that since ministers admitted before 1649 were not elected, they must surely be classed as intruders. Brown’s curious reply is to say that although patronage was sinful, this was “not so fully seen and perceived before” and, in any case, “there was no other way of entry . . . practicable by law.” No doubt sensing that he has just weakened his own case,18 he thereupon goes on the offensive by claiming that any fault on the pre-1649 entrants’ part was small compared with that of those who have seen the evil reformed, yet “now again lick up that vomit.”19
Secondly, he deals with the point that since post-1649 entrants have already had a call from the people, then they cannot become intruders by now accepting a presentation. Brown this time has a more convincing answer. He suggests that for an incumbent now to accept a presentation would be to imply that he was not properly called on the first occasion. Moreover, the criticism itself is fatally flawed in that it suggests that election and presentations can be complementary to one another when in fact they are mutually exclusive: “the patron’s presentation is not cumulative unto, but privative and destructive of the people’s liberty of free election, because where patrons do present, the people’s suffrages are never asked, and, where people have power to elect, patrons have no place to present.”20
Конец ознакомительного фрагмента.
Текст предоставлен ООО «ЛитРес».
Прочитайте эту книгу целиком, купив полную легальную версию на ЛитРес.
Безопасно оплатить книгу можно банковской картой Visa, MasterCard, Maestro, со счета мобильного телефона, с платежного терминала, в салоне МТС или Связной, через PayPal, WebMoney, Яндекс.Деньги, QIWI Кошелек, бонусными картами или другим удобным Вам способом.
