The History of the Indulgence, Part 1 · Floating text 12 – Floating text 17

The History of the Indulgence · Part 1 · Floating text 12 – Floating text 17

p. 48ALL of us being concerned and reached by the late Act of Indulgence and Confinement, & some of us being already cited to give an account, why we have not accepted the same, do humblie desire, in the fear of God, (who standeth in the Congregation of the Mighty, and judgeth among the Gods) to give this true, sober and ingenous relation of the Reasons, which lye weighty on our Consciences, and binde us up from compliance with your LL. Commands, in this matter; briefly premitting first. That our non-compearance hath not flowed from any contempt of, or disrespect unto Authority (which we alwayes highly esteem in the Lord, as our Consciences bear us witness, resolving through grace to submit thereto, in all things Lawful) but from the apprehension, we have conceived of the hazard of our Ministrie and Persons thereby, lest by our personal appearance, and signifying our reasons coram, we might have probably irritated your LL. Secondly. That we be not mistaken, as denying to his Maj. his just power, in reference to Ecclesiastick matters, we do heartily and with great alacrity acknowledge, that the Civil Magistrat hath a power circa sacra, objectively Ecclesiastick; so as he by his Royal Authority may enjoine, that whatsoever is commanded by the God of p. 49heaven, may be diligently done for the house of the God of heaven: Which power is only cumulative and auxiliary to the Church, not privative nor destructive, and is to be exercised alwayes modo civili.

As to the reasons amongst many, which might be adduced (not willing to trouble your L L. with prolixitie) we humblie propose these few.

1. That our blessed Lord Jesus Christ, Mediator, the only Head, King and Law-giver of his own Church, hath committed all Ministerial Power and Authority for Government of his House, to his own Church-Officers, as the first proper Subject and Receptacle thereof Ioh. 20:21. Matth. 16:19. and 18:18, 20. and 28: v. 18, 19, 20. 2 Cor. 10:8. But so it is, that the Act explanatory of his Maj. Supremacie in the Church, whereupon this Act of Indulgence is founded, doth ascribe this Power to His Maj. and His Successours, as an inherent right of the Crown; and actually invests him with the formal exercise thereof, in his own Person, deriving and conveying the same to others, as he in his Royal Wisdom shall think fit: And that the Act of Indulgence appeareth to be the Exercise and Actual Application of the Supremacie in Matters Ecclesiastick, is obvious by comparing the two Acts together; namely in these 3. Particulars, (1.) The Nomination and Election of such and such Ministers to such and such respective Congregations, and that without the previous Call of the People, and Power of lawful Church-Judicatories; which supposeth the Civil Magistrat to have Authority to judge of the sutableness of Ministers Gifts and Qualifications, to labour among such and such people. (2.) A power to plant and transplant, to put-out and to put-in Ministers in the Church, and actually clothing Persons meerly civil with Power for that effect. (3.) The framing and prescribing Ecclesiastick Canons and Instructions, for regulating the exercise of the Ministerial Office: all which are proper, intrinsick and formal Acts of Church-power, belonging by vertue of Christs Institution to Church-Officers.

2. Although we do freely disallow and condemne all tumultuary and seditious Meetings (amongst which it is sad and grievous that the peacable Meetings of the Lords people, for Worship and hearing of the Word soundly preached, should be reckoned) yet are we so convinced and perswaded in our hearts of the Lords blessing, attending the preaching of the Gospel, though not in a publick Paroch-Church; as that we judge the narra…ive of the first Act goes neer to involve the Accepters of this Indulgence in an interpretative condemning of the saids Meetings; which we in Conscience da… not do, being commanded to abstaine fom all appearance of evil 1 Thes. 5:22.

3. There being a standing relation betwixt us and those flocks, over which the Holy Ghost hath made us Overseers, according to Christs Institution in his word▪ the sense of which tye engageth us, to have special regard to these flocks, until that be dissolved by the same power, that made it up and gave it a being; besides that by keeping us from our Charges, a wide door is opened to Errour, Atheisme and Prophanity, and we disabled to discharge the trust, committed to us by Christ, for which we must be answerable to him, in that great day of accounts: What a grief must it be to the people to have their own Lawful Pastours shut-up in a Corner, whereby both we and they are put out of a Capacity for performing of those duties, which tend to our mutual Comfort and Edification; which no doubt is p. 50much aggravated by the Intrusion of others, whom they cannot acknowledge as their Lawful Pastors, they looking on the former relation, as yet in force.

4. Though we be far from questioning the Magistrats just power to confine any of his Subjects within his Dominions; yet there are several things in the present complex case, which we do humblie desire to present to your L L. as burdensome to our Consciences, as (1.) That this Confinement is not simplie of our Persons, but of the Ministrie it self, the Imprisonment of which should be sadder to us, than any personal suffering whatsomever: while, First, It is not of one or two, but of all the Presbyterian Ministers of the Church of Scotland, a very few only excepted. Secondly, While the Propagation of the Gospel, by the personal restraint of us all, is manifestly obstructed. Thirdly, We are cut off from the discharge of many necessarie duties, which we owe to this National Church; and specially at such a time, when so much in hazard to be swallowed up with the floud of Iesuits, Quakers and other damnable subverters of the Truth; and which is yet more, that the three parts of the Kingdom are groaning under the want of the word faithfully preached. As also by this Confinement, we lose the exercise of an essential part of our Ministrie viz. Jurisdiction and Church-Government, a Principal part whereof is Ordination of Ministers, for preservation of a succession of faithful men in the Church, whereof by this Act of confinement (as is also expresly provided by the last clause of the last Act) we are intentionally deprived for ever, while it is in force; in loseing of which, we do burie our cause with our own hands (2.) We cannot but sadly regrate, that no Physical restraint is put upon Papists & Quakers, yea while their Meetings and Conventicles have been found and known, yet not all quarrelled. But the Meetings of Orthodox Protestants hunted, pursued and obstructed, to the great griefe of all the Godly in the Land, though nothing hath been found in them to the prejudice of the peace of the Kingdom, or his Maj. true Interest (3.) It is no small grievance, that we are cast in two's and three's in one Paroch, where there is no need of our Ministrie, nor accommodation for our families, while there are Thousands left to the oversight of others, both in sufficient and scandalous.

5. By the last Act of this Indulgence, all Ministers not indulged are prohibite the exercise of their Ministrie, even as to the preaching of the word, except in the places of their respective confinements, and that upon a call from the Incumbent allannerly: And in their summonds are required to engage to the same; which being contrare to the Scripture commands, and the Commission delivered to us by the Lord Jesus, for feeding of his people by the everlasting Gospel, doth cast us upon a sad dilemma either of disobeying God, or your L L. so that we must say, Whether it be better to obey God or Men, judge ye.

And now, My Lords, having in the singleness of our hearts, and, we hope, without any just ground of offence, given this short and serious representation of our thoughts, in this affaire; we humbly intreat your L L. to give a favourable hearing to these our subsequent just and necessarie desires viz. 1. That your L L. would not construe our non-compliance with the Indulgence, as tendered in the forementioned Acts, to proceed from humour and peevishness; but from Conscience, which makes us, that we dar not be …ilent in matters of so great concernment to our Lord and Master, to whom in the first place we owe fidelity, upon p. 51all highest paines; and that our hearts may not condemne us, in withholding from Caesar what is Caesars, nor in giving to him, what is the Lords. 2. That we be not pressed to go to our Confinements, nor proceeded against as disloyal, and contemners of Authority, on that account; and that we may have liberty to preach the Gospel to our own respective flocks, and to others, as we have access in providence. 3. That your L L. would be pleased to deal with his Maj. to take off the legal restraints on our Ministrie and Persons; that we may peacably give ourselves to the work of the Ministrie, for the Edification of the body of Christ. 4. & Lastly. That your L L. would seriously consider, in the sight of the most high God (before whose tribunal we are all shortly to appear, and give an account of our actions) the heavy pressures and burdens, lying on the Consciences of Ministers and People for meer preaching, and hearing of the word; which pressures have mainly flowed from the heavy yoke of Prelacy (a plant that our heavenly Father never planted) under which this Church hath groaned those many years. And also we most humbly beseech your L L. that what favour it shall please his Maj. in his Royal Clemency to grant, may not be inconsistent with our known Principles, to which we stand engaged by solemne Covenant and Oaths. In granting of which desires, as your L L. will undoubtedly make glade the hearts of many Thousands of his Maj. Loyal Subjects; so ye will much encourage us, your humble Petitioners, to continue serious Supplicants at the throne of grace, for Establishing his Maj. Throne in righteousness, and for pouring out a spirit of righteous judgement; that we may lead a peaceable and quiet life, in all Godliness and honesty.

By these Testimonies and Papers, howbeit not all presented either to the Chancellour or Councel, as was in singleness intended by some, we may see, that there wanted not weighty reasons to have moved such, as loved to walk tenderly, and circumspectly, in such a day of trial and snares, to have peremptorily refused this so dangerous, so ensnaring, so scandalous and so destructive an Indulgence.

We shall now proceed in our Historie, and hasten to an end thereof. The following year, to wit, 1673. Some Ministers, who had been Indulged, were now cited before the Councel, for not observing the 29. of May. and other Instructions given unto them, of which, and of the carriage of these Ministers at that time, we shall take occasion hereafter to speak more fully, and shall content ourselves now with the simple relation of the matter, as it stands in the Registers.

VPonUpon the 8. day of Iuly 1673. The Ministers underwritten, who were Indulged to preach, at the Kirks, specified in the Councels Act of the 3. of Septemb. 1672. and formerly, being conveened before the Councel, viz. Mr Iohn Crawfurd, Mr Anthonie Murray, Mr Iohn Hammiltoun, Mr Iohn Oliphant, Mr Iames Currie, Mr Iohn Lauder, Mr Iohn Stirling, Mr Iames Hutcheson, Mr Iohn Bairdy, Mr Iohn Eccles, Mr Andrew Dalrymple, Mr Iohn Gemmil, Mr Hugh Camphel, Mr Alexander Blair, Mr Iames Veitch, Mr William Fullertoun, Mr Iohn Hutcheson, Mr Robert Miller, Mr George Ramsay, Mr Iohn Bell, Mr Ralph Rodger, Mr William Dillidaff, Mr Georg Hutcheson, Mr Iohn Spading; Mr Iohn Wallace, and Mr William Maitland; and all of them, except the saids Mr Iohn Bairdy, Mr Iohn Crawford and Mr William Fullertoun, compearing, and all of them, except the saids p. 52Mr Iohn Spading, Mr Iohn Wallace, and Mr William Maitland, acknowledging that they had not observed the 29▪ of May 1673. The Councel did finde them to have contraveened the 12. Act of the third Session of his Majest. second Parliament, and therefore fined ilk one of them, in the halfe of their respective proportions of the Stipends, allowed to them by the Act of Indulgence, and that for the Crope and year of God 1673. And in regard the saids Mr Iohn Spading, Mr Iohn Wallace, and Mr William Maitland did observe the 29. of May ▪ the Lords of Councel assoiled them; and ordained the three Persons not compearing to be denounced Rebels. And further, the said Mr Alexander Blair Minister at Castoun, having publickly disowned the King and Councels Power, in giving them these Instructions, appointed for the Indulged Ministers; the Lords of Councel did ordaine him immediatly to be carried to the Tolbooth of Edinburgh, and there to be kept close prisoner, until further order. And in regard diverse of these Indulged Ministers did pretend, they had not received the saids Instructions, did cause deliver to them extracts thereof at the Bar, that they might pretend no ignorance of the same.

Edinbr. the 10. of Iuly 1673. The Ministers underwritten being conveened for the cause foresaid, were fined ut supra, upon their own Confession, viz. Mr Iohn Mc Michen and Iohn Sempil. And Mr Iohn Colt not compearing was ordered to be denounced.

Edinbr. the last of Iuly 1673. The Ministers underwritten were also fined upon their own Confession, ut supra, for the causes foresaid, viz. Mr Iohn Scot, Mr Iames Fletcher, and Mr Robert Mowat.

Upon the 4. of Septemb. 1673. Mr Alexander Blair is ordered to have liberty upon caution, that dureing the time of his Inlargment, he should keep himself in the House of Iean Weir, nigh the Weigh-House of Edinbr. and re-enter his Person within the Tolbooth thereof, within the space of one MonethMonth. And that dureing the said space, he should not keep any Meetings, contrare to the standing Lawes of the Kingdom, under the paine of 5000 Merks Scots money. And upon the 8. of Januar. 1674. his Inlargment is prorogat for the space of fourteen dayes, upon caution of the summe, and in the former termes.

But before this short time was fully at an end, He was called home to his Master's joy: of whom, & of the ground of his particular sufferings, we will have occasion to speak something hereafter; and therefore it will be sufficient at present, for clearing of what is past concerning him, to give a short deduction of the matter. When Mr Alex. Blair, and others (as we saw above) were called before the Council, upon the occasion mentioned, The Councel enquired if they had observed the Instructions that were given unto them; some answered that they had never seen them; where upon the Councel resolved, to prevent this excuse in time coming, to give to every one of them Coram, a Copie of these Instructions. When the day appointed here unto cometh, they all compear, (what was their Deliberations and Resolutions, in the Interim, and what was the carriage of the rest, that day, we will have a fit occasion to speak hereafter) the Copie of the Instructions is given to each of them, standing Coram at the Bar; Several had received them, before, they were presented to Mr A. Blair. But when they are given to him, he, being moved with zeal, and remembering whose Ambassadour p. 53he was, told the Council plainly, that he could receive no Instructions from them, to regulat him, in the exercise of his Ministrie; otherwise he should not be Christ Ambassadour, but theirs; and herewith letteth their Instructions drop out of his hand, knowing of no other Salv…, or manner of testifying for the Truth, in the case. The Council, seeing what a direct Opposition this was unto them in their Designes, in a rage sent him with a Macer unto prison; which made a great noise in the City, the more serious, though sorrowful at his sufferings, yet rejoicing that he had witnessed a good Confession, and so had perpetuated the Testimonie of the Church of Scotland her patience. This could not but carry some sad reflection with it on the rest, who had received, and come away with these Instructions in their hand; wherefore some Judicious and serious Ministers in the Town, being filled with shame and sorrow both at what past, endeavoured to call the rest together, that they might owne Mr Blairs Testimonie, vindicat themselves, and prevent the contempt, under which otherwise they would lye; but though they did meet, yet nothing of this kind could be granted; some would not move one step forward; and the rest, out of a pretence of love to Union, though in evil, would not leave them; but they all, notwithstanding of all their love to Union, left Mr Blair alone, who yet was not alone; his Masters presence making up the want of his Brethren their fellowship: at this meeting, I heard there was a motion made, that some should be appointed to write about the Magistrats Power in Church-matters; as if they, forsooth, could have found-out new Principles, to have justified their own proceedings, so point blank contrary to all the Actings of the Church of Scotland, and of the faithful in it, from the beginning; and if the Person that drew up their Vindication (of which afterward) was appointed hereunto, I should have expected nothing but a piece of Vedelian Pedantrie: But it was good, that this motion was also laid aside. However faithful and honest Mr Blair must moreover suffer by their Tongues; for they were not ashamed to say, that all his suffering was for his rude and unsutable carriage before the Council, though all that knew him, knew him to have as much of a Gentle-man, and of good breeding, as any of them: But the Truth was (as a faithful Person, to whom he himself spoke it, did report) he had that day bowed the knee to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and with much earnestness begged Counsel and Courage, in order to a sutable carriage, at that appearance, and finding his heart enlarged, did not leave praying that morning, until he had obtained some assurance, he should be assisted; and therefore came before the Council, with Micajahs Rudness (if so it must be called,) as having gote a sight of his Royal Master, and durst do, or receive nothing, that might countenance an encroachment upon his Prerogative Royal. It was also known, that some of those, who in their previous Meeting voted for Mr B. being their mouth before the Council, said now, they were glade he was not, for then he had marred all their Business: And in a Vindication of the rest, emitted by some of their number, he is also (as we shall hear) lashed, and that with the Intrado of hinc illae lachrymae, as if he had done more hurt by this Testimonie, than his own, and the lives of many were worth. While worthie Mr B. is (as we have seen) in prison, he falleth very sick, and friends and Physicians fearing his disease should prove mortal, he with much difficulty obtained the liberty mentioned, until he was taken home to glory. It is worthie of our noticeing, That dureing the time both of this Imprisonment and Confinement p. 54as the Sufferings of Christ abounded in him, so his Consolations also abounded by J. C. for all who conversed with him returned comforted, by seeing and sharing of his Consolations; and particularly when drawing nigh to his end, how was his Soul made to rejoyce, in reflecting on his being honoured and helped to give that Testimony? And with what Horrour and Indignation would he express himself, upon supposition he had done less than he did; yea, all his griefe and regrate was, that he had not done more. At length, when the time of the liberty granted, to abide in his Chamber, was almost expired, his glorious Master, who would want him no longer, nor suffer him to want the Confessors reward, sent and rescued him from the rage of Persecutors, and from the Reproaches of his deserting Brethren, and took him home to his Masters Joy; and the sound of, well done good and faithful Servant, filling his eares, made him shut his eyes singing, and give up the Ghost in assurance of being embraced, and of having access to embrace.

From all this, these things are observable, 1. That God, by the speaking significations he gave of his complacency in the Freedom and Fidelity of his Servant, wrote a sufficient refutation of all that was said by some, to disgrace both him and his Cause. 2. That here is a new witness from Heaven against these Invasions. 3. As also against the Indulgence, and the taking of these Instructions. Beside 4. The Encouragement given to all to abide faithful, in avowing Christs Prerogatives, and the Priviledges of his Church and Kingdom, even though abandoned of all, who should bear them Companie, or go before them.

Ere we returne to take further notice of what past, when the forementioned Indulged Ministers compeared before the Councel, we shall for a close out of the Registers mention these following Acts.

Edinbr. 6. of Feb. 1673.

A Nent a petition, presented by Mr Robert Hunter, now Minister at Burrowstouness, that conforme to an Act of Councel, the petitioner did serve the cure at the Kirk of Duning for the 1671. and 1672. years, and after Martimass last did transport himself to the Kirk of Burrowstowness, conforme to the Councels Order. And therefore humbly supplicating, that the Stipend of the said Paroch of Duning for the saids two years might be appointed to be payed to him. The Lords of his Maj. privie Councel, having heard and considered the said Petition, do ordaine the said Stipend of the said Paroch, for the said two years, to be payed to the Supplicant; and that Letters of Horning be direct for that effect.

In the Year 1676. there came forth an open Proclamation, Dated March 1.

THE Lords of his Maj. Privie Councel considering that by their Act of the 3. Septemb. 1672. they did Order and appoint diverse outted Ministers, to repaire to the several Paroches, therein specified; and to remaine therein confined, permitting and allowing them to preach and exercise the other parts of the Ministerial function in those Paroches, and did require and enjoyn these Ministers, or any other Ministers indulged by former Acts of Council, to keep and observe the Instructions following, as they would be answerable.

That they should not presume to Marry or Baptize any, except such as belonged p. 55to the Paroch, to which they were confined, or to the neighbouring Paroches vacant or wanting Ministers for the time.

That all Ministers indulged, in one and the same Diocess, should celebrate the Communion upon one and the same Lords Day; and that they should admit none to their Communions belonging to other Paroches, without testificats from the Ministers thereof.

That they should preach only in these Kirks, and not in the Church-yards, nor in any place else, under the paine to be repute and punished, as keepers of Conventicles.

That they should remaine within and not depart forth of the Paroches, to which they are confined, without licence from the Bishop of the Diocess onelyonly.

And whereas it is informed, that the saids outted Ministers, indulged as aforesaid (at the least many of them) have violated and contraveened the foresaids Orders and Instructions (upon which termes they were permitted and indulged to preach and exercise the other functions of the Ministry) whereby many disorders are occasioned. The saids Lords do therefore, of new againe, require and command all these Indulged Ministers to keep and observe the foresaids Orders and Instructions, in time coming, and specially for keeping within the bounds of their Paroches, and celebrating the Communion upon one and the same Lords day, as they will be answerable at their perril. And ordains these presents to be printed, and Copies thereof sent to the several Ministers.

Nothing needeth be here observed beside the Parenthesis, where it is said, that the Observation of these Instructions was the termes, upon which they were indulged; and therefore when they accepted of the Indulgence on such termes, they consented to them, and professed and declared their willingness to accept of their Ministery, and of the free Exercise thereof upon these Conditions; So that whether they observed them punctually afterward, or not, the bargain was established, and they became oblieged by their own deed, in accepting of these favoures granted on these Conditions, to observe the Instructions carefully; and it was too late to say afterward, that the Conditions were not lawful, and therefore could not be observed, for that should have been said at first; and even upon that account alone, had there been nothing else, they should have plainely and peremptorily rejected the supposed favour. Nor will it avail to say, that they knew not, that the punctual observing of these Instructions was made the Condition of the granted favour; for though at first these Instructions, when given, were not expresly so called; yet the manner of proposal was such, as all who desired not willingly to run into a s…are, might have been convinced, that so and no otherwayes they were intended, and upon the matter could carry no other import. And if any were invinciblie ignorant hereof, at their first accepting of the Indulgence; yet now, when such a Printed Proclamation came forth, wherein this was in terminis expressed, and the Printed Proclamation ordered to be sent unto each of them, they could no longer pretend ignorance; and therefore were called, if they had been formerly really circumvented and cheated, now openly to have declared their unwillingness to accept of the Indulgence on these termes; and henceforth to have abandoned the same, and followed their Brethren to the Mountaines. But now when this was not done, but they remained p. 56in their warme nests, how they can plead innocent before God, or Man, I see not.

We proceed to relate a few things following.

Edinbr. 3. August. 1676.

THe Lords of his Maj. privie Councel do hereby ordaine Mr Iohn Stirling, Minister, who is confined to the Paroch at Hounam, by an Act of Councel and Indulged to preach in that Paroch, to transport himse…f from thence to the Town of Irwing, and confine himself to the Town and Paroch of Irwing, with liberty to preach and exercise the other Functions of the Ministrie, in that Paroch, as he did in the former, according to the Instructions of the Councel, given to the rest of the Indulged Ministers.

By which we see, that the simple Act of the Councel is the all and only ground of transportation from one place to another; and that alwayes the Instructions must go alongs with them, as the constant Companion of the Indulgence.

Edinb. 9. Novemb. 1676.

HAving heard and considered a Petition, presented by the Magistrats of the Brugh of Irwing, supplicating that the Stipend of the Paroch of Irwing, vacant in the year 1676. might be allowed to the Petitioners, for defraying the Expences, that Mr Iohn Stirling will be at, in transporting himself to Irwing, and repairing the Kirk, School and Bridge of Irwing. Do allow the Supplicants the Stipend of the said Paroch, for the said year 1676. Instant, which is vacant, for defraying the expences of the said Mr Iohn Stirling, and repairing the Kirk, School and Bridge of Irwine; and if need bees ordained Le…ters of horning to be direct hereupon in forme as effeits.

Edinb. 1. March 1677.

Anent a petition presented by Mr William Maitland, Minister at Beeth, shewing that the petitioner hath served the Cure, at the said Kirk; the two by gone years 1675. and 1676. without receiving any stipend, albeit he hath himself and a numerous family to maintaine, which he will not be longer able to undergo, unless the Lords of Councel be pleased to allow him the said stipend for the saids two years service: And therefore humbly supplicating, that an order and warrant might be granted for that effect, in manner underwritten. The Lords of his Maj. Privie Councel, having heard and considered the foresaid Petition, do hereby grant order and warrand to the Heritors and others lyable in payment of the stipend of the said Paroch of Beeth, to make payment of the same to the Petitioner, and that for ilk one of the saids crops and years of God 1675. and 1676. and ordains Letters of horning and others to be direct thereupon, in forme as effeirs.

Edinb. 7. of March. 1677.

The Lords of his Majest. privie Councel, do hereby ordaine Mr Alexander Hammiltoun, who is by Act of Councel confined to the Paroch of Dalmeny, and permitted to preach there, during their pleasure, to remove himself from the said Paroch of Dalmeny to the Paroch of Dalserfe, and that betwixt and the fift p. 57day of Aprile next, and to confine himself within the said Paroch of Dalserfe till further order, as he will be answerable at his peril. And do hereby permit and a…low the said Mr Alexander Hammiltoun to preach and exercise the other functions of the Ministrie in the said Paroch, till furder order from the Councel, upon the same termes, that he hath exercised his Office formerly in the said Kirk of Dalmeny.

So that we see the whole exercise of the Ministrie, is, by this Indulgence, wholly at the free and arb…riarious disposal of the Councel, and depending upon their Orders. As also, we see, that the observation of the Instructions is an essentia… part of the bargane, being the termes and condition, on which the Indulgence is granted.

There came forth a Printed Proclamation August. 10. 1677. as followeth.

FOR as much as the Lords of his Maj. Privy Councel, in pursuance of his Maj. Commands, signified to them by a Letter of the 7. of Iune 1669. did confine several outted Ministers to particular Paroches, with allowance to preach and exercise the other functions of the Ministry within the same, and did deliver to them certaine Instructions, to be keeped and observed; upon which they did accept the Indulgence granted to them. And a…beit these Instructions have been frequently repeated, and sent to these Ministers, yet diverse of them have con…raveened the same, without any manner of regarde thereto. And whereas by his Maj. Letter foresaid, it is left to the saids Lords, to allow to these Ministers such parts of the Stipends, as they should think fit; and that from time to time, the Councel hath gi…en Orders and Wa…rands to the Heretors and others, lyable in payment of the stipend, to make payment thereof, as they saw cause; without which special war…and, they could not, nor cannot, warrantably pay the same. Notwithstanding whereof, it is informed that several Heretors have payed, or intend to pay these stipends, without special Warrant and Order. The saids Lords do therefore Prohibite and discharge all Heretors, Fewers, Liferenters, and others, lyable in payment of the stipends of the Paroches, where these Ministers are confined, to make payment of any part of the Stipend to them, for the cropt and year 1677. and in time coming without a special Order & Warrand from the Councel, under the penalty of being lyable in payment of the said Stipend againe, to such as the Councel shall appoint, and further censured for their Contempt, and ordains these presents to be printed, and published upon a Sabbath day at the several Paroch-Kirks, where the saids Ministers are confined, that no Person pretend ignorance.

In the Proclamation-emitted in the preceeding year 1676. the Council said in plaine termes, that they granted the Indulgence, upon condition that the Indulged should observe the Instructions given; and here in this Proclamation, they say, that the Indulged did accept of the Indulgence granted to them, upon these termes; whereby we see that it was a full and formal compact, & the Indulgence was both granted & Accepted upon the termes specified. What can now be said for vindication of these accepters, I canno… imagine. If they should say: That all this is but the deed of the Council, with which they are not concerned. Yet it is certaine, that every one is p. 58Master of his own favours, and may dispense them on what termes he pleaseth; and when the termes are known, upon which such favours are granted, and the favours formerly accepted are held, though the conditions should seem hard, yet the favour is embraced cum hoc onere; & any after signification of a dissatisfaction cannot but be unseasonable and insignificant. It would now have been thought, if the Indulged had not been satisfied with the termes, after such publick Intimations were made unto the whole Nation, both of the grant of the favours, and of their acceptance, upon these termes, they would have signified their dissatisfaction with the bargain, and rejected the favour of the Indulgence, which they could have upon none, but sinful termes; especially now when their silence, and continuing in the possession of the favour, did not only interpretativly, but plainly and expresly, in the sight of the whole Nation, say, they were satisfied with the termes, and would rather submit unto them, than lose the benefite they had received in and by the Indulgence.

Upon which account possibly it was, that the Councel, seeing that they had attained their end, in granting the Indulgence, and had found the Indulged so calme and pliable to submit to any termes they pleased to propose, did mitigate, within two moneths thereafter▪ the severitie of the last Act, in so far, as concerned the stipends; for Octob. 5. 1677. this Act was made, with which I shall end this historical Relation.

Edinb. Octob. 5. 1677.

The Lords of Council thought fit, of that the Indulged Ministers shall not be put to a necessity of seeking yearly warrands for their stipends: But authorizeth and appointeth the Heretores of the Paroches, where they serve, to pay them their stipends, according as they serve the cure, in whole, or in part. And do declare, that if any of these Indulged Ministers shall be found to contraveen their Instructions, the Council will proceed against them, as they shall see occasion. And recommends to the respective Commissioners, appointed by the Council, for putting the Decreets of Council &c, and Acts against Conventicles and others, in execution, to see them keep their confinements; and to report if they finde them transgre…s.

We have thus deduced this Business of the Indulgence unto this period; and, as occasion offered, have hinted all alongs such remarks, as might suffice to give understanding in the matter, and to clear up the true state of the question unto the understanding and unprejudged Reader. And from what is said, the judicious may see what is to be said of the Indulgence, & of those Ministers, who have thus accepted thereof, though no more were said: Yet that fuller satisfaction may be given in this matter, I shall, according as I promised, turn back a little; and take notice of some things, that fell out Anno 1673. when severals of the Indulged were (as we heard) called before the Councel, for not observing the 29. of May, and the Instructions that had been given to them, where by we may be helped to some further clearness in this affaire.

And in this examination, I shall, as to the ground I go upon, be favourable to the Indulged, beyond all exceptions; for I shall only take notice of the relation of what passed, as made by one of themselves, in a Narrative (as it is called) concerning the carriage of some Ministers, who appeared before the Councel in July last) to wit 1673) written in answere to afriend, who de…ired to be informed about that affaire; and p. 59truth or falshood was in that Paper, scattered up and down among the People; concerning the same. And I suppose, no man will blame me for grounding my discourse against the Indulgence, and Indulged, upon this Narration, seing it may be supposed, that this would be made as favourable to them and their cause, as truth would suffer; and I shall be loath to question matters of fact; nor shall it be necessary for …e to examine every word in that Paper it being sufficient for my present business, to touch upon those things, which are most material, and which concerne our present question.

This Author tels us; that there were a considerable number of Ministers, who had obtained liberty from the Magistrat to preach publickly, without hazard of that legal restraint, under which they lay before, cited before the Councel. But, not to exaggerat that word obtained, which would import, that these Ministers had been too active in procuring to themselves that liberty, as it is called; which, whether it was so, or not, I cannot determine, though this expression would give the Reader ground to suppose that indeed it had been so; I only observe, that his Construction of the Indulgence, and his Description thereof here given, appeareth too favourable, and more favourable than true; for sure there was more than this in the Indulgence; Matters had been thus, if the Act of Glasgow had been simply repealed, and every man permitted to returne home to his own Charge: But when that is not done; but every one of them sent to such places, as the Council thought meet, and appointed and ordained, there to abide, and to exerce the function of the Ministry, with such and such limitations, and upon certaine Conditions held forth and made known, and (as the Councel saith) accepted and submitted to, it is manifest that the matter had a far other face. Beside, that the granting of liberty to preach publickly without hazard, needed no such Act of Parliament, as is the Act of Supremacy, to salve the granters in Law, and make the grant to stand good in Law. But what for a Possession this liberty is, the Charter, by which it is confirmed, may tell us. It can be no lawful Possession before God, which must have such a de Novo damus, and Charter to secure it: And that the Indulgence could not stand without this▪ we have seen above; and how, notwithstanding of all that liberty, the Indulged could not be secure, in point of Law, untill this explanatory Act of the Supremacy had past in Parliament Anno 1669. whereby not only what was done by King and Councel, in licensing of so many, before that Act, was declared to be legal, because of the Kings Supremacy in Church-Affairs, never before so amply and fully declared and explained; but way made for prosecuting the same designe, in time coming; according as it came to passe. When the Indulgence standeth engaged thus unto; and under the favourable aspect of that unparalleled Supremacie; who, that is not wholly devouted unto the Supremacy, can give such a favourable verdict of the Indulgence, as this Author did? Beside, that impartial On-lookers will judge, that there was much more in this Indulgence, seing it is obvious enough how the contrivance was made to break the honest suffering party, and (as some of the chiefe Contrivers said) to divide betwixt the Mad-Cap Phanaticks, and the more sober; to confirme the Usurpation, to strengthen the hands of Adversaries, to suppress and keep down the glorious and blessed Assemblings of the Lords people, and to settle people in a Sinful silence and stupide Submission to all the Incroachments, made on the Prerogatives of the Crown of Christ, and on the Privileges of his Church, and to the p. 60overturning of the whole Work of God; and not only the Intentio Operantium, (which Wise men so circumstantiated, as they were, were called to eve and consider) was obvious and clear; but also the Intentio Operis was undeniable; however we may please ourselves, in devising terms of mincing and extenuating, whereby to paint it forth, as well as we can, if not so, as that it shall appear beautiful; yet so as that it may not appear so deformed, as indeed it is, and will be to all that view it in a just and upright mirrour.

He saith that it is not easie nor necessare, to tell what was said to or by every one of them, they being called-in one by one; but this is certaine, that all of them (except two, who were dismissed upon their declaring that they had preached on that day onelyonly because it fell to be their lecture-day) declared they had not preached on that day, and did agree in substance upon this ground of their forbearance, that it did not flow from any disloyalty or disaffection to Authority; but that they had not freedome to observe any s…lemne fixed anniversary Day for religious Worshippe, besides the Lords Day. To which I shall only crave leave to say, not questioning the account he giveth here, though the Council's books tell us▪ that there were Three assoiled, and that because of their observing that day; nor taking notice, that the Lords day is no anniversary day, but a weekly solemne day; nor doubting of the first part of their Apology; for as to some, it may be more than probable, that such was their loyal affection to Authority, that for fear of offending, they did not hold forth and plainely show the true ground as they ought to have done. I grant the Parliaments calling that day, an holyday, might give ground of scrupling to Conscientious Persons: Yet I suppose, it is well enough known, that this denomination was not the effect of true Devotion, nor yet of Superstition; the day being observed, rather in honour of Bacchus, than of the true and living God; and that the Principal thing intended, was, a Solemne, Universal and Anniversary Condemnation of the work of Reformation, which was so fully signified in the very narrative of the Act, that I wonder these Brethren did not give this, as the ground of their non-observing of that day. I shall not think, that they thought themselves free to abstract from that Narrative, and not once to notice it; seing they could not abstract simple preaching on that day, from its due observation; and seing every one knowes, that every observation of a day holy, or civil, appointed by Men, doth homologat the Grounds & Reasons of the Institution.

But passing this, which is not of moment, as to our present business, he tells us, that there were foure of the Brethren called-in together, upon particular summonds, for baptizing of Children of other Congregations: To which among other legal defences (whereof he can give no particular account) they gave this answere; that these Acts, relating to that matter, were never intimate unto them. Upon which they were told by my L. Chanc. they should get them; and so all were commanded to appear againe the following Tuesday. As to this, we may see, that the Council did suppose those Acts to have been made known unto them. And that, so far as the Concil did know, all the rest, save these foure, had observed the Injunctions, otherwise they had been challenged upon the violation of them, as well as these foure. As to this answere, given by those foure, I suppose, the rest will willingly acknowledge, that it was not sufficient; and that another answer had been both more pertinent, and less introductive of new troubles; for probably, if this answere had not been given, they had not gote such a returne from my L. Chanc. Had they ingenously said, that their commission p. 61bare them to Baptize, as well as to Preach; and that they might not be answerable to their Master, to refuse to Baptize any Childe within the Covenant, brought unto them for that end, much trouble and temptation had been, in all appearance, prevente…. And though I will not condemne all legal defences; yet I must say, that Ch…istian prudence might soon have taught them to have waved this defence, not only because it was obvious enough what would follow: but mainly because it contained a tacite acknowledgment, that they would not have done what they did, if the Act had been intimat to them; and that in time coming they would willingly obey the same; and consequently, that the Injunctions were just and righteous, and such as neither they, nor any other should disobey, whether because of the matter, or because of the power enjoining them: But more of this purpose afterward.

He gives us next an account of what they did in the Interval, and how they did meet almost every day, to consult what they should do, at their next appearance, in case these Acts (called, saith he, Rules) should be intimate unto them: And how a Paper was produced by some, appointed thereunto, which was only relative to these Instructions or Rules, with a touch of the reasons of their not-observing of the 29. of May, to which (saith he) afterwards was prefixed a pretty large Introduction, concerning Christ's power, in and over his Church; and asserting the Magistrat's just right about Ecclesiastick affairs, as amply as any thing Mr Hutcheson spoke; and denying him no more, when it was finished, than he …enied unto him. Concerning this Paper, I can say nothing, having never seen it; only I finde, it contained (as himself tels us, in the following words) this clause: That we could not receive from the Magistrate any Instructions, to regulate us in the exercise of our Ministrie: And I finde by his own relation; that three or foure dayes they debated upon this clause, which he calleth, Unqualified: And that many of the Brethren were against it, as an Assertion, which being so generally and indistinctly expressed, would not hold water, nor be found agreable with the Word of God, or Concessions even of our Orthodox Anti-Erastian Divines, concerning the Magistrates just right.

As to this Assertion, which, as he saith, Was not satisfying to some; though I do not know, what particularly was objected against it by these some; yet I may take liberty to say, that it appeareth not to me contrary either to the Word of God, or to the Concessions of Orthodox Anti-Erastian Divines, if it be understood, either as relative to the case than in hand (as it behooved to be, if pertinently adduced,) or according to the true and native import of the words, wherein it is expressed: and that because.

1. Nothing occureth to me, in Scripture, whence it can with any shew of probability be inferred, that this Assertion is not consonant to Scripture, except what is recorded of David's giving Instructions to the Levites, Porters and Singers, and Marshalling them in their several Orders and Work. But sure I am, all Anti-Erastian Divines look upon that practice, as no precedent to Christian Magistrates now, as is well known: And their ground is clear and irrefragable; for David ▪ did what was done herein, not as King, by any proper Magistra…ical power, as is clear from what he said himself▪ when he was delivering all these Orders and Instructions, mentioned 1 Chron. 23. and 24. and 25. and 26. over unto Salomon Chap. 28. vers. 9, 10, 11, 12, 13. he tels him vers 19. That the Lord made him understand all this, in writting by his hand upon him: And accordingly we finde Salomon p. 62doing nothing in this matter by his own proper Magistratical power; 2 Chron. 8: v. 14. But according to the order of David his Father. And moreover, when King Hezekiah is about this work, reforming what was am…sse, he doth nothing of this kind, Iure Regio, by his Magistratical power; but according to the commandement of David, and of Gad the Kings Seer; and Nathan the Prophet, 2 Chron. 29: v. 25. and it is added; for it was the commandement of the Lord, by his Prophets. In like manner King Josiah, when he is ordering Church-affairs, and reforming abuses, assumed nothing to himself of this Nature, as King, but appointed all to be according to the writting of David King of Israel, and according to the writting of Salomon his Son, 2 Chron. 35:4.

2. Nor can I call to mind what that Concession is of our Anti-Erastian Divines, that can seem to contro…e this, (1.) It cannot be that Concession, That Magistrates may and should put Ministers to their Duty, in following the Rules and Injunctions, prescribed by Christ, viz. in their Political Way, and by their Political Penalties: For hence it will no way follow, that Ministers receive Instructions from Magistrates, to regulate them in the exercise of their Ministrie; more than it can be said, that Magistrates receive their Instructions, for regulating them in the exercise of their Civil Function, from Ministers; because Ministers, in their Ministerial Way, put Magistrates to their Duty, in following the Rules prescribed by God in his Word. (2.) Nor can it be that Concession, That Magistrates may, by their Political and Civil Sanction, confirme and enforce civilly Canons and Rules, Ministerially cleared and concluded by Church-Judicatories: For that is but to presse the Rules of Gods Word to be observed, and is no prescribing of Injunctions; but an enjoining civilly the Observation of Injunctions, imposed and proposed Ministerially by Church-Judicatories. (3.) Nor can it be that Concession, That the Magistrate is Custos utriusque tabulae, for the Reasons already given; The Minister also may be said, to be Custos utriusque tabulae, in his way and manner; and yet none wil hence inferre, that he may give Instructions unto Magistrats, to regulate them in the exercise of their Office. (4.) Nor can it be that Concession, That the Magistrat is Episcopus foreign, an overseer of things without; for these external things are properly and formally political things, belonging to the Civil Government of the outward man; among which the function of the Ministrie, as such, cannot be reckoned; this being purely Ecclesiastick, and properly belonging to the Spiritual Kingdome of Christ. (5.) Nor can it be that Concession. That the Magistrate may limite and confine the Person of a Minister, whereby, per accident, there is a confinement laid upon the further extension of the exercise of his Ministrie: for every body seeth, that this is properly a confinement of the Person, and but consequently of the exercise of the Ministrie; and no man will say, that is Orthodox, that the Magistrate hath the same Power over the Office of the Ministrie, that he hath over the Person of the Minister.

3. Some such thing may, I grant, be gathered, with some probability, from that Assertion of Vedelius, viz. That Magistrats have an Inspection of the Office of Ministers, as he urgeth it. But he is no Anti-Erastian, but an Erastian Divine: And I suppose no such thing will follow from this Assertion, or the like, as qualified or explained by our Orthodox Divines, who have written against Vedelius, such as Apollonius, Triglandius and Revius: Beside what Walaeus and Voetius have spoken hereunto.

4. I conceive that Assertion was very orthodox and safe; for these Reasons, p. 63(1.) This Power of giving Instructions, for regulating the exerci…e of the Ministrie, would inferre or presuppose, that the Office of the Ministrie, and its exercise are subordinat to the Magistrate in linea recta: For Instructions and Orders or Rules coming from a Superiour (for from such they must come and not from an Inferiour, not yet from a Co-ordinat Power) to an Inferiour, say, that the Superiour hath Power to grant a Commission to that Inferiour, be it Court or Person, to Act in that function and sphaere; and a Power to Limite, Restrict, Enlarge or Qualifie the exercise of that function, as he seeth good: But none of our Orthodox Anti-Erastian Divines grant a Subordination, but assert a Collaterality. (2.) No Orthodox Anti-Erastian Divine will say, that Ministers, as such, are so subordinant unto the Supreme Magistrat, as other inferiour Magistrates are. But if the Supream Magistrat might give Instructions to Ministers, and prescribe Rules to regulat them in the exercise of their Ministrie; what difference shall there be, as to this, betwixt Ministers, as such, and inferiour Magistrates? Can the Supream Magistrate do more, as to the regulating of the Magistratical function, in inferiour Magistrates, than Limite them, Restrict them, Qualifie them by such and such Instructions? and what less shall now hereby be granted to him, in reference to Ministers, as such?

5. But now if we speak of Injunctions and Instructions, in particular, the matter will be yet more clear, that that Assertion was truth, and nothing but truth: For either the Instructions are concerning such things, as are at all times necessary to the right exercise of the Ministery; or concerning alterable circumstances, which only hic & nunc can be called neces…ary: If the former be said, it must be granted, that these are set down to us in the Word; for all necessaries are there contained; and if so, the Magistrat either enjoineth these Ministerially, as holding forth the mind of God; but this cannot be said, for then were he no Magistrat, in that, but a Church-Officer and a Minister: or Magistratically and Autocratorically, as a Civil Magistrate. And then this must either be, in Ecclesiâ reformata & bene instituta, that is, in a well reformed and instituted Church; or in Ecclesiâ reformanda & confusa; that is, in a Church wholly confused & needing reformation; In the former case, Orthodox·Anti-Erastian Divines will say, there ought to be an antecedaneous judgement of the Curch, or of Ministers, who are the only authoritative and authorized Ministerial Interpreters of the Word: And then the Magistrat doth not give the Instructions, but by his Civil Sanction politically inforceth the observation of Gods Instructions, authoritatively and ministerially held forth by the authorized ministerial Interpreters. The latter case is not our case, unless by this Concession we would grant Power and Liberty to any Magistrate, to overturn the best reformed Church that is, to the end he may order all things in it, as he pleaseth; which was never understood by the Users of this Distinction. If the Instructions respect only the alterable Peristatica: Either Christ hath given Power to his Church, in these cases, to judge, according to the General Rules of the Word; or not. No reformed Orthodox Anti-Erastian Divine will say not, and if the former be said (as it must be said) Then quo jure? By what Law can the Church be robbed of this Power? And by what right can the judgement of this matter be committed, in prima inflantia, at the very first, unto the Magistrat; or rather wholly and solely unto him? For thus the Ministers are altogether excluded, when it is said, that the Magistrate can give Instructions p. 64in these matters: For the granting of this power unto the Magistrate, will necessarily bring the examination and judgment of Ministers, as to the Acts of the exercise of their function, unto the Civil Court, either wholly, or in the first place at least, contrare to the Orthodox Anti-Erastian Doctrine.

I think then, that all, who minded honest and plaine dealing, in this day of tryal, and of witnessing to the truth; and to that truth, that so neerly conce…ned Christ, as King and Head of the Church, should have consented unto this Assertion, and in plaine termes have told the Councel. That they were to receive no Instructions from the Magistrat, to regulat them in the exercise of their Ministrie. He tels us next, that Some supposed this question was determined, in the Concessions, that were in the Introducto…y part of the paper wherein the Magistrat's power objectively Ecc…esiastical is asserted. Bu… if all those concessions, set down in the Introductory part of the Paper, issued in the clearing of the Magistrates power to be objectively Ecclesiastical, they expressed nothing to weaken the fore-mentioned Clause: For, who will say, that because the Magistrat's power is objectively Ecclesiastical: Therefore he can give Instructions to regulat Ministers, in the exercise of their Ministrie? It were as good a consequence to say, The Magistrat is keeper of both the Tables of the Law. Ergo he may set down Instructions, Limitations and Rules, shewing when the Law o… God shall oblige as the Law of God, and when not. And to lay, Because he hath the Scriptures for the object of his care: Therefore he may set down Rules how this or that Prophecie, this or that doctrinal Book, or History should be understood and Interpreted. So to say, Because his care reacheth to Doctrine, and he must countenance the preaching of Truth, and discountenance the preaching of Errour. Ergo he may appointe Ministers what to preach, and what not; and command them to preach of the Seven deadly sinnes, and not of Predestination, as the King said in his Letter to the Archbishop of York And because his power objectively reacheth to the Worship of God: therefore he may do as Ieroboam did. So because Discipline and Government are also the object of his care, therefore he may give Rules and Instructions, how the Chu…ch shall be governed; that is to say, whether by a Pope, or by Prelates, or by the People, or by Himself and his Undermagistrates. Yea and from this power objectively Ecclesiastical, it may as well be Inferred, that he may regulat Controversies and other debates, handled in Church Assemblies, and prescribe what Arguments pro and what Arguments contra shall be used, what sins shall be so and so Censured, &c. Yea, in a word, we may as well inferre from this objectively Ecclesiastical power, all that is summarily contained, in the Explicatory Act of Supremacy: As that he may give Instructions, to regulat Ministers, in the exercise of their Ministrie.

How did this debate issue? He saith, in end, some made a motion, which, with common consent, so far as could be discerned, was embraced: And what was this? That the Assertion should be thus qualified, That we would not receive from the Magistrate Instructions, Formally and Intrinsecally Ecclesiastical, to regulat us, &c. Which, in my judgment, was either nothing to the purpose; or (which is worse) was a betraying of the Cause: For either this was understood, in reference to these Rules, which the Councel prescribed in their Act Sept. 2.1672. or not. If not, what was it to the purpose then in hand? If it was understood with this reference, then either hereby they meant to justifie and defend their refusing to accept p. 65of these Instructions, or to justifie their accepting of them, but not of others. If the former be said, Then (1.) Why was Mr Blair so much condemned, who did but refuse the accepting of these, that had been expressed in the Act, and were then exhibited? (2.) Why was it not plainly affirmed, that they would not receive these, that the Councel tendered unto them? (3.) Why was there so much debate in private, about a general Thesis, when the clear assertion of the Hypothesis, would have salved both Credite and Conscience? If the Assertion was thus qualified, to justifie their accepting of these Rules, then sure, the cause was betrayed: And if they were clear to accept of these Rules, what necessity was there for this general blinde? If they intended it for a Testimony, was that a fi… season for a Testimonie, when they were resolved to yeeld to all, that was at that time desired, without hinck or scruple? Further, I suppose it wil be found, that some of these Instructions were indeed formally and intrinsecally Ecclesiastical. And if these were excepted, they should have been particularly mentioned, that all might have been clear; for in Testimonies we cannot be plaine and clear enough. If they were not clear to embrace these Instructions; why did they not unanimously agree to tell this in plaine termes? And if reasons of their refusal had been demanded, ingenuity and plain, dealing had furnished them with reasons sufficient, taken both from the matter of the Rules, the manner of enjoining them, and from the sad consequences of obeying them, beside several other circumstances, not to be despised.

When all agreed unto the Assertion thus qualified, and so to the whole Paper that was drawn up, he tels us, there fell out another question, whether that Paper should be made use of, as a Directory, when they should be called to speak, before the Councel, or if it should be subscribed by all, and so given in as their answere, and sense of these Matters? This was, no doubt, a weighty debate, and such as might have occasioned their breach among themselves: But when the Lord is away, what Light or Counsel can remaine? Well, what came of this question? The generality (he saith) were indeed for the subscribing of it. Which I confess I would not have been for; Nor yet for using of it as a Directorie; for reasons already given. But now the generality being for the subscribing of it, what became of it? Was it subscribed indeed? No, saith he; and thus the Minor part prevailed. But he saith, there were Reasons moving hereunto. And I shall be glade to hear these. The first is, One, who was then withdrawn about some necessary affairs, had declared before, upon reasons ponderous to him, that he was not free in his mind to subscribe any such Paper, at that time. It seemeth strange to me, that the unclearness of one should have proven such an effectual meane to stop the rest, in that, whereabout they had no scruple; especially when that one did not shew, what his ponderous reasons were. I humbly judge; the Zeal of God would have determined them another way. But there was good cause for this; for saith he, They judged it not safe, but prejudicial to the cause, and to unity to break bulk, and Act in a divided way, when all were ready to concurre in the matter, though they differed in the forme and manner: And how inconvenient was it, saith he, that differences about the manner should be seen in publick, when they were one upon the matter? But what prejudice had come to the cause, if a Testimonie had been given-in to the Councel, unto which all had assented, though it had wanted the subscription of one, who was necessarily absent, when it was subscribed? Yea, though it had wanted the subscription of one, who was unwilling to subscribe? In so doing they did not p. 66break bulk; but that one, if ever he had been within the hold, had made the breach, by abandoning his Brethren. Unity and Harmonie is good, I grant; but I know not, why every man should have a negative voice, in all such matters; and why nothing should be done by a Company or Society, if but one man dissent. I know no Divine rule for this; nor will Christian prudence teach it: and I am sure, it is one to an hundered, if ever any thing be done of moment, or hazard, by a company, on these termes. And I much doubt, if, when one onelyonly Person, yea or two are refractory, all the rest of that Society should think themselves exonered in Conscience, to forbear a duty, clearly called for. The forme and manner here was (I judge) a material thing; and who were not clear, as to it, could not be very clear as to the matter.

There was another reason of this forbearance, Had they (saith he 2.) been free to subscribe Papers, at that time; yet they could not look on that Paper, as it was hastily and crudely patched up, as beseeming so many Ministers of the Gospel, to give-in to the State; as their mature and formed thoughts. In thesi I grant, it is good, that no man should subscribe a Paper, with which he is not satisfied; and I think, it is exception relevant enough against the subscribing of a Paper, called or looking like a Testimony, when it is not plaine nor full enough, even though what is said be otherwise not reproachable. But as to this Paper, I think, this reason of his very strange, when he told us before, that the generality was for subscribing of it, as it was rude, hasty and raw. Whence came this change? Second thoughts, it seemeth, have taken place. But in soberness, I cannot but think strange, that so many able Ministers of the Gospel could not, after so many dayes debate, give their formed and mature thoughts of a Business, in which every Minister of the Gospel, and Servant of Christ was obliged to be ready alwayes to give, upon less, than a few houres warning, yea at the first demand, an account of his Faith; especially in this Controversie, wherein all were called to be most clear; and they especially, who could not but know, that their silence, as to bearing Testimonie to the Truth, at their first receiving the Indulgence, had given such offence: for my part, though I cannot judge of the Paper, having never seen it, and though I see not, how all he saith of it can prove it raw and indigested, considering the account he gave of it before: Yet because of that one clause, he tels me was in it, and universally assented unto, I am as glade it was not subscribed and given-in, as he was; and upon that account do judge, it was unfit to to be a standing thing (as he speaketh) for friends and foes, at home and abroad, to descant upon. OnelyOnly I wonder how this Consideration could prevail with them, rather to commit the expressing of the matter unto their chosen Mouth; seing words spoken are more liable to Mis-constructions, and Mis-representations, and other Mistakes; than words set down in write; and it was one to to an hundered if that one Brother, their Mouth, should so happily, in a set discourse, hit upon the very expressions, that were onelyonly accomodat to declare all their mindes; or if that Brother could have expressed the matter, in more lively, masculine, digested and significant Expressions, why might he not have been at so much paines, as to have set these down in write, and then the Paper, being no more raw and indigested, might have been subscribed and given in? But the plaine Truth is, litera scripta manet: And it was to be feared, that a written Paper would have provoked the Councel, more than a transient and volant Expression, in a running p. 67discourse, buried under an heap of words, and so not fully understood, could have done. Finally, I would tell him, That an honest, well meaning, and plaine Testimonie, though not set off with the paint of Words, and Expressions, having all their amiable cadencies and flowrs of Rhetorick, would go far with honest well meaning Friends, both at home and abroad, and have been very acceptable; yea and more convincing unto Enemies, whether at home or abroad, whose angrie descanting upon it would have been a further Confirmation of its honesty and validity.

There is yet a Third Reason given, which is something long. There being (saith he) such a clashing among Ministers and People, some being for an utter refusal of any benfite of the late liberty; and others being free to make use of it, having given a Testimonie in their Station; and that Paper relating only to these Instructions, and not to the whole cause, they could not but foresee, that the giving-in of that Paper would have been looked upon, as a Testimonie; and therefore being so defective, relating only to these Instructions, and not speaking to other cases, it would raise greater debates, and heighten differences; and this they were confirmed in, when a Brother, coming-in among them, told them expresly, their Testimonie (as it was called) was defective, and would do more hurt, than good, except it were fuller: yea certified we were upon good grounds, that if that Paper had been given-in, more tongues and pens would have been awaked, and set on work against it, than now are against the forbearing of it. In which case, albeit I could heartily have wished a full, free general, unanimous Testimonie were given-in; yet I cannot see, how their prudence can be blamed for forbearing that, which would certainly have ministred fewel to the fire, which is like (if mercy prevent it no) to consume this poor Church, and may perhaps burn their fingers, who are so eager to kindle and blow at it. Not to insist nere on enquiring who were those, who were free to make use of that, (which he calleth Liberty) having given a Testimony? And what was that Testimony, and when and in what Station, was it given by such, as were free to make use of it? Nor on showing how Improbable it was, that such as could not agree on a Paper, relating only to these Instructions, could agree to a more full Paper: I would only say (1.) Matters being so, as he here saith, could they not also foresee, that the Words, uttered by their Mouth, following this Directory, would be also looked upon, as a Testimonie; and that that Testimonie, relating only to the Instructions, would have been judged defective; and so occasione new Differences? (2.) If the Paper was defective (as very like it was) why was it not helped? Why was the matter made worse, by giving-in no Paper at all, but committing the matter to the uncertain Expressions of one of their number? Could this more prevent the trouble of Tongues and Pens both? (3.) If he commend their Prudence for not ministering Fewel to the fire, he cannot approve them, for casting in Oyle; for certainly the Course which they took, did contribute more to the burning fire, than that course could have done, which they did forbear. (4. Woe to them, that first kindled that fire, which is like to consume that poor Church; and to them also, who Administer fewel thereunto; but let some laboure, as they will, to free themselves of this, It shall, I fear, lye at their doors.

But now, when all thoughts of subscribing that Paper were laid aside, what course was taken? It was resolved (saith he) that one should be mouth to the rest, to speak their sense of these Impositions, in case they were to be intimate to them: And that this one was Mr. H. and that he was to hold him to the matter, agreed-on in the Paper. Though I could rather p. 68have been satisfied, that a full and faithful Paper, subscribed by all, had been given in, than that this course had been taken; yet, to wave reports of some circumstances, that then went abroad, I think it was requisite, that they had particularly condescended upon the fit season, when their Mouth should have uttered their mind; and I cannot be of this Authors mind, who thinketh, that he was not bound to speak in that affaire, until he was called upon by the Councel; which might have been, for any thing I know, after all and every one of them had been put to speak their own mind, in particular, or say nothing, which the Council could not but take for a compliance. Yet he giveth this reason. That the time not being determined by his Brethren, he was to be ruled by Prudence, which dictated his own being called-upon (whensoever it might be) to be Gods opportunity season and call, to speak what he had to say: The thing also it self, and the usual practice in like cases saith, it was the most fit time to speak to the cause, when all had been gone thorow, and then when he had spoken his light in the matter, the Brethren (as he willed them to do, when they named him) might adde, diminis…, or alter, as they thought fit. This is a wonderful thing, that one should be appointed to speak the sense of the rest of certaine Impositions, or Injunctions, in case they were intimate; & yet that prudence should not teach him to speak, when the Intimation was first made: Was not his speech to be in reference to these Impositions? Was not his speech to be (at least) a virtual Protestation, Apologie or Insinuation of Reasons, why they could not in conscience accept of these Impositions? or an Explication and declaration of the sense, in which they were clear to accept of them? And if so, doth not Nature & Common sense teach, that the onelyonly season for this had been, when the first offer of these Injunctions was made; and that it was a manifest loseing of the opportunity, to delay, till after the Instructions had been tendered, & accepted by severals of the Brethren? did not the accepting of the Paper, containing these Instructions, virtually (at least) if not formally say, that they submitted thereunto, and were satisfied therewith? And then, what could their giving of a sense afterward import? Neither the thing it self (as every one knoweth) nor any (set be the usual) practice, in such like cases, saith, that it was the fittest time to speak, when all had been gone thorow. Had he been only to speak his own judgement, in the matter, he might have forborn, until the offer had come to his own door; but being appointed mouth to the rest, and to speak the sense of all the rest, when these Impositions were offered, his delaying until some, yea till many, had received the Impositions and Rules in write; was really a crushing of what Testimony was intended by his speaking in their names: And what could the Council judge otherwayes, than that the mouth, that spoke, was not their publick mouth, having been so long silent; but his own, speaking only when it came to his own turne? And if what that mouth spoke had been dissatisfying to the Council, and contradictory to their sense and meaning, might they not have judged the silence of such as went before, and had received the Injunctions, a plaine homologating with their Meaning and Intention? & that their Mouth's speaking had discovered them not to be all of one minde?

This is concerning what passed among these Brethren, in private, before they compeared, according to the order of the Council. We would know, what was their deportment, when they compeared: And our Info…mer tels us, that when they compeared, the sentence of the Council for not-preaching May 29. was read unto p. 69them. After which, we are told, that Mr H. addressing his speech to my L. Chancel. did declare, That his Brethren and he did very cheerfully submit to any out ward prejudice they might sustaine, in following their light, yet humbly desiring that the true state in their case might be remembered by their LL. And that they were brought under that sentence, not upon account of any disloyalty to Authority; but upon a scruple of conscience, concerning that particular way of expressing it. Of which I shall not now speak (having spoken to this matter before) and it doth not concerne our present business: only it is obvious, that more, yea much more, might and should have been said.

It is more to our present purpose, to notice what was further said. With all (saith he) not knowing, whether these Instructions were to be presented, but rather to obviat them, Mr. H. added another desire, That their LL. would be pleased not to burthen them with Impositions, in the matter of their Ministrie, wherein they were the Servants of Christ, and they being men, who demeaned themselves, as became loyal Subjects. Here is my former remarke confirmed; for prudence taught, we see, this their Mouth, to speak something to the matter, even though as yet the Impositions were not presented, and offered to them. Moreover, this desire doth import, either that he and the rest were unclear to submit unto Impositions, in the matter of their Ministrie, because of their being the Servants of Christ; or that, though they looked on these Impositions as burthens, and so wished to be free of the yoke; yet being imposed they would submit unto them, as to an outward prejudice, which they behooved to sustaine; as he spoke before in reference to the sentence, read against them. If this later was his meaning, it is past doubt, that the Cause was betrayed, and his mouth stopped from giving that Declaration or Testimonie, in all their names, which he was ordered by them to give. If the former was his meaning, as I am apt to think; why were the Brethren so offended with what Mr Blair said hereafter? (as we shall hear they were) was it because Mr Blair's words were too too plaine and distinct? Sure, Christianity will tell us, that Testimonies cannot be plaine enough.

Upon this he tels us, they were (as they thought) dismissed. But the L Chancel. forthwith called them againe, as they were turning their faces towards the door, and told them, that seing some of their number had said, these Papers viz. the Papers containing the Instructions) were not given them, the Clerck was to give every one of them a Copie, which accordingly he went about to do. May not every body now think strange, that prudence did not now teach thei… mouth, to express what he had to utter in their names, when all of them were thus spoken to in Common, and particular mention was made of that Paper of Instructions, which before, when no mention was made thereof, he laboured to obviat & prevent the giving of?

When their faces are now againe turned towards the Councel, the Clerk went about to deliver each the paper of Instructions, and we are told that they had been delivered to the one halfe or more of the Brethren, even to all cited out of Clidsdale, Renfrow, and some of Kyll before they came to Mr A. Blair. And our Informer tels us, he beleeveth there were few or none of these behind, that resolved to speak any thing till Mr H. who was not called upon yet, should beginne, (as they had agreed upon, Mr A. Blair consenting thereto, as well as the rest) if Mr Blair's speaking had not drawn some of them, who had been spoken to before, and others, as they were called thereto thereafter, to speake somewhat: But all stood p. 70still in one body, waiting till it should come to Mr H. who was to be their common Mouth, to speak their mind, and they to homologat, adde, or alter, as they should think fit. This is our Informers relation of the business, and I shall not question the truth thereof, but come and see what he saith of Mr A. Blair and his discourse, which (as would seem) broke the intended method and order.

As for his Reverend Brother Mr A. Blair's speaking, he saith, as I hope in Charitie, his motive was zeal and forwardness; so I wish heartily it had been forborn till its season; for hinc illae Lachrimae; and the rather I wish he had not first filled the field; because that lax assertion (of which before) of receiving no Instructions from the Magistrate &c. (albeit it had been limited and qualified by Common consent; Yet) he I know not how repeated it to the Chancellour, in terminis, telling, That he would not receive Instructions from them, for regulating him, in the exercise of his Ministrie; and added this reason, That if he did so be should not be Christs Ambassadour, but theirs. To which I shall only desire to say. That I am of the minde, that as true Zeal and Conscience of duty moved M. A. Blair, to say what he said; so the same should have moved all of them, to have said the like, or more. And I cannot but think strange, that this Informer thinketh it was not seasonable for Mr Blair to speak, when the trial came to his own door; and that notwithstanding their Common mouth had been so long silent, and neglected his opportunity: Our Informer told us lately, that it was seasonable for Mr H. to speak, when it came to his turne: and was it not as seasonable for M. B. to speak, when it came to his turne? As for his calling Mr Blairs Assertion, lax; I shall passe it, having sufficiently shown above, how consonant it was to truth, and how groundless all the exceptions were, that were taken at it, so far as I could conjecture. And I wish himself had hinted (at least) some one ground or other, whereupon he judged it lax. And what difference, I pray, was there upon the matter, betwixt Mr H's requesting, that they might not be burthened with impositions in the matter of their Ministery. And Mr B's saying, that he would not receive Instructions from them, for regulating him in the exercise of his Ministrie. Mr H's expressions wanted the limitation, that they had all agreed upon, to wit, formally and intrinsecally Ecclesiastical, as well as Mr B's; and no man will say, that the word, Impositions, do more import Instructions formally and intrinsecally Ecclesiastical, than the word, Instructions: Nor is there any such difference betwixt these words, in the exercise of the Ministery, which were Mr B's words; and these words, in the mattter of the Ministrie, which were Mr H's words, as to make the one discourse Lax, and the other acurate. Nay, I am ready to say, that Mr B's Assertion was both more congruous to the truth and to good sense, than the words of the other. And finally, This Informer is not well satisfied with the Reason, which Mr B. added; and yet the same was insinuat, in Mr H's discourse, in these words, wherein they were the servants of Christ; for these words did either containe a reason, why their L L. should not burden them with Impositions; or they sounded forth nothing but non-sense; as every understanding Reader will see.

Yet this reason is made the ground of a great out-cry, for he addeth, which reason, if it do not als strongly militate against Ministers receiving of Instructions and Rules (for the prescriptions in that Paper go by these names) from Church-judicatories as well, as from the Civil, and strick equally at the Diatactick power of both, I leave to you to judge; And then to p. 71make all strong, the matter is cast into a Syllogisme, but with this mishap, that it is made up of four termes, contrary to the law of Syllogismes. But this is but trivial. It is more to the purpose to say, that this same absur…ity will follow upon what Mr H. spoke, (unless he pleaseth rather to let it passe under the notion of Non-sence) and therefore what ever way he shall think to salve Mr H's credite, wes hall by the same way salve Mr B's. Though this might satisfie: Yet I shall tell him, that it is far worse for him, by his discourse here, to grant unto the Civil Magistrate a Diatactick power, in matters ecclesiastical…, in such an illiminated and unqualified manner, as he doth, when he talks of the Diatactick power of both: for this is a manifest homologating the Supremacy, as lately explained by the Patlia. But for vindication of Mr. B. he would know, that he was speaking only of Instructions coming from Magistrates, acting by their Magistratical and Architectonick power; and not of all Instructions coming from any what somever beside Christ; and his reason was against the receiving of Instructions from Magistrates, as such, to regulat him, in the exercise of his Ministerie; and did not militate against receiving of Instructions from Church judicatories. For clearing of this, and for his instruction, I shall tell him first. What Instructions Ministers or Church-judicatories give, they give them by a Ministerial Power, explaining, applying and authoritativly declaring, what are the Impositions, Rules, and Instructions of Christ; so that they are but as Heralds and Messengers, Proclaming and declaring, with a Ministerial Authority, the mind of Christ: and therefore the receiving of such is but the receiving of the Instructions and Impositions of Christ, sent and delivered by Christ mediatly by such, as stand in a right line of subordination to Him, as sole Head and King of his Mediatory Kingdom, and act onelyonly as in that relation and subordination. But on the other hand, as Magistrates, as such, are not Ministers of Christ, as Head of his Mediatory Kingdom; so nor do they act, in giving out Lawes and Instructions, as Christs Heralds and Ministers, ministerially explaining and applying the Rules and Instructions of Christ: Nor do they press these Instructions, as Christ's Instructions, nor in his Name and Authority; but as in all other things, so here, they act with an Autocratorical and Architecctonick power: So that, when they give Instructions to Ministers, to regulate them in the exercise of their Ministrie, they do it by their Magistraticall and Architectonick power, by which they do all other Magistratical Acts. Hence is it, that such as receive Instructions, to regulate them in the exercise of their Ministrie, from Magistrates, do acknowledge this Magisterial and Architectonick power in Church-matters, to be competent to the Magistrate, as such; and themselves to be formal Ambassadours and Servants of the Magistrate: for, who receive Instructions from one, acting Magisterially and Architectonically, in Church-matters, do owne themselves as his Servants: which cannot be said of such, as receive Instructions from Church-judicatories, which act but ministerially; and thereby formally declare, that the Architectonick and Autocratorical power, over Church-matters, agreeth alone to Christ, whose servants they declare themselves to be, in that very act of holding forth these Instructions, as the Instructions of Christ, and that in His name. This is one maine difference. Hence Secondly, Ministers receiving Instructions, for regulating them in the exercise of their Ministrie, from Magistrates, acting like themselves, Magisterially and Architectonically, do (if not formally, yet at least) virtually deny Christ to be the only Head and Lawgiver of his Church Acting and Ruling with a supream power: for this Architectonick and Supream power, in the Church, is competent to Christ only; and he hath substituted none, as his Vicar-general, neither p. 72Prince; not Prelat, Pope nor other: As were easie to evince, if needful: And so there is but one Architectonick Supream Magisterial Power in the Church; and if this be attributed to the Magistrate, Christ is put from his Right: And so such Ministers, as by receiving Instructions from Magistrates, to regulate them in the exercise of their Ministrie, do attribute this Power to the Magistrate, must of necessity take and have their Commission from Magistrates, and become their Ambassadours, and not Christs; because by this deed, as they spoile Christ of his Prerogative and Crown, attributing that unto Magistrates, which is proper to Him; so they acknowledg their Dependance on, and Subordination to Magistrats, and not upon and to Christ. But nothing of this kind can follow upon receiving of Instructions from Church-Judicatories, acting as Christs Servants; and, in the very way and manner of their Acting, declaring Christ to be the Sole Head and Supream Governour of his Church: For, as the Church-Judicatories act but Ministerially, so the receiver of Instructions from them, can owne no other Power in them; because they receive these Instructions from them, as authorized of Christ, with power Ministerially to declare his mind and will. And this is a Second Difference, which leadeth me to a Third, which is this, Christ hath never appointed Magistrates, as such, to Act under him, after such a manner, in the regulation of his Church and Mediatory Kingdom; as he hath appointed Ministers and Church-Judicatories. Now, to receive Instructions from an Usurper, is to acknowledge the power of the Usurper, & a dependance upon him, as his Servant: And therefore, as a King will not owne that man, as his Ambassadour, who taketh his Instructions from an Usurper: So nor can that Man formally look upon himself, as the Kings Ambassadour; but as the Ambassadour of that Usurper. But when one taketh Instructions from the Councel, acting in subordination to the King, and clearing his mind by vertue of his Commission, impowering them thereunto, he is truely the Kings Ambassadour, though the Council did immediatly give him his Instructions: So a Minister, receiving his Instructions immediatly from Church-Judicatories, is nevertheless the Ambassadour of Christ; for the Church-Judicatory acteth in subordination to Christ, and only cleareth up his mind, by vertue of his Commission, impowering them thereunto. Thus I have manifested the Invalidity of this Informers Argument; and withal shown that Mr. B. had good ground to say what he said, and to reject these Instructions, upon that very ground, that if he had accepted of them, he should have acknowledged himself not Christs, but their Ambassadour; and withal have shown, that the Indulged Ministers, in receiving these Instructions, have declared themselves not to be the Servants & Ambassadours of Christ, but of the Magistrates; & therefore can be owned as no other.

Our informer tels us, in the next place, That there were some speeches, betwixt My L. Chanc. and Mr B…. and that Mr B. did not deny that the Council might confine him, when the Chanc. asked that at him. And this being one of the Rules, our Informer supposeth, that hereby he overturned his own universal negative. Wherein he is no less mistaken, than he was in his last reasoning; for though it be true, that the Council did confine them to these places, (which, among other things, as then circumstantiat, might have moved them to have refused that Indulgence, they being thereby declared no more free Subjects, and unworthie of the Common Privilege of all Free Subjects; and so actually under the Scandal of Disloyal and Censured p. 73Persons, which, as it was a Reproach to the Ministrie; so it could not but expose them to Contempt, and make their Office vile, in the eyes of the World, and their paines fruitless, when their Ministrie was made contemptible: And if there was some further Designe in this obvious, it was so much the more worthie of their Consideration.) Yet it is as true, that this Confinement was properly and directly of their Persons; and cannot, in any propriety of speech, be called a regulating of them in the exercise of the Ministrie. The Ministers Body and his Ministrie is not one and the same thing. It is true, by confineing of the Minister to such a particular place, the exercise of the Ministrie is consequently confined: But hence it will no more follow, that the Magistrate may give Injunctions, to regulat Ministers in the exercise of their Ministrie; than it will follow, that he may depose a Minister from his Ministrie, because, when he condemneth him to death, and accordingly causeth the Sentence to be execute, or keepeth him in closs and perpetual prison, he doth consequentially put him from the exercise of his Ministrie. Yet he cannot but know, that this Consequence is naught, and that a Physical restraint and a Moral Restraint or Limitation much differ.

When Mr B. upon this honest Testimonie and Declaration, was committed to a Macer to be carried to prison, the Informer tels us. That the Brethren, being surprized, with his speaking unexpectedly (besides the Common agreement) and with the Asser…ion that dropped from him and affected with the Apprehension of the Issue, began to be much Afflicted in their Spirits But why were they not also surprized with Mr H's speaking unexpectedly, besides the Common agreement; for the Common agreement was not, that he should say any thing in reference to the Instructions, before the Councel had made any motion there about? And why were they not also surprized with the Assertion that dropped from him, seing, as is shown, it was the same upon the matter, with what Mr. B. said, unless we think he meant it in a most corrupt sense?

After this he tels us, that upon Mr B. his commitment to the Macer one Minister told My L. Chanc. that he beleeved diverse Ministers of that Company were, upon the matter of Mr B's judgment, whereof himself was one: And another declared, that one of these Rules did bring Ministers into direct Subjection to Prelacie, contrary to their Principles. Whereby I see, that the Consternation and Affliction of Spirit, was not so universal, as he did just now hinte: and that all were not of a Contrary judgment to Mr B. and that the agreement to the forementioned limited Clause, was not so unanimous and cordial, as he would have made us beleeve: But passing these smaller matters, let us hear what followed.

He addeth, Mr H. also, though his time was not come to speak, yet stepped in with them, to see what he could do to remove mistakes. Whereby I see, that even he was at length forced to transgress the Rules of Prudence, and to anticipate even God's Opportunity, Season and Call (as this Informer supposeth;) and to crosse the Usual Practice in all such like cases, that is, to speak before his own turn came. I suppose, if Mr H. had spoken what he was obliged to speak, in Gods true Season and Opportunity, that is, when the first motion was made of delivering to them these Rules, he had prevented much of this mistake, and also Mr B's suffering. What were these mistakes, that Mr H. stepped now in, before the time, to remove? Were they betwixt his Brethren? Or betwixt the Councel and such of his B…ethren, as spoke? And what were these mistakes? Whatever and betwixt whomsoever they p. 74were, if he stepped-in to remove them, that which he said must be looked upon, as having a tendency to the removing of these mistakes; and therefore we must suppose, that his Discourse tended either to rectifie Mr B. and such as were of his judgment, or to rectifie the Council, tha… had committed Mr B. to the Macer. If the Former, then in his judgment, Mr. B. and the rest, were not to be owned and approved in what they said, being in a mistake: If the Latter, his discourse should have tended to have vindicated Mr B. and to have shown the iniquity of what the Council had done: But it may be, it was of a mixed Nature, tending partly to Approve, and partly to Condemne both.

Let us heare what it was he said. Our Informer tels us, He spoke according to the tenor of the Paper agreed upon, to this purpose, He humbly desired their L L. not to misunderstand his Brother Mr A. B▪ for as for Rules intrinsecally Ecclesiasticall (the other terme Formally was forgotten, through occasion of the present jumble, as our Informer supposeth) For regulating Ministers in the exercise of their Ministrie; he hoped their L L. Intended not to make and impose any such upon them, who were the Servants of Christ, in these matters. But for the Magistrates Power objectivly Ecclesiastical whereby they might judge of Matters of Religion, in order to their own Act, whether they would approve or discountenance such a way, he knew no Reformed Divine, that did deny it unto them. And judging that was his Brothers (i. e. Mr Blair's) sense, in what he spoke, did againe desire, he might not be mistaken. Now if we look on these Words, as they are here set down, we must take them either as an Apologie for, or as a Defence of Mr B. or as Explicatory of his Assertion; and what way soever we take them, I cannot but observe their uselesness: For when he speaks of Rules Intrinsecally (let us add Formally, though that was then omitted) Ecclesiastical &c. he must mean either the Rules, which were then offered to Mr B. and the rest; or some other: If some other, then he could not desire their L L. not to misunderstand Mr B. for Mr B. meant and spoke of the Rules, which were tendered unto him, and which he neither could in conscience, nor would accept of: Nor could he then be supposed to be speaking any thing in favours of Mr B. whether by way of Apologie,, Defence, or Explication: If he meant the same Rules, that were then tendered, Then (1.) he must grant, that these were Intrinse…ally and Formally Ecclesiastical; and so such, as the Magistrat might not make, nor impose upon the Servants of Christ, and that because they were the Servants of Christ, in these matters: And so consequentially, his Words confirme Mr B's Argument, which this Informer (as we heard lately) judged most absurd. (2.) if he meaned the same Rules, why was the matter expressed in such general and not obviously intelligible Termes? Every one doth not understand what the Termes Formally and Intrinsecally meane, in this Business, which is abou… Rules, to regulat Ministers, in the Exercise of their Ministrie. And the mentioning of these Termes, Intrinsecally and Formally, here, would say, that there were other Rules Extrinsecally and Materially Ecclesiastick, which the Magistrates might impose, and they might receive, to regulate them in the exercise of their Ministrie: Now I would gladly know, what these are? Will the Confinement, or Imprisonment of a Ministers Person, go under that Name? Or will Rules made, concerning the length of time, which a Minister is to spend, in the exercise of this or that Act of his Ministrie, or the like, be accounted such? The first is wholly Political, and no more Ecclesiastical, than any other thing, which immediatly concerns a Ministers p. 75Person, as his Hat, Books and Cloathes, and the like. The Latter, as they partake more of the Nature of Ecclesiastical Rules, being more formally, and more neerly related unto the exercise of the Ministrie, but yet only in so far, as they belong to publick Actions; so it is a question, if Magistrates may either solely, or in Prima Instantia, prescribe such Rules unto Ministers. However this being, at best, but dubious, and the other so clearly Political; and it being (to me at least) very uncertaine, what Rules these are, which may be called Externally and Materially Ecclesiastical &c. I could have wished, that some Instances hereof had been given; that so not only, it might have been known, what Rules were not Formally and Intrinsecally Ecclesiastick; but also it might have been better understood, what Ecclesiastical Rules were Formally and Intrinsecally such.

(2.) The other part of the discourse, concerning the Magistrats power objectively Ecclesiastical, is as useless for any thing I can perceive, either for clearing of Mr B. or of his discourse: for. (1.) There was nothing in Mr B's discourse, giving the least hint of his denying that power to the Magistrate, which all Orthodox Anti-Erastian Divines grant; For the denying to the Magistrate a power of giving Instructions, for regulating of Ministers, in the exercise of their Ministrie, hath no affinitie with this; as all know, who know any thing of these Controversies. Nor (2.) doth this piece of the discourse, in any manner of way clear, in what sense Magistrates may give Instructions to Ministers, to regulate them in the exercise of their Ministrie, and Ministers may receive them; and in what sense not. These two questions are so far distinct, that I cannot imagine to what purpose this discourse was brought in; or what it was that gave the least occasion thereunto.

But as to this maine Business, I would further enquire, whether the Brethren do judge, the matter of giving these Instructions, about which the debate did arise, did belong to the first part of the discourse; and so to be Intrinsecally & Formally Ecclesiastical; or to the later part; and so belong to that power of the Magistrate, which is Objectively Ecclesiastical, whereby they judge of the matters of Religion, in order to their own Act, whether they will Approve, or Discountenance such a way? This question must be judged necessary, unless that whole discourse be accounted Unnecessary and Impertinent. If the former be said, then why was any troubled at Mr B's refusing to receive these Instructions? Why were not those condemned, who had received them? Why did not such as had received them cast them back againe? How came it that all of them did not unanimously agree in this Testimonie? Or how came it, that their Common Mouth did not speak what was the Common opinion of all? Why was it not more distinctly and in fewer words said, That they could not receive these Instructions, as being Rules Intrinsecally and Formally Ecclesiastical, regulating them, who were the servants of Christ, in these matters. If the Latter be said, Then was not only Mr B's both Practice and Discourse condemned; but the whole cause was basely betrayed; because under the pretext of the Magistrates power Objectively Ecclesiastical, that which is as Intrinsecally and Formally Ecclesiastical, as many other, at least, are, was granted to the Magistrate. Will the Magistrat's power to act as a Man, and not as a Brute, in his Magistratical work, about an Ecclesiastical Object; that is, his power to judge by the judgment of discretion, which is Common to all the members of the Church, yea, to all men, as Men; which Papists deny unto Magistrates, allowing them p. 76only to see with the Churches eyes, but Protestants grant unto them: Will, I say, this power warrand him, to give Instructions, and set down Rules, for regulating the exercise of the Ministrie? Yea, or will his Authoritative Judgment, in matters of Religion; that is, his sentence of Approving or not Approving; of Tolerating, or not Tolerating in his Dominions; of Countenancing or not Countenancing by his civil Lawes, such a Way or Profession of Religion, warrand him also to set Rules to the very exercise of the Ministrie? By what argument shall this consequence be proved; seing (1.) In the one case, he judgeth of Religion, only in order to his own Act; but when he prescribeth Instructions, Rules and Orders, he judgeth of Religion, or of that part of Religion, concerning which the Instructions are, in order to it self, and the Intrinsick manner of its Administration (2.) In the one, his judgment is purely Political and Civil, in the other case it is really Ecclesiastical. (3) In the one case, his judgment is Objectively onelyonly to be called or accounted Ecclesiastical; but in the other, it is Formally & Elecitely Ecclesiastical. (4.) In the one case, he acteth as a Magistrate, considering the outward Good, Quiet and Advantage of the Commonwealth; In the other, he acteth as a Church-Officer or Head, considering the Intrinsick Nature, & Spiritual Ends of that part of Religion. (5.) In the one, he acteth in subordination to God, as Supream Governour of the World; but in the other, he acteth, as in a right line of subordination to Christ, the Supream Head and Governour of his Church, and Institutor of all the Administrations and Ordinances, dispensed in the Church, and sole Appointer of the Qualifications of the Officers, and Rules of Administration: Or rather, if he act as a Magistrate, in this last, he Acts by an Architectonical power, and so as an Usurper, or by a power, which is only proper to Christ; or if he be said to Act ministerially, than also as an Usurper, because never impowered thereunto by Christ, the Supream King, and Head of the Church.

If we look upon this discourse of Mr. H. as a Testimonie, (and so it may be it was intended) or as a Declaration of the Judgement of the Ministers, concerning the Magistrat's jus, or Right, to impose Instructions or Rules on Ministers, for regulating them, in the exercise of their Ministrie; and concerning Ministers their call and warrant to receive or refuse such Instructions; I cannot but observe (1.) That it is very defective and short of a faire and full Testimonie, against the Practice of such, who were known to have invaded the Rights of the Church; yea and the Prerogatives of Christ, as sole Head and King of his Church; and, in prosecution of this designe of invading the same more, to have devised this medium of the Indulgence (2.) That it is not a plaine and full Testimonie against the present Act of Usurpation, whereby a power was assumed to judge in matters Ecclesiastical, Intrinsecally and Formally such; Yea, and to performe Elicite and Formal Church-Acts, either Ministerially, as Ministers of Christ, clothed with Ministerial Church-power from him, which cannot be Instructed, nor doth it compete to a Magistrat, acting as such; or rather Magisterially, as Supream Governours in the Church, and Appointers of Qualifications, Rules, and Manner of Administration of Spiritual Institutions. (3.) That it was not a full and plaine Vindication of the Doctrine of the Church of Scotland; Nor an Assertion thereof, according to former Vowes, Covenants and Solemne Engagments. 4. That it was not candide and ingenuous, nor pertinent to the purpose in hand, as it should have been, by holding forth the Iniquity p. 77of such Impositions. (5.) That it was conceived in such General and Scholastick termes, that neither they, to whom it was spoken, could well understand what was the drift thereof; nor others conceive what was yeelded, or denied, in the then present case; yea, did not some of the Council say plainly, they did not understand it? (6.) That it contained desingenuous Insinuations and unfaire Reflections on honest and worthy Mr A. B. and a tacite Condemning (at least in part) of his Plaine and Honest Testimony; as if it had contained something, either as to the matter, or expression, unjustifiable; or, at least, liable to exceptions. (7.) That it contained (at least) as worded, a designe too obvious of humoring and pleasing the Magistrates, while actually stated in, and prosecuting an opposition to Christs Supremacie, and to the Right and Power, granted to the Church-Office-Bearers. (8.) That as it speaketh not home to the point; so it is not clear in it self; opposing unto Giving and Imposing of Rules, Intrinsecally and Formally Ecclesiastical, a power only Objectively Ecclesiastical, whereby the Magistrate judgeth of the matters of Religion, in order to his own Act of approving or disapproving of such a way; and nothing else: And so either accounting all things to be Rules Intrinsecally and Formally Ecclesiastical, which is not a meer judging in order to the Magistrates own Act; or, on the other hand, accounting all things, in and about Religion, to belong to that power, which is Objectively only Ecclesiastical, and so to be no less competent to the Magistrate, than is that Judgment of discretion, whereby he judgeth, in reference to his own act of Countenancing or Discountenancing such a way, which are not real prescribing of Rules, Intrinsecally and Formally Ecclesiastical: And thus either giving the Magistrate too little, or else too much.

He tels us of another, that spoke before it came to Mr H's turn; and that this Person told, He could not receive Ecclesiastical Canones from their L L. but as for civil significations of their pleasure, under the hazard of civil penalties, he could say nothing to that; & that another did homologate this speech. But under favoure, this is secundum artem violatilizare densa & densare volatilia; a pretty whim wham good for nothing. On a serious solid zealous Minister should have been ashamed, to have substitute such Whity Whaties, in the place of a plain Testimony, clearly called for in the case. But these two Persons not onelyonly brake their own Order, and might have occasioned some Consternation to the rest, as well as Mr B's speaking did, but also spoke indeed nothing to the purpose; and might as well have been silent, For (1.) By this Distinction (little better than a mental reservation) they might have scrupled at nothing, that theMagistrate might attempt to prescribe, in Church-Matters; no, nor at his giving Rules Intrinsecally and Formally Ecclesiastical; for these might also passe under the Notion of Civil Significations of their pleasure &c. and thus contradict Mr H. their Common Mouth, and the Paper also, to which they had unanimously agreed: For, can they say, that the Magistrate giveth, or can give a Civll Signification of his will, onelyonly when he judgeth in order to his own Act of Approving or Disapproving such a way: and so exerteth that Power of his, which is only Objectivly Ecclesiastical; and not also in many other Acts, meerly Ecclesiastical, even Formally and Intrinsecally? Or can they say, that all the Intrinsecalness and Formality, in Matters Ecclesiastical, consisteth in their being done by Church-Officers, acting in a Church-Judicatory; and that p. 78…here is no Act, which in it self can be called Intrinsecally and Formally Ecclesiastical; but that the sole ground of that Denomination, is their being performed by Men, in Church-office; and so the very Act of Preaching and of Administrating of Sacraments, might be done by the Magistrate, as Civil Significations of his pleasure, being not Intrinsecally and Formally Ecclesiastick, but when done by Church-O…ficers: And thus all the Ecclesiastickness of Actions, which are Intrinsecally and Formally such, floweth from, and dependeth upon the Ecclesiasticalness of the Agents. Whence it will follow, that all, which such Ecclesiastical Persons do, must be Intrinsecally and Formally Ecclesiastick; and so their judging Civil matters, condemning Malefactors &c. (not to speak of other actions) should be actions Formally and Intrinsecally Ecclesiastical, Ergo it is competent only to Church-Officers. And on the contrary, this should be a good Argument. This man is an Ecclesiastick Person; therefore the Action, which he doth, must be Formally and Intrinsecally Ecclesiastick. And, as by this meanes, there should be no Cause, or Action, Formally and Intrinsecally Ecclesiastical, in it self; so there should be no Cause, or Action, Intrinsecally and Formally Civil in it self, but that onelyonly which is done by the Civil Magistrate: And this consequence were good; This is done by a Civil Magistrate. Ergo it is Formally and Intrinsecally Civil; and this should be a bad consequence, This is an action Formally and Intrinsecally Civil Ergo it is to be done by the Civil Magistrate onelyonly (2.) This answere of these two Brethren must either Homologate what Mr H. said; or be dissonant therefrom: If Dissonant, then they did not keep to the Paper, which they had owned, as Mr H. did Then also Mr H. in his discourse spoke not truth; for I suppose, these two will think, they spoke right; and then either the Paper, that was agreed on, was not right, or Mr H. spoke not according to it; for I also suppose, that these two will say, they spoke nothing disagreeing with their Paper. If their answere did Homologate Mr. H's discourse, then what necessitie was there for it: And why used they other expressions, if they had a mind to speak: And it would seem, that all that Mr H. said, was this and no more: Mr B. and we must be excused, if we look not upon the Council as a Church-Judicatory, making Ecclesiastical Canons; but only as a Civil Court, emitting Civil significations of their pleasure, under the hazard of Civil penalties. (3.) This answer seemeth to me a more plaine giving up of the Cause, than all which Mr H. said; for it is no other in effect, than this; Let the Magistrates enjoine what they please, we need not scruple, upon the account of any encroachment made upon the Prerogatives of Christ, or Privileges of his Church; for this distinction will salve all; Let us receive all, not as Ecclesiastical Canons, but as Civil significations of their pleasure &c. and so there is no danger, though they should use both a Dogmatick, Critick and Diatactick power, determine Controversies of faith, Appoint Rules of Ordination, Condemne Hereticks, Debarre from the Sacraments, and Admit thereto by their sentence; judge of Church-members, or determine who should be admitted, as such, and who not: In a word, do all which Church-Judicatories do. This distinction will make all go down. (4.) By parity of Reason, if these Brethren were before a Church-Judicatory, medling with all Civil affairs, determining Civil pleas, giving-out civil Injunctions, Lawes and Rules &c. they might and ought as willingly submit, and salve all with this distinction, saying. We cannot receive Civil Lawes from you, but as for Ecclesiastical significa…ions p. 79of your pleasure, under hazard of Church-censures, we can say nothing to that: And thus they would sweetly comply with all the Invasions made upon and Usurpations of the Civil power, whereof the Popes Conclave, and other Popish and Prelatical Courts, are justly accounted guilty, without scruple.

Now at length, it came to Mr H's turn, who, as our Informer saith, received not these Instructions publickly, as having seen them before: Let us hear what he said. He tels us, that he resumed what he had said formerly, concerning a Formal Ecclesiastical Power, which could not be allowed to the Magistrat; and a Power Objectivly Ecclesiastical, which was allowed to him: Intimating with all, that the Brethren would either observe, or not observe their Directions, according as they judged of them, in their Consciences, upon their peril. On what was here resumed, I have given mine Observations before, and shall onelyonly adde. That this Formal Ecclesiastick Power must pointe forth a Power in it self such, and therefore so called; and not so denominated meerly because it is exerted by Church-men; as the two Brethren fore mentioned hinted in their Answer and Distinction; otherwise his Distinction should have run thus, betwixt a Power Subjectivly Ecclesiastical, and Objectivly Ecclesiastical. But this would confound all Causes and all Power; and would bring all Civil Causes objectivly under the Power of the Church; and all Church-Causes objectivly under the Power of the Magistrate: Yea and make all Things and Actions, done by the Civil Magistrate, though otherwise but Objectivly Ecclesiastical, to be Formally Civil; and on the other hand, make all Actions, done by Church-men, though otherwise but Objectivly Civil, to be Formally Ecclesiastick. As to the Latter Part of this speech, I judge the same might have been said, had been before the Church-Judicatory, receiving the same, or the like Instructions. And was this all? Was there no more requisite in this case? Is it all one thing, at whose hands Ministers receive Directions, Rules, Restrictions and Injunctions, or the like, to regulate them, in the exercise of their Ministrie, whether at the hands of the Pope, of a Prelate, of the Magistrate, or of a Church-Judicatorie, providing they be such, as may be observed, or otherwise to take their hazard? I suppose, our Fore-fathers would have said something else: And, I trow, Civil Magistrates, if called before the Prelates Courts, to receive Injunctions or Rules, to regulate them, in the exercise of their Office, would say some other thing, than that they would observe, or not observe these Directions, according as they judged of them in their Consciences, upon their peril. And if they would have stood to their Rights, as is to be supposed, the greater fault it is for Ministers, to quite the Rights of the Church so easily, wherein the Glory of their Master doth so much consist. Yea moreover, this superadded Insinuation makes me suspect the fore-mentioned Distinction the more: For had that Distinction been honestly proposed and intended, this superadded clause had been utterly needless.

Upon this (as we are told by our Informer) followed my L. Chanc. Answer, which was this, That the King gave them these Instructions by his Council, and if they did not observe them, the Council would punish them. By which we see, that these Instructions were gi… by an Autocratorick power, by the Magistrate, as such; and consequently being in Church-matters, Intrinsecally and Formally such, by an Usurped power. We see next, that the commanding of the observation of these Instructions, cometh from the Magistrate in prima Instantia, and so are not Civil Sanctions, p. 80and Confirmations of Injunctions, ministerially proposed by Church-Officers, upon both which grounds, I conceive Mr H. had a faire occasion to have vindicated both the Prerogatives of Christ, the sole Head of the Church, and the Privileges of the Church, bestowed on her by Christ, her King and Lord: Yet we finde, that all the reply, which he made, was this. That for the matter of Civil punishments, they had never denied the Magistrates right in them: And that he took notice from that Answere, that their L L. acted in a Civil way, onelyonly competent to them, in their dealing with Ministers, which they could not decline; hoping their L L. designed not to stretch their power beyond their Civil line, Which reply, in my judgment, was neither Pertinent, nor Sufficient: Not Pertinent, because the question was never moved, concerning Magistrates executing civil punishments, but concerning their power of Imposing Injunctions and Rules, to regulate Ministers, in the exercise of their Ministrie, which the L. Chanc. owned and avouched in his Answere, little regarding Mr H's distinction, betwixt a Formally Ecclesiastick power, and power Objectively Ecclesiastical. Not Sufficient; because the maine business was unhandsomly waved. Nay, moreover, this Reply was an yeelding of the whole cause, and a granting that Magistrates might meddle with any Church power, and enjoyne what they pleased, providing they punished only civilly such; as transgressed. Hence they might ordaine a Minister, and command him to preach to such a people, that would not call him, and depose another, and discharge him to preach any more, as a Minister or Administer Sacraments, under a Civil penalty. So under a Civil penalty they might prescribe the matter of preachings, decide Controversies of Faith, and appeals in Church-maters, &c. Yea, in a word, meddle with the most Intrinsick and Formal Church-matters. Finally, I do not see what ground my L. Chanc. gave, yea or occasion to make this Reply; for though his L. said, the Council would punish, yet the said not, the Council would punish civilly onelyonly: No, his expression might comprehend Ecclesiastical Punishments also, conforme to the power granted to them by the Kings Letter.

After a great deal of Discourse, spent upon personal reflections; and vindications, with which the cause is not much concerned, and therefore the less to be noticed by me, our Informer cometh in end to vindicat Mr H's speech, which, as it would appear, had given no small offence, and he tels us, that in it we may perceive, an Assertion of an Ecclesiastical power to make Rules for regulating Ministers, which was not yeelded to the Magistrate; with a concession of his power Objectively Ecclesiastical: And a declaration of their receiving Papers of them under that notion did not oblige them to observe these directions; but they were to act therein upon their peril. We heard indeed of Rules Intrinsecally (and afterward) Formally Ecclesiastical, for regulating Ministers in the exercise of their Ministrie, which he hoped their L L. did not intend to make or impose upon them, who were the Servants of Christ. But we heard of no Assumption. That such were the Rules, contained in the Paper, tendered unto them: Nor of a Conclusion. That therefore they could not, they might not in conscience, accept of them. We heard of a Concession also of the Magistrats power objectively Ecclesiastical: But we could not understand, to what purpose it was adduced, unless for justifying of the Magistrates, in giving those Injunctions, and themselves in receiving of them. Nay, I perceive here, our Informer asserteth, that which I was but suspecting formerly, and durst not positively affirme, p. 81viz. That they looked upon these Instructions, as flowing from the Magistrat's Power Objectively Ecclesiastical; For nothing else can be Imported in these words, And a declaration of their receiving Papers, under that notion. Now, what can this notion be, under which they received these Papers, but the Magistrat's power Objectively Ecclesiastical? And what may hence be gathered, we shall hear anone. We heard lately, that Mr H. did intimate, that the Brethren would either observe, or not observe their Directions, according as they judged of them in their Consciences, upon their peril: But that he declared that the receiving of these Papers did not oblige them to observe these Directions, I did not hear till now. However, since this Informer saith, that this was Mr H. declaration, I profess, it seemeth strange to me, that he should have spoken so; for the publick & Judicial receiving, even at the bar, of such Instructions, was a solemne declaration of their present purpose and willingness to obey these Injunctions, there being no exception made against any of them in particular; nor no desire expressed of a liberty to be granted, to consider and examine them. And sure, if they had suspected the irrelevancie or unlawfulness of any of them upon the matter, Ingenuity and Conscience would have said, that so much should have been exprest; and that the Paper, (if so be they would not refuse to accept of it) should have been accepted, with that clause of exception; or rather rejected, until they were assured, it contained nothing but what was lawful upon the matter: For to accept a Paper, containing Instructions; and to say withal, they would obey, or not obey them, as they thought good, on their perril, was neither to act with an Ingenuity, becoming Christians; nor with an Zeal, becoming Ministers, nor with that Respect due to Magistrats from them, both as Christians, and as Ministers; nor with that Care and Circumspection requisite for avoiding of scandal, and especially at such a time, when the eyes of many were upon them, both of friends and of foes. And if any say, That that Declaration was a sufficient Protestation, I crave leave to adde, that it was a Protestation annulled by their deed, Protestatio contraria facto. How much better then had it been, to have forborne that deed, which bad in it, at least, an appearance of evil; and to have dealt faithfully with the Council; and told, That they could not obey these Instructions; and therefore behoved to be excused from receiving of them. But I confess, when that great matter was so lightly passed over, I meane, the Power, making and imposing these Instructions, it is to me little wonder, that this was swallowed down also.

Our Informer tels us next, that in all this discourse of Mr H's he cannot see such Heterodoxie and Noveltie, as to give occasion to any to say, That he gave to them all, that the Godly Divines give unto the most Godly and reforming Magistrats on earth; or that Ministers receiving these Papers, on these termes, should warrand honest people to think, that they gave up the right of the Church, with their own hand, to the Civil Magistrate; or that any Ministers should highly resent their treacherie. But to answere, Though this Informer cannot see such Heterodoxie, or Novelty, as to give occasion to passe that censure on Mr H's discourse; yet it may be, others shall see ground for that, and for more too. And I shall willingly grant, that what agreeth to Magistrates, as such, agreeth to all Magistrates, good and bad: Yet it may be maintained, that more may be allowed in such Magistrates, as are really minding Reformation, the Glory of God, the good of the Church and all her Rights and Privileges; than in such, as are open p. 82Enemies thereunto; and are seeking by all meanes to destroy the Church, to rob her of her Rights, Privileges; and Power, and to enrich themselves with the spoils of Christs Crown. And therefore when Ministers have to do with such Open and A vowed Enemies, they are called to more strick watchfulness and care, lest they do, or say any thing, which may confirme such in their Usurpations, and encourage them to encroach more. And whether this care was used at this time, I leave to all, who are acquainted with what passed about that time, and with what daily is observable, to judge. For my part, if Mr H. did grant to the Magistrat, by vertue of his Power Objectivly Ecclesiastical, a Right or Power to Make and Impose Rules and Injunctions, to regulate Ministers, in the Exercise of their Ministrie, as our Informer lately himself hinted, I think, he hath not onelyonly given to them all, that the Godly Divines, give to the most Godly and reforming Kings: But much more; except it be that, which was given to Extraordinary and Immediatly Inspired Magistrates, that were Prophets also, and Men of God, such as David and Salomon: Or in a time of Universal Defection and Deformation, which can no other way be remedied. Neither of which can be applied to our case. And further, I wonder how he thinketh, any can judge otherwise, than that, interpretatively at least, the receiving of these Papers, on these termes, was a giving-up of the Right of the Church, with their own hands; seing it is so clear and manifest, by what we have said. And seing it is so, himself will, I suppose, grant, that every Minister is called highly to resent this treachery.

What saith our Informer for Vindication; But who so will read, saith he, Our Anti-Erastian Writters, will finde that they yeeld to the Magistrate, as Magistrate, (and consequently to all Magistrates, be what they will, good or bad, though upon his perril, as he shall answere to God for it, if he shall determine wrong) a Publick Politick Definitive judgment, concerning Matters of Religion, in reference to his own Act about them; or (for they diversifie the phrase) a Power of judging of his own Act, about Spiritual or Religious things, to be observed, or not observed by their Subjects. And to make out this, he citeth some words out of the CXI. Propositions, Propos. 97. where these Words are, As to each member of the Church respectively, so unto the Magistrate belongeth the judgment of such things, both to apprehend and judge of them: For although the Magistrate be not ordained and preferred of God, that he should be a judge of Matters and Causes Spiritual, of which there is a controversie in the Church; yet he is questionless judge of his own Civil Act about spiritual things; namely of defending them, in his own Dominions, and of approving or tollerating the same: And if in this business▪ he judge and determine, according to the Wisdome of the Flesh, and not according to the Wisdome which is from above, he is to render an account thereof, before the Supream Tribunal. But to what purpose is all this waste of Words? Doth he, or any man think, that we deny to the Magistrate a judgment of his own Civil Act; or that we suppose, that Mr H. and others have betrayed the Cause, because they granted to the Magistrate a Power Objectively Ecclesiastical, so far, as to judge thus of his own Civil Act of Tolerating such a way within his Dominions? No, that is not the ground we go upon. But this we say, that if Mr H. or others, do inferre from this power of judging, in reference to his own Act competent to the Magistrate, that the Magistrate, may Impose Rules and Injunctions, to regulat Ministers in the exercise of their Ministrie; then they have betrayed the Cause: And either they must inferre this therefrom, or they speak nothing to p. 83the purpose: And himself lately told us, as much as all this. Now let him, or any man show me, where any Anti-Erastian Divine reasoneth thus, or draweth such an Inference, from this Power Objectively Ecclesiastical. Yea I much questione, if Vedelius or Maccovius his Collegue, did ever so argue. And sure I am, the Author of the CXI. Propositions Propos. 45. &c. cleareth up that Difference betwixt these two Powers, which is taken from the Object and Matter about which. And Prop. 54. he showeth, that those things, wherein the Ecclesiastical Power is exercised, are preaching of the Word &c. And Prop. 55. That though the Civil Magistrate is occupied about the same things; yet it is but so far, as concerneth the outward disposing of Divine things, in this or that Dominion. Nay. I must say, that I cannot see, how this will follow, That Magistrates may prescribe such Rules unto Ministers, to regulate them in the exercise of their Ministrie, because of a Power granted to them, to judge of their own Civil Act, about spiritual things; more than that every Church-Member may do the like; for in that Prop. as the Words cited do clear, the Author giveth that same Power to every Member of the Church respectively, and how can it be denied to them, or to any rational man? Nay, let me say more. Have not Ministers, and every private man, this power of judging of his own Act about things Civil; and in this respect also an Objectivly Civil Power? Will it therefore follow, that they can prescribe Rules, to regulate Magistrats in the exercise of their functio…? And if a Magistrat should come to the Prelates, or Pop's Bar, and take a Paper from him, containing such Instructions, and give this onelyonly as his Apologie, that he acknowledged a Power Objectivly Civil, competent unto the Pope or Prelate? because they had power to judge of their own acts about civil things; would not others have cause to judge, that that Magistrate had denied the Co-ordination of the Po…ers, & had professed his Subordination as Magistrate to Pope or Prelate? Now, Verte Tabulas and see how the parallel runneth in our case, and then judge.

From the foregoing discourse, and particularly from that cited out of the CXI. Propositions, our Informer, now a Disputer, Inferreth, That he hopeth no man in reason can alledge Mr H's recedeing from the Principles of this Church, in the matter. But for my part, though I will not judge of the Thoughts or Intentions of Mr H. or of any other of his Brethren; yet considering the work it self, as this Informer hath represented it unto me, in its circumstances, I cannot but say, that in the thing, and as to the Intentio operis, there was a recedeing not onelyonly from the Principles of the Church of Scotland, but also from the Zeal of our former Worthies, who ventured all to transmit the truth, pure from Erastianisme and Caesario-Papal Invasions & Encroachments, And from the strick Obligations, lying on us all, to stand to the Truth, and to the Defence of the Power and Privileges of the Church, against the Usurpation and Encroachments of the Magistrates, seeking alwayes to inhaunce all Church-power into their own hands; not out of love to promove the Glory of God, and the real good of souls; but out of a desire to have the Ministrie, and the outward Administrations of grace enslaved unto their wills. Is it not certaine, out of what ground this Indulgence did grow; and how the Act of Supremacy (which no Conscientious Minister or Christian can owne or acknowledge,) as it was occasioned and necessitated by the Indulgence; so it became the Charter thereof, and gave legal life and being unto all that followed? And was it not as certaine, that a Designe to procure a Requiem to themselves, in all their Usurpations, and intolerable Invasions of p. 84Church-Power, and overturning of …he whole Work of God; and withall to make way for the further Enslaving of the Church▪ and of all Church-Power to their …usts, did midwife this Bastard-Child into the World? And could it be uncertaine to rational observing Persons, what was the Designe of King and Councel, in-giving these Instructions, First and Last? Yea, was not the whole Business so carried on from First to Last, as half an eye might have discovered a wicked Designe therein? And was not the Explicatory Act of the Supremacie a more than sufficient proof of an Erastian Spirit, that led and acted them, in some things, beyond what the Anti-Christian Spirit could for shame prompt the Pope to arrogate to himself? And when from these things, and many others such like, yea from the whole Procedour of King Parliament and Council, in their Actings, since this last Revolution began, it is more than sufficiently clear, what they did and do Intend; will any say, it was not their Duty, while so Providentially called to witness to the Truth, to give a more Plain, Full, Ministerial and Christian Testimony, to the Truth, which our Predecessours maintained, with so much Hazard, Expence of bloud, Loss of Liberty, Tossings, Imprisonments, Confinements, Condemnation to Death and Banishments &c. and which we were so solemnely sworne to stand to? And will any Ingenuous Christian say, that, all circumstances being considered, the Testimony given was such, as became men standing in the Fields for the Truth of Christ, and engaged in point of Conscience and Christian Valour, Honour and Credi…e, to cover the ground they stood on with their dead Bodies, rather than cede to such a manifest Encroaching and Invading Enemie? Will any, who readeth the carriage of our valiant and renowned Worthies, in opposing the Encroachments of King Iames, (who yet never did, nor for shame could arrogate to himself such a transcendently Superlative Supremacie over Church-matters, as now by Act of Parliament is declared to be an Inherent Right of the Crown) think, that they would have satisfied themselves with such a General, Impertinent, Confused, Indistinct and Defective Testimony to such a Glorious Truth? Will any, who considereth the Zeal, that ordinarily acted our faithful Progenitours, from the beginning to this late Catastroph, and of our valiant Worthies, who valued this Truth of Christ's Kingship above their lives, think that there was not here a palpable cedeing from that Spirit and Zeal, which moved them to postpone all things, to this chief matter? And can any say, that this way of vindicating Truth, wherein so much Pusillanimity, Disingenuity, carnal Consultation occasioning Misconceptions and Blindness, appeared, did keep correspondence with our frequently reiterated Vowes and Engagements? Was it pertinent or seasonable, or could it be satisfying to propose, in such an exigent, a meer Cothurnus; I meane, that general Assertion of the Magistrates Objectively Ecclesiastical Power, no less ambiguous till fitly explained, than impertinent to the case then in hand? Nay, let this very Informer tell me, if he think not, that more Plaine, Clear and Full expressions might have been fallen upon, if plaine and home dealing had been Intended? This I suppose may serve for an Examination of that matter, as this Informer hath declared it unto us.

p. 85Reasons against the Indulgence.

THough by what is said, it may be sufficiently seen, how sinful that Indulgence was upon the Accepters part (with which we have onelyonly here to do) as it was conveyed and circumstantiated; and occasionally we have here and there discovered several particular Evils, wrapped up in it, beside its sinful Rise and destructive Tendencie: All th…t now remaineth to be done, is to draw the several Eviles, comprehended in this complex business, to their own proper Heads, that the Reader may see at one view, what was formerly scattered up and down the foregoing Relation: And, considering what is said, it will not be necessary to insist on particulars; to touch them in a word will be sufficient.