that right whom he had wronged before and besides is obliged to make reparation for the wrong done but much less could he be obliged by his silence or could his silence be interpreted to be a consent to it But the Indulged Ministers need not this Answer for they witnessed a good Confession before the Rulers If he had formed his similitude thus A Father restrains his Son from some external duty in Religion which the Son is called to of God and when he takes off the restraint takes upon him to give Rules of worshipping God to his Son which the Lord hath not given the similitude would have been more to the purpose And if the Son had accepted of the freedom from the former restraint and withal had told his Father he had full Prescriptions from God how to worship and that the matters of Divine worship are not to be ordered by the will and pleasure of Parents but by the Will of God none would imagine that the Son had accepted of these Instructions Pag. 90. He undertakes to shew how contrary the acceptance of the Indulgence is to Presbyterian Principles If he would have disputed against what the Indulged Ministers did he should have disputed against their use-making of the relaxation of the civil restraint as was said before But he still mistakes the question and plays in the general confused words of accepting of the Indulgence Veterator ludit in generalibus He hath wasted much time and Paper in vain in fighting against an imaginary accepting of the Indulgence which is a man of straw of his own making and he may use it as he pleaseth We have already spoken of the qualifications which he speaks of in his first Section and are not to weary our selves or the Reader with needless Repetitions In that same pag. Sect. 2. He alledgeth That the Magistrate did all which belongs to Church Judicatories in conveying Ministerially the Office and Power to persons qualified and in granting a potestative mission in sending the Indulged to such and such places and that the Council only clothed them with Authority for that effect An. 1. These are still his own fancies and dictates for he cannot prove from the words that the Council used that they did assume any such thing as a Power of potestative mission In the first Indulgence they appoint Ministers to preach and exercise the other Functions of the Ministry at such and such Kirks as he relates pag. 19. In the second Indulgence they appoint the Ministers to repair to such and such Parishes and to remain therein confined permitting and allowing them to preach and exercise the other parts of their Ministerial Function in the Parishes to which they are confined Now the words of appointing allowing permitting to preach import no potestative mission The Magistrate may in some cases not only permit allow appoint but compel Ministers to preach yea they may place them which is much more than appointing them to preach If any please to read the Book of the Discipline of the Church of Scotland they will find in the first Book of Discipline in the 4th head of that Book concerning Ministers and their lawful Election and under the title of Admission and toward the end of that title these words That their Honours they mean the great Council of Scotland to whom the Book was directed were bound by their Authority to compel such men as had gifts and graces able to edifie the Church of God to bestow them where there was greatest necessity And after we cannot prescribe unto your Honours how that ye shall distribute the Ministers and learned men which God hath already sent unto you And after they say and therefore of your Honours we require in Gods Name that by your Authority ye compel all men to whom God hath given any Talent to perswade by wholesome Doctrine to bestow the same if they be called by the Church to the advancement of Christs Glory And afterward they desire them to assign unto their chief workmen nâ—â— only Towns but Provinces And in the head of Superintendents they think it expedient in that necessity that their Honours by themselves nominate so many as may serve the forewritten Provinces and that the same Ministers being called in your presence shall be by you and such as your Honours pleases to call unto you for consultation in that case appointed to their Provinces And in the last Title of that Section they say Of one thing we must admonish your Lordships that in the appointing of the Superintendents for this present ye disappoint not your chief Towns and where Learning is exercised This first Book of Discipline was approven by the Assembly met at Edenburgh July 30. An. 1562. And in the second Book of Discipline which was often examined in several Assemblies and appointed by the Assembly at Glasgow April 24. 1581. to be registred among the Acts of the Assembly and to remain there ad perpetuam rei memoriam and the Copies thereof taken out by every Presbytery and every Minister was by the Assembly August 4th 1590. appointed to subscribe the said Book of Discipline in the first Chapter of that Book it 's said The Civil Power should command the Spiritual to exercise And Chap. 10. which is the Office of the Christian Magistrate it 's said That it pertains to the Office of the Christian Magistrate to see that the Kirk be not invaded nor hurt by false Teachers nor the rooms thereof occupied by dumb Dogs or idle Bellies and to make Laws and Constitutions agreeable to Gods Word for the Advancement of the Kirk and Polity thereof without usurping any thing that pertains not to the Civil Sword but belongs to the Offices that are meerly Ecclesiastical as is the Ministry of the Word and Sacraments using Ecclesiastick Discipline and the Spiritual Execution thereof or any part of the Power of the Spiritual Keys which our Master gave to the Apostles and their true Successors And although Kings and Princes that be godly sometimes by their own Authority when the Kâ—râ— is corrupted and all things out of order place Mâ—nisters and restore the true Service of the Lord after the example of some godly Kings of Judah and divers godly Kings and Emperours also in the light of the New Testament yet where the Ministry of the Kirk is once lawfully instituted and they that are placed do their Office faithfully all godly Princes and Magistrates ought to hear and obey their voice and reverence the Majesty of the Son of God speaking in them I shall but subjoyn one other Testimony which may be instead of many and that is the Testimony of that man of God Mr. Welsh who was very tender of Church-priviledges in his Epistle Dedicatory to King James prefixed to his Book against Mr. Gilbert Brown Priest he says to the King Follow these examples Sir send Pastors throughout all the Borders of your Kingdom to teach your Subjects the Law of the Lord and the
answer its Reason but by clamour as unanswerable I answer If he had been pleased to have read what the Indulged Ministers and others have written in answer to what the Author of this History sent before this History in Letters and Questions he might have seen any thing that this Author hath said against the practise of the Indulged Ministers very rationally and solidly answered As for his first reason for the seasonableness of this I answer The evil which is in the Magistrates actings which relate to the Indulgence have been more solidly discovered than this Author doth but this Authors great design is to fasten all the Magistrates faults in this matter upon the Indulged Ministers And if this last be the Testimony which the Author means in his second Reason it 's a false Testimony and of no value and worth and worse than nothing In his third he is mistaken for several who are dissatisfied with the Indulgence are much more dissatisfied with this History as a Book which they think will do much mischief among ignorant and profane people in hardning them in a careless neglect of the Lords Ordinances and profaning of the Sabbath and jumble many weak and well-meaning people and confound them with things that they do not understand His fourth Reason for the seasonableness of it is because the Indulged Brethren had been threatning and boasting with a Vindication of the lawfulness of their acceptance I answer The Author either saw these Vindications for there were many of them or not if he saw them not might he not have had patience till he had seen what they had to say for themselves it was injustice to condemn men unheard who were offering a Vindication of their Practice but it seemed he had a mind to give them Couper Justice But it may be he thought he could imagine all that they had to say but this was rashness and too much self-confidence he should have heard them before he had answered seeing he knew they had spoken for themselves If he saw any of these Vindications as some think he did why did he not examine them it may be he found them too hot for his handling If he had sent this History to the Indulged Ministers privately that they might have given him a return this had been fairly done but to print it and publish it to the World at the very first was not fair non amice factum ab amico His first Reason for the seasonableness of it is because the Non-indulged Ministers had done somewhat to strengthen the hands of the Indulged by giving them new confidence in their course in obliquo covering all aid carrying towards them as if they had done nothing amiss but upon the the matter by a direct Homologatry of the Indulgence for now silence as to all speaking against this evil is made the very door and porch through which all entrance to the Ministry must pass And therefore saith he it 's now simply necessary and more than high time to discover and detect the blackness of its Defection when the Church is thus brought in bondage by it Ans I did not think that the Author though he be very confident upon small evidence had so far passed the bounds of modesty as that he durst in Print have avowed and justified the deed of two young men who contrary to Presbyterian Principles did set themselves to counteract the judgment and sentence of the suffering Ministers of the Church of Scotland for their way did manifestly tend to the subversion of the very foundation of all Government and Order It 's a strange Reason that because the Non indulged Ministers endeavoured to strengthen the hands of the Indulged Ministers that therefore it was seasonable to put out a Book condemning all together and what else was this but for two men living at a distance to take upon them to condemn the whole Presbyterian Ministers of the Church of Scotland and to encourage two unruly youths in their contempt of any remnant of Authority that that poor remnant had What sober person who hath any Judgment in matters of that nature can but commend the Practice of these Non-indulged Ministers who laboured to prevent the breaking of the Church by that Question about the Indulgence by restraining these young men who made it their great work to cry out against the Indulged Ministers and the hearing of them and yet this Author is so far from having that reverence that he ought to have had to the Judgment of the generality of the Ministers of the Church of Scotland that he thinks because they agreed together to endeavour to prevent the renting of the Church therefore it was seasonable to cast in a new fire-ball of Contention among the people and so render all their endeavours of Unity ineffectual and what more effectual way would he have taken to render all the suffering Ministers of the Church of Scotland contemptible in the eyes of all who will believe him than to charge all the Indulged Ministers with so black and fearful a defection and all the rest of the Ministers with a direct homologating of the Indulgence In this he hath done service very acceptable to Prelatists Papists and Quakers though I believe he designed no such thing His sixth taken from the severe insulting over some of the poor remnant who could not forbear to witness their abhorrency of it flows from misinformation the insulting was among some of those who quarrelled with the Indulged Ministers and who took occasion from the Indulged Ministers forbearance to meddle with that matter in their Sermons to say that they had nothing to say for themselves and thus their silence for peace sake was turned into a prejudice against them They who live in these parts where Indulged Ministers are can bear witness how much forbearance and tenderness hath been used towards the poor people who were confounded with these doubtful Disputations and frighted with unknown words of Homologations and Homologatings and imposed upon by strong alledgencies and parables and allegories without Scripture or solid Reasons This way of witnessing which he means the withdrawing from the Lords Ordinances to which they formerly resorted and in the use of which they profited is a way of witnessing that if they who take it have little cause to be ashamed of it as he says I am sure they have as little cause to glory in it for there needs no more to qualifie folk for giving this Testimony but laziness and gross profanity and contempt of Ordinances There can be no great matter in that which any profane man as he is profane and because he is profane can do As for his seventh neither this Author nor he hath proven that the Indulged Ministers entring into these Parishes was a coming in not by the door but a climbing up another way His last consists of hopes That some of these godly men Indulged may be by this History taken off and that the Non-indulged will
Gospel of their Salvation establish Religion and Justice in all the Cities of your Kingdom cause the waters of Life to run from the heart of your Kingdom unto the Borders thereof establish Pastors in all your Kingdom strengthen them in their Offices and speak to their hearts And afterward in the next page he saith to the King I have heard your Majestâ— gravely protest before God in two General Assemblies That it was one of your Majesties greatest desires and ye were even as it were ambitious of thâ— work to plant every Parish within your Kingdomâ— with a Pastor that the Posterity to come mighâ— say That King James the sixth had done such notable Work in his days Confirm your self Sir in that purpose for ye know who hath said I will honour them that honour me Thus we see Mr. Welsh makes use of the words sending and establishing Pastors and does not find fault with the Kings using the word of planting Parishes Mr. Welsh by the Kings sending doth not mean a potestative Mission he understood himself better than so He knew the King could not ordain Ministers but the Kings sending is his commanding his appointing Ministers to go and preach throughout the Kingdom but if the Council in the Acts of Indulgence had made use of the word of sending and other words in the Books of Discipline O what out-crying would some folk have made seeing they make the simple words of appointing and permitting to be no less than a potestative Mission which is a manifest abuse and perverting of Words It is well known that the Papists give Magistrates much less than they should in Church-matters yea they make them meer Executioners of Kirkmens Decrees yea some of their Writers have not been ashamed to compare Kings and Emperours to beasts in respect of their Kirkmen Let any read Prin's Preface to his Book called a Quenchcoal and he will see in that Preface which was directed to the late King Pag. 44 45 46. he will find that Becanâ—s calls the Pope a Shepherd and Kings and Emperours Dogs of this Shepherd and Gasper Sâ—iâ—â—pius calls the Bishops the men who are the Mulietiers and Ass-drivers and the Catholicks Asses and the Catholick Kings Asses with Bells and Charles the Great he says was a far greater and wiser Ass than these Kings who cast off the Popes yoak And yet though they make Kings and Emperours meer Servants to the Pope and Bishops implicitely and blindly to execute their Decrees yet they grant that the Magistrate may apply the Church-men to the use and exercise of their Office yea even the Jesuits who are most addicted to the Pope grant this as Becanus the Jesuit in his Manual of Controversies of the Time Book 5. Chap. 19. pag. 746. and withal shews that this is the common use among them hoc passim apud Catholicos in usu est From what hath been cited from the Books of Discipline we may see that the Church of Scotland did not look upon the Magistrates appointing and much less on their permitting Ministers to preach as a potestative mission or as any part of the power of the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven The Author of the History of the Indulgence mentions not that I remember what I have cited out of the first Book of Discipline he only pag. 116. objects in the 3d. objection what is cited out of the the second Book of Discipline Chap. 10. concerning Magistrates placing of Ministers when the Kirk is corrupted and all things are out of order and he answers That in such times Magistrates may do much more than at other times yet saith he I suppose none for shame can make use of such a Concession now I suspect the Author hath been gravelled and picked with this Objection and therefore he would shuffe it off with scorn and disdain but this is a piece of Art in some to seem to make nothing of these objections to which they see they can give no satisfactory answer but when any will without passion consider this passage in the second Book of Discipline they will see that the placing of Ministers implies more than permitting them or appointing them to preach for though the Magistrate appoint a Minister to preach in such a Parish if the Parish do not invite him or if the Invitation be not satisfactory to the Minister he may forbear to go to that Parish to preach but when a Minister is placed he is actually setled in a Parish and therefore the Book of Discipline allows of the Magistrates doing more than permitting and appointing Ministers to preach Again it appears from this That the Magistrates permitting or appointing Ministers to preach in a Parish is not in the Judgment of the Kirk of Scotland contrary to Presbyterian Principles for the Authors of the second Book of Discipline and the General Assembly of Scotland who examined that Book so carefully and appointed all the Ministers of the Church of Scotland to subscribe it understood what were the Principles of Presbyterian Government better than this Author did And these great Seers did see no abomination of desolation in Magistrates placing Ministers and much less did they or could they see it in their permitting them or appointing them to preach when the Church is corrupted and all things out of order but why thinks he that none can for shame make use of that Concession now He gives this Reason Seeing says he our Church was constituted and well ordered and had all her Rights and Privlledges But I wonder that he for shame could make use of this answer If he could have said Seeing our Church is constituted and well ordered and hath all her Rights it had been a pertinent answer if it had been true but when he says only our Church was constituted and well ordered and had all her Rights he grants that the Church now is not constituted nor ordered nor hath not her Rights he clearly yields the cause and acknowledges that our Church is in such a case as that is of which the second Book of Discipline speaks He might have considered that the Readers of his Book would be very sensless if they could not see a difference betwixt what once was and what now is but this was good enough to put off simple people who cannot distinguish betwixt wat is past and what is present But he adds When the Magistrates with their own hands have overturned all shall this Objection be made use of to countenance their after-practises that were indeed to teach Magistrates a way how to usurp 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 an exercise all Church-power according to their mind Ans He seems to insinuate that the second Book of Discipline yields that the Magistrate may assume all Church-power which is an insinuation very injurious to
the Church of Scotland In that same page cited from Chap. 10. of the second Book of Discipline they shew that the Magistrate may not usurp the power of the spiritual Keys 2. He might have learned from Mr. Rutherford that the Magistratical power which capacitates the Magistrate to do good to the Church is the same in ill Magistrates even in a Nero that it is in good Magistrates 3. The more ill the Magistrate hath done to the Church he is more bound to repair the wrong he hath done 4. According to this way of Reasoning if the Magistrate overturn the Church he can do no more good to the Church if the placing of Ministers in the corrupted state of the Church be commendable in godly Magistrates why would he hinder Magistrates which have overrurned all to restore all or a part to do something that is good or why should that be counted Usurpation in them which is commended as good service done to the Church when it is done by godly Emperours and Kings Is not that the duty of these who have overturned the Order of the Church to build what they have destroyed and when they do any thing that way it should not be despised but made use of as far as can be done with a good Conscience But the Indulged Ministers need not anxiously enquire as to the defence of their Practice what Power the Magistrate hath or may have in some cases to command Ministers to exercise their Ministry in such or such particular Parishes for that which they accepted and made use of was the relaxation from the Civil restraint and they were called by these Parishes to preach and do their parts of the Ministry there What he saith pag 91. Sect. 3. concerning planting and transplanting and placing Ministers in particular charges is obviated already If he would have disputed fairly he should have kept the terms of the Councils Acts of appointing allowing permitting Ministers to preach in such and such places and not have thrust in his own words of potestative mission planting and transplanting We heard before what words are used in the first Book of Discipline as nominating compelling appointing assigning And in the second Book of Discipline placing Ministers and Mr. Welsh doth not find fault with King James's using the word of planting every Parish within his Kingdom but as was said the Indulged Ministers needs not have recourse to these defences Any who considers that Presbyterial Government was overturned before these Acts of Indulgence and Prelacy setled by Law may think strange that he blames the Council for not consulting Kirk-judicatories There were no Presbyterial Church-judicatories to consult and the Prelates did not like the Indulgence and the consulting them in the matter would have readily scared Presbyterians from making any use of the Indulgence He saith in that same Section That it was the Councils deed alone which did constitute all the Indulged Ministers in such and such places and so made up that relation Now this is false and a begging of the question for they who returned to their own Congregations had a standing relation to these Congregations and they who had not access to their own did not till they had Invitation from the Parishes to which they went and the consent of Presbyterian Ministers concerned conceive themselves obliged to exercise their Ministry among them far less did they think that the Councils deed did constitute them Ministers of these Congregations and make up that relation for if they had thought so they would have thought themselves obliged to have gone to these Congregations upon the Councils deed Concerning the oversight that they have of these Congregations we spoke before and must not continually weary the Reader with Repetitions He frequently carps at their getting the stipend I know not whom he would have to get these stipends seeing he is against the Indulged Ministers getting of them as for the Councils design of fixing them in other charges than their own the Indulged Ministers are not Masters of the designs of any persons but their own but the design of these Ministers was to return to their own Congregations assoon as they had peaceable access Nor could the Indulged Ministers hinder the Council to have regard to the consent of the Patrons but they had no regard to it He refers us to his second remark on the Kings Letter I find no new thing in it he taxes the Indulged Ministers silence and alledges that by their silence they interpretatively assented to the usurpation but they were not silent as we heard before But I would enquire as to the point now in hand to wit the Council appointing Ministers to preach in such and such places What he would have had these Ministers to say Would he have had these who were appointed to return to those Parishes where they were ordained Ministers to have told the Council they would not go to these Parishes because they had appointed them to go Or would he have had these who were appointed to go to other Parishes than their own to have refused absolutely to go because they appointed them to go They did not promise them to go to preach in those Parishes but it had been rashness and unreasonable rashness to have absolutely refused to go and to go upon that account and therefore as they acknowledged not any relation betwixt them and these Parishes upon the Councils Act and did not oblige themselves before the Council to go to these Parishes so they did not go until they were invited by these Congregations To have absolutely refused to preach in these Congregations before they had heard what was the resolution of these Congregations who were concerned as well as they in that matter had been a preposterous haste and they could not have given any rational account to the Council of such a refusal or protestation for if the Council had inquired Why will ye not go to preach there if they had answered according to this Authors mind they behoved to have said Because your L. L. appoints me to go there and preach and I can preach no where where ye command me to preach for I must preach contrary to your command for so he states the matter pag. 129. had not this been humour and no reason if the Magistrate had been disposed to make themselves sport they might have said Then we discharge you to preach in that Congregation which we appointed you to preach in before and we appoint you to preach any where else if the Minister concerned would have been ruled by this Authors reason or humour rather he would have answered Then I will preach in that Congregation where ye first appointed me to preach in and no other place this had been very ridiculous The Magistrate needs not keep soldiers under pay to hinder any of this humour from preaching in any place for they need do no more but appoint them to preach in any place and they may be sure they
in one Parish did hinder the preaching of another Minister not Indulged in another Parish II. There hath been much more preaching of the Gospel in all places where people were willing to hear since the Indulgence than before III. In all appearance an utter refusal to have made any use of the Indulgence would have been a greater obstruction of preaching and hearing and given greater colour for obstruction than any thing which he alledgeth upon the Indulged Ministers As for his 7th about Stipends we had enough of that before It seems he hath laid great stress upon this business of Stipends for he says The hurt and prejudice by this bondage in the matter of Stipends is inexpressible He refers to his 4th Remark in the Kings Letter where there are several things cited from Scripture and the second Book of Discipline about Stipends which the Indulged Ministers know as well as he but what remedy prescribes he He thinks this was ground enough to have refused the favour Surely this tale would have told very ill before the Council We will not preach except we get the Stipend at our own disposal Again he speaks as if the Ministers had been in equal terms with the Magistrate and had had possession of the Stipends and had alienate them by their consent whereas the truth was they were and had been for several years thrust from Kirks and Stipends I think the Indulged Ministers did much better and that which was more becoming men of their station who made no mention of the Stipends at all His next overture is he would have had them chusing rather to preach gratis than any way to have contributed to the laying on of such a yoke upon the neck of the Church of Scotland but that yoke was on already and their refusing to take the Stipend of the Church where they preached had been to contribute to that sacriledge which is mentioned in the place of the 2d Book of Discipline which he cites for thus the whole of the Stipend would have been quit and alienate to another use than that to which it was dedicated The freedom and faithfulness of consciencious Ministers will be no more obstructed by receiving what the Magistrates thinks fit to give than by receiving what people think fit to give and they who are not consciencious will be as much influenced by their dependance upon the people as upon the Magistrate Pag. 100. Sect. 8. He says The Indulged Ministers became wholly subject to the Council even in all matters Ecclesiastick whether concerning Doctrine Discipline or manners as being accountable only to them and wholly at their devotion I answer This is a bundle of untruths and injurious false aspersions That the Indulged Misters cannot get stayed longer than the Magistrate will suffer them is common to them with all the Ministers of the World where there are Magistrates who have a coercive power by which they can imprison banish c. He himself and the Author of the Epistle to the Reader could stay no longer in Rotterdam than the Magistrate pleased as for that couping from Kirk to Kirk which he speaks of as if it had been meerly upon the Magistrates pleasure it will I suppose upon trial be found an injurious aspersion if a Minister hath upon the Invitation of a vacant congregation where he might to the greater good of the Church and with the consent of the Ministers of the bounds respectively concerned removed from one Congregation to another this will not be found prejudicial but advantageous to the Church As for his Sect. 9. we have often before spoken of the Instructions After he hath said what he pleases of a base sinful compacting which to him is the basest Symony and taking of liberty upon sinful conditions He says he knows the Indulged Ministers will say they are free of compacting And he dare not gainsay for he comes off with this faint and I shall not accuse them further than I know or have ground but he tells us for certain That the Instructions were in the Kings Letter and that the Council calls them terms He knows the Indulged Ministers could not hinder the Kings Secretary or the Councils Clerks to write what the King or Council thought fit but he says They who were called before the Council 1673. did not express their dissatisfaction with these terms so as to quit the benefit and cast the bargain thereupon Ans He would I perceive have had the Indulged Ministers upon all accusations quitting the peaceable exercise of their Ministry but though they did not think it their duty to do that yet I wonder how he can say That they expressed not their dissatisfaction with these Instructions for we heard before that Mr. Blair gave an honest and faithful Testimony against these Instructions and that Mr. H. spoke the same upon the matter which Mr. B. spoke this the Author himself saith and proveth but enough of this before His Sect. 10. Supposes that they subjected themselves to the Councils Instructions to regulate them in the exercise of their Ministry and hence he infers that they became as formally subject to the Magistrate in matters Ecclesiastick as any inferior Civil Officers such as Sheriffs Justices of Peace Baylifs I answer He supposes what he should prove if we yield him his false postulata and give him leave to suppose what he pleases he may no doubt do great feats and elect a world of absurdities out of one false conceit but though he will readily get many simple ones that believe every word to believe him yet I suppose no person that is judicious will belive so grievous an accusation against so many Ministers of Christ without proof if we must not receive an accusation against an Elder but under two or three Witnesses much less must we receive an accusation against so many Elders upon the meer word of the Accusers though they were never so many and much less upon the word of one Accuser In his Sect. 11. he quarrels with the Indulged Ministers because of the want of the free and full exercise of Discipline and that in the lawful Courts of Christ and that they dispence calmly with the want of Church-Discipline in Presbyteries and Synods Ans 1. As I said before this is to quarrel against the holy Providence of God 2. They wanted these before they were Indulged 3. They may sub cruce and cum periculo keep Presbyteries and Synods notwithstanding of the Indulgence 4. Kirk-Sessions are one of the Courts of Christ and one is better than none He excuses the Non-indulged though they have no Discipline because all their preaching is sub cruce not having so much as freedom to exercise any part of their Ministry and so are allowed of God to do all they can when they cannot do all they would Ans 1. The Author hath here forgot himself and the quarrel he had against Mr. H. for acknowledging the Magistrates granting of the liberty of the publick
show that those of the outed Ministers to whom the Magistrate had granted the peaceable publick exercise of their Office in some Parishes in their returning to those Parishes where they were formerly ordained Ministers or not having access to the peaceable exercise of their Ministry in their own Parishes upon the â—nvitation of destitute Congregations with the consent of Presbyterian Ministers concerned going to exercise their Office in those destitute Congregations till they might have access to return â—o their own Parishes That these Ministers in so doing did sin Of what Law of God is this practice of theirs a Transgression Is it a sin for Ministers whom God hath called to the work of the Ministry to exercise their Office in the Parishes where they were ordained Ministers or to help destitute Congregations who desire them to come and help them Is it a sin because the Magistrate permits them to preach The Author himself dare not say this as appears from his first Answer to the first Objection A Minister â—ins not in preaching the Gospel though an Uâ—urper a Robber permit him to preach and much â—ess doth the Permission of the lawful Magistrate render his preaching sinful Object The Magistrate appoints them to preach and to preach in such or such a parish and therefore it 's sinful Ans 1. If it were a sin in the Magistrate to appoint a Minister to preach in such or such a place and a sin for the Minister to preach because the Magistrate appointed him to preach in such a place then the Ministers who wrote the first Book of Discipline and the Church of Scotland who approved it did sin in desiring the Magistrate to appoint Ministers to preach in such and such Parishes We did shew from the first Book of Discipline That they desired the Magistrate to do this and more too even to compel them to preach 2. This Author grants in his Answer to the third Objection That the Magistrate may place Ministers when the Church is corrupt and all things are out of order the vanity of his evasion by which he seeks to elude that Argument taken from the 10th Chapter of the second Book of Discipline is before discovered 3. Suppose it were unlawful for the Magistrate to appoint a Minister to exercise the Office of the Ministry in a particular Parish yet it would not be sinful for that Minister to preach in that Parish if the Parish were vacant and earnestly desired him to exercise his Ministry among them and if his preaching there were not injurious to any if the Magistrates appointing a Minister to preach c. in a Parish render the Ministers preaching in that Parish sinful then the Magistrate by such appointments might make the exercise of the Ministry in any Parish or in all Parishes in his Dominions sinful which is a most absurd Conceit Or is it sinful to accept of the peaceable exercise of their Ministry in such or such Parishes because the Magistrate gives them Injunctions and Rules to regulate them in the exercise of their Ministry But 1. These Injunctions were the Magistrates Acts and not the Ministers 2. The Ministers accepted not of these Injunctions but declared they could receive no such Ecclesiastick Rules from the Magistrate and that they had full Prescriptions from Christ which they behoved to observe as they would be answerable to him of whom they had received their Ministry 3. The Act of Instructions as it was distinct from the Act of Indulgence in which the publick peaceable exercise of their Ministry was granted and came not to the Ministers hands for a considerable time after they had received the Act of Indulgence so there was a great difference in the nature of the Acts and the Indulged Ministers did right in making use of what was good and refusing what was evil 4. If the Magistrates sending Injunctions to Ministers renders the exercise of their Ministry sinful then the Magistrate may render the exercise of the Ministry in any place in every place of his Dominions sinful by sending Instructions to all the Ministers in his Dominions which is another absurd Conceit which if it were received would make it easie for an ill-disposed Magistrate to mar all preaching by writing and sending Acts of Instructions to all the Ministers in his Dominions Object The Act of Indulgence flowed from a sinful Supremacy and therefore it was sinful to make any use of it Ans To say nothing of the making use of a Pass given by a Captain of Robbers or of a Covenant of peaceable commerce made with an Usurper who hath no just title which Casuists do not condemn I answer That that Act which indeed was the Act of Indulgence and which the Indulged Ministers made use of viz. The Relaxation of the Civil Restraint which hindred the peaceable exercise of their Ministry or the granting of the publick peaceable exercise of Ministry was no Act of any sinful Supremacy but the exercise of that power which the Magistrate hath from God for doing good As from the right stating of the question it evidently appears That this accepting of the publick peaceable exercise of the Ministry was not sinful so it evidently appears That it was lawful and commendable and a duty to which they were obliged as the work of the Ministry is a good work so the peaceable setled exercise of it under the protection of lawful Authority is a great mercy that hath many blessings and advantages in it it 's a promised blessing it 's a blessing for which the people of God should pray and because the peaceable setled exercise of the Ministry cannot be where Magistrates are without their allowance or permission therefore it 's duty to pray That the Lord would incline the heart of Rulers to grant the peaceable publick exercise of Religion in their Dominions and when the Lord inclines the hearts of Rulers to this we should not slight such a promised Mercy nor refuse the return of our Prayers but thankfully receive this blessing of God conveyed by the hand of the Magistrate and make use of this Talent to the Glory of God and edification of his Church I remember I have spoken before of the advantages of the peaceable setled exercise of the Ministry and of the necessity of accepting of it especially in answering the last head of the Authors Arguments and shall say no more of the state of the question but this That they who but understand the terms of the question will see that all the Arguments which the Author brings to prove the accepting of the Indulgence sinful do evanish as smoke and lose all colour when they compere before the light of naked Truth And they will see that what these Ministers did in exercising their Ministry in these desolate Congregations when the Lord in his good Providence had given them peaceable access thereto was so evidently a religious work a labour of love a work of mercy a seasonable expedient necessary work
that they will wonder that any do call the lawfulness thereof in question If the Author would have done the part of a Candid Disputant he should have brought forth all the Arguments made use of by the Indulged Ministers in their full strength but he brings several of his own Conceits which he knew best how to deal with and passing the strongest Arguments which were not for his handling he intermixes with these which he brings something of his own which may furnish him occasion of saying something though nothing to the purpose The first Objection as he propones it runs thus May not the Magistrate for ends known to himself discharge Ministers to preach for a time and thereafter permit them to preach and seeing the business of the Indulgence was but of this nature why might it not be acquiesced unto I wonder how he came to alledge the Magistrates discharging Ministers to preach in this place as if the discharging to preach were any part of the business of the Indulgence which was not a discharging to preach but the just contrary a permission and allowance to preach but the Author had something to say concerning the Magistrates discharging of Ministers to preach that he behoved to say somewhere but he could hardly have devised a more impertinent place to speak it than this The Magistrate should not have hindred these Ministers to preach he should not have restrained them from preaching but it was his duty to take off the restraint which he had laid on and to permit them to preach this was the exercise of the power which the Magistrate had from God and therefore the Ministers might lawfully make use of it in accepting this Relaxation of the Restraint formerly laid on and the peaceable exercise of their Ministry but if he had formed the Argument thus he would have had nothing to answer His first answer is That the Indulgence is a far other thing It 's true it 's a far other thing than the discharging of Ministers to preach which he impertinently foisted in into the Objection but says he it 's one thing to permit Ministers to exercise their Office without Molestation and it 's a far other thing to appoint and order them to take upon them such or such particular charges He does not condemn the Magistrates permitting Ministers to preach but he hath a quarrel at the Magistrates appointing to take such or such particular Charges c. but if he would have dealt fairly with the Magistrate he should not have foisted in words of his own but taken the Magistrates words as they are in the Acts of Indulgence in which they do not say that they appoint and order the Ministers to take upon them such and such particular Charges but that they appoint them and in the second Indulgence permit and allow them to preach and exercise the other parts of the Ministerial Function in such a Parish If he quarrel at the Magistrates appointing Ministers to preach at such or such Kirks he must quarrel with the first Book of Discipline and much more with the second Book of Discipline which Chap. 10. makes use of the word placing but enough of this before But suppose that Appointing were not a proper term yet he cannot but acknowledge that the Magistrate did in their permitting allowing appointing these Ministers to preach at such and such Kirks really and effectually relax the Civil Restraints formerly laid upon these Ministers which hindred the peaceable publick exercise of their Ministry in any Parish within the Nation and freed them from the Molestation which they would have been obnoxious to in preaching in such or such Parishes before these Acts of Indulgence and in so far as these Acts did relax that undue Restraint they were good this is so evident that it cannot be with any shadow of Reason denied And hence I reason thus When the Magistrate doth right in relaxing undue restraints which hindered the peaceable publick exercise of the Ministry Ministers may lawfully make use of that Relaxation but the Magistrate in permitting allowing appointing these Ministers to preach in such and such Parishes did right in relaxing c. and therefore these Ministers might lawfully make use of that Relaxation I would gladly hear an answer to this Argument What he subjoyns of their plainting and subjecting the Ministry in its exercise to themselves by giving Injunctions c. as he foists in words of his own which were not in the Acts of Indulgence so he unreasonably confounds the Act of Instructions with the Act of Indulgence which were Acts in all respects distinct the Act of Instructions was no Act of Indulgence for these Instructions were no Indulgence but clogs superadded the Act of Indulgence did take off Restraints and that the Ministers accepted the Act of Instructions did lay on Restraints which the Ministers did not accept of as was fully manifested before But this is the ordinary fault of this Author that when he should reason against the Indulgence as it was accepted by the Ministers or against their pactice in accepting the Releaxation and the peaceable exercise of their Ministry and the Protection of lawful Authority he falls to speak of what was wrong in the Magistrates acting to which the Indulged Ministers had no accession but ye must excuse him for if he had not done this he would have had nothing to say and yet it had been much better to have said nothing than to have spoken so impertinently and so injuriously in charging the indulged Ministers with the fault that they had no accession to If the Authors reasonings were reduced to form they would be very ridiculous as for example the Magistrates Act of Instructions which laid on wrong restraints was not right and therefore the Magistrates Act of Indulgence which took off wrong Restraints was not right Again the Magistrate should not have made the Act of Instructions and thefore the Ministers should not have made use of the Act of Indulgence Baculus stat in angulo ergo pluit the Club stands in the Corner and therefore it rains This third Argument is as good as the other two and yet of such Sand-ropes are the Arguings of this Author twisted Before I leave this I cannot but suspect that all that the Author seems to allow to the Magistrate at least to our Magistrates in reference to the exercise of the Office of the Ministry is this That they should permit and not molest Ministers in the exercise of their Office for he is against their appointing of Ministers to preach at such or such a Kirk I am the more confirmed in this by some passages of the Cup of cold Water and some late actings if this be his Opinion it is a new one for all Orthodox Divines and the Church of Scotland in the second Book of Discipline Chap. 1. maintains That the Civil power should command the Spiritual to exercise and in that same Chapter it 's granted That the Magistrate
then the Magistrate may appoint permit allow Ministers to preach in such and such Kirks For if the Magistrate may do what is more then they may do what is less in the corrupt state of the Church But the state of the Church is such and therefore if the Magistrate may in this case place c. he may much more permit c. He grants all the major is evident from the place cited and he grants it to the minor which was as he proponed it but so it is now with us he answers that our Church was a constituted and well-ordered Church but that now Confusion is come and so in effect he yields all but I remember he spoke to this before What he says of the Magistrates bringing on this Confusion is no evasion for the Book of Discipline does speak generally of a Church corrupted whatever way it hath been corrupted whether by Magistrates or Ministers that 's neither up nor down A Magistrate that hath disordered the Church is so much the more obliged to right those disorders and if a Magistrate hath disordered the Church by thrusting Ministers from the peaceable exercise of their Ministry he ought to retract what he hath done by allowing them the peaceable exercise of their Ministry if he did wrong in thrusting them out it 's right to let them in and the Church of Scotland in that place cited hath declared That in that case Ministers should not refuse to preach in any place because the Magistrate hath interposed his Authority for setling them He insinuates in the end of this Answer That this Concession gives the Magistrate all Church-power but this is a groundless and injurious alledgance the Authors of that Book and the General Assemblie's which after exact examination of every part of it concluded it to be subscribed by every Minister of the Church of Scotland understood the Nature of Church-power much better than he did and they were so far from thinking That the Magistrates who in the corrupt and disordered state of the Church interposes their Civil Authority for setling Ministers does in so doing assume unto themselves and exercise all Church-power that they commend what they did in that case as a practice well-becoming godly Kings and Princes and Emperors This Insinuation is highly injurious to those wise and godly men who compiled and approved subscribed that second Book of Discipline for if this Concession did yield all Church-power to the Magistrate then those who compiled and subscribed it do quite subvert what they had immediately asserted viz. That the Magistrate may not usurp any thing which belongs not to the civil Sword but belongs to the Offices which are meerly Ecclesiastical as is the Ministry of the Word and Sacraments using Ecclesiastical Discipline and the Spiritual Execution thereof or any part of the power of the Spiritual Keys which our Master gave to the Apostles and their Successors As it cannot be supposed that so wise men would so quickly contradict themselves in a Book so deliberately and after so many Debates concluded so it cannot be imagined that they would design Kings and Princes godly for doing that which would quite swallow up and subvert the holy Calling of the Ministry This one passage in the second Book of Discipline does quite ruine the cause of the Author of the History of the Indulgence and approves the practice of the Indulged Ministers so that what they have done they have done it according to the mind of the Church of Scotland expressed in the second Book of Discipline The Book says That godly Kings both in the old and in the light of the New Testament have placed Ministers when the Kirk was corrupted c. This not only may be but it hath been and the Author denies not that the Church was corrupted at the time of the Indulgence and all things out of order and in confusion and thus he really yields the cause and concedes all when the Church is corrupted and all things out of order the Magistrate may place Ministers and Ministers may be placed by Magistrates but at the time of the Indulgence as the Author grants the Church was corrupted and all things out of order and therefore at the time of the Indulgence the Magistrate might place Ministers and Ministers might be placed by Magistrates according to the 10th Chapter of the second Book of Discipline It 's true that the Magistrate should not have broken the order of the Church â—ut to conclude that the Magistrate cannot place Ministers because he thrusts them out or that he cannot do them right in granting to them the peaceable exercise of their Ministry because he did them wrong in restraining them â—rom the exercise of it or to conclude That â—he Magistrate by breaking the order of the Church loses all Authority to do any good to â—he Church afterward or that we may make â—o use of any good that the Magistrate does â—ecause he hath done evil or because at the â—me time he does some things right and some â—ings wrong that we cannot chuse the good because we must refuse the evil is a most unreasonable way of reasoning and at this rate a man may conclude quidlibet ex quolibet any thing he pleases from whatsoever he pleases any Conclusion he pleases from any premisses Neither doth the acceptance of the peaceable exercise of the Ministry from the Magistrate who had formerly restrained Ministers by penal Statutes that they could not without molestation exercise their Ministry teach Magistrates a way how to usurp all Church-power for the taking off of Restraints was a doing of right and no Usurpation He might as well alledge That if one by strong hand wound a man and put him out of his own house and take his Goods and afterward be willing to cure the wound and admit the man to return to his House and Goods that the injured man by admitting the Cure and returning to his own House and Goods teaches the man who injured him to wound intrude and spoil To the 4th Objection taken from the examples of Hezekiah and Josiah who commanded the Priests and Levites to do the work of their Calling he answers nothing to the purpose If Hezekiah and Josiah did right in setting the Priests in their Charges and the Levites in their Courses and in commanding them to do the work of their Calling and if the Priests and Levites did right in obeying those Commands then Magistrates may not only permit and allow but also command when there is need Ministers to do the work of their Ministerial Calling and Ministers may and should obey such Commands but the former is true for these Kings are commended for doing so 2 Chron. 35.2 c. 2 Chron. 29.2 3 4 5. c. 2 Chron. 31.2 and therefore the latter is true also He answers That our Rulers have done many evil things which these Kings did not but will he conclude that because they have done evil which these Kings
lay at a pretty distance from it but says he this is an open spreading of the Net in the sight of the Bird. Ans 1. The more open it be there is the less hazard except men be more silly than Birds who do not use to intangle themselves in a Net that 's openly spread in their sight and therefore crafty Fowlers use to hide their Snares 2. The Supremacy which he supposes to be wrapped in with the Injunction to preach is as open a Snare and if folk would be scarred without Reason they would have a fairer pretence for making no use of an Injunction to preach ushered in with and founded upon a Spiritual Supremacy than for making no use of an Injunction to preach because of another Act of Injunction which as it hath no connexion in nature with the Injunction to preach so it hath not so much as a connexion in the Contexture of the Magistrates Act being framed in a distinct Act. He adds This is more than a sufficient warning for Wise men to beware Ans But of what I hope not of preaching the Gospel and yet he must say this or he says nothing to the purpose here for if he mean of the Instructions this makes no difference betwixt this case and the former for so must Ministers beware of the Spiritual Supremacy by which the Injunction of preaching is ushered in but yet the Author would not have Ministers scarring at preaching because of the Supremacy no more should they beware of preaching because of the Instructions In his 4th he says 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 plain terms 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 Indulgence may be said to flow natively from the corrupt Supremacy And so he infers 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 Ans 1. As to the matter of fact the Author misrepresents the Magistrates Act of Indulgence for though the Magistrates appointed permitted allowed the Ministers to preach in such places yet they did not command them to preach in no other place Again though they gave Limitations and Prescriptions yet they never limit the Ministers so to these Prescriptions as to exclude all other Prescriptions Seeing he had a mind to make such terrible Amplifications he did not wittily in setting down the Acts of Indulgence which are a sufficient refutation of those additions which he hath made to them If any alledge that the Magistrate confined them and that restrained them from preaching in any other place the Author answereth p. 116. That the Magistrate by banishing and confining may consequently and indirectly silence Ministers as Solomon removed Abiathar from the Priesthood Now this was a worse confinement than that of the Indulged Ministers in this respect because Abiathar could not exercise the Priests Office but at Jerusalem from which Solomon banisht him but the Indulged Ministers not only might but they might without hazard preach in the Parishes to which they were confined but though he grant this yet he denieth that the Magistrate can directly discharge Ministers to preach and therefore the Act of Confinement will not warrant what he says here That the Magistrate commanded them to preach in one place and not in another if they preach in another place beside that to which they are indulged they run a hazard but the Magistrate hath not in the Act oâ— Indulgence directly discharged them to preach in another place 2. He cannot prove That the Magistrateâ— commanding a Minister to preach in a certaiâ— place is an Act of Erastianism or an Act thaâ— floweth from a corrupt Supremacy yea he hath granted according to the tenth Chapter of the second Book of Discipline That the Magistrate may in some cases place Ministers the Ministers who went to their own Parishes had the antecedent Judgment of the Church at their Ordination for preaching in such Churches and the Magistrate in appointing them to go thither appointed them to do what the Presbytery had before ordained them to they who went to other Churches than their own as they had the antecedent Judgment of the Church of Scotland in that tenth Chapter of the second Book of Discipline to warrant their Act so before they went to the Council they had the advice of or consent of the generality of the outed Ministers to do what they did and before they went to these Parishes they had Invitations from the respective Congregations 3. As for the Instructions enough hath been said before they were not the Act of Indulgence which the Ministers made use of and therefore whatever be the fountain whence they flowed the Indulged Ministers are not defiled seeing they drank not of those streams But 4ly The Author hath forgot the Argument which he should have answered he doth not evite the absurdity of the banishing all preaching out of the Land mentioned in the end of the Objection he proposed And therefore I shall again resume it for suppose that it were not only unlawful for Magistrates to give Instructions but also to appoint or permit Ministers to preach in certain places that will not make it unlawful for Ministers whom they appoint to preach in such places to preach there suppose the Instructions be superadded for if this should follow then the Magistrate if he were ill-disposed and would render Ministers ridiculous he might banish all preaching by orderâ—ng Clerks to write Papers and send to these Ministers for wherever they should or would preach or people would hear them he might send his Commands to them to preach there and his Instructions to regulate them and then forfooth it would be unlawful for them to preach in that place or if he would not have them to preach in the Fields he might hinder them by commanding them to preach in the Fields and sending Instructions to them and if he would have them preaching in plain open Fields where Soldies horse and soot might win at them he might command them to preach in flowmosses and particularly design the mosses in such and such Shires and then all preaching in these mosses would become unlawful and so people behoved either to have no preaching or come to the plain open Fields where the Soldiers might easily take or kill them and thus they would not only lose preaching c. but also render themselves ridiculous In his 5th he says The visible ends of Magistrates in giving forth of Commands which may be known by several circumstances may do much to clear and determine Christians to obey or not obey and so a Command materially the same may in some cases be obeyed in
and confound these Callings which the Lord hath made distinct Again the Brethren who thought it convenient to add the words formally and intrinsically Ecclesiastical have considered that although the Assertion without this addition in its genuine sense was sound yet it might be Interpreted by Persons disposed to Cavil and Calumniate in a wrong sense which would not agree with the judgment of Anti-erastian Divines who though they do not allow to the Magistrate a Power Formally Ecclesiastical and so allow not to him a Power of forming Canons Ecclesiastical Regulating Ministers in the exercise of their Ministry yet they allow to the Magistrate Power to Command Ministers to exercise their Ministry and to do their Office according to the Word of God In the first Chapter of the Second Book of Discipline we have these words The Civil Power should Command the Spiritual to exercise and do their Office according to the Word of God And afterward in that same Chapter The Magistrate neither ought to Preach administer the Sacraments nor execute the Censures of the Kirk nor yet prescribe any Rule how it should be done but Command the Ministers to observe the Rule Commanded in the Word and punish the Transgressors by Civil means And Chap. 10. which is of the Office of a Christian Magistrate in the Church we have these words That it pertains to the Office of a Christian Magistrate to see that the Kirk be not invaded nor hurt by false Teachers and Hirelings nor the rooms thereof be occupied by dumb dogs and idle bellies To assist and maintain the Discipline of the Kirk and punish them Civilly that will not Obey the Censure of the same without confounding always the one Jurisdiction with the other And afterwards they add To make Laws and Constitutions agreeable to Gods Word for advancement of the Kirk and Policy thereof without Usurping any thing that pertains not to the Civil Sword but belongs to the Offices that are meerly Ecclesiastical as is the Ministry of the Word and Sacraments using Ecclesiastical Discipline and the Spiritual execution thereof or any part of the Power of the Spiritual Keys which our Master gave to the Apostles and their true Successours And although Kings and Princes that be Godly sometimes by their own Authority when the Kirk is corrupted and all things out of Order place Ministers and restore the true Service of the Lord after the Example of some Godly Kings of Judah and divers Godly Kings and Emperours in the Light of the New Testament yet where the Ministry of the Kirk is once Lawfully Constitute and they that are placed do their Office Faithfully all Godly Princes and Magistrates ought to hâ—â—r and obey their voice and reverence the Majesty of the Son of God speaking in them The Author of the History of the Indulgence pag. 62. grants that concession of Orthodox Anti-erastian Divines That Magistrates may and should put Ministers to their Duty in following the Rules and Injunctions prescribed by Christ in their Political way and by their Political Penalties And hence it will follow that Ministers should not refuse Christs injunctions because the Magistrate commands them to observe them and by their Political Power and Political Penalties puts them to observe them He grants also That Magistrates may Civilly confirm and inforce Canons and Rules Ministerially cleared and concluded by Church Judicatories And pag. 63. He distinguishes Instructions into these which are concerning such things as are always necessary to the right exercise of the Ministry or are concerning alterable Circumstances which onely hic nunc can be called necessary And concerning the former he saith That the Magistrate cannot enjoyn these Ministerially as holding forth the mind of God because so he would not be a Magistrate but a Minister But he grants That the Magistrate may Politically inforce these Instructions in a well Reformed and Instituted Church after they have been Ministerially held forth by the Authorized Ministerial Interpreters of the Word And in a Church confused and needing Reformation he does not deny to the Magistrate a Power to enjoyn such things as are at all times necessary to the right exercise of the Ministry But he alledges This latter Case is not ours But it seems he hath not considered the Case of this Church or hath had very bad Information concerning it If the Case of this Church had not been confused he durst not have written and Printed such a History nor written Letters to encourage some young Men to counteract the Suffering Ministers of this Church and to refuse to be subject to them he might possibly when he was in another Nation in his study among his Books imagine that this Church was not confused but well ordered and needing no Reformation But alas our Confusions and Disorders are more real than to be removed by the force of his imagination We see them we find them and they who have any sense groan under them and we want these Assemblies which were a part of the Order of this Church and the means to preserve Order to prevent Confusion or rectifie Disorders if they had entred But he will prove that this Church is not confused and needing Reformation I wish he could prove this but I have found his former Arguings so fallacious that I fear this proof prove like the rest that is prove nothing But let us hear him The latter Case says he 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 The Argument runs thus If we grant that this Church is confused and needs Reformation we grant a Power and Liberty to the Magistrate to overturn the best Reformed Church c. but we cannot grant a Power to the Magistrate to overturn c. and therefore we cannot grant that this Church is confused and needs Reformation The first proposition is manifestly false This is a hard case that a poor Church confused and disordered may not confess to God nor declare before Men that it is confused and needs Reformation may not relate its case as it is but it must by the confession or concession of the truth become guilty of giving Power and Liberty to the Magistrate to overturn the Church There 's no shadow of Reason for this connexion although the Church confess that the Magistrate hath overturned her that grants no Power and Liberty to the Magistrate to overturn the Church Does a poor mans complaint that his Neighbour hath come in and made Abuse and Disorder in his House grant a power and liberty to his Neigbour to make Abuse and Disorder or a Power to Order all things in it as he pleaseth Shall the complaint of an injurious Fact grant a Power and Liberty to do injury The Magistrates Ordering all things in the Church as he
had removed them off the Field and left it fair for himself why would he not Triumph and glory over them in teaching these pedants and doing that alone which they all could not do and so Reign alone as the Basilisk doth according to the Verse Late sibi submovet omne Vulgus ut in vacua regnet Basiliscus arena But he is so far from being resolute here from coming forward as a Doctor Resolutus that he sneaks away inter doctores dubitantes and yet I have no doubt that he could have said something to it if he had liked but his business there was not to stinguish resolve and clear confused perplexed dark things but to render things which were distinct and clearly resolved confused dark and perplexed And I suppose this History is one of the most confused and to ignorant people one of the most confounding Books that ever was written upon matters of this nature And I think upon tryal it will be found that one may learn more solid knowledge in the matters which this Author treats of in reading a few lines of the confession of Faith or of the second Book of Discipline or of the course of Conformity where these matters are handled than from all that this Author hath written in 162 pages I come next to what he says pag. 75. § 2. to the other part of Mr. H's Discourse which was But for the Magistrates Power objectively Ecclesiastical whereby they might judge of matters of Religion in order to their own Act whether they would approve or discountenance such a way he knew no Reformed Divine that did deny it unto them and therefore desired that his Brother Mr. A. B. might not be mistaken The other part of the Discourse saith the Historian is as useless for any thing I can perceive for clearing of Mr. B. or his Discourse Answ Some ill humours does vitiate and dis-enable some mens eyes and their perceptive faculties that they cannot see nor perceive what is very visible and perceptible 2. Though this part of the Discourse did not clear Mr. B's Discourse yet it did compleat it and so was not useless yea what compleats a Discourse which was defective doth also clear it as two lights joyned do enlighten one another and the whole compounded of both is more luminous So truths which have connexion one with another being joyned together clear one another he might have remembred that some subjects of Discourse cannot be sufficiently cleared except they be treated of both affirmatively and negatively and he who speaks both affirmatively and negatively of the Magistrates Power speaks more clearly than he who speaks onely negatively And he who not only shews what Power the Magistrate hath not in matters of Religion but also what Power he hath about these matters speaks more clearly than he who sheweth only what Power the Magistrate hath not but saith nothing of what Power he hath in these matters And there was the more need of this in the matter in hand because of the question betwixt Magistrates and Ministers of the bounds of their Power And as these questions of marches are very kittle because of Interest so the ridding of marches in the matter of Power and Authority are most ticklish for Authority is a very tender thing and it 's scarcely to be expected that any Person in Power will not be displeased with one who speaking of that matter tells onely what he may not do but never speaks a word of what he may do And therefore Mr. H. perceiving my L. Chancellour displeased with Mr. B. and having a clear ground to conceive that this was at least one thing that the Chancellour was displeased with that Mr. Blair seemed not to allow to the Magistrate what did belong to him which manifestly appears by my L. Chancellours questioning him if the Council might confine him To which Question Mr. B. answered that he did not deny that the Council might confine him Mr. H. I say perceiving this did very seasonably step in to remove my L. Chancellours mistake of and displeasure against Mr. B. shewing that though they could not allow to the Magistrate a Power to make and impose Instructions intrinsically and formally Ecclesiastical yet all Orthodox Divines and consequently Mr. Blair was so far from denying to the Magistrate a power of confining which is an Act both formally and objectively Civil that they granted to the Magistrate a Civil Power which was objectively Ecclesiastical therefore desired that his Brother Mr. A.B. might not be mistaken as if he denied this which all Orthodox Divines grant and as what Mr. H. spoke was right and very full as to the matter in hand so it was very apposite for shewing what was Mr. B's mind in these matters and to remove mistakes and thus we see that the Historian is much mistaken when he takes up Mr. H's words as useless for clearing of Mr. B. or of his Discourse for he clears Mr. B. to be of the same judgment with all Orthodox Divines as to the Magistrates Power objectively Ecclesiastical and this part of Mr. H's Discourse added to Mr. B's assertion as it was explained by Mr. H. by adding the terms agreed upon in the meeting did give much light for clearing the sense of Mr. B's words Let us hear the Historians Reasons to prove the uselesness of Mr. H's words 1. Saith he 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 Answ That 's true but it is as true that there is nothing in Mr. B's Discourse giving the least hint of his giving this power which is granted by all Orthodox Divines to the Magistrate 2. It 's clear enough that my L. Chancellour hath taken Mr. B's words as a denyal that the Magistrate had any Power over Ministers which appears by his Lordships question to Mr. B. if the Council might confine him Nor 2. Saith the Historian 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 Ministry Answ That 's true but it clears that though Magistrates may not make Instructions formally and intrinsically Ecclesiastical c. yet they might make Civil Laws and Constitutions which have Ministers and their Ministry for their Object and so are objectively conversant about Ecclesiastical matters about Ministers and the exercise of their Ministry He adds That he cannot imagine to what purpose this Discourse was brought in or what it was that gave the least occasion thereto Answ This is very strange for the Author had an imagination that was pretty fertile in other matters and pretty sagacious to find out the purpose of the Discourses of the Adversaries whose Writings he examined And the purpose of this Discourse was so obvious 1. From the Objections of the Adversaries of Presbyterians which alledge that they give too little to
both of the dead and living they make nothing against the hearing of the Indulged Ministers let the Conformists say for themselves for the applications which the Historian makes to the Indulged are manifestly false as hath been already manifested in Answering the Historians Captions and Cavils It cannot be denyed that some who have taken upon them to discuss that question about hearing Conformists have used Arguments and laid down Grounds which are new conceits and contrary to the Principles of the old Non-conformists and tend directly to Schism I shall onely relate some of the words of a Godly Learned Minister who in Answering the 28 Questions which this Historian sent over before his History hath spoken somewhat with great Modesty to this purpose In Answering the Historians 8th Question after he hath shewed how great difference there is betwixt the Indulged Ministers and the Conformists he says But there is one thing I would gladly enquire of him In his Parenthesis he seems to hint that the hearing of these Ministers who have complyed in their own charges where they were orderly fixed by the Church of Scotland is a complying with Prelacy For my own part I see not how he will instruct this and if the sinfulness of hearing them upon the account of complyance which is their own personal guilt be maintained I see not how that Doctrine can be justified from owning the Principles of Separation but I shall be glad to learn of him I confess my judgment hitherto hath been that it is the Duty of the People to seek their Edification by Presbyterian Ministers whether in Houses Fields or Kirks and that it is their Duty to discountenance Curates of all kinds And for intruders I am not clear for hearing of them except transiently for it 's very hard to say that it 's sinful in it self to hear them at any time But for them who comply in their own charges and Preach Orthodox Doctrine without corrupting the Ordinances so as there be no corruptions that are made the conditions of Peoples Communion I see not how in that case it can be made out that it is sinful for People to hear them when they can get no better to hear which the Author himself grants in stating the Question and therefore is the more concerned to see to it It will be necessary we reconcile our practices with our old Principles for if we drink in new Principles and once remove March stones it 's hard to know where we may hold and we had need to be jealous of that new Light which drives us from our old Principles In Answering his 26th Question he says This is new Doctrine that hearing of Ministers will involve the People in the approbation of their sinful entry It is easie to assert such things but he will put his Reason upon the Rack before he prove this 3. When he speaks of the Curates why does he confound countenancing and hearing as he doth several times in this Paper May not Ministers in dispeâ—s◠〈◊〉 Ordinances without the mixtures of mens inventions if they be true Ministers be heard in many cases without countenancing their entry and their course I do wish from my heart that the People in this Question about hearing had been more distinctly informed so as they might guard against Rocks on both sides for I fear the neglect of this shall be the occasion of drinking in of Principles against or contrary to the former Principles of the Church of Scotland And in the close of that Answer he intreats the Author of these 28 Questions to ponder how the Doctrine which he delivers agrees with the Doctrine of our Divines against Separation It is the common assertion of our Divines against Separatists that where the corruptions of a Church are not made the condition of our Communion it is not Lawful to Separate And Mr. Rutherfurd in his Peaceable Plea Chap. 10. makes this the Question Whether or not it be Lawful to Separate from a true Church visible for the corruption of Teachers and the wickedness of Pastors and Professors where faith is begotten by the Preaching of the professed Truth And through that Chapter he asserts and clears the Negative of that Question Also says he Mr. Broune in his Book against Volsogen pleads against Separation because of the corruption of Ministers where Christs Ordinances are pure and the Essence of the Ministry is not destroyed by their corruptions And so though the Indulgence had been sinfully accepted which yet we deny it would not destroy the Essence of their Ministry for the Historian grants they are true Ministers and he does not charge them with corrupting the Ordinances and therefore the Historian is condemned by Mr. Rutherfurd and Mr. Broune The Non-conformists might have kept up all due respect to Presbyterian Ministers and constantly adhered to them and their Ministry though that new Doctrine of the sinfulness of hearing Conformists had never been taught to them but some folk cannot do except they over-do and in running from one extream rush upon another I know some alledge that they see further in these matters than the old Non-conformists did and they think that the old Non-conformists in writing against Separatists have wronged the Cause But it is not want of Ignorance that aileth such People we are far behind these Godly and Learned men both in Heavenly Wisdom and true tenderness and Zeal and that which many take for Light and Zeal is Ignorance Error Humour and the wrath of man which perfects not the Righteousness of God Any who have read what is said before will see that these Arguments of the Apologist does conclude nothing against hearing the Indulged Ministers for the applications are manifestly false I never heard of any Indulged Minister who entred into the Congregation of a living outed Minister save one who had the consent of that Minister who was out of the Countrey and had no access to his People As for what the Author says in the application of the Apologists 7th Argument that the hearing of Indulged Ministers is enjoyned and required by Law as a sign of complyance with and subjecting to Erastianism and the Supremacy is so manifest an untruth that I wonder how his Conscience could suffer his hand to write it And yet I have found so many falshoods of this kind before that I need not wonder and it were unreasonable to expect any other Arguments against Truth and Innocency and for Schism but such as are patched up of lies and calumnies After all his Questions I may propose one Question Why in his Paper sent over before this History and in this History he doth not Argue positively that it 's unlawful to hear the Indulged Ministers but onely moves Questions if they should be condemned who do not own and hear the Indulged as they did formerly And after he hath done with his mis-application of the Apologists Arguments where he seems more positive yet he ends all with a Question which
c. But the donation of the Office and spiritual authority annexed thereunto is only derived from Jesus Christ our Mediator he alone gives all Church-Officers and therefore none may devise or superadd any new Officers Ephes 4.7 8 10 11. 1 Cor. 12.28 And he alone derives all authority and power Spiritual to these Officers for dispensing the Word Sacraments Censures and all Ordinances Mat. 16.19 28.18 19 20. Joh. 20.21 22 23. 2 Cor. 10.8 13.10 and therefore it is not safe for any creature to intrude upon this Prerogative Royal of Christ to give any power to any Officer of the Church And thus we see that these Learned and Godly Ministers who solidly in that same Book refute Erastianism yet assert that it belongs to the Magistrate to protect countenance authorize defend maintain Ministers in the publick exercise of their Ministry which they have received from the Lord Jesus But it 's the ignorance of the solid writings of Presbyterians which makes some folks so confident that they are true Presbyterians and adhering to Presbyterian Principles when in the mean time they are publishing to the world that they are strangers to the solid writings of sound Presbyterians And there is no Orthodox Divine who would find fault with these Ministers who when they appeared before the Council did give humble thanks to the Kings Majesty and the Lords of his Majesties Council for the peaceable exercise of the Ministry which they had received from the Lord Jesus The elicite act of the Will is too Philosophical for common people to subscribe or swear to for they can hardly be made to understand it And what they say concerning it is not Philosophical enough to be approven by those who understand what an elicite act is for elicite acts of the Will are such as immediately flow from the Will as love or hatred volition or nolition Now translation of power from Ministers to Magistrates is not made by these inward acts of the Will but by some external imperate acts as speaking writing c. Politick acts of surrender or translation of power are not effectuate by meer elicite internal acts of the Will But their ignorance of the nature of an elicite act of the Will and their opposing acts of force and constraint to elicite acts whereas elicite acts use to be contra-distinguished from imperate acts and their insinuating That if an act be not an elicite act of the Will it is an act of force and constraint whereas the imperate acts of the Will are not elicite acts and yet being commanded by the Will they are not acts of force and constraint these are more harmless mistakes But it is a very injurious calumny that those Ministers who appeared before the Council translated the power of sending out ordering and censuring Ministers to the Magistrate It 's a ridiculous ignorant conceit to imagine that what these Ministers did in appearing before the Council was a translation of the power of order of Potestative mission or else such censuring to the Magistrate or changing their Master and making themselves the Ministers of men and a quitting of the Government and succession of a Presbyterian Ministry These are meer calumnies and ridiculous fopperies that none who understand any thing in these matters will think worthy of any answer They were very injurious to the poor people many of whom are simple and ready through prejudice to believe any ill word spoken against indulged Ministers who in their Papers and Pamphlets abused them with such slanders But they are more injurious to them who would have them to subscribe and swear such injurious calumnies and ridiculous fopperies which are not only far from truth but from any appearance of truth And so much hath been said in several Papers written in vindication of the practice of the Indulged Ministers that it were to waste time and paper to answer any more to these Calumniators and the best answer to them is to pray that the Lord would give them repentance for these abominable reproaches whereby they have very actively driven on the design of Satan and his instruments the Papists and Quakers c. which is to render the Ministry contemptible And it was seen and told long ago that they would not rest satisfied with the reproachieg of a few Ministers but would proceed to render all contemptible The contrivers of this Bond have made a great progress in this Devilish work of rendering Ministers contemptible and useless for they have casten all except some few who for any thing known did not exceed the number of four and some think that they were but three at most and one of them was casten by the other two It is strange that any person who had the use of reason could be so far blinded with prejudice as to think that these Ministers did translate the power of sending out Ministers or the power of Potestative mission to the Magistrate for as was said the Magistrate supposed them to be Ordained ministers and so to have a Potestative mission to Preach the Gospel already for ministers are potestatively sent to preach the Gospel when they are Ordained ministers this clearly appeared by the Councils inquiring if they were and where or by whom they were Ordained ministers if the Council had called some persons who were not Ordained and sent them to Preach and Baptize c. then they might have alledged that the Magistrate did assume the power of sending out ministers or of a Potestative mission but they never pretended to any thing like that Preacher But Sir did not the Council send these ministers to these Congregations Minist 1. The Council did not so much as use the word of sending 2. Suppose they had used the word of sending that would not have imported a Potestative mission because the Magistrate did suppose that they were already Ordained Ye heard also that Mr. Welsh in his Preface to King James desires the King to send ministers throughout the Land it were great ignorance and perverseness to gather from that word that he translated to the King the power of a Potestative mission 3. Suppose the Magistrate had said nothing concerning their being Ordained Ministers before it had been great perverseness to have concluded from the Magistrates sending of them that they ceased to be the Ministers of Christ and became the Ministers of men Will any be so perverse as to conclude because Jehoshaphat 2 Chron. 17.8 9. sent Priests and Levites through all the Cities of Judah to teach the people that therefore these Priests and Levites ceased to be the Lords Ministers and became the ministers of the King Preach But Jehoshaphet was a godly reforming King Minist That is nothing to the purpose in hand Ye might have remembred that Mr. Rutherford shews that the magistratical power in reference to the Church is the same in Nero and in a Christian magistrate and if a godly King 's sending ministers does not annul their ministry then