have so preheminence over others as they refuse not to be subject to Christ and depend upon him as from their head and not from the Pope of Rome c. And therefore in the judgement of Calvin those who will not reverence such an Hierarchie are worthy to be accounted execrable and accursed and since our Covenanters professe that they reverence the judgement of Calvin more than all Antiquitie I marvell how they can blesse themselves in this wherein he accounteth them accursed To the same purpose likewise speaketh Beza the chief promoter of Presbyteriall government in his Answer to Saravia De divers grad. Minist. cap. 21. Albeit he doth not name Hierarchie yet speaking of the Orders in the Roman Church whereof the Hierarchie doth consist he concludeth in these words Neither doe we accuse of this Tyrannie all those who are called Archbishops or Bishops for what Arrogancie were this yea we doe acknowledge all those who are so called as faithfull Pastors of the Christian Church providing they imitate the example of those holy Bishops in reforming the house of God so miserably deformed according to the rule of Gods Word and obey them and with all reverence receive them so farre are we from that whereof some do most impudently accuse us that we should prescribe to any our particular example to be followed like to those impertinent men who esteeme nothing well done except that which they doe themselves c. By the judgement then of these two learned men whose judgements they can hardly contemne all Hierarchie is not condemned nor all Episcopacie under the name of Hierarchie is to be abjured but only in so farre as it is Antichristian and wicked that is to say the manifold corruptions and abuses in the orders of Ecclesiasticall rulers brought in by the Pope to fortifie his usurped Tyrannie Those with you we also abjure and detest from our very heart But so it is that one Pastor to have power and preheminence over others is not to be reckoned amongst these corruptions which were brought in by the Pope or Antichrist but was appointed by God himself and practised in the Church by those whom Beza doth acknowledge to have been faithfull Pastors of the Christian Church Now to come to the reasons which they set down at length in the end of the Act the first reason whereby they presse to prove that the order of Government under Bishops having power and preheminence over other Pastors as Presbyters and Deacons is the Pâ—pish Hierarchy is in these words The Popisâ— Hierarchie doth consist of Bishops Presbyters and Deacons that is Baptizing and Preaching Deacons which they prove first by a Canon of the Councell of Trent 2. By a testimony of Bellarmine 3. By a Censure of the Vniversitie of Paris of certaine Articles sent out of Ireland which tedious probation was needlesse for we doe not deny their proposition but grant that the Popish Hierarchie doth consist of Bishops Presbyters and Deacons But what then they suppresse the Assumption and Conclusion yet according to Logicall Rules we may finde them out their Conclusion is known towit that Episcopall Government is the Antichristian wicked Hierarchie So to inferre this Conclusion upon their proposition as it is set down nothing can be assumed for the minor but that Episcopall Government consisteth of Bishops Presbyters and Deacons So the whole Syllogisme must be The Popish Hierarchie doth consist of Bishops Presbyters and Deacons But Episcopall Government consisteth of Bishops Presbyters and Deacons Ergo Episcopall government is the Popish wicked Hierarchie But by their leave this is a Syllogisme Ex omnibus particularibus affirmantibus in secundà figurâ which concludeth not as they who have learned the first rudiment of Logick knows such as that Asinus habet aures tu habes aures ergò tu es Asinus I confesse that this may be reduced to a syllogisme in primâ figurâ by converting the termes of the proposition and making it universall as Quic quid habet aures est Asinus tu habes aures Ergo c. But thus the Major is evidently false and so likewise their Syllogisme may be deduced in the same manner by converting the Major and making it universall but so it is no more their proposition thus All Orders of Ecclesiasticall Rulers consisting of Bishops Presbyters and Deacons is the Antichristian wicked Hierarchie But the orders of Ecclesiasticall rulers in Episcopall Government consisteth of Bishops Presbyters and Deacons Ergo c. But so the major is evidently also false neither doth their reasons any wayes prove it for if it were true we might aswell prove thereby that the orders in the Ecclesiasticall Rulers in the Apostles dayes and Primitive Church after them was the Popish wicked Hierarchie for they cannot deny but therein were Bishops Presbyters and Deacons As likewise that their Presbyteriall Government is the Antichristian wicked Hierarchie for they grant that their Pastors are Bishops their Elders Presbyters and their Deacons are Ecclesiasticall Rulers also But they seeme to object that their Deacons are not preaching and baptizing Deacons as ours are and those of the Roman Church but onely distributers of the Ecclesiasticall goods I answer their Deacons are so much the worse as unlike to Apostolick Deacons and therefore our Deacons and Popish Deacons more Christian and liker to those who were appointed by the Apostles for Stephen who was the first of these Deacons was a Preacher and for his preaching suffered Martyrdome Act. 7. Philip was a Deacon and yet both a Preacher and Baptizer Act. 8. 5. 12. And so we must esteeme that all the rest of the Deacons had the same power nor are they able to shew the contrary We will not be ashamed therefore in this point rather to joyne with Papists wherein they adhere to Gods Word and sound Antiquity than to their new invented opinion disagreeing from both This reason notwithstanding the grosse informalitie thereof was good enough for the Common people who are well pleased with any shew of reason comming from the mouthes of their Leaders and men of learning amongst them either would not or durst not enquire the strength of it or if they did enquire in their own minds durst not publish their opinion either by word or writ because of an Act of this Assemblie Sess. 23. Act. 17. prohibiting any person of whatsoever qualitie or degree to speak or write against this Assemblie or any Act thereof under paine of incurring the censure of the Kirk Therefore leaving the informality of this Argument I answer to the substance of the matter that all orders of Ecclesiasticall Rulers are and may be called an Hierarchie we grant in that sense which we have declared but that all such is wicked and Antichristian we deny and have even Calvin the first founder of Presbyteriall Discipline for our warrant as we have shown already and therefore that exception they make That this Hierarchie is called the Antichristian Hierarchie
the inferior members to correct the head it is true indeed that Bishops ought to be subject to the censures of Generall or Nationall Councels and none of them will think themselves exeemed from such a one as is lawfully constituted Albeit the Bishops did decline upon many just reasons this Assembly of Covenanters which are at length expressed in their declinature yet if that the Assemblie had been constituted according to the present established order of the Church they would never have declined from the same The last corruptions they remark in the Bishops as they were then in Scotland is that they did not instruct their people in Gods Word which is a corruption indeed but not essentiall to the office of a Bishop or allowed by a Law if any omit that dutie let them be censured for their personall fault it is great iniquitie to condemn the whole office as unlawfull in it self for the personall fault of one or two But I perceive that the chief thing which was then condemned in Episcopacie is that they did not receive their Commission to exercise their charge from the Church or that every Minister had not his voyce in the Nomination or Election of Bishops but that they were nominated and presented by the King elected by those of the Chapton only and consecrated by other Bishops and this was the thing which moved them â—o despitefully to condemn that estate in the constitution whereof every one of them had not a hand and in all their proceedings both in the book of Discipline and Acts of Assemblies it appeares that this was the chief thing they required that if they had had their Commission only from the Church or generall Assemblie they would have condescended to all other points of their function 1. In the second book of Discipline Cap. 11. they confess that albeit Pastors as pastors have not power over moe â—locks than one yet if it be given them by the Church they may exercise it lawfully 2. In the Assemblie 1575. it is agreed by both parties as we have declared that amongst the pastors one may be chosen by the Church to visite certaine bounds comprehending many particular parishes and therein to plant Ministers to suspend and depose them for reasonable causes 3. In the Assemblie at Edinburgh 1578. one of the principall petitions they make to the Regent was that none should be admitted to vote in Parliament in name of the Church excepâ— such as have Commission from the Church 4. In the second book of Discipline Cap. 11. It is said that no person under whatsoever title ought to attempt any Act in name of the Church either in Councell or Parliament having no Commission from the Church so that if that had been done we see that they acknowledge both their power and preheminence over other Pastors their charge over moe particular flocks their sitting in Councell and voting in Parliament to have been lawfull which are the principall points both of the Spirituall and temporall function of Bishops which they challenge in this Assemblie to be unlawfull If then we can shew that the Bishops have received from the Church such a Commission to exercise all these points of their office how can it be denied but they may exercise them lawfully since this is the only exception against them in these things Therefore we shall make it appear that Bishops have received from the Church this Commission 1. Christ himself who is the head of the Church having all power gave to the Apostles this Commission to exercise power and preheminence in all Spirituall and Ecclesiasticall matters over all both Pastors and people throughout the whole world 2. The Apostles who were at the beginning the representative Church gave the like Commission to Bishops over certaine bounds over the which they received Iurisdiction as Paul gave to Timothy in Ephesus and the bounds of Asia minor thereabout Commission to plant Churches to ordaine Presbyters and Deacons to have Iurisdiction and Rule over them being ordained to receive or repell accusations given in against them and by consequent to judge and correct or censure them the same Commission received Titus in the Kingdome of Creta neither can it be doubted but the rest of the Apostles gave the like Commission unto others in these Nations where they travelled to preach the Gospel who were to succeed them in the rule and Government of the Churches wherin they had not only the Name but also the office and that power of Bishops which is here called in Controversie as none can deny except those who will impudently deny all tâ—rue records of Antiquitie since all the oâ—thodox Fathers who succeeded the Apostles and lived in the same age with them doe with unanimous consent testifie the same The which Commission was derived from the Primitive Church who received it from the Apostles to those of succeeding ages confirmed by continuall practice uncontrouled for the space of fifteen hundred years by any Orthodox writers untill this last age that some of the Church of Geneva began to call it in question 3. The Commission to vote in Parliament they could not have at the beginning when there was no Christian Magistrates or Common-wealths yet so soone as Kingdomes and Common-wealths received the publik exercise of Christian Religion authorized by Laws then the Church considering that many of the Civill Laws did either directly or indirectly reflect upon Ecclesiasticall matters and Religion and that it was very expedient that Ecclesiasticall Constitutions for better obedience thereto should be strengthened by the Laws of the Kingdome they did earnestly supplicate Emperors Kings and Magistrates that some Commissioners from the Church might have place in their Soveraign Courts whereby Laws were established to further therein the cause of God and the Church and to take heed Nè Ecclesia aliquid detrimenti capiat the which supplications Christian Emperors Kings and Magistrates out of a pious zeal did grant And therefore did authorize the Bishops and Prelates to sit in their Soveraigne Courts in name of the Church this priviledge many godly and learned Prelates did injoy to the unspeakable good of the Church and advancement of Christian Religion so that it is no lesse but rather a great deal moâ—e wicked Sacriledge to rob the Church of this so profitable a priviledge than to rob her of her patrimonie and therefore no marvell though these who make no scruple in Conscience to be sacrilegious in the one be also sacrilegious in the other 4. To come neerer to our Church of Scotland it is evident by all histories that since there were Christian Princes therein the reverend Bishops did not onely rule the Ecclesiastick affaires but also had a great hand in the affaires of the Civill estate and did much good by their wise Counsell to the King the Church and whole Kingdome before Popish tyrannie had place therein and that since there were any formall Parliament in Scotland the Prelats made up the third
EPISCOPACIE NOT ABIVRED IN HIS MAIESTIES REALME OF SCOTLAND CONTAINING MANY Remarkable passages NEWLY PVBLISHED The Contents of the severall Chapters follow in the next page Printed 1641. The Contents of the severall Chapters in this BOOK CHAP. I. COntaining a Comparison betwixt this Assemblie and the Councell of Trent 1. They agree in like subtill policie in their proceedings specified in 6. points 2. They disagree in that the Councell of Trent in externall order was more formall than this and more substantiall in discussing the Articles CHAP. II. Containing two reasons why we intend to speak onely against the Act condemning Episcopacie 1. Because the rest of the Acts are established upon the same grounds 2. Because their principall purpose in desiring this Assembly was to suppresse Episcopacie 3. The Act it self is set down verbatim as it was set down in their printed Coppie subscribed by the Clerk CHAP. III. Discussing their foure Considerations in their preface whereby they alleage they were moved to make this Act 1. The Consideration of the great mercie of God in the work of the reformation wherein three notable falshoods are remarked 2. That many evill innovations were obtruded upon the Church wherein also three notable falshoods are remâ—rked 3. That by the Kings urging the book of Common Prayer they were moved of Necessitie to make their Covenant wherein are remarked 7. notable falshoods 4. That many having subscribed the Covenant without their applications yet according to the meaning it had 1580. therefore it is necessary that the Assembly should declare the true meaning wherein are shown divers falshoods and impertinencies CHAP. IIII. Containing the state of the Question as it was proponed to be voyced in the Assemblie 1. The necessitie of right stating the Question 2. That their proposition is captious and confused including three severall Questions of divers natures wherunto no one Categoricall answer could be given 3. That they set it down in many ambiguous words and termes 4. It is sophistically and subtilly drawn à Thesâ—ad Hypothesin 5. That being proposed in that manner it could not possibly resolve the doubts but rather increase them 6. The Question simply proposed had been fitter to resolve doubts 7. There are two points which they intend to prove unlawfull in Episcopacie 1. That they have charge over moâ— particular â—â—ocks than one 2. That they have power and preheminence over their Brethren CHAP. V. That this power and preheminence is not contrarie to the Confession of Faith in the Church of Scotland but most conforme thereto and to the first book of Discipline and continuall practice of the Church of Scotland 1. A distinction of the Confessions of Faith so called in a positive and negative and that the positive is the only proper Confession of the Church of Scotland 2. That there is no Article of this Confession condemning this power and preheminence 3. That the meaning of this Confession concerning the point of Government set down in the first book of Discipline and long practice of the Church doth expresly approve the same 4. A paralell betwixt Superintendents and Bishops wherein is shown that the power of Superintendents was no lesse than that which Bishops require now 5. That Bishops retaining the office title and Benefice of Bishops had the power for 20. yeers after the reformation and that by approbation both of the Church and Civill estate CHAP. VI That this power and preheminence of Bishops was not abjured by the negative Confession or Covenant 1. That this negative Confession is not the proper Confession of the Church of Scotland but an Appendix thereof 2. That it is only the first Confession whereunto all were sworn to adhere 3. Two reasons shewing that by the oath of the Covenant or negative Confession Episcopacie was not abjured 1. Because it cannot have a meaning contrary to that whereof it is an Appendix 2. Because it belongeth only to the King and not to an Assemblie of the Church without the King to declare in what sense the oath was required CHAP. VII An Answer to those passages alleaged in the Act out of the Abjuration 1. Answered in Generall by Consideration of the words themselves 2. By the confession of the Moderator and his associats 3. A particular answer to the first passage shewing it to be cited falsly and impertinently CHAP. VIII An Answer to the second passage of the Covenant wherein is shown clearly 1. A notable falshood in the citation both by changâ—ng words and adding others not contained in the originall 2. Divers reasons why this passage doth prove nothing to their purpose CHAP. IX An Answer to the third passage wherein are these particulars 1. It is shown to be impertinent 2. What is meaned by the word Hierarchie 3. That there may be an Hierarchie neither Antichristian nor wicked proved by the testimony of Calvin 4. Their first reason to prove that Episcopall Government is the Antichristian wicked Hierarchie is by a false Syllogisme ex omnibus particularibus affirmantibus in secundâ figurâ 5. This reason passable amongst themselves because no man durst examine it under paine of the censure of the Church 6. Their second reason childish and Sophisticall 7. Their third reason impertinently applied 8. Their fourth reason hath no consequence and farre from the purpose 9. Their last reason is grounded upon a place in the second book of Discipline falsly related CHAP. X. An Answer to the fourth passage containing three particulars 1. An explaining of the words 2. That the Doctrine and Discipline whereunto we are sworn to joyne our selvs is not all the doctrine and discipline taught and practised in the Church of Scotland 3. That this Doctrine is expresly limitated in the Covenant by foure limitations by every one of which it is cleered that this power and preheminence of Bishops is not abjured 4. The first limitation that we swear only to adhere to that which is taught by Gods Word wherein there is nothing contrary to this point but all is conforme thereto 5. The second limitation is that Doctrine which is professed by many notable Realms and Churches no Realm nor Church did condemne this except Geneâ—a and that not absolutely but many Churches did approve it expresly 6. The third limitation is the doctrine particularly expressed in the first Confession of Faith but no doctrine is expressed therein contrary to this point 7. The fourth limitation is that Doctrine which was for a long time before professed by the King and whole body of the Kingdome But the King and body of the Kingdome did expresly professe that they did approve this point here damned 8. The discipline is limitated by the same limitation 9. The discipline is either taken in a strict and proper sense for the censures of the Church or else in a large sense signifying the whole policy of the Church 10. In the first sense it was as yet retained precisely in the Church of Scotland under Episcopall Government and
was not a point controverted betwixt the reformers of Religion who set down the Confession and their Adversaries the Papists And therefore needed not to be mentioned in the Confession and by consequent albeit there was no such Bishops according to the Confession yet it is not necessary that they should be abjured Then there is as little coherence betwixt the last two questions for although it had been abjured at that time yet will it not follow necessarily that it be now removed out of the Church for two reasons first because then it might have been abjured wrongfully and out of Ignorance but afterwards men comming to better and sounder knowledge that which rashly hath been abjured before may be lawfully restored now Next because if there had been a Law and Constitution against it for certaine reasons of not expediencie the Church might have abjured it for that time yet that Law being abrogated by lawfull Authoritie it may be received againe by the Church for it is holden as granted by all that Oaths given to humane positive Laws either Civill or Ecclesiastick obliges no longer than the Law stands in force Now therefore since the Law forbidding preheminencie of one Pastor over others if any such Law was being now abrogated and the contrarie established this preheminencie ought not to be removed now though formerly abjured Secondly There is great Ambiguities in the termes of the proposition themselves yea almost every word hath its own Ambiguitie for 1. the word Confession is ambiguous for although there be two writs which by some are called Confessions yet there is one onely proper and perfect profession of Faith of the Church of Scotland neither ought there to be any more in one Church to wit that large Confession set down at the beginning of the reformation wherein is contained all the positive Doctrine maintained by that Church which was acknowledged received in the general Assembly An. 1560. and ratified by the whole body of the kingdom in Parliament 1567. and inserted verbatim in the body of the Act that other which is called the negative Confession is only an Appendix of the former containing an abjuration of certaine speciall Errors of the Romane Church so it is doubtfull which of those Confessions is here understood 2. There is likewise an Ambiguity in that word According to the Confession because it may be understood diversly for either it implies that it is expresly contained therein and so it is properly according to the same or otherwise it may signifie onely that it is not contrary thereunto though not particularly expressed now Episcopacie in the first sense perhaps is not according to the Confession because it is not expressly mentioned therein which is no absurditie as we have shown before yet is it according to it in the second sense because not contrary thereunto 3. There is ambiguitie in the words As it is professed Anno 1580. c. For either it must be signified as it was then proposed in writ or print and so certainly it was no otherwise professed at that time than it was from the beginning and is now at this present but hath been ever conserved unaltered or uncorrupted in the Registers of the Church and Kingdome so that the particular restriction to those years 1580. 1581. 1590. is needlesse and superfluous or by Profession is signified the sense or interpretation thereof as it was understood and interpreted An. 1580. and thus also that restriction of the profession to those years is no lesse superfluous for it could not be or at least ought not to have been by any otherwise interpreted in these years or now then it was understood at the beginning by those who set it down for as we say unusquisque est optimus suorum verborum interpres and the first Reformers who framed that Confession did interpret it in the first book of Discipline and Acts of divers Assemblies thereafter so as it did approve the power of one Pastor over others Therefore if any did interpret it in a contrary sense they wronged greatly the worthy Reformers of the Religion and we are not now obliged to imitate them in their wrongfull dealing 4. There is Ambiguitie likewise in the word Bishop which sometimes is taken in a generall sense as it is attributed to every Pastor in the Church who hath power to oversee the actions of the people in Spirituall affaires sometimes more particularly as it signifieth those that have Iurisdiction both over moe pastors and people of a certaine bounds called a Diocese as it hath been taken in all Churches since the Apostles dayes untill this former age but because this is discussed in the Question it self I speak no more of it Finally there is Ambiguities in those words A particular flock for a Diocese is the particular flock of a Bishop aswell as a Parish is the particular flock of a Minister many more Ambiguities might be remarked in the words of this Question which for briefues we omit here but shall be God willing discussed as occasion serves in the subsequent discourse Thirdly it is also subtle Sophysticall dealing that they have drawn the Question à Thesi ad Hypothesin they doe not aske whether Episcopacie be lawfull in it self or not but whether it should be retained or removed in regard of the Confession of Faith and of the Covenant and that only as the Confession was understood An. 1580. 1581. 1590. involving the Question in divers intricate suppositions which they have done subtilly for their own ends first because they were not able to bring any solid testimony of Scripture or approved Fathers or practice of true antiquitie to prove the unlawfulnesse of that office and therefore neither in this Act nor in any other Act of this Assembly is there one syllable produced out of Gods Word to approve their conclusions but all their proofes are from their Negative Confession of Faith impudently wrested from the true meaning thereof from the Oath of the Covenant strangely mis-applyed and from certaine Acts of late Generall Assemblies which all at the best are but humane testimonies and such manner of proofes is not consonant to their ordinary exclamations against humane ordinances and Traditions of men continually pretending to all their speeches and actions Gods Word and Conscience which only is to be grounded thereupon 2. They have framed the Question so restricting the meaning of the Confession to the year 1580. c. because it is evident that from the reformation untill that time they could not alleage any Act of Assembly or Book of Discipline shewing that the Church had any such intention as absolutely to condemne Episcopacie but by the contrary the Church had declared both by the first book of Discipline and Acts of divers Assemblies as shall be fully made clear that she did so explaine her meaning in the Confession of Faith concerning the point of Government as she did approve expresly this power and preheminence and charge over
moe particular â—â—ocks condemned by this Act. 3. They framed the question in this manner to strike a terror of a fearfull perjurie upon the weak Consciences of these who could not discerne rightly either the quality of the Oath or the matter thereof to make them more plyable to their Rebellious projects perswading them that the swearers themselves and all their posteritie were bound to the observation of that Oath according to their false interpretation notwithstanding of any interveening Law or Constitution absolving them from it and that this fearfull perjurie could never be expiated except they renewed their Oath to that Covenant together with their false Applications and perverse interpretations farre different yea flat contrary to their meaning who framed the Confession of Faith and injoyned the Oath which as we shall shew is but an Imaginarie fear It had been more plaine dealing and fitter to have removed all doubts if they had proposed the Question more simply and in more perspicuous termes asking Whether the Office of a Bishop be lawfull in it self or not for if it had been solidly proven by Gods Word to be unlawfull then it had been evident also that the Oath whereby it was abjured was lawfull and no man could have doubted but that Oath did bind both the Actuall swearers and all their posterity to the observation thereof but if it had been found by cleer Scripture that the Office of a Bishop had been lawfull then no man could have doubted but the Oath whereby they did abjure it was unlawfull and therefore that no man was bound to the observation thereof but by the contrary all were bound in Conscience to break such an Oath or if it had been found of middle nature neither simply unlawfull nor necessarily lawfull at all times but a thing indifferent in the power of the Church and Supreme Magistrate to make a Law either establishing or abolishing the same who might also require an Oath of all to observe that Law then certainly no man could have doubted but that so long as that positive Law stood in force that Oath did bind all Subjects to the observation of it as likewise that the Law being abolished by lawfull Authoritie no man was further bound but was ipso facto absolved from the Oath So the Question being propounded in this manner and resolved any other wayes it had cleered all doubts and moved all to be of One mind and one heart but being propounded in their manner no resolution did take away all doubts as they promised to doe by this Act but rather did multiplie them and make them greater For albeit it had been cleered that Episcopacie had been abjured by the Oath of the Covenant which notwithstanding is not done yet a greater doubt remained whether that Abjuration was lawfull or not which could not be resolved except it had been first made manifest that Episcopacie was unlawfull in it self by Gods Word Yet that we may follow them in their own method and reason upon their own grounds we shall leave at this time the probations which may be brought for the office of a Bishop from Gods Word and practice of the Primitive Church which hath been sufficiently performed by divers learned Divines to the which the best of that Sect could never sufficiently answer Taking then the Question as it is set downe by them there are two points which they onely here condemne in that office first that they have charge over moe Parishes than one secondly that they have power and preheminencie over their Brethren we shall make it therefore evident 1. That by the Confession of Faith Books of Discipline Acts of Generall Assemblies and long continued practice of the Church of Scotland at the reformation and many yeers after this preheminence and power of one Pastor over others and charge over moe parishes than one hath been acknowledged to be lawfull Secondly we shall shew that none of those passages brought by them at length in the Act it self which doubtlesse were the strongest they could find forth of the abjuration in the Covenant books of Discipline and Acts of former generall assemblies doe prove their conclusion but that all of them are either falsly or impertinently cited farre by or contrary to the meaning of the Authors and therefore that all of them are Sophystically alleaged CHAP. V. That this preheminence and power of Bishops here questioned is conforme to the true Confession of Faith of the Church of Scotland to the first Book of Discipline and the long continued practice of the Church FIrst we must observe that there are two Confessions of Faith so called in the Church of Scotland as we have remarked before to wit that large Confession established at the first reformation framed by Iohn Knox and other faithfull Ministers Anno 1560. Confirmed by divers generall Assemblies received by the whole body of the Kingdome ratified by Act of Parliament 1567. and inserted in the body of the Act which is the only proper Confession of the Church of Scotland containing all the positive grounds of the Reformed Religion especially in matters of Faith controverted betwixt us and the Papists and other Hereticks the other called commonly the Negative Confession which is not properly a perfeâ—t Confession but an Appendix of the former framed not by any Ordinance of the Assemblie of the Church but by the appointment of the Kings Majestie and Councell first sworn and subscribed by the Kings Majestie himself and his houshold then by an Act of Councell dated the 5. of March 1580. It was ordained that all persons within the Kingdome should swear the same and for more commodious doing thereof it was presented by his Majesties Commissioners to the Assemblie holden at Glasgow 1581. that they might approve it and injoyne every Minister to see the Oath taken by all their Parishioners and it did containe an abjuration of most speciall grosse errors of Poperie the same abjuâ—ation was againe commanded by the King to be renewed in the year 1590. when as that Conspiracie of some Papists trafficking with the King of Spaine was discovered having annexed thereto a generall band or Covenant whereby all the Subjects bindes themselves with the Kings Majestie for maintenance of true Religion according to the Confession of Faith set down at the first reformation and for the defence of the Kings Majesties person Authoritie and estate against all Enemies within and without the Kingdome to the end that true professors and his Majesties loyall Subjects might more easily be discerned from hypocriticall Papists and seditious Rebells Now as for that onely perfect Confession there is no clause nor Article therein which either expresly or by any probable consequence condemneth this power and preheminencie here controverted neither have they been so bold as to alleage any passage out of the same nor was it the meaning of those godly and learned persons who set it down and proposed it to be received by the Church and Kingdome of Scotland nor
the meaning of the Church and Kingdome who accepted and approved the same as the true Doctrine proved by Gods Word thereby to condemne any such thing yea it is most evident that they had a quite contrary meaning as they themselves did publikly declare in the first book of Discipline shewing therein what manner of Government and Policie they doe require in the true reformed Church to wit that it should be governed by Superintendents in every Province having power and preheminence over all the Ministers and all the Parishes within their bounds for this book of Discipline was framed by the same persons who set down that confession of Faith and at the same very time or shortly thereafter and that by the command and direction of the great Councell of Scotland admitted to the Government by common consâ—nt of the whole estates in the Queens absence being for the time in France and ratifiâ—â—â— by Act of Councell and manuall subscriptions of the Counsellors and of divers other men of worth the 17. of Ianuary 1560. approved by many generall Assemblies and the continuall practice of the Church for twice as many years thereafter as Presbyteriall Governmental remained in force Then that we may see how farre this power of Superintendents did extend we must consider that the first Reformers of Religion because of the detestable enormities of Papisticall Bishops which made their persons offices and very names to be detested out of a certaine zealous scrupulositie would not at first give the title of Bishops to the rulers of the Church yet neverthelesse by the example of many other reformed Churches gave to those who were appointed to their charge a title of the same signification calling them Superintendents So changing a proper Greek word into a barbarous Latine for the Greek word {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} and the Latine word Superintendens doe both signifie one thing to wit such a one as is set over others to oversee their actions Albeit by this book of Discipline the whole Kingdome was divided in ten Dioceses expresly so called and over every Diocese a Superintendent appointed to be set yet in all the books of Assemblies we find onely foure who carried expresly this title to wit Mâ— Iohn Spotswood father to the late deceased Iohn Archbishop of St. Anâ—â—â—ws called Superintendent of Lâ—â—thran or Edinburgh Iohn Areskin of Diune Superintendent of Angus and Mearnes or of Brechin Mr. Iohn Wonram Superintendent of Fyfe or S. Andrews M. Iohn Wâ—llocks Superintendent of the West or Glasgow those who were set over the rest of the Dioceses were called Commissioners either because at that time they could not fiâ—d so many sufficient men or for lack of sufficient meanes to maintaine the estate of Superintendents or as some rather thinke because they esteemed this too absolute a Title and neere in signification to the title of Bishop therfore they thought it more fit to call them Commissioners as importing morse a dependencie upon the generall Assemblie of the Church from which they received Commission to exercise their charge not for any definite time but ad vitam or ad culpam Those same are at sometimes called Visitores by a word of the like signification with Episcopus for {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} signifieth likewise a Visitor and {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} Visitation as 1 Pet. â— 12. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} is translated by all interpreters in dievisitationis and so the Hebrew word {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} from the known word {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} visitavit by the Septuagints is translated {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} and by Latines Inspector Visitator or Praefectus Howsoever they were diversly named they had all a like power and Iurisdiction which was no lesse then in the Church of Scotland than the power which the Bishops had in the ancient Church or in the Church of Scotland these many yeers by-gone as may appeare by this paralell betwixt the power of Bishops and the power of Superintendents A Paralell betwixt the power of Bishops and the power of Superintendents FIrst as every Bishop hath his own Diocese over the which he hath Superioritie and Iurisdiction and therin a speciall Citie for his sea and place of Residence called the Metropolitan or Cathedrall Citie So every 〈…〉 by the first book of Discipline Cap. 5. Art 2. 〈…〉 pointed to him his own Diocese to have 〈◊〉 power over all persons both pastors and people 〈◊〉 that bounds and therein a certaine place of ordinary residence called there the Superintendents towne which for the most part were the same Cities from which the Bishops of Scotland are now denominated Secondly As all the Clergie in every Diocese are bound to give 〈◊〉 obedience to their ordinary Bishop according to 〈◊〉 Canons of the Church Right so by a speciall 〈…〉 Generall Assembly at Edinburgh Iuly 30. 1562. It is concluded by the whole ministers there Assembled that all Ministers shall be Subâ—â—ct to their Superintendents in all lawfull 〈…〉 as well in the book of Discipline as in 〈…〉 Election of Superintendents which is no other 〈…〉 but Canonicall obedience Thirdly As all Bishops are to be 〈…〉 of Generall or Nationall Councels 〈…〉 been in all ages and needed not any 〈…〉 thereto from the time that they were 〈…〉 consecrated to that office So likewise in all 〈…〉 Superintendents and Commissionâ—◠〈◊〉 were constant principall members of 〈…〉 Assemblies and needed not any particular Commission thereto but being once admitted to the office were ever acknowledged thereafter and received without any other Commission as is evident by that Assemblie at Edinburgh Iuly 1568. wherein the members of the Generall Assemblie are divided in two Ranks some are appointed to be ordinary and perpetuall members as Superintendents and Commissioners of Provinces the other sort are mutable as Commissioners of Churches Vniversities Townes and Provinces the first had no need of particular Commission but were perpetuall and first called in the Roll the other were changeable from Assemblie to Assemblie and had new particular Commissions from those by whom they were directed In the Assemblie at Edinburgh 1563. that every Superintendent shall appear the first day of the Assemblie at Edinburgh March 1578. the same Act is renewed and Bishops also are appointed to be present at all Assemblies or else to be accounted unworthy of the office and by divers other Acts yea after that the othee of Bishops begun to be questioned in the Assemblie 1579. Iuly 7. Sess. 9. It is ordained That Bishops and Comâ—issâ—ouers of Provinces who abjent themselves from 〈◊〉 Assemblies shall be censured according to the Act august 12. 1575. and that Act to be understood not onely 〈◊〉 Bishops having power of Visitation from the Church but also of such as have not that office Fourthly As all Bishops have power to hold their Synods twice in the year when and where it
shall please them within their own Diocese and there all the Clergie of the Diocese are bound to conveene and all matters which concerne the Diocese are therein to be determined by the Bishop So likewise albeit that in the first book of Discipline there is no mention of Synodall or Provinciall Assemblies yet after by Acts of Generall Assemblies it is appointed that every Superintendent and Commissioner shall hold Synods in their own bounds wherein all matters pertaining particularly to their own Diocese or Province shall be determined as appeares by the Assemblie at Edinburgh March 5. 1570. wherein these two Acts are set downe first It is ordained that offenders in hainous crymes shall not appear before the generall Assembly but shall be called before the Superintendents and Commissioners of Provinces to appear before them in their Synodall Conventions and there to receive their injunctions conforme to the order used before in Generall Assemblies Itein It is ordained that all Questionâ— concerning the Province shall be propounded first to the Superintendent et Commissioner to receive resolution in their Synodall conventions and if they be diffieile to be propounded to the next generall Assemblie by the Superiatendent or Commissioner with certification that no Question shall be received hereafter from any private Minister So likewise in the Assemblie at Edinburgh 1568. It is ordained that no Minister exhort or reade or other person shall trouble the Generall Assembly with such matters as Superintendents may and ought to decide in their Synods And if they doe so their Letters shall be rejected Fiftly As no Pastor ought to have place in Nationall Assemblies except such as are authorized thereunto by their Ordinarie Bishop according to the custome of the ancient Church Although our Bishops in Scotland since they were re-established did never usurpe this power to themselves but left the Election of the Commissioner in the power of the Brethren of the Presbyterie So likewise it was ordained in the Assemblie at Edinburgh 1568. That no Minister should have voyce in Generall Assemblies nor leave their flocks to attend thereat unlesse they be chosen by their Superintendent as men known able to reason and of knowledge to judge in matters of weight The same likewise we see testified to have been the Custome of the Church of Scotland by a Letter written by the Lord Glames then Chancellor of Scotland unto Beza about the year 1575. when Episcopacie began to be quarrelled wherein Quaest. 2. he saith Post reformatam Religionem consuetudine receptum est ut Episcopi under which word he comprehendeth the Superintendents ex Ministris Pastoribus ac Senioribus tot quot ijdeâ— Episcopi jusserint unum in locum conveniant cum praecipuis Barronibus ac Nobilibus Religionem veram profitentibus de doctrinâ de moribus inquisituri Sixtly As all the presentation of Benefices vacant were to be directed to the Bishop of the Diocese where the Benefice lyes so that if the person presented be found qualified he may enjoy the same So is it appointed at the Assembly holden at St. Iohnstone Iune 1563. That when any Benefice shall chance to vaick or is now vacant that a qualified person be presented to the Superintendent of that Province where the Benefice lyes and that he being found sufficient be admitted Minister to that Kirk c. Likewise in the Assembly at Edinburgh 1578. wherein they alleage the second book of Discipline was agreed unto one of the Petitions of the Assemblie preferred to the King and Councell was That all presentations to Benefices may be directed to the Commissioner or Superintendent where the Benefice lyes Seventhly As the Ordination of Ministers appertaines peculiarly to the Bishop of the Diocese So likewise the Ordination which by the stile of Scotland is called Admission or Conftirmation not onely of Ministers but also of Readers Schoolmasters and Principalls of Colledges did appertaine to the Superintendents in their owne bounds as is evident by the fifth Chapter of the book of Discipline in the Article of Superintendents and in the Article of Schools and Universities Eightly As Bishops have at all times had power to examine the life doctrine and behaviour of the Clergie of his own Diocese and to admonish correct or censure them accordingly So likewise in the same book of Discipline Cap. 5. the Superintendents received power and authoritie to visit the Churches of their bounds so often as they may and therein not only to preach But also to exmine the life diligence and behaviour of all the Ministers as likewise the orders of the Kirks and manners of the people and to admonish where admonition needeth and to correct them by the censures of the Kirk c. Ninthly As Bishops have power of suspension or deposition of Ministers who are either scandalous in their lives or hereticall in their doctrine So by the book of Discipline and divers Acts of the Assemblies that power doth appertaine to Superintendents Commissioners or Visitors as is manifest by that place of the book of Disciplince cited by us in the former Article and by the Assemblie holden at Edinburgh April 1576. wherein it is said Anent the demand made by Mr. Andrew Hay Parson of Ranthrow if every Commissioner or Visitor in his own bounds hath alike power and Iurisdiction to plant Ministers suspend and depose for reasonable causes the Assemblie resolved affirmative that they have alike power and Iurisdiction therein as is contained in the particular Acts concerning the Iurisdiction of Visitors Tenthly As Bishops because of their places and great charges in overseeing all the Churches have greater rents appointed to them than to other Pastors So likewise by the book of Disciplie Cap. 5. in the Article for the provision of Ministers is appointed almost foure times asmuch stipend for the Superintendent as for other private Ministers Moreover it is evident by many Acts of Generall Assemblies that those Bishops who had joyned themselves to the reformed Church retaining still the office and title of Bishops did by approbation of the generall Assemblies exercise their Iurisdiction over the Ministrie and people of their own Diocese even from the beginning of the Reformation almost for in the Assembly at Edinburgh 1582. Alexander Gordon Bishop of Galloway was authorized to plant Ministers exhorters and readers and to doe such other things as has been heretofore accustomed to be done by Superintendents or Commissioners In the Assembly at S. Iohnstone Iunc 1563. the Bishops of Orknay and Kaiâ—hnes are allowed to exercise the same Iurisdiction and to shew that they did not this by compulsion of Superior Authoritie but of their own voluntary motion in that Assembly it is appointed that a Supplication shall be preferred in name of the whole Assembly to the Queens Majestie that she would be pleased to remit the thirds of the Bishopricks which were then in the Queens hands to the Bishops who were allowed by the Church to be Commissioners for planting of
Churches within the bounds of their own Diocese and therafter Anno 1572. All Bishops were by speciall Act of the Generall Assemblie restored to the function at the desire of the Earle of Lenox then Regent of Scotland and the next year in the Assembly at Edinburgh 1573. certaine limitations of their power were added not very strict which no Bishop can refuse 1. That the Iurisdiction of Bishops in their Ecclesiasticall function should not exceed the Iurisdiction of the Superintendents which heretofore they had and presently have which Iurisdiction as we have declared was no lesse than that which the Bishops require now 2. That they should be willingly subject to the Discipline appointed by the Generall Assemblie as members thereof This likewise is reasonable and no Bishop will think himself exeemed from the censure of a Nationall Assemblie lawfully constituted according to the established and approved orders of the Church 3. That no Bishops give coâ—â—ation of Benefices within the bounds of Superintendents without their consent and testimoniall subscribed by their hands This was also reasonable for Superintendents were also Bishops and it is conforme to the ancient Canons of the Church That no Bishop should give ordination or collation to any within the Diocese of another Bishop without his consent and testimoniall 4. That Bishops in their own Diocese visite by themselves where no Superintendâ—nts are which indeed is their duty if they be not impedited either by infirmitie or by some weightier affaires of the Church 5. That they give no collation of Benefices without the advice of three qualified Ministers The Bishops of Scotland heretofore did astrict themselves further for they were not accustomed to give collation of Benefices except 〈◊〉 were to men of known worth in the exercise of the ministry before without the advice of the whole Brethren of the Exercise in the bounds where the Benefice lyes committing the whole triall both of their life and doctrine to them and according to their Testificate did accept or reject him who was presented By this then which we have truely related out of the book of Discipline and Acts of Generall Assemblies of the Church it is manifest that the true Confession of faith as it was professed at the Reformation and many yeers thereafter had no such meaning as condemne or â—bjure the power and preheminence of One Pastour over others or over moe particular flocks than one But on the contrary did approve the same as it is explained concerning the point of Government by the book of Discipline and practice of the Church under the title of Superintendent untill the year 1590. and under the title of Bishop untill the year 1580. for untill those years neither the one nor the other were abrogated by the Assembly of the Church the first Act condemning that Iurisdiction under the title of Bishops was in that Assembly at Dundie 1580. and the first Act abolishing the office and title of Superintendents was in that Assembly at Edinburgh August 1590. wherein it is declared that since Presbyteries were fully established that Superintendents and Commissioners were neither necessarie nor expedient What regard should be had to those Acts we shall shew hereafter Is it not therefore too impudent and manifest a calumnie and a scandalous impurtation laid by our Covenainers upon the worthy reformers of the Church of Scotland and those who did prosecute the same for many years that their meaning in the Confession of Faith was to condemne that as unlawfull which they did approve by their plaine and publike declaration and continuall practice As it is also a subtill and hypocriticall dissimulation of the Ring-leaders of this Rebellion against the knowledge and conscience â—f those who knowes the historie of that Church since the Reformation to professe and perswade people that their upright intentions is to reduce the Church to her former purity wherein she was constituted by the Reformations and to abolish all novationâ— since they are manifestly doing the quite contrary abolishing violently that order of Government which was established by the Reformation and establishing in place thereof a most dangerous Novation never heard of in many Christian Church since the beginning untill this 〈◊〉 age and whereof the Church of Scotland never thought of nor dreamed at the Reformation or many yeers thereafter untill it was brought by a violent wind from Geneva bringing therewith great trouble and disturbance to the Church of Scotland and whole Kingdome both first and last CHAP. VI Shewing that this power and preheminence of Bishops was not abjured by the Negative Confession or Covenant HAving showne that this power and preheminence of Bishops was not condemned by the principall and proper Confession of Faith of the Church of Scotland It followes also that we shew that it was not condemned by that abjuration in the Covenant called the Negative Confession which by them improperly and {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} is called a Confession For it is absurd and almost repugnans in adjecto to say that it should be the Confession of Faith in any Church which doth not declare any positive point of Doctrine to be beleeved but consisteth onely of meere Negatives which are not to be beleeved It was onely therefore set down as an Appendix of the true Confession for that end which we declared before For this is the ordinary manner both of publike Confessions of Churches and private Confessions of particular persons first to set down the positive Doctrine in certaine Articles and propositions which are properly the Confession of Faith and then by way of Appendix deduced from thence to adjoyne damning and abjuring of the contrary errors so we see it done in most of the Confessions of reformed Churches collected together in that book called Syntagma Confessionum So doth befa in his Confession and learned Zanchius in his right so we must conceive the matter that those abjurations of Popish errors set down in the Covenant are but Appendices deduced from the Articles and propositions which comprehend the Confession of Faith yea the very words of that Covenant make it cleer and evident for therin it is first said We beleeve with our hearts and confesse with our mouthes that this is the true Christion Faith and Religion which is particularly expressed in the Confession of our Faith established and confirmed by divers Acts of Parliament c. To the which Confession and forme of Religion we agree in all points c. In these words is the proposition and summe of the Confession the Appendix followeth thereafter in these words And therefore we abhorre and detest all contrary Doctrine and Religion but chiefly Papistrie and particular heads thereof c. whereby it is evident that it is onely the proper ancient Confession of Faith set down at the Reformation whereunto they did directly swear in that Covenant but unto the abjuration of errors they did onely swear indirectly and by consequent as they were contrary to the
in after ages in all Christian Nations untill this last age yea retained by the first reformers of the Church of Scotland and approved by the Church therein for many yeers thereafter So that the Authoritie of these Assemblies ought not to move judicious men judging without partiall affection This much in generall concerning those Assemblies whereby the estate of Bishops was opprest in those dayes yet to remove all scruple we shall discusse particularly all the Acts alleaged here out of these assemblies shewing that they serve little or nothing to the present purpose First they alleage that Bishops were tollerated from the year 1572. untill this year 1575. But by their leave they were tollerated from the very first years of the Reformation for so many of them as did joyne themselves to the reformed Religion retaining the title office and Benefice of a Bishop did exercise their jurisdiction 〈◊〉 all the Pastors aâ—d people within their Diocese by approbation of the generall Assemblies of the Church as we have shown before Cap. 5. So that this was not as they alleage a meer tolleration but a full consent and approbation at least in regard of their power and preheminence above Ministers and charge over moe particular parishes It is true that Anno 1572. there were divers Bishopricks vacant and that my Lord Regent did excuse himself to the Assembly that they had been so long void as appears by an Act of that Assemblie at Edinburgh August 1572. wherein it is recorded that Alexander Hay Clark of the Councell presented some Articles in name of the Regent to the Assembly whereof one is My Lord Regent his grace mindes that with all convenient diligence qualified persons shall be presented to the Bishopricks now vacant the delay whereof has not been by his owne default but by reason that some enteresse â—as made to those livings in favour of some Noblemen before his acceptation of the Regencie yet his Grace is perswaded that qualified persons shall be speedily presented and in case of failâ—iâ— will not faile without the others knowledge or consent to present So it appeares by his excuse and promise of diligence in times to come that this was not a tolleration onely but an earnest suit of the Church that qualified persons should be presented as they were shortly after and accepted by the Assemblie The Regent at this time was the worthy Mathew Earle of Lenox a man of a noble and generous disposition who bent himself to wrest the Church Livings out of the Noblemens hands and to establish the Church in her proper lustre which doubtlesse he had effectuate if he had been suffered longer to live and so settled things therein as King Iames of happy memory and King Charles now raigning should not have had so much trouble and turmoile in redressing the estate thereof againe But not long after this he was traiterously murthered at 〈…〉 and after his death another wind blowing all his designes were reversed Episcopacie born down and the Church brought to miserable povertie The first Assembly alleaged to prove their conclusion is that in August 1575. which notwithstanding doth nothing make for them but against them rather as we shall make manifest by the proceeding of that Assemblie and Conclusion thereof according as we have faithfully extracted them out of the Register of the Assemblies At this Assemblie indeed was made the first publik motion against Episcopacie although they had before laid privately their plots in their own conventicles at the very beginning of the Assembly when they were calling the Roll of their names the Bishops according to the accustomed order in former Assemblies being first called the promoters of Geneva discipline set forward one Iohn Durie a man neither of the wisest nor most learned of the Ministrie but of great boldnesse which happily he had learned in the Cloister having been sometime as I have heard a Monk in Dumfermling he rising up made a Protestation That the calling of the Bishops in the Assemblie should not prejudge the opinions and reasons which he and other Brethren of his mind had to oppone against the office and name of Bishops this Protestation being vehemently seconded by others the question was proposed to the Assemblie in these termes Whether the Bishops as they are now in Scotland have their function of the word of God or not a more formall proposition indeed than this in the Assemblie of the Covenanters albeit it have some ambiguitie also they thought it not sit to put the matter presently to the voycing untill it were sufficiently discussed by reasoning pro contra and for that effect there are three appointed upon every part to reason the matter and to report their judgement and opinion to the Assemblie and how farre they could agree the reasoners against Episcopacie were Mâ— Andrew Meltin Principall of the Colledge of Glasgow who was the chief man in this cause Mâ— Iames Lawson Minister at Edinburgh and M. Iohn Craig Minister at Aberdeene on the other part for Bishops were appointed M. George Hay Commissioner of Caithnes M. David Lyndsay Minister at Leith M. Iohn Roâ—â— Minister at Pâ—rth they together having conferred and reasoned the matter at length could not agree upon the Principall question and therefore the Assembly determined by an Act That they think it not expedient presently to answer to the Principall question yet they who were appointed to reason the matter reported to the Assembly that they had agreed altogether in certain points First that the name of Bishop is common to all them which have charge of a particular flock to preach the Word and administer the Sacrament which is their chief function by the Word of God Secondly That out of this number may be chosen one to have power to visite such reasonable bounds as the Assemblie shall appoint Thirdly That he may have power in these bounds to appoint Ministers with consent of the Ministers of that province and of the flock to which they are appointed Fourthly That he may have power to appoint Elders and Deacons in every particular Congregation with consent of the people Fiftly That he may have power to suspend and depose Ministers for reasonable causes with consent of the Ministers aforesaid The which points of agreement were ratified and approved by the next Generall Assembly in April 1576. whereby it is evident that they did not intend to diminish that power and preheminence which Superintendents had before over private Ministers or over the particular Congregations within their bounds which as we have shown before was no lesse than thaâ— which Bishops now doe require to have in the Church And therefore that this Assemblie concluded directly against them who condemne the power and preheminence of Bishops over Ministers and over moe particular flocks than one Secondly we must remark a subtill dissimulation of our Covenanters who in the Citation of this Act remember only one point of this Agreement towit That the Name of a Bishop
therefore it were but a foolish Logomachie or strife about words to allow the one title and condemne the other Secondly it may aswell be condemned as unlawfull to appropriate the name of Minister to the degree of preaching Pastors which is common to all those who have charge in the Church or to appropriate the name of Elder to their ruling Elders only which is common to all Pastors Apostles Evangelists and Bishops Thirdly neither did they condemne as unlawfull in it self their power and preheminence over the Ministers in their Diocese or charge over moe particular Parishes first because there were points agreed upon by both parties before this Assemblie and approved by a speciall Act as we have shown before Cap. 11. Secondly because this power was as yet still remaining in the persons of Superintendents Commissioners and Visitors and long after this time Fourthly neither did they condemne as unlawfull in it self their power of Convocation of Synodall Assemblies and their moderation therein for the Church acknowledged this power to be lawfull in Superintendents as we have shown by divers Acts of Assemblies Cap. 5. for if it were unlawfull in it self it could not be thought lawfull under any title whatsoever Fiftly neither did they condemne as unlawfull in it self their sitting and voycing in Councell or Parliament or other Civill Iudicatories for they acknowledge in the second book of Discipline Cap. 11. That Pastors may and should assist their Princes when they be required in all things agreeable to Gods Word whether it be in Councell or Parliament or otherwise So a little before this time M. Robert Pont who was a Pastor and Commissioner of Caithenes had licence from the Assemblie to exercise the office of a Senator of the Colledge of Iustice which was a civill Iudicatorie That proviso which is added to this doth not import any unlawfulnes in the office Providing they neglect not their own charge nor by flatterie of Princes hurt the publik estate of the Church if any doe so it is but a personall fault and not essentiall to the office for Bishops may doe more good in those places for the publik weal of the Church than their Apostles of the Covenant by their long staying in Edinburgh farre from their own particular charges attending the tables of the Covenant and gadding up and down the Countrie to stirre up the Kings Subjects to rebellion against him and to disturb the estate of the Church and Kingdome as many of the Covenanting Ministers have done These are the principall points both of the Spirituall and temporall functions of the Bishops and since they were not accounted by the Church unlawfull in themselves how can this be that this Assembly hath justly condemned The whole estate of Bishops as unlawfull in it self except the Ambiguitie lurk in these words which are there added and often repeated As it is now used in Scotland signifying that it was only the corruptions which were in those who were Bishops at that time which they did condemn and not Episcopacie absolutely It may be true indeed that there were some corruptions at that time in those who had the office of Bishops or that they did not exercise their office aright retaining some corruptions of the Roman Church but for these personall faults the office should not have been condemned of it self since these corruptions might have been separated from the office as they were indeed by the new re-establishment of Bishops in the year 1606. 1608. And certainly they understood those corruptions which are remaked to have been in the Bishops by the book of discipline Cap. 11. whereof some are corruptions indeed but not competent to that office as it was now established in Scotland by generall Assemblies and Acts of Parliament others of them are only supposed corruptions which cannot be convinced to be such indeed either by Gods Word or testimonie of approved Fathers or practice or example of the primitive Church 1. They say it is a corruption that the name of Bishop should be appropriated to some few we have answered to this a little before shewing that this is only a proud doting about questions and strife of words as the Apostle sayes 1 Tim 6. 4. 2. They account it a corruption that they addict not themselves to a particular flock I answer that they doe so for their Diocese is their particular flock Then it is neither necessarie nor expedient that he to whom the generall charge of many parishes is committed should astrict himself to one Parish only nor can the contrary be convinced from Gods Word wherein we finde no such divisions of Parishes as is now 3. They challenge them that they are called Lords over their brethren and over the inheritance of the Lord But first we say that they are not called Lords in regard of their rule over their Brethren but in regard of their temporall Lordships bestowed upon them by the Liberalitie of Princes and in regard of their place in Parliament and Councell then this title of Lord like as Dominus in Latine and {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} in Greek is sometimes a word signifying absolute and illimitated Dominion So we see that divers Emperors albeit in effect they had absolute dominion yet did they refuse often the title of Dominus because it was odious to people and in this sense Bishops are not called Lords neither doe they arrogate to themselves such absolute and unlimited dominion as to doe what they pleased but they must be ruled by the Canons of the Church But otherwise the title of Lord is only a word of honour competent to every man of respect to whom it pleases the Prince or custome of the Countrey to give that title as in France we see the Bishops are no otherwise intituted than other ordinarie Gentlemen calling them Mounsieur so likewise in Spaine and Italy Seignior which title is also given to any other man of worth it is only the custome of the Countrey of England and Scotland whereby this title of Lord is given to Bishops and not for any absolute Dominion they arrogate thereby 4. They account it a corruption that Bishops should have further bounds to visite then they may lawfully they would say conveniently but that corruption may easily be amended by division of the Diocese as is lately done in the Diocese of St. Andrews without abolishing the whole office 5. That a Pastor should have criminall Iurisdiction we answer they have not this as Pastors or Bishops but as a priviledge by the Laws of the Countrey annexed to their temporall lands which notwithstanding they doe not exercise in their own person but by their Stewards or Bailifâ—es 6. They count it a corruption that Bishops would not subject themselves to the correction and censures of the particular Elderships or Presbyteries this is but a supposed corruption and if it were so it were a great corruption indeed and a most uncomely and confused disorder to give libertie to
Estate and did represent the whole Church therein both by the consent of the Church and fundamentall Laws of the Kingdome so that to the enacting of any Law the consent of Prelates was ever thought as necessarie as any of the other two Estates And therefore since by the fundamentall Laws of this Kingdome no Act in Civill or Ecclesiasticall matters ever had the strength of a binding Law without the consent of all the three Estates whosoever will prease to suppresse the estate of Prelates doe reverse and destroy the very fundamentall Laws of the Kingdome 5. To come yet neerer to the reformed Church of Scotland at the very first reformation those who were appointed in the place of Bishops called Superintendents had by Commission from the Church as great power and preheminence over other Pastors and all the Parishes within the bounds of the charge committed to them as Bishops doe now require in their Diocese It is true the Superintendents had not vote in Parliament nor could have for why the Bishops retained still their possession in those places upon their ancient Commission often ratified in Parliament both before and after the Reformation never quarrelled by any Generall Assemblie of the Church untill that Assemblie at Edinburgh in October 1578. wherein the Bishops are required only not to vote in Parliament in name of the Church without speciall Commission thereâ—ra And a few years before to wit at the Assemblie at Ediâ—burgh 1573. the whole Iurisdiction and power of Bishops is expresly allowed by the Church with some exceptious not very materiall as we remarked before and yet there is no mention of excepting this power to vote in Parliament in name of the Church whereby they doe tacitely at the least approve this the ancient Commission of the Bishops to vote in Parliament in name of the Church Finally at the last re-establishing of Bishops Thu Commission to vote in Parliament in name of the Church was expresly given to them by the Church for first by that Assemblie at Montrosse 1600. the Church gave Commission to a certaine number of Ministers though not under the title of Bishops to have a care of the Generall affaires of the Church and to voice in Parliament in name of the Church then the generall Assemblies at Glasgoâ— and Lithgow in the year 1606. 1608. 1610. they did under the very title of Bishops receive full Commission from the Church not only to vote in Parliament but likewise to exercise their whole Iurisdiction power and and preheminence over all Pastors and people within the bounds of their Diocese and so every Bishop particularly by their election and consecration receives power to use this Commission whensoever occasion shall be offered neither is it necessary that for every severall Act they doe in name of the Church they have a new particular Commission for that effect but it is sufficient that by the consent of the Church and Estates of the Kingdome this power is annexed to the office of a Bishop for ever so that whosoever should be elected to that office should have this Commission once for all during his life time or untill by his malversation in his charge he be lawfully and legally deprived It is true indeed that the Church may adde new Articles to their Commission as times and occasions requires as is done in England and Ireland where the Convocation of the Clergie sits ever in the time of Parliament to consider upon such Articles as are thought by common consent to serve for the wee l of the Church and by them are presented to the Bishops that by their care they may receive due ratification but the turbulent behaviour of some Ministers in Scotland who scornes to have their petitions proposed orderly by the Bishops hath as yet barred the Clergie of Scotland from that priviledge Now to conclude this point since for ought we can see the only exception that the Church of Scotland hath made against any point of the function of Bishops at that time when Episcopacie was condemned as unlawfull Anno 1580. 1581. is that they had not their power and preheminence by Commission from the Church or generall Assemblie and since that exception as we have shown is now removed it is evident that those Acts of the Assemblies at Dundee 1580. and at Glasgow 1581. doe not serve to prove the Conclusion of this Assemblie and therefore are impertinently alleaged CHAP. XIIII Discussing the rest of the Acts of Assemblies here cited SInce all the rest of the Acts in the subsequent Assemblies against Bishops are grounded upon these two former Acts whereby the office of a Bishop was condemned and since we have shown in the former Chapter that they doe not serve to prove the Conclusion of this Assemblie and therefore the rest of the Acts depending thereupon must have as little strength as they so that we need not to insist in the particular discussing of every one of them yet lest it be thought that we have over past them altogether we shall remark some few particular observations upon them whereby it may be perceived that if they serve not for their purpose here yet that they serve in divers points against them First those Acts cited here concerning the presentation by the King and admission by the Presbytery of Glasgow of M. Robert Montgomerie to the office of the Archbishop of Glasgow and of M. Robert Poâ—s to be Bishop of Caithâ—es and the divers ineffectuall suits made by the Generall Assemblies to the King Councell and Parliament for advancing of their Presbyteriall Discipline and suppression of Bishops to wit those presented by the Assemblies 1580. 1581. 1587. serves against them in so farre as they declare that their violent proceedings against Bishops and for establishing of their new discipline was not allowed by the Kings Majestie and Councell and whole body of the Kingdome in Parliament all this time but directly resisted as contrary to their wills and manifest intentions whereby it is evident that neither the King nor the Councell nor the whole body of the Kingdome had any such meaning or intention as by that oath of the Covenant to abjure Episcopacie 2. Although that the King and estate suffered an Act to passe in Parliament 1592. establishing in a part their new discipline yet was it not their meaning to approve the same directly But for a pregnant reason of estate they did tollerate lesser evils that greater might be eschewed for at that time it is well known that the King and estate were mightily astonished by the late discovery of a dangerous conspiracie of sundry Noblemen of greatest power in the Kingdome by the practice of some trasâ—ieking Iesuites and Gentlemen affected to the Popish Religion such as Father Creightou father Abercromy Sir William Graham of Fentry M. George Carr and others who brought in great summes of Spanish gold and promised greater whereby those Noblemen and many others of their Faction were corrupted to betray their
Native Countrey promising by their letters and subscription of blank papers to give way and assistance to the King of Spaines Navie to enter within the bowels of the Kingdome No marvell therefore although in so perillous a time when a totall ruine both of Church and Kingdome of Policie and Religion was feared and threatned the King and estate thought it fit for eschewing the present danger to give way at that time to those new Disciplinarians suffering that Act of Parliament to passe in their favour fearing that if they should have resisted their present importunity turbulent spirits as some of them were might have made a further distraction even amongst these who adhered to the true Religion whereby an other gate might have been opened for the entrie of forraigne enemies and so the estate being thus devided should have been lesse able to resist the common enemie This was the very true reason whereby his Majestie was in a manner forced to condescend to this Act whereof they brag so much contrary to his own judgement and constant intention as is evident by that which followed for no sooner was that blast past and that Conspiracie repressed but King Iames of happie memory did set himself more earnestly than ever he did before to re-establish Episcopall government and bear down that new discipline the evils and corruptions whereof disturbing both Church and Common-wealth he perceived daily more and more 3 We must remark that this Act of Parliament 1592. was the first that ever did allow presbyteriall Government by a Law and therefore ought to be accounted the first establishment thereof in the Kingdome of Scotland whereby it appears how short a continuance it had in this Church and how soone it became loathsome to all estates of persons Spuria putamina non agunt altas radices For not full eight years after this in the Assemblie at Montrosse 1600. it received a great blow and Episcopacie was by one step more advanced wherein it was concluded that a certaine number of ministers who were nominated by the King should supply the place of Bishops by voycing in Parliament in name of the Church and to have a care of the generall affaires thereof under the name of Commissioners whose power was inlarged by that Assembly at Haliruâ—house 1602. and Bishops thereafter under their own proper title were established in their full power and Iurisdiction by the generall Assemblies of the Church 1606. 1608. 1610. solemnly ratified by consent of the three Estates in Parliament 1612. 4. We cannot omit that Act cited out of the Assemblie March 1589. wherein it is said for asmuch as the Neighbour Kirk in England is understood to be heavily troubled for maintaining of the true Discipline and Government whose griefes ought to move us therefore the Presbyterie of Edinburgh was ordained to comfort the said Church in the said matter I cannot conceive whom they call The Church of England here except it be some few Schismaticks who a little before this time were challenged before the Starre-chamber for disturbing the Church and Kingdome by promoting unto the people a new forme of Discipline different in many points both from the Scottish Discipline and that of Geneva who because they did obstinately refuse to answere to some interrogatories proposed to them by the Councell of England were committed to prison of which number was one Wigintone who stirred up three fanaticall fellows Edmund Coppinger William Hacket and Henry Arthington to labour for their relief perswading them that they were extraordinarily called thereto Hacket being mightily possessed by this humour did give out that Christ was descended from heaven with his fan in his hand and had called him extraordinarily to purge both Church and Common-wealth he sent out before him his two principall Prophets Coppinger and Arthington to whom he assigned a diverse charge that Coppinger should offer grace and mercie to the people if they would beleeve and follow him for the relief of the faithfull servants of God and Arthingtone should denounce Gods wrath and eternall damnation to unbeleevers who would not adhere to them those two being sent by Hacket came to the streets of London and did preach according to their charge railing impudently against the Queen and Councell declaring openly that she was fallen from her right to the Crowne and that Hacket was their King whom they ought to obey being placed in Christs stead whereby they moved great multitudes of the Common people to follow them but before they could effectuate their purpose they were prevented by certaine of the Councell sent by the Queen who apprehended them in the very Act at Cheapside the 16. of Iuly 1591. for the which cause Hacket was executed as a Traitor Coppinger killed himself in prison and Arthington repenting him of his madnesse did confesse their whole proceedings in whose Confession it was declared that they had received an incouragement to this attempt from Scotland by the means of one Penry who having been a certaine space a Preacher in Scotland waâ— returned a little before this enterprise and was lurking then in the City of London or in some place thereabouts this Penry was chiefly the man who procured these consolatorie letters from the Assembly to his Companions to the great disgrace of the Church of Scotland as having given encouragement to further such a treasonable attempt and apparantly that letter written from Scotland by one Gibson to Coppinger was one of these consolatorie letters ordained by the Assemblie to be written to them wherein he saith The best of our Ministers are most carefull of your estate and have sent for that effect a Preacher of our Church to wit Penry this last sommer 1590. of purpose to conferre with the best affected Ministers of your Church to lay down a plot how our Church might best travell for â—our relief I have heard some of the wisest and gravest of the Ministrie of Scotland at that time who did heavily regrate that the Church of Scotland was mightily abused by this Penry who although he was for a time in great estimation amongst the people and some of the chief Ministers likewise yet they found him at last an arrant Kâ—ave I am sorry that the Brethren of this Assemblie have been so inconsiderate as to refricare banâ— scabieâ— in calling to remembrance again that opproâ—ric of the Church of Scotland in these times as having had two deep a hand in that attempt to stirre up a Combustion in our Neighbour Kingdome and Church but our Covenanters are so farre from being ashamed thereof as they cease not as yet to use all meanes to doe the like if they could find in England such fanaticall fellows as Hacket and Coppinger CHAP. XV Discussing the Conclusion of the Act NOw after they have set down their confused rapsody of Reasons for proving the determination of their Assembly they conclude in these Hyperbolicall termes All which and many other reasons being publikly read and particularly at great length
not to be a free Assembly Secondly as the Pope and his Cardinalls in the Consistorie used Politick meanes that none or few of these Prelates whom they supposed in any wayes would crosse their designes should appeare in the Councell although publikly they did admonish all yet by private threatnings and distastes hindred from comming many of the Bishops of Germany France and Spaine but on the contrary allured by divers means those whom they supposed would favour their designes as all the Bishops of Italy so that when the Councell was at the greatest there were above 150. Italian Bishops whereof many were at the Popes charges yet not above 60. of all other Nations So in this at Glasgow politick meanes were used that none should be chosen Commissioners except Covenanters and of those only the strongest and most obstinate who had solemnely already sworn unto these things they intended to conclude and on the other part meanes were used that all those who were suspected to be averse from their designes or not forward enough shoud be excluded as is evident by the particular Instructions sent from the Tables of the Covenant unto all the Presbyteries of Scotland which were discovered by the care and diligence of his Majesties Commissioner and produced in open Assembly to their great confusion whereby it was appointed that care should be taken that none should be chosen as Commissioner for the Ministers or ruling Elders but Covenanters and those wel-affected to the busines And if that any other happen to be chosen by the greater part that all the best affected protest against them and processe them before the Assembly that they might be excluded from voycing and for that effect also directed an informall and illegall Citations against all the Bishops to exclude them from having place or voyce in their assembly who ought to have been by the present lawes of the Church of Scotland and continuall practice of the universall Church in all ages the principall members thereof Thirdly as in the Councell of Trent the Pope of Rome to have more voices favouring his designes did create many titular Bishops who had no Christian slock and had never so much as seen that Church which they did represent So likewise in this Assembly were brought in many Titular Lay-elders as Commissioners from Presbyteries wherein they had no habitations nor ever did sit therein to exercise their rule of Elder-ship before the day of their election to be Commissioners to the Assemblie Fourthly the Pope and his Cardinalls did complaine that the Emperor and Kings would have prelimitate the Councell by their directions yet the Ambassadors and Prelates did in every Session and Congregation complain more justly that the Councell was not free being strangely prelimitate by the Pope and Consistory of Rome both in the members and matters to be proposed as also in framing of the Canons So our Covenanters did require a free assembly affirming that as farre as the assembly should be prelimitate either in the members or matters to be treated so farre the necessary ends of the Assembly and good of the Church was hindred accounting it a most dangerous usurpation to any person or Iudicatoriâ— whatsoever to impose any such limitations except an Assembly it self And therefore did most grievously complaine against his Majestie although unjustly for he required no limitations but such as were prescribed by former lawfull assemblies Yet his Majestie and the whole Kingdome may more justly complaine of them who refusing the reasonable prelimitations of other former assemblies did neverthesse admit strange limitations from the Tables of the Covenant which was neither a lawfull Assembly of the Church nor had any authority over the same and those also against the established Constitutions of former generall Assemblies and Lawes of the Kingdome as appeares evidently by those foure papers of Instructions sent to every Presbytery according to the which the Assembly was limitate both in the members and matters Fiftly as in the Councell of Trent nothing was admitted to Consultation but Proponentibus Legatis which gave occasion of offence to many no Bishop no Prelate no Regall Embassador nor any good Christian had liberty to propose any thing onely the Popes Legates had this Power who did propose every thing as they received instructions from 〈◊〉 even so in this Assemblie nothing was admitted to Deâ—â—beration but Proponente Moâ—â—ratorâ— And he likewise was confined to the Ordinance of the Tables who had before set down every Article which was to be treated All propositions of any other whatsoever though flowing from his Majestie by his Commissioner or Councell were contemptuously rejected Sixtly as in the Councell of Trent let the Fathers and Doctors deliberate and reason Pro Contra as they pleased yet nothing was concluded untill it was first agreed unto by the Pope and his Cardinalls at Rome and their determination who never heard the reasoning was sent to Trent to be enacted and that no otherwise then it was set down by them which gave occasion to that common proverbe That the holy Spirit whereby the Councell was directed came from Rome in a Câ—og-bag So likewise all that which was done in this Assembly was fore-ordained by the Tables of the Covenant in Edinburgh For there were all the members of the Assembly constituted though contrary to the perpetuall practice of the Church there were all the Commissions framed and a Cople thereof sent to every Presbyterie as appeared by the production since never one of them was different in one Syllable from another there also was the whole order of the Assemblie set down and accordingly observed there were all things which were to be proposed in the Assembly discussed and concluded by the Rulers of the Covenant who for the most part were Lay-persons Noblemen Gentlemen Burgeâ—â—es and some few Ministers most forward in the cause therefore it may be justly said that the Spirit whereby those holy Brethren of the Assembly were ruled came not from Heaven but directly from Edinburgh I leave you to imagine by the effects what Spirit that was which hath stirred up such Sedition Rebellion Disorder and Confusion both in Church and Common-wealth Then although in these points of Corruptions and many other which for shortnes we omit this Assembly at Glasgow was not unlike that Councell of Trest yet I will be bold to say and that truely that in some substantiall points that Councell was more formall than this Assemblie For the Councell of Trent in the Externall order and Constitution of the members thereof keeped more formality and decency according to the order of the Church many ages before 1. There was none admitted to that Councell except Prelates of the Church Ambassadours of Princes and the most learned Doctors in all Europe for the time And such as the Prelates thought fit in the bounds of their Iurisdiction to reason in weighty points of Doctrine 2. In their Congregations and Sessions they did sit every man in his owne
nothing bâ— admitted prejudiciall to the liberties of this Kirk as it waâ— concluded according to the Word of God in the generall Assemblies preceeding the year 1584. but precisely to seek the same to be ratified in the Assemblie holden in March 1589. where the Articles were made for the subscribing the confession of Faith with a 〈…〉 it was 〈◊〉 as followeâ—â— For so much as the Neighbour Kirk in England is understood to be heavily troubled for maintaining of the true discipline and government whose griefes ought to move us therefore the Presbyterie of Ediâ—burgh was ordained to comfort the said Kirk in the said matter In the Assemblie holden 1590. when the Confession of Faith was subscribed universally de novo A ratification of the liberties of the Kirk in her Iurisdiction Discipline Presbyteries Synods and generall Assemblies and an abrogation of all things contrary thereunto was ordained to 〈◊〉 sought both of the Councell and Parliament In the next Session it was ordained that the book of Discipline specially the controverted heads should be subscribed by all Ministers that beare or hereafter were to beare office in this Kirk and that they be charged by the Presbyteries under the paine of Excommunication seeing the Word of God cannot be keeped in sincerity unlesse the holy Discipline be preserved The Presbyteries were ordained to get a Copie under the â—lerks hand there was sundry Copies subscribâ—d by the Ministers in the Presbyteries yet extant as Haddington 〈◊〉 c. produced before the Assemblie In the Assembly 1591. Sess. 4. The former Act anent the subscription to the book of Policie is renued and penattis imposed upon the Moderator in case it be not put in exâ—cution In the Assembly 22. May 1592. Sess. 2. These articles were drawne up That the Acts of Parliament made 1584. against the Discipline Libertie and Authoritie of the Kirk be 〈◊〉 and the same Discipline whereof the Kirk hath been in practice precisely ratified that Abâ—â—ts Pryoâ—ies and other Prelats pretending the title of the Kirk be not suffered in time comming In the eleventh Session the number of the Presbyteries were given up and 〈◊〉 in the Parliament immediately following The fifth of Inne 1592. The Libertie Discipline and Iurisdiction of the 〈◊〉 Kirk in her Sessions Presbyteries 〈◊〉 and generall Assemblies is largely ratified as the same was used and exercised within this Realm and all the Acts contrary thereto abrogate the Kings prerogative declared not to be prejudiciall to the same priviledges grounded upon the Word of God the former Commissions to Bishops 1584. rescinded and all ecclesiasticall matters subjected to Presbyteries according to the discipline of this Kirk Anno 1595. the Book of Policie with other Acts is ratified and ordained to be printed It was also cleared that Episcopacie was condemned in these words of the Confession His wicked Hierarchie For the Popish Hierarchie doth consist of Bishops Presbyters and Deacons that is Baptizing and Preaching Deacons for so it is determined in the Councell of Trent in the 4. Chap. De Sacramento ordinis Cant. 6. Si quis dixerit in Ecclesiâ Catholicâ non esse Hierarchiam divinâ ordinatione institutam quae constat ex Episcopis Presbyteris Ministris anathema sit Bellarmine likewise in his Book De Clericis cap. 11. saith That there are three Hierarchies in the Militant Kirk The first of Bishops the second of Priests the third of Deacons and that the Decons are also Princes if they be compared with the people This proposition following Hierarchia ecclesiastica constat ex Pontifice Cardinalibus Archiepiscopis Episcopis Regularibus was censured by the facultie of Theologie in the Vniversitie at Paris as followeth In ista prima propositione enumeratio membrorum Hierarchiae Ecclesiasticae seu sacri Principatus divinâ ordinatione instituti est manca redundans atque inducens in errorem contrarium determinationi sacrae Synodi Tridentinae The proposition was defective because it pretermitted the Presbyters and Deacons it was censured as redundâ—nt because it made the Hierarchie to consist of the Pope Cardinals Archbishops and Regulars the Pope is not within the Hierarchie Primats Metropolitanes and Archbishops but as they are Bishops Furthermore this Hierarchie is distinguished in the Confession from the Popes Monarchie and howbeit this Hierarchie be called the Antichrists Hierarchie yet it is not to distinguish betwixt the Hierarchie in the Popish Kirk and any other as lawfull but the Hierarchie wheresoever it is is called his as the rest of the Popish corruption are called his to wit Invocation of Saints Cannonization of Saints Dedication of Altars c. are called his not that there is another lawfull Cannonization Invocation or Dedication of Altars whatsoever corruptioâ— was in the Kirk either in Doctrine worship or Government since the Mysterie of Iniquitie began to work and is retained and maintained by the Pope and obtruded upon the Kirk by his Authoritie are his A passage also out of the History of the Councell of Trent was alleaged where it is related that the Councell would not define the Hierarchie by the seven Orders we have in our Confession of Faith the manifold Orders set a part and distinguished from the Hierarchie but as it is set down in the Cannon above cited we have in the book of Policie or second book of Discipline in the end of the second Chapter this Conclusion agreed upon Therefore all the ambitious Titles invented in the Kingdome of Antichrist and in his usurped Hierarchie which are not of one of these foure sorts to wit Pastors Doctors Elders and Deacons together with the offices depending thereupon in one word ought to be rejected All which and many other Warrants being publikly read and particularly at great length examined all objections answered in face of the Assemblie all the members of the Assemblie being many times deâ—â—red and required to proponâ— their doubts and 〈◊〉 and every one being heard to the full and after much â—gitation as fully satisfied The Moderator at last exhâ—rting every one to declare his mind did put the master to voyâ—ing in these termes Whether according to the Confession of Taith as it was professed in the year 1580. 1581. and 1590. there be any other Bishop but a Pastouâ— of a particular flock having no power nor preheminence nor power over his Brethren and whether by that Confession as it was then professed all other Episcopacie is abjured and ought to be removed out of this Kirk The whole Assemblie most unanimously without contradiction of any one and with the 〈◊〉 of one 〈◊〉 professing full perswasion of mind did voyce That all Episcopacie different from that of a pastour over a particular flock was abjured in this Kirk and to be removed out of it And therefore prohibits under Ecclesiasticall 〈◊〉 any to usurpe accept defend or obey the pretended authority thereof in time comming Collected visied and extracted forth of the Register of the Acts of Assemblie by me Mr. A.
meaning for we must presuppone that all the Kings loyall Subjects did conceive that that Covenant was no otherwise understood at that time by King Iames of happy memory than it is now by King Charles to wit in such a sense as might stand with Episcopacie neither could it be otherwise understood as we shall declare more fully hereafter and therefore those needed not this Act of Assemblie to resolve them of their doubt in this point and certainly this Assembly hath casten more doubts and scruples in the hearts of men than ever they shall be able to resolve untill it shall be declared Null as indeed it is already really null in it self It were an infinit labour to examine all the falshoods of these Considerations since there is scarce a line or a sentence therein which doth not containe divers falshoods yet those which we have remarked are sufficient to declare how unfirme those considerations are to ground thereupon a Necessitie of concluding this Act CHAP. IIII. Containing the state of the Question concerning Episcopacie as it is here condemned HAving already discussed the falshood and impertinencie of those foure considerations laid down for grounds in their preface to the Act we must now come to discusse the Act it self But first of all before we enter to the reasons prâ— or contra the state of the Controversie must be first set down for there is nothing more requisite to the clear deciding of any Controversie than the right stating of the Question but chiefly in these Controversies which are to be determined by voyces or suffrages in a grave Assemblie of the Church wherein every one ought to give his voyce not according to the example or injunction of other men but according to a certaine knowledge and conscience before God therefore the Question must be cleer without ambiguitie either in the matter or in the words and phrases It is a trick of Sophisters to propose a Question or determine it in obscure and ambiguous termes which may be drawn to contrary senses all such Questions ought to be plaine clear and simple and such as one may easily conceive and answer thereto directly and Categorically But in this Act of the Assemblie the proposition of the Question is set down in such ambiguous words and intricate phrases that one can hardly either understand the meaning or give a direct answer And albeit the proposition of the Question be set down in the end of the Act after all the Reasons yet we must consider it in the beginning to the end we may try how pertinently or impertinently the reasons alleaged doe conclude the determination of the Assemblie It is proposed therefore by the Moderator in these words Whether according to the Confession of Faith as it was professed in the year 1580. 1581. and 1590. there be any other Bishop but a Pastor of a particular flock having no preheminence nor power over his Brethren and whether by that Confession as it was then professed all other Episcopacie is abjured and ought to be removed out of this Kirk First this proposition of the Question is altogether captious including a Sophisme à multis interrogatis for there are three severall Questions expresly included therein which are so different in Nature that one cannot possibly answer to all in one manner 1 Whether according to the Confession of faith as it was professed in the year 1580. 1581. 1590. there be any other Bishop but a Pastor of a particular flock having no preheminence 〈◊〉 power over his Brethren to this the voycers according to the meaning of the Covenanters behoved to answer negativè that there was no other Bishop 2. Whether by that Confession as it was then professed all other Episcopacie is abjured Certainely all Covenanters keeping their own grounds behoved to answer to this affirmativè that all other was abjured 3. Whether all other Episcopacie behoved to be removed out of this Kirk To this Question also they could not answer but affirmaâ—â—vè Is it not then evident that such a question as this â—ould not be put to voycing except by those who had a mind to intangle simple men by a Sophysticall proposition for in all matters which are to be determined by voyces the question ought to be so proposed as the voicers may answer by a simple affirmation or by a simple negation and as it is called in the Schools Categoricè otherwise there behoved to be a strange confusion in diâ—tinguishing the voices But to this Question as it was proposed no one Categoricall answer could be given by any but they behoved of necessitie to answer negativè to one part and affirmativè to another I have known the Moderator to have been a quick and solid Logician and I should marvell what could make him oversee himself so grosly in such a weightie busines against all true Logick if I did know that passions and affections will often miscarry wise and learned men into great absurdities or that perhaps the Question was so framed at the tables of the Covenant and appointed to be thus proposed at the Assembly therefore he could not alter nor change the forme because of his Oath of obedience to them as his Superiors although he knew it was against all Logick and good reason But lest they should object that if the Questions though many in number have such a necessary and essentiall co-herence together that the one being granted the rest must be necessarily granted also or that upon the Negative of the one the affirmative of the other dependeth by necessary consequence then it is not captious but one answer may suffice for all To this we answer that these Questions have no such necessary Cohesion together for although the answer of the first were granted to be true yet the answer to the second may be false albeit the second be granted the third may be false for first although it were granted that by the Confession of Faith there were no other Bishops but such as were Pastors over a particular flock and had no preheminence over their Brethren yet is it not necessary to grant that all others were abjured for albeit there be no other Bishops expressed in the Confession of Faith yet that will not exclude all others that are not expressed yea even in divine Scripture although in matters necessary to Salvation Argumentum negativum à Scripturis be good and valid it is not written Ergo it is not necessary to Salvation yet is it not so in all other particulars not necessarie to Salvation it is not written Ergo it is not much lesse can such a reason be necessarie in humane writs such as the Confession of Faith is First because all humane writs are subject to error and not infallibly true then because confessions doe not comprehend every point which may by any be called in controversie but those onely which are chiefly controverted with their principall Adversaries Now this point of the preheminencie of Bishops c.
his Majestie both before this time at this time and after did shew evidently that he did approve the office of a Bishop as he testified by his divers protestations against those Assemblies which pressed to suppresse the same and by his presentation of Bishops to the places whensoever they hapned to be vacant as he did at that same very time present M. Rob. Montgomery to the Archbishoprick of Glasgow and by that Act of Parliament 1584. whereby the whole Iurisdiction of Bishops was ratified by his Majestie with consent of the whole estates of the Kingdome Seeing then that this Abjuration or Confession call it as they please was framed by the Kings Majestie appointed to be subscribed and sworn by his Authoritie and that in such a sense as that thereby Episcopacie was not understood to be abjured It must be also presupponed that all those who did swear or subscribe the same did it in no other sense or meaning otherwise they did swear falsly sophystically and by Equivocation therefore it must necessarily be concluded that by that Oath of the Covenant 1580. 1581. 1590. and 1591. Episcopacie nor the power and preheminence of one pastor over others or moe particular flocks than one was not abjured by honest men who had an efold and upright meaning in taking their Oath Neither can the interpretation of this Assemblie at Glasgow 1639. give any sure warrant to those who hath sworn in a sense contrary to the Kings meaning for if this Abjuration or Covenant had been the Act of the Church properly there had been some appearance that a lawfull generall Assembly now might give forth the true interpretation thereof but since it is the King and Councels Act and the Oath thereto required of all the Subjects by his Authoritie it doth not appertaine to the Generall assembly especially such an unformall and unlawfull one as this to declare in what sense it should be understood So that it is but false and vaine fear wherewith they would burden the consciences of all the Kingdome of Scotland as being fearfully perjured by establishing contrary to the pretended oath of the Covenant the office of Bishops in Scotland and giving obedience unto them But on the contrary they are rather forsworn and perjured who contrary to the meaning of their first oath have by their new rebellious Covenant and ordinance of their Assembly abjured Episcopacie And of this no man needeth to doubt but that all those who have acknowledged Bishops and have taken their oath of Canonicall obedience and now by perswasion of their Leaders have broken their solemn Oath in disobeying and contemning their authoritie and ratifying their disobedience by another Oath are evidently forsworn as most of the Ministers of that Assembly have done Let them in sincerity of mind search their own consciences in this point and I doubt not that if it have any life therein they will finde themselves sensibly pricked thereby CHAP. VII VVherein is answered to their Argument taken from foure severall sentences of the Abjuration and particularly to the first HAving now shown that neither by the principall Confession of Faith nor by the Appendix thereof called Abjuration nor by the first book of Discipline nor by any Acts of Assemblies nor practice of the Church many yeers after the reformation this power and preheminency of Bishops here controverted is condemned it rests that we answer to those Arguments which are brought by them in the body of the Act to prove the determination of the Assembly which are neither brought from the Word of God nor from the testimonie or practice of the primitive Church immediately after the Apostles dayes nor from any words of the perfect Confession of Faith in the Church of Scotland but all their Arguments are of a later foundation and may be in summe reduced to three sorts first they bring certaine broken sentences â—ut of the Abjuration in the Covenant which they call the Confession then some Acts of their late Generall Assemblies and thirdly some passages out of the second book of Discipline to the which we shall answer in their own order And first they bring foure severall sentences out of the Abjuration or negative Confession falsifying and wresting them strangely as to make them appeare to have some shew of proving their determination The first passage is in these words We professe that we detest all Traditions brought into the Kirk without or against the Word of God and Doctrine of this reformed Kirk The second is We abhorre and detest all contrary Religion and Doctrine but chiefly all kind of Papistry in generall nad particular heads as they were then damned and confuted by the Word of God and Kirk of Scotland when the said Confession was sworn and subscribed Anno 1580. and 1581. 1590. and 1591. The third is That we detest the Roman Antichrist his worldly Monarchy and wicked Hierarchie The fourth is That we joyne our selves to this reformed Kirk in Doctrine Faith Religion and Discipline promising and swearing by the great name of God that we shall continue in the Doctrine and Discipline of this Kirk and defend the same according to our vocation and power We answer first in generall to all these passages that by none of them is either Episcopall Government abjured for first in the words themselves there is no mention either of Bishops or their power and preheminency over others or their charge over moc particular flocks or of Presbyteries of absolute parity of Pastors Therefore except they have recourse to some secret meaning these passage can serve nothing to their purposes and we have shown before both by the meaning of the principall Confession of Faith whereof this Abjuration is an Appendix and by the explained meaning of his Majestie by whose appointment this abjuration is framed and who required the oath and subscription thereunto that it cannot be understood in such a sense as that this power and preheminencie of Bishops should be thereby abjured and therefore neither the words nor the sâ—nse can be able to pâ—ove their purpose Secondly we prove the same by the Confession of the Moderator M. Alexander Henrison and his Associats the Apostles of the Covenant for they in their Disputes with the Doctors of Aberdeene doe confesse plainly that by swearing this Confession of Faith Episcopacie was not abjured and that any man might safely swear that Confession and their Covenant also without abjuring Episcopacie and by this profession they entised many to sweat and subscribe their Covenant who otherwise would nâ—t have done it Now either they spake sincerely at that time according to their knowledge and conscience and so did flatly contradict this position That by swearing the Confession of Faith Episcopacie was abjured or else by dissembling policie they did so professe contrary to their own mind to serve their own designes in advancing per fas nefas their rebellious Covenant And so did shew themselves Iesuiticall temporizers and time-servers En graine abusing
people most impudently to promote their own ends Albeit this that we have spoken already may suffice to cleer that Abjuration and Covenâ—â—t or any part thereof of any such meaning as they pretend yet that the matter may be more evident we shall examine particularly every one of these foure sentences cited by them shewing that all of them are either falsly or impertinently alleaged by them to prove such a conclusion As to the first sentence here produced by it we may judge tanquam ex ungue Leonem what we mâ—y expects of the rest of these reverend Fathers 〈◊〉 they begin with a manifest falshood and we 〈…〉 divers more in that kind the words according to that citation are We professe that we detest all traditions brought into the Kirk without or against Gods Word and Doctrine of this Reformed Kirk Whereas in the Covenant it self it is otherwise for there the words are And finally we detest all his to wit the Roman Antichrists Traditions without or against Gods Word First we answer that there is a great difference betwixt All Traditions absolutely and the Roman Antichrists traditions for albeit we detest as sincerely as they doe all Antichristian traditions yet doe we not so detest all traditions absolutely which have not expresse or particular warrant from Gods Word if they be not repugnant thereto the Traditions of the Roman Antichrist are those which are invented by him for upholding his tyrannie over the consciences of men made equall to Gods word and intruded upon the Church as parts of Gods worship those we detest and abhorre from our very heart but to abjure absolutely all Traditions which are not expressed in Gods Word it was never the meaning of the reformed Church of Scotland nor of any well reformed Church for all the ancient Fathers of the Primitive Church and all Neoterick Orthodox writers doe teach that some Apostolicall and Ecclesiasticall traditions are not onely profitable but also almost necessary to be retained in the Chruch Necessary I say if not ad esse simplicter yet ad bene esse such as are according to these generall rules of the Apostle 1 Cor. 14. According to decency and good order and tending to Edification and such as are according to that rule of S. Austin lib. 4. contra Donat. cap. 41. Quod universa tenet Ecclesia nec concilijs constitutum semper retentum est non nisi Apostolicà authoritate traditum rectissimè crediture of which there are many profitably reteined in the Church both concerning doctrine manners government and circumstances of Gods worship as the distinction of Canonicall books from Apocrypha the Constitutions of the Apostolick Creed the manner of the celebration of Marriage before the Church the sprinkling of water upon the head of the Child in Baptisme to be sufficient the gesture of kneeling in the Supper of the Lord the time and place of the ordinarie Celebration thereof in the morning and in the Church and such likewise are the Appropriating of the name and title of Bishops to these Pastors who are set in Authority over others and divers Ecclesiasticall Canons concerning the manner of their Government Secondly albeit it had been so that all Traditions had been simply abjured which men of understanding would not have done yet this sentence could not have served to prove their Conclusion for although some of the points of the office of a Bishop now appertaining thereto be by Apostolick tradition or Ecclesiasticall constitution yet this point here called in Question that one Pastor may have power and preheminencie over others or over more particular flocks is not a Tradition either against or without Gods Word and Doctrine of this reformed Church but first it is a most certaine written veritie approved by Gods Word expresly and the Constant practice of the Church of God from the very first Constitution of the visible Church and publik exercise of Gods worship not only under the old Testament but under the new also continued in all Churches untill this lust age which cannot be denied without great impudencic then it is not against the doctrine of the reformed Church of Scotland but most conformable thereunto as we have sufficiently declared before therefore it is manifest that this passage can prove nothing for their purpose but is both falsly and impertinently produced by them CHAP. VIII VVherein is answered the second Passage of the Covenant THe second passage cited from the Negative Confession or Abjuration is no lesse falsified than the former both in the change of words and addition of others not contained in the Originall the words of their citation are We abhorre and detest all contrary Religion and Doctrine but chiefly all kind of Papistrie in generall and particular heads as they were then damned and confuted by the Word of God and Chruch of Scotland when the said Confession was sworn and subscribed Anno 1580. and 1581. 1590. and 1591. But the words in the Originall are only these As they are now dawned and confuted by the Word of God and Kirk of Scotland So that they change that particle now in then and adde more which is not in the Originall when the Confession was sworn and subscribed Anno 1580. 1581. 1590. 1591. Albeit this Alteration seemeth but small to change now in then yet in effect it is very matteriall and subtilly made to wrest the meaning of the words to their own purpose contrary to the intention of those who framed this Abjuration in making this Now relative to the damning of Episcopacie in that Assemblie at Dundie 1580. and others thereafter albeit it be evident that there was no such thing intended in the framing of this Abjuration for divers reasons First that now in the Kings Covenant is not to be understood of that present definite time then when the Covenant was framed or subscribed but as it is expresly exponed a little before Now for along time to wit from that time when the large Confession of Faith was set forth Anno 1560. and approved by the Generall Assembly and ratified in Parliament 1567. By the which Confession those particular heads of Papistrie were condemned and confuted and the true Doctrine opposite thereunto Now for a long time openly professed by the King and whole body of the Kingdome as it is expresly set down in the same place of the Covenant therefore it is manifest that this Now is not relative to that Condemnation of Episcopacie 1580. which was not then for a long time condemned but only for that present yeer Secondly albeit we should grant that this Now was not to be understood of that definite time yet doth it not serve to prove the point in Controversie for albeit by that Assembly 1580. Episcopacie as it was then used in Scotland was condemned yet this power and preheminence by approbation and practice of the Church of Scotland were standing in force in the persons of Superintendents Commissioners or Visitors and not abrogated
of Parliament before this Abjuration was sworn by which limitation is excluded from this oath all points of Doctrine and Discipline added since either by Acts of Generall Assemblies Synods or Presbyteries since that Confession was received as that Act of the Assemblie at Dâ—ndie 1580. and at Glâ—sgow 1581. Condemning Episcopacie and others of that kinde and such are our Covenanters Additions or Applications of the Confession of Faith expressed in their Rebellioâ—s Covenant And the truth is that they neither have nor can produce one word of that Confession condemning this power and preheminence neither had the Church who established it any such purpose or intention to doe so But on the contrary the same Church at the same very time in setting down the first book of Discipline did approve that power and preheminencie under the title of Superintendents therefore this point was not abjured by the Oath Fourthly the matter of this Oath is determined to be that doctrine and discipline Which was for a long time before the first framing of this Oath professed by the King and whole body of this Kingdome But so it is that no point of Doctrine condemning this power and preheminence was professed for a long time before this by the King or body of the Kingdome therefore that power and preheminence was not abjured by that Oath For the Kings profession we have shown Cap. 6. what it was at that time and both before and after then the profession of the whole body of the Kingdome cannot be determined by particular mens opinions but by publik Acts either by the Supreme Civill or Ecclesiastick Court And they have not produced any Act of either of those Courts long before shewing such a profession and therefore it is to be presupposed that there was none such But on the contrary we can produce Acts of both those Courts not onely long before but also continually since the Reformation yea at that same very time when this Abjuration was first made and some yeers after standing in force approving this power and preheminence the first Act they can produce having any appearance of condemning Episcopacie as unlawfull is that Act of the Assemblie at Dundee 1580. which notwithstanding doth not serve their purpose first because this Act was not long before if not after this Abjuration was first framed being even that same very year about that same time Secondly albeit the office of a Bishop as it was then in Scotland be condemned yet notwithstanding this point that it was lawfull that one Pastor might have power and preheminence given him was agreed unto by the whole Assemblie as we have signified before and shall more fully declare hereafter Thirdly long before this the power and preheminencie of Superintendents and Commissioners was publikly approved by the first book of Discipline and by divers Acts of Generall Assemblies even then and some years after standing in force unrepealed which we have before faithfully cited cap. 5. And as for the civill Courts both of Councell and Parliament they declared their profession by rejecting of divers suits made for ratifying the second book of Discipline which seemed to condemne this power and preheminence as in the Assemblies 1578. 1579. and 1580. cited here by themselves It is declared that divers suits were made for establishing the second book of Discipline by Act of Parliament or otherwise if that could not be obtained by Act of Councell but both the one and the other were often refused Moreover it was declared by the King and whole body of the Kingdome assembled in Parliament at Edinburgh May 22. 1584. that they had no such profession but on the contrary in the 129. Act of that Parliament representing the whole body of the Kingdome the whole power preheminence and Iurisdiction of Bishops was ratified and confirmed in most ample forme By which it is evident that there was no point of Doctrine long before the swearing of this Covenant received beleeved and defended by the King and whole body of the Kingdome condemning this power and preheminence now in question And therefore that it was not abjured by the Oath of the Covenant And since it is so it is strange with what face or conscience they can so 〈◊〉 abuse Christian people as to impose falsly â—uch a burden upon the Consciences of all persons within the Kingdome both King and Subjects Pastors and people in pressing to perswade them against so many evident reasons that they are all by vertue of that Oath so fearfully perjured who have consented to the 〈◊〉 of Episcopacie But because this point of Episcopacie is understood by them rather to be abjured under the name of Discipline than under the name of Doctrine therefore to take away all way of Escape or subtâ—rfuge we shall examine the point of Discipline also and shew how farre it is included in the Oath and albeit it be by all those former limitations excluded also for these limitations are to be applied aswell to the Discipline as to the Doctrine Yet for further resolution we must consider that the word Discipline is taken in divers significations first strictly and properly for that part of the Policie which concerneth the censures of the Church to be practised upon those who doe erre either in doctrine or in manners of life And so Episcopacie or power and preheminence of one Pastor over others is not contrary thereto but may very well subsist therewith and hath subsisted actually both during the Governement under Superintendents or Commissioners as also under the Government of Bishops since they were re-established for the same censures which were established by the book of Discipline by the order set down before our Psalm books and by divers Acts of Generall Assemblies long before Bishops were re-established did still remaine the same admoâ—itions private and publik the same sentence of excomâ—unication and manner of proceeding therein by three private and three publik Citations before Ecclesiasticall Indicatories the same publik prayers â—ppointed by order of the Church of repentance to the delinquent upon three severall Sabbath dayes the same forme of pronouncing the sentence and enjoyning private or publik satisfaction the same manner of receiving and absolving of the penâ—tent As all within the Church of Scotland doe know And therefore it is evident that this power and prehâ—minence of Bishops is not contrary to the Disciplâ—â—e of the Church of Scotland taken in this â—eale 〈◊〉 apparently it is taken in the Oath for in â—ll speeches or wâ—â—â—s of conâ—sequencâ— chiâ—â—â— those which are see down for a solâ—â—â— oath â—hich ought to be plain and cleer the words 〈◊〉 be taken in their proper and most usuall sense rather than in an unproper and figurative except by some evident reason it appear that it must be taken improperly And this certainly is the most proper and usuall meaning of this word Discipline as it is taken in the order set down before our Psalm books in the second book of Discipline
that Act at Dundee 1580. HAving disoussed those passages alleaged out of the Abjuration of the Covenant it rests that we answer in like manner to the Acts of divers generall Assemblies produced to prove that the Church hath condemned this power and preheminence of one Pastor over another and over moe particular flocks albeit a sufficient answer may easily be gathered by the judicious Reader out of that which we have said already yet because many are moved by the Authority of those Assemblies who doe not understand the manner of their proceedings we must consider them more particularly to the end than we may shew what weight and force they ought to have in the Church Those Acts here cited by them for the more commodious answering without Tautologie may be disposed in three Ranks first some of them containe only preparations to the condemning of Episcopacie as those from the year 1575. to the 1580. next there are some that tend directly to the establishing of the second book of Discipline transferring the power of Bishops to Presbyteries thirdly others are such as condemne Episcopacie which all we shall examine particularly in their own order And first we must observe that they never alleage one word of any Assembly since the Reformation untill that at Edinburgh 1575. albeit there were thirtie generall Assemblies in Scotland before that time more uncorrupt holy and venerable than any of those which are alleaged of them for why they were not able to shew by any probabilitie that before that time the Church of Scotland did think any evill of this power and preheminencie but did continually and constantly approve the same both by her Constitutions and practice Next we must consider the causes and occasions moving the Ministers at that time to alter their judgements in this point and if we remark the estate of the Church and Kingdome of Scotland at that time as it is known to all these who have taken paines to understand the true history of the Church and Kingdome of Scotland in those dayes we shall finde evidently the occasions of this alteration of Iudgement First there were at that time some men of learning but of fiery and violent humours come into Scotland from Geneva who because of their travels abroad and learning were had in great esteeme and they being themselves greatly in love with Geneva discipline did labour by all manner of perswasions to move others to like both of the Clergie and Laitie especially Noblemen to a liking therof also at lest by intreaties perswasions and some shew of reason made secretly amongst themselves a reasonable number both of Nobility and Ministry who carried a great sway in generall Assemblies and were able to make a partie if the former Government were called in Question Secondly they thought the time fit to further their designe in regard of the Kings Majesties minoritie being then about ten yeers of age at most and therefore not capable of the knowledge of that which was most fit for the Government either of the Civill or Ecclesiastick estate governed himself by divers men of divers humours Thirdly there was a great furtherance to this Alteration in regard of the great troubles divisions and factions at that time amongst the Nobilitie and Courtiers every one striving to thrust out his Neighbour from that imployment he had about the King and Court as witnes the violent death of three Regents and the fourth like enough had gone the same way if his Govermneâ—t had indured longer and many of the Nobility cut off by particular quarrells some justly some unjustly under colour of legall proceeding as witnes likewise an Act of the Assemblie at Edinburgh 1578. whereby a solemn Fast was injoyned for divers reasons Especially because of the â—ivill and intestine ungodly Sâ—ditions and Divisions within the Bowells of the Kingdome Some Noblemen therefore and Courtiers in those factious times as fishing in troubled waters to further their own ends did labour to make some pretext of Religion and therefore did strive to haâ—e the Church upon their side abusing the simplicitie of some of the Ministrie zealous of the new Discipline and the pride of others impatient of subjection to their Bishops or Superintendents stirring them up to cast off their yoak knowing that they by their Sermons and private practices might doe much to make the people incline to which faction they pleased best And by that meanes to force the Kings Majestie for fear of a generall insurrection to grant them whatsoever they desired which policie our Covenanting Noblemen have carefully practised now with great but a dangerous effect there was never yet in those times so bold a Traitor but he found Ministers of that sect to Countenance him and approve his doings both privately and publikly as witnes their applauding the Earle of Bothwell in his treasonable attempts for it is certainly known that of those moneyes which was collected by the Ministers for the relief of Geneva a part was imployed to wage souldiers for him I know and could name if I pleased both the deliverers and Receivers thereof It is known also that Ministers of that Sect had a chief hand in all those attempts which commonly are called Roads as at the road of Stritilling the road of Leith and the Abbey road and at the 17. day of December the Earle of Gowry found one of the prime Ministers of that Sect to justifie his cause and refuse to give thanks to God for the Kings Deliverie from that treasonable Attempt Finally it is well known how King Iames of happy memory was vehemently troubled and vexed most unjustly by that Sect during the time of that Anarchie of the Church as he himself left in record in his Basilicon Doron Fourthly to those occasions another was joyned to further the ruine of Episcopacie towit the Sacrilegious greed of some of the Nobilitie and Courtiers gaping after the Church-rents which they perceived they could never obtaine so long as the Authority of Bishops did subsist and therefore did use the uttermost of their endeavour to bear down that estate pushing forward the Ministers to cry out against the Bishops and to blue abroad their personall faults both in their Assemblies Pulpits and private conference to make the very office it self 〈◊〉 to the people It is therefore more than manifest that those troublesome and factioâ—s times cannot be accounted a good prâ—sident for the Government of the Church in after ages for shall a few turbulent Assemblies backed and 〈◊〉 forward by factious humours and sacrilegious greed of Noblemen and Courtiers in the miâ—orage of the Supreme Magistrate constituting a new Discipline by the example of one small Citie of Geneva confirmed onely by the practice of fourteen or fifteen yeers at most be able to counterpoize Gods Word the continuall practice of the Church of God both under the old and new Testament and the example of the blessed Apostles and their Successors the venerable Pastors of the Primitive Church continued
is common to every one of them that hath a particular flock but dissembles the other points of agreement which we have rehearsed importing this power and preheminence because they found them directly contrary to their Conclusion Thirdly albeit they intended at this Assemblie presently to have thrown down Episcopacie to the ground yet because many wise learned and godly Brethren did oppose them standing firmly for the ancient discipline of the Church there passed five or six years in these contestations before the finall sentence was pronounced in the mean time those Episcopomastiges ceased not to labour diligently by all meanes to draw others to their judgement using likewise the perswasions of men of speciall note beyond Seas as in the time of the Contestation the Lord Glames then Chancellor of Scotland was moved by our Genevating Ministers to write to Beza craving his opinion concerning the present Government under Bishops Superintendents to the which letter Beza made a large answer condemning the present Government and setting down a plot of that Policie and Discipline which he desired them to imbrace according to the which they did frame their second book of Discipline and that in many points ipsissimis verbis as may appear by conferring the Book with his Epistle That second citation from the Assembly April 1576. serves nothing to their purpose for albeit Some Bishops were censured because they had not betaken themselves to a particular flock yet this might consist with power and preheminence over other as is cleer in the Superindents who albeit they had particular flocks wherein they were specially bound to attend in preaching the Word and administration of Sacraments yet that did not hinder but that they might have charge over other Pastors and moe Parishes Finally those corruptions of the estate of Bishops which are set down in the Assemblie at Edinburgh 1578. were not fully concluded in that Assembly to be damned absolutely but only proposed by some and craved to be considered CHAP. XII Answering to the Acts for establishing of the second Book of Discipline THe second Rank of Acts cited out of Generall Assemblies are those which concern the establishing of the second Book of Discipline such as are that Act of the Assembly in April 1578. Sess. 4. that in April 1578. Iuly 1579. Iuly 1580. Sess. 10. April 1581. 1590. 1591. Sess. 4. to the which they need no particular Answer but Generally concerning this book of Discipline we answer first that this Book of Discipline was brought in head and urged by the same means and occasions whereof we spake before to subvert the former established Government and to bear down Bishops that the Church the more easie might be robbed of her patrimonie by Noblemen and Courtiers gaping after the Church-rents and factious humours striving to singularity contrary to the mind of the wisest and gravest and most modest of the Ministry and opposed continually by the King Councel and whole body of the Kingdome as the very Acts themselves here produced by them doe evidently declare Secondly the Acts of those Assemblies can be of no greater force than the book it self for the establishing whereof they were made But so it is that this Book is not in it self that Discipline whereunto we swear to joyne our selves in the Oath of the Covenant first because at this time the book of Discipline was but onely a thing in fieri not as yet concluded when the Oath was made and therefore could not be accounted to be comprehended therein for that Ordinance of the Assemblie at Glasgow 1581. whereby that Discipline was appointed to be registrated in the Assembly books did not make it a binding Law neither was it intended for that end but as it is expresly set down in the Act it self ad perpetuam rei memoriam and that the posteritie should think well of the intention of the Church So it was but a thing intended by the Church but not effected as likewise that Ordinance of the Assembly at Glasgow 1590. concerning the subscription to that book did not extend it self to all but to actuall Ministers only and yet of those many did resist it as particularly the Ministers of Angus and Mearâ—es and divers other parts of the Kingdome for the which cause it was thought needfull that a new Act should be made Anno 1591. injoyning againe the subscription under a penalty and particularly to those of Angus and Mearâ—es This book was never ratified by any Act of Estate either in Councell or Parliament without the which they themselves confesse it could not be a Law as they doe in that Assembly Iuly 1579. and that Assembly 1580 Sess. 10. As for that Act of Parliament 1592. here alleaged first it was after the last urging of the swearing of the Covenant 1591. and therefore could not be included in the Oath Secondly it was but a partiall ratification not of the whole book but of Generall Synodall and of Presbyteriall Assemblies and Parish Sessions which did still remaine under Episcopall government with greater regularitie than they were before 2. This book of Discipline many years after the first motion thereof could not be agreed unto by the greatest and best part of the Ministrie finding it for the most part but an Imaginary plot which could be hardly effectuate or indure long in the Church without great corruption as the event proved Some of it never put in practice either in the Church of Scotland or any other Church in the world like to the frame of Policie in Plato's Republik or of Outopia as those points de Diaconatu concerning the collecting and distribution of the rents of the Church in some points the contrary hath ever been practised as it is appointed by that Book Cap. 7. That Landward Churches should not nor could not have particular Elderships and yet ever after there was not so small a Landward Church but had their particular Sessions consisting of the Ministers Elders and Deacons It is likewise there appointed that Elders once lawfully called to the office may never leave it again and yet it hath ever been an use that he who was Elder this year should be casheered the next and every year a new Election made Item it is ordained Cap. 3. That all Ecclesiasticall Parsons as Pastors Elders and Deacons should receive the Ceremonie of ordination to their office which are declared to be Fasting and Prayer and imposition of hands of Elderships and yet they did never practise imposition of hands upon Elders or Deacons but only in the Ordination of Pastors many other points might be brought which either were never practised or the contrary practice brought in 3. If this Book of Discipline be a declaration of the meaning of Church whereby the negative Confession in the Covenant should be interpreted then those who have sworn the Covenant have sworn also to this Book of Discipline if it be so then which of all the Covenanters can free themselves of perjurie for
examined and all objections answered in the face of the Assembly all the members of the Assembly being many times required to propone their doubts and scruples and every one being heard to the full and after much agitation as fully satisfied c. Magnifick words indeed Dare pondus idonea fumo able to give weight to the light smoak of their reasons it is a strange matter if it be true that in one only Session in the shortest day almost in the whole year the 8. of December so many things could be done to the full that all these reasons and many others could be particularly at great length examined in so short a space All objections that could be proponed exactly answered Every member of the Assembly heard to the full Every member of the Assembly being many times desired and required to propound not only their great Doubts but their small scruples also and after much agitation all being fully satisfied certainly the perswaders had need of great volubilitie of tongue to repeat so many reasons in so short a time to propose and to answer to many so strong objections as might have been alleaged against their Conclusions and the Eloquence of Cicero or Demosthenes yea the tongues of Angels to perswade to the full all their hearers of the truth of their reasons and answers and these who were contrary minded had need of pregnant wits to conceive all their perswasions so quickly yea of some secret Enthusiasme and divine inspiration to change their hearts who not long agoe were fully perswaded to the contrary and had confirmed their perâ—wasion by their oath of Canonicall obedience to their Bishops and had practised accordingly for a long time all these things alleaged here to have been done had required a greater space to have done them Exactly to the full than the space of a whole month which was the whole time this Assembly did sit in determining with this point many other Articles of no smal consequence so precipitate were they in their determinations fearing lesâ— they should have been prevented before they had vented their great malice against Moses and Aaron the King and the Bishops to the Full Secondly after this Bravado the Moderator did put the matter to voycing in these termes Whether according to the Confession of Faith as it was professed in the year 1580. 1581. 1590. there be any other Bishop but a pastor of a particular â—â—ock having no preheminence nor power over his Brethren and whether by that Confession as it was then professed all other Episcopacie is abjured and ought to be removed out of this Kirk This proposition we have discussed before at the beginning in stating the question as was most fit to the end we might more easily perceive whether the reasons alleaged did conclude directly the point in Controversie where we have shown evidently that this proposition as it is here set down was informall obscure ambiguous sophisticall and such a one as it was impossible to answer Categoricâ— either affirmative or negative as all voyâ—es ought to be given and are accustomed to be in any orderly meeting therefore we need not to insist further therein in this place Thirdly when it comes to the voycing they say The whole Assembly most unanimously without contradiction of any one and with the hesitation of one allaâ—erly professing full perswasion of â—ind did voyce c. No marvell though all these who were present and admitted to give voyce did so without contradiction since all those whom they suspected would make any contradiction were either excluded from being Commissioners or if they were chosen Commissioners were debarred from voycing by the Rulers of the Covenant according to the instructions sent from their Tables at Edinburgh and directed to every Presbyterie some publikly to all some secretly to those of every Presbyterie who were most affected to the cause and to make this evident it shall not be amisse to set down some of their instructions verbatim 1. Order must be taken that none be chosen ruling-Elders but Covenanters and those wel-affected to the businesse 2. That where the Minister is not wel affected the ruling-Elder be chosen by the Commissioners of the Shire and spoken to particularly to that effect 3. That they be carefull that no Chapter-men Chappel-men or Ministers Iustices of peace be chosen Commissioners although they be Covenanters 4. That the Commissioners of the Shire cause conveen before them the ruling-Elder of every Churâ—h before the day of the election and injoyne them upon their oath that they give vote to none to be Commissioner but to those who are named already at the meeting at Edinburgh 5. That such as are erroneous in doctrine or scandâ—lous 〈◊〉 life and such only they account those who are contrary to their Covenant be presently processed that they be not chosen Commissioners and if they shall happen to be chosen by the greater part that all the best affected protest against them and come to the Assembly to testifie the same There were divers likewise who were chosen and admitted Commissoners and yet did remove themselves when the Assemblie was discharged by the Kings Authoritie out of conscience of obedience to the Soverâ—igne Majestie and detestation of Rebellion before this point was put to voycing Therefore none remaining except these who were resolved to be partakers of Rebellion no marvell though none of them did contradict their rebellious Leaders We see indeed this same unanimous consent in all the rest of the Articles which were put to voycing in this Assembly whereby it may be cleerly discerned that all of them before this time were resolved upon amongst themselves by a sensible preagreement at their Tables at Edinburgh to the which agreement they did astrict all the Commissioners before they were admitted to have voice in this Assembly and for that effect it is injoyned both by their secret and publik instruâ—tions That every Presbyterie shall send their Commissioners to Edinburgh before the first of October which was seven weeks before the day appointed to the beginning of the Assembly to the end they may know their own strength the better at their next meeting So that these Acts cannot be accounted the Acts of the generall Assembly of the Church at Glasgow but rather Acts of those seditious tables of Covenanters at Edinburgh and only repeated here at Glasgow for the fashion Fourthly wherein was this unanimous consent of their suffrages It was say they That all Episcopacie different from that of a Pastor over a particular flock was abjured in this Kirk and to be removed out of the same If this was their unanimous suffrage and no more I marvell not that there were no contradiction Yea I beleeve that if all the Bishops in Scotland and all those who had refused to subscribe their Covenant had been admitted to give their voyce they should not have contradicted this for neither doe these words answer to the propositon of the Moderator nor doe
they condemn Episcopacie in any point as it was then used in Scotland or in the primitive Church As for the first that it doth not answer directly to the proposition I prove it in two substantiall points for first as we declared before in setting down of the state of the question the Moderators proposition included three distinct questions 1. Whether according to the confession of Faith as it was professed anno 1580. 1581. 1590. there be any other Bishop but a Pastor of a particular flock having no preheminence nor power over his Brethren 2. Whether by the confession of Faith as it was then professed all other be abjured 3. Whether all other ought to be removed out of this Kirk or not But in voycing they answer only to the last two omitting altogether the the first which notwithstanding is the ground of both the other And indeed considering the informalitie of the proposition I esteeme that they had good reason to answer so for if they had done otherwise their voices had been as informall and intricate as the proposition was because they could not answer Categorically to all three at once for why according to their grounds they behooved to answer to the first Negatiâ—â— and to the other two affirmativè and therefore lest their answers should have been obscure and intricate including both a negative and affirmative voyce they did wisely to answer to those questions only to the which one affirmaâ—ive voyce might serve 2. The propoâ—ition containeth two points of Episcâ—pacie to wit Charge over moe particular flocks and power and preheminence over other Brethren demanding if both these points be abjured or not and both to be removed But in voycing they determine only the first point concerning their charge over moe particular â—locks than one not a word of their abjuring or removing their power and preheminence over their 〈◊〉 which notwithstanding is the chief point that doth most grieve our â—ovenenters and for removing whereof they have raised all this trouâ—lâ— Be it therefore known to all that this Assembly which was 〈◊〉 conveâ—ned to condemn Episcopacie did 〈…〉 this power and preheminence over their 〈…〉 therefore that this standing still in force in the Church of Scotland whosoever yeeldeth not due obedience to the Bishops according to their oath are evidently perjured and are not absolved from their oath by this Assembly except they would say that they have extended the Conclusion further then all their unanimous voyces could suffer which as they must confesse is the greatest iniquitie which can be committed by any Assembly whatsoever Finally if it be so that no episcopacie is here condemned except that which is different from a Pastor of a particular flock there is nothing here condemned in the Bishops either as they were of old in the pâ—imitive Church or were of late in Scotland and are as yet in England and Ireland yea no Episcopacie is here abjured except that of the Bishop of Rome who only arrogats to himself to be the Pastor of the universall flock all other Bishops requires no more but to be a Pastor of a particular flock and as Cyprian faith Episcopatus 〈◊〉 est cujus à singulis in solidum pars tenetur there is no bounds prescribed by Gods word of a particular â—lock but the Church by the Authority of the Magistrats for the more commodious ruling of the Church and for conserving unitie have divided Kingdoms in provinces and provinces in particular Dioceses and Dioceses in particular parishes appointing to every part their own rulers so that as a parish is the particular flock of a Presbyter or Minister even so a Diocese is the particular flock of a Bishop the province the particular flock of an Archbishop and the Nation or Kingdome in regard of the universall Church is the particular flock of a Primate Neither may any Bishop lawfully usurpe charge over the particular flock of another Bishop without his consent Their Apostles of the Covenant who went through the Country to preach not the Gospel of peace but their seditious Covenant and mortall warre against the King and all his Loyall Subjects albeit they pretend to be Pastors only of a particular parish yet did violently intrude themselves to exercise charge in the parishes of other pastors without warrant or Authoritie or lawfull calling from the Church and contrary to the Constitutions of the Church of Scotland established even then when presbyteriall government was in greatest force drawing after them many thousands of people to disobedience and open Rebellion and by consequent to perdition except they repent and yet who dare be so bold as to say to any of them cur ita facis I cannot see what they can answer to this grosse and absurd escape in not answering by their voices fully to the proposition and extending the determination of the Assembly further than the voyces can suffer except that they would alleage that it is a fault in the Printer and that it was otherwise in the originall Register which is not like to be true for these reasons first because if it had been so that they had answered fully to the proposition their suffrages should not have been Categoricall but very informall and intricate including both a negative and an affirmative voyce 2. Their Clerk M. Archibald Iohnstone hath testified the contrary by adding to this printed Coppie and all other which I have seen his signe and Manuall subscription testifying thereby that they are printed according to the originall Acts contained in the Authentick Register out of the which he affirmes he hath not only collected and extracted these Acts but also visied them to see if the extract was according to the originall if he had committed such an absurd escape in omitting the very principall point whereupon the whole Act doth depend and being that Act also for the which the Assembly was chiefly conveened he hath certainely shown himself a very Asse unworthy of that trust which the whole Assembly did commit unto him by an expresse Act constituting him the only visitor and approver of all things that are to be printed concerning the Church or Religion 3. Albeit it had been true that Iohnstone might â—ave overseen himself so far yet how could it be possible that the Moderator and others committed to visite the Acts should have suffered such a fault as reverseth the whole Act about the which greatest care was taken to passe forth before it was diligently corrected Therefore I cannot but beleeve assuredly that there was no fault committed by the Printer but that the Act was printed according to the originall Register and that it was so written in the Register as it was voyced unanimously in the Assembly and that the voycers had no other meaning then their words did expresse and therefore that nothing in effect was concluded in this Act against Episcopacie as the title of the Act beares And so we may conclude justly in these words of the Satyrick Poet Parturiunt moutes nascitur ridiculus mus FINIS
cap. 7. intituled of Ecclesiasticall Discipline in the second book of Discipline every where and most frequently by all Ecclesiasticall writers and therefore those who have obeyed and received Bishops are not perjured nor have broken that oath whereby they did swear to adhere to the Discipline of the Church of Scotland But on the contrary those of this Assembly who have deposed and excommunicated with such precipitation so many Bishops and Ministers without observing in their proces these formes prescribed by the Discipline of the Church of Scotland are evidently perjured according to their own grounds Secondly the word Discipline is taken at some times in a more large and ample signification for the whole Policie of the Church which in the second book of Discipline cap. 1. is defined to be An order or form of Spirituall Government which is exercised by the members thereto appointed by the Word of God for the we â—ll of the whole bodie which policie cap. 2. is divided first in regard of the persons in that part which concerneth Rulers and that which concerneth them who are ruled secondly in regard of the thing subject to this Policie in three parts 1. The policie which concernes the preaching of the Word and the administration of the Sacraments 2 That which concerneth the censures of the Church or Discipline so properly called 3. In that which concerneth the collecting and distributions of Almes and â—ent of the Church Now if any will be so obstinate as to contend that the word Discipline is taken in this large sense in the Oath of the Covenant for their satisfaction likewise we must consider that in this Discipline or Policie it is requisite that we distinguish the points which are essentiall and perpetuall from the points accidentall and mutable or as it is expresly distinguished in the first book of Discipline cap. 9. Intituled of the Policie of the Church in things utterly necessary without the which there is no face of a visible Church and in things profitable and not meerly necessarie the points utterly necessary are those which are prescribed by Gods Word to endure perpetually as that there be Pastors Teachers and Rulers in the Church that Gods Word be truely taught and Sacraments administred according to Christs Institutions and that the censures of the Church be exercised against scandalous persons and such other like things The points not meerly necessary but profitable are those which are not particularly prescribed by Gods Word but left to the libertie of the Church to constitute by Ecclesiasticall Canons setting down the formes Ceremonies and Orders to be observed in Gods worship and ruling of the Church according as the divers circumstances of time place and persons doe require Such as how many Pastors under what names and titles they ought to bear rule in the Church over what bounds or what particular persons they ought to have charge when where in what order gesture or what habite they ought to preach pray or administer Sacraments and exercise their Authoritie and divers other Ecclesiasticall Constitutions concerning their particular manner of Government The first sort ought not to be altered or changed in substance since they are appointed by God to be perpetuall in the Church and the oath taken in Baptisme or entrâ—e to a calling doth oblige every one within the Church according to their place and station therein to observe them perpetually albeit there had been no other Oath But so it is that this power and preheminencie here condemned is not contrary to any of these essentiall points of the policie of the Church appointed by Gods word but most conforme therto according to the practice of the Church both under the Old and New Testament And therefore in swearing to adhere to these points of Discipline none have abjured this power and preheminence but therewith have retained those essentiall points without change or Alteration There be other points of Episcopacie which are comprehended under the accidentall parts of the Policie of the Church such as are by what titles or names those who bear chief rule in the Church ought to be called Whether Bishops or Superintendents or Commissioners or Presidents or {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} or Moderatores by whose advice they should exercise their Authoritie whether by Chapters or Synods or Presbyteries or by other wise godly and learned men assumed by their own choice to be their Câ—uncell Albeit indeed it be more expedient to use these titles and names which have ever been used in the Apostolick and Primitive Church and continued by long prescription in after ages than those new invented titles by men affecting Singularitie These points being alterable in their own nature as not being precisely commanded in Gods word may be changed by the Church in whose libertie they were left and therefore no Oath could bind any man to the perpetuall observation thereof in case it pleased the Church for reasons of expediency to alter them for according to that Common Regula Iuris Iuramentum sequitur naturam actus super quo interponitur if the things we swear unto be of their own nature perpetui Iuris the oath taken thereupon biâ—des to the perpetuall observation and no Creature is able to absolve us of that Oath But if it be Iuris positivi and onely a Constitution of the Câ—urch or Common-wealth concerning these things 〈◊〉 are left to the libertie of the Church or Supreme 〈…〉 then certainly the oath taken thereupon 〈…〉 longer than the Constitution standeth in force but being altered by that same lawfull Authoritie whereby it was established all are ipso facto loosed from the bond of that Oath yea all those who have sworn to adhere to the Discipline of the Church of Scotland are bound by vertue of that oath to follow the Church in the alteration she makes in those mutable points and to obey the new Acts and Constitutions that concerne the same Although they be different or contrary to the former Acts and all those who disobey therein contemptuously are guiltie of perjurie Therefore since the Church hath altered upon good and grave reasons those formes and Constitutions of Presbyteriall Government established for a time not upon so good grounds unto the ancient approved manner of Episcopall Government all those within the Church are obliged notwithstanding of their former oath to follow the Church in her change without fear of perjurie And on the contrary all our Covenanters who before the lawful abrogation of the Constitutions of the Church established by lawfull Authoritie have not conformed themselves thereto but disobeying them in their own persons and by their exemplary practice intised yea compelled others to disobey and rebell to the disgrace of their mother their Church and breaking of the bond of peace whereby the Unitie of the Spirit is conserved doe lye under a fearfull perjurie untill they doe seriously repent CHAP. XI Answering to the Acts of the Generall Assemblies produced against Bishops untill