The Fundamentals of the Hierarchy Examined and Disproved, Treatise · Part 1 · Section 8

The Fundamentals of the Hierarchy Examined and Disproved · Treatise · Part 1 · Section 8

p. 49Section VIII.

Prelacy opposite to the Principles of our Reformers.

I Said, when we renounc'd our Obedience to Anti-christ, we sent, amongst the rest of the Romish leaven, Prelacy packing thither: which, tho' we had no more Arguments, our Confession of Faith compil'd by our Reformers clearly evinces. We detest (say they) Antichrist's worldly Monarchy with his wicked Hierarchy. Of which Hierarchy, as is acknowledg'd by the Council of Trent aaDe Sacramento ordinis. Can. 6., & Bellarmine bbDe Clerici…—Cap. 11., the Bishops make a principal part. And the Episcopal Office with its distinction, belong solely to their Hierarchy, otherwise, they confess, there's no Difference between Bishop and Presbyter. At them therefore these words of the Confession must especially level. And his subtility, who would save the Prelats from this blow, by seeking the foundation of a distinction where 'tis not; as if by the word Wicked, the Confession pointed at another Hierarchy which is Pious, must be reckon'd, by all the disinterested, to nigh of kin to his pericranium, who, to save another part of Romanism, made a fair distinction between Lawfull and Vnlawfull Idolatry. I say, it can be no otherwise here; for, to speak truth, their Hierarchy is nothing, save the Corruption of Church-government, and pride of her Governours, rais'd by certain stories, and tending towards the Papacy, as its highest pinacle, whereof both name and notion owe their Original to one, who indeed was not the Father of lies, yet in lying came so near him, as readily any copy to its Original. I mean the false Areopagite, whose whole Book may really be term'd a fardel of Fictions. Moreover, this Confession was compil'd in the year 1581. when Prelacy had been unanimously by the whole Assembly, in the preceeding year cast out of the Church. And for many succeeding Assemblies, their Declaration of their dislike and hatred of Prelacy, and approbation of this Confession, went hand in hand, with whom then in p. 50both of these, the King's Majesty join'd. For the Assembly at Glasgow 1581. consisting for the most part, of such as voted, and were present in the Assembly at Dundie, in the preceeding year when Prelacy had in terminis been renounc'd and ejected, declares that they meaned wholly to condemn the whole estate of Bishops, as they are now in Scotland,—and that this was the meaning of the Assembly at that time. The King's Commissioner presented to this Assembly the Confession of Faith, subscribed by the King, and his houshold, not long before, together with a plot of the Presbytries to be erected, which is registrat in the Books of the Assembly, with a Letter to be directed from his Majesty to the Noble-men, and Gentle-men of the Country, for the erection of the Presbytries, consisting of Pastors, and Elders, and dissolution of Prelacies, and with an offer to set forward the Policy untill 'twere establish'd by Parliament. The King's Letter subscribed by his hand, to the Noble-men, and Gentle-men, was read in open audience of the whole Assembly. This Assembly ordain'd also that the Confession of Faith be subscribed, as being true, Christian, and faithfull. And in the Assembly 1595. amongst other things of the same tendency, it was cleared that Episcopacy was condemn'd in these words of the Confession His Wicked Hierarchy. See store of irrefragable proofs of this our Assertion in the Acts of the Assembly at Glasgow, 1638. Sess. 16.

§. 2. They only bewray their ignorance, if not worse, while they give out, that our Church, in her first Reformation, had Bishops (as the word is now taken) under the name of Superintendents. For tho' this were true, all they shall gain hereby, would only be the fastening of a self-contradiction on Mr. Knox, and the rest of these most honourable Instruments of our Freedom from Mystical Babylon: our Adversaries acknowledging that Mr. Knox, and his Fellow-labourers in the Church-policy, did exactly follow the Genevan Model, which these men use to make the Original of Presbytry: It's confess'd alsoccFuller, lives of the Divines. that John Knox refus'd a Bishoprick in England on this account, that it had Quid commune cum Antichristo. Whereby, tho' nothing else could be brought, 'tis clear as the Sun, that Knox (I may say the same of most of his Fellow-labourers in the Reformation) was intirely averse from their Hierarchick Domination.

§. 3. Wherefore the Author of a late Book call'd The Fundamental Charter of Presbytry examin'd and disprov'd, quite skips over these Evidences p. 51of Knox's being Antiprelatick; notwithstanding that the only design of the far greater part of his Book, was directly to prove these out Reformers, and Knox in special, to have been of the prelatical Perswasion, However, let's hear the chief of the Answers he gives to such other Proofs hereof, as he adventures to engage with.ddPag. 24. Et sequentibus.

§. 4. The first is a passage of Knox's letter to the Assembly, viz. Vnfaithfull, and Traitors to the Flock, shall ye be before the Lord Jesus if that with your consent, directly or indirectly, ye suffer unworthy men to be thrust in within the Ministry of the Kirk under w…at pretence that ever it be, Remember the Judge before whom ye must make an account, and resist that Tyranny as ye would avoid Hell-fire. To which our Author answers denying that Knox by Tyranny here means Episcopacy, and saith, that 'tis impossible to make more of the Letter, than that Knox deem'd it a pernicious and tyrannical thing, for any Person whatsoever to thrust unworthy Men into the Ministry of the Church. Which Answer evanishes, so soon as we shall understand the occasion of Knox's Letter. Some powerfull Courtiers had then sacrilegiously invaded a great part of the Churches Revenues; and were greedily grasping the remainder, to the great grief of all good Men, and detriment of the Church, which both in her Assemblies, and otherways, vehemently urged that these Revenues should be imploy'd on sustentation of Ministers, many of whom, being unprovided, were ready to starve; and on maintaining of Schools, relieving the Poor, and other such pious Uses. These Courtiers therefore, to free themselves of such unacceptable Monitors, and secure them of what they had gotten, plot the reduction of a kind of Diocesan Bishops, Abbots, Priors, and other such Popish Orders, with whom they were to make a sacrilegious Compact, and to give these titular Church-men some small pittance of the Revenues, the rest being possessed, in their name, by these Courtiers. Now at the very time of the writing of Knox's Letter, this was in agitation, and a design laid to practise upon some of the Assembly, as shortly thereafter at the Meeting in Leith appear'd, at which, and elsewhere in these times, there were not wanting among the Ministers, who, moved with hope of Domination over their Brethren, and some small augmentation of Rent, made no bones of such simoniacal Pactions or (to use the express words of the Confessions of their best Friends) such durt… and vile Bargains.eeFund. Charter. Pag 26. Spotswood. Hist. Pag. 316.

p. 52And now judge what Knox mean'd by his Exhortation to keep out unworthy Men, and resist Tyranny: And 'tis most presumable that Spotswood eeHist. Page 257, 258.sufficiently saw, that Knox's Letter goares Prelacy, otherwise he had not mangl'd the same, and wholly omitted all mention of Tyranny.

§. 5. And that this Knox's Letter levell'd at the Bishops then about to be introduc'd, is further evident from his refusal to inaugurat John Douglas Bishop of St. Andrews, his denouncing an Anathema to the Giver and Receiver of the Bishoprick, and his open professing his dislike of the whole Order. At this our Author takes exception, saying, The certain Manuscript from which Calderwood says he had this relation, is uncertain. But he should have look'd into Petrie, whoffCentury 16. Page 371. names the Author William Scot, that eminent Minister at Couper.

Now, that 'tis like enough that Knox, who was then at St. Andrews, said so, and express'd suitable resentments of the durty Bargain between Morton and Douglas, who by a simoniacal Paction, got into the See, is by our Author expresly acknowledg'd. And indeed, if we consider the indignity of the Crime, and the Lyon-like boldness of Mr. Knox against such Vices, 'tis altogether incredible, but that he vented his resentments with a Witness, and to the noticing of all thinking Men then present: yet all this is skipp'd over by Spotswood, For he knew well enough, that this Relation should have shew'd how little kindness Knox bore to their Hierarchy.

Moreover, which is most noticeable in this matter, these who then favour'd Prelacy, being generally such simoniacal Pedlers, were so far from writing the several Actions and Church-transactions of these times, that they made it their care to suppress and destroy the publick Monuments of the Church. Witness B. Adamsone ggCald. Hist. Page 261.: one of the Articles of whose Confession, to which, as is acknowledg'd by Spotswood hhHist. Page 385., he subscrib'd, was, that not without his special allowance, some leaves of the Books of the Assemblies were rent out, and such things as made against the Bishops their estate, were destroyed in Falkland, before the Books were deliver'd to the King's Majesty. Which considerations, suffice to prove the truth of that historical Relation.

He alledges next, that tho' we had reason to believe, that Knox said and did so, yet it follows not that he was for the Divine Right of Parity. Adding, p. 53That 'tis like enough Knox said so—for dreadfull Invasions were made upon the Patrimony of the Church. But this Invasion was so linked with the introduction of Prelacy, that they had both common Friends and Enemies, so that Knox declaring against either, must be judg'd equally averse from both. And indeed the introduction of Prelacy, was consequentially this very destruction and consumption of the Churches Goods, against which Knox inveigh'd. Or dare he say, that it had satisfi'd him, if they had been consum'd in sustaining the Luxury and Grandour of Bishops, Abbots, and Priors, whom the Court was about then to introduce, providing only these Church Revenues, had been kept from the secular Nobility. Moreover, 'tis evident, to whosoever reads Knox's words, that the Invasion of the Church-patrimony, was far from being the sole Ground of the dislike he shew'd to Episcopacy. The Matter in short is, when John Douglas was made Tulchan Bishop of St. Andrews, Mr. Knox refused to Ordain him, denouncing Anathemaes to the Giver, and to the Receiver: and when John Rutherford Provest of the old Colledge had said, that Mr. John Knox's repining, had proceeded from malecontentment, the next Lora's-day, John Knox said in Sermon, I have refus'd greater Bishoprick than ever 'twas, and might have had it with the favour of greater Men than he hath this, but I did, and do repine for discharge of my Conscience, that the Church of Scotland be not subject to that Order. This last Clause, viz. that the Church of Scotland be not subject to that Order, he adventures not once to mention, which yet is a reason of Knox's repining, and so gives the meaning of his whole Discourse. And seeing 'tis of equal credit with his foregoing words, being not only with the rest taken by Petrie, out of that Historical Relation, but related also by Calderwood iiMs. Hist. Vol. 2, Page 340.fully scatters all his fogg, and clearly determines the present Question, somewhat else he hath here, but of small moment. As, Knox, when Douglas, who was already Rector of the Vniversity, and Provest of the old Colledge was made Bishop, regrated, that so many Offices were laid on an old Man, which scarcely twenty of the best Gifts were able to bear. Thence he Infers, that Knox's resentment of Douglas his advance, was not from any Perswasion, he had of the unlawfulness of Prelacy. As if Knox might not assert the unlawfulness of Prelacy, and yet say so much for a a Superpondium to his other Grievances. And to shew, even on Supposition, as they pretended, of the allowableness of Episcopacy, how little p. 54sence of Duty or Conscience was in either Givers or Receivers.

§. 6. There was at this time (saith M. D. Hume. kkHistory of the Houses of Douglass and Angus. Page 320., no small Contest and Debate, betwixt the Court and the Church, about Bishops and Prelats, concerning their Office and Jurisdiction. The Ministers laboured to have them quite abolished and taken away, and the Court thought that form of Government to be agreeable, and compatible with a Monarchical Estate, and more conform to the Rules of Policy, and Civil Government of a Kingdom. Besides, the Courtiers had tasted the sweetness of their Rents and Revenues, putting in titular Bishops, who were only their Receivers, and had a certain Pension or Stipend, for discharging and executing the Ecclesiastical part of their Office, but the main profit was taken up by Courtiers for their own use. Wherefore they laboured to retain at least these shadows of Bishops, for letting of leases, and such other things, which they thought were not good in Law otherways. There was none more forward to keep them up than the Earl of Morton; for he had gone Ambassadour to England on his own privat Charges, and to recompence his great Expenses in that Journey, the Bishoprick of St. Andrews, being then vacant, was conferr'd upon him. He put in Mr. John Douglass (who was Provost of the New Colledge in St. Andrews) to bear the Name of Bishop, and to gather the Rents (till such time as the Solemnity of Inauguration could be obtain'd) for which he was countable to him. This he did immediatly after he came home out of England. Now he will have him to sit in Parliament, and to vote there as Arch-bishop. The Superintendent of Fyfe, did inhibit him to sit there, or to Vote under pain of Excommunication; Morton commanded him to do it, under pain of Treason and Rebellion. The Petition giv'n in to the Parliament, desiring a competent Provision for the maintaince of Preachers, in which they complained of the wrong done unto them by the Courtiers, who intercepted their means, was cast over the Bare, and rejected, and by the most common report, Morton was the first cause thereof. Afterward Morton in a Meeting of some Delegats, and Commissioners of the Church at Leith, by the Superintendent Dune's means, used the matter so, that he obtain'd their Consent to have his Bishop admitted, and install'd. Wherefore, the third of February, he caus'd affix a schedul on the Church door of St Andrews, wherein he p. 55charged the Ministers to conveen, and admit him to the Place, which they did accordingly, but not without great Opposition. For Mr. Patrick Adamson (then a Preacher, but afterward Arch-bishop there himself) in a Sermon which he preached against the Order and Office of Bishops, said, there were three sorts of Bishops: 1. The Lords Bishop (to wit Christ's) and such was every Pastor. 2. My Lord Bishop, that is, such as Bishop as is a Lord, who sits, and Votes in Parliament, and exercises Jurisdiction over his Brethren. 3. And the third sort was, (my Lord's Bishop) that is, one whom some Lord or Nobleman at Court did put into the place to be his Receiver, to gather the Rents, and let Leases for his Lordship's behoofe, but had neither the Means nor Power of a Bishop. This last sort he called a Tulchan Bishop, because as the Tulchan (which is a Calves skin stuff'd with straw) is set up to make the Cow give down her milk; so are such Bishops set up, that their Lords by them may milk the Bishopricks. Likewise Mr. Knox preached against it the tenth of February, and in both their hearings (Morton's, and his Arch-bishop) to their Faces pronunced, Athathema danti, Anathema accipienti.

AndllPage 333. We shewed before, how in matters of Church-government, he ever inclined (as the most politique Course) to the state of Bishops. The Name was yet retained by Custom…, the Rents were lifted also by them (as we have said) more for other Mens use and profit, than their own. They had also place and vote in Parliament after the old manner, and he would gladly have had them to have keeped their Power and Jurisdiction over their Brethren. Master John Douglass being dead, he fill'd the place by putting in Mr. Patrick Adamson his domestick Chaplain, who then followed that Course, tho before he had preach'd against it. Many were displeas'd herewith, all the Ministers (especially they of the greatest Authority) and all Men of Estates that were best affected to Religion. (And which he cites out of an English Historian Francis Botevill)mmPage 354. As touching his (viz. Morton's) setting up and maintaining the estate of Bishops (whereof there had ensued great debate and contention betwixt him and the Ministry) he said, it did not proceed of an ill mind, of any malice, or contempt of them, or their Callings, but meerly out of want of better knowledge, thinking that Form of Government to be most conform to the Rules of p. 56Policy, and to be fittest for the times. That if he had then known better, he would have done otherways. AndnnPage 358. He (viz. Morton) was also calm—this appeared in his carriage toward Mr. Knox, who had used him roughly, and rebuk'd him sharply for divers things, but especially for his labouring to set up and maintain the estate of Bishops.

Hence 'tis most manifest how, not only Knox, but also the whole body of our Church disliked and hated the very first bud, and likeness of Prelacy: and how by meer force and fraud of the voracious Court-politicians upon the dishonesty of some, but the unwariness and faintness of many moe of the Ministry. These monstrous Tulchans, for all men even our present Prelatists are ashamed of them, got that minot's harbour in Scotland.

§. 7. Our Author Answers, for he insists long on this matter,ooPage 192. That the Question is not now, how this was done, but if it was done? For if it was done, it is an Argument that the Clergy then thought little on the iudispensibility of Parity. Just as if what any man either by Fraud or Force is made seemingly to yeeld to▪ were to be taken for his true and genuine Sentiments: I thought this kind of reasoning had been peculiar to a Spanish Inquisitor or French Converter. Or that they were bad Men (continues he) a hard construction: For then Hierome of Prague who was forc'd, and so many of the choice Fathers of the Council of Arminum, who were trick'd to admit, in appearance, something contrary to their true Sentiments; shall all be bad men? That the Ministers at this Convention at Leith dealt most unwarily, and some of 'em also with too little integrity, is beyond scruple: But that all of 'em, or most of 'em were poor covetous Rogues &c. neither Petrie nor any of his Perswasion ever affirmed.

He adds that the Courts Arguments for the Leith-establiment were mainly Politick; for they turn'd not Theologues to perswade Episcopacy's Divine Institution from Scripture &c. Well then, there was little true Piety, no consulting of Conscience or the Word of God in the Matter: And if some of the Ministry, as he says, were taken with these politick and state Reasons, they in so far fell from their own Principle viz.pp1 Book of disc. head 1. That in the Books of the Old and New Testament, all things necessary for the instruction of the Church, and to make the Man of God perfect, are contain'd and sufficiently express'd. But the Clergy (saith he) had found that the new Scheme of the first Book of Discipline had done much hurt to the Church. As if the old p. 57Popish Scheme, under which the Churches goods, by God's Law destinated for the promoval of piety and learning, and sustaining of the poor, were consum'd and debauch'd, in upholding the grandour and luxury of a spurious ecclesiastick Nobility, could have been really more profitable to the Church than that of the Book of Discipline, on of the prime designs whereof was the bestowing of the Church Revenues for these their true uses, to which God's Law had appointed them. Or as if Pastors, Schools, and Poor can in no place be provided for, where the Romish Church-policy is wanting. But,

The six Commissioners (saith he) that treated with the State at Leith were sensible Men, and far from being Parity-men. Just so far from being Parity-men, that most of 'em, in an Assembly 1580. July 12. deliberately found and declared Episcopacy unlawfull in it self.qqCalderwood's Ms. Hist. Vol. 2. Page 597.

He intimats, that the Courts motive for the Leith-establishment could not be their desire to possess the Churches Patrimony. An untruth, as we have now seen, too bare fac'd to need more refutation. His proof hereof is of the same stamp, viz. Had the Clergy fall'n so suddenly from their constant claim to the Churches Revenues? did that which moved them to be so earnest for this meeting with the State miraculously slip out of their minds. Seeing not the Church, but the Court-politicians, as is evident, with desire to circumveen her, chiefly procur'd that meeting, and if these Delegates were either the only or first men, who by sinistrous Artifices fell into a bad Compact, then let him exclaim with admiration of this matter: what follows is yet odder, viz. Was it not as easy for the Court to have possessed themselves of a Bishoprick, an Abbacy, a Priory &c. when there were no Bishops—as when there were. For he's to be pitied if he be ignorant that the Courtiers having no Law-title thereto, had no hope save under covert of their own Creatours, these titular Bishops, of any peaceable and secure possession of the Churches Revenues.

But an undoubted Assembly [saith he] own'd the Leith convention as an Assembly, and its Authority as the Authority of an Assembly—and for several years after that establishment at Leith, beside which there was no other fond for owning them for Bishops, Bishops were present, and as such were obliged to sit and vote in general Assemblies—and many Acts of subsequent Assemblies put this matter beyond all probability of ever being controverted as the Assembly in August 1574. which petitioneth the Regent, that Stipends be granted p. 58to Superintendents in all time coming, in all Countries destitute thereof, whether it be where there is no Bishop, or where there are Bishops, who cannot discharge their Office as the Bishop of St. Andrews and Glasgow. And that his Grace would provide qualified Persons for vacant Bishopricks. But this, tho' it be his prime Argument, is soon removed, our Church knew that divers Ministers and others had been allur'd, or aw'd to that agreement: She knew that 'twas only made for the Interim rrSee Spotswood Hist. Page 260.and for the Interim only did she tolerate it, with a full resolution to have a more perfect Order. ssCald. Ms. Hist. Vol. 2. Page 354And as for the words, In all time coming, there's not a syllabe of them in the Act he citesttSee Page 457. Nor indeed any where else of all the Acts of these Assemblies. She knew also that during that Interim, 'twas impossible to get, that which had been the Revenues of Popish Bishops & other Church Rents out of the Regent and other Courtiers their hands. In the mean while the vast number of unplanted Churches, weakness of the Ministry in divers parts, and unsettlement, even unto that time, of the Churches Affairs, allow'd for a space the continuance of Evangelistick Superintendents or Commissioners, who were to be in almost perpetual motion and travels, and therefore needed much larger maintainance then did fixed Pastors; which large maintainance the Church, being thus strip'd of her Patrimony, could not afford to the number that was needfull. On these and such Grounds, the Church indulged to that Convention the name of an Assembly, tolerated in these Tulchans the name of Bishops: And, seeing they had got more Rent then was giv'n to ordinary Ministers, allowed them to exercise the Labour and Travel of Superintendents or Commissioners: And thus the Church made the best she might of that their unlawfull Bargain. And tho', uuSee our Author Pages 207, 208.which he also objects, some Assemblies allow Bishops to conveen and proceed against delinquents, command Ministers by their Letters to admonish concerning persons to be excommunicated, it helps him nothing, seeing the very Acts he cites give no less power to Superintendents, yea to Commissioners, whom yet the Church used, even after she had declared Episcopacy unlawfull in it self. So far is our Churches tolerating for a space these Tulchans from being any Argument, that she believ'd not the Divine Right of Parity. But how appears't (saith he) that our Church receiv'd the Leith Articles only for an Interim out of a dislike to Episcopacy:—And there p. 59were other things in the Articles which required amendment. But sure these Articles were without any exception receiv'd and tolerated only for the Interim, and how well these Court-bishops were liked, is already made manifest, and our Churches subseqnent actings declare, which never rested, but still wrestled against the storms of both Power and Policy, untill they were sent packing. 'Tis true, as he says, the Church met with Opposition; but that this was only from these titular Bishops, and Rent-gatherers to the Courtiers, supported with all the might, Wit and Artifice of an awfull gripping, politick Regent, and no few other potentand subtile Courtiers driving their own ends, as has already appeared, and is most evident from the best accounts now extant of these Affairs, and this is the undoubted Cause, why the six Collocutors at the Assembly in August 1575. think it not expedient presently to answer directly to the Question of the Function of Bishops. But he who stilleth the noise of the Seas & the noise of their waves, having restrain'd these impetuous Tempests, how cordially did our Church proceed to the utter extirpation of Prelacy? Forsamekle (they are the words of the Assembly holden at Dundee, Anno 1580. July 12. Sess. 4.xxCald. Ms. Hist. Vol. 2. Page 597.) as the Office of a Bishop, as it is now used and commonly taken within this Realme, hath no sure warrant, authority, or good ground out of the Book, and Scriptures of God, but brought in by the folly and corruption of mens invention, to the great overthrow of the true Kirk of God, the whole Assembly of the Kirk in one voice, after liberty given to all Men to reason in the matter, none opponing themself in defence of the said pretended Office, findeth and declareth the samine pretended Office, used and termed as is above said, unlawfull in the self, as having neither fundament, ground nor warrant in the word of God &c. And in all this, our Church, as she clearly here expresses, did nothing save what she was oblig'd to do by her own Principle in the first Book of Discipline, which affirms that all thing necessary for the instruction of the Church is contain'd in the Books of the Old and New Testament. And that whatsoever is without express commandment of God's Word, is to be repress'd as damnable to Salvation. Our Reformers therefore, except our Adversaries say, (which even impudence, it self dare not say), that they believ'd the Hierarchy to be founded on the express command of God's Word, were bound by this their Principle to oppose it as a manifest corruption, and according to this Principle, whensoever Prelacy, by force of the secular arm, and fraud of serpentine p. 60policy, and, as one well words it, by terrors and allurements, crosses and commodities, banishment and benefices (for by other means it could never be admitted) overwhelm'd this Land, and discover'd the Hypocrisie or Gallio-like Disposition of many; all the true Lovers of our Reformation still then had, in greater or lesser measure, as their love was to this truly Protestant, yea truly Catholick and Christian Principle of our Reformers, their Feasts turned into Mourning, their Songs into Lamentation, their Tears for Meat, and their Harps hang'd on the Willows. And now suppose that our Reformers, in that unstable condition of our Church, and very first rudiments of Protestancy had in some of their Doings or Saying afforded some colour or appearance, either for the scruples of the curious, or the quirks and cavils of the captious, does not, pray, this most unanimous, most clear, and every way most unexceptionable Act of our most full and free Generall Assembly, that consisted for the far greater part of the very same Men, who were the Actors and Promoters of our first Reformation, most fully open our Remormers their minds, shew their ultimat tendency and scope, and finally, for ever determine the present Controversie.

§. 8. He hath more to say of John Knox, I return therefore to attend him. His next PleayyPage 28. Et sequentibus. is with Calderwood about Beza's Letter to Knox, where he denies that Beza wrote being inform'd by Knox of the Courts intention to bring in Bishops, and adds, that if any thing of Knox's Sentiments can be collected from Beza's Letter, it seems rather he was for Prelacy than for Presbytry: For Beza (saith he) seems clearly to import, that Knox needed to be caution'd against Prelacy. Beza's Words are.zzEpist. 79. Sed & istud mi Knoxe—sicut Episcopi Papatum pepereunt. ita psendespiscopos—(Papatus reliquias) Epicureismum terras invecturos &c. But I would have you, my dear Knox, and the other Brethren, to Remember that which is before your eyes: that as Bishops brought foorth the Papacy: so false Bishops the relicts of Popery, shall bring in Epicurism to the World: They that desire the Churches good and safety, let them take heed of this Pest, and seeing ye have put that Plague to flight timously, I heartily pray you, that Ye never admit it again, albeit it seem plausible, with the pretence or colour of keeping unily, which pretence deceiv'd the ancient Fathers, yea even many of the best of 'em.

Where Beza without giving any proof thereof, clearly supposes as a thing believed by Knox no less than by himself, that the Bishops whom p. 61some were then labouring to introduce into Scotland were false Bishops, the relicts of Popery, which had already been once driv'n out of Scotland, and on this supposition, as any Orators use to do from Principles common to themselves, and these to whom they are speaking, he admonish'd him and the rest to beware of this Plague. Certain it is then, if we believe Beza, that he knew, if by a Letter from Knox, or otherwise concerns not the matter in hand, that Knox judg'd the Bishops then to be introduc'd to be no others than were the Popish Bishops, whom Knox and his fellow Reformers had lately expuls'd Scotland, and both sorts of Bishops to be equally false and Anti-christian. And now consider this Letter of Beza written near the same time with that of Knox to the Assembly, and the disinterested shall soon perceive that the former explains the latter, and sufficiently shews what Knox meant by the Tyranny mention'd therein. Moreover, whosoever finds so much against Episcopacy in Beza, even tho' it had been spoken by him without any relation or respect to Knox, and remembers how universal and firm Concord was between these excellent Persons, Qui duo corporibus mentibus unus erant, will easily conclude that Knox bore but small kindness to Prelacy.

§. 9. He comes next to prove, Knox was not for Parity. Had he been (saith he) so perswaded, how seasonable had it been for him to have spoken out so mnch, when he was brought before King Edward's Council? The Question was then put to him, whether he thought that no Christian might serve in the Ecclesiastical Ministration, according to the Rites and Laws of the Realm of England?—Yet he answer'd nothing, but that no Minister in England had Authority to separate the Lepers from the whole, which was a chief part of his Office. Plainly founding all the unlawfulness of being a Pastor of the Church of England, not only the unlawfulness of the Hierarchy which he spoke not one word about, but on the Kings retaining—the chief Power of Ecclesiastical Discipline. As if Knox had judg'd nothing in the Church of England unlawfull but the King's retaining the Ecclesiastical Discipline in his own hand; which all Men, even Episcopals no less than Presbyterians, know to be an arch and palpable untruth. Does not (as for example) our Assembly Anno 1566. in a Letter to the English Bishops and Pastors, being moved thereto by John Knox, if Spotswood aaHist. Pages 198, 199.speak truth, expresly, among many other things to this purpose, say p. 62If Surplice, Corner-cap, and Tippet have been the badges of Idolaters, in the very act of their Idolatry, what have the Preachers of Christian Liberty, and the Rebukers of Superstition, to do with the dregs of that Roman Beast? yea, what is he that ought not to fear either to take in his hand or fore-head the Print & Mark of that odious Beast? &c. See store to this purpose in Heylin's History of the Presbyterians: whereby 'tis most evident, that this Author endeavour'd nothing more earnestly than to perswade the World that Knox was a self-repugnant Idiot.

It sufficed if before that celebrious Assembly he answer'd to the Question, and gave some one reason that shewed he could not comply with them, tho' he declar'd not all the grounds of his dislike of their Practice.

As to the matter of Francfort, which this Author mentions, drawing from it the like Consequences, there was no Bishop there, nor any mention of the necessity thereof, but only a bus…e made by some superstitious Bigots for their Popish Ceremonies or Fooleries, as Calvin calls them, and so there was no occasion of venting himself in this matter, and tho' there had, he sufficiently declar'd his mind while publickly in a Sermon, he alledgedbbCald. Page 3. that nothing ought to be thrust upon any Congregation without the warrant of the Word of God. Yea, if we may believe Le Strange ccHoly Cheat. Pages 31, 32.Knox and his Associats sufficiently discover'd themselves to be of the Consistorian or Presbyterian Perswasion.

§ 10. He adds that Knox in his Appellation &c. plainly supposes the lawfulness of the Episcopal Office. I deny't. But all alongst throw it (saith he) Knox appeals to a lawfull general Council, snch a Council as the most ancient Laws and Canons approve, and who knows not that the most ancient Laws and Canons made Bishops the chief, if not the only Members of such Councils. Knox says, if the Popish Clergy his Adversaries are for it, he's content that matters in Controversie between him and them be determin'd by the Testimony and Authority of Doctors and Councils, three things being granted him, whereof these are two. 1. That the most ancient Councils nearest to the primitive Church in which the learned and godly Fathers examined all Matters by God's Word, may be holden of most Authority. 2. That no Determinations of Councils or Men be admitted against the plain verity of God's Word, nor against the Determinations of the four chief Councils. Would Knox if he had been Presbyterian have agreed so frankly to have stood by the Determination of these four chief Councils? Could he have expected they would have favoured the Divine p. 63Right of Presbyterian Parity? Will any scotish Presbyterian now adays stand to the Decision of these four chief Councils?

But all our Author here infers is by Knox prevented and cut off, while, in the first place, he requires, that no Determinations of Councils nor Men be admitted against the plain Verity, i. e.ddFirst Book of Discipline head first. without the expressed commandment of God's Word.

We chearfully appeal in the present Controversie, and provoke our Adversaries to this Rule, which most of 'em I have hitherto met with, expresly acknowledge to contain nothing in their favours.

Secondly, The Actions of the first four Councils were of two sorts, Creeds viz. and Canons. Now, as John Knox and all the Presbyterians in cordial subscribing to the former, viz. The Symbols of these Councils, are confessedly not behind any part of the Christian World: so part of the latter sort, I mean the Canons, are rejected by Episcopals no less than by Presbyterians. As for example, the Constantinopolitan eeCan. 7. foreign.Council appoints that reduced Hereticks and Schismaticks must be anointed on the Fore-head, Eyes, Nose, Mouth and Ears. And in the Council of Chalcedon ffCan. 14. foreign.'tis permitted only of all the Church-men to the Lectors and Cantors to Marry. Yea that none of the Clergy after that manner should Marry, was statuted by the Council of Nice. ggSozomen Lib. 1. Cap. 23. foreign.And they were also to have separated from their Wives the Church-men, who were in Wedlock already, had they not been restrani'd by the grave admonition and solide reason of Paphnutius.hhSocrates. Lib. 1. Cap. 11. foreign,—foreign, &c.

Now, 'tis true indeed Presbyterians admit not of these Decrees. But dare they say that Knox imbrac'd them? Or, do our present Adversaries themselves receive them? Knox therefore spoke of the Symbols: Our Author introduces him, and gives out as if he had spoken of their Canons, to the end he may deceive the vulgar Reader; for none that look into the Councils can be obnoxious to this his Fraud.

p. 64The same conclusion, viz. That Knox supposes the innocency and lawfulness of the Episcopal Office, he would deduce from Knox's following words. You may in a peaceable manner, without Sedition, withhold the fruits and profits which your false Bishops and Clergy most unjustly receive of you, untill such time as they shall faithfully do their Charge and Duties, which is to preach unto you Christ Jesus truly; rightly to minister the Sacraments according to his Institution; and so to watch for your Souls as is commanded by Christ &c. But might not Knox, had he been there, giv'n the like admonition to the Romans concerning their Bishop and Clergy? should he thereby have suppos'd the Lawfulness and Innocency of the Papacy and Power the Romanists gave to the Pope.

Secondly, Does not Knox admonish the People concerning the rest of the Clergy wherein there was comprehended the Abbots, Priors, and all the rest of the Romish rout, no less then concerning the Bishops? Did therefore Knox suppose the Innocency and Lawfulness of all these Offices?

Thirdly, Knox utterly baffles all our Author's Sophistry, and sufficiently preserves himself from his abuses and depravations, while he places the Office of all true Bishops in truly preaching of Christ Jesus, rightly ministring the Sacraments and watching for Souls: Which I hope is equally the Office and Duty of all Christ's Ministers. So true is it, we observ'd from Beza's Letter, that Knox look'd on all Lordly Diocesan Prelats as false Bishops. And all they pretend to, beside what is common to every Pastor under whatsoever Name or Profession they go, as unwarrantable and unjust.

But (saith our Author) Knox's great Work in his Admonition to the Professors of England, was to enumerat at the Causes, which in God's righteous Judgement brought Queen Maries Persecution on them: But he quite forgot to name the Sin of Prelacy as one; Ergo &c. And did he enumerat and reckon up all things he judg'd to be Errors or Sins wherefore God was pleading with the English, and had sent among them that Persecution? The truth is the main design of that Admonition is not to give an accurat enumeration of the Causes of the Persecution, but to give comfort to the Faithfull under it. But abstracting what Knox thought to be the Causes of that Persecution, and what not, our Author must sustain that Knox reckon'd up whatsoever he judg'd to be Sins p. 65and Abuses in that Church, otherwise he does nothing. But dare he say, that Knox there did so? Spoke he ever a word of the Tippet, Corner-cap, and Surplice, there being Badges of Idolaters, and Marks of the odious Beast? Hath he one syllable of Christmas, Feasts and such holy Days, iiSpotsw. Hist. 153. 174.which he also judged superstitious and sinfull? Or of the Faults of their Service-book about which, as all Men know, fell out the Controversie at Francfort? or the depriving Ministers of Power to separate the Lepers from the whole? at which our Author grants Knox to have been offended.

But Knox calls Cranmer that reverend Father in God; Ergo. Bellè. As if forsooth Knox might not use a Phrase of the common stile of the times, but he must be presently concluded a propugner of the Hierarchy. kkCald. Ms. Hist. Vol. 2. Page 143.Was not at the Assembly in Edinburgh March 1570. whereof John Knox was a Member, one of the Heads of Adam Bishop of Orknay's Accusation, which by the Assembly he was desir'd to redress, that he stileth himself with Roman Titles, as Reverend Father in God, which pertaineth to no Ministers of Christ Jesus, nor is giv'n them in Scriptures?

John Knox (continues our Author) said, the false Religion of Mahomet is more ancient than Papistry, yea Mahomet had established his Alcoran before any Pope of Rome was crown'd with a triple Crown &c. Can any Man think (subjoins our Author) John Knox was so very unlearn'd as to imagine Episcopacy was not much Older than Mahomet? Or knowing it to be Older, that yet he could have been so ridiculous, as to have thought it a relict of Popery, which he himself affirm'd to be Younger than Mahometism? But, was Knox so very unlearn'd, as not to know, that divers Popish Errors and Dotages had generally obtain'd and got good footing before the time of Mahomet? Do not these who know any thing, know so much? Have we not heard how he rejected, as unwarrantable and unlawfull, Christmas, Feasts, and such holy Days? Will our Author acknowledge they obtain'd not before the rise of Mahomet, or the Pope's triple Mitre? I think he will not. Have we not seen how, good space before these times, other Innovations as unction of Poenitents, and Caelibacy of Church-men were coming in fashion, and countenanc'd by the most famous Councils. Knox had been unlearn'd indeed, if he had not known so much; he spoke therefore only p. 66of the maturity and more open appearance of the Man of Sin, and as he expresses, of his coming to his triple Crown; and meant not at all that before Mahomet's time, no Popish Doctrines were generally broach'd and imbrac'd: yet so our Author (otherwise he's quite beside his purpose) makes him to speak; then which nothing more false and injurious to Mr. Knox, can be express'd.

Hitherto, we have been intertain'd with Sophistry so silly, and Paralogisms so palpable, that 'twere unjustice done to this Gentle-man's Intellectuals, not to believe that he sufficiently discern'd the Fallacies. But he promiseth to make a mends for the future; as yet, he has only brought up his Rorarios and Velites, but now the case is quite alter'd.

Ecce ferunt Troes ferrumque Ignesque Jovemque!

§ 11. He has yet more to say; yes, more with a Witness! Knox says, in his Exhoatation to England, Let no man be charg'd in preaching of Jesus Christ above that a man may do; I mean that your Bishopricks be so divided that of every one as they are now for the most part, may be ten, and so in every City and great Town, there may be plac'd a godly learned Man, with so many join'd with him for Preaching and Instruction as shall be thought sufficient for the bounds committed to their Charge. But the Reader, impartially weighing what we have adduced, must yeeld, that 'tis impossible, either from this, or any other place, to make Knox a Prelatist, except we involve him in manifest self-repugnancy, which there is no necessity to do for any thing here said: For tho' Knox, considering how the English were wedded to something of a hierarchick Splendor, had indulged them in a good deal thereof: it had been only a parallel Action to that of his Friend Calvin, whollVide Epist. 206. Coxo & gregalibus suis. tho' sufficiently Anti-ceremonial, yeelds, notwithstanding, for a time, and for Peace's sake, to that Nation, some of their Ceremonies which he calls tolerable Fooleries, unprofitable Triffles &c. Yet I have met with none, who on this score has taxed Calvin of Self-contradiction. But this ex abundanti; for they cannot from these Knox's words conclude, that he favoured so much as the least grain of the substance of Prelacy: of each of their Bishopricks he makes ten, which I think will bring his Lordship comparatively consider'd, to a very narrow compass. But to shew that he put a definit number for an indefinit, he gives not only to every City, but to every great Town a Bishop: Now, of Cities and Mercat-towns p. 67in England, which, there, are not inconsiderable, there are odds of 600,mmHeylin's Cosmography. Page 305. But that none may justly cavill, let's make a large abatement of the number where they may be smaller; and yet, I'm sure, so many remain as there should be ordinary Presbytries in England, providing it were so divided.

Moreover, the great End and Work of this Bishop Knox makes to be the preaching of the Gospel, and instructing of the People; of his Dominion and Power over the Clergy not a syllable; yea, he gives not to him alone the Charge of the Flock, 'tis their Charge, the Charge of the rest, no less than the Bishop; they are join'd with him, not his Curats under him: And we have heard him already making the Office of a Bishop nothing else but what is common to all Pastors: And, if his Doctrine and Practice in Scotland may be allow'd as an Explication of his Exhortation to England, this Bishop was subject to the Admonition and Correction of the Presbytry, wherein he was Bishop.

Nothing therefore can necessarily be drawn from Knox's words, except that this Bishop was to have (if Temporary or continued, I dispute not, for it touches not the present Question) a meer presidency of Order or Moderator-ship; nothing of Dominion or Power to Knox's Bishop. Nothing therefore of imparity amongst Pastors can from the words in hand with any good consequence be deduced.

Lastly, whatever 'twas, it appears clear from these words, that he allow'd this only for a time, during the rarity of Preachers.

§ 12. But hear somewhat more of the same Exhortation. Touching the Reformation of Religion (saith hennPage 108. Et sequentibus.) ye must at once so purge and expell all dregs of Papistry, Superstition and Idolatry, that thou, O England, must judge and hold execrable and accursed, whatsoever God hath not sanctifi'd to thee by his blessed Word, or by the Action of our Master Jesus Christ. The glistering beauty of vain Ceremonies, the heaps of things pertaining nothing to Edification, by whomsoever they were invented, justifi'd or maintain'd, ought at once to be removed, and so troden under the obedience of God's Word, that continually this sentence should be present in thy Heart, and ready in thy Mouth, not that which appeareth in thine own Eye shalt thou do &c. Deut. 12.—Let not then the King and his proceedings, whatsoever they be, not agreeable to the Lord's Holy Word, be a p. 68snare to thy Conscience.—Let God's blessed Word alone be the Rule and Line to measure his Majestie's Religion. What it commandeth, let it be obeyed, & what it commandeth not, let that be execrable, because it hath not the sanctification of God's Word, under what Title or Name soever it be published. Halt no longer on both parts. Let not these Voices prevail in your Parliament, This to our Judgement is good and godly, this the People cannot well bear, this repugneth not to God's Word. And, But let his holy and blessed Ordinances by Christ Jesus commanded to his Kirk, be within thy limits and bounds so sure, and established, that if Prince, King, or Emperour would enterprize to change or disannull the same, that he be the reputed Enemy of God.—Which horrible Crimes if ye will avoid in time coming, then must ye (I mean the Princes, Rulers, and People of the Realm) by solemn Covenant renew the Oath betwixt God and you.— That benefice upon benefice be heaped upon no Man, but that a suffient Charge with a competent Stipend be assigned to the Work-men; for O how horrible was that confusion that one Man should be permitted to have two, three, four, five, six, or seven Benefices, who scarcely in the year did so often preach; yea, that a Man should have the Charge of them, whose faces he never saw.—For the great Dominions and Charge of your proud Prelats (impossible by one Man to be discharged) are no part of Christ's true Ministry, but are the maintainance of the Tyranny first invented, and yet retain'd by the Roman Antichrist. That diligent heed be taken, that such to whom the Office of preaching is committed, discharge and do their Duties: for it is not; nor will not be the chanting nor mummelling over of certain Psalters, the reading of Chapters for matines & evening Song, or of homilies only (be they never so godly) that can feed the Souls of hungry Sheep.—What efficacy the living voice hath above the naked letter which is read, the hungry and thirsty do feel to their comfort. But the other maketh for Mr. Parson's purpose, who, retaining in his hand a number of Benefices, and appointed such in his place as are altogether destitute of the Gift of Preaching; but let all such Belly-gods be whipp'd out of God's Holy Temple. Let none that be appointed to labour in Christ's Vineyard be intangl'd with Civil Affairs—except it be when the Civil Magistratand the Minister of the Word assemble together for Execution of Discipline, which is a thing easie to p. 69be done without withdrawing any Person from his Charge, if that which was before express'd be observed: For as touching their yearly coming to Parliament for matters of Religion, it shall be superfluous & vian, if God's true Religion be once so established that after, it never be called in controversie. And as touching Execution of Discipline that must be done in every City and Shire, where the Magistrats and Ministers are join'd together without any respect of Persons. So that the Ministers, albeit they lake the glorious Title of Lords, and the Divelish Pomp which before appear'd in proud Prelats, yet must they be so stout, and so bold in God's Cause, that if the King would usurp any other Authority in God's Religion than becometh a Member in Christ's Body, that first he be admonished according to God's Word &c.

Read pray, the rest of this Exhortation, and you shall find that never was light more opposite to darkness, than Knox is to their Ceremonies and Hierarchy, and, in a word, their whole way whatsoever they contend for in opposition to the Church of Scotland. Now suppose, which yet he is far from doing, that Knox allow'd them some umbrage of imparity, should they not, notwithstanding, providing they closed with what he saith here and elsewhere, really relinquish what they call the Church-of-England's way, and come over unto us? Yea, were they according to Knox's Exhortation stript of the hope their exorbitant Gain, Ease, and Grandour, &c: they should soon also send packing their Plea for Imparity, this being a meer shrowd, and pretext to cover these Enormities from which Knox so warmly dehorts, and whieh with less colour of modesty can be sustain'd.

Add hereto, that seeing Knox so zealously requires express and positive Warrant in the Word of God for every thing in the Worship, Government and Discipline of the Church; and seeing hitherto none hath darred to averr, that he was for the Divine Right of Prelacy, yea even our Author himself adventures not plainly to assert so much, but only labours to make Knox to account it Lawfull and Innocent, and to speak nothing against it, it must undeniably follow, that he was for a Divine Right of Parity.

§. 13. Did not Knox (continues our Author) write and bear the Letter sent by the Superintendents, Ministers and Commissioners of the Church within the Realm of Scotland, to their Brethren the Bishops and Pastors in England, Anno 1566? Did not he in that same Title of that same Letter acknowledge, p. 70that these Brethren, Bishops and Pastors of England had renounc'd the Roman Antichrist, and professed the Lord Jesus in sincerity? And doth not the Letter all alongst allow of the Episcopal Power and Authority of these English Bishops? But, had never a Protestant to do with an Abbot, Prior, or some other such Popish Officers, whose Offices he did not allow? Might he not therefore speak or write to him in such Terms without which he should either not have been understood, or his Letter, or his Discourse been altogether uneffectual? Altho' then it could be prov'd, they had given Bishops the distinguishing Titles they assume, by no good Logick could it be inferr'd that they accounted the Office, as it is distinguish'd from any other Pastor, Lawfull: which yet can never be prov'd, nor any thing concluded from the Letter, save that they took Bishop and Pastor for synonymous Terms.

Moreover, 'twill no more follow, that they count Episcopacy Lawfull, than that they esteem so of the Surplice, Corner-cap and Tippet, which yet in the same Letter, they make the Marks of the odious Beast. They there indeed acknowledge the English to have renounc'd the Roman Antichrist, but so as notwithstanding to have retain'd divers of his Abominations, whereof they name none, but only the most notorious of these which the then present English Controversies gave occasion to mention.

The rest of his Discourse on this Head leans on this, that our Superintendents were really Diocesan Bishops, of whom more anon. And well may I deny't, were there no more than the Doctrine and Practice of John Knox, who, as our Author grants, compil'd the first Book of Discipline, wherein the Appointment and Duties of Superintendents are set down.

§. 14. And indeed that Knox was truly Presbyterian, is so manifest, that untill now, when Men have broke the bonds of all modesty, and abandon'd themselves to averr every thing to be as they would have it, was in neither hand call'd in question, but Enemies no less than Friends, either more indirectly or more plainly acknowledg'd it. This was the Policy (saithooHist. Page 174. Spotswood) desired to be ratifi'd. It had been formed by John Knox, partly in imitation of the Reformed Churches of Germany, partly of that which he had seen in Geneva &c. Nothing then from England, which flatly contradicts our Author, who, throw no small part of his Book, pretends to prove that all was taken especially from England. p. 71Now, what was the Government of the reformed Churches of Germany and Geneva, I think few are ignorant. And elsewhere,ppHist. Pag. 266. Many good Men (saith Spotswood) have disliked some of Knox's Opinions, as touching the Anthority of Princes, and the Form of Government which he laboured to have established in the Church. The Prelat indeed here, as his custom is, delivers the Truth as sparingly, as may be; yet not so, but both Presbyterians can perceive, and Hierarchicks must confess what is wrapt up in this forced Confession: And while he endeavours yet more to obscure it, by impertinently adding, that Knox was alwayes urging the Obedience of Ministers to their Superintendents, he only hereby shews, that he was loath the World should know, that he had been forc'd to Confess that Knox was really a Presbyterian. But their own dearest Friends and Brethren gave Testimony against them. Knox (say theyqqSee L'estrange holy Cheat. Page 31.) was of the Consistorian stamp. These sc. Gilby, Goodman and Whittingham led the dance in England, Knox in Scotland, and at this day our Presbyterians do but write after their Copy, professing the same Principles, pretending the same Scruples, and beyond doubt proposing the same end. rrPag. 133.Let me be understood likewise by Presbyterians to intend these of the Scotish Race, to whom we are beholden for our Discipline. That Faction first advanc'd it self by popular Tumult and Rebellion, Knox learned the Trick of it at Geneva, and brought it into Scotland. I forbear to cite others: see in lieu of many Heylin's History of the Presbyterians, who is most ample to this purpose.

I only Note how various Methods have been us'd to destroy our Reformed Religion: The Papists, when the Divine Light of the Gospel began to break throw their Babilonish Foggs, to other means for extinguishing thereof, added that of lying, reproaching and bespattering most odiously our first Reformers, endeavouring to ridicul and expose, together with their Doctrine, their Discipline also, and Government, which they saw like to obtain amongst most of the reformed, and which sometimes in scorn they named after Geneva; but they were open and profess'd Enemies, and so the Net was laid in sight of the Bird: A new Squadron must be added who, under the name of Protestant, may better manage the Romish Design, Tuta frequensque Via est per amici fallere nomen.

These in the mean while with open mouth proclaim'd this Truth, that Knox, and the rest of our first Reformers in Scotland, were, no less than p. 72Calvin, Beza, and such transmarine Propagators of the Gospel, truly Presbyterian, and, as they scornfully spoke, fiery Zelots of t…e new holy Genevan Discipline: And on this very account threw upon them all the Iniquity, Aspersion and Infamy their black Art could invent, or the spirit of Lies and Malice suggest. Yet with all good Men and true Protestants they effected nothing, save to bring themselves into just suspicion of being masked Romanists: some of 'em therefore of late, find it there interest to alter their Method, & to forbear somewhat to utter their wonted Calumnies, and Malice against the persons of our Reformers (for as for speaking any good of 'em, we shall most rarely find them do it, or if ever, 'tis done with so much coldness and lameness, and with such mixtures of detraction, that they appear content that the Reader believe them not, and resolved to pull back with the one hand, what they were compell'd to give with the other) and in the mean while, averr with an unparallel'd confidence, that these our Reformers were never for the Genevan way, (as they call it) were never for Parity of Pastors or Presbyterian Government; that so they may the more securely follow the steps of the former, and vent their splene at both Government and Discipline, and yet be less obnoxious to suspicion of driving Rome's interest. But 'tis to be hop'd they shall not speed well, seeing herein, they only endeavour to darken the Sun, to contradict what's known and believ'd all Europe-over: And loudly, finally, to give the lie to their own dearest Friends.

§. 15. Now to their second Objection, which is from the Superintendents, which, together with whatever else they advance from this Argument, we, having thus evinc'd that Knox, whose Judgement is confessedly of such moment in the present Case, was truly Anti-prelatick, might without just blame have neglected, it melts quite away, if we remember that this practice was only a temporary expedient, during the unsettl'd condition of the Church. The Objection dwindles also to nothing on this account, that tho' our Reformers had design'd the perpetual use of Superintendents, yet these toto coelo, as they say, differ'd from Diocesan Prelats, so that, notwithstanding hereof, the Government was really Presbyterian, or without ought that can be call'd Imparity. The former of these our Answers is plainly set down in the first Book of Discipline ssHead 5.If the Ministers (say our Reformers) whom p. 73God hath endowed with his singular Graces amongst us should be appointed to several places there to make their continual residence, that then the greatest part of the Realm should be destitute of all Doctrine: which should not only be the occasion of great murmur, but also be dangerous to the Salvation of many. And therefore we have thought it a thing most expedient at this time, that from the whole number of Godly and learned Men, now presently in this Realme, be Selected ten or twelve (for in so many Provinces we have divided the whole) to whom Charge and Commandment should be given to Plant and Erect Kirks, to set, order, and appoint Ministers, as the former Order prescribes, to the Countries that shall be appointed to their care where none are now.

This was but too plain, and therefore is much curtail'd by Spotswood; ttHist. Page 158.as our Author, who dwells long on this Objection from Superintendents uuPages 143, & sequentes., cannot deny. He therefore takes a new Way, and thus glosses the Passage. If I mistake not (saith he) the true gloss of this Period will amount to no more than this, that because there were then so few Men qualifi'd for the Office of Superintendency, tho' ten or twelve were, by far, too small a number for the whole Kingdom, yet, at that time, they thought it expedient to establish no more: and tho', when the Church should be sufficiently provided with Ministers, it would be highly reasonable, that the Superintendents should have Places appointed them, for their continual residence; yet, in that juncture, 'twas necessary that they should be constantly travelling throw their districts, to Preach, and Plant Churches &c. To establish his gloss he says, the Compilers of the first Book of Discipline, viz. Mr. J. Winrame, John Spotswood, J, Willock, J. Douglas, J. Row and J. Knox, were still of prelatical Principles. But tho' this were as true as 'tis false, the quite contrary would rather follow, viz. that they had resolv'd to change afterward the Superintendents for Diocesan Bishops: To prove they were Prelatists, he says, three of them were Superintendents, begging the Question, as if Superintendent and Bishop were one and the same. But Douglas died Arch-bishop of St. Andrews. But is't strange that he, who, in favours of a Tulchan Bishoprick, had a stomach able to deject Simoniacal Pactions and durty Bargains, made no bones of sacrificing his former Principles to his interest? But Spotswood was a constant Enemy to Parity, as appears from his Son's account of him. But his Son says not so much: Moreover, which quite spoils our Author's Cause, p. 74he makesxxPage 174. without naming any other, John Knox the Author of that Book of Policy, yea he averrsyyPage 344. that in his Father's Judgement, the Old Policy was undoubtedly the better than the New. John Row defended the lawfulness of Episcopacy at the Conference appointed by the General Assembly 1575. But J. Row, no less then the other Collocutors, in their Report to that Assembly, tho', for the iniquity of the time, not in so many words, yet really condemn'd Prelacy,zzCald. Ms. Hist. Vol. 2. Page 489. and was also a Member of that Assembly, which with one voice—found and declar'd the Office unlawfull in it self. aaIbid. Page 595. Et seq.Judge then of his confidence, who yet adventures hence to conclude that he was a Prelatist.

He adds out of Knox, that Superintendents and Overseers were nominated, that all things in the Church might be carried with Order and well, which reason for establishing Superintendents (saith our Author) will continue to hold so long as the Church continues. But let him once prove that Knox speaks of the constant and ordinary Church regimen and guidance, and not of the settling and ordering of a Church little more then in fieri, and as yet not all sufficiently constitute, otherwise we have a meer Paralogism. At the Admission of Spotswood (continues he) John Knox asserted the necessity of Superintendents and Overseers, as well as Ministers the necessity I say, & not the bare expediency in the juncture. The words arebbKnox Hist. 289. first was made a Sermon, in the which these Heads were handled: first the necessity of Ministers and Superintendents or Overseers &c. We have indeed here the necessity of Superintendents mention'd, but that it arose above an expediency, we do not hence learn: That Knox asserted the necessity of Superintendents as well as Ministers, or an equal necessity of the one and the other, can by no means be inferr'd: Yea, who can, with our Author, believe that tho' any People had aboundance of sufficient and lawfully ordain'd Ministers, yet, in Knox's Judgement, if Superintendents were wanting, such a People could no more be counted a Church, than if they had no Minister at all?

He brings also some Expressions out of the first Book of Discpiline, as, After the Church shall be established, and three years are past, no Man shall be called to the Office of a Superintendent, who hath not two years given a Proof of his faithfull Labours in the Ministry of some Church. Such passages indeed suppose some continuance of Superintendents tho' no perpetuity. For p. 75our Reformers could never think that within three years or thereabout, the Church should be fully established, & few or no Churches to be planted; unto which full settlement, the forecited passage of the Book of Policy allows the use of Superintendents.

This Book of Discipline (saith our Author) supposeth that Superintendents and Colledges were to be of equal continuance, for the Superintendent was still to be at the choosing and installment of Principalls and Rectors &c. But this his Argument, he himself overthrows. The Assembly (saith he) May 27. 1561. addresseth to the Council, that special and certain Provision might be made for the maintainance of the Superintendents, Ministers, Exhorters and Readers &c. Now, who sees not, that this Address speaks after the same manner concerning all these, so that, using our Author's way of arguing, we should inferr, that our Reformers thought the Exhorter (which confessedly was a kind of Function purely temporary) was no less to be perpetual than the Superintendent, yea, or the Minister. And the Assembly at Edinburgh December 25. 1565.ccCald. Ms. Hist▪ Vol. 2. Page 5. appointed Mr. Knox to pen a comfortable Letter in their Name to encourage Ministers, Exhorters and Readers to continue in their Vocation &c. From these and the like Acts he may as well conclude the equal duration of Exhorters and Ministers, as he inferrs from the Book of Policy, the equal duration of Superintendents and Colledges.

He would next prove, from the account of the Election and Admission of Superintendents, prefix'd to the old Psalms, that, according to our Reformers, this was an Office distinct from that of other Pastors, of Divine Institution, and so perpetual. The Order and Form (saith he) for admitting a Superintendent and a Minister, was all one, and there was nothing in it importing the one Office to be temporary, more than the other. But therefore, there's nothing elsewhere importing so much, is a clear non sequitur. In the mean while, from what he grants, 'tis plain that the Superintendent wanted the very specific difference of a Diocesan Bishop, wherefore tho' they us'd this Phrase, The Office to which God call'd him, and this Question to the People, Will ye not acknowledge this your Brother for the Minister of Christ Jesus? your Overseer and Pastor? Will ye not maintain and comfort him—against all such as wickedly would rebell against God and his Holy Ordinance. And that Petition, Send unto this our Brother, whom, in thy name, we have charged with the chief care of thy Church within the bounds of p. 76L. &c. They can thereby mean no other Office, no other Ordinance of God, and, for kind, no other Charge, than what's giv'n to every particular Pastor. For we find mention'd the chief dd2 Cor. 11. 5.2 Cor 11:5of the Apostles in Labour viz and Care, who yet were all equal. Neither is it strange that they thus set apart him who was, for the time, found needfull in these dark times and places, to plant and erect Churches, preach perpetually where there were none, and in a word, in several things compleatly to imitate the ancient Evangelist. Thus Paul and Barnabas were separated with a solemnity of Fasting, Prayer and Imposition of Hands eeActs 13. 3. compared with 14. 26.Acts 13:3And yet the Work or Office for which they were separated, was neither new nor perpetual.

§. 17. Having overthrown the Reasons of his Gloss, it must yeeld to the Text, expresly telling us, they were erected only for that time, and that for the paucity of Ministers endowed with singular Graces. But this reason (says he) is nought. For suppose we 20, 30, 40 Men in the Kingdom qualifi'd for the Office of the Ministry; could not these have divided the Kingdom into a proportionable number of large Parishes? And, still, as more Men turn'd qualifi'd, could they not have lessen'd these greater Parishes? But he with whom our ReformersffSee his Pages 242. & sequentes. were all most contemptible Idiots, and more especially in Church-policy, needs not wonder tho' they had fall'n into a much greater Solecism. But he forgets, that many in these most dark times were made Ministers, who yet needed the Assistance and Direction of the better qualifi'd for a while in Church-policy, and matters of such importance, till they should be able to go hand in hand with them, and that the main end of Superintendents was the perpetual Travelling, Preaching and Instructing where there were no Pastors and planting of Churches. As well (continues he) as our Presbyterian Brethren now unite Presbytries. A strange mistake, as if, where Presbytries are united, any Minister took for his proper Charge a multitude of Parishes. He here insinuats, that in the Superintendents there was established a Prelacy: But the present Question is only about the sentiments of our Reformers: and that they never thought the use of Superintendents croffed the Doctrine of Parity, is most clear, were there no more, from their using Superintendent-commissioners, even after they had declar'd Episcopacy unlawfull in it self. But all this their jangle is the fruit of meer prejudice p. 77or worse, for none near these times look'd on Superintendency as perpetual. Not the Court Party, seeing they endeavour'd to change Superintendents for Tulchan Bishops: not the rest of the Church, who, as the necessity of them decreased, suffer'd them to wear out. And after that, in an unanimous Assembly, they had ordain'd that the whole Church should be divided in a competent number of Presbytries, declar'd that Superintendents were no longer expedient. And good ground had they, even from that very Book of Policy so to do: for, if the whole tenor of that Head of Superintendents, appointing them almost constantly to Travel, to Preach thrice a week at least, and beside that to examine the Life &c. of the Ministers, the Orders of the Kirks, the manners of the People, care how the Poor be provided, how the Youth be instructed, admonish, where it's needfull, by good Counsel, compose Differences, note and delate to the Kirk hainous Crimes, and all this, because of the paucity of qualifi'd Ministers; evidently proclaims not, that this Superintendent was a kind of Evangelist, expedient only at that juncture of the re-entry of the Gospel into Scotland, I appeal to the candid Judgement of the impartial.

Moreover, if 'twere otherwise, why should they not as punctually have described his Duties after the time of his perpetual Travels, his Preaching thrice a week, and other such vast Labours were ended (for he grants these were to indure but for a time) after which he insinuats, that the Superintendents were to remain quiet in their chief Towns, but no word in all the account we have of them of such distinctions of times, of such perpetual rest, not a word therefore of their perpetuity.

Lastly; which he wisely, i. e. sutably to his purpose, omitted, for, like the Council ask'd at Abel, it ends the matter; see this Head of Superintendents. Because (say they) we have appointed a larger Stipend to them that shall be Superintendents, than to the rest of the Ministers, we have thought good to signifie to your Honours such Reasons as moved us to make difference betwixt Preachers at this time. Now, pray, may not he that runs, read here that, had it not been for some forcing Circumstances and Exigencies of the then present time, they had made no difference at all between one Minister and another. And then after a few lines they laid down their Reasons in the very words, the sense whereof is now under Debate; If the Ministers &c.

§. 18. In the mean while, we need not be much concern'd whether p. 78these Superintendents were to be temporary or perpetual, there being nothing therein that made any real difference between the Church-government which was then, and that which is now. And indeed, these vast Travels and Pains in preaching thrice a week &c. are sure enough Tokens that the Superintendent could not be much distinguish'd from an ordinary Pastor, save in these extraordinary Labours, and was far from the Episcopal Eminency, and Grandour, seeing he was so far from the Episcopal ease and idleness, without which the former but rarely obtains.

This, and other such Proofs of the vast difference between the Superintendents and their Diocesans, and of the likeness between the Government under the Reformers and that which is now, our Author slides over with rallry saying, it may be as well told them, that Bishops wore black Hats and silk, Superintendents blew Bonets and tartan; as if most constant and hard labour in the Gospel, were no more valuable for distinguishing one Minister from another, than highland Plydes and blew Bonnets. He meets you with the like Drollery, if you mind him, that the Superintendents had no Metrapolitan and Episcopal Consecration or Ordination, but it's risus sardonius. And his Questions, (What is this to Parity or Imparity amongst the Governours of the Church? Do these differences distinguish between Bishops and Superintendents as to preheminence of Power?) flow from deep dissimulation of the mortal Wound giv'n to his Cause, seeing without Episcopal Ordination, which was never requir'd to a Superintendent (For Knox, as for example, who with our Author was only a Presbyter, ordain'd or admitted, as they then spoke, Spotswood Superintendent) there can be no Episcopal Power, no, not so much as the very essentials of a Bishop. These Superintendents were also without any Civil Places, power or emoluments that way, which make up the far greater part of the Episcopal greatness, and still subject and accountable to the General Assemblies.

And there was reason for it (saith our Author) supposing that General Assemblies as then constituted, were sit to be supream Judicatories of the National Church, For there was no reason that Superintendents should have been Popes. Then surely either were our Prelats, Popes, or most vehemently covetted a papal Power, seeing above all things they fear'd, abhorr'd and studi'd the ruine of these our General Assemblies. And no wonder if they did so, and that our Author intimats his dislike of these our Assemblies. For if this one thing, viz. the subjection of the Superintendents to these p. 79Assemblies, as they were then constituted, be duely weigh'd, it's fair to …et them on the very same levell with their Brethren. For, give him never so great a Power in the Province where he superintended, and let him use it as he pleased, yet neither can the Imparity be counted considerable, not the harm he could do very hurtfull, for within half a year at most (for there was a General Assembly twice, at least, every year) they had a prospect of a General Assembly to right their wrong, wherein every Pastor was to have no less Power than any Superintendent, and no less capable to sit judge and censure the Superintendent, than the Superintendent was on the other hand, to exerce the like Power over him; yea, any Minister in the Assembly, & such sometimes as were none, was as fair to be chosen Moderator as any Superintendent. By the frequency of these Assemblies, it came to pass, that few or no matters of importance were determin'd in the inferiour Synods, but came thither for their final Decision. Wherefore, if we narrowly look on these times, we shall find that the Superintendents were rather appointed as Observers and Delators of Matters to the Assembly, than any proper Judges thereof, save when a special command was giv'n him to cognosce on such and such particular Matters. He was frequently also charged with execution of the Assemblies Determinations, all which was common to him with other Commissioners to whom the Assembly gave the like Charge, and sent them not rarely to these very Provinces where there were Superintendents with equal Power and Authority to that of the Superintendent. Sometimes they ordain'd Causes to be handled by the Superintendent with the assistance of these Commissioners, sometimes by the Commissioner with the assistance of the Superintendents, which Commissioners were sometimes Ministers of another Province, and sometimes of that Province wherein was the Superintendent, with whom they were join'd with equal Power & Authority. From all which 'tis evident, how much they are taken with the humor of cavilling, who dare to ascribe to the Superintendents any real Superiority or Power over other Pastors, or any thing repugnant to a compleat Parity.

But there is yet more: even in his own Synod, he could do nothing contrary to the Majority, for he was to act nothing without the Synods Consent, neither could he impede ought done by the Majority, for he had no negative vote.ggSee 1. Book of Discipline. Head 5. Of the Election of Superintendents. Yea, he was made subject to the Tryal and p. 80Censures of the Synod of the very province where he superintended. And here our Author is compell'd to acknowledge that there was a considerable difference between Superintendents and Bishops: and indeed 'twas considerable with a witness, and so considerable that it really sets them on even ground with each Pastor of the word. He adds, that this was a great wrong, and error in the Constitution; and on this ocasion has a long invectivehhpag. 160, et sequentib. against our Reformers, & in speciall Knox, counting them Children, Idiots, Ungovernable, and of bad Principles, and spares not to flegg at all Scots men or Scotch mettal, as he speaks. But this is but a kicking against the pricks. He knows all this helps him nothing, nor is to the present Question, which is not de jure but de facto, what our Reformers freely and joyntly did? Not, on what grounds they did so?

He next retorts, that according to the book of Discipline, the Elders are allow'd to admonish, correct, and, with the consent of the Church and Superintendent, depose their Minister. But, First, tho our Reformers had spoken just alike of the Elders and Ministers as they did of the Synod and Superintendent, their words will not bear the like inference: the power they give to the Elders could certainly be a spurr to the Ministers, and yet they might be sure the few Elders of one parish would never make so bold with their Minister, as the whole Synod might with their Superintendent.

Secondly, There is no such allowance giv'n to the Elders concerning their Minister as to the Synod over their Superintendent: the former much act only with the consent of the Kirk and Superintendent, but nothing of this injoyn'd to the latter. Yea our Author himself will have the power of Deposition to be a prerogative of the Superintendent, and no doubt he or the Commissioner did, in the Churches name, execute her sentence. To Depose therefore here, and that with allowance of the whole context of that 8 head of Discipline, which he cites, is nothing else than to delate to the Church, and Superintendent the crimes of the Minister, and in their own sphere assist them in that action. He adds, he hath no where found that de facto the Superintendent was judged by his own Synod. And it may be so: for litle do we find of any thing was then done by provincial synods, every thing of moment being left to the General Assemblies, which were then most frequent. Such a Constitution (adds he) inferrs no such thing as Parity among Church-Offices p. 81Those who maintain that the King is inferior to his Subjects in their Collection, are not yet so extravagant as to say, he is not Superior to every one of them in their Distribution. But where Superiors or Equalls can be gotten, the Men of this Principle will freely yeeld, that none, who are Inferiours in the Distribution ought to judge the Actions of their Superiours, providing other Judges can be had, who, in this Case cann't, there being but one King only in a Kingdom: Hence they, believing that none may live lawless, think the King's Actions are cognoscible by these who are his Inferiours, but altering their capacity in the Collection. But is it so in the Case of the Superintendent, whereof there were severals, & not one only, as there is one commonly King in a Kingdom? Seeing then he was to be judged by the Synod, notwithstanding, that there were other Superintendents in the Church; 'tis evident, they counted every Brother in the Ministry his equal.

§. 19. But the Superintendents (saith our AuthoriiPage 120.) had a stock of prerogatives above other Pastors. But be it so: yet notwithstanding hereof, if we suppose, which I trust at the narrowest search shall appear, the truth of what we have now adduc'd, and the self consistency of the actings of our Reformers, whom he would fain set at variance with themselves, whatsoever Prerogatives he has really brought, can never prove that the Superintendent had any Dominion over other Pastors, or that they acted not in a true and real Parity; so that, from what is now said, these his pretended Disparities are prevented and remov'd. For example, he tells us, that Superintendents had a larger district, were nominated by the Council, elected by the Nobility and Gentry; 'twas not so with the Paroch Ministers. But the Commissioners had no less districts, and were appointed by the General Assembly, which I'm sure is of no less weight in the case than the Councils Nomination, even tho' the Gentlemens Election be added thereto, and yet, who in his Wit will take him for any other Officer than is every Parish-minister, or fall into the rovery of our Author, whokkPage 37. calls these Commissioners temporary Bishops.

Paroch-ministers, by the first Book of Discipline head 8, were deposeable by the Superintendent, and the Elders of their Parishes. The Superintendent was to be Judged by the Ministers and Elders of the whole Province. But the fraud is palpable, the words of the Book of Discipline are, that if a Minister p. 82be worthy of Deposition, the Elders of his Parish may, with consent of the Kirk and Superintendent, depose him. Where you see the Kirk or Minister and Elders of the Province are no less interested in the Deposition of a Minister than in the judging of a Superintendent. He suppress'd therefore all mention of the Kirk, which even Spotswood, whom he cites,llPag. 168. expresses: to the end he might make his Reader believe no Minister, save the Superintendent only, had any power in Deposition of Ministers.

But privat Ministers (saith he) were to be admitted by their Superintendents, but the Superintendents by the Superintendents next adjacent, and the Superintendents had the Power of Ordination. The first Book of Discipline and several Acts of the Assemblies. But, had only the Superintendents the Power of Ordination? yea, not only was there no plurality of Superintendents present at the Action, but also John Knox, who was no Superintendent, ordain'd or admitted Spotswood Superintendent of L. yea, every particular Minister, when commissionated by the Assembly, had no less Power of Ordination or any other thing whatsoever, than is either in the Book of Discipline or any where else giv'n to the Superintendent. Neither might any one particular Minister while he was a Commissioner, more than the Superintendent, be translated from one district to another without the Counsel of the whole Church or Assembly; neither were there meaner Qualifications requisite in any Commissioner. And I think Knox, who was never a Superintendent, was in these not inferiour to any of 'em.

But he had a living five times so much as another Minister. But then I'm sure, he had five times as much to do with it, being perpetually to Travell, Preach and Exhort far and wide &c: but, if this Rule had been keep'd, our Bishops had got five times less than any other Minister, for rarely did they any such Duty, either at home or abroad. In the mean while, The Power of Riches, and the baseness of Poverty, maketh not a Bishop either higher or lower.mmHieronymus Euagrio.

But Superintendents (saith he) were constant Members of General Assemblies, had Power to Visit, and to try the like &c. of the Ministers of all the Churches of the Diocess, and were to try those who stood Candidates for the Ministry, had Power of granting Collations on Presentations. But, whatsoever he had of these, belong'd also to every particular Pastor when commissionated by the General Assembly: but, tho' the Superintendent or Commissioner p. 83is only nam'd in such Cases, as in trial of the Candidats, granting Collations, Deposition of Ministers &c. He is to be understood as the Moderator, and mouth of the Synod where he Superintended, for Example, the Assembly in the case of transportation, chargeth the Ministers to obey the Voice and Commandment of their Superintendent, and yet by the very same Act,nnCald. Ms. Hist. Vol. 1. Page. 789. none can be translated without the Consent of the most part of the Elders and Ministers of Kirks conveen'd in the Synodal Assembly; and yet from this very Act, he adventnres to conclude the Canonical Obedience of Pastors to their Superintendents.

But, he had Power to nominal Ministers to be Members of the General Assembly. For, Assembly 1562. 'twas ordain'd, that no Minister leave his Flock for coming to the Assembly, except he have Complaints to make, or be complain'd off, or at least, be warn'd thereto by the Superintendent. And the L. Glamis in a Letter to Mr. Beza, saith,ooApud Saraviam exam. tract. de Episcopatuum triplici genere. Quest. 2. Pag. 91. Post reformatam Religionem, consuetudine receptum est, ut Episcopi, & ex Ministris, Pastoribus, & Senioribus, tot, quot iidem Episcopi jusserint, unum in lucum conveniant &c. that, after the Reformation it fell out by custom, that the Bishops and so many of the Ministers, Pastors and Elders as the Bishops appointed—came to the General Assembly. But touching what he alledges as said by the L. Glamis, I can find it no where, save in the Works of Saravia; and Beza's Answer to Glamis his second Question, wherein these words are found, neither meets with, nor presupposes any such Clause. But be it that L. Glamis said so, what will they hence infer? he says indeed, that this came to pass after the Reformation, but how long 'twas after the Reformation, before this was practis'd, he says not. 'Twas (saith he) receiv'd by Custom: by no Decree of the Church then, or Acts of the Assembly. And lastly, he speaks of Bishops, not of Superintendents. And I never find that any about these times gave Superintendents the name of Bishops; and so this makes nothing for our Author's purpose. Wherefore, if ever L. Glamis had any such Expression, whereof I much doubt, in my mind, he mean'd it of the Tulchans, who, for some space after the Leith-convention made some steps toward such a Superiority; otherwise, all the accounts we have of these times, and, in special, the Acts of our Assemblies demonstrat, that there was no such Power or Priviledge giv'n to any then in Scotland: yea, so much our Author himself presently proves, and overturns p. 84this his own Argument by citing another out of the Assembly July 1563, (1568, he should have said)ppCald. Ms. Hist. Vol. 2. Pag. 87. Spots. Pag. 219. viz. Anent the Order hereafter to be used in General Assemblies—They all voted and concluded as followeth, viz. that if the Order already received, pleases not, by reason of the plurality of Voices, it be reformed in this manner.

First, that none have place to Vote, except Superintendents, Commissioners appointed for visiting the Kirks, and Ministers brought with them, presented as Persons able to reason, and having knowledge to judge: with the aforenamed shall be joined Commissioners of Burghs and Shires, together with Commissioners of Vniversities. Secondly. Ministers and Commissioners shall be Chosen at the Synodal-convention of the Diocess, by the Consent of the rest of the Ministers and Gentlemen, that shall conveen at the said Synodal-convention &c.

From this Act 'tis clear, that the former in 1562. has only been mention'd, never concluded; or, at least, cass'd and repeal'd by some intervenient Assembly, otherways, there had been no place or ground for the Act of 1568. which presupposes, that ev'n these, that were not at all thus Chosen at the Synod, were free to come and Vote at the Assembly. So far was this liberty from being put in the Superintendent or Commissioner's Power. And indeed from this Act, 'tis most evident, and 'tis left on Record also, by the Vindicatour of Philadelphus, that before the time of this Act, all Ministers who pleased, were free to Vote at the Assemblies, & yet, with our Author, Petrie must be a mixer of lies for saying so much. But Calderwood (saith our Author) leaves out intirely these words, brought with them, i. e. with the Superintendents and Commissioners of Kirks, presented as Persons able to reason, and having knowledge to judge, whereby the Power of Superintendents and Commissioners for visiting of Kirks is quite stiffled, and the whole sense of the Act perverted. For what sense is it I pray, to say, that the Ministers were Chosen by Consent of the rest of the Ministers, when you tell not who was to choose, or who they were to whose choice or nomination the rest of the Ministers were to give that Consent, But to stiffle the Power he pleads for to Superintendents was a Work impossible, either to Calderwood, or any man else, the very Act it self most irrefragbly shewing, they could have none, save such as is in any meer Moderator of our Synods or Presbytries. For, be it, which yet the Assembly expresses not, that the Superintendents were to nominate Ministers for the Assembly, yet they could do no more, but only as the Synod p. 85by their Votes assented or choosed the nominated Persons, whom if the Synod or its major part rejected, these could not go to the Assembly, yet some behov'd to go, and consequently the Superintendent or Commissioner was to make a new Lite, and name again; and if these did not yet please, another Lite, and so on, untill the Synod was satisfi'd, and choosed some Persons or other according to their pleasure, for the Assembly. This much is undeniably contain'd in the Act, and I'm sure, no Moderator of any Synod or Presbytry injoyes any less Power, providing it deserve the name. Seeing then Brought with them, cannot possibly mean any peculiar Power, I see not wherein Calderwood by ommitting them can be culpable. Neither, can he be accused of nonsense, seing 'tis sufficiently intelligible and plain how these Ministers and Commissioners could be chosen by the consent of the rest of his Brethren, the Ministers and Gentle-men, members of the Synod, who, by joynt and mutual consent, chused them after the Superintendent or Commissioners nominating or liting, which, by a fraud too palpable, he confounds with Election. And here it's observable in how much torment and perplexity this so clear an Act involves all of 'em. Spotswood, adduc'd it in his latine Pamphlet, but is so soundly chastis'd by the Vindicator of Philadelphus, that our Author finds not a syllable to say in his defence. He pretends also to relate it in his HistoryqqPage 219., but with an essential Depravation, for he leaves out these words, Ministers and Commissirners of Shires shall be chosen at the Synodal Convention of the Diocy, with consent of the rest of the Ministers and Gentlemen that shall conveen at the said Synodal Convention. For, he saw it quite spoil'd his Cause, and really left the Superintendent no Power, but what was equally in any of the rest, and foists into the Text these such Ministers as the Superintendents should chuse in their Diocesan Synods. Neither can our Author be blameless in suppressing the following words. Commissioners of Burghs shall be appointed by the Council and Kirk of their own Towns, none shall be admitted without sufficient Commission in write. And least this should turn to perpetual Election of a few and certain Persons, it is concluded, Ministers and other Commissioners be changed from Assembly to Assembly. Whereby appears the Churches great care, that neither Superintendent nor any other might have ought like an Episcopal Power, and that all fit Persons might have equal priviledge of Voting at the Assemblies. There yet p. 86remain many of his pretended Disparities, but, are no more significative of eminency or superiour Office, no less communicable to the rest of the Ministers when Commissioners than were the former, as will be evident to any, who reads the Acts of the Assemblies, among which, he reckons the Superintendent's modifying to Ministers their Stipends, as if, because Judas had the Bagg, and bare what was put therein, he had been Bishop over the rest of the Apostles. In the mean while, the Superintendents could do nothing of this, but only as Moderator of the provincial Synod.

Another Deduction of no better metall is,rrPages 138, 139. that the Laird of Dun, Superintendent of Angus, not as such, but by vertue of a particular Commission giv'n by the Assembly to him and others join'd with him, deposed a Regent of Aberdeen, a place intirely without the bounds of his Superintendency; therefore Superintendents as such, had a Power Paramount and Episcopal. And was not such an arguer a man of sense? I pass the rest of his thirty Disparities not without admiration, that such a fertile brain could not invent one other, for one and thirty used to carry the Game.

Add to all this, that tho' some that had been Popish Bishops in Scotland and imbrac'd the Gospel, as Mr. Gordon of Galloway a man of no contemptible Gifts, were by our Reformers allow'd, without any new Admission, to dispence the Word aud Sacraments; yet, they were never allow'd to exercise what they counted their Episcopal Function, or looked on as Bishops of these Dioceses: yea Mr. Gordon, tho' he earnestly sought for it, could never be admitted to Superintend in Galloway, which is a clear Demonstration, that our Reformers looked on the Episcopal preheminence as a meer Popish Corruption, otherways, why did not Mr. Gordon, verbi causâ, remain in the Power and Character he had enjoyed while Romanist.

It's most clear also from all the accounts we have of the Tulchan Bishops, that all men of all parties look'd on a Bishop, as a thing altogether diverse from a Superintendent.

§. 20. And now at length hear him yeelding the whole Plea,ssPages 167, 168. There was (saith he) a Principle had, then, got too much footing among some Protestant Divines, viz. That the best way to reform a Church, was, to recede as far from the Papists as they could; to have nothing in common with them, but the essentials; the necessary and indispensable Articles and Parts of Christian p. 87Religion; whatever was, in its Nature indifferent, and not positively and expresly commanded in the Scriptures, if it was in fashion in the Popish Churches, was therefore to be laid aside, and avoided as a Corruption; as having been abused, and made subservient to Superstition and Idolatry.

This Principle John Knox was fond of, and maintain'd zealously; and the rest of our reforming Preachers were much acted by his influences. In pursuance of this Principle, therefore, when they compil'd the first Book of Discipline, they would not Reform the old Polity, and purge it of such Corruptions as had crept into it, keeping still by the main draughts and lineaments of it;—But they laid it quite aside, and in stead thereof hammer'd out a new Scheme, keeping at as great a distance from the old one, as they could, and as the essentials of Polity would allow them; establishing no such thing, however, as Parity, as I have fully proven. And no wonder; for as Imparity has, obviously, more of Order, beauty and usefulness in its aspect, so it had never so much as by dreaming, entred their tboughts, that it was a limb of Antichrist, or a relict of Popery.

But was not Episcopacy in fashion in the Popish Churches? And, dare he, yea or any mortal say, that ever our Reformers believed it to be an indispensible part of the Christian Religion positively and expresly commanded in the Scriptures: Do not therefore his saying establishing however no such thing as Parity &c and the rest of his Discourse mutually give the lie, and flee in the face of one another. And indeed, he here at once overthrows whatsoever he said on this Subject: and now for ever to silence all reasonable men, and stop them from such desperat adventures as this of our Authors, take the following Argument.

Whatsoever our Reformers believed to be without the express and positive Testimony of the Scriptures, that they believed to be a damnable Corruption in Religion, and as such to be avoided.

This the major is put beyond scruple, by what we have brought from the first Book of Discipline, Knox, and the Confessions of our Author: Now I subjoin.

But they believed, that Episcopacy was altogether without any express or positive Testimony, yea, or any Warrant or Ground from the Word of God, the Books of the Old and New Testament; Ergo &c. The minor is no less evident from what is already adduc'd: and moreover, from the latter Helvetian Confession, which was all (save the allowance of the remembrance of some Holy Days, which they expresly disprov'd) approv'd and subscribed by our whole General Assembly at p. 88Edinburgh, December 25. 1566.ttCald. Ms. Hist. Vol. 2. Page 24. For, in that Confession (mark it, pray, carefully, and by no means forget, that our Church and Reformers, who approv'd and subscrib'd this Confession, firmly believ'd that, whatsoever is without the express Commandment of God's Word, is damnable to Man's Salvation.) they sayuuFol. 52. Data est autem omnibus in Ecclesia Ministris una & aequalis potestas sive functio. Certè ab initio, Episcopi vel Presbyteri Ecclesiam communi opera gubernaverunt: nullus alteri se praetulit—Sic legitur secisse in Actis Apostolorum S. Petrus, qui tamen ideo nec aliis fuit praepositus, nec potestate majore caeteris praeditus.—Ideoque nemo jure prohibuerit ad veterem Ecclesiae Dei constitutionem redire, & illam prae humana consuetudine recipere. There's giv'n to all Ministers in the Church, one and the same Power or Function: And indeed, in the beginning, Bishops and Presbyters ruled the Church in common, none preferr'd himself to another, or usurped any more honourable Power or Dominion to himself over his fellow Bishops. But according to the words of the Lord, who will be first among you, let him be your Servant, they persevered in Humility, and helped one another by their mutual Duties, in Defending and Governing the Church. In the meantime for preserving Order, some one of the Ministers, did call the Assembly, and proposed these things that were to be consulted in the Meeting; He did also receive the Opinions of others; and finally, according to his Power, he took care that no confusion should arise, so S. Peter is said to have done in the Acts of the Apostles, who notwithstanding was never set over the rest, nor indu'd with greater power and honour, but the beginning took its rise from Vnity, that the Church might be declared to be one. And having related Hierome's Doctrine of the Idenity of Bishop & Presbyier thus they conclude. Therefore none may lawfully hinder to return to the ancient Constitution of the Church of God, and embrace it before human Custome.

Thus far the Authors of that most famous Confession, who both in the Title page, and after the Preface expresly assert, that our Church of Scotland together with the Churches of Poland, Hungary, Geneve, Neocome, Myllhusium, and Wiend approved and subscribed this their Confession.

From all which it's easie to gather and perceive, with how black a foreign our first Reformers and whole primitive Church Protestant branded Prelacy or Imparity amongst Pastors.