A vindication of the Church of Scotland being an answer to a paper, intituled, Some questions concerning Episcopal and Presbyterial government in Scotland : wherein the latter is vindicated from the arguments and calumnies of that author, and the former is made appear to be a stranger in that nation/ by a minister of the Church of Scotland, as it is now established by law.

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 exe∣cuted against them, but not against the Papists) and above all this, every Pres∣byterian Minister in Scotland was liable to death by these Laws: none had ob∣served 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: where∣as 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 them∣selves, 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 back∣ward 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 si∣lence

and peevish refusing on that occasion had been much to the hurt of the Go∣spel, 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 op∣pose 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 refu∣sed 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. Har∣dy, 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.