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
they who know any thing of our affairs do know that all Presbyterians did not join with nor allow the courses of Mr. Cameron and his followers It is of the same stampt that cometh next viz. That the Cameronians had better studied their Principles and drawn more natural Conclusions from them than others This is barely and falsely asserted Also that the Cameronians did assert their principles when others were silent This is also false others did always as they had opportunity assert their Principles tho' not the same way that they were asserted by the Cameronians this was done both in Field Meetings and in other Meetings such as then could be had Tho' I confess the Presbyterians made it more their Business to inculcate upon Peoples minds the great truths of the Gospel on which our Salvation dependeth than what belongeth to Church Government § 7. What further goeth with this Author for his close Reasoning is to shew that what the Cameronians did was according to Presbyterian Principles All that I can find for proof of this most absurd assertion is that the people may with their Pastors Reform the Church when the Magistrate is slack or opposit to the designed Reformation and the Presbyterians hold Presbytry to be Juris Divini and the removal of the Episcopal Clergy was necessary for this Reformation A. If he condemn all popular Reformations of the Church as he here seemeth to do he will not approve of many Reformations either from Heathenism or from Popery But I will not digress to demonstrate this the soundness of this principle rightly understood is made evident by the Learned Claude Historic Defence of the Reformation P. 7 c. So that it is not to be lookt on as a principle peculiar to Scotch Presbyterians The principle that they hold is that every Man in his station should endeavour the Reformation of the Church that people may believe the Truth and Worship God according to his institution whether the Magistrat allow it or not But if he will prove that the Presbyterian Church did ever determine that private persons or Ministers may by force of Arms carry on this Reformation then shall we own the Rablings that he is pleading against And unless he can make this appear all his talk is beside the purpose He boldly but most falsely asserteth in the end of P. 4. and P. 5 that the Rable had the best directions that could be had And had exact Intelligence by their Agents what they might venture on This was in the Pamphlets formerly refuted asserted with the same confidence and was denyed in the second Vindication and is still denyed But it is below this high pretender to closs Reasoning to take notice of that or to bring any shadow of proof for it But this the Rablings was not acted by the Parishoners of these Ministers who were Rabled Ergo it was done by vertue of a League and Covenant among the Presbyterians in general or the chief Men of them The meanest in our Universities would be ashamed of such Logick could not a few who had separated from the Presbyterians as well as from the Episcopalians manage such an affair as this without advice from Men of note either in the state or in the Church however this Authors tinctured fancy doth represent the Rabling to him we see nothing in it which looketh like a Combination of the whole Society viz. Presbyterians but rather like the efforts of Passion and Revenge Or at least an undiscreet zeal of a few Persons That some of the Gentrie of the West were scared from opposing these Rablings is like his other Arguments to prove a Combination of Presbyterians in this matter Men of less understanding than this Author pretendeth to may conjecture other Reasons for their forbearance they saw the interest they had fallen in with sinking and they had no heart to appear for it either by defending their Ministers who had led them upon the Ice or by being active in the Elections for the Convocation for setling the Nation that then was in a Convulsion but were glad to Lurk His Charitable assertions of the Presbyterians without exception or limitation I shall not endeavour to refute pitieing the Author who thus doth expose his Temper while he crieth out against others for their want of that Spirit that becometh the Gospel They are that they never forgive any Injury and they never say the Lords Prayer because it is so opposite to their Nature It is impossible to oblidge them by favours that the People of the West are generally Cunning Avaritious and Dissembling beyond measure Of these and many such like Assertions sprinkled as the flowers of Rhetorick throughout his Book I shall only use his own words mutato nomine de te c p. 27 that such Assertions carrie with them all the marks by which a wilful and deliberate lie may be known from modest and ingenious truth or our Author had Causam scientiae of the truth or falshood of these things Let it also be considered how agreeable these imputations are to that Charity and Gospel Spirit that he elsewhere talketh of § 8. After he hath reasserted without farther that is without any proof that the Maxims of our Moral Theologie do allow the greatest Villanies acted on the Clergy he bringeth another Argument of the Rabblings being concerted by the Party viz. Presbyterians That some Presbyterians then at London contradicted the Reports that were sent thither concerning them As well they might deny many of them tho I do not hear any denied all of them He might know that many of these stories which are printed are not only denied but disproved And it is not like that the reports sent to London were more universally true What is Argumentative in his Paper I am willing to consider but am not concerned to answer what filleth up page sixth and seventh which is asserting the 5 th 6 th and 7 th time that what was done by these Rabbles was concerted by the Presbyterians One good Argument would have convinced us more than such bold and repeated Affirmations That the Presbyterian States men and the Church and People also in their wishes preferred Presbytery to union with England is not to be wondered at by any but them who think more of their civil Interests than of what concerneth Religion His out-cries against the Covenant and the Transactions of that time I do not regard what was said more distinctly to that purpose in the Ten questions is answered and he is not pleased to take farther notice of it then to declame in the same strain of obloquie His Marginal note p. 7. Insinuating that Presbyterians do preach against the use of the Lords Prayer is Injurious I have heard many in Sermons asserting the Lawfulness of using it tho at the same time they deny the necessity of using it or that it is commanded to use these words But I never heard any Preach against the use of it §
will he dare to say that none were persecuted but they who taught these wild Principles Wherefore it was not Zeal for the Peoples Souls but a Spirit of Persecution which prompted them to this Conduct Yea I have known where Minister and People dayly went to hear the Parish Minister only after both Sermons the Minister used to exercise in his own Family and some Neighbours came to joyn with the Family and for this he was persecuted while they could charge him with no thing else in Doctrine or in Practice His 3 d. Argument is they made Schisms and therefore they must be persecuted Who made the Schism I have made elsewhere appear And shall now only deny that the Presbyterians made it They were forced to it when he shall bring Arguments for his Assertion they shall be considered Again Must all be persecuted to extirpation who divide from the Legal Church because their Conscience will not allow them to joyn with it while they otherwise live peaceably For Boutefeues and Incendiaries who labour to raise Sedition in the State or do unpeaceably dissent from the Church we plead for no Toleration to them But were none else persecuted Yea I could make it appear in many Instances that several of the most peaceable Dissenters suffered most Obloquie and much Persecution What he câ—â—eth out of the Learned Bochari is no more then that Episcopacy is Tolerable which was that good Man's Opinion But our Author concealeth that he at length pleadeth for Presbytery as more ancient than Episcopacy and to be preferred to it and that he blameth Episcopal Usurpation as intolerable against which to contend was our Case Yea he saith p 35. Edit Francfurt Mutua tollerantia opus est speaking of the differences beâ—wixt Presbyterians and Episcopalians Then certainly they who could not comply with Episcopacy and so In our Authors Dialect made a Schism are not to be prosecuted with that severity that he pleadeth for § 13. Another of his Arguments for this persecution by the Clergy is Were these of the Clergy who never persecuted more kindly used at the Revolution A. If any made no distinction in this matter but served all alike we do not defend but blame that Conduct And I deny not but some of them who carved on the Rabbling work considered all alike But I am sure that was not approved nor practised by the Generality of Presbyterians nor by the Presbyterian Church I nauseat his repetitions p. 11. Sub sinem he asserteth that the Clergy as well as the Lâ—itie wâ—re obliged to crush and extripate the beginnings of Rebellion and the attempts of such as Preached the most pernicious principles This is above answered There were cruel Persecutions when none of these things appeared and against such as were never chargeable with any of these This Author all along taketh a few Cameronians for the Body of the Presbyterians And on this Fundation buildeth all his Batterie against us He saith p. 12. That the Ministers at the Restitution of K. C. Suffered no more then to be turned out for not obeying the Law in taking a presentation and Episcopal Collation and that Bishop Light on made such offers of accommodation as none could refuse but fallen and desperate incendiaries nor was any thing required of them but what the most Rigid Presbyterians might comply with if their â—eal to support their faction had not infatuated them as much against the vow of Baptism as against the Peace and safety of their Countrey These are the modest words that this Author useth while he talketh so much against others for want of the meek Spirit of the Gospel It is false that Ministers suffered no more than turning out tho even that is agravated now when it toucheth his party with hideous out-dryes of an unparalelled persecution How many of them were Inprisoned Banished Intercommuned c. The offers that B. Lighton made did shew him to be a moderate B. and a man of a truely Gospel Temper far from that of his Brethren yet even his offers could not be accepted by Presbyterians with a good Conference For none could Preach in his Diocess without owning at least in practice his Episcopal Authority by joyning with the Presbytrie and Synod where he presided as Bishop and by taking his warrand to the Presbytrie to admit such a one to Preach in such a place Experto crede § 14. There followeth a further evidence of this Gentlemans Veracity Candor and Meekness The Presbyterians in Scotland saith he are generally blinded with this fatal prejudice an evidence of their incurable Enthusiasm they think that no man can Act any thing against the Presbyterians but he immediatâ—y acteth against the light of his own Conscience and a great deal more to that purpose Every assertion is not only false but manifestly so to all who have ever conversed with us and who is not Fatally blinded with other prejudices Tho we be far from judging the Consciences of them who differ And are convinced and do on all occasions declare that we think many of the Episcopal Clergy and People are Conscienciously of â—hat opinion Yea and that some who have Acted against us thought that they did God service as Saâ—l and other Persecutors have done before Yet it is not easie to have the the same thoughts of this Author and the rest that write and speak in this strain considering that he hath lived among Presbyterians and cannot but know that these are not the sentiments of all of them nor of the most part Yea I doubt that any one even of the most Ignorant or most Zealous of them did ever speak at this Rate His Declamation p 13. for in this way of writing his talent seemeth to lie rather than in solid reasoning which may move an ignorant Reader but never satisfie on that is intelligent against the Actings of the Presbyterians in K. C. The fiâ—st's time is sufficiently answered Vindic. 1. q. 8. Wherefore I shall not trouble the Reader with that debate seing there is here nothing new except bitter words and false imputations that Ministers did and do endeavour to ruine their Neighbours further than by the exercise of Discipline to purge the Church of unqualified Ministers that they used Engines to prie into the secrets of Families that the Ministers said their Cause was like to prosper when they justified one Crime by the commission of another Or that ever they did so justifie Crimes That they value Soveraignty above all others that it is the Idol they bow to c. These I say are a heap of notorious falshoods boldly assererd but not attempted to be proved But the mans tongue is his own Several of these assertions are disproved having been brought by his associates in the Book that he refuteth but this he had no mind to consider The Presbyterians must be the worst of men that he is resolved on per faâ— ant nesas § 15. In the end of p. 13. He the
his confidence as high as it flies will not reach this far § 44. The Auâ—hor of the History of the General Assembly had not only spoke without Reverence but with insolent Contempt of Mr. Gray's Sermons which are very savoury to many serious Souls And the Vindicator made no farther remark on this but he sheweth his Skill in the actings of Grace in the Soul And this our Author calleth running him down He loveth to speak big words when the sense of them is very small I hope they who are indeed concerned about their Souls Case will find more of the Marrow of the Gospel in these Sermons than in many of the slanting and starcht Discourses that this Author commendeth This losty Soul is next p. 55. displeased with the Vindicator's creeping Genius because he discourseth of the Act of the Assembly against the private administration of Baptism And calleth this one of his little Impertinencies By this means he reproacheth greater Men than that Author ever pretended to be For that Controversie is not new nor of his invention And however little it be it is none of his Impertinencies but of his Adversaries who reproacheth the General Assembly for it Is it Impertinency to answer what an Antagonist doth object or is it such to call such Conduct by that name Let us now see how pertinent his Refutation of this our Principle is He telleth very Magisterially that the Assembly had done better to have left it to the discretion of Ministers in all places But with his permission we think that when abuses creep into the Church about the administration of Christs Ordinances they should be restrained by the determination of the Church He will not say it is from a creeping Genius that some Men make Church Canons about Church Mens Cloaths of what fashion they must be on the Street and in the Pulpit yea when they ride abroad see Canon 74. of the Convocation 1603 which standeth in force to this day as if it were the work of a Convocation to write a Directory for Taylors And yet it is too mean for the Church to consider how the Ordinances of the Gospel should be managed He supposeth that we make it necessary thaâ— a Sermon from a Text be Preached at Baptism and that opening the nature and use of that Sacrament is not enough But in this he mistaketh the state of the Controversie which is whether Baptism when the other Ordinances of the Gospel can be had publickly should be administred before the Congregation or such of them as on due warning to the whole do give their presence or may be done in a Corner as People please If he had said any thing against our Principle in this it should have been considered That he chargeth the Presbyterian Ministers and People with want of understanding the Phrase ex opere operato we misregard § 45. The Vindicator p. 174. had occasionally said that we cannot with a good Conscience comply with Humane Ceremonies And hence he commenceth another Theological Debate p. 55 56 57. I shall therefore without reflecting on his reproachful and mocking stram in managing this Controversie consider his Arguments The 1. is p. 56. Solomon adviseth to look to our feet when we comâ— into the House of God and Moses was enjoyned to put off his Shoes because the ground was holy And was not this a significant Ceremonie Here is accurate Logick and may become the highest seat it an University We ought to obey what God commandeth Ergo We must observe what Man deviseth and injoyneth in Gods Worship If putting off the Shoes and looking to the Feet be designed as that which all must observe when they go to Church why doth not our Author and his Party observe it And for keeping our Feet mentioned Eccles. 5.1 will our Author say that its meant of aâ— External significant Ceremonies All the Interpreters that I can meet with expound it of looking carefully to the frame and actings of our Soul Drus ambula circumspecte Gejerus est metaphora â— peregrinantibus in tali via ubi facile est aut errare aut labi Castalio gere te prudenter Piscator Caveâ— impingas id est pocces in obeundo cultu Dei Mercer Non puto hic externam intelligi precum mundi tiem sed externis interna notabantur c. Mr. Mede maketh it an allusion to the discalceation used to the Eastern Countries when they came into a Holy place which he saith was common But how common it was among other Nations I know not Only I know it was not used among the Jews in thâ— Temple but that now under their Apostacy I have seen him that officiateth put off his Shoes on some of their Holy days and that only at the reading of the Law Another Argument of equal strength he useth Sackcloath and Ashes did among all Nations signifie Grief and Sorrow therefore in their Humiliation these were used to express their Remorse and Convictions A. As before why then do not the Prelatists use themâ— Again it doth not follow this Ceremony was used in all Civil Mourning and from that was used in Religion Ergo We should now use Ceremonies in Religion which neither are instituted by Divine Authority nor have Civil Custom to make them Decent His Sarcastick Reproof that followeth is out of the way for we never Condemned Ceremonies because they were significant but think that none should be used that are insignificant We condemn them because they are appointed by Men to signifie thaâ— Grace which the Lord hath not instituted them to represent and consequently hath not blessed them to confer and that in his Worship which should be ordered in all these things that are peculiar to it only by his own direction The Ceremony of lifting up the right hand in swearing an Oath not only hath warrant from Scripture Example but it is the Civil Custom of the Nation Therefore it is noâ— pertinent to bring it as an Example of a Religious significant Ceremony if he can shew us as muâ—â— ground for the Ceremonies he pleadeth for we shall consider the matter farther If any intelligenâ— and unbyassed Reader will say that his Reasonings that follow do deserve an answer it shall be given They are We ought to approach to God with all the decent marks of Distance and Adoration True Religion obligeth us to comply with the innocent Decencies of Mankind and not to affect Singularity Chriâ—â— eat and drank with Publicans and Sinners I am so short sighted as that I cannot see how it followeâ—â— from any of these Topicks or from all of them in Conjunction That it is lawful to use Religious Siâ—nificant Ceremonies of Humane Institution in the Worship of God He addeth If the Ceremoniâ—â— be used by the Nation among whom we live if they decently express our Reverence or Humiliation see no reason why they may not be used in the Worship of God A. If he can prove that they are so use in Civil and
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
them p 58. a company of Arbitrary Presbyters That on it the debate about Parity followed much Blood Confusion Rapine and other Mischiefs And then and since every fiery Faction did lay hold on this Schism as a Fond whereon to build all Rebellion and Treason p. 60. He calleth the General Assembly a Famous Conventicle ibid. And he speaketh of the Presbyterians new Gospel ibid. Mr. Andrew Melvill and his fiery complices p. 62. What fair History can be expected from a Person of whatever Honour and Learning he be who hath formed to himself and representeth to others such a monstruous Idea of the Men whom he designeth to Expose He beginneth his Discourse with a Remark which it seems either the Author of the Manuscript or the Apologist or both taketh for a concludent Argument against Presbyterians that none of our Martyrs spake or wrote against Bishops But all who write of them praise them for dutiful submission to their Bishops and Superiours A. 1. They had so many great abominations in the way that they opposed to insist on that it is no wonder they over lookt this We know Luther opposed but few things in Popery at first now if he had been cut off by Martyrdom in the beginning of his Reformation as these Worthy Men were would his silence have been a good Argument for all these points of Popery that afterward fell under debate 2. He confesseth the Martyrs spake against Popish Tyranny which I hope he will acknowledge was exercised by the Bishops I ask then when they did thus condemn Tyranny in Bishops did they own any Lawful Authority they had Which might have been expected if they had been of this Writers Opinion Yea it can be made appear that some of them said the Pope hath no more power than another Man and if this be said of the Chief Bishop it may with better reason be said of his Underlings 3. Where any Historian gave an account of the dutiful submission of these Martyrs to their Bishops I do not find except it were while they were still in the Church of Rome which is not to the purpose in hand Another Argument he seemeth to bring from Cromwell who turned off Presbytry at the Barrow-moor being wearied with its Confusions and Insolencies This needeth little answer I hope this Author will not now own Cromwell's Actings as Exemplary and Instructive Beside that this Act is invidiously and unfairly represented For the place nor the Cause of the Act was not as here said Cromwell was no Friend to Episcopacy more than to Presbytry § 48. He saith he will next come to positive Evidences all which are taken out of Spotswood's History except a very few from the History that goeth under the name of John Knox a few Animad-versions on such Passages as seem to question Presbytry being the first Church Government among the Scotch Protestants is all that I need here to mind He saith p. 58 at the end that five Superintendents were named for the Diocesses where the Bishops were Popish For there are no Superintendents named for Galloway and Argile because the Bishops of these Diocesses were Protestants This is the Author's conjecture no such Reason of that Conduct is given by Arch-Bishop Spotswood out of whom he taketh his History And indeed it is contrary to Reason as well as without Ground for there were more Diocesses than six or seven in Scotland and but two of the Bishops were Protestants exore túo why then did they not place Superintendents in the rest of the Diocesses which behoved by his own account either to be Vacant or furnished with Popish Bishops Further He it seems hath read the Author that he citeth very carelesly for Spotswood saith expresly that one of the five Superintendents viz John Kerswell was placed in Argile and the Isles And yet my Antagonist maketh Argile one of the two Diocesses in which the Bishops were Protestants There must then be some other Reason for appointing these five Superintendents and no more than that the Bishops of these Diocesses were Popish And it is evident from this very passage that the Protestants did not own Episcopal Jurisdiction in any Man even though he were Protestant seing they set a Superintendent in Argile where the Bishop was Protestant and tho' the Bishop of Argile did then sit in Parliament as Spotswood hath it p. 149. near the end yet the Protestants set another over the Church in that Diocess And it is also clear from this passage that they did not look on a Superintendent and a Bishop as the same nor as having the same Authority in the Church The material and great differences that are between a Superintendent which the Protestant Church in Scotland in that case of necessity did for a time allow at the Reformation and a Bishop may be seen at length in Calderwood's History p. 26 27. whom I hope I may without blame quote as well as he doth that of Arch-bishop Spotswood If it may be done without giving him offence which he seemeth to take at my referring to mine own little Books I would tell him that all the weight that here and after he layeth on Superintendents being set over large districts is taken off by what the Apologist might have read and should have answered if he had dealt fairly 1 st Vindic. p 10. § 49. The next thing that the Manuscript taketh notice of is p. 59. That a Commission of the Assembly met at Lieth 1572 in January and agreed that vacant Bishopricks should be supplied That Spiritual Jurisdiction should be exercised by Bishops And that Ministers should be Ordained by them or by Superintendents where there were no Bishops And that in August after a General Assembly at Perth approved of all these Articles And that Mr. Andrew Melvil because not made a Bishop stirred up one Mr. Dury 1575 to impunge the Episcopal Order and all Imparity and that this was the first time that this Debate was tossed in our Church which divided Church and State c. I shall with all due respect to his Lordship examine this History And 1. I observe that he bringeth no Vouchers for these passages but we must take on his own single Testimony things that were beyond the memory or knowledge of his Father of much more than a hundred years standing 2. Arch bishop Spotswood expresly saith p 260. That these Articles were admitted by the Assembly at Perth only for an interim till a more perfect Order might be obtained from the King Or Regent And what that Order was time did try for not Episcopacy was afterward settled but Presbytry 3. It is a great mistake that they who made these Articles were a Commission of the Assembly for that Meeting at Lieth was no General Assembly of the Church of Scotland tho' Spotswood is pleased to call it so Both Calderwood p 49. and Petrie Cent. 16. p 372 witness that in the Register it is called a Convention which word is always used for
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
Book of Policy by the State was much occasioned by what is contained in the eighth ninth and Tenth Chapters of it concerning the disposing the Church Rents otherwise than some great Men desired and to their disadvantage as they imagined A piece of manifestly false History followeth viz. Ann. 1580. An Assembly met at Dundee called by Mr. Andrew and his Associates without a shadow of any permission from the Civil Authority Where they declared the Office of a Bishop to be without warrant from the Word of God That they had not the Magistrates allowance is not only said without the Authority of any Historian and is a pure invention of this Author But it is certain that then they had their Assemblies in Course by the States allowance and that the succeeding Assembly was appointed at the dissolution of the former It is also asserted by Calderwood p. 89. That the King sent two the Prior of Pittenweens and the Laird of Lundie instructed with power to assist the Assembly with their Presence and Counsell from all which it is also evident to be a mistake that this Assembly was called by Mr. Melvil and his Associates The observation of our Author on the Assemblies declaring against Bishops is the ordinary Gang of his Party that it is against plain Scripture the Doctrine of the Apostles how this differeth from the former I know not and of the Fathers and the Canons of all Oecumenical Councils and the rule of Apostolical and Primitive Practice If he or any else will prove all this our Cause must needs fall to the ground But I have often read and heard such confident Assertions but never yet saw sufficient proof of them It offendeth him highly that in the end of the Act against Bishops the Assembly referreth to the next Assembly to reason upon the disposing the Patrimony of the Kirks possessed by the Bishops as if in this they usurped on the Kings Regale But here is not one word of considering how They should dispose of this Patrimony and I hope it is no Usurpation in Church-men to advise and reason in order to give their Opinion and putting up their Supplication to them to whom it belongeth to dispose of it § 51. His History of one Montgomery who was zealous against Bishops and yet did afterward Simoniacally bargain for a Bishoprick I regard not Not knowing the truth of it nor being directed by him where to find it And if it were true it signifieth no more but that once a professed Presbyterian was an Apostate Which is so insignificant a story and so little Argumentative in our Debate that it is not worthy the writing He misrepresenteth the procedure of the Church against Montgomery as if when they were called to answer for illegal invasions on the Kings Authority they did boldly protest that tho' they compeared in Civility to the King yet they did not acknowledge the Kings â—on Councils right in any Ecclesiastical matter I wish this Author had either read Spotswood's History for others it is like he will not regard them more carefully or represented what account he giveth of this matter more faithfully Which is p. 316. c. that Mr. Robert Montgomery Minister at Stirling having made a vile Simoniacal bargain for the Bishoprick of Glasgow was quarrelled by the Church for this and other gross things were also laid to his charge The King allowed them to proceed against him on any thing they could charge him with in his Life or Doctrine But would not permit them to censure him for accepting the Bishoprick Whereupon he was accused of gross Crimes his Libel was sent to the King The King left him to make his own Answer After this the Presbytry of Stirling suspended him for disorderly Baptizing he slighted this Sentence and exercised his Ministry Whereupon he was cited to appear before the Synod of which the King being informed warned the Synod to appear before him at Stirling and discharged all proceeding against him some of them appeared and protested that tho' in Obedience not Civility as our Author hath it they had compeared yet they did not acknowledge his Majesty and the Council Judges in the matter it being a Cause Ecclesiasticall They did not say as the Manuscript hath it that they did not acknowledge the King and Councils right in any Ecclesiastical matter I shall say no more of this purpose save that not only the Presbyterians but also not a few Episcopalians especially when the Civil Authority acteth against their Interests and Inclinations do controvert whither the Magistrate can hinder the Church to censure her own Members when the matter is purely Ecclesiastical I wish our Author would shew us what Invasion is made on the Kings Authority when the Church censureth any person for Immoralities that are manifest Scandals to the People and do no way touch the Civil State § 52. He next p. 61. maketh an odious representation of the Kings being made Prisoner at Ruthven by some of the Nobility and the General Assemblies approving of this Fact It is here in the first place to be observed that this is wide from the design of the Apologist in transcribing this Manuscript The tendency of it is indeed to set forth the Presbyterians in as ugly a shape as is possible which I confess our Apologist is passionately bent upon but it no way contributeth to shew the Vicissitudes of Presbytry and Episcopacy in the Church of Scotland for which he bringeth this Manuscript Next I take notice that he who wrote this Paper doth not give so fair account of this Affair as his Author Spotswood doth who informeth us p 320. c. That some of the Nobility combining themselves for defence of Religion and the liberty of the Kingdom as they pretended did seize the King and restrained the Duke of Lennox and the Earl of Arran whose Counsels had given great discontent to the Nation from the Kings presence That the King by a Proclamation approved of the Act discharged rising of Men to rescue him commanded the Duke and Earl to depart out of the Nation That the Queen of England advised the King to take in good part what the Lords had done because of the danger that the perverse Counsels of the Duke of Lennox and Earl of Arran had brought the Nation into That the Noblemen desired the General Assembly to approve this deed of theirs which the Assembly would not do till they consulted with the King himself and till he desired them to do it Confessing to them that Religion was in hazard and indirect Courses taken to overturn it and that his own hazard was joyned with that of Religion And desiring that they for their own part would help to remove the same He sheweth also that this deed of the Lords was fully approved by a Convention of Estates at Edinburgh called by the King Let it then be considered whether it be so monstruous a thing for the Church to shew her Opinion when required
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
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