instances of many thousands is all that can be given § 2. To prove his Conclusion viz. That the Presbyterians were for taking away the Penal Laws against Papists he bringeth two Arguments which a man pretending to reason might be ashamed to use The first is They accepted and gave thanks for the Indulgence notwithstanding that they knew that all the designs of Court were for advancing of Popery Answ. They accepted an Indulgence for themselves and gave thanks for that alone which was their due by Christ's grant and which had injuriously been withheld from them but that to the Papists they were no further concern'd in than to lament it which they did and witnessed against it as they had occasion For the designs of the Court it was not their part to consider them further than to endeavour to disappoint them which they did to the uttermost of their power both by warning and principling the people a-against Popery and also by doing what they could to keep the Laws standing in force against Papists It had been a strange thing if they should have been backward to preach and hear the Gospel when a door was opened for it because some men had a design against the Gospel in their opening of it Surely their silence and peevish refusing on that occasion had been much to the hurt of the Gospel for then Papists who would not fail to use the liberty for their part should have had the fairest occasion imaginable to mislead the people without any to oppose them on the contrary their using of the liberty was the great mean by which with the blessing of the Lord so very few during that time of liberty were perverted to Popery in this Nation and they that were so drawn away were none of our party We have cause to think that if we had refused to use this liberty this Man and his Party would have lashed us with their tongues for so doing as they now do for the contrary for they did so by some who in former years refused to use a liberty granted which we all know was designed for the same end But we expect not that we shall be able to please them whatever course we take § 3. His second Argument is notoriously false in all the parts and circumstances of it and I affirm that a man that knoweth our affairs shall not find one word of truth in all his long Paragraph that he hath p. 24. That they were silent against Popery in K. James ' s time is grosly and notoriously false it is true some of them thought the best Antidote against liberty for Popery and other sinful Ways to be a sound work of grace in the Soul and ingaging people to be seriously religious and therefore insisted mainly on such subjects yet did not neglect to instruct people in the controverted points of our Religion nor to hold forth the evil and danger of Popery in particular For what he saith of the Reverend and Worthy Dr. Hardy who preached faithfully against Popery that his Brethren either blamed him or disowned him is most false they did often visit him in the Prison which I had from his own mouth that Episcopal Advocates and Judges pleaded for him and acquitted him was no more but what the one ought to do for their Hire and the other were bound to by their Places they acquitted an innocent man when no crime was proved against him QUEST IX Whether Scottish Presbytery in the Church be consistent with the Legal Monarchy in that Kingdom IF this Author knew us he would not move this Question and if he did not hate us and not resolved to say all manner of evil against us right or wrong he would not as he doth resolve it in the Negative We have no other proofs of the falshood of what he asserteth but 1. Experience which sheweth that in many Ages in which Presbytery hath had place in this Kingdom as hath been shewed above it did well consist with the legal Monarchy of it And 2. that he nor none else cannot shew what principle of Presbyterian Government nor what practice of Presbyterians that is commune to them all or generally is inconsistent with Monarchical Government as it hath been by Law owned in this Nation We deny not but there have been some things acted by men of our Principles in their Zeal for Religion which we do resolve not to imitate and tho' we can clear them from that degree of blame that the malice of their enemies casteth on them and particularly from being no friends to Monarchy and unfaithful to their Kings yet we hope the excesses that have been in former Ages while both parties were overheated in their contendings will be a mean to teach more moderation to this and following Generations Let us then hear what he hath to say for this his most absurd malicious and false Position After I have told the Reader that the only thing that can with any shew give rise to such an apprehension is that Presbyterians being generally the more conscientious part of the Nation could not comply with the lusts of some of their Rulers nor subject the interest of Religion to their will while others were ready to abandon Law Religion and Reason to please Men who in recompence of this did exalt them above their Brethren § 2. What he asserteth he offereth to prove from the opposition of the Covenant to Acts of Parliament the latter giving to the King what the former taketh from him The first thing that he bringeth as an instance of this is That Par. 1. ch 2. Act 2. it is the King's prerogative to chuse Officers of State Counsellors Iudges but the Covenant maketh this the prerogative of the Kirk in that Art 4. we swear to discover evil instruments that they may be brought to tryal and confirmeth it that Anno 1648. it is asserted by the Church that Duties between King and Subjects are the subject of Ministerial Doctrine for what he saith that the Kirk must be as infallible in this as at Rome I pass it as the froth of a malicious mind void of reason A. 1. These passages were 20 or some fewer years before the Act of Parliament cited how then can they be charged as taking from the King what he had not by those Acts for so many years after But this is but a small escape in this learned Writer 2. Will any man of sense say that the power of chusing Officers is taken from the King because Subjects are obliged to discover and complain of ill men or because Churchmen may tell Kings and Subjects their duties such reasonings are to be hissed at not answered Hath a man lost the priviledge of chusing his own servant because his son may tell him he hath hired a very bad man Another Argument he bringeth is yet more ridiculous It is the King's prerogative to call Parliaments but Scotch Presbyterians hold that the power of calling Assemblies doth not flow
immediately from the King but from Christ. Answ. Baculus est in angulo ergo petrus stat is just as concludent What affinity is there between the King's power of calling Parliaments and the Churches having no power to call Assemblies for Religious Matters We deny not power to the King even to call Church-Assemblies neither will we call any in contempt of the Magistrate but we maintain that the Church hath from Christ an intrinsick power to convene about his Matters tho' the Magistrate should neglect to call them but we confidently deny that the Church of Scotland ever did or thought it fit to be done call an Assembly without the authority of their King where he was a friend to true Religion Let him shew us what Magistrate called the Council that is mentioned Acts 15. Another Argument he taketh from the King's power of dissolving Parliaments inconsistent with which he saith is the 2d Article of the Covenant he should have said the 3d Article where we bind to maintain the priviledges of Parliament one of which is the General Assembly 1648. declareth against the Negative Vote in Parliament Answ. Could any other-man have made such an inference unless Presbyterians had declared that it is not in the King's power to dissolve a Parliament but they may sit as long as they will which never was said nor imagined for the General Assembly 1648. denying to the King a Negative Vote in Parliament this doth not concern the sitting of the Parliament but the validity of their decisions while they sit also they say very little to this purpose only in their Declaration July 31. they say that they see not how the priviledges of Parliaments and the King 's Negative Vote can consist I wish this had been left to the cognition of Politicians But what the Assembly there says was not their sentiment only but of the Parliaments both of England and Scotland at that time so that his inference is no better against Scotch Presbytery than if he had asserted the inconsistency of Parliaments in both Nations with the Legal Monarchy That was a time when Debates about Prerogative and Priviledge had issued in a bloody War the result of which was the ruin of both Whereas now the King's Prerogative and the the Priviledges of Parliament being setled and acknowledged and the King 's Negative Vote owned by all none do more chearfully submit to the Legal Establishment in these things than the Presbyterians do § 3. He saith The Covenant depriveth the King of the power of making Laws because Covenanters swear to continue in the Covenant all their days against all opposition A goodly Consequence indeed We swear not to obey sinful Laws ergo the King and Parliament may make no Laws at all What he alledgeth in further proof That the Assembly July 28. 1648. declared against an Act of Parliament Committee of Estates dated in June the same Year and in general against all others made in the Common Cause without consent of the Church is as little to the purpose For it is not the same thing to declare the Laws of Christ condemning the sinful Laws of Men and to affirm that Men may make no Laws without the Churches consent neither will we plead for every thing that hath been acted Notwithstanding I hope Presbyterians will learn to give all due deference to the Publick Acts of the State even when they cannot comply nor give obedience to them He further Argueth That they deny to the King the Prerogative of making Leagues and Conventions of the Subjects because the Covenant was taken without the King This was no Act of Presbyterian Government but an Act of the Estates of Scotland of all Ranks and this they thought to be necessary for securing of their Religion from Popish Adversaries who designed to overturn it as afterward appeared when the Design was more ripe and it was fit to bring it more above board He proveth also that Scotch Presbyterians are against this Prerogative of the King because June 3. 1648. The Assembly declareth against the Bond subscribed by the Scotch Lords at Oxford and inflicteth the highest Ecclesiastical Censures against them and such as had a hand in it Answ. Sure he could not obtrude this on the belief of any unless he had been confident that what he saith would never be examined For in that Act of the Assembly there is nothing like condemning the King's calling his Subjects together but their condemning of a wicked Act that some of them being but in a private capacity did when they were together For this Bond was not framed nor signed by any Parliament or other Representative of the Nation called by the King but by a few Lords sojourning out of the Nation who met and condemned what was done at home by the Representatives of the whole Nation This Bond was sent to the Assembly by the Convention of Estates of the Nation as the Act it self saith that the Assembly might give their Opinion about it and they declared the wickedness of it and appointed Church-censures against the guilty What is there in all this that is derogatory from the King's Prerogative of Convening his Subjects § 4. His last Effort to prove the inconsistency of Monarchy and Presbytery is That the Presbyterians deny the King's Prerogative of making Peace and War Which he proveth because the Assembly 1645. Feb. 12. declare them guilty of sin and censurable who did not contribute to carry on the War Answ. All that the Church did in this was That in a solemn warning to all the People of all Ranks for convincing them of sin and pointing out their Duty to them among other Duties such as Repentance Reformation c. they held it forth as a Duty for People to obey the Orders of the Estates of Parliament toward their own Defence when a bloody Army of barbarous Irish-men was in their Bowels If this his Argument can cast any blame on Presbyterians 't is this that there are cases in which they allow the States and Body of the Nation to resist the King so far as to hinder him to root out the Religion that is by Law established among them And one should think that he might have been by this time convinced that this is not peculiar to Presbyterians but that all the Protestants in Britain are engaged in the same thing Nor can Papists reproach Protestants with it for their Principles runneth yet higher QUEST X. HE hath said so much to little purpose he is now come to his last Effort which doth evidently shew a fainting Cause but strong and growing Confidence For he Querieth Whether Scottish Presbytery be agreeable to the general Inclinations of that People This he denyeth we affirm it and wish the matter could be put to the Poll among them that are sober and that do any way concern themselves in Religion We do not grudge them a multitude of debauched Persons who hate Presbytery as the Curb of their Lusts and
1567. wherein the Protestant Religion was established for it is there statute and ordain'd 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 floweth therefrom concerning preaching the Word correction of Manners administration of Sacraments Now I hope none will affirm that prelatical Jurisdiction then was or was soon after established in the protestant Church of Scotland § 10. The Foundations on which he buildeth his Conclusion make as little against what we hold he saith the Constitution of Bishops having then the Publick Authority the Popish Bishops sitting in this Parliament which setled the Reformation must in the Construction of the Law be confest to remain firm from 1567 to 1592. Ans. It is not denied that the Constitution of Bishops in regard of their Temporalties such as sitting in Parliament c. remained after 1567. yea neither do we say that that Law took from them the Authority they had over the Popish Church so far as then 't was in being for this Law did not pretend to unbishop them or make them no Priests nor did it touch their pretended Indelible Character But it is manifest that after this Law they had no legal Title to rule the Protestant Church and that by this nor any other Law no other Bishops were put in their room for the ruling of the Church To what he saith of the Popish Bishops sitting in a reforming Parliament I oppose what Leslie Bishop of Rosse a Papist hath De gest Scotorum lib. 10. pag. 536. that concilium à sectae nobilibus cum Regina habitum nullo ecclesiastico admisso ubi sancitum ne quis quod ad religionem attinet quicquam novi moliretur ex hac lege inquit omne sive haereseos sive inimicitiarum sive seditionis malum tanquam ex fonte fluxit Another thing he alledgeth or rather insinuateth viz. in the 1st Book of Policy a Superintendency which is another Model of Episcopacy was set up Ans. It is true the Protestant Church of Scotland in its infancy it was neither by an Act of Parliament that it was brought in nor that it was after cast out did set up Superintendents but this was truly and was so declared to be from the force of necessity and designed only for that present exigency of the Church Neither was it ever intended to be the lasting way of managing the Affairs of that Church At that time it was hard in a Province to find two or three men qualified for any more work toward the edifying of the Church than reading the Scripture to the people and therefore they found it needful to appoint one qualified man in a Province and at first fewer only five in all Scotland who had Commission from the Church to go up and down and preach to visit Churches to plant and erect Churches they acted only as Delegates from the Church and were accountable to every General Assembly where they were frequently censured and ordinarily the first work in the Assemblies was to try their Administrations as the number of Ministers grew their power was lessened and at last wholly taken away their Commission was renewed often other Commissioners also beside them were sometimes appointed with the same power They were never designed to be instead of Bishops for they did not keep to the old division of the popish Diocesses They might not stay above 20 days in one place in their Visitations they must preach thrice a Week at least In their particular Charge they must not remain above three or four Months but go abroad to Visitation again they must be subject to the Censure of the Church in her provincial and general Assemblies All this considered let any one judge with what candor our Author calleth a Superintendency a New Model of Episcopacy It is evident from our Church Histories that the Protetestant Church of Scotland was so far from that sentiment that they had a strict eye over Superintendents lest their power should have degenerated into a lordly Prelacy and that they laid aside the use of Commissions to Churchmen and giving them such power as soon as the Church could be provided with such number of Ministers as was needful QUESTION II. HAving brought his first Question to so wise a conclusion he advanceth to a second which is Whither ever Presbytery was setled in the Church of Scotland without constraint from tumultuous times What advantage to the Cause of Prelacy or detriment to Presbytery is designed by this Question and the Answer of it is not easie to divine Is every thing bad that hath been done in tumultuous times Doth not the Lord say Daniel 9. 25. That he will build his House in troublous times Will this man therefore condemn the Reformation from Popery in Scotland for this That it was setled against the will of the Queen and the popish Grandees and some pretended but unfaithful Protestants in a very tumultuous time It may be he will and his Citation pag. 4. out of Basil. Dor. Lib. 2. seemeth to import no less But if he thence conclude That Popery is the Truth and Protestantism an Error we shall then know where to find him And if he do not all that he here saith is extra oleas vagari But it may be the strength of his ratiocination lieth in this That Presbytery was setled by constraint And these by whose authority it was done were by the tumults of the people forced to it Let us a little examine this First Is every thing bad that men are forced to Ill men do few good things willingly and of their own proper motion By his way of reasoning the will and inclination of great men must be the standard of good and evil 2ly Presbytery had a twofold Settlement in Scotland One by Church-authority After searching the Scripture the General Assemblies of this Church did find Prelacy unwarranted there And that it was contrary to that Form of Government that the Apostles setled in the hands of the ordinary Office bearers of the House of God And this they declared authoritatively in the Name of Jesus Christ I hope he will not say that this was done by constraint Another Settlement it had by the Authority of King and Parliament giving their civil Sanction to it Neither can he alledge That the Parliament was any way constrained to this Or that any force was put on them Nothing appeareth but that the Parliament 1592. which made this Settlement was as free in the Election of its Members in their Consultations and Votings as any that have been since And some will say more-free than these Parliaments which since have undone what they did It resteth then That he must mean That the King was some way violented in that he assented to this Act contrary to his own sentiments and inclinations But this resteth to be proved beside that it is a greater reflection upon the Conscientiousness and
Uprightness of that Great and Wise Prince than is decent for a dutiful Subject to be guilty of § 2. Let us now hear how he will prove first That King James Anno 1592 Then that King Charles Anno 1639 Assented to Presbyterial Government unwillingly and by constraint His proofs are first King James in Basil. Dor. L. 2. p. 28. speaketh with great bitterness against the Presbyterians and their Way Ans. This doth indeed prove that he had changed his thoughts of that Way Not that he was never of another mind It were not hard to cite words of his as much to the commendation of Presbytery as these in Basil. Dor. are against it But that Way and its opposite standeth or falleth by the sentence of a higher Authority than that of men 2ly He thinketh it against Reason and Charity to think That this being his thought of Presbytery he would settle it in the Church without some kind of compulsion Ans. It is little more charity to think That a man of any degree of Conscience or Religion would have so eminent a hand in plaguing the Church with that which he looked on as so pernicious as the words cited by our Author do express Yea the fear of God would restain one from such an act even under the highest kind of compulsion 3ly He next objecteth the Preamble to the Act for Restoring of Episcopacy Anno 1606. Ans. Who can doubt that when men had a mind to set up that Government they would say all the good of it that they could devise and speak to the disadvantage of the contrary what could be thought upon but this signifieth no more than that they were changed from what once they were and they who do so say and unsay are unfit to give decisive Testimony about any point of Truth 4ly He ascribeth K. James's assent to Presbytery to his Youth Ans. He was no Child in 1592 having been married to Queen Ann three years before viz. in 1589. He was at least 30 years of age 5ly He pleadeth from the unsetled condition of his Affairs but doth not shew wherein they were unsetled It 's true the King then had some trouble with the Earl of Bothwell but it is well known that Bothwell was no Presbyterian and setling of Presbytery could not tend to quiet him But I am weary of such silly Arguments which deserve no answer What he maketh the King alledge That the Presbyterians were always ready to joyn with any Faction in the State is as groundless as any thing can be spoken They never owned any but such as owned the interest of Christ and his Truth Their appearing against his Grand mother and Mother was only in defence of Christ's Truth which these two Queens did labour to extirpate And what is said of inordinate and popular Tumults reflecteth upon Procestantism rather than on Presbytery It 's a strange Insinuation that he hath in the end of the paragraph pag. 4. That that young King was forced to settle Presbytery in the Church that thereby he might bring off Presbyterians from joyning with the Acts of their Kirk to unsettle his Throne Here is Malice twisted with incoherent Imaginations For nothing but Malice can make any think that Presbytery is an Enemy to Monarchy but what dirt he casteth on us of this kind afterward shall in its place be wiped off It 's also a strange fancy that if K. James lookt on Presbytery as capable by the Acts of their Kirk to unsettle his Throne that he should put it in that capacity by setling it by Law with a design to secure the Throne It is as if a man should let in the Thief at the door that he might sleep the more securely in his house § 3. What King Charles says for Prelacy to which all know that he ever was a constant friend is much more modest than what we heard before And we deny not but what countenance he gave to Presbytery was in condescendency to his People Yet from the transactions of these times we may confidently infer That the Nation both in its diffusive and its representative Body the Parliament was for Presbytery And what our Author says of the Tumults of these times which were sad and lamented by all good men layeth more load on Prelacy The Tyranny and Innovations of the Church-Rulers of which way did force the people either to see first the purity of Gospel Ordinances taken from them and then their Religion destroyed by a popish Faction as of later years appeared more convincingly when the designs of these men were more ripened or stand in their own defence So that what our Author gaineth by this passage is that Episcopacy raised a Tumult which ended in its own ruine QUEST III. THE Scope of his Third Question and of the Resolution of it can be no other but to render Presbyterians odious not to disprove their Cause nor to refute their Principles It is Whither the Principles of Scottish Presbytery grant any Toleration to Dissenters Quis tulerit Gracchos de seditione loquentes His party are above all men except Papists in mala fide to blame others in this matter Among what party of men hath uniformity and conformity to all the Canons of their Church and that in things confessed by them to be indifferent that is needless been pressed with more severity imposed by more unmerciful Laws and urged by more inhumane and cruel execution of them That there hath been excesses among Presbyterians in this we deny not but lament it humanum est Labi Moderation is not an easie Lesson nor so often practised as it should be when men forget that the Lord is at hand as the best are apt to do when they are at ease But all unbyassed men who know and have observed the way of the one and of the other party while they alternatively had the ascendant will say that the little finger of the meanest Prelate and his Underlings was heavier than the loyns of the greatest Assembly of the Presbyterian Church As an impartial and true Account of the Sufferings in both Cases will evince Which on our part I hope may be given in due time But on theirs an Account is given as remote from truth and candor as any thing that ever came from the Press which it is like e're long may be made evident But we desire not to recriminate though necessity is laid on us by their false History of things far less intend we to retalliate though it should be in the power of our hand But we leave our Cause to him that judgeth righteously § 2. It is well that our Adversary is so favourable to that Institution of Christ The Government of his House by Presbyters without a Bishop That we own in that he doth not blame it generally or in its most extensive notion Not Presbytery as such but as Scottish Let the Ordinance of Christ escape his lash and we are the less solicitous what he says against the
all Persecutors but many yea the far greatest part were § 2. Now what hath he to say for vindicating the Clergy from this Imputation He telleth us The Clergy never Addressed the King for punishing the Presbyterians A goodly Apology as if there were no other way of compassing such a malicious Design save this one Next The inferiour Clergy did not obey the Order for Informing This is answered Most did and but a few refused He talketh of Bishops shewing Acts of Charity in relieving the Necessities of Presbyterians and mitigating the Penalties of the Law when it was in their power and that the particulars of this might swell his Paper to a great bulk Answ. These Acts it seems were very secretly done neither the man 's own left Hand nor the Observation of others could discern them If some acts of Charity were done to some in distress it is no more than what some Oppressors have done first made People poor by taking a pound from them and then relieved them by giving a penny notwithstanding any who have given a Cup of cold Water to Sufferers shall not want their Reward from the Lord nor their Commendation from us That private and publick witnessing against Schism was all that the inferiour Clergy did against Dissenters is so false an Assertion as nothing can be more false QUEST VII Whether the Episcopal Church of Scotland were compliers with the Designs for taking away the Penal Law against the Papists HE will here vindicate his own Church from this blame and in the next Question throw it on the Presbyterians both of them with a like truth and candor We are far from charging all the Episcopal Party in this matter especially the Church diffusive which he saith was represented in Parliament We know these Patriots did worthily in opposing that ill and dangerous Design but we will not own that all that sat in that honourable Assembly were Episcopal however they went a further length in complying with it than some have freedom to do Not a few of them we hope will now shew and have shewed that that way was not their choice for the Bishops he seemeth not to deny that two of the fourteen were for it and it is well known how far these two and they were the two Heads the Archbishops appeared for it both in Council and Parliament and that two were deprived yea and appeared against this design we deny not but can he say that the rest appeared against it in Parliament when they had the fairest opportunity and were in a special manner called to it For the inferior Clergy he will have them all innocent in this matter because they preached against the Doctrins of Popery that they prayed for the Protestants in France and other appearances they made against Popery None of these things we deny nor do we envy them their due praise on this account yet two things are to be considered one is That it was but the practice of some It is well known how many were sinfully and shamefully silent and others who were bold to speak were checkt by their Bishops for it The other is That it is very consistent to be against the Doctrins of Popery and yet to be for a Toleration to them and against their being under the hazard of Penal Laws for their Religion Whence I infer That his Conclusion doth no way follow from his Premisses § 2. The Zeal that some of the Prelatists shew'd for continuance of the Penal Laws might be considered either with respect to Papists or to Protestant Dissenters who might have ease by the removal of these Laws the former part of their Zeal was laudable not the latter which of them did preponderate we are left to guess and may be helped in this guess by a commune principle that many of them I say not all have expressed That they had far rather that Popery should prevail than Presbytery and the actings of the chief men and of the most part of them do correspond with this principle at this day What are the sentiments of the Prelatists in Scotland about taking off the Penal Laws against Papists may be manifestly gathered unless we will abandon all argumentation and the rational inference of one thing from another if we consider what our prelatical Parliaments have declared what the Archbishops and Bishops in their Letter to K. James Nov. 3. 1688. have with much flattery said and what the University of St. Andrews in their Address to that same King have published partly of their adherence to him while the subversion of our Laws and Religion was not secretly but visibly carrying on partly of that absolute irresistable and despotick Power that they ascribe to him for if he have such power to do what he will and if he was for taking off the the force of these Laws as they cannot once question how is it consistent with that unlimited obedience that they owe to such a Monarch that they should not be also for removing them QUEST VIII Whether the Scotch Presbyterians were complyers with the Designs for taking away the penal Laws against Papists HE affirmeth it We deny it But in this that Scripture is fulfilled Psal. 55. 3. They cast iniquity upon me and in wrath they hate me Nothing in this Book hath less semblance of truth and more evidence of spite than this And in nothing the unfaithfulness of his Party and the integrity of the Presbyterians did more appear than in the stir that was about taking off these Penal Laws for his party had no inducement to be for removing them except to please the King and to advance Popery but the Presbyterians especially the Ministers were under the strongest temptations imaginable to shew themselves so inclined not only to gain the favour of the Court the want of which had been so heavy to them but also because they were to share in the ease from heavy persecution which these Laws had brought on them and on them only for these Laws were severely executed against them but not against the Papists and above all this every Presbyterian Minister in Scotland was liable to death by these Laws none had observed them and they might rationally expect that the Court being provoked by their appearing for their continuance might cause them to be executed with rigour upon them notwithstanding of all this they took their lives in their hands and as they had occasion shewed themselves against taking off the Penal Laws against Papists meerly out of conscience and out of zeal against Popery whereas the other Party were not so faithful as was above shewed Their Reasonings against it on all occasions and their dealing about it with Members of Parliament are well known besides more publick witnessing against it as they had occasion Neither can it be made appear for any thing that I could ever learn that any one Minister of our way was of another sentiment and for others two or three or a very few