Objection 2: The most part of these who were formerly malignant, have now repented of that sin, and make profession of their resolution to adhere to the covenant and cause of God, and to bestow their lives and estates in defence thereof. Therefore they are not now to be esteemed malignants.
Answer: We would wish from our hearts that we had no answer to this argument; then should we yield the point in hand, and yield it cheerfully, that there is no malignant party now in Scotland. But, alas! that we have so much evidence convincing our consciences and persuading them to deny what is objected. We acknowledge some have indeed repented, and such we desire to embrace and receive with all tenderness and love, as godly Christians, worthy to be intrusted. But yet the most part of them do still bring forth the same malignant fruits. Their ungodly and wicked practices testify to their face that they have nothing to do to take his covenant in their mouth, seeing they hate to be reformed. The late rising in arms, contrary to their solemn and particular engagements, their bearing down and reproaching the godly, and such as are of known integrity, their studying to fill places of trust with men formerly enemies or underminers, their continuing in their profane and loose walking,—all these are more convincing evidences of their retaining their old principles than any extorted confessions or professions, for sinister respects and ends can be no probable signs of their repentance and change.
We desire these things to be remembered, 1: That the Engagement[341] was carried [pg 482] on, not by open and professed enemies, but such as had made public profession of their repentance, and were thereupon admitted to trust. 2. That upon consideration of the hypocrisy and instability of these men appearing in that and other particulars, the kirk and kingdom of Scotland did take upon themselves strait bonds and engagements to exclude such from trust, until such time as they had given real evidences of the reality of their repentance, and of abandoning their former principles and ways, of which the kirk was to judge impartially as in God's sight. 3. That it hath been confessed and preached by many godly ministers, and was given in by sundry in the time of the search of the Lord's controversy against the land, in November last at Perth, and hath been bemoaned and regretted by many of the people who feared God, that there is a great deal of sin and guilt lying on the kirk of Scotland, for the sudden receiving of scandalous persons, especially malignants, to the public profession of repentance before there was in them any real evidence of their forsaking their former principles and ways.
Objection 3: None are now to be esteemed malignants, in reference to employment and trust, but such as stand judicially declared by kirk and state to be so; for certainly, men are not to lie under the burden of so great a reproach, upon the private whisperings and common reports of others, otherwise, honest men may be wronged, and there shall be no end of confusion, or terminating this controversy, there being no certain rule to walk by in it.
Answer: We acknowledge that surmisings, whisperings, and reports of others are not sufficient, but that a rule is needful. All the question will be, What is that rule? And though the judicial debarring of judicatories be not all, but it must be ruled by another rule, yet are we willing to take it for so much; for even that will prove there is yet a malignant party in Scotland, because many are standing under church censures [albeit we are sorry there is so much precipitancy and haste in taking off the censures].[342] Those involved in the late rebellion are standing under a sentence of the commission,[343] declaring them to be following their old malignant designs; few of them are yet admitted to profession of repentance. We desire it may be considered, that the rule holden forth by the kirk of Scotland 1648, for admitting of persons to trust is of larger extent than judicial sentence or censure; to wit, that they be such against whom there is no just cause of exception or jealousy. 2. Albeit a judicial trial or censure be indeed necessary, for inflicting punishment or censure upon men, yet it is not necessary for avoiding association with them, or debarring them from trust. 3. If none were to be accounted malignants, but they who are judicially declared to be such, what needed the kirk of Scotland have frequently taken so much pains, to give characters to know them by, there being so clear and compendious a way beside? Hath there not been always in the land secret underminers as well as open enemies? And hath not faithful men avoided the one as well as the other? 4. The General Assembly, 1648, declared the taking in of these who followed James Graham[344] to be an association with malignants, though most part of them were then released from church censures.
Section II.
That The Present Public Resolutions, Expressed In The Commission's Answer To The Parliament's Query, And The Act Of The Levy, Do Not Exclude That Party.
In the next place, upon supposal and proof, that there is a malignant party and faction still in the land, it is needful to examine, whether the exceptions contained in the answer of the Commission to the Parliament's Query,[345] and inserted into the Act of Levy,[346] be so comprehensive as to include all that party. The exceptions be four: 1. Such as are excommunicated. 2. Such as are forfaulted. 3. Such as are notoriously profane or flagitious. And, 4. Such as have been from the beginning, and continue still, or at this time are, obstinate enemies and opposers of the covenant and cause of God. That these are not comprehensive of the whole malignant party in the land, appears.