Now consider if there are not Material Differences between these two Inscriptions . By the Inscription , as it is in Spotswood , Petrie , and the MS. the Dignity and Superiority of the Scottish Superintenden●s , above the rest of the Clergy , is clearly preserved : By the other account it is sadly obscured ; and they are made ( at least very much ) to stand on a level with other Ministers , &c.

By the Inscription as in Spotswood , &c. The Sentiments Our Scottish Clergy had , then , about the English Reformation , and Constitution , are very plain , genuine and charitable : They were satisfied , that the Bishops and Pastors of the Church of England had Renounced the Roman Antichrist , and that they professed the Lord Iesus in SINCERITY ; And they had for them , suitably , the Christian and Brotherly Charity , which the Orthodox and Sincere Christians of one Church , ought to have for the Orthodox and Sincere Christians of another Church : They wished , or desired to them , The Increase of the Holy Spirit . How highly this was agreeable to the sentiments of the then Protestants in Scotland , I have made fully appear in the Discussion of my Second Enquiry . But ,

To the Pseudo-Knox , it seems , it lookt highly scandalous , to own , That the Bishops and Pastors of England had Renounced the Roman Antichrist , or that they professed the Lord Jesus in sincerity : How could these things be said , so long as they retained Antichrists Hierarchy , or had so many Romish Mixtures ? And therefore , to wish them the increase of the Holy Spirit , was too bold a prayer ; It was founded on a false hypothesis : It supposed they had the Holy Spirit already . How suitable is all this to the Presbyterian temper and principles ? And , by consequence , is it not evident that these alterations were not the effects of negligence or inadvertencie , but of the true Spirit of the party ? But this is not all .

In the body of the Letter , as recorded by the Pseudo Knox , there are several other Corruptions : I shall only point at one , but it is a considerable one .

The General Assembly which sent the Letter , after a Digression concerning the care that ought to be had of tender Consciences , &c. Resume their main purpose , thus , We return to our former humble supplication , which is , that our Brethren , who , amongst you , refuse these Romish Rags , may find of you , who are the PRELATS , such favour as our Head and Master commandeth every one of his members to shew to another .

So it is not only in the MS. Spotswood and Petrie , word for word , but also in a virulent Presbyterian Pamphlet , called Scotidromus , directed to all Noble Scots and kind Catholicks zealous for the Romish Religion ; written Anno 1638 , to cast dirt , at that time , upon Episcopacy , and render it odious to the People ; which Pamphlet I have by me , in Manuscript : But

The Supposititious Knox has it thus , Now again we return to our former Request , which is , that the Brethren , among you , who refuse the Romish Rags may find of you ( not the PRELATES , but ) who VSE and VRGE them , such favour , &c How unfit was it for the world to know that a Scottish General Assembly had own'd the Bishops of England as PRELATES ? It was scandalous , no doubt , to the Godly : It was expedient , therefore , to falsify a little , and foist in more useful Epithets ; to call them , not PRELATES , but USERS and URGERS of the Ceremonies .

I have insisted the longer on this Book , because our Presbyterian Brethren are so earnest to have the world believe that it was written by Knox : Particularly G. R. ( in his First Vindication , &c. in Answer to Quest. 1. §. 8. ) where , too , observe by the way , how extravagantly that Author blunders . His words are , [ Anno 1559. The Protestant Ministers and People held a General Assembly at St. Johnstown , saith Knox , Hist. Lib. 2. p. 137. ] Now there is not so much as one syllable of a General Assembly in the Text. Upon the Margin , indeed , there are these words [ The first Assembly at St. Johnstown ] But no Presbyterian , I think , ( unless he is one of G. R.'s kind ) will be so impudent as to say that all that 's on the Margin of that Book was written by Knox. And that Meeting which was then at Perth , was nothing like that Court , which we call a General Assembly : But enough of this .

To conclude , tho' I am firmly perswaded that Knox was not the Author of this History , yet because it passes commonly under his name , I have still cited it , so , on my Margin . The Edition I have used , is that , in 4 to , published at Edenburg , Anno 1644.

The other Treatises attributed to Knox ( and I know no Reason to doubt their being his ) from which I have cited any thing , are in ane Appendix to the History .

I have not made it my work to cite Acts of Parliaments , and represent the favourable countenance Episcopacy hath had from the State , so much , as to consider the sentiments of our Reformers , and those who succeeded them , in their Ecclesiastical capacity ; partly , because the Acts of Parliament have been diligently collected before ; Particularly , whoso pleases may see a goodly train of them , from the year 1560 till the year 16●7 , in the Large Declaration pag. 333 , &c. Partly , because our Presbyterian Brethren , are in use to insist more on the Books of Discipline , and the Acts of General Assemblies , &c. than on Acts of Parliaments .

One advantage , ( amongst many disadvantages ) I think , I have , it is , that the Authors I have most frequently cited , were Presbyterians , by consequence , Authors whose Testimony 's can , least , be called in Question by my Presbyterian Brethren .

I do not pretend to have exhausted the subjects I have insisted on : Any Reader may easily perceive I have been at a loss as to several things in History . Perchance , I have sometimes started some things New and which have not been observed before . I wish I may have given occasion to those who are fitter , and better furnished with helps , for such Enquiries , to consider , if they can bring more light to our History . In the mean time , I think ▪ I have said enough to convince the Reader , that our Presbyterian Brethren have not reason to be so confident , as commonly they are , for their side of the Controversies I have managed .

Yet , after all this , I am not secure but that they will endeavour to have my Book Answered ; for all Books most be Answered , that militate against them ; and they can still find some G. R. or other who has zeal and confidence enough for such attempts .

Upon the supposition , therefore , that I must have ane answer , I do , for once , become ane earnest suiter to my Presbyterian Brethren , that they would imploy some Person of ordinary sense and discretion , to Answer me , and not their common Vindicator of their Kirk , G. R. for I have got enough of him , and I incline not to have any more meddling with him .

Whoso reads the following papers , I think , may find such a sample of him ; such a swatch ( pardon the word , if it is not English ) of both his Historical and his Argumentative Skill ( a talent he bewails , much the want of , in his Adversaries ) as may make it appear just and reasonable for any man to decline him . But lest he is not represented , there , so fully as he ought to be , so fully as may justify my declining of him , I shall be at some farther pains , here , to give the Reader a fuller prospect of him

To delineate him minutely , might , perchance , be too laborious for me , and too tedious and loathsome to my Reader : I shall restrict my self , therefore to his four Cardinal Virtues , his Learning , his Iudgment , his Civility , and his Modesty : Or , ( because we are Scottishmen ) to give them their plain Scotch names , his Ignorance , his Non-sence , his Ill-nature , and his Impudence .

Perhaps I shall not be able to reduce every individual instance to its proper Species : 'T is very hard to do that , in matters which have such affinity one with another , as there is between Ignorance and Non-sence , or between Ill-nature and Impudence : But this I dare promise , if I cannot keep by the Nice Laws of Categories , I shall be careful to keep by the Strict Laws of Iustice : I shall entitle him to nothing that is not truely his own . So much for Preface , come we next to the Purpose . And in the

1. Place , I am apt to think , since ever writing was a Trade , there was never Author furnished with a richer stock of unquestionable Ignorance for it . To insist on all the Evidences of this , would swell this Preface to a Bulk beyond the Book .

I omit , therefore , his making Presbyterian Ruling Elders , ( as contradistinct from Teaching Elders ) of Divine Institution ; his making the SENIORES , sometimes mentioned by the Fathers , such Ruling Elders ; and his laying stress on the old blunder about St. Ambrose's testimony to that purpose , ( vide True Represent . of Presbyterian Government prop. 3. ) These I omit because not peculiar to him .

I omit even that , which , for any thing I know , may be peculiar to him ; viz. That his Ruling Elders are called Bishops , and that their necessary Qualifications are set down at length in Scrip. e. g. 1 Tim. 3.2 . and Tit. 1.6 ( ibid. Prop. 3.4 )

I omit his Learn'd affirmative , that Patronages were not brought into the Church till the 7 th or 8 th Centurie , or Later ; And that they came in amongst the latest Antichristian Corruptions and Vsurpations ( ibid. Answ. to Object. 9 th )

I omit all such Assertions as these , that the most and most Eminent of the Prelatists acknowledge that by our Saviours appointment , and according to the practice of the first and best Ages of the Church , she ought to be , and was Governed , in Common , by Ministers Acting in Parity ( ibid. Prop. 12. ) That Diocesan Episcopacy was not settled in St. Cyprian 's time ( Rational Defence of Nonconformity , &c. p. 157 ) That Diocesan Episcopacy prevailed not for the first three Centuries , and that it was not generally in the 4 th Centurie ( ibid. 158. ) That the Bishop S. Cyprian all alongst , speaks of , was a Presbyterian Moderator ( ibid. 179. ) That Cyprian , Austine , Athanasius , &c. were only such Moderators ( ibid. 175 , 176 , 177 , 178. )

I omit his insisting on the Authority of the Decretal Epistles attributed to Pope Anacletus , as if they were Genuine ( ibid. 202. ) And that great Evidence of his skill in the affairs of the Protestant Churches , viz. That Episcopacy is not to be seen in any one of them , Except England ( ibid. p. 10. ) Nay ,

I omit his nimble and learned Gloss he has put on St. Ierom's Toto Orbe Decretum , &c. viz. That this Remedy of Schism , in many places , began , then , ( i. e. in St. Ierom's time ) to be thought on ; and that it was no wonder that this Corruption began , then , to creep in ; it being , then , about the end of the fourth Centurie , when Jerome wrote , &c. ( ibid. 170. )

Neither shall I insist on his famous Exposition of St. Ierom's Quid facit Episcopus , &c. because it has been sufficiently exposed , already , in the Historical Relation of the General Ass. 1690. Nor on his making Plutarch , Simonides , Chrysostom , &c. Every Graecian speak Latin , when he had the confidence to cite them . These and 50 more such surprising Arguments of our Authors singular learning , I shall pass over ; And shall insist only , a little , on two or three instances , which , to my taste , seem superlatively pleasant . And

1. In that profound Book , which he calls a Rational Defence of Nonconformity , &c. in Answer to D. Stillingfleet's Vnreasonableness of the separation from the Church of England ( pag. 172. ) He hath Glossed St. Chrysostom , yet , more ridiculously than he did St. Ierom. The passage as it is in Chrysostom , is sufficiently famous and known to all who have enquired into Antiquity , about the Government of the Church . The Learned Father having Discoursed concerning the Office and Duties of a Bishop ( Hom. 10. on 1 Tim. 3. ) and proceeding , by the Apostles Method , to Discourse next of Deacons ( Hom. II. ) started this difficulty . How came the Apostle to prescribe no Rules about Presbyters ? And he solved it thus , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . St. Paul , says he , did not insist about Presbyters , because there 's no great difference between them and Bishops : Presbyters , as well as Bishops , have received Power to Teach and Govern the Church : And the Rules he gave to Bishops are also proper for Presbyters ; For Bishops excel Presbyters , only , by the Power of Ordination ; and by this alone they are reckoned to have more Power than Presbyters . Vide Edit. Savil. Tom. 4. p. 289.

Now , 't is plain to the most ordinary attention , That in the Holy Father's Dialect , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies the Power of conferring Orders , just as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signify the Powers of Teaching and Governing : Consider , now the Critical Skill of G. R.

Bellarmine had adduced this Testimony , it seems , to shew that there was a Disparity in point of Power , between Bishops and Presbyters , and had put it in Latin , thus , Inter Episcopum atque Presbyterum interest fere nihil ; quippe & Presbyteris Ecclesiae cura permissa est : & quae de Episcopis dicuntur , ea etiam Presbyteris congruunt ; Sola quippe Ordinatione Superiores illi sunt . So G. R. has it : I know not if he has transcribed it faithfully : 'T is not his custom to do so : Nor have I Bellarmine at hand , to compare them . Sure I am the Translation doth not fully answer the Original : But however that is , go we forward with our Learned Author . These are his words .

What he ( Bellarmine ) alledgeth out of this citation , that a Bishop may Ordain , not a Presbyter , the Learned Fathers expression will not bear : For Ordination must signify either the Ordination the Bishop and Presbyter have , whereby they are put in their Office , to be different , which he doth not alledge : Or , that the difference between them was only in Order or Precedency , not in Power or Authority : Or , that it was by the Ordination or appointment of the Church , not Christs Institution : But it can never signify the Power of Ordaining . Are not these pretty pleasant Criticisms on 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ? But the best follows . He gives a Demonstration , that Ordination as mentioned by Chrysostom , can never signify the Power of Ordaining , For , then , ●says he ) Chrysostom ( who was sufficiently a Master of words ) would have said ( mark it beloved , he would have spoken Latin , and said Potestate Ordinandi , not Ordinatione . And have we not our Author , now , a Deep-learn'd Glossator ? I cannot promise a better instance of his Criti●al Skill : But I hope the next shall not be much w●rse .

2. Then , in that same Rational defence , &c. p. 199. Sect 4. He undertakes to prove the Divine institution of Popular Elections of Ministers . His first Argument he takes from Acts 14.23 . The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must needs do it . Now , 't is none of my present task to prove , that that word cannot do it : Whosoever has considered how t is used in the New Testament , may soon perceive that ; and if our Author had but Read the Book called Ius ●ivinum Ministerii Evangel●i , written by a Provincial Assembly of his own friends , he might have seen , that even they were Confident it could not do it . Nay , He himself , in that same 4 th Section acknowledges , it cannot do it . I deny not ( says he ) that this word is some times used figuratively , for potestative Mission , the effect or consequent of Election , and that by one Person , without suffrages , as Acts 10 41. And I think , after this , it was pleasant enough to make it do it , for all that : But , as I said , 't is none of my present business to debate the force of the word with him : All I am concerned for , is to represent his superfine Skill in Critical learning . For ,

He tells us gravely , The word is most commonly used in his sence , viz. as it signifies to chuse by suffrages : And he proves it , but how ? These two wayes . 1. Of all the instances that Scapula , in his Lexicon , giveth of the use of the word , not one of them is to the contrary . Twenty disparate significations , you see , would have imported nothing : And who can doubt but Scapula's Lexicon is ane Uncontroverted Standard for the Ecclesiastical significations of words ? But our Author proceeds : 2. It cannot be instanced that ever the word is used for laying on of hands : Lifting up , and laying them down , being so opposite , it is not to be imagined that the one should be put for the other . And what needed more after this ? Yet , lest this was not profound enough , our Author plunges deeper : He will needs have both the suffrages of the People and the Imposition of the Apostles hands , to be signified by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , in that same Text Act. 14.23 . The Apostles appointed , by Ordination , Elders for the People , upon their Electing them by Suffrages . And then , in the close of the Section , I conclude , this being done 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , in every Church , the People Respective chusing their Pastors , and the Apostles ordaining them , it is clear to have been , generally , the practice of these times , and so the Institution of Christ .