the meaning of the Church and Kingdome who accepted and approved the same as the true Doctrine proved by Gods Word thereby to condemne any such thing yea it is most evident that they had a quite contrary meaning as they themselves did publikly declare in the first book of Discipline shewing therein what manner of Government and Policie they doe require in the true reformed Church to wit that it should be governed by Superintendents in every Province having power and preheminence over all the Ministers and all the Parishes within their bounds for this book of Discipline was framed by the same persons who set down that confession of Faith and at the same very time or shortly thereafter and that by the command and direction of the great Councell of Scotland admitted to the Government by common consâ—nt of the whole estates in the Queens absence being for the time in France and ratifiâ—â—â— by Act of Councell and manuall subscriptions of the Counsellors and of divers other men of worth the 17. of Ianuary 1560. approved by many generall Assemblies and the continuall practice of the Church for twice as many years thereafter as Presbyteriall Governmental remained in force Then that we may see how farre this power of Superintendents did extend we must consider that the first Reformers of Religion because of the detestable enormities of Papisticall Bishops which made their persons offices and very names to be detested out of a certaine zealous scrupulositie would not at first give the title of Bishops to the rulers of the Church yet neverthelesse by the example of many other reformed Churches gave to those who were appointed to their charge a title of the same signification calling them Superintendents So changing a proper Greek word into a barbarous Latine for the Greek word {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} and the Latine word Superintendens doe both signifie one thing to wit such a one as is set over others to oversee their actions Albeit by this book of Discipline the whole Kingdome was divided in ten Dioceses expresly so called and over every Diocese a Superintendent appointed to be set yet in all the books of Assemblies we find onely foure who carried expresly this title to wit Mâ— Iohn Spotswood father to the late deceased Iohn Archbishop of St. Anâ—â—â—ws called Superintendent of Lâ—â—thran or Edinburgh Iohn Areskin of Diune Superintendent of Angus and Mearnes or of Brechin Mr. Iohn Wonram Superintendent of Fyfe or S. Andrews M. Iohn Wâ—llocks Superintendent of the West or Glasgow those who were set over the rest of the Dioceses were called Commissioners either because at that time they could not fiâ—d so many sufficient men or for lack of sufficient meanes to maintaine the estate of Superintendents or as some rather thinke because they esteemed this too absolute a Title and neere in signification to the title of Bishop therfore they thought it more fit to call them Commissioners as importing morse a dependencie upon the generall Assemblie of the Church from which they received Commission to exercise their charge not for any definite time but ad vitam or ad culpam Those same are at sometimes called Visitores by a word of the like signification with Episcopus for {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} signifieth likewise a Visitor and {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} Visitation as 1 Pet. â— 12. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} is translated by all interpreters in dievisitationis and so the Hebrew word {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} from the known word {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} visitavit by the Septuagints is translated {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} and by Latines Inspector Visitator or Praefectus Howsoever they were diversly named they had all a like power and Iurisdiction which was no lesse then in the Church of Scotland than the power which the Bishops had in the ancient Church or in the Church of Scotland these many yeers by-gone as may appeare by this paralell betwixt the power of Bishops and the power of Superintendents A Paralell betwixt the power of Bishops and the power of Superintendents FIrst as every Bishop hath his own Diocese over the which he hath Superioritie and Iurisdiction and therin a speciall Citie for his sea and place of Residence called the Metropolitan or Cathedrall Citie So every 〈…〉 by the first book of Discipline Cap. 5. Art 2. 〈…〉 pointed to him his own Diocese to have 〈◊〉 power over all persons both pastors and people 〈◊〉 that bounds and therein a certaine place of ordinary residence called there the Superintendents towne which for the most part were the same Cities from which the Bishops of Scotland are now denominated Secondly As all the Clergie in every Diocese are bound to give 〈◊〉 obedience to their ordinary Bishop according to 〈◊〉 Canons of the Church Right so by a speciall 〈…〉 Generall Assembly at Edinburgh Iuly 30. 1562. It is concluded by the whole ministers there Assembled that all Ministers shall be Subâ—â—ct to their Superintendents in all lawfull 〈…〉 as well in the book of Discipline as in 〈…〉 Election of Superintendents which is no other 〈…〉 but Canonicall obedience Thirdly As all Bishops are to be 〈…〉 of Generall or Nationall Councels 〈…〉 been in all ages and needed not any 〈…〉 thereto from the time that they were 〈…〉 consecrated to that office So likewise in all 〈…〉 Superintendents and Commissionâ—◠〈◊〉 were constant principall members of 〈…〉 Assemblies and needed not any particular Commission thereto but being once admitted to the office were ever acknowledged thereafter and received without any other Commission as is evident by that Assemblie at Edinburgh Iuly 1568. wherein the members of the Generall Assemblie are divided in two Ranks some are appointed to be ordinary and perpetuall members as Superintendents and Commissioners of Provinces the other sort are mutable as Commissioners of Churches Vniversities Townes and Provinces the first had no need of particular Commission but were perpetuall and first called in the Roll the other were changeable from Assemblie to Assemblie and had new particular Commissions from those by whom they were directed In the Assemblie at Edinburgh 1563. that every Superintendent shall appear the first day of the Assemblie at Edinburgh March 1578. the same Act is renewed and Bishops also are appointed to be present at all Assemblies or else to be accounted unworthy of the office and by divers other Acts yea after that the othee of Bishops begun to be questioned in the Assemblie 1579. Iuly 7. Sess. 9. It is ordained That Bishops and Comâ—issâ—ouers of Provinces who abjent themselves from 〈◊〉 Assemblies shall be censured according to the Act august 12. 1575. and that Act to be understood not onely 〈◊〉 Bishops having power of Visitation from the Church but also of such as have not that office Fourthly As all Bishops have power to hold their Synods twice in the year when and where it
untill the year 1590. towit ten years after the setting down and swearing of this Abjuration And therefore this power and preheminence which is the point in controversie cannot be understood to have been then condemned in the Abjuration 1580. 1581. for otherwise the Church should have condemned that which in the mean time they did approve and practise Thirdly notwithstanding that Act 1580. condemning Episcopacie as it was then used in Scotland yet these points of the power and preheminence of one Pastor over others and charge over moe particular flocks was not condemned but expresly acknowledged to be lawfull by that whole Assembly wherein Episcopacie was called in Question Anno 1575. 1576. as shall be evidently cleared when we shall come to discusse the Acts of those Assemblies Fourthly those points of Papistrie in generall and the particular heads damned and confuted by Gods Word and Kirk of Scotland were only such as were opposite to the doctrine contained in the principall Confession of the Church of Scotland then of a long time professed by the Kings Majestie and whole body of the Kingdome as it is expresly set down in the same place of the Covenant But so it is that there was no Doctrine contained either in the Confession of Faith or professed now for a long time by the King and whole body of the Kingdome contrary to these points of power and preheminence of one Pastor over other Brethren or moe particular flocks therefore these are not points of Papistrie abjured by the Covenant as being damned then by Gods Word or the Church of Scotland and so this passage doth not more serve to prove their purpose than the former CHAP. IX Containing an Answer to the third Passage THe third Passage is in those words We detest the Roman Antichrist his worldly Monarchie and wicked Hierarchie In this passage indeed there is no false citation as in the former two yet is there as great impertinencie in applying it to their purpose for I cannot see what they can assume upon this proposition to conclude the point in Controversie except they would say that all power and preheminence of one Pastor over his Brethren or over more particular flocks is an Antichristian worldly Monarchie and all degrees of Ecclesiasticall persons is an Antichristian wicked Hierarchie and therefore detested and abjured But if this Assumption were true then the high priest in Ierusalem constituted by God himself had been an Antichristian Monarch and the divers degrees of Ecclesiasticall persons distinguished by God himself had been an Antichristian wicked Hierarchie for it is most certaine that the High priest had power and preheminencie over his Brethren and charge over all the particular flocks in Iudea The Apostles likewise in the Christian Church and their fellow-labourers Titâ—u Timothie and others had been Antichristian wordly Monarchs for it is most certaine that they had power and preheâ—ninence over their Brethren and charge over moe particular flocks as Bishops have now which may be qualified by the writings of the Apostles and the testimony of all the Venerable Fathers of the Primitive Church who lived either in the dayes of the Apostles or neer to them So likewise those Reverend â—â—thers themselves as Polycarpus Ignatius Cyprian Austin Ambrose Chrysostome c. should be esteemed no better yea likewise our Superintendents or Comâ—issioners of Provinces should have been Antichristian worldly Monarchs So that the worthy Instruments of God in the reformation of the Church of Scotland must be thought to have instead of a laudable reformation brought in an Antichristian worldly Monarchy in the Church of Scotland But the principall words which they doe most urge is the last câ—â—â—se of this passage His wicked Hierarchie by which words it was made cleer as they alleage in the Assembly that Episcopacie was abjured what was made cleer in the Assembly we know not but we shall make it cleer God willing to 〈◊〉 whose eyes are not blinded with partiall affection that those reasons produced in the Act in the end thereof at length which doubtlesse were the most weighty they could bring are foolish childish and ridiculous unworthy of such men as they would be accounted amongst the people But before we enter to discusse their reasons we must first explaine the word Hierarchie and shew what Hierarchie is here condemned first the word {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} amongst the ancient Grocians was used to signifie a certaine Magistracie the charge whereof was to have a 〈◊〉 of Sacred and Holy things as of Temples Altars and Sacrifices and from thence was translated by anâ—ient Christian writers to signifie the sacred orders of Rulers in the Church Now that there is an holy order of Rulers in the Church I think no man can deny even in Presbyteriall Government there are three orders of Ecclesiasticall persons who bear rule in the Church and have charge of sacred things of distinct power and authoritie towit Pastors Elders and Deacons and so those orders may be â—afely called an Ecclesiasticall Hierarchie they who understand the Greek word knowes perfectly that it signifies no other thing but 〈◊〉 of sacred things or a holy Government they cannot deny but these Ecclesiasticall functions have every one their own point of Government and that about sacred and holy things why then should they abhorre the word since they acknowledge the thing signified thereby to be competent to their Ecclesiasticall functions Is it because the word is borrowed from Ethnicks It should not be abhorred for this cause more than the words Episcopus Presbyter and Pastor which did signifie also amongst the Ethnicks certaine offices or magistracies as is well known to those who are versed in their writings Or is it because it hath been abused by the Papists neither can it for this cause be rejected taken in a right sense and separating Papisticall corruptions from it more then the other titles given to Ecclesiasticall officers which all have been abused in the Popish Church and that this word Hierarchy may be used to signifie the orders of Ecclesiasticall rulers in the Christian Church I will bring no other testimony than that of Calvin who was the first Author of Presbyteriall Government he in his Treatise De Nâ—cessitatâ— refâ—rmanda Ecclesia speaking of the Popish Hierarchy saith If they will set us down such an Hierarchie wherein Bishops have so preheminence that they refuse not to be subject to Christ depending from him as from their head and referring all to him wherein they doe so entertaine Societie amoâ—gst themselves that they be no otherwise bound but by his truth Then I must acknowledge that thâ—se are worthy to be called exâ—crable who will not reverence such an Hierarchie and with all humble obedience receive the same Where we see that Calvin doth acknowledge that there may be a lawfull Hierarchie neither wicked nor Antichristian and such was this Hierarchie in the Church of Scotland consisting of Bishops Presbyters and Deacons wherein Bishops
therefore it were but a foolish Logomachie or strife about words to allow the one title and condemne the other Secondly it may aswell be condemned as unlawfull to appropriate the name of Minister to the degree of preaching Pastors which is common to all those who have charge in the Church or to appropriate the name of Elder to their ruling Elders only which is common to all Pastors Apostles Evangelists and Bishops Thirdly neither did they condemne as unlawfull in it self their power and preheminence over the Ministers in their Diocese or charge over moe particular Parishes first because there were points agreed upon by both parties before this Assemblie and approved by a speciall Act as we have shown before Cap. 11. Secondly because this power was as yet still remaining in the persons of Superintendents Commissioners and Visitors and long after this time Fourthly neither did they condemne as unlawfull in it self their power of Convocation of Synodall Assemblies and their moderation therein for the Church acknowledged this power to be lawfull in Superintendents as we have shown by divers Acts of Assemblies Cap. 5. for if it were unlawfull in it self it could not be thought lawfull under any title whatsoever Fiftly neither did they condemne as unlawfull in it self their sitting and voycing in Councell or Parliament or other Civill Iudicatories for they acknowledge in the second book of Discipline Cap. 11. That Pastors may and should assist their Princes when they be required in all things agreeable to Gods Word whether it be in Councell or Parliament or otherwise So a little before this time M. Robert Pont who was a Pastor and Commissioner of Caithenes had licence from the Assemblie to exercise the office of a Senator of the Colledge of Iustice which was a civill Iudicatorie That proviso which is added to this doth not import any unlawfulnes in the office Providing they neglect not their own charge nor by flatterie of Princes hurt the publik estate of the Church if any doe so it is but a personall fault and not essentiall to the office for Bishops may doe more good in those places for the publik weal of the Church than their Apostles of the Covenant by their long staying in Edinburgh farre from their own particular charges attending the tables of the Covenant and gadding up and down the Countrie to stirre up the Kings Subjects to rebellion against him and to disturb the estate of the Church and Kingdome as many of the Covenanting Ministers have done These are the principall points both of the Spirituall and temporall functions of the Bishops and since they were not accounted by the Church unlawfull in themselves how can this be that this Assembly hath justly condemned The whole estate of Bishops as unlawfull in it self except the Ambiguitie lurk in these words which are there added and often repeated As it is now used in Scotland signifying that it was only the corruptions which were in those who were Bishops at that time which they did condemn and not Episcopacie absolutely It may be true indeed that there were some corruptions at that time in those who had the office of Bishops or that they did not exercise their office aright retaining some corruptions of the Roman Church but for these personall faults the office should not have been condemned of it self since these corruptions might have been separated from the office as they were indeed by the new re-establishment of Bishops in the year 1606. 1608. And certainly they understood those corruptions which are remaked to have been in the Bishops by the book of discipline Cap. 11. whereof some are corruptions indeed but not competent to that office as it was now established in Scotland by generall Assemblies and Acts of Parliament others of them are only supposed corruptions which cannot be convinced to be such indeed either by Gods Word or testimonie of approved Fathers or practice or example of the primitive Church 1. They say it is a corruption that the name of Bishop should be appropriated to some few we have answered to this a little before shewing that this is only a proud doting about questions and strife of words as the Apostle sayes 1 Tim 6. 4. 2. They account it a corruption that they addict not themselves to a particular flock I answer that they doe so for their Diocese is their particular flock Then it is neither necessarie nor expedient that he to whom the generall charge of many parishes is committed should astrict himself to one Parish only nor can the contrary be convinced from Gods Word wherein we finde no such divisions of Parishes as is now 3. They challenge them that they are called Lords over their brethren and over the inheritance of the Lord But first we say that they are not called Lords in regard of their rule over their Brethren but in regard of their temporall Lordships bestowed upon them by the Liberalitie of Princes and in regard of their place in Parliament and Councell then this title of Lord like as Dominus in Latine and {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} in Greek is sometimes a word signifying absolute and illimitated Dominion So we see that divers Emperors albeit in effect they had absolute dominion yet did they refuse often the title of Dominus because it was odious to people and in this sense Bishops are not called Lords neither doe they arrogate to themselves such absolute and unlimited dominion as to doe what they pleased but they must be ruled by the Canons of the Church But otherwise the title of Lord is only a word of honour competent to every man of respect to whom it pleases the Prince or custome of the Countrey to give that title as in France we see the Bishops are no otherwise intituted than other ordinarie Gentlemen calling them Mounsieur so likewise in Spaine and Italy Seignior which title is also given to any other man of worth it is only the custome of the Countrey of England and Scotland whereby this title of Lord is given to Bishops and not for any absolute Dominion they arrogate thereby 4. They account it a corruption that Bishops should have further bounds to visite then they may lawfully they would say conveniently but that corruption may easily be amended by division of the Diocese as is lately done in the Diocese of St. Andrews without abolishing the whole office 5. That a Pastor should have criminall Iurisdiction we answer they have not this as Pastors or Bishops but as a priviledge by the Laws of the Countrey annexed to their temporall lands which notwithstanding they doe not exercise in their own person but by their Stewards or Bailifâ—es 6. They count it a corruption that Bishops would not subject themselves to the correction and censures of the particular Elderships or Presbyteries this is but a supposed corruption and if it were so it were a great corruption indeed and a most uncomely and confused disorder to give libertie to