Relation of the Sufferings of Ministers in Scotland Since 1660, Section 9
SECTION IX.
The reasons why Ministers refuised to seek presentations & collations, cleared & defended.
THus the Lord was pleased to keep his servants out of this snare, which the prelats had caused plet for their consciences; but there are others & stronger following. The Parl. in their second session An. 1662, made an act ordaineing, all Ministers who had entered to the cure of any parish within brugh or land in or since the year of God 1649. to have no right unto, nor uplist the rents of their respective benefices, modified stipends, manse or gleib for this instant year 1662. nor for any year following, unlesse they should obtaine a presentation from the lawful patro… and have collation from the Bishop of the dioecy where he liveth before the 20 of Sepr. next. for understanding of this, It would be considered. That before the year 1649. the Church was groaning under that sore oppression of laick patrons, having power to presente Ministers unto benefices; and then the Parliament was pleased to discharge all presentations of Kirks & patronages whether belonging to the King, or to any laick patron, upon good & weighty grounds as the narrative of their 39 act March 9. 1649. sheweth in these words [The Estates of parliament being sensible of the great obligation, that lyeth upon them, by the nationall Covenant, & by the solemne league & covenant, & by many deliverances & mercies from God, & by the late solemne engadgment unto ties. To preserve the doctrine and maintaine and vindicate the liberties of the Kirk of Scotland, and to advance the work of reformation therein to the utmost of their power: & considering that patronages and presentations of Kirks, is an evill and bondage under which the Lords people, and Ministers of this land, have long groaned, and that it hath no warrand in God's word, but is founded only on the commonlaw, and is a custome popish, and brought into the Kirk in time of ignorance and superstition, and that the same is contrary to the second book of discipline; in which upon solide and good ground, it is reckoned among abuses that are desired to be reformed, and unto severall acts of the generall assembly: and that it is prejudiciall to the liberty of the people, and planting of Kirks, and unto the free calling and entering of Ministers unto their charge.] And after this Ministers entered by the call of the people of whom they were to have charge. Now this Parliament will have this piece of reformation undone, & the Church brought back unto her old state of bondage, & so will have Ministers to seek for these presentations, & thereafter, to go to the Bishop for his license & approbation to officiat & exerce the Ministeriall function.
But the faithfull & zealous servants of Christ had not freedome nor liberty to do either of these, & therefore resolved to suffer, rather then to sin.
They had not freedome to go to seek a presentation, for these reasons.
1. Because, they saw no warrand for such a way of entering into the Ministery allowed of Christ, or his apostles, nor practised many hundereds of years thereafter, and therefore toapprove of such a way had been a sin.
2. The Church had been long groaning under that oppression, & bondage, & was desireous to be rid thereof, at the very beginning, but could never obtaine it untill. An 1649 Now if they had obeyed this act. & submitted unto this oppression, they had consented unto the spoileing of the Church of her privileges, and had condemned that worthy & renowned Parliament, who were graciously moved of God, to take off this Yoke off her necke.
3. They should, in so far, have consented unto the defection now carryed on; for this was a piece thereof. The restoreing of the Church unto her rights & privileges, was a part of the work of reformation yea & no small part thereof, & when this privilege is taken away, the work of reformation is in so far overturned; & therefore such as would have sought presentations, should have made defection themselves, & have consented unto, & approved of the Parliament in carrying on the worke of defection, in so far.
4. By the 36 act of the first Session of this Parliament. It is ordained that the person to be presented shall in presence of the patron, or his atturney, and of the sheriffe of the shire. Stewart of the Stewartry, or heretable baily, or commissar of the bounds of it be in the countrey, and of the Magistrats of the brughs within the brugh before the granting, and their accepting of the presentation, Take and subscribe the oath of alleagiance otherwise his presentation is null and void of it self. Now as shall be showne hereafter, no man could with a saife conscience, take that oath as it was tendred by this Parliament.
5. They should have thereby condemned the manner of Elections by the people, & consequently themselves, as being hitherto intruders because entering into the Ministery, without a lawfull call, viz without the presentation of the patron.
But it will be objected. That all the ministers of Scotland who entered before the year 1649. should by this meanes, be condemned as intruders, entering without a lawfull call. Ans: Though patronages cannot but be condemned, as sinfull, tending to ruine the Church, & to defraude her of much advantage (beside the spoiling & robeing her of her privileges & liberties, which are purchased to her, by the blood of Christ) because, the patron (who sometime, may be a prophane person, & a persecuter) either hath not understanding, to discerne the spirits, or will not make choise of the best & most able minister: Yet such as entered that way, before the year 1649. cannot altogether be condemned, partly because then the evill of it, was not so fully seen & perceived; partly because that evill had not been reformed, & there was no other way of entry practised, o… practicable by law; & so though they might groan under that burden; yet they could no… get it helped; & so their fault was lesse then the fault of such would be, who have now seen this evill reformed & have seen (or at least might have seen) the evill of it, & have been called orderly & duely conforme to the way of Election set down in the new testament, for imitation; how great should the guilt of such be, if they should now againe lick up that vo…ite, & submit unto that yoke? More may be said, for the justifying of those who submit unto a yoke, under which they were borne, & from which neither they, nor their forefathers were delivered, then of those who have been delivered & yet consent againe to goe under the yoke, & thereby do, betray the precious interests of Christ's Church, & with the rown hands, wreeth that yoke about the neck of the Church under which she had been groaning many a year before.
It will be objected againe. That they have already the consent of the people, being called by them before; & so the Churches liberties are preserved, & their entry is valid enough. Ans. It is true, they have had the call of the people; but that will not make their complyance with this course of defection, the lesse sinfull; but rather the more; for by their taking presentations now, they do upon the matter declare that they were not duely called before; and so they condemne the way of entry by election, as not lawfull, & say that the way of entry by presentations from patrons, is the only lawfull way: for the patrons presentation is not cumulative unto, but privative & destructive of the peoples liberty of free election; because where patrons do presente, the peoples suffrages are never asked; & where people have power to elect, patrons have no place to present: so that the one destroyeth the other; & therefore if any who have been called by the people & freely chosen should now take presentations, it would import that in their judgment, they were never duely called till now, & this were to annull their former election which they had from the people.
Next (which was to them of greater moment) they could not with freedome of conscience, goe to the prelate & seek collation, for these reasone….
1. Because there is no war…and in all the word of God for any such thing, no command for it, no precedent, or example of it, & Christian Ministers must walke by the …ule of the word: now the scripture sheweth no difference betwixt a call & a mission, but both are one Rom. 1: 1. Luk. 6: 13. Act. 15: 25. & their ministry being a work, 1 Thes. 5: 12, 13. 1 Tim. 5: 17. 1 Cor. 3: 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. 2 C…r. 6: 1. & they called workmen, Mat. 9: 37, 38. stewards, 1 Cor. 4: 1. Wachmen, Ezek. 3: 2. Isa. 52: 8. Shep…erds, Ephes. 4: 11. Overs…ers & the like, …. 1: 5, 7. Act. 20: 28. Heb. 13: 17. Act. 15: 22. their very c…ll conferreth the power & layeth an expresse obligation on them to performe the work, otherwise by their call & ordination they should only receive a disposition for the work. See much more to this purpose in Voetij desperata causa papatus against jansen: the papist lib. 2. Sect. 2. Cap. 17.
2. By this meanes, they should have condemned themselves, as not being lawfull ministers before, or at least not such ministers, as might lawfully exerce the office of a minister.
3. They should in effect, have annulled the ordination which they had by the imposition of the hands of the presbytery; because by their deed they should have said, that not withstanding of that ordination, they had no power, to exercise the office. & thus,
4. They should have mocked this ordinance of Iesu… Christ, of solemne setting apart one for the work of the ministry, by saying in effect that it is but a meer blinde; for notwithstanding that one be solemnely ordained by the presbytery, according to the primitive paterne; yet the persone ordained must have his recourse unto another, in a superiour order, for liberty to put in exercise what he hath gotten in potentia or in Actu signato, the like whereof cannot be showne in all the scriptures: where read we that ever any who was ordained by a presbytery, might not exerce the office without a new license from some other? to what end serveth ordination if it be not for seting of one apart for the work? That office or power is a cyphre & altogether uselesse which cannot be exercised, & is not like an office or power granted by Iesus Christ.
5. By this meanes, they should fully acknowlege the power & authority of prelates over presbyters, & so subscribe unto their jurisdiction & acknowledge them to be lawfull officers of Christ's house, & upon that account, submit unto them, which were poynt blancke co…ary to their vow & Covenant.
It is objected against this by the author of the seasonable case pag. 15. That thereverend persones instructed by law, to call for that promise from ministers, do not search into mens apprehensions concerning the grounds of their power: all they seek of them, is obedience to them, in things lawfull and honest, as being presently in power, being by law ordinary overseers of the ministry in their duties, and chief ordainers of them who enter into the ministery, Ans. There is enough here to deterre any from this bussinesse for. 1. There is no warrand in the word to owne them as chief ordainers; there are no chief & inferiour ordainers mentioned in the word; this then must be a fiction & a humane invention, which no minister must acknowledge; for all must goe to the law, & to the testimony 2. nor is there any such power known to appertain to any man, to be an overseer of the ministry. It is true the spirit of the prophets is subject to the prophets; but there is no warrand for a Bishop over Bishops, or for such an officer as is to oversee the ministers: No officers must be owned in Christ's house but such as are of Christ's own appoyntment. 3. And any other law cannot be owned in those matters. Though the law of the land should give to any such a power, subjects are not for that, obliged to acknowledge & approve of them, as such: The municipall lawes of a land will not warrand any new office or officer in Christ's house. It appertaineth alone to Christ as King & head of his owne house & Church to institute his officers: And it is a fearfull incroaching upon the privileges of the crowne of Christ, for any state or potentate to take upon them to appoynt such offices & officers, as Christ hath not appoynted. Therefore whether those persones (reverend or irreverend all is one) that are so intrusted by law, to call for such promises & engadgments, do search into mens apprehensions, concerning the grounds of their power, or not; yet the very promiseing of obedience in things lawfull (for in things unlawfull, obedience must not be promised to any lawfull power under heaven) is an acknowledgment of the lawfulnesse of their power, & of subjection as due unto them, & an owneing of them as lawfull officers, lawfully installed & authorized, & because this could not be done, therefore neither could the other be done.
He replyeth. 1. It is not obedience under a reduplication, and as formally obedience, they call for, If it be obedience materiall they are satisfied Ans. And what more doth the most lawfull power under heaven ask do they search into the principles of mens doing such & such acts? do they examine the reduplications under which they act? But. 2. Whether they call for it under that reduplication or not, It is reall obedience they call for, and. 3. The promiseing of obedience, under whatsoever reduplication hath in its bosome, an acknowledging of the lawfulnesse of the authority calling for such obedience.
He replyeth. 2. Suppose it were so, that obedience as formally obedience were required; yet it were hard to say, it could not be promised, or that it could not be acknowledged that they have any la…full authority, for looking upon them as the Kings Maj. commissioners in causes ecclesiasticke, for regulating the externall order of the Church in their severall bounds, and impowered by the law of the land, so to do, the strickest presbyterians will not finde ground to disowne their office in that consideration Ans. Then. 1. Prelats are nothing else but the Magistrats commissioners, & have no power or authority jure divino by any warrant of Gods law, more then any other of the Magistrat's commissioners. 2. whence had the prelats, in the first three hundered yeers (if so be there was any such, as this author is bold enough to affirme but faileth in his undertaking to prove it) their commission? had they it from Nero, & the rest of the persecuting heathenish Emperours? and if they had no commission from them, whence had they their power? or by what commission did they act? or how could they be Bishops without such a commission? How will this advocat extricate himself out of these difficulties & evite a contradiction? But. 3. If they be the Magistrat's commissioners in causes ecclesiasticke their power must reach no further then the Magistrats power doth, in Church causes, viz the foreign or his externall order. If he streach it no surder. How then cometh it to passe that they meddle with more then what concerneth the foreign or will h… say that all the causes which prelats as prelats meddle with, are but such ecclesiasticke causes As are for the regulating the externall order of the Church? Then he must say that their chief power in ordination, their chief (if not, only) power in jurisdiction, floweth from the Magistrat, & by vertue of his commission they act in that sphaere & capacity: and if he say so he speaketh plainely, but without any ground in the word: for then Magistrats might ordaine alone, at least have a chief hand in ordaineing with others; for what they may commissionate others to do in their name, they may do themselves: But how or what way shall we see this proved? Where will he shew any example of any Magistrat, as such, ordaineing or deposeing Ministers, censureing or excommunicating Offenders, since the World began? What a wilde notion must this be then? And if this be the Basis which is so rotten let any judge what the superstructure must be. It were tedious here to lanch forth, into this debate concerning the Magistrats power in Church matters: But sure, it was never the doctrine of the Church of Scotland, no… of any reformed Church, that what power the Prelats challenge to themselves as such, did primarily belong unto, & reside in the hand of the civill Magistrat, & might be derived by commission from him, unto them: And this must be granted as a truth, if it be once said that prelats Act in Church matters, by vertue of a commission from the supreme Magistrat: for a commission is distinct from a command, the supreme Magistrat may command ministers to preach & baptize & do what himself cannot do, & for the doing whereof ministers borrow no power from him: but he cannot propperly give them any commission for that effect: The giving of a commission importeth the conveyance of a power, for effectuating that which is to be done by the commissioner, and that the person granting the commission might himself do that which he commissionateth others to do. See this consequence fully cleared by famous Voctius Polit: Eccles. pag. 146. arg. 12. But now if there were no more to hinder any from acknowledging such a power in the prelats this is sufficient, that it is granted they have all that power over presbyters by being his Maj. commissioners, & that they have all that power derived from him; & consequently, that they have no such power at all: because he from whom they derive that power by a commission hath no such power himself: The confession of faith of the Church of Scotland acknowledgeth no such power in the civill Magistrat. The scripture…, by which all are to regulat their actions in the Church of God, giveth warrand for no such power. No reformed divine (except Arminians & Erastians) doth acknowledge any such power; nor any confession of faith of any of the reformed Churches. Behold then Reader & see what monsters the Prelats are, swollen up to that bignesse, with mere winde & phancies; & observe by what art they ascend, They make the supreme Magistrat beleeve that all the power belongeth unto him to the end, he may devolve it back againe over on them by a commission, & so authorize them: according to that. Tu facis hunc dominum te facit ille deum. Thus you see they derive their power a non-habente potestatem. from such as have it not to give: therefore their commission is simpliciter null, & cannot be acknowledged by any faithfull minister or Christian: Nor can their power be submitted unto. And hence also it is clear what reason these honest Ministers had to refuise, this acknowlegment, & not to take the canonicall oath: which was so contradictory unto the oath of the Covenant.
But he replyeth [That there is no contradiction betwixt the covenant and that canonicall oath, or promise of obedience to the prelate because Timorcus (who is tender in the matter of oaths) maintaineth that the ministers who of old took the canonical oath, did not swear the contradictory there to when they took the covenant wh…nce it will follow necessaryly, that they who have taken the Covenant do not contradict that oath, if they should take the oath of canonical obedience] Ans. Though this canonicall oath should not contradict the second article of the league & Covenant, yet there is good cause why it should be refuised, as hath been showne, and furder what warrand is there for any to require such an oath? Oaths must be warranted by the law of God, & there must be a law for imposeing, & so for taking of the oath. It is true Magistrats may impose an oath upon their subjects, & so upon ministers, as well as others, in things not sinfull; & when necessity calleth for it; but that the Magistrat may give unto any of his subjects such a power as he hath not himself, & impower that subject to impose an oath upon others, to acknowledge him to be lawfully so impowered, & to obey him as one lawfully so impowered, will not be so easily granted without proof, which will not be seen in haste, it being so contrary to the word of God. But 2. The taking of this oath, & promiseing obedience unto them, is poynt blancke contrary unto the league & Covenant, sworne & subscribed. And that because by the covenant they are sworne to endeavour, in their places & callings the extirpation of such Church officers as Bishops & Archbishops, & this is inconsistent with any owneing or acknowledging of them, under that notion; and if any should promise obedience to them as Archbishops, or Bishops is it imaginable how that withall they should not owne & acknowledge them? what more owneing & acknowledging can they desire, then submission & a promise of obedience in all things lawfull. 2. And he hath a phancy (I shall not say a judgment) strongly prepossessed with prejudice at truth, who can say, with this author that [it will be hard to finde out a contradiction there, either in termes or by necessarie consequence] for a stronger contradiction is hardly imaginable then betwixt an edeavour to extirpat such or such governours; and a humble submission unto, & acknowledgment of their power, with a promise of faithfull obedience there unto: for he who is bound to endeavour to extirpat them, must never owne them as lawfull officers lawfully impowered, he must never submit unto them nor promise obedience unto them; for a promise of obedience, is a promise of owneing of them, as lawfull officers. & so a promise of defending them in their place & power, in a lawfull manner: and this is diametrically opposite unto an endeavour to extirpat them. 3. As for Timorcus whom he looketh on as favouring his conceite, it will be found after try all, that notwithstanding of that which he granteth, yet he is of an opinion contrary to this author, as any may see, who will take a vieu of his answer unto that part of the objection (which he is about to answere in cap. 7.) which concerneth the oath of canonicall obedience. The objection is this. The league & covenant is contradictory to other oaths sworne before, such as the oath of canonicall obedience, & therefore is void ipso facto. To which he answereth. 1. Thus suppose (& his supposall is an assertion if he speak to the poynt) That upon mature deliberation the Ministers that subscribed that oath, finde that it was an unlawfull oath, as obliging them to the acknowledgment of such a power in the Church, as is by no meanes allowed, in the word of God, they are in such a case onelyonly obliged to be humbled for their rash subscription, & taking of that oath, & their second oath will hold valid against them] this is his first answer: And. 2. He sayeth [suppose that the oath of canonicall obedience, was imposed without authority of Parliament & the Parliament, as soon, as they took notice of it, declared their dissent to it, & to all oathes imposed without their authority, certanely this should goe farrwith them who make the like plea against us, as to the obligation of the covenant.] This is his next answer, by which you may see; he looketh upon that oath of canonicall obedience, as peccant both in matter & forme, & that therefore it hath no force to annull the oath of the covenant, which were to no purpose if he looked not on that oath, as contradictory to the covenant. But then 3 he answereth [We will for once suppose the oath materially good & lawfull, as to the efficient cause, yet certainly the oath is irritated & made void by the Parliaments taking away of the matter thereof] Here he giveth, but granteth not, that the oath of canonicall obedience was lawfull, & yet he asserteth that notwithstanding thereof, the covenant might have been sworne & stood to, because the former oath was null, so soon ever as the matter of it was taken away by authority, & that sayeth that the matter of that oath standing viz prelay, & prelats not taken away by authority, the swearing of obedience unto them is inconsistent with swearing to endeavour to extirpate them. It is true he addeth these words. Nor do we understand how any person, by … promise or oath to be obedient in things lawfull & honest, to this or that governement, doth oblige himself whatever evill he seeth in such a governour, either through want of just title, or male administration of his trust never to endeavour to free himself from that servitude. But thence it vvill not necessarily follow, that they who have sworne the covenant should not contradict the same if they shou'd now take the oath of canonicall obedience. Because, the oath to endeavour to extirpat, includeth a not giving obedience unto them, as a generall includeth a particular, so that he who hath sworne to endeavour their extirpation, hath sworne withall never to obey them as lawfull governours: And so there is a contradiction betwixt the canonicall oath, & the covenant. The Covenant bindeth up such as have taken it, from the canonicall oath, though the canonicall oath could not binde up their hands from the covenant, partly because it was sinfull upon the matter, & unlawfull as to the power imposeing: & partly because though it had been lawfull both as to matter & efficient cause yet the matter being taken away, the act about that object did cease. So sayeth Timorcus. But whether it be so, or otherwise, it is all one now to the purpose in hand; for the covenant being now taken, any such oath which had been un lawfull before becometh much more un lawfull now; & carryeth a contradiction to the covenant in its front.
Thus thou seest what cause the precious & worthy servants of Christ had to refuise obedience unto that act what ever suffering might follow thereupon, & indeed sore were the sufferings which did follow, for on the first of Octob. there is an act of councell at Glasgow, prohibiting & dischargeing all these ministers who had contraveened the foresaid act of parliament to exerce any part of the function of the ministery at their respective churches in time comeing, which are hereby declared to be vacand, and that none of their parishoners, who are lyable in any part of their stipends make payment to them of this instant crop & year 1662. or in time comeing, as having no right thereto, and that they do not acknowledge them for their lawfull pastours in repaireing to their sermones, under the paine of being punished as frequenters of private conventicles & meetings; & commanding & chargeing the saids Ministers to remove themselves, & their families out of their parishes betuixt & the first day of Novemb. thereafter, & not to reside within the bounds of their respective presbyteries] This was very sad, threatening no lesse then ruine to Ministers and their poor families, to be put from their houses in the middest of winter; to seek new places of abode not having the small stipend which was due to them, allowed, for to transport their families with all, or to provide themselves in necessaries. But yet they resolved to cast themselves on Gods providence, trusting in his word accounting it better to suffer affliction with the people of God, & to enjoy peace of conscience; then to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season; and accordingly did remove themselves: By which meanes there were some hundereds of parishes left destitute & the shepherds were scattered up & down the land, seeking a sheltering place for themselves. It was a sad & lamentable sight to see the sad farewell betwixt the loving pastor & his beloved floke, & the teares, the cryes, and the bitter groanes that were there: Now were the breasts pulled from the mouthes of the young infants, the table was drawne, & the people were made to wander up & downe the mountaines seeking the word of the Lord, & could not finde it, they had silent Sabbaths & empty pulpites, some countrey sides were hereby laid utterly desolate: And what could these faithfull Ministers do in this case, but sigh, & groan to God seeing they could not in conscience yeeld obedience unto these commands: & therefore they resolved to be subject for conscience sake, and to submit unto the punishment of banishment out of the bounds of the presbytery where they lived (which was afterward made more sad, for they were commanded to remove Twenty miles from their own parish Church, Six miles from a a cathedrall, & three or foure miles from a brugh) Now judge o reader whether this cruelty would not have more beseemed Turks, & how little cause there was for all this severity & rigour to Ministers, who had been endeavouring with some measure of faithfulnesse On their part, & fruitfulnesse through the Lor'ds blessing on their labours, to enlarge the Kingdome of Iesus Christ, & to build up poor souls in their most holy faith, because they would not give obedience unto such Acts as were but snares for the conscience; & to which, obedience could not be yeelded, without sin.