of England e. g. Friar Alexander Seaton when he was forced to flee in King Iames the 5th's time went to England and became the Duke of Suffolk's Chaplain and died in that service Alexander Aless was in great favour with King Henry and called the King's Schollar He was a Member of the English Convocation and disputed against Stokesly Bishop of London and maintain'd there were but two Sacraments Baptism and the Eucharist Anno 1536 or 37 And he it was that first turn'd the English Liturgy into Latin for Bucer's use Anno 1549 as both Heylin and Burnet in their Histories of the English Reformation tell us Iohn Fife and one M' Dowdal stayed as long in England as Aless did And 't is not to be doubted that they were of the same principles Iohn M' Bee during his abode in England was liberally entertained by Nicol. Saxton Bishop of Salisbury who made much account of him which is no argument I think that he was a Presbyterian Sir Iohn Borthwick was charged with Heresie Anno 1640 for maintaining That the Heresies commonly called the Heresies of England and their New Liturgy was Commendable and to be embraced of all Christians And That the Church of Scotland ought to be govern'd after the manner of the Church of England i. e. under the King and not the Pope as Supreme Governor Friar Thomas Guillam the first publick Preacher of the Reformed Religion in Scotland He by whose Sermons Iohn Knox got the first lively impressions of the Truth This Guillam I say after Arran the Regent Apostatized withdrew and went into England and we hear no more of him From which 't is reasonable to conclude That he kept the Common Course with the other Reformers there Iohn Rough was the Regents other Chaplain while he was Protestant He likewise fled to England tho sometime after Guillam He preached some years in the Towns of Carlisle Berwick and Newcastle and was afterwards provided to a Benefice by the Archbishop of York where he lived till the Death of King Edward When Mary's Persecution turn'd warm he fled and lived some time in Freesland He came to London about some business Anno 1557. was apprehended and brought before Bonner Questioned if he had preached any since he came to England Answered he had preached none But in some places where godly people were Assembled He had read the Prayers of the Communion Book set forth in the Reign of King Ed. VI. Question'd again what his Judgment was of that Book Answered He approved it as agreeing in all points with the word of God And so suffered Martyrdom I think this man was neither for Parity nor against Liturgies But to proceed The excellent Mr. Wishart as he had spent some time in England as was told before so it seems he returned to Scotland of English I am confident not of Presbyterian Principles For he was not only for the Lawfulness of Private Communion as appeared by his practice but Knox gives us fair intimations that he ministred it by a Set-form I know King Edward's Liturgy was not then composed But it is not to be imagined That the Reformers in England in Wishart's time administred the Sacrament without a Set-form The Extemporary Spirit was not then in vogue And why else could Sir Iohn Borthwick have been charged with the Great Heresy of Commending the English Liturgy However I shall not be peremptory because I have not the opportunity of enquiring at present what Forms the English Reformers had then All I shall say is if they had a Liturgy 't is very probable Wishart used it For as Knox tells us when he celebrated the Eucharist before his Execution After he had blessed the Bread and Wine he took the Bread and Brake it and gave to every one of it bidding each of them Remember that Christ had died for them and feed on it spiritually so taking the Cup he bade them Remember that Christs Blood was shed for them c. So Knox word for word which account I think seems fairly to intimate that Wishart used a Form but if he did what other could it be than such as he had learned in England I have accounted already how Iohn Willock and William Harlaw had served in the English Church before they came to Scotland I might perhaps make a fuller Collection But what needs more Even Knox himself lived in Communion with the Church of England all the time he was in that Kingdom He went not there to keep Conventicles to erect Altar against Altar to gather Churches out of the Church of England to set up separate and schismatical Churches as some of our present Parity-men have sometimes done No he preached in the publick Churches and in subordination to the Bishops and he preached before King Edward himself as he himself tell us in his Admonition to the Professors of the Truth in England which it is very improbable he would have been allowed to have done if he had Condemned the Communion of the Church of England as it was then established For who knows not that in King Edwards time all Schism and Non-Conformity were sufficiently discouraged And through that whole Admonition he still speaks of himself as One of the Ministers of the Church of England Nay If it be Reasonable to Collect mens Sentiments from their Reasonings I am sure in that same Admonition I have enough for my purpose For he reasons upon suppositions and from Principles which clearly condemned Separation from the Church of England as then established For when he gives his thoughts of that fatal Discord which happened between the two great men Somerset and the Admiral as I take it He discourses thus God compelled my tongue says he openly to declare That the Devil and his Ministers the Papists Intended only the Subversion of Gods true Religion by that Mortal Hatred amongst those who ought to have been most assuredly Knit together by Christian Charity And especially that the wicked and envious Papists by that ungodly Breach of Charity diligently minded the overthrow of him Somerset that to his own Destruction procured the Death of his innocent friend and Brother All this trouble was devised by the Devil and his instruments to stop and lett Christ's Disciples and their poor Boat i. e. the Church What can be more plain I say than that Knox here proceeds on suppositions and reasons from Principles which condemned Separation from the Church of England as then established Doth he not suppose that the Church of England as then established was Christ's Boat his Church And that the Sons of the Church of England were Christ's Disciples Doth he not suppose that these two Brothers as Sons of the Church of England ought to have been assuredly knit together by Christian Charity That the Breach between them was ane ungodly Breach of that Charity by which Members of that same Church ought to have been assuredly knit together And
Britain as our Presbyterian Brethren are earnest to have the present Generation believe Again Pag. 449 The Author Narrating how Henry Queen Mary's Husband c was buried Adds in Confirmation of his own Veracity Thus. If there had been any Solemn Burial Buchanan had wanted Wit to Relate otherwise Seeing there would have been so many Witnesses to testify the Contrary Therefore the Contriver of the late History of Queen Mary wanted Policy here to convey a Lie Thus I say the Author vouches Buchanans Authority And it must be Buchanans History that he Refers to For there 's not a Syllable about Henry's Burial to be found in any of his other writings Now Not to insist on the incredibleness of Knox's running for Shelter to Buchanans Authority concerning a matter of Fact so remarkable in its self and which happened in his own time in that very City in which he lived and was Minister Not to insist on this I say Buchanan himself in his Dedication of his History to King Iames 6th Clearly decides the matter He tells his Majesty there were two Considerations which chiefly put him upon writing his History First He perceived his Majesty had Read and Understood the Histories of almost all other Nations And it was incongruous and unaccountable that he who was so well acquainted with Foreign Affairs should be a Stranger to the History of his own Kingdom Secondly He was intrusted with the Kings Education He could not attend his Majesty in that important Office by Reason of his Old Age and Multiplying infirmities He applyed himself therefore to write his History thereby to Compense the Defects of his Non-Attendance c. And from both Reasons it is evident that Knox was Dead before Buchannan applyed himself to the writing of his History For Knox dyed Anno 1572. K. Iames was then but Six years of Age And is it Credible that at that Age he had Read and got by heart the Histories of almost all other Nations Indeed Buchanan survived Knox by ten years And for a good many of them was able to wait and actually waited on the King So that 't is clear 't was towards the end of his days and after Knox's Death that he applyed himself to his History And 't is very well known it was never published till the year 1582. But this is not all The Author of that which is called Knox's History adduces Buchanan's Authority for Convelling the Credit of the Contriver of the Late History of Queen Mary which was written I cannot tell how long after Buchanan was Dead as well as Knox. Further Pag. 306. The Author discourses thus The Books of Discipline have been of late so often published that we shall forbear to print them at this time Now there were never more than two Books of Discipline and the Second was not so much as projected till the year 1576 i. e. 4 years after Knox had departed this life Once more Pag. 286. We read thus Some in France after the sudden Death of Francis the Second and calling to mind the Death of Charles the Ninth in Blood and the Slaughter of Henry the Second did Remark the Tragical ends of these three Princes who had persecuted Gods Servants so cruelly And indeed the following Kings of France unto this day have found this true by their unfortunate and unexpected Ends. Now Charles the Ninth died not till the 30th of May Anno 1574. i. e. 18 Months after Knox. The following Kings of France who made the Vnfortunate and unexpected Ends were Henry the Third and Henry the Fourth Henry the Third was not Murthered till the year 1589. Henry the Fourth not till May 1610. The former 17 the latter 38 years after the Death of Knox. From this Taste it is clear that that History at least as we now have it was not written by Knox. All that can be said with any Shadow of probability is that Knox provided some Materials for it But Granting this how shall we be able to separate that which is Spurious in it from that which is Genuine All I can say is this 'T is plain to every one that Reads it That he has been a thorough-paced Presbyterian who framed it as we have it By Consequence its Authority is stark naught for any thing in it that favours Presbytery or bespatters Prelacy And if it ought to have any credit at all it is only where the Controversies about Church Government are no ways interested or where it mentions any thing that may be improven to the Advantages of Episcopacy just as the Testimonies of Adversaries are useful for the interests of the opposite party and not an Aâ—e farther So that I had reason if any Man can have it to insist on its Authority as I have frequently done But no Presbyterian can in equity either plead or be allowed the same priviledge I could give the Reader a surfeit of instances which cannot but appear to any considering person to be plain and notorious Presbyterian corruptions in it But I shall only represent One as being of considerable importance in the Controversie which I have managed in my Second Enquiry and by that the Reader may make a Judgment of the Authors Candor and Integrity in other things The English Non-conformists zealous to be rid of the Vestments and some other Forms and Ceremonies retained by the Church of England which they reckoned to be scandalous impositions wrote earnestly as is known to several Reformed Churches and Protestant Divines beseeching them to interpose with the Church of England for an ease of these burdens It seems they wrote to some in Scotland also probably to Mr. Knox He was of their acquaintance and they could not but be secure enough of his inclinations considering how warm he had been about these matters at Francfort However it was the Church of Scotland did actually interpose The General Assembly met at Edenburgh Decem. 27. Anno 1566 ordered Iohn Knox to draw a Letter to the English Clergy in favour of those Non-conformists This Letter was subscribed and sent Now consider the Tricks of the Author of the History attributed to Knox. The Inscription of the Letter as it is in Spotswood Petrie and the Manuscript Copy of the Acts of the General Assembly's is this The Superintendents Ministers and Commissioners of the Church within the Realm of Scotland To their Brethren the Bishops and Pastors of England who have renounced the Roman Antichrist and do profess with them the Lord Iesus in sincerity wish the increase of the Holy Spirit Thus I say Spotswoâ—d hath it pag. 198. And the MS. and Petrie Tom. 2. p. 348. have it in the same words only where Spotswood hath wish they have desire which makes no material Difference But the spurious Knox has it thus pag. 445. The Superintendents with other Ministers and Commissioners of the Church of God in the Kingdom of Scotland To their Brethren the Bishops and Pastors of Gods Church in England who profess with us
in Scotland the Truth of Iesus Christ. Now consider if there are not Material Differences between these two Inscriptions By the Inscription as it is in Spotswood Petrie and the MS. the Dignity and Superiority of the Scottish Superintendenâ—s above the rest of the Clergy is clearly preserved By the other account it is sadly obscured and they are made at least very much to stand on a level with other Ministers c. By the Inscription as in Spotswood c. The Sentiments Our Scottish Clergy had then about the English Reformation and Constitution are very plain genuine and charitable They were satisfied that the Bishops and Pastors of the Church of England had Renounced the Roman Antichrist and that they professed the Lord Iesus in SINCERITY And they had for them suitably the Christian and Brotherly Charity which the Orthodox and Sincere Christians of one Church ought to have for the Orthodox and Sincere Christians of another Church They wished or desired to them The Increase of the Holy Spirit How highly this was agreeable to the sentiments of the then Protestants in Scotland I have made fully appear in the Discussion of my Second Enquiry But To the Pseudo-Knox it seems it lookt highly scandalous to own That the Bishops and Pastors of England had Renounced the Roman Antichrist or that they professed the Lord Jesus in sincerity How could these things be said so long as they retained Antichrists Hierarchy or had so many Romish Mixtures And therefore to wish them the increase of the Holy Spirit was too bold a prayer It was founded on a false hypothesis It supposed they had the Holy Spirit already How suitable is all this to the Presbyterian temper and principles And by consequence is it not evident that these alterations were not the effects of negligence or inadvertencie but of the true Spirit of the party But this is not all In the body of the Letter as recorded by the Pseudo Knox there are several other Corruptions I shall only point at one but it is a considerable one The General Assembly which sent the Letter after a Digression concerning the care that ought to be had of tender Consciences c. Resume their main purpose thus We return to our former humble supplication which is that our Brethren who amongst you refuse these Romish Rags may find of you who are the PRELATS such favour as our Head and Master commandeth every one of his members to shew to another So it is not only in the MS. Spotswood and Petrie word for word but also in a virulent Presbyterian Pamphlet called Scotidromus directed to all Noble Scots and kind Catholicks zealous for the Romish Religion written Anno 1638 to cast dirt at that time upon Episcopacy and render it odious to the People which Pamphlet I have by me in Manuscript But The Supposititious Knox has it thus Now again we return to our former Request which is that the Brethren among you who refuse the Romish Rags may find of you not the PRELATES but who VSE and VRGE them such favour c How unfit was it for the world to know that a Scottish General Assembly had own'd the Bishops of England as PRELATES It was scandalous no doubt to the Godly It was expedient therefore to falsify a little and foist in more useful Epithets to call them not PRELATES but USERS and URGERS of the Ceremonies I have insisted the longer on this Book because our Presbyterian Brethren are so earnest to have the world believe that it was written by Knox Particularly G. R. in his First Vindication c. in Answer to Quest. 1. § 8. where too observe by the way how extravagantly that Author blunders His words are Anno 1559. The Protestant Ministers and People held a General Assembly at St. Johnstown saith Knox Hist. Lib. 2. p. 137. Now there is not so much as one syllable of a General Assembly in the Text. Upon the Margin indeed there are these words The first Assembly at St. Johnstown But no Presbyterian I think unless he is one of G. R.'s kind will be so impudent as to say that all that 's on the Margin of that Book was written by Knox. And that Meeting which was then at Perth was nothing like that Court which we call a General Assembly But enough of this To conclude tho' I am firmly perswaded that Knox was not the Author of this History yet because it passes commonly under his name I have still cited it so on my Margin The Edition I have used is that in 4 to published at Edenburg Anno 1644. The other Treatises attributed to Knox and I know no Reason to doubt their being his from which I have cited any thing are in ane Appendix to the History I have not made it my work to cite Acts of Parliaments and represent the favourable countenance Episcopacy hath had from the State so much as to consider the sentiments of our Reformers and those who succeeded them in their Ecclesiastical capacity partly because the Acts of Parliament have been diligently collected before Particularly whoso pleases may see a goodly train of them from the year 1560 till the year 16â—7 in the Large Declaration pag. 333 c. Partly because our Presbyterian Brethren are in use to insist more on the Books of Discipline and the Acts of General Assemblies c. than on Acts of Parliaments One advantage amongst many disadvantages I think I have it is that the Authors I have most frequently cited were Presbyterians by consequence Authors whose Testimony 's can least be called in Question by my Presbyterian Brethren I do not pretend to have exhausted the subjects I have insisted on Any Reader may easily perceive I have been at a loss as to several things in History Perchance I have sometimes started some things New and which have not been observed before I wish I may have given occasion to those who are fitter and better furnished with helps for such Enquiries to consider if they can bring more light to our History In the mean time I think I have said enough to convince the Reader that our Presbyterian Brethren have not reason to be so confident as commonly they are for their side of the Controversies I have managed Yet after all this I am not secure but that they will endeavour to have my Book Answered for all Books most be Answered that militate against them and they can still find some G. R. or other who has zeal and confidence enough for such attempts Upon the supposition therefore that I must have ane answer I do for once become ane earnest suiter to my Presbyterian Brethren that they would imploy some Person of ordinary sense and discretion to Answer me and not their common Vindicator of their Kirk G. R. for I have got enough of him and I incline not to have any more meddling with him Whoso reads the following papers I think may find such a sample of him such a
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
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
dayly look for our final Deliverance by the coming again of our Lord Iesus c. Thus it was prayed I say in great Solemnity at that time and every Petition is a Confirmation of Buchanan's Fidelity and my Assertion Further yet 3. In the Old Scottish Liturgy compiled in these times and afterwards used publickly in all the Churches There is a Thanksgiving unto God after our Deliverance from the Tyranny of the Frenchmen with Prayers made for the Continuance of the Peace betwixt the Realms of Scotland and England wherein we have these Petitions offered Grant unto us O Lord that with such Reverence we may remember thy Benefits received that after this in our Default we never enter into Hostility against the Realm and Nation of England Suffer us never O Lord to fall to that Ingratitude and detestable Vnthankfulness that we should seek the Destruction and Death of those whom thou hast made instruments to Deliver us from the Tyranny of Merciless Strangers Dissipate thou the Counsels of such as Deceitfully travel to stir the hearts of the inhabitants of either Realm against the other Let their malicious practices be their own confusion and grant thou of thy Mercy that Love Concord and Tranquillity may continue and increase amongst the Inhabitants of this Isle even to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ by whose glorious Gospel thou of thy Mercy dost CALL US BOTH TO UNITY PEACE AND CHRISTIAN CONCORD the full PERFECTION whereof we shall possess in the fullness of thy Kingdom c. Here is a set of Demonstrations to the same purpose also And now let any man lay all these things together The Letter to Cecil The Confederacy betwixt Scotland and England Buchanan's Testimony and these Thanksgivings and Prayers and then let him judge impartially whither or not there is reason to believe that in those days there was a good Agreement between the Scottish and English Protestants as to Religion and Church Matters Thus I think I have sufficiently cleared that our Reformers Generally if not Vnanimously lookt upon the Church of England as so well constituted that they acknowledged her Communion to be a Lawful Communion But before I proceed to other things I must try if I can make any more advantage of what has been said And I reason thus Was there not here truely and really a Confederacy ane Oath A Solemn League and Covenant betwixt the Scottish and the English Protestants Were not these English Protestants then united in that Society which at that time was and ever since hath been called The Church of England And was not the Church of England of that same very constitution then that it was of in King Charles the First his time for example Anno 1642 But if so then I ask again was not this Solemn League and Covenant made thus by our Reformers with their Brethren in England as much designed for the Security the Defence the Maintainance of the Church of England as then by Law established as for the Establishment of our Reformation Did not our Reformers promise Mutual Faith to the English as well as the English promised to them Would it have been consistent with the mutual bonds and obligations of this Confederacy this Solemn League and Covenant for the Scottish Reformers to have raised ane Army at that time against Queen Elizabeth to invade her Dominions in order to ruine the Church of England I cannot imagine any sober person can grudge to grant me this much also But if this be granted then I ask in the third place Did not that Solemn League and Covenant made by our Reformers with those of the Church of England run in a direct opposition to the Solemn League and Covenant made by our Scottish Presbyterians with a Factious Party in England for destroying the Church of England in King Charles the First 's time Nay did not our Scottish Presbyterians in that King's time by entering into that Solemn League and Covenant directly and effrontedly break through the Charge and Commandment which our Reformers left to their Posterity That the Amity betwixt the Nations in God contracted and begun might by them be kept inviolate for ever Nay further yet did not our Reformers solemnly pray against those who made the Solemn League and Covenant in the days of King Charles the First Did they not address to God that he would dissipate their Counsels and let their Malicious Practices be their own Confusion And now let the world judge what rational pretences these Presbyterians in that Holy Martyrs time and by consequence our present Presbyterians can make for their being the only true and genuine Successors of our First Reformers Expecting solid and serious Answers to these Questions I shall now advance in the prosecution of my main undertaking on this Head which was to shew how our Reformers agreed with the Church of England in several momentous matters Relative to the Constitution and Communion the Government and Polity of the Church c. But because I have insisted so long on this general one which I have just now taken leave of I shall only instance in two or three more and dispatch them as speedily as I can 2. Then it is evident and undeniable that our Scottish Protestants for some years used the Liturgy of the Church of England in their publick Devotions Indeed The very first publick step towards our Reformation made by the Lords of the Congregation was to appoint this Liturgy to be used It was ordered upon the third day of December 1557. as both Knox and Calderwood have it Take the Ordinance in Knox his words The Lords and Barons professing Christ Iesus conveened frequently in Councel in the which these Heads were concluded First It is thought expedient advised and ordained That in all Parishes of this Realm the Common Prayer be read weekly on Sunday and other Festival days publickly in the Parish Churches with the Lessons of the Old and New Testament conformable to the Book of Common Prayers And if the Curates of the Parishes be qualified that they read the same And if they be not or if they refuse that the most qualified in the Parish use and read the same c. Spotswood and Petrie give the same account But such is the Genius of Mr. Calderwood that you are to expect few things which may make against the Presbyterian Interest candidly and sincerely represented by him For instance in his overly account of this matter he quite omits the mention of other Holy days besides Sundays These consistent Testimonies of all those four Historians are so full and plain a Demonstration of the Matter of Fact that I cannot foresee so much as one Objection that can be made or one Evasion that can be thought on unless it be That it is not said by any of them that it was the Book of the Common Prayers of the Church of England But this difficulty is soon removed For 1. It was either the Book
Church after that he is well tryed and found qualified It ennumerates Fasting Prayer and imposition of hands of the Eldership as the Ceremonies of Ordination § 11 12. Now the whole Nation knows no such thing as either Tryal Fasting or imposition of hands are used by our present Presbyterians in the Ordination of Ruling Elders The Sixth Chapter is particularly concerning Ruling Elders as contra-distinct from Pastors or Teaching Elders And it determines thus concerning them § 3. Elders once Lawfully called to the Office and having Gifts of God fit to exercise the same may not leave it again Yet nothing more ordinary with our present Presbyterians than laying aside Ruling Elders and reducing them to a state of Laicks So that Sure I am if ever they were Presbyters they come under Tertullians Censure De Praescrip Hodie Presbyter qui cras Laicus A Presbyter to day and a Porter to morrow By the 9 th § of that same Chapter It pertains to them these Ruling Elders to assist the Pastor in examining those that come to the Lords Table and in visiting the Sick This Canon is not much in use I think as to the last part of it as to the first it is intirely indesuetude Indeed some of them would be wondrously qualified for such ane Office The Seventh Chapter is about Elderships and Assemblies By § 2. Assemblies are of four sorts viz. either of a particular Congregation or of a Province or a whole Nation or all Christian Nations Now of all these indefinitely it is affirmed § 5. In all Assemblies a Moderator should be chosen by common consent of the whole Brethren conveened Yet no such thing observed in our Kirk-Sessions which are the Congregational Assemblies spoken of § 2. But Ma◠Iohn takes the Chair without Election and would not be a little grated if the best Laird in the Parish should be his Competitor Crawford himself the First Earl of the Kingdome had never the Honour to be Moderator in the Kirk Session of Ceres The 14 th Canon in the same 7 th Chapter is this When we speak of Elders of particular Congregations we mean not that every particular Parish Church can or MAY have their particular Elderships especially to Landward but we think three or four more or fewer particular Churches may have a common Eldership to them all to judge their Ecclesiastical Causes And Chapter 12. Canon 5. As to Elders there would be in every Congregation one or more appointed for censuring of manners but not ane Assembly of Elders except in Towns and Famous Places where men of Iudgement and Ability may be had And these to have a common Eldership placed amongst them to treat of all things that concern the Congregations of whom they have the Oversight But as the world goes now every Parish even in the Country must have its own Eldership and this Eldership must consist of such a number of the Sincerer sort as may be able to out-vote all the Malignant Heritors upon occasion as when a Minister is to be chosen c. So long as there is a precise Plough-man or a well-affected Webster or a covenanted Cobbler or so to be found in the Parish such a number must not be wanting The standing of the Sect is the Supreme Law The good cause must not suffer tho' all the Canons of the Kirk should be put to shift for themselves IV. The last thing I named as that wherein our present Presbyterians have forsaken the principles and sentiments of our Reformers was the Government of the Church But I have treated so fully of this already that 't is needless to pursue it any farther I shall only therefore as ane Appendage to this represent one very considerable Right of the Church adhered to by our Reformers but disclaim'd by our present Presbyterians It is her being the First of the three Estates of Parliament and having vote in that great Council of the Nation It is evident from the most Ancient Records and all the Authentick Monuments of the Nation That the Church made still the First of the Three Estates in Scottish Parliaments since there were Parliaments in Scotland This had obtained time out of mind and was lookt upon as Fundamental in the Constitution of Parliaments in the days of the Reformation Our Reformers never so much as once dream'd that this was a Popish Corruption What Sophistry can make it such They dream'd as little of its being unseemly or scandalous or incongruous or inconvenient or whatever now adays men are pleas'd to call it On the contrary they were clear for its continuance as a very important Right of the Church The First Book if Discipline Head 8 th allowed Clergy-men to Assist the Parliament when the same is called 'T is true Calderwood both Corrupts the Text here and gives it a false Gloss. Instead of these words when the same is called he puts these if he be called and his Gloss is Meaning with advice says he not by voice or sitting as a Member of that Court I say this is a false Gloss. Indeed it runs quite counter to all the principles and practices of these times For not only did the Ecclesiastical Estate sit actually in the Reforming Parliament Anno 1560 and all Parliaments thereafter for very many years But such stress in these times was laid on this Estate that it was generally thought that nothing of publick concern could be Legally done without it The Counsel of the Ecclesiastick Peers was judged necessary in all matters of National Importance Thus Anno 1567. when the Match was on foot between the Queen and Bothwell that it might seem to be concluded with the greater Authority pains were taken to get the consent of the principal Nobility by their susbcriptions But this was not all that all might be made as sure as could be All the Bishops who were in the City were also Convocated and their subscriptions required as Buchanan tells us And Anno 1568. when the Accusation was intented against the Queen of Scotland before the Queen of England's Arbitrators that it might be done with the greater appearance of the Consent of the Nation That it might have the greater semblance of a National Deed as being a matter wherein all Estates were concerned the Bishop of Orkney and the Abbot of Dunfermline were appointed to represent the Spiritual Estate Again Anno 1571. when the two Counter Parliaments were holden at Edenburg those of the Queens Faction as few as they were had the Votes of two Bishops in their Session holden Iuly 12 as is clear from Buchanan and Spotswood compared together In their next Session which was holden at Edenburg August 22 that same year tho' they were in all but five Members yet two of them were Bishops as Spotswood tells But Buchanan's account is more considerable For he says one of these two was there unwillingly so that it seems he was forced by the rest to be there out