King alone or with his Privie Councel cannot put order to Ecclesiastical matters and causes or exerce Church-Power and Jurisdiction without a violation of this Law and manifest controlling of it And further in the 4. Act of that same Second Session of Parliament it is expresly ordained that none be hereafter permitted to preach in publick or in families within any diocess without the licence of the Ordinary of the Diocess So that this licence and permission granted to the Indulged by the Councel to preach and exercise the other parts of their function being without the licence of the Bishops is manifestly contrary and repugnant to this Law Moreover Act 1. in the third Session Anno 1663. we have these words And the Kings Maj. having resolved to conserve and maintaine the Church in the present State and Governmēt hereof by Archbishops Bishops and others bearing Office therein and not to endure nor give way or connivace to any variation therein in the least doth therefore with advice and consent of his Estates conveened in this third Session of his Parliament Ratifie and Approve the afore mentioned Acts and all other Acts and Lawes made in the two former Sessions of Parliament in order to the settling of Episcopal Dignity Iurisdiction and Authority within the Kingdom and ordains them to stand in full force as publick Lawes of the Kingdom and to be put to further execution in all points conforme to the tenor thereof Here is a further Ratification and Confirmation of the Lawes mentioned and the Councel hereby yet more firmely bound-up from emitting any Acts or Edicts contradictory to and tending to weaken and invalidat the publick standing Lawes of the Kingdom And which is yet more considerable in the following words of this same Act the effectual putting of these Lawes in execution is specially and in terminis recommended by King and Parliament unto the Privy Councel after this manner And in pursuance of his Maj. Royal resolution herein his Maj. with advice foresaid doth recommend to the Lords of his Maj. Privie Councel to take speedy and Effectual Course that these Acts receive ready and due Obedience from all his Maj. Subjects and for that end that they call before them all such Ministers who having entred in or since the Yeer 1649. and have not as yet obtained Presentations and Collations as aforesaid yet darred to preach in contempt of the Law and to punish them as seditious persons and contemners of the Royal Authority As also that they be careful that such Ministers who keep not the Diocesian meetings and concurre not with the Bishops in the Acts of Church-Discipline being for the same suspended or deprived as said is be accordingly after deprivation removed from their Benefices Gleebs and Manses And if any of them shall notwithstanding offer to retaine the Possession of their Benefices or Manses that they take present Course to see them dispossest And if they shall thereafter presume to exercise their Ministrie that they be punished as seditious Persons and such as contemne the Authority of Church and State Now notwithstanding of this express reference and severe recommendation we know that in the matter of the Indulgence they were so far from punishing such as had not obtained Presentations and Collations and yet had continued to preach and exercise their Ministrie that in perfect contradiction to this Injunction of King and Parliament and other forementioned Acts they licensed warranded and impowered some such as by Act of Parliament were to be punished as seditious Persons and contemners of Authority of Church and State to preach publickly and to exercise all other parts of their Ministrie and that upon the sole warrand of the Kings Letter which cannot in Law warrand and impower them to contraveen express Lawes and Acts of Parliament and not only to disobey the Injunctions of Parliament but in plaine termes to counteract and counterwork the Established and Ratified Lawes and so to render them null and of no effect Whence we see that there was a necessity for the Parliament An. 1669. to do something that might secure the Lives and Honours of the members of Councel in point of law in granting of that Indulgence which was so expresly against law and which the two Arch-Prelates members of Councel would never give their assent unto as knowing how it intrenched upon the power granted to them and the other Prelates confirmed by Law and so was a manifest rescinding of these Acts and Lawes And though this might have been done by a plaine and simple Act approving and ratifying what the Councel had done in compliance with his Maj Royal Pleasure and authorizing them in time coming to pursue the ends of the same Letter further with a non obstante of all Acts formerly made in favoures of Prelates and Prelacie Yet it is probable they made choise of this way of explaining by a formal and full Statute and Act of Parliament the Supremacie in these plaine full and ample termes wherein we now have it that thereby they might not only secure the Councel but also make the Kings sole Letter to the Councel in all time coming a valid ground in Law whereupon the Councel might proceed and enact and execute what the King pleased in matters Ecclesiastick how intrinsecally and purely such soever without so much as owning the corrupt Ecclesiastick medium or channel of Prelacy And withal it might have been thought that such an act so necessary for the legal preservation of the Indulgers and consequently of the Indulged in the enjoyment of the Indulgence would go sweetly down with all the Indulged and such as gaped for the like favour howbeit so framed as that it was not very pleasant at the first tasting For it cannot be rationally supposed that such as are pleased with their warme dwellings will cast out with the walles roof of the dwelling without which they would enjoy no more warmness than if they were lodging beside the heth in the wilderness And who could think that any indulged man could be dissatisfied with that which was all and only their legal security and without which they were liable to be punished as seditious persons and as contemners of Authority even for preaching by vertue of the Indulgence according to Lawes standing in force unrepealed Whence also we see what a faire way was made unto this Act of Supremacy by the Indulgence and how the Indulgence is so far beholden unto this Act that it can not stand without it nor the persons Indulged be preserved from the lash of the Law notwithstanding of all that was done by the Councel And thus these two are as twines which must die and live together for take away the Act of Supremacy and the Indulgence is but a dead illegal thing We may also see what to judge of this illegal and illegitimat birth that cannot breathe or live where Law reigneth without the swedling clothes of such a Supremacy nor can stand but
as 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
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
in reference to the Indulgence that we may see with what friendly aspect this Supremacie looketh towards the Indulgence and with what Veneration the Indulgence respecteth this Supremacie to the end it may appear how the Indulgence hath contributed to the establishment of this Supra-Papal Supremacie and how the Accepters thereof stand chargeable with a Virtual and Material Approbation of and Consent to the dreadful Usurpation committed by this Supremacie In order to which we would know that this Act of Supremacy made Anno 1669. was not made upon the account that the Supremacie in Church-affairs had never been before screwed up to a sufficient height in their apprehensions for upon the matter little that is material is here asserted to belong unto this Ecclesiastical Supremacie which hath not been before partly in more general partly in more special and particular termes plainly enough ascribed unto this Majestie or presumed as belonging to his Majest In the 11. Act. Parl. 1. Anno 1661. where the Oath is framed he is to be acknowledged Only supreme Governour over all persons and in all causes and that his Power and Iurisdiction must not be declined So that under all Persons and all Causes Church-officers in their most proper and intrinsecal ecclesiastick Affaires and Administrations are comprehended and if his Majest shall take upon him to judge Doctrine matters of Worship and what is most essentially Ecclesiastick he must not be declined as an incompetent Judge We finde also Act. 4. Sess. 2. Parl. 1. Anno 1662. which is againe renewed Act. 1. Anno 1663. that his Majestie with advice and consent of his Estates appointeth Church-censures to be infflicted for Church-transgression as plainly and formally as ever a General Assembly or Synod did in these words That whatsoever Minister shall without a lawful excuse to be admitted by his Ordinary absent himself from the visitation of the Diocess or who shall not according to his duty concurre therein or who shall not give their assistance in all the Acts of Church-discipline as they shall be required thereto by the Archbishop or Bishop of the Diocess every such Minister N. B. so offending shall for the first fault be suspeÌ„ded from his Office and Benefice until the next Diocesian meeting and if he amend not shall be deprived But which is more remarkable in the first Act of that Second Session Anno 1662. for the Restituâ—ion and Re-establishment of Prelats we have several things tending to cleare how high the Supremacie was then exalted The very Act beginneth thus for as much as the ordering and disposal of the external Government and Policy of the Church doth properly belong unto his Majestie as an inherent right of the Crown by vertue of his Royal Prerogative and Supremacie in causes Ecclesiastical This is the same that is by way of statute asserted in the late Act 1669. In the same Act it is further said That whatever this sure is large and very comprehensive shall be determined by his Maj. with the advice of the Archbishops and Bishops and such of the Clergy as shall be nominated by his Maj. in the external Government and Policy of the Church the same consisting with the standing Lawes of the Kingdom shall be valide and effectual And which is more in the same Act all preceeding Acts of Parl are rescinded by which the sole and only Power and Iurisdiction within the Church doth stand in the Church and in the General Provincial and Presbyterial Assemblies and Kirk-Sessions And all Acts of Parliament or Councel which may be interpreted to have given any Church-Power Iurisdiction or Government to the Office-bearers of the Church their respective Meetings other than that which acknowledgeth a dependence upon and subordination to the Soveraign â—â—wer of the King as Supreme So that we see by vertue of this Act all Church-Power and Jurisdiction whatsomever is made to be derived from to have a dependance upon and to be in subordination to the Soveraigne power of the King as Supream and not to stand in the Church Whereby the King is made only the Founâ—aine of Church-power and that exclusive as it would seem even of Christ Of whom there is not the least mention made and for whom is not made the least reserve imaginable So in the 4. Act. of the third Session of Parl. Anno 1663. For the Establishment and Constitution of a National Synod We finde it said that the ordering and disposal of the external Government of the Church and the nomination of the Persons by whose Advice Matters relating to the same are to be setled doth belong to his Maj. as an inherent right of the Crown by vertue of his prerogative Râ—yal and Supream Authority in causes Ecclesiastical And upon this ground is founded his power to appoint a National Synod to appoint the only constiâ—uent Members thereof as is there specified to call continue and dissolve the same when he will to limit all their Debates Consultations and Determinations to such matters and causes as he thinketh fit and several other things there to be seen Seing by these Particulars it is manifest and undeniable that this Ecclesiastick Supremacie was elevated presumptively before the Year 1669. to as high a degree as could be imagined It may be enquired why then was this Act made Anno 1669 I answere This act so I conceive was not framed so much to make any addition to that Church power which they thought did Iure Coronae belong orginally and fundamentally unto the King for that was already put almost beyond the reach of any additional supply though not in one formal and expressive Statutory Act As to forme the same when screwed up to the highest into a plaine and positive formal Statute having the force of a Law for all uses and ends and particularly to salve in point of Law the Councel in what they did in and about the Indulgence according to the desire and command of the King in his Letter in regaâ—rd that the granting of this Indulgence did manifestly repugne to and counteract several anteriour Acts of Parliament and was a manifest breach and violation of Lawes standing in full force and unrepealed which neither their place nor his Maj. could in Law warrand them to do by his Letter That the granting of the Indulgence did thus in plaine termes repugne to standing Lawes I thus make good In the Act of Rëstitution of Prelates Anno 1662. Prelates are restored unto the exercise of their Episcopal function Presidence in the Church power of Ordination Inflicting of Censures and all other Acts of Church Discipline And as their Episcopal power is there asserted to be derived from his Maj. so withal it is expresly said that the Church-power and jurisdiction is to be Regulated and Authorized in the Exercise thereof by the Archbishops and Bishops who are to put order to all Ecclesiastical matters and causes and to be accountable to his Maj. for their administrations Whence it is manifest that the
as upheld by such an Anti-christian Pillar We may also see here that the very embraceing of the Indulgence was upon the matter a recognition of this Power in the King to do in and by his Privy Councel in Church-matters what he pleased even though contrary to antecedent Acts of Parliament and that such as are so satisfied with the effect to wit the Indulgence cannot but comply with the cause to wit the Supremacy as asserted in this Act as the man that hath a complacencie in drinking of the streames cannot be displeased with but delight in the fountaine from whence they proceed If any of these Brethren had received the same Indulgence from the Prelates immediatly had they not thereby complyed with the Prelates homologated their Power and plainely assented and submitted thereunto Yea had they not in this assented also mediatly unto the Supremacy seing all the Prelats Power did flow from the Supremacie And shall they not now much more be looked on as homologating the Supremacie and as assenting thereto when they receive the Indulgence that immediatly floweth therefrom and must be vindicated and defended solely by the asserting thereof How is it imaginable that I can receive a favour and not homologate assent to and acquiesce in that Power that gave it when the asserting of that Power is the only mean to keep me in legal possession of the favour received But now for further confirmation of what is said let us take a view of the Act of Supremacy it self and there see a ground laid of sufficient warrādice for the Council in what they did in granting the Indulgence and also be able to read the Indulgence it self out of the Supremacie as here asserted and for this end it will be sufficient for us to take notice only of the last words thereof where it is said And that his Maj. and his Successours may Settle Enact and Emit such Constitutions Acts and Orders concerning the administration of the external Government of the Church and the Persons imployed in the same and concerning all Ecclesiastical Meetings and Maters to be proposed and determined therein as they in their Royal wisdom shall think fit which Acts Orders and Constitutions being recorded in the books of Councel and duly published are to be observed and obeyed by all his Maj. Subjects Before this time as we heard all Acts Orders and Constitutions concerning Church-affairs Church-meetings and Church-administrations were to be put in execution by the Prelates impowered by the Supremacie unto this end And what was lately done in the matter of the Indulgence was done by the Councel and not by the Prelates and therefore contrary to law whereupon that this deed may be valide in law it is here asserted that the King by vertue of his Supremacie may Emit what Acts Orders and Constitutions he in his royal wisdome thinketh fit and after what manner he pleaseth and so if he will may order and dispose of all Church-administrations Ecclesiastick Persons Church-meetings and matters by himself immediatly or by his Councel yea or by his lackeys so that if the Lawes Constitutions Acts and Orders concerning these Matters Meetings Persons and Administrations be signified to the Councel by Letter or any other way and be recorded in their books and duely published which they must doe whensoever required they must be obeyed and observed by all Subjects Now this power being asserted to belong to his Maj. as an inherent right of the crown no deed of gift formerly granted to the Prelats could weaken or diminish it and therefore nothing done of late by the Councel in granting of the Indulgence according to his Maj. will and pleasure signified by his Letter Iuny 7. 1669. can prove prejudicial unto the said PrivieCouncel they doing nothing but what was consonant unto the Kings Supremacie here more clearly asserted and not granted of new save in the forme of a formal Statute and law asserting the same Yet notwithstanding for the more security for abundance of Law breaks no Law it is added in the Act. as we see Any Law Act or Custom to the contrary notwithstanding And moreover they rescind and annul all Lawes Acts and Clauses thereof and all customs and constitutions Civil or Ecclesiastick which are contrary to and inconsistent with his Maj. Supremacie as it is hereby asserted and declare the same void and null in all time coming According to the usual course and manner As to the other particular we may see the native feature and lineaments of the Indulgence in the face of the Supremacie so manifestly that none who see the one needs question the intimate Relation that is betwixt them We see it now asserted as belonging to his Maj. Supremacy in Church-affairs tha◠he may Settle Enact and Emit what Acts Constitutions and Orders he thinketh good whether concerning Church-Administrations or Church-meetings or Church-matters or Church-Officers and that there needeth no more to make these Lawes to be obeyed and observed by all the Subjects but the recording of them in the books of the Councel and duely publishing of them Now as we saw above in the Kings Letter concerning this Indulgence there areConstitutions Acts and Orders emitted and setled concerning Church-administrations shewing what shall not be preached under the paine ofCensure whoseChildren may be baptized whose not who may be admitted to hear the word and who not Concerning Church-persons who shall be accounted qualified for preaching who not who shall be accounted fit for the charge of such a flock and who for the charge of another Such and such Ministers are ordained to go to such or such Congregations not by vertue of a Call of the people but meerly by vertue of the Councels designation Concerning Church-meetings They are appointed to keep Diocesian Visitations or Synods and to resort to Prelats Exercises though the Prelates look not on them as sutable company So it is ordained whom they are to marry and whom not In a word let any but compare the Kings Letter with this part of the Act of Supremacie and he shall be forced to say that the Letter is nothing but the Supremacie exemplified and put in practice Hence it is manifest that no man can submit to and accept of the Indulgence but he must eo ipso submit to accept of such Constitutions Acts and Orders as did constitute qualifie and limite the same for the Effect includeth the Causes Constituent and Discriminating And again no man can submit to and accept of Constitutions Acts and Orders flowing from a power but they must eo ipso recognosce that Power to be properly residing in the person giving forth these Acts and Orders or grant that he is vested with that power and seing it is plaine from the Act of Supremacie it self that such Constitutions Acts and Orders so given in Church-matters and about Church Persons as these were whereby the Indulgence was midwif'd into the world do flow from the Supremacie it is also manifest that no
of the Gospel though not in a pubâ—ick Parish Church as that I judge the narrative of the first act to go near to involve my acceptance of this Indulgence being an interpretative condemning of the saids meetings 3. There is a standing relation betwixt me another Flock overwhich I was set by the appointment of Jesus Christ in his word which tye câ—n never reallie be dissolved by any other Power than that which at first did make it up and give it a being And after that I had Ten years during the English Usurpation wrestled in opposition to Quakers Independants in the place where the first breach had been made upon the Church of Scotland I was without any Ecclesiastick sentence thrust from the publick exerciâ—e oâ— my Ministrie in that place where there will be 1200. examinable Persons whereof thâ—re were never 50. Persons yet to this day who have subjected themselves to him who is called the Regular Incumbent And that even when I was living 30. miâ—es distant from the place Now what a door is hereby by my being keeped from my Charge opened to Error Atheisme and Profanness may be easily conjâ—ctured by those who hear of the deplorable case of that people And what a gâ—ief must it be to them to have their owne Lawful Pastor shut up in a Corner whereby we are both put out of a capacitie to receive any moâ—e Spiritual comfort flowing from that Relation which is yet in force betwixâ— us Or how is it to be imagined that any new supervenient relation can result betwixt another Flock and me by vertue of an Act only of a meer Civil Judicatorie Beside that the people in whom I have present Interest are utterlie rendered hopeless by a clause in the end of the first Act viz. That the Indulgence is not hereafter to be extended in favours of any other Congregation than these mentioned in the Act wheâ—eof they in that Parish are none 4. That I will not offer to debate the Magistrat's sentence of Confinement let be his Power to doe the same yet I shall soberly say there are so many things attending the present application thereof to my Person that it cannot be expected I should give that Obedience hereto which might inferre my owne Consent or Approbation for 1. Though this Confinement be called a gentle remedie of the great evils of the Church in the narrative of the first Act yet it is found to be a verie sharp punishment as it is circumstantiaâ— 2. All punishments inflicted by Magistrats on Subjects ought to relate to some Cause or Crime and cannot be done arbitrarilie without oppression which truth is ingraven on the light of nature For Festus a heathen Man Acts 25 27. could say It seemeth to me unreasonable to send a Prisoner and not withal to signifie the crime laid against him yet am I sentenced and sent in fetters to a Congregation without so much as being charged with any crime And all the world are left to collect the reason of this Censure 3. If my Confinement relate not to any crime it must needs relate to a designe which designe is obvious to Common sense viz. thâ—t I should preach and exercise the Office of my Ministrie whollie at the appointment disposal of the Civil Magistrat and a sentence of Confinement is less obvious to debate and dispute by the Subjects and will more easily goe downe with any simple man than an express command to preach grounded on his Maj. Royal Prerogative and Supremacie and cannot readily be refused by any unless a man make himself to be constructed a squimish wild Phanatick and expose himself to great sufferings so this Confinment which hath both his Maj. Prerogative and Supremacie in Ecclesiastick matters in it comes to me in roome and that directly of the Peoples Call and Presbyteries Authoritie and other Ecclesiastick Appointment Now this designe however closely covered I dare not in Conscience yea I cannot with the preservation of my Judgment and Principles concurre with or be consentient thereto 4. By the Confinment I am put to an open shame before the world and particularly in that place where I am permitted to preach the Gospel For what weight can my preaching or ministerial Acts of Discipline and Government have while I my self am handled and dealt with as a Malefactour and Transgressour a Rebel or Traitour to my Prince Nation Or how can I preach the word of the Lord freely and boldly against the â—innes of the time as against Profanness Errour Injustice and Oppression as Ministers ought impartially to do while I am kept under a perpetual check of the sword of the Magistrat at my throat This to me is not preaching but an over-awed discourse Morover I become a prey for any malicious prejudicat hearer who shall happen to accuse and informe against me Can I be answerable to God who sent me to render up my self willingly to be a servant of men Were not this to cut-out my owne tongue with my owne hands 5. This Confinment is not simplie or mainly of my Person which sentence if it were so I should most willingly undergo but it is of the Office it self the imprisonment of which ought to be sadder to me than any personal suffering whatsoever while 1. It is not of me alone but of all the Presbyterian Ministers in Scotland a very few only excepted 2. While the propagation of the Gospel by the personal restraint of us all is manifestly obstructed 3. We are cut off from the discharge of many necessary duties which we owe to the Nation and Church and specially at such a time while she is in hazard to be swallowed up with a swarm of Iesuits Quakers and other damnable Subverters of the Truth and which is yet more while three parts of the Kingdom are groaning under â—he want of the Word faithfully preached and some few Shirs only here in the West are made as it were the Common Goal of all the Ministers that are permitted to preach 4. By this Confinment I lose an essential part of my Ministerie which is the exercise of Jurisdiction and Church Government which yet Mr Baxter a very favourable non-conformist asserts to be as essential to the Office of a Minister as Preaching of the word The staff being as needful to the shepherd as either the pigg or the horne is so sayes the Scripture of preaching Elders Acts. 20.28 The Holy Ghost hath made you Overseers or Bishops no less then Teachers a principal parâ— of which Government is Ordination of Ministers for preservation of a succession of faithful men in the Church whereof by the Act of Confinment as also is expresly provided by the last câ—ause of the last Act we are intentionally deprived for ever while it is in force In loseing of which one branch of our Government we undo our own cause with our owne hands I remember the first thing the ambitious Romane Clergie invaded and usurped was the Jurisdiction and
of those duties which tend to our mutual Comfort and Edification which no doubt is much aggravated by the Intrusion of others whom they cannot acknowledge as their Lawful Pastors they looking on the former relation as yet in force 4. Though we be far from questioning the Magistrats just power to confine any of his Subjects within his Dominions yet there are several things in the present complex case which we do humblie desire to present to your L L. as burdensome to our Consciences as 1. That this Confinement is not simplie of our Persons but of the Ministrie it self the Imprisonment of which should be sadder to us than any personal suffering whatsomever while First It is not of one or two but of all the Presbyterian Ministers of the Church of Scotland a very few only excepted Secondly While the Propagation of the Gospel by the personal restraint of us all is manifestly obstructed Thirdly We are cut off from the discharge of many necessarie duties which we owe to this National Church and specially at such a time when so much in hazard to be swallowed up with the floud of Iesuits Quakers and other damnable subverters of the Truth and which is yet more that the three parts of the Kingdom are groaning under the want of the word faithfully preached As also by this Confinement we lose the exercise of an essential part of our Ministrie viz. Jurisdiction and Church-Government a Principal part whereof is Ordination of Ministers for preservation of a succession of faithful men in the Church whereof by this Act of confinement as is also expresly provided by the last clause of the last Act we are intentionally deprived for ever while it is in force in loseing of which we do burie our cause with our own hands 2. We cannot but sadly regrate that no Physical restraint is put upon Papists Quakers yea while their Meetings and Conventicles have been found and known yet not all quarrelled But the Meetings of Orthodox Protestants hunted pursued and obstructed to the great griefe of all the Godly in the Land though nothing hath been found in them to the prejudice of the peace of the Kingdom or his Maj. true Interest 3. It is no small grievance that we are cast in two's and three's in one Paroch where there is no need of our Ministrie nor accommodation for our families while there are Thousands left to the oversight of others both in sufficient and scandalous 5. By the last Act of this Indulgence all Ministers not indulged are prohibite the exercise of their Ministrie even as to the preaching of the word except in the places of their respective confinements and that upon a call from the Incumbent allannerly And in their summonds are required to engage to the same which being contrare to the Scripture commands and the Commission delivered to us by the Lord Jesus for feeding of his people by the everlasting Gospel doth cast us upon a sad dilemma either of disobeying God or your L L. so that we must say Whether it be better to obey God or Men judge ye And now My Lords having in the singleness of our hearts and we hope without any just ground of offence given this short and serious representation of our thoughts in this affaire we humbly intreat your L L. to give a favourable hearing to these our subsequent just and necessarie desires viz. 1. That your L L. would not construe our non-compliance with the Indulgence as tendered in the forementioned Acts to proceed from humour and peevishness but from Conscience which makes us that we dar not be â—ilent in matters of so great concernment to our Lord and Master to whom in the first place we owe fidelity upon all highest paines and that our hearts may not condemne us in withholding from Caesar what is Caesars nor in giving to him what is the Lords 2. That we be not pressed to go to our Confinements nor proceeded against as disloyal and contemners of Authority on that account and that we may have liberty to preach the Gospel to our own respective flocks and to others as we have access in providence 3. That your L L. would be pleased to deal with his Maj. to take off the legal restraints on our Ministrie and Persons that we may peacably give ourselves to the work of the Ministrie for the Edification of the body of Christ. 4. Lastly That your L L. would seriously consider in the sight of the most high God before whose tribunal we are all shortly to appear and give an account of our actions the heavy pressures and burdens lying on the Consciences of Ministers and People for meer preaching and hearing of the word which pressures have mainly flowed from the heavy yoke of Prelacy a plant that our heavenly Father never planted under which this Church hath groaned those many years And also we most humbly beseech your L L. that what favour it shall please his Maj. in his Royal Clemency to grant may not be inconsistent with our known Principles to which we stand engaged by solemne Covenant and Oaths In granting of which desires as your L L. will undoubtedly make glade the hearts of many Thousands of his Maj. Loyal Subjects so ye will much encourage us your humble Petitioners to continue serious Supplicants at the throne of grace for Establishing his Maj. Throne in righteousness and for pouring out a spirit of righteous judgement that we may lead a peaceable and quiet life in all Godliness and honesty By these Testimonies and Papers howbeit not all presented either to the Chancellour or Councel as was in singleness intended by some we may see that there wanted not weighty reasons to have moved such as loved to walk tenderly and circumspectly in such a day of trial and snares to have peremptorily refused this so dangerous so ensnaring so scandalous and so destructive an Indulgence We shall now proceed in our Historie and hasten to an end thereof The following year to wit 1673. Some Ministers who had been Indulged were now cited before the Councel for not observing the 29. of May. and other Instructions given unto them of which and of the carriage of these Ministers at that time we shall take occasion hereafter to speak more fully and shall content ourselves now with the simple relation of the matter as it stands in the Registers VPon the 8. day of Iuly 1673. The Ministers underwritten who were Indulged to preach at the Kirks specified in the Councels Act of the 3. of Septemb. 1672. and formerly being conveened before the Councel viz. Mr Iohn Crawfurd Mr Anthonie Murray Mr Iohn Hammiltoun Mr Iohn Oliphant Mr Iames Currie Mr Iohn Lauder Mr Iohn Stirling Mr Iames Hutcheson Mr Iohn Bairdy Mr Iohn Eccles Mr Andrew Dalrymple Mr Iohn Gemmil Mr Hugh Camphel Mr Alexander Blair Mr Iames Veitch Mr William Fullertoun Mr Iohn Hutcheson Mr Robert Miller Mr George Ramsay Mr Iohn Bell Mr Ralph Rodger Mr William Dillidaff
be not ordained and preferred of God that he should be a judge of Matters and Causes Spiritual of which there is a controversie in the Church yet he is questionless judge of his own Civil Act about spiritual things namely of defending them in his own Dominions and of approving or tollerating the same And if in this business he judge and determine according to the Wisdome of the Flesh and not according to the Wisdome which is from above he is to render an account thereof before the Supream Tribunal But to what purpose is all this waste of Words Doth he or any man think that we deny to the Magistrate a judgment of his own Civil Act or that we suppose that Mr H. and others have betrayed the Cause because they granted to the Magistrate a Power Objectively Ecclesiastical so far as to judge thus of his own Civil Act of Tolerating such a way within his Dominions No that is not the ground we go upon But this we say that if Mr H. or others do inferre from this power of judging in reference to his own Act competent to the Magistrate that the Magistrate may Impose Rules and Injunctions to regulat Ministers in the exercise of their Ministrie then they have betrayed the Cause And either they must inferre this therefrom or they speak nothing to the purpose And himself lately told us as much as all this Now let him or any man show me where any Anti-Erastian Divine reasoneth thus or draweth such an Inference from this Power Objectively Ecclesiastical Yea I much questione if Vedelius or Maccovius his Collegue did ever so argue And sure I am the Author of the CXI Propositions Propos. 45. c. cleareth up that Difference betwixt these two Powers which is taken from the Object and Matter about which And Prop. 54. he showeth that those things wherein the Ecclesiastical Power is exercised are preaching of the Word c. And Prop. 55. That though the Civil Magistrate is occupied about the same things yet it is but so far as concerneth the outward disposing of Divine things in this or that Dominion Nay I must say that I cannot see how this will follow That Magistrates may prescribe such Rules unto Ministers to regulate them in the exercise of their Ministrie because of a Power granted to them to judge of their own Civil Act about spiritual things more than that every Church-Member may do the like for in that Prop. as the Words cited do clear the Author giveth that same Power to every Member of the Church respectively and how can it be denied to them or to any rational man Nay let me say more Have not Ministers and every private man this power of judging of his own Act about things Civil and in this respect also an Objectivly Civil Power Will it therefore follow that they can prescribe Rules to regulate Magistrats in the exercise of their functioâ— And if a Magistrat should come to the Prelates or Pop's Bar and take a Paper from him containing such Instructions and give this onely as his Apologie that he acknowledged a Power Objectivly Civil competent unto the Pope or Prelate because they had power to judge of their own acts about civil things would not others have cause to judge that that Magistrate had denied the Co-ordination of the Poâ—ers had professed his Subordination as Magistrate to Pope or Prelate Now Verte Tabulas and see how the parallel runneth in our case and then judge From the foregoing discourse and particularly from that cited out of the CXI Propositions our Informer now a Disputer Inferreth That he hopeth no man in reason can alledge Mr H's recedeing from the Principles of this Church in the matter But for my part though I will not judge of the Thoughts or Intentions of Mr H. or of any other of his Brethren yet considering the work it self as this Informer hath represented it unto me in its circumstances I cannot but say that in the thing and as to the Intentio operis there was a recedeing not onely from the Principles of the Church of Scotland but also from the Zeal of our former Worthies who ventured all to transmit the truth pure from Erastianisme and Caesario-Papal Invasions Encroachments And from the strick Obligations lying on us all to stand to the Truth and to the Defence of the Power and Privileges of the Church against the Usurpation and Encroachments of the Magistrates seeking alwayes to inhaunce all Church-power into their own hands not out of love to promove the Glory of God and the real good of souls but out of a desire to have the Ministrie and the outward Administrations of grace enslaved unto their wills Is it not certaine out of what ground this Indulgence did grow and how the Act of Supremacy which no Conscientious Minister or Christian can owne or acknowledge as it was occasioned and necessitated by the Indulgence so it became the Charter thereof and gave legal life and being unto all that followed And was it not as certaine that a Designe to procure a Requiem to themselves in all their Usurpations and intolerable Invasions of Church-Power and overturning of â—he whole Work of God and withall to make way for the further Enslaving of the Church and of all Church-Power to their â—usts did midwife this Bastard-Child into the World And could it be uncertaine to rational observing Persons what was the Designe of King and Councel in-giving these Instructions First and Last Yea was not the whole Business so carried on from First to Last as half an eye might have discovered a wicked Designe therein And was not the Explicatory Act of the Supremacie a more than sufficient proof of an Erastian Spirit that led and acted them in some things beyond what the Anti-Christian Spirit could for shame prompt the Pope to arrogate to himself And when from these things and many others such like yea from the whole Procedour of King Parliament and Council in their Actings since this last Revolution began it is more than sufficiently clear what they did and do Intend will any say it was not their Duty while so Providentially called to witness to the Truth to give a more Plain Full Ministerial and Christian Testimony to the Truth which our Predecessours maintained with so much Hazard Expence of bloud Loss of Liberty Tossings Imprisonments Confinements Condemnation to Death and Banishments c. and which we were so solemnely sworne to stand to And will any Ingenuous Christian say that all circumstances being considered the Testimony given was such as became men standing in the Fields for the Truth of Christ and engaged in point of Conscience and Christian Valour Honour and Crediâ—e to cover the ground they stood on with their dead Bodies rather than cede to such a manifest Encroaching and Invading Enemie Will any who readeth the carriage of our valiant and renowned Worthies in opposing the Encroachments of King Iames who yet never did nor for
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