These charges were never proved; hut in any case the Presbyteries had no jurisdiction in such matters. The fact, that they were permitted to tyrannize, shews the miserable state of things at this time in Scotland. The Clergy pleaded "that they are not at all subject to the jurisdiction of any of the Presbyterian judicatures: not being of their communion." In proof of this they refer to the Toleration Act.[1] The charge of keeping fasts and thanksgivings rested on nothing more than the fact, that some of the Clergy observed the particular days appointed by the Church, on which occasions they preached against the errors of Rome, without any allusion to the Pretender.[2] On such grounds did the Presbyterians interfere: though they had no jurisdiction. It is argued in the Appeal, "'Tis against all reason that they should be subject to their jurisdiction, either as to their practice or opinion, doctrine or discipline, worship or sacraments. For their being permitted, tolerated, and protected, would be of no manner of use to them in that case. It is easy to imagine, if the Presbyterians were judges, what doctrine they would deem erroneous, what devotion they would look upon as superstitious, what worship they would censure as idolatrous, and what ordination they would esteem unlawful. For the appellants stand already condemned in all these matters by the acts of general assemblies. And are those to be the appellants' judges." They proceed: "They need not seek a repeal of the Toleration Act in Scotland, which is so grievous to them: if they may put what glosses they please upon it: if they can censure, depose, and incapacitate those who are entitled to the benefit thereof."[3] The appellants argued that
Page:History of the Nonjurors.djvu/481
History of the Nonjurors.
463
