A Vindication of the Church of Scotland 2, Question 3
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 Scots in their management of the Government of Christ's House: He knows that Scotland is but one, and a small part of the Reformed Church, in which that Government hath been, and is practised. If there be any blame then in the practices of former times, when Presbytery was ascendent, let it be imputed rather to the praeservidum Scotorum ingenium, (in which they of the other party have far outgone ours) than to the Ordinance of Christ, I mean that Government of his House that we own. But even Scottish Presbytery, or that Government as exercised in that National Church, will be able to stand before his Arguments: Though it be hard for any thing, though never so good, to bear up against Lies and Reproaches.
§ 3. He should have considered, That there may be other Dissenters living among Presbyterians than Episcopal men; whereas all that he saith on this Head doth only relate to them: There may be a peculiar reason for their not bearing with them who own Prelacy: viz. Because their Church-Government doth necessarily overtop, bring into subjection, and root out that Government of the Church which we own as Christ's Institution: It is against their principle, to suffer Ministers and Elders to live beside them, who will adventure to govern any part of the Church without subordination to the Bishops: And whatever Indulgence hath been, in by past years, given to Presbyterians, as we know it was designed for no advantage to us, [without judging the secrets of any bodies heart;] so we know, that not only it was not the act of our Church-men; but nothing was more grievous to them, and nothing they did more actively oppose. Notwithstanding, it is the principle and purpose of Presbyterians, not to exclude any of them from their religious Assemblies, nor from any of the Ordinances of God in them, for their principle about Church-Government, wherein they differ from us. And for Ministers among them, we are ready to give the right hand of fellowship, and to admit to all the parts of the exercise of their Function among us, such of them as shall not be made appear to be insufficient, scandalous, or erroneous, or to be void of that holiness of life that becometh a Minister, and who shall be found willing to secure the Government of the Church that we own, and to prosecute the ends of it; and not to exclude any simply for his opinion about Church-Government; though the mean while, we are not willing, that all who will profess to own our Church-way, should have a share in managing it with us; because many such might be a scandal to it, others might betray it; neither can we allow, that any of them should exercise a prelacy over us, or over the people of our charge. Further, Never any Church, or State, gave Toleration to Dissenters from the established Church-way, but as it might rationally be thought a necessary relief to tender consciences: But this reason for suffering Episcopal men to practise their way among us, at this time, cannot, without the greatest impudence and hypocrisie be pretended. For refusing to receive the Ordinances from Presbyterians, because they want Episcopal Ordination: this cannot be from conscience, seeing it was their constant practice, when Prelats ruled this Church: they never required any of them to be re-ordained who had been ordained by Presbyters, and after complied with Episcopacy. Neither can they pretend conscience for having a Worship different from ours (I mean the English Liturgy) for when it was in their power to use it, they never did. Wherefore there can be no pretence on which they can plead for tolleration in these things; but humor, and design: and I hope it will not (by impartial beholders) be judged rigidity, if the State deny a liberty to such persons to make such Innovations as never yet could get place in this Church, especially when it is too apparent that they who are most forward for such a liberty, give ground to think, that a design against the present civil Government is at the bottom, they being such as have no liking to the present Establishment.
§ 4. But this Author hath a mind to represent us in other colours: And for a Foundation of this his Essay, he saith, That the Solemn League and Covenant is the Canon, and the Acts of the General Assemblies, the Comment of the Principles of Scottish Presbyteries. This is false; the Rule that we Judge by in the Matter of Church Government, as well as in other things, is the Word of God; and we use no other Comments for our help to understand that Rule, but such as are founded on the Word it self, and which we give sufficient Warrant for. I hope the Reader will look on this loose talk, as Railing, not Arguing. He may know, that Presbytery was long in Scotland before that Covenant had a being. And for Acts of General Assemblies, they are no further our Rule, than they are agreeable to the Supreme Rule, The Word of God; and to the Principles of Right Reason: Neither do we look on them as Infallible, [as he foolishly feigneth, pag. 6.] What he, or any other can make appear in them to be unwarranted, we are ready to disown: And we know they may be changed by the same power that made them; when any thing in them shall be found to be amiss, or inconvenient for the present state of the Church.
§ 5. He quarrelleth with three Articles of the Covenant, viz. The 1st about preserving the Government and Discipline of the Church. The 2d, that is against Episcopacy and its Dependents. The 3d, for defending one another in their adherence to this Bond. Let any judge what is here consistent with a moderate and duly limited Toleration of Dissenters: Is there no Toleration of men who hold Prelacy to be lawful without allowing of Prelacy it self, and submitting to its domination. Next he will prove his point from some Acts of General Assemblies; but this he prefaceth first with the peaceableness of the Prelatick Clergy in and after 1639. when their Church-Goverment was destroyed, in that they neither raised Tumults, nor wrote Books. It is true, they raised no Tumults; but they did what they could to raise War for continuing on the necks of the people, that Yoak that they had wreathed on them: And did effectually draw on a bloody War, which had very sad effects, and issued in the ruine of them and Presbyterians too for a time, and shewed well enough to raise Church-Tumults, by their protesting and disobedience to the Sentence of the Church: for their not writing Books, who hindred them? Unbyassed men will impute it to somewhat else, rather than to their peaceableness. Another part of his Preface, That they were not suffered to continue in their Cures: This is indeed true of the Bishops as such: They were not permitted to exercise a Prelacy over their Brethren; for that was inconsistent with the Government then established: Yet as Ministers of the Church, none of them were deprived who were willing to preach under Presbytery. And for the rest of the Clergy, none of them were cast out for complyance with Prelacy, but they generally retained their places; wherefore this is a most untrue Allegation. A Third thing he saith is, That the Presbyterians at the Revolution 1662. were not so dealt with, that is, were continued in their places: Impudence it self could affirm nothing more false. Were not above the third part of all the Ministers of Scotland [and so in England] thrown out by one Act of Parliament? (For two thirds complyed, and by that means kept their places) and the few (in Scotland) that could not be reached by that Act, were laid aside by the Bishops and the Council, by more slow steps.
§. 6. The Acts of Assemblies that he citeth are, Act Aug. 17. 1639. Appointing all in Office in Church, and Schools, and all Members of this Kirk to subscribe the National Covenant. And an Act 1642. for intimating the abovesaid Act, and proceeding to Church-censure against them that refuse such Subscription. And an Act 1644. appointing strict enquiry and censure against disaffected persons to the Covenant: And some other Severities he mentioneth (truly or falsely I know not, for he doth not direct where such Acts may be found) which may be acknowledged as no Pattern for after-ages to go by. It is like if that Oath of God had been less universally, and less severely imposed, it had been better kept by many. What he alledgeth, That the Assemblies, Aug. 1642. do order the persons of them who are Excommunicated, to be imprisoned, and their Goods to be confiscated, is most false; never any Assembly in this Church did make Laws for Civil punishments. All that I find to this purpose (for he is not pleased to be distinct in his Citations) is, that August 3. 1642. the Assembly Petitioned the Council to put the Laws in execution against Excommunicated Papists. All this considered, I hope the Impartial Reader will not be imposed on, by what this man hath said, to think that the Principles of Presbyterians are inconsistent with what Toleration is due to Dissenters: Nor will blame them, that they are not for a vast and boundless Toleration, nor because they cannot bear them who are evil, but do try them who say they are Apostles, and are not, and find them lyars, Rev. 22.