The History of the Indulgence, Part 3 – Postscript
A Vindication of such, as scruple to hear and owne the Indulged.
Considering what is said above, both in the Relation, and in the Reasons against the accepting of the Indulgence, whereby the manifold iniquity thereof is manifested, it might seem wholly unnecessary and superfluous to vindicat such, as, beginning to discover the evil thereof, do scruple to look upon those, who are set over them by the Council, as their Ministers, set over them by the Holy Ghost; seing it may rather seem strange, that any, who adhere to our former Principles, are of another judgement; and that Conscientious Persons did not from the beginning withdraw from them Yet for satisfaction to all (so far as is possible) the grounds of our Vindication of such shall be proposed, in a few questions.
Only it would be premitted, in what sense we take the question: And therefore. (1.) I do not make this the question. Whether or not these Indulged Ministers, are true Ministers of the Gospel, or ought, in any case, to be acknowledged, & looked upon as such; for in order to our Vindication of such, who withdraw from them, it is not necessary to assert this; for in order to the Vindication of such, as withdraw from the Prelates Curates, as we do not, so we use not to say, That they are not Ministers, knowing that by saying this, we are engaged consequently to say, that all the Children, whom they have baptized, are yet unbaptized; and that all their Ministerial Acts are null. Nor (2.) Shall I make this the question: Is it not simply unlawful to hear them? For in order to Vindicat the withdrawers from the Curates, we need not assert this, knowing that much more is required to make an action simply sinful, than to make it inexpedient, or unlawful; and if it were granted, that the hearing or owning of the Indulged, as matters now stand, were unlawful, or inexpedient, the With-drawers would be sufficiently vindicated. Nor (3.) Do I propose this question, whether or not, they may lawfully be heard, at any time, or in any circumstances; as for example, if there were no other to be heard, in all Scotland? For I judge, if no other were to be heard in all Scotland, except the Prelates Curats, many would not scruple to hear such of them, as were not openly flagicious and profane, or notoriously ignorant; who, as matters now stand, do, and that with Approbation. (4.) I do not think, that such, as are against this withdrawing, will say, that it is necessary, that these Indulged be heard and countenanced, at all times and occasions; and that never, or in no case, such, as are under them, may go and hear others; seing this was alwayes allowed and permitted, in our best times.
But I shall simply propose the Question thus. Whether may not people lawfully, as the case now standeth, withdraw from those Indulged, whom the Council hath set over them by the Indulgence; or are they to owne them, and submit unto them, as over them in the Lord, and as set over them, to be their Pastors and Overseers, by the Holy Ghost; even when there are others, against whom such Exceptions cannot be made, as against them, and whom the Lord doth own and countenance in a remarkable and wonderful manner, to be heard? Or, whether are such to be condemned, or approven and vindicated, who look upon themselves, as called of God to bear witness against all the sinful Usurpations, manifest in the Indulgence; and the many evils, in the accepting of it, and in the now acting by vertue thereof, by withdrawing from such, that they may hear and countenance others, who preach upon Christs Call, and not according to Mans Order, but contrary thereto?
This being the Question, one might think it strange, that there should be any necessity to Vindicate such, as now withdraw, considering what is said above: Yet in Order hereunto, I shall but, in a few words, propose these following Questions, to the Consideration of any, who are of another judgment, in this matter, As.
1. Seing by what is said under our First Head of Arguments, it is manifest, that the Indulged, in and by the accepting of the Indulgence, have wronged our Lord Jesus Christ, who is only Head of the Church, and King in Zion; and that in Nine several Particulars: (every one of which might be made use of, as a several Argument, to our present purpose.) How can any blame such, as, out of tenderness to the Royal Prerogatives of Jesus Christ, scruple to owne, and hear them, as formerly?
2. Seing by the accepting of this Indulgence, the Indulged have receded from our Presbyterian Principles, and wronged the Interest and Privileges of the Church, which Christ, her only King, hath granted to her; and that in five several Particulars, (out of which particular Arguments might be framed severally) as is clear by what is said under our 2 Head of Arguments. How unreasonable is it to condemne such, as, out of a tender care to adhere to their Presbyterian Principles, dat not owne and hear such, as formerly?
3. Seing in Ten Particulars, mentioned under our 3. Head of Arguments, it is made manifest, that the Indulged, by accepting of the Indulgence, have, upon the matter, homologated the wicked Supreamacy, in Church-affairs, whereby our Lord is virtually dethroned, and His Church utterly robbed of her Spiritual Power and Privileges: How can we condemne such, who, in detestation of that Supreamacy, and Usurped Power, withdraw from them?
4. Seing by our Principles, the Free Election and Call of the People, giveth ground to the relation, that a Pastor hath to a Flock, as his Charge, and is the way, how the Holy Ghost setteth men over Flocks, in ordinary: How can these be obliged to owne such for their Pastors, whom they never called, nor had freedom freely to Elect and Call? And this is the case of not a few, yea in reality the case of all, who had others, than such, as had been their Pastors before, set over them; for as for that image of a call, we have said enough above, and particularly, under our 4. Head of Arguments, to shew that it was of no force, and imported rather a prostituting of that Ordinance and Institution, to be subservient to the corrupt Designes of men, than savoured of true tenderness unto the Ordinance of Christ; which should have led the way, in an orderly settlement, and not have been trailed at the heels of the Councels Order, with which in all Common Sense, it was incompatible, except by way of acknowledging and homologating the Councils Usurpation.
5. Seing as is clear from the Seven Particulars, mentioned under our 5. Head of Arguments, the Indulged, in their accepting of the Indulgence, have fortified and established Erastianisme, and Erastian Tenets; how shall we condemne such, as withdraw from them, and rather hear and owne such, as adhere by their practice to former Principles?
6. When we consider the Twelve Particulars, mentioned under our 6. Head of Arguments, (several of which might be here made use of, as Distinct Arguments, if we designed not brevity) whereby it was made manifest, how the Indulged, in accepting of the Indulgence, have acted to the great prejudice of the Church; how can we imagine, that such are to be condemned, who withdraw from them, and countenance such, as are seeking and promoving its good, in the way, countenanced and approven of God?
7. If we impartially consider the Twelve Particulars, mentioned under our 7. Head of Arguments, (several of which also might be adduced here, as distinct Arguments) whereby it appeared, how these Indulged, in their accepting of the Indulgence, have wronged our Cause, and departed from the grounds, upon which our Church is suffering; we will see cause of approving such, as withdraw from them, as matters now stand.
8. Seing by what is said, it is manifest, that the Entrie of the Indulged unto their present Places, and Stations, is not consonant, but repugnant to our Former Doctrine, Principles and Practices, owned since the Reformation, and confirmed by our Oathes, Vowes, Covenants and Solemne Engagments; besides the Testimonies given thereunto by the Sufferings of our Predecessours, and by our own Sufferings; can we blame and condemne such, who dar not owne them, as lawfully entered into these places?
9. Seing the Indulged have, by the accepting of the Indulgence, and acting by vertue thereof, in so far, departed from Former Principles and Practices; and a difference ought to be put betwixt them, and other Ministers, who, through grace, have hithertill been preserved from stepping aside, whether to Prelacy, or to Erastianisme, in their Practices; who can condemne such, as withdraw from the one, and adhere to the other?
10. Is there not a great difference betwixt the ground, whereupon the Indulged do presently exercise their Ministerie; and the ground whereupon formerly, before they embraced the Indulgence, they did, and others to this day do, exercise it? Or shall we say, that it is all one, whether Ministers have the Ministerial Potestative Mission unto such or such places, over which they are set, from Presbyteries, authorized thereunto by Christ, which sometimes they had; or have it from the Magistrat, no wayes thereunto authorized by Christ; as now they have it only? And if there be a difference, how can any condemne those, who cannot now owne them, as they did formerly?
11. Seing the difference betwixt these two wayes mentioned, is great, and seing they cannot be compounded in one, nor lawfully made subordinat, the one to the other; is it not undeniable, that these Indulged, betaking themselves now to the Magistrat's Mission, as they have done, have upon the matter, renounced their former Mission, which they had from Presbyteries, acting Ministerially under Christ? And if so, can people be condemned, who do not, nor cannot, owne, and countenance them, as formerly they did?
12. It being apparent from what is said above, on several occasions, that, as the Indulged did deliberatly shun to say, that they had their Ministrie onelyonly of Christ, so they do now Act and Exerce the same, as receiving it not alone from Christ, by the Ministerial Conveyance of the Power and Authority to exerce it, which Christ hath ordained; but either as receiving it from the Magistrat alone; (and if so, they cannot be looked upon as Christ's Servants, but as the Magistrat's Servants;) or from Christ and the Magistrat, as Collateral Heads and Fountains of Church-power; (but thus to speak were blasphemie;) or from the Magistrate, as directly subordinat to Christ; (which is the ground of all Arminian-Erastianisme) How can Men be accounted transgressours, who in Conscience cannot owne them, as formerly they did, when they acted and exercised their Ministrie as receiving it alone from Christ, by the Ministerial conveyance of the Power & Authority thereto, through the hands of his Servants thereunto appointed?
13. Is there no difference to be put betwixt such, as exercise the Ministrie in subordination unto, and in a dependance upon the Council, as being their Curats, & as accountable to them; and others, who, as they are subordinat unto, so they owne their dependance onelyonly upon Christ, in the way He hath prescribed, receiving Instructions only from Him, in His appointed way, to regulate them, in the Exercise of their Ministrie, and hold themselves accountable only to Him, in that way? And seing it is manifest, that there is a very great difference; Who can condemne such as withdraw from the Indulged, who have their Instructions, to regulate them in the Exercise of the Ministrie, from the Council, (as was manifested above,) as accountable only to them, and to such, as they are directly subordinat unto; that is, the King; and not from Christ Jesus, as onelyonly Head of the Kirk?
14. Seing by receiving the Indulgence, with their Instructions &c. the Indulged do, upon the matter, recognosce a Supream Head-Power over the Church, and Church-affairs, in the Magistrates, to the denying of Christ's sole Headshipe, and dethroning of Him (as hath been, on several occasions, cleared above;) how can such be condemned, who scruple to owne them, in that case, or to countenance them, while they act so?
15. Seing the Indulged, being set over the people, specially designed and appointed them by the Council's order, and not in the way appointed by Christ, can not be said to be set over these people, as their Overseers, by the Holy Ghost; (as hath been evidenced above;) how can such be blamed, who cannot owne them, as their Overseers, and as made Overseers to them by the Holy Ghost?
16. Seing we have made it manifest above, that the entrie of the Indulged hath a manifold relation unto the Usurped Supremacie, in Church-affaires; and that, as it floweth therefrom, is secured thereby, and dependeth in its legal being therupon, as its Charter; so it contributeth to the strengthening, securing and encouraging of the Usurpation and seing this Supremacy and Sacrilegious Usurpation of the Prerogatives Royal of our Lord Jesus, and Subversion of the Rights and Privileges of the Church, is the Top-point of all our Defection, and the Center, into which all the Lines of our Apostasie concurre and agree; can any, who would not joyne in this defection, and have a proportionable part of the guilt, charged upon them, give countenance and approbation unto those Indulged, whose entrie is so neer a kin unto that Supremacy? Or can any, who desire to be free of all compliance with this abominable evil, carry towards those, who are now set over them by vertue of the Supremacie, as formerly?
17. The Supremacy now regnant, and the grand National sin, being such an evil, as all, that would be keeped free of the plagues, that the same will bring upon the Land, must, in their places and stations, bear witness against the same: And seing Common people have no other way Patent or Practicable for them, to give this plaine and honest Testimony against this hainous Usurpation, in any publick manner, but by withdrawing from such, as are set over them by vertue of this Usurped Power; can those be condemned, who, out of Conscience of their duty, zeal to Christ's Prerogatives, Care to keep their garments unspotted with publick regnant evils; and out of a desire to minde their duty, in this day of so general a Defection, do withdraw from the Indulged, in order to the giving of this publick Testimonie, in their Place and Station?
18. Seing by the Particulars, mentioned under our 8. Head of Argu. it is manifest, that the accepters of this Indulgence have thereby contributed to the strengthening of the hands of Prelates and Prelacie, which all are obliged by their Covenants, to endeavour, in their Places and Stations, to exstirpat; how can such be condemned, who withdraw from them, while standing thus in a contributing posture?
19. As upon the one hand, the disowning of the Curats is a disowning of the Prelates and their Power; and a countenancing of them by hearing them, and submitting to their Ministrie is accounted by all (as indeed it is) a countenancing of Prelacy; is not also, upon the other hand, an owning of the Indulged, and a Submitting to them and their Ministrie, a submitting to the Supremacy; seing (as is above cleared and confirmed) the Curats (at least such as, were ordained Ministers before the re-establishment of Prelacy, and have submitted thereto) do no more depend upon Prelacy, as to the present exercise of their Ministrie, than the Indulged do depend upon the Supremacy, or on the Rulers, acting by vertue of the Supremacy?
20. Seing the Act of Glasgow, banishing Ministers from their own Charges, cannot dissolve the relation, that was betwixt the Ministers, and their Flocks; how can such, as stand still related unto their former Pastors, (which is the case of some) accept of others, set over them by the Council, & not withall homologat the Councils deed, and declare the former relation utterly dissolved?
21. Seing the Indulged, in accepting of the Indulgence, have in several Particulars violated our Covenant-Obligations (as was shown in the 9 Head of Argu:) Can any be blamed for with drawing from those, who have so entered, in this day, when God is about to plead with the Land, for a broken Covenant?
22. If all be obliged to resist & withstand Erastianisme, by the Solemne Engagment to duties; what less can be expected of Common People, in their privat Stations, in order to an answerable walking unto this Engagment, than a with-drawing from such, as are set over them by a Power, purely Erastian? And can such be thought to minde their Engagment in this particular, who willingly comply with the Erastian Command and Injunction, and accept of such, as are set over them by an Erastian-Order?
23. Seing the Indulged, in accepting of the Indulgence, have receded from our Principles, and wronged our Cause as is undeniable by the Twelve Particulars, mentioned under our 7. Head. of Arg.) can they be justly condemned, who now withdraw from them?
24. Seing by accepting of the Indulgence, the Indulged have highly prejudged the good of our Church (as is manifest from the Twelve Particulars, mentioned under our 6. Head of Arg.) How can such be condemned, who refuse to countenance them, while thus stated in and by the Indulgence?
25. Seing, as was cleared above, the Indulgence, was devised of purpose, to annul all Field-and House-meetings; and seing it cannot be denied, that these Field-and House-meetings, being so eminently countenanced of the Lord, are also to be countenanced of Men; can any say, that they, over whom the Indulged are set by the Council, are not obliged to withdraw from them; and not withall say, that they are not obliged to waite upon these blessed Meetings, though thereby the Minister and other people, should be much discouraged? And would not this be a manifest homologating and concurring with the Council, in carrying-on of this wicked Designe? And how can such be condemned, who withdraw from them, who have, in accepting of the Indulgence, acted so prejudicially unto these blessed Meetings, as is evidenced in our II. Head of Arguments?
26. Seing it is undeniable, and daily experience doth confirme it, that an admirably rich blessing attendeth the laboures of such, as preach contrary to Mans Law, upon Christs sole Warrant and Allowance; what cruelty to Souls were it to say, that they, who have none to preach to them, but such as the Council (none of the best discerners of Ministerial Gifts, nor endued with Power from Christ for that end, to try the Qualifications of Ministers) hath set over them, must not withdraw from these, to seek their food, where God is giving it largly, and is thereby encouraging and inviting all to come? We would, doubtless, think this hard dealing, were we, as to our temporal food, to be kept at a set sober diet, wherein we found little nourishment, and restrained from going to fattening and strengthening feasts. If it be said, That it is the peoples fault, that they grow not more under the preaching of such, as are set over them. I need not contradict it, for strengthening of my Argument; but only say, if the blessing be withheld at home, though justly, because of sin; let the people go where they may finde the blessing, of Gods free grace, notwithstanding of their Provocations, as others have found it: Let them go, I say, where free grace may prevent them. Nay, I think the Indulged themselves, upon this very account, if they desire (as I would hope they do) the Spiritual Edification of the people, should be…eech and obtest all their People, to go unto these richly blessed Conventiclers; and desire these Conventicles to come and choise the most convenient place, in all their bounds, for a Field-meeting, that their people might partake of the good thereof; and this Course (if it had been taken) would have, I think, endeared them more unto all, that feared God; and had (no doubt) prevented much of this animosity that is, as I apprehend, betwixt them, and the Field-Preachers; for it would have defeat the Designe of the Council, and have contributed to the carrying on of the Work of the Lord.
27. Seing all Persons stand obliged by their Covenants, to maintaine the Prerogatives of Christs Crown, the Rights of the Church, and Presbyterial Government; how can they, who would make conscience of the saids Covenants, owne such, as are set over them, not according to the Principles of Presbyterian Government, nor in compliance with the Prerogatives of Christ, nor so as the Rights of the Church are so much as pretended to be observed, but in a way rather repugnant unto all these; as hath been manifested above?
28. Seing many of these Indulged have a relation to their own Flocks, from which they were thrust by violence; and it will not be said, that what the Rulers did, in that matter, did utterly annul their relation; How can they be related as Pastors to these Congregations, over which they are set by the Council? We do not acknowledge or justifie Pluralities. And if they have not the relation of Pastors unto these new Charges, people are not bound to carry, as their flock; and so may lawfully withdraw, and hear others, as well as them.
29. Seing It is manifest from what is said, that the Indulged, by accepting of the Indulgence, have, upon the matter, condemned all the wrestlings of the Church of Scotland, from the very beginning of our Reformation, against the Erastian Usurpations and Encroachments of King and Court, in the Dayes of King Iames, who yet, in the height of his Usurpations, and arrogate Supremacy, never did what the Council did, in the Matter of the Indulgence; He never took upon him, to plant and transplant Ministers by himself, or by his Council immediatly, and onelyonly: yea and have condemned all their sufferings to bondes, banishment & bloud, for the Privileges of the Church, and the Crown-Rights of Christ, the only King in Zion; how can people, be pressed or urged, to look on such, as their lawfully settled Ministers, and be condemned for withdrawing? Must not the compliers with them in this, be guilty of the same sin of spitting in the faces of all our ancient witnesses; and saying, their Sufferings were for triffles? Do not they, who do more, than ever these were tempted to do, and that without the least hesitancy, say, that these suffered as fools?
30. Seing the entry of the Indulged by the Councils Order is such, as hath not a Parallel, in all the Christian world, for any thing I know; for, no where shall we finde Ministers planted in Particular Charges, and transplanted from one to another, immediatly by the Magistrate: Yea I doubt, if Ministers were thus placed, in the Palatinate, (now laid waste and desolat, in the righteous judgment of God,) where the hemlock of Erastianisme first grew up; can any blame the reformed Professours of the Church of Scotland, where that weed ha…h been cast over the hedge, with a solemne Vow and Covenant, never to owne it againe, in resenting this manner of Entry, by withdrawing from those, that are set over them, in such a singular and shameful manner?
31. Do we not make use of this Argument against the Prelates, that they are chosen, named and deputed solely by the King, notwithstanding of that mock-election, made by the Chapter of the See, which must fall upon the person, nominated by the King, or be null? But where is the strength of it now, when we admit of lesser Bishops, immediatly nominated, deputed, and impowered by the Council, notwithstanding of that mock-call by the people, and Election of the same singular person, which was said somewhere to be had?
32. How can any blame such, as withdraw from those, who, by entering in at the door of the Indulgence, have made way for the wreathing of an yoke upon the necks of the Ministrie of Scotland, in all time coming, to the utter subversion of all Ministerial liberty, and of the Freedom and Privilege of the Church: For, if hereafter no man shall be setled in a Church but by the King and his Council immediatly, and every Minister shall be wholly at the disposal of the King and Council, to be planted, or transplanted, as they please, where were we? And where should our Church-liberties then be? And whom had we to thank for breaking the ice?
33. If the Parliament, that carried on the Engagment Anno 1648. had thrust out a number of the Ministers, and thereafter their Committee had planted them elsewhere, up and down the Land, as they pleased; I would ask such as were Ministers, in those dayes, and were against the Engagment, or were Members of the Assembly 1649. how such Ministers, as willingly would have obeyed the Orders of the Committee of Estates, and gone thither, where they were Ordered to remaine, had been looked upon, when the Engagment to duties was drawn up? And whether or not lesser faults in Ministers, were not punished with simple Deposition? If then such a fault, as this, had been so abominable then, shall it be so lovely now, that none may discountenance or withdraw from such persons, as have carried so, at this time?
34. Is it not strange, that people shall not have liberty to withdraw from those, who by their way of entry, and carriage before the Council, have given such open and manifest Scandal unto the Church of God, and unto Strangers, unto Foes and unto Friends, at home and abroad, to the Rulers, to the Prelates and their Curat's, to Good and Bad; yea and unto all the Churches of Christ; and have laid such a stumbling block before all the Posteritie; as is manifested above, in the 12. Head of Argum.?
35. When poor people, who have been hitherto in the dark, as to the evils of this Indulgence, both as to its Ground, Rise, Conveyance, Tendency, and designed End, beginne now to get their eyes opened, and to see its connexion with, dependance upon, and confirmation of the fearful Usurpation of the Supremacy … what a griefe of heart is it to hear persons pleading against their withdrawing from such, when they see where they are, and how they cannot countenance such, and be free of all accession to the sinful strengthening and confirming of the Encroachments already made, and to the encouraging unto a further progress unto the same evil?
36. When there is such a combination for upholding of this evil of the Indulgence, and several (as is reported) banding or covenanting together, to keep the Indulgence, in credite, or at least, not so speak against it; how can such, as are convinced of the dreadful evil thereof, not think themselves called of God, to do their best against it? And how can any be urged to hear and countenance them, who are Indulged, when the controversie is thus stated and prosecuted, without being also urged to approve of the Indulgence, contrare to their light:
37. Seing the Indulged, by their accepting of this Indulgence, did fall from their former zeal and steadfastness, in choosing suffering rather than sin, and have, upon the matter, condemned what formerly they approved of, and have approved that, which formerly they condemned, as we saw above, in the Six Particulars, mentioned and explained in our 10. Head of Argum. How can those be now condemned, who cannot owne them, as they did formerly?
38. Do we not say, that Countenancing and hearing of the Curats is an Homologating and a virtual approving of their sinful way of Entry? And shall not now, the Countenancing and hearing of the Indulged, be an Homologating and a virtual approving of their sinful way of En…y? How then can such be condemned, who, out of a desire to be kept free of this sin, dar not countenance or hear them, as formerly?
39. I would gladly know one Argument, that can be made use of to condemne now, as matters stand, withdrawing from and refusing to hear the Indulged, that either hath not been; or may not yet be, with equal force, made use of, to prove it unlawful to withdraw from, & to refuse to hear the Established Curats? And seing now none dar condemne such, as withdraw from the Curats; why shall these be condemned, who withdraw from the Indulged?
40. When the question is now so stated, by and among the people, as that countenancing and hearing of the Indulged, is looked upon, as an approving of the Indulgence it self, the people not knowing the use and practice of Metaphysical distinctions; how can such be urged to hear and countenance them, who, by so doing, must look upon themselves, as approving what otherwise they condemne, contrare to Rom. 14:22, 23?
Many moe Arguments, may be gathered out of the several Particulars, we mentioned above, under the several Heads of Arguments; but we shall satisfie our selves with these, at present, leaving the Understanding Reader to make his owne use of the rest, that are not made use of here.
For further satisfaction, in this matter, to such, as would have Formal Arguments, I shall only say, That by what Arguments, Principally, we vindicat the People, their withdrawing from the Curates, by the same, mutatis mutandis, by changing or adding such words, as must be changed or added, we shall be able to vindicate the people their withdrawing from the Indulged. I saw lately a Vindication of the persecuted Ministers and Professours in Scotland, written by a faithful Minister of Christ, now in Glory; and found that the Chiefe of these Arguments, whereof he made use, to vindicate the people their withdrawing from the Curats, were applicable to the question now under debate, concerning the hearing or withdrawing from the Indulged, as I shall make appear by these Instances.
His first Argument Pag. 75. was this. They, who have no just Authority, nor Right to officiat fixedly, in this Church, as the proper Pastors of it, ought not to be received, but withdrawn from. But the Prelates and their adherents the Curats (adde, for our case, the Indulged) have no just Authority or Right to officiat in this Church, as her proper Pastours. Therefore they ought not to be received, but withdrawn from. All the debate is about the Minor, which he thus maketh good. They, who have entered into, and do officiat fixedly in this Church without her Authority and Consent, have no just Authority or Right so to do. But the Prelats and their Curats (adde, the Indulged) have entered into this Church, and do Officiat therein, without her Authority and Consent. Therefore they have no just Authority. The first Proposition (saith he, and we with him) is clear, and we suppose, will not be gainesaid by our Antagonists; seing the power of Mission, of Calling & of Sending of ordinarie fixed Pastours, is only in the Church, and not in any other, as all Divines do assert. The Second is evident from matters of fact; for there was no Church-Judicatory called, or convocated, for bringing of Prelats in to the Church; (adde, nor for setling of the Indulged over their respective charges) all was done immediatly by the King and Acts of Parliament (adde, Acts of the Coun…il) without the Church. A practice wanting a precedent in this, and (for any thing we know) in all other Churches.
He proposeth an Objection in behalf of the Curats Pag. 78. which I know the Indulged will use for themselves, to wit. They have entered by the Church. And his answer will serve us, which is this. This we deny, the contrare is clear, from confiant Practice; for the Curats (adde, the Indulged) came in upon Congregations, only by the Bishop and Patron (adde in our case, only by t…e Council and Patron) who are not the Church, nor have any power from her, for what they do, in this: All their right and power is founded upon, and derived from the Supremacy, and Acts of Parliament, and not from the Church; in which the Bishop (adde the Council) acts as the Kings Delegat and Substitute, only impowered there…o by his Law (adde Letter) So that the Curats (adde, the Indulged) having and deriving all their power from the Prelates (adde, the Council) cannot have the same from the Church; none gives what he hath not. But. 2. The Prelats (adde, the Council) not being the lawful Governing Church, any, that enter Congregations by them, cannot be said to enter by the Church. Read the rest there.
His second Argument is proposed Pag. 79.80. thus. Those that receive and derive their Church power from, and are subordinat, in its exercise▪ to another Head, then Christ Jesus, should not be received and subjected to, as the Ministers of Christ, in his Church. But the Prelates and their Curats (adde, the Indulged) do receive and derive their Church Power from, and are subordinat, in its exercise, to another Head, than Christ Jesus. The…efore they ought not to be received &c. The first Proposition will not be denied: He proveth the second thus. Those Officers in the Church, professing themselves such, that derive their Church-power from, and are subordinate, in its exercise, to a Power truely Architectonick and Supream in the Church, beside Christ, do derive their Power from, and are subordinat, in its exercise, to another Head, than Christ Jesus. But so it is, that Prelats and their Curats (adde, the Indulged) do derive their Church-Power from, and are subordinat, in its exercise, to a Power truely Architectonick and Supreme in the Church, beside Christ. Therefore &c. The Major is evident; for whoever hath a Supream Architectonick Power in and over the Church, must be an Head to the same, and the Fountaine of all Church-power. The Minor is clear from the Act of Restitution (adde, the Act Explicatory of the Supremacy.)
His third Arg. Pag. 8. is long, I shall cut it short thus, that it may serve our case. If Churches required by Law (or, Act of Council) to submit to Prelates, and to their Curats (or, to the Indulged) thus thrust in upon them, had their own P…stors set over them, conforme to Gods Word; then it is no sinful Separation, for Churches, in adhering to their Ministers, not to receive, or submit to the Prelats and their Curats (or, to the Indulged.) But the former is true. Therefore &c. The truth of the Major is founded on this, That the obligation betwixt Pastor & People standeth, notwithstanding of the Magistrat's Act. And the Minor is true, (I suppose) as to some Churches, over which the Indulged were placed by the Council.
His fourth Argument Pag. 90. will serve us; It is thus. The way of the Curats (Indulged) entering into Congregations, puts a bar on our subjection to them, that we dar not owne them, for the lawful Pastors of the Church; for as their entry is without the Church, and the way that Christ hath setled in his House for that end; so they have come in on Congregations, in wayes, which we judge corrupt, and without all warrant from the Word of God, & the practice of the Primitive times. In search of Scripture and pure Antiquity, we finde, that Ordination (adde, and Potestative Mission) by Ministers, the Election and Call of the people, was the way, by which Ministers entered into Congregations, and not the Institution and Collation of the Bishop (adde, nor the Warrant and Allowance of the Magistrat) nor the Presentation of Patrons. He addeth. 1. This way of their entry by the Bishops Institution and Collation (adde, the Councels Warrant and Order) doth suppone that their Ordination (adde, Potestative Mission) doth not sufficiently impower them to the exercise of the Ministrie, (adde, in that Particular Charge) without a further licence; which is contrare to the end of Ordination, and the Nature of the Ministerial Power, that by vertue of its ends, and the command of Christ, doth binde the Person, invested therewith, to its Exercise &c. 2. The Patrons Presentation, as it takes away the Peoples right of Election, so it suppones Ordination to give no right to the maintainance, or at least suspends it &c.
His Fift Arg. is Pag. 91. thus framed, and may serve us, as to some. Many Congregations, into which the Curates (adde, the Indulged) are entred, are under a standing Obligation to their former Pastours; not only on the account of the Pastoral Relation betwixt them, but for the Engagements they came under to such, in their call and reception of them; which is not dissolved by any thing, we have yet seen; Sure we are, the Magistrate cannot do it, &c. (I hope, I need nor, in reference to the Indulged, mention what followeth, in answering of the Objection, taken from Salomons removing of Abiathar.
His Sixt Arg. Pag. 94. is this. If Congregations have a just Right and Power of Electing and Calling of their Ministers; than those, that come in upon them without this, are not to be esteemed their Pastors, nor to be subjected to, as such, by Congregations, but to be withdrawn from. But here it is so, &c.
His Seventh Arg. Pag. 95. is this; Hearing of, submitting to and receiving of Ordinances from the Curats alone (adde, the Indulged) and not from others, is enjoined by Law, and required, as the signe of our compliance with and subjecting to the Present Lawes, bringing in and establishing of Prelacy (adde, Erastianisme and the Supremacie) and other Corruptions, which we dar not owne. Hearing and receiving Ordinances from such, hath a twofold bar put upon it to us; an unqualified Instrument or Object; and the respect that by the Law it is made to have to the corruptions obtruded upon this Church, as the signe of our compliance with and subjection to these. The Command of God about hearing doth constitute the Object and Instrument (what and whom) we should hear: As we are not to hear all Doctrines, but these that are sound, so we are not to hear and receive all, that pretend to come in Christs Name, but those of whose Mission we have some rational evidence, at least, against which we have no just exceptions. This, as to to the Curats, (adde, the Indulged) is made out by the former Arguments. But beside this. the signe appointed and determined by Law, and required of all in this Church, is, that they not only withdraw from, and do not hear the Ejected and Non-conforme Ministers; but that they hear and submit to Ministers, that comply with and enter into this Church, by Prelates (adde, or by the Council) which to us maketh …earing, and receiving of Ordinances from them, a practical approbation of, and compliance with Prelacy (adde, Erastianisme and the Supremacy) and other corruptions contained in the Law, for such is the connexion betwixt the signe and the thing signified, that he that yeelds to give the signe, doth, in all rational construction, approve the thing signified.
These are his Principal Arguments, used in defence of such, as cannot, go to hear and subject to the Curats; and whether they will not as forcibly conclude against hearing of and subjecting to the Indulged, the Reader is free to judge.
Objections Answered.
If any should Object, whether in behalfe of the Curats, or in behalf of the Indulged. That they are Ministers of the Gospel, and therefore are to be heard, and Ordinances should be received from them; for the Ministerial power giveth to the Persons, invested therewith, not only a right to preach the word, and dispense Ordinances, and maketh their Acts valide; but it bindes them to the doing of those, and all others to submit to them, in the exercise of their Power; as is apparent in all relations, and the mutual duties, that the Persons under them owe to one another; So that if Ministers be bound to preach the Gospel, and dispense its Ordinances…, the people must likewise be obliged to hear, and receive Ordinances from them. To this objection he answereth (and we with him, as to the case now in question) denying the Consequence: For (1.) The true state of the question is, whether we should receive and submit to them, as the lawfully Called and Appropriat Pastors of this Church; which for the former Reasons we deny; for although Intruders upon the Church be Ministers; yet their Intrusion puts a sufficient bar on Peoples reception of and submission to them: wherefore in so far as hearing, and receiving of Ordinances from Prelatical Ministers (adde, Indulged) is, in our case, an acknowledgment of this, we refuse it. (2.) Peoples obligation to submission to Ministers, doth not immediatly flow from the being of the Ministerial Power and Authority, in those clothed therewith, there are beside this, other things that must concurre, to the causing of this Obligation, which, if they be wanting, will make it void, or, at least, suspend it &c.
If it be further Objected, in favours of the Indulged, That Eminent and worthie Mr Livingstoun, though he saith much against the Indulgence, in his Letter to his Parishoners; yet he adviseth them sometime to hear Mr Iohn Scot, who was Indulged. I Ans I shall readily grant, that several were in the dark, at the first, in the matter, either through want of full information concerning many circumstances, which, if known, would have given greater light in the matter; or through ignorance of the real Designe & Intendment of the Rulers, which afterward came more & more to light; or through a fear, that Field-meetings should either cease, or be utterly suppressed; & therefore judged it more safe for people to hear the Indulged, than either to hear none, or none, but the Curats. And though I do not certainly know, which of these grounds moved that Eminent Seer and Servant of Christ, to advise so; yet, considering that in all that Letter (to my remembrance) he doth not speak of their going to the Field Meetings (which I suppose none, that knew him, will think, that he was an enemie unto,) I am apt to think, that the Apprehension he had of the ceasing of the Field-Meetings, at least, in that part of the Countrey (in which, I doubt, there had been any, or many, at least, before his writing of that Letter) did move him, to advise them sometimes to hear that Indulged Person, as judging that better, than that they should hear none, or none but that wretch, who was obtruded upon them; and as supposing, he would not pervert them by his Doctrine, but would give free and faithful Testimonies unto the Truth, and aga…st all publick Corruptions. Further, I suppose, it is well enough known, tha… … the first, not a few Ministers were in the dark, as to the question of hearing of the Curats, and upon one ground or other, did not perceive, that peop…e were called of God; to withdraw from the obtruded Hirelings, & so durst-not positi…ely advise thereunto; who now, I hope, will be as loath to advise people to forsake other occasions, and go hear the Curats, And what wonder if the matter was so, as to the Indulged, Seven or Eight yeers ago?
Obj. 3. But, till of late, that some few inconsiderat Persons, took this in their head, to preach against the Indulgence, and to cry-out against the unlawfulness of hearing of the Indulged, as if that had been the only thing necessary; for which many even of the Non-Indulged are offended with them, there was not so much as a murter heard, but people heard the Indulged without scruple, and were edified by their Ministrie. Ans. The Curats might alleadge the same, as well as the Indulged; But, as it would not help them, so I suppose, It can not well help the Indulged. Whether these Persons be considerat or inconsiderat, I am not fit to judge; to their own Master they stand, or fall; only I wish, that such, who call them Inconsiderat, would examine their grounds, & remember that, judge not lest ye be judged &c. If this be founded upon some expressions of theirs (whether true or false, I know not) I wish that the Expressions of others gave not ground for the same judgment. I know, not a few are offended with them; but considering what is said above, concerning the sinfulness of the Indulgence, &c. I dar not be offended with them; (& I would faine hope, that second thoughts of the matter shall worke a change on these Brethren) But must rather blesse the Lord on their behalfe, & judge them worthie of praise, who, over the belly of so many discouragments, did set the trumpet to their mouth, to shew Scotland, & the Ministerie, and People thereof, that great sin: and this, I know, is con…istent with their insisting upon the one thing necessary; which I hope also their practice declareth, and the fruits of their labour proclaime. But as to the long silence, that hath been, I shall say little; yet it is known, that at the very beginning, people were calling the Indulged the Councils Curats & how it came, that this spark did not break forth into a general flame, I shall not enquire; acquiescing in this, That the Lord had a further discovery to make: For, had the first Ten, who were Indulged, been thus discountenanced, we had seen no moe accepting of that supposed favour; yea the first accepters had quickly shaken that onerous favour off their shoulders. It may be also, that some suppressed their judgment, concerning the not-hearing of these Indulged, or did not countenance any such motion, when made, either out of a preposterous affection and tenderness to the Brethren, whom they honoured and much esteemed, and that deservedly, for their eminent Enduements, and sometimes Usefulness unto the Church; or out of a tender care of keeping up of Union, and guarding against all motions apparently tending to troublesome Distractions & Divisions, or upon some other account, best known to themselves. Neither is it unlike, that many were really in the dark, as to the thing: But however, light is light, whoever they be that bring it to us; and as God may Imploy whom He will, to this en…, so; how inconsiderable so ever the Instruments be, who are imployed; and whether they come sooner or latter, the light, when it is come, should be welcomed, because of Him, that sent it; yea and embraced with thankfulness, and with humble submission.
Obj. 4. All or most of the Non-Indulged, Faithful, and Zealous Ministers in the Land are for hearing of the Indulged; and only a few, and these of the younger sort, with the ignorant people, are against it. Answ. Though I would hope, few should lay any weight on this Objection: and it were enough to desire such, who did lay any weight thereon, to consider Iob. 7: v. 47, 38, 49. with Mr. Hutcheson's Notes thereupon, specially the 7. and 9. Yet I shall only say, That an Impartial Observer will finde, that for the most part, in all the steps of our trial, since this last overthrow came, God hath made use of the nothings to break the ice to others. Holy is our Soveraigne, who doth what He will. This might be made out by Instances; but I suppose, the matter is so manifest, that I need not insist thereupon, the matter about hearing of the Curats ▪ being a sufficient evidence of what I have said.
Obj. 5. Now when we are in hazard to be over-run with Popery, is it seasonnable, that such questions should be started, to breake the remnant in pieces; and thereby to make all a prey for the man of sin? Were it not better that we were all united as one, to withstand that Inundation? Answ. I grant, the apprehensions of the Man of sins's stretching out his wings, & filling the breadth of Immanuel's land, seemeth to me not altogether groundless; yea it is much to be feared, that by Popery and Bloud, the Lord shall avenge the quarrel of His Covenant, and the contempt of His Gospel: And therefore I judge, it were our duty this day, to be preparing ourselves to meet the Lord, thus coming to be avenged on a generation of His wrath, with ropes about our necks, giving Him the glory of His Righteousness, and acknowledging ourselves the basest of sinners; that so we may be in case, to say, in the day, when the small remnant of the glory, that is yet to be seen on the mountains, shall depart out of sight, Blessed be the Glory of the Lord from his place. Our Union, while the accursed thing is among us, will be but a conspiracy, and will really weaken us before the Lord. If we be not tender of Christ's Headship, and of what depends thereupon, and of the least pin of his Tabernacle, pitched among us; how can we expect His help, when we are to run with the horsemen? Will they not have most peace in that day, who have been Jealous for the Lord of hosts, and for his Crown Interest - And who knoweth, but they shall finde a shelter and a chamber of Protection in the day, when he overflowing scourge shall come, who are now following the Lord, and his Glory, through Mountains and Valleyes, and are, upon that account, suffering Tossings, Hardships and Harrassings? How little security, I pray, shall the wings of the Supremacie be able to give, in that day? our Union in Duty, and upon the old grounds of our received and sworne Principles and Maximes, would prove our strength, But if this shall not be had, as then every one may certainly conclude, that there is a dreadful stroke at the doores, and that this division, upon such an account, is a certaine fore-runner of a dark and dismal Dispensation; so, it will be every mans du…y, who would have peace, in the day of God's contending against a generation of Backsliders and Revolters, to be mourning for the abominations of the Land and for this of the Indulgence, among the rest, and to be adhereing to the Lord, and unto our Principles▪ which the Lord hath owned and countenanced, though he should, in a manner, be left al…e. Will not, I pray, many of these, who have complied with Prelacie, and with the courses, that have been carried on, profess an abhorrence at Popery? And is this ground sufficient for us to think of uniting with them, notwithstanding of all they have done, that we may be the more fortified to withstand that torrent? Alas! this our strength will prove our weakness, Let us remember that Esai. 8: ver. 11, 12, 13, 14. For the Lord spoke thus to me, with a strong hand, and instructed me, that I should not walk in the way of this people, saying, Say not a confederacy to all them, to whom this people shall say, a confederacy: Neither feare ye their fear, nor be afraid. Sanctifie the Lord of hosts himself; and let him be your fear▪ and let him be your dread. And he shall be for a Sanctuary, &c. It were more sutable for us, to be considering that word Amos 4. v. 12.13. Therefore, thus will I do unto thee; and because I will do this unto thee, prepare to meet thy God, O Israel: for lo, he that formeth the Mountains, and createth the winde, and declareth unto man what is his thought, that maketh the morning darkness, and …readeth upon the high places of the earth: The Lord, the God of hosts is his Name: And in order to a Christian compliance therewith, to be separating our selves from every sinful course, mourning for our former miscarriages, and utterly forsaking such wayes, whereby we have provoked the Lord to wrath. I shall close with that Zeph. 2: vers. 1, 2, 3. Gather yourselves together, yea, gather together, O Nation not desired. Before the decree bring forth, before the day passe, as the chaff, before the fierce anger of the Lord come upon you, before the day of the Lord's anger come upon you. Seek ye the Lord, all ye meek of the earth, which have wrought his judgment, seek righteousness, seek meekness; it may be, ye shall be hid, in the day of the Lord's anger: And let us all pray, Thy Kingdom come, and thy Will be done, AMEN.
FINIS.
Among the persons Indulged, Mr Anthony Shaw indulged to Loudown o… Newmile, and Mr Anthony Murray Indulged to Carmichall are omitted; and possibly some others, through want of full Information, or through the neglect of Transcribers.
End of the text · John Brown, The History of the Indulgence (1678)