Defense of the Vindication of the Church of Scotland, Treatise (3 of 3)
§. 40. The next Controversie in Divinity that he underdaketh to manage is about Preaching Morality, p. 47. He chargeth the Vindicator with censuring the Clergy for preaching Morality: And citeth his p. 62 and p. 63. And in his Refutation to this Imputation, he is pleased to treat his Adversary with a parcel of harsh words; such as Spite and Ill Nature p. 48. his hiding places, and little subterfuges p. 49. This waspish Accusation, ibid: This is another stroke of his Good Nature and Civility. All which I let pass: For the Reader will, by comparing what is said by him, and me, (especially in this place) easily find, whether of us do best deserve these Epithets What I have to say in answer to this charge is, that there is no truth in what he saith▪ But on the contrary; there is a double falsehood in it▪ One is that this censure is passed on the Clergy: I know some of them Preach the Gospel foundly, and usefully; what is said is evidently aimed at the Writer of that Pamphlet, and some others who are of his Kidney: In whose Discourses little of the Righteousness of Christ and that strength and influence from Him, by which we must obey His Laws, is to be found. Another falsehood is, that any Man is censured for Preaching Morality. That which is taken notice of is, that some do so preach Morality, as to neglect that which is Divinity: That is, so to Preach the Duties that are required of us, as not to open to People the mystery of Christ, and Salvation by him: In shewing them that we can do nothing that is acceptable to God without an interest in Christ as our Righteousness; and without the aids of his Spirit. It is our daily work to Preach Morality, and the necessity of Holiness in all manner of Conversation: But we look on this, but as the half of Gospel Preaching: And that, even when we press a Holy Life, and particular Duties, on these excellent Motives taken out of the Scripture, which he, at great length, insisteth on, about which I am far from controverting with him: Only I must tell him, that the Gospel, which we must Preach, and by which we look for Salvation, is not only Morality, even Christian, let be Pagan; which he describeth to be Evangelical Obedience and Holiness, without which no man shall see God (tho' that be an essential part of it) but it comprehendeth also knowledge of, and Faith in Jesus Christ, as our Righteousness and Strength: Of which there is little in the Sermons of some of his Party: And not a word, in his long Discourse on this Head; tho' it be designed to shew how fully they Preach the Gospel: And I still affirm, that this is not that Divinity, that Christ and his Apostles taught: And I hope the Reader may, by this time see that there is no nicety in distinguishing between his Christian Morality and the Christian Divinity that Ministers should Preach. He saith, p. 48. That there are no Socinians among the Episcopal Clergy of Scotland: In which I do not contradict him: For I know them not; but if he had said there are no Socinianizing Arminians; I could have made the contrary appear. He is angry with the Vindicator, p. 50 that he saith, May be we understand what the Pagan Philosophy is as well as our Neighbours: But we shall not quarrel with him, tho' p. 49 he saith, May be we have read Seneca with as much attention as he did, and can give as good account of the defects of the Stoical Philosophy. I do not envy his Learning, and I do not pretend to have any such degree of it, that may provoke others to Envy. He defendeth, p. 50. an Argument used for the Orthodoxy of the Clergy: That they could sign the 59 Articles of the Church of England: And is displeased that it is objected, that some do so, who yet preach against what they have signed. I hope this is no judging of Mens Hearts, as he wisely commenteth on it; but of the inconsistency of two overt acts: Neither is it a refutation of this, that the Clergy cannot, by hardships, now be brought to comply with the Presbyterians: For some of them are more yielding, and others are more fixt in their way; which may be imputed to Conscience in some, and in others, to other Motives.
§. 41. What he next chargeth on his Adversary, p. 51 is a Censure on the Author whom he is Refuting; who insinuateth that the Presbyterians talk every day to the People of Gods Decrees and Reprobation; by denying this to be the practice of Prelatists. And it is answered by the Vindicator, that this is impertinent, if he mean as he expresseth it: For who (saith the Vindicator) ever blamed any Man as erroneous, because he insisted not always on such subjects? The Apologist first representeth this as if it had been expressed, that we do not require that one should always talk of Decrees and Reprobations. I know no design in using such senseless expressions, but to expose his Opposite as Ridiculous: Whereas these silly expressions are his own: The Vindicator's words are these abovementioned. He refuteth also this passage, as what sheweth little Skill in Logick; because, every day, doth not imply doing nothing else. I answer, neither doth always signifie so much: What was asserted is, that Presbyterians do not only, not preach constantly on these subjects; but that they do it not frequently; which he himself alloweth, as the signification of every day. The fault that he next findeth, with the Vindicator, is of more moment, it is that, p. 66. he speaketh of the absolute Decrees of Election and Reprobation, both praeteritum & praedamnatum: He…e he tr…umpheth, and trampleth on as Advers… ry; and he alloweth of praeteritio his rude praedamnatio but not decretum praeteritum & praedamnatum. I confess here he hath more seeming advantage, than any where else: Neither can I blame any thing in this his observation, save his defect in Candor and Charity: For no doubt there is in these expressions, as he observeth, complicated Nonsence and Blasphemy: But the best is, it is purely an Errour of the Press, not of the Author; which any Man might have observed who readeth the passage without foreign. I do solemnly declare (and I hope some will believe me, tho' I hardly expect such Charity from this Author, considering what diminutive thoughts he hath elsewhere expressed of my Morality as well as understanding) that I never thought so, that I never spoke so, that I never wrote so: The words in my Manuscript are Praeterition, and Praedamnation.
§. 42. Another Theological debate (or Historical, about a Theological head) he beginneth, p. 52. where he leaveth the second Vindication, and picketh occasion of this quarrel with his Antagonist, out of the first. What he insisteth against is, the Vindicator had asserted that the Church of Scotland, before Popery entered into it, and in the first time of its being Christian, was not governed by Bishops; but by the Pastors of the Church (then called Culdees) acting in Parity. This he alloweth to be of some consideration; not for any Historical Truth that is in it, but because the Learned Blondel made use of it: Yet he calleth it an imaginary Hypothesis: And laboureth to run it down (after his wont) with very severe words: As if he would Hector us out of our Principles: What is the strength of his Arguments we shall try. To vilisie Blondel's Authority: He telleth us that he met it in Buchanan, and that that Learned Historian took it from his contemporary Monks, Boetius and others. This is either from our Apologists superficial reading of what he would refute, or not reading it, but taking it on trust, or disingenuity, in …oncealing what was needful to set the matter before the Reader, in its true light. For Blondel, Apolog. prosententia Hieron p. 314, 315. Citeth Fordon, Joan. Major & Boet. Wherefore he took it not from Buchanan alone: It is also an odd blunder to say that Boetius and the others that Buchanan had it from, were his contemporary Monks. For Boetius and Major, were not Monks nor were they contemporary with Buchanan: And Fordon was far removed from his time: Nor did any two of these mentioned live at the same time. He doth also deal unfairly, and not as a Disputant, with the Vindicator; for he taketh no notice of what grounds he brought for what he affirmed, viz. That Palladius was the first Bishop in Scotland; and yet Christianity was pub…ickly professed in it, above three hundred years before his time: This is proved out of Baronius, Spondanus, Beda, and others: But it was his wisdom to take no notice of this. His first and chief Argument against our Assertion is, there were none that lived near that Age who writeth the History of it, and the Monks who wrote any thing were extreamly ignorant: Wherefore this story of the Culdees ruling the Church, hath no Credibility. This is the substance of what he discourseth at length, p. 52, 53. In answer to which. 1. This is at one blow to raze the Foundation of the History of our Nation; and of that of most others: And to make them all to be Fools who have enquired into these Antiquities that concern our Nation, and others: Such as Fordon, Major, Beda, Usher, &c. Yea, Baronius, the Centuriatores of Magdeburgh, and such famous Historians, have spent their time in vain, if this new Judge of Learning may be heard. 2. he might have taken notice, that Prosper was cited, out of Spondanus, by his Antagonist: And he wrote about the year 420. not far from the time that he telleth us Palladius was made the first Bishop of Scotland. It is ridiculous to talk of the Acts of the Assemblies, in that ancient period, p. 53. For we do not assert (as is expresly said, first Vi…. p. 4.) that they had all the same modes of Presbyterian Government which we now have: That they had no Bishops, but that they had equal power in governing the Church, is all that we aim at; which is not disproved by such silly mocking, as this is. He telleth, ibid. of his Opinion, if he dare interpose it, that the Monks advanced this Fable to gratify the Pope in his design of keeping the Bishops low: And yet with the same Breath; this is so known, that it needeth neither proof, nor illustration: How to reconcile this timidity, and this confidence, is beyond my Capacity.
§. 43. Another thing like Argument is, p. 54. All the known Records of the Christian Church unanimously declare for the Hierarchy in the 2d. and 3d. Centuries. A. 1. This is denied, and the contrary hath been proved: It is too much confidence to assert this, till our Author take time to answer all that the Learned Blondel, and many others, have written. 2. Do any of these known Records speak of a Hierarchy in the Christian Church of Scotland? If they do not; this Argument mistaketh its conclusion, that it should lead us to: For our present debate is, what Church Government was in Scotland about the 2d and 3d Centuries. What followeth is built on the same bottom; and falleth by the answer already given: Had Scotland (saith he) any other Church Government than what was received in the Christian Church when they were Converted? It is said that no parallel instance can be given He here still supposeth that which he knoweth we debate against the Prelatists; which is no good way of Argumenting Let him read Blondell from the beginning to the end, and he shall find instances in all the Christian Churches, in Asia, Europe, and Africa. He should have answered all that he such written in his Apology, before he had complained that no instance can be given of a Christian Church without a Hierarchy. It is still to the same purpose, when he asketh, by whom were they (the Scots) Converted? Is it not reasonable to think, that they who Converted them would plant that Church Government among them that they were acquainted with themselves? A. If he can prove that they were Converted by Prelatists, or Prelats, he gaineth what is now in debate. Spondanus out of Prosper, saith that Palladius was the first Bishop, who came among them: And Baronius sheweth, that they were Converted some Centuries before his time: As was shewed in the very place our Author pretendeth to refute. It is a great mistake in our Author, p. 54. That we appear with our Culdees against the undoubted Records of Fathers, Councils; &c. For these Records have been examined, and found not to be so undoubtedly on his side; But this he hath a mind to suppose. Again, we bring not the Culdees, or their Authority, for proving what we say: It is the Testimony of others concerning them. Beside all this, the Fathers, Councils, &c. say nothing of the Church Government of Scotland, in the first Ages of its Christianity; which is the thing now in debate. His last effort, under this head, is, If he confess there were some Priests in Scotland before Bishops, yet those had their Ordination, and Mission from Bishops in other places, to whom they might give account of their Travels, and Success: And this was ordinary before Nations were Converted, but when they received the Faith, then were Bishops, &c. placed among them. A. This doth no way meet with the case in hand, for it is proved first Vindic. p. 4.5. That not only some were become Christians, but the Kings of Scotland, and the body of the People had received the Christian Faith, upward of three hundred years before Palladius, their first Bishop came among them: Did they all this time continue not an Organical Church; and without Church Officers, and Government: I hope his confidence, as high as it flies, will not reach this far.
§ 44. The Au…hor of the History of the General Assembly had not only spoke without Reverence, but with insolent Contempt, of Mr. Gray's Sermons, which are very savoury to many serious Souls. And the Vindicator made no farther remark on this, but, he sheweth his Skill in the actings of Grace in the Soul: And this our Author calleth running him down: He loveth to speak big words when the sense of them is very small. I hope they who are indeed concerned about their Souls Case, will find more of the Marrow of the Gospel in these Sermons, than in many of the slanting and starcht Discourses that this Author commendeth. This losty Soul is next (p. 55.) displeased with the Vindicator's creeping Genius, because he discourseth of the Act of the Assembly against the private administration of Baptism: And calleth this, one of his little Impertinencies. By this means he reproacheth greater Men than that Author ever pretended to be: For that Controversie is not new, nor of his invention: And however little it be, it is none of his Impertinencies; but of his Adversaries, who reproacheth the General Assembly for it: Is it Impertinency to answer what an Antagonist doth object; or is it such to call such Conduct by that name? Let us now see how pertinent his Refutation of this our Principle is. He telleth, very Magisterially, that the Assembly had done better to have left it to the discretion of Ministers in all places But with his permission, we think, that when abuses creep into the Church, about the administration of Christs Ordinances, they should be restrained by the determination of the Church: He will not say, it is from a creeping Genius, that some Men make Church Canons about Church Mens Cloaths, of what fashion they must be, on the Street and in the Pulpit, yea, when they ride abroad; (see Canon 74. of the Convocation, 1603, which standeth in force to this day) as if it were the work of a Convocation to write a Directory for Taylors: And yet it is too mean for the Church to consider how the Ordinances of the Gospel should be managed. He supposeth that we make it necessary, tha… a Sermon from a Text be Preached at Baptism, and that opening the nature and use of that Sacrament, is not enough. But in this he mistaketh the state of the Controversie; which is whether Baptism (when the other Ordinances of the Gospel can be had publickly) should be administred before the Congregation, or such of them as on due warning to the whole, do give their presence, or may be done in a Corner as People please. If he had said any thing against our Principle in this, it should have been considered. That he chargeth the Presbyterian Ministers and People with want of understanding the Phrase, ex opere operato, we misregard.
§. 45. The Vindicator, p. 174. had occasionally said, that we cannot with a good Conscience comply with Humane Ceremonies. And hence he commenceth another Theological Debate, p. 55, 56, 57. I shall therefore (without reflecting on his reproachful and mocking stram, in managing this Controversie) consider his Arguments: The 1. is p. 56. Solomon adviseth, to look to our feet when we com… into the House of God; and Moses was enjoyned to put off his Shoes, because the ground was holy: And was not this a significant Ceremonie? Here is accurate Logick; and may become the highest seat it an University. We ought to obey what God commandeth: Ergo, We must observe what Man deviseth, and injoyneth in Gods Worship. If putting off the Shoes and looking to the Feet, be designed as that which all must observe when they go to Church, why doth not our Author, and his Party observe it? And for keeping our Feet, mentioned Eccles. 5.1. will our Author say that its meant of a… External, significant Ceremonies? All the Interpreters, that I can meet with, expound it of looking carefully to the frame and actings of our Soul. Drus, ambula circumspecte. Gejerus; est metaphora … peregrinantibus in tali via ubi facile est aut errare aut labi. Castalio, gere te prudenter. Piscator. Cave… impingas, id est pocces in obeundo cultu Dei. Mercer: Non puto hic externam intelligi precum mundi tiem sed externis interna notabantur, &c. Mr. Mede maketh it an allusion to the discalceation used to the Eastern Countries, when they came into a Holy place; which he saith, was common: But how common it was among other Nations I know not: Only I know, it was not used among the Jews in th… Temple, but that now under their Apostacy, I have seen him that officiateth, put off his Shoes on some of their Holy days; and that only at the reading of the Law. Another Argument of equal strength, he useth, Sackcloath and Ashes did among all Nations signifie Grief and Sorrow; therefore in their Humiliation these were used to express their Remorse and Convictions. A. As before, why then do not the Prelatists use them… Again, it doth not follow, this Ceremony was used in all Civil Mourning, and from that was used in Religion; Ergo, We should now use Ceremonies in Religion, which neither are instituted by Divine Authority, nor have Civil Custom to make them Decent. His Sarcastick Reproof that followeth, is out of the way; for we never Condemned Ceremonies, because they were significant, but think that none should be used that are insignificant. We condemn them because they are appointed by Men, to signifie tha… Grace which the Lord hath not instituted them to represent: and consequently, hath not blessed them to confer, and that in his Worship, which should be ordered in all these things that are peculiar to it, only by his own direction. The Ceremony of lifting up the right hand in swearing an Oath, not only hath warrant from Scripture Example; but it is the Civil Custom of the Nation: Therefore it is no… pertinent, to bring it as an Example of a Religious significant Ceremony; if he can shew us as mu… ground for the Ceremonies he pleadeth for, we shall consider the matter farther▪ If any intelligen… and unbyassed Reader will say, that his Reasonings that follow do deserve an answer, it shall be given: They are; We ought to approach to God with all the decent marks of Distance, and Adoration: True Religion obligeth us to comply with the innocent Decencies of Mankind; and not to affect Singularity: Chri… eat and drank with Publicans and Sinners: I am so short sighted as that I cannot see how it followe… from any of these Topicks, or from all of them in Conjunction, That it is lawful to use Religious. Si… nificant Ceremonies, of Humane Institution, in the Worship of God. He addeth, If the Ceremoni… be used by the Nation among whom we live, if they decently express our Reverence, or Humiliation; see no reason why they may not be used in the Worship of God. A. If he can prove, that they are so use in Civil, and Solemn Actions, as that they acquire a Civil Decency, then are they not Religious Ceremonies; id est, peculiar to Religion; but are Civil Rites, tho' used in Religion: But this is not what we dispute about. I deny not that a Minister may Preach in a Gown, it being made decent, by Civil Custom, in several sort… of publick Actions: But it is not so with a Surpl…ce. The power of Superiours to determine Circumstances, is widely different from a Power to appoint Religious Ceremonies. What he saith against Presbyterians sitting in time of Prayer, hath no weight: They neither injoyn it, nor do always practise it: And they find, that in Scripture, Sitting, Standing, Kneeling, Lying prostrate on the Ground, are all used: And none of them injoyned, nor forbidden: And therefore it is Superstition in any who would tye us to any of these. He calleth us Foolish and Peevish; because we say, their Ceremonies are parts of Worship: But we prove them to be parts of Worship, (viz. Superstitious Worship) because they are appropriated to Religion, and designed to that end, for which Worship is appointed, viz. To give a peculiar Honour to God, which is not given by other Actions; or even by these parts of Worship, to which he owneth them as Appendages. He blameth the Vindicator, for suggesting a Reason why some of the Clergy do now read the Common Prayer: And giveth, for the true Reason, an open avowing of their Principles, when it was visible to the World, that there was no uniting with the Presbyterians. Is this the Candor, with the want of, which, he here loadeth his Antagonist? Is there less hope now, than before, of uniting with the Presbyterians: When the General Assembly hath published terms on which they will receive them; and such as can well be defended to be most rational; and on which, not a few of them have come in among us? Why did they not openly a vow these Principl…s when they had Church power in their hand, and could have done it without any Check, and when they saw, by many proofs, that the Presbyterians would rather suffer the greatest hardships than be brought over to their way. If this be not Palliating and Shuffling, I know not what is to be so called. I have had much occasion to consider this Controversie about Ceremonies; and have read many on his side: But I never met with any of them who manageth it so slightly, nor do I think it fit to insist farther on it, at present then his Reasonings do necessarily require; if any thing were answered to them.
§ 46. He falleth next on the Letter appended to the 2d Vindication; and blameth the Author of it, for saying that some of the Bishops being Re ordained was a Scandal, not only to this, but to other Reformed Churches. He denieth it to be a Scandal to the Forreign Churches; or the French Divines: All of them (saith he) the greatest Men among them, are Re-ordained when they come to England. Here is strong Reasoning: For first he maketh all the Forreign Churches, and French Divines, to be Equipollent, and Convertible Terms, which some Readers will smile at. 2. He falsely asserteth, that all the French Divines that came to England in this Persecution, were Re-ordained: The contrary is well known: It is true, all who got Places in England were Re-ordained: And it must needs be so; for none other could be allowed to injoy any Benefice: But many c…me to England who never were Re-ordained. How can it shun to be a Scandal to Forreign Churches, when they see their Ministers reckoned no Ministers, but initiated, the same way, into the Ministry, as they should, if they had never been Ordained: And consequently, all the Baptisms and other Ordinances, administred by them, to be reputed Null and Void, and on the matter, their Churches Unchurched. He instanceth only in Mounsieur Alix, I doubt not but there were not a few others, whom either their straitned Circumstances, or some other Principle did determine that way: For Monsieur Alix, there are other Sentiments of that Learned Man, which make many to judge his Example to be no concludent Argument. That this Re-ordination was never condemned by the Gallican Church. A. It is no wonder it was never formally condemned, for no such question was ever started among them: But that they did, on the matter, condemn it, is evident: For they always held their own Ordination, without a Bishop, to be valid, Which is inconsistent with Re-ordination; as owning the validity of ones Baptism is with Re-baptization. He would have us think that the Church of England doth not absolutely condemn their Ordination in France: Only she is determined to preserve an unquestionable Succession of Priests within her own bounds. A. Is not this a material, and real condemning of their Ordination (call it abso…ute, or by what other Epit…ite y… please) that no man who hath no more than that Ordination, may Administer Holy things, by the allowance of the Church of England; yea, I could tell him of a Bishop (and he was not singular in that Sentiment) in England, who said to a Presbyterian Minister, that he lookt on him as no better than a Mechanick, because he wanted Episcopal Ordination: Wherefore it is but a shift, …o palliate their shame when they tell us, they do not absolutely deny that Ordination: And I believe few of his Brethren in England will give him thanks for his Concession. He pretendeth to refute a distinction between a Material Canonical Obedience, and a Formal Canonical Obedience: But hath nothing against it that is Argumentative. It is no great sign of Learning, that a Man who hath lived in, or near an University (as he mocking, saith of Mr. M. whose University Learning none that knoweth him will disparage) doth not understand this distinction: If any Usurper (whether in Church or State) command me to do what is antecedently my duty; I may do the thing so commanded, because it is my duty; here is Material Obedience; while yet I do not own the Power by which such an Usurper doth command me; nor would do the thing for his command, if it were not otherwise my duty to do it: Here is a refusing of Formal Obedience.
§. 47. Our Apologist's last Essay is from p. 58. to let us see the several periods of Episcopacy and Presbytry, in the Church of Scotland since the Reformation: And this he doth out of a Manuscript of a Person of great Honour, and true Learning, Collected out of the ancient Records of Parliament. I hope it will be no derogation from either the great Honour or the true Learning, of that Noble Person (whom I always have regarded as so qualified) to examine modestly what is there offered: Nor to say, that this Honourable and Learned Writer hath not shewed all that Impartiality in this Manuscript, that useth to commend a good Historian, While he entertaineth his Reader, not only with some representation of things that may suffer a little Correction; but with harsh words against the Presbyterians; calling them (p 58.) a company of Arbitrary Presbyters: That on it (the debate about Parity) followed much Blood, Confusion, Rapine, and other Mischiefs: And then, and since, every fiery Faction did lay hold on this Schism as a Fond whereon to build all Rebellion and Treason. p. 60. He calleth the General Assembly, a Famous Conventicle, ibid. And he speaketh of the Presbyterians, new Gospel, ibid. Mr. Andrew Melvill, and his fiery complices, p. 62. What fair History can be expected from a Person (of whatever Honour and Learning he be) who hath formed to himself, and representeth to others, such a monstruous Idea of the Men whom he designeth to Expose. He beginneth his Discourse with a Remark, (which it seems either the Author of the Manuscript, or the Apologist, or both, taketh for a concludent Argument against Presbyterians) that none of our Martyrs spake, or wrote against Bishops: But all who write of them, praise them for dutiful submission to their Bishops, and Superiours. A. 1. They had so many great abominations in the way that they opposed, to insist on, that it is no wonder they over lookt this: We know Luther opposed but few things in Popery, at first; now if he had been cut off by Martyrdom in the beginning of his Reformation, as these Worthy Men were; would his silence have been a good Argument for all these points of Popery that afterward fell under debate? 2. He confesseth the Martyrs spake against Popish Tyranny (which I hope he will acknowledge was exercised by the Bishops) I ask then, when they did thus condemn Tyranny in Bishops, did they own any Lawful Authority they had? Which might have been expected, if they had been of this Writers Opinion. Yea, it can be made appear, that some of them said the Pope hath no more power than another Man; and if this be said of the Chief Bishop, it may with better reason be said of his Underlings. 3. Where any Historian gave an account of the dutiful submission of these Martyrs to their Bishops I do not find; except it were while they were still in the Church of Rome, which is not to the purpose in hand. Another Argument he seemeth to bring from Cromwell, who turned off Presbytry at the Barrow-moor, being wearied with its Confusions and Insolencies. This needeth little answer; I hope this Author will not now own Cromwell's Actings, as Exemplary, and Instructive. Beside, that this Act is invidiously, and unfairly represented; For the place, nor the Cause of the Act, was not as here said: Cromwell was no Friend to Episcopacy more than to Presbytry.
§ 48. He saith he will next come to positive Evidences, all which are taken out of Spotswood's History, except a very few from the History that goeth under the name of John Knox, a few Animad-versions on such Passages as seem to question Presbytry being the first Church Government among the Scotch Protestants, is all that I need here to mind. He saith, p. 58 at the end, that five Superintendents were named for the Diocesses where the Bishops were Popish: For there are no Superintendents named for Galloway and Argile, because the Bishops of these Diocesses were Protestants. This is the Author's conjecture; no such Reason of that Conduct is given by Arch-Bishop Spotswood; out of whom he taketh his History. And indeed, it is contrary to Reason, as well as without Ground; for there were more Diocesses than six or seven in Scotland; and but two of the Bishops were Protestants (exore túo) why then did they not place Superintendents in the rest of the Diocesses; which behoved (by his own account) either to be Vacant, or furnished with Popish Bishops? Further, He, it seems, hath read the Author that he citeth, very carelesly; for Spotswood saith expresly, that one of the five Superintendents (viz John Kerswell) was placed in Argile and the Isles: And yet my Antagonist maketh Argile one of the two Diocesses in which the Bishops were Protestants: There must then be some other Reason for appointing these five Superintendents, and no more; than that the Bishops of these Diocesses were Popish: And it is evident from this very passage, that the Protestants did not own Episcopal Jurisdiction, in any Man, even though he were Protestant; seing they set a Superintendent in Argile, where the Bishop was Protestant; and tho' the Bishop of Argile did then sit in Parliament (as Spotswood hath it, p. 149. near the end) yet the Protestants set another over the Church in that Diocess. And it is also clear from this passage, that they did not look on a Superintendent and a Bishop, as the same, nor as having the same Authority in the Church. The material and great differences that are between a Superintendent (which the Protestant Church in Scotland in that case of necessity, did, for a time, allow at the Reformation) and a Bishop, may be seen at length, in Calderwood's History, p. 26, 27. whom; I hope I may, without blame, quote as well as he doth, that of Arch-bishop Spotswood, If it may be done without giving him offence (which he seemeth to take at my referring to mine own little Books) I would tell him, that all the weight that here, and after, he layeth on Superintendents being set over large districts, is taken off by what the Apologist might have read, and should have answered, if he had dealt fairly. 1st. Vindic. p 10.
§ 49. The next thing that the Manuscript taketh notice of is p. 59. That a Commission of the Assembly met at Lieth, 1572, in January, and agreed that vacant Bishopricks should be supplied: That Spiritual Jurisdiction should be exercised by Bishops: And that Ministers should be Ordained by them, or by Superintendents, where there were no Bishops: And that in August after, a General Assembly at Perth approved of all these Articles: And that Mr. Andrew Melvil, because not made a Bishop, stirred up one Mr. Dury, 1575 to impunge the Episcopal Order, and all Imparity; and that this was the first time that this Debate was tossed in our Church, which divided Church and State, &c. I shall with all due respect to his Lordship examine this History. And 1. I observe, that he bringeth no Vouchers for these passages; but we must take, on his own single Testimony, things that were beyond the memory or knowledge of his Father; of much more than a hundred years standing. 2. Arch bishop Spotswood expresly saith, p 260. That these Articles were admitted by the Assembly at Perth only for an interim, till a more perfect Order might be obtained from the King, Or Regent: And what that Order was, time did try; for not Episcopacy was afterward settled; but Presbytry. 3. It is a great mistake that they who made these Articles were a Commission of the Assembly, for that Meeting at Lieth was no General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, tho' Spotswood is pleased to call it so: Both Calderwood p 49. and Petrie Cent. 16. p 372 witness, that in the Register it is called a Convention; which word is always used for extraordinary Meetings, whether of Church or State. That Meeting did indeed Vote it self a General Assembly: For in the second Session, it was concluded that this Meeting should have the force and strength of a General Assembly; and that all things may be treated, and ended therein, that use to be treated and ended in a General Assembly. Also that the Moderator of the last Assembly shall continue till the next ordinary Assembly in March: And that all present should be there also. So both the Historians last cited. All this sheweth, that this was no Assembly, cloathed with the Authority of the Church of Scotland; and therefore its Acts were Null, and not binding: Besides, that it is expresly told us, That they who there met were only Commissioners from some Towns and Churches, with the Superintendents, and Commissioners for Visitation. 3 What was there concluded, was not by that Convention of Church men, but seven of them were delegated, who, or any four of them, should meet with such of the Secret Council as the Regent should appoint, and these were they who made this Innovation in the Church, by the Articles above mentioned. I hope none will say, that this was a Church Meeting, or what they did was the deed of the Church. 4. It is certain that this was not lookt on by the Church of Scotland as one of her General Assemblies: Not only because the General Assembly, appointed by the former Assembly, met at St. Andrews, a few Weeks after that Convention at Leith, viz. March 6. but likewise, they took no notice of the Arch. bishop of St. Andrews, tho' he sat among them, but chused Mr. Robert Hamiltoun, Minister of St. Andrews, to be their Moderator: Which they could not have done, had they owned a Prelacy in the Church. 5. It is known that this Act at Lioth was disliked, and witnessed against, by such as were not influenced by the Court, and by some Noble Men, who were making their own Gain by this new Constitution: And that it raised great Division: Patrick Adamson, in a Sermon, distinguished My Lord Bishop, viz. Such as were in the Popish Church. My Lords Bishops, viz. Such as the Lords had now devised, for their own advantage: And The Lord's Bishop, that is every Minister of the Gospel Mr. Knox, having preached in St. Andrews, the Earl of Mortoun being present, refused to inaugurate the new chosen Bishop of St. Andrews, Mr. John Do…glas: And he denounced Anathema to the Giver, and also to the Receiver. On this occasion Beza writ to Mr. Knox (his Epistle is extant among his Epistles, it is dated April 12. 1572.) applauding The pure Religion, and good Order that were settled in Scotland; and beseeching that they would hold fast these two; and to remember that if the one be lost the other cannot long continue. The following words of that Epistle are remarkable: As Bishops brought in 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 Pestilence: And seing 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 Unity; which pretence deceived the ancient Fathers: Yea, even many of the best of them. 6. The Bishops that then were set up, had little more than the Title; and therefore were called Tulchau Bishops: For the Church had the power: The Bishops power being expresly made no greater than that of the Superintendents, and being subject to the Church: And the Noblemen had the better part of the Benefices. 7. At the same time were brought in also Abbots and Priars, as well as Bishops; and for the same end, viz. That some Great Men, under their shadow, might reap the profits, only the Name, and some small Rent remaining to them: So that this whole contrivance was purely, and evidently a piece of State Policy not any inclination of the Church of Scotland to cast off Presbyterial Government, altho' some Church Men were drawn into it. 8. This Constitution never obtained in the Church of Scotland. For not only the names of Arch-bishops, and Deans were protested against in the Assembly, March 6, 1572. But never a Bishop was suffered to Moderate in any of the subsequent General Assemblies; and in several Assemblies Acts were made against Bishops, till at last, the General Assembly at Dundee, which begun July 12, 1580, did absolutely condemn the Office of Bishop, as then used; and commanded all Bishops to forbear the exercise of such Power: And to this effect appointed them to appear before the several Provincial Synods, where they lived. And afterward, Ann. 1592, Presbyterial Government was fully settled. 9. The Account given of Mr. Melvil is not fair; not only in that his opposition to Bishops is imputed to his not being preferred. For he was zealously opposite to Episcopacy before; and when he came to Scotland he refused Preferment at Court, when offered: But also, that the opposition that Mr. Dury, and others, made to Episcopacy is abscribed to his instigation. These Learned, and Worthy Men acted from their own light, and were not Tools to be used by another. A… opposition was made to Episcopacy before Mr. Melvil came to Scotland; as is clear from what is above said: Wherefore it was not the first starting of that Debate, when Mr. Dury appeared in the Assembly, 1575.
§ 50. I could not have expected from a Person of Honour and Learning, such an account of the Book of Policy made in the year 1578: As That it was stuffed with the Spirit of Mr. Andrew Melvil himself; it was rather a proposal for overthrowing of all Just Authority, than an Establishment of a Religious Government: That it could not (even in these distracted and furious times) obtain approbation of any Authority: But was lookt on as a Rapsody of groundless Assertions, and full of mischievous Novelties. This is not to write like an Historian. His Author, Spotswood, speaketh with more modesty of this matter: That the Book of Policy being presented to the States, they had not then leasure to peruse it; but gave a Commission to some of their number to conferr with the Commissioners of the Church: And if they did agree, to insert the same among the Acts of Parliament. So he p 289. That it was not rejected with such disdain, as his Lordship is pleased to express, is evident; not only in that nothing of such resentment of it, when proposed, is left on Record, by any Historian; but is the fierce Zeal of a new set of Episcopalians; not the temper of the old Protestant Church of Scotland; but Archbishop Spotswood p. 289. to 302. Setteth down all the Articles of that Book at length, and on his Margine, noteth what was agreed to, what was referred to farther reasoning, and what amendements of it were desired by the other Party. It is also observed by Calderwood, p. 116. That the delay of ratifying the Book of Policy, by the State, was much occasioned by what is contained in the eighth ninth and Tenth Chapters of it, concerning the disposing the Church Rents, otherwise than some great Men desired, and to their disadvantage, as they imagined. A piece of manifestly false History followeth, viz. Ann. 1580. An Assembly met at Dundee, called by Mr. Andrew and his Associates, without a shadow of any permission from the Civil Authority: Where they declared the Office of a Bishop to be without warrant from the Word of God. That they had not the Magistrates allowance is not only said without the Authority of any Historian, and is a pure invention of this Author: But it is certain, that then they had their Assemblies in Course, by the States allowance, and that the succeeding Assembly was appointed at the dissolution of the former. It is also asserted by Calderwood, p. 89. That the King sent two; the Prior of Pittenweens, and the Laird of Lundie, instructed with power to assist the Assembly with their Presence, and Counsell; from all which it is also evident to be a mistake, that this Assembly was called by Mr. Melvil and his Associates. The observation of our Author on the Assemblies declaring against Bishops, is the ordinary Gang of his Party; that it is against plain Scripture, the Doctrine of the Apostles (how this differeth from the former I know not) and of the Fathers, and the Canons of all Oecumenical Councils, and the rule of Apostolical and Primitive Practice. If he, or any else, will prove all this, our Cause must needs fall to the ground: But I have often read, and heard such confident Assertions, but never yet saw sufficient proof of them. It offendeth him highly, that in the end of the Act against Bishops, the Assembly referreth to the next Assembly to reason upon the disposing the Patrimony of the Kirks possessed by the Bishops; as if in this they usurped on the Kings Regale. But here is not one word of considering how They should dispose of this Patrimony; and I hope it is no Usurpation in Church-men, to advise and reason, in order to give their Opinion, and putting up their Supplication to them to whom it belongeth to dispose of it.
§. 51. His History of one Montgomery, who was zealous against Bishops, and yet did afterward Simoniacally bargain for a Bishoprick. I regard not: Not knowing the truth of it; nor being directed by him where to find it: And if it were true, it signifieth no more, but that once a professed Presbyterian was an Apostate: Which is so insignificant a story, and so little Argumentative in our Debate; that it is not worthy the writing. He misrepresenteth the procedure of the Church against Montgomery; as if when they were called to answer for illegal invasions on the Kings Authority, they did boldly protest; that tho' they compeared in Civility to the King; yet they did not acknowledge the Kings …on Councils right in any Ecclesiastical matter. I wish this Author had either read Spotswood's History (for others it is like he will not regard them) more carefully; or represented what account he giveth of this matter more faithfully▪ Which is (p. 316. &c.) that Mr. Robert Montgomery, Minister at Stirling, having made a vile Simoniacal bargain for the Bishoprick of Glasgow, was quarrelled by the Church, for this, and other gross things were also laid to his charge: The King allowed them to proceed against him on any thing they could charge him with in his Life, or Doctrine: But would not permit them to censure him for accepting the Bishoprick: Whereupon he was accused of gross Crimes; his Libel was sent to the King: The King left him to make his own Answer. After this the Presbytry of Stirling suspended him for disorderly Baptizing, he slighted this Sentence, and exercised his Ministry. Whereupon he was cited to appear before the Synod; of which the King being informed, warned the Synod to appear before him at Stirling; and discharged all proceeding against him; some of them appeared, and protested, that tho' in Obedience (not Civility, as our Author hath it) they had compeared, yet they did not acknowledge his Majesty, and the Council, Judges in the matter, it being a Cause Ecclesiasticall: They did not say, as the Manuscript hath it, that they did not acknowledge the King and Councils right in any Ecclesiastical matter. I shall say no more of this purpose; save that, not only the Presbyterians; but also not a few Episcopalians (especially when the Civil Authority acteth against their Interests, and Inclinations) do controvert, whither the Magistrate can hinder the Church to censure her own Members; when the matter is purely Ecclesiastical. I wish our Author would shew us what Invasion is made on the Kings Authority, when the Church censureth any person for Immoralities, that are manifest Scandals to the People, and do no way touch the Civil State.
§ 52. He next, p. 61. maketh an odious representation of the Kings being made Prisoner at Ruthven by some of the Nobility, and the General Assemblies approving of this Fact. It is here, in the first place to be observed; that this is wide from the design of the Apologist, in transcribing this Manuscript. The tendency of it is indeed to set forth the Presbyterians in as ugly a shape as is possible; which I confess our Apologist is passionately bent upon; but it no way contributeth to shew the Vicissitudes of Presbytry and Episcopacy in the Church of Scotland; for which he bringeth this Manuscript. Next I take notice, that he who wrote this Paper doth not give so fair account of this Affair as his Author, Spotswood, doth, who informeth us, p 320. &c. That some of the Nobility combining themselves, for defence of Religion, and the liberty of the Kingdom (as they pretended) did seize the King; and restrained the Duke of Lennox and the Earl of Arran (whose Counsels had given great discontent to the Nation) from the Kings presence: That the King, by a Proclamation, approved of the Act; discharged rising of Men to rescue him, commanded the Duke and Earl to depart out of the Nation: That the Queen of England advised the King to take in good part what the Lords had done; because of the danger that the perverse Counsels of the Duke of Lennox and Earl of Arran had brought the Nation into. That the Noblemen desired the General Assembly to approve this deed of theirs; which the Assembly would not do, till they consulted with the King himself; and till he desired them to do it: Confessing to them that Religion was in hazard; and indirect Courses taken to overturn it; and that his own hazard was joyned with that of Religion: And desiring that they for their own part, would help to remove the same. He sheweth also that this deed of the Lords was fully approved by a Convention of Estates at Edinburgh, called by the King. Let it then be considered, whether it be so monstruous a thing for the Church to shew her Opinion, when required, in concurrence with the King, and Estates of the Nation; whether the King did really think what he expressed, or what he acted was the effect of his restraint, it was not their part to consider. He quarreleth also with the Ministers appointing a Fast, when the King desired the Magistrates of Edinburgh to Feast the French Ambassadours. These Ambassadours came to overturn what the States of the Nation, called by the King, had concluded, and were odious to the Nation: The King was moved to appoint this Entertainment, by some Merchants, who Traded with France: The Fast was appointed by the Session of Edinburgh, the Presbytry was free of it, as was afterward publickly declared.
§. 53. Mr. Andrew Melvil's declining of the King as Judge in prima instantia, of what is preached by Ministers in publick which he bringeth as an accusation against the Presbyterians p 61.) is as far from the purpose, as what was formerly observed: It doth not shew any step of the prevalency of Presbytry and Episcopacy per vices; which is pretended to be the design of the Manuscript. For the thing it self I shall not give my Opinion; but only relate the Grounds all edged by him, on which he built this his practice; which were not only the word of God; but Acts of Parliament, and a late Conference betwixt some Lords of the Privy Council, and some Ministers; and the practice ensuing thereupon; that when a Minister is delated for any thing spoken in Preaching, or Prayer, he is first to be tryed by his Ordinary, whether Provincial or General Assembly. Also he pleadeth the Priviledge of the University of St. Andrews, lately confirmed by his Majesty; that when Offences were committed in the University, by Masters or Students, the Rector and his Assistants should be Judges in prima instantia, p. 61.62. He heapeth together a great multitude of reproaches against Mr. Andrew Melvil, and others of the faithful Servants of God, who could not comply with the actings of the Court, nor designs of some about it, to overturn the Religion setled in the Nation; but he giveth so indistinct an account of things, and so partially, that there is no other way to answer what he saith, but by a full History of these times; which it is needless for me to transcribe. The Reader may be satisfied of this Authors unfair dealing; even out of Spotswood's History, though his account of things might in some things be examined: But more fully out of Calderwood and Petrie. I do not deny, but that in the years 1585, and some that followed, there were great Animosities in Church and State; one Party endeavouring to preserve the reformed Religion and the Discipline of the Church, that had been used in Scotland from the Reformation, and was practised in almost all the Reformed Churches: The other Party labouring to overturn the one, and to weaken and undermine the other. And it is like these heats did drive both Parties to some Excesses and undue Practices: But unbyassed Men will see that the Presbyterian Party shewed all respect to Authority, even when they could not comply with its Injunctions; and what they did, that is by some constructed Unpeaceableness, was from the aw of God obliging them to appear in their Stations for his Ordinances: I except the imperfections, and overlashes that sinful Men are liable to, in managing that Zeal which is for God. I never thought that good Men did always manage a good Cause with that perfection of discretion that is to be wished. He concludeth this Accusation of the Brethren p. 62. with an account of his design, which is to shew the ground of their dislike of Parity: And as before, setteth in opposition to it, Scripture, Apostolick Practice, Fathers, Councils, and all well established Christian Churches, and that there is no imaginable warrant for it from any of these. This is partly answered above: For what he addeth to what he had said before, of well established Churches; he doth wisely in putting the Emphasis on Well; and therefore putteth that word in another Character: For if we object most of the Churches of the Reformation, he will deny them to be Well Established, because they want Bishops: Whatever they have beside to commend them. If we should muster up all the miscarriages of the Episcopal Party, and the Immoralities of Ministers and People that hath been among them; and the Pride, Tyranny, and Oppression of the Bishops; and the steps by which that interest hath been managed in Scotland; and should give a just Character of the States-men and Church-men, by whom it hath been carried on: It is like we might give a ground of our dislikes of Episcopacy, not inferiour to what he mentioneth; and much more weighty with all the true Lovers of serious Religion; but this way of Arguing is not what we lay much weight on, in debate with our Adversaries: Tho' I doubt not but that there is reason to think that that which is Christs Institution is usually found to be a more effectual mean for advancing true Religion in the Church, than that which is a device of Man.
§. 54. Our Author near the end of p. 62. maketh a great Concession (as he seemeth to imagine) when he telleth us, that in 1591, 1591, and 1602. The King being so often brought into danger and trouble, by the Seditions of Mr. Andrew Melvill, and his fiery Complices, did consent to grant a great deal of Jurisdiction to Presbytries, Synods, and General Assemblies. Here I take notice, 1. That when he cannot get the Truth denied, he endeavoureth to smother it; for not only a great deal of Jurisdiction was granted to the Presbyterian Church 1592, but all Church Power that any Presbyteria… did lay claim to, was by Law, settled on the Presbyterian Church Judicatories; and none at all wi… either given, or left to Bishops: For what else can be understood by ratifying all immunities and Freedoms whatsoever, given and granted by his Highness, his Regents in his Name, or any of his Predecessours; and at the same time, ratifying and approving General Assemblies appointed by the sai… Kirk, and Synods, and Presbytries, and particular Sessions; as the words of the Act of Parliamen… are. Moreover, that Act is conceived in a stile that supposeth Presbytry to be then, and to have been before, the Government established in the Church of Scotland; while it giveth those Libertie… to the True and Holy Church presently established within this Realm. His pretense, that this was a force on the King, to prevent Seditions, is a groundless assertion: For the King had often shewed dislike of the one way, and the other; and was for either of them as his interest led him, not being convinced of the Jus Divinum of either way. The story he telleth of Chancellour Maitland's advice, to settle Presbytry, in hope that they would make themselves odious, was but his Opinion; an… in this he proved no true Prophet. That there was no Act for the abolishing Episcopacy (as p. 63.) i… was no wonder; for it was as needless as when it is appointed a Tree shall be cut up by the Roots another injunction be given that the Tree shall fall: Was not Episcopacy effectually rooted up in Scotland, when all Church Power was put in the hand of Church Judicatories, where all Member… acted in Parity. That a Bishop baptized Prince Henry, is an odd Argument to prove that Episcopacy was the Government of the Church of Scotland. If the King was pleased to chuse a Man who onc… exercised Episcopal Jurisdiction, for that service, especially when Ambassadours were present, some of which lived where Episcopacy was exercised; it doth not follow that either this Bishop, or any other of his Character, did govern the Church. It is said without all warrant p. 63. That when three Lords were tried, the Ministers would needs order the Process and stirred up the Rabble to back them; nor would they disband, tho' prohibited by Proclamation from King and Council. The true History is, some Popish Noblemen were known, all the Nation over, to be guilty of dangerous plotting against the Reformed Religion, and designs to ruin the Professors of it: They had Friends at Court, so that they had too much advantage to carry on their designs: All the found Protestants in the Nation observed this, and saw the danger that they, and the true Religion was in; wherefore a Meeting of Barons, Ministers, and Burgesses (which when challenged by the King for their meeting, offered to make it appear that it was with sufficient warrant and advice from his Majesty) did petition the King that those Lords might be brought to Tryal; which was appointed to be done; the Protestants resolved to meet before hand to appoint some to prosecute the Criminals, which they did: Neither can it be made appear, that any violence was offered to any Person; and all that Spotswood saith of it is, p. 399. that great Companies came to Edinburgh; without mention of Arms or Violence: And indeed the danger was such, as it is no wonder that they who had Zeal for the true Religion were forward to cry for Justice, when they evidently saw that all Methods were used for palliating the matter, land protecting these Criminals, to the manifest hazard of Church and State. The Issue was, the Convention called by the King for trying these Lords, referred the matter to a Commitee, where they allowed some Ministers, whom they named, to be present; and to propose what they should think fit. Here is nothing of Ministers ordering the Process, nor of a Rabble in Arms.
§ 55. After all this, our Author doth still maintain, that in the years wherein Presbytry had mo… the ascendent, yet Bishops did exist by Law, enjoyed their Rents, and Preached in their Churches; fo… which he produceth many passages out of the Records of Parliament. It is well our debate is come to this issue, if this be all that he would prove, he shall not find us to oppose him. Our question is only, whether the Protestant Church after her Reformation, was governed by Bishops or by Presbyters acting in Parity. I know that long after the Reformation, even Popish Bishops sat in Parliament, enjoyed their Temporalities: And that in 1572 an image of Bishops was restored, and also o… Abbots and Priors; but even their pretended Power that they then got, was soon taken away: An… that many States-men who reaped most of the profits of these places made a great stickle to hold up that image, yea, and to give them more power in the Church than was due: But that in these times Bishops had ruling Church power (except in 1572, as is said) I utterly deny: Wherefore most of his Citations are wholly beside the purpose. I shall then only examine such of them as seem to make against what I have asserted. He saith p. 64. That the Authority of the Bishops is owned by Act 63. Parl. 5. Jac. 6. Ann. 1575 of which none of our Histories do take any notice: And the Act it self is, anent the visitation of Hospitals; all that is said of Bishops is, that they, and other Commissioners of Diocesses, shall visit Hospitals. I hope here is no Church power allowed them. In the year 1579, Act 71, Parl. 6. Jac. 6. there is no more said, but that young Noblemen or others, who had been out of the Country for their breeding, shall at their return go to the Bishop, or Superintendent, or Commissioner of the Kirk. Neither is this any governing Authority over the Church. The two following Citations are only to shew, that Bishops continued 1581, so that of 1587, and several others of his Quotations, design no more, but that Bishops existed by Law, sat in Parliament, some were presented to rich Benefices: All which is wide from the purpose. He saith that 1584, Act 132, Parl. 8. Jac. 6. the Bishops Authority is fully owned. It is indeed said in that Act, That Ministers may be deprived by the ordinary Bishop of a Diocess; or others the Kings Majesties Commissioners, to be constituted in Ecclesiastical Causes: Where it is evident, that Church power is placed in the King rather than in the Bishop: Who can by this Act do nothing but as he is the King's Commissioner, even in censuring of Ministers: If this be a full owning of Episcopal power, let him enjoy it: This making them the King's Bishops not Christ's; nor is there any thing beside in that Act, which alloweth them any Church power. But we have another Answer to this Quotation: That Parliament (saith Spotswood p 333) was declared Current at that time, for the more speedy dispatch of business; whereas the former was in October 1581, and is called in the Records the seventh Parl: and this is called the eighth Parliament; which is inconsistent with its being Current; or the former Parliament yet subsisting: But some things were to be done, that could not pass in a full Parliament; and therefore, as Calderwood hath it, p. 155, there was no intimation by Proclamation before the meeting of it; nor reasonable time granted, according to the accustomed order. It was almost ended before it was heard of: The Lords of the Articles were sworn to keep secret the matters to be treated. One of whom, tho' he would not reveal particulars; wrote to a Minister, that the whole intent of that Parliament was against the Kirk and the Discipline of it. These are the Methods by which Episcopacy and Erastianism behoved to be supported in these times, when they could have no Countenance from the Church, nor from the Nation.
§. 56. He next citeth a Conference at Falkland, 1596 where some Articles were agreed on, about some Ministers having Vote in Parliament, and that these were confirmed by an Assembly at Montross 1600, and there some Bishops Elected for Diocesses. It is not to be denyed, that there was a working toward Prelacy among some Courtiers; and Ambitious Churchmen, about that time: And one of their Methods was, to get some Ministers to Vote in Parliament; the tendency of this was seen, and the thing opposed by good Men: And even in Parliament it met with such opposition, that they hardly carried it. Yea, the making the Voter in Parliament for the Church perpetual, and that he should not be chosen yearly, was carried but by three Votes: However this was the beginning of that Apostacy that afterward came to a greater height; and the design of setting up Bishops did soon appear, however they for a time did labour to cover it. That which I chiefly observe here is, that this stickle that then was made for setting up some Ministers to Vote in Parliament, is an evidence against the whole of this Manuscript, viz. That Bishops did not then, nor always exist in the Reformed Church of Scotland: For if they had, they were the Men who should have sat in Parliament, to represent the Church; and there needed not such steps for bringing them into the Church. The story of Mr. Dury's Recantation at his Death, and owning Episcopacy. I find not in any of the Historians that I can meet with; neither hath our Author directed us where to find it: And if it were true, it proveth no more but that all and every one of the Presbyterians were not faithful to the end. For the General Assembly at Brantisland 1601, which he mentioneth; I have nothing to observe about it: For he alledgeth nothing there done toward the advancing of Episcopacy. Next he telleth us of an Assembly, at Holyrood House, and of the Kings Clemency to some Ministers: And his proposals for Provisions, both for Bishops and Presbyters; this was 1602. Here is a great mistake: The King did not mention Bishop in his Proposals, as they are set down by Spotswood, p. 468. The overtures about this were made by the Assembly at the Kings desire. Neither are Bishops there mentioned. The words are, Tha… Prelacies should be disponed to actual Ministers, Churches annexed thereto being provided sufficiently, and the tenth of the Superplus paid to the King, or otherwise that all the great Benefices be dissolved; th… Prelate enjoying the Principal Church and Temporal Lands; and the Churches annexed disponed to Ministers: Both they and the Prelate paying a yearly duty to the King. Where I take notice, 1. That Prelate, in the Dialect of that time, did rather signifie an Abbot or Prior, than a Bishop: At least when ever it is used in the History of that time especially, by Spotswood, it comprehendeth all the three. Wherefore, 2. It cannot be gathered from this passage, that Bishops did otherwise exist than Abbots and Priors: That is, that some Church-men had the Titles, and some States men had the Revenues; but neither of both had Church Authority above ordinary Ministers. And 3. This is clear, that before this, Men had these Prelacies who were not actually Ministers: Which maketh plainly against the existence of Diocesan Bishops with Governing power, at that time. 4. The dissolution of all great Benefices, that is there propounded by way of Alternative doth shew, that it was not the mind of that Assembly that either Bishops, or Abbots, or Priors should continue so much, as to enjoy the Temporalities that formerly they possessed; so far is it from designing that Bishops should be provided for, and advanced, as such: It only provideth for the Minister of the place, where a Lord Bishop once ruled.
§. 57. His Assertion of the activity of hot headed Presbyters in stirring up prejudices against the Church of England: And his high Elogies of that Church, which he insisteth on p. 66. I shall not stand upon; seing he hath neither mentioned particulars nor given any ground for what he affirmeth. If Presbyters were then active to preserve the Government of the Church then established; it was a seasonable and necessary duty, that every one was bound to make Conscience of in his station. For then might they rationally fear that the King who had been influenced by some Corrupt Men, to oppose the settling of Presbytry, would now be more bent, and had more advantage, to overturn it, as indeed it fell out. In the business of the Assembly at Aberdeen, which he aggravateth with all his Rhetorick, I shall not interpose my Opinion: I find it diversly represented, by divers Historians. I am sure whatever he make of it, he cannot draw from it this conclusion, that Episcopacy then took place in Scotland, which is the design of his Manuscript. The tale that concludeth the Manuscript about the Chancellour and the Ministers, I find not in History, nor are we directed where it is to be sought for, and therefore I neglect it, being assured that these Men who had appeared so much, and with so much hazard, against Popery, would not be guilty of conniving at it.
§ 58. The Apologist having transcribed this Manuscript from p. 67. maketh a number of Inferences from it. All which do fall to the ground by the answers already given to the Paper it self, which is the foundation of them: And most of them are particularly obviated in what hath been said. The 1. is answered §. 47. where it is shewed, our Martyrs had no occasion to consider the Government of the Church, being exercised about greater points, that needed Reformation. That the first Reformers submitted to the Episcopal Jurisdiction of Protestant Bishops; is absolutely false: For he cannot make it appear that any such Jurisdiction was exercised at, or soon after the Reformation. The 2d. That Episcopacy was never legally abolished, is disproved § 54. That Presbyterians always watched the difficult Circumstances of the King; which is the third, is not true: They did in all Circumstances endeavour to settle the Discipline and Order of the Church▪ His fourth; asserting the Presbyterians pleading exemptions from the Secular Powers, as the Papists, is not only false, but shamelesly affirmed. The 5th is answered §. 54▪ The 6th. Episcopacy was not quarrelled, as unlawful in it self, in these times. Not only is no way deducible from any thing said in the Manuscript: But is false; and affirmed against the clearest light that such a matter is capable of: Doth not even the Book of Discipline (in which all the Presbyterians of these times agreed) declare Episcopacy to be contrary to the word of God; while cap. 2d. it saith, He (God) willeth that they should rule with mutual consent as Brethren; with an quality of Power, every one according to their Function. And there are four ordinary Offices in the Kirk of Christ; the Office of Pastor, Minister, or Bishop; the Doctor, the Presbyter, or Elders and the Deacon: And after, no more Offices ought to be received, or suffered in the Church of Christ established according to his word.
§. 59. For the Eighth. Whatever he fancy of the Royal Authority being forced to all that was granted to the Presbyterians: Let him answer for this Imputation of Hypocrisie and Dissembling in the King that then was; It is enough to us, that the Church Power was granted to Presbyterians, by King and Parliament: and that they declared they did it willingly and sincerely. The Tenth (according to his wonted Charity and Candor) maketh the Vindicator's Book to be one intire shuffle from top to bottom: And his ground is, the Presbyterians of old did some very ill things: And yet the Vindicator would perswade the World, that Presbyterians are not capable of such Villanies, as the rabbling of the Clergy. I wish he would learn to speak Truth, and to use a little more Reason in his Discourses. The Vindicator hath said nothing of the Capacity of Presbyterians: They are sinful Men, and capable of very bad things, if the Lord leave them: All that was asserted (and it is made evident against all h…s attempts) is, that the Presbyterians did not do such things, as he, and others of his Gang, charge them with. For these odious things that he chargeth the Presbyterians of the former age with: Enough hath been said for their Vindication by others; tho' I had been silent. Let him read Mr. Baillies pieces, and answer them if he can. His impugning of the distinction between Cameronians and Sober Presbyterians, hath been answered before; but he loveth to repeat, rather than to say nothing. The Eleventh Inference is, That Presbyterians have no principle of Unity; because the lesser number may remonstrate against the greater, so as to stop the course of Discipline. This last Clause is groundless: For the greater part of a Church meeting may go on in the exercise of Discipline, whatever be remonstrated to the contrary, by the lesser part; nor doth the Manuscript give any ground to think that Discipline could not be exercised because some did remonstrate against it. For the former part of his Inference, I gladly would know, whether that principle of Unity be owned among his Party; that none may remonstrate against what the Bishop or the greatest part of the meeting doth. If so then the Consciences of Men like Issachar's Asse, must tamely couch under the burden of whatever is imposed: And if my Lord Bishop, and the plurality of his Clergy, decide all the Controversies between us and Papists on the side of the Romish Synagogue, no man may mutter, or reclaim. It was an ancient Maxim, even in the Canon Law, Cuivis supplicare & protestari licet. To deny this is to banish Conscience, or to bring in that Atheist…cal Principle, that our Actions must be directed not by our own, but by the publick Conscience. The last Inference doth not differ from the former, but to make up the round dozen, he hath put it in other words which labour under the same evil that he there chargeth others with, viz. General words, which at the bottom have no particular signification: For he chargeth us with Tyranny, Disobedience, poisonous Principles, that we slie in the face of Authority, &c. And all this made out by the protestation against the General Assembly, 1651, which he setteth down at length. We have now (through the mercy of God) buried that unhappy difference. And the Revivers of it should reflect on the Builders of Jericho ▪ I shall only say as before, that to condemn all Protestations and Remonstrances against any company of Men who pretend to Church Authority, or against whatever a Lawful Authority doth, is to take from Ministers, and People, the liberty of professing and owning the Truth of God.
I have now done with this Apology. The Postscript I meddle not with, it is in answer to a Paper. The Author of which can make a Reply, if he thinketh fit.
FINIS.
End of the text · Gilbert Rule, Defense of the Vindication of the Church of Scotland (1694)