The First Enquiry.

IF the Framers of the Article meant that it was in these words, They having Re­formed from Popery by Presbyters, I think, I am pretty sure they meant amiss: For there is nothing more obvious to one who reads and compares our Histories, than That persons standing in other stations, and cloath'd with other Characters, had a very [Page 4] great hand, and were very considerable In­struments in carrying on our Reformation. Particularly,

1. There were Prelates who concurred in that work as well as Presbyters. Knox says there were present in the Parliament holden in August, 1560. (which Parliament gave the first National Establishment to our Reformation) The Bishop of Galloway, the Abbots of Lundoris, Culross, St. Colmes-inih, Coldingham, Saint Mary-isle, and the Subprior of St. Andrews, with diverse others: And of all these, he says, That they had Renounced Papistrie, and openly professed Jesus Christ. Kn. 260. Spotswood reckons up no fewer than Eight of the Spiritual Estate, all Protestants, chosen, at that time, to be Lords of the Articles: Namely, Spot. 149. the Bishops of Galloway and Argyle, the Prior of St. Andrews, the Ab­bots of Aberbrothoik, Kilwinning, Lundors, Newbottle and Culross. Lay these two Ac­counts together, and you shall have, at least a Round Dozen of Reforming Prelates. 'Tis True Spotswood says, The Popish Prelates stormed mightily at such a Nomination for the Articles, alledging that some of them were meer Laicks. But what if it was so? I am apt to think, our Presbyterian Brethren will not be fond to make much advantage of this: I am apt to think they will not say, That all those whom they allow to have been Reforming Presbyters, were Duely and Canonically Or­dained: That they were solemnly seperated for the Ministery, by such as had Commission [Page 5] and Power to Separate them, and in such Manner as had Universally obtained, from the Apostles times, in the Separation of Pres­byters for their holy Function. The plain truth is,

2. Our Reformation was principally car­ried on by such as neither Did, nor Could pretend to be Canonically promoted to Holy Orders. Knox himself Kn. 127. tells us, that when the Reformation began to make its more publick Advances, which was in the Year 1558. there was a great Scarcety of Preachers: At that time (says he) we had no publick Ministers of the word; Only did certain Zealous Men ( among whom were the Laird of Dun, David Forress, Mr. Robert Lockhart, Mr. Robert Hamilton, William Harlaw, and others) Exhort their Brethren, according to the Gifts and Graces granted to them: But shortly after did God stir up his Ser­vant Paul Methven, &c. Here, we have but a very Diminutive account of them, as to Number: And such an Account, as, in its very Air and Countenance, seems to own they were generally but Lay-Brethren: They were but Zealous Men, not Canonically or­dained Presbyters: And if we may believe Lesly, Paul Methven was, by Occupation, a Baker, and William Harlaw a Taylor. Lesl▪ 496. The Laird of Dun, that same very year, was Provost of Montrose, and, as such, sent to France, as one representing, not the First or the Spiritual, but the Third Estate of Parlia­ment, the Burrows; to attend at the Cele­bration [Page 6] of the Queens Marriage, with the Dauphine of France: Lesl. 494. Spot. 95. He was indeed a Gentleman of good Esteem and Quality, and he was afterwards as Superintendent, but it no where appears that he was ever Re­ceived into Holy Orders. Nay,

3. After the pacification at Leith, which was concluded in Iuly 1560, when the Ministers were distributed amongst the se­veral Towns, we find but a very small Number of them. Iohn Knox was appointed for Edenburgh, Christopher Goodman for St. An­drews, Adam Herriot for Aberdeen, Iohn Row for Perth, William Chrystison for Dundee, Da­vid Ferguson for Dunfermline, Paul Methven for Iedburgh, and Mr. David Lindesay for Leith. Beside these, Five were nominated to be Superintendents; Spotswood for Lothian and Mers, Winram for Fife, the Laird of Dun for Angus and Merns, Willock for Glasgow, and Carsewell for Argyle and the Isles. These are all who are reckoned up by Knox and Spotswood: Kn. 259. Spot. 149. And Spotswood adds, With this small Number was the Plantation of the Church, at first, undertaken. And can we think, tho all these had been Presbyters duly ordained, That they were the only men who carried on the Scottish Reformation? Far­ther yet,

4. Petrie Pet. 222. tells us, that the First Gene­ral Assembly, which was holden in Dec. 1560, consisted of 44 persons; and I find exactly 44 Names Recorded in my Mss. Extract of the Acts of the General Assembly's, as [Page 7] the Names of the Members of that Assem­bly: But of all these 44, there were not above Nine, at most, who were called Mi­nisters; so that, at least, more than Thirty, were but Lay-Brethren according to the then way of Reckoning: probably, they were ge­nerally such, if you speak in the Dialect, and reckon by the Measures of the Catho­lick Church in all Ages. In short,

5. There is nothing more evident to any who considers the Histories of these times, than, that they were generally Laymen, who promoted our Violent and Disordered Reforma­tion, as Spotswood justly calls it. Spot. 60. And 'tis Reasonable to think, the Sense of this was One Argument, which prevailed with our Reformers to Declare against the Antient, Catholick, and Apostolick Ceremony of Imposi­tion of Hands in Ordinations; as is to be seen in the 4 th Head of the First Book of Discipline, Spot. 154. and as is generally acknowledged.

Thus I think I have sufficiently deduced Matters, as to my First Enquiry: It had been easy to have insisted longer on it; but I had no inclination for it, considering that there is a kind of Piety in Dispatch, when, the longer one insists on a subject of this Nature, he must still the more Expose the Failures of our Reformation, and the Weak­nesses of our Reformers. Proceed we now to

The Second Enquiry.

THis Enquiry, if I mistake not, is pretty far, in the interests of the main Que­stion: For, the Article, as I am apt to take it, aims at this, That our Reformation was carried on, with such a Dislike to Prelacy, or the Superiority of any Office in the Church, above Presbyters, as made Prelacy, or such a Superi­ority, ever since, a great and insupportable Grie­vance and Trouble to this Nation, &c. But if this is the Sense of the Article, what else is it, Than that our Reformers were Presbyte­rian? But whether or not, This was truly intended, (as 'tis truly very hard to know what was intended) in the Article, This is Certain, this Enquiry is material and perti­nent; And if it faces not the Article Directly, Undoub [...]edly, i [...] doth it, by fair Consequence. 'Tis as certain, our Presbyterian Brethren use, with confidence enough, to assert that our Reformers were of their Principles. This is One of the Main Arguments by which [Page 9] they endeavour, on all occasions, to influ­ence the Populace, and Gain Proselytes to their Party: And therefore I shall endea­vour to go as near to the bottom of this Matter as I can, and set it in its due Light; And I hope, It shall appear to be compe­tently Done, to all who shall, attentively and impartially, weigh the following Dedu­ction. And

I. Let it be considered, That while our Reformation was on the Wheel, and for some years after its publick Establishment, there was no such Controversy agitated, in Europe, as this, concerning The Divine Insti­tution of Parity or Imparity amongst the Pastors of the Church.

The Popes pretended universal Headship was Called in Question, indeed; And, Called in Question, it was run down with all imaginable Reason, some years, before the Settlement of our Reformation. That Controversie was One of the First, which were accurately ventilated by the Patrons of Reformation. And it was very natural that it should have been so, considering what stress was laid upon it by the Pontificians.

'Tis likewise true, That the Corruptions of the Ecclesiastical Estate, were Enquired into, in most Provinces, every where, where the Truth began to Dawn, and the Reformation was Encouraged: And it was not to be imagined, but in such Scrutinies, Bishops would be taken notice of, for their [Page 10] general Defection from the Antient Rules and Measures of the Episcopal Office, and the vast Dissimilitude between them, and those of the same Order in the primitive times, both as to the Discharge of their Trust, and their Way of Living: And who doubts, but in these things the Popish Bishops were too generally culpable?

'Tis farther true, That some Countries, when they reformed Religion, and sepa­rated from the Church of Rome, did set up New Models of Government in the Churches they erected, as they thought their civil Constitutions could best bear them: And having once set them up, what wonder if they did what they could to justify them, and maintain their Lawfulness? Thus, for instance, Mr. Calvin erected a Model of the Democratical Size at Geneva, because that State had then cast it self into a Democracy. And the Protestants in France, partly for Conveniency, partly in imitation of Calvins Platform, fell upon a method of governing their Churches without Bishops; And so it fared with some other Churches, as in Switzerland, &c. while in the mean time other Churches thought it enough for them to Reform the Doctrine and Worship, with­out altering the Ancient form of Govern­ment. But then

'Tis as evident as any thing in History, that all this while, from the first Dawnings of the Reformation, I mean, till some years after the publick Establishment of [Page 11] our Reformation, That there was no such Controversie insisted on, by Protestants, ei­ther in their Debates with the Papists, or with one another, as that, about the Divine and Vnalterable Institution of parity or impari­ty, amongst the Pastors of the Church. And I dare confidently challenge my Presbyte­rian Brethren to produce any One Protestant Confession of Faith for their side of the Que­stion: Nay more, I dare challenge them to instance in any One Protestant Divine, of Note, who, in these times, maintained their side of the Controversy; who main­tain'd the Vnlawfulness of Imparity amongst Christian Pastors, before Theodore Beza did it, if he did it. Sure I am They cannot, without the greatest impudence, pretend that Mr. Calvin (the only Transmarine Di­vine, I can find, consulted by our Refor­mers about matters relating to our Refor­mation) was of their Principles, For whoso shall be pleased to consu [...]t his Com­mentaries on the New Testament, parti­cularly on 1 Cor. 11.2.; Or some Chapters in the beginning of his 4 th Book of Institutions; Or his Book about the Necessity of Reforming the Church; Or his Epistles, particularly his Epistle directed to the Protector of England, dated Octob. 22. 1548. Or to Cranmer Arch­bishop of Canterbury; Calv. Epist. Col. 134, 135. To the Bishop of London; Col. 316. To Ithavius Bishop of Vla­dislavia, dated Decem. 1. An. 1558; Col. Or his Resolution of that Case, if a Bishop or Curate joyn himself to the Church, &c. Col, 466. Or [Page 12] lastly, his Epistle to the King of Poland Col. 190., wherein he tells him, That ‘It was No­thing but pride and ambition that intro­duced the Popes Supremacy; That the Ancient Church, had, indeed her Patri­archs and Primates, for the Expedition of Discipline, and the Preservation of Unity: As if, in the Kingdom of Poland one Archbishop should have the precedency of the rest of the Bishops, not that he might Tyrannize over them, but for Orders sake, and for Cherishing Unity amongst his Collegues and Brethren; And next to him there should be Provincial, or City Bishops for keeping all things orderly in the Church. Nature teach­ing (says he) that from every Colledge, Sleut hoc Natura di­ctat, unum ex singulis Collegiis deligendum, cui praeeipua Cura in­cumbat. One should be chosen who should have the chief Management of affairs. But, 'Tis another thing for one Man, as the Pope doth, to arrogate that to himself which exceeds all humane abilities; namely, The Power of governing the whole Universe.’ Whoso shall perpend these writings of Mr. Calvins, I say, shall find that he was very far from maintaining the Vnlawfulness of Prelacy. Nay, farther yet, I challenge my Presbyterian Brethren, upon their inge­nuity to tell me, weither it was not a good many years after 1560. that Beza himself (the true founder of their Sect) condemn'd Prelacy, if he did condemn it.

[Page 13]I say, if he did maintain the Necessity of Parity, and condemn'd Prelacy; For however he may seem, upon several occasions, not only to give the preference to Presbyterian Government, and represent it as the most eligible, But to endeavour to found it on Scripture; And represent Episcopacy as an humane invention, yet I have not observed that, any where, [...] calls it absolutely or sim­ply Unlawful. On the contrary, he says in express terms, Humanus Episcopa­tus tolerabilis qui­dem esset, Modo ve­teres puri Canones, Impediendae Oligar­chiae constituti, in u­sum revocarentur. Be­za in Resp. ad 1 Quaest. a Dom. Glam. pro­positam. That it is Tolerable when it is duely Bound­ed; when the pure Canons of the Ancient Church are kept in vigour to keep it within its proper Limits.

Sure I am, he was not for se­parating from a Church (as our modern Presbyterians are) upon the account of its Governments being Episcopal, as might be made appear fully from his Letters; so that whatever greater Degrees of Dislike to Episcopacy he may have discovered, beyond his Prede­cessor Mr. Calvin, yet it is not unreasonable to think, that his great aim was no more, than to justify the Constitution of the Church, he lived in; and recommend it as a pattern to other Churches.

The Scope of this whole Consideration is this, That if what I have asserted is true; if there was no such Controversie agitated, all the time our Church was a Reforming, nor for a good many years after; Then we have one fair Presumption, that our Reformers [Page 14] were not Presbyterians: It is not likely that they were for the Indispensibility of Parity, that being the side of a Question, which, in these times, was not begun to be tossed. And this Presumption will appear, yet, more pon­derous, if

II. It be considered, that we have no reason to believe, that our Reformers had any peculiar Motives, or Occasions, for adverting to the pretended Evils of Prelacy; or any peculiar interests to determine them for Parity, beyond other Churches; or that they were more sharp-sighted to espy faults in Prelacy, or had opportunities or inclina­tions to search more diligently, or enquire more narrowly, into these matters than o­ther Reformers. The truth is

The Controversies about Doctrine and Worship, were the great ones which took up the thoughts of our Reformers, and im­ployed their most serious Applications. This is obvious to any who considers the accounts we have of them; so very obvious, that G. R. himself fairly confesses it in his First Vind. ad Quest. 1. where he tells us, That the Errors and Idolatry of that way (meaning Popery) were so gross, and of such immediate hazard to the Souls of People, That it is no won­der that our Reformers minded these First and Mainly, and thought it a great step to get these Removed; so that they took some more time to consult about the Reforming of the Government of the Church. From which, 'tis plain, he [Page 15] confesses, the Reformation of the Churches Government was not the subject of their Main Thinking; which indeed is very true▪ and cannot but appear to be so, to any who considers what a Lame Scheme was then drest up by them. But however this was, 'tis enough to my present purpose, That our Reformers were more imployed in re­forming the Doctrine and Worship, than in thinking about Church Governments. From which, together with the former presump­tion, which was, that our present Controver­sies were not begun to be agitated in these times, one of two things must follow unavoidably, viz. either 1. That if they were for the Divine and indispensible Right of Parity, 'tis no great matter; their Autho­rity is not much to be valued in a Question about which they had thought so Little; Or 2. That it is to be presumed, they were not for the Divine Right of Parity, That being the side of a Question, which was not then agitated in any Protestant Church, and as Little in Scotland, as any. To be ingenuous, I think both inferences good, tho 'tis only the Last I am concerned for at present. But this is not all, For

III. So far as my opportunities would allow me, I have had a special eye on all our Reformers, as I found them in our Hi­stories. I have noticed their sentiments about Church Government as carefully as I could; And I have not found so much as [Page 16] one amongst them, who hath either directly or indirectly, asserted the Divine and Vnalte­rable Right of Parity.

By our Reformers, here, I mean such as were either 1. Martyrs, or 2. Confessors for the Reformed Religion, before it had the countenance of Civil Authority, or 3. Such as lived when it was publickly established, and had a hand in bringing it to that per­fection. Such, I think, and such only, deserved the Name of our Reformers: And, here, again I dare be bold to challenge my Presbyterian Brethren, to adduce clear and plain proof that so much as any one man of the whole Number of our Reformers, was of the present principles of the party.

Some of them, indeed, seem to have laid no great stress on Holy Orders, and to have been of opinion, That personal Gifts and Graces were a sufficient Call to any man to preach the Gospel; and undertake the pastoral Office. Thus that excellent person Mr. George Wishart, who, in most things, seems to have juster notions of the Gospel Spirit, than most of our other Reformers, when, at his Tryal, he was charged with this Article, That every man was a Priest, and that the Pope had no more power than another man, answered to this purpose, ‘That St. Iohn saith of all Christians, He hath made us Kings and Priests. And St. Peter, He hath made us a Kingly Priesthood. That, therefore, any man skill'd in the Word of God, and true Faith of Christ, had power given [Page 17] him of God; But he that was unlearned, and not exercised in the word of God, nor constant in the Faith, whatever his state or order was, had no power to bind, or to loose, seeing he wanted the word of God, which is the Instrument of binding and loosing.’ Kn. 64. And

'Tis probable, This was a prevailing opi­nion in those times, from the too common practice of it. But hath this any relation to the Divine Right of Parity? Doth it not strick equally against both Orders, that of Presbyters, as well as that of Bishops? Is it not plainly to set up the Ius Laicorum Sacer­dotale in opposition to both? And who can say but this Opinion might have been in a Breast, which entertain'd no scruples about the Lawfulness of Episcopacy? No doubt it might; and no doubt it was, actually, so with this same holy Martyr: For, he was not only willing that the then Bishops, tho Popish, should be his Judges; He not only gave them still their Titles, and payed them all the Respect that was Due to their Order and Character (homages infinitely scandalous with our modern Presbyterians) as is to be observed thro all the steps of his Tryal: But in his last Exhortation to the People, at the very Stake, he bespake them thus; Kn. 70. I beseech you Brethren and Sisters, to exhort your Prelates to the Learning of the Word of God; that they may be ashamed to do evil, and learn to do good; and if they will not convert themselves from their wicked Errors, there shall hastily come [Page 18] upon them, the wrath of God which they shall not eschew.

Here you see the Dying Martyr was ear­nest, that the Popish Prelates might quit their Errors, not their Prelations. What is there here that looks like a Divine-Right-of-Parity-man? Indeed he was none of that Principle: He had had his Principles from England, as we shall find hereafter. Only one thing more about him, here; He was not for Club law Reformations: He was neither for violent Possessions of Churches, not for propagating the Cause by Rabbles, if we may belie [...] Knox's accounts of him.

Others, again, of our Reformers, De­claim'd loudly against the Bishops of these times, and condemn'd them severely, and perhaps too deservedly: But what is this to the Order? Doth every man condemn the Office, who condemns this or that Officer? If so, then, sure, the Order of Presbyters was as bad as the Order of Bishops, in the judgment of our Reformers; For instance, hear Walter Milne in his Exhortation to the Peo­ple, at his Martyrdom: Therefore as ye would Spot. escape Eternal Death, be no more seduced with the Lies of (whom? of Bishops only? No, but of the whole collection of) the Priests, Abbots, Monks, Friars, Priors, Bi­shops, and the rest of the Sect of Antichrist. But 'tis needless to adduce the Testimonies of private persons: we have the publick Deeds of the Protestants of these times, very clear to this purpose. Thus,

[Page 19]They directed a Declaration of their minds to the Popish Clergy, under this Title, To the Generation of Antichrist, the pestilent Prelates and their Shavelings within Scotland, &c. Kn. 146. And were not Presbyters of the number of these Shavelings? And what can be more part to this purpose than the Supplication which was presented by our Reformers to the Parliament, Anno 1560? There they tell the Estates, That they cannot cease to crave of their Honours, the Redress of such Enormi­ties, as manifestly are, and of a long time have been committed by the Place-holders of the Mini­stery, and others of the Clergy— They offer evidently to prove, that, in all the Rabble of the Clergy, there is not one Lawful Minister— And therefore they crave, that they may be de­cerned unworthy of Honour, Authority, Charge, or Care, in the Church of God, &c. Kn. 260. Whoso pleases may see more of their publick Re­presentations, to this effect, in Knox's Hi­story. p. 135▪ & 143. Now, what can be more clear than that all this work was against Presby­ters, as much as against Bishops? and by consequence, against Both Offices, or against neither? as, indeed, it was against neither, as I shall afterwards demonstrate from this same Petition. In short, nothing can be more evident to ane attentive Reader, than that in all these Efforts of the Zeal of our Reformers, against the Popish Bishops, it was only the Popery, and, not at all, the Prelacy, that was aim'd at. They never condemned Bishops as Bishops, but only as Popish Bishops.

[Page 20]I have insisted the more largely on these things, because, I know, People are apt to mistake in this matter, who do not sufficiently attend to the Dialect of these times; Especially when they read the Hi­story which is commonly called Iohn Knox's. I return now to my purpose, and repeat my assertion, viz. That our Presbyterian Brethren cannot adduce so much as one of our Martyrs, our Confessors, or those who had any remarkable hand in the Establishment of our Reformation, in the year 1560, who was of the Modern Presbyterian Principles.

Three Authors have indeed attempted it; The Author of the Pamphlet entituled, The Course of Conformity; Mr. Calderwood, and Mr. Petrie.

The Author of the Course of Conformity in his 4 th Chap. reckons up a full Dozen of such as (he says) gave Evident and full Testi­mony against Bishoprie, as he calls it. But he has not recorded the Testimony of any One, except Knox.

All the rest he proves to have been enemies to Prelacy, by this one Argument: They preached zealously against Popery, And Bi­shoprie is one of the greatest Errors and Corrup­tions of that. He neither offers at proving his Subsumption, nor at adducing any other To­pick: And has he not proven the point demonstratively? Besides, some of his Dozen were not heard of till several years after the Reformation, and so, cannot be brought in Barr against my Challenge.

[Page 21]Further, He has had the ill Luck to name such for the half of his Dozen, as would have laught heartily to have heard themselves cited as Patrons of the Divine Right of Parity: Particularly, Mr. Willock, who lived and died Superintendent of Glasgow; Mr. Pont, who died Bishop of Cathnes; Mr. Row, who was one of the Three, who stood for the Lawful­ness of Episcopacy, when it was first called in question, at the Assembly in August 1575; Spot. 275. Cald. 69. Mr. Craig, whom Calderwood himself censures severely for his forwardness to have the Brethren subscrive, That they should give obedience to their Ordinary's; and charges with making bitter invectives against the sincerer sort, as he calls the Non-Subscribers. Cald. 167. & 187. I may add Mr. Knox, as shall be made appear, by and by. But I have taken but too much notice of The Course of Conformity, which is, truly, one of the weakest Pamphlets was ever seen in print: And if that part of it which is against Episcopacy was written by Mr. Iames Melvil, as Calderwood affirms, Cald. 536. It is a Demonstration, That whatever his Zeal was against Prelacy, it was not accord­ing to much Knowledge.

Mr. Petrie mentions only two of our Re­formers, as Divine Right-of Parity Men: The Earl of Murray, who was Regent, and Mr. Knox: Calderwood insists on Knox, but doth not mention Murray.

Petries Evidence about Murray, Pet. 366. is, That he hath read of him, that by his Letter, he did inform Queen Elizabeth of the Honor and Hap­piness [Page 22] that would attend her Crown and State, upon the Establishment of Christs Government; And of the profitable Vses whereunto the Rich Benefices of Bishops might be applied. But I. He tells not in what Author he read this; And none who knows Mr. Petries Byass, will think it unreasonable to require some other thing to rely on, than his own Bare Authority. 2. If we should rest on his Au­thority, and allow that Murray wrote so, because Mr. Petrie said it, yet how will it follow, that his Lordship was for the Divine Right of Parity? Might not he have been against the Temporal Dignities, and the rich Benefices of the English Bishops, with­out being against Prelacy? How many have been so? Indeed 3. There is all the Reason in the world to believe, That if Murray did write so to the English Queen, this was all he aim'd at: For, had he been for the Divine Right of Parity, would he ever have so much countenanced Imparity in the Church of Scotland? Was not he one of the Sub­scribers of the First Book of Discipline? Kn. 283. Spot. 175. wherein Imparity was so formally established? Was not he Regent in December 1567? And did not he, then, give the Royal Assent to some Acts of Parliament, made clearly in favour of Imparity? Or did he extend the Royal Assent to these Acts in Despight of his Conscience?

'Tis true, indeed, Time has been, when some Men have had such Ductile Consciences, that picq't, the one year, for not having so [Page 23] much favour at Court, as they thought they deserved, they could boldly stand up in Parliaments against iniquous Laws, and tell their fellow Members, That such Laws re­flected on the Iustice of the Nation, and what not? And yet, the next year, when the Court smiled on them, and gave them Preferments and Pensions to satisfy their Ambition, or their Avarice, they could retract all their former Niceness, so much, that if they had got the management of the Royal Assent, they would have made no scru­ple to have Applied it for the Ratification, Ap­probation, and perpetual Confirmation of the same Laws, in their whole Heads, Articles and Clauses, which seemed, to themselves, so scandalous and wicked: But the Earl of Murray, while Regent, had no such tempta­tions: I believe he had no such yielding Con­science; if he had, I don't think his Au­thority was much to be valued. Once more, I think 'tis very strange that he should have been for the Divine Right of Parity, and yet should never have spoken so much out, considering his occasions, ex­cept in his private Letters to Queen Eliz.

The only person now to be considered is Iohn Knox. He was certainly a prime instru­ment in the Advancement of our Reforma­tion: His Authority was great, and his Sentiments were very influential; And it is not to be denied, but it is of some weight in the present question, to know what was his judgment. I shall therefore endeavour [Page 24] to account for his principles a little more fully; and [...] shall do it by these steps. 1. I shall shew the insufficiency of the arguments that are adduced, by our Brethren, to prove him Presbyterian. 2. I shall adduce the Argu­ments which incline me to think he was not.

The great Argument insisted on by the Author of the Course of Conformity, and Mr. Petrie, Course of Conform. p. 32. Pet. 375. is taken from a Letter of Knox's, directed to the General Assembly, holden at Stirling, in August 1571. The words are these. Vnfaithful and Traitors to the Flocks shall ye be, before the Lord Jesus, if that, with your consent, directly or indirectly, ye suffer unworthy men to be thrust in within the Ministry of the Kirk, under what pretence that ever it be: Remember the Iudge before whom ye must make an Account, and resist that TY­RANNY as ye would avoid Hell fire: So the Author of the Course of Conformity, with­out the least attempt to let the world see where the Argument lay. Mr. Petrie is indeed a little more discreet. He tells us where it lies: Iohn Knox in his Letter to the Assembly, by the word Tyranny meaneth Epis­copacy: So he, but without any fuller de­duction. And is not this a Demonstration, that Knox was Presbyterian? And yet, after all this, it is not possible to make more of the Letter, when it is narrowly consider'd than, ‘That Knox deem'd it a pernicious and Tyrannical thing, for any person or persons whatsoever to thrust unworthy men into the Ministery of the Church; [Page 25] and Ministers who would make Consci­ence of their Calling and Trust, must resist such encroachments with all possible concern and courage. No man, I say, can make more of the Letter:’ And who doubts but Mr. Knox was so far in the right? But then, let any man who looks not through Mr. Petries Spectacles, tell me what this has to do with Parity or Imparity?

The next argument is insisted on both by Petrie and Calderwood: Pet. 55. Cald. 374. ‘It is, that Knox was at St. Andrews, in Feb. 1571/2, when Douglas was advanced to that See; That he refused to inaugurate him; Nay that in the Audience of many then present, he denounced Anathema to the Giver, and Anathema to the Receiver; And if you ask Calderwoods Evidence for this, he tells you, He found it in a certain Manuscript, than which what can be more Apode­ctick?’ To be short, tho we had reason to give credit to Calderwood, and his uncertain Certain Manuscript, and to believe that the Matter of Fact is true, and that Knox said and did so; yet, by what consequences will it follow, that he was for the Divine Right of Parity? To deal frankly, 'tis like enough that Knox said so, and 'tis very probable he had reason to say so, in that instance: For at that time dreadful Invasions were made upon the Patrimony of the Church; None more deep in that Iniquity than the Earl of Morton, then Chancellor; by whose influence Douglas was preferred to that Archbishoprick: [Page 26] And so 'tis like enough that Knox, who, all his life was singularly Zealous for the Rights of the Church, upon suspicion, if not certain knowledge, of some dirty Bargain between Morton and Douglas, expressed suitable Resentments. But that it was not from any perswasion he had of the Unlaw­fulness of Prelacy is clear, even from what Calderwood and Petrie themselves have re­corded, within a pag. or two Cald. 57. Pet. 875. For both tell us, that when the next Assembly con­tinued Douglas in the Rectorate of the Uni­versity of St. Andrews, a Station he had been in before he was raised to the Archbishoprick; Iohn Knox Regrated that so many Offices were laid on one Old Man, which scarcely 20 of the best gifts were able to bear. For (as Petrie adds) He was now Archbishop, Rector of the Vniversity, and Provost of the New College of St. Andrews. From this, I say, it is plain, That Knox did not resent Douglas his ad­vancement, from any opinion of the Vn­lawfulness of Episcopacy, for no such word, so much as once mutter'd by him; but from a perswasion he had, that no one man was fit for such a Multitude of Offices. And I shall readily grant, that Knox was not for Largo Diocesses (such as St. Andrews was then), as we shall learn by and by, tho I am afraid, little to the comfort of my Presbyterian Brethren. But I have not yet dispatched the whole Argument; 'Tis said, He refused to inaugurate the Bishop: Be it so, but may not the grounds I have laid down already, [Page 27] make it reasonable for him to have done so, tho he had no quarrel with imparity? What ane Argument is this, Iohn Knox, a Presbyter, refused to consecrate a Bishop, Ergo he was a Presbyterian? This is upon the supposition, that Calderwood and Mr. Petrie have told us true Matter of Fact: And yet I must con­fess, I see not the probability of its being true, That Knox was desired to inaugurate him: For how is it imaginable, that he would be desired to perform that Office, when there was a Bishop and a Superintendent at hand to do it, and who actually did it, as both Authors acknowledge▪ But that is not all.

There is another Argument insisted on by both Authors, Cald. 56. Pet. 375. viz. That Mr. Iohn Ruther-foord, Provost of the Old College alledged, that Mr. Knox 's repining proceeded from Male-Contentment, And Knox purged himself, next Sunday, saying I have refused a greater Bishop­rick, than ever it was, which I might have had with the favour of greater men than he hath his; I did and do Repine for Discharge of my Con­science. Now, what more is there in all this than, That Knox his Conscience would not have allowed him to take a Bishoprick, with so much prejudice to the Rights of the Church, for any mans feud or favour, as he suspected Douglas had done in compliance with the Earl of Morton? Can the world see any thing here that lookt like the Divine Right of Parity? But

[Page 28] Calderwood has yet a more wonderful Ar­gument Cald. 57. to prove Mr. Knox one of his party: Mr. Beza, forsooth, being informed by Mr. Knox, as appeareth, of the Intention of the Court to introduce Bishops, wrote a Letter to him, wherein he told him, That as Bishops brought in the Papacy, so false Bishops, the Re­licks of Popery, would bring in Epicurism to the world, and therefore prayed him, that Episcopacy might never be re-admitted into Scotland, &c. Petrie indeed mentions the same Letter, but he had not the courage, it seems, to say, that it appeared to have been occasioned by a Letter of Knox's to Beza, concerning the intentions of the Court to introduce Epis­copacy. Indeed no such thing appeareth from any sentence, phrase, or syllable, in all Mr. Beza's Letter: How it came to appear to Mr. Calderwood, whether by some certain or uncertain Manuscript I know not; but however it was, make the supposition, That Knox did write so to Beza, where is the consequence of the Argument? And if he wrote not (and 'tis impossible to make it appear from Mr. Beza's Letter that he did) Why was Calderwood at such pains to give the world a citation out of Beza's Letter against Episcopacy? was that a good proof that Knox was Presbyterian, that Beza sent him such a Letter? The truth is, if any thing can be collected from that Letter, concerning Knox's sentiments, it seems rather, that he was for Prelacy. For Beza seems clearly to import, that Knox needed to be [Page 29] caution'd against it: Sed & istud, M. Knox, te caeteros (que) fratres ve­lim meminisse, quod jam oculis pene ipsis obversatur, sicut E­piscopi papatum pe­pererunt, &c. Beza Epist. 79. pag. 315. For thus he writes; One thing I would have you, my dear Knox, and your Brethren to advert to, as being very obvious, it is, That as Bishops brought forth the Pa­pacy, &c. But if Knox needed this Commonitory, I think 'tis no great Argument that he was Presbyterian, so much, at least, as Beza would have had him. But to do Mr. Calderwood justice, he seems to have laid no great stress on this Argument, and so I leave it. So much for the Arguments insisted on to prove, that Mr. Knox was for Parity. I come now to the Arguments which incline me to think he was not.

When we are enquiring after ones senti­ments about a point in controversie, It is not reasonable to build much on far fetcht consequences; or refine upon incidental sayings, which may be, very frequently, the Results of Negligence or Inadvertency: It is not proper to fasten on indirect pro­positions, or snatch at this or that indelibe­rated phrase or expression, which might have dropt unwarily from his tongue or pen. Following such measures, we may easily strain mens words, beyond their meaning; and make them speak Nonsense, or innu­merable Contradictions when we have a mind for it. The solid measure is to weigh a mans deliberate and serious thoughts, if, a­ny where, he has exprest them; To consi­der his Reasonings, when he treated direct­ly on the controverted Subjects, or any [Page 30] thing that stands so nearly related to it, that one cannot readily discourse the one, with­out reflecting on the other; To trace him through his life, if the controverted point is Relative to Practice, and try what was his Behaviour, when he had occasion to declare his mind concerning the matter in question. This, as I take it, is the true Rule. Now allowing this Rule to take place, I am very much mistaken if Knox shall be found to have been for the Divine Institution of Parity, and the Vnlawfulness of Prelacy.

Had he been so perswaded, how seaso­nable had it been for him to have spoken out so much, when he was brought before King Edwards Council? Life of Knox. Cald. p. 3. The question was then put to him, Whether he thought that no Christian might serve in the Ecclesiastical Mini­stration, according to the Rites and Laws of the Realm of England? Here was a proper op­portunity for him to have declared himself against Prelacy, if he had been really against it. How natural had it been for a sincere Parity man, on that occasion, to have told that Council, That no Christian could, the [...] serve with a safe Conscience, as a Pastor of the Church of England, because accor­ding to the Laws of that Realm, he beho­ved to serve as a Member of ane Vnlawful Hierarchy? yet he answered nothing, but that No Minister in England had Authority to separate the Lepers from the whole, which was a Chief Part of his Office: Plainly founding all [Page 31] the Vnlawfulness of being a Pastor of the Church of England, not on the Vnlawfulness of the Hierarchy, which he spoke nor one word about, but on the Kings. Retaining, in his own hands, the Chief Power of Ecclesi­astical Discipline, as, it is known, he did.

When was it more opportune for him to have expressed these sentiments, if he had had them, than when he was at Frankfort? Yet not one word of the Divine Right of Parity, or the Vnlawfulness of Prelacy in all these controversies Knox▪ Life. Kn. Hist. 102. Heyl. Hist: Ref. Burn. hist. Ref. Cald. 3. Calv. Ep. Still. Un­reasonable­ness of Sepa­ration. part 1. Sect. 3. He was warm enough then, and eager enough, to have found faults in the English Constitution; yet he never charged her with the horrid guilt of Prelacy: Not so much as one word of that in any Account I have seen of these Trou­bles.

How suitable had it been for him to have declared himself in this matter, in his Ap­pelation from the cruel, and most unjust sentence, pronounced against him, by the false Bishops and Clergy of Scotland; as he calls them, pub­lished by himself Anno 1558? yet, in all that Appellation, not one syllable to this pur­pose: On the contrary, he plainly supposes the Lawfulness of the Episcopal Office; all a­longst, throughout it: He appeals to a Law­ful General Council; pag. 2 [...] Such a Council, as the most Ancient Laws and Canons do approve: And who knows not that the most Ancient Laws and Canons made Bishops the Chief, if not the only Members of such Councils? He says pag. 32. if the Popish Clergy, his Ad­versaries, [Page 32] are for it. He is content that Mat­ters in Controversie between him and them, be determined by the Testimonies and Authorities of Doctors and Councils. Three things being granted him, whereof these are two, 1. That the most Ancient Councils, nearest to the Primi­tive Church, in which the Learned and Godly Fathers examined all matters by Gods word, may be holden of most Authority. 2. That no Deter­minations of Councils, nor Men, be admitted a­gainst the plain verity of Gods word, nor against the Determinations of the four chief Councils. Would he, if he had been Presbyterian, have agreed so frankly to have stood by the De­termination of these 4 Chief Councils? Could he have expected, they would have favour­ed the Divine Right of Presbyterian Parity? Will any Scottish Presbyterian, now adays, stand to the Decision of these 4 Councils? Farther, In that same Appelation, p. 40. he requires of the Nobility, that the Bishops be compelled to make answer for the neglecting their Office; which plainly supposes the Lawfulness of the Office, and charges Guilt only on the Officers.

When had it been more seasonable, than in his Admonition to the Commonalty of Scot­land, published also Anno 1558? His great design, in it, was to excite them to a Re­formation, by loading the Papistical Clergy with every thing that was abominable: Yet not a Syllable of it here, neither; nothing but a farther and a clearer Supposition of the Lawfulness of Prelacy. You may (says he p. 40. [Page 33] in a peaceable manner, without Sedition, withhold the fruits and profits, which your false Bishops and Clergy, most unjustly receive of you, until such time, as they shall faithfully do their Charge and Duties, which is, To preach unto you Christ Jesus truly; Rightly to minister the Sa­craments, according to his Institution; And so to watch for your Souls as is commanded by Christ, &c. If this supposes not the Innocency of the Episcopal Office in it self, I know not what can.

Had he been for the Divine Right of Pa­rity, how unfaithful had he been in his Faith­ful Admonition to the true Professors of the Gospel of Christ within the Kingdom of England, writ­ten Anno 1554? His great work there, was to ennumerate the Causes, which, in Gods righteous judgment, brought Queen Mary's Persecution on them. But he quite forgot to name the Sin of Prelacy, as one. Assu­redly he had not done so, had he been of the same sentiments with our Famous General Assembly 1690. See Act for a National Fast. How unfaithfully was it done of him, I say, thus to conceal one of the most Crimson Guilts of the Nation? But this is not the worst of it: In that same Admonition he has a most scandalous Expres­sion; sure he was not then sufficiently purg'd of Popish Corruption. God gave (says he) such strength to that REVEREND FATHER IN GOD, Thomas Cranmer, to cut the Knots of Devilish Sophistry, &c. p. 51. To call an Archbishop a Reverend Father in God, what was it else, but the plain Language of the [Page 34] Beast? How Rankly did it smell of the Whore?

How seasonable had it been, in his Let­ter to the Queen Regent of Scotland, written, Anno 1556, and published by himself, with additions, Anno 1558? He talked very freely about the Popish Bishops in it; but never a Tittle of the Vnlawfulness of the Office. It is plain from that Letter he never dream'd of the Doughty Argument, so much insisted on, since, against Prelacy, viz. That it is a Branch of Popery, and Bishops are Limbs of An­tichrist. For having stated it as one of the Popish Arguments, p. 90. That their Religion was ancient, and it was not possible, that that Reli­gion could be false, which, so long time, so many Councils, and so great a Multitude of Men had authorized and confirmed; He gives his answer thus: If Antiquity of time shall be considered in such Cases, Then shall not only the Idolatry of the Gentiles, but also the False Religion of Mahomet be preferred to the Papistry; For both the one, and the other, is more ancient than is the Papistical Religion; Yea Mahomet had Established his Alcoran before any Pope of Rome was crowned with a Triple Crown, &c. Can any man think, Iohn Knox was so very unlearned as to imagine, that Episcopacy was not much older than Mahomet? or knowing it to be older, that yet he could have been so Ridiculous, as to have thought it a Relict of Popery, which he himself affirmed to be younger than Mahometism? whoso pleases may see more of his sentiment about the Novelty [Page 35] of Popery in his conference with Queen Mary, recorded in his History Kn. 318.. One other Testimony to this purpose I cannot forbear to transcribe; All that know any thing of the History of our Reformation, must be pre­sum'd to know, That Superintendency was Erected by Mr. Knox's his special advice and counsel. That it was in its very height, Anno 1566, is as indubitable: Now, we are told that Knox wrote the 4 th Book of his History, that year. Hear him, therefore, in his Introduction to it. Kn. 308. Cald. 401 We can speak the Truth, whomsoever we offend; There is no Realm that hath the Sacraments in like Purity: For all others, how sincere that ever the Doctrine be, that by some is taught, Retain in their Churches, and in the Ministers thereof, some Footsteps of Antichrist and Dregs of Popery. But we (all Praise to God alone) have Nothing with­in our Churches that ever flowed from that Man of Sin. Let any man judge, now if Mr. Knox lookt upon imparity as a Dreg of Popery.

Thus we have found Knox, when he had the fairest occasions, the strongest tempta­tions, the most awakening calls, when it was most seasonable for him, to have de­clared for the Divine Right of Parity, and the Vnlawfulness of Prelacy, still silent in the matter; or rather, on all occasions, pro­ceeding on suppositions, and reasoning from principles fairly allowing the Lawfulness of Prelacy. But is there no more to be said? Yes. More with a witness.

[Page 36]In his Exhortation to England for the speedy Embracing of Christs Gospel, dated from Ge­neva, Ianuary 12, Ann. 1559. Amongst many other Reformations, He is for Reforming their Bishopricks indeed: But how? By abolishing them? Nothing like it: How then? Take it in his own words, p 110. Let no man be charged in preaching of Christ Iesus above that a man may do: I mean, That your Bishopricks be so Divided, that of every one (as they are n [...]w for the most part) may be made ten: And so in every City and Great Town there may be placed, a Godly Learned Man, with so many joined with him, for preaching and instruction, as shall be thought sufficient for the Bounds com­mitted to their Charge. So he: And let our Parity-men, if they can, give this Testimony a Gloss favourable to their side of the Question, without destroying the text: The Truth is, this Testimony is so very nicking, that I am apt to apprehend, it might have been for its sake, That this whole Tractate was left out of the Folio-Edition of Knox's Works, printed at London, Anno 1641. However, the Inquisition, it seems, has not been so strict at Edenburgh; for, there it escap'd the Index Expurgatorius. And yet tho it had not, the Good Cause had not been one whit the Se­curer. For Knox's practice would have suf­ficiently determined the matter: For,

Did not he compile the First Book of Dis­cipline? Spot. 1 [...]4. And is not Imparity fairly Esta­blished there? Did not he write and bear the Letter sent by the Superintendents, Ministers [Page 37] and Commissioners of the Church within the Realm of Scotland, Spot. 198. Per. 348. Cald. 41. Kn. 445. to their Brethren, the Bi­shops and Pastors in England, Anno 1566? Did not he, in that same Title of that same Letter acknowledge, that these Brethren, Bishops and Pastors of England had renounced the Roman Antichrist, and professed the Lord Iesus in sincerity? And doth not the Letter all alongst allow of the Episcopal Power and Authority of these English Bishops? Did not he publickly and solemnly admit Mr. Iohn Spotswood to the Superintendency of Lothian, Anno 1561? K [...] 289. Old Li­turgy. Did not he Concur, at the Coronation of King Iames the Sixth, with a Bishop and two Superintendents, Anno 1567? Spot. 211. Was not he, some time, a Commissioner for Visitation, as they were then called, i. e. a Temporary Bishop? And did not he, then, Act in a Degree of Superiority above the Rest of his Brethren, within the bounds of his Commission? Did not he sit, and vote, and concur in many General Assemblies, where Acts were made for performing Canonical Obedience to Superintendents? In fine, doth not Spotswood tell us Spot. 266. That he was far from the Dotages, wherein some, that would have been thought his followers, did after­wards fall? That never man was more obedient to Church Authority than be? That he was al­ways urging the Obedience of Ministers to their Superintendents; for which he caused diverse Acts to be made in the Assemblies of the Church? And, That he shewed himself severe to the Transgressors?

[Page 38]I have insisted the longer on this instance of Knox, because he made a Singular Figure amongst our Reformers. Besides, having so fully evinced that he (whom our Bre­thren value so much) was no Divine-Right-of-Parity-Man; I think it may readily pass for credible, that neither were any of the rest of our Reformers of that opinion. And now, to bring home all this to my main purpose, if not so much as one of our Re­formers, no not Knox himself, was for the Divine Right of Parity, I think it may a­mount to an undeniable evidence, at least, to a strong Presumption, That they were not of the present Presbyterian Principles, and all this will appear still farther unquestiona­ble, when it is considered in the

IV. place, How much reason there is to believe, That our Reformers proceeded generally on the same principles with the Reformers of England; where the Govern­ment of the Church, by imparity, was continued, without the least opposition.

This is a Consideration, which, I am afraid, may not relish well with the Incli­nations of my Presbyterian Brethren; yet, withal, may be of considerable weight with unprejudiced people; and bring light to several things about our Reformation, which, even those who have read our Histories and Monuments, may have passed over, inadvertently; And therefore I shall take leave to insist upon it somewhat fully: And I shall proceed by these steps.

• [Page 39]1. I shall endeavour to represent how, our Reformation, under God, was prin­cipally Cherished and Encouraged by En­glish influences.
• 2. I shall endeavour to represent how, in Correspondence to these Influences, 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 Polity of the Church, wherein our present Presbyterian Principles stand in direct opposition and contradiction to her. If I can make these two things appear, I think, I shall make a Considerable Advance towards the Determination of the Second Enquiry.

1. I say, our Reformation, under God, was Cherished and Encouraged, principally, by English influences. That Scotland, barring foreign influences, is Naturally dispos'd for receiving English impressions, cannot but be obvious to common sense. We not only live in the same Island, separated from all other Neighbourhood; we not only breath the same air, and speak the same language, and observe the same customs, and have all the opportunities of Recipro­cating all the Offices, which can result from daily Commerces, and familiar acquain­tances, and easy Correspondences, and Matrimonial Conjunctions, and innume­rable other such Endearing Relations, and Allectives to Mutual Kindness; but also, [Page 40] Scotland is the lesser, England the larger; Scotland the more barren, England the more fertile; Scotland the poorer, England the richer; Scotland the more penurious of peo­ple, England the more populous; Scotland every way the weaker, England every way the stronger Kingdom; and, by conse­quence, Scotland every way the more apt to receive, and England every way the more apt to give impressions. And Nature, in this, is fully justified by Experience: For what Scottish man knows not, that, when the late Revolution was a carrying on, as England cast the Copy to Scotland, so it was used and prest, as one of the most popular and influential Topicks to perswade the Scots to follow the Copy, That England had done it; and why should Scotland follow a separate Course? Was not England a pow­erful and a wise Nation? what Defence could Scotland make for it self, if England should invade it? And how was it to be imagined, that England would not invade Scotland, if Scotland did not follow England's Measures? So that, to stand by K. I. when England had rejected him, what was it else, than to expose the Nation to unavoidable Ruine? Who knows not, I say, that this was one of the most prest, because one of the most plausible Arguments, in the be­ginning of the late Revolution? And who sees not that the Force of the Argument lay in Scotland's obnoxiousness to England's im­pressions? Let no true hearted Scottish man [Page 41] imagine, 'Tis in my thought, to dishonour my Native Country: I have said no more than all the world knows to be true, and what cannot be denied. If we could contend with them for Virtue, and Integrity; for Honour and Gallantry; for Civility and Loyalty; for Glories that are truely manly; 'Twere for the Credit of our Nation; And it were our own fault if we were inferiour to them, in such Competitions: But 'tis Arrant Va­nity to contend with them for Wealth, or Strength, or Multitude. Now, to bring this home to my purpose.

God had so ordered, in his wife Provi­dence, that, for many Ages before, Scotland had not been so free of foreign influence, as a little before, and all the time, our Church was a reforming: The French were the only foreign Influences which were wont to find Entertainment in Scotland: And, in those times, the French had treated us very basely and dishonourably. I shall deduce the mat­ter with all convenient brevity.

King Henry the Eighth of England had re­solved upon a War with France, Anno 1512. The French King perceiving this, applyed to Iames the Fourth of Scotland, his old Con­federate, to engage him in ane Alliance a­gainst Henry. His Application was success­ful: a private League was made betwixt them in November that year. Lesl. 343. Herb. 27. Two of the Articles were, That if England should invade Scotland, France should wage War with all its might, against England; Scotland [Page 42] should do the like, if England invaded France. And neither of the two should take Truce with England, without the other gave his Consent, and were comprehended therein, if he pleased.

In pursuance of this League, Iames raised a potent Army, invaded England, incurred the Popes Displeasure, to the very Sentence of Excommunication, Herb. 29. fought the fatal Battle of Flowdon, Sept. 9. 1513, Lesl. 349. Herb. 44. Lost his Life, and the Flower of all the Scottish No­bility and Gentry, and left behind him, Iames the Fifth, ane Infant, exposed, with his whole State, to the not very tender Mercies of King Henry. Here was serving the French interests with a witness. Well!

How did Lewis requite this? The next year, he patcht up a Peace with Henry, Pax pacta est, quae res non tantam tranquillitatem Regno Galliae peperit, quantam Regi Notam Inussit, quod, in illa per­cutienda, Scotorum, qui il­llus Causa, Anglis, Bellum intulerunt, nulla omnino facta fuerit mentio. Lesl. 355. without compre­hending Scotland, without Respect to his Faith and Pro­mise, without Pity to those who were reduced to such Extremities on his account: If this was not, what can be called, Disobliging? But this was not all.

The Scots, reduced to these difficulties, and sensible, that it was not possible for the Nation to subsist, under ane infant King, without a Regent, became humble Suppli­ants to the French King, that he would send them Iohn Duke of Albany, then in the French Service; a Man of great Abilities, and next by Blood to the Scottish Crown, that [Page 43] he might be their Governour, during their Kings Minority; But Henry's Threats, for a long time, prevailed more with the French King Herb. 50. than Scotlands Necessities, or his Obligations to it; For Albany came not to Scotland, till May 1515. Buch. 488. so that, for near two years, thro the French Coldness and Indifferency towards Scottish affairs, the Kingdom had no setled Government.

The War brake out again betwixt France and England, Anno ..... and a new Peace was concluded Anno 1518. And Albany our Scottish Regent was present, in person, when it was concluded; but the English Obstinacy, not to comprehend Scotland, was more effe­ctual with Francis the First (who had then got upon the Throne) than all the Inter­cessions of Albany, or the Merits of our Na­tion. Lesl. 372. Nay, if we may believe Herbert, It was one of the main Articles of that Treaty, that Albany should not return to Scotland; Herb. 122. Nor did he return, till Octob. 1521. Buch. 496. And returning then, Henry reck­oned it a Main Breach of Treaty, nay and plain Perjury in Francis, that he gave way to it. Herb. ibid. Thus were we treated, then, by France.

Let us now consider, if Henry was at any pains, all this while, to make ane Interest in Scotland. And if we may believe the unanimous voice of our own Historians, or my Lord Herbert in the History of his Life, Herb. 49, 59, 60, 65, 99. passim. never was man more earnest for any thing, than he, in that pursuit, and he had brave occasions for it: For not only [Page 44] were the Scots highly (and justly) irritated by the degenerous and undervaluing slights France had put upon them, (as I have just now made appear) But Henry had surprized them with ane Unexpected and Unaccu­stomed Generosity, after the Battel of Flowdon. He had not pursued his Victory, but had listned gently to their Addresses for Peace; and told them that tho he might, yet he would not, take ad­vantage of their circumstan­ces: Henricus, animo magno & vere Regio, respondit, sibi cum Scotis pacatis, pacem, cum bellantibus, bellum fore. Buch. 485. He would treat them frankly; if they were for Peace, so was he, if for War, they should have it. A Re­sponse so full of true Honour and Gallantry, as could not but work on their affections. Besides,

His Sister Margaret, the Queen of Scots, a Lady of rare Endowments, was all alongst working to his hand, and making a Party for him. Iames the 4 th by his Testament, before he went to Flowdon, had nominated her, Governess of the Realm, during her Widowhood. This gave her once the principal hand in affairs. 'Tis true, she was young and lively, and married within a year after the King's Death, and so lost her Ti­tle to the Regency. But then she married the Earl of Angus, the choice of all the Scottish Nobility, and one who was in great Repute with all Ranks of People, Buch. 484, 489. so that, however her Marriage annulled her Title, it did not so much weaken her Interest, but [Page 45] that she had still a great Party in the Nati­on; So great, That tho Albany was advanced to the Regency, she was for the most part able to over-ballance him in point of power and following. In short

Such was Henry's and his Sisters influence, That all the time Albany was Regent, the Nation was divided into two Factions; The one French, headed by Albany; the other English headed by the Queen Dowager; and hers was generally the more prevalent; so much, that tho Albany was perhaps one of the bravest Gentlemen that ever was ho­noured with the Scottish Regency, he was never able to prosecute, to purpose, any project, he undertook, for the French Service. Thus,

Anno 1522. He raised ane Army to invade England; But with what success? Why? The Scottish Nobility waited upon him to the Border indeed, but they would go no further. They told him plainly, they would hazard lives and fortunes in defence of their Country; but it was another thing to invade England. Buch. 487. Lesl. 386. And Lesly plainly attributes all this Re­fractoriness in these Nobles to the Queens influence. Regina etsi absens, hujus tamen consilli Nobilibus auctor fuit. Lesl. 386. Albanius cum intellexerat Scotos Nobiles a bello gerendo abhorrere, quod non Relp. suae utilitate sed Regis Franci volun­tate, tanquam susceptum illud putaverint, in Fran­ciam [...]ransmittit, &c. Lesl▪ 387. Nay, 'tis evident from the same Lesly, that the Baseness and Ingratitude of the French in the forementioned Treaties, was one of the principal Ar­guments that moved them to [Page 46] such Backwardness: And Albany was sen­sible of it, and therefore went to France, and told the French King so much, and asked a swinging Army of Frenchmen, five thou­sand Horse, and ten thousand Foot: with such a force, he promised to Act something against England; but from the Scots, by themselves, nothing was to be expected.

And this his absence was a new opportu­nity to Henry to play his Game in Scotland. Indeed he neglected it not; he used all arts imaginable, further, to advance his own, and weaken the French interest; he harassed the Borders, without intermission, that, in the Miseries and Desolations of War, the Scots might see the Beauties and Felicities of Peace, on the one hand; Hostis autem Consilium eo spectabat ut feroces Scotorum animos, malis fractos ad paciscendum secum cogeret. Buch. 499. resolving, as it were, to Cudgel them into ane Ac­cord, if no other thing could do it: And on the other hand, he had his Emissaries and Instruments busie at work, in the Heart of the Kingdom, and about the Helm of Affairs, Nec Segnius etiam Scoti, factionis Gallis adversae laborabant ut perpetuum cum Anglo foedus inire­tur, Regina Principe. Buch. ibid. imploying all their Skill and Interest, all their Wit and Rhetorick, all their Eloquence and Diligence, to perswade the Nation to a perpetual Amity with England, the Queen being the Chief Actrix. Neither did this seem suf­ficient; He sent Ambassadors, and wrote Letters, and represented things in their [Page 47] fairest Colours, and made most charming Overtures, Si Scoti in animum Indu­cerent, Soluto cum Gal­lis foedere, &c. Buch: [...]b. &c. If they would break the League with France, and en­ter into one with England, the world should see, and they should find by Experience, that it was not Humour, or Ambition, or Love of Greatness, that had moved him to treat them so, but Love of Concord, and Concern for the Prosperity and Happiness of the Nation; That he had but one only Child, a Daughter, Mary; Her he would give to Iames in Marriage; hereby the English would become subject to the Scottish, not the Scottish to the English Government; and a great deal more to this purpose. Whoso pleases may see this whole matter transcribed by Herbert Herb. 148, 149. from Buchanan. I go on.

The French King was not at leisure, it seems, to afford Albany such assistances as he required; so he was obliged to return without them. And returning, found the French interest still weaker and weaker, and the English stronger and stronger, as appears from his Success. For,

Having return'd to Scotland in September 1523, Buch: 499. He instantly gave out his Orders, That the whole force of the Kingdom should meet in Douglas-dale, against the middle of October. He found Obedience so far, indeed, that they met; but when he had marched them to Tweed, and they found, he design'd to invade England, they [Page 48] would not move one foot further, but sounded, aloud, their old Carol. ‘They knew by experience what was to be gain'd by invading England: It was enough for for them that they were willing to defend their own Country, &c.’ Buch. 501.

Here they stood, I mean, as to their Reso­lutions, not, their Ground; for they left that, and instantly return'd within their own Borders; so hastily, and with such strong inclinations, it seems, to be at home, That, with great difficulty, he got them kept together, some days, till he should fall on some pretext, which might give a fair colour to his Retreat, and cover it from appearing, downright, dishonourable. 'Tis true his luck was so good that he found it: But how? By the Art and Interest of the English Faction. Lesl. 390, 391. fuse. Thus,

Queen Margaret, to wait her opportuni­ties, had come to the Border, and lodged not far from the Scottish Camp. The Earl of Surry commanded the English Army, with whom she kept secret Correspondence; and it was concerted betwixt them, it seems, that the English should by all means avoid Fighting, and she should be imployed as a Mediatress to bring matters to some honest accommodation. The Plot succeeded; a Truce was readily patcht up, to the satis­faction, no doubt, of both Parties. Albany had reason to be glad of it, for, he could make no better of the Bargain; and 'twas with much difficulty he brought his Expe­dition [Page 49] to so honourable ane issue. And 'tis plain, the English Faction had reason to be as glad, for they had gained two points: They had got Albany to understand the temper of the Nation, and the weakness of the French interest: And they had treated the Scots, who were so averse from Fighting, so dis­creetly, by shunning all occasions of En­gaging, and thereby shewing that they were no Enemies to the Scots, unless it was on the French account, that they could not have fallen on a more successful politick for Gain­ing King Henry's great purpose, which was, To disengage the Scots of the French, as much as he could: And the Success was agreeable. For,

After that, Albany's Authority, and the French interests, decayed so sensibly, and the English Faction manag'd their designs, so successfully, that, within a few months, Albany was turn'd out of his Regency; and the young King (then but twelve years of age) was perswaded to take in his own hands, the Government. It was the En­glish Faction, I say, that wrought this Revo­lution, as is evident from the whole thred of the History: And Lesly Lesl. 393. Hinc intellexit Guberna­tor se apud quosdam No­b [...]les non esse gratiosum, qui Regis pueri imperiti­am, suo excusso imperio, volebant subire, atque nullum bellum (quod, Franci causa, acriter ur­gebar Albanius) cum An­glis justum esse putabant. Lesl. 393: tells us plainly, that Albany was sensible of it, and was perswaded, it was in vain to endeavour any more, to gain them to the French side, and therefore he took his leave and departed the Coun­try. [Page 50] This was in the year 1524.

The King, so young, all know, was not able to manage the Government by him­self; but stood in need of Counsellors; They were English who had got him thus Early to assume the Government in his own person: 'Tis obvious to collect, therefore, they were English enough, who were his Counsellors. And such they were indeed, For, as Lesly has it, a Parlia­ment was indicted to meet in February thereafter, Ita tamen ne qu [...]d horum Consilio omnino flatueret vel antiquaret Rex, quod Regina tanquam. Regni Princeps, antea, sua au­thoritate non fixer [...] aut resixerit. Lesl. 397. wherein, a Council was nominated for assisting the King in the Ad­ministration of the Govern­ment, but so as that the Queen was to have the Sove­raignty, so far as nothing was to be done without her special approbation and allow­ance.

Albany, the great Opposer of his interests in Scotland, thus dispatched, King Henry's whole Soul was divided betwixt Gladness and Kindness: He was Glad, almost to ex­cess, that he had got rid of such ane eye-sore. Inc [...]e­dibili qua­dam laeti­tia elatus. Lesl. 394. He was kind to the highest degree, to his Sister, and Nephew, and the Scottish Nobility: He dispatched two Ambassa­dors, with all Expedition, for Scotland, by whom he offered to establish a Lasting Peace; and in the interim, agreed to a Truce for a year, till a fond for a solid settle­ment might be maturely considered. Lesl▪ ibid. On the other hand

[Page 51]Our Queen (without doubt, with her Brothers fore-knowledg and allowance) ha­ving now the Reins in her hands, sends three Ambassadors to England; The Earl of Cassils, the Bishop of Dunkeld, and the Abbot of Cambuskeneth, to propose to Hen­ry, in the name of the Scottish Nation, that there might be a firm and perpetual Amity establisht betwixt the two Crowns; and, to this great End, that a Match might be agreed to, betwixt Iames and Mary. Henry entertain'd the proposition with all imagi­nable shews of Satisfaction, but demanded two things, That the Scots might break the League with France, and make one of that same Nature with England; And, That James might be educated in England, till ripe for Marriage. But the Scottish Ambassadors were not Plenipotentiaries enough for adjust­ing these Matters: Cassils therefore comes home; a New Meeting of the States is called; and Cassils is return'd to England, with Commission to tell Henry, That the Scottish Lords are content to Relinquish the French, on Condition the Match with the Princess Mary were secured. See for all this Lesl. 394, 395. Herb. 163. 'Tis true, nothing followed upon this Treaty but a Truce for three years; for what reason I know not. But from the Deduction I have briefly made, it may sufficiently ap­pear how weak the French, and how strong the English interest was then in Scotland; so very strong, as, clearly, to overcome, and, almost, quite extirpate the other.

[Page 52]Well! did Francis nothing to recover the Scottish amity? Alas! at that time, he had greater matters to imploy his thoughts. He lost his Liberty at the Battel of Pavia, Anno 1525, and became the King of Spain's Pri­soner; and was not Restored to his Free­dom, till Henry interposed with a powerful Mediation: For which, He entered into another League with Henry 1527, without minding the Scots, Gillus studio, maxime & diligentia Angli, in liber­tatem, ex Hispanorum manibus restitutus, foedus adeo amplum cum iis fe­cir ut multum Scotico foe­deri derogaretur. Buch. 519. or being concern'd for their security. This was a third slight put up­on the Scots by the French, in their Treaties with England. 'Tis true indeed, Francis did not enter into this League with Henry, over-awed by his Threats, but constrain'd by his Kindness and Good Offices, in his Liberation from his Spanish Captivity: But it was all one to the Se [...]ts, for what reason it was, if they were Deserted. 'Tis true indeed,

When Iames came to full age, he had strong inclinations for renewing the Old Amity with France; and no wonder, conside­ring how much he was manag'd by the Clergy, who abhorred Henry, for shaking off the Popes Authority; and thought them­selves concern'd, with all their Might, to guard against Henry's contagious influences, as they deem'd them. But however the King and Clergy were inclined, 'tis evident, the Body of the Nation continued constant in their so frequently provoked Coldness to [Page 53] the French interests; and in their good Affection towards England, so much, that they would never thereafter, (at least all the time our Reformation was a carrying on) follow either King or Regent to invade England. Thus,

When Iames the Fifth, Anno 1542. was very earnest for it, the Nobility generally declined it; and he was forced to dismiss them: And when, shortly after that, Rex mirum in mod [...]m cupiebat praelio decernere, adversa Nobilitate; a quibus id impetrare non poterat. Buch. 52 ^o. L [...]sl. 435. his Earnestness that way, it seems, increasing, he ordered ane Army to meet at Carlaverock, intending therewith to enter England; so soon as Oliver Sinclare was declared Chief Commander, and the Kings in­tentions were made known, all threw away their Arms, and suffered themselves to be taken prisoners. Lesl. 437. Buch. 529. And

When the Earl of Arran Regent, An­no ..... went with a goodly Army to be­siege the Church of Coldingham, which the English, for the time had fortified, he was forced to run for it, abruptly; fearing (as Buchanan says Buch. 544. his friends pretended) lest his Army should betray him into the hands of the English. And

Anno 1557, when the Queen Regent ( Ma­ry of Lorrain) was most earnest to have had England invaded, thereby to have made a Diversion, and eased France of the English Force, which was assisting Philip the Second of Spain against Henry the Second of France, [Page 54] the Nobility could by no means be gain'd to do it, as all our Historians tell us. I could have insisted on this Deduction far more largely, but I think, what I have said, may be sufficient for my purpose, which was to shew how much Scotland was disengaged of Foreign Influences, and by consequence, how much it was disposed to receive English impressions from the very Dawning of our Reformation, till its Legal Establishment 1560.

Let us next try, if according to these Dispositions, the English influences were Com­municated; and made suitable impressions. And, I think, in the

1st place, No man can reasonably doubt but that 'tis fairly credible, they did: For no man can deny that the Reformation made a considerable figure in England, more early, than it did in Scotland: When Light was thus arising in the Isle, it was natural for it to overspread both Nations: And it was as Natural, that the more and sooner Enlightned Nation should be the fountain of Communication; that is, in plain terms, that Scotland should derive it, under God, from England; Especially considering, how, at that time, they were mutually disposed towards one another. Indeed

2. 'Tis certain, Books deserve to be reck­oned amongst the prime Vehicles of such Light as we are now considering; and 'tis as certain, That the first Books which en­lightned Scotland were brought from England. [Page 55] Tindal translated the New Testament into English, Anno 1531. And Copies of it were dispersed here in considerable plenty; and other useful Books were then written also in the Vulgar Language, which was common to both Nations; which coming from En­gland, had great success in Scotland, as is evi­dent even from Knox's History: Kn. 38. But this is not all. The truth of all this will appear more fully, if,

3. We consider, That King Henry had no sooner begun his Reformation (such as it was) in England, than, he Endeavoured to transmit it into Scotland. He shook off the Popes Supremacy, Anno 1534. And he sent the Bishop of St. Davids to his Nephew Iames of Scotland, Anno 1535. Buch 520. Spot. 70. with Books written in English, containing the sub­stance of Christian Religion; Earnestly desiring him to read them, and joyn with him in carrying on the Reformation. And Herbert says, Herb. 396. Henry was vastly sollicitous, To draw James on his side, as knowing of what Consequence it was to keep his Kingdom safe on that part; And therefore Laboured still to in­duce him to abrogate the Papal Iurisdiction in his Dominions: And tho this Embassy of St. Davids had not success, yet Henry gave not over; but continued to write Letters to Iames, insisting still upon the same Requests. ‘ Petrie has transcribed one from Fox Pet. 176. wherein Henry Premonishes, requires, and most heartily prays, Iames to consider the Supremacy granted by the [Page 56] Holy Scriptures, to Princes, in Church matters: To weigh what Gods word calleth a Church: To consider what Superstitions, Idolatries, and blind abuses, have crept into all Realms, to the high Displeasure of God; and what is to be understood by the Censures of the Church, and Excommunication, (for the Pope had then Excommunicated Henry) and how no such Censure can be in the power of the Bishop of Rome, or of any other man, against him, or any other Prince, having so iust ground to avoid from the Root, and to abolish, such ane execrable Authority, as the Bishop of Rome hath usurped, and usurps upon all Princes, to their Great Damage: Request­ing him for these Reasons, to ponder, of what hazard it might be, to Iames himself, if he agreed to such Censures, and, by such example, gave upper-hand, over himself, and other Princes, to that Vsurper of Rome, to scourge all who will not Kiss and Adore the foot of that Corrupt Holiness, which desires nothing but Pride, and the universal Thrall of Christendom, &c.’

Here was Earnestness, for Reformation in Scotland, with a witness. And can it be imagined that Henry, who was so serious with the King of Scots, was at no pains at all with his Subjects? with the Nobility and Gentry, with such as might had in­fluence, either at the Court, or in the [Page 57] Country? No, certainly, as may be evi­dent, if we consider

4. That, when, in the year 1540 or 1541, Henry was earnest for a Congress with Iames, to try, no doubt, if meeting face to face, and personal and familiar Converse and Conference might prevail with him; All our Scottish Protestants were mighty zealous that the Interview might take effect, and both time and place (which was York) might be punctually observed. Factio Sacerdotlbus ini­quior toto Conatu, at (que) animi viribus, co incu­buerunt, ut Rex tempus locumque colloquli peti­tum obiret, Buch. 525. Is not this a Demonstration, that they understood Henry's pro­ject, and approved his designs? and that they were in the same Bottom with him, in pursuance of a Reformation? 'Tis true Iames followed other Counsels, and disappointed the Inter­view; and therefore Henry turn'd angry, and raised War against him: But then, 'tis as true, that Iames found his Subjects so backward (as I shewed) and was so un­successful in the management of that War, that he contracted Melancholy, and soon after died. Add to this

5. That after Iames's Death, Henry per­sisted, in his Concern to advance the Re­formation in Scotland, as well as in England. To this end, He was careful, that those of the Scottish Nobility and Gentry who were taken Prisoners at Solway-moss, might be lodged with such persons as could instruct them in the Reforming Principles. And [Page 58] so soon as he heard that Iames was dead, and had left a Daughter, some few days old, yet Heiress of the Crown, He dispatched them for Scotland, to promote his interests, in the Matter of the Match, he was zea­lous to have made, betwixt his Son Prince Edward, and our Infant Soveraign. Indeed they were as diligent as he could have desi­red: They got it carried in Parliament; and that they did it from a prospect of carrying on the Reformation of Religion, by that conjunction, cannot be doubted, if we may believe Dr. Burnet, in his Abridg­ment of the History of the Reformation of the Church of England: For there Burn. 279, 280. he not only tells, ‘That Cassils had got these seeds of Knowledge at Lambeth, under Cran­mer' s influences, which produced afterwards a Great Harvest in Scotland. But also, That the other Prisoners were instructed to such a degree, that they came to have very different thoughts of the Changes that had been made in England, from what the Scottish Clergy had possessed them with; who had encouraged their King to engage in the War, by the assu­rance of Victory, since he fought against ane Heretical Prince, &c.’ And a little after, They were sent home, and went away much pleased both with the Splendor of the Kings Court, and with the way of Religion which they had seen in England. And that we have reason to believe this Author in this matter, is evident, because [Page 59] he is justified, herein, by all our Historians, especially Buchanan, as my appear by the sequel. Here was Success of the English influences: Seven of the Supreme Order, i. e. Noblemen, and 24 of inferior Quality, considerable Gentlemen, all enlightned in England, for so Buchanan numbers them. Buch. 532. And here, by the way, it will not be amiss to consider the strength of the Protestant Party in Scotland, when in this Parliament, wherein the Match, by the influence of the English Converts, was agreed to,

They were so strong, that they carried the Regency for the Earl of Arran, prompted thereto, chiefly by the perswasion they had of his affection to the Reformation, as is evident from the consentient Accounts of Buchanan, Knox, and Spotswood. Buch: 531. Kn. 36. Spot. 71. They carried it for the Match with England in opposition to all the Popish Party, as I have just now represented. Nay, which is more, because more immediately concerning the Reformation of Religion, they procured ane Act to be made, That it should be Lawful to every Man, to take the Benefit of the Translation, which they then had of the Bible, and other Treatises containing wholsome Doctrine, &c. Kn. 38. Spot. 72.

Indeed, at that time, the Reformation was so far advanced, That the Regent kept his two Protestant Chaplains, Guillam and Rough, both Church of England men, as we shall hear, who preached publickly to the Court Les [...]. 443. Kn. 36. Spot. 72. and declaim'd boldly against the Roman Corruptions. So far advanced, that it [Page 60] stood fair, within a short space, to have got the publick establishment, if Arran, the Regent, to keep the Popes Cover on his Title to the Succession, wherein, without it, there were a Couple of sad Chasms, and for other worldly ends, had not play'd the Iade, by renouncing his Profession, and returning to the Popes Obedience.

Observe further, by the way, That this first Parliament of Queen Mary's, was holden, in her name, and by her Autho­rity, upon the 13th of March 1542/3, as is clear, not only from our Historians, but, the printed Acts of Parliament; and she was not crowned till the 20th of August thereafter, if we may believe both Lesly and Buchanan ▪ Lesl. 444, 445. Buch. 537. And yet there was not so much as the least objection made, then, against the Legality of the Parliament; no such thing was thought on: So that 'tis no new, nor illegal thing, for Scottish Mo­narchs to hold Parliaments before their Coronations. But this, as I said, by the way.

Such was the strength of the Reforming Party, then, and this strength, under God, advanced so far, principally, by English in­fluences. And all this will appear more convincing still, when it is considered in the 6th place, That all alongst the Popish Clergy were very sensible of it, and very much offended with it, and were at all imaginable pains to disappoint it, and op­pose it. Thus,

[Page 61]When Henry sent the Bishop of St. Davids (as we have heard) Anno 1535. to treat with Iames about Reforming, the Clergy were in a dreadful pother, how to keep off the Interview; and used all imaginable Arguments with the King, to disswade him from listen­ing to it; Sacerdotes qui pro aris & focis sibi certandum vi­debant fremere; Religi­onem hoc congressu pro­di. Buch. 521. Telling him, it would ruine Religion, and that would ruine his Soul, his State, his Kingdom, &c. Nay

The Pope himself was extreamly solici­tous, how to prevent so great a mischief, as he deem'd it; For, as Lesly tells us Lesl: 415. His Holiness finding that Henry had cast off his Yoke, and fearing lest Iames should tran­scribe his Uncles Copy, sent his Legates to Scotland to confirm him in the Faith, and fortify him against Henry's impressions. And Buchanan Buch. 517. says, He allowed him the Tenths of all the Benefices within the Kingdom, for three years time, to keep him right. Again,

When Henry, Anno 1540. insisted the se­cond time for ane Interview, the Clergy were in a whole Sea of troubles; They used all arts, Id cum Sacerdotes rescis­sent, actum de Ordine suo Rati, nisi Congressum Regum impedirent, &c. Buch. 525. vid. Lesl. 431, 432. and tried all Methods to impede it. At last they sell upon the true Knack, (and a true Demon­stration of their Concern, seeing, it was a Knack that lookt so unkindly on their Pockets) which was, to promise him Money, largely, no [Page 62] less than 30000 Crowns yearly, says Bucha­nan; Knox calls them 50000, out of their Benefices, besides a vast sum which might arise out of the confiscated Estates of He­reticks. 50000 Crowns was a good round summ in those days in Scotland. Further,

How were they alarm'd? what fears were they under? what shapes did they turn themselves in? what tricks did they play, when the Match betwixt Edward and Mary (spoken of before) was in Agitation? Occasio item supremae po­testatis Invadendae, & ce­leritatis egere visa est, ut Captivorum & Exulum, ex Anglia, Red [...]tum, praeveniret, ne quid in approbatione sui honoris, eis, integrum Relinque­ret, quorum & potentiam & Gratiam formidabat, & mentem a se alienam, ob diversum pietatis cul­tum non dubitabat. Buch. 531. vide Kn. 35. Spot. 71. The Cardinal forged a Will in the Kings Name, nominating himself, the principal, of four Con­junct Regents, for managing the Government during the Queen's Minority: intending, thereby, to secure the Popish interests, and prevent the coming of the Nobility from England, who, he knew, would lay out themselves with all their Might to oppose him, being his Enemies upon the account of Religion, and advance the Designs of England. This not succeeding, (for the forgery was mani­fest) His next Care was, that all the Popish Party should tumultuate, bawl and clamour, confound and disturb, the Parliament, all they could; which, indeed, was done so successfully, that nothing could be done to purpose, till he was committed to Custody: Buch. 533. Neither did this put an end to these [Page 63] practices of the Party, but so soon as the Parliament (having concluded the Match) was over, and he set at Liberty, with the Queen Dowagers advice (who was all over French and Papist) He convenes the Clergy, represents to them the impossibi­lity of their standing, the certain Ruine of the Catholick Religion, every thing that could be frightful to them, unless that Confederacy with England were broken; obliges them therefore to tax themselves, and raise great Sums of Money, for Bribing some of the Nobility, that were not proof against its Charms and Beauties; And to use all their Rhetorick with others, to the same purpose: And lastly, it was conclu­ded in that Religious Meeting, That the Match and Alliance should be preacht against from the Pulpits; and that all possible pains should be taken to excite the Populace to Tumults and Rabbles, and treat the English Ambassador, with all affronting Tricks and Rudenesses. Vide Buch. 533, 534. Spot. 73. In short, the Faction never gave over till they had cajol'd the weak Regent into ane Abjuration of Protestancy (as was told before) and re­conciled him to the French, which, then, in Scot­land, was all one with the Popish Interest. Nay

His Holiness himself again interrested himself in this juncture, as Lesly tells us; Lesl. 445, 449. sending Petrus Franciscus Contarenus, Patri­arch of Venice, his Legate, into Scotland, to treat with the Regent and the Nobility, in the Popes Name, and promise them large [Page 64] assistances against the English ▪ if they would break the Con­tract of Marriage betwixt Edward and Mary; Studebat enim averte­re illorum animos a Nup­tl [...]s cum Anglo contra­hendis, quod suspicare­tur, per illam Conjun­ctionem, aliquam fieri potuisse, in Scotia, Reli­gionis eversionem, &c. Lesl. 449. which had so fatal ane aspect towards the Catholick Reli­gion. By this Taste, 'tis ea­sy to discern how much the Popish Party were perswaded, of the great influence, England had on Scotland in order to a Reformation of Reli­gion: And laying all together that hath been said, 'tis as easy to perceive, they wanted not reason for such a perswasion. Having thus given a brief Deduction of the State of our Reformation in King Henry's time, and made it apparent, that it was much encouraged and quickened by English Influences, then, I think, I need not insist much on the succeeding Reigns. Briefly then

7. As Edward the Sixth had the same reasons for interesting himself in our Scottish affairs, which his Father Henry had before him, so we find his Counsels were suited accordingly. No sooner was Henry dead, and Somerset warm'd in his Protectoral Chair, than the Demands about the Match were renewed. And being rejected by the Popish Party, here, who had our weak Regent at their Beck, and were then the governing Party, the Matter ended in a Bloody War. Somerset raised a great Army, and entered Scotland: But before [Page 65] it came to fighting, he sent a Letter to the Scots Buch 561. Spot: 88. Knox. 87. written in such ane obliging stile, and containing so kind, and so fair, so equi­table propositions, That the Regent, advis'd by some Papists about him, thought fit not to publish it to his Army, but to give out, that it tended to quite contrary purposes than it really contained, That it contain'd Threats that the English were come to car­ry off the Queen by force, and Ruine and Enslave the Nation, &c. Dreading, no doubt, that if he had dealt candidly, and shewed the Letter to such men of interest in the Nation, as were there, it would have taken so with them, that they would have laid aside thoughts of Fighting. In­deed! this was no groundless jealousie, the matter was above-board: For, as Buchanan tells us, In the next Convention of Estates which was holden shortly after that fatal Battel of Pinkie, Erant qu [...] ob Religionis Consensum Anglorum ob­latam amicitiam censerent amplectendam— Galliae factioni favebant omnes Papani. Buch. 566. Spot▪ 89. those who were for the Reformation, being of the same Religion with England, were zealous for the English Alliance, and against sending the Queen into France; and that they were the Papists only who were for sending her thither.

8. When Edward died, and his Sister Mary ascended the Throne, a heavy Cloud indeed did hang over both Nations, and threatned a dreadful storm to the Refor­mation of Religion. Mary, according to [Page 66] her surly humour, fell to downright Per­secution in England: And our Q. Dowager having shouldered out Arran, and possest herself of the Scottish Regency, in her subtle way, was as zealous to maintain the Super­stitions of Popery, using less Cruelty, in­deed, than Mary, but more policy, and to the same purposes. And now the purga­tion of Christianity, seem'd to be brought to a lamentable stand, in both Kingdoms, and the hopes of those to be quite dasht, who were breathing for the profession of that Holy Religion in its purity. ‘Yet God, in his kind providence, did other­wise dispose of things, and made that a means to advance Religion amongst us, which, men thought, should have utter­ly extinguisht it: For some of those who fled from Mary's persecution in England, taking their Refuge into this Kingdom, did not only help to keep the light which had begun to shine, but made the Sun to break up more clear than before, as Spotswood hath it from Knox. Spot. 92. Kn. 99.’ For then came into Scotland, William Harlaw, Iohn Willock, Iohn Knox, &c. of whom more hereafter. Thus we were still deriving more light and heat from England.

9. Mary died, and Elizabeth succeeded, in November 1588. our Queen was then in France: It was morally impossible to reco­ver her thence: The English influences, which in Henry and Edwards time, had cherished our Reformation, (except so far as God [Page 67] sent us Harlaw, Willock and Knox, by his special providence, as I told just now) were quite cut off all the time of Mary's Govern­ment. Our Reformers, therefore, to make the best of a bad hand, were earnest to be amongst the foremost Courtiers with the Queen Regent: They were ready to serve her design with all possible frankness: par­ticularly, they were amongst the most for­ward for carrying on the Match with the Dauphine of France, and voted chearfully that he should have the Matrimonial Crown conferred upon him, after the solemnizati­on of the Marriage. In consequence of this their frankness, the Earl of Argyle and the Prior of St. Andrews, two first-rate Prote­stants, were the persons nominated to pass into France, to honour the Dauphine with that complement: And they undertook it cordially.

But, in the very instant, almost, they were informed that Mary of England was dead, and Elizabeth on the Throne, and withal professing Protestancy. This altered their whole Scheme: They presently considered, The English Influences, so long stopt in their Courses, might now begin to Drop again: And there were hopes of Assistance from that Female Soveraign: So, these two Lords (no doubt, with the advice of the rest of the fraternity) gave over thoughts of their French Voyage: The Dauphine might purchase a Crown for himself, or wait till his Father dyed, if he could not do better: They re­solved [Page 68] to carry him no Matrimonial Crowns from Scotland. Indeed their hopes of As­sistance from England to carry on the Re­formation of Religion, were better ground­ed then than ever. For,

Upon the Death of Queen Mary of En­gland, by French advice, our Queen, as Next Heir to that Crown, had assumed the English Titles. 'Tis not to be thought Elizabeth lik'd this well; and resolving to continue Queen of England, she had no reason: For who knows not that her Title was Questio­nable? But our Queens Descent was Vncon­troverted. What wonder then if Elizabeth thought herself concerned to secure herself as well as she could? And what more fea­sible and proper way for her security, than to have the Affections, and by consequence the Power of Scotland on her side? And what measure so natural for obtaining that, as to cherish the Reformation of Religion in Scotland, and weaken the Popish, and by consequence, the French interests there, and get the Rule of that Kingdom put in the hands of Protestants? The politick was obviously solid; all the work was to set it a going: But that difficulty was soon over; for no sooner did she employ some private instruments, to try the Scottish pulses, than they smelt the matter, and relisht it imme­diately. The least intimation that she was so inclined, was to them as a spark of fire amongst Gun-powder, it kindled them in a thought: They addrest her, quickly [Page 69] beg'd her protection, and plighted their Faith that they would depend upon her, and stand by her, and to the outmost of their power, secure her interests; if she would grant them suitable assistances. Thus the bargain was readily agreed to on both sides; and both perform'd their parts suc­cessfully. For who knows not that our Reformation was carried on by Elizabeths Auspices? by English Arms▪ and Counsels, and Money in the year 1560? And who knows not, that by the Treaty at Leith in Iuly, that same year, after the French were expelled Scotland, when our Reformers, by her help, had got the upper hand, her Crown was secured, as far as the Scottish Protestants could secure it? Who knows not, I say, that it was one of the Articles of that Treaty, That the Queen of Scotland and King of France, should not, thereafter, u­surp the Titles of England and Ireland, and should delete the Arms of England and Ireland out of their Scutchions? and whole Houshold­stuff? Spot. 149. By this time, I think, it may competently appear, how much our Scottish Reformation, under God, depended on English influences. But I have two things more to add

10. Then, It is considerable that some of our Chief Luminaries, of those, who had a principal hand in preaching and planting the Gospel in Purity among us, had drunk in these principles in England, and brought them, thence, to Scotland with them. Thus [Page 70] the excellent Martyr Mr. George Wishart, (of whom in part before) as Spotswood tells us, Spot. 76. had spent his time in Cambridge, and return'd to his own Country to promote the Truth in it, Anno 1544. And Mr. Iohn Spotswood, that worthy man who was so long Superintendent of Lothian after our Refor­mation, was one of Cranmers Disciples, as you may see in the beginning of the Life of Archbishop Spotswood his Son, and also in his History. Spot. 344. And Iohn Willock and William Harlaw had both lived in England, before they preacht in Scotland, as I have already accounted; and perhaps a strict Enquiry might discover some others.

11. and lastly, On the other hand, (ex­cept so far as Iohn Knox was Calvinist, and a Lover of the Forms of Geneva, for which, perhaps, I shall account hereafter) none of our Historians give so much as one particu­lar instance, of a Scottish Reformer who had his Education in any other foreign Church, except Mr. Patrick Hamilton, who, I think, cannot be proven to have been a Presbyte­rian; and tho it could be done, it could amount to no more than the Authority of a very young man, considering he was but 23 years of age when he died. Neither do they mention any Foreigner, who came here to Scotland, to assist us in our Reformation: Lesly, Lesl. 492. indeed, says, that the Scottish Protestants sent Letters and Messengers to Germany, to call thence Sacramentarian Mi­nisters, as being very dexterous at fostering [Page 71] Sedition, and subverting Religion; but no other Historian says so; and he himself says not that ever any such came to Scotland. Thus, I think, I have accounted compe­tently for the first thing proposed, viz. That our Reformation, under God, was principally Cherished and Encouraged by English Influences, I proceed to the

2. Which was, That, in Correspondence to these Influences, our Reformers were generally of the same Mind with the Church of England, in several momentous instances relating to the Constitution and Communi­on, the Government and Polity of the Church, wherein, our present Presbyterian principles stand in direct opposition and contradiction to her.

That our Reformers agreed with those of the Church of England, in the Common Articles of the Christian Faith, in their Creed, was never called in Question. But it is not my present purpose to consider the sentiments of our Reformers in relation to the Church as it is a Sect, but as it is a Society, neither shall I be curious to amuse many particulars; I shall content my self with two or three of considerable weight and impor­tance. And▪

1. Our Reformers, generally, or rather, unanimously, lookt on the Church of England, as a Church so well constituted, that her Communion was a Lawful Communion. For this we have two as good Evidences as the nature of the thing is capable of, viz. [Page 72] The constant and uniform practice of our Reformers joining in the Communion of the Church of England, when they had occa­sion, as those of the Church of England did, with the Church of Scotland; and their open profession in their publick deeds that they thought it Lawful.

1. I say it was the constant practice of our Reformers to joyn in the Communion of the Church of England, when they had occasion, as those of the Church of England, did, with the Church of Scotland. Thus, we find all such of our Reformers, as, in times of Persecution, fled into England, still joyning with the Church of England ▪ e. g. Friar Alexander Seaton, Spot. 65. when he was forced to flee, in King Iames the 5th's time, went to England, and became the Duke of Suffolk's Chaplain, and died in that service. Alex­ander Aless was in great favour with King Henry, and called the King's Schollar. Spot. 66. He was a Member of the English Convocation, and disputed against Stokesly Bishop of Lon­don, and maintain'd there were but two Sacraments, Baptism and the Eucharist, Anno 1536, or 37: Bur­net ad An. And he it was that first turn'd the English Liturgy into Latin, for Bucer's use, Anno 1549, as both Heylin and Burnet, in their Histories of the English Reformation, tell us. Burn. ad Ann. Heylin. p. [...]9. Iohn Fife, and one M' Dowdal stayed as long in England as Aless did. Spot. 66. And 'tis not to be doubted that they were of the same principles. Iohn M' Bee during his abode in England, was [Page 73] liberally entertained by Nicol. Saxton Bishop of Salisbury, who made much account of him, Ibid. which is no argument, I think, that he was a Presbyterian. Sir Iohn Borth­wick was charged with Heresie, Anno 1640, for maintaining, That the Heresies, commonly called the Heresies of England, and their New Liturgy, was Commendable, and to be embraced of all Christians: And, That the Church of Scotland ought to be govern'd, after the manner of the Church of England, Spot. 70. Pet. 180. i. e. under the King, and not the Pope, as Supreme Go­vernor. Friar Thomas Guillam, the first pub­lick Preacher of the Reformed Religion, in Scotland, He, by whose Sermons Iohn Knox got▪ the first lively impressions of the Truth Life of Knox., This Guillam, I say, after Arran, the Re­gent, Apostatized, withdrew, and went into England, Spot. 73. and we hear no more of him; From which 'tis reasonable to conclude, That he kept the Common Course with the other Reformers, there.

Iohn Rough was the Regents other Chaplain, while he was Protestant; He likewise fled to England, tho sometime after Guillam: He preached some years in the Towns of Car­lisle, Berwick and Newcastle; and was after­wards provided to a Benefice by the Arch­bishop of York, where he lived till the Death of King Edward. When Mary's Persecu­tion turn'd warm, he fled, and lived some time in Freesland. He came to London, a­bout some business, Anno 1557. was ap­prehended, and brought before Bonner; [Page 74] Questioned if he had preached any, since he came to England? Answered he had preach­ed none: But in some places where godly people were Assembled, He had read the Prayers of the Communion Book set forth in the Reign of King Ed. VI. Question'd again, what his Judgment was of that Book? An­swered, He approved it, as agreeing in all points with the word of God; And so suffered Martyrdom. I think this man was neither for Parity, nor against Liturgies. But to proceed.

The excellent Mr. Wishart, as he had spent some time in England (as was told before) so, it seems, he returned to Scot­land, of English (I am confident, not of Presbyterian) Principles: For, he was not only for the Lawfulness of Private Commu­nion, as appeared by his practice; but Knox Kn: Hist. 69. gives us fair intimations, that he mini­stred it by a Set-form. I know King Ed­ward's Liturgy was not then composed: But it is not to be imagined, That the Re­formers in England, in Wishart's time admini­stred the Sacrament without a Set-form. The Extemporary Spirit was not, then, in vogue: And why, else, could Sir Iohn Borthwick have been charged with the Great Heresy of Commending the English Liturgy? However, I shall not be peremptory, because I have not the opportunity of enquiring, at present, what Forms the English Reformers had, then. All I shall say, is, if they had a Liturgy, 'tis very probable, Wishart used it; For, as [Page 75] Knox tells us, when he celebrated the Eu­charist, before his Execution, ‘After he had blessed the Bread and Wine, he took the Bread and Brake it, and gave to every one of it, bidding each of them, Remember that Christ had died for them, and feed on it spiritually; so taking the Cup, he bade them Remember that Christs Blood was shed for them, &c.’ So Knox, word for word, which account, I think, seems fairly to intimate, that Wishart used a Form, but if he did, what other could it be than such as he had learned in England?

I have accounted already how Iohn Wil­lock and William Harlaw had served in the English Church, before they came to Scot­land, Spot. 93. I might perhaps make a fuller Collection: But what needs more?

Even Knox himself lived in Communion with the Church of England, all the time he was in that Kingdom: He went not there to keep Conventicles, to erect Altar against Altar, to gather Churches out of the Church of England, to set up separate and schismatical Churches, as some of our pre­sent Parity-men have sometimes done: No, he preached in the publick Churches, and, in subordination to the Bishops; and he preached before King Edward himself, as he himself tell us, in his Admonition to the Professors of the Truth in England; p. 52. which, it is very improbable, he would have been allowed to have done, if he had Condemned the Communion of the Church [Page 76] of England, as it was then established: For who knows not, that, in King Edwards time, all Schism and Non-Conformity were sufficiently discouraged? And, through that whole Admonition, he, still, speaks of himself as One of the Ministers of the Church of England. Nay

If it be Reasonable to Collect mens Senti­ments from their Reasonings, I am sure, in that same Admonition I have enough for my purpose: For, he reasons upon suppositions, and from Principles, which, clearly, con­demned Separation from the Church of England, as then established. For, when he gives his thoughts of that fatal Discord which happened between the two great men ( Somerset, and the Admiral, as I take it) He discourses thus; God compelled my tongue (says he) openly to declare, That the Devil and his Ministers (the Papists) Intended only the Subversion of Gods true Religion, by that Mortal Hatred amongst those who ought to have been, most assuredly, Knit together by Christian Charity— And especially that the wicked and envious Papists (by that ungodly Breach of Charity) diligently minded the overthrow of him (Somerset) that, to his own Destruction, pro­cured the Death of his innocent friend (and Brother)— All this trouble was devised, by the Devil and his instruments, to stop and lett Christ's Disciples and their poor Boat ( i. e. the Church.) What can be more plain (I say) than, that Knox, here, proceeds on suppo­sitions, and reasons from Principles, which [Page 77] condemned Separation from the Church of England, as then established? Doth he not suppose, that the Church of England, as then established, was Christ's Boat, his Church? And that the Sons of the Church of England were Christ's Disciples? Doth he not suppose, that these two Brothers, as Sons of the Church of England, ought to have been assuredly knit together, by Christian Charity? That the Breach between them was ane ungodly Breach of that Charity, by which, Members of that same Church ought to have been assuredly knit together? And that it was a contrivance of the wicked and envious Pa­pists, thereby, to Ruine the Church of En­gland? Doth he not suppose all these as un­undoubted Truths, I say. Or rather, doth he not positively or expresly assert them? And now, if Separation from the Church of England, and condemning her Communion as ane Vnlawful Communion can consist with these principles and suppositions; or, if he who reasons on these suppositions, and from these principles, can be deem'd, at the same time, to have been for the Vnlawfulness of the Communion of the Church of England, I must confess I know not what it is to collect mens sentiments from their Principles and Rea­sonings.

Whoso pleases may find more of Knox's sentiments to this purpose, in his Exhorta­tion to England for the speedy receiving of Christs Gospel; Dated from Geneva, Ianuary 12. 1559. For, there, he calls England happy, In that, [Page 78] God by the power of his verity, of late years ( i. e. in King Edward's time) had broken and de­stroyed the intolerable yoke of her spiritual Cap­tivity, and brought her forth, as it had been, from the bottom of Hell, and from the Thraldom of Satan (in which she had been holden blinded by Idolatry and Superstition) to the fellowship of his Angels, and the possession of that rich Inheri­tance, prepared to his Dearest Children with Christ Iesus his Son. And a little after, he says of the Church of England, that in that same King Edward's days, she was a Delecta­ble Garden planted by the Lords own hand. p. 102. And in his Letter to Secretary Cecil, from Diep, April 10, 1559. he tells him, He ex­pects that same favour from him, which, it be­cometh one Member of Christs Body to have for another. Kn. Hist. 224. And in his Letter to Q. Eliza­beth from Edenburgh, 28 Iuly 1559. He renders thanks unfeignedly to God, That it hath pleased him of his eternal Goodness, to exalt her Head to the Manifestation of his Glory, and the Extirpa­tion of Idolatry. ib. 231. Is this like the Clamour which has been ordinary with our Presbyte­rians, about the Idolatry of the Church of En­gland? And in the conclusion of that Letter, he prays, that the Spirit of the Lord Iesus may so rule her, in all her Actions, and Enterprizes, that, in her, God may be Glorified, his Kirk Edified, and she, as a lively Member of the same, may be ane Example of Virtue and Godliness of Life, to all others. Are these like the sayings of one, who, in the mean time, judged the Communion of the Church of England, ane Unlawful Communion.

[Page 79]'Tis true, indeed, Iohn Knox was dis­pleased with some things in the English Li­turgy: He thought she had some Modes and Ceremonies there, which were scandalous, as symbolizing too much with the Papists; and it cannot be denied, that he disturbed the peace of the English Church at Francfort: But, if I mistake not, he did so, not that he thought the terms of her Communion truly sinful; but, that he judged his own, (or ra­ther the Genevian) Model, purer; For, 'tis reasonable to think, he proceeded on the same principles, and was of the same sen­timents with his Master, Calvin: And no­thing can be clearer, than, that Calvin did not condemn the things scrupled at, as im­pious or unlawful, but as not agreeable to his Standard of Purity, as appears from the Citation on the Margin, In Anglicana Ecclesia, qualem describitis, multa [...] video [...]uisse tolerablles in­ept [...]as. His duobus verbis ex primo, non fuisse eam puritatem, quae optanda fuerat: Quae tamen, pri­mo statim die, corrigi non poterant vitia, cum NUL­LA SUBESSET MA­NIFESTA IMPIE­TAS, ferenda ad tempus fuisse. Calv. Angl. Fran­coford. inter Epist. Col. 213. and might easily be made appear more fully, if one were put to it; but 'tis needless, now, considering that all, I aim at, is, that it cannot be inferred from what Knox did at Francfort, That he judged the Communion of the Church of England, ane Vnlawful Communion, tho, I must confess in making these stirs, he proceeded, not ac­cording to the true Catholick Principles of Christian Communion. But enough of him at present. To proceed,

[Page 80]As our Reformers thus generally looke upon the Church of England, as a true Church, and her Communion, as a Lawful Communion, so, after our Reformation was established, those of the Church of England, had the same sentiments of the Church of Scotland: The Ambassadors, who, at any time, for many years, came from England to the Scottish Court, made no scruple to live in the Com­munion of the Church of Scotland, and joyn in her publick Worship. Thus the Earl of Bed­ford Kn. Hist. 440. who came to assist at the Solemni­zation of the Princes (afterwards K. Iames the Sixth's) Baptism, Anno 1566. went daily to Sermon, i. e. (by a Synecdoche very familiar in Scotland) to the publick Worship. Neither did I ever observe the least intimation, in any monument of these times, I have seen, of these two Churches having opposite Communions, till many years after the Reformation. But I have insisted long enough on this Consi­deration. The sum whereof is, briefly, this: Our Reformers so far as can appear from their private sentiments and practices, lookt upon the Church of England as a true Chri­stian Church: They lived in her Communion when they had occasion to be within her Bounds; not one of them condemned her Com­munion as ane Vnlawful Communion; not one of them set up Conventicles in England, when they were there, nor erected separate Churches, &c. From all which, it seems to follow, at least, very probably, That they reform­ed, generally, upon the same Principles; [Page 81] intirely, upon the same, as to Church Com­munion. The reason why I have insisted so long on this argument, is, that it smooths the way for the next, which is

2. That our Reformers, in their publick deeds, openly and solemnly profest that they were of one Religion, one Communion, with the Church of England. This, as I take it, is a point of considerable importance, and therefore I shall endeavour to set it, at least, in a competent Light.

1. Then, Unity of Religion (and by good Consequence, I think, Oneness of Commu­nion) between the Scottish and the English Protestants, was the great Argument insist­ed on by the Scots, in their Addresses to En­gland for Assistance to turn out the French, and establish the Reformation in Scotland, Anno 1559: And it was one of the main Grounds, on which all that great Revolution was transacted, that year, and the next, viz. 1560. Take the account, as I have it from that which is commonly called Knox his History.

When the Lords of the Congregation, found it would be necessary for them to implore foreign Assistance for driving out the French, then, the great Obstacles to the Reforma­tion; They resolved, in the first place, to apply to England, and the Reason, given for this Resolution was, That ENGLAND WAS OF THE SAME RELIGION. Or, if ye please take it in the Authors own words Kn. 170. We thought good to seek aid, and [Page 82] support, of all Christian Princes, against her (the Queen Regents) Tyranny, in case we should be more sharply persued, AND BE­CAUSE THAT ENGLAND WAS OF THE SAME RELIGION, and lay next unto us, it was thought expedient first to prove them, &c.

It was rational enough to try, there, first, indeed, considering what I have al­ready observed concerning Queen Eliza­beth; And, Tryed it was, and found success­ful; For Secretary Cecil, no sooner heard of their intention, than he sent them word, That their Enterprize misliked not the English Council Kn. 228.. Upon the sight of this great Ministers Letter, which brought them so comfortable news, they instantly return'd ane Answer: Knox has it word for word; Kn. ib. I shall only take ane Abstract of what is proper for my present purpose. In short then;

‘They perceive their Messenger, Ma­ster Kircaldie of Grange, hath found Cecil ane unfeigned favourer of Christ's true Reli­gion: — As touching the Assurance of a perpetual Amity to stand betwixt the two Realms, as no earthly thing is more desired by them, so, they crave of God to be made the Instruments, by which, the Unnatural Debate which hath so long continued between the Nations may be composed, To the Praise of Gods Name, and, the Comfort of the Faithful in both Realms: If the English Wisdom can foresee and devise [Page 83] how the same may be brought to pass, they may perswade themselves not only of the Scottish Consent and Assistance, but of their Constancy, as Men can promise, to their lives end; And of Charge and Com­mandment to be left by them to their posterity, that the Amity between the Nations (IN GOD) contracted and begun, may be, by them, kept inviolate for Ever: Their Confederacy, Amity and League shall not be like the pactions made by worldly men, for worldly profit, but, as they Require it, FOR GODS CAUSE, so, they will call up­on his Name for the Observation of it: As this their Confederacy requires Secresy, so, they doubt not, the English Wisdom will communicate it only to such as they know to be favourers of such A GODLY CONJUNCTION; And, in their opi­nion, it would much help, if the Preachers both in perswasion, and in publick prayers (as theirs in Scotland do) would commend the same unto the people. And thus, after their most humble Commendation to the Queen's Majesty, (whose Reign they wish may be prosperous and long, to the Glory of God and Comfort of his Church) they heartily commit him to the Prote­ction of the Omnipotent. Given at Eden­burgh, Iuly 17. Anno 1559.’

Before I proceed further, I must tell my Reader, that all our Historians are extream­ly defective as to this great Transaction between Scotland and England, I am now [Page 84] accounting for. None of them (neither Buchanan, nor Lesly, nor Spotswood) hath this Letter except Knox, and he calls it, the first Letter to Sir William Cecil from the Lords of the Congregation, which imports there were more, as no doubt there were many, and yet he hath not so much as a second. Besides, I find by Knox, Buchanan and Spotswood Kn. 218. Spot. 140. Buch. 604. that, in November 1559, Secretary Maitland was sent by the Lords of the Congregation, to treat with the Queen of England. I find likewise that he managed the matter so, and brought it to such maturity, that, imme­diately upon his return, the League between the Queen of England, and the Scottish Lords was transacted and finished; and yet I can, no where, find, what Commission he had, nor what Instructions; how he manag'd his business, nor upon what terms the Queen of England and He came to an Agreement; and several other such lamentable defects I find, so that it is not possible for me to give so exact a Deduction of such ane important Matter as were to be wished. Tho, I doubt not, if it had been clearly and fully deduced, it might have brought great Light to many things about our Reformation, which, now, so far as I know, are buried in Obscurity. Any man may readily imagine how sensi­ble one, that would perform my present task, must needs be, of so great a disad­vantage: However, when we cannot have what we would, we must satisfy our selves the best way we can. And so I return to my [Page 85] purpose, which, tho I cannot dispatch so punctually as might be desired, yet I hope to do it sufficiently, and to the satisfaction of all sober, tho not, nicely critical Enquirers. To go on then.

By the aforementioned Letter, you see, The Lords of the Congregation, referr'd it to the Wisdom of the English Council, to foresee and devise the Means and Assurances) they are the very words of the Letter) how ane effectual Confederacy might be made, be­tween them, for Gods Cause. Now let us reason a little upon the common principles of prudence, where Matter of Fact is so de­fective.

What was more natural for the English Council to Require, than, that (now that the English Reformation was perfected and legally established, and the Scottish was only in forming) the Scots should engage to transcribe the English Copy, and establish their Reformation upon that same foot, i. e. receive the Doctrine, Worship, Rites and Government of the Church of England, so that there might be no difference between the two Churches, but both might be of the same Constitution, so far as the necessary di­stinction of the two States would allow? The point in Agitation was a Confederacy in opposition to Popery, and for the security of the Reformed Religion in both Kingdoms. It was obvious, therefore, to foresee, that it would be the stronger, and, every way, the better suited to that great End, if both [Page 86] Churches stood on one bottom: For who sees not that Different Constitutions are apt to be attended with Different Customs, which in process of time may introduce Different Sen­timents and Inclinations? Who sees not that the smallest Differences are apt to create jea­lousies, divisions, cross-interests? And that there's nothing more necessary than Vnifor­mity for preserving Vnity? Besides,

Queen Elizabeth was, peculiarly, con­cerned to crave this. There's nothing more necessary to support a State, especially a Mo­narchy, than Vnity of Religion. It was for the Support of her State, the Security of her Monarchy, that she was to enter into this Confederacy. She was affraid of the Queen of Scotland's pretensions to the Crown of England; For this cause she was confederating with the Queen of Scotland's Subjects, that she might have them of her side. It was her concern, therefore, to have them as much secured to her interests as possibly she could: they were, then, at a great Bay without her succour; and had referred it to her and her Council, to foresee and devise the terms on which she would grant it. And now laying all these things together, what was more natural. I say than that she should demand, that they should be of the same Religion, and their Church of the same Constitution, with the Church of England.

This politick was so very obvious, that 'tis not to be imagined, she and her wise Council could overlook it; And tho it had [Page 87] been no where upon Record, that she craved it, yet the common sense of man­kind would stand for its Credibility; what shall we say then, if we find it recorded by ane Historian, whose Honesty is not to be questioned in this matter? And such ane one we have, even Buchanan himself, tho he misplaces it, and narrates it, a long time after it was done, and as it were only by the by.

The occasion on which he records this, is, when in the year 1569. (the tenth year after this Confederacy between the Scots and the English was concerted, as I take it) the Earl of Murray, then Regent, had gone to the Northern parts of the Kingdom to settle matters there, Accounts were brought to him of the Duke of Norfolk's Conspiracy, which was so well compacted, and so deep laid, that it was judged morally impossible to disappoint it; and Murray's friends were earnest with him to retreat in time, and disengage himself of the opposite party, with whom he had hitherto sided; and so when Buchanan comes to give the History of this juncture, he, to find a just rise for his Nar­ration, returns no less than ten years back­ward, discoursing thus, The State of English affairs oblige me to look back a little; because, in these times, the interests of both Kingdoms were so twisted, that the concerns of the one cannot be represented without the other: The Scots, some years before, being delivered from the Gallican Slavery by the English assist­ance, [Page 88] had subscribed to the Religious Worship and Rites of the Church of England; Status Re­rum Angli­carum, hic, nos pau­lum diver­tere cogit, quod, eo tempore adeo utrius (que) Regni prospera & adversa, conjuncta erant, ut, altera sine alteris explicari nequirent: Scoti, ante aliquot Annos, Anglorum auxiliis, e Servitute Gallica, Liberati, RELIGIONIS CULTUI ET RITBUS CUM AN­GLIS COMMUNIBUS SUBSCRIPSERUNT: Ea subita rerum mutatio spondere videbatur Brittaniam universam ad omni Domestico tumultu conquleturam. E continenti vero, &c. Buch. 714. and that surprizing change, in Affairs, seem'd to promise, to Britain, quietness, and rest from all intestine Commotions, and Factions, &c.

Here, you see, the thing is plainly and undeniably asserted: Yet, so careless, (to say no worse) have all our Historians been, that not one of them mentions it, but he, and he does no more than mention it; and, to this minute, we are, generally, in the dark, when, how, by whom, and with what Solemnities it was done. Buchanan's words would seem to import that it was done after, that our Deliverance (as he calls it) was accomplisht. But not one word of it in the Treaty concluded at Leith, and proclaim'd Iuly 8th, 1560. which succeed­ed immediately upon the back of that De­liverance; not one word of it (I say) in that Treaty, as it is ether in Buchanan, Knox or Spotswood, or any other Historian, I have had occasion to see; neither have we any other publick Transaction or Deed that mentions it.

I find it told by several Historians Buch. 614. Kn. 284. Sp [...]t. 1 [...]1. that the Earls of Morton and Glencarne were [Page 89] sent to England, after that our Deliverance, to return thanks to Queen Elizabeth for her assistance: 'Tis possible it might have been done then; for, as Spotswood has it, ‘After the Professors heard of the cold Enter­tainment that Sir Iames Sandilands, who went to France to give ane account of the Treaty, had got at that Court, their minds were greatly troubled; for, they were seasible of their own weakness, and doubtful of Support from England, if France should again invade, because of the Loss the English had received in the late Expedition; Neither, (says he) had the Earls of Morton and Glencarne, who upon breaking up of the Parliament, were sent into England, to render thanks to the Queen, and to entreat the Conti­nuance of her Favour, given any adver­tisement of their acceptance.’ If, upon this occasion, Commission was sent to these two Earls, to subscribe, in name of the rest of the Protestants, to such ane Vnion in Religion, it exactly answers Buchanan's Ac­count; but no such thing is so much as in­sinuated to have been done on that occasion. For my part, I humbly offer it to be consi­dered, whither it is not possible, that Bu­chanan intended not to lay any such stress upon the word [LIBERATI] as thereby to import, that it was after the Accom­plishment of our Deliverance, that the Scots subscribed: But, bringing in the whole mat­ter, occasionally, where he mentions it, and [Page 90] intending to dispatch it in as few words as he could; he did not stand nicely upon the wording of it. And if tis holds, the most Rational and Natural Account will be, that Secretary Maitland, and Sir Robert Melvil, who were sent by the Scottish Lords, in the beginning of November 1559. to implore the Queen of England's Assistance, were im­powered to agree, in name of the whole body, to this Union of Religion, if it should be demanded. That the Secretary had power to treat, and agree to, and sign Articles, is certain; for, amongst the Instructions given to the Commissioners for concluding the Treaty at Berwick, dated at Glasgow, Feb. 10. 1559/66. I find this as one, Kn. 236.

Item, If it shall be desired of you to confirm, for us, and in our Name, the things past and granted, by our former Commissioner, the young Laird of Lethington, ye shall, in all points, for us, and in our Name, confirm the same, so far as it shall make either for the WELL and CONJUNCTION of the two Realms, or this PRESENT CAUSE, or yet, for the security of our part for fulfilling of the same Kn. 244..

This, I say, is one of the Articles of these instructions; from which it is evi­dent, that Lethington, had signed Articles in England; tho we are no where told what they were. And may it not pass for a pro­bable conjecture, that that concerning Vnity in Religious Worship and Ceremonies was one of them? But whensoever, or by whomsoever it was done, is not the Critical Hinge of the [Page 91] Controversie. We have Buchanan's word for it, that it was done; and I hope, my Presbyterian Brethren will not hastily reject his Authority; especially considering, that his Veracity, in this matter is so much assist­ed and made credible by the strain of the Letter directed to Secretary Cecil, on which we have already insisted. Neither is this all, For

2. The publick Thanksgiving, and Prayers made with great Solemnity, in St. Giles's Church in Edenburgh, Kn. 259, &c. in the Scot. Liturgy. after the Pacifica­tion at Leith, in Iuly 1560, amount to no less than a fair Demonstration of ane intire Vnion between the two Nations as to Church Matters, and Religion; for on that occasion it was thus addressed to Almighty God, with the common Consent, and as a publick Deed of our Scottish Reformers.

— Seeing that nothing is more odious in thy presence (O Lord) than is Ingratitude and Vio­lation of ane Oath and Covenant made in thy Name; and seeing thou hast made our Confe­derates in England, the Instruments by whom we are now set at this Liberty, and, to whom in thy Name, we have promised mutual Faith again; Let us never fall to that Vnkind­ness (O Lord) that either we declare our selves unthankful unto them, or Prophaners of thy holy Name. Confound thou the Counsel of those that go about to break THAT MOST GOGLY LEAGUE CONTRACTED IN THY NAME; And retain thou us so firmly together, by the power of thy holy Spirit, [Page 92] That Satan have never power to set us again at Variance nor Discord. Give us thy Grace to live in that Christian Charity, which, thy Son our Lord Jesus Christ hath so earnestly com­manded to all the Members of his Body; that other Nations provoked by our Example, may set aside all Ungodly War, Contention and Strife, and study to live in Tranquillity and Peace, as it becometh the Sheep of thy pasture, and the People that dayly look for our final Deliverance by the coming again of our Lord Iesus, &c. Thus it was prayed, I say, in great Solem­nity, at that time; and every Petition, is a Confirmation of Buchanan's Fidelity and my Assertion. Further yet,

3. In the Old Scottish Liturgy compiled in these times, and afterwards used publickly in all the Churches, There is a Thanksgiving unto God, after our Deliverance from the Ty­ranny of the Frenchmen, with Prayers made for the Continuance of the Peace betwixt the Realms of Scotland and England, wherein we have these Petitions offered.

Grant unto us, O Lord, that with such Reverence we may remember thy Benefits received, that, after this, in our Default, we never enter into Hostility against the Realm and Nation of England. Suffer us never, O Lord, to fall to that Ingratitude and detestable Vnthankfulness, that we should seek the Destruction and Death of those whom thou hast made instruments to Deli­ver us from the Tyranny of Merciless Strangers: Dissipate thou the Counsels of such as Deceitfully travel to stir the hearts of the inhabitants of ei­ther [Page 93] Realm against the other: Let their malicious practices be their own confusion; and grant thou of thy Mercy, that Love, Concord and Tranquil­lity may continue and increase amongst the Inhabi­tants of this Isle, even to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whose glorious Gospel, thou, of thy Mercy dost CALL US BOTH TO UNITY, PEACE AND CHRISTIAN CONCORD, the full PERFECTION whereof we shall possess in the fullness of thy King­dom, &c.

Here is a set of Demonstrations to the same purpose also: And now, let any man lay all these things together; The Letter to Cecil; The Confederacy betwixt Scotland and England; Buchanan's Testimony; and these Thanksgivings and Prayers, and then let him judge impartially whither or not, there is reason to believe, that, in those days, there was a good Agreement between the Scottish and English Protestants, as to Religion and Church Matters.

Thus, I think, I have sufficiently cleared that our Reformers, Generally, if not Vnani­mously, lookt upon the Church of England, as so well constituted, that they acknow­ledged her Communion to be a Lawful Com­munion. But before I proceed to other things I must try, if I can make any more ad­vantage of what has been said: And I rea­son thus,

Was there not here truely and really, a Confederacy, ane Oath, A Solemn League and Covenant, betwixt the Scottish and the [Page 94] English Protestants? Were not these English Protestants, then, united in that Society, which, at that time, was, and, ever since, hath been called The Church of England? And was not the Church of England of that same very constitution, then, that it was of in King Charles the First his time, for example, Anno 1642? But if so, then, I ask again, was not this Solemn League and Covenant, made, thus, by our Reformers with their Brethren in England, as much designed for the Security, the Defence, the Maintain­ance, of the Church of England, as then by Law established, as for the Establishment of our Reformation? Did not our Reformers promise Mutual Faith to the English, as well as the English promised to them? Would it have been consistent with the mutual bonds and obligations of this Confederacy, this Solemn League and Covenant, for the Scottish Reformers, to have raised ane Army, at that time, against Queen Elizabeth to invade her Dominions, in order to ruine the Church of England? I cannot imagine, any sober person can grudge to grant me this much also. But if this be granted, then I ask in the third place, Did not that Solemn League and Co­venant, made by our Reformers, with those of the Church of England, run in a direct op­position to the Solemn League and Covenant, made by our Scottish Presbyterians with a Factious Party in England, for destroying the Church of England, in King Charles the First's time? Nay did not our Scottish Presbyterians [Page 95] in that King's time, by entering into that Solemn League and Covenant, directly, and effrontedly, break through the Charge and Commandment, which our Reformers left to their Posterity, That the Amity betwixt the Nations, in God contracted and begun, might by them, be kept inviolate for ever? Nay, fur­ther yet, did not our Reformers solemnly pray against those who made the Solemn League and Covenant in the days of King Charles the First? Did they not address to God, that he would dissipate their Counsels, and let their Malicious Practices be their own Confusion? And now, let the world judge what rational pretences these Presbyterians, in that Holy Martyrs time, and, by conse­quence, our present Presbyterians, can make for their being the only true and genuine Suc­cessors of our First Reformers? Expecting solid and serious Answers to these Questions,

I shall now advance in the prosecu­tion of my main undertaking on this Head, which was to shew, how our Reformers agreed with the Church of En­gland in several momentous matters Relative to the Constitution and Communion, the Government and Polity of the Church, &c. But because I have insisted so long on this general one, which I have just now taken leave of, I shall only instance in two or three more, and dispatch them as speedily as I can.

2. Then, it is evident, and undeniable, that our Scottish Protestants, for some years, [Page 96] used the Liturgy of the Church of England in their publick Devotions. Indeed,

The very first publick step, towards our Reformation, made by the Lords of the Con­gregation, was to appoint this Liturgy to be used: It was ordered upon the third day of December, 1557. as both Knox and Calder­wood have it. Kn. 112. Cald. 5. Take the Ordinance in Knox his words: The Lords and Barons pro­fessing Christ Iesus conveened frequently in Coun­cel, in the which, these Heads were concluded. First, It is thought expedient, advised and ordained, That in all Parishes of this Realm, the Common Prayer be read, weekly, on Sunday, and other Festival days, publickly, in the Parish Churches, with the Lessons of the Old and New Testament, conformable to the Book of Common Prayers: And if the Curates of the Parishes be qualified, that they read the same; And if they be not, or if they refuse, that the most qualified in the Parish use and read the same, &c. Kn. Ib. Spot. 117. Pet. 192. Spotswood and Petrie give the same account. But such is the Genius of Mr. Calderwood, that you are to expect few things, which may make a­gainst the Presbyterian Interest, candidly and sincerely represented by him. For instance, in his overly account of this matter, he quite omits the mention of other Holy days, besides Sundays.

These consistent Testimonies of all those four Historians, are so full and plain a De­monstration of the Matter of Fact, that I cannot foresee so much as one Objection that can be made, or one Evasion that can [Page 97] be thought on, unless it be, That it is not said by any of them, that it was the Book of the Common Prayers of the Church of En­gland. But this difficulty is soon removed. For

1. It was either the Book of the Common Prayers of the Church of England, or the Ge­nevian Liturgy: For we no where read of a Third, ever pretended to have been used, in those times, in Scotland: Now that it was not the Liturgy of Geneva, is plain; for besides that it is utterly incredible, that there could have been so many Copies, of the Genevian Form in the vulgar Language, then, in Scotland, as might serve so many Parish Churches; Nay, that 'tis highly pro­bable, there was not so much as one. Be­sides this, I say, in the Genevian Form, which was afterwards used in Scotland, there is no Order for, no footstep of, the observa­tion of other Holy-days, besides Sunday: Nei­ther is there any Order in it for Reading of Lessons of the Old and New Testament, except in the Treatise of Fasting, which was not com­piled till the year 1565. There, indeed, Lessons are appointed, such and such Psalms, and such and such Histories, in the Old, but not so much as one Tittle of the New Testa­ment: In all the rest of the Book a deep Si­lence about Lessons; than which there cannot be a clearer Demonstration▪ that the Book appointed to be used in December 1557, was not that of Geneva. Indeed

2. None of our Presbyterian Historians, neither Petrie, nor Calderwood, have the [Page 98] confidence to pretend, nay to insinuate the possibility of its being the Common Order of Geneva; which, 'tis very probable, they would have done, if they had had the smallest hopes of making it feasible. On the contrary, Calderwood seems fairly to ac­knowledge, that it was the English Liturgy; but then this acknowledgement lies at such a distance from the year 1557. that, no doubt, he thought himself pretty secure, that few Readers would reflect upon it as ane acknowledgment; he doth not make it till he comes to the year 1623, when he had occasion to tell how the use of the En­glish Liturgy was brought into the New Col­ledge of St. Andrews. Take it in his own words Cald. 800. Upon the 15 th of January, Master Robert Howie, Principal of the New College of St. Andrews, Doctor Wedderburn, and Doctor Melvin, were directed by a Letter from Doctor Young, in the Kings Name, to use the English Liturgy, Morning and Evening, in the New College, where all the Students were present at Morning and Evening Prayers: Which was presently put in execution; notwithstanding they wanted the warrant of any General Assembly, or of any CONTINVED PRAC­TICE OF THE FORM in time, by­past, since the Reformation. Where, you see, he lays the stress of his Argument against it, on its nor having had a continued Practice, since the Reformation, which is a clear con­cession that at the Reformation, it was in practice, tho that practice was not continued. [Page 99] But whither he acknowledged this or not, is no great matter; we have sufficient Evi­dence for the point in hand, without it: For

3. Buchanan's Testimony, which was adduced before about the Scots subscriving to the Worship and Rites of the Church of En­gland, is unexceptionable: And yet it is not all. For

4. The Order, as you see it appointed by the Lords of the Congregation, Decem. 3d, 1557. is, That the Book, there authorised, be used in all Churches from that very date: but we find by the First Book of Discipline, Spot. 153. That the Order of Geneva was only coming in to be used, then, in some of the Churches, i. e. 1560. And it had nothing like a public Esta­blishment, till the General Assembly holden at Edenburgh, Dec. 25, 1652. For then, and not till then, It was concluded, that ane Vniform Order should be kept in the Ministration of the Sa­craments, Solemnization of Marriages, and Bu­rial of the Dead, according to the Kirk of Ge­neva. So it is in the Mss. and so Petrie hath it; Pet. 233. But Nature works again with Calderwood; For he has no more but this, It was ordained that ane Vniform Order be kept in the Ministration of the Sacraments, accord­ing to the Book of Geneva: Cald. 32. Omitting Marriage, and the Burial of the Dead; Mar­riage, I believe, to bear the other Company; for the Burial of the Dead, was the Dead Flee: Why? The Book of Geneva allowed of Funeral Sermons, as he himself acknow­ledgeth: Ib. 24. A mighty Superstition! in [Page 100] the opinion of Prerbyterians; so that it would have been offensive to the sincerer sort, as he commonly calls those of his own Gang, and inconsistent with the Exigences of the Good Cause to have let the world know, that A General Assembly had ratified the Order of that Book about Burials, and thereby had justified the Superstition of Funeral Sermons. Nay

5. It seems this Act of the General As­sembly, Decem. 1562. has not been strong enough for turning out the English Liturgy, and introducing the form of Geneva: For if we may believe Calderwood himself, Ib. 39. The General Assembly holden at Edenburgh, Decem. 25. 1564. found themselves concerned to make another Act, ordaining Every Mini­ster, Exhorter, and Reader to have one of the Psalm books, lately printed at Edenburgh, and use the Order contained therein, in Prayers, Marriage, and Administration of the Sacraments. Where observe further, that Prayers, not mentioned in the Act, 1562. are now put in; from which it may be probably con­jectured, that, as much as Knox was against the English Liturgy, he found many difficul­ties to get it laid aside; so many that, it has not only been used by some (few or many, I cannot tell) in the Ministration of the Sacraments, &c. after the Act 1562. But the Clergy have not found themselves obliged to forbear the use of it, in the pub­lick prayers; so that it was needful, in this Assembly 1564, to make a New Act, re­stricting [Page 101] them both as to Prayers and other Ministrations, to the Order of Geneva. And if this holds, we have the English Liturgy, at least, seven Years in continued practice in Scotland. But it is enough for my main pur­pose, that it was once universally in use, which I think cannot be denied by any who impartially considers what hath been said: And now

6. May not I adduce one Testimony more? 'Tis true it is of a latter date: But it is very plain and positive, and what I have adduced already is security enough for its Credibility: It is the Testimony of the Compilers of our Scottish Liturgy, which made the great Stir in the year 1637. And was made one of the main pretences for the first Eruptions of that execrable Rebellion which ensued; The Compilers of that Litur­gy, I say, in their Preface to it, tell us, That it was then, known, that diverse years after the Reformation we had no other Order for Common Prayer, but the English Liturgy. A

Third Principle wherein our Reformers agreed with the Church of England, and which stands in direct contradiction to the Principles of our Presbyterians, is, that they own'd, the Church had a great Depen­dance on the State; That it belong'd to the Civil Magistrate to reform the Church; That People might appeal from the Church, to the Civil Ma­gistrate, &c.

I am not now to enter into the Contro­versie concerning the Dependence or Indepen­dence [Page 102] of the Church upon the State, that falls not within the compass of my present Un­dertaking: Neither will I say that our Presbyterians are in the wrong, as to the true substantial Matter agitated in that Con­troversie. All I am concerned for at pre­sent, is that, in these times, those of the Church of England own'd a great Dependence of the Church upon the State, and that our Reformers agreed with them in that Prin­ciple; and I think I may make short work of it: For

That that was the Principle of the Church of England in these times, I think no man can readily deny, who knows any thing a­bout her, at, and a good many years after, her Reformation. All my business is to shew, that our Reformers were of that same Principle. And I think that shall be easily made to appear: For

As to the Civil Magistrates power to re­form the Church what can be more clear, than the Petition presented to the Queen Re­gent, in November 1558? There our Re­formers tell her Majesty, Kn. 130. Spot. 118. that Knowing no Order placed in this Realm, but her Majesty and her grave Council, set, to amend, as well, the Disorder Ecclesiastical, as the Defaults in the Temporal Regiment, they do most humbly prostrate themselves, before her Feet, asking Iustice, and her Gracious Help against such as falsely traduced and accused them as Hereticks and Schismaticks, &c. In which Address, we have these two things very clear and [Page 103] evident, 1. That they own'd, that the Civil Magistrate, had power to amend Ecclesiastical Disorders, as well as Temporal. 2. That, in consequence of this, they applied to the Civil Magistrate for protection against the pursuits of the Church. And in their Prote­station given in to the Parliament about that same time, ‘They most humbly beseech the sacred Authority to think of them as faithful and obedient Subjects, and take them into its Protection, keeping that Indifferency, which becometh Gods Lieutenants to use, towards those, who, in his Name, do call for Defence against Cruel Oppressors, &c.’ Meaning the then Church-men. Knox: 136. Spot. 120. Indeed,

None clearer for this than Knox himself, as is to be seen fully in his Appellation from the cruel and most unjust Sentence, pronounced against him by the False Bishops and Clergy of Scotland, (as he himself names it) For there Kn. Ap. 4. He lays down and endeavours to prove this Assertion, That it is lawful to Gods pro­phets, and to Preachers of Christ Iesus to appeal from the Sentence and Iudgment of the visible Church, to the Knowledge of the temporal Magi­strate, who, by Gods Law, is bound to hear their Causes and to defend them from Tyranny. And in that same Appellation, p. 13, 14, 15, 16, &c. he largerly asserts and maintains the Dependance of the Church upon the State: The Ordering and Re­formation of Religion, with the instruction of Subjects (he says) doth appertain especially to the Civil Magistrate. For why? ‘ Moses had great power in the Matters of Religion: [Page 104] God revealed nothing particularly to Aaron (the Church-man) but commanded him to depend from the Mouth of Moses (the Civil Magistrate): Moses was im­powered to separate Aaron and his Sons for the Priesthood: Aaron and his Sons were subject to Moses. Moses was so far pre­ferred to Aaron, that the one commanded, the other obeyed. The Kings of Israel were commanded to read the Book of the Law all the days of their Lives, not only for their own private Edification, but for the publick preservation of Religion; so David, Solomon, Asa, Iehosophat, Hezekiah, Iosiah understood it, and interested them­selves in the Matters of the Church, ac­cordingly.’ From which it is evident, (saith he) That the Reformation of Religion, in all points, together with the Punishment of false Teachers, doth appertain to the power of the Civil Magistrate: For what God required of them, his justice must require of others, having the like Charge and Authority; what he did approve in them, he cannot but approve in all others, who with like Zeal and Sincerity do enterprize to purge the Lords Temple and Sanctuary. Thus Knox (I say) in that Appellation. I do not concern my self with the truth or falshood of his positions; neither am I to justify or con­demn his Arguments; All I am to make of it is, to ask my Presbyterian Brethren, whi­ther these Principles of Knox's suit well with declining the Civil Magistrate as ane incom­petent Iudge in Ecclesiastical matters? with [Page 105] refusing to appear before him prima instantia for the tryal of Doctrines preacht in the Pul­pit? with the famous distinction of the Kings having power about Church matters Cumulative but not Privative? &c. I am affraid it shall be hard enough to reconcile them.

I shall only instance in one principle more, which seems to have been common to our, and the English Reformers, but it is one of very weighty consequence and im­portance to my main design: It is

Fourthly, That Excellent Rule of Reforma­tion, viz. That it be done according to the word of God, interpreted by the Monuments and Wri­tings of the Primitive Church. That antient, solid, approven Rule: That Rule so much commended by that excellent Writer Vincentius Lirinensis: Al [...]ter namque illam ( scri­p [...]uram) Novatianus aliter Sabellius, aliter Donatus, &c. exponit: Atqui idcirco multum necesse est, propter tantos tam varij erroris anfractus, ut Propheticae & Apostolicae interpreta­tionis linea, secundum Ecclesiastici & Catholici sensus Normam dirigatur. Vin. Lin. Commonit. cap. 2. That Rule which the common sense of mankind cannot but justify, when it is considered soberly and seriously, without partiality or prejudice. A Rule, indeed, which, had the Reformers of the several Churches, followed unitedly and conscientiously, in those times, when the Churches in the Western parts of Europe were a Reform­ing; we had not had so many different Faiths, so many different Modes of Worship; so many different Governments, and Disciplines, as, Alas! this day, divide the Protestant Churches, [Page 106] and by consequence, weaken the Protestant Interest: A Rule, which had the pretenders to Reformed Religion, in Scotland, still stood by, we had not, possibly, had so ma­ny horrid Rebellions, so many unchristian Di­visions, so many unaccountable Revolutions, both in Church and State, as, to our sad Experience, have, in the Result, so unhing'd all the Principles of natural justice and honesty, and disabled, nay, eaten out the principles of Christianity amongst us, that now we are not disposed so much for any thing as downright Atheism. But were our Reformers, indeed, for this Rule? That shall be demonstrated by and by, when we shall have occasion to bring it in again as naturally, to which op­portunity I now refer it: in the mean time, let us briefly sum up all that hath been hi­therto said, and try to what it amounts.

I have, I think, made it appear, that, while our Reformation was a carrying on, and when it was established Anno 156 [...], there was no such Controversie agitated, in the Churches, as that concerning the indis­pensible necessity of Presbytery, and the Vnlaw­fulness of Prelacy, concerning the Divine Right of Parity, or the Vnallowableness of imparity amongst the Governors of the Church. I have said enough to make it credible, that our Scottish Reformers had no peculiar occasions, opportunities, provo­cations, abilities, for falling on that Con­troversie, or determining of it, more than the Reformers of other Churches: In con­sequence [Page 107] of this, I have further shewed, that, from all the monuments of these times, I have seen, not so much as One of our Re­formers can be adduced, as asserting the Presbyterian side of this Controversie. Last­ly, I have, I think, made it evident, that our Reformers went very much upon the same Principles, on which the English Re­formers went, who still continued Episco­pacy; unquestionably, on many Principles of great weight and importance, as to the Con­stitution and Communion, the Govern­ment and Polity of the Church, which staid in direct opposition and contradicti­on to the Principles of our present Presbyte­rians. And now, let any judicious and impartial person lay these things together, and then let him ingenuously determine, whether it be not highly incredible, that our Reformers were for the divine institution and indispensible Right of Parity, and the Vn­lawfulness of Prelacy, which is the Principle, at least, the Profession of our present Presby­terians. Yet after all this,

I must tell my Reader, that I have insist­ed on these things, so much as I have done, principally for smoothing the way for the Evidences I am yet to produce for the cer­tainty of my side of the Second Enquiry. And I am content, that these things I have al­ready discoursed, should pass for no more than Rational Presumptions, till I have tried if more strength can be added to them, and they can be rendered more cogent and concluding [Page 108] by a succession of plain, positive, direct, and formal proofs of my Assertion: And, to engage my Readers attention, I dare adventure to promise him that, to as high a degree as the nature of the thing is capa­ble of, at least, can reasonably bear. And so, without further address, I thus pro­ceed.

Before our Reformation was established by Law, our Reformers addressed to the Government by several Petitions, that Reli­gion and the Church might be reformed. I shall take notice of Three, all pertinent to my purpose. One of them is no where (that I have seen) set down at length; the other two are in Knox his History.

That which is no where set down at length, is to be seen abridged in Buchd [...]a [...], Lesly, and Spotswood, Buch. 586. Lesl. 504. Spot. 119. but with some little va­riation; For Buchanan has given that Article, which I am at present concerned about [...] ac­cording to his way, in general terms; Thus, Vt Ministrorum Electio, juxtà antiquam Ecclesiae consuetudinem, penes populum esset, Spotswood has translated Buchanan's words faithfully enough, in this matter, as he doth in many other things; but Lesly gives it a little more distinct­ly thus Vt EPISCOPI deinceps, & PASTORES, illi, Dominorum ac Nobilium cujuscunque DIOI­CESIS, hi, PAROCHORVM assensione ac voluntate, ad BENEFICIA cooptentur. That this Petition thus abridged by these three Historians was a Petition different from that which we have published at length in Knox, [Page 109] seems unquestionable; for that which is in Knox, has not one syllable about the Election of Ministers; and beside, Buchanan fairly insinuates, that there was another, distinct from that which he had abridged, tho not much different: For thus he discourses Buch. 587. Papani, Edinburgi, ad eadem FERE postulata quaeper Nobilitatem ad eam (Reginam proregem) sunt delata, PENE paribus usi sunt Responsis. Now if it had been the same Petition, why would he have said, ad eadem FERE postu­lata, and PENE paribus Responsis?

This I take notice of, that my Presbyte­rian Brethren may not have occasion to [...]avil, at the Article as it is in Lesly, as if it were not genuine, because it is not in the Petition recorded by Knox, and, from him (most imperfectly) abridged by Calderwood, their two great and authentick Historians. For, as for Mr. Petrie, he was so wise, as not to trouble himself with either of these Petitions; perceiving, belike, that neither of them was favourable to his beloved Parity. To proceed, now, with the Article as it is in Lesly.

If he has set it down faithfully, I think we have a fair account of the sentiments of our Reformers, concerning Mother Parity; K. Jam. Bas Dor. 160. calls Parity the Mother of Con [...]usion, &c. so very fair, that he who runs may read it. The Question then is, whither Lesly has faithfully transmitted this Article to us? And for the affirmative, I offer these Rea­sons.

[Page 110]1. There's no reason to doubt of his in­tegrity in this matter; he was a zealous Papist, and a Bishop to boot: And it is evident, as he was either of these, it was not his interest to make our Reformers such friends to Episcopacy, if they were not such, really: For if they had not made that Distinction between Bishops and Presbyters, if they had professed the Divine Right of Parity, he had had good ground for accusing them of receding from the undoubted princi­ples, and universal practice of the Catholick Church, in all times, and in all places, in a point of so great weight and consequence in the Government of the Church: Ane occa­sion which one of his Zeal for his party would not probably have neglected to take hold of; far less would he have lied so pal­pably to save the Reputation of his Adver­saries.

2. As he had no temptation to falsify in this matter, so, he had all other Qualifica­tions of a credible Witness. He lived in these times; he himself was a Clergy man, then; probably, he was a Member of that same Convocation to which the Petition was offered; and I think no man will doubt of his Abili­ties to comprehend such a matter. In­deed

3. If he forged this Article, he was ridi­culously impudent at Forging; for as he did it without any imaginable necessity, without any shadow of a degree of subserviency to his Cause, so he put himself upon a neces­sity [Page 111] of forging more, even, a good long Answer, De Episcopis quoque ac Pastoribus el [...]gendis, ae­quum imprimis esse, ut, quae jure canonico caven­tur, ea Sarta tecta mane­ant, neque novi quid, abro­gatis veteribus, ullo mo­do surrogetur, id quoque prudentur adjecerunt, cum praelatorum Electio, in Regia potestate, suffra­gante summo pontifice, es­ser, de ea, in tenella Regi­nae aetate, contra, quisquam staturi, sine aperta temeri­tatis no [...]a, ae Regiae po­testatis imminutione, nullo modo posse, Lesl. 504. which, he says, was return'd to that Article by the Convocation, viz. ‘That it was not reasonable, they should alter the Method of Electing Bishops and Presbyters, prescribed by the Canon Law, especially in the time of the Queens Nonage: Her Prero­gative was interested in the matter: She with the Popes Consent had power to nominate the Prelates; and to take that Power out of her hands without her Consent, or before she came to perfect Age, was notoriously, as well as un­dutifully to invade her Royalty.’ Ane Answer, indeed, exactly fitted for the Article, as he hath transmitted it. But the truth is,

4. That he neither forged the Article, nor the Convocations Answer to it, we have further undoubted Evidence; for I have seen ane Old Manuscript Scottish History (which I can produce if I am put to it) which ex­actly agrees with Lesly, as to the Article; for thus it hath it, The Election of the Bishops and Kirkmen, to pass▪ by the Temporal Lords, and People, of their Diocesses and Parishes. And, Buchanan, upon the matter, gives that same account of the Convocations Answer, Hoc eti­am ampli­us, ad eam partem, quae erat de Ministrorum Electione; in hoc genere Quaestionum, aut juris Canonici, aut Concilii Tri­dentini Decretis standum, Buch. 587. af­firming, [Page 112] that, As to the Election of Ministers they answered, That such Matters were to be regulated by the Canon Law, or the Decrees of the Council of Trent.

5. Neither will it be found of any force, to say, that Buchanan has not the Article; nor Spotswood, whose interest it was to have had it, if such a thing had been, consider­ing his Principles, and what was one of his principal designs in writing his History. This is of no force, I say, for 1st as for Buchanan, it is evident from the whole tract of his History, That he aim'd, princi­pally, at Matters of State, bringing in Church Matters only by the by, as we say, so that it is no wonder, if he did not record them accurately, and with all the preciseness of Nicety: And yet, even as he summs up the Petition, he has something in it which plainly imports, the Petitioners had no thought to interrupt the Continuation of Imparity; for thus he puts the last Article, If, by the Negligence of former times, Si per superiorum tem­porum Negl [...]gentiam, in­docti flagitiosive ad hono­res obrepsissent, ut iis a Ministeriis Ecclesiae remo­tis, alii sufficerentur. Buch. 586. ignorant or wicked men had been advanced to Ecclesi­astical Dignities, they might be removed, and others substi­tuted in their Offices. In which words, 'tis plain, that as there had been HONORES, Ecclesiastical Dignities, and MINISTE­RIA, different Offices amongst the Clergy before, so now, there was nothing like petitioning, for abrogating any of them. But [Page 113] that these Dignities might be better bestowed, and these Offices better provided: The Dig­nities and Offices were to continue, no Change to be made but of the Dignitaries and Of­ficers. 2. As for Spotswood, as, I grant, it had been very proper for his purpose to have taken notice of the Article as it is in Lesly; so, that he took no notice of it, is no argument that Lesly was in the wrong; for, besides that there is no colour of reason for discrediting one Historians accounts, because another is silent about them; the truth is, whosoever reads Spotswoods Histo­ry, and compares it with the rest of our Histories, will find a very great many such Defects: And we shall have a very clear, as well as a very considerable instance by and by, when we come to the next Petition. In the mean time, let me add another irre­fragable Evidence (so I think) of Leslies integrity, as to this Article. It is

6. That when our Reformers had carried the day, and so came to establish the Go­vernment of the Church; they exactly reduced to practice, that which they had pe­titioned for in the Article, in the Election of Superintendents; as is clear both from the First Book of Discipline, and the Form of Elect­ing Superintendents, as it is to be seen both in the Old Scottish Liturgy, and in Knox his History.

In the Fifth Head of the First Book of Discipline, it was appointed Spot. 159. That the Council should nominate the Superintendents, [Page 114] or give Commission to men of best Knowledge, and who had the fear of God, to do it; the Gentle­men and Burgesses of Towns, within the Dio­cesses, being always made privy to the Election. And

In the Order for Electing Superintendents, as 'tis both in the Old Liturgy, and Knox's Hi­story Kn. 289. we are told, that the Council having given charge and power to the Churches of Lo­thian, to choose Master John Spotswood, Superintendent, sufficient warning was made, by publick Edict, to the Churches of Edenburgh, Linlithgow, Sterling, Trenent, Hading­town and Dumbar; as also to Earls, Lords, Barons, Gentlemen, or others that had, or might claim to have, Voice in Election, to be present, &c. This was done in the beginning of the year 1561. Now

Lay these two things together, and what is the Result? what else, than giving power to the Nobility and Gentry of the Diocess to elect their Bishop, according to the Article, as Lesly hath it in his Breviate of the Petition? Thus we have found Lesly honest, and his account just and genuine; and thereby (as I take it) this proposition fairly demonstrated, that our Reformers were so far from being Pres­byterian, so far from being for the divine institution, and indispensable right of Parity, that, on the contrary, they were clear for Imparity, for Episcopacy. But this is not all.

The Second Petition which I mentioned, and which is set down in full form in Knox's [Page 115] History, tho it doth not name Bishops, is every whit as plain and decretory, that the sentiments of our Reformers were no ways inimicous to Prelacy (if I may make use of a word made fashionable, by a Nobleman of the fashion.) But, on the contrary, that they were plainly for it. This I take to be so fully and fairly exprest in the fifth and last Article of that Petition, that I will here transcribe it word for word. Ib. 131.

‘Lastly, we require most humbly, that the wicked, slanderous and detestable Life of Pre­lates, and of the State Ecclesiastical, may be reformed, that the people, by them, have not occasion (as of many days they have had) to contemn their Ministery, and the preaching whereof they should be Messengers. And if th [...] suspect, that we rather envy their Ho­nours, or covet their Riches and Possessions, than zealously desire their Amendment and Salvation, 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 LAWS of JUSTINIAN the EMPEROR, decide the Controversie betwixt us and them: And if it shall be found that, either malevolently, or ignorantly, we ask more; than these fore-named have required and con­tinually do require, of able and true Ministers, in Christs Church, we refuse not Correction as your Majesty, with right Iudgment, shall think meet: But if all the fore-named shall condemn, THAT which we condemn; and approved [Page 116] THAT which we require; then we most earnestly beseech your Majesty, that, notwith­standing the long Custom which they have had to live at their lust, they be compelled either to desist from Ecclesiastical Administration, or to discharge their Duties, as becometh True Ministers. So that, the GRAVE and GOD­LY FACE of the PRIMITIVE CHVRCH being REDVCED, Ignorance may be expelled, true Doctrine and good Manners, may once again appear in the Church of this Realm.’

Here our Reformers lay down a complexe Rule, according to which they crave the Church, and the Ecclesiastical State may be Reformed: This complexe Rule, is made up of the Rules and Precepts of the New Testament, the Writings of the Antient Fathers, and the Godly and Approved Laws of the Emperor JUSTINIAN. This is that solid, orthodox, proper, and adequate Rule of Reformation, which I mentioned before; as Vincentius Lirinensis his Rule, and the Rule wherein our Reformers agreed with the English Re­formers: By this Rule, our Reformers are content, that all the Controversies betwixt them and the Papists, be de [...]ided; they refuse not Correction, if they ask more than this Rule requires; they condemn no more than this Rule condemns: This Rule approves all they are asking. In short, they require no more than that according to this Rule, the grave and godly Face of the Primitive Church may be restored, as it was in JUSTINIAN's time; Let the Ecclesiastical State be reduced to that [Page 117] Frame and Constitution, and the Clergy live, and rule, and discharge their Trusts and Offices, as the Clergy did then, and they are satisfied: And now, if these Reformers who thus peti­tioned, and, in their Petition, thus reasoned and agreed to such a Rule of Reformation, were for the divine institution of Parity, and the sacred Rights of Presbytery; nay if▪ they were not, not only for the Lawfulness, but the Continuance of Prelacy; I must confess my ignorance to be very gross, and so I refuse not Correction.

For this Evidence, as I said we are be­holden to Knox, and to Knox only: 'Tis true indeed, Calderwood Cal. 5 gives us the Abstract of this Petition, but he conceals and suppresses the whole pith and marrow of this Article, summing it up in these few ill-com­plexion'd words, That the slanderous and detest­able life of the Prelates, and the State Ecclesi­astical may be reformed; which, at first view, one would imagin, lookt kindly towards Presbytery; but I am not surprized to find him thus at his Tricks; 'tis but according to his Custom: To have set down the full Ar­ticle, or to have abridged it so as that its force and purpose might have been seen, had been to disserve his Cause, and do ane ill Office to his Idol, Parity. And Petrie (as I have said) was so wise, as not to touch it at all, lest it had burnt his Fingers: but that Archbishop Spotswood should have overlookt it both in his History, and in his Refutatio Libelli, &c. seems very strange. For my [Page 118] part I should rather think we have not his History intire, and as he design'd it for the Press (for which, I have heard other very pregnant presumptions) than that so great a man was guilty of so great ane Oscitancy. But whatever be of this, Knox has it, and that is enough; and Calderwood has abridged it, and that's more than enough for my Pres­byterian Brethren.

The Third Petition which I promised to adduce, is that which was presented to the Parliament which established the Reforma­tion Anno 1560. for which we are obliged to Knox alone also; at least, so far as the pre­sent Argument is concerned. Kn. 261. For tho both Spotswood and Petrie Spot. 150. Pet. 219. make mention of the Petition or Supplication, yet neither of them has recorded that which I take notice of; and Calderwood is so accurate ane Historian, as to take no notice of the Pe­tition. That which I take notice of in it, as it is in Knox, is, That when our Refor­mers came to crave the Reformation of the Ecclesiastical State, they bespoke the Parlia­ment thus. And lest that your Honours should doubt in any of the premisses (they had affirmed before, That the Doctrine of the Roman Church contained many pestiferous errors; that the Sacraments of Jesus Christ were most shamefully abused and profaned by the Roman Harlot; that the true Discipline of the antient Church, amongst that Sect, was utterly extinguisht; and that the Clergy, of all men within the Realm, were most cor­rupt [Page 119] in life and manners, &c.) we offer our selves evidently to prove, that in all the Rabble of the Clergy, there is not one Lawful Minister, IF GODS WORD, THE PRACTICES OF THE APOSTLES, THE SINCERITY OF THE PRIMITIVE CHVRCH, AND THEIR OWN ANCIENT LAWS SHALL IVDGE OF THE ELECTION. Here, I say, our Reformers insist on that same very Rule, for finding if there be Corruptions in, and by consequence for reforming of, the Church, on which they insisted, in the aforementioned Petition; from which, 'tis evident, they persisted of the same senti­ments, and 'tis easy to draw the same in­ferences.

Such were the sentiments of our Scottish Reformers, before the Reformed Religion had the countenance of the Civil Govern­ment, and Acts of Parliament on its side, and was made the National Religion. Let us try next what kind of Government they did establish, when they had got Law for them? Whither they established a Govern­ment that was to be managed by Ministers acting in Parity, or in Imparity? And, here, I think, the Controversy might very soon be brought to a very fair issue. The First Book of Discipline, the Acts of many General Assemblies, the Acts of many Parliaments, Both, without interruption; the unanimous Consent of Historians, and the uncontro­verted Practice of the Church for many years; all concurring to this Assertion. [Page 120] That the first Establishment was of a Go­vernment, which was to be managed by Superintendents, and Parochial Ministers, Elders and Deacons, acting in Subordination, not in a State of Parity with, but in a State of inferiority in Power and Iurisdiction to these Superintendents. This Establishment, I say, is so clear and undoubted from all these fountains, That no more needed be said upon the whole Argument. But because our Presbyterian Historians and Antiquaries,, tho they cannot deny the thing, do yet endeavor with all their Might and Cunning to intricate it, and obscure it; I shall, further, undertake two things.

• I. I shall give the world a fair prospect of the power of Superintendents, as they were, then, established, and of the Disparities be­twixt them and Parish Ministers.
• II. I shall endeavour to dissipate these Mists, whereby our Presbyterian Brethren are so very earnest to involve and darken this Matter. As for the

I. The world may competently see, that Superintendents as established in Scotland, at the Reformation, had a considerable stock of Prerogatives, or Preheminencies (call them as ye will) which raised them far a­bove other Churchmen, far above the al­lowances of that Parity, our Presbyterian Brethren contend for so eagerly, from the following Enumeration.

[Page 121]1. They had Districts or Diocesses of far larger extent than other Churchmen: Pri­vate Ministers had only their private Pa­rishes, and might have been as many as there were Churches in the Kingdom: But ac­cording to the Scheme laid down by our Reformers in the First Book of Discipline, Head 5. Spot. 158. only ten or twelve Superin­tendents were design'd to have the Chief Care (as it is worded in the Prayer at the Admission of a Superintendent) of all the Churches within the Kingdom: Indeed ten are only, there, design'd, but it was because of the scarcity of qualified men, as we shall learn hereafter.

2. As they had larger Districts than Pa­rish Ministers, so, there were correspon­dent Specialities in their Election. Parish Ministers were to enter to such Churches as had Benefices, by presentation from the Patron, and Collation from the Superintendent, as is evident from Act 7. Parl. 1. Iam. 6. and many Acts of Assemblies, as shall be fully proven afterward. If they were to serve where the Benefice was actually pos­sessed by a Papist, they were to be chosen by the People of the Congregation, by the appointment of the First Book of Discipline, Head 4. Ib. 154. But the Election of Superinten­dents was quite different; they were to be nominated by the Council, and elected by the Nobility and Gentry, &c. within their Dio­ceses, as hath been already considered.

[Page 122]3. There was as great a difference in the matter of Deposition, if they deserved it. Parish Ministers by the First Book of Disci­pline, Head 8. Ib. 168. were deposable by the Su­perintendent of the Diocess, and the Elders of the Parishes, where they were Ministers; but of this more hereafter. Ib. 160. But by that same First Book of Discipline, the Superinten­dent was to be judged by the Ministers and El­ders of his whole Province, over which he was appointed; and if the Ministers and Elders of the Province were negligent in correcting him, one or two other Superintendents, with their Mini­sters and Elders were to conveen him, providing it were within his own Province, or Chief Town, and inflict the Censure which his Offence deser­ved. Of the Reasonableness of this after­ward.

4. There was as remarkable a difference in point of Ordination, which in the then, Scottish stile was called Admission. Private Ministers were to be admitted by their Superintendents, as we shall find afterwards.

But by the First Book of Discipline, Head 5. Ib. 159. Superintendents were to be admitted by the Superintendents next adjacent, with the Ministers of the Province.

5. In the case of Translation, the General Assembly holden at Edenburgh, Decem. 25. 1562. Gives power to every Superintendent, with­in his own bounds, in his Synodal Assembly, with consent of the most part of the Elders and Mini­sters of Kirks, to translate Ministers from one Kirk to another, as they shall consider the Necessity; [Page 123] Charging the Minister so translated to obey the Voice and Commandment of the Superintendent, Mss. Pet. 233. But according to the First Book of Disci­pline, Head 5. Spot. 160. No Superintendent might be translated at the pleasure or request of any one Province, without the Council of the whole Church, and that for grave Causes and Conside­rations.

6. A special care was to be taken of his Qualifications and Abilities for such ane important office, for thus it is appointed by the First Book of Discipline, Head 5. Ibid: That after the Church shall be established, and three years are past, no man shall be called to the Office of a Superintendent, who hath not, two years, at least, given a proof of his faithful La­bours in the Ministry. A Caution simply un­applyable to Parish Ministers.

7. He had a living provided for him by the First Book of Discipline, Head 5. Ib. 157. about five times as much, yearly, as was alotted for any private Minister. And it is to be observed, that this was in a time when the Popish Bishops still brooked their Bene­fices. But when the Resolution was, Anno 1567, to deprive all the Popish Clergy; it was agreed to, in the General Assembly, by the Churchmen on the one hand, and the Lords and Barons on the other, That Superintendents should succeed in their places, as both the Mss. and Spotswood have it ex­presly. Ib. 210. Art. 11.

8. Superintendents, by vertue of their Office, were constant Members of the General [Page 124] Assemblies: Therefore the General Assembly holden at Perth, Iune 25. 1563. statuted, That every Superintendent be present the first day of the Assembly under the pain of, 40 sh. to be given to the poor without Remission. So it is in the Mss. but Petrie has it barely, That they shall conveen on the first day of every Assembly. Pet. 237. And it seems, because that punishment had not sufficient influence on them, it was, again ordained by the G. Ass. at Edenburgh, March 6. 1573. That they shall be present in the Assembly, the first day, before noon, under the pain of losing one half of their stipend for a year, &c. So both the Mss. and Petrie. Ib. 379. But as we shall find afterwards, such presence of Parish Ministers was not allowed, far less necessary.

9. It belonged to them to try those who stood Candidates for the Ministery, thus, 1. B. of Disc. Head 4. Spot. 157. Such as take upon them the Office of Preachers, who shall not be found qualified therefore, by the Superintendent, are by him to be plac [...]d Readers. And again, Head 5. Ib. 158. No Child, nor person within the age of 21 years, may be admitted to the Office of a Reader; but such must be chosen and admitted by the Superintendent, as for their Gravity and Discretion may grace the Function that they are called unto. And the Ass. at Edenburgh, Dec. 15. 1562. Ordains, That Inhibition be made against all such Ministers as have not been pre­sented by the people, or a part thereof, to th [...] Superintendent, and he, after Examination and Tryal, has not appointed them to their Charges. [Page 125] So the Mss. and so Petrie; Pet. 233. and Spotswood cites another Act of the General Assembly at Edenburgh 1564. to the same purpose. Spot. 190.

10. As appears by that Act of the Assem­bly, Decem. 25. 1562. just now cited, and the 7 Act Parl. 1 Iac. 6. cited before; al­so Superintendents had the power of granting Collations upon presentations. And the Assem­bly at Perth, holden in Iune 1563. appoints, That when any Benefice chances to vaik, or is now vacant, that a qualified person be presented to the Superintendent of that Province where the Bene­fice lyeth, and that he being found sufficient be admitted, &c. So I find it cited by the Author of Episcopacy not abjured in Scotland.

11. A Superintendent had power to plant Ministers in Churches, where the people were negligent to present timeously; and indeed that power devolved much sooner into his hands by the First Book of Discipline, Head 4. Ib. 154. than it did afterwards into the hands of either Bishop or Presbytery; for there it is ordered, That if the people be found negli­gent in electing a Minister, the space of forty days, the Superintendent with his Counsel may present unto them a man whom they judge apt to feed the flock, &c. And as he had thus the power of trying and collating Ministers, and planting Churches in the case of a Ius Devo­lutum. So

12. He had the power of Ordination, which, as I said, was then called Admission, as is evident from the First Book of Discipline, (cap. 5.) and several Acts of Assemblies already cited.

[Page 126]13. All Presbyters or Parish Ministers, once admitted to Churches, were bound to pay Canonical Obedience to their Superinten­dents. Thus in the Assembly at Edenburgh, Iune 30. 1562. It was concluded by the whole Ministers assembled, that all Ministers should be subject to the Superintendents in all lawful admo­nitions, as is prescribed, as well in the Book of Discipline, as in the Election of Superintendents. So the Mss. And by that aforecited Act of the Assembly at Edenburgh, Decem. 25. 1562. Ministers translated from one Church to another, are commanded to obey the Voice and Command­ment of the Superintendent. Indeed, it was part of ane Article presented by the Church to the Council, May 27. 1561. That ane Act should be made appointing a (civil) Punish­ment for such as disobeyed or contemned the Super­intendents in their Function. Kn. 297. Pet. 223.

14. He had power to visit all the Churches within his Diocess, and in that Visitation (they are the words of the First Book of Discipline, Head 5. Spot. 159. To try the Life, Diligence and Behaviour of the Ministers, the Order of their Churches, the Manners of their People, how the Poor are provided, and how the Youth are instruct­ed, &c. And further,

In these Visitations he had power, parti­cularly, to take account of what Books every Mi­nister had, and how he profited from time to time by them. By Act of Assem. at Edenburgh, Iune 29. 1562. So 'tis in the Mss.

15. He had power to depose Ministers that deserved it; as appears from the First Book [Page 127] of Discipline, Head 8. already cited. And by the Assem. at Edenburgh, March 6. 1573. It is statuted that, if any Minister reside not at the Church where his Charge is, he shall be summoned before his Superintendent, or Commis­sioner of the Province, to whom the Assembly gives power to depose him, &c. So the Mss. and Potrie. Pet. 378.

16. He had power to translate Ministers from one Church to another, as appears from the Act already cited, Num. 4. and by ane Act of the Assembly at Edenburgh, Iune 25. 1564. It is concluded, that a Minister, being once placed, may not leave that Congregation without the Knowledge of the Flock, and Consent of the Superintendent, or whole Church: ( i. e. a General Assembly) So the Mss. had so Pet. Ib. 340. These are all powers, methinks, scarcely reconcileable with ane opinion of the Divine Right of Parity; but there are more, and perhaps, more considerable, as yet to follow. For

17. He had power to nominate Ministers to be Members of the General Assembly. This is clearly asserted by the Acts of two Ge­neral Assemblies: The first at Edenburgh, in Iune 1562. where it was ordained, That no Minister leave his Flock for coming to the Assembly, except he have complaints to make, or be complained of, or at least be warned thereto by the Superintendent. So 'tis in the Mss. and Spotswood cites it in his Refutatio Libelli, &c. The other Act was made by the Assembly holden at Edenburgh, Iuly 1. 1563. which [Page 120] [...] [Page 121] [...] [Page 122] [...] [Page 123] [...] [Page 124] [...] [Page 125] [...] [Page 126] [...] [Page 127] [...] [Page 128] I find thus worded in the Mss. fairly agree­ing with Spotswood. Spot. 219. Anent the Order here­after to be used in General Assemblies— They all voted and concluded as followeth, viz. That if the Order already received, pleases not, by reason of the Plurality of Voices, it be reformed in this manner.

First, That none have place to vote, except Superintendents, Commissioners appointed for visit­ing the Kirks, and Ministers brought with them, presented as persons able to reason, and having knowledge to judge; with the aforenamed shall be joyned Commissioners of Burghs and Shires, toge­ther with Commissioners of Vniversities. Secondly, Ministers and Commissioners shall be chosen at the Synodal Convention of the Diocess, by Consent of the rest of the Ministers and Gentlemen, that shall conveen at the said Synodal Convention, &c. From which it is plain, that the Superinten­dent or Commissioner (who was a temporary Superintendent) nominated the Ministers they brought with them to the Assembly; and that the rest of the Ministers, &c. had only a power of consenting; and so it was, thereafter, Post Reformatam Reli­gionem Consuetudine re­cep [...]um est, ut Episcopi, & ex Ministris Pastoribus ac Senioribus, tot quot iidem Episcopi jusserint, unum in locum conveniant, cum praecipuis Baronibus ac Nobilibus, Religionem veram profitentibus, & de doctrina & de moribus in­quisituri. practised unque­stionably. And if there were need of more Light, it might be copiously received from the Lord Glamis his Letter to Mr. Beza, Anno 1576. where­in he tells him, that it had been the Custom, ever since the Reformation, that the Superintendents, or Bishops, [Page 129] still nominated the Ministers, who met in the General Assemblies, than which, no­thing can be more distinct and plain. And this Testimony is the more considerable, that it was not Glamis his own private deed, but that which was the Result of a considera­ble Consult; as we shall learn hereafter.

This was such a Branch of Episcopal power as mightily offended our Presbyterian Historians, it seems, for they have endea­voured to obscure it as much as they could: Neither Calderwood nor Petrie mentions the first of these two Acts; they mention the second, indeed, but how? Calderwood Cald▪ 45. huddles it up thus, It was thought meet, for eschewing of Confusion, that this Order be followed— That none have place, nor power to vote, except Su­perintendents, Commissioners appointed for visiting of Kirks, Ministers, Commissioners of Burghs and Shires, together with the Commissioners of Vniversities. Ministers and Commissioners of Shires shall be chosen at the Synodal Convention of the Diocesses, with consent of the rest of the Ministers and Gentlemen, &c. Leaving out intirely these words [ brought with them ( i. e. with the Superintendents and Commissio­ners of Kirks) presented as persons able to reason, and having knowledge to judge] whereby the power of the Superintendents and Commis­sioners for visiting of Kirks, is quite stifled, and the whole sense of the Act perverted; for what sense is it, I pray, to say that the Ministers were to be chosen by consent of the rest of the Ministers, when you tell not [Page 130] who was to choose, or who they were, to whose Choice or Nomination the rest of the Ministers were to give that consent? But it is no strange thing with this Author to let sense shift for it self, if the good Cause cannot be otherwise served. Neither is Petrie less unfaithful, for, he not only draws the Cur­tain over the whole power of the Superinten­dent, &c. so that you cannot have the least Glimpse of it from his account; But he intermixes lies to boot; only he stumbles not on Nonsense. He accounts thus, Pet. 359.

Because heretofore all Ministers, that would come, were admitted to vote; (not one word of this, in the Narrative of the Act, as it is in the Mss. or any other Historian; and it is directly contrary to the Act 1562. al­ready mentioned; so that 'tis plain it is a figment of his own) And now the Number is increased, and Commissioners of Shires were chosen in the Sheriff Court (no other Historian, or Record I have seen, has one syllable of this either, tho 'tis probable enough it was so) This Assembly makes ane Act of three parts, concerning the Admission of Members: 1. That none shall have place to vote, but Superintendents, Commissioners for visiting Churches, Ministers and Commissioners of Shires and Burghs, chosen as follows, together with Commissioners of Vni­versities. 2. Ministers and Commissioners of Shires shall be chosen at the Synod of the Bounds, by the Ministers and Gentlemen conveening there, &c. Not, with the consent of the rest of the Ministers, &c. you see, as Calderwood ridi­culously [Page 131] had it, but, chosen by the Ministers, &c. without the least syllable that might import the Superintendents having any (and far less the principal) power in that Election. This is clean work of it. Thus, I say, these two Historians of the Party treat this notable branch of the power which our Reformers thought reasonable to confer on Superin­tendents; but we shall not want occasions enough, for admiring their ingenuity. Return we now to our task.

18. They had power to hold Diocesan Sy­nods: Ordains further (they are the words of ane Act of the Ass. holden in Decem. 1562. as 'tis both in the Mss. and Pet. Ib. 233.) That the Superintendents appoint Synodal Conven­tions twice in the year, viz. in the months of April and October, on such days of the said months as the Superintendents shall think good. Whereby two things appear, 1. That he had the sole appointment of the day of meeting. 2. That he alone was Praeses of the meet­ing; indeed they are frequently, or rather constantly, called his Synods.

19. Superintendents had power, within their own bounds, to appoint Diocesan Fasts, granted to them, by ane Act of the Assem­bly holden at Edenburgh, March 5. 1570. For there it is enacted, That all Superinten­dents and Commissioners to plant Kirks, in their first Synodal Conventions, hereafter following, with the advice of their Ministers, shall reason and appoint publick Fasting, if it shall be thought necessary. So the Mss. and Petrie. Ib. 369.

[Page 132]20. Another considerable instance of the power of Superintendents, was that of modifying or assigning to Parish Ministers, their Stipends or Livings. This is clear from ane Act of the General Assembly, holden at Edenburgh on the seventh of Iuly 1569. as it is both in the Mss. and Petrie Ib. 365. wherein, The Kirk presently conveened found it most needful and ex­pedient that all Superintendents, Ministers, Ex­horters and Readers, should have their own par­ticular Assignations (out of the Thirds of Benefices, as shall be more fully discoursed hereafter) appointed them, to be received from the hands of the Labourers respective, or others addebted in payment of the Thirds. And there­fore the Kirk in one voice by this their Act, gave their full power and commission to every Superin­tendent and Commissioner, within their own bounds, with Advice and Consent of their Synodal Conventions, to give to every Minister, Ex­horter and Reader, particular assignations ad vitam, as they should find the same expedient, under the Superintendents Subscription, and Ministers aforesaid, with all Clauses needful and expedient thereto; which shall be as sufficient, as if the same were sped by the General Assembly of the Kirk; and as concerning the Superintendents and Commissioners of Kirks, their Provision and Assignation to be made by the General Assembly.

21. Appeals were to be made to them from inferior Iudicatories. Thus, by the Assembly at Perth in Iune 1563. Mss. Pet. 237. Cald. 33. Concerning the Order of Appellation, it is statuted and ordained, that, if any person find himself hurt, by any Sentence, [Page 133] given by any Minister, Elders or Deacons (i. e. by any Kirk Session, as we call them) It shall be lawful for the person so hurt, to appeal to the Superintendent of the Diocess, and his Synodal Convention, within ten days, next after; and the said Superintendent shall take Cognition, whether it was well appealed or not, and give his sentence thereupon. 'Tis true indeed, (and it was reasonable) by the same Act, the person, if he thought himself injured, by the Super­intendents sentence, might appeal to the Ge­neral Assembly. Nay,

22. If the Superintendent found it Male Appellatum he had power of Fining; thus it is ordered by the same Assembly. If the Appellant justifies not his Appellation, before the Superintendent and his Convention aforesaid; then the Superintendent shall impute a pain upon the said Appellant, as [...]e shall think good, beside the expence of the party. That he had this power is all I am concerned for; let others judge whether it was purely Ecclesiastical. And as the Superintendent had this power of receiving Appeals made from inferiour Courts, so agreeably

23. He had the power, with the advice of his Synod, or such of the Ministers of his Diocess as he should choose for that purpose, to determine intricate Cases of Conscience or Go­vernment. Thus, by the Assembly at Eden­burgh, Decem. 25. 1564. Mss. Pet. 341. It is ordained, that no Questions be proponed by any Brother till the affairs of the Kirk, and the Order thereof be first treated and ended; and thereafter, if any [Page 134] Brother have a Question, worthy to be proponed, that the same be presented in writ; and if the same requires hasty Resolution, it shall be decided in the present Assembly before the end thereof; o­therwise, the Decision of the same shall be re­ferred to every one of the Superintendents, within whose bounds the Question is proponed; and they, and every one of them, with a certain number of Ministers, as they shall think meet to appoint, for assisting, shall hear the Reasonings of the aforesaid Questions, and thereafter present the Reasons in writ affirmative, or negative, which every one of them shall report to the next Assembly. Again, by the Assembly holden at Eden. in Iuly 1568. Mss. Pet. 360. Spot. 219. It is statuted and ordained, that Mini­sters, Exhorters, Readers, or other persons, here­after, trouble not, nor molest, the General Assembly, with such things as Superintendents may, and ought to decide in their Synodal Con­ventions; and if any chance to do hereafter, in the contrary, their Letters shall be rejected. Which Act, as is obvious, extends both to Cases of Right and of Fact; and extend­ing to Cases of Fact, it clears a little further, the former Head of Appeals, intimating fairly, that they were not to be made per saltum, neither yet Delations; but doth in their proper Gradation, were to be brought, first, before the Superintendent, and by him, only, if he thought it needful, to be ad­vanced, before the General Assembly: But most home to the present point, is the Act of the Assembly March 5. 1571. Mss. Pet. 369. by which it is statuted, That all Questions be first [Page 135] proponed to Superintendents, or Commissioners, in their Synodal Conventions, and, there, receive Solution; and if they think them too hard, that they bring them to the General Assembly; but that no private Ministers bring Questions to the Assem­bly prima instantia.

24. It belonged to the Superintendents, particularly, to judge of Divorces; a point of great intricacy, as well as importance: Thus, I find, the Assembly at Edenburgh, Decem. 25. 1562. (as it is in the Mss.) or­dains, That no Ministers, nor others bearing Office in the Kirk, take in hand to cognosce or decide in the Actions of Divorcement, except the Superintendents, and they, to whom they shall give special Commission.

25. It was a branch of their power also to injoyn P [...]nnance to greater Criminals: So the General Assembly holden at Edenburgh, Iune 25. 1564. (as it is in the Mss.) where it is thus, Touching such as relapse the third time in any kind of crime, such as Fornication or Drunkenness, it is statuted and ordained, that no particular Minister admit such persons to Re­pentance, but that they send them to the Super­in [...]endent of the Diocess, where the crimes are committed, with information; who shall give them such injunctions, as they think may make the offence to be holden in horror; but chiefly that they compel the Offender to satisfy where the Of­fences were made, more days than one, as the Superintendent shall think good. And by the Gen. Ass. at Eden. March 5. 1571. Mss. Pet. 369. It is ordained that Adulterers, and other such scan­dalous [Page 136] persons, shall hereafter be called by the Superintendent or Commissioner of the Province, to compear before their Synodal Convention, and there receive their injunctions. And accordingly we find the Custom of the Church in those times, particularly, in the Case of the Countess of Argyle, Anno 1567. She had been guilty of a mighty scandal in being present at the Christening of the Prince, (af­terwards, Iames the Sixth) which was per­formed after the Popish manner; she behoved therefore to give satisfaction to the Church: And was ordered to do it, by the General Assembly, in such manner, and at such time, as the Superintendent of Lothian, (with­in whose bounds the Scandal was com­mitted) should appoint. So both Spot. and Pet. Spot. 214. Pet. 359.

26. Another branch, was, to restore Cri­minals to the Exercises of their Offices, if they had any dependance on the Church, after they had performed their Pennance, and received Absolution. Thus Thomas Duncanson, Reader at Sterling, had fallen in the Sin of Fornication; for this he was silenced: He had performed his Pennance, and was absolved. Then the Question was put to the General Ass. met at Eden. Decem. 25. 1563. Whi­ther having made publick Repentance, he might be restored to his Office? And the Assembly determined, He might not, till the Church of Stirling should make Request to the Superintendent for him. Mss. Pet. 242.

[Page 137]27. To the Superintendents was reserved the power of Excommunication, in Cases of Contumacy, &c. Thus it is statuted by the Gen. Ass. at Eden. Iuly 1. 1562. That in Cases of Contumacy the Minister give notice to the Superintendent, with whose advice Excommu­nication is to be pronounced. So the Mss. and both the Mss. and Petrie have another long Act of the Assembly holden at Eden. Sept. 25. 1565. to the same purpose. Pet. 346.

28. It belonged also to them to delate Atrocious Criminals to the Civil Magistrate, that condign corporal punishments might be inflicted on them. To this purpose, I find it enacted by a Convention of the Kirk (as it is called in the Mss.) met at Eden. Decem. 15. 1567. to wait on the motions of the Par­liament, That Ministers, Elders and Deacons make search within their bounds, if the crimes of Incest or Adultery were committed, and to signify the same to the Superintendent, that he may noti­fye it to the Civil Magistrate. Such was the power of Superintendents in the Govern­ment of the Church, and her Discipline. But because, several things may have rela­tion to the Church, tho not formally and directly, yet reductively, and by way of Ana­logical Subordination, their power extended even to these things also, I shall only instance in two.

29. Then, because Vniversities, Colleges and Schools, are the Seminaries of Learning, and by consequence Nurseries for the Mini­stry; the power of Superintendents over them, [Page 138] was very considerable. Thus by the First Book of Discipline, Head 5. Spot. 162. if, e. g. The Principal, or Head of any College within the University of St. Andrews died, the Mem­bers of the College, being sworn to follow their Consciences, were to nominate three of the most sufficient men within the Uni­versity: This done, the Superintendent of Pife, by himself, or his special Procurators, with the Rector and the rest of the Princi­pals, were to choose one of these three, and constitute him Principal. And when the Rector was chosen, he was to be confirmed by the Superintendent, Ib. 163. by that same Book: And again, by that same Book Ibid. The Money collected in every College for up­holding the Fabrick, was to be counted and employed at the sight of the Superintendent. Further, the Gen. Ass. conveened at Eden. Ian. 25. 1565. presented this Article in a Petition to the Queen, That none might be per­mitted to have charge of Schools, Colleges, or Vniversities, &c. but such as should be tryed by the Superintendents. So 'tis in the Mss. 'Tis true it was not granted at that time; but it shews the inclinations of our Reformers, as much as if it had been granted. And because it was not granted then, it was proposed a­gain in the Ass. in Iuly 1567. and consented to by the Nobility and Gentry, and rati­fied by the Eleventh Act of the First Parlia­ment of King Iames the Sixth, in December, that same year. And accordingly we find the Laird of Dun. Superintendent of Angus [Page 139] and Mearns, in Iuly 1568. holding at Visi­tation of the University of Aberdeen, and by formal sentence turning out all the Popish Members. The very air and stile of the Sentence, as Petrie hath it Pet. 362. is a notable Evidence of the paramount power of Super­intendents; for thus it runs, I, John Areskin, Superintendent of Angus and Mearns, having Commission of the Church to visit the Sheriffdoms of Aberdeen and Bamf, by the Advice, Coun­sel, and Consent of the Ministers, Elders and Commissioners of the Church, present, decern, con­clude, and for final Sentence pronounce, That Master Alexander Anderson, &c.

30. Because bad Principles may be disse­minated by bad Books, and thereby both the Purity and Peace of the Church may be en­dangered; the Revising and Licensing of Books was committed to the Care of the Superintendents, by the General Ass. holden in Iune 1563. whereby it is ordained, That No work be set forth in Print, neither yet published in Writ, touching Religion or Doctrine, until such time as it shall be presented to the Superintendent of the Diocess, and advised and approven by him, or by such as he shall call, of the most learned within his bounds, &c. Mss. Pet. 237.

Thus I have collected no fewer than Thirty Disparities betwixt Superintendents, as they were established in Scotland, by our Reformers, and private Parish Ministers; each of them a Demonstration of inequality either of power or figure; perchance a more nice and accurate Enquirer may find out [Page 140] more: But methinks these may be sufficient for my purpose, which was to give the world a fair prospect of the Preheminence of Superintendents, and of the Differences betwixt them and other Churchmen. And having thus perform'd the first part of my Undertaking, it is obvious to all who can pretend to be of the thinking part of mankind, that the second part is needless. For if these 30 Disparities amount not to ane invincible proof, that our Church, at the Reforma­tion, was not govern'd by Ministers acting in parity, I may justly despair of ever pro­ving any thing. Yet because I know many simple and less thinking people, are im­posed on by the Noise and Dust our Presby­terian Brethren have raised about this mat­ter; I shall proceed to the next thing I undertook, which was

II. To dissipate these Mists, wherewith our Parity-men are so very earnest to involve and darken this Prelatical power of Superinten­dents. They may be reduced to these Three.

• 1. The Establishments of Superintendents was only temporary, and for the then Necessi­ties of the Church; Superintendency was not intended to be a perpetual standing Office.
• 2. It was not the same with Episcopacy.
• 3. It was never established by Act of Parliament.

1. 'Tis pleaded that Superintendency was only design'd to be a temporary, not a perpe­tual [Page 141] standing Office in the Church. Thus Calderwood Cal. 25. speaking of the First Book of Discipline, we may safely say (says he) the whole was recommended to be perpetually observed, ex­cept some few things, as the Office of Superin­tendents— whereunto they were forced, as they thought, by necessity, &c. And in his Breviate of the first book of Discipline Ib. 26. he offers at a Reason why it was so. They make a Difference, at this time among Ministers, some to be Superintendents, some to be ordinary Mini­sters; not because Superintendents were of divine institution, as ane Order to be observed perpetu­ally in the Kirk, but because they were forced only, AT THIS TIME, to make the Diffe­rence, lest, if all Ministers should be appointed to make continual Residence in several places, when there was so great Rarity of Preachers, the greatest part of the Realm should be destitute of the preaching of the word: And G. R. in his first Vindication of the Church of Scotland, printed at Edenburgh 1691. in answer to the first of the ten Questions, following Calder­wood exactly, (as, indeed, he doth all alongst; and it seems he has never read another of our Historians, so that he had some reason to call him, THE HISTORIAN, ibid.) delivers it thus: 'Tis true the Protestant Church of Scotland did set up Superintendents, but this was truly, (and declared so to be) from the Force of Necessity, and design'd only for that present Exigency of the Church, &c. And more pointedly in his true Representation of Presby­terian Government, printed at Edenburgh 1690. [Page 142] prop. 18. where he lays it down as ane un­doubted truth, That Superintendency was only established throught necessity, when a qualified Minister could scarcely be had in a Province, &c. And Petrie seems to aim at the same way of Reasoning. Now Pet. 218.

1. Supposing all this true, what ground have they gained by it? Do they not fairly acknowledge, that the Prelacy of Superin­tendents was established at the Reformation? And is not that all I am concerned for? For the Question is not whither Superintendency was design'd to be perpetual or temporary? but whither it was a Prelacy? And if it was a Prelacy, the Church of Scotland was not, then, govern'd by Ministers acting in parity. The Perpetuity, or Temporariness of it doth not affect its nature: If it was a Prelacy at all, it was as really a Prelacy, tho it had lasted but for a Day, as it had been, tho it had lasted till the Day of Iudgment. Just as our Pres­byterian Brethren were as really Addressers to K. I. by addressing once, as they should have been, tho they had continued addres­sing to him till this very minute. This alone, in all conscience, might be enough for discussing this Plea. Yet, that I may not offend the Party, by seeming to think so meanly of this mighty argument; I shall insist a little longer, and consider

2. If they have any sufficient Fund, in the Records of these times, for this pre­tence? And

[Page 143]3. What Force or Solidity is in the reason insisted on to make this pretence seem plausible? As to the first, viz. Whi­ther there is any sufficient Fund in the Re­cords of these times for this pretence? All I have observed insisted on for this, is only one phrase in the fifth Head of the First Book of Discipline, AT THIS TIME. Take the whole period as it is in Petrie; for he censures Spotswood for curtailing it. As Petrie has it, it runs thus. If the Ministers whom God hath endued with his singular Graces, among us, should be appointed to several places, there to make their continual Residence, the greatest part of the Realm should be destitute of all Do­ctrine; which should not only be the occasion of great Murmur, 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 to the Countries, that shall be appointed to their care, where none are now. Ibid▪ This is the whole foundation of the Plea, for the Temporariness of Superintendency; but, if I mistake not, the true Gloss of this period, will amount to no more than this, ‘That because there were, then, so few men qualified for the Office of Superintendency, tho Ten or Twelve were, by far, too small a number for the [Page 144] whole Kingdom, yet, at that time, they thought it expedient to establish no more: And tho, when the Church should be sufficiently provided with Ministers, it would be highly reasonable, that the Su­perintendents should have places appointed them, for their continual Residence; yet, in that juncture, it was necessary that they should be constantly travelling thro their Districts, to preach and plant Churches, &c.’ That the period will bear this Gloss is obvious to any who consi­ders it impartially. And that this, and not the Presbyterian, is the true Gloss, I hope, may competently appear, if these things be considered,

1. It is notorious, that the Compilers of that First Book of Discipline, were generally, to their dying day, of Prelatical Principles. They were six, as Knox tells us: Kn. 283. Mr. Iohn Winrame, who died Superintendent of Stra­thern; Iohn Spotswood, who was many years a Superintendent, and a constant Enemy to parity, as appears from his Sons account of him. Spot. 344. Iohn Willock, who died Superin­tendent of the West. Iohn Dowglas, who died Archbishop of St. Andrews. Iohn Row, who was one of the three that defended the Law­fulness of Episcopacy, at the Conference ap­pointed by the General Assembly 1575; and Iohn Knox, of whom we have said enough already. Now, I ask, is it credible, that these men, all, so much for Prelacy, all their Lives, without any constraint on them [Page 145] (As 'tis certain, there was none) should, while digesting a Model of Policy, have been only for a Prelacy that was to be laid aside, within, God knows, how short a time; so soon as the Parish Churches could be planted with Ministers? I know nothing can be said here, unless it be, that Knox was not so prelatical as the rest, and he would have it so, and the rest have yielded: But there's no ground for this. For

2. Even Knox himself, if he was the Author of the History which bears his Name, amongst our Presbyterian Brethren, assigns a quite other reason than the then Necessities of the Church, for the Establish­ment of Superintendency: Superintendents and Overseers were nominated (says he) Kn. 260. that all things in the Church, might be carried with order, and well. A Reason, which, as it held since the Apostles times, will continue to hold so long as the Church continues. And is it not told again in that same Hi­story, Ib. 289. That, at the Admission of Spots­wood to the Superintendency of Lothian, Iohn Knox in his Sermon asserted, the Necessity of Superintendents or Overseers, as well as Mini­sters? The Necessity, I say, and not the bare Expediency, in that juncture. Further, now that I have Knox on the Stage, I shall repeat over again, a Testimony of his, which I have once transcribed already from his Exhortation to England for the speedy em­bracing of Christs Gospel. Let no man be charged in preaching of Christ Iesus (says he p. 110. above [Page 146] that which a man may do: I mean, that your Bishopricks be so divided, that of every one, (as they are now for the most part) may be made ten; and so in every City, and great Town, there may be placed a godly learned Man, with so many joyned with him, for preaching and instruction, as shall be thought sufficient for the bounds commited to their Charge. Than which testimony, it is not possible to find a better Comment upon that period of the First Book of Discipline, (penned also by Knox himself) which is the subject of our present Controversie; and it agrees exactly with my Gloss: For, from this Testimony it is clear, that he was for a great number of Bishops, and little Diocesses; and that in a Church sufficiently provided with Ministers, the Bishop should not be obliged to travel from place to place, for preaching; but might stay at the Chief City or Town of his Diocess. What I have said, might be sufficient for preferring Mine, to the Presbyterian Gloss: But I have more to say. For

3. This sense of the period accords ex­actly with the whole tenour of the First Book of Discipline; in which, there's not ano­ther syllable, the most partial Reader can say, favours the mistaken Conceipt about the Temporariness of Superintendency, but much to the contrary. Thus

In the Head of the Election of Superinten­dents Spot. 1 [...]9. the very first words are, Such is the present Necessity, that the Examination and Ad­mission of Superintendents cannot be so strict as [Page 147] afterwards it must. Clearly importing, that, as Necessity forced them to establish a small number at first, so also, to take them as they could have them; but that a stricter accuracy in their tryal would be needful, when the number of qualified men should increase, which runs quite counter to the whole design of the Presbyterian Gloss.

Again, Ibid. If so many able men cannot be found at present, as Necessity requireth, it is better that these Provinces wait till God provide, than that men unable to edify and govern the Church be suddenly placed in the Charge, &c. Another Demonstration, why, at that time, they established so few Superintendents.

Again, Ibid. If any Superintendent shall de­part this life, or happen to be deposed, Rules are laid down for supplying the Vacancy. But to what purpose, if Superintendency was to be of so short continuance?

Farther yet, Ib. 160. After the Church shall be established, and three years are past, no man shall be called to the Office of a Superintendent, who hath not, two years, at least, given a proof of his faithful Labours in the Ministery of some Church. What could more plainly import, that the Office was to be durable?

Once more, Ib. 162, 163. When this Book of Discipline comes to the business of the Vniversi­ties, it supposes that Superintendents and Colleges were to be of equal continuance; for the Superintendent was still to be at the choo­sing and installment of Principals and Rectors: and the Moneys collected for upholding the Fa­brick, [Page 148] were to be counted yearly upon the 15th day of November, in the presence of the Superintendent of the bounds, and imployed with his advice, &c. Neither is this all yet; For

4. The Form and Order of the Election of the Superintendent, to be found both in Knox's History, Kn. 289, &c. and the Old Scottish Li­turgy, is every way as patt for the continu­ance of the Office, as the First Book of Discipline. For the first thing we meet with there, (as I have already observed) is, The Necssity of Ministers, and Superintendents o [...] Oversecrs without any Exception or Speci­ality about the one more than the other. And as our Reformers had petitioned the Go­vernment for the Establishment of a Me­thod, to be observed in the Election of Bi­shops and Presbyters, without any intimations of the Temporariness of either Office; as we have shewed before; so, here we find it put in practice (as hath likewise, before, been observed) without so much as one syl­lable, favouring the Presbyterian side of the present Controversie; but on the contrary, all alongst for mine. Thus,

The People are asked, If they will obey and honour him as Christs Minister, and com­fort and assist him in every thing pertaining to his Charge? And their Answer is, They will, and they promise him such Obedience, as becometh Sheep to give unto their Pastor, (not so long as the present Necessity forceth, or, the present Exigence requireth, but) so long as he remaineth [Page 149] faithful in his Charge. In short, the Order or Form for admitting a Superintendent, and a Parish Minister, was all one; and there was nothing in it importing the one Office to be temporary, more than the other. And, how­ever Calderwood thought fit to affirm, That Superintendents were not, then, established as of Divine Institution; yet, in all this Form the divine Institution of their Office, is as much to be found as the divine Institution of Ordinary Ministers. The People, as we had it just now, were asked, if they would obey him as Christs Minister? And he him­self was asked, If he knew that the Excellency of this Office, to the which GOD CALLED HIM did require that his Conversation should be irreprehensible? And again it was asked the People, Will ye not acknowledge this your Brother for the Minister of Christ Jesus? Your Overseer and Pastor? Will ye not main­tain and comfort him in his Ministry and Watch­ing over you, against all such as wickedly would rebel against God, and HIS HOLY OR­DINANCE? And in the Prayer after his Instalment, we have 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 our Reformers thought of Superinten­dency when they composed this Form. Now, if they lookt upon it as Gods Ordinance, &c. with what reason can it be said, they de­sign'd it meerly to be temporary, and for the, then, Necessities of the Church. I think it will [Page 150] be hard to prove, that it was the Divinity of these times, that men might dispense with divine Institutions; but of this more after­wards. In the mean time, proceed we to a further, and indeed, ane irrefragable Topick for confirming my side of the pre­sent Controversie; and that is

5. That, as the First Book of Discipline, and the Form of admitting Superintendents, do both fairly import, that our Reformers intended nothing less than the Temporariness of Super­intendents, so 'tis as clear from a vast num­ber of Acts of General Assemblies.

Most of these Acts I have already ad­duced for shewing the Disparities between Superintendents and Ordinary Ministers, when they are seriously considered, will be found uncontrovertibly to this purpose: But there are many more; for example consider these following.

The Assembly May 27, 1561. Kn. 297. Pet. 223. Mss. addressed to the Council, That special and certain provi­sion might be made for the Maintenance of the Superintendents, Ministers, Exhorters and Rea­ders; and that Superintendents and Ministers might be planted where none were.

The Assembly at Eden. Decem. 25. 1562. (as the Mss. has it) enacted, That, notwith­standing the proponing and nominating of the Super­intendents for Aberdeen, Bamf, Jedburgh, and Dumfries, appointed before in the Third Session: and the days appointed for the Election of the same; the further Advisement and Nomi­nation of the persons should be remitted to the [Page 151] Lords of the secret Council; providing, always, that the days appointed for their Election be not prolonged. Observe here that Aberdeen and Bamf were now design'd, each to have their Superintendent, whereas both were to be under one by the first Nomination, in the Book of Discipline ▪

One of the Articles ordered by the Assembly at Eden. Decem. 25. 1564. to be presented to the Queen, was, To require that Superintendents might be placed in the Realm, where none were, viz. in the Mers, Teviotdale, Forest Twedale, and the rest of the Dales, in the South, not provided; with Aberdeen, and the other parts of the North, likewise destitute: So it is in the Mss. Petrie Pet. 341. has it only in short, That Superintendents be placed where none are. But as it is in the Mss. it shews plainly that, now that the Church was of four years standing, and the number of qualified men was increasing, the Assembly were for increasing, proportionably, the number of Superintendents: As is demon­strated thus; by the Establishment in the First Book of Discipline, the Superintendent of Lothians Diocess comprehended the Sheriff­doms of Lothian, Stirling, Mers, Lauderdale, and Twedale. Spot. 158. Spotswood was set over this Diocess in March 1560/1. He was still alive, and in the Exercise of his Office; and yet here, now, the Assembly craves that Super­intendents may be placed in the Mers and Twedale, and the rest of the Dales. From which it follows, that that which was but [Page 152] one Diocess, Anno 1560. when qualified men were few, was design'd by the Assembly, Anno 1564. when the number of qualified men was somewhat increased, to be divi­ded, at least, into three or four. Exactly agreeable to what I have all along asserted.

In the Assembly at Eden. Iuly 20. Anno 1567. That famous Assembly, whereof Buchanan was Moderator, and which tum­bled Queen Mary from her Throne, it was agreed, by the Nobility and Barons on the one hand, and the Church on the other, That all the Popish Clergy should be dispossessed, and that Superintendents, Ministers and other NEEDFUL MEMBERS of the Kirk, should be planted in their places. So it is in the Mss. and so Spotswood hath it: Ib. 210. But both Calderwood and Petrie, tho they mention the thing, yet, labour to obscure it; for they do not so much as name Superintendents, far less, take notice that, they are reckoned amongst the Necessary Members, or were to succeed the Popish Bishops. Pet. 356. Cald. 42.

Farther, by the Ass. at Eden. Iuly 1. 1568. it is resolved, To advise with my Lord Regent his Grace and Council, that in the Rowms and Countreys where no Superintendents are, they may be placed. So the Mss. and Pet. Pet. 360. Nay

Doth not Calderwood himself tell us, that, the Ass. holden at Eden. March 1. 1570. when it appointed the Order to be observed thereafter, in handling affairs brought be­fore General Assemblies, ordained, in the [Page 153] sixth place, That the Complaints of Countreys for want of Superintendents should be heard and provided for, &c. Cal. 46. Further, doth not the same Calderwood record, that, when in the year 1574. the Superintendents of Angus, Lothian, and Strathern, would have dimitted their Office, the Assembly would not ad­mit of their Dimission, but ordered them to continue in their Function? Ib. 65. For what reason they offered to demit, perhaps, we shall learn hereafter. All I am con­cerned for at present is, that the Assembly would needs continue them in their Office now, fourteen years after the first legal Establishment of the Reformation. The truth is, this Assembly was holden in March, and Master Andrew Melvil, the Protoplast Presbyterian in Scotland, came not to the Kingdom, till Iuly thereafter.

By this time, I think, I have made it appear, that our Reformers intended no­thing less than to make Superintendency only temporary, and subservient to the then pre­tended Necessities of the Church. And like­wise I have sufficiently made it appear, that it was merely for scarcity of qualified men, that so few Superintendents were at first de­sign'd, by the First Book of Discipline; which was the one half of my Gloss upon the con­troverted period in that Book.

The other half, which was, that when once the Church was competently provided with Parish Ministers, the Superintendents were no longer obliged to their Evangelistical [Page 154] way of travelling constantly through their Diocesses, to preach, &c. is plain from what both Petrie and Spotswood agree in, as con­tained in the Book, viz. That they were to follow that method no longer than their Kirks were provided of Ministers, or, at least, of Readers. Pet. 219. Spot. 1 [...]9. Thus I have dis­patched the first thing which was proposed to be enquired into, viz. Whither there was any sufficient fund in the Records of these times, for believing that our Refor­mers intended, that Superintendency should only be temporary. It remains now that we should consider the

2. viz. What Force or Solidity is in the reason insisted on by our Presbyterian Bre­thren, to make this pretence seem plausible?

The reason insisted on, by them, is, The Force of Necessity, there being so few men, then, qualified for the Ministery; scarcely one in a Province, &c. Now who sees not that this so often repeated reason is intirely naught and inconsequential? For, what tho, in these times, there were few quali­fied men for the Ministery? How follows it, that therefore it was necessary to raise up Superintendents, and set them above their Brethren? If the principles of parity had, then, been the modish principles, could not these few, who were qualified, have govern'd the Church, suitably to these prin­ciples? Suppose we Twenty, Thirty, Forty men, in the Kingdom, qualified for the Office of the Ministery; could not these [Page 155] 20, or 30, or 40, have divided the King­dom into a proportionable number of large Parishes? And, still, as more men turn'd qualified, could they not have lessened these greater Parishes, till they had multiplied them to as great a number as they pleased, or was convenient? It was easy to have done so: so very obvious, as well as easy, that, it is not to be doubted, they would have done so, if they had been of these principles. Why might not they have done so, as well as our Presbyterian Bre­thren, now adays, unite Presbyteries where they have a scarcity of Ministers of their Perswasion? Where lies the impossibility of Vniting Parishes, more than uniting Pres­byteries? Indeed

This way of reasoning is more dangerous than it seems our Presbyterian Brethren are aware of, for it quite cuts the sinews of Parity, and demonstrates irrefragably, that it cannot be the Model, our blessed Lord instituted for the Government of his Church. For who can believe he would institute a Model of Government for his Church, which could not answer the ends of its institution? And is it not plain, that Parity cannot an­swer the ends for which Church Govern­ment was instituted, if the Church can be reduced to that State, that the Governors thereof, forced by Necessity, must lay it aside, and, for a time, establish a Prelacy? Besides,

What strange Divinity is it to maintain, that Parity is of divine Institution, and yet, [Page 156] may be laid aside in Cases of Necessity? 'Tis true G. R. in his True Representation of Pres­byterian Government, cited before, is bold to publish to the world, such Divinity: But let him talk what he will of the Case of Ne­cessity, the Force of Necessity, the Law of Neces­sity, let him put it in as many Languages as he pleases, as well as he hath done in Latin, telling, that Necessitas quicquid coegit, defen­dit: (tho, I must confess, I have seen few Authors more unhappy at Latin;) And all that shall never perswade me, ought never perswade any Christian, that any Necessity can oblige Christians to forsake, far less, to cross Christs institutions; for if it can ob­lige to do so in one Case, why not in all Cases? Indeed to talk of crossing Christs institutions, when forced to it by the Laws of Necessity, what is it else, than to open a Door to Gnosticism, to Infidelity, to Apostacy, to all imaginable kinds of Antichristian Per­fidy and Villany? But enough of this at pre­sent.

That which I am concerned for, is only this, that, being it was so very obvious and easy for our Reformers to have cast the very first Scheme of the Government of the Church, according to the Rules and Exi­gencies of Parity, if they had believed the divine and indispensable institution of it; and being that they did it not, we have all the reason in the world to believe, that they believed no such principle. For my part, I am so far from thinking it reasonable, that [Page 157] Prelacy should be only needful, where there is a scarcity of men qualified to be Ministers; that on the contrary I do profess, I am of opinion, that Prelacy seems to be every whit as needful and expedient, if not more, (supposing we had it in our power to cut and carve (as we say) on Christs institu­tions) where there are many, as where there are few Ministers. Sure I am, Experience hath taught so, and teaches so daily: and as sure I am, it can, with great reason, be accounted for, why it should be so; but if it is so, I think, it is only help at a dead Lift (as we say) to say, that Superintendency was established at our Reformation, only, be­cause of the Scarcity of men qualified to be Ministers. And so I proceed to our Bre­threns next Plea, which is,

SECONDLY, That Superintendency was not the same with Episcopacy. Calderwood assigns seven or eight differences between Superintendents and Bishops; Cald. 26, 27. and his faithful Disciple G. R. in his First Vindication, in answer to the first Question, resumes the same Plea, and insists mostly on the same Differences. Calderwood reckons thus,

• 1. In the Election, Examination and Ad­mission of Ministers, the Superintendents were bound to the Order prescribed in the 4 th Head of the First Book of Discipline; which is far diffe­rent from the Order observed by Prelates.
• 2. Superintendents kept not the bounds, nor the limits of the old Diocesses.
• [Page 158]3. Superintendents might not remain above twenty days in any place, till they had passed through the whole bounds; must preach, at least, thrice in the week; must stay no longer in the Chief Town of their Charge, than three or four Months at most, but must re-enter in Visitation of the rest of the Kirks in their bounds. Bishops think preaching the least of their Charge.
• 4. The Election, Examination, and Admis­sion of the Superintendent, is set down far diffe­rent from the Election, Examination and Admis­sion of Bishops now adays, &c.
• 5. Superintendents were admitted without other Ceremonies than sharp Examination, &c. To the Inauguration of a Bishop is required the Metro­politans Consecrations.
• 6. There were no degrees of superior and in­ferior, provincial and general Superintendents: It is otherwise in the Hierarchy of the Prelates, &c.

I have set down these six huge Differences, without ever offering to consider them particularly; are they not huge Differences? Behold them, examine them carefully; is not each of them as essential and specifick as another?

Think not, courteous Reader, it was Malice or Ill-will to Episcopacy, made our Author muster up these Differences: These make but a small number; if he had been acted by passion or vicious Byass, if his Malice had been vigorous and earnest to discharge it self that way; he could have easily reckoned six hundred, every whit as consi­derable [Page 159] Differences: He might have told them, that Bishops wore Black Hats, and Superintendents Blue Bonnets; that Bishops wore Silks, and Superintendents Tartan; that Bishops wore Gowns and Cassocks, and Superintendents Trews and slasht Doublets; and God knows, how many such differences he might have readily collected. And if he had adduced such notable differences as these, he had done every way as Philosophi­cally, and as like a good Difference-maker. But in the mean time what is all this to Parity or Imparity amongst the Governors of the Church? Do these differences, he has adduced, distinguish between Bishops and Superintendents as to preheminence of power, and the essentials of Prelacy? Do they prove that Superintendents had no Prerogative, no Authority, no Jurisdiction, over Parish Ministers? I have treated him thus coursly, because I know no other way of treatment Authors deserve, who will needs speak Nonsense rather than speak nothing. 'Tis true indeed:

One difference he has mentioned, which seems something material, and therefore I shall endeavor to account for it with some more seriousness. It is that by the Consti­tution, as we have it, both in the First Book of Discipline, and the Form and Order of electing Superintendents, Superintendents were made obnoxious to the Tryal and Censures of the Ministers within their own Diocesses. This I acknowledge to be true; and I acknowledge [Page 160] further, that, herein, there was a consi­derable difference between them and Bishops; as Bishops stood eminenced above Presby­ters in the primitive times, and as they ought to stand eminenced above them in all well constituted Churches. But then I have these things to say,

1. I shall not scruple to acknowledge that, herein, our Reformers were in the wrong; and that this was a great Error in the Con­stitution. I do avowedly profess, I don't think my self bound to justify every thing that was done by our Reformers: If that falls to any mans share, if falls to theirs who established this Article in the Claim of Right, which gave occasion to this whole Enquiry. That our Reformers, herein, were in the wrong, I say, I make no scruple to acknow­ledge; and I think it cannot but be obvious to all, who have spent but a few thoughts about matters of Policy and Government. In­deed, to make Governours subject to the Censures and Sentences of their Subjects, what is it else than to subvert Government, to confound Relations, to sap the Founda­tions of all Order and politick Establish­ment? It is (as King Iames the sixth has it in his Discourse about the true Law of Free Monarchies, K.J. his Works, p. 202. and I cannot give it better) to invert the Order of all Law and Reason; to make the commanded, command the Commander; the judged, judge their Iudge; and them who are governed to govern, their time about, their Lord and Governour. In short, to give a just [Page 161] account of such a Constitution, it is very near of Kin, to that bantering Question I have sometimes heard proposed to Children or Ideots, If you were above me, and I, above you, which of us should, be uppermost? I add further

2. That, as I take it, our Reformers put this in the Constitution, that they might appear consequential to a principle, then espoused and put in practice by them, about Civil Government; which was, that the King was superior to his Subjects in their distributive, but inferior to them in their collective Capacity. Major singulis, minor uni­versis. This principle, I say, in those days was in great Credit: Knox had learned it from the Democratians at Ge­neva; his Authority was great, and he was very fond of this principle, and disseminated it with a singular zeal and confidence. Be­sides, our Reformers were, then, obnoxious to the civil Government; the standing Laws were against them, and the Soveraigns per­swasion, in matters of Religion, jumpt with the Laws. This Principle, therefore, (had it been a good one) came to them most seasonably; and coming to them in such a nick, and withal, meeting, in them, with Scotch Mettal, Praefer­vidum Scotorum ingenium. they put it in practice; and being put in practice, God suffered it to be successful; and the success was a new Endearment, and so it came to be a Prin­ciple of Credit and Reputation. Indeed, they had been very unthankful to it, and inconsequential to boot, if they had not [Page 162] adopted it into their Ecclesiastical, as well as their Civil Systeme; and the Superinten­dents, having had a main hand in reducing it to practice against the Prince, could not take it ill if it was made a Law to them­selves; it was but their own measure. This, I say, I take to be the natural History of this part of the Constitution. Nay,

3. So fond, it seems, they were of this principle, that they extended it further, so far, as even to make Ministers accountable to their own Elderships. So 'tis expresly established by the First Book of Discipline, Head 8. Spot. 167. The Elders ought also to take heed to the Life, Manners, Diligence and Study of their Minister: And if he be worthy of Admo­nition, they must admonish him; if of Correction, they must correct him; and if he be worthy of Deposition, they, with the Consent of the Church and Superintendent, may depose him. Here was a pitch of Democracy which, I think, our Presbyterian Brethren themselves, as self denied as they are, would not take with, so very kindly. And yet I am apt to be­lieve, the Compilers of the Book, never thought on putting these Elders in a state of parity with their Ministers; tho this is a Demonstration, that they have not been the greatest Masters at Drawing Schemes of Policy. But to let this pass.

4. Tho this unpolitical stroke (to call it no worse) was made part of the Consti­tution by that Book, as I have granted; yet I have no where found, that ever it was put [Page 163] in practice. I have no where found, that De Facto a Superintendent, was judged by his own Synod; whether it was, that they be­haved so exactly, as that they were never censureable, or that their Synods had not the insolence to reduce a Constitution so very absurd, and unreasonable, to practice, I shall not be anxious to determine. But it seems probable it has been as much, if not more, upon the latter account than the for­mer; for I find Superintendents frequently tried, and sometimes censured by General Assemblies; and there was reason for it, supposing that General Assemblies, as then constituted, were fit to be the supreme Judicatories of the National Church: For there was no reason that Superintendents should have been Popes, i. e. absolute and unaccountable; so that, if I am not mi­staken, our Brethren raise Dust, to little purpose, when they make so much noise about the Accountableness of Superinten­dents to General Assemblies, as if that made a difference between them and Bi­shops: For I know no man that makes Bishops unaccountable, especially when they are confederated in a National Church. But this by the way: That which I take notice of is, That seeing we find they were so frequently tried by General Assemblies, without the least intimation of their being, at any time, tried by their own Synods, it seems reasonable to conclude, that it has been thought fit to let that unreasonable [Page 164] Stretch in the first Constitution fall into Dissuetude: But however this was, I have all safe enough. For

5. Such a Constitution infers no such thing as parity amongst the Officers of the Church. Those who maintain, that the King is inferiour to his Subjects, in their Collection, are not yet so extravagant as to say, he is not superior to every one of them in their Distribution: They acknowledge he is Major Singulis; and there's not a person in the Kingdom, who will be so unmannerly as to say, that he stands upon the same Level with his Soveraign. But what needs more? These same very Presbyterian Authors, who use this Argument, even while they use it, confess, That Superintendents, and ordinary Parish Ministers, did not act in parity; and because they cannot deny it, but must confess it, whether they will or not, they cannot forbear raising all the Dust they can about it, that unthinking People may not see clearly that they do confess it. And had it not been for this reason, I am apt to think, the world had never been plagued with such pitiful jangle, as such Arguments a­mount to. Neither is the next any better, which is,

3. That Superintendency was never established by Act of Parliament. This is G. R.'s Argu­ment in his learned Answer to the first of the ten Questions; for there he tells us, That Superintendency was neither brought in, nor cast out, by Act of Parliament. And what [Page 165] then? Doth he love it the worse that it was established, purely, by Ecclesiastical Authority? How long since he turn'd [...]ond of Parliamentary Establishments? I wonder he was not affraid of the Scandal of Erastia­nism. But to the point: 'Tis true indeed, it was not brought in by Act of Parliament; but then, I think, he himself cannot deny, that it was countenanced, allowed and approven, by more than half a Dozen of Acts of Parliaments; which, if our Author understands any thing either of Law or Lo­gick, he must allow to be, at least, equiva­lent to a Parliamentary In-bringing. I have these Acts in readiness to produce, when I shall be put to it: But I think his own Act which he cited (tho most ridiculously, as shall be made appear afterwards) in the immediately preceeding paragraph, may be good enough for him. ‘For, He concludes it as evident, that Episcopal Jurisdiction over the Protestants, was condemned by Law in the Parliament 1567. because it is, there, statute and ordained, that no other Iurisdiction Ecclesiastical be acknowledged within this Realm, than that which is, and shall be, within this same Kirk, established presently, or which sloweth therefrom, concern­ing preaching the Word, correcting of Manners, administration of Sacraments; and Prelati­cal Jurisdiction was not then in Scotland.’ So he reasons. Now I dare adventure to refer it to his own judgment, whither it will not, by the same way of reasoning, [Page 166] follow, and be as evident, that the Iuris­diction of Superintendents was allowed of, by this same Act, seeing he himself cannot have the Brow to deny, that it was, then, in its vigor, and daily exercised? I think this is Argument good enough, ad hominem; But, as I said, we shall have more of this Act of Parliament hereafter.

Thus I have dispelled some of these clouds our Presbyterian Brethren use to raise about the Prelacy of Superintendents; perhaps there may be more of them, but, considering the weakness of these, which, certainly, are the strongest, it is easy to conjecture what the rest may be, if there are any more of them. And thus, I think, I have fairly accounted for the Sentiments of our Reformers, in relation to Parity or Imparity amongst the Governors of the Church, during the First Scheme into which they cast the Government of the Church.

BEFORE I proceed to the next, I must go back a little, and give a brief De­duction of some things which may afford considerable Light, both to what I am now to insist on, and what I have insisted on already.

Tho I am most unwilling to rake into the Mistakes or Weaknesses of our Refor­mers, yet I cannot but say, that our Refor­mation was carried on, and, at first esta­blished upon some principles, very disadvan­tageous to the Church, both as to her Polity and Patrimony. There were Mistakes in [Page 167] the Ministers on the one hand, and sinister and worldly designs amongst the Laity, on the other: and both concurred unhappily, to produce Great Evils in the Result.

There was a principle had, then, got too much sooting amongst some Protestant Di­vines, viz. That the best way to reform a Church, was to recede as far from the Pa­pists as they could; to have nothing in common with them, but the Essentials; the necessary and indispensable Articles and Parts of Christian Religion; whatever was, in its nature indifferent, and not positively and expresly commanded in the Scriptures, if it was in fashion in the Popish Churches, was therefore to be laid aside, and avoided as a Corruption; as having been abused, and made subservient to Superstition and Idolatry.

This principle Iohn Knox was fond of, and maintained zealously; and the rest of our reforming Preachers were much acted by his Influences. In pursuance of this principle, therefore, when they compiled the First Book of Discipline, they would not reform the Old Polity, and purge it of such Corruptions as had crept into it, keep­ing still by the main Draughts and Linea­ments of it; which undoubtedly had been the wiser, the safer, and every way the better course, as they were then admonisht, even by some of the Popish Clergy: Spot. 174. But they laid it quite aside, and instead thereof hammered out a New Scheme, keeping at as [Page 168] great a distance from the Old one, as they could, and as the Essentials of Polity would allow them; establishing no such thing, however, as Parity, as I have fully proven. And no wonder; for as Imparity has, obvi­ously, more of Order, Beauty and Vsefulness in i [...] Aspect, so it had never, so much as by Dreaming, entered their Thoughts, that it was a Limb of Antichrist; or a Relique of Popery.

That our Reformers had the aforesaid principle in their view, all alongst, while they digested the First Book of Discipline, is plain to every one that reads it. Thus,

In the First Head, they condemn Binding Men and Women to a several and disguised Ap­parel; to the superstitious observing of Fasting Days— Keeping of holy days of certain Saints, commanded by Man, such as be all these THE PAPISTS HAVE INVENTED, as the Feasts of the Apostles, Martyrs, Christ­mas, &c. Ib. 153. In the Second Head, The Cross in Baptism and Kneeling at the Reception of the Symbols, in the Eucharist. In the Third Head, they require not only Idolatry, but all its Monuments and Places to be sup­pressed; and amongst the rest, Chappels, Cathedral Churches, and Colleges, i. e. as I take it, Collegiate Churches. And many other such instances might be adduced; particu­larly, as to our present purpose: They would not call those, whom they truly and really, stated in a Prelacy above their Bre­thren, Prelates or Bishops, but Superintendents: [Page 169] They would not allow of Imposition of hands in Ordinations: They made Superintendents subject to the Censures of their own Synods; they changed the bounds of the Diocesses; they would not allow the Superintendents the same Revenues which Prelates had had be­fore: They would not suffer Ecclesiastical Benefices to stand distinguished as they had been formerly; but they were for casting them all, for once, into one heap, and ma­king a new Division of the Churches Pa­trimony, and parcelling it out in Compe­tencies, as they thought it most expedient. In short,

A notable instance of the prevalency of this principle we have, even in the year 1572. after the Restauration of the Old Po­lity was agreed to. For, then, by many in the General Assembly, Exceptions were taken at the Titles of Archbishop, Dean, Arch-Deacon, Chancellor, Chapter, &c. as being Popish Titles, and offensive to the Ears of good Christians; Spot. 260. Pet. 376. Cald. 58. As all Historians agree. Bu [...] then,

As they were for these and the like alte­rations, in pursuance of this principle; so they were zealous for, and had no mind to part with, the Patrimony of the Church. Whatever had been dedicated to Religious Uses; whatever, under the notion of ei­ther Spirituality or Temporality, had belonged to either Seculars or Regulars, before, they were positive, should still continue in the Churches hands, and be applied to her [Page 170] Maintainance and Advantages; condemn­ing all Dilapidations, Alienations, Impro­priations, and Laick Usurpations, and Possessions of Church Revenues, &c. as is to be seen fully in the Sixth Head of the Book. Spot. 164. Thus, I say, our Reformers had digested a New Scheme of Polity, in the First Book of Discipline, laying aside the Old one, because they thought it too much Popish. And now that we have this Book under con­sideration, it will not be unuseful (nay it will be needful for a full understanding of what follows) to fix the time when it was written.

Knox (and Calderwood follows him) says, Kn. 283. Cald. 24. it was written after the Dissolution of the Parliament, which sate in August 1560. and gave the legal Establishment to the Reformation. But Petrie Pet. 218. says, it is expresly affirmed in the beginning of the Book it self that the Commission was granted for compiling it on the 29th of April, 1560. and that they brought it to a Conclusion, as they could for the time, before the 20th of May (a short enough time, I think, for a work of such importance.) So Petrie affirms, I say, and it is apparent he is in the right; for, his account agrees exactly with the First Nomination of Superintendents, which both Knox and Spotswood affirm to have been made in Iuly, that year. Kn. 259, 260. Spot. 149. And, besides, it falls in naturally with the Series of the History; for the Nobility and Gentry's having seen the Book, and considered it be­fore [Page 171] the Parliament sate, according to this account, makes it fairly intelligible, how it was intirely neglected, or rather rejected, not only, so far, as that it was never al­lowed of nor approven by them, as we shall learn by and by; but, so far, that, in that Parliament no provision, at all, was made for the Maintainance and Subsistence of the Reformed Ministers. For under­standing this more fully, yet,

It is to be considered, that there had been Disceptations and Controversies the year before, viz. 1559. about the Disposal of the Patrimony of the Church. This I learn from a Letter of Knox's to Calvin, (dated August 28. 1559. to be seen amongst Calvin's Epistles, Col. 441.) wherein he asks his sentiments about this question, Whither the yearly Revenues might be payed to such as had been Monks and Popish Priests, even tho they should confess their former errors, considering that they neither served the Church, nor were capable to do it? And tells him frankly, Haec, quia nego, plus ae­quo severus judicor, non a solis Papisticls, verum etiam ab ijs qui sibi vori­tatis patroni videntur. that he had main­tained the negative, for which he was called too severe, not only by the Papists, but even by many Protestants. From which 'tis plain, not only that there were, then, Controversies about the Disposal of the Patrimony of the Church, as I have said, but also, that Knox (and by very probable consequence, the Protestant Prea­chers, generally) was clear, that the Eccle­siastical [Page 172] Revenues had been primarily desti­nated to the Church for the ends of Reli­gion; and therefore whatever person could not serve these ends, could have no just Title to these Revenues: By which way of reasoning, not only ignorant Priests and Monks, but all Lay men whatsoever, were excluded from having any Title to the Pa­trimony of the Church. Now,

While this Controversie was in agitation, as to point of Right, the Guise was going against Knox's side of it, as to matter of Fact. For, in the mean time, many Abbeys and Monasteries were thrown down, and the Nobility and Gentry were daily posses­sing themselves of the Estates that had be­longed to them; and so before the First Book of Discipline, (which was Knox's per­formance, and so, no doubt, contain'd his principle) was compiled, they were finding that there was something sweet in sacrilege, and were by no means willing to part with what they had got, so fortunately, as they thought, in their Fingers. Besides, They foresaw, if Knox's project took place, seve­ral other, which they judged considerable, inconvenients would follow: If the Monks and Priests, &c. who acknowledged their former errors, should be so treated, what might they expect, who persisted in their ad­herence to the Romish Faith and Interests? Tho they were blinded with Superstition and Error, yet they were Men, they were Scottish men; nay they were generally of their [Page 173] own Blood, and their very near Kinsmen: And would it not be very hard to deprive them intirely of their Livings, and reduce them, who had their Estates settled upon them by Law, and had lived so plentifully and so hospitably, to such ane Hopeless State of Misery and Arrant Beggary? Further, by this Scheme, as they behoved to part with what they had already griped, so their Hopes of ever having opportunity to profit them­selves of the Revenues of the Church, there­after, were more effectually discouraged, than they had been even in the times of Popery: The Popish Clergy, by their Rules, were bound to live single, they could not marry, nor, by consequence, have lawful Children to provide for. The reformed, as the law of God allowed them, and their Inclinations prompted them, indulged them­selves the Solaces of Wedlock, and begot Children, and had Families to maintain and provide for; there were no such Ex­pectations, therefore, of easy Leases, and rich Gifts, and hidden Legacies, &c. from them, as from the Popish Clergy. Add to this, the Popish Clergy foresaw the Ruine of the Romish Interests; they saw no likelihood of Successors, of their own Stamp and Prin­ciples. They had a mighty spite at the Re­formation. It was not likely, therefore, that they would be anxious what became of the Patrimony of the Church, after they were gone. It was to be hoped they might squander it away, dilapidate, alienate, &c. [Page 174] without difficulty; (as indeed they did) And who but themselves (the Laity) should have all this gain?

Upon these and the like Considerations, I say, the Nobility and Gentry had no li­king to the First Book of Discipline; And be­ing once out of Love with it, it was easy to get Arguments enough against it: The Novelties, and the numerous needless Reces­sions from the Old Polity, which were in it, furnished these both obviously and abun­dantly. So it was not only not established, but, it seems, the Nobility and Gentry, who have ever the principal sway in Scottish Parliaments, to let the Ministers find how much they had displeased them, by such a Draught, resolved to serve them a Trick. In­deed they served them a monstrous one; for tho in the Parliament, 1560. they esta­blished the Reformation, as to Doctrine and Worship, &c. and by a Legal Definition, made the Protestant the National Church, yet they settled not so much as a Groat of the Churches Revenues upon its Ministers, but continued the Popish Clergy, during their Lives, in their possessions.

'Tis true, indeed, thro the importunity of I. Knox, and some others of the Preach­ers, some Noblemen and Gentlemen sub­scribed the Book in Ianuary 1560/1. Kn. 282, 283. Spot. 175. But as they were not serious, as Knox intimates, so, they did it with this express provision (appa­rently levelled against one of the main de­signs of the Book) That the Bishops, Abbots, [Page 175] Priors, and other Prelates, and Beneficed Men, who had already joyned themselves to the Religion, should enjoy the Rents of their Benefices, during their Lives, they sustaining the Ministers for their parts, &c. But it was never generally received; on the contrary it was treated in Ridicule, and called a DEVOVT IMA­GINATION, which offended Knox ex­ceedingly. Kn. lb. Spot. 174. Nay, it seems, the Ministers themselves were not generally pleased with it, after second thoughts, or, The Laity have been more numerous in the General Assembly holden in December 1561. For (as Knox himself tells us Kn. 323.) when it was moved, there, that the Book should be offered to the Queen, and her Majesty should be supplicated to ratify it, the Motion was rejected.

The Reformation thus established, and through the Badness, or, at least, the Disa­greeableness of the Scheme laid down in the Book on the one hand, and the Selfish and Sacrilegious Ends of the Laity on the other, no provision made for the Ministers; it was unavoidable that they should be pincht. And pincht they were, indeed, to purpose; For, for full Eighteen or Nineteen Months, after the Reformation was established by Law, they had nothing to live by, but Shift or Charity; and, which heightned the Misery, all this time of Want, they had little or no prospect of the end of it: For when a Parliament, so much Protestant, as in the Queens absence, to establish the [Page 176] Purity of Doctrine, &c. had treated them so unkindly, what was to be expected, now that she was at home, every inch Popish, and zealously such? Tho a Parliament should now incline to pity them, yet how could it meet? Or what could it do without the Soveraigns Allowance? And what ground had they to hope that she would be friend them? Indeed, nothing was to be attempt­ed that way; it was not to be expected that the Popish Clergy should be dispossessed of the Revenues of the Church, and the Reformed entituled to them, by Act of Parliament. Another project was to be fallen upon.

The Project fallen upon was, That the Council, then, intirely Protestant, should deal with the Queen to oblige the Popish Clergy, Possessors of the Benefices, to re­sign the Thirds of them, into her Majesties hands, that they might be a fond for the Maintainance of the Protestant Ministers, The Nation was, then, generally Protestant, and that Interest was too strong for the Queen, so that they were not to be too much pro­vokt: Besides, one Argument was used which prevailed much with her Majesty. The Revenues of the Queen were, then, very low, and she loved to spend; and pains were taken to perswade her that, beside what would be subsistence enough for the Ministers, she would be sure to have what might considerably relieve her own Necessi­ties. This was a taking proposition, so, [Page 177] the project succeeded. The Popish Clergy were put to it, and resign'd the Thirds. Kn. 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, &c. fuse. Collectors were appointed to bring them in to the Exchequer: The Ministers, were, thence, to receive their Allowances. Well!

Were they well enough provided now? Alas! Poor Men! It was but little that was pretended to be provided for them; the Thirds of these Benefices which the Laity had not already swallowed: And yet far less was their real portion. They found by sad experience that it was not for nothing, that the Thirds were ordered to be brought into the Queens Treasury. For when they came to be divided, how mean were their Allot­ments? Ane hundred Merks Scottish, i. e. about 5 l. 11 sh. English, to ane ordinary Minister in the Country. Three hundred (saith Knox p. 329.) was the highest that was appointed to any, except the Superintendents, and a few others.

All this, the Ministers, indeed, resented highly. Iohn Knox Ib. said publickly in his Sermon, If that Order for maintaining the Ministers ended well, his judgment failed him— for he saw two parts freely given to the Devil, (the Popish Clergy) and the third must be di­vided betwixt God and the Devil, i. e. betwixt the Protestant Ministers, and the Popish Queen. And, no doubt, her Share was truely con­siderable. But neither did the Misery end here: As poor as these small Pittances were, they could not have them either seasonably, or fully paid. The Thirds came in but slowly, [Page 178] and the Queens Necessities behoved to be first served; by which means, the Ministers were forced to wait, many times, very long, for their Money: And, sometimes, to take little, rather than want all: In short, their sense of the treatment they met with was so lively, that this turn'd to a Proverb, amongst them: The Good Laird of Pittaro was ane Earnest Professor of Christ; but the Great Devil receive the Controller. Ibid. Thus, poor Men! they were hardly treated: they had great Charges, and a weighty Task; and they were ill provided, and worse paid.

This bred them much work in their Gen. Assemblies: For, scarcely did they ever meet, but a great part of their time was spent in forming Petitions, and impor­tuning the Government for Relief of their Necessities; but all in vain, they were never the better, no not so much as heard, almost, till Iuly 1567. Then, the Nobi­lity and Gentry, resolved to lay aside the Queen from the Government, and finding it necessary to have the Ministers of their side, began to bespeak them a little more kindly. Then, indeed, it was made the Second Article of that League, into which they entered, That the Act already made (by the Queen and Council) concerning the Thirds of the Benefices within this Realm, principally, for sustaining the Ministers, should be duely put in Execution, according to the Order of the Book of the Appointment of Ministers Stipends, as [Page 179] well of them that are to be appointed, as of them who are already placed, and that the Ministers should be first duely answered, and sufficiently sustained, of the same, to the Relief of their pre­sent Necessity, ay and while a perfect Order might be ta'ne, and established, towards the full Distribution of the Patrimony of the Kirk, ac­cording to Gods word, &c.

So I read in the Mss. and Spotswood Spot. 209. has the same upon the matter. But this was not all, Burnt Bairns Fire dread. The Ministers sensible, it seems, of the mean and uncertain way of Living, they had had before, resolved now to make the best advantage they could of that opportunity; and so they obtain'd this likewise for ano­ther Article of that Confederacy, and the Nobility promised, That how soon a lawful Parliament might be had, or that the Occasion might otherwise justly serve, they should labour at their uttermost, that the Faithful Kirk of Iesus Christ, professed within this Realm, might be put in full Liberty ( i. e. possession) of the Patri­mony of the Kirk, according to the Book of God, and the Order and Practice of the Primitive Kirk, and that nothing should pass in Parliament, till the Affairs of the Kirk were first considered, approved and established; and also, that they should reform themselves, in the Matters of the Church, for their own parts; Ordaining the Contraveeners and Refusers of the same to be secluded from the Bosom of the Kirk, &c. So the Mss. and Spotswood also. Ibid.

[Page 180]Here were fair promises indeed! Were not the Ministers well enough secured now? Was not the Patrimony of the Church, now, to run in its Right Channel? Alas! All pro­mises are not performed. No sooner had these Nobles and Barons carried their main point, which was the dethroning of the Queen, (to which also the Ministers were forward enough) than they quite forgot their promises. For, tho the Parliament met in December, thereafter, and tho the Restitution of the Patrimony of the Church was promised to be the first thing that should be done in Parliament, yet nothing like performance! Nay, tho ane Act was made for putting the Articles about the Thirds in Execution; yet, the Ministers were forced to wait long enough, before they found the effects of it. In short, they continued in the same straits they had been in before, for full two years thereafter, that is, till Iuly 1569. at which time, I find by the Mss. and Mr. Petrie Pet. 363. the Church was put in possession of the Thirds; for which their Necessities made them very thankful, as appears from the Narrative of ane Act of their Assembly at that time, which runs thus, as I find it in the Mss. For asmuch as this long time by gone, the Mini­sters have been universally defrauded and post­poned of their Stipends, and, now, at last, it hath pleased God to move the hearts of the supe­riour power, and the Estates of this Realm, &c. A Narrative, which, it is probable, they [Page 181] would not have used when the Thirds were, at first, projected for their Maintainance: Sure, I am, of a quite different strain from Knox's Resentment, which I mentioned before. But by this time, Experience had taught them to thank God for little; and that it was even Good to be getting something. How­ever,

All this while they continued still to have the same sentiments concerning the Patrimony of the Church; that, unless God by immediate Revolution, should dispense with her Right, it belong'd to her unaliena­bly; that it was abominable Sacriledge to de­fraud her of it; and that neither Church nor State could be happy so long as it was so much in the hands of Laicks. And as they had still these sentiments, (and no wonder, so long as they had any sense of Religion) so, they were still using their best endeavours, trying all experiments, and watching all opportunities to bring the Nobility and Gentry to a reasonable Temper; and to put the Church in possession of her undoubted Revenues; but all in vain. On the con­trary, these Leeches having once tasted of her Blood, were thirsting still for more, and daily making farther Encroachments. For

‘A Parliament met in August 1571, and made ane Act, obliging all the Subjects, who in former times, had held their Land and Possessions of Priors, Prioresses, Convents of Friers and Nuns, &c. there­after to hold them of the Crown. This [Page 182] was ane awakening, ane allaruming Act. These who, heretofore, had possest themselves of the Churches Patrimony, had done it by force, or by connivance; without Law, and without Title; so there were still hopes of recovering what was possest so illegally.’ But this was to give them Law on their side; As things stood then, it would be easy to obtain Gifts, now, that the King was made immediate Supe­riour; and then, there was no recovering of what was thus colourably possessed. So, I say it was ane awakening Act of Parliament; and indeed it rouzed the Spirits of the Cler­gy, and put them in a quicker motion. Now they began to see the Error of Drawing the New Scheme of Polity in the First Book of Dis­cipline, and receding from the Old one: Now they perceived sensibly that, that making of a New one, had unhinged all the Churches Interests, and exposed her Patrimony, and made it a Prey to the Ravenous Laity; and that it was therefore, time, high time, for them to bethink themselves, and try their strength and skill, if possibly a stop could be put to such notorious Robbery. Vide Spot. 258. And so I am fairly introduced to

THE SECOND MODEL into which the Government of the Church was cast, after the publick Establishment of the Reformation. For

The General Assembly of the Church, meeting at Stirling, in that same month of [Page 183] August 1571. ‘Gave Commission to cer­tain Brethren, to go to the Lord Regent his Grace, and to the Parliament, humbly to request and desire, in Name of the Kirk, the granting of such Heads and Articles, and redress of such Complaints, as should be given to them by the Kirk, &c.’ So it is in the Mss. and so Spotswood and Petrie have it. Spot. 258. Pet. 371. Before I proceed, there is one seeming difficulty which must be removed; it is, that this General Assem­bly met before the Parliament. How then could it be that Act of Parliament which so awakened them? But the Solution is easy. In those times, Parliaments did not sit so long as they are in use to do now; but all things were prepared, and in readiness, before the Parliament met. ‘Proclama­tion was made a month, or so, before the Parliament was to meet, requiring all Bills to be given in to the Register, which were to be presented in the succeeding Session of Parliament, that they might be brought to the King, or Regent, to be per­used and considered by them, and only such as they allowed were to be put into the Chancellors hands to be proponed to the Parliament, and none other, &c.’ Whoso pleases may see this account given by King Iames the Sixth of Scotland, and First of England, to his English Parliament, in his Speech dated 1607. Indeed the thing is no­torious, and Calderwood himself gives a re­markable instance of this method, Cald. 759. for [Page 184] he tells how, in the end of April, or begin­ning of May 1621. A Charge was published by Proclamation, commanding all that had Suits, Articles, or Petitions to propone to the Parlia­ment, to give them into the Clerk of the Register before the twentieth day of May, that by him they might be presented to so many of the Council, who were appointed by his Majesty to meet, some days before the Parliament, and to consider the said Bills, Petitions and Articles with Certifica­tion, that the same should not be received, read, nor voted in Parliament, except they were passed under his Highness hand. And yet the same Calderwood tells us, Ib. 764. That the Parliament was not appointed to meet till the Twentieth and Third of Iuly; so that here were two full months between the giving in of the Bills, &c. and the Meeting of the Parlia­ment. This being the Custom in those times, it is easy to consider how the Gene­ral Assembly, tho it met some days before the Parliament, might know very well what was to be done in Parliament; for if this Bill was allowed by the then Regent to be presented, there was no doubt of its passing. And that it was very well known what the Parliament was to do in that matter, may be further evident from Iohn Knox's Letter directed, at that time, to the General Assembly, wherein he is earnest with them, that with all Vprightness and Strength in God, they gainst and the mercyless Devourers of the Patrimony of the Church, telling them, that if Men will spoil, let them do it to [Page 185] their own Peril and Damnation; but it was their Duty to beware of communicating with their sins, but by publick protestation to make it known to the world, That they were innocent of Robbery, which would, e're long, provoke Gods Vengeance upon the Committers, &c. From which nothing can be clearer, than that he had a special eye to that which was then in agitation, and to be done by the Parliament. For this Letter see Spot. 258. and Pet. 370. Having thus removed this seeming difficul­ty, I return to my purpose.

The Earl of Lennox was, then, Regent: He was murthered in the time of the Par­liament: So, at that time, things were in confusion, and these Commissioners from the General Assembly could do nothing in their business. The Earl of Mar suc­ceeded in the Regency; Application was made to him. It was agreed to between his Grace, and the Clergy who applied to him, that a Meeting should be kept be­tween so many for the Church, and so many for the State, for adjusting matters. For this end, ane Assembly was kept at Leith, on the 12 of Ianuary 1571/2. By this Assem­bly, Six were delegated to meet, with as many to be nominated by the Council to treat, reason and conclude, concerning the Settlement of the Polity of the Church. After diverse Meetings, and long Deliberation, (as Spotswood has it, Spot. 260.) they came to an Agreement, which was, in effect, That the Old Polity should revive, and take place; only with some little alterations, which seemed necessary [Page 186] from the Change that had been made in Religion. Whoso pleases may see it more largely in Calderwood, Cald. 50, &c. (who tells us, that the whole Scheme is Registred in the Books of Council) more briefly, in Spotswood and Pe­trie Spot. 260. Pet. 273. In short,

It was a Constitution, much the same with that, which we have, ever since, had, in the times of Episcopacy. For by this Agreement, those who were to have the Old Prelatical power, were also to have the Old Prelatical Names and Titles, of Archbishops and Bishops; the Old Division of the Diocesses was to take place; the Patrimony of the Church was to run, much, in the Old Chan­nel; particularly, express provision was made concerning Chapters, Abbots, Priors, &c. That they should be continued, and enjoy their Old Rights and Priviledges, as Churchmen; and, generally, things were put in a regular Course.

This was the Second Model (not a new one) of Polity, established, in the Church of Scotland, after the Reformation; at a pretty good distance, I think, from the Rules and Exigencies of Parity. The truth is, both Calderwood and Petrie acknowledge, it was Imparity, with a witness. The thing was so manifest, they had not the brow to deny it; all their Endeavours are only to im­pugne the Authority of this Constitution, or raise Clouds about it, or find Weak­nesses in it. So far as I can collect, no man ever affirmed, that, at this time, the Govern­ment [Page 187] of the Church of Scotland was Presby­terian, except G. R. who is truly singular for his skill in these matters: But we shall have, some time or other, occasion to consider him. In the mean time let us consider Calderwood's and Petrie's Pleas against this Establishment. They may be reduced to these four.

• 1. The Incompetency of the Authority of the Meeting at Leith, in January 1571/2.
• 2. The Force which was, at that time, put upon the Ministers by the Court, which would needs have that Establishment take place.
• 3. The Limitedness of the power, then, granted to Bishops.
• 4. The Reluctancies which the subsequent Assemblies discovered against that Establish­ment.

These are the most material Pleas, they insist on, and I shall consider, how far they may hold. The

1. Plea is, the Incompetency of the Authority of the Meeting at Leith, Ian. 12. 1571/2. which gave Commission to the Six for agreeing with the State to such ane Establish­ment. ‘ It is not called ane Assembly, but a Convention, in the Register. The ordinary Assembly was not appointed to be holden till the 6 ^th of March thereafter. Cal. 49. Pet. 372. As it was only a Convention, so it was in very great haste, it seems, and took not time to consider things of such importance, so deliberately, as they ought to have been considered. Cal. 50. Pet. 373, 374. It was a corrupt Con­vention, [Page 188] for it allowed Master Robert Pont, a Minister, to be a Lord of the Session.’ Cal. 50. Pet. 375. These are the Reasons they insist on to prove the Authority of that Meeting incompetent. And now to examine them briefly.

When I consider these Arguments, and for what end they are adduced, I must declare, I cannot but admire the Force of prejudice and partiality, how much they blind mens Eyes, and distort their Reasons, and byass them to the most ridiculous Under­takings. For,

What tho the next ordinary Assembly was not appointed to meet till March there­after? Do not even the Presbyterians themselves maintain the Lawfulness, yea, the Necessity of calling General Assemblies ex­traordinarily, upon extraordinary occasions? pro re nata (as they call it)? How many, such, have been called since the Reforma­tion? How much did they insist on this pretence Anno 1638? And,

What tho the Register calls this Meeting a Convention? was it therefore no Assembly? Is there such an opposition between the words, Convention and Assembly, that both cannot possibly signify the same thing? Doth not Calderwood acknowledge, that they voted themselves ane Assembly, in their second Session? Doth he not acknowledge, that all the ordinary Members were there, which used to constitute Assemblies? But what if it can be found that ane undoubted, [Page 189] uncontroverted Assembly, own'd it as ane As­sembly; and its Authority, as the Authority of ane Assembly? What is become of this fine Argument then? But can this be done indeed? Yes, it can; and these same very Authors have given it in these same very Histories Cal. 57. Pet. 376., in which they use this as ane Argument, and not very far from the same very pages. Both of them (I say) tell, that the General Assembly holden at Perth, in August immediately thereafter, made ane Act which began thus, Forasmuch as the Assembly holden in Leith, in January last, &c.

But if it was ane Assembly, yet, it was in too great haste, it did not things deliberately. Why so? No Reason is adduced, no Rea­son can be adduced, for saying so. The Subject they were to treat of was no new one; it was a Subject that had imployed all their Heads for several months before: Their great business, at that time, was to give a Commission to some Members to meet with the Delegates of the State, to adjust matters about the Polity and Patrimony of the Church. This Commission was not given till the Third Session, as Calderwood himself acknowledges. Cal. 49. Where then, was the great haste? Lay it in doing a thing in their Third Session, which might have been done in the First?

But were not these Commissioners in too great haste to come to ane Agreement when they met with the Delegates of the State? Yes, if we may believe Petrie, for he says, [Page 190] Pet. 353. That the same day (viz. January 16.) the Commissioners conveened and conclued, &c. But he may say, with that same integrity, what­ever he pleases. For, not to insist on Spots­wood's account, Spot. 260. who says, it was after diverse Meetings and long Deliberation, that they came to their Conclusion; not to insist on his authority, I say, because he may be suspected as partial; doth not Calderwood Cal. 50. expresly acknowledge, that they began their Conference upon the Sixteenth of Ia­nuary, and Ib. 55. that matters were not finally concluded and ended till the First of Febru­ary?

But was it not a corrupt Convention? Did it not allow Pont, a Minister, to be a Lord of the Session? A mighty Demonstra­tion, sure, of its Corruption! Well! Sup­pose it was a Corruption, was it such a plag [...]y one as infected all the other Acts of that Convention? Is one corrupt Act of ane Assembly enough to reprobate all the rest of its Acts? If so, I think, it will fare ill with a good many Assemblies. Whither was it a Corruption in ane Assembly to oblige men to do pennance for doing their Duty? to declare against the Kings Negative Voice in Parlia­ment, and so to Unking him, &c.? But to go on, why should this Assembly bear the whole Blame of this Corruption, if it was one? was it not ratified by a subsequent Assem­bly? And should not it bear its share? Both Authors knew this very well, for both of them record it: Cal. 62. Pet. 379. It was the Assembly [Page 191] holden at Eden. March 6. 1573. The Regent craved some learned Men of the Ministery (they are Calderwood's own words) to be placed Se­nators of the College of Iustice. The Assembly, after reasoning, at length, voted, that none was able to bear the said two Charges, and therefore inhibited any Minister to take upon him to be a Senator of the College of Iustice, Master Ro­bert Pont only excepced, who was already placed with advice and consent of the Kirk. Petrie gives the same account, only he ends it thus, By Advice, &c. He thought it expedient, it seems, to conceal the mention made of the Kirk. And no doubt he did wisely, i. e. suita­bly to his purpose; for Calderwood added it but foolishly, considering that there could not be a clearer Acknowledgement of the Authority of the Convention at Leith, than giving it thus the name of The Kirk; but what needs more? If this was a Corruption, it was one, even in the times of Presbytery, after the year 1580. For did not Pont, even then continue to be a Lord of the Session? Or will our Brethren say, that 'tis a fault to introduce a Corruption, but it is none to con­tinue it when it is introduced? All this is said upon the supposition that it was a Corrup­tion; tho I am not yet convinced that it was one, at least so great a one as might have given ground for all this stir about it. I doubt, if the Members of this Assembly at Leith, had been through paced Parity­men, vigorous for the Good Cause, it should, no more have been a Corruption in them [Page 192] to have allowed Pont to sit as a Lord of Ses­sion, than it was in the Kirk, once upon a day, to allow Mr. Alexander Henderson to sit as a Member of a Committee, you know for what. And so much for the first Plea, proceed we to the

2. The Force, the Court, at that time, put upon the Clergy, to accept of that Establishment. Calderwood is mighty on this Plea. The Su­perintendent of Angus (who had a principal hand in the Agreement at Leith) a man too tractable, might easily be induced, by his Chief, the Earl of Mar, Regent, for the time, to con­descend to the Heads and Articles of this Book. Cal. 55. And, It was easy to the Court to obtain the Consent of many Ministers to this sort of Episco­pacy — Some being poor, some being covetous and ambitious, some not taking up the gross Corruption of the Office, some having a Carnal Respect to some Noblemen their Friends. Ib. 56. And how often doth he impute it all to the Earl of Morton? And Calderwood's faithful Follower G. R. in his First Vindication, &c. tells us that the Convention of Churchmen met at Leith was too much influenced by the Court. p. 7. Now for answer to all this, in the first place, what if one should allow all that is alledged? will it follow from that allowance that Pre­lacy was not, then, agreed to? The Que­stion is not how it was done? but if it was done? For if it was done it is ane argument that the Clergy, then, thought little on the indispensibility of Parity; or that they were very bad men, who, tho they believed [Page 193] that indispensibility, did yet agree to Pre­lacy. 'Tis true, indeed, Calderwood makes them, here, every whit as bad as that could amount to:

He makes them a pack of poor, cove­tous, ambitious, ignorant, Carnal Rogues, who were thus Court-ridden. But behold the Difference between Mercat days, as we say; the same Author, when he comes, afterward, to tell who were appointed to compile the Second Book of Discipline, (a task agreeable to his temper) gives the same Men, who were Commissioners, at the Agreement at Leith, (for they were gene­rally nominated for that work) a far diffe­rent Character: Our Kirk hath not had wor­thier men, since, nor of better Gifts. Cal. 73▪ This might be enough; yet I will proceed fur­ther, because what I have to say may be useful for coming by a just sense of the state of affairs in these times. I say therefore,

That all this Plea is meer groundless Noise and Fiction. The Court had no imaginable reason for pressing this Establishment, which was not as proper for the Clergy to have insisted on; and the Clergy had one Rea­son more than the Court could pretend to.

The great Reasons the Court could, then, insist on, what else could they be, than that Episcopacy stood still established by Law? That according to the fundamental Consti­tution, which had obtained time out of mind, the Ecclesiasticks had made one of [Page 194] the Three Estates of Parliament? That such ane Essential Alteration, in the civil Con­stitution, as behoved necessarily to result from the want of that Estate, being the First of the Three, was infinitely dangerous at any time, as tending to turn the whole Constitution loose, and shake the very Foun­dations of the Government? That it tended to the Subversion of the High Court of Parliament, and naturally, and necessarily, inferred Essential Nullities in all the Meet­ings, the other two Estates could have, and all the Acts they could make? That it was more dangerous, at that time, during the Kings Minority, to have the Constitution so disjoynted, than on other occasions? That whosoever was Regent, or whosoever were his Counsellors, might be called to ane account for it, when the King came to perfect Age? And it was obvious that it might easily be found High Treason in them, that they had suffered such Alterations? That the best way to preserve the Rights of the Church, and put her, and keep her in her Possession of her Patrimony, was to preserve that Estate? That the best way to preserve that Estate, was to continue it in the old, tryed, wisely digested, and long approven Constitution of it? What other arguments, I say, than these, or such as were like them, can we conceive, the Court could then make use to perswade the Clergy to agree to the Old Polity? Is it to be imagined they turn'd Theologues, and endeavoured to in­doctrinate [Page 195] the Clergy, and convince them from Scripture, and Antiquity, and Eccle­siastical History, &c. that Episcopacy was of divine Institution, or the best, or a lawful Government of the Church? If I mistake not, such Topicks, in these times were not much thought on, by our States­men. But if they were such Arguments as I have given a Specimen of, which they in­sisted on, as no doubt they were, if they insisted on any, then I would fain know, which of them it was that might not have been as readily insisted on by the Clergy, as by the Statesmen? Nay, considering that there were no Scruples of Conscience then, concerning the Lawfulness of such a Consti­tution; how reasonable is it to think, that the Clergy might be as forward as the States­men could be, to insist on these Arguments▪ Especially if it be further considered, that,

Besides these and the like Arguments, the Clergy had one very considerable Ar­gument to move them for the Re-establish­ment of the Old Constitution, which was, that they had found by Experience, that the New Scheme fallen upon in the First Book of Discipline had done much hurt to the Church, as I have already observed; that by forsaking the Old Constitution, the Church had suffered too much already; and that it was high time, for them, now, to return to their Old Fond; considering at what losses they had been since they had deserted it. And all this will appear more [Page 196] reasonable and credible still, if two things more be duely considered. The

First is, That the Six Clergymen who were commissioned by the Assembly, on this occasion, to treat with the State, were all sensible men; men who understood the Constitution both of Church and State, had Heads to comprehend the consequences of things, and were very far from being Parity­men. The

Second is, The Oddness, (to call it no worse) of the Reason, which our Authors feign to have been the Motive which made the Court, at that time, so earnest for such ane Establishment; namely, that thereby, They might gripe at the Commodity. (as Calder­wood Cal. 55. words it) That is, possess them­selves of the Churches Patrimony. What? Had the Clergy so suddenly fallen from their daily, their constant, their continual Claim to the Revenues of the Church? Had they in ane instant, altered their sen­timents about Sacrilege, and things conse­crated to Holy uses? Were they now wil­ling to part with the Churches Patrimony? Did that which moved them to be so ear­nest for this Meeting with the State, mira­culously flip out of their Minds, so that they inconcernedly quate their pretensions, and betrayed their own interests? Were they all fast asleep when they were at the Conference? So much asleep, or senseless, that they could not perceive the Court in­tended them such a Trick? On the other hand,

[Page 197]If the Court had such a design as is pre­tended, I must confess, I do not see how it was useful for them to fall on such a wild project for accomplishing their purposes. Why be at all this pains to re-establish the Old Polity, if the only purpose was to rob the Church of her Patrimony? Might not that have been done without, as well as, with it? Could they have wished the Church in weaker circumstances for assert­ing her own Rights than she was in, before this Agreement? Was it not as easy to have possest themselves of a Bishoprick, ane Abbacy, a Priory, &c. when there were no Bishops, nor Abbots, nor Priors, as when there were? What a pitiful poli­tick, or rather what ane insolent wicked­ness was it, as it were, to take a Coat which was no mans, and put on one, and possess him of it, and call it his Coat, that they might rob him of it? Or, making the un­charitable supposition, that they could have ventured on such a needless, such a mad fetch of iniquity, were all the Clergy so short-sighted, that they could not penetrate into such a palpable, such a gross piece of Cheatry? But what needs more?

'Tis certain that by that Agreement, the Churches Patrimony was fairly secured to her, and she was put in far better condi­tion than she was ever in before, since the Reformation. Let any man read over Calderwoods account of the Agreement, and he must confess it: And yet perhaps the [Page 198] account may be more full and clear, in the Books of Council, if they be extant.

'Tis true, indeed, the Courtiers, after­wards, played their Tricks, and robb'd the Church; and it cannot be denied, that they got some bad Clergymen, who were sub­ [...]ervient to their purposes: But this was so [...] from being pretended to be aim'd at, by [...] Courtiers, while the Agreement was a m [...]k [...]ng; It was so far from these Clergy­mens minds, who adjusted matters at that time with the Laity, (these Courtiers) to give them the smallest advantages that way, to allow them the least Scope for such En­croachments; That, on the contrary, when, afterwards, they found the Nobility were taking such Methods, and plundering the Church; they complained mightily of it, as a manifest breach of the Agreement, and ane horrid iniquity.

But whatever Truth is in all this Rea­soning, I have spent on this point, is not much material to my main purpose: For, whither, at that time, Episcopacy was im­posed upon the Church or not; or, if imposed, whither it was out of a bad design or not; affects not, in the least, the prin­cipal Controversie. For however it was, 'tis certain the Church accepted of it, at that time, which we are bound, in Chari­ty, to think, a sufficient Argument that she was not then of Antiprelatical principles; She had no such Article in her Creed, as the Divine Right of Parity; which is the great [Page 199] point I am concerned for in all this tedious Controversie.

3. The Third Plea, is, The Limitedness of the Power which was, then, granted to Bishops. They had no more Power granted them by this Establishment, than Superintendents had enjoyed before. This all my Authors insist upon with great Earnestness. Cal. 51, 55, 56, 66. Pet. 374, 383. G. R. 1 Vind. p. 8. And I confess it is very true: This was provided for both by the Agreement at Leith, and by ane Act of the Assembly holden at Eden. March 6. 1574. But then 1. If they had the same power which Superintendents had be­fore, I think they had truly Prelatic Power; they did not act in Parity with other Mini­sters. 2. Tho they had no more power, yet it is certain they had more Privilege: They were not answerable to their own Synods, but only to General Assemblies, as is clear, even from Calderwoods own account of the agreement at Leith. Cal. 51. In that point, the absurd Constitution in the First Book of Discipline was altered. 3. One thing more I cannot but observe, here, concerning Mr. Carlderwood. This judicious Historian, when he was concerned to raise Dust about the Prelacy of Superintendents, found easily 7 or 8 huge Differences between Superintendents and Bishops. And now, that he is concern'd to raise Dust about the Prelacy of Bishops, he thinks he has gain'd a great point if he makes it the same with the Prelacy of Super­intendents. What a mercy was it that ever poor Prelacy out-lived the Dint of such [Page 200] doughty Onsets? But it seems it must be a tough-lived thing, and cannot be easily chased out of its Nature.

There is another considerable Thrust made at it by Calderwood, and his Disciple G. R. Ca [...]. 61. G. R. 1 Vind. 7. which may come in as a Succeda­neum to the former Argument: What is it? [...] is even, that in the Gen. Assembly at [...]. March 6. 1573. David Ferguson was chosen M [...]rator, who was neither Bishop nor Superi [...]ten [...]ent. And so down falls Prelacy! But so was [...] George Buchanan in the Assembly holden in Iuly 1507. who was neither Superintendent, Bishop, nor Presbyter, and so Down falls Presbytery! Nay Down falls the whole Ministery! Is not this a hard Lock, Prelacy is brought to, that it shall not be it self, so long as one wrong step can be found to have been made by a Scotch General Assembly?

I have adduced and discussed all these Plea's, not that I thought my Cause in any hazard by them; but to let the World see, what a party one has to deal with in his Controversie: Whatever it be, Sense or Nonsense, if their Cause requires it; they must not want an Argument. But to go on. But

4. The Fourth, and greatest Plea, is, That this Episcopacy was never owned by the Church: It was never allowed by the General Assembly. Cal. 56. Pet. 389. G. R. 1 Vind. 7. It was only tolerated for three or four years. Cal. 56. It was protested against as a Corruption. Cal. 58, G. R. 7. As these Articles were concluded without the Know­ledge [Page 201] of the Assembly, so the whole Assembly op­posed them earnestly. Pet. 376. They were obtruded upon the Church, against her Will. p. 383. The Church from the beginning of the Reformation opposed that kind of Bishops. p. 387. The Church did only, for a time, yield to Civil Authority, yet so that she would endeavour to be free of these Articles. p. 376.

These and many more such things are boldly and confidently asserted by Calder­wood, Petrie, and the strenuous Vindicator of the Church of Scotland, who seldom misses of saying what Calderwood had said before him; and I shall grant they are all said to purpose, if they are true: But how far they are from being that may sufficiently ap­pear, I hope, if I can make these things evident.

1. That the Agreement at Leith was fairly and frequently allowed, approven, and in­sisted on, by many subsequent Assemblies.

2. That after Episcopacy was questioned, and a Party appeared against it, it cost them much strugling, and much time, before they could get it abolished.

1. I say, The Agreement at Leith was fairly and frequently allowed, approven, and insisted on, by many subsequent Assemblies. This Assertion cannot but appear true to any unbyassed Judgment, that shall consider but these two things.

1. That, in Every Assembly, for several years, after that Establishment, or Agree­ment, or Settlement at Leith, Bishops were [Page 202] present, and sate, and voted as such; and, as such, were obliged to be present, and sit, and vote, &c. As both Calderwood and Pe­trie acknowledge, and shall be made appear by and by.

2. That these two Authors have been at special pains, to let the world know, how punctually they were tryed, and sometimes rebuked and censured for not discharging their Offices, as they ought to have done. Both Authors, I say, have been very intent and careful to represent this in their accounts of the subsequent Assemblies. I know their purpose, herein, was to expose the Bishops, and cast all the Dirt, they could, upon Episcopacy. But then, as I take it, their pains, that way, have luckily furnished me with a plain Demonstration of the false­hood of all they have said, in this Plea, I am now considering: For

Would these Assemblies have suffered them to be present, and sit, and vote as Bi­shops? Would they have tryed and censured them as Bishops? Would they have put them to their Duty as Bishops, if they had not own'd them for Bishops? And was there any other Fond for owning them for Bishops, at that time, except the Agreement at Leith? This alone might be sufficient, I say, for dispatching this whole Plea. Yet

3. To put this matter beyond all possibi­lity of ever being, with the least colour of probability, controverted hereafter; I re­commend to the Readers consideration, the [Page 203] following Series of Acts made by subse­quent Assemblies.

The Agreement at Leith as was observed before, was conclud [...]d [...] the First day of February, Anno 1571/2. [...] Ordinary As­sembly met at Saint Andrews, on the Sixth of March thereafter: The Archbishop of St. Andrews (newly advanced to that See, by the Leith Agreement) was present, and the first person named (as Calderwood himself hath it, Cal. 56. to be of the Committee that was appointed for Revising the Articles agreed upon at Leith: And ane Act was made in that Assembly, (as it is both in the Mss. and Petrie Pet. 375.) Ordaining the Superintendent of Fife to use his own Iurisdiction, as before, in the Pro­vinces not subject to the Archbishop of St. An­drews; and requesting him to concur with the said Archbishop, in his Visitations, or otherwise, when he required him, until the next Assembly— And in like manner, the Superintendents of An­gus and Lothian, without prejudice of the said Archbishop, except by Vertue of his Commission.

By the Assembly holden at Perth, Au­gust 6. 1572. this Act was made: Forasmuch as in the ASSEMBLY (not the Con­vention) of the Church holden at Leith, in January last, Certain Commissioners were ap­pointed to deal with the Nobility, and their Com­missioners, to reason and conclude upon diverse Articles and Heads, thought good, then, to be conferred upon; according to which Commission, they have proceeded in sundry Conventions, (is this consistent with Petrie's assertion, that, [Page 204] the same day, they met and concluded?) and have concluded for that time, upon the Heads and Articles as the same produced, in this Assembly, proport: In which, being considered, are found certain Names, as Archbishop, Dean, Arch­deacon, Chancellor, Chapter, which Names are thought slanderous and offensive in the Ears of many of the Brethren, appearing to found towards Papistry; Therefore, the whole Assem­bly in one voice, as well they who were in Com­mission at Leith, as others, solemnly protest, that they mean not, by using such Names, to ratify, consent, or agree to any kind of Papistrie or Su­perstition; wishing rather the said Names to be changed into other Names, that are not scandalous and offensive; and, in like man­ner, they protest, That the said Heads and Articles agreed upon, be only received as ane In­terim, until farther, and more perfect Order be obtained, at the hands of the Kings Majesties Regent and Nobility: For the which, they will press, as occasion shall serve. Vnto the which Protestation the whole Assembly, in one voice, adhere. So the Mss. Spot. Cald. Pet. Spot. 260. Cald. 57. Pet. 376.

This is the Act, on which, Calderwood, Petrie, and G. R. found their assertion, That Episcopacy, as agreed to at Leith was protested against, and earnestly opposed, by a General Assembly; but with what Sha­dow of Reason, let any Man consider: For, what can be more plain, than, that they receive the substance of the Articles, and only protest against the Scandalousness of the Names used in them? What reason they [Page 205] had for that, besides the over-zealous Prin­ciple I mentioned before, let the curious enquire: That's none of my present business.

But, They protest that they receive these Ar­ticles only for ane Interim: True; But how doth it appear that they received them only for ane Interim, out of a Dislike to Episco­pacy? Had they believed the Divine Right of Parity, how could they have received them so much as, for ane Interim? How could they have received them at all? The Truth is, there were many things in the Articles which requi­red amendment, even tho the Gen. Ass. had believed the Divine Right of Episcopacy. And that they did not receive them, for ane In­terim, upon the account of any Dislike they had to Episcopacy, shall be made evident, by and by. In the mean time, we have gained one point, even, That they were received by this Assembly; unless receiving for an Interim be not receiving: But if they were received, I hope it is not true, that they were never allowed by a General Assembly. And if Episco­pacy was not protested against at all, and if there was no such word or phrase in the Act, as had the least Tendency to import that they judged it a Corruption, I hope, it may consist well enough with the Laws of Civi­lity, to say that G. R. was talking without Book, when he said, It was protested against as a Corruption, by this General Assembly. I doubt, if he had found any of the Pre­latists talking with so much Confidence, where they had so little ground, he would [Page 206] have been at his beloved Lies and Calumnies. But enough of this, proceed we in our Series.

By the Vniversal Order (so it is worded in the Mss.) of the General Ass. holden at Eden. March 6. 157 [...]/3. It was Statuted and Ordained, that all Bishops, Superintendents, &c. present themselves in every Gen. Ass. that hereafter shall be holden, the first day of the Assembly before Noon, &c. Mss. Pet. 379. Again, It is thought most reasonable and expedient, That Bishops, &c. purchase Ge­neral Letters, without any delay, commanding all Men to frequent Preaching and Prayers according to the Order received in the Congregations, &c. Mss. Pet. ibid.

In the Ass. holden at Eden. Aug. 6. 1573. The Visitation Books of Bishops, &c. were pro­duced, and certain Ministers appointed to examin their Diligence in Visitation. Mss. Pet. ibid. In that same Assembly, Patoun, Bishop of Dunkeld, was accused that he had accepted the Name, but had not exercised the Office of a Bishop, not having proceeded against Papists, within his bounds. He was also suspected of Simony and Perjury, in that, contrary to his Oath, at the receiving of the Bishoprick, he gave Acquittances, and the Earl of Argyle received the Profits. Pet. ib. If these things were true, he was a foolish, as well as a bad Bishop. But then it was evident, that this Assembly fairly own'd Episcopacy. Further, that by the Agreement at Leith, express provisions were made against Simony and Dilapidation of Benefices; and that Bishops should swear to that purpose, &c. which, I think, is not [Page 207] well consistent with the Plea insisted on, before, viz. That the Agreement at Leith was forced on the Clergy, by the Court, out of a design, it had, upon the Revenues of the Church.

I find these further Acts made by this Assembly, in the Mss.

Touching them that receive Excommunicates, the whole Kirk, presently assembled, ordains all Bishops, &c. to proceed to Excommunication a­gainst all Receivers of Excommunicate persons, if after due Admonition the Receivers rebel and be disobedient.

The Kirk ordains all Bishops, &c. in their Synodal Conventions, to take a List of the Names of the Excommunicates, within their Iurisdicti­ons; and bring them to the General Assemblies, to be published, to other Bishops and Superinten­dents, &c. That they, by their Ministers, in their Provinces, may divulgate the same, in the whole Countries, where Excommunicates haunt.

The Kirk presently assembled, ordains all Bi­shops and Superintendents, &c. to conveen before them, all such persons as shall be found suspected of consulting with Witches; and finding them guilty, to cause them make publick Repentance, &c.

That Vniformity may be observed in processes of Excommunication, It is ordained that Bishops, and Superintendents, &c. shall direct their Let­ters to Ministers, where the persons that are to be Excommunicated dwell; commanding the said Ministers to admonish accordingly, and in Case of Disobedience, to proceed to Excommunication, [Page 208] and pronounce the Sentence thereof, upon a Sunday, in time of Preaching; and, thereafter, the Ministers to indorse the said Letters, making mention of the days of their Admonitions, and Excommunication, for Disobedience aforesaid, and to report to the said Bishops, &c. according to the Direction contained in the said Letters.

Ib. 380. Petrie has the substance of most of these Acts, but has been at pains to obscure them. And no wonder; for here are so many Branches of true Episcopal power, esta­blished in the persons of these Bishops, that it could not but have appeared very strange, that a General Assembly should have con­ferred them on them, if there was such ane aversion then, to the Order, as he and his Fellows are willing to have the world be­lieve, there was. But

Honest Calderwood was wiser, for he hath not so much as ane intimation of any one of them. And Calderwood having thus concealed them, nay, generally, all alongst, whatever might make against his Cause, as much as he could; what wonder if G. R. who knows nothing in the matter, but what Calderwood told him, stumbled upon such a notable piece of Ignorance, in his first Vindication, as to tell the world, That Nothing was restored at Leith but the Image of Prelacy? That these Tulchan Bishops had only the Name of Bishops, while Noblemen and others had the Revenue, and the Church all the power? Nay, That, notwithstanding of all, was done at Leith, The real Exercise of Presbytery, in [Page 209] all its Meetings lesser and greater, continued and was allowed? But of this more hereafter.

The Assembly, holden at Eden. March 6. 1574. Concluded concerning the Iurisdiction of Bishops, in their Ecclesiastical Function, that it should not exceed the Iurisdiction of Superinten­dents, which, heretofore, they have had, and pre­sently have: And that they should be subject to the Discipline of the General Ass. as Members thereof, as Superintendents had been heretofore, in all sorts. And again, This Assembly Or­dains, That no Bishop give Collation of any Bene­fice within the bounds of Superintendents within his Diocess, without their Consent and Testimo­nials, subscribed with their hands: And that Bishops, within their Diocesses visit by themselves, where no Superintendent is; and give no Colla­tion of Benefices without the Consent of three well qualified Ministers.

Here indeed both Calderwood and Petrie Cald. 66. Pet. 383. appear briskly, and transcribe the Mss. word for word: Here was something like limiting the power of the Bishops; and that was ane opportunity not to be omit­ted. But, as I take it, there was no very great reason for this Triumph, if the true reason of these Acts be considered, as it may be collected from Spotswood and Petrie Spot. 272. Pet. 383. which was this,

The Earl of Mor [...]on, then Regent, and sordidly covetous, had flattered the Church out of their Possession of the Thirds of the Benefices; the only sure Stock, they could as yet claim, by any Law, made since the [Page 210] Reformation of Religion; promising, in­stead thereof, to settle local'd Stipends upon the Ministers; but having once obtain'd his end, which was to have the Thirds at his Disposal, he forgot his promise; and the Ministers found themselves miserably trickt. Three or four Churches were cast together, and committed to the Care of one Minister; and a Farthing, to live by, could not be got, without vast attendance, trouble and importunity. Besides, the Superintendents, who had had a principal hand in the Reformation, and were Men of great Repute, and had spent liberally of their own Estates in the Service of the Church, were as ill treated as any body: For when they sought their wonted allow­ances, they were told, there was no more use for them; Bishops were now restored; it was their Province to govern the Church: Superintendents were now superfluous and unnecessary. The Superintendents thus Mal treated, what wonder was it if they had their own Resentments of it? So, when, the General Assembly met, Areskin, Spotswood and Winram, three of them (and, by that time, 'tis probable, there were no more of them alive) came to the Assem­bly, offered to dimit their Offices, and were earnest that the Kirk would accept of their Dimission: They were now turn'd useless Members of the Ecclesiastical body; their Office was evacuated; they could serve no longer. The whole Assembly [Page 211] could not but know the matter; and as they knew for what reasons these ancient and venerable persons were so much irritated, so their own concern, in the same common interest, could not but prompt them to a fellow-feeling; they knew not how soon the next Mortonian Experiment might be tryed upon themselves; they, therefore, unanimously, refuse to accept of the Dimis­sion, and whither the Superintendents will or not, they continue them in their Offices; and not only so, but they thought it expe­dient to renew that Article of the Agreement at Leith, viz. ‘ That Bishops and Superinten­dents stood on the same Level, had the same Power, the same Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction; and were to be regulated by the same Canons:’ Importing thereby, that both were useful in the Church at such a juncture; and that the Church had not received Bishops to the Exauctoration of the few surviving Superintendents; and now, in their old age, rendring them contempti­ble. And who could condemn the Assem­bly for taking a course that was both so natural and so obvious? Nay, it was even the Bishops interest, as much as any other Assembly-mens to agree to this conclusion; For the great business in hand, was not about Extent of Power, or Point of Dignity; had no Incentive to Iealousie or Emulation in it; but it was about the Revenues of the Church: To secure these against the insa­tiable Avarice of a Griping Lord Regent. A [Page 212] point the Bishops were as nearly concerned in as any Men: For if these three Superin­tendents, who had so long born the heat of the day, and done such eminent and extra­ordinary services to the Church, should be once sacrificed to Mortons Covetousness, how easy might it be for him to make what farther Encroachments he pleased? How easy, to carry on his project against other men, who perhaps, had no such Merit, no such Repute, no such Interest in the Affections of the People? This, I say, was the Reason for which these two Acts were made in this Assembly; and not that the Assembly were turning weary of Bishops, or were become, any way, disaffected to them. So that Calderwood and Petrie had but little reason to be so boastful for these two Acts.

That it was not out of any Dislike to Episcopacy, that these two Acts were made, is clear, as Light, from the next Assembly, which met in August 1574. For therein the Clergy manifestly continuing of the same Principles, and proceeding on the same Reasons, order a Petition consisting of Nine Articles, to be drawn, and presented to the Regent. Calderwood, indeed, doth not mention this Petition. But it is in the Mss. and Petrie Pet. 384. talks of it, but disinge­nuously; for he mentions it only Overly, telling, That some Articles were sent unto the Lord Regent; and he sets down but two, whereas, as I said, there are Nine in the Mss. [Page 213] and most of them looking the Regents Sa­crilegious inclinations even Staringly in the Face. I shall only Transcribe such of them as cannot, when perpended, but be ac­knowledged to have tended that way. They are these:

1. That Stipends be granted to Superinten­dents, in all time coming, in all Countreys desti­tute thereof; whither it be where there is no Bi­shop, or where there are Bishops, who cannot discharge their Office, as the Bishops of St. An­drews and Glasgow; who had too large Diocesses. This Article Petrie hath but Minc'd: Indeed it is a very considerable one; For here you see, 1. That, in contradiction to the Regents purposes, the Assembly owns and stands by the Superintendents: They are so far from being satisfied to part with the Three, they had; that, on the contrary, they crave to have more, and to have pro­visions for them; and that, in all Coun­tries, where Bishops either are not; or are, but have too large Diocesses. 2. They crave these things For all times coming; a Clause of such importance to the main Question, that Petrie has, unfaithfully, left it out: And truly, I must confess, if it were lawful for Men to be Vnfaithful, when it might serve that which they conceived to be a Good End, he had great Reason, to try it, in this instance: For this Clause, when (not con­cealed, but) brought above board, gives a fatal Overthrow, to all these popular Plea's of Episcopacy's being then obtruded on [Page 214] the Church; forced upon her against her Will; tolerated only for a time, &c. For, from this Clause, it is as clear, as a Clause can make it, that this Assembly entertain'd no such imaginations. They supposed Epis­copacy was to continue for all time coming, For, for all time Coming, they petition that provision may be made for Superintendents, where no Bishops are, or where their Diocesses are too large for them.

2. The Second Article is, That in all Burghs, where the Ministers are displaced, and serve at other Kirks, these Ministers be restored to wait on their Cures, and be not obliged to serve at other Churches, &c. Directly striking a­gainst the Regents politick of Uniting three or four Churches under the Care of one Mi­nister. The

4. (Which Petrie also hath) is, That in all Churches destitute of Ministers, such persons may be planted as the Bishops, Superintendents and Commissioners shall name; and that Stipends be assigned to them. Ane Article, visibly, levell'd as the former.

5. That Doctors may be placed in Vniversi­ties; and Stipends granted them; whereby, not only they who are presently placed may have occa­sion to be diligent in their Cure; but other learned Men may have Occasion to seek places in Colleges. Still to the same purposes, viz. the finding reasonable Uses for the Patrimony of the Church.

6. That his Grace would take a General Order with the poor, especially in the Abbeys, such as [Page 215] are Aberbrothoick, &c. Conform to the Agree­ment at Leith. Here, not only the Leith-Agreement insisted on; but farther pious Vse for the Churches Patrimony.

9. That his Grace would cause the Books of the Assignation of the Kirk, be delivered to the Clerk of the General Assembly. These Books of Assignation, as they call them, were the Books, wherein the Names of the Mini­sters, and their several proportions of the Thirds were Recorded: It seems they were earnest to be repossessed of their Thirds, seeing the Regent had not kept promise to them. But

The Eighth Article, which, (by a par­donable inversion, I hope) I have reserved to the last place, is, of all, the most consi­derable. It is, That his Grace would provide Qualified persons for Vacant Bishopricks. Let the candid Reader judge, now, if Episco­pacy, by the Leith-Articles was forced upon the Church against her Inclinations? If it was never approven (when Bishops were thus petitioned for) by a General Assembly? If it be likely that the Assembly in August 1572. protested against it as a Corruption? If the Acts of the last Assembly, declaring Bishops to have no more power than Super­intendents had, and making them account­able to the General Assembly, proceeded from any Dislike of Episcopacy? If this Assembly, petitioning thus for Bishops, believed the divine and indispensible institution of Parity? If both Calderwood and Petrie acted [Page 216] not as became Cautious Pretbyterian Histori­ans; the One, by giving us None, the other, by giving us only a Minced account of this Petition? Well!

By this time, I think, I have not intirely disappointed my Reader: I think, I have made it competently appear, That the Agreement at Leith was fairly and frequently allowed, approven, and insisted on, by not a [...]ew subsequent General Assemblies. I could adduce some Acts more of the next Ass▪ which met at Eden. March 7. 1575. But, I think, I have already made good my Undertaking, and therefore I shall in­sist no further on this point: Only One thing I must add further; It is this.

After the most impartial, narrow, and attentive Search, I could make, I have not found, all this while, viz. from the first publick Establishment of the Reformed Religion in Scotland, Anno 1560. so much as One Indication of either publick or private Dislike to Prelacy; But that it, constantly, and uninterruptedly, prevailed, and all persons, chearfully as well as quietly sub­mitted to it, till the year 1575. when it was first called in Question. And here I might fairly shut up this long, and perhaps nauseous Discourse, upon the Second En­quiry which I proposed: For, whatever Men our Reformers were, whatever their other principles might be; I think I have made it plain, that they were not for the Divine Right of Parity, or the Vnlawfulness [Page 217] of the Superiority of any Office in the Church, a­bove Presbyters: No such principle was pro­sessed, or insisted on, or offered to be re­duced to practice, by them, Before, At, or full fifteen years After the publick Establish­ment of the Reformation: And if this may not pass for sufficient proof of the truth of my Resolution of the Enquiry, I know not what may. However, because

THE SECOND thing I promised to shew, tho not precisely necessary to my main design, may yet be so far useful, as to bring considerably more of Light to it; and withal, give the world a prospect of the Rise and Progress of Presbytery in Scotland, I shall endeavour to make good my Under­taking; which was, that, after Episcopacy was question'd, it was not easily overturn'd; Its Adversaries met with much Resistance, and Opposition, in their Endeavors to sub­vert it. I shall study brevity as much as the weight of the matter will allow me. In short then; take it thus.

Master Andrew Melvil, after some years spent at Geneva, returned to Scotland in Iuly 1574. He had lived▪ in that City, under the influences of Theodore Beza, the true parent of Presbytery. He was a Man, by Nature, fierce and fiery, confident and peremptory, peevish and ungovernable: Education, in him, had not sweetned Na­ture, but Nature had sowred Education; and both conspiring together, had trickt him up into a true Original; a piece com­pounded [Page 218] of pride and petulance, of jeer and jangle, of Satyr and Sarcasm; of venome and vehemence: He hated the Crown as much as the Mitre, the Scepter as much as the Crosier, and could have made as bold with the Purple Cald. 329. as with the Rochet: Ib. 548. His prime Talent was Lampooning and wri­ting Anti-tami-Cami-Categorias's. In a word, He was the very Archetypal Bitter Beard of the Party.

This Man thus accoutred, was scarcely warm at home, when he began to dissemi­nate his sentiments, insinuate them into others, and make a party against Prelacy, and for the Genevian Model. For this I need not depend on Spotswoods Authority, tho he asserts it plainly: Spot. 275. I have a more Authen­tick Author for it, if more Authentick can be: I have Melvil himself for it, in a Let­ter to Beza dated Novem. 13. 1579. (to be found both in Petrie Pet. 401. and in the Pamphlet called Vindiciae Philadelphi, from which Pe­trie had it) of which Letter, the very first words are, we have not ceased these five years to fight against Pseudepiscopacy, &c. Now rec­kon five years backward, from Novem. 1579. and you stand at November 1574. whereby we find that within three or four Months, after his arrival, the Plot was begun, tho' it was near to a year thereafter, before it came above-board.

Having thus projected his work, and form­ed his party, the next care was to get one to Table it fairly: He himself was but late­ly [Page 219] come home; he was much a Stranger in the Country, having been ten years abroad: He had been but at very few General Assemblies, if at any; his influence was but green and budding; his Authority but young and tender: It was not fit for him, amongst his First Appearances, to propose so great ane Innovation. And, it seems, the Thinking Men of his Party, however resolutely they might promise to back the Motion, when, once, fairly Tabled, were yet a little shy to be the first Proposers: So, it fell to the share of one, who, at that time, was none of the greatest Statesmen.

Iohn Durie, one of the Ministers of Eden­burgh, was the person; as Spotswood describes him, Spot. 457. A sound hearted Man, far from all Dissimulation, open, professing what he thought, earnest and zealous in his Cause, whatever it was; but too too credulous, and easily to be im­posed on. However, (that I may do him as much justice, as Spotswood has done him before me.) A Man he was, who thought no Shame to acknowledge his Error, when he was convinced of it. For so it was, that, when, after many years Experience, he had satisfied himself, that Parity had truly proved the Parent of Confusion, and disap­pointed all his Expectations; and when, through Age and Sickness, he was not able, in person, to attend the General Assembly, Anno 1600. he gave Commission to some Brethren to tell them, as from him, That there was a Necessity of restoring the Ancient [Page 220] Government of the Church, &c. Such was the Man, I say, to whose share it fell to be the first, who, publickly, questioned the Law­fulness of Prelacy in Scotland; which was not done till the Sixth day of August 1575. as I said before, no less than full fifteen years after the first legal Establishment of our Scottish Reformation. And so I come to my purpose.

On this Sixth of August 1575. the Gen. Ass. met at Edenburgh, according to the Order, then, observed in General Assem­blies; the First thing done, after the As­sembly was constituted, was, the Tryal of the Doctrine, Diligence, Lives, &c. of the Bishops and other constant Members: So, while this was a doing, Iohn Durie stood up and protested, That the Tryal of the Bishops might not prejudge the Opinions and Rea­sons, which he and other Brethren of his Mind, had, to propose against the Office and Name of a Bishop. Mss. Pet. 385. Spot. 275. Cald. 68. Thus was the fatal Controversie set on foot, which, since, hath brought such Miseries and Calamities on the Church and Kingdom of Scotland.

The Hare thus started, Melvil, the Ori­ginal Huntsman, strait pursued her: He presently began a long, and, no doubt, premeditated Harangue; commended Du­rie's Zeal, enlarged upon the flourishing State of the Church of Geneva, insisted on the Sentiments of Calvin and Beza concern­ing Church Government; and, at last affirmed, That none ought to be Office-bearers in the Church, [Page 221] whose Titles were not found in the Book of God: That the the Title of Bishops was found in Scri­pture, yet, it was not to be understood in the Sense, then, current: That Iesus Christ, the only Lord of his Church, allowed no Superiority amongst the Ministers, but had instituted them all, in the same Degree, and had endued them with equal power: Concluding, That the Cor­ruptions, which had crept into the Estate of Bishops were so great, as, unless the same were removed, it could not go well with the Church, nor could Religion be long preserved in Purity. Spot. 275. Pet. 387.

The Controversie thus plainly stated, Mr. David Lindesay, Master George Hay, and Master Iohn Row, three Episcopalians, were appointed to confer and reason upon the Question proponed with Mr. Andrew Mel­vil, Mr. Iames Lawson, and Mr. Iohn Craig; two Presbyterians, and one, much indiffe­rent for both sides. After diverse Meetings, and long Disceptation saith Spotswood, Spot. 275. after two days, saith Petrie, Pet. 386. they presented these Conclusions to the Assembly, which, at that time, they had agreed upon.

1. They think it not expedient, presently, to answer, directly, to the First Question. But if any Bishop shall be chosen, who hath not such Qualities as the word of God requires, let him be tryed by the General Assembly De Novo, and so deposed.

2. The Name Bishop is common to all them who have particular Flocks, over which they have particular Charges, to preach the Word, admi­nister the Sacraments, &c.

[Page 222]3. Out of this Number may be chosen some to have power to Oversee and Visit such reasonable Bounds, beside his own Flock, as the General Kirk shall appoint; and, in these bounds, to ap­point Ministers, with Consent of the Ministers of that Province, and of the Flock to whom they shall be appointed. Also, to appoint Elders and Deacons in every principal Congregation, where there are none, with Consent of the People thereof; and to suspend Ministers, for reasonable Causes, with Consent of the Ministers aforesaid. So the Mss. Spot. Pet. Cald. Spot. 275. Pet. 386. Cald. 69.

'Tis true, here are some things, which, perhaps, when thoroughly examined, will not be found so exactly agreeable to the Sentiments and Practice of the Primitive Church. However, 'tis evident, for this Bout, the Imparity-men carried the day; and it seems the Parity-men have not yet been so well fixed for the Divine and indispensible Right of it, as our Modern Parity-men would think needful; otherwise, how came they to consent to such Conclusions? How came they to yield that it was not expedient, at that time, to answer directly to the first Question, which was concerning the Law­fulness of Episcopacy? Were they of the Modern Principles, G. R's Principles? Did they think that Divine institutions might be dispensed with, crossed, according to the Exigencies of Expediency or Inexpediency? What ane Honour is it to the Party if their first Hero's were such Casuists? Besides, is not the Lawfulness of imparity clearly im­ported [Page 223] in the Third Conclusion? Indeed both Calderwood and Petrie acknowledge so much.

Calderwood Cal. 69. saith, It seemeth that by Reason of the Regents Authority, who was bent upon the Course ( i. e. Episcopacy) whereof he was the chief Instrument, that they answered not directly, at this time, to the Question. Here, you see, he owns that nothing, at this time was concluded against the Course, as he calls it; whither he had reason, to say, It seemed to be upon such ane account, shall be con­sidered afterward.

Petrie Pet. 387. acknowledges it too; but in such a passion, it seems, as quite mastered his Prudence, when he did it; for these are his words. Howbeit in these Conclusions they express not the Negative, because they would not plainly oppose the particular interest of the Council, seeking security of the Possessions, by the Title of Bishops; yet these Affirmatives take away the pretended Office. Now let the world consider the Wisdom of this Author in advancing this fine period. They did not express the Nega­tive, (they did not condemn Episcopacy) because they would not plainly oppose the particular interest of the Council, seeking Security of the Possessions, &c. Now let us enquire who were these, They, who would not, for this reason condemn Epis­copacy, at that time? It must either belong to the Six Collocutors who drew the Concusions, or to the whole Assembly: If to the Collocutors, 'tis plain, Three of them, viz. Row, Hay, and Lindesay [Page 224] were innocent; they were perswaded in their Minds of the Expediency (to say no further) as well as the Lawfulness of Episco­pacy, and I think that was reason enough for them not to condemn it. The Presbyterian Brethren, then, if any, were the persons who were moved not to condemn it, be­cause they would not plainly oppose the particular interest of the Council, &c. But if so, hath not Master Petrie made them very brave fellows? Hath he not fairly made them such friends to Sacrilege, that they would rather baulk a divine Institution, than interrupt its Course, and offend its Votaries? If by the word, They, he meant the General Assem­bly; if the whole Assembly were they, who would not express the Negative, because they would not oppose, &c. I think, Mr. Petrie, were he alive, would have enough to do, to prove that that was the Reason they were determin'd by. What? Had the whole Church quate all their pretensions, they insisted on so much, on every Occasion? Had they now given over their Claim to the Revenues of the Church? Shall I declare my poor opinion in this matter? I am apt to believe that it was one of the great Ar­guments insisted on by the Three Episcopa­lian Collocutors, at that time, ‘That if Episcopacy should be concluded unlawful, and, by consequence, overturned, the Patrimony of the Church would undoubt­edly go to wreck; The hungry Courtiers would presently possess themselves of the [Page 225] Revenues belonging to the Bishops:’

Sure I am, as things then stood, there was all the Reason in the world for insist­ing on this Argument: But to pass this. Petrie it seems was not content with giving the quite contrary of that, which in all pro­bability, was the true Reason, at least one of the true Reasons, for not overturning Episcopary at that time; But he behoved to add something more Extravagant: He behoved to add That the Affirmatives in the aforesaid conclusions took away the pretended Office of Episcopacy. What might he not have said, after this? It seems, that in this Authors opinion, all is one thing, to assert the Lawfulness of ane Office, and thereupon to continue it, and to take it away. But perhaps I may be blamed for taking so much notice of ane angry mans Excesses, For no doubt it was anger that such conclu­sions should have been made, that hurtied him upon such Extravagances; and there­fore I shall leave him, and return to my threed.

By what I have told, it may be easy to judge, how cold the first Entertainment was, which Parity got when it was pro­posed to the General Assembly: and so much the more, if it be further considered that, by this same Assembly, some 8 or 9 Articles were ordered to be presented to My Lord Regents Grace, whereof the First (as I find it in the MS. and in Petrie himself Pet. 385. tho' neither so fully nor so fairly) was this.

[Page 226] Imprimis, for planting and preaching the word, thro' the whole Realm, It is Desired, that so many Ministers as may be had, who are yet unplaced, may be received, as well in the Coun­trey, to relieve the charge of them who have many Kirks, as otherwise, throughout the whole Realm, with Superintendents or Commissioners within these Bonnds where Bishops are not, and to help such Bishops as have too great Charges: And that Livings be appointed to the aforesaid Persons: and also payment to them who have travelled before, as Commissioners, in the years of God 1573. and 1574. and so forth, in time coming, without which, the travels of such Men will cease.

This I say is the First of many Articles ordered by this Assembly for the Regent; From which it is Evident, not only, that Mr. Melvils Project made little, or no pro­gress, at this time, but also that the Assem­bly continued firm and stedfast in the same very intentions, and of the same very Principles, which had prevailed in former Assemblies, viz. to stop the uniting of Chur­ches; to multiply the number of persons cloathed with Prelatick power; To continue that power in the Church; and by all means to secure her Patrimony and guard against, and Exclude all alienations of it.

Melvil and his Partisans, thus successless in their first attempt, but withal, once engaged and resolved not to give over, began, it seems, against the next Assembly to reflect on what they had done, and perceive that they had mistaken their mea­sures: [Page 227] And indeed it was a little precipi­tantly done, at the very first, to state the Question simply and absolutely upon the Lawfulness or Vnlawfulness of Episcopacy, in the General, as they had stated it. It was a new Question which had never been sta­ted in the Church of Scotland before: And it could not but be surprizing to the greatest part of the Assembly. Thus to call in Question the Lawfulness of ane Office which had been so early, so universally, so usefully, so incontestedly, received by the Catholick Church. This was a point of great impor­tance: For, to Declare that Office Vnlaw­ful, what was it else than to condemn all these Churches, in the primitive times, which had own'd it and flourish't under it? What else than to condemn the Scottish Reformation and Reformers, who had never Question'd it, but, on the contrary, had proceeded all, alongst, on principles which, clearly supposed its Lawfulness, if not its Necessity? Nay, was it not to condemn, particularly, all these General Assemblies which, immediately before, had so much Authorized and confirm'd it? Besides, as hath been already observed, to Declare Episcopacy Vnlawful was, unavoidably, to stifle all these projects, they had been so industriously forming for recovering the Churches Patrimony: And not only so, but to expose it more and more to be devoured by the voracious Laity. It was Plain, it could no sooner be declared Vn­lawful, [Page 228] than it behoved to be parted with; and turn out the Bishops, once, and what would become of the Bishopricks? Nay, to turn them out, what was it else, than, to undo the whole Agreement at Leith, which was the greatest security, the Church, then, had for her Patrimony? For these and the like reasons, I say, laying aside the impiety, and insisting only on the imprudence of the Melvilian Project, it was, no doubt, pre­cipitantly done, at the very first, to make that the State of the Question: And it was no wonder if the Assembly was unanimous in agreeing to the conclusions which had been laid before them by the six Collocutors: Nay, it was no wonder if Melvil and his Party, sensible of their errour, and willing to cover it, the best way they could, yielded, for that time, to the other Three, who had, so visibly, the advantage of them, at least, in the point of the Churches interest: And therefore,

At the next Assembly, which was holden at Edenburgh, April 24. 1576. they altered the State of the Question, as Spotswood ob­serves, Spot. 276. and made it this, Whether Bishops, as they were then in Scotland, had their Function warranted by the word of God? But even thus stated, at that time, it avail'd them no­thing: For, (as it is in the MS.) The whole Assembly, for the most part, after Reasoning and long Disputation upon every Article of the Bre­threns (viz. the six Collocutors) opinion and advice, resolutely approved and affirmed the same, [Page 229] and every Article thereof, as the same was given in by them. And then the Articles are Repeated.

Calderwood and Petrie do both shuffle over the state of the Question, Cald. 72. Pet. 387. but, upon the matter, they give the same account of the Assembly's Resolution: However, I thought fit to take it in the words of the MS. the very stile importing that they are the most Authentick. And in this Resolution we may observe these three things.

• 1. That whatever the Melvilian Party might then be, They were but the smaller Party: The whole Assembly for the most part, that is, as I take it, the far greater part of the Assembly was against them.
• 2. That the whole Assembly for the most part seem to have been seriously perswaded they were in the right, and did not approve and affirm these Articles either indeliberately or faintly; For it was after Reasoning and long Dis­putation, that they approved and affirmed them, and they were sufficiently Keen in the matter, for they did it Resolutely.
• 3. The Melvilian Party were over-voted, even as the Question was, then, Stated: The whole Assembly for the most part, stood for Episcopacy as it was then established in Scotland, and would not declare it Unlawful. From all which, I leave to the world to judge, if Presbyterian parity did not meet with opposition, with very great opposition, at its first appearances in Scotland: Neither was this all.

[Page 230]As this General Assembly did thus stand its ground, and appeared for Imparity, so it continued of the same sentiments and Re­solutions with former Assemblies, in the Matter of the Churches Patrimony; For, By it, it was resolved also, That they might proceed against unjust possessors of the Patrimony of the Church, in respect of the Notorious Scan­dal, not only by Doctrine and Admonition, but with the Censures of the Church, and that the Patrimony of the Church, whereupon the Church, the Poor and the Schools should be maintained, was ex jure divino. So 'tis in the MS. and so Petrie hath it: Pet. 387. Well! Did the Parity­men gain no ground in this Assembly? Yes, they did: Two things they obtained, which were very useful for them afterwards. They obtained

• 1. And Act to be made That the Bishops should be obliged to take the charge of particular Congregations. 'Tis true, the Assembly could not get this refused after they had approved and affirmed the above-mentioned Articles. For, it was fairly deduceable both from the second and third: But then, it is plain, this Act did militate nothing against the Essentials of Episcopacy: It was highly consistent with Imparity amongst the Go­vernours of the Church: and the Articles evidently import as much: However, as I said, this proved very serviceable to the Melvilian Party, afterwards, as we shall hear. But this was not the worst of it: For
• [Page 231]2. The Earl of Morton, then, Regent (whatever the Presbyterian Historians talk of his being so much for Episcopacy) made a very ill-favoured, as well as a very fatal step in the time of this Assembly: Take it in Spotswoods words,
  Spot. 276.
  The Regent hearing how the Church had proceeded, and taking ill the Deposition of Master James Patton Bishop of Dunkeld, who was, in the former Assembly, deprived for Dilapidation of his benifice, sent to require of them (this Assembly met in April 1576) whether they would stand to the Policy agreed unto at Leith? And if not, to desire them to settle upon some form of Government at which they would abide.

The Champions for Parity had fairly met with a second repulse from this Assembly, as I have discoursed, and if all concerned had acted their parts, as they might and ought to have done, and as the cause required, 'tis highly credible, that Mother of confusion might have been quit crush't and stifled for ever: But that was not done; The Prelates themselves were negligent and un­active, as Spotswood intimates, Spot. 276. and here, the Regent made this proposition. A pro­position, than which, none could be made more surprizingly obliging and acceptable to the Presbyterian Party. All things consi­dered, it was the very thing, the common principles of conduct might have taught them to have askt, next, if they had had things for the asking; For what can fall out more luckily for those who have a mind to [Page 232] innovate, than to have the old foundations shaken, and leave allowed to erect new Mo­dels? So ill-favoured (I say) was this step, which, at this time, was made by Morton, who, by the exigencies of his station, was bound to have guarded against all innova­tions, especially such as had so natural a tendency to disturb the publick peace; and therefore I must ask my Readers allowance to make a little digression, if it may be called a digression, and discourse this Question,

Whether it may not be thought probable that Morton made this proposition Delibe­rately, and from ane Intention to Cherish the Presbyterian Party, and encourage their humor for innovating, and confounding the Peace of the Church?

This, perhaps, at first sight, may seem a bold Question, as not only being New, but apparently Crossing the received accounts of our Presbyterian Historians; But if I can make the affirmative very probable (if not evident) I am apt to think, it may bring no small accessions of light to the present subject I am insisting on, viz. how Pres­byterianism was first introduced into Scot­land? I will therefore lay down my Reasons for it, that the world may judge of them; and

1. That which I have already descoursed, seems to be a very fair Argument that Morton made this proposition, intentionally, to give scope and slackened Reins to the Pres­byterian Party; For if he had not made it; [Page 233] if he had resolved to stand by the Agreement at Leith; if he had been serious for the Established Government and Peace of the Church; It had been easy for him to have supprest all Melvil's Projects for innovation. He had visibly, the major part of this Assembly, of his side, if that had been his Aim; No appearance that the Body of the People was then infected with the principles of Parity. The Nobility were generally for the old constitution, as is evident from no less Authority than Melvil's own, in his Letter to Beza cited before, in which he tells him, He and his Party had many of the Peers against them; Pet. 401. where, then, was there the least difficulty of Crushing the Coccatrice in the Egg, if he had had a mind for it? Besides, how inconsistent was the making of this proposition with the Integrity and Honesty of a Regent? The King was, then, a Minor; The Nation had but just, then, emerged out of a vast Ocean of civil broyls and troubles, which had long harassed it, and kept it in confusion; nothing more improper for it than to be involved again, instantly, in jarrs and discords; So that if he had no such Plot, as I am endeavouring to make probable he had, he was, cer­tainly, very unfortunate in granting such a Liberty; For, considering all things, it looks so very like a Plot, that it cannot but be very hard to perswade a thinking man that there was none. Especially if it be consi­dered

[Page 234]2. That he was a Man, who had latitude enough, to do ill things, if he thought them subservient to his interest. He was wretchedly Covetous, as all Historians agree: And that vice alone disposes a Man for the worst things. He hath observed little of the affairs of the world, and the extrava­gances of Mankind, who has not observed Avarice and a sordid temper to have put Men on the most abominable courses: who hath not observed, who hath not seen, that Men have sold Religion, Honour, Con­science, Loyalty, Faith, Friendship, every thing that's sacred, for Money? Now by making this proposition, He projected a very fair opportunity for gratifying this his predomining appetite. He had so anxiously coveted the Emoluments of the Arch-Bishop­rick of St. Andrews in the year 1571 (as Sir Iames Melvil tells us in his Memoirs Mel. Mem. 110. that meeting with a repulse, he forsook the Court, and was so much discontented, that he would not return to it, till Randolf the English Ambassadour perswaded Lennox, then Regent, to give it to him; Promising that the Queen of England should recom­pence it to him with greater advantage. How much of that Bishoprick he had conti­nued still to possess, after the Agreement at Leith, and Douglass's advancement to that Arch-Bishoprick, I cannot tell; But it is not to be doubted, whatever it was, it sharp­ened his stomack for more of the Chur­ches Revenues; and now, the juncture [Page 235] made wonderfully for him; For, as he had found by experience, and many Acts of Assemblies, &c. That the Church, careful of her interests, and watchful over her Patrimony, was no ways inclined to sit still and suffer her self to be cheated, and plun­dered, according to his hungry inclinations; but was making, and like to continue to make vigorous opposition to all such sacri­legious purposes, so long as she continued united, and settled on the foot on which she then stood; So he found, that, now, Contention was arising within her own Bowels, and a Party was appearing zealous for innovations, and her peace and unani­mity were like to be broken and divided; and what more proper for him, in these circumstances, than to lay the reins on their necks, and cast a further bone of Contention amongst them? He knew full well what it was to fish in troubled waters, as Sir Iames Melvil observes of him, Mel. Mem. Ibid. and so 'tis more than probable he would not neglect such ane opportunity, still so much the more, if it be considered,

3. That whatever professions he might have made, in former times, of good af­fection to Episcopal Government, yet there is little reason to think that his Conscience was interested in the matter; For besides that covetous, selfish, subtle men, such as he was, use not to allow themselves to stand too precisely upon all the Dictates of a Nice and tender Conscience; The Divine [Page 236] Right of Episcopacy, (the true fund for ma­king it matter of Conscience) in these times was not much asserted or thought on: That was not, till several years afterwards, when the Controversies about the Govern­ment of the Church came to be sifted more narrowly: It is commonly acknowledged that the main Argument which prevailed with him to appear for Episcopacy, was its aptitude for being part of a fund for a good Correspondence with England. Spotswood tells us, Spot. 276. that one of the Injunctions which he got when he was made Regent, was, That he should be careful to entertain the Amity contracted with the Queen of England. And Calderwood saith thus expressly of him, Cald. 66. His great intention was to bring in conformity with England, in the Church Government, without which, he thought, he could not Govern the Coun­trey to his Fantasie, or, that, Agreement could stand long between the two Countreys. And a­gain, Cald. 80. He pressed his own injunctions and Con­formity with England. Now this being the great motive that made him so much in­clined, at any time, for Episcopal Govern­ment; It is to be considered,

4. That, however prevalent this might be with him, when, first, he was advanced to the Regency, civil Dissentions raging then, and the Party, of which he was the Head, being unable to subsist, unless sup­ported by England; Yet now, that all these Dissentions were ended, and the Countrey quieted, and things brought to some appea­rance [Page 237] of a durable settlement; His Depen­dance on England might prompt him to alter his scheme, and incline him to give scope to the Presbyterian wild-fire in Scotland. To set this presumption in its due light, Two things are to be a little further enquired into▪

• 1. If it is probable that Queen Elizabeth was willing that the Presbyterian humor should be Encouraged in Scotland?
• 2. If Morton depended so much on her, as to make it feasible that he might be subser­vient to her Designs, in this Politick? As for the

First, this is certain, it was still one of Queen Elizabeth's great cares to Encourage confusions in Scotland. She knew her own Title was Questionable, as I have observed before; and tho' that had not been, yet, without Question the Scottish blood had the next best Title to the English Crown: and as 'tis Natural to most People to worship the rising Sun, especially when he looks Bright and Glorious; when he has no Clouds about him; I mean, the Apparent Heir of a Throne, when he is in a prosperous and flourishing condition; So, 'tis as Natural for the Regnant Prince to be jealous of him. Therefore, I say Queen Elizabeth, for her own security, did still what she could to Kindle wildfire in Scotland, and keep it burning, when it was Kindled. Thus, in the year 1560. She assisted the Scottish subjects against their Native Soveraign (her jealoused Com­petitrix) [Page 238] both with Men and Money, as I have told before: And Anno 1565. She countenanced the Scottish Lords who began to raise tumults about the Scottish Queens Marriage with the Lord Darnley; She furnisht them with money, and harbour'd them when they were forced to flee for it. And how long did She foment our Civil wars after they brake out Anno 1567? What dubious Responses did She give, all the time She Vmpir'd it, between the Queen of Scotland and those who appeared for her Son? And is it not very well known that She had ane hand in the Road of Ruthven 1582, and in all our Scottish seditions, Generally? Sir Iames Melvil in his Memoirs gives us enough of her Practices that way: He lived in these times, and was acquainted with intrigues; and he tells us, Mel. Mem. 135. ‘That Randolf came with Lennox (when he came to Scotland, to be Regent, after Murray's death) to stay here as English Resident: That this Randolf's great imploy­ment was to foster discords, and increase Divisions among the Scots, particularly, That he used Craft with the Ministers, Ibid. 109. offering Gold to such of them as he thought could be prevail'd with to accept his offer: 'Tis true he adds, But such as were honest refused his gifts: But this says not that none took them; and who knows but the most Fiery might have been foremost at receiving? It hath been so, since; Even when it was the Price of the best blood in Britain. But to go on; Sir Iames tells further Ibid. 113. that [Page 239] Morton and Randolf contrived the Plot of keeping the Parliament at Stirling 1571. to forefault all the Queens Lords, thereby to Crush all hopes of Agreement: That he was so much hated in Scotland for being such ane Incendiary, that he was forced to return to England; Mr. Henry Kellegrew suc­ceeding in his stead, in Scotland; Ibid. 115. that this Killegrew, at a private meeting told himself plainly, Ibid. 116. that he was come to Scotland with a Commission, contrary to his inclinations, which was to encourage Faction, &c.’ Thus practiced Queen Eli­zabeth, and such were her Arts and influ­ences in Scotland, before she had the oppor­tunity of improving the Presbyterian humour to her purposes: And can it be imagined she would not encourage it when once it got sooting? Certainly she understood it, bet­ter than so: The Sect had set up a Presbytery at Wandsworth in Surrey in the year 1572, four years before Morton made this Proposi­tion, seven years before a Presbytery was so much as heard of in Scotland; No doubt she knew the Spirit well enough, and how apt and well suited, it was for keeping a State in disorder and trouble. Nay, I have heard from knowing Persons, that, to this very day, the Treasury Books of England (if I remember right, sure I am, some English record or other) bear the Names of such Scottish Noblemen and Ministers, as were that Queens Pensioners; and what allowances they got for their Services, in fostering and che­rishing [Page 240] seditions and confusions in their Na­tive Countrey; From this sample, I think, it is easy to collect at least, that it is highly probable that Queen Elizabeth was very willing that the Presbyterian humour should be encouraged in Scotland. Let us try

2. If Morton depended so much on her, as may make it credible that he was subser­vient to her Designs in this Politick? And here the work is easy; For he was her very Creature: he stood by her, and he stood for her. Randolf and he were still in one bottom, Ibid. 110. The whole Countrey was abused by Randolf and Morton. Morton and Randolf contrived the Par­liament 1571. Mentioned before. When Lennox the Regent was killed; Randolf was earnest to have Morton succeed him, Ibid. 115. Randolf had no Credit but with Morton, Ibid. Killegrew told Sir James Melvil at the Private Meeting, mentioned before, p. 116. That the Queen of Eng­land and her Council built their course, neither on the late Regent Lennox, nor the present Mar, but intirely on the Earl of Morton, as only true to their interests. Morton after Mar's death was made Regent, England helping it with all their Might. Ibid. 118. And again in that same page, Sir Iames tells that those who were in the Castle of Edenburgh, and stood for Queen Mary's Title, were so sensible of all this, that when Morton sent the same Sir Iames to propose ane accommodation to them, He found it very hard to bring on ane Agree­ment between them and Morton, for the evil opinion that was then conceived of him, and the [Page 241] hurtful marks they supposed by proofs and appea­rances, that he would shoot at, being by Nature Covetous, and too great with England. And to make all this plainer, yet, Sir Iames tells us that Morton entertaind a Secret Grudge against his Pupil, the Young King. He was ever jealous that the King would be his Ruine. M. Mem. 118. And England gave greater Assistances to Morton, than to any former Regents, for they believed he aim'd at the same mark, with them­selves, viz. to intricate the Kings affairs, out of old jealousies between the Stuarts and the Douglases. Ibid. 123. Now,

Let all these things be laid together, and then let the judicious consider if it is not more than probable, That as England had a main hand in the advancement of our Reforma­tion, so it was not wanting to contribute for the encouragement of Presbytery also; and that Morton playing England's game, which was so much interw [...]e [...] with his own, made this ill favoured Proposition to this Gen. Ass. But however this was, [...]l [...]her he had such a Plot or not; It is clea [...] that his making this proposition, had all the effects he could have projected by being on such a Plot. For

No sooner had he made this Proposition than it was greedily entertain'd; It Answer­ed the Melvilian wishes; and it was easy for them to find colourable Topicks for obtaining the consent of the rest of the As­sembly; For most part of them were ready to acknowledge that there were Defects, and things to be mended in the Agreement [Page 242] at Leith: And it had been received by the General Assembly in August 1572. for ane Interim only: The revising of that Agreement, might end some Controversies; and the Regent having made this Proposition, it was not to be doubted, but he would Ra­tify what they should Unanimously agree to, &c. These and the like Arguments I say, might, ('tis clear, some Arguments did) prevail with the Assembly to entertain the Proposition: For

A commission was forthwith drawn to nineteen or twenty Persons, to Compose a Second Book of Discipline; MS. Cald. 73. Pet. 387. a step by which at that time the Presbyterian got a wonder­ful advantage over the other Party; For not only were Melvil and Lawson the two first Rate Presbyterians nominated amongst these Commissioners; But they had their business much pr [...]meditated; They had spent much thinking about it; and it is not to be doubted, they had Mr. Beza bespoken to provide them with all the Assistance, he and his Colleagues, at Geneva, could afford them: Whereas the rest were Generally very ignorant in Controversies of that Na­ture: They had all alongst, before that, imployed themselves mainly in the Popish Controversies; and had not troubled their heads much about the Niceties of Government; They had taken the Ancient Government, so far, at least, as it subsisted by imparity, upon trust, as they found, it had been Practiced in all ages of the Church; percei­ving [Page 243] a great deal of Order and Beauty in it; and nothing that naturally tended to have a bad influence, on either the principles or the life of serious Christianity: And with that they were satisfied: Indeed even the best of them seem to have had very little skill in the true fountains whence the solid subsistence of the Episcopal Order was to be derived; The Scriptures I mean, not as Glossed by the Private Spirit of every Modern Novelist, but as interpreted and understood by the First ages; as sensed by the constant and universal practice, of Genuine, Pri­mitive and Catholick Antiquity.

This charge of Ignorance, in the Con­troversies about the Government of the Church, which I have brought against the Scottish Clergy, in these times, will certainly leave a blot upon my self, if I cannot prove it: But if I can prove it, it is clear, it is of considerable importance in the present dis­quisition, and helps much for coming, by a just comprehension, to understand how Presbytery was introduced into Scotland. And therefore I must again beg my Readers patience, till I adduce some evidences for it. And

First, The truth of this charge may be obviously collected from the whole train of their proceedings, and management, about the Government of the Church, from the very first Establishment of the Reformation: For however they Established a Govern­ment which clearly subsisted by imparity, as [Page 244] I have fully proven, and which was all I still aim'd at, yet, it is easy to Discover they were very far from keeping Closely by the Principles and Measures of the pri­mitive constitution of Church Govern­ment. This is so very apparent to any who Reads the Histories of these times, and is so visible in the Deduction I have made, that I shall insist no longer on it.

Secondly, The truth of my charge may further appear, from the Instance of Adam­son, advanced, this year 1576, to the Arch­bishoprick of St. Andrews. That Nature had furnished him with a good stock, and he was a smart Man, and cultivated beyond the ordinary Size, by many parts of good Literature, is not denyed by the Presbyte­rian Historians themselves; They never at­tempt to represent him as a Fool or a Dunce, tho' they are very eager to have him a Man of Tricks and Latitude. ‘ Now this Prelates ignorance in true Antiquity is Remarkably visible in his subscribing to these Proposi­tions (Anno 1580, if we may believe Calder­wood, Cald. 93.94. The Power and Authority of all Pastors is equal, and alike great, amongst themselves. The Name, Bishop, is Relative to the Flock, and not to the Eldership; For he is Bishop of his Flock, and not of other Pastors, or fellow Elders; As for the Preheminence that one beareth over the rest, it is the Invention of Man, and not the Institution of Holy Writ.’ That the ordaining and appointing of Pastors which is also called the laying on of hands, appertaineth not to one Bishop [Page 245] only, so being, Lawful Election pass before; but to those of the same Province or Presbytery, and with the like Iurisdiction and Authority, Minister at their Kirks. That in the Council of Nice for eschewing of private ordaining of Ministers, it was statuted, that no Pastor should be appointed without the consent of him, who dwelt or remained in the Chief and Principal City of the Province, which they called the Metropolitan City. That after, in the latter Councils, it was statuted, (that things might proceed more solemnly and with grea­ter Authority) that the laying on of hands upon Pa­stors, after Lawful Election, should be by the Me­tropolitan, or Bishop of the Chief and principal Town, the rest of the Bishops of the Province voting there­to; In which thing, there was no other Prerogative, but only that of the Town, which, for that cause, was thought most meet both for the conveening of the Council, and Ordaining of Pastors with com­mon Consent and Authority. That the Estate of the Church was corrupt, when the name, Bishop, which before, was common to the rest of the Pa­stors of the Province, began, without the Au­thority of Gods Word and ancient Custome of the Kirk to be attributed to one. That the power of appointing and ordaining Ministers, and Ruling of Kirks with the whole procuration of Ecclesiasti­cal Discipline, was, now, only, devolved to one Metropolitan; The other Pastors no ways chal­lenging their Right and Privilege therein, of very slothfulness, on the one part; And the Devil, on the other, going about, craftily, to lay the ground of the Papistical Supremacy.

From these and such other Propositions, [Page 246] sign'd by him, at that time, it may be judg­ed, I say, if this Prelate did not bewray a very profound ignorance in true Ecclesia­stical Antiquity? Ane Arrant Presbyterian could not have said, could not have wished more Indeed, 'tis more than probable (as perchance may appear by and by) that these Propositions were taken out, (either formally, or by collection) of Mr. Beza's Book De Triplici Episcopatu. Now if Adamson was so little seen in such matters, what may we judge of the rest? But this is not all, For

Thirdly, There cannot be a greater Evi­dence of the deplorable unskilfulness of the Clergy, in these times, in the ancient records of the Church, than their suffering Melvil and his Party to obtrude upon them, The Second Book of Discipline; A split new Democratical Systeme; a very Farce of No­velties never heard of before in the Christian Church. For instance; What else is the confounding of the Offices of Bishops and Presby­ters? Cap. [...]. §. 9. The making Doctors or Professors of Divinity in Colledges and Vniversities a distinct Office, and, of Divine Institution? Ibid. & Cap. 5. per. tot. The set­ting up of Lay-Elders, as Governours of the Church, Jure Divino? Making them Iudges of mens Qualifications to be admitted to the Sa­crament? Visiters of the Sick, &c. Cap. 8▪ per tot. Making the Colleges of Presbyters, in Cities, in the primitive times, Lay Eldership? Cap. 7. §. 16. Prohibiting Appeals from Scottish General Assemblies to any Iudge Civil or Ecclesiastick? Cap. [...]2. §. 8. and by consequence to Oecumenick Councils. Are not these Ancient [Page 247] and Catholick Assertions? What footsteps of these things in true Antiquity? How easy had it been for men skilled in the Con­stitution, Government and Discipline of the Primitive Church to have laid open, to the Conviction of all sober Men, the novelty, the vanity, the inexpediency, the impoliticalness, the uncatholicalness of most, if not all, of these Propositions? If any further doubt could remain concerning the little skill, the Clergy of Scotland, in these times, had, in these matters, it might be further Demonstated.

Fourthly, from this plain matter of Fact, viz. that that Second Book of Discipline, in many points, is taken word for word from Mr. Beza's Answers to the Questions proposed to him, by The Lord Glamis, then Chancellor of Scotland. A fair Evidence that our Cler­gy, at that time, have not been very well seen in Ecclesiastical Politicks; Otherwise, it is not to be thought they would have been so imposed on, by a single stranger Divine, who visibly aimed at the propagation of the Scheme, which by chance, had got footing in the Church where he lived. His Tractate De Triplici Episcopatu, written of purpose for the advancement of Presbyterianism in Scotland, carries visibly in its whole train, that its design was to draw our Clergy from off the Ancient Polity of the Church; and his Answers to the Six Questions propo­sed to him, (as I said) by Glanus, contain'd the New Scheme, he advised them to. Now, [Page 248] let us taste a little of his skill in the Con­stitution and Government of the Ancient Church, or, if you please, of his accounts of her Policy. I take his Book as I find it amongst Saravia's works.

He is Positive for the Divine Right of Ruling Elders. p. 8. He affirms that Bishops arro­gated to themselves, the power of Ordination, with­out Gods allowance. p. 29. That the Chief founda­tion of all Ecclesiastical Functions, is, Popular Election; That this Election, and not, Ordination, or Imposition of hands makes Pastors or Bishops: That Imposition of hands does no more, than put them in possession of their Ministry, (in the exercise of it, as I take it) the power whereof they have from that Election; That, by consequence, 'tis more proper to say that the Fathers of the Church are Created by the Holy Ghost, and the suffrages of their Children, than by the Bishops. p. 30. That Saint Paul in his first Epistle to the Corinthians, in which he expressly writes against, and condemns the Schism which then prevailed there, as foreseeing that Episcopacy might readily be deem'd a remedy against so great ane evil, joyn'd So [...]thenes with himself in the Inscription of the Epistle, that by his own example he might teach how much that Princeliness was to be avoided in Ecclesiastical Conventions, seeing the Apostles themselves, who are owned to have been, next to Christ, first, in order, and supreme, in degree, did yet Exercise their power by the Rules of Parity. p. 41. Who will not, at first sight, think this a pretty odd fetch? But to go on, he fur­ther affirms, p. 43. That Episcopacy is so far from [Page 249] being a proper remedy against Schism, that it has produced many Grievous Schisms, which had never been, but for that Humane Invention. That the Pa­pacy was the fruit of Episcopacy. p. 46. That the Council of Nice by making that Canon about the [...], that the Ancient customes should continue, &c cleared the way for the Roman Pa­pacy▪ which was then advancing apace; And founded a Throne for that Whore that sits upon the seven Mountains. p. 58. That the Primitive Chur­ches were in a flourishing condition so long as their Governours continued to Act in Parity; And had not yeilded to Prelacy. p. 71. And yet he had granted before, p. 45. That humane Episcopacy, as he calls it, was in vogue, in Ignatius his time &c. So that I think they could not flourish much, having so short a time to flourish in.

These few [...] of many such learned Propo­sitions, I have collected out of that Book, which was so successful, at that time, in furthering and advancing the Presbyterian Principles, in Scotland; And could they be a learned Clergy? Could they be great Masters at Antiquity and Ecclesiastical Hi­story, who swallowed down these Propo­sitions, or were imposed on, by the Book that contain'd them? 'Tis true this Book came not to Scotland till the end of the year 1577, or the beginning of 1578. But I thought it pardonable to anticipate so far, as, now, to give this account of it, con­sidering how proper it was for my present purpose. We shall have occasion to take further notice of it afterward.

[Page 250]Thus, I think, I have made it appear how advantageous Morton's Proposition was to the Presbyterian party: They had oc­casion, by it, to fall upon forming a New Scheme of Church Governmet and Polity; They were as well prepared, as they could be for such a nick; and they had a set of people to deal with, who might easily be worsted in these Controversies. However it seems, the common principles of Politicks, which God and Nature have made, if not inseparable parts, at least, ordinary conco­mitants of sound and solid reason, did some­times make their appearances amongst them; For, that there have been Disputa­tions and Contests, and that some, at least, of the many propositions, contained in the Second Book of Discipline, have been debated and tossed, is evident from the many Con­ferences, were about it, and the long time was spent before it was perfected and got its finishing stroke from a General Assem­bly, as we shall find, in our progress. Pro­ceed we now in our deduction.

Tho' the Presbyterian Faction had gain'd this advantage in the Assembly 1576, that they had allowance to draw a new Scheme of Polity, to which they could not but apply themselves very chearfully; yet, it seems, they were so much humbled by the Repulses they had got, as to the main Que­stion, viz. the Lawfulness of Episcopacy, that they thought it not expedient to try the next Assembly with it, directly, as they [Page 251] had done, unsuccessfully, twice before; But to wait a little, till their party should be stronger; and, in the mean time to content themselves with such indirect blows as they could conveniently give it; such, I say, their deliberations seem to have been, at the next Assembly which was holden at Edenburgh, Octob 24. 1576. For not so much as one word, in that Assembly concerning the Lawfulness, or Unlawfulness of Prelacy, either, Simply, and in it self; Or, Complexely, as, then, in use in Scotland. 'Tis true,

Certain [...]re [...]hren, says the MS. some Bre­thren, says Calderwood; some, says Petrie ▪ Cald. 74. Pet. 38 [...]. (without Question, the Melvilians) pro­posed that, now, that Mr. Patrick Adamson was nominated for the Archbishoprick of St. Andrews, He might be tryed as to his suf­ficiency for such a station, according to ane Act, made in March 1575. But it seems the major part of the Assembly have not been for it, for it was not done, as we shall find afterward. Nay, another Act was fairly dispenced with by this Assembly, in favour of Boyd, Archbishop of Glasgow: For, being required to give his answer, if he would take the Charge of a particular Flock, according to the Act made in April before? He An­swered, That he had entered to his Bishoprick according to the Agreement at Leith, which was to stand in force, during the Kings Mino­rity, or till a Parliament should determine other­wise: That he had given his Oath to the Kings Majesty in things appertaining to his Highness: [Page 252] That he was affraid he might incur the Guilt of Perjury, and be called in question, by the King, for changing a member of state, if he should change any thing belonging to the Order, Manner, Pri­viledges, or Power of his Bishoprick: That there­fore he could not bind himself to a particular Flock, nor prejudge the power of Iurisdiction, which he had received with his Bishoprick, &c. Thus he answered, I say, and the Assem­bly, at that time, satisfied themselves, so far, with this answer, that they pressed him no further, but referred the matter to the next Assembly, as even both Calderwood and Petrie acknowledge. Cald. 74. Pet. 389. A fair evidence, that in this Assembly, the Presbyterian party was the weaker. However,

One indirect step they gain'd in this Assembly also. ‘By the First Book of Discipline, Hedd 9. Spot. 170. It was appointed that the Country Ministers and Readers should meet, upon a certain day of the week in such Towns, within six miles distance, as had Schools, and to which there was repair of Learned men, to exercise them­selves in the Interpretation of Scripture, in imitation of the practice in use among the Corinthians, mentioned 1 Cor. 14.29.’ These Meetings, it seems, had been much neglected and disfrequented in most places. It was therefore enacted by this Assembly, That all Ministers within eight miles, &c. should resort to the place of exercise, each day of exercise, &c. This, MS. Cald. 76. Pet. 388. I say, was useful for the Presbyterian designs; [Page 253] For these Meetings were afterwards turn'd into Presbyteries, as we shall find when we come to the year 1579. And so 'tis very like, the motion, for reviving them, was made by those of the Faction; For no man can deny that they have still had enough of Draught in their Politicks.

The next Assembly was holden April 1. Anno 1577. No direct progress made, now, neither, as to the main Question: And only these indirect ones: ‘1. The Archbishop of Glasgow was obliged to take the charge of a particular Flock; if we may believe Cal­derwood, Cald. 76. but neither the MS. nor Petrie hath it. 2. The Archbishop of St. Andrews being absent; full power was given to M. Robert Pont, M. Iames Lawson, David Ferguson, and the Superintendent of Lo­thian, conjunctly; To cite him before them, against such day or days as they should think good; to try and examine his entry and proceeding, &c. with power also to summon the Chapter of St. Andrews, or so many of that Chapter as they should judge expedient, and the Ordainers or Inaugurers of the said Archbishop (observe here, the Bishops, in these times were Ordained or Inaugurated) as they should find good, for the better tryal of the pre­misses: And in the mean time, to dis­charge him of further visitation, till he should be admitted by the Church. MS. Cald. 76. Pet. 390.’

Here, indeed, the Melvilians obtain'd [Page 254] in both Instances, that which was refused them by the last Assembly: However, no­thing done Directly (as I said) against the Episcopal Office: On the contrary, Adam­son ▪ it seems, might exerce it, when ad­mitted by the Assembly.

May I not reckon the Fast appointed by this Assembly, as a third step gained by our Parity-men? A successful Establishment of perfect Order and Polity in the Kirk, was one of the reasons for it. MS. Cald. 79. Pet. 391. And ever since it hath been one of the Politicks of the Sect to be Mighty for Fasts, when they had extraor­dinary projects in their heads; and then, if these Projects (however wicked, nay tho' the very wickedness which the Scripture makes as bad as witchcraft) succeeded; To entitle them to Gods Grace ▪ and make the success, the Comfortable Return of their pious Humiliations, and sincere Devo­tions.

I find also that Commissioners were sent by this Assembly to the Earl of Morton to acquaint him that they were busy about the matter and argument of the Polity; and that his Grace should receive Advertise­ment of their further proceedings; and that these Co [...]issioners, having returned from him, to the Assembly, reported, That His Grace liked well of their travels and labours, in that matter; and required expedition and haste; Promising, that when the particulars should be given in to him, they should receive a good Answer. Cald. 77. So Calderwood and the MS. [Page 255] From which, two things may be observed: the First, is, a further Confirmation of the suspicion I insisted on before, viz. That Morton was truly a Friend to the Innova­tors. The second, that the Second Book of Discipline had hitherto gone on but very slowly: Why else would his Grace have so earnestly required Expedition and hasty Outred (as the MS. words it, i. e. Dispatch) and promised them a good answer when the particulars should be given in to him? The truth is, there was one good reason for their proceeding so leisurely in the matter of the Book: Beza's Answer to Glamis his Let­ter was not yet returned.

Thus two General Assemblies passed, without so much as offering at a plain, a direct Trust against Imparity: Nay, it seems matters were not come to a sufficient Ma­turity for that, even against the next As­sembly.

It was holden at Edenburgh, Octob. 25. 1577. And not so much as one word in the MS. Calderwood or Petrie, relating either directly or indirectly to the main Question. But two things happened a little after this Assembly, which animated Melvil and his Party to purpose.

One was, Morton's quitting the Regency: For, whatever services he had done them, he was so obscure and Fetching in his measures, and so little to be trusted, that they could not rely much upon him: And now that he had demitted, they had a fair prospect [Page 256] of playing their game to better purpose than ever: They were in possessions of the Allow­ance he had granted them to draw a New Scheme of Policy; They had a Young King who had not yet arrived at the twelfth year of his Age, to deal with; By conse­quence they were like to have a divided Court and a Factious Nobility; and they needed not doubt, if there were two Factions in the Kingdom, that one of them would be sure to Court them, and undertake to pro­mote their Interests.

The other encouragement, which did them every whit as good service, was Beza's Book, De Triplici Episcopatu, Divino, Hu­mano, & Satanico, with his Answers to the Lord Glamis his Questions, which about this time was brought to Scotland: as is clear from Calderwood. Cald: 79. Beza, it seems, put to it, to Defend the Constitution of the Church of Geneva had imployed his wit and parts (which certainly were not con­temptible) in patching together such a Scheme of principles, as, he thought, might be de­fended: That's a method most men take too frequently, First, to resolve upon a Conclusion, and then, to stretch their in­ventions and spend their pains for finding Colours and plausibilities to set it off with. Beza, therefore, I say, having been thus at pains to digest his thoughts the best way he could on this subject; and withal being possibly, not a little elevated, That the Lord High Chancellor of a Foreign Kingdom, [Page 257] should Consult him, and ask his Advice concerning a point of so great importance as the constitution of the Government of a National Church; Thought it not enough, it seems, to return an Answer to his Lord­ships Questions, and therein give him a Scheme; which was very easy for him to do, considering, he needed be at little more pains, than to transcribe the Genevian Esta­blishment; But he applied himself to the main Controversie which had been started by his Disciple, Melvil, in Scotland, (and 'tis scarcely to be doubted that it was done at his instignation) and wrote this his Book, wherein, tho' he asserted not the absolute Vnlawfulness of that which he called Humane Episcopacy (he had not brow enough for that, as we have seen already), In the page of these pa­pers. yet he made it wonderously dangerous, as being so natu­rally apt to Degenerate into the Devilish, the Satanical Episcopacy. This Book, I say, came to Scotland, about this time, viz. either in the end of 1577. or the beginning of 1578. and (tho' I have already given a Spe­cimen of it) who now could hold up his head to plead for Prelacy? Here was a Book written by the Famous Mr. Beza, the Successor of the great Mr. Calvin; the present great Lumi­nary of the Church of Geneva; our Elder Sister Church; the Best Reformed Church in Christendom; Who would not be con­vinced now that Parity ought to be Esta­blished and Popish Prelacy abolished? And▪ indeed, it seems, this Book came, seasona­bly, [Page 258] to help the good new cause (for it be­hoved to take some time before it could merit the name of the good old one) for, we have already seen how slowly and weakly it advanced before the Book came: But now we shall find it gathering strength apace, and advancing with a witness. Nay, at the very next Assembly it was in a pretty flourishing condition.

This next Ass. met, Apr. 24. Anno 1578. And Mr. Andrew Melvil was chosen Modera­tor; the Prince of the Sect had the happiness to be the Praeses of the Assembly, and present­ly the work was set a going. Amongst the first things done, in this Ass▪, it was enacted, That Bishops and all others bearing Ecclesiastical Function, should be called by their own names, or Brethren, in all time coming. MS. Cald. 81. Pet. 394▪ No more Lord Bishops! and it was but consequential to the great Argument, which was, then, and, ever since, hath been in the mouths of all the party, The Lords of the Gentiles, &c. Matt. 20.25. Luke 22.25. This was a step wor­thy of Mr. Andrew's Humility, which was not like other mens Humility's, consisting in Humbling themselves, but of a new species of its own, consisting in Humbling of his Supe­riours. Indeed, after this, he still treated his own Ordinary the Archbishop of Glasgow, in publick, according to this Canon; Tho' when he was at his Graces table, where he got better entertainment than his own Com­mons (for he was, then, in the College of Glasgow) he could give him all his Titles [Page 259] of Dignity and Honour. Spot. 303. But,

Another more important Act was made, by this Assembly; Take it, word for word from Calderwood who agrees exactly with both the MS. and Pet. Cald. 81. Pet. 394. Forasmuch as there is great corruption in the State of Bishops, as they are presently set up, in this Realm, where­unto the Assembly would provide some stay, in time coming, so far as they may, to the effect that far­ther corruption may be bridled; The Assembly hath concluded, that no Bishop shall be Elected or Admitted before the next General Assembly; Dis­charging all Ministers and Chapters to proceed, any ways, to the Election of the said Bishops, in the mean time, under the pain of perpetual De­privation; And that this matter, be proponed first in the next Assembly, to be consulted what farther Order shall be taken therein.

Here was ground gain'd indeed; How­ever, this was but preparatory still; No­thing, yet, concluded concerning the Vnlaw­fulness of the Office; It was consistent with this Act that Episcopacy should have con­tinued, its corruptions being removed. Neither are we, as yet, told what these corruptions were; It seems, even the Presbyterians themselves, tho' in a fair con­dition, now, to be the prevailing party, had not yet agreed about them. Indeed. another Assembly must be over, before we can come by them. Leaving them, there­fore till we come at them; proceed we with this present Assembly.

Another Fast was appointed by it; The [Page 260] Nation, it seems, was not yet sufficiently diposed for Presbytery: Rubs and difficul­ties were still cast in the way; and the good cause was deplorably retarded. So 'tis fairly imported in the Act for this Fast: The corruption of all Estates: Coldness in a great part of the Professors: That God would put it in the Kings heart and the hearts of the Estates of Par­liament, to Establish such a Policy and Discipline in the Kirk, as is craved in the word of God, &c. These are amongst the prime Reasons in the narrative of this Act for Fasting. MS. Pet. 394. Cald. 81. Indeed, all this time the Book of Dis­cipline was only in forming; It had not yet got the Assemblies Approbation.

The next General Assembly met at Stir­ling, Iune 11. this same year, about six weeks or so, after the Dissolution of the former: But the Parliament was to sit; and it was needful the Assembly should sit, before, to order Ecclesiastick business for it. And, now, it seems there was little struggling; For the Assembly, all in one▪ voice (as it is in MS. Calderwood and Petrie, MS. Cald. 82. Pet. 395. concluded, That the Act of the last Assembly, discharging the Election of Bishops, &c. should be extended to all time coming: And here Petrie stops; But the MS. and Calderwood add, ay and while, the corruptions of the Estate of Bishops, be, all utterly, taken away. And they ordained, That all Bi­shops already Elected should submit themselves to the Gen. Ass. Concerning the Reformation of the Corruptions of that Estate of Bishops, in their Per­sons; Which, if they refused to do, after Admonition, [Page 261] that they should be proceeded against to Excommu­nication. This Ass. met, as I said on the 11 th of Iune, and indeed it seems the weather has been warm enough: Yet neither, now, did they adventure again upon the Main Que­stion, nor ennumerate the Corruptions of the Estate of Bishops.

By this Assembly, a Commission was also granted to certain Persons to attend the Parliament, and Petition that the Book of Discipline might be Ratified; Tho' all the Articles were not, as yet, agreed to. A pretty Odd overture, to desire the Par­liament to Ratify what they themselves had not perfectly Concerted.

The next Assembly met at Edenburgh, Octob. 24. of that same year 1578. And it was but reasonable to have three Assemblies in six Months, when the Church was so big with Presbytery. And, now, the Corrup­tions, so frequently talk't of before, were ennumerated; and the Bishops were required to Reform them in their Persons. They were required, 1. To be Ministers or Pastors of one Flock. 2. To usurp no Criminal Iuris­diction. 3. Not to vote in Parliament in Name of the Kirk, without Commission from the General Assembly. 4. Not to take up, for maintaining their Ambition and Riotousness, the Emoluments of the Kirk, which ought to sustain many Pastors, the Schools, and the Poor; But to be content with reasonable livings, according to their Office. 5. Not to claim the Titles of Temporal Lords, nor usurp Civil Iurisdiction, whereby, they might be [Page 262] Abstracted from their Office. 6. Not to Empire it over particular Elderships, but be subject to the same: So the MS. Calderwood and Petrie have it, tho' Spotswood has the word, Pres­byteries; MS. Cald. 85. Pet. 397. Spot. 303. Which I take notice of, be­cause the unwary Reader, when he reads, Presbyteries, in Spotswood, may take them for these Ecclesiastical Judicatories which now are so denominated, whereas there were none such as yet in the Nation. 7. Not to usurp the Power of the Pastors (says the MS.) nor take upon them to visit any Bounds not com­mitted to them by the Church. 8. And lastly, If any more Corruptions should, afterward, be found in the Estate of Bishops, to consent to have them Reformed. These were the Corruptions: and particularly at that same very time, the two Archbishops were required to Reform them in their Persons.

What Adamson, Archbishop of St. Andrews did, or said, on this occasion, I know not; But, it seems he submitted not: For I find him, again, required to do it by the next Assembly. And that it was particu­larly laid to his charge that he had opposed the Ratification of the Book in Parliament. But,

Boyd Archbishop of Glasgow did certainly behave at this Assembly like a Person of great worth and a Man of Courage, suitable to his Character, giving a brave and resolute Answer: You may see it in Spot. Cald. and Pet. Spot. 303. Cald. 84. Pet. 396. I have not leisure to transcribe it: But it pleased not the, now, too much Presbyterian Assembly; and no wonder, [Page 263] for he spake truely like a Bishop.

The next Assembly was holden at Eden­burgh, in Iuly, Anno 1579. ‘The King sent a Letter to them, whereby he signi­fied his dislike of their former proceedings, and fairly advised them to shew more temper, and proceed more deliberately.’ Calderwood calls it ane Harsh Letter: It is to be seen, word for word, both in him and Petrie. Cald. 86. Pet. 398. But what had they to do with the Kings of this World, especially such Babie Kings as King Iames was, then; they, I say, who had now the Government of Christs Kingdom to settle? However, no more was done against Prelacy, at this time, than had been ordered formerly. Indeed there was little more to be done, but to declare the Office abolished; But that, it seems they were not yet Ripe for; Per­chance the Corruptions mentioned before had proved a little Choaking, and peoples sto­machs could not be, so soon, disposed, for another dish of such strong meat in ane instant; so, that was reserved till the next Assembly. Nevertheless,

In the mean time take we Notice of one thing which we never heard of before; which started up in this Assembly; and which must not be forgotten. It was pro­posed by the Synod of Lothian (saith Calderwood, Cald. 88. That a General Order might be taken for Erecting of Presbyteries in places where publick exercise was used, until the Polity of the Church might be Established by Law. And it was An­swered [Page 264] by the Assembly, That the exercise was a Presbytery, MS. Cald. 88. Pet. 400.

A Presbytery turned afterwards, and, now, is, one of the most specifick, essen­tial and indispensible parts of the Presbyte­rian constitution. Provincial Synods can sit only twice in the year, General Assemblies, only once, according to the Constitution. 'Tis true, 'tis allowed to the King to Con­vocate one extraordinarily, & pro re natà as they call it: And the Kirk claims to have such a power too, as she sees occasion. But then 'tis as true, that Kings have been so disgusted at such meetings that they have hindred General Assemblies to meet for many years: So that their meetings are un­certain; and in innumerable cases, there should be too long a Surcease of Ecclesiastical Iustice, if Causes should wait, either on them, or Provincial Synods. The Commission of the General Assembly, as they call it, is but ane accidental thing: The suddain dissolu­tion of a General Assembly can disappoint its very being; as just now there is none, nor has been, since the last Assembly, which was so surprizingly dissolved in Fe­bruary 1692. When there is such a Court, it commonly sits but once in three Months; and it meddles not with every matter; Be­sides, many of themselves do not love it; and look upon it as ane error in the Custome of the Kirk, for it was never made part of the Constitution by any Canon of the Kirk nor Act of Parliament. But

[Page 265]A Presbytery is a Constant Current Court; They may meet when they will; Sit while they will; adjourn whither, when, how long, how short time soever, they will. They have all the substantial Power of Go­vernment and Discipline; They have really a Legislative Power; They can make Acts to bind themselves and all those, who live within their Jurisdiction; and they have a very large Dose of Executive power; They can Examine, Ordain, Admit, Suspend, De­pose, Ministers; They can Cite, Iudge, Ab­solve, Condemn, Excommunicate whatsoever Criminals. The Supreme power of the Church, under Christ is Radically and Originally in them; It is in General Assemblies, themselves, Derivatively, only, and as they Represent all the Presbyteries in the Nation; and, if I mistake not, if a General Assembly should Enact any thing, and the greater part of the Presbyteries of the Nation, should Reprobate it, it would not be binding; and yet how necessary, how useful, how powerful so ever, these Courts are, tho' they are essential parts of the constitution; tho' they may be really said to be that which Specifies Presby­terian Government; This Time, this seventh or eighth or tenth of Iuly, Anno 1579, was the first time they were heard of, in Scotland.

That which was called the Exercise be­fore, was nothing like a Court; had no imaginable Iurisdiction; Could neither Injoyn Pennance to the smallest Offender, nor Absolve him from it; It could exert no Acts of Au­thority: [Page 266] It had not so much Power as the meanest Kirk-session: It was nothing like a Presbytery: and, however it was said, in this Assembly, That the Exercise was a Pres­bytery, yet, that saying (as omnipotent as a Presbyterian Assembly is) did not make it one. That was not a Factive proposition. There were no Presbyteries erected at this time: The First that was erected, was the Presby­tery of Edenburg: And if we may believe Calderwood himself, Cald. 116. That Presbytery was not erected till the thirtieth day of May 1581. more time was run before the rest were erected: They were not agreed to by the King till the year 1586. They were not Ratified by Parliament till the year 1592. And now let the Impartial Reader judge if it is probable that our Reformers, who ne­ver thought on Presbyteries, were of the present Presbyterian principles? Were they Presbyterians who never understood, never thought of, never dream'd of that, which is so Essential to the constitution of a Church, by Divine Institution, according to the pre­sent Presbyterian principles?

But doth not G. R. in his First Vindication of the Church of Scotland, in Answer to the First Question, §. 8. tell us that the Real Exercise of Presbytery in all its meetings, lesser and greater, continued and was allowed in the year 1572, &c. True, he saith so: But no Man but himself ever said so: But I know the Natural History of this Ignorant blunder; His Historian Calderwood had said that the [Page 267] Kirk of Scotland ever since the beginning, had four sorts of Assemblies, Cald. 29. and this was enough for G. R. For what other could these four sorts of Assemblies be, than Kirk-Sessions, Presbyteries, Provincial Synods, and General Assemblies? But if he had, with the least degree of any thing like attention read four or five lines further, he might have seen that Calderwood himself was far from having the brow to assert that Presbyte­ries were, then, in being: For having said there were four sorts of Assemblies from the beginning, he goes on to particularize them, thus, ‘ National, which were com­monly called General Assemblies; Provincial, which were commonly called by the Ge­neral Name of Synods; Weekly Meetings of Ministers and Readers for interpretation of the Scripture, whereunto succeeded Presbyteries, that is, Meetings of many Mi­nisters and Elders for the Exercise of Disci­pline; and the Eldership of every Parish, which others call a Presbytery.’ In which account, it is evident, that he doth not call these weekly Meetings for interpretation of the Scriptures, Presbyteries; But says, that Presbyteries succeeded to these weekly Meetings; and he gives quite different Descriptions of these weekly Meetings and Presbyteries; making the weekly Meetings to have been of Ministers and Elders for the interpretation of Scripture; and Presbyteries to have been (as they still are) Meetings of many Ministers and Elders, for the Exercise of Discipline. 'Tis true, he [Page 268] might have, as well, said, that Presbyteries succeeded to the Meeting of the Four Kings against the Five, or of the Five against the Four, mentioned in the 14 th Chapter of the Book of Genesis; For the Meetings of these Kings were before our Presbyteries, I think, in order of time: And these Meetings of these Kings were as much like our present Presbyteries, as those Meetings were, which were appointed at the Reformation for the inte [...]pretation of Scripture; So that even Calderwood himself was but tri [...]ling when he said so: But tri [...]ling is one thing, and impu­dent founding of false History upon another Mans trifling, is another. But enough of this Author at present; we shall have fur­ther occasions of meeting with him.

This Assembly was also earnest with the King that the Book of Policy might be farther considered; and that farther Conference might be had about it; That the Heads, not agreed about, might be compromised, some way or other. MS. Pet. 399. Cald. 87, 88. But the King, it seems, listned not; For they were at it again, in their next Assembly. And now that I have so frequently mentioned this Second Book of Discipline, and shall not have occasion to proceed much further in this wearisome Deduction; Before I leave it, I shall only say this much more about it.

As much stress as the Presbyterian party laid on it, afterwards, and continue, still, to lay on it; as if it were so very exact a Systeme of Ecclesiastical Polity; yet, at the [Page 269] beginning, the Compilers of it, had no such Confident sentiments about it; For, if we may believe Spotswood, Spot. 277. (and here­in he is not contradicted by any Presbyte­rian Historian) when Master David Lindesay, Mr. Iames Lawson and Mr. Robert Pont, were sent by the Assembly to present it to the Regent, Morton, in the end of the year 1577, They intreated his Grace to receive the Articles presented to him, and if any of them did seem not agreeable to reason, to vouchsafe Audience to the Brethren, whom the Assembly had named to attend. Not, that they thought it a work complete, to which nothing might be added, or from which nothing might be diminished; for, as God should reveal further unto them, they should be willing to help and renew the same. Now, upon this Testimony, I found this Question▪ Whither the Compilers of the Second Book of Discipline, could▪ in reason, have been earnest that this Book, which they ac­knowledged not to be a work so complete, as that nothing could be added to it or ta­ken from it, should have been confirmed by ane Oath, and sworn to, as ane Vnalte­rable Rule of Policy? Are they not injurious to them who make them capable of such a bare faced absurdity? Indeed whatever our present Presbyterians say, and with how great assurance soever, they talk to this purpose, this is a Demonstration, that the compilers of it, never intended, nay could not intend, that it should be sworn to in the Negative Confession. That it was not sworn [Page 270] to in that Confession, I think, I could prove with as much evidence as the nature of the thing is capable of, if it were needful to my present purpose: But not being that, I shall only give this further Demonstration, which comes in here naturally enough, now, that we have mentioned this Book so often. The Negative Confession was sworn to and subscribed by the King and his Council upon the 28. of Ianuary 1580/1. Cald. 96. Upon the second of March thereafter the King gave out a Proclamation, ordering all the subjects to subscribe it. Cald. 97. But the King had never approven, never owned, but on the con­trary, had constantly rejected the Second Book of Discipline; Nay it was not Rati [...]ied, got not its finishing stroke from the General Assembly it self, till towards the end of April in that year 1581. By necessary consequence, I think, it was not sworn to in the Negative Confession. And thus I leave it. Proceed we now to the next Assembly.

It met at Dundee upon the twelfth of Iuly 1580. full twenty years after the Reforma­tion; For the Parliament which Established the Reformation, (as the Presbyterian Hi­storians are earnest to have it) had its first Meeting on the tenth of Iuly 1560. This, this was the Assembly, which, after so ma­ny fencings and strugglings, gave the deadly Thrust to Episcopacy. I shall transcribe its Act word for word from Calderwood, who has exactly enough taken it from the MS. and both Spotswood and Petrie agree, Cald. 90. Spot. 311. Pet. 402. It is this,

[Page 271] Forasmuch as the Office of a Bishop, as it is now used and commonly taken within this Realm, hath no sure Warrant, Authority nor good Ground out of the Book and Scriptures of God, but is brought in by the Folly and Corruptions of mens invention, to the great overthrow of the true Kirk of God, The whole Assembly, in one voice, after Liberty given to all men to Reason in the matter, none oppening themselves in defence of the said pre­tended Office; Findeth and Declareth the same pre­tended Office, Vsed and Termed as is abovesaid, Vnlawful in the self, as having neither Funda­ment, Ground nor Warrant in the word of God; And Ordaineth, that all such Persons as brook, or hereafter shall brook the said Office, be charged simpliciter to dimit, quite, and leave off, the Samine; as ane Office whereunto they are not called by God; and sicklike to desist and cease from preach­ing, Ministration of the Sacraments, or using, any way, the Office of Pastors, while they re­ceive, de novo, Admission from the General Assembly, under the pain of Excommunication to be used against them; Wherein, if they be found Disobedient, or Contraveen this Act in any point, The sentence of Excommunication, after due admo­nition, to be execute against them. This is the Act.

Perhaps it were no very great difficulty to impugn the Infallibility of this true blue Assembly, and to expose the boldness, the folly, the iniquity, the preposterous zeal, which are conspicious in this Act; Nay, yet, after all this, to shew, that the Zealots for Parity had not arrived at that height of Effrontery, as to Condemn Prelacy, as simply [Page 272] and in it self Unlawful: But, by this time, I think, I have performed my promise, and made it appear that it was no easy task to Abolish Episcopacy and Introduce Presbytery; to turn down Prelacy, and set up Parity in the Government of the Church, when it was first attempted, in Scotland: And therefore I shall stop here, and bring this long Disquisition upon the Second Enquiry to a Conclusion; after I have Recapitulated and represented in one intire view, what I have at so great length deduced.

I have made it appear, I think, That no such Article was believed, professed or maintained by the body of any Reformed or Reforming Church, or by any Eminent and Famous Divine in any Reformed or Reforming Church, while our Church was a Reforming; No such Article, I say, as that, of the Divine and indispensible Institu­tion of Parity, and the Vnlawfulness of Pre­lacy or Imparity amongst the Governours of the Church: I have made it appear that there is no reason to believe that our Re­formers were more prying in such matters than the Reformers of other Churches: I have made it appear that there is not so much as a syllable, a shew, a shadow of ane Indication, That any of those who Merited the Name of our Reformers, enter­tain'd any such Principle, or maintain'd any such Article: I have made it appear that our Reformation was carryed on, much, very much, by the Influences, and upon the [Page 273] principles of the English Reformers, amongst whom that principle of parity had no imagi­nable footing: These are, at least, great presumptions of the Credibility of this, That our Reformers maintain'd no such principle.

Agreeably to these presumptions, I have made it appear that our Reformers proceed­ed de Facto upon the principles of Imparity: They formed their petitions for the Refor­mation of our Church, according to these principles: The first Scheme of Church Go­vernment, they erected, was Established upon these principles: Our Superintendents, were notoriously and undeniably Prelates: The next Establishment, in which the Prelates resumed the old Names and Titles of Archbishops and Bishops, was the same for substance, with the first: At least, they did not differ as to the point of Imparity: I have made it appear that this second Esta­blishment was agreed to, by the Church, unanimously, and submitted to calmly and peaceably; and that it was received as ane Establishment which was intended to continue in the Church: At least, no Ob­jections made against it, no appearances, in opposition to it, no indications of its being accepted, only for ane Interim upon the account of Imparity's being in its constitution: I have made it appear that Imparity was received, practised, owned and submitted to, and that Prelates were suitably honoured and dutifully obeyed, without reluctancy, [Page 274] and without interruption, for full fifteen years after the Reformation; and I have made it appear, that, after it was called in Question, its Adversaries found many Repulses, and mighty difficulties, and spent much travel, and much time, no less than full five years, before they could get it A­bolished; and if the Deduction I have made puts not this beyond all doubt, it may be further confirmed by the Testimonies of two very intelligent Authors; The first is that ingenious and judicious Author who wrote the accurate piece, called Episcopacy not Abjured in Scotland, published Anno 1640. Who affirms positively, p. 97. ‘That it was by Reason of opposition made to the Presbyterians, by many wise, learned and Godly Brethren, who stood, firmly for the Ancient Discipline of the Church, that Episcopacy was so long a condemn­ing.’ It appears from his Elaborate work that he was ane ingenuous as well as ane In­genious Person, and living then, and having been at so much pains to inform himself concerning not only the Transactions, but the Intrigues of former times, it is to be presumed, he did not affirm such a propo­sition without sufficient ground: But what­ever dust may be raised about his Credit and Authority; Sure I am, my other witness is unexceptionable. He is King Iames the Sixth of Scotland, and the First of England; This Great and Wise Prince lived in these times in which Presbytery was first intro­duced; [Page 275] and I think it is scarcely to be Questioned, That he understood, and could give a just account of, what passed, then, as well as any man, then, living; and he in his Basilion Doron, p. 160▪ of his Works printed at London 1616. affirms plainly, That the Learned, Grave and Honest Men of the Ministery, were ever ashamed of, and of­fended with, the Temerity and Presumption of the Democratical and Presbyterian party. All these things, I say, I think, I have made appear sufficiently; and so I am not affraid to leave it to the world to judge, Whither our Reformers were of the present Pres­byterian principles?

Only one thing more, before I proceed to the next Enquiry. Our Presbyterian Brethren, Calderwood, Petrie and G. R. (as I have already observed) are very earnest and careful to have their Readers advert, that when Episcopacy was Established by the Agreement at Leith, Anno 1572. the Bishops were to have no more Power, than the Superintendents had before; and, indeed it is true, they had no more, as I have al­ready acknowledged; But I would advise our Brethren to be more Cautious in in­sisting on such a dangerous point, or Glory­ing in such a Discovery, hereafter; For thus I Argue.

The Episcopacy Agreed to at Leith, Anno 1572, as to its Essentials, its Power and Authority, was the same with the Superin­tendency Established at the Reformation, Anno 1560. But the General Assembly [Page 276] holden at Dundee, Anno 1580. Condemned the Power and Authority of the Episcopacy, Agreed to at Leith, Anno 1572. Ergo they condemnd the Power and Authority of the Superintendency Established by our Reformers, Anno 1560. Ergo, the Assembly 1580. not only forsook, but Condemned the principles of our Reformers: But if this Reasoning holds; I think our present Presbyterian Brethren have no Reason to Claim the Title of Successors to our Refor­mers: They must not ascend so high as the year 1560, They must stand at the year 1580; For, if I mistake not, the Laws of Heraldry will not allow them to call them­selves the True Posterity of those whom they Condemn, and whose principles they Declare Erroneous. In such Moral Cognations, I take Oneness of principle to be the foundation of the Relation, as Oneness of Blood, is in Physical Cognations. Let them not, therefore, go farther up than the year 1580. Let them date the Reformation from this Assembly at Dundee, and Own Master Andrew Melvil and Iohn Durie, &c. for their First Parents. When they have fixed there, I shall, per­chance, allow them to affirm that the Church of Scotland was Reformed (in their sence of Reformation) by Presbyters, that is Presbyterians. Proceed we now to