was against Law He was pressed with this Argument about the Inclinations of the people That not fifty Gentlemen in all Scotland out of the West did upon the Indulgence forsake the Churches to frequent Meeting houses And his Answer was They clave to the former way i. e. Continued in the Episcopal Communion Because the Law stood for it Is it not plain here that the Meeting houses were contrary to Law Hear him now in his 2 vind p. 43 44. passim when he was prest with the Scandal of his party 's Complying with the dispensing power and erecting Meeting houses contrary to Law He affirmed boldly that the Dispensing power was according to Law And K. I. was enabled by Law to Grant his Toleration Again In his 2. vind in Answ. to Letter 1. § 9. p. 12. when he had the Meeting of Estates to Apologize for for suffering and allowing persons to sit as Members who were not Qualified according to Law He Granted some
such Members sate there but they had been most unjustly Forfeited in the Late Reign Even Parliamentary Forfeitures you see were most Vnjust Forfeitures and there was no Reason that they should exclude these Gentlemen from their Iust and Antient Rights and Priviledges But when he was pressed by the Author of the Case of the Afflicted Clergy c. with this That many Ministers Benefices were unjustly and illegally kept from them he got his Cloak on the other Shoulder as we say if the Authority of the Nation in the convention or Parliament have Determined otherwise I know not where their Legal Right can be founded p. 96. § 6. It was not so much as Knowable to our Author in that Case that there might be most Vnjust Parliamentary Determinations It were ane endless work to adduce all such little Squabbles as these between himself and himself I shall Insist therefore only on two more which are a little more Considerable And First Our Author was not at more pains about any one thing in his Answ. to D. Still.'s Irenicum than the Inseparableness that is between the Teaching and Ruling power of Presbyters He spent no less than 8 or 9 pages about it Stretching his Invention to find Arguments for it Whoso pleases to turn to page 79 may see the whole Deduction He is as earnest about it in his True Representation c. These are his words prop. 13 There being no Disparity of power amongst Ministers by Christs Grant of power to them No man can make this Disparity by setting one over the rest Neither can they Devolve their power on one of themselves For Christ hath given no such warrant to men to dispose of his Ordinances as they see fit And power being Delegated to them by him They cannot so commit it to Another to Exercise it for them as to deprive themselves of it Also it being not a Licence only But a Trust of which they must give ane account They must perform the work by themselves as they will be Answerable Now it is not possible for one to contradict himself more than he hath done both Indirectly and Directly in this matter He hath Contradicted himself Indirectly and by unavoidable Consequence in so far as he hath owned or owns himself a Presbyterian and for the Lawfulness not to say the Necessity of Scottish Presbyterian General Assemblies of the present Constitution For are all the Ruling Officers of Christs appointment Both Preaching and Governing Elders allowed to be Members of General Assemblies Do they all discharge their Trust and perform their work by themselves there as they will be Answerable to him from whom they got their Trust Doth not every Presbytery consisting of 12 16 or 20 preaching and as many Ruling Elders Send only some Three or Four Preaching Elders and only One Ruling Elder to the General Assembly Do they not Delegate these and Devolve their power upon them and Constitute them their Representatives for the Assembly Let their Commissions be Inspected and let it be Tryed if it is not so Now How is such a Delegation Consistent with our Authors position about the Indevolvibility or Indelegability of such a power It were easy to pursue this farther in its Consequents Now what an ill thing is it for a man thus to sap and subvert all his own Foundations To Contradict the fundamental Maximes of his own Scheme by such unadvised propositions But this is not the worst of it He hath contradicted himself most directly in that same Individual True Representation c. in Answ. to the 10th Objection and in his 2 Vind. p. 154 155. For in both places he endeavors to justify the Taking of all Ruling power out of the hands of the Episcopal Ministers and the putting it only in the hands of the Known sound Presbyterians Reserving to the Episcopal Ministers their Teaching power only 'T is true 'T is evident that he found himself sadly puzled in the Matter and was forced to bring in his Good Friend Necessity and the Old Covenant-Distinction of Status Ecclesiae turbatus and paratus to Lend him a Lift. I have considered his Friend Necessity sufficiently in my Book and thither I refer the Reader for satisfaction about it But what to do with his Praesens Ecclesiae Status I do not so well know Only this I dare say granting it to be so nimble as to break Scot-free through Divine Institutions Yet it can neither by itself nor with Necessity to help it reconcile notorious Contradictions The other Instance I shall adduce is in a very important matter no less than the Presbyterian Separation from the Episcopal Church of Scotland He was put to it to defend it in both his Vindications of his Church of Scotland First Vind. in Answ. to Quest. 4. 2 Vind. in Answer to Letter 2. § 3. All the Reasons he has for that Separation may be reduced to these Three 1. Episcopacy 2. The Episcopal Ministers were Vsurpers or Intruders For 3. They had not the Call of the People and so the People were not bound to own them as their Ministers These are his Grounds I say on which he justifies their Separation from us Now hear him in his Rational Defence c. published as I have told since the beginning of the Late Revolution by Consequence after the Scottish Schism was in its full Maturity Hear him there I say and you never heard Man reject any thing more fairly more fully or more directly than he hath done these his own Grounds Let us try them one by one 1. For Episcopacy turn first to pag. 95. And you shall find these very words Whatever fault we find with the Ministers of the Church and the Hierarchy we do not separate because of these we would joyn with you the English Church for all these Grievances if you would but suffer us to do it without sinning against God in that which is our personal Action Turn next to pag. 150. There he offers at enumerating the Causes that cannot justify a Separation and he talks particularly about Episcopacy thus We are grieved with Prelatical Government and taking away that Parity of Power that Christ hath given to the Ordinary Ministers of his Church This we cannot approve and therefore Ministers ought rather to suffer Deprivation of the publick Exercise of their Ministry than own it And People also ought not to own that their Lordly Authority that they Exercise Yet because this is not Required to be acknowledged as a Lawful Power in the Church by the People I see not that we should withdraw from the Publick Assemblies meerly because there are Diocesan Bishops set over the Church Except our owning them by submitting to their Iurisdiction is Required as one of the Terms of Communion with the Church Who so pleases may find more to the same purpose pag. 157 275 c. Nay So condescending is he in that Book p. 159. that he can allow Bishops their Temporal Honours and Dignities
have fully proven and which was all I still aim'd at yet it is easy to Discover they were very far from keeping Closely by the Principles and Measures of the primitive constitution of Church Government This is so very apparent to any who Reads the Histories of these times and is so visible in the Deduction I have made that I shall insist no longer on it Secondly The truth of my charge may further appear from the Instance of Adamson advanced this year 1576 to the Archbishoprick of St. Andrews That Nature had furnished him with a good stock and he was a smart Man and cultivated beyond the ordinary Size by many parts of good Literature is not denyed by the Presbyterian Historians themselves They never attempt to represent him as a Fool or a Dunce tho' they are very eager to have him a Man of Tricks and Latitude Now this Prelates ignorance in true Antiquity is Remarkably visible in his subscribing to these Propositions Anno 1580 if we may believe Calderwood The Power and Authority of all Pastors is equal and alike great amongst themselves The Name Bishop is Relative to the Flock and not to the Eldership For he is Bishop of his Flock and not of other Pastors or fellow Elders As for the Preheminence that one beareth over the rest it is the Invention of Man and not the Institution of Holy Writ That the ordaining and appointing of Pastors which is also called the laying on of hands appertaineth not to one Bishop only so being Lawful Election pass before but to those of the same Province or Presbytery and with the like Iurisdiction and Authority Minister at their Kirks That in the Council of Nice for eschewing of private ordaining of Ministers it was statuted that no Pastor should be appointed without the consent of him who dwelt or remained in the Chief and Principal City of the Province which they called the Metropolitan City That after in the latter Councils it was statuted that things might proceed more solemnly and with greater Authority that the laying on of hands upon Pastors after Lawful Election should be by the Metropolitan or Bishop of the Chief and principal Town the rest of the Bishops of the Province voting thereto In which thing there was no other Prerogative but only that of the Town which for that cause was thought most meet both for the conveening of the Council and Ordaining of Pastors with common Consent and Authority That the Estate of the Church was corrupt when the name Bishop which before was common to the rest of the Pastors of the Province began without the Authority of Gods Word and ancient Custome of the Kirk to be attributed to one That the power of appointing and ordaining Ministers and Ruling of Kirks with the whole procuration of Ecclesiastical Discipline was now only devolved to one Metropolitan The other Pastors no ways challenging their Right and Privilege therein of very slothfulness on the one part And the Devil on the other going about craftily to lay the ground of the Papistical Supremacy From these and such other Propositions sign'd by him at that time it may be judged I say if this Prelate did not bewray a very profound ignorance in true Ecclesiastical Antiquity Ane Arrant Presbyterian could not have said could not have wished more Indeed 't is more than probable as perchance may appear by and by that these Propositions were taken out either formally or by collection of Mr. Beza's Book De Triplici Episcopatu Now if Adamson was so little seen in such matters what may we judge of the rest But this is not all For Thirdly There cannot be a greater Evidence of the deplorable unskilfulness of the Clergy in these times in the ancient records of the Church than their suffering Melvil and his Party to obtrude upon them The Second Book of Discipline A split new Democratical Systeme a very Farce of Novelties never heard of before in the Christian Church For instance What else is the confounding of the Offices of Bishops and Presbyters The making Doctors or Professors of Divinity in Colledges and Vniversities a distinct Office and of Divine Institution The setting up of Lay-Elders as Governours of the Church Jure Divino Making them Iudges of mens Qualifications to be admitted to the Sacrament Visiters of the Sick c. Making the Colleges of Presbyters in Cities in the primitive times Lay Eldership Prohibiting Appeals from Scottish General Assemblies to any Iudge Civil or Ecclesiastick and by consequence to Oecumenick Councils Are not these Ancient and Catholick Assertions What footsteps of these things in true Antiquity How easy had it been for men skilled in the Constitution Government and Discipline of the Primitive Church to have laid open to the Conviction of all sober Men the novelty the vanity the inexpediency the impoliticalness the uncatholicalness of most if not all of these Propositions If any further doubt could remain concerning the little skill the Clergy of Scotland in these times had in these matters it might be further Demonstated Fourthly from this plain matter of Fact viz. that that Second Book of Discipline in many points is taken word for word from Mr. Beza's Answers to the Questions proposed to him by The Lord Glamis then Chancellor of Scotland A fair Evidence that our Clergy at that time have not been very well seen in Ecclesiastical Politicks Otherwise it is not to be thought they would have been so imposed on by a single stranger Divine who visibly aimed at the propagation of the Scheme which by chance had got footing in the Church where he lived His Tractate De Triplici Episcopatu written of purpose for the advancement of Presbyterianism in Scotland carries visibly in its whole train that its design was to draw our Clergy from off the Ancient Polity of the Church and his Answers to the Six Questions proposed to him as I said by Glanus contain'd the New Scheme he advised them to Now let us taste a little of his skill in the Constitution and Government of the Ancient Church or if you please of his accounts of her Policy I take his Book as I find it amongst Saravia's works He is Positive for the Divine Right of Ruling Elders He affirms that Bishops arrogated to themselves the power of Ordination without Gods allowance That the Chief foundation of all Ecclesiastical Functions is Popular Election That this Election and not Ordination or Imposition of hands makes Pastors or Bishops That Imposition of hands does no more than put them in possession of their Ministry in the exercise of it as I take it the power whereof they have from that Election That by consequence 't is more proper to say that the Fathers of the Church are Created by the Holy Ghost and the suffrages of their Children than by the Bishops That Saint Paul in his first Epistle to the Corinthians in which he expressly writes against and condemns the
mistake not it may try his Reconciling Skill to make what he says here and what he said on these occasions piece well together Proceed we now to what he has said more about Strachan's Defence The Nations Representative says he had then own'd him W. as their King and therefore it was a contempt of the Authority of the Nation for any man to refuse to own him when called to do so Now what could move our Author to such a stretch of his main Talent as thus to say that the Representative of the Nation had owned him as their King I confess I am not able to fathom For how could they own him as King so long as he had not taken the Oath nor Agreed to the Claim of Right If they own'd him as King before that was he not King before that But if he was King before that where is the use of the Oath or the Claim of Right The Estates indeed upon the 11 th of April Declared W. and M. to be the Persons to whom they had resolved to Offer the Crown upon such and such Conditions as is evident from that day's Proclamation But the â—etter of the Estates by which they actually made the Offer of the Crown on these Conditions was not written till April 24. and the return bearing that They had Accepted of the Crown on these Conditions is dated May 17. And was not Doctor Strachan Deprived even before the Letter of the Estates was sent to London Were not more than 24 Ministers Deprived before their Majesties return came to Edenburgh Besides G. R.'s Impudence as sturdy as it is did not serve him it seems to give a faithful Account of D. Strachan's Defence and grapple with all the force of it For the Doctor if the Author of the Second Letter was right made the supposition that W. and M. might refuse to take the Crown with such Conditions This was so far from being ane Impossible that it was truly a very Reasonable a very Equitable a very Dutiful supposition Now suppose they had done so would they have been K. and Q. for all that by vertue of the Declaration of the Estates of the 11 th of April If so I ask again what the Coronation Oath or the Claim of Right signified Or were the Estates to make them K. and Q. whither they would or not If upon that supposition they had not been K. and Q. as undoubtedly they had not been then what can be more evident than that the Proclamation of the 11 th of April did no more than Nominate them to be K. and Q. upon their Agreeing to such Conditions So that G. R. was even himself when he said that the Nations Representative had own'd them as K. and Q. before the 13 th of April I add further What tho' they had own'd them as K. and Q. by their Proclamation of the 11 th of April Did not the whole Drift the whole Design the whole Train the whole Tendency the whole Aspect and the whole Circumstances of the Deliberations Resolutions and Conclusions of the Estates evidently propose it to the dullest apprehension that the Crown was not to be granted to them but on such and such Conditions This Question I propose for vindicating D. Strachan from the guilt of Contempt of the Authority of the Estates with which G. R. charges him For if the affirmative in the Question be true and I think G. R. himself dares not to say 't is false then I ask how it could be called a Contempt of the Authority of the Nation to have refused then to own W. and M. as K. and Q. How can he be said to Contemn the Authority of the Nation who Reasons upon the Nations Authority Who Reasons upon the Force of all the Deliberations Resolutions and Conclusions of the Representative Body of the Nation If doing so he doth yet Contemn the Authority of the Nation I am apt to think it cannot be his Fault He doth but what a man must needs do when the Nation makes Repugnant and Contradictory Determinations But after all this is it not pleasant that G. R. forsooth should so zealously exaggerate the Crime of Contemning the Authority of the Nation Good Man He paid it a wonderful Dutifulness all his life Far was it still from him to treat it with such Contempt as Dr. Strachan's amounted to But he has not yet done He Answers further that it is a Material mistake of the words of the Claim of Right that was alledged in Strachan's Defence which doth not say none can be King or Queen but that none can exercise the Regal Power till they have taken the Coronation Oath It is certain that on the death of a King his Rightful Successor is King and may be prayed for as such and such praying may be injoined even before taking of the Oath The same may be said of one Chosen and Proclaim'd by the Supreme Authority of the Nation which is the Case now in hand Here is a piece of as odd stuff as one would wish to see For if it was a Material mistake to say none can be King or Queen when it should have been said none can exercise the Regal Power it seems to me to have been a mistake made of very Mathematical Matter not of the solid sensible Matter which can be felt and handled For my part I cannot forbear thinking it must be compounded of Negative Quantities till I shall learn how one can be a King i. e. a Person who has Right to Rule and Act as King who has yet no Right to exercise the Regal Power or Act as King I know one may be Physically incapable of exercising the Regal Power and Acting as King by himself in several Cases such as that of Infancy c. yet even then he has Right which is not a Physical but a Moral Quality Now I say I would fain understand how one can be a King without this Moral Quality or how he can have this Moral Quality called Right and yet be Morally incapable of exercising it I shall own G. R. is good at Metaphysicks if he can give ane Intelligible Account of these things Well! But it is certain that on the death of a King his Rightful Successor is King and may be Prayed for as such and such Praying may be injoyned even before taking of the Oath All this is true But then I affirm it is as true that that Rightful Successor who is King may and can exercise the Regal Power and Act as King before he takes the Oath So I am sure our Scottish Monarchs have done So the Law allows them to do so of necessity they must do For instance they are not bound by Law to take the Oath but at their Coronation And not to speak of other things I think it is truly ane exercising of their Regal Power and Acting as Kings to appoint the preparations for the day the place the solemnities c. of their own
be the Vindicator of their Kirk If they can imploy any civil discreet ingenuous person to write for them I shall be heartily satisfied and for his Encouragement I do promise if he falls to my share I shall treat him suitably Nay After all if even G. R. himself will lay aside such Qualities as I have demonstrated adhere to him if he will undertake to write with that Gravity and Civility that Charity and Modesty that Honesty and Ingenuity which may be thought to become One of his Age and Character I can as yet admit of him for my Adversary for I think the Party cannot assign me a weaker one And I do hereby promise him ane Equitable Meeting FINIS ADVERTISEMENT THis Book was designed for the Press December 1693. The Article That Prelacy and the Superiority of any Office in the Church above Presbyters is and hath been a great and insupportable Grievance and Trouble to this Nation and contrary to the Inclinations of the Generality of the people ever since the Reformation they having Reformed from Popery by Presbyters And therefore ought to be Abolished THis Article was Established in our Claim of Right April 11 1689. By vertue of this Article Prelacy was actually Abolished by Act of Parliament Iuly 22. 1689. Upon the foot of this Article Presbyterian Government was Established Iune 7. Anno 1690. This Act Establishing Presbyterian Government was Ratified in the whole Heads Articles and Clauses thereof Iune 12. 1693. It is indisputable then That This Article is the Great Foundation of that Great Alteration which hath been made in the Government of the Church of Scotland since the Beginning of the Late Revolution Whether therefore This is a Solid or a Sandy Foundation cannot but be deem'd a Material Question And I think I shall bid fair for the Determination of this Question if I can give clear and distinct Satisfaction to these following Enquiries I. Whether the Church of Scotland was Reform'd solely by persons cloath'd with the Character of Presbyters II. Whether our Scottish Reformers whatever their Characters were were of the present Presbyterian Principles Whether they were for the Divine institution of Parity and the unlawfulness of Prelacy amongst the Pastors of the Church III. Whether Prelacy and the superiority of any Office in the Church above Presbyters was a great and insupportable Grievance and trouble to this Nation and contrary to the inclinations of the generality of the people ever since the Reformation IV. Whether it was Such when this Article was Established in the Claim of Right V. Whether supposing the premisses in the Article were True They would be of sufficient Force to infer the Conclusion viz. That Prelacy and the Superiority of any Office in the Church ought to be abolished The Determination of the main Question I say may competently result from a perspicuous discussion of these five Enquiries And therefore I shall attempt it as fairly as I can leaving to the world to judge equitably of my performance And without further prefacing I come to The First Enquiry Whether the Church of Scotland was Reformed solely by persons cloath'd with the Character of Presbyters IF the Framers of the Article meant that it was in these words They having Reformed from Popery by Presbyters I think I am pretty sure they meant amiss For there is nothing more obvious to one who reads and compares our Histories than That persons standing in other stations and cloath'd with other Characters had a very great hand and were very considerable Instruments in carrying on our Reformation Particularly 1. There were Prelates who concurred in that work as well as Presbyters Knox says there were present in the Parliament holden in August 1560. which Parliament gave the first National Establishment to our Reformation The Bishop of Galloway the Abbots of Lundoris Culross St. Colmes-inih Coldingham Saint Mary-isle and the Subprior of St. Andrews with diverse others And of all these he says That they had Renounced Papistrie and openly professed Jesus Christ. Spotswood reckons up no fewer than Eight of the Spiritual Estate all Protestants chosen at that time to be Lords of the Articles Namely the Bishops of Galloway and Argyle the Prior of St. Andrews the Abbots of Aberbrothoik Kilwinning Lundors Newbottle and Culross Lay these two Accounts together and you shall have at least a Round Dozen of Reforming Prelates 'T is True Spotswood says The Popish Prelates stormed mightily at such a Nomination for the Articles alledging that some of them were meer Laicks But what if it was so I am apt to think our Presbyterian Brethren will not be fond to make much advantage of this I am apt to think they will not say That all those whom they allow to have been Reforming Presbyters were Duely and Canonically Ordained That they were solemnly seperated for the Ministery by such as had Commission and Power to Separate them and in such Manner as had Universally obtained from the Apostles times in the Separation of Presbyters for their holy Function The plain truth is 2. Our Reformation was principally carried on by such as neither Did nor Could pretend to be Canonically promoted to Holy Orders Knox himself tells us that when the Reformation began to make its more publick Advances which was in the Year 1558. there was a great Scarcety of Preachers At that time says he we had no publick Ministers of the word Only did certain Zealous Men among whom were the Laird of Dun David Forress Mr. Robert Lockhart Mr. Robert Hamilton William Harlaw and others Exhort their Brethren according to the Gifts and Graces granted to them But shortly after did God stir up his Servant Paul Methven c. Here we have but a very Diminutive account of them as to Number And such an Account as in its very Air and Countenance seems to own they were generally but Lay-Brethren They were but Zealous Men not Canonically ordained Presbyters And if we may believe Lesly Paul Methven was by Occupation a Baker and William Harlaw a Taylor The Laird of Dun that same very year was Provost of Montrose and as such sent to France as one representing not the First or the Spiritual but the Third Estate of Parliament the Burrows to attend at the Celebration of the Queens Marriage with the Dauphine of France He was indeed a Gentleman of good Esteem and Quality and he was afterwards as Superintendent but it no where appears that he was ever Received into Holy Orders Nay 3. After the pacification at Leith which was concluded in Iuly 1560 when the Ministers were distributed amongst the several Towns we find but a very small Number of them Iohn Knox was appointed for Edenburgh Christopher Goodman for St. Andrews Adam Herriot for Aberdeen Iohn Row for Perth William Chrystison for Dundee David Ferguson for Dunfermline Paul Methven for Iedburgh and Mr. David Lindesay for Leith Beside these Five were nominated to be Superintendents Spotswood for Lothian and
were deposable by the Superintendent of the Diocess and the Elders of the Parishes where they were Ministers but of this more hereafter But by that same First Book of Discipline the Superintendent was to be judged by the Ministers and Elders of his whole Province over which he was appointed and if the Ministers and Elders of the Province were negligent in correcting him one or two other Superintendents with their Ministers and Elders were to conveen him providing it were within his own Province or Chief Town and inflict the Censure which his Offence deserved Of the Reasonableness of this afterward 4. There was as remarkable a difference in point of Ordination which in the then Scottish stile was called Admission Private Ministers were to be admitted by their Superintendents as we shall find afterwards But by the First Book of Discipline Head 5. Superintendents were to be admitted by the Superintendents next adjacent with the Ministers of the Province 5. In the case of Translation the General Assembly holden at Edenburgh Decem. 25. 1562. Gives power to every Superintendent within his own bounds in his Synodal Assembly with consent of the most part of the Elders and Ministers of Kirks to translate Ministers from one Kirk to another as they shall consider the Necessity Charging the Minister so translated to obey the Voice and Commandment of the Superintendent But according to the First Book of Discipline Head 5. No Superintendent might be translated at the pleasure or request of any one Province without the Council of the whole Church and that for grave Causes and Considerations 6. A special care was to be taken of his Qualifications and Abilities for such ane important office for thus it is appointed by the First Book of Discipline Head 5. That after the Church shall be established and three years are past no man shall be called to the Office of a Superintendent who hath not two years at least given a proof of his faithful Labours in the Ministry A Caution simply unapplyable to Parish Ministers 7. He had a living provided for him by the First Book of Discipline Head 5. about five times as much yearly as was alotted for any private Minister And it is to be observed that this was in a time when the Popish Bishops still brooked their Benefices But when the Resolution was Anno 1567 to deprive all the Popish Clergy it was agreed to in the General Assembly by the Churchmen on the one hand and the Lords and Barons on the other That Superintendents should succeed in their places as both the Mss. and Spotswood have it expresly 8. Superintendents by vertue of their Office were constant Members of the General Assemblies Therefore the General Assembly holden at Perth Iune 25. 1563. statuted That every Superintendent be present the first day of the Assembly under the pain of 40 sh. to be given to the poor without Remission So it is in the Mss. but Petrie has it barely That they shall conveen on the first day of every Assembly And it seems because that punishment had not sufficient influence on them it was again ordained by the G. Ass. at Edenburgh March 6. 1573. That they shall be present in the Assembly the first day before noon under the pain of losing one half of their stipend for a year c. So both the Mss. and Petrie But as we shall find afterwards such presence of Parish Ministers was not allowed far less necessary 9. It belonged to them to try those who stood Candidates for the Ministery thus 1. B. of Disc. Head 4. Such as take upon them the Office of Preachers who shall not be found qualified therefore by the Superintendent are by him to be placâ—d Readers And again Head 5. No Child nor person within the age of 21 years may be admitted to the Office of a Reader but such must be chosen and admitted by the Superintendent as for their Gravity and Discretion may grace the Function that they are called unto And the Ass. at Edenburgh Dec. 15. 1562. Ordains That Inhibition be made against all such Ministers as have not been presented by the people or a part thereof to thâ— Superintendent and he after Examination and Tryal has not appointed them to their Charges So the Mss. and so Petrie and Spotswood cites another Act of the General Assembly at Edenburgh 1564. to the same purpose 10. As appears by that Act of the Assembly Decem. 25. 1562. just now cited and the 7 Act Parl. 1 Iac. 6. cited before also Superintendents had the power of granting Collations upon presentations And the Assembly at Perth holden in Iune 1563. appoints That when any Benefice chances to vaik or is now vacant that a qualified person be presented to the Superintendent of that Province where the Benefice lyeth and that he being found sufficient be admitted c. So I find it cited by the Author of Episcopacy not abjured in Scotland 11. A Superintendent had power to plant Ministers in Churches where the people were negligent to present timeously and indeed that power devolved much sooner into his hands by the First Book of Discipline Head 4. than it did afterwards into the hands of either Bishop or Presbytery for there it is ordered That if the people be found negligent in electing a Minister the space of forty days the Superintendent with his Counsel may present unto them a man whom they judge apt to feed the flock c. And as he had thus the power of trying and collating Ministers and planting Churches in the case of a Ius Devolutum So 12. He had the power of Ordination which as I said was then called Admission as is evident from the First Book of Discipline cap. 5. and several Acts of Assemblies already cited 13. All Presbyters or Parish Ministers once admitted to Churches were bound to pay Canonical Obedience to their Superintendents Thus in the Assembly at Edenburgh Iune 30. 1562. It was concluded by the whole Ministers assembled that all Ministers should be subject to the Superintendents in all lawful admonitions as is prescribed as well in the Book of Discipline as in the Election of Superintendents So the Mss. And by that aforecited Act of the Assembly at Edenburgh Decem. 25. 1562. Ministers translated from one Church to another are commanded to obey the Voice and Commandment of the Superintendent Indeed it was part of ane Article presented by the Church to the Council May 27. 1561. That ane Act should be made appointing a civil Punishment for such as disobeyed or contemned the Superintendents in their Function 14. He had power to visit all the Churches within his Diocess and in that Visitation they are the words of the First Book of Discipline Head 5. To try the Life Diligence and Behaviour of the Ministers the Order of their Churches the Manners of their People how the Poor are provided and how
Having thus removed this seeming difficulty I return to my purpose The Earl of Lennox was then Regent He was murthered in the time of the Parliament So at that time things were in confusion and these Commissioners from the General Assembly could do nothing in their business The Earl of Mar succeeded in the Regency Application was made to him It was agreed to between his Grace and the Clergy who applied to him that a Meeting should be kept between so many for the Church and so many for the State for adjusting matters For this end ane Assembly was kept at Leith on the 12 of Ianuary 1571 2. By this Assembly Six were delegated to meet with as many to be nominated by the Council to treat reason and conclude concerning the Settlement of the Polity of the Church After diverse Meetings and long Deliberation as Spotswood has it they came to an Agreement which was in effect That the Old Polity should revive and take place only with some little alterations which seemed necessary from the Change that had been made in Religion Whoso pleases may see it more largely in Calderwood who tells us that the whole Scheme is Registred in the Books of Council more briefly in Spotswood and Petrie In short It was a Constitution much the same with that which we have ever since had in the times of Episcopacy For by this Agreement those who were to have the Old Prelatical power were also to have the Old Prelatical Names and Titles of Archbishops and Bishops the Old Division of the Diocesses was to take place the Patrimony of the Church was to run much in the Old Channel particularly express provision was made concerning Chapters Abbots Priors c. That they should be continued and enjoy their Old Rights and Priviledges as Churchmen and generally things were put in a regular Course This was the Second Model not a new one of Polity established in the Church of Scotland after the Reformation at a pretty good distance I think from the Rules and Exigencies of Parity The truth is both Calderwood and Petrie acknowledge it was Imparity with a witness The thing was so manifest they had not the brow to deny it all their Endeavours are only to impugne the Authority of this Constitution or raise Clouds about it or find Weaknesses in it So far as I can collect no man ever affirmed that at this time the Government of the Church of Scotland was Presbyterian except G. R. who is truly singular for his skill in these matters But we shall have some time or other occasion to consider him In the mean time let us consider Calderwood's and Petrie's Pleas against this Establishment They may be reduced to these four 1. The Incompetency of the Authority of the Meeting at Leith in January 1571 2. 2. The Force which was at that time put upon the Ministers by the Court which would needs have that Establishment take place 3. The Limitedness of the power then granted to Bishops 4. The Reluctancies which the subsequent Assemblies discovered against that Establishment These are the most material Pleas they insist on and I shall consider how far they may hold The 1. Plea is the Incompetency of the Authority of the Meeting at Leith Ian. 12. 1571 2. which gave Commission to the Six for agreeing with the State to such ane Establishment It is not called ane Assembly but a Convention in the Register The ordinary Assembly was not appointed to be holden till the 6 th of March thereafter As it was only a Convention so it was in very great haste it seems and took not time to consider things of such importance so deliberately as they ought to have been considered It was a corrupt Convention for it allowed Master Robert Pont a Minister to be a Lord of the Session These are the Reasons they insist on to prove the Authority of that Meeting incompetent And now to examine them briefly When I consider these Arguments and for what end they are adduced I must declare I cannot but admire the Force of prejudice and partiality how much they blind mens Eyes and distort their Reasons and byass them to the most ridiculous Undertakings For What tho the next ordinary Assembly was not appointed to meet till March thereafter Do not even the Presbyterians themselves maintain the Lawfulness yea the Necessity of calling General Assemblies extraordinarily upon extraordinary occasions pro re nata as they call it How many such have been called since the Reformation How much did they insist on this pretence Anno 1638 And What tho the Register calls this Meeting a Convention was it therefore no Assembly Is there such an opposition between the words Convention and Assembly that both cannot possibly signify the same thing Doth not Calderwood acknowledge that they voted themselves ane Assembly in their second Session Doth he not acknowledge that all the ordinary Members were there which used to constitute Assemblies But what if it can be found that ane undoubted uncontroverted Assembly own'd it as ane Assembly and its Authority as the Authority of ane Assembly What is become of this fine Argument then But can this be done indeed Yes it can and these same very Authors have given it in these same very Histories in which they use this as ane Argument and not very far from the same very pages Both of them I say tell that the General Assembly holden at Perth in August immediately thereafter made ane Act which began thus Forasmuch as the Assembly holden in Leith in January last c. But if it was ane Assembly yet it was in too great haste it did not things deliberately Why so No Reason is adduced no Reason can be adduced for saying so The Subject they were to treat of was no new one it was a Subject that had imployed all their Heads for several months before Their great business at that time was to give a Commission to some Members to meet with the Delegates of the State to adjust matters about the Polity and Patrimony of the Church This Commission was not given till the Third Session as Calderwood himself acknowledges Where then was the great haste Lay it in doing a thing in their Third Session which might have been done in the First But were not these Commissioners in too great haste to come to ane Agreement when they met with the Delegates of the State Yes if we may believe Petrie for he says That the same day viz. January 16. the Commissioners conveened and conclued c. But he may say with that same integrity whatever he pleases For not to insist on Spotswood's account who says it was after diverse Meetings and long Deliberation that they came to their Conclusion not to insist on his authority I say because he may be suspected as partial doth not Calderwood expresly acknowledge that they began their Conference upon the
former proceedings and fairly advised them to shew more temper and proceed more deliberately Calderwood calls it ane Harsh Letter It is to be seen word for word both in him and Petrie But what had they to do with the Kings of this World especially such Babie Kings as King Iames was then they I say who had now the Government of Christs Kingdom to settle However no more was done against Prelacy at this time than had been ordered formerly Indeed there was little more to be done but to declare the Office abolished But that it seems they were not yet Ripe for Perchance the Corruptions mentioned before had proved a little Choaking and peoples stomachs could not be so soon disposed for another dish of such strong meat in ane instant so that was reserved till the next Assembly Nevertheless In the mean time take we Notice of one thing which we never heard of before which started up in this Assembly and which must not be forgotten It was proposed by the Synod of Lothian saith Calderwood That a General Order might be taken for Erecting of Presbyteries in places where publick exercise was used until the Polity of the Church might be Established by Law And it was Answered by the Assembly That the exercise was a Presbytery A Presbytery turned afterwards and now is one of the most specifick essential and indispensible parts of the Presbyterian constitution Provincial Synods can sit only twice in the year General Assemblies only once according to the Constitution 'T is true 't is allowed to the King to Convocate one extraordinarily pro re natà as they call it And the Kirk claims to have such a power too as she sees occasion But then 't is as true that Kings have been so disgusted at such meetings that they have hindred General Assemblies to meet for many years So that their meetings are uncertain and in innumerable cases there should be too long a Surcease of Ecclesiastical Iustice if Causes should wait either on them or Provincial Synods The Commission of the General Assembly as they call it is but ane accidental thing The suddain dissolution of a General Assembly can disappoint its very being as just now there is none nor has been since the last Assembly which was so surprizingly dissolved in February 1692. When there is such a Court it commonly sits but once in three Months and it meddles not with every matter Besides many of themselves do not love it and look upon it as ane error in the Custome of the Kirk for it was never made part of the Constitution by any Canon of the Kirk nor Act of Parliament But A Presbytery is a Constant Current Court They may meet when they will Sit while they will adjourn whither when how long how short time soever they will They have all the substantial Power of Government and Discipline They have really a Legislative Power They can make Acts to bind themselves and all those who live within their Jurisdiction and they have a very large Dose of Executive power They can Examine Ordain Admit Suspend Depose Ministers They can Cite Iudge Absolve Condemn Excommunicate whatsoever Criminals The Supreme power of the Church under Christ is Radically and Originally in them It is in General Assemblies themselves Derivatively only and as they Represent all the Presbyteries in the Nation and if I mistake not if a General Assembly should Enact any thing and the greater part of the Presbyteries of the Nation should Reprobate it it would not be binding and yet how necessary how useful how powerful so ever these Courts are tho' they are essential parts of the constitution tho' they may be really said to be that which Specifies Presbyterian Government This Time this seventh or eighth or tenth of Iuly Anno 1579 was the first time they were heard of in Scotland That which was called the Exercise before was nothing like a Court had no imaginable Iurisdiction Could neither Injoyn Pennance to the smallest Offender nor Absolve him from it It could exert no Acts of Authority It had not so much Power as the meanest Kirk-session It was nothing like a Presbytery and however it was said in this Assembly That the Exercise was a Presbytery yet that saying as omnipotent as a Presbyterian Assembly is did not make it one That was not a Factive proposition There were no Presbyteries erected at this time The First that was erected was the Presbytery of Edenburg And if we may believe Calderwood himself That Presbytery was not erected till the thirtieth day of May 1581. more time was run before the rest were erected They were not agreed to by the King till the year 1586. They were not Ratified by Parliament till the year 1592. And now let the Impartial Reader judge if it is probable that our Reformers who never thought on Presbyteries were of the present Presbyterian principles Were they Presbyterians who never understood never thought of never dream'd of that which is so Essential to the constitution of a Church by Divine Institution according to the present Presbyterian principles But doth not G. R. in his First Vindication of the Church of Scotland in Answer to the First Question § 8. tell us that the Real Exercise of Presbytery in all its meetings lesser and greater continued and was allowed in the year 1572 c. True he saith so But no Man but himself ever said so But I know the Natural History of this Ignorant blunder His Historian Calderwood had said that the Kirk of Scotland ever since the beginning had four sorts of Assemblies and this was enough for G. R. For what other could these four sorts of Assemblies be than Kirk-Sessions Presbyteries Provincial Synods and General Assemblies But if he had with the least degree of any thing like attention read four or five lines further he might have seen that Calderwood himself was far from having the brow to assert that Presbyteries were then in being For having said there were four sorts of Assemblies from the beginning he goes on to particularize them thus National which were commonly called General Assemblies Provincial which were commonly called by the General Name of Synods Weekly Meetings of Ministers and Readers for interpretation of the Scripture whereunto succeeded Presbyteries that is Meetings of many Ministers and Elders for the Exercise of Discipline and the Eldership of every Parish which others call a Presbytery In which account it is evident that he doth not call these weekly Meetings for interpretation of the Scriptures Presbyteries But says that Presbyteries succeeded to these weekly Meetings and he gives quite different Descriptions of these weekly Meetings and Presbyteries making the weekly Meetings to have been of Ministers and Elders for the interpretation of Scripture and Presbyteries to have been as they still are Meetings of many Ministers and Elders for the Exercise of Discipline 'T is true he might have as well said that Presbyteries succeeded to
Reformers were more prying in such matters than the Reformers of other Churches I have made it appear that there is not so much as a syllable a shew a shadow of ane Indication That any of those who Merited the Name of our Reformers entertain'd any such Principle or maintain'd any such Article I have made it appear that our Reformation was carryed on much very much by the Influences and upon the principles of the English Reformers amongst whom that principle of parity had no imaginable footing These are at least great presumptions of the Credibility of this That our Reformers maintain'd no such principle Agreeably to these presumptions I have made it appear that our Reformers proceeded de Facto upon the principles of Imparity They formed their petitions for the Reformation of our Church according to these principles The first Scheme of Church Government they erected was Established upon these principles Our Superintendents were notoriously and undeniably Prelates The next Establishment in which the Prelates resumed the old Names and Titles of Archbishops and Bishops was the same for substance with the first At least they did not differ as to the point of Imparity I have made it appear that this second Establishment was agreed to by the Church unanimously and submitted to calmly and peaceably and that it was received as ane Establishment which was intended to continue in the Church At least no Objections made against it no appearances in opposition to it no indications of its being accepted only for ane Interim upon the account of Imparity's being in its constitution I have made it appear that Imparity was received practised owned and submitted to and that Prelates were suitably honoured and dutifully obeyed without reluctancy and without interruption for full fifteen years after the Reformation and I have made it appear that after it was called in Question its Adversaries found many Repulses and mighty difficulties and spent much travel and much time no less than full five years before they could get it Abolished and if the Deduction I have made puts not this beyond all doubt it may be further confirmed by the Testimonies of two very intelligent Authors The first is that ingenious and judicious Author who wrote the accurate piece called Episcopacy not Abjured in Scotland published Anno 1640. Who affirms positively That it was by Reason of opposition made to the Presbyterians by many wise learned and Godly Brethren who stood firmly for the Ancient Discipline of the Church that Episcopacy was so long a condemning It appears from his Elaborate work that he was ane ingenuous as well as ane Ingenious Person and living then and having been at so much pains to inform himself concerning not only the Transactions but the Intrigues of former times it is to be presumed he did not affirm such a proposition without sufficient ground But whatever dust may be raised about his Credit and Authority Sure I am my other witness is unexceptionable He is King Iames the Sixth of Scotland and the First of England This Great and Wise Prince lived in these times in which Presbytery was first introduced and I think it is scarcely to be Questioned That he understood and could give a just account of what passed then as well as any man then living and he in his Basilion Doron affirms plainly That the Learned Grave and Honest Men of the Ministery were ever ashamed of and offended with the Temerity and Presumption of the Democratical and Presbyterian party All these things I say I think I have made appear sufficiently and so I am not affraid to leave it to the world to judge Whither our Reformers were of the present Presbyterian principles Only one thing more before I proceed to the next Enquiry Our Presbyterian Brethren Calderwood Petrie and G. R. as I have already observed are very earnest and careful to have their Readers advert that when Episcopacy was Established by the Agreement at Leith Anno 1572. the Bishops were to have no more Power than the Superintendents had before and indeed it is true they had no more as I have already acknowledged But I would advise our Brethren to be more Cautious in insisting on such a dangerous point or Glorying in such a Discovery hereafter For thus I Argue The Episcopacy Agreed to at Leith Anno 1572 as to its Essentials its Power and Authority was the same with the Superintendency Established at the Reformation Anno 1560. But the General Assembly holden at Dundee Anno 1580. Condemned the Power and Authority of the Episcopacy Agreed to at Leith Anno 1572. Ergo they condemnd the Power and Authority of the Superintendency Established by our Reformers Anno 1560. Ergo the Assembly 1580. not only forsook but Condemned the principles of our Reformers But if this Reasoning holds I think our present Presbyterian Brethren have no Reason to Claim the Title of Successors to our Reformers They must not ascend so high as the year 1560 They must stand at the year 1580 For if I mistake not the Laws of Heraldry will not allow them to call themselves the True Posterity of those whom they Condemn and whose principles they Declare Erroneous In such Moral Cognations I take Oneness of principle to be the foundation of the Relation as Oneness of Blood is in Physical Cognations Let them not therefore go farther up than the year 1580. Let them date the Reformation from this Assembly at Dundee and Own Master Andrew Melvil and Iohn Durie c. for their First Parents When they have fixed there I shall perchance allow them to affirm that the Church of Scotland was Reformed in their sence of Reformation by Presbyters that is Presbyterians Proceed we now to The Third Enquiry Whether Prelacy and the Superiority of any Office in the Church above Presbyters was a great and insupportable Grievance and trouble to this Nation and contrary to the inclinations of the Generality of the People EVER since the Reformation Considering what hath been Discoursed so fully on the former Enquiry this may be very soon dispatched For If Prelacy and the Superiority of other Officers in the Church above Presbyters was so unanimously consented to and Established at the Reformation If it continued to be Owned Revered and Submitted to by Pastors and People without interruption without being ever called in Question for full fifteen years after the Reformation If after it was called in Question its Adversaries found it so hard a task to subvert it that they spent five years more before they could get it subverted and declared Vnlawful even as it was then in Scotland If these things are true I say I think it is not very Credible that it was a great and insupportable Grievance and trouble to this Nation and contrary to the Inclinations of the Generality of the People EVER since the Reformation This Collection I take to be as clear a Demonstration as the subject is capable of But beside this we
dwell longer on this subject But I am affraid I have noticed it too much already To conclude then What is this Standard else than the Fundamental principle of Hobbism that Holy Scheme for Brutalizing Mankind and making Religion Reason Revelation every thing that aims at making men Manly to yeild unto at least to depend on the Frisks of Flesh and Blood or which is all one Arrant sense and ungovernable Passion And so I leave it But is the Second Reason any better If this Church had been Reformed by Presbyters would that have been a good Argument for Abolishing Prelacy Who sees not that it is much about the same Size with the former Indeed I am apt to think had the several Churches in the world erected their Governments by this Rule we should have had some pretty odd Constitutions Thus the Church collected of old amongst the Indians by Frumentius and Aedesius should have been Govern'd still by Laicks For Frumentius and Aedesius were no more than Laicks when they first converted them Thus all Xaverius's Converts and their Successors should have been always Govern'd by Iesuits For 't is past Controversie Xaverius was a Iesuit Thus the Churches of Iberia and Moravia should have been Govern'd by Women For if we may believe Historians the Gospel got first footing in these parts by the Ministery of Females Indeed if the Argument has any strength at all it seems stronger for these Constitutions than for Presbytery in Scotland inasmuch as it is more to Convert Infidels than only to Reform a Church which tho' Corrupt is allowed to be Christian. Nay which is more and worse more contrary to the Inclinations of Scotch Presbyterians and worse for Scotch Presbytery By this way of Reasoning Episcopacy ought still hitherto to have continued and hereafter to continue the Government of the Church of England Because that Church was Reformed by her Bishops But if so what can be said for the Solemn League and Covenant How shall we defend our Forty-three-men and all the Covenanting work of Reformation in that Glorious Period And if it must continue there what constant Perils must our Kirk needs be in especially so long as both Kingdoms are under one Monarch What I have said I think might be enough in all Conscience for this Fifth Enquiry But because it is obvious to the most overly Observation that the Framers of the Article have not been so much concerned for the strength and solidity of the Reasons they choosed for supporting their Conclusion as for their Colour and Aptitude to catch the vulgar and influence the populace and because our Presbyterian Brethren have of a long time been and still are in use to make zealous Declamations and huge noises about Succession to our Reformers Because the clamour on all occasions that those who stand for Episcopacy have so much forsaken the principles and maximes of the Reformation that they Pay our Reformers so little Respect and Deference That they have Secret Grudges at the Reformation That they would willingly return to Popery And what not Whereas they themselves have a Mighty Veneration for those who Reformed the Church of Scotland They are their only true and Genuine Successors They are the only Men who stand on the foot of the Reformation the only sincere and heart-Protestants the only Real Enemies to Antichrist c. For these Reasons I say I shall beg the Readers patience till I have discoursed this point a little farther And to deal frankly and plainly In the first place I own those of the Episcopal perswasion in Scotland do not think themselves bound to maintain all the principles or embrace all the sentiments or justify all the Practices of our Reformers 'T is true I speak only from my self I have no Commission from other men to tell their sentiments Yet I think the Generality of my Fathers and Brethren will not be offended tho' I speak in the Plural number and take them into the reckoning And therefore I think I may safely say Tho we think our Reformers considering their Education and all their disadvantages were very considerable men and made very considerable progress in Reforming the Church yet we do not believe they had ane immediate allowance from Heaven for all they said or did We believe they were not endued with the Gifts of infallibility inerrability or impeccability We believe and they believed so themselves that they had no Commission no Authority to Establish new Articles of Faith or make new Conditions of Salvation We believe they had no Power pretended to none for receding from the Original and immovable Standard of Christian Religion In consequence of this We believe and are confident that where they missed and being Fallible it was very possible for them to do it of Conformity to that Standard we are at Liberty to think otherwise than they thought to Profess otherwise than they professed We are not bound to follow them To instance in a few of many things We own we cannot allow of the principle of Popular Reformations as it was asserted and practised by our Reformers We own indeed 't is not only Lawful but Necessary for every Man to Reform himself both as to Principles and Practice when there is Corruption in either And that not only without but against publick Authority whither Civil or Ecclesiastical Farther we own 't is not only Lawful but plain and Indispensible Duty in the Governours of the Church to Reform her Acting in their own Sphere even against humane Laws in direct opposition to a thousand Acts of a thousand Parliaments I say Acting and keeping within their own Sphere i. e. so far as their Spiritual Power can go but no farther Keeping within these their own bounds they may and should condemn Heresies purge the publick worship of Corruptions continue a Succession of Orthodox Pastors c. In a word do every thing which is needful to be done for putting and preserving the Church committed to their Care in that State of Orthodoxy Purity and Vnity which Iesus Christ from whom they have their Commission and to whom they must be Answerable has Required by his holy Institution But we cannot allow them to move Excentrically to turn Exorbitant to stir without their own Vortex We cannot allow them to use any other than Spiritual means or to make any other than Spiritual Defences We think they should still perform all dutiful submission to the Civil Powers Never Resist by Material Arms never absolve subjects from their Allegiance to their Civil Sovereign Never Preach the Damnable Doctrine of Deposing Kings for Heresie never attempt to make those whom they should make good Christians bad Subjects But to teach them the great and fundamental Doctrine of the Cross and Exemplify it to them in their Practice when they are Called to it This we Profess And we do not think it Popery But our Reformers taught a quite different Doctrine Their Doctrine was that it belong'd to the Rabble to
Reform Religion publickly to Reform it by Force To Reform the State if it would not Reform the Church To Extirpate all false Religion by their Authority To assume to themselves a Power to overturn the Powers that are Ordain'd of God To depose them and set up new Powers in their stead Powers that would Protect that which they judged to be the best Religion Whoso pleases may see this Doctrine fully taught by Knox in his Appellation and he may see the same principle insisted on by Mr. Hendersone in his Debates with K. C. I. And who knows not that our Reformation was but too much founded on this Principle Herein I say we own we have forsaken our Reformers And let our Presbyterian Brethren if they can Convict us in this of Heresie In short our Reformers maintain'd that the Doctrine of Defensive Arms was Necessary That Passive Obedience or Non-resistance was sinful when People had means for Resistance That Daniel and his Fellows did not Resist by the Sword Because God had not given them the Power and the means That the Primitive Christians assisted their Preachers even against the Rulers and Magistrates and suppressed Idolatry wheresoever God gave them Force They maintain'd that the Iudicial Laws of Moses tho' not adopted into the Christian Systeme in many considerable instances continued still obligatory Particularly that the Laws punishing Adultery Murther Idolatry with Death were binding That in obedience to these Laws that Sentence was to be executed not only on Subjects but on Sovereigns That whosoever executes Gods Law on such Criminals is not only innocent but in his Duty tho' he have no Commission from Man for it That Samuel's slaying Agag the fat and delicate King of Amalek And Elias's killing Baal's Priests and Iesabel's false Prophets and Phineas's striking Zimri and Cosbi in the very Act of filthy fornication were allowable Patterns for private men to imitate That all these and more such strange Doctrines were Common and Current amongst them I am able to prove at full length if I shall be put to it Besides they had many other Principles relating to other purposes which I am perswaded were not founded on Scripture had no Countenance from Catholick Antiquity were not aggreeable to sound and solid Reason which we own we are so far from maintaining that we think our selves bound both to Profess and Practice the contrary And how easy were it to Confute as well as Represent some of Master Knox's principles which perhaps were peculiar to him He fairly and plainly condemned St. Paul and St. Iames the first Bishop of Ierusalem for their practice Act. 21.18 19 c. He esteem'd every thing that was done in Gods service without the express command of his word vain Religion and Idolatry He affirmed that all Papists were infidels both in publick and private I cannot think he was right in these things He had sometimes Prayers which do not seem to me to Savour any thing of a Christian Spirit Thus in His Admonition to the Professors of the Truth in England after he had insisted on the Persecutions in Queen Mary's time he had this Prayer God for his great Mercies sake stir up some Phineas Elias or Jehu that the blood of abominable Idolaters may Pacify Gods wrath that it consume not the whole Multitude Amen I must confess it was not without some horrour that I put his own Amen to such a petition In that same Exhortation he prays also thus Repress the pride of these blood-thirsty Tyrants Consume them in thine anger according to the Reproach which they have laid against thy Holy Name Pour forth thy vengeance upon them and let our eyes behold the blood of the Saints required of their hands Delay not thy vengeance O Lord but let death devour them in haste Let the Earth swallow them up and let them go down quick to the hels For there is no hope of their Amendment The Fear and Reverence of thy Holy Name is quite banished from their hearts And therefore yet again O Lord consume them Consume them in thine Anger Let the world judge if such Prayers Savour of a Gospel-spirit Was this loving our Enemies or Blessing them that Curse us or Praying for them who despitefully use us or Persecute us Was this like forgiving others their trespasses as we would wish our own trespasses to be forgiven Was this like Father forgive them for they know not what they do Or Lord lay not this sin to their charge Did Master Knox consider or know what manner of spirit he was of when he offered up such petitions I shall only give one other Specimen of Master Knox's Divinity and because 't is about a point which of late has been so much agitated I shall not grudge to give his sentiments somewhat fully Because perchance he may come to have some credit by it He may chance to be honoured as a Father by the Providentialists The Story is this He wrote a Book against the Regiment of Women as he called it His aim was principally against Mary Queen of England When Queen Elizabeth was raised to the Throne some body having told her that he had written such a Book she resented it so that she would not allow him to set his foot on English ground when he was returning from Geneva to Scotland Anno 1559. This grated him not a little However he could not endure to think upon retracting the Positions in his Book having once asserted them he deem'd it point of Honour it seems to adhere to them for thus he told Secretary Cecil in a Letter from Diepe April 10. 1559. He doubted no more of the Truth of his Proposition than he did that it was the voice of God which first did pronounce this Penalty against Women In dolour shalt thou bear thy Children And in a Conference with Mary Queen of Scotland Anno 1561. He told her that to that hour he thought himself alone more able to sustain the things affirmed in that Book than any ten Men in Europe could be to confute them But for all this Queen Elizabeth as I said was raised to the Throne of England and it was needful her Majesty should not continue to have quarrels with him Her Kindness and Countenance at that time to him and his Projects were worth little less than a Deanry Some Knack was therefore to be devised for making a Reconcilement between his Book and her Regiment Well! what was it he fix't on Why The Providential Right serv'd him to a Miracle For thus he wrote in his aforementioned Letter to Cecil If any Man think me either Enemy to the Person or yet to the Regiment of her whom God hath now promoted they are utterly deceived in me For the MIRACULOUS work of God comforting his afflicted by ane infirm Vessel I do acknowledge And I will Obey the Power of his most potent hand Raising up whom best pleaseth his
this purpose I shall only instance in a few Thus The eight Act Parl. 1. Iac. 6. holden in Decemb. 1567 appoints the Coronation Oath to be sworn by the King And it is one of the Articles of that Oath That he shall Rule the People committed to his Charge according to the loveable Laws and Constitutions received in this Realm no wise repugnant to the word of the Eternal God Now I think this Parliament made no Question but that the Fundamental Law of the Constitution of Parliaments was one of these Loveable Laws and Constitutions received in this Realm no wise repugnant to the word of the Eternal God Indeed The 24 th Act of that same Parliament is this word for word Our Soveraign Lord with advice and consent of his Regent and the three Estates of Parliament has Ratified and Ratifies all Civil Priviledges granted and given by our Soveraign Lords Predecessors to the Spiritual Estate of this Realm in all points after the form and tenor thereof Than which there cannot be a more Authentick Commentary for finding the true sense and meaning of the Coronation Oath in Relation to our present purpose I shall only adduce two more but they are such two as are as good as two thousand The 130 th Act Parl. 8. Iac. 6. Anno 1584 is this word for word The Kings Majesty considering the Honour and the Authority of his Supreme Court of Parliament continued past all memory of Man unto these days as constitute upon the free votes of the three Estates of this Ancient Kingdom By whom the same under God has ever been upholden Rebellious and Traiterous Subjects punished the good and faithful preserved and maintained and the Laws and Acts of Parliament by which all men are Govern'd made and Established and finding the Power Dignity and Authority of the said Court of Parliament of late years called in some doubt at least some such as Mr. Andrew Melvil c. curiously travelling to have introduced some Innovations thereanent His Majesties firm will and mind always being as it is yet that the Honour Authority and Dignity of his saids three Estates shall stand and continue in their own integrity according to the Ancient and Loveable custome by-gone without any alteration or diminution THEREFORE it is Statuted and Ordained by our Soveraign Lord and his said three Estates in this present Parliament that none of his Leiges and Subjects presume or take upon hand to impugne the Dignity and the Authority of the said three Estates or to seek or procure the Innovation or Diminution of the Power and Authority of the same three Estates or any of them in time coming under the pain of Treason Here I think the necessity of the three Estates whereof the Ecclesiastical was ever reckoned the first is asserted pretty fairly Neither is this Act so far as I know formally repealed by any subsequent Act And whosoever knows any thing of the History of these times cannot but know that it was to crush the Designs set on foot then by some for innovating about the Spiritual Estate that this Act was formed The other which I promised is Act 2. Parl. 18. Iac. 6. holden Anno 1606. Intituled Act anent the Restitution of the Estate of Bishops In the Preamble of which Act we are told That of late during his Majesties young years and unsetled Estate the Ancient and FUNDAMENTAL Policy consisting in the Maintainance of the THREE ESTATES of Parliament has been greatly impaired and almost subverted Specially by the Indirect Abolishing of the Estate of Bishops by the Act of Annexation of the Temporality of Benefices to the Crown That the said Estate of Bishops is Necessary Estate of the Parliament c. Such were the Sentiments of these times So Essential was the Ecclesiastical Estate deem'd in the Constitution of Scottish Parliaments And no wonder For no man can doubt but it was as early as positively as incontestedly as fundamentally and unalterably in the constitution as either the Estate of Nobles or the Estate of Burrows There is no Question I think about the Burrows As for the Estate of Nobles 't is certain all Barons were still reckoned of the Nobless The lesser Barons in Ancient times were still reckoned a part of the Second never a distinct Estate of Parliament and they must quit all pretensions to be of the Nobless when they set up for a distinct Estate Setting up for such they are no more of the Nobility than the Burrows And then If two Estates can vote out one and make a Parliament without it If they can split one into two and so make up the three Estates Why may not one split it self as well into three Why may not the two parts of the splitted Estate joyn together and vote out the Estate of Burrows Why may not the Nobility of the First Magnitude joyn with the Burrows to vote out the smaller Barons Why may not the smaller Barons and the Burrows vote out the greater Nobility After two have voted out one why may not one the more numerous vote out the other the less numerous When the Parliament is reduced to one Estate why may not that one divide and one half vote out the other And then subdivide and vote out till the whole Parliament shall consist of the Commissioner for Rutherglen or the Laird of or the Earl of Crawford Nay why may not that one vote cut himself and leave the King without a Parliament What a dangerous thing is it to shake Foundations How doth it unhinge all things How plainly doth it pave the way for that which our Brethren pretend to abhor so much viz. a Despotick Power ane Absolute and unlimited Monarchy But enough of this To conclude this point there 's nothing more notorious than that the Spiritual Estate was still judged Fundamental in the Constitution of Parliaments was still called to Parliaments did still Sit Deliberate and Vote in Parliaments till the year 1640 that it was turned out by the then Presbyterians And our present Presbyterians following their footsteps have not only freely parted with but forwardly rejected that Ancient and valuable Right of the Church Nay they have not only rejected it but they declaim constantly against it as a Limb of Antichrist and what not And have they not herein manifestly Deserted the undoubted principles and sentiments of our Reformers It had been easy to have ennumerated a great many more of their notorious Recessions from the principles of the Reformation e. g. I might have insisted on their Deserting the principles and practices of our Reformers about the Constitution of General Assemblies about Communion with the Church of England about the Civil Magistrates Power in Church Matters justly or unjustly is not the present Question and many more things of considerable importance Nay which at first sight may seem a little strange as much as they may seem to have swallowed down the principles of Rebellion and Arm'd Resistances against Lawful Soveraign
was by the Ordination or appointment of the Church not Christs Institution But it can never signify the Power of Ordaining Are not these pretty pleasant Criticisms on 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But the best follows He gives a Demonstration that Ordination as mentioned by Chrysostom can never signify the Power of Ordaining For then â—says he Chrysostom who was sufficiently a Master of words would have said mark it beloved he would have spoken Latin and said Potestate Ordinandi not Ordinatione And have we not our Author now a Deep-learn'd Glossator I cannot promise a better instance of his Critiâ—al Skill But I hope the next shall not be much wâ—rse 2. Then in that same Rational defence c. p. 199. Sect 4. He undertakes to prove the Divine institution of Popular Elections of Ministers His first Argument he takes from Acts 14.23 The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must needs do it Now 't is none of my present task to prove that that word cannot do it Whosoever has considered how t is used in the New Testament may soon perceive that and if our Author had but Read the Book called Ius â—ivinum Ministerii Evangelâ—i written by a Provincial Assembly of his own friends he might have seen that even they were Confident it could not do it Nay He himself in that same 4 th Section acknowledges it cannot do it I deny not says he that this word is some times used figuratively for potestative Mission the effect or consequent of Election and that by one Person without suffrages as Acts 10 41. And I think after this it was pleasant enough to make it do it for all that But as I said 't is none of my present business to debate the force of the word with him All I am concerned for is to represent his superfine Skill in Critical learning For He tells us gravely The word is most commonly used in his sence viz. as it signifies to chuse by suffrages And he proves it but how These two wayes 1. Of all the instances that Scapula in his Lexicon giveth of the use of the word not one of them is to the contrary Twenty disparate significations you see would have imported nothing And who can doubt but Scapula's Lexicon is ane Uncontroverted Standard for the Ecclesiastical significations of words But our Author proceeds 2. It cannot be instanced that ever the word is used for laying on of hands Lifting up and laying them down being so opposite it is not to be imagined that the one should be put for the other And what needed more after this Yet lest this was not profound enough our Author plunges deeper He will needs have both the suffrages of the People and the Imposition of the Apostles hands to be signified by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in that same Text Act. 14.23 The Apostles appointed by Ordination Elders for the People upon their Electing them by Suffrages And then in the close of the Section I conclude this being done 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in every Church the People Respective chusing their Pastors and the Apostles ordaining them it is clear to have been generally the practice of these times and so the Institution of Christ. I told when I began with him there might be Instances I might have occasion to adduce which it might be difficult to reduce to their proper Categories And I am affraid this is one The truth is 't is very hard to determine whither Ignorance or Non-sense can plead the better Title to it For my part let them share it between them I shall only insist a little on one thing more 3. Then one of his Adversaries whom he took to task in his Second Vindication of his Church of Scotland the Author of the Second Letter had used the Phrase Christian Philosophy when G. R. thought he should have said Christian Divinity but if I mistake not G. R. when he wrote his Answer thought it had been for that Authors credit to have foreborn using such a Phrase For never did Cock crow more keenly over Brother Cock when he had routed him than G. R. did over the Letter-man on that occasion He told him 2 Vind. ad Let. 2. § 24. p. 62 63. Edit Eden He thought the Commendation of a Minister had been rather to understand Christian Divinity than Christian Philosophy but we must not wonder says he that men so strongly inclined to Socinianism speak in the Socinian Dialect For indeed that which goeth for Religion among some men is nothing but Platonick Philosophy put into a Christian dress by expressing it in words borrowed some of them from the Bible And the Preaching of some men is such Morality as Seneca and other Heathens taught only Christianized with some words c. In short he pursued the poor Epistler as he calls him so unmercifully that he never left him till he concluded him ane Ignorant Talker for using that Phrase Now Judicious Reader was it not indeed a Demonstration of Deep thinking and a penetrating wit to make such a plain discovery of such a prodigious Spawn of Heresies crowded into one single Phrase consisting of two words or rather in one Solitary Vocable I say one Vocable for it was the word Philosophy which was the Lerna I cannot think the word Christian was either Art or Part. Socinianism Academicism Stoicism consistent or inconsistent was all one to our Author all throng'd together in one so innocent like ane expression Sad enough How sad had it been for sorry Epistler if there had been a greater confluence of such isms in our Authors learned Noddle when he wrote that Elaborate Paragraph Had they been in it 't is very like they had come out However even these were enough especially having in their Society the fundamental Heresie of Ignorance And yet after all this I am apt to believe the poor Epistler was Orthodox and Catholick in his meaning I believe he lookt on it as a very harmless Phrase and intended no other thing by it than that which is commonly called Christian Divinity 'T is twenty to one he used it as having found it used before him by very Honest men who were never suspected of any of these Dreadful Heresies The Ancient Lights I mean and Fathers of the Church who had scarcely another Phrase which they used more frequently or more familiarly Of this I am sure If it was not so it might have been so with him My present circumstances do not allow me to Cite them so plentifully as might be done yet I think I can adduce the Testimonies of half a dozen whose Authority might have stood between the Epistler and all Hazard e. g. Iustine Martyr in his Excellent Dialogue with Trypho the Iew not only asserts the insufficiency of the Platonick the Peripatetick the Pythagoraean the Stoick Philosophies c. But expressly makes the Ancient Prophets who were inspired of God the only true and infallible Philosophers Iust. Opp. Graec. Edit Rob. Steph.