this is when every one might see what invasions daily were made upon the Power of the Church by the Civil Magistrate and therefore all were clearly called aloud to cry against this and to stand and withstand and do nothing that might contribute to fortifie them in their Usurpations or to occasion their further Incroachment which might have been forborne without sin And sure I am if these Brethren had forborn to accept of the Indulgence as several others did refuse it the occasion of this and many other Invasions had not been given and Church Power had not been so formally usurped as it hath been not the Magistrates so fixed in the possession thereof as they are by such cedings III. What Affinitie it hath with the Supremacie OUr third Head of Arguments against this Indulgence is taken from its relation to affinitie with dependance upon and conâ—irmation by that woful Act of Supremacie made by our Parl. 1669. And sure all who are tender of the Concernes of Christ's Crown and of the Privileges of his Church will have an utter detestation of and abhorrence at any course which floweth from is continued and confirmed by and cannot stand without that Act which with one dash doth dethrone our Lord and spoile him of his Royal Prerogative and his Church of all her Privileges What occasion or rise the Indulgence gave unto the Act of Supremacie and what a foundation it laid for mâ—re of that kind and what a neer affinity and likeness is betwixt them we have shown above and need onely recapitulat things here 1. Had this Indulgence been utterly refused we had never yet seen that Act of Supremacie for the Council having granted the Indulgence upon the Kings Letter contrary to many Acts of Parliament knew no other way to salve themselves but by framing this Act which both secured them for times by past and against all hazard also in going on in the same course as they had begun for the future The grant of the Indulgence was never lawful nor the granters-secured by Law until this Act was made How shall we then judge well of the Indulgence that gave the necessary rise unto that prodigious Act 2. The Indulgence it self would be still an illegitimat brood notwithstanding of all that King and Council both did were it not for the Act of Supremacy for by the Act of Supremacie that is now made a legal deed which otherwise was directly against Law What shall we then think of the Indulgence that must be legitimat by such an Act And what a possession that must be that hath such an Act for its Groundright and Charter let sober men judge 3. The Indulged would notwithstanding of all that is done by both King and Council be still seditious Persons in the account of the Law and lye under hazard of the same were it not for this Act which alone secureth them from the lash of all Lawes made for that end This Act is their onely Right and Ground of Securitie whereby they can plead themselves free from all that could be brought against them by foregoing Lawes So that among other things wherein the Indulged do now differ from all the Non-conforming Ministers this is one that the Indulged are under the Protection of the Supremacie and lye in saftie under the winges thereof whileas others have it not stretched over their heads and so do not enjoy that chilling warmth that is to be had thereunder 4. This is further confirmed by all the Particulars mentioned under the two foregoing Heads for they all belong to this Supremacie and are parts of the same and the Supremacie is but one comprehensive complicated and compounded Act of Usurpation of the Crown of Christ as Head and King of his Church and of the Power and Privileges belonging to the Church and to the Officers of the House of God 5. We saw before the same asserted by Worthy Mr Iohn Burnet in his Testimonie against the Indulgence whose Argument is worth Consideration and I shall here repeat it To Settle Enact Emit Constitutions Acts and Orders concerning Matters Meetings and Persons Ecclesiastical according to Royal Pleasure is the very Substance and Definition of his Maj. Supremacy as it is explained by his Estates of Parliament But the Act of his Maj. Royal Indulgence is only to Settle Enact and Emit such Constitutions Acts and Orders concerning Matters Meetings and Persons Ecclesiastical according to Royal Pleasure Therefore the Act of his Maj. Indulgence is the substance and definition of his Maj. Supremacy c. 6. Seing by what is said it is apparent that not onely is the Usurped Supremacy put in exercise and confirmed in the hands of the Usurped by the Indulgence but also the formal asserting of the extravagant Supremacy by a plaine Statute and Act of Parliament explaining and confirming the same is looked upon as necessary to support the Indulgence and to keep it in legal being It can not be well denied that such as have accepted of this Indulgence have homologated this Supremacie and contributed by vertue of that acceptance all their power to the fixing of this Usurpation for more was not required of them for this end and if they had refused the Indulgence this Statutory establishment of the Supremacy had never been accounted necessary nor possibly once thought upon 7. As he who accepteth a benefite from a Person which that Person cannot bestow but by an usurped Power and doth formally flow from that Usurped Power doth homologat by his acceptance that Usurped Power So the Accepters of the Indulgence from the King and Council which they could not give but by the Usurped Supremacie and which formally and kindly floweth therefrom cannot but in so doing homologate that Usurped Supremacy 8. If this Indulgence had been granted by the Prelate of the Diocie would not the acceptance thereof have homologated Prelates Usurpation and been an acknowledgment thereof Why then shall not the accepting of this Indulgence when granted by the King and his Council be an homologating of their Usurpation Especially seeing the Usurped Power of the Prelate is but a branch of the Supremacy and floweth therefrom Prelates as such having no church-Church-Power with us but what is granted by the King by Vertue of the Supremacie by the Statute Law of the Land Wherefore if the accepting of the Indulgence at the hands of the Prelates would have homologated the Usurpation that yet flowed from the Supremacy and consequently the Supremacy it self though at a step further off how is it imaginable that the accepting of the Indulgence from the King and Council immediatly shall not be an homologating of the Supremacie which is the immediat root and ground thereof 9. Such as accepted of the Prelates Collation whether to new places or to the same places where they had been before the restauration of Prelacy will I suppose be looked upon as homologating in that act the Prelates Power and consequently the Supremacie from whence that Power
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-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
But now what Conscientious Minister can either tacitely promise such a thing or upon the highest â—eril forbear to utter such discourses Or who can think that any such thing can be yeelded unto who considereth what God requireth of Ministers in reference to a Corrupted and Apostatized State and what the weight of the bloud of souls is and who hath ever read Ezek. 3 vers 17 18 19 20 21 22. and Chap. 33 ver 7 8 9 10. and considered what a fearful thing it is to fall into the hands of a living God It is true the Councel in their act made no mention of this for what reasons themselves best know Yet it is sure that the King and Court expected that none should have the benefite of the Indulgence but such only of whom they had or thought they had all the rational security imaginable that they should be men of other Principles than to utter such expressions And we may be very certaine that the Councel in pursuance of the ends of his Maj. Letter made choise of such as they accounted most peacable and of whom they had the least fears imaginable that they should ever utter whether in pulpit or out of pulpit such seditious discourses and expressions They took them no doubt to be men of a more peacable disposition as they called it and more wise and sober to speak according to their dialect But oh what will after ages say who shall hear of the Kings Letter and what the Councel did in pursuance thereof and see also that N. N. c. without the least Testimony to the Truth accepted of the offer and never hear where or when these Persons were challenged or accused for uttering of such speeches that is for an honourable mentioning of the glorious work of God so miraculously wrought and carried on and a faithful Testifying against the unparallel'd perfidie and breach of Covenant and against the most abominable irreligious inhumane and tyrannical Acts made for establishing of this wicked Course of Defection What I say will after ages say when they compare this with the valiant and zealous deportment of our Predecessours and of some at least of these same persons Anno 1648. and some yeers preceeding It will not be a sufficient covering for this nakedness to say They heard nothing of that while they received the Indulgence For it is not unlike but they saw or heard of the Kings Letter and the report of such an expression therein should have made them diligent to have gote a sight of it if it was not offered unto them and their Mouth did clearly in his discourse before them as we shall hear intimate that they were no strangers thereunto And suppose they had known nothing of this yet they could not be ignorant that this was included in their qualifications And if they should reject all this as importing no consent on their part Let their practice since the accepting of the Indulgence say whether or not they have regairded that as the maine and only condition However I think here was ground enough for them to have scrupled at the embracing of this supposed favour 7. The next thing here to be noticed in the Letter is the Power and Command which the King giveth to the Councel to silence those Ministers for a longer or shorter time if they disobey these foresaid Injunctions and if a complaint be verified the second time to silence them for a longer time or to turne them out that is in plaine language to depose them simpliciter especially if they utter any sedicious speeches He must be very blinde who seeth not what height of Erastianisme is here did ever any of the Reformed Churches say that a Magistrate as such could suspend and depose Ministers from their Office Did ever King Iames assume this power unto himself See if his Declaration penned with his own hand signed and delivered to the Commissioners of the Church of Scotland at Linlithgow Dec. 7. 1585. saith so much though at this time he had gote his Supremacie in Church-matters screwed up to the highest peg he thought attainable Did ever any of our Confessions of Faith or Books of Discipline or Acts and Canons of our Church give the power of the Keyes the power of inflicting Church-censures upon Ministers unto the Civil Magistrate Did ever our Divines for I except Court Chaplains and Parasites whom I account none of ours write or say such a thing Read what Calderwood hath said in his Altar Damasc. pag 23 24. and what worthy Mr. Rutherfoord hath said in his Due Right of Presbyteries pag. 427. and forward and read that elaborat Tractat of Mr G. Gillespie Aarons Rod Blossoming and see if there be any such thing hinted there See if the CXI Propositions or the Propositions for Government mention any such thing Now if these Indulged be not Erastian in their Principles as I hope they are not I cannot see but they are Erastian in their Practices For they knowing that such a power was assumed by the King and now given and granted by the King unto the Councel whereby they were authorized to put the same in practice and so to exercise pure and intrinsick church-Church-power that is inflict pure Church-censures Suspend and Depose Ministers That is 1. Not only not to suffer them to preach and administer Sacraments in his Kingdom and Dominions which yet worthie Mr Rutherfoord will not grant in his Due Right c. pag. 430. upon these accounts 1. Because the King as King hath not Dominion of places as sacred and religious for his power in Church-matters is only cumulative not privative so as he cannot take away an house dedicated to Gods service no more than he can take away maintainance alloted by publick authority upon Hospitals Schools Pastors and Doctors 2. The Apostles might preach in the Temple though Civil Authority forbad them 3. And all know that he cannot hinder the exercise of the Ministrie in any other Kingdom it is not this onely I say but simplie not to preach and administer the Sacraments 2. It is not only to discharge the exercise of the Ministrie which yet Mr Rutherfoord ubi supra pag. 431. with Calderwood take to be a degree of Suspension which is an Ecclesiastical degree to the censure of Excommunication and therefore the King may as well Excommunicat and remit and retaine sins as he can suspend but it is to take away the very power of Order given instrumentally by the Church if with Papists and Formalists they asserte not an indeleble Character And 3. It is the taking away of what he never gave for he never ordained nor could ordaine a Pastor by any Law of God that is Ecclesiastically designe appoint set apart and constitute a qualified Person to the Ministrie by prayer and laying-on of hands for this was alwayes done by Church-officers Act. 13 v. 3. and 14 v. 23. 1 Tim. 4 14. and 5 22. 2 Tim. 2 2. Tit. 1 5 6 7 8
Minister To acquaint the Councel of their Names and place of their Imprisonment that such course may be taken with them as they shall think fit And further the said Sheriffs are ordained and commanded to enquire how the Ministers confined and allowed to preach in their several Jurisdictions do obey the Rules prescribed to them and contained in another Act of Councel of the date of thir presents and whereof extracts are to be sent to the several Magistrates foresaid who are hereby appointed to report to the Councel there anent every six moneths and betwixt and the first of june next their diligence in the execution of the order contained in the Act certifying them that if they shall be negligent or remisse in the execution of the orders given to them herein or falzying to give in the said account they shall be proceeded against and censured according to their demerites By this Act we see what course was laid down to have all the outted Ministers cantonized and brought under restraint that so the Word might also be under bonds and restricted to these bounds to which they had been pleased to extend the Indulgence We see also how the Councel looked upon such as had been ordained but not by Prelates and how they were to be persecuted by their Order We see also how the ministery of those who were thus to confine themselves in places where Indulged men were is restricted by their Prescriptions in its exercise But by the preceeding Act of Indulgence we saw a number of Ministers Indulged who were to repaire to the several places specified and to this end every one of them were to receive their own particular Act or Summonds to this effect Halyroodhouse Septemb. 3. 1672. THe Lord Commissioner's Grace and the Lords of his Maj. Privie Councel considering the disorders which have lately been by frequent and numerous Conventicles being willing to remeed so great an evil in the gentlest manner could be thought on and his Maj. Commissioner being sufficiently instructed herein They do hereby order and appoint ... to repaire to the Paroch Kirk of ... and to remaine therein confined permitting and allowing him to preach exercise the other parts of the Ministerial function in the said Paroch with ... formerly Indulged But where no Minister had been formerly Indulged this last clause was left out As also there was sent alongs with this act to every one of them an extract of the Councels Instructions of the date thereof Here we see the Former Injunctions renewed and pressed on all formerly and now of late indulged and moreover we finde some new Injunctions superadded to wit concerning the time of their celebrating of the Lords Supper of purpose to hinder the greater Good and Edification of the people who used to go to other Churches than their owne to partake of that Comforting and Strengthening Ordinance Whereby also an insupportable yock was put upon their necks to celebrat the Sacrament at times as to some in particular possiblie most unseasonable when neither they nor their people were in case and when the season of the year might prove an impediment in Landward Kirks though none to Towns And further they are injoined not to preach without the Walls of the Kirk nay not so much as in their House such hatred and indignation had these Rulers at all House and Field Meetings that they would not suffer even their own licensed and warranted Ministers to do any thing that might carry the least appearance of any such thing So they are ordered to acknowledge their subjection unto the Prelates Courts by referring cases usually referable to Presbyteries unto them as also to testifie their acknowledgement of the Prelates Courts by paying their proportion of the Salarie now alledged to be due to the Clerks of these Courts Any may see what snares were laid here and what obedience was given hereunto by these Ministers who accepted of the benefite of this Indulgence I know not It is sufficient for me to note here that these Injunctions flow from an Usurped Power and are not proper Magistratical Acts circa sacra but Intrinsecally Church-Constitutions at least several of them and therefore the accepting of these which were a piece of the complex Business of the Indulgence as tendered and granted by the Rulers bewrayed their falling off in so faâ— from former Principles owned and sworne unto And beside this addition of New Instructions did show that the Councel looked upon them as their Curats and as Obnoxious to their Orders in Church-Matters and what concerneth the manner and way of their exerceing of the ministerial function as the other Curats are unto the Prelates or as â—ver any Minister was obnoxious to the Canons and Constitutions of General or Provincial Assemblies in our best times And let me enquire of these Accepters how they think such an act as this had it been done while the Church was in possession of her Power would have been looked upon And how our General Assemblie would have looked upon such Ministers as should have submitted unto the like then as they have done now I suppose they will think that if they had done so they would have met with no less than Deposition And then let them consider if that can be a commendable duty now which would then have been such a Transgression And let them say whether or not such do them great wrong who adhering to their former Principles must needs look on them as ipso jure deposed It deserves to be noted here that a Lybel was formed against one Mr William Weer at this time Indulged and permitted to preach in West-calder and he was looked upon by the Councel as one that most basely slighted their Favour and Indulgence and was severely to be punished because he thought it not sufficient to enter unto that charge meeâ—ly upon the Act of the Councel but to satisfie himself the more as to his ground of enâ—rie did receive a call from some of the Heritors and People and because in his first preaching to that people he declared his adherence to the Soâ—emne League and Covenant and that he did not acknowledge the power either of King of Bishop in matters belonging to the Church of Christ And in his next Sermon said that neither King nor Councel were the Treasurers of the Gospel or of the Ministrie of it And because the following day he preached against the Supremacie in matters Ecclesiastical and against Prelacy And because he had in preaching declared that the Civil Magistrate had no power to appoint a day to be kept holy and observed in holy worshipe By which we see That the Councel taketh upon them to make this man a Minister though they plainely shew that he was never owned as a Minister by the Church-Judicatories Further we see That the Councels Act thus ordering these Indulged Ministers to the respective Kirks was all the call they had or that they would acknowledge should be had or
required and therefore the Indulged have no call but the call of the Councel as their ground Further we hence see that the Councels aime and end among others was to have the Supremacie established and Prelacie so that the very speaking against these by such as were Indulged was sufficient to be the matter of a Lybel and was looked on as criminal What Interpretation can then be given of the silence of others thus Indulged as to these great points let sober men judge and whether or not the Councel did suppose that by this Indulgence they had obtained so many coyduks as did willingly submit thereunto I know several Ministers mentioned in this Act had not freedom to accept of this supposed favour of the Indulgence and were therefore cited before the Councel Among these faithful and worthy Mr Iohn Burnet Minister at Kilbride neer Glasgow was one who thought it his duty to give an open and plaine account of his Reasons to the Councel why he could not submit to that Indulgence and for this end drew up his Reasons in write directing it to the Councel But being prevented by sickness and thereafter by death did not get it presented yet sent it to the Chancellor and left it as his Testimonie against that evil not changing what might have been changed in the manner of its address because of sickness and other inconveniences I shall here set it downe as he left it not only because it was his Testimony to the Truth and Testimonies should be carefully keeped and Committed to posteritie but also because his Reasons are weighty and may helpe us to see more of the iniquity of this Indulgence His paper was as follloweth The draught of this Paper was framed purposely to the S. Councel as will appear in the very entrie thereof which mould I could not change because of the want of health and other Inconveniences BEing called before his Majesties Privie Councel to give an account of the reasons why I have not accepted of this present Indulgence granted by his most excellent Majest to several Presbyterian Ministers in Scotland I desire humblie and in the fear of God who standeth in the Congregation of the Mightie and Judgeth among the Gods to give this true sober and ingenous Relation of such things as did and doe invinciblie binde me why I cannot accept of this late complex Indulgence framed in three distinct Acts of Councel of the Date Sept. 3. and 7. 1672. To which I shall premit these things briefly 1. That it is well known to all the Protestant Reformed Churches abroad concerning the Constitution and Government of this ancient Church of Scotland for many yeers and particularly in the yeer 1660. That it was framed according to the Word of God confirmed by many laudable and ancient Lawes of the Kingdome and solemnly sworne to by all Ranks within the same 2. It is also found by lamentable experience that since that time this Ancient and Apostolick Government is wholly overturned in its very Species and kinde and that by the Introduction of Lordly Prelacie which is tyrannically exercised whereby the Church was suddenly deprived of her lawfully called Pastours and their roomes filled by strangers violently thrust-in upon the people many of whom have proven scandalous and insufficient 3. The sad Effects of these things are conspicuously apparent upon the face of this Church this day such as involving the Land in great backsliding and defection the abounding Ignorance Atheisme the overflowing spaâ—e of Sensuality Profanness like to Sodome the increase of Poperie and Errour through the Land even to the height of Antichristian Paganisme Quakerisme The sharp suffering and smartings of many of his Maj. loyal Subjects through the Land meerly because they cannot conforme to the present Prelatical frame and finally the increase of Animosities Dissentions Divisions Jealousies and Differences among the Subjects 4. Whatever Power sound and orthodox Divines do acknowledge the Magistrat to have and may have exercised in a troubled and extraordinary state of the Church yet it is not at all yeelded by them that the Magistrat may in any wayes alter its warrantablie established Government and so turne that same â—roubâ—ed and perplexed state and frame of the Church made such by himself meerly to be the subject of his magisterial authoritative Care and Operation 5. That I be not mistaken as denying to his Maj. his just Power in Ecclesiastick matters I do humblie and with great alacritie acknowledge that the Civil Magistrat hath a power circa Sacra which power is objectively Ecclesiastick so as he by his Royal Authoritie may enjoyn that whatsoever is commanded by the God of Heaven may be diligently done for the House of the God of Heaven which Power also is by Gods appointment only Cumulative and Auxiliary to the Church not Privative nor Destructive and is to be exerced alwayes in a Civil manner As to the Reasons of my not-acceptance of the present Offer and not repairing to the place designed by the Councel They are 1. That our Lord Jesus Christ Mediator the King and Lawgiver of his owne Church hath committed all Ministeriaâ— Authority for Government of his House to his own Church-Officers as the first proper subject and receptacle thereof Ioh. 20 v. 21. As my Father sent me so send I you Math. 28 18.19.20 All Power is given to me in Heaven and Eearth go ye and preach the Gospel 2 Cor. 10 v 8. Our Authoritie which the Lord hath given us for edification and not for destruction c. But so it is that the Act explanatorie of his Maj. Supremacie in the Church whereupon the Act of Indulgence is grounded doth not only claime the Power to belong of right to his Maj. and Successours as an inherent privilege of the Crown but doth actually also invest and cloath him with the formal exercise thereof in his own Person and that he may derive the same and convey it to others as in his Royal wisdome He shall think fit For his Majest is pleased to designe and make application of Ministers to Congregations and that without the previous call of the People and power of the Presbytery which would suppose the Civil Magistrat to have Authoritie to judge of the suitableness of Ministers parts and gifts to labour amongst such and such a people As also to frame and prescribe Ecclesiastick Rules relating to the exercise of the Ministerial Office as also appointing a Commission to Plant and Transplant Ministers as they shall think fit Notwithstanding that it hath been unanswerablie evinced that Presbyteâ—ian Government is founded on the Word of God and confirmed otherwayes aboundantly 2. Although I do freely disallow and condemne all tumultuarie and seditious meetings among which it is sad and grievous that the peacable meetings of the Lords People for Worship and hearing the Word soundly preached should be reckoned yet I am so convinced and perswaded in my heart of the Lords blessing attending the preaching
be said Then quo jure By what Law can the Church be robbed of this Power And by what right can the judgement of this matter be committed in prima inflantia at the very first unto the Magistrat or rather wholly and solely unto him For thus the Ministers are altogether excluded when it is said that the Magistrate can give Instructions in these matters For the granting of this power unto the Magistrate will necessarily bring the examination and judgment of Ministers as to the Acts of the exercise of their function unto the Civil Court either wholly or in the first place at least contrare to the Orthodox Anti-Erastian Doctrine I think then that all who minded honest and plaine dealing in this day of tryal and of witnessing to the truth and to that truth that so neerly conceâ—ned Christ as King and Head of the Church should have consented unto this Assertion and in plaine termes have told the Councel That they were to receive no Instructions from the Magistrat to regulat them in the exercise of their Ministrie He tels us next that Some supposed this question was determined in the Concessions that were in the Introductoâ—y part of the paper wherein the Magistrat's power objectively Eccâ—esiastical is asserted Buâ— if all those concessions set down in the Introductory part of the Paper issued in the clearing of the Magistrates power to be objectively Ecclesiastical they expressed nothing to weaken the fore-mentioned Clause For who will say that because the Magistrat's power is objectively Ecclesiastical Therefore he can give Instructions to regulat Ministers in the exercise of their Ministrie It were as good a consequence to say The Magistrat is keeper of both the Tables of the Law Ergo he may set down Instructions Limitations and Rules shewing when the Law oâ— God shall oblige as the Law of God and when not And to lay Because he hath the Scriptures for the object of his care Therefore he may set down Rules how this or that Prophecie this or that doctrinal Book or History should be understood and Interpreted So to say Because his care reacheth to Doctrine and he must countenance the preaching of Truth and discountenance the preaching of Errour Ergo he may appointe Ministers what to preach and what not and command them to preach of the Seven deadly sinnes and not of Predestination as the King said in his Letter to the Archbishop of York And because his power objectively reacheth to the Worship of God therefore he may do as Ieroboam did So because Discipline and Government are also the object of his care therefore he may give Rules and Instructions how the Chuâ—ch shall be governed that is to say whether by a Pope or by Prelates or by the People or by Himself and his Under-magistrates Yea and from this power objectively Ecclesiastical it may as well be Inferred that he may regulat Controversies and other debates handled in Church Assemblies and prescribe what Arguments pro and what Arguments contra shall be used what sins shall be so and so Censured c. Yea in a word we may as well inferre from this objectively Ecclesiastical power all that is summarily contained in the Explicatory Act of Supremacy As that he may give Instructions to regulat Ministers in the exercise of their Ministrie How did this debate issue He saith in end some made a motion which with common consent so far as could be discerned was embraced And what was this That the Assertion should be thus qualified That we would not receive from the Magistrate Instructions Formally and Intrinsecally Ecclesiastical to regulat us c. Which in my judgment was either nothing to the purpose or which is worse was a betraying of the Cause For either this was understood in reference to these Rules which the Councel prescribed in their Act Sept. 2.1672 or not If not what was it to the purpose then in hand If it was understood with this reference then either hereby they meant to justifie and defend their refusing to accept of these Instructions or to justifie their accepting of them but not of others If the former be said Then 1. Why was Mr Blair so much condemned who did but refuse the accepting of these that had been expressed in the Act and were then exhibited 2. Why was it not plainly affirmed that they would not receive these that the Councel tendered unto them 3. Why was there so much debate in private about a general Thesis when the clear assertion of the Hypothesis would have salved both Credite and Conscience If the Assertion was thus qualified to justifie their accepting of these Rules then sure the cause was betrayed And if they were clear to accept of these Rules what necessity was there for this general blinde If they intended it for a Testimony was that a fiâ— season for a Testimonie when they were resolved to yeeld to all that was at that time desired without hinck or scruple Further I suppose it wil be found that some of these Instructions were indeed formally and intrinsecally Ecclesiastical And if these were excepted they should have been particularly mentioned that all might have been clear for in Testimonies we cannot be plaine and clear enough If they were not clear to embrace these Instructions why did they not unanimously agree to tell this in plaine termes And if reasons of their refusal had been demanded ingenuity and plain dealing had furnished them with reasons sufficient taken both from the matter of the Rules the manner of enjoining them and from the sad consequences of obeying them beside several other circumstances not to be despised When all agreed unto the Assertion thus qualified and so to the whole Paper that was drawn up he tels us there fell out another question whether that Paper should be made use of as a Directory when they should be called to speak before the Councel or if it should be subscribed by all and so given in as their answere and sense of these Matters This was no doubt a weighty debate and such as might have occasioned their breach among themselves But when the Lord is away what Light or Counsel can remaine Well what came of this question The generality he saith were indeed for the subscribing of it Which I confess I would not have been for Nor yet for using of it as a Directorie for reasons already given But now the generality being for the subscribing of it what became of it Was it subscribed indeed No saith he and thus the Minor part prevailed But he saith there were Reasons moving hereunto And I shall be glade to hear these The first is One who was then withdrawn about some necessary affairs had declared before upon reasons ponderous to him that he was not free in his mind to subscribe any such Paper at that time It seemeth strange to me that the unclearness of one should have proven such an effectual meane to stop the rest in that whereabout they had
floweth to the Prelat And what difference is there I pray betwixt the Prelates Collation which possibly was freer of concomitant Instructions Rules and Directions how to regulate them in the Exercise of the Ministrie than was the Indulgence and the Councils Collation as to the Fountaine the Kings Supremacie from whence both do flow By vertue of Power descending from the Head to the Left arme the Prelates is the Episcopal Collation granted and by vertue of Power descending from the same Head to the Right arme the Council is the Council their Collation granted 10. Who homologate a Supream Authoritie in the King over all Persons and all Causes Ecclesiastick by vertue whereof he may Settle Enact and Emit such Constitutions Acts and Orders concerning the Persons imployed in the External Government of the Church and concerning Meetings and Matters Ecclesiastick as he in his Royal Wisdom shall think fit they homologate the Supremacie This is certaine for this is the Supremacy as appeareth by the Act explicatory But so it is that the Accepters of the Indulgence do homologate this Supream Authoritie in the King Which I thus prove Such Ecclesiastick Persons as are willingly disposed of by the Supream Authoritie in the King over all Persons and Causes Ecclesiastick and goe to what places he by his Council appointeth for the exercise of their Ministrie and of Church-Government and withall receive Orders Acts and Constitutions concerning Ecclesiastick Persons to regulate them in the Exercise of their Ministrie and Government made by him in Church affairs according to his Royal Wisdom by vertue of his Supream Authoritie these do homologate the Supremacie But so it is that the Accepters of the Indulgence have done this Therefore c. The Minor is uncontrovertable certaine from the Councils disposing of them and ordering of them to such Kirks as they pleased and their yeelding thereunto and accepting of Instructions Orders Acts and Constitutions made by vertue of the Supremacie to regulate them in the exercise of their Ministrie all which hath been cleared above The Major is manifest from this That to be willingly disâ—osed of by a Power is to homologate it and to receive Instructions Orders Acts and Constitutions from a Power is to homologat it By homologating a Power I understand an acknowledgment of such a Power in such a Person by a sutable and answerable compliance therewith and yeelding to it or Acting under it And this may be materially as well as formally done implicitly as well as explicitly by the Intention of the deed as well as by the Intention of the doer As he who obeyeth an Usurper and acteth under him in some place of trust and receiveth Insâ—ructions from him for to regulate him doth homologate that Usurped power by his very deed though he should hate the Usurper and the Usurpation both and really wish he were thrust from his Usurpation altogether and would possibly concurre thereunto himself It cannot weaken this Argument to say that the Indulged Persons never did nor will owne the Supremacy but plainly disown it For though I am ready to beleeve this to be true yet the Argument holdeth for I speak not of a Positive Explicit Formal Intentional and Expresse Homologating but of a Virtual Implicit Material Homologating and such as is included in the deed and work it self abstracting from the Intention of the Worker which is but extrinsick and accidental as to this And that the accepting of the Indulgence is an homologating and a virtual acknowledging of this Supremacy is clear from what is said though the Indulged should intend no such thing IV. Hovv it is injurious unto the Povver of the People A Fourth Ground of our dissatisfaction with the Indulgence is the wrong that is â—ereby done unto the People as to their Power and Privilege of Free Election of their Pastor In the accepting of the Indulgence there was the accepting of a Charge of a Particular Flock without the previous due Call free Election and Consent of the People this holdeth as to such of the Indulged as were sent to other Churches than their own The meer Appointment Order and Designation of the Civil Magistrat was all the Ground of this Relation and was the only thing that made them Pastors to such a people together with the Consent of the Paâ—ron This was a way of entrie unto a Pastoral Charge that our Principles cannot assort with wanting either precept or precedent in the pure primitive times Our Divines have abundantly shown the necessity of the previous Call of the People unto a Ministers Admission to a Charge See Mr Gillespy in his Miscel. Questions Quest. 2. Nor need I hold forth the iniquitie of entering by Patrons whereof our Par. 1649. were fully sensible when the Church was restored to her Privilege conforme to our First Book of Discipline Chap 4. Concerning Ministers and their lawful Election And to the Second Book Chap. 12. It will be here said possibly That they obtained the full and unanimous consent of the people But I Answere 1. I doubt if this was either universally sought or obtained 2. Where it was had it was but a meer bâ—inde and to me a meer prostituting of â—hat Appointment and Order of Christ rather than any conscientious Observation thereof For 3. This call of the People ought to be a free Election and Choise but here was no free Election left unto them but whether they did consent or not the Person designed by the Council was to be set over them 4. The free Election of the People should go before the Perâ—ons Designation to that Charge and become the Foundation of his Relation to that Flock but here it was posteriour unto the Councils Deâ—ignation and was a meer precarious thing coming in ex post facto 5. This Call and Election of the People was not in the least presupposed as any way requisite either in the Kings Letter or Councils Nomination and Election 6. Nor did they make any mention hereof when before the Council nor make exception against the Councils Order or Collation until this was had 7. Nor did they testifie their Dissatisfaction with or protest against the unlawful usurped Interest of the Patron and his necessarily prerequisite Consent 8. Did such as wanted this unanimous Call or Consent of the People give back the Councils Warrand as weak and insufficient 2. I would ask whether they look upon themselves as the fixed Pastors of those particular Flocks and Churches or not If they own themselves for fixed Pastors what is become of their relation to their Former Charges They cannot be Pastors of both places for we owne no Pluralities nor can it be said that the Councils meer Act did loose their Former Relation and make it null And whether they protested at their entrie to this new charge that it was without prejudice to their Former Relation when the Lord should open a free passage in his good Providence to returne I know not If they look
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
9. Doth it not hence appear that this was a manifest Usurpation of the Power and Privilege of the Church And what can the silence of such as were indulged as to this when they accepted of the Indulgence from such as were in the very giving thereof openly and avowedly declaring this their Usurpation and Incroachment say before the world but that they acquiesced thereunto This matter was not hid under ground It was plaine enough to all who would not put out their owne eyes that the King was assuming to himself church-Church-power and was robbing the Church of her Privileges and to make way for the full accomplishment thereof did here command and authorize his Councel to appoint such and such Ministers so and so qualified to such and such places as they thought good with this manifest certificate that they must expect no Church-censures to be inflicted on them for any crime or misdemanour they shall be charged with and be found guilty of but by the Civil Magistrates immediatly not Causatively that is causing Church-Judicatories do it but doing it immediatly themselves Who then can justifie them and their practice in accepting so thankfully as they did that Indulgence without the least word of a Testimonie against all these open and manifest Incroachments and that at such time when the designe of tyrannizing over the Church in an Erastian way was so palpable and might be seen and known of all who would but open their eyes But there is another thing which here occurreth We see here that these Indulged Persons are standing immediatly under the Censure of the Civil Magistrate not only for transgressing of the Orders and Instructions given but also as must necessarily follow for any other failing and transgression not specified as for example for Fornication Sabbath-breaking and other Sins and Scandals deserving Deposition or Suspension For put the case that some of them which yet I have no cause to fear should commit any such scandal as did deâ—erve or were usually punished by Suspension or Deposition who shall inflict this Censure upon them but the Councel There is no Church-Judicatorie having power over them for that effect and they are not under the Prelates And we cannot think that they may commit such crimes and continue in the Ministrie Nor may we suppose that they will suspend or depose themselves 8. Moreover we must remark here that the Councel is to take notice of their speeches in pulpit who are induâ—ged and to punish them yea to turne them out immediatly if they be found to have uttered any sedicious Discourse By which we see that the Councel is made the immediat formal judge of Ministers Doctrine for under the pretext of sedicious Doctrine they may judge and condemne the most innocent and orthodox truthes No Anti-Erastian Divine will grant this unto the Civil Magistrate And though it be true that the Civil Magistrat can only and properly judge of what is truely sedicious and can only civilly punish for such crimes Yet our Divines never granted that the Magistrate might in prima Instantia examine and judge of Ministers Doctrine when alleiged to be sedicious or treasonable Nor did our Church in her pure times ever yeeld to this Our Church-Historie tels us that Mr. Andrew Melvine that faithful and zealous Servant of Christ would not answer before the King and the Councel for his alleiged treasonable discourse in Sermon until he had first given-in a plaine and formal Protestation and the like was done by worthy Mr David Black upon the like occasion and the Protestation was approven and signed by a good part of the Church of Scotland 1596. And we know also upon what ground it was that that famous late Martyr for the Liberties of the Church Mr Iames Guthrie was questioned and put to suffer Now where was there any thing spoken by the Indulged to bear witness to their adhering to the Church of Scotland in this point of truth What was said that might declare their dissent from this piece of Encroachment Was not their silence here and accepting of the Indulgence in the manner as it was accepted without any publick Testimonie for the Church of Scotland and her Liberties a Declaration that they were willing that all their Doctrine should be immediatly and in prima instantia judged and examined by the Councel and consequently that our Predecessours in offering Protestations in this case were to be condemned and that Mr Guthrie died as a fool 9. We may remark a snare laid in the Letter to catch moe for it is appointed that such of the outted Ministers who have lived peacably and orderly here is a DiscriminatioÌ„ made no less scandalous to the commended than dangerous to the rest and are not reentered or preseÌ„ted as aforesaid shall have allowed to them foure hundereth merks scots yeerly c. And that such as will give assurance to live so for the futureÌ„ be allowed the said yeerly maintainance Seing it is not unknown what is properly here understood by living peacably and orderly any may see what a snare is laid here to catch others But some will say what is that to the Indulged I think it speaketh very much to them for had they not accepted of this Indulgence that temptatioÌ„ had been removed from the door of others who now seeing them without any scruple accepting of the Indulgence offered and granted unto them in special only upon the account and in consideration of their being peacable and orderly livers are emboldeÌ„ed to take that gracious gift and accept of that Princely benevolence upon the same account and gape for a greater morsel Viz. a Vacancie And will not others who are not fast rooted be ready to engage and give-in security that they may also taste of the Kings graâ—uity and so sell their conscieÌ„ce and fidelity at as good a price as they can And if it fall out otherwise as I wish and hope it shall that none shall accept of those baits under which the hook is so conspicuous yet no thanks to the Indulged who have so fairly broken the ice for them I know a scandal may be given when not taken and such as give the scandal are guilty before God of destroying those for whom Christ died Rom. 14 15. And that word of our Saviour Mat. 18 6. Luk. 17 1 2. Mark 9 42. is very dreadful But who so shall offendone of these little ones which beleeve in me it were better for him that a mils one were hanged about his neck and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea I know they will say They are far from this hazard having done nothing but what is duâ—y and necessary duty But though I grant it an indispensible duty for Ministers to preach the Gospel and to be instant in season and out of season yet they might have preached without the Indulgence as others did and yet do and the accepting of the Indulgence was not the only necessary opening of a
door to preaching Nor is it of simple preaching that I am here speaking and they shall never be able to make it appear that it is a necessary duty to do as they have done considering what is already said and what shall yet further be said 10. There is another particular in the Letter worthie of a remark and we shall but here name it and that is Tha◠the councel is to allow Patrons to present to vacant Churches such Ministers as they shall approve of Whence it is clear that without this consent of the Patron which is his real or virtual Presentation the Ministers approven of by the Councel cannot have access unto these vacāt Churches Therefore their accepting of the Indulgence unto Vacant places after this manner is an approving and an establishing of the power of Patrons whereby they did condemne all such Ministers and possibly some of themselves who formerly had suffered ejection according to the Act of Glasgow because they had no clearness to accept of this Presentation even though the Patron would willingly have granted it and did of his own accord offer it Did they not hereby also condemne that laudable piece of our Reformation Anno 1649. When these Presentations were abolished and the people restored to their liberty of Electing their own Ministers 11. We may also take notice That all this contrivance is not in order to reduce our Church in whole or in part to her former Presbyterian state and lustre or to weaken or in the least deface the re-established Prelacie but rather to confirme the same for in the Letter we see these Indulged are to be enjoined in the Kings name and by his authority to keep Presbyteries and Synods that is the Prelats meetings so called for there was no other As also encouragment was given unto them to take the Prelates Collation So that this contrivance as it was to gratifie a few so it was to corroborat the abjured Prelats in their possessiō of what they had obtained as their quid mihi dabit is And further they were discharged to exerce any Ministerial function towards any of the neighbour Parishes where there were Curats serving Now all these Injunctions being manifestly sinful and unlawful might have sufficiently cautioned them against the receiving of a favoure so strangely clogged with sinful conditions or at least prompted them to have remonstrated freely and faithfully all these evils and plainly declared their fixed aversness from ever submitting unto these Injunctions 12. The last particular which I shall remark here is the Result of all this or that rather which is the end mainly driven at howbeit couched in words not so manifestly expressive of a mainly designed end The words are in the last part of the Letter And seing we have by these orders taken away all pretence for Conventicles and provided for the want of such as are and will be peacable if any shall be found hereafter to preach without authority or keep Conventicles our express pleasure is that you proceed with all severity against the Preacher and Hearers as sedicious person and contemners of our Authority In the by we may here take notice that according to the import and meaning of this letter no Minister must preach either in or out of Conventicles without a borrowed Authoritie from the Magistrate otherwise they are to be looked upon as sedicious persons and as contemners of Authority So that this licence or indulgence was a reall clothing of the Indulged and licensed in the sense of the Court with authority to preach as if all they had from Christ conveyed to them by the ministrie of Church officers according to this Appointment had been null and altogether insignificant Which one thing in my apprehension had been enough to have scarred any that minded to stand unto their Presbyterian Gospel and anti-Erastian Principles from accepting of licences of this nature so destructive to the very being of an Ecclesiastical Ministrie and to its dependance on emanation from Christ Jesus the only Head and King of his Church and sole Fountaine of all Power and Authoritie communicated or communicable to his Servants and Officers as such and so repugnant unto the methods and midses of conveyance instituted and ordained by Christ and practised in the primitive Church But the other thing here chiefly to be noticed is That as we see this device of the Indulgence was batched and contrived of purpose to beare down these Conventicles and to give a more colourable shew of justice in persecuting the zealous Conventiclers It is true the Persons Indulged were not of those chiefly who keeped Conventicles especially in the Fields for if so they had not been such as lived peacably and orderly And so the Conventicle-Preachers were not much diminished in their number hereby yet it was supposed that none of those who lived under the Indulged their Ministerie would much trouble themselves to go to Conventicles and field Meetings wherein in a very great part their supposition failed not But now with what Conscience shall we suppose this Indulgence could be accepted seing thereby every one might see a further bar and restraint put upon those worthies who jeoparded their lives in the high places of the fields in preaching of the Gospel and were owned and contenanced of God to admiration in the rich yea wonderfully rich blessing of God upon their Labours and Ministerie dispensed by the sole Authority of Jesus Christ yea and those of them who were present before the Councel August 3. 1672. might have seen more cruelty breathed-out by severe orders against those who still followed the Lord in Houses in Valleyes and in Mountaines though contrarie to the Law For that same very day a Proclamation was issued out commanding all Heretors timeously to declare any who within their bounds shall take upon them to preach in such unwarranted Meetings as they were called and make their Names known to Sheriffs Stewarts Lords and Bailiffs of the Regalities or their Deputes and all others in publick trust within whose Jurisdiction they may be apprehended And Authorizing these Sheriffs c. to make exact search and enquirie after them to apprehend and incarcerat their Persons and to acquaint the Councel of their Imprisonment And requiring the Magistrates of Brughs to detain them prisoners till further Order and that under the highest paine And also declaring that they would put all Lawes Acts and Proclamations vigorously in execution against withdrawers from the publick worshipe in their own Paroch-Churches And thus was there a new fiery persecution raised both against faithful Pastors and People May it not be thought that they had carried more honestly and ministerial-like when seeing this End and Designe which could not be hid if they had freely and plainely told the Councel they could accept of no such Courtesie unless the like were granted to all the faithful and honest zealous Ministers in the Land or at least had declared and protested that what was
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
this Act concerning the Injunctions was made distinct from the foregoing Act of Indulgence and these Injunctions were not expresly included or mentioned in the Act of Indulgence And some because of this may possibly think and say That the accepting of the Indulgence is the more justifiable But I am not of that mind For this dividing of these two which were conjoined in the Kings Letter was either done by collusion of the Indulged or wholly without their knowledge and consent If the former be truth their accepting of the Indulgence is so much the more condemnable that it was accompanied with such unfaire dealing devised of purpose for no other end of this deed can be imagined to blindfold and deceive the simple whom possibly such a cheate might hoodwinke If the latter be said to wit that the Indulged themselves were utterly ignoraÌ„t hereof though it is certaine as was said above they were not ignorant of the Kings Letter Then I think the first intimation made of these Injunctions unto them should have given such a discoverie of unfaire dealing and of the Councels purpose and intention to have them in snared that the credite of their Ministrie the Conscience of their duty to God and to the souls of people the care of shunning all appearance of evil the Command of God to give no offence and other things considerable of that nature should have compelled them unto a plaine and full Declaration of their sensibleness of this cheatrie and of their unwillingness to accept of favoures so clogged with snares And if they had thus carried they had approved themselves otherwise than they did to the consciences of all Men as lovers of upright dealing and as such who durst not take on them the charge of souls on such unlawful termes nor run the errands of God with such a Pasport As to the Conditions themselves I hope even the indulged Persons themselves are sufficiently convinced of the iniquitie of them when as I hear they have now at length laid aside the careful observance of them But the careful and circumspect obedience yeelded unto them at the first is standing as a witness against them unto this day and sheweth that however now they neglect the same because possiblie perceiving the Councel not so earnest in pressing observance as at the first yet so greedy were they of the bait of the Indulgence that they cared not to swallow this hook with it though it was an adding of griefe to such as had sorrow enough already and had in it a condemning of such as scrupled the hearing of the Curats and submitting to the Ordinances of Christ administred by them Before we proceed it will be fit here to take some notice of that Discourse which Mr H. had unto the Councel in name of the rest who were at that time Indulged with him for hereby we may be helped to understand what was their sense of the Indulgence who did receive it The just double of which Discourse as it came to mine hand I shall here set down as followeth I am desired in the name of my Brethren here present to acknowledge in all humility and thankfulness his Maj. Favour and Clemencie in granting us the liberty of the publick exercise of our Ministrie after so long a restraint from the same and to returne here all thanks to your L L. for the care and paines you have taken therein And that your L L. have been pleased to make us the unworthiest of many of our Brethren so early partakers of the same We have received our Ministrie from Jesus Christ with full prescriptions from him for regulating us therein and must in discharge thereof be accountable to him And as there can be nothing more desirable or refreshing to us on earth than to have free liberty of the exercise of our Ministrie under the protection of lawful Authoritie the excellent Ordinance of God and to us ever most dear and precious so we purpose and resolve to behave our selves in the discharge of the Ministrie with that wisdom and prudence that become faithful Ministers of Jesus Christ and to demaine ourselves towards lawful Authority notwithstanding of our known judgment in Church-affairs as well becometh loyal Subjects and that from a lawful principle of Conscience And my L L. Our prayer to God is that the Lord would bless his Maj. in his Persâ—â— and Government and your L L. in the publick Administration and 〈…〉 the pursuance of his Maj. mind in his Letter wherein his singular 〈…〉 appears that others of our Brethren in due time may be 〈…〉 of the liberty which through his Maj. favour we now enjoy I shall not long insist in descanting on this discourse seing it is so plaine and manifest an homologating of the Kings Letters and consequently its iniquity is so undeniable from what was formerly remarked upon that Letter that there is no great necessitie of many moe words to that end only it may suffice to touch on some particulars in a few words 1. We see hence That these Brethren were not ignorant of the Kings Letter and of the contents thereof when they do here acknowledge a favour and clemencie granted unto themselves thereby 2. Nor were they ignorant of the scope and designe of that Letter seing they pray that the Lord would bless the Councel especially in the pursuance of his Maj. minde in that Letter 3. Nor were they Ignorant particularly of the Instructions contained in that Letter and which were to be given unto them as these words with full prescriptions from him i.e. Christ Jesus to regulate us therein do clearly show for by these words as it would appear they gave their L L. to understaÌ„d that it was not needful that these Instructions or Prescriptions contained in the Kings letter should be laid before them 4. Nor were they Ignorant that what the Councel did herein was by vertue of and in full compliance with the designe of the King's Letter and consequently that the King's Letter and the contents thereof were the onely spring and original of all this Indulgence and of the Councels power in acting in conformity thereto and actually granting the Indulgence for they thank their L L. for the care and paines they had taken therein and they pray that the Lord would blesse them especially in the pursuance of his Maj. minde in his Letter 5. It is matter of astonishment to me considering what is said how they could acknowledge this for such an Act of favour and clemency And how they could say that in this Letter the King 's singular Moderation did eminently appear when from what is said and what shall hereafter be more fully held forth it is so notoure That the contents of this Letter did hold forth a designe of overturning all church-Church-Power as exercised by Church-Persons and of clothing the Councel with power to impose Prescriptions to prescribe Rules and Limitations and to order and regulate Ministers in the exercise of their
in reference to the Indulgence that we may see with what friendly aspect this Supremacie looketh towards the Indulgence and with what Veneration the Indulgence respecteth this Supremacie to the end it may appear how the Indulgence hath contributed to the establishment of this Supra-Papal Supremacie and how the Accepters thereof stand chargeable with a Virtual and Material Approbation of and Consent to the dreadful Usurpation committed by this Supremacie In order to which we would know that this Act of Supremacy made Anno 1669. was not made upon the account that the Supremacie in Church-affairs had never been before screwed up to a sufficient height in their apprehensions for upon the matter little that is material is here asserted to belong unto this Ecclesiastical Supremacie which hath not been before partly in more general partly in more special and particular termes plainly enough ascribed unto this Majestie or presumed as belonging to his Majest In the 11. Act. Parl. 1. Anno 1661. where the Oath is framed he is to be acknowledged Only supreme Governour over all persons and in all causes and that his Power and Iurisdiction must not be declined So that under all Persons and all Causes Church-officers in their most proper and intrinsecal ecclesiastick Affaires and Administrations are comprehended and if his Majest shall take upon him to judge Doctrine matters of Worship and what is most essentially Ecclesiastick he must not be declined as an incompetent Judge We finde also Act. 4. Sess. 2. Parl. 1. Anno 1662. which is againe renewed Act. 1. Anno 1663. that his Majestie with advice and consent of his Estates appointeth Church-censures to be infflicted for Church-transgression as plainly and formally as ever a General Assembly or Synod did in these words That whatsoever Minister shall without a lawful excuse to be admitted by his Ordinary absent himself from the visitation of the Diocess or who shall not according to his duty concurre therein or who shall not give their assistance in all the Acts of Church-discipline as they shall be required thereto by the Archbishop or Bishop of the Diocess every such Minister N. B. so offending shall for the first fault be suspeÌ„ded from his Office and Benefice until the next Diocesian meeting and if he amend not shall be deprived But which is more remarkable in the first Act of that Second Session Anno 1662. for the Restituâ—ion and Re-establishment of Prelats we have several things tending to cleare how high the Supremacie was then exalted The very Act beginneth thus for as much as the ordering and disposal of the external Government and Policy of the Church doth properly belong unto his Majestie as an inherent right of the Crown by vertue of his Royal Prerogative and Supremacie in causes Ecclesiastical This is the same that is by way of statute asserted in the late Act 1669. In the same Act it is further said That whatever this sure is large and very comprehensive shall be determined by his Maj. with the advice of the Archbishops and Bishops and such of the Clergy as shall be nominated by his Maj. in the external Government and Policy of the Church the same consisting with the standing Lawes of the Kingdom shall be valide and effectual And which is more in the same Act all preceeding Acts of Parl are rescinded by which the sole and only Power and Iurisdiction within the Church doth stand in the Church and in the General Provincial and Presbyterial Assemblies and Kirk-Sessions And all Acts of Parliament or Councel which may be interpreted to have given any Church-Power Iurisdiction or Government to the Office-bearers of the Church their respective Meetings other than that which acknowledgeth a dependence upon and subordination to the Soveraign â—â—wer of the King as Supreme So that we see by vertue of this Act all church-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-Church-power and that exclusive as it would seem even of Christ Of whom there is not the least mention made and for whom is not made the least reserve imaginable So in the 4. Act. of the third Session of Parl. Anno 1663. For the Establishment and Constitution of a National Synod We finde it said that the ordering and disposal of the external Government of the Church and the nomination of the Persons by whose Advice Matters relating to the same are to be setled doth belong to his Maj. as an inherent right of the Crown by vertue of his prerogative Râ—yal and Supream Authority in causes Ecclesiastical And upon this ground is founded his power to appoint a National Synod to appoint the only constiâ—uent Members thereof as is there specified to call continue and dissolve the same when he will to limit all their Debates Consultations and Determinations to such matters and causes as he thinketh fit and several other things there to be seen Seing by these Particulars it is manifest and undeniable that this Ecclesiastick Supremacie was elevated presumptively before the Year 1669. to as high a degree as could be imagined It may be enquired why then was this Act made Anno 1669 I answere This act so I conceive was not framed so much to make any addition to that Church power which they thought did Iure Coronae belong orginally and fundamentally unto the King for that was already put almost beyond the reach of any additional supply though not in one formal and expressive Statutory Act As to forme the same when screwed up to the highest into a plaine and positive formal Statute having the force of a Law for all uses and ends and particularly to salve in point of Law the Councel in what they did in and about the Indulgence according to the desire and command of the King in his Letter in regaâ—rd that the granting of this Indulgence did manifestly repugne to and counteract several anteriour Acts of Parliament and was a manifest breach and violation of Lawes standing in full force and unrepealed which neither their place nor his Maj. could in Law warrand them to do by his Letter That the granting of the Indulgence did thus in plaine termes repugne to standing Lawes I thus make good In the Act of Rëstitution of Prelates Anno 1662. Prelates are restored unto the exercise of their Episcopal function Presidence in the Church power of Ordination Inflicting of Censures and all other Acts of Church Discipline And as their Episcopal power is there asserted to be derived from his Maj. so withal it is expresly said that the Church-power and jurisdiction is to be Regulated and Authorized in the Exercise thereof by the Archbishops and Bishops who are to put order to all Ecclesiastical matters and causes and to be accountable to his Maj. for their administrations Whence it is manifest that the
King alone or with his Privie Councel cannot put order to Ecclesiastical matters and causes or exerce church-Church-Power and Jurisdiction without a violation of this Law and manifest controlling of it And further in the 4. Act of that same Second Session of Parliament it is expresly ordained that none be hereafter permitted to preach in publick or in families within any diocess without the licence of the Ordinary of the Diocess So that this licence and permission granted to the Indulged by the Councel to preach and exercise the other parts of their function being without the licence of the Bishops is manifestly contrary and repugnant to this Law Moreover Act 1. in the third Session Anno 1663. we have these words And the Kings Maj. having resolved to conserve and maintaine the Church in the present State and Governmēt hereof by Archbishops Bishops and others bearing Office therein and not to endure nor give way or connivace to any variation therein in the least doth therefore with advice and consent of his Estates conveened in this third Session of his Parliament Ratifie and Approve the afore mentioned Acts and all other Acts and Lawes made in the two former Sessions of Parliament in order to the settling of Episcopal Dignity Iurisdiction and Authority within the Kingdom and ordains them to stand in full force as publick Lawes of the Kingdom and to be put to further execution in all points conforme to the tenor thereof Here is a further Ratification and Confirmation of the Lawes mentioned and the Councel hereby yet more firmely bound-up from emitting any Acts or Edicts contradictory to and tending to weaken and invalidat the publick standing Lawes of the Kingdom And which is yet more considerable in the following words of this same Act the effectual putting of these Lawes in execution is specially and in terminis recommended by King and Parliament unto the Privy Councel after this manner And in pursuance of his Maj. Royal resolution herein his Maj. with advice foresaid doth recommend to the Lords of his Maj. Privie Councel to take speedy and Effectual Course that these Acts receive ready and due Obedience from all his Maj. Subjects and for that end that they call before them all such Ministers who having entred in or since the Yeer 1649. and have not as yet obtained Presentations and Collations as aforesaid yet darred to preach in contempt of the Law and to punish them as seditious persons and contemners of the Royal Authority As also that they be careful that such Ministers who keep not the Diocesian meetings and concurre not with the Bishops in the Acts of Church-Discipline being for the same suspended or deprived as said is be accordingly after deprivation removed from their Benefices Gleebs and Manses And if any of them shall notwithstanding offer to retaine the Possession of their Benefices or Manses that they take present Course to see them dispossest And if they shall thereafter presume to exercise their Ministrie that they be punished as seditious Persons and such as contemne the Authority of Church and State Now notwithstanding of this express reference and severe recommendation we know that in the matter of the Indulgence they were so far from punishing such as had not obtained Presentations and Collations and yet had continued to preach and exercise their Ministrie that in perfect contradiction to this Injunction of King and Parliament and other forementioned Acts they licensed warranded and impowered some such as by Act of Parliament were to be punished as seditious Persons and contemners of Authority of Church and State to preach publickly and to exercise all other parts of their Ministrie and that upon the sole warrand of the Kings Letter which cannot in Law warrand and impower them to contraveen express Lawes and Acts of Parliament and not only to disobey the Injunctions of Parliament but in plaine termes to counteract and counterwork the Established and Ratified Lawes and so to render them null and of no effect Whence we see that there was a necessity for the Parliament An. 1669. to do something that might secure the Lives and Honours of the members of Councel in point of law in granting of that Indulgence which was so expresly against law and which the two Arch-Prelates members of Councel would never give their assent unto as knowing how it intrenched upon the power granted to them and the other Prelates confirmed by Law and so was a manifest rescinding of these Acts and Lawes And though this might have been done by a plaine and simple Act approving and ratifying what the Councel had done in compliance with his Maj Royal Pleasure and authorizing them in time coming to pursue the ends of the same Letter further with a non obstante of all Acts formerly made in favoures of Prelates and Prelacie Yet it is probable they made choise of this way of explaining by a formal and full Statute and Act of Parliament the Supremacie in these plaine full and ample termes wherein we now have it that thereby they might not only secure the Councel but also make the Kings sole Letter to the Councel in all time coming a valid ground in Law whereupon the Councel might proceed and enact and execute what the King pleased in matters Ecclesiastick how intrinsecally and purely such soever without so much as owning the corrupt Ecclesiastick medium or channel of Prelacy And withal it might have been thought that such an act so necessary for the legal preservation of the Indulgers and consequently of the Indulged in the enjoyment of the Indulgence would go sweetly down with all the Indulged and such as gaped for the like favour howbeit so framed as that it was not very pleasant at the first tasting For it cannot be rationally supposed that such as are pleased with their warme dwellings will cast out with the walles roof of the dwelling without which they would enjoy no more warmness than if they were lodging beside the heth in the wilderness And who could think that any indulged man could be dissatisfied with that which was all and only their legal security and without which they were liable to be punished as seditious persons and as contemners of Authority even for preaching by vertue of the Indulgence according to Lawes standing in force unrepealed Whence also we see what a faire way was made unto this Act of Supremacy by the Indulgence and how the Indulgence is so far beholden unto this Act that it can not stand without it nor the persons Indulged be preserved from the lash of the Law notwithstanding of all that was done by the Councel And thus these two are as twines which must die and live together for take away the Act of Supremacy and the Indulgence is but a dead illegal thing We may also see what to judge of this illegal and illegitimat birth that cannot breathe or live where Law reigneth without the swedling clothes of such a Supremacy nor can stand but
as upheld by such an Anti-christian Pillar We may also see here that the very embraceing of the Indulgence was upon the matter a recognition of this Power in the King to do in and by his Privy Councel in Church-matters what he pleased even though contrary to antecedent Acts of Parliament and that such as are so satisfied with the effect to wit the Indulgence cannot but comply with the cause to wit the Supremacy as asserted in this Act as the man that hath a complacencie in drinking of the streames cannot be displeased with but delight in the fountaine from whence they proceed If any of these Brethren had received the same Indulgence from the Prelates immediatly had they not thereby complyed with the Prelates homologated their Power and plainely assented and submitted thereunto Yea had they not in this assented also mediatly unto the Supremacy seing all the Prelats Power did flow from the Supremacie And shall they not now much more be looked on as homologating the Supremacie and as assenting thereto when they receive the Indulgence that immediatly floweth therefrom and must be vindicated and defended solely by the asserting thereof How is it imaginable that I can receive a favour and not homologate assent to and acquiesce in that Power that gave it when the asserting of that Power is the only mean to keep me in legal possession of the favour received But now for further confirmation of what is said let us take a view of the Act of Supremacy it self and there see a ground laid of sufficient warrādice for the Council in what they did in granting the Indulgence and also be able to read the Indulgence it self out of the Supremacie as here asserted and for this end it will be sufficient for us to take notice only of the last words thereof where it is said And that his Maj. and his Successours may Settle Enact and Emit such Constitutions Acts and Orders concerning the administration of the external Government of the Church and the Persons imployed in the same and concerning all Ecclesiastical Meetings and Maters to be proposed and determined therein as they in their Royal wisdom shall think fit which Acts Orders and Constitutions being recorded in the books of Councel and duly published are to be observed and obeyed by all his Maj. Subjects Before this time as we heard all Acts Orders and Constitutions concerning Church-affairs Church-meetings and Church-administrations were to be put in execution by the Prelates impowered by the Supremacie unto this end And what was lately done in the matter of the Indulgence was done by the Councel and not by the Prelates and therefore contrary to law whereupon that this deed may be valide in law it is here asserted that the King by vertue of his Supremacie may Emit what Acts Orders and Constitutions he in his royal wisdome thinketh fit and after what manner he pleaseth and so if he will may order and dispose of all Church-administrations Ecclesiastick Persons Church-meetings and matters by himself immediatly or by his Councel yea or by his lackeys so that if the Lawes Constitutions Acts and Orders concerning these Matters Meetings Persons and Administrations be signified to the Councel by Letter or any other way and be recorded in their books and duely published which they must doe whensoever required they must be obeyed and observed by all Subjects Now this power being asserted to belong to his Maj. as an inherent right of the crown no deed of gift formerly granted to the Prelats could weaken or diminish it and therefore nothing done of late by the Councel in granting of the Indulgence according to his Maj. will and pleasure signified by his Letter Iuny 7. 1669. can prove prejudicial unto the said PrivieCouncel they doing nothing but what was consonant unto the Kings Supremacie here more clearly asserted and not granted of new save in the forme of a formal Statute and law asserting the same Yet notwithstanding for the more security for abundance of Law breaks no Law it is added in the Act. as we see Any Law Act or Custom to the contrary notwithstanding And moreover they rescind and annul all Lawes Acts and Clauses thereof and all customs and constitutions Civil or Ecclesiastick which are contrary to and inconsistent with his Maj. Supremacie as it is hereby asserted and declare the same void and null in all time coming According to the usual course and manner As to the other particular we may see the native feature and lineaments of the Indulgence in the face of the Supremacie so manifestly that none who see the one needs question the intimate Relation that is betwixt them We see it now asserted as belonging to his Maj. Supremacy in Church-affairs tha◠he may Settle Enact and Emit what Acts Constitutions and Orders he thinketh good whether concerning Church-Administrations or Church-meetings or Church-matters or Church-Officers and that there needeth no more to make these Lawes to be obeyed and observed by all the Subjects but the recording of them in the books of the Councel and duely publishing of them Now as we saw above in the Kings Letter concerning this Indulgence there areConstitutions Acts and Orders emitted and setled concerning Church-administrations shewing what shall not be preached under the paine ofCensure whoseChildren may be baptized whose not who may be admitted to hear the word and who not Concerning Church-persons who shall be accounted qualified for preaching who not who shall be accounted fit for the charge of such a flock and who for the charge of another Such and such Ministers are ordained to go to such or such Congregations not by vertue of a Call of the people but meerly by vertue of the Councels designation Concerning Church-meetings They are appointed to keep Diocesian Visitations or Synods and to resort to Prelats Exercises though the Prelates look not on them as sutable company So it is ordained whom they are to marry and whom not In a word let any but compare the Kings Letter with this part of the Act of Supremacie and he shall be forced to say that the Letter is nothing but the Supremacie exemplified and put in practice Hence it is manifest that no man can submit to and accept of the Indulgence but he must eo ipso submit to accept of such Constitutions Acts and Orders as did constitute qualifie and limite the same for the Effect includeth the Causes Constituent and Discriminating And again no man can submit to and accept of Constitutions Acts and Orders flowing from a power but they must eo ipso recognosce that Power to be properly residing in the person giving forth these Acts and Orders or grant that he is vested with that power and seing it is plaine from the Act of Supremacie it self that such Constitutions Acts and Orders so given in Church-matters and about Church Persons as these were whereby the Indulgence was midwif'd into the world do flow from the Supremacie it is also manifest that no
it in the heart of our great Soveraigne and in your Gr's heart to be instrumental therein that he would grant us Ministers libertie to make full proof of that Ministery which the Lord hath given us for edification and not for destruction that we might have the opportunitie to make it appear that the Government which the Lord Jesus hath appointed in his Church doth well consist and agree with the Magistrats Civil Government in the State that so I and all others my outted Brethren may have access to our former Charges or other Congregations as we shall have opportunity of a cordial Invitation from the people with the assistance and help authoritatively of lawful Church â—udicatories until such time as God shall grant a patent way to returne to our own Charges 2. And that Presbyterian Ministers may have access to his Maj. for representing just grievances which press heavily our Consciences and the consciences of the people his Maj. loyal and faithful Subjects in the Land In granting of which necessary and just desire I your Gr's Servant shall be a humble Supplicant at the Throne of Grace for the preservation of his Maj. Person the establishing of his Throne in righteousness and that the Lord would poure forth the Spirit of righteous judgment on your Grace that the Lord may be blest and your Grace may finde mercie in the day of visitation J. BURNET By this free and faithful Testimony we see what Reasons moved him not to accept of this supposed favour and particularly we may observe that one maine Reason was the Relation and Affinitie that was betwixt the Act of Indulgence and the Explicatory Act of Supremacie so that who ever accepted of this Indulgence could not but be looked upon as virtually and materially at least approving and consenting to the Supremacie what iniquity lyeth wrapped-up in this a few words could not express But Moreover there were Ten Ministers I suppose worthie Mr Iohn Burnet forementioned was one of them who did meet together upon the same account to draw up reasons of their refusing the Indulgence to be presented unto the Councel But though the Paper was drawn up and subscribed yet I did not hear that it was presented However because it may also contribute some light and confirmation I shall set it down here as I had it ALL of us being concerned and reached by the late Act of Indulgence and Confinement some of us being already cited to give an account why we have not accepted the same do humblie desire in the fear of God who standeth in the Congregation of the Mighty and judgeth among the Gods to give this true sober and ingenous relation of the Reasons which lye weighty on our Consciences and binde us up from compliance with your LL. Commands in this matter briefly premitting first That our non-compearance hath not flowed from any contempt of or disrespect unto Authority which we alwayes highly esteem in the Lord as our Consciences bear us witness resolving through grace to submit thereto in all things Lawful but from the apprehension we have conceived of the hazard of our Ministrie and Persons thereby lest by our personal appearance and signifying our reasons coram we might have probably irritated your LL. Secondly That we be not mistaken as denying to his Maj. his just power in reference to Ecclesiastick matters we do heartily and with great alacrity acknowledge that the Civil Magistrat hath a power circa sacra objectively Ecclesiastick so as he by his Royal Authority may enjoine that whatsoever is commanded by the God of heaven may be diligently done for the house of the God of heaven Which power is only cumulative and auxiliary to the Church not privative nor destructive and is to be exercised alwayes modo civili As to the reasons amongst many which might be adduced not willing to trouble your L L. with prolixitie we humblie propose these few 1. That our blessed Lord Jesus Christ Mediator the only Head King and Law-giver of his own Church hath committed all Ministerial Power and Authority for Government of his House to his own Church-Officers as the first proper Subject and Receptacle thereof Ioh. 20 21. Matth. 16 19. and 18 18 20. and 28 v. 18 19 20. 2 Cor. 10 8. But so it is that the Act explanatory of his Maj. Supremacie in the Church whereupon this Act of Indulgence is founded doth ascribe this Power to His Maj. and His Successours as an inherent right of the Crown and actually invests him with the formal exercise thereof in his own Person deriving and conveying the same to others as he in his Royal Wisdom shall think fit And that the Act of Indulgence appeareth to be the Exercise and Actual Application of the Supremacie in Matters Ecclesiastick is obvious by comparing the two Acts together namely in these 3. Particulars 1. The Nomination and Election of such and such Ministers to such and such respective Congregations and that without the previous Call of the People and Power of lawful Church-Judicatories which supposeth the Civil Magistrat to have Authority to judge of the sutableness of Ministers Gifts and Qualifications to labour among such and such people 2. A power to plant and transplant to put-out and to put-in Ministers in the Church and actually clothing Persons meerly civil with Power for that effect 3. The framing and prescribing Ecclesiastick Canons and Instructions for regulating the exercise of the Ministerial Office all which are proper intrinsick and formal Acts of Church-power belonging by vertue of Christs Institution to Church-Officers 2. Although we do freely disallow and condemne all tumultuary and seditious Meetings amongst which it is sad and grievous that the peacable Meetings of the Lords people for Worship and hearing of the Word soundly preached should be reckoned yet are we so convinced and perswaded in our hearts of the Lords blessing attending the preaching of the Gospel though not in a publick Paroch-Church as that we judge the narraâ—ive of the first Act goes neer to involve the Accepters of this Indulgence in an interpretative condemning of the saids Meetings which we in Conscience daâ— not do being commanded to abstaine fom all appearance of evil 1 Thes. 5 22. 3. There being a standing relation betwixt us and those flocks over which the Holy Ghost hath made us Overseers according to Christs Institution in his word the sense of which tye engageth us to have special regard to these flocks until that be dissolved by the same power that made it up and gave it a being besides that by keeping us from our Charges a wide door is opened to Errour Atheisme and Prophanity and we disabled to discharge the trust committed to us by Christ for which we must be answerable to him in that great day of accounts What a grief must it be to the people to have their own Lawful Pastours shut-up in a Corner whereby both we and they are put out of a Capacity for performing
Mr Georg Hutcheson Mr Iohn Spading Mr Iohn Wallace and Mr William Maitland and all of them except the saids Mr Iohn Bairdy Mr Iohn Crawford and Mr William Fullertoun compearing and all of them except the saids Mr Iohn Spading Mr Iohn Wallace and Mr William Maitland acknowledging that they had not observed the 29 of May 1673. The Councel did finde them to have contraveened the 12. Act of the third Session of his Majest second Parliament and therefore fined ilk one of them in the halfe of their respective proportions of the Stipends allowed to them by the Act of Indulgence and that for the Crope and year of God 1673. And in regard the saids Mr Iohn Spading Mr Iohn Wallace and Mr William Maitland did observe the 29. of May the Lords of Councel assoiled them and ordained the three Persons not compearing to be denounced Rebels And further the said Mr Alexander Blair Minister at Castoun having publickly disowned the King and Councels Power in giving them these Instructions appointed for the Indulged Ministers the Lords of Councel did ordaine him immediatly to be carried to the Tolbooth of Edinburgh and there to be kept close prisoner until further order And in regard diverse of these Indulged Ministers did pretend they had not received the saids Instructions did cause deliver to them extracts thereof at the Bar that they might pretend no ignorance of the same Edinbr the 10. of Iuly 1673. The Ministers underwritten being conveened for the cause foresaid were fined ut supra upon their own Confession viz. Mr Iohn Mc Michen and Iohn Sempil And Mr Iohn Colt not compearing was ordered to be denounced Edinbr the last of Iuly 1673. The Ministers underwritten were also fined upon their own Confession ut supra for the causes foresaid viz. Mr Iohn Scot Mr Iames Fletcher and Mr Robert Mowat Upon the 4. of Septemb. 1673. Mr Alexander Blair is ordered to have liberty upon caution that dureing the time of his Inlargment he should keep himself in the House of Iean Weir nigh the Weigh-House of Edinbr and re-enter his Person within the Tolbooth thereof within the space of one Moneth And that dureing the said space he should not keep any Meetings contrare to the standing Lawes of the Kingdom under the paine of 5000 Merks Scots money And upon the 8. of Januar. 1674. his Inlargment is prorogat for the space of fourteen dayes upon caution of the summe and in the former termes But before this short time was fully at an end He was called home to his Master's joy of whom of the ground of his particular sufferings we will have occasion to speak something hereafter and therefore it will be sufficient at present for clearing of what is past concerning him to give a short deduction of the matter When Mr Alex. Blair and others as we saw above were called before the Council upon the occasion mentioned The Councel enquired if they had observed the Instructions that were given unto them some answered that they had never seen them where upon the Councel resolved to prevent this excuse in time coming to give to every one of them Coram a Copie of these Instructions When the day appointed here unto cometh they all compear what was their Deliberations and Resolutions in the Interim and what was the carriage of the rest that day we will have a fit occasion to speak hereafter the Copie of the Instructions is given to each of them standing Coram at the Bar Several had received them before they were presented to Mr A. Blair But when they are given to him he being moved with zeal and remembering whose Ambassadour he was told the Council plainly that he could receive no Instructions from them to regulat him in the exercise of his Ministrie otherwise he should not be Christ Ambassadour but theirs and herewith letteth their Instructions drop out of his hand knowing of no other Salvâ— or manner of testifying for the Truth in the case The Council seeing what a direct Opposition this was unto them in their Designes in a rage sent him with a Macer unto prison which made a great noise in the City the more serious though sorrowful at his sufferings yet rejoicing that he had witnessed a good Confession and so had perpetuated the Testimonie of the Church of Scotland her patience This could not but carry some sad reflection with it on the rest who had received and come away with these Instructions in their hand wherefore some Judicious and serious Ministers in the Town being filled with shame and sorrow both at what past endeavoured to call the rest together that they might owne Mr Blairs Testimonie vindicat themselves and prevent the contempt under which otherwise they would lye but though they did meet yet nothing of this kind could be granted some would not move one step forward and the rest out of a pretence of love to Union though in evil would not leave them but they all notwithstanding of all their love to Union left Mr Blair alone who yet was not alone his Masters presence making up the want of his Brethren their fellowship at this meeting I heard there was a motion made that some should be appointed to write about the Magistrats Power in Church-matters as if they forsooth could have found-out new Principles to have justified their own proceedings so point blank contrary to all the Actings of the Church of Scotland and of the faithful in it from the beginning and if the Person that drew up their Vindication of which afterward was appointed hereunto I should have expected nothing but a piece of Vedelian Pedantrie But it was good that this motion was also laid aside However faithful and honest Mr Blair must moreover suffer by their Tongues for they were not ashamed to say that all his suffering was for his rude and unsutable carriage before the Council though all that knew him knew him to have as much of a Gentle-man and of good breeding as any of them But the Truth was as a faithful Person to whom he himself spoke it did report he had that day bowed the knee to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ and with much earnestness begged Counsel and Courage in order to a sutable carriage at that appearance and finding his heart enlarged did not leave praying that morning until he had obtained some assurance he should be assisted and therefore came before the Council with Micajahs Rudness if so it must be called as having gote a sight of his Royal Master and durst do or receive nothing that might countenance an encroachment upon his Prerogative Royal. It was also known that some of those who in their previous Meeting voted for Mr B. being their mouth before the Council said now they were glade he was not for then he had marred all their Business And in a Vindication of the rest emitted by some of their number he is also as we shall hear lashed and that with the
that it is not easie nor necessare to tell what was said to or by every one of them they being called-in one by one but this is certaine that all of them except two who were dismissed upon their declaring that they had preached on that day onely because it fell to be their lecture-day declared they had not preached on that day and did agree in substance upon this ground of their forbearance that it did not flow from any disloyalty or disaffection to Authority but that they had not freedome to observe any sâ—lemne fixed anniversary Day for religious Worshippe besides the Lords Day To which I shall only crave leave to say not questioning the account he giveth here though the Council's books tell us that there were Three assoiled and that because of their observing that day nor taking notice that the Lords day is no anniversary day but a weekly solemne day nor doubting of the first part of their Apology for as to some it may be more than probable that such was their loyal affection to Authority that for fear of offending they did not hold forth and plainely show the true ground as they ought to have done I grant the Parliaments calling that day an holyday might give ground of scrupling to Conscientious Persons Yet I suppose it is well enough known that this denomination was not the effect of true Devotion nor yet of Superstition the day being observed rather in honour of Bacchus than of the true and living God and that the Principal thing intended was a Solemne Universal and Anniversary Condemnation of the work of Reformation which was so fully signified in the very narrative of the Act that I wonder these Brethren did not give this as the ground of their non-observing of that day I shall not think that they thought themselves free to abstract from that Narrative and not once to notice it seing they could not abstract simple preaching on that day from its due observation and seing every one knowes that every observation of a day holy or civil appointed by Men doth homologat the Grounds Reasons of the Institution But passing this which is not of moment as to our present business he tells us that there were foure of the Brethren called-in together upon particular summonds for baptizing of Children of other Congregations To which among other legal defences whereof he can give no particular account they gave this answere that these Acts relating to that matter were never intimate unto them Upon which they were told by my L. Chanc. they should get them and so all were commanded to appear againe the following Tuesday As to this we may see that the Council did suppose those Acts to have been made known unto them And that so far as the Concil did know all the rest save these foure had observed the Injunctions otherwise they had been challenged upon the violation of them as well as these foure As to this answere given by those foure I suppose the rest will willingly acknowledge that it was not sufficient and that another answer had been both more pertinent and less introductive of new troubles for probably if this answere had not been given they had not gote such a returne from my L. Chanc. Had they ingenously said that their commission bare them to Baptize as well as to Preach and that they might not be answerable to their Master to refuse to Baptize any Childe within the Covenant brought unto them for that end much trouble and temptation had been in all appearance preventeâ— And though I will not condemne all legal defences yet I must say that Châ—istian prudence might soon have taught them to have waved this defence not only because it was obvious enough what would follow but mainly because it contained a tacite acknowledgment that they would not have done what they did if the Act had been intimat to them and that in time coming they would willingly obey the same and consequently that the Injunctions were just and righteous and such as neither they nor any other should disobey whether because of the matter or because of the power enjoining them But more of this purpose afterward He gives us next an account of what they did in the Interval and how they did meet almost every day to consult what they should do at their next appearance in case these Acts called saith he Rules should be intimate unto them And how a Paper was produced by some appointed thereunto which was only relative to these Instructions or Rules with a touch of the reasons of their not-observing of the 29. of May to which saith he afterwards was prefixed a pretty large Introduction concerning Christ's power in and over his Church and asserting the Magistrat's just right about Ecclesiastick affairs as amply as any thing Mr Hutcheson spoke and denying him no more when it was finished than he â—enied unto him Concerning this Paper I can say nothing having never seen it only I finde it contained as himself tels us in the following words this clause That we could not receive from the Magistrate any Instructions to regulate us in the exercise of our Ministrie And I finde by his own relation that three or foure dayes they debated upon this clause which he calleth Unqualified And that many of the Brethren were against it as an Assertion which being so generally and indistinctly expressed would not hold water nor be found agreable with the Word of God or Concessions even of our Orthodox Anti-Erastian Divines concerning the Magistrates just right As to this Assertion which as he saith Was not satisfying to some though I do not know what particularly was objected against it by these some yet I may take liberty to say that it appeareth not to me contrary either to the Word of God or to the Concessions of Orthodox Anti-Erastian Divines if it be understood either as relative to the case than in hand as it behooved to be if pertinently adduced or according to the true and native import of the words wherein it is expressed and that because 1. Nothing occureth to me in Scripture whence it can with any shew of probability be inferred that this Assertion is not consonant to Scripture except what is recorded of David's giving Instructions to the Levites Porters and Singers and Marshalling them in their several Orders and Work But sure I am all Anti-Erastian Divines look upon that practice as no precedent to Christian Magistrates now as is well known And their ground is clear and irrefragable for David did what was done herein not as King by any proper Magistraâ—ical power as is clear from what he said himself when he was delivering all these Orders and Instructions mentioned 1 Chron. 23. and 24. and 25. and 26. over unto Salomon Chap. 28. vers 9 10 11 12 13. he tels him vers 19. That the Lord made him understand all this in writting by his hand upon him And accordingly we finde Salomon doing nothing
in this matter by his own proper Magistratical power 2 Chron. 8 v. 14. But according to the order of David his Father And moreover when King Hezekiah is about this work reforming what was amâ—sse he doth nothing of this kind Iure Regio by his Magistratical power but according to the commandement of David and of Gad the Kings Seer and Nathan the Prophet 2 Chron. 29 v. 25. and it is added for it was the commandement of the Lord by his Prophets In like manner King Josiah when he is ordering Church-affairs and reforming abuses assumed nothing to himself of this Nature as King but appointed all to be according to the writting of David King of Israel and according to the writting of Salomon his Son 2 Chron. 35 4. 2. Nor can I call to mind what that Concession is of our Anti-Erastian Divines that can seem to controâ—e this 1. It cannot be that Concession That Magistrates may and should put Ministers to their Duty in following the Rules and Injunctions prescribed by Christ viz. in their Political Way and by their Political Penalties For hence it will no way follow that Ministers receive Instructions from Magistrates to regulate them in the exercise of their Ministrie more than it can be said that Magistrates receive their Instructions for regulating them in the exercise of their Civil Function from Ministers because Ministers in their Ministerial Way put Magistrates to their Duty in following the Rules prescribed by God in his Word 2. Nor can it be that Concession That Magistrates may by their Political and Civil Sanction confirme and enforce civilly Canons and Rules Ministerially cleared and concluded by Church-Judicatories For that is but to presse the Rules of Gods Word to be observed and is no prescribing of Injunctions but an enjoining civilly the Observation of Injunctions imposed and proposed Ministerially by Church-Judicatories 3. Nor can it be that Concession That the Magistrate is Custos utriusque tabulae for the Reasons already given The Minister also may be said to be Custos utriusque tabulae in his way and manner and yet none wil hence inferre that he may give Instructions unto Magistrats to regulate them in the exercise of their Office 4. Nor can it be that Concession That the Magistrat is Episcopus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an overseer of things without for these external things are properly and formally political things belonging to the Civil Government of the outward man among which the function of the Ministrie as such cannot be reckoned this being purely Ecclesiastick and properly belonging to the Spiritual Kingdome of Christ. 5. Nor can it be that Concession That the Magistrate may limite and confine the Person of a Minister whereby per accident there is a confinement laid upon the further extension of the exercise of his Ministrie for every body seeth that this is properly a confinement of the Person and but consequently of the exercise of the Ministrie and no man will say that is Orthodox that the Magistrate hath the same Power over the Office of the Ministrie that he hath over the Person of the Minister 3. Some such thing may I grant be gathered with some probability from that Assertion of Vedelius viz. That Magistrats have an Inspection of the Office of Ministers as he urgeth it But he is no Anti-Erastian but an Erastian Divine And I suppose no such thing will follow from this Assertion or the like as qualified or explained by our Orthodox Divines who have written against Vedelius such as Apollonius Triglandius and Revius Beside what Walaeus and Voetius have spoken hereunto 4. I conceive that Assertion was very orthodox and safe for these Reasons 1. This Power of giving Instructions for regulating the exerciâ—e of the Ministrie would inferre or presuppose that the Office of the Ministrie and its exercise are subordinat to the Magistrate in linea recta For Instructions and Orders or Rules coming from a Superiour for from such they must come and not from an Inferiour not yet from a Co-ordinat Power to an Inferiour say that the Superiour hath Power to grant a Commission to that Inferiour be it Court or Person to Act in that function and sphaere and a Power to Limite Restrict Enlarge or Qualifie the exercise of that function as he seeth good But none of our Orthodox Anti-Erastian Divines grant a Subordination but assert a Collaterality 2. No Orthodox Anti-Erastian Divine will say that Ministers as such are so subordinant unto the Supreme Magistrat as other inferiour Magistrates are But if the Supream Magistrat might give Instructions to Ministers and prescribe Rules to regulat them in the exercise of their Ministrie what difference shall there be as to this betwixt Ministers as such and inferiour Magistrates Can the Supream Magistrate do more as to the regulating of the Magistratical function in inferiour Magistrates than Limite them Restrict them Qualifie them by such and such Instructions and what less shall now hereby be granted to him in reference to Ministers as such 5. But now if we speak of Injunctions and Instructions in particular the matter will be yet more clear that that Assertion was truth and nothing but truth For either the Instructions are concerning such things as are at all times necessary to the right exercise of the Ministery or concerning alterable circumstances which only hic nunc can be called necesâ—ary If the former be said it must be granted that these are set down to us in the Word for all necessaries are there contained and if so the Magistrat either enjoineth these Ministerially as holding forth the mind of God but this cannot be said for then were he no Magistrat in that but a Church-Officer and a Minister or Magistratically and Autocratorically as a Civil Magistrate And then this must either be in Ecclesiâ reformata bene instituta that is in a well reformed and instituted Church or in Ecclesiâ reformanda confusa that is in a Church wholly confused needing reformation In the former case Orthodox·Anti-Erastian Divines will say there ought to be an antecedaneous judgement of the Curch or of Ministers who are the only authoritative and authorized Ministerial Interpreters of the Word And then the Magistrat doth not give the Instructions but by his Civil Sanction politically inforceth the observation of Gods Instructions authoritatively and ministerially held forth by the authorized ministerial Interpreters The latter case is not our case unless by this Concession we would grant Power and Liberty to any Magistrate to overturn the best reformed Church that is to the end he may order all things in it as he pleaseth which was never understood by the Users of this Distinction If the Instructions respect only the alterable Peristatica Either Christ hath given Power to his Church in these cases to judge according to the General Rules of the Word or not No reformed Orthodox Anti-Erastian Divine will say not and if the former be said as it must
the yoke yet being imposed they would submit unto them as to an outward prejudice which they behooved to sustaine as he spoke before in reference to the sentence read against them If this later was his meaning it is past doubt that the Cause was betrayed and his mouth stopped from giving that Declaration or Testimonie in all their names which he was ordered by them to give If the former was his meaning as I am apt to think why were the Brethren so offended with what Mr Blair said hereafter as we shall hear they were was it because Mr Blair's words were too too plaine and distinct Sure Christianity will tell us that Testimonies cannot be plaine enough Upon this he tels us they were as they thought dismissed But the L Chancel forthwith called them againe as they were turning their faces towards the door and told them that seing some of their number had said these Papers viz. the Papers containing the Instructions were not given them the Clerck was to give every one of them a Copie which accordingly he went about to do May not every body now think strange that prudence did not now teach theiâ— mouth to express what he had to utter in their names when all of them were thus spoken to in Common and particular mention was made of that Paper of Instructions which before when no mention was made thereof he laboured to obviat prevent the giving of When their faces are now againe turned towards the Councel the Clerk went about to deliver each the paper of Instructions and we are told that they had been delivered to the one halfe or more of the Brethren even to all cited out of Clidsdale Renfrow and some of Kyll before they came to Mr A. Blair And our Informer tels us he beleeveth there were few or none of these behind that resolved to speak any thing till Mr H. who was not called upon yet should beginne as they had agreed upon Mr A. Blair consenting thereto as well as the rest if Mr Blair's speaking had not drawn some of them who had been spoken to before and others as they were called thereto thereafter to speake somewhat But all stood still in one body waiting till it should come to Mr H. who was to be their common Mouth to speak their mind and they to homologat adde or alter as they should think fit This is our Informers relation of the business and I shall not question the truth thereof but come and see what he saith of Mr A. Blair and his discourse which as would seem broke the intended method and order As for his Reverend Brother Mr A. Blair's speaking he saith as I hope in Charitie his motive was zeal and forwardness so I wish heartily it had been forborn till its season for hinc illae Lachrimae and the rather I wish he had not first filled the field because that lax assertion of which before of receiving no Instructions from the Magistrate c. albeit it had been limited and qualified by Common consent Yet he I know not how repeated it to the Chancellour in terminis telling That he would not receive Instructions from them for regulating him in the exercise of his Ministrie and added this reason That if he did so be should not be Christs Ambassadour but theirs To which I shall only desire to say That I am of the minde that as true Zeal and Conscience of duty moved M. A. Blair to say what he said so the same should have moved all of them to have said the like or more And I cannot but think strange that this Informer thinketh it was not seasonable for Mr Blair to speak when the trial came to his own door and that notwithstanding their Common mouth had been so long silent and neglected his opportunity Our Informer told us lately that it was seasonable for Mr H. to speak when it came to his turne and was it not as seasonable for M. B. to speak when it came to his turne As for his calling Mr Blairs Assertion lax I shall passe it having sufficiently shown above how consonant it was to truth and how groundless all the exceptions were that were taken at it so far as I could conjecture And I wish himself had hinted at least some one ground or other whereupon he judged it lax And what difference I pray was there upon the matter betwixt Mr H's requesting that they might not be burthened with impositions in the matter of their Ministery And Mr B's saying that he would not receive Instructions from them for regulating him in the exercise of his Ministrie Mr H's expressions wanted the limitation that they had all agreed upon to wit formally and intrinsecally Ecclesiastical as well as Mr B's and no man will say that the word Impositions do more import Instructions formally and intrinsecally Ecclesiastical than the word Instructions Nor is there any such difference betwixt these words in the exercise of the Ministery which were Mr B's words and these words in the mattter of the Ministrie which were Mr H's words as to make the one discourse Lax and the other acurate Nay I am ready to say that Mr B's Assertion was both more congruous to the truth and to good sense than the words of the other And finally This Informer is not well satisfied with the Reason which Mr B. added and yet the same was insinuat in Mr H's discourse in these words wherein they were the servants of Christ for these words did either containe a reason why their L L. should not burden them with Impositions or they sounded forth nothing but non-sense as every understanding Reader will see Yet this reason is made the ground of a great out-cry for he addeth which reason if it do not al 's strongly militate against Ministers receiving of Instructions and Rules for the prescriptions in that Paper go by these names from Church-judicatories as well as from the Civil and strick equally at the Diatactick power of both I leave to you to judge And then to make all strong the matter is cast into a Syllogisme but with this mishap that it is made up of four termes contrary to the law of Syllogismes But this is but trivial It is more to the purpose to say that this same absurâ—ity will follow upon what Mr H. spoke unless he pleaseth rather to let it passe under the notion of Non-sence and therefore what ever way he shall think to salve Mr H's credite wes hall by the same way salve Mr B's Though this might satisfie Yet I shall tell him that it is far worse for him by his discourse here to grant unto the Civil Magistrate a Diatactick power in matters ecclesiasticalâ— in such an illiminated and unqualified manner as he doth when he talks of the Diatactick power of both for this is a manifest homologating the Supremacy as lately explained by the Patlia But for vindication of Mr. B. he would know that he was speaking only of
Ministers Person as his Hat Books and Cloathes and the like The Latter as they partake more of the Nature of Ecclesiastical Rules being more formally and more neerly related unto the exercise of the Ministrie but yet only in so far as they belong to publick Actions so it is a question if Magistrates may either solely or in Prima Instantia prescribe such Rules unto Ministers However this being at best but dubious and the other so clearly Political and it being to me at least very uncertaine what Rules these are which may be called Externally and Materially Ecclesiastical c. I could have wished that some Instances hereof had been given that so not only it might have been known what Rules were not Formally and Intrinsecally Ecclesiastick but also it might have been better understood what Ecclesiastical Rules were Formally and Intrinsecally such 2. The other part of the discourse concerning the Magistrats power objectively Ecclesiastical is as useless for any thing I can perceive either for clearing of Mr B. or of his discourse for 1. There was nothing in Mr B's discourse giving the least hint of his denying that power to the Magistrate which all Orthodox Anti-Erastian Divines grant For the denying to the Magistrate a power of giving Instructions for regulating of Ministers in the exercise of their Ministrie hath no affinitie with this as all know who know any thing of these Controversies Nor 2. doth this piece of the discourse in any manner of way clear in what sense Magistrates may give Instructions to Ministers to regulate them in the exercise of their Ministrie and Ministers may receive them and in what sense not These two questions are so far distinct that I cannot imagine to what purpose this discourse was brought in or what it was that gave the least occasion thereunto But as to this maine Business I would further enquire whether the Brethren do judge the matter of giving these Instructions about which the debate did arise did belong to the first part of the discourse and so to be Intrinsecally Formally Ecclesiastical or to the later part and so belong to that power of the Magistrate which is Objectively Ecclesiastical whereby they judge of the matters of Religion in order to their own Act whether they will Approve or Discountenance such a way This question must be judged necessary unless that whole discourse be accounted Unnecessary and Impertinent If the former be said then why was any troubled at Mr B 's refusing to receive these Instructions Why were not those condemned who had received them Why did not such as had received them cast them back againe How came it that all of them did not unanimously agree in this Testimonie Or how came it that their Common Mouth did not speak what was the Common opinion of all Why was it not more distinctly and in fewer words said That they could not receive these Instructions as being Rules Intrinsecally and Formally Ecclesiastical regulating them who were the servants of Christ in these matters If the Latter be said Then was not only Mr B 's both Practice and Discourse condemned but the whole cause was basely betrayed because under the pretext of the Magistrates power Objectively Ecclesiastical that which is as Intrinsecally and Formally Ecclesiastical as many other at least are was granted to the Magistrate Will the Magistrat's power to act as a Man and not as a Brute in his Magistratical work about an Ecclesiastical Object that is his power to judge by the judgment of discretion which is Common to all the members of the Church yea to all men as Men which Papists deny unto Magistrates allowing them only to see with the Churches eyes but Protestants grant unto them Will I say this power warrand him to give Instructions and set down Rules for regulating the exercise of the Ministrie Yea or will his Authoritative Judgment in matters of Religion that is his sentence of Approving or not Approving of Tolerating or not Tolerating in his Dominions of Countenancing or not Countenancing by his civil Lawes such a Way or Profession of Religion warrand him also to set Rules to the very exercise of the Ministrie By what argument shall this consequence be proved seing 1. In the one case he judgeth of Religion only in order to his own Act but when he prescribeth Instructions Rules and Orders he judgeth of Religion or of that part of Religion concerning which the Instructions are in order to it self and the Intrinsick manner of its Administration 2. In the one his judgment is purely Political and Civil in the other case it is really Ecclesiastical 3 In the one case his judgment is Objectively onely to be called or accounted Ecclesiastical but in the other it is Formally Elecitely Ecclesiastical 4. In the one case he acteth as a Magistrate considering the outward Good Quiet and Advantage of the Commonwealth In the other he acteth as a Church-Officer or Head considering the Intrinsick Nature Spiritual Ends of that part of Religion 5. In the one he acteth in subordination to God as Supream Governour of the World but in the other he acteth as in a right line of subordination to Christ the Supream Head and Governour of his Church and Institutor of all the Administrations and Ordinances dispensed in the Church and sole Appointer of the Qualifications of the Officers and Rules of Administration Or rather if he act as a Magistrate in this last he Acts by an Architectonical power and so as an Usurper or by a power which is only proper to Christ or if he be said to Act ministerially than also as an Usurper because never impowered thereunto by Christ the Supream King and Head of the Church If we look upon this discourse of Mr. H. as a Testimonie and so it may be it was intended or as a Declaration of the Judgement of the Ministers concerning the Magistrat's jus or Right to impose Instructions or Rules on Ministers for regulating them in the exercise of their Ministrie and concerning Ministers their call and warrant to receive or refuse such Instructions I cannot but observe 1. That it is very defective and short of a faire and full Testimonie against the Practice of such who were known to have invaded the Rights of the Church yea and the Prerogatives of Christ as sole Head and King of his Church and in prosecution of this designe of invading the same more to have devised this medium of the Indulgence 2. That it is not a plaine and full Testimonie against the present Act of Usurpation whereby a power was assumed to judge in matters Ecclesiastical Intrinsecally and Formally such Yea and to performe Elicite and Formal Church-Acts either Ministerially as Ministers of Christ clothed with Ministerial Church-power from him which cannot be Instructed nor doth it compete to a Magistrat acting as such or rather Magisterially as Supream Governours in the Church and Appointers of Qualifications Rules and Manner of Administration of
Condemne Hereticks Debarre from the Sacraments and Admit thereto by their sentence judge of Church-members or determine who should be admitted as such and who not In a word do all which Church-Judicatories do This distinction will make all go down 4. By parity of Reason if these Brethren were before a Church-Judicatory medling with all Civil affairs determining Civil pleas giving-out civil Injunctions Lawes and Rules c. they might and ought as willingly submit and salve all with this distinction saying We cannot receive Civil Lawes from you but as for Ecclesiastical significaâ—ions of your pleasure under hazard of Church-censures we can say nothing to that And thus they would sweetly comply with all the Invasions made upon and Usurpations of the Civil power whereof the Popes Conclave and other Popish and Prelatical Courts are justly accounted guilty without scruple Now at length it came to Mr H's turn who as our Informer saith received not these Instructions publickly as having seen them before Let us hear what he said He tels us that he resumed what he had said formerly concerning a Formal Ecclesiastical Power which could not be allowed to the Magistrat and a Power Objectivly Ecclesiastical which was allowed to him Intimating with all that the Brethren would either observe or not observe their Directions according as they judged of them in their Consciences upon their peril On what was here resumed I have given mine Observations before and shall onely adde That this Formal Ecclesiastick Power must pointe forth a Power in it self such and therefore so called and not so denominated meerly because it is exerted by Church-men as the two Brethren fore mentioned hinted in their Answer and Distinction otherwise his Distinction should have run thus betwixt a Power Subjectivly Ecclesiastical and Objectivly Ecclesiastical But this would confound all Causes and all Power and would bring all Civil Causes objectivly under the Power of the Church and all Church-Causes objectivly under the Power of the Magistrate Yea and make all Things and Actions done by the Civil Magistrate though otherwise but Objectivly Ecclesiastical to be Formally Civil and on the other hand make all Actions done by Church-men though otherwise but Objectivly Civil to be Formally Ecclesiastick As to the Latter Part of this speech I judge the same might have been said had been before the Church-Judicatory receiving the same or the like Instructions And was this all Was there no more requisite in this case Is it all one thing at whose hands Ministers receive Directions Rules Restrictions and Injunctions or the like to regulate them in the exercise of their Ministrie whether at the hands of the Pope of a Prelate of the Magistrate or of a Church-Judicatorie providing they be such as may be observed or otherwise to take their hazard I suppose our Fore-fathers would have said something else And I trow Civil Magistrates if called before the Prelates Courts to receive Injunctions or Rules to regulate them in the exercise of their Office would say some other thing than that they would observe or not observe these Directions according as they judged of them in their Consciences upon their peril And if they would have stood to their Rights as is to be supposed the greater fault it is for Ministers to quite the Rights of the Church so easily wherein the Glory of their Master doth so much consist Yea moreover this superadded Insinuation makes me suspect the fore-mentioned Distinction the more For had that Distinction been honestly proposed and intended this superadded clause had been utterly needless Upon this as we are told by our Informer followed my L. Chanc. Answer which was this That the King gave them these Instructions by his Council and if they did not observe them the Council would punish them By which we see that these Instructions were giâ—â—â— by an Autocratorick power by the Magistrate as such and consequently being in Church-matters Intrinsecally and Formally such by an Usurped power We see next that the commanding of the observation of these Instructions cometh from the Magistrate in prima Instantia and so are not Civil Sanctions and Confirmations of Injunctions ministerially proposed by Church-Officers upon both which grounds I conceive Mr H. had a faire occasion to have vindicated both the Prerogatives of Christ the sole Head of the Church and the Privileges of the Church bestowed on her by Christ her King and Lord Yet we finde that all the reply which he made was this That for the matter of Civil punishments they had never denied the Magistrates right in them And that he took notice from that Answere that their L L. acted in a Civil way onely competent to them in their dealing with Ministers which they could not decline hoping their L L. designed not to stretch their power beyond their Civil line Which reply in my judgment was neither Pertinent nor Sufficient Not Pertinent because the question was never moved concerning Magistrates executing civil punishments but concerning their power of Imposing Injunctions and Rules to regulate Ministers in the exercise of their Ministrie which the L. Chanc. owned and avouched in his Answere little regarding Mr H's distinction betwixt a Formally Ecclesiastick power and power Objectively Ecclesiastical Not Sufficient because the maine business was unhandsomly waved Nay moreover this Reply was an yeelding of the whole cause and a granting that Magistrates might meddle with any Church power and enjoyne what they pleased providing they punished only civilly such as transgressed Hence they might ordaine a Minister and command him to preach to such a people that would not call him and depose another and discharge him to preach any more as a Minister or Administer Sacraments under a Civil penalty So under a Civil penalty they might prescribe the matter of preachings decide Controversies of Faith and appeals in Church-maters c. Yea in a word meddle with the most Intrinsick and Formal Church-matters Finally I do not see what ground my L. Chanc. gave yea or occasion to make this Reply for though his L. said the Council would punish yet the said not the Council would punish civilly onely No his expression might comprehend Ecclesiastical Punishments also conforme to the power granted to them by the Kings Letter After a great deal of Discourse spent upon personal reflections and vindications with which the cause is not much concerned and therefore the less to be noticed by me our Informer cometh in end to vindicat Mr H's speech which as it would appear had given no small offence and he tels us that in it we may perceive an Assertion of an Ecclesiastical power to make Rules for regulating Ministers which was not yeelded to the Magistrate with a concession of his power Objectively Ecclesiastical And a declaration of their receiving Papers of them under that notion did not oblige them to observe these directions but they were to act therein upon their peril We heard indeed of Rules Intrinsecally and afterward Formally
And even as to this there was no small injurie done to Jesus Christ and this leads me to a second thing here remarkable 2. By this Indulgence the Prerogative of Christ as sole Head of His Church is further encroached upon in that the Indulged do hold their Ministrie as to its Exercise not of Christ alone but of the Magistrates either solely or in conjunction with Christ. And that this is a wrong to Christ is manifest in that it saith the Office and the Power to exerce the Office are not from Christ alone The Office can import nothing but a baâ—e name if it import not Power to exerce the Office or do the work peculiar unto such an Office And if Christ be said to give the Office but others must give the Power Authority and Ius or Right to exercise the Office he shall be made a meer Titular King But he told us some other thing when he said Matth. 28 18 19. All Power is given unto me in Heaven and in Earth go ye therefore and Teach all Nations Baptizing them c. And when he said Ioh. 20 21 23. As my Father hath sent Me even so send I You whose soever sins ye remit they are remitted unto them c. See Mark 16 15. go yee into all the World and preach the Gospel The Office was in order to the Exercise And when he gave the Office he gave the Power to exercise the same When Paul was made a Minister he was sent to open eyes Act. 26 16 11 The Ministrie sure is a Talent and who ever get it must trade with it or expect a sad Sentence If it be said That this will take away the Power of Chuâ—ch-Judicatories who ministerially under Christ both conveyeth the Office and the Power to exercise the same For Answere I deny that any such thing will follow And to clear this I shall shew a third Injurie done to Christ by this Indulgence 3. If it should be said that by the accepting of this Indulgence from the Magistrat they no more prejudge Christ of his Right both to give the Office and Power to exerce the same than when they take the same as conveyed to them by Church-Officers I Answer That the Difference is great and the Encroachment made on Christs Prerogative by the Indulgence clearly assented to In that another way of Conveyance of the Ministrie and of the Power to exercise the same is here closed with than Christ the only King hath appointed Christ hath instituted Church-Officers for this end to convey the Office and Power which he hath appointed unto particular Persons The Holy Ghost said unto Prophets and Teachers that were at Antioch separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them Act. 13 1.2 Paul and Barnabas ordained Elders in every Church Act. 14 23. Titus was ordered to ordaine Elders in every Church Tit. 1 5. Timothie was to commit the things he had heard of Paul to faithful men who shall be able to teach others 2 Tim. 2 v. 2. The gift was given with the laying on of the hands of the Presbyterie 1 Tim 4 14. But here the Office or the Exercise thereof is conveyed by the hands of Magistrates whom Christ never did commit that matter unto And thus another yea a quite Opposite Medium is embraced and followed than what Christ thought good to make choise of to his great dishonour and disparagment as if he had not been Wise enough to appointe the best meanes nor had not Authority enough solely to appoint the meanes and wayes he thought fit 4. The wrong done to Christ by the accepting of this Indulgence will be hence manifest which will also clear up the Difference betwixt what is conveyed from Christ by his owne Ministers and what is conveyed by Magistrates That the Office or Exercise of the Ministrie is received from them who in this deed do not neither can Act in a Ministerial Subordination to Christ as sole Head and Fountaine of all Church-Power so that their interveening betwixt Christ and those who receive the Office or its Exercise as a Medium of Conveyance saith that Christ is not sole Head of the Church and Fountaine of Church-Power The ground of this is because Magistrates as such do not Act in a direct line of Subordination to Christ as Mediator as Church-Officers do And further what they do as Magistrates they do not in reference to their Subjects with a Ministerial Authoritie as Church-Officers do but with a Magisterial Imperial Coactive Autocratorical and Architectonick Power and Authoritie And as to the Church this Magisterial Power belongeth to Christ alone So that the submiting unto any other Magisterial and Supream Autocratorical Power in Church-affaires than what is solely in Christ is an acknowledging of another Head and Supream Governour in the Church beside Christ and this is a plaine dethroning of Christ who will either be sole King or no King 5. The accepting of this Indulgence containeth another wrong done to Christ in that thereby there is an acknowledgment made of the Insufficience of all the Rules Prescriptions and Instructions granted by Him for the ordering of the exercise of the Ministrie and for information unto his Ministers concerning the way how they should go about the exercise of that Imployment For in the Indulgence there were with all first and last Instructions given how to regulat them in the exercise of their Ministrie And so when the Indulgence was embraced as accompanied with these Instructions the Power granting these Instructions was acknowledged and submitted unto and when these Instructions were not holden forth ministerially as when the like are given by Church Judicatories but by such as Act in all things which they do as Magistrates by a Magisterial and Autocratorical power not subordinat unto Christ as Mediator in a right line of subordination an Autocratorical Magisterial and Supream power to make Rules and to give Instructions to Ministers to regulate them in the exercise of their Ministerie is granted to the Magistrate to the robbing and spoiling of Christ of that sole Supream power which is due to him and is a part of his Prerogative Royal. 6. Herein also the Accepters of the Indulgence have done injurie unto Jesus Christ in that they have taken a new holding of their Ministrie and of the Exercise thereof and so materially have renounced their old holding of Christ immediatly as King of his Church and sole Lord of his House They have taken a new Commission for the Exercise oâ— their Ministrie and a Commission inconsistent with not subordinate unto the Commission they had formerly from Christ. I shall not need to insist on this here having declared it so fully above in vindication of M. A Blair's Assertion to wit That if Ministers take Instructions from Magistrats for regulating them in the exercise of their Ministrie they should not be the Ambassadours of Christ. 7. It is a part of the Royal Prerogative of
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
not on themselves as fixed Pastors then are they meer Curates sent of the Council to those places to preach and performe the other Acts of the Ministery till furder Order or during their pleasure And then they cannot be offended if the people look not on them as their Pastors nor carry towards them as such V. How Erastianisme is hereby established ANother Ground of our Dissatisfaction with the Indulgence and with the accepting thereof is that thereby Erastianisme the professed Enemie unto and perfect destruction of all true Church-power and Church-Jurisdiction is established and fortified 1. This is manifest from all the Particulars mentioned above under the First Second and Third Heads which need not here be repeated for these are parts of Erastian Doctrine which the Orthodox disowne and our Church hath resisted and opposed from the beginning and beside 2. Hereby are the Magistrates confirmed in that Usurpation of being proper judges of Ministers Doctrine even in the first Instance that is before any Church-Judicatory take cognition thereof and passe a judgment thereupon See our 8. Remark upon the Kings Letter 3. Hereby they are confirmed in this Usurpation that Ministers may not preach in publick or in privat without Authority and Licence had from the Civil Magistrate See our 12. and last Remark upon the Kings Letter 4. How this was confirmed and yeelded to by the Indulged we saw above in our Examination of Mr H's speech before the Council Anno 1669. and of that Relation of the carriage and speeches of those who were before the Council Anno 1673. 5. We were not ignorant how from the very beginning of this Catastroph and in the very First Session of Parliament Anno 1661. an exorbitant Supremacie in Church-affaires was acknowledged to belong to the King in that he was declared to be Supreame Governour over all Persons and in all Causes beside what was presumptively asserted in other Acts of Parl. thereafter as in the Act for the National Synod and for the Restauration of Prelacy and others And how by all these and other things considerable it was manifest and undeniable that Erastianisme was in the ascendent and that the designe of the Rulers was to subject all Church-power unto themselves and to assume as much thereof into their own hands as they thought fit and to have the whole of it subordinate unto them Now when this designe was open and above board out very not-withstanding and not-opposing in our Places and Stations this Erastian Designe was a virtual cedeing and yeelding unto these Invasions and Usurpations how much more are they chargable herewith who willingly submitted unto the Magistratâ—s Actual Usurpation of Church-Power by accepting of this Indulgence did put them in Actual Possession of what was but notionally and in the theorie arrogat formerly as to Non-conformists 6. It is granted by some and cannot well be denied by any That the Magistrats principal designe in granting the Indulgence was the establishement of the Erastian Supremacie And if so sure it was the part of those who accepted of the Indulgence rather to have withstood this designe at least by simple refusing of that the accepting of which as every one might have seen would contribute unto this Erastian designe and put them in actual possession thereof Whether the Magistrate himself doth look upon the Accepters as hereby acknowledging his Erastian Supremacie or not is not much to the purpose seeing the acceptance as circumstantiat was a virtual and reall enough acknowledgment and confirmation thereof And it is like the Magistrate did designe no more not regarding whether they should openly professedly acknowledge such a thing if he himself were confirmed secured in the possession of that Erastian Usurped Power But it will be said That though it be granted that the Supremacie is now in its exaltation and that Erastianisme is the great designe and that such as minded to be faithful should not cede in the smallest of the Churches Rights not to the loosing of one pin of the Government And that this Erastianisme and Supremacy hath acted outed and overturned at its pleasure and that the Magistrat in this offer of the Indulgence doth still act according to Erastianisme and owne the same Supremacie and intend its further establishement Yet the Indulged did onely accept of a licence which when abstracted from its offensive circumstances is a meer relaxation of the rigour of former Edicts To which I Answer 1. If this Indulgence did respect nothing but the Persons and Estates of Ministers then it might be looked on as a meer relaxation of the rigiditie of former Edicts under which they groaned But it is past all denial that this Indulgence relateth more yea and Principally unto their Office and function and is designed as is confessed for the Estabishment of an Usurped power over the Function and Ministrie yea and includeth an acquiescing and submission unto Acts made and proposed by such as confessedly act from a Principle of Usurpation and that for the better Establishment of the same confirmation of themselves in the possession thereof and therefore the accepting of the Indulgence cannot but contribute to the iniquous ends proposed by the Indulgers 2. Whatever that licence as it is called may be or be supposed to be when abstracted from its offensive circumstances yet taken complexly with these circumstances it must be condemned and however in our imaginations we may abstract it from these circumstances yet we cannot do so in point of practice seing it is confessed that the morality of actions do much at least depend upon circumstances 7. This contrivance of Erastianisme being so notour and undeniable the yeelding unto and accepting of the Indulgence so conceived so clogged and restricted as it was cannot but be contributive unto the same and a plaine though not professed helping forward of the designe Sure the refusing of the Indulgence had been a sensible defeating of the designe and would have necessitated the designers if so be they would still have prosecuted their Intendment as is probable they would to have taken other measures and invented other meanes how to have accomplished their ends and this supposable defeat is sufficient to show how suitable a medium this was unto the projected end It cannot be said for obviating of this That this is but accidental and a meer probability for it hath a necessary connexion with the end as not only experience hath proven but the very nature of the thing evinceth as is abundantly cleared above VI. How Prejudicial this is unto the good of the Church THe discovery of this will serve for another head of Arguments against the lawfulness of this Indulgence for certainely that cannot be a way approven of God which is not for the Edification of the Body much less that which is for its hurt prejudice Now that the Indulgence is of this nature may hence appear 1. Church-Historie sheweth what hurt came to the Church by such
Covenant against Pâ—elacy the second Article of the Solemne League and Covenant can tell us and how many wayes the accepting of this Indulgence did contribute expresly or virtually unto the strengthening of Prelacy we saw above under the foregoing Eight Head And it is past all question that these particulars there mentioned are utterly inconsistent with an Endeavour to extirpat Prelacie 4. We cannot be ignorant that in the Solemne Acknowledgment of sins and Engagment to duties we vowed and swore to study and endeavoure to preserve Religion in purity against errour c. and particularly against Erastianisme in these words Because many have of late laboured to supplant the liberties of the Kirk we shall maintaine and defend the Kirk of Scotland in all her Liberties and Privileges against all who shall oppose undermine the same or encroach thereupon under any pretext whatsomever And certaine it is that Erastianisme was never so regnant in Scotland as it is and hath been since this Catastrophe began and that the Liberties and Privileges of the Church are not only now opposed encroached upon and undermined but overturned and quite taken away Now how became it all who minded faithfulness and steadfastness in their Covenant to stand fast in this Particular and be tender of all the Privileges of the Church and to guaird against very thing which might contributee in the least or be justly interpreted to contribute unto this Invasion or prove a consent thereunto But on the other hand in how many Particulars the accepters of the Indulgence stand guilty here hath been shown above and may be seen under the Third and First heads 5. We are expresly bound by our Covenants not to suffer ourselves Directly or Indirectly by whatsoever Combination Perswasion Suggestion Allurment or Terrour to be divided or withdrawn from our blessed Union and Conjunction whether to make defection to the contrary Party or to give ourselves to à detestable Indifferency or Neutrality But now as to this Indulgence what a divisive motion it was is notour enough and it was by the confession of some of the chiefe of the Indulgers themselves said to be intended for that end and beside this the thing it self speaketh out this with a loud voice How manifest and great a breach is hereby made among the suffering remnant is beyond all denial and how great consequently and manifest the breach of Covenant is upon this account is Alas too obvious and plaine X. Hovv hereby the condemne themselves THis Consideration may also furnish us with another head of Arguments against this Indulgence That the accepters thereof have thereby in several Particulars condemned themselves as to their former Principles and Practices And this Consideration may be looked upon as an Argumentum ad hominum as it is called An argument that may militate against them Now this self contradiction of theirs appeareth in these Particulars 1. I shall suppose that several of them at least for I love to judge the best were no Enemies to Field and House-Meetings howbeit condemned by the Law and that possiblie some of them did preach sometimes at such meetings though the Qualification required in the Kings Letter and presumed by the Council to be in them to wit of living peacably and orderly would say some other thing And if they did approve of these Meetings and of that way of preaching for spreading of the Gospel and doing good to the suffering Church of Scotland they could not but in so far condemne all courses and wayes taken or to be taken of purpose to hinder that good work and consequently condemne the Indulgence which was manifestly contrived for that end But now in accepting of the Indulgence they have approved what formerly they condemned and have condemned what formerly they approved 2. They all I suppose do condemne the Supremacie as an Usurpation not to be allowed for I never heard of any of them save one of another judgment in that particular But in accepting of the Indulgence they accept of that which purely floweth from the Supremacie and which had never been if the Supremacy had not been usurped and which hath no legal being but by the Supremacie and its explicatory Act which is all their legal ground of security as hath been manifested above And therefore do Homologate and virtually approve of that as was manifested under the 3. Head which they have condemned and so have acted inconsequentially to their own Principles 3. I likewise suppose that they condemne the entry of the Curates who have entered by the Prelates And whatever accidental differences may be betwixt their entry and the entry of the Curats yet in this maine and Principal ground whereupon both are to be condemned they agree to wit That the entry of both is founded upon the Supremacie For the Prelates have their power in the Church from the Supremacie and so doth the Councel act in Church affairs by vertue of power flowing from the King as Supream in Churchs-affairs and Curats enter immediatly by the Prelates and the Indulged enter immediatly by the Council and both enter mediatly by the Supremacie but with this difference that the Conveyance seemeth to be more Ecclesiastical as to the Curats Prelats as such being supposed at leâ—st Ecclesiastick Persons and so called than it is as to the Indulged the Council neither really nor nominally being a Church-Judicatory 4. They formerly refused to stay with their Charges by vertue of a Presentation of the Patron who possibly would have granted it undesired and yet now they have accepted the same Charges and some have accepted of other Charges not without the Consent of the Patrons according to the standing Law and the same is expresly mentioned as had and obtained by the Council in order to their Legal Estabâ—iâ—hment In so far therefore they cannot but have condemned themselves and their former Principles and Practice 5. We know how many of these same Brethren refused the Accommodation that was offered by B. Lightoun and therefore would not joyn nor concurre with the Prelates or their Curats in their Presbyteries and Synods and yet with the Indulgence which they embraced was this among other Instructions given that they should repaire to these Meetings and referre Causes usually referable thereunto and though they did not obey the said Injunctions yet their receiving of them at the Councils Bar was a virtual Approbation yea and a promise of performance and that so much the more that the favour was offered upon these termes as the Council expresly declared But further we may draw a parallel here whereby it may distinctly appear that their refusing of the Benefite offered by the Accommodation did condemne their accepting of the Benefite offered by the Indulgence As 1. as the exercise of the Ministrie in preaching is a part of the Ministerial Function so is the exercise of Discipline 2. As the one exercise doth natively and originally flow from the Appointment of Christ and Power given by
Apostles tels us that such Commands are not lawful nor to be obeyed for they preached publickly where occasion offered notwithstanding of the prohibition of the Magistrate 4. The Magistrates lawful Power reacheth privat places as well as publick places as D. Voetius maintaineth against the Arminians If he may hinder an Heretick from preaching Heresie publickly so may he hinder him from doing it from house to house And therefore by the same Argument that he may hinder publick preaching he may hinder the whole exercise of the Ministrie Obj. 3. Our Second Book of Discipline Chap 10. granteth That Magistrates may place Ministers when the Kirk is corrupted and all things are out of Order And so it is now with us Answ. Yet it is added in that same place That where the Ministery of the Kirk is once lawfully Constitute and they that are placed do their Office faithfully all Godly Princes and Magistrates ought to heer and obey their voice and reverence the Majestie of the Son of God speaking in them And though our Divines grant that when the Church is not Constituted or is wholly corrupted Godly Magistrates after the example of some Godly Kings of Iudah and diverse Godly Emperours and Kings also in the Light of the New Testament as the words run in the place cited in the Second Book of Discipline may do much more than at other times Yet I suppose none for shame can make use of such a Concession now seing our Church was a Constituted and well ordered Church and had all her Rights and Privileges ratified and confirmed by Law and all the Magistrates of the Land from the highest to the lowest were under Solemne Vowes and Covenants to maintaine her Constitution and Order And what could be more desired in order to the settling of a Church Whence then the Confusion that now is is come we all know And when the Magistrates with their own hand overturne all shall this Objection be made use of to countenance their After-practices That were indeed to teach Magistrates a way how to usurpe and take to themselves all Church-Power Viz. Let them once by Iniquity and Tyranny break the Glorious Order of the Church and bring all into Confusion and then forsooth they may warrantably assume to themselves and exercise all Church Power according to their minde Obj. 4. Hezekiah did apply his Regal Power to the Reformation of the Levites and to the purging of the Temple 2 Chron. 29 v. 5. and did also appointe the Courses of the Priests and Levites every man according to his Service 2 Chron. 31. So likewise did Iosiaâ— 2 Chron. 35. Answ. Neither of these Kings did destroy the Order and Beauty of the Church but reformed what their Predecessours had corrupted Neither of these did take away the just and legal Power of the Priests as our Rulers have taken away Presbyteries and their Power that they might exerce it themselves as our Rulers do immediatly what Presbyteries should do in the matter of the Indulgence Neither of these Kings gave new Instructions out of their own Heads unto the Priests and Levites that they might thereby formally subject the exercise of the Ecclesiastick Power unto themselves as our Rulers have done But beside what hath been said to this before I shall only subjoine the Answer of Worthie Mr G. Gillespie in his Aarons Rod Blossoming Pag. 138.139 Hezekiah saith he in exhorting the Levites to sanctifie themselves and to cleanse the Temple doth require no other thing than the Law of God did require Num. 8 v. 6 11 15. and 18 v. 32. Which Hezekiah pointeth at 2 Chron. 29 11. And why should nor the Magistrat Command Ministers to do the duties of their Calling according to the Word of God As for his appointing of the Courses of the Priests and Levites he did nothing therein but what the Lord had commanded by his Prophets 2 Chron. 29 25. The like I answere concerning King Iosiah for it is recorded that what he did was according to the writting of David and Salomon 2 Chron. 25 4. and according to the Commandement of David and Asaph and Heman and Ieduthun the Kings Seer Ver. 15 as it is written in the Book of Moses Vers. 12. thus he and thus wiâ—hall we see how impertinent this is to the present purpose Obj 5. But what can be said of such of the Indulged as were sent to their own Charges Several of the Arguments adduced cannot strick against them Answer Though some of the Arguments will not militate against them directly yet the most part will And further let these things be considered 1. That it was a meer accidental thing that they were sent to their own Charges viz. because at that time they were vacant and so had they not been vacant these Ministers had been appointed and ordered either to go elsewhere or not indulged at all 2. They were not barely permitted to go to their own Charges by rescinding the Act of Glasgow or taking off the Sentence of banishment by vertue of which they were put from the Actual Exercise of their Ministrie in their own Congregations which might easily have been done if the Council had intended no actual Invasion of the Power of the Church nor had designed the Subjection of the Exercise of the Ministrie unto their own Authority But 3. They get the same immediat Right to the exercise of their Ministerial Function which others gote who were ordered to other places and this Right is nothing but the Councils Order and Appointment 4. And thus in a manner their case is worse than the case of such as were sent to new flocks for upon the matter they did renounce their old right to the exercise of the Ministery in those Congregations where once they had been settled according to the Order of the Gospel and took a new Right from the Magistrate and acted upon his Order 5. And why may they not also repaire to the Presbyteries and Synods upon the Councils Order as well as to these Congregations seing they had a right formerly to exerce the Ministerial Function in the one as well as in the other and the Magistrats discharge can no more invalidate the right to the one than to the other Obj. 6. If it be a ground sufficient to reject the benefite of this Indulgence because it is supposed to flow from the Supremacy then much more might we refuse to preach if the Magistrat should command it expresly by vertue of his Supremacy And if this be yeelded then it is manifest that the Magistrate if he had a mind to banish all preaching out of his Dominions needeth use no other medium than onely tell the Ministers that he commanded them to preach by vertue of his Supremacy Ans. 1. We do not condemne the accepting of the Indulgence upon a meer supposal that it floweth from the Supremacy having seen and manifested what a real relation it hath thereunto and dependance thereupon 2 Nor is its being a
native result and proper effect of that iniquous and usurped Supremacy the onely ground whereupon we go in condemning the acceptance thereof there being many other Heads of arguments adduced against it and such as prove it unlawful as it was circumstantiat though wholly abstracted from all Consideration of the Supremacy yea and though granted and enjoined by a Church-Judicatory and though the Magistrate in granting of it had expresly said that he did not grant it by vertue of the Supremacy 3. Yet I shall say further That the Command to preach simply and without Limitations Restrictions or sinful Conditions cannot properly be said to flow from nor to have such a dependance upon that Usurped Supremacy as this Indulgence hath For to command Ministers to do their duty in preaching of the Gospel according to the command of God belongeth to the power which God hath granted to the Magistrates and so natively floweth from his Office But to set down Limitations Restrictions and Conditions regulating the exercise of the Ministrie doth not so flow and when â—hey are such as are opposite to the Rules of Christ it must of necessity be by vertue of an Usurped and abused power Whence it is apparent that this Indulgence containing such Limitations Restrictions and Conditions doth not neither can natively flow from the Office of a Christian Magistrate nor is an act of Lawful Magistratical Power as all will confess who are not taught in Erastus's school Therefore though in the case of simple preaching the injunction ushered-in with an express mention of the Supremacy as its ground and rise would be but a ridiculous scar-crow yet in this other case which is the case of the Indulgence it would be an open spreading of the net in the sight of the bird more than a sufficient warning for wise men to beware 4. Though a Command to preach according to the Rules of Christ cannot be accounted to flow from this corrupt Supremacy even though the Magistrate shall say so much in plaine termes Yet a command to preach in this place and not in another place and to preach so and so according to such Limitations Rules and Prescriptions and according to no other as it is in the case of the Indulgence may be said to flow natively from the corrupt Supremacy even though the Magistrate should say in express termes that it did not because it is done by an Usurped Power viz. a power of judging Ministers Qualifications of Ministerially sending them of Regulating them in the exercise thereof c. All which belong properly to the power of Church-â—udicatories not to mention the spoiling of the people of their power of free Election Therefore preaching when simply commanded cannot be condemned even though the Magistrate should affirme that the command is given by vertue of his Supremacy when the accepting of the Indulgence cannot be justified though in the granting of it no mention was made of the Supremacy much less if this were expresly prefixed 5. The visible ends of Magistrates giving forth of commands which may be knowne by several Circumstances may do much to cleare and determine Christians to obey or not obey and so a command materially the same may in some cases be obeyed in some cases not So that when the Magistrate manifesting his Intention to root-out the Gospel shall command all Ministers by vertue of an Usurped Supremacy to preach the Gospel the material command may be obeyed and yet the Magistrate frustrate of his Intentions But when he commandeth a few and onely a few by vertue of his Supremacy to preach here or there as he pleaseth and upon such and such termes as he is pleased to prescribe and under such and such Limitations and Restrictions as he is pleased to enjoyn to the manifest hurt and detriment of the Kingdom of Christ he is to be disobeyed and frustrated of his pernicious ends Whence we see how different the cases are 6. When the thing enjoined and that expresly by vertue of the Supremacy is not only Lawful but Necessary by vertue of a command of God as is the simple preaching of the Gospel the prefixing of the express mention of the Supremacy cannot alter the Nature of the duty nor be any ground of laying aside the duty so injoyned But when the thing injoyned is not only not necessary but as circumstantiat is not Expedient nor Lawful then the expressing of the Supremacy as the ground of the command is to be noticed and may ex super abundante deterre from Obedience Now this is the case of the Indulgence as is cleared above 7. If that supposed command of preaching the Gospel came forth to Ministers already setled in their Ministrie the mention of the Supremacie might be sufficiently delete by a Protestation or Declaration of their preaching and purposing to continue in preaching by vertue of Christ's Supremacy silence as to this I judge would be dangerous But if this command were given to such who had been by violence ejected and put from their work and detained therefrom until they should thus acknowledge the unlawful Supremacy of the Magistrate I suppose there might be ground here for a demurre Obj. 7. It seemeth then you would not be for Ministers returning to their own Charges if the Magistrat should grant such an Order or Permission Ans. 1. Either this Order or Permission would be granted with an expresse mentioning of the Supremacy as its ground or not If the Supremacy be laid down as the ground and nothing else in the circumstances be observable to creat a scruple I judge it necessary that even in that case a plaine and positive Protestation against that Supremacy be given in that it might appear they would not so much as seem to homologate that sinful Usurpation 2. If no mention were made of the Supremacy but only a simple permission granted to returne each to their own Charges than this liberty would either be granted to all without exception of any or onely to some If onely to some I must needs say that as matters now stand I should think it should not be accepted even though freed of many other clogs and that because the wicked designe of further dividing the honest party should hereby be made manifest and obvious contrare to our Covenants and hereby though the Persons themselves should be freed of trouble and the Particular Congregations might receive some advantage if withal freed of the Curats yet the publick good of the Church which is preferable to any particular good should be prejudged the Rulers should be also confirmed in their Usurpations Encroachments which by all meanes should be guarded against 3. If this liberty were granted to all then it would either be granted with a confinement to these bounds or without it if the former were said then the designe would be obvious to stop the free course of the Gospel and to prejudge other places of the Land of the benefite thereof for â—hough
made as will salve Conscience seing it is confessed that the morality of Actions doth much depend upon circumstances 3. Though a licence so abstracted and limited to its rigide measures by a casual impossibility may be accepted Yet a licence which cannot be abstracted from all its offensive circumstances ought to be rejected And though a Relaxation made rigide by casual Impossibility may be accepted yet that will say nothing in our case where no casual Impossibility but a moral transgression cometh in consideration A casual impossibility is such a restraint as may quiet the Conscience if so be it be not caused or occasioned by our sin but such hath no place here 4. How the accepting of the Indulgence doth homologate with these exorbitancies hath been seen above Obj. 10. The Rulers did not assigne the Ministers to particular Charges by express Deputation but only appointed them to repaire to the Paroches designed permitting and allowing them there to preach and exerce the other functions of the Ministrie Answ. We saw above that by the Indulgence there was an express Deputation and a particular assignment and a plaine warrant and licence granted Hereby it would seem that none of these Indulged do look upon themselves as proper Pastors of those places and so can take no Pastoral Charge of them And if so they cannot be offended if the People owne them not as Pastors but go and hear others according to conveniency and look upon them as such as are allowed to preach by the Magistrate without molestation but not as having any Pastoral Charge over them and yet forsooth they must enjoy the maintainance of a Lawful Pastor Which things cannot well hang together Obj. 11. Though to yeeld to the Magistrat onely appointing as in the Act would be a sinful compliance in a setled enjoyment of our Liberty yet after the ruineing overthrow given to all Church her Liberties the acceptance of something in effect a Relaxation however sinful upon the Granters Part yet on our part not burdened with sinful Conditions cannot be condemned for the real Opposition of things and determination of events set the periods according to which that which in the beginning of an evil Course may be duty in its prevailing and establishment through change of circumstances whereon its morality depends may be impertinent Answer 1. Though I yeeld that a change of events may in some cases call us to the use of other meanes more effectual as matters then stand for gaining our point or for keeping our Rights Yet to assert in general that the Determination of events setteth the periods to moral Duties seemeth to me dangerous especially in our case wherein the contest is not for our own Rights Privileges or Advantages but for the Prerogatives of our Masters Crown and the just Privileges of our Mother the Church wherein we have no liberty to come and go as in our own Particulars 2. It is then confessed that the Rulers by this Indulgence have made an Encroachment upon the Liberties of the Church and that to yeeld unto this appointment had been a sinful compliance formerly when the Church was in possession of her Liberties even though the Appointment had not been so burdened with sinful Conditions as now Hence we also see that even this Usurpation is inconsistent with the Churches Liberty and that it is no maintainance of this to yeeld to the Usurpation 3. Then it must be said that all our former Engagements to maintaine the Prerogatives of Christs Crown and the Privileges of the Church are now so far annulled by the overthrow given to both by the Rulers that we may freely comply with them in that which formerly had been a betraying of all This I confess would open a door to a large compliance When a ruineing overthrow was given to our Civil Rights and Government by an Invading Enemie the very acceptance of what in effect might have been accounted a Relaxation was by men accounted a treasonable Compliance and accordingly punished at the Kings return and shal we carry thus in sublunary things which are both alterable in themselves and under mens Power and yet be less Zealous and more Indifferent in the Matters of Christ which as Christians we are obliged to owne and by the Supervenient Obligation of Vowes Oaths and Covenants engaged to maintaine as well against Erastians as against Papists Prelates and Malignants 3. This Assertion will condemne the Zeal of our Forefathers as not being according to knowledge nor morally good according to the change of circumstances and periods set by the determination of Events Yea if this be a fixed Rule that such a change of circumstances will make it impertinent yea and sinful for us to refuse to do that which while matters were entire had been a sinful compliance how much more will it make it impertinent and unlawful for us to endeavoure a change For if it alloweth a compliance which in so far confirmeth the Usurper in his unjust Possession after the ruineing overthrow given it will certainely not allow of any Opposition 4. I grant when a Robber hath spoiled us we may lawfully take part againe rather than lose all or when an Invader overrunneth the land and spoileth us of all our former Privileges we may receive some againe though when matters were entire it had been a compliance to have done so But that will not answere our case because we have more Power over our own Particulars than overChrists Matters we may in some cases voluntarily give all our own away but we cannot do so in the Matters of Christ and of His Church And therefore what at any time would be a sinful compliance or an unlawful giving away of Christs and the Churches Rights cannot be lawful even after the Enemie hath overthrown all 5. I grant likewise that after an Universal overthrow of the Privileges of the Church we may lawfully accept of little when more cannot be had yet that little must be such as was not unlawful at any time to be accepted of and we must accept of it in another manner than could ever have been accounted a sinful compliance 6. Though what is said in the Objection might have some weight when that thing can be had no other way than such as would formerly have been accounted a compliance Yet it can have no weight in the case of the Indulgence because liberty to preach which is here called a Relaxation may be had without this appointment of the Rulers and that with no less countenance and approbation of God So that in the Accepting of the Indulgence there is a needless compliance with the Usurper and an unnecessary confirming of him in his wicked Usurpations Obj. 12. That which in the case of standing Liberty would be an insufferable Imposition and its refusal duty may as it is from God in the case of lost Liberty be looked upon as a little reviving in our bondage and embraced with a sinless Submission and he who thus
who made no Protestation 2. Though no mention was made of the Supremacie yet the accepting was so foule upon many other accounts that no Protestation against the Supremacie if mentioned could have salved the matter as we saw above and their after acceptance would but contradict their Protestation Obj. 16. Though the Magistrat hath carried his Supremacy above the highest yet he never judged the power of Order worth the assuming so that the allowing to preach mentioned in the Act joined to permitting and directed to none but to Ministers antecedently ordained cannot be a just ground of scruple If the Magistrat had simply appointed every other Minister to his own Church allowing him there to preach to have offended at the word allowing would have been an excessive niceness Ans. Though the Magistrat never judged the power of Order strictly so called worth the assuming yet it may be thought that he judged that power worth the assuming whereby the Authority of the Ministrie and the Exercise thereof should be looked upon as flowing and as derived from him And Ministers were I think called to be careful and circumspect lest by doing and accepting of any thing they might interpretatively and virtually acknowledge and consent to this Power 2. Though this allowance was granted to such as had been ordained Ministers before yet the same flowing from the Supremacy and being more than a meer permission could not but import their deriving of a power to exercise the function in such a place from him and so prove a most just and weighty ground of scruple 3. Nor will the supposition of his sending every Minister to his Church wholly take away the scruple for his simple annulling of the prior Act at Glasgow would have been sufficient for that end but when instead of this he not only did say he permitted them to preach againe to their former flocks but also that he allowed them and that after he had invaded the Throne of Christ and assumed to himself the Fountaine of all Church power so that both as to the exercise of the Ministrie and as to the exercise of it in such a place they should depend on him I think there should have some ground of scruple remained For might it not be thought that by their ready acceptance without a previous full faithful plaine and publick Declaration and Protestation they had now derived their power from another Head than formerly and stood now upon some other new ground And in this case I should think that offending at the word allowing were the kindly work of a tender Conscience zealous for the Glory and Interests of Christ and careful of the credite of the Ministrie and no excessive niceness Obj. 17. The Ministers Indulged do above all things owne their Masters Ordination as the only proper foundation whereupon the exercise of their Ministrie by the permission of this licence doth subsist All the regarde they have to the Magistrats allowance is that they look upon it as the removal de facto of his unjust restraints hitherto Invincible And neither by forme of acceptance nor by engagement do they in any sort acknowledge any of the Magistrats wrongs but are ready by a plaine declaration to purge themselves even of the suspicion of a simple acquiescence Ans. 1. I shall willingly yeeld that the Persons concerned do owne their Ordination yet we must distinguish the Intention of the work and the Intention of the worker though they may have no Intention of invalidating their prior Ordination yet their accepting of the Indulgence may virtually include this and so their Practice may contradict their Principles 2. Their Masters Mission is onely their proper sure and solide Foundation whereupon the exercise of their Ministrie should subsist but is it not manifest that the accepting of the Indulgence doth virtually say that as to the Ministrie they depend upon the allowance of Men yea of those who assume to themselves an Headshipe over the Church and a Fountaine-power from which this Exercise must natively flow and be derived 3. These restraints of preaching the Gospel were not invincible Physically nor Moraly Neither were any such restraints as such formally removed nor a pure permission granted But the Indulgence contained an Authoritative Enjoining and Warranding as also a Qualifying Restricting and Regulating the exercise of the Ministrie and all this in prosecution and confirmation of an Usurped Supremacie and this was a far other thing than a removal de facto of a former restraint Now their Subjection unto this Incroachment testified by their accepting of the Indulgence so conveyed is much more than the acceptance of the benefite of a bare Permission And all know that they might have exercised their Ministerie without this Indulgence to the Glory of God the Edification of the Body the Confirmation of the Principles of Truth concerning the Ministrie the Defeating of the corrupt Erastian Designes of the injuriously incroaching Magistrates and to the offence and scandal of no Person 4. Though they do not expresly and in terminis acknowledge any of these Wrongs yet by their accepting of the Indulgence so conveyed as is said they may virtually and upon the matter acknowledge this and their plaine Declaration to purge themselves will be but a contradiction to and a condemnation of their own deed because the Imposer can only put a sense and gloss upon his own Injunctions and the granter of a warrand and favour on the same and in his sense it is at least virtually accepted by all who accept of it if plaine dealing be owned and I suppose Ministers while dealing with the Council should not walk upon fallacies or mental reserves or on what is equivalent Obj. 18. The accepting of the Indulgence did Import no subjecting of the Ministrie to mens arbitrary Disposal but only a subjecting of the persons or rather an acknowledgment that the persons are already in subjection which by our long silence sufferings is too apparent But if we have hitherto thus contentedly acknowledged this to the restraint of our Ministrie shall we now be so unhappy as to wrangle about it in prejudice of a relaxation Ans. 1. The act of Indulgence did not only mention Ministers repairing to such or such places but spoke likewise of the exercise of their Ministrie which it allowed them and for which prescribed several Rules and Injunctions limiting and regulating them in the same though this did comprehend a subjection of their persons also yet it is by vertue of a prior Subjection of their Ministrie as being made liable to punishment for not-observing the Rules and Injunctions prescribed 2. These sufferings indeed declared a subjection of their persons but their silence shall be found I feare to have done more And their former sin can be no ground to justifie their preseâ—t practice in accepting of this Indulgence which instead of being a relaxation is a further wreething of the yoke about our necks A Vindication of such as scruple to
was made manifest how the Indulged in accepting of the Indulgence have acted to the great prejudice of the Church how can we imagine that such are to be condemned who withdraw from them and countenance such as are seeking and promoving its good in the way countenanced and approven of God 7. If we impartially consider the Twelve Particulars mentioned under our 7. Head of Arguments several of which also might be adduced here as distinct Arguments whereby it appeared how these Indulged in their accepting of the Indulgence have wronged our Cause and departed from the grounds upon which our Church is suffering we will see cause of approving such as withdraw from them as matters now stand 8. Seing by what is said it is manifest that the Entrie of the Indulged unto their present Places and Stations is not consonant but repugnant to our Former Doctrine Principles and Practices owned since the Reformation and confirmed by our Oathes Vowes Covenants and Solemne Engagments besides the Testimonies given thereunto by the Sufferings of our Predecessours and by our own Sufferings can we blame and condemne such who dar not owne them as lawfully entered into these places 9. Seing the Indulged have by the accepting of the Indulgence and acting by vertue thereof in so far departed from Former Principles and Practices and a difference ought to be put betwixt them and other Ministers who through grace have hithertill been preserved from stepping aside whether to Prelacy or to Erastianisme in their Practices who can condemne such as withdraw from the one and adhere to the other 10. Is there not a great difference betwixt the ground whereupon the Indulged do presently exercise their Ministerie and the ground whereupon formerly before they embraced the Indulgence they did and others to this day do exercise it Or shall we say that it is all one whether Ministers have the Ministerial Potestative Mission unto such or such places over which they are set from Presbyteries authorized thereunto by Christ which sometimes they had or have it from the Magistrat no wayes thereunto authorized by Christ as now they have it only And if there be a difference how can any condemne those who cannot now owne them as they did formerly 11. Seing the difference betwixt these two wayes mentioned is great and seing they cannot be compounded in one nor lawfully made subordinat the one to the other is it not undeniable that these Indulged betaking themselves now to the Magistrat's Mission as they have done have upon the matter renounced their former Mission which they had from Presbyteries acting Ministerially under Christ And if so can people be condemned who do not nor cannot owne and countenance them as formerly they did 12. It being apparent from what is said above on several occasions that as the Indulged did deliberatly shun to say that they had their Ministrie onely of Christ so they do now Act and Exerce the same as receiving it not alone from Christ by the Ministerial Conveyance of the Power and Authority to exerce it which Christ hath ordained but either as receiving it from the Magistrat alone and if so they cannot be looked upon as Christ's Servants but as the Magistrat's Servants or from Christ and the Magistrat as Collateral Heads and Fountains of Church-power but thus to speak were blasphemie or from the Magistrate as directly subordinat to Christ which is the ground of all Arminian-Erastianisme How can Men be accounted transgressours who in Conscience cannot owne them as formerly they did when they acted and exercised their Ministrie as receiving it alone from Christ by the Ministerial conveyance of the Power Authority thereto through the hands of his Servants thereunto appointed 13. Is there no difference to be put betwixt such as exercise the Ministrie in subordination unto and in a dependance upon the Council as being their Curats as accountable to them and others who as they are subordinat unto so they owne their dependance onely upon Christ in the way He hath prescribed receiving Instructions only from Him in His appointed way to regulate them in the Exercise of their Ministrie and hold themselves accountable only to Him in that way And seing it is manifest that there is a very great difference Who can condemne such as withdraw from the Indulged who have their Instructions to regulate them in the Exercise of the Ministrie from the Council as was manifested above as accountable only to them and to such as they are directly subordinat unto that is the King and not from Christ Jesus as onely Head of the Kirk 14. Seing by receiving the Indulgence with their Instructions c. the Indulged do upon the matter recognosce a Supream head-Head-Power over the Church and Church-affairs in the Magistrates to the denying of Christ's sole Headshipe and dethroning of Him as hath been on several occasions cleared above how can such be condemned who scruple to owne them in that case or to countenance them while they act so 15. Seing the Indulged being set over the people specially designed and appointed them by the Council's order and not in the way appointed by Christ can not be said to be set over these people as their Overseers by the Holy Ghost as hath been evidenced above how can such be blamed who cannot owne them as their Overseers and as made Overseers to them by the Holy Ghost 16. Seing we have made it manifest above that the entrie of the Indulged hath a manifold relation unto the Usurped Supremacie in Church-affaires and that as it floweth therefrom is secured thereby and dependeth in its legal being therupon as its Charter so it contributeth to the strengthening securing and encouraging of the Usurpation and seing this Supremacy and Sacrilegious Usurpation of the Prerogatives Royal of our Lord Jesus and Subversion of the Rights and Privileges of the Church is the Top-point of all our Defection and the Center into which all the Lines of our Apostasie concurre and agree can any who would not joyne in this defection and have a proportionable part of the guilt charged upon them give countenance and approbation unto those Indulged whose entrie is so neer a kin unto that Supremacy Or can any who desire to be free of all compliance with this abominable evil carry towards those who are now set over them by vertue of the Supremacie as formerly 17. The Supremacy now regnant and the grand National sin being such an evil as all that would be keeped free of the plagues that the same will bring upon the Land must in their places and stations bear witness against the same And seing Common people have no other way Patent or Practicable for them to give this plaine and honest Testimony against this hainous Usurpation in any publick manner but by withdrawing from such as are set over them by vertue of this Usurped Power can those be condemned who out of Conscience of their duty zeal to Christ's Prerogatives Care to keep
their garments unspotted with publick regnant evils and out of a desire to minde their duty in this day of so general a Defection do withdraw from the Indulged in order to the giving of this publick Testimonie in their Place and Station 18. Seing by the Particulars mentioned under our 8. Head of Argu. it is manifest that the accepters of this Indulgence have thereby contributed to the strengthening of the hands of Prelates and Prelacie which all are obliged by their Covenants to endeavour in their Places and Stations to exstirpat how can such be condemned who withdraw from them while standing thus in a contributing posture 19. As upon the one hand the disowning of the Curats is a disowning of the Prelates and their Power and a countenancing of them by hearing them and submitting to their Ministrie is accounted by all as indeed it is a countenancing of Prelacy is not also upon the other hand an owning of the Indulged and a Submitting to them and their Ministrie a submitting to the Supremacy seing as is above cleared and confirmed the Curats at least such as were ordained Ministers before the re-establishment of Prelacy and have submitted thereto do no more depend upon Prelacy as to the present exercise of their Ministrie than the Indulged do depend upon the Supremacy or on the Rulers acting by vertue of the Supremacy 20. Seing the Act of Glasgow banishing Ministers from their own Charges cannot dissolve the relation that was betwixt the Ministers and their Flocks how can such as stand still related unto their former Pastors which is the case of some accept of others set over them by the Council not withall homologat the Councils deed and declare the former relation utterly dissolved 21. Seing the Indulged in accepting of the Indulgence have in several Particulars violated our Covenant-Obligations as was shown in the 9 Head of Argu Can any be blamed for with drawing from those who have so entered in this day when God is about to plead with the Land for a broken Covenant 22. If all be obliged to resist withstand Erastianisme by the Solemne Engagment to duties what less can be expected of Common People in their privat Stations in order to an answerable walking unto this Engagment than a with-drawing from such as are set over them by a Power purely Erastian And can such be thought to minde their Engagment in this particular who willingly comply with the Erastian Command and Injunction and accept of such as are set over them by an Erastian-Order 23. Seing the Indulged in accepting of the Indulgence have receded from our Principles and wronged our Cause as is undeniable by the Twelve Particulars mentioned under our 7. Head of Arg. can they be justly condemned who now withdraw from them 24. Seing by accepting of the Indulgence the Indulged have highly prejudged the good of our Church as is manifest from the Twelve Particulars mentioned under our 6. Head of Arg. How can such be condemned who refuse to countenance them while thus stated in and by the Indulgence 25. Seing as was cleared above the Indulgence was devised of purpose to annul all Field-and House-meetings and seing it cannot be denied that these Field-and House-meetings being so eminently countenanced of the Lord are also to be countenanced of Men can any say that they over whom the Indulged are set by the Council are not obliged to withdraw from them and not withall say that they are not obliged to waite upon these blessed Meetings though thereby the Minister and other people should be much discouraged And would not this be a manifest homologating and concurring with the Council in carrying-on of this wicked Designe And how can such be condemned who withdraw from them who have in accepting of the Indulgence acted so prejudicially unto these blessed Meetings as is evidenced in our II. Head of Arguments 26. Seing it is undeniable and daily experience doth confirme it that an admirably rich blessing attendeth the laboures of such as preach contrary to Mans Law upon Christs sole Warrant and Allowance what cruelty to Souls were it to say that they who have none to preach to them but such as the Council none of the best discerners of Ministerial Gifts nor endued with Power from Christ for that end to try the Qualifications of Ministers hath set over them must not withdraw from these to seek their food where God is giving it largly and is thereby encouraging and inviting all to come We would doubtless think this hard dealing were we as to our temporal food to be kept at a set sober diet wherein we found little nourishment and restrained from going to fattening and strengthening feasts If it be said That it is the peoples fault that they grow not more under the preaching of such as are set over them I need not contradict it for strengthening of my Argument but only say if the blessing be withheld at home though justly because of sin let the people go where they may finde the blessing of Gods free grace notwithstanding of their Provocations as others have found it Let them go I say where free grace may prevent them Nay I think the Indulged themselves upon this very account if they desire as I would hope they do the Spiritual Edification of the people should beâ—eech and obtest all their People to go unto these richly blessed Conventiclers and desire these Conventicles to come and choise the most convenient place in all their bounds for a Field-meeting that their people might partake of the good thereof and this Course if it had been taken would have I think endeared them more unto all that feared God and had no doubt prevented much of this animosity that is as I apprehend betwixt them and the Field-Preachers for it would have defeat the Designe of the Council and have contributed to the carrying on of the Work of the Lord. 27. Seing all Persons stand obliged by their Covenants to maintaine the Prerogatives of Christs Crown the Rights of the Church and Presbyterial Government how can they who would make conscience of the saids Covenants owne such as are set over them not according to the Principles of Presbyterian Government nor in compliance with the Prerogatives of Christ nor so as the Rights of the Church are so much as pretended to be observed but in a way rather repugnant unto all these as hath been manifested above 28. Seing many of these Indulged have a relation to their own Flocks from which they were thrust by violence and it will not be said that what the Rulers did in that matter did utterly annul their relation How can they be related as Pastors to these Congregations over which they are set by the Council We do not acknowledge or justifie Pluralities And if they have not the relation of Pastors unto these new Charges people are not bound to carry as their flock and so may lawfully withdraw and hear others as well as them 29. Seing