swatch pardon the word if it is not English of both his Historical and his Argumentative Skill a talent he bewails much the want of in his Adversaries as may make it appear just and reasonable for any man to decline him But lest he is not represented there so fully as he ought to be so fully as may justify my declining of him I shall be at some farther pains here to give the Reader a fuller prospect of him To delineate him minutely might perchance be too laborious for me and too tedious and loathsome to my Reader I shall restrict my self therefore to his four Cardinal Virtues his Learning his Iudgment his Civility and his Modesty Or because we are Scottishmen to give them their plain Scotch names his Ignorance his Non-sence his Ill-nature and his Impudence Perhaps I shall not be able to reduce every individual instance to its proper Species 'T is very hard to do that in matters which have such affinity one with another as there is between Ignorance and Non-sence or between Ill-nature and Impudence But this I dare promise if I cannot keep by the Nice Laws of Categories I shall be careful to keep by the Strict Laws of Iustice I shall entitle him to nothing that is not truely his own So much for Preface come we next to the Purpose And in the 1. Place I am apt to think since ever writing was a Trade there was never Author furnished with a richer stock of unquestionable Ignorance for it To insist on all the Evidences of this would swell this Preface to a Bulk beyond the Book I omit therefore his making Presbyterian Ruling Elders as contradistinct from Teaching Elders of Divine Institution his making the SENIORES sometimes mentioned by the Fathers such Ruling Elders and his laying stress on the old blunder about St. Ambrose's testimony to that purpose vide True Represent of Presbyterian Government prop. 3. These I omit because not peculiar to him I omit even that which for any thing I know may be peculiar to him viz. That his Ruling Elders are called Bishops and that their necessary Qualifications are set down at length in Scrip. e. g. 1 Tim. 3.2 and Tit. 1.6 ibid. Prop. 3.4 I omit his Learn'd affirmative that Patronages were not brought into the Church till the 7 th or 8 th Centurie or Later And that they came in amongst the latest Antichristian Corruptions and Vsurpations ibid. Answ. to Object 9 th I omit all such Assertions as these that the most and most Eminent of the Prelatists acknowledge that by our Saviours appointment and according to the practice of the first and best Ages of the Church she ought to be and was Governed in Common by Ministers Acting in Parity ibid. Prop. 12. That Diocesan Episcopacy was not settled in St. Cyprian 's time Rational Defence of Nonconformity c. p. 157 That Diocesan Episcopacy prevailed not for the first three Centuries and that it was not generally in the 4 th Centurie ibid. 158. That the Bishop S. Cyprian all alongst speaks of was a Presbyterian Moderator ibid. 179. That Cyprian Austine Athanasius c. were only such Moderators ibid. 175 176 177 178. I omit his insisting on the Authority of the Decretal Epistles attributed to Pope Anacletus as if they were Genuine ibid. 202. And that great Evidence of his skill in the affairs of the Protestant Churches viz. That Episcopacy is not to be seen in any one of them Except England ibid. p. 10. Nay I omit his nimble and learned Gloss he has put on St. Ierom's Toto Orbe Decretum c. viz. That this Remedy of Schism in many places began then i. e. in St. Ierom's time to be thought on and that it was no wonder that this Corruption began then to creep in it being then about the end of the fourth Centurie when Jerome wrote c. ibid. 170. Neither shall I insist on his famous Exposition of St. Ierom's Quid facit Episcopus c. because it has been sufficiently exposed already in the Historical Relation of the General Ass. 1690. Nor on his making Plutarch Simonides Chrysostom c. Every Graecian speak Latin when he had the confidence to cite them These and 50 more such surprising Arguments of our Authors singular learning I shall pass over And shall insist only a little on two or three instances which to my taste seem superlatively pleasant And 1. In that profound Book which he calls a Rational Defence of Nonconformity c. in Answer to D. Stillingfleet's Vnreasonableness of the separation from the Church of England pag. 172. He hath Glossed St. Chrysostom yet more ridiculously than he did St. Ierom. The passage as it is in Chrysostom is sufficiently famous and known to all who have enquired into Antiquity about the Government of the Church The Learned Father having Discoursed concerning the Office and Duties of a Bishop Hom. 10. on 1 Tim. 3. and proceeding by the Apostles Method to Discourse next of Deacons Hom. II. started this difficulty How came the Apostle to prescribe no Rules about Presbyters And he solved it thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 St. Paul says he did not insist about Presbyters because there 's no great difference between them and Bishops Presbyters as well as Bishops have received Power to Teach and Govern the Church And the Rules he gave to Bishops are also proper for Presbyters For Bishops excel Presbyters only by the Power of Ordination and by this alone they are reckoned to have more Power than Presbyters Vide Edit Savil. Tom. 4. p. 289. Now 't is plain to the most ordinary attention That in the Holy Father's Dialect 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies the Power of conferring Orders just as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signify the Powers of Teaching and Governing Consider now the Critical Skill of G. R. Bellarmine had adduced this Testimony it seems to shew that there was a Disparity in point of Power between Bishops and Presbyters and had put it in Latin thus Inter Episcopum atque Presbyterum interest fere nihil quippe Presbyteris Ecclesiae cura permissa est quae de Episcopis dicuntur ea etiam Presbyteris congruunt Sola quippe Ordinatione Superiores illi sunt So G. R. has it I know not if he has transcribed it faithfully 'T is not his custom to do so Nor have I Bellarmine at hand to compare them Sure I am the Translation doth not fully answer the Original But however that is go we forward with our Learned Author These are his words What he Bellarmine alledgeth out of this citation that a Bishop may Ordain not a Presbyter the Learned Fathers expression will not bear For Ordination must signify either the Ordination the Bishop and Presbyter have whereby they are put in their Office to be different which he doth not alledge Or that the difference between them was only in Order or Precedency not in Power or Authority Or that it
our Author what kind of Scene he took it to be Whither was it Tragical or Comical or Both Tragical to the Prelatists and Comical to the Presbyterians It were worth enquiring likewise whom he meant by Sober Presbyterian Preachers If there are any such in the Nation How many Where do they preach c. But I insist not on these things because the Secret is not amongst them Yet The next thing he produces is worth the Noticing And they The Sober Presbyterian Preachers if they had preached against Rabbling the Clergy Should have lost their SWEET WORDS Now here is subject afforded for several weighty Controversies For it may be made a Question Whither it be the duty of Sober Presbyterian Preachers to preach Righteousness to a Rebellious people whither they will Hear or whither they will Forbear It may be made another Whither our Author here gave up all the Rabblers to a reprobate Sense 'T is possible he meant so For the Sweetest words the Soberest Presbyterians can utter in their preachings are not too precious to be spent on such as are in a state of Reclaimableness But that which I take to be the most proper Question the Question that ariseth most naturally from the Text is Whither Presbyterian Words are not Sweeteer than that they should be Spent on such needless purposes as the Recommendation and Assertion of Righteousness and the Condemnation of Iniquity Whither it had not been ane unaccountable prodigality in them to have lost their Sweet words about such Trifâ—ing concerns as these But neither is the Secret here But it follows now These practices of the Rabble were publickly spoken against by Ministers both before they were Acted for preventing them and after for Reproving them and preventing the like Here it is I say Has he not here discovered ane important Secret of his party Has he not discovered that the Rabbling of the Clergy was not the product of Chance or Accident but a Deliberated a Consulted ane Advised politick Has he not discovered that even the sober Presbyterian Ministers were privy to the plot of it Has he not told that they spake against it before it was Acted for preventing it And doth it not follow clearly that they knew of it before it was Acted for if they had known nothing of it how could they have spoken against it for preventing it But tho they knew of it that it was to be done yet it seems They Consented not that it should be Done For they spake against it for preventing of it But I am afraid our Author here turn'd weary of his Sincerity For who spake publickly against these practices of the Rabble Or where or when were they spoken against before they were acted I dare challenge him to name one of his most sober Presbyterian Ministers who preached publickly against them for preventing of them When I am put to it I can name more than One or Two who pretend to be of the First Rank of the Sober Presbyterian Ministers who knew of them indeed and Consulted privately about them and said It was the surest way to have the Curates once dispossessed Because Once dispossessed they might find difficulties in being Repossessed But I never heard of so much as One who preached against them before they were Done I am very confident G. R. cannot name One. Indeed Seeing as our Author Grants they knew of the Rabbling before it was Acted If they had been so serious against it as they should have been and as our Author would have us believe they were how natural and easy as well as Christian and Dutiful had it been to have given Advertisements to the poor men who were to suffer it about it Was ever any such thing done But it seems Presbyterian words were Sweeter to Presbyterian palates than Common humanity or Christian Charity They were too Sweet to be Lost in such Advertisements By this time the Reader I think has got a proof of G. R.'s tenderness even to his own Herd when the Argument of ane Adversary pinched him But this is not the Highest stept For 10. If ane Argument straitens him He never stands to baffle and expose and contradict and make a Lier of his own Learned Sensible Civil Modest Self And here again One might write a large volume but I shall confine my self to a Competent number of instances First then you never saw a Prelatist and a Presbyterian Contradicting one Another in more plain opposite and peremptory Terms than he has done himself on several occasions Take this Taste In his Answer to D. Stillingfleet's Irenicum p. 64 He is at great pains to prove that where Episcopacy is Presbyters have no power Particularly he has these two profound Arguments for it 1. If Bishops be set over Presbyter they must either be only Praesides which is not contrary to Parity or they must have Authority above and over their Brethren And if so They may rule without their Brethren Seeing they may command them c. 2. If Presbyters under a Bishop have ruling power either they may Determine without or against his consent or not if so The Bishop is but a President If not The Presbyters are but Cyphers Now who would think that one of G. R.'s Courage would ever have parted with such ane important proposition especially having such impregnable Arguments for it Yet Consider if he has not done it most notoriously in his Answer to the Doctors Vnreasonableness of the separation c. pag. 182. where he has these express words He The Doctor Vndertaketh to prove that the English Episcopacy doth not take away the whole power of Presbyters we do not alledge that it taketh away the whole power of Presbyters for that were to reduce them into the same order with the rest of the people but wee say it usurpeth ane undue power over them c. Again In his First Vind. of his Church of Scotland His cause led him in Answ. to Quest. 10. to say That K. Is. Tolleration was against Law He was pressed with this Argument about the Inclinations of the people That not fifty Gentlemen in all Scotland out of the West did upon the Indulgence forsake the Churches to frequent Meeting houses And his Answer was They clave to the former way i. e. Continued in the Episcopal Communion Because the Law stood for it Is it not plain here that the Meeting houses were contrary to Law Hear him now in his 2 vind p. 43 44. passim when he was prest with the Scandal of his party 's Complying with the dispensing power and erecting Meeting houses contrary to Law He affirmed boldly that the Dispensing power was according to Law And K. I. was enabled by Law to Grant his Toleration Again In his 2. vind in Answ. to Letter 1. § 9. p. 12. when he had the Meeting of Estates to Apologize for for suffering and allowing persons to sit as Members who were not Qualified according to Law He Granted some
and convince them from Scripture and Antiquity and Ecclesiastical History c. that Episcopacy was of divine Institution or the best or a lawful Government of the Church If I mistake not such Topicks in these times were not much thought on by our Statesmen But if they were such Arguments as I have given a Specimen of which they insisted on as no doubt they were if they insisted on any then I would fain know which of them it was that might not have been as readily insisted on by the Clergy as by the Statesmen Nay considering that there were no Scruples of Conscience then concerning the Lawfulness of such a Constitution how reasonable is it to think that the Clergy might be as forward as the Statesmen could be to insist on these Arguments Especially if it be further considered that Besides these and the like Arguments the Clergy had one very considerable Argument to move them for the Re-establishment of the Old Constitution which was that they had found by Experience that the New Scheme fallen upon in the First Book of Discipline had done much hurt to the Church as I have already observed that by forsaking the Old Constitution the Church had suffered too much already and that it was high time for them now to return to their Old Fond considering at what losses they had been since they had deserted it And all this will appear more reasonable and credible still if two things more be duely considered The First is That the Six Clergymen who were commissioned by the Assembly on this occasion to treat with the State were all sensible men men who understood the Constitution both of Church and State had Heads to comprehend the consequences of things and were very far from being Parity-men The Second is The Oddness to call it no worse of the Reason which our Authors feign to have been the Motive which made the Court at that time so earnest for such ane Establishment namely that thereby They might gripe at the Commodity as Calderwood words it That is possess themselves of the Churches Patrimony What Had the Clergy so suddenly fallen from their daily their constant their continual Claim to the Revenues of the Church Had they in ane instant altered their sentiments about Sacrilege and things consecrated to Holy uses Were they now willing to part with the Churches Patrimony Did that which moved them to be so earnest for this Meeting with the State miraculously flip out of their Minds so that they inconcernedly quate their pretensions and betrayed their own interests Were they all fast asleep when they were at the Conference So much asleep or senseless that they could not perceive the Court intended them such a Trick On the other hand If the Court had such a design as is pretended I must confess I do not see how it was useful for them to fall on such a wild project for accomplishing their purposes Why be at all this pains to re-establish the Old Polity if the only purpose was to rob the Church of her Patrimony Might not that have been done without as well as with it Could they have wished the Church in weaker circumstances for asserting her own Rights than she was in before this Agreement Was it not as easy to have possest themselves of a Bishoprick ane Abbacy a Priory c. when there were no Bishops nor Abbots nor Priors as when there were What a pitiful politick or rather what ane insolent wickedness was it as it were to take a Coat which was no mans and put on one and possess him of it and call it his Coat that they might rob him of it Or making the uncharitable supposition that they could have ventured on such a needless such a mad fetch of iniquity were all the Clergy so short-sighted that they could not penetrate into such a palpable such a gross piece of Cheatry But what needs more 'T is certain that by that Agreement the Churches Patrimony was fairly secured to her and she was put in far better condition than she was ever in before since the Reformation Let any man read over Calderwoods account of the Agreement and he must confess it And yet perhaps the account may be more full and clear in the Books of Council if they be extant 'T is true indeed the Courtiers afterwards played their Tricks and robb'd the Church and it cannot be denied that they got some bad Clergymen who were subâ—ervient to their purposes But this was so 〈◊〉 from being pretended to be aim'd at by 〈◊〉 Courtiers while the Agreement was a mâ—kâ—ng It was so far from these Clergy-mens minds who adjusted matters at that time with the Laity these Courtiers to give them the smallest advantages that way to allow them the least Scope for such Encroachments That on the contrary when afterwards they found the Nobility were taking such Methods and plundering the Church they complained mightily of it as a manifest breach of the Agreement and ane horrid iniquity But whatever Truth is in all this Reasoning I have spent on this point is not much material to my main purpose For whither at that time Episcopacy was imposed upon the Church or not or if imposed whither it was out of a bad design or not affects not in the least the principal Controversie For however it was 't is certain the Church accepted of it at that time which we are bound in Charity to think a sufficient Argument that she was not then of Antiprelatical principles She had no such Article in her Creed as the Divine Right of Parity which is the great point I am concerned for in all this tedious Controversie 3. The Third Plea is The Limitedness of the Power which was then granted to Bishops They had no more Power granted them by this Establishment than Superintendents had enjoyed before This all my Authors insist upon with great Earnestness And I confess it is very true This was provided for both by the Agreement at Leith and by ane Act of the Assembly holden at Eden March 6. 1574. But then 1. If they had the same power which Superintendents had before I think they had truly Prelatic Power they did not act in Parity with other Ministers 2. Tho they had no more power yet it is certain they had more Privilege They were not answerable to their own Synods but only to General Assemblies as is clear even from Calderwoods own account of the agreement at Leith In that point the absurd Constitution in the First Book of Discipline was altered 3. One thing more I cannot but observe here concerning Mr. Carlderwood This judicious Historian when he was concerned to raise Dust about the Prelacy of Superintendents found easily 7 or 8 huge Differences between Superintendents and Bishops And now that he is concern'd to raise Dust about the Prelacy of Bishops he thinks he has gain'd a great point if he makes it the same with the Prelacy of
the Bishops and that was ane opportunity not to be omitted But as I take it there was no very great reason for this Triumph if the true reason of these Acts be considered as it may be collected from Spotswood and Petrie which was this The Earl of Morâ—on then Regent and sordidly covetous had flattered the Church out of their Possession of the Thirds of the Benefices the only sure Stock they could as yet claim by any Law made since the Reformation of Religion promising instead thereof to settle local'd Stipends upon the Ministers but having once obtain'd his end which was to have the Thirds at his Disposal he forgot his promise and the Ministers found themselves miserably trickt Three or four Churches were cast together and committed to the Care of one Minister and a Farthing to live by could not be got without vast attendance trouble and importunity Besides the Superintendents who had had a principal hand in the Reformation and were Men of great Repute and had spent liberally of their own Estates in the Service of the Church were as ill treated as any body For when they sought their wonted allowances they were told there was no more use for them Bishops were now restored it was their Province to govern the Church Superintendents were now superfluous and unnecessary The Superintendents thus Mal treated what wonder was it if they had their own Resentments of it So when the General Assembly met Areskin Spotswood and Winram three of them and by that time 't is probable there were no more of them alive came to the Assembly offered to dimit their Offices and were earnest that the Kirk would accept of their Dimission They were now turn'd useless Members of the Ecclesiastical body their Office was evacuated they could serve no longer The whole Assembly could not but know the matter and as they knew for what reasons these ancient and venerable persons were so much irritated so their own concern in the same common interest could not but prompt them to a fellow-feeling they knew not how soon the next Mortonian Experiment might be tryed upon themselves they therefore unanimously refuse to accept of the Dimission and whither the Superintendents will or not they continue them in their Offices and not only so but they thought it expedient to renew that Article of the Agreement at Leith viz. That Bishops and Superintendents stood on the same Level had the same Power the same Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction and were to be regulated by the same Canons Importing thereby that both were useful in the Church at such a juncture and that the Church had not received Bishops to the Exauctoration of the few surviving Superintendents and now in their old age rendring them contemptible And who could condemn the Assembly for taking a course that was both so natural and so obvious Nay it was even the Bishops interest as much as any other Assembly-mens to agree to this conclusion For the great business in hand was not about Extent of Power or Point of Dignity had no Incentive to Iealousie or Emulation in it but it was about the Revenues of the Church To secure these against the insatiable Avarice of a Griping Lord Regent A point the Bishops were as nearly concerned in as any Men For if these three Superintendents who had so long born the heat of the day and done such eminent and extraordinary services to the Church should be once sacrificed to Mortons Covetousness how easy might it be for him to make what farther Encroachments he pleased How easy to carry on his project against other men who perhaps had no such Merit no such Repute no such Interest in the Affections of the People This I say was the Reason for which these two Acts were made in this Assembly and not that the Assembly were turning weary of Bishops or were become any way disaffected to them So that Calderwood and Petrie had but little reason to be so boastful for these two Acts. That it was not out of any Dislike to Episcopacy that these two Acts were made is clear as Light from the next Assembly which met in August 1574. For therein the Clergy manifestly continuing of the same Principles and proceeding on the same Reasons order a Petition consisting of Nine Articles to be drawn and presented to the Regent Calderwood indeed doth not mention this Petition But it is in the Mss. and Petrie talks of it but disingenuously for he mentions it only Overly telling That some Articles were sent unto the Lord Regent and he sets down but two whereas as I said there are Nine in the Mss. and most of them looking the Regents Sacrilegious inclinations even Staringly in the Face I shall only Transcribe such of them as cannot when perpended but be acknowledged to have tended that way They are these 1. That Stipends be granted to Superintendents in all time coming in all Countreys destitute thereof whither it be where there is no Bishop or where there are Bishops who cannot discharge their Office as the Bishops of St. Andrews and Glasgow who had too large Diocesses This Article Petrie hath but Minc'd Indeed it is a very considerable one For here you see 1. That in contradiction to the Regents purposes the Assembly owns and stands by the Superintendents They are so far from being satisfied to part with the Three they had that on the contrary they crave to have more and to have provisions for them and that in all Countries where Bishops either are not or are but have too large Diocesses 2. They crave these things For all times coming a Clause of such importance to the main Question that Petrie has unfaithfully left it out And truly I must confess if it were lawful for Men to be Vnfaithful when it might serve that which they conceived to be a Good End he had great Reason to try it in this instance For this Clause when not concealed but brought above board gives a fatal Overthrow to all these popular Plea's of Episcopacy's being then obtruded on the Church forced upon her against her Will tolerated only for a time c. For from this Clause it is as clear as a Clause can make it that this Assembly entertain'd no such imaginations They supposed Episcopacy was to continue for all time coming For for all time Coming they petition that provision may be made for Superintendents where no Bishops are or where their Diocesses are too large for them 2. The Second Article is That in all Burghs where the Ministers are displaced and serve at other Kirks these Ministers be restored to wait on their Cures and be not obliged to serve at other Churches c. Directly striking against the Regents politick of Uniting three or four Churches under the Care of one Minister The 4. Which Petrie also hath is That in all Churches destitute of Ministers such persons may be planted as the Bishops Superintendents and Commissioners shall name and that
such Members sate there but they had been most unjustly Forfeited in the Late Reign Even Parliamentary Forfeitures you see were most Vnjust Forfeitures and there was no Reason that they should exclude these Gentlemen from their Iust and Antient Rights and Priviledges But when he was pressed by the Author of the Case of the Afflicted Clergy c. with this That many Ministers Benefices were unjustly and illegally kept from them he got his Cloak on the other Shoulder as we say if the Authority of the Nation in the convention or Parliament have Determined otherwise I know not where their Legal Right can be founded p. 96. § 6. It was not so much as Knowable to our Author in that Case that there might be most Vnjust Parliamentary Determinations It were ane endless work to adduce all such little Squabbles as these between himself and himself I shall Insist therefore only on two more which are a little more Considerable And First Our Author was not at more pains about any one thing in his Answ. to D. Still.'s Irenicum than the Inseparableness that is between the Teaching and Ruling power of Presbyters He spent no less than 8 or 9 pages about it Stretching his Invention to find Arguments for it Whoso pleases to turn to page 79 may see the whole Deduction He is as earnest about it in his True Representation c. These are his words prop. 13 There being no Disparity of power amongst Ministers by Christs Grant of power to them No man can make this Disparity by setting one over the rest Neither can they Devolve their power on one of themselves For Christ hath given no such warrant to men to dispose of his Ordinances as they see fit And power being Delegated to them by him They cannot so commit it to Another to Exercise it for them as to deprive themselves of it Also it being not a Licence only But a Trust of which they must give ane account They must perform the work by themselves as they will be Answerable Now it is not possible for one to contradict himself more than he hath done both Indirectly and Directly in this matter He hath Contradicted himself Indirectly and by unavoidable Consequence in so far as he hath owned or owns himself a Presbyterian and for the Lawfulness not to say the Necessity of Scottish Presbyterian General Assemblies of the present Constitution For are all the Ruling Officers of Christs appointment Both Preaching and Governing Elders allowed to be Members of General Assemblies Do they all discharge their Trust and perform their work by themselves there as they will be Answerable to him from whom they got their Trust Doth not every Presbytery consisting of 12 16 or 20 preaching and as many Ruling Elders Send only some Three or Four Preaching Elders and only One Ruling Elder to the General Assembly Do they not Delegate these and Devolve their power upon them and Constitute them their Representatives for the Assembly Let their Commissions be Inspected and let it be Tryed if it is not so Now How is such a Delegation Consistent with our Authors position about the Indevolvibility or Indelegability of such a power It were easy to pursue this farther in its Consequents Now what an ill thing is it for a man thus to sap and subvert all his own Foundations To Contradict the fundamental Maximes of his own Scheme by such unadvised propositions But this is not the worst of it He hath contradicted himself most directly in that same Individual True Representation c. in Answ. to the 10th Objection and in his 2 Vind. p. 154 155. For in both places he endeavors to justify the Taking of all Ruling power out of the hands of the Episcopal Ministers and the putting it only in the hands of the Known sound Presbyterians Reserving to the Episcopal Ministers their Teaching power only 'T is true 'T is evident that he found himself sadly puzled in the Matter and was forced to bring in his Good Friend Necessity and the Old Covenant-Distinction of Status Ecclesiae turbatus and paratus to Lend him a Lift. I have considered his Friend Necessity sufficiently in my Book and thither I refer the Reader for satisfaction about it But what to do with his Praesens Ecclesiae Status I do not so well know Only this I dare say granting it to be so nimble as to break Scot-free through Divine Institutions Yet it can neither by itself nor with Necessity to help it reconcile notorious Contradictions The other Instance I shall adduce is in a very important matter no less than the Presbyterian Separation from the Episcopal Church of Scotland He was put to it to defend it in both his Vindications of his Church of Scotland First Vind. in Answ. to Quest. 4. 2 Vind. in Answer to Letter 2. § 3. All the Reasons he has for that Separation may be reduced to these Three 1. Episcopacy 2. The Episcopal Ministers were Vsurpers or Intruders For 3. They had not the Call of the People and so the People were not bound to own them as their Ministers These are his Grounds I say on which he justifies their Separation from us Now hear him in his Rational Defence c. published as I have told since the beginning of the Late Revolution by Consequence after the Scottish Schism was in its full Maturity Hear him there I say and you never heard Man reject any thing more fairly more fully or more directly than he hath done these his own Grounds Let us try them one by one 1. For Episcopacy turn first to pag. 95. And you shall find these very words Whatever fault we find with the Ministers of the Church and the Hierarchy we do not separate because of these we would joyn with you the English Church for all these Grievances if you would but suffer us to do it without sinning against God in that which is our personal Action Turn next to pag. 150. There he offers at enumerating the Causes that cannot justify a Separation and he talks particularly about Episcopacy thus We are grieved with Prelatical Government and taking away that Parity of Power that Christ hath given to the Ordinary Ministers of his Church This we cannot approve and therefore Ministers ought rather to suffer Deprivation of the publick Exercise of their Ministry than own it And People also ought not to own that their Lordly Authority that they Exercise Yet because this is not Required to be acknowledged as a Lawful Power in the Church by the People I see not that we should withdraw from the Publick Assemblies meerly because there are Diocesan Bishops set over the Church Except our owning them by submitting to their Iurisdiction is Required as one of the Terms of Communion with the Church Who so pleases may find more to the same purpose pag. 157 275 c. Nay So condescending is he in that Book p. 159. that he can allow Bishops their Temporal Honours and Dignities
be the Vindicator of their Kirk If they can imploy any civil discreet ingenuous person to write for them I shall be heartily satisfied and for his Encouragement I do promise if he falls to my share I shall treat him suitably Nay After all if even G. R. himself will lay aside such Qualities as I have demonstrated adhere to him if he will undertake to write with that Gravity and Civility that Charity and Modesty that Honesty and Ingenuity which may be thought to become One of his Age and Character I can as yet admit of him for my Adversary for I think the Party cannot assign me a weaker one And I do hereby promise him ane Equitable Meeting FINIS ADVERTISEMENT THis Book was designed for the Press December 1693. The Article That Prelacy and the Superiority of any Office in the Church above Presbyters is and hath been a great and insupportable Grievance and Trouble to this Nation and contrary to the Inclinations of the Generality of the people ever since the Reformation they having Reformed from Popery by Presbyters And therefore ought to be Abolished THis Article was Established in our Claim of Right April 11 1689. By vertue of this Article Prelacy was actually Abolished by Act of Parliament Iuly 22. 1689. Upon the foot of this Article Presbyterian Government was Established Iune 7. Anno 1690. This Act Establishing Presbyterian Government was Ratified in the whole Heads Articles and Clauses thereof Iune 12. 1693. It is indisputable then That This Article is the Great Foundation of that Great Alteration which hath been made in the Government of the Church of Scotland since the Beginning of the Late Revolution Whether therefore This is a Solid or a Sandy Foundation cannot but be deem'd a Material Question And I think I shall bid fair for the Determination of this Question if I can give clear and distinct Satisfaction to these following Enquiries I. Whether the Church of Scotland was Reform'd solely by persons cloath'd with the Character of Presbyters II. Whether our Scottish Reformers whatever their Characters were were of the present Presbyterian Principles Whether they were for the Divine institution of Parity and the unlawfulness of Prelacy amongst the Pastors of the Church III. Whether Prelacy and the superiority of any Office in the Church above Presbyters was a great and insupportable Grievance and trouble to this Nation and contrary to the inclinations of the generality of the people ever since the Reformation IV. Whether it was Such when this Article was Established in the Claim of Right V. Whether supposing the premisses in the Article were True They would be of sufficient Force to infer the Conclusion viz. That Prelacy and the Superiority of any Office in the Church ought to be abolished The Determination of the main Question I say may competently result from a perspicuous discussion of these five Enquiries And therefore I shall attempt it as fairly as I can leaving to the world to judge equitably of my performance And without further prefacing I come to The First Enquiry Whether the Church of Scotland was Reformed solely by persons cloath'd with the Character of Presbyters IF the Framers of the Article meant that it was in these words They having Reformed from Popery by Presbyters I think I am pretty sure they meant amiss For there is nothing more obvious to one who reads and compares our Histories than That persons standing in other stations and cloath'd with other Characters had a very great hand and were very considerable Instruments in carrying on our Reformation Particularly 1. There were Prelates who concurred in that work as well as Presbyters Knox says there were present in the Parliament holden in August 1560. which Parliament gave the first National Establishment to our Reformation The Bishop of Galloway the Abbots of Lundoris Culross St. Colmes-inih Coldingham Saint Mary-isle and the Subprior of St. Andrews with diverse others And of all these he says That they had Renounced Papistrie and openly professed Jesus Christ. Spotswood reckons up no fewer than Eight of the Spiritual Estate all Protestants chosen at that time to be Lords of the Articles Namely the Bishops of Galloway and Argyle the Prior of St. Andrews the Abbots of Aberbrothoik Kilwinning Lundors Newbottle and Culross Lay these two Accounts together and you shall have at least a Round Dozen of Reforming Prelates 'T is True Spotswood says The Popish Prelates stormed mightily at such a Nomination for the Articles alledging that some of them were meer Laicks But what if it was so I am apt to think our Presbyterian Brethren will not be fond to make much advantage of this I am apt to think they will not say That all those whom they allow to have been Reforming Presbyters were Duely and Canonically Ordained That they were solemnly seperated for the Ministery by such as had Commission and Power to Separate them and in such Manner as had Universally obtained from the Apostles times in the Separation of Presbyters for their holy Function The plain truth is 2. Our Reformation was principally carried on by such as neither Did nor Could pretend to be Canonically promoted to Holy Orders Knox himself tells us that when the Reformation began to make its more publick Advances which was in the Year 1558. there was a great Scarcety of Preachers At that time says he we had no publick Ministers of the word Only did certain Zealous Men among whom were the Laird of Dun David Forress Mr. Robert Lockhart Mr. Robert Hamilton William Harlaw and others Exhort their Brethren according to the Gifts and Graces granted to them But shortly after did God stir up his Servant Paul Methven c. Here we have but a very Diminutive account of them as to Number And such an Account as in its very Air and Countenance seems to own they were generally but Lay-Brethren They were but Zealous Men not Canonically ordained Presbyters And if we may believe Lesly Paul Methven was by Occupation a Baker and William Harlaw a Taylor The Laird of Dun that same very year was Provost of Montrose and as such sent to France as one representing not the First or the Spiritual but the Third Estate of Parliament the Burrows to attend at the Celebration of the Queens Marriage with the Dauphine of France He was indeed a Gentleman of good Esteem and Quality and he was afterwards as Superintendent but it no where appears that he was ever Received into Holy Orders Nay 3. After the pacification at Leith which was concluded in Iuly 1560 when the Ministers were distributed amongst the several Towns we find but a very small Number of them Iohn Knox was appointed for Edenburgh Christopher Goodman for St. Andrews Adam Herriot for Aberdeen Iohn Row for Perth William Chrystison for Dundee David Ferguson for Dunfermline Paul Methven for Iedburgh and Mr. David Lindesay for Leith Beside these Five were nominated to be Superintendents Spotswood for Lothian and
dated from Geneva Ianuary 12 Ann. 1559. Amongst many other Reformations He is for Reforming their Bishopricks indeed But how By abolishing them Nothing like it How then Take it in his own words Let no man be charged in preaching of Christ Iesus above that a man may do I mean That your Bishopricks be so Divided that of every one as they are nâ—w for the most part may be made ten And so in every City and Great Town there may be placed a Godly Learned Man with so many joined with him for preaching and instruction as shall be thought sufficient for the Bounds committed to their Charge So he And let our Parity-men if they can give this Testimony a Gloss favourable to their side of the Question without destroying the text The Truth is this Testimony is so very nicking that I am apt to apprehend it might have been for its sake That this whole Tractate was left out of the Folio-Edition of Knox's Works printed at London Anno 1641. However the Inquisition it seems has not been so strict at Edenburgh for there it escap'd the Index Expurgatorius And yet tho it had not the Good Cause had not been one whit the Securer For Knox's practice would have sufficiently determined the matter For Did not he compile the First Book of Discipline And is not Imparity fairly Established there Did not he write and bear the Letter sent by the Superintendents Ministers and Commissioners of the Church within the Realm of Scotland to their Brethren the Bishops and Pastors in England Anno 1566 Did not he in that same Title of that same Letter acknowledge that these Brethren Bishops and Pastors of England had renounced the Roman Antichrist and professed the Lord Iesus in sincerity And doth not the Letter all alongst allow of the Episcopal Power and Authority of these English Bishops Did not he publickly and solemnly admit Mr. Iohn Spotswood to the Superintendency of Lothian Anno 1561 Did not he Concur at the Coronation of King Iames the Sixth with a Bishop and two Superintendents Anno 1567 Was not he some time a Commissioner for Visitation as they were then called i. e. a Temporary Bishop And did not he then Act in a Degree of Superiority above the Rest of his Brethren within the bounds of his Commission Did not he sit and vote and concur in many General Assemblies where Acts were made for performing Canonical Obedience to Superintendents In fine doth not Spotswood tell us That he was far from the Dotages wherein some that would have been thought his followers did afterwards fall That never man was more obedient to Church Authority than be That he was always urging the Obedience of Ministers to their Superintendents for which he caused diverse Acts to be made in the Assemblies of the Church And That he shewed himself severe to the Transgressors I have insisted the longer on this instance of Knox because he made a Singular Figure amongst our Reformers Besides having so fully evinced that he whom our Brethren value so much was no Divine-Right-of-Parity-Man I think it may readily pass for credible that neither were any of the rest of our Reformers of that opinion And now to bring home all this to my main purpose if not so much as one of our Reformers no not Knox himself was for the Divine Right of Parity I think it may amount to an undeniable evidence at least to a strong Presumption That they were not of the present Presbyterian Principles and all this will appear still farther unquestionable when it is considered in the IV. place How much reason there is to believe That our Reformers proceeded generally on the same principles with the Reformers of England where the Government of the Church by imparity was continued without the least opposition This is a Consideration which I am afraid may not relish well with the Inclinations of my Presbyterian Brethren yet withal may be of considerable weight with unprejudiced people and bring light to several things about our Reformation which even those who have read our Histories and Monuments may have passed over inadvertently And therefore I shall take leave to insist upon it somewhat fully And I shall proceed by these steps 1. I shall endeavour to represent how our Reformation under God was principally Cherished and Encouraged by English influences 2. I shall endeavour to represent how in Correspondence to these Influences our Reformers were generally of the same mind with the Church of England in several momentous instances relating to Constitution and Communion the Government and Polity of the Church wherein our present Presbyterian Principles stand in direct opposition and contradiction to her If I can make these two things appear I think I shall make a Considerable Advance towards the Determination of the Second Enquiry 1. I say our Reformation under God was Cherished and Encouraged principally by English influences That Scotland barring foreign influences is Naturally dispos'd for receiving English impressions cannot but be obvious to common sense We not only live in the same Island separated from all other Neighbourhood we not only breath the same air and speak the same language and observe the same customs and have all the opportunities of Reciprocating all the Offices which can result from daily Commerces and familiar acquaintances and easy Correspondences and Matrimonial Conjunctions and innumerable other such Endearing Relations and Allectives to Mutual Kindness but also Scotland is the lesser England the larger Scotland the more barren England the more fertile Scotland the poorer England the richer Scotland the more penurious of people England the more populous Scotland every way the weaker England every way the stronger Kingdom and by consequence Scotland every way the more apt to receive and England every way the more apt to give impressions And Nature in this is fully justified by Experience For what Scottish man knows not that when the late Revolution was a carrying on as England cast the Copy to Scotland so it was used and prest as one of the most popular and influential Topicks to perswade the Scots to follow the Copy That England had done it and why should Scotland follow a separate Course Was not England a powerful and a wise Nation what Defence could Scotland make for it self if England should invade it And how was it to be imagined that England would not invade Scotland if Scotland did not follow England's Measures So that to stand by K. I. when England had rejected him what was it else than to expose the Nation to unavoidable Ruine Who knows not I say that this was one of the most prest because one of the most plausible Arguments in the beginning of the late Revolution And who sees not that the Force of the Argument lay in Scotland's obnoxiousness to England's impressions Let no true hearted Scottish man imagine 'T is in my thought to dishonour my Native Country I have said no more than all
than the Reformers of other Churches In consequence of this I have further shewed that from all the monuments of these times I have seen not so much as One of our Reformers can be adduced as asserting the Presbyterian side of this Controversie Lastly I have I think made it evident that our Reformers went very much upon the same Principles on which the English Reformers went who still continued Episcopacy unquestionably on many Principles of great weight and importance as to the Constitution and Communion the Government and Polity of the Church which staid in direct opposition and contradiction to the Principles of our present Presbyterians And now let any judicious and impartial person lay these things together and then let him ingenuously determine whether it be not highly incredible that our Reformers were for the divine institution and indispensible Right of Parity and the Vnlawfulness of Prelacy which is the Principle at least the Profession of our present Presbyterians Yet after all this I must tell my Reader that I have insisted on these things so much as I have done principally for smoothing the way for the Evidences I am yet to produce for the certainty of my side of the Second Enquiry And I am content that these things I have already discoursed should pass for no more than Rational Presumptions till I have tried if more strength can be added to them and they can be rendered more cogent and concluding by a succession of plain positive direct and formal proofs of my Assertion And to engage my Readers attention I dare adventure to promise him that to as high a degree as the nature of the thing is capable of at least can reasonably bear And so without further address I thus proceed Before our Reformation was established by Law our Reformers addressed to the Government by several Petitions that Religion and the Church might be reformed I shall take notice of Three all pertinent to my purpose One of them is no where that I have seen set down at length the other two are in Knox his History That which is no where set down at length is to be seen abridged in Buchdâ—aâ— Lesly and Spotswood but with some little variation For Buchanan has given that Article which I am at present concerned aboutâ— according to his way in general terms Thus Vt Ministrorum Electio juxtà antiquam Ecclesiae consuetudinem penes populum esset Spotswood has translated Buchanan's words faithfully enough in this matter as he doth in many other things but Lesly gives it a little more distinctly thus Vt EPISCOPI deinceps PASTORES illi Dominorum ac Nobilium cujuscunque DIOICESIS hi PAROCHORVM assensione ac voluntate ad BENEFICIA cooptentur That this Petition thus abridged by these three Historians was a Petition different from that which we have published at length in Knox seems unquestionable for that which is in Knox has not one syllable about the Election of Ministers and beside Buchanan fairly insinuates that there was another distinct from that which he had abridged tho not much different For thus he discourses Papani Edinburgi ad eadem FERE postulata quaeper Nobilitatem ad eam Reginam proregem sunt delata PENE paribus usi sunt Responsis Now if it had been the same Petition why would he have said ad eadem FERE postulata and PENE paribus Responsis This I take notice of that my Presbyterian Brethren may not have occasion to â—avil at the Article as it is in Lesly as if it were not genuine because it is not in the Petition recorded by Knox and from him most imperfectly abridged by Calderwood their two great and authentick Historians For as for Mr. Petrie he was so wise as not to trouble himself with either of these Petitions perceiving belike that neither of them was favourable to his beloved Parity To proceed now with the Article as it is in Lesly If he has set it down faithfully I think we have a fair account of the sentiments of our Reformers concerning Mother Parity so very fair that he who runs may read it The Question then is whither Lesly has faithfully transmitted this Article to us And for the affirmative I offer these Reasons 1. There 's no reason to doubt of his integrity in this matter he was a zealous Papist and a Bishop to boot And it is evident as he was either of these it was not his interest to make our Reformers such friends to Episcopacy if they were not such really For if they had not made that Distinction between Bishops and Presbyters if they had professed the Divine Right of Parity he had had good ground for accusing them of receding from the undoubted principles and universal practice of the Catholick Church in all times and in all places in a point of so great weight and consequence in the Government of the Church Ane occasion which one of his Zeal for his party would not probably have neglected to take hold of far less would he have lied so palpably to save the Reputation of his Adversaries 2. As he had no temptation to falsify in this matter so he had all other Qualifications of a credible Witness He lived in these times he himself was a Clergy man then probably he was a Member of that same Convocation to which the Petition was offered and I think no man will doubt of his Abilities to comprehend such a matter Indeed 3. If he forged this Article he was ridiculously impudent at Forging for as he did it without any imaginable necessity without any shadow of a degree of subserviency to his Cause so he put himself upon a necessity of forging more even a good long Answer which he says was return'd to that Article by the Convocation viz. That it was not reasonable they should alter the Method of Electing Bishops and Presbyters prescribed by the Canon Law especially in the time of the Queens Nonage Her Prerogative was interested in the matter She with the Popes Consent had power to nominate the Prelates and to take that Power out of her hands without her Consent or before she came to perfect Age was notoriously as well as undutifully to invade her Royalty Ane Answer indeed exactly fitted for the Article as he hath transmitted it But the truth is 4. That he neither forged the Article nor the Convocations Answer to it we have further undoubted Evidence for I have seen ane Old Manuscript Scottish History which I can produce if I am put to it which exactly agrees with Lesly as to the Article for thus it hath it The Election of the Bishops and Kirkmen to pass by the Temporal Lords and People of their Diocesses and Parishes And Buchanan upon the matter gives that same account of the Convocations Answer affirming that As to the Election of Ministers they answered That such Matters were to be regulated by the Canon Law or the Decrees of the Council of Trent
were deposable by the Superintendent of the Diocess and the Elders of the Parishes where they were Ministers but of this more hereafter But by that same First Book of Discipline the Superintendent was to be judged by the Ministers and Elders of his whole Province over which he was appointed and if the Ministers and Elders of the Province were negligent in correcting him one or two other Superintendents with their Ministers and Elders were to conveen him providing it were within his own Province or Chief Town and inflict the Censure which his Offence deserved Of the Reasonableness of this afterward 4. There was as remarkable a difference in point of Ordination which in the then Scottish stile was called Admission Private Ministers were to be admitted by their Superintendents as we shall find afterwards But by the First Book of Discipline Head 5. Superintendents were to be admitted by the Superintendents next adjacent with the Ministers of the Province 5. In the case of Translation the General Assembly holden at Edenburgh Decem. 25. 1562. Gives power to every Superintendent within his own bounds in his Synodal Assembly with consent of the most part of the Elders and Ministers of Kirks to translate Ministers from one Kirk to another as they shall consider the Necessity Charging the Minister so translated to obey the Voice and Commandment of the Superintendent But according to the First Book of Discipline Head 5. No Superintendent might be translated at the pleasure or request of any one Province without the Council of the whole Church and that for grave Causes and Considerations 6. A special care was to be taken of his Qualifications and Abilities for such ane important office for thus it is appointed by the First Book of Discipline Head 5. That after the Church shall be established and three years are past no man shall be called to the Office of a Superintendent who hath not two years at least given a proof of his faithful Labours in the Ministry A Caution simply unapplyable to Parish Ministers 7. He had a living provided for him by the First Book of Discipline Head 5. about five times as much yearly as was alotted for any private Minister And it is to be observed that this was in a time when the Popish Bishops still brooked their Benefices But when the Resolution was Anno 1567 to deprive all the Popish Clergy it was agreed to in the General Assembly by the Churchmen on the one hand and the Lords and Barons on the other That Superintendents should succeed in their places as both the Mss. and Spotswood have it expresly 8. Superintendents by vertue of their Office were constant Members of the General Assemblies Therefore the General Assembly holden at Perth Iune 25. 1563. statuted That every Superintendent be present the first day of the Assembly under the pain of 40 sh. to be given to the poor without Remission So it is in the Mss. but Petrie has it barely That they shall conveen on the first day of every Assembly And it seems because that punishment had not sufficient influence on them it was again ordained by the G. Ass. at Edenburgh March 6. 1573. That they shall be present in the Assembly the first day before noon under the pain of losing one half of their stipend for a year c. So both the Mss. and Petrie But as we shall find afterwards such presence of Parish Ministers was not allowed far less necessary 9. It belonged to them to try those who stood Candidates for the Ministery thus 1. B. of Disc. Head 4. Such as take upon them the Office of Preachers who shall not be found qualified therefore by the Superintendent are by him to be placâ—d Readers And again Head 5. No Child nor person within the age of 21 years may be admitted to the Office of a Reader but such must be chosen and admitted by the Superintendent as for their Gravity and Discretion may grace the Function that they are called unto And the Ass. at Edenburgh Dec. 15. 1562. Ordains That Inhibition be made against all such Ministers as have not been presented by the people or a part thereof to thâ— Superintendent and he after Examination and Tryal has not appointed them to their Charges So the Mss. and so Petrie and Spotswood cites another Act of the General Assembly at Edenburgh 1564. to the same purpose 10. As appears by that Act of the Assembly Decem. 25. 1562. just now cited and the 7 Act Parl. 1 Iac. 6. cited before also Superintendents had the power of granting Collations upon presentations And the Assembly at Perth holden in Iune 1563. appoints That when any Benefice chances to vaik or is now vacant that a qualified person be presented to the Superintendent of that Province where the Benefice lyeth and that he being found sufficient be admitted c. So I find it cited by the Author of Episcopacy not abjured in Scotland 11. A Superintendent had power to plant Ministers in Churches where the people were negligent to present timeously and indeed that power devolved much sooner into his hands by the First Book of Discipline Head 4. than it did afterwards into the hands of either Bishop or Presbytery for there it is ordered That if the people be found negligent in electing a Minister the space of forty days the Superintendent with his Counsel may present unto them a man whom they judge apt to feed the flock c. And as he had thus the power of trying and collating Ministers and planting Churches in the case of a Ius Devolutum So 12. He had the power of Ordination which as I said was then called Admission as is evident from the First Book of Discipline cap. 5. and several Acts of Assemblies already cited 13. All Presbyters or Parish Ministers once admitted to Churches were bound to pay Canonical Obedience to their Superintendents Thus in the Assembly at Edenburgh Iune 30. 1562. It was concluded by the whole Ministers assembled that all Ministers should be subject to the Superintendents in all lawful admonitions as is prescribed as well in the Book of Discipline as in the Election of Superintendents So the Mss. And by that aforecited Act of the Assembly at Edenburgh Decem. 25. 1562. Ministers translated from one Church to another are commanded to obey the Voice and Commandment of the Superintendent Indeed it was part of ane Article presented by the Church to the Council May 27. 1561. That ane Act should be made appointing a civil Punishment for such as disobeyed or contemned the Superintendents in their Function 14. He had power to visit all the Churches within his Diocess and in that Visitation they are the words of the First Book of Discipline Head 5. To try the Life Diligence and Behaviour of the Ministers the Order of their Churches the Manners of their People how the Poor are provided and how
believe he would institute a Model of Government for his Church which could not answer the ends of its institution And is it not plain that Parity cannot answer the ends for which Church Government was instituted if the Church can be reduced to that State that the Governors thereof forced by Necessity must lay it aside and for a time establish a Prelacy Besides What strange Divinity is it to maintain that Parity is of divine Institution and yet may be laid aside in Cases of Necessity 'T is true G. R. in his True Representation of Presbyterian Government cited before is bold to publish to the world such Divinity But let him talk what he will of the Case of Necessity the Force of Necessity the Law of Necessity let him put it in as many Languages as he pleases as well as he hath done in Latin telling that Necessitas quicquid coegit defendit tho I must confess I have seen few Authors more unhappy at Latin And all that shall never perswade me ought never perswade any Christian that any Necessity can oblige Christians to forsake far less to cross Christs institutions for if it can oblige to do so in one Case why not in all Cases Indeed to talk of crossing Christs institutions when forced to it by the Laws of Necessity what is it else than to open a Door to Gnosticism to Infidelity to Apostacy to all imaginable kinds of Antichristian Perfidy and Villany But enough of this at present That which I am concerned for is only this that being it was so very obvious and easy for our Reformers to have cast the very first Scheme of the Government of the Church according to the Rules and Exigencies of Parity if they had believed the divine and indispensable institution of it and being that they did it not we have all the reason in the world to believe that they believed no such principle For my part I am so far from thinking it reasonable that Prelacy should be only needful where there is a scarcity of men qualified to be Ministers that on the contrary I do profess I am of opinion that Prelacy seems to be every whit as needful and expedient if not more supposing we had it in our power to cut and carve as we say on Christs institutions where there are many as where there are few Ministers Sure I am Experience hath taught so and teaches so daily and as sure I am it can with great reason be accounted for why it should be so but if it is so I think it is only help at a dead Lift as we say to say that Superintendency was established at our Reformation only because of the Scarcity of men qualified to be Ministers And so I proceed to our Brethrens next Plea which is SECONDLY That Superintendency was not the same with Episcopacy Calderwood assigns seven or eight differences between Superintendents and Bishops and his faithful Disciple G. R. in his First Vindication in answer to the first Question resumes the same Plea and insists mostly on the same Differences Calderwood reckons thus 1. In the Election Examination and Admission of Ministers the Superintendents were bound to the Order prescribed in the 4 th Head of the First Book of Discipline which is far different from the Order observed by Prelates 2. Superintendents kept not the bounds nor the limits of the old Diocesses 3. Superintendents might not remain above twenty days in any place till they had passed through the whole bounds must preach at least thrice in the week must stay no longer in the Chief Town of their Charge than three or four Months at most but must re-enter in Visitation of the rest of the Kirks in their bounds Bishops think preaching the least of their Charge 4. The Election Examination and Admission of the Superintendent is set down far different from the Election Examination and Admission of Bishops now adays c. 5. Superintendents were admitted without other Ceremonies than sharp Examination c. To the Inauguration of a Bishop is required the Metropolitans Consecrations 6. There were no degrees of superior and inferior provincial and general Superintendents It is otherwise in the Hierarchy of the Prelates c. I have set down these six huge Differences without ever offering to consider them particularly are they not huge Differences Behold them examine them carefully is not each of them as essential and specifick as another Think not courteous Reader it was Malice or Ill-will to Episcopacy made our Author muster up these Differences These make but a small number if he had been acted by passion or vicious Byass if his Malice had been vigorous and earnest to discharge it self that way he could have easily reckoned six hundred every whit as considerable Differences He might have told them that Bishops wore Black Hats and Superintendents Blue Bonnets that Bishops wore Silks and Superintendents Tartan that Bishops wore Gowns and Cassocks and Superintendents Trews and slasht Doublets and God knows how many such differences he might have readily collected And if he had adduced such notable differences as these he had done every way as Philosophically and as like a good Difference-maker But in the mean time what is all this to Parity or Imparity amongst the Governors of the Church Do these differences he has adduced distinguish between Bishops and Superintendents as to preheminence of power and the essentials of Prelacy Do they prove that Superintendents had no Prerogative no Authority no Jurisdiction over Parish Ministers I have treated him thus coursly because I know no other way of treatment Authors deserve who will needs speak Nonsense rather than speak nothing 'T is true indeed One difference he has mentioned which seems something material and therefore I shall endeavor to account for it with some more seriousness It is that by the Constitution as we have it both in the First Book of Discipline and the Form and Order of electing Superintendents Superintendents were made obnoxious to the Tryal and Censures of the Ministers within their own Diocesses This I acknowledge to be true and I acknowledge further that herein there was a considerable difference between them and Bishops as Bishops stood eminenced above Presbyters in the primitive times and as they ought to stand eminenced above them in all well constituted Churches But then I have these things to say 1. I shall not scruple to acknowledge that herein our Reformers were in the wrong and that this was a great Error in the Constitution I do avowedly profess I don't think my self bound to justify every thing that was done by our Reformers If that falls to any mans share if falls to theirs who established this Article in the Claim of Right which gave occasion to this whole Enquiry That our Reformers herein were in the wrong I say I make no scruple to acknowledge and I think it cannot but be obvious to all who have spent but a few thoughts about matters of
plain than that they receive the substance of the Articles and only protest against the Scandalousness of the Names used in them What reason they had for that besides the over-zealous Principle I mentioned before let the curious enquire That 's none of my present business But They protest that they receive these Articles only for ane Interim True But how doth it appear that they received them only for ane Interim out of a Dislike to Episcopacy Had they believed the Divine Right of Parity how could they have received them so much as for ane Interim How could they have received them at all The Truth is there were many things in the Articles which required amendment even tho the Gen. Ass. had believed the Divine Right of Episcopacy And that they did not receive them for ane Interim upon the account of any Dislike they had to Episcopacy shall be made evident by and by In the mean time we have gained one point even That they were received by this Assembly unless receiving for an Interim be not receiving But if they were received I hope it is not true that they were never allowed by a General Assembly And if Episcopacy was not protested against at all and if there was no such word or phrase in the Act as had the least Tendency to import that they judged it a Corruption I hope it may consist well enough with the Laws of Civility to say that G. R. was talking without Book when he said It was protested against as a Corruption by this General Assembly I doubt if he had found any of the Prelatists talking with so much Confidence where they had so little ground he would have been at his beloved Lies and Calumnies But enough of this proceed we in our Series By the Vniversal Order so it is worded in the Mss. of the General Ass. holden at Eden March 6. 157â— 3. It was Statuted and Ordained that all Bishops Superintendents c. present themselves in every Gen. Ass. that hereafter shall be holden the first day of the Assembly before Noon c. Again It is thought most reasonable and expedient That Bishops c. purchase General Letters without any delay commanding all Men to frequent Preaching and Prayers according to the Order received in the Congregations c. In the Ass. holden at Eden Aug. 6. 1573. The Visitation Books of Bishops c. were produced and certain Ministers appointed to examin their Diligence in Visitation In that same Assembly Patoun Bishop of Dunkeld was accused that he had accepted the Name but had not exercised the Office of a Bishop not having proceeded against Papists within his bounds He was also suspected of Simony and Perjury in that contrary to his Oath at the receiving of the Bishoprick he gave Acquittances and the Earl of Argyle received the Profits If these things were true he was a foolish as well as a bad Bishop But then it was evident that this Assembly fairly own'd Episcopacy Further that by the Agreement at Leith express provisions were made against Simony and Dilapidation of Benefices and that Bishops should swear to that purpose c. which I think is not well consistent with the Plea insisted on before viz. That the Agreement at Leith was forced on the Clergy by the Court out of a design it had upon the Revenues of the Church I find these further Acts made by this Assembly in the Mss. Touching them that receive Excommunicates the whole Kirk presently assembled ordains all Bishops c. to proceed to Excommunication against all Receivers of Excommunicate persons if after due Admonition the Receivers rebel and be disobedient The Kirk ordains all Bishops c. in their Synodal Conventions to take a List of the Names of the Excommunicates within their Iurisdictions and bring them to the General Assemblies to be published to other Bishops and Superintendents c. That they by their Ministers in their Provinces may divulgate the same in the whole Countries where Excommunicates haunt The Kirk presently assembled ordains all Bishops and Superintendents c. to conveen before them all such persons as shall be found suspected of consulting with Witches and finding them guilty to cause them make publick Repentance c. That Vniformity may be observed in processes of Excommunication It is ordained that Bishops and Superintendents c. shall direct their Letters to Ministers where the persons that are to be Excommunicated dwell commanding the said Ministers to admonish accordingly and in Case of Disobedience to proceed to Excommunication and pronounce the Sentence thereof upon a Sunday in time of Preaching and thereafter the Ministers to indorse the said Letters making mention of the days of their Admonitions and Excommunication for Disobedience aforesaid and to report to the said Bishops c. according to the Direction contained in the said Letters Petrie has the substance of most of these Acts but has been at pains to obscure them And no wonder for here are so many Branches of true Episcopal power established in the persons of these Bishops that it could not but have appeared very strange that a General Assembly should have conferred them on them if there was such ane aversion then to the Order as he and his Fellows are willing to have the world believe there was But Honest Calderwood was wiser for he hath not so much as ane intimation of any one of them And Calderwood having thus concealed them nay generally all alongst whatever might make against his Cause as much as he could what wonder if G. R. who knows nothing in the matter but what Calderwood told him stumbled upon such a notable piece of Ignorance in his first Vindication as to tell the world That Nothing was restored at Leith but the Image of Prelacy That these Tulchan Bishops had only the Name of Bishops while Noblemen and others had the Revenue and the Church all the power Nay That notwithstanding of all was done at Leith The real Exercise of Presbytery in all its Meetings lesser and greater continued and was allowed But of this more hereafter The Assembly holden at Eden March 6. 1574. Concluded concerning the Iurisdiction of Bishops in their Ecclesiastical Function that it should not exceed the Iurisdiction of Superintendents which heretofore they have had and presently have And that they should be subject to the Discipline of the General Ass. as Members thereof as Superintendents had been heretofore in all sorts And again This Assembly Ordains That no Bishop give Collation of any Benefice within the bounds of Superintendents within his Diocess without their Consent and Testimonials subscribed with their hands And that Bishops within their Diocesses visit by themselves where no Superintendent is and give no Collation of Benefices without the Consent of three well qualified Ministers Here indeed both Calderwood and Petrie appear briskly and transcribe the Mss. word for word Here was something like limiting the power of
Stipends be assigned to them Ane Article visibly levell'd as the former 5. That Doctors may be placed in Vniversities and Stipends granted them whereby not only they who are presently placed may have occasion to be diligent in their Cure but other learned Men may have Occasion to seek places in Colleges Still to the same purposes viz. the finding reasonable Uses for the Patrimony of the Church 6. That his Grace would take a General Order with the poor especially in the Abbeys such as are Aberbrothoick c. Conform to the Agreement at Leith Here not only the Leith-Agreement insisted on but farther pious Vse for the Churches Patrimony 9. That his Grace would cause the Books of the Assignation of the Kirk be delivered to the Clerk of the General Assembly These Books of Assignation as they call them were the Books wherein the Names of the Ministers and their several proportions of the Thirds were Recorded It seems they were earnest to be repossessed of their Thirds seeing the Regent had not kept promise to them But The Eighth Article which by a pardonable inversion I hope I have reserved to the last place is of all the most considerable It is That his Grace would provide Qualified persons for Vacant Bishopricks Let the candid Reader judge now if Episcopacy by the Leith-Articles was forced upon the Church against her Inclinations If it was never approven when Bishops were thus petitioned for by a General Assembly If it be likely that the Assembly in August 1572. protested against it as a Corruption If the Acts of the last Assembly declaring Bishops to have no more power than Superintendents had and making them accountable to the General Assembly proceeded from any Dislike of Episcopacy If this Assembly petitioning thus for Bishops believed the divine and indispensible institution of Parity If both Calderwood and Petrie acted not as became Cautious Pretbyterian Historians the One by giving us None the other by giving us only a Minced account of this Petition Well! By this time I think I have not intirely disappointed my Reader I think I have made it competently appear That the Agreement at Leith was fairly and frequently allowed approven and insisted on by not a â—ew subsequent General Assemblies I could adduce some Acts more of the next Ass which met at Eden March 7. 1575. But I think I have already made good my Undertaking and therefore I shall insist no further on this point Only One thing I must add further It is this After the most impartial narrow and attentive Search I could make I have not found all this while viz. from the first publick Establishment of the Reformed Religion in Scotland Anno 1560. so much as One Indication of either publick or private Dislike to Prelacy But that it constantly and uninterruptedly prevailed and all persons chearfully as well as quietly submitted to it till the year 1575. when it was first called in Question And here I might fairly shut up this long and perhaps nauseous Discourse upon the Second Enquiry which I proposed For whatever Men our Reformers were whatever their other principles might be I think I have made it plain that they were not for the Divine Right of Parity or the Vnlawfulness of the Superiority of any Office in the Church above Presbyters No such principle was prosessed or insisted on or offered to be reduced to practice by them Before At or full fifteen years After the publick Establishment of the Reformation And if this may not pass for sufficient proof of the truth of my Resolution of the Enquiry I know not what may However because THE SECOND thing I promised to shew tho not precisely necessary to my main design may yet be so far useful as to bring considerably more of Light to it and withal give the world a prospect of the Rise and Progress of Presbytery in Scotland I shall endeavour to make good my Undertaking which was that after Episcopacy was question'd it was not easily overturn'd Its Adversaries met with much Resistance and Opposition in their Endeavors to subvert it I shall study brevity as much as the weight of the matter will allow me In short then take it thus Master Andrew Melvil after some years spent at Geneva returned to Scotland in Iuly 1574. He had lived in that City under the influences of Theodore Beza the true parent of Presbytery He was a Man by Nature fierce and fiery confident and peremptory peevish and ungovernable Education in him had not sweetned Nature but Nature had sowred Education and both conspiring together had trickt him up into a true Original a piece compounded of pride and petulance of jeer and jangle of Satyr and Sarcasm of venome and vehemence He hated the Crown as much as the Mitre the Scepter as much as the Crosier and could have made as bold with the Purple as with the Rochet His prime Talent was Lampooning and writing Anti-tami-Cami-Categorias's In a word He was the very Archetypal Bitter Beard of the Party This Man thus accoutred was scarcely warm at home when he began to disseminate his sentiments insinuate them into others and make a party against Prelacy and for the Genevian Model For this I need not depend on Spotswoods Authority tho he asserts it plainly I have a more Authentick Author for it if more Authentick can be I have Melvil himself for it in a Letter to Beza dated Novem. 13. 1579. to be found both in Petrie and in the Pamphlet called Vindiciae Philadelphi from which Petrie had it of which Letter the very first words are we have not ceased these five years to fight against Pseudepiscopacy c. Now reckon five years backward from Novem. 1579. and you stand at November 1574. whereby we find that within three or four Months after his arrival the Plot was begun tho' it was near to a year thereafter before it came above-board Having thus projected his work and formed his party the next care was to get one to Table it fairly He himself was but lately come home he was much a Stranger in the Country having been ten years abroad He had been but at very few General Assemblies if at any his influence was but green and budding his Authority but young and tender It was not fit for him amongst his First Appearances to propose so great ane Innovation And it seems the Thinking Men of his Party however resolutely they might promise to back the Motion when once fairly Tabled were yet a little shy to be the first Proposers So it fell to the share of one who at that time was none of the greatest Statesmen Iohn Durie one of the Ministers of Edenburgh was the person as Spotswood describes him A sound hearted Man far from all Dissimulation open professing what he thought earnest and zealous in his Cause whatever it was but too too credulous and easily to be imposed on However that I may do him as much justice as
Spotswood has done him before me A Man he was who thought no Shame to acknowledge his Error when he was convinced of it For so it was that when after many years Experience he had satisfied himself that Parity had truly proved the Parent of Confusion and disappointed all his Expectations and when through Age and Sickness he was not able in person to attend the General Assembly Anno 1600. he gave Commission to some Brethren to tell them as from him That there was a Necessity of restoring the Ancient Government of the Church c. Such was the Man I say to whose share it fell to be the first who publickly questioned the Lawfulness of Prelacy in Scotland which was not done till the Sixth day of August 1575. as I said before no less than full fifteen years after the first legal Establishment of our Scottish Reformation And so I come to my purpose On this Sixth of August 1575. the Gen. Ass. met at Edenburgh according to the Order then observed in General Assemblies the First thing done after the Assembly was constituted was the Tryal of the Doctrine Diligence Lives c. of the Bishops and other constant Members So while this was a doing Iohn Durie stood up and protested That the Tryal of the Bishops might not prejudge the Opinions and Reasons which he and other Brethren of his Mind had to propose against the Office and Name of a Bishop Thus was the fatal Controversie set on foot which since hath brought such Miseries and Calamities on the Church and Kingdom of Scotland The Hare thus started Melvil the Original Huntsman strait pursued her He presently began a long and no doubt premeditated Harangue commended Durie's Zeal enlarged upon the flourishing State of the Church of Geneva insisted on the Sentiments of Calvin and Beza concerning Church Government and at last affirmed That none ought to be Office-bearers in the Church whose Titles were not found in the Book of God That the the Title of Bishops was found in Scripture yet it was not to be understood in the Sense then current That Iesus Christ the only Lord of his Church allowed no Superiority amongst the Ministers but had instituted them all in the same Degree and had endued them with equal power Concluding That the Corruptions which had crept into the Estate of Bishops were so great as unless the same were removed it could not go well with the Church nor could Religion be long preserved in Purity The Controversie thus plainly stated Mr. David Lindesay Master George Hay and Master Iohn Row three Episcopalians were appointed to confer and reason upon the Question proponed with Mr. Andrew Melvil Mr. Iames Lawson and Mr. Iohn Craig two Presbyterians and one much indifferent for both sides After diverse Meetings and long Disceptation saith Spotswood after two days saith Petrie they presented these Conclusions to the Assembly which at that time they had agreed upon 1. They think it not expedient presently to answer directly to the First Question But if any Bishop shall be chosen who hath not such Qualities as the word of God requires let him be tryed by the General Assembly De Novo and so deposed 2. The Name Bishop is common to all them who have particular Flocks over which they have particular Charges to preach the Word administer the Sacraments c. 3. Out of this Number may be chosen some to have power to Oversee and Visit such reasonable Bounds beside his own Flock as the General Kirk shall appoint and in these bounds to appoint Ministers with Consent of the Ministers of that Province and of the Flock to whom they shall be appointed Also to appoint Elders and Deacons in every principal Congregation where there are none with Consent of the People thereof and to suspend Ministers for reasonable Causes with Consent of the Ministers aforesaid So the Mss. Spot Pet. Cald. 'T is true here are some things which perhaps when thoroughly examined will not be found so exactly agreeable to the Sentiments and Practice of the Primitive Church However 't is evident for this Bout the Imparity-men carried the day and it seems the Parity-men have not yet been so well fixed for the Divine and indispensible Right of it as our Modern Parity-men would think needful otherwise how came they to consent to such Conclusions How came they to yield that it was not expedient at that time to answer directly to the first Question which was concerning the Lawfulness of Episcopacy Were they of the Modern Principles G. R's Principles Did they think that Divine institutions might be dispensed with crossed according to the Exigencies of Expediency or Inexpediency What ane Honour is it to the Party if their first Hero's were such Casuists Besides is not the Lawfulness of imparity clearly imported in the Third Conclusion Indeed both Calderwood and Petrie acknowledge so much Calderwood saith It seemeth that by Reason of the Regents Authority who was bent upon the Course i. e. Episcopacy whereof he was the chief Instrument that they answered not directly at this time to the Question Here you see he owns that nothing at this time was concluded against the Course as he calls it whither he had reason to say It seemed to be upon such ane account shall be considered afterward Petrie acknowledges it too but in such a passion it seems as quite mastered his Prudence when he did it for these are his words Howbeit in these Conclusions they express not the Negative because they would not plainly oppose the particular interest of the Council seeking security of the Possessions by the Title of Bishops yet these Affirmatives take away the pretended Office Now let the world consider the Wisdom of this Author in advancing this fine period They did not express the Negative they did not condemn Episcopacy because they would not plainly oppose the particular interest of the Council seeking Security of the Possessions c. Now let us enquire who were these They who would not for this reason condemn Episcopacy at that time It must either belong to the Six Collocutors who drew the Concusions or to the whole Assembly If to the Collocutors 't is plain Three of them viz. Row Hay and Lindesay were innocent they were perswaded in their Minds of the Expediency to say no further as well as the Lawfulness of Episcopacy and I think that was reason enough for them not to condemn it The Presbyterian Brethren then if any were the persons who were moved not to condemn it because they would not plainly oppose the particular interest of the Council c. But if so hath not Master Petrie made them very brave fellows Hath he not fairly made them such friends to Sacrilege that they would rather baulk a divine Institution than interrupt its Course and offend its Votaries If by the word They he meant the General Assembly if the whole Assembly were they who would not express the
have fully proven and which was all I still aim'd at yet it is easy to Discover they were very far from keeping Closely by the Principles and Measures of the primitive constitution of Church Government This is so very apparent to any who Reads the Histories of these times and is so visible in the Deduction I have made that I shall insist no longer on it Secondly The truth of my charge may further appear from the Instance of Adamson advanced this year 1576 to the Archbishoprick of St. Andrews That Nature had furnished him with a good stock and he was a smart Man and cultivated beyond the ordinary Size by many parts of good Literature is not denyed by the Presbyterian Historians themselves They never attempt to represent him as a Fool or a Dunce tho' they are very eager to have him a Man of Tricks and Latitude Now this Prelates ignorance in true Antiquity is Remarkably visible in his subscribing to these Propositions Anno 1580 if we may believe Calderwood The Power and Authority of all Pastors is equal and alike great amongst themselves The Name Bishop is Relative to the Flock and not to the Eldership For he is Bishop of his Flock and not of other Pastors or fellow Elders As for the Preheminence that one beareth over the rest it is the Invention of Man and not the Institution of Holy Writ That the ordaining and appointing of Pastors which is also called the laying on of hands appertaineth not to one Bishop only so being Lawful Election pass before but to those of the same Province or Presbytery and with the like Iurisdiction and Authority Minister at their Kirks That in the Council of Nice for eschewing of private ordaining of Ministers it was statuted that no Pastor should be appointed without the consent of him who dwelt or remained in the Chief and Principal City of the Province which they called the Metropolitan City That after in the latter Councils it was statuted that things might proceed more solemnly and with greater Authority that the laying on of hands upon Pastors after Lawful Election should be by the Metropolitan or Bishop of the Chief and principal Town the rest of the Bishops of the Province voting thereto In which thing there was no other Prerogative but only that of the Town which for that cause was thought most meet both for the conveening of the Council and Ordaining of Pastors with common Consent and Authority That the Estate of the Church was corrupt when the name Bishop which before was common to the rest of the Pastors of the Province began without the Authority of Gods Word and ancient Custome of the Kirk to be attributed to one That the power of appointing and ordaining Ministers and Ruling of Kirks with the whole procuration of Ecclesiastical Discipline was now only devolved to one Metropolitan The other Pastors no ways challenging their Right and Privilege therein of very slothfulness on the one part And the Devil on the other going about craftily to lay the ground of the Papistical Supremacy From these and such other Propositions sign'd by him at that time it may be judged I say if this Prelate did not bewray a very profound ignorance in true Ecclesiastical Antiquity Ane Arrant Presbyterian could not have said could not have wished more Indeed 't is more than probable as perchance may appear by and by that these Propositions were taken out either formally or by collection of Mr. Beza's Book De Triplici Episcopatu Now if Adamson was so little seen in such matters what may we judge of the rest But this is not all For Thirdly There cannot be a greater Evidence of the deplorable unskilfulness of the Clergy in these times in the ancient records of the Church than their suffering Melvil and his Party to obtrude upon them The Second Book of Discipline A split new Democratical Systeme a very Farce of Novelties never heard of before in the Christian Church For instance What else is the confounding of the Offices of Bishops and Presbyters The making Doctors or Professors of Divinity in Colledges and Vniversities a distinct Office and of Divine Institution The setting up of Lay-Elders as Governours of the Church Jure Divino Making them Iudges of mens Qualifications to be admitted to the Sacrament Visiters of the Sick c. Making the Colleges of Presbyters in Cities in the primitive times Lay Eldership Prohibiting Appeals from Scottish General Assemblies to any Iudge Civil or Ecclesiastick and by consequence to Oecumenick Councils Are not these Ancient and Catholick Assertions What footsteps of these things in true Antiquity How easy had it been for men skilled in the Constitution Government and Discipline of the Primitive Church to have laid open to the Conviction of all sober Men the novelty the vanity the inexpediency the impoliticalness the uncatholicalness of most if not all of these Propositions If any further doubt could remain concerning the little skill the Clergy of Scotland in these times had in these matters it might be further Demonstated Fourthly from this plain matter of Fact viz. that that Second Book of Discipline in many points is taken word for word from Mr. Beza's Answers to the Questions proposed to him by The Lord Glamis then Chancellor of Scotland A fair Evidence that our Clergy at that time have not been very well seen in Ecclesiastical Politicks Otherwise it is not to be thought they would have been so imposed on by a single stranger Divine who visibly aimed at the propagation of the Scheme which by chance had got footing in the Church where he lived His Tractate De Triplici Episcopatu written of purpose for the advancement of Presbyterianism in Scotland carries visibly in its whole train that its design was to draw our Clergy from off the Ancient Polity of the Church and his Answers to the Six Questions proposed to him as I said by Glanus contain'd the New Scheme he advised them to Now let us taste a little of his skill in the Constitution and Government of the Ancient Church or if you please of his accounts of her Policy I take his Book as I find it amongst Saravia's works He is Positive for the Divine Right of Ruling Elders He affirms that Bishops arrogated to themselves the power of Ordination without Gods allowance That the Chief foundation of all Ecclesiastical Functions is Popular Election That this Election and not Ordination or Imposition of hands makes Pastors or Bishops That Imposition of hands does no more than put them in possession of their Ministry in the exercise of it as I take it the power whereof they have from that Election That by consequence 't is more proper to say that the Fathers of the Church are Created by the Holy Ghost and the suffrages of their Children than by the Bishops That Saint Paul in his first Epistle to the Corinthians in which he expressly writes against and condemns the
Reformers were more prying in such matters than the Reformers of other Churches I have made it appear that there is not so much as a syllable a shew a shadow of ane Indication That any of those who Merited the Name of our Reformers entertain'd any such Principle or maintain'd any such Article I have made it appear that our Reformation was carryed on much very much by the Influences and upon the principles of the English Reformers amongst whom that principle of parity had no imaginable footing These are at least great presumptions of the Credibility of this That our Reformers maintain'd no such principle Agreeably to these presumptions I have made it appear that our Reformers proceeded de Facto upon the principles of Imparity They formed their petitions for the Reformation of our Church according to these principles The first Scheme of Church Government they erected was Established upon these principles Our Superintendents were notoriously and undeniably Prelates The next Establishment in which the Prelates resumed the old Names and Titles of Archbishops and Bishops was the same for substance with the first At least they did not differ as to the point of Imparity I have made it appear that this second Establishment was agreed to by the Church unanimously and submitted to calmly and peaceably and that it was received as ane Establishment which was intended to continue in the Church At least no Objections made against it no appearances in opposition to it no indications of its being accepted only for ane Interim upon the account of Imparity's being in its constitution I have made it appear that Imparity was received practised owned and submitted to and that Prelates were suitably honoured and dutifully obeyed without reluctancy and without interruption for full fifteen years after the Reformation and I have made it appear that after it was called in Question its Adversaries found many Repulses and mighty difficulties and spent much travel and much time no less than full five years before they could get it Abolished and if the Deduction I have made puts not this beyond all doubt it may be further confirmed by the Testimonies of two very intelligent Authors The first is that ingenious and judicious Author who wrote the accurate piece called Episcopacy not Abjured in Scotland published Anno 1640. Who affirms positively That it was by Reason of opposition made to the Presbyterians by many wise learned and Godly Brethren who stood firmly for the Ancient Discipline of the Church that Episcopacy was so long a condemning It appears from his Elaborate work that he was ane ingenuous as well as ane Ingenious Person and living then and having been at so much pains to inform himself concerning not only the Transactions but the Intrigues of former times it is to be presumed he did not affirm such a proposition without sufficient ground But whatever dust may be raised about his Credit and Authority Sure I am my other witness is unexceptionable He is King Iames the Sixth of Scotland and the First of England This Great and Wise Prince lived in these times in which Presbytery was first introduced and I think it is scarcely to be Questioned That he understood and could give a just account of what passed then as well as any man then living and he in his Basilion Doron affirms plainly That the Learned Grave and Honest Men of the Ministery were ever ashamed of and offended with the Temerity and Presumption of the Democratical and Presbyterian party All these things I say I think I have made appear sufficiently and so I am not affraid to leave it to the world to judge Whither our Reformers were of the present Presbyterian principles Only one thing more before I proceed to the next Enquiry Our Presbyterian Brethren Calderwood Petrie and G. R. as I have already observed are very earnest and careful to have their Readers advert that when Episcopacy was Established by the Agreement at Leith Anno 1572. the Bishops were to have no more Power than the Superintendents had before and indeed it is true they had no more as I have already acknowledged But I would advise our Brethren to be more Cautious in insisting on such a dangerous point or Glorying in such a Discovery hereafter For thus I Argue The Episcopacy Agreed to at Leith Anno 1572 as to its Essentials its Power and Authority was the same with the Superintendency Established at the Reformation Anno 1560. But the General Assembly holden at Dundee Anno 1580. Condemned the Power and Authority of the Episcopacy Agreed to at Leith Anno 1572. Ergo they condemnd the Power and Authority of the Superintendency Established by our Reformers Anno 1560. Ergo the Assembly 1580. not only forsook but Condemned the principles of our Reformers But if this Reasoning holds I think our present Presbyterian Brethren have no Reason to Claim the Title of Successors to our Reformers They must not ascend so high as the year 1560 They must stand at the year 1580 For if I mistake not the Laws of Heraldry will not allow them to call themselves the True Posterity of those whom they Condemn and whose principles they Declare Erroneous In such Moral Cognations I take Oneness of principle to be the foundation of the Relation as Oneness of Blood is in Physical Cognations Let them not therefore go farther up than the year 1580. Let them date the Reformation from this Assembly at Dundee and Own Master Andrew Melvil and Iohn Durie c. for their First Parents When they have fixed there I shall perchance allow them to affirm that the Church of Scotland was Reformed in their sence of Reformation by Presbyters that is Presbyterians Proceed we now to The Third Enquiry Whether Prelacy and the Superiority of any Office in the Church above Presbyters was a great and insupportable Grievance and trouble to this Nation and contrary to the inclinations of the Generality of the People EVER since the Reformation Considering what hath been Discoursed so fully on the former Enquiry this may be very soon dispatched For If Prelacy and the Superiority of other Officers in the Church above Presbyters was so unanimously consented to and Established at the Reformation If it continued to be Owned Revered and Submitted to by Pastors and People without interruption without being ever called in Question for full fifteen years after the Reformation If after it was called in Question its Adversaries found it so hard a task to subvert it that they spent five years more before they could get it subverted and declared Vnlawful even as it was then in Scotland If these things are true I say I think it is not very Credible that it was a great and insupportable Grievance and trouble to this Nation and contrary to the Inclinations of the Generality of the People EVER since the Reformation This Collection I take to be as clear a Demonstration as the subject is capable of But beside this we