under Presbytery And for the rest of the Clergy none of them were cast out for complyance with Prelacy but they generally retained their places wherefore this is a most untrue Allegation A Third thing he saith is That the Presbyterians at the Revolution 1662. were not so dealt with that is were continued in their places Impudence it self could affirm nothing more false Were not above the third part of all the Ministers of Scotland and so in England thrown out by one Act of Parliament For two thirds complyed and by that means kept their places and the few in Scotland that could not be reached by that Act were laid aside by the Bishops and the Council by more slow steps § 6. The Acts of Assemblies that he citeth are Act Aug. 17. 1639. Appointing all in Office in Church and Schools and all Members of this Kirk to subscribe the National Covenant And an Act 1642. for intimating the abovesaid Act and proceeding to Church-censure against them that refuse such Subscription And an Act 1644. appointing strict enquiry and censure against disaffected persons to the Covenant And some other Severities he mentioneth truly or falsely I know not for he doth not direct where such Acts may be found which may be acknowledged as no Pattern for after-ages to go by It is like if that Oath of God had been less universally and less severely imposed it had been better kept by many What he alledgeth That the Assemblies Aug. 1642. do order the persons of them who are Excommunicated to be imprisoned and their Goods to be confiscated is most false never any Assembly in this Church did make Laws for Civil punishments All that I find to this purpose for he is not pleased to be distinct in his Citations is that August 3. 1642. the Assembly Petitioned the Council to put the Laws in execution against Excommunicated Papists All this considered I hope the Impartial Reader will not be imposed on by what this man hath said to think that the Principles of Presbyterians are inconsistent with what Toleration is due to Dissenters Nor will blame them that they are not for a vast and boundless Toleration nor because they cannot bear them who are evil but do try them who say they are Apostles and are not and find them lyars Rev. 22. QUEST IV. Whether from the Year 1662 to the Year 1689 Presbyterian Separatists were guilty of sinful Separation AWise Question indeed He supposeth them Separatists which by no Author was ever accounted vox media or taken in a good sense and yet Querieth whether they sinned in separating But to let this pass he telleth us of Doctrine taught in our larger Catechism from which may be demonstrated how necessary it is to Salvation that every Person keep Communion with the particular Church established by the Laws of the State that he liveth in unless she either enjoyn in her Canons any sinful term of Communion or propose in her Confession any Heretical Article or prescribe in her Directory for Worship any Idolatrous Impurity To this I repone a few things First according to his loose and indistinct way of Writing he neither telleth us what these Doctrines are nor in what place of the Catechism they are to be found we must take his Word for all this and we utterly deny what he saith to be true All that that Catechism saith that could be imagined to have that tendency is That the visible Church hath the Priviledge of being under God's special Care and Government of being protected and preserved in all Ages notwithstanding the Opposition of Enemies and of enjoying the Communion of Saints the ordinary means of Salvation the offers of Grace by Christ to all the Members of it in the Ministry of the Gospel testifying that whosoever believeth in him shall be saved and excluding none that will come unto him Now it is evident that all this is said of the Universal Church not of any Particular Church far less can this passage be understood of a particular Church as established by the Laws of the State wherein it is No Scripture ever made such Laws essential to the Notion of a true Church from which none may separate Neither did ever any Divine talk at this rate except Episcopalians and among them I remember of none that so express themselves but this Man and Dr. Stillingfleet He doth indeed express three Cases that excuse from sin in separating from a true Church but how these can be drawn from the Larger Catechism I understand not § 2. How far we allow a Separation from the late Episcopal Church of Scotland and maintain it not to be sinful in us but sinfully caused by them I shall declare We affirm it to be no Schism but a necessary Duty that the Presbyterian Ministers did not own Episcopal Government nor either directly or indirectly countenance the Authority of Bishops above Presbyters He telleth us of a Letter for Union March 1689. wherein it is said and not answered that never any Confession of Faith in our Reformed Church avowed a Divine Right for a parity among all Church-Officers This Letter I never heard of before but it seemeth the Author of it and the Writer of this Pamphlet have Talents equal for Controversal Scribling For whoever said that there is a Divine Right for Parity among all Church Officers We know that by Divine Right Ruling Elders also Deacons are not equal in Church power with Preaching Presbyters And for the parity of Ministers if it be not found in any Confession of Faith it 's enough that it 's found in the Scriptures But we affirm that the Divine Right of it is also found in the Confession of Faith sworn to by the King and his Houshold and by the Nation wherein they abjure the Hierarchy or distinction of Degrees among Ministers He saith the Solemn League did not abjure the President Bishop Answ. We know no such Bishop the President or Moderator hath no Jurisdiction over his Brethren And he will not say that the Bishops restored 1662. to whom we could not yield subjection was no more but a President Bishop if he do all the Nation will cry shame on him and his own Tongue will condemn him Page 1 2. of his Book What some in England Petitioned for we are not concerned if he had told us what concessions the body or generality of Presbyterians in that Nation had made also let us know where we might find such Concessions an Answer might in that case have been expected from us But what he presumeth about the Repentance of Scots Presbyterians for not submitting to Episcopacy as established in Scotland is without ground and absolutely false § 3. What we further declare concerning the Separation that he speaketh of is that Presbyterians generally did not think it unlawful to hear these Ministers that had complyed with Episcopacy and often did occasionally hear them whatever was the practice of some among us yet the best of the Ministers in
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
after it was approved by the Authority of the Council and in it Presbyterian Government approved for it owneth no fixed Officers in the Church but Pastors Teachers Elders and Deacons what is to be thought of the Superintendents therein mentioned is after to be considered this Discipline and the Book containing it was subscribed to in January 1561. 1560. stilo vetere by a great part of the Nobility December 1560. a General Assembly was held where sat no Church-men but Ministers Another General Assembly was held Decemb. 25. 1562. where Bishops are so far from Church-Domination that they and other Ministers who had not entred by the Order in the Book of Discipline are inhibited till further Tryal 1563. A General Assembly at Perth about the end of June gave the same Power or Commission for planting Kirks suspending depriving transplanting Ministers c. to some Ministers that had been given to Superintendents And it is noticed by the Historian that Presbyteries were not yet constituted because of the scarcity of Ministers What is there in all this that looketh like Episcopal Government Another General Assembly met June 1565. also Decemb. 25. of the same Year where the Power of Superintendents was a little clipt also about the end of June 1567. At a Parliament held at Edenburgh Decemb. 15. 1567. several Acts were made about Church Affairs where not only mention is made of Synods and General Assemblies but Appeals allowed to the latter and from it Appeals are forbidden and a Commission appointed to enquire into what Points should belong to the Jurisdiction of the Church and all Church-Jurisdiction forbidden but what is or shall presently be established Another General Assembly Decemb. 25. 1567. also July 1568. in both which Superintendents were censured and a Bishop to wit who had been such deposed from the Ministry In the last Assembly it is appointed who shall Vote in Assemblies and not one word of Bishops Another Assembly July 1569. Another March 1st 1570. where Order is set down about chusing the Moderator there was no Prelate to pretend to that Priviledge Another in the beginning of July 1570. Another in the beginning of March 1571. where again Superintendents are limited In January 1572. a Convention of Church men met at Leith who were too much influenced by the Court The Council also with the Regent appointed Articles to be drawn for the Policy of the Kirk and after approved them By them was restored the Image of Prelacy yet the real Exercise of Presbytery in all its Meetings lesser and greater continued and was allowed for these called Tulchan Bishops were set up who had the name of Bishops while Noblemen and others had the Revenue and the Church had the Power This cannot be pretended to be a restoring of Prelacy more than of Popish Abbacies and Priories which were then the same way brought in This Constitution was never allowed by the General Assembly and it lasted but three or four years and as a Corruption was protested against by the General Assembly 6th of August 1572. In an Assembly at Edenburgh March 6. 1573. David Ferguson was Moderator tho' neither Bishop nor Superintendent Another Assembly August 6. Mr. Alexander Arbuthnot Principal of the old Colledge of Aberdeen was Moderator Assemb 1574. concluded that the power of Bishops should be no more than that of Superintendents In many of these Assemblies the Policy of the Church was revised and still carrying on toward perfection After this in other Assemblies pains was taken to perfect the Policy of the Church which at last came forth in the Second Book of Policy agreed on in the General Assembly Octob. 25. 1577. Also 1578. at several Assemblies Acts were made against Bishops the revising of the Book of Policy was delayed in a Parliament at Sterling Castle 1578. called the Imprisoned Parliament General Assembly July 13. at Dundie 1580. condemned the Office of Bishops as unlawful Another at Edenburgh Octob. 20. appointed a platform to be drawn for Presbyteries 1581. The second Confession of Faith was subscribed by the King and his Houshold Where Episcopacy is condemned under the Name of the Hierarchy it being declared that no other Church policy was to be allowed save that which then was used which every one knoweth was Presbytery The same Year the Assembly caused Registrate the Book of Policy among their Acts. In May 1584. some Acts of Parliament were made derogating from the Liberties of the Church but so little weight was laid on them that by the King's Command some Ministers were appointed to make Animadversions on them to which the King answered explaining and smoothing most of these grievous Acts. In the Assembly 1586. Commissions for Visitations were taken from Bishops Superintendents and others and the Church in several Meetings declared against Prelacy Much Contention there was between the Church in her lesser and greater Assemblies and a Court-Faction about Prelacy which yet was never re-established but at last in the Parliament begun 29 of March 1592. it was utterly abolished and Presbyterial Government fully settled which Arch-Bishop Spotswood in his History tho'he cannot deny yet doth most disingenuously labour to obscure § 9. Let us now consider what grounds the Pamphleter lays for his Conclusion and what is the Conclusion he buildeth on them the latter of these I first consider In it I observe first he is out in his Arithmetick for between 1567 and 1592. are not 35 but 25 Years Another thing to be observed is that it can make nothing for his Design that Presbyterian Government was not presently established by Law with the Protestant Religion because then the Nation having so lately been wholly Popish and but few of the Clergy or other Learned Men converted to the True Religion there could not be a competent number of Ministers got who were tolerably qualified either to rule the Church or to administer other Ordinances and the space of 25 years was not long for growing up of such an increase of useful Plants as might furnish Churches and constitute Presbyteries every where in the Nation especially if we consider what opposition was made to this settlement by the Court and its dependents and how some unfaithful preachers complied with the Court in hope of preferment from the year 1584. it was rather to be wondered at that this work was so speedily brought to such issue and through such opposition Let him make what advantage of his conclusion he can it is evident from what hath been said that Episcopacy never took place in the Protestant Church after the Reformation till Presbytery was fully setled also that the Inclinations of the protestant people of Scotland to speak in the dialect of our time were always for Presbytery and strongly against Prelacy and that whatever the State did to retard this work the Authority of the Church was always on the side of Presbytery It is also evident that Episcopal Jurisdiction over the Protestants was condemned by Law in that same Parliament
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
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-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