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
Spondan exit Annal. Baron ad Annum Christi 431. p. mihi 592. hath these words Sanctus Prosper missum ait Palladium ordinatum primum Episcopum ad Scotos He was sent thither by Pope Celestine who ascended that Chair Anno 424. So that the Scotch Christians lived without Bishops for about 320 years until Popery and its Appendices did overspread the World What is alledged by some that Palladius was sent to convert the Scots is contrary to Beda who tells us lib. 1. cap. 13. that he was sent ad Scotos in Christum credentes And what others alledge that he was sent to the Irish in Ireland who then were called Scots is without ground For 1. Beda Hist. lib. 1. c. 12. sheweth whom he meaneth by Scots to wit those that were separated from the Britains by the two Seas which he sheweth to be Clyde and Forth 2. Patrick was sent to them at the same time viz. Palladius was sent to Scotland Anno 431. and Celestine died in the beginning of 132. who yet sent Patrick to Ireland and there is sufficient ground for this from Balaeus cited by Sir G. Mekenzie against St. Asaph where it is said that Palladius was sent to Scotland that Claruit Anno 434. and therefore could not dye to make room for Patrick in Ireland 431. and that he died at Fordon in the Mernes in Scotland Also Tertullian who lived in the beginning of the Third Century speaketh of the Scots as then Christians Britannorum Romanis inaccessa loca Christo vero subdita which Baronius applieth to the Scots and to no other in that Ifle it can be applied Spanhem Epit. Isag. ad Hist. N. T. Saecul 3. Sect. 2. distichon hoc dicit esse Vulgatum Christi transactis tribus Annis atque ducentis Scotia Catholicam coepit habere fidem Besides this it is clear from Beda Hist. lib. 3. c. 25. lib. 5. c. 16. 22. how averse the Scots were from the practises of the Romish Church in the Observation of Easter and the Tonsure And that Venerable Author taxeth them as ignorant of the Canons and that they knew nothing but the Writings of the Apostles Which may give good ground to think that it was long before that Church-Domination Prelacy which at last they were forced to submit to got place among them § 7. That Bishops were setled in Scotland with the beginning of Christianity Arch-Bishop Spotswood doth boldly assert but doth not bring any Vouchers for what he affirmeth Neither doth he name any one of these Bishops till Amphibalus who he saith sat first Bishop in the Isle Iona or Icolmkill But this was long after Christianity came into Scotland to wit all the time was now lapsed that the Culdees remained in the Isle of Man where Crathelinth little less than a hundred Years after Donald and the entrance of Christianity built a Church for them called Fanum Sodorense so that they were at least above a Hundred Years without a Bishop Again Spotswood is alone in this all other Historians making Palladius the first Bishop Neither is there any ground to think that Amphibalus was in any degree of Jurisdiction above other Culdees but that he was a Famous Man and the first of them that is expressed by Name in History This Author telleth also of other Bishops but giveth no ground to believe any more of them than that there were Men so named who were Famous among the Scotch Christians and it is like were their Preachers We conclude then that the Christian Church of Scotland was governed by the Culdees who are sometimes called Priests sometimes Monks sometimes Bishops Neither is there any ground to think that this Name was appropriated to any of them secluding the rest till Palladius came to Scotland far less that any of them had Jurisdiction over the rest What may be met with concerning any Famous Man that was Head over the Society at Icolmkill or elsewhere maketh nothing for Episcopacy for he was there the Head of a School where Students were bred for the Ministry but that he had Jurisdiction over the Culdees who either there or through the Country preached the Gospel to the People hath no semblance of truth Yea we further assert that however a Prelacy together with other Romish Innovations was brought into the Scotch Church with Palladius yet Episcopacy as our Pamphleteer pleadeth for it and as it was lately in Scotland was not known in this Church for a long time after For Constantine the Second King of Scots in the Ninth Century made a Law against Church-men's medling with Secular Business so that they could not sit in Parliament And it was Malcolme Canmore in the Eleventh Century who as he brought in new Titles of Honour into the Civil State so he changed the Discipline of the Church and brought Episcopacy to its 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 § 8. The second thing that we above have asserted is That when the Reformed Religion was brought into Scotland and Popery cast out of it this Protestant Church was not setled under Episcopal Government but under Presbytery and did so continue for many years till by the secret practices and at last by open force of ambitious men the Government was changed to the great disquiet of the Nation Although the knowledge of the Truth did begin privately to creep into Scotland and spread among the People more early even in the Reign of K. James the Fifth and made greater advances under his Daughter Queen Mary yet the first publick step of the Reformation that is found in History was in 1540. when in a Parliament the rigour of Acts against them who have English Bibles was taken off and liberty was granted to read the Bible in their Mother-Tongue also to read other Treatises this was 1543. After this for divers Years many of the Nobility Gentry and Commons owned the true Religion tho' the publick Profession was still Popish Yea by many of the Nobility and Gentry a Bond was solemnly entred into for the defence of the Truth and adherence to it Anno 1557. In the same Year the Queen granted Liberty for Publick Administration of the Word and Sacraments as was desired by a Petition of the Protestants Anno 1559. the Protestant Ministers and People held a General Assembly at St. Johnstown saith Knox Hist. lib. 2. 137. at which I. Knox was present All this while there was no Episcopal Authority owned or submitted to among the Protestants however Bishops still retained their places in the Romish Church and in the State In the Year 1560. July 17. in a Parliament held at Edenburgh the Confession of Faith containing the Heads of the Protestant Religion was by Law established August 24. an Act past against saying of Mass. The same Year the Pope's Authority in Scotland was abolished by Act of Parliament Anno 1561. the first Book of Discipline was presented to the Convention of Estates but delayed and not approved nor condemned at that time yet soon
Scotland and to so great a number and to whom the people were under a relation as their Pastors being thrust from their Charges for their faithfulness in that time of Tryal and others being obtruded on them many of whom were very unqualified for the Ministry and they entring without the peoples call or consent they would not own them for their Pastors nor thought themselves obliged to wait on their Ministry but thought it their Duty rather to hear their own faithful Pastors or others who walked in their steps who were not unministred by any Church-Act but only restrained by the force of a Civil Law which could neither derogate from their Ministerial Authority nor loose the relation that the people had to them I deny not but some went beyond the limits of this Moderation but that is not to be imputed to all the Presbyterians being neither the conclusion of any Church-meeting among them nor the sentiment of all § 4. This being considered taketh off the edge of all that he enlargeth on about the Episcopal party agreeing with us in the Confession of Faith Directory for Worship and Administration of Sacraments For it is on none of these accounts that we withdraw from them but partly because they suffer none to be Ministers among them but such as comply with Episcopal Jurisdiction partly because they deprived us of the Ministers that we stand in relation to and ought to own partly because the Ministers obtruded on us are none of our choice as they ought to be by the priviledge that Christ hath given to his Church And indeed many of them unfit to be chosen and partly because this change is made not by any Church-Authority that we can own but by the State and by an unlawful Church-power It seemeth his Arguments are run low when he chargeth us with Nonconformity even to the Presbyterian Church in that we use not the Doxology nor the words of the Lord's Prayer nor the Belief at Baptism For when or where were these injoyned by the Presbyterian Church And if they had been we cannot by such Injunctions be bound to what is after found to be inconvenient That we are tyed to the use of the Doxology by the Covenant he doth most ridiculously affirm For whoever esteemed that a part of the Reformation then engaged to Using the Lord's Prayer we never condemned but that Christ hath enjoyned the using of these express words or that that Prayer was given as a form of words rather than as a Directory for the matter of Prayer we deny Neither do we condemn the use of the Creed but we think that they who have their Children baptized should profess their Faith so as may more clearly distinguish them from Popish and other Hereticks than that Confession of Faith can do QUEST V. In this Question he advanceth a Paradox The Question is Whether the Penal Laws against Scotch Presbyterians had any thing of Persecution in them THis Question he concludeth Negatively with the same brow that Maimburg and other French Popish Writers do affirm That all the Protestants who lately in France turned Papists did turn voluntarily without any compulsion and that no Rigour nor Persecution hath been used to move them to this change This is a degree of effrontedness of bidding Defiance to Truth and the God of it of bold imposing on the Reason yea and the common Sense of Mankind that the World doth purely owe to this Age and to Jesuitical obfirmation of mind But let us hear how he will prove this his strange assertion As these Laws have beat out the Brains of many good Christians that could not comply with them so this Man thinketh by his Arguings to beat out of the brains of such as remain all Sense and Reason whereby they may judge of what they hear see and feel In clearing the state of his Question he confesseth There may be too severe Laws under which men may suffer for Conscience-sake this will increase the wonder of intelligent unbyassed men who know our Affairs that such Laws are possible and yet ours are innocent but maketh the Question to be Whether our Laws were not necessary for preserving true Religion and publick Peace or whether they were the uncharitable effects of a peevish Resentment inconsistent with good Nature and Christianity Tho' even that cloak of smooth words will not hide the nakedness of the Bloody Laws that he pleadeth for nor could warrant a man that believeth Heaven or Hell to plead for such cruel Execution of them as was among us Yet this state of the Question is not the same with what in the Title is proposed For there have been few Persecutions in the World for which Necessity hath not been pretended and that were given forth to be for preserving a false Religion or for hindring publick Peace or that the Actors in them would call peevish and inconsistent with good Nature and Christianity or Moral Goodness And it is certain that where publick Peace may be preserved without such severe Laws the enacting of them is Persecution which was our case for nothing caused the sad breaches of the Peace that were in this Nation in 1666. and 1679. but the unsupportable Hardships tending to make wise men mad that they who feared God lay under by the severity of these Laws and the Barbarity used in executing them § 2. To vindicate the Laws from all blame of Persecution he giveth a lame unjust and disingenuous account of them Wo to Posterity if they be abused with such false History it is little Honesty to transmit such things to after-ages but it is the height of Impudence to publish them among such as were Eye-witnesses of them and among whom the sad effects of them remain with grief and smarting to this day I shall first examine the account that he giveth of these Laws and then shew how defective it is by supplying what he hath omitted He telleth a story of the endeavours of the Synod of Edenburgh to have Presbytery established and who can blame them especially seeing their Attempt was only an Application to a Person of Interest with His Majesty He telleth us likewise of their sending a Clergy-man whom he will not name to the same Great Man who is also nameless with a threatning Message That if they would not settle Presbytery they should have the people let loose upon them This story I never heard before nor know I how to examine the truth of it neither can I meet with any Person that hath heard of it and so have more than probable grounds to let it pass as a Forgery And if it had been true was this private surmise a sufficient ground for a Parliament to make such Bloody Laws against so great a Body of People as the Dissenters Men will think it a weak Cause that must be supported by such silly shifts I take no notice of the Act annulling so many preceding Parliaments and their Acts tho' this were
hard enough nor of their Act of Restitution of Bishops it is not the right or wrong of the Acts that we are now considering but whether they were Moderate or Persecuting But it is not far from ridiculous that he addeth That this Imperious Address from the Ministers a private Transaction between two Men if it hath any truth in it should so far influence a Parliament as to make them impute all the Evils that he fancieth had fallen out to the Invasion made on Episcopal Government § 3. He next giveth us account of the effect of setling Episcopacy And first in the non-complyance of some of the Ministers and their being therefore deprived of their Churches and Benefices And is this no Persecution How then is it that the World is filled with such outcries in one Print after another as if the Prelatick Clergy in Scotland were under Sufferings beyond the French Dragooning because some of them and but a few of many that are guilty are deprived by the State for refusing to own the Civil Government under which they live A Crime never till this day thought consistent with the Being much less with the Peace of any Government But these Men have not learned Christ's Precept To do to others as they would be done by themselves But this Act was not so much Persecution against the Ministers that were laid aside they suffered the loss of their Livelyhood as of the Church and the People whose Souls smarted under a sad loss considering how many Eminent and Holy Men were among them that were so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from their Flocks And what a set of Men were put in their room If these Servants of God endured no Persecution from the State I am sure they do from this Man 's virulent Pen who saith They forsook their Ministry either because of disappointment of their hope of Preferment or from love of Ease and weariness of their Work or from impatience to be subordinate The Lord will refute this malicious passage when he shall come with ten thousands of his Saints to execute judgment upon all and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodlily committed and of all the hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him Jude v. 14 15. This Man cannot be ignorant of what is known all Scotland over without question or contradiction that some of these Ministers had preferment in their offer yea the highest preferment in that Church and refused it that they did not consult their ease but did most laboriously Preach under the greatest hardships and hazards which is to this day seen in its effects on the crazy bodies of not a few of them and if any did otherwise it was very ill lookt on by the rest and it is known they were never backward to be subject to Christ's appointments tho' they cannot for Conscience-sake stoop to these of Men in the Matters of God § 4. Then he telleth us of the compliance of other Ministers but it is unaccountable which he maketh the motive of some of them that the Episcopacy then setled was not abjured in the Solemn League Nothing but Ignorance of that Oath or Impudence to say what one will could make them say so it is known that this was not pleaded by them but either that that Oath was not binding or that they had not taken it and were not bound by the Nations taking of it and if this were true what should have stirred the zeal of that party so against that Oath as to get it abjured and burnt in contempt by the common Hangman He telleth us next how the people did comply till 1663. It is true hearing the conform Clergy was commune at first other compliance was never given but an entire dislike of Episcopacy was as extensive as any respect to Presbyterian Government was but after a short tryal many serious people who minded the edification of their Souls found what a sad change they had made and what want there was of the godly learned and grave Men that he speaketh of to supply vacant places which moved the people to look after better means of edification I deny not but some run to an excess but there was sufficient reason for leaving these Intruders when others could be had And both Ministers and People behoved to take some time to consider what was duty after they had been for a time stunned with the sad stroak that came upon them He next giveth account of one of his Innocent Laws It is Car. 2. Part 1. Sess. 3. Act 2. Ann. 1663. All who come not to hear their Ordinary are to pay a fourth part of their yearly Rent others that had no Land a fourth part of their moveable Goods a Burgess the fourth part of his Moveables and the priviledge of his Burgiship is forfeited Is here no persecution to force people thus against the light of their conscience to sit under the Ministry of them they had no pastoral relation to and to desert them to whom they were so tied to hear constantly some that taught Arminianism some that railed against serious Religion besides the horrid Immoralities of some of them which made the Ordinances of Christ contemptible to the people for this Law extended to hearing of such as well as others And was it no persecution to enact so severe Fines for such a crime so as a few Sermons might reduce a rich man to absolute poverty And did it savour of no persecution in the Preface to this Act to declare such abstinence from hearing to be seditious when they that were so charged were as quiet and peaceable as any in the Land He would excuse the severity of this Act from the Sermons and Books of some written to justifie the Murther of Charles the First and the Banishment of Charles the Second and the Necessity of taking up Arms against the King and laying out the sinfulness of compliance with the Legal Settlement of Church and State Answ. If some whose Spirits were imbittered by what they suffered especially who being banished into foreign Countreys took more liberty than was fit and spake or wrote on some of those Heads such things is it reasonable or can it be freed from spiteful persecution to charge the whole party with these things and treat them accordingly when it could not be nor was unknown to them that most of these things were quite contrary to the sentiments and practices of the best and far greatest part of Presbyterians And we may with good ground affirm That the spreading of such principles among the people above what was at first was caused by the severities that they suffered and that these severities had not their rise from them As for the Murther of King Charles the First it is well known that the Presbyterians in Scotland did declare against it both in their religious and civil capacity § 5. What he next bringeth of the open Rebellion of
the Western parts 1666. known by the name of Pentland-hills was purely the fruit of the horrid Barbarities that that people suffered from Military force sacking their Houses and destroying their Livelihood treating their persons with the greatest Inhumanity under which they groaned for several years and had no shelter but in Mountains and in Caves nor were safe but in such companies as could make resistance and yet what then was done was the act but of a few Presbyterians and therefore could not warrant further severity nor could be chargeable on all and on this or some other consideration it was that they had an Indulgence granted for a time but it was so contrived as could not answer the necessities of the people the Ministers being all confined to one corner and the rest of the Nation left destitute which made it reasonable for some to use that liberty that they might serve the Church and others to refuse it that they might be useful in other places where it was not allowed What is alledged of assaulting Ministers robbing their Houses wounding them c. much of it was found to be meer forgery to make that party odious and to give a colour for further severities and what was done if any thing was without the knowledge and with the greatest dislike of the Presbyterians in general for indeed the severities of that time did provoke some to run into these principles and practices that ever since hath been uneasie to the State and grievous to sober Presbyterians some of whom have been as much in hazard from them as the prelatick Clergy have been it is therefore strange that such things should be pretended to justifie the bloody Laws that followed and which reach even them that were quiet in the Land § 6. He next cometh to the Act 1670 wherein the Preface brandeth Meetings tho' they were only for Praying and Preaching as Seminaries of Rebellion tho' it is well known that Loyalty hath been many times preached in them and no Sedition nor Rebellion was ever taught except by the persons above marked and for a House-Conventicle the Minister is Imprisoned till he pay 175 l. sterling and must engage to preach no more or give Bond to leave the Nation without returning unless by the King's leave others were to pay an Inheritour of Lands the fourth part of his Rent a Servant the fourth part of a Year's Wage a Farmer 40 s. sterling a Cottar 20 s. If the Meeting were in the Fields where yet Christ and his Disciples often preached and that contrary to the Laws of Men the Minister was punishable by Death and confiscation of Goods and every Hearer the double of what is above mention'd If here be nothing of Persecution that hearing a Sermon from one that Christ by his Church hath sent to preach should be bought at such a rate and that a few peaceable People meeting in a corner of a Wilderness for no other intent and about no other work but to hear the Gospel should take away the Preacher's Life and the Hearer's Livelihood if this I say be no Persecution let the World judge There might have been some shadow for such severity against meeting with Arms tho' even that was in some cases necessary but that was always disallowed by the soberest and wisest but when nothing appeared in mens words or behaviour but that in peace and quietness they were seeking after the food of their Souls such severity must either be called Persecution or we have lost the very names of things and must call Vice Virtue and Virtue Vice § 7. What he hath owned is sufficient to ruin his Conclusion that he would prove by these Topicks to wit That the Penal Laws against Scotch Presbyterians had no persecution in them But it doth further appear how absurd it is if we consider what he hath wisely suppressed as ashamed to speak out all the truth Three things he suppresseth 1. Some severe Laws 2. Some Acts of Council or Orders given forth by it which exceeded all the Severity of the Laws 3. Execution of these Laws and Orders beyond what either of them could warrant For the 1st in the Act of Parliament Aug. 13. 1670. it is declared that if a Minister Preach Expound Scripture or Pray in a House where there be more persons than the House contains it is not said than the House can contain so as some be without doors which might happen without the Ministers or Peoples knowledge after the work is begun or by the Malice of some who might stand without doors on purpose to ensnare those within it is declared to be a Field-Conventicle and consequently the Minister is liable to death when he doth his best so far to conform to the Law as to shun that hazard and the People are liable to forfeit the double of what in reason they could expect By the same Act the Lives of them that so meet are exposed to the mercy of their most malicious Enemies for not only a Reward is proposed to any who will tho' without Warrant or Order of Law seize and secure any at such a Meeting but they are indemnified for any slaughter that they shall commit in the apprehending and securing of them Nothing but the restraining power of God hath preserved the Lives of many thousands who were so by this Man 's Innocent Laws exposed to the will of an ungodly and merciless Crew Afterward an Act was made declaring that not only Field but House-Conventicles should infer the pain of Death to the Minister and that a Field-Conventicle should be death to all present Minister and Hearers 1685. May 8. It is by another Act 1672. declared that where-ever a Minister not allowed by a Bishop or licensed by the Council doth preach and expound Scripture or pray in his own House where more persons are present than four beside the Family or in any Family that is not his own tho' none should be present but the Family that it is a Conventicle And comparing this with the above-mention'd Act a Minister loseth his Life by Law if he pray in a Family where he happeneth to lodge a night out of his own House Likewise Anno 1685. Act 4. any who refuse to witness that is to be an accuser of the Brethren the Devil's work about House or Field-Conventicles or Church-Disorders are to suffer as guilty of these Crimes themselves that is to suffer death and thus the Wife or Child must either contribute to take away the Life of her Husband or Father or lay down their own Life Also Act 8. of the same Year it is declared Treason to own the Covenant as Lawful or Obligatory though we had sworn it and many being questioned about the Obligation of it behoved either to Perjure themselves or suffer death from the hands of Bloody Men. And Act 6. Husbands who complyed with the Laws unless they were also judged by the Council to be Loyal which no Man could expect unless he
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