make it appear so but the pertinency and clearness of it is manifest to all who will not shut their eyes and the impertinency of his confused questions which have their rise from his own confused fancy and not from the matter which gave no occasion for them is sufficiently discovered He says it 's defective Answ I refer the Reader to the Answers of the fore-going Questions which are the words or the obvious and manifest sense of their words before the Council and then to the consideration of all the genuine consequences which necessarily and clearly follows from these truths asserted in these Answers and then let him judge whether their Testimony was defective In denying to the Magistrate a Power formally Ecclesiastical all Erastianism properly so called is excluded and in asserting that in the matters of the Ministry they are Christs Servants and consequently not the Servants of men in these matters and in designing Acts burdening their Ministry by the name of impositions they have clearly shewed that these matters are not at the will and pleasure of men for if the Magistrate might warrantably command what he pleased in these matters his commands would not be impositions but Lawful commands Now if the Lord would incline the hearts of Rulers to forbear to assume a Power formally Ecclesiastical that 's the Power of the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven and to forbear to burden the Church with impositions commanding what the Lord hath forbidden or forbidding what the Lord alloweth or hindring and marring the Servants of Christ in his Service I suppose none who were judicious would complain though they used their objective Power in commanding what God hath commanded and forbidding what he hath forbidden and pressing these commands where there is need with Civil Penalties And the Servants of Christ would rejoyce to see the Civil Magistrate using the Civil Power which he hath from God for the glory of God in putting the Ministers of Christ to their Duty He says There was in this way of vindicating Truth much pusillanimity disingenuity carnal consultation occasioning misconceptions and blindness Answ The Historians blindness in and misconceptions of this matter hath occasioned and caused this false and uncharitable accusation All who know these Ministers knows their candour and ingenuity and their Brethren who were with them at their meetings at that time can witness their integrity and their words uttered before the Council do evidence They evidenced much more courage before the Magistrate than the Author did when brought before the Magistrate for any thing I can hear but ordinarily men who have least courage are most vehement exacters of it in others and most ready to upbraid others with pusillanimity they use to talk much of courage when they are at a good distance from the place where danger is but when they come where the fray is they are as afraid as other folk The Brother who hath answered this History relates that a Minister who was brought before the Council in the year 1662. for calling his Neighbour a Knave because contrary to his promise he had gone to the first Diocesan Synod being interrogate wherefore he called his Neighbouring Minister a Knave He answered because he said one thing and did another This Answer was much more general and abstract from Prelacy or Supremacy and Covenant-breaking than the Answers of the Indulged Ministers the reason why he called him a Knave really was his conforming to Prelacy established by the Supremacy and his Covenant-breaking But the Brother who is so much for particular plain distinct Testimony in others he contented himself with this confused general He adds that another Brother who in the preceeding year was brought before the Parliament for asserting the Obligation of the Covenant in a Sermon when he compeared all his Testimony was a mincing of these expressions made use of in that Sermon But saith he I pitied him because he was in hazard of his Life And yet both these Brethren have exclaimed much against the Indulged Ministers for not giving a plain open full Testimony before the Rulers Several People would have a Testimony as the Cat would have fish without wetting their feet Catus amat piscem sed non vult tangere lympham or as the Ape would have Chesnuts out of the fire without burning their own fingers and therefore makes use of the Cats foot to pull them out They would have Indulged Ministers giving plain Testimonies to the Magistrates face but all their own Testimonies are given behind the Magistrates back and they look rather like Satyrick invectives and railing accusations than the Gospel-Testimonies of Gospel-Ministers who should with meekness Instruct even those who oppose themselves if God peradventure will give them Repentance and who should not do any thing that really tends to harden or irritate but do all things that are allowed of God to mollifie the hearts even of these who oppose themselves Their way puts me in mind of the way of some fresh-water Souldiers who when they are called to fight and shoot have neither heart nor hand to draw or present their Muskets let be to give fire but flees as fast and far as their feet will carry them and when they are at a great distance they give brave fire and shoots abundance of great volleys at the wind and if upon the Report of these volleys they be enquired after they disappear nusquam apparent The Historian shuts up this matter by desiring the Informer to tell him If he think not that more plain clear and full expressions might have been fallen on Answ Here he seems to grant that their expressions were plain clear and full for the comparative supposes the positive and must honest men be condemned of Treachery because they fell not upon the plainest words and fullest expressions Must there be Confusion and Treachery in every Testimony that is not clear in the superlative degree These Brethren used the expressions which Divines who writ most deliberately and distinctly and soundly in these matters use and I am very confident if they had known clearer expressions to have exprest their mind in that matter they would have used them The Author of this History hath noâ— fallen upon more distinct words for any thing Is remember For the words which he suggests pag. 75. where he says Why was it not more distinctly and in fewer words said that they could not receive the Instructions as being intrinsecally and formally Ecclesiastical Regulating them who were the Servants of Christ in these matters For 1. Though this had been distinct yet it would not have been true for by his own confession the confinement was wholly Political 2. It 's confused at least I do not distinctly understand what matters these matters are which are in the end of his distinct words no doubt these words mean matters but what matters he means I can hardly imagine If he had spoken before of the matters of the Ministry as Mr. H. did
in refusing than in chusing the peaceable exercise of their ministry is no evidence to the contrary this is no Demonstration The Author of the History of the Indulgence was sure that the indulged Ministers would have more peace and success in refusing than in embracing the peaceable exercise of their ministry and therefore they should have refused it the indulged Ministers must have better surety for the consequence than his assurance The 9th Object is very confusedly proponed and as confusedly answered interrogativis danâ— sunt debita responsiva I have some other thing tâ— do than to be his Interpreter in unravelling such ravelled Discourses any thing that he saw in his Answer against the indulged Ministers hath been frequently refuted He answers to the 10th Objection by saving That we saw that by the Indulgence there 〈◊〉 express Deputation c. He hath a faculty of seeing that which is not really visible vitium est in organo we are not obliged to see with his eyes which were vitiate with an ill humour The indulged Ministers were lawfully setled in their respective Charges as hath been often cleared He hath vitiate the 11th Argument by foisting in it one of his own Imagination That the relaxation of the Restraint formerly laid on was sinful upon the Granters part which is a notorious falshood for it was the Magistrates Duty to grant such a Relaxation After several Discourses which are not to the purpose he grants in his 5th Answer That after an Universal overthrow of the Priviledges of the Church we may lawfully accept of little when more cannot be had and so he yields the Cause and undoes what he hath been formerly doing What he adds That that little must be such as was not unlawful at any time to be accepted of and that we must accept it in another manner than could ever have been accounted a sinful compliance is no evasion for him for the Relaxation was lawful in its self and the manner of acceptance was no sinful compliance and could never truly be accounted sinful To his 6th I answer That the peaceable liberty of publick preaching cannot be had without the Magistrate and until he prove that the peaceable exercise of the Ministry is a needless thing and the Relaxation or the Grant of â—he peaceable exercise of the Ministry an Usurâ—ation he cannot prove the Acceptance of that Relaxation to be a needless compliance with or a Confirmation of any Usurpation In the 12. Objection he hath foisted in one of his own suppositions That the Relaxation so often mentioned before was an insufferable imposition which is manifestly false If there was any defect in the Ministers when they were at first turned out the Author of this History was as defective as his Neighbours By resisting unto blood I suppose he does not mean that Ministers should have continued preaching in their own Pulpits till they had been killed in them our Saviour allows Ministers when they are persecuted in one City to flee to another he did not himsef continue preaching at Rotterdam after he was commanded by the Magistrate to remove till his Blood was shed The indulged Ministers accepting of a part of what was formerly taken from them is not a parting with a hoof nor doth it put them in any incapacity to use any lawful means in their places and stations for recovering former priviledges He supposes in the 13th Objection That the Magistrates principal Design in this matter was the establishment of his own Supremacy but how can that be proven That the Magistrate in granting the safety of the exercise of the Ministry did intend the establishment of any sinful Supremacy this cannot be proven from the Magistrates Act of Relaxation for this was an Act of that Authority which is of God an Act of lawful Civil power if this Act have no tendency to such an intent how can he conclude that this was confessed by the Magistrates Design for the Magistrate hath not by deed or word confessed it but the Author like some others concludes many things by guessing they lay Foundations by guess and build up conjectural Superstructures upon these conjectural Foundations But suppose the Magistrate had such a Design this could no way vitiate the practice of the indulged Ministers as hath been frequently manifested The 14th Argument may be proposed thus When the Magistrate grants to Ministers the peaceable exercise of the ministry in one Act and in another Act by way of command and not by way of paction superads Instructions which those Ministers cannot observe if these Ministers accept of the peaceable exercise of their Ministry and not only observe not the Instructions but also declare to the Magistrate That they cannot receive such Instructions these Ministers do their duty in chusing what is good and refusing what is evil but the indulged Ministers did so and therefore they did what was their Duty He answers 1. That though the Magistrate thought it below them to act any otherways than by way of command yet the nature of the thing saith That the accepting of the first doth virtually engage to the second both making up one complex grant or one Indulgence so qualified I reply 1. That he knew by experience that the Magistrate can come so low as to require consent by Subscription but the Magistrate did not require of the indulged Ministers to promise either by word or writ to observe these Instructions 2. I perceive when the Author knows not what to answer he alledges That the nature of the thing says what he would say but neither the nature of this thing nor the nature of any other thing says That the accepting of good doth virtually engage to the accepting of evil nor doth Nature say That the Act of Instructions was an Act of Indulgence it being a gravaminous Act now an Act imposing things that are grievous is not an Act of Indulgence nor doth nature say that these two Acts are one Act for though they were made by the same Magistrate for the same Ministers yet they were different Acts and as distinct in their natures as good and evil are and the Ministers did wisely distinguish them one from aother in accepting the one and giving Reasons why they could not receive the other 2. He says Though the Council did not call for any formal or express engagements from them unto the performance of these Injunctions yet their carriage to Mr. Blair upon his renouncing of these Injunctions sheweth that they meant those Instructions for Conditions this also they declared in their after-Proclamations I answer If the Injunctions as he grants were not at first given as Conditions by way of paction seeing the Council did not call for any engagement from the Ministers to the performance of these Injunctions no After-acts of the Council could turn what the Council had long before acted by way of command into a pactional transactation if the after-After-act of any person or Society could turn their own
prescriptions and that they could receive no other prescriptions besides Christs prescriptions to regulate them in the exercise of their Ministry 4. They declare how desirable and refreshing the exercise of this their Ministry was to them 5. They declare what power they acknowledged in the Magistrate it 's not a lawless but lawfuâ— Authority which they acknowledge they acknowledge no other power in the Magistrate but what is the Ordinance of God for so they describe lawful Authority the excellent Ordinance of God They declare it 's the work of Magistrates to protect the Ministers of Christ in the exercise of their Ministry 6. That they purposed and resolved to behave themselves in the discharge of their Ministry with that wisdom and prudence which became faithful Ministers of Jesus Christ 7. They declare that they continued in their known judgment in Church-affairs they did let the Magistrates know that they had not altered their Judgement in Church-affairs that they were still Presbyterians Their judgment is known from the Confession of faith chap. 23. Art 3. ch 25. Art 6. ch 30. Art 1. ch 31. Art 3. and all who have any knowledge of the Judgment of Presbyterians know that they own Christ for the alone head of the Church and fountain of Church-authority and that they are as opposite to Erastianism as they are to Prelacy That they are so far from ascribing a Supremacy of spiritual power to the Magistrate that they profess that the Magistrate hath not any power of the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven committed to him and that it doth not belong to the Magistrate to ordain or depose suspend excommunicate or to exercise any Church-censures and that it doth not belong to him to form Church-Canons or to prescribe Instructions for regulating Ministers in the exercise of their Ministry and that they are of that Judgment that no Magistrate nay nor all the powers on earth though they were united can dispose of Ecclesiastical matters according to their Wisdom or pleasure seeing the things of the house of the God of Heaven must be done according to the wisdom and pleasure of the Lord and not according to the wisdom and pleasure of Creatures These and many other Tenets are known by all who know what Presbyterians are to be their known and professed Judgement Now seeing they declared their continuance in their known Judgement and adherence to their former principles and that to the Magistrate and had declared before their resolutions to behave as faithful Ministers of Christ and that they believed the account they were to give of their Ministry to Jesus Christ They did shew to the Magistrate that they did not nor could not approve of power or acts of the Magistrate which were contrary to their Judgements for that had been so far from becoming the faithfulness of the Ministers of Jesus Christ that it could not consist with common Ingenuity 8. And they clearly enough insinuate that there was an opposition betwixt their known Judgements and the actings of the Magistrate in subverting Presbyterial Government and setting up of Prelacy and other actings contrary to Presbyterial Principles some whereof I mentioned before This opposition is clearly insinuated and imported while they say And to demain our selves towards lawful Authority notwithstanding of our known Judgment in Church-affairs as well becometh Loyal Subjects for if the Affairs of the Church had been then according to their known Judgment that notwithstanding had been impertinent and could have had no sufferable sence But Church-affairs being setled by the Magistrate contrary to the known Judgment of Presbyterians some might have alledged that Presbyterian Ministers would not be Loyal towards lawful Authority to obviate this they say That notwithstanding their known Judgements they would behave as Loyal Subjects 9. And hence they declare to the Magistrate that there was no disloyalty in their Principles or practice of their Principles that their known judgement in Church-affairs and the faithful discharge of their Ministry according to their known Judgement did well consist with loyalty and with that respect which from a principle of Conscience they did owe to lawful Authority though it did not consist with some of the actings of those who were in Authority 10. They modestly declare the low esteem they they had of themselves in saying they were the unworthiest of many of their Brethren and they so far from selfishness in desiring to partake of this liberty alone that they express their desire that others of their Brethren may be sharers of the liberty which they enjoyed It appears from what is said that these Brethren witnessed a good Confession before the Council and the Author of the History of the-Indulgence hath in this respect done right to these Brethren and good service to the Church in Printing the Speech which Mr. Hutcheson spoke in their name before the Council If any object that their Testimony is not good because they do not expresly and in terminis testifie against the Invasions made upon the Church I would desire these to consider that in saying so they condemn the Testimonies of many Martyrs who in their Confessions only expressed the truths which they did believe and some of them only in the general asserted that they were Christians They condemn also our Confession of Faith which doth not so expresly and in so many words refute and reject many dangerous and damnable errors but doth only assert the truths opposite to these errors yea they condemn the Testimony of the Holy Ghost in the Scriptures which is good and perfect and yet doth not in terminis and expresly mention every error which is contrary to the truth but leaves the refutation of many of these errors to be gathered by good consequence from what is said in the Holy Scriptures and they condemn also that good Confession which Christ witnessed before Pontius Pilate in asserting himself to be a King for he doth not expresly mention and reject all the errors which are contrary to his Spiritual Kingdom And seeing I am speaking of Testimonies I shall mention what the Indulged Ministers who were called before the Council for not keeping the 29. of May declared in the face of the Council As they had agreed that Mr. Hutcheson should declare that the Magistrate had not a power formally Ecclesiastical and that they could not receive Rules intrinsecally Ecclesiastical from the Magistrate So Mr. Hutcheson to prevent the Councils giving them any such instructions desired that their Lordships would be pleased not to burden them with impositions in the matter of their Ministry wherein they were the Servants of Christ And after Mr. Alexander Blare who was called before Mr. Hutcheson had shewed that he could not receive such instructions to regulate him in his Ministry Mr. Hutcheson before he was called spoke against their L. L. imposing Rules intrinsecally Ecclesiastical for regulating Ministers in the exercise of their Ministry who were the Servants of Christ in these matters
dangerous consequence this is I leave it to be considered Pag. 89. Sect. 9. His 9. Section is concerning the Instructions of which enough hath been said before The Indulged Ministers accepted of the relaxation as before explained but did not accept of the limitations In the same page he saith in answer to an objection That there could be no simple use-making of that supposed favour so attended with imposed conditions without a virtual acknowledgment of a right and power in the Magistrate to make and impose such conditions for howbeit the Council propose the matters by way of command yet both the nature of the thing and the Concomitant acts to restrict c. say that the accepting of the first is with an engagement to perform the second both being but one complex thing Then he adds That the Council held forth the favour to be granted and accepted condition-ways And Mr. A. Blair for the renouncing of the condition was deprived of the favour he who taketh a favour offered with burdens takes the favour cum onere as when a Father grants such a piece of Land to his Son but withal layeth on the burthen of paying so much debt if the Son accepteth the Land he cannot but take on the debt though he gave no express consent Ans That there could be no simple use-making of the freedom from restraint as before explained without the acknowledgment that he speaks of is one of his dictates The taking off the restraint was good the laying of restrictions was ill are good and ill so inseparable that we cannot chuse what is good and refuse what is evil The nature of the thing says no such thing as he alledges It 's no wonder this Author makes the Indulged Ministers speak his Imaginations when he makes the nature of things speak any thing that he pleaseth then to make all sure he makes the taking off the restraint and the imposing of restrictions to be one complex thing for he can make two things though the one be good and the other evil to be one thing but this Composition is in his own Phansie I warrant he can make one thing two the force of Imagination will do they say great feats upon the person in whom the Imagination is but I hope his Imagination cannot change the nature of things without him as to turn two things into one or one thing into two I am confident the Councellors will not say That the Instructions c. were accepted by the Indulged Ministers what words might be slipped in Papers I will not say and what wonder if some Prelatick person did alledge that and get it in a Printed paper when a young man when he should have been preaching said That the Indulged Ministers had given in Bands to the Council If Mr. Blair refused the Conditions so did Mr. Hutcheson and if Mr. Hutcheson had been imprisoned his Testimony would have been commended for this was the difference for as to what they said the Author acknowledges that it was the same thing upon the matter but nothing in Ministers carriage will please some folk except it anger and so anger the Magistrate that the Minister be put to suffer or else into a posture of War His similitude is but a similitude and although Allegories and Comparisons pass for good proofs among common people yet he knows that similitudes illustrate a thing but do not prove it A Father who granteth his Son a piece of Land might have given it to another and hath power to oblige his Son who gets his Land to pay his debt and it 's reasonable that a mans debts should be payed by him who gets his Land but if the Father should grant his Land to his Son and enjoyn something to his Son that he could not oblige his Son to do as being something that the Father had not power to prescribe or something not right or which the Son could not in conscience observe if the Son should accept of the Fathers grant and withal tell him that he could not receive such Prescriptions and that his Father could not impose such things upon him or that he had received full Prescriptions from one Superior both to his Father and him which he behoved to keep upon his greatest peril without adding to them or diminishing from them or that in these matters which his Father prescribed he was not at his own disposal being servant to another in things of that nature None could say in that case that the Son was obliged to the Conditions his Father required Now the Indulged Ministers did shew that they had received full Prescriptions c. and that the Magistrate had not a power formally Ecclesiastical and that in the matters of their Ministry they were the Servants of Christ but enough of this before Yea I suppose in some cases silence will import no consent nor acceptance Suppose one who hath by strong hand bound a man who ought not to have been bound and tells him he will loose him and withal when he is loosing him he commands him to do something which he hath no power to command nor can the man in conscience perform will any say that because the poor man holds his tongue that therefore he hath accepted the Condition I see no reason for this for as a man is not obliged at all times to profess what he believes as is clear in that case commonly alledged If a mad furious man with a drawn Sword in his hand would cry Whoever professes himself to believe the Gospel I will kill him no Casuist determines that a Christian is to prosess his faith in the hearing of that furious man so a man is not always bound to profess what he will do or not do as suppose one who hath unjustly bound a man comes and looses him to do something which the man that is loosed hath no mind to perform is he obliged in all cases to tell that he will not do what he commands when the telling of it will in all appearance provoke the other to keep him still in bonds He who gets an Estate from one who owed him nothing and a Command withall to pay his debt seems to be in justice bound to pay that debt though he speak not Again he who gets a favour from another which the giver was not bound to give and withal a desire to do something for his Benefactor if the thing desired be not prejudicial to the man who received the favour or if he be as much advantaged by the favour shewed to him as he can be prejudiced by the doing of that which his Benefactor desired it seems that he is in point of gratitude bound to do it But when one who hath done an injury to another in binding him looses him and commands him to do something lawful though the man hold his peace I do not see how he is bound even to that lawful thing because the man that looses him is bound to do him
to preach where there is need He knows also that the Indulged Ministers who were appointed to go to other Congregations than their own did not upon the Magistrates appointment go till they were invited by the people and would not have gone if they had not been invited and his alledgance that that they accepted Instructions Orders Acts and Constitutions to regulate them in the exercise of their Ministry is a false alledgance He says he hath cleared it above but he hath neither cleared it above or under I cleared from his own Confession that the Indulged Ministers gave an honest Testimony against these Instructions He grants pag. 95. That the Indulged Ministers never did nor will own the Supremacy but plainly disown it and says he speaks not of a positive explicite formal intentiâ—nal and express homologating but of a virtual implicite material and elsewhere an interpretative homlogating He did well to explain Homologating in the beginning of this page that the people might understand the meaning of this Greek word but now again in shewing what sort of homologating the Indulged Ministers are guilty of he hath added so many Latine words virtual implicite material interpretative that the people who read this will be more in the dark than before for now they have four kittle words whereas they had but one before and yet he will have them to believe that though the Indulged Ministers plainly disown the Supremacy that yet they are virtually implicitely materially interpretatively guilty of it that 's to say they are guilty of it but they cannot tell how and yet upon this interpretative Homologation which they cannot interpret nor understand they are advised to withdraw from hearing the Indulged Ministers The case of the poor people is much to be pitied who are thus made to stumble at they know not what and made to believe that the Indulged Ministers homologate a sinful Supremacy in the Magistrate and that they in hearing the Indulged Ministers homologate the Supremacy and some have gone that length that the Ministers who preach not against hearing of the Indulged Ministers are not to be heard and upon the same groundless grounds they may give up private Christian fellowship with those who are not against hearing the Indulged Ministers I remember a History which I read of one John of Liege who upon the approach of some enemies against that Town took such a pannick fear that he fled into the desert of Ardenna and durst not adventure to come out for he apprehended that all men that he heard or saw were those enemies which first frighted him It hath befallen this Author and the Author of the Epistle as it did to him they have taken such a fright at the Supremacy that they apprehend many Acts to be Acts of Supremacy which others who are as opposite to Erastianism and an arbitrary Supremacy as they know to be Acts of that Authority which the Magistrate hath from God and they apprehend many things to have affinity with the Supremacy which have none at all but this way of theirs is so far from being the right way to discern the ill which is in the Supremacy that upon the contrary it 's the way to commend it when these Acts which Orthodox and Anti-Erastian Divines grant to be Acts of lawful Authority are alledged to be the Acts of a sinful Supremacy Pag. 95. We have his fourth ground I need not repeat the true state of the question he should have proven if he would have proven any thing against the Indulged Ministers that their practice was injurious to the people I know no injury they have done to the people except that be an injury that upon their Invitation they came and preached the truth to them I think they may be forgiven this wrong He says The meer appointment of the civil Magistrate was all the ground of their relation and the only thing that made them Pastors to such a people This is false and will never be proven I told him the Indulged Ministers had no regard to the Patron He objects that it will be said they obtained the full and unanimous consent of the people And he answers 1. I doubt if this was either universally sought or obtained Ans Seeing he charges the indulged Ministers as injurious to the people he should have been clear that they obtruded themselves upon the people and that the people did not consent to their coming It seems he makes his doubts to be evidences to prove his Brethren guilty of injurious dealing But he might have known that no man who hath any common sense will take the most confident assertions of an accuser and much less his doubts for proofs and evidences against the party whom he charges with a fault 2. As for those who returned to their own Congregations they had a standing relation founded upon the election of the people and ordination of the Presbytery and none can rationally imagine that their own Congregations did not desire the return of their own Pastors As for those who went to other Congregations not having access to their own I suppose he would not have thought it sutable for them to have sought Invitations to these Parishes It was not the Custom nor had it been decent but very unsutable and liable to Exceptions to have sought Invitations it was all that could be rationally expected from them to signifie to the people concerned that they could not come to exercise their Ministry among them except they did consent Neither had it been fit for the people to have made a formal election of them seeing they had never heard nor seen some of them and seeing these Ministers were not out of hope of obtaining regress to their own Parishes but all that was necessary as the case stood was the peoples consent to their coming and preaching among them and when they had heard them both the Ministers and they might consider what was fit for them to do I shall set down a true Copy of one of these Invitations We under Subscribers in the Parish of being informed by very many Testimonies to which we owe credit That it hath pleased the Lord to endue you with great Abilities for preaching the Gospel and that upon our call you have free access to come and exercise the Ministerial Function among us have thought it our Duty to give you a very cordial Invitation to come and preach which we expect may be upon Sunday the fifteenth of this instant after which we are not doubtful but both you and we shall have such mutual satisfaction that we shall have the Comfort of your Ministry and you the opportunity of doing service to your Lord and Master in pursuance of the Commission you have from him in whom we remain and subscribe c. By this it appears 1. That the people were informed that the Minister had signified That an Invitation from the Parish was necessary for his access to preach to them 2. Though they
show that those of the outed Ministers to whom the Magistrate had granted the peaceable publick exercise of their Office in some Parishes in their returning to those Parishes where they were formerly ordained Ministers or not having access to the peaceable exercise of their Ministry in their own Parishes upon the â—nvitation of destitute Congregations with the consent of Presbyterian Ministers concerned going to exercise their Office in those destitute Congregations till they might have access to return â—o their own Parishes That these Ministers in so doing did sin Of what Law of God is this practice of theirs a Transgression Is it a sin for Ministers whom God hath called to the work of the Ministry to exercise their Office in the Parishes where they were ordained Ministers or to help destitute Congregations who desire them to come and help them Is it a sin because the Magistrate permits them to preach The Author himself dare not say this as appears from his first Answer to the first Objection A Minister â—ins not in preaching the Gospel though an Uâ—urper a Robber permit him to preach and much â—ess doth the Permission of the lawful Magistrate render his preaching sinful Object The Magistrate appoints them to preach and to preach in such or such a parish and therefore it 's sinful Ans 1. If it were a sin in the Magistrate to appoint a Minister to preach in such or such a place and a sin for the Minister to preach because the Magistrate appointed him to preach in such a place then the Ministers who wrote the first Book of Discipline and the Church of Scotland who approved it did sin in desiring the Magistrate to appoint Ministers to preach in such and such Parishes We did shew from the first Book of Discipline That they desired the Magistrate to do this and more too even to compel them to preach 2. This Author grants in his Answer to the third Objection That the Magistrate may place Ministers when the Church is corrupt and all things are out of order the vanity of his evasion by which he seeks to elude that Argument taken from the 10th Chapter of the second Book of Discipline is before discovered 3. Suppose it were unlawful for the Magistrate to appoint a Minister to exercise the Office of the Ministry in a particular Parish yet it would not be sinful for that Minister to preach in that Parish if the Parish were vacant and earnestly desired him to exercise his Ministry among them and if his preaching there were not injurious to any if the Magistrates appointing a Minister to preach c. in a Parish render the Ministers preaching in that Parish sinful then the Magistrate by such appointments might make the exercise of the Ministry in any Parish or in all Parishes in his Dominions sinful which is a most absurd Conceit Or is it sinful to accept of the peaceable exercise of their Ministry in such or such Parishes because the Magistrate gives them Injunctions and Rules to regulate them in the exercise of their Ministry But 1. These Injunctions were the Magistrates Acts and not the Ministers 2. The Ministers accepted not of these Injunctions but declared they could receive no such Ecclesiastick Rules from the Magistrate and that they had full Prescriptions from Christ which they behoved to observe as they would be answerable to him of whom they had received their Ministry 3. The Act of Instructions as it was distinct from the Act of Indulgence in which the publick peaceable exercise of their Ministry was granted and came not to the Ministers hands for a considerable time after they had received the Act of Indulgence so there was a great difference in the nature of the Acts and the Indulged Ministers did right in making use of what was good and refusing what was evil 4. If the Magistrates sending Injunctions to Ministers renders the exercise of their Ministry sinful then the Magistrate may render the exercise of the Ministry in any place in every place of his Dominions sinful by sending Instructions to all the Ministers in his Dominions which is another absurd Conceit which if it were received would make it easie for an ill-disposed Magistrate to mar all preaching by writing and sending Acts of Instructions to all the Ministers in his Dominions Object The Act of Indulgence flowed from a sinful Supremacy and therefore it was sinful to make any use of it Ans To say nothing of the making use of a Pass given by a Captain of Robbers or of a Covenant of peaceable commerce made with an Usurper who hath no just title which Casuists do not condemn I answer That that Act which indeed was the Act of Indulgence and which the Indulged Ministers made use of viz. The Relaxation of the Civil Restraint which hindred the peaceable exercise of their Ministry or the granting of the publick peaceable exercise of Ministry was no Act of any sinful Supremacy but the exercise of that power which the Magistrate hath from God for doing good As from the right stating of the question it evidently appears That this accepting of the publick peaceable exercise of the Ministry was not sinful so it evidently appears That it was lawful and commendable and a duty to which they were obliged as the work of the Ministry is a good work so the peaceable setled exercise of it under the protection of lawful Authority is a great mercy that hath many blessings and advantages in it it 's a promised blessing it 's a blessing for which the people of God should pray and because the peaceable setled exercise of the Ministry cannot be where Magistrates are without their allowance or permission therefore it 's duty to pray That the Lord would incline the heart of Rulers to grant the peaceable publick exercise of Religion in their Dominions and when the Lord inclines the hearts of Rulers to this we should not slight such a promised Mercy nor refuse the return of our Prayers but thankfully receive this blessing of God conveyed by the hand of the Magistrate and make use of this Talent to the Glory of God and edification of his Church I remember I have spoken before of the advantages of the peaceable setled exercise of the Ministry and of the necessity of accepting of it especially in answering the last head of the Authors Arguments and shall say no more of the state of the question but this That they who but understand the terms of the question will see that all the Arguments which the Author brings to prove the accepting of the Indulgence sinful do evanish as smoke and lose all colour when they compere before the light of naked Truth And they will see that what these Ministers did in exercising their Ministry in these desolate Congregations when the Lord in his good Providence had given them peaceable access thereto was so evidently a religious work a labour of love a work of mercy a seasonable expedient necessary work
a way for himself to escape but he must not go so I shall therefore reinforce the Argument thus If it be unlawful for all the Ministers or all the outed Ministers in a Kingdom to preach the Gospel if the Magistrate by virtue of an usurped Supremacy and for an ill end command them to preach here and there and under such and such Limitations and Restrictions then a Magistrate by such a Command without any more ado may banish all preaching out of his Dominions but the latter is absurd and so is the former I see not how upon his Principles this absurdity can be evited for if a few Ministers may not lawfully preach if they be so commanded and restricted how can many preach lawfully â—f so commanded and restricted but ye will say there is a great difference betwixt many and few I grant there is an Arithmetical difference but it 's nothing to the present purpose for if the Restrictions do vitiate the preaching of a few it will also vitiate the preaching of many for moral filth is not like natural filth diminished by spreading but is rather encreased If it be said That if all Ministers were so commanded to preach they might frustrate the Magistrates ill Intentions and sinful Instructions by driving on the great design of the Gospel and observing Christs Instructions I answer A few of them might do the same what should hinder a few of them to do what all may do 5. If a small number may not lawfully preach if there were such restrictions superadded to the command of preaching then it were still easie for the Magistrate to put all from preaching by writing such and such Restrictions for it would take but a little more time to do it for first he might send his command to preach and his Instructions to a few and they might not lawfully preach because they were but a few and when they are laid by he sends his command to preach with Instructions to another small number of them and so on till he had put all of them from preaching for many small 's will amount to All be-time In his 6th he grants That when that which the Magistrate commands by virtue of his Supremacy is not only lawful but necessary by virtue of a Command of God the prefixing of the Supremacy cannot alter the nature of the Duty He might have added That the affixing of the Restrictions can no more alter the nature of a Duty than the prefixing of the Supremacy can alter it but he adds That he hath above cleared that what was done by the indulged Ministers was neither expedient nor lawful but he hath never cleared it but it hath been cleared that what the indulged Ministers did in preaching in the places to which they were indulged was lawful expedient and in many respects necessary In his 7th he grants If this supposed command came to Ministers already preaching the Supremacy might be sufficiently delete by a Protestation or Declaration that they preach by virtue of Christs Supremacy but if it were given to cuted Ministers detained from their work till they should thus acknowledge the unlawful Supremacy of the Magistrate He supposes there might be ground here for a demur Ans I do not understand what this thus acknowledging means or this thus relates to I doubt if he could well explicate this if he thinks that the preaching of these outed Ministers would be an acknowledging of that unlawful Supremacy why should not the preaching of the already setled Ministers be so too Why might not a Declaration salve all in the Ministers that were out as well as in these who were in If this were an acknowledging of the unlawful Supremacy I wonder why he should be in any demur The Argument I perceive hath strangely puzled him If he be not positive that a command to which the unlawful Supremacy is prefixed should be refused why is he so positive that a command to preach should be quite refused because of Instructions superadded in another Act I can see no shadow of Reason for this now he is far from being Peremptour in the former case but very very modest I suppose says he there might be ground here for a demur he does not positively assert That they should refuse to preach in this case but he only supposes not that there was actually but that there might be ground not for a refusal but only for a demur I wish he had pondered his Argument in its full strength it 's like it would have put him in a demur as to the writing of this History and spared him a great deal of needless labour and much waste of his precious time which might have been improven to the good of the Church and his own edification I leave him in this demur and come to the 7th Objection which he proposeth in this question It seemeth then you would not be for Ministers returning to their own charges if the Magistrate should grant such an order or permission he who will not be for a Ministers doing his duty is wilful without and against Reason but he who will not be for a Ministers returning to his own Charge will not be for a Ministers doing his duty and therefore he is wilful without and against Reason In his first he grants That though the Order or Permission did expresly mention the Supremacy as it 's ground that yet it might be made use of with a Protestation 1. I see the Author in this case would not scar at the Magistrates ordering and why then makes he such a business about the word appointing 2. That their returning to their own Charges though the Magistrate order it is not a renouncing of their former mission and old right nor a renouncing of their dependence upon Christ nor a deriving of their Ministry from the Magistrate for if it were such the matter could not be salved by a Protestation This Concession overturns a great part of his Book 3. There was no mention made of the Supremacy at all in the Indulgence and therefore there was no need by his own Concession of such a Protestation 4. Though there had been mention of it Ministers returning to their own Charges would have been according to this Concession but a seeming Homologation of the sinful usurpation In his 2d he thinks if the permission were not universal but a permission of some only that then they should not go and why because the Magistrates intention to divide is manifest suppose that to be true yet the Ministers returning to their own Charge hath no tendency to division If men must not do their duty because they who permit them to do it have ill Designs this would be a new device for torturing mens Consciences and would make Ministers as dependent upon the Magistrates intention as to the lawfulness of their ministerial actings as the Papists are dependent upon the Priests intention as to the validity of their Sacraments If a Minister should not go
Church-Officers He adds another Reason That in these matters which were the exercise of their Ministry they were the Servants of Christ and therefore the Magistrate should not impose upon them in these matters The Author grants that some of these Rules were formally Ecclesiastical which the Magistrate could not make and all of them are burdensom impositions clogging the exercise of the Ministry The enjoyning the Religious observation of the 29th of May by commanding cessation from work and affixing a special kind of Worship to that day was contrary to the Principle of these who think none can make Holy-days but God the discharging of the Lecture the reading and giving the sense of Scripture was not to Edification but an impeding of a mean of Edification the referring causes from Sessions to Presbyteries as now constitute was contrary to the Principle of Presbyterians who cannot put themselves in a subordination to Prelacy the restraining Ministers from Baptizing Children of other Congregations c. though formerly it did well yet did not quadrate with the present state of the Church the injunction to have the Communion in one day was impracticable the confining Preaching to Kirks hinders Ministers from Preaching in several other parts of their Paroches where Preaching is sometimes very requisite upon week-days and renders the Celebration of the Communion in some places impracticable when People will not go out from the Tables except there be Preaching without and they were burdensome and hindred Ministers from making full proof of their Ministry in being an occasion of stumbling to People who not knowing how to distinguish betwixt the Indulgence which was a permission to Preach and these impositions nor knowing how to put a difference betwixt prescribing of these Instructions and accepting of them did take up prejudices first against these Ministers and then against their Ministry and the Ordinances dispensed by them and some of them went that length to make it their work to render these Ministers and their Ministry contemptible and to count it Service to God to despise his Servants and to hinder the work of their Ministry And if the very prescribing of these Rules had such effects what would the acceptance and observance of them have done Mr. H's words uttered before the Council excludes all the Magistrates impositions upon Ministers in the matters of their Ministry and so excludes these Instructions which were impositions of that nature and all impositions of that nature even the confinement is comprehended which did restrain the exercise of their Ministry and tended to hinder them from making full proof of their Ministry The denying to the Magistrate a formal Ecclesiastical Power excludes the Magistrate from all Acts which are the formal exercise of Ecclesiastick Functions and so from making Ecclesiastical Canons or Rules formally Ecclesiastical Again in asserting that Rules intrinsically Ecclesiastical given by the Magistrate are impositions he shews that the Magistrate hath not a warrantable Power to make and impose such Rules upon Ministers And in asserting that they were the Servants of Christ in the matters of their Ministry he did shew that they could not be ruled by the Magistrates will or pleasure in these matters but behoved to be ruled by his will whose Ministers they were and that therefore they could not accept of and receive any Rules of the Magistrates making or imposing which would either hinder or marr their Masters Service and the acceptance of which would any way hinder them from making full proof of their Ministry or marr them in doing these matters in which they were not the Magistrates Servants but Christs These things are imported clearly in or clearly follow from Mr. H's words and they do manifestly exclude all encroachments of the Magistrate upon the calling of the Ministry and its exercise and so explains and confirms Mr. B's words in their genuine sense He goes on If he meant saith the Historian the same Rules c. then he confirms Mr. Blairs Argument Answ So he does he both clears what he said and confirms it He clears in shewing that the Rules which they and Mr. B. could not receive were Rules made and imposed by the Magistrate for Regulating Ecclesiastick Canons Rules intrinsically Ecclesiastical of the Magistrates making and the enjoyning of which to Ministers was an imposition And besides Mr. H's words do more clearly obviate exceptions and objections than Mr. B's do though Mr. B's words taken in their genuine and native sense and the sense which Mr. B. took them in and be not wrested are clear enough For Instructions and Instructions to Regulate and to Regulate Ministers in the exercise of their Ministry sounds at the first hearing to all who have but common sense of matters of that nature Ecclesiastical Canons or Canons formally and intrinsically Ecclesiastical which the Magistrate should not form and impose For if any should Object 1. May not the Magistrate according to what is said in the first Chap. of the second Book of Discipline command Ministers to Preach Baptize Exercise Discipline according to the Rule of the Word of God Answ No doubt but the Rule of the Word of God is not a Rule of the Magistrates making and his enjoyning Ministers to observe the Rule of the Word in the exercise of their Ministry is no imposition upon them nor does that command of the Magistrate any way hinder but further the Service of Christ Object May not the Magistrate enjoyn Ministers to observe the Acts of a Synod which he hath ratified by his Civil Sanction Answ These Canons or Acts are not formed by the Magistrate but by the Synod Obj. May not the Magistrate form Acts of the same nature with these that general Assemblies and Synods form for Regulating Ministers in the exercise of their Ministry Answ That were to confound the Office of the Magistrate with the Office of the Minister and to bring the Magistrate in upon the calling of the Ministry to elicite and exerce Acts which are intrinsically Ecclesiastical It belongs intrinsically to the Office of Ministers of the Church to explain and apply the Word of God and these Ecclesiastick Rules must be drawn from the Word of God the forming of such Canons hath in all Ages been looked upon as the work of Ecclesiastical Synods who had no Power of the Sword and therefore that work is the exercise of the Spiritual Keys and not of the Civil Sword As the forming of Rules of Physick and forming Medicinal Receipts is intrinsical to the faculty of Physick so is the forming of Ecclesiastick Canons intrinsical to the calling of the Ministry Obj. May not the Magistrate interrupt the Preaching though on the Sabbath when an Enemy is coming to Assault the Town and call the People from the Church to the Walls of the City to defend it Answ That is no burdensome imposition upon the Minister in the exercise of his Ministry it 's a work of Necessity and the Lord declares his mind that in such
Authoritative decision even supposing that side on which the Error lies to be approved For first there is no necessity for such as have Authority for them to press others in their judgment and practice in such things neither can it be thought that such a decision can of it self satisfie all scruples neither yet that men doubtingly may follow Nor lastly that such Controversies can bear the weight of troubling the Church by censuring such as otherways may be faithful seeing sometimes even unfaithful men have been spared with respect to the Churches good as hath been said And Secondly upon the other side such a constitution of the Church doth not involve all that keep Communion therein in the guilt thereof if personally they be free as in the instance of the Jewish Church is clear where no question many corrupt Acts have been established yet did it neither make Communion in Worship or Government to be unlawful where the matter and manner of carriage was Lawful Beside this would infer that no Judicatory could keep Union where there were contrary votes or a Sentence passed without unanimity because that is certainly wrong to them who think otherwise and if so there could be no Judicatory expected either in Church or State for it cannot be expected that they shall be still unanimous or that the greater part shall cede to the lesser and rescind their own Act. And suppose there should be such a Division upon one difference can it be expected that those who unite upon the divided sides respectively shall again have no more difference among themselves and if they have shall there not be a new Division and where shall this end And seeing men must resolve to keep Unity where there are faults of such a nature or to have none at all it is as good to keep it at first as to be necessitated to it afterward The Orthodox urge this Argument against the Donatists who would not keep Union with them because of pretended corruptions in the proceedings of Judicatories and Ordinations yet were constrained to bear with such amongst themselves and particularly to receive and unite with the Maximinianists whose Communion they had once rejected though a branch of their own Faction because they saw no end of Divisions if they did not resolve to dispense with such things amongst themselves And Augustine often asserted that they were never able to Answer this Argument when it was propounded to them to wit why they did not give them that same Latitude in keeping communion with them which they had given to the Maximinianists who were guilty of such things as they imputed to them We conceive then that even in such a case there may be Union for prosecuting the main work of the Gospel notwithstanding of such a Circumstantial difference if men otherwise set themselves to it and the general grounds formerly laid down do confirm this Thus far I have transcribed the words of the Godly Learned Peaceable Mr. Durham I would desire the Reader to read also his 12th Chapter and his whole Book which is a precious Treasure which if the Historian had pondered and practised he and they who follow him might through the Lords Blessing been kept out of these divisive and destructive ways If the Historian would have followed Mr. Durham's Advice first he might have forborn to vent and to press others to vent this which he calls Light thought it had been Light indeed For it is no Fundamental truth that he and they call Light He cannot charge the Indulged Ministers that they maintain Doctrinally any Erastian Error All that he alledges upon them when he explains himself is that they have by their practice Interpretatively homologate the Supremacy Now seeing these Ministers taught no erroneous Doctrine concerning the Magistrates Power about Church-matters but maintain the Principles of all Orthodox Anti-erastian Divines And seeing they are known to be conscientious men and declare upon all occasions that their practice in making use of the Indulgence is not contrary to but consistent with and according to the Principles of these Anti-erastian Divines The most that the Author could make out of this was that they were mistaken in the application of these Principles to that particular Fact of acceptance of the Peaceable exercise of their Ministry from the Magistrate Now what necessity was there in venting this Light This Interpretative homologation of the Supremacy which yet is but confounding darkness to the poor People who know not what he means by these words by which he explains how these Ministers are guilty they cannot Interpret his Interpretative homologation His light is to them darkness He clears these Indulged Ministers of having any Erastian Error in their Head he grants they had no ill intention in their mind and heart when they accepted the Indulgence He grants there was no ill intention in the worker but in the work done by them and that what they did did not formally and explicitly import any approbation of any sinful Supremacy but onely implicitely virtually and interpretatively What necessity was there of telling the People this implicite Error in a matter of Fact seeing when he tells it most distinctly it 's so subtil a kind of fault that the People cannot understand it it 's so wompled up in Latine implicite perplexed words that they cannot get a sight of it And though the Historian did really intend to diminish the sin of the Indulged Ministers when he said they themselves did not intend any ill in their acceptance but it was onely the intention of the work And when he said that the work did not formally and explicitely tend to ill but virtually implicitely and interpretatively Yet the People are not capable of understanding these diminishing terms and so thinking it to be some ill thing these words that are unintelligible by them increases the apprehension of the ilness or evil of it even as when simple People knows that the thing commended is good if ye commend it in words that they do not understand it heightens their conceit of the goodness of it What effect could the Historian think that this dark light could have upon the minds and affections of the poor People but to beget an ill Opinion of and prejudice against and hatred of these honest men who as he grants himself meant no ill Now did this any way tend to the Peoples Edification Did it not upon the contrary tend to their hurt For whereas before they were Edified by the Ministry of these Ministers they are put in an incapacity of getting that good by their Ministry which they were wont formerly to get so that they are no way Edified but prejudged and their Edification hindred But 2. If he would have been Advised by Mr. Durham he might well have forborn to have vented this light because the forbearance of venting it could no way have endangered the Salvation of the Souls of the People nor marred them in any Duty that the Church