extraordinary Meetings whether of Church or State That Meeting did indeed Vote it self a General Assembly For in the second Session it was concluded that this Meeting should have the force and strength of a General Assembly and that all things may be treated and ended therein that use to be treated and ended in a General Assembly Also that the Moderator of the last Assembly shall continue till the next ordinary Assembly in March And that all present should be there also So both the Historians last cited All this sheweth that this was no Assembly cloathed with the Authority of the Church of Scotland and therefore its Acts were Null and not binding Besides that it is expresly told us That they who there met were only Commissioners from some Towns and Churches with the Superintendents and Commissioners for Visitation 3 What was there concluded was not by that Convention of Church men but seven of them were delegated who or any four of them should meet with such of the Secret Council as the Regent should appoint and these were they who made this Innovation in the Church by the Articles above mentioned I hope none will say that this was a Church Meeting or what they did was the deed of the Church 4. It is certain that this was not lookt on by the Church of Scotland as one of her General Assemblies Not only because the General Assembly appointed by the former Assembly met at St. Andrews a few Weeks after that Convention at Leith viz. March 6. but likewise they took no notice of the Arch. bishop of St. Andrews tho' he sat among them but chused Mr. Robert Hamiltoun Minister of St. Andrews to be their Moderator Which they could not have done had they owned a Prelacy in the Church 5. It is known that this Act at Lioth was disliked and witnessed against by such as were not influenced by the Court and by some Noble Men who were making their own Gain by this new Constitution And that it raised great Division Patrick Adamson in a Sermon distinguished My Lord Bishop viz. Such as were in the Popish Church My Lords Bishops viz. Such as the Lords had now devised for their own advantage And The Lord's Bishop that is every Minister of the Gospel Mr. Knox having preached in St. Andrews the Earl of Mortoun being present refused to inaugurate the new chosen Bishop of St. Andrews Mr. John Doâ—glas And he denounced Anathema to the Giver and also to the Receiver On this occasion Beza writ to Mr. Knox his Epistle is extant among his Epistles it is dated April 12. 1572. applauding The pure Religion and good Order that were settled in Scotland and beseeching that they would hold fast these two and to remember that if the one be lost the other cannot long continue The following words of that Epistle are remarkable As Bishops brought in the Papacy so false Bishops the Relicts of Popery shall bring in Epicurism to the World They that desire the Churches good and safety let them take heed of this Pestilence And seing ye have put that plague to flight timously I heartily pray you that ye never admit it again albeit it seem plausible with the pretence or colour of keeping Unity which pretence deceived the ancient Fathers Yea even many of the best of them 6. The Bishops that then were set up had little more than the Title and therefore were called Tulchau Bishops For the Church had the power The Bishops power being expresly made no greater than that of the Superintendents and being subject to the Church And the Noblemen had the better part of the Benefices 7. At the same time were brought in also Abbots and Priars as well as Bishops and for the same end viz. That some Great Men under their shadow might reap the profits only the Name and some small Rent remaining to them So that this whole contrivance was purely and evidently a piece of State Policy not any inclination of the Church of Scotland to cast off Presbyterial Government altho' some Church Men were drawn into it 8. This Constitution never obtained in the Church of Scotland For not only the names of Arch-bishops and Deans were protested against in the Assembly March 6 1572. But never a Bishop was suffered to Moderate in any of the subsequent General Assemblies and in several Assemblies Acts were made against Bishops till at last the General Assembly at Dundee which begun July 12 1580 did absolutely condemn the Office of Bishop as then used and commanded all Bishops to forbear the exercise of such Power And to this effect appointed them to appear before the several Provincial Synods where they lived And afterward Ann. 1592 Presbyterial Government was fully settled 9. The Account given of Mr. Melvil is not fair not only in that his opposition to Bishops is imputed to his not being preferred For he was zealously opposite to Episcopacy before and when he came to Scotland he refused Preferment at Court when offered But also that the opposition that Mr. Dury and others made to Episcopacy is abscribed to his instigation These Learned and Worthy Men acted from their own light and were not Tools to be used by another Aâ— opposition was made to Episcopacy before Mr. Melvil came to Scotland as is clear from what is above said Wherefore it was not the first starting of that Debate when Mr. Dury appeared in the Assembly 1575. § 50. I could not have expected from a Person of Honour and Learning such an account of the Book of Policy made in the year 1578 As That it was stuffed with the Spirit of Mr. Andrew Melvil himself it was rather a proposal for overthrowing of all Just Authority than an Establishment of a Religious Government That it could not even in these distracted and furious times obtain approbation of any Authority But was lookt on as a Rapsody of groundless Assertions and full of mischievous Novelties This is not to write like an Historian His Author Spotswood speaketh with more modesty of this matter That the Book of Policy being presented to the States they had not then leasure to peruse it but gave a Commission to some of their number to conferr with the Commissioners of the Church And if they did agree to insert the same among the Acts of Parliament So he p 289. That it was not rejected with such disdain as his Lordship is pleased to express is evident not only in that nothing of such resentment of it when proposed is left on Record by any Historian but is the fierce Zeal of a new set of Episcopalians not the temper of the old Protestant Church of Scotland but Archbishop Spotswood p. 289. to 302. Setteth down all the Articles of that Book at length and on his Margine noteth what was agreed to what was referred to farther reasoning and what amendements of it were desired by the other Party It is also observed by Calderwood p. 116. That the delay of ratifying the
that it is in the power of the Church to appoint any day in the year for this Commemoration as she may certainly do if she did appoint December 25 at first They who plead for Anniversary Holy days use to reason with more apparent Cogency that the providence of God by chusing such a particular day for some eminent work such as the Birth of Christ doth lay a Foundation for the Churches â—etting apart that day for commemorating that work So Hooker Eccles. Polit. lib. 5. § 69. Christs extraordinary works saith he have sanctified some times and advanced them so that they ought to be with all Men that honour God more holy then other times And afterward as Christs extraordinary presence sanctifieth some places so his extraordinary works sanctifie some times And if so the Church in chusing another day doth act without Warrant and Arbitrarily as she doth also absurdly in neglecting the day that was so signalized And it is at least a probable Argument that the Lord would not have a recurrent particular day observed on the account of Christs Birth in that he hath concealed from us what day it was on which Christ was born He hath instituted that the day of the Week on which our Lord rose from the dead should be kept holy and therefore hath not left us to guess what day he rose upon but expresly told us that he rose the first day of the Week Another objection he answereth is the Vindicator thinks that such an Anniversary day is not to be kept by Gods appointment His answer is Hath not God appointed us to obey the Apostles and their Successors our lawful Ecclesiastical Rulers to the end of the World Here is shuffling with a witness The Apostles and they whom he is pleased to call their Successours are confusedly put together to hide the nakedness of his Answer I confess we are commanded to obey the Apostles because they were infallibly guided And so their Commands are the Commands of Christ but I deny the Apostles instituted the Holy days that he pleadeth for For their Successours real or pretended I deny that we are commanded to obey them farther than they bring Divine Warrant either positive by Institution or natural for what they teach or injoyn It is pleasant to observe that our Learned Apologist is forced to use the same Argument for Christmass that the Papists use for blind Obedience to all that their Church injoyneth For farther answer he asketh May not they order the publick Solemnities and Returns of Gods Worship A. If by ordering he meaneth determining the Circumstances that are needful to be determined and are not determined in Scripture we grant they may Such as appointing what hour we should meet for publick Worship or what day to meet for Fasting or Thanksgiving when providence doth in a special manner call to that Work But if he mean that they may appoint days not appointed by the Lord to be perpetually recurrent we say they may not Because we see no such power granted to the Church And this were a Power to make some days so Holy as they could never be applyed to civil use Such discrimination of days the Lord hath reserved in his own hand § 34. That this Regulation hath a tendency to preserve and propagate the great Truths of the N. T. is neither true it is often seen to have the contrary effect to propagate Prophaness and Atheism nor can it inferr any thing to our purpose for it is not the natural tendency of a thing but the Institution of Christ and his blessing following on that which can make any thing conducive to Religious ends We must preserve and propagate Christs truths by his own means not by Mens devices He telleth us If all Ecclesiastical Constitutions had been written in the Bible they could not have been read in a thousand years And that either immediate revelations behoved to be continued or the ordering of publick Solemnities must be left to Reason A. The distinction above used doth take off the strength of this Argument Ordering all Circumstances could not be written they are so various therefore they are left to Reason but perpetual sequestring a day from Civil use is more than a Circumstance And surely a short Chapter in the N. T. might have contained all the Holy days that the Popish or Episcopal Party have thought fit to make universally binding to all Christians as the 23 d. chap. of Leviticus containeth all that the Jews were obliged to observe The Vindicator is severely lashed p. 40. Sub finem For bringing a Latine Sentence tho' out of Augustine to excuse from not observing any Holy days save what are injoyned in Scripture As if saith the Apologist Nonsence could change its nature by being put into Latine It seems we poor Mortals may not meddle with Latine himself and some others have the Monopoly of it and often he bringeth Latin Citations out of Authors less to be regarded than the excellent Augustine If we cite a Greek Author out of a Latine Translation that offended him p. 35. And now when Augustine is cited in the Language he wrote in here is still matter of quarrell We know not how to please him and the ordinary effect of such difficulty is to make one regardless of pleasing them who are so humoursom If this Sentence be Nonsence either in it self or as applyed Augustine must answer for it For he useth it to the same purpose But the Nonsence lieth in this The question is not saith the Apologist about Articles of Faith but concerning the Constitutions of the Universal Church If it might be said without provoking him to the Indecencies of Passion it is Nonsence indeed to apply this Sentence to the Articles of Faith which are not the Jussa of Religion but the observation of Holy days belongeth to that head if to any thing that can be called Religious It is not a day being Anniversary as he dreameth that is the ground of our Scruple For we do not disallow Anniversary days for any Civil work or Solemnity But that Men should separate by their own Authority one day of the year from the rest by sequestring it from Civil use for which the Lord hath allowed us all the six days of the week and dedicating it to Religious imployment we think this belongeth to God alone It is a strange fancy that Christmass and such days are needful for Educating our Posterity in that Faith which we believe As if Gods Ordinances were not sufficient for that end without the addition of Mens devices It is as wild an apprehension that it is Enthusiasm to be against such days I will not vilifie him so much as to question whether he understandeth what is Enthusiasm tho' he is not sparing in shewing such respect to others but I hope it may be said he did not consider what it is when he put that Epithete on this Opinion and on being for the Jus divinum of Presbytry
efficacious working on the Soul If this be not what the Pharisees are reproved for making void Christs Ordinances for Mens Traditions I know not what can be so represented 5. If the neglect of Fasting among Protestants hinder the Reformation of the Greek Churches why doth not the frequent Fasts in the Popish Church with which they have more occasion to converse than with Protestants contribute to advance that Reformation 6. Seeing he is pleased to digress from Feasting to Fasting he might know that real Fasting used to be more frequent among the Presbyterians than among the Prelatists for their set Fasts of Lent and Good Friday how few among them do observe them § 36. He telleth us next of Anniversary Holy days among the Jews besides these which God appointed and yet not reproved p 41. and 42. and he instanceth in the Fasts mentioned Zech. 7. and the Feast of the Dedication at which Christ was present Joh. 10.22 That these Fasts were not reproved is said without all warrant God disowneth them if he say they were only disowned on account of the neglect of seriousness in managing them this must be proved Again Christ and the Prophets had so many things of greater moment to reprove and insist particularly upon that they contented themselves to comprehend such things as these under general reproofs which were not wanting and might by a thinking Man be applyed to all such Observations As when Jeroboam is reproved for devising Holy days that God had not appointed 1 Kings 12.33 And Christ condemneth Humane Devices in Worship Mat. 15 9. And the Propheâ—s condemned some Worship that was in it self most abominable on account that it was not commanded Jer. 7.31 Christ's presence at the Feast of Dedication was no more but his walking in the Temple while the People were Celebrating that Feast Which can no ways be strained to signifie either Joyning or Approbation He talketh of shaking off all Externals of Religion p. 42. and calleth it the Errour of Dissenters That is palpably false We have the External administration of the Word and Sacraments among us But it seems he will not only have his Humane Devices to make a great Figure in External Religion but to be the ALL of it Such loose talk is unbecoming a Divine That which followeth is an odd fancy It is certain that nothing preserveth the knowledge of Christian Religion among the body of the People more than the Festivals of the Church What Not the Word and Sacraments Whether this looketh rather like raving than like disputing let the Reader judge He saith also that we teach the People to despise all Forms That is false we keep the form of Baptizing and Celebrating the Lords Supper that we find in the Scripture It is another horrid Falsehood and I know not how it could fall from one who hath regard to the God of Truth that it is rare to find a Presbyterians Child in the West of Scotland who can repeat the Commandements or the Creed and he complaineth that by this means Atheism is promoted and that the Clowns laugh when a Curate recommendeth to their Children the Creed the Lords Prayer and the ten Commandements None are more careful to instruct their Children in these and other Principles of Religion than Presbyterian Parents are both in the West and other places And it is the constant practice of Ministers when they Catechise the People to examine them on all these three and to require the People to get them by heart and to make them understand them It is also false that we have no Opinion of a Mans understanding unless he entertain us with discourses of Gods unsearchable decrees These are very seldom the subject of our Preaching But it is beyond all his other reproaches that he imputeth to Presbyterians that they Preach Justification before Conversion I know not a Presbyterian in Scotland that is of that Opinion If sometimes Ministers instruct their People how the Convictions of Natural Conscience may be distinguished from the Convictions that proceed from the Spirit of God I think that is not to be exposed to ridicule nor made a reproach by any who is acquainted with the deceit of the Heart and the danger of delusion about the truth of Grace in the Soul What he discourseth p. 43. of the ancient Discipline of the Church being conducive to Reformation I heartily close with But am far from thinking that that Discipline lay in Festivities or Fasts appointed by Men but in censuring of Sin according to the appointment of Christ. § 37. He beginneth a new head p. 43. near the end which is a large discourse about the Schism that he alledgeth the Presbyterians to be guilty of And all this he foundeth on a word occasionally and transiently written by the Vindicator if our Author cite his words true which we cannot know seing he doth not direct us viz. That he knoweth no Schism but such as was caused by his Opposites If I knew on what occasion this was said I could the better judge whether it was well said or not But he hath left us here as often elsewhere to guess as he also citeth Scriptures without Chapter or Verse And it is not easie to find out one short Sentence which may be hath no more joyned to it on that subject in a large Book Before I consider his Refutations of this Assertion I shall shew in what sense this may be maintained 1. In England the Presbyterians are not guilty of Schism nor do they desert the Church but are driven away by Her because she Excommunicateth them unless they wil practise some Ceremonies that they cannot use with a good Conscience This hath been proved against Bishop Stillingfleet Rational Defence of Nonconformity And if our Author please to debate â—t his Reasons shall be considered 2. In Scotland the Presbyterians who had freedom to hear the Conformists and yet had Meetings wherein they heard their own Ministers who were unjustly Eâ—ected could not be guilty of sinfull Separation Because they still owned the Episcopal Church of Scotland as a True tho' Corrupted Church and did not shun to partake in the Ordinances with Her but were under no obligation to cast off their own Ministers who were orderly called and settled among them and not removed from them by any Church Authority but only by the Civil Power which however it might forcibly hinder the publick exercise of a Mans Ministry could neither make him no Minister nor not the Minister of that People And these Presbyterian Ministers and People were â—ately not only by the Gospel but by the Law the Church of Scotland and the ceasing of their Legal Right by the change of the Law could not take away their Gospel Right And any thing that might look like Separation was caused by our Opposites in that they had violently thrust us from our Places 3. Even they who did so separate from the Episcopal Church of Scotland as to deny all Communion