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
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
door to preaching Nor is it of simple preaching that I am here speaking and they shall never be able to make it appear that it is a necessary duty to do as they have done considering what is already said and what shall yet further be said 10. There is another particular in the Letter worthie of a remark and we shall but here name it and that is Tha◠the councel is to allow Patrons to present to vacant Churches such Ministers as they shall approve of Whence it is clear that without this consent of the Patron which is his real or virtual Presentation the Ministers approven of by the Councel cannot have access unto these vacāt Churches Therefore their accepting of the Indulgence unto Vacant places after this manner is an approving and an establishing of the power of Patrons whereby they did condemne all such Ministers and possibly some of themselves who formerly had suffered ejection according to the Act of Glasgow because they had no clearness to accept of this Presentation even though the Patron would willingly have granted it and did of his own accord offer it Did they not hereby also condemne that laudable piece of our Reformation Anno 1649. When these Presentations were abolished and the people restored to their liberty of Electing their own Ministers 11. We may also take notice That all this contrivance is not in order to reduce our Church in whole or in part to her former Presbyterian state and lustre or to weaken or in the least deface the re-established Prelacie but rather to confirme the same for in the Letter we see these Indulged are to be enjoined in the Kings name and by his authority to keep Presbyteries and Synods that is the Prelats meetings so called for there was no other As also encouragment was given unto them to take the Prelates Collation So that this contrivance as it was to gratifie a few so it was to corroborat the abjured Prelats in their possessiō of what they had obtained as their quid mihi dabit is And further they were discharged to exerce any Ministerial function towards any of the neighbour Parishes where there were Curats serving Now all these Injunctions being manifestly sinful and unlawful might have sufficiently cautioned them against the receiving of a favoure so strangely clogged with sinful conditions or at least prompted them to have remonstrated freely and faithfully all these evils and plainly declared their fixed aversness from ever submitting unto these Injunctions 12. The last particular which I shall remark here is the Result of all this or that rather which is the end mainly driven at howbeit couched in words not so manifestly expressive of a mainly designed end The words are in the last part of the Letter And seing we have by these orders taken away all pretence for Conventicles and provided for the want of such as are and will be peacable if any shall be found hereafter to preach without authority or keep Conventicles our express pleasure is that you proceed with all severity against the Preacher and Hearers as sedicious person and contemners of our Authority In the by we may here take notice that according to the import and meaning of this letter no Minister must preach either in or out of Conventicles without a borrowed Authoritie from the Magistrate otherwise they are to be looked upon as sedicious persons and as contemners of Authority So that this licence or indulgence was a reall clothing of the Indulged and licensed in the sense of the Court with authority to preach as if all they had from Christ conveyed to them by the ministrie of Church officers according to this Appointment had been null and altogether insignificant Which one thing in my apprehension had been enough to have scarred any that minded to stand unto their Presbyterian Gospel and anti-Erastian Principles from accepting of licences of this nature so destructive to the very being of an Ecclesiastical Ministrie and to its dependance on emanation from Christ Jesus the only Head and King of his Church and sole Fountaine of all Power and Authoritie communicated or communicable to his Servants and Officers as such and so repugnant unto the methods and midses of conveyance instituted and ordained by Christ and practised in the primitive Church But the other thing here chiefly to be noticed is That as we see this device of the Indulgence was batched and contrived of purpose to beare down these Conventicles and to give a more colourable shew of justice in persecuting the zealous Conventiclers It is true the Persons Indulged were not of those chiefly who keeped Conventicles especially in the Fields for if so they had not been such as lived peacably and orderly And so the Conventicle-Preachers were not much diminished in their number hereby yet it was supposed that none of those who lived under the Indulged their Ministerie would much trouble themselves to go to Conventicles and field Meetings wherein in a very great part their supposition failed not But now with what Conscience shall we suppose this Indulgence could be accepted seing thereby every one might see a further bar and restraint put upon those worthies who jeoparded their lives in the high places of the fields in preaching of the Gospel and were owned and contenanced of God to admiration in the rich yea wonderfully rich blessing of God upon their Labours and Ministerie dispensed by the sole Authority of Jesus Christ yea and those of them who were present before the Councel August 3. 1672. might have seen more cruelty breathed-out by severe orders against those who still followed the Lord in Houses in Valleyes and in Mountaines though contrarie to the Law For that same very day a Proclamation was issued out commanding all Heretors timeously to declare any who within their bounds shall take upon them to preach in such unwarranted Meetings as they were called and make their Names known to Sheriffs Stewarts Lords and Bailiffs of the Regalities or their Deputes and all others in publick trust within whose Jurisdiction they may be apprehended And Authorizing these Sheriffs c. to make exact search and enquirie after them to apprehend and incarcerat their Persons and to acquaint the Councel of their Imprisonment And requiring the Magistrates of Brughs to detain them prisoners till further Order and that under the highest paine And also declaring that they would put all Lawes Acts and Proclamations vigorously in execution against withdrawers from the publick worshipe in their own Paroch-Churches And thus was there a new fiery persecution raised both against faithful Pastors and People May it not be thought that they had carried more honestly and ministerial-like when seeing this End and Designe which could not be hid if they had freely and plainely told the Councel they could accept of no such Courtesie unless the like were granted to all the faithful and honest zealous Ministers in the Land or at least had declared and protested that what was
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
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
Instructions coming from Magistrates acting by their Magistratical and Architectonick power and not of all Instructions coming from any what somever beside Christ and his reason was against the receiving of Instructions from Magistrates as such to regulat him in the exercise of his Ministerie and did not militate against receiving of Instructions from Church judicatories For clearing of this and for his instruction I shall tell him first What Instructions Ministers or Church-judicatories give they give them by a Ministerial Power explaining applying and authoritativly declaring what are the Impositions Rules and Instructions of Christ so that they are but as Heralds and Messengers Proclaming and declaring with a Ministerial Authority the mind of Christ and therefore the receiving of such is but the receiving of the Instructions and Impositions of Christ sent and delivered by Christ mediatly by such as stand in a right line of subordination to Him as sole Head and King of his Mediatory Kingdom and act onely as in that relation and subordination But on the other hand as Magistrates as such are not Ministers of Christ as Head of his Mediatory Kingdom so nor do they act in giving out Lawes and Instructions as Christs Heralds and Ministers ministerially explaining and applying the Rules and Instructions of Christ Nor do they press these Instructions as Christ's Instructions nor in his Name and Authority but as in all other things so here they act with an Autocratorical and Architecctonick power So that when they give Instructions to Ministers to regulate them in the exercise of their Ministrie they do it by their Magistraticall and Architectonick power by which they do all other Magistratical Acts. Hence is it that such as receive Instructions to regulate them in the exercise of their Ministrie from Magistrates do acknowledge this Magisterial and Architectonick power in Church-matters to be competent to the Magistrate as such and themselves to be formal Ambassadours and Servants of the Magistrate for who receive Instructions from one acting Magisterially and Architectonically in Church-matters do owne themselves as his Servants which cannot be said of such as receive Instructions from Church-judicatories which act but ministerially and thereby formally declare that the Architectonick and Autocratorical power over Church-matters agreeth alone to Christ whose servants they declare themselves to be in that very act of holding forth these Instructions as the Instructions of Christ and that in His name This is one maine difference Hence Secondly Ministers receiving Instructions for regulating them in the exercise of their Ministrie from Magistrates acting like themselves Magisterially and Architectonically do if not formally yet at least virtually deny Christ to be the only Head and Lawgiver of his Church Acting and Ruling with a supream power for this Architectonick and Supream power in the Church is competent to Christ only and he hath substituted none as his Vicar-general neither Prince not Prelat Pope nor other As were easie to evince if needful And so there is but one Architectonick Supream Magisterial Power in the Church and if this be attributed to the Magistrate Christ is put from his Right And so such Ministers as by receiving Instructions from Magistrates to regulate them in the exercise of their Ministrie do attribute this Power to the Magistrate must of necessity take and have their Commission from Magistrates and become their Ambassadours and not Christs because by this deed as they spoile Christ of his Prerogative and Crown attributing that unto Magistrates which is proper to Him so they acknowledg their Dependance on and Subordination to Magistrats and not upon and to Christ. But nothing of this kind can follow upon receiving of Instructions from Church-Judicatories acting as Christs Servants and in the very way and manner of their Acting declaring Christ to be the Sole Head and Supream Governour of his Church For as the Church-Judicatories act but Ministerially so the receiver of Instructions from them can owne no other Power in them because they receive these Instructions from them as authorized of Christ with power Ministerially to declare his mind and will And this is a Second Difference which leadeth me to a Third which is this Christ hath never appointed Magistrates as such to Act under him after such a manner in the regulation of his Church and Mediatory Kingdom as he hath appointed Ministers and Church-Judicatories Now to receive Instructions from an Usurper is to acknowledge the power of the Usurper a dependance upon him as his Servant And therefore as a King will not owne that man as his Ambassadour who taketh his Instructions from an Usurper So nor can that Man formally look upon himself as the Kings Ambassadour but as the Ambassadour of that Usurper But when one taketh Instructions from the Councel acting in subordination to the King and clearing his mind by vertue of his Commission impowering them thereunto he is truely the Kings Ambassadour though the Council did immediatly give him his Instructions So a Minister receiving his Instructions immediatly from Church-Judicatories is nevertheless the Ambassadour of Christ for the Church-Judicatory acteth in subordination to Christ and only cleareth up his mind by vertue of his Commission impowering them thereunto Thus I have manifested the Invalidity of this Informers Argument and withal shown that Mr. B. had good ground to say what he said and to reject these Instructions upon that very ground that if he had accepted of them he should have acknowledged himself not Christs but their Ambassadour and withal have shown that the Indulged Ministers in receiving these Instructions have declared themselves not to be the Servants Ambassadours of Christ but of the Magistrates therefore can be owned as no other Our informer tels us in the next place That there were some speeches betwixt My L. Chanc. and Mr Bâ— and that Mr B. did not deny that the Council might confine him when the Chanc. asked that at him And this being one of the Rules our Informer supposeth that hereby he overturned his own universal negative Wherein he is no less mistaken than he was in his last reasoning for though it be true that the Council did confine them to these places which among other things as then circumstantiat might have moved them to have refused that Indulgence they being thereby declared no more free Subjects and unworthie of the Common Privilege of all Free Subjects and so actually under the Scandal of Disloyal and Censured Persons which as it was a Reproach to the Ministrie so it could not but expose them to Contempt and make their Office vile in the eyes of the World and their paines fruitless when their Ministrie was made contemptible And if there was some further Designe in this obvious it was so much the more worthie of their Consideration Yet it is as true that this Confinement was properly and directly of their Persons and cannot in any propriety of speech be called a regulating of them in the exercise of the
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
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
Him so doth the other 3. As it is unlawful to acknowledge and submit to the Usurpation of Prelates in the exercise of Discipline so it is unlawful to acknowledge or submit to the Usurpation of the Council in the exercise of other parts of the Ministerial Function 4. As in following the Indulgence we may possibly imagine that we act by vertue of our Ordination solely and purely so in sitting in Presbyteries we may likewise imagine that we act by vertue of our first Ordination 5. As the Interposition or Intervention of the Prelats Usurpation altereth the current of the exercise of Discipline so doth the Interposition or Intervention of the Magistrats Usurpation alter the current of the Exercise of Preaching c. 6. As in the exercise of Discipline in those Meetings the Accepter of the Accommodation would have yeelded himself up to be accountable to the Prelat so in the exercise of the Ministrie the Accepter of the Indulgence yeeldeth himself up to be accountable to the Magistrate who gave him these Instructions in so far as concerneth these Yea in the offer of the Accommodation there was this advantage That the Accepter had full Liberty granted to him at his entry to these Meetings to declare that he did not renounce his own private Opinion anent Church-Government and to enter his Declaration in what forme he pleased But the Accepter of the Indulgence had no such Liberty granted to him though the deed was as manifestly a compliance with Erastianisme as the other had been with Prelacie But it will be said that the maine ground of scrupling at the Accommodation was that these Meetings were not true Presbyterial Meetings these being discharged by Authoritie and all their warrant in Law removed and those new meetings being enjoined for establishment of Prelacie on which they were wholly to depend I Answere I am not seeking to weaken any ground of scruple which these Brethren had against the offered Accommodation but am only showing that what grounds moved them to scruple at the Accommodation these same should have prevailed with them to scruple at the Indulgence and therefore shall hold forth the Parallel of the two Cases even as to this ground So that 1. As no act of Civil Authority can lawfully depose a Minister from the Ius and Right of preaching so neither from the Ius and Right of exercising Discipline 2. As Civil Authority can only impede the Actual exercise of the one in such or such a particular place so only can it impede the Actual exercise of the other 3. Civil Authority could not take away the Ius of Presbyterial Meetings but only impede their exercise as Civil Authority could not take away the Ius of a Ministers preaching as Pastor over such a Châ—rge but only impede the exercise of that Function 4. As notwithstanding of all that the Civil Authority did Ministers retained a fundamental Right to exerce the Office of a Minister in their several Congregations so notwithstanding of what the Magistrates did they retained a fundamental Power and Right to meet in Presbyterial Assemblies for the exercise of Discipline 5. Iâ— yet notwithstanding of this Presbyterial-meetings are said to be quite overturned by the Magistrates discharge and cassing the Lawes made for the establishment thereof why may not also the Ministers Relation to such a flock as Pastor thereof be said to be annulled by the Magistrates Act discharging him to preach there and cassing the Law establishing the right way of entry by Free Election of the People without Presentation of the Patron 6. And if after what hath been done by the Magistrats in taking away the Old Presbyteries with their legal Ground any new Meetings that are being appointed for establishing of Prelacy be Prelatical Meetings why may not also this new Pastoral Charge being appointed by the Magistrates for Establishment of Erastianisme after all that hath been done in taking away the Old Relation with its legal ground be an Erastian Relation and consequently as much to be scrupâ—ed at as these Meetings 6. No doubt these Brethren would have scrupled to have taken the Bishops Collation And in accepting of the Indulgence I judge they have condemned themselves in this For what ever Reasons could have moved to have scrupled that the same or the like should have moved them to have scrupled this as will appear by the parallel in these Particulars 1. If the Indulged think that the Indulgence is but a partial Restitution of the Liberty whereof he was totally deprived so the Minister that accepteth of the Prelats Collation may judge and say that it includeth not Ordination for he was an ordained Minister before but is only a granting of Lberty for the free exercise of the Ministrie And he may think that by no reason he can be construed to acknowledge more as well as the Indulged Minister may think 2. As he who submitteth to Collation acknowledgeth and preferreth the Prelate as a proper Minister of Jesus Christ So he who submitteth to the Indulgence acknowledgeth the Magistrate or the Council to be the proper Subject of Foâ—mal Church-Power which is tantamount to the making of them Ministers of â—eâ—us Christ yea which is worse he ascribeth unto the Magistrate that Architectomick Power in Church-Matters which is proper to Christ the only Head of His Church 3. As in Collation there is a formal acceptance a direct Submission and Recognizance and as significant a Transaction as if the Bishop did expresly stipulat and the other Consent and Promise so in the Indulgence as hath been cleared above there is a formal Acceptance and a plaine Submission and Recognizance and as Significant a Transaction if the Council be to be beleeved as if the Council did expresly stipulate and the other Consent and Promise 4. Suppose the Prelate should send to an outted Minister a warrant licensing him to go to another Church than his own I state the Supposition thus in case any should think there is a Difference betwixt a Collation and such a Licence would the outted Minister or any of those who are now Indulged accept of the same and upon that sole Ground look upon himself as Minister of such a place If not why did they accept of such a Licence from the Council XI Hovv thereby the Meetings of Gods People are prejudged IF the Indulged Ministers be not real Enemies to and utterly dissatisfied with the Assemblings of Gods People in Houses or in the Fields against which the rage of Rulers hath appeared so much by terrible Acts and Proclamations and more terrible Executions as I desire to think they are not it will easily be granted that if their accepting of the Indulgence be really Prejudicial unto the carrying on of the Work of God in and by these Meetings nicknamed Conventicles or if it be found that by the accepting of the Indulgence they have contributed unto suppressing of these Meetings and consequently that interpretativly they may be charged in part with
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