grieved that they should have started that Question at all among them and if it were to do again would be better advised and are very desirous to have the divisive Distempers of the People cured and the Preachers of Schism discountenanced And yet this Historian with two or three of the younger sort would contrary to the mind and heart to the tears and prayers of all his Brethren increase the Disease which they were studying to cure and encourage these rash and inconsiderate Youths to cast more fire-brands and add Oyl to the flame I have considered the 47 48 49 Verses of the 7th Chap. of John with Mr. H's Notes and the more I consider it I think it the more impertinently alledged For these Pharisees and Rulers were Enemies of Christ they believed not themselves and they endeavoured to hinder others to believe on Christ and are enraged that the People did believe on him Now the Ministers of whom he is speaking are not Enemies of Christ but his Servants and faithful Servants and zealous for his Glory and are so far from hindering People from believing in Christ or from looking on them as ignorant and cursed upon that account that they study to bring People to believe in Christ and are grieved that this Author and his Associates withdraws them from Christ by withdrawing them from his Ordinances where he comes and blesses his People and is in the midst of them and withdraws them from hearing these whom Christ sends to Preach to them and so hinders them from believing for Faith comes by hearing and it increases by hearing Mr. H. takes notice that these Pharisees were puffed up and I leave it to the consideration of the Reader if the way of these Faithful and Zealous Ministers seems not to be farther from this than the way that this Historian hath taken in this History He shews it's an old Engine to keep men from Christ by the opposition of able and eminent Church-men But the stress of the Argument which he proposes to answer did not lie most upon that that they were Church-men in eminent place of great parts but on that that they were Faithful and Zealous Ministers and that they were not seeking themselves or their own things but the things of Christ and the Edification of the Body of Christ appears in this that they are not like the Historians Youths who cry down all but themselves and draws away the People from all others to hear themselves and tells the People there is a cursed thing in other Meetings and warns them to beware of it But their Faithful Ministers does not seek to engross all the Peoples affection to themselves but they are for their hearing of others they behave as the Lords Ministers were wont to do in the Primitive times and as we find the Apostles doing in their Epistles they commend and recommend their fellow-labourers to the Churches and strengthens their hands Again these Pharisees took it as an evidence of the Ignorance and Misery of the People that they believed on Christ These who speak of the Ignorance of the People who withdraw from hearing Indulged Ministers are far from thinking them Ignorant and Cursed upon that account But they know that many of them are very ignorant of Christ and of the way of Salvation and it 's sad to them that are drawn away from the means of Knowledge Preaching and Catechising from learning the grounds of Religion and their Heads filled with vain janglings And they learn not to know their own sins in order to their Humiliation and Self-denial but learns to know the sins of others more than their own and that readily puffs them up What he adds about the Peoples guiding and breaking the Ice it blows up the People with a conceit that God hath made them Guides and Leaders to go before the Ministers and made the Sheep to lead the Shepherds There was enough of wind in this Bladder before the Historian might have without any hazard spared his breath here and not blown up the People with the ill wind of an anti-scriptural conceit When the Lord guides his People in his way he guides them according to his Word in the use of the means that he himself hath appointed he leads his People like a Flock by the hand of Moses and Aaron and for my part when I observe that these whom the Lord hath not made Guides and Leaders and Shepherds wilfully refusing to be guided and led by these whom God hath made Guides and Shepherds and confidently taking upon them to lead their Leaders I am very suspicious that all is not right and that both the Leaders and they who are led by them are wrong But this is an old trick used by these who stir up People to Schism or Sedition to give the People fair words and make much of them Corah Dathan and Abiram do highly complement the People All the Congregation say they is holy every one of them and the Lord is among them Such fair words will easily beguile unstable Souls I remember a judicious and sober Countrey-man said of one of these Preachers who made it a great part of his work to draw away the People from hearing Indulged Ministers That he thought he clapped the Bairns heads too much The Historian was mistaken if he thought that withdrawing from the Indulged Ministers had it's rise from the People for it was some Preachers who by private conferences and publick Preaching drew them away He alledges that the matter about hearing the Curats is a sufficient instance of the Peoples good guiding Yet I perceive by what he says that he would not follow the Peoples guiding even in this matter for he does not think the Baptisms administrated by them to be no Baptisms But some of the People have thought their Baptism to be the mark of the Beast and that 's much worse than nothing He does not think the hearing of Curats simply unlawful and thinks if there were no other to hear they should be heard But some of the leading People have thought the hearing of them simply unlawful I heard of some who said that the hearing of them was as unlawful as Fornication Adultery as the Worshipping of the Calves of Dan and Bethel And I suppose the Historian will not deny that Fornication c. are simply unlawful Some have been so far from thinking that hearing them could ever become Lawful that they have placed their Religion and Sincerity in this A Minister informed me that when he was enquiring concerning the estate of a dying woman he got no other account of any Evidence that it was well or would be well with her but this that she had never heard a Curate and I suppose the Historian would have looked on this as a Soul-deluding and destructive Error to make that an Evidence of Sincerity which a Lazy Profane Atheistical Person can so easily forbear and that from a Principle of Laziness Profanity or Atheism From
ye were with If the person be silent and give no answer the suspicious Inquisitor will be more confirmed in his suspicion and readily conclude the man guilty If the man be really guilty and yet clears himself he sins by lying If he confess his guilt he makes a scandal in an unwarrantable divulging of his sin and though it may be he hath behaved himself blamelesly yet a tender person upon such an enquiry may readily be put to a demur and suspect that he may at least have omitted something which he ought to have done and so cannot give any present account of the serenity of his foul in that matter which will encrease the sinful suspiciousness of his Inquisitor and though he be altogether blameless and his Conscience serene yet the very questioning of such things is apt to breed suspicions and scandals But to come to his Question His design in it is to find the Indulged Ministers guilty by their own Confession of the neglect of a Testimony against the wickedness of this Invasion made by the overturners of the Work of Christ The Question is Whether it was the duty of those Ministers at that time to give in a Testimony of that nature He determines they should have done it then or never Now he hath so conceived his Question that whether they answer yea or nay he will conclude them guilty for not giving in such a Testimony as he requires at that time for if they say they were helped to witness a good Confession against this wickedness then he will conclude that then it was duty to give in such a Testimony as he requires at that time for to make a Confession good it 's required that it be seasonable an unseasonable Confession is not a good Confession for the seasonableness of a Confession is one of those things which are required to the goodness of it and a good thing is made up of intire causes but any defect makes a thing evil Again it cannot be said that men with serenity of soul can have confidence to give Christ thanks for helping them to give an unseasonable Confession or a Confession out of season But again if they answer that they were not helped by Christ to give such a good Confession then he will conclude that they are guilty of neglecting to give in that Confession at that time seeing it was a good Confession and so seasonable which if they had given they would have done it by the help of Christ and would have had matter of thanksgiving and seeing they have not done it they have not been helped by him to that which was good and their duty at that time Thus whether they answer his Question affirmatively or negatively he will conclude them guilty The Author made his Address as he says not as an acute disputant but as a poor blunt plain open-hearted man in a few plain Questions he should not after such a profession of plain-dealing in the very Entry begun with Sophistry with a Caption from many Interrogations Solomon says Prov. 9.8 Reprove not a Scorner lest he hate thee So that a man may forbear to reprove a Scorner and yet not be guilty of a sinful neglect but by such a captious Question as this any man who hath been with and heard Scorners will be found guilty for if ye spear at him were ye helped by Christ to witness a good Confession against such a Scorner or to give a good reproof to such a scorner if he answer that he was not helped to give him a good reproof then ye conclude that he omitted good and so sinned in not reproving him whereas Solomon forbids to reprove him If he say he gave him a good reproof then he calls that good which the Scripture forbiddeth or if this question be moved to one who hath not reproved a man when he was not in a case to receive reproof suppose when in drink or in the height of rage or when in such distemper and under such prejudice as the reproving of him would hinder him from doing some good that he were about to do and in all probability make him worse if the person perceive not the captiousness and sophistry of the Question but answer yea or nay he will be intangled but such may easily answer the Question thus 1. That they did not reprove such a person in such a case and 2. That it was not good to reprove him in such a case or at such a time and that therefore he was not guilty of neglecting a good reproof because it was not seasonable to reprove at that time If the Prefacer would have dealt as plainly as he promised he should have plainly proved that these Ministers should at that time have given in such a Testimony as he requireth The command that requires the making of Confession is an affirmative Precept and though it be obliged at all times yet doth not oblige to give a Testimony at all times we must never deny the truth but we must not ever make Confession of it as all Casuists grant We do not hear that Moses and Aaron made any formal protestation against Pharaohs Blasphemy and avowed Rebellion against God they heard him say Who is the Lord that I should obey his voice to let Israel go I know not the Lord neither will I let Israel go They make no Protestation nor Declaration against this blasphemous Speech and avowed Rebellion against God they only shew their Warrant and humbly insist in their Petition and yet these extraordinary Embassadours of God were in another manner of capacity for doing this if it had been necessary and seasonable than ordinary Ministers are read Exod. 5.2 3. Nor do we hear that the other Children gave any written or verbal Protestation against the making of the Image and Proclaimation to worship it Nor did Daniel give any written subscribed or verbal Declaration against the making signing publishing of that Decree which discharged all Petitions to be given to any for thirty days but to Darius which was to make him God alone All that they did was they did not obey but acted contrary to those godless Decrees and chused rather to suffer death than obey them Nor did our Saviour speak any thing before Herod though a vile man when he was before him Christ held his peace a long time before the Council and when he spoke he gave in no written or verbal Protestation against the Council it 's constitution and corruptions nor against the sentence they pronounced against him as a Blasphemer Nor when Paul compeared at Rome do we hear of any Protestation against the monstrous abominations and persecutions of Nero. Many Martyrs and Confessors did forbear to make publick Protestation against the Idols and Idolatry of their Persecutors and all that many of them said was this That they were Christians and upon that suffered How many both private Christians and Ministers have appeared before the Council since the Supremacy was established
exercise of the Ministry as if he had thereby acknowledged That they had the exercise of their Ministry from the Magistrate but if Mr. H. had used such words as this Author doth when he speaks of the Non-Indulged who as he says have not so much as freedom to exercise any part of their Ministry O what out-crying should we have heard when he makes such a noise about Mr. H's words though he not only adds liberty and freedom but also publick to the exercise of the Ministry and subjoyns after so long a restraint and under the protection of lawful Authority If Mr. H. had said in the words of this Author My Lords whereas since we were turned out we had not so much as freedom to exercise any part of our Ministry but now we have freedom to exercise our Ministry c. What Commentaries and Harangues would have been made upon and out of these words Now if the Non-indulged want the freedom to exercise any part of their Ministry is it not by the penal Statutes that they are deprived of this freedom were it not an advantage to have this freedom which they want and this they cannot have without the Magistrate and why may they not accept of this freedom from the Magistrate and if they may what ails the Author at the Indulged Ministers for the accepting of that freedom which they wanted 2. He deals not equally with the Indulged and Non-indulged The Non-indulged are saith he allowed of God to do all they can seeing they cannot do as they would but he would have the Indulged Ministers do more than they can He would have the Indulged Ministers keeping Presbyteries and Synods which they can no more do without hazard than the Non-indulged yea their hazard would be much greater than the hazard of the Non-indulged for the Magistrate would know where to find them if they had a mind to take them or if they cited them they behoved either to appear or to lose the peaceable exercise of their Ministry which the Non-indulged have not and so cannot lose His tacite insinuation that the Indulged are not countenanced in the exercise of Discipline and Preaching as the Ambassadours of Christ and his asserting that they are under the Leesheet of the Supremacy as if they acknowledged any Erastian or absolute Supremacy in the Magistrate in Ecclesiastical matters and his reflection on the constitution and guiding of some of their Sessions are a new addition to his former unproven and ill-grounded alledgances As for his 12. the Indulged Ministers cum periculo as well as the Non-indulged ordain Ministers they have accepted of no terms to incapacitate them for Ordination But this would not satisfie this Author except they did relinquish the Indulgence and betake themselves to the fields but we saw before why nothing but the fields will please this Author Pag. 101. We have his 7th head of Arguments He alledgeth That the Indulged Ministers have stepped off in such a way as cannot but be accounted a falling off from the cause and ground of our sufferings We have answered already these Arguments whereby he would prove this alledgance in his first seven Sections His 8. Section makes much against him and for the Indulged Ministers as we saw before As for his 9th it 's no new thing to see Ministers compearing before the Council the first Book of Discipline was directed by Ministers to the Council which was much more than compearance He supposes the Indulged to have accepted the instructions but it 's a false supposition as hath been before cleared If he will make a parallel case either in the year 1649. or any year he pleaseth the Indulged Ministers are content to leave to all who are fit to judge of matters of this nature to judge concerning their practice As for the History which is in his 10. he speaks as if the Indulged Ministers generally had said they had not seen these instructions which is very false His 11th He indefinitely charges the Indulged Ministers with laying aside the Lecture which is another falshood That any of them who do not Lecture have forsaken it upon the command of the Council is another of his groundless alledgances as some few of the indulged Ministers so several of the not-indulged do not lecture But I hope he will not say That it 's the command of the Council that they forbear it They have other Reasons some found themselves not able to lecture and preach twice on the Lords day His 12th is resumed in his 8 head of Arguments pag. 104. where he undertakes to prove That the hands of Prelates are strengthened by the Indulgence The Prelates I suppose are not of that mind themselves First saith he not to mention the open door that is left to them to accept of the Prelates Collation nor the encouragement they have to seek and obtain He did well not to mention this for it is not worth the mentioning It 's false That the indulged Ministers put themselves in prison under the Bishops lock and key As for his second the Churches where the indulged Ministers are setled are not encumbred with those who own Prelacy as they were before the Indulgence which is no small disadvantage to Prelacy It 's a false alledgance That the indulged Ministers were content that their Ministry should be confined within limited places let the necessity of the Church be what it would or could be how knows he that the indulged Ministers would not deny to help people that are destitute in other places if they saw that the necessity of the Church did require it It would be a prejudice and no advantage to the Church needlesly to leave the charges where they are setled and to leave the Congregations where they are to be planted with Conformists His third Section in which he alledgeth the friendly and brotherly love and correspondence betwixt some of the indulged and Neighbour-hirelings and the want of Zeal against Prelates wherever the Indulgence is is grounded upon misinformation That Prelates will possibly say That one Field-Conventicle hath done them and their cause more prejudice than many preachings of all the indulged men is another of his groundâ—ess guessiings and needs no other refutation but â—his That possibly they will not say it Possibile esse possibile non esse It 's another of his groundless guesâ—ings That they use more keenness against Field-Preachers than against Prelates The indulged Ministers as they have occasion preach against Erastianism and an absolute Supremacy and shew from the Scripture That the keys of the Kingâ—om of Heaven are not committed to the Magistrate and that all the powers on earth have â—o power to dispose or order Ecclesiastical matters â—t their pleasure but that all things in the house â—f God should be done according to the will of God â—evealed in the Scripture His 4th is a begging of the question he should â—ave proven That the indulged Ministers have accepted of any thing
in general is called to nor could he in Reason think that the withholding of this light could have so many inconveniencies following upon it as the venting of it would have by an unseasonable awakening and keeping up of Divisions and all the mischiefs which follow upon Divisions 3. If he would needs vent this Light of his and press others to do the like he might have done it in the way which Mr. Durham points out viz. with that meekness tenderness and respect towards his Brethren who differed from him that the difference might make no Division nor marr Union But he is so far from this that he will have this Light and those who bring it made welcome though it be brought for this very end to make Division and to distract and rent the Church But 4. The worst of all is this Light of his is not Light but Darkness a confused mass of false Calumnies published to scatter the poor sheep and drive them away from their faithful Pastours who fed them with knowledge and understanding If they who will not forbear to vent Truths which are not necessary when the venting of them is unseasonable or if they who will vent such Truths in a factious and divisive way be justly censurable O! how hateful is their temper or rather distemper who cannot be perswaded for Peace-sake to with-hold their Lies and Calumnies but will vent them upon design to rent the Church in drawing away the People from the Lords Ministers and the Lords Ordinances They who come to publish untruths to make Discord and Division come not by the Commission of the God of Truth and Peace I shall again transcribe some of Mr. Durham's words in his excellent Exposition of the Song of Solomon Chap. 1. v. 8. pag. 91. 6. Believers would make use of publick Ordinances and Christs Ministers especially in reference to snares and errors and they would take their directions from them and their Counsel would be laid weight upon 7. Allowed dependance on a Ministry is a great mean to keep Souls from error whereas on the contrary when no weight is laid on a Ministry unstable Souls are hurried away 8. Christ hath given no immediate or extraordinary way to be sought unto and made use of even by his Bride in her difficulties but the great mean he will have her to make use of is a sent Ministry and therefore no other is to be expected It 's no wonder then that the Devil when his design is to cry down Truth and spread Error seek to draw the Lords People from the Shepherds Tents and no wonder that Souls who do cast off respect to their Overseers be hurried away with the temptations of the times as in experience hath often been found a truth 9. Ministers should have a special eye on the weakest of the flock their care should be that the Kids may be next them Our blessed Lord doth so When the Lambs are carried in his own bosom Isa 40.11 And therefore seeing weak Believers have most need of Christs oversight if they begin to slight the Ministry and Ordinances they cannot but be a ready Prey and the Devil hath gained much of his intent when he hath once gained that O! that men would try whose voice it is that saith Come back from the Shepherds Tents when Christ says abide abide near them it 's as if a Wolf would desire the Lambs to come out from under the Shepherds eye And lastly when Christ gives this direction to his own Bride we may see he allows none to be above Ordinances in the Militant Church it will be soon enough then when they are brought to Heaven and put above the reach of Seducers In these words that Holy man of God who was a burning and shining light who had the mind of Christ and the bowels of Christ doth clearly from the words of Christ warn us that the voice which saith Come back from the Shepherds Tents is not the voice of Christ this is not light from the Sun of Righteousness from the face of Christ but darkness from the Prince of darkness who can transform himself into an Angel of Light Obj. 4. All or most of the Non-indulged Faithful and Zealous Ministers in the Land are for hearing of the Indulged and onely a few and those of the younger sort with the ignorant People are against it He Answers That he would hope few should lay weight on this Objection and thinks it enough to refer any such to consider John 7.47 48 49. with Mr. Hutcheson's Notes especially 7 and 9 and then tells us that in all the parts of our Tryal God hath made use of the nothings to break the ice to others And in the Introduction to his 28 Questions he says That in all our carriage that is this day approveable as to the grounds of our Suffering the Lord hath for the most part made the poor flock go before the Shepherds and lead the way to them rather than the Guides to break the Ice and lead the way to the flock as might have been expected I reply His hope is as groundless and reasonless as his imaginations but he would hope his affection guides his hope Credimus an quia amant ipsi sibi somnia fingunt And indeed it seems he was dreaming when he hoped that more weight would or should be laid upon the Opinion and Practice of a few young Preachers and of the ignorant People than on the judgment and practice of all not onely Indulged Ministers but of all or most of the Non-indulged Faithful and Zealous Ministers And I know none who will joyn with him in this Dream except it be such who love to be singular and hope to be more noticed and talked of when they take odd and singular ways and who lay down that for a Principle that the fewest number especially if they be in greatest hazard and danger must certainly be right and all others wrong And when their party grows numerous they grow suspicious that all is not right and so they break again as the English Separatists did at Amsterdam Any may see how strongly this Historian hath been Acted by a spirit of Division seeing he with a few young men take upon them by themselves without the knowledge and concurrence yea contrary to the known and declared mind of all or most of the Non-indulged Faithful Zealous Ministers to drive the poor People upon the Rock of Schism contrary to the Word of God and to the Covenant Many of the Non-indulged thought it fit to forbear to move that Question about the acceptance of the Indulgence in their Sermons to the People they knew weak People though they be well inclined yet having as Children strong Passions and little knowledge and less prudence to direct their affections can hardly differ and not divide Some others who did touch upon that Question yet were against Separation but now perceiving that the People have gone further than they intended are I suppose
Presbytery in Scotland Chap. 10. pag. 124. Consideration 8. Says We Separate not from men but Errors we Separate from Papism kindly properly and totally from Christian Articles in no sort And pag. 123. We have not Separate from Rome's Baptism and Ordination of Pastours according to the Substance of the Act nor from the letter of the twelve Articles of the Creed and Contents of the Old and New Testament as they stand with relation to the mind and intent of the Holy Ghost Howbeit we have left the false Interpretations of the Lords of poor Peoples Faith and Conscience The Historian himself in some cases grants that we should joyn in the Worship of God with these who comply with Prelacy notwithstanding of all they have done as we saw from his concessions in the stating of the Question and yet here he speaks as if all Uniting with them were sinful If the hearing of these who have complyed with Prelacy be at any time a Duty then the hearing of them is no complyance with Prelacy and if the hearing of them who have really complyed with Prelacy be not a complyance with Prelacy then suppose the Indulged Ministers had really complyed with an Erastian Power in the Magistrate yet the hearing of the Indulged Ministers would not have been any complyance with Erastianism How much then is this Historian in the wrong to the poor People who would fright them from hearing the Indulged Ministers who have never complyed with any Erastian Power or sinful Supremacy in the Magistrate as if the hearing of the Word of God Preached by them were sinful a homologating of a sinful Supremacy He adds Alas this our strength will prove our weakness let us remember that of Esay 8.11 12 13 14. He means that Uniting in the Worship of God in these paroches where Indulged Ministers are settled is our weakness and so that it's Peoples strength to withdraw from the Worship of God in these Paroches This must be his meaning or he says nothing to the purpose in hand This is one of the Historians Paradoxes that Union in the true Worship of God is the Churches weakness and that the breaking off that Union is the Churches strength That is to say a Church divided shall stand It seems a Church is not like other Societies for our Saviour says A House and Kingdom divided cannot stand This is a pitiful Paradox for it 's contrary to Scripture Reason Common Sense Experience and the Author brings no shadow of Reason to give it any colour of probability but as he began his last Reason with praying so he Ushers in this pitiful Paradox with lamentation that seeing it had nothing in it nor upon it to plead for it's admission it might be received of meer pity He should have considered that a Printed Book would readily come to the hands of Rational men who regard not Passions that are void of Reason and who will not be prayed or lamented out of their wits Yet this will pass currant among weak People who will be more moved with an Oh or an Alas than with ten solid Reasons or Scripture-Testimonies The Scripture which he exhorts us to remember makes nothing for withdrawing from hearing the Word of God Preached by the Lords Ministers When the Lord Instructed the Prophet That he should not walk in the way of that People nor say a Confederacy to all them to whom that People said a Confederacy He did not discharge the Prophet to hear the Word of God or to joyn with the Lords People in the Worship of God The way of Gods Ordinances is the way of God in which the Lords goings are and in which his People walk with him and in which he hath commanded them to walk but the way of that People was their sinful ways ways of their own which were not Gods ways the Confederacy discharged was not joyning together in the Lords Ordinances for the Lord had commanded his People to Assemble together for his Solemn Worship Deut. 12.11 12 13. Deut. 15.19 20. Deut. 16.7 8.16.17 But the Confederacy discharged is a Confederacy with the King of Assyria He cites Amos 4.12 13. Where the Lord directs his People to prepare to meet their God This Scripture is as little to the Historians purpose as the former for the way to meet with God is not to withdraw from the Worship of God but upon the contrary they who would meet with God must come to his Ordinances for there he meets with them Exod. 25.22 Exod. 29 42 43. He hath said That they who hear his Servants hear himself and hath blessed these who hear him and watch daily at his gates and wait at the Posts of his Doors That 's the way to find him to find Life c. Prov. 8.32 33. He hath promised that where he Records his Name he will come to his People and bless them Separation from the Lords Ordinances is no preparation to meet with God but it is a departing from God And if this Separation from the Lords People and from his Worship be comprehended under the Separating of our selves from every sinful course the Christian complyance which he speaks of is an unchristian mis-application of that word in the 4th of Amos And if he thought that they who have heard the Indulged Ministers must utterly forsake that way as a way provoking the Lord to wrath he was quite out and utterly mistaken about this utter forsaking The Scripture with which he closeth Zeph. 2.1 2 3. is not for his scattering of the Lords People but for the gathering of them together to the Solemn Worship of God If the Author had pondered this Scripture and observed the directions of the Spirit of the Lord which are given in it he would not have endeavoured to scatter the Lords People and if he had made more Conscience of seeking Righteousness he would not have done so many and great wrongs and injuries to his innocent Brethren who had done him no wrong and who were doing right things and if he had made more Conscience of seeking Meekness he would have been more quiet and either altogether been silent or spoken and written of these things with more calmness and composure of Spirit If meekness as they say were lost it would be a hard work to find it in this History in which there is much of the wrath of man which perfects not the Righteousness of God He concludes well with two Petitions of the Lords Prayer Thy Kingdom come thy Will be done If he had looked to the Exposition of the Second Petition of the Lords Prayer in the larger Catechism he would have found that this is a part of the meaning of that Petition that the Church may be countenanced and maintained by the Civil Magistrate and to confirm this the 1 Tim. 2.1 2. is cited I exhort therefore that first of all Supplications Prayers Intercessions and Thanksgivings be made for all men for Kings and for all that are in
as was Aaron If they say That such a Sovereign Jurisdiction is hot discharged and therefore it 's lawful I answer 1. The Offices and Officers of the House of God which are in the Scripture are positively instituted and constituted of God 1 Cor. 12.28 God hath set c. Ephes 4.11 God hath given c. Rom. 12.6 7 8. If God hath not set these new Sovereign Judges Ministers should not stand before them as Judges if God hath not given them for Sovereign Judges we should not receive them and if they be not given their Office is not a gift of Grace It 's a graceless thing and we have nothing to do with it 2. It 's not enough that an Office which is exercised in the name of another be not discharged or forbidden it must be charged and commanded if a man should claim to himself some new Office of Justice or should intrude himself into some Office which were setled by Law would that be a sufficient defence for him that such an Office was not discharged nor he forbidden to take such an Office it would be replyed He had no Law nor Command or Warrant for what he did it 's not enough to make a man an Ambassador that he is not discharged to go Ambassador he must have a positive Commission 3. The Lord in forbidding us to add to his word hath discharged to add any Spiritual Offices to those which he hath instituted in the Word and I see not how those who take on them to make new Spiritual Offices in the Church can hold out new Spiritual work for those new Officers and so we shall have new significant Symbols and Sacraments new worship when they made the Office of the Pope they out out new work for him to make new Articles of Faith to dispence with the Laws of God c. or if they do not this they take somewhat from the formerly established Officers and appropriate it to those new ones the Presbyters were first bereaved of the power of Ordination and then of the power of Jurisdiction ut aliquid faceret Episcopus quod non faceret Presbyter If they object That the rest of the Presbyters need not except they please subject themselves to these Ministers and if they consent to subject themselves to them and stand in Judgment before them and submit their ministry to their disposal then they get this Sovereign power by the Ministers voluntary consent and then volenti non fit injuria may not Ministers part with their power and put it in the hand of one or two or three for unity and order I answer 1. They do as much as they can to necessitate and force the Ministers to subject themselves to those new Sovereign Judges for as far as in them lyes they effectually despise them and in effect excommunicate them by withdrawing from them until they stand in Judgment before their new Lords and Sovereigns and come in their will 2. It 's a great and dangerous error to imagine that Ministers of the Gospel may dispose of their ministerial power as a man may dispose of his money and so may either quit all or give part and retain the rest retain the power of preaching and quit the power of governing in conjunction with others for a Minister hath not Dominion over his ministerial Function as a man hath over his money but he is obliged to retain all that Authority that the Lord hath given him for edification and to make full proof of his Ministry as he will be answerable to his Master who will require an account of the Talents he hath given him to occupy with and therefore suppose the Presbyterian Ministers were so demented as to renounce their ministerial Authority in favour of their new Judges this could not make their Sovereign Jurisdiction warrantable because this surrender made to them would be a non habente potestatem for Ministers cannot give away their Authority to another and therefore their new Judges would still be Usurpers both in usurping a Dominion which the Lord hath not given to Ministers and then taking it to themselves without any title The next thing in Dr. Gaudens Definition is the exercise of this Sovereign power and Spiritual Jurisdiction in the several Acts as Ordination Confirmation Censures Rebuking Silencing Excommunication Absolution c. If we may conclude from the practice of these new Prelates how Sovereign high and absolute they will be in their acts of power we have some ground to think they will out-do any Prelates that have been before them for they have really though not formally deposed and excommunicated the Ministers who differ from them before any Process Tryal or hearing granted to these Ministers and one of them hath very summerly excommunicated the King the Duke of York the Duke of Monmouth and several Peers and Officers of State This is pretty high flown at the first flight it 's but now and then that the Bishop of Rome the Pope himself plays such pranks as these Ordinary Bishops use to have formal processes and they allow Presbyters to have some share in the trial and leading of the process against persons to be Excommunicate and they do not use to Excommunicate Kings and Princes Ambrose the Bishop of Millain was somewhat singular in his censure of Theodosius the Emperour in keeping him seven months from entering within the Church-doors I grant saith Hornius in his Church-History this censure of Ambrose is not approved of all but there are none who can or ought to disapprove the humility and repentance of Theodosius who patiently endured the sharp reproofs of Ambrose and did give example to the whole Church But it 's rare to find great ones of Theodosius disposition there are considerable difficulties objected against the Excommunication of Supreme Magistrates And the fault of Theodosius was so singular for in his passion at a popular sedition in Thessalonica in which the President and some Noblemen were killed he sent in Soldiers who killed seven thousand persons of all ages and sexes both guilty and innocent And then the Emperour was a man so holy humble and tender and Ambrose a Bishop of so great authority and so venerable and beloved that if any ordinary Bishop would attempt to imitate Ambrose in this he would readily find that he had mistaken his measures and would not find that he had to do with a Theodosius or that he himself were an Ambrose But as this is certain that the Excommunication of Magistrates Masters and Parents does not make void their Magistratical Masterly and Paternal authority so this is granted that as it is Church-Judicatories and not single persons that should Excommunicate and * Rutherford's Peaceable Plea Pag. 5. saith The Church not one single man hath the power of Discipline if one Pastor himself alone should Excommunicate the Excommunication were null both in the Court of Christ his Church that these Judicatories must not only consider whether the fault
show that those of the outed Ministers to whom the Magistrate had granted the peaceable publick exercise of their Office in some Parishes in their returning to those Parishes where they were formerly ordained Ministers or not having access to the peaceable exercise of their Ministry in their own Parishes upon the â—nvitation of destitute Congregations with the consent of Presbyterian Ministers concerned going to exercise their Office in those destitute Congregations till they might have access to return â—o their own Parishes That these Ministers in so doing did sin Of what Law of God is this practice of theirs a Transgression Is it a sin for Ministers whom God hath called to the work of the Ministry to exercise their Office in the Parishes where they were ordained Ministers or to help destitute Congregations who desire them to come and help them Is it a sin because the Magistrate permits them to preach The Author himself dare not say this as appears from his first Answer to the first Objection A Minister â—ins not in preaching the Gospel though an Uâ—urper a Robber permit him to preach and much â—ess doth the Permission of the lawful Magistrate render his preaching sinful Object The Magistrate appoints them to preach and to preach in such or such a parish and therefore it 's sinful Ans 1. If it were a sin in the Magistrate to appoint a Minister to preach in such or such a place and a sin for the Minister to preach because the Magistrate appointed him to preach in such a place then the Ministers who wrote the first Book of Discipline and the Church of Scotland who approved it did sin in desiring the Magistrate to appoint Ministers to preach in such and such Parishes We did shew from the first Book of Discipline That they desired the Magistrate to do this and more too even to compel them to preach 2. This Author grants in his Answer to the third Objection That the Magistrate may place Ministers when the Church is corrupt and all things are out of order the vanity of his evasion by which he seeks to elude that Argument taken from the 10th Chapter of the second Book of Discipline is before discovered 3. Suppose it were unlawful for the Magistrate to appoint a Minister to exercise the Office of the Ministry in a particular Parish yet it would not be sinful for that Minister to preach in that Parish if the Parish were vacant and earnestly desired him to exercise his Ministry among them and if his preaching there were not injurious to any if the Magistrates appointing a Minister to preach c. in a Parish render the Ministers preaching in that Parish sinful then the Magistrate by such appointments might make the exercise of the Ministry in any Parish or in all Parishes in his Dominions sinful which is a most absurd Conceit Or is it sinful to accept of the peaceable exercise of their Ministry in such or such Parishes because the Magistrate gives them Injunctions and Rules to regulate them in the exercise of their Ministry But 1. These Injunctions were the Magistrates Acts and not the Ministers 2. The Ministers accepted not of these Injunctions but declared they could receive no such Ecclesiastick Rules from the Magistrate and that they had full Prescriptions from Christ which they behoved to observe as they would be answerable to him of whom they had received their Ministry 3. The Act of Instructions as it was distinct from the Act of Indulgence in which the publick peaceable exercise of their Ministry was granted and came not to the Ministers hands for a considerable time after they had received the Act of Indulgence so there was a great difference in the nature of the Acts and the Indulged Ministers did right in making use of what was good and refusing what was evil 4. If the Magistrates sending Injunctions to Ministers renders the exercise of their Ministry sinful then the Magistrate may render the exercise of the Ministry in any place in every place of his Dominions sinful by sending Instructions to all the Ministers in his Dominions which is another absurd Conceit which if it were received would make it easie for an ill-disposed Magistrate to mar all preaching by writing and sending Acts of Instructions to all the Ministers in his Dominions Object The Act of Indulgence flowed from a sinful Supremacy and therefore it was sinful to make any use of it Ans To say nothing of the making use of a Pass given by a Captain of Robbers or of a Covenant of peaceable commerce made with an Usurper who hath no just title which Casuists do not condemn I answer That that Act which indeed was the Act of Indulgence and which the Indulged Ministers made use of viz. The Relaxation of the Civil Restraint which hindred the peaceable exercise of their Ministry or the granting of the publick peaceable exercise of Ministry was no Act of any sinful Supremacy but the exercise of that power which the Magistrate hath from God for doing good As from the right stating of the question it evidently appears That this accepting of the publick peaceable exercise of the Ministry was not sinful so it evidently appears That it was lawful and commendable and a duty to which they were obliged as the work of the Ministry is a good work so the peaceable setled exercise of it under the protection of lawful Authority is a great mercy that hath many blessings and advantages in it it 's a promised blessing it 's a blessing for which the people of God should pray and because the peaceable setled exercise of the Ministry cannot be where Magistrates are without their allowance or permission therefore it 's duty to pray That the Lord would incline the heart of Rulers to grant the peaceable publick exercise of Religion in their Dominions and when the Lord inclines the hearts of Rulers to this we should not slight such a promised Mercy nor refuse the return of our Prayers but thankfully receive this blessing of God conveyed by the hand of the Magistrate and make use of this Talent to the Glory of God and edification of his Church I remember I have spoken before of the advantages of the peaceable setled exercise of the Ministry and of the necessity of accepting of it especially in answering the last head of the Authors Arguments and shall say no more of the state of the question but this That they who but understand the terms of the question will see that all the Arguments which the Author brings to prove the accepting of the Indulgence sinful do evanish as smoke and lose all colour when they compere before the light of naked Truth And they will see that what these Ministers did in exercising their Ministry in these desolate Congregations when the Lord in his good Providence had given them peaceable access thereto was so evidently a religious work a labour of love a work of mercy a seasonable expedient necessary work
that they will wonder that any do call the lawfulness thereof in question If the Author would have done the part of a Candid Disputant he should have brought forth all the Arguments made use of by the Indulged Ministers in their full strength but he brings several of his own Conceits which he knew best how to deal with and passing the strongest Arguments which were not for his handling he intermixes with these which he brings something of his own which may furnish him occasion of saying something though nothing to the purpose The first Objection as he propones it runs thus May not the Magistrate for ends known to himself discharge Ministers to preach for a time and thereafter permit them to preach and seeing the business of the Indulgence was but of this nature why might it not be acquiesced unto I wonder how he came to alledge the Magistrates discharging Ministers to preach in this place as if the discharging to preach were any part of the business of the Indulgence which was not a discharging to preach but the just contrary a permission and allowance to preach but the Author had something to say concerning the Magistrates discharging of Ministers to preach that he behoved to say somewhere but he could hardly have devised a more impertinent place to speak it than this The Magistrate should not have hindred these Ministers to preach he should not have restrained them from preaching but it was his duty to take off the restraint which he had laid on and to permit them to preach this was the exercise of the power which the Magistrate had from God and therefore the Ministers might lawfully make use of it in accepting this Relaxation of the Restraint formerly laid on and the peaceable exercise of their Ministry but if he had formed the Argument thus he would have had nothing to answer His first answer is That the Indulgence is a far other thing It 's true it 's a far other thing than the discharging of Ministers to preach which he impertinently foisted in into the Objection but says he it 's one thing to permit Ministers to exercise their Office without Molestation and it 's a far other thing to appoint and order them to take upon them such or such particular charges He does not condemn the Magistrates permitting Ministers to preach but he hath a quarrel at the Magistrates appointing to take such or such particular Charges c. but if he would have dealt fairly with the Magistrate he should not have foisted in words of his own but taken the Magistrates words as they are in the Acts of Indulgence in which they do not say that they appoint and order the Ministers to take upon them such and such particular Charges but that they appoint them and in the second Indulgence permit and allow them to preach and exercise the other parts of the Ministerial Function in such a Parish If he quarrel at the Magistrates appointing Ministers to preach at such or such Kirks he must quarrel with the first Book of Discipline and much more with the second Book of Discipline which Chap. 10. makes use of the word placing but enough of this before But suppose that Appointing were not a proper term yet he cannot but acknowledge that the Magistrate did in their permitting allowing appointing these Ministers to preach at such and such Kirks really and effectually relax the Civil Restraints formerly laid upon these Ministers which hindred the peaceable publick exercise of their Ministry in any Parish within the Nation and freed them from the Molestation which they would have been obnoxious to in preaching in such or such Parishes before these Acts of Indulgence and in so far as these Acts did relax that undue Restraint they were good this is so evident that it cannot be with any shadow of Reason denied And hence I reason thus When the Magistrate doth right in relaxing undue restraints which hindered the peaceable publick exercise of the Ministry Ministers may lawfully make use of that Relaxation but the Magistrate in permitting allowing appointing these Ministers to preach in such and such Parishes did right in relaxing c. and therefore these Ministers might lawfully make use of that Relaxation I would gladly hear an answer to this Argument What he subjoyns of their plainting and subjecting the Ministry in its exercise to themselves by giving Injunctions c. as he foists in words of his own which were not in the Acts of Indulgence so he unreasonably confounds the Act of Instructions with the Act of Indulgence which were Acts in all respects distinct the Act of Instructions was no Act of Indulgence for these Instructions were no Indulgence but clogs superadded the Act of Indulgence did take off Restraints and that the Ministers accepted the Act of Instructions did lay on Restraints which the Ministers did not accept of as was fully manifested before But this is the ordinary fault of this Author that when he should reason against the Indulgence as it was accepted by the Ministers or against their pactice in accepting the Releaxation and the peaceable exercise of their Ministry and the Protection of lawful Authority he falls to speak of what was wrong in the Magistrates acting to which the Indulged Ministers had no accession but ye must excuse him for if he had not done this he would have had nothing to say and yet it had been much better to have said nothing than to have spoken so impertinently and so injuriously in charging the indulged Ministers with the fault that they had no accession to If the Authors reasonings were reduced to form they would be very ridiculous as for example the Magistrates Act of Instructions which laid on wrong restraints was not right and therefore the Magistrates Act of Indulgence which took off wrong Restraints was not right Again the Magistrate should not have made the Act of Instructions and thefore the Ministers should not have made use of the Act of Indulgence Baculus stat in angulo ergo pluit the Club stands in the Corner and therefore it rains This third Argument is as good as the other two and yet of such Sand-ropes are the Arguings of this Author twisted Before I leave this I cannot but suspect that all that the Author seems to allow to the Magistrate at least to our Magistrates in reference to the exercise of the Office of the Ministry is this That they should permit and not molest Ministers in the exercise of their Office for he is against their appointing of Ministers to preach at such or such a Kirk I am the more confirmed in this by some passages of the Cup of cold Water and some late actings if this be his Opinion it is a new one for all Orthodox Divines and the Church of Scotland in the second Book of Discipline Chap. 1. maintains That the Civil power should command the Spiritual to exercise and in that same Chapter it 's granted That the Magistrate