far

fuch Seditions and Revolutions, all refulting mainly from the Disorders of the Church, that moft of the thinking Men in the Nation, efpecially the King,) were very fenfible that the Conftitution of the Church was very Wrong, and wanted very much to be Righted. And the Reftitution of Epifcopacy was judg'd the only proper Means for Righting of it.. For this End, A General Affembly met at Glafgom, in June, 1610. and, by a formal Act, Chofe and Confented to Epifcopal Government. This Choice and Confent, was made with very confiderable Unanimity. For as your Own Calderwood has it, of more than 170 Voices, there were only Five Negative; and Seven, Non-liquet. In Purfuance of this Choice and Confent, which was fo Unanimous, that fame year, Three worthy Men went to London, and were Canonically Confecrated Bithops. They returned Home, and as Canonically Confecrated others, till all the Sees were Filled.

84. This, Sir, as little as perhaps you may value it, was in it felf an invaluable Bleffing. Thereby our Conftitution (at beft but defective before) was fo Perfected as that it wanted nothing abfolutely Neceffary to the Conftitution of a True Particular Chriftian Church: Thereby, we were enabled to be affured that our Paftors had a Valid Mif fion; and, by confequence, that they could authoritatively Preach the Word, and validly Confecrate Sacraments, and Abfolve Penitents, &c. in a word, that their Adminiftrations

ftrations were valid Adminiftrations. There by, our Church was put in good Condition to perpetuate a Succeffion of Perfons duly Sent, to be God's Ambaffadors, to reprefent him, to make Covenants with Sinners, and ratifie them in his Name. Thereby, we were put in the way of being abundantly fecure, that this National Church, was un queftionably a Part of the One Catholick Church: So unquestionably, that, had the profeffed the fame Faith fhe did profefs, and had the been fo conftituted, as to Govern ment and Governours, as fhe then was; and withal, had the been contemporary with the Orthodox, and rightly conftituted, Churches of the Firft and Pureft Centuries, fhe had, by them, been own'd and Communicated with, as a Sifter, an Orthodox, and rightly conftituted Church. To add no more at prefent, Thereby we were armed, for defending our Communion, as an unexceptionable Chriftian Communion, againft all the Affaults and Objections of the Romanists. And here, by the way,

85. I cannot forbear to mention and lat ment the Difappointment of the Glorious Project King James the Sixth feems to have form'd, and his Son King Charles the Firft feems to have been ftrongly inclin'd to have finished. 'Twas to have United all the Churches within their Dominions; as, in the Profeffion of the faine Orthodox and Holy Faith, fo in the fame Forms of Worfhip and Government; and all on the folid Catholic I 2

Prin

Principles which had obtain'd before the Church of Rome was chargeable with Defections or Corruptions. Had this Project fucceeded, it had not only made us Proof againft all Romih Arts and Affaults, but also an Illuftrious Pattern to all other Churches, for Recovering the Venerable and Beautiful Face of the Primitive Church. But our Sins made us incapable of fo fingular an Happinefs. This, as I faid, by the way. I return to my Bufinefs.

86. Thus was Epifcopacy Chofen and Confented to by this National Church, An. 1610. And, indeed, for many years, it prevail'd fo Univerfally, and was fubmitted to fo Cordially, that you fhall not find that Ten Minifters in the Nation difown'd the Bifhors, or refused to fit in their Synods. Nay, 'twas in fo great efteem, that even An. 1638. The Covenanters themfelves were very careful and concern'd to conceal their Designs againft it; as is evident from their Proteftations to the Marquifs of Hamilton, then the King's Commiflioner; and to the Doctors of Aberdeen. (7) But this is not all.

(See Large Declaration, p. 114, 115

173. Sce allo Hen derfon and Dikfon's Answer to the 4th Repiy, c.?

87. This Choice and Confent was ftanding in full Force, An. 1662. For it had never been validly Retracted: You cannot pretend that 'twas at all Retracted by any Affembly before the Year 1638; and the Aflembly which met in Glasgow that Year, was put out

of

(k) See Calderwood True Hift. c. p. 637 and Vindiciae Epift. Philadelphi. p. 102.

of all pretence of Power to Retract it, by the Affembly 1610. which had Invested the Bishops with (as your own Calder wood (k) calls it) a Negative Power, that is, a Fower without which Prefbyters could neither by themselves nor in Conjunction with what Number foever of Perfons, called Ruling Elders, determine any thing in Church Matters, far lefs alter the Conftitution; and nothing more certain than that whatever the Affembly 1538 did, efpecially as to the Alteration of the Conftitution, 'twas done not only without the Confent, but alfo in Direct Oppofition to the Authority of the Bishops; of this their Declinature given in to the Affembly by Doctor Hamilton, is an irrefragable Demonftration. Befides, the Affembly 1638, did things which ought to make it, to the Worlds end, Infamous: It declared Epifcopacy to be Un-. lawful, which is a Monftrous Herefy; and it pretended to Excommunicate fome, and Depofe other Orthodox Bifhops, which was an unaccountable Prefumption; a Prefumption fo Rebellious, fo Treasonable (if I may fo fay) to Sacrilegious, and fo Schifmatical, as no Precedent can be produced for, no colourable pretext can be Pleaded for, no Excufe can be Invented for.

88. The Affembly 1638. being fo incompetent for Retracting the Choice of this National Church, of, and her Confent to Epifcopal Government. Tis plain no fubfequent Af I 3

fembly,

fembly, before the Year 1662 could do it; For all of them ftood on the fame Foot. Indeed, all the Time between the Years 1637, and 1662, was a Time of Ecclefiaftical Re bellion; and 'twas fuch even on the Suppofition, that Particular Forms of Church Government are Indifferent, and this introduces me to another thing I have to fay to your Argument. It is,

89. IV. That, fo far as I am able to penetrate into it, it must be founded on the Suppofition of the Indifferency juft now men tion'd: For I afk, Would the Choice and Confent of this National Church, An. 1662. have Legitimated Epifcopacy? Or wou'd they not? If not, for what Purpofe were they brought into the Argument? If they wou'd, then tis plain that that Particular Form which any Particular National Church chooses and confents to, is Lawful: And what is this but, that all Particular Forms of Church Government are, in themselves, Indifferent? That this is truly your Hypothefis, I fhall have Occafion, by and by, farther to difcover. In the mean time, that I may leave this Argument, Irfay,

90. V. That 'tis not in the Power of any Particular Church, to determine what its Form of Government fhould be. If any Particular Form of Government, for Particular Churches, was Inftituted by Our Lord or his Apoftles, you'll readily grant, I hope, that Particular Church es are under an Obligation, Superiour to their own boice and Confent, to receive it and Sub mit to it; Nay, the abfurd fuppofition being made, that there is no fiich Inftitution, particular Churches are not one whit the more

at