The Good Old Way Defended, Treatise · Section 8

The Good Old Way Defended · Treatise · Section 8

p. 155SECTION VIII.

Animadversions on the Book called the Fundamental Charter of Presbytery.

I Had resolved not to meddle with the ill Natured Author of the Fundamental Charter of Presbytery, further than I have done in answering his malicious Preface; Appendix to Cyprianick Bishop Examined; judging it more proper for some States Man, or one who is versed in the Law: his Book being a direct Refutation of an Act of Parliament, which he treateth very saucily: but finding, that they neglected his Book, and think it below them, unless they could also find his Person; and considering the affinity of what he treateth with what I have been now controverting with another (if not the same) Author, here speaking more dareingly, from behind the Curtain, on second thoughts, I judg'd it not amiss to take notice of what he sayeth, in some short animadversions (such as I have already made upon his Preface) in so far as he opposeth Presbyterian Government. I intend not to explain an Act of Parliament (I know the hazard of that from the experience of others) but I designe to shew how far the Presbyterians own what he opposeth: insisting only on what seemeth to be argumentative in his Book, and overlooking the Virulent Sallies of his Pen; which touch not this matter. He divideth his discourse into eighth Enquiries: I shall consider what he saith on each of them.

§ 2. His first Enquiry is, Whether the Church of Scotland was Reformed solely by Persons Cloathed with the Character of Presbyters. I observe two Mistakes (to give them no worse Names) in thus stating the Question. First, it is enough to us, if our Reformers were mostly, though not solely Presbyters: if a Bishop or two joyned in the Reformation, it doth not hinder that Persons of inferior Degree in the Church that then was, were the Men on whom lay the weight of this Work. Secondly, it is not so much material what Character our Reformers bare when they were yet Papists, as what Station they had in the Reformed Protestant Church in this Nation: or what Order they endeavoured to set up in this Church, when they had withdrawn from Subjection p. 156to the Roman Hierarchy: for our Concernment is to know what were the Principles of our Reformers, being now Reformed, (for before their Conversion they were all Episcopal) and how they setled this Church with respect to her Government. But to gratifie my Adversary a little, I so far yield to the State of his Question, as to maintain, that few, if any, had an Active Hand in the Reformation, who had been Popish Bishops: but they moved in a lower Orbe in the Popish Church, who were helped of God to be Instrumental in that blessed Work. If he would have cleared the Question, he should have told us what he meaneth by Presbyters in the Popish Notion of that Word: For that Antichristian Society had left scarce either Name or Thing of the Order and Offices that Christ had appointed in his House, but confounded all, and builded a Babel of their own devising. To prove that our Reformation was not by Presbyters, he telleth us of eight Prelates in the Reforming Parliament 1560, who all turned Protestants: this is little to the purpose; for 1. The Reformation from Popery had made some Progress before that time, Preachers, and some private Men, did more for the turning Persons to the Truth, than Parliament Men did. 2. Eight in all Scotland was but a small Number: if there had been no more Hands at the Work, it had gone slowly on. 3. Among all these eight, there were but two Bishops, the rest were Prelates indeed, in the Popish Sense; Abbots, and such like; but I hope this Author will not say they were such as Protestants count Prelates; or that they have superior Power in the Church, to Presbyters. 2. He telleth us, that they who laboured most in the Reformation, were not in Holy Orders, and nameth some of them. Ans. Then I hope they were no Bishops. It is true, many of these worthy Men had no Ordination in the Popish way, nor were they Presbyters in that Church; but when they turned Protestants, they were made Presbyters, and not Bishops. Yea, Claud. historic. def. of the Reformation, part 4. page 15. saith, that in many Nations (among whom he nameth Scotland) the Reformation was made by the Consent of the greatest part of their Pastors: to wit Monks, Preachers, Priests, Curats, Canons, &c. And it is as certain as History can make it, that not a few of the inferior Clergy turned Protestants; whereas himself confesseth there were but two Bishops, Argyle and Galloway. Some of them, and these of good Note, and who were eminently blessed with Success, were but Lay-Men, (as he frazeth it) who by their private Labours converted many, and were at last Authorized to Labour in the Gospel more publickly, p. 157by such Ordination as then could be had; but they were never exalted to be Bishops. Let me digress a little, to observe that the Laird of Dun (by this Authors account) was after made a Superintendent; but never received into Holy Orders, by any thing that appeareth: whence I infer, that in the Opinion of that time, a Superintendent was not the same with a Bishop: which our Brethren use to plead for. I shall not insist on the further Proofs he bringeth of his Answer to the first Enquiry: they amount to no more, but that there were but few Ministers: and many Reformers were Lay Men: to all which I Answer; this sheweth that Presbyters, and Persons of an inferior Rank to Bishops, had a far greater Hand in the Reformation than Bishops had. It was far otherwise in England; where the State carried on the Reformation; whereas in Scotland, the greatest, both in State and Church, opposed it as long, and as much as they could: and even the two Bishops whom he mentioneth, did rather comply with the Reformation, than actively promote it: notwithstanding of all which, it is unbecoming a Protestant, to call our Reformation violent, and disorderly: as he doth, p. 7. out of Spotswood.

§ 3. The second Enquiry is, Whether the Scots Reformers, what ever were their Characters, were of the present Presbyterian Principles? whither they were for the Divine Institution of Parity; and the Unlawfulness of Prelacy among the Pastors of the Church? here he taketh a great deal of Liberty to Comment, and try his Critical Skill, on the Article of the Act of Parliament which he had undertaken to baffle. In which it is not my Province to interpose: I am little concerned in this whole Enquiry: if it be granted that Parity, and not Prelacy; was the Church Government that they chused. If this Debate have any Influence on the Controversie between us and our Brethren, it will make more against themselves than against us: for not only our Reformers were further from owning a Divine Right of Prelacy than of Parity; but they chused this, and rejected that: notwithstanding that they had been bred in the owning of it, under Popery. We think it was a great Testimony given by them to Parity, that they shewed so much Zeal for it, as they did, though they had not that Light about it, that after times afforded. It is certain, that that Dispute which had so long, by the Tyranny of the Bishops, been buried and forgotten, (except among the Church in the Wilderness, which few knew of, the Waldenses) could not at first be so fully understood, as by further Enquiries it came to be. Notwithstanding, p. 158it is evident that our Reformers lookt on Parity as Juris Divini, though they did not much insist on the Debate about that: for in the Book of Policy, Chap. 1. they have these words, this Ecclesiastical Authority is granted by God the Father, through the Mediator Jesus Christ, unto his Kirk, gathered (not to a single Bishop) and hath ground in the Word of God, to be put in Execution by them, unto whom the Spiritual Government of the Kirk, by lawful Calling, is committed. Here it is plain, that they are not for Indifferency of the form of Government: and chap. 2. There is this Article; and to take away all occasion of Tyranny, he (that is God) willeth that they should rule with mutual consent, as Brethren, with equality of Power, every one according to their Function. And after, there are four, ordinary Functions, or Offices, in the Kirk, the Office of the Pastor, Minister, or Bishop; the Doctor, the Presbyter or Elder, and the Deacon. Where it is evident, that they own no Bishop Superior to any ordinary Minister; but make the Identitie of them to be of Divine Right.

§. 4. I think it not worth the while to make a strict Examination of the Proofs he bringeth, that our Reformers were not for a jus divinum of a Paritie, for if it were yielded, it doth not hurt our Cause. And his Arguments are verbose, tedious, and insignificant. I shall only point at them, and the Answers that may be made to them. There is, p. 9. &c. no such Controversie was then Agitated in Europe; the Popes Supremacy was Debated, but not Prelacy; Ans. nihil sequitur, our Reformers assert the Conclusion as I have shewed: but they and others were taken up in debateing greater Matters with the Papists: He doth falsly assert, p. 10. that Churches, when they are Reformed, set up a Church Government sutable to the Model of the State, as in Geneva, which was a Common-wealth, they set up Paritie. For who readeth Calvins Writings may see, that they built on another Foundation; even Divine Institution, and our own Countrey is an instance to the contrary: Paritie was in the Church, and Monarchy in the State. He calleth it impudence to cite Calvine for this jus Divinum: but if the Reader be at the pains to look into the Citations that this Author hath scraped together, to shew Calvin to be for Indifferency of the form of Church Government, he will soon see on whose side the impudence is. He confesseth that Beza foundeth upon Scripture: 131. but alledgeth that he no where calleth Episcopacy absolutely or simply unlawful. If Christ hath instituted a Form, as it must be if one Form be built on Scripture; I see not what is further necessary to prove an opposite Form, inconsistent with that, to be absolutely or simply unlawful. He p. 159telleth us, ibid. that Beza saith, that humanus Episcopatus is tollerable, if duely bounded, by the pure canons of the ancient Church: and I say the same: for then it would be no more but a Presidencie; which doth not destroy Paritie. He citeth also a number of seeming concessions out of Calvine: but they amount to no more than the lawfulness of a foreign in the Church; which is not our Debate. If Beza was not for separating from a Church because it was Episcopal; no more are we: unless that Episcopal Church impose unlawful terms of Communion on us. His second Proof is, our Reformers had no peculiar Motives, or occasion for adverting to the evil of Prelacy: nor interest to determine them to Paritie: nor were more sharp sighted to see the evil of Prelacie than other Reformers. Ans. a thousand such Arguments as this cannot conclude against a plain Matter of fact: I have shewed that they were for the Divine right of Paritie; wherefore it is in vain to tell us that they had no Motive to be of that Opinion. He falsly supposeth that other Reformers were not of the same Sentiments; seing most of them except England, set up the same Government. Thirdly, He argueth thus, none of the Confessors, or Martyers, or they who had most hand in bringing the Reformation to perfection, have given that as their Opinion. And here hath a long Discourse of some other Opinions that several of them vented, they Declaimed loudly against the Bishops of these times; but what is that to the Order, p. 8. they Declaimed against the Shavelings as well as against Bishops; against Presbyters as well as Bishops, p. 19. And he hath a long Debate, with some of our Historians, about the Opinion of John Knox in this matter, which, meerly to save time, I shall not concern my self in. Ans. It being evident, that in our first Setlement of Discipline, our Church declared for the Divine right of Paritie, negative Arguments from the Writing, or sayings, of private Men are insignificant: and it is less to the purpose, to tell us of their other Opinions which have no relation at all to this Matter. He cannot so much as alledge that any of them have said, or Written any thing to the contrarie, directly or indirectly. For his Debate about John Knox, I judge he hath said nothing that can satisfie any imbyassed Reader, that these Historians had not ground to think that Master Knox lookt on Prelacy as a sinful thing, and against Christs Institution; That imparitie was Established by the first Book of Discipline, is falsly supposed, p. 22. Superintendencie is no sufficient Proof of it; of which after.

§. 5. His next Proof beginneth p. 38. and is managed in a large Historical acount, of what influence England had on our Reformation p. 160from Popery: whence he inferreth, that our Reformers proceeded on the same Principle with the Reformers of England. Here he undertaketh two things; 1. To shew what influence England had on our Reformation. 2. That our Reformers were generally of the same mind with the Church of England, in several momentous instances relating to Constitution and Communion, the Government and Policy of the Church. For Ans. to this Argument; it is wholly inconsequential, if he never so fully Prove all that he hath mentioned; except the last, about the Government and Policy of the Church: and even that signifieth nothing, unless he Prove that by the influence of England our Reformers were for prelacy; and not for Paritie; and that as Instituted by Christ. Wherefore I pass over the laborious proofs he brings of the other things, and shall consider his last Article; and what he saith for what he hath asserted about it. The Reader, without my Animadversion, will take notice of his unmanly depressing of his Native Countrey, and fawning on another Nation. This assertion that we oppose is not proved by our Reformers Communicating with the Church of England (which he insisteth on from p. 7.) it only proveth that they thought Episcopacy did not unchurch a Society that was otherwise sound in the Faith. And if some three or four of them did serve in the Church of England under Bishops (for which we have no more but Arch-Bishop Spotswoods word) this might either be by the Indulgence of the Reforming Bishops, not requiring of them these Terms of Communion that the late Bishops did of these who got Places under them: or it signifieth no more but that one or two Men of a Partie were of more Latitude in their Principles than the rest were. For what is said of some of them approving the English Lyturgy, is less to his Question, which is only about Government. We never thought that our Reformers, at first, were all of the same Principle with us in all things: I am sure they were far from being of all the Sentiments of the present Episcopal Church. Yea themselves had afterward, other thoughts of some things, than they had at first: as Luther held many Popish Opinions at first, which afterward he rejected. I observe further, that in many of his Historical passages about some of these Reformers, his best ground for what he affirmeth is, it is not to be imagined, that they did so and so: or it is to be presumed. We must then believe the Truth of Matter of Fact on his fancy, that so it must be. If I thought it worth the while, I would Examine these Histories more narrowly. But I could easily yield him all, without prejudice to our Cause: seing the Principles of our Reformers are better p. 161known by their publick Deeds, than by the private Sayings, or Practices of two or three of them; and these not sufficiently attested. These good Men did much rejoyce in the Reformation of the Doctrine of the Church of England, as also in her casting off the load of humane Ceremonies, by which she had been burdened; but that all, or most of them, were satisfied with their Government and Discipline, is the Question; and is not Proved by what he hath said. It is least of all Concludent, that these of the Church of England had good Opinion of the Church of Scotland: which he laboureth to Prove, p. 80. and it is unaccountable, that p. 81. he layeth on so much stress on our Reformers saying of England, that they were of the same Religon with us: which he puteth in majusculis: we say the same of them at this day: and I hope they think not otherwise of us: and yet we think Paritie to be juris divini. If he can find a Contradiction here, let him try his Skill to discover it. It is an odd method that he useth, p. 85. he will prove that the Scots Reformers were for Episcopacy, because it was natural for the English, who had assisted in the Reformation to demand it. And I Prove they were not for it, because, de facto, they did not setle it, but a way inconsistent with it. Let the Reader judge whether of these two Arguments is most concludent. We do not find that the English made such a Demand, and if they did not, they acted like discreet Neighbours, not to impose on their Brethren, who had other sentiments of the Matter, and who agreed with them in the main points of Religion. And if they made such a Demand, the Event shewed that it was not listned to. For his Citation of Buchannan, p. 88. that Scoti ante aliquot annos Anglorum auxiliis è servitute Gallica liberati, Religionis cultui & ritibus cum Anglis communibus subscripserunt: himself confesseth that no other Historian hath mentioned it; and he hath taken care that we shall not be able to Examine Buchannans words, by mentioning Buch. 7. 14. in a Book of so many diverse Editions: who can hope to find the place? I know not what Buchannan could mean by it; but it is evident, if the Scots did so subscribe, they did not act accordinglie; which was no Sign of their Inclinations that way: It is nauseous to repeat, with him, so often, the Godly Conjunction, the Unity, Peace, and Christian Concord, that was then made between England and Scotland; and to set forth this as a Demonstration: Yea, a Set of Demonstrations, that the Scots Reformers were Episcopal: nothing can be more ridiculous than to talk at this rate, in the Face of Matter of Fact, that they settled Parity as soon as they could settle any Order in the Church.

p. 162§ 6. He undertaketh, p. 96. and forward, to prove, that at the Reformation, the English Lyturgy was used in this Church. If this should be granted, it cannot prove that the English Church Government was used also: they wanted qualified Ministers, so that there was need of some help to them, in Praying and Instructing the People publikly; and it may be, there was no other that they could, at that time, use, and they had not so fully discovered what might be, and afterward was, excepted against in it; and therefore used it for a time: but I think he will not deny, that as soon as they could, they laid it aside; and made use of that more Unexceptionable Form of Geneve; till at last, that was difused also, as a Man layeth by his Crutches, when he getteth Strength to go by himself. He sheweth wonderful Skill in Logick. p. 98. Calderwood had said that the English Lyturgy, which was read in the new Colledge in Saint Andrews, was not of any continued Practice in time by past, since the Reformation; Ergo, it was practised at the Reformation. Whatever may be said of the Consequent, the Consequence is no better than this, I never used to smoak Tobacco in any continued Practice since I was born, Ergo, I did it when I was born, p. 101, &c. he telleth us of another Principle, wherein our Reformers agreed with them of England: that the Church had a great Dependence on the State: that it belonged to the Civil State to reform the Church: that the People might appeal from the Church to the Civil Magistrat, &c. this is still, extra oleas vagari. I shall not so far digress from the purpose in hand, as to consider what the present Presbyterians hold as to these Assertions: nor need I compare the Opinion of our Reformers with ours in this matter: if he can charge us with Hetrodoxy on this head, we shall Answer him when he will. This whole Discourse is impertinent: it doth not prove that our Reformers were for Episcopacie: and if it did, it is no good Consequent; that we should be for it too. I have alreadie said, that we never thought our Reformers were, in all things, of the same Opinion with the present Presbyterians: and I am sure, that he hath far less cause to think that they were for all that the present Prelatists hold. Another thing more he sheweth; that the Scots and English Reformers agreed in this, p. 105. that they took for the Rule of Reformation, the Word of God, interpreted by the Monuments and Writings of the Primitive Church. And here he enlargeth in the Commendation of this Rule, and obliquely chargeth the Presbyterians with all the Horrid Rebellions, and Unchristian Divisions, unaccountable Revolutions, both in Church and State, which p. 163have Unbinged all the Principles of Natural Justice and Honesty, and Disabled, nay eaten out, the Principles of Christianity among us; that now we are not so much disposed for any thing, as for Atheism. Which Strain I find is common with Men of his Stamp: but it is most disingenuous Dealing: for the World knoweth where the Fault of our Divisions dothly: and whether Atheism, Immoralitie, and Injustice have thriven more under the Influence of Prelacie, or of Presbyterie. For the Revolution that he seemeth to be so angry with, the Presbyterians think it their Glorie to have Countenanced it: and the Bodie of the Prelatists (in England I mean, not in Scotland) will not disowne their Accession to it; nor will they look on it (as this Author and some others do) to have Unbinged the Principles of Natural Justice and Honesty. The Rule of Reformation that he had mentioned, he saith he will bring in again by and by, where we shall attend him.

§ 7. He telleth us, p. 106, &c. of his Performances, which he recapitulateth; and concludeth, in the highest Measure of Confidence that Words can express, that our Reformers were not for the Divine Right of Parity. I am so dull that I cannot see this Point proved, for all that he hath said: and if it were proved, it is nothing to our main Cause; we never said that they were in all things, either as Presbyterians, or as Prelatists are now, in their Opinions; all that we assert is, that they were for Paritie, and practised it as the Government of the reformed Church of Scotland, and it is more than probable, that they were for its Divine Right. In what followeth, his Confidence ariseth yet higher, and that in the Entrance of what now he is attempting, and about which he maketh very large Promises, p. 108. where he pretendeth to give plain, positive, direct, and formal proofs of his Assertion, to as high a degree, as the nature of the thing is capable of, or can reasonably bear. For performance of this; his first Attempt is, in a Petition of the Reformers to the Government; this is one Article, as it is set down by Lesly, de rebus gestis, Scotor. lib. 10. p. 504. Ut Episcopi deinceps & Pastores, illi Dominorum ac Nobilium cujuscunque Diocesis, hi parochorum assentione, ac voluntate ad beneficia cooptentur. There is nothing Answerable to the Evidence so confidently promised by him: it is no positive, plain, &c. Proof: the matter could bear more, viz. if Lesly had said, that however, the Schismaticks, (as he calleth them) were for abolishing the old Doctrine, that they were for keeping up the ancient Hierarchie. But that this is no sufficient Proof of his Conclusion; I shew, 1. Supposing Lesly's Veracitie, and p. 164fair Representation of the Address that the Reformers made, no more can be concluded from it, but that it is supposed, that the Revenues of Bishops could not quickly be alienated, and that some must be chosen to enjoy them, that they might be so and so chosen: here is not a Word of chusing Bishops to Exercise that Office over, or among the Protestants: and it is well known, that the Rents of Bishops, Abbots, Priors, and other Dignitaries of the Church of Rome, did continue; and Men were chosen to the Name, and Rent, of these Places, who did not Exercise the Power that Men under these Names had in Popery. 2. Himself confesseth, that this Article of the Petition is otherwise rendred in Buchannan, and Spotswood; viz. Ut Ministrorum electio juxta antiquam Ecclesiae consuetudinem penes populum esset. Here is no Word of Bishops: and one may think, that we have more Cause to Credit these two Protestant Historians than Lesly, a Papist; who, on all Occasions, sheweth his Spite against Protestants: especially Spotswood, an Arch-Bishop, would not have neglected to make use of this seeming Countenance to his Cause. This Author hath no other Shift to take off the Edge of this Exception, but to tell us, that Buchannan minded Matters of State most in History: and Spotswood is very defective in many parts of his History: which is indeed to say, that neither of them is to be much regarded: but Lesly is the Man: if it be so, we must look on the whole of our Reformation, with a very unfavourable Eye. Whither this will seem absurd to this Author, or not, I know not. He is at a great deal of Pains to prove, that Lesly did not Forge this Article; and bringeth no fewer than six Arguments to prove it: which I judge not worth my Labour of Examining them: only this Reply I return to them all: what if he Misworded the Article, though he did not Forge it? the other Historians have the same Article, only they have not the Word Bishops, in which lyeth the whole force of our Authors Argument.

§ 8. His next Argument, which beareth positive, plain, &c. Evidence, is from another Petition of our Reformers, set down in the History commonly ascribed to John Knox, p. 131. a large Portion of which he Transcribeth; I shall Compendize it, without taking any thing from its Strength on his Side: they require that the ill Lives of Prelates, and the State Ecclesiastical, may be Reformed; and Declare that they envy not their Honours, nor covet their Possessions; but desire their Reformation: and they add, that we are content, that not only the Rules and Precepts of the New Testament, but also the Writings of the Ancient Fathers, and the Godly and Approved p. 165Laws of Justinian the Emperor, decide the Controversie betwixt us and them: and they earnestly desire, that notwithstanding the long Custom they had to live at their Lust, they may be compelled either to desist from Ecclesiastical Administration, or discharge their Duties as becometh true Ministers. Let us now hear what Improvement he maketh of this Passage to his purpose: he telleth us, that here our Reformers lay down a Complex Rule for Reforming of the Church: and we refuse not to try it with our Opposites, in the Controversie about Prelacy, by this Complex Rule: but with these two Limitations, which cannot be made appear to be inconsistent with what is there expressed by our Reformers: one is, that all the Parts of this Complex Rule, be not lookt on as of Co-ordinat Authority; but that the rest be subordinate to the Holy Scripture: we are not afraid of the Verdict of the Fathers of the first Ages; but if they should be found in any thing to recede from Scripture, we reject them. The other is, that the Laws of Justinian, which our Reformers mention, be rather lookt on as a Rule concerning the Temporalities of Church Men, than their Spiritual Jurisdiction. He next saith, that our Reformers were content that the Clergy should live and rule, and discharge their Trust, as they did in the days of Justinian: and now, saith he, if they who so Petitioned, were for Parity, and not for the Continuance of Prelacy, I must confess my Ignorance to be very gross. Ans. I shall not determine whither Ignorance, or somewhat else hath led him into a gross Mistake of the Meaning and Design of these Petitioners: but a Mistake seemeth to be evident. They were not so absurd, as to make the Roman Civil Law the Rule of Religion: we know how that hath been altered, and reformed oftner than once; whereas the Rule of Religion is unalterable by the Authority of Men; wherefore they can mean no more, but that they are willing that Prelates should enjoy their Benefices, (this for Peace sake they yielded too) as they were setled by the good Laws of Justinian: (where a Limitation even in that is insinuated) and that the Lives and Authority of the Pastors of the Church, should be regulated by Scripture and the Writings of the Fathers in Subordination to that, Justinian lived in the sixth Century, when Prelacie was far advanced in the Church: wherefore they had Acted very absurdly, if they had been for that way, and yet so quickly settled among themselves (contrarie to the Inclinations of their Friends in England, to whose Assistance they owed very much) a way so opposit to that. Our Reformers, the Nobilitie, Gentrie and Ministers, were neither so unfaithful, nor so changeable, as to p. 166be influenced by one or two Men to such an absurd Course. I add to all this, that it is most absurd to say, that the Church of England took the Writings of the ancient Fathers for the Rule of the Reformation, or for any part of it: for indeed, by that Rule, there will be found a Canonical Nullitie in the Power of all their Bishops; on account of their being chosen by the Magistrat, and sitting in Parliament: for Canon. Apost. (confirmed by Concil. Constantinop. 6. Canon 29. revived by Con. …il Nicen. 2. Canon. 3.) condemneth the one, and Can. 6. and 80. the other.

§ 9. After mentioning another Petition of the Reformers, which containeth no new matter, he cometh from p. 119. to prove, that the first Church Government that our Reformers settled, was not Paritie, but Superintendency: All that he saith on this head, hath been often answered; and it hath been made plain, to the Conviction of them who will see, that Superintendency, as set up in Scotland, was nothing like Episcopacy, that it was never intended to be continued; but used for the present Necessitie: and that it was never lookt on as inconsistent with their being for Paritie in Opinion: but we must submit to the Drudgerie of Repetitions; seing he will have it so. I take notice of his forgetting what he had said a little before (as I observed §. 2.) viz. that the Laird of Dun was made a Superintendent, though it doth appear that he was never in Holie Orders: whence it evidently followeth, that on this Authors Supposition, the Reformers lookt not on Superintendency as a Government any otherwise warrantable, but by the Force of Necessitie. Two things he undertaketh about Superintendency. 1. To shew their Power and Disparity from other Ministers. 2. To dissipate the Mists cast on this matter by Presbyterians. For the former, he telleth us of a considerable Stock of Prerogatives, or Preheminencies above other Church Men. As 1. They had larger Districts. 2. They were to be Nominated by the Council, and Elected by the Nobility and Gentry, &c. within their District. 3. They were not to be Censured, but by the Ministers and Elders of the whole Province, over which they were Appointed. 4. They were to be Admitted (which our Author calleth Ordination) by other Superintendents. 5. They were to be Translated by the whole Church. 6. They must be two years, at least, in the Ministry, before they be Superintendents. 7. He had a greater Benefice than other Ministers. 8. Every one of them was a constant Member of the General Assembly. 9. He was to try Candidats for the Ministry, and …eaders. 10. He had the Power of Collation, on Presentations. 11. He had Power to plant Ministers in the Churches where the People were negligent. 12. He had the p. 167Power of Ordination. 13. Ministers were subject to him, in all lawful Admonitions; he was to be obeyed. 14. He had Power of Visitation of Churches. 15. He might depose Ministers. 16. He might translate Ministers. 17. He might nominat Ministers to be Members of the General Assembly. 18. He had Power to hold Diocesan Synods. 19. To appoint Fasts within his own Bounds. 20. To modifie Stipends. 21. To receive Appeals. 22. He had Power of Fineing, in case of undue Appeals. 23. To determine intricate Cases of Conscience, or Government. 24. To judge of Divorces. 25. To enjoyn Pennance to greater Criminals. 26. To restore Criminals. 27. He had the Power of Excommunication. 28. To delate attrocious Criminals to the Civil Magistrat 29. They had great Power over Schools and Colledges. 30. They were the Licensers of Books.

§ 10. Quae non prosunt singula, juncta juvant; here is a large Muster Roll, to Fright the Reader with a numerous and long Train, that might have been, to as much advantage, drawn into a narrower Compass. I shall first, Make some general Observes on all this Heap of Prerogatives. Next, Examine them particularlie, but very succinctlie. For the former, I observe, 1. That the Power of Superintendents was at first more absolute, and independent on the rest of the Ministers, than afterward; because at first there were hardlie any qualified Ministers; but only Readers, or such as could Catechise the People, newly come out of Popery; but when there was a better Stock of qualified Ministers, and yet the Church but meanlie provided, the Superintendent was obliged to rule with their Concurrence; and was little other than a constant Moderator: and his Power was by every General Assembly, abridged, till that Office was at last abolished, as no longer needful in the Church. 2. It is not denyed, but that there was an Imparitie between a Superintendent and another Minister: but this was lookt on by our Reformers, not as a standing Office, nor as having any Foundation, but that of present Necessitie: so that it did no way derogate from that Paritie, that they lookt on as the Way that the Church should be Governed; and as what they intended, when their Case should allow it. But of this more afterward. 3. All this cannot make the Superintendent and the Bishop, to be the same Officer in the Church; because the one is pretended to be an Officer appointed by Christ, and his Soveraign power over the Presbyters, is by Divine Appointment▪ the other is set up by Men, and more or less Power is given to him, as they think fit. The one is accountable to none but Christ, the other is accountable to the Presbyterie, and may be Censured, yea Deprived by them. The p. 168one is lookt on as what should always continue in the Church; the other was designed but for that Exigency of the Church, to be laid aside when that was over. 4. Not a few of these Prerogatives are either asserted, without Ground; or Misrepresented. To make out which, I proceed to the second thing I proposed; viz. To Examine them particularlie: for the first, The Extent of their District is no Argument for such Disparitie as he pleadeth for: they had each of them, their proper Charge, as other Ministers; where they were ordinarilie to Labour; but had larger Districts for Visitation. 2. Their Nomination by the Council, and Election by the Nobility and Gentry, is asserted without Ground. Neither doth he Cite any Authoritie for it, nor do I find any thing to that purpose in any of our Historians. 3. A Superintendent could not be deposed, but by the Ministers of the whole Province: This necessarilie followed upon his Charge, or Power of Visiting, being of that Extent. In that he was deposeable by the Ministers, it is evident he was no Bishop, in the Notion that our Brethren have of a Bishop. 4. The same reason was for his being Elected by the Ministers of the Province. What our Author saith of the Ordination of the Superintendent, is a foull Misrepresentation; as any one may see in the place he citeth, Spots. hist. lib. 3. p. 159, 160. Nothing is there mentioned, but Election and Trial; but on the contrarie, it is expreslie said, other Ceremonies than this Examination, the Approbation of Ministers and Superintendents, with the publick Consent of Elders and People, we do not admit. Whence it is evident, that he had no new Office, nor Ordination, above a Presbyter.

§ 11. His fifth Prerogative is, He was not to be Translated from one place to another, but by a Council of the whole Church. This is no Episcopal Jurisdiction. The Extent of his District, to a Province made this necessarie: there being no Judicature above his Province, but a General Assembly. 6. It is least of all Argumentative, that he was to give good proof of his Qualifications, by being some time in the Ministry: because the want of due Qualifications in the Generalitie of the Ministry, was the Rise of his Office: therefore he must be the best qualified that can be had. 7. His greater Benefice is no Argument: he had more Work, and Occasion for Expense, by Travelling to Visit Churches, than the rest had. It is falslie alledged, that Spots. p. 210. saith, it was agreed, 1567. that the Superintendent should succeed to the Beneflces of the Popish Bishops deprived: there is not such a word in that place: only there, and in the former page, it is agreed, that the Church should be restored to her Patrimonie. p. 1698. There being constant Members of the General Assembly, saith no more, but that there being so few qualified Ministers, these few choice Men were needed in the Assemblies of the Church. 9. His trying Ministers and Readers, was from the present necessities of the Church, when Presbyteries could not be had to do it: 10. His giving Collation did follow on the former Power. 11. The jus devolutum for planting a Minister fell to him, and his Council. He could not place a Minister by himself, as our Bishops pretended to do: but by the assistance of such Ministers as were fittest to judge, these were his Council; this also was for the present necessity, and want of Ministers to make a Presbytery. 12. His power of Ordination, our Author passeth very slightly, and with a general alleging of several Acts of Assemblies. It is like a Superintendent might Ordain by himself, when no other Minister could be had to joyn with him: but as soon as Presbyters could be had, it was not so. Our Reformers used no other Ceremonie in Ordination, but Nomination, and Tryal, and Approbation; and it is evident that these were to be performed by the Superintendent, with the rest of the Ministers; for Spotsw. p. 155. sheweth out of the Book of Discipline, that this Tryal and Approbation was to be performed by the learned Ministers appointed for their Examination, then not by one Man alone. 13. Subjection to him (which our Author is pleased to call Canonical Obedience, was a necessarie consequent of his Office; but it is to be observed, that in the Assemblie 1562, out of which he allegeth this Passage, Superintendents were Tryed and Censured by the Assemblie: and it was appointed that at every Assemblie, they, and Ministers, and Elders should be Tryed, as to their Conversation; which looketh not like Episcopacy. 14. His power of Visitation was indeed his main Characteristick; but doth not prove Episcopal jurisdiction; it being delegated to him by the Church, and he being Accountable to her for it. 15. His power of Deposing is expresly said to be given him by the Assemblie, and he is ordered to report his Diligence to the next Assemblie; which last, our Author overlooketh. 16. His Translating of Ministers is no more, but that his Consent, or that of the whole Church must be had to a Transportation: it was then necessarie when there was no Presbyteries to Judge of such Matters. 17. He greatly mistaketh when he saith that the Assemblie Enacteth that Ministers for the General Assemblie should be brought with the Superintendents, &c. which he will have to be Nominating them, and he alloweth the rest of the Synod but a Consent: whereas Spotsw. p. 219. words it, such as the Superintendents p. 170shall choose in their Diocesan Synods. If he could choose them by himself, there needed no Synod for this end: that Expression can signifie no less than the Synods suffrage in the Election. My Lord Gla… Letter that he mentioneth is not Authentick. 18. He held Diocesan Synods, because he was their Moderator. 19. They might appoint Fasts is their bounds, but with Advice of the Ministers. 20. Modifying of Stipend… is no Spiritual Power, and therefore, impertinently here brought in 21. Appeals was made to him, and his Synodal Convention: here is no sole Jurisdiction. 22. His power of Fineing is no Spiritual Power. 23. Determining Cases of Conscience, and otheir Questions, was never committed to him alone; but in the Synod, and to them. Yea, Questions so determined were to be reported to the General Assemblie next ensewing; so that Manuscript that he so often Citeth, p. 14. 24. To judge of Divorces is a civil Power: and not to our purpose; 25. It is clear, by his own Relation, that the Injunction of Pennance (as he calleth it) is to be by the Superintendent with the Synod. 26. Restoring of Criminals, or Absolution, did the same way belong to him. 27. Notifying Criminals to the Magistrat is no part of Jurisdiction. 28. Excommunication was not to be done by his sole Authority; but by his Advice. 29. His Power over Colleges. And 30. His Licensing of Booke; both of them Depend on the Civil Power: and are not to our present purpose. These short Notes may shew how little cause there is for his Triumph, with which he concludeth this his Enumeration of the Superintendents Prerogatives. They prove a Disparity between him and other Ministers, I confess; which the Church in that her State thought necessarie for a time: but on the other hand, it is evident that some of them Prove as much Disparitie from, and inconsistencie with the Prerogatives of a Diocesan Bishop, which our Brethren plead for, as belonging to him, Jure Divino.

§. 12. His next Work from p. 140. is to dissipat the Mist wherewith the Paritie Men are so very earnest to darken the Prelatical Power of the Superintendents: he mentioneth Three of their Exceptions. The 1. Is, it was not intended to be a perpetual standing Office; but was Temporary, and for the then Necessities of the Church. For this he Citeth Calderwuod, and Petrie asserting this; with whom I do cordially joyn. Against this, he thus reasoneth. p. 142. whether it was Temporary or not, it was Prelacy, and this is all that I am concerned for; And to Forti…e this, he taketh in by force, a Similitude from the Presbyterians making Address to King James; a rare, but useless piece of Wit. Ans. If he be concerned for no more than this, p. 171we are agreed: And he yieldeth that our Reformers were not Episcopal, but Presbyterian: who in a case of extream Necessity, gave, for a time, more Power to one Minister, than another, but made them all equal assoon as that Necessity was over: It is such an Argument as if there were but one Congregation, with their Minister, and Elders, in an Island; they manage Church Discipline by themselves; but assoon as they encrease, and there are moe People and church Officers, and more Congregations, they set up a Presbyterie, to which all the Congregations and their Pastors are Subordinate; will any say that they are Independents, because they were forced to Act Independentlie at first? there is as little reason to conclude that our Reformers were Episcopal, though they were forced to use a kind of Prelacie for a time. Beside that I have above shewed some considerable Differences between the Prelacie of Superintendents, and that of Bishops, which our Brethren plead for.

§. 13. His second Undertaking is, to shew that we have no sufficient Ground in the Records of these times, for pretending that the Office of Superintendents was designed to be Temporal. To prove his Assertion, he saith, he hath seen no more insisted on to make out this, but a Phrase in the first Head of the Book of Discipline, at this time. He transcribeth the whole Passage out of Petrie, Cent. 16. p. 218. and so must I, what was their (the Superintendents) Office, saith he, appears by the first Book of Discipline, wherein it is written thus, we consider, that if the Ministers whom God hath endued with his singular Graces among us, should be appointed to several places, there to make continual Residence, that then the greatest part of the Realm should be destitute of all Doctrine; which should be not only the occasion of great Murmure, but also dangerous to the Salvation of many: and therefore we have thought it a thing expedient, at this time; that from the whole Number of Godly and learned Men, now presently in this Realm, 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 Prescribed, to wit, the former Head) to the Countries that shall be appointed to their Care, where none are now. Afterward it is added, these must not be suffered to live as their idle Bishops have done, neither must they remain where they gladly would; but they must be Preachers themselves, and such as may not make long Residence in one place, till the Kirks be Planted and provided of Ministers, &c. To this our Author replyeth, by giving us a Sense of his own of these Words in the first Book of Discipline, viz. that because there were then so few Qualified for the Office of p. 172Superintendencie, the Ten or Twelve were, by far too few for the whole Kingdom, yet at that time they thought it expedient to Establish no more: and though, when the Church should be sufficiently Provided with Ministers, it will be highly reasonable that the Superintendents should have Places appointed them for their continual Residence, yet in that Juncture it was necessary that they should be constantly travelling into their Districts, to Preach and Plant Churches. Before I Examine what he saith to Prove this to be the true Gloss of that Passage, I shall Prove it to be contrarie to, and inconsistent with the Passage it self. And 1. There is nothing in that Discourse that doth so much as insinuate the scarcitie of Men fit to be Superintendents, but of Ministers fit to Preach to the People; they no way hint that this Setlement was fallen upon, because they could not get Men to Oversee other Ministers, but because they could not get Men to Preach to the People in every Congregation, Therefore, they resolve that the few well Qualified Men that they had should not only each of them, have a fixed Charge of his own, but should be obliged to Preach in other Parishes, and be Impowered to Place Ministers in them, assoon as they could be had. 2. It is a groundless Fancy that they thought Ten or Twelve Superintendents too few for the whole Kingdom; for when Ministers increased they made no moe: yea, when afterward, in the times of Defection from our first Establishment of Church Order, they set up Bishops, the Church did not think Twelve too few for the whole Kingdom. 3. He doth exceedingly Mistake the Change that our Reformers did intend, as insinuated in that Passage: It was not that Superintendents should be continually Resident in one Place, wheras they were at present to travel within their District: for in this present Setlement they had their proper Charge, where they were to Preach, and might Reside there three or four Months, and enter upon their itinerat Visitation again: which Course, if they should Break off, they could not do the Work of a Superintendent; which was chiefly to Visite and Plant Churches. When this was done, and Places generally provided with fit Pastors, their Work and Office was at an end. 4. At this time, doth evidently relate to the Peoples want of Preaching, as the Motive to this Appointment; and to the Planting of Churches, as the End and Design of it. Wherefore, when this End is attained, and that time no more Existent (I mean of that Exigence of the Church) there was no more use for them: and the Event Proved, that as that End was by Degrees attained, their Power was gradually Lessened, till they were wholly laid p. 173aside. 5. The Words cited make it evident that this was not intended for a lasting Prelacy in the Church; far less for an Episcopacy standing on a Jus Divinum; For the Assembly where this Book of Discipline was Established, do give them Charge and Commandment: they do appoint their Work, set Limits and Bounds to their Power: they Command them in the very Circumstances of their Work; this would be thought strange Presumption in a Meeting of Ministers thus to treat their Bishop. 6. To say that their Authority was designed to be perpetual, but these Injunctions about some part of their Work was to be Temporary; is to speak at Random; and to put what Sense we please on other Mens words; it is to tell us what this Author would have the Reformers to mean, not what is the plain Import of their Words: For the Commandment and Charge (these are the Words of the Book of Discipline) by which they were made Superintendents, did include one part of what is Injoyned as well as another part of it: and when ever this Work that was Injoyned them ceased, their Commission behoved to be renewed: as is obvious to any who readeth the History of our Reformation: their Injunctions were often Changed, till they had no more Work to do, and then they were Abolished.

§ 14. Let us now hear how this Author will Prove that the Passage under Debate must have the Meaning that he hath put upon it. His first Argument: the Composers of the first Book of Discipline (in which that Passage is) were generally to their Dying day, of Prelatical Principles. Ans. 1. The Consequence is naught: for however the first Draught of it might be framed by the Six Persons whom he Nameth, out of Knox, p. 287. yet let the Reader turn over to the next page, where a Formula is set down according to which it was Subscribed, and he shall find that they Approved it conform to the Notes and Additions thereto: and it was well known, that some Papers being Amended and Licked over and over again, by many Persons, (as this was) have at last Differed much from what the first Compilers intended. Another thing also may be Observed in that Form of assenting to the Book o… Discipline: that they were careful to Reserve to Bishops, Abbots, and Priors, and other Prelats, and benefic'd Men, which else have Adjoyned themselves to us (say they) to brook the Revenues of their Benefices during their Lifetimes; they sustaining and upholding the Ministry and Ministers, as is therein specified, for Preaching of the Word, and Ministering of the Sacraments. Here the Bishops (even such of them as were Protestants) are put in the same Categorie with Abbots p. 174and Priors; and there is no Provision made for their Spiritual Power, but for their Temporal Goods; and no Successors are intended for them: only they are provided for while they live: yea the Administrators of Word and Sacraments are here contra-distinguished from the Bishops, as well as from Abbots and Priors. Doth any thing here look like Prelatical Principles? yea is not the whole Strain of this Passage contrarie to them? therefore, whatever the first Compilers of the Book of Discipline might be, it is evident, the Approvers of it were not of the Episcopal Principles. Ans. 2. He sheltereth his Assertion under the Ambiguitie of Prelatical Principles: if he mean these Men were for Superintendents, who had a Temporarie Limited Prelacie, we shall not Debate that with him: if he mean that they were for a Jus Divinum of the Prelacie, that he and his Partie owne; or for a Perpetuitie of any other sort of Prelacie, we shall consider his Proofs for that; which are, Winram and Willock were Superintendents, and so was Spotswood; of whom his Son saith, he was a constant Enemy to Paritie: this proveth nothing against what I have said; except he can assure us that Arch-Bishop Spotswood could not, through Prejudice, and Respect to the Cause he had Espoused; mistake and misrepresent his Fathers Opinion in that. Dowglas (another of them) was Arch-Bishop of Saint Andrews. That proveth him an Apostate from the Way he had owned; and we know how he, and his Way was disliked by the rest of his former Associats: John Row, another of them, defended the Lawfulness of Episcopacy, at a Conference appointed by the General Assembly, 1575. Here is a pitiful Shift, and foull Misrepresentation. The Truth of the Storie is (even according to Spotswood, as well as Petrie; not to name Calderwood, lest he alledge that I have read no other Historian) a Question arising in the Assemblie about the Lawfulness of Episcopacie: six Brethren were appointed to Debate the Question in a Conference, three were appointed to be on the one side, and three on the other; it was Master Rows Lot to be on the side of the Lawfulness of Episcopacie: can any Rational Man thence infer, that he was of that Opinion. And if he were of that Opinion, there is enough said to take off any Inference that could thence be made against us. John Knox was the other of these Compilers, whom he will make Prelatical; now when he hath been dead a long time; though he was known to be far from such Sentiments while he lived.

§ 15. For a second Proof of his Sense of the Passage cited out of the Book of Discipline, p. 145. Knox assignes a quite other Reason than the then Necessities of the Church, for the Establishment of Superintendency. Superintendents p. 175and Overseers (saith he) were nominated, that all things in the Church might be carried on with order and well: this reason is perpetual. Ans. How weak is this Consequence: for this reason is perpetual, that there should be Governours in the Church; because all things might be carried with order and well: but it is no reason for that sort of Governours; except in so far as the present case made them necessarie; so that, compare this Passage with that of the Book of Discipline above cited, the Sense must be, Superintendents were, at this time, nominated, that all things in the Church might be carried with good order and well; there being then no possibilitie to constitute Presbyteries, by which things could be so managed. He citeth another Passage out of the same Book, p. 289. that John Knox, in a Sermon, asserted the Necessitie (and not the bare Expediencie) of Superintendents. Ans. Doth this prove a perpetual Necessitie of that Office? it was then not only expedient but necessarie? and this was all that was asserted. Again John Knox's words are, there was a Necessitie of Superintendents or Overseers: that is, there must be a Government in the Church, and another they could not then attain that they could be satisfied with; and therefore they must set up Superintendents. If we duly consider this Passage, it maketh much against him: for supposing the Necessitie of Governours, they might have thus reasoned, if they had been for Bishops, we must have Governours, nothing hindreth to set up Bishops; therefore they are necessarie at this time; but this they did not do: therefore they were not for Bishops. But they well reasoned; there must be Governours; but at this time we cannot have Ministers to set up Presbyteries, therefore at this time Superintendents are necessarie. He bringeth another Testimonie out of Knox, p. 110. (it must be miscited, nothing to that purpose is in that place) exhorting England that every one of their Bishopricks might be made ten: which he saith is a Comment on the Passage in Debate: and saith, hence it is clear, that he was for many Bishopricks. Ans. Nothing but Prejudice could suggest such a Sense of his Words: he is Writing to a People which had settled Bishops among themselves; he did not attempt to alter their Settlement (he knew it was in vain) but he advised them to what might make that way most useful, and what might have brought it as near as possible to the way he was for. I could tell him of just such another Passage in Doctor Wild's loyal Nonconformist, though he was for no bishop at all, in our Modern Sense.

§ 16. He bringeth a third reason, that this Sense of the Period accordeth exactly with the whole Tenor of the first Book of Discipline: where, he p. 176saith, there is nothing more for the Temporaryness of Superintendency, but much to the contrary. Let us see then what we can further find (beside the words at this time) in the Book of Discipline, for Superintendents being set up early, for the present Necessitie of the Church. And first, the reason for setting them up, which the Book it self giveth, is temporarie: to wit, the Paucitie of Ministers, and the Necessitie of having the Gospel preached in all the parts of the Nation. If the Foundation be temporarie, so must the Superstructure: but this is made the Foundation of that Erection: as is expressed in these words, and therefore we have thought it expedient, &c. 2. The second Book of Discipline is a Proof of this beyond Contradiction: for it owneth no Officers in the Church but Pastors, Bishops or Ministers, every one of which was to be fixed in a particular Congregation: and Doctors, and Elders, and Deacons: and these are said to be such as ought to continue in the Kirk, as necessary, for the Policy and Government of it; and no more Offices ought to be received or suffered in the Kirk of God, established according to his Word; therefore all the ambitious Titles invented in the Kingdom of Antichrist, and … his Usurped Hierarchy, which are not of these four sorts, together with … …ffices depending thereon, in one word, ought to be rejected. This second Boo… Discipline was but an Amendment of the first, and a Suteing of it to the riper Age that the Reformed Church of Scotland had then attained: but, it is manifest, that settling Superindents by the first Book, was not designed for Perpetuitie. I shall now Examine what he bringeth against the designed Temporariness of Superintendents: the first thing alledged is, the necessity is brought for being not so strict in examining Superintendents as afterward must be: I see not wherein this is contrarie to the Presbyterian Gloss (which he affirmeth p. 145.) seing the necessitie of setting them up had been before asserted, viz. the Pau…itie of qualified Ministers for the Parishes: and now another necessitie is alledged for taking such Superintendents as they could get: where is the Inconsistencie of these two. Next, they appoint, that if su…cient Men cannot be had, Provinces wait till they can be provided, rather than set up insufficient Men … 3. Rules are laid down for supplying the Vacancy, if a Superintendent die. …ns. To both these; no more followeth but that Superintendency was to endure for some time: foreseeing that the present necessitie was like, in some degree, to continue for some years: but this is no Argument for its Perpetuitie, or necessitie in all Cases of the Church. 4. After the Church is settled, and three years past; Directions are given for chusing Superintendents. Ans. This Passage is related p. 177only by Spotswood; whom I might reject as an insufficient Witness, as well as he casteth Petrie, or Calderwood, when Spotswood doth not concur with them: But I need not such Defence: by the establishing of the Church the Reformers cannot mean the compleat Establishment, and being furnished with a sufficient number of well Gifted Ministers: for what needed three years delay after that, before they would require such Choise of Superintendents: wherefore, by the settling of the Church must be understood the peaceable Exercise of Church Government, as well as other Ordinances, allowed them by the Magistrat, which then they were contending for: or the peaceable Settlement of the Superintendency; that now they were Erecting: that though at present, they must put into that Office such as they could find, they would after that three years, be more exact in their Choise, hoping that, by that time, more qualified Men might be found: this proveth a Design of Continuance for some time; but not of Perpetuitie of Superintendency. 5. The Book of Discipline supposeth Colledges and Superintendents to be of equal Continuance: for the Superintendent was to have a hand in Election of Principles and Rectors, and in Auditing Colledge Accompts. Ans. If this Argument had any Force, it would prove that Apostles, immediatlie sent by Christ, must continue as long as Churches and Ministers; because they were imployed to Erect the one, and Ordain the other: Yea, he needed no other Argument to prove their Continuance, but that they were to Visit Churches, and plant Ministers; and therefore must continue as long as that were to be done: and so they should for ever shut out, (in the Design of our Reformers) not only Presbyteries, but the Diocesan Bishops: they were to do that Work in the present Exigence: it doth not thence follow that they must continue as long as that Work was to be done.

§ 17. He hath yet a fourth Argument, to prove that Superintendents were designed by our Reformers to be perpetual in the Church. It is taken from some Passages in Knox, and the old Scots Liturgy, about the Form and Order of the Election of Superintendents. 1. The Necessity of them is asserted: which I have answered before: Next, The People are asked if they will obey and honour him as Christs Minister so long as he is faithful: not (saith our Author) so long as the present Exigence requireth. The admitting of a Superintendent and of a Minister was one: the whole Form maketh the one to be of Divine Institution, as well as the other: he is said to be called of God, and owned as a Minister of Christ, they who will not submit to him, are p. 178said to rebel against God, and his Holy Ordinance. In the Prayer after his … stallment is this Petition, send unto this our Brother, whom in thy Name we have charged with the chief Care of thy Church within the Bounds of Lothian, &c. Thus (saith our Author) our Reformers lookt on Superintendency wh… they composed this Form. Ans. 1. This is not a Form composed by the Reformers to be used on all such occasions: as appeareth by the History it self that he citeth: to which he (Knox p. 289.) prefixeth this Inscription; The Form and Order of the Election of the Superintendent and all other Ministers; at Edinburgh, March the 9. 1560. John Knox being the Preacher: also because, in the Prayer, Lothidn is mentioned, which could not be in a general Form: This Method John Knox at that time used. It i… like it was usual to proceed in this Method: to use these, or the like Questions, to Pray to that Purpose: and if there was then a prescribed Form in that Infancie of the Church, it neither helpeth his Cause much, nor hurteth ours. 2. He acknowledgeth that the Form of Electing and Admitting Ministers and Superintendents was the same: and it is evident from the Inscription but now mentioned: which is an Evidence that Superintendency was not then lookt on as a distinct Office from the Ministery: but it was an Application, or Modification, of the Ministerial Wor… which at that time was necessary. He will not say, that a Bishop needeth no other Ordination or Consecration, beside that which maked him a Minister: which is a good Argument to prove that our Reformer did not look on the Distinction of Minister and Superintendent as perpetual and of Divine Right, as the Prelatists do that of Bishop and Presbyter. 3. My main Answer is, the account that we have in the place cited is of the Election and Admission of a Person to the Sacred Office of the Ministry, whither he be to be a Superintendent or not: and th… it is not by this Admission that he is distinguished from other Ministers further than that his Ministerial Charge is made larger and more extensive as to its Bounds: wherefore all the Expressions that my Adversa… layeth hold on in this Form of Election, may fairly be understood wit… respect to the Persons Ministery: to this Ministery he is called of Go… with respect to it he is a Minister of Christ, it is that which is called G… Holy Ordinance: it is that Charge which is laid on him in Gods Name: an… indeed it was the Bounds of Lothian that the Person then admitted go… the Chief Charge of, to be their Pastor. Now the Question is not whither this Pastoral Charge, whither in one or more Congregations be Gods perpetual Ordinance; but whither it be such an Ordinance, p. 179that the Pastoral Charge of one Person should extend to so many Congregations, and whither this Pastor by himself should have Power to Plant Ministers: we say this last was a prudent Constitution of the Church, which that present Exigence did force them upon: by this Admission then he was made a Minister according to Christs Institution, and a Superintendent too, so far as that Office includeth the Ministry: but wherein it differed from the Ministerial Office, it was of Man and not of God.

§ 18. He hath yet a fifth Agrument, p. 150. which according to his wont, of using the highest Confidence, and biggest Words, when the Strength of his Reasons are lowest, he calleth Irrefragable. It is drawn from several Acts of General Assemblies: some of which address to the Council for Maintainance to them: others for Increasing their Number, and Placing them where none were before: and that when the Church was of four years standing; and when the Number of Qualified Men were somewhat Increased. One Petitioned, that all the Popish Clergy should be dispossessed, and that Superintendents, Ministers, and other needful Members, should be Planted in their Places. Whence he very wisely inferreth, that Superintendents were needful Members of the Church, and that they were to succeed to the Popish Bishops. This is mentioned by Spotswood; but by none else, as himself observeth. Some Superintendents in the year 1574. would have Dimitted, but the General Assembly ordered them to continue in their Function. I am so dull as not to see the Strength of this Irrefragable Argument; I can see no Consequence that can be drawn from any thing, or all that he hath said, but that the Churches found the necessity, which occasioned the setting up of Superintendents, not to be over in four years; nor wholly in fourteen years: though Qualified Men Increased, yet their Number was very unproportionate to the Necessities of the Church. I look on the Increasing of their Number (which must be a Lessening of their Districts) not as tending to perpetuate them; but on the contrary, it was a reducing them by Degrees, to the State of other Ministers; by restricting them to a fewer Number of Parishes, and so at last to one. That they were needful Members of the Church, at that time, I doubt not; but this doth not prove their designed Perpetuity: that they were to succeed the Popish Bishops, is a wild Fancy; that is no more said of them than of other Church Officers, who were to be Planted in the Places where these Bishops had been, and were to be Maintained by their Revenues. He concludeth this head, as is usual with him; with Confident Rehearsing p. 180what he hath made evident. The Judicious will judge of his Performance; and mine too. I agree with him in what followeth, p. 153, 154. That the Superintendents, when Churches were provided, were no more to travel among them; but I affirm, when they were sufficiently provided, their Work was Confined to one Parish; and that Office ceased in the Church: of which before.

§ 19. He advanceth now, p. 154. to another piece of his Work; to consider our Reasons for the Temporariness of Superintendency. The first of them, that he nameth is, the Force of Necessity, there being so few Men qualified for the Ministry, scarcely one in a Province: against this he bringeth several Replies, intermixed with an unbecoming Confidence, and bitter Reflections. The first is, this Reason is inconsequential, because that necessity might have been answered by dividing the Nation in as many Parishes as there were qualified Men, and Lessening them as moe qualified Men could be had. Ans. The course that was taken, was materially the same that he proposeth: only it was necessary, that within these great Parishes, the Minister, or Superintendent of it, (call him as you will) should have Power over the Readers and ill qualified Ministers who were set in the several little Parishes, and who could neither dispense the Word sufficiently, nor govern the Church; and should have Power to plant qualified Men, as soon as they could be found in these lesser Parishes: and this was the Office of a Superintendent. I hope the Reader will see, that this Reply to our Reason is insignificant, and that our Reason is not shewed to be inconsequential. His second is, this Reason destroyeth Parity: for that could not be the Model that our Lord instituted, which cannot answer the ends of its Institution; as in this case Parity could not do: for here the Church is reduced to that State that the Governours thereof forced by necessity, must lay it aside for a time, and establish a Prelacy. Ans. This is stranger Divinity than what he chargeth in his next Reply on our Reason. It supposeth, if it have any Sense in it, that all Gods Institutions and Injunctions, do so serve for all the cases that can fall out, that no necessity can excuse a temporal receding from the Observance of them. Which to be evidently false, shall be made appear in Answer to his third Reply (which upon the matter is the same with this) the Model of Government that himself, and other Prelatists, is for, is lyable to the same Inconvenience; and according to his Logick, is none of Christs Institution. He, and the rest of them, maintain, that by the Laws of the new Testament, there can be no Ordination of a Presbyter without a Bishop, p. 181and yet they think themselves warranted by Necessity to allow Ordination without a Bishop: Downam, in his Sermon about Episcopacy, hath this Passage, posita enim Ecclesia, aut in universum Episcopo destituta, aut conferta Hereticis aut Idolatricis Praelatis, quales Papistici sunt, a quibus nulli Orthodoxi Ministri ordinationem sperare debent, dubitandum non est quin prisci Patres, in tali necessitatis casu ordinationem sine Episcopo fact a permiserint, licet non ut regularem, ordinarii Ecclesiae regiminis regulis respondentem, efficacem tamen, & quae justificari possit, ubi deest Episcopus. (I have not his Sermon by me in English, and therefore use the Latine Translation) And he citeth Concil. Antioch. C. 10. for it, and pleadeth for it by several Reasons. Here that Learned Person, had in great Esteem in the Episcopal Church, maketh two Cases of Necessity, in which the Model he pleadeth for as Christs Institution, must be receded from. And if Prelatists may allow Presbyters to Ordain in Case of Necessity, why may not Presbyterians allow a single Person to Ordain under the same Force and Cogency? Also Forbes. Iren. p. 158. & seq. not only asserteth, but proveth the Force of Necessity to warrant such things: withal asserting the Jus Divinum of Episcopacy: and he insisteth at length to prove this Proposition, from Scripture and Antiquity; that Presbyters may Govern and Ordain in want of a Bishop.

§. 20. His Third Rply is, it is strange Divinity, that Paritie is of Christs Institution, and yet may be laid aside in case of necessity: and here he falleth heavily on, G R. for asserting what this may be inferred from: and taketh occasion to reproach him. I find no more shew of reason in this part of his Discourse (though there be many bitter and harsh words in it) but this, that if we may do so in one thing, we may do so in all things. Ans. I shall shew that this is no strange Divinity, and then Answer his Reason against it. It is not rare Divinity; for I have already shewed that Dounham and Forbes (Men of the first Rank among his own Partie) teach the same. That it is is not against Scripture nor Reason (and therefore not strange) I Prove, 1. It is taught by Christ himself: it was Gods Command that the Sabbath should be strictly observed, the Law containeth no express exeption from this Rule: yet our Saviour maketh the case of Necessity to be a just Exception; in that he Defended his Disciples plucking the Ears of Corn on the Sabbath day: and that by other Examples, where Necessity had the same influence: Luke 6. 1, &c. David appoved by Christ, in the place cited, thought it no strange Doctrine: it was the Institution of God that none should eat the Shew Bread but the p. 182Priests: David and his Men were no Priests, and yet their Necessity did warrant their eating of it. The Apostles thought it no strange Doctrine: who (though they knew that the Jewish Ceremonies were abolished, and become unlawful to be used after the Resurrection of Christ; and though Paul told the Galatians when the case of Necessity was now over, that Christ should profit them nothing if they were Circumcised; yet they enjoyned the Observation of some of these Ceremonies, and pleaded Necessity for it, Acts 15. 28. and 29, verses. Paul Circumcised Timothy, Acts 16. 3. used the Ceremonies proper for the Jewish votaries, Acts 21. 23, 24. enjoyned forbearance to them who observed the Jewish Ceremonies, Rom. 14. 1. though out of that case of Necessity, he severely condemneth that Observation. Gal. 4. 9, 10, 11. 2. Reason, as well as Scripture, doth plead for this influence of Necessity, on humane Actions. For 1. Necessity (I mean such as the Providence of GOD without our sin, bringeth us into) is a Declaration of GOD'S will; now this cannot be contrarie to that Declaration of his will that is made in his Word; when the Word and Necessity seem to clash (for they can never be truely inconsistent, being both from GOD) and if in that case we should sin by yielding to Necessity, we should be under a Necessity of sinning; which no Divine will say a man can be under, without his own fault: To take the present case for an Example: let us suppose Church Government by Paritie is Christs Institution; suppose also that there are so few Ministers that there cannot be Men got to supplie Places, but such as are palpably insufficient for the Work: here is a Dilemma, either Gospel Ordinances must be neglected, or unduely managed, by these Men; or on the other hand, they who are Qualified must be set over these for a time, to Preach now and then in their Places; to Direct and injoyn them what is right, to Plant the Places with Qualified Men when they can be got: all which is supposed to be cross to the letter (I do not say to the Meaning and Design) of the Institution; in the first Case, the Church should sin in neglecting that which is the main Design of all Gospel Institutions, viz. Edification, and Saving of Souls; therefore, she doth not sin on the other hand, by crossing the Letter of the Institution: otherwise she should be under a Necessity of sining, without her own fault bringing her under that Necessity. 2. Although our LORD did forsee all the Cases and Circumstances, in which his Church was to be unto the end of the World, and could have fully Provided for them all, by giving distinct Laws suted to every one of them; yet infinite p. 183Wisdom thought fit to give Laws for regulating the ordinary cases of the Church, leaving these that are rare, and Extraordinary to be Managed according to the general Rules of Scripture, and sound reason, because distinct Laws for all possible Cases, would have swelled the BIBLE to a bigness which would have made it less useful to us; and of this it may be said, as of a Case not unlike to it, John 20. 30, 31. The World could not have contained, at least Men could not have Read, and Retained, the Contents of all the Books that should have been Written; no doubt, when GOD made the Law forbidding that the Shew Bread should be eaten by any but by the Priests, he forsaw what case David and his Men would be in: but he thought it not fit to provide for that Case by an Express Exception from the Law; but left it to be Ordered by his more general Laws: Even so it is in the Case that we Dispute about.

§. 21. I shall now Answer his Reason brought against this yielding to Necessitie, in cases of Divine Institution which is, that if Necessitie can oblige Christians to forsake, or to cross Institution in one Case; why not in all Cases. The Consequence that this his Question implyeth, we simply Deny. And I may Confidently say, that himself, in his cooler thoughts, will be ashamed of it at least he will have few Men of Sense, whether Learned or unlearned, that will allow such a Consequence. Farless, that will Joyn wit him in what followeth, viz. that crossing Institution when forced to it by the Law of Necessity; what is it else than to open a door to Gnosticism, to Infidelity, to Apostasie; and to all imaginable kinds of Antichristian Perfidie, and Villanie? To clear this Matter, and to still this Noise, and that the Reader may understand this Debate about the Force of Necessitie better than this learned Author seemeth to do: I shall shew when Necessitie may warrant an Action, which without such Necessitie were unwarrantable, and when not. 1. It is not feigned or pretended Necessitie that can have this Force: we are far from thinking that it is a sufficient Excuse when on hath done an evil thing, to say there was Necessitie for it, I could not shun it; if our Reformers did but pretend Necessitie for setting up Superintendents, or if we do but pretend it for them; if my Antagonist can prove (as he hath alleged) that there was no Necessitie for it, but that if they had been for Paritie; they might have Promoted the Gospel without thus diverting from it, for a time; we shall quit this Argument; GOD is Judge in that case, whether the Necessitie be real, or only pretended; And in many cases, Man may Judge, and Punish them who break the Law, and pretend Necessitie p. 184for their Action. 2. It must be a Necessitie of GOD'S making, not of our own bringing on; as I hinted before; If either a Church, or a Person, do sinfully bring themselves under a Necessitie of Transgressing the Law; the sinful Cause maketh the Action sinful which is consequential to it. 3. The Necessitie that we shelter our Actions under must not only be of the Means, nor only of the End, but of both. I suppose a Man cannot save his Life, his Libertie, or Estate, but by doing what is sinful, or omitting what is a Moral and perpetual duty, or is such hic et nunc Here is the Necessitie of Means, but it cannot excuse him because there is no Necessitie of the End, it is not necessarie that we should Live, be at Libertie, nor that we have Estates; there is neither an absolute Necessitie of these nor comparative Necessitie: none of them is so necessarie as it is to keep a good Conscience, and to please GOD; and shun sin. Again suppose the End be necessarie V. Gr. to advance the Interest of Religion; but this End may be attained to by means that do no way cross any of GOD'S Institutions; to do what is cross to Institution, in that case is no way Excusable: For there is no necessitie of the Mean. If my Antagonist can shew that either the End of setting up Superintendents, was needless; or that that could be attained without encroaching a little on Paritie, for a time; then shall we no more plead Necessitie for what they did; but judge that they were not for Paritie in their Principles. 4. We distinguish, with respect to the Force of Necessitie, between these Actions which are Moral from their Nature, and these that are Moral only by Institution. How far Necessitie may Warrant, or not Warrant an Action against the Moral-Law, I shall not now Dispute; our present Debate, not being concerned in that Question: it is evident that there are some cases in which Necessitie, even in such Actions, hath place, as Adam's Sons Marrieing their Sisters; of which Lyra and Menochius in Gen. 4. 17. say, Initio mundi necessè fuit Sorores Fratribus nubere. And it is also certain that no Necessitie can dispense with some other Actions that are naturally Moral; such as Blasphemy, Lying, &c. but in Matters of Institution, the LORD hath not so strictly bound his People, nor made his Institutions to clash with the natural and indispensible Commands that he hath laid on them: as is evident, in David's case above-mentioned: If Institution, in some Circumstances that the LORD hath cast his People in, do clash with the Moral Dutie of saving Life: this Moral Dutie superceedeth the Obligation of Institution, in that time, and in that case, much more when present Circumstances make p. 185Institution to clash with the great End of Institution; as in the case in hand: without dispensing with Paritie in this case, the End of Church Government had been lost; viz. the Edification of the Church, and Promoting the Reformation. If any should object, that this is a dispensing with the Law of GOD: I Answer, it is not Mans dispensing with GOD'S Law; but his Judging that GOD, in that Case, dispenseth with his own Law; or as Aquinas 2. 2. Q. 88. Art. 10. Fit ut hoc quod erat lex non sit lex, in hoc casu, and 1. 2. Q. 96. Art. 6. Qui in casu Necessitatis agit praeter verba Legis, non judicat de ipsa Lege, sed judicat de casu singulari in quo videt verba legis observanda non esse. And indeed, to denie all Influence of true, real, and innocent Necessitie, to change the Moralitie of some Actions, especially these that relate to Instituted Worship, were to put Mens Consciences on such a Rack, as there were some times, no possibilitie to attain to well grounded Peace. And on the other hand, I hope what is said will Defend this Opinion from the horrid consequence that he is pleased to draw from it: especially when we consider, that this influence of Necessitie must be but for a time; not perpetual: because it is not to be thought, that any of GODS Appointments are so contrived, as to be always unpracticable: or that the LORD will bring his Church, or any Person, under such a lasting Necessitie, that they never can do what he hath Commanded, they using their utmost endeavours to observe all that he hath Commanded, as is injoyned Matthew 28. 20. I shall not Determine what Necessitie of Omission one may be perpetually under; but I understand not how this can be with respect to possitive Acts contrarie to Institution.

§ 22. He dealeth with a Second Plea that he imputeth to us, p. 157, &c. why our Reformers are not to be thought Episcopal in their Principles, notwithstanding of their setting up Superintendents, which is; that these Superintendents did very much differ from Bishops, in the Notion that our Adversaries have of Bishops: The Author of the Ten Questions calleth that a New Modell of Episcopacy. To take off this Calderwood bringeth some Differences between them and Bishops: and Vindicat: in Answer to the Ten Questions, mentioneth also some of them, and Addeth what after he confesseth to be Material. All which he is pleased to ridicule, with his wonted Insolencie: but I am consident the judicious Reader will easily discern who is most Ridiculous; he that Proveth a Superintendent not to be the same with a Bishop, from his Election, Examination, and Admission: that he had no new Consecration, as Bishops p. 186must have, and so was in no Superior degree to a Presbyter: that there were no Arch-Superintendents as there were Arch-Bishops, &c. or he who compareth these to the ordinary Habit of the one, with the State and Grandeur of the other in their distinguishing Marks: which yet, if not set down in such scurrile terms, as he useth, may make a great Difference between the Temper of the one sort of Men and that of the other; though not of their Office or Power. If our Reformers had intended to continue that sole Jurisdiction of Prelats in the Church, which they found settled in it under Poperie, this Change that they made, even in these things, is unaccountable: nor can a Reason be given why they kept not to the old District that the Bishops had before Governed. It is as evident, as any thing can be made at such a distance of time, that the Superintendents never had that absolute Power in the Church that our Episcopal Brethren now allow to their Prelats. Though we denie not that they had a Frelacie, and more Power than We now give to single Presbyters; and have given the Reason why it was so, and of its Consistence with the design of our Reformers, that the perpetual Government of the Church should be by Paritie. The main Difference between the two sorts of Church Rulers which we insist on, and which himself acknowledgeth to be Material, he falleth upon, p. 159. and sayeth he must be serious in it; is, Superintendents were made obnoxious to the Tryal and Censures of Ministers within their own Dioces. The Truth of which, and that it neither was so with Bishops in the Primitive Church, nor should be so now, he doth freely Profess. But he putteth his Wit to its utmost stretch, to get a fair Answer to it. He bringeth no less than Five Answers, whereas one good one had been Worth them all. His first Answer hath some what of Ingenuitie in it. He condemneth our Reformers in this; and sayeth, it was a great Error in their Constitutions, and declames against it with great Vehemencie, that Governours should be Subject to the Censure of their Subjects; and sheweth a great deal of Zeal for absolute Government, both in Church and State: into Debate about which I shall not now enter: only I take Notice, that here he fairly gives up that part of our Controvesie, that he hath been at a vast deal of pains about; that our Reformers were Episcopal in their Principles. With which I am sure, this is wholly inconsistent. If he had thought of this sooner, and Acted consequentially to it, after this Thought came into his Head, he he might have saved a greas deal of pains to himself, and Me: and near the Half of his long Book might have been spared. His second Answer p. 187is, this was put in their Constitution from a Principle about civil Government owned by them, that the King is Major singulis, but Minor omnibus: which he also Ridiculeth. Neither am I concerned to Debate this Principle, it doth not belong to our our present Controversie. But what he asserteth is a groundless Conjecture; we have better ground to think that they lookt on this as according to the Laws of the Gospel; which forbiddeth Church Domination. His Third is, they made also Ministers Censureable by their Elders; and from thence taketh occasion to Reproach them, as having little Skill in Church Policy: nor will I degress into these Debates; only I take Notice, that what he saith is no Answer to our Exception, but rather a Confirmation of it: if both a Superinintendent was Censureable by the Synod, and the Ministers by the Eldership; it doth evidentlie follow, that the Superintendents and the Bishops power were not the same. A Fourth Answer is, this was never put in Practice. Reply, It will be very hard for him to Prove this Negative: but whether it was or not, it sheweth that our Reformers did not intend Episcopacy when they set up Superintendents. His Fifth is, this Constitution doth not infer Parity. Reply, We do not say that Superintendents were in absolute Parity with other Ministers; we confess a disparity of Power, for that time. All we plead is, that our Reformers were not for Episcopacy, even in that case of Necessity: and the Imparity that they were then forc't to; they did not intend should always continue.

§. 23. The other Plea he mentioneth hath its Rise from his own fancie: it was not used by us: what he citeth for it, was not used either for its Advantage, or disadvantage, but an occasional Observation cast into a Parenthesis, to shew that it was merely the Deed of the Church; however, it might afterward be taken notice of by Parliaments. Our Author now, p. 166. imagining that he hath dispelled all the Mists cast by Presbyterians on what he pleadeth for, about the Principles of our Reformers, with respect to Church Government; proceedeth to give us Accompt of a second Modell that Church Government was cast into: But as an Introduction to this, he falleth on the Mistakes and weaknesses of the Reformers, with the Preface of a pretended unwillingness to expose them so; the sincerity of which pretension the Reader may Judge of, if he consider that the whole of this Discourse is wholly Impertinent; for we are to consider their Actions rather than guess at their Motives: if the Reader also reflect on his page 7. where he reproacheth our Reformation as a violent and disordered Reformation. Their weakness he exposeth p. 188in two things: one is, that they went on this Principle, that the best way to Reform the Church was to recede as far from the Papists as they could: to have nothing in Communion with them but the essentials, the necessarie and indispensible Articles and Parts of Christian Religion, what else was in its nature indifferent, and not positively and expresly Commanded in the Scripture, if it was i… fashion in the Popish Church, was therefore to be laid aside, and avoided as … Corruption, as having been abused, as made Subservient to Superstition and Idolatry. Here is a false representation of our Reformers, and that in three things. 1. This Principle was never held nor Practised by them, in the Latitude nor extensiveness that he mentioneth: they indeed were against Religious Ceremonies devised by Men, as on other Grounds, so on Accompt of their being Symbols of Idolatrie and Superstition, and having been so used: but there were many parts of Religion that were not fundamental, but of inferior Note that they did not so deall with. 2. They never Rejected any thing that was truelie a part of true Religion, and was peculiar to it, whether it were of greater or lesser Moment, onlie on the Ground he mentioneth: but always were able to give other Reasons for their Opinion or Practice. 3. They always were willing to receive what could be, by good consequence, proved by Scripture, though it were not positively and expresly Commanded, I advise my Adversarie, if he have little regard to the reputation of the Reformers, that he would be more careful not to Wound his own, by speaking what is not Truth. For the Principle it self, duly stated according to what I have said, I am willing to Debate it with him; but that is not his business, but rather to expose it by Invectives. The next thing that he Representeth them in as weak, is, they were for the Revenue that had belonged to the Church in Poperie, to be Imployed still for the Churches use. I think, this Debate is little to our purpose, and therefore I wave it,

§ 24. His next Attempt is, to prove that there was a second Model of the Government of the Church of Scotland, after the publick Establishment of the Reformation; and that this was Episcopacy. And here he bringeth a Labyrinth of History, in which it is hard for any Man to follow him: rejecting what ever disliketh him; and casting Dirt on all that have written the History of our Reformation, not sparing Spotswood himself, when he doth not please him: only he hath had the hap to light on a Manuscript, out of which he alters, adds, and contradicteth all the other Accounts that we have of the Affairs of our Church; whence that Manuscript came, what Authority it hath; whither it be p. 189his own, or any other Mans, he is not pleased to tell us. He calleth it his Manuscript, whether he would have us take him for the Author, or for the Owner of it, I cannot determine: nor do I see what Title he hath to it on either Account; I have the present use of a Manuscript, which (as I am credibly informed) is the very individual Copy that he had, which now belongeth to the University of Glasgow: Whether any other Copies of it be extant, I am uncertain: It was Transcribed by William Laing Reader of Ebdie Kirk, in the year 1638. It containeth the Acts of the General Assemblies from 1560 to 1616 inclusive, and other things relating to Church Affairs. I shall in a few Words shew how little Advantage he hath by this Manuscript, by shewing that it is far from setting forth our Reformers as enclined to Episcoprcy: and by pointing at some of his false Citations out of it; for the former, it will be evident to them who without Byass, consider the following Passages: Assembly 1562 p. 6. not the Superintendent alone, but they with the Ministers and Elders, are to expone to the Kirk, the State of the Kirk among them, and note Offences; that the Kirk may find some Remeed for them; p. 7. Superintendents as well as other Ministers are removed, and tryed in Order to Censure by the Assembly: so also p. 8. and almost every where: This looketh not like Episcopal Jurisdiction; p. 7. Sess. 4. the Assembly giveth Power to Superintendents, to transport Ministers, but with this express Limitation; that it be done in the Synod, and with Consent of the most part of the Ministers and Elders. Ibid. Sess. 3. Speaking of Inhibiting such as have unduly entered into the Ministry, it is said, this Act is to have strength as well against them that are called Bishops, as others, pretending to any Ministry in the Kirk: Where even the Name of Bishops (as then used) seemeth to be disliked, and their Prelation disowned, and their Subjection to the Ministers met in an Assembly supposed, so far were they from owning sole or superior Jurisdiction in them. Assembly 1565. p. 21. Ministers must be tryed (at their Entry) by Learned Men of the Kirk, such as are presently the Superintendents appointed thereunto: where the Perpetuity of the Superintendents Office, and Power is disowned: they for the present, not always, were to do that Work: also that their Power is derived from the Assembly, not Divine Institution, is plainly insinuated. Assembly 1566. A Petition to the Council with Expostulations against the Queens restoring the Arch-Bishop of Saint Andrews to his Jurisdiction: where they affirm that the Causes for the most part judged by his usurped Authority belong to the true Kirk, Ibid. Bishops, Abbots, &c. warned p. 190by Superintendents within whose Jurisdiction they lived, to compear before the Kirk to answer for not waiting on their Flocks. Assembly 1567. Sess. 4. p. 44. The Bishop of Orkney deprived of all Ministerial Function of the Ministry, for Marrying the Queen to the Earl of Bothwell, a Divorced Adulterer: On his Repentance he is restored again to the Ministry of the Words No mention of restoring to Episcopal Jurisdiction. The Manuscript giveth a very short account of the Convention at Leith 1571. Jan. 12. where our Author beginneth his new Model of Episcopacy. Of the Assembly at Saint Andrews, in March 6. it hath but little. Assembly 1572. at Perth, a Determination against the Names of Arch-Bishops, Deans, &c. as scandalous: Also that the Articles at Leith be received but for an Interim. Assembly March 1. 1572. Bishops appointed (as well as others) to be at the first Meeting of every Assembly, under the Pain of Tinsel of half a years Stipend: Assembly March 6. 1573. Bishops admonished to joyn with the Kirk, in her Assemblies, which it seems some of these Aspiring Men thought below them. And it is Enacted, that the Power of Bishops should not exceed that of a Superintendent: And that Bishops should be subject to the Discipline of the General Assembly. Assembly 1574. The Bishop of Dunkel rebuked for Ministration of the Lords Supper on Work days. They were then so Shy of a fixed and perpetual Prelation among Ministers; that it was Enacted, Anno 1575. p. 70. at the end, that to shun Ambition and Inconveniency to the Kirk, Commissioners for Visiting Provinces should be Changed every year. In the beginning of that Assembly, when the Tryal of the Doctrine and Conversation of Bishops, Superintendents, and other Ministers was mentioned, John Dury one of the Ministers of Edinburgh, Protested that the Tryal of Bishops prejudge not the Opinion, and Reasons that he, and other Brethren has to oppone against the Office and Name of a Bishop. This is the highest Pitch that his new Model of Episcopacy (as he calleth it) came to from 1571. to 1575, when (we deny not) there was a Declension from the Purity of Church Government, endeavoured by some Courtiers, and Ambitious Church Men, their Tools. But from this time Presbytry began to Revive, and gather Strength, till at last it was fully setled: For in the Assembly 1575. it was questioned whether the Office of Bishops was Founded on the Word of God, p. 71. and some appointed to Debate on either Side. Bishops are appointed to chuse a particular Flock, where they must ordinarily Labour. Assembly 1576▪ p. 71. Adamson Presented by the Queen to the Bishoprick of Saint Andrews is called by the Assembly to be tryed, p. 77. The Bishop of Glasgow is required to take a particular Charge. p. 191Assembly 1577. p. 79. Adamson Summoned before the General Assembly for Usurping a Bishoprick, without the Kirk: Commissioners are appointed to Examine the Matter, and to Discharge him to Visit any more, till he be Admitted by the Kirk: Assembly 1578. p. 83. Ordained that Beshops he called by their own Names, and called Brethren, p. 84. The Assembly dischargeth Creating any more Bishops till the next Assembly; because of great Corruptions in the State of Bishops. Assembly 1578. held in June, extendeth the foresaid Act to all time coming, till the Corruptions of the State of Bishops be wholly taken away; And Commands all Bishops that now are, to Submit to the Assembly under Pain of Excommunication. Assembly at Dundee, July 12. p. 96. After Liberty to all to Reason, The whole Assembly in one Voice, did declare the Office of Bishops as now used in Scotland, to be unwarrantable in the Word of God, and unlawful in it self, and to the great Overthrow of the Kirk of God. All Bishops are Charged to Dimit, and to use no part of the Office of Pastors, without new Admission by the Assembly: Synods appointed within a Month after to Summon them, and proceed to Excommunication against the Refusers. Assembly 1581. Declared the above-mentioned Act to mean, that the Government of Bishops, as now in Scotland, is wholly Condemned. After which, Presbyteries were Erected through the whole Nation. For his false Citations out of the Manuscript, I shall mention but two (tho the Reader may observe many moe, by Comparing his Book with the Manuscript.) One is p. 127. that the Manuscript saith it was Ordained, Assembly 1562. that no Minister leave his Flock to come to the Assembly, unless he have Complaint to make, or be Complained of, or be Warned to it by the Superintendent; whereas the Manuscript hath not a Word to that Purpose in that Assembly: The other is p. 128. out of the Assembly 1563. That none Vote in Assemblies but Superintendents, Commissioners, and Ministers brought with them, together with Commissioners of Shires, Burghs, and Universities: And that Ministers Commissioners be Chosen at the Synodal Convention, with Consent of the rest of the Ministers, and Gentlemen Conveened at the Synod. Whereas the Manuscript (it is p. 10.) saith, that every Superintendent within his own Jurisdiction, cause warn the Shires, Towns, and Parish Kirks, to send their Commissioners to the Assembly, declaring to them the Day and Place. Here is nothing like what he Citeth: and if it were so as he saith, it could not infer the Superintendents Nominating the Commissioners to the Assembly▪ but it is plain that they were Chosen by the Synod: and that the Synods Consent was no less an Act of Authority, than if it had been said, it must be done by their Vote. These things out of that Manuscript, I p. 192have here cast together, because I had finished this Work before it came to my hand, and therefore could not so conveniently dispose them in their several Places.

§ 25. I shall not any further take notice of this Historical Controversie, than to make some short Remarks on it, hoping that a History of these Affairs may ere long be ready for the Press, from which we expect a full Account, with more Truth and Candor, than what is to be found in his Discourse. 1. I deny not (nor do I know any that ever denyed) but there was so much ground for his telling us of a second Model of the Government of the Church; that the first Endeavours of the Reformers, for shunning the old Hierarchy that was under Popery, met with some Interruption and Opposition; the Causes were evident, the Covetousness of some Courtiers, and other States Men; and the Ambition and Unfaithfulness of some Church Men: there were Attempts to set up Episcopacy, and they had some degree of effect; but they were always opposed; and the Designs of the Prelatical Party could never succeed, as they wished; but at last, after much Wrestling, Presbytery was settled in its Vigour, in the year 1592. Wherefore his tedious Citations to prove that the Church did some things that cannot well be reconciled with Parity, in that Interval of her Declension and Confusions, was needless Labour, which I do not envy him the Pleasure of, seing he was pleased so to imploy his Leasure Hours; I have elsewhere Debated some of these Passages, with the same Author (if I mistake not) nor do I find any thing that now he bringeth which is new, save insolent Contempt, and ill Words; which I can easily beat from a Man of his Temper; nor will I make equal Returns to these his Complements. 2. I observe, that when p. 143. he is giving account of the Alteration that was endeavoured, toward the setting up of Episcopacy; he bringeth Reasons for the States Men, and Reasons for the Church men, that might move them; and that with as much Confidence, as if he had been at the Consult; the States Men considered that Episcopacy was still established by Law; the Ecclesiasticks made one of the three Estates; and to take it away was to shake the Civil Constitution; and they might have been called to an account for it, when the King should come to Age; who was then Minor: But this is a pure Fallacy: the Bishops were still by Law possessed of their Temporalities, Revenues, and Parliamentarie Priviledges; but not of their Ecclesiastick Jurisdiction: it was the preserving of these, not of this, that the Courtiers were accountable for, p. 193with respect to the Civil Constitution. That this was the best way to preserve the Right of the Church; is said without Book; unless he can prove that Christ gave her such Rights; her Civil Rights might have been, and afterward were, otherwise preserved. It was very evident, that many of the States Men were Acted by other Motives, (I do not say all of them were for a Jus Divinum, or Acted Conscienciously) even to get the Revenues in their hands. Which he doth plainly enough confess, while page 189. he telleth us of their Playing their Tricks, and Robbing the Church. For the Reason that he maketh the Clergy go upon, viz. The ill Effects of the former Scheme, laid in the first Book of Discipline, that had arisen to the Church: there is no Hint given by him of any such ill Effects, as apprehended by the Men of that Time; except that they who designed a Change for their own Ends, would readily pretend some such thing; neither he, nor any else, can prove that any Detriment to the true Interests of Religion, did arise from it: It is evident, that some Church Men had a design to advance themselves; though they were disappointed, as to the advantagious part of their design, they got the Titles, and the great Men got the Revenues; which he would fain deny or dissemble: but it is so evident, that he must contradict our plainest Histories, if he deny it. 3. That another was Moderator in the General Assembly, than a Bishop, is brought as an Argument that Prelacy was not got to its height, even by the greatest Efforts the Party could make at that time. All he saith to this is, that George Buchannan was chosen Moderator in the General Assembly 1567. which yet inferreth not the Ruine of Presbytery. The Strength of this Evasion is soon taken off: the Episcopal Church look on Bishops as so far above Presbyters; that it is Essential to them to Rule, and the Presbyters to be Ruled by them; so that for a Bishop to be a single Member of an Assembly, and a Presbyter to be Moderator, is inconsistent with the Bishops Prerogative; but Presbyterians hold no such distinguishing Principle; they think a Minister is in a superior Order above a Non-Preaching Elder: but do not think that the one hath Jurisdiction over the other; but that both have equal Ruling Power: and therefore, though it be now so Customary, that only Ministers preside in our Meetings, that it would be thought odd, if it should be otherwise, yet for a Ruling Elder (such as Master Buchannan was) and a Man of his singular Eminency, to preside in a Meeting, is not against any Principle of Presbyterians, that I know of; (tho the Way we use is most Rational, and Decent, and there is no p. 194Reason for receding from it.) But to make this Observation yet stronger, Calderwood p. 56. (if I may Name him without Firing this Gentlemans Choller; and being Charged with Ignorance, and knowing no other History) telleth us, that never one of them had the Credit to be Moderator of the General Assembly; which is a Token (I shall not speak in his Dialect, an infallible Demonstration) that their Episcopal Jurisdiction was not then owned by the Church.

§ 26. A fourth Observation I make on his Historical Debate is, that he endeavoureth to prove, against Petrie and Calderwood; that the Articles at Leith were approved by the General Assembly; that Episcopacy was s… approved; that it cost much Stuggling before it could be Abolished. What he gaineth by all this I know not. The Opposition that was made to that Way did soon appear, and it was soon abolished: that it is said, that it was not allowed by the General Assembly, is only meant of the first General Assembly that sat a few Weeks after the Agreement at Leith; though afterward the Party grew stronger and got it approved; I know none that asserteth that it was never approved in any General Assembly, though his Proofs that he bringeth for its being approved, might tempt one to think that it was never approved, viz. That they sat in Assemblies, and voted, and that even as Bishops: Their sitting and voting proveth that they were tollerated: what he meaneth by sitting and voting as Bishops, I do not well understand: that Reduplication must either import the Exercise of the Episcopal Authority, or it is a Word without Sense, or Signification: now that they Exercised Episcopal Authority in any of the Assemblies, I do not find, nor doth he attempt to prove it. The Arch-Bishop of Saint Andrews, being present, and first named in a Committee, (as p. 203.) is such an Argument for Episcopal Preheminence, as the Papists use not a few for Peters Supremacy: that Superintendents are continued (ibid.) is a weak Argument, for the Assemblies approving Bishops of the second Model, as he calleth it. It is another such Argument, that the Assembly declare what they mean by the Names Arch-Bishops, Deans, &c. and wish these changed into Names less offensive: that the Articles agreed on at Leith (which contain his second Model) are voted by the Assembly to be received but for an Interim. These and some more of the same, or like Importance, are his Arguments for the Approbation of Episcopacy by the Church of Scotland at that time. I do not say they Acted as Men for the Divine Right of Parity: it was a time of Temptation, and many yielded too far: but there was a Party that did p. 195not thus Comply, and who prevailed to get this Yoke cast off at last: many of the Acts of the Assemblies that he citeth, do Direct the Bishops, and Limit their Power, and appoint them to be subject to the General Assembly; and to have no more Power than Superin endents had: this looketh like no good Will to Episcopacy: but a Hedging it in, when they could not, for present, cast it wholly out. But he will prove, p. 212, &c. That all this was out of no Dislike to Episcopacy: and that by a Petition consisting of nine Articles, drawn by the General Assembly, 1574. Wherein Bishops are several times mentioned, and that as Acting as Bishops, in Naming Ministers for Places; (where yet Superintendents and Commissioners are also mentioned, as equally concerned in that Work) yea in one of these Articles, it is desired, that Qualified Ministers might be provided for vacant Bishopricks. This proveth no more, but that the major part of this Assembly thought fit, that seing Men, bearing the Name of Bishops (for little more they had) were for an Interim tollerated in the Church, their Places should neither be vacant, nor filled with insufficient Persons. All this may well consist with a Dislike of that Lordly Power of Bishops that some were Aspiring to, and that my Antagonist pleadeth for.

§ 27. Our Author thinks he hath now done his Work, and proved that Prelacy was privatly and publickly liked, from the beginning of the Reformation: it seems he hath argued himself into a Belief of it, (such is the Efficacy of Prejudice) which few else will be perswaded of. He thinketh his further Work needless (and I think it had been more for his Credit to let it alone) it is, to prove that Presbytery met with Opposition: and I could seldom observe that any good Design was carried on, but Satan raged against it, and found Instruments against it: his former Historical Discourse he justly calleth Nauseous, p. 216. But what followeth is much more so; and yet worse: for he falleth to downright Railing against Master Andrew Melvil, in not only a nausebus Gingling Strain of Words, but with such Unmanly Bitterness, as a tender Conscienced Christian would abhor; yea a Person of common Morality would be ashamed of: and is only fit for the Scolding Women that have lost all Shame. The foull Misrepresentation of Matters of Fact, which have some Semblance of Truth in them, that this Narrative aboundeth with, I leave to the History, that I hope may appear ere long, to correct them: I am no further concerned than with what is Argumentative: of which I can find nothing here: for we deny not that there was then, as p. 196now, an Episcopal Party, who were loath to let go their hoped for, or enjoyed Church Preferments. That after Master Melvil appeared was the first time that any appeared for Presbytery in Scotland, or against Episcopacy, is a daring Assertion; after which we may expect whatever he shall think to be for his Interest; considering what hath been already adduced out of the Book of Discipline. One who readeth this his Historical Discourse, may easily perceive what Shifts he is put to, for proving the Regent Mortons Change from Episcopacy, to favour Presbytery; and to prove his Intentions in some of his Actings, and that by a long Train of Arguments. To prove that England, though Episcopal, did endeavour to promote Presbytery in Scotland. To prove the Ignorance of the Clergy of Scotland at that time. To prove Beza to be ignorant of the Government and Constitution of the ancient Church, (p. 248.) and that not out of his own Book, (which it seems he had not read) but out of his Adversary, Saravia: and indeed he proveth Beza's Ignorance by such Instances as will serve for any Presbyterian, and conclude them all to be Ignoramus's, which I know is this Authors Opinion, oftner than once or twice expressed. I pass with a transient Observation, his bitter Sarcasm against Days of Solemn Fasting and Humiliation, often appointed by Presbyterians, p. 254. It had been good his own Party had used them oftner; and that they and we had improved them better. I take notice also of his making so very great a Difference, between the Meetings of Ministers and Elders for Exercises (that is, for Interpretation of Scripture) and Presbyteries which were set up: on account whereof, he representeth it as a great deal of Ignorance in one who affirmed, that the real Exercise of Presbytery, in all its Meetings, lesser and greater, continued, and was allowed, in the year 1572. I deny not but that there was a Difference between these two Sorts of Meetings, as there is between a Child and a full grown Man, viz. The Meetings for Exercise, or Presbyteries, (call them what ye will) did at first meddle with fewer Acts of Church Power than afterward: yet they Acted with Authority. For the Ministers and Elders met to interpret Scripture; I hope the Elders were not Interpreters by publick Teac…ng, as well as the Ministers: the People, no doubt, were also present at these Exercises, as Hearers, but the Elders are mentioned as Constituent Members of a Meeting, wherein the People had no Share, which must be an Authoritative Meeting. King James the sixth was far from his Opinion about these Meetings; who in the Conference at Hampton-Court 1603. in the second days Conference, p. 197p. 78, 79. when Doctor Reynolds moved that the Clergy might meet once every three Weeks for Prophesying: as Bishop Grindal and other Bishops desired of her late Majesty; the King being stirred at this, said, that they aimed at Scottish Presbytery. He looketh on it as ridiculous that G. R. had reckoned that Presbyteries were from the beginning, and fancieth that he hath no other ground for so saying; but that Calderwood had said, that the Kirk of Scotland had four sorts of Assemblies, ever since the beginning, of which this must needs be one. But I can tell him of other Grounds on which he might reckon this Meeting a Presbytery; one is the General Assembly 1579. as the Manuscript he so often citeth, hath it, p. 95. did expresly determine that these Meetings were Presbyteries: another is, what is above said: and a third is, that even in times of Episcopacie in Scotland; these Meetings were called the Exercise, and yet they pretended to Presbyterial Power in them; though it was in Subordination to the Bishop. That Calderwood sayeth that Presbytries succeeded to these Meetings, importeth no more, but that Presbytries were after set up with more Power and Freedom than they then had under Superintendents, or Bishops. When he cannot contradict Matter of fact, with respect to the prevailing of Presbytrie; he falleth to down right railing at the Assemblie, which condemned Prelacie, for boldness, folly, iniquitie, preposterous Zeal; if more Reproaches had then occurred to his Fancie, it is like we should have had them; it is neither good Manners, nor a token of a good Cause thus to fall from Reasoning to Scolding. I leave him now after he hath again mistaken the Question, to please himself with re-counting his Exploits, and to tell the World what he hath made appear, in not a few pages. After which, he bringeth two Witnesses for Confirming what he had so long insisted on; The first of them is, an Author with whom I am not acquainted, but seemeth to be of his own Sentiments; So that what he sayeth of the Opposition made to Presbyterie in Scotland; is no more to us than what A. M. D. D. himself hath said; especially seing we have not the Reasons, but the bare Assertion, of that Author. The other is King James the sixth, to whose Testimonie brought also by the Author of the Ten Questions, I did then Oppose, and still do, his own Explication of what he sayeth, in an after Edition of his Basilicon doron, that he meant none but such as Anabaptists, and Familists: And a contrair Assertion of that same Royal Author, whereby he highly extolleth the Presbyterian Government in Scotland; by saying, and that frequently, that no Error could get footing there (in Scotland) p. 198while Kirk Sessions, Presbyteries, Synods, and General-Assemblies stood in their Force. He concludeth his Second Enquiry, with making a great Improvement against us (as he thinketh) of our saying that the Bishops set up, in that he calleth his second Model, had no more Power than Superintendents; whence he Argueth, Superintendents had the essentials of Episcopal Power; but the Assembly at Dundee, 1580, Condemned Episcopacie; and they Condemned also Superintendencie; whence it followeth, that they (and our present Presbytersans follow their Steps in this) not only forsook, but condemned the Principles of our Reformers. This he seemeth to hug as a triumphant Argument, before which the Presbyterian Cause can never stand. But the Answer is plain and easie, and may be gathered from what hath been abov-discoursed. That Assemblie did, (and the Presbyterians do) condemn Superindendencie, as what ought not to continue in the Church; nor ought to be in the ordinarie cases of the Church; but they did not condemn it as what was never lawful to be used for a time, in an extraordinarie Exigent. And we affirm (which our Author hath not yet disproved) that our Reformers were not for Superintendents perpetual continuance in the Church.

§. 28. Our Authors Third Enquire is, whether Prelacie, and the Superioritie of any Office in the Church, above Presbyters was a great and insupportable Grievance, and Trouble to this Nation, and contrair to the Inclinations of the generalitie of the People, ever since the Reformation. He hath verie just Sentiments of this Matter, when he sayeth that if his Determination of the former Enquirie be true, this Question will soon be dispatched; for indeed it hath a great Dependence on what is already Discoursed. He might, if so it had pleased him, saved the labour of this tedious Debate, in which there is little else but a litigious Jangle, about what can hardly othewise be Determined than by what hath been alreadie said; unless we could (which is impossible) have the Vote by Pole, of all the Individuals of the Nation, and that in all the Times, and Changes since the Reformation. The Parliament hath given us their Sentiments about this Matter, and if any be not willing to rest in the Judgment of so wise an Assemblie of worthy Patriots, come together from all parts of the Nation to consult about its weghtiest Affairs, he may, for me, abound in his own sense. I know this hath been generally the thoughts of Presbyterians, yea, of sober Episcopalians in some other Churches, and I could give the Opinion of some of the greatest …minencie for Vertue, Understanding and Rouk, (and yet not Presbyterian) that Presbyterie p. 199was the fittest Church-Government for Scotland. But if our Brethren will maintain he contrarie, I judge they mistake: but shall not think them Hereticks on this accompt. I would have him also consider; that what ever might move the Parliament to make use of this Motive to Abolish Episcopacie, and Establish Presbyterie; the Presbyterian Church of Scotland never thought the Aversion of the People from Episcopacie, nor their Inclinations to Presbytrie, to be the Fundamental Charter by which they have a right to that Government. We rejoyce that the State was pleased to allow, and countenance, by their Authority, this Government of the Church; but we think, it standeth on a surer bottom, than either the Opinion or the Authoritie of Men; and much surer than the Inclinations of the Mob: even the Institution of Christ declared in the Scriptures of truth; which Grounds I have laid down in this Work; if he can Beat us from these, we shall become his willing Proselyts; and quit (though we will not Revile it as he doth) this Act of Parliament, as no sufficient Ground for our Faith and Practice in this Matter. I know not whether it favoured more of Contempt of the State, or of the Church, or was more designed to ridicule, or to refute Presbyterie, that he Choosed such a Title for his Book as he hath done? but we are in utrumque parati; to despise his Mocking, and to Answer his Material Arguments, though we have neither leasure nor Inclination to Blott so much Paper as he hath done, about Matters that be remote from the main Question.

§. 29. His Proofs of the Peoples Inclination towards Bishops are much of a size of strength with what we have already heard, Petrie commends the State of the Church in the year 1576: and Spotswood speaketh of the Respect that the Superintendents had: Beza also, and Knox rejoyced in that State of the Church: Ans. I believe, so should the Presbyterians of our days have done if they had then Lived: There was a Glorious Reformation that was cause of great Joy, and though Superintendencie was no desireable thing in it self, yet in that time of the Churches great Exigence, it was no small MercieMercy, and Matter of Joy, that there were a few worthy Men to manage the Affairs of the Church, when as many as were needed could not be had; and it was just that these Men should be had in great Esteem: yet it is no good Argument, the People Inclined to have Superintendents when it was simply needful, therefore they inclined to have them, or Bishops, perpetuated in the Church. Another great Argument is, even in after times, and the more advanced State of p. 200Presbyterie, when Ten or Twelve were severely dealt with by the Magistrat and Six or Seven more called to London, for their forwardness in that way, yet all things went peaceably in Scotland: as if People were always well pleased with what passeth when they make no Disturbance to the Government: he must in Justice allow us the use of the same Argument for the Aversion of all Scotland from Episcopacie, and their Inclination to Presbyterie, seing the Nation have these years past, been in Peace, though he, and some of his Partie Complain of the hardest usage that can be. That Episcopacie prevailed, 1610, Proveth no more for the one side, than the prevailing of Paritie, 1592, and again, 1690, Proveth for the other side. Yea, submitting to Episcopacie, so far as to sit in Synods, and Presbyteries with a Bishop, was no Argument of Approving it, in the case of the Church that then was; when the Judicatures of the Church were in their Integritie, and Bishops thrust in on them: It was another Case at the last Erection of Episcopacie, when all Church Meetings were laid aside by Civil Authority, and were called again only by the Bishops Authority. He Chargeth Calderwood. (and G. R. for the great Crime of following him in this piece of Historie) that he had said, that it was Statute in Parliament, 1565, that no other Jurisdiction Ecclesiastical be acknowledged within this Realm than that which is, and shall be, within this same Kirk, Established presently, or which floweth therefrom, concerning Preaching the Word, Correction of Manners, or Administration of the Sacrament. If I should Confess that I find not these Words in the Act which Calderwood citeth: yet our Author should not have so much Advantage against him, or G. R. either, as he Boasteth of; unless he will Condemn his Darling Historian Spotswood also: who sayeth, p. 214. that the matter of Policy and Jurifdiction of the Church was refeered to the consideration of certain Lords delegated by the Estates: there is as little of this in the Act that he Citeth, as there is of what Calderwood had mentioned: whence these two Historians had their vouchers for what they say, it seems my Antagonist cannot tell; nor could I, till I met with an old Edition of King James the si…ths Acts of Parliament, Printed by John Ross at Edinburgh, 1575. Where Parliament 1569, Act 12, the Words are expresly set down. It seems his Party dreaded the Force of this Citation; and have taken care to stifle it: For in Edition Edinburgh, 1682, called the little Acts of Parliament, that Act (being the 12th Chapter, Parliament, 1567) is wholly left out. That Superintendencie was then in the Church; is no Argument p. 201that Prelacie was settled in the Church; as what was intended should continue; but they were then intending another sort of Jurisdiction, as the event did shew. What he so critically carpeth at, p. 293. about a Citation out of Leslyes Historie; is pure quibling; it was not denied that Popish Bishops sat in Parliament, but rather acknowledged; yet Lesly was cited to shew that it did not long continue so. If there be any material Change in that Citation from the Authors Words, let the Reader judge; after all the frivolous Critticism he hath made. The Reader may observe how exact a Historian this Man is, who hussily Bantereth others with defectiveness that way: for he telleth us, that Meeting of which Lesly sayeth, that the Ecclesiasticks were Excluded, was not a Parliament; but at most a Privy Council: Lesly supposeth it to be a Meeting that had the Legistative Power, which I thought had been in the King and Parliament; and that they made such a Law as was the Fountain of all the Heresies, (i. e. the Protestant Religion) and other evils that followed. That he calleth it Concilium, is nothing contrarie to what I say; seing Parliaments are often so called in Latine,

§ 30. For his fourth Enquirie, he manageth his Answer to it, with such undecent Reflection both on the Church and on the State; that I judge others are meeter to deal with him about these things than I, or any in my capacity; and the Matter (as himself confesseth) not being capable of Argument; nor any publick Deed being extant (except the Act of Parliament which he so petulantly exposeth) by which it might be Determined: I see no ground here for Debate, but our Affirmation and his Denial; and I know he will lay no more weight on the one, than we lay on the other. For what he is at a great deal of pains about, to refute what G. R. and another who writ the farther Vindication, had said very transiently, and without intending a laborious Paper combate about a Matter so remote from the vitals of our Controversie with the Episcopalians, I say, all that Rapsodie that he hath written on this Head, I am content to refer it to the judicious and unbyassed Reader; to consider whether our Cause, or this Authors Reputation as a Wise Man, and one exercised in matters of solid Reason or Learning, do more Suffer by it; it is Truth, and the Ordiances of Christ that I am set for the Defence of, not Men, my self, nor others; unless it were in Matters that may reflect blame on the Cause that I own. Wherefore I shall wholly pass over this Enquirie: if any one who hath more leasure than I have; or is more inclined toward Eristick jangle, will p. 202take him to Task, and deal with him at his own Weapon, he may do it. I say not this, as either being convinced by his Reasons, or seeing them to be Unanswerable. I am still in the Opinion I was in before, concerning the Inclinations of the People of Scotland; especially the Soberer sort of them, and these of the best Lives, with respect to Episcopacie and Presbyterie. Only this I confess, that I believe there was never a time since the Reformation in Scotland arrived at any degree of Consistence, or Stabilitie, wherein the Inclinations of the Generalitie of the People were less cocerned about any thing of Religion, either the more Essential, or the less Substantial part of it; on the one side, or on the other; so Fatal impressions the Flood-gates of all manner of Profanness, and Looseness that had broken out in the late Times, under Prelacie, had made on the Minds of Men; and to such height Irreligiousness arrived. Yet I Affirm, that the real Respect that Men had to Religion, in any of the concernments of it, were rather on the Presbyterian, than on the Episcopal side. I shall say less of his fifth Enquirie, for I freely confess, that neither the Inclinations of the People for Presbyterie, nor Episcopacy being a Grievance to the Nation; nor our being Reformed by Presbyters, if all this were true, evident and certain; none of these, nor all of them in conjunction, could by themselves, infer that Prelacie should be Abolished: nor (I am confident) did the Parliament ever intend to have them so considered Wherefore, if my Antagonist, or any for him, can prove that Prelacie is the Ordinance of Christ for the Gospel Church: we shall part with all these Arguments for its Abolition, and shall cordially own it: but if that cannot be done (as I am sure it cannot) and if these Propositions be true; they afford an Argument for the Abolition of Prelacie, that he will never be able to Answer. And I shall dismiss this Enquirie; and indeed this whole Book, after I have Noted a few things (without insisting on Debates) out on a Discourse that he beginneth afresh, p. 333. about the Principles of our Reformers: he pleadeth for their fallabilitie: he is not for all they held or did: we say the same of both. Only I take Notice, that here he overthroweth the Argument that he had so much insisted upon against us; that our Reformers were not exactly for the whole of our Way. Though I do not pretend to Defend all the Principles that were held by our Reformers: yet many of these which he blameth them for might easily be Defended; if it were not to Digresse from our present Controversie about Church Government. The Reproaches that he casteth on Master Knox deserve Correction; I p. 203wish, some may undertake it. His Challenge to us, p. 344. to shew wherein they have deserted the Reformers, so far as they Agreed with the Primitive Church, or, what is an Approach toward Poperie, I say, Episcopacie is an Instance of both: but this being the Matter of our main Debate, the Decision must depend on that. He undertaketh to make it appear that the present Presbyterians have receded from the Principles of our Reformers, in 1. The Faith. 2. The Worship. 3. The Discipline. 4. The Government of the Church. In stead of this last, he insisteth on their laying aside the Bishops from voting in Parliament. I cannot now degresse to consider what here he sayeth; though he insisteth on them at great length; for I diverted into the Considerations of this Book, onelyonly in so far as the Controversie I have with him (or who ever is the Author in the other Book) is concerned. And there are some of these that are also there Debated, which I intend to consider. I have alreadie said, that we reverence our Reformers; but neither thought their Reformation at first Perfect; nor themselves Infallible. I hope some, or other will take him to Task on these Heads, and Defend the Principles of this Church, from his insolent Obloquie: I wish him a more temperat Spirit than appeareth in his Discourses; and particularly in his Ridiculeing of the Administration of the LORD'S Supper, as it is managed in the Church of Scotland.