by good Men And even in Parliament it met with such opposition that they hardly carried it Yea the making the Voter in Parliament for the Church perpetual and that he should not be chosen yearly was carried but by three Votes However this was the beginning of that Apostacy that afterward came to a greater height and the design of setting up Bishops did soon appear however they for a time did labour to cover it That which I chiefly observe here is that this stickle that then was made for setting up some Ministers to Vote in Parliament is an evidence against the whole of this Manuscript viz. That Bishops did not then nor always exist in the Reformed Church of Scotland For if they had they were the Men who should have sat in Parliament to represent the Church and there needed not such steps for bringing them into the Church The story of Mr. Dury's Recantation at his Death and owning Episcopacy I find not in any of the Historians that I can meet with neither hath our Author directed us where to find it And if it were true it proveth no more but that all and every one of the Presbyterians were not faithful to the end For the General Assembly at Brantisland 1601 which he mentioneth I have nothing to observe about it For he alledgeth nothing there done toward the advancing of Episcopacy Next he telleth us of an Assembly at Holyrood House and of the Kings Clemency to some Ministers And his proposals for Provisions both for Bishops and Presbyters this was 1602. Here is a great mistake The King did not mention Bishop in his Proposals as they are set down by Spotswood p. 468. The overtures about this were made by the Assembly at the Kings desire Neither are Bishops there mentioned The words are Thaâ— Prelacies should be disponed to actual Ministers Churches annexed thereto being provided sufficiently and the tenth of the Superplus paid to the King or otherwise that all the great Benefices be dissolved thâ— Prelate enjoying the Principal Church and Temporal Lands and the Churches annexed disponed to Ministers Both they and the Prelate paying a yearly duty to the King Where I take notice 1. That Prelate in the Dialect of that time did rather signifie an Abbot or Prior than a Bishop At least when ever it is used in the History of that time especially by Spotswood it comprehendeth all the three Wherefore 2. It cannot be gathered from this passage that Bishops did otherwise exist than Abbots and Priors That is that some Church-men had the Titles and some States men had the Revenues but neither of both had Church Authority above ordinary Ministers And 3. This is clear that before this Men had these Prelacies who were not actually Ministers Which maketh plainly against the existence of Diocesan Bishops with Governing power at that time 4. The dissolution of all great Benefices that is there propounded by way of Alternative doth shew that it was not the mind of that Assembly that either Bishops or Abbots or Priors should continue so much as to enjoy the Temporalities that formerly they possessed so far is it from designing that Bishops should be provided for and advanced as such It only provideth for the Minister of the place where a Lord Bishop once ruled § 57. His Assertion of the activity of hot headed Presbyters in stirring up prejudices against the Church of England And his high Elogies of that Church which he insisteth on p. 66. I shall not stand upon seing he hath neither mentioned particulars nor given any ground for what he affirmeth If Presbyters were then active to preserve the Government of the Church then established it was a seasonable and necessary duty that every one was bound to make Conscience of in his station For then might they rationally fear that the King who had been influenced by some Corrupt Men to oppose the settling of Presbytry would now be more bent and had more advantage to overturn it as indeed it fell out In the business of the Assembly at Aberdeen which he aggravateth with all his Rhetorick I shall not interpose my Opinion I find it diversly represented by divers Historians I am sure whatever he make of it he cannot draw from it this conclusion that Episcopacy then took place in Scotland which is the design of his Manuscript The tale that concludeth the Manuscript about the Chancellour and the Ministers I find not in History nor are we directed where it is to be sought for and therefore I neglect it being assured that these Men who had appeared so much and with so much hazard against Popery would not be guilty of conniving at it § 58. The Apologist having transcribed this Manuscript from p. 67. maketh a number of Inferences from it All which do fall to the ground by the answers already given to the Paper it self which is the foundation of them And most of them are particularly obviated in what hath been said The 1. is answered § 47. where it is shewed our Martyrs had no occasion to consider the Government of the Church being exercised about greater points that needed Reformation That the first Reformers submitted to the Episcopal Jurisdiction of Protestant Bishops is absolutely false For he cannot make it appear that any such Jurisdiction was exercised at or soon after the Reformation The 2 d. That Episcopacy was never legally abolished is disproved § 54. That Presbyterians always watched the difficult Circumstances of the King which is the third is not true They did in all Circumstances endeavour to settle the Discipline and Order of the Church His fourth asserting the Presbyterians pleading exemptions from the Secular Powers as the Papists is not only false but shamelesly affirmed The 5 th is answered § 54 The 6 th Episcopacy was not quarrelled as unlawful in it self in these times Not only is no way deducible from any thing said in the Manuscript But is false and affirmed against the clearest light that such a matter is capable of Doth not even the Book of Discipline in which all the Presbyterians of these times agreed declare Episcopacy to be contrary to the word of God while cap. 2 d. it saith He God willeth that they should rule with mutual consent as Brethren with an quality of Power every one according to their Function And there are four ordinary Offices in the Kirk of Christ the Office of Pastor Minister or Bishop the Doctor the Presbyter or Elders and the Deacon And after no more Offices ought to be received or suffered in the Church of Christ established according to his word § 59. For the Eighth Whatever he fancy of the Royal Authority being forced to all that was granted to the Presbyterians Let him answer for this Imputation of Hypocrisie and Dissembling in the King that then was It is enough to us that the Church Power was granted to Presbyterians by King and Parliament and that they declared they did it willingly and sincerely The Tenth according to his wonted Charity and Candor maketh the Vindicator's Book to be one intire shuffle from top to bottom And his ground is the Presbyterians of old did some very ill things And yet the Vindicator would perswade the World that Presbyterians are not capable of such Villanies as the rabbling of the Clergy I wish he would learn to speak Truth and to use a little more Reason in his Discourses The Vindicator hath said nothing of the Capacity of Presbyterians They are sinful Men and capable of very bad things if the Lord leave them All that was asserted and it is made evident against all hâ—s attempts is that the Presbyterians did not do such things as he and others of his Gang charge them with For these odious things that he chargeth the Presbyterians of the former age with Enough hath been said for their Vindication by others tho' I had been silent Let him read Mr. Baillies pieces and answer them if he can His impugning of the distinction between Cameronians and Sober Presbyterians hath been answered before but he loveth to repeat rather than to say nothing The Eleventh Inference is That Presbyterians have no principle of Unity because the lesser number may remonstrate against the greater so as to stop the course of Discipline This last Clause is groundless For the greater part of a Church meeting may go on in the exercise of Discipline whatever be remonstrated to the contrary by the lesser part nor doth the Manuscript give any ground to think that Discipline could not be exercised because some did remonstrate against it For the former part of his Inference I gladly would know whether that principle of Unity be owned among his Party that none may remonstrate against what the Bishop or the greatest part of the meeting doth If so then the Consciences of Men like Issachar's Asse must tamely couch under the burden of whatever is imposed And if my Lord Bishop and the plurality of his Clergy decide all the Controversies between us and Papists on the side of the Romish Synagogue no man may mutter or reclaim It was an ancient Maxim even in the Canon Law Cuivis supplicare protestari licet To deny this is to banish Conscience or to bring in that Atheistâ—cal Principle that our Actions must be directed not by our own but by the publick Conscience The last Inference doth not differ from the former but to make up the round dozen he hath put it in other words which labour under the same evil that he there chargeth others with viz. General words which at the bottom have no particular signification For he chargeth us with Tyranny Disobedience poisonous Principles that we slie in the face of Authority c. And all this made out by the protestation against the General Assembly 1651 which he setteth down at length We have now through the mercy of God buried that unhappy difference And the Revivers of it should reflect on the Builders of Jericho I shall only say as before that to condemn all Protestations and Remonstrances against any company of Men who pretend to Church Authority or against whatever a Lawful Authority doth is to take from Ministers and People the liberty of professing and owning the Truth of God I have now done with this Apology The Postscript I meddle not with it is in answer to a Paper The Author of which can make a Reply if he thinketh fit FINIS
their Morality in their Conversation or for their concern in that matter That they the Presbyterians are obliged by their Oaths to ruin Episcopacy would indeed be to his purpose if he could make it appear that the Covenant or any other Oath doth bind us to tell lies or use any means good or bad toward that end But if that be false as all do know let it be considered what Morality or Argumentative Skill the Man is Master of who doth so boldly affirm this and maketh such inference from it § 23. Another thing whereby he endeavoureth to vilifie his Adversary for that is the professed scope of this part of the Apology is he is for the divine right of Presbytry If he or any of his party could disprove this Opinion which I have not yet seen nor expect to see yet I think few except this Author will think this sufficient to render a man contemptible Many with whom the Vindicator will not compare and to whom I think the Apologist is not equal are of the same Opinion And have strenuously maintained it and if it be so ridiculous to assert the Divine Right of Presbytry what is it to write and think so of Episcopacy as the Apologist doth p. 23. where he calleth it the Apostolical Government if it be Apostolical it must be Divine for the Apostles were guided by a Divine and infallible Spirit If our Authour would have made us ridiculous on this hâ—ad it might have been expected that he should have refuted this opinion and answered what is saâ—d for it with such strength and evidence as was able to captivate the understandings of all men except they were Idiots as he seemeth to reckon the Presbyterians but that was too hard a task for him and therefore he wisely forbeareth to meddle with it What he bringeth to prove the absurdity of â—his Opinion is far short of what others of his Party have said and a very weak bottom to found his confidence upon The first Presbyterians held Church Policy to be variable and for this he citeth the Confession of Faith inserted in the Oath of the Test it seems he knoweth the Confession of Faith of the first Scotch Protestants under no other designation It is evident to any who readeth that Confession â—hat there is nothing said in that place of Government whether Parity or Prelacy but of Policy and order of Ceremonies and Ceremonies here must needs be taken in a large sense for External Rites common to other publick actions beside Church Administrations For they expresly condemn Humane Ceremonies in Gods Worship If another person had reasoned at this rate it would have been improved by our Author as a part of the Character of such a Writer He taketh it very ill p 25. That the Presbyterian Church will not own themselves as Delegates of the State As if they acted against the Sentiments of the whole Nation and against common Sense which do determine that they could have no power over the Episcopal Clergy but what they derived from the State Our Author doth little consider wâ—om he disobligeth by his loose talk Even that part of the Church of England to please whom this and most of their Pamphlets are calculated Tho' he will not read the Books of the Presbyterians because they stir his Choler I wish he would read a late piece about Christian Communion on behalf of the deprived Bishops where it is asserted and strongly pleaded That the Church in matters purely Spiritual and such the Government of the Church is by him asserted to be as much as the Administration of the Sacraments is altogether independent on any other Power whatsoever Wherefore there are other Men as well as Presbyterians so ridiculous in this Writer's Eyes as to deny Church Assemblies for Government to be Delegates of the State For the Presbyterian Churches power over Episcopal Men they have it by their office over all the Members of the Church of Scotland whatever be their opinion about Government Tho' we own it as the favour of the State that we have its countenance in the exercise of this Government Another of his wise reasons is Calvin said Honour and Reverencâ— is due to Prelates etiam hoc nomine if they embrace the Reformation Ergo. His Disciples are absurd in being loath that any other Policy should prevail Here is no shadow of consequent Calviâ— was as unwilling as we are that Episcopacy should prevail whatever respect he or we might have to the person of a Bishop who embraceth the Truth That it is in any part of the Vindication said or insinuated that they who are not for Presbytry or the Divine Right of it are not acquainted with the Spirit of God is most false and injuriously hinted by our Author He might have seen in the page that he citeth it is said of some on a quite different account If he can make it appear that his Antagonist doth thus write at random let him Characterize him as he pleaseth § 24. Another thing whereby he thinketh to make his Antagonist absurd and odious is hiâ— Rudeness and Vanity p. 25. I hope he looketh on these two qualities as distinct And is obliged to prove them both whereas I find nothing that looketh like an attempt to prove the latter But it will not be difficult to retort it on himself by any who considereth the Supercilious strain of his writing and his contempt of his Adversary For the former his proof is The Vindicator representeth his Adversary as a Liar and Villain Tho' he cannot prove that the Author of the History of the General Assembly wrote one Lie If his Informations were not exact he is not to blame But it cannot be proved that any information he got was false A. He should have shewed where he was represented as a Villain for I do not remember it and no place is cited unless he take a Liar and a Villain for the same It is a pleasant Vindication from being his Information was not exact Our Author here would shew his Critical Skill but do we not in ordinary Speech call gross Falsehoods Lies not considering the knowledge or intent of the Speaker And all that was said was that the things wrote were Lies Which was abundantly made evident and is known to most in Scotland Tho' our Author hath the brow to say that it cannot be proved To impute so absurd thâ—ngs to so publick a meeting where were so many Witnesses to attest the Falsehoods of them and to transmit these to Posterity in Writing let every one judge by what softer term it could be called Whether he or his Informers be the Liars we are little concerned But Wise Men will think that neither can be excused Beside are there not many things instanced by the Vindicator as asserted by his Adversary in which it is hard to think that the Mans Mind did not contradict his Thoughts As p. 36. They the Presbyterians and no exception or distinction
to the Sense that commonly it is taken in And this he insulteth upon as a sign of the most unparalelled Ignorance But as wise as he will think even supposing it to be a mistake and that it cannot be defended that it is consistent with more Learning than ever Mr Rule pretended to or than our Apologist is Master of Some Learned men have had odd apprehensions of some things and which easily might be refuted Grotius the wonder of his Age for Learning and for Critical Skill in particular yet will have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Cor. 12.28 to be Diocesan Bishops So also Dr. Hammond but he giveth a ground for his Opinion that is very singular 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith he Significat curam rei alicujus gerere And so also he expoundeth that word Luke 1.54 which is contrary or at least without Countenance from all Lexicographers Criticks and other Expositors If such a great Light may have a Spot why may not also Dim Tapers without being a meer Snuff Again if Mr. Rule were answering for himself it is like he would say that Veneration for this Learned Father did drive him into that untrodden path who cannot otherwise be defended from contradicting by that expression the whole of that Epistle in which it is found For if Ordination of Presbyters be not in the power of Presbyters but only of the Bishop as the sentence now in debate doth plainly import if it be expounded in the ordinary way This destroyeth the Identity of Bishops and Presbyters Which he had been largely and of purpose proving Or we must say which is also mentioned in the place cited that Jerome wrote sometimes his own Opinion and sometimes that of others and that so intermixed as that it is hard for the Reader to discern them as himself confesseth in a passage there also cited And if he use such Liberty in matters of Opinion why not in taking the same word in divers significations And it is certain that not only all Lexicographers give the signification of ordinare but in the Scripture 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is turned ordino 1 Cor. 7.17 And that signification of it is not unknown in Antiquity Cent. Magd 1 lib. 2. c 4. p. 205. Edit Basil 1564. Evangelium non tollit politicas ordinationes per se non impias I hope this is not meant of ordaining Persons to Office but ordering and appointing the due management of Affairs The Reasoning by which he maketh Mr. Rule 's Exposition to be inferred is ridiculous enough But it is none of his but the Apologist's own From what is said all the instances of the use of that word for potestative mission appear to be inconcludent for they only prove that that is the more usual signification of it Which none deny And the Ridiculous Sense that he putteth on this place of Jerome from the use of the Word elsewhere is Inconsequential For the Sense given may and doth quadrat here tho' it do not in some other places Ye may either take Jerome's word Ordinatio in the more Grammatical and proper tho' less usual Sense and make the passage Congruous to the whole of his discourse in which it is Or in the more frequent but less proper Sense and look on this Sentence as none of his own but what others said and he had set down in his Adversaria And so it cannot derogate from his Opinion about Bishops expressed in that Epistle The Reader hath his Option The Cause that Mr. Rule pleadeth and his Reputation are safe either way § 30. He lasheth the Vindicator very severely with all Rods that his Invention and the help of Latin Authors that he had read can afford because when his Adversary complained of the Desolations of Colledges by the late Change and of the Insufficiency of them who were put in the room of such as were Ejected he very modestly denied that they had any thing to brag of did appeal to the esteem of Impartial Men and to the Indicia of Learning any had given this is wound up to the high degree of Thrasonical Boasting As if his Party were Modest and Humble Men when they Monopolize all Learning to themselves and would make the World believe that it will dye with them But Presbyterians are proud if they Mutter and do not tamely assent when they are trampled on with the greatest Insolency I doubt not but the Apostle's Enemies said the same of him when he maintained his Zeal and Diligence nor that Job's angry Friends did the like when he pleaded for his Wisdom and Understanding He should also have considered that there was no Comparison made of any one Man with another but of one Party with another and that he cannot fix Self Commendation on any Man so that his Citations to that purpose are wholly impertinent but one Man commending those of his way And I am still confident to say let him make what use of it he will that tho' the Person he sheweth his great displeasure against were as insignificant as he imagineth yet the rest who enjoy Places in Universities in Scotland need not be ashamed of their Sufficiencies whether considered with respect to their Work or with comparison to their immediate Predecessours His three Instances of Mr. Rule 's speaking false Latine as himself calleth them Impertinencies p. 36. so do I judge them If they were all true they are nothing to the determination of the debate between the two Parties of the Church now in Scotland and tho' he doth not think himself above a possibility of such escapes and hath heard some who pretend to more Volubility in the Latine and in the English too and value themselves upon it lapse into as sensible blunders for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet he doth positively deny that to his knowledge or what he hath ever heard from any Person there is truth in any one of these Instances and that this Apology gave him the first notice of them Beside it is evident that the Apologist's Eye and Ear Witnesses have misinformed him as to the first Instance For he having had Praelections for some time de Idololatria hath insisted on the Idolatry of the Heathen of the Jewish Church in her degenerate times and of the Papists ◠but hath not meddled at all either with the Superstition or Idolatry of the Church of England Only the Contriver of the Story was pleased thus to circumstantiate it For the other two Instances our Apologist sheweth as little Skill in Critical Learning as he thinketh others to have in speaking of Latine tho' he could not forbear the pedantry of trying it by a sought occasion For if he consult his Lexicons he will find that Requiro doth signify to require or demand Whatever it signify beside tho' I deny not but he who is accused might and I am perswaded did express the thing in other terms more common than this His Criticism on the third Instance is also Childish For
with her and to refuse to joyn with Her in any Ordinances could be charged with no Separation but what was caused by our Opposites For their overturning the settled and found Church of Scotland and driving away the Pastors that those Persons could freely hear did tempt them to this Course Tho' I do not approve of their Principle of not Hearing yet the blame lay not only on them but on them who had driven them on this precipice § 38. Let us now hear with what weighty Arguments he will refute the Assertion that he levelleth his Discourse against A great part of his Discourse is not fit to be answered such as That the Universal Church is not to strike Sail to the Novelties of Upstarts p. 43. This is true but wholly Impertinent Unless he can prove that the Scotch Episcopalians are either the Universal Church or in this maintained the Cause of the Universal Church And that Presbyterians are Upstarts Which we maintain have been since the Apostles days And were in Scotland since the Reformation from Popery and before the entrance of Popery But of this after That by our Baptismal Vow we are bound to keep the Unity of the Catholick Church we willingly confess But at the same time we affirm that the same Vow obligeth us not to tempt others to break it His Arguments to prove the Presbyterians of Scotland Separatists have this general fault that they touch not the Conclusion Nor contradict the Assertion that he would refute For if I should grant them to be Separatists yet this Separation may be culpably caused by our Opposites They have also another Fault that they make no distinction of the Separation on whose side soever the Crime of it was between one sort of Presbyterians and another Whereas it is certain that some did live in the Communion of that Church tho' they did not approve of all her ways and others did not His first Argument is p 44. They separate from all Churches Ancient and Modern Nor is there a Church on Earth with which they can Communicate without fear of being polluted This is false None of us refused to Communicate with the Churches of Holland France when they had liberty Geneva and many others But many of us did cheerfully Communicate with them His proof of this his Assertion is all other Churches have some things we dislâ—ke This is not concludent for we never thought it unlawful to Communicate with a Church which was not as pure as we could wish What we dislike in any we abstain from the practice or approbation of it but do not for that deny Communion with the Church where it is found He again argueth p. 44. and 45. That the former Presbyterians did not separate from the publick Worship in the Episcopal Church A. Neither did all the present Presbyterians and they who did were tempted yea driven into that Course by his Parties Apostacy and overturning the settlement of the Church by force without either any Act of Church Authority or indeavour to satisfie the Consciences of the People I do not approve more than he doth of all that is contained in the Apologetical Relation That Presbyterian Ministers made use of the Lords Prayer we deny not nor did we ever condemn it The same we say of using the Creed in Baptism Nor did we ever separate from the Church on these grounds For the Doxology we know it was used but I know no warrant for the constant use of it when the several parts of the Songs composed by the Spirit of God to be Sung in the Church were more seldom used It seemeth to be too great deference to humane composure and therefore we think it is better to lay it aside For the Apostolick Benediction we have Scripture Examples for it which is sufficient warrant If he can bring the same for these that he calleth Christian Forms we shall use them It is our Authors strain to talk high on slender Grounds that the use of these Forms is the Spirit and Practice of the Church and that tho' thâ— Canonical and Universal Methods of the Church are tempered with regard to our Infirmities yet they the Presbyterians love to flie in the face of their Mother We deny the Episcopal or Popish Church to be our Mother and we deny these forms to be imposed at least perpetually and universally by the Catholick Church So as we flie never in the face of our Mother by disusing them After he had taken notice of the distinction of occasional and fixed Communion p. 44. he falleth on it again p. 46. His Argument against it is Why may not that fixedly be done which may occasionally since the common ties of Christianity oblige us A. That there are ties on us to Communicate with the Episcopal Congregations we deny and what may be pretended in favour of such obligation is above answered The Reason that be asketh is plain because I may have other obligations which hinder me to do that constantly which I may do sometimes I may lawfully Preach in another Mans Pulpit when he calleth me to it but it is not fit I should do it fixedly and desert mine own § 39. His 2 d. Argument to prove us all Schismaticks is If they had lived saith he fifty years before the first Counsel of Nice they behoved to have separated For then were practised by the Universal Church all these things they scruple at many things he nameth Here were a large Field for Disputation if he had proved what he saith but that he confidently asserteth and we confidently deny That the Hierarchy was then in the Church However some of the Names might be the Church Power and Dominion that now is signified by them was not then in being Argument 3 d. is from the Doctrine and Practice of our Predecessors which he used before and I did answer before Arg. 4 th He requireth us to name any Schismaticks in ancient History to whom that name is more agreeable than to Presbyterians If this can be done he is mistaken The strength of this Argument seemeth to be in his Infallibility Certainly if we be not the worst Men of the World he is mistaken The Donatills separated from the Church because She admitted the lapsed on their Repentance and cast off their lawful Pastors and all Communion with the Church we do not cast off all Communion with the Church nor reject we our Pastors but cleave to them rather than to Intruders Arg. 5 th Cyprian's notion of Schism is when one separateth from his own Bishop This the Presbyterians do Ergo. A. All the strength of this Argument lieth in the sound of words A Bishop in Cyprian's time was not a Diocesan with sole Power of Jurisdiction and Ordination if he prove that we shall give Cyprian and him leave to call us Schismaticks A Bishop then was the Pastor of a Flock or the Moderator of a Presbytry if he can prove that we separate from our Pastors or
occasion of this quarrel with his Antagonist out of the first What he insisteth against is the Vindicator had asserted that the Church of Scotland before Popery entered into it and in the first time of its being Christian was not governed by Bishops but by the Pastors of the Church then called Culdees acting in Parity This he alloweth to be of some consideration not for any Historical Truth that is in it but because the Learned Blondel made use of it Yet he calleth it an imaginary Hypothesis And laboureth to run it down after his wont with very severe words As if he would Hector us out of our Principles What is the strength of his Arguments we shall try To vilisie Blondel's Authority He telleth us that he met it in Buchanan and that that Learned Historian took it from his contemporary Monks Boetius and others This is either from our Apologists superficial reading of what he would refute or not reading it but taking it on trust or disingenuity in â—oncealing what was needful to set the matter before the Reader in its true light For Blondel Apolog. prosententia Hieron p. 314 315. Citeth Fordon Joan. Major Boet. Wherefore he took it not from Buchanan alone It is also an odd blunder to say that Boetius and the others that Buchanan had it from were his contemporary Monks For Boetius and Major were not Monks nor were they contemporary with Buchanan And Fordon was far removed from his time Nor did any two of these mentioned live at the same time He doth also deal unfairly and not as a Disputant with the Vindicator for he taketh no notice of what grounds he brought for what he affirmed viz. That Palladius was the first Bishop in Scotland and yet Christianity was pubâ—ickly professed in it above three hundred years before his time This is proved out of Baronius Spondanus Beda and others But it was his wisdom to take no notice of this His first and chief Argument against our Assertion is there were none that lived near that Age who writeth the History of it and the Monks who wrote any thing were extreamly ignorant Wherefore this story of the Culdees ruling the Church hath no Credibility This is the substance of what he discourseth at length p. 52 53. In answer to which 1. This is at one blow to raze the Foundation of the History of our Nation and of that of most others And to make them all to be Fools who have enquired into these Antiquities that concern our Nation and others Such as Fordon Major Beda Usher c. Yea Baronius the Centuriatores of Magdeburgh and such famous Historians have spent their time in vain if this new Judge of Learning may be heard 2. he might have taken notice that Prosper was cited out of Spondanus by his Antagonist And he wrote about the year 420. not far from the time that he telleth us Palladius was made the first Bishop of Scotland It is ridiculous to talk of the Acts of the Assemblies in that ancient period p. 53. For we do not assert as is expresly said first Viâ—â— p. 4. that they had all the same modes of Presbyterian Government which we now have That they had no Bishops but that they had equal power in governing the Church is all that we aim at which is not disproved by such silly mocking as this is He telleth ibid. of his Opinion if he dare interpose it that the Monks advanced this Fable to gratify the Pope in his design of keeping the Bishops low And yet with the same Breath this is so known that it needeth neither proof nor illustration How to reconcile this timidity and this confidence is beyond my Capacity § 43. Another thing like Argument is p. 54. All the known Records of the Christian Church unanimously declare for the Hierarchy in the 2 d. and 3 d. Centuries A. 1. This is denied and the contrary hath been proved It is too much confidence to assert this till our Author take time to answer all that the Learned Blondel and many others have written 2. Do any of these known Records speak of a Hierarchy in the Christian Church of Scotland If they do not this Argument mistaketh its conclusion that it should lead us to For our present debate is what Church Government was in Scotland about the 2 d and 3 d Centuries What followeth is built on the same bottom and falleth by the answer already given Had Scotland saith he any other Church Government than what was received in the Christian Church when they were Converted It is said that no parallel instance can be given He here still supposeth that which he knoweth we debate against the Prelatists which is no good way of Argumenting Let him read Blondell from the beginning to the end and he shall find instances in all the Christian Churches in Asia Europe and Africa He should have answered all that he such written in his Apology before he had complained that no instance can be given of a Christian Church without a Hierarchy It is still to the same purpose when he asketh by whom were they the Scots Converted Is it not reasonable to think that they who Converted them would plant that Church Government among them that they were acquainted with themselves A. If he can prove that they were Converted by Prelatists or Prelats he gaineth what is now in debate Spondanus out of Prosper saith that Palladius was the first Bishop who came among them And Baronius sheweth that they were Converted some Centuries before his time As was shewed in the very place our Author pretendeth to refute It is a great mistake in our Author p. 54. That we appear with our Culdees against the undoubted Records of Fathers Councils c. For these Records have been examined and found not to be so undoubtedly on his side But this he hath a mind to suppose Again we bring not the Culdees or their Authority for proving what we say It is the Testimony of others concerning them Beside all this the Fathers Councils c. say nothing of the Church Government of Scotland in the first Ages of its Christianity which is the thing now in debate His last effort under this head is If he confess there were some Priests in Scotland before Bishops yet those had their Ordination and Mission from Bishops in other places to whom they might give account of their Travels and Success And this was ordinary before Nations were Converted but when they received the Faith then were Bishops c. placed among them A. This doth no way meet with the case in hand for it is proved first Vindic. p. 4.5 That not only some were become Christians but the Kings of Scotland and the body of the People had received the Christian Faith upward of three hundred years before Palladius their first Bishop came among them Did they all this time continue not an Organical Church and without Church Officers and Government I hope
them p 58. a company of Arbitrary Presbyters That on it the debate about Parity followed much Blood Confusion Rapine and other Mischiefs And then and since every fiery Faction did lay hold on this Schism as a Fond whereon to build all Rebellion and Treason p. 60. He calleth the General Assembly a Famous Conventicle ibid. And he speaketh of the Presbyterians new Gospel ibid. Mr. Andrew Melvill and his fiery complices p. 62. What fair History can be expected from a Person of whatever Honour and Learning he be who hath formed to himself and representeth to others such a monstruous Idea of the Men whom he designeth to Expose He beginneth his Discourse with a Remark which it seems either the Author of the Manuscript or the Apologist or both taketh for a concludent Argument against Presbyterians that none of our Martyrs spake or wrote against Bishops But all who write of them praise them for dutiful submission to their Bishops and Superiours A. 1. They had so many great abominations in the way that they opposed to insist on that it is no wonder they over lookt this We know Luther opposed but few things in Popery at first now if he had been cut off by Martyrdom in the beginning of his Reformation as these Worthy Men were would his silence have been a good Argument for all these points of Popery that afterward fell under debate 2. He confesseth the Martyrs spake against Popish Tyranny which I hope he will acknowledge was exercised by the Bishops I ask then when they did thus condemn Tyranny in Bishops did they own any Lawful Authority they had Which might have been expected if they had been of this Writers Opinion Yea it can be made appear that some of them said the Pope hath no more power than another Man and if this be said of the Chief Bishop it may with better reason be said of his Underlings 3. Where any Historian gave an account of the dutiful submission of these Martyrs to their Bishops I do not find except it were while they were still in the Church of Rome which is not to the purpose in hand Another Argument he seemeth to bring from Cromwell who turned off Presbytry at the Barrow-moor being wearied with its Confusions and Insolencies This needeth little answer I hope this Author will not now own Cromwell's Actings as Exemplary and Instructive Beside that this Act is invidiously and unfairly represented For the place nor the Cause of the Act was not as here said Cromwell was no Friend to Episcopacy more than to Presbytry § 48. He saith he will next come to positive Evidences all which are taken out of Spotswood's History except a very few from the History that goeth under the name of John Knox a few Animad-versions on such Passages as seem to question Presbytry being the first Church Government among the Scotch Protestants is all that I need here to mind He saith p. 58 at the end that five Superintendents were named for the Diocesses where the Bishops were Popish For there are no Superintendents named for Galloway and Argile because the Bishops of these Diocesses were Protestants This is the Author's conjecture no such Reason of that Conduct is given by Arch-Bishop Spotswood out of whom he taketh his History And indeed it is contrary to Reason as well as without Ground for there were more Diocesses than six or seven in Scotland and but two of the Bishops were Protestants exore túo why then did they not place Superintendents in the rest of the Diocesses which behoved by his own account either to be Vacant or furnished with Popish Bishops Further He it seems hath read the Author that he citeth very carelesly for Spotswood saith expresly that one of the five Superintendents viz John Kerswell was placed in Argile and the Isles And yet my Antagonist maketh Argile one of the two Diocesses in which the Bishops were Protestants There must then be some other Reason for appointing these five Superintendents and no more than that the Bishops of these Diocesses were Popish And it is evident from this very passage that the Protestants did not own Episcopal Jurisdiction in any Man even though he were Protestant seing they set a Superintendent in Argile where the Bishop was Protestant and tho' the Bishop of Argile did then sit in Parliament as Spotswood hath it p. 149. near the end yet the Protestants set another over the Church in that Diocess And it is also clear from this passage that they did not look on a Superintendent and a Bishop as the same nor as having the same Authority in the Church The material and great differences that are between a Superintendent which the Protestant Church in Scotland in that case of necessity did for a time allow at the Reformation and a Bishop may be seen at length in Calderwood's History p. 26 27. whom I hope I may without blame quote as well as he doth that of Arch-bishop Spotswood If it may be done without giving him offence which he seemeth to take at my referring to mine own little Books I would tell him that all the weight that here and after he layeth on Superintendents being set over large districts is taken off by what the Apologist might have read and should have answered if he had dealt fairly 1 st Vindic. p 10. § 49. The next thing that the Manuscript taketh notice of is p. 59. That a Commission of the Assembly met at Lieth 1572 in January and agreed that vacant Bishopricks should be supplied That Spiritual Jurisdiction should be exercised by Bishops And that Ministers should be Ordained by them or by Superintendents where there were no Bishops And that in August after a General Assembly at Perth approved of all these Articles And that Mr. Andrew Melvil because not made a Bishop stirred up one Mr. Dury 1575 to impunge the Episcopal Order and all Imparity and that this was the first time that this Debate was tossed in our Church which divided Church and State c. I shall with all due respect to his Lordship examine this History And 1. I observe that he bringeth no Vouchers for these passages but we must take on his own single Testimony things that were beyond the memory or knowledge of his Father of much more than a hundred years standing 2. Arch bishop Spotswood expresly saith p 260. That these Articles were admitted by the Assembly at Perth only for an interim till a more perfect Order might be obtained from the King Or Regent And what that Order was time did try for not Episcopacy was afterward settled but Presbytry 3. It is a great mistake that they who made these Articles were a Commission of the Assembly for that Meeting at Lieth was no General Assembly of the Church of Scotland tho' Spotswood is pleased to call it so Both Calderwood p 49. and Petrie Cent. 16. p 372 witness that in the Register it is called a Convention which word is always used for
extraordinary Meetings whether of Church or State That Meeting did indeed Vote it self a General Assembly For in the second Session it was concluded that this Meeting should have the force and strength of a General Assembly and that all things may be treated and ended therein that use to be treated and ended in a General Assembly Also that the Moderator of the last Assembly shall continue till the next ordinary Assembly in March And that all present should be there also So both the Historians last cited All this sheweth that this was no Assembly cloathed with the Authority of the Church of Scotland and therefore its Acts were Null and not binding Besides that it is expresly told us That they who there met were only Commissioners from some Towns and Churches with the Superintendents and Commissioners for Visitation 3 What was there concluded was not by that Convention of Church men but seven of them were delegated who or any four of them should meet with such of the Secret Council as the Regent should appoint and these were they who made this Innovation in the Church by the Articles above mentioned I hope none will say that this was a Church Meeting or what they did was the deed of the Church 4. It is certain that this was not lookt on by the Church of Scotland as one of her General Assemblies Not only because the General Assembly appointed by the former Assembly met at St. Andrews a few Weeks after that Convention at Leith viz. March 6. but likewise they took no notice of the Arch. bishop of St. Andrews tho' he sat among them but chused Mr. Robert Hamiltoun Minister of St. Andrews to be their Moderator Which they could not have done had they owned a Prelacy in the Church 5. It is known that this Act at Lioth was disliked and witnessed against by such as were not influenced by the Court and by some Noble Men who were making their own Gain by this new Constitution And that it raised great Division Patrick Adamson in a Sermon distinguished My Lord Bishop viz. Such as were in the Popish Church My Lords Bishops viz. Such as the Lords had now devised for their own advantage And The Lord's Bishop that is every Minister of the Gospel Mr. Knox having preached in St. Andrews the Earl of Mortoun being present refused to inaugurate the new chosen Bishop of St. Andrews Mr. John Doâ—glas And he denounced Anathema to the Giver and also to the Receiver On this occasion Beza writ to Mr. Knox his Epistle is extant among his Epistles it is dated April 12. 1572. applauding The pure Religion and good Order that were settled in Scotland and beseeching that they would hold fast these two and to remember that if the one be lost the other cannot long continue The following words of that Epistle are remarkable As Bishops brought in the Papacy so false Bishops the Relicts of Popery shall bring in Epicurism to the World They that desire the Churches good and safety let them take heed of this Pestilence And seing ye have put that plague to flight timously I heartily pray you that ye never admit it again albeit it seem plausible with the pretence or colour of keeping Unity which pretence deceived the ancient Fathers Yea even many of the best of them 6. The Bishops that then were set up had little more than the Title and therefore were called Tulchau Bishops For the Church had the power The Bishops power being expresly made no greater than that of the Superintendents and being subject to the Church And the Noblemen had the better part of the Benefices 7. At the same time were brought in also Abbots and Priars as well as Bishops and for the same end viz. That some Great Men under their shadow might reap the profits only the Name and some small Rent remaining to them So that this whole contrivance was purely and evidently a piece of State Policy not any inclination of the Church of Scotland to cast off Presbyterial Government altho' some Church Men were drawn into it 8. This Constitution never obtained in the Church of Scotland For not only the names of Arch-bishops and Deans were protested against in the Assembly March 6 1572. But never a Bishop was suffered to Moderate in any of the subsequent General Assemblies and in several Assemblies Acts were made against Bishops till at last the General Assembly at Dundee which begun July 12 1580 did absolutely condemn the Office of Bishop as then used and commanded all Bishops to forbear the exercise of such Power And to this effect appointed them to appear before the several Provincial Synods where they lived And afterward Ann. 1592 Presbyterial Government was fully settled 9. The Account given of Mr. Melvil is not fair not only in that his opposition to Bishops is imputed to his not being preferred For he was zealously opposite to Episcopacy before and when he came to Scotland he refused Preferment at Court when offered But also that the opposition that Mr. Dury and others made to Episcopacy is abscribed to his instigation These Learned and Worthy Men acted from their own light and were not Tools to be used by another Aâ— opposition was made to Episcopacy before Mr. Melvil came to Scotland as is clear from what is above said Wherefore it was not the first starting of that Debate when Mr. Dury appeared in the Assembly 1575. § 50. I could not have expected from a Person of Honour and Learning such an account of the Book of Policy made in the year 1578 As That it was stuffed with the Spirit of Mr. Andrew Melvil himself it was rather a proposal for overthrowing of all Just Authority than an Establishment of a Religious Government That it could not even in these distracted and furious times obtain approbation of any Authority But was lookt on as a Rapsody of groundless Assertions and full of mischievous Novelties This is not to write like an Historian His Author Spotswood speaketh with more modesty of this matter That the Book of Policy being presented to the States they had not then leasure to peruse it but gave a Commission to some of their number to conferr with the Commissioners of the Church And if they did agree to insert the same among the Acts of Parliament So he p 289. That it was not rejected with such disdain as his Lordship is pleased to express is evident not only in that nothing of such resentment of it when proposed is left on Record by any Historian but is the fierce Zeal of a new set of Episcopalians not the temper of the old Protestant Church of Scotland but Archbishop Spotswood p. 289. to 302. Setteth down all the Articles of that Book at length and on his Margine noteth what was agreed to what was referred to farther reasoning and what amendements of it were desired by the other Party It is also observed by Calderwood p. 116. That the delay of ratifying the
was as needless as when it is appointed a Tree shall be cut up by the Roots another injunction be given that the Tree shall fall Was not Episcopacy effectually rooted up in Scotland when all Church Power was put in the hand of Church Judicatories where all Memberâ— acted in Parity That a Bishop baptized Prince Henry is an odd Argument to prove that Episcopacy was the Government of the Church of Scotland If the King was pleased to chuse a Man who oncâ— exercised Episcopal Jurisdiction for that service especially when Ambassadours were present some of which lived where Episcopacy was exercised it doth not follow that either this Bishop or any other of his Character did govern the Church It is said without all warrant p. 63. That when three Lords were tried the Ministers would needs order the Process and stirred up the Rabble to back them nor would they disband tho' prohibited by Proclamation from King and Council The true History is some Popish Noblemen were known all the Nation over to be guilty of dangerous plotting against the Reformed Religion and designs to ruin the Professors of it They had Friends at Court so that they had too much advantage to carry on their designs All the found Protestants in the Nation observed this and saw the danger that they and the true Religion was in wherefore a Meeting of Barons Ministers and Burgesses which when challenged by the King for their meeting offered to make it appear that it was with sufficient warrant and advice from his Majesty did petition the King that those Lords might be brought to Tryal which was appointed to be done the Protestants resolved to meet before hand to appoint some to prosecute the Criminals which they did Neither can it be made appear that any violence was offered to any Person and all that Spotswood saith of it is p. 399. that great Companies came to Edinburgh without mention of Arms or Violence And indeed the danger was such as it is no wonder that they who had Zeal for the true Religion were forward to cry for Justice when they evidently saw that all Methods were used for palliating the matter land protecting these Criminals to the manifest hazard of Church and State The Issue was the Convention called by the King for trying these Lords referred the matter to a Commitee where they allowed some Ministers whom they named to be present and to propose what they should think fit Here is nothing of Ministers ordering the Process nor of a Rabble in Arms. § 55. After all this our Author doth still maintain that in the years wherein Presbytry had moâ—â— the ascendent yet Bishops did exist by Law enjoyed their Rents and Preached in their Churches foâ— which he produceth many passages out of the Records of Parliament It is well our debate is come to this issue if this be all that he would prove he shall not find us to oppose him Our question is only whether the Protestant Church after her Reformation was governed by Bishops or by Presbyters acting in Parity I know that long after the Reformation even Popish Bishops sat in Parliament enjoyed their Temporalities And that in 1572 an image of Bishops was restored and also oâ— Abbots and Priors but even their pretended Power that they then got was soon taken away Anâ— that many States-men who reaped most of the profits of these places made a great stickle to hold up that image yea and to give them more power in the Church than was due But that in these times Bishops had ruling Church power except in 1572 as is said I utterly deny Wherefore most of his Citations are wholly beside the purpose I shall then only examine such of them as seem to make against what I have asserted He saith p. 64. That the Authority of the Bishops is owned by Act 63. Parl. 5. Jac. 6. Ann. 1575 of which none of our Histories do take any notice And the Act it self is anent the visitation of Hospitals all that is said of Bishops is that they and other Commissioners of Diocesses shall visit Hospitals I hope here is no Church power allowed them In the year 1579 Act 71 Parl. 6. Jac. 6. there is no more said but that young Noblemen or others who had been out of the Country for their breeding shall at their return go to the Bishop or Superintendent or Commissioner of the Kirk Neither is this any governing Authority over the Church The two following Citations are only to shew that Bishops continued 1581 so that of 1587 and several others of his Quotations design no more but that Bishops existed by Law sat in Parliament some were presented to rich Benefices All which is wide from the purpose He saith that 1584 Act 132 Parl. 8. Jac. 6. the Bishops Authority is fully owned It is indeed said in that Act That Ministers may be deprived by the ordinary Bishop of a Diocess or others the Kings Majesties Commissioners to be constituted in Ecclesiastical Causes Where it is evident that Church power is placed in the King rather than in the Bishop Who can by this Act do nothing but as he is the King's Commissioner even in censuring of Ministers If this be a full owning of Episcopal power let him enjoy it This making them the King's Bishops not Christ's nor is there any thing beside in that Act which alloweth them any Church power But we have another Answer to this Quotation That Parliament saith Spotswood p 333 was declared Current at that time for the more speedy dispatch of business whereas the former was in October 1581 and is called in the Records the seventh Parl and this is called the eighth Parliament which is inconsistent with its being Current or the former Parliament yet subsisting But some things were to be done that could not pass in a full Parliament and therefore as Calderwood hath it p. 155 there was no intimation by Proclamation before the meeting of it nor reasonable time granted according to the accustomed order It was almost ended before it was heard of The Lords of the Articles were sworn to keep secret the matters to be treated One of whom tho' he would not reveal particulars wrote to a Minister that the whole intent of that Parliament was against the Kirk and the Discipline of it These are the Methods by which Episcopacy and Erastianism behoved to be supported in these times when they could have no Countenance from the Church nor from the Nation § 56. He next citeth a Conference at Falkland 1596 where some Articles were agreed on about some Ministers having Vote in Parliament and that these were confirmed by an Assembly at Montross 1600 and there some Bishops Elected for Diocesses It is not to be denyed that there was a working toward Prelacy among some Courtiers and Ambitious Churchmen about that time And one of their Methods was to get some Ministers to Vote in Parliament the tendency of this was seen and the thing opposed