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-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-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
of which they had been ejected but this was only an accidental thing and meerly because these Churches were at that time vacant as appeareth by Mr Iohn Park his disappointment because the Prelate prevented his coming to the Kirk designed which had been formerly his own by thrusting in a Curat notwithstanding of his pleading the benefite of the Act of Indemnity in his own defence against what was objected against him and thereby acknowledged himself to have been a Traitour in all his former Actings and that all the work of Reformation was but Rebellion And there is no difference betwixt the appointment made to them who returned to the places where formerly they had preached and that appointment which was made to others to go to other Churches The Councel doth not so much as verbally signifie the Sentence of Banishment from their own Parishes by the Act of Councel at Glasgow Anno 1662. to be now annulled as to them whereby they had liberty to returne to their own Charges and follow their work but simply enjoyneth and appointeth them to go to such a place and there to exercise their Ministrie as simply and plainely as if they had never been there before So that the appointment is one and the same as made by the Councel in pursuance of the Kings Letter And all the difference that was in their several Orders and warrands which they received from the Councel was in regarde of the Patrons and of nothing else as may be seen by the following tenors of these Acts. Followeth the Tenor of the Acts of Indulgence given to the several Ministers to preach conforme to his Maj. Letter of the 7. of Iune 1669. THe Lords of his Maj. Privie Councel in pursuance of his Maj. Commands signified the 7. of Iune last do appoint Mr Ralph Rodger late Minister at Glasgow to preach and exercise the other functions of the Ministrie at the Kirk of Kilwinning And thus did all the rest of this kinde run The other did run thus For same ekle as the Kirk of ..... is vacant the Lords of his Majest Privie Councel in persuance of his Maj. command signified by his Letter the 7. of Iune Instant and in regarde of the consent of the Patron do appoint ... late Minister at ..... to reach and exercise the other functions of the Ministrie at the said Kirk of ..... Whereby we see that these Orders make no difference betwixt such as were appointed to their own former Churches and others who were appointed to other places so that as to this all of them received a new Commission Warrand and Power to exerce their Ministrie in the places designed as if they had never had any relation unto these places before Further it is observable here That these Orders and Acts of the Councel have the same Use Force and Power that the Bishops Collation hath as to the exercise of the Ministrie and that the Ordinance of the Presbyteries used to have in the like cases And therefore this is all the ministerial potestative Mission wich they have unto the actual exercise of their Ministrie in these places Thus wee see the Civil Magistrate arrogateth to himself that which is purely Ecclesiastick to wit the Placeing and Displaceing the Planting and Transplanting of Ministers and giving them a Ministerial Potestative Mission which onely belongeth unto Church-Judicatories So that these Indulged Persons may with as much right be called the Councels or Kings Curats as others are called the Bishops Curats whom the Prelates Collate Place and Displace Plant and Transplant as they please And wee see no regarde had unto the Judicatories of the Church and to their power more in the one case than in the other and possibly the Prelates transportings are done with some more seeming regarde unto the power of Church-Judicatories such as they owne under them but in this deed of the Councel there is not so much as a shew of any deference unto any Church-Iudicatory whatsomever nor is there any thing like it It is obvious then how clear and manifest the encroachement on the power of the Church is that is here made And because Magistrates have no such power from the Lord Jesus and are not so much as nominally Church-Officers as Prelats in so far are at least nor can act any other way as Magistrates than with a coactive civil power and not ministerially under Iesus Christ it is manifest that the Indulged having this Authoritie unto the present exercise of their Ministerie in such and such places only from the Civil Magistrate acting as such have not Power Authority from Christ for Christ conveyeth no Power and Authority in and by the Civil Magistrate but by his own way by Ministers of his own appointment who act under him ministerially And whether or not they have not in submitting to his way of conveyance of Power and Authority to exerce their Ministrie hic nunc upon the matter renounced the former way by which Power and Authority was ministerially conveyed unto them as we use to speak of such of the Prelats Underlings who have received Collation from him and Power to exerce their Ministrie in such and such places where they are now placed though formerly they were ordained and fixed by lawful Church-Judicatories I leave to others to judge But because it may be said that in these foregoing Acts there is no mention made of the Injunctions spoken of in his Majest Letter to be given to all the Indulged Ministers Hear what was concluded and enacted by the Councel on that same day Edinb the 27. of Iuly 1669. THe Lords of his Majest Prive Councel in pursuance of his Maj. Royal pleasure signified to them by his Letter of the 7. of Iune last do in his Maj. Name and Authoritie command and ordaine all such outted Ministers who are or shall be appointed or allowed to exercise the Ministrie That they constitute and keep Kirk Sessions and Presbyteries and Syâ—ods as was done by all Ministers before the Yeer 1638. And the Councel declares that such of them as shall not obey in keeping of Presbyteries they shall be confined within the bounds of the Paroches where they preach aye and while they give assurance to keep the Presbyteries And also the Councel doth strickly command and enjoine all who shall be allowed to preach as said is not to admit any of their Neigbour or other Paroche unto their Communions or Baptize their Children nor marry any of them without the allowance of the Minister of the paroch to which they belong unless that Paroch be vacant for the time nor to countenance the people of the Neighbouring or other Paroches in resorting to their preachings and deserting of their own Paroch Churches And that hereunto they give due obedience as they will be answerable on their highest peril And ordaines these presents to be intimate to every person who shall by Authority foresaid be allowed the exercise of the Ministrie We see here that
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
Ministrie and who not But here the Magistrate declareth what that is which he looketh upon as a due Qualification and judgeth who are so qualified as to be fit for the Ministrie and that without the least deference imaginable unto any Church-â—udicatorie whatsomever If it be said That they Indulged none but such as were Ministers already and so were supposed to be sufficiently qualified for that work I Ans. The Church Officers or the Presbyterie are not only to judge of Qualifications in reference to the Ministrie in general but also in reference to the Ministrie in this or that Particular place where he is to be fixed and no Church-Judicatory had this judgment in the matter of the Indulgence but the Council only And as they Indulged them so they might have Indulged others who had not been placed Ministers before as we see they did Mr Weer whom they did not account a Minister before If it be said That the Qualifications which were here considered to wit peacable and orderly belong properly to the judgment of the Civil Magistrate who as he maketh civil Lawes so can judge who observeth or transgresseth the same I Answ. Not to mentione here the Magistrat's true sense of that peacable and orderly living I say though the Magistrate be the proper judge of this peacable and orderly deportment in order to civil punishment or exemption therefrom yet Church-Judicatories are the only competent judges thereof in reference to the exercise of the Ministrie And it was in reference to this exercise of the Ministrie that these Qualificatioâ—s were here taken notice of 2. It belongeth to the Church or Church-Judicatories to convey Ministerially the Office and Power unto Persons qualified and to grant a Potestative Mission whereby they become authorized to exerce the Ministerial function as was seen above But in the Indulgence all this was done by the Magistrate immediatly the Council sent the Indulged to such and such places as they thought fit and they only clothed them with Authority for that effect or did all that Presbyteries do or ought to do in the like cases See what was said above upon the Acts of Indulgence granted Iuly 27. 1666. Pag. 21. 3. It is a part of the Power and Privilege of Church-Officers and Church-Judicatories to loose Ministers relation unto a place and to Plant and Transplant to Place Ministers in Particular Charges and to Transport them to others as the good of the Church requireth And this we know was constantly practised by our Presbyteries Synods and General Assemblies But here in the Indulgence all this was practised by the Council without once consulting any Church-Judicatory whatsomever They planted and transplanted according to their own pleasure as we saw above in several Instances sending severals from one Church to another many from their own Churches unto others See further our 2 Remark on the Kings Letter It will not here be said I suppose That by the sentence of banishment their relation to their former Charges was annulled And though it were said and granted too which yet cannot be though it would follow that such were not properly transplanted yet our argument would remaine strong for there were others whom the Councel had Indulged to such and such places and thereafter transported to other places as they thought fit And beside as to all of them it was the Council their deed alone which did constitute them Ministers of such and such places and so made up that relation And if they should think that they are not Formally Ministers of such places they could not then say that they were set as Overseers oveâ— these places by the Holy Ghost as possibly they will they should also think themselves free of the burden of that Charge and of the souls of the people as not being committed to their Charge and the people are not obliged to owne them as their Ministers and then they are called to consider with what Conscience they can take the Stipend and Benefice onely allowed by the Law of God to such as take on the cure of souls And beside what ever they think yet the Council did designe and Formally intend their fixed relation unâ—o these places as proper Pastors thereof for the Patrons were thereunto to be consulted their consent to be obtained which according to the Established Law is the way of admitting Formally such and such Persons to be Ministers of such places the other Formality of the Bishops Collation being dispensed with as to its necessity and only enjoined under a penalty or they encouraged to seek it by a farther favour as to their stipend and however it was ordered that Intimation should be made to the Bishops and Archbishops when any Person was Indulged within their Diocies 4. It is a part of the Power granted unto Church-Judicatories to make Canons and prescribe Rules and to give Injunctions concerning the Exercise of the Ministery the Administration of the Ordinances of Christ and the like and this is that Diatactick power acknowledged by all the Orthodox to belong to the Church-Judicatories and we might confirme it here if it were necessary But in this Indulgence we see the Magistrat assuming to himself this Power of making proper Church-Canons giving Rules to regulat Ministers in the Exercise of their Ministrie and imposing such like Injunctions as used to be prescribed and imposed by the Judicatories of the Church in former times Of these Injunctions we have had often times occasion to speak before need not repeat here what hath been said Nor need we in sist on that againe which is commonly said To wit That their accepting of the Indulgence hath no necessary connexion with their approving of this Power to make such Canons and to impose such Injunctions For as we have shown this cannot be evited and this one thing will abundantly evince it to wit If they had received â—his same or the like Indulgence at the hands of the Prelats this had been likewise more consonant to the established late Acts before the Act ofSupremacie was made and if the Prelates had clogged the same supposed Favour with the same or the like Injunctions had not their accepting of the Indulgence accompanied with these Injunctions been a granting of that power unto the Prelates to make such Canons and to give out such Injunctions and Restrictions And if it had been so as to the Prelates why not here also as to the Council 5. Upon the same account we finde by this Indulgence that the Council hath assumed Power of exercising real Church Censures such as Suspension from the exercise of their Ministrie and total Deposition or turning out as they call it See our first and 7. Remarkes on the Kings Letter This most be a great invasion on the Power of the Church and by the Indulgence this Power granted by the King to the Council is confirmed both in the King and in the Council And who is not convinced how sad
Explication of the Scriptures against which nothing can be supposed to move our Adversaries but onely that it is a piece of Reformation yea the only remaining monument of that blessed work all which they abhore 12 We are engaged as will not be denied against Prelacy and yet the Indulged did virtually engage to support that which they stand obliged to pull down by receiving of these Injunctions which ordered them to do many things tending to the strengthening of the Prelatical Invasion Of which more particularly in the following Head VIII Hovv the hands of Prelates are hereby strengthened COnsidering how we stand engaged against Prelates and Prelacie every sinful course that hath a tendencie to strengthen their hands and to fix them in their tyrannical Usurpations over the Church should be so much more abhorred by us Yea what otherwayes might be lawfully done in this case should be wholly forborne We shall therefore take notice of the Advantages given to Prelacy by this Indulgence As. 1. Not to mention the open door that is left unto them to accept of the Prelates Collation nor the encouragement they have unto the seeking and obtaining of this from the Bishop in and by this Indulgence we may take notice of this That hereby they put themselves in prison and the key of their Prison door is in the Prelates hands for without licence granted by the Bishop of the Diocie they may not go without the bounds of their confinment And sure as this is no small disadvantage to themselves but a manifest exposeing of themselves unto temptation so it is a great power and advantage granted to the Prelate over them which slaverie and bondage they had been free of if refusing the Indulgence they had remained in the same Condition with the rest of their Non-Induâ—ged Brethren 2. There is in the accepting of the Indulgence a voluntarie with-drawing of an helping hand from the greatest part of the Land groaning under the Tyranny of Prelacy and a leaving of the same unto the will and pleasure of the Prelates and of their Curates for hereby they willingly did give up themselves to be inclosed wiâ—hin their several designed and limited places and were content their Ministery should be their confined let the necessity of the Church be what it would or couâ—d be Thus as to them the Prelates and their Curats were left in the peacable possession of all the rest of the Land which was no smaâ—l advantage seing they were secured as to them in all time coming and had no ground to fear that they should â—â—ssen their Kingdom and beat-up their quarters with Field House-Meetings as others Non-Indulged did and are doing to the Glory of God to our Comfort 3. Not to mentione the friendly and brotherly love and correspondence that some have observed betwixt some of the Indulged and their neighbour Hirelings who are under the Prelates the general deadness and slackness as to any zeal against the Prelates and their wicked courses which is commonly observed wherever the Indulgence is is no small proof of the advantage which Prelates and Prelacie have had by the Indulgence Prelates themselves will possiblie say that one field Conventicle hath done them and their cause more prejudice than many preachings of all the Indulged men Though I am far from thinking that the preachings of the Indulged have any direct tendencie to strengthen the Course of Prelacie yet what I have said being generally observed to be true themselves are concerned to search whence and how it cometh to passe that it is so as also how it is that so many observe a greater keenness in them against the field preachers than against the Prelates yea and the Supremacy even in their Sermons 4. It may have some weight as to this to consider how by their accepting of the Indulgence which floweth from the Supremacie the Prelates are ready to look upon themselves as justified in accepting of Prelacie from that same Supremacie for may they think These men cannot blame us for acquiesceing unto the determination of the King acting by vertue of his Supremacy in Church-affairs and over all Church-Persons and accepting of that Charge and Place which is given to us in the Church from him who hath full power to dispose of Ecclesiastick Persons as he will seing they themselves have acquiesced unto the determination of the King acting by vertue of his Supremacie over Church-Persons and accepted of what charge and place in the Church he thought fit to give them and took their Instructions to boot 5. In accepting of the Instructions they virtually engaged themselves to several things which could not but strengthen the hands of the Prelates and their Curates As 1. To admit none of the people who live under Curates unto their Sermons 2. Not to admit them to their Communions without the allowance of the Curates 3. Nor to baptize their Children without the same allowance 4. Not to marry any living within their bounds without the said allowance if the place be not vacant 5. They are ordered also to observe Presbyteries and Synods which are now wholly Prelatical 6. Matters of Discipline and Censure which usually came before Presbyteries and Synods are ordered to run in the same channel By all which not to mentione their praying of dues to the Clerks of those Episcopal Meetings which was also injoined it is obvious and plaine how the hand of the Prelates and their Curates were to be strengthened and if these Orders had been punctually observed themselves I hope will grant that hereby the hands of these Adversaries had been strengthened and if so sure I am their receiving of these Injunctions and of their licence upon condition of observing them was a virtual engaging of themselves hereunto IX Hovv it is against our Covenants I Hope it will be granted that the obligations of the Covenants Vowes and Solemne Engagments are upon us and that I need do no more here than show wherein the accepting of this Indulgence was against our Covenants and this is to me manifest from these Particulars 1. It is a chiefe part of that Religion and head of that Doctrine that we are obliged by all our Covenants and Vowes to defend viz. That Christ is sole King and Head of His Church which is His House and Kingdome and consequently we are obliged to do nothing that may wrong His Right and entrench upon His Royal Prerogatives But what wrongs the accepting of this Indulgence carrieth alongs with it against the Royal Prerogatives of Christ as sole Head and King of His Church we have seen above under the first Head and we need not here repeat them 2. We are obliged by our Covenants to defend and own Presbyterian Government as is granted by all but in how many particulars this Indulgence crosseth the principles of Prebyterian Government we have seen above under the Second Head and as to all these particulars our Covenants are violated 3. How we are engaged by our
people as that countenancing and hearing of the Indulged is looked upon as an approving of the Indulgence it self the people not knowing the use and practice of Metaphysical distinctions how can such be urged to hear and countenance them who by so doing must look upon themselves as approving what otherwise they condemne contrare to Rom. 14 22 23 Many moe Arguments may be gathered out of the several Particulars we mentioned above under the several Heads of Arguments but we shall satisfie our selves with these at present leaving the Understanding Reader to make his owne use of the rest that are not made use of here For further satisfaction in this matter to such as would have Formal Arguments I shall only say That by what Arguments Principally we vindicat the People their withdrawing from the Curates by the same mutatis mutandis by changing or adding such words as must be changed or added we shall be able to vindicate the people their withdrawing from the Indulged I saw lately a Vindication of the persecuted Ministers and Professours in Scotland written by a faithful Minister of Christ now in Glory and found that the Chiefe of these Arguments whereof he made use to vindicate the people their withdrawing from the Curats were applicable to the question now under debate concerning the hearing or withdrawing from the Indulged as I shall make appear by these Instances His first Argument Pag. 75. was this They who have no just Authority nor Right to officiat fixedly in this Church as the proper Pastors of it ought not to be received but withdrawn from But the Prelates and their adherents the Curats adde for our case the Indulged have no just Authority or Right to officiat in this Church as her proper Pastours Therefore they ought not to be received but withdrawn from All the debate is about the Minor which he thus maketh good They who have entered into and do officiat fixedly in this Church without her Authority and Consent have no just Authority or Right so to do But the Prelats and their Curats adde the Indulged have entered into this Church and do Officiat therein without her Authority and Consent Therefore they have no just Authority The first Proposition saith he and we with him is clear and we suppose will not be gainesaid by our Antagonists seing the power of Mission of Calling of Sending of ordinarie fixed Pastours is only in the Church and not in any other as all Divines do assert The Second is evident from matters of fact for there was no Church-Judicatory called or convocated for bringing of Prelats in to the Church adde nor for setling of the Indulged over their respective charges all was done immediatly by the King and Acts of Parliament adde Acts of the Counâ—il without the Church A practice wanting a precedent in this and for any thing we know in all other Churches He proposeth an Objection in behalf of the Curats Pag. 78. which I know the Indulged will use for themselves to wit They have entered by the Church And his answer will serve us which is this This we deny the contrare is clear from confiant Practice for the Curats adde the Indulged came in upon Congregations only by the Bishop and Patron adde in our case only by tâ—e Council and Patron who are not the Church nor have any power from her for what they do in this All their right and power is founded upon and derived from the Supremacy and Acts of Parliament and not from the Church in which the Bishop adde the Council acts as the Kings Delegat and Substitute only impowered thereâ—o by his Law adde Letter So that the Curats adde the Indulged having and deriving all their power from the Prelates adde the Council cannot have the same from the Church none gives what he hath not But. 2. The Prelats adde the Council not being the lawful Governing Church any that enter Congregations by them cannot be said to enter by the Church Read the rest there His second Argument is proposed Pag. 79.80 thus Those that receive and derive their Church power from and are subordinat in its exercise to another Head then Christ Jesus should not be received and subjected to as the Ministers of Christ in his Church But the Prelates and their Curats adde the Indulged do receive and derive their Church Power from and are subordinat in its exercise to another Head than Christ Jesus Theâ—efore they ought not to be received c. The first Proposition will not be denied He proveth the second thus Those Officers in the Church professing themselves such that derive their Church-power from and are subordinate in its exercise to a Power truely Architectonick and Supream in the Church beside Christ do derive their Power from and are subordinat in its exercise to another Head than Christ Jesus But so it is that Prelats and their Curats adde the Indulged do derive their Church-Power from and are subordinat in its exercise to a Power truely Architectonick and Supreme in the Church beside Christ. Therefore c. The Major is evident for whoever hath a Supream Architectonick Power in and over the Church must be an Head to the same and the Fountaine of all Church-power The Minor is clear from the Act of Restitution adde the Act Explicatory of the Supremacy His third Arg. Pag. 8. is long I shall cut it short thus that it may serve our case If Churches required by Law or Act of Council to submit to Prelates and to their Curats or to the Indulged thus thrust in upon them had their own Pâ—stors set over them conforme to Gods Word then it is no sinful Separation for Churches in adhering to their Ministers not to receive or submit to the Prelats and their Curats or to the Indulged But the former is true Therefore c. The truth of the Major is founded on this That the obligation betwixt Pastor People standeth notwithstanding of the Magistrat's Act. And the Minor is true I suppose as to some Churches over which the Indulged were placed by the Council His fourth Argument Pag. 90. will serve us It is thus The way of the Curats Indulged entering into Congregations puts a bar on our subjection to them that we dar not owne them for the lawful Pastors of the Church for as their entry is without the Church and the way that Christ hath setled in his House for that end so they have come in on Congregations in wayes which we judge corrupt and without all warrant from the Word of God the practice of the Primitive times In search of Scripture and pure Antiquity we finde that Ordination adde and Potestative Mission by Ministers the Election and Call of the people was the way by which Ministers entered into Congregations and not the Institution and Collation of the Bishop adde nor the Warrant and Allowance of the Magistrat nor the Presentation of Patrons He addeth 1. This way of their
entry by the Bishops Institution and Collation adde the Councels Warrant and Order doth suppone that their Ordination adde Potestative Mission doth not sufficiently impower them to the exercise of the Ministrie adde in that Particular Charge without a further licence which is contrare to the end of Ordination and the Nature of the Ministerial Power that by vertue of its ends and the command of Christ doth binde the Person invested therewith to its Exercise c. 2. The Patrons Presentation as it takes away the Peoples right of Election so it suppones Ordination to give no right to the maintainance or at least suspends it c. His Fift Arg. is Pag. 91. thus framed and may serve us as to some Many Congregations into which the Curates adde the Indulged are entred are under a standing Obligation to their former Pastours not only on the account of the Pastoral Relation betwixt them but for the Engagements they came under to such in their call and reception of them which is not dissolved by any thing we have yet seen Sure we are the Magistrate cannot do it c. I hope I need nor in reference to the Indulged mention what followeth in answering of the Objection taken from Salomons removing of Abiathar His Sixt Arg. Pag. 94. is this If Congregations have a just Right and Power of Electing and Calling of their Ministers than those that come in upon them without this are not to be esteemed their Pastors nor to be subjected to as such by Congregations but to be withdrawn from But here it is so c. His Seventh Arg. Pag. 95. is this Hearing of submitting to and receiving of Ordinances from the Curats alone adde the Indulged and not from others is enjoined by Law and required as the signe of our compliance with and subjecting to the Present Lawes bringing in and establishing of Prelacy adde Erastianisme and the Supremacie and other Corruptions which we dar not owne Hearing and receiving Ordinances from such hath a twofold bar put upon it to us an unqualified Instrument or Object and the respect that by the Law it is made to have to the corruptions obtruded upon this Church as the signe of our compliance with and subjection to these The Command of God about hearing doth constitute the Object and Instrument what and whom we should hear As we are not to hear all Doctrines but these that are sound so we are not to hear and receive all that pretend to come in Christs Name but those of whose Mission we have some rational evidence at least against which we have no just exceptions This as to to the Curats adde the Indulged is made out by the former Arguments But beside this the signe appointed and determined by Law and required of all in this Church is that they not only withdraw from and do not hear the Ejected and Non-conforme Ministers but that they hear and submit to Ministers that comply with and enter into this Church by Prelates adde or by the Council which to us maketh â—earing and receiving of Ordinances from them a practical approbation of and compliance with Prelacy adde Erastianisme and the Supremacy and other corruptions contained in the Law for such is the connexion betwixt the signe and the thing signified that he that yeelds to give the signe doth in all rational construction approve the thing signified These are his Principal Arguments used in defence of such as cannot go to hear and subject to the Curats and whether they will not as forcibly conclude against hearing of and subjecting to the Indulged the Reader is free to judge Objections Answered If any should Object whether in behalfe of the Curats or in behalf of the Indulged That they are Ministers of the Gospel and therefore are to be heard and Ordinances should be received from them for the Ministerial power giveth to the Persons invested therewith not only a right to preach the word and dispense Ordinances and maketh their Acts valide but it bindes them to the doing of those and all others to submit to them in the exercise of their Power as is apparent in all relations and the mutual duties that the Persons under them owe to one another So that if Ministers be bound to preach the Gospel and dispense its Ordinancesâ— the people must likewise be obliged to hear and receive Ordinances from them To this objection he answereth and we with him as to the case now in question denying the Consequence For 1. The true state of the question is whether we should receive and submit to them as the lawfully Called and Appropriat Pastors of this Church which for the former Reasons we deny for although Intruders upon the Church be Ministers yet their Intrusion puts a sufficient bar on Peoples reception of and submission to them wherefore in so far as hearing and receiving of Ordinances from Prelatical Ministers adde Indulged is in our case an acknowledgment of this we refuse it 2. Peoples obligation to submission to Ministers doth not immediatly flow from the being of the Ministerial Power and Authority in those clothed therewith there are beside this other things that must concurre to the causing of this Obligation which if they be wanting will make it void or at least suspend it c. If it be further Objected in favours of the Indulged That Eminent and worthie Mr Livingstoun though he saith much against the Indulgence in his Letter to his Parishoners yet he adviseth them sometime to hear Mr Iohn Scot who was Indulged I Ans I shall readily grant that several were in the dark at the first in the matter either through want of full information concerning many circumstances which if known would have given greater light in the matter or through ignorance of the real Designe Intendment of the Rulers which afterward came more more to light or through a fear that Field-meetings should either cease or be utterly suppressed therefore judged it more safe for people to hear the Indulged than either to hear none or none but the Curats And though I do not certainly know which of these grounds moved that Eminent Seer and Servant of Christ to advise so yet considering that in all that Letter to my remembrance he doth not speak of their going to the Field Meetings which I suppose none that knew him will think that he was an enemie unto I am apt to think that the Apprehension he had of the ceasing of the Field-Meetings at least in that part of the Countrey in which I doubt there had been any or many at least before his writing of that Letter did move him to advise them sometimes to hear that Indulged Person as judging that better than that they should hear none or none but that wretch who was obtruded upon them and as supposing he would not pervert them by his Doctrine but would give free and faithful Testimonies unto the Truth and agaâ—â—st all publick Corruptions Further I suppose
King alone or with his Privie Councel cannot put order to Ecclesiastical matters and causes or exerce church-Church-Power and Jurisdiction without a violation of this Law and manifest controlling of it And further in the 4. Act of that same Second Session of Parliament it is expresly ordained that none be hereafter permitted to preach in publick or in families within any diocess without the licence of the Ordinary of the Diocess So that this licence and permission granted to the Indulged by the Councel to preach and exercise the other parts of their function being without the licence of the Bishops is manifestly contrary and repugnant to this Law Moreover Act 1. in the third Session Anno 1663. we have these words And the Kings Maj. having resolved to conserve and maintaine the Church in the present State and Governmēt hereof by Archbishops Bishops and others bearing Office therein and not to endure nor give way or connivace to any variation therein in the least doth therefore with advice and consent of his Estates conveened in this third Session of his Parliament Ratifie and Approve the afore mentioned Acts and all other Acts and Lawes made in the two former Sessions of Parliament in order to the settling of Episcopal Dignity Iurisdiction and Authority within the Kingdom and ordains them to stand in full force as publick Lawes of the Kingdom and to be put to further execution in all points conforme to the tenor thereof Here is a further Ratification and Confirmation of the Lawes mentioned and the Councel hereby yet more firmely bound-up from emitting any Acts or Edicts contradictory to and tending to weaken and invalidat the publick standing Lawes of the Kingdom And which is yet more considerable in the following words of this same Act the effectual putting of these Lawes in execution is specially and in terminis recommended by King and Parliament unto the Privy Councel after this manner And in pursuance of his Maj. Royal resolution herein his Maj. with advice foresaid doth recommend to the Lords of his Maj. Privie Councel to take speedy and Effectual Course that these Acts receive ready and due Obedience from all his Maj. Subjects and for that end that they call before them all such Ministers who having entred in or since the Yeer 1649. and have not as yet obtained Presentations and Collations as aforesaid yet darred to preach in contempt of the Law and to punish them as seditious persons and contemners of the Royal Authority As also that they be careful that such Ministers who keep not the Diocesian meetings and concurre not with the Bishops in the Acts of Church-Discipline being for the same suspended or deprived as said is be accordingly after deprivation removed from their Benefices Gleebs and Manses And if any of them shall notwithstanding offer to retaine the Possession of their Benefices or Manses that they take present Course to see them dispossest And if they shall thereafter presume to exercise their Ministrie that they be punished as seditious Persons and such as contemne the Authority of Church and State Now notwithstanding of this express reference and severe recommendation we know that in the matter of the Indulgence they were so far from punishing such as had not obtained Presentations and Collations and yet had continued to preach and exercise their Ministrie that in perfect contradiction to this Injunction of King and Parliament and other forementioned Acts they licensed warranded and impowered some such as by Act of Parliament were to be punished as seditious Persons and contemners of Authority of Church and State to preach publickly and to exercise all other parts of their Ministrie and that upon the sole warrand of the Kings Letter which cannot in Law warrand and impower them to contraveen express Lawes and Acts of Parliament and not only to disobey the Injunctions of Parliament but in plaine termes to counteract and counterwork the Established and Ratified Lawes and so to render them null and of no effect Whence we see that there was a necessity for the Parliament An. 1669. to do something that might secure the Lives and Honours of the members of Councel in point of law in granting of that Indulgence which was so expresly against law and which the two Arch-Prelates members of Councel would never give their assent unto as knowing how it intrenched upon the power granted to them and the other Prelates confirmed by Law and so was a manifest rescinding of these Acts and Lawes And though this might have been done by a plaine and simple Act approving and ratifying what the Councel had done in compliance with his Maj Royal Pleasure and authorizing them in time coming to pursue the ends of the same Letter further with a non obstante of all Acts formerly made in favoures of Prelates and Prelacie Yet it is probable they made choise of this way of explaining by a formal and full Statute and Act of Parliament the Supremacie in these plaine full and ample termes wherein we now have it that thereby they might not only secure the Councel but also make the Kings sole Letter to the Councel in all time coming a valid ground in Law whereupon the Councel might proceed and enact and execute what the King pleased in matters Ecclesiastick how intrinsecally and purely such soever without so much as owning the corrupt Ecclesiastick medium or channel of Prelacy And withal it might have been thought that such an act so necessary for the legal preservation of the Indulgers and consequently of the Indulged in the enjoyment of the Indulgence would go sweetly down with all the Indulged and such as gaped for the like favour howbeit so framed as that it was not very pleasant at the first tasting For it cannot be rationally supposed that such as are pleased with their warme dwellings will cast out with the walles roof of the dwelling without which they would enjoy no more warmness than if they were lodging beside the heth in the wilderness And who could think that any indulged man could be dissatisfied with that which was all and only their legal security and without which they were liable to be punished as seditious persons and as contemners of Authority even for preaching by vertue of the Indulgence according to Lawes standing in force unrepealed Whence also we see what a faire way was made unto this Act of Supremacy by the Indulgence and how the Indulgence is so far beholden unto this Act that it can not stand without it nor the persons Indulged be preserved from the lash of the Law notwithstanding of all that was done by the Councel And thus these two are as twines which must die and live together for take away the Act of Supremacy and the Indulgence is but a dead illegal thing We may also see what to judge of this illegal and illegitimat birth that cannot breathe or live where Law reigneth without the swedling clothes of such a Supremacy nor can stand but