The History of the Indulgence, Part 2 · Objections answered

The History of the Indulgence · Part 2 · Objections answered

p. 115Objections Answered.

HAving thus shown how sinful the accepting of this Indulgence was, upon many accounts, it remaineth, that we remove out of the way what we conceive can be said, in the defence thereof; to the end, we may give all Satisfaction possible.

Obj. 1. May not the Magistrate, for ends known to himself, discharge Ministers to preach, for a time; and thereafter permit them to preach? And seing the Business of the Indulgence was but of this Nature, why might it not be acquiesced unto? Answ. (1.) That the Indulgence was some far other thing, is manifest from what is said: And beside other Particulars, fully spoken to above, this one may manifest the disparity; That it is one thing to permit Ministers to exerce their Office without molestation; and it is a far other thing to Appoint and Order them, to take upon them such or such particular Charges; and to plant and transplant them, at their pleasure, and subject their Ministrie in its exercise unto themselves, by giving Injunctions, Rules and Prescriptions, to regulat them in the same. (2.) We heard above, how Mr Calderwood and Mr Rutherford did account even that discharge a degree of Suspension, which is a Church-Censure, and consequently is to be inflicted only by those, who have the power of the Keyes. (3.) Worthie and learned Trochreg, in his Commentary on the Epistle to the Ephesians Chap. 6: V. 20. Pag. (mihi) 1122. proveth solidly, that this Power of discharging Ministers the exercise of their Function, doth neither agree to Heathen Magistrats; nor yet unto Christian Magistrats, who, by their Christianity, have received no new Power or Right over Christs Servants and Messengers; nor may discharge them from delivering their Message; nor depose them, whom they could not ordaine; nor stop their mouth, whose mouth they p. 116…ould not open; nor silence them, whom they could not send-forth to preach. (4.) When the Magistrate silenceth, it must either be for a Civil, or for an Ecclesiastick Crime: If for a Civil Crime, he can only do this consequently and indirectly? as Salomon removed Abiathar from the Priesthood, by banishing and confineing him to Anathoth. But then (as Mr. Rutherfoord in his Due Right &c. Pag. 434. saith well) he no more removeth a Minister from his Ministrie, than a Master Fashioner, a Sailer, a Plower, a Souldier, a Father or an Husband, from their Work and Respective Imployments, when he causeth imprison, hang or behead them for some Crime; nor doth he at all remove him from the Ministrie directly, neither can he do it; for that is a Church-Censure, and the Keyes are not committed unto him. Nor can he do it for any Ecclesiastick Transgression, wherein he is no competent judge: Nay nor can he indirectly and consequentially, in this case, remove any Minister from the exercise of his Ministery, where the Church is settled in her Power, except only Causatively, by Commanding the Church-Judicatories to do their Work first; that is, first to iudge; for in prima Instantia, he may not do it: or Corroborativly, by backing the Sentence of the Church-Judicatory with his Civil Sanction and Authority.

Obj. 2. Though the Magistrate hath not Power to silence altogether, yet he hath Power to discharge the Publick Exercise of their Ministrie; and againe, when he thinketh fit, to grant that Liberty unto them. Ans. (1.) Though this were granted, it will not helpe, in the case of the Indulgence, wherein was some far other thing, than a meer grant of Freedome for the Publick Exercise of the Ministery, as is seen above. (2.) Illud tantum possumus, quod jure possumus: We can be said to have Power to do that only, which we have right to do. Now, I would enquire, how it can be proved, that the Magistrate hath Power granted of God, to discharge the Messengers of Christ the free and publick exercise of their Ministrie, Directly, Formally and Immediatly? (3.) The Practice of 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 p. 117and 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 Iosia… 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 wi…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 p. 118Church; 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 onelyonly tell the Ministers, that he commanded them to preach by vertue of his Supremacy. Ans. (1.) We do not condemne the accepting of the Indulgence, upon a meer supposal, that it floweth from the Supremacy, having seen and manifested, what a real relation it hath thereunto, and dependance thereupon. (2,) Nor is its being a native result and proper effect of that iniquous, and usurped Supremacy, the onelyonly ground whereupon we go, in condemning the acceptance thereof, there being many other Heads of arguments adduced against it, and such as prove it unlawful, as it was circumstantiat, though wholly abstracted from all Consideration of the Supremacy, yea and though granted and enjoined by a Church-Judicatory; and though the Magistrate, in granting of it had expresly said, that he did not grant it by vertue of the Supremacy. (3. Yet I shall say further, That the Command to preach simply, and without Limitations, Restrictions, or sinful Conditions, cannot properly be said to flow from, nor to have such a dependance upon that Usurped Supremacy, as this Indulgence hath: For, to command Ministers to do their duty, in preaching of the Gospel, according to the command of God, belongeth to the power, which God hath granted to the Magistrates; and so, natively floweth from his Office: But to set down Limitations, Restrictions and Conditions, regulating the exercise of the Ministrie, doth not so flow; and when …hey are such, as are opposite to the Rules of Christ, it must of necessity be by vertue of an Usurped and abused power: Whence it is apparent, that this Indulgence, containing such Limitations, Restrictions and Conditions, doth not, neither can natively flow from the Office of a Christian Magistrate, nor is an act of Lawful Magistratical Power; as all will confess, who are not taught in Erastus's school. Therefore, though in the case of simple preaching, the injunction ushered-in with an express mention of the Supremacy, as its ground and rise, would be but a ridiculous scar-crow; yet in this other case (which is the case of the Indulgence) it would be an open spreading of the net in the sight of the bird, & more than a sufficient warning for wise men to beware (4.) Though a Command to preach, according to the Rules of Christ; cannot be accounted p. 119to flow from this corrupt Supremacy, even though the Magistrate shall say so much, in plaine termes; Yet a command to preach in this place, and not in another place, and to preach so and so, according to such Limitations, Rules and Prescriptions, and according to no other (as it is in the case of the Indulgence) may be said to flow natively from the corrupt Supremacy, even though the Magistrate should say in express termes, that it did not; because it is done by an Usurped Power, viz. a power of judging Ministers Qualifications, of Ministerially sending them, of Regulating them in the exercise thereof &c. All which belong properly to the power of Church-…udicatories; not to mention the spoiling of the people of their power of free Election. Therefore preaching, when simply commanded, cannot be condemned, even though the Magistrate should affirme, that the command is given by vertue of his Supremacy; when the accepting of the Indulgence cannot be justified, though in the granting of it no mention was made of the Supremacy; much less, if this were expresly prefixed. (5.) The visible ends of Magistrates giving forth of commands, which may be knowne by several Circumstances, may do much to cleare and determine Christians, to obey, or not obey, and so a command, materially the same, may in some cases be obeyed, in some cases not. So that, when the Magistrate, manifesting his Intention to root-out the Gospel, shall command all Ministers by vertue of an Usurped Supremacy, to preach the Gospel, the material command may be obeyed, and yet the Magistrate frustrate of his Intentions: But when he commandeth a few, and onelyonly a few, by vertue of his Supremacy, to preach here or there, as he pleaseth; and upon such and such termes, as he is pleased to prescribe, and under such and such Limitations and Restrictions, as he is pleased to enjoyn, to the manifest hurt and detriment of the Kingdom of Christ, he is to be disobeyed, and frustrated of his pernicious ends. Whence we see, how different the cases are. (6.) When the thing enjoined, and that expresly by vertue of the Supremacy, is not only Lawful, but Necessary by vertue of a command of God, as is the simple preaching of the Gospel; the prefixing of the express mention of the Supremacy cannot alter the Nature of the duty, nor be any ground of laying aside the duty so injoyned. But when the thing injoyned is not only not necessary, but, as circumstantiat, is not Expedient nor Lawful, then the expressing of the Supremacy, as the ground of the command, is to be noticed, and may ex super abundante deterre from Obedience: Now this is the case of the Indulgence, as is cleared above. (7.) If that supposed command of preaching the Gospel came forth to Ministers, already setled in their Ministrie, the mention of the Supremacie might be sufficiently delete, by a Protestation or Declaration of their preaching, and purposing to continue in preaching by vertue of Christ's Supremacy; & silence as to this, I judge, would be dangerous: But if this command were given to such, who had been by violence ejected, and put from their work, and detained therefrom, until they should thus acknowledge the unlawful Supremacy of the Magistrate, I suppose there might be ground here for a demurre.

Obj. 7. It seemeth then, you would not be for Ministers returning to their own Charges. if the Magistrat should grant such an Order or Permission? Ans. (1.) Either this Order or Permission would be granted with an expresse mentioning of the Supremacy, as its ground, or not: If the Supremacy be laid down as the ground, and nothing else in the circumstances be observable, to creat a scruple; I judge it p. 120necessary, that even in that case a plaine and positive Protestation against that Supremacy be given in, that it might appear, they would not so much as seem to homologate that sinful Usurpation. (2.) If no mention were made of the Supremacy, but only a simple permission granted to returne each to their own Charges; than this liberty would either be granted to all without exception of any, or onelyonly to some: If onelyonly to some, I must needs say, that as matters now stand, I should think it should not be accepted, even though freed of many other clogs; and that because, the wicked designe of further dividing the honest party, should hereby be made manifest and obvious, contrare to our Covenants; and hereby, though the Persons themselves should be freed of trouble, and the Particular Congregations might receive some advantage, if withal freed of the Curats; yet the publick good of the Church, which is preferable to any particular good, should be prejudged; & the Rulers should be also confirmed in their Usurpations & Encroachments; which by all meanes should be guarded against. (3.) If this liberty were granted to all, then it would either be granted with a confinement to these bounds, or without it; if the former were said, then the designe would be obvious, to stop the free course of the Gospel, and to prejudge other places of the Land of the benefite thereof; (for …hough all the outted Ministers, now on life, were restored to their former Charges, many places would remaine void of faithful Pastors) Now this should be guarded against, & that the more carefully at this time, when by Reason of the prevailing course of Apostasie, so great a part of the Land hath been drowned in Ignorance, and led away with a prejudice against the work of God: For every Minister of the Church of Scotland is bound before God, to do what in him lyeth to remedie this evil. If any should say, what can be more required of a Minister, at any time, than to be faithful in his particular station; seing he hath no oversight over the whole Church, and he is not to carry, as an Apostle. I Answere, Every Minister hath a p…ior relation to the Church universal, and a neer relation to the particular National Church, whereof he is a Member; and this Relation is antecedent to his relation to a particular flock, in order of Nature. And as in a Church well ordered and consti…uted, the edification of the whole requireth, that each Minister be particularly fixed, in the ordinary exercise of his Ministrie, to a particular Charge, with a capacitie to officiat elsewhere, as providence calleth: But in a time of general corruption, the edification of the whole body requireth, that Ministers (when few) be not restricted or limited to particular places, to the manifest and inevitable prejudice of the whole, or of the major part of the Church. Seing then providence hath n…w loosed these Ministers from the actual exercise of their Ministrie, in their respective paroches; I think they are called to consider, how and on what termes they b…come fixed againe; especially to see that their fixing be not to the undeniable prejudice of the Church National, and be not a virtual denying of their relation to the …. Further, by this confinement they should be out of all capacitie to meet together for the exercise of discipline in Presbyteries and Synods, conforme to our p…inciples; as also to ordaine a succeeding Ministery, and to provide for other vacan… places, which this time calleth for; as also they should be out of a capacity to help others at Communions, according to our laudable custome, and to preachto such as are under Soul murderers, and Traitours to Christ and his Interest, in this day of de…ection. (4) If it be without this Confinement, then it will either be p. 121with some one or other of the Prescriptions, Rules, Instructions, and Conditions, with which the present Indulgence is clogged; or not: If it be, then the same reasons that militat against the present Indulgence, upon that account, will equally militate against this. 5. If it should be free of all these entanglements and grounds of scrupling, I leave it to Christian prudence to consider; Whether, as matters now stand, the Lord be not rather calling them to preach his name on the mountaines, seeing this way hath been so signally blessed of the Lord, and is daily more countenanced of him, than their labouring in their respective Particular Charges usually hath been; and seing it is undeniable, that the Adversaries are not as yet really repenting of their opposition to the work of God; and therefore, that any such permission (if granted) could not be supposed to flow from any love to the Prosperous progress of the Gospel; but rather from the contrary, as is clear in the Indulgence already granted; and to flow from a purpose to entangle and ensnare, yea and endanger both Soul and Body; if not from a purpose, or designe to destroy all at once.

Obj. 8. The benefite of freedome and liberty of preaching the Gospel, is so great, and the duty is so lawful and necessary, and of so great import to souls, that many things may be warrantably comported with, in order to the obtaining of it. Ans. I willingly grant the lawfulness and necessity of this important duty of preaching the Gospel: But I see not the strength of this Argument; for the Gospel was never in bondes, except by our timorousness and sinful relinquishing of duty, because of a supposed Lion in the way. The Gospel might still have been preached, with no greater Inconvenience, than it was by the Apostles and others in the primitive times, and possibly with much more success, than it hath been done by the Indulgence. And every one may see, that the Indulgence was granted by such, as did not designe the Gospels advancement, but the imprisoning of the same rather with the preachers there of, both by confineing the Persons Indulged, and by hindering, so far as they could, the remarkable progress of the Gospel, in the blessed Assemblies, in Fields and Houses. This objection then can have no force, seing the Gospel was and might s…ill have been preached, without this Indulgence, though it is true, with less ease, peace, and quietness to the preachers and hearers; yet, I am sure, with more inward quietness of mind, and acceptance with God, and with more ground of hope of a rich blessing to follow their paines, as experience hath proven: Unless it be said, that the Gospel should not have been preached, without freedom and liberty granted by the Magistrat; and if this be said, not only shal all those, who have preached at Conventicles (as they are called) be condemned; but even Christ himself and his Apostles, who preached to few Assemblies, but such as might have been called Conventicles, shall be condemned also.

Obj. 9. The outed Ministers having hitherto groaned under Edicts, which they no otherwayes acknowledged, than by a submission purely passive, the present licence, abstracted from its offensive circumstances, is such a relaxation, that if onelyonly limited to its rigide measures by casual impossibility, it would not be rejected. Wherefore unless it be proven, that the use-making of this favour doth Homologate with these exorbitancies, the rest is nothing material. Ans. The outted Ministers groaning under, and no otherwayes acknowledging than by submission purely passive p. 122such Edicts, as respected their Persons and Estates firstly, and Principally, can say nothing for an active submission unto such Edicts, as more neerly relate to their Office and Function; or for acknowledgment of such Edicts, as are made and emitted by such, as act from a Principle of Usurpation, and in order to the strengthening of themselves in the same; seing the difference is vast betwixt an Active and a Passive Submission; and an acknowledgement herein, by an Active Submission, contributeth to the iniquous ends, proposed by the Supremacy, which is sufficiently confirmed by the Magistrat's projecting, in this offer made and accepted, his further Establishment in the Usurpation. (2.) Hence we see, that this Licence, (as it is called) if not abstracted from its offensive circumstances, will be granted to be such a Relaxation, that though limited to its rigide measures, even by a casual impossibility, could hardly be accepted: And though in our imaginations, we may abstract Actions from their offensive circumstances; yet in point of Practice of moral Actions, such abstractions cannot be made, as will salve Conscience; seing it is confessed, that the morality of Actions doth much depend upon circumstances. (3.) Though a licence so abstracted, and limited to its rigide measures by a casual impossibility, may be accepted: Yet, a licence, which cannot be abstracted from all its offensive circumstances, ought to be rejected. And though a Relaxation, made rigide by casual Impossibility, may be accepted; yet that will say nothing in our case, where no casual Impossibility, but a moral transgression, cometh in consideration. A casual impossibility is such a restraint, as may quiet the Conscience, if so be it be not caused or occasioned by our sin; but such hath no place here. (4.) How the accepting of the Indulgence doth homologate with these exorbitancies, hath been seen above.

Obj. 10. The Rulers did not assigne the Ministers to particular Charges by express Deputation, but only appointed them to repaire to the Paroches designed, permitting and allowing them there to preach and exerce the other functions of the Ministrie. Answ. We saw above, that by the Indulgence, there was an express Deputation, and a particular assignment, and a plaine warrant and licence granted. Hereby it would seem that none of these Indulged do look upon themselves, as proper Pastors of those places; and so can take no Pastoral Charge of them: And if so, they cannot be offended, if the People owne them not as Pastors, but go and hear others, according to conveniency, and look upon them, as such, as are allowed to preach by the Magistrate, without molestation; but not as having any Pastoral Charge over them; and yet forsooth they must enjoy the maintainance of a Lawful Pastor: Which things cannot well hang together.

Obj. 11. Though to yeeld to the Magistrat, onelyonly appointing as in the Act, would be a sinful compliance, in a setled enjoyment of our Liberty; yet after the ruineing overthrow, given to all Church her Liberties, the acceptance of something, in effect a Relaxation, however sinful upon the Granters Part; yet on our part not burdened with sinful Conditions, cannot be condemned; for the real Opposition of things and determination of events set the periods, according to which, that, which in the beginning of an evil Course, may be duty, in its prevailing and establishment, through change of circumstances, whereon its morality depends, may be impertinent. Answer (1.) Though I yeeld, that a change of events may, in some cases, call us to the use of other meanes, more effectual, as matters then stand, for gaining our point, or p. 123for keeping our Rights: Yet to assert in general, that the Determination of events setteth the periods to moral Duties, seemeth to me dangerous, especially in our case, wherein the contest is not for our own Rights, Privileges, or Advantages; but for the Prerogatives of our Masters Crown, and the just Privileges of our Mother, the Church, wherein we have no liberty to come and go, as in our own Particulars. (2.) It is then confessed, that the Rulers, by this Indulgence, have made an Encroachment upon the Liberties of the Church; and that to yeeld unto this appointment had been a sinful compliance formerly, when the Church was in possession of her Liberties, even though the Appointment had not been so burdened with sinful Conditions, as now: Hence we also see, that even this Usurpation is inconsistent with the Churches Liberty, and that it is no maintainance of this to yeeld to the Usurpation. (3.) Then it must be said, that all our former Engagements, to maintaine the Prerogatives of Christs Crown, and the Privileges of the Church, are now so far annulled, by the overthrow given to both by the Rulers, that we may freely comply with them in that, which formerly had been a betraying of all: This, I confess, would open a door to a large compliance. When a ruineing overthrow was given to our Civil Rights and Government, by an Invading Enemie, the very acceptance of what in effect might have been accounted a Relaxation, was by men accounted a treasonable Compliance, and accordingly punished, at the Kings return; and shal we carry thus in sublunary things, which are both alterable in themselves, and under mens Power; and yet be less Zealous and more Indifferent, in the Matters of Christ, which as Christians we are obliged to owne; and by the Supervenient Obligation of Vowes, Oaths and Covenants engaged to maintaine, as well against Erastians, as against Papists, Prelates and Malignants? (3.) This Assertion will condemne the Zeal of our Forefathers, as not being according to knowledge, nor morally good, according to the change of circumstances, and periods, set by the determination of Events. Yea if this be a fixed Rule, that such a change of circumstances will make it impertinent, yea and sinful for us to refuse to do that, which, while matters were entire, had been a sinful compliance; how much more will it make it impertinent and unlawful for us to endeavoure a change: For if it alloweth a compliance, which in so far confirmeth the Usurper, in his unjust Possession, after the ruineing overthrow given, it will certainely not allow of any Opposition. (4.) I grant, when a Robber hath spoiled us, we may lawfully take part againe, rather than lose all; or when an Invader overrunneth the land, and spoileth us of all our former Privileges, we may receive some againe, though when matters were entire, it had been a compliance to have done so: But that will not answere our case; because we have more Power over our own Particulars, than overChrists Matters: we may in some cases voluntarily give all our own away; but we cannot do so, in the Matters of Christ, and of His Church: And therefore, what at any time would be a sinful compliance, or an unlawful giving away of Christs, and the Churches Rights, cannot be lawful, even after the Enemie hath overthrown all. (5.) I grant likewise, that after an Universal overthrow of the Privileges of the Church; we may lawfully accept of little, when more cannot be had; yet that little must be such, as was not unlawful, at any time, to be accepted of; and we must accept of it, in another manner, than could ever have been accounted a sinful compliance. (6.) Though what is said in the Objection might have some weight, when that thing can be had no other way, than such, as would formerly have been accounted a compliance: Yet it can have no weight, in the case of the Indulgence; because liberty to preach (which is here called a Relaxation) may be had without p. 124this appointment of the Rulers, and that with no less countenance, and approbation of God: So that in the Accepting of the Indulgence, there is a needless compliance with the Usurper, and an unnecessary confirming of him in his wicked Usurpations.

Obj. 12. That, which in the case of standing Liberty, would be an insufferable Imposition, and its refusal, duty, may, as it is from God, in the case of lost Liberty, be looked upon, as a little reviving in our bondage, and embraced with a sinless Submission; and he, who thus humbly and sincerely layeth hold on it, may be very assured of the Lords Approbation therein. Answ. When a people have been following their Duty, in defence of their Lands and Liberty, and are in Providence broken by an Enemie; their Posterity, or even they themselves, may willingly submit to, and lay hold on that, which formerly had been an insufferable Imposition, and might have been justly refused; but then they must have had no sinful hand, in the loseing of their Liberty, otherwise it shal be but a continued compliance; and we must suppose, that they are now out of case to owne and contend for their Liberty. Which holdeth not, as to the Indulgence; for as there was a sinful cedeing at the first, in not resisting unto bloud, striving against these Usurpers, by Protestations, Declarations and other Meanes called for, in the like case, whereby this acceptance becometh but a continued compliance, on the matter, in the same Persons: So the manifold Obligations we are under, binde unto a constant and perpetual contending for the Prerogatives of our Prince, and the Privileges of his Church, against all the Enemies thereof: And no case of lost liberty will warrant us, to submit, or accept of that, which formerly we were bound to have refused, and to have looked upon, as an insufferable Imposition. What may be said of the Posterity, born and brought up under that loss of Liberty, cannot advantage us in this Generation, who, when we can do no more, are obliged to transmit the Controversie of Zion, and the Cause, as in foro contradictorio, to the Posterity; that they may see the Cause, though not prevalent, yet not quite sold and given up; and so may serve themselves heirs to our Contendings for the Interest of our Lord. And for this cause, ought we to be tenacious of these Rights, and do nothing that may strengthen our Adversares, and weaken our Cause: and this, I suppose, would yeeld more peace, than the accepting of that, which is called a little reviving, but indeed is a weakning both of the Cause, and of our Party. It is laudable Constancy, in this Case, not to yeeld or grant one hoof: But what pusillanimity, yea and treachery will it be, by cedeing and accepting of such supposed revivings, to put ourselves and our Posterity out of all case to recover our Liberty, and to burie with our own hands the very memorie of the good old Cause, for which our Predecessours, and we sometime, have contended with Zeal and Earnestness; especially when, we may have the same thing, which is called a reviving in our bondage, another way, with Approbation of God, with less Scandal to others, with more Advantage to the Cause, and less Advantage to the Enemie, though with more trouble and less quiet to our selves?

Obj. 13. Though the Magistrats principal Designe, in this matter, be the Establishment of his own Supremacie: Yet the accepting of this favour cannot be so much as an Interpretative yeelding thereunto, as may be clear by this Supposition, that the Magistrate, without any change of Principle or Designe, had ordered all Ministers to their own Churches. Answ. (1.) This being confessedly the Magistrat's p. 125principal Designe, in granting this supposed favour, our acceptance cannot but be accounted by him a reall contributing of all, that is required of us, thereunto; and as it was circumstantiat, could not but be, on our part, even because of what the Magistrat did rationally account to be unto him, a virtual acknowledgment, and a reall Confirmation thereof. (2.) If the sending of the Ministers to their own Congregations, had been by a Civil annulling of the former Sentence of Banishment, as it could not have flowed from the Supremacy; so neither could it have contributed unto his Usurpation: But if the sending of them to their own Charges had been every way, after the manner of this Indulgence, it would not have altered the case to me; for as I said above, his re-entrie to his Former Charge, after this manner, would have been a virtual annulling of the Ground of his Former Call, and Interest in that place, and over that People, and not a returning with full Freedome and Liberty.

Obj. 14. The Magistrat proposing this Indulgence by way of Command, not attending my pleasure, my obedience to the Command cannot imply an engagement to the Prescriptions annexed; nor doth the Magistrat discover the least Intention, to oblige me thereunto by consent; nor is in this matter treating with us, expecting our formal consent for his security; and therefore I may accept the favour, without the prescriptions, there being no formal Compact here. Answ. (1.) Though the Indulgence be propounded by way of Command, the Council thinking it below them to Act otherwayes: Yet both the Nature of the thing, and the concomitant Acts, made of purpose, to Limite, Restrict and Qualifie the thing proposed, and to Instruct and Oblige the receiver, saith, that the accepting of the First doth virtually engage to the Second, both making up one complex grant, or one Indulgence so qualified, limited & cautioned. (2.) Though the Councel did not call for any formal and express engagement from them, unto the performance of these Injunctions; yet their carriage towards Mr. Blair, upon hisPositive renounceing of these Injunctions, sheweth, that they meant these Injunctions for Conditions; & this also they expresly declared in their after Proclamations & Edicts, as we saw above. (3.) Who accepteth a favour, offered with its burdens, must accept it cum onere, howbeit the offerer, being a Superiour, doth not expresly require an explicite Consent, but resteth satisfied with his own Intimation: As when a Father granteth to one of his Children such a portion of Land, and withall …ntimateth, that it is his will and pleasure, that he take on him the burden of so much d…t; though the Son should not be required to express his consent to the Condition of the Debt; yet his accepting of the benefite thus burthened, obligeth him to take on the Debt: So here, because Mr. Blair did disowne the Conditions, though his formal Consent was not required, he was denuded of the Benefite; and therefore the rest took the Benefite with its burden; and could not, while accepting the favour, account themselves free of the Conditions, or not-obliged to performe them, seing in accepting the one, they accepted the other, both making up one complex business. Wherefore, though this Indulgence be given by Magistrates, who love to act imperiously, and by way of Edict; yet it being granted as a favour, the accepting of it, both as to the thing it self, and as to the sense and meaning of the Granters, includeth a virtual engagement to the Observation of the Rules and Conditions annexed.

p. 126Obj. 15. Although the Magistrate had expresly prefaced his Supremacy unto the grant of this licence; yet a Protestation on the accepters part against the same, would sufficiently have purged their use-making of the favour, of all sinful concurrence. Answ. (1.) Though this were granted (which yet cannot be) yet it cannot avail the accepters, who made no Protestation. (2.) Though no mention was made of the Supremacie; yet the accepting was so foule, upon many other accounts, that no Protestation against the Supremacie, if mentioned, could have salved the matter, as we saw above; and their after acceptance would but contradict their Protestation.

Obj. 16. Though the Magistrat hath carried his Supremacy above the highest, yet he never judged the power of Order worth the assuming; so that the allowing to preach mentioned in the Act, joined to permitting, and directed to none but to Ministers, antecedently ordained, cannot be a just ground of scruple. If the Magistrat had simply appointed every other Minister to his own Church, allowing him there to preach, to have offended at the word allowing, would have been an excessive niceness. Ans. Though the Magistrat never judged the power of Order (strictly so called) worth the assuming; yet it may be thought, that he judged that power worth the assuming, whereby the Authority of the Ministrie, and the Exercise thereof, should be looked upon as flowing, and as derived from him: And Ministers were, I think, called to be careful and circumspect, lest by doing and accepting of any thing, they might interpretatively and virtually acknowledge and consent to this Power. (2.) Though this allowance was granted to such, as had been ordained Ministers before, yet the same, flowing from the Supremacy, and being more than a meer permission, could not but import their deriving of a power to exercise the function, in such a place, from him; and so prove a most just and weighty ground of scruple. (3.) Nor will the supposition of his sending every Minister to his Church, wholly take away the scruple; for his simple annulling of the prior Act at Glasgow, would have been sufficient for that end; but when, instead of this, he not only did say, he permitted them to preach againe to their former flocks; but also that he allowed them, and that after he had invaded the Throne of Christ, and assumed to himself the Fountaine of all Church power; so that both as to the exercise of the Ministrie, and as to the exercise of it in such a place, they should depend on him, I think there should have some ground of scruple remained: For might it not be thought, that by their ready acceptance, without a previous, full, faithful, plaine and publick Declaration and Protestation, they had now derived their power from another Head, than formerly, and stood now upon some other new ground? And in this case, I should think, that offending at the word, allowing, were the kindly work of a tender Conscience, zealous for the Glory and Interests of Christ, and careful of the credite of the Ministrie; and no excessive niceness.

Obj. 17. The Ministers Indulged do above all things owne their Masters Ordination, as the only proper foundation, whereupon the exercise of their Ministrie, by the permission of this licence, doth subsist. All the regarde they have to the Magistrats allowance, is, that they look upon it, as the removal, de facto, of his unjust restraints, hitherto Invincible. And neither by forme of acceptance, nor by engagement, do they in any sort acknowledge any of the Magistrats wrongs; but are ready by a plaine declaration to purge themselves, even of the suspicion of a simple p. 127acquiescence. Ans. (1.) I shall willingly yeeld, that the Persons concerned do owne their Ordination; yet we must distinguish the Intention of the work, and the Intention of the worker; though they may have no Intention of invalidating their prior Ordination; yet their accepting of the Indulgence may virtually include this; and so their Practice may contradict their Principles. (2.) Their Masters Mission is onelyonly their proper, sure and solide Foundation, whereupon the exercise of their Ministrie should subsist; but is it not manifest, that the accepting of the Indulgence doth virtually say, that as to the Ministrie they depend upon the allowance of Men; yea of those, who assume to themselves an Headshipe over the Church, and a Fountaine-power, from which this Exercise must natively flow, and be derived. (3.) These restraints of preaching the Gospel were not invincible Physically, nor Moraly: Neither were any such restraints, as such, formally removed, nor a pure permission granted. But the Indulgence contained an Authoritative Enjoining and Warranding, as also a Qualifying, Restricting, and Regulating the exercise of the Ministrie; and all this in prosecution and confirmation of an Usurped Supremacie; and this was a far other thing, than a removal de facto of a former restraint. Now their Subjection unto this Incroachment, testified by their accepting of the Indulgence, so conveyed, is much more, than the acceptance of the benefite of a bare Permission: And all know, that they might have exercised their Ministerie, without this Indulgence, to the Glory of God, the Edification of the Body, the Confirmation of the Principles of Truth, concerning the Ministrie, the Defeating of the corrupt Erastian Designes of the injuriously incroaching Magistrates, and to the offence and scandal of no Person. (4.) Though they do not expresly and in terminis acknowledge any of these Wrongs; yet, by their accepting of the Indulgence, so conveyed, as is said, they may virtually and upon the matter acknowledge this: and their plaine Declaration to purge themselves, will be but a contradiction to, and a condemnation of their own deed, because the Imposer can only put a sense and gloss upon his own Injunctions; and the granter of a warrand and favour, on the same; and in his sense it is, at least virtually, accepted by all, who accept of it, if plaine dealing be owned; and I suppose Ministers, while dealing with the Council, should not walk upon fallacies, or mental reserves, or on what is equivalent.

Obj. 18. The accepting of the Indulgence did Import no subjecting of the Ministrie to mens arbitrary Disposal, but only a subjecting of the persons, or rather an acknowledgment, that the persons are already in subjection, which by our long silence & sufferings is too apparent: But if we have hitherto thus contentedly acknowledged this, to the restraint of our Ministrie, shall we now be so unhappy, as to wrangle about it, in prejudice of a relaxation? Ans. (1.) The act of Indulgence did not only mention Ministers repairing to such or such places; but spoke likewise of the exercise of their Ministrie, which it allowed them, and for which prescribed several Rules and Injunctions, limiting and regulating them, in the same; & though this did comprehend a subjection of their persons also; yet it is by vertue of a prior Subjection of their Ministrie, as being made liable to punishment for not-observing the Rules and Injunctions prescribed. (2.) These sufferings indeed declared a subjection of their persons; but their silence shall be found (I feare) to have done more; And their former sin can be no ground to justifie their prese…t practice, in accepting p. 128of this Indulgence, which instead of being a relaxation, is a further wreething of the yoke about our necks.