of faith is not hindred for all the Beautie of the Kings daughter is within But these observations which are diversly celebrated are in her apparell And Tortullian lib. de virg. velaâ—d faith Regula quidem fidei una omninò est sola immobilis irreformabilis c. And a little after Hâc lege fidei manente caetera jam disciplinae conversationis admittunt novitatem correctionis operante proficiente usque in finem gratia Dei That is to say The rule of Faith is altogether one only unchangeable and such as admitteth no reformation this Law of Faith standing firme the rest that concerne discipline and reformation may admit the Noveltie of Correction by the grace of God which worketh a profitable progresse even to the end Their third Consideration is that by the Kings urging of the Book of Common Prayer they knowing no other way to preserve Religion were moved by GOD and urged by Necessity to renew the Nationall Covenant which the Lord since hath blessed from heaven and to subscribe the Confession of Faith with an Application abjuring and suspending all Novations formerly introduced till they should be tried in a free generall Assembly To this I answer first that the Kings urging of the Book of Common prayer was not the true essentiall cause of their rebellious Covenant but onely an occasion greedily apprehended by the Ring-leaders to make that a pretext to stirre up the people to follow them in their Rebellion which they had before purposed in their heart For if it had been the true cause when the King discharged that book their Rebellion had there ceased for sublata vera causa tollitur effectus the true cause being taken away the effect must needs cease But so it is that their Rebellion did never shew it self in so damnable effects as it did after the discharge of the book of Common prayer and granting of all their petitions 2. The urging of that Book containing no impious thing against God nor hurtfull to true Religion could not be a just motive to move them by any Necessitie to such an action as by the fundamentall Laws of the Kingdome is declared to be high Treason when as Subjects without permission or knowledge of the Kings Majestie doe combine themselves in a mutuall band of maintenance against all persons whatsoever not excepting the King their Soveraigne yea it is most evident that this Rebellious Covenant was intended against the Kings Majestie directly and against him onely albeit they cunningly dissemble and pretend the contrary for from whom could so many potent Noblemen and gentlemen of such worth with so great a number of their followers possibly or by any liklihood fear any danger or harme in their persons or estates for refusing the Book of Common prayer or other things which they call Innovations urged chiefly by the Kings Authoritie and speciall Command if it were not from the King himself Could they fear any harme from thirteen or foureteen Bishops for the most part old decrepit and impotent men or was there any the smallest appearance of externall Invasion or inward Conspiracie in the Kingdome before they made it by their Covenant so it is manifest that it was from the King onely they feared danger being conscious to themselves of their mis-demeanors and Rebellious intentions by which it is more than evident that the band of mutuall defence was onely intended against the Kings Majesties self 3. Was there no other way to preserve Religion but by Disobedience and Rebellion it is a dangerous and harmefull physick which prescribes a remedie worse than the disease it self the greatest danger which could come to Religion by this Book was only in circumstances Ceremonies and some mis-interpreted words which being rightly understood could not have been rejected by peaceable wise and understanding men they might have been better interpreted or otherwise corrected than by open disobedience to God and his Anointed as Obedience according to the saying of the Prophet is better than sacrifice so Disobedience and Rebellion bringeth more danger and harme to Religion than the alteration of some indifferent Ceremonies and Circumstances can be able to doe as any wise man may consider by the miserable effects which ordinarily accompanieth Rebellion 4 It is false also that they were moved thereto by God For God is the God of order and the God of peace the author and commander of obedience unto Superiors and therefore cannot be called without blasphemie the author of Rebellion Disobedience Disorder and Confusion in Church or Common-wealth such as this Covenant is in it self and hath produced all those evils as the proper effects thereof It is the doctrine of Anabaptists and fanaticall Libertines to ascribe all the foolish conceits of their braines to the motion of Gods Spirit But certainly it is more probable that they have been moved to this Rebellious Covenant by that Spirit whereby Chore Dathan and Abiram were moved to make insurrection drawing all the Congregation of Israel to Rebellion against Moses and Aarâ—n since both the Acts are very like one to another as is evident by considering the circumstances That Traitor Raviliack who killed Henry the Fourth of France was a confident in his imagination affirming even to the very death that he was not moved to that Fact by any parâ—â—â—ular respect or instigation of another person but onely by God and the Virgin Mary 5. It is false also that they were thereto drawn by Necessitie it was thought indeed that those of Lower Germany were drawn by some Necessity to confederate themselves together against the King of Spaine who was their Prince indeed yet neither he nor any of his Predecessors had such absolute Soveraigntie over them as our King hath over Scotland because he violented their conciences compelling them not onely to forsake but also to forswear the true Religion and imbrace Popish Idolatrie not by Proclamations onely but by fire and sword and cruell torments in the Inquisition wherby many thousands of them were put to death most cruelly before ever they made any combination amongst themselves or refused due Obedience to their Prince Although neverthelesse many wise and learned men are of opinion that their rising in Armes against their Prince was not altogether justifiable before God much lesse then can our Covenanters alleage truely that they were drawn by any Necessitie to this Rebellious combination since for the refusall of that book never a man in Scotland had lost his life or estate or a drop of his bloud or was fined in a farthing or had his body imprisoned or a haire of his head touch'd before that Covenant 6. They alleage that this was a renewing of the Nationall Covenant injoyned by King Iames which is most false for it was a plaine contracting of a new one different in Substance from that which was sworn either the year 1580. or 1590. as they know well and their own conscience beares them witnes The substance of a
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
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
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
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
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