A Vindication of the Church of Scotland 2, Question 5
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 Clergyman (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 hard enough) nor of their Act of Restitution of Bishops; it is not the right or wrong of the Acts that we are now considering, but whether they were Moderate or Persecuting. But it is not far from ridiculous that he addeth, That this Imperious Address from the Ministers (a private Transaction between two Men, if it hath any truth in it) should so far influence a Parliament, as to make them impute all the Evils that he fancieth had fallen out, to the Invasion made on Episcopal Government.
§. 3. He next giveth us account of the effect of setling Episcopacy: And first, in the non-complyance of some of the Ministers, and their being therefore deprived of their Churches and Benefices. And is this no Persecution? How then is it that the World is filled with such outcries in one Print after another, as if the Prelatick Clergy in Scotland were under Sufferings beyond the French Dragooning, because some of them (and but a few of many that are guilty) are deprived by the State for refusing to own the Civil Government under which they live: A Crime never till this day thought consistent with the Being, much less with the Peace of any Government. But these Men have not learned Christ's Precept, To do to others as they would be done by themselves. But this Act was not so much Persecution against the Ministers that were laid aside (they suffered the loss of their Livelyhood) as of the Church, and the People whose Souls smarted under a sad loss, considering how many Eminent and Holy Men were among them that were so foreign from their Flocks. And what a set of Men were put in their room. If these Servants of God endured no Persecution from the State, I am sure they do from this Man's virulent Pen, who saith, They forsook their Ministry either because of disappointment of their hope of Preferment, or from love of Ease, and weariness of their Work, or from impatience to be subordinate. The Lord will refute this malicious passage, when he shall come with ten thousands of his Saints, to execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them, of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodlily committed, and of all the hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him, Jude v. 14, 15. This Man cannot be ignorant of what is known all Scotland over, without question or contradiction, that some of these Ministers had preferment in their offer, yea, the highest preferment in that Church, and refused it: that they did not consult their ease, but did most laboriously Preach under the greatest hardships and hazards; which is to this day seen in its effects, on the crazy bodies of not a few of them: and if any did otherwise, it was very ill lookt on by the rest; and it is known they were never backward to be subject to Christ's appointments; tho' they cannot (for Conscience-sake) stoop to these of Men, in the Matters of God.
§ 4. Then he telleth us of the compliance of other Ministers; but it is unaccountable which he maketh the motive of some of them, that the Episcopacy then setled, was not abjured in the Solemn League. Nothing but Ignorance of that Oath, or Impudence to say what one will, could make them say so: it is known, that this was not pleaded by them, but either that that Oath was not binding, or that they had not taken it, and were not bound by the Nations taking of it: and if this were true, what should have stirred the zeal of that party so against that Oath, as to get it abjured, and burnt, in contempt, by the common Hangman. He telleth us next, how the people did comply, till 1663. It is true, hearing the conform Clergy was commune at first▪ (other compliance was never given; but an entire dislike of Episcopacy was as extensive as any respect to Presbyterian Government was) but after a short tryal, many serious people, who minded the edification of their Souls, found what a sad change they had made, and what want there was of the godly, learned and grave Men, that he speaketh of, to supply vacant places: which moved the people to look after better means of edification: I deny not but some run to an excess: but there was sufficient reason for leaving these Intruders when others could be had. And both Ministers and People behoved to take some time to consider what was duty, after they had been for a time stunned with the sad stroak that came upon them. He next giveth account of one of his Innocent Laws; It is Car. 2. Part 1. Sess. 3. Act 2. Ann. 1663. All who come not to hear their Ordinary, are to pay a fourth part of their yearly Rent: others that had no Land, a fourth part of their moveable Goods: a Burgess, the fourth part of his Moveables, and the priviledge of his Burgiship is forfeited. Is here no persecution? to force people thus against the light of their conscience, to sit under the Ministry of them they had no pastoral relation to: and to desert them to whom they were so tied; to hear constantly some that taught Arminianism; some that railed against serious Religion: besides the horrid Immoralities of some of them, which made the Ordinances of Christ contemptible to the people: for this Law extended to hearing of such, as well as others. And was it no persecution to enact so severe Fines for such a crime, so as a few Sermons might reduce a rich man to absolute poverty? And did it savour of no persecution, in the Preface to this Act, to declare such abstinence from hearing, to be seditious, when they that were so charged, were as quiet and peaceable as any in the Land? He would excuse the severity of this Act from the Sermons and Books of some, written to justifie the Murther of Charles the First, and the Banishment of Charles the Second, and the Necessity of taking up Arms against the King, and laying out the sinfulness of compliance with the Legal Settlement of Church and State. Answ. If some, whose Spirits were imbittered by what they suffered, especially who being banished into foreign Countreys, took more liberty than was fit, and spake or wrote (on some of those Heads) such things: is it reasonable, or can it be freed from spiteful persecution, to charge the whole party with these things, and treat them accordingly; when it could not be, nor was unknown to them, that most of these things were quite contrary to the sentiments and practices of the best, and far greatest part of Presbyterians? And we may with good ground affirm, That the spreading of such principles among the people, above what was at first, was caused by the severities that they suffered: and that these severities had not their rise from them. As for the Murther of King Charles the First, it is well known, that the Presbyterians in Scotland did declare against it, both in their religious and civil capacity.
§. 5. What he next bringeth, of the open Rebellion of the Western parts, 1666. (known by the name of Pentland-hills) was purely the fruit of the horrid Barbarities that that people suffered from Military force, sacking their Houses, and destroying their Livelihood, treating their persons with the greatest Inhumanity, under which they groaned for several years, and had no shelter but in Mountains and in Caves, nor were safe but in such companies as could make resistance: and yet what then was done, was the act but of a few Presbyterians, and therefore could not warrant further severity, nor could be chargeable on all: and on this or some other consideration it was, that they had an Indulgence granted for a time; but it was so contrived as could not answer the necessities of the people, the Ministers being all confined to one corner, and the rest of the Nation left destitute; which made it reasonable for some to use that liberty, that they might serve the Church; and others to refuse it, that they might be useful in other places where it was not allowed. What is alledged, of assaulting Ministers, robbing their Houses, wounding them, &c. much of it was found to be meer forgery, to make that party odious, and to give a colour for further severities; and what was done (if any thing) was without the knowledge, and with the greatest dislike of the Presbyterians in general: for, indeed, the severities of that time did provoke some to run into these principles and practices that ever since hath been uneasie to the State, and grievous to sober Presbyterians; some of whom have been as much in hazard from them, as the prelatick Clergy have been; it is therefore strange, that such things should be pretended to justifie the bloody Laws that followed, and which reach even them that were quiet in the Land.
§ 6. He next cometh to the Act 1670, wherein the Preface brandeth Meetings (tho' they were only for Praying and Preaching) as Seminaries of Rebellion (tho' it is well known that Loyalty hath been many times preached in them, and no Sedition nor Rebellion was ever taught, except by the persons above marked) and for a House-Conventicle, the Minister is Imprisoned, till he pay 175 l. sterling: and must engage to preach no more, or give Bond to leave the Nation, without returning, unless by the King's leave; others were to pay, an Inheritour of Lands the fourth part of his Rent; a Servant the fourth part of a Year's Wage; a Farmer 40 s. sterling; a Cottar 20 s. If the Meeting were in the Fields, (where yet Christ and his Disciples often preached, and that contrary to the Laws of Men) the Minister was punishable by Death and confiscation of Goods; and every Hearer, the double of what is above mention'd. If here be nothing of Persecution, that hearing a Sermon from one that Christ by his Church hath sent to preach, should be bought at such a rate; and that a few peaceable People, meeting in a corner of a Wilderness, for no other intent, and about no other work, but to hear the Gospel, should take away the Preacher's Life, and the Hearer's Livelihood; if this, I say, be no Persecution, let the World judge. There might have been some shadow for such severity against meeting with Arms, (tho' even that was in some cases necessary) but that was always disallowed by the soberest and wisest) but when nothing appeared in mens words or behaviour, but that in peace and quietness they were seeking after the food of their Souls, such severity must either be called Persecution, or we have lost the very names of things, and must call Vice, Virtue, and Virtue, Vice.
§ 7. What he hath owned is sufficient to ruin his Conclusion that he would prove by these Topicks; to wit, That the Penal Laws against Scotch Presbyterians had no persecution in them. But it doth further appear how absurd it is, if we consider what he hath wisely suppressed, as ashamed to speak out all the truth. Three things he suppresseth, 1. Some severe Laws. 2. Some Acts of Council or Orders given forth by it, which exceeded all the Severity of the Laws. 3. Execution of these Laws and Orders, beyond what either of them could warrant. For the 1st. in the Act of Parliament, Aug. 13. 1670. it is declared, that if a Minister Preach, Expound Scripture, or Pray in a House where there be more persons than the House contains, (it is not said, than the House can contain) so as some be without doors, (which might happen without the Ministers or Peoples knowledge, after the work is begun, or by the Malice of some who might stand without doors on purpose to ensnare those within) it is declared to be a Field-Conventicle: and consequently the Minister is liable to death, when he doth his best, so far to conform to the Law as to shun that hazard, and the People are liable to forfeit the double of what in reason they could expect. By the same Act, the Lives of them that so meet are exposed to the mercy of their most malicious Enemies: for not only a Reward is proposed to any who will (tho' without Warrant or Order of Law) seize and secure any at such a Meeting, but they are indemnified for any slaughter that they shall commit in the apprehending and securing of them. Nothing but the restraining power of God hath preserved the Lives of many thousands, who were so (by this Man's Innocent Laws) exposed to the will of an ungodly, and merciless Crew. Afterward an Act was made, declaring, that not only Field, but House-Conventicles, should infer the pain of Death to the Minister, and that a Field-Conventicle should be death to all present, Minister and Hearers, 1685. May 8. It is by another Act, 1672. declared, that where-ever a Minister, not allowed by a Bishop, or licensed by the Council, doth preach and expound Scripture, or pray in his own House, where more persons are present than four, beside the Family, or in any Family that is not his own, tho' none should be present but the Family, that it is a Conventicle. And comparing this with the above-mention'd Act, a Minister loseth his Life by Law, if he pray in a Family where he happeneth to lodge a night out of his own House. Likewise, Anno 1685. Act 4. any who refuse to witness (that is, to be an accuser of the Brethren, the Devil's work) about House or Field-Conventicles, or Church-Disorders, are to suffer as guilty of these Crimes themselves; that is, to suffer death: and thus the Wife or Child, must either contribute to take away the Life of her Husband or Father, or lay down their own Life. Also Act 8. of the same Year, it is declared Treason to own the Covenant as Lawful, or Obligatory, though we had sworn it, and many being questioned about the Obligation of it, behoved either to Perjure themselves, or suffer death from the hands of Bloody Men. And Act 6. Husbands who complyed with the Laws (unless they were also judged by the Council to be Loyal (which no Man could expect unless he were throughly Episcopal, to say no worse) must be fined for their Wives non-complyance, which put Men on this sore Dilemma, either unnaturally to put force on his Wives Conscience (which may be he could not Command) or be undone. Beside this (which is the second thing above-mentioned) it cannot be denyed that the Privy-Council gave Order not only to Officers of the Army, but to every private Souldier, empowering them when they met any Person on the High-way, to examine them whether they were coming from or going to a Conventicle: And if they would not by Oath clear themselves, they were allowed to take from them their upper Garment. Yea, afterward the Officers (I know not whether the Souldiers had that Power) were warranted to kill whomever they met with, who should refuse to give them satisfaction about abjuring the Sanquhair Declaration. It is true, sober Men did not refuse to take that Abjuration; but it was an unparallel'd Act, to commit the lives of Men to Souldiers, to kill at their pleasure Men living in Peace, and going about their Lawful Employments, without proof of a Crime, or due course of Law. August 3. 1682. Major White in many Counties, and the Laird of Meldrum, a Captain of Horse, in other Counties, are empowered to act as Sheriffs (tho' the ordinary Sheriffs and their Deputies were executing the Laws) and to keep Justice Courts; so that the Lives and Fortunes of People were at the mercy of these two Souldiers. Sept. 9. the Laird of Claverhouse (a Souldier) is empowred to put the Laws in Execution against withdrawers from the Church. A Commission for judging and executing the Laws, even to death, is given to Crawford of Ardmillan, Novemb. 9 and 16 days the like to the E. of Linlithgow. I conclude with what is wisely observed by the Prince of Orange (now our Gracious Soveraign) in his Declaration for Scotland, about Imprisonments without cause alledged, forcing many to swear against themselves, imposing Arbitrary Fines, intercommunings on the slenderest pretences, making Men incur the danger of Life and Fortune for most innocent converse with their Relations outlawed, of which the Counsellers themselves were guilty, and behoved to procure Pardons. By empowring Souldiers to act the greatest Barbarity on Persons living in quiet, hanging, drowning, or shooting, without any course of Law. The Third thing is, That the Execution did exceed both the Laws and Orders of Council, Multitudes of Instances may (and I hope ere long will) be given of Men pistolled, or hanged in cold Blood, by the Highway, on the Fields about their Work, or drag'd out of their own Houses, because they refused to declare their Opinion of the Murther of the Arch-Bishop of St. Andrews: Of the Insurrection at Pentland and Bothwell-Bridge, or of the Covenant. It is true, it doth not reflect on the Laws, but it sheweth what spirit they were of who made them, in that they employed such Men, and did not punish them for such Facts, but rather countenanced them.
§. 8. He cometh now to his Conclusion, to clear the Laws from Persecution: And here he addeth some Considerations that he taketh for Argumentative: As that three Rebellions were raised in the space of 23 Years. But if these Rebellions were the Effects, rather than the Causes of that Severity (as indeed they were) then his Argument is inconcludent. That it was so with the former two I have observed before; for the third, it may be he is not ignorant how it was influenced by that unparallel'd and ridiculous (but that it was on a mournful Subject) Libel wyer-drawn against that Noble Earl that was the Head of that Insurrection, making him guilty of Leesing-making, and lyable to Death for what unbyassed Men, and even some of his Enemies, judged to be below the least of Crimes. He saith, none ever suffered for mere Separation, but in Purse: But is it not Persecution to be turned out of a Man's Livelyhood, and made a Beggar for worshipping God? He saith likewise, That none suffered that way but such as came to Church to save their Money, notwithstanding of pretended scruple of Conscience. This is spoken at random; many suffered sadly for Conventicles, who did not so comply: And I am bold to say, he knoweth the contrary of what he here affirmeth. He will have his Conclusion to stand, Unless we will derogate from the Authority of King and Parliament. That is a mistake: We question the Justice of their Laws, not their Authority to make Laws. We may say, Nero and Domitian were Persecutors, without questioning whether they were Lawful Emperors.