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
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
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
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
Intrado of hinc illae lachrymae as if he had done more hurt by this Testimonie than his own and the lives of many were worth While worthie Mr B. is as we have seen in prison he falleth very sick and friends and Physicians fearing his disease should prove mortal he with much difficulty obtained the liberty mentioned until he was taken home to glory It is worthie of our noticeing That dureing the time both of this Imprisonment and Confinement as the Sufferings of Christ abounded in him so his Consolations also abounded by J. C. for all who conversed with him returned comforted by seeing and sharing of his Consolations and particularly when drawing nigh to his end how was his Soul made to rejoyce in reflecting on his being honoured and helped to give that Testimony And with what Horrour and Indignation would he express himself upon supposition he had done less than he did yea all his griefe and regrate was that he had not done more At length when the time of the liberty granted to abide in his Chamber was almost expired his glorious Master who would want him no longer nor suffer him to want the Confessors reward sent and rescued him from the rage of Persecutors and from the Reproaches of his deserting Brethren and took him home to his Masters Joy and the sound of well done good and faithful Servant filling his eares made him shut his eyes singing and give up the Ghost in assurance of being embraced and of having access to embrace From all this these things are observable 1. That God by the speaking significations he gave of his complacency in the Freedom and Fidelity of his Servant wrote a sufficient refutation of all that was said by some to disgrace both him and his Cause 2. That here is a new witness from Heaven against these Invasions 3. As also against the Indulgence and the taking of these Instructions Beside 4. The Encouragement given to all to abide faithful in avowing Christs Prerogatives and the Priviledges of his Church and Kingdom even though abandoned of all who should bear them Companie or go before them Ere we returne to take further notice of what past when the forementioned Indulged Ministers compeared before the Councel we shall for a close out of the Registers mention these following Acts. Edinbr 6. of Feb. 1673. A Nent a petition presented by Mr Robert Hunter now Minister at Burrowstouness that conforme to an Act of Councel the petitioner did serve the cure at the Kirk of Duning for the 1671. and 1672. years and after Martimass last did transport himself to the Kirk of Burrowstowness conforme to the Councels Order And therefore humbly supplicating that the Stipend of the said Paroch of Duning for the saids two years might be appointed to be payed to him The Lords of his Maj. privie Councel having heard and considered the said Petition do ordaine the said Stipend of the said Paroch for the said two years to be payed to the Supplicant and that Letters of Horning be direct for that effect In the Year 1676. there came forth an open Proclamation Dated March 1. THE Lords of his Maj. Privie Councel considering that by their Act of the 3. Septemb. 1672. they did Order and appoint diverse outted Ministers to repaire to the several Paroches therein specified and to remaine therein confined permitting and allowing them to preach and exercise the other parts of the Ministerial function in those Paroches and did require and enjoyn these Ministers or any other Ministers indulged by former Acts of Council to keep and observe the Instructions following as they would be answerable That they should not presume to Marry or Baptize any except such as belonged to the Paroch to which they were confined or to the neighbouring Paroches vacant or wanting Ministers for the time That all Ministers indulged in one and the same Diocess should celebrate the Communion upon one and the same Lords Day and that they should admit none to their Communions belonging to other Paroches without testificats from the Ministers thereof That they should preach only in these Kirks and not in the Church-yards nor in any place else under the paine to be repute and punished as keepers of Conventicles That they should remaine within and not depart forth of the Paroches to which they are confined without licence from the Bishop of the Diocess onely And whereas it is informed that the saids outted Ministers indulged as aforesaid at the least many of them have violated and contraveened the foresaids Orders and Instructions upon which termes they were permitted and indulged to preach and exercise the other functions of the Ministry whereby many disorders are occasioned The saids Lords do therefore of new againe require and command all these Indulged Ministers to keep and observe the foresaids Orders and Instructions in time coming and specially for keeping within the bounds of their Paroches and celebrating the Communion upon one and the same Lords day as they will be answerable at their perril And ordains these presents to be printed and Copies thereof sent to the several Ministers Nothing needeth be here observed beside the Parenthesis where it is said that the Observation of these Instructions was the termes upon which they were indulged and therefore when they accepted of the Indulgence on such termes they consented to them and professed and declared their willingness to accept of their Ministery and of the free Exercise thereof upon these Conditions So that whether they observed them punctually afterward or not the bargain was established and they became oblieged by their own deed in accepting of these favoures granted on these Conditions to observe the Instructions carefully and it was too late to say afterward that the Conditions were not lawful and therefore could not be observed for that should have been said at first and even upon that account alone had there been nothing else they should have plainely and peremptorily rejected the supposed favour Nor will it avail to say that they knew not that the punctual observing of these Instructions was made the Condition of the granted favour for though at first these Instructions when given were not expresly so called yet the manner of proposal was such as all who desired not willingly to run into a sâ—are might have been convinced that so and no otherwayes they were intended and upon the matter could carry no other import And if any were invinciblie ignorant hereof at their first accepting of the Indulgence yet now when such a Printed Proclamation came forth wherein this was in terminis expressed and the Printed Proclamation ordered to be sent unto each of them they could no longer pretend ignorance and therefore were called if they had been formerly really circumvented and cheated now openly to have declared their unwillingness to accept of the Indulgence on these termes and henceforth to have abandoned the same and followed their Brethren to the Mountaines But now when this was not done but they
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