were indulged in their scruples, while the Assurance was pressed upon the Episcopal Clergy, some of whom, however, complied, submitting to Presbytery as a legal establishment, and hoping to be permitted to exercise their ministry quietly.
But the compliance of any of the Episcopalians was exceedingly distasteful to the Presbyterians, who contended that the Clergy who submitted would only acknowledge the De Facto title, until they were in a capacity to raise a rebellion. Though some Presbyterians pleaded for the De Jure title, while others opposed it, yet the Episcopal Clergy were persecuted by both parties. Notwithstanding the fact that many Presbyterians were so averse to the Assurance, a writer of that party infers the disaffection of the Episcopal Clergy from "their behaviour now, seeing they universally refuse the Assurance, though many of them formerly had sworn allegiance, which is in plain English no other than a granting of the premises, and a denying the conclusion: or according to the example of a certain gentleman in England, granting the abdication, and denying the vacancy."[1] Hence, what was a crime in an Episcopalian, was deemed a virtue in a Presbyterian.
The Presbyterians were greatly annoyed with the submission of some of the Clergy to Presbytery, as
- ↑ The Scots Episcopal Innocence: or the Juggling of that Party with the late King, his present Majesty, the Church of England, and the Church of Scotland demonstrated. Together with a Catalogue of the Scots Episcopal Clergy, turned out for their Disloyalty, and other Enormities since the Revolution. And a Postscript, with Reflections on a late malicious Pamphlet, entitled The Spirit of Malice and Slander. Particularly addressed to Dr. Monroe, and his journeymen Mr. Simon Wild, Mr. Andrew Johnston, &c., near Thieving Lane, Westminster, by Will. Laik, London, 4to. 1694, p. 7.
