QUESTION I. Whether Presbytery (as contrary to the Epis­copacy restored in Scotland, An. 1662.) was settled by Law when the Protestant Religion came to have the Legal Establish­ment in that Kingdom?

1. ALL the Dispute here, intrinsick to the notion of a Church Governour, is purely this; Whether he should be nominated by the State or by the Church; whe­ther after Nomination, the power to Elect him should be entrusted to a Delegated Number, or remain in the mixt Synod of Clergy and Laity; and whether after the Election is past, his Institution unto his Office should be for Life, or only during Pleasure; and lastly, whether in the Exercise of his Function he have a Negative voice over his Synod, or they a Conclusive Voice over him: Where­fore the Presbyterian Moderator An. 1662. abolished, [Page 2] is rightly defined, the Church-Moderator, Nomina­ted and Elected by the Clergy, Lay-Elders and Dea­cons of the Synod; instituted unto his Office during their pleasure; invested with no fixed Power of Ordination; nor any Negative Voice in the exercise of his Jurisdiction. And the Episcopacy which was then restored, is by the Rule of contraries a Church-Government of a Moderator Nominated by the King; Elected by the Chapter; invested with a fixed power of Ordination regulated by Cannons; and of Jurisdiction balanced by assisting Presbyters.

2. Now although such an Episcopacy was in Scotland taken away April last, yet since Presbytery is not yet setl'd by Law, this question of Fact propos'd about it, may be stated and resolved according to Truth, without the crime of LEE­SING MAKING.

3. It is not to be doubted, but that the Protestant Reli­gion had the Legal Establishment in Scotland, in the year 1567, in which year by Parliamentary Statutes Popery was K. Iames 6. Parl. 1. Act. 2, 3, 8. Abolished, a Protestant Confession of Faith Authorized, and their Kings by the Coronation Oath obliged to maintain it.

4. By the Nature of the Scottish Monarchy, neither the King without Advice of his Estates, nor they without his Royal Consent touching the Publick Act with his Scep­ter, can make or unmake Laws to govern the People: Wherefore the Constitution of Bishops having then the Publick Authority, (the Popish Bishops sitting in this Par­liament which thus setl'd the Reformation) must in the con­struction Spotswood's 3 Book of the Law be confest to remain firm and valid from the aforesaid year 1567, till the full Legislative Power of the King in Parliament, concur'd to shake or destroy it.

5. But whatever was done at that time in favour of Mr. Spotswood Book 3. p. 152. Book 6. p. 289. Iohn Knox his Book of POLICY, (proposing a superin­tendency which is another Model of Episcopacy) or Mr. An. Melvil his Book of DISCIPLINE, (proposing Presbytery, An. 1578) by Acts of Privy Council extorted in tumultuous times, through the Menacing Applications of Clergy Men Assembling [Page 3] themselves without Warrant; yet before the year 1592, there is no Act of Parliament either in Print or Unprinted, setling that Presbytery which is contrary to the Episcopacy Established before, and remaining in substance at the time of the Reformation.

6. Wherefore the impartial Resolution of the Question proposed, is in short this, That Presbytery, as contrary to the Episcopacy restored in Scotland An. 1662, was not by Law setled 35 years after the Protestant Religion had the Legal Establishment in that Kingdom.

QUESTION II. Whether ever Presbytery was setled in the Church of Scotland, without constraint from tumultuous times?

1. KING Iames describing the Presbyterians, calls them the very Pests in the Church and Commonwealth, whom [...]. lib. 2. p. [...]8. Lond. Ed. no deserts can oblige, neither Oaths nor Promises bind, brea thing nothing but Sedition and Calumnies, Aspiring without Measure, Railing without Reason, and making their own Ima­ginations (without any warrant of the Word) the square of their Conscience. And thereafter describing their Church Politie and Discipline, calls it that Parity which can never stand with the Order of the Church, nor the Peace of a Com­monweal, and well Ruled Monarchy: Now when these are the Characters which the British Solomon gives Presbyterians and Presbytery (and with a Protestation before God that he lies not) Who can with any shadow of Reason, or grain of Charity, think that he either was so Unwise or Irreligious, as by Act of Parlia­ment to Establish Presbytery in the Church, out of his own free choice, and not out of some kind of Compulsion: Nay, when that Government and its Admirers have these Cha­racters [Page 4] from him, can any thinking man read over the Act of Restitution of Bishops An. 1606, and not believe that, according to its Preamble, the former Act An. 1592, im­pairing that first Estate of his Kingdom, was purely owing to his young years and the unsetled Condition of Affairs?

How he was forced to it we may learn from his own Book, [...], l. 2. wherein he says, that God Almighty was pleased that the Blessed Reformation of Scotland should begin with Unordi­nate and Popular Tumults, of men clogg'd with their own Passion and particular Respects; that some fiery spirited Mi­nisters got such a guiding of the People at that time of Con­fusion, as finding the gust of Government sweet, they began to fancy a Democracy to themselves; that having been over well baited upon the wrack, first of his Royal Grandmother, and next of his own Mother, and usurping the liberty of time in his own long Minority, there never rose any Faction among Statesmen, but they that were of that Factious part, were careful to perswade and allure the Church-Men to Spotswood 6 Book. espouse that quarrel as their own: Wherefore in the year 1592, the pernicious Feuds between the Earls of Huntley and Murray, and those Contests between the Assembly Men of the Clergy and the Lords of the Session: Together with repeated Treasonable Plots carried on against his Royal Person, by Bothwel, and his Associates, of the greatest Power and best Quality, forced that young King 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.

3. Charles the First of ever Blessed Memory, he pleads that in Charity he may be thought desirous to preserve the English Church Government by Bishops in its right Constitu­tion, as a Matter of Religion, wherein both his Iudgment was K. Charles [...], 17 Chap. justly satisfied, that it hath of all others the fullest Scripture Grounds, and also the constant practice of all Christian Churches. And after he had written this Confession with Ink, and then Sealed it with his Royal Blood, who can imagine that [Page 5] his once giving some way to Presbytery in Scotland, was his voluntary Act, especially when his Majesties Commissioner the Earl of Traquair, (according to instructions) gave in his August 30. 1639. Declaration to the contrary: But here there is no need to declare the unhappy State of Affairs that forced him to it: Since there are Volumes written concerning that Religious Rebellion, which produced the most horrid Mur­der of the best King that ever was in these Kingdoms.

4. Wherefore the Impartial Resolution to the question pro­posed, is in short this, that K. Iames the 6th, and K. Charles I. setled Presbytery in the Kingdom of Scotland, being con­strained thereunto by troublesome and tumultuous times.

QUESTION III. Whether the Principles of Scottish Presbytery grant any Toleration to Dissenters?

1. SINCE the solemn League and Covenant is the Ca­non, and the Acts of the general Assembly the Com­ment, of the Principles of Scotch Presbytery, this Question in reference to their Toleration of Dissenters, plainly re­solves in this, Whether Covenanters and Assembly-men according to their Principles, are for Liberty of Consci­ence, or against it?

2. In the first Article of the Solemn League, they swear, That they shall sincerely, really and constantly endeavour the preserva­tion of the Reformed Religion in the Church of Scotland in Dis­cipline and Government against their common Enemies.

3. To preserve this part of the Reformation, they swear again in the second Article against Popish Prelacy, that is, the Church Government by Arch-Bishops, Bishops, their Chan­celors [Page 6] and Commissiaries, Dean and Chapters, Arch-Deacons, and all other Ecclesiastical Officers depending on that Hierar­chy, Superstition and Heresie.

4. What is meant by their Sincere Real and constant endea­vour against their common Enemies (King or Parliament) for preserving that Reformation in Church-Government, by extir­pating such an Episcopacy, is manifest in the last Article, in which they swear to assist and def [...]nd all those that enter into the League and Covenant, in the maintaining and persuing thereof, and that they shall not suffer themselves directly or indirectly, by whatsoever Combination, Perswasion or Terror to be divided from their Blessed Union and Conjunction, whe­ther to make defection to the contrary part, or to give them­selves to a detestable indifferency or neutrality in the Cause, which so much concerneth the Glory of God.

5. But if after all these parts of the first, second, fourth, and sixth Articles of the Covenant compared toge­ther, any Seruple yet remains, whether those Men who make Conscience of the Oath they have taken against any Indifferency or Neutrality in this Cause against Episcopacy, (which in Charity I believe they think the Cause of Christ) can allow any Toleration to Dissenters, let us in the next place consider some Acts of their General As­semblies, which are the Infallible Interpreters of this Rule of their Faith about Ecclesiastical Polity. Now although the Episcopal Clergy in the times before the year 1639, (when they saw that destruction of the Church Govern­ment) neither themselves appear'd in Tumults nor in Ser­mons, or Books, exhorted others to Tumultuate, (for to pre­serve it) yet the Presbyterians were so far from taking pains to gain them unto a Conformity, or in case they conform'd, from letting them continue in their Cures (as the Pres­byterians were dealt with, after the year 1662) that on the contrary they pass these following Acts.

6. The General Assembly ordaineth, the subscription of the Covevant to all the Members of that Kirk and Kingdom. Aug 1639.

[Page 7]7. And whereas the former Act Aug. 1630. hadnot been Aug. 1643. obeyed, it was again ordain'd by another Assembly, That all Ministers make intimation of the said Act in their Kirks, and thereafter proceed with the Censures of the Kirk against such as shall refuse to subscribe the Covenant; and that exact account be taken of every Ministers diligence herein by their Pres­byteries and Synods, as they will answer to the General As­sembly.

8. Neither was this last Act, inflicting Ecclesiastical Censures only to fall heavy upon those who were hinderers of their blessed Reformation, (whom they called Anticovenanters) but in the Assembly, it's appointed, that all Ministers take special May 1644. notice when any secret disaffecters of the Covenant shall come within their Parishes, that so soon as they shall know the same, they may without delay, cause warn them to appear be­fore the Presbyteries, within which their Parishes lies, or before the Commissioners of the Assembly appointed for Publick Affairs, as they shall find most convenient; which warning the Assembly, declares shall be a sufficient Citation unto them.

9. And that all, and every one of such Offenders shall humbly acknowledge their Offence upon their knees, first, before the Pres­bytery, and thereafter, before the Congregation, upon a Sabbath, in some place before the Pulpit; and in the mean time, they be suspended from the Lords Supper. And in case they do not satis­fie in manner aforesaid, they be processed with Excommunicati­on: And this is as easie an Ecclesiastick Censure as the whole body of their Acts of Assembly have upon Record, or any now alive can remember. Nay, the Assembly enjoyns this Ex­communication against Covenanters themselves, who but in so far comply with Malignancy (the King's Evil of those times) as to drink the health of any declar'd a Common Enemy of that Covenanted Kirk and Kingdom.

10. And in case any Excommunicated Malignant should, for all his being Heathen, be yet so much the Christian, as to long after the Communion of Christ's Body and Blood, they did all they could to hinder it: For not only is [Page 8] it by them ordain'd, That all Deposed Ministers, who af­ter the Sentence of Deprivation pronounced against them, ex­ercise any part of the Ministerial Calling in the Places they formerly served in, or else where, they should be proceeded against with Excommunication: but Five Years before, Anno 1643. it was by them provided, that if any Covenanted Mi­nister should haunt the company of any Excommunicated Per­son, he should for the first fault, be suspended from his Mi­nistry, by his Presbytery, during their pleasure: and for the second fault be deprived: and in case the Presbyteries be neg­ligent therein, that the Provincial Assembly shall censure the Presbytery thus negligent: And when they have done suffici­ently to deprive the Excommunicate person of all Spiri­tual Mercy (as far as they could do) they proceed to take from him all his temporal comfort of Liberty and Property according to their Act, whereby they order his Person to be A [...]g. 164 [...]. imprisoned, after the loss of his Goods and Estate.

11. Now these being the Principles of Presbytery, found­ed upon the Oath of the Covenant (to extirpate Episcopacy, and never to be indifferent in the Cause) and explained in the Assembly-Acts, (enjoyning Censure and Excommunica­tion, and recommending to the State the Temporal punish­ment of Forfeiture and Imprisonment to pass thereupon a­gainst all Persons disaffected) the impartial resolution to the Question is this, That the Principles of Scottish Pres­bytery grant no Toleration to Dissenters.

QUESTION IV, Whether between the Year 1662. and the Year 1689. Presbyterian Separatists were guilty of sinful Separation?

1. THE Larger Catechism agreed upon by the pretended Assembly at Westminster, with assistance of Commissio­ners from the Kirk of Scotland, and thereafter approved by their general Assembly, teacheth such Doctrine, as from it can be demonstrated how necessary it is for Salvation that every person keep Communion with the particular Church established by the Laws of the State he liveth in; unless she either enjoyn in her Canons any sinful term of Com­munion, or propose in her Confession of Faith any Heretical Article, or prescribe in her Directory for Worship, any Idola­trous impurity. So that the Question here proposed plain­ly resolves into this, Whether the Episcopal Church of Scotland these 27 years enjoyn'd any sinful Canon as a term of Communion, or prosess'd any erroneous Doctrine to be believed, or directed any Idolatry to be performed in Divine Worship.

2. All the Presbyterians in the World cannot produce one Canon of any Synod of the Episcopal Church of Scot­land, from 1662▪ to the last year, with which they will not readily comply, excepting those Canons that qualifie Ministers to the Exercise of the holy Function: and none of those are enjoyned the Clergy of that Perswasion, as a term of their Communion, but as a condition of their Ministration: So that however these should debar any Ministers from the Pulpit, they cannot shut them out of the Church▪ Nay, when it hath been demonstrated to them (in a Letter for Union, dated at Edinburgh the 4th of March [Page 10] last) that never any Confession of our Reformed Church avowed a Divine Right in a parity among all Church-Offi­cers; and that the Solemn League did not abjure the Presi­dent Bishop, and that the English Presbyterians, in Conscience [...] An. 1661. of their Oath of the Covenant, petitioned for such an Episcopacy; I think it may be presumed (when twelve­months are past without any Reason published against the said Letter) that they now believe that sin lieth at their door, for leaving their Charges after the Restauration of our Kingly Government, upon the point of Difference a­bout Episcopacy.

3. In the second place, the Scottish Presbyterians, for Mat­ters of Faith, adhere to the Westminster Consession, in obe­dience to the Act of their General Assembly: Now let any Aug. 1647. Presbyterian discover, if he can, one single Article of all the three and thirty Chapters of that Confession, that was ever condemn'd by the late Episcopal Church of Scotland, in any whatsoever Synod, since the time of its Restitution.

4. Thirdly, Scotch Presbyterians, for publick Worship in the Church, retain the Directory, composed by the foresaid pretended Assembly at Westminster, and thereafter approved Feb. 1645. by the General Assemblies of their Kirk. Now to this Rule of Divine Service the established Episcopal Church there hath these 27 years been more conformable than the Pres­byterians ever were or are. It is true, that those who have Sworn in the Solemn Leagne to preserve the Protestant Re­ligion as it stood reformed in Scotland, An. 1638. and to reform the Kingdom of England, in the same point of Wor­ship, according to the Example of the Church of Scotland, are by virtue of this their Solemn Oath obliged to ling the Doxologie after the singing Psalms, ever after the year Forty Eight, as well as they did it all the ten years be­fore; and to avoid the sin of Perjury, they were bound to make their English Brethren to sing it, rather than at their instigation to forbear to sing it themselves. But not to in­sist upon this Covenant-Obligation, doubtless when the Episco­pal [Page 11] Church of Scotland continues that Christian Hymn, which the Directory hath no where forbidden, their sin of Commission is not half so great as the Omission of the Lords Prayer, which the Directory enjoyneth to be said at Sermon times, of which Omission the Presbyterians are only guilty, of all the Christians in the world.

5. Again, in Administration of both Sacraments, the Epis­copal Church of Scotland, observeth the Directory in all things, save one which is a very justifiable Practice; and that is in the Office of Baptism, the solemn Confession of the Apostolick Creed, which both the pretended Assembly here at Westminster, and the General Assembly there in Scotland, (at the end of the shorter Catechism) acknow­ledge to be a Brief Sum of the Christian Faith, agreeable to the Word of God, and amiently received in the Churches of Christ: This their acknowledgment of its Antiquity and Scripture Purity, must force any Scotch Presbyterian, to grant that there is no more sin in saying the Apostles Creed publickly in the Church, tho' there be no precept for saying it, than there is in sprinkling water upon the Baptized Infant.

6. Now laying all these considerations together, that the purity in Doctrine which Presbyterian Synods confess, and the purity of Publick Worship, doing nothing which the Directory forbids, could be as well retained in the Epis­copal Church of Scotland these 27 years, as in any Presby­terian Kirk or Meeting-House: And that no Confession of any Reformed Church, asserts the Divine Right of their Presbytery as before defined: And that the Cove­venant abjures not the Epis opacy likewise defin'd, but on the contrary it was peti [...]ioned for by the English Cove­nanters, I say laying all these things together, the im­partial Resolution of the present Question, is this, That between the year 1662, and the year 1689, Presbyterian Separatists were guilty of sinful Separation.

QUESTION V. Whether the Penal Laws against Scotch Presbyterians, had any thing of Persecu­tion in them?

1. IT cannot be denied but there may be a party in a Kingdom of well meaning men, truly Pious and Peace­able, who yet for some Non-Conformity to the Church-Establishment, may have too severe Laws Enacted against them, by the Execution of which they may suffer for Conscience Sake; so that the question here proposed, plainly resolves into this, Whether the Penal Laws against Scotch Presbyterians had any thing in them which cannot be justified in Christian Policy as necessary, (at those times in which they were Enacted) for the Preser­vation of true Religion and Publick Peace in the Church and State? Or whether they were the uncharitable effects of a peevish resentment, inconsistent with good Nature or Christianity?

2. Forasmuch as it had pleased Almighty God to compassi­onate the Troubles and Confusions of Scotland, by returning King Charles the 2d, to the exercise of that Royal Govern­ment, under which, and its excellent Constitution, that Kingdom had for many Ages enjoyed so much Happiness, Peace, and Plen­ty; The Noble Lord the Earl of Middleton, being for his unshaken Loyalty honoured with his Majesties High Commission, the Administration of the Oath of Allegiance, to all the Members of Parliament, was the first thing enacted by the States thereof.

[Page 13]3. In Conscience of their Oaths of Allegiance, to maintain and defend the Sovereign Power and Authority of the Kings Majesty; and in consideration of the sad consequences that do accompany any encroachments upon, or diminution thereof, they, from their sen [...]e of humble Duty, wholy applyed them­selves in this Session, to Establish such wholesome Laws, as might by acknowledgment of his Majesties Prerogatives, prove Salves to cure the State from the Diseases of A­narchy and Confusion, which had before in the Usurpation seized her Vitals.

4. But all this time of the Parliaments sole applica­tion to matters of State, in this first Session, the Pres­byterian Clergy did not neglect to do all they could for a Parliamentary Confirmation of their Ecclesiastical Government.

5. First, the Synod of Edenburgh, applyed themselves to a Person of great Interest with his Majesties Commissioner, that his Grace might be intreated to procure from his Royal Master, instructions to give them Presbytery with­out Bishops; and they promised that they should them­selves Enact, never to meet without his Majesties Com­missioner, who should call and dissolve them at his plea­sure: Which Act of theirs, they promised to get rati­fied by the first General Assembly.

6. And when they found this Address of theirs to be without any success, they sall upon another method, and send a Clergyman, whose name (because of his Memory for his Piety and School Learning) I shall not mention, with this threatning, that if the Estates in Parliament consirm'd not their Presbytery, they should have the People let loose upon them▪

7. In that first Session of the Parliament already menti­oned, the King with the Advice of the Estates therein [Page 14] Convened, had before forbid the renewing of the Solemn K. Ch. 2. Parl. 1. Act. 7, 9, 10. League and Covenant, and by several Acts annulled all the pretended Conventions of the preceeding Rebellion; but this imperious Address from the Ministers, gave them a new sensible occasion to be perswaded, that all the late Disorders and Exorbitances in the Church, incroachments K. Ch. 2. Parl. 1. Sess. 2. Act. 1. upon the Prerogative and Right of the Crown, and Usurpa­tions upon the Authority of Parliaments, and the prejudice done to the Liberty of the Subject, were the Natural Effects of the Invasion made upon the Episcopal Government; and therefore upon deliberation of twenty Months, they past an Act of its Restitution, in the beginning of the second Session of that Parliament.

8. This Act of Restitution of Bishops had this effect, in reference to the Scottish Clergy: Whoever among them were disappointed in their hopes of Preferment, or were Lovers of Ease from the burthensome Service in the Church, or else impatient to be made subordinate to those with whom they so lately had been upon a Level, for­sook their Ministry, but they lived quietly at their re­spective habitations, and in Personal Conformity to the Church Establisht. Others again (and of them not a few) were sensible that the Established Episcopacy, being oblig­ed to exercise their Jurisdiction in a Synod with the ballance of Assisting Presbyters, was the only Church Government which could be obtained of the State, (and which was not abjur'd in the Solemn League) and therefore did keep their Charges, and were willing to own Canonical Obedience to their Diocesan Bishops.

9. This Example of Christian submission to Authority, given by the generality of Presbyterian Ministers of both sorts, gain'd the Laity of that Perswasion to a Pious and Sober observance of the Publick Worship; so that at that time nothing was wanting to render that National Church happy without Protestant Dissenters, but a com­petent [Page 15] number of Godly, Learned, and Grave Men to fill up the vacant places of those who, for any of the Motives before mentioned, had left their charges; and till that deplorable want (especially in the West,) the Se­paration from the regular Meetings for Divine Service, was so little observable, that before June 1663, the wis­dom of that Nation had by no Act provided against it.

10. It is true, that the libellous Sermons and Books of some wicked Men, which were written to justify the Mur­der of Charles the I. and the Banishment of Charles the II. the renovation of the Covenant, the necessity of taking up Arms to promote its Ends, and the sinfulness of comply­ance with the legal Settlement in Church or State, did now alarm that Parliament.

11. They considered how seditious, and of how dangerous ex­ample and consequence Seperation from the rugular Church might prove for the future: And therefore for security of the State from the confusions they had so lately smarted under, they were forced to enact a Penal Law against it, importing, That every Person having an Inheritance, should pay the fourth part of K. Ch. 2. Parl. 1. Sess. 3. Act. 2. his yearly Estate; every Yeoman Tenant or Farmer the fourth part of his free moveables (after the payment of their Dues to their Master;) and that every Burgess should lose all the Priviledges within the Borough, and the fourth part of his moveables.

12. But notwithstanding this Penal Law, the contagion of those Books and Sermons which poisoned so many with Principles of Separation from the established Church, produced the renovation of the Covenant, contrary to the Authority of the King and Parliament; and that a­gain was followed by an open Rebellion of the Western parts (known by the name of Pentlin Hills) in the Year 1666, defeated by the King's Army, so that they were out of capacity of resisting: However, the King in his [Page 16] Royal Clemency, at the Address of some States-men, gave them indulgence to convene in Meeting-Houses for Divine Worship; and they made this good use of his Mercy, as that by them the incumbent Ministers (whose Characters would have secured them any where but in the West of Scotland) had their Houses in the night time invaded, their Persons assaulted, wounded and pursued for their Lives. Then indeed, that merciful Prince, with advice of his Estates in Parliament, having a just indignation of such horrid and unchristian Villanies, thought fit to brand the same with a K. Ch. 2 Parl. 2. Ses. 2. Act. 4. signal mark of displeasure. And this Act of the Date, Aug. 1670. is the first that punisheth with Death and confiscation of Goods.

13. It is true indeed, the King and his Estates of Par­liament, filled with indignation at the scandalous sin, which procured this former Penal Law; and understanding from thence, that the specious pretences of Religion were altogether false, and taken up by seditious Persons; They immedi­ately K. Ch. 2. Parl. 2. Ses. 2. Act. 5. pass'd another Act against Conventicles; the Pre­amble of which last Act declares, That such Meetings were the ordinary Seminaries of Rebellion as well as Separation, that they tended to the alienating the Hearts of the Subjects from their Duty and Obedience they owe to his Majesty and the Publick Laws, and by consequence, to the reproach of the Au­thority of the King and Parliament, as well as the prejudice of Gods publick Worship, and the scandal of the Reformed Re­l [...]gion: And therefore they were obliged in reason of State, as well as for the Peace of the Church, to make the Pe­nalty of this Law fall heavy upon the Transgressors thereof.

14 And the Penalties therein contained (as nigh as I can value Scottish Mony by the current Coin in England) are these following: That every Minister, preaching at a Conventicle, should be imprisoned till he find surety for 275 l. that he should not do the like thereafter, or else oblige himself by Bond to re­move [Page 17] out of the Kingdom, and never to return without his Maje­sties leave; that every one of any Inheritance should pay the fourth part of his yearly Estate; that every Servant should pay the fourth part of his yearly Wages; that every Farmer should pay Forty Shillings, and every Tenant under them Twenty.

12. Further, His Majesty understanding that divers dis­affected Persons had been so maliciously wicked and disloyal, as to convocate his Subjects to open Meetings in the Fields; and con­sidering that those Meetings were the rendezvous of Rebellion, and tending in a high measure to the disturbance of the publick Peace, declares, that those who in Arms did convocate in Field Conventicles, should be punishable by Death, and confiscation of Goods; and that those present at them, should be punished in double the respective Fines appointed against House-Meetings. This Act is dated Aug. the 30th. 1670.

13. These acts against Separation in Meeting-houses, or in the Fields, were appointed to endure only for the space of three years, unless his Majesty should think fit to continue them longer; wherefore his Majesty considering that they had not received due Obedience, and that the execution thereof had not been so pro­secuted, as by the Tenor of the same is prescribed, found it neces­sary, with the advise of his Estates in Parliament, in Sept. 1672. that they should remain in force for other three Years to come.

14. These are the Penal Laws in Scotland against the Pres­byterians, made by divers free Parliaments against their sin­ful Separation from the Church, to frequent Meeting-houses or Field-Conventicles, upon mature consideration of the inconsistency of it, with Religion towards God; Affection to the Laws; Loyalty to the King; or Study of the publick Peace of the State: And three Rebellions in 23 years (from the year 1663 to the year 1686) have justifyed the Justice and Wisdom of these Parliaments. But none ever [Page 18] suffered for meer Separation but in purse; and never any was punished that way, but such as came to Church to save their Money, notwithstanding all their pretended scru­ples of Conscience: Wherefore unless we derogate from the Authority of King and Parliament, justify Rebel­lion, and prefer private Humour to publick Peace, the impartial Resolution of the present Question is this, That the Penal Laws against the Scotch Presbyterians had no­thing of Persecution in them.

QUESTION VI. Whether the Episcopal Clergy in Scotland from the Year 1662 to the Year 1686, shewed any thing of the Spirit of Persecution a­gainst Presbyterians?

1. NOtwithstanding that the Presbyterians are pleas'd to say, they were dragoon'd by the Bishops and Episcopal Clergy, alluding to that way of Conversion in France, which indeed was procur'd by an Address of the Assembly of the Clergy of that Kingdom; yet this is a palpable Injustice and Calumny. For certain it is, that all these twenty four years never produced one Address of the Pres­byterial, Diocesan, Provincial, or National Assembly of the Esta­blished Church of Scotland, either beseeching the High Court of Parliament, or the Lords of the Privy Council, to make or execute Laws against Protestant Dissenters: Wherefore, notwithstanding all the passionate Exhortations in private, and the publick Sermons in the Church, concerning the guiltiness of Schism, and the necessity of Union among [Page 19] Protestants, against their common Adversaries, the Inferi­our Clergy there cannot be possibly charged with the Spirit of Persecution against Presbyterians. Nay, upon the contrary, our Clergy were so averse from giving obe­dience to the Act that enjoyned them to present written Lists of the Dissenters in their respective Parishes, and so very inflexible to the Publick Order for their Ju­dicial informing upon Oath against Separatists, that the Judges competent, and Officers of State chid them in Publick for disaffection to the Royal Government; so that under that Imputation they had nothing but their In­nocency to support them, in the Spirit of Meekness and Charity to their sworn Enemies.

2. Again, it were a great Injustice to the Lords Spiri­tual, the Bishops, to charge any of them as having been the first movers of those Penal Laws against Separation; but since the repeated Rebellions of Forty Years past, con­vinced all Mankind of the necessity of those Laws for the security of Religion and the Peace of the State, the Bishops consenting, or even advising to those Laws, is so far from inferring their having a Persecuting Spirit, that on the contrary, their doing otherwise, had demonstrated them to be Enemies to the Commonwealth, in all its concerns both Sacred and Civil.

3. But withal, it cannot but be acknowledged by any one that considers things calmly, that none of those Bi­shops had it ever in their power to shew acts of Compassion towards deluded Separatists of whatever quality, but he chearfully did it, in relieving their Necessities, or mitiga­ting the execution of the Penalties by Law enjoin'd. To make a proof of this by enumerating particular Acts of Charity (which Presbyterians, to this day alive, will ac­knowledge) would make the Resolution of this Question swell Four times bigger than all the Four Letters concern­ing [Page 20] the present Persecution of their Clergy; therefore I shall forbear it.

4. Now since Private Exhortations, and Publick Sermons against Schism, and recommending Union, were all the appearances made by that Inferiour Clergy against Separatists; and since all the Bishops in Parliament ad­vis'd to no Penal Laws against Separation, but such as were justified to the World by a Threefold Rebellion, to be necessary in Policy as well as Religion, for the common good of the State as well as Church; I say, after all, the impartial Resolution of the present Question is this, That the Episcopal Clergy in Scotland, from the year 1662 to the year 1686, shewed nothing of the Spirit of Persecution against Presbyterians.

QUESTION VII. Whether the Episcopal Church of Scotland were Compliers with the Designs for tak­ing away the Penal Laws against the Pa­pists?

1. FOr the clearer resolution of this Question, let us distinguish betwixt the Scottish Episcopal Church, diffu­sed through all the Laity of that Kingdom; and that Church again under the more restrained notion of Representative, comprehending the Clergy: and let us likewise distinguish the Clergy unto the Lords Spiritual the Bishops, and the subordinate Ministers and Pastors; that so without par­tiality, [Page 21] every one of these Societies of Protestants may be considered in reference to the matter of fact in que­stion.

2. And to begin with their Episcopal Church Diffu­sive. The Two Estates of Barons (great and less) and Burgesses, fully represent them, in Parliamentary As­semblies; the free and full Parliament convened An. 1685. consisted of such Men as had all of them sworn in the Test against the Covenant-Principles of Presbytery: This Episcopal Parliament so resolutely own'd themselves to be averse from taking away these Legal Restraints upon Papists, that the Vote about repealing those Penal Laws came never further than the Lords of the Articles: All this the Episcopal Church Diffusive did, with the appa­rent hazard of displeasing the Prince, who was then so zealous for an extensive Liberty to Papists, that for the disappointment which he found therein from that Parlia­ment, he chose to turn out of his Service, some who had been the most faithful to him both in Civil and Military Affairs.

3. Again, for the Church Representative of Scotland, the most malicious Enemies to the Episcopal Order, asperse but two of fourteen Bishops, for their complyance to these designs; and it is as well known that two of the twelve were depriv'd.

4. Then as for the inferior Clergy, they were constant­ly faithful in Preaching against the Doctrines of the Roman Church, notwithstanding the necessity they were under, of reading the Law against LEESING MAKING, every quarter of the year, to affright them into silence; they as often as they preached, remembred in their Publick Prayers, the persecuted Protestants in France, notwithstanding all that was done to stifle and disparage the belief of the Persecution; nay, in none of [Page 22] their Synodical Sermons, was the eminent danger from the busie Jesuites and other Papists forgotten; nor in any Ser­mon, the miserable Fopperies of Popery omitted, even before his Majesties own Commissioner, whether in the Cathedral Church at Edenborough, or the Chappel Royal at Holy-Rood-House: And in the Synod of April 1685, (when the Bishops could not be with them, by reason of the approaching Parliament) they drew up their Remon­strances against Popery; and like dutiful Sons and Zea­lous Protestants, shewed their ready concurrence with the Bishops, in that day of Tryal: And it's certain, that to their Interest with the Country, it is chiefly to be at­tributed, that the Penal Laws against Papists were not then repealed.

5. All this they did, not with connivance of the Court, but with apparent hazard of its heaviest displeasure, ex­ecuted in the censuring of some, suspension of others, and deposition of others, who were all patient and chearful Confessors for that Holy Religion, which they Professed and Taught in season and out of season: Wherefore the impartial Resolution to the present Question, is this, That neither the Episcopal Church Diffusive, nor Representa­tive the Clergy, whether Superior, or Inferior, were Com­pliers with the Designs for taking away the Penal Laws against Papists.

QUESTION VIII. Whether the Scottish Presbyterians were Com­plyers with the Designs for taking away the Penal Laws against Papists?

IN satisfying this Question, let us take the same method which we took to satisfie the former: And to begin with the Laity of the Presbyterian Perswasion, none of these were ignorant that the Convening of the Parliament in 1685, was to obtain of them a free admission of Papists into all places of Trust; King Iames his Principles for Liberty of Conscience, fill'd up all his Declarations for Indulgence within his Kingdoms; none of the Presbyterians were unac­quainted that he had sent an Ambassador to the Pope, and that the Pope had his Nuncio at Whitehall; none of them believed that the English Court in those circumstances, would do any thing relating to Religion, but what was agreeable to the measures of the Conclave; none of them were ignorant, that Papists call all Protestants Hereticks, and that they damn all Hereticks to Hell; and that King Iames oft declared, that Presbyterians could not be Loyal; and that he could never so much forget the Murder of his Royal Father of ever Blessed Memory, as to trust them himself: There was none of them but knew, that every Zealous Papist believes the Roman Church Infallible; and that Infallibility is inconsistent with Liberty of Consci­ence: And therefore all the Presbyterian Laity were doubt­less conscious, that the Indulgence given to them by a Popish King, assented unto by the Pope's Nuncio, conformable to the Sense of the Roman Conclave, could never be [Page 24] intended for the Ease of Protestant Dissenters, but with design of making Papists share in the Blessing; and that by this step Papists, got into Power, might apply it to the overthrow of the Reformation, was doubtless obvious to every Presbyterian: And therefore the acceptance of, and thanksgiving for such an Indulgence, was a gross comply­ance with the designs for Popery, tending to the destruction of the Protestant Religion.

2. All this Charge lies equally heavy upon the Ministers of that Perswasion, with these aggravating circumstan­ces, that whereas in the Reign of a Protestant King, they preached against Popery as imminent and at hand; they in the Reign of a Popish King, were guilty (for the most part) of shameful silence; yea when one of their number (more faith­ful than the rest) viz. Doctor Hardy, in a Sermon at Eden­borough, which he preached at their Provincial Assembly, had Exhorted them to take heed, that the Indulgence to Prou­stant Dissenters, might not be an Engine for bringing Pope­ry into the Kingdom; and when for the preaching of this Sermon, he was Arraigned for his Life, none of all his Brethren, nor any of the Laity, (except the good Mr. R. B—d Merchant in Edenborough) would shew him any Friendship: But on the contrary, they did openly condemn his doing his Duty, as indiscreet Zeal: And certainly he had suffered as the worst of Malefactors; had it not been for the Episcopal Advocates that pleaded for him, and the Episcopal Judges that acquitted him, and took all his danger upon themselves: Wherefore the impartial Resolution to the present Question, is this, That the Scotch Presbyterians were Compliers with the late Designs for taking away the legal Restraints against Papists.

QUESTION IX. Whether Scottish Presbytery in the Church, be consistent with the Legal Monarchy in that Kingdom?

1. AS the Solemn League is the Canon, and the Acts of their General Assemblies, the Interpreters of the Principles of Scottish Presbytery; so on the other hand, the Acts of Parliament of that Kingdom, are the only Inter­preters of the Rights of their Monarchy: Wherefore the Question here proposed, resolveth unto this, Whether the Scotch Presbyterians in their Assembly Acts, which are found­ed upon the Covenant, make any Enchroachment upon the Royal Prerogatives of that Crown, which are asserted by their Acts of Parliament unrepealed.

2. To chuse Persons qualified by Law to be Officers of State, Councellors, and Iudges, is one Prerogative acknowledged to be K. Ch. 2. Parl. 1. Act. 2. inherent in the Kings of Scotland: but the Principles of their Presbytery, make this to be the Prerogative of the Kirk; as appears by the 4th Article of the Covenant, wherein they swear to endeavour with all faithfulness the discovery of all such as have been or shall be evil Instruments, by making any Parties contrary to that Covenant, that they may be brought to publick Tryal, and receive condign punishment. This is Aug. 1648. farther declared in their Answer to the pretended Com­mittee of Estates; by which Answer they propose as a safe Rule in this case, that the Duties of the Second Ta­ble, as well as of the First, namely the Duties between King and Subject, Masters and Servants, being contained in, and to be taught and cleared from the Word of God, are a subject [Page 26] of Ministerial Doctrine, and in difficult cases a subject of cognizance and judgment, to the Assemblies of the Kirk: Now what cases are difficult, in which King and Subjects are the Parties, the Kirk must judge, and be as Infallible in Scotland as in Rome.

3. Another Perogative of the King of Scotland, is declared, K. Ch. II. Part. 1. Act. 3. his power of Calling and Dissolving Parliaments (by himself) and making of Laws with their Advice and Councel. And this Prerogative, in all its Branches, is usurped upon by the Principles of Presbytery. As for his power of calling Par­liaments by himself, either Presbyterian Kirk-men are not Subjects of the Scottish King, or else by their acknowledge­ment of this Royal Prerogative, his Letters Patents directed to them, may command their Assembling about Ecclesiastical Affairs, as well as the other Estates to convene for Mat­ters Civil: But should they once grant that the power of their Assembling flows immediately from the King their Soveraign, and not immediately from Christ; then should they by Laws of consequence be obliged to confess, that Christ gives them no Warrant to Assemble without Warrant from their King. But this the Presbyterian Kirk cannot grant to the State, because thereby their Covenant should become an unlawful bond of Treason, and the most of their Assembly Acts null and void; since first that Oath was sworn, and thereafter the most of those Acts were pass'd without, yea, and contrary to the express Will and Pleasure of their King.

4. Then the Kings Power to Dissolve Parliaments by himself is another Branch of his Royal Prerogative: But this is likewise Usurped upon by the Principles of Presby­tery; for as much as the Second Article of the Covenant bindeth to preserve the Priviledges of Parliament, with the Iuly 1648. preservation of which Priviledges, the General Assembly [Page 27] declares the Kings negative Voice inconsistent. Now if the King have no Negative Voice in a Parliament that enjoys its Priviledges, then any thing concluded by the Majority of such a Parliament, may pass into a formal Act, though the King should deny his concurrence; and by consequence, without the Royal Assent, they might make a Law for continuing their Session as long as they please; by vertue of which Law, the Royal Authority could not Dissolve them, according to these Covenanting Principles.

5. In the Third place, the power of making Laws is Usurped from King and Parliament by the Principles of Presbyterians: For in the last Article of their Covenant they swear that they shall all the Days of their lives zea­lously and constantly continue therein against all opposition, letts, and impediments whatsoever; and in conscience of this part of their Oath the Kirk Assembly Men pass'd an Act declarative against an Act of Parliament and Iuly 28. 1648. 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.

6. A Third Prerogative Royal in the Crown of Scotland, is that of making Leagues and Conventions of the Subjects. Now that cannot consist with the Principles which flow from that Covenant which was entred into by the Assembly of the Subjects, without the King; and more particularly is it Invaded by those Principles by which they emitted an Act declaring against the bond subscribed by the Scotch Lords at Iune 3. 1644. Oxford, and inflicting the highest Ecclesiastical Censures against any who subscribed, or framed, or were accessary to the Execution of the same.

7. The making Peace and War with Foreign Princes, is another Branch of this Prerogative of the Crown of Scot­land, [Page 28] acknowledged to be in the King. But this also, according to the Principles of Presbytery, is Usurped upon by that K. Ch. 2. Part. 1. Act. 5. Kirk; for she, in the Explication of the Sixth Article of the Covenant (already mention'd in the Fourth number concer­ning the Third Question) declares her self in her solemn and seasonable warning to all her Children of the Covenant, after this manner, Whosoever he be that will not according to Feb. 12. 1645. publick Order and Appointment adventure his Person, or send out those that are under his power, or pay the Contributions imposed for the maintenance of the Forces, must be taken for an Enemy, Malignant, and Covenant-breaker, and so involved both into the displeasure of God, and censures of the Kirk.

8. Now the King's Power to chuse Officers of State, Counsellours and Iudges qualified by Law, to Call and Dis­solve Parliaments by himself, and make Laws with their Advice, to make Leagues and Conventions of the Subjects, and to make Peace and War, being all Prerogatives Royal of the Crown of Scotland, asserted by Acts of Parliament unrepealed; and all these being so notoriously Usurped upon by the Presbyterian Kirk, the impartial Resolution of the Que­stion is this, That this Scottish Presbytery in the Church, is Not Consistent with legal Monarchy in that Kingdom.

QUESTION X. Whether Scottish Presbytery be agreeable to the general Inclination of that People?

1. AFter it hath been Demonstrated that the Principles of Scotch Presbytery are inconsistent with that Monar­chy, [Page 29] to say that Presbyterian Church-Government were agreeable to the mind of the Representatives of that Peo­ple in the current Parliament, might be constructed the capital Crime of LEISING MAKING to his Ma­jesty, against his Supreme Judicature: And therefore this Question hath Reference to the People whom they repre­sent; and resolveth into this, Whether the generality of the Scottish Nation would be glad to accept of Presbytery, instead of the Episcopacy lately abolished.

2. For the clearer resolution of the Question thus stated, that Kingdom may be distinguished into the Laity and Clergy; and the Laity distinguished into the Nobility, Gentry, and Commons: And the Clergy again into the Bishops and sub­ordinate Pastors, after whom we may consider the Uni­versities and Colledges of Learning.

3. As for the Nobility. Since that Honourable Estate of the Kingdom have by birth their Peerage in Par­liament, beside that it were Scandalum magnatum to say that they inclin'd to that Church Government, which is not consistent with their Monarchy; it were also a Scandalum Christianorum, to say that those Men of Honour and Conscience, who (a very few excepted) swore in the Test against all Fanatical Principles, and renounced all Covenant-Obligations, do incline to Presbytery. And it's well known that there never were in Scotland above a dozen of Peers so much Presbyterian as to refuse the Declaration against the Covenant-Principles, the taking of which qualified them to sit in Parliament▪

4. Again, for the Scottish Gentry, it's certain, that not One of Forty in all Scotland but has taken the Test; and Four years ago, not Fifty in all Scotland (out of the West) did upon the Indulgence, forsake their Churches to frequent Meeting-Houses. And it cannot be sup­posed [Page 30] of any who have so generous Blood in their Veins, that they should have so little Honour or Conscience as to Incline to that Church Government, which usurps the Priviledge of entring into Covenants and Leagues, and Con­vening in Assemblies, for Treating, Consulting and Determi­ning in matters Ecclesiastical, without the Royal Command, or express License: Which is a Practice contradicting the Pro­missory part of that Oath of the Test.

5. Then for the Commons; it is certain that the ge­nerality of them (as well as the richest and most sensi­ble part) live in Cities and Market Towns; now all such Burgesses who were either worthy to be of the Common Council of the Towns they lived in, or were able to follow any ingenuous Trade, were obliged to take the Test before they could be qualified to elect Burgesses for Parliament; and therefore, according to their Sense and Conscience of an Oath, they cannot but have an a­version against Presbytery; yea, their loud Cries and Ri­vers of Tears at the Farewel-Sermons of their Episco­pal-Pastors (for whom they would have pluckt out their right Eyes) in all other parts of Scotland but the Western Shires, heighteneth the probability, that they are not in love with Presbytery.

6. Then for the Clergy; since they all have owned Epis­copal Ordination, sworn the Oaths of Allegiance, Supre­macy, and the Test, it cannot be suspected of any of them, without a blemish of their Integrity or Constancy, that they should be inclin'd to Presbyterian Government. And if Twenty of a Thousand are Trimmers betwixt the Bishop and the Presbyterian Moderator, yet sure those Twenty added to all the Field-Preachers and Meeting-house­keepers▪ will not make up the number of a fifth part of the Episcopal Clergy: No doubt they will say, that what they want in the number, they have in the worth of their [Page 31] Ministers: But how far we may believe them in their setting value upon themselves, may partly appear from the con­sideration of their late Commissioners to this Court; for doubtless, for the managing of their Cause, they made choice of the fittest Men they had, as for all other Abili­ties, so especially for soundness in the Principles of Pres­bytery, also of the greatest moderation; and yet one of the Three, Mr. W—son, before he got his First Wife, was a malignant Lecturer under Bishops, and so continued, till his first disappointment of getting his Rectors Place, made him desert his own with Indignation, and that made him an enemy to Episcopacy. Another of them, Mr. K—dy, was, before the restitution of Bishops, deprived by his Presby­terian Brethren, (to use their own Words as near as I can remember) as a Firebrand of Hell to inflame the Church on Earth. The Third is so famous, that I never heard of him till he came in this Character.

7. Then in all the Four Universities, it is certain that not Four Masters, Head or Fellow, incline to Presbytery; and the Colledges of Justice and Physick at Edenborough, were so averse from it, that the generality of them were ready last Summer, to take Arms in defence of their Epi­scopal Ministers. Wherefore, since neither the most part of the Scotch Noblemen, Gentry or Commons, Clergy, Universities or Colleges, are for Presbytery, or in Honour or Conscience can be; we conclude, That Scottish Presbytery is not agreeable to the mind of that People.