Relation of the Sufferings of Ministers in Scotland Since 1660, Section 8
SECTION VIII.
The grounds why Ministers did resuise to goe to the Prelats Courts, cleared.
A Little after his Maj. returne he was pleased to write unto the Presbytery of Edinburgh, (who were to communicat it unto the rest of Presbyteries of the Kingdom) a gracious letter, (as it was called) wherin he promised to owne & to countenance the government of the Church as it was established by law, wherby many took him to meane Presbyterian government; But others feared a designe to overturne Presbyterian government & to introduce Prelacy (as afterward it came to passe) & when the Parliament did rescinde all acts, & statutes made in favours of Presbyterian government & did devolve the power of setling the government of the Church upon his Maj. they did by their, Act. 16. allow the present administration by Sessions, Presbyteries, & Synods for a time. But at length Mr IamesSharpe (a man who had formerly been intrusted by severall of the Ministry & confided in, as one who would prove most faithfull unto the Presbyterian interest but now had betrayed his most intimat brethren, & laid down a course for overturning his mother Church & therby declared that he was a most unnaturall childe of that Church) & other three Ministers with him went up to London w… first being made & ordained Deacons, & after that Presbyters, they are consecrated Bishops, upon the—day of—1661. & with all there is a proclamation from his Maj. of the date at Whitehall the 6 of September, Anno 1661. declareing, His Royall pleasure to be for restoreing of the government the Church by Archbishops & Bishops as it was exercised in the year 1637. & that he had nominated & presented persones to the severall Bishopricks of the Kingdome of Scotland of whom some have been lately consecrated & invested with the same dignities, Church power & authority which was formely competent to the Archbishops and Bishops in the Reignes of his Royall grand Father and Father of blessed memory, and that the allowance of Presbyteriall government is now of itself void and expired, as being only for a time, &c. And so the jurisdiction and exercise of Church government should be ordered in there spective Synods Presbyteries and Sessions by the appointment & authority of the Archbishops and Bishops according to their privilege & practice. In obedience to which proclamation. The Privy Councell, Ian. 9. 1662. did make publick intimation thereof & discharge all ecclesiasticall meetings in Synods presbyteries & sessions, untill they be authorized & ordered by the Archbishops & Bishops upon their entry unto the government of their respective seas which is to be done speedily. Wherupon at the time of the meeting of the provinciall Synods, noblemen & others were sent to raise them by force.
But therafter when these foure returne from London, & consecrat the rest, there were acts made in the second, session of Parliament viz. Anno 1662. redintegrating them to the exercise of their episcopall function, & to all their privileges, dignities, jurisdictions, & possessions due & formerly belonging thereunto: as also there is an act ordaincing all ministers to repaire unto the diocesian assembly & concur in all the acts of Church discipline as they should be therunto required by the Archbishops, or Bishop of the diocese, under the paine of being suspended from their office & benifice till the next diocesian meeting, for the first fault, & if they amended not, to be deprived, & the Church to be declared vacand. But notwithstanding of this act, all such ministers as resolved to keep a good conscience, did forbear to goe unto these meetings, or unto the other meetings, which they call exercises, in which meetings, the prelate, & such as he named, did not only preside, but ruled as they pleased; Not only because the privileges of the judicatories were encroached upon, & wronged by the Prelate, presideing at his own hand, without the consent of the rest, contrary to the constant practice of that Church, & because a constituent member of these judicatures viz the ruleing elder was excluded, contrare to the principles of presbyterian government, the practice of that Church from the begining, the practice of all other reformed churches, & of the primitive Church, & contrary to the judgment of many eminent divines both there, and abroad, who have clearly made it to appear out of the scriptures that Christ hath instituted such officers. (and these should have more weight, then those three mentioned by the author of the Seasonable case pag. 11. as of another judgment.) But also because these meetings now differ from the meetings & judicatories which the Church had before, not only in name (they being now called do…sian meetings, & not Synods & Presbiteries) but also in thing. The former judicatories are razed, & overturned, & these new meetings are erected upon a new Basis the Kings power & perogative to setle what forme of Church government he thinketh best; & they are now authorized & ordered by the prelates: & so they are pieces & partes of the prelaticall government, & therefore they are distinct from what they were before: So that no minister that made conscience of his covenant & vow for presbyterian goverment & against prelaticall could with peace & freedome, keep or countenance these meetings.
It is replyed by the prelates procurator, the new casuist in his pamphlet called the seasonable case etc. pag. 12. That the meetings now & before are of the same constitution, nothing altered, nor any more holding of Bishops now when the Kings Maj. hath taken off the restraint which for a time, he putt on, then if he had not at all restrained them. But this is no satisfactory answere his meet deny all will not availe much with indifferent men of understanding, for the difference is clear: because 1. formerly, Church judicatories had power within themselves to nominat, & appoynt their own moderator, now it is not so 2. Formerly, Church judicatories, & Church power, did flow from the Lord Iesus Christ immediatly, as being the only head of his Church, now they flow from another fountaine: viz the King as the fountaine of all Church power, & therefore is the goverment called his majesties governement ecclesiasticall in the Act of councell Iuly 10. 1663. & the prelats in the discharge of their office are said to do service to his Maj. in the Church in the act of councell Ian. 9. 1662. 3. Formerly, Church judicatories did meddle with every scandal, now they must meddle with no more then the prelat pleaseth. 4. Formerly, presbyters had power to voyce & to determine by their decisive suffrage, now they are but the prelates counsellours, of whose counsell & advice he maketh what use he thinketh fitt. 5. Formerly, there was none in those judicatories who had a negative voyce, now the Bishop hath it, & the rest are but cyphres. 6. Formerly, in these judicatories ther were ruleing elders: but now that constituent member is not admitted, which particular alone will sufficiently evidence that the face & frame of the judicature is altered. And since it is so; any man of understanding may easily perceive, such a difference as maketh those meetings now to depend upon the King: & upon the prelat, who hath a negative voice in them, & whose dioecesian meetings they are, being now modelled conforme to the number of prelats, whileas before in some dioecies there were three provinciall Synods. Moreover the passage which was cited before out of the Proclamation, Ian. 15. 1662. cleareth this aboundantly; for there it is said expresly, that the administration of the Church in the way it had been, (that is the administration of presbyterian goverment) is inconsistent with that which is now established, or Episcopall goverment; and the councell is better to be beleeved then this man who speaketh without ground. againe why did King & Councell discharge those meetings, but because they were making way for the setling of Episcopacie? and finally why is the jurisdiction and exercise of Church discipline, which was allowed for a time, set in opposition, [to the jurisdiction & exercise of Church Goverment ordered in the respective synods, presbyteries & sessions, by the appoyntment & authority of the Archbishops, & Bishops thereof, according to their known privilege & practice conforme therto.] If not to clear this difference.
He objecteth pag. 8. & sayeth [That the supreme Magistrat hath undowbted power to convocat synods, when he seeth it needfull—& no protestant minister would refuise to come, at his comand; nor is there any ranke or degree of subjects, that can without the staine of sinfull disobedience, refuise to meet upon his Maj. command, and ministers cannot plead exemption from the common duties of subjects] It is answered. 1. It is true ministers are subjects no lesse then others; & are obliged in conscience to subject themselves Unto the civill Magistrat, in the Lord, no lesse then others; But. 2. Neither ministers nor others are bound at the Magistrat's command to sin against God, it being alwayes better to obey God then man & here in obeying this command, Ministers, should have hainonsly sinned against God, for. 1. They should have therby acknowledged, upon the matter, that the Magistrats power, in Church matters, is such, as that, he may appoynt what forme of Goverment he will, which no presbyterian, in conscience, could yeeld to, without wronging of Christ, the head & King of his Church; as shall in due time be made furder to appear. 2. They should have therby testified, & acknouledged their approbation of Episcopall Goverment, contrary to their oath & subscription, for this was pressed as a badge of conformitie, & signe of subjection unto Episcopall Goverment; as the Proclamation of the Privie Councell before mentioned doth abundantly clear, & these meetings are meer episcopall meetings as is showne. 3. Ans…as to the ground of the objection viz. That the Magistrat hath power to convocate synods; It would require a longer time then can be now allowed to discusse the same, & to try, how, & in what cases, it willhold good. But this is certane that the judgment of the Church of Scotland as to this particular, as may be seen in the Act of Assembly Anno 1647. approving the confession of faith, & prefixed therunto) is that in Churches constituted (such as the Church of Scotland was) the Magistrats authority is not sufficient to call a Synod without any other call, that is, without delegation from their Churches, & that … is free, to Ministers, to Assemble together synodically as well, prorenata, as at the ordinary times, upon delegaetion from the Churches by their intrinsecall power received from Christ, as often as it is necessary, in case the Magistrat deny his consent] But be it granted (as in some cases it may.) Yet it will not follow that therefore Ministers were bound in conscience to have countenanced those meetings; and that for these reasons▪ 1. Because, these were no extraordinary Synods called by his Maj. prore nata. Nor. 2. Were they any of the former Synods, used while presbyterian Goverment was in force. But. 3. They were new meetings, upon new principles, having their rise from a new spring, & fountaine, & constituted otherwise in a new forme, and so, they were no meetings consonant unto the principles of presbyterian Goverment, but wholly dissonant, & meetings complying with, & flowing from, Episcopall power & jurisdiction, & ordered by prelaticall authority & appoyntment. 3. Countenanceing of these meetings, upon the matter, would have been an assenting & consenting unto, the pulling down of presbyterian Governement, which they were sworne to maintaine. 4. Yea it would have been a fearful matter of offence & stumbling unto the godly & truely tender; & a hardening of others, who had complyed; & withall a dangerous casting of themselves into temptation, as experience doth abundantly prove dayly: and therefore this comand could not be obeyed; for no command of a Magistrat can warrand any to sin, by doing that which is, in it self, sinfull yea or what is a reall ground of offence unto others (provideing the matter be not absolutely necessary, antecedently, unto the command of the Magistrat.)
But he addeth [Is this rationall that where two commands of the Magistrat are joyned, the one undowbtedly lawfull, the other dowbted of; that subjects should disobey the Magistrat in that which is clearly lawfull, because …ey have a dowbt or unclearnesse anent obeying him in the other command—had they come to the place it would protanto have shewed their respect unto authority] Ans. It is a great question if this man speake rationally here: doth he thinke that the civill Magistrat did intend two commands in that one? he may as well say that he did intend twenty: will he so metaphisically anatomize the commands of councells & Parliaments, as to render them ridiculous? would he have had ministers sporting & jesting in such a serious matter, with the supreme Magistrat? if the Ministers had come't to towne & seen what of the cloke it was, & then returned home, would this casuist have cleared them either protanto or prototo. Nay, he would without all doubt, have exaggerated that crime, as the height of contempt, & as an open preaching & proclameing of their contempt unto the world. But in such a sad declineing time the faithfull ministers of Christ had some other thing to think upon, then thus to sport themselves, & mocke authority by halveing orquartering the commands and injunctions thereof, & therefore would neither get on horse backe, nor come half the way, not to the place appoynted, because they might not in conscience concurr with the prelat there, in that dioecesian meeting, which was the onelyonly thing commanded, & their coming to the towne, was no more commanded, (save as subservient thereunto) then their riseing out of their Bed that morning, or their taking horse, &c.
In the 3 place he addeth [What ground could they have for separation, from the Synod? is it the want of liberty to choose a moderator or is it that he who presideth is a Bishop, and claimeth more power then they can allow-as of a negative voyce; or is it the want of unpreaching elders in the meeting?] It is Ans; Neither any of these alone, nor all of them together, are the full and compleat ground; but this. That it is a meeting called together by the civill Magistrat, assumeing to himself, power to cast downe the established government of the Church, & the primitive governement, & to settle what kinde of government he thinketh fit, as best complying with his own & his subjects humors, & who accordingly hath razed to the fundation presbyterian government, unto which, both he & all the lands were sworne: and is setting up prelatical government, against which he & all the lands have sworne, of which, these three particulars mentioned, are so many evidences: And that they are so, cannot be denyed; for. 1. Whatever truth be in this assertion. That ecclesiasticke judicatories have a divine warrand for chooseing their own moderator. This is clear & undenyable, that while presbyteriall governement was in its integrity & vigour, the assemblies of the Church nationall, provinciall & presbyteriall, had this privilege to elect their own moderator, & when ever prelats began to rise & get entrance in that Church, this incroachment among other shee did suffer at their hands, for they knew that Invasio perpetuae dictaturae would be via ad Imperium. Constant moderators would usher the way for domineering prelats (as was showne Sect. 1.) And therefore this is a clear evidence of the change of the government from presbyteriall to prelaticall. furder though that which Zepperus sayeth viz Presides ecclesiastici, &c. that is the moderators or presidents of the ancient councells were some time named by the emperour be true; yet it will be a mere non sequitur to conclude thence, as this author doth viz That it is lawfull for the Christian Magistrat, upon whom the externall ordering of all the judicatories in his dominions depends, to nominat out of a meeting of ministers, conveened by him, one of the number, to order the actions of the meeting, and by his authority to controle the unruly, not only as being a concludeing of a generall from a particular; but as being a putting into the conclusion, what is not in the premisses, & a mixing of heterogeneous things together. What he meaneth by this externall ordering of judicatories who can tell? unlesse it be all that power which ordinarily is exerced by a moderator; & will he say that the Magistrat ought to choose all the moderators? Hath the supreme Magistrat any more interest in those meetings, or hath he so much, as he hath in civill meetings? & doth he appoynt all the mouthes of these meetings? But have not Church judicatories within themselves, power for their own externall ordering? who then ordered the Synod at Ierusalem? Act. 15. To say the Magistrat was not then Christian & therefore it did not belong unto him, is enough to prove that it doth not belong to him as a Magistrat. But there is enough said to this here, which is but barely asserted by him without proof: And. 2. As to the next what ever be asserted concerning that which Mr Baxter & Mr Vines (as he reporteth of them) say, viz. [That for peace, presbyters may suspend the exercise of there just authority, and resolve to give to one person of their number a negative voice.] (though many moe divines with greater reason think, that seing God hath given them no power whereof they may denude themselves when they think fit, & suspend the exercise of at the node of any other, It cannot be lawfull for them to give that negative voice unto any) yet this is undenyable. that there never was any such thing claimed by, nor granted to any, all the time that that Church enjoyed presbyterian government & it is as undenyable, that so soon as prelates gote up, unto their chaires they challenged that negative voice to themselves, as their due, & took it whether presbyters would or not; & so have the prelats done to day; & therefore this concession of these eminent men were it never so true, as it is denyed by many, is nothing to the poynt; for by this one particular, it is as clear as the noonday that the government is altered from presbyterian to Episcopal, & therefore though it be true that the personall fault of another cannot be a good ground for brethrens withdrawing from their duty; yet when by their concurrence to consult alone (when by God's law they have equall authority with any that sitteth there) they shall consent unto that change of government, it becometh sin & not duty: for now all presbyterian government is overturned, they see prelats set up as before; so that if they concurre they cannot avoide sin. To say (as he doth a little before, pag. 8. (that it might be permitted to them if they intrested for it, to ease their consciences, by signifying their scruples, so be, they would do it with that inossensive modesty, humility and respect unto the supreme authority, & to the lawes of the land is to please the simple (that beleeve every thing) with a faire word, for it behoved to be done with such in-offensive modesty, & humility, as no body should either hear or know of it, otherwise, they might be sure it would be accounted disrespect unto the supreme authority, & to the lawes of the land & they might expect presently to be attached & processed. Lastly as to the 3 particular, whether the opinion of Mr Vines Mr Baxter & Blondell (if he speak truth) in denying the divine right of ruleing elders, be assented unto; or rather the contrary opinion, which is owned by so many Churches & professours, & particularly by the Church of Scotland, from the begining; yet this is clear that that Church had still such officers, so long as she was governed Communi consilio presbyteroruns: by presbyteries, & no sooner did prelats usurpe the place, but they shouldered these officers to the door: and therefore this is another palpable evidence that the nature of these meetings is changed, from presbyterian to Episcopall, so that to concurre, by meeting with the prelats at their dioecesian meetings, must be an approving of prelacy, & this cannot be done without perjurie.
But he objecteth pag. 12. Thus [Our worthy ancestours choosed rather to c…curie with such meetings then to desert them] Ans: The case then, & now differeth farr; for then these judicatories were standing when the prelats were brought in upon them, & Ministers were then bound to keep possession of their rights, so long as they could; & by meeting in the judicatories (there being no restraint laid upon them by law from speaking their minde freely & protesting as they saw occasion, as is now when such actings are declared treasonable & seditious) they were in a capacity to do something for vindicating of Church privileges at least for exonering their owne consciences; Yea & for curbing, in a great part, the prelats power: Whence it was that neither the Prelats, nor the Estate did ever command Ministers to attend those meetings, but rather wished, with all their heart, that they had forborne to come; but now presbyterian government is quite overturned, all presbyterian assemblies are discharged, under the highest paine; & after prelats are advanced, & never till then, there cometh forth a new order for new meetings upon new principles, meetings otherwise constituted then formerly; in a word, such meetings, as did but serve to approve of & confirme prelats in their place & power, & therefore all were commanded by the Estate to concur with the prelats in their meetings under a penalty. So that it is but a meer falshood, to say [that the meetings then & now are of the same constitution, nothing altered;] for, then they were hedges standing in the prelats way, though much weakened, by reason of the civill power opposeing; but now they are props to support & strengthen the hands of the prelats, as being wholly ruled & guided by them.
By what is said, it is hoped, that tender Christians will see that there was no small ground of scrupleing at these meeting & that they will be loth, rashly to condemne such, as feared to transgresse in the least, & resolved rather to suffer then to sin; seing it is now beyond controversie that their concurring in those meetings, had been upon the matter a consenting unto, & an approving of prelaticall government, upon which account alone, the faithfull servants of Christ did refuise to concurre.