3. Because all of them, in the sense of the imposers, interpreted by their acts and actings, were condemnatory of, and contradictory unto the covenants, and some part of the covenanted reformation.
4. Because, by the ancient acts of assembly, all public oaths imposed by the malignant party, without consent of the church, are condemned, July 28, 1648. Ante merid. sess. 18. and sess. 26 those ministers are ordained to be censured, who subscribe any bonds, or take any oaths not approven by the General Assembly; or by their counsel, countenance and approbation, make themselves accessory to the taking of such bonds and oaths by others.
III. In like manner, we dare not forbear to cry and crave, That it may be considered, what wrongs Christ hath received from the Erastian and Antichristian usurpation of the supremacy, encroaching upon the prerogative of the Lord Jesus Christ, his incommunicable Headship and Kingship, as Mediator, giving to a man a magisterial, and Architectonic power, to alter and innovate, authorize and exauctorate, allow or restrain, and dispose of the government and governors of the church, according to his pleasure; invading the liberties of the gospel church, introducing a civil dominion upon her government, contrary to its nature, being only a ministerial stewardship, distinct from the civil government, in its nature, causes, ends, officers, and actings; and giving to the magistrate the power of the keys, without and against Christ's donation and authority, even the dogmatic, critic and diatactic decisive suffrage and power in causes ecclesiastic, which Christ hath intrusted to the church representative; and denying to the church the exercise of these keys and powers, without the magistrate's warrant and indulgence. We crave also, That it may be inquired into, how far this encroachment hath been connived at, submitted unto, complied with, homologate, strengthened and established, by receiving and accepting, without consent of the church, yea against the express dissent and testimony of some faithful ministers, to the contrary, the indulgences anno 1669, and 1679; and by the silence of others, not witnessing against the same, and others censuring the faithful for discovering the sinfulness thereof.——Which we remonstrate upon these grounds, complexly considered:
1. Because, as the contrivance and end of the grant thereof was to advance and establish the supremacy; to engage presbyterians, either to co-operate towards the settling and strengthening thereof, or to surcease from opposing the peaceable possession of the granter's usurpation, and to extort from them, at least an indirect recognizance of acknowledged subordination in ministerial exercises, to his usurped power, in a way which would be best acquiesced in; to suppress the preaching and propagation of the gospel in persecuted meetings in fields and houses, so necessary at that time; and to divide, and increase differences and animosities among presbyterians, by insinuating upon these called the more moderate, to commend the indulger his clemency, while other non-conformists, adhering to interdicted duties, were justly complaining of the effects of his severity. And as the woeful effects of it, strengthening the supremacy, weakening the hands of those that witnessed against it, extinguishing zeal, and increasing many divisions, did correspond with these wretched designs; so these could not be counteracted, but very much strengthened and promoted, by the acceptance of the indulgence, which, in its own nature, was so palpably subservient thereto, even though there had been a testimony against these designs and ends, yet when the means adapted to these ends, were complied with, it was rendered irrite, and contra factum.
2. Because as the supremacy received much strength and increment from the indulgence, so reciprocally it had its rise, spring, conveyance and subsistence from the supremacy, from which it flowed, upon which it stood, and by which at length it was removed. And in the grant and conveyance of the indulgence, all the power of the supremacy was arrogate, asserted and exerted, in first taking away the power of the keys from Christ's stewards, and then restoring only one of them to some few, with restrictions bounding, and instructions regulating them in the exercise of that. The acceptance whereof, so clogged with these complex circumstances, without a clear and distinct testimony, in that case of confession, hath at least a great appearance (which should have been abstained from) of a conniving at, submitting unto, complying with, and homologating of that Erastian usurpation.
3. Because, as it was interpreted to be accepted in the same terms wherein it was granted, without a testimony against the supremacy, so the entry of those ministers to their churches, by this indulgence, was prejudicial to the church's privilege: Some of them being fixed in particular churches, whereunto they had no peculiar pastoral relation before, and some transplanted from one church to another, without the interposition of any ecclesiastic presbyterial authority, without the free and orderly call of the people; being in many respects prelimited; and in the way of patronages, at the council's pleasure and order: And those that were restored to their own churches, being there admitted, not by virtue of their old right and claim of an undissolved relation, but by virtue of a new holding of the indulgence.
4. Because the embracing thereof, and the continuing therein, was a faint yielding to prevailing Erastianism, and a course of defection from former integrity of ministerial freedom and faithfulness, in which the servants and witnesses of Jesus Christ were famous and eminent in former times, who for writing, preaching, and protesting against the ecclesiastic supremacy in the magistrate, and all Erastian courses, did bear the cross of Christ, with much stedfastness; yea, a receding from, and foregoing of a very material part of the cause and testimony of the church of Scotland, which, till then, did constantly wrestle against such encroachments: And in this respect scandalous, because hardening to Erastian enemies, stumbling to many friends, and offensive to posterity.
5. Because it is contradictory to our covenants, to receive indulgences, contrived and conferred, on purpose, to divide (by the terror of persecution on the one hand, and the persuasion of this pretended liberty, taking off the legal restraint on the other) ministers and people from the cause and testimony of the church of Scotland, against the supremacy, and from their former blessed conjunction therein, and to induce them to make defection to that party, that were advancing Erastianism. And it is expresly contradictory to the engagement to duties, anno 1648, where the obligation bears, "Because many of late have laboured to supplant the liberties of the kirk, we shall maintain and defend the kirk of Scotland, in all her liberties and privileges, against all who shall oppose or undermine the same, or encroach thereupon under any pretext whatsoever."
IV. Likewise, we plead and obtest, that a search may be made into, and a review taken of the late toleration, and addressing for it, and acceptance of it, complexly considered: The sinfulness whereof, we could not, and now cannot forbear to witness against.
1. Because as the design of the granter, and tendency of the grant itself, in its own nature, being the introduction of popery and slavery, could not in any probability be counteracted, but rather corroborated, by this addressing for it, and accepting of it, even though there had been a testimony against the design thereof, as there was none, and could be none consistent with the continuance thereof; so being conveyed from absolute power, which all were required to obey without reserve, stopping, suspending, and disabling all the penal statutes against papists; thereby undermining all the legal bulwarks of our religion; The addressing for, and accepting of it, so conveyed, without a witness against this despotical encroachment, (yea, the very condition of enjoying the benefit of it, being exclusive of such a testimony, which might any way tend to the alienating of the people, from such a despotical government, in all its encroachments) did indirectly, at least, imply compliance with, if not the recognizance and acknowledgment of that usurped power, and the arbitrary exercise and effect of it in suspending the penal statutes.