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
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
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
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
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
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
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