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
were throughly Episcopal to say no worse must be fined for their Wives non-complyance which put Men on this sore Dilemma either unnaturally to put force on his Wives Conscience which may be he could not Command or be undone Beside this which is the second thing above-mentioned it cannot be denyed that the Privy-Council gave Order not only to Officers of the Army but to every private Souldier empowering them when they met any Person on the High-way to examine them whether they were coming from or going to a Conventicle And if they would not by Oath clear themselves they were allowed to take from them their upper Garment Yea afterward the Officers I know not whether the Souldiers had that Power were warranted to kill whomever they met with who should refuse to give them satisfaction about abjuring the Sanquhair Declaration It is true sober Men did not refuse to take that Abjuration but it was an unparallel'd Act to commit the lives of Men to Souldiers to kill at their pleasure Men living in Peace and going about their Lawful Employments without proof of a Crime or due course of Law August 3. 1682. Major White in many Counties and the Laird of Meldrum a Captain of Horse in other Counties are empowered to act as Sheriffs tho' the ordinary Sheriffs and their Deputies were executing the Laws and to keep Justice Courts so that the Lives and Fortunes of People were at the mercy of these two Souldiers Sept. 9. the Laird of Claverhouse a Souldier is empowred to put the Laws in Execution against withdrawers from the Church A Commission for judging and executing the Laws even to death is given to Crawford of Ardmillan Novemb. 9 and 16 days the like to the E. of Linlithgow I conclude with what is wisely observed by the Prince of Orange now our Gracious Soveraign in his Declaration for Scotland about Imprisonments without cause alledged forcing many to swear against themselves imposing Arbitrary Fines intercommunings on the slenderest pretences making Men incur the danger of Life and Fortune for most innocent converse with their Relations outlawed of which the Counsellers themselves were guilty and behoved to procure Pardons By empowring Souldiers to act the greatest Barbarity on Persons living in quiet hanging drowning or shooting without any course of Law The Third thing is That the Execution did exceed both the Laws and Orders of Council Multitudes of Instances may and I hope ere long will be given of Men pistolled or hanged in cold Blood by the High-way on the Fields about their Work or drag'd out of their own Houses because they refused to declare their Opinion of the Murther of the Arch-Bishop of St. Andrews Of the Insurrection at Pentland and Bothwell-Bridge or of the Covenant It is true it doth not reflect on the Laws but it sheweth what spirit they were of who made them in that they employed such Men and did not punish them for such Facts but rather countenanced them § 8. He cometh now to his Conclusion to clear the Laws from Persecution And here he addeth some Considerations that he taketh for Argumentative As that three Rebellions were raised in the space of 23 Years But if these Rebellions were the Effects rather than the Causes of that Severity as indeed they were then his Argument is inconcludent That it was so with the former two I have observed before for the third it may be he is not ignorant how it was influenced by that unparallel'd and ridiculous but that it was on a mournful Subject Libel wyer-drawn against that Noble Earl that was the Head of that Insurrection making him guilty of Leesing-making and lyable to Death for what unbyassed Men and even some of his Enemies judged to be below the least of Crimes He saith none ever suffered for mere Separation but in Purse But is it not Persecution to be turned out of a Man's Livelyhood and made a Beggar for worshipping God He saith likewise That none suffered that way but such as came to Church to save their Money notwithstanding of pretended scruple of Conscience This is spoken at random many suffered sadly for Conventicles who did not so comply And I am bold to say he knoweth the contrary of what he here affirmeth He will have his Conclusion to stand Unless we will derogate from the Authority of King and Parliament That is a mistake We question the Justice of their Laws not their Authority to make Laws We may say Nero and Domitian were Persecutors without questioning whether they were Lawful Emperors QUEST VI. IT may be observed from this Author's Conduct in his Pamphlet what it is to be fleshed in bold averring of what all the World knoweth to be manifest untruths Some by boldness and frequency in telling Lies have come at last to believe them as Truths what else could make him propose this Question and answer it Negatively Whether the Episcopal Clergy in Scotland from the Year 1662. to the Year 1686. shewed any thing of the Spirit of Persecution against Presbyterians We affirm that they did He denyeth it To prove what we assert we might bring a Volume of Historical instances which now to adduce should swell this Paper to an undue bigness and would anticipate what it is like will be amply performed in the History of the late Times A few things I hope will not be denyed by any Impartial Person that knoweth Scotch Affairs and will be sufficient to evince what we hold in this One is the Bishops of this Church sat in Parliament when the above-mentioned Laws were made did any of them either Reason or Vote against any one of them Yea it is known that they were active Promoters of them yea our Author denyeth not their consenting and advising to them tho' he will not own their being the first Movers of them The former is enough to our purpose and the latter is rationally suspected both from the active influence that some of them had in the Government and from the spight that on all occasions they shewed against Men of our way Another Evidence of this is the Church-men in their Publick Sermons did frequently inflame both the Magistrates and Souldiers to execute the Laws against Dissenters and helped them by Direction Intelligence and all the ways that they could as thousands of Instances might make appear A Note of a Sermon was much talked of wherein the Judges of Assize or Circuit-Court before whom it was preached were advised to dye their Scarlet Robes yet more red in the Blood of these Men. Again it is known that the Ministers were the Informers against such as did not comply with the Laws It is true this was enjoyned them by the Rulers But conscientious Men would not have persecuted them that feared the Lord at the Command of Men whereas most of them gave ready chearful and forward Obedience to these Injunctions He speaketh of some of them who did not but were chid by the Iudges And we confess they were not
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
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