as Christ never made mention of in his Law yea some where of do directly militate against Christs Prescriptions Doth not their receiving of these Instructions or Prescriptions which were contained in his Maj. Letter say that the Prescriptions of Christ were not full But againe seing they had not freedom to say that they received their Ministrie from Christ alone how could they say that they had their full prescriptions from Christ unless they meant that they had them not from Christ alone And then they must say that they had them partly from some other and that other mâ—st either be the Magistrar or Church Officers not Church-officers for neither had they any call to speak of that here nor doth Church Officers hold forth any Prescriptions but Christs and that in the name of Christ. If that other be the Magistrat than it must either be meant Collaterally or Subordinatly to Christ not Subordinatly for they are not appointed of Christ for that end nor do they as Magistrats act Ministerially but Magisterially not Collaterally For then they should have these Prescriptions equally from the Magistrates as from Christ and the Magistrat should be equal and King of the Church with Christ which is blasphemie More might be here noted but what is said is enough to our purpose at present and what was said above needeth not be here repeated But now we must proceed These fore-mentioned were not all who were that yeer indulged For the same supposed favour was granted to others shortly thereafter as appeareth by these Extracts out of the Register Edinburgh August 3. 1669. THE Persons under-written were licenced to preach at the Kirks after specified viz. Mr Iohn Scot late at Oxnam at the same Kirk Mr William Hammiltoun late at Glasfoord at the Kirk of Evandale Mr Robert Mitchel late at Luss at the same Kirk Mr Iohn Gemmil late at Symming town at the same Kirk Mr Patrick Campbel late at Innerary at the same Kirk Mr Robert Duncanson late at Lochanside at Kildochrennan Mr Andrew Cameron late at Kilsinnan now at Lochead in Kintyre Edinburgh 2. Septemb. 1669. For as much as the Kirk of Pencaitland is now vacant by decease of Mr Alexander Vernor last Minister thereat and there being some questions and legal pursuits before the Judge ordinate concerning the right of Patronage of this Kirk Until the decideing whereof the Kirk will be vacant if remeed be not provided Therefore the Lords of his Maj. Privie Councel in pursuance of his Maj. pleasure expressed in his Letter of the 7. of Iune last have thought fit at this time and for this Vacancie allennerly To appoint Mr Robert Douglas late Minister at Edinburgh to preach and exercise the function of the Ministrie at the said Kirk of Pencait land And it is hereby declared that thir presents shall be without prejudice of the right of Patronage according as the same shall be found and declared by the Judge ordinarie Edinburgh Septemb. 2. 1669. The Persons underwritten were licensed to preach at the Kirks after specified viz. Mr. Matthew Ramsey late at Kilpatrick to preach at Paisley Mr Alexander Hammiltoun late Min. at Dalmenie at the same Kirk Mr Andrew Dalrymple late Min. at Affleck at Dalganie Mr Iames Fletcher late Min. at Neuthcome at the same Kirk Mr Andrew Me-Claine late Min. at Craigneis at Kilchattan Mr Donald Morison late at Kilmaglais at Ardnamurchant Edinburgh Septemb. last 1669. The Persons following were ordained to preach at the Kirks after specified viz. Mr Iohn Stirling at Hounam Mr Robert Mowat at Harriot Mr Iames Hammiltoun at Egleshame Mr Robert Hunter at Downing Mr Iohn Forrester at Tilliallan with Mr Andrew Reid infirme Edinburgh Decemb. 9. 1669. Mr Alexander Blair at Galstown Mr Iohn Primrose at Queensferrie Mr David Brown at Craigie Mr Iohn Craufurd at Lamingtoun with Mr Iohn Hammiltoun aged and infirme Mr Iames Vetch at Machline Edinburgh Decemb. 16. 1669. Mr Iohn Bairdie at Paisley with Mr Matthew Ramsey infirme Thus we see there were this Yeer 1669. Five and Thirtie in all licensed and indulged and ordained to preach in the several places specified upon the Councels Order in pursuance of the Kings Royal pleasure And in the following yeer we will finde the same Order given unto and obeyed by others But ere we proceed it will not be amisse that we take notice of the first Act of Parliament holden this yeer Novemb. 16. 1669. and consequently before the last Six were licensed The Act is an Act asserting his Majesties Supremacy over all Persons and in all Causes Ecclesiastical Whereby what was done by the Councel in pursuance of his Majesties Pleasure signified by his Letter in the matter of granting these Indulgences is upon the matter confirmed and ratified by Parliament when His Maj. Supremacy is so ampliated and explained as may comprehend within its verge all that Ecclesiastick Power that was exerced or ordained to be exerced in the granting of the Indulgence with its Antecedents Concomitants and Consequences And a sure way is laid for carrying on the same designe of the Indulgence in all time coming The Act is as followeth Nov. 16. 1669. THE Estates of Parliament having seriously considered how necessare it is for the Good and Peace of the Church and State That his Maj. Power and Authority in Relation to Matters and Persons Ecclesiastical be more clearly asserted by an Act of Parliament Have therefore thought fit it be Enacted Asserted and Declared Like as his Maj. with Advice and Consent of his Estates of Parliament doth hereby Enact Assert and Declare That his Maj. hath the Supreame Authority and Supremacy over all Persons and in all Causes Ecclesiastical within this His Kingdom And that by vertue thereof the Ordering and Disposal of the external Government and Policy of the Church doth properly belong to His Maj. and His Successours as an inherent right to the Crown And that His Maj. and His Successours may Settle Enact and Emit such Constitutions Acts and Orders concerning the Administration of the External Government of the Church and the Persons imployed in the same and concerning all Ecclesiastical meetings and matters to be proposed and determined therein as they in their Royal Wisdom shall think fit which Acts Orders and Constitutions being Recorded in the Books of Councel and duely published are to be observed and obeyed by all his Maj. Subjects any Law Act or Custome to the contrary notwithstanding Like as His Maj. with Advice and Consent foresaid doth Rescind and Annul Lawes Acts and Clauses thereof and all Customes and Constitutions Civil or Ecclesiastick which are contrary to or inconsistent with His Majesties Supremacie as it is hereby asserted And declares the same Void and Null in all time coming Concerning the Irreligiousness Antichristianisme and Exorbitancie of this Explicatory and as to some things Ampliatory Act and Assertion of the Kings Supremacy in Church-affairs much yea very much might be said but our present business calleth us to speak of it only
in reference to the Indulgence that we may see with what friendly aspect this Supremacie looketh towards the Indulgence and with what Veneration the Indulgence respecteth this Supremacie to the end it may appear how the Indulgence hath contributed to the establishment of this Supra-Papal Supremacie and how the Accepters thereof stand chargeable with a Virtual and Material Approbation of and Consent to the dreadful Usurpation committed by this Supremacie In order to which we would know that this Act of Supremacy made Anno 1669. was not made upon the account that the Supremacie in Church-affairs had never been before screwed up to a sufficient height in their apprehensions for upon the matter little that is material is here asserted to belong unto this Ecclesiastical Supremacie which hath not been before partly in more general partly in more special and particular termes plainly enough ascribed unto this Majestie or presumed as belonging to his Majest In the 11. Act. Parl. 1. Anno 1661. where the Oath is framed he is to be acknowledged Only supreme Governour over all persons and in all causes and that his Power and Iurisdiction must not be declined So that under all Persons and all Causes Church-officers in their most proper and intrinsecal ecclesiastick Affaires and Administrations are comprehended and if his Majest shall take upon him to judge Doctrine matters of Worship and what is most essentially Ecclesiastick he must not be declined as an incompetent Judge We finde also Act. 4. Sess. 2. Parl. 1. Anno 1662. which is againe renewed Act. 1. Anno 1663. that his Majestie with advice and consent of his Estates appointeth Church-censures to be infflicted for Church-transgression as plainly and formally as ever a General Assembly or Synod did in these words That whatsoever Minister shall without a lawful excuse to be admitted by his Ordinary absent himself from the visitation of the Diocess or who shall not according to his duty concurre therein or who shall not give their assistance in all the Acts of Church-discipline as they shall be required thereto by the Archbishop or Bishop of the Diocess every such Minister N. B. so offending shall for the first fault be suspeÌ„ded from his Office and Benefice until the next Diocesian meeting and if he amend not shall be deprived But which is more remarkable in the first Act of that Second Session Anno 1662. for the Restituâ—ion and Re-establishment of Prelats we have several things tending to cleare how high the Supremacie was then exalted The very Act beginneth thus for as much as the ordering and disposal of the external Government and Policy of the Church doth properly belong unto his Majestie as an inherent right of the Crown by vertue of his Royal Prerogative and Supremacie in causes Ecclesiastical This is the same that is by way of statute asserted in the late Act 1669. In the same Act it is further said That whatever this sure is large and very comprehensive shall be determined by his Maj. with the advice of the Archbishops and Bishops and such of the Clergy as shall be nominated by his Maj. in the external Government and Policy of the Church the same consisting with the standing Lawes of the Kingdom shall be valide and effectual And which is more in the same Act all preceeding Acts of Parl are rescinded by which the sole and only Power and Iurisdiction within the Church doth stand in the Church and in the General Provincial and Presbyterial Assemblies and Kirk-Sessions And all Acts of Parliament or Councel which may be interpreted to have given any Church-Power Iurisdiction or Government to the Office-bearers of the Church their respective Meetings other than that which acknowledgeth a dependence upon and subordination to the Soveraign â—â—wer of the King as Supreme So that we see by vertue of this Act all Church-Power and Jurisdiction whatsomever is made to be derived from to have a dependance upon and to be in subordination to the Soveraigne power of the King as Supream and not to stand in the Church Whereby the King is made only the Founâ—aine of Church-power and that exclusive as it would seem even of Christ Of whom there is not the least mention made and for whom is not made the least reserve imaginable So in the 4. Act. of the third Session of Parl. Anno 1663. For the Establishment and Constitution of a National Synod We finde it said that the ordering and disposal of the external Government of the Church and the nomination of the Persons by whose Advice Matters relating to the same are to be setled doth belong to his Maj. as an inherent right of the Crown by vertue of his prerogative Râ—yal and Supream Authority in causes Ecclesiastical And upon this ground is founded his power to appoint a National Synod to appoint the only constiâ—uent Members thereof as is there specified to call continue and dissolve the same when he will to limit all their Debates Consultations and Determinations to such matters and causes as he thinketh fit and several other things there to be seen Seing by these Particulars it is manifest and undeniable that this Ecclesiastick Supremacie was elevated presumptively before the Year 1669. to as high a degree as could be imagined It may be enquired why then was this Act made Anno 1669 I answere This act so I conceive was not framed so much to make any addition to that Church power which they thought did Iure Coronae belong orginally and fundamentally unto the King for that was already put almost beyond the reach of any additional supply though not in one formal and expressive Statutory Act As to forme the same when screwed up to the highest into a plaine and positive formal Statute having the force of a Law for all uses and ends and particularly to salve in point of Law the Councel in what they did in and about the Indulgence according to the desire and command of the King in his Letter in regaâ—rd that the granting of this Indulgence did manifestly repugne to and counteract several anteriour Acts of Parliament and was a manifest breach and violation of Lawes standing in full force and unrepealed which neither their place nor his Maj. could in Law warrand them to do by his Letter That the granting of the Indulgence did thus in plaine termes repugne to standing Lawes I thus make good In the Act of Rëstitution of Prelates Anno 1662. Prelates are restored unto the exercise of their Episcopal function Presidence in the Church power of Ordination Inflicting of Censures and all other Acts of Church Discipline And as their Episcopal power is there asserted to be derived from his Maj. so withal it is expresly said that the Church-power and jurisdiction is to be Regulated and Authorized in the Exercise thereof by the Archbishops and Bishops who are to put order to all Ecclesiastical matters and causes and to be accountable to his Maj. for their administrations Whence it is manifest that the
King alone or with his Privie Councel cannot put order to Ecclesiastical matters and causes or exerce Church-Power and Jurisdiction without a violation of this Law and manifest controlling of it And further in the 4. Act of that same Second Session of Parliament it is expresly ordained that none be hereafter permitted to preach in publick or in families within any diocess without the licence of the Ordinary of the Diocess So that this licence and permission granted to the Indulged by the Councel to preach and exercise the other parts of their function being without the licence of the Bishops is manifestly contrary and repugnant to this Law Moreover Act 1. in the third Session Anno 1663. we have these words And the Kings Maj. having resolved to conserve and maintaine the Church in the present State and Governmēt hereof by Archbishops Bishops and others bearing Office therein and not to endure nor give way or connivace to any variation therein in the least doth therefore with advice and consent of his Estates conveened in this third Session of his Parliament Ratifie and Approve the afore mentioned Acts and all other Acts and Lawes made in the two former Sessions of Parliament in order to the settling of Episcopal Dignity Iurisdiction and Authority within the Kingdom and ordains them to stand in full force as publick Lawes of the Kingdom and to be put to further execution in all points conforme to the tenor thereof Here is a further Ratification and Confirmation of the Lawes mentioned and the Councel hereby yet more firmely bound-up from emitting any Acts or Edicts contradictory to and tending to weaken and invalidat the publick standing Lawes of the Kingdom And which is yet more considerable in the following words of this same Act the effectual putting of these Lawes in execution is specially and in terminis recommended by King and Parliament unto the Privy Councel after this manner And in pursuance of his Maj. Royal resolution herein his Maj. with advice foresaid doth recommend to the Lords of his Maj. Privie Councel to take speedy and Effectual Course that these Acts receive ready and due Obedience from all his Maj. Subjects and for that end that they call before them all such Ministers who having entred in or since the Yeer 1649. and have not as yet obtained Presentations and Collations as aforesaid yet darred to preach in contempt of the Law and to punish them as seditious persons and contemners of the Royal Authority As also that they be careful that such Ministers who keep not the Diocesian meetings and concurre not with the Bishops in the Acts of Church-Discipline being for the same suspended or deprived as said is be accordingly after deprivation removed from their Benefices Gleebs and Manses And if any of them shall notwithstanding offer to retaine the Possession of their Benefices or Manses that they take present Course to see them dispossest And if they shall thereafter presume to exercise their Ministrie that they be punished as seditious Persons and such as contemne the Authority of Church and State Now notwithstanding of this express reference and severe recommendation we know that in the matter of the Indulgence they were so far from punishing such as had not obtained Presentations and Collations and yet had continued to preach and exercise their Ministrie that in perfect contradiction to this Injunction of King and Parliament and other forementioned Acts they licensed warranded and impowered some such as by Act of Parliament were to be punished as seditious Persons and contemners of Authority of Church and State to preach publickly and to exercise all other parts of their Ministrie and that upon the sole warrand of the Kings Letter which cannot in Law warrand and impower them to contraveen express Lawes and Acts of Parliament and not only to disobey the Injunctions of Parliament but in plaine termes to counteract and counterwork the Established and Ratified Lawes and so to render them null and of no effect Whence we see that there was a necessity for the Parliament An. 1669. to do something that might secure the Lives and Honours of the members of Councel in point of law in granting of that Indulgence which was so expresly against law and which the two Arch-Prelates members of Councel would never give their assent unto as knowing how it intrenched upon the power granted to them and the other Prelates confirmed by Law and so was a manifest rescinding of these Acts and Lawes And though this might have been done by a plaine and simple Act approving and ratifying what the Councel had done in compliance with his Maj Royal Pleasure and authorizing them in time coming to pursue the ends of the same Letter further with a non obstante of all Acts formerly made in favoures of Prelates and Prelacie Yet it is probable they made choise of this way of explaining by a formal and full Statute and Act of Parliament the Supremacie in these plaine full and ample termes wherein we now have it that thereby they might not only secure the Councel but also make the Kings sole Letter to the Councel in all time coming a valid ground in Law whereupon the Councel might proceed and enact and execute what the King pleased in matters Ecclesiastick how intrinsecally and purely such soever without so much as owning the corrupt Ecclesiastick medium or channel of Prelacy And withal it might have been thought that such an act so necessary for the legal preservation of the Indulgers and consequently of the Indulged in the enjoyment of the Indulgence would go sweetly down with all the Indulged and such as gaped for the like favour howbeit so framed as that it was not very pleasant at the first tasting For it cannot be rationally supposed that such as are pleased with their warme dwellings will cast out with the walles roof of the dwelling without which they would enjoy no more warmness than if they were lodging beside the heth in the wilderness And who could think that any indulged man could be dissatisfied with that which was all and only their legal security and without which they were liable to be punished as seditious persons and as contemners of Authority even for preaching by vertue of the Indulgence according to Lawes standing in force unrepealed Whence also we see what a faire way was made unto this Act of Supremacy by the Indulgence and how the Indulgence is so far beholden unto this Act that it can not stand without it nor the persons Indulged be preserved from the lash of the Law notwithstanding of all that was done by the Councel And thus these two are as twines which must die and live together for take away the Act of Supremacy and the Indulgence is but a dead illegal thing We may also see what to judge of this illegal and illegitimat birth that cannot breathe or live where Law reigneth without the swedling clothes of such a Supremacy nor can stand but
as upheld by such an Anti-christian Pillar We may also see here that the very embraceing of the Indulgence was upon the matter a recognition of this Power in the King to do in and by his Privy Councel in Church-matters what he pleased even though contrary to antecedent Acts of Parliament and that such as are so satisfied with the effect to wit the Indulgence cannot but comply with the cause to wit the Supremacy as asserted in this Act as the man that hath a complacencie in drinking of the streames cannot be displeased with but delight in the fountaine from whence they proceed If any of these Brethren had received the same Indulgence from the Prelates immediatly had they not thereby complyed with the Prelates homologated their Power and plainely assented and submitted thereunto Yea had they not in this assented also mediatly unto the Supremacy seing all the Prelats Power did flow from the Supremacie And shall they not now much more be looked on as homologating the Supremacie and as assenting thereto when they receive the Indulgence that immediatly floweth therefrom and must be vindicated and defended solely by the asserting thereof How is it imaginable that I can receive a favour and not homologate assent to and acquiesce in that Power that gave it when the asserting of that Power is the only mean to keep me in legal possession of the favour received But now for further confirmation of what is said let us take a view of the Act of Supremacy it self and there see a ground laid of sufficient warrādice for the Council in what they did in granting the Indulgence and also be able to read the Indulgence it self out of the Supremacie as here asserted and for this end it will be sufficient for us to take notice only of the last words thereof where it is said And that his Maj. and his Successours may Settle Enact and Emit such Constitutions Acts and Orders concerning the administration of the external Government of the Church and the Persons imployed in the same and concerning all Ecclesiastical Meetings and Maters to be proposed and determined therein as they in their Royal wisdom shall think fit which Acts Orders and Constitutions being recorded in the books of Councel and duly published are to be observed and obeyed by all his Maj. Subjects Before this time as we heard all Acts Orders and Constitutions concerning Church-affairs Church-meetings and Church-administrations were to be put in execution by the Prelates impowered by the Supremacie unto this end And what was lately done in the matter of the Indulgence was done by the Councel and not by the Prelates and therefore contrary to law whereupon that this deed may be valide in law it is here asserted that the King by vertue of his Supremacie may Emit what Acts Orders and Constitutions he in his royal wisdome thinketh fit and after what manner he pleaseth and so if he will may order and dispose of all Church-administrations Ecclesiastick Persons Church-meetings and matters by himself immediatly or by his Councel yea or by his lackeys so that if the Lawes Constitutions Acts and Orders concerning these Matters Meetings Persons and Administrations be signified to the Councel by Letter or any other way and be recorded in their books and duely published which they must doe whensoever required they must be obeyed and observed by all Subjects Now this power being asserted to belong to his Maj. as an inherent right of the crown no deed of gift formerly granted to the Prelats could weaken or diminish it and therefore nothing done of late by the Councel in granting of the Indulgence according to his Maj. will and pleasure signified by his Letter Iuny 7. 1669. can prove prejudicial unto the said PrivieCouncel they doing nothing but what was consonant unto the Kings Supremacie here more clearly asserted and not granted of new save in the forme of a formal Statute and law asserting the same Yet notwithstanding for the more security for abundance of Law breaks no Law it is added in the Act. as we see Any Law Act or Custom to the contrary notwithstanding And moreover they rescind and annul all Lawes Acts and Clauses thereof and all customs and constitutions Civil or Ecclesiastick which are contrary to and inconsistent with his Maj. Supremacie as it is hereby asserted and declare the same void and null in all time coming According to the usual course and manner As to the other particular we may see the native feature and lineaments of the Indulgence in the face of the Supremacie so manifestly that none who see the one needs question the intimate Relation that is betwixt them We see it now asserted as belonging to his Maj. Supremacy in Church-affairs tha◠he may Settle Enact and Emit what Acts Constitutions and Orders he thinketh good whether concerning Church-Administrations or Church-meetings or Church-matters or Church-Officers and that there needeth no more to make these Lawes to be obeyed and observed by all the Subjects but the recording of them in the books of the Councel and duely publishing of them Now as we saw above in the Kings Letter concerning this Indulgence there areConstitutions Acts and Orders emitted and setled concerning Church-administrations shewing what shall not be preached under the paine ofCensure whoseChildren may be baptized whose not who may be admitted to hear the word and who not Concerning Church-persons who shall be accounted qualified for preaching who not who shall be accounted fit for the charge of such a flock and who for the charge of another Such and such Ministers are ordained to go to such or such Congregations not by vertue of a Call of the people but meerly by vertue of the Councels designation Concerning Church-meetings They are appointed to keep Diocesian Visitations or Synods and to resort to Prelats Exercises though the Prelates look not on them as sutable company So it is ordained whom they are to marry and whom not In a word let any but compare the Kings Letter with this part of the Act of Supremacie and he shall be forced to say that the Letter is nothing but the Supremacie exemplified and put in practice Hence it is manifest that no man can submit to and accept of the Indulgence but he must eo ipso submit to accept of such Constitutions Acts and Orders as did constitute qualifie and limite the same for the Effect includeth the Causes Constituent and Discriminating And again no man can submit to and accept of Constitutions Acts and Orders flowing from a power but they must eo ipso recognosce that Power to be properly residing in the person giving forth these Acts and Orders or grant that he is vested with that power and seing it is plaine from the Act of Supremacie it self that such Constitutions Acts and Orders so given in Church-matters and about Church Persons as these were whereby the Indulgence was midwif'd into the world do flow from the Supremacie it is also manifest that no
possession of the favour did not only interpretativly but plainly and expresly in the sight of the whole Nation say they were satisfied with the termes and would rather submit unto them than lose the benefite they had received in and by the Indulgence Upon which account possibly it was that the Councel seeing that they had attained their end in granting the Indulgence and had found the Indulged so calme and pliable to submit to any termes they pleased to propose did mitigate within two moneths thereafter the severitie of the last Act in so far as concerned the stipends for Octob. 5. 1677. this Act was made with which I shall end this historical Relation Edinb Octob. 5. 1677. The Lords of Council thought fit of that the Indulged Ministers shall not be put to a necessity of seeking yearly warrands for their stipends But authorizeth and appointeth the Heretores of the Paroches where they serve to pay them their stipends according as they serve the cure in whole or in part And do declare that if any of these Indulged Ministers shall be found to contraveen their Instructions the Council will proceed against them as they shall see occasion And recommends to the respective Commissioners appointed by the Council for putting the Decreets of Council c and Acts against Conventicles and others in execution to see them keep their confinements and to report if they finde them transgreâ—s We have thus deduced this Business of the Indulgence unto this period and as occasion offered have hinted all alongs such remarks as might suffice to give understanding in the matter and to clear up the true state of the question unto the understanding and unprejudged Reader And from what is said the judicious may see what is to be said of the Indulgence of those Ministers who have thus accepted thereof though no more were said Yet that fuller satisfaction may be given in this matter I shall according as I promised turn back a little and take notice of some things that fell out Anno 1673. when severals of the Indulged were as we heard called before the Councel for not observing the 29. of May and the Instructions that had been given to them where by we may be helped to some further clearness in this affaire And in this examination I shall as to the ground I go upon be favourable to the Indulged beyond all exceptions for I shall only take notice of the relation of what passed as made by one of themselves in a Narrative as it is called concerning the carriage of some Ministers who appeared before the Councel in July last to wit 1673 written in answere to afriend who deâ—ired to be informed about that affaire and truth or falshood was in that Paper scattered up and down among the People concerning the same And I suppose no man will blame me for grounding my discourse against the Indulgence and Indulged upon this Narration seing it may be supposed that this would be made as favourable to them and their cause as truth would suffer and I shall be loath to question matters of fact nor shall it be necessary for â—e to examine every word in that Paper it being sufficient for my present business to touch upon those things which are most material and which concerne our present question This Author tels us that there were a considerable number of Ministers who had obtained liberty from the Magistrat to preach publickly without hazard of that legal restraint under which they lay before cited before the Councel But not to exaggerat that word obtained which would import that these Ministers had been too active in procuring to themselves that liberty as it is called which whether it was so or not I cannot determine though this expression would give the Reader ground to suppose that indeed it had been so I only observe that his Construction of the Indulgence and his Description thereof here given appeareth too favourable and more favourable than true for sure there was more than this in the Indulgence Matters had been thus if the Act of Glasgow had been simply repealed and every man permitted to returne home to his own Charge But when that is not done but every one of them sent to such places as the Council thought meet and appointed and ordained there to abide and to exerce the function of the Ministry with such and such limitations and upon certaine Conditions held forth and made known and as the Councel saith accepted and submitted to it is manifest that the matter had a far other face Beside that the granting of liberty to preach publickly without hazard needed no such Act of Parliament as is the Act of Supremacy to salve the granters in Law and make the grant to stand good in Law But what for a Possession this liberty is the Charter by which it is confirmed may tell us It can be no lawful Possession before God which must have such a de Novo damus and Charter to secure it And that the Indulgence could not stand without this we have seen above and how notwithstanding of all that liberty the Indulged could not be secure in point of Law untill this explanatory Act of the Supremacy had past in Parliament Anno 1669. whereby not only what was done by King and Councel in licensing of so many before that Act was declared to be legal because of the Kings Supremacy in Church-Affairs never before so amply and fully declared and explained but way made for prosecuting the same designe in time coming according as it came to passe When the Indulgence standeth engaged thus unto and under the favourable aspect of that unparalleled Supremacie who that is not wholly devouted unto the Supremacy can give such a favourable verdict of the Indulgence as this Author did Beside that impartial On-lookers will judge that there was much more in this Indulgence seing it is obvious enough how the contrivance was made to break the honest suffering party and as some of the chiefe Contrivers said to divide betwixt the Mad-Cap Phanaticks and the more sober to confirme the Usurpation to strengthen the hands of Adversaries to suppress and keep down the glorious and blessed Assemblings of the Lords people and to settle people in a Sinful silence and stupide Submission to all the Incroachments made on the Prerogatives of the Crown of Christ and on the Privileges of his Church and to the overturning of the whole Work of God and not only the Intentio Operantium which Wise men so circumstantiated as they were were called to eve and consider was obvious and clear but also the Intentio Operis was undeniable however we may please ourselves in devising terms of mincing and extenuating whereby to paint it forth as well as we can if not so as that it shall appear beautiful yet so as that it may not appear so deformed as indeed it is and will be to all that view it in a just and upright mirrour He saith
be not ordained and preferred of God that he should be a judge of Matters and Causes Spiritual of which there is a controversie in the Church yet he is questionless judge of his own Civil Act about spiritual things namely of defending them in his own Dominions and of approving or tollerating the same And if in this business he judge and determine according to the Wisdome of the Flesh and not according to the Wisdome which is from above he is to render an account thereof before the Supream Tribunal But to what purpose is all this waste of Words Doth he or any man think that we deny to the Magistrate a judgment of his own Civil Act or that we suppose that Mr H. and others have betrayed the Cause because they granted to the Magistrate a Power Objectively Ecclesiastical so far as to judge thus of his own Civil Act of Tolerating such a way within his Dominions No that is not the ground we go upon But this we say that if Mr H. or others do inferre from this power of judging in reference to his own Act competent to the Magistrate that the Magistrate may Impose Rules and Injunctions to regulat Ministers in the exercise of their Ministrie then they have betrayed the Cause And either they must inferre this therefrom or they speak nothing to the purpose And himself lately told us as much as all this Now let him or any man show me where any Anti-Erastian Divine reasoneth thus or draweth such an Inference from this Power Objectively Ecclesiastical Yea I much questione if Vedelius or Maccovius his Collegue did ever so argue And sure I am the Author of the CXI Propositions Propos. 45. c. cleareth up that Difference betwixt these two Powers which is taken from the Object and Matter about which And Prop. 54. he showeth that those things wherein the Ecclesiastical Power is exercised are preaching of the Word c. And Prop. 55. That though the Civil Magistrate is occupied about the same things yet it is but so far as concerneth the outward disposing of Divine things in this or that Dominion Nay I must say that I cannot see how this will follow That Magistrates may prescribe such Rules unto Ministers to regulate them in the exercise of their Ministrie because of a Power granted to them to judge of their own Civil Act about spiritual things more than that every Church-Member may do the like for in that Prop. as the Words cited do clear the Author giveth that same Power to every Member of the Church respectively and how can it be denied to them or to any rational man Nay let me say more Have not Ministers and every private man this power of judging of his own Act about things Civil and in this respect also an Objectivly Civil Power Will it therefore follow that they can prescribe Rules to regulate Magistrats in the exercise of their functioâ— And if a Magistrat should come to the Prelates or Pop's Bar and take a Paper from him containing such Instructions and give this onely as his Apologie that he acknowledged a Power Objectivly Civil competent unto the Pope or Prelate because they had power to judge of their own acts about civil things would not others have cause to judge that that Magistrate had denied the Co-ordination of the Poâ—ers had professed his Subordination as Magistrate to Pope or Prelate Now Verte Tabulas and see how the parallel runneth in our case and then judge From the foregoing discourse and particularly from that cited out of the CXI Propositions our Informer now a Disputer Inferreth That he hopeth no man in reason can alledge Mr H's recedeing from the Principles of this Church in the matter But for my part though I will not judge of the Thoughts or Intentions of Mr H. or of any other of his Brethren yet considering the work it self as this Informer hath represented it unto me in its circumstances I cannot but say that in the thing and as to the Intentio operis there was a recedeing not onely from the Principles of the Church of Scotland but also from the Zeal of our former Worthies who ventured all to transmit the truth pure from Erastianisme and Caesario-Papal Invasions Encroachments And from the strick Obligations lying on us all to stand to the Truth and to the Defence of the Power and Privileges of the Church against the Usurpation and Encroachments of the Magistrates seeking alwayes to inhaunce all Church-power into their own hands not out of love to promove the Glory of God and the real good of souls but out of a desire to have the Ministrie and the outward Administrations of grace enslaved unto their wills Is it not certaine out of what ground this Indulgence did grow and how the Act of Supremacy which no Conscientious Minister or Christian can owne or acknowledge as it was occasioned and necessitated by the Indulgence so it became the Charter thereof and gave legal life and being unto all that followed And was it not as certaine that a Designe to procure a Requiem to themselves in all their Usurpations and intolerable Invasions of Church-Power and overturning of â—he whole Work of God and withall to make way for the further Enslaving of the Church and of all Church-Power to their â—usts did midwife this Bastard-Child into the World And could it be uncertaine to rational observing Persons what was the Designe of King and Councel in-giving these Instructions First and Last Yea was not the whole Business so carried on from First to Last as half an eye might have discovered a wicked Designe therein And was not the Explicatory Act of the Supremacie a more than sufficient proof of an Erastian Spirit that led and acted them in some things beyond what the Anti-Christian Spirit could for shame prompt the Pope to arrogate to himself And when from these things and many others such like yea from the whole Procedour of King Parliament and Council in their Actings since this last Revolution began it is more than sufficiently clear what they did and do Intend will any say it was not their Duty while so Providentially called to witness to the Truth to give a more Plain Full Ministerial and Christian Testimony to the Truth which our Predecessours maintained with so much Hazard Expence of bloud Loss of Liberty Tossings Imprisonments Confinements Condemnation to Death and Banishments c. and which we were so solemnely sworne to stand to And will any Ingenuous Christian say that all circumstances being considered the Testimony given was such as became men standing in the Fields for the Truth of Christ and engaged in point of Conscience and Christian Valour Honour and Crediâ—e to cover the ground they stood on with their dead Bodies rather than cede to such a manifest Encroaching and Invading Enemie Will any who readeth the carriage of our valiant and renowned Worthies in opposing the Encroachments of King Iames who yet never did nor for
this is when every one might see what invasions daily were made upon the Power of the Church by the Civil Magistrate and therefore all were clearly called aloud to cry against this and to stand and withstand and do nothing that might contribute to fortifie them in their Usurpations or to occasion their further Incroachment which might have been forborne without sin And sure I am if these Brethren had forborn to accept of the Indulgence as several others did refuse it the occasion of this and many other Invasions had not been given and Church Power had not been so formally usurped as it hath been not the Magistrates so fixed in the possession thereof as they are by such cedings III. What Affinitie it hath with the Supremacie OUr third Head of Arguments against this Indulgence is taken from its relation to affinitie with dependance upon and conâ—irmation by that woful Act of Supremacie made by our Parl. 1669. And sure all who are tender of the Concernes of Christ's Crown and of the Privileges of his Church will have an utter detestation of and abhorrence at any course which floweth from is continued and confirmed by and cannot stand without that Act which with one dash doth dethrone our Lord and spoile him of his Royal Prerogative and his Church of all her Privileges What occasion or rise the Indulgence gave unto the Act of Supremacie and what a foundation it laid for mâ—re of that kind and what a neer affinity and likeness is betwixt them we have shown above and need onely recapitulat things here 1. Had this Indulgence been utterly refused we had never yet seen that Act of Supremacie for the Council having granted the Indulgence upon the Kings Letter contrary to many Acts of Parliament knew no other way to salve themselves but by framing this Act which both secured them for times by past and against all hazard also in going on in the same course as they had begun for the future The grant of the Indulgence was never lawful nor the granters-secured by Law until this Act was made How shall we then judge well of the Indulgence that gave the necessary rise unto that prodigious Act 2. The Indulgence it self would be still an illegitimat brood notwithstanding of all that King and Council both did were it not for the Act of Supremacy for by the Act of Supremacie that is now made a legal deed which otherwise was directly against Law What shall we then think of the Indulgence that must be legitimat by such an Act And what a possession that must be that hath such an Act for its Groundright and Charter let sober men judge 3. The Indulged would notwithstanding of all that is done by both King and Council be still seditious Persons in the account of the Law and lye under hazard of the same were it not for this Act which alone secureth them from the lash of all Lawes made for that end This Act is their onely Right and Ground of Securitie whereby they can plead themselves free from all that could be brought against them by foregoing Lawes So that among other things wherein the Indulged do now differ from all the Non-conforming Ministers this is one that the Indulged are under the Protection of the Supremacie and lye in saftie under the winges thereof whileas others have it not stretched over their heads and so do not enjoy that chilling warmth that is to be had thereunder 4. This is further confirmed by all the Particulars mentioned under the two foregoing Heads for they all belong to this Supremacie and are parts of the same and the Supremacie is but one comprehensive complicated and compounded Act of Usurpation of the Crown of Christ as Head and King of his Church and of the Power and Privileges belonging to the Church and to the Officers of the House of God 5. We saw before the same asserted by Worthy Mr Iohn Burnet in his Testimonie against the Indulgence whose Argument is worth Consideration and I shall here repeat it To Settle Enact Emit Constitutions Acts and Orders concerning Matters Meetings and Persons Ecclesiastical according to Royal Pleasure is the very Substance and Definition of his Maj. Supremacy as it is explained by his Estates of Parliament But the Act of his Maj. Royal Indulgence is only to Settle Enact and Emit such Constitutions Acts and Orders concerning Matters Meetings and Persons Ecclesiastical according to Royal Pleasure Therefore the Act of his Maj. Indulgence is the substance and definition of his Maj. Supremacy c. 6. Seing by what is said it is apparent that not onely is the Usurped Supremacy put in exercise and confirmed in the hands of the Usurped by the Indulgence but also the formal asserting of the extravagant Supremacy by a plaine Statute and Act of Parliament explaining and confirming the same is looked upon as necessary to support the Indulgence and to keep it in legal being It can not be well denied that such as have accepted of this Indulgence have homologated this Supremacie and contributed by vertue of that acceptance all their power to the fixing of this Usurpation for more was not required of them for this end and if they had refused the Indulgence this Statutory establishment of the Supremacy had never been accounted necessary nor possibly once thought upon 7. As he who accepteth a benefite from a Person which that Person cannot bestow but by an usurped Power and doth formally flow from that Usurped Power doth homologat by his acceptance that Usurped Power So the Accepters of the Indulgence from the King and Council which they could not give but by the Usurped Supremacie and which formally and kindly floweth therefrom cannot but in so doing homologate that Usurped Supremacy 8. If this Indulgence had been granted by the Prelate of the Diocie would not the acceptance thereof have homologated Prelates Usurpation and been an acknowledgment thereof Why then shall not the accepting of this Indulgence when granted by the King and his Council be an homologating of their Usurpation Especially seeing the Usurped Power of the Prelate is but a branch of the Supremacy and floweth therefrom Prelates as such having no Church-Power with us but what is granted by the King by Vertue of the Supremacie by the Statute Law of the Land Wherefore if the accepting of the Indulgence at the hands of the Prelates would have homologated the Usurpation that yet flowed from the Supremacy and consequently the Supremacy it self though at a step further off how is it imaginable that the accepting of the Indulgence from the King and Council immediatly shall not be an homologating of the Supremacie which is the immediat root and ground thereof 9. Such as accepted of the Prelates Collation whether to new places or to the same places where they had been before the restauration of Prelacy will I suppose be looked upon as homologating in that act the Prelates Power and consequently the Supremacie from whence that Power
not on themselves as fixed Pastors then are they meer Curates sent of the Council to those places to preach and performe the other Acts of the Ministery till furder Order or during their pleasure And then they cannot be offended if the people look not on them as their Pastors nor carry towards them as such V. How Erastianisme is hereby established ANother Ground of our Dissatisfaction with the Indulgence and with the accepting thereof is that thereby Erastianisme the professed Enemie unto and perfect destruction of all true Church-power and Church-Jurisdiction is established and fortified 1. This is manifest from all the Particulars mentioned above under the First Second and Third Heads which need not here be repeated for these are parts of Erastian Doctrine which the Orthodox disowne and our Church hath resisted and opposed from the beginning and beside 2. Hereby are the Magistrates confirmed in that Usurpation of being proper judges of Ministers Doctrine even in the first Instance that is before any Church-Judicatory take cognition thereof and passe a judgment thereupon See our 8. Remark upon the Kings Letter 3. Hereby they are confirmed in this Usurpation that Ministers may not preach in publick or in privat without Authority and Licence had from the Civil Magistrate See our 12. and last Remark upon the Kings Letter 4. How this was confirmed and yeelded to by the Indulged we saw above in our Examination of Mr H's speech before the Council Anno 1669. and of that Relation of the carriage and speeches of those who were before the Council Anno 1673. 5. We were not ignorant how from the very beginning of this Catastroph and in the very First Session of Parliament Anno 1661. an exorbitant Supremacie in Church-affaires was acknowledged to belong to the King in that he was declared to be Supreame Governour over all Persons and in all Causes beside what was presumptively asserted in other Acts of Parl. thereafter as in the Act for the National Synod and for the Restauration of Prelacy and others And how by all these and other things considerable it was manifest and undeniable that Erastianisme was in the ascendent and that the designe of the Rulers was to subject all Church-power unto themselves and to assume as much thereof into their own hands as they thought fit and to have the whole of it subordinate unto them Now when this designe was open and above board out very not-withstanding and not-opposing in our Places and Stations this Erastian Designe was a virtual cedeing and yeelding unto these Invasions and Usurpations how much more are they chargable herewith who willingly submitted unto the Magistratâ—s Actual Usurpation of Church-Power by accepting of this Indulgence did put them in Actual Possession of what was but notionally and in the theorie arrogat formerly as to Non-conformists 6. It is granted by some and cannot well be denied by any That the Magistrats principal designe in granting the Indulgence was the establishement of the Erastian Supremacie And if so sure it was the part of those who accepted of the Indulgence rather to have withstood this designe at least by simple refusing of that the accepting of which as every one might have seen would contribute unto this Erastian designe and put them in actual possession thereof Whether the Magistrate himself doth look upon the Accepters as hereby acknowledging his Erastian Supremacie or not is not much to the purpose seeing the acceptance as circumstantiat was a virtual and reall enough acknowledgment and confirmation thereof And it is like the Magistrate did designe no more not regarding whether they should openly professedly acknowledge such a thing if he himself were confirmed secured in the possession of that Erastian Usurped Power But it will be said That though it be granted that the Supremacie is now in its exaltation and that Erastianisme is the great designe and that such as minded to be faithful should not cede in the smallest of the Churches Rights not to the loosing of one pin of the Government And that this Erastianisme and Supremacy hath acted outed and overturned at its pleasure and that the Magistrat in this offer of the Indulgence doth still act according to Erastianisme and owne the same Supremacie and intend its further establishement Yet the Indulged did onely accept of a licence which when abstracted from its offensive circumstances is a meer relaxation of the rigour of former Edicts To which I Answer 1. If this Indulgence did respect nothing but the Persons and Estates of Ministers then it might be looked on as a meer relaxation of the rigiditie of former Edicts under which they groaned But it is past all denial that this Indulgence relateth more yea and Principally unto their Office and function and is designed as is confessed for the Estabishment of an Usurped power over the Function and Ministrie yea and includeth an acquiescing and submission unto Acts made and proposed by such as confessedly act from a Principle of Usurpation and that for the better Establishment of the same confirmation of themselves in the possession thereof and therefore the accepting of the Indulgence cannot but contribute to the iniquous ends proposed by the Indulgers 2. Whatever that licence as it is called may be or be supposed to be when abstracted from its offensive circumstances yet taken complexly with these circumstances it must be condemned and however in our imaginations we may abstract it from these circumstances yet we cannot do so in point of practice seing it is confessed that the morality of actions do much at least depend upon circumstances 7. This contrivance of Erastianisme being so notour and undeniable the yeelding unto and accepting of the Indulgence so conceived so clogged and restricted as it was cannot but be contributive unto the same and a plaine though not professed helping forward of the designe Sure the refusing of the Indulgence had been a sensible defeating of the designe and would have necessitated the designers if so be they would still have prosecuted their Intendment as is probable they would to have taken other measures and invented other meanes how to have accomplished their ends and this supposable defeat is sufficient to show how suitable a medium this was unto the projected end It cannot be said for obviating of this That this is but accidental and a meer probability for it hath a necessary connexion with the end as not only experience hath proven but the very nature of the thing evinceth as is abundantly cleared above VI. How Prejudicial this is unto the good of the Church THe discovery of this will serve for another head of Arguments against the lawfulness of this Indulgence for certainely that cannot be a way approven of God which is not for the Edification of the Body much less that which is for its hurt prejudice Now that the Indulgence is of this nature may hence appear 1. Church-Historie sheweth what hurt came to the Church by such
people as that countenancing and hearing of the Indulged is looked upon as an approving of the Indulgence it self the people not knowing the use and practice of Metaphysical distinctions how can such be urged to hear and countenance them who by so doing must look upon themselves as approving what otherwise they condemne contrare to Rom. 14 22 23 Many moe Arguments may be gathered out of the several Particulars we mentioned above under the several Heads of Arguments but we shall satisfie our selves with these at present leaving the Understanding Reader to make his owne use of the rest that are not made use of here For further satisfaction in this matter to such as would have Formal Arguments I shall only say That by what Arguments Principally we vindicat the People their withdrawing from the Curates by the same mutatis mutandis by changing or adding such words as must be changed or added we shall be able to vindicate the people their withdrawing from the Indulged I saw lately a Vindication of the persecuted Ministers and Professours in Scotland written by a faithful Minister of Christ now in Glory and found that the Chiefe of these Arguments whereof he made use to vindicate the people their withdrawing from the Curats were applicable to the question now under debate concerning the hearing or withdrawing from the Indulged as I shall make appear by these Instances His first Argument Pag. 75. was this They who have no just Authority nor Right to officiat fixedly in this Church as the proper Pastors of it ought not to be received but withdrawn from But the Prelates and their adherents the Curats adde for our case the Indulged have no just Authority or Right to officiat in this Church as her proper Pastours Therefore they ought not to be received but withdrawn from All the debate is about the Minor which he thus maketh good They who have entered into and do officiat fixedly in this Church without her Authority and Consent have no just Authority or Right so to do But the Prelats and their Curats adde the Indulged have entered into this Church and do Officiat therein without her Authority and Consent Therefore they have no just Authority The first Proposition saith he and we with him is clear and we suppose will not be gainesaid by our Antagonists seing the power of Mission of Calling of Sending of ordinarie fixed Pastours is only in the Church and not in any other as all Divines do assert The Second is evident from matters of fact for there was no Church-Judicatory called or convocated for bringing of Prelats in to the Church adde nor for setling of the Indulged over their respective charges all was done immediatly by the King and Acts of Parliament adde Acts of the Counâ—il without the Church A practice wanting a precedent in this and for any thing we know in all other Churches He proposeth an Objection in behalf of the Curats Pag. 78. which I know the Indulged will use for themselves to wit They have entered by the Church And his answer will serve us which is this This we deny the contrare is clear from confiant Practice for the Curats adde the Indulged came in upon Congregations only by the Bishop and Patron adde in our case only by tâ—e Council and Patron who are not the Church nor have any power from her for what they do in this All their right and power is founded upon and derived from the Supremacy and Acts of Parliament and not from the Church in which the Bishop adde the Council acts as the Kings Delegat and Substitute only impowered thereâ—o by his Law adde Letter So that the Curats adde the Indulged having and deriving all their power from the Prelates adde the Council cannot have the same from the Church none gives what he hath not But. 2. The Prelats adde the Council not being the lawful Governing Church any that enter Congregations by them cannot be said to enter by the Church Read the rest there His second Argument is proposed Pag. 79.80 thus Those that receive and derive their Church power from and are subordinat in its exercise to another Head then Christ Jesus should not be received and subjected to as the Ministers of Christ in his Church But the Prelates and their Curats adde the Indulged do receive and derive their Church Power from and are subordinat in its exercise to another Head than Christ Jesus Theâ—efore they ought not to be received c. The first Proposition will not be denied He proveth the second thus Those Officers in the Church professing themselves such that derive their Church-power from and are subordinate in its exercise to a Power truely Architectonick and Supream in the Church beside Christ do derive their Power from and are subordinat in its exercise to another Head than Christ Jesus But so it is that Prelats and their Curats adde the Indulged do derive their Church-Power from and are subordinat in its exercise to a Power truely Architectonick and Supreme in the Church beside Christ. Therefore c. The Major is evident for whoever hath a Supream Architectonick Power in and over the Church must be an Head to the same and the Fountaine of all Church-power The Minor is clear from the Act of Restitution adde the Act Explicatory of the Supremacy His third Arg. Pag. 8. is long I shall cut it short thus that it may serve our case If Churches required by Law or Act of Council to submit to Prelates and to their Curats or to the Indulged thus thrust in upon them had their own Pâ—stors set over them conforme to Gods Word then it is no sinful Separation for Churches in adhering to their Ministers not to receive or submit to the Prelats and their Curats or to the Indulged But the former is true Therefore c. The truth of the Major is founded on this That the obligation betwixt Pastor People standeth notwithstanding of the Magistrat's Act. And the Minor is true I suppose as to some Churches over which the Indulged were placed by the Council His fourth Argument Pag. 90. will serve us It is thus The way of the Curats Indulged entering into Congregations puts a bar on our subjection to them that we dar not owne them for the lawful Pastors of the Church for as their entry is without the Church and the way that Christ hath setled in his House for that end so they have come in on Congregations in wayes which we judge corrupt and without all warrant from the Word of God the practice of the Primitive times In search of Scripture and pure Antiquity we finde that Ordination adde and Potestative Mission by Ministers the Election and Call of the people was the way by which Ministers entered into Congregations and not the Institution and Collation of the Bishop adde nor the Warrant and Allowance of the Magistrat nor the Presentation of Patrons He addeth 1. This way of their
of fine gold unto an obedient eare And for my confidence in commending it as a word in season unto the Reader I render these reasons First If men consider the hainousnesse of guilt which the Author hath clearly demonstrat to be wrapped up in and inseparably connected with this Indulgence they will rather say Alas he hath been too long in comeing to make a discoverie of its iniquitie than complain as if he had come to soon Secondly If men take it up in its true nature and tendency and consider impartially the qualitie of its defection according as it is here held forth if they speake their soul they must say That a standing Testimony against this evil is of more value and worth than all of us are when sold out of the ground Thirdly It will not fall under the Censure of unseasonablenesse by any except such as doe either down-right plead for the Indulgence and defend it or else connive at it as an aliquid nihil not to be regarded and it is to me and I hope will be so to many in regard of such that the one may be cured of their Confidence and the other of their Indifferency and detastable Neutralitie a word in season Fourthly Let this silence the clamour about its unseasonablenesse and satisfie yea plead the indispensible necessitie of it at this time That the Indulged Brethren have of late been more hot and high than formerly even to the threatning of men into a silence at its defection by boasting us with a Vindication of the Lawfulnesse of their Acceptance and therefore as to them it ought to be justly reckoned seasonable Fiftly Because somewhat hath been of late done even by the Non-Indulged not onely to the strengthening of the hands of the Indulged and giving them new confidence in their course in obliquo by covering all and carrying towards them as if they had done nothing amisse But upon the matter for it is beyond my shallow capacitie otherwise to interpret or understand the deed by a direct homologating of that Indulgence for now silence as to all speaking against this evil is made the very Door and Porch thorow which all the Intrants to the Ministery must passe I hope they will not alleage that this is misinformation for now we have it under their own hand and the breach of this engagement is brought and laid down as a ground upon which a Young man is challenged And therefore it s now simply necessate yea more then high time to discover and detect the blacknesse of its defection when the Church is thus brought in bondage by it Sixtly The severe insulting over some of the poor remnant who cannot forbeare to witnesse their abhorrence at it and dare not dissemble their hatred of it constrained the Author to give the world this account to convince them how little reason the one Partie hath to insult thus over their poor Brethren and how litle cause the other have to be ashamed of witnessing their dislike Seventhly Because it hath been often and still is objected to us that we have made a hideous hue and cry after it as a theefe but neither would nor could render a reason or prove it to be a coming-in not by the right door but a climbing up by another way And therefore the Interest of truth constrained the Author to give them and the world such a Plain and Publick Account of the reasons of his just dissatisfaction as may abide ad futuram rei memoriam And Lastly Because there is a may be of hope that as some at least of these Godly men Indulged may be hereby taken off and all of them made more sober and lesse violent so it is much more to be hoped that the Non-Indulged will hence-forth more seriously consider what way to deliver the Church from this evil their Brethren out of the snare and how to keep themselves free from the transgression of giving this evil any interpretative countenance for if God put it upon their heart to apply it the Plaister is in their hand to wit a just discountenanceing of this as a defection And withal that they will henceforth appeare more friendly towards the real Lovers of them and the cause and holders fast of their integritie and lesse severe against such who ought to be countenanced cherished and encouraged for their uprightnesse in hateing the Supremacy as the spring and all the streames that flow from that corrupt and cursed fountain and hereby shall they have better accesse when real affection and tendernesse upon these accounts is witnessed to curbe or cure these excesses which are not inseparable from yea incident to the zeal of the best of Saints out of heaven for it is there that our fire will want smoak Deare Brethren I shall detain you no longer from Peruseing this History And that you may in calmenesse and without Prejudice consider what is said and that the Lord God himself may as in all things so in this thing also give you Light is for you the soul-desire of Your poor afflicted Brother and welwisher THE HISTORY OF THE INDULGENCE AFter the unexpected Alteration which proved indeed a Convulsion falling-out so suddenly that came upon the Church after the Kings restauration when beside many other sad passages and too many here to be commemorated the memorie of which may make tears trickle down from our eyes so many of the able painful faithful and succesful labourers in the Vineyard of the Lord were by one Act of Councel at Glasgow Anno 1662. put from their work and by violence thrust out of the Vineyard where the Lord had set them to labour even to the number of Three hundered and above Nor was it enough to the Rulers to banish all those by an Act from their own Parishes but to make this banishment yet more grievous and the life of those faithful Servants of Christ yet more bitter and less vital they thereafter did command them to remove from their own Paroches twentie miles six miles from a Cathedral Church and three miles from a Brugh After I say this surprizing and astonishing blow tending so directly to the overthrow of the Lords Ministrie in that Church and the Introduction afterward of abjured Prelacie whereby the Church became suddainly filled with aswarme of locusts and the many Acts made to enforce a compliance among the people with this defection and actual conformity thereunto and that so violently and rigorously as even simple withdrawing was made seditious and criminal and severely punished the ejected Ministers began to think with themselves that this tyrannical ejection did not nor could not unminister them or make them no more Ministers of Christ so as they might not preach the Gospel wherever they were as Ambassadours of Christ but on the contrary they saw that they lay under the wrath and displeasure of God if they should not preach Christ and that a necessity was laid upon them yea and wo was unto them if
were not able to attaine their end but the more they laboured that way to suppress these meetings the greater and more frequent they grew the craftie device of an Indulgence to some certaine select persons of the whole outed Ministers is fallen upon which if it had been more General or Universal than it was had in all probability proven an effectual meane for attaining of that which they were so earnestly labouring for viz. the extinction of the whole Remnant Being now to discourse of this Indulgence as it is called we shal beginne where it began to appear that is at the Kings Letter to the Councel hereanent dated at Wâ—itâ—hal the 7. of Iuny 1669. which was as followeth CHARLES REX Right Trustee c. Wee Greet You well Whereas by the Act of Councel and Proclamation at Glasgow in the Yeer 1662. a Considerable number of Ministers were at once turned out and so debarred from preaching of the Gospel and exercise of the Ministerie we are graciously pleased to authorize you our Privie Councel to appoint so many of the outted Ministers as have lived peacably and orderly in the places where they have resided to returne to preach and exercise otheâ— functions of the Ministery in the Paroch Churches where they formerly served provided they be vacant to allow Patrons to present to other vacant Churches such others of them as you shall approve And that such of these Ministers as shall take Collation from the Bishop of the Diocie and keep Presbyteries and Synods may be warranted to lift their stipends as other Ministers of the Kingdom But for such as are not or shall not be collated by the Bishop that they have no warrand to meddle with the vacant Stipend but only to possesse the Manse and Gleib and that you appoint a Collector for these and all other vacant stipends who shall issue the same and pay yeerly maintenance to the saids not collated Ministers as you shall see fit to appoint That all who are restored or allowed to exercise the Ministrie be in our Name by our Authoritie enjoined to constitute and keep Kirk-Sessions to keep Presbyteries and Synods as was done by all Ministers before 1638. And that such of them as shall not obey our Commands in keeping Presbyteries be confined within the bounds of the Paroches where they preach aye and while they give assurance to keep Presbyteries for the future That all who shall be allowed to preach be strickly enjoined not to admit any of their Neighbour or other Paroches unto their Communions nor Baptize their Children nor marry any of them without the allowance of the Minister of the Paroch to which they belong unless it be vacant for the time And if it be found upon complaint made by any Presbytery to you our Privie Councel that the people of the Neighbour or other Paroches resort to their Preachings and deserte their own Paroch Churches that according to the degree of the offence and disorder you silence the Minister who countenances the same for shorter or longer time or altogether turne out as you see cause And upon complaint made and verified of any seditious discourse or expressions in the Pulpit or else where uttered by any of these Ministers you are immediatly to turn them out and further punish them according to Law and the degree of the offence That such of the outted Ministers who live peacablie and orderly and are not reentered or presented as aforesaid have allowed to them foure hundereth merks Scots Yeerly out of the vacant Churches for their maintenance till they be provided of Churches And that even such who shall give assurance to live so for the future be allowed the same yeerly maintenance And seing we have by these orders taken away all pretences for Conventicles and provided for the want of such as are will be peacable If any shall be found hereafter to preach without Authoritie or keep Conventicles our express pleasure is That you proceed with all severity against the Preachers and Hearers as seditous Persons and contemners of our Authority So leaving the Managment of these disorders to your prudence and recommending them to your care we bid you farewell Given at our Court at Whitehall the Seventh day of Iuny 1669. of our Reigne the 21. Yeer by his Majest Command LAUDERDAIL Ere we proceed it will not be amiss to set down here some few most obvious remarks to the end we may come to understand better the nature and true import of this Indulgenâ—e where of this Letter is the ground and Basis. And 1. We see it is said That by the Act of Council and Proclamation at Glasgow An. 1662. a considerable number of Ministers were at once turned out and so N.B. debarred from preaching of the Gospel and exercise of the Ministrie Whence we cannot but observe That those Ministers who were by that Act at Glasgow banished from their Paroch-Churches were not only debarred and hindered from preaching of the Gospel and Exercise of their Ministrie in their own Congregations which could not but follow by an inevitable consequence But in the sense and meaning of the Court they were by vertue of that sentence debarred from and incapacitated for preaching of the Gospel and the Exercise of the Ministrie any where and so according to the meaning of the Civil Magistrate emitting this Edict these Ministers were simpliciter deposed from their Ministrie and looked upon as men having no longer power or warrand before God or Man to preach the Gospel or dispense Ordinances as Ministers thereof Whence it followeth that the Indulgence as it is called is a full and formal opening of their mouth againe as to some a Reponing of them according to the meaning of the Indulgers who doubtless will not say What ever the plain Language of their Practice be that they have power to countermand what God hath commanded or to discharge such from serving Christ in the Ministrie as he hath strickly enjoined and that upon all highest peril to serve him so but they think they have power from God to silence Ministers from preaching when they will and againe to open their mouthes and grant them liberty to Exercise the Ministrie as they see good and that the Lord Authorizeth what they do and so they do but what Church-Judicatories were in use to do formerly or Prelates yet do as to such who are under them Here then being a Full Formal and judicial Power granted to such as were in the Courts Iudgement put from their Office deprived of and debarred from the libertie of exercising the same or any part thereof to re-enter into the full and free Exercise of the same it appeareth to me to be undeniable That the accepters of this Indulgence have upon the matter assented unto this grievous incroachment upon the Priuileges of the Church of Christ. Our Church never thought it competent to the Civil Magistrat to depose Ministers from their Office or to suspend them
from the Exercise thereof Let the Second Book of Discipline be viewed Let the CXI Propositions be considered Let the Propositions for Government be looked upon Let our first or Second Confession of faith or the late Confession drawn up at West-Minster be pondered Let the writtings of our worthies Mr Rutherfoord and Mr. Gillispy be read Yea let all our publick proceedings and the whole tenor of the pubâ—ick actings of our Church be remembered and it will be seen that the granting of this unto the Magistrate is point-blank contrary unto all these Yea to all the writtings of the Orthodox Anti-Arminian Anti-Erastian Divines But I know it will be said That the Receivers of the Indulgence cannot helpe what the Magistrate saith they know what themselves think and as they did not look upon themselves as deposed when banished from their own Parishes as appeared by their preaching else where after that sentence so they grant no such power now unto the Magistrate Yea when some of the Indulged were some yeers thereafter called before the Councel it was said roundly by their Mouth That they had received their Ministrie from Iesus Christ. But I answere 1. Though the Indulged could not cause the Magistrate speak otherwise than he would yet they were Masters of themselves and of their own actions and they had liberty to do and speak that which before the world might testifie and declare that they did not assent unto that assuming of Church power but on the contrary did dissent there from and protest against it as a sinful Usurpation and Incroachment What publick Protestation was I pray given in against this first or last What Plaine and Positive Testimonie was borne unto the Doctrine Practice of our Church in this point which many of our forebearers did owne unto Banishment and Bloud 2. As for that which was said by the mouth of some of them of which more afterward it was but a poor salvo in the case becâ—use no man breathing neither Magistrate nor Church-Judicatory can properly give the Ministerie that being proper to Christ Jesus alone Men only can Instrumentally and Ministerially convey apply the power which is of Christ unto such or such a Person now I suppose these Brethren who spoke so by their mouth did not think or meane that they had their Ministrie from Christ immediatly without the intervention of an instrumental and ministerial cause So that notwithstanding of this by their practice they might and did declare that the Civil Magistrat was the Instrumental and Ministerial cause lawfully Authorized to repone them to their Ministrie that is that all that power of Deposeing Reponing of Ministers which by our Reformed Doctrine Discipline and Practice hath been asserted to agree only to Church-Officers and Church-Judicatories is competent to the Civil Magistrate as such 3. Further it may be noticed that a Minister once deposed or suspended and now reponed by a lawful Presbytery might say the same to wit That he receiveth his Ministrie from Iesus Christ with full Prescriptions from him c. Without the least questioning of the lawful Ministerial and Instrumental power of the Presbyterie in that affaire So that it is manifest that this could not salve them from a real acknowledging the Council upon the matter to have the Ministerial power of Deposing and Reponing of Ministers and that de jure 4. Itis true theiâ— preaching else where after their Banishment from their own Congregations will say that in so far they did not acknowledge themselves deposed from the function yet it will not help much for their by past faithful deportment will not lessen their fainte at this time but rather aggravat their cedeing or their silence at the accepting of this Indulgence springing forth of such a fountaine Their by past honest carriage I speak here upon supposition that they did sedulously preach elsewhere when thrust from their own Charges though I apprehend it will be found true but of a few of them should have prompted them now to a plaine declaration of their adherence to their former Principles and of their abhorrence of such gross and Palpable Invasions upon and Usurpation of the power which Christ hath granted only to his Church 2. We may remarke that it is said We are graciously pleased to authorize you our Privie Councel N.B. to appoint so many of them c. and againe as you shall approve of Whence it is obvious 1. That all the power which the Privie Councel had was from the King and consequently that they go no greater length than the Kings Letter did allow and that their Actings could not justle with or cross the Scope Intent and Designe of his Maj. Letter but fully comply therewith in all points and in all its Designes So that when any doubt ariseth anent what the Councel did we must for obtaining of Satisfaction and Clearness have our recourse to this primum mobile the Spring and Principle of this Motion and the Ground and Basis of the Councels Actings Yea we must interpret the Actings and Deed of the Councel by this Letter which was their Cynosure by which they were to direct their course and their Rule and Ground of Acting 2. Itis obvious allo that That power which they are authorized to exercise is a Power to appoint such and such Persons as they think meet and shall approve of to go to such and such places It was not then a Command given or a power granted to recal the Act of Glasgow whereby the Ministers were banished from their Charges but a power to meddle with pure Church-matters and that immediatly that is to judge and cognosce of the Qualifications of Ministers and so to approve or not approve of them and a poweâ— of installing such as they approved of in such places as they shall think meet and none else These things are plaine And it is manifest that there is herein a Plaine Clear Palpable and Gross Incroachment on the Liberties of the Church and on the Power granted to her of the Lord Christ Jesus as no man will deny who is not a stranger to the Word of God and to the Principles of Presbyterian Government and to all the Acts and Actings of our Church from the very first Reformation from Popery Wherefore seing it is known that in this case qui tacet consentire videtur he who is silent is construed to consent And it hath been alwayes accounted in our Church and is so also by the Word of God a sinful compliance with a wicked course not to give faithful free and timeous Testimonie against the same it is undeniable that these indulged Persons accepting this Indulgence conveyed through such a channel flowing from sucha fountaine as is already shown have not only fainted as to their duty but are interpretatively assenters unto this Usurpation 3. The Qualification of those who are to be restored to the Ministrie is here also to be remarked in those Words So many
of which they had been ejected but this was only an accidental thing and meerly because these Churches were at that time vacant as appeareth by Mr Iohn Park his disappointment because the Prelate prevented his coming to the Kirk designed which had been formerly his own by thrusting in a Curat notwithstanding of his pleading the benefite of the Act of Indemnity in his own defence against what was objected against him and thereby acknowledged himself to have been a Traitour in all his former Actings and that all the work of Reformation was but Rebellion And there is no difference betwixt the appointment made to them who returned to the places where formerly they had preached and that appointment which was made to others to go to other Churches The Councel doth not so much as verbally signifie the Sentence of Banishment from their own Parishes by the Act of Councel at Glasgow Anno 1662. to be now annulled as to them whereby they had liberty to returne to their own Charges and follow their work but simply enjoyneth and appointeth them to go to such a place and there to exercise their Ministrie as simply and plainely as if they had never been there before So that the appointment is one and the same as made by the Councel in pursuance of the Kings Letter And all the difference that was in their several Orders and warrands which they received from the Councel was in regarde of the Patrons and of nothing else as may be seen by the following tenors of these Acts. Followeth the Tenor of the Acts of Indulgence given to the several Ministers to preach conforme to his Maj. Letter of the 7. of Iune 1669. THe Lords of his Maj. Privie Councel in pursuance of his Maj. Commands signified the 7. of Iune last do appoint Mr Ralph Rodger late Minister at Glasgow to preach and exercise the other functions of the Ministrie at the Kirk of Kilwinning And thus did all the rest of this kinde run The other did run thus For same ekle as the Kirk of ..... is vacant the Lords of his Majest Privie Councel in persuance of his Maj. command signified by his Letter the 7. of Iune Instant and in regarde of the consent of the Patron do appoint ... late Minister at ..... to reach and exercise the other functions of the Ministrie at the said Kirk of ..... Whereby we see that these Orders make no difference betwixt such as were appointed to their own former Churches and others who were appointed to other places so that as to this all of them received a new Commission Warrand and Power to exerce their Ministrie in the places designed as if they had never had any relation unto these places before Further it is observable here That these Orders and Acts of the Councel have the same Use Force and Power that the Bishops Collation hath as to the exercise of the Ministrie and that the Ordinance of the Presbyteries used to have in the like cases And therefore this is all the ministerial potestative Mission wich they have unto the actual exercise of their Ministrie in these places Thus wee see the Civil Magistrate arrogateth to himself that which is purely Ecclesiastick to wit the Placeing and Displaceing the Planting and Transplanting of Ministers and giving them a Ministerial Potestative Mission which onely belongeth unto Church-Judicatories So that these Indulged Persons may with as much right be called the Councels or Kings Curats as others are called the Bishops Curats whom the Prelates Collate Place and Displace Plant and Transplant as they please And wee see no regarde had unto the Judicatories of the Church and to their power more in the one case than in the other and possibly the Prelates transportings are done with some more seeming regarde unto the power of Church-Judicatories such as they owne under them but in this deed of the Councel there is not so much as a shew of any deference unto any Church-Iudicatory whatsomever nor is there any thing like it It is obvious then how clear and manifest the encroachement on the power of the Church is that is here made And because Magistrates have no such power from the Lord Jesus and are not so much as nominally Church-Officers as Prelats in so far are at least nor can act any other way as Magistrates than with a coactive civil power and not ministerially under Iesus Christ it is manifest that the Indulged having this Authoritie unto the present exercise of their Ministerie in such and such places only from the Civil Magistrate acting as such have not Power Authority from Christ for Christ conveyeth no Power and Authority in and by the Civil Magistrate but by his own way by Ministers of his own appointment who act under him ministerially And whether or not they have not in submitting to his way of conveyance of Power and Authority to exerce their Ministrie hic nunc upon the matter renounced the former way by which Power and Authority was ministerially conveyed unto them as we use to speak of such of the Prelats Underlings who have received Collation from him and Power to exerce their Ministrie in such and such places where they are now placed though formerly they were ordained and fixed by lawful Church-Judicatories I leave to others to judge But because it may be said that in these foregoing Acts there is no mention made of the Injunctions spoken of in his Majest Letter to be given to all the Indulged Ministers Hear what was concluded and enacted by the Councel on that same day Edinb the 27. of Iuly 1669. THe Lords of his Majest Prive Councel in pursuance of his Maj. Royal pleasure signified to them by his Letter of the 7. of Iune last do in his Maj. Name and Authoritie command and ordaine all such outted Ministers who are or shall be appointed or allowed to exercise the Ministrie That they constitute and keep Kirk Sessions and Presbyteries and Syâ—ods as was done by all Ministers before the Yeer 1638. And the Councel declares that such of them as shall not obey in keeping of Presbyteries they shall be confined within the bounds of the Paroches where they preach aye and while they give assurance to keep the Presbyteries And also the Councel doth strickly command and enjoine all who shall be allowed to preach as said is not to admit any of their Neigbour or other Paroche unto their Communions or Baptize their Children nor marry any of them without the allowance of the Minister of the paroch to which they belong unless that Paroch be vacant for the time nor to countenance the people of the Neighbouring or other Paroches in resorting to their preachings and deserting of their own Paroch Churches And that hereunto they give due obedience as they will be answerable on their highest peril And ordaines these presents to be intimate to every person who shall by Authority foresaid be allowed the exercise of the Ministrie We see here that
required and therefore the Indulged have no call but the call of the Councel as their ground Further we hence see that the Councels aime and end among others was to have the Supremacie established and Prelacie so that the very speaking against these by such as were Indulged was sufficient to be the matter of a Lybel and was looked on as criminal What Interpretation can then be given of the silence of others thus Indulged as to these great points let sober men judge and whether or not the Councel did suppose that by this Indulgence they had obtained so many coyduks as did willingly submit thereunto I know several Ministers mentioned in this Act had not freedom to accept of this supposed favour of the Indulgence and were therefore cited before the Councel Among these faithful and worthy Mr Iohn Burnet Minister at Kilbride neer Glasgow was one who thought it his duty to give an open and plaine account of his Reasons to the Councel why he could not submit to that Indulgence and for this end drew up his Reasons in write directing it to the Councel But being prevented by sickness and thereafter by death did not get it presented yet sent it to the Chancellor and left it as his Testimonie against that evil not changing what might have been changed in the manner of its address because of sickness and other inconveniences I shall here set it downe as he left it not only because it was his Testimony to the Truth and Testimonies should be carefully keeped and Committed to posteritie but also because his Reasons are weighty and may helpe us to see more of the iniquity of this Indulgence His paper was as follloweth The draught of this Paper was framed purposely to the S. Councel as will appear in the very entrie thereof which mould I could not change because of the want of health and other Inconveniences BEing called before his Majesties Privie Councel to give an account of the reasons why I have not accepted of this present Indulgence granted by his most excellent Majest to several Presbyterian Ministers in Scotland I desire humblie and in the fear of God who standeth in the Congregation of the Mightie and Judgeth among the Gods to give this true sober and ingenous Relation of such things as did and doe invinciblie binde me why I cannot accept of this late complex Indulgence framed in three distinct Acts of Councel of the Date Sept. 3. and 7. 1672. To which I shall premit these things briefly 1. That it is well known to all the Protestant Reformed Churches abroad concerning the Constitution and Government of this ancient Church of Scotland for many yeers and particularly in the yeer 1660. That it was framed according to the Word of God confirmed by many laudable and ancient Lawes of the Kingdome and solemnly sworne to by all Ranks within the same 2. It is also found by lamentable experience that since that time this Ancient and Apostolick Government is wholly overturned in its very Species and kinde and that by the Introduction of Lordly Prelacie which is tyrannically exercised whereby the Church was suddenly deprived of her lawfully called Pastours and their roomes filled by strangers violently thrust-in upon the people many of whom have proven scandalous and insufficient 3. The sad Effects of these things are conspicuously apparent upon the face of this Church this day such as involving the Land in great backsliding and defection the abounding Ignorance Atheisme the overflowing spaâ—e of Sensuality Profanness like to Sodome the increase of Poperie and Errour through the Land even to the height of Antichristian Paganisme Quakerisme The sharp suffering and smartings of many of his Maj. loyal Subjects through the Land meerly because they cannot conforme to the present Prelatical frame and finally the increase of Animosities Dissentions Divisions Jealousies and Differences among the Subjects 4. Whatever Power sound and orthodox Divines do acknowledge the Magistrat to have and may have exercised in a troubled and extraordinary state of the Church yet it is not at all yeelded by them that the Magistrat may in any wayes alter its warrantablie established Government and so turne that same â—roubâ—ed and perplexed state and frame of the Church made such by himself meerly to be the subject of his magisterial authoritative Care and Operation 5. That I be not mistaken as denying to his Maj. his just Power in Ecclesiastick matters I do humblie and with great alacritie acknowledge that the Civil Magistrat hath a power circa Sacra which power is objectively Ecclesiastick so as he by his Royal Authoritie may enjoyn that whatsoever is commanded by the God of Heaven may be diligently done for the House of the God of Heaven which Power also is by Gods appointment only Cumulative and Auxiliary to the Church not Privative nor Destructive and is to be exerced alwayes in a Civil manner As to the Reasons of my not-acceptance of the present Offer and not repairing to the place designed by the Councel They are 1. That our Lord Jesus Christ Mediator the King and Lawgiver of his owne Church hath committed all Ministeriaâ— Authority for Government of his House to his own Church-Officers as the first proper subject and receptacle thereof Ioh. 20 v. 21. As my Father sent me so send I you Math. 28 18.19.20 All Power is given to me in Heaven and Eearth go ye and preach the Gospel 2 Cor. 10 v 8. Our Authoritie which the Lord hath given us for edification and not for destruction c. But so it is that the Act explanatorie of his Maj. Supremacie in the Church whereupon the Act of Indulgence is grounded doth not only claime the Power to belong of right to his Maj. and Successours as an inherent privilege of the Crown but doth actually also invest and cloath him with the formal exercise thereof in his own Person and that he may derive the same and convey it to others as in his Royal wisdome He shall think fit For his Majest is pleased to designe and make application of Ministers to Congregations and that without the previous call of the People and power of the Presbytery which would suppose the Civil Magistrat to have Authoritie to judge of the suitableness of Ministers parts and gifts to labour amongst such and such a people As also to frame and prescribe Ecclesiastick Rules relating to the exercise of the Ministerial Office as also appointing a Commission to Plant and Transplant Ministers as they shall think fit Notwithstanding that it hath been unanswerablie evinced that Presbyteâ—ian Government is founded on the Word of God and confirmed otherwayes aboundantly 2. Although I do freely disallow and condemne all tumultuarie and seditious meetings among which it is sad and grievous that the peacable meetings of the Lords People for Worship and hearing the Word soundly preached should be reckoned yet I am so convinced and perswaded in my heart of the Lords blessing attending the preaching
Authoritie of Presbyters turning the Ministers of Jesus Christ into the Prelats jurney men making Curates of them only for preaching and intimating the Bishops mandats And what else doe I in this case but make the Ministerie of the Gospel in my Person Immediatly dependant in the exercise of it upon the arbitriment of the Civil Magistrat 5. As for the Permission and Allowance I have to preach when confined This Permission seemeth very fair while I look on it abstractly without relation to the rest of the Particular circumstances of the Act for this would look like opening the door in part which the Magistrat himself had shut but while I take it complexly with what else is joyned with it it doth presently carry another â—ace like some pictures or medals that have two or three different aspects to the eyes of the beholder For Permission to preach in any vacant Church within the Kingdome is so very great a favour as for which I would desire to bless God and thank hiâ— Maj. most heartily But take it without the praevious Call of the people the Authoritie and Assistance of a Presbyterie as it may be had and take it without the exercise of Discipline and Government but what is Congregational and so it is â—ame Againe take it with the Confinment and other claggs and caveaâ—s contained in the 2. Act Or take it with the burden of being obliged to follow all matters formerly referable to Presbyteries and Synods before these Presbyteries and Synods which are now constitute by Bishops and their Deâ—egats and so it is nothing but that same Accommodation which we formerly had in our offer from the Bishop and did refuse And take it yet with the robbing of our owne Congregations and with the depriving of three parts of foure of the whole rest of the Land and then I have it to consider whether this my Permission to preach be not the putting of my neck under a heavier yoke than it could be under before 6. The last Reason for brevity is from the Affinity with and dependance this Act of his Maj. Royal Indulgence hath upon the late explanatorie Act of his Maj. Supremacie which I desire with sorrow of heart to look upon as the greatest Incroachment can be made upon the Crown and Authority of Jesus Christ who is only King and Lawgiver of his Church upon Earth as will be evident by comparing the two Acts together For the Act of his Maj. Supremacie besides the narrative containes two principal parts viz. 1 The Assertorie of his Maj. Supremacie which is the main Theam proposed to be explained in these Words The Estates of Parliament do hereby Enact Assert and Declare that His Majest hath the supreame Authoritie and Supremacie over all Persons and in all Causes Ecclesiastick within this Kingdom 2. The Explanatorie part followes in so many most comprehensive and extensive Branches and Articles thus That by vertue thereof the Ordering and Disposal of the external Government of the Church doth properly belong to his Maj. and his Successours as an inherent righâ— of the Crown and that his Maj. and Successours may Settle Enact Emit such Constitutions Acts Orders concerning the Administration of the external Government of the Church and the Persons employed in the same and concerning all Ecclesiastical meetings and matters to be proposed and determined therein as they in their Royal Wisdome shall â—hink fit Againe the Act of his Maj Royal Indulgence which is the exercise and actual application of his Supremacie in matters Ecclesiastick may be taken up in these particulars comprehensively 1 The nomination and election of such and such Ministers to such and such respective places 2 A power to plant and transplant put out and put in Ministers to the Church 3 The framing and prescribing Rules and Instructions for limiting Ministers in the exercise of the Ministerial Office 4 The ordaining Inferiour Magistrats as Sherifs Justices c. to informe the Councel every six moneths under highest paines anent the carriage of Indulged Ministers and how they observe the foresaid Rules 5 The Confining of licensed Ministers to one small Corner of the Kingdome and declaring all other Places and Congregations whatsoever within this Nation to be uncapable of any share of this Royal Favour except such places only as are exptesly contained in the Act itself Now that these Particulars of the Act of Indulgence are of the same nature and kinde with the Articles Explanatorie of his Maj. Supremacie will demonstratively appear by this plaine Argument viz. To Settle Enact Emit Constitutions Acts and Orders concerning Matters Meetings and Persons Ecclesiastick according to their Royal pleasure is the very substance and definition of his Majest Supremacie as it is explained by his Estates of Parliament But the Act of his Majest Indulgence in the whole five fornamed particulars thereof is only to Settle Enact and Emit such Constitutions Acts and Orders concerning matters and Meetings and Persons Ecclesiastical according to Royal pleasure Therefore the Act of his Maj. Indulgence is the substance and definition of his Maj. Supremacie as it is explained by his Estates of Parliament The Rules and Instructions for limiting Ministers in the exercise of their Office as also the rest of the two forenamed Particulars of the Indulgence are such as I declare I cannot accept of them or any other favour whatsoever upon such termes and conditions because they containe the down-right exercise of Erastianisme as I humbly conceive and a discretive judgment of such Acts as a man resolving to practise can not be denyed him unless men be turned into bruits and so be ruled no more as reasonable creatures namely the Magistrat by his proper and elicit Acts doing that which is purely Spiritual and Ecclesiastick as a Nomothetick Head and Lawgiver framing such Lawes and Constitutions Ecclesiastick as are not competent for any Ministerial or Declarative Power to enact or impose but of that Power only which is absolutely Soveraigne and whatsoever will militat against an Ecclesiastick Person to arrogat to himself to be Christs Vicar on Earth and a visible Head to give and make Lawes for the Church according to his pleasure The same also will make much against any other though the greatest in the World to assume to himself this Prerogative so long as he can produce no divine warrant for this claime A more particular consideration of these Rules and other Particulars I must needs for brevity forbear My Noble Lord. HAving in the singleness of my heart and I trust without any just ground of offence given this short and sober account of the Reasons why I have not made use of his Majest Royal favour and Indulgence And being fully perswaded in my Conscience that both Magistracie and Ministery are Gods Ordinance no wayes destructive but mutually helpful one to another so that I can not but earnestly long That the Lord who hath the hearts of Kings and Rulers in his hand would put
it in the heart of our great Soveraigne and in your Gr's heart to be instrumental therein that he would grant us Ministers libertie to make full proof of that Ministery which the Lord hath given us for edification and not for destruction that we might have the opportunitie to make it appear that the Government which the Lord Jesus hath appointed in his Church doth well consist and agree with the Magistrats Civil Government in the State that so I and all others my outted Brethren may have access to our former Charges or other Congregations as we shall have opportunity of a cordial Invitation from the people with the assistance and help authoritatively of lawful Church â—udicatories until such time as God shall grant a patent way to returne to our own Charges 2. And that Presbyterian Ministers may have access to his Maj. for representing just grievances which press heavily our Consciences and the consciences of the people his Maj. loyal and faithful Subjects in the Land In granting of which necessary and just desire I your Gr's Servant shall be a humble Supplicant at the Throne of Grace for the preservation of his Maj. Person the establishing of his Throne in righteousness and that the Lord would poure forth the Spirit of righteous judgment on your Grace that the Lord may be blest and your Grace may finde mercie in the day of visitation J. BURNET By this free and faithful Testimony we see what Reasons moved him not to accept of this supposed favour and particularly we may observe that one maine Reason was the Relation and Affinitie that was betwixt the Act of Indulgence and the Explicatory Act of Supremacie so that who ever accepted of this Indulgence could not but be looked upon as virtually and materially at least approving and consenting to the Supremacie what iniquity lyeth wrapped-up in this a few words could not express But Moreover there were Ten Ministers I suppose worthie Mr Iohn Burnet forementioned was one of them who did meet together upon the same account to draw up reasons of their refusing the Indulgence to be presented unto the Councel But though the Paper was drawn up and subscribed yet I did not hear that it was presented However because it may also contribute some light and confirmation I shall set it down here as I had it ALL of us being concerned and reached by the late Act of Indulgence and Confinement some of us being already cited to give an account why we have not accepted the same do humblie desire in the fear of God who standeth in the Congregation of the Mighty and judgeth among the Gods to give this true sober and ingenous relation of the Reasons which lye weighty on our Consciences and binde us up from compliance with your LL. Commands in this matter briefly premitting first That our non-compearance hath not flowed from any contempt of or disrespect unto Authority which we alwayes highly esteem in the Lord as our Consciences bear us witness resolving through grace to submit thereto in all things Lawful but from the apprehension we have conceived of the hazard of our Ministrie and Persons thereby lest by our personal appearance and signifying our reasons coram we might have probably irritated your LL. Secondly That we be not mistaken as denying to his Maj. his just power in reference to Ecclesiastick matters we do heartily and with great alacrity acknowledge that the Civil Magistrat hath a power circa sacra objectively Ecclesiastick so as he by his Royal Authority may enjoine that whatsoever is commanded by the God of heaven may be diligently done for the house of the God of heaven Which power is only cumulative and auxiliary to the Church not privative nor destructive and is to be exercised alwayes modo civili As to the reasons amongst many which might be adduced not willing to trouble your L L. with prolixitie we humblie propose these few 1. That our blessed Lord Jesus Christ Mediator the only Head King and Law-giver of his own Church hath committed all Ministerial Power and Authority for Government of his House to his own Church-Officers as the first proper Subject and Receptacle thereof Ioh. 20 21. Matth. 16 19. and 18 18 20. and 28 v. 18 19 20. 2 Cor. 10 8. But so it is that the Act explanatory of his Maj. Supremacie in the Church whereupon this Act of Indulgence is founded doth ascribe this Power to His Maj. and His Successours as an inherent right of the Crown and actually invests him with the formal exercise thereof in his own Person deriving and conveying the same to others as he in his Royal Wisdom shall think fit And that the Act of Indulgence appeareth to be the Exercise and Actual Application of the Supremacie in Matters Ecclesiastick is obvious by comparing the two Acts together namely in these 3. Particulars 1. The Nomination and Election of such and such Ministers to such and such respective Congregations and that without the previous Call of the People and Power of lawful Church-Judicatories which supposeth the Civil Magistrat to have Authority to judge of the sutableness of Ministers Gifts and Qualifications to labour among such and such people 2. A power to plant and transplant to put-out and to put-in Ministers in the Church and actually clothing Persons meerly civil with Power for that effect 3. The framing and prescribing Ecclesiastick Canons and Instructions for regulating the exercise of the Ministerial Office all which are proper intrinsick and formal Acts of Church-power belonging by vertue of Christs Institution to Church-Officers 2. Although we do freely disallow and condemne all tumultuary and seditious Meetings amongst which it is sad and grievous that the peacable Meetings of the Lords people for Worship and hearing of the Word soundly preached should be reckoned yet are we so convinced and perswaded in our hearts of the Lords blessing attending the preaching of the Gospel though not in a publick Paroch-Church as that we judge the narraâ—ive of the first Act goes neer to involve the Accepters of this Indulgence in an interpretative condemning of the saids Meetings which we in Conscience daâ— not do being commanded to abstaine fom all appearance of evil 1 Thes. 5 22. 3. There being a standing relation betwixt us and those flocks over which the Holy Ghost hath made us Overseers according to Christs Institution in his word the sense of which tye engageth us to have special regard to these flocks until that be dissolved by the same power that made it up and gave it a being besides that by keeping us from our Charges a wide door is opened to Errour Atheisme and Prophanity and we disabled to discharge the trust committed to us by Christ for which we must be answerable to him in that great day of accounts What a grief must it be to the people to have their own Lawful Pastours shut-up in a Corner whereby both we and they are put out of a Capacity for performing
Ministers Person as his Hat Books and Cloathes and the like The Latter as they partake more of the Nature of Ecclesiastical Rules being more formally and more neerly related unto the exercise of the Ministrie but yet only in so far as they belong to publick Actions so it is a question if Magistrates may either solely or in Prima Instantia prescribe such Rules unto Ministers However this being at best but dubious and the other so clearly Political and it being to me at least very uncertaine what Rules these are which may be called Externally and Materially Ecclesiastical c. I could have wished that some Instances hereof had been given that so not only it might have been known what Rules were not Formally and Intrinsecally Ecclesiastick but also it might have been better understood what Ecclesiastical Rules were Formally and Intrinsecally such 2. The other part of the discourse concerning the Magistrats power objectively Ecclesiastical is as useless for any thing I can perceive either for clearing of Mr B. or of his discourse for 1. There was nothing in Mr B's discourse giving the least hint of his denying that power to the Magistrate which all Orthodox Anti-Erastian Divines grant For the denying to the Magistrate a power of giving Instructions for regulating of Ministers in the exercise of their Ministrie hath no affinitie with this as all know who know any thing of these Controversies Nor 2. doth this piece of the discourse in any manner of way clear in what sense Magistrates may give Instructions to Ministers to regulate them in the exercise of their Ministrie and Ministers may receive them and in what sense not These two questions are so far distinct that I cannot imagine to what purpose this discourse was brought in or what it was that gave the least occasion thereunto But as to this maine Business I would further enquire whether the Brethren do judge the matter of giving these Instructions about which the debate did arise did belong to the first part of the discourse and so to be Intrinsecally Formally Ecclesiastical or to the later part and so belong to that power of the Magistrate which is Objectively Ecclesiastical whereby they judge of the matters of Religion in order to their own Act whether they will Approve or Discountenance such a way This question must be judged necessary unless that whole discourse be accounted Unnecessary and Impertinent If the former be said then why was any troubled at Mr B 's refusing to receive these Instructions Why were not those condemned who had received them Why did not such as had received them cast them back againe How came it that all of them did not unanimously agree in this Testimonie Or how came it that their Common Mouth did not speak what was the Common opinion of all Why was it not more distinctly and in fewer words said That they could not receive these Instructions as being Rules Intrinsecally and Formally Ecclesiastical regulating them who were the servants of Christ in these matters If the Latter be said Then was not only Mr B 's both Practice and Discourse condemned but the whole cause was basely betrayed because under the pretext of the Magistrates power Objectively Ecclesiastical that which is as Intrinsecally and Formally Ecclesiastical as many other at least are was granted to the Magistrate Will the Magistrat's power to act as a Man and not as a Brute in his Magistratical work about an Ecclesiastical Object that is his power to judge by the judgment of discretion which is Common to all the members of the Church yea to all men as Men which Papists deny unto Magistrates allowing them only to see with the Churches eyes but Protestants grant unto them Will I say this power warrand him to give Instructions and set down Rules for regulating the exercise of the Ministrie Yea or will his Authoritative Judgment in matters of Religion that is his sentence of Approving or not Approving of Tolerating or not Tolerating in his Dominions of Countenancing or not Countenancing by his civil Lawes such a Way or Profession of Religion warrand him also to set Rules to the very exercise of the Ministrie By what argument shall this consequence be proved seing 1. In the one case he judgeth of Religion only in order to his own Act but when he prescribeth Instructions Rules and Orders he judgeth of Religion or of that part of Religion concerning which the Instructions are in order to it self and the Intrinsick manner of its Administration 2. In the one his judgment is purely Political and Civil in the other case it is really Ecclesiastical 3 In the one case his judgment is Objectively onely to be called or accounted Ecclesiastical but in the other it is Formally Elecitely Ecclesiastical 4. In the one case he acteth as a Magistrate considering the outward Good Quiet and Advantage of the Commonwealth In the other he acteth as a Church-Officer or Head considering the Intrinsick Nature Spiritual Ends of that part of Religion 5. In the one he acteth in subordination to God as Supream Governour of the World but in the other he acteth as in a right line of subordination to Christ the Supream Head and Governour of his Church and Institutor of all the Administrations and Ordinances dispensed in the Church and sole Appointer of the Qualifications of the Officers and Rules of Administration Or rather if he act as a Magistrate in this last he Acts by an Architectonical power and so as an Usurper or by a power which is only proper to Christ or if he be said to Act ministerially than also as an Usurper because never impowered thereunto by Christ the Supream King and Head of the Church If we look upon this discourse of Mr. H. as a Testimonie and so it may be it was intended or as a Declaration of the Judgement of the Ministers concerning the Magistrat's jus or Right to impose Instructions or Rules on Ministers for regulating them in the exercise of their Ministrie and concerning Ministers their call and warrant to receive or refuse such Instructions I cannot but observe 1. That it is very defective and short of a faire and full Testimonie against the Practice of such who were known to have invaded the Rights of the Church yea and the Prerogatives of Christ as sole Head and King of his Church and in prosecution of this designe of invading the same more to have devised this medium of the Indulgence 2. That it is not a plaine and full Testimonie against the present Act of Usurpation whereby a power was assumed to judge in matters Ecclesiastical Intrinsecally and Formally such Yea and to performe Elicite and Formal Church-Acts either Ministerially as Ministers of Christ clothed with Ministerial Church-power from him which cannot be Instructed nor doth it compete to a Magistrat acting as such or rather Magisterially as Supream Governours in the Church and Appointers of Qualifications Rules and Manner of Administration of
floweth to the Prelat And what difference is there I pray betwixt the Prelates Collation which possibly was freer of concomitant Instructions Rules and Directions how to regulate them in the Exercise of the Ministrie than was the Indulgence and the Councils Collation as to the Fountaine the Kings Supremacie from whence both do flow By vertue of Power descending from the Head to the Left arme the Prelates is the Episcopal Collation granted and by vertue of Power descending from the same Head to the Right arme the Council is the Council their Collation granted 10. Who homologate a Supream Authoritie in the King over all Persons and all Causes Ecclesiastick by vertue whereof he may Settle Enact and Emit such Constitutions Acts and Orders concerning the Persons imployed in the External Government of the Church and concerning Meetings and Matters Ecclesiastick as he in his Royal Wisdom shall think fit they homologate the Supremacie This is certaine for this is the Supremacy as appeareth by the Act explicatory But so it is that the Accepters of the Indulgence do homologate this Supream Authoritie in the King Which I thus prove Such Ecclesiastick Persons as are willingly disposed of by the Supream Authoritie in the King over all Persons and Causes Ecclesiastick and goe to what places he by his Council appointeth for the exercise of their Ministrie and of Church-Government and withall receive Orders Acts and Constitutions concerning Ecclesiastick Persons to regulate them in the Exercise of their Ministrie and Government made by him in Church affairs according to his Royal Wisdom by vertue of his Supream Authoritie these do homologate the Supremacie But so it is that the Accepters of the Indulgence have done this Therefore c. The Minor is uncontrovertable certaine from the Councils disposing of them and ordering of them to such Kirks as they pleased and their yeelding thereunto and accepting of Instructions Orders Acts and Constitutions made by vertue of the Supremacie to regulate them in the exercise of their Ministrie all which hath been cleared above The Major is manifest from this That to be willingly disâ—osed of by a Power is to homologate it and to receive Instructions Orders Acts and Constitutions from a Power is to homologat it By homologating a Power I understand an acknowledgment of such a Power in such a Person by a sutable and answerable compliance therewith and yeelding to it or Acting under it And this may be materially as well as formally done implicitly as well as explicitly by the Intention of the deed as well as by the Intention of the doer As he who obeyeth an Usurper and acteth under him in some place of trust and receiveth Insâ—ructions from him for to regulate him doth homologate that Usurped power by his very deed though he should hate the Usurper and the Usurpation both and really wish he were thrust from his Usurpation altogether and would possibly concurre thereunto himself It cannot weaken this Argument to say that the Indulged Persons never did nor will owne the Supremacy but plainly disown it For though I am ready to beleeve this to be true yet the Argument holdeth for I speak not of a Positive Explicit Formal Intentional and Expresse Homologating but of a Virtual Implicit Material Homologating and such as is included in the deed and work it self abstracting from the Intention of the Worker which is but extrinsick and accidental as to this And that the accepting of the Indulgence is an homologating and a virtual acknowledging of this Supremacy is clear from what is said though the Indulged should intend no such thing IV. Hovv it is injurious unto the Povver of the People A Fourth Ground of our dissatisfaction with the Indulgence is the wrong that is â—ereby done unto the People as to their Power and Privilege of Free Election of their Pastor In the accepting of the Indulgence there was the accepting of a Charge of a Particular Flock without the previous due Call free Election and Consent of the People this holdeth as to such of the Indulged as were sent to other Churches than their own The meer Appointment Order and Designation of the Civil Magistrat was all the Ground of this Relation and was the only thing that made them Pastors to such a people together with the Consent of the Paâ—ron This was a way of entrie unto a Pastoral Charge that our Principles cannot assort with wanting either precept or precedent in the pure primitive times Our Divines have abundantly shown the necessity of the previous Call of the People unto a Ministers Admission to a Charge See Mr Gillespy in his Miscel. Questions Quest. 2. Nor need I hold forth the iniquitie of entering by Patrons whereof our Par. 1649. were fully sensible when the Church was restored to her Privilege conforme to our First Book of Discipline Chap 4. Concerning Ministers and their lawful Election And to the Second Book Chap. 12. It will be here said possibly That they obtained the full and unanimous consent of the people But I Answere 1. I doubt if this was either universally sought or obtained 2. Where it was had it was but a meer bâ—inde and to me a meer prostituting of â—hat Appointment and Order of Christ rather than any conscientious Observation thereof For 3. This call of the People ought to be a free Election and Choise but here was no free Election left unto them but whether they did consent or not the Person designed by the Council was to be set over them 4. The free Election of the People should go before the Perâ—ons Designation to that Charge and become the Foundation of his Relation to that Flock but here it was posteriour unto the Councils Deâ—ignation and was a meer precarious thing coming in ex post facto 5. This Call and Election of the People was not in the least presupposed as any way requisite either in the Kings Letter or Councils Nomination and Election 6. Nor did they make any mention hereof when before the Council nor make exception against the Councils Order or Collation until this was had 7. Nor did they testifie their Dissatisfaction with or protest against the unlawful usurped Interest of the Patron and his necessarily prerequisite Consent 8. Did such as wanted this unanimous Call or Consent of the People give back the Councils Warrand as weak and insufficient 2. I would ask whether they look upon themselves as the fixed Pastors of those particular Flocks and Churches or not If they own themselves for fixed Pastors what is become of their relation to their Former Charges They cannot be Pastors of both places for we owne no Pluralities nor can it be said that the Councils meer Act did loose their Former Relation and make it null And whether they protested at their entrie to this new charge that it was without prejudice to their Former Relation when the Lord should open a free passage in his good Providence to returne I know not If they look
shame could arrogate to himself such a transcendently Superlative Supremacie over Church-matters as now by Act of Parliament is declared to be an Inherent Right of the Crown think that they would have satisfied themselves with such a General Impertinent Confused Indistinct and Defective Testimony to such a Glorious Truth Will any who considereth the Zeal that ordinarily acted our faithful Progenitours from the beginning to this late Catastroph and of our valiant Worthies who valued this Truth of Christ's Kingship above their lives think that there was not here a palpable cedeing from that Spirit and Zeal which moved them to postpone all things to this chief matter And can any say that this way of vindicating Truth wherein so much Pusillanimity Disingenuity carnal Consultation occasioning Misconceptions and Blindness appeared did keep correspondence with our frequently reiterated Vowes and Engagements Was it pertinent or seasonable or could it be satisfying to propose in such an exigent a meer Cothurnus I meane that general Assertion of the Magistrates Objectively Ecclesiastical Power no less ambiguous till fitly explained than impertinent to the case then in hand Nay let this very Informer tell me if he think not that more Plaine Clear and Full expressions might have been fallen upon if plaine and home dealing had been Intended This I suppose may serve for an Examination of that matter as this Informer hath declared it unto us Reasons against the Indulgence THough by what is said it may be sufficiently seen how sinful that Indulgence was upon the Accepters part with which we have onely here to do as it was conveyed and circumstantiated and occasionally we have here and there discovered several particular Evils wrapped up in it beside its sinful Rise and destructive Tendencie All thâ—t now remaineth to be done is to draw the several Eviles comprehended in this complex business to their own proper Heads that the Reader may see at one view what was formerly scattered up and down the foregoing Relation And considering what is said it will not be necessary to insist on particulars to touch them in a word will be sufficient I. How injurious it is to Christ as Head of the Church WE shall beginne with this Head of Arguments and show in how many particulars injurie was done by the Indulgence as accepted unto our Lord Jesus Christ the onely Head and King of his Church And 1. In that hereby they declared they did not hold their Ministrie wholly and solely of Jesus Christ Sure Christ alone as Head and King of the Church his spiritual Kingdom did Institute this Office of the Ministrie and did Impower men unto the exercise thereof As the Scriptures do prove And Ministers depend solely upon Him therein if they renunce not their own place and standing But we saw above how the Indulged did plainly and positively refuse to say that they held their Ministrie of Iesus Christ alone See what is remarked on Mr H's speech when the first Ten were Indulged where ex professo the word alone was left out and what is said in Answere to the Informer who was dissatisfied with Mr Blair whereby an injurie of a very high Nature was done unto our Lord Jesus who alone ascended up on high and led captivity captive and gave gifts unto men even gave some Apostles and some Prophets and some Evangelists and some Pastors and Teachers Eph. 4 v. 8 11. It was God alone that set some in the Church first Apostles secundarily Prophets thirdly Teachers after that Miracles c. 1. Cor. 12 28. So that as the office of Apostles Prophets Evangelists c. were onely from Christ so was the office of Pastours or Teachers Hence they are said to be made Overseers by the Holy Ghost Act. 20. v. 28. Whoever therefore will not confess that Ministers hold their Ministrie alone of Christ do derogat hugely from His glory and rob him of his Prerogative and set these others who ever they be of whom they hold their Ministery in part or in conjunction with Christ down upon Christ's Throne and make Christ no sole King and Head of his Kingdom and consequently no sole Prophet or Priest and Mediator And what an affront this is unto our Lord let any judge And if as we know the clay-Kings of the Earth will think themselves sufficiently dethroned and unpardonably injured if any Subject be made partaker with them of their petty Soveraignity in whole or in part let any consider how Christ shall take this injurie done to him by his own professed Servants But some will possibly say Though this was their fault and great escape yet it was but personal and accidental as to the Indulgence and so cannot not affect the same Or make it an incroachment upon Christ of such an high Nature I answer This being spoken at that occasion when the King and Council were acknowledged thankfully for the granting of the Indulgence cannot but have a reference unto the Indulgence it self and supposing as all reason will allow us to do that what was said was spoken with understanding it must be granted that they had their eye upon the Indulgence granted and so their discourse was to this purpose in effect We declare that we hold not our Ministrie of Christ alone but of Christ and of the Magistrate and therefore do accept of this Indulgence without scruple Whence also it is manifest that they looked upon the Indulgence as a consequent of their holding of the ministrie partly of the Magistrate And whether the Magistrate did intend the granting of the Indulgence as a declaration of their accounting Ministers to hold their Ministrie partly of them or not yet the accepting of the Indulgence thus was a plaine declaration on the accepters part that they held their Ministrie partly of the Magistrate and not solely of Christ And consequently that they owned not Christ as sole Head of the Kirk Further This discourse of theirs so worded purposely and deliberatly saith that if they had not beleeved that they held their Ministrie not of Christ alone but of others also they could not have accepted of the Indulgence If any should yet say That though this might be said of the Indulgence according as it was understood by the Accepters yet it will not follow that the Indulgence it self is chargable with this I answer yet hereby it is granted that the Accepters are chargable with high Treason against the King of Kings our Lord Jesus Christ And as for the Indulgence it self we may safely construe of it according to the sense both of the Granters and of the Receivers And by what followeth its nature will be more fully discovered If it be said That the most that can be inferred from that expression of the Accepters at that time is that as to the Exercise which is distinct from the Office of the Ministrie it self they did depend on others than Christ I Answere No mention was made of the Exercise but of the Ministrie it self