in reference to the Indulgence that we may see with what friendly aspect this Supremacie looketh towards the Indulgence and with what Veneration the Indulgence respecteth this Supremacie to the end it may appear how the Indulgence hath contributed to the establishment of this Supra-Papal Supremacie and how the Accepters thereof stand chargeable with a Virtual and Material Approbation of and Consent to the dreadful Usurpation committed by this Supremacie In order to which we would know that this Act of Supremacy made Anno 1669. was not made upon the account that the Supremacie in Church-affairs had never been before screwed up to a sufficient height in their apprehensions for upon the matter little that is material is here asserted to belong unto this Ecclesiastical Supremacie which hath not been before partly in more general partly in more special and particular termes plainly enough ascribed unto this Majestie or presumed as belonging to his Majest In the 11. Act. Parl. 1. Anno 1661. where the Oath is framed he is to be acknowledged Only supreme Governour over all persons and in all causes and that his Power and Iurisdiction must not be declined So that under all Persons and all Causes Church-officers in their most proper and intrinsecal ecclesiastick Affaires and Administrations are comprehended and if his Majest shall take upon him to judge Doctrine matters of Worship and what is most essentially Ecclesiastick he must not be declined as an incompetent Judge We finde also Act. 4. Sess. 2. Parl. 1. Anno 1662. which is againe renewed Act. 1. Anno 1663. that his Majestie with advice and consent of his Estates appointeth Church-censures to be infflicted for Church-transgression as plainly and formally as ever a General Assembly or Synod did in these words That whatsoever Minister shall without a lawful excuse to be admitted by his Ordinary absent himself from the visitation of the Diocess or who shall not according to his duty concurre therein or who shall not give their assistance in all the Acts of Church-discipline as they shall be required thereto by the Archbishop or Bishop of the Diocess every such Minister N. B. so offending shall for the first fault be suspeÌ„ded from his Office and Benefice until the next Diocesian meeting and if he amend not shall be deprived But which is more remarkable in the first Act of that Second Session Anno 1662. for the Restituâ—ion and Re-establishment of Prelats we have several things tending to cleare how high the Supremacie was then exalted The very Act beginneth thus for as much as the ordering and disposal of the external Government and Policy of the Church doth properly belong unto his Majestie as an inherent right of the Crown by vertue of his Royal Prerogative and Supremacie in causes Ecclesiastical This is the same that is by way of statute asserted in the late Act 1669. In the same Act it is further said That whatever this sure is large and very comprehensive shall be determined by his Maj. with the advice of the Archbishops and Bishops and such of the Clergy as shall be nominated by his Maj. in the external Government and Policy of the Church the same consisting with the standing Lawes of the Kingdom shall be valide and effectual And which is more in the same Act all preceeding Acts of Parl are rescinded by which the sole and only Power and Iurisdiction within the Church doth stand in the Church and in the General Provincial and Presbyterial Assemblies and Kirk-Sessions And all Acts of Parliament or Councel which may be interpreted to have given any Church-Power Iurisdiction or Government to the Office-bearers of the Church their respective Meetings other than that which acknowledgeth a dependence upon and subordination to the Soveraign â—â—wer of the King as Supreme So that we see by vertue of this Act all Church-Power and Jurisdiction whatsomever is made to be derived from to have a dependance upon and to be in subordination to the Soveraigne power of the King as Supream and not to stand in the Church Whereby the King is made only the Founâ—aine of Church-power and that exclusive as it would seem even of Christ Of whom there is not the least mention made and for whom is not made the least reserve imaginable So in the 4. Act. of the third Session of Parl. Anno 1663. For the Establishment and Constitution of a National Synod We finde it said that the ordering and disposal of the external Government of the Church and the nomination of the Persons by whose Advice Matters relating to the same are to be setled doth belong to his Maj. as an inherent right of the Crown by vertue of his prerogative Râ—yal and Supream Authority in causes Ecclesiastical And upon this ground is founded his power to appoint a National Synod to appoint the only constiâ—uent Members thereof as is there specified to call continue and dissolve the same when he will to limit all their Debates Consultations and Determinations to such matters and causes as he thinketh fit and several other things there to be seen Seing by these Particulars it is manifest and undeniable that this Ecclesiastick Supremacie was elevated presumptively before the Year 1669. to as high a degree as could be imagined It may be enquired why then was this Act made Anno 1669 I answere This act so I conceive was not framed so much to make any addition to that Church power which they thought did Iure Coronae belong orginally and fundamentally unto the King for that was already put almost beyond the reach of any additional supply though not in one formal and expressive Statutory Act As to forme the same when screwed up to the highest into a plaine and positive formal Statute having the force of a Law for all uses and ends and particularly to salve in point of Law the Councel in what they did in and about the Indulgence according to the desire and command of the King in his Letter in regaâ—rd that the granting of this Indulgence did manifestly repugne to and counteract several anteriour Acts of Parliament and was a manifest breach and violation of Lawes standing in full force and unrepealed which neither their place nor his Maj. could in Law warrand them to do by his Letter That the granting of the Indulgence did thus in plaine termes repugne to standing Lawes I thus make good In the Act of Rëstitution of Prelates Anno 1662. Prelates are restored unto the exercise of their Episcopal function Presidence in the Church power of Ordination Inflicting of Censures and all other Acts of Church Discipline And as their Episcopal power is there asserted to be derived from his Maj. so withal it is expresly said that the Church-power and jurisdiction is to be Regulated and Authorized in the Exercise thereof by the Archbishops and Bishops who are to put order to all Ecclesiastical matters and causes and to be accountable to his Maj. for their administrations Whence it is manifest that the
King alone or with his Privie Councel cannot put order to Ecclesiastical matters and causes or exerce church-Church-Power and Jurisdiction without a violation of this Law and manifest controlling of it And further in the 4. Act of that same Second Session of Parliament it is expresly ordained that none be hereafter permitted to preach in publick or in families within any diocess without the licence of the Ordinary of the Diocess So that this licence and permission granted to the Indulged by the Councel to preach and exercise the other parts of their function being without the licence of the Bishops is manifestly contrary and repugnant to this Law Moreover Act 1. in the third Session Anno 1663. we have these words And the Kings Maj. having resolved to conserve and maintaine the Church in the present State and Governmēt hereof by Archbishops Bishops and others bearing Office therein and not to endure nor give way or connivace to any variation therein in the least doth therefore with advice and consent of his Estates conveened in this third Session of his Parliament Ratifie and Approve the afore mentioned Acts and all other Acts and Lawes made in the two former Sessions of Parliament in order to the settling of Episcopal Dignity Iurisdiction and Authority within the Kingdom and ordains them to stand in full force as publick Lawes of the Kingdom and to be put to further execution in all points conforme to the tenor thereof Here is a further Ratification and Confirmation of the Lawes mentioned and the Councel hereby yet more firmely bound-up from emitting any Acts or Edicts contradictory to and tending to weaken and invalidat the publick standing Lawes of the Kingdom And which is yet more considerable in the following words of this same Act the effectual putting of these Lawes in execution is specially and in terminis recommended by King and Parliament unto the Privy Councel after this manner And in pursuance of his Maj. Royal resolution herein his Maj. with advice foresaid doth recommend to the Lords of his Maj. Privie Councel to take speedy and Effectual Course that these Acts receive ready and due Obedience from all his Maj. Subjects and for that end that they call before them all such Ministers who having entred in or since the Yeer 1649. and have not as yet obtained Presentations and Collations as aforesaid yet darred to preach in contempt of the Law and to punish them as seditious persons and contemners of the Royal Authority As also that they be careful that such Ministers who keep not the Diocesian meetings and concurre not with the Bishops in the Acts of Church-Discipline being for the same suspended or deprived as said is be accordingly after deprivation removed from their Benefices Gleebs and Manses And if any of them shall notwithstanding offer to retaine the Possession of their Benefices or Manses that they take present Course to see them dispossest And if they shall thereafter presume to exercise their Ministrie that they be punished as seditious Persons and such as contemne the Authority of Church and State Now notwithstanding of this express reference and severe recommendation we know that in the matter of the Indulgence they were so far from punishing such as had not obtained Presentations and Collations and yet had continued to preach and exercise their Ministrie that in perfect contradiction to this Injunction of King and Parliament and other forementioned Acts they licensed warranded and impowered some such as by Act of Parliament were to be punished as seditious Persons and contemners of Authority of Church and State to preach publickly and to exercise all other parts of their Ministrie and that upon the sole warrand of the Kings Letter which cannot in Law warrand and impower them to contraveen express Lawes and Acts of Parliament and not only to disobey the Injunctions of Parliament but in plaine termes to counteract and counterwork the Established and Ratified Lawes and so to render them null and of no effect Whence we see that there was a necessity for the Parliament An. 1669. to do something that might secure the Lives and Honours of the members of Councel in point of law in granting of that Indulgence which was so expresly against law and which the two Arch-Prelates members of Councel would never give their assent unto as knowing how it intrenched upon the power granted to them and the other Prelates confirmed by Law and so was a manifest rescinding of these Acts and Lawes And though this might have been done by a plaine and simple Act approving and ratifying what the Councel had done in compliance with his Maj Royal Pleasure and authorizing them in time coming to pursue the ends of the same Letter further with a non obstante of all Acts formerly made in favoures of Prelates and Prelacie Yet it is probable they made choise of this way of explaining by a formal and full Statute and Act of Parliament the Supremacie in these plaine full and ample termes wherein we now have it that thereby they might not only secure the Councel but also make the Kings sole Letter to the Councel in all time coming a valid ground in Law whereupon the Councel might proceed and enact and execute what the King pleased in matters Ecclesiastick how intrinsecally and purely such soever without so much as owning the corrupt Ecclesiastick medium or channel of Prelacy And withal it might have been thought that such an act so necessary for the legal preservation of the Indulgers and consequently of the Indulged in the enjoyment of the Indulgence would go sweetly down with all the Indulged and such as gaped for the like favour howbeit so framed as that it was not very pleasant at the first tasting For it cannot be rationally supposed that such as are pleased with their warme dwellings will cast out with the walles roof of the dwelling without which they would enjoy no more warmness than if they were lodging beside the heth in the wilderness And who could think that any indulged man could be dissatisfied with that which was all and only their legal security and without which they were liable to be punished as seditious persons and as contemners of Authority even for preaching by vertue of the Indulgence according to Lawes standing in force unrepealed Whence also we see what a faire way was made unto this Act of Supremacy by the Indulgence and how the Indulgence is so far beholden unto this Act that it can not stand without it nor the persons Indulged be preserved from the lash of the Law notwithstanding of all that was done by the Councel And thus these two are as twines which must die and live together for take away the Act of Supremacy and the Indulgence is but a dead illegal thing We may also see what to judge of this illegal and illegitimat birth that cannot breathe or live where Law reigneth without the swedling clothes of such a Supremacy nor can stand but
as upheld by such an Anti-christian Pillar We may also see here that the very embraceing of the Indulgence was upon the matter a recognition of this Power in the King to do in and by his Privy Councel in Church-matters what he pleased even though contrary to antecedent Acts of Parliament and that such as are so satisfied with the effect to wit the Indulgence cannot but comply with the cause to wit the Supremacy as asserted in this Act as the man that hath a complacencie in drinking of the streames cannot be displeased with but delight in the fountaine from whence they proceed If any of these Brethren had received the same Indulgence from the Prelates immediatly had they not thereby complyed with the Prelates homologated their Power and plainely assented and submitted thereunto Yea had they not in this assented also mediatly unto the Supremacy seing all the Prelats Power did flow from the Supremacie And shall they not now much more be looked on as homologating the Supremacie and as assenting thereto when they receive the Indulgence that immediatly floweth therefrom and must be vindicated and defended solely by the asserting thereof How is it imaginable that I can receive a favour and not homologate assent to and acquiesce in that Power that gave it when the asserting of that Power is the only mean to keep me in legal possession of the favour received But now for further confirmation of what is said let us take a view of the Act of Supremacy it self and there see a ground laid of sufficient warrādice for the Council in what they did in granting the Indulgence and also be able to read the Indulgence it self out of the Supremacie as here asserted and for this end it will be sufficient for us to take notice only of the last words thereof where it is said And that his Maj. and his Successours may Settle Enact and Emit such Constitutions Acts and Orders concerning the administration of the external Government of the Church and the Persons imployed in the same and concerning all Ecclesiastical Meetings and Maters to be proposed and determined therein as they in their Royal wisdom shall think fit which Acts Orders and Constitutions being recorded in the books of Councel and duly published are to be observed and obeyed by all his Maj. Subjects Before this time as we heard all Acts Orders and Constitutions concerning Church-affairs Church-meetings and Church-administrations were to be put in execution by the Prelates impowered by the Supremacie unto this end And what was lately done in the matter of the Indulgence was done by the Councel and not by the Prelates and therefore contrary to law whereupon that this deed may be valide in law it is here asserted that the King by vertue of his Supremacie may Emit what Acts Orders and Constitutions he in his royal wisdome thinketh fit and after what manner he pleaseth and so if he will may order and dispose of all Church-administrations Ecclesiastick Persons Church-meetings and matters by himself immediatly or by his Councel yea or by his lackeys so that if the Lawes Constitutions Acts and Orders concerning these Matters Meetings Persons and Administrations be signified to the Councel by Letter or any other way and be recorded in their books and duely published which they must doe whensoever required they must be obeyed and observed by all Subjects Now this power being asserted to belong to his Maj. as an inherent right of the crown no deed of gift formerly granted to the Prelats could weaken or diminish it and therefore nothing done of late by the Councel in granting of the Indulgence according to his Maj. will and pleasure signified by his Letter Iuny 7. 1669. can prove prejudicial unto the said PrivieCouncel they doing nothing but what was consonant unto the Kings Supremacie here more clearly asserted and not granted of new save in the forme of a formal Statute and law asserting the same Yet notwithstanding for the more security for abundance of Law breaks no Law it is added in the Act. as we see Any Law Act or Custom to the contrary notwithstanding And moreover they rescind and annul all Lawes Acts and Clauses thereof and all customs and constitutions Civil or Ecclesiastick which are contrary to and inconsistent with his Maj. Supremacie as it is hereby asserted and declare the same void and null in all time coming According to the usual course and manner As to the other particular we may see the native feature and lineaments of the Indulgence in the face of the Supremacie so manifestly that none who see the one needs question the intimate Relation that is betwixt them We see it now asserted as belonging to his Maj. Supremacy in Church-affairs tha◠he may Settle Enact and Emit what Acts Constitutions and Orders he thinketh good whether concerning Church-Administrations or Church-meetings or Church-matters or Church-Officers and that there needeth no more to make these Lawes to be obeyed and observed by all the Subjects but the recording of them in the books of the Councel and duely publishing of them Now as we saw above in the Kings Letter concerning this Indulgence there areConstitutions Acts and Orders emitted and setled concerning Church-administrations shewing what shall not be preached under the paine ofCensure whoseChildren may be baptized whose not who may be admitted to hear the word and who not Concerning Church-persons who shall be accounted qualified for preaching who not who shall be accounted fit for the charge of such a flock and who for the charge of another Such and such Ministers are ordained to go to such or such Congregations not by vertue of a Call of the people but meerly by vertue of the Councels designation Concerning Church-meetings They are appointed to keep Diocesian Visitations or Synods and to resort to Prelats Exercises though the Prelates look not on them as sutable company So it is ordained whom they are to marry and whom not In a word let any but compare the Kings Letter with this part of the Act of Supremacie and he shall be forced to say that the Letter is nothing but the Supremacie exemplified and put in practice Hence it is manifest that no man can submit to and accept of the Indulgence but he must eo ipso submit to accept of such Constitutions Acts and Orders as did constitute qualifie and limite the same for the Effect includeth the Causes Constituent and Discriminating And again no man can submit to and accept of Constitutions Acts and Orders flowing from a power but they must eo ipso recognosce that Power to be properly residing in the person giving forth these Acts and Orders or grant that he is vested with that power and seing it is plaine from the Act of Supremacie it self that such Constitutions Acts and Orders so given in Church-matters and about Church Persons as these were whereby the Indulgence was midwif'd into the world do flow from the Supremacie it is also manifest that no
Ministers Person as his Hat Books and Cloathes and the like The Latter as they partake more of the Nature of Ecclesiastical Rules being more formally and more neerly related unto the exercise of the Ministrie but yet only in so far as they belong to publick Actions so it is a question if Magistrates may either solely or in Prima Instantia prescribe such Rules unto Ministers However this being at best but dubious and the other so clearly Political and it being to me at least very uncertaine what Rules these are which may be called Externally and Materially Ecclesiastical c. I could have wished that some Instances hereof had been given that so not only it might have been known what Rules were not Formally and Intrinsecally Ecclesiastick but also it might have been better understood what Ecclesiastical Rules were Formally and Intrinsecally such 2. The other part of the discourse concerning the Magistrats power objectively Ecclesiastical is as useless for any thing I can perceive either for clearing of Mr B. or of his discourse for 1. There was nothing in Mr B's discourse giving the least hint of his denying that power to the Magistrate which all Orthodox Anti-Erastian Divines grant For the denying to the Magistrate a power of giving Instructions for regulating of Ministers in the exercise of their Ministrie hath no affinitie with this as all know who know any thing of these Controversies Nor 2. doth this piece of the discourse in any manner of way clear in what sense Magistrates may give Instructions to Ministers to regulate them in the exercise of their Ministrie and Ministers may receive them and in what sense not These two questions are so far distinct that I cannot imagine to what purpose this discourse was brought in or what it was that gave the least occasion thereunto But as to this maine Business I would further enquire whether the Brethren do judge the matter of giving these Instructions about which the debate did arise did belong to the first part of the discourse and so to be Intrinsecally Formally Ecclesiastical or to the later part and so belong to that power of the Magistrate which is Objectively Ecclesiastical whereby they judge of the matters of Religion in order to their own Act whether they will Approve or Discountenance such a way This question must be judged necessary unless that whole discourse be accounted Unnecessary and Impertinent If the former be said then why was any troubled at Mr B 's refusing to receive these Instructions Why were not those condemned who had received them Why did not such as had received them cast them back againe How came it that all of them did not unanimously agree in this Testimonie Or how came it that their Common Mouth did not speak what was the Common opinion of all Why was it not more distinctly and in fewer words said That they could not receive these Instructions as being Rules Intrinsecally and Formally Ecclesiastical regulating them who were the servants of Christ in these matters If the Latter be said Then was not only Mr B 's both Practice and Discourse condemned but the whole cause was basely betrayed because under the pretext of the Magistrates power Objectively Ecclesiastical that which is as Intrinsecally and Formally Ecclesiastical as many other at least are was granted to the Magistrate Will the Magistrat's power to act as a Man and not as a Brute in his Magistratical work about an Ecclesiastical Object that is his power to judge by the judgment of discretion which is Common to all the members of the Church yea to all men as Men which Papists deny unto Magistrates allowing them only to see with the Churches eyes but Protestants grant unto them Will I say this power warrand him to give Instructions and set down Rules for regulating the exercise of the Ministrie Yea or will his Authoritative Judgment in matters of Religion that is his sentence of Approving or not Approving of Tolerating or not Tolerating in his Dominions of Countenancing or not Countenancing by his civil Lawes such a Way or Profession of Religion warrand him also to set Rules to the very exercise of the Ministrie By what argument shall this consequence be proved seing 1. In the one case he judgeth of Religion only in order to his own Act but when he prescribeth Instructions Rules and Orders he judgeth of Religion or of that part of Religion concerning which the Instructions are in order to it self and the Intrinsick manner of its Administration 2. In the one his judgment is purely Political and Civil in the other case it is really Ecclesiastical 3 In the one case his judgment is Objectively onely to be called or accounted Ecclesiastical but in the other it is Formally Elecitely Ecclesiastical 4. In the one case he acteth as a Magistrate considering the outward Good Quiet and Advantage of the Commonwealth In the other he acteth as a Church-Officer or Head considering the Intrinsick Nature Spiritual Ends of that part of Religion 5. In the one he acteth in subordination to God as Supream Governour of the World but in the other he acteth as in a right line of subordination to Christ the Supream Head and Governour of his Church and Institutor of all the Administrations and Ordinances dispensed in the Church and sole Appointer of the Qualifications of the Officers and Rules of Administration Or rather if he act as a Magistrate in this last he Acts by an Architectonical power and so as an Usurper or by a power which is only proper to Christ or if he be said to Act ministerially than also as an Usurper because never impowered thereunto by Christ the Supream King and Head of the Church If we look upon this discourse of Mr. H. as a Testimonie and so it may be it was intended or as a Declaration of the Judgement of the Ministers concerning the Magistrat's jus or Right to impose Instructions or Rules on Ministers for regulating them in the exercise of their Ministrie and concerning Ministers their call and warrant to receive or refuse such Instructions I cannot but observe 1. That it is very defective and short of a faire and full Testimonie against the Practice of such who were known to have invaded the Rights of the Church yea and the Prerogatives of Christ as sole Head and King of his Church and in prosecution of this designe of invading the same more to have devised this medium of the Indulgence 2. That it is not a plaine and full Testimonie against the present Act of Usurpation whereby a power was assumed to judge in matters Ecclesiastical Intrinsecally and Formally such Yea and to performe Elicite and Formal Church-Acts either Ministerially as Ministers of Christ clothed with Ministerial Church-power from him which cannot be Instructed nor doth it compete to a Magistrat acting as such or rather Magisterially as Supream Governours in the Church and Appointers of Qualifications Rules and Manner of Administration of
Spiritual Institutions 3. That it was not a full and plaine Vindication of the Doctrine of the Church of Scotland Nor an Assertion thereof according to former Vowes Covenants and Solemne Engagments 4. That it was not candide and ingenuous nor pertinent to the purpose in hand as it should have been by holding forth the Iniquity of such Impositions 5. That it was conceived in such General and Scholastick termes that neither they to whom it was spoken could well understand what was the drift thereof nor others conceive what was yeelded or denied in the then present case yea did not some of the Council say plainly they did not understand it 6. That it contained desingenuous Insinuations and unfaire Reflections on honest and worthy Mr A. B. and a tacite Condemning at least in part of his Plaine and Honest Testimony as if it had contained something either as to the matter or expression unjustifiable or at least liable to exceptions 7. That it contained at least as worded a designe too obvious of humoring and pleasing the Magistrates while actually stated in and prosecuting an opposition to Christs Supremacie and to the Right and Power granted to the Church-Office-Bearers 8. That as it speaketh not home to the point so it is not clear in it self opposing unto Giving and Imposing of Rules Intrinsecally and Formally Ecclesiastical a power only Objectively Ecclesiastical whereby the Magistrate judgeth of the matters of Religion in order to his own Act of approving or disapproving of such a way and nothing else And so either accounting all things to be Rules Intrinsecally and Formally Ecclesiastical which is not a meer judging in order to the Magistrates own Act or on the other hand accounting all things in and about Religion to belong to that power which is Objectively only Ecclesiastical and so to be no less competent to the Magistrate than is that Judgment of discretion whereby he judgeth in reference to his own act of Countenancing or Discountenancing such a way which are not real prescribing of Rules Intrinsecally and Formally Ecclesiastical And thus either giving the Magistrate too little or else too much He tels us of another that spoke before it came to Mr H's turn and that this Person told He could not receive Ecclesiastical Canones from their L L. but as for civil significations of their pleasure under the hazard of civil penalties he could say nothing to that that another did homologate this speech But under favoure this is secundum artem violatilizare densa densare volatilia a pretty whim wham good for nothing On a serious solid zealous Minister should have been ashamed to have substitute such Whity Whaties in the place of a plain Testimony clearly called for in the case But these two Persons not onely brake their own Order and might have occasioned some Consternation to the rest as well as Mr B 's speaking did but also spoke indeed nothing to the purpose and might as well have been silent For 1. By this Distinction little better than a mental reservation they might have scrupled at nothing that theMagistrate might attempt to prescribe in Church-Matters no nor at his giving Rules Intrinsecally and Formally Ecclesiastical for these might also passe under the Notion of Civil Significations of their pleasure c. and thus contradict Mr H. their Common Mouth and the Paper also to which they had unanimously agreed For can they say that the Magistrate giveth or can give a Civll Signification of his will onely when he judgeth in order to his own Act of Approving or Disapproving such a way and so exerteth that Power of his which is only Objectivly Ecclesiastical and not also in many other Acts meerly Ecclesiastical even Formally and Intrinsecally Or can they say that all the Intrinsecalness and Formality in Matters Ecclesiastical consisteth in their being done by Church-Officers acting in a Church-Judicatory and that â—here is no Act which in it self can be called Intrinsecally and Formally Ecclesiastical but that the sole ground of that Denomination is their being performed by Men in Church-office and so the very Act of Preaching and of Administrating of Sacraments might be done by the Magistrate as Civil Significations of his pleasure being not Intrinsecally and Formally Ecclesiastick but when done by Church-Oâ—ficers And thus all the Ecclesiastickness of Actions which are Intrinsecally and Formally such floweth from and dependeth upon the Ecclesiasticalness of the Agents Whence it will follow that all which such Ecclesiastical Persons do must be Intrinsecally and Formally Ecclesiastick and so their judging Civil matters condemning Malefactors c. not to speak of other actions should be actions Formally and Intrinsecally Ecclesiastical Ergo it is competent only to Church-Officers And on the contrary this should be a good Argument This man is an Ecclesiastick Person therefore the Action which he doth must be Formally and Intrinsecally Ecclesiastick And as by this meanes there should be no Cause or Action Formally and Intrinsecally Ecclesiastical in it self so there should be no Cause or Action Intrinsecally and Formally Civil in it self but that onely which is done by the Civil Magistrate And this consequence were good This is done by a Civil Magistrate Ergo it is Formally and Intrinsecally Civil and this should be a bad consequence This is an action Formally and Intrinsecally Civil Ergo it is to be done by the Civil Magistrate onely 2. This answere of these two Brethren must either Homologate what Mr H. said or be dissonant therefrom If Dissonant then they did not keep to the Paper which they had owned as Mr H. did Then also Mr H. in his discourse spoke not truth for I suppose these two will think they spoke right and then either the Paper that was agreed on was not right or Mr H. spoke not according to it for I also suppose that these two will say they spoke nothing disagreeing with their Paper If their answere did Homologate Mr. H's discourse then what necessitie was there for it And why used they other expressions if they had a mind to speak And it would seem that all that Mr H. said was this and no more Mr B. and we must be excused if we look not upon the Council as a Church-Judicatory making Ecclesiastical Canons but only as a Civil Court emitting Civil significations of their pleasure under the hazard of Civil penalties 3. This answer seemeth to me a more plaine giving up of the Cause than all which Mr H. said for it is no other in effect than this Let the Magistrates enjoine what they please we need not scruple upon the account of any encroachment made upon the Prerogatives of Christ or Privileges of his Church for this distinction will salve all Let us receive all not as Ecclesiastical Canons but as Civil significations of their pleasure c. and so there is no danger though they should use both a Dogmatick Critick and Diatactick power determine Controversies of faith Appoint Rules of Ordination
Condemne Hereticks Debarre from the Sacraments and Admit thereto by their sentence judge of Church-members or determine who should be admitted as such and who not In a word do all which Church-Judicatories do This distinction will make all go down 4. By parity of Reason if these Brethren were before a Church-Judicatory medling with all Civil affairs determining Civil pleas giving-out civil Injunctions Lawes and Rules c. they might and ought as willingly submit and salve all with this distinction saying We cannot receive Civil Lawes from you but as for Ecclesiastical significaâ—ions of your pleasure under hazard of Church-censures we can say nothing to that And thus they would sweetly comply with all the Invasions made upon and Usurpations of the Civil power whereof the Popes Conclave and other Popish and Prelatical Courts are justly accounted guilty without scruple Now at length it came to Mr H's turn who as our Informer saith received not these Instructions publickly as having seen them before Let us hear what he said He tels us that he resumed what he had said formerly concerning a Formal Ecclesiastical Power which could not be allowed to the Magistrat and a Power Objectivly Ecclesiastical which was allowed to him Intimating with all that the Brethren would either observe or not observe their Directions according as they judged of them in their Consciences upon their peril On what was here resumed I have given mine Observations before and shall onely adde That this Formal Ecclesiastick Power must pointe forth a Power in it self such and therefore so called and not so denominated meerly because it is exerted by Church-men as the two Brethren fore mentioned hinted in their Answer and Distinction otherwise his Distinction should have run thus betwixt a Power Subjectivly Ecclesiastical and Objectivly Ecclesiastical But this would confound all Causes and all Power and would bring all Civil Causes objectivly under the Power of the Church and all church-Church-Causes objectivly under the Power of the Magistrate Yea and make all Things and Actions done by the Civil Magistrate though otherwise but Objectivly Ecclesiastical to be Formally Civil and on the other hand make all Actions done by Church-men though otherwise but Objectivly Civil to be Formally Ecclesiastick As to the Latter Part of this speech I judge the same might have been said had been before the Church-Judicatory receiving the same or the like Instructions And was this all Was there no more requisite in this case Is it all one thing at whose hands Ministers receive Directions Rules Restrictions and Injunctions or the like to regulate them in the exercise of their Ministrie whether at the hands of the Pope of a Prelate of the Magistrate or of a Church-Judicatorie providing they be such as may be observed or otherwise to take their hazard I suppose our Fore-fathers would have said something else And I trow Civil Magistrates if called before the Prelates Courts to receive Injunctions or Rules to regulate them in the exercise of their Office would say some other thing than that they would observe or not observe these Directions according as they judged of them in their Consciences upon their peril And if they would have stood to their Rights as is to be supposed the greater fault it is for Ministers to quite the Rights of the Church so easily wherein the Glory of their Master doth so much consist Yea moreover this superadded Insinuation makes me suspect the fore-mentioned Distinction the more For had that Distinction been honestly proposed and intended this superadded clause had been utterly needless Upon this as we are told by our Informer followed my L. Chanc. Answer which was this That the King gave them these Instructions by his Council and if they did not observe them the Council would punish them By which we see that these Instructions were giâ—â—â— by an Autocratorick power by the Magistrate as such and consequently being in Church-matters Intrinsecally and Formally such by an Usurped power We see next that the commanding of the observation of these Instructions cometh from the Magistrate in prima Instantia and so are not Civil Sanctions and Confirmations of Injunctions ministerially proposed by Church-Officers upon both which grounds I conceive Mr H. had a faire occasion to have vindicated both the Prerogatives of Christ the sole Head of the Church and the Privileges of the Church bestowed on her by Christ her King and Lord Yet we finde that all the reply which he made was this That for the matter of Civil punishments they had never denied the Magistrates right in them And that he took notice from that Answere that their L L. acted in a Civil way onely competent to them in their dealing with Ministers which they could not decline hoping their L L. designed not to stretch their power beyond their Civil line Which reply in my judgment was neither Pertinent nor Sufficient Not Pertinent because the question was never moved concerning Magistrates executing civil punishments but concerning their power of Imposing Injunctions and Rules to regulate Ministers in the exercise of their Ministrie which the L. Chanc. owned and avouched in his Answere little regarding Mr H's distinction betwixt a Formally Ecclesiastick power and power Objectively Ecclesiastical Not Sufficient because the maine business was unhandsomly waved Nay moreover this Reply was an yeelding of the whole cause and a granting that Magistrates might meddle with any Church power and enjoyne what they pleased providing they punished only civilly such as transgressed Hence they might ordaine a Minister and command him to preach to such a people that would not call him and depose another and discharge him to preach any more as a Minister or Administer Sacraments under a Civil penalty So under a Civil penalty they might prescribe the matter of preachings decide Controversies of Faith and appeals in Church-maters c. Yea in a word meddle with the most Intrinsick and Formal Church-matters Finally I do not see what ground my L. Chanc. gave yea or occasion to make this Reply for though his L. said the Council would punish yet the said not the Council would punish civilly onely No his expression might comprehend Ecclesiastical Punishments also conforme to the power granted to them by the Kings Letter After a great deal of Discourse spent upon personal reflections and vindications with which the cause is not much concerned and therefore the less to be noticed by me our Informer cometh in end to vindicat Mr H's speech which as it would appear had given no small offence and he tels us that in it we may perceive an Assertion of an Ecclesiastical power to make Rules for regulating Ministers which was not yeelded to the Magistrate with a concession of his power Objectively Ecclesiastical And a declaration of their receiving Papers of them under that notion did not oblige them to observe these directions but they were to act therein upon their peril We heard indeed of Rules Intrinsecally and afterward Formally
from the Exercise thereof Let the Second Book of Discipline be viewed Let the CXI Propositions be considered Let the Propositions for Government be looked upon Let our first or Second Confession of faith or the late Confession drawn up at West-Minster be pondered Let the writtings of our worthies Mr Rutherfoord and Mr. Gillispy be read Yea let all our publick proceedings and the whole tenor of the pubâ—ick actings of our Church be remembered and it will be seen that the granting of this unto the Magistrate is point-blank contrary unto all these Yea to all the writtings of the Orthodox Anti-Arminian Anti-Erastian Divines But I know it will be said That the Receivers of the Indulgence cannot helpe what the Magistrate saith they know what themselves think and as they did not look upon themselves as deposed when banished from their own Parishes as appeared by their preaching else where after that sentence so they grant no such power now unto the Magistrate Yea when some of the Indulged were some yeers thereafter called before the Councel it was said roundly by their Mouth That they had received their Ministrie from Iesus Christ. But I answere 1. Though the Indulged could not cause the Magistrate speak otherwise than he would yet they were Masters of themselves and of their own actions and they had liberty to do and speak that which before the world might testifie and declare that they did not assent unto that assuming of Church power but on the contrary did dissent there from and protest against it as a sinful Usurpation and Incroachment What publick Protestation was I pray given in against this first or last What Plaine and Positive Testimonie was borne unto the Doctrine Practice of our Church in this point which many of our forebearers did owne unto Banishment and Bloud 2. As for that which was said by the mouth of some of them of which more afterward it was but a poor salvo in the case becâ—use no man breathing neither Magistrate nor Church-Judicatory can properly give the Ministerie that being proper to Christ Jesus alone Men only can Instrumentally and Ministerially convey apply the power which is of Christ unto such or such a Person now I suppose these Brethren who spoke so by their mouth did not think or meane that they had their Ministrie from Christ immediatly without the intervention of an instrumental and ministerial cause So that notwithstanding of this by their practice they might and did declare that the Civil Magistrat was the Instrumental and Ministerial cause lawfully Authorized to repone them to their Ministrie that is that all that power of Deposeing Reponing of Ministers which by our Reformed Doctrine Discipline and Practice hath been asserted to agree only to Church-Officers and Church-Judicatories is competent to the Civil Magistrate as such 3. Further it may be noticed that a Minister once deposed or suspended and now reponed by a lawful Presbytery might say the same to wit That he receiveth his Ministrie from Iesus Christ with full Prescriptions from him c. Without the least questioning of the lawful Ministerial and Instrumental power of the Presbyterie in that affaire So that it is manifest that this could not salve them from a real acknowledging the Council upon the matter to have the Ministerial power of Deposing and Reponing of Ministers and that de jure 4. Itis true theiâ— preaching else where after their Banishment from their own Congregations will say that in so far they did not acknowledge themselves deposed from the function yet it will not help much for their by past faithful deportment will not lessen their fainte at this time but rather aggravat their cedeing or their silence at the accepting of this Indulgence springing forth of such a fountaine Their by past honest carriage I speak here upon supposition that they did sedulously preach elsewhere when thrust from their own Charges though I apprehend it will be found true but of a few of them should have prompted them now to a plaine declaration of their adherence to their former Principles and of their abhorrence of such gross and Palpable Invasions upon and Usurpation of the power which Christ hath granted only to his Church 2. We may remarke that it is said We are graciously pleased to authorize you our Privie Councel N.B. to appoint so many of them c. and againe as you shall approve of Whence it is obvious 1. That all the power which the Privie Councel had was from the King and consequently that they go no greater length than the Kings Letter did allow and that their Actings could not justle with or cross the Scope Intent and Designe of his Maj. Letter but fully comply therewith in all points and in all its Designes So that when any doubt ariseth anent what the Councel did we must for obtaining of Satisfaction and Clearness have our recourse to this primum mobile the Spring and Principle of this Motion and the Ground and Basis of the Councels Actings Yea we must interpret the Actings and Deed of the Councel by this Letter which was their Cynosure by which they were to direct their course and their Rule and Ground of Acting 2. Itis obvious allo that That power which they are authorized to exercise is a Power to appoint such and such Persons as they think meet and shall approve of to go to such and such places It was not then a Command given or a power granted to recal the Act of Glasgow whereby the Ministers were banished from their Charges but a power to meddle with pure Church-matters and that immediatly that is to judge and cognosce of the Qualifications of Ministers and so to approve or not approve of them and a poweâ— of installing such as they approved of in such places as they shall think meet and none else These things are plaine And it is manifest that there is herein a Plaine Clear Palpable and Gross Incroachment on the Liberties of the Church and on the Power granted to her of the Lord Christ Jesus as no man will deny who is not a stranger to the Word of God and to the Principles of Presbyterian Government and to all the Acts and Actings of our Church from the very first Reformation from Popery Wherefore seing it is known that in this case qui tacet consentire videtur he who is silent is construed to consent And it hath been alwayes accounted in our Church and is so also by the Word of God a sinful compliance with a wicked course not to give faithful free and timeous Testimonie against the same it is undeniable that these indulged Persons accepting this Indulgence conveyed through such a channel flowing from sucha fountaine as is already shown have not only fainted as to their duty but are interpretatively assenters unto this Usurpation 3. The Qualification of those who are to be restored to the Ministrie is here also to be remarked in those Words So many
9. Doth it not hence appear that this was a manifest Usurpation of the Power and Privilege of the Church And what can the silence of such as were indulged as to this when they accepted of the Indulgence from such as were in the very giving thereof openly and avowedly declaring this their Usurpation and Incroachment say before the world but that they acquiesced thereunto This matter was not hid under ground It was plaine enough to all who would not put out their owne eyes that the King was assuming to himself Church-power and was robbing the Church of her Privileges and to make way for the full accomplishment thereof did here command and authorize his Councel to appoint such and such Ministers so and so qualified to such and such places as they thought good with this manifest certificate that they must expect no Church-censures to be inflicted on them for any crime or misdemanour they shall be charged with and be found guilty of but by the Civil Magistrates immediatly not Causatively that is causing Church-Judicatories do it but doing it immediatly themselves Who then can justifie them and their practice in accepting so thankfully as they did that Indulgence without the least word of a Testimonie against all these open and manifest Incroachments and that at such time when the designe of tyrannizing over the Church in an Erastian way was so palpable and might be seen and known of all who would but open their eyes But there is another thing which here occurreth We see here that these Indulged Persons are standing immediatly under the Censure of the Civil Magistrate not only for transgressing of the Orders and Instructions given but also as must necessarily follow for any other failing and transgression not specified as for example for Fornication Sabbath-breaking and other Sins and Scandals deserving Deposition or Suspension For put the case that some of them which yet I have no cause to fear should commit any such scandal as did deâ—erve or were usually punished by Suspension or Deposition who shall inflict this Censure upon them but the Councel There is no Church-Judicatorie having power over them for that effect and they are not under the Prelates And we cannot think that they may commit such crimes and continue in the Ministrie Nor may we suppose that they will suspend or depose themselves 8. Moreover we must remark here that the Councel is to take notice of their speeches in pulpit who are induâ—ged and to punish them yea to turne them out immediatly if they be found to have uttered any sedicious Discourse By which we see that the Councel is made the immediat formal judge of Ministers Doctrine for under the pretext of sedicious Doctrine they may judge and condemne the most innocent and orthodox truthes No Anti-Erastian Divine will grant this unto the Civil Magistrate And though it be true that the Civil Magistrat can only and properly judge of what is truely sedicious and can only civilly punish for such crimes Yet our Divines never granted that the Magistrate might in prima Instantia examine and judge of Ministers Doctrine when alleiged to be sedicious or treasonable Nor did our Church in her pure times ever yeeld to this Our Church-Historie tels us that Mr. Andrew Melvine that faithful and zealous Servant of Christ would not answer before the King and the Councel for his alleiged treasonable discourse in Sermon until he had first given-in a plaine and formal Protestation and the like was done by worthy Mr David Black upon the like occasion and the Protestation was approven and signed by a good part of the Church of Scotland 1596. And we know also upon what ground it was that that famous late Martyr for the Liberties of the Church Mr Iames Guthrie was questioned and put to suffer Now where was there any thing spoken by the Indulged to bear witness to their adhering to the Church of Scotland in this point of truth What was said that might declare their dissent from this piece of Encroachment Was not their silence here and accepting of the Indulgence in the manner as it was accepted without any publick Testimonie for the Church of Scotland and her Liberties a Declaration that they were willing that all their Doctrine should be immediatly and in prima instantia judged and examined by the Councel and consequently that our Predecessours in offering Protestations in this case were to be condemned and that Mr Guthrie died as a fool 9. We may remark a snare laid in the Letter to catch moe for it is appointed that such of the outted Ministers who have lived peacably and orderly here is a DiscriminatioÌ„ made no less scandalous to the commended than dangerous to the rest and are not reentered or preseÌ„ted as aforesaid shall have allowed to them foure hundereth merks scots yeerly c. And that such as will give assurance to live so for the futureÌ„ be allowed the said yeerly maintainance Seing it is not unknown what is properly here understood by living peacably and orderly any may see what a snare is laid here to catch others But some will say what is that to the Indulged I think it speaketh very much to them for had they not accepted of this Indulgence that temptatioÌ„ had been removed from the door of others who now seeing them without any scruple accepting of the Indulgence offered and granted unto them in special only upon the account and in consideration of their being peacable and orderly livers are emboldeÌ„ed to take that gracious gift and accept of that Princely benevolence upon the same account and gape for a greater morsel Viz. a Vacancie And will not others who are not fast rooted be ready to engage and give-in security that they may also taste of the Kings graâ—uity and so sell their conscieÌ„ce and fidelity at as good a price as they can And if it fall out otherwise as I wish and hope it shall that none shall accept of those baits under which the hook is so conspicuous yet no thanks to the Indulged who have so fairly broken the ice for them I know a scandal may be given when not taken and such as give the scandal are guilty before God of destroying those for whom Christ died Rom. 14 15. And that word of our Saviour Mat. 18 6. Luk. 17 1 2. Mark 9 42. is very dreadful But who so shall offendone of these little ones which beleeve in me it were better for him that a mils one were hanged about his neck and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea I know they will say They are far from this hazard having done nothing but what is duâ—y and necessary duty But though I grant it an indispensible duty for Ministers to preach the Gospel and to be instant in season and out of season yet they might have preached without the Indulgence as others did and yet do and the accepting of the Indulgence was not the only necessary opening of a
Ministrie as also with power to Place and Displace Plant and Transplant Ministers without regarde had either to the previous Call of the People or to the Mission of any Church Judicatory and of subjecting of the Exercise of the Ministrie wholly unto their will and pleasure not to mentione the severity breathed out in that Letter against the Assemblings of the Lord's people 6. It is manifest from what is already marked that the Indulged Brethren did owne that Letter of the Kings as the onely rise and fountaine of the favour which they were made partakers of and therefore did not take the Indulgence onely from the Councel but from the King principally as the onely spring thereof conveying the same to them through the channel and medium of the Councel who did nothing but by vertue of that Letter and in obedience thereunto Whence we see that there is no ground to abstract the stream from the fountaine or to think that these Ministers could imagine that they were onely to notice what the Councel did and no more for as they neither did this so it were unreasonable to think they could do so 7. They acknowledged here that as to the liberty of the publick exercise of their Ministrie they were onely beholden unto this Indulgence for for this cause they give thanks And thus did tacitely grant that there ought to be no publick Exercise of the Ministrie without liberty granted from the Magistrate whereby they not onely condemned all these faithful Ministers who ventured without that liberty granted to preach publickly where occasion offered in houses or in the fields but they likewise condemned Christ and his Apostles the greatest of Conventicle-keepers So like-wise they do tacitely here grant that when the Magistrate prohibiteth the publick Exercise of the Ministery for longer or shorter time he must not be disobeyed whereby the Magistrate hath the power yeelded to him of Suspending and Deposeing Ministers from the exercise of their function It is true Magistrates can hinder the peacable publick exercise or free publick exercise by outward force and constraint but they speak not here of the freedome of peacable publick exercise but simplie of the freedome of publick exercise of the Ministrie Our own Church-history tels us how famous Mr. Bruce was cast in a fever through terrour of conscience for promising silence but for ten dayes though in hopes of greater liberty 8. It is observable here how thankful they are for partaking alone as chosen out from their Brethren of this favour whileas this very act of separating them from their Brethren should have been a sufficient ground for them to have rejected the tendered supposed favour seeing by the accepting thereof in this separated way they suffered themselves to be divided from their Brethren contrarie to their sworn Covenants not to speak of the stigma they received thereby 9. They say That they received their Ministrie from Iesus Christ. But why was it not said as some of them if I be not misinformed desired onely from I. C When this was designedly and deliberatly left out let all the world judge whether in this they carried as faithful Ministers of the Gospel or not for my part I cannot but judge that this was a manifest betraying of the cause and a giving up of all to the Magistrate for hereby they declared that in their judgements either they had their Ministrie from others as well as from Christ that is from the Magistrate as well as from Christ and that in a co-equality and co-ordination or else that they had it not from Christ immediatly but from men from the Magistrates in subordination to Christ. Now neither of these can assort with truth and with our Principles Not the former for then Christ should not be sole King but halfe and the Magistrate should have the halfe of Christs Thron Crown Scepter and Glory which were blasphemy to think Not the latter for Magistracy is not subordinat in a direct line unto Christ as Mediator nor hath Christ substitute the Magistrat as his Vicar nor hath he given to him as such a ministerial power under him to convey ministerially in respect of the Subjects or with a ministerial Authority as his Servants what power of Mission he giveth to his Ministers Magistrates as such act not ministerially or with a ministerial Authority in reference to their Subjects but with a Coactive Autocratorical and Architectonick Power and Authority If it be said that they reserved only to the Magistrate hereby the power to grant the liberty of the free exercise but they meant that they received the Ministrie it self from Jesus Christ alone I answere had they spoken so we might then have understood them so But though they had said so the cause had been betrayed for if they have their Ministrie from Christ alone they must also have the free exercise of the same from him If Christ give the Office he giveth the power to exercise the Office And if they depend upon others in reference to the Exercise they in so far rob Christ of what is his due hold that of men which they should hold of Christ alone No man needs to say here that by this means we take away the Power of Church-Judicatories by whom Ministers receive both the Office and the Power of its exercise For what Church-Judicatories do herein they do ministerially under Christ and Christ by them conveyeth the Office to such and such a Person and with the Office a power to exercise it according to the Rules of the Gospel and notwithstanding of this these Officers may and must say that they receive their Ministrie onely from Christ Jesus But this cannot be said if the Magistrate be substitute in the place of Church-Officers either in reference to the Office it self or in reference to its free Exercise because no Magistrate as such as is said acteth with a Ministerial Power under Christ in a right line of subordination And therefore when they keeped out the word onely they did plainely declare that they held the Ministrie partly of the Magistrate If it be said that they would hereby onely have reserved to the Magistrat power to grant the Peacable Publick Exercise of the Ministrie I would answere that though they had meaned thus yet they might safely and should have said that they received their Ministrie only from Christ for I cannot be said to receive my Ministrie from every one who can hinder my peacable publick exercise thereof otherwayes I must be said to receive it in part from Satan and his Instruments who can hinder my peacable publick exercise thereof So that use what devices men can to cover this matter a manifest betraying of the cause will break thorow and a receding from received and sworn Principles will be visible 10. They said They had full prescriptions from Iesus Christ to regulat them in their Ministrie Who then can justifie them in receiving other Prescriptions from the Magistrate and such
be said Then quo jure By what Law can the Church be robbed of this Power And by what right can the judgement of this matter be committed in prima inflantia at the very first unto the Magistrat or rather wholly and solely unto him For thus the Ministers are altogether excluded when it is said that the Magistrate can give Instructions in these matters For the granting of this power unto the Magistrate will necessarily bring the examination and judgment of Ministers as to the Acts of the exercise of their function unto the Civil Court either wholly or in the first place at least contrare to the Orthodox Anti-Erastian Doctrine I think then that all who minded honest and plaine dealing in this day of tryal and of witnessing to the truth and to that truth that so neerly conceâ—ned Christ as King and Head of the Church should have consented unto this Assertion and in plaine termes have told the Councel That they were to receive no Instructions from the Magistrat to regulat them in the exercise of their Ministrie He tels us next that Some supposed this question was determined in the Concessions that were in the Introductoâ—y part of the paper wherein the Magistrat's power objectively Eccâ—esiastical is asserted Buâ— if all those concessions set down in the Introductory part of the Paper issued in the clearing of the Magistrates power to be objectively Ecclesiastical they expressed nothing to weaken the fore-mentioned Clause For who will say that because the Magistrat's power is objectively Ecclesiastical Therefore he can give Instructions to regulat Ministers in the exercise of their Ministrie It were as good a consequence to say The Magistrat is keeper of both the Tables of the Law Ergo he may set down Instructions Limitations and Rules shewing when the Law oâ— God shall oblige as the Law of God and when not And to lay Because he hath the Scriptures for the object of his care Therefore he may set down Rules how this or that Prophecie this or that doctrinal Book or History should be understood and Interpreted So to say Because his care reacheth to Doctrine and he must countenance the preaching of Truth and discountenance the preaching of Errour Ergo he may appointe Ministers what to preach and what not and command them to preach of the Seven deadly sinnes and not of Predestination as the King said in his Letter to the Archbishop of York And because his power objectively reacheth to the Worship of God therefore he may do as Ieroboam did So because Discipline and Government are also the object of his care therefore he may give Rules and Instructions how the Chuâ—ch shall be governed that is to say whether by a Pope or by Prelates or by the People or by Himself and his Under-magistrates Yea and from this power objectively Ecclesiastical it may as well be Inferred that he may regulat Controversies and other debates handled in Church Assemblies and prescribe what Arguments pro and what Arguments contra shall be used what sins shall be so and so Censured c. Yea in a word we may as well inferre from this objectively Ecclesiastical power all that is summarily contained in the Explicatory Act of Supremacy As that he may give Instructions to regulat Ministers in the exercise of their Ministrie How did this debate issue He saith in end some made a motion which with common consent so far as could be discerned was embraced And what was this That the Assertion should be thus qualified That we would not receive from the Magistrate Instructions Formally and Intrinsecally Ecclesiastical to regulat us c. Which in my judgment was either nothing to the purpose or which is worse was a betraying of the Cause For either this was understood in reference to these Rules which the Councel prescribed in their Act Sept. 2.1672 or not If not what was it to the purpose then in hand If it was understood with this reference then either hereby they meant to justifie and defend their refusing to accept of these Instructions or to justifie their accepting of them but not of others If the former be said Then 1. Why was Mr Blair so much condemned who did but refuse the accepting of these that had been expressed in the Act and were then exhibited 2. Why was it not plainly affirmed that they would not receive these that the Councel tendered unto them 3. Why was there so much debate in private about a general Thesis when the clear assertion of the Hypothesis would have salved both Credite and Conscience If the Assertion was thus qualified to justifie their accepting of these Rules then sure the cause was betrayed And if they were clear to accept of these Rules what necessity was there for this general blinde If they intended it for a Testimony was that a fiâ— season for a Testimonie when they were resolved to yeeld to all that was at that time desired without hinck or scruple Further I suppose it wil be found that some of these Instructions were indeed formally and intrinsecally Ecclesiastical And if these were excepted they should have been particularly mentioned that all might have been clear for in Testimonies we cannot be plaine and clear enough If they were not clear to embrace these Instructions why did they not unanimously agree to tell this in plaine termes And if reasons of their refusal had been demanded ingenuity and plain dealing had furnished them with reasons sufficient taken both from the matter of the Rules the manner of enjoining them and from the sad consequences of obeying them beside several other circumstances not to be despised When all agreed unto the Assertion thus qualified and so to the whole Paper that was drawn up he tels us there fell out another question whether that Paper should be made use of as a Directory when they should be called to speak before the Councel or if it should be subscribed by all and so given in as their answere and sense of these Matters This was no doubt a weighty debate and such as might have occasioned their breach among themselves But when the Lord is away what Light or Counsel can remaine Well what came of this question The generality he saith were indeed for the subscribing of it Which I confess I would not have been for Nor yet for using of it as a Directorie for reasons already given But now the generality being for the subscribing of it what became of it Was it subscribed indeed No saith he and thus the Minor part prevailed But he saith there were Reasons moving hereunto And I shall be glade to hear these The first is One who was then withdrawn about some necessary affairs had declared before upon reasons ponderous to him that he was not free in his mind to subscribe any such Paper at that time It seemeth strange to me that the unclearness of one should have proven such an effectual meane to stop the rest in that whereabout they had
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
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