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
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
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
of fine gold unto an obedient eare And for my confidence in commending it as a word in season unto the Reader I render these reasons First If men consider the hainousnesse of guilt which the Author hath clearly demonstrat to be wrapped up in and inseparably connected with this Indulgence they will rather say Alas he hath been too long in comeing to make a discoverie of its iniquitie than complain as if he had come to soon Secondly If men take it up in its true nature and tendency and consider impartially the qualitie of its defection according as it is here held forth if they speake their soul they must say That a standing Testimony against this evil is of more value and worth than all of us are when sold out of the ground Thirdly It will not fall under the Censure of unseasonablenesse by any except such as doe either down-right plead for the Indulgence and defend it or else connive at it as an aliquid nihil not to be regarded and it is to me and I hope will be so to many in regard of such that the one may be cured of their Confidence and the other of their Indifferency and detastable Neutralitie a word in season Fourthly Let this silence the clamour about its unseasonablenesse and satisfie yea plead the indispensible necessitie of it at this time That the Indulged Brethren have of late been more hot and high than formerly even to the threatning of men into a silence at its defection by boasting us with a Vindication of the Lawfulnesse of their Acceptance and therefore as to them it ought to be justly reckoned seasonable Fiftly Because somewhat hath been of late done even by the Non-Indulged not onely to the strengthening of the hands of the Indulged and giving them new confidence in their course in obliquo by covering all and carrying towards them as if they had done nothing amisse But upon the matter for it is beyond my shallow capacitie otherwise to interpret or understand the deed by a direct homologating of that Indulgence for now silence as to all speaking against this evil is made the very Door and Porch thorow which all the Intrants to the Ministery must passe I hope they will not alleage that this is misinformation for now we have it under their own hand and the breach of this engagement is brought and laid down as a ground upon which a Young man is challenged And therefore it s now simply necessate yea more then high time to discover and detect the blacknesse of its defection when the Church is thus brought in bondage by it Sixtly The severe insulting over some of the poor remnant who cannot forbeare to witnesse their abhorrence at it and dare not dissemble their hatred of it constrained the Author to give the world this account to convince them how little reason the one Partie hath to insult thus over their poor Brethren and how litle cause the other have to be ashamed of witnessing their dislike Seventhly Because it hath been often and still is objected to us that we have made a hideous hue and cry after it as a theefe but neither would nor could render a reason or prove it to be a coming-in not by the right door but a climbing up by another way And therefore the Interest of truth constrained the Author to give them and the world such a Plain and Publick Account of the reasons of his just dissatisfaction as may abide ad futuram rei memoriam And Lastly Because there is a may be of hope that as some at least of these Godly men Indulged may be hereby taken off and all of them made more sober and lesse violent so it is much more to be hoped that the Non-Indulged will hence-forth more seriously consider what way to deliver the Church from this evil their Brethren out of the snare and how to keep themselves free from the transgression of giving this evil any interpretative countenance for if God put it upon their heart to apply it the Plaister is in their hand to wit a just discountenanceing of this as a defection And withal that they will henceforth appeare more friendly towards the real Lovers of them and the cause and holders fast of their integritie and lesse severe against such who ought to be countenanced cherished and encouraged for their uprightnesse in hateing the Supremacy as the spring and all the streames that flow from that corrupt and cursed fountain and hereby shall they have better accesse when real affection and tendernesse upon these accounts is witnessed to curbe or cure these excesses which are not inseparable from yea incident to the zeal of the best of Saints out of heaven for it is there that our fire will want smoak Deare Brethren I shall detain you no longer from Peruseing this History And that you may in calmenesse and without Prejudice consider what is said and that the Lord God himself may as in all things so in this thing also give you Light is for you the soul-desire of Your poor afflicted Brother and welwisher THE HISTORY OF THE INDULGENCE AFter the unexpected Alteration which proved indeed a Convulsion falling-out so suddenly that came upon the Church after the Kings restauration when beside many other sad passages and too many here to be commemorated the memorie of which may make tears trickle down from our eyes so many of the able painful faithful and succesful labourers in the Vineyard of the Lord were by one Act of Councel at Glasgow Anno 1662. put from their work and by violence thrust out of the Vineyard where the Lord had set them to labour even to the number of Three hundered and above Nor was it enough to the Rulers to banish all those by an Act from their own Parishes but to make this banishment yet more grievous and the life of those faithful Servants of Christ yet more bitter and less vital they thereafter did command them to remove from their own Paroches twentie miles six miles from a Cathedral Church and three miles from a Brugh After I say this surprizing and astonishing blow tending so directly to the overthrow of the Lords Ministrie in that Church and the Introduction afterward of abjured Prelacie whereby the Church became suddainly filled with aswarme of locusts and the many Acts made to enforce a compliance among the people with this defection and actual conformity thereunto and that so violently and rigorously as even simple withdrawing was made seditious and criminal and severely punished the ejected Ministers began to think with themselves that this tyrannical ejection did not nor could not unminister them or make them no more Ministers of Christ so as they might not preach the Gospel wherever they were as Ambassadours of Christ but on the contrary they saw that they lay under the wrath and displeasure of God if they should not preach Christ and that a necessity was laid upon them yea and wo was unto them if
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
King alone or with his Privie Councel cannot put order to Ecclesiastical matters and causes or exerce Church-Power and Jurisdiction without a violation of this Law and manifest controlling of it And further in the 4. Act of that same Second Session of Parliament it is expresly ordained that none be hereafter permitted to preach in publick or in families within any diocess without the licence of the Ordinary of the Diocess So that this licence and permission granted to the Indulged by the Councel to preach and exercise the other parts of their function being without the licence of the Bishops is manifestly contrary and repugnant to this Law Moreover Act 1. in the third Session Anno 1663. we have these words And the Kings Maj. having resolved to conserve and maintaine the Church in the present State and Governmēt hereof by Archbishops Bishops and others bearing Office therein and not to endure nor give way or connivace to any variation therein in the least doth therefore with advice and consent of his Estates conveened in this third Session of his Parliament Ratifie and Approve the afore mentioned Acts and all other Acts and Lawes made in the two former Sessions of Parliament in order to the settling of Episcopal Dignity Iurisdiction and Authority within the Kingdom and ordains them to stand in full force as publick Lawes of the Kingdom and to be put to further execution in all points conforme to the tenor thereof Here is a further Ratification and Confirmation of the Lawes mentioned and the Councel hereby yet more firmely bound-up from emitting any Acts or Edicts contradictory to and tending to weaken and invalidat the publick standing Lawes of the Kingdom And which is yet more considerable in the following words of this same Act the effectual putting of these Lawes in execution is specially and in terminis recommended by King and Parliament unto the Privy Councel after this manner And in pursuance of his Maj. Royal resolution herein his Maj. with advice foresaid doth recommend to the Lords of his Maj. Privie Councel to take speedy and Effectual Course that these Acts receive ready and due Obedience from all his Maj. Subjects and for that end that they call before them all such Ministers who having entred in or since the Yeer 1649. and have not as yet obtained Presentations and Collations as aforesaid yet darred to preach in contempt of the Law and to punish them as seditious persons and contemners of the Royal Authority As also that they be careful that such Ministers who keep not the Diocesian meetings and concurre not with the Bishops in the Acts of Church-Discipline being for the same suspended or deprived as said is be accordingly after deprivation removed from their Benefices Gleebs and Manses And if any of them shall notwithstanding offer to retaine the Possession of their Benefices or Manses that they take present Course to see them dispossest And if they shall thereafter presume to exercise their Ministrie that they be punished as seditious Persons and such as contemne the Authority of Church and State Now notwithstanding of this express reference and severe recommendation we know that in the matter of the Indulgence they were so far from punishing such as had not obtained Presentations and Collations and yet had continued to preach and exercise their Ministrie that in perfect contradiction to this Injunction of King and Parliament and other forementioned Acts they licensed warranded and impowered some such as by Act of Parliament were to be punished as seditious Persons and contemners of Authority of Church and State to preach publickly and to exercise all other parts of their Ministrie and that upon the sole warrand of the Kings Letter which cannot in Law warrand and impower them to contraveen express Lawes and Acts of Parliament and not only to disobey the Injunctions of Parliament but in plaine termes to counteract and counterwork the Established and Ratified Lawes and so to render them null and of no effect Whence we see that there was a necessity for the Parliament An. 1669. to do something that might secure the Lives and Honours of the members of Councel in point of law in granting of that Indulgence which was so expresly against law and which the two Arch-Prelates members of Councel would never give their assent unto as knowing how it intrenched upon the power granted to them and the other Prelates confirmed by Law and so was a manifest rescinding of these Acts and Lawes And though this might have been done by a plaine and simple Act approving and ratifying what the Councel had done in compliance with his Maj Royal Pleasure and authorizing them in time coming to pursue the ends of the same Letter further with a non obstante of all Acts formerly made in favoures of Prelates and Prelacie Yet it is probable they made choise of this way of explaining by a formal and full Statute and Act of Parliament the Supremacie in these plaine full and ample termes wherein we now have it that thereby they might not only secure the Councel but also make the Kings sole Letter to the Councel in all time coming a valid ground in Law whereupon the Councel might proceed and enact and execute what the King pleased in matters Ecclesiastick how intrinsecally and purely such soever without so much as owning the corrupt Ecclesiastick medium or channel of Prelacy And withal it might have been thought that such an act so necessary for the legal preservation of the Indulgers and consequently of the Indulged in the enjoyment of the Indulgence would go sweetly down with all the Indulged and such as gaped for the like favour howbeit so framed as that it was not very pleasant at the first tasting For it cannot be rationally supposed that such as are pleased with their warme dwellings will cast out with the walles roof of the dwelling without which they would enjoy no more warmness than if they were lodging beside the heth in the wilderness And who could think that any indulged man could be dissatisfied with that which was all and only their legal security and without which they were liable to be punished as seditious persons and as contemners of Authority even for preaching by vertue of the Indulgence according to Lawes standing in force unrepealed Whence also we see what a faire way was made unto this Act of Supremacy by the Indulgence and how the Indulgence is so far beholden unto this Act that it can not stand without it nor the persons Indulged be preserved from the lash of the Law notwithstanding of all that was done by the Councel And thus these two are as twines which must die and live together for take away the Act of Supremacy and the Indulgence is but a dead illegal thing We may also see what to judge of this illegal and illegitimat birth that cannot breathe or live where Law reigneth without the swedling clothes of such a Supremacy nor can stand but
as 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
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
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
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-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
humbly and sincerely layeth hold on it may be very assured of the Lords Approbation therein Answ. When a people have been following their Duty in defence of their Lands and Liberty and are in Providence broken by an Enemie their Posterity or even they themselves may willingly submit to and lay hold on that which formerly had been an insufferable Imposition and might have been justly refused but then they must have had no sinful hand in the loseing of their Liberty otherwise it shal be but a continued compliance and we must suppose that they are now out of case to owne and contend for their Liberty Which holdeth not as to the Indulgence for as there was a sinful cedeing at the first in not resisting unto bloud striving against these Usurpers by Protestations Declarations and other Meanes called for in the like case whereby this acceptance becometh but a continued compliance on the matter in the same Persons So the manifold Obligations we are under binde unto a constant and perpetual contending for the Prerogatives of our Prince and the Privileges of his Church against all the Enemies thereof And no case of lost liberty will warrant us to submit or accept of that which formerly we were bound to have refused and to have looked upon as an insufferable Imposition What may be said of the Posterity born and brought up under that loss of Liberty cannot advantage us in this Generation who when we can do no more are obliged to transmit the Controversie of Zion and the Cause as in foro contradictorio to the Posterity that they may see the Cause though not prevalent yet not quite sold and given up and so may serve themselves heirs to our Contendings for the Interest of our Lord. And for this cause ought we to be tenacious of these Rights and do nothing that may strengthen our Adversares and weaken our Cause and this I suppose would yeeld more peace than the accepting of that which is called a little reviving but indeed is a weakning both of the Cause and of our Party It is laudable Constancy in this Case not to yeeld or grant one hoof But what pusillanimity yea and treachery will it be by cedeing and accepting of such supposed revivings to put ourselves and our Posterity out of all case to recover our Liberty and to burie with our own hands the very memorie of the good old Cause for which our Predecessours and we sometime have contended with Zeal and Earnestness especially when we may have the same thing which is called a reviving in our bondage another way with Approbation of God with less Scandal to others with more Advantage to the Cause and less Advantage to the Enemie though with more trouble and less quiet to our selves Obj. 13. Though the Magistrats principal Designe in this matter be the Establishment of his own Supremacie Yet the accepting of this favour cannot be so much as an Interpretative yeelding thereunto as may be clear by this Supposition that the Magistrate without any change of Principle or Designe had ordered all Ministers to their own Churches Answ. 1. This being confessedly the Magistrat's principal Designe in granting this supposed favour our acceptance cannot but be accounted by him a reall contributing of all that is required of us thereunto and as it was circumstantiat could not but be on our part even because of what the Magistrat did rationally account to be unto him a virtual acknowledgment and a reall Confirmation thereof 2. If the sending of the Ministers to their own Congregations had been by a Civil annulling of the former Sentence of Banishment as it could not have flowed from the Supremacy so neither could it have contributed unto his Usurpation But if the sending of them to their own Charges had been every way after the manner of this Indulgence it would not have altered the case to me for as I said above his re-entrie to his Former Charge after this manner would have been a virtual annulling of the Ground of his Former Call and Interest in that place and over that People and not a returning with full Freedome and Liberty Obj. 14. The Magistrat proposing this Indulgence by way of Command not attending my pleasure my obedience to the Command cannot imply an engagement to the Prescriptions annexed nor doth the Magistrat discover the least Intention to oblige me thereunto by consent nor is in this matter treating with us expecting our formal consent for his security and therefore I may accept the favour without the prescriptions there being no formal Compact here Answ. 1. Though the Indulgence be propounded by way of Command the Council thinking it below them to Act otherwayes Yet both the Nature of the thing and the concomitant Acts made of purpose to Limite Restrict and Qualifie the thing proposed and to Instruct and Oblige the receiver saith that the accepting of the First doth virtually engage to the Second both making up one complex grant or one Indulgence so qualified limited cautioned 2. Though the Councel did not call for any formal and express engagement from them unto the performance of these Injunctions yet their carriage towards Mr. Blair upon hisPositive renounceing of these Injunctions sheweth that they meant these Injunctions for Conditions this also they expresly declared in their after Proclamations Edicts as we saw above 3. Who accepteth a favour offered with its burdens must accept it cum onere howbeit the offerer being a Superiour doth not expresly require an explicite Consent but resteth satisfied with his own Intimation As when a Father granteth to one of his Children such a portion of Land and withall â—ntimateth that it is his will and pleasure that he take on him the burden of so much dâ—â—t though the Son should not be required to express his consent to the Condition of the Debt yet his accepting of the benefite thus burthened obligeth him to take on the Debt So here because Mr. Blair did disowne the Conditions though his formal Consent was not required he was denuded of the Benefite and therefore the rest took the Benefite with its burden and could not while accepting the favour account themselves free of the Conditions or not-obliged to performe them seing in accepting the one they accepted the other both making up one complex business Wherefore though this Indulgence be given by Magistrates who love to act imperiously and by way of Edict yet it being granted as a favour the accepting of it both as to the thing it self and as to the sense and meaning of the Granters includeth a virtual engagement to the Observation of the Rules and Conditions annexed Obj. 15. Although the Magistrate had expresly prefaced his Supremacy unto the grant of this licence yet a Protestation on the accepters part against the same would sufficiently have purged their use-making of the favour of all sinful concurrence Answ. 1. Though this were granted which yet cannot be yet it cannot avail the accepters
a course as this when Arian Emperours by their own sole power thrust-out faithful zealous and Orthodox Ministers and put-in Arian hereticks in their places and now by this Indulgence the way is paved for the same Course so that now the Magistrate hath no more to do to get all the Ministery on his side and to carry on some corrupt erroneous designe but to thrust-out honest faithful men and put-in brevi manu whom he will Who will scruple at this now after the Indulged men have thus broken the ice and who will once question the Magistrates power to do this seing they have so sweetly submitted in the beginning Turpius ejicitur quam non admitiitur hospes it is better holding-out than thrusting-out 2. Our own History sheweth us how noxious it was to our Church when K. Iames obtained but so much as to have an eminent and active hand or a negative voice directly or indirectly in the planting of all the eminent places of the Land especially of Edinburgh though he never had the confidence to seek a liberty to do it brevi manu but did it by collusion with the Commission of the Kirk which was made to his mind How quickly had he overturned all if he had assumed the power to have transplanted Ministers as he pleased and if Ministers had complied with him therein and upon his sole call or act of Councel had left their own Charges and gone to places whither he sent them And what would these worthies who opposed all his designes in maintainance of the Established Order of the Church and of her Power and Privileges if alive now say to see so many Ministers under so many obligations to maintaine the Liberties of the Church willingly obeying the Councils Call and Act 3. If according to this Method and the way now laid down put in practice our Magistrates in all time coming should follow this course and put away what Ministers they pleased from one place and thrust others in where and when they pleased and in all this should meet with nothing but sweet submission how long should our Church enjoy purity And how long should the Gospel be preached in power in any eminent place in the Land How long should Gospel freedom be keeped up the Gospel flourish And if all this should be whom have we to thank therefore but the Indulged Would not they have all doing as they have done Are not they a sad preparative May not their example prove noxious to the following Generations And whither shall we then cause our shame to go 4. According to this Example the Magistrate might quickly banish all purity out of the Kingdom and turne all the Land over into Popery by sending all the Orthodox Ministers to the Highlands or to some one small and inconsiderable corner of the Land according as in the late Act of Indulgence so many scores were cantonized to one or two Diocies and suffering Papists to preach where they pleased or fixing Popish Priests in every Paroch And if such a thing were intended hath not the Indulgence broken the ice thereunto 5. Nay we see that in the very Indulgence some such designe is carried on foâ— by it the far greatest part of the Non-conforme Ministers were Cantonized and shut-up in twoes or threes together in one Corner of the Countrey and all the rest of the Land was given over to the will of Prelates Papists or Quakers And if all the Ministers named had followed the example of others what had become ere this day of the greatest part of the Land Was then this Indulgence the thing which the General good of the Church and Kingdom called for Were the Indulged put in best capacitie by the Indulgence to serve their Generation according to the necessity of the day Was this the only duty of the day Or did the Lord call for nothing else Well is it that we have such a proof of the contrary this day legible upon the face of that Land and that the very prisones can declare some other thing 6. It being beyond all doubt now that the Assemblies of the Lord's people in Houses or Fields to partake of pure Ordinances with full freedom of Conscience hath been signally owned and blessed of the Lord and hath proven a mean to spread the knowledge of God beyond any thing that appeared in our best times whereby the Lord preached from heaven to all who would hear and understand it that this way of preaching even this way was that wherein the Soul of God took pleasure and to which he called all who would be co-workers with him this day to help forward the Interest of his Crown and Kingdom Now when in despight of this signal appearance of God and out of enmitie to the good done in these meetings wayes of cruelty are fallen upon to suppress utterly all these Randezvouzes of the Lord's Militia and these coming short of effectuating the thing Midianit ish wiles are fallen upon of which this of the Indulgence was the chiefe of purpose to keep the Countrey free of these solemne occasions of the Lords Appearances can it be thought to be the duty of the day and that which the Lord is calling to to contribute our concurrence unto these stratagemes of Satan welcome an Indulgence devised of purpose to destroy the work of God I leave the thoughts of this to themselves when they are thinking of appearing before their judge 7. I shall not insist on that yoke of bondage in the matter of stipends which was hereby begun to be wreathed about the necks of Ministers to the inexpressible hurt and prejudice of the Church See what was remarked in the 4. place on the Kings Letter 8. It will be more to our purpose as in it self it is of greater moment to consider how hereby a Path-way was made to make all the Ministers of the Land in all time coming wholly subject unto the Council even in all Matters Ecclesiastick whether concerning Doctrine Discipline or Manners For hereby they became wholly subject unto the Council as being accountable only to them and were so wholly at their Devotion that they were to stay in the places where they were set only dureing their pleasure and so might be couped from Kirk to Kirk as some of them were no otherwayes than the Prelates Curates are at the pleasure of the Prelate Thus was the yce broken to the bringing of the Ministrie under perpetual Slaverie and what should then become of the glorious Liberty of our Church 9. Nay as we saw above attested by open Printed Proclamations of the Council there was in this Indulgence a base and sinful compacting for the same which to me is the basest of Simoneie A conditional accepting of the supposed favour and as it were a formal barganing for it by taking the liberty to preach and performe the work of the Ministrie on sinful Conditions even such Conditions as contained a giving up of the Cause to
the Supremacy and the Erastian Designe as hath been shown above And what a preparative this was let any judge I know the Indulged themselves will say they are free of all compacting And I shall not accuse them further than I know or have ground Yet this is certaine that the Kings Letter mentioned such and such Instructions to be given to all the Indulged it is also certaine that this Letter was not altogether unknown to them And when the Instructions which the Council in plain Expressions calleth termes on which they granted the Indulgence the samine was accepted were tendered unto and put in the hand of each of these in particular who were called before the Councel Anno 1673. I heard not of their expressing their Dissatisfaction with these Termes so as to quite the benefite or as we say to cast the bargane thereupon And if all the Ministers that shall ever hereafter be admitted to preach the Gospel in Scotland must follow this example and give but an implicite consent unto these or the like termes imposed by the Council where shall then our Gospel Liberty be And what shall then become of the Liberty of our Church And how shall the Ministers then be called the Servants of Christ and not the Servants of Men 10. By the very subjecting to the Councils Instructions to regulat them in the exercise of their Ministrie they become thereby as formally subject unto them in Matters Ecclesiastick as any inferiour Civil-Officers such as Sheriffs Justices of Peace Baylies c. who yet it may be shall as little observe all their Instructions as the Indulged haue observed theirs this subjecting of the Ministrie in its exercise unto the Magistrate is a manifest enslaving of the same to the unspeakable prejudice of the Gospel and hurt of the Church 11. What prejudice it is to the Church to want the free and full exercise of Discipline that in the lawful Courts of Christ needeth not here to be told And yet in this Indulgence there was an accepting of the exercise of the Ministrie without the full exercise of Discipline save what was to be had in a sinful way by compliance with Prelacie and so a tacite at least consent given unto this want It will not be of advantage here to say that the Field-Preachers or Non-indulged Ministers have no Discipline yet preach For all their preaching is sub cruâ—e not having so much as frâ—edome to exerce any part of their Ministrie and so are allowed of God to do all they can when they cannot do all they would and beside it is alledged without ground for with no lesse signal countenance they exercise some Acts of Discipline such as receiving of penitents than they preach and in both are countenanced as His â—mbassadours But the indulged are under the lee sheet of the Supremacie having full peace countenance and protection as much as in our best times and when our Church was most flourishing and yet dispense calmely with the want of Church-Discipline in Presbyteries and Synods and how some of their Sessions guide and are constitute is none of our Glory 12. Nor needeth it be told what prejudice will inevitably follow upon the want of Ordination whereby a Succession of the Ministrie is keeped up and the word committed to faithful men according to Christs Appointment who may serve the Lord in the Work of the Gospel in their Generation How quickly upon the want of this a faithful Ministriâ— shall of necessitie cease every one may see And yet the Indulged have accepted of the exercise of their Ministrie on such termes or in such a way as doth utterly incapacitate them for going about the Necessary Work of Ordination Their Transgressing their Bounds and violating the Injunctions upon their peril if so be they do so that they may ordaine some in order to the keeping up of this Ordinance is in so far commendable but is not sufficient to expiat the guilt of accepting the Indulgence which was thus clogged as their whole relinquishing of the Indulgence betaking themselves to the Fields with the rest of their Brethren would prove a commendable after-wit but would not say that there was no evil in their accepting of the Indulgence but the contrary rather VII How hereby our Cause and Ground of Suffering is vvronged THE Lords good hand of Providence having so ordered it that once a considerable Company were willing to endure Hardshipe Want Tribulation for the Truths sake and therefore choosed suffering rather than sin which howbeit it was upon some accounts sad and afflicting yet upon the account that the Cause of Christ was owned the Work of Reformation not condemned but accounted still the Work of the Lord was no small matter of Joy Though it might have been expected that few or none of all the Ministers that had seen the great Works of the Lord should have so relinquished the Interest of Christ and embraced what once they had abjured yet we ought to bless the Lord that so many abode steadfast in the day of Temptation But how joyful so ever it was to see such a goodly Company adhering to their Principles and fully following the Lord it cannot but be as sad and afflicting upon the other hand to see this goodly Bulk wretchedly broken and to see men stepping off and that such Men and so many such and that after such a way as cannot but be accounted a falling off from formerly received Principles and from the Cause and Ground of our Sufferings Now that the Embracers of this Indulgence are justly chargable herewith may appear from these Particulars 1. It was a part of the Reformation which through the special goodness of God our Church at length after long wrestling attained to that the people should be restored to their Right and Privilege of Calling and making a free Choise of their own Pastors according to the example of the pure and primitive Church And it was because they would not renounce this way of entrie that so many Ministers were thrust out from their Congregations by the Act of Councel at Glalgow But in the Indulgence there was an entering into the Pastoral Charge of a people upon the Act and Call or Order of Council without this Free and Full Election of the people The Nominal Call that was precariously had thereafter as to some was but a mock-call and no foundation of their Relation unto these places as hath been seen And how the Councils Act and Order was exclusive thereof is manifest and confirmed by the Instance of Mr Weer's Process Sure as the Election here was null there being none to choose upon and the Call prelimited because the Councils Order did set such an indulged Man over them whether they would or not so the making a shew of seeking or of getting a Call from the people after the Ground of the Relation was already laid was the exposeing of that Order of Christs to ludibrie 2.