Uprightness of that Great and Wise Prince than is decent for a dutiful Subject to be guilty of § 2. Let us now hear how he will prove first That King James Anno 1592 Then that King Charles Anno 1639 Assented to Presbyterial Government unwillingly and by constraint His proofs are first King James in Basil. Dor. L. 2. p. 28. speaketh with great bitterness against the Presbyterians and their Way Ans. This doth indeed prove that he had changed his thoughts of that Way Not that he was never of another mind It were not hard to cite words of his as much to the commendation of Presbytery as these in Basil. Dor. are against it But that Way and its opposite standeth or falleth by the sentence of a higher Authority than that of men 2ly He thinketh it against Reason and Charity to think That this being his thought of Presbytery he would settle it in the Church without some kind of compulsion Ans. It is little more charity to think That a man of any degree of Conscience or Religion would have so eminent a hand in plaguing the Church with that which he looked on as so pernicious as the words cited by our Author do express Yea the fear of God would restain one from such an act even under the highest kind of compulsion 3ly He next objecteth the Preamble to the Act for Restoring of Episcopacy Anno 1606. Ans. Who can doubt that when men had a mind to set up that Government they would say all the good of it that they could devise and speak to the disadvantage of the contrary what could be thought upon but this signifieth no more than that they were changed from what once they were and they who do so say and unsay are unfit to give decisive Testimony about any point of Truth 4ly He ascribeth K. James's assent to Presbytery to his Youth Ans. He was no Child in 1592 having been married to Queen Ann three years before viz. in 1589. He was at least 30 years of age 5ly He pleadeth from the unsetled condition of his Affairs but doth not shew wherein they were unsetled It 's true the King then had some trouble with the Earl of Bothwell but it is well known that Bothwell was no Presbyterian and setling of Presbytery could not tend to quiet him But I am weary of such silly Arguments which deserve no answer What he maketh the King alledge That the Presbyterians were always ready to joyn with any Faction in the State is as groundless as any thing can be spoken They never owned any but such as owned the interest of Christ and his Truth Their appearing against his Grand mother and Mother was only in defence of Christ's Truth which these two Queens did labour to extirpate And what is said of inordinate and popular Tumults reflecteth upon Procestantism rather than on Presbytery It 's a strange Insinuation that he hath in the end of the paragraph pag. 4. That that young King was forced to settle Presbytery in the Church that thereby he might bring off Presbyterians from joyning with the Acts of their Kirk to unsettle his Throne Here is Malice twisted with incoherent Imaginations For nothing but Malice can make any think that Presbytery is an Enemy to Monarchy but what dirt he casteth on us of this kind afterward shall in its place be wiped off It 's also a strange fancy that if K. James lookt on Presbytery as capable by the Acts of their Kirk to unsettle his Throne that he should put it in that capacity by setling it by Law with a design to secure the Throne It is as if a man should let in the Thief at the door that he might sleep the more securely in his house § 3. What King Charles says for Prelacy to which all know that he ever was a constant friend is much more modest than what we heard before And we deny not but what countenance he gave to Presbytery was in condescendency to his People Yet from the transactions of these times we may confidently infer That the Nation both in its diffusive and its representative Body the Parliament was for Presbytery And what our Author says of the Tumults of these times which were sad and lamented by all good men layeth more load on Prelacy The Tyranny and Innovations of the Church-Rulers of which way did force the people either to see first the purity of Gospel Ordinances taken from them and then their Religion destroyed by a popish Faction as of later years appeared more convincingly when the designs of these men were more ripened or stand in their own defence So that what our Author gaineth by this passage is that Episcopacy raised a Tumult which ended in its own ruine QUEST III. THE Scope of his Third Question and of the Resolution of it can be no other but to render Presbyterians odious not to disprove their Cause nor to refute their Principles It is Whither the Principles of Scottish Presbytery grant any Toleration to Dissenters Quis tulerit Gracchos de seditione loquentes His party are above all men except Papists in mala fide to blame others in this matter Among what party of men hath uniformity and conformity to all the Canons of their Church and that in things confessed by them to be indifferent that is needless been pressed with more severity imposed by more unmerciful Laws and urged by more inhumane and cruel execution of them That there hath been excesses among Presbyterians in this we deny not but lament it humanum est Labi Moderation is not an easie Lesson nor so often practised as it should be when men forget that the Lord is at hand as the best are apt to do when they are at ease But all unbyassed men who know and have observed the way of the one and of the other party while they alternatively had the ascendant will say that the little finger of the meanest Prelate and his Underlings was heavier than the loyns of the greatest Assembly of the Presbyterian Church As an impartial and true Account of the Sufferings in both Cases will evince Which on our part I hope may be given in due time But on theirs an Account is given as remote from truth and candor as any thing that ever came from the Press which it is like e're long may be made evident But we desire not to recriminate though necessity is laid on us by their false History of things far less intend we to retalliate though it should be in the power of our hand But we leave our Cause to him that judgeth righteously § 2. It is well that our Adversary is so favourable to that Institution of Christ The Government of his House by Presbyters without a Bishop That we own in that he doth not blame it generally or in its most extensive notion Not Presbytery as such but as Scottish Let the Ordinance of Christ escape his lash and we are the less solicitous what he says against the
in opposition to this Assertion another saying of the same Royal Author mentioned a little below § 3. His Preface taketh notice of two opposite Narratives concerning Episcopacy the one to the Act restoring it 1662. the other to the Act by which it was abolished 1689. whether of these contain most Truth and Sincerity is not to be judged of but by entring on the Merits of the Cause and his Pamphlet with this Answer to it may contribute some light to it But that he supposeth Episcopacy to be best fitted to keep out Heresie is gratis dictum and the falshood of it is manifest if we accompt Popery to be Heresie the Abominations of which arose and grew up under that Government of the Church in this Nation what might be its effects in other Churches we do not now consider And our Experience may inform us what steps have been made not only toward the Superstitions but even the Doctrines of Popery under its Wings since its restauration And how Arminianism hath been warmed and got life by its influence in Scotland is too well known He cannot be ignorant of what K. James VI. whose Authority in matters of Truth he often brings as an Argument used to say of Presbytery as managed in Scotland That no Error could get footing there while Kirk-Sessions Presbyteries Synods and General Assemblies stood in their force What evil speaking and reviling there is in the Brief and True Account of the Sufferings of the Church of Scotland occasioned by the Episcopalians since the Year 1660. I know not not having seen that Book But I am sure his Party is in mala fide to challenge it their stile being such to the Life not in this Pamphlet only but especially in those before mentioned § 4. The first of his Questions is Whether Presbytery as contrary to the Episcopacy restored in Scotland 1662. was settled by Law when the Protestant Religion came to have the Legal Establishment in that Kingdom Which Question may be two ways understood and neither of them much to his purpose either whether the Protestant Religion when it was setled by Law found Presbytery already established which is a foolish Question for who ever heard of Presbytery under regnant Popery we deny not Episcopacy to be as old as Popery or whether Protestanism and Presbytery were by Law established at the same instant neither is this Question to the present purpose for it is enough to shew the Opinion of the Church of Scotland as soon as reformed about Church Government if our Adversaries cannot make it appear that she chused to be governed by Bishops And if we can shew that Presbytery was the Government practised in her from the beginning of the Reformation and that it was by Law established as soon as any fixed Government could be settled And good Reasons may be given why it was not done at the very first First The Errors and Idolatry of that way were so gross and of such immediate hazard to the Souls of People that it is no wonder that our Reformers minded these first and mainly and thought it a great step to get these removed so that they took some more time to consult about the reforming of the Government of the Church Secondly It was possible at first when the Nation was scarcely crept out of Popery to get a competent number of Ministers and Elders who might manage the Government of the Church but this behoved to be a work of time But what they did in this and what was their Sentiments about Church Order we shall after have occasion to discourse § 5. Toward the Resolution of his first Question he tells us in several particulars wherein all the dispute is that is intrinsick to the Notion of a Church Government which his Question he stateth with no great shew of understanding in these Controversies But that I insist not on that which is here chiefly to be observed is that he overlooketh that which is the chief yea the only Question on which our Controversie with the Prelatists doth turn viz. Whether the Government of the Church should be in the hands of a single Person or of a Community whether the Rulers of the Church ought to manage that Work in parity or one should manage it as Supreme and the rest in Subordination to him The distorted notion of a Moderator in Church Meetings that he hath taken up seemeth to mislead him in this matter for we will not yield that the Moderator qua talis is a Church Governour nor that he hath any Jurisdiction over his Brethren his power is meerly ordinative not decisive to be the Mouth of the Meeting not to be their Will or commanding Faculty to keep order in the manner and managing what cometh before them not to determine what is debated among them The Author talketh at random not knowing what he saith nor whereof he affirmeth when he speaketh of our election of a Moderator as done by the Clergy as he speaketh Lay-Elders and Deacons For where was it ever heard of that Deacons had a Vote in Presbyteries or Synods among Scotch Presbyterians we count them though they are Officers of Divine appointment yet the Servants of the Church not her Rulers they are employed about her Goods not in the Government § 6. He asserteth that the Protestant Religion was by Law established in Anno 1567. and the Constitution of Bishops remained as the Legal establishment and that Presbytery was not legally settled till 1592. His proofs for this and Objections that he obviateth against it I shall consider after I have given a true Historical Accompt of the being and establishment of Presbytery in this Nation Two things we maintain as to this the former is That not Episcopacy but a Government managed by the Teachers of the Church acting in commune and in parity had place in the Church of Scotland with its first Christianity and some Ages after The other is That not Episcopacy but Presbytery was the Government of the Church of Scotland as soon as it was reformed from Popery For the former Though we assert not that the first Christians in Scotland had Presbytery in all the Modes of it as we have neither can we attain the distinct Knowledge of the Actings of these Times by any Records that are left us yet that there was a Parity and no Prelacy among the Church Rulers in Scotland For all agree that Donald who entered upon the Government in the Year 199. was the first Christian King in Scotland though it is rationally thought by the best Historians that Christianity was embraced by many of the people before that And Baronius affirmeth That the Scots received the Christian Faith from Pope Victor had he said in his time we should have assented fully but what he saith is enough to our purpose who was Bishop of Rome from 194. to 203. And it is clear from Baronius and the current of Historians that Palladius was the first Bishop of the Scots
Spondan exit Annal. Baron ad Annum Christi 431. p. mihi 592. hath these words Sanctus Prosper missum ait Palladium ordinatum primum Episcopum ad Scotos He was sent thither by Pope Celestine who ascended that Chair Anno 424. So that the Scotch Christians lived without Bishops for about 320 years until Popery and its Appendices did overspread the World What is alledged by some that Palladius was sent to convert the Scots is contrary to Beda who tells us lib. 1. cap. 13. that he was sent ad Scotos in Christum credentes And what others alledge that he was sent to the Irish in Ireland who then were called Scots is without ground For 1. Beda Hist. lib. 1. c. 12. sheweth whom he meaneth by Scots to wit those that were separated from the Britains by the two Seas which he sheweth to be Clyde and Forth 2. Patrick was sent to them at the same time viz. Palladius was sent to Scotland Anno 431. and Celestine died in the beginning of 132. who yet sent Patrick to Ireland and there is sufficient ground for this from Balaeus cited by Sir G. Mekenzie against St. Asaph where it is said that Palladius was sent to Scotland that Claruit Anno 434. and therefore could not dye to make room for Patrick in Ireland 431. and that he died at Fordon in the Mernes in Scotland Also Tertullian who lived in the beginning of the Third Century speaketh of the Scots as then Christians Britannorum Romanis inaccessa loca Christo vero subdita which Baronius applieth to the Scots and to no other in that Ifle it can be applied Spanhem Epit. Isag. ad Hist. N. T. Saecul 3. Sect. 2. distichon hoc dicit esse Vulgatum Christi transactis tribus Annis atque ducentis Scotia Catholicam coepit habere fidem Besides this it is clear from Beda Hist. lib. 3. c. 25. lib. 5. c. 16. 22. how averse the Scots were from the practises of the Romish Church in the Observation of Easter and the Tonsure And that Venerable Author taxeth them as ignorant of the Canons and that they knew nothing but the Writings of the Apostles Which may give good ground to think that it was long before that Church-Domination Prelacy which at last they were forced to submit to got place among them § 7. That Bishops were setled in Scotland with the beginning of Christianity Arch-Bishop Spotswood doth boldly assert but doth not bring any Vouchers for what he affirmeth Neither doth he name any one of these Bishops till Amphibalus who he saith sat first Bishop in the Isle Iona or Icolmkill But this was long after Christianity came into Scotland to wit all the time was now lapsed that the Culdees remained in the Isle of Man where Crathelinth little less than a hundred Years after Donald and the entrance of Christianity built a Church for them called Fanum Sodorense so that they were at least above a Hundred Years without a Bishop Again Spotswood is alone in this all other Historians making Palladius the first Bishop Neither is there any ground to think that Amphibalus was in any degree of Jurisdiction above other Culdees but that he was a Famous Man and the first of them that is expressed by Name in History This Author telleth also of other Bishops but giveth no ground to believe any more of them than that there were Men so named who were Famous among the Scotch Christians and it is like were their Preachers We conclude then that the Christian Church of Scotland was governed by the Culdees who are sometimes called Priests sometimes Monks sometimes Bishops Neither is there any ground to think that this Name was appropriated to any of them secluding the rest till Palladius came to Scotland far less that any of them had Jurisdiction over the rest What may be met with concerning any Famous Man that was Head over the Society at Icolmkill or elsewhere maketh nothing for Episcopacy for he was there the Head of a School where Students were bred for the Ministry but that he had Jurisdiction over the Culdees who either there or through the Country preached the Gospel to the People hath no semblance of truth Yea we further assert that however a Prelacy together with other Romish Innovations was brought into the Scotch Church with Palladius yet Episcopacy as our Pamphleteer pleadeth for it and as it was lately in Scotland was not known in this Church for a long time after For Constantine the Second King of Scots in the Ninth Century made a Law against Church-men's medling with Secular Business so that they could not sit in Parliament And it was Malcolme Canmore in the Eleventh Century who as he brought in new Titles of Honour into the Civil State so he changed the Discipline of the Church and brought Episcopacy to its 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 § 8. The second thing that we above have asserted is That when the Reformed Religion was brought into Scotland and Popery cast out of it this Protestant Church was not setled under Episcopal Government but under Presbytery and did so continue for many years till by the secret practices and at last by open force of ambitious men the Government was changed to the great disquiet of the Nation Although the knowledge of the Truth did begin privately to creep into Scotland and spread among the People more early even in the Reign of K. James the Fifth and made greater advances under his Daughter Queen Mary yet the first publick step of the Reformation that is found in History was in 1540. when in a Parliament the rigour of Acts against them who have English Bibles was taken off and liberty was granted to read the Bible in their Mother-Tongue also to read other Treatises this was 1543. After this for divers Years many of the Nobility Gentry and Commons owned the true Religion tho' the publick Profession was still Popish Yea by many of the Nobility and Gentry a Bond was solemnly entred into for the defence of the Truth and adherence to it Anno 1557. In the same Year the Queen granted Liberty for Publick Administration of the Word and Sacraments as was desired by a Petition of the Protestants Anno 1559. the Protestant Ministers and People held a General Assembly at St. Johnstown saith Knox Hist. lib. 2. 137. at which I. Knox was present All this while there was no Episcopal Authority owned or submitted to among the Protestants however Bishops still retained their places in the Romish Church and in the State In the Year 1560. July 17. in a Parliament held at Edenburgh the Confession of Faith containing the Heads of the Protestant Religion was by Law established August 24. an Act past against saying of Mass. The same Year the Pope's Authority in Scotland was abolished by Act of Parliament Anno 1561. the first Book of Discipline was presented to the Convention of Estates but delayed and not approved nor condemned at that time yet soon
Scotland and to so great a number and to whom the people were under a relation as their Pastors being thrust from their Charges for their faithfulness in that time of Tryal and others being obtruded on them many of whom were very unqualified for the Ministry and they entring without the peoples call or consent they would not own them for their Pastors nor thought themselves obliged to wait on their Ministry but thought it their Duty rather to hear their own faithful Pastors or others who walked in their steps who were not unministred by any Church-Act but only restrained by the force of a Civil Law which could neither derogate from their Ministerial Authority nor loose the relation that the people had to them I deny not but some went beyond the limits of this Moderation but that is not to be imputed to all the Presbyterians being neither the conclusion of any Church-meeting among them nor the sentiment of all § 4. This being considered taketh off the edge of all that he enlargeth on about the Episcopal party agreeing with us in the Confession of Faith Directory for Worship and Administration of Sacraments For it is on none of these accounts that we withdraw from them but partly because they suffer none to be Ministers among them but such as comply with Episcopal Jurisdiction partly because they deprived us of the Ministers that we stand in relation to and ought to own partly because the Ministers obtruded on us are none of our choice as they ought to be by the priviledge that Christ hath given to his Church And indeed many of them unfit to be chosen and partly because this change is made not by any Church-Authority that we can own but by the State and by an unlawful Church-power It seemeth his Arguments are run low when he chargeth us with Nonconformity even to the Presbyterian Church in that we use not the Doxology nor the words of the Lord's Prayer nor the Belief at Baptism For when or where were these injoyned by the Presbyterian Church And if they had been we cannot by such Injunctions be bound to what is after found to be inconvenient That we are tyed to the use of the Doxology by the Covenant he doth most ridiculously affirm For whoever esteemed that a part of the Reformation then engaged to Using the Lord's Prayer we never condemned but that Christ hath enjoyned the using of these express words or that that Prayer was given as a form of words rather than as a Directory for the matter of Prayer we deny Neither do we condemn the use of the Creed but we think that they who have their Children baptized should profess their Faith so as may more clearly distinguish them from Popish and other Hereticks than that Confession of Faith can do QUEST V. In this Question he advanceth a Paradox The Question is Whether the Penal Laws against Scotch Presbyterians had any thing of Persecution in them THis Question he concludeth Negatively with the same brow that Maimburg and other French Popish Writers do affirm That all the Protestants who lately in France turned Papists did turn voluntarily without any compulsion and that no Rigour nor Persecution hath been used to move them to this change This is a degree of effrontedness of bidding Defiance to Truth and the God of it of bold imposing on the Reason yea and the common Sense of Mankind that the World doth purely owe to this Age and to Jesuitical obfirmation of mind But let us hear how he will prove this his strange assertion As these Laws have beat out the Brains of many good Christians that could not comply with them so this Man thinketh by his Arguings to beat out of the brains of such as remain all Sense and Reason whereby they may judge of what they hear see and feel In clearing the state of his Question he confesseth There may be too severe Laws under which men may suffer for Conscience-sake this will increase the wonder of intelligent unbyassed men who know our Affairs that such Laws are possible and yet ours are innocent but maketh the Question to be Whether our Laws were not necessary for preserving true Religion and publick Peace or whether they were the uncharitable effects of a peevish Resentment inconsistent with good Nature and Christianity Tho' even that cloak of smooth words will not hide the nakedness of the Bloody Laws that he pleadeth for nor could warrant a man that believeth Heaven or Hell to plead for such cruel Execution of them as was among us Yet this state of the Question is not the same with what in the Title is proposed For there have been few Persecutions in the World for which Necessity hath not been pretended and that were given forth to be for preserving a false Religion or for hindring publick Peace or that the Actors in them would call peevish and inconsistent with good Nature and Christianity or Moral Goodness And it is certain that where publick Peace may be preserved without such severe Laws the enacting of them is Persecution which was our case for nothing caused the sad breaches of the Peace that were in this Nation in 1666. and 1679. but the unsupportable Hardships tending to make wise men mad that they who feared God lay under by the severity of these Laws and the Barbarity used in executing them § 2. To vindicate the Laws from all blame of Persecution he giveth a lame unjust and disingenuous account of them Wo to Posterity if they be abused with such false History it is little Honesty to transmit such things to after-ages but it is the height of Impudence to publish them among such as were Eye-witnesses of them and among whom the sad effects of them remain with grief and smarting to this day I shall first examine the account that he giveth of these Laws and then shew how defective it is by supplying what he hath omitted He telleth a story of the endeavours of the Synod of Edenburgh to have Presbytery established and who can blame them especially seeing their Attempt was only an Application to a Person of Interest with His Majesty He telleth us likewise of their sending a Clergy-man whom he will not name to the same Great Man who is also nameless with a threatning Message That if they would not settle Presbytery they should have the people let loose upon them This story I never heard before nor know I how to examine the truth of it neither can I meet with any Person that hath heard of it and so have more than probable grounds to let it pass as a Forgery And if it had been true was this private surmise a sufficient ground for a Parliament to make such Bloody Laws against so great a Body of People as the Dissenters Men will think it a weak Cause that must be supported by such silly shifts I take no notice of the Act annulling so many preceding Parliaments and their Acts tho' this were
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
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