Covenant consists 1. in the Authoritie whereby it is concluded 2. In the parties betwixt whom 3. In the matter or Articles whereunto they bind themselves 4. In the end for the which it is contracted but in all these points this Covenant is different from the former injoyned by King Iames of hâ—ppy memory First the Kings Covenant was injoyned by the Authoritie of the King and his Councell who only under God hath power to bind all his Subjects but this was onely framed and urged by private men upon those over whom they had no lawfull Authoritie civill or ecclesiasticall Secondly in that Covenant the parties were the Kings Majestie our dread Soveraign on th'one part and all his Subjects on th' other part in this the parties are some particular private persons Noblemen Barrons Gentlemen Ministers Burgesses and Commons amongst themselves excluding the Kings Majestie Thirdly the matter and Articles whereunto all are bound in the first Covenant are the maintenance of true Religion according to the Confession of Faith Abjuration of all Antichristian and Popish errors the defence of the Kings Majesties person Authoritie and estate but in this albeit they pretend to bind themselves by oath to the defence of all these yet is it but a pretext to cover their Rebellion and Protestatio contra factum for it is evident that they have in this very Fact many wayes incroached upon the Kings Majesties Authoritie and estate contrarie to the fundamentall Laws of the Kingdome but the principall Articles whereto they bind themselves is 1. To stand together in the mutuall defence one of another against all persons whatsoever 2. To the maintenance of their false Applications of the Confession of Faith added thereunto like the Glosse of Orleans destroying the meaning of the Text 3. To forbear the practice of all those things which they call Novations constituted by the consent of the Church ratified in Parliament and commanded by the King which is directly to swear disobedience both to the King and the Church and consequently to God also 4. To reject the present Government of the Church established by the Kings authoritie consent of the Church in divers generall Assemblies and of the whole estates in Parliament finally to suppresse one of the three estates oâ— Parliament thereby destroying the fundamentall Laws of the Kingdome Fourthly the end of the first Covenant was to maintaine peace and concord both in Church and Common-wealth which was many wayes disturbed in those times and defence of the Kingdome from externall Invasions and inward Seditions which were upon too evident grounds then feared but in this their Covenant the chief intended end was to disturbe the peace both in the Church and Kingdome by stirring up seditious factions therein against the King and his Loyall Subjects that in those troubles as fishing in troubled waters they might work their own particular ends and not to exclude externall invasions but rather to open a gate for strangers to enter and if their secret practices with the King of France and the Estates of Holland could have prevailed as they were confident they should to have brought in forraigne forces within the bowells of the Kingdome But praised be God those Estates were wiser than so as to assist Subjects in their unjust Rebellion against their naturall Prince Finally we must not omit their foolish and vaine boasting here and in their other pamphlets often repeated usque aâ— Nauseam that their Rebellious Covenant hath been by the Lord blessed from Heaven they conceive so because of the great applaâ—se it hath had amongst themselvs and the prosperous succeâ—â—e they have found in their enterprizes against the Kings Castles in putting their Armies to the field and harming the Kings loyall Subjects without present damage to themselves but let not him that putteth on his Armour boast himself as he that putteth it off Chore Dathan and Abirars had good successe at the first and drew after them in their Rebellious Covenant two hundred and fiftie Princes of the Assemblie famous in the Congregation and men of Renoune as it is written Numb. 16. 2. And a great many of the people against Moses and Aaron the Prince of the people and the high Priest of the Lord whom God had set over them So that Moses being greatly astonished fell down most abjectly upon his face before them and could not know how to represse that Sedition except the Lord had comforted and directed him these men might have thought as our Covenanters doe that the Lord had blessed their enterprize from Heaven yet ere it was long they found Gods just Iudgement and Curse both from Heaven and Earth for the Earth swallowed up some of them quick and others were destroyed by fire from Heaven Let all Seditious Rebells therefore learne by this example to repent in time and not to boast too confidently of their present successe but fear the end The fourth and last Consideration is because his Majesties Commissioners and Councell by the Kings Commandment and others of his Subjects by ordinance of the Councell had subscribed the Confession of Faith without their Applications and that both the one the other Subscribers had done it according to the date tenor and meaâ—ing it had An. 1581. there for they considered that it was expedient and proper for the generall Assemblie to declare the true meaning thereof as it was at first professed to the end that all his Majesties Subjects may be one mind and heart and have full satisfaction to all their doubts Concerning this Consideration we must observe that howsoever the subscribers of that rebellious Covenant did understand the Confession of Faith yet those who did subscribe the Kings Covenant at his Majesties command both first and last could not lawfully swear to it in any other sence than the King who required the oath did understand the same for this is most certaine That all oathes required by a magistrate should be taken in the direct and explained meaning of him who required the oath But it is evident that his Majestie declared himself plainly enough that he did not require his Councell nor his other subjects to sweat this Confession in such meaning as therby either Episcopacy or the other established Constitutions of the Church should be abjured for otherwise it had been a deluding of his Majesties Command by a Iesuiticall equivocation who teach their Supposts that Axiom Vnto dangerous interrogatories one may frame to himself a safe sense and swear thereto thought it be contrary to the meaning of him who required the Oath Therefore I cannot conceive that those judicious and discreet Noblemen would practise Iesuiticall tricks to elude his Majesties Command in swearing that Confession and Covenant in another sense than they knew his Majestie intended 2. Albeit that in their subscribing and swearing they had all added expresly that restriction According to the meaning it had Anno 1581. yet will it not follow that they had any doubt of the true
EPISCOPACIE NOT ABIVRED IN HIS MAIESTIES REALME OF SCOTLAND CONTAINING MANY Remarkable passages NEWLY PVBLISHED The Contents of the severall Chapters follow in the next page Printed 1641. The Contents of the severall Chapters in this BOOK CHAP. I. COntaining a Comparison betwixt this Assemblie and the Councell of Trent 1. They agree in like subtill policie in their proceedings specified in 6. points 2. They disagree in that the Councell of Trent in externall order was more formall than this and more substantiall in discussing the Articles CHAP. II. Containing two reasons why we intend to speak onely against the Act condemning Episcopacie 1. Because the rest of the Acts are established upon the same grounds 2. Because their principall purpose in desiring this Assembly was to suppresse Episcopacie 3. The Act it self is set down verbatim as it was set down in their printed Coppie subscribed by the Clerk CHAP. III. Discussing their foure Considerations in their preface whereby they alleage they were moved to make this Act 1. The Consideration of the great mercie of God in the work of the reformation wherein three notable falshoods are remarked 2. That many evill innovations were obtruded upon the Church wherein also three notable falshoods are remâ—rked 3. That by the Kings urging the book of Common Prayer they were moved of Necessitie to make their Covenant wherein are remarked 7. notable falshoods 4. That many having subscribed the Covenant without their applications yet according to the meaning it had 1580. therefore it is necessary that the Assembly should declare the true meaning wherein are shown divers falshoods and impertinencies CHAP. IIII. Containing the state of the Question as it was proponed to be voyced in the Assemblie 1. The necessitie of right stating the Question 2. That their proposition is captious and confused including three severall Questions of divers natures wherunto no one Categoricall answer could be given 3. That they set it down in many ambiguous words and termes 4. It is sophistically and subtilly drawn à Thesâ—ad Hypothesin 5. That being proposed in that manner it could not possibly resolve the doubts but rather increase them 6. The Question simply proposed had been fitter to resolve doubts 7. There are two points which they intend to prove unlawfull in Episcopacie 1. That they have charge over moâ— particular â—â—ocks than one 2. That they have power and preheminence over their Brethren CHAP. V. That this power and preheminence is not contrarie to the Confession of Faith in the Church of Scotland but most conforme thereto and to the first book of Discipline and continuall practice of the Church of Scotland 1. A distinction of the Confessions of Faith so called in a positive and negative and that the positive is the only proper Confession of the Church of Scotland 2. That there is no Article of this Confession condemning this power and preheminence 3. That the meaning of this Confession concerning the point of Government set down in the first book of Discipline and long practice of the Church doth expresly approve the same 4. A paralell betwixt Superintendents and Bishops wherein is shown that the power of Superintendents was no lesse than that which Bishops require now 5. That Bishops retaining the office title and Benefice of Bishops had the power for 20. yeers after the reformation and that by approbation both of the Church and Civill estate CHAP. VI That this power and preheminence of Bishops was not abjured by the negative Confession or Covenant 1. That this negative Confession is not the proper Confession of the Church of Scotland but an Appendix thereof 2. That it is only the first Confession whereunto all were sworn to adhere 3. Two reasons shewing that by the oath of the Covenant or negative Confession Episcopacie was not abjured 1. Because it cannot have a meaning contrary to that whereof it is an Appendix 2. Because it belongeth only to the King and not to an Assemblie of the Church without the King to declare in what sense the oath was required CHAP. VII An Answer to those passages alleaged in the Act out of the Abjuration 1. Answered in Generall by Consideration of the words themselves 2. By the confession of the Moderator and his associats 3. A particular answer to the first passage shewing it to be cited falsly and impertinently CHAP. VIII An Answer to the second passage of the Covenant wherein is shown clearly 1. A notable falshood in the citation both by changâ—ng words and adding others not contained in the originall 2. Divers reasons why this passage doth prove nothing to their purpose CHAP. IX An Answer to the third passage wherein are these particulars 1. It is shown to be impertinent 2. What is meaned by the word Hierarchie 3. That there may be an Hierarchie neither Antichristian nor wicked proved by the testimony of Calvin 4. Their first reason to prove that Episcopall Government is the Antichristian wicked Hierarchie is by a false Syllogisme ex omnibus particularibus affirmantibus in secundâ figurâ 5. This reason passable amongst themselves because no man durst examine it under paine of the censure of the Church 6. Their second reason childish and Sophisticall 7. Their third reason impertinently applied 8. Their fourth reason hath no consequence and farre from the purpose 9. Their last reason is grounded upon a place in the second book of Discipline falsly related CHAP. X. An Answer to the fourth passage containing three particulars 1. An explaining of the words 2. That the Doctrine and Discipline whereunto we are sworn to joyne our selvs is not all the doctrine and discipline taught and practised in the Church of Scotland 3. That this Doctrine is expresly limitated in the Covenant by foure limitations by every one of which it is cleered that this power and preheminence of Bishops is not abjured 4. The first limitation that we swear only to adhere to that which is taught by Gods Word wherein there is nothing contrary to this point but all is conforme thereto 5. The second limitation is that Doctrine which is professed by many notable Realms and Churches no Realm nor Church did condemne this except Geneâ—a and that not absolutely but many Churches did approve it expresly 6. The third limitation is the doctrine particularly expressed in the first Confession of Faith but no doctrine is expressed therein contrary to this point 7. The fourth limitation is that Doctrine which was for a long time before professed by the King and whole body of the Kingdome But the King and body of the Kingdome did expresly professe that they did approve this point here damned 8. The discipline is limitated by the same limitation 9. The discipline is either taken in a strict and proper sense for the censures of the Church or else in a large sense signifying the whole policy of the Church 10. In the first sense it was as yet retained precisely in the Church of Scotland under Episcopall Government and
therefore the oath is not broken 11. Discipline is again distinguished in these points which are essentiall and perpetuall and those which are accidentall and mutable 12. The first sort are prescribed by Gods Word and were not abolished by Episcopall government but observed inviolable 13. The other sort is left to the libertie of the Church and therefore alterable by the Church 14. To the observation of those the Oath bindeth so long as the Constitution of the Church standeth in force but being abrogate by a new Constitution the Oath thereto is dissolved 15. Whosoever doth not follow the Church in those Alterations doe against their oath CHAP. XI An Answer to the Acts of the generall Assemblies alleaged contrary to this point untill the year 1580. wherein are these particulars 1. That no Act of Assemblie is nor can be produced before that year 1575. 2. The occasion of impugning Episcopacie at that time 1. some fierie humours lately come from Geneva and zealous of Geneva Discipline 2. The Kings minoritie 3. Factions amongst the Nobilitie and Courtiers 4. The Sacrilegious greedinesse of those gaping after the Church rents who for their own ends abused the simplicitie of some Ministers and pride of others 3. That Bishops were not only tollerate but approved by the Church untill this year 1575. 4. At this Assemblie in August 1575. was the first motion against Episcopacie in the Church of Scotland 5. The proceeding of this Assemblie declared at length whereby it is cleered that this point here in controversie was not challenged therein but expresly approved by all 6. Nothing in substance concluded against Episcopacie for five years after 7. A notable dissimulation of our Covenanters in citing an Act of this Assembly CHAP. XII Answering to the Acts of Generall Assemblies for establishing the second book of Discipline wherein are these particulars 1. This book was brought in by the same occasions whereby Episcopacie began to be challenged 2. This Discipline was never fully agreed unto by the Church some points thereof never practised and those which were practised but of short continuance 3. They doe not themselves nor will not approve some points in this book but refuse obedience thereto instanced in three particulars 4. This book nor any part thereof had any strength of a Law before the injoyning of the Oath 5. It is defective in the most substantiall points of Discipline and superabundant in points not pertaining to Ecclesiasticall discipline 6. And therefore the Discipline therein contained cannot be that whereunto we are sworn to joyne our selvs precisely CHAP. XIII Answering to the Act of the Assembly at Dundee 1580. condemning Episcopacie together with the Act at Glasgo 1581. explaining the same containing these particulars 1. Albeit they condemned in these Acts Episcopacie as it was then used in Scotland as unlawfull in it self yet did they not condemne these points here controverted 2. Neither did the Church then condemn any substantiall point of Episcopacie except they did contradict themselves instanced in six principall points of that Doctrine 3. They condemn only the corruptions which were at that time in Bishops themselvs whereof some are only supposed corruptions some corruptions indeed but only personall and not essentiall to the office 4. The principall point they condemn in Bishops is that they received not their Commission from the Church to exercise their charge and yet it is evidently proved that they had Commission from the Church to exercise all the points of their function CHAP. XIIII Answering to the rest of the Acts here cited 1. Their Acts can be of no greater force than the former whereupon they are grounded and therefore refuted by the same reasons 2. Some particular observations upon these Acts whereby it is shewed that they make more against them nor for them 3. Many of these Acts shews that they were concluded expresly against the Kings Majesties intention 4. The reason why that Act of Parliament 1592. Establishing Presbyteries was suffered to passe by the King and the three Estates 5. It was not because they did approve the same but for eschewing of greater evils which were justly feared 6. That Presbyteriall Government in Scotland did not indure in full force above ten years 7. An Act of that Assembly 1589. disgracefull to the Church of Scotland CHAP. XV Discussing the Conclusion of this Act wherein are contained these particulars 1. Their Hyperbolicall magnifying of their accurate proceeding in concluding this Act not like to be true 2. The proposition of the Question by the Moderator informall obscure ambiguous sophysticall and such as could not be answered Categorically 3. The causes why they did so unanimously agree in their voycing was because all were debarred whom they suspected would make any contradiction 4. The voyces as they are here declared doe neither fully answer to their proposition nor condemn any thing in Episcopacie as it is now in Scotland 5. They cannot excuse this but by laying the fault upâ—n the Printer which is not like to be true for many reasons EPISCOPACY NOT ABIVRED IN SCOTLAND CHAP. I. A Comparison betwixt this Assembly and the Councell of Trent THat turbulent and seditious Conventicle of Covenanting Ministers and mis-ruling Elders assembled at Glasgow Novemb. 1638. can be compared to none of that kind so well as to that infamous Councell of Trent which as it hath for a long time troubled the whole world Emperors Kings and Princes fo this hath vexed mightily the Kings Majestie our dread Soveraigne disturbed both Church and Common-wealth and hath led all his Subjects in Scotland blind-fold to Rebellion given evill example to other Kingdomes and brought an evident Scandall upon the reformed Religion There hath been no lesse humane or rather Satanicall policie and subtile close conveyance practised by the chiefe Rulers in that Assembly of Glasgow both in the Preparation Prosecution and Conclusion thereof yet in this more malice and lesse respect to the Supreme Magistrate and present established estate of the Church than in that of Trent First as the Pope and his Cardinalls in the Consistorie professed that they desired a generall Councell and did openly exhort the Emperor Kings Princes and Republiques to concurre with them yet they declared evidently by their dealing that they desired either not at all a Councell or not such an one as should be assembled by the Authoritie of the Emperor and Kings or that any of them or their Ambassadors should have suffrage therein and much lesse presidencie according to the ancient Custome of the Church esteeming that their Authority suffrage or presence would crosse their particular ends Even so our Covenanters albeit they often petitioned his Majestie for the libertie of a generall Assemblie yet they declared plainly by their proceedings that they did not desire such an one as should be either convocated by his Majesties Authoritie or wherein he his Commission or Councell should preside or give suffrage or be present if it had been in their choice accounting it so
place according to his degree with such gravitie modestie and decencie as did become Reverend Fathers distinguished one from another by their habits appointed by the Canons of the Church making it appear to the beholders a Venerable Assemblie 3. In their proceedings were appointed the wisest of the Bishops and most learned amongst the Doctors to frame the Articles and being framed were particularly one by one discussed by weighty reasons maturely in severall dayes and diets all doubts particularly moved and Objections solidly answered according to their grounds using not onely the testimony of former approved Councels Fathers and learned Schoolemen but also very frequently the Authority of Sacred Scriptures So that if in their conclusions they had pondered well the reasons alleaged and had concluded according to the same and not according to the Popes sole Authoritie that Councell might have had a more happy event for the weell and peace of the Christian Church But in this Assemblie at Glasgow was not observed that forme order or decencie which did become a venerable Ecclesiastick meeting for first these who were ever esteemed the Principall members of all generall or Nationall Councels to wit the Reverend Bishops of the Church were excluded a company of Lay-men Earles Lords Gentlemen and Burgesses without warrant Authoritie or example of the ancient Church were thrust in their roomes bearing chiefe Sway in the Assembie carrying all matters violently for their own ends so that it was remarked by wise and grave men that one Earle and one Lord made more speech in the Assemblie than all the Clergie except the Moderator 2. In their Sessions no order or decencie observed all sitting pel-mell without distinction of Degrees save onely that Lay-Noblemen and Gentlemen occupied the chiefest roomes with their swords and pistolls by their sides The Ministers mixt amongst Burgesses Merchants and Noblemens servants hardly to be discerned from them by their Habite or Carriage Many of the Ministers in coloured clothes all in short cloakes except the Ministers of Glasgow who had their Gownes so that unlesse one had known their persons before they should scarcely have discerned the Ministers from the Merchant or Taylor 3. The Ministers were not there by the approbation of their Bishops according to the custome of the Primitive Church and Acts of the generall Assemblies of Scotland long after the Reformation as for instance in that Assemblie at Edinburgh Iuly 1568. It was expresly ordained that no Minister should leave his Flock except such as were chosen by their Superintendants but by Commissions from their new invented form of Presbyteries wherein Lay-men had the greatest rule or rather from the Tables of the Covenant who did not choose the most wise modest and learned Brethren but the most turbulent seditious and bold to oppose Authoritie fit members indeed of such an Assemblie 4. In discussing of the matters which were concluded no reasoning but superficiall no carefull pondering of the Reasons but all taken Implicit fide which had any shew no exact distinguishing of the Articles but many matters of different nature were hâ—dled up together confusedly and with great precipitation were voyced and concluded The Assembly continued onely a moneth and a great part of that time to wit from the 21. of November to the 4. of December was consumed in circumstantiall points concerning the persons to be admitted to have voice in receiving and discussing their Commissions in Contestations betwixt the Commissioner and the Covenanters in excluding some of his Majesties Counsellors authorized by him to have voyce in the Assemblie contrary to the Practice of all Ancient approved Councels either Generall or Nationall in rejecting most just protestations of divers Presbyteries against this Assemblie as that of the Presbyteries of Glasgow of Pâ—ables of Aberdeine of the Channonry of Rosse in refusing to heare read the most just declinature and protestations of the Bishops And finally in declaring certaine books of the former Assemblies to be Authentick registers At last the fourth of December they enter to the principall matters for which this Assembly was required beginning at the condemnation of the six last generall Assemblies conveened continued and concluded by the Kings Majesties Authoritie and full consent of the Church and ratified by the whole bodie of the Kingdome in Parliament which they did in shorter space then could suffice to reade them over so precipitate were they in condemning absolutely so many grave Assemblies with such unanimous consent as never one was called but without reason or judgement condemned them all in one word by implicite faith given to some few neither of the most wise or learned of the company who had a Committee to invent some apparant reasons to anull the same and that is most certaine that the two part of those who voyced against them had never seen the Acts and the proceedings of these Assemblies or at least had never read nor perused them But out of a blind zeal and Iesuiticall obedience did it only because they were so directed by the Tables of the Covenant and their rebellious Leaders In another Session they deposed and excommunicated summarily fourteen Bishops upon a pretended false Libell produced before the Presbytery of Edinburgh against them which by no law or reason could be competent Iudges to their processe without lawfull citation contrary to the Acts of many generall Assemblies the Books of Discipline and perpetuall practice of the Church For the Church of Scotland was never accustomed no not in the most strict times of Presbyteriall government to proceed so summarily to the sentence of excommunication against most notorious offenders without mature deliberation and long space granted to the Accused either to justifie himself or declare his repentance 1. There was used three private personall Citations to appear before the Presbytery next if those were not obeyed three publik Citations one three severall Sabbaths 3. Followed three publik prayers for their conversion and if at any of these times they did appear either to purge themselves of the crime imputed to them or submitting themselves to the censure of the Church The sentence of excommunication was not pronounced against them In another Session they condemned with one voyce the Book of Common Prayer the Book of Canons the Book of Ordination of Ministers and Consecration of Bishops together with the Court of the High Commission which space was not sufficient to have read over all those books muchlesse to peruse them throughly and discusse the controverted points therein which was necessarily requisit to be done before they had been absolutely rejected But this is strange that the principall and most weighty point for the which chiefly they did procure this Assembly should have been so slightly with such precipitation handled to wit whether Bishops should be reteined or removed forth of the Church of Scotland A Doctrine so universally approven by the whole Christian Church even in her purest time since the Apostles dayes and allowed in Substance by
moe particular â—â—ocks condemned by this Act. 3. They framed the question in this manner to strike a terror of a fearfull perjurie upon the weak Consciences of these who could not discerne rightly either the quality of the Oath or the matter thereof to make them more plyable to their Rebellious projects perswading them that the swearers themselves and all their posteritie were bound to the observation of that Oath according to their false interpretation notwithstanding of any interveening Law or Constitution absolving them from it and that this fearfull perjurie could never be expiated except they renewed their Oath to that Covenant together with their false Applications and perverse interpretations farre different yea flat contrary to their meaning who framed the Confession of Faith and injoyned the Oath which as we shall shew is but an Imaginarie fear It had been more plaine dealing and fitter to have removed all doubts if they had proposed the Question more simply and in more perspicuous termes asking Whether the Office of a Bishop be lawfull in it self or not for if it had been solidly proven by Gods Word to be unlawfull then it had been evident also that the Oath whereby it was abjured was lawfull and no man could have doubted but that Oath did bind both the Actuall swearers and all their posterity to the observation thereof but if it had been found by cleer Scripture that the Office of a Bishop had been lawfull then no man could have doubted but the Oath whereby they did abjure it was unlawfull and therefore that no man was bound to the observation thereof but by the contrary all were bound in Conscience to break such an Oath or if it had been found of middle nature neither simply unlawfull nor necessarily lawfull at all times but a thing indifferent in the power of the Church and Supreme Magistrate to make a Law either establishing or abolishing the same who might also require an Oath of all to observe that Law then certainly no man could have doubted but that so long as that positive Law stood in force that Oath did bind all Subjects to the observation of it as likewise that the Law being abolished by lawfull Authoritie no man was further bound but was ipso facto absolved from the Oath So the Question being propounded in this manner and resolved any other wayes it had cleered all doubts and moved all to be of One mind and one heart but being propounded in their manner no resolution did take away all doubts as they promised to doe by this Act but rather did multiplie them and make them greater For albeit it had been cleered that Episcopacie had been abjured by the Oath of the Covenant which notwithstanding is not done yet a greater doubt remained whether that Abjuration was lawfull or not which could not be resolved except it had been first made manifest that Episcopacie was unlawfull in it self by Gods Word Yet that we may follow them in their own method and reason upon their own grounds we shall leave at this time the probations which may be brought for the office of a Bishop from Gods Word and practice of the Primitive Church which hath been sufficiently performed by divers learned Divines to the which the best of that Sect could never sufficiently answer Taking then the Question as it is set downe by them there are two points which they onely here condemne in that office first that they have charge over moe Parishes than one secondly that they have power and preheminencie over their Brethren we shall make it therefore evident 1. That by the Confession of Faith Books of Discipline Acts of Generall Assemblies and long continued practice of the Church of Scotland at the reformation and many yeers after this preheminence and power of one Pastor over others and charge over moe parishes than one hath been acknowledged to be lawfull Secondly we shall shew that none of those passages brought by them at length in the Act it self which doubtlesse were the strongest they could find forth of the abjuration in the Covenant books of Discipline and Acts of former generall assemblies doe prove their conclusion but that all of them are either falsly or impertinently cited farre by or contrary to the meaning of the Authors and therefore that all of them are Sophystically alleaged CHAP. V. That this preheminence and power of Bishops here questioned is conforme to the true Confession of Faith of the Church of Scotland to the first Book of Discipline and the long continued practice of the Church FIrst we must observe that there are two Confessions of Faith so called in the Church of Scotland as we have remarked before to wit that large Confession established at the first reformation framed by Iohn Knox and other faithfull Ministers Anno 1560. Confirmed by divers generall Assemblies received by the whole body of the Kingdome ratified by Act of Parliament 1567. and inserted in the body of the Act which is the only proper Confession of the Church of Scotland containing all the positive grounds of the Reformed Religion especially in matters of Faith controverted betwixt us and the Papists and other Hereticks the other called commonly the Negative Confession which is not properly a perfeâ—t Confession but an Appendix of the former framed not by any Ordinance of the Assemblie of the Church but by the appointment of the Kings Majestie and Councell first sworn and subscribed by the Kings Majestie himself and his houshold then by an Act of Councell dated the 5. of March 1580. It was ordained that all persons within the Kingdome should swear the same and for more commodious doing thereof it was presented by his Majesties Commissioners to the Assemblie holden at Glasgow 1581. that they might approve it and injoyne every Minister to see the Oath taken by all their Parishioners and it did containe an abjuration of most speciall grosse errors of Poperie the same abjuâ—ation was againe commanded by the King to be renewed in the year 1590. when as that Conspiracie of some Papists trafficking with the King of Spaine was discovered having annexed thereto a generall band or Covenant whereby all the Subjects bindes themselves with the Kings Majestie for maintenance of true Religion according to the Confession of Faith set down at the first reformation and for the defence of the Kings Majesties person Authoritie and estate against all Enemies within and without the Kingdome to the end that true professors and his Majesties loyall Subjects might more easily be discerned from hypocriticall Papists and seditious Rebells Now as for that onely perfect Confession there is no clause nor Article therein which either expresly or by any probable consequence condemneth this power and preheminencie here controverted neither have they been so bold as to alleage any passage out of the same nor was it the meaning of those godly and learned persons who set it down and proposed it to be received by the Church and Kingdome of Scotland nor
untill the year 1590. towit ten years after the setting down and swearing of this Abjuration And therefore this power and preheminence which is the point in controversie cannot be understood to have been then condemned in the Abjuration 1580. 1581. for otherwise the Church should have condemned that which in the mean time they did approve and practise Thirdly notwithstanding that Act 1580. condemning Episcopacie as it was then used in Scotland yet these points of the power and preheminence of one Pastor over others and charge over moe particular flocks was not condemned but expresly acknowledged to be lawfull by that whole Assembly wherein Episcopacie was called in Question Anno 1575. 1576. as shall be evidently cleared when we shall come to discusse the Acts of those Assemblies Fourthly those points of Papistrie in generall and the particular heads damned and confuted by Gods Word and Kirk of Scotland were only such as were opposite to the doctrine contained in the principall Confession of the Church of Scotland then of a long time professed by the Kings Majestie and whole body of the Kingdome as it is expresly set down in the same place of the Covenant But so it is that there was no Doctrine contained either in the Confession of Faith or professed now for a long time by the King and whole body of the Kingdome contrary to these points of power and preheminence of one Pastor over other Brethren or moe particular flocks therefore these are not points of Papistrie abjured by the Covenant as being damned then by Gods Word or the Church of Scotland and so this passage doth not more serve to prove their purpose than the former CHAP. IX Containing an Answer to the third Passage THe third Passage is in those words We detest the Roman Antichrist his worldly Monarchie and wicked Hierarchie In this passage indeed there is no false citation as in the former two yet is there as great impertinencie in applying it to their purpose for I cannot see what they can assume upon this proposition to conclude the point in Controversie except they would say that all power and preheminence of one Pastor over his Brethren or over more particular flocks is an Antichristian worldly Monarchie and all degrees of Ecclesiasticall persons is an Antichristian wicked Hierarchie and therefore detested and abjured But if this Assumption were true then the high priest in Ierusalem constituted by God himself had been an Antichristian Monarch and the divers degrees of Ecclesiasticall persons distinguished by God himself had been an Antichristian wicked Hierarchie for it is most certaine that the High priest had power and preheminencie over his Brethren and charge over all the particular flocks in Iudea The Apostles likewise in the Christian Church and their fellow-labourers Titâ—u Timothie and others had been Antichristian wordly Monarchs for it is most certaine that they had power and preheâ—ninence over their Brethren and charge over moe particular flocks as Bishops have now which may be qualified by the writings of the Apostles and the testimony of all the Venerable Fathers of the Primitive Church who lived either in the dayes of the Apostles or neer to them So likewise those Reverend â—â—thers themselves as Polycarpus Ignatius Cyprian Austin Ambrose Chrysostome c. should be esteemed no better yea likewise our Superintendents or Comâ—issioners of Provinces should have been Antichristian worldly Monarchs So that the worthy Instruments of God in the reformation of the Church of Scotland must be thought to have instead of a laudable reformation brought in an Antichristian worldly Monarchy in the Church of Scotland But the principall words which they doe most urge is the last câ—â—â—se of this passage His wicked Hierarchie by which words it was made cleer as they alleage in the Assembly that Episcopacie was abjured what was made cleer in the Assembly we know not but we shall make it cleer God willing to 〈◊〉 whose eyes are not blinded with partiall affection that those reasons produced in the Act in the end thereof at length which doubtlesse were the most weighty they could bring are foolish childish and ridiculous unworthy of such men as they would be accounted amongst the people But before we enter to discusse their reasons we must first explaine the word Hierarchie and shew what Hierarchie is here condemned first the word {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} amongst the ancient Grocians was used to signifie a certaine Magistracie the charge whereof was to have a 〈◊〉 of Sacred and Holy things as of Temples Altars and Sacrifices and from thence was translated by anâ—ient Christian writers to signifie the sacred orders of Rulers in the Church Now that there is an holy order of Rulers in the Church I think no man can deny even in Presbyteriall Government there are three orders of Ecclesiasticall persons who bear rule in the Church and have charge of sacred things of distinct power and authoritie towit Pastors Elders and Deacons and so those orders may be â—afely called an Ecclesiasticall Hierarchie they who understand the Greek word knowes perfectly that it signifies no other thing but 〈◊〉 of sacred things or a holy Government they cannot deny but these Ecclesiasticall functions have every one their own point of Government and that about sacred and holy things why then should they abhorre the word since they acknowledge the thing signified thereby to be competent to their Ecclesiasticall functions Is it because the word is borrowed from Ethnicks It should not be abhorred for this cause more than the words Episcopus Presbyter and Pastor which did signifie also amongst the Ethnicks certaine offices or magistracies as is well known to those who are versed in their writings Or is it because it hath been abused by the Papists neither can it for this cause be rejected taken in a right sense and separating Papisticall corruptions from it more then the other titles given to Ecclesiasticall officers which all have been abused in the Popish Church and that this word Hierarchy may be used to signifie the orders of Ecclesiasticall rulers in the Christian Church I will bring no other testimony than that of Calvin who was the first Author of Presbyteriall Government he in his Treatise De Nâ—cessitatâ— refâ—rmanda Ecclesia speaking of the Popish Hierarchy saith If they will set us down such an Hierarchie wherein Bishops have so preheminence that they refuse not to be subject to Christ depending from him as from their head and referring all to him wherein they doe so entertaine Societie amoâ—gst themselves that they be no otherwise bound but by his truth Then I must acknowledge that thâ—se are worthy to be called exâ—crable who will not reverence such an Hierarchie and with all humble obedience receive the same Where we see that Calvin doth acknowledge that there may be a lawfull Hierarchie neither wicked nor Antichristian and such was this Hierarchie in the Church of Scotland consisting of Bishops Presbyters and Deacons wherein Bishops
Beleife whatsoever is said there CHAP. X. Containing an Answer to the fourth place cited out of the Abjuration THe fourth and last passage of the Abjuration or Negative Confession whereby they alleage that Episcopacie is abjured is We professe that we joyne our selves to this reformed Kirk in Doctrine Faith Religion and Discipline promising and swearing by the great Name of God that we shall continue in the Doctrine and Discipline of this Kirk and defend the same according to our Vocation and power all the dayes of our life First we must remark that by these foure distinct terms are not signified foure severall distinct things but by doctrine Faith and Religion is signified one and the self-same thing for Doctrine to be beleeved is the object of Faith and Religion consists in the practice of this Doctrine and Discipline is the meanes to conserve Doctrine Faith and Religion and so we see in the next words containing the promissary part of the Oath they are all reduceed to two Doctrine and Discipline Secondly we must consider what doctrine and discipline this is whereunto they swear It is not every point of doctrine which hath been taught in the pulpits of Scotland nor every point of Discipline which hath been practised in their Sessions Presbyteries Assemblies for then God knowes how doubtsome and uncertaine an Oath this should have been because those points have been often changed and some directly contrary to other the matter of an Oath should be so clearly and particularly set down as is possible for it be set down indefinitely men may involve themselves rashly in a contradictory Oath And therefore those who framed this Oath have wisely and considerately set down divers limitations of the matter of the Oath whereby it is made clear and evident what doctrine and discipline it is whereunto they promise by their oath to joyne themselves But our Covenanters have dissembled subtilly those necessary limitations and set it down in generall and indefinite termes only naming in generall the Doctrine and Discipline of the Church of Scotland Now that we may know more evidently what Doctrine and Discipline is here meaned I shall set down at more length the words of the Oath as they be in the Originall We beleeve with our hearts and confesse with our moâ—thes c. that this is the onely true Faith and Religion pleasing God and bringing salvation to man which is now by the mercy of God revealed to us by the preaching of the blessed Evangel and received beleeved and defended by many notable Churches and Realms and chiefly by the Church of Scotland particularly expressed in the Confession of Faith established and publikely confirmed by divers Acts of Parliament and now of along time publikely professed by the King and whole body of the Kingdome In these words are comprehended foure necessary limitations of the matter of this Oath without the bounds of which it is not to be extended Albeit it were sufficient to shew that Episcopacie was not abjured by this Oath if we prove that by any one of these limitations it can be excluded yet to make the probation more full we shall make it evident that not by one onely but by all these foure limitations this point That it is not lawfull for one Pastor to have power and preheminence over his Brethren or over more particular flocks than one is excluded from this Oath and therefore not abjured as a Popish error The first limitation is that they only did swear to adhere to that Doctrine which is revealed by the preaching of the blessed Evangel or by Gods Word But so it is that no doctrine condemning this power and preheminencie is revealed by the Gospel or expressed by Gods Word or depending thereupon by necessary consequence therefore by that Oath none was sworn to adhere to any such Doctrine condemning that point But the contrary doctrine is so clearly testified by the whole course of Scripture both in the old and new Testament that it is lawfull for one Pastor to have power and preheminence over others or over moe particular flocks that we much admire why men so versed in Scripture can be so blinded as not to soe so cleer a Truth or if they see it to be so impudent and without conscience to abjure it as a damnable Heresie compelling others to abjure the same by so solemn and fearfull an Oath wherein they move them really to perjure themselves for eschewing a supposed perjury The second limitation is that the Doctrine whereunto they swear to adhere was that Which was received beleeved and defended by many notable Churches Realms then when this Oath was first made But so it is that this Doctrine declaring it to be unlawfull that one Pastor should have power and preheminence over others c. was not received beleeved and defended by many notable Churches and Realms at that time for we can shew that the most of the reformed Churches and Realms at that time did professe and practise the contrary as all the Churches of High-Germany Rohemia Denmark Sweden Norway Poland Hungaria Helvetia England Ireland and our own Church of Scotland they cannot produce one Realm nor any Church that had at that time imbraced fully presbyteriall Government except one City of Geneva which notwithstanding did not so absolutely condemne Episcopacie as they doe as we have shown by the Testimonie of the two cheifest members of that Church Calvin and Beza There are now some Churches which have received the Geneva Discipline as the Palatinate in High-Germany the consederate Provinces of Lower-Germany and the reformed Church of France which notwithstanding had not that Discipline nor a full established Church amongst them at that time for the Palatinate continued in the Doctrine and Discipline of the Augustâ—ne Confession untill the year 1584. when Iohn Cassitmere Prince Elector after his Brother Lâ—dâ—wick's death brought in Calvinisme as Lucus Oâ—iander in his Epitom Histor Eccles. Ceâ—t 26. lib. 4. cap. 20. doth testifie In the Low Countries albeit there were many protestants before yet had they not an established Church untill the year 1583. when as they renounced the Authoritie of the King of Spaine neither had they of France an established Church untill the raigne of Henry the Fourth Reade over all the Confessions of Reformed Churches contained in that Syâ—tagâ—â—â—â—onfessionum you shall not finde one of them condemning this power and preheminence or Episcopacie absolutely But on the contrary many of them doe expresly approve it Therefore since there was not many notable Churches and Realmes which received beleeved and defended that it was unlawfull for one Pastor to have power and preheminence over others or over moe particular flocks it is manifest that this point was not abjured by the Oath of the Covenant Thirdly the matter of the Oath is expresly restricted to that Doctrine and Discipline Which is particularly expressed in the Confession of Faith set down Anno 1560. And ratified publikly by divers Acts
of Parliament before this Abjuration was sworn by which limitation is excluded from this oath all points of Doctrine and Discipline added since either by Acts of Generall Assemblies Synods or Presbyteries since that Confession was received as that Act of the Assemblie at Dâ—ndie 1580. and at Glâ—sgow 1581. Condemning Episcopacie and others of that kinde and such are our Covenanters Additions or Applications of the Confession of Faith expressed in their Rebellioâ—s Covenant And the truth is that they neither have nor can produce one word of that Confession condemning this power and preheminence neither had the Church who established it any such purpose or intention to doe so But on the contrary the same Church at the same very time in setting down the first book of Discipline did approve that power and preheminencie under the title of Superintendents therefore this point was not abjured by the Oath Fourthly the matter of this Oath is determined to be that doctrine and discipline Which was for a long time before the first framing of this Oath professed by the King and whole body of this Kingdome But so it is that no point of Doctrine condemning this power and preheminence was professed for a long time before this by the King or body of the Kingdome therefore that power and preheminence was not abjured by that Oath For the Kings profession we have shown Cap. 6. what it was at that time and both before and after then the profession of the whole body of the Kingdome cannot be determined by particular mens opinions but by publik Acts either by the Supreme Civill or Ecclesiastick Court And they have not produced any Act of either of those Courts long before shewing such a profession and therefore it is to be presupposed that there was none such But on the contrary we can produce Acts of both those Courts not onely long before but also continually since the Reformation yea at that same very time when this Abjuration was first made and some yeers after standing in force approving this power and preheminence the first Act they can produce having any appearance of condemning Episcopacie as unlawfull is that Act of the Assemblie at Dundee 1580. which notwithstanding doth not serve their purpose first because this Act was not long before if not after this Abjuration was first framed being even that same very year about that same time Secondly albeit the office of a Bishop as it was then in Scotland be condemned yet notwithstanding this point that it was lawfull that one Pastor might have power and preheminence given him was agreed unto by the whole Assemblie as we have signified before and shall more fully declare hereafter Thirdly long before this the power and preheminencie of Superintendents and Commissioners was publikly approved by the first book of Discipline and by divers Acts of Generall Assemblies even then and some years after standing in force unrepealed which we have before faithfully cited cap. 5. And as for the civill Courts both of Councell and Parliament they declared their profession by rejecting of divers suits made for ratifying the second book of Discipline which seemed to condemne this power and preheminence as in the Assemblies 1578. 1579. and 1580. cited here by themselves It is declared that divers suits were made for establishing the second book of Discipline by Act of Parliament or otherwise if that could not be obtained by Act of Councell but both the one and the other were often refused Moreover it was declared by the King and whole body of the Kingdome assembled in Parliament at Edinburgh May 22. 1584. that they had no such profession but on the contrary in the 129. Act of that Parliament representing the whole body of the Kingdome the whole power preheminence and Iurisdiction of Bishops was ratified and confirmed in most ample forme By which it is evident that there was no point of Doctrine long before the swearing of this Covenant received beleeved and defended by the King and whole body of the Kingdome condemning this power and preheminence now in question And therefore that it was not abjured by the Oath of the Covenant And since it is so it is strange with what face or conscience they can so 〈◊〉 abuse Christian people as to impose falsly â—uch a burden upon the Consciences of all persons within the Kingdome both King and Subjects Pastors and people in pressing to perswade them against so many evident reasons that they are all by vertue of that Oath so fearfully perjured who have consented to the 〈◊〉 of Episcopacie But because this point of Episcopacie is understood by them rather to be abjured under the name of Discipline than under the name of Doctrine therefore to take away all way of Escape or subtâ—rfuge we shall examine the point of Discipline also and shew how farre it is included in the Oath and albeit it be by all those former limitations excluded also for these limitations are to be applied aswell to the Discipline as to the Doctrine Yet for further resolution we must consider that the word Discipline is taken in divers significations first strictly and properly for that part of the Policie which concerneth the censures of the Church to be practised upon those who doe erre either in doctrine or in manners of life And so Episcopacie or power and preheminence of one Pastor over others is not contrary thereto but may very well subsist therewith and hath subsisted actually both during the Governement under Superintendents or Commissioners as also under the Government of Bishops since they were re-established for the same censures which were established by the book of Discipline by the order set down before our Psalm books and by divers Acts of Generall Assemblies long before Bishops were re-established did still remaine the same admoâ—itions private and publik the same sentence of excomâ—unication and manner of proceeding therein by three private and three publik Citations before Ecclesiasticall Indicatories the same publik prayers â—ppointed by order of the Church of repentance to the delinquent upon three severall Sabbath dayes the same forme of pronouncing the sentence and enjoyning private or publik satisfaction the same manner of receiving and absolving of the penâ—tent As all within the Church of Scotland doe know And therefore it is evident that this power and prehâ—minence of Bishops is not contrary to the Disciplâ—â—e of the Church of Scotland taken in this â—eale 〈◊〉 apparently it is taken in the Oath for in â—ll speeches or wâ—â—â—s of conâ—sequencâ— chiâ—â—â— those which are see down for a solâ—â—â— oath â—hich ought to be plain and cleer the words 〈◊〉 be taken in their proper and most usuall sense rather than in an unproper and figurative except by some evident reason it appear that it must be taken improperly And this certainly is the most proper and usuall meaning of this word Discipline as it is taken in the order set down before our Psalm books in the second book of Discipline
is common to every one of them that hath a particular flock but dissembles the other points of agreement which we have rehearsed importing this power and preheminence because they found them directly contrary to their Conclusion Thirdly albeit they intended at this Assemblie presently to have thrown down Episcopacie to the ground yet because many wise learned and godly Brethren did oppose them standing firmly for the ancient discipline of the Church there passed five or six years in these contestations before the finall sentence was pronounced in the mean time those Episcopomastiges ceased not to labour diligently by all meanes to draw others to their judgement using likewise the perswasions of men of speciall note beyond Seas as in the time of the Contestation the Lord Glames then Chancellor of Scotland was moved by our Genevating Ministers to write to Beza craving his opinion concerning the present Government under Bishops Superintendents to the which letter Beza made a large answer condemning the present Government and setting down a plot of that Policie and Discipline which he desired them to imbrace according to the which they did frame their second book of Discipline and that in many points ipsissimis verbis as may appear by conferring the Book with his Epistle That second citation from the Assembly April 1576. serves nothing to their purpose for albeit Some Bishops were censured because they had not betaken themselves to a particular flock yet this might consist with power and preheminence over other as is cleer in the Superindents who albeit they had particular flocks wherein they were specially bound to attend in preaching the Word and administration of Sacraments yet that did not hinder but that they might have charge over other Pastors and moe Parishes Finally those corruptions of the estate of Bishops which are set down in the Assemblie at Edinburgh 1578. were not fully concluded in that Assembly to be damned absolutely but only proposed by some and craved to be considered CHAP. XII Answering to the Acts for establishing of the second Book of Discipline THe second Rank of Acts cited out of Generall Assemblies are those which concern the establishing of the second Book of Discipline such as are that Act of the Assembly in April 1578. Sess. 4. that in April 1578. Iuly 1579. Iuly 1580. Sess. 10. April 1581. 1590. 1591. Sess. 4. to the which they need no particular Answer but Generally concerning this book of Discipline we answer first that this Book of Discipline was brought in head and urged by the same means and occasions whereof we spake before to subvert the former established Government and to bear down Bishops that the Church the more easie might be robbed of her patrimonie by Noblemen and Courtiers gaping after the Church-rents and factious humours striving to singularity contrary to the mind of the wisest and gravest and most modest of the Ministry and opposed continually by the King Councel and whole body of the Kingdome as the very Acts themselves here produced by them doe evidently declare Secondly the Acts of those Assemblies can be of no greater force than the book it self for the establishing whereof they were made But so it is that this Book is not in it self that Discipline whereunto we swear to joyne our selves in the Oath of the Covenant first because at this time the book of Discipline was but onely a thing in fieri not as yet concluded when the Oath was made and therefore could not be accounted to be comprehended therein for that Ordinance of the Assemblie at Glasgow 1581. whereby that Discipline was appointed to be registrated in the Assembly books did not make it a binding Law neither was it intended for that end but as it is expresly set down in the Act it self ad perpetuam rei memoriam and that the posteritie should think well of the intention of the Church So it was but a thing intended by the Church but not effected as likewise that Ordinance of the Assembly at Glasgow 1590. concerning the subscription to that book did not extend it self to all but to actuall Ministers only and yet of those many did resist it as particularly the Ministers of Angus and Mearâ—es and divers other parts of the Kingdome for the which cause it was thought needfull that a new Act should be made Anno 1591. injoyning againe the subscription under a penalty and particularly to those of Angus and Mearâ—es This book was never ratified by any Act of Estate either in Councell or Parliament without the which they themselves confesse it could not be a Law as they doe in that Assembly Iuly 1579. and that Assembly 1580 Sess. 10. As for that Act of Parliament 1592. here alleaged first it was after the last urging of the swearing of the Covenant 1591. and therefore could not be included in the Oath Secondly it was but a partiall ratification not of the whole book but of Generall Synodall and of Presbyteriall Assemblies and Parish Sessions which did still remaine under Episcopall government with greater regularitie than they were before 2. This book of Discipline many years after the first motion thereof could not be agreed unto by the greatest and best part of the Ministrie finding it for the most part but an Imaginary plot which could be hardly effectuate or indure long in the Church without great corruption as the event proved Some of it never put in practice either in the Church of Scotland or any other Church in the world like to the frame of Policie in Plato's Republik or of Outopia as those points de Diaconatu concerning the collecting and distribution of the rents of the Church in some points the contrary hath ever been practised as it is appointed by that Book Cap. 7. That Landward Churches should not nor could not have particular Elderships and yet ever after there was not so small a Landward Church but had their particular Sessions consisting of the Ministers Elders and Deacons It is likewise there appointed that Elders once lawfully called to the office may never leave it again and yet it hath ever been an use that he who was Elder this year should be casheered the next and every year a new Election made Item it is ordained Cap. 3. That all Ecclesiasticall Parsons as Pastors Elders and Deacons should receive the Ceremonie of ordination to their office which are declared to be Fasting and Prayer and imposition of hands of Elderships and yet they did never practise imposition of hands upon Elders or Deacons but only in the Ordination of Pastors many other points might be brought which either were never practised or the contrary practice brought in 3. If this Book of Discipline be a declaration of the meaning of Church whereby the negative Confession in the Covenant should be interpreted then those who have sworn the Covenant have sworn also to this Book of Discipline if it be so then which of all the Covenanters can free themselves of perjurie for
therefore it were but a foolish Logomachie or strife about words to allow the one title and condemne the other Secondly it may aswell be condemned as unlawfull to appropriate the name of Minister to the degree of preaching Pastors which is common to all those who have charge in the Church or to appropriate the name of Elder to their ruling Elders only which is common to all Pastors Apostles Evangelists and Bishops Thirdly neither did they condemne as unlawfull in it self their power and preheminence over the Ministers in their Diocese or charge over moe particular Parishes first because there were points agreed upon by both parties before this Assemblie and approved by a speciall Act as we have shown before Cap. 11. Secondly because this power was as yet still remaining in the persons of Superintendents Commissioners and Visitors and long after this time Fourthly neither did they condemne as unlawfull in it self their power of Convocation of Synodall Assemblies and their moderation therein for the Church acknowledged this power to be lawfull in Superintendents as we have shown by divers Acts of Assemblies Cap. 5. for if it were unlawfull in it self it could not be thought lawfull under any title whatsoever Fiftly neither did they condemne as unlawfull in it self their sitting and voycing in Councell or Parliament or other Civill Iudicatories for they acknowledge in the second book of Discipline Cap. 11. That Pastors may and should assist their Princes when they be required in all things agreeable to Gods Word whether it be in Councell or Parliament or otherwise So a little before this time M. Robert Pont who was a Pastor and Commissioner of Caithenes had licence from the Assemblie to exercise the office of a Senator of the Colledge of Iustice which was a civill Iudicatorie That proviso which is added to this doth not import any unlawfulnes in the office Providing they neglect not their own charge nor by flatterie of Princes hurt the publik estate of the Church if any doe so it is but a personall fault and not essentiall to the office for Bishops may doe more good in those places for the publik weal of the Church than their Apostles of the Covenant by their long staying in Edinburgh farre from their own particular charges attending the tables of the Covenant and gadding up and down the Countrie to stirre up the Kings Subjects to rebellion against him and to disturb the estate of the Church and Kingdome as many of the Covenanting Ministers have done These are the principall points both of the Spirituall and temporall functions of the Bishops and since they were not accounted by the Church unlawfull in themselves how can this be that this Assembly hath justly condemned The whole estate of Bishops as unlawfull in it self except the Ambiguitie lurk in these words which are there added and often repeated As it is now used in Scotland signifying that it was only the corruptions which were in those who were Bishops at that time which they did condemn and not Episcopacie absolutely It may be true indeed that there were some corruptions at that time in those who had the office of Bishops or that they did not exercise their office aright retaining some corruptions of the Roman Church but for these personall faults the office should not have been condemned of it self since these corruptions might have been separated from the office as they were indeed by the new re-establishment of Bishops in the year 1606. 1608. And certainly they understood those corruptions which are remaked to have been in the Bishops by the book of discipline Cap. 11. whereof some are corruptions indeed but not competent to that office as it was now established in Scotland by generall Assemblies and Acts of Parliament others of them are only supposed corruptions which cannot be convinced to be such indeed either by Gods Word or testimonie of approved Fathers or practice or example of the primitive Church 1. They say it is a corruption that the name of Bishop should be appropriated to some few we have answered to this a little before shewing that this is only a proud doting about questions and strife of words as the Apostle sayes 1 Tim 6. 4. 2. They account it a corruption that they addict not themselves to a particular flock I answer that they doe so for their Diocese is their particular flock Then it is neither necessarie nor expedient that he to whom the generall charge of many parishes is committed should astrict himself to one Parish only nor can the contrary be convinced from Gods Word wherein we finde no such divisions of Parishes as is now 3. They challenge them that they are called Lords over their brethren and over the inheritance of the Lord But first we say that they are not called Lords in regard of their rule over their Brethren but in regard of their temporall Lordships bestowed upon them by the Liberalitie of Princes and in regard of their place in Parliament and Councell then this title of Lord like as Dominus in Latine and {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} in Greek is sometimes a word signifying absolute and illimitated Dominion So we see that divers Emperors albeit in effect they had absolute dominion yet did they refuse often the title of Dominus because it was odious to people and in this sense Bishops are not called Lords neither doe they arrogate to themselves such absolute and unlimited dominion as to doe what they pleased but they must be ruled by the Canons of the Church But otherwise the title of Lord is only a word of honour competent to every man of respect to whom it pleases the Prince or custome of the Countrey to give that title as in France we see the Bishops are no otherwise intituted than other ordinarie Gentlemen calling them Mounsieur so likewise in Spaine and Italy Seignior which title is also given to any other man of worth it is only the custome of the Countrey of England and Scotland whereby this title of Lord is given to Bishops and not for any absolute Dominion they arrogate thereby 4. They account it a corruption that Bishops should have further bounds to visite then they may lawfully they would say conveniently but that corruption may easily be amended by division of the Diocese as is lately done in the Diocese of St. Andrews without abolishing the whole office 5. That a Pastor should have criminall Iurisdiction we answer they have not this as Pastors or Bishops but as a priviledge by the Laws of the Countrey annexed to their temporall lands which notwithstanding they doe not exercise in their own person but by their Stewards or Bailifâ—es 6. They count it a corruption that Bishops would not subject themselves to the correction and censures of the particular Elderships or Presbyteries this is but a supposed corruption and if it were so it were a great corruption indeed and a most uncomely and confused disorder to give libertie to
the inferior members to correct the head it is true indeed that Bishops ought to be subject to the censures of Generall or Nationall Councels and none of them will think themselves exeemed from such a one as is lawfully constituted Albeit the Bishops did decline upon many just reasons this Assembly of Covenanters which are at length expressed in their declinature yet if that the Assemblie had been constituted according to the present established order of the Church they would never have declined from the same The last corruptions they remark in the Bishops as they were then in Scotland is that they did not instruct their people in Gods Word which is a corruption indeed but not essentiall to the office of a Bishop or allowed by a Law if any omit that dutie let them be censured for their personall fault it is great iniquitie to condemn the whole office as unlawfull in it self for the personall fault of one or two But I perceive that the chief thing which was then condemned in Episcopacie is that they did not receive their Commission to exercise their charge from the Church or that every Minister had not his voyce in the Nomination or Election of Bishops but that they were nominated and presented by the King elected by those of the Chapton only and consecrated by other Bishops and this was the thing which moved them â—o despitefully to condemn that estate in the constitution whereof every one of them had not a hand and in all their proceedings both in the book of Discipline and Acts of Assemblies it appeares that this was the chief thing they required that if they had had their Commission only from the Church or generall Assemblie they would have condescended to all other points of their function 1. In the second book of Discipline Cap. 11. they confess that albeit Pastors as pastors have not power over moe â—locks than one yet if it be given them by the Church they may exercise it lawfully 2. In the Assemblie 1575. it is agreed by both parties as we have declared that amongst the pastors one may be chosen by the Church to visite certaine bounds comprehending many particular parishes and therein to plant Ministers to suspend and depose them for reasonable causes 3. In the Assemblie at Edinburgh 1578. one of the principall petitions they make to the Regent was that none should be admitted to vote in Parliament in name of the Church excepâ— such as have Commission from the Church 4. In the second book of Discipline Cap. 11. It is said that no person under whatsoever title ought to attempt any Act in name of the Church either in Councell or Parliament having no Commission from the Church so that if that had been done we see that they acknowledge both their power and preheminence over other Pastors their charge over moe particular flocks their sitting in Councell and voting in Parliament to have been lawfull which are the principall points both of the Spirituall and temporall function of Bishops which they challenge in this Assemblie to be unlawfull If then we can shew that the Bishops have received from the Church such a Commission to exercise all these points of their office how can it be denied but they may exercise them lawfully since this is the only exception against them in these things Therefore we shall make it appear that Bishops have received from the Church this Commission 1. Christ himself who is the head of the Church having all power gave to the Apostles this Commission to exercise power and preheminence in all Spirituall and Ecclesiasticall matters over all both Pastors and people throughout the whole world 2. The Apostles who were at the beginning the representative Church gave the like Commission to Bishops over certaine bounds over the which they received Iurisdiction as Paul gave to Timothy in Ephesus and the bounds of Asia minor thereabout Commission to plant Churches to ordaine Presbyters and Deacons to have Iurisdiction and Rule over them being ordained to receive or repell accusations given in against them and by consequent to judge and correct or censure them the same Commission received Titus in the Kingdome of Creta neither can it be doubted but the rest of the Apostles gave the like Commission unto others in these Nations where they travelled to preach the Gospel who were to succeed them in the rule and Government of the Churches wherin they had not only the Name but also the office and that power of Bishops which is here called in Controversie as none can deny except those who will impudently deny all tâ—rue records of Antiquitie since all the oâ—thodox Fathers who succeeded the Apostles and lived in the same age with them doe with unanimous consent testifie the same The which Commission was derived from the Primitive Church who received it from the Apostles to those of succeeding ages confirmed by continuall practice uncontrouled for the space of fifteen hundred years by any Orthodox writers untill this last age that some of the Church of Geneva began to call it in question 3. The Commission to vote in Parliament they could not have at the beginning when there was no Christian Magistrates or Common-wealths yet so soone as Kingdomes and Common-wealths received the publik exercise of Christian Religion authorized by Laws then the Church considering that many of the Civill Laws did either directly or indirectly reflect upon Ecclesiasticall matters and Religion and that it was very expedient that Ecclesiasticall Constitutions for better obedience thereto should be strengthened by the Laws of the Kingdome they did earnestly supplicate Emperors Kings and Magistrates that some Commissioners from the Church might have place in their Soveraign Courts whereby Laws were established to further therein the cause of God and the Church and to take heed Nè Ecclesia aliquid detrimenti capiat the which supplications Christian Emperors Kings and Magistrates out of a pious zeal did grant And therefore did authorize the Bishops and Prelates to sit in their Soveraigne Courts in name of the Church this priviledge many godly and learned Prelates did injoy to the unspeakable good of the Church and advancement of Christian Religion so that it is no lesse but rather a great deal moâ—e wicked Sacriledge to rob the Church of this so profitable a priviledge than to rob her of her patrimonie and therefore no marvell though these who make no scruple in Conscience to be sacrilegious in the one be also sacrilegious in the other 4. To come neerer to our Church of Scotland it is evident by all histories that since there were Christian Princes therein the reverend Bishops did not onely rule the Ecclesiastick affaires but also had a great hand in the affaires of the Civill estate and did much good by their wise Counsell to the King the Church and whole Kingdome before Popish tyrannie had place therein and that since there were any formall Parliament in Scotland the Prelats made up the third
Native Countrey promising by their letters and subscription of blank papers to give way and assistance to the King of Spaines Navie to enter within the bowels of the Kingdome No marvell therefore although in so perillous a time when a totall ruine both of Church and Kingdome of Policie and Religion was feared and threatned the King and estate thought it fit for eschewing the present danger to give way at that time to those new Disciplinarians suffering that Act of Parliament to passe in their favour fearing that if they should have resisted their present importunity turbulent spirits as some of them were might have made a further distraction even amongst these who adhered to the true Religion whereby an other gate might have been opened for the entrie of forraigne enemies and so the estate being thus devided should have been lesse able to resist the common enemie This was the very true reason whereby his Majestie was in a manner forced to condescend to this Act whereof they brag so much contrary to his own judgement and constant intention as is evident by that which followed for no sooner was that blast past and that Conspiracie repressed but King Iames of happie memory did set himself more earnestly than ever he did before to re-establish Episcopall government and bear down that new discipline the evils and corruptions whereof disturbing both Church and Common-wealth he perceived daily more and more 3 We must remark that this Act of Parliament 1592. was the first that ever did allow presbyteriall Government by a Law and therefore ought to be accounted the first establishment thereof in the Kingdome of Scotland whereby it appears how short a continuance it had in this Church and how soone it became loathsome to all estates of persons Spuria putamina non agunt altas radices For not full eight years after this in the Assemblie at Montrosse 1600. it received a great blow and Episcopacie was by one step more advanced wherein it was concluded that a certaine number of ministers who were nominated by the King should supply the place of Bishops by voycing in Parliament in name of the Church and to have a care of the generall affaires thereof under the name of Commissioners whose power was inlarged by that Assembly at Haliruâ—house 1602. and Bishops thereafter under their own proper title were established in their full power and Iurisdiction by the generall Assemblies of the Church 1606. 1608. 1610. solemnly ratified by consent of the three Estates in Parliament 1612. 4. We cannot omit that Act cited out of the Assemblie March 1589. wherein it is said for asmuch as the Neighbour Kirk in England is understood to be heavily troubled for maintaining of the true Discipline and Government whose griefes ought to move us therefore the Presbyterie of Edinburgh was ordained to comfort the said Church in the said matter I cannot conceive whom they call The Church of England here except it be some few Schismaticks who a little before this time were challenged before the Starre-chamber for disturbing the Church and Kingdome by promoting unto the people a new forme of Discipline different in many points both from the Scottish Discipline and that of Geneva who because they did obstinately refuse to answere to some interrogatories proposed to them by the Councell of England were committed to prison of which number was one Wigintone who stirred up three fanaticall fellows Edmund Coppinger William Hacket and Henry Arthington to labour for their relief perswading them that they were extraordinarily called thereto Hacket being mightily possessed by this humour did give out that Christ was descended from heaven with his fan in his hand and had called him extraordinarily to purge both Church and Common-wealth he sent out before him his two principall Prophets Coppinger and Arthington to whom he assigned a diverse charge that Coppinger should offer grace and mercie to the people if they would beleeve and follow him for the relief of the faithfull servants of God and Arthingtone should denounce Gods wrath and eternall damnation to unbeleevers who would not adhere to them those two being sent by Hacket came to the streets of London and did preach according to their charge railing impudently against the Queen and Councell declaring openly that she was fallen from her right to the Crowne and that Hacket was their King whom they ought to obey being placed in Christs stead whereby they moved great multitudes of the Common people to follow them but before they could effectuate their purpose they were prevented by certaine of the Councell sent by the Queen who apprehended them in the very Act at Cheapside the 16. of Iuly 1591. for the which cause Hacket was executed as a Traitor Coppinger killed himself in prison and Arthington repenting him of his madnesse did confesse their whole proceedings in whose Confession it was declared that they had received an incouragement to this attempt from Scotland by the means of one Penry who having been a certaine space a Preacher in Scotland waâ— returned a little before this enterprise and was lurking then in the City of London or in some place thereabouts this Penry was chiefly the man who procured these consolatorie letters from the Assembly to his Companions to the great disgrace of the Church of Scotland as having given encouragement to further such a treasonable attempt and apparantly that letter written from Scotland by one Gibson to Coppinger was one of these consolatorie letters ordained by the Assemblie to be written to them wherein he saith The best of our Ministers are most carefull of your estate and have sent for that effect a Preacher of our Church to wit Penry this last sommer 1590. of purpose to conferre with the best affected Ministers of your Church to lay down a plot how our Church might best travell for â—our relief I have heard some of the wisest and gravest of the Ministrie of Scotland at that time who did heavily regrate that the Church of Scotland was mightily abused by this Penry who although he was for a time in great estimation amongst the people and some of the chief Ministers likewise yet they found him at last an arrant Kâ—ave I am sorry that the Brethren of this Assemblie have been so inconsiderate as to refricare banâ— scabieâ— in calling to remembrance again that opproâ—ric of the Church of Scotland in these times as having had two deep a hand in that attempt to stirre up a Combustion in our Neighbour Kingdome and Church but our Covenanters are so farre from being ashamed thereof as they cease not as yet to use all meanes to doe the like if they could find in England such fanaticall fellows as Hacket and Coppinger CHAP. XV Discussing the Conclusion of the Act NOw after they have set down their confused rapsody of Reasons for proving the determination of their Assembly they conclude in these Hyperbolicall termes All which and many other reasons being publikly read and particularly at great length
not to be a free Assembly Secondly as the Pope and his Cardinalls in the Consistorie used Politick meanes that none or few of these Prelates whom they supposed in any wayes would crosse their designes should appeare in the Councell although publikly they did admonish all yet by private threatnings and distastes hindred from comming many of the Bishops of Germany France and Spaine but on the contrary allured by divers means those whom they supposed would favour their designes as all the Bishops of Italy so that when the Councell was at the greatest there were above 150. Italian Bishops whereof many were at the Popes charges yet not above 60. of all other Nations So in this at Glasgow politick meanes were used that none should be chosen Commissioners except Covenanters and of those only the strongest and most obstinate who had solemnely already sworn unto these things they intended to conclude and on the other part meanes were used that all those who were suspected to be averse from their designes or not forward enough shoud be excluded as is evident by the particular Instructions sent from the Tables of the Covenant unto all the Presbyteries of Scotland which were discovered by the care and diligence of his Majesties Commissioner and produced in open Assembly to their great confusion whereby it was appointed that care should be taken that none should be chosen as Commissioner for the Ministers or ruling Elders but Covenanters and those wel-affected to the busines And if that any other happen to be chosen by the greater part that all the best affected protest against them and processe them before the Assembly that they might be excluded from voycing and for that effect also directed an informall and illegall Citations against all the Bishops to exclude them from having place or voyce in their assembly who ought to have been by the present lawes of the Church of Scotland and continuall practice of the universall Church in all ages the principall members thereof Thirdly as in the Councell of Trent the Pope of Rome to have more voices favouring his designes did create many titular Bishops who had no Christian slock and had never so much as seen that Church which they did represent So likewise in this Assembly were brought in many Titular Lay-elders as Commissioners from Presbyteries wherein they had no habitations nor ever did sit therein to exercise their rule of Elder-ship before the day of their election to be Commissioners to the Assemblie Fourthly the Pope and his Cardinalls did complaine that the Emperor and Kings would have prelimitate the Councell by their directions yet the Ambassadors and Prelates did in every Session and Congregation complain more justly that the Councell was not free being strangely prelimitate by the Pope and Consistory of Rome both in the members and matters to be proposed as also in framing of the Canons So our Covenanters did require a free assembly affirming that as farre as the assembly should be prelimitate either in the members or matters to be treated so farre the necessary ends of the Assembly and good of the Church was hindred accounting it a most dangerous usurpation to any person or Iudicatoriâ— whatsoever to impose any such limitations except an Assembly it self And therefore did most grievously complaine against his Majestie although unjustly for he required no limitations but such as were prescribed by former lawfull assemblies Yet his Majestie and the whole Kingdome may more justly complaine of them who refusing the reasonable prelimitations of other former assemblies did neverthesse admit strange limitations from the Tables of the Covenant which was neither a lawfull Assembly of the Church nor had any authority over the same and those also against the established Constitutions of former generall Assemblies and Lawes of the Kingdome as appeares evidently by those foure papers of Instructions sent to every Presbytery according to the which the Assembly was limitate both in the members and matters Fiftly as in the Councell of Trent nothing was admitted to Consultation but Proponentibus Legatis which gave occasion of offence to many no Bishop no Prelate no Regall Embassador nor any good Christian had liberty to propose any thing onely the Popes Legates had this Power who did propose every thing as they received instructions from 〈◊〉 even so in this Assemblie nothing was admitted to Deâ—â—beration but Proponente Moâ—â—ratorâ— And he likewise was confined to the Ordinance of the Tables who had before set down every Article which was to be treated All propositions of any other whatsoever though flowing from his Majestie by his Commissioner or Councell were contemptuously rejected Sixtly as in the Councell of Trent let the Fathers and Doctors deliberate and reason Pro Contra as they pleased yet nothing was concluded untill it was first agreed unto by the Pope and his Cardinalls at Rome and their determination who never heard the reasoning was sent to Trent to be enacted and that no otherwise then it was set down by them which gave occasion to that common proverbe That the holy Spirit whereby the Councell was directed came from Rome in a Câ—og-bag So likewise all that which was done in this Assembly was fore-ordained by the Tables of the Covenant in Edinburgh For there were all the members of the Assembly constituted though contrary to the perpetuall practice of the Church there were all the Commissions framed and a Cople thereof sent to every Presbyterie as appeared by the production since never one of them was different in one Syllable from another there also was the whole order of the Assemblie set down and accordingly observed there were all things which were to be proposed in the Assembly discussed and concluded by the Rulers of the Covenant who for the most part were Lay-persons Noblemen Gentlemen Burgeâ—â—es and some few Ministers most forward in the cause therefore it may be justly said that the Spirit whereby those holy Brethren of the Assembly were ruled came not from Heaven but directly from Edinburgh I leave you to imagine by the effects what Spirit that was which hath stirred up such Sedition Rebellion Disorder and Confusion both in Church and Common-wealth Then although in these points of Corruptions and many other which for shortnes we omit this Assembly at Glasgow was not unlike that Councell of Trest yet I will be bold to say and that truely that in some substantiall points that Councell was more formall than this Assemblie For the Councell of Trent in the Externall order and Constitution of the members thereof keeped more formality and decency according to the order of the Church many ages before 1. There was none admitted to that Councell except Prelates of the Church Ambassadours of Princes and the most learned Doctors in all Europe for the time And such as the Prelates thought fit in the bounds of their Iurisdiction to reason in weighty points of Doctrine 2. In their Congregations and Sessions they did sit every man in his owne
the reformed Church of Scotland for many yeares after the reformation And though repressed for a time yet re-established again by divers more lawfull Assemblies than this ratified by divers Act of Parliament and continued now for many yeeres by-gon there behoved to be many and weighty reasons why such a Doctrine should be conversed with a serious deliberation to ponder and consider them yet neverthelesse in this Assembly in one short Session the whole matter was proponed discussed voiced concluded and a large Act past thereupon CHAP. II. Concerning the Act against Episcopacie ALbeit it were an easie matter to refute all the controverted Acts of this Assemblie yet leaving the rest at this time we intend onely to examine that Act Sess. 26. Decemb. 8. Against Episcopacie And that for two reasons especially First because the grounds whereupon this Act is concluded are the self-same whereupon all the rest of the controverted Acts are grounded and therefore these grounds being declared evidently to be infirme and weak it will also appear that together with this Act of Episcopacie All the rest of their Acts depending thereupon shall be found to be ruinous as I trust their fall shall be suddain Secondly because the principall aime of the most and chiefest of these who were members of that Conventicle was to suppresse Bishops because they esteemed them chiefly to have crossed their Sacrilegious and ambitious 〈◊〉 I or â—efore Bishops were re-established the Noblemen and Baroâ—s both possessed the substance of the Church renâ—s and also ruled the whole Eâ—tate at their pleasure in Councell and Parliament by their own voyces and voyces of the Gentry and Borroughs whom those factious 〈◊〉 did depend for the most part upon one Noble man or other then finding that by the re-establishing of Bishops their rents were taken out of their hands and that they were like to loose their Abbeyes and Prioâ—ies also and finally that their particular ends not alwayes tending to the weell of the Church or Kingdome or Honour of the Prince were crossed by the estate of Bishops no marvell then though they be moved by all meanes possible to suppresse them and for that effect have laboured to make use of the simplicitie of some of the Ministrie and proud humours of others impatient of Subjection to lawfull Authoritie of whom some having aimed in vaine at Bishopricks as is well known of divers of the Ring-leaders of that Faction thought it best for their credit to declare a great contempt of that estate which they had with much labour sought after without the desired effect according to the fable of the Fox others by their former misdemeanors both against the Church and Regall Authority being past hope of further advancement did easily condescend to shake off that yoak which their turbulent humours could never suffer them patiently to bear those were made to blow the trumpet of Rebellion both in their Pulpits and private conferences drawing the people after them and the simplest sort of Ministers also who did not judiciously remark their secret ends cloaked under the colour of Religion and libertie of the Church by which meanes this condemning of Episcopacie was brought in head with all the consequences thereof This is the point we mean to examine for the present and that you may see the weaknes of their reasons the better we shall set down verbatim the Act it self as it was conceived by them Act of the Assemblie at Glasgow Sess. 16. Decemb. 8. 1638. Declaring Episcopacie to have been adjured by the Confession of Faith 1580. And to be removed out of this Kirk THe Assemblie taking to their most grave and serious Consideration first the unspeakable goodnesse and great mercie of God manifested to this Nation in that so necessarie so difficult and so excellent and divine work of Reformation which was at last brought to such perfection that this Kirk was reformed not onely in Doctrine and Worship but also after many conferences and publik reasonings in divers Nationall Assemblies joyned with solemn humiliations and prayers to God the Discipline and Government of the Kirk as the hedge and guard of the doctrine and worship was prescribed according to the rule of Gods word in the book of Policie and Discipline agreed upon in the Assemblie 1578. and insert in the Register 1581. established by the Acts of the Assemblies by the confession of Faith sworn and subscribed at the direction of the Assembly and by continuall practice of this Kirk Secondly that by men seeking their own things and not the things of Iesus Christ divers Novations have been introduced to the great disturbance of this Kirk so firmely once compacted and to the endangering of Religion and many grosse evils obtruded to the utter 〈◊〉 of the work of Reformationâ— and change of the whole form of worship and fâ—ce of this Kirk commanded to receive with reverence a new Book of Common prayer as the onely form to be used in Gods publik worship and 〈◊〉 Contraveeners to be condignely censured and punished and after many supplications and complaints knowing no other way for the preservation of Religion were moved by God and drawn by necessity to 〈◊〉 the Nationall Covenant of this Kirk and kingdome which the Lord since hath blessed from Heaven and to subscribe the confession of faith with an Application thereof abjuring the great evils wherewith they were now pressed and suspending the practice of all Novations formerly introduced till they should be tryed in a free generall Assembly lastly that some of his Majesties Subjects of sundry ranks have by his Majesties command subscribed and renewed the confession of Faith without the former explication And that both the one and the other Subscribers have subscribed the said Confession in this year as it was professed and according to the meaning that it had in this Kingdome when it was first subscribed â—581 and afterward The Assemblie therfore 〈◊〉 by the Subscription of his Majesties high Commissioner 〈◊〉 of the Lords of secret Councell Sept. 22. 1638. and by the Acts of Councell of the date foresaid bearing that they should subscribe the said Confession and ordaining all his Majesties Subjects to subscribe the same according to the foresaid date and tenor and as it was then professed within this Kingdome As likewise by the protestation of some of the Senators of the Colledge of Iustice when they were required to subscribe and by the many doubtings of his Majesties good subjects especially because the Subscribers of the Confession in February 1638. are bound to suspend the approbations of the corruptions of the Government of the Kirk 〈◊〉 they be tryed in a free generall Assemblie finding it proper for them and most necessarie and incumbent to them to give out the true meaning therof as it was at first profest that all his Majesties Subjects in a matter so important as is the publik Confession of Faith so solemnly sworn and subscribed may be of one mind and one heart and have 〈◊〉 satisfaction
Iohnstone Clerk thereto under my signe and subscription manuall A. Iohnstone Cler. Eccl. Edinburgh the 12 of Ian 1639. CHAP. III. Discussing the foure Considerations whereby they were moved to make this Act OUr Covenanters before they come to the point in the beginning of the Act have set down foure considerations whereby they alleage they were moved yea forced of Necessity to conclude this Act against Bishops and albeit they doe not directly appertaine to the substance of the Controversie yet we will shortly observe some few notes thereupon to shew upon what impertinent Considerations this Act hath been grounded Their first Consideration is of the unspeakable goodnesse and great mercie of God manifested to this Nation in that excellent and divine work of Reformation brought to perfection not onely in Doctrine and worship but also in Discipline and Government c. Whereupon first we must remark that if they had soriously considered that excellent work of Reformation with due respect towards these worthy Reformers whom God used as instruments in effectuating that work they should never have been moved thereby to have concluded such an Act as this so directly contrary to their mind for they at the Reformation did establish such a discipline and government in the Church according to Gods Word as whereby one Pastour under the Name of Superintendent might lawfully have power and preheminence over other Brethren of the Ministrie and over moe particular flock than one which discipline and government continued with happie successe in the Church of Scotland above thirty yeers after the Reformation but they have made this Act quite contrâ—dictorie thereto That it is not 〈◊〉 for one Pastor 〈◊〉 have power and preheminence over other Brethren nor over moe particular flock than one 2. That which they alleage that the second Book of Discipline is the perfection of the work of Reformation can no wise be true for that cannot rightly be called the perfection of any thing which doth reverse and destroy the substance and nature thereof but so it is that the Government established by the second book of Discipline which was presbyteriall including an absolute paritie amongst Pastors did reverse and destroy the nature of the government established by the Reformation which was Episcopall including directly Superioritie of one Pastor over others and therefore it could no wayes truely be called the perfection thereof 3. It is false that this Discipline was established by the Confession of Faith as shall be hereafter qualified by discussing all the passages falsly and impertinently alleaged for the same As likewise I see not how it can be true that this book of Discipline was established by the continuall practice of the Church for some points thereof were never practised in the Church of Scotland and those which were practised contrary to the estate of Bishops were not oâ— long continuance the practice of 8. or 10. or 15. yeers which is the most I can reckon cannot be accounted such a continued practice as may make prescription against the continuall practice of the whole Christian Church for many hundred yeares before and above six and thirtie yeeres since the approved practice of the principall points of their Discipline were discontinued as we shall shew more particularly hereafter Their second Consideration is that by mens seeking their own things and not the things of Christ many Innovations and great evils have been obtruded upon the Church to the utter undoing of the work of reformation and change of the whole forme of worship and face of the Church To this we answer that those Constitutions of the Church which they call Novations and Evils such as the establishing of Bishops Baptisme in private places in â—ase of Necessitie reverent Kneeling in the Act of receiving the Supper of the Lord not refusing to give it to the sick who earnestly desire it the thankfull remembrance of Gods speciall benefits by prayer and preaching of the Word upon certaine appointed dayes the Cateâ—hizing of yong children and presenting of them to the Bishop to blesse them by prayer for increase of knowledge and continuance of Gods grace are neither evils in themselves but tending to the removall of evils from the worship of God as irreverence and contempt of the Sacraments neglect of a thankfull remembrance of Gods speciall benefits and ignorance in youth and to the establishing of great good in the Church as sound Government Reverence in the worship of God thankfulnesse for Gods benefits increase of knowledge in the yonger sort and Spirituall comfort to Christian soules in Distresse Neither are they to be accounted Novations but rather a restoring of the ancient Constitutions and Customes of the Primitive Church in her purest times 2. These things cannot be said to be obtruded upon the Church which were received by the Consent both of the Church in Generall Assemblies and by the whole body of the Kingdome in Parliament as all those Constitutions which they challenge have been but on the contrary those things are said more truely to be obtruded upon the Church which are not brought in either by Assemblie or Parliament yea directly against the Acts of both standing in force are violently urged upon the people not onely to receive them simply but likewise to swear solemnly to the truth thereof by the great name of God and that not by any having authority or lawfull calling thereunto but by certaine seditious private persons and such are their seditious Covenant and impertinent applications or false interpretations of the Confession of Faith whereby many persons of sundry estates were by false allurements and violent threatnings forced against their minds to swear directly disobedience to the Kings Laws and Constitutions of the Church Finally it is also false that those things which they call Novaâ—ions have undone the work of Reformation and changed the whole forme of Gods worship or face of the Church For the work of Reformation is rather restored by the establishing of Bishops which was destroyed in that point by their Presbyteriall Government and absolute paritie of Pastors as we have touched already and shall be more fully cleered hereafter Then albeit some Circumstances and Ceremonies in Gods worship and externall apparell of the Church have been changed yet the substance and forme of Faith Religion worship and the Beautifull face of the Spouse of Christ the Church doth notwithstanding remaine still without change or alteration which S. Austin Epist. 86. expresseth fitly speaking of the like Novations in these words Vna fides oft universa Ecclesiae tametsi ipsa fidei unitas quibusdam diversis observationibus celebratur quibus nullo modo quod in fide verum est impeditur omnis enim pulchritudo filia regis intrinsecùs illa autem observationes quae variè celebrantur in ejus veste intelliguntur That is to say The faith of the universall Church is one although the unitie of the Faith it self be celebrated by some diversitie of observations whereby the truth
was not a point controverted betwixt the reformers of Religion who set down the Confession and their Adversaries the Papists And therefore needed not to be mentioned in the Confession and by consequent albeit there was no such Bishops according to the Confession yet it is not necessary that they should be abjured Then there is as little coherence betwixt the last two questions for although it had been abjured at that time yet will it not follow necessarily that it be now removed out of the Church for two reasons first because then it might have been abjured wrongfully and out of Ignorance but afterwards men comming to better and sounder knowledge that which rashly hath been abjured before may be lawfully restored now Next because if there had been a Law and Constitution against it for certaine reasons of not expediencie the Church might have abjured it for that time yet that Law being abrogated by lawfull Authoritie it may be received againe by the Church for it is holden as granted by all that Oaths given to humane positive Laws either Civill or Ecclesiastick obliges no longer than the Law stands in force Now therefore since the Law forbidding preheminencie of one Pastor over others if any such Law was being now abrogated and the contrarie established this preheminencie ought not to be removed now though formerly abjured Secondly There is great Ambiguities in the termes of the proposition themselves yea almost every word hath its own Ambiguitie for 1. the word Confession is ambiguous for although there be two writs which by some are called Confessions yet there is one onely proper and perfect profession of Faith of the Church of Scotland neither ought there to be any more in one Church to wit that large Confession set down at the beginning of the reformation wherein is contained all the positive Doctrine maintained by that Church which was acknowledged received in the general Assembly An. 1560. and ratified by the whole body of the kingdom in Parliament 1567. and inserted verbatim in the body of the Act that other which is called the negative Confession is only an Appendix of the former containing an abjuration of certaine speciall Errors of the Romane Church so it is doubtfull which of those Confessions is here understood 2. There is likewise an Ambiguity in that word According to the Confession because it may be understood diversly for either it implies that it is expresly contained therein and so it is properly according to the same or otherwise it may signifie onely that it is not contrary thereunto though not particularly expressed now Episcopacie in the first sense perhaps is not according to the Confession because it is not expressly mentioned therein which is no absurditie as we have shown before yet is it according to it in the second sense because not contrary thereunto 3. There is ambiguitie in the words As it is professed Anno 1580. c. For either it must be signified as it was then proposed in writ or print and so certainly it was no otherwise professed at that time than it was from the beginning and is now at this present but hath been ever conserved unaltered or uncorrupted in the Registers of the Church and Kingdome so that the particular restriction to those years 1580. 1581. 1590. is needlesse and superfluous or by Profession is signified the sense or interpretation thereof as it was understood and interpreted An. 1580. and thus also that restriction of the profession to those years is no lesse superfluous for it could not be or at least ought not to have been by any otherwise interpreted in these years or now then it was understood at the beginning by those who set it down for as we say unusquisque est optimus suorum verborum interpres and the first Reformers who framed that Confession did interpret it in the first book of Discipline and Acts of divers Assemblies thereafter so as it did approve the power of one Pastor over others Therefore if any did interpret it in a contrary sense they wronged greatly the worthy Reformers of the Religion and we are not now obliged to imitate them in their wrongfull dealing 4. There is Ambiguitie likewise in the word Bishop which sometimes is taken in a generall sense as it is attributed to every Pastor in the Church who hath power to oversee the actions of the people in Spirituall affaires sometimes more particularly as it signifieth those that have Iurisdiction both over moe pastors and people of a certaine bounds called a Diocese as it hath been taken in all Churches since the Apostles dayes untill this former age but because this is discussed in the Question it self I speak no more of it Finally there is Ambiguities in those words A particular flock for a Diocese is the particular flock of a Bishop aswell as a Parish is the particular flock of a Minister many more Ambiguities might be remarked in the words of this Question which for briefues we omit here but shall be God willing discussed as occasion serves in the subsequent discourse Thirdly it is also subtle Sophysticall dealing that they have drawn the Question à Thesi ad Hypothesin they doe not aske whether Episcopacie be lawfull in it self or not but whether it should be retained or removed in regard of the Confession of Faith and of the Covenant and that only as the Confession was understood An. 1580. 1581. 1590. involving the Question in divers intricate suppositions which they have done subtilly for their own ends first because they were not able to bring any solid testimony of Scripture or approved Fathers or practice of true antiquitie to prove the unlawfulnesse of that office and therefore neither in this Act nor in any other Act of this Assembly is there one syllable produced out of Gods Word to approve their conclusions but all their proofes are from their Negative Confession of Faith impudently wrested from the true meaning thereof from the Oath of the Covenant strangely mis-applyed and from certaine Acts of late Generall Assemblies which all at the best are but humane testimonies and such manner of proofes is not consonant to their ordinary exclamations against humane ordinances and Traditions of men continually pretending to all their speeches and actions Gods Word and Conscience which only is to be grounded thereupon 2. They have framed the Question so restricting the meaning of the Confession to the year 1580. c. because it is evident that from the reformation untill that time they could not alleage any Act of Assembly or Book of Discipline shewing that the Church had any such intention as absolutely to condemne Episcopacie but by the contrary the Church had declared both by the first book of Discipline and Acts of divers Assemblies as shall be fully made clear that she did so explaine her meaning in the Confession of Faith concerning the point of Government as she did approve expresly this power and preheminence and charge over
the meaning of the Church and Kingdome who accepted and approved the same as the true Doctrine proved by Gods Word thereby to condemne any such thing yea it is most evident that they had a quite contrary meaning as they themselves did publikly declare in the first book of Discipline shewing therein what manner of Government and Policie they doe require in the true reformed Church to wit that it should be governed by Superintendents in every Province having power and preheminence over all the Ministers and all the Parishes within their bounds for this book of Discipline was framed by the same persons who set down that confession of Faith and at the same very time or shortly thereafter and that by the command and direction of the great Councell of Scotland admitted to the Government by common consâ—nt of the whole estates in the Queens absence being for the time in France and ratifiâ—â—â— by Act of Councell and manuall subscriptions of the Counsellors and of divers other men of worth the 17. of Ianuary 1560. approved by many generall Assemblies and the continuall practice of the Church for twice as many years thereafter as Presbyteriall Governmental remained in force Then that we may see how farre this power of Superintendents did extend we must consider that the first Reformers of Religion because of the detestable enormities of Papisticall Bishops which made their persons offices and very names to be detested out of a certaine zealous scrupulositie would not at first give the title of Bishops to the rulers of the Church yet neverthelesse by the example of many other reformed Churches gave to those who were appointed to their charge a title of the same signification calling them Superintendents So changing a proper Greek word into a barbarous Latine for the Greek word {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} and the Latine word Superintendens doe both signifie one thing to wit such a one as is set over others to oversee their actions Albeit by this book of Discipline the whole Kingdome was divided in ten Dioceses expresly so called and over every Diocese a Superintendent appointed to be set yet in all the books of Assemblies we find onely foure who carried expresly this title to wit Mâ— Iohn Spotswood father to the late deceased Iohn Archbishop of St. Anâ—â—â—ws called Superintendent of Lâ—â—thran or Edinburgh Iohn Areskin of Diune Superintendent of Angus and Mearnes or of Brechin Mr. Iohn Wonram Superintendent of Fyfe or S. Andrews M. Iohn Wâ—llocks Superintendent of the West or Glasgow those who were set over the rest of the Dioceses were called Commissioners either because at that time they could not fiâ—d so many sufficient men or for lack of sufficient meanes to maintaine the estate of Superintendents or as some rather thinke because they esteemed this too absolute a Title and neere in signification to the title of Bishop therfore they thought it more fit to call them Commissioners as importing morse a dependencie upon the generall Assemblie of the Church from which they received Commission to exercise their charge not for any definite time but ad vitam or ad culpam Those same are at sometimes called Visitores by a word of the like signification with Episcopus for {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} signifieth likewise a Visitor and {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} Visitation as 1 Pet. â— 12. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} is translated by all interpreters in dievisitationis and so the Hebrew word {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} from the known word {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} visitavit by the Septuagints is translated {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} and by Latines Inspector Visitator or Praefectus Howsoever they were diversly named they had all a like power and Iurisdiction which was no lesse then in the Church of Scotland than the power which the Bishops had in the ancient Church or in the Church of Scotland these many yeers by-gone as may appeare by this paralell betwixt the power of Bishops and the power of Superintendents A Paralell betwixt the power of Bishops and the power of Superintendents FIrst as every Bishop hath his own Diocese over the which he hath Superioritie and Iurisdiction and therin a speciall Citie for his sea and place of Residence called the Metropolitan or Cathedrall Citie So every 〈…〉 by the first book of Discipline Cap. 5. Art 2. 〈…〉 pointed to him his own Diocese to have 〈◊〉 power over all persons both pastors and people 〈◊〉 that bounds and therein a certaine place of ordinary residence called there the Superintendents towne which for the most part were the same Cities from which the Bishops of Scotland are now denominated Secondly As all the Clergie in every Diocese are bound to give 〈◊〉 obedience to their ordinary Bishop according to 〈◊〉 Canons of the Church Right so by a speciall 〈…〉 Generall Assembly at Edinburgh Iuly 30. 1562. It is concluded by the whole ministers there Assembled that all Ministers shall be Subâ—â—ct to their Superintendents in all lawfull 〈…〉 as well in the book of Discipline as in 〈…〉 Election of Superintendents which is no other 〈…〉 but Canonicall obedience Thirdly As all Bishops are to be 〈…〉 of Generall or Nationall Councels 〈…〉 been in all ages and needed not any 〈…〉 thereto from the time that they were 〈…〉 consecrated to that office So likewise in all 〈…〉 Superintendents and Commissionâ—◠〈◊〉 were constant principall members of 〈…〉 Assemblies and needed not any particular Commission thereto but being once admitted to the office were ever acknowledged thereafter and received without any other Commission as is evident by that Assemblie at Edinburgh Iuly 1568. wherein the members of the Generall Assemblie are divided in two Ranks some are appointed to be ordinary and perpetuall members as Superintendents and Commissioners of Provinces the other sort are mutable as Commissioners of Churches Vniversities Townes and Provinces the first had no need of particular Commission but were perpetuall and first called in the Roll the other were changeable from Assemblie to Assemblie and had new particular Commissions from those by whom they were directed In the Assemblie at Edinburgh 1563. that every Superintendent shall appear the first day of the Assemblie at Edinburgh March 1578. the same Act is renewed and Bishops also are appointed to be present at all Assemblies or else to be accounted unworthy of the office and by divers other Acts yea after that the othee of Bishops begun to be questioned in the Assemblie 1579. Iuly 7. Sess. 9. It is ordained That Bishops and Comâ—issâ—ouers of Provinces who abjent themselves from 〈◊〉 Assemblies shall be censured according to the Act august 12. 1575. and that Act to be understood not onely 〈◊〉 Bishops having power of Visitation from the Church but also of such as have not that office Fourthly As all Bishops have power to hold their Synods twice in the year when and where it
Churches within the bounds of their own Diocese and therafter Anno 1572. All Bishops were by speciall Act of the Generall Assemblie restored to the function at the desire of the Earle of Lenox then Regent of Scotland and the next year in the Assembly at Edinburgh 1573. certaine limitations of their power were added not very strict which no Bishop can refuse 1. That the Iurisdiction of Bishops in their Ecclesiasticall function should not exceed the Iurisdiction of the Superintendents which heretofore they had and presently have which Iurisdiction as we have declared was no lesse than that which the Bishops require now 2. That they should be willingly subject to the Discipline appointed by the Generall Assemblie as members thereof This likewise is reasonable and no Bishop will think himself exeemed from the censure of a Nationall Assemblie lawfully constituted according to the established and approved orders of the Church 3. That no Bishops give coâ—â—ation of Benefices within the bounds of Superintendents without their consent and testimoniall subscribed by their hands This was also reasonable for Superintendents were also Bishops and it is conforme to the ancient Canons of the Church That no Bishop should give ordination or collation to any within the Diocese of another Bishop without his consent and testimoniall 4. That Bishops in their own Diocese visite by themselves where no Superintendâ—nts are which indeed is their duty if they be not impedited either by infirmitie or by some weightier affaires of the Church 5. That they give no collation of Benefices without the advice of three qualified Ministers The Bishops of Scotland heretofore did astrict themselves further for they were not accustomed to give collation of Benefices except 〈◊〉 were to men of known worth in the exercise of the ministry before without the advice of the whole Brethren of the Exercise in the bounds where the Benefice lyes committing the whole triall both of their life and doctrine to them and according to their Testificate did accept or reject him who was presented By this then which we have truely related out of the book of Discipline and Acts of Generall Assemblies of the Church it is manifest that the true Confession of faith as it was professed at the Reformation and many yeers thereafter had no such meaning as condemne or â—bjure the power and preheminence of One Pastour over others or over moe particular flocks than one But on the contrary did approve the same as it is explained concerning the point of Government by the book of Discipline and practice of the Church under the title of Superintendent untill the year 1590. and under the title of Bishop untill the year 1580. for untill those years neither the one nor the other were abrogated by the Assembly of the Church the first Act condemning that Iurisdiction under the title of Bishops was in that Assembly at Dundie 1580. and the first Act abolishing the office and title of Superintendents was in that Assembly at Edinburgh August 1590. wherein it is declared that since Presbyteries were fully established that Superintendents and Commissioners were neither necessarie nor expedient What regard should be had to those Acts we shall shew hereafter Is it not therefore too impudent and manifest a calumnie and a scandalous impurtation laid by our Covenainers upon the worthy reformers of the Church of Scotland and those who did prosecute the same for many years that their meaning in the Confession of Faith was to condemne that as unlawfull which they did approve by their plaine and publike declaration and continuall practice As it is also a subtill and hypocriticall dissimulation of the Ring-leaders of this Rebellion against the knowledge and conscience â—f those who knowes the historie of that Church since the Reformation to professe and perswade people that their upright intentions is to reduce the Church to her former purity wherein she was constituted by the Reformations and to abolish all novationâ— since they are manifestly doing the quite contrary abolishing violently that order of Government which was established by the Reformation and establishing in place thereof a most dangerous Novation never heard of in many Christian Church since the beginning untill this 〈◊〉 age and whereof the Church of Scotland never thought of nor dreamed at the Reformation or many yeers thereafter untill it was brought by a violent wind from Geneva bringing therewith great trouble and disturbance to the Church of Scotland and whole Kingdome both first and last CHAP. VI Shewing that this power and preheminence of Bishops was not abjured by the Negative Confession or Covenant HAving showne that this power and preheminence of Bishops was not condemned by the principall and proper Confession of Faith of the Church of Scotland It followes also that we shew that it was not condemned by that abjuration in the Covenant called the Negative Confession which by them improperly and {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} is called a Confession For it is absurd and almost repugnans in adjecto to say that it should be the Confession of Faith in any Church which doth not declare any positive point of Doctrine to be beleeved but consisteth onely of meere Negatives which are not to be beleeved It was onely therefore set down as an Appendix of the true Confession for that end which we declared before For this is the ordinary manner both of publike Confessions of Churches and private Confessions of particular persons first to set down the positive Doctrine in certaine Articles and propositions which are properly the Confession of Faith and then by way of Appendix deduced from thence to adjoyne damning and abjuring of the contrary errors so we see it done in most of the Confessions of reformed Churches collected together in that book called Syntagma Confessionum So doth befa in his Confession and learned Zanchius in his right so we must conceive the matter that those abjurations of Popish errors set down in the Covenant are but Appendices deduced from the Articles and propositions which comprehend the Confession of Faith yea the very words of that Covenant make it cleer and evident for therin it is first said We beleeve with our hearts and confesse with our mouthes that this is the true Christion Faith and Religion which is particularly expressed in the Confession of our Faith established and confirmed by divers Acts of Parliament c. To the which Confession and forme of Religion we agree in all points c. In these words is the proposition and summe of the Confession the Appendix followeth thereafter in these words And therefore we abhorre and detest all contrary Doctrine and Religion but chiefly Papistrie and particular heads thereof c. whereby it is evident that it is onely the proper ancient Confession of Faith set down at the Reformation whereunto they did directly swear in that Covenant but unto the abjuration of errors they did onely swear indirectly and by consequent as they were contrary to the
that Act at Dundee 1580. HAving disoussed those passages alleaged out of the Abjuration of the Covenant it rests that we answer in like manner to the Acts of divers generall Assemblies produced to prove that the Church hath condemned this power and preheminence of one Pastor over another and over moe particular flocks albeit a sufficient answer may easily be gathered by the judicious Reader out of that which we have said already yet because many are moved by the Authority of those Assemblies who doe not understand the manner of their proceedings we must consider them more particularly to the end than we may shew what weight and force they ought to have in the Church Those Acts here cited by them for the more commodious answering without Tautologie may be disposed in three Ranks first some of them containe only preparations to the condemning of Episcopacie as those from the year 1575. to the 1580. next there are some that tend directly to the establishing of the second book of Discipline transferring the power of Bishops to Presbyteries thirdly others are such as condemne Episcopacie which all we shall examine particularly in their own order And first we must observe that they never alleage one word of any Assembly since the Reformation untill that at Edinburgh 1575. albeit there were thirtie generall Assemblies in Scotland before that time more uncorrupt holy and venerable than any of those which are alleaged of them for why they were not able to shew by any probabilitie that before that time the Church of Scotland did think any evill of this power and preheminencie but did continually and constantly approve the same both by her Constitutions and practice Next we must consider the causes and occasions moving the Ministers at that time to alter their judgements in this point and if we remark the estate of the Church and Kingdome of Scotland at that time as it is known to all these who have taken paines to understand the true history of the Church and Kingdome of Scotland in those dayes we shall finde evidently the occasions of this alteration of Iudgement First there were at that time some men of learning but of fiery and violent humours come into Scotland from Geneva who because of their travels abroad and learning were had in great esteeme and they being themselves greatly in love with Geneva discipline did labour by all manner of perswasions to move others to like both of the Clergie and Laitie especially Noblemen to a liking therof also at lest by intreaties perswasions and some shew of reason made secretly amongst themselves a reasonable number both of Nobility and Ministry who carried a great sway in generall Assemblies and were able to make a partie if the former Government were called in Question Secondly they thought the time fit to further their designe in regard of the Kings Majesties minoritie being then about ten yeers of age at most and therefore not capable of the knowledge of that which was most fit for the Government either of the Civill or Ecclesiastick estate governed himself by divers men of divers humours Thirdly there was a great furtherance to this Alteration in regard of the great troubles divisions and factions at that time amongst the Nobilitie and Courtiers every one striving to thrust out his Neighbour from that imployment he had about the King and Court as witnes the violent death of three Regents and the fourth like enough had gone the same way if his Govermneâ—t had indured longer and many of the Nobility cut off by particular quarrells some justly some unjustly under colour of legall proceeding as witnes likewise an Act of the Assemblie at Edinburgh 1578. whereby a solemn Fast was injoyned for divers reasons Especially because of the â—ivill and intestine ungodly Sâ—ditions and Divisions within the Bowells of the Kingdome Some Noblemen therefore and Courtiers in those factious times as fishing in troubled waters to further their own ends did labour to make some pretext of Religion and therefore did strive to haâ—e the Church upon their side abusing the simplicitie of some of the Ministrie zealous of the new Discipline and the pride of others impatient of subjection to their Bishops or Superintendents stirring them up to cast off their yoak knowing that they by their Sermons and private practices might doe much to make the people incline to which faction they pleased best And by that meanes to force the Kings Majestie for fear of a generall insurrection to grant them whatsoever they desired which policie our Covenanting Noblemen have carefully practised now with great but a dangerous effect there was never yet in those times so bold a Traitor but he found Ministers of that sect to Countenance him and approve his doings both privately and publikly as witnes their applauding the Earle of Bothwell in his treasonable attempts for it is certainly known that of those moneyes which was collected by the Ministers for the relief of Geneva a part was imployed to wage souldiers for him I know and could name if I pleased both the deliverers and Receivers thereof It is known also that Ministers of that Sect had a chief hand in all those attempts which commonly are called Roads as at the road of Stritilling the road of Leith and the Abbey road and at the 17. day of December the Earle of Gowry found one of the prime Ministers of that Sect to justifie his cause and refuse to give thanks to God for the Kings Deliverie from that treasonable Attempt Finally it is well known how King Iames of happy memory was vehemently troubled and vexed most unjustly by that Sect during the time of that Anarchie of the Church as he himself left in record in his Basilicon Doron Fourthly to those occasions another was joyned to further the ruine of Episcopacie towit the Sacrilegious greed of some of the Nobilitie and Courtiers gaping after the Church-rents which they perceived they could never obtaine so long as the Authority of Bishops did subsist and therefore did use the uttermost of their endeavour to bear down that estate pushing forward the Ministers to cry out against the Bishops and to blue abroad their personall faults both in their Assemblies Pulpits and private conference to make the very office it self 〈◊〉 to the people It is therefore more than manifest that those troublesome and factioâ—s times cannot be accounted a good prâ—sident for the Government of the Church in after ages for shall a few turbulent Assemblies backed and 〈◊〉 forward by factious humours and sacrilegious greed of Noblemen and Courtiers in the miâ—orage of the Supreme Magistrate constituting a new Discipline by the example of one small Citie of Geneva confirmed onely by the practice of fourteen or fifteen yeers at most be able to counterpoize Gods Word the continuall practice of the Church of God both under the old and new Testament and the example of the blessed Apostles and their Successors the venerable Pastors of the Primitive Church continued
I am assured that the greatest part are not perswaded in their Conscience of the truth of all this Book of Discipline nor will swear to adhere thereto all the dayes of their lives let them put their Covenanting Noblemen and other Gentlemen possessors of the Church Rents to an assay to swear that point of this Book ca. 9. That to take any part of the patrimony of the Church consisting of Tithes Manses Glaebs Possessions Lands Biggings Annuall rents and any other thing which hath been at any time before or shall be in times coming given for the use and utilitie of the Church and convert it to the particular and profane use of any person we hold it a detestable Sacriledge before God Or that point Cap. 12. That this order which Gods Word craves cannot stand with patronages or power of presentation c. put them I say to this Oath particularly and make them understand that by swearing to the discipline of the Church of Scotland they are sworn also to this point and then you shall find that they will rather renounce your Covenant before they take such an Oath Or if they have so bad a Conscience as to swear so directly against their mind before they perform really that which they swear by restitution of the patrimonie of the Church and quieting the Right of Patronage they shall rather revolt from your Covenant and conforme themselves to the Book of Common Prayer Book of Canons and high Commission likewise So if you should put many of the Ministrie especially those who possesse rich Parsonages to swear particularly that point of the Policie appointed by this Book Cap. 9. Cap. 12. To suffer the Deacons to intromet with all their Church Rents and to distribute the same by the direction of the ruling Elders giving one fourth part for the maintenance of their Lay-Elders and Deacons another to their poore Hospitals and Schools another for upholding the fabrick of the Church and other extraordinary affayres and only a fourth part to be given to the Minister they should find few of them who would imbrace their Covenant upon those Conditions So then to perswade people that by swearing to adhere to the discipline of the Church of Scotland they swear also to this book and to all the points therein whereunto the whole Church did agree fully in that Assemblie 1578. as they alleage either it is a false deluding of the whole Kingdom in drawing upon their consciences the burden of a fearfull perjurie or else the Covenanters themselves remaine as yet under that fearfull perjurie notwithstanding of the renewing of their Covenant whereby they think that their perjurie is expiate for they have not as yet renounced those things which they are bound to renounce by their oath 4. This Book of Discipline is deficient in the principall points of Church discipline there is no order set down therein of the censures of the Church nor of the manner of proceeding to the sentence of excommunication against offenders or in the absolution of the penitent or of receiving them again into the Church who has been excommunicated in which points that which properly is called the Discipline of the Church doth consist Every Church hath her Ecclesiasticall Canons whereby those things are directed but this book omitting those Canons hath done as that Painter who having portraied every Nation in its proper habite did paint the French man naked with a paire of Taylors sheers in his hand to shape to himself a fashion of Habite because he changeth yearly according to his fancie even so this book of Discipline hath given to the Ministers and Lay-Elders in their Elderships a power to shape to themselves a new forme of Discipline every year as they please so that as I know perfectly there were few Presbyteries or Sessions in Scotland but had different manner of proceeding in these things as I could instance in divers particulars having seen and perused many Presbyteriall and Session books And there is none amongst themselves who frequented divers Presbyteries but they know this to be true Finally this Book is superabundant also meddling with those things which doe not appertaine to Ecclesiasticall discipline as setting down rules restraining the civill and supreme Magistrate in the execution of his charge committed to him by God debarring him from meddling with Ecclesiasticall matters and not giving him so much power therein as to a Shoemaker or Taylor being a ruling Elder and giving him no definitive power but only to be an executioner of that which they define and such other points of Iesuiticall doctrine Seeing therefore this book of Discipline was never fully approved nor practised by the Church nor fully ratified by the estate and kingdome nor received fully by the Covenanters themselves and since it is deâ—icient in principall points of Discipline and superabundant in meddling witâ—things impertinent it cannot be accounted that discipline whereunto all are sworn by the oath of the Covenant And therefore that all those Acts of Assemblies cited here for the establishing thereof are impertinent to prove their conclusion CHAP. XIII VVherein is discussed that Act of the Generall Assemblie at Dundee 1580. Condemning Episcopacie as it was then in Scotland THe principall Act whereupon they chiefly insist and ground this abjuration and meaning of the Church in these years when the Covenant was sworn is that Act of the Generall Assemblie at Dundee Iuly 1580. whereby The office of a Bishop as it was then used in Scotland is condemned as unlawfull in it self and that Act at Glasgow in April 1581. explaining the same declaring it to be understood not of the spirituall function only but of the whole office of a Bishop as it was then used Albeit the Church appeareth wholly to have condemned by those Acts all the points of the function of a Bishop yet if we consider rightly we shall finde nothing in them which proveth directly the determination of this Assemblie for I cannot see how the whole Church of Scotland did agree at that time in condemning as unlawfull in it self either this point of Episcopacie which is condemned by this Assemblie of Covenanters 1638. or any Substantiall point either of the Spirituall or temporall function thereof except they grant that the Church at that time did contradict it self First I am assured they intended not to condemne in Bishops as unlawfull it self the preaching of the Word the Administration of the Sacraments and the exercise of Ecclesiasticall Discipline since they acknowledge themselves that these are the principall points of their spirituall function in that Act of the Assemblie 1575. discussed here before Secondly neither did they condemn as unlawfull in it self the name and title of a Bishop to be appropriated to some Pastors by others for first they did allow the title of Superintendent to be appropriated to some pastors which is a word of the same sense and signification and importing as great Authoritie and Iurisdiction as the other And
Estate and did represent the whole Church therein both by the consent of the Church and fundamentall Laws of the Kingdome so that to the enacting of any Law the consent of Prelates was ever thought as necessarie as any of the other two Estates And therefore since by the fundamentall Laws of this Kingdome no Act in Civill or Ecclesiasticall matters ever had the strength of a binding Law without the consent of all the three Estates whosoever will prease to suppresse the estate of Prelates doe reverse and destroy the very fundamentall Laws of the Kingdome 5. To come yet neerer to the reformed Church of Scotland at the very first reformation those who were appointed in the place of Bishops called Superintendents had by Commission from the Church as great power and preheminence over other Pastors and all the Parishes within the bounds of the charge committed to them as Bishops doe now require in their Diocese It is true the Superintendents had not vote in Parliament nor could have for why the Bishops retained still their possession in those places upon their ancient Commission often ratified in Parliament both before and after the Reformation never quarrelled by any Generall Assemblie of the Church untill that Assemblie at Edinburgh in October 1578. wherein the Bishops are required only not to vote in Parliament in name of the Church without speciall Commission thereâ—ra And a few years before to wit at the Assemblie at Ediâ—burgh 1573. the whole Iurisdiction and power of Bishops is expresly allowed by the Church with some exceptious not very materiall as we remarked before and yet there is no mention of excepting this power to vote in Parliament in name of the Church whereby they doe tacitely at the least approve this the ancient Commission of the Bishops to vote in Parliament in name of the Church Finally at the last re-establishing of Bishops Thu Commission to vote in Parliament in name of the Church was expresly given to them by the Church for first by that Assemblie at Montrosse 1600. the Church gave Commission to a certaine number of Ministers though not under the title of Bishops to have a care of the Generall affaires of the Church and to voice in Parliament in name of the Church then the generall Assemblies at Glasgoâ— and Lithgow in the year 1606. 1608. 1610. they did under the very title of Bishops receive full Commission from the Church not only to vote in Parliament but likewise to exercise their whole Iurisdiction power and and preheminence over all Pastors and people within the bounds of their Diocese and so every Bishop particularly by their election and consecration receives power to use this Commission whensoever occasion shall be offered neither is it necessary that for every severall Act they doe in name of the Church they have a new particular Commission for that effect but it is sufficient that by the consent of the Church and Estates of the Kingdome this power is annexed to the office of a Bishop for ever so that whosoever should be elected to that office should have this Commission once for all during his life time or untill by his malversation in his charge he be lawfully and legally deprived It is true indeed that the Church may adde new Articles to their Commission as times and occasions requires as is done in England and Ireland where the Convocation of the Clergie sits ever in the time of Parliament to consider upon such Articles as are thought by common consent to serve for the wee l of the Church and by them are presented to the Bishops that by their care they may receive due ratification but the turbulent behaviour of some Ministers in Scotland who scornes to have their petitions proposed orderly by the Bishops hath as yet barred the Clergie of Scotland from that priviledge Now to conclude this point since for ought we can see the only exception that the Church of Scotland hath made against any point of the function of Bishops at that time when Episcopacie was condemned as unlawfull Anno 1580. 1581. is that they had not their power and preheminence by Commission from the Church or generall Assemblie and since that exception as we have shown is now removed it is evident that those Acts of the Assemblies at Dundee 1580. and at Glasgow 1581. doe not serve to prove the Conclusion of this Assemblie and therefore are impertinently alleaged CHAP. XIIII Discussing the rest of the Acts of Assemblies here cited SInce all the rest of the Acts in the subsequent Assemblies against Bishops are grounded upon these two former Acts whereby the office of a Bishop was condemned and since we have shown in the former Chapter that they doe not serve to prove the Conclusion of this Assemblie and therefore the rest of the Acts depending thereupon must have as little strength as they so that we need not to insist in the particular discussing of every one of them yet lest it be thought that we have over past them altogether we shall remark some few particular observations upon them whereby it may be perceived that if they serve not for their purpose here yet that they serve in divers points against them First those Acts cited here concerning the presentation by the King and admission by the Presbytery of Glasgow of M. Robert Montgomerie to the office of the Archbishop of Glasgow and of M. Robert Poâ—s to be Bishop of Caithâ—es and the divers ineffectuall suits made by the Generall Assemblies to the King Councell and Parliament for advancing of their Presbyteriall Discipline and suppression of Bishops to wit those presented by the Assemblies 1580. 1581. 1587. serves against them in so farre as they declare that their violent proceedings against Bishops and for establishing of their new discipline was not allowed by the Kings Majestie and Councell and whole body of the Kingdome in Parliament all this time but directly resisted as contrary to their wills and manifest intentions whereby it is evident that neither the King nor the Councell nor the whole body of the Kingdome had any such meaning or intention as by that oath of the Covenant to abjure Episcopacie 2. Although that the King and estate suffered an Act to passe in Parliament 1592. establishing in a part their new discipline yet was it not their meaning to approve the same directly But for a pregnant reason of estate they did tollerate lesser evils that greater might be eschewed for at that time it is well known that the King and estate were mightily astonished by the late discovery of a dangerous conspiracie of sundry Noblemen of greatest power in the Kingdome by the practice of some trasâ—ieking Iesuites and Gentlemen affected to the Popish Religion such as Father Creightou father Abercromy Sir William Graham of Fentry M. George Carr and others who brought in great summes of Spanish gold and promised greater whereby those Noblemen and many others of their Faction were corrupted to betray their
they condemn Episcopacie in any point as it was then used in Scotland or in the primitive Church As for the first that it doth not answer directly to the proposition I prove it in two substantiall points for first as we declared before in setting down of the state of the question the Moderators proposition included three distinct questions 1. Whether according to the confession of Faith as it was professed anno 1580. 1581. 1590. there be any other Bishop but a Pastor of a particular flock having no preheminence nor power over his Brethren 2. Whether by the confession of Faith as it was then professed all other be abjured 3. Whether all other ought to be removed out of this Kirk or not But in voycing they answer only to the last two omitting altogether the the first which notwithstanding is the ground of both the other And indeed considering the informalitie of the proposition I esteeme that they had good reason to answer so for if they had done otherwise their voices had been as informall and intricate as the proposition was because they could not answer Categorically to all three at once for why according to their grounds they behooved to answer to the first Negatiâ—â— and to the other two affirmativè and therefore lest their answers should have been obscure and intricate including both a negative and affirmative voyce they did wisely to answer to those questions only to the which one affirmaâ—ive voyce might serve 2. The propoâ—ition containeth two points of Episcâ—pacie to wit Charge over moe particular flocks and power and preheminence over other Brethren demanding if both these points be abjured or not and both to be removed But in voycing they determine only the first point concerning their charge over moe particular â—locks than one not a word of their abjuring or removing their power and preheminence over their 〈◊〉 which notwithstanding is the chief point that doth most grieve our â—ovenenters and for removing whereof they have raised all this trouâ—lâ— Be it therefore known to all that this Assembly which was 〈◊〉 conveâ—ned to condemn Episcopacie did 〈…〉 this power and preheminence over their 〈…〉 therefore that this standing still in force in the Church of Scotland whosoever yeeldeth not due obedience to the Bishops according to their oath are evidently perjured and are not absolved from their oath by this Assembly except they would say that they have extended the Conclusion further then all their unanimous voyces could suffer which as they must confesse is the greatest iniquitie which can be committed by any Assembly whatsoever Finally if it be so that no episcopacie is here condemned except that which is different from a Pastor of a particular flock there is nothing here condemned in the Bishops either as they were of old in the pâ—imitive Church or were of late in Scotland and are as yet in England and Ireland yea no Episcopacie is here abjured except that of the Bishop of Rome who only arrogats to himself to be the Pastor of the universall flock all other Bishops requires no more but to be a Pastor of a particular flock and as Cyprian faith Episcopatus 〈◊〉 est cujus à singulis in solidum pars tenetur there is no bounds prescribed by Gods word of a particular â—lock but the Church by the Authority of the Magistrats for the more commodious ruling of the Church and for conserving unitie have divided Kingdoms in provinces and provinces in particular Dioceses and Dioceses in particular parishes appointing to every part their own rulers so that as a parish is the particular flock of a Presbyter or Minister even so a Diocese is the particular flock of a Bishop the province the particular flock of an Archbishop and the Nation or Kingdome in regard of the universall Church is the particular flock of a Primate Neither may any Bishop lawfully usurpe charge over the particular flock of another Bishop without his consent Their Apostles of the Covenant who went through the Country to preach not the Gospel of peace but their seditious Covenant and mortall warre against the King and all his Loyall Subjects albeit they pretend to be Pastors only of a particular parish yet did violently intrude themselves to exercise charge in the parishes of other pastors without warrant or Authoritie or lawfull calling from the Church and contrary to the Constitutions of the Church of Scotland established even then when presbyteriall government was in greatest force drawing after them many thousands of people to disobedience and open Rebellion and by consequent to perdition except they repent and yet who dare be so bold as to say to any of them cur ita facis I cannot see what they can answer to this grosse and absurd escape in not answering by their voices fully to the proposition and extending the determination of the Assembly further than the voyces can suffer except that they would alleage that it is a fault in the Printer and that it was otherwise in the originall Register which is not like to be true for these reasons first because if it had been so that they had answered fully to the proposition their suffrages should not have been Categoricall but very informall and intricate including both a negative and an affirmative voyce 2. Their Clerk M. Archibald Iohnstone hath testified the contrary by adding to this printed Coppie and all other which I have seen his signe and Manuall subscription testifying thereby that they are printed according to the originall Acts contained in the Authentick Register out of the which he affirmes he hath not only collected and extracted these Acts but also visied them to see if the extract was according to the originall if he had committed such an absurd escape in omitting the very principall point whereupon the whole Act doth depend and being that Act also for the which the Assembly was chiefly conveened he hath certainely shown himself a very Asse unworthy of that trust which the whole Assembly did commit unto him by an expresse Act constituting him the only visitor and approver of all things that are to be printed concerning the Church or Religion 3. Albeit it had been true that Iohnstone might â—ave overseen himself so far yet how could it be possible that the Moderator and others committed to visite the Acts should have suffered such a fault as reverseth the whole Act about the which greatest care was taken to passe forth before it was diligently corrected Therefore I cannot but beleeve assuredly that there was no fault committed by the Printer but that the Act was printed according to the originall Register and that it was so written in the Register as it was voyced unanimously in the Assembly and that the voycers had no other meaning then their words did expresse and therefore that nothing in effect was concluded in this Act against Episcopacie as the title of the Act beares And so we may conclude justly in these words of the Satyrick Poet Parturiunt moutes nascitur ridiculus mus FINIS