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
with her and to refuse to joyn with Her in any Ordinances could be charged with no Separation but what was caused by our Opposites For their overturning the settled and found Church of Scotland and driving away the Pastors that those Persons could freely hear did tempt them to this Course Tho' I do not approve of their Principle of not Hearing yet the blame lay not only on them but on them who had driven them on this precipice § 38. Let us now hear with what weighty Arguments he will refute the Assertion that he levelleth his Discourse against A great part of his Discourse is not fit to be answered such as That the Universal Church is not to strike Sail to the Novelties of Upstarts p. 43. This is true but wholly Impertinent Unless he can prove that the Scotch Episcopalians are either the Universal Church or in this maintained the Cause of the Universal Church And that Presbyterians are Upstarts Which we maintain have been since the Apostles days And were in Scotland since the Reformation from Popery and before the entrance of Popery But of this after That by our Baptismal Vow we are bound to keep the Unity of the Catholick Church we willingly confess But at the same time we affirm that the same Vow obligeth us not to tempt others to break it His Arguments to prove the Presbyterians of Scotland Separatists have this general fault that they touch not the Conclusion Nor contradict the Assertion that he would refute For if I should grant them to be Separatists yet this Separation may be culpably caused by our Opposites They have also another Fault that they make no distinction of the Separation on whose side soever the Crime of it was between one sort of Presbyterians and another Whereas it is certain that some did live in the Communion of that Church tho' they did not approve of all her ways and others did not His first Argument is p 44. They separate from all Churches Ancient and Modern Nor is there a Church on Earth with which they can Communicate without fear of being polluted This is false None of us refused to Communicate with the Churches of Holland France when they had liberty Geneva and many others But many of us did cheerfully Communicate with them His proof of this his Assertion is all other Churches have some things we dislâ—ke This is not concludent for we never thought it unlawful to Communicate with a Church which was not as pure as we could wish What we dislike in any we abstain from the practice or approbation of it but do not for that deny Communion with the Church where it is found He again argueth p. 44. and 45. That the former Presbyterians did not separate from the publick Worship in the Episcopal Church A. Neither did all the present Presbyterians and they who did were tempted yea driven into that Course by his Parties Apostacy and overturning the settlement of the Church by force without either any Act of Church Authority or indeavour to satisfie the Consciences of the People I do not approve more than he doth of all that is contained in the Apologetical Relation That Presbyterian Ministers made use of the Lords Prayer we deny not nor did we ever condemn it The same we say of using the Creed in Baptism Nor did we ever separate from the Church on these grounds For the Doxology we know it was used but I know no warrant for the constant use of it when the several parts of the Songs composed by the Spirit of God to be Sung in the Church were more seldom used It seemeth to be too great deference to humane composure and therefore we think it is better to lay it aside For the Apostolick Benediction we have Scripture Examples for it which is sufficient warrant If he can bring the same for these that he calleth Christian Forms we shall use them It is our Authors strain to talk high on slender Grounds that the use of these Forms is the Spirit and Practice of the Church and that tho' thâ— Canonical and Universal Methods of the Church are tempered with regard to our Infirmities yet they the Presbyterians love to flie in the face of their Mother We deny the Episcopal or Popish Church to be our Mother and we deny these forms to be imposed at least perpetually and universally by the Catholick Church So as we flie never in the face of our Mother by disusing them After he had taken notice of the distinction of occasional and fixed Communion p. 44. he falleth on it again p. 46. His Argument against it is Why may not that fixedly be done which may occasionally since the common ties of Christianity oblige us A. That there are ties on us to Communicate with the Episcopal Congregations we deny and what may be pretended in favour of such obligation is above answered The Reason that be asketh is plain because I may have other obligations which hinder me to do that constantly which I may do sometimes I may lawfully Preach in another Mans Pulpit when he calleth me to it but it is not fit I should do it fixedly and desert mine own § 39. His 2 d. Argument to prove us all Schismaticks is If they had lived saith he fifty years before the first Counsel of Nice they behoved to have separated For then were practised by the Universal Church all these things they scruple at many things he nameth Here were a large Field for Disputation if he had proved what he saith but that he confidently asserteth and we confidently deny That the Hierarchy was then in the Church However some of the Names might be the Church Power and Dominion that now is signified by them was not then in being Argument 3 d. is from the Doctrine and Practice of our Predecessors which he used before and I did answer before Arg. 4 th He requireth us to name any Schismaticks in ancient History to whom that name is more agreeable than to Presbyterians If this can be done he is mistaken The strength of this Argument seemeth to be in his Infallibility Certainly if we be not the worst Men of the World he is mistaken The Donatills separated from the Church because She admitted the lapsed on their Repentance and cast off their lawful Pastors and all Communion with the Church we do not cast off all Communion with the Church nor reject we our Pastors but cleave to them rather than to Intruders Arg. 5 th Cyprian's notion of Schism is when one separateth from his own Bishop This the Presbyterians do Ergo. A. All the strength of this Argument lieth in the sound of words A Bishop in Cyprian's time was not a Diocesan with sole Power of Jurisdiction and Ordination if he prove that we shall give Cyprian and him leave to call us Schismaticks A Bishop then was the Pastor of a Flock or the Moderator of a Presbytry if he can prove that we separate from our Pastors or
was as needless as when it is appointed a Tree shall be cut up by the Roots another injunction be given that the Tree shall fall Was not Episcopacy effectually rooted up in Scotland when all Church Power was put in the hand of Church Judicatories where all Memberâ— acted in Parity That a Bishop baptized Prince Henry is an odd Argument to prove that Episcopacy was the Government of the Church of Scotland If the King was pleased to chuse a Man who oncâ— exercised Episcopal Jurisdiction for that service especially when Ambassadours were present some of which lived where Episcopacy was exercised it doth not follow that either this Bishop or any other of his Character did govern the Church It is said without all warrant p. 63. That when three Lords were tried the Ministers would needs order the Process and stirred up the Rabble to back them nor would they disband tho' prohibited by Proclamation from King and Council The true History is some Popish Noblemen were known all the Nation over to be guilty of dangerous plotting against the Reformed Religion and designs to ruin the Professors of it They had Friends at Court so that they had too much advantage to carry on their designs All the found Protestants in the Nation observed this and saw the danger that they and the true Religion was in wherefore a Meeting of Barons Ministers and Burgesses which when challenged by the King for their meeting offered to make it appear that it was with sufficient warrant and advice from his Majesty did petition the King that those Lords might be brought to Tryal which was appointed to be done the Protestants resolved to meet before hand to appoint some to prosecute the Criminals which they did Neither can it be made appear that any violence was offered to any Person and all that Spotswood saith of it is p. 399. that great Companies came to Edinburgh without mention of Arms or Violence And indeed the danger was such as it is no wonder that they who had Zeal for the true Religion were forward to cry for Justice when they evidently saw that all Methods were used for palliating the matter land protecting these Criminals to the manifest hazard of Church and State The Issue was the Convention called by the King for trying these Lords referred the matter to a Commitee where they allowed some Ministers whom they named to be present and to propose what they should think fit Here is nothing of Ministers ordering the Process nor of a Rabble in Arms. § 55. After all this our Author doth still maintain that in the years wherein Presbytry had moâ—â— the ascendent yet Bishops did exist by Law enjoyed their Rents and Preached in their Churches foâ— which he produceth many passages out of the Records of Parliament It is well our debate is come to this issue if this be all that he would prove he shall not find us to oppose him Our question is only whether the Protestant Church after her Reformation was governed by Bishops or by Presbyters acting in Parity I know that long after the Reformation even Popish Bishops sat in Parliament enjoyed their Temporalities And that in 1572 an image of Bishops was restored and also oâ— Abbots and Priors but even their pretended Power that they then got was soon taken away Anâ— that many States-men who reaped most of the profits of these places made a great stickle to hold up that image yea and to give them more power in the Church than was due But that in these times Bishops had ruling Church power except in 1572 as is said I utterly deny Wherefore most of his Citations are wholly beside the purpose I shall then only examine such of them as seem to make against what I have asserted He saith p. 64. That the Authority of the Bishops is owned by Act 63. Parl. 5. Jac. 6. Ann. 1575 of which none of our Histories do take any notice And the Act it self is anent the visitation of Hospitals all that is said of Bishops is that they and other Commissioners of Diocesses shall visit Hospitals I hope here is no Church power allowed them In the year 1579 Act 71 Parl. 6. Jac. 6. there is no more said but that young Noblemen or others who had been out of the Country for their breeding shall at their return go to the Bishop or Superintendent or Commissioner of the Kirk Neither is this any governing Authority over the Church The two following Citations are only to shew that Bishops continued 1581 so that of 1587 and several others of his Quotations design no more but that Bishops existed by Law sat in Parliament some were presented to rich Benefices All which is wide from the purpose He saith that 1584 Act 132 Parl. 8. Jac. 6. the Bishops Authority is fully owned It is indeed said in that Act That Ministers may be deprived by the ordinary Bishop of a Diocess or others the Kings Majesties Commissioners to be constituted in Ecclesiastical Causes Where it is evident that Church power is placed in the King rather than in the Bishop Who can by this Act do nothing but as he is the King's Commissioner even in censuring of Ministers If this be a full owning of Episcopal power let him enjoy it This making them the King's Bishops not Christ's nor is there any thing beside in that Act which alloweth them any Church power But we have another Answer to this Quotation That Parliament saith Spotswood p 333 was declared Current at that time for the more speedy dispatch of business whereas the former was in October 1581 and is called in the Records the seventh Parl and this is called the eighth Parliament which is inconsistent with its being Current or the former Parliament yet subsisting But some things were to be done that could not pass in a full Parliament and therefore as Calderwood hath it p. 155 there was no intimation by Proclamation before the meeting of it nor reasonable time granted according to the accustomed order It was almost ended before it was heard of The Lords of the Articles were sworn to keep secret the matters to be treated One of whom tho' he would not reveal particulars wrote to a Minister that the whole intent of that Parliament was against the Kirk and the Discipline of it These are the Methods by which Episcopacy and Erastianism behoved to be supported in these times when they could have no Countenance from the Church nor from the Nation § 56. He next citeth a Conference at Falkland 1596 where some Articles were agreed on about some Ministers having Vote in Parliament and that these were confirmed by an Assembly at Montross 1600 and there some Bishops Elected for Diocesses It is not to be denyed that there was a working toward Prelacy among some Courtiers and Ambitious Churchmen about that time And one of their Methods was to get some Ministers to Vote in Parliament the tendency of this was seen and the thing opposed
by good Men And even in Parliament it met with such opposition that they hardly carried it Yea the making the Voter in Parliament for the Church perpetual and that he should not be chosen yearly was carried but by three Votes However this was the beginning of that Apostacy that afterward came to a greater height and the design of setting up Bishops did soon appear however they for a time did labour to cover it That which I chiefly observe here is that this stickle that then was made for setting up some Ministers to Vote in Parliament is an evidence against the whole of this Manuscript viz. That Bishops did not then nor always exist in the Reformed Church of Scotland For if they had they were the Men who should have sat in Parliament to represent the Church and there needed not such steps for bringing them into the Church The story of Mr. Dury's Recantation at his Death and owning Episcopacy I find not in any of the Historians that I can meet with neither hath our Author directed us where to find it And if it were true it proveth no more but that all and every one of the Presbyterians were not faithful to the end For the General Assembly at Brantisland 1601 which he mentioneth I have nothing to observe about it For he alledgeth nothing there done toward the advancing of Episcopacy Next he telleth us of an Assembly at Holyrood House and of the Kings Clemency to some Ministers And his proposals for Provisions both for Bishops and Presbyters this was 1602. Here is a great mistake The King did not mention Bishop in his Proposals as they are set down by Spotswood p. 468. The overtures about this were made by the Assembly at the Kings desire Neither are Bishops there mentioned The words are Thaâ— Prelacies should be disponed to actual Ministers Churches annexed thereto being provided sufficiently and the tenth of the Superplus paid to the King or otherwise that all the great Benefices be dissolved thâ— Prelate enjoying the Principal Church and Temporal Lands and the Churches annexed disponed to Ministers Both they and the Prelate paying a yearly duty to the King Where I take notice 1. That Prelate in the Dialect of that time did rather signifie an Abbot or Prior than a Bishop At least when ever it is used in the History of that time especially by Spotswood it comprehendeth all the three Wherefore 2. It cannot be gathered from this passage that Bishops did otherwise exist than Abbots and Priors That is that some Church-men had the Titles and some States men had the Revenues but neither of both had Church Authority above ordinary Ministers And 3. This is clear that before this Men had these Prelacies who were not actually Ministers Which maketh plainly against the existence of Diocesan Bishops with Governing power at that time 4. The dissolution of all great Benefices that is there propounded by way of Alternative doth shew that it was not the mind of that Assembly that either Bishops or Abbots or Priors should continue so much as to enjoy the Temporalities that formerly they possessed so far is it from designing that Bishops should be provided for and advanced as such It only provideth for the Minister of the place where a Lord Bishop once ruled § 57. His Assertion of the activity of hot headed Presbyters in stirring up prejudices against the Church of England And his high Elogies of that Church which he insisteth on p. 66. I shall not stand upon seing he hath neither mentioned particulars nor given any ground for what he affirmeth If Presbyters were then active to preserve the Government of the Church then established it was a seasonable and necessary duty that every one was bound to make Conscience of in his station For then might they rationally fear that the King who had been influenced by some Corrupt Men to oppose the settling of Presbytry would now be more bent and had more advantage to overturn it as indeed it fell out In the business of the Assembly at Aberdeen which he aggravateth with all his Rhetorick I shall not interpose my Opinion I find it diversly represented by divers Historians I am sure whatever he make of it he cannot draw from it this conclusion that Episcopacy then took place in Scotland which is the design of his Manuscript The tale that concludeth the Manuscript about the Chancellour and the Ministers I find not in History nor are we directed where it is to be sought for and therefore I neglect it being assured that these Men who had appeared so much and with so much hazard against Popery would not be guilty of conniving at it § 58. The Apologist having transcribed this Manuscript from p. 67. maketh a number of Inferences from it All which do fall to the ground by the answers already given to the Paper it self which is the foundation of them And most of them are particularly obviated in what hath been said The 1. is answered § 47. where it is shewed our Martyrs had no occasion to consider the Government of the Church being exercised about greater points that needed Reformation That the first Reformers submitted to the Episcopal Jurisdiction of Protestant Bishops is absolutely false For he cannot make it appear that any such Jurisdiction was exercised at or soon after the Reformation The 2 d. That Episcopacy was never legally abolished is disproved § 54. That Presbyterians always watched the difficult Circumstances of the King which is the third is not true They did in all Circumstances endeavour to settle the Discipline and Order of the Church His fourth asserting the Presbyterians pleading exemptions from the Secular Powers as the Papists is not only false but shamelesly affirmed The 5 th is answered § 54 The 6 th Episcopacy was not quarrelled as unlawful in it self in these times Not only is no way deducible from any thing said in the Manuscript But is false and affirmed against the clearest light that such a matter is capable of Doth not even the Book of Discipline in which all the Presbyterians of these times agreed declare Episcopacy to be contrary to the word of God while cap. 2 d. it saith He God willeth that they should rule with mutual consent as Brethren with an quality of Power every one according to their Function And there are four ordinary Offices in the Kirk of Christ the Office of Pastor Minister or Bishop the Doctor the Presbyter or Elders and the Deacon And after no more Offices ought to be received or suffered in the Church of Christ established according to his word § 59. For the Eighth Whatever he fancy of the Royal Authority being forced to all that was granted to the Presbyterians Let him answer for this Imputation of Hypocrisie and Dissembling in the King that then was It is enough to us that the Church Power was granted to Presbyterians by King and Parliament and that they declared they did it willingly and sincerely The Tenth according to his wonted Charity and Candor maketh the Vindicator's Book to be one intire shuffle from top to bottom And his ground is the Presbyterians of old did some very ill things And yet the Vindicator would perswade the World that Presbyterians are not capable of such Villanies as the rabbling of the Clergy I wish he would learn to speak Truth and to use a little more Reason in his Discourses The Vindicator hath said nothing of the Capacity of Presbyterians They are sinful Men and capable of very bad things if the Lord leave them All that was asserted and it is made evident against all hâ—s attempts is that the Presbyterians did not do such things as he and others of his Gang charge them with For these odious things that he chargeth the Presbyterians of the former age with Enough hath been said for their Vindication by others tho' I had been silent Let him read Mr. Baillies pieces and answer them if he can His impugning of the distinction between Cameronians and Sober Presbyterians hath been answered before but he loveth to repeat rather than to say nothing The Eleventh Inference is That Presbyterians have no principle of Unity because the lesser number may remonstrate against the greater so as to stop the course of Discipline This last Clause is groundless For the greater part of a Church meeting may go on in the exercise of Discipline whatever be remonstrated to the contrary by the lesser part nor doth the Manuscript give any ground to think that Discipline could not be exercised because some did remonstrate against it For the former part of his Inference I gladly would know whether that principle of Unity be owned among his Party that none may remonstrate against what the Bishop or the greatest part of the meeting doth If so then the Consciences of Men like Issachar's Asse must tamely couch under the burden of whatever is imposed And if my Lord Bishop and the plurality of his Clergy decide all the Controversies between us and Papists on the side of the Romish Synagogue no man may mutter or reclaim It was an ancient Maxim even in the Canon Law Cuivis supplicare protestari licet To deny this is to banish Conscience or to bring in that Atheistâ—cal Principle that our Actions must be directed not by our own but by the publick Conscience The last Inference doth not differ from the former but to make up the round dozen he hath put it in other words which labour under the same evil that he there chargeth others with viz. General words which at the bottom have no particular signification For he chargeth us with Tyranny Disobedience poisonous Principles that we slie in the face of Authority c. And all this made out by the protestation against the General Assembly 1651 which he setteth down at length We have now through the mercy of God buried that unhappy difference And the Revivers of it should reflect on the Builders of Jericho I shall only say as before that to condemn all Protestations and Remonstrances against any company of Men who pretend to Church Authority or against whatever a Lawful Authority doth is to take from Ministers and People the liberty of professing and owning the Truth of God I have now done with this Apology The Postscript I meddle not with it is in answer to a Paper The Author of which can make a Reply if he thinketh fit FINIS
chuse their Pastors and it is a grievance to have a Pastor set over them by the Bishop or Patron without their Consent And that tho' it is their Wisdom to consent a post facto if the man be qualified yet till they consent explicitly or implicitly they are under no tye to own that Man as their Minister However they may lawfully receive the Ordinances from him Let us now hear what our Apologist hath to say on this Head He first bringeth some argumenta ad hominem As that Popular Elections could not be had for a Presbyterian in the North. A. This is not universally true But where it is so the Church will not obtrude a Pastor on that Flock unless they neglect to chuse a person whom the Presbytry on tryal may find to be qualified and this neglect continueth for the time appointed by the Law And then the Election in all reason as well as by the Law of the Nation devolveth into the hands of the Presbytry And when the Presbytry hath set a Man so over a People such of them as will not own him as their Minister I see not how he is obliged to own them as his Flock further than to do what he can to perswade them to good and to restrain them from Sin Next he tells us of many Remonstrators inducted by Cromwell's Troopers A. I never thought that a Pastoral Relation could be founded on such induction where no consent of the People was either antecedent or consequent to it He 3 dly mentioneth That the same was done in the old Colledge of Aberdeen without regular and Collegiate Election and without Tryal or Examination A. It is a wise Argument from a Colledge to a Church The Affairs of the one are to be regulated by the Laws of the Nation the other by the Institution of Christ. In that Colledge by a Visitation in a Legal and Orderly way the Principal and Sub-Principal and two of the Regents were deposed To supply the two Regents places all who would offer themselves were invited by a Program to dispute six or seven appeared after several days disputation two of them were chosen as having fairly won these places by the Masters of the Colledge with some who were by Publick Authority to assist them The Principal and Sub-Principal did notwithstanding Officiate till two years after by the Authority of Oliver Cromwell who then was owned as having the Supreme Authority de facto A Visitation was appointed and these two Places were found Vacant and a Minister of Aberdeen was put into the Principal 's place and one of the two Regents who had entered as abovesaid and had taught Philosophy two years was made Sub-Principal What is there in all this that can be blamed further than that it was the general Calamity of the Nation to be under a Forreign Power by whom all the places of the Nation were then disposed of I know our Author would not have so impertinently digressed but that he would have a fling at a Person for whom he seemeth to have no kindness and whose having a Room in a Colledge is an Eye-sore to him § 17. Now the Author will no more trisle as hitherto he hath indeed done let us then hear his solid and serious Reasons He giveth a long account of the way of Admission in the Episcopal Church against which I could object several things but I shall only take notice of what is to our present purpose viz. That an Edict is served and the People allowed to object against the Candidate whom the Patron hath chosen for them Even this is often so done that it were as good it were not done as when Mr. Mckenzie's Edict to be Minister at Kirklistoun was served at St. Andrews about twenty six Miles distant But supposing it were always duly managed it doth not sufficiently answer the right that the People have to chuse their own Pastors His Argument from disorders happening upon popular Election is fully answered Rational defence of Nonconform Part 5. § 6. p. 207 208. But it is like the Apologist cannot read such Books as that without the Indecency of Passion Tho' he is pleased to bring a passage out of it when he fancieth he can expose the Author by it It is his way here and elsewhere to assert strongly the conclusion without taking notice of Reasons against it That this as all Christs Institutions managed by sinful Men may be abused we deny not Hath not Prelatical Power often degenerated into Tyranny and yet I suppose he would not have it abrogated It is denied which he saith cannot be denied That the methods of Election differed often in divers Ages and Countries since the first plantation of Christianity Unless he understand this of the more degenerate Ages of the Church after the eighth Century Before that it was uniform and constant viz. It was done a clero populo as it is abundantly proved in the Book cited p. 201. c. It is also false That no Christian Church came nearer the Apostolick Method than the Church of Scotland under the Episcopal Constitution For it is evident that in the Apostolick and Primitive Church there was no Election made by a Patron The Act of the General Assembly depriving a disaffected Parish of the Power of Eâ—ection maketh nothing for his design For it is without question that Peoples Rights and Church Priviledges may for some Causes be Suspended by Authority of the Church His account of the Election of Leith is most false Mr. Gray had not one of the Legal Eldership for him nor the Magistrates of Leith who represent the Heritors and a great body of the People did oppose him with what Brow then can our Author say That this Election was unanimous For Muslebrugh and Tranent none hath to this day been Elected in a Legal way that is by the Heritors and Elders That Patronages were not taken away in Scotland till 1649 proveth no more then that Presbyterians think it not unlawful to own a Man who is not antecedently Elected by the People and this was never denied by us Only it was pleaded that when the People had other objections against a Minister this might fortify their aversion from him that he had not entered in a due way Presbyterians did always think Elections by Patrons to be a great Grievance Yet they bare it till it could be removed by Law The reason of his following discourse I cannot comprehend viz. How it should come to pass that so many Artifices are needed to promote a Clergy Man if Popular Election take place And that it is otherwise where the Patron chuseth Nothing is more evidently false then are both parts of this Assertion For our way is when a Parish is Vacant the Presbytry sendeth two or three or more by turns to preach among them if the People desire to hear yet others it is granted And the People chuse whom they like best Where doth the Artifice lie that the Candidate
their Morality in their Conversation or for their concern in that matter That they the Presbyterians are obliged by their Oaths to ruin Episcopacy would indeed be to his purpose if he could make it appear that the Covenant or any other Oath doth bind us to tell lies or use any means good or bad toward that end But if that be false as all do know let it be considered what Morality or Argumentative Skill the Man is Master of who doth so boldly affirm this and maketh such inference from it § 23. Another thing whereby he endeavoureth to vilifie his Adversary for that is the professed scope of this part of the Apology is he is for the divine right of Presbytry If he or any of his party could disprove this Opinion which I have not yet seen nor expect to see yet I think few except this Author will think this sufficient to render a man contemptible Many with whom the Vindicator will not compare and to whom I think the Apologist is not equal are of the same Opinion And have strenuously maintained it and if it be so ridiculous to assert the Divine Right of Presbytry what is it to write and think so of Episcopacy as the Apologist doth p. 23. where he calleth it the Apostolical Government if it be Apostolical it must be Divine for the Apostles were guided by a Divine and infallible Spirit If our Authour would have made us ridiculous on this hâ—ad it might have been expected that he should have refuted this opinion and answered what is saâ—d for it with such strength and evidence as was able to captivate the understandings of all men except they were Idiots as he seemeth to reckon the Presbyterians but that was too hard a task for him and therefore he wisely forbeareth to meddle with it What he bringeth to prove the absurdity of â—his Opinion is far short of what others of his Party have said and a very weak bottom to found his confidence upon The first Presbyterians held Church Policy to be variable and for this he citeth the Confession of Faith inserted in the Oath of the Test it seems he knoweth the Confession of Faith of the first Scotch Protestants under no other designation It is evident to any who readeth that Confession â—hat there is nothing said in that place of Government whether Parity or Prelacy but of Policy and order of Ceremonies and Ceremonies here must needs be taken in a large sense for External Rites common to other publick actions beside Church Administrations For they expresly condemn Humane Ceremonies in Gods Worship If another person had reasoned at this rate it would have been improved by our Author as a part of the Character of such a Writer He taketh it very ill p 25. That the Presbyterian Church will not own themselves as Delegates of the State As if they acted against the Sentiments of the whole Nation and against common Sense which do determine that they could have no power over the Episcopal Clergy but what they derived from the State Our Author doth little consider wâ—om he disobligeth by his loose talk Even that part of the Church of England to please whom this and most of their Pamphlets are calculated Tho' he will not read the Books of the Presbyterians because they stir his Choler I wish he would read a late piece about Christian Communion on behalf of the deprived Bishops where it is asserted and strongly pleaded That the Church in matters purely Spiritual and such the Government of the Church is by him asserted to be as much as the Administration of the Sacraments is altogether independent on any other Power whatsoever Wherefore there are other Men as well as Presbyterians so ridiculous in this Writer's Eyes as to deny Church Assemblies for Government to be Delegates of the State For the Presbyterian Churches power over Episcopal Men they have it by their office over all the Members of the Church of Scotland whatever be their opinion about Government Tho' we own it as the favour of the State that we have its countenance in the exercise of this Government Another of his wise reasons is Calvin said Honour and Reverencâ— is due to Prelates etiam hoc nomine if they embrace the Reformation Ergo. His Disciples are absurd in being loath that any other Policy should prevail Here is no shadow of consequent Calviâ— was as unwilling as we are that Episcopacy should prevail whatever respect he or we might have to the person of a Bishop who embraceth the Truth That it is in any part of the Vindication said or insinuated that they who are not for Presbytry or the Divine Right of it are not acquainted with the Spirit of God is most false and injuriously hinted by our Author He might have seen in the page that he citeth it is said of some on a quite different account If he can make it appear that his Antagonist doth thus write at random let him Characterize him as he pleaseth § 24. Another thing whereby he thinketh to make his Antagonist absurd and odious is hiâ— Rudeness and Vanity p. 25. I hope he looketh on these two qualities as distinct And is obliged to prove them both whereas I find nothing that looketh like an attempt to prove the latter But it will not be difficult to retort it on himself by any who considereth the Supercilious strain of his writing and his contempt of his Adversary For the former his proof is The Vindicator representeth his Adversary as a Liar and Villain Tho' he cannot prove that the Author of the History of the General Assembly wrote one Lie If his Informations were not exact he is not to blame But it cannot be proved that any information he got was false A. He should have shewed where he was represented as a Villain for I do not remember it and no place is cited unless he take a Liar and a Villain for the same It is a pleasant Vindication from being his Information was not exact Our Author here would shew his Critical Skill but do we not in ordinary Speech call gross Falsehoods Lies not considering the knowledge or intent of the Speaker And all that was said was that the things wrote were Lies Which was abundantly made evident and is known to most in Scotland Tho' our Author hath the brow to say that it cannot be proved To impute so absurd thâ—ngs to so publick a meeting where were so many Witnesses to attest the Falsehoods of them and to transmit these to Posterity in Writing let every one judge by what softer term it could be called Whether he or his Informers be the Liars we are little concerned But Wise Men will think that neither can be excused Beside are there not many things instanced by the Vindicator as asserted by his Adversary in which it is hard to think that the Mans Mind did not contradict his Thoughts As p. 36. They the Presbyterians and no exception or distinction
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
Solemn Actions as that they acquire a Civil Decency then are they not Religious Ceremonies id est peculiar to Religion but are Civil Rites tho' used in Religion But this is not what we dispute about I deny not that a Minister may Preach in a Gown it being made decent by Civil Custom in several sortâ— of publick Actions But it is not so with a Surplâ—ce The power of Superiours to determine Circumstances is widely different from a Power to appoint Religious Ceremonies What he saith against Presbyterians sitting in time of Prayer hath no weight They neither injoyn it nor do always practise it And they find that in Scripture Sitting Standing Kneeling Lying prostrate on the Ground are all used And none of them injoyned nor forbidden And therefore it is Superstition in any who would tye us to any of these He calleth us Foolish and Peevish because we say their Ceremonies are parts of Worship But we prove them to be parts of Worship viz. Superstitious Worship because they are appropriated to Religion and designed to that end for which Worship is appointed viz. To give a peculiar Honour to God which is not given by other Actions or even by these parts of Worship to which he owneth them as Appendages He blameth the Vindicator for suggesting a Reason why some of the Clergy do now read the Common Prayer And giveth for the true Reason an open avowing of their Principles when it was visible to the World that there was no uniting with the Presbyterians Is this the Candor with the want of which he here loadeth his Antagonist Is there less hope now than before of uniting with the Presbyterians When the General Assembly hath published terms on which they will receive them and such as can well be defended to be most rational and on which not a few of them have come in among us Why did they not openly a vow these Principlâ—s when they had Church power in their hand and could have done it without any Check and when they saw by many proofs that the Presbyterians would rather suffer the greatest hardships than be brought over to their way If this be not Palliating and Shuffling I know not what is to be so called I have had much occasion to consider this Controversie about Ceremonies and have read many on his side But I never met with any of them who manageth it so slightly nor do I think it fit to insist farther on it at present then his Reasonings do necessarily require if any thing were answered to them § 46. He falleth next on the Letter appended to the 2 d Vindication and blameth the Author of it for saying that some of the Bishops being Re ordained was a Scandal not only to this but to other Reformed Churches He denieth it to be a Scandal to the Forreign Churches or the French Divines All of them saith he the greatest Men among them are Re-ordained when they come to England Here is strong Reasoning For first he maketh all the Forreign Churches and French Divines to be Equipollent and Convertible Terms which some Readers will smile at 2. He falsely asserteth that all the French Divines that came to England in this Persecution were Re-ordained The contrary is well known It is true all who got Places in England were Re-ordained And it must needs be so for none other could be allowed to injoy any Benefice But many câ—me to England who never were Re-ordained How can it shun to be a Scandal to Forreign Churches when they see their Ministers reckoned no Ministers but initiated the same way into the Ministry as they should if they had never been Ordained And consequently all the Baptisms and other Ordinances administred by them to be reputed Null and Void and on the matter their Churches Unchurched He instanceth only in Mounsieur Alix I doubt not but there were not a few others whom either their straitned Circumstances or some other Principle did determine that way For Monsieur Alix there are other Sentiments of that Learned Man which make many to judge his Example to be no concludent Argument That this Re-ordination was never condemned by the Gallican Church A. It is no wonder it was never formally condemned for no such question was ever started among them But that they did on the matter condemn it is evident For they always held their own Ordination without a Bishop to be valid Which is inconsistent with Re-ordination as owning the validity of ones Baptism is with Re-baptization He would have us think that the Church of England doth not absolutely condemn their Ordination in France Only she is determined to preserve an unquestionable Succession of Priests within her own bounds A. Is not this a material and real condemning of their Ordination call it absoâ—ute or by what other Epitâ—ite yâ— please that no man who hath no more than that Ordination may Administer Holy things by the allowance of the Church of England yea I could tell him of a Bishop and he was not singular in that Sentiment in England who said to a Presbyterian Minister that he lookt on him as no better than a Mechanick because he wanted Episcopal Ordination Wherefore it is but a shift â—o palliate their shame when they tell us they do not absolutely deny that Ordination And I believe few of his Brethren in England will give him thanks for his Concession He pretendeth to refute a distinction between a Material Canonical Obedience and a Formal Canonical Obedience But hath nothing against it that is Argumentative It is no great sign of Learning that a Man who hath lived in or near an University as he mocking saith of Mr. M. whose University Learning none that knoweth him will disparage doth not understand this distinction If any Usurper whether in Church or State command me to do what is antecedently my duty I may do the thing so commanded because it is my duty here is Material Obedience while yet I do not own the Power by which such an Usurper doth command me nor would do the thing for his command if it were not otherwise my duty to do it Here is a refusing of Formal Obedience § 47. Our Apologist's last Essay is from p. 58. to let us see the several periods of Episcopacy and Presbytry in the Church of Scotland since the Reformation And this he doth out of a Manuscript of a Person of great Honour and true Learning Collected out of the ancient Records of Parliament I hope it will be no derogation from either the great Honour or the true Learning of that Noble Person whom I always have regarded as so qualified to examine modestly what is there offered Nor to say that this Honourable and Learned Writer hath not shewed all that Impartiality in this Manuscript that useth to commend a good Historian While he entertaineth his Reader not only with some representation of things that may suffer a little Correction but with harsh words against the Presbyterians calling
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
in concurrence with the King and Estates of the Nation whether the King did really think what he expressed or what he acted was the effect of his restraint it was not their part to consider He quarreleth also with the Ministers appointing a Fast when the King desired the Magistrates of Edinburgh to Feast the French Ambassadours These Ambassadours came to overturn what the States of the Nation called by the King had concluded and were odious to the Nation The King was moved to appoint this Entertainment by some Merchants who Traded with France The Fast was appointed by the Session of Edinburgh the Presbytry was free of it as was afterward publickly declared § 53. Mr. Andrew Melvil's declining of the King as Judge in prima instantia of what is preached by Ministers in publick which he bringeth as an accusation against the Presbyterians p 61. is as far from the purpose as what was formerly observed It doth not shew any step of the prevalency of Presbytry and Episcopacy per vices which is pretended to be the design of the Manuscript For the thing it self I shall not give my Opinion but only relate the Grounds all edged by him on which he built this his practice which were not only the word of God but Acts of Parliament and a late Conference betwixt some Lords of the Privy Council and some Ministers and the practice ensuing thereupon that when a Minister is delated for any thing spoken in Preaching or Prayer he is first to be tryed by his Ordinary whether Provincial or General Assembly Also he pleadeth the Priviledge of the University of St. Andrews lately confirmed by his Majesty that when Offences were committed in the University by Masters or Students the Rector and his Assistants should be Judges in prima instantia p. 61.62 He heapeth together a great multitude of reproaches against Mr. Andrew Melvil and others of the faithful Servants of God who could not comply with the actings of the Court nor designs of some about it to overturn the Religion setled in the Nation but he giveth so indistinct an account of things and so partially that there is no other way to answer what he saith but by a full History of these times which it is needless for me to transcribe The Reader may be satisfied of this Authors unfair dealing even out of Spotswood's History though his account of things might in some things be examined But more fully out of Calderwood and Petrie I do not deny but that in the years 1585 and some that followed there were great Animosities in Church and State one Party endeavouring to preserve the reformed Religion and the Discipline of the Church that had been used in Scotland from the Reformation and was practised in almost all the Reformed Churches The other Party labouring to overturn the one and to weaken and undermine the other And it is like these heats did drive both Parties to some Excesses and undue Practices But unbyassed Men will see that the Presbyterian Party shewed all respect to Authority even when they could not comply with its Injunctions and what they did that is by some constructed Unpeaceableness was from the aw of God obliging them to appear in their Stations for his Ordinances I except the imperfections and overlashes that sinful Men are liable to in managing that Zeal which is for God I never thought that good Men did always manage a good Cause with that perfection of discretion that is to be wished He concludeth this Accusation of the Brethren p. 62. with an account of his design which is to shew the ground of their dislike of Parity And as before setteth in opposition to it Scripture Apostolick Practice Fathers Councils and all well established Christian Churches and that there is no imaginable warrant for it from any of these This is partly answered above For what he addeth to what he had said before of well established Churches he doth wisely in putting the Emphasis on Well and therefore putteth that word in another Character For if we object most of the Churches of the Reformation he will deny them to be Well Established because they want Bishops Whatever they have beside to commend them If we should muster up all the miscarriages of the Episcopal Party and the Immoralities of Ministers and People that hath been among them and the Pride Tyranny and Oppression of the Bishops and the steps by which that interest hath been managed in Scotland and should give a just Character of the States-men and Church-men by whom it hath been carried on It is like we might give a ground of our dislikes of Episcopacy not inferiour to what he mentioneth and much more weighty with all the true Lovers of serious Religion but this way of Arguing is not what we lay much weight on in debate with our Adversaries Tho' I doubt not but that there is reason to think that that which is Christs Institution is usually found to be a more effectual mean for advancing true Religion in the Church than that which is a device of Man § 54. Our Author near the end of p. 62. maketh a great Concession as he seemeth to imagine when he telleth us that in 1591 1591 and 1602. The King being so often brought into danger and trouble by the Seditions of Mr. Andrew Melvill and his fiery Complices did consent to grant a great deal of Jurisdiction to Presbytries Synods and General Assemblies Here I take notice 1. That when he cannot get the Truth denied he endeavoureth to smother it for not only a great deal of Jurisdiction was granted to the Presbyterian Church 1592 but all Church Power that any Presbyteriaâ— did lay claim to was by Law settled on the Presbyterian Church Judicatories and none at all wiâ—â— either given or left to Bishops For what else can be understood by ratifying all immunities and Freedoms whatsoever given and granted by his Highness his Regents in his Name or any of his Predecessours and at the same time ratifying and approving General Assemblies appointed by the saiâ— Kirk and Synods and Presbytries and particular Sessions as the words of the Act of Parliamenâ— are Moreover that Act is conceived in a stile that supposeth Presbytry to be then and to have been before the Government established in the Church of Scotland while it giveth those Libertieâ— to the True and Holy Church presently established within this Realm His pretense that this was a force on the King to prevent Seditions is a groundless assertion For the King had often shewed dislike of the one way and the other and was for either of them as his interest led him not being convinced of the Jus Divinum of either way The story he telleth of Chancellour Maitland's advice to settle Presbytry in hope that they would make themselves odious was but his Opinion anâ— in this he proved no true Prophet That there was no Act for the abolishing Episcopacy as p. 63. iâ— was no wonder for it