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
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
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
Scots in their management of the Government of Christ's House He knows that Scotland is but one and a small part of the Reformed Church in which that Government hath been and is practised If there be any blame then in the practices of former times when Presbytery was ascendent let it be imputed rather to the praeservidum Scotorum ingenium in which they of the other party have far outgone ours than to the Ordinance of Christ I mean that Government of his House that we own But even Scottish Presbytery or that Government as exercised in that National Church will be able to stand before his Arguments Though it be hard for any thing though never so good to bear up against Lies and Reproaches § 3. He should have considered That there may be other Dissenters living among Presbyterians than Episcopal men whereas all that he saith on this Head doth only relate to them There may be a peculiar reason for their not bearing with them who own Prelacy viz. Because their Church-Government doth necessarily overtop bring into subjection and root out that Government of the Church which we own as Christ's Institution It is against their principle to suffer Ministers and Elders to live beside them who will adventure to govern any part of the Church without subordination to the Bishops And whatever Indulgence hath been in by past years given to Presbyterians as we know it was designed for no advantage to us without judging the secrets of any bodies heart so we know that not only it was not the act of our Church-men but nothing was more grievous to them and nothing they did more actively oppose Notwithstanding it is the principle and purpose of Presbyterians not to exclude any of them from their religious Assemblies nor from any of the Ordinances of God in them for their principle about Church-Government wherein they differ from us And for Ministers among them we are ready to give the right hand of fellowship and to admit to all the parts of the exercise of their Function among us such of them as shall not be made appear to be insufficient scandalous or erroneous or to be void of that holiness of life that becometh a Minister and who shall be found willing to secure the Government of the Church that we own and to prosecute the ends of it and not to exclude any simply for his opinion about Church-Government though the mean while we are not willing that all who will profess to own our Church-way should have a share in managing it with us because many such might be a scandal to it others might betray it neither can we allow that any of them should exercise a prelacy over us or over the people of our charge Further Never any Church or State gave Toleration to Dissenters from the established Church-way but as it might rationally be thought a necessary relief to tender consciences But this reason for suffering Episcopal men to practise their way among us at this time cannot without the greatest impudence and hypocrisie be pretended For refusing to receive the Ordinances from Presbyterians because they want Episcopal Ordination this cannot be from conscience seeing it was their constant practice when Prelats ruled this Church they never required any of them to be re-ordained who had been ordained by Presbyters and after complied with Episcopacy Neither can they pretend conscience for having a Worship different from ours I mean the English Liturgy for when it was in their power to use it they never did Wherefore there can be no pretence on which they can plead for tolleration in these things but humor and design and I hope it will not by impartial beholders be judged rigidity if the State deny a liberty to such persons to make such Innovations as never yet could get place in this Church especially when it is too apparent that they who are most forward for such a liberty give ground to think that a design against the present civil Government is at the bottom they being such as have no liking to the present Establishment § 4. But this Author hath a mind to represent us in other colours And for a Foundation of this his Essay he saith That the Solemn League and Covenant is the Canon and the Acts of the General Assemblies the Comment of the Principles of Scottish Presbyteries This is false the Rule that we Judge by in the Matter of Church Government as well as in other things is the Word of God and we use no other Comments for our help to understand that Rule but such as are founded on the Word it self and which we give sufficient Warrant for I hope the Reader will look on this loose talk as Railing not Arguing He may know that Presbytery was long in Scotland before that Covenant had a being And for Acts of General Assemblies they are no further our Rule than they are agreeable to the Supreme Rule The Word of God and to the Principles of Right Reason Neither do we look on them as Infallible as he foolishly feigneth pag. 6. What he or any other can make appear in them to be unwarranted we are ready to disown And we know they may be changed by the same power that made them when any thing in them shall be found to be amiss or inconvenient for the present state of the Church § 5. He quarrelleth with three Articles of the Covenant viz. The 1st about preserving the Government and Discipline of the Church The 2d that is against Episcopacy and its Dependents The 3d for defending one another in their adherence to this Bond. Let any judge what is here consistent with a moderate and duly limited Toleration of Dissenters Is there no Toleration of men who hold Prelacy to be lawful without allowing of Prelacy it self and submitting to its domination Next he will prove his point from some Acts of General Assemblies but this he prefaceth first with the peaceableness of the Prelatick Clergy in and after 1639. when their Church-Goverment was destroyed in that they neither raised Tumults nor wrote Books It is true they raised no Tumults but they did what they could to raise War for continuing on the necks of the people that Yoak that they had wreathed on them And did effectually draw on a bloody War which had very sad effects and issued in the ruine of them and Presbyterians too for a time and shewed well enough to raise Church-Tumults by their protesting and disobedience to the Sentence of the Church for their not writing Books who hindred them Unbyassed men will impute it to somewhat else rather than to their peaceableness Another part of his Preface That they were not suffered to continue in their Cures This is indeed true of the Bishops as such They were not permitted to exercise a Prelacy over their Brethren for that was inconsistent with the Government then established Yet as Ministers of the Church none of them were deprived who were willing to preach