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
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
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 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
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
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
And even as to this there was no small injurie done to Jesus Christ and this leads me to a second thing here remarkable 2. By this Indulgence the Prerogative of Christ as sole Head of His Church is further encroached upon in that the Indulged do hold their Ministrie as to its Exercise not of Christ alone but of the Magistrates either solely or in conjunction with Christ. And that this is a wrong to Christ is manifest in that it saith the Office and the Power to exerce the Office are not from Christ alone The Office can import nothing but a baâ—e name if it import not Power to exerce the Office or do the work peculiar unto such an Office And if Christ be said to give the Office but others must give the Power Authority and Ius or Right to exercise the Office he shall be made a meer Titular King But he told us some other thing when he said Matth. 28 18 19. All Power is given unto me in Heaven and in Earth go ye therefore and Teach all Nations Baptizing them c. And when he said Ioh. 20 21 23. As my Father hath sent Me even so send I You whose soever sins ye remit they are remitted unto them c. See Mark 16 15. go yee into all the World and preach the Gospel The Office was in order to the Exercise And when he gave the Office he gave the Power to exercise the same When Paul was made a Minister he was sent to open eyes Act. 26 16 11 The Ministrie sure is a Talent and who ever get it must trade with it or expect a sad Sentence If it be said That this will take away the Power of Chuâ—ch-Judicatories who ministerially under Christ both conveyeth the Office and the Power to exercise the same For Answere I deny that any such thing will follow And to clear this I shall shew a third Injurie done to Christ by this Indulgence 3. If it should be said that by the accepting of this Indulgence from the Magistrat they no more prejudge Christ of his Right both to give the Office and Power to exerce the same than when they take the same as conveyed to them by Church-Officers I Answer That the Difference is great and the Encroachment made on Christs Prerogative by the Indulgence clearly assented to In that another way of Conveyance of the Ministrie and of the Power to exercise the same is here closed with than Christ the only King hath appointed Christ hath instituted Church-Officers for this end to convey the Office and Power which he hath appointed unto particular Persons The Holy Ghost said unto Prophets and Teachers that were at Antioch separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them Act. 13 1.2 Paul and Barnabas ordained Elders in every Church Act. 14 23. Titus was ordered to ordaine Elders in every Church Tit. 1 5. Timothie was to commit the things he had heard of Paul to faithful men who shall be able to teach others 2 Tim. 2 v. 2. The gift was given with the laying on of the hands of the Presbyterie 1 Tim 4 14. But here the Office or the Exercise thereof is conveyed by the hands of Magistrates whom Christ never did commit that matter unto And thus another yea a quite Opposite Medium is embraced and followed than what Christ thought good to make choise of to his great dishonour and disparagment as if he had not been Wise enough to appointe the best meanes nor had not Authority enough solely to appoint the meanes and wayes he thought fit 4. The wrong done to Christ by the accepting of this Indulgence will be hence manifest which will also clear up the Difference betwixt what is conveyed from Christ by his owne Ministers and what is conveyed by Magistrates That the Office or Exercise of the Ministrie is received from them who in this deed do not neither can Act in a Ministerial Subordination to Christ as sole Head and Fountaine of all Church-Power so that their interveening betwixt Christ and those who receive the Office or its Exercise as a Medium of Conveyance saith that Christ is not sole Head of the Church and Fountaine of church-Church-Power The ground of this is because Magistrates as such do not Act in a direct line of Subordination to Christ as Mediator as Church-Officers do And further what they do as Magistrates they do not in reference to their Subjects with a Ministerial Authoritie as Church-Officers do but with a Magisterial Imperial Coactive Autocratorical and Architectonick Power and Authoritie And as to the Church this Magisterial Power belongeth to Christ alone So that the submiting unto any other Magisterial and Supream Autocratorical Power in Church-affaires than what is solely in Christ is an acknowledging of another Head and Supream Governour in the Church beside Christ and this is a plaine dethroning of Christ who will either be sole King or no King 5. The accepting of this Indulgence containeth another wrong done to Christ in that thereby there is an acknowledgment made of the Insufficience of all the Rules Prescriptions and Instructions granted by Him for the ordering of the exercise of the Ministrie and for information unto his Ministers concerning the way how they should go about the exercise of that Imployment For in the Indulgence there were with all first and last Instructions given how to regulat them in the exercise of their Ministrie And so when the Indulgence was embraced as accompanied with these Instructions the Power granting these Instructions was acknowledged and submitted unto and when these Instructions were not holden forth ministerially as when the like are given by Church Judicatories but by such as Act in all things which they do as Magistrates by a Magisterial and Autocratorical power not subordinat unto Christ as Mediator in a right line of subordination an Autocratorical Magisterial and Supream power to make Rules and to give Instructions to Ministers to regulate them in the exercise of their Ministerie is granted to the Magistrate to the robbing and spoiling of Christ of that sole Supream power which is due to him and is a part of his Prerogative Royal. 6. Herein also the Accepters of the Indulgence have done injurie unto Jesus Christ in that they have taken a new holding of their Ministrie and of the Exercise thereof and so materially have renounced their old holding of Christ immediatly as King of his Church and sole Lord of his House They have taken a new Commission for the Exercise oâ— their Ministrie and a Commission inconsistent with not subordinate unto the Commission they had formerly from Christ. I shall not need to insist on this here having declared it so fully above in vindication of M. A Blair's Assertion to wit That if Ministers take Instructions from Magistrats for regulating them in the exercise of their Ministrie they should not be the Ambassadours of Christ. 7. It is a part of the Royal Prerogative of
hereof were mentioned above under that Head 7. There was hereby a stone of stumbling laid before the Rulers for they were hereby encouraged to proceed in their Encroachments upon Christ's Prerogatives and on the Privileges of the Church when they saw their contrivances for that end so sweetly complied with and heard nothing of a Plaine Direct Apposite and Intelligible Testimony given against them and their proceedings 8. There is a stone of stumbling hereby laid before the Posterity in all time coming for if the Rulers shall follow this course suffer no Minister to be setled any where but as they please shall plant transplants as they please without any regarde had either unto the free Call of the people or the Trial or Examination Ministerial Mission of Church-Judicatories prescribe unto them what Rules Instructions they think good what shall the Posterity do Will nor Intrants in that case willingly submit and think themselves obliged to do so having such a preparative before them 9. Will not this be an Afflicting and stumbling Consideration to any that shall read the History of our Church when they shall there see with what Courage Faithfulness and Heroick Resolution the Faithful Zealous Ministers of Christ maintained by Petitions Declarations Protestations Declinatures and Sufferings of all sorts the Power and Privileges of the Church against all Incroachments and Invasions made thereupon by King and Court and now shall see such a company of Ministers upon such small Temptations at least as to hazard complying with submitting to more grievous Usurpations that ever King Iames did attempt We no where read that ever King Iames notwithstanding of all the Supremacy in Church affairs and over Church-Persons and Officers that was assumed by him and attribute by Parliament to him did exerte such a Supremacie over Church Officers or Ministers as to plant them transplant them brevi manu as he pleased And is it not an heart-breaking thing to think that now when this Usurpation hath transcended all imaginable bounds there should not only be no opposition made thereunto but even a peacable compliance with and quiet submission unto the same now in its exaltation 10. What a stumbling thing is this unto all the Reformed Churches when they shall hear that so many Scotish Ministers who refused to comply with Prelacie have yet submitted to such an exercise of Erastianisme as is no where else to be found through the whole Christian world for any thing I know Where shall we finde the Magistrat at his own hand Immediatly planting and transplanting Ministers as he will fixing and limiting them according to his minde Nay I doubt if even in the Palaâ—inat where this wofâ—l weed of Erastianisme did first grow such an exercise thereof is to be found or if it be what a shameful thing is it that the like should be found in the Church of Scotland which the Lord hath honoured from the very beginning to be tried and exercised upon the point of Christ's Kingly Power and Headship over his Church beyond all other Reformed Churches Objections Answered HAving thus shown how sinful the accepting of this Indulgence was upon many accounts it remaineth that we remove out of the way what we conceive can be said in the defence thereof to the end we may give all Satisfaction possible Obj. 1. May not the Magistrate for ends known to himself discharge Ministers to preach for a time and thereafter permit them to preach And seing the Business of the Indulgence was but of this Nature why might it not be acquiesced unto Answ. 1. That the Indulgence was some far other thing is manifest from what is said And beside other Particulars fully spoken to above this one may manifest the disparity That it is one thing to permit Ministers to exerce their Office without molestation and it is a far other thing to Appoint and Order them to take upon them such or such particular Charges and to plant and transplant them at their pleasure and subject their Ministrie in its exercise unto themselves by giving Injunctions Rules and Prescriptions to regulat them in the same 2. We heard above how Mr Calderwood and Mr Rutherford did account even that discharge a degree of Suspension which is a Church-Censure and consequently is to be inflicted only by those who have the power of the Keyes 3. Worthie and learned Trochreg in his Commentary on the Epistle to the Ephesians Chap. 6 V. 20. Pag. mihi 1122. proveth solidly that this Power of discharging Ministers the exercise of their Function doth neither agree to Heathen Magistrats nor yet unto Christian Magistrats who by their Christianity have received no new Power or Right over Christs Servants and Messengers nor may discharge them from delivering their Message nor depose them whom they could not ordaine nor stop their mouth whose mouth they â—ould not open nor silence them whom they could not send-forth to preach 4. When the Magistrate silenceth it must either be for a Civil or for an Ecclesiastick Crime If for a Civil Crime he can only do this consequently and indirectly as Salomon removed Abiathar from the Priesthood by banishing and confineing him to Anathoth But then as Mr. Rutherfoord in his Due Right c. Pag. 434. saith well he no more removeth a Minister from his Ministrie than a Master Fashioner a Sailer a Plower a Souldier a Father or an Husband from their Work and Respective Imployments when he causeth imprison hang or behead them for some Crime nor doth he at all remove him from the Ministrie directly neither can he do it for that is a Church-Censure and the Keyes are not committed unto him Nor can he do it for any Ecclesiastick Transgression wherein he is no competent judge Nay nor can he indirectly and consequentially in this case remove any Minister from the exercise of his Ministery where the Church is settled in her Power except only Causatively by Commanding the Church-Judicatories to do their Work first that is first to iudge for in prima Instantia he may not do it or Corroborativly by backing the Sentence of the Church-Judicatory with his Civil Sanction and Authority Obj. 2. Though the Magistrate hath not Power to silence altogether yet he hath Power to discharge the Publick Exercise of their Ministrie and againe when he thinketh fit to grant that Liberty unto them Ans. 1. Though this were granted it will not helpe in the case of the Indulgence wherein was some far other thing than a meer grant of Freedome for the Publick Exercise of the Ministery as is seen above 2. Illud tantum possumus quod jure possumus We can be said to have Power to do that only which we have right to do Now I would enquire how it can be proved that the Magistrate hath Power granted of God to discharge the Messengers of Christ the free and publick exercise of their Ministrie Directly Formally and Immediatly 3. The Practice of the
Apostles tels us that such Commands are not lawful nor to be obeyed for they preached publickly where occasion offered notwithstanding of the prohibition of the Magistrate 4. The Magistrates lawful Power reacheth privat places as well as publick places as D. Voetius maintaineth against the Arminians If he may hinder an Heretick from preaching Heresie publickly so may he hinder him from doing it from house to house And therefore by the same Argument that he may hinder publick preaching he may hinder the whole exercise of the Ministrie Obj. 3. Our Second Book of Discipline Chap 10. granteth That Magistrates may place Ministers when the Kirk is corrupted and all things are out of Order And so it is now with us Answ. Yet it is added in that same place That where the Ministery of the Kirk is once lawfully Constitute and they that are placed do their Office faithfully all Godly Princes and Magistrates ought to heer and obey their voice and reverence the Majestie of the Son of God speaking in them And though our Divines grant that when the Church is not Constituted or is wholly corrupted Godly Magistrates after the example of some Godly Kings of Iudah and diverse Godly Emperours and Kings also in the Light of the New Testament as the words run in the place cited in the Second Book of Discipline may do much more than at other times Yet I suppose none for shame can make use of such a Concession now seing our Church was a Constituted and well ordered Church and had all her Rights and Privileges ratified and confirmed by Law and all the Magistrates of the Land from the highest to the lowest were under Solemne Vowes and Covenants to maintaine her Constitution and Order And what could be more desired in order to the settling of a Church Whence then the Confusion that now is is come we all know And when the Magistrates with their own hand overturne all shall this Objection be made use of to countenance their After-practices That were indeed to teach Magistrates a way how to usurpe and take to themselves all Church-Power Viz. Let them once by Iniquity and Tyranny break the Glorious Order of the Church and bring all into Confusion and then forsooth they may warrantably assume to themselves and exercise all Church Power according to their minde Obj. 4. Hezekiah did apply his Regal Power to the Reformation of the Levites and to the purging of the Temple 2 Chron. 29 v. 5. and did also appointe the Courses of the Priests and Levites every man according to his Service 2 Chron. 31. So likewise did Iosiaâ— 2 Chron. 35. Answ. Neither of these Kings did destroy the Order and Beauty of the Church but reformed what their Predecessours had corrupted Neither of these did take away the just and legal Power of the Priests as our Rulers have taken away Presbyteries and their Power that they might exerce it themselves as our Rulers do immediatly what Presbyteries should do in the matter of the Indulgence Neither of these Kings gave new Instructions out of their own Heads unto the Priests and Levites that they might thereby formally subject the exercise of the Ecclesiastick Power unto themselves as our Rulers have done But beside what hath been said to this before I shall only subjoine the Answer of Worthie Mr G. Gillespie in his Aarons Rod Blossoming Pag. 138.139 Hezekiah saith he in exhorting the Levites to sanctifie themselves and to cleanse the Temple doth require no other thing than the Law of God did require Num. 8 v. 6 11 15. and 18 v. 32. Which Hezekiah pointeth at 2 Chron. 29 11. And why should nor the Magistrat Command Ministers to do the duties of their Calling according to the Word of God As for his appointing of the Courses of the Priests and Levites he did nothing therein but what the Lord had commanded by his Prophets 2 Chron. 29 25. The like I answere concerning King Iosiah for it is recorded that what he did was according to the writting of David and Salomon 2 Chron. 25 4. and according to the Commandement of David and Asaph and Heman and Ieduthun the Kings Seer Ver. 15 as it is written in the Book of Moses Vers. 12. thus he and thus wiâ—hall we see how impertinent this is to the present purpose Obj 5. But what can be said of such of the Indulged as were sent to their own Charges Several of the Arguments adduced cannot strick against them Answer Though some of the Arguments will not militate against them directly yet the most part will And further let these things be considered 1. That it was a meer accidental thing that they were sent to their own Charges viz. because at that time they were vacant and so had they not been vacant these Ministers had been appointed and ordered either to go elsewhere or not indulged at all 2. They were not barely permitted to go to their own Charges by rescinding the Act of Glasgow or taking off the Sentence of banishment by vertue of which they were put from the Actual Exercise of their Ministrie in their own Congregations which might easily have been done if the Council had intended no actual Invasion of the Power of the Church nor had designed the Subjection of the Exercise of the Ministrie unto their own Authority But 3. They get the same immediat Right to the exercise of their Ministerial Function which others gote who were ordered to other places and this Right is nothing but the Councils Order and Appointment 4. And thus in a manner their case is worse than the case of such as were sent to new flocks for upon the matter they did renounce their old right to the exercise of the Ministery in those Congregations where once they had been settled according to the Order of the Gospel and took a new Right from the Magistrate and acted upon his Order 5. And why may they not also repaire to the Presbyteries and Synods upon the Councils Order as well as to these Congregations seing they had a right formerly to exerce the Ministerial Function in the one as well as in the other and the Magistrats discharge can no more invalidate the right to the one than to the other Obj. 6. If it be a ground sufficient to reject the benefite of this Indulgence because it is supposed to flow from the Supremacy then much more might we refuse to preach if the Magistrat should command it expresly by vertue of his Supremacy And if this be yeelded then it is manifest that the Magistrate if he had a mind to banish all preaching out of his Dominions needeth use no other medium than onely tell the Ministers that he commanded them to preach by vertue of his Supremacy Ans. 1. We do not condemne the accepting of the Indulgence upon a meer supposal that it floweth from the Supremacy having seen and manifested what a real relation it hath thereunto and dependance thereupon 2 Nor is its being a
who made no Protestation 2. Though no mention was made of the Supremacie yet the accepting was so foule upon many other accounts that no Protestation against the Supremacie if mentioned could have salved the matter as we saw above and their after acceptance would but contradict their Protestation Obj. 16. Though the Magistrat hath carried his Supremacy above the highest yet he never judged the power of Order worth the assuming so that the allowing to preach mentioned in the Act joined to permitting and directed to none but to Ministers antecedently ordained cannot be a just ground of scruple If the Magistrat had simply appointed every other Minister to his own Church allowing him there to preach to have offended at the word allowing would have been an excessive niceness Ans. Though the Magistrat never judged the power of Order strictly so called worth the assuming yet it may be thought that he judged that power worth the assuming whereby the Authority of the Ministrie and the Exercise thereof should be looked upon as flowing and as derived from him And Ministers were I think called to be careful and circumspect lest by doing and accepting of any thing they might interpretatively and virtually acknowledge and consent to this Power 2. Though this allowance was granted to such as had been ordained Ministers before yet the same flowing from the Supremacy and being more than a meer permission could not but import their deriving of a power to exercise the function in such a place from him and so prove a most just and weighty ground of scruple 3. Nor will the supposition of his sending every Minister to his Church wholly take away the scruple for his simple annulling of the prior Act at Glasgow would have been sufficient for that end but when instead of this he not only did say he permitted them to preach againe to their former flocks but also that he allowed them and that after he had invaded the Throne of Christ and assumed to himself the Fountaine of all Church power so that both as to the exercise of the Ministrie and as to the exercise of it in such a place they should depend on him I think there should have some ground of scruple remained For might it not be thought that by their ready acceptance without a previous full faithful plaine and publick Declaration and Protestation they had now derived their power from another Head than formerly and stood now upon some other new ground And in this case I should think that offending at the word allowing were the kindly work of a tender Conscience zealous for the Glory and Interests of Christ and careful of the credite of the Ministrie and no excessive niceness Obj. 17. The Ministers Indulged do above all things owne their Masters Ordination as the only proper foundation whereupon the exercise of their Ministrie by the permission of this licence doth subsist All the regarde they have to the Magistrats allowance is that they look upon it as the removal de facto of his unjust restraints hitherto Invincible And neither by forme of acceptance nor by engagement do they in any sort acknowledge any of the Magistrats wrongs but are ready by a plaine declaration to purge themselves even of the suspicion of a simple acquiescence Ans. 1. I shall willingly yeeld that the Persons concerned do owne their Ordination yet we must distinguish the Intention of the work and the Intention of the worker though they may have no Intention of invalidating their prior Ordination yet their accepting of the Indulgence may virtually include this and so their Practice may contradict their Principles 2. Their Masters Mission is onely their proper sure and solide Foundation whereupon the exercise of their Ministrie should subsist but is it not manifest that the accepting of the Indulgence doth virtually say that as to the Ministrie they depend upon the allowance of Men yea of those who assume to themselves an Headshipe over the Church and a Fountaine-power from which this Exercise must natively flow and be derived 3. These restraints of preaching the Gospel were not invincible Physically nor Moraly Neither were any such restraints as such formally removed nor a pure permission granted But the Indulgence contained an Authoritative Enjoining and Warranding as also a Qualifying Restricting and Regulating the exercise of the Ministrie and all this in prosecution and confirmation of an Usurped Supremacie and this was a far other thing than a removal de facto of a former restraint Now their Subjection unto this Incroachment testified by their accepting of the Indulgence so conveyed is much more than the acceptance of the benefite of a bare Permission And all know that they might have exercised their Ministerie without this Indulgence to the Glory of God the Edification of the Body the Confirmation of the Principles of Truth concerning the Ministrie the Defeating of the corrupt Erastian Designes of the injuriously incroaching Magistrates and to the offence and scandal of no Person 4. Though they do not expresly and in terminis acknowledge any of these Wrongs yet by their accepting of the Indulgence so conveyed as is said they may virtually and upon the matter acknowledge this and their plaine Declaration to purge themselves will be but a contradiction to and a condemnation of their own deed because the Imposer can only put a sense and gloss upon his own Injunctions and the granter of a warrand and favour on the same and in his sense it is at least virtually accepted by all who accept of it if plaine dealing be owned and I suppose Ministers while dealing with the Council should not walk upon fallacies or mental reserves or on what is equivalent Obj. 18. The accepting of the Indulgence did Import no subjecting of the Ministrie to mens arbitrary Disposal but only a subjecting of the persons or rather an acknowledgment that the persons are already in subjection which by our long silence sufferings is too apparent But if we have hitherto thus contentedly acknowledged this to the restraint of our Ministrie shall we now be so unhappy as to wrangle about it in prejudice of a relaxation Ans. 1. The act of Indulgence did not only mention Ministers repairing to such or such places but spoke likewise of the exercise of their Ministrie which it allowed them and for which prescribed several Rules and Injunctions limiting and regulating them in the same though this did comprehend a subjection of their persons also yet it is by vertue of a prior Subjection of their Ministrie as being made liable to punishment for not-observing the Rules and Injunctions prescribed 2. These sufferings indeed declared a subjection of their persons but their silence shall be found I feare to have done more And their former sin can be no ground to justifie their preseâ—t practice in accepting of this Indulgence which instead of being a relaxation is a further wreething of the yoke about our necks A Vindication of such as scruple to
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
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
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
Multitudes of the Non-conforme Ministers were ejected and cast-out of their Places and Congregations because they would not acknowledge the Power and Interest of Patrons nor accept of their Presentations unto Flocks But in this Indulgence as we saw above the Interest of Patrons is reserved entire Though they should say That they sought no Presentations from Patrons nor had they any active hand therein it will not much avail For even several of the ejected Ministers might have been free of ejection if they could in Conscience have yeelded to so much and acquiesced in this that the Patron should have signified to the Bishop his presenting of such a Person and that without his express Consent or Formal Acceptance thereof Yea how many had the Presentation willingly and cheerfully offered unto them undesired 3. It is the chiefe Corner stone of our Reformation and the fundamental point whereupon all the wrestlings and sufferings of our Church from the beginning have been stated viz. That Christ is the alone Head of the Church But by the Indulgence another head is acknowledged beside Him when thereby it was declared that the Indulged held not their Ministrie of Christ alone as we saw above on the first head and first particular thereof 4. So by the rest of the Particulars mentioned under that head we see how many wayes there was in this Indulgence a defection from former Principles and a falling off from our grounds all which we need not here repeat 5. We fall from our Principles and from the cause upon which our sufferings are stated when we cede and yeeld to Adversaries seeking to overthrow the pillars and grounds of Presbyterian Government And in how many Particulars Presbyterian Principles are by this Indulgence receded from we have seen above in the 2 head 6. It hath been the Lot of the Church of Scotland from the very beginning to be put to wrestle against the Powers of the Earth encroaching upon the Prerogatives of Jesus Christ and the Privileges of his Church and in contending for the same against all such Usurpation did the faithâ—ulness and steadfastness of our worthie renowned Predecessours appear and shine forth and upon the account of their faithful adhering to the Truth and bearing witness against all Usurpations made upon the Rights of the Church and on the Jurisdiction of Christ sole King of Zion and for declining Judicatories acting by usurped Authoritie were they all alongs put to suffer in their Freedom Persons Goods c. by Tossings Citations Letters of Horning Confinements Imprisonments Confiscation of goods Relegations Sentences unto death and Banishments But now what a falling off this ground ceding to Usurpations Homologating of the Supremacie Establishment of Erastianisme is in the Indulgence is manifest from the Particulars mentioned under the 3. and 5. head 7. We need not forget what was one maine ground of the actings of our worthie and valiant Predecessours in the yeers 1637 and 1638. viz. That Ecclesiastick causes should be determined by Lawful Ecclesiastick Judicatories and Civil causes by Parliaments and other Civil Judicatories But to Homologate a Power in the Civil Magistrate as such to cognosce upon and judge in Church affairs immediatly and formally is to condemne all these actings and all the actings of Church and State since upon that ground and a plaine relinquishing of that foundation And that by the accepting of the Indulgence such a power is acknowledged to be competent to the Civil Magistrate as such hath been manifested above in several Particulars Let us here but name that one Instance of the Councils sole judging of the fitness and Qualifications of a Person for such or such a charge in reference to his setling there as Pastor of the place which is an Ecclesiastick cause and hath been alwayes so accounted But it will be said No man needs question their abilities some having been Ministers in the most eminent places of the Kingdom For answer I shall not question their abilities though it may be the carriage of some of them hath been such since this defection began as would make a Conscientious Church-Judicatory not a little averse from admitting of them within their bounds if the Acts of our General Assemblies by which they stand censurable were in any regarde But however the Civil Magistrate is here made sole competent judge of this fitness and by what right he hath appointed these to go to the places particulary designed he may appoint others to go to such places for which no Church-Judicatory acting conscientiously would judge them Qualified And who can challenge them upon this account seing they are sole judges themselves 8. In King Iames his dayes several faithful and honest Ministers were banished from their own Churches and confined in other places of the Land and seeing no hope of getting the Civil Sentence taken off were necessitate to accept of a call to serve the Lord in the places where they were confined but we never finde that they took the Charge of such or such a Flock upon the Edict or Act of Council enjoining them thereunto 9. Who ever heard before in our Church Ministers compeating before the Privie Council and there receiving Directions Instructions Rules and Canons directing them how to regulate themselves in the exercise of their Ministerial Function And when the Indulged Persons did thus who can assoile them from a plaine Defection from our Cause and Principles Put the case that some Ministers had done so in the Year 1649. how would they have been looked upon by our General Assembly Or if our Parliament and Council Anno 1648. had turned out such as were against the Duk 's Engagment and thereafter had ordered them to go to such and such places of the Land as they thought fit giving them withall such Instructions as here were given to the Indulged if these Ministers had carried but just as our Indulged did I leave to all to judge whether or not they had been looked upon as Deserters of our Cause 10. We know what sufferings those faithful men underwent when after so long imprisonment they were at length condemned at Linlithgow Anno 1606. for declining of the Privie Council when about to judge them in the matter of a meeting keeped or offered rather to be kept at Aberdeen But now we finde severals Indulged called before the Privie Council there to be judged concerning their Baptizing of some Children within the Covenant a matter no less unquestionably Ecclesiastick than was that meeting at Aberdeen and in stead of giving-in a Declinature we heard of nothing but of a simple excuse that they had not seen those Orders plainly showing that if they had seen them they had obeyed them was not this a manifest defection from our Principles and Cause 11. I might mention under this Head the Indulged persons their forsaking and laying aside at the command or desire of the Council that useful and commendable piece of our Reformation I mean the Lectures or
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