after it was approved by the Authority of the Council and in it Presbyterian Government approved for it owneth no fixed Officers in the Church but Pastors Teachers Elders and Deacons what is to be thought of the Superintendents therein mentioned is after to be considered this Discipline and the Book containing it was subscribed to in January 1561. 1560. stilo vetere by a great part of the Nobility December 1560. a General Assembly was held where sat no Church-men but Ministers Another General Assembly was held Decemb. 25. 1562. where Bishops are so far from Church-Domination that they and other Ministers who had not entred by the Order in the Book of Discipline are inhibited till further Tryal 1563. A General Assembly at Perth about the end of June gave the same Power or Commission for planting Kirks suspending depriving transplanting Ministers c. to some Ministers that had been given to Superintendents And it is noticed by the Historian that Presbyteries were not yet constituted because of the scarcity of Ministers What is there in all this that looketh like Episcopal Government Another General Assembly met June 1565. also Decemb. 25. of the same Year where the Power of Superintendents was a little clipt also about the end of June 1567. At a Parliament held at Edenburgh Decemb. 15. 1567. several Acts were made about Church Affairs where not only mention is made of Synods and General Assemblies but Appeals allowed to the latter and from it Appeals are forbidden and a Commission appointed to enquire into what Points should belong to the Jurisdiction of the Church and all Church-Jurisdiction forbidden but what is or shall presently be established Another General Assembly Decemb. 25. 1567. also July 1568. in both which Superintendents were censured and a Bishop to wit who had been such deposed from the Ministry In the last Assembly it is appointed who shall Vote in Assemblies and not one word of Bishops Another Assembly July 1569. Another March 1st 1570. where Order is set down about chusing the Moderator there was no Prelate to pretend to that Priviledge Another in the beginning of July 1570. Another in the beginning of March 1571. where again Superintendents are limited In January 1572. a Convention of Church men met at Leith who were too much influenced by the Court The Council also with the Regent appointed Articles to be drawn for the Policy of the Kirk and after approved them By them was restored the Image of Prelacy yet the real Exercise of Presbytery in all its Meetings lesser and greater continued and was allowed for these called Tulchan Bishops were set up who had the name of Bishops while Noblemen and others had the Revenue and the Church had the Power This cannot be pretended to be a restoring of Prelacy more than of Popish Abbacies and Priories which were then the same way brought in This Constitution was never allowed by the General Assembly and it lasted but three or four years and as a Corruption was protested against by the General Assembly 6th of August 1572. In an Assembly at Edenburgh March 6. 1573. David Ferguson was Moderator tho' neither Bishop nor Superintendent Another Assembly August 6. Mr. Alexander Arbuthnot Principal of the old Colledge of Aberdeen was Moderator Assemb 1574. concluded that the power of Bishops should be no more than that of Superintendents In many of these Assemblies the Policy of the Church was revised and still carrying on toward perfection After this in other Assemblies pains was taken to perfect the Policy of the Church which at last came forth in the Second Book of Policy agreed on in the General Assembly Octob. 25. 1577. Also 1578. at several Assemblies Acts were made against Bishops the revising of the Book of Policy was delayed in a Parliament at Sterling Castle 1578. called the Imprisoned Parliament General Assembly July 13. at Dundie 1580. condemned the Office of Bishops as unlawful Another at Edenburgh Octob. 20. appointed a platform to be drawn for Presbyteries 1581. The second Confession of Faith was subscribed by the King and his Houshold Where Episcopacy is condemned under the Name of the Hierarchy it being declared that no other Church policy was to be allowed save that which then was used which every one knoweth was Presbytery The same Year the Assembly caused Registrate the Book of Policy among their Acts. In May 1584. some Acts of Parliament were made derogating from the Liberties of the Church but so little weight was laid on them that by the King's Command some Ministers were appointed to make Animadversions on them to which the King answered explaining and smoothing most of these grievous Acts. In the Assembly 1586. Commissions for Visitations were taken from Bishops Superintendents and others and the Church in several Meetings declared against Prelacy Much Contention there was between the Church in her lesser and greater Assemblies and a Court-Faction about Prelacy which yet was never re-established but at last in the Parliament begun 29 of March 1592. it was utterly abolished and Presbyterial Government fully settled which Arch-Bishop Spotswood in his History tho'he cannot deny yet doth most disingenuously labour to obscure § 9. Let us now consider what grounds the Pamphleter lays for his Conclusion and what is the Conclusion he buildeth on them the latter of these I first consider In it I observe first he is out in his Arithmetick for between 1567 and 1592. are not 35 but 25 Years Another thing to be observed is that it can make nothing for his Design that Presbyterian Government was not presently established by Law with the Protestant Religion because then the Nation having so lately been wholly Popish and but few of the Clergy or other Learned Men converted to the True Religion there could not be a competent number of Ministers got who were tolerably qualified either to rule the Church or to administer other Ordinances and the space of 25 years was not long for growing up of such an increase of useful Plants as might furnish Churches and constitute Presbyteries every where in the Nation especially if we consider what opposition was made to this settlement by the Court and its dependents and how some unfaithful preachers complied with the Court in hope of preferment from the year 1584. it was rather to be wondered at that this work was so speedily brought to such issue and through such opposition Let him make what advantage of his conclusion he can it is evident from what hath been said that Episcopacy never took place in the Protestant Church after the Reformation till Presbytery was fully setled also that the Inclinations of the protestant people of Scotland to speak in the dialect of our time were always for Presbytery and strongly against Prelacy and that whatever the State did to retard this work the Authority of the Church was always on the side of Presbytery It is also evident that Episcopal Jurisdiction over the Protestants was condemned by Law in that same Parliament
under Presbytery And for the rest of the Clergy none of them were cast out for complyance with Prelacy but they generally retained their places wherefore this is a most untrue Allegation A Third thing he saith is That the Presbyterians at the Revolution 1662. were not so dealt with that is were continued in their places Impudence it self could affirm nothing more false Were not above the third part of all the Ministers of Scotland and so in England thrown out by one Act of Parliament For two thirds complyed and by that means kept their places and the few in Scotland that could not be reached by that Act were laid aside by the Bishops and the Council by more slow steps § 6. The Acts of Assemblies that he citeth are Act Aug. 17. 1639. Appointing all in Office in Church and Schools and all Members of this Kirk to subscribe the National Covenant And an Act 1642. for intimating the abovesaid Act and proceeding to Church-censure against them that refuse such Subscription And an Act 1644. appointing strict enquiry and censure against disaffected persons to the Covenant And some other Severities he mentioneth truly or falsely I know not for he doth not direct where such Acts may be found which may be acknowledged as no Pattern for after-ages to go by It is like if that Oath of God had been less universally and less severely imposed it had been better kept by many What he alledgeth That the Assemblies Aug. 1642. do order the persons of them who are Excommunicated to be imprisoned and their Goods to be confiscated is most false never any Assembly in this Church did make Laws for Civil punishments All that I find to this purpose for he is not pleased to be distinct in his Citations is that August 3. 1642. the Assembly Petitioned the Council to put the Laws in execution against Excommunicated Papists All this considered I hope the Impartial Reader will not be imposed on by what this man hath said to think that the Principles of Presbyterians are inconsistent with what Toleration is due to Dissenters Nor will blame them that they are not for a vast and boundless Toleration nor because they cannot bear them who are evil but do try them who say they are Apostles and are not and find them lyars Rev. 22. QUEST IV. Whether from the Year 1662 to the Year 1689 Presbyterian Separatists were guilty of sinful Separation AWise Question indeed He supposeth them Separatists which by no Author was ever accounted vox media or taken in a good sense and yet Querieth whether they sinned in separating But to let this pass he telleth us of Doctrine taught in our larger Catechism from which may be demonstrated how necessary it is to Salvation that every Person keep Communion with the particular Church established by the Laws of the State that he liveth in unless she either enjoyn in her Canons any sinful term of Communion or propose in her Confession any Heretical Article or prescribe in her Directory for Worship any Idolatrous Impurity To this I repone a few things First according to his loose and indistinct way of Writing he neither telleth us what these Doctrines are nor in what place of the Catechism they are to be found we must take his Word for all this and we utterly deny what he saith to be true All that that Catechism saith that could be imagined to have that tendency is That the visible Church hath the Priviledge of being under God's special Care and Government of being protected and preserved in all Ages notwithstanding the Opposition of Enemies and of enjoying the Communion of Saints the ordinary means of Salvation the offers of Grace by Christ to all the Members of it in the Ministry of the Gospel testifying that whosoever believeth in him shall be saved and excluding none that will come unto him Now it is evident that all this is said of the Universal Church not of any Particular Church far less can this passage be understood of a particular Church as established by the Laws of the State wherein it is No Scripture ever made such Laws essential to the Notion of a true Church from which none may separate Neither did ever any Divine talk at this rate except Episcopalians and among them I remember of none that so express themselves but this Man and Dr. Stillingfleet He doth indeed express three Cases that excuse from sin in separating from a true Church but how these can be drawn from the Larger Catechism I understand not § 2. How far we allow a Separation from the late Episcopal Church of Scotland and maintain it not to be sinful in us but sinfully caused by them I shall declare We affirm it to be no Schism but a necessary Duty that the Presbyterian Ministers did not own Episcopal Government nor either directly or indirectly countenance the Authority of Bishops above Presbyters He telleth us of a Letter for Union March 1689. wherein it is said and not answered that never any Confession of Faith in our Reformed Church avowed a Divine Right for a parity among all Church-Officers This Letter I never heard of before but it seemeth the Author of it and the Writer of this Pamphlet have Talents equal for Controversal Scribling For whoever said that there is a Divine Right for Parity among all Church Officers We know that by Divine Right Ruling Elders also Deacons are not equal in Church power with Preaching Presbyters And for the parity of Ministers if it be not found in any Confession of Faith it 's enough that it 's found in the Scriptures But we affirm that the Divine Right of it is also found in the Confession of Faith sworn to by the King and his Houshold and by the Nation wherein they abjure the Hierarchy or distinction of Degrees among Ministers He saith the Solemn League did not abjure the President Bishop Answ. We know no such Bishop the President or Moderator hath no Jurisdiction over his Brethren And he will not say that the Bishops restored 1662. to whom we could not yield subjection was no more but a President Bishop if he do all the Nation will cry shame on him and his own Tongue will condemn him Page 1 2. of his Book What some in England Petitioned for we are not concerned if he had told us what concessions the body or generality of Presbyterians in that Nation had made also let us know where we might find such Concessions an Answer might in that case have been expected from us But what he presumeth about the Repentance of Scots Presbyterians for not submitting to Episcopacy as established in Scotland is without ground and absolutely false § 3. What we further declare concerning the Separation that he speaketh of is that Presbyterians generally did not think it unlawful to hear these Ministers that had complyed with Episcopacy and often did occasionally hear them whatever was the practice of some among us yet the best of the Ministers in
Uprightness of that Great and Wise Prince than is decent for a dutiful Subject to be guilty of § 2. Let us now hear how he will prove first That King James Anno 1592 Then that King Charles Anno 1639 Assented to Presbyterial Government unwillingly and by constraint His proofs are first King James in Basil. Dor. L. 2. p. 28. speaketh with great bitterness against the Presbyterians and their Way Ans. This doth indeed prove that he had changed his thoughts of that Way Not that he was never of another mind It were not hard to cite words of his as much to the commendation of Presbytery as these in Basil. Dor. are against it But that Way and its opposite standeth or falleth by the sentence of a higher Authority than that of men 2ly He thinketh it against Reason and Charity to think That this being his thought of Presbytery he would settle it in the Church without some kind of compulsion Ans. It is little more charity to think That a man of any degree of Conscience or Religion would have so eminent a hand in plaguing the Church with that which he looked on as so pernicious as the words cited by our Author do express Yea the fear of God would restain one from such an act even under the highest kind of compulsion 3ly He next objecteth the Preamble to the Act for Restoring of Episcopacy Anno 1606. Ans. Who can doubt that when men had a mind to set up that Government they would say all the good of it that they could devise and speak to the disadvantage of the contrary what could be thought upon but this signifieth no more than that they were changed from what once they were and they who do so say and unsay are unfit to give decisive Testimony about any point of Truth 4ly He ascribeth K. James's assent to Presbytery to his Youth Ans. He was no Child in 1592 having been married to Queen Ann three years before viz. in 1589. He was at least 30 years of age 5ly He pleadeth from the unsetled condition of his Affairs but doth not shew wherein they were unsetled It 's true the King then had some trouble with the Earl of Bothwell but it is well known that Bothwell was no Presbyterian and setling of Presbytery could not tend to quiet him But I am weary of such silly Arguments which deserve no answer What he maketh the King alledge That the Presbyterians were always ready to joyn with any Faction in the State is as groundless as any thing can be spoken They never owned any but such as owned the interest of Christ and his Truth Their appearing against his Grand mother and Mother was only in defence of Christ's Truth which these two Queens did labour to extirpate And what is said of inordinate and popular Tumults reflecteth upon Procestantism rather than on Presbytery It 's a strange Insinuation that he hath in the end of the paragraph pag. 4. That that young King was forced to settle Presbytery in the Church that thereby he might bring off Presbyterians from joyning with the Acts of their Kirk to unsettle his Throne Here is Malice twisted with incoherent Imaginations For nothing but Malice can make any think that Presbytery is an Enemy to Monarchy but what dirt he casteth on us of this kind afterward shall in its place be wiped off It 's also a strange fancy that if K. James lookt on Presbytery as capable by the Acts of their Kirk to unsettle his Throne that he should put it in that capacity by setling it by Law with a design to secure the Throne It is as if a man should let in the Thief at the door that he might sleep the more securely in his house § 3. What King Charles says for Prelacy to which all know that he ever was a constant friend is much more modest than what we heard before And we deny not but what countenance he gave to Presbytery was in condescendency to his People Yet from the transactions of these times we may confidently infer That the Nation both in its diffusive and its representative Body the Parliament was for Presbytery And what our Author says of the Tumults of these times which were sad and lamented by all good men layeth more load on Prelacy The Tyranny and Innovations of the Church-Rulers of which way did force the people either to see first the purity of Gospel Ordinances taken from them and then their Religion destroyed by a popish Faction as of later years appeared more convincingly when the designs of these men were more ripened or stand in their own defence So that what our Author gaineth by this passage is that Episcopacy raised a Tumult which ended in its own ruine QUEST III. THE Scope of his Third Question and of the Resolution of it can be no other but to render Presbyterians odious not to disprove their Cause nor to refute their Principles It is Whither the Principles of Scottish Presbytery grant any Toleration to Dissenters Quis tulerit Gracchos de seditione loquentes His party are above all men except Papists in mala fide to blame others in this matter Among what party of men hath uniformity and conformity to all the Canons of their Church and that in things confessed by them to be indifferent that is needless been pressed with more severity imposed by more unmerciful Laws and urged by more inhumane and cruel execution of them That there hath been excesses among Presbyterians in this we deny not but lament it humanum est Labi Moderation is not an easie Lesson nor so often practised as it should be when men forget that the Lord is at hand as the best are apt to do when they are at ease But all unbyassed men who know and have observed the way of the one and of the other party while they alternatively had the ascendant will say that the little finger of the meanest Prelate and his Underlings was heavier than the loyns of the greatest Assembly of the Presbyterian Church As an impartial and true Account of the Sufferings in both Cases will evince Which on our part I hope may be given in due time But on theirs an Account is given as remote from truth and candor as any thing that ever came from the Press which it is like e're long may be made evident But we desire not to recriminate though necessity is laid on us by their false History of things far less intend we to retalliate though it should be in the power of our hand But we leave our Cause to him that judgeth righteously § 2. It is well that our Adversary is so favourable to that Institution of Christ The Government of his House by Presbyters without a Bishop That we own in that he doth not blame it generally or in its most extensive notion Not Presbytery as such but as Scottish Let the Ordinance of Christ escape his lash and we are the less solicitous what he says against the
all Persecutors but many yea the far greatest part were § 2. Now what hath he to say for vindicating the Clergy from this Imputation He telleth us The Clergy never Addressed the King for punishing the Presbyterians A goodly Apology as if there were no other way of compassing such a malicious Design save this one Next The inferiour Clergy did not obey the Order for Informing This is answered Most did and but a few refused He talketh of Bishops shewing Acts of Charity in relieving the Necessities of Presbyterians and mitigating the Penalties of the Law when it was in their power and that the particulars of this might swell his Paper to a great bulk Answ. These Acts it seems were very secretly done neither the man 's own left Hand nor the Observation of others could discern them If some acts of Charity were done to some in distress it is no more than what some Oppressors have done first made People poor by taking a pound from them and then relieved them by giving a penny notwithstanding any who have given a Cup of cold Water to Sufferers shall not want their Reward from the Lord nor their Commendation from us That private and publick witnessing against Schism was all that the inferiour Clergy did against Dissenters is so false an Assertion as nothing can be more false QUEST VII Whether the Episcopal Church of Scotland were compliers with the Designs for taking away the Penal Law against the Papists HE will here vindicate his own Church from this blame and in the next Question throw it on the Presbyterians both of them with a like truth and candor We are far from charging all the Episcopal Party in this matter especially the Church diffusive which he saith was represented in Parliament We know these Patriots did worthily in opposing that ill and dangerous Design but we will not own that all that sat in that honourable Assembly were Episcopal however they went a further length in complying with it than some have freedom to do Not a few of them we hope will now shew and have shewed that that way was not their choice for the Bishops he seemeth not to deny that two of the fourteen were for it and it is well known how far these two and they were the two Heads the Archbishops appeared for it both in Council and Parliament and that two were deprived yea and appeared against this design we deny not but can he say that the rest appeared against it in Parliament when they had the fairest opportunity and were in a special manner called to it For the inferior Clergy he will have them all innocent in this matter because they preached against the Doctrins of Popery that they prayed for the Protestants in France and other appearances they made against Popery None of these things we deny nor do we envy them their due praise on this account yet two things are to be considered one is That it was but the practice of some It is well known how many were sinfully and shamefully silent and others who were bold to speak were checkt by their Bishops for it The other is That it is very consistent to be against the Doctrins of Popery and yet to be for a Toleration to them and against their being under the hazard of Penal Laws for their Religion Whence I infer That his Conclusion doth no way follow from his Premisses § 2. The Zeal that some of the Prelatists shew'd for continuance of the Penal Laws might be considered either with respect to Papists or to Protestant Dissenters who might have ease by the removal of these Laws the former part of their Zeal was laudable not the latter which of them did preponderate we are left to guess and may be helped in this guess by a commune principle that many of them I say not all have expressed That they had far rather that Popery should prevail than Presbytery and the actings of the chief men and of the most part of them do correspond with this principle at this day What are the sentiments of the Prelatists in Scotland about taking off the Penal Laws against Papists may be manifestly gathered unless we will abandon all argumentation and the rational inference of one thing from another if we consider what our prelatical Parliaments have declared what the Archbishops and Bishops in their Letter to K. James Nov. 3. 1688. have with much flattery said and what the University of St. Andrews in their Address to that same King have published partly of their adherence to him while the subversion of our Laws and Religion was not secretly but visibly carrying on partly of that absolute irresistable and despotick Power that they ascribe to him for if he have such power to do what he will and if he was for taking off the the force of these Laws as they cannot once question how is it consistent with that unlimited obedience that they owe to such a Monarch that they should not be also for removing them QUEST VIII Whether the Scotch Presbyterians were complyers with the Designs for taking away the penal Laws against Papists HE affirmeth it We deny it But in this that Scripture is fulfilled Psal. 55. 3. They cast iniquity upon me and in wrath they hate me Nothing in this Book hath less semblance of truth and more evidence of spite than this And in nothing the unfaithfulness of his Party and the integrity of the Presbyterians did more appear than in the stir that was about taking off these Penal Laws for his party had no inducement to be for removing them except to please the King and to advance Popery but the Presbyterians especially the Ministers were under the strongest temptations imaginable to shew themselves so inclined not only to gain the favour of the Court the want of which had been so heavy to them but also because they were to share in the ease from heavy persecution which these Laws had brought on them and on them only for these Laws were severely executed against them but not against the Papists and above all this every Presbyterian Minister in Scotland was liable to death by these Laws none had observed them and they might rationally expect that the Court being provoked by their appearing for their continuance might cause them to be executed with rigour upon them notwithstanding of all this they took their lives in their hands and as they had occasion shewed themselves against taking off the Penal Laws against Papists meerly out of conscience and out of zeal against Popery whereas the other Party were not so faithful as was above shewed Their Reasonings against it on all occasions and their dealing about it with Members of Parliament are well known besides more publick witnessing against it as they had occasion Neither can it be made appear for any thing that I could ever learn that any one Minister of our way was of another sentiment and for others two or three or a very few