we prove the removal
of them to be necessary, in respect of their inconvenience and
unlawfulness. They who urge the ceremonies, contend for things which are
not necessary; and we who refuse them, contend for things which are most
necessary, even for the doctrine and discipline warranted by God's word,
against all corruptions of idolatry and superstition. That the ceremonies
can neither be purged of superstition nor idolatry I have proved in the
third part of this dispute.

_Sect._ 5. 4th. If the manner of contending be observed, our opposites
will be found reprovable, not we. We contend by the grounds of truth and
reason; but they use to answer all objections, and resolve all questions,
by the sentence of superiors and the will of the law; we contend from
God's word and good reason, they from man's will and no reason. This was
clearly seen at the first conclusion of the five Articles at Perth
Assembly.

Bishop Lindsey himself, relating the proceedings of the same, tells
us,(346) that Mr John Carmichell and Mr William Scot alleged, that if any
would press to abolish the order which had been long kept in this church,
and draw in things not received yet, they should be holden to prove either
that the things urged were necessary and expedient for our church, or the
order hitherto kept not meet to be retained. This was denied, upon this
ground, that it was the prince (who by himself had power to reform such
things as were amiss in the outward policy of the church) that required to
have the change made. Well, since they must needs take the opponent's
part, they desired this question to be reasoned, "Whether kneeling or
sitting at the communion were the fitter gesture?" This also was refused,
and the question was propounded thus: "His Majesty desires our gesture of
sitting at the communion to be changed into kneeling, why ought not the
same to be done?" At length, when Mr John Carmichell brought an argument
from the custom and practice of the church of Scotland, it was
answered,(347) That albeit the argument held good against the motions of
private men, yet his Majesty requiring the practice to be changed, matters
behoved to admit a new consideration, and that because it was the prince's
privilege, &c.

I must say, the Bishop was not well advised to insert this passage, which
(if there were no more) lets the world see that free reasoning was denied;
for his Majesty's authority did both exeem the affirmers from the pains of