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
1567. wherein the Protestant Religion was established for it is there statute and ordain'd that no other Iurisdiction Ecclesiastical be acknowledged within this Realm than that which is and shall be within this same Kirk established presently or which floweth therefrom concerning preaching the Word correction of Manners administration of Sacraments Now I hope none will affirm that prelatical Jurisdiction then was or was soon after established in the protestant Church of Scotland § 10. The Foundations on which he buildeth his Conclusion make as little against what we hold he saith the Constitution of Bishops having then the Publick Authority the Popish Bishops sitting in this Parliament which setled the Reformation must in the Construction of the Law be confest to remain firm from 1567 to 1592. Ans. It is not denied that the Constitution of Bishops in regard of their Temporalties such as sitting in Parliament c. remained after 1567. yea neither do we say that that Law took from them the Authority they had over the Popish Church so far as then 't was in being for this Law did not pretend to unbishop them or make them no Priests nor did it touch their pretended Indelible Character But it is manifest that after this Law they had no legal Title to rule the Protestant Church and that by this nor any other Law no other Bishops were put in their room for the ruling of the Church To what he saith of the Popish Bishops sitting in a reforming Parliament I oppose what Leslie Bishop of Rosse a Papist hath De gest Scotorum lib. 10. pag. 536. that concilium à sectae nobilibus cum Regina habitum nullo ecclesiastico admisso ubi sancitum ne quis quod ad religionem attinet quicquam novi moliretur ex hac lege inquit omne sive haereseos sive inimicitiarum sive seditionis malum tanquam ex fonte fluxit Another thing he alledgeth or rather insinuateth viz. in the 1st Book of Policy a Superintendency which is another Model of Episcopacy was set up Ans. It is true the Protestant Church of Scotland in its infancy it was neither by an Act of Parliament that it was brought in nor that it was after cast out did set up Superintendents but this was truly and was so declared to be from the force of necessity and designed only for that present exigency of the Church Neither was it ever intended to be the lasting way of managing the Affairs of that Church At that time it was hard in a Province to find two or three men qualified for any more work toward the edifying of the Church than reading the Scripture to the people and therefore they found it needful to appoint one qualified man in a Province and at first fewer only five in all Scotland who had Commission from the Church to go up and down and preach to visit Churches to plant and erect Churches they acted only as Delegates from the Church and were accountable to every General Assembly where they were frequently censured and ordinarily the first work in the Assemblies was to try their Administrations as the number of Ministers grew their power was lessened and at last wholly taken away their Commission was renewed often other Commissioners also beside them were sometimes appointed with the same power They were never designed to be instead of Bishops for they did not keep to the old division of the popish Diocesses They might not stay above 20 days in one place in their Visitations they must preach thrice a Week at least In their particular Charge they must not remain above three or four Months but go abroad to Visitation again they must be subject to the Censure of the Church in her provincial and general Assemblies All this considered let any one judge with what candor our Author calleth a Superintendency a New Model of Episcopacy It is evident from our Church Histories that the Protetestant Church of Scotland was so far from that sentiment that they had a strict eye over Superintendents lest their power should have degenerated into a lordly Prelacy and that they laid aside the use of Commissions to Churchmen and giving them such power as soon as the Church could be provided with such number of Ministers as was needful QUESTION II. HAving brought his first Question to so wise a conclusion he advanceth to a second which is Whither ever Presbytery was setled in the Church of Scotland without constraint from tumultuous times What advantage to the Cause of Prelacy or detriment to Presbytery is designed by this Question and the Answer of it is not easie to divine Is every thing bad that hath been done in tumultuous times Doth not the Lord say Daniel 9. 25. That he will build his House in troublous times Will this man therefore condemn the Reformation from Popery in Scotland for this That it was setled against the will of the Queen and the popish Grandees and some pretended but unfaithful Protestants in a very tumultuous time It may be he will and his Citation pag. 4. out of Basil. Dor. Lib. 2. seemeth to import no less But if he thence conclude That Popery is the Truth and Protestantism an Error we shall then know where to find him And if he do not all that he here saith is extra oleas vagari But it may be the strength of his ratiocination lieth in this That Presbytery was setled by constraint And these by whose authority it was done were by the tumults of the people forced to it Let us a little examine this First Is every thing bad that men are forced to Ill men do few good things willingly and of their own proper motion By his way of reasoning the will and inclination of great men must be the standard of good and evil 2ly Presbytery had a twofold Settlement in Scotland One by Church-authority After searching the Scripture the General Assemblies of this Church did find Prelacy unwarranted there And that it was contrary to that Form of Government that the Apostles setled in the hands of the ordinary Office bearers of the House of God And this they declared authoritatively in the Name of Jesus Christ I hope he will not say that this was done by constraint Another Settlement it had by the Authority of King and Parliament giving their civil Sanction to it Neither can he alledge That the Parliament was any way constrained to this Or that any force was put on them Nothing appeareth but that the Parliament 1592. which made this Settlement was as free in the Election of its Members in their Consultations and Votings as any that have been since And some will say more-free than these Parliaments which since have undone what they did It resteth then That he must mean That the King was some way violented in that he assented to this Act contrary to his own sentiments and inclinations But this resteth to be proved beside that it is a greater reflection upon the Conscientiousness and
immediately from the King but from Christ. Answ. Baculus est in angulo ergo petrus stat is just as concludent What affinity is there between the King's power of calling Parliaments and the Churches having no power to call Assemblies for Religious Matters We deny not power to the King even to call Church-Assemblies neither will we call any in contempt of the Magistrate but we maintain that the Church hath from Christ an intrinsick power to convene about his Matters tho' the Magistrate should neglect to call them but we confidently deny that the Church of Scotland ever did or thought it fit to be done call an Assembly without the authority of their King where he was a friend to true Religion Let him shew us what Magistrate called the Council that is mentioned Acts 15. Another Argument he taketh from the King's power of dissolving Parliaments inconsistent with which he saith is the 2d Article of the Covenant he should have said the 3d Article where we bind to maintain the priviledges of Parliament one of which is the General Assembly 1648. declareth against the Negative Vote in Parliament Answ. Could any other-man have made such an inference unless Presbyterians had declared that it is not in the King's power to dissolve a Parliament but they may sit as long as they will which never was said nor imagined for the General Assembly 1648. denying to the King a Negative Vote in Parliament this doth not concern the sitting of the Parliament but the validity of their decisions while they sit also they say very little to this purpose only in their Declaration July 31. they say that they see not how the priviledges of Parliaments and the King 's Negative Vote can consist I wish this had been left to the cognition of Politicians But what the Assembly there says was not their sentiment only but of the Parliaments both of England and Scotland at that time so that his inference is no better against Scotch Presbytery than if he had asserted the inconsistency of Parliaments in both Nations with the Legal Monarchy That was a time when Debates about Prerogative and Priviledge had issued in a bloody War the result of which was the ruin of both Whereas now the King's Prerogative and the the Priviledges of Parliament being setled and acknowledged and the King 's Negative Vote owned by all none do more chearfully submit to the Legal Establishment in these things than the Presbyterians do § 3. He saith The Covenant depriveth the King of the power of making Laws because Covenanters swear to continue in the Covenant all their days against all opposition A goodly Consequence indeed We swear not to obey sinful Laws ergo the King and Parliament may make no Laws at all What he alledgeth in further proof That the Assembly July 28. 1648. declared against an Act of Parliament Committee of Estates dated in June the same Year and in general against all others made in the Common Cause without consent of the Church is as little to the purpose For it is not the same thing to declare the Laws of Christ condemning the sinful Laws of Men and to affirm that Men may make no Laws without the Churches consent neither will we plead for every thing that hath been acted Notwithstanding I hope Presbyterians will learn to give all due deference to the Publick Acts of the State even when they cannot comply nor give obedience to them He further Argueth That they deny to the King the Prerogative of making Leagues and Conventions of the Subjects because the Covenant was taken without the King This was no Act of Presbyterian Government but an Act of the Estates of Scotland of all Ranks and this they thought to be necessary for securing of their Religion from Popish Adversaries who designed to overturn it as afterward appeared when the Design was more ripe and it was fit to bring it more above board He proveth also that Scotch Presbyterians are against this Prerogative of the King because June 3. 1648. The Assembly declareth against the Bond subscribed by the Scotch Lords at Oxford and inflicteth the highest Ecclesiastical Censures against them and such as had a hand in it Answ. Sure he could not obtrude this on the belief of any unless he had been confident that what he saith would never be examined For in that Act of the Assembly there is nothing like condemning the King's calling his Subjects together but their condemning of a wicked Act that some of them being but in a private capacity did when they were together For this Bond was not framed nor signed by any Parliament or other Representative of the Nation called by the King but by a few Lords sojourning out of the Nation who met and condemned what was done at home by the Representatives of the whole Nation This Bond was sent to the Assembly by the Convention of Estates of the Nation as the Act it self saith that the Assembly might give their Opinion about it and they declared the wickedness of it and appointed Church-censures against the guilty What is there in all this that is derogatory from the King's Prerogative of Convening his Subjects § 4. His last Effort to prove the inconsistency of Monarchy and Presbytery is That the Presbyterians deny the King's Prerogative of making Peace and War Which he proveth because the Assembly 1645. Feb. 12. declare them guilty of sin and censurable who did not contribute to carry on the War Answ. All that the Church did in this was That in a solemn warning to all the People of all Ranks for convincing them of sin and pointing out their Duty to them among other Duties such as Repentance Reformation c. they held it forth as a Duty for People to obey the Orders of the Estates of Parliament toward their own Defence when a bloody Army of barbarous Irish-men was in their Bowels If this his Argument can cast any blame on Presbyterians 't is this that there are cases in which they allow the States and Body of the Nation to resist the King so far as to hinder him to root out the Religion that is by Law established among them And one should think that he might have been by this time convinced that this is not peculiar to Presbyterians but that all the Protestants in Britain are engaged in the same thing Nor can Papists reproach Protestants with it for their Principles runneth yet higher QUEST X. HE hath said so much to little purpose he is now come to his last Effort which doth evidently shew a fainting Cause but strong and growing Confidence For he Querieth Whether Scottish Presbytery be agreeable to the general Inclinations of that People This he denyeth we affirm it and wish the matter could be put to the Poll among them that are sober and that do any way concern themselves in Religion We do not grudge them a multitude of debauched Persons who hate Presbytery as the Curb of their Lusts and
instances of many thousands is all that can be given § 2. To prove his Conclusion viz. That the Presbyterians were for taking away the Penal Laws against Papists he bringeth two Arguments which a man pretending to reason might be ashamed to use The first is They accepted and gave thanks for the Indulgence notwithstanding that they knew that all the designs of Court were for advancing of Popery Answ. They accepted an Indulgence for themselves and gave thanks for that alone which was their due by Christ's grant and which had injuriously been withheld from them but that to the Papists they were no further concern'd in than to lament it which they did and witnessed against it as they had occasion For the designs of the Court it was not their part to consider them further than to endeavour to disappoint them which they did to the uttermost of their power both by warning and principling the people a-against Popery and also by doing what they could to keep the Laws standing in force against Papists It had been a strange thing if they should have been backward to preach and hear the Gospel when a door was opened for it because some men had a design against the Gospel in their opening of it Surely their silence and peevish refusing on that occasion had been much to the hurt of the Gospel for then Papists who would not fail to use the liberty for their part should have had the fairest occasion imaginable to mislead the people without any to oppose them on the contrary their using of the liberty was the great mean by which with the blessing of the Lord so very few during that time of liberty were perverted to Popery in this Nation and they that were so drawn away were none of our party We have cause to think that if we had refused to use this liberty this Man and his Party would have lashed us with their tongues for so doing as they now do for the contrary for they did so by some who in former years refused to use a liberty granted which we all know was designed for the same end But we expect not that we shall be able to please them whatever course we take § 3. His second Argument is notoriously false in all the parts and circumstances of it and I affirm that a man that knoweth our affairs shall not find one word of truth in all his long Paragraph that he hath p. 24. That they were silent against Popery in K. James ' s time is grosly and notoriously false it is true some of them thought the best Antidote against liberty for Popery and other sinful Ways to be a sound work of grace in the Soul and ingaging people to be seriously religious and therefore insisted mainly on such subjects yet did not neglect to instruct people in the controverted points of our Religion nor to hold forth the evil and danger of Popery in particular For what he saith of the Reverend and Worthy Dr. Hardy who preached faithfully against Popery that his Brethren either blamed him or disowned him is most false they did often visit him in the Prison which I had from his own mouth that Episcopal Advocates and Judges pleaded for him and acquitted him was no more but what the one ought to do for their Hire and the other were bound to by their Places they acquitted an innocent man when no crime was proved against him QUEST IX Whether Scottish Presbytery in the Church be consistent with the Legal Monarchy in that Kingdom IF this Author knew us he would not move this Question and if he did not hate us and not resolved to say all manner of evil against us right or wrong he would not as he doth resolve it in the Negative We have no other proofs of the falshood of what he asserteth but 1. Experience which sheweth that in many Ages in which Presbytery hath had place in this Kingdom as hath been shewed above it did well consist with the legal Monarchy of it And 2. that he nor none else cannot shew what principle of Presbyterian Government nor what practice of Presbyterians that is commune to them all or generally is inconsistent with Monarchical Government as it hath been by Law owned in this Nation We deny not but there have been some things acted by men of our Principles in their Zeal for Religion which we do resolve not to imitate and tho' we can clear them from that degree of blame that the malice of their enemies casteth on them and particularly from being no friends to Monarchy and unfaithful to their Kings yet we hope the excesses that have been in former Ages while both parties were overheated in their contendings will be a mean to teach more moderation to this and following Generations Let us then hear what he hath to say for this his most absurd malicious and false Position After I have told the Reader that the only thing that can with any shew give rise to such an apprehension is that Presbyterians being generally the more conscientious part of the Nation could not comply with the lusts of some of their Rulers nor subject the interest of Religion to their will while others were ready to abandon Law Religion and Reason to please Men who in recompence of this did exalt them above their Brethren § 2. What he asserteth he offereth to prove from the opposition of the Covenant to Acts of Parliament the latter giving to the King what the former taketh from him The first thing that he bringeth as an instance of this is That Par. 1. ch 2. Act 2. it is the King's prerogative to chuse Officers of State Counsellors Iudges but the Covenant maketh this the prerogative of the Kirk in that Art 4. we swear to discover evil instruments that they may be brought to tryal and confirmeth it that Anno 1648. it is asserted by the Church that Duties between King and Subjects are the subject of Ministerial Doctrine for what he saith that the Kirk must be as infallible in this as at Rome I pass it as the froth of a malicious mind void of reason A. 1. These passages were 20 or some fewer years before the Act of Parliament cited how then can they be charged as taking from the King what he had not by those Acts for so many years after But this is but a small escape in this learned Writer 2. Will any man of sense say that the power of chusing Officers is taken from the King because Subjects are obliged to discover and complain of ill men or because Churchmen may tell Kings and Subjects their duties such reasonings are to be hissed at not answered Hath a man lost the priviledge of chusing his own servant because his son may tell him he hath hired a very bad man Another Argument he bringeth is yet more ridiculous It is the King's prerogative to call Parliaments but Scotch Presbyterians hold that the power of calling Assemblies doth not flow