a New Meeting of the States is called and Cassils is return'd to England with Commission to tell Henry That the Scottish Lords are content to Relinquish the French on Condition the Match with the Princess Mary were secured 'T is true nothing followed upon this Treaty but a Truce for three years for what reason I know not But from the Deduction I have briefly made it may sufficiently appear how weak the French and how strong the English interest was then in Scotland so very strong as clearly to overcome and almost quite extirpate the other Well! did Francis nothing to recover the Scottish amity Alas at that time he had greater matters to imploy his thoughts He lost his Liberty at the Battel of Pavia Anno 1525 and became the King of Spain's Prisoner and was not Restored to his Freedom till Henry interposed with a powerful Mediation For which He entered into another League with Henry 1527 without minding the Scots or being concern'd for their security This was a third slight put upon the Scots by the French in their Treaties with England 'T is true indeed Francis did not enter into this League with Henry over-awed by his Threats but constrain'd by his Kindness and Good Offices in his Liberation from his Spanish Captivity But it was all one to the Seâ—ts for what reason it was if they were Deserted 'T is true indeed When Iames came to full age he had strong inclinations for renewing the Old Amity with France and no wonder considering how much he was manag'd by the Clergy who abhorred Henry for shaking off the Popes Authority and thought themselves concern'd with all their Might to guard against Henry's contagious influences as they deem'd them But however the King and Clergy were inclined 't is evident the Body of the Nation continued constant in their so frequently provoked Coldness to the French interests and in their good Affection towards England so much that they would never thereafter at least all the time our Reformation was a carrying on follow either King or Regent to invade England Thus When Iames the Fifth Anno 1542. was very earnest for it the Nobility generally declined it and he was forced to dismiss them And when shortly after that his Earnestness that way it seems increasing he ordered ane Army to meet at Carlaverock intending therewith to enter England so soon as Oliver Sinclare was declared Chief Commander and the Kings intentions were made known all threw away their Arms and suffered themselves to be taken prisoners And When the Earl of Arran Regent Anno ..... went with a goodly Army to besiege the Church of Coldingham which the English for the time had fortified he was forced to run for it abruptly fearing as Buchanan says his friends pretended lest his Army should betray him into the hands of the English And Anno 1557 when the Queen Regent Mary of Lorrain was most earnest to have had England invaded thereby to have made a Diversion and eased France of the English Force which was assisting Philip the Second of Spain against Henry the Second of France the Nobility could by no means be gain'd to do it as all our Historians tell us I could have insisted on this Deduction far more largely but I think what I have said may be sufficient for my purpose which was to shew how much Scotland was disengaged of Foreign Influences and by consequence how much it was disposed to receive English impressions from the very Dawning of our Reformation till its Legal Establishment 1560. Let us next try if according to these Dispositions the English influences were Communicated and made suitable impressions And I think in the 1st place No man can reasonably doubt but that 't is fairly credible they did For no man can deny that the Reformation made a considerable figure in England more early than it did in Scotland When Light was thus arising in the Isle it was natural for it to overspread both Nations And it was as Natural that the more and sooner Enlightned Nation should be the fountain of Communication that is in plain terms that Scotland should derive it under God from England Especially considering how at that time they were mutually disposed towards one another Indeed 2. 'T is certain Books deserve to be reckoned amongst the prime Vehicles of such Light as we are now considering and 't is as certain That the first Books which enlightned Scotland were brought from England Tindal translated the New Testament into English Anno 1531. And Copies of it were dispersed here in considerable plenty and other useful Books were then written also in the Vulgar Language which was common to both Nations which coming from England had great success in Scotland as is evident even from Knox's History But this is not all The truth of all this will appear more fully if 3. We consider That King Henry had no sooner begun his Reformation such as it was in England than he Endeavoured to transmit it into Scotland He shook off the Popes Supremacy Anno 1534. And he sent the Bishop of St. Davids to his Nephew Iames of Scotland Anno 1535. with Books written in English containing the substance of Christian Religion Earnestly desiring him to read them and joyn with him in carrying on the Reformation And Herbert says Henry was vastly sollicitous To draw James on his side as knowing of what Consequence it was to keep his Kingdom safe on that part And therefore Laboured still to induce him to abrogate the Papal Iurisdiction in his Dominions And tho this Embassy of St. Davids had not success yet Henry gave not over but continued to write Letters to Iames insisting still upon the same Requests Petrie has transcribed one from Fox wherein Henry Premonishes requires and most heartily prays Iames to consider the Supremacy granted by the Holy Scriptures to Princes in Church matters To weigh what Gods word calleth a Church To consider what Superstitions Idolatries and blind abuses have crept into all Realms to the high Displeasure of God and what is to be understood by the Censures of the Church and Excommunication for the Pope had then Excommunicated Henry and how no such Censure can be in the power of the Bishop of Rome or of any other man against him or any other Prince having so iust ground to avoid from the Root and to abolish such ane execrable Authority as the Bishop of Rome hath usurped and usurps upon all Princes to their Great Damage Requesting him for these Reasons to ponder of what hazard it might be to Iames himself if he agreed to such Censures and by such example gave upper-hand over himself and other Princes to that Vsurper of Rome to scourge all who will not Kiss and Adore the foot of that Corrupt Holiness which desires nothing but Pride and the universal Thrall of Christendom c. Here was Earnestness for Reformation in Scotland with a witness And
generally is against using the Lords Prayer the only Prayer I can find of Divine Institution in the New Testament as to the MATTER FRAME COMPOSURE and MODE of it Consider 3. that our Author would be very angry and complain of horrid injustice done him if you should charge him with Quakerism or praying by immediate inspiration For who so great enemies to Quakers as Scottish Presbyterians Consider 4. if his Arguments can consist any better with Extemporary Prayers which are not immediately inspired and by consequence cannot be of Divine Institution as to MATTER FRAME COMPOSURE and MODE than with Set-forms which are not of Divine Institution as to MATTER FRAME COMPOSURE and MODE Consider 5. in consequence of these if we can have any publick Prayers at all And then consider 6. and lastly if our Author when he wrote this Section had his zeal tempered with common sense and if he was not knuckle-deep in right Mysterious Theology But as good follows For 4. Never man spoke more profound Mysteries than he hath done on all occasions in his surprizing accounts of the Church of Scotland He tells us of a Popish Church of Scotland since the Reformation and a Protestant Church of Scotland He tells us 1 Vind. Answ. to Quest. 1. § 10. Presbyterians do not say that the Law made by the Reforming Parliament Anno 1576 took from them the Popish Bishops the Authority they had over the Popish Church but it is Manifest that after this Law they had no Legal Title to Rule the Protestant Church This same for once is pleasant enough The Reforming Parliament while it defined the Church of Scotland and it defined it so as to make it but one as is evident from Act. 6. which I have transcribed word for word in my Book allowed of two Churches of Scotland two National Churches in one Nation But this is not all He hath also subdivided the Protestant Church of Scotland into two Churches of Scotland The Presbyterian Church of Scotland and the Episcopal Church of Scotland He insists very frequently on the Presbyterian Church of Scotland Thus in his Preface to his First Vind. of his Church of Scotland in great seriousness he tells the world that that which is determined concerning all them that will live Godly in Christ Iesus that they must suffer persecution is and has long been the lot of the PRESBYTERIAN Church of Scotland And in his Preface to his 2 Vind. § 7. I have in a former paper pleaded for the PRESBYTERIAN Church of Scotland against ane Adversary c. And in Answer to the Hist. Relat. of the Gen. Ass. § 12. his Adversary had said that General Assembly was as insufficient to represent the Church of Scotland as that of Trent was to represent the Catholick Church And G. R. readily replys but he cannot deny that it represented the PRESBYTERIAN Church and was all that could be had of a PRESBYTERIAN Assembly He is as frank at allowing ane Episcopal Church of Scotland Thus in True Represent of Presb. Governm in Answ. to OB. 10. The Ministers that entered by and under Prelacy neither had nor have any Right to be Rulers in the PRESBYTERIAN Church Whatever they might have in ANOTHER Governing Church i. e. the Episcopal Church that the State set up in the Nation c. And more expressly in Answ. to the Hist. Relat. of the Gen. Ass. 1690. § 3. Again says he tho' we own them the Prelatick Presbyters as Lawful Ministers yet we cannot own them as Ministers of the PRESBYTERIAN Church They may have a Right to Govern the EPISCOPAL Church to which they had betaken themselves and left the PRESBYTERIAN yet that they have a Right to Rule the PRESBYTERIAN Church we deny By this time I think the Reader has got enough of Scottish National Churches and their distinct Governours and Governments The Popish Clergy even since the Reformation was established by Law have Right to Rule the Popish National Church of Scotland The Protestant Episcopal Clergy have Right to Rule the Protestant Episcopal National Church of Scotland The Protestant Presbyterian Ministers have only Right to Rule the Protestant Presbyterian National Church of Scotland By the way May not one wish that he and his party had stood here For if the Episcopal Clergy have Right to Rule the Episcopal Churh and if it was only Right to Rule the Presbyterian Church which they had not why was their own Right to Rule themselves taken from them Are not the Presbyterians unrighteous in taking from them all Right to Rule when they have Right to Rule the Episcopal Church of Scotland But this as I said only by the way That which I am mainly concern'd for at present is that the Reader may consider if there is not a goodly parcel of goodly sense in these profound Meditations Yet better follows After all this laborious clearing of marches between Scottish National Churches particularly the Episcopal and Presbyterian National Churches of Scotland He tells you for all that they are but one Church of Scotland But in such Depth of Mystery as perchance can scarcely be parallell'd Take the worthy speculation in his own words True Rep. ad OB. 10. Let it be further Considered says he that tho' we are not willing so to widen the difference between us and the Prelatick party as to look on them and our selves as two distinct Churches Yet it is evident that their Clergy and we are two different Representatives and two different Governing Bodies of the Church of Scotland And that they who are Members of the one cannot at their pleasure go over to the other unless they be received by them Well! Has he now Retracted his making them two Churches You may judge of that by what follows in the very next words For thus he goes on These things thus laid down let us hear what is objected against this Course the Course the Presbyterians were pursuing with Might and Main when he wrote this Book viz. That the Government of the Church might primâ instantiâ be put in the hands of the known sound Presbyterian Ministers c. First this is to set up Prelacy among Ministers even while it is so much decryed That a few should have Rule of the Church and the rest excluded Answ. It is not Prelacy but a making distinction between Ministers of one Society and those of another Tho' they be Ministers they are not Ministers of the Presbyterian Church They have departed from it we have Continued in the good old way that they and we professed for who can doubt that all the Scottish Prelatists were once Presbyterians It is not then unreasonable that if they will return to that SOCIETY they should be admitted by it c. Now What can be plainer than it is hence that they must be still two Churches He makes them in express terms twice over two distinct SOCIETIES He makes one of these Societies the Presbyterian Church Of necessity therefore the
believe he would institute a Model of Government for his Church which could not answer the ends of its institution And is it not plain that Parity cannot answer the ends for which Church Government was instituted if the Church can be reduced to that State that the Governors thereof forced by Necessity must lay it aside and for a time establish a Prelacy Besides What strange Divinity is it to maintain that Parity is of divine Institution and yet may be laid aside in Cases of Necessity 'T is true G. R. in his True Representation of Presbyterian Government cited before is bold to publish to the world such Divinity But let him talk what he will of the Case of Necessity the Force of Necessity the Law of Necessity let him put it in as many Languages as he pleases as well as he hath done in Latin telling that Necessitas quicquid coegit defendit tho I must confess I have seen few Authors more unhappy at Latin And all that shall never perswade me ought never perswade any Christian that any Necessity can oblige Christians to forsake far less to cross Christs institutions for if it can oblige to do so in one Case why not in all Cases Indeed to talk of crossing Christs institutions when forced to it by the Laws of Necessity what is it else than to open a Door to Gnosticism to Infidelity to Apostacy to all imaginable kinds of Antichristian Perfidy and Villany But enough of this at present That which I am concerned for is only this that being it was so very obvious and easy for our Reformers to have cast the very first Scheme of the Government of the Church according to the Rules and Exigencies of Parity if they had believed the divine and indispensable institution of it and being that they did it not we have all the reason in the world to believe that they believed no such principle For my part I am so far from thinking it reasonable that Prelacy should be only needful where there is a scarcity of men qualified to be Ministers that on the contrary I do profess I am of opinion that Prelacy seems to be every whit as needful and expedient if not more supposing we had it in our power to cut and carve as we say on Christs institutions where there are many as where there are few Ministers Sure I am Experience hath taught so and teaches so daily and as sure I am it can with great reason be accounted for why it should be so but if it is so I think it is only help at a dead Lift as we say to say that Superintendency was established at our Reformation only because of the Scarcity of men qualified to be Ministers And so I proceed to our Brethrens next Plea which is SECONDLY That Superintendency was not the same with Episcopacy Calderwood assigns seven or eight differences between Superintendents and Bishops and his faithful Disciple G. R. in his First Vindication in answer to the first Question resumes the same Plea and insists mostly on the same Differences Calderwood reckons thus 1. In the Election Examination and Admission of Ministers the Superintendents were bound to the Order prescribed in the 4 th Head of the First Book of Discipline which is far different from the Order observed by Prelates 2. Superintendents kept not the bounds nor the limits of the old Diocesses 3. Superintendents might not remain above twenty days in any place till they had passed through the whole bounds must preach at least thrice in the week must stay no longer in the Chief Town of their Charge than three or four Months at most but must re-enter in Visitation of the rest of the Kirks in their bounds Bishops think preaching the least of their Charge 4. The Election Examination and Admission of the Superintendent is set down far different from the Election Examination and Admission of Bishops now adays c. 5. Superintendents were admitted without other Ceremonies than sharp Examination c. To the Inauguration of a Bishop is required the Metropolitans Consecrations 6. There were no degrees of superior and inferior provincial and general Superintendents It is otherwise in the Hierarchy of the Prelates c. I have set down these six huge Differences without ever offering to consider them particularly are they not huge Differences Behold them examine them carefully is not each of them as essential and specifick as another Think not courteous Reader it was Malice or Ill-will to Episcopacy made our Author muster up these Differences These make but a small number if he had been acted by passion or vicious Byass if his Malice had been vigorous and earnest to discharge it self that way he could have easily reckoned six hundred every whit as considerable Differences He might have told them that Bishops wore Black Hats and Superintendents Blue Bonnets that Bishops wore Silks and Superintendents Tartan that Bishops wore Gowns and Cassocks and Superintendents Trews and slasht Doublets and God knows how many such differences he might have readily collected And if he had adduced such notable differences as these he had done every way as Philosophically and as like a good Difference-maker But in the mean time what is all this to Parity or Imparity amongst the Governors of the Church Do these differences he has adduced distinguish between Bishops and Superintendents as to preheminence of power and the essentials of Prelacy Do they prove that Superintendents had no Prerogative no Authority no Jurisdiction over Parish Ministers I have treated him thus coursly because I know no other way of treatment Authors deserve who will needs speak Nonsense rather than speak nothing 'T is true indeed One difference he has mentioned which seems something material and therefore I shall endeavor to account for it with some more seriousness It is that by the Constitution as we have it both in the First Book of Discipline and the Form and Order of electing Superintendents Superintendents were made obnoxious to the Tryal and Censures of the Ministers within their own Diocesses This I acknowledge to be true and I acknowledge further that herein there was a considerable difference between them and Bishops as Bishops stood eminenced above Presbyters in the primitive times and as they ought to stand eminenced above them in all well constituted Churches But then I have these things to say 1. I shall not scruple to acknowledge that herein our Reformers were in the wrong and that this was a great Error in the Constitution I do avowedly profess I don't think my self bound to justify every thing that was done by our Reformers If that falls to any mans share if falls to theirs who established this Article in the Claim of Right which gave occasion to this whole Enquiry That our Reformers herein were in the wrong I say I make no scruple to acknowledge and I think it cannot but be obvious to all who have spent but a few thoughts about matters of
Superintendents What a mercy was it that ever poor Prelacy out-lived the Dint of such doughty Onsets But it seems it must be a tough-lived thing and cannot be easily chased out of its Nature There is another considerable Thrust made at it by Calderwood and his Disciple G. R. which may come in as a Succedaneum to the former Argument What is it 〈◊〉 is even that in the Gen. Assembly at 〈◊〉 March 6. 1573. David Ferguson was chosen Mâ—â—â—rator who was neither Bishop nor Superiâ—tenâ—ent And so down falls Prelacy But so was 〈◊〉 George Buchanan in the Assembly holden in Iuly 1507. who was neither Superintendent Bishop nor Presbyter and so Down falls Presbytery Nay Down falls the whole Ministery Is not this a hard Lock Prelacy is brought to that it shall not be it self so long as one wrong step can be found to have been made by a Scotch General Assembly I have adduced and discussed all these Plea's not that I thought my Cause in any hazard by them but to let the World see what a party one has to deal with in his Controversie Whatever it be Sense or Nonsense if their Cause requires it they must not want an Argument But to go on But 4. The Fourth and greatest Plea is That this Episcopacy was never owned by the Church It was never allowed by the General Assembly It was only tolerated for three or four years It was protested against as a Corruption As these Articles were concluded without the Knowledge of the Assembly so the whole Assembly opposed them earnestly They were obtruded upon the Church against her Will. The Church from the beginning of the Reformation opposed that kind of Bishops The Church did only for a time yield to Civil Authority yet so that she would endeavour to be free of these Articles These and many more such things are boldly and confidently asserted by Calderwood Petrie and the strenuous Vindicator of the Church of Scotland who seldom misses of saying what Calderwood had said before him and I shall grant they are all said to purpose if they are true But how far they are from being that may sufficiently appear I hope if I can make these things evident 1. That the Agreement at Leith was fairly and frequently allowed approven and insisted on by many subsequent Assemblies 2. That after Episcopacy was questioned and a Party appeared against it it cost them much strugling and much time before they could get it abolished 1. I say The Agreement at Leith was fairly and frequently allowed approven and insisted on by many subsequent Assemblies This Assertion cannot but appear true to any unbyassed Judgment that shall consider but these two things 1. That in Every Assembly for several years after that Establishment or Agreement or Settlement at Leith Bishops were present and sate and voted as such and as such were obliged to be present and sit and vote c. As both Calderwood and Petrie acknowledge and shall be made appear by and by 2. That these two Authors have been at special pains to let the world know how punctually they were tryed and sometimes rebuked and censured for not discharging their Offices as they ought to have done Both Authors I say have been very intent and careful to represent this in their accounts of the subsequent Assemblies I know their purpose herein was to expose the Bishops and cast all the Dirt they could upon Episcopacy But then as I take it their pains that way have luckily furnished me with a plain Demonstration of the falsehood of all they have said in this Plea I am now considering For Would these Assemblies have suffered them to be present and sit and vote as Bishops Would they have tryed and censured them as Bishops Would they have put them to their Duty as Bishops if they had not own'd them for Bishops And was there any other Fond for owning them for Bishops at that time except the Agreement at Leith This alone might be sufficient I say for dispatching this whole Plea Yet 3. To put this matter beyond all possibility of ever being with the least colour of probability controverted hereafter I recommend to the Readers consideration the following Series of Acts made by subsequent Assemblies The Agreement at Leith as was observed before was concludâ—d 〈◊〉 the First day of February Anno 1571 2. 〈◊〉 Ordinary Assembly met at Saint Andrews on the Sixth of March thereafter The Archbishop of St. Andrews newly advanced to that See by the Leith Agreement was present and the first person named as Calderwood himself hath it to be of the Committee that was appointed for Revising the Articles agreed upon at Leith And ane Act was made in that Assembly as it is both in the Mss. and Petrie Ordaining the Superintendent of Fife to use his own Iurisdiction as before in the Provinces not subject to the Archbishop of St. Andrews and requesting him to concur with the said Archbishop in his Visitations or otherwise when he required him until the next Assembly And in like manner the Superintendents of Angus and Lothian without prejudice of the said Archbishop except by Vertue of his Commission By the Assembly holden at Perth August 6. 1572. this Act was made Forasmuch as in the ASSEMBLY not the Convention of the Church holden at Leith in January last Certain Commissioners were appointed to deal with the Nobility and their Commissioners to reason and conclude upon diverse Articles and Heads thought good then to be conferred upon according to which Commission they have proceeded in sundry Conventions is this consistent with Petrie's assertion that the same day they met and concluded and have concluded for that time upon the Heads and Articles as the same produced in this Assembly proport In which being considered are found certain Names as Archbishop Dean Archdeacon Chancellor Chapter which Names are thought slanderous and offensive in the Ears of many of the Brethren appearing to found towards Papistry Therefore the whole Assembly in one voice as well they who were in Commission at Leith as others solemnly protest that they mean not by using such Names to ratify consent or agree to any kind of Papistrie or Superstition wishing rather the said Names to be changed into other Names that are not scandalous and offensive and in like manner they protest That the said Heads and Articles agreed upon be only received as ane Interim until farther and more perfect Order be obtained at the hands of the Kings Majesties Regent and Nobility For the which they will press as occasion shall serve Vnto the which Protestation the whole Assembly in one voice adhere So the Mss. Spot Cald. Pet. This is the Act on which Calderwood Petrie and G. R. found their assertion That Episcopacy as agreed to at Leith was protested against and earnestly opposed by a General Assembly but with what Shadow of Reason let any Man consider For what can be more
have fully proven and which was all I still aim'd at yet it is easy to Discover they were very far from keeping Closely by the Principles and Measures of the primitive constitution of Church Government This is so very apparent to any who Reads the Histories of these times and is so visible in the Deduction I have made that I shall insist no longer on it Secondly The truth of my charge may further appear from the Instance of Adamson advanced this year 1576 to the Archbishoprick of St. Andrews That Nature had furnished him with a good stock and he was a smart Man and cultivated beyond the ordinary Size by many parts of good Literature is not denyed by the Presbyterian Historians themselves They never attempt to represent him as a Fool or a Dunce tho' they are very eager to have him a Man of Tricks and Latitude Now this Prelates ignorance in true Antiquity is Remarkably visible in his subscribing to these Propositions Anno 1580 if we may believe Calderwood The Power and Authority of all Pastors is equal and alike great amongst themselves The Name Bishop is Relative to the Flock and not to the Eldership For he is Bishop of his Flock and not of other Pastors or fellow Elders As for the Preheminence that one beareth over the rest it is the Invention of Man and not the Institution of Holy Writ That the ordaining and appointing of Pastors which is also called the laying on of hands appertaineth not to one Bishop only so being Lawful Election pass before but to those of the same Province or Presbytery and with the like Iurisdiction and Authority Minister at their Kirks That in the Council of Nice for eschewing of private ordaining of Ministers it was statuted that no Pastor should be appointed without the consent of him who dwelt or remained in the Chief and Principal City of the Province which they called the Metropolitan City That after in the latter Councils it was statuted that things might proceed more solemnly and with greater Authority that the laying on of hands upon Pastors after Lawful Election should be by the Metropolitan or Bishop of the Chief and principal Town the rest of the Bishops of the Province voting thereto In which thing there was no other Prerogative but only that of the Town which for that cause was thought most meet both for the conveening of the Council and Ordaining of Pastors with common Consent and Authority That the Estate of the Church was corrupt when the name Bishop which before was common to the rest of the Pastors of the Province began without the Authority of Gods Word and ancient Custome of the Kirk to be attributed to one That the power of appointing and ordaining Ministers and Ruling of Kirks with the whole procuration of Ecclesiastical Discipline was now only devolved to one Metropolitan The other Pastors no ways challenging their Right and Privilege therein of very slothfulness on the one part And the Devil on the other going about craftily to lay the ground of the Papistical Supremacy From these and such other Propositions sign'd by him at that time it may be judged I say if this Prelate did not bewray a very profound ignorance in true Ecclesiastical Antiquity Ane Arrant Presbyterian could not have said could not have wished more Indeed 't is more than probable as perchance may appear by and by that these Propositions were taken out either formally or by collection of Mr. Beza's Book De Triplici Episcopatu Now if Adamson was so little seen in such matters what may we judge of the rest But this is not all For Thirdly There cannot be a greater Evidence of the deplorable unskilfulness of the Clergy in these times in the ancient records of the Church than their suffering Melvil and his Party to obtrude upon them The Second Book of Discipline A split new Democratical Systeme a very Farce of Novelties never heard of before in the Christian Church For instance What else is the confounding of the Offices of Bishops and Presbyters The making Doctors or Professors of Divinity in Colledges and Vniversities a distinct Office and of Divine Institution The setting up of Lay-Elders as Governours of the Church Jure Divino Making them Iudges of mens Qualifications to be admitted to the Sacrament Visiters of the Sick c. Making the Colleges of Presbyters in Cities in the primitive times Lay Eldership Prohibiting Appeals from Scottish General Assemblies to any Iudge Civil or Ecclesiastick and by consequence to Oecumenick Councils Are not these Ancient and Catholick Assertions What footsteps of these things in true Antiquity How easy had it been for men skilled in the Constitution Government and Discipline of the Primitive Church to have laid open to the Conviction of all sober Men the novelty the vanity the inexpediency the impoliticalness the uncatholicalness of most if not all of these Propositions If any further doubt could remain concerning the little skill the Clergy of Scotland in these times had in these matters it might be further Demonstated Fourthly from this plain matter of Fact viz. that that Second Book of Discipline in many points is taken word for word from Mr. Beza's Answers to the Questions proposed to him by The Lord Glamis then Chancellor of Scotland A fair Evidence that our Clergy at that time have not been very well seen in Ecclesiastical Politicks Otherwise it is not to be thought they would have been so imposed on by a single stranger Divine who visibly aimed at the propagation of the Scheme which by chance had got footing in the Church where he lived His Tractate De Triplici Episcopatu written of purpose for the advancement of Presbyterianism in Scotland carries visibly in its whole train that its design was to draw our Clergy from off the Ancient Polity of the Church and his Answers to the Six Questions proposed to him as I said by Glanus contain'd the New Scheme he advised them to Now let us taste a little of his skill in the Constitution and Government of the Ancient Church or if you please of his accounts of her Policy I take his Book as I find it amongst Saravia's works He is Positive for the Divine Right of Ruling Elders He affirms that Bishops arrogated to themselves the power of Ordination without Gods allowance That the Chief foundation of all Ecclesiastical Functions is Popular Election That this Election and not Ordination or Imposition of hands makes Pastors or Bishops That Imposition of hands does no more than put them in possession of their Ministry in the exercise of it as I take it the power whereof they have from that Election That by consequence 't is more proper to say that the Fathers of the Church are Created by the Holy Ghost and the suffrages of their Children than by the Bishops That Saint Paul in his first Epistle to the Corinthians in which he expressly writes against and condemns the
swatch pardon the word if it is not English of both his Historical and his Argumentative Skill a talent he bewails much the want of in his Adversaries as may make it appear just and reasonable for any man to decline him But lest he is not represented there so fully as he ought to be so fully as may justify my declining of him I shall be at some farther pains here to give the Reader a fuller prospect of him To delineate him minutely might perchance be too laborious for me and too tedious and loathsome to my Reader I shall restrict my self therefore to his four Cardinal Virtues his Learning his Iudgment his Civility and his Modesty Or because we are Scottishmen to give them their plain Scotch names his Ignorance his Non-sence his Ill-nature and his Impudence Perhaps I shall not be able to reduce every individual instance to its proper Species 'T is very hard to do that in matters which have such affinity one with another as there is between Ignorance and Non-sence or between Ill-nature and Impudence But this I dare promise if I cannot keep by the Nice Laws of Categories I shall be careful to keep by the Strict Laws of Iustice I shall entitle him to nothing that is not truely his own So much for Preface come we next to the Purpose And in the 1. Place I am apt to think since ever writing was a Trade there was never Author furnished with a richer stock of unquestionable Ignorance for it To insist on all the Evidences of this would swell this Preface to a Bulk beyond the Book I omit therefore his making Presbyterian Ruling Elders as contradistinct from Teaching Elders of Divine Institution his making the SENIORES sometimes mentioned by the Fathers such Ruling Elders and his laying stress on the old blunder about St. Ambrose's testimony to that purpose vide True Represent of Presbyterian Government prop. 3. These I omit because not peculiar to him I omit even that which for any thing I know may be peculiar to him viz. That his Ruling Elders are called Bishops and that their necessary Qualifications are set down at length in Scrip. e. g. 1 Tim. 3.2 and Tit. 1.6 ibid. Prop. 3.4 I omit his Learn'd affirmative that Patronages were not brought into the Church till the 7 th or 8 th Centurie or Later And that they came in amongst the latest Antichristian Corruptions and Vsurpations ibid. Answ. to Object 9 th I omit all such Assertions as these that the most and most Eminent of the Prelatists acknowledge that by our Saviours appointment and according to the practice of the first and best Ages of the Church she ought to be and was Governed in Common by Ministers Acting in Parity ibid. Prop. 12. That Diocesan Episcopacy was not settled in St. Cyprian 's time Rational Defence of Nonconformity c. p. 157 That Diocesan Episcopacy prevailed not for the first three Centuries and that it was not generally in the 4 th Centurie ibid. 158. That the Bishop S. Cyprian all alongst speaks of was a Presbyterian Moderator ibid. 179. That Cyprian Austine Athanasius c. were only such Moderators ibid. 175 176 177 178. I omit his insisting on the Authority of the Decretal Epistles attributed to Pope Anacletus as if they were Genuine ibid. 202. And that great Evidence of his skill in the affairs of the Protestant Churches viz. That Episcopacy is not to be seen in any one of them Except England ibid. p. 10. Nay I omit his nimble and learned Gloss he has put on St. Ierom's Toto Orbe Decretum c. viz. That this Remedy of Schism in many places began then i. e. in St. Ierom's time to be thought on and that it was no wonder that this Corruption began then to creep in it being then about the end of the fourth Centurie when Jerome wrote c. ibid. 170. Neither shall I insist on his famous Exposition of St. Ierom's Quid facit Episcopus c. because it has been sufficiently exposed already in the Historical Relation of the General Ass. 1690. Nor on his making Plutarch Simonides Chrysostom c. Every Graecian speak Latin when he had the confidence to cite them These and 50 more such surprising Arguments of our Authors singular learning I shall pass over And shall insist only a little on two or three instances which to my taste seem superlatively pleasant And 1. In that profound Book which he calls a Rational Defence of Nonconformity c. in Answer to D. Stillingfleet's Vnreasonableness of the separation from the Church of England pag. 172. He hath Glossed St. Chrysostom yet more ridiculously than he did St. Ierom. The passage as it is in Chrysostom is sufficiently famous and known to all who have enquired into Antiquity about the Government of the Church The Learned Father having Discoursed concerning the Office and Duties of a Bishop Hom. 10. on 1 Tim. 3. and proceeding by the Apostles Method to Discourse next of Deacons Hom. II. started this difficulty How came the Apostle to prescribe no Rules about Presbyters And he solved it thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 St. Paul says he did not insist about Presbyters because there 's no great difference between them and Bishops Presbyters as well as Bishops have received Power to Teach and Govern the Church And the Rules he gave to Bishops are also proper for Presbyters For Bishops excel Presbyters only by the Power of Ordination and by this alone they are reckoned to have more Power than Presbyters Vide Edit Savil. Tom. 4. p. 289. Now 't is plain to the most ordinary attention That in the Holy Father's Dialect 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies the Power of conferring Orders just as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signify the Powers of Teaching and Governing Consider now the Critical Skill of G. R. Bellarmine had adduced this Testimony it seems to shew that there was a Disparity in point of Power between Bishops and Presbyters and had put it in Latin thus Inter Episcopum atque Presbyterum interest fere nihil quippe Presbyteris Ecclesiae cura permissa est quae de Episcopis dicuntur ea etiam Presbyteris congruunt Sola quippe Ordinatione Superiores illi sunt So G. R. has it I know not if he has transcribed it faithfully 'T is not his custom to do so Nor have I Bellarmine at hand to compare them Sure I am the Translation doth not fully answer the Original But however that is go we forward with our Learned Author These are his words What he Bellarmine alledgeth out of this citation that a Bishop may Ordain not a Presbyter the Learned Fathers expression will not bear For Ordination must signify either the Ordination the Bishop and Presbyter have whereby they are put in their Office to be different which he doth not alledge Or that the difference between them was only in Order or Precedency not in Power or Authority Or that it
our Author what kind of Scene he took it to be Whither was it Tragical or Comical or Both Tragical to the Prelatists and Comical to the Presbyterians It were worth enquiring likewise whom he meant by Sober Presbyterian Preachers If there are any such in the Nation How many Where do they preach c. But I insist not on these things because the Secret is not amongst them Yet The next thing he produces is worth the Noticing And they The Sober Presbyterian Preachers if they had preached against Rabbling the Clergy Should have lost their SWEET WORDS Now here is subject afforded for several weighty Controversies For it may be made a Question Whither it be the duty of Sober Presbyterian Preachers to preach Righteousness to a Rebellious people whither they will Hear or whither they will Forbear It may be made another Whither our Author here gave up all the Rabblers to a reprobate Sense 'T is possible he meant so For the Sweetest words the Soberest Presbyterians can utter in their preachings are not too precious to be spent on such as are in a state of Reclaimableness But that which I take to be the most proper Question the Question that ariseth most naturally from the Text is Whither Presbyterian Words are not Sweeteer than that they should be Spent on such needless purposes as the Recommendation and Assertion of Righteousness and the Condemnation of Iniquity Whither it had not been ane unaccountable prodigality in them to have lost their Sweet words about such Trifâ—ing concerns as these But neither is the Secret here But it follows now These practices of the Rabble were publickly spoken against by Ministers both before they were Acted for preventing them and after for Reproving them and preventing the like Here it is I say Has he not here discovered ane important Secret of his party Has he not discovered that the Rabbling of the Clergy was not the product of Chance or Accident but a Deliberated a Consulted ane Advised politick Has he not discovered that even the sober Presbyterian Ministers were privy to the plot of it Has he not told that they spake against it before it was Acted for preventing it And doth it not follow clearly that they knew of it before it was Acted for if they had known nothing of it how could they have spoken against it for preventing it But tho they knew of it that it was to be done yet it seems They Consented not that it should be Done For they spake against it for preventing of it But I am afraid our Author here turn'd weary of his Sincerity For who spake publickly against these practices of the Rabble Or where or when were they spoken against before they were acted I dare challenge him to name one of his most sober Presbyterian Ministers who preached publickly against them for preventing of them When I am put to it I can name more than One or Two who pretend to be of the First Rank of the Sober Presbyterian Ministers who knew of them indeed and Consulted privately about them and said It was the surest way to have the Curates once dispossessed Because Once dispossessed they might find difficulties in being Repossessed But I never heard of so much as One who preached against them before they were Done I am very confident G. R. cannot name One. Indeed Seeing as our Author Grants they knew of the Rabbling before it was Acted If they had been so serious against it as they should have been and as our Author would have us believe they were how natural and easy as well as Christian and Dutiful had it been to have given Advertisements to the poor men who were to suffer it about it Was ever any such thing done But it seems Presbyterian words were Sweeter to Presbyterian palates than Common humanity or Christian Charity They were too Sweet to be Lost in such Advertisements By this time the Reader I think has got a proof of G. R.'s tenderness even to his own Herd when the Argument of ane Adversary pinched him But this is not the Highest stept For 10. If ane Argument straitens him He never stands to baffle and expose and contradict and make a Lier of his own Learned Sensible Civil Modest Self And here again One might write a large volume but I shall confine my self to a Competent number of instances First then you never saw a Prelatist and a Presbyterian Contradicting one Another in more plain opposite and peremptory Terms than he has done himself on several occasions Take this Taste In his Answer to D. Stillingfleet's Irenicum p. 64 He is at great pains to prove that where Episcopacy is Presbyters have no power Particularly he has these two profound Arguments for it 1. If Bishops be set over Presbyter they must either be only Praesides which is not contrary to Parity or they must have Authority above and over their Brethren And if so They may rule without their Brethren Seeing they may command them c. 2. If Presbyters under a Bishop have ruling power either they may Determine without or against his consent or not if so The Bishop is but a President If not The Presbyters are but Cyphers Now who would think that one of G. R.'s Courage would ever have parted with such ane important proposition especially having such impregnable Arguments for it Yet Consider if he has not done it most notoriously in his Answer to the Doctors Vnreasonableness of the separation c. pag. 182. where he has these express words He The Doctor Vndertaketh to prove that the English Episcopacy doth not take away the whole power of Presbyters we do not alledge that it taketh away the whole power of Presbyters for that were to reduce them into the same order with the rest of the people but wee say it usurpeth ane undue power over them c. Again In his First Vind. of his Church of Scotland His cause led him in Answ. to Quest. 10. to say That K. Is. Tolleration was against Law He was pressed with this Argument about the Inclinations of the people That not fifty Gentlemen in all Scotland out of the West did upon the Indulgence forsake the Churches to frequent Meeting houses And his Answer was They clave to the former way i. e. Continued in the Episcopal Communion Because the Law stood for it Is it not plain here that the Meeting houses were contrary to Law Hear him now in his 2 vind p. 43 44. passim when he was prest with the Scandal of his party 's Complying with the dispensing power and erecting Meeting houses contrary to Law He affirmed boldly that the Dispensing power was according to Law And K. I. was enabled by Law to Grant his Toleration Again In his 2. vind in Answ. to Letter 1. § 9. p. 12. when he had the Meeting of Estates to Apologize for for suffering and allowing persons to sit as Members who were not Qualified according to Law He Granted some
against Prelacy it was not according to much Knowledge Mr. Petrie mentions only two of our Reformers as Divine Right-of Parity Men The Earl of Murray who was Regent and Mr. Knox Calderwood insists on Knox but doth not mention Murray Petries Evidence about Murray is That he hath read of him that by his Letter he did inform Queen Elizabeth of the Honor and Happiness that would attend her Crown and State upon the Establishment of Christs Government And of the profitable Vses whereunto the Rich Benefices of Bishops might be applied But I. He tells not in what Author he read this And none who knows Mr. Petries Byass will think it unreasonable to require some other thing to rely on than his own Bare Authority 2. If we should rest on his Authority and allow that Murray wrote so because Mr. Petrie said it yet how will it follow that his Lordship was for the Divine Right of Parity Might not he have been against the Temporal Dignities and the rich Benefices of the English Bishops without being against Prelacy How many have been so Indeed 3. There is all the Reason in the world to believe That if Murray did write so to the English Queen this was all he aim'd at For had he been for the Divine Right of Parity would he ever have so much countenanced Imparity in the Church of Scotland Was not he one of the Subscribers of the First Book of Discipline wherein Imparity was so formally established Was not he Regent in December 1567 And did not he then give the Royal Assent to some Acts of Parliament made clearly in favour of Imparity Or did he extend the Royal Assent to these Acts in Despight of his Conscience 'T is true indeed Time has been when some Men have had such Ductile Consciences that picq't the one year for not having so much favour at Court as they thought they deserved they could boldly stand up in Parliaments against iniquous Laws and tell their fellow Members That such Laws reflected on the Iustice of the Nation and what not And yet the next year when the Court smiled on them and gave them Preferments and Pensions to satisfy their Ambition or their Avarice they could retract all their former Niceness so much that if they had got the management of the Royal Assent they would have made no scruple to have Applied it for the Ratification Approbation and perpetual Confirmation of the same Laws in their whole Heads Articles and Clauses which seemed to themselves so scandalous and wicked But the Earl of Murray while Regent had no such temptations I believe he had no such yielding Conscience if he had I don't think his Authority was much to be valued Once more I think 't is very strange that he should have been for the Divine Right of Parity and yet should never have spoken so much out considering his occasions except in his private Letters to Queen Eliz. The only person now to be considered is Iohn Knox. He was certainly a prime instrument in the Advancement of our Reformation His Authority was great and his Sentiments were very influential And it is not to be denied but it is of some weight in the present question to know what was his judgment I shall therefore endeavour to account for his principles a little more fully and â— shall do it by these steps 1. I shall shew the insufficiency of the arguments that are adduced by our Brethren to prove him Presbyterian 2. I shall adduce the Arguments which incline me to think he was not The great Argument insisted on by the Author of the Course of Conformity and Mr. Petrie is taken from a Letter of Knox's directed to the General Assembly holden at Stirling in August 1571. The words are these Vnfaithful and Traitors to the Flocks shall ye be before the Lord Jesus if that with your consent directly or indirectly ye suffer unworthy men to be thrust in within the Ministry of the Kirk under what pretence that ever it be Remember the Iudge before whom ye must make an Account and resist that TYRANNY as ye would avoid Hell fire So the Author of the Course of Conformity without the least attempt to let the world see where the Argument lay Mr. Petrie is indeed a little more discreet He tells us where it lies Iohn Knox in his Letter to the Assembly by the word Tyranny meaneth Episcopacy So he but without any fuller deduction And is not this a Demonstration that Knox was Presbyterian And yet after all this it is not possible to make more of the Letter when it is narrowly consider'd than That Knox deem'd it a pernicious and Tyrannical thing for any person or persons whatsoever to thrust unworthy men into the Ministery of the Church and Ministers who would make Conscience of their Calling and Trust must resist such encroachments with all possible concern and courage No man I say can make more of the Letter And who doubts but Mr. Knox was so far in the right But then let any man who looks not through Mr. Petries Spectacles tell me what this has to do with Parity or Imparity The next argument is insisted on both by Petrie and Calderwood It is that Knox was at St. Andrews in Feb. 1571 2 when Douglas was advanced to that See That he refused to inaugurate him Nay that in the Audience of many then present he denounced Anathema to the Giver and Anathema to the Receiver And if you ask Calderwoods Evidence for this he tells you He found it in a certain Manuscript than which what can be more Apodectick To be short tho we had reason to give credit to Calderwood and his uncertain Certain Manuscript and to believe that the Matter of Fact is true and that Knox said and did so yet by what consequences will it follow that he was for the Divine Right of Parity To deal frankly 't is like enough that Knox said so and 't is very probable he had reason to say so in that instance For at that time dreadful Invasions were made upon the Patrimony of the Church None more deep in that Iniquity than the Earl of Morton then Chancellor by whose influence Douglas was preferred to that Archbishoprick And so 't is like enough that Knox who all his life was singularly Zealous for the Rights of the Church upon suspicion if not certain knowledge of some dirty Bargain between Morton and Douglas expressed suitable Resentments But that it was not from any perswasion he had of the Unlawfulness of Prelacy is clear even from what Calderwood and Petrie themselves have recorded within a pag. or two For both tell us that when the next Assembly continued Douglas in the Rectorate of the University of St. Andrews a Station he had been in before he was raised to the Archbishoprick Iohn Knox Regrated that so many Offices were laid on one Old Man which scarcely 20 of the best gifts were able to bear For as
Parity or the Vnlawfulness of Prelacy in all these controversies He was warm enough then and eager enough to have found faults in the English Constitution yet he never charged her with the horrid guilt of Prelacy Not so much as one word of that in any Account I have seen of these Troubles How suitable had it been for him to have declared himself in this matter in his Appelation from the cruel and most unjust sentence pronounced against him by the false Bishops and Clergy of Scotland as he calls them published by himself Anno 1558 yet in all that Appellation not one syllable to this purpose On the contrary he plainly supposes the Lawfulness of the Episcopal Office all alongst throughout it He appeals to a Lawful General Council Such a Council as the most Ancient Laws and Canons do approve And who knows not that the most Ancient Laws and Canons made Bishops the Chief if not the only Members of such Councils He says if the Popish Clergy his Adversaries are for it He is content that Matters in Controversie between him and them be determined by the Testimonies and Authorities of Doctors and Councils Three things being granted him whereof these are two 1. That the most Ancient Councils nearest to the Primitive Church in which the Learned and Godly Fathers examined all matters by Gods word may be holden of most Authority 2. That no Determinations of Councils nor Men be admitted against the plain verity of Gods word nor against the Determinations of the four chief Councils Would he if he had been Presbyterian have agreed so frankly to have stood by the Determination of these 4 Chief Councils Could he have expected they would have favoured the Divine Right of Presbyterian Parity Will any Scottish Presbyterian now adays stand to the Decision of these 4 Councils Farther In that same Appelation he requires of the Nobility that the Bishops be compelled to make answer for the neglecting their Office which plainly supposes the Lawfulness of the Office and charges Guilt only on the Officers When had it been more seasonable than in his Admonition to the Commonalty of Scotland published also Anno 1558 His great design in it was to excite them to a Reformation by loading the Papistical Clergy with every thing that was abominable Yet not a Syllable of it here neither nothing but a farther and a clearer Supposition of the Lawfulness of Prelacy You may says he in a peaceable manner without Sedition withhold the fruits and profits which your false Bishops and Clergy most unjustly receive of you until such time as they shall faithfully do their Charge and Duties which is To preach unto you Christ Jesus truly Rightly to minister the Sacraments according to his Institution And so to watch for your Souls as is commanded by Christ c. If this supposes not the Innocency of the Episcopal Office in it self I know not what can Had he been for the Divine Right of Parity how unfaithful had he been in his Faithful Admonition to the true Professors of the Gospel of Christ within the Kingdom of England written Anno 1554 His great work there was to ennumerate the Causes which in Gods righteous judgment brought Queen Mary's Persecution on them But he quite forgot to name the Sin of Prelacy as one Assuredly he had not done so had he been of the same sentiments with our Famous General Assembly 1690. How unfaithfully was it done of him I say thus to conceal one of the most Crimson Guilts of the Nation But this is not the worst of it In that same Admonition he has a most scandalous Expression sure he was not then sufficiently purg'd of Popish Corruption God gave says he such strength to that REVEREND FATHER IN GOD Thomas Cranmer to cut the Knots of Devilish Sophistry c. To call an Archbishop a Reverend Father in God what was it else but the plain Language of the Beast How Rankly did it smell of the Whore How seasonable had it been in his Letter to the Queen Regent of Scotland written Anno 1556 and published by himself with additions Anno 1558 He talked very freely about the Popish Bishops in it but never a Tittle of the Vnlawfulness of the Office It is plain from that Letter he never dream'd of the Doughty Argument so much insisted on since against Prelacy viz. That it is a Branch of Popery and Bishops are Limbs of Antichrist For having stated it as one of the Popish Arguments That their Religion was ancient and it was not possible that that Religion could be false which so long time so many Councils and so great a Multitude of Men had authorized and confirmed He gives his answer thus If Antiquity of time shall be considered in such Cases Then shall not only the Idolatry of the Gentiles but also the False Religion of Mahomet be preferred to the Papistry For both the one and the other is more ancient than is the Papistical Religion Yea Mahomet had Established his Alcoran before any Pope of Rome was crowned with a Triple Crown c. Can any man think Iohn Knox was so very unlearned as to imagine that Episcopacy was not much older than Mahomet or knowing it to be older that yet he could have been so Ridiculous as to have thought it a Relict of Popery which he himself affirmed to be younger than Mahometism whoso pleases may see more of his sentiment about the Novelty of Popery in his conference with Queen Mary recorded in his History One other Testimony to this purpose I cannot forbear to transcribe All that know any thing of the History of our Reformation must be presum'd to know That Superintendency was Erected by Mr. Knox's his special advice and counsel That it was in its very height Anno 1566 is as indubitable Now we are told that Knox wrote the 4 th Book of his History that year Hear him therefore in his Introduction to it We can speak the Truth whomsoever we offend There is no Realm that hath the Sacraments in like Purity For all others how sincere that ever the Doctrine be that by some is taught Retain in their Churches and in the Ministers thereof some Footsteps of Antichrist and Dregs of Popery But we all Praise to God alone have Nothing within our Churches that ever flowed from that Man of Sin Let any man judge now if Mr. Knox lookt upon imparity as a Dreg of Popery Thus we have found Knox when he had the fairest occasions the strongest temptations the most awakening calls when it was most seasonable for him to have declared for the Divine Right of Parity and the Vnlawfulness of Prelacy still silent in the matter or rather on all occasions proceeding on suppositions and reasoning from principles fairly allowing the Lawfulness of Prelacy But is there no more to be said Yes More with a witness In his Exhortation to England for the speedy Embracing of Christs Gospel
dated from Geneva Ianuary 12 Ann. 1559. Amongst many other Reformations He is for Reforming their Bishopricks indeed But how By abolishing them Nothing like it How then Take it in his own words Let no man be charged in preaching of Christ Iesus above that a man may do I mean That your Bishopricks be so Divided that of every one as they are nâ—w for the most part may be made ten And so in every City and Great Town there may be placed a Godly Learned Man with so many joined with him for preaching and instruction as shall be thought sufficient for the Bounds committed to their Charge So he And let our Parity-men if they can give this Testimony a Gloss favourable to their side of the Question without destroying the text The Truth is this Testimony is so very nicking that I am apt to apprehend it might have been for its sake That this whole Tractate was left out of the Folio-Edition of Knox's Works printed at London Anno 1641. However the Inquisition it seems has not been so strict at Edenburgh for there it escap'd the Index Expurgatorius And yet tho it had not the Good Cause had not been one whit the Securer For Knox's practice would have sufficiently determined the matter For Did not he compile the First Book of Discipline And is not Imparity fairly Established there Did not he write and bear the Letter sent by the Superintendents Ministers and Commissioners of the Church within the Realm of Scotland to their Brethren the Bishops and Pastors in England Anno 1566 Did not he in that same Title of that same Letter acknowledge that these Brethren Bishops and Pastors of England had renounced the Roman Antichrist and professed the Lord Iesus in sincerity And doth not the Letter all alongst allow of the Episcopal Power and Authority of these English Bishops Did not he publickly and solemnly admit Mr. Iohn Spotswood to the Superintendency of Lothian Anno 1561 Did not he Concur at the Coronation of King Iames the Sixth with a Bishop and two Superintendents Anno 1567 Was not he some time a Commissioner for Visitation as they were then called i. e. a Temporary Bishop And did not he then Act in a Degree of Superiority above the Rest of his Brethren within the bounds of his Commission Did not he sit and vote and concur in many General Assemblies where Acts were made for performing Canonical Obedience to Superintendents In fine doth not Spotswood tell us That he was far from the Dotages wherein some that would have been thought his followers did afterwards fall That never man was more obedient to Church Authority than be That he was always urging the Obedience of Ministers to their Superintendents for which he caused diverse Acts to be made in the Assemblies of the Church And That he shewed himself severe to the Transgressors I have insisted the longer on this instance of Knox because he made a Singular Figure amongst our Reformers Besides having so fully evinced that he whom our Brethren value so much was no Divine-Right-of-Parity-Man I think it may readily pass for credible that neither were any of the rest of our Reformers of that opinion And now to bring home all this to my main purpose if not so much as one of our Reformers no not Knox himself was for the Divine Right of Parity I think it may amount to an undeniable evidence at least to a strong Presumption That they were not of the present Presbyterian Principles and all this will appear still farther unquestionable when it is considered in the IV. place How much reason there is to believe That our Reformers proceeded generally on the same principles with the Reformers of England where the Government of the Church by imparity was continued without the least opposition This is a Consideration which I am afraid may not relish well with the Inclinations of my Presbyterian Brethren yet withal may be of considerable weight with unprejudiced people and bring light to several things about our Reformation which even those who have read our Histories and Monuments may have passed over inadvertently And therefore I shall take leave to insist upon it somewhat fully And I shall proceed by these steps 1. I shall endeavour to represent how our Reformation under God was principally Cherished and Encouraged by English influences 2. I shall endeavour to represent how in Correspondence to these Influences our Reformers were generally of the same mind with the Church of England in several momentous instances relating to Constitution and Communion the Government and Polity of the Church wherein our present Presbyterian Principles stand in direct opposition and contradiction to her If I can make these two things appear I think I shall make a Considerable Advance towards the Determination of the Second Enquiry 1. I say our Reformation under God was Cherished and Encouraged principally by English influences That Scotland barring foreign influences is Naturally dispos'd for receiving English impressions cannot but be obvious to common sense We not only live in the same Island separated from all other Neighbourhood we not only breath the same air and speak the same language and observe the same customs and have all the opportunities of Reciprocating all the Offices which can result from daily Commerces and familiar acquaintances and easy Correspondences and Matrimonial Conjunctions and innumerable other such Endearing Relations and Allectives to Mutual Kindness but also Scotland is the lesser England the larger Scotland the more barren England the more fertile Scotland the poorer England the richer Scotland the more penurious of people England the more populous Scotland every way the weaker England every way the stronger Kingdom and by consequence Scotland every way the more apt to receive and England every way the more apt to give impressions And Nature in this is fully justified by Experience For what Scottish man knows not that when the late Revolution was a carrying on as England cast the Copy to Scotland so it was used and prest as one of the most popular and influential Topicks to perswade the Scots to follow the Copy That England had done it and why should Scotland follow a separate Course Was not England a powerful and a wise Nation what Defence could Scotland make for it self if England should invade it And how was it to be imagined that England would not invade Scotland if Scotland did not follow England's Measures So that to stand by K. I. when England had rejected him what was it else than to expose the Nation to unavoidable Ruine Who knows not I say that this was one of the most prest because one of the most plausible Arguments in the beginning of the late Revolution And who sees not that the Force of the Argument lay in Scotland's obnoxiousness to England's impressions Let no true hearted Scottish man imagine 'T is in my thought to dishonour my Native Country I have said no more than all
Having thus removed this seeming difficulty I return to my purpose The Earl of Lennox was then Regent He was murthered in the time of the Parliament So at that time things were in confusion and these Commissioners from the General Assembly could do nothing in their business The Earl of Mar succeeded in the Regency Application was made to him It was agreed to between his Grace and the Clergy who applied to him that a Meeting should be kept between so many for the Church and so many for the State for adjusting matters For this end ane Assembly was kept at Leith on the 12 of Ianuary 1571 2. By this Assembly Six were delegated to meet with as many to be nominated by the Council to treat reason and conclude concerning the Settlement of the Polity of the Church After diverse Meetings and long Deliberation as Spotswood has it they came to an Agreement which was in effect That the Old Polity should revive and take place only with some little alterations which seemed necessary from the Change that had been made in Religion Whoso pleases may see it more largely in Calderwood who tells us that the whole Scheme is Registred in the Books of Council more briefly in Spotswood and Petrie In short It was a Constitution much the same with that which we have ever since had in the times of Episcopacy For by this Agreement those who were to have the Old Prelatical power were also to have the Old Prelatical Names and Titles of Archbishops and Bishops the Old Division of the Diocesses was to take place the Patrimony of the Church was to run much in the Old Channel particularly express provision was made concerning Chapters Abbots Priors c. That they should be continued and enjoy their Old Rights and Priviledges as Churchmen and generally things were put in a regular Course This was the Second Model not a new one of Polity established in the Church of Scotland after the Reformation at a pretty good distance I think from the Rules and Exigencies of Parity The truth is both Calderwood and Petrie acknowledge it was Imparity with a witness The thing was so manifest they had not the brow to deny it all their Endeavours are only to impugne the Authority of this Constitution or raise Clouds about it or find Weaknesses in it So far as I can collect no man ever affirmed that at this time the Government of the Church of Scotland was Presbyterian except G. R. who is truly singular for his skill in these matters But we shall have some time or other occasion to consider him In the mean time let us consider Calderwood's and Petrie's Pleas against this Establishment They may be reduced to these four 1. The Incompetency of the Authority of the Meeting at Leith in January 1571 2. 2. The Force which was at that time put upon the Ministers by the Court which would needs have that Establishment take place 3. The Limitedness of the power then granted to Bishops 4. The Reluctancies which the subsequent Assemblies discovered against that Establishment These are the most material Pleas they insist on and I shall consider how far they may hold The 1. Plea is the Incompetency of the Authority of the Meeting at Leith Ian. 12. 1571 2. which gave Commission to the Six for agreeing with the State to such ane Establishment It is not called ane Assembly but a Convention in the Register The ordinary Assembly was not appointed to be holden till the 6 th of March thereafter As it was only a Convention so it was in very great haste it seems and took not time to consider things of such importance so deliberately as they ought to have been considered It was a corrupt Convention for it allowed Master Robert Pont a Minister to be a Lord of the Session These are the Reasons they insist on to prove the Authority of that Meeting incompetent And now to examine them briefly When I consider these Arguments and for what end they are adduced I must declare I cannot but admire the Force of prejudice and partiality how much they blind mens Eyes and distort their Reasons and byass them to the most ridiculous Undertakings For What tho the next ordinary Assembly was not appointed to meet till March thereafter Do not even the Presbyterians themselves maintain the Lawfulness yea the Necessity of calling General Assemblies extraordinarily upon extraordinary occasions pro re nata as they call it How many such have been called since the Reformation How much did they insist on this pretence Anno 1638 And What tho the Register calls this Meeting a Convention was it therefore no Assembly Is there such an opposition between the words Convention and Assembly that both cannot possibly signify the same thing Doth not Calderwood acknowledge that they voted themselves ane Assembly in their second Session Doth he not acknowledge that all the ordinary Members were there which used to constitute Assemblies But what if it can be found that ane undoubted uncontroverted Assembly own'd it as ane Assembly and its Authority as the Authority of ane Assembly What is become of this fine Argument then But can this be done indeed Yes it can and these same very Authors have given it in these same very Histories in which they use this as ane Argument and not very far from the same very pages Both of them I say tell that the General Assembly holden at Perth in August immediately thereafter made ane Act which began thus Forasmuch as the Assembly holden in Leith in January last c. But if it was ane Assembly yet it was in too great haste it did not things deliberately Why so No Reason is adduced no Reason can be adduced for saying so The Subject they were to treat of was no new one it was a Subject that had imployed all their Heads for several months before Their great business at that time was to give a Commission to some Members to meet with the Delegates of the State to adjust matters about the Polity and Patrimony of the Church This Commission was not given till the Third Session as Calderwood himself acknowledges Where then was the great haste Lay it in doing a thing in their Third Session which might have been done in the First But were not these Commissioners in too great haste to come to ane Agreement when they met with the Delegates of the State Yes if we may believe Petrie for he says That the same day viz. January 16. the Commissioners conveened and conclued c. But he may say with that same integrity whatever he pleases For not to insist on Spotswood's account who says it was after diverse Meetings and long Deliberation that they came to their Conclusion not to insist on his authority I say because he may be suspected as partial doth not Calderwood expresly acknowledge that they began their Conference upon the
the Meeting of the Four Kings against the Five or of the Five against the Four mentioned in the 14 th Chapter of the Book of Genesis For the Meetings of these Kings were before our Presbyteries I think in order of time And these Meetings of these Kings were as much like our present Presbyteries as those Meetings were which were appointed at the Reformation for the inteâ—pretation of Scripture So that even Calderwood himself was but triâ—ling when he said so But triâ—ling is one thing and impudent founding of false History upon another Mans trifling is another But enough of this Author at present we shall have further occasions of meeting with him This Assembly was also earnest with the King that the Book of Policy might be farther considered and that farther Conference might be had about it That the Heads not agreed about might be compromised some way or other But the King it seems listned not For they were at it again in their next Assembly And now that I have so frequently mentioned this Second Book of Discipline and shall not have occasion to proceed much further in this wearisome Deduction Before I leave it I shall only say this much more about it As much stress as the Presbyterian party laid on it afterwards and continue still to lay on it as if it were so very exact a Systeme of Ecclesiastical Polity yet at the beginning the Compilers of it had no such Confident sentiments about it For if we may believe Spotswood and herein he is not contradicted by any Presbyterian Historian when Master David Lindesay Mr. Iames Lawson and Mr. Robert Pont were sent by the Assembly to present it to the Regent Morton in the end of the year 1577 They intreated his Grace to receive the Articles presented to him and if any of them did seem not agreeable to reason to vouchsafe Audience to the Brethren whom the Assembly had named to attend Not that they thought it a work complete to which nothing might be added or from which nothing might be diminished for as God should reveal further unto them they should be willing to help and renew the same Now upon this Testimony I found this Question Whither the Compilers of the Second Book of Discipline could in reason have been earnest that this Book which they acknowledged not to be a work so complete as that nothing could be added to it or taken from it should have been confirmed by ane Oath and sworn to as ane Vnalterable Rule of Policy Are they not injurious to them who make them capable of such a bare faced absurdity Indeed whatever our present Presbyterians say and with how great assurance soever they talk to this purpose this is a Demonstration that the compilers of it never intended nay could not intend that it should be sworn to in the Negative Confession That it was not sworn to in that Confession I think I could prove with as much evidence as the nature of the thing is capable of if it were needful to my present purpose But not being that I shall only give this further Demonstration which comes in here naturally enough now that we have mentioned this Book so often The Negative Confession was sworn to and subscribed by the King and his Council upon the 28. of Ianuary 1580 1. Upon the second of March thereafter the King gave out a Proclamation ordering all the subjects to subscribe it But the King had never approven never owned but on the contrary had constantly rejected the Second Book of Discipline Nay it was not Ratiâ—ied got not its finishing stroke from the General Assembly it self till towards the end of April in that year 1581. By necessary consequence I think it was not sworn to in the Negative Confession And thus I leave it Proceed we now to the next Assembly It met at Dundee upon the twelfth of Iuly 1580. full twenty years after the Reformation For the Parliament which Established the Reformation as the Presbyterian Historians are earnest to have it had its first Meeting on the tenth of Iuly 1560. This this was the Assembly which after so many fencings and strugglings gave the deadly Thrust to Episcopacy I shall transcribe its Act word for word from Calderwood who has exactly enough taken it from the MS. and both Spotswood and Petrie agree It is this Forasmuch as the Office of a Bishop as it is now used and commonly taken within this Realm hath no sure Warrant Authority nor good Ground out of the Book and Scriptures of God but is brought in by the Folly and Corruptions of mens invention to the great overthrow of the true Kirk of God The whole Assembly in one voice after Liberty given to all men to Reason in the matter none oppening themselves in defence of the said pretended Office Findeth and Declareth the same pretended Office Vsed and Termed as is abovesaid Vnlawful in the self as having neither Fundament Ground nor Warrant in the word of God And Ordaineth that all such Persons as brook or hereafter shall brook the said Office be charged simpliciter to dimit quite and leave off the Samine as ane Office whereunto they are not called by God and sicklike to desist and cease from preaching Ministration of the Sacraments or using any way the Office of Pastors while they receive de novo Admission from the General Assembly under the pain of Excommunication to be used against them Wherein if they be found Disobedient or Contraveen this Act in any point The sentence of Excommunication after due admonition to be execute against them This is the Act. Perhaps it were no very great difficulty to impugn the Infallibility of this true blue Assembly and to expose the boldness the folly the iniquity the preposterous zeal which are conspicious in this Act Nay yet after all this to shew that the Zealots for Parity had not arrived at that height of Effrontery as to Condemn Prelacy as simply and in it self Unlawful But by this time I think I have performed my promise and made it appear that it was no easy task to Abolish Episcopacy and Introduce Presbytery to turn down Prelacy and set up Parity in the Government of the Church when it was first attempted in Scotland And therefore I shall stop here and bring this long Disquisition upon the Second Enquiry to a Conclusion after I have Recapitulated and represented in one intire view what I have at so great length deduced I have made it appear I think That no such Article was believed professed or maintained by the body of any Reformed or Reforming Church or by any Eminent and Famous Divine in any Reformed or Reforming Church while our Church was a Reforming No such Article I say as that of the Divine and indispensible Institution of Parity and the Vnlawfulness of Prelacy or Imparity amongst the Governours of the Church I have made it appear that there is no reason to believe that our
of a sense they had of the Necessity of the Ecclesiastical Estate Now 't is to be Remembred that those who appeared for the Queen were Protestants as well as these who were for her Son No Man I think will deny but the subsistence of the Ecclesiastical Estate and their Vote in Parliament was confirmed and continued by the Agreement of Leith Anno 1572. Indeed When the Project for Parity amongst the Officers of the Church was set on Foot by Melvil Anno 1575 and some of the Clergy were gained to his side and they were using their utmost endeavours to have Episcopacy overturned it seems this was a main difficulty to them a difficulty which did very much entangle and retard their purpose This I say that the overturning Prelacy was the overturning one of the three Estates of Parliament This is evident not only from Boyd Arch Bishop of Glasgow his Discourse to the General Assembly Anno 1576. mentioned before but also from the two Letters I have often named which were written to Mr. Beza the one by the Lord Glamis Anno 1576 or 1577 the other by Mr. Melvil Anno 1579. Because they contribute so much light to the matter in hand I shall once more resume them Glamis was then Chancellor of Scotland It is manifest he wrote not indeliberately or without advice Undoubtedly he stated the Question according to the sense the Generality of People had then of it Now he states it thus Seeing every Church hath its own Pastor and the Power of Pastors in the Church of Christ seems to be equal The Question is whither the Office of Bishops be Necessary in the Church for convocating these Pastors when there is need for Ordaining Pastors and for Deposing them for just Causes Or whither it be better that the Pastors Acting in Parity and subject to no Superiour Bishop should choose Qualified Men for the Ministery with consent of the Patron and the People and Censure and Depose c. For Retaining Bishops we have these two Motives One is the stubbornenss and ungovernableness of the People which cannot possibly be kept within Bounds if they are not over-awed by the Authority of these Bishops in their visitations The other is that such is the constitution of the Monarchy which hath obtain'd time out of mind that as often as the Parliament meets for consulting about things pertaining to the safety of the Republick nothing can be determined without the Bishops who make the Third Estate of the Kingdom which to change or subvert would be extremely perilous to the Kingdom So he from which we may learn two things The First is a farther confirmation of what I have before asserted to have been the sentiment of these times concerning the Election of Pastors namely that it was that they should be Elected by the Clergy and that the People should have no other Power than that of Consenting The other is pat in Relation to our present business namely that the Ecclesiastical Estate was judged Necessary by the constitution of the Monarchy It could not be wanting in Parliaments It was to run the hazard of subverting the constitution to think of altering it or turning it out of doors And Melvil's Letter is clearly to the same purpose We have not ceased these five years to fight against Pseudepiscopacy many of the Nobility resisting us and to press the severity of Discipline We have presented unto his Royal Majesty and three Estates of the Realm both before and now in this Parliament the form of Discipline to be insert amongst the Acts and to be confirmed by publick Authority We have the Kings mind bended towards us too far said I am sure if we may take that Kings own word for it but many of the Peers against us For they alledge if Pseudepiscopacy be taken away one of the Estates is pulled down If Presbyteries be erected the Royal Majesty is diminished c. 'T is true Melvil himself here shews no great kindness for the third Estate But that 's no great matter It was his humor to be singular All I am concerned for is the publick sentiment of the Nation especially the Nobility which we have so plain for the Necessity of the Ecclesiastical Estate that nothing can be plainer Nay So indisputable was it then that this Ecclesiastical Estate was absolutely necessary by the constitution that the Presbyterians themselves never called it in Question never offered to advance such a Paradox as that it might be abolished After they had abolished Episcopacy by their Assembly 1580 the King sent several times to them telling them He could not want one of his three Estates How would they provide him with ane Ecclesiastical Estate now that they had abolished Bishops Whoso pleases to Read Calderwood himself shall find this point frequently insisted on What returns gave they Did they ever in the least offer to return that the having ane Ecclesiastical Estate in Parliament was a Popish Corruption That it was ane unwarrantable constitution That it was not Necessary Or that the constitution might be iâ—â—ire enough without it No such thing entered their thoughts On the contrary they were still clear for maintaining it They had no inclination to part with such a valuable Right of the Church Their Answer to the Kings Demands was still one and the same They were not against Churchmens having vote in Parliament But none ought to vote in name of the Church without Commission from the Church And this their sentiment they put in the very Second Book of Discipline for these are word for word the seventeenth and eighteenth Articles of the eleventh Chapter 17. We deny not in the mean time that Ministers MAY and SHOVLD assist their Princes when they are required in all things agreeable to the word of God whither it be in Council or Parliament or out of Council Providing always they neither neglect their own charges nor through slattery of Princes hurt the publick Estate of the Kirk 18. But generally we say that no Pastor under whatsoâ—ver Title of the Kirk and specially the abused Titles in Popery of Prelates Chapters and Convents ought to attempt any thing in the Churches name either in Parliament or out of Council without the Commission of the Reformed Kirk within this Realm And It was concluded in the Assembly holden at Dundee March 7. 1598. That it was NECESSARY and EXPEDIENT for the well of the Kirk that the Ministery as the third Estate of this Realm in name of the Church have vote in Parliament So indubitable was it in these times that the Ecclesiastical Estate was necessary and that it could not be wanting without the notorious subversion of the constitution of Parliaments Indeed it was not only the sentiment of General Assemblies whatever side whither the Prelatical or the Presbyterian prevailed but it was likewise the sentiment of all Parliaments It were easy to amass a great many Acts of a great many Parliaments to