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
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
remained in their warme nests how they can plead innocent before God or Man I see not We proceed to relate a few things following Edinbr 3. August 1676. THe Lords of his Maj. privie Councel do hereby ordaine Mr Iohn Stirling Minister who is confined to the Paroch at Hounam by an Act of Councel and Indulged to preach in that Paroch to transport himseâ—f from thence to the Town of Irwing and confine himself to the Town and Paroch of Irwing with liberty to preach and exercise the other Functions of the Ministrie in that Paroch as he did in the former according to the Instructions of the Councel given to the rest of the Indulged Ministers By which we see that the simple Act of the Councel is the all and only ground of transportation from one place to another and that alwayes the Instructions must go alongs with them as the constant Companion of the Indulgence Edinb 9. Novemb. 1676. HAving heard and considered a Petition presented by the Magistrats of the Brugh of Irwing supplicating that the Stipend of the Paroch of Irwing vacant in the year 1676. might be allowed to the Petitioners for defraying the Expences that Mr Iohn Stirling will be at in transporting himself to Irwing and repairing the Kirk School and Bridge of Irwing Do allow the Supplicants the Stipend of the said Paroch for the said year 1676. Instant which is vacant for defraying the expences of the said Mr Iohn Stirling and repairing the Kirk School and Bridge of Irwine and if need bees ordained Leâ—ters of horning to be direct hereupon in forme as effeits Edinb 1. March 1677. Anent a petition presented by Mr William Maitland Minister at Beeth shewing that the petitioner hath served the Cure at the said Kirk the two by gone years 1675. and 1676. without receiving any stipend albeit he hath himself and a numerous family to maintaine which he will not be longer able to undergo unless the Lords of Councel be pleased to allow him the said stipend for the saids two years service And therefore humbly supplicating that an order and warrant might be granted for that effect in manner underwritten The Lords of his Maj. Privie Councel having heard and considered the foresaid Petition do hereby grant order and warrand to the Heritors and others lyable in payment of the stipend of the said Paroch of Beeth to make payment of the same to the Petitioner and that for ilk one of the saids crops and years of God 1675. and 1676. and ordains Letters of horning and others to be direct thereupon in forme as effeirs Edinb 7. of March 1677. The Lords of his Majest privie Councel do hereby ordaine Mr Alexander Hammiltoun who is by Act of Councel confined to the Paroch of Dalmeny and permitted to preach there during their pleasure to remove himself from the said Paroch of Dalmeny to the Paroch of Dalserfe and that betwixt and the fift day of Aprile next and to confine himself within the said Paroch of Dalserfe till further order as he will be answerable at his peril And do hereby permit and aâ—low the said Mr Alexander Hammiltoun to preach and exercise the other functions of the Ministrie in the said Paroch till furder order from the Councel upon the same termes that he hath exercised his Office formerly in the said Kirk of Dalmeny So that we see the whole exercise of the Ministrie is by this Indulgence wholly at the free and arbâ—â—riarious disposal of the Councel and depending upon their Orders As also we see that the observation of the Instructions is an essentiaâ— part of the bargane being the termes and condition on which the Indulgence is granted There came forth a Printed Proclamation August 10. 1677. as followeth FOR as much as the Lords of his Maj. Privy Councel in pursuance of his Maj. Commands signified to them by a Letter of the 7. of Iune 1669. did confine several outted Ministers to particular Paroches with allowance to preach and exercise the other functions of the Ministry within the same and did deliver to them certaine Instructions to be keeped and observed upon which they did accept the Indulgence granted to them And aâ—beit these Instructions have been frequently repeated and sent to these Ministers yet diverse of them have conâ—raveened the same without any manner of regarde thereto And whereas by his Maj. Letter foresaid it is left to the saids Lords to allow to these Ministers such parts of the Stipends as they should think fit and that from time to time the Councel hath giâ—en Orders and Waâ—rands to the Heretors and others lyable in payment of the stipend to make payment thereof as they saw cause without which special warâ—and they could not nor cannot warrantably pay the same Notwithstanding whereof it is informed that several Heretors have payed or intend to pay these stipends without special Warrant and Order The saids Lords do therefore Prohibite and discharge all Heretors Fewers Liferenters and others lyable in payment of the stipends of the Paroches where these Ministers are confined to make payment of any part of the Stipend to them for the cropt and year 1677. and in time coming without a special Order Warrand from the Councel under the penalty of being lyable in payment of the said Stipend againe to such as the Councel shall appoint and further censured for their Contempt and ordains these presents to be printed and published upon a Sabbath day at the several Paroch-Kirks where the saids Ministers are confined that no Person pretend ignorance In the Proclamation-emitted in the preceeding year 1676. the Council said in plaine termes that they granted the Indulgence upon condition that the Indulged should observe the Instructions given and here in this Proclamation they say that the Indulged did accept of the Indulgence granted to them upon these termes whereby we see that it was a full and formal compact the Indulgence was both granted Accepted upon the termes specified What can now be said for vindication of these accepters I cannoâ— imagine If they should say That all this is but the deed of the Council with which they are not concerned Yet it is certaine that every one is Master of his own favours and may dispense them on what termes he pleaseth and when the termes are known upon which such favours are granted and the favours formerly accepted are held though the conditions should seem hard yet the favour is embraced cum hoc onere any after signification of a dissatisfaction cannot but be unseasonable and insignificant It would now have been thought if the Indulged had not been satisfied with the termes after such publick Intimations were made unto the whole Nation both of the grant of the favours and of their acceptance upon these termes they would have signified their dissatisfaction with the bargain and rejected the favour of the Indulgence which they could have upon none but sinful termes especially now when their silence and continuing in the
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