of the friends to the ancient order of Church government, however, obtained admission to all their meetings, and from them the particulars respecting the proceedings of this assembly have been derived. When it was demanded, why there should be so much anxiety to remove the Episcopal Clergy, it was answered; "that there was less prejudice both to Church and people, by the want of preaching, than by the preaching of men of Episcopal principles and persuasions." One of their preachers boldly declared in a sermon before the Parliament, "that it was better that the temple of the Lord did lie sometimes unbuilt and unrepaired, than be reared up by Gibeonites and Samaritans." In short, the chief business consisted of hearing libels and citations against Episcopal Ministers.[1] The process was not very dissimilar to that, which had been adopted under the reign of Presbytery in England. In both cases the Clergy were not only removed from their parishes, but the most iniquitous means were resorted to, for the purpose of injuring their reputation.
Though Episcopacy was abolished, "it was not so easy to settle Presbytery." This is the admission of Tindal, who says, "if they had followed the pattern set them in the year 1638, all the Clergy in a parity were to assume the government of the Church: but those being Episcopal, they did not think it safe to put the power of the Church in such hands. It was therefore pretended, that such of the Presbyterian ministers as had been turned out in the year 1662, ought to be considered as the only sound part of the Church. And of these there happened to be then threescore alive. The government of the Church was therefore
- ↑ An Historical Relation, &c. p. 9.
