THE HISTORY OF THE INDULGENCE Showing its Rise, Conveyance, Progress and Acceptance: Together with a Demonstration of the Unlawfulness thereof, And an Answer to contrary Objections: As also a Vindication of such, as scruple to hear the Indulged. By a PRESBYTERIAN.  
Printed in the Year MDCLXXVIII.   

TO THE CHRISTIAN READERS, Particularly, the suffering Ministers and Professors in the CHURCH of SCOTLAND.  
Reverend, much honoured, and dearly beloved;  
I hope, I need not tell you, (whom I look upon and address myself unto, as taught of God, not only in the main; but in many things that relate to our present calamitous case and condition) that the knowledge of the times, and what the Israel of God ought to do, should be your Ornament & Cognizance, distinguishing you from others, who are brutish in their knowledge: Neither need I tell you, how impossible it is to know, what the present day and hour makes indispensible duty, without a just reflection on what is past; for the emergents of the present day can never be improved, to the advantage of preventing the morrow's misery, without this; whereas hereby the present day may be made the better for yesterday error. Now, that you and I may be helped to a profitable reflection upon what is past, and improve it to its just advantage, the Lord hath been pleased, in this common and unconcerned sopor of many, to put it upon the heart of a Servant of his, to whom he hath given dexterity, of hand for the undertaking, to give you and me the following History, and Account of one particular emergent, in the sad History of our time, which hath been followed with the most dismal and dire effects of any thing that hath befallen our poor Church, & the precious remnant therein, since the Holy Lord was pleased to give us up into the hand of such, as have with violence and rage overturned that blessed and beautiful fabric, reared up and erected amongst us by Him, who dwelled in it, and made our soul's glade in his house, while we walked with Him, and He dwelled among us.  
If this History and account be carped at, and cried out against by some; that must be borne with; for our distempers (Alas) and distractions are arisen to that heat and height, as he who rebuk●th in the gate is hated, and he who speaketh uprightly is abhorred. And yet a faithful and wise Servant, seeing how his Lord is wronged, and for what the Land is made to mourn, and the Church in hazard to be utterly ruined, may not lay his hand upon his mouth, and, to prevent the opening of the mouths of others against him, give up himself to a stupid silence. But whatever some may judge or say of what is here said, and set before us, wisdom will be justified of her Children: and I am sure, the account given will be refreshful and acceptable to many, who love the truth, and lament these our recessions and declineings from our first love & ways. Oh if I might mix myself amongst the mourners, and those whose souls are melted & poured-out in them, in this heartrending reflection!  
I shall at present forbear to go so far backward, as to set before your eye, (which may make you and me go mourning to our grave, and aught to be remembered by us for that very end) what was our carriage, or rather, what were our miscarriages, in the day, when the Enemy, with displayed banner and open-faced violence, did raze and overturn all. Oh, if He would raise up some to represent us now unto ourselves, according to what we really were in that day; that so we for our part might go mourning to the grave, and the succeeding generations might thereby take warning, and beware to tread our path, or trace our steps, lest, as we have done, they should stumble, fall and be broken.  
Leaving therefore this sad subject, I come to make a blunt and abrupt inquiry how did we behave? What was our Posture and Practice after we had so stupidly stood by, till we saw the whole work overturned, without offering to interpose effectually to prevent its ruin, or fall with it? And now, when we ourselves were thrust from the public Exercise of our Ministry, are we found lamenting after the Lord? Are we found lying in the dust, loathing ourselves in the remembrance of the sad and soul-afflicting ruin, which fell under our hand? Is there now a corresponding how to excite one another unto the first Love, and to the first works of the Church of Scotland? doth the sorrow of every man's soul look-out at his eye, while he beholds the desolation of the Sanctuary, the Mountain of Zion laid waste, and the Foxes walking upon it, and considers how he hath not only outlived the departing of the glory, but must, if he see, and lay to heart what hath been in his hand, carry his own tormenter about with him, as having by his conniveing, or a cowardice, unworthy of the Spirit of Ambassadors for Christ, contributed to the advancement of the enemies desperate design? Do we now meet, and set days apart alone and together, on this very design, to mourn, to pour out our hearts before Him, to weep upon Him, importuning Him, and praying with all manner of prayer and supplication for Light, for Life, for Zeal, for Courage; that as being strengthened with all might, according to his glorious Power, we might be in case to stand and withstand, in so evil a day, and having done all to stand? Did we, as knowing from what had passed, and as not ignorant of his devices, plead with our Lord, that we might not be left, nor led into temptation; but that we might be upheld in our integrity, and helped upon all hazards to witness our soul abhorrence at the ways of these turners aside, and overturners of the work of God? Did we, as faithful Ambassadors of Christ, fixedly loyal to our exalted Prince; or as true Lovers of the soul-interest of those, who by their way had witnessed there was no fear of God before their eyes, yea that they had forgotten, or delete the apprehension of that Eternal God, who is above them; and so in the madness of their apostasy, without all inquiry or care, whether that way did lead them, or where it would Land them, run as enràged upon the bosses of the buckler of God Almighty? Did we, I say, deal plainly with the men of these abominations, these prodigious wickednesses, these hateful and heaven-dareing practices? Did we beseech, obtest, exhort, yea and with an Ambassadour-becoming boldness charge them, in the name of the living God, to return, as they would not be turned into hell, for these their treacherous turnings away from Him, and transcendently wicked turnings against Him? Nay alas! Whatever were the secret mournings, the sorrowings, the grievings of some, which, I hope, are on record in Heaven; yet, the first thing that is heard of in others, after an interval of shameful and sinful silence, is a fearless making and meddling with the stated enemies of the work of God, even while breathing-out a keenness of cruelty against the more zealous faithful Ministers and Professors, and this fearlessé meddling (ere mourning over former unfaithfulnesses and miscarriages had gone before; ere Brethren, equally concerned in the case, and on whom the care of the Church did equally lie, yea and of some of them I may say, were no less eaten up with the zeal of His house, than the Consulters, were consulted) produced this that fatal Indulgence; and to use the Vindicators phrase [which he in useing, upon the occasion and account he makes use of it, to detestation abused] hinc illae lachrymae.  
Alas? What else but a further defection could be expected, as the issue and result of these meddlings, betwixt, (on the one part) not only the Chief Instruments of all these incumbent Calamities; but men set upon this mischief, how to destroy by dividing, and ruin by their Methodes, beyond hope of an escape or recovery, the poor remnant; and root-out the remembrance of that People, and Party, whom in their thoughts, desires and designs, they had devoted to destruction. And (on the other part) what ever the men had formerly been, or still were; yet I must say it (and let none mistake me so far, as if I intended hereby to reproach or reflect; far be it from my soul; for while I am constrained to mention it, I desire to let my ink drop out of my Pen here, with a wrung and wounded heart; and to writ as knowing what I now say must meet me at the Tribunal; nay, I would forbear to say it, if I did not believe it should meet me there, if I smothered what I am now about to say, in a truth-prejudgeing silence) men in as ill case to have made or meddled in the concerns of Christ and his Church, with the men, with whom they had then to do, in their circumstances, as ever any Godly men in our Church were. I desire not to be put to the unpleasant necessity of dilating this further; Nor, if necessity be laid upon me (since it is the pure interest of truth, I desire to aim at, without respect of Persons) shall I decline it, though for that I should be yet more vile.  
Now, as foregoing untenderness & declineing had paved the way, & prepared us, for this new step of further defection; so this wretched Indulgence hath had the most deplorable & dismal effects; & if the Lord do not graciously deliver his Servants & Church from what it tends to & threatens, it is like to be & prove more fatal to the Poor languishing Remnant, than any step of defection, to which ever any Godly men were left, in the Church of Scotland. The History of its effects & of the bitter fruits it hath produced (which will make it the just hatred of Posterity; as well as it is the grief, sorrow and lamentation of many a serious soul in the Generation) is not at present my business; All I have to hint at this time, in reference to it, shall be shortly this. That however I do not offer to make an addition of Arguments (for that were superfluous, Considering what the Author of the following Discourse hath so nervously adduced) yet let me address myself without offence; not as an acute disputant, but as a poor blunt, plain, open-hearted well wisher, to the Work and Interest of Christ, to my Indulged Brethren (not a few of whom are dear to my soul; and, I hope, though they should both despise me and despitefully use me, shall be so) in a few plain Questions.  
Now than the Indulgence is embraced, and thanks to the givers are rendered by the takers. I Ask therefore First, If they could, after this their acceptance and giving of thanks to the Council, have withdrawn from that appearance, and sisted themselves before Christ Jesus, the King of his Church, and with a sweet serenity of soul have had confidence to offer their thanks to Him, for being helped to witness a good Confession against the wickedness of this Invasion, made by the Overturnes of his work, upon his Royal Prerogative, who built the house, and must bear the Glory; for it was either then or never, that it was to have been done. Secondly, Let me ask; are they so very clear and confident in the case, as they can, not only in dealing with men, hold up their face, and affirm, without hinck or hesitation, that this is their rejoicing, even the testimony of their Conscience; that in simplicity and Godly sincerity, not with fleshly wisdom, but by the Grace of God, they have had their Conversation before all men, and more abundantly towards these backslideing Rulers, before whom they appeared, now declared enemies to the Work of God, and invaders of His Throne and Prerogative: But are they also content to be carried before the Tribunal of Christ, with this acceptance from those, who have exautorat their Lord and Master, in their hand; and to have the quality of their Love to the coming of His Kingdom, and their Loyalty to Christ Jesus, now opposed and put from the exercise of his Royal Government by the Party Indulgeing, in this very Indulgence, tried by such a Test? It were fit, sure, to think on this, and lay it to heart; for each receiver may lay his count with it, that soon or sign he shall be put to it. Thirdly, Let me ask (though I put it out of doubt, they do, and far be it from me to think otherwise) whether they believe, that Christ, who purchased His Church, and bought His Crown with His precious blood, lives also to make intercession, and to plead his own purchase, and Procure, by virtue of the Price He hath paid, the execution of the written vengeance upon all, who will strive with Him for State and Supremacy in ordering the affairs of his house, the Church of the living God; or who will, in their desperate daring and rage, revolt and exautorat Him by their Law (which is a legal and explicit bursting of his bonds, casting away his cords from them, and, in contempt of, and Contradiction to the Christ of God, a formal taking of His house in Possession) as our Rulers have done; to the outdoing, in this affront to Jesus Christ, all that ever went before them; or as if they were resolved never to be outdone by any, who should come after them, in a copeing with the Mediator, and a downright denial of Him to be King (for now they have put Caesar in his Place) sure, the Indulged Brethren neither can nor will deny this: Then they must give me leave to assert and subsume (what hath been, as oft upon my soul, as I thought upon their carriage at that appearance (yea, if they speak consequently to the supposed concession, they must agree with me in it; That with the same objective assurance, I believe the Right that Christ hath bought, to be sole and supreme, in regulating all the affairs of His own house, to have none to share with Him in the Autocratorick, Architectonick and Magisterial Power of making Laws, to oblige the Conscience of his Subjects, nor to be in case to give a Ministerial Power besides himself; And as I believe the firmness of the stipulation betwixt Jehovah and his Anointed, to secure unto him his throne; and take vengeance on all his Adversaries, and as I believe he lives to make intercession; so I must believe also that, at that very instant, when the Indulged stood before the Council, and by their mouth made such a harangue; The Mediator, who is set down, at the right hand of God, was interceding and pleading by his blood, by his wounds and Passion, for the execution of the purchased and promised vengeance upon such, who by the complex of this very deed, in a defiance to the everlasting Decree, whereby his throne is Established, declared, they had taken unto themselves His house in Possession. Ah; my dear Brethren, can the thoughts of such a discord & discrepancy betwixt His intercession in heaven, and your harangueing on earth, enter into your soul (and I give you the defiance to enter into the serious thoughts of the matter, and hold them out) or be reflected upon, without Terror, Trembling, Confusion of face, Shame and Astonishment.  
Now my reverend and very dear Brethren, may I not, upon this ●ccasion, make bold to fall before you as prostrate, and with the tear in mine eye, (for I have confidence to say it, I scarce see my Paper, while by my Pen I make this address unto you,) humbly and earnestly beg of you, request, beseech and obtest you, for your blessed and glorious Master's sake, who is now Crucified again amongst us, from whose head the crown is taken; for His Church's sake, whereof he hath made you Ministers, and so magnified you amongst men, in sending you into the world, under the Character of his Ambassadors; for your poor broken hearted and bleeding brethren's sake, as ever you would be amongst the restorers of our breaches; as ever you would again be as some of you were in times past, as the chariots and horsemen of Israel; as ever you would wish to be brought again to keep His Courts, and to judge His house; and, when that work is over, to have a Place amongst them that stand by; as you would not be the occasion of the rupture and utter ruin of the small remnant (for God and all good and understanding-men will refound this distracting and remnant-destroying Division, that is amongst us, upon this Indulgence); as you tender the good of the Posterity, and would give an unquestionable evidence, how intensely you desire, that Jesus Christ may reign and rule without a competitor, when you are gone; As you Love to live at peace with God, and enjoy, as feeding Pastors and faithful Witnesses to your Lord, a sweet serenity of soul? Nay as ever you expect to go off the stage in good terms with God, and have your Master's welcome of well done, good and faithful servants, and be enroled, when you are gone, amongst the Confessors of his name, and holder's fast of the word of his Testimony, and such as had obtained mercy to be valiant for the truth: Let me, I say, upon all these, and many other accounts, make bold to beseech you, without more debate, without more delay, to deliver yourselves; to deliver the Church; to deliver your wounded, weeping and overwhelmed Brethren; and to deliver the Posterity from the snare of that cause-destroying, Church ruining, remnant-divideing Indulgence. Do not say, I would wheedle and fool you into an irrational implicitnesse or bogle you into a relinquishing of what you have embraced, with a parcel of words, wherein is nothing to convince you of the evil of what you have done, Read but the following History; and if, as in His sight, without prejudice or mind-occaecating Passion you Peruse it, I am not without hope; but you will suffer yourselves to be overcome (which will be one of the greatest Victories you have ever obtained,) into a compliance with the humble and earnest beseechings not of your Poor Brother only, but of many, who are Presenting you to God, and dare seek nothing for you, till this be obtained. Do not offend at this last word; for, if it were my last, I must both confess unto you, I have never had Confidence to seek any thing for you, since you embraced that Indulgence, save this; and I know, you have, since that day, been much out of the Prayers of many serious Prayers, to whom you were, and yet are, dear, which hath been none of your advantage; yea whatever use you may make of it, yet fidelity to you put me to use this freedom, that I have not only found myself in fetters, but I have observed more servant Judicious and gracious Persons, to whom it was a case of Conscience; yea who had no Confidence to represent you to God, as a Part of that suffering remnant, for whom they essayed to Pour out their heart before Him, whereat you will cease to wonder, when you consider that to them, the Indulgence was a Defection. But if the following History Prevail not with you, yet Let the History that God hath written against that acceptance do; Lest He impose the necessity upon some to transcribe it, and set it before your eye, for your further Conviction, and a Caution to the Posterity. But to close this, give me leave, Dear Brethren, to say this one word more; that often, under my sinking soul-anguish and sorrow, because of this Indulgence, and its woeful effects, I have with an anticipat complacency essayed to allay the sharpness of my sorrow, and to flatter myself into a cheerfulness in the pleasant expectation and hope, that amongst the Indulged themselves, amongst so many Godly men, there was more than a may be of hope, that the Lord would pitch upon some of these, and make use of them, to discover, with more conviction and advantage, the evil of this Indulgence, than any else is in case to do: Blessed shall that man or these men be! And O that I may not be disappointed in this expectation!  
I know, the following History will fall under the severe Censures of many, and not a few will be ready to cry-out against it, (who shall never be able to answer its reason, but by clamour) as unseasonable; I grant indeed, that it is the great Qualification of writing and speaking, that it be seasonable; and it is also the great commendation of Hearers and Readers, that they have that wisdom of heart as to discern both time and judgement; for as a word in season and fitly spoken is like apples of go●d in pictures of silver; so it is a rare thing, especially in a declining time, to be in case to judge what is truly such, and, as having escaped the mistakes ariseing from preconceived Prejudices, to approve that which is more excellent; but whatever Prejudice may prompt some to say; yet what is said by this wise Reprover will be found and entertained as an ear-ring of gold, and an ornament of fine gold unto an obedient ear. And for my confidence in commending it, as a word in season unto the Reader, I render these reasons. First, If men consider the heinousness of guilt, which the Author hath clearly demonstrat to be wrapped up in, and inseparably connected with this Indulgence, they will rather say, Alas, he hath been too long in coming, to make a discovery of its iniquity; than complain as if he had come to soon. Secondly, If men take it up in its true nature and tendency, and consider impartially the quality of its defection, according as it is here held forth, if they speak their soul, they must say, That a standing Testimony against this evil is of more value and worth, than all of us are, when sold out of the ground. Thirdly, It will not fall under the Censure of unseasonableness by any, except such as do either downright plead for the Indulgence and defend it, or else connive at it, as an aliquid nihil, not to be regarded; and it is to me, and, I hope, will be so to many, in regard of such, that the one may be cured of their Confidence and the other of their Indifferency and detastable neutrality, a word in season. Fourthly Let this silence the clamour about its unseasonableness, and satisfy, yea plead the indispensible necessity of it, at this time. That the Indulged Brethren have of late been more hot and high, than formerly, even to the threatening of men into a silence at its defection, by boasting us with a Vindication of the Lawfulness of their Acceptance; and therefore, as to them it ought to be justly reckoned seasonable. Fiftly, Because somewhat hath been of late done even by the Non-Indulged, not only to the strengthening of the hands of the Indulged, and giving them new confidence in their course, in obliquo, by covering all, and carrying towards them, as if they had done nothing amiss, But upon the matter (for it is beyond my shallow capacity otherwise to interpret, or understand the deed) by a direct homologating of that Indulgence; for now silence, as to all speaking against this evil, is made the very Door and Porch, thorough which all the Intrants to the Ministry must pass. I hope, they will not allege, that this is misinformation, for now we have it under their own hand; and the breach of this engagement is brought and laid down as a ground, upon which a Young man is challenged; And therefore, it's now simply necessate yea more than high time to discover and detect the blackness of its defection, when the Church is thus brought in bondage by it. Sixtly, The severe insulting over some of the poor remnant, who cannot forbear to witness their abhorrence at it, and dare not dissemble their hatred of it, constrained the Author to give the world this account, to convince them, how little reason the one Party hath to insult thus over their poor Brethren, and how little cause the other have to be ashamed of witnessing their dislike. Seventhly, Because it hath been often and still is objected to us, that we have made a hideous hue and cry after it, as a thief, but neither would nor could render a reason, or prove it to be a coming-in not by the right door, but a climbing up by another way: And therefore, the Interest of truth constrained the Author, to give them and the world such a Plain and Public Account of the reasons of his just dissatisfaction, as may abide ad futuram rei memoriam. And Lastly, Because there is a may be of hope, that as some at least of these Godly men Indulged may be hereby taken off, and all of them made more sober, and less violent; so it is much more to be hoped, that the Non-Indulged will henceforth more seriously consider what way to deliver the Church from this evil, their Brethren out of the snare, and how to keep themselves free from the transgression of giving this evil any interpretative countenance; (for if God put it upon their heart to apply it, the Plaster is in their hand, to wit, a just discountenanceing of this as a defection.) And withal that they will henceforth appear more friendly towards the real Lovers of them and the cause; and holder's fast of their integrity, and less severe against such, who ought to be countenanced, cherished, and encouraged for their uprightness in hating the Supremacy, as the spring, and all the streams that flow from that corrupt and cursed fountain; and hereby shall they have better access, when real affection and tenderness upon these accounts is witnessed, to curb or cure these excesses, which are not inseparable from, yea incident to the zeal of the best of Saints out of heaven; for it is there that our fire will want smoke. Dear Brethren I shall detain you no longer from Peruseing this History. And that you may in calmness and without Prejudice consider what is said; and that the Lord God himself may, as in all things, so in this thing also, give you Light, is for you the soul-desire of  
Your poor afflicted Brother and wellwisher.   

THE HISTORY OF THE INDULGENCE.  
AFter the unexpected Alteration (which proved indeed a Convulsion falling-out so suddenly) that came upon the Church, after the King's restauration, when beside many other sad passages, (and too many here to be commemorated) the memory of which may make tears trickle down from our eyes, so many of the able, painful, faithful and successful labourers in the Vineyard of the Lord were by one Act of Council at Glasgow Anno 1662. put from their work; and by violence thrust out of the Vineyard, where the Lord had set them to labour; even to the number of Three hundred and above. Nor was it enough to the Rulers to banish all those by an Act from their own Parishes; but to make this banishment yet more grievous, and the life of those faithful Servants of Christ yet more bitter and less vital, they thereafter did command them to remove from their own parochs twenty miles, six miles from a Cathedral Church, and three miles from a Brugh. After (I say) this surprising and astonishing blow, tending so directly to the overthrow of the Lords Ministry, in that Church, and the Introduction afterward of abjured Prelacy, whereby the Church became suddenly filled with aswarm of locusts; and the many Acts made to enforce a compliance among the people with this defection, and actual conformity thereunto, and that so violently and rigorously, as even simple withdrawing was made seditious and criminal, and severely punished: the ejected Ministers began to think with themselves, that this tyrannical ejection did not, nor could not, unminister them, or make them no more Ministers of Christ; so as they might not preach the Gospel, wherever they were, as Ambassadors of Christ; but, on the contrary, they saw, that they lay under the wrath and displeasure of God, if they should not preach Christ; and that a necessity was laid upon them, yea and woe was unto them, if they preached not the Gospel; according to that 1 Cor. 9: v. 16. and they observed likewise, that the necessity was now great, yea greater than ever, upon many accounts: And on the other hand, the people being more and more alienated from the Swarm of Curates, as being not only prodigiously profane, and lascivious, vain and ignorant (enough to demonstrate, that they were never the authorized Messengers of Christ) but also highly guilty of perjury and defection, in their compliance with, receiving their commission immediately from, acting in subordination to, and by a power derived from the abjured Prelates, contrare to the Word of God, the Primitive Pattern and our own Reformation, confirmed by Oaths, solemn Vows and Covenants; and being sensible of an obligation still lying upon them to own the outed Ministers, as the faithful Servants of Christ, and therefore under a necessity to hear them, and to receive the Ordinances of Christ, as dispensed by them: both the one and the other saw themselves called to some other exercise, both to testify their adherence to their former avowed Profession, their abhorrence of the abjured re-introduced Prelacy, and their willingness to keep Christ, in his pure Ordinances, in the Land.  
Wherefore not a few of the more serious Ministers, bethinking themselves, and considering the many obligations lying upon them, to preach, and to be instant in season and out of season, and considering the urgent necessity, and withal the cheerful readiness and willingness of the people to hear, saw themselves called of God to preach as Ministers of the Gospel, wherever providence ordered their abode; and thereupon, as occasion offered, preached unto all such as were willing to hear; but at first (that they might as little displease the Rulers, as possible) only in private houses, and that for the most part, (if not altogether) at such times, when there was no public worship in the public meeting places. (A superplus of caution.)  
But such was the rage of the new installed Prelates, and such was their Indignation at, and Enmity against those outed Ministers, and chiefly at and against the work they were about, as knowing that if Christ were keeped in the Land, and a memory only of him were reserved, they could enjoy no quiet in their usurpations; that they ceased not to stir up the Rulers, to all extravagancies of Cruelty, for suppressing of the Innocent, Peaceable and Harmless Assembling. Hence came severe prohibitions, discharging all such meetings under exorbitant Penalties, both upon the Masters of the houses, where these Assemblies were found, and upon the Minister found there exercising, and upon all and every one present, without exception, Hence were houses forced and searched, and many hailed to prisons, and several necessitate to escape at windows with the hazard of their lives; Officers and Spies sent unto and set in several suspected places, to seize and fall upon such, as they found at such meetings, or but suspected to have been there: whence it came to pass that many, both men and women, young and old, have been dragged to Prisons, and there closely keeped, as if they had been the worst of Malefactors, besides several other outrageous and illegal Acts of Violence and Oppression committed against them, contrary to all Law, Equity and Conscience.  
The faithful Ministers and people, desiring still to follow the Lord, in the duty of the day, and finding so many and so great Difficulties, in their Assembling in Houses, where they were so easily attraped, and could with so great hazard meet, and with difficulty escape the hands of these Burrioes', were constrained at last to keep their Meetings in the fields, though without all shelter from Cold, Winde, Snow, and Rain: Whereupon the rage and fury of the Rulers, instigated by the Prelates, did break forth into more excessive and boundless Flames: Whence came severe Acts of Council and Parliament against the same; and all ways of cruelty imaginable taken, to suppress these House and Field meetings; field meetings being discharged under the pain of death unto the Minister and Convocater, and other grievous penalties unto such as did meet: Which course of severity and rigour hath continued unto this day: But to mention the several Steps, Methods, Means, Consequences and Effects of this Tragedy, would make too long a digression,  
It is sufficient for us to notice, that the Suppressing of these Meetings hath been the butt, a● which a great part (if not the far greatest) of the Acts and Actings of the Rulers have been leveled, ever since they began to appear; and the only occasion of so many Acts of Cruelty, and of Enormity in point of Justice and Legality▪ they being the only eyesore of these Enemies to Christ and His Interest, and that which they had been hitherto, both with cruelty and craft, seeking to destroy, by Tyrannical Acts and Laws, and by more Tyrannical and illegal Executions; as if these Assemblers had been no more lawful Subjects, but open Traitors, and the Worst of Rebels. Hence came the filling of P●isons with such as were apprehended, the sending of such Ministers as were taken into the Basse; the setting of a great sum of Money upon the Heads of some; liberty granted to Soldiers to wound and kill, in seeking to apprehend Ministers, and to apprehend and trouble any person they found on the highways; the selling of honest people, as Slaves, unto the French Captains, and unto Persons going to America; the Banishing of the Wives and Children of the outed Ministers, that were come to Edinburgh for shelter, commanding them to dislodge within the short day prefixed, under the pain of being forcibly shut up, or dragged out; the appointment of a Major in Edinburgh, with command over the Town Guards, and a good salary for this very end, to apprehend, at all times, all such Ministers or people, as he could find Assembling together; the out-lawing of several Ministers, and many hundereds of Professors, discharging all supply, were it but of bread or water or of a night's lodging, to be given unto them; and what not?  
In the midst of all this fury, and after the quashing by blood, illegal & most falsely patched up for saltures, of several estates escheating and confiscating of goods, of that trouble Anno 1666., occasioned through the Barbarous Executions of illegal Commands, against simple Non-complyers with the course of Prelacy, the King (at whose instigation, or in compliance with whose Desire and Request, I know not; but that it was not of God, nor of Christ, nor of the Spirit, that I know) essayeth other means, and taketh other measures; (but all tending unto the same destructive end designed, to wit, the suppressing and banishing out of the Land all these Memorials of the Lords Covenanted Interest, and of his presence in the Land, the Assemblies, (I mean) of his Servants, to serve and worship him; according to the pure Order of the Gospel, after the example of Christ and his Apostles, & those primitive Christians, which willingly followed and heard them,) when by cruelty the Rulers saw they were not able to attain their end, but the more they laboured that way, to suppress these meetings, the greater and more frequent they grew, the crafty device of an Indulgence to some certain select persons of the whole outed Ministers is fallen upon; which if it had been more General or Universal, than it was, had in all probability, proven an effectual means for attaining of that, which they were so earnestly labouring for, viz. the extinction of the whole Remnant.  
Being now to discourse of this Indulgence, as it is called, we shall begin where it began to appear; that is at the King's Letter to the Council hereanent, dated at W●it●hal the 7. of juny 1669. which was as followeth.  
CHARLES' REX.  
Right Trustee etc. We Greet You well.  
Whereas by the Act of Council and Proclamation at Glasgow in the Year 1662. a Considerable number of Ministers were at once turned out, and so debarred from preaching of the Gospel, and exercise of the Ministry; we are graciously pleased to authorise you, our Privy Council, to appoint so many of the outed Ministers, as have lived peacably and orderly in the places, where they have resided, to return to preach and exercise other functions of the Ministry, in the Paroch Churches, where they formerly served, (provided they be vacant) & to allow Patrons to present to other vacant Churches, such others of them, as you shall approve. And that such of these Ministers, as shall take Collation from the Bishop of the Diocie, and keep Presbyteries and Synods, may be warranted to lift their stipends, as other Ministers of the Kingdom. But for such, as are not, or shall not be collated by the Bishop, that they have no warrant to meddle with the vacant Stipend, but only to possess the Manse and Gleib; and that you appoint a Collector for these and all other vacant stipends, who shall issue the same, and pay yearly maintenance to the said's not collated Ministers, as you shall see fit to appoint.  
That all who are restored, or allowed to exercise the Ministry, be in our Name & by our Authority enjoined, to constitute and keep Kirk-Sessions, to keep Presbyteries and Synods, as was done by all Ministers before 1638. And that such of them, as shall not obey our Commands in keeping Presbyteries, be confined within the bounds of the parochs, where they preach, ay and while they give assurance to keep Presbyteries for the future.  
That all, who shall be allowed to preach, be strictly enjoined, not to admit any of their Neighbour or other parochs unto their Communions, nor Baptise their Children, nor marry any of them, without the allowance of the Minister of the Paroch, to which they belong, unless it be vacant for the time. And if it be found upon complaint made by any Presbytery to you, our Privy Council, that the people of the Neighbour, or other parochs, resort to their Preachings, and desert their own Paroch Churches, that according to the degree of the offence and disorder, you silence the Minister, who countenances the same, for shorter or longer time, or altogether turn out, as you see cause. And upon complaint made and verified of any seditious discourse or expressions in the Pulpit, or else where, uttered by any of these Ministers, you are immediately to turn them out, and further punish them according to Law, and the degree of the offence.  
That such of the outed Ministers, who live peacablie and orderly, and are not reentered, or presented as aforesaid, have allowed to them four hundereth marks Scots, Yeerly, out of the vacant Churches, for their maintenance, till they be provided of Churches. And that even such, who shall give assurance to live so, for the future, be allowed the same yearly maintenance.  
And seeing we have by these orders, taken away all pretences for Conventicles, and provided for the want of such as are, & will be peaceable: If any shall be found hereafter to preach without Authority, or keep Conventicles, our express pleasure is, That you proceed with all severity against the Preachers and Hearers, as seditous Persons, and contemners of our Authority. So leaving the Managment of these disorders to your prudence, and recommending them to your care, we bid you farewell.  
Given at our Court, at Whitehall the Seventh day of juny 1669. & of our Reign the 21. Year, by his Majest: Command LAUDERDAIL.  
Ere we proceed, it will not be amiss to set down here some few most obvious remarks, to the end, we may come to understand better the nature, and true import of this Indulgence, where of this Letter is the ground and Basis. And  
1. We see it is said, That by the Act of Council, and Proclamation at Glasgow An. 1662. a considerable number of Ministers were at once turned out; and so (N.B.) debarred from preaching of the Gospel and exercise of the Ministry. Whence we cannot but observe, That those Ministers, who were by that Act at Glasgow banished from their Paroch-Churches, were not only debarred and hindered from preaching of the Gospel, and Exercise of their Ministry, in their own Congregations (which could not but follow by an inevitable consequence) But in the sense and meaning of the Court, they were by virtue of that sentence debarred from, and incapacitated for preaching of the Gospel, and the Exercise of the Ministry, any where; and so according to the meaning of the Civil Magistrate, emitting this Edict, these Ministers were simpliciter deposed from their Ministry, and looked upon as men, having no longer power or warrant, before God or Man, to preach the Gospel, or dispense Ordinances, as Ministers thereof. Whence it followeth, that the Indulgence (as it is called) is a full and formal opening of their mouth again; & (as to some) a Reponing of them, according to the meaning of the Indulgers; who doubtless will not say, (What ever the plain Language of their Practice be) that they have power to countermand what God hath commanded, or to discharge such, from serving Christ in the Ministry, as he hath strictly enjoined, and that upon all highest peril, to serve him so; but they think, they have power from God, to silence Ministers from preaching when they will; and again to open their mouths, and grant them liberty to Exercise the Ministry, as they see good; and that the Lord Authorizeth what they do; and so, they do but what Church-Judicatories were in use to do formerly, or Prelates yet do, as to such, who are under them.  
Here then being a Full, Formal, and judicial Power, granted to such, as were, in the Court's judgement, put from their Office, deprived of and debarred from the liberty of exercising the same, or any part thereof, to re-enter into the full and free Exercise of the same; it appeareth to me to be undeniable, That the accepters of this Indulgence have, upon the matter, assented unto this grievous encroachment upon the Privileges of the Church of Christ. Our Church never thought it competent to the Civil Magistrate, to depose Ministers from their Office, or to suspend them from the Exercise thereof. Let the Second Book of Discipline be viewed; Let the CXI. Propositions be considered; Let the Propositions for Government be looked upon; Let our first or Second Confession of faith, or the late Confession, drawn up at West-Minster be pondered; Let the writings of our worthies Mr Rutherfoord, and Mr. Gillispy be read; Yea, let all our public proceedings, and the whole tenor of the public actings of our Church be remembered, and it will be seen, that the granting of this unto the Magistrate is point-blank contrary unto all these; Yea, & to all the writings of the Orthodox Anti-Arminian Anti-Erastian Divines.  
But I know it will be said. That the Receivers of the Indulgence cannot help what the Magistrate saith; they know what themselves think; and as they did not look upon themselves as deposed, when banished from their own Parishes, as appeared by their preaching else where after that sentence; so they grant no such power now unto the Magistrate: Yea, when some of the Indulged were some years thereafter called before the Council, it was said roundly by their Mouth, That they had received their Ministry from jesus Christ. But I answer, (1.) Though the Indulged could not cause the Magistrate speak otherwise, than he would; yet they were Masters of themselves, and of their own actions; and they had liberty to do and speak that, which before the world might testify and declare, that they did not assent unto that assuming of Church power, but on the contrary did descent there from, and protest against it, as a sinful Usurpation and Encroachment. What public Protestation was, I pray, given in against this, first or last? What Plain and Positive Testimony was borne unto the Doctrine & Practice of our Church, in this point, which many of our forebearers did own unto Banishment and Blood? (2.) As for that, which was said by the mouth of some of them, (of which more afterward) it was but a poor salvo, in the case; because no man breathing, neither Magistrate, nor Church-Judicatory, can properly give the Ministry; that being proper to Christ Jesus alone: Men only can Instrumentally and Ministerially convey & apply the power, which is of Christ, unto such or such a Person: now I suppose these Brethren, who spoke so by their mouth, did not think or mean, that they had their Ministry from Christ immediately, without the intervention of an instrumental and ministerial cause: So that notwithstanding of this, by their practice they might and did declare, that the Civil Magistrate was the Instrumental and Ministerial cause, lawfully Authorized to repone them to their Ministry; that is, that all that power of Deposeing & Reponing of Ministers, which by our Reformed Doctrine, Discipline and Practice, hath been asserted to agree only to Church-Officers and Church-Judicatories, is competent to the Civil Magistrate, as such (3.) Further it may be noticed, that a Minister once deposed, or suspended, and now reponed by a lawful Presbytery, might say the same, to wit. That he receiveth his Ministry from jesus Christ, with full Prescriptions from him etc. Without the least questioning of the lawful Ministerial and Instrumental power of the Presbytery, in that affair: So that it is manifest, that this could not salve them from a real acknowledging the Council upon the matter, to have the Ministerial power of Deposing and Reponing of Ministers; and that, de jure. (4.) Itis true, thei● preaching else where, after their Banishment from their own Congregations, will say, that in so far, they did not acknowledge themselves deposed from the function; yet it will not help much; for their by past faithful deportment will not lessen their faint at this time, but rather aggravat their ceding, or their silence, at the accepting of this Indulgence, springing forth of such a fountain. Their by past honest carriage (I speak here upon supposition, that they did sedulously preach elsewhere, when thrust from their own Charges; though I apprehend, it will be found true, but of a few of them) should have prompted them now to a plain declaration of their adherence to their former Principles, and of their abhorrence of such gross and Palpable Invasions upon, and Usurpation of the power, which Christ hath granted only to his Church.  
2. We may remark, that it is said, We are graciously pleased to authorise you, our Privy Council (N.B.) to appoint so many of them etc. and again, as you shall approve of. Whence it is obvious (1.) That all the power, which the Privy Council had, was from the King; and consequently, that they go no greater length, than the King's Letter did allow; and that their Actings could not justle with, or cross the Scope, Intent and Design of his Maj. Letter; but fully comply therewith in all points, and in all its Designs. So that, when any doubt ariseth anent what the Council did, we must, for obtaining of Satisfaction and Clearness, have our recourse to this primum mobile, the Spring and Principle of this Motion, and the Ground and Basis of the Counsels Actings: Yea we must interpret the Actings and Deed of the Council by this Letter, which was their Cynosure, by which they were to direct their course, and their Rule and Ground of Acting. (2.) Itis obvious allo, that That power, which they are authorized to exercise, is a Power to appoint such and such Persons, as they think meet, and shall approve of, to go to such and such places. It was not then a Command given, or a power granted to recall the Act of Glasgow, whereby the Ministers were banished from their Charges; but a power to meddle with pure Church-matters, and that immediately; that is, to judge and cognosce of the Qualifications of Ministers; and so to approve or not approve of them; and a powe● of installing such as they approved of, in such places, as they shall think meet, and none else. These things are plain. And it is manifest, that there is herein a Plain, Clear, Palpable and Gross Encroachment on the Liberties of the Church, and on the Power granted to her of the Lord Christ Jesus, as no man will deny, who is not a stranger to the Word of God, and to the Principles of Presbyterian Government, and to all the Acts and Actings of our Church from the very first Reformation from Popery. Wherefore, seeing it is known, that in this case, qui tacet consentire videtur, he who is silent, is construed to consent: And it hath been always accounted in our Church (and is so also by the Word of God) a sinful compliance with a wicked course, not to give faithful, free and timeous Testimony against the same; it is undeniable, that these indulged Persons, accepting this Indulgence, conveyed through such a channel, & flowing from sucha fountain, as is already shown have not only fainted, as to their duty; but are interpretatively assenters unto this Usurpation.  
3. The Qualification of those, who are to be restored to the Ministry, is here also to be remarked, in those Words, So many of the outed Ministers, as have (N. B.) lived peaceable and orderly, in the places, where thy have resided. I shall be far from saying, that Ministers should not live peacably and orderly; but we ought to consider, what is accounted, living peacably and orderly, by such as propose this Qualification: And that sure, to speak it in the smoothest of Terms, is a negative compliance with all their Tyranny, Oppression of Church and Country, Bloodshed, Overturning of the Work of God, Establishing iniquity by Law, Perjury, Apostasy, Re-establishing of Perjured Prelates, and abjured Prelacy, intruding of Hirelings; Persecution of conscientious people, for not acknowledging of these Hirelings as lawful Ministers of the Gospel etc. That is to say, have been very quiet and silent, as to the bearing of faithful witness unto the Cause of God, and the work of Reformation, according to our solemn Oaths and Covenants; and have been loath to transgress any of their iniquous Laws; and careful to walk and carry so, in all their deportment, as not ●o displease them in the least. Now I would think that this very thing should have been enough to have scared tender conscientious persons from accepting this Indulgence. What Son of the Church of Scotland could have accepted of a favour, in the bosom of which lay this Reproach? Who could have accepted of this Indulgence, and not with all openly have thereby declared, that he was one of those peaceable livers, for whom it was designed, and upon whom in special, as such, it was to be conferred? And however this peacableness and orderliness was accounted a good Qualification by the Rulers, and a satisfactory Mark unto them of the fitness of these Persons, for receiving of their favours, and a sufficient ground of security unto them, that these Persons would not stand in the way of their further destructive progress, nor mar them in their further pernicious designs: It seemeth strange to me, that conscientious Sons of the Church of Scotland, should have suffered themselves to be looked upon, with such a special eye of favour by those Enemies, and to be distinguished from others by such a Character, as in our good times, and according to the wholesome Canons of our Church, would have exposed them unto the highest of Church Censures. Had they not then a fair occasion here, yea and a loud ●all, to vindicat themselves from this Aspersion, howbeit esteemed, judged and declared the prime and indulgence-procureing Qualification by the Rulers; and to have born witness unto the Truth of God; if their desire to the offered favour, and love to that esteem with the Rulers, had not been too excessive and prevalent?  
But there is another thing beside remarkable here, to wit. That here we see, the Magistrate assumeth to himself power to prescribe, to determine and to judge of the necessary Qualifications of Ministers, or of their Qualifications sine quibus non. And moreover, That the accepters of the Indulgence after this manner, did, upon the matter, and interpretatiuly, give their assent to, and approbation of these two things: First, That the Magistrate, as such, hath power to prescribe, to specify and to declare what are indeed, and what he will have to be looked on as, the only Qualifications, necessarily requisite in Ministers: And next, That the Qualifications, by him here specified and expressed, are the only Qualifications necessarily requisite in Ministers: And consequently, that the Apostles and Primitive Ministers, who neither could nor would have lived so peacablie in reference to the Heathen Emperors, and their wicked Decrees, when no more repugnant to the Interest of Christ and of the Gospel, than the Decrees and Executions of our Rulers have been, were not rightly qualified for the Ministry. Add to these, That hereby they acknowledged themselves to be duly qualified after this manner, that is, to have been and yet to be such, (and that deservedly, after the Court construction) as have lived peaceably and orderly, in the places, where they have resided.  
4. There is another remark in the Letter obvious, where it is said [That such of these Ministers, (i.e. who are indulged) as shall take Collation from the Bishop of the Diocie, and keep Presbyteries and Synods, shall be warranted to lift up their stipends, as other Ministers of the Kingdom. But such as are not, or shall not be collated, shall have no warrant to meddle with the local stipend; but only to possess the Manse and Gleibe and shall have such a yearly maintenance, as the Council shall think fit to appoint, out of the vacat stipends.] Though this, at the first view, may not seem very material, yet it will have its own weight, when we consider these things following, (1.) That the Law of God alloweth such, as serve at the Altar, to live by the Altar; and that the very ox, that treadeth out the Corn, should not be muzzled; and that the labourer should have his hire; as we see 1 Cor. 9 Gal. 6: ver. 6. 1 Tim. 5: 17, 18. And that all Equity and Reason requireth, that the Benefice should follow the Office, as an accessory and consequent thereunto. (2.) That Ministers stipends are a part of the Church-rents and Emoluments; and are as proper and due unto the Ministers of the Gospel, who serve in the place, as the Rents of any man's heritage is to him, who enjoyeth it; these being irrevocably given away and dedicated to the Church, and the said Donation confirmed and ratified by Law. (3.) Our second Book of Discipline, approven in all points by the General Assembly, prescribeth other Collectors of these Stipends, or of the Church Rents, than such as the King or Council should name, and that in conformity to the Word of God and Primitive Pattern; as we see Chap. 9 Where, speaking of the Patrimony of the Kirk, and of the Distribution thereof; and after they have told what they mean by the Patrimony of the Kirk they have these words. To take any of this Patrimony by unlawful means, and convert it to the peculiar and profane use of any person, we hold it a detestable Sacrilege before God: And then they add: That the goods Ecclesiastic ought to be collected and distributed by the Deacons, as the Word of God appoints, that they who bear Office in the Kirk be provided for, without care or solicitude. (4.) That there is an introduction here made to that, which may ever hereafter prove noxious and hurtful to the Church; even way made to the bringing of the Ministers of the Gospel under perfect slavery unto the State; for hereby we see they must be obnoxious to them, and depend upon them, not only for the quota of their stipend; but also for the actual and yearly payment thereof; for yearly must there an address be made unto the Council, or to the Exchequer, by every Minister for his Stipend: though this be altered now; yet there was no appearance of it, at their accepting of the Indulgence, and several years after. Though this may seem but a matter of small moment; yet we think faithful Ministers should have been tender of the least thing, which might but occasion, or usher-in bondage and slavery to that poor Church, which hath had a wrestling life, what for one thing, what for another, from the very beginning: And sagacious persons might easily have foreseen, whither such a course, as this, did tend. And if hereafter the State should lay down such a course, as that in all time coming, all the Stipends through the Land should be uplifted by general Collectors, thereto appointed by them, and given-out by these again, to such as, and in what quantity the State shall think fit, and so make the Ministers become their slaves, and to depend upon them, as if they were their domestic Servants, and Hirelings (the inconvenience of which upon many accounts cannot but be obvious to any considerate and judicious person) whom had we to blame, as first breaking the ice in this matter? And was there not here ground enough to have refused this favour (as it is accounted) thus conveyed; and to have declared, they would choose rather to preach gratis, than any way contribute unto the laying of such an yoke upon the neck of the Church of Scotland.  
Further, see we not here, that such a snare was visible before their eyes, that either they should accept of Collation from the Prelates, and so acknowledge their dependence likewise on them, and confirm these perjured Invaders, and comply with abjuted Prelacy; or otherwise become the Council's Pensioners, which did tend to a manifest prostituting of the credit of the Ministry, and to the obstructing, of ministerial freedom and faithfulness, in declaring the mind of God, as becometh the Ambassadors of Christ?  
5. The next thing to be remarked, is the Injunctions here laid upon the Indulged, which are expressed in the Letter at some length. Which Injunctions either are Lawful, or Unlawful. If they be Lawful, Then (1.) They must obey them without any hesitation. (2.) Then they must acknowledge the conformable Clergy, as they are called, to be lawful Ministers of the Gospel. (3.) And that it is lawful to keep the Prelate's Courts and Meetings; and thus condemn themselves, for not doing so formerly. (4.) Then the people are also obliged in Conscience to own and acknowledge these Hirelings, as lawful Ministers of the Gospel, whom they are called of God to hear and obey. But if they account these Injunctions Unlawful, how could they by their silence, and accepting of the Indulgence upon these terms, tacitly approve of the same? To say, That they did not positively approve thereof, is not enough: Yea, their not-disapproving thereof Openly, Plainly, Publicly and Avowedly, being so stated as they were, and circumstances considered, cannot but be accounted an Interpretative Approbation, by all Godly, Sober and Rational persons. Nor will it avail here to say, That these Instructions were not proposed condition-wayes: For the Council, ●hat are both the best Interpreters of this Letter, and of their own deed, in consequence of and in compliance with the same, tell us in their Act August 10. 1677. that the Indulgence was accepted upon condition of keeping and observing of these Instructions, in these words: For as much as the Lords of his Maj. privy Council, did confine several outed Ministers to particular parochs, with allowance to preach and exercise the other functions of the Ministry within the same; and did (N.B.) deliver unto them certain Instructions to be keeped and observed, upon which they accepted the Indulgence, granted to them: And again, after whatsoever manner these Injunctions were proposed, yet it is certain, as we see, they were intended so. And if these Ministers had expressly told the Council, that they would observe none of these Injunctions, because they judged the same unlawful, and themselves obliged in conscience to declare the same; shall any think, that the Council would have granted them this Indulgence? Had not that been a direct crossing of the design and purpose of the King and Court? How should then the people have been amused into a stupid quiescence, and asslike couching under the burden, and blown-up with an irrational and groundless expectation of some desirable change?  
It cannot, moreover, here satisfy, to say, That they undertook nothing, but resolved to do, as they found clearness; and when they were not clear to obey to subject themselves to the penalty. For the Counsel, (as we see) offering the Indulgence upon condition of observing the Injunctions, when they accepted of the benefit, offered on those terms, they could not but also embrace the terms, upon which the benefit was offered; and their accepting of the benefit was a plain declaration of their acquiesceing in and satisfaction with the terms. And further, when they accepted of the benefit, either they accounted Obedience unto these Injunctions Lawful, or Unlawful. If they accounted it Lawful, why were they so disingenuous, as to simulate some hesitation, when they were clear and certain? This was not the carriage of faithful, & zealous Servants of Christ. If they did account that Obedience unlawful; Why did they not declare so much; especially when their silence, at the acceptance of the benefit so offered, could not but be construed by all, to be a full satisfaction with the Conditions? did not their silence confirm the Council of the lawfulness of the Obedience, required to these Injunctions? This looked not like the carriage of our worthy Forefathers, and zealous Reformers. Moreover, what in case the Council had likewise enjoined them (after the same manner of way, that they proposed the foresaid Injunctions) to preach Justification by works, The Pope's Infallibility, or the King's Headship over the Church, or some such thing? Would it have been fair in them, to have come away thanking their L L. for the favour, which was bestowed upon them, & satisfying themselves with this mental reservation, We will do as we shall be answerable, and take our hazard? Could any have justified them in this, or judged their carriage Ministerial? Might not every one have said, that they had taken up their Ministry, in an unlawful way, not approved of God; and so had run unsent? Finally, Let me ask the Reader, if the King or a great Noble man should grant to a Person some considerable Charge or Employment in his family, which possible the same Person had before, but was lately thrust therefrom; and in the mean time should lay upon him some injunctions, which seemed onerous, or not very lawful; could any think, that his accepting of the Charge and Employment, and returning thanks therefore, did not speak out most clearly his acquiesceing unto the conditions, his accepting of the Charge upon these conditions, and his tacit promise to obey these Injunctions, especially since he made no exceptions against them, when mentioned and proposed?  
6. We remark further that the Letter saith, That none of these Ministers have any seditious discourses, or expressions in pulpit, or elsewhere. And what is understood here, by seditious discourses or expressions, we cannot be ignorant? But now, what Conscientious Minister can either tacitly promise such a thing, or upon the highest peril forbear to utter such discourses? Or who can think, that any such thing can be yielded unto, who considereth, what God requireth of Ministers, in reference to a Corrupted and Apostatised State? and what the weight of the blood of souls is? and who hath ever read Ezek. 3: vers. 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22. and Chap. 33: ver, 7, 8, 9, 10. and considered, what a fearful thing it is to fall into the hands of a living God? It is true, the Council in their act made no mention of this; for what reasons; themselves best know: Yet it is sure, that the King and Court expected that none should have the benefit of the Indulgence, but such only, of whom they had, or thought they, had all the rational security imaginable, that they should be men of other Principles, than to utter such expressions. And we may be very certain, that the Council, in pursuance of the ends of his Maj. Letter, made choice of such, as they accounted most peaceable, and of whom they had the least fears imaginable, that they should ever utter, whether in pulpit, or out of pulpit, such seditious discourses and expressions. They took them (no doubt) to be men of a more peaceable disposition, as they called it, and more wise and sober (to speak according to their dialect). But oh, what will after ages say, who shall hear of the King's Letter, and what the Council did in pursuance thereof; and see also that N. N. etc. without the least Testimony to the Truth, accepted of the offer, and never hear, where or when these Persons were challenged, or accused for uttering of such speeches; that is, for an honourable mentioning of the glorious work of God, so miraculously wrought and carried on; and a faithful Testifying against the unparallelled perfidy and breach of Covenant, and against the most abominable, irreligious, inhuman and tyrannical Acts, made for establishing of this wicked Course of Defection? What (I say) will after ages say, when they compare this with the valiant and zealous deportment of our Predecessors, and of some, at least, of these same persons Anno 1648. and some years preceding?  
It will not be a sufficient covering for this nakedness to say, They heard nothing of that, while they received the Indulgence: For it is not unlike, but they saw or heard of the King's Letter; and the report of such an expression therein should have made them diligent to have goat a sight of it, if it was not offered unto them: and their Mouth did clearly, in his discourse before them (as we shall hear) intimate, that they were no strangers thereunto. And suppose they had known nothing of this; yet they could not be ignorant, that this was included in their qualifications. And if they should reject all this, as importing no consent on their part; Let their practice, since the accepting of the Indulgence, say, whether or not they have regairded that, as the main and only condition. However I think here was ground enough for them to have scrupled at the embracing of this supposed favour.  
7. The next thing here to be noticed in the Letter, is the Power and Command, which the King giveth to the Council, to silence those Ministers for a longer or shorter time, if they disobey these foresaid Injunctions; and if a complaint be verified the second time, to silence them for a longer time, or to turn them out (that is, in plain language, to depose them simpliciter) especially if they utter any seditious speeches. He must be very blind, who seeth not what height of Erastianisme is here: did ever any of the Reformed Churches say, that a Magistrate, as such, could suspend and depose Ministers from their Office? Did ever King james assume this power unto himself? See if his Declaration, penned with his own hand, signed and delivered to the Commissioners of the Church of Scotland at Linlithgow Dec. 7. 1585. saith so much, though at this time he had goat his Supremacy in Church-matters screwed up to the highest peg, he thought attainable? Did ever any of our Confessions of Faith, or Books of Discipline, or Acts and Canons of our Church, give the power of the Keys, the power of inflicting Church-censures upon Ministers, unto the Civil Magistrate? Did ever our Divines (for I except Court Chaplains, and Parasites, whom I account none of ours) write or say such a thing? Read what Calderwood hath said, in his Altar. Damasc. pag, 23, 24. and what worthy Mr. Rutherfoord hath said, in his Due Right of Presbyteries pag. 427. and forward; and read that elaborat Tractat of Mr G. Gillespie Aaron's Rod Blossoming, and see if there be any such thing hinted there. See if the CXI. Propositions, or the Propositions for Government, mention any such thing. Now if these Indulged be not Erastian in their Principles (as I hope they are not) I cannot see, but they are Erastian in their Practices: For they, knowing that such a power was assumed by the King, and now given and granted by the King unto the Council, whereby they were authorized to put the same in practice, and so to exercise pure and intrinsic Church-power, that is, inflict pure Church-censures, Suspend and Depose Ministers: That is, (1.) Not only not to suffer them to preach and administer Sacraments, in his Kingdom and Dominions, (which yet worthy Mr Rutherfoord will not grant, in his Due Right etc. pag. 430. upon these accounts 1. Because the King as King hath not Dominion of places, as sacred and religious, for his power in Church-matters is only cumulative, not privative; so as he cannot take away an house, dedicated to God's service, no more than he can take away maintenance allotted by public authority upon Hospitals, Schools, Pastors and Doctors. 2. The Apostles might preach in the Temple, though Civil Authority forbade them. 3. And all know, that he cannot hinder the exercise of the Ministry, in any other Kingdom,) it is not this only, I say; but simply not to preach, and administer the Sacraments. (2.) It is not only to discharge the exercise of the Ministry (which yet Mr Rutherfoord, ubi supra pag. 431. with Calderwood take to be a degree of Suspension, which is an Ecclesiastical degree to the censure of Excommunication; and therefore the King may as well Excommunicate, and remit and retain sins, as he can suspend:) but it is to take away the very power of Order, given instrumentally by the Church; if; with Papists and Formalists, they asserte not an indelible Character. And (3.) It is the taking away of what he never gave; for he never ordained, nor could ordain a Pastor, by any Law of God; that is, Ecclesiastically design, appoint, set apart, and constitute a qualified Person to the Ministry, by prayer and laying-on of hands; for this was always done by Church-officers Act. 13: v. 3. and 14: v. 23. 1 Tim. 4: 14. and 5: 22. 2 Tim. 2: 2. Tit. 1: 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  
Doth it not hence appear, that this was a manifest Usurpation of the Power and Privilege of the Church? And what can the silence of such, as were indulged, as to this, when they accepted of the Indulgence, from such as were, in the very giving thereof, openly and avowedly declaring this their Usurpation and Encroachment, say before the world, but that they acquiesced thereunto? This matter was not hid under ground; It was plain enough to all, who would not put out their own eyes, that the King was assuming to himself Church-power, and was robbing the Church of her Privileges; and to make way for the full accomplishment thereof, did here command and authorise his Council to appoint such and such Ministers, so and so qualified, to such and such places, as they thought good, with this manifest certificate, that they must expect no Church-censures to be inflicted on them, for any crime or misdemanour, they shall be charged with, and be found guilty of, but by the Civil Magistrates immediately; not Causatively, that is, causing Church-Judicatories do it; but doing it immediately themselves. Who then can justify them, and their practice, in accepting so thankfully, as they did, that Indulgence, without the least word of a Testimony against all these open and manifest Encroachments; and that at such time, when the design of tyrannising over the Church, in an Erastian way, was so palpable, and might be seen and known of all, who would but open their eyes?  
But there is another thing, which here occurreth; We see here that these Indulged Persons, are standing immediately under the Censure of the Civil Magistrate, not only for transgressing of the Orders, and Instructions given; but also (as must necessarily follow) for any other failing and transgression, not specified; as for example for Fornication, Sabbath-breaking and other Sins and Scandals, deserving Deposition or Suspension: For put the case, that some of them (which yet I have no cause to fear) should commit any such scandal, as did de●erve, or were usually punished by Suspension or Deposition; who shall inflict this Censure upon them, but the Council? There is no Church-Judicatorie having power over them for that effect; and they are not under the Prelates; And we cannot think that they may commit such crimes, and continue in the Ministry; Nor may we suppose, that they will suspend or depose themselves.  
8. Moreover we must remark here, that the Council is to take notice of their speeches in pulpit, who are indulged, and to punish them; yea, to turn them out immediately, if they be found to have uttered any seditious Discourse: By which we see, that the Council is made the immediate formal judge of Minister's Doctrine, for under the pretext of seditious Doctrine, they may judge and condemn the most innocent and orthodox truths. No Anti-Erastian Divine will grant this unto the Civil Magistrate. And though it be true, that the Civil Magistrate can only and properly judge of what is truly seditious, and can only civilly punish for such crimes: Yet our Divines never granted, that the Magistrate might in prima Instantia examine, and judge of Minister's Doctrine, when alleiged to be seditious, or treasonable: Nor did our Church, in her pure times ever yield to this. Our church-history tells us, that Mr. Andrew Melvine, that faithful and zealous Servant of Christ, would not answer before the King and the Council, for his alleiged treasonable discourse in Sermon, until he had first given-in a plain and formal Protestation; and the like was done by worthy Mr David Black upon the like occasion, and the Protestation was approven and signed by a good part of the Church of Scotland 1596. And we know also upon what ground it was, that that famous late Martyr for the Liberties of the Church, Mr james Guthrie, was questioned, and put to suffer: Now where was there any thing spoken by the Indulged, to bear witness to their adhering to the Church of Scotland, in this point of truth? What was said, that might declare their dissent from this piece of Encroachment? Was not their silence here, and accepting of the Indulgence, in the manner as it was accepted, without any public Testimony for the Church of Scotland and her Liberties, a Declaration, that they were willing that all their Doctrine should be immediately, and in prima instantia, judged and examined by the Council; and consequently, that our Predecessors in offering Protestations, in this case, were to be condemned, and that Mr Guthrie died as a fool?  
9 We may remark a snare laid in the Letter to catch more: for it is appointed, that such of the outed Ministers, who have lived peacably and orderly (here is a Discrimination made, no less scandalous to the commended, than dangerous to the rest) and are not reentered or presented, as aforesaid, shall have allowed to them four hundereth marks scots yearly, etc.— And that such as will give assurance to live so for the futurens, be allowed the said yearly maintenance: Seing it is not unknown what is properly here understood, by living peacably and orderly, any may see what a snare is laid here to catch others. But some will say, what is that to the Indulged? I think it speaketh very much to them; for had they not accepted of this Indulgence, that temptation had been removed from the door of others, who now, seeing them without any scruple accepting of the Indulgence offered, and granted unto them in special, only upon the account, and in consideration of their being peaceable and orderly livers, are emboldened to take that gracious gift, and accept of that Princely benevolence, upon the same account, and gape for a greater morsel, Viz. a Vacancy: And will not others, who are not fast rooted, be ready to engage, and give-in security, that they may also taste of the King's gratuity; and so sell their conscience and fidelity, at as good a price as they can. And if it fall out otherwise (as I wish, and hope it shall) that none shall accept of those baits, under which the hook is so conspicuous; yet no thanks to the Indulged, who have so fairly broken the ice for them. I know, a scandal may be given, when not taken; and such, as give the scandal, are guilty before God of destroying those for whom Christ died, Rom. 14: 15. And that word of our Saviour Mat. 18: 6. Luk. 17: 1, 2. Mark. 9: 42. is very dreadful, But who so shall offendone of these little ones, which believe in me, it were better for him, that a mills one were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea. I know they will say, They are far from this hazard, having done nothing, but what is du●y and necessary duty. But though I grant it an indispensible duty for Ministers to preach the Gospel, and to be instant in season and out of season: yet they might have preached without the Indulgence, as others did, and yet do; and the accepting of the Indulgence was not the only necessary opening of a door to preaching. Nor is it of simple preaching that I am here speaking; and they shall never be able to make it appear, that it is a necessary duty to do, as they have done, considering what is already said, and what shall yet further be said.  
10. There is another particular in the Letter, worthy of a remark, and we shall but here name it; and that is, Tha● the council is to allow Patrons to present to vacant Churches such Ministers, as they shall approve of. Whence it is clear, that without this consent of the Patron, which is his real or virtual Presentation, the Ministers approven of by the Council cannot have access unto these vacant Churches: Therefore their accepting of the Indulgence unto Vacant places, after this manner, is an approving and an establishing of the power of Patrons; whereby they did condemn all such Ministers, and possibly some of themselves, who formerly had suffered ejection, according to the Act of Glasgow, because they had no clearness to accept of this Presentation, even though the Patron would willingly have granted it, and did of his own accord offer it. Did they not hereby also condemn that laudable piece of our Reformation Anno 1649. When these Presentations were abolished, and the people restored to their liberty of Electing their own Ministers?  
11. We may also take notice, That all this contrivance is not in order to reduce our Church in whole, or in part, to her former Presbyterian state and lustre, or to weaken, or in the least deface, the reestablished Prelacy; but rather to confirm the same; for in the Letter, we see these Indulged are to be enjoined, in the King's name, and by his authority, to keep Presbyteries and Synods; that is, the Prelates meetings, so called; for there was no other. As also encouragement was given unto them to take the Prelate's Collation. So that this contrivance, as it was to gratify a few, so it was to corroborat the abjured Prelates, in their possession of what they had obtained, as their quid mihi dabit is. And further, they were discharged to exerce any Ministerial function towards any of the neighbour Parishes, where there were Curates serving. Now all these Injunctions, being manifestly sinful and unlawful, might have sufficiently cautioned them against the receiving of a favour, so strangely clogged with sinful conditions; or at least, prompted them to have remonstrated freely and faithfully all these evils, and plainly declared their fixed averseness from ever submitting unto these Injunctions,  
12. The last particular, which I shall remark here, is the Result of all this; or that rather which is the end mainly driven at, howbeit couched in words not so manifestly expressive of a mainly designed end. The words are in the last part of the Letter. And seeing we have by these orders, taken away all pretence for Conventicles, and provided for the want of such as are and will be peaceable; if any shall be found hereafter to preach without authority, or keep Conventicles, our express pleasure is, that you proceed with all severity against the Preacher and Hearers, as seditious person, and contemners of our Authority. In the by, we may here take notice, that according to the import and meaning of this letter, no Minister must preach either in or out of Conventicles, without a borrowed Authority from the Magistrate, otherwise they are to be looked upon, as seditious persons, and as contemners of Authority: So that this licence or indulgence was a real clothing of the Indulged and licenced (in the sense of the Court,) with authority to preach; as if all they had from Christ, conveyed to them by the ministry of Church officers, according to this Appointment, had been null, and altogether insignificant. Which one thing, in my apprehension, had been enough to have scared any, that minded to stand unto their Presbyterian, Gospel and anti-Erastian Principles, from accepting of licences of this nature, so destructive to the very being of an Ecclesiastical Ministry, and to its dependence on & emanation from Christ Jesus, the only Head and King of his Church, and sole Fountain of all Power and Authority, communicated or communicable to his Servants and Officers, as such; and so repugnant unto the methods and midses of conveyance, instituted and ordained by Christ, and practised in the primitive Church.  
But the other thing, here chiefly to be noticed, is, That as we see this device of the Indulgence was batched and contrived of purpose, to bear down these Conventicles, and to give a more colourable show of justice in persecuting the zealous Conventiclers. It is true, the Persons Indulged were not of those chiefly, who keeped Conventicles, especially in the Fields; for if so, they had not been such as lived peacably and orderly: And so, the Conventicle-Preachers were not much diminished in their number hereby; yet it was supposed, that none of those▪ who lived under the Indulged their Ministry, would much trouble themselves to go to Conventicles, and field Meetings; wherein, in a very great part, their supposition failed not. But now; with what Conscience shall we suppose this Indulgence could be accepted, seeing thereby, every one might see a further bar and restraint put upon those worthies, who jeoparded their lives in the high places of the fields in preaching of the Gospel, and were owned and contenanced of God to admiration, in the rich, yea wonderfully rich blessing of God upon their Labours, and Ministry, dispensed by the sole Authority of Jesus Christ: yea and those of them, who were present before the Council August 3. 1672. might have seen more cruelty breathed-out by severe orders, against those, who still followed the Lord, in Houses, in Valleys and in Mountains, though contrary to the Law: For that same very day a Proclamation was issued out, commanding all Heretors timeously to declare any, who within their bounds shall take upon them to preach in such unwarranted Meetings (as they were called) and make their Names known to Sheriffs, Stewarts, Lords, and Bailiffs of the Regalities, or their Deputes, and all others in public trust, within whose Jurisdiction they may be apprehended: And Authorising these Sheriffs &c. to make exact search and enquiry after them, to apprehend and incarcerat their Persons, and to acquaint the Council of their Imprisonment, And requiring the Magistrates of Brughs to detain them prisoners, till further Order; and that under the highest pain: And also declaring that they would put all Laws, Acts and Proclamations vigorously in execution, against withdrawers from the public worship, in their own Paroch-Churches? And thus was there a new fiery persecution raised, both against faithful Pastors and People. May it not be thought, that they had carried more honestly and ministerial-like, when seeing this End and Design (which could not be hid,) if they had freely and plainly told the Council, they could accept of no such Courtesy, unless the like were granted to all the faithful and honest zealous Ministers in the Land; or at least, had declared and protested, that what was granted unto them might be no prejudice unto the rest to preach the Gospel, and to be instant in season and out of season, wheresoever and whensoever occa●ion offered? But now, when nothing of this kind was done, did not they contribute their concurrence unto the establishing of this Midse, made use of for keeping-down of those Assembling of the Lord's people; I mean the Indulgence? And did they not hereby plainly enough condemn those Meetings, when they concurred so actively and effectually with the Council, and the King's design to have the Land freed of them?  
I know it will be said, That they could not procure favours to others: it was enough for them to accept of what was offered to themselves. But yet, though they were not Master of the Magistrates treasure of Indulgence, they were Master of their own deed; and I suppose, few of the Godly of the Land would have blamed them, if they had, out of tenderness to the poor perishing people, and out of respect to their suffering Brethren, told the Council; that, as matters than stood, they could not accept of that offer, though it had been cleaner than it was, unless all their Brethren were also made partakers thereof; or at least, that the House, and Field Preachers might not be molested. This would have looked like the deed of men, respecting the public good, and not seeking themselves, or their own ease and liberty. It would have smelled of brotherly affection, if they had said; We will rather take the same lot with our Brethren, than do any thing, how promising so ever it be of ease and quiet to ourselves, that may render their case more lamentable and grievous; and may seem in the least, à countenanceing, were it but interpretatively, of the severities used against them, or do any thing that may encourage unto more cruelty, and to the prejudging of the far greatest part of the Land, of the Gospel, now going forth with power.  
If any shall say, That possibly they did not approve of that manner of preaching themselves. I shall Return, that possibly it may be so, as to some of them, who were therefore looked on as most peaceable and orderly; and shall add, that certainly such must condemn Christ and his Apostles, who were the greatest of Conventicle-Preachers and almost preached no other way, wanting always the Authority of the Supreme Magistrate, and yet not waiting upon their Indulgence.  
But as to all these things, deduced from the King's Letter, it may be, the Indulged Ministers will think themselves little or nothing concerned; nor obliged to take any notice of what is there said, in regard that the King's Letter was not directed unto them, but unto the Council; and it was with the Council immediately, and not with the King, that they had to do: And therefore are concerned only to notice what the Council did, and said unto them, and required of them, and to notice their own carriage again, or return unto the Council. For answer I say. It may be so, that they shall thus think, to cheat the world and themselves, by such metaphysical abstractions, but in our actions before the Lord, and in matters of this nature, so nearly concerning the Glory of Christ, as King; and that in a day, when all things call aloud unto a Faithful, Free & Full Witnessing unto & for the truth, such abstractions are neither Christian, nor Manly. The Letter was not hid from them, nor the contents thereof unknown to them; for when they were before the Council, (as we shall hear afterward) they by their mouth expressed their sense sufficiently of that Letter, and took the favour of the Indulgence with all humility and thankfulness, as his Majesty's Royal Favour and Clemency. Our forefathers used not to carry so, when Court-favours were pressed and urged upon them, but searched the ground and rise of these, and considered their tendency and consequences; knowing, that favours, granted by standing and stated Enemies, could not be for advantage, but for hurt. The Spirit of zeal and faithfulness would teach us another more Moral, Plain & Christian Deportment: But though the Indulged should be such Metaphysical Abstracters, contrare to that Spirit of wisdom and ingenuity, that should lead all Christians; yet the Council dealt more plainly and roundly (as we shall see) and told at all occasions, and in all their Acts and Resolutions, that what they did was in pursuance of his Majesty's Commands and Royal Pleasure, signified in his Letter. Finally, This abstraction, though it were yielded to them, will not avail; for though the King's Letter had never been seen or heard of there was enough done by the Council and its Committee, (of which they could not be ignorant) to have resolved them, if they had not been prepossessed: It was the Committee of the Council that Elected them, that Judged them qualified for the Exercise of the Ministry in such and such places: It was the Council that did Appoint, Authorise and Empower them to Exerce their Ministry: It was the Council, that did Depose & Repose, Plant and Transplant, give Injunctions, Restrictions, and Limitations, and punish for Nonobedience: all which will be further cleared in what followeth.  
Having premised these few remarks upon the King's Letter, as necessary to the clearing of our way, because that was the ground of all; and having, in the by, discovered several things, to show the sinfulness of this Indulgence; we shall now proceed to mentione more particularly what was the progress of this Business, and how this wicked Design took effect.  
The Council appointeth a Committee to cognosce upon the matter, signified in the King's Letter, and to condescend upon the Ministers, judged fit and qualified for such a favour, according to the mind of the King, signified and plainly expressed in his Letter; and upon the parochs, to which they were to be ordered to go, & exercise their Ministry: Whereupon the Council enacteth as followeth.  

Edinbr. 27. july 1669.  
THe Lords of his Maj. Privy Council, in pursuance of his Majesty's Commands, signified in his Letter of the 7. of juny last, do appoint the Persons following to preach, and Exercise the other functions of the Ministry, at the vacant Kirks underwritten viz. Mr. Ralph Rodger, late Minister at Glasgow, to preach at the Kirk of Kilwinning, Mr George Hutcheson, late Minister in Edinburgh, at the Kirk of Irwing. Mr William Violant, late Minister at Ferry, at Cambusnetham: Mr Robbert Miller, late Minister at Ochiltree, at the same Kirk: Mr john Park, late Minister at Stanrawer, at the same Kirk: Mr William Maitland, late Minister at Whithorn, at the Kirk of Beeths: Mr john Oliphant, late Minister at Stanhouse, at the same Kirk, Mr john Bell, late Minister at Ardrossine, at the same Kirk: Mr john Cant, late Minister at Kel●, at the same Kirk, and Mr john Mc-Michen, late Minister at Dalry, at the same Kirk.   
Here we see Ten were appointed to the places respectively condescended upon by the Council; and some were appointed to preach at the Churches, out of which they had been ejected; but this was only an accidental thing, and merely because these Churches were at that time vacant; as appeareth by Mr john Park his disappointment, because the Prelate prevented his coming to the Kirk designed, which had been formerly his own, by thrusting in a Curate, notwithstanding of his pleading the benefit of the Act of Indemnity, in his own defence, against what was objected against him; and thereby acknowledged himself to have been a Traitor in all his former Actings, and that all the work of Reformation was but Rebellion: And there is no difference betwixt the appointment made to them, who returned to the places, where formerly they had preached, and that appointment, which was made to others to go to other Churches. The Council doth not so much, as verbally signify, the Sentence of Banishment from their own Parishes by the Act of Council at Glasgow Anno 1662. to be now annulled, as to them, whereby they had liberty to return to their own Charges, and follow their work; but simply enjoineth and appointeth them to go to such a place, and there to exercise their Ministry, as simply and plainly, as if they had never been there before: So that the appointment is one and the same, as made by the Council, in pursuance of the King's Letter: And all the difference, that was in their several Orders and warrants, which they received from the Council, was in regard of the Patrons, and of nothing else; as may be seen by the following tenors of these Acts.  

Followeth the Tenor of the Acts of Indulgence, given to the several Ministers to preach, conform to his Maj. Letter of the 7. of june 1669.  
THe Lords of his Maj. Privy Council, in pursuance of his Maj. Commands, signified the 7. of june last, do appoint Mr Ralph Rodger, late Minister at Glasgow, to preach and exercise the other functions of the Ministry, at the Kirk of Kilwinning.  
And thus did all the rest of this kind run. The other did run thus.   

For same ekle as the Kirk of ..... is vacant, the Lords of his Majest. Privy Council, in persuance of his Maj. command, signified by his Letter the 7. of june Instant; and in regard of the consent of the Patron, do appoint ... late Minister at ..... to reach and exercise the other functions of the Ministry at the said Kirk of .....   
Whereby we see, that these Orders make no difference betwixt such, as were appointed to their own former Churches, and others, who were appointed to other places, so that as to this, all of them received a new Commission, Warrant and Power to exerce their Ministry, in the places designed, as if they had never had any relation unto these places before.  
Further, it is observable here. That these Orders and Acts of the Council have the same Use, Force and Power, that the Bishop's Collation hath, as to the exercise of the Ministry; and that the Ordinance of the Presbyteries used to have in the like cases: And therefore this is all the ministerial potestative Mission, which they have unto the actual exercise of their Ministry in these places. Thus we see the Civil Magistrate arrogateth to himself that, which is purely Ecclesiastic, to wit, the Placing and Displaceing, the Planting and Transplanting of Ministers; and giving them a Ministerial Potestative Mission, which only belongeth unto Church-Judicatories. So that these Indulged Persons may with as much right be called the Counsels or Kings Curates, as others are called the Bishop's Curates, whom the Prelate's Collate, Place and Displace, Plant and Transplant, as they please. And we see no regard had unto the Judicatories of the Church, and to their power, more in the one case, than in the other; and possibly the Prelates transporting are done with some more seeming regard unto the power of Church-Judicatories, such as they own under them: but in this deed of the Council, there is not so much as a show of any deference unto any Church-Iudicatory whatsomever; nor is there any thing like it. It is obvious then, how clear and manifest the encroachement on the power of the Church is, that is here made. And because Magistrates have no such power from the Lord Jesus, and are not so much as nominally Church-Officers (as Prelates in so far are, at least) nor can act any other way, as Magistrates, than with a coactive civil power, and not ministerially under jesus Christ; it is manifest, that the Indulged, having this Authority unto the present exercise of their Ministry in such and such places, only from the Civil Magistrate acting as such, have not Power & Authority from Christ; for Christ conveyeth no Power and Authority in and by the Civil Magistrate, but by his own way, by Ministers of his own appointment, who act under him ministerially. And whether or not, they have not, in submitting to his way of conveyance of Power, and Authority to exerce their Ministry hic & nunc, upon the matter renounced the former way, by which Power and Authority was ministerially conveyed unto them; as we use to speak of such of the Prelates Underlings, who have received Collation from him, and Power to exerce their Ministry in such and such places, where they are now placed, though formerly they were ordained and fixed by lawful Church-Judicatories, I leave to others to judge.  
But because it may be said, that in these foregoing Acts, there is no mention made of the Injunctions spoken of, in his Majest. Letter, to be given to all the Indulged Ministers; Hear what was concluded and enacted by the Council, on that same day.  

Edinb. the 27. of july 1669.  
THe Lords of his Majest. Prive Council, in pursuance of his Maj. Royal pleasure, signified to them by his Letter of the 7. of june last▪ do in his Maj. Name and Authority, command and ordain all such outed Ministers, who are, or shall be appointed or allowed to exercise the Ministry; That they constitute and keep Kirk Sessions and Presbyteries and Synods, as was done by all Ministers, before the Year 1638. And the Council declares, that such of them, as shall not obey in keeping of Presbyteries, they shall be confined within the bounds of the parochs, where they preach, ay and while they give assurance to keep the Presbyteries. And also the Council doth strictly command and enjoin all, who shall be allowed to preach, as said is, not to admit any of their Neighbour or other Paroche unto their Communions, or Baptise their Children, nor marry any of them: without the allowance of the Minister of the paroch, to which they belong, unless that Paroch be vacant for the time; nor to countenance the people of the Neighbouring or other parochs, in resorting to their preachings, and deserting of their own Paroch Churches. And that hereunto they give due obedience, as they will be answerable on their highest peril. And ordains these presents to be intimate to every person, who shall by Authority foresaid be allowed the exercise of the Ministry.   
We see here, that this Act, concerning the Injunctions, was made distinct from the foregoing Act of Indulgence, and these Injunctions were not expressly included or mentioned in the Act of Indulgence: And some because of this may possibly think and say, That the accepting of the Indulgence is the more justifiable. But I am not of that mind: For this dividing of these two, which were conjoined in the King's Letter, was either done by collusion of the Indulged, or wholly without their knowledge and consent. If the former be truth, their accepting of the Indulgence is so much the more condemnable, that it was accompanied with such unfair dealing, devised of purpose (for no other end of this deed can be imagined) to blindfold and deceive the simple; whom possibly such a cheat might hoodwink. If the latter be said, to wit, that the Indulged themselves were utterly ignorant hereof though it is certain, as was said above, they were not ignorant of the King's Letter: Then I think, the first intimation made of these Injunctions unto them should have given such a discovery of unfair dealing, and of the Counsels purpose and intention to have them in snared, that the credit of their Ministry, the Conscience of their duty to God, and to the souls of people, the care of shunning all appearance of evil, the Command of God to give no offence, and other things considerable of that nature, should have compelled them unto a plain and full Declaration of their sensibleness of this cheatrie, and of their unwillingness to accept of favoures, so clogged with snares. And if they had thus carried, they had approved themselves, (otherwise than they did) to the consciences of all Men, as lovers of upright dealing, and as such who durst not take on them the charge of souls, on such unlawful terms, nor run the errands of God, with such a Passport.  
As to the Conditions themselves, I hope, even the indulged Persons themselves, are sufficiently convinced of the iniquity of them, when (as I hear) they have now at length laid aside the careful observance of them: But the careful and circumspect obedience yielded unto them at the first, is standing as a witness against them unto this day, and showeth that however now they neglect the same, because possibly perceiving the Council not so earnest in pressing observance, as at the first; yet so greedy were they of the bait of the Indulgence, that they cared not to swallow this hook with it, though it was an adding of grief to such as had sorrow enough already; and had in it a condemning of such, as scrupled the hearing of the Curates, and submitting to the Ordinances of Christ, administered by them.  
Before we proceed, it will be fit here to take some notice of that Discourse, which Mr H. had unto the Council, in name of the rest, who were at that time Indulged with him; for hereby we may be helped to understand, what was their sense of the Indulgence, who did receive it; The just double of which Discourse, as it came to mine hand, I shall here set down, as followeth.  
I am desired, in the name of my Brethren, here present▪ to acknowledge, in all humility and thankfulness, his Maj. Favour and Clemency, in granting us the liberty of the public exercise of our Ministry, after so long a restraint from the same; and to return here all thanks to your L L. for the care and pains, you have taken therein: And that your L L. have been pleased to make us, the unworthiest of many of our Brethren, so early partakers of the same. We have received our Ministry from Jesus Christ, with full prescriptions from him, for regulating us therein; and must, in discharge thereof, be accountable to him And as there can be nothing more desirable, or refreshing to us on earth, than to have free liberty of the exercise of our Ministry under the protection of lawful Authority, the excellent Ordinance of God, and to us ever most dear and precious; so we purpose and resolve to behave ourselves, in the discharge of the Ministry, with that wisdom and prudence, that become faithful Ministers of Jesus Christ; and to demaine ourselves towards lawful Authority, notwithstanding of our known judgement in Church-affairs, as well becometh loyal Subjects, and that from a lawful principle of Conscience. And my L L. Our prayer to God is, that the Lord would bless his Maj. in his Pers●● and Government; and your L L. in the public Administration; and 〈…〉 the pursuance of his Maj. mind in his Letter, wherein his singular 〈…〉 appears; that others of our Brethren, in due time, may be 〈…〉 of the liberty, which through his Maj. favour we now enjoy.  
I shall not long insist in descanting on this discourse; seeing it is so plain and manifest an homologating of the King's Letters; and consequently its iniquity is so undeniable from what was formerly remarked upon that Letter, that there is no great necessity of many more words to that end: only it may suffice to touch on some particulars, in a few words.  
1. We see hence, That these Brethren were not ignorant of the King's Letter and of the contents thereof, when they do here acknowledge a favour and clemency, granted unto themselves thereby.  
2. Nor were they ignorant of the scope and design of that Letter, seeing they pray, that the Lord would bless the Council, especially in the pursuance of his Maj. mind in that Letter.  
3. Nor were they Ignorant particularly of the Instructions, contained in that Letter, and which were to be given unto them: as these words, with full prescriptions from him (i.e. Christ Jesus) to regulate us therein, do clearly show; for by these words, as it would appear, they gave their L L. to understand, that it was not needful that these Instructions, or Prescriptions, contained in the King's letter, should be laid before them.  
4. Nor were they Ignorant, that what the Council did herein, was by virtue of, and in full compliance with the design of the King's Letter; and consequently, that the King's Letter, and the contents thereof, were the only spring and original of all this Indulgence, and of the Counsels power in acting in conformity thereto, and actually granting the Indulgence; for they thank their L L. for the care and pains, they had taken therein; and they pray, that the Lord would bless them, especially in the pursuance of his Maj. mind, in his Letter.  
5. It is matter of astonishment to me, considering what is said, how they could acknowledge this for such an Act of favour and clemency; And how they could say, that in this Letter, the King's singular Moderation did eminently appear; when from what is said, and what shall hereafter be more fully held forth, it is so notoure. That the contents of this Letter did hold forth a design of overturning all Church-Power, as exercised by Church-people, and of clothing the Council with power to impose Prescriptions, to prescribe Rules and Limitations, and to order and regulate Ministers, in the exercise of their Ministry, as also with power to Place and Displace, Plant and Transplant Ministers, without regard had either to the previous Call of the People, or to the Mission of any Church Judicatory; and of subjecting of the Exercise of the Ministry wholly unto their will and pleasure; not to mentione the severity breathed out, in that Letter, against the Assembling of the Lord's people.  
6. It is manifest from what is already marked, that the Indulged Brethren did own that Letter of the Kings, as the only rise and fountain of the favour, which they were made partakers of; and therefore did not take the Indulgence only from the Council, but from the King principally, as the only spring thereof, conveying the same to them, through the channel and medium of the Council, who did nothing but by virtue of that Letter, and in obedience thereunto. Whence we see, that there is no ground to abstract the stream from the fountain, or to think that these Ministers could imagine, that they were only to notice what the Council did, and no more; for as they neither did this, so it were unreasonable to think they could do so.  
7. They acknowledged here, that as to the liberty of the public exercise of their Ministry, they were only beholden unto this Indulgence; for, for this cause they give thanks: And thus did tacitly grant, that there ought to be no public Exercise of the Ministry, without liberty granted from the Magistrate; whereby they not only condemned all these faithful Ministers, who ventured, without that liberty granted, to preach publicly, where occasion offered in houses, or in the fields; but they likewise condemned Christ and his Apostles, the greatest of Conventicle-keepers. So likewise they do tacitly here grant, that when the Magistrate prohibiteth the public Exercise of the Ministry, for longer or shorter time, he must not be disobeyed; whereby the Magistrate hath the power yielded to him of Suspending and Deposeing Ministers, from the exercise of their function. It is true, Magistrates can hinder the peaceable public exercise, or free public exercise, by outward force and constraint; but they speak not here of the freedom of peaceable public exercise, but simply of the freedom of public exercise of the Ministry. Our own Church-history tells us; how famous Mr. Bruce was cast in a fever, through terror of conscience, for promising silence but for ten days, though in hopes of greater liberty.  
8. It is observable here; how thankful they are for partaking alone (as chosen out from their Brethren) of this favour; whileas this very act of separating them from their Brethren, should have been a sufficient ground for them to have rejected the tendered supposed favour, seeing by the accepting thereof, in this separated way, they suffered themselves to be divided from their Brethren, contrary to their sworn Covenants: not to speak of the stigma, they received thereby.  
9 They say, That they received their Ministry from jesus Christ. But why was it not said, as some of them (if I be not misinformed) desired, only from I. C? When this was designedly and deliberately left out, let all the world judge, whether in this, they carried, as faithful Ministers of the Gospel, or not: for my part, I cannot but judge, that this was a manifest betraying of the cause, and a giving up of all to the Magistrate: for hereby they declared, that in their judgements, either they had their Ministry from others, as well as from Christ; that is, from the Magistrate, as well as from Christ, and that in a co-equality and co-ordination; or else that they had it not from Christ immediately but from men, from the Magistrates, in subordination to Christ. Now neither of these can assort with truth, and with our Principles: Not the former; for then Christ should not be sole King, but half, and the Magistrate should have the half of Christ's Throne, Crown, Sceptre and Glory: which were blasphemy to think. Not the latter; for Magistracy is not subordinat in a direct line unto Christ, as Mediator; nor hath Christ substitute the Magistrate, as his Vicar; nor hath he given to him, as such, a ministerial power under him, to convey ministerially (in respect of the Subjects) or with a ministerial Authority, as his Servants, what power of Mission he giveth to his Ministers; Magistrates, as such, act not ministerially, or with a ministerial Authority, in reference to their Subjects, but with a Coactive, Autocratorical and Architectonick Power and Authority. If it be said, that they reserved only to the Magistrate hereby, the power to grant the liberty of the free exercise; but they meant, that they received the Ministry itself from Jesus Christ alone. I answer, had they spoken so, we might then have understood them so. But though they had said so, the cause had been betrayed, for if they have their Ministry from Christ alone, they must also have the free exercise of the same from him: If Christ give the Office, he giveth the power to exercise the Office: And if they depend upon others, in reference to the Exercise, they in so far rob Christ of what is his due, & hold that of men, which they should hold of Christ alone. No man needs to say here, that by this means we take away the Power of Church-Judicatories, by whom Ministers receive both the Office, and the Power of its exercise: For what Church-Judicatories do herein, they do ministerially under Christ, and Christ by them conveyeth the Office to such and such a Person, and with the Office a power to exercise it, according to the Rules of the Gospel; and notwithstanding of this, these Officers may and must say, that they receive their Ministry only from Christ Jesus. But this cannot be said, if the Magistrate be substitute in the place of Church-Officers, either in reference to the Office itself, or in reference to its free Exercise; because no Magistrate, as such, (as is said) acteth with a Ministerial Power, under Christ, in a right line of subordination: And therefore when they keeped out the word, only, they did plainly declare, that they held the Ministry partly of the Magistrate. If it be said, that they would hereby only have reserved to the Magistrate, power to grant the Peaceable Public Exercise of the Ministry. I would answer, that though they had meaned thus, yet they might safely and should have said, that they received their Ministry only from Christ; for I cannot be said to receive my Ministry from every one, who can hinder my peaceable public exercise thereof, otherways I must be said to receive it, in part, from Satan and his Instruments, who can hinder my peaceable public exercise thereof. So that, use what devices men can to cover this matter, a manifest betraying of the cause will break thorough, and a receding from received and sworn Principles will be visible.  
10. They said, They had full prescriptions from jesus Christ, to regulat them in their Ministry. Who then can justify them, in receiving other Prescriptions from the Magistrate, and such as Christ never made mention of in his Law; yea some where of do directly militate against Christ's Prescriptions? Doth not their receiving of these Instructions or Prescriptions, which were contained in his Maj. Letter, say, that the Prescriptions of Christ were not full? But again, seeing they had not freedom to say, that they received their Ministry from Christ alone, how could they say, that they had their full prescriptions from Christ? unless they meant, that they had them not from Christ alone. And then they must say, that they had them partly from some other, and that other m●st either be the Magistrar, or Church Officers: not Church-officers; for neither had they any call to speak of that here; nor doth Church Officers hold forth any Prescriptions, but Christ's, and that in the name of Christ. If that other be the Magistrate, than it must either be meant, Collaterally, or Subordinatly to Christ: not Subordinatly, for they are not appointed of Christ for that end; nor do they, as Magistrates, act Ministerially, but Magisterially; not Collaterally, For than they should have these Prescriptions equally from the Magistrates, as from Christ; and the Magistrate should be equal and King of the Church with Christ, which is blasphemy.  
More might be here noted, but what is said is enough to our purpose, at present; and what was said above needeth not be here repeated.  
But now we must proceed: These forementioned were not all, who were that year indulged: For the same supposed favour was granted to others shortly thereafter, as appeareth by these Extracts out of the Register.  

Edinburgh, August 3. 1669.  
THE Persons under-written were licenced to preach at the Kirks after specified viz. Mr john Scot, late at Oxnam, at the same Kirk, Mr William Hammiltoun late at Glasfoord, at the Kirk of Evandale: Mr Robert Mitchel, late at Luss, at the same Kirk: Mr john Gemmil, late at Symming town at the same Kirk: Mr Patrick Campbel, late at Innerary, at the same Kirk: Mr Robert Duncanson, late at Lochanside, at Kildochrennan: Mr Andrew Cameron, late at Kilsinnan, now at Lochead in Kintyre.   

Edinburgh, 2. Septemb. 1669.  
For as much as the Kirk of Pencaitland is now vacant, by decease of Mr Alexander Vernor, last Minister thereat; and there being some questions and legal pursuits before the Judge ordinate, concerning the right of Patronage of this Kirk: Until the decideing whereof the Kirk will be vacant, if remeed be not provided: Therefore the Lords of his Maj. Privy Council, in pursuance of his Maj. pleasure, expressed in his Letter of the 7. of june last, have thought fit at this time and for this Vacancy allennerly, To appoint Mr Robert Douglas, late Minister at Edinburgh, to preach and exercise the function of the Ministry, at the said Kirk of Pencait land. And it is hereby declared, that their presents shall be without prejudice of the right of Patronage, according as the same shall be found and declared by the Judge ordinary.   

Edinburgh, Septemb. 2. 1669.  
The Persons underwritten were licenced to preach at the Kirks after specified viz. Mr. Matthew Ramsey, late at Kilpatrick, to preach at Paisley: Mr Alexander Hammiltoun, late Min. at Dalmenie, at the same Kirk: Mr Andrew Dalrymple, late Min. at Affleck, at Dalganie: Mr james Fletcher, late Min. at Neuthcome, at the same Kirk: Mr Andrew Me-Claine, late Min. at Craigneis, at Kilchattan: Mr Donald Morison, late at Kilmaglais, at Ardnamurchant.   

Edinburgh, Septemb. last 1669.  
The Persons following were ordained to preach at the Kirks after specified; viz. Mr john Stirling, at Hounam: Mr Robert Mowat at Harriot: Mr james Hammiltoun at Egleshame: Mr Robert Hunter at Downing: Mr john Forester at Tilliallan with Mr Andrew Reid. infirm.   

Edinburgh, Decemb. 9 1669.  
Mr Alexander Blair at Galstown: Mr john Primrose at Queensferrie: Mr David Brown at Craigie: Mr john Craufurd at Lamingtoun with Mr john Hammiltoun aged and infirm: Mr james Vetch at Machline.   

Edinburgh, Decemb. 16. 1669.  
Mr john Bairdie at Paisley with Mr Matthew Ramsey infirm.   
Thus we see there were this Year 1669. Five and Thirty in all licenced and indulged, and ordained to preach, in the several places specified, upon the Counsels Order, in pursuance of the King's Royal pleasure. And in the following year, we will find the same Order given unto and obeyed by others.  
But ere we proceed, it will not be amiss, that we take notice of the first Act of Parliament, holden this year Novemb. 16. 1669. and consequently, before the last Six were licenced. The Act is an Act asserting his Majesty's Supremacy over all Persons, and in all Causes Ecclesiastical. Whereby what was done by the Council, in pursuance of his Majesty's Pleasure, signified by his Letter, in the matter of granting these Indulgences, is upon the matter confirmed and ratified by Parliament, when His Maj. Supremacy is so ampliated and explained, as may comprehend within its verge all that Ecclesiastic Power, that was exerced, or ordained to be exerced, in the granting of the Indulgence, with its Antecedents, Concomitants and Consequences: And a sure way is laid for carrying on the same design of the Indulgence, in all time coming.  

The Act is as followeth. Nou. 16. 1669.  
THE Estates of Parliament having seriously considered, how necessare it is, for the Good and Peace of the Church and State, That his Maj. Power and Authority, in Relation to Matters and Persons Ecclesiastical, be more clearly asserted by an Act of Parliament: Have therefore thought fit it be Enacted, Asserted and Declared: Like as his Maj. with Advice and Consent of his Estates of Parliament, doth hereby Enact, Assert and Declare, That his Maj. hath the Supreme Authority and Supremacy over all Persons, and in all Causes Ecclesiastical, within this His Kingdom: And that by virtue thereof, the Ordering and Disposal of the external Government and Policy of the Church, doth properly belong to His Maj. and His Successors, as an inherent right to the Crown. And that His Maj. and His Successors may Settle, Enact and Emit such Constitutions, Acts and Orders, concerning the Administration of the External Government of the Church, and the Persons employed in the same; and concerning all Ecclesiastical meetings, and matters to be proposed and determined therein, as they in their Royal Wisdom shall think fit: which Acts, Orders and Constitutions, being Recorded in the Books of Council and duly published, are to be observed and obeyed by all his Maj. Subjects; any Law, Act or Custom to the contrary notwithstanding. Like as His Maj. with Advice and Consent foresaid doth Rescind and Annul Laws, Acts and Clauses thereof, and all Customs and Constitutions Civil or Ecclesiastic, which are contrary to, or inconsistent with His Majesty's Supremacy, as it is hereby asserted. And declares the same Void and Null, in all time coming.   
Concerning the Irreligiousness, Antichristianisme and Exorbitancy of this Explicatory, and (as to some things) Ampliatory Act and Assertion of the King's Supremacy in Church-affairs, much, yea very much might be said; but our present business calleth us to speak of it, only in reference to the Indulgence; that we may see with what friendly aspect this Supremacy looketh towards the Indulgence, and with what Veneration the Indulgence respecteth this Supremacy; to the end it may appear, how the Indulgence hath contributed to the establishment of this Supra-Papal Supremacy; and how the Accepters thereof stand chargeable with a Virtual and Material Approbation of, and Consent to the dreadful Usurpation, committed by this Supremacy.  
In order to which, we would know, that this Act of Supremacy, made Anno 1669. was not made, upon the account, that the Supremacy in Church-affairs had never been before screwed up to a sufficient height, in their apprehensions; for upon the matter, little that is material is here asserted to belong unto this Ecclesiastical Supremacy, which hath not been before partly in more general, partly in more special and particular terms, plainly enough ascribed unto this Majesty, or presumed as belonging to his Majest. In the 11. Act. Parl. 1. Anno 1661. where the Oath is framed, he is to be acknowledged, Only supreme Governor over all persons, and in all causes; and that his Power and jurisdiction must not be declined: So that under all Persons, and all Causes, Church-officers, in their most proper, and intrinsical ecclesiastic Affairs and Administrations, are comprehended; and if his Majest. shall take upon him to judge Doctrine, matters of Worship, and what is most essentially Ecclesiastic, he must not be declined, as an incompetent Judge. We find also Act. 4. Sess. 2. Parl. 1. Anno 1662. (which is again renewed Act. 1. Anno 1663.) that his Majesty, with advice and consent of his Estates, appointeth Church-censures to be infflicted for Church-transgression, as plainly and formally, as ever a General Assembly, or Synod did, in these words; That whatsoever Minister shall without a lawful excuse, to be admitted by his Ordinary, absent himself from the visitation of the Diocese— or who shall not, according to his duty, concur therein; or who shall not give their assistance, in all the Acts of Church-discipline, as they shall be required thereto by the Archbishop, or Bishop of the Diocese, every such Minister (N. B.) so offending shall, for the first fault, be suspended from his Office and Benefice, until the next Diocesian meeting; and if he amend not, shall be deprived. But, which is more remarkable, in the first Act of that Second Session. Anno 1662. for the Restitution and Re-establishment of Prelates, we have several things, tending to clear how high the Supremacy was then exalted: The very Act beginneth thus, for as much as the ordering and disposal of the external Government and Policy of the Church doth properly belong unto his Majesty, as an inherent right of the Crown, by virtue of his Royal Prerogative and Supremacy in causes Ecclesiastical. This is the same, that is by way of statute asserted in the late Act 1669. In the same Act it is further said, That whatever (this, sure, is large and very comprehensive) shall be determined by his Maj. with the advice of the Archbishops and Bishops, and such of the Clergy, as shall be nominated by his Maj. in the external Government and Policy of the Church (the same consisting with the standing Laws of the Kingdom) shall be valide and effectual. And which is more, in the same Act, all preceding Acts of Parl: are rescinded, by which the sole and only Power and jurisdiction within the Church, doth stand in the Church, and in the General, Provincial and Presbyterial Assemblies and Kirk-Sessions. And all Acts of Parliament or Council, which may be interpreted to have given any Church-Power, jurisdiction or Government to the Office-bearers of the Church, their respective Meetings, other than that which acknowledgeth a dependence upon, and subordination to the Sovereign ●●wer of the King, as Supreme, So that we see, by virtue of this Act, all Church-Power and Jurisdiction whatsomever, is made to be derived from, to have a dependence upon, and to be in subordination to the Sovereign power of the King, as Supreme; and not to stand in the Church: Whereby the King is made only the Fountain of Church-power, and that exclusive (as it would seem) even of Christ; Of whom there is not the least mention made; and for whom is not made the least reserve imaginable. So in the 4. Act. of the third Session of Parl. Anno 1663. For the Establishment and Constitution of a National Synod. We find it said, that the ordering and disposal of the external Government of the Church, and the nomination of the Persons, by whose Advice, Matters relating to the same are to be settled, doth belong to his Maj. as an inherent right of the Crown, by virtue of his prerogative R●yal and Supreme Authority in causes Ecclesiastical. And upon this ground is founded his power to appoint a National Synod; to appoint the only constituent Members thereof, as is there specified; to call, continue and dissolve the same, when he will; to limit all their Debates, Consultations and Determinations to such matters and causes, as he thinketh fit; and several other things there to be seen.  
Seeing by these Particulars, it is manifest and undeniable, that this Ecclesiastic Supremacy was elevated presumptively before the Year 1669. to as high a degree, as could be imagined; It may be enquired, why then was this Act made Anno 1669? I answer. This act (so I conceive) was not framed so much to make any addition to that Church power, which they thought did jure Coronae belong originally and fundamentally unto the King; for that was already put almost beyond the reach of any additional supply, though not in one formal and expressive Statutory Act: As to form the same, when screwed up to the highest, into a plain and positive formal Statute, having the force of a Law, for all uses and ends; and particularly to salve, in point of Law, the Council in what they did, in and about the Indulgence, according to the desire and command of the King in his Letter, in rega●rd that the granting of this Indulgence, did manifestly repugn to and counteract several anteriour Acts of Parliament, and was a manifest breach and violation of Laws, standing in full force, and unrepealed; which neither their place, nor his Maj. could in Law warrant them to do, by his Letter, That the granting of the Indulgence did thus in plain terms repugn to standing Laws, I thus make good. In the Act of Rëstitution of Prelates Anno 1662. Prelates are restored unto the exercise of their Episcopal function, Presidence in the Church, power of Ordination, Inflicting of Censures, and all other Acts of Church Discipline. And as their Episcopal power is there asserted to be derived from his Maj. so withal it is expressly said, that the Church-power and jurisdiction is to be Regulated and Authorized, in the Exercise thereof by the Archbishops and Bishops; who are to put order to all Ecclesiastical matters and causes, and to be accountable to his Maj. for their administrations. Whence it is manifest, that the King alone, or with his Privy Council, cannot put order to Ecclesiastical matters and causes, or exerce Church-Power and Jurisdiction, without a violation of this Law, and manifest controlling of it. And further in the 4. Act of that same Second Session of Parliament it is expressly ordained, that none be hereafter permitted to preach in public or in families within any diocese;— without the licence of the Ordinary of the Diocese. So that this licence and permission, granted to the Indulged by the Council, to preach and exercise the other parts of their function, being without the licence of the Bishops, is manifestly contrary and repugnant to this Law. Moreover Act 1. in the third Session Anno 1663. we have these words. And the Kings Maj. having resolved to conserve and maintain the Church, in the present State and Government hereof by Archbishops & Bishops▪ and others bearing Office therein; and not to endure, nor give way or connivace to any variation therein, in the least; doth therefore, with advice and consent of his Estates, convened in this third Session of his Parliament, Ratify and Approve the afore mentioned Acts, and all other Acts and Laws, made in the two former Sessions of Parliament, in order to the settling of Episcopal Dignity, jurisdiction and Authority within the Kingdom, and ordains them to stand in full force, as public Laws of the Kingdom, and to be put to further execution, in all points, conform to the tenor thereof. Here is a further Ratification and Confirmation of the Laws mentioned, and the Council hereby yet more firmly bound-up from emitting any Acts or Edicts, contradictory to, and tending to weaken and invalidat the public standing Laws of the Kingdom. And, which is yet more considerable, in the following words of this same Act, the effectual putting of these Laws in execution is specially, and in terminis, recommended by King and Parliament, unto the Privy Council, after this manner. And in pursuance of his Maj. Royal resolution herein, his Maj. with advice foresaid, doth recommend to the Lords of his Maj. Privy Council, to take speedy and Effectual Course, that these Acts receive ready and due Obedience from all his Maj. Subjects; and for that end that they call before them all such Ministers, who having entered in or since the Year 1649. and have not as yet obtained Presentations and Collations as aforesaid, yet darred to preach in contempt of the Law; and to punish them as seditious persons, and contemners of the Royal Authority. As also that they be careful, that such Ministers, who keep not the Diocesian meetings▪ and concur not with the Bishops, in the Acts of Church-Discipline, being for the same suspended or deprived, as said is, be accordingly after deprivation, removed from their Benefices, Gleebs and Manses. And if any of them shall notwithstanding offer to retain the Possession of their Benefices or Manses, that they take present Course to see them dispossessed. And if they shall thereafter presume to exercise their Ministry, that they be punished, as seditious Persons, and such as contemn the Authority of Church and State. Now, notwithstanding of this express reference and severe recommendation, we know, that in the matter of the Indulgence, they were so far from punishing such, as had not obtained Presentations and Collations, and yet had continued to preach, and exercise their Ministry; that in perfect contradiction to this Injunction of King and Parliament, and other forementioned Acts, they licenced, warranded and impowered some such, as by Act of Parliament were to be punished as seditious Persons, and contemners of Authority of Church and State, to preach publicly, and to exercise all other parts of their Ministry, and that upon the sole warrant of the King's Letter, which cannot in Law warrant and empower them to contraveen express Laws, and Acts of Parliament; and not only to disobey the Injunctions of Parliament, but in plain terms to counteract and counterwork the Established and Ratified Laws; and so to render them null and of no effect.  
Whence we see, that there was a necessity for the Parliament An. 1669. to do something, that might secure the Lives and Honours of the members of Council, in point of law, in granting of that Indulgence, which was so expressly against law, and which the two Arch-Prelates, members of Council, would never give their assent unto, as knowing how it entrenched upon the power granted to them, and the other Prelates, confirmed by Law; and so was a manifest rescinding of these Acts and Laws. And though this might have been done by a plain and simple Act, approving and ratifying what the Council had done, in compliance with his Maj Royal Pleasure, and authorising them in time coming, to pursue the ends of the same Letter further, with a non obstante of all Acts, formerly made in favoures of Prelates and Prelacy: Yet it is probable, they made choice of this way of explaining, by a formal and full Statute and Act of Parliament, the Supremacy, in these plain, full and ample terms, wherein we now have it; that thereby they might not only secure the Council, but also make the King's sole Letter to the Council, in all time coming, a valid ground in Law, whereupon the Council might proceed, and enact and execute, what the King pleased in matters Ecclesiastic, how intrinsically and purely such soever; without so much, as owning the corrupt Ecclesiastic medium or channel of Prelacy: And withal it might have been thought, that such an act, so necessary for the legal preservation of the Indulgers, and consequently of the Indulged, in the enjoyment of the Indulgence, would go sweetly down with all the Indulged, and such as gaped for the like favour, howbeit so framed, as that it was not very pleasant, at the first tasting: For it cannot be rationally supposed, that such, as are pleased with their warm dwellings, will cast out with the walls & roof of the dwelling, without which they would enjoy no more warmness than if they were lodging beside the heath in the wilderness: And who could think, that any indulged man could be dissatisfied with that, which was all and only their legal security, and without which, they were liable to be punished as seditious persons, and as contemners of Authority, even for preaching by virtue of the Indulgence, according to Laws standing in force unrepealed?  
Whence also we see, what a fair way was made unto this Act of Supremacy, by the Indulgence; and how the Indulgence is so far beholden unto this Act, that it can not stand without it, nor the persons Indulged be preserved from the lash of the Law, notwithstanding of all that was done by the Council: And thus these two are as twines, which must die and live together; for take away the Act of Supremacy, and the Indulgence is but a dead illegal thing. We may also see; what to judge of this illegal and illegitimat birth, that cannot breathe or live, where Law reigneth, without the swedling clothes of such a Supremacy, nor can stand but as upheld by such an Anti-christian Pillar.  
We may also see here, that the very embracing of the Indulgence was, upon the matter, a recognition of this Power in the King, to do in and by his Privy Council, in Church-matters, what he pleased, even though contrary to antecedent Acts of Parliament; and that such as are so satisfied with the effect, to wit, the Indulgence, cannot but comply with the cause, to wit, the Supremacy, as asserted in this Act; as the man that hath a complacency in drinking of the streams, cannot be displeased with, but delight in the fountain, from whence they proceed. If any of these Brethren had received the same Indulgence from the Prelates immediately, had they not thereby complied with the Prelates, homologated their Power, and plainly assented and submitted thereunto? Yea, had they not in this assented also mediately unto the Supremacy, seeing all the Prelates Power did flow from the Supremacy? And shall they not now much more be looked on, as homologating the Supremacy, and as assenting thereto, when they receive the Indulgence, that immediately floweth therefrom, and must be vindicated and defended solely by the asserting thereof? How is it imaginable that I can receive a favour, and not homologate, assent to and acquiesce in that Power, that gave it, when the asserting of that Power, is the only mean to keep me in legal possession of the favour received;  
But now, for further confirmation of what is said, let us take a view of the Act of Supremacy itself, and there see a ground laid of sufficient warrandice for the Council, in what they did, in granting the Indulgence; and also be able to read the Indulgence itself out of the Supremacy, as here asserted; and for this end, it will be sufficient for us, to take notice only of the last words thereof, where it is said. And that his Maj. and his Successors may Settle, Enact and Emit such Constitutions Acts and Orders, concerning the administration of the external Government of the Church, and the Persons employed in the same, and concerning all Ecclesiastical Meetings and Matters, to be proposed and determined therein, as they in their Royal wisdom shall think fit: which Acts▪ Orders and Constitutions, being recorded in the books of Council, and duly published, are to be observed and obeyed by all his Maj. Subjects. Before this time, as we heard, all Acts, Orders and Constitutions, concerning Church-affairs, Church-meetings; and Church-administrations; were to be put in execution by the Prelates, impowered by the Supremacy unto this end: And what was lately done in the matter of the Indulgence, was done by the Council, and not by the Prelates, and therefore contrary to law: whereupon, that this deed may be valide in law, it is here asserted, that the King, by virtue of his Supremacy, may Emit what Acts, Orders and Constitutions, he, in his royal wisdom, thinketh fit, and after what manner he pleaseth; and so, if he will, may order and dispose of all Church-administrations, Ecclesiastic Persons, Church-meetings and matters, by himself immediately, or by his Council; yea or by his lackeys; so that if the Laws, Constitutions, Acts and Orders, concerning these Matters, Meetings, Persons and Administrations, be signified to the Council, by Letter, or any other way, and be recorded in their books, and duly published, (which they must do whensoever required) they must be obeyed and observed by all Subjects: Now this power being asserted to belong to his Maj. as an inherent right of the crown, no deed of gift▪ formerly granted to the Prelates, could weaken or diminish it; and therefore nothing done of late by the Council, in granting of the Indulgence, according to his Maj. will and pleasure, signified by his Letter juny 7. 1669. can prove prejudicial unto the said PrivieCouncel, they doing nothing but what was consonant unto the King's Supremacy, here more clearly asserted, and not granted of new, save in the form of a formal Statute and law asserting the same. Yet notwithstanding, for the more security, (for abundance of Law breaks no Law) it is added in the Act. (as we see) Any Law, Act or Custom to the contrary notwithstanding. And moreover they rescind and annul all Laws, Acts and Clauses thereof, and all customs and constitutions, Civil or Ecclesiastic, which are contrary to and inconsistent with his Maj. Supremacy, as it is hereby asserted; and declare the same void and null in all time coming: According to the usual course and manner.  
As to the other particular, we may see the native feature and lineaments of the Indulgence, in the face of the Supremacy, so manifestly, that none who see the one needs question the intimate Relation, that is betwixt them. We see it now asserted as belonging to his Maj. Supremacy, in Church-affairs, tha● he may Settle, Enact and Emit what Acts, Constitutions and Orders, he thinketh good, whether concerning Church-Administrations, or Church-meetings, or Church-matters, or Church-Officers; and that there needeth no more to make these Laws, to be obeyed and observed by all the Subjects, but the recording of them in the books of the Council, and duly publishing of them. Now, as we saw above, in the King's Letter, concerning this Indulgence, there areConstitutions, Acts and Orders emitted and settled concerning Church-administrations, showing what shall not be preached under the pain ofCensure: whosechildrens may be baptised, whose not: who may be admitted to hear the word, and who not. Concerning Church-people; who shall be accounted qualified for preaching, who not: who shall be accounted fit for the charge of such a flock, and who for the charge of another: Such and such Ministers are ordained to go to such or such Congregations, not by virtue of a Call of the people, but merely by virtue of the Counsels designation. Concerning Church-meetings, They are appointed to keep Diocesian Visitations, or Synods, and to resort to Prelates Exercises, though the Prelates look not on them as suitable company. So it is ordained, whom they are to marry and whom not. In a word, let any but compare the King's Letter with this part of the Act of Supremacy, and he shall be forced to say, that the Letter is nothing but the Supremacy exemplified and put in practice.  
Hence it is manifest, that no man can submit to, and accept of the Indulgence, but he must eo ipso submit to & accept of such Constitutions, Acts and Orders, as did constitute, qualify, and limit the same; for the Effect includeth the Causes Constituent and Discriminating. And again, no man can submit to and accept of Constitutions, Acts and Orders, flowing from a power, but they must eo ipso recognosce that Power to be properly residing in the person, giving forth these Acts and Orders; or grant, that he is vested with that power: and seeing it is plain from the Act of Supremacy itself, that such Constitutions, Acts and Orders, so given in Church-matters, and about Church Persons, as these were, whereby the Indulgence was midwifed into the world, do flow from the Supremacy; it is also manifest, that no man can accept of the Indulgence, as so and so conveyed, as it was, but they must withal virtually, implicitly, and interpretatiuly at least though yet really and consequentially) acquiesce, & submit unto, and acknowledge the Supremacy, in so far, as concerneth the matter of the Indulgence, and the Acts, Orders a●● Constitutions, ●●erein comprehended.  
I am, in all this, far from thinking, that these Indulged brethren did formally and expressly Own, Acknowledge, Acquiesce in or Approve of the Ecclesiastic Supremacy, in and by their accepting the Indulgence; or that they had any such Intention therein, as to make way for, approve of, or to confirm the said Supremacy. No: I am only showing what is the native consequence thereof, and inevitablie followeth thereupon; and what consequentially they may and aught to charge themselves with, and others, not without ground, account them interpretatively guilty of; and what a Conscience, when rightly awakened and illuminated, will challenge them for; and the Posterity will think they have failed in, and many now a days are stumbled by, or induced to stumble upon the occasion of: not to mention the design of the Contrivers, which yet, when known and discovered, may occasion yea and cause a sad and wakening reflection; Nor yet to mention, what afterward, upon several occasions was discovered, of which more afterwards, and which might have been sufficient to have made some bethink themselves, and search more narrowly what they had done, and give glory to God by turning out of such dangerous, and so many ways scandalous and offensive paths.  
Having thus briefly spoken of the Supremacy, as relating to and friendly corrosponding with the Indulgence, its native daughter, we now proceed in our History, and shall show, who were Indulged even after this Act of Supremacy was thus made and published: And of these we have found already five or six licenced, that same year, within a month or thereby after the Parliament, (which gave us such a full, and large explication of the Supremacy,) sat down. But we proceed to the following years.  

Edinbr. 27. 1670.  
Mr Alexander Wedderburn at Kilmarnock.   

Edinb. March. 3. 1670.  
Mr john Lauder at Dalzel:  
Mr George Ramsey at Kilmars:  
Mr john Spadie at Dreghorne.  
Mr Thomas Black at Newtyle:  
Mr Andrew Mc claine at Killaro and Kilquhanan:  
Mr Andrew Duncanson at Kilchattan in Lorn.   
Thus we have this year seven more; in all forty three. Towards the beginning of the next year, there is a Proclamation of the Privy Council, reinforcing the punctual observation of the forementioned Injunctions, delivered unto the Indulged; after this form.  

Edinb. jan. 26. 1671.  
For as much as the Lords of his Maj. Privy Council, in pursuance of his Maj. Royal pleasure, signified to them by his Letter the 7. of jun. 1669. did by their Act of the 27. of july 1669. Ordain all such outed Ministers, as should be allowed to exercise the Ministry, to keep Kirk Sessions, and keep Presbyteries and Synods, as was done by all Ministers, before the Year 1638. And did declare, that such of them, as should be allowed to Exercise the Ministry, and should not obey in keeping of Presbyteries, should be confined within the bounds of the parochs, where they preach, ay and while they give assurance to keep Presbyteries. And the said's Lords being informed, that hitherto Obedience hath not been given to the foresaid Act of Council: Do therefore command and require all and every one of these Ministers, allowed to preach by order of Council, to keep Presbyteries in time coming. And do hereby confine all these, who shall not give Obedience in keeping Presbyteries, within the bounds of the respective parochs, where they preach. And ordains Extracts of this Act to be sent to every one of the said's Ministers, that none of them pretend ignorance.   
How or what way this Injunction was observed, I am not much concerned to inquire. Only the Reader would know, that the Presbyteries now, and before the year 1638. were not the same; so that however honest Ministers did observe those; yet no honest man could, with a good Conscience, keep these meetings now; because before the year 1638. Presbyteries had never been discharged, or removed: Howbeit many complied with the Prelates then, and frequented these meetings, yet good men keeped their Possessions; only the Synods than were so far changed into Episcopal Visitations, that several honest men had not peace and freedom in going to them. But in our Days, Presbyterian Government was plucked up by the roots, and wholly cast away: And there was no Presbytery or Synod, but what was purely Episcopal, depending upon him, and recognosceing his Power. Whence we see, that by this Injunction, a compliance with Prelacy was designed. And I suppose, such of those Indulged Ministers, as had not freedom in Conscience to yield obedience unto this command, thought that by compliance herewith they should have Homologated the Prelates Power, and abjured Prelacy, notwithstanding that they were obliged by the Command of God, to hold such meetings for the exercise of Discipline, according to the Pattern of the New Testament, if such circumstances had not made it sinful in them: Why then might they not also have judged it unlawful for them, to have accepted of the Indulgence, as homologating the Magistrat's usurped Supremacy, and abjured Erastianisme, notwithstanding of their Obligation to preach the Gospel? Why did not the Obligation to observe Presbyterial Assemblies, for the Exercise of Discipline, make them willing to step over the inconvenience of Prelacy, without acknowledging of which they could not keep these meetings hic & nune; as they supposed their obligation to preach the Gospel did warrant them to step over the inconveniency of Erastianisme, without acknowledging of which they could as little preach hic & nune; Especially seeing if they observed not these Presbyteries and Synods, they could observe none: But though they preached not in these places designed by the Indulgers, they could have preached elsewhere, with as much Glory to Christ, Good to souls, Edification of the whole Body, and Peace in their own minds, if not more. I see not, how they, who scrupled not at preaching, though, as circumstantiated, attended with abjured Erastianisme, could rationally scruple the Exercise of Presbyterian Discipline, though, as circumstantiated, attended with abjured Prelacy. Yea, I think there was less ground for scrupling this of Discipline, than for scrupling that of Preaching; because, as I said, they could have preached without the Erastian Indulgence, & that to much more advantage, as experience hath proved in others; But they could not have exerced Discipline, such I mean as used to be exerced in Presbyteries and Synods, without the Prelate's Courts.  
We have now seen the Progress of this device of the Indulgence, contrived mainly to suppress and keep down the Meetings of the Lords people in houses, and in the fields, which were the eyesore of the Rulers, and which they were seeking to destroy by all means: As appeareth by that grievous Act of Parlia. made against them August 13. 1670. with the Act against Baptisms August 17. 1670. and that made August 20. 1670. against withdrawing from public meetings; all tending to this End. But notwithstanding of all th●se Midianit is wiles, and cruel Acts, such was the presence of the Lord in the Assembling of his people, and so powerful was the Operation of his Spirit with the labours of a few, who laid out themselves to hold up the Standart of Christ, though contrary to the Law of men; that the number of converts increased and multiplied daily, to the praise of the glory of God's free grace, and to the great Encouragement of the few hands, that wrestled through all humane discouragement. Therefore our Rulers cast about again, and fall upon another device, which they supposed would prove effectual for destroying the work of the Lord; which was this. Besides the Ministers Indulged, as said is, there was a great company of Nonconform Ministers, not yet Indulged, who they supposed either did, or might thereafter hold Conventicles (as they are called;) and therefore to remeed or prevent this in time coming, they appoint and ordain them to such and such places, where Indulged Ministers were settled, there to be confined, granting them liberty to preach, and exercise their Ministry there, according as the Indulged men would allow and employ them; or of new Indulging them by pairs, and appointing to places; thinking by this means to incapacitate so many Ministers from holding of Conventicles or private meetings there, or else where: All which will be clear by the Acts of Council, which follow.  

Halyrudhouse Septembr. 3. 1672.  
THe Lord Commissioner his grace and the Lords of his Majesty's Privy Council, considering the Disordres, which have lately been by the frequent & numerous Conventicles; and being willing to remeed so great an evil, in the gentlest manner that could be thought on; and his Maj. Commissioner being sufficiently instructed herein. They do order and appoint the Minister's after-named, outted since the year 1661. to Repair to the parochs following, and to remain therein confined, permitting and allowing them to preach and exercise the other parts of their Ministerial function, in the parochs, to which they are, or shall be confined by this present Act, and Commission after specified, viz.  

In the Diocese of Glasgow.  
In Egelsham Paroch, with Mr james Hamilton, Mr Donald Cargil.  
Paislay, with Mr john Bairdy, Mrs William Eccles and Anthony Shaw.  
Neilstoun. Mrs Andrew Miller and james Wallace.  
Kilmakolme, Mrs Patrick Symson, and William Thomson.  
Kilbarchan, Mrs john Stirling and james Walkinshaw.  
Killiallan, Mrs james Hutcheson and Alexander jamison.   

Irwing.  
Newmiles, Mrs john Burnet and Georg Campbel.  
Phinick, Mrs Thomas Wyllie and William Sheil.  
Stewartoun, Mrs William Castellaw, Andrew Hutcheson and Andrew Mortoun.  
Dunlop, Mrs Gabriel Cuninghame and William Mien.  
Largesse, Mrs john Wallace and Alexander Gordoun.  
Kilbride, Mrs Robert Boid and Gilbert Hammiltoun.  
Comray, Mrs Archbald Porteus and john Rae.  
Kilminning, with Mr Ralph Rodger, Mr Robert Fleming.  
Irwine, with Mr Georg Hutcheson, Mr john Law.  
Kilmarnock, with Mr. Alexa. Wederburn, Mrs james Rowat and William Hay.  
Kilmares, with Mr Georg Ramsey, Mr john Park.  
Dreghorn, with Mr john Spading, Mr james Donaldson.  
Beith, with Mr William Maitland, Mr William Creightoun.  
Kilbirnie, with Mr William Datlidafe, Mr Patrick Anderson.  
Ardrossine, with Mr john Bell, Mr james Bell.   

Air.  
Cultoun, Mr William Fullertoun.  
Riccartoun, Mrs Hugh Campbel and Hugh Crawfurd.  
Dundonald, Mrs john Osburne and john Hutcheson.  
Machline, with Mr james Veitch, Mr Robert Archbald.  
Ochiltrie, with Mr Robert Miller, Mr Patrick Peacock.  
Gastoun, with Mr Alexander Blair, Mr Adam Alison.  
Cragie with Mr David Broun, Mr Robert Maxwel.  
Dalganie, with Mr Andrew Dalrumple, Mr john Campbel.  
Symentoun, with Mr john Gemil Mr Francisce Irwing.   

Kircudbreight.  
Carsfairne, john Semple, and Mr William Erskine.  
Kelles with Mr Cant, Mr Georg Wauch.  
Dalry, with Mr john Mc Michen, Mr Thomas Thomsoun.  
Balmaclellan, Mrs james Lawrie and Thomas Vernor, in place of john Ros, when he shall be transported to Staniekirk.   

Hammiltoun.  
Avendale, Mrs james Hammiltoun and Robert Young.  
Glasford, Mrs William Hammiltoun and james Nasmith.  
Shots, Mrs james Curry and Alexander Bartoun.  
Dalserfe, Mrs Thomas Kirkaldy and john Carmichel.  
Stanihouse, with Mr john Oliphant, Mr Matthew Me Kell.  
Cambushnethen, with Mr William Violand, Mr Robert Lam.  
Dalzel, with Mr john Lauder, Mr Thomas Melvil.   

Lanerk.  
Carlouk, Mrs Alexander Livingstoun, and Peter Kid, now at Carlouk.  
Carmichel, Mrs john Hammiltoun, and William Sommervail.  
Coulter, Mrs Anthony Murray and Robert Lokhart.  
Lamingtoun, with Mr john Crawfurd, Mr William bailie.  
Lesma●ago, with M● Thom. Lawrie a regular incumbant, Mr james Brotherstons  
carstair's, Mrs james Kirktoun and john Greg.   

Linlithgow.  
Westealder, Mrs john Knox and William Weir.  
Burrowstouness, Mrs Robert Hunter and john Ingles.   

Lothian, etc.  
Lintoun, with ●r Robert eliot, Mr Robert eliot, his Son.  
Oxnam, with Mr john Scot, Mr Hugh Scot  
Hownam, with Mr john Stirling, Mr ..... Ker.   

Argyle.  
Killerne, Mrs john Cunninson, and Alexander Mc Claine.  
Kilfannan, Mr john Cameron.  
Campbeltoun, Mrs Duncan Campbel and Edward Keith.  
Kilchattain in Lorn, Mrs john Duncanson and Alexander Mc Claine.  
Knapdail with Mr Dougal Campbel a Regular Incumbent, Mr Duncan Campbel.  
South Kyntire, Mr David Sympson.   
And yet notwithstanding of the said confinement, the Lord Commissioner his grace, and Lords of his Maj. Privy Council, give full power, warrant and commission to the Lord Chancellor, the Lord Duke of Hammiltoun, the Earls of Argyle, Tweddale and Dundonald, The Lord's Precedent of the Session, Register, Treasurer Depute, and Justice-Clerk, with the Bishop of the Diocese, wherein the said's Ministers are confined, or any four of them, within the space of Six Months after the date hereof, to alter and change any of the Persons foresaids from any of the said's parochs, to another of those parochs; or to allow and confine other Persons in their place; They always pitching in the first place upon some outed Ministers from that Diocese, wherein the parochs, to which they are to be confined, dolye: And allowing none to preach, who were outted before the year 1662. or being outted since the year 1661. are under ●ertifications, or sentences of any Court of this Kingdom: With power to the said Commissioners and their quorum, to confine to and allow outted Ministers, as said is, in the parochs of Tarboltoun, Barnweel, Stevenson, Lochguenoch, Inchanen and Mearns: and that so soon as the present Incumbents in these parochs shall be provided, and transported to other Kirks. Recommending to Patrons, to give them Presentations at Kirks that shall vaik; and particularly to ....... Patron of the Kirk of Gallouwsheils to give a Presentation thereto Mr Alexander George. To ..... Patron of the Kirk of Burghtoun, to present thereto Mr William Naismith. To ...... Patron of the Kirk of Maclue, to present thereto Mr Robert Kincaide. To ..... Patron of Grainae, to present thereto Mr ... Stewart. And for the Entertainment and maintenance of the Ministers foresaids, confined and allowed by this Act, and of these formerly indulged by the Council: The said's Lords do think fit, that the half of the Stipends of the Respective parochs, wherein they are confined, of the Crope and Year of God 1672. be paid to the Ministers, formerly indulged therein; and that the other half of the said stipend be equally divided amongst or betwixt these formerly, and now allowed to preach in the saids parochs. The said's whole stipends, receiving in the future Division proportionably, according to the number of Persons formerly and now allowed to preach therein. And where there was no Person formerly indulged, the third part of the stipend of the year 1672. is to be paid to these confined and allowed by this present Act, in the respective parochs foresaids. And in case any of the Ministers foresaids shall not serve; as they are allowed by this Act or Commission foresaid; their proportion of the said stipends are to be holden as vacant, and to be employed, conform to an Act to be made in this Session of Parliament, anent the disposal of the Vacant Stipends. And ordains letters to be directed, at the Instance of the several Ministers foresaids, serving as said is, against these liable for payment of their proportions of the said's stipends. And the Lord Commissioners Grace, and Lords of his Maj. Privy Council considering the extent of the Indulgence given by this Act, and that if the same should be any further enlarged, the regular Ministers might be discouraged, and the orderly and peacably disposed people of this Kingdom disquieted; do declare that hereafter, they are not to extend the said Indulgence, in favours of any other people, or to any other parochs, than to those mentioned in this Act; nor to allow outted Ministers to preach in any Kirks, not herein expressed, and wherein there are not already Ministers allowed to preach by this Act.   
Thus we see this Indulgence very far extended, and as far as the Counsel minded to extend the same, in all time coming: But you will say, we hear of no Orders, Instructions and Prescriptions, given unto them, whereby they were to be regulated in the exercise of their Ministry, as others formerly allowed and licenced were. Therefore in order to this, there is an Act of Council, of the date of the foresaid Indulgence, to this effect.  

WHereas by an Act of the date of their presents, and by former Acts of Council, divers Ministers ousted since the Year 1661. have been and are warranted and licenced, to preach at certain Kirks, therein specified; and it being necessare for the better keeping of good Order, that the Rules following be observed by these Ministers indulged, by an Act of the date of their presents, and these Indulged by former Acts of Council. Therefore the Lord Commissioners Grace, and the Lords of his Maj. Privy Council do enjoin the punctual and due observance thereof to the said's Ministers, as they will be answerable.  
1. That they presume not to marry or baptise, except such as belong to the Paroch, to which they are confined, or to the neighbouring parochs vacant, or wanting Ministers for the time.  
2. That all Ministers indulged in one and the same Diocese, celebrate the Communion upon one and the same Lord's Day, and that they admit none to their Communions belonging to other parochs, without restificats from the Ministers thereof.  
3. That they preach only in these Kirks, and not in the Churchyards, nor in any place else; under the pain, to be repute and punished as keepers of Conventicles.  
4. That they remain within, and depart not forth of the Paroch, to which they are confined, without licence from the Bishop of the Diocese only.  
5. That in the exercise of Discipline, all such cases, as were formerly referable to Presbyteries, continue still in the same manner; and where there is no Presbyterial meeting, that these cases be referred to the Presbytery of the next bounds.  
6. That the ordinary deuce, payable to Bursers, Clerks of Presbyteries and Synods, be paid by the saids Ministers, as formerly.  
And that the said's Ministers may have competent time for transporting of their families, and disposing upon their goods, The saids Lords suspends their confinement for the space of three months, to the effect, in the mean time, they may go about their affairs, providing that during the time of the said Suspension, they do keep and observe the rest of the Orders and Instructions foresaids, and other Acts, made anent outed Ministers.   
There was another act of Council made this same day, concerning all the rest of the outed Ministers, nor as yet by name Indulged and licenced, and concerning some newly ordained, as followeth.  

Halyroodhouse, Septemb. 3. 1672.  
THe Lord Commissioner's Grace and the Lords of his Maj. privy Council, considering that by the Act of the date of their presents and former Acts of Council, certain Ministers outted since the Year 1661. are confined in manner therein contained; and that there are remaining divers of that Number not disposed on by the said Act, it ought also to be provided, that these may not give scandal to any, by with drawing themselves from the public worship, in the Kirks of these parochs, where they reside, nor ensnare others to do the like by their practice and example; do therefore give order and warrant to Sheriffs, Baylies of Regalities, Baylies of Baylieries, and their respective Deputes, and Magistrates within Brughs, to call and conveen before them all outed Ministers since the Year 1661. And not disposed on as said is, and who are not under a sentence or censure of State, resideing in the respective jurisdiction or bounds, or who shall in any time thereafter reside therein, to require them to hear the word preached, and communicate in the Kirk of those parochs, where they dwell or repair to; or dwell in some other parochs, where they will be ordinary Hearers and Communicate; and to declare their resolution herein; and condescend upon the parochs, where they intent to have their residence, and hear the word and Communicate: with power to the said Sheriffs and other Magistrates foresaids to seize upon and imprison their Persons, within the space of a Month after they should be so required. And in case any of the said Ministers shall reside in the Paroch, where there are Ministers indulged by the Council, they are hereby warranted and allowed to preach in the Kirks of those parochs, where they reside, upon the Invitation of the Minister therein confined and allowed; and not else.  
And whereas some within the Kingdom, without any lawful Authority or Ordination, take upon them the calling of the Ministry, preach and do other Acts, peculiar to those of that function; and considering that such Presumption and Intrusion upon the sacred Office, tend to the Disordering and Disquieting of the Church and Kingdom. Therefore the Lord Commissioner's Grace, and the L L. foresaid of his Maj. Privy Council do enjoin the said Sheriffs and other Magistrates foresaids, within the respective bounds, to make search for, and seize upon and imprison such, upon trial that they have exercised the Office of a Minister: To acquaint the Council of their Names and place of their Imprisonment, that such course may be taken with them as they shall think fit. And further, the said Sheriffs are ordained and commanded to inquire, how the Ministers, confined and allowed to preach in their several Jurisdictions, do obey the Rules prescribed to them, and contained in another Act of Council, of the date of their presents, and whereof extracts are to be sent to the several Magistrates foresaid, who are hereby appointed to report to the Council there anent, every six months, and betwixt and the first of june next their diligence in the execution of the order, contained in the Act, certifying them, that if they shall be negligent or remiss in the execution of the orders, given to them herein, or falzying to give in the said account, they shall be proceeded against and censured, according to their demerits.   
By this Act we see what course was laid down to have all the outed Ministers cantonized, and brought under restraint, that so the Word might also be under bonds, and restricted to these bounds, to which they had been pleased to extend the Indulgence. We see also, how the Council looked upon such, as had been ordained, but not by Prelates, and how they were to be persecuted by their Order. We see also, how the ministry of those, who were thus to confine themselves in places; where Indulged men were, is restricted by their Prescriptions, in its exercise.  
But by the preceding Act of Indulgence, we saw a number of Ministers Indulged. who were to repair to the several places specified; and to this end every one of them were to receive their own particular Act or Summons, to this effect.  

Halyroodhouse Septemb. 3. 1672.  
THe Lord Commissioner's Grace and the Lords of his Maj. Privy Council, considering the disorders, which have lately been by frequent and numerous Conventicles, & being willing to remeed so great an evil in the gentlest manner could be thought on: and his Maj. Commissioner being sufficiently instructed herein. They do hereby order and appoint ... to repair to the Paroch Kirk of ... and to remain therein confined, permitting and allowing him to preach, & exercise the other parts of the Ministerial function in the said Paroch, with ... formerly Indulged.   
But where no Minister had been formerly Indulged, this last clause was left out. As also there was sent alongs with this act to every one of them an extract of the Counsels Instructions, of the date thereof.  
Here we see the Former Injunctions renewed, and pressed on all, formerly and now of late indulged; and moreover we find some new Injunctions superadded, to wit, concerning the time of their celebrating of the Lord's Supper; of purpose to hinder the greater Good and Edification of the people, who used to go to other Churches, than their own, to partake of that Comforting and Strengthening Ordinance; Whereby also an insupportable yock was put upon their necks, to celebrat the Sacrament at times (as to some in particular possibly) most unseasonable, when neither they nor their people were in case, and when the season of the year might prove an impediment in Landward Kirks, though none to Towns. And further they are enjoined not to preach without the Walls of the Kirk, nay not so much as in their House; such hatred and indignation had these Rulers, at all House and Field Meetings, that they would not suffer even their own licenced and warranted Ministers to do any thing, that might carry the least appearance of any such thing. So they are ordered to acknowledge their subjection unto the Prelate's Courts, by referring cases, usually referable to Presbyteries, unto them; as also to testify their acknowledgement of the Prelate's Courts, by paying their proportion of the Salary, now alleged to be due to the Clerks of these Courts. Any may see what snares were laid here; and what obedience was given hereunto by these Ministers, who accepted of the benefit of this Indulgence, I know not. It is sufficient for me to note here, that these Injunctions flow from an Usurped Power, and are not proper Magistratical Acts, circa sacra, but Intrinsically Church-Constitutions (at least several of them:) and therefore the accepting of these, which were a piece of the complex Business of the Indulgence, as tendered and granted by the Rulers, bewrayed their falling off, in so fa●, from former Principles, owned and sworn unto. And beside, this addition of New Instructions did show, that the Council looked upon them, as their Curates, and as Obnoxious to their Orders in Church-Matters, and what concerneth the manner and way of their exerceing of the ministerial function, as the other Curates are unto the Prelates, or as ●ver any Minister was obnoxious to the Canons and Constitutions of General or Provincial Assemblies, in our best times. And let me inquire of these Accepters, how they think such an act as this, had it been done, while the Church was in possession of her Power, would have been looked upon? And how our General Assembly would have looked upon such Ministers, as should have submitted unto the like then, as they have done now? I suppose they will think, that if they had done so, they would have met with no less, than Deposition. And then let them consider, if that can be a commendable duty now, which would then have been such a Transgression. And let them say whether or not, such do them great wrong, who, adhering to their former Principles, must needs look on them, as ipso jure deposed.  
It deserves to be noted here, that a Lybel was form against one Mr William Weer, at this time Indulged, and permitted to preach in West-calder; and he was looked upon by the Council, as one, that most basely slighted their Favour and Indulgence, and was severely to be punished, because he thought it not sufficient to enter unto that charge, mee●ly upon the Act of the Council; but to satisfy himself the more, as to his ground of entry, did receive a call from some of the Heritors and People; and because in his first preaching to that people he declared his adherence to the Solemn League and Covenant, and that he did not acknowledge the power either of King of Bishop, in matters belonging to the Church of Christ: And in his next Sermon said, that neither King nor Council were the Treasurers of the Gospel, or of the Ministry of it. And because the following day, he preached against the Supremacy in matters Ecclesiastical, and against Prelacy: And because he had in preaching declared, that the Civil Magistrate had no power to appoint a day to be kept holy and observed in holy worship. By which we see, That the Council taketh upon them to make this man a Minister, though they plainly show, that he was never owned as a Minister by the Church-Judicatories. Further we see, That the Counsels Act, thus ordering these Indulged Ministers to the respective Kirks, was all the call they had, or that they would acknowledge should be had, or required; and therefore the Indulged have no call, but the call of the Council as their ground. Further we hence see that the Counsels aim and end (among others) was to have the Supremacy established, and Prelacy; so that the very speaking against these, by such as were Indulged, was sufficient to be the matter of a Lybel, and was looked on as criminal: What Interpretation can then be given of the silence of others, thus Indulged, as to these great points let sober men judge; and whether or not, the Council did suppose, that by this Indulgence, they had obtained so many coyduks, as did willingly submit thereunto.  
I know several Ministers, mentioned in this Act, had not freedom to accept of this supposed favour of the Indulgence, and were therefore cited before the Council: Among these, faithful and worthy Mr john Burnet, Minister at Kilbride near Glasgow, was one, who thought it his duty to give an open and plain account of his Reasons to the Council, why he could not submit to that Indulgence, and for this end, drew up his Reasons in write, directing it to the Council: But being prevented by sickness, and thereafter by death, did not get it presented, yet sent it to the Chancellor, and left it, as his Testimony against that evil, not changing what might have been changed in the manner of its address, because of sickness and other inconveniences. I shall here set it down, as he left it; not only because it was his Testimony to the Truth (and Testimonies should be carefully keeped, and Committed to posterity;) but also because his Reasons are weighty, and may help us to see more of the iniquity of this Indulgence. His paper was as follow.  

The draught of this Paper was framed purposely to the S. Council, as will appear in the very entry thereof, which mould I could not change, because of the want of health, and other Inconveniences.  
BEing called before his Majesty's Privy Council to give an account of the reasons, why I have not accepted of this present Indulgence, granted by his most excellent Majest. to several Presbyterian Ministers in Scotland, I desire humbly and in the fear of God (who standeth in the Congregation of the Mighty, and Judgeth among the Gods) to give this true, sober and ingenious Relation of such things, as did and do invincibly bind me, why I cannot accept of this late complex Indulgence, framed in three distinct Acts of Council, of the Date Sept. 3. and 7. 1672. To which I shall premit these things briefly.  
1. That it is well known to all the Protestant Reform Churches abroad, concerning the Constitution and Government of this ancient Church of Scotland for many years, and particularly in the year 1660. That it was framed according to the Word of God, confirmed by many laudable and ancient Laws of the Kingdom, and solemnly sworn to by all Ranks within the same.  
2. It is also found by lamentable experience, that since that time this Ancient and Apostolic Government is wholly overturned in its very Species and kind, and that by the Introduction of Lordly Prelacy, which is tyrannically exercised; whereby the Church was suddenly deprived of her lawfully called Pastors, and their rooms filled by strangers, violently thrust-in upon the people, many of whom have proven scandalous and insufficient.  
3. The sad Effects of these things are conspicuously apparent upon the face of this Church this day, such as involving the Land in great backsliding and defection, the abounding Ignorance & Atheism, the overflowing spa●e of Sensuality & Profanness like to Sodom, the increase of Popery and Error through the Land, even to the height of Antichristian Paganism, & Quakerism; The sharp suffering and smartings of many of his Maj. loyal Subjects through the Land, merely because they cannot conform to the present Prelatical frame; and finally the increase of Animosities, Dissensions, Divisions, Jealousies, and Differences among the Subjects.  
4. Whatever Power sound and orthodox Divines do acknowledge the Magistrate to have, and may have exercised in a troubled and extraordinary state of the Church; yet it is not at all yielded by them, that the Magistrate may in any ways, alter its warrantably established Government, and so turn that same troubled and perplexed state and frame of the Church, made such by himself, merely to be the subject of his magisterial authoritative Care and Operation.  
5. That I be not mistaken, as denying to his Maj. his just Power in Ecclesiastic matters. I do humbly and with great alacrity acknowledge, that the Civil Magistrate hath a power circa Sacra, which power is objectively Ecclesiastic; so as he by his Royal Authority may enjoin that whatsoever is commanded by the God of Heaven, may be diligently done for the House of the God of Heaven; which Power also is by God's appointment only Cumulative and Auxiliary to the Church, not Privative, nor Destructive, and is to be exerced always in a Civil manner.  
As to the Reasons of my not-acceptance of the present Offer, and not repairing to the place designed by the Council: They are  
1. That our Lord Jesus Christ, Mediator, the King and Lawgiver of his own Church, hath committed all Ministerial Authority, for Government of his House, to his own Church-Officers, as the first proper subject and receptacle thereof, joh. 20: v. 21. As my Father sent me, so send I you. Math. 28: 18.19.20. All Power is given to me in Heaven and Earth, go ye and preach the Gospel. 2 Cor. 10: v 8. Our Authority which the Lord hath given us for edification, and not for destruction▪ etc. But so it is that the Act explanatorie of his Maj. Supremacy in the Church, (whereupon the Act of Indulgence is grounded) doth not only claim the Power to belong of right to his Maj. and Successors, as an inherent privilege of the Crown, but doth actually also invest and clothe him with the formal exercise thereof in his own Person, and that he may derive the same, and convey it to others, as in his Royal wisdom He shall think fit: For his Majest. is pleased to design and make application of Ministers to Congregations, and that, without the previous call of the People, and power of the Presbytery (which would suppose the Civil Magistrate to have Authority to judge of the suitableness of Ministers parts and gifts to labour amongst such and such a people.) As also to frame and prescribe Ecclesiastic Rules, relating to the exercise of the Ministerial Office, as also appointing a Commission to Plant and Transplant Ministers, as they shall think fit; Notwithstanding that it hath been unanswerablie evinced, that Presbyterian Government is founded on the Word of God, and confirmed otherways abundantly.  
2. Although I do freely disallow and condemn all tumultuary and seditious meetings (among which it is sad and grievous, that the peaceable meetings of the Lords People for Worship, and hearing the Word sound preached, should be reckoned;) yet I am so convinced and persuaded in my heart of the Lords blessing, attending the preaching of the Gospel (though not in a public Parish Church) as that I judge the narrative of the first act to go near to involve my acceptance of this Indulgence, being an interpretative condemning of the said's meetings.  
3. There is a standing relation betwixt me & another Flock, overwhich I was set, by the appointment of Jesus Christ in his word, which tye c●n never really be dissolved by any other Power, than that which at first did make it up, and give it a being: And after that I had Ten years (during the English Usurpation) wrestled in opposition to Quakers & Independants▪ in the place, where the first breach had been made upon the Church of Scotland, I was without any Ecclesiastic sentence thrust from the public exerci●e o● my Ministry in that place, where there will be 1200. examinable Persons, whereof th●re were never 50. Persons, yet to this day, who have subjected themselves to him, who is called the Regular Incumbent; And that even when I was living 30. mi●es distant from the place. Now what a door is hereby (by my being keeped from my Charge) opened to Error, Atheism and Profanness may be easily conjectured by those, who hear of the deplorable case of that people? And what a grief must it be to them, to have their own Lawful Pastor shut up in a Corner, whereby we are both put out of a capacity to receive any mo●e Spiritual comfort flowing from that Relation, which is yet in force betwixt us? Or how is it to be imagined that any new supervenient relation can result betwixt another Flock and me, by virtue of an Act only of a mere Civil judicatory? Beside, that the people, in whom I have present Interest, are utterly rendered hopeless by a clause in the end of the first Act viz. That the Indulgence, is not hereafter to be extended in favours of any other Congregation, than these mentioned in the Act, whereof they in that Parish are none.  
4. That I will not offer to debate the Magistrat's sentence of Confinement, let be his Power to do the same; yet I shall soberly say, there are so many things attending the present application thereof to my Person, that it cannot be expected, I should give that Obedience hereto, which might infer my own Consent or Approbation, for 1. Though this Confinement be called a gentle remedy of the great evils of the Church, in the narrative of the first Act, yet it is found to be a very sharp punishment, as it is circumstantial. 2. All punishments, inflicted by Magistrates on Subjects, aught to relate to some Cause or Crime, and cannot be done arbitrarilie, without oppression, which truth is engraven on the light of nature: For Festus, a heathen Man Acts 25: 27. could say, It seemeth to me unreasonable to send a Prisoner and not withal to signify the crime laid against him; yet am I sentenced and sent in fetters to a Congregation, without so much as being charged with any crime, And all the world are left to collect the reason of this Censure. 3. If my Confinement relate not to any crime, it must needs relate to a design, which design is obvious to Common sense, viz. th●t I should preach and exercise the Office of my Ministry, wholly at the appointment & disposal of the Civil Magistrate; and a sentence of Confinement is less obvious to debate and dispute by the Subjects, and will more easily go down with any simple man, than an express command to preach, grounded on his Maj. Royal Prerogative and Supremacy, and cannot readily be refused by any, unless a man make himself to be constructed, a squimish wild Fanatic, and expose himself to great sufferings; so this Confinment, which hath both his Maj. Prerogative and Supremacy in Ecclesiastic matters in it, comes to me in room, and that directly, of the People's Call, and Presbyteries Authority and other Ecclesiastic Appointment. Now this design, however closely covered, I dare not in Conscience, yea I cannot (with the preservation of my Judgement and Principles) concur with, or be consentient thereto. 4. By the Confinment I am put to an open shame before the world, and particularly in that place, where I am permitted to preach the Gospel: For what weight can my preaching or ministerial Acts of Discipline and Government have, while I myself am handled and dealt with as a Malefactor and Transgressor, a Rebel or Traitor to my Prince & Nation? Or how can I preach the word of the Lord freely and boldly against the ●innes of the time (as against Profanness, Error, Injustice and Oppression) as Ministers ought impartially to do, while I am kept under a perpetual check of the sword of the Magistrate at my throat? This to me is not preaching, but an overawed discourse: Morover, I become a prey for any malicious prejudicated hearer, who shall happen to accuse and inform against me. Can I be answerable to God who sent me, to render up myself willingly to be a servant of men? Were not this to cut-out my own tongue with my own hands? 5. This Confinment is not simply or mainly of my Person, (which sentence if it were so, I should most willingly undergo) but it is of the Office itself (the imprisonment of which ought to be sadder to me, than any personal suffering whatsoever) while 1. It is not of me alone, but of all the Presbyterian Ministers in Scotland, a very few only excepted. 2. While the propagation of the Gospel by the personal restraint of us all is manifestly obstructed. 3. We are cut off from the discharge of many necessary duties, which we owe to the Nation and Church, and specially at such a time, while she is in hazard to be swallowed up with a swarm of jesuits, Quakers and other damnable Subverters of the Truth; and (which is yet more) while three parts of the Kingdom, are groaning under ●he want of the Word, faithfully preached, and some few Shirs only here in the West are made, as it were, the Common Goal of all the Ministers, that are permitted to preach. 4. By this Confinment, I lose an essential part of my Ministry, which is the exercise of Jurisdiction and Church Government; which yet Mr Baxter, (a very favourable nonconformist) asserts to be as essential to the Office of a Minister, as Preaching of the word; The staff being as needful to the shepherd, as either the pig or the horn is; so says the Scripture of preaching Elders Acts. 20.28. The Holy Ghost hath made you Overseers or Bishops, no less than Teachers; a principal par● of which Government is Ordination of Ministers, for preservation of a succession of faithful men in the Church; whereof by the Act of Confinment (as also is expressly provided by the last clause of the last Act) we are intentionally deprived for ever, while it is in force: In loseing of which one branch of our Government, we undo our own cause with our own hands. I remember the first thing the ambitious Roman Clergy invaded and usurped, was the Jurisdiction and Authority of Presbyters, turning the Ministers of Jesus Christ into the Prelates jurney men, making Curates of them, only for preaching and intimating the Bishop's mandates, And what else do I in this case, but make the Ministry of the Gospel in my Person Immediately dependant, in the exercise of it, upon the arbitrament of the Civil Magistrate.  
5. As for the Permission and Allowance I have to preach▪ when confined, This Permission seemeth very fair, while I look on it abstractly, without relation to the rest of the Particular circumstances of the Act; for this would look like opening the door in part, which the Magistrate himself had shut; but while I take it complexly with what else is joined with it, it doth presently carry another ●ace, like some pictures or medals that have two or three different aspects to the eyes of the beholder: For Permission to preach in any vacant Church within the Kingdom is so very great a favour, as for which I would desire to bless God, and thank hi● Maj. most heartily: But take it without the praevious Call of the people, the Authority and Assistance of a Presbytery, as it may be had; and take it without the exercise of Discipline and Government, but what is Congregational; and so it is ●ame. Again, take it with the Confinment and other claggs and caveats, contained in the 2. Act, Or take it with the burden of being obliged to follow all matters (formerly referable to Presbyteries and Synods) before these Presbyteries and Synods, which are now constitute by Bishops and their Delegates; and so it is nothing but that same Accommodation, which we formerly had in our offer from the Bishop, and did refuse: And take it yet with the robbing of our own Congregations, and with the depriving of three parts of four of the whole rest of the Land, and then I have it to consider, whether this my Permission to preach be not the putting of my neck under a heavier yoke, than it could be under before.  
6. The last Reason (for brevity) is from the Affinity with and dependence this Act of his Maj. Royal Indulgence hath upon the late explanatorie Act of his Maj. Supremacy, (which I desire with sorrow of heart to look upon, as the greatest Encroachment can be made upon the Crown and Authority of Jesus Christ, who is only King and Lawgiver of his Church upon Earth) as will be evident by comparing the two Acts together; For the Act of his Maj. Supremacy (besides the narrative) contains two principal parts, viz. (1) The assertory of his Maj. Supremacy, which is the main Theme proposed to be explained, in these Words▪ The Estates of Parliament do hereby Enact, Assert and Declare, that His Majest. hath the supreme Authority and Supremacy over all Persons, and in all Causes Ecclesiastic▪ within this Kingdom. (2. The Explanatorie part follows, in so many most comprehensive and extensive Branches and Articles, thus: That by virtue thereof the Ordering and Disposal of the external Government of the Church doth properly belong to his Maj. and his Successors, as an inherent righ● of the Crown, and that his Maj. and Successors may Settle, Enact & Emit such Constitutions, Acts & Orders, concerning the Administration of the external Government of the Church, and the Persons employed in the same, and concerning all Ecclesiastical meetings and matters, to be proposed and determined therein, as they in their Royal Wisdom shall ●hink fit.  
Again the Act of his Maj Royal Indulgence, which is the exercise and actual application of his Supremacy in matters Ecclesiastic, may be taken up in these particulars comprehensively. (1) The nomination and election of such and such Ministers, to such and such respective places. (2) A power to plant and transplant, put out and put in Ministers to the Church. (3) The framing and prescribing Rules and Instructions, for limiting Ministers in the exercise of the Ministerial Office. (4) The ordaining Inferior Magistrates, as Sheriffs, Justices, etc. to inform the Council every six months, under highest pains, anent the carriage of Indulged Ministers, and how they observe the foresaid Rules. (5) The Confining of licenced Ministers to one small Corner of the Kingdom, and declaring all other Places and Congregations whatsoever within this Nation to be uncapable of any share of this Royal Favour, except such places only as are exptesly contained in the Act itself. Now, that these Particulars of the Act of Indulgence are of the same nature and kind with the Articles Explanatorie of his Maj. Supremacy, will demonstratively appear by this plain Argument, viz. To Settle, Enact, Emit Constitutions, Acts and Orders concerning Matters, Meetings and Persons Ecclesiastic, according to their Royal pleasure, is the very substance and definition of his Majest. Supremacy, as it is explained by his Estates of Parliament. But the Act of his Majest. Indulgence, in the whole five fornamed particulars thereof, is only to Settle, Enact and Emit such Constitutions, Acts and Orders, concerning matters, and Meetings, and Persons Ecclesiastical, according to Royal pleasure: Therefore the Act of his Maj. Indulgence is the substance and definition of his Maj. Supremacy, as it is explained by his Estates of Parliament. The Rules and Instructions for limiting Ministers in the exercise of their Office, as also the rest of the two forenamed Particulars of the Indulgence, are such, as I declare I cannot accept of them, or any other favour whatsoever, upon such terms and conditions; because they contain the downright exercise of Erastianisme (as I humbly conceive; and a discretive judgement of such Acts as a man resolving to practice can not be denied him, unless men be turned into bruits, and so be ruled no more as reasonable creatures) namely, the Magistrate by his proper and elicit Acts, doing that which is purely Spiritual and Ecclesiastic, as a Nomothetick Head and Lawgiver, framing such Laws and Constitutions Ecclesiastic, as are not competent for any Ministerial or Declarative Power to enact or impose; but of that Power only, which is absolutely Sovereign: and whatsoever will militat against an Ecclesiastic Person, to arrogat to himself to be Christ's Vicar on Earth, and a visible Head, to give and make Laws for the Church, according to his pleasure; The same also will make much against any other, though the greatest in the World, to assume to himself this Prerogative, so long as he can produce no divine warrant for this claim. A more particular consideration of these Rules, and other Particulars, I must needs (for brevity) forbear.  
My Noble Lord. HAving, in the singleness of my heart, and I trust without any just ground of offence, given this short and sober account of the Reasons, why I have not made use of his Majest. Royal favour and Indulgence, And being fully persuaded in my Conscience, that both Magistracy and Ministry are God's Ordinance, & no ways destructive, but mutually helpful one to another; so that I can not but earnestly long, That the Lord, who hath the hearts of Kings and Rulers in his hand, would put it in the heart of our great Sovereign (and in your Gr's heart to be instrumental therein) that he would grant us, Ministers, liberty to make full proof of that Ministry, which the Lord hath given us for edification, and not for destruction; that we might have the opportunity to make it appear, that the Government, which the Lord Jesus hath appointed in his Church, doth well consist and agree with the Magistrates Civil Government in the State, that so I and all others, my outed Brethren, may have access to our former Charges, or other Congregations, as we shall have opportunity of a cordial Invitation from the people, with the assistance and help authoritatively of lawful Church ●udicatories, until such time as God shall grant a patent way to return to our own Charges. (2.) And that Presbyterian Ministers may have access to his Maj. for representing just grievances, which press heavily our Consciences, and the consciences of the people, his Maj. loyal and faithful Subjects in the Land. In granting of which necessary and just desire, I your Gr's. Servant shall be a humble Supplicant at the Throne of Grace, for the preservation of his Maj. Person, the establishing of his Throne in righteousness; and that the Lord would pour forth the Spirit of righteous judgement on your Grace that the Lord may be blest, and your Grace may find mercy in the day of visitation.  
J. BURNET.   
By this free and faithful Testimony, we see what Reasons moved him not to accept of this supposed favour; and particularly we may observe, that one main Reason was, the Relation and Affinity, that was betwixt the Act of Indulgence, and the Explicatory Act of Supremacy; so that who ever accepted of this Indulgence, could not but be looked upon as virtually and materially (at least) approving and consenting to the Supremacy; & what iniquity lieth wrapped-up in this, a few words could not express.  
But Moreover there were Ten Ministers (I suppose worthy Mr john Burnet forementioned was one of them) who did meet together upon the same account, to draw up reasons of their refusing the Indulgence, to be presented unto the Council: But though the Paper was drawn up and subscribed; yet I did not hear, that it was presented. However, because it may also contribute some light and confirmation, I shall set it down here, as I had it.  

ALL 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 humbly 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 ingenious relation of the Reasons, which lie weighty on our Consciences, and bind 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 always 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 Ministry 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 Ecclesiastic matters, we do heartily and with great alacrity acknowledge, that the Civil Magistrate hath a power circa sacra, objectively Ecclesiastic; so as he by his Royal Authority may enjoin, that whatsoever is commanded by the God of heaven, 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 always modo civili.  
As to the reasons amongst many, which might be adduced (not willing to trouble your L L. with prolixity) we humbly propose these few.  
1. That our blessed Lord Jesus Christ, Mediator, the only Head, King and Lawgiver 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 joh. 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. Supremacy in the Church, whereupon this Act of Indulgence is founded, doth ascribe this Power to His Maj. and His Successors, 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 Supremacy in Matters Ecclesiastic, 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 Magistrate 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 putout and to put-in Ministers in the Church, and actually clothing Persons merely civil with Power for that effect. (3.) The framing and prescribing Ecclesiastic Canons and Instructions, for regulating the exercise of the Ministerial Office: all which are proper, intrinsic and formal Acts of Church-power, belonging by virtue of Christ's Institution to Church-Officers.  
2. Although we do freely disallow and condemn all tumultuary and seditious Meetings (amongst which it is sad and grievous that the peaceable Meetings of the Lords people, for Worship and hearing of the Word sound preached, should be reckoned) yet are we so convinced and persuaded in our hearts of the Lords blessing, attending the preaching of the Gospel, though not in a public Paroch-Church; as that we judge the narrative of the first Act goes near to involve the Accepters of this Indulgence in an interpretative condemning of the said's Meetings; which we in Conscience da● not do, being commanded to abstain from 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 Christ's 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 Error, Atheism and Profanity, 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 Pastors 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 much 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 Magistrates just power to confine any of his Subjects within his Dominions; yet there are several things in the present complex case, which we do humbly desire to present to your L L. as burdensome to our Consciences, as (1.) That this Confinement is not simply of our Persons, but of the Ministry itself, 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 necessary 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 flood of jesuits, 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 Ministry 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 expressly 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 bury 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 grief 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 Ministry, 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 prohibit the exercise of their Ministry, 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 summons 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 affair; we humbly entreat your L L. to give a favourable hearing to these our subsequent just and necessary desires viz. 1. That your L L. would not construe our noncompliance 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 silent in matters of so great concernment to our Lord and Master, to whom in the first place we owe fidelity, upon all highest pains; and that our hearts may not condemn us, in withholding from Caesar what is Caesar's, 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 Ministry and Persons; that we may peacably give ourselves to the work of the Ministry, 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 mere 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 solemn 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 Chancellor or Council, 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 History, and hasten to an end thereof. The following year, to wit, 1673. Some Ministers, who had been Indulged, were now cited before the Council, 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.  
Upon the 8. day of july 1673. The Ministers underwritten, who were Indulged to preach, at the Kirks, specified in the Counsels Act of the 3. of Septemb. 1672. and formerly, being convened before the Council, viz. Mr john Crawfurd, Mr Anthony Murray, Mr john Hammiltoun, Mr john Oliphant, Mr james Currie, Mr john Lauder, Mr john Stirling, Mr james Hutcheson, Mr john Bairdy, Mr john Eccles, Mr Andrew Dalrymple, Mr john Gemmil, Mr Hugh Camphel, Mr Alexander Blair, Mr james Veitch, Mr William Fullertoun, Mr john Hutcheson, Mr Robert Miller, Mr George Ramsay, Mr john Bell, Mr Ralph Rodger, Mr William Dillidaff, Mr Georg Hutcheson, Mr john Spading; Mr john Wallace, and Mr William Maitland; and all of them, except the saids Mr john Bairdy, Mr john Crawford and Mr William Fullertoun, compearing, and all of them, except the saids Mr john Spading, Mr john Wallace, and Mr William Maitland, acknowledging that they had not observed the 29▪ of May 1673. The Council did find 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 half 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 john Spading, Mr john Wallace, and Mr William Maitland did observe the 29. of May▪ the Lords of Council assoiled them; and ordained the three Persons not compearing to be denounced Rebels. And further, the said Mr Alexander Blair Minister at Castoun, having publicly disowned the King and Counsels Power, in giving them these Instructions, appointed for the Indulged Ministers; the Lords of Council did ordain him immediately to be carried to the Tolbooth of Edinburgh, and there to be kept close prisoner, until further order. And in regard divers of these Indulged Ministers did pretend, they had not received the said's Instructions, did cause deliver to them extracts thereof at the Bar, that they might pretend no ignorance of the same.  
Edinbr. the 10. of july 1673. The Ministers underwritten being convened for the cause foresaid, were fined ut supra, upon their own Confession, viz. Mr john Mc Michen and john Sempil. And Mr john Colt not compearing was ordered to be denounced.  
Edinbr. the last of july 1673. The Ministers underwritten were also fined upon their own Confession, ut supra, for the causes foresaid, viz. Mr john Scot, Mr james 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 jean Weir, nigh the Weigh-House of Edinbr. and re-enter his Person within the Tolbooth thereof, within the space of one Month. And that dureing the said space, he should not keep any Meetings, contrare to the standing Laws of the Kingdom, under the pain of 5000 Marks Scots money. And upon the 8. of Januar. 1674. his Inlargment is prorogat for the space of fourteen days, upon caution of the sum, and in the former terms.  
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 Council enquired if they had observed the Instructions that were given unto them; some answered that they had never seen them; where upon the Council resolved, to prevent this excuse in time coming, to give to every one of them Coram, a Copy 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 Copy 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 Ambassador he was, told the Council plainly, that he could receive no Instructions from them, to regulat him, in the exercise of his Ministry; otherwise he should not be Christ Ambassador, 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 Designs, 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 Testimony 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 own Mr Blairs Testimony, vindicat themselves, and prevent the contempt, under which otherwise they would lie; 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 Master's 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 Magistrates Power in Church-matters; as if they, forsooth, could have foundout 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 pedantry: 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 unsuitable carriage before the Council, though all that knew him, knew him to have as much of a Gentleman, 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 suitable 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 goat 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 than 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 Testimony, than his own, and the lives of many were worth. While worthy 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 worthy of our noticeing, That dureing the time both of this Imprisonment and Confinement as 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 rejoice, in reflecting on his being honoured and helped to give that Testimony? And with what Horror and Indignation would he express himself, upon supposition he had done less than he did; yea, all his grief 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 Master's Joy; and the sound of, well done good and faithful Servant, filling his ears, 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 Christ's Prerogatives, and the Privileges of his Church and Kingdom, even though abandoned of all, who should bear them Company, or go before them.  
Ere we return to take further notice of what past, when the forementioned Indulged Ministers compeared before the Council, 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 conform to an Act of Council, 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, conform to the Counsels Order. And therefore humbly supplicating, that the Stipend of the said Paroch of Duning for the said's two years might be appointed to be paid to him. The Lords of his Maj. privy Council, having heard and considered the said Petition, do ordain the said Stipend of the said Paroch, for the said two years, to be paid 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. Privy Council considering that by their Act of the 3. Septemb. 1672. they did Order and appoint divers outted Ministers, to repair to the several parochs, therein specified; and to remain therein confined, permitting and allowing them to preach and exercise the other parts of the Ministerial function in those parochs, and did require and enjoin 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 Baptise any, except such as belonged to the Paroch, to which they were confined, or to the neighbouring parochs vacant or wanting Ministers for the time.  
That all Ministers indulged, in one and the same Diocese, should celebrate the Communion upon one and the same Lord's Day; and that they should admit none to their Communions belonging to other parochs, without testificats from the Ministers thereof.  
That they should preach only in these Kirks, and not in the Churchyards, nor in any place else, under the pain to be repute and punished, as keepers of Conventicles.  
That they should remain within and not depart forth of the parochs, to which they are confined, without licence from the Bishop of the Diocese only.  
And whereas it is informed, that the said's outted Ministers, indulged as aforesaid (at the least many of them) have violated and contraveened the foresaids Orders and Instructions (upon which terms they were permitted and indulged to preach and exercise the other functions of the Ministry) whereby many disorders are occasioned. The said's Lords do therefore, of new again, 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 parochs, and celebrating the Communion upon one and the same Lord's day, as they will be answerable at their peril. 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 terms, upon which they were indulged; and therefore when they accepted of the Indulgence on such terms, they consented to them, and professed and declared their willingness to accept of their Ministry, 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 obliged 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 plainly 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 expressly 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 otherways they were intended, and upon the matter could carry no other import. And if any were invincibly 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 terms; and henceforth to have abandoned the same, and followed their Brethren to the Mountains. But now when this was not done, but they remained in their warm 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. privy Council do hereby ordain Mr john Stirling, Minister, who is confined to the Paroch at Hounam, by an Act of Council and Indulged to preach in that Paroch, to transport himself 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 Ministry, in that Paroch, as he did in the former, according to the Instructions of the Council, given to the rest of the Indulged Ministers.   
By which we see, that the simple Act of the Council is the all and only ground of transportation from one place to another; and that always 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 Magistrates 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 Expenses, that Mr john 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 expenses of the said Mr john Stirling, and repairing the Kirk, School and Bridge of Irwine; and if need bees ordained Le●ters of horning to be direct hereupon in form as effeits.   

Edinb. 1. March 1677.  
Anent a petition presented by Mr William Maitland, Minister at Beeths, showing 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 maintain, which he will not be longer able to undergo, unless the Lords of Council be pleased to allow him the said stipend for the said's 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. Privy Council, having heard and considered the foresaid Petition, do hereby grant order and warrant to the Heritors and others liable in payment of the stipend of the said Paroch of Beeths, to make payment of the same to the Petitioner, and that for ilk one of the said's crops and years of God 1675. and 1676. and ordains Letters of horning and others to be direct thereupon, in form as effeirs.   

Edinb. 7. of March. 1677.  
The Lords of his Majest. privy Council, do hereby ordain Mr Alexander Hammiltoun, who is by Act of Council 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 fifth day of april 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 Ministry in the said Paroch, till further order from the Council, upon the same terms, that he hath exercised his Office formerly in the said Kirk of Dalmeny.   
So that we see the whole exercise of the Ministry, is, by this Indulgence, wholly at the free and arb●●riarious disposal of the Council, and depending upon their Orders. As also, we see, that the observation of the Instructions is an essential part of the bargain, being the terms 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 Council, in pursuance of his Maj. Commands, signified to them by a Letter of the 7. of june 1669. did confine several outted Ministers to particular parochs, with allowance to preach and exercise the other functions of the Ministry within the same, and did deliver to them certain 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 divers of them have con●raveened the same, without any manner of regard thereto. And whereas by his Maj. Letter foresaid, it is left to the said's Lords, to allow to these Ministers such parts of the Stipends, as they should think fit; and that from time to time, the Council hath gi●en Orders and Warrants to the Heretors and others, liable in payment of the stipend, to make payment thereof, as they saw cause; without which special warland, they could not, nor cannot, warrantably pay the same. Notwithstanding whereof, it is informed that several Heretors have paid, or intent to pay these stipends, without special Warrant and Order. The said's Lords do therefore Prohibit and discharge all Heretors, Fewers, Liferenters, and others, liable in payment of the stipends of the parochs, where these Ministers are confined, to make payment of any part of the Stipend to them, for the cropped and year 1677. and in time coming without a special Order & Warrant from the Council, under the penalty of being liable in payment of the said Stipend again, to such as the Council 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 said's Ministers are confined, that no Person pretend ignorance.   
In the Proclamation-emitted in the preceding year 1676. the Council said in plain terms, 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 terms; whereby we see that it was a full and formal compact, & the Indulgence was both granted & Accepted upon the terms 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 certain, that every one is Master of his own favours, and may dispense them on what terms he pleaseth; and when the terms 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 terms, after such public Intimations were made unto the whole Nation, both of the grant of the favours, and of their acceptance, upon these terms, they would have signified their dissatisfaction with the bargain, and rejected the favour of the Indulgence, which they could have upon none, but sinful terms; especially now when their silence, and continuing in the possession of the favour, did not only interpretatiuly, but plainly and expressly, in the sight of the whole Nation, say, they were satisfied with the terms, and would rather submit unto them, than lose the benefit they had received in and by the Indulgence.  
Upon which account possibly it was, that the Council, seeing that they had attained their end, in granting the Indulgence, and had found the Indulged so calm and pliable to submit to any terms they pleased to propose, did mitigate, within two months thereafter▪ the severity 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 warrants for their stipends: But authorizeth and appointeth the Heretores of the parochs, 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 find them transgress.   
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 Council, 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 affair.  
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 Council in July last) to wit 1673) written in answer to afriend, who desired to be informed about that affair; and truth or falsehood 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, seeing 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 concern our present question.  
This Author tells us; that there were a considerable number of Ministers, who had obtained liberty from the Magistrate to preach publicly, without hazard of that legal restraint, under which they lay before, cited before the Council. But, not to exaggerate 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 return 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 certain Conditions held forth and made known, and (as the Council saith) accepted and submitted to, it is manifest that the matter had a far other face. Beside, that the granting of liberty to preach publicly 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, until this explanatory Act of the Supremacy had passed in Parliament Anno 1669. whereby not only what was done by King and Council, in licensing of so many, before that Act, was declared to be legal, because of the King's Supremacy in Church-Affairs, never before so amply and fully declared and explained; but way made for prosecuting the same design, in time coming; according as it came to pass. When the Indulgence standeth engaged thus unto; and under the favourable aspect of that unparallelled Supremacy; 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, seeing it is obvious enough how the contrivance was made to break the honest suffering party, and (as some of the chief Contrivers said) to divide betwixt the Madcap fanatics, and the more sober; to confirm the Usurpation, to strengthen the hands of Adversaries, to suppress and keep down the glorious and blessed Assembling of the Lord's people, and to settle people in a Sinful silence and stupid Submission to all the Encroachments, made on the Prerogatives of the Crown of Christ, and on the Privileges of his Church, and to the overturning 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 mirror.  
He saith that it is not easy nor necessare, to tell what was said to or by every one of them, they being called-in one by one; but this is certain, that all of them (except two, who were dismissed upon their declaring that they had preached on that day only 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 freedom to observe any solemn fixed anniversary Day for religious Worship, besides the Lord's 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 solemn 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 plainly show the true ground as they ought to have done. I grant the Parliaments calling that day, an holiday, 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 Solemn, 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; seeing they could not abstract simple preaching on that day, from its due observation; and seeing every one knows, 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 four of the Brethren called-in together, upon particular summons, for baptising of Children of other Congregations: To which among other legal defences (whereof he can give no particular account) they gave this answer; 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 again 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 Council did know, all the rest, save these four, had observed the Injunctions, otherwise they had been challenged upon the violation of them, as well as these four. As to this answer, given by those four, 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 answer had not been given, they had not goat such a return from my L. Chanc. Had they ingenously said, that their commission bore them to Baptise, as well as to Preach; and that they might not be answerable to their Master, to refuse to Baptise any Child within the Covenant, brought unto them for that end, much trouble and temptation had been, in all appearance, prevente●. And though I will not condemn all legal defences; yet I must say, that Christian 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 tacit acknowledgement, 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 Ecclesiastic affairs, as amply as any thing Mr Hutcheson spoke; and denying him no more, when it was finished, than he denied unto him. Concerning this Paper, I can say nothing, having never seen it; only I find, it contained (as himself tells 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 Ministry: And I find by his own relation; that three or four days 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 agreeable 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 behoved 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 show 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 Magistratical 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 Solomon Chap. 28. vers. 9, 10, 11, 12, 13. he tells him verse 19 That the Lord made him understand all this, in writing by his hand upon him: And accordingly we find Solomon doing 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, jure Regio, by his Magistratical power; but according to the commandment of David, and of Gad the King's Seer; and Nathan the Prophet, 2 Chron. 29: v. 25. and it is added; for it was the commandment 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 writing of David King of Israel, and according to the writing of Solomon 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 controve 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 Ministry; 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, confirm and enforce civilly Canons and Rules, Ministerially cleared and concluded by Church-Judicatories: For that is but to press the Rules of God's 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 will hence infer, that he may give Instructions unto Magistrates, to regulate them in the exercise of their Office. (4.) Nor can it be that Concession, That the Magistrate is Episcopus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 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 Ministry, as such, cannot be reckoned; this being purely Ecclesiastic, and properly belonging to the Spiritual Kingdom of Christ. (5.) Nor can it be that Concession. That the Magistrate may limit and confine the Person of a Minister, whereby, per accident, there is a confinement laid upon the further extension of the exercise of his Ministry: for every body seeth, that this is properly a confinement of the Person, and but consequently of the exercise of the Ministry; and no man will say, that is Orthodox, that the Magistrate hath the same Power over the Office of the Ministry, 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 Magistrates 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, (1.) This Power of giving Instructions, for regulating the exerci●e of the Ministry, would infer or presuppose, that the Office of the Ministry, and its exercise are subordinat to the Magistrate in linea recta: For Instructions and Orders or Rules coming from a Superior (for from such they must come and not from an Inferior, not yet from a Co-ordinat Power) to an Inferior, say, that the Superior hath Power to grant a Commission to that Inferior, be it Court or Person, to Act in that function and sphere; and a Power to Limit, Restrict, Enlarge or Qualify 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 Magistrate, as other inferior Magistrates are. But if the Supreme Magistrate might give Instructions to Ministers, and prescribe Rules to regulat them in the exercise of their Ministry; what difference shall there be, as to this, betwixt Ministers, as such, and inferior Magistrates? Can the Supreme Magistrate do more, as to the regulating of the Magistratical function, in inferior Magistrates, than Limit them, Restrict them, Qualify 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 Ministry; or concerning alterable circumstances, which only hic & nunc can be called necessary: 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 Magistrate either enjoineth these Ministerially, as holding forth the mind of God; but this cannot be said, for than were he no Magistrate, 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 reform 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 Magistrate doth not give the Instructions, but by his Civil Sanction politically enforceth the observation of God's Instructions, authoritatively and ministerially held forth by the authorised 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 Magistrate; or rather wholly and solely unto him? For thus the Ministers are altogether excluded, when it is said, that the Magistrate can give Instructions in these matters: For the granting of this power unto the Magistrate, will necessarily bring the examination and judgement 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 plain dealing, in this day of trial, and of witnessing to the truth; and to that truth, that so nearly concerned Christ, as King and Head of the Church, should have consented unto this Assertion, and in plain terms have told the Council. That they were to receive no Instructions from the Magistrate, to regulat them in the exercise of their Ministry. He tells 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 Ecclesiastical 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 forementioned 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 Ministry? It were as good a consequence to say, The Magistrate is keeper of both the Tables of the Law. Ergo he may set down Instructions, Limitations and Rules, showing 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 Prophecy, 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 Error. Ergo he may appoint Ministers what to preach, and what not; and command them to preach of the Seven deadly sins, 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 jeroboam did. So because Discipline and Government are also the object of his care, therefore he may give Rules and Instructions, how the Church shall be governed; that is to say, whether by a Pope, or by Prelates, or by the People, or by Himself and his Under-magistrates. 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, etc. Yea, in a word, we may as well infer 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 Ministry.  
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 Intrinsically Ecclesiastical, to regulat us, etc. Which, in my judgement, 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 Council 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 justify and defend their refusing to accept of these Instructions, or to justify 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 Council 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 Credit and Conscience? If the Assertion was thus qualified, to justify 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 blind? If they intended it for a Testimony, was that a fi● season for a Testimony, when they were resolved to yield to all, that was at that time desired, without hinck or scruple? Further, I suppose it will be found, that some of these Instructions were indeed formally and intrinsically Ecclesiastical. And if these were excepted, they should have been particularly mentioned, that all might have been clear; for in Testimonies we cannot be plain and clear enough. If they were not clear to embrace these Instructions; why did they not unanimously agree to tell this in plain terms? 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 tells 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 Council, or if it should be subscribed by all, and so given in as their answer, 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 remain? 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 Directory; 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 mean to stop the rest, in that, whereabout they had no scruple; especially when that one did not show, 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 concur in the matter, though they differed in the form and manner: And how inconvenient was it, saith he, that differences about the manner should be seen in public, when they were one upon the matter? But what prejudice had come to the cause, if a Testimony had been given-in to the Council, 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 break bulk; but that one, if ever he had been within the hold, had made the breach, by abandoning his Brethren. Unity and Harmony 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 descent. I know no Divine rule for this; nor will Christian prudence teach it: and I am sure, it is one to an hundred, if ever any thing be done of moment, or hazard, by a company, on these terms. And I much doubt, if, when one only 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 form 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 form 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 plain 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 day's 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 always to give, upon less, than a few hour's warning, yea at the first demand, an account of his Faith; especially in this Controversy, wherein all were called to be most clear; and they especially, who could not but know, that their silence, as to bearing Testimony 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 tells 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. Only I wonder how this Consideration could prevail with them, rather to commit the expressing of the matter unto their chosen Mouth; seeing words spoken are more liable to Misconstructions, and Misrepresentations, and other Mistakes; than words set down in write; and it was one to to an hundred if that one Brother, their Mouth, should so happily, in a set discourse, hit upon the very expressions, that were only accomodat to declare all their minds; 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 pains, 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 plain Truth is, litera scripta manet: And it was to be feared, that a written Paper would have provoked the Council, more than a transient and volant Expression, in a running discourse, 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 plain Testimony, though not set off with the paint of Words, and Expressions, having all their amiable cadencies and flowers of Rhetoric, 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 angry 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 Testimony 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 Testimony; 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 expressly, their Testimony (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 Testimony were given-in; yet I cannot see, how their prudence can be blamed for forbearing that, which would certainly have ministered fuel 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 ne'er 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 Testimony; and that that Testimony, 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 Fuel to the fire, he cannot approve them, for casting in Oil; 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 fuel thereunto; but let some labour, as they will, to free themselves of this, It shall, I fear, lie 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 have 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 Author's mind, who thinketh, that he was not bound to speak in that affair, until he was called upon by the Council; 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 God's opportunity season and call, to speak what he had to say: The thing also itself, and the usual practice in like cases saith, it was the most fit time to speak to the cause, when all had been gone thorough, and then when he had spoken his light in the matter, the Brethren (as he willed them to do, when they named him) might add, diminish, or alter, as they thought fit. This is a wonderful thing, that one should be appointed to speak the sense of the rest of certain 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, Apology 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 only 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 itself (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 thorough. 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 otherways, than that the mouth, that spoke, was not their public mouth, having been so long silent; but his own, speaking only when it came to his own turn? 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 plain homologating with their Meaning and Intention? & that their Mouth's speaking had discovered them not to be all of one mind?  
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 Informer tells us, that when they compeared, the sentence of the Council for not-preaching May 29. was read unto them. 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 sustain, 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 concern 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 obviate them, Mr. H. added another desire, That their LL. would be pleased not to burden them with Impositions, in the matter of their Ministry, wherein they were the Servants of Christ, and they being men, who demeaned themselves, as became loyal Subjects. Here is my former remark 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 Ministry, because of their being the Servants of Christ; or that, though they looked on these Impositions as burdens, and so wished to be free of the yoke; yet being imposed they would submit unto them, as to an outward prejudice, which they behoved to sustain; 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 Testimony, 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 plain and distinct? Sure, Christianity will tell us, that Testimonies cannot be plain enough.  
Upon this he tells us, they were (as they thought) dismissed. But the L Chancel. forthwith called them again, as they were turning their faces towards the door, and told them, that seeing some of their number had said, these Papers viz. the Papers containing the Instructions) were not given them, the clerk was to give every one of them a Copy, 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 obviate & prevent the giving of?  
When their faces are now again turned towards the Council, the Clerk went about to deliver each the paper of Instructions, and we are told that they had been delivered to the one half or more of the Brethren, even to all cited out of Clidsdale, Renfrow, and some of Kill before they came to Mr A. Blair. And our Informer tells us, he believeth there were few or none of these behind, that resolved to speak any thing till Mr H. who was not called upon yet, should begin, (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 speak somewhat: But all stood still 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, add, 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 Charity, 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 Chancellor, in terminis, telling, That he would not receive Instructions from them, for regulating him, in the exercise of his Ministry; and added this reason, That if he did so be should not be Christ's Ambassador, but theirs. To which I shall only desire to say. That I am of the mind, 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 turn: and was it not as seasonable for M. B. to speak, when it came to his turn? As for his calling Mr Blairs Assertion, lax; I shall pass 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 burdened with impositions in the matter of their Ministry. And Mr B's saying, that he would not receive Instructions from them, for regulating him in the exercise of his Ministry. Mr H's expressions wanted the limitation, that they had all agreed upon, to wit, formally and intrinsically Ecclesiastical, as well as Mr B's; and no man will say, that the word, Impositions, do more import Instructions formally and intrinsically Ecclesiastical, than the word, Instructions: Nor is there any such difference betwixt these words, in the exercise of the Ministry, which were Mr B's words; and these words, in the matter of the Ministry, which were Mr H's words, as to make the one discourse Lax, and the other accurate. 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 contain a reason, why their L L. should not burden them with Impositions; or they sounded forth nothing but nonsense; as every understanding Reader will see.  
Yet this reason is made the ground of a great outcry, 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 make all strong, the matter is cast into a Syllogism, but with this mishap, that it is made up of four terms, contrary to the law of Syllogisms. But this is but trivial. It is more to the purpose to say, that this same absurdity will follow upon what Mr H. spoke, (unless he pleaseth rather to let it pass under the notion of Nonsense) and therefore what ever way he shall think to salve Mr H's credit, wes hall by the same way salve Mr B's. Though this might satisfy: 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 Ministry; 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 authoritatiuly declaring, what are the Impositions, Rules, and Instructions of Christ; so that they are but as Heralds and Messengers, Proclaiming 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 mediately by such, as stand in a right line of subordination to Him, as sole Head and King of his Mediatory Kingdom, and act only 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 Laws and Instructions, as Christ's 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 Ministry, they do it by their magistratical 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 Ministry, 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 Ambassadors and Servants of the Magistrate: for, who receive Instructions from one, acting Magisterially and Architectonically, in Church-matters, do own 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 main difference. Hence Secondly, Ministers receiving Instructions, for regulating them in the exercise of their Ministry, 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 supreme power: for this Architectonick and Supreme power, in the Church, is competent to Christ only; and he hath substituted none, as his Vicar-general, neither Prince; not Prelate, Pope nor other: As were easy to evince, if needful: And so there is but one Architectonick Supreme 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 Ministry, do attribute this Power to the Magistrate, must of necessity take and have their Commission from Magistrates, and become their Ambassadors, and not Christ's; because by this deed, as they spoil Christ of his Prerogative and Crown, attributing that unto Magistrates, which is proper to Him; so they acknowledge their Dependence on, and Subordination to Magistrates, and not upon and to Christ. But nothing of this kind can follow upon receiving of Instructions from Church-Judicatories, acting as Christ's Servants; and, in the very way and manner of their Acting, declaring Christ to be the Sole Head and Supreme Governor of his Church: For, as the Church-Judicatories act but Ministerially, so the receiver of Instructions from them, can own 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 dependence upon him, as his Servant: And therefore, as a King will not own that man, as his Ambassador, who taketh his Instructions from an Usurper: So nor can that Man formally look upon himself, as the King's Ambassador; but as the Ambassador of that Usurper. But when one taketh Instructions from the Council, acting in subordination to the King, and clearing his mind by virtue of his Commission, impowering them thereunto, he is truly the King's Ambassador, though the Council did immediately give him his Instructions: So a Minister, receiving his Instructions immediately from Church-Judicatories, is nevertheless the Ambassador of Christ; for the Church-Judicatory acteth in subordination to Christ, and only cleareth up his mind, by virtue 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 Christ's, but their Ambassador; and withal have shown, that the Indulged Ministers, in receiving these Instructions, have declared themselves not to be the Servants & Ambassadors of Christ, but of the Magistrates; & therefore can be owned as no other.  
Our informer tells 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 than circumstantiat, might have moved them to have refused that Indulgence, they being thereby declared no more free Subjects, and unworthy of the Common Privilege of all Free Subjects; and so actually under the Scandal of Disloyal and Censured Persons, which, as it was a Reproach to the Ministry; so it could not but expose them to Contempt, and make their Office vile, in the eyes of the World, and their pains fruitless, when their Ministry was made contemptible: And if there was some further Design in this obvious, it was so much the more worthy 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 Ministry. The Minister's Body and his Ministry is not one and the same thing. It is true, by confining of the Minister to such a particular place, the exercise of the Ministry is consequently confined: But hence it will no more follow, that the Magistrate may give Injunctions, to regulat Ministers in the exercise of their Ministry; than it will follow, that he may depose a Minister from his Ministry, because, when he condemneth him to death, and accordingly causeth the Sentence to be execute, or keepeth him in closely and perpetual prison, he doth consequentially put him from the exercise of his Ministry. 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 Testimony and Declaration, was committed to a Macer to be carried to prison, the Informer tells us. That the Brethren, being surprised, with his speaking unexpectedly (besides the Common agreement) and with the Assertion 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 surprised 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 Council had made any motion there about? And why were they not also surprised with the Assertion that dropped from him, seeing, 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 tells us, that upon Mr B. his commitment to the Macer one Minister told My L. Chanc. that he believed divers Ministers of that Company were, upon the matter of Mr B's judgement, whereof himself was one: And another declared, that one of these Rules did bring Ministers into direct Subjection to Prelacy, contrary to their Principles. Whereby I see, that the Consternation and Affliction of Spirit, was not so universal, as he did just now hint: and that all were not of a Contrary judgement to Mr B. and that the agreement to the forementioned limited Clause, was not so unanimous and cordial, as he would have made us believe: 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 cross 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 God's 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 Council and such of his Brothers, as spoke? And what were these mistakes? Whatever and betwixt whomsoever they were, 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 rectify Mr B. and such as were of his judgement, or to rectify the Council, tha● had committed Mr B. to the Macer. If the Former, then in his judgement, 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 Condemn both.  
Let us hear what it was he said. Our Informer tells 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 intrinsically Ecclesiastical (the other term Formally was forgotten, through occasion of the present jumble, as our Informer supposeth) For regulating Ministers in the exercise of their Ministry; 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 objectiuly 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 again 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 Apology 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 uselessness: For when he speaks of Rules Intrinsically (let us add Formally, though that was then omitted) Ecclesiastical etc. he must mean either the Rules, which were then offered to Mr B. and the rest; or some other: If some other, than 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 Apology,, Defence, or Explication: If he meant the same Rules, that were then tendered, Then (1.) he must grant, that these were Intrinsically and Formally Ecclesiastical; and so such, as the Magistrate 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 confirm 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 Terms? Every one doth not understand what the Terms Formally and Intrinsically mean, in this Business, which is abou● Rules, to regulat Ministers, in the Exercise of their Ministry. And the mentioning of these Terms, Intrinsically and Formally, here, would say, that there were other Rules Extrinsecally and Materially Ecclesiastic, which the Magistrates might impose, and they might receive, to regulate them in the exercise of their Ministry: 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 Ministry, or the like, be accounted such? The first is wholly Political, and no more Ecclesiastical, than any other thing, which immediately concerns a Minister's Person, as his Hat, Books and clothes, and the like. The Latter, as they partake more of the Nature of Ecclesiastical Rules, being more formally, and more nearly related unto the exercise of the Ministry, but yet only in so far, as they belong to public 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 uncertain, what Rules these are, which may be called Externally and Materially Ecclesiastical etc. 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 Intrinsically Ecclesiastic; but also it might have been better understood, what Ecclesiastical Rules were Formally and Intrinsically such.  
(2.) The other part of the discourse, concerning the Magistrates 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 Ministry, hath no affinity 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 Ministry, 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 main Business, I would further inquire, 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 Intrinsically & 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 again? How came it that all of them did not unanimously agree in this Testimony? 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 Intrinsically 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 Intrinsically 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 judgement 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 only to see with the Church's eyes, but Protestants grant unto them: Will, I say, this power warrant him, to give Instructions, and set down Rules, for regulating the exercise of the Ministry? Yea, or will his Authoritative Judgement, 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 Laws, such a Way or Profession of Religion, warrant him also to set Rules to the very exercise of the Ministry? By what argument shall this consequence be proved; seeing (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 itself, and the Intrinsic manner of its Administration (2.) In the one, his judgement is purely Political and Civil, in the other case it is really Ecclesiastical. (3) In the one case, his judgement is Objectively only 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 Intrinsic Nature, & Spiritual Ends of that part of Religion. (5.) In the one, he acteth in subordination to God, as Supreme Governor of the World; but in the other, he acteth, as in a right line of subordination to Christ, the Supreme Head and Governor 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 Supreme King, and Head of the Church.  
If we look upon this discourse of Mr. H. as a Testimony, (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 Ministry; 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 fair and full Testimony, 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 design of invading the same more, to have devised this medium of the Indulgence (2.) That it is not a plain and full Testimony against the present Act of Usurpation, whereby a power was assumed to judge in matters Ecclesiastical, Intrinsically and Formally such; Yea, and to perform 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 Magistrate, acting as such; or rather Magisterially, as Supreme Governors in the Church, and Appointers of Qualifications, Rules, and Manner of Administration of Spiritual Institutions. (3.) That it was not a full and plain Vindication of the Doctrine of the Church of Scotland; Nor an Assertion thereof, according to former Vows, Covenants and Solemn Engagments. 4. That it was not candid and ingenuous, nor pertinent to the purpose in hand, as it should have been, by holding forth the Iniquity of such Impositions. (5.) That it was conceived in such General and Scholastic terms, that neither they, to whom it was spoken, could well understand what was the drift thereof; nor others conceive what was yielded, 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 unfair Reflections on honest and worthy Mr A. B. and a tacit Condemning (at least in part) of his Plain 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 design too obvious of humouring and pleasing the Magistrates, while actually stated in, and prosecuting an opposition to Christ's Supremacy, 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 itself; opposing unto Giving and Imposing of Rules, Intrinsically 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 Intrinsically and Formally Ecclesiastical, which is not a mere 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 Judgement 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, Intrinsically and Formally Ecclesiastical: And thus either giving the Magistrate too little, or else too much.  
He tells us of another, that spoke before it came to Mr H's turn; and that this Person told, He could not receive Ecclesiastical Canon's 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 favour, 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 only broke 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 Intrinsically and Formally Ecclesiastical; for these might also pass under the Notion of Civil Significations of their pleasure etc. 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 Ciull Signification of his will, only 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 Objectiuly Ecclesiastical; and not also in many other Acts, merely Ecclesiastical, even Formally and Intrinsically? 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 ●here is no Act, which in itself can be called Intrinsically 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 Intrinsically and Formally Ecclesiastic, but when done by Church-O●ficers: And thus all the Ecclesiastickness of Actions, which are Intrinsically 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 Intrinsically and Formally Ecclesiastic; and so their judging Civil matters, condemning Malefactors &c. (not to speak of other actions) should be actions Formally and Intrinsically Ecclesiastical, Ergo it is competent only to Church-Officers. And on the contrary, this should be a good Argument. This man is an Ecclesiastic Person; therefore the Action, which he doth, must be Formally and Intrinsically Ecclesiastic. And, as by this means, there should be no Cause, or Action, Formally and Intrinsically Ecclesiastical, in itself; so there should be no Cause, or Action, Intrinsically and Formally Civil in itself, but that only which is done by the Civil Magistrate: And this consequence were good; This is done by a Civil Magistrate. Ergo it is Formally and Intrinsically Civil; and this should be a bad consequence, This is an action Formally and Intrinsically Civil Ergo it is to be done by the Civil Magistrate only (2.) This answer of these two Brethren must either Homologate what Mr H. said; or be dissonant therefrom: If Dissonant, than 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 answer did Homologate Mr. H's discourse, than what necessity 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 plain giving up of the Cause, than all which Mr H. said; for it is no other in effect, than this; Let the Magistrates enjoin 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 etc. and so there is no danger, though they should use both a Dogmatic, Critic and Diatactick power, determine Controversies of faith, Appoint Rules of Ordination, Condemn Heretics, Debar 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, meddling with all Civil affairs, determining Civil pleas, giving-out civil Injunctions, Laws and Rules etc. they might and ought as willingly submit, and salve all with this distinction, saying. We cannot receive Civil Laws from you, but as for Ecclesiastical significa●ions of 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 Pope's 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 publicly, as having seen them before: Let us hear what he said. He tells us, that he resumed what he had said formerly, concerning a Formal Ecclesiastical Power, which could not be allowed to the Magistrate; and a Power Objectiuly 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 only add. That this Formal Ecclesiastic Power must point forth a Power in itself such, and therefore so called; and not so denominated merely because it is exerted by Churchmen; as the two Brethren fore mentioned hinted in their Answer and Distinction; otherwise his Distinction should have run thus, betwixt a Power Subjectiuly Ecclesiastical, and Objectiuly Ecclesiastical. But this would confound all Causes and all Power; and would bring all Civil Causes objectiuly under the Power of the Church; and all Church-Causes objectiuly under the Power of the Magistrate: Yea and make all Things and Actions, done by the Civil Magistrate, though otherwise but Objectiuly Ecclesiastical, to be Formally Civil; and on the other hand, make all Actions, done by Churchmen, though otherwise but Objectiuly Civil, to be Formally Ecclesiastic. 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 Ministry, 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 Forefathers would have said something else: And, I trow, Civil Magistrates, if called before the Prelate's 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 forementioned 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, Intrinsically 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, and Confirmations of Injunctions, ministerially proposed by Church-Officers, upon both which grounds, I conceive Mr H. had a fair 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 find, 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 Answer, that their L L. acted in a Civil way, only 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 judgement, 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 Ministry, which the L. Chanc. owned and avouched in his Answer, little regarding Mr H's distinction, betwixt a Formally Ecclesiastic power, and power Objectively Ecclesiastical. Not Sufficient; because the main business was unhandsomely waved. Nay, moreover, this Reply was an yielding of the whole cause, and a granting that Magistrates might meddle with any Church power, and enjoin what they pleased, providing they punished only civilly such; as transgressed. Hence they might ordain 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, etc. Yea, in a word, meddle with the most Intrinsic 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 only: No, his expression might comprehend Ecclesiastical Punishments also, conform to the power granted to them by the King's 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 M H's speech, which, as it would appear, had given no small offence, and he tells us, that in it we may perceive, an Assertion of an Ecclesiastical power to make Rules for regulating Ministers, which was not yielded 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 Intrinsically (and afterward) Formally Ecclesiastical, for regulating Ministers in the exercise of their Ministry, 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 Magistrates 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 affirm, viz. 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 anon. 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 public & Judicial receiving, even at the bar, of such Instructions, was a solemn 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 expressed; 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 peril, was neither to act with an Ingenuity, becoming Christians; nor with an Zeal, becoming Ministers, nor with that Respect due to Magistrates 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 add, that it was a Protestation annulled by their deed, Protestatio contraria facto. How much better than had it been, to have forborn that deed, which bade 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 mean, the Power, making and imposing these Instructions, it is to me little wonder, that this was swallowed down also.  
Our Informer tells us next, that in all this discourse of Mr H's he cannot see such Heterodoxie and Novelty, 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 Magistrates on earth; or that Ministers receiving these Papers, on these terms, should warrant 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 treachery. But to answer, Though this Informer cannot see such Heterodoxie, or Novelty, as to give occasion to pass 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 Enemies thereunto; and are seeking by all means to destroy the Church, to rob her of her Rights, Privileges; and Power, and to enrich themselves with the spoils of Christ's Crown. And therefore when Ministers have to do with such Open and A vowed Enemies, they are called to more strike watchfulness and care, lest they do, or say any thing, which may confirm 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 Magistrate, by virtue of his Power Objectiuly Ecclesiastical, a Right or Power to Make and Impose Rules and Injunctions, to regulate Ministers, in the Exercise of their Ministry, as our Informer lately himself hinted, I think, he hath not only 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 Immediately Inspired Magistrates, that were Prophets also, and Men of God, such as David and Solomon: 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 terms, was a giving-up of the Right of the Church, with their own hands; seeing it is so clear and manifest, by what we have said. And seeing 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 find that they yield to the Magistrate, as Magistrate, (and consequently to all Magistrates, be what they will, good or bad, though upon his peril, as he shall answer to God for it, if he shall determine wrong) a Public Politic Definitive judgement, concerning Matters of Religion, in reference to his own Act about them; or (for they diversify 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 judgement 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 controversy 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 Wisdom of the Flesh, and not according to the Wisdom which is from above, he is to render an account thereof, before the Supreme Tribunal. But to what purpose is all this waste of Words? Doth he, or any man think, that we deny to the Magistrate a judgement 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 infer 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 Ministry; then they have betrayed the Cause: And either they must infer this therefrom, or they speak nothing to the 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 question, if Vedelius or Maccovius his Colleague, did ever so argue. And sure I am, the Author of the CXI. Propositions Propos. 45. etc. 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 etc. 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 Ministry, 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 Objectiuly Civil Power? Will it therefore follow, that they can prescribe Rules, to regulate Magistrates in the exercise of their function? And if a Magistrate should come to the Prelates, or Pop's Bar, and take a Paper from him, containing such Instructions, and give this only as his Apology, that he acknowledged a Power Objectiuly 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 Pours, & 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 allege 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 itself, 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 only 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 strike 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 always to enhance 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 Ministry, and the outward Administrations of grace enslaved unto their wills. Is it not certain, out of what ground this Indulgence did grow; and how the Act of Supremacy (which no Conscientious Minister or Christian can own 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 certain, that a Design to procure a Requiem to themselves, in all their Usurpations, and intolerable Invasions of Church-Power, and overturning of ●he whole Work of God; and withal 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 uncertain to rational observing Persons, what was the Design of King and Council, 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 Design therein? And was not the Explicatory Act of the Supremacy a more than sufficient proof of an Erastian Spirit, that led and acted them, in some things, beyond what the Antichristian 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 Procedure of King Parliament and Council, in their Actings, since this last Revolution began, it is more than sufficiently clear, what they did and do Intent; 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 Predecessors maintained, with so much Hazard, Expense of blood, Loss of Liberty, Toss, Imprisonments, Confinements, Condemnation to Death and Banishments etc. and which we were so solemnly sworn 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 Credit, to cover the ground they stood on with their dead Bodies, rather than cede to such a manifest Encroaching and Invading Enemy? Will any, who readeth the carriage of our valiant and renowned Worthies, in opposing the Encroachments of King james, (who yet never did, nor for shame could arrogate to himself such a transcendently Superlative Supremacy 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 progenitors, 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 ceding 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 Vows and Engagements? Was it pertinent or seasonable, or could it be satisfying to propose, in such an exigent, a mere Cothurnus; I mean, 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 Plain, Clear and Full expressions might have been fallen upon, if plain 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.   

Reasons 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 only 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 Tendency: 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.  


I. How injurious it is to Christ, as Head of the Church.  
WE shall begin with this Head of Arguments, and show in how many particulars, injury was done, by the Indulgence, as accepted, unto our Lord Jesus Christ, the only Head and King of his Church; And  
1. In that hereby they declared, they did not hold their Ministry wholly and solely of Jesus Christ: Sure Christ alone, as Head and King of the Church his spiritual Kingdom, did Institute this Office of the Ministry, and did Empower men unto the exercise thereof: As the Scriptures do prove: And Ministers depend solely upon Him therein, if they renunce not their own place and standing. But we saw above, how the Indulged did plainly and positively refuse to say, that they held their Ministry of jesus Christ alone: See what is remarked on Mr H's speech, when the first Ten were Indulged, where ex professo the word alone was left out; and what is said in Answer to the Informer, who was dissatisfied with Mr Blair. whereby an injury of a very high Nature was done unto our Lord Jesus, who alone ascended up on high, and led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men; even, gave some Apostles, and some Prophets, and some Evangelists, and some Pastors and Teachers, Eph. 4: v. 8, 11. It was God alone, that set some in the Church, first Apostles, secundarily Prophets, thirdly Teachers, after that Miracles, etc. 1. Cor. 12: 28. So that as the office of Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, etc. were only from Christ; so was the office of Pastors or Teachers. Hence they are said to be made Overseers by the Holy Ghost, Act. 20. v. 28. Whoever therefore will not confess, that Ministers hold their Ministry alone of Christ, do derogat hugely from His glory, and rob him of his Prerogative; and set these others (who ever they be) of whom they hold their Ministry, in part, or in conjunction with Christ, down upon Christ's Throne, and make Christ no sole King, and Head of his Kingdom; and consequently no sole Prophet or Priest and Mediator. And what an affront this is unto our Lord, let any judge. And if (as we know) the clay-Kings of the Earth will think themselves sufficiently dethroned, and unpardonably injured, if any Subject be made partaker with them of their petty Sovereignty, in whole, or in part; let any consider, how Christ shall take this injury done to him by his own professed Servants. But some will possibly say, Though this was their fault and great escape; yet it was but personal, and accidental, as to the Indulgence; and so cannot not affect the same: Or make it an encroachment upon Christ, of such an high Nature. I answer; This being spoken at that occasion, when the King and Council were acknowledged thankfully for the granting of the Indulgence, cannot but have a reference unto the Indulgence itself; and supposing (as all reason will allow us to do) that what was said, was spoken with understanding, it must be granted, that they had their eye upon the Indulgence granted; and so their discourse was to this purpose in effect. We declare, that we hold not our Ministry of Christ alone, but of Christ and of the Magistrate; and therefore do accept of this Indulgence, without scruple, Whence also it is manifest, that they looked upon the Indulgence, as a consequent of their holding of the ministry partly of the Magistrate. And whether the Magistrate did intend the granting of the Indulgence, as a declaration of their accounting Ministers to hold their Ministry partly of them, or not; yet the accepting of the Indulgence thus, was a plain declaration, on the accepters part, that they held their Ministry partly of the Magistrate, and not solely of Christ; And consequently that they owned not Christ, as sole Head of the Kirk. Further, This discourse of theirs, so worded purposely and deliberately, saith, that if they had not believed, that they held their Ministry not of Christ alone, but of others also, they could not have accepted of the Indulgence. If any should yet say, That though this might be said of the Indulgence, according as it was understood by the Accepters; yet it will not follow, that the Indulgence itself is chargeable with this. I answer yet hereby it is granted, that the Accepters are chargeable with high Treason against the King of Kings, our Lord Jesus Christ: And as for the Indulgence itself, we may safely construe of it, according to the sense both of the Granters and of the Receivers: And by what followeth, its nature will be more fully discovered. If it be said, That the most that can be inferred from that expression of the Accepters, at that time, is, that as to the Exercise (which is distinct from the Office of the Ministry itself) they did depend on others, than Christ, I Answer, No mention was made of the Exercise, but of the Ministry itself. And even as to this, there was no small injury done to Jesus Christ; and this leads me to a second thing, here remarkable.  
2. By this Indulgence, the Prerogative of Christ, as sole Head of His Church, is further encroached upon, in that the Indulged do hold their Ministry, as to its Exercise, not of Christ alone, but of the Magistrates, either solely, or in conjunction with Christ. And that this is a wrong to Christ, is manifest, in that it saith, the Office, and the Power to exerce the Office are not from Christ alone. The Office can import nothing, but a ba●e name, if it import not Power to exerce the Office, or do the work peculiar unto such an Office: And if Christ be said to give the Office, but others must give the Power, Authority, and Ius or Right, to exercise the Office, he shall be made a mere Titular King. But he told us some other thing, when he said Matth. 28; 18, 19 All Power is given unto me, in Heaven and in Earth, go ye therefore and Teach all Nations, Baptising them &c. And when he said joh. 20: 21, 23.— As my Father hath sent Me, even so send I You— whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them etc. See Mark. 16: 15.— go ye into all the World, and preach the Gospel. The Office was in order to the Exercise: And when he gave the Office, he gave the Power to exercise the same. When Paul was made a Minister, he was sent to open eyes Act. 26: 16, 11, The Ministry, sure, is a Talon, and who ever get it must trade with it, or expect a sad Sentence. If it be said, That this will take away the Power of Chu●ch-Judicatories, who ministerially, under Christ, both conveyeth the Office and the Power to exercise the same. For Answer, I deny that any such thing will follow: And to clear this, I shall show a third Injury done to Christ, by this Indulgence.  
3. If it should be said, that by the accepting of this Indulgence, from the Magistrate, they no more prejudge Christ of his Right both to give the Office and Power to exerce the same, than when they take the same as conveyed to them by Church-Officers. I Answer, That the Difference is great, and the Encroachment made on Christ's Prerogative by the Indulgence clearly assented to: In that another way of Conveyance of the Ministry, and of the Power to exercise the same, is here closed with, than Christ, the only King, hath appointed. Christ hath instituted Church-Officers for this end, to convey the Office and Power, which he hath appointed, unto particular Persons. The Holy Ghost said unto Prophets and Teachers, that were at Antioch, separate me Barnabas and Saul. for the work whereunto I have called them Act. 13: 1.2. Paul and Barnabas ordained Elders in every Church Act. 14: 23. Titus was ordered to ordain Elders in every Church Tit. 1: 5. Timothy was to commit the things, he had heard of Paul, to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others 2 Tim. 2: v. 2. The gift was given with the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery 1 Tim, 4: 14. But here the Office, or the Exercise thereof is conveyed by the hands of Magistrates. whom Christ never did commit that matter unto. And thus another, yea a quite Opposite, Medium is embraced and followed, than what Christ thought good to make choice of, to his great dishonour and disparagement; as if he had not been Wise enough to appoint the best means; nor had not Authority enough solely to appoint the means and ways, he thought fit.  
4. The wrong done to Christ, by the accepting of this Indulgence, will be hence manifest (which will also clear up the Difference betwixt what is conveyed from Christ, by his own Ministers, and what is conveyed by Magistrates.) That the Office or Exercise of the Ministry is received from them, who in this deed, do not, neither can Act, in a Ministerial Subordination to Christ, as sole Head and Fountain of all Church-Power; so that their interveening betwixt Christ, and those, who receive the Office or its Exercise, as a Medium of Conveyance, saith, that Christ is not sole Head of the Church, and Fountain of Church-Power. The ground of this is, because Magistrates, as such, do not Act in a direct line of Subordination to Christ, as Mediator, as Church-Officers do: And further, what they do as Magistrates, they do not (in reference to their Subjects) with a Ministerial Authority, as Church-Officers do; but with a Magisterial, Imperial, Coactive, Autocratorical and Architectonick Power and Authority: And as to the Church, this Magisterial Power belongeth to Christ alone: So that the submiting unto any other Magisterial and Supreme Autocratorical Power, in Church-affaires, than what is solely in Christ, is an acknowledging of another Head and Supreme Governor in the Church, beside Christ; and this is a plain dethroning of Christ, who will either be sole King, or no King.  
5. The accepting of this Indulgence containeth another wrong done to Christ, in that thereby, there is an acknowledgement made of the Insufficience of all the Rules, Prescriptions and Instructions granted by Him, for the ordering of the exercise of the Ministry, and for information unto his Ministers, concerning the way, how they should go about the exercise of that Employment: For in the Indulgence, there were with all first and last Instructions given, how to regulat them, in the exercise of their Ministry: And so when the Indulgence was embraced, as accompanied with these Instructions, the Power, granting these Instructions, was acknowledged and submitted unto; and when these Instructions were not holden forth ministerially, as when the like are given by Church Judicatories, but by such, as Act in all things, which they do as Magistrates, by a Magisterial and Autocratorical power, not subordinat unto Christ, as Mediator, in a right line of subordination; an Autocratorical, Magisterial, and Supreme power to make Rules, and to give Instructions to Ministers, to regulate them in the exercise of their Ministry, is granted to the Magistrate, to the robbing and spoiling of Christ of that sole Supreme power, which is due to him, and is a part of his Prerogative Royal.  
6. Herein also the Accepters of the Indulgence have done injury unto Jesus Christ, in that they have taken a new holding of their Ministry, and of the Exercise thereof; and so materially have renounced their old holding of Christ immediately, as King of his Church, and sole Lord of his House; They have taken a new Commission for the Exercise o● their Ministry, and a Commission inconsistent with, & not subordinate unto the Commission, they had formerly from Christ. I shall not need to insist on this here, having declared it so fully above, in vindication of M. A Blair's Assertion; to wit, That if Ministers take Instructions from Magistrates, for regulating them, in the exercise of their Ministry, they should not be the Ambassadors of Christ.  
7. It is a part of the Royal Prerogative of Christ, to appoint the Qualifications of his own Officers: But here the Magistrate doth, by his Magistratical Power, appoint and determine the qualifications, which he will own as such, in reference, at least, unto the exercise of the Ministry, and this is not done ministerially; and consequently in contradiction to the sole power and Prerogative of Christ. The accepters therefore of this Indulgence, granted only to such, as are so and so qualified, do not only acknowledge themselves to be so and so qualified; but do sweetly, in so far, acquiesce unto the Magistrat's Autocratorical determineing of these qualifications; and unto his assuming a Supreme Nomothetick power, in Church-matters. As for these qualifications, we have seen above, what they are: See our 3. remark upon the King's Letter.  
8. It is also a part of Christ Prerogative Royal, to prescribe and set down the way, how he will have such and such an Officer in Particular, set over such or such a Flock in Particular; that so the Minister, so fixed to his special work, may have ground to say, that this is the Flock, over which the Holy Ghost hath made me an Overseer. But here in this Indulgence, the matter is so conveyed, as that the Indulged can not with good ground say, the Holy Ghost hath set me over this people, but only, this is the flock over which the King & his Council have made me the Overseer. But against this it is said, May not the Man, who returneth to his own Congregation, from which he was unjustly thrust away, say this? And may not he also speak thus, who hath the Cordial Invitation and call of those concerned? And what shall then be said of them, who preach in the fields? Answ. 1. If the Minister's return to his own place were fair and cleanly, and so as the old method and ground were not questioned, or weakened, than he might indeed so speak; but it is not so here; for his returning to where he was before, was a mere accidental thing, and his ground is not his former relatione unto that people, but the Order of the Council, which was of the same nature with the Order given unto others, as we saw above, and so he can only now say; though this be the flock, over which the Holy Ghost did once make me an Overseer; yet now I am set over it by the Councils Order. (2.) As for that Cordial Invitation, which some possibly did obtain, it was no such call, as Christ's Law alloweth, it was not the rise & fountain of those Ministers going to those places; but a & posteriour mere precatious thing, whereby the Ordinance of Christ was rather prostituted, than followed: It is sufficiently known, that the Council made the free Election, and not the Parish: And withal, where was the Act of the Presbytery, giving them Ministerially a Potestative mission? This belongeth to the Method, that Christ hath Prescribed; but here the Council both called, choosed and sent, and so were both the Flocks and the Presbytery. (3.) As for the third Particular, every one may see how impertinent it is; for this preaching in the Fields, or Houses, is no fixed stated Oversight over a distinct company, as is that of a Minister over a Particular Flock, but a m●er occasional Act, depending upon a Providential call from God, and the cordial entreaty of this Persecuted people; which is all that is requisite thereunto.  
9 There were among these Instructions, given by the Council, several Restrictions and Limitations in and about the administration of Christ's Spiritual Institutions, as of Preaching, of Administration of Baptism, and of the Lords Supper, as also of Discipline: And these Restrictions and Limitations, not being made by a Ministerial Power, with a Ministerial Authority explaining and applying the General Rules, given by Christ thereanent, as Church Officers, and Church-Judicatories do; but by the Magistrate, who acteth with a Magistratical Migisterial, and Autocratorical power; that is, by a power, which in Spiritual matters of the Church; belongeth to Christ only, who is sole Head and King thereof. The receivers therefore of this Indulgence, thus conveyed, and accompanied with such Limitations & Restrictions in and about the Administration of Christ's Ordinances, do contribute their concurrence unto this Invasion.  
But against this and other Particulars formerly mentioned, taken from the Prescriptions, Rules and Instructions, wherewith this Indulgence was attended, it is said, That in the accepting of this Indulgence there was a simple use making of a favour offered, and no formal engagement unto the prescriptions, which the Magistrate did not expect plainly resting upon the intimation of his own will: For here the Magistrate was not treating and expecting our formal consent or security for performance of what was required; but did simply appoint and command, as they would be answerable. So that the embracer of the Providential favour giveth no complex consent unto the Prescriptions. I Answer, The favour offered was no favour indeed, as circumstantiated; nor could there be a simple use making of that supposed favour, which was so attended with imposed Conditions, Instructions and Limitations, without at least a virtual acknowledgement of a Right & Power in the Magistrate, to make and impose such Conditions etc. for howbeit the Council propose the matter by way of Command, as thinking it below them to Act otherwise; yet both the Nature of the thing, and the concomitant Acts, made of purpose of Restrick, Limit and Qualify the favour proposed, and to Instruct and Oblige the Receiver, say, that the accepting of the first, is with an engagement to perform the second, both being but one complex thing. Nay the Council (as we say above) in their Acts and Proclamations do expressy hold forth the favour to be granted and accepted condition ways: and Mr A. Blair, for renouncing of the conditions, was deprived of the favour. Who accepteth a favour offered with its burdens, in accepting the one accepteth both, and taketh the favour cum onore, and this cannot be otherwise understood, howbeit the Council did not wait for their express consent unto the Conditions, for their receiving of the favour so offered was sufficient thereunto; as when a Father granteth such or such a piece of land to his Son, but withal layeth this burden on that favour, that he must pay so much debt, if the Son accept: of the land so clogged, he cannot but take on the debt, though he gave no express consent thereunto before.   

II. How contrary it is unto Presbyterian Principles.  
We shall in the next place show, how injurious the accepting of this Indulgence was unto our Presbyterian Principles; & what wrong was hereby done unto the Church, as to her Privileges, and that Power, which Christ hath granted unto her.  
1. It belongeth to the Church, and to Church-Officers, to try and examine the gifts and Qualifications of such, as are to be exercised in the Ministry, and to declare Ministerially, by explaining and applying of Christ's Rules and Laws, who are fit and qualified for the work of the Ministry, and who not: But here the Magistrate declareth what that is, which he looketh upon as a due Qualification, and judgeth who are so qualified, as to be fit for the Ministry; and that without the least deference imaginable unto any Church-●udicatorie whatsomever. If it be said, That they Indulged none, but such as were Ministers already, and so were supposed to be sufficiently qualified for that work. I Ans. The Church Officers, or the Presbytery, are not only to judge of Qualifications, in reference to the Ministry in general, but also in reference to the Ministry, in this or that Particular place, where he is to be fixed; and no Church-Judicatory had this judgement, in the matter of the Indulgence; but the Council only. And as they Indulged them, so they might have Indulged others, who had not been placed Ministers before, as we see they did Mr Weer, whom they did not account a Minister before, If it be said, That the Qualifications, which were here considered, to wit, peaceable and orderly, belong properly to the judgement of the Civil Magistrate, who, as he maketh civil Laws, so can judge, who observeth or transgresseth the same. I Answ. Not to mentione here the Magistrat's true sense of that peaceable and orderly living. I say, though the Magistrate be the proper judge of this peaceable and orderly deportment: in order to civil punishment, or exemption therefrom; yet Church-Judicatories are the only competent judges thereof, in reference to the exercise of the Ministry: And it was in reference to this exercise of the Ministry, that these Qualificatio●s were here taken notice of.  
2. It belongeth to the Church, or Church-Judicatories, to convey Ministerially the Office and Power unto Persons qualified, and to grant a Potestative Mission, whereby they become authorized to exerce the Ministerial function; as was seen above. But in the Indulgence, all this was done by the Magistrate immediately; the Council sent the Indulged to such and such places, as they thought fit, and they only clothed them with Authority for that effect; or did all, that Presbyteries do or aught to do, in the like cases. See what was said above upon the Acts of Indulgence granted july 27. 1666. Pag. 21.  
3. It is a part of the Power and Privilege of Church-Officers and Church-Judicatories, to loose Ministers relation unto a place, and to Plant and Transplant, to Place Ministers in Particular Charges, and to Transport them to others, as the good of the Church requireth. And this we know was constantly practised by our Presbyteries, Synods and General Assemblies. But here in the Indulgence, all this was practised by the Council, without once consulting any Church-Judicatory whatsomever. They planted and transplanted according to their own pleasure, as we saw above, in several Instances, sending severals from one Church to another, & many from their own Churches unto others. See further our 2 Remark on the King's Letter. It will not here be said, I suppose, That by the sentence of banishment, their relation to their former Charges was annulled: And though it were said and granted too (which yet cannot be) though it would follow that such were not properly transplanted, yet our argument would remain strong; for there were others, whom the Council had Indulged to such and such places, and thereafter transported to other places, as they thought fit. And beside, as to all of them, it was the Council their deed alone, which did constitute them Ministers of such and such places, and so made up that relation: And if they should think, that they are not Formally Ministers of such places; they could not then say, that they were set as Overseers ove● these places by the Holy Ghost, as possibly they will; & they should also think themselves free of the burden of that Charge, and of the souls of the people, as not being committed to their Charge; and the people are not obliged to own them, as their Ministers; and then they are called to consider, with what Conscience they can take the Stipend and Benefice, only allowed by the Law of God to such as take on the cure of souls. And beside, what ever they think; yet the Council did design and Formally intent their fixed relation un●o these places, as proper Pastors thereof, for the Patrons were thereunto to be consulted, & their consent to be obtained, which according to the Established Law, is the way of admitting Formally such and such Persons, to be Ministers of such places; the other Formality of the Bishop's Collation being dispensed with, as to its necessity, and only enjoined under a penalty, or they encouraged to seek it, by a farther favour, as to their stipend; and however, it was ordered, that Intimation should be made to the Bishops and Archbishops, when any Person was Indulged within their Diocies.  
4. It is a part of the Power granted unto Church-Judicatories, to make Canons, and prescribe Rules, and to give Injunctions, concerning the Exercise of the Ministry, the Administration of the Ordinances of Christ, and the like; and this is that Diatactick power, acknowledged by all the Orthodox to belong to the Church-Judicatories; and we might confirm it here, if it were necessary. But in this Indulgence, we see the Magistrate assuming to himself this Power of making proper Church-Canons, giving Rules to regulat Ministers in the Exercise of their Ministry, and imposing such like Injunctions, as used to be prescribed and imposed, by the Judicatories of the Church, in former times. Of these Injunctions, we have had often times occasion to speak before, & need not repeat here what hath been said: Nor need we in sister on that again, which is commonly said, To wit. That their accepting of the Indulgence hath no necessary connexion with their approving of this Power, to make such Canons, and to impose such Injunctions. For, as we have shown, this cannot be evited, and this one thing will abundantly evince it, to wit. If they had received ●his same or the like Indulgence, at the hands of the Prelates, (& this had been likewise more consonant to the established late Acts, before the Act ofSupremacie was made) and if the Prelates had clogged the same supposed Favour with the same or the like Injunctions; had not their accepting of the Indulgence, accompanied with these Injunctions, been a granting of that power unto the Prelates, to make such Canons, and to give out such Injunctions and Restrictions? And if it had been so, as to the Prelates, why not here also, as to the Council?  
5. Upon the same account, we find by this Indulgence, that the Council hath assumed Power of exercising real Church Censures, such as Suspension from the exercise of their Ministry, and total Deposition, or turning out, as they call it. See our first and 7. Remarkes' on the King's Letter. This most be a great invasion on the Power of the Church; and by the Indulgence, this Power, granted by the King to the Council, is confirmed both in the King and in the Council: And who is not convinced how sad this is, when every one might see what invasions daily were made upon the Power of the Church by the Civil Magistrate; and therefore all were clearly called aloud to cry against this, and to stand and withstand, and do nothing that might contribute to fortify them in their Usurpations, or to occasion their further Encroachment, which might have been forborn without sin. And sure I am, if these Brethren had forborn to accept of the Indulgence, as several others did refuse it, the occasion of this and many other Invasions had not been given, and Church Power had not been so formally usurped, as it hath been; not the Magistrates so fixed in the possession thereof, as they are by such ceding.   

III. What Affinity it hath with the Supremacy.  
OUr third Head of Arguments against this Indulgence, is taken from its relation to, affinity with, dependence upon, and confirmation by that woeful Act of Supremacy, made by our Parl. 1669. And sure, all, who are tender of the Concerns of Christ's Crown, and of the Privileges of his Church, will have an utter detestation of and abhorrence at any course, which floweth from, is continued and confirmed by, and cannot stand without that Act, which with one dash doth dethrone our Lord, and spoil him of his Royal Prerogative, and his Church of all her Privileges. What occasion or rise the Indulgence gave unto the Act of Supremacy, and what a foundation it laid for more of that kind, and what a near affinity and likeness is betwixt them, we have shown above, and need only recapitulat things here.  
1. Had this Indulgence been utterly refused, we had never yet seen that Act of Supremacy; for the Council having granted the Indulgence upon the King's Letter, contrary to many Acts of Parliament, knew no other way to salve themselves, but by framing this Act, which both secured them for times by past, and against all hazard also, in going on in the same course, as they had begun, for the future. The grant of the Indulgence was never lawful, nor the granters-secured by Law, until this Act was made. How shall we then judge well of the Indulgence, that gave the necessary rise unto that prodigious Act?  
2. The Indulgence itself would be still an illegitimat brood, notwithstanding of all that King and Council both did, were it not for the Act of Supremacy; for by the Act of Supremacy, that is now made a legal deed, which otherwise was directly against Law. What shall we then think of the Indulgence, that must be legitimat by such an Act? And what a possession that must be, that hath such an Act for its Groundright and Charter, let sober men judge.  
3. The Indulged would, notwithstanding of all that is done by both King and Council, be still seditious Persons, in the account of the Law, and lie under hazard of the same, were it not for this Act, which alone secureth them from the lash of all Laws, made for that end. This Act is their only Right and Ground of Security, whereby they can plead themselves free from all that could be brought against them by foregoing Laws. So that among other things, wherein the Indulged do now differ from all the Nonconforming Ministers, this is one, that the Indulged are under the Protection of the Supremacy, and lie in safety under the wings thereof; whileas others have it not stretched over their heads, and so do not enjoy that chilling warmth, that is to be had thereunder.  
4. This is further confirmed by all the Particulars, mentioned under the two foregoing Heads; for they all belong to this Supremacy, and are parts of the same; and the Supremacy is but one comprehensive, complicated and compounded Act of Usurpation of the Crown of Christ, as Head and King of his Church, and of the Power and Privileges belonging to the Church, and to the Officers of the House of God.  
5. We saw before the same asserted by Worthy Mr john Burnet, in his Testimony against the Indulgence, whose Argument is worth Consideration, and I shall here repeat it: To Settle, Enact, Emit Constitutions, Acts and Orders, concerning Matters, Meetings and Persons Ecclesiastical, according to Royal Pleasure, is the very Substance and Definition of his Maj. Supremacy, as it is explained by his Estates of Parliament. But the Act of his Maj. Royal Indulgence is only to Settle, Enact and Emit such Constitutions Acts and Orders, concerning Matters, Meetings and Persons Ecclesiastical according to Royal Pleasure. Therefore the Act of his Maj. Indulgence, is the substance and definition of his Maj. Supremacy, etc.  
6. Seeing by what is said, it is apparent, that not only is the Usurped Supremacy put in exercise, and confirmed in the hands of the Usurped, by the Indulgence; but also the formal asserting of the extravagant Supremacy, by a plain Statute and Act of Parliament, explaining and confirming the same, is looked upon as necessary to support the Indulgence, and to keep it in legal being: It can not be well denied, that such, as have accepted of this Indulgence, have homologated this Supremacy, and contributed, by virtue of that acceptance, all their power to the fixing of this Usurpation; for more was not required of them for this end; and if they had refused the Indulgence, this Statutory establishment of the Supremacy had never been accounted necessary; nor possibly once thought upon.  
7. As he who accepteth a benefit from a Person, which that Person cannot bestow but by an usurped Power, and doth formally flow from that Usurped Power, doth homologat by his acceptance that Usurped Power; So the Accepters of the Indulgence, from the King and Council, which they could not give but by the Usurped Supremacy, and which formally and kindly floweth therefrom, cannot but, in so doing, homologate that Usurped Supremacy.  
8. If this Indulgence had been granted by the Prelate of the Diocie, would not the acceptance thereof have homologated Prelates Usurpation, and been an acknowledgement thereof? Why then shall not the accepting of this Indulgence, when granted by the King and his Council, be an homologating of their Usurpation? Especially seeing the Usurped Power of the Prelate is but a branch of the Supremacy, and floweth therefrom, Prelates, as such having no Church-Power with us, but what is granted by the King by Virtue of the Supremacy, by the Statute Law of the Land. Wherefore if the accepting of the Indulgence at the hands of the Prelates, would have homologated the Usurpation, that yet flowed from the Supremacy, and consequently the Supremacy itself, though at a step further off; how is it imaginable, that the accepting of the Indulgence from the King and Council immediately, shall not be an homologating of the Supremacy, which is the immediate root and ground thereof?  
9 Such as accepted of the Prelate's Collation, whether to new places, or to the same places, where they had been, before the restauration of Prelacy, will I suppose be looked upon, as homologating, in that act, the Prelate's Power, and consequently the Supremacy, from whence that Power floweth to the Prelate: And what difference is there. I pray, betwixt the Prelate's Collation (which possibly was freer of concomitant Instructions, Rules and Directions, how to regulate them in the Exercise of the Ministry, than was the Indulgence) and the Councils Collation, as to the Fountain, the King's Supremacy, from whence both do flow? By virtue of Power descending from the Head to the Left arm, the Prelates, is the Episcopal Collation granted, and by virtue of Power descending from the same Head to the Right arm the Council, is the Council their Collation granted.  
10. Who homologate a Supreme Authority in the King over all Persons, and all Causes Ecclesiastic, by virtue whereof he may Settle, Enact and Emit such Constitutions, Acts and Orders, concerning the Persons employed in the External Government of the Church, and concerning Meetings and Matters Ecclesiastic, as he in his Royal Wisdom shall think fit; they homologate the Supremacy: This is certain; for this is the Supremacy, as appeareth by the Act explicatory: But so it is, that the Accepters of the Indulgence do homologate this Supreme Authority in the King. Which I thus prove. Such Ecclesiastic Persons, as are willingly disposed of by the Supreme Authority in the King over all Persons, and Causes Ecclesiastic, and go to what places he by his Council appointeth, for the exercise of their Ministry and of Church-Government, and withal receive Orders, Acts and Constitutions concerning Ecclesiastic Persons, to regulate them in the Exercise of their Ministry and Government, made by him in Church affairs, according to his Royal Wisdom, by virtue of his Supreme Authority; these do homologate the Supremacy. But so it is that the Accepters of the Indulgence have done this. Therefore, etc. The Minor is uncontrovertable, & certain, from the Councils disposing of them, and ordering of them to such Kirks, as they pleased, and their yielding thereunto, and accepting of Instructions, Orders, Acts and Constitutions, made by virtue of the Supremacy, to regulate them, in the exercise of their Ministry: all which hath been cleared above. The Major is manifest from this, That to be willingly disposed of by a Power, is to homologate it; and to receive Instructions, Orders, Acts and Constitutions from a Power, is to homologat it; By homologating a Power, I understand an acknowledgement of such a Power in such a Person, by a suitable and answerable compliance therewith, and yielding to it, or Acting under it: And this may be materially, as well as formally done, implicitly as well as explicitly, by the Intention of the deed, as well as by the Intention of the doer: As he who obeyeth an Usurper, and acteth under him, in some place of trust, and receiveth Instructions from him, for to regulate him, doth homologate that Usurped power, by his very deed, though he should hate the Usurper and the Usurpation both, and really wish he were thrust from his Usurpation altogether, and would possibly concur thereunto himself.  
It cannot weaken this Argument to say, that the Indulged Persons never did nor will own the Supremacy, but plainly disown it: For though I am ready to believe this to be true; yet the Argument holdeth; for I speak not of a Positive, Explicit, Formal, Intentional and Express Homologating; but of a Virtual, Implicit, Material Homologating, and such as is included in the deed; and work itself, abstracting from the Intention of the Worker, which is but extrinsic and accidental, as to this: And that the accepting of the Indulgence is an homologating, and a virtual acknowledging of this Supremacy, is clear from what is said, though the Indulged should intend no such thing.   

IV. How it is injurious unto the Power of the People.  
A Fourth Ground of our dissatisfaction with the Indulgence, is the wrong, that is ●ereby done unto the People, as to their Power and Privilege of Free Election of their Pastor. In the accepting of the Indulgence, there was the accepting of a Charge of a Particular Flock, without the previous due Call, free Election, and Consent of the People: (this holdeth, as to such of the Indulged, as were sent to other Churches, than their own.) The mere Appointment, Order and Designation of the Civil Magistrate, was all the Ground of this Relation, and was the only thing that made them Pastors to such a people, together with the Consent of the Pa●ron. This was a way of entry unto a Pastoral Charge, that our Principles cannot assort with, wanting either precept or precedent in the pure primitive times. Our Divines have abundantly shown the necessity of the previous Call of the People, unto a Minister's Admission to a Charge. See Mr Gillespy in his Miscel. Questions Quest. 2. Nor need I hold forth the iniquity of entering by Patrons, whereof our Par. 1649. were fully sensible, when the Church was restored to her Privilege, conform to our First Book of Discipline, Chap 4. Concerning Ministers, and their lawful Election: And to the Second Book Chap. 12. It will be here said possibly, That they obtained the full and unanimous consent of the people. But I Answer (1.) I doubt if this was either universally sought, or obtained. (2.) Where it was had, it was but a mere blind, and, to me, a mere prostituting of ●hat Appointment and Order of Christ, rather than any conscientious Observation thereof. For (3. This call of the People ought to be a free Election and Choice, but here was no free Election left unto them; but whether they did consent or not, the Person designed by the Council was to be set over them. (4.) The free Election of the People should go before the Per●ons Designation to that Charge, and become the Foundation of his Relation to that Flock; but here it was posteriour unto the Councils De●ignation, and was a mere precarious thing, coming in ex post facto. (5.) This Call and Election of the People was not in the least presupposed, as any way requisite, either in the King's Letter, or Councils Nomination and Election. (6.) Nor did they make any mention hereof, when before the Council; nor make exception against the Councils Order or Collation, until this was had. (7.) Nor did they testify their Dissatisfaction with, or protest against, the unlawful usurped Interest of the Patron, and his necessarily prerequisite Consent. (8.) Did such as wanted this unanimous Call or Consent of the People, give back the Councils Warrant, as weak and insufficient?  
2. I would ask, whether they look upon themselves, as the fixed Pastors of those particular Flocks and Churches, or not? If they own themselves for fixed Pastors, what is become of their relation to their Former Charges? They cannot be Pastors of both places, for we own no Pluralities; nor can it be said, that the Councils mere Act did lose their Former Relation, and make it null. And whether they protested at their entry to this new charge, that it was without prejudice to their Former Relation, when the Lord should open a free passage in his good Providence to return, I know not. If they look not on themselves as fixed Pastors, then are they mere Curates, sent of the Council to those places, to preach and perform the other Acts of the Ministry, till further Order, or during their pleasure: And then they cannot be offended, if the people look not on them, as their Pastors; nor carry towards them, as such.   

V. How Erastianisme is hereby established.  
ANother Ground of our Dissatisfaction with the Indulgence, and with the accepting thereof, is, that thereby Erastianisme, the professed Enemy unto and perfect destruction of all true Church-power and Church-Jurisdiction, is established and fortified.  
1. This is manifest from all the Particulars, mentioned above, under the First, Second and Third Heads, which need not here be repeated; for these are parts of Erastian Doctrine, which the Orthodox disowne, and our Church hath resisted and opposed from the beginning: and beside.  
2. Hereby are the Magistrates confirmed in that Usurpation of being proper judges of Ministers Doctrine, even in the first Instance; that is, before any Church-Judicatory take cognition thereof, and pass a judgement thereupon. See our 8. Remark. upon the King's Letter.  
3. Hereby they are confirmed in this Usurpation, that Ministers may not preach in public, or in private, without Authority and Licence had from the Civil Magistrate. See our 12. and last Remark. upon the King's Letter.  
4. How this was confirmed and yielded to by the Indulged, we saw above, in our Examination of Mr H's speech before the Council, Anno 1669. and of that Relation of the carriage and speeches of those, who were before the Council Anno 1673.  
5. We were not ignorant, how from the very beginning of this Catastroph, and in the very First Session of Parliament Anno 1661. an exorbitant Supremacy in Church-affaires was acknowledged to belong to the King, in that, he was declared to be Supreme Governor over, all Persons, and in all Causes; beside what was presumptively asserted in other Acts of Parl. thereafter, as in the Act for the National Synod, and for the Restauration of Prelacy, and others: And how by all these, and other things considerable, it was manifest and undeniable, that Erastianisme was in the ascendent, and that the design of the Rulers was to subject all Church-power unto themselves, and to assume as much thereof into their own hands, as they thought fit, and to have the whole of it subordinate unto them. Now when this design was open and above board, out very notwithstanding and not-opposing, in our Places and Stations, this Erastian Design, was a virtual ceding and yielding unto these Invasions and Usurpations; how much more are they chargeable herewith, who willingly submitted unto the Magistrate's Actual Usurpation of Church-Power; & by accepting of this Indulgence, did put them in Actual Possession of what was but notionally, and in the theory, arrogat formerly, as to Non-conformists?  
6. It is granted by some, and cannot well be denied by any, That the Magistrates principal design, in granting the Indulgence, was the establishment of the Erastian Supremacy: And if so, sure, it was the part of those, who accepted of the Indulgence, rather to have withstood this design, at least by simple refusing of that, the accepting of which (as every one might have seen) would contribute unto this Erastian design, and put them in actual possession thereof. Whether the Magistrate himself doth look upon the Accepters, as hereby acknowledging his Erastian Supremacy, or not, is not much to the purpose; seeing the acceptance, as circumstantiat, was a virtual and real enough acknowledgement and confirmation thereof: And, it is like, the Magistrate did design no more, not regarding whether they should openly & professedly acknowledge such a thing, if he himself were confirmed & secured in the possession of that Erastian Usurped Power.  
But it will be said, That though it be granted, that the Supremacy is now in its exaltation, and that Erastianisme is the great design; and that such, as minded to be faithful, should not cede in the smallest of the Church's Rights, not to the losing of one pin of the Government: And that this Erastianisme and Supremacy hath acted, outed and overturned, at its pleasure; and that the Magistrate, in this offer of the Indulgence, doth still act, according to Erastianisme, and own the same Supremacy, and intent its further establishment: Yet the Indulged did only accept of a licence, which, when abstracted from its offensive circumstances, is a mere relaxation of the rigour of former Edicts.  
To which I Answer. (1.) If this Indulgence did respect nothing but the Persons and Estates of Ministers, than it might be looked on as a mere relaxation of the rigidity of former Edicts, under which they groaned: But it is passed all denial, that this Indulgence relateth more, yea and Principally, unto their Office and function, and is designed (as is confessed) for the Estabishment of an Usurped power over the Function and Ministry; yea, and includeth an acquiescing and submission unto Acts, made and proposed by such, as confessedly act from a Principle of Usurpation, and that for the better Establishment of the same, & confirmation of themselves in the possession thereof; and therefore the accepting of the Indulgence, cannot but contribute to the iniquous ends, proposed by the Indulgers. (2. Whatever that licence (as it is called) may be, or be supposed to be, when abstracted from its offensive circumstances; yet taken complexly with these circumstances, it must be condemned; and however in our imaginations, we may abstract it from these circumstances, yet we cannot do so in point of practice; seeing it is confessed, that the morality of actions do much (at least) depend upon circumstances.  
7. This contrivance of Erastianisme being so notour and undeniable, the yielding unto and accepting of the Indulgence, so conceived, so clogged, and restricted, as it was, cannot but be contributive unto the same; and a plain (though not professed) helping forward of the design. Sure, the refusing of the Indulgence had been a sensible defeating of the design, and would have necessitated the designers, if so be they would still have prosecuted their Intendment (as is probable they would) to have taken other measures, and invented other means, how to have accomplished their ends; and this supposable defeat is sufficient to show, how suitable a medium this was unto the projected end. It cannot be said, for obviating of this, That this is but accidental, and a mere probability: for it hath a necessary connexion with the end, as not only experience hath proven; but the very nature of the thing evinceth, as is abundantly cleared above.   

VI How Prejudicial this is unto the good of the Church.  
THe discovery of this will serve for another head of Arguments against the lawfulness of this Indulgence: for certainly that cannot be a way approven of God, which is not for the Edification of the Body; much less that, which is for its hurt & prejudice. Now that the Indulgence is of this nature, may hence appear.  
1. church-history showeth, what hurt came to the Church by such a course as this, when Arian Emperors, by their own sole power thrust-out faithful, zealous and Orthodox Ministers, and put-in Arian heretics in their places; and now by this Indulgence, the way is paved for the same Course: so that now the Magistrate hath no more to do, to get all the Ministry on his side, and to carry on some corrupt & erroneous design, but to thrust-out honest faithful men, and put-in brevi manu, whom he will. Who will scruple at this now, after the Indulged men have thus broken the ice? and who will once question the Magistrates power to do this, seeing they have so sweetly submitted, in the beginning: Turpius ejicitur quam non admitiitur hospes, it is better holding-out, than thrusting-out.  
2. Our own History showeth us, how noxious it was to our Church, when K. james obtained but so much, as to have an eminent and active hand, or a negative voice, directly or indirectly, in the planting of all the eminent places of the Land, especially of Edinburgh; though he never had the confidence to seek a liberty to do it brevi manu; but did it by collusion with the Commission of the Kirk, which was made to his mind: How quickly had he overturned all, if he had assumed the power to have transplanted Ministers, as he pleased; and if Ministers had complied with him therein, and upon his sole call, or act of Council, had left their own Charges, and gone to places, whither he sent them? And what would these worthies, who opposed all his designs, in maintenance of the Established Order of the Church, and of her Power and Privileges, if alive, now say, to see so many Ministers, under so many obligations to maintain the Liberties of the Church, willingly obeying the Councils Call and Act?  
3. If according to this Method, and the way now laid down, & put in practice, our Magistrates, in all time coming, should follow this course, and put away what Ministers they pleased from one place, and thrust others in where and when they pleased; and in all this should meet with nothing but sweet submission; how long should our Church enjoy purity? And how long should the Gospel be preached in power, in any eminent place in the Land? How long should Gospel freedom be keeped up, & the Gospel flourish? And if all this should be, whom have we to thank therefore, but the Indulged? Would not they have all doing, as they have done? Are not they a sad preparative? May not their example prove noxious to the following Generations? And whither shall we then cause our shame to go?  
4. According to this Example, the Magistrate might quickly banish all purity out of the Kingdom, and turn all the Land over into Popery, by sending all the Orthodox Ministers to the Highlands, or to some one small and inconsiderable corner of the Land (according as in the late Act of Indulgence so many scores were cantonized to one or two Diocies) and suffering Papists to preach where they pleased, or fixing Popish Priests, in every Paroch. And if such a thing were intended, hath not the Indulgence broken the ice thereunto?  
5. Nay, we see that in the very Indulgence, some such design is carried on; fo● by it, the far greatest part of the Nonconform Ministers were Cantonized and shut-up in twoes or three together, in one Corner of the Country, and all the rest of the Land was given over to the will of Prelates, Papists, or Quakers: And if all the Ministers named, had followed the example of others, what had become, ere this day, of the greatest part of the Land? Was then this Indulgence the thing, which the General good of the Church and Kingdom called for? Were the Indulged put in best capacity by the Indulgence, to serve their Generation, according to the necessity of the day? Was this the only duty of the day? Or did the Lord call for nothing else? Well is it, that we have such a proof of the contrary, this day, legible upon the face of that Land; and that the very prisons can declare some other thing.  
6. It being beyond all doubt now, that the Assemblies of the Lord's people in Houses, or Fields, to partake of pure Ordinances, with full freedom of Conscience, hath been signally owned and blessed of the Lord; and hath proven a mean to spread the knowledge of God beyond any thing that appeared, in our best times, whereby the Lord preached from heaven to all, who would hear and understand it, that this way of preaching, even this way, was that wherein the Soul of God took pleasure, and to which he called all, who would be co-workers with him, this day, to help forward the Interest of his Crown and Kingdom. Now, when in despite of this signal appearance of God, and out of enmity to the good done in these meetings, ways of cruelty are fallen upon, to suppress utterly all these Randezvouzes of the Lord's Militia; and these coming short of effectuating the thing, Midianit is wiles are fallen upon, of which this of the Indulgence was the chief, of purpose to keep the Country free of these solemn occasions of the Lords Appearances; can it be thought to be the duty of the day, and that which the Lord is calling to, to contribute our concurrence unto these stratagems of Satan, & welcome an Indulgence, devised of purpose to destroy the work of God? I leave the thoughts of this to themselves, when they are thinking of appearing before their judge.  
7. I shall not insist on that yoke of bondage, in the matter of stipends, which was hereby begun to be wreathed about the necks of Ministers; to the inexpressible hurt and prejudice of the Church. See what was remarked in the 4. place on the King's Letter.  
8. It will be more to our purpose, as in itself it is of greater moment, to consider how hereby a Pathway was made, to make all the Ministers of the Land, in all time coming, wholly subject unto the Council, even in all Matters Ecclesiastic, whether concerning Doctrine, Discipline, or Manners; For hereby they became wholly subject unto the Council, as being accountable only to them; and were so wholly at their Devotion, that they were to stay in the places, where they were set, only dureing their pleasure; and so might be couped from Kirk to Kirk (as some of them were) no otherways, than the Prelate's Curates are, at the pleasure of the Prelate: Thus was the ice broken to the bringing of the Ministry under perpetual Slavery; and what should then become of the glorious Liberty of our Church?  
9 Nay, as we saw above attested by open Printed Proclamations of the Council, there was, in this Indulgence, a base and sinful compacting for the same, which, to me, is the basest of Simoneie. A conditional accepting of the supposed favour, and, as it were, a formal bargaining for it, by taking the liberty to preach and perform the work of the Ministry, on sinful Conditions, even such Conditions, as contained a giving up of the Cause to the Supremacy, and the Erastian Design, as hath been shown above. And what a preparative this was, let any judge. I know, the Indulged themselves will say, they are free of all compacting: And I shall not accuse them further than I know, or have ground: Yet this is certain, that the King's Letter mentioned such and such Instructions to be given to all the Indulged; & it is also certain, that this Letter was not altogether unknown to them, And when the Instructions (which the Council, in plain Expressions, calleth, terms on which they granted the Indulgence, & the 'samine was accepted) were tendered unto, and put in the hand of each of these in particular, who were called before the Council Anno 1673. I heard not of their expressing their Dissatisfaction with these Terms, so as to quite the benefit, or, as we say, to cast the bargain thereupon; And if all the Ministers, that shall ever hereafter be admitted to preach the Gospel, in Scotland, must follow this example, and give but an implicit consent unto these, or the like terms, imposed by the Council, where shall then our Gospel Liberty be? And what shall then become of the Liberty of our Church? And how shall the Ministers than be called the Servants of Christ, and not the Servants of Men?  
10. By the very subjecting to the Councils Instructions, to regulat them in the exercise of their Ministry; they become thereby as formally subject unto them, in Matters Ecclesiastic, as any inferior Civil-Officers, such as Sheriffs, Justices of Peace Baylies etc. who yet, it may be, shall as little observe all their Instructions, as the Indulged have observed theirs this subjecting of the Ministry, in its exercise, unto the Magistrate, is a manifest enslaving of the same, to the unspeakable prejudice of the Gospel, and hurt of the Church.  
11. What prejudice it is to the Church, to want the free and full exercise of Discipline, & that in the lawful Courts of Christ, needeth not here to be told: And yet, in this Indulgence, there was an accepting of the exercise of the Ministry, without the full exercise of Discipline, save what was to be had in a sinful way, by compliance with Prelacy; and so a tacit (at least) consent given unto this want. It will not be of advantage here to say, that the Field-Preachers or Non-indulged Ministers, have no Discipline, & yet preach: For all their preaching is sub cru●e, not having so much as fr●edome to exerce any part of their Ministry, and so are allowed of God to do all they can▪ when they cannot do all they would: and beside, it is alleged without ground; for with no less signal countenance, they exercise some Acts of Discipline, such as receiving of penitents, than they preach, and in both are countenanced as His ●mbassadours. But the indulged are under the lee sheet of the Supremacy, having full peace, countenance and protection, as much, as in our best times, and when our Church was most flourishing; and yet dispense calmly with the want of Church-Discipline, in Presbyteries and Synods; and how some of their Sessions guide, and are constitute, is none of our Glory.  
12. Nor needeth it be told, what prejudice will inevitably follow upon the want of Ordination, whereby a Succession of the Ministry is keeped up, and the word committed to faithful men, according to Christ's Appointment, who may serve the Lord in the Work of the Gospel, in their Generation: How quickly, upon the want of this, a faithful Ministry shall of necessity cease, every one may see: And yet the Indulged have accepted of the exercise of their Ministry, on such terms, or in such a way, as doth utterly incapacitate them for going about the Necessary Work of Ordination. Their Transgressing their Bounds, and violating the Injunctions upon their peril (if so be they do so, that they may ordain some) in order to the keeping up of this Ordinance, is in so far commendable; but is not sufficient to expiate the guilt of accepting the Indulgence, which was thus clogged; as their whole relinquishing of the Indulgence, & betaking themselves to the Fields, with the rest of their Brethren, would prove a commendable afterwit; but would not say, that there was no evil, in their accepting of the Indulgence, but the contrary rather.   

VII. How hereby our Cause and Ground of Suffering is wronged.  
THE Lords good hand of Providence having so ordered it, that once a considerable Company were willing to endure Hardshipe. Want & Tribulation, for the Truth's sake (and therefore choosed suffering rather than sin); which, howbeit it was upon some accounts sad and afflicting; yet upon the account, that the Cause of Christ was owned, the Work of Reformation not condemned, but accounted still the Work of the Lord, was no small matter of Joy: Though it might have been expected, that few or none of all the Ministers, that had seen the great Works of the Lord, should have so relinquished the Interest of Christ, and embraced what once they had abjured; yet we ought to bless the Lord, that so many abode steadfast in the day of Temptation. But how joyful so ever it was to see such a goodly Company, adhering to their Principles, and fully following the Lord; it cannot but be as sad and afflicting, upon the other hand, to see this goodly Bulk wretchedly broken. and to see men stepping off, and that such Men, and so many such, and that after such a way, as cannot but be accounted a falling off from formerly received Principles, and from the Cause and Ground of our Sufferings. Now that the Embracers of this Indulgence are justly chargeable herewith, may appear from these Particulars.  
1. It was a part of the Reformation, which through the special goodness of God, our Church at length, after long wrestling, attained to, that the people should be restored to their Right and Privilege of Calling, and making a free Choice of their own Pastors, according to the example of the pure and primitive Church: And it was because they would not renounce this way of entry, that so many Ministers were thrust out from their Congregations, by the Act of Council at Glalgow. But in the Indulgence, there was an entering into the Pastoral Charge of a people, upon the Act and Call or Order of Council, without this Free and Full Election of the people. The Nominal Call, that was precariously had thereafter, as to some, was but a mock-call, and no foundation of their Relation unto these places, as hath been seen. And how the Councils Act and Order was exclusive thereof is manifest, and confirmed by the Instance of Mr Weer's Process. Sure, as the Election here was null, there being none to choose upon, and the Call prelimited, because the Councils Order did set such an indulged Man over them, whether they would, or not; so the making a show of seeking or of getting a Call from the people, after the Ground of the Relation was already laid, was the exposeing of that Order of Christ's to ludibrie.  
2. Multitudes of the Nonconform Ministers were ejected, and castout of their Places and Congregations, because they would not acknowledge the Power and Interest of Patrons, nor accept of their Presentations unto Flocks: But in this Indulgence, as we saw above, the Interest of Patrons is reserved entire: Though they should say, That they sought no Presentations from Patrons, nor had they any active hand therein, it will not much avail: For even several of the ejected Ministers might have been free of ejection, if they could in Conscience have yielded to so much, and acquiesced in this, that the Patron should have signified to the Bishop his presenting of such a Person, and that without his express Consent, or Formal Acceptance thereof: Yea how many had the Presentation willingly and cheerfully offered unto them undesired?  
3. It is the chief Corner stone of our Reformation, and the fundamental point, whereupon all the wrestle, and sufferings of our Church from the beginning have been stated, viz. That Christ is the alone Head of the Church: But by the Indulgence another head is acknowledged beside Him; when thereby it was declared, that the Indulged held not their Ministry of Christ alone: as we saw above on the first head, and first particular thereof.  
4. So by the rest of the Particulars, mentioned under that head, we see how many ways, there was, in this Indulgence, a defection from former Principles, and a falling off from our grounds, all which we need not here repeat.  
5. We fall from our Principles, and from the cause, upon which our sufferings are stated; when we cede and yield to Adversaries, seeking to overthrow the pillars and grounds of Presbyterian Government: And in how many Particulars Presbyterian Principles are, by this Indulgence, receded from, we have seen above, in the 2 head.  
6. It hath been the Lot of the Church of Scotland, from the very beginning, to be put to wrestle against the Powers of the Earth, encroaching upon the Prerogatives of Jesus Christ, and the Privileges of his Church; and in contending for the same, against all such Usurpation, did the faithfulness and steadfastness of our worthy & renowned Predecessors appear and shine forth; and upon the account of their faithful adhering to the Truth, and bearing witness against all Usurpations, made upon the Rights of the Church, and on the Jurisdiction of Christ, sole King of Zion; and for declining Judicatories acting by usurped Authority, were they all alongs put to suffer in their Freedom, Persons, Goods &c. by Toss, Citations, Letters of Horning, Confinements, Imprisonments, Confiscation of goods, Relegations, Sentences unto death, and Banishments. But now, what a falling off this ground, ceding to Usurpations, Homologating of the Supremacy, & Establishment of Erastianisme is in the Indulgence, is manifest from the Particulars mentioned under the 3. and 5. head.  
7. We need not forget, what was one main ground of the actings of our worthy and valiant Predecessors, in the years 1637 and 1638. viz. That Ecclesiastic causes should be determined by Lawful Ecclesiastic Judicatories, and Civil causes by Parliaments and other Civil Judicatories. But to Homologate a Power in the Civil Magistrate, as such, to cognosce upon, and judge in Church affairs, immediately and formally, is to condemn all these actings, and all the actings of Church and State since, upon that ground; and a plain relinquishing of that foundation. And that by the accepting of the Indulgence, such a power is acknowledged to be competent to the Civil Magistrate, as such, hath been manifested above, in several Particulars, Let us here but name that one Instance of the Councils sole judging of the fitness and Qualifications of a Person for such or such a charge, in reference to his settling there, as Pastor of the place; which is an Ecclesiastic cause, and hath been always so accounted. But it will be said, No man needs question their abilities, some having been Ministers, in the most eminent places of the Kingdom. For answer. I shall not question their abilities, though it may be, the carriage of some of them hath been such, since this defection began, as would make a Conscientious Church-Judicatory not a little averse from admitting of them within their bounds, if the Acts of our General Assemblies, by which they stand censurable, were in any regard. But however, the Civil Magistrate is here made sole competent judge of this fitness; and by what right he hath appointed these to go to the places, particulary designed, he may appoint others to go to such places, for which no Church-Judicatory, acting conscientiously, would judge them Qualified: And who can challenge them upon this account, seeing they are sole judges, themselves?  
8. In King james his days, several faithful and honest Ministers were banished from their own Churches, and confined in other places of the Land, and seeing no hope of getting the Civil Sentence taken off, were necessitate to accept of a call to serve the Lord, in the places where they were confined; but we never find, that they took the Charge of such or such a Flock, upon the Edict or Act of Council, enjoining them thereunto.  
9 Who ever heard before, in our Church, Ministers compeating before the Privy Council, and there receiving Directions, Instructions, Rules and Canons, directing them, how to regulate themselves in the exercise of their Ministerial Function? And when the Indulged Persons did thus, who can assoil them from a plain Defection from our Cause and Principles? Put the case, that some Ministers had done so in the Year 1649. how would they have been looked upon by our General Assembly? Or if our Parliament and Council Anno 1648. had turned out such as were against the duke's Engagement, and thereafter had ordered them; to go to such and such places of the Land, as they thought fit, giving them withal such Instructions, as here were given to the Indulged, if these Ministers had carried but just, as our Indulged did, I leave to all to judge, whether or not they had been looked upon, as Deserters of our Cause.  
10. We know what sufferings those faithful men underwent, when after so long imprisonment they were at length condemned at Linlithgow Anno 1606. for declining of the Privy Council, when about to judge them in the matter of a meeting keeped, or offered rather to be kept, at Aberdeen: But now we find severals Indulged called before the Privy Council, there to be judged concerning their Baptising of some Children within the Covenant; a matter no less unquestionably Ecclesiastic, than was that meeting at Aberdeen; and in stead of giving-in a Declinature, we heard of nothing, but of a simple excuse, that they had not seen those Orders, plainly showing, that if they had seen them, they had obeyed them: was not this a manifest defection from our Principles and Cause?  
11. I might mention under this Head, the Indulged persons their forsaking and laying aside, at the command or desire of the Council, that useful and commendable piece of our Reformation, I mean, the Lectures, or Explication of the Scriptures; against which nothing can be supposed to move our Adversaries, but only that it is a piece of Reformation; yea the only remaining monument of that blessed work, all which they abhor.  
12 We are engaged, as will not be denied, against Prelacy; and yet the Indulged did virtually engage to support that, which they stand obliged to pull down, by receiving of these Injunctions, which ordered them to do many things, tending to the strengthening of the Prelatical Invasion: Of which more particularly in the following Head.   

VIII. How the hands of Prelates are hereby strengthened.  
COnsidering how we stand engaged against Prelates and Prelacy, every sinful course, that hath a tendency to strengthen their hands, and to fix them in their tyrannical Usurpations over the Church, should be so much more abhorred by us; Yea, what otherways might be lawfully done, in this case, should be wholly forborn. We shall therefore take notice of the Advantages given to Prelacy by this Indulgence. As.  
1. Not to mention the open door, that is left unto them, to accept of the Prelate's Collation, nor the encouragement they have unto the seeking and obtaining of this from the Bishop, in and by this Indulgence; we may take notice of this, That hereby they put themselves in prison, and the key of their Prison, door is in the Prelate's hands; for without licence, granted by the Bishop of the Diocie, they may not go without the bounds of their confinment. And, sure, as this is no small disadvantage to themselves, but a manifest exposeing of themselves unto temptation; so it is a great power and advantage granted to the Prelate over them; which slavery and bondage they had been free of, if refusing the Indulgence, they had remained in the same Condition with the rest of their Non-Indu●ged Brethren.  
2. There is in the accepting of the Indulgence, a voluntary withdrawing of an helping hand from the greatest part of the Land, groaning under the Tyranny of Prelacy; and a leaving of the same unto the will and pleasure of the Prelates and of their Curates; for hereby they willingly did give up themselves to be enclosed within their several designed and limited places, and were content their Ministry should be their confined, let the necessity of the Church be what it would, or cou●d be. Thus, as to them, the Prelates, and their Curates were left in the peaceable possession of all the rest of the Land, which was no sma●l advantage, seeing they were secured as to them, in all time coming, and had no ground to fear, that they should ●●ssen their Kingdom, and beat-up their quarters, with Field & House-Meetings, as others Non-Indulged did, and are doing, to the Glory of God, & to our Comfort.  
3. Not to mentione the friendly and brotherly love and correspondence, that some have observed betwixt some of the Indulged, and their neighbour Hirelings, who are under the Prelates the general deadness and slackness as to any zeal against the Prelates and their wicked courses, which is commonly observed, wherever the Indulgence is, is no small proof of the advantage, which Prelates and Prelacy have had by the Indulgence: Prelates themselves will possibly say, that one field Conventicle hath done them and their cause more prejudice, than many preachings of all the Indulged men: Though I am far from: thinking, that the preachings of the Indulged, have any direct tendency to strengthen the Course of Prelacy; yet what I have said being generally observed to be true, themselves are concerned to search, whence and how it cometh to pass, that it is so; as also, how it is that so many observe a greater keenness in them, against the field preachers, than against the Prelates; yea and the Supremacy, even in their Sermons.  
4. It may have some weight, as to this, to consider, how by their accepting of the Indulgence, which floweth from the Supremacy, the Prelates are ready to look upon themselves as justified, in accepting of Prelacy from that same Supremacy, for, may they think, These men cannot blame us for acquiesceing unto the determination of the King, acting by virtue of his Supremacy in Church-affairs, and over all Church-people, and accepting of that Charge and Place, which is given to us, in the Church, from him, who hath full power to dispose of Ecclesiastic Persons, as he will; seeing they themselves have acquiesced unto the determination of the King, acting by virtue of his Supremacy over Church-people, and accepted of what charge and place in the Church he thought fit to give them, and took their Instructions, to boot.  
5. In accepting of the Instructions, they virtually engaged themselves to several things, which could not but strengthen the hands of the Prelates and their Curates. As (1.) To admit none of the people, who live under Curates, unto their Sermons. (2.) Not to admit them to their Communions, without the allowance of the Curates. (3.) Nor to baptise their Children, without the same allowance. (4.) Not to marry any, living within their bounds, without the said allowance, if the place be not vacant. (5.) They are ordered also to observe Presbyteries and Synods, which are now wholly Prelatical. (6.) Matters of Discipline and Censure, which usually came before Presbyteries and Synods, are ordered to run in the same channel. By all which (not to mentione their praying of deuce to the Clerks of those Episcopal Meetings, which was also enjoined) it is obvious and plain, how the hand of the Prelates and their Curates were to be strengthened; and if these Orders had been punctually observed, themselves, I hope, will grant, that hereby the hands of these Adversaries had been strengthened; and if so, sure I am, their receiving of these Injunctions, and of their licence upon condition of observing them, was a virtual engaging of themselves hereunto.   

IX. How it is against our Covenants.  
I Hope, it will be granted, that the obligations of the Covenants, Vows and Solemn Engagments are upon us; and that I need do no more here, than show, wherein the accepting of this Indulgence was against our Covenants; and this is to me manifest from these Particulars.  
1. It is a chief part of that Religion, and head of that Doctrine, that we are obliged by all our Covenants and Vows to defend, viz. That Christ is sole King and Head of His Church, which is His House and Kingdom; and consequently, we are obliged to do nothing, that may wrong His Right, and entrench upon His Royal Prerogatives. But what wrongs the accepting of this Indulgence carrieth alongs with it, against the Royal Prerogatives of Christ, as sole Head and King of His Church, we have seen above, under the first Head, and we need not here repeat them.  
2. We are obliged by our Covenants to defend and own Presbyterian Government, as is granted by all: but in how many particulars this Indulgence crosseth the principles of Prebyterian Government, we have seen above, under the Second Head; and as to all these particulars our Covenants are violated.  
3. How we are engaged by our Covenant against P●elacy, the second Article of the Solemn League and Covenant can tell us; and how many ways the accepting of this Indulgence, did contribute expressly or virtually, unto the strengthening of Prelacy, we saw above, under the foregoing Eight Head: And it is passed all question, that these particulars there mentioned are utterly inconsistent with an Endeavour to extirpate Prelacy.  
4. We cannot be ignorant, that in the Solemn Acknowledgement of sins, and Engagement to duties, we vowed and swore to study and endeavoure to preserve Religion in purity, against error etc. and particularly against Erastianisme, in these words, Because many have of late laboured to supplant the liberties of the Kirk, we shall maintain and defend the Kirk of Scotland in all her Liberties and Privileges, against all who shall oppose & undermine the same, or encroach thereupon, under any pretext whatsomever. And certain it is, that Erastianisme was never so regnant in Scotland, as it is, and hath been, since this Catastrophe began, and that the Liberties and Privileges of the Church are not only now opposed, encroached upon, and undermined, but overturned and quite taken away. Now, how became it all, who minded faithfulness and steadfastness in their Covenant, to stand fast in this Particular, and be tender of all the Privileges of the Church, and to guaird against very thing, which might contributee in the least, or be justly interpreted to contribute unto this Invasion, or prove a consent thereunto? But on the other hand, in how many Particulars, the accepters of the Indulgence stand guilty here, hath been shown above, and may be seen under the Third and First heads.  
5. We are expressly bound by our Covenants, not to suffer ourselves Directly, or Indirectly, by whatsoever Combination, Persuasion, Suggestion, Allurment, or Terror, to be divided or withdrawn from our blessed Union and Conjunction, whether to make defection to the contrary Party, or to give ourselves to à detestable Indifferency or Neutrality. But, now, as to this Indulgence, what a divisive motion it was, is notour enough; and it was, by the confession of some of the chief of the Indulgers themselves, said to be intended for that end; and beside this, the thing itself speaketh out this with a loud voice. How manifest and great a breach is hereby made among the suffering remnant, is beyond all denial; and how great, consequently, and manifest the breach of Covenant is, upon this account, is Alas! too obvious and plain.   

X. How hereby the condemn themselves.  
THis Consideration may also furnish us with another head of Arguments against this Indulgence, That the accepters thereof have thereby, in several Particulars, condemned themselves, as to their former Principles and Practices: And this Consideration may be looked upon, as an Argumentum ad hominum, as it is called: An argument, that may militate against them. Now this self contradiction of theirs appeareth in these Particulars.  
1. I shall suppose, that several of them at least (for I love to judge the best) were no Enemies to Field and House-Meetings, howbeit condemned by the Law; and that possibly some of them did preach sometimes at such meetings; though the Qualification, required in the King's Letter, and presumed by the Council to be in them, to wit, of living peacably and orderly, would say some other thing. And if they did approve of these Meetings, and of that way of preaching, for spreading of the Gospel, and doing good to the suffering Church of Scotland; they could not but, in so far, condemn all courses and ways taken, or to be taken, of purpose to hinder that good work; and consequently condemn the Indulgence, which was manifestly contrived for that end. But now in accepting of the Indulgence, they have approved what formerly they condemned, and have condemned what formerly they approved.  
2. They all, I suppose, do condemn the Supremacy, as an Usurpation, not to be allowed; for I never heard of any of them, save one, of another judgement, in that particular. But in accepting of the Indulgence, they accept of that, which purely floweth from the Supremacy, and which had never been, if the Supremacy had not been usurped, and which hath no legal being but by the Supremacy and its explicatory Act, which is all their legal ground of security, as hath been manifested above: And therefore do Homologate, and virtually approve of that, (as was manifested under the 3. Head, which they have condemned; and so have acted inconsequentially to their own Principles.  
3. I likewise suppose, that they condemn the entry of the Curates, who have entered by the Prelates: And whatever accidental differences may be betwixt their entry, and the entry of the Curates; yet in this main and Principal ground, whereupon both are to be condemned, they agree; to wit. That the entry of both is founded upon the Supremacy: For the Prelates have their power in the Church from the Supremacy: and so doth the Council act in Church affairs by virtue of power, flowing from the King, as Supreme in Churchs-affairs; and Curates enter immediately by the Prelates, and the Indulged enter immediately by the Council; and both enter mediately by the Supremacy, but with this difference, that the Conveyance seemeth to be more Ecclesiastical, as to the Curates, Prelates, as such, being supposed at le●st, Ecclesiastic Persons, and so called; than it is as to the Indulged, the Council neither really, nor nominally being a Church-Judicatory.  
4. They formerly refused to stay with their Charges, by virtue of a Presentation of the Patron, who possibly would have granted it undesired; and yet now they have accepted the same Charges, and some have accepted of other Charges, not without the Consent of the Patrons, according to the standing Law; and the same is expressly mentioned, as had and obtained by the Council, in order to their Legal Establishment. In so far therefore, they cannot but have condemned themselves and their former Principles and Practice.  
5. We know how many of these same Brethren refused the Accommodation, that was offered by B. Lightoun; and therefore would not join nor concur with the Prelates, or their Curates, in their Presbyteries and Synods; and yet with the Indulgence, which they embraced, was this, among other Instructions, given, that they should repair to these Meetings, and refer Causes, usually referable, thereunto; and though they did not obey the said Injunctions, yet their receiving of them, at the Councils Bar, was a virtual Approbation yea and a promise of performance; and that so much the more, that the favour was offered upon these terms, as the Council expressly declared. But further, we may draw a parallel here, whereby it may distinctly appear, that their refusing of the Benefit, offered by the Accommodation, did condemn their accepting of the Benefit, offered by the Indulgence: As (1.) as the exercise of the Ministry in preaching is a part of the Ministerial Function; so is the exercise of Discipline. (2.) As the one exercise doth natively and originally flow from the Appointment of Christ, and Power given by Him; so doth the other. (3.) As it is unlawful to acknowledge and submit to the Usurpation of Prelates, in the exercise of Discipline; so it is unlawful to acknowledge or submit to the Usurpation of the Council, in the exercise of other parts of the Ministerial Function▪ (4.) As in following the Indulgence, we may possibly imagine, that we act by virtue of our Ordination, solely and purely; so in sitting in Presbyteries, we may likewise imagine, that we act by virtue of our first Ordination. (5.) As the Interposition, or Intervention of the Prelates Usurpation altereth the current of the exercise of Discipline; so doth the Interposition or Intervention of the Magistrates Usurpation alter the current of the Exercise of Preaching etc. (6.) As in the exercise of Discipline, in those Meetings, the Accepter of the Accommodation would have yielded himself up to be accountable to the Prelate; so, in the exercise of the Ministry, the Accepter of the Indulgence yieldeth himself up to be accountable to the Magistrate, who gave him these Instructions; in so far as concerneth these? Yea, in the offer of the Accommodation, there was this advantage, That the Accepter had full Liberty granted to him, at his entry to these Meetings, to declare, that he did not renounce his own private Opinion anent Church-Government; and to enter his Declaration in what form he pleased: But the Accepter of the Indulgence had no such Liberty granted to him, though the deed was as manifestly a compliance with Erastianisme, as the other had been with Prelacy. But it will be said, that the main ground of scrupling at the Accommodation, was, that these Meetings were not true Presbyterial Meetings, these being discharged by Authority, and all their warrant in Law removed, and those new meetings being enjoined for establishment of Prelacy, on which they were wholly to depend. I Answer, I am not seeking to weaken any ground of scruple, which these Brethren had against the offered Accommodation; but am only showing, that what grounds moved them to scruple at the Accommodation, these same should have prevailed with them, to scruple at the Indulgence; and therefore shall hold forth the Parallel of the two Cases, even as to this ground: So that (1.) As no act of Civil Authority can lawfully depose a Minister from the Ius and Right of preaching; so neither from the Ius and Right of exercising Discipline. (2.) As Civil Authority can only impede the Actual exercise of the one, in such or such a particular place; so only can it impede the Actual exercise of the other. (3.) Civil Authority could not take away the Ius of Presbyterial Meetings, but only impede their exercise; as Civil Authority could not take away the Ius of a Ministers preaching, as Pastor over such a Charge; but only impede the exercise of that Function. (4.) As notwithstanding of all that the Civil Authority did, Ministers retained a fundamental Right to exerce the Office of a Minister, in their several Congregations; so, notwithstanding of what the Magistrates did, they retained a fundamental Power and Right to meet in Presbyterial Assemblies for the exercise of Discipline. (5.) I● yet, notwithstanding of this, Presbyterial-meetings are said to be quite overturned▪ by the Magistrates discharge, and cassing the Laws made for the establishment thereof; why may not also the Ministers Relation to such a flock as Pastor thereof, be said to be annulled by the Magistrate's Act, discharging him to preach there, and cassing the Law establishing the right way of entry by Free Election of the People, without Presentation of the Patron? (6.) And if after what hath been done by the Magistrates, in taking away the Old Presbyteries with their legal Ground, any new Meetings that are, being appointed for establishing of Prelacy, be Prelatical Meetings; why may not also this new Pastoral Charge, being appointed by the Magistrates, for Establishment of Erastianisme, after all that hath been done, in taking away the Old Relation with its legal ground, be an Erastian Relation; and consequently as much to be scrupled at, as these Meetings?  
6. No doubt, these Brethren would have scrupled to have taken the Bishop's Collation: And in accepting of the Indulgence, I judge, they have condemned themselves in this: For what ever Reasons could have moved to have scrupled that, the same, or the like should have moved them to have scrupled this; as will appear by the parallel, in these Particulars, (1.) If the Indulged think that the Indulgence is but a partial Restitution of the Liberty, whereof he was totally deprived; so the Minister, that accepteth of the Prelates Collation, may judge and say, that it includeth not Ordination, for he was an ordained Minister before; but is only a granting of Lberty, for the free exercise of the Ministry. And he may think, that by no reason he can be construed to acknowledge more, as well, as the Indulged Minister may think. (2.) As he, who submitteth to Collation, acknowledgeth and preferreth the Prelate, as a proper Minister of Jesus Christ; So he, who submitteth to the Indulgence; acknowledgeth the Magistrate, or the Council to be the proper Subject of Fo●mal Church-Power, which is tantamount to the making of them Ministers of ●e●us Christ, yea, which is worse, he ascribeth unto the Magistrate, that Architectomick Power in Church-Matters, which is proper to Christ, the only Head of His Church. (3.) As in Collation there is a formal acceptance, a direct Submission and Recognizance and as significant a Transaction, as if the Bishop did expressly stipulat, and the other Consent and Promise; so in the Indulgence, (as hath been cleared above) there is a formal Acceptance, and a plain Submission and Recognizance; and as Significant a Transaction (if the Council be to be believed) as if the Council did expressly stipulate, and the other Consent and Promise. (4.) Suppose the Prelate should send to an outed Minister a warrant, licensing him to go to another Church, than his own (I state the Supposition thus, in case any should think there is a Difference betwixt a Collation, and such a Licence) would the outed Minister, or any of those, who are now Indulged, accept of the same, and upon that sole Ground, look upon himself as Minister of such a place? If not, why did they accept of such a Licence from the Council?   

XI. How thereby the Meetings of God's People are prejudged.  
IF the Indulged Ministers be not real Enemies to, and utterly dissatisfied with the Assembling of God's People in Houses, or in the Fields, against which the rage of Rulers hath appeared so much, by terrible Acts and Proclamations, and more terrible Executions, (as I desire to think they are not) it will easily be granted, that if their accepting of the Indulgence, be really Prejudicial unto the carrying on of the Work of God, in and by these Meetings, nicknamed Conventicles; or if it be found, that by the accepting of the Indulgence, they have contributed unto suppressing of these Meetings: and consequently, that interpretatiuly they may be charged in part with the Severities, exerced against the same, if, I say, this be made probable and likely, we will have, upon this account, a new Head of Arguments against the accepting of this Indulgence, which deserve some Consideration here.  
What have been the Toss, Harassing, Afflictions, Vexations and Sufferings, that the Servants and People of God have met with: because of their following of this Necessary and Signally blessed Duty, none of the Inhabitants of the Land can be ignorant of; and the Jailours can abundantly witness unto this very day, together with the Barbarous Soldiers, who readily did and do put in execution the cruel Commands of their enraged Masters: And it would be too long and too Tragical an History to make a full and faithful relation of the same. It would be too tedious also to make mention only of all the Acts, Edicts, Proclamations and other things of that kind, that have been made and emitted against the sands Meetings, breathing forth nothing but the height of cruelty and rage, imposei●g exorbitant fines upon all Persons found at those Meetings, threatening death to he Ministers; giving encouragement to Soldiers to apprehend the hearers, by the pomise of their fines and escheats, and to apprehend some certain Ministers by the Promise of two thousand Marks; and to apprehend all others, preaching at ●uch Meetings by the Promise of one thousand Marks, besides other rewards. It w●uld likeways prove too long, to give but an accounted of the Letters of Inter commu●ing, against multitudes both of Ministers and Professors, simply upon this account, Datted Aug. 6. 1675. Whereby all the Subjects were prohibited to Reset, Supply or Intercommune with any of the Persons therein mentioned, or to have intelligence with them by Word, Write, or Message; or furnish them with Meat, Drink, House, Harbour, Victual, or any other thing useful, under the pain of being repute ai●t and part with them, in the Crimes of Rebellion mentioned, and pursued therefore with all rigour. Only, from all these it is manifest, what an eyesore these Meetings have been, and yet are unto the Rulers, and with what edge and eagerness they have laboured by all means possible, to suppress and quite destroy the same.  
This premised, in order to our Design here, we desire that these following Particulars may be pondered.  
1. It hath been manifest above, both from the King's Letter and other Particulars, beside the notoriety of the thing itself, that the Indulgence was contrived of purpose, for this special end, among others to bear down and extinguish these Meetings, nicknamed Conventicles.  
2. It is certain, that all such, as have accepted of the Indulgence, have for the most part laid themselves wholly aside from this necessary work of the Lord, this day, and have received a Letter of ease from this troublesome and hazardous employment of carrying the news of the Gospel, from mountain to hill; (to which the Lord is calling aloud, this day, and graciously encouraging by his wonderful blessing the labours of these few, who yet venture) and have given themselves to rest, under the covering of the Supremacy.  
3. It is likewise manifest, that if all the rest of the Ministers, named in the Councils Acts, had done as they have done, and had accepted of that supposed favour, and submitted unto their Order of Indulgence and Confinement, there had been few left to have carried on that great work of the day, which appeareth to be the work, that God is in a special manner calling unto.  
4. If all had refused to accept of that Indulgence, and had concurred with one shoulder to carry on that great and necessary work of the Lord, the Rulers had been utterly frustrate in their design of banishing these Solemn Assemblies, these Royal Rendevouzes of Christ's militia, and these solemn occasions of the Lords appearing in the power of his grace, out of the Land: And, on the other hand, the accepting of the Indulgence hath encouraged them in their wicked Purpose, fortified them in their Resolution, and animated them unto a following forth of their Design, by all their cruel Acts and bloody Executions.  
5. By accepting of the Indulgence, not only have the Accepters laid themselves aside from this necessary and blessed Work; but likewise all these people, over whom they are set by the Council, are withheld or withdrawn from waiting upon the Lord, at these blessed and wonderfully countenanced Occasions. Whereby the Followers of the Lord are broken, divided, and weakened, and so become a more ready prey unto the Adversary: For  
6. If all the outed Ministers had faithfully and diligently gone about this Work, and had, for that end, divided themselves thorrow the Land, the work had been more successful, the Followers of the Lord had multiplied, and had remained unite in one entire Body; the Adversaries had been put to a demur, and had not goat such Advantage, as now they have goat; and the people of the Lord had had more Freedom to serve him, and had been more secured from Danger: Whileas now, when re●●cted to a few number, their Assembling are the more laid open unto the persecution, and fiery pursuit of Rulers, and exposed more to hazards and grievous Difficulties, as experience hath proven.  
7. Wherefore, seeing by accepting of and submitting to this Indulgence, there is a contributing of a concurrence with the Rulers, in their wicked Design of banishing all these Meetings out of the Land, which manifestly had been defate by a plain & positive refusal of that supposed favour; and seeing the same is so inconsistent with the keeping up of these Meetings, and infallibly effectuateth a relinquishing of them by many, and a diminishing of their number; it is undeniable that the Accepters of this Indulgence have, in so far, and upon the matter, condemned all those Meetings; and consequently approven all the Opprobrious and false Epithers given unto them, and persecution made against them by the Rulers.  
8. Having thus exposed the residue of the faithful of the land, (who through grace are resolved to follow the Lord with full purpose of heart), unto the fury of the Adversaire, They become interpretatively guilty of and accessory to all the Cruelties and Barbarities, used and exercised upon Ministers and Professors, for adhering unto that way.  
These things might be further enlarged and exaggerated; but I choose only to mention them, and proceed,   

XII. How Scandalous and Offensive it is.  
The real ground of Offence, that was in the accepting of this Indulgence, and the Scandal that was thereby given to one and other, is valide enough alone to militate against it, and sufficient to condemn it, unto all, who understand the nature of Scandal, and the dreadfulness of the sin of giving scandal by any thing we do, whether as to Matter, or Manner; and who remember what Christ and His Apostles have said of this Matth. 18: 6, 7, 8, 9 with the Parallel Places Mark. 9: 42. and Luk. 17: 1, 2. Rom. 14. throughout 1 Cor. 8, and 9: and 10. Chapters. And there is no way to evite the force of this Argument, but by affirming and proving, That the Action, at which offence is taken, or may be taken, is not only lawful in itself; but, as circumstantiat, is expedient and necessary to be done; as all Orthodox in this matter know, and as may be seen in the Disputes of our Predecessors against the Formalists, especially in the English Popish Ceremonies; and in the Debates of the Non-conformists in England, this day, with their Adversaries, upon this Head.  
Wherefore, seeing it will be easily granted, that the accepting of the Indulgence, was not a thing in itself necessary, so as it could not be refused without manifest sin against the Lord; and we have sufficiently, by our foregoing Arguments, proven the same to have been sinful. And seeing it will not be sufficient to say, That it was a matter in itself Lawful, or Indifferent, seeing what is Lawful in itself may become, by reason of some Circumstances, Inexpedient, and what is Inexpedient, in so far as Inexpedient, is Unlawful; and by what we have said, we suppose it is apparent, that none can with any show of Reason affirm, that it was Expedient. Seing I say, the matter standeth thus; and seeing withal it had such a manifest appearance of evil in it, and that upon so many accounts, as hath been cleared, upon all which, it cannot but be conceived, to have been very Scandalous and Offensive.  
In prosecuting of this Head, I might here make a large recapitulation of the Particulars, wrapped up in that complex Business, considerable in the circumstances thereof, and in their carriage, at the receiving thereof, and at their receiving of their Instructions, and otherways; and show how, by all of these, they gave offence: But to shun prolixity, I shall leave that, knowing that the Judicious Reader will have observed these things, in the perusal of what is said above.  
All therefore that remaineth here to be done, is to show what appearance of evil, and real matter of scandal there was, in the accepting of this Indulgence: And while I am to do this, I would have no man thinking, that hereby I do in the least weaken my foregoing Arguments, proving it sinful; for it is a truth, that the open committing of a manifest sin is scandalous; and no man can say, that the scandal, arising from an action, maketh that action indifferent, and not sinful, in itself, or extra casum scandali. But because we ought all to be tender of the Spiritual welfare of our Brethren, and carefully to guard against the laying of a stumbling block before them, or do any thing that may induce them to sin, or tendeth thereunto, or to retard them in their Spiritual journey etc. Therefore ex superabundante, an argument hence may be convincing.  
In order therefore to the holding forth of the scandalousness of this action, I shall only mentione the several Persons, unto whom hereby scandal was given, and clear the same in a word.  
1. The accepters of the Indulgence, did hereby give offence unto such of their Brethren, as had the offer, but were not clear, nor convinced of the Lawfulness of the embracing of such a favour, at such a time; for by their example these were encouraged and moved to do that, which they judged sinful and unlawful for them to do: And thus was there a stumbling block, and an occasion to fall, put in their Brother's way Rom. 14.13. And it is evil for any to do such a thing with offence, even though it were in itself, and as abstracted from circumstances, Lawful and Pure Rom. 14: 20. Nay suppose, that those Brethren had scrupled out of mere weakness; yet, if the taking of the Indulgence be not said to be a necessary duty, (as I suppose it will not be said to be) in this case, it should have been forborn, according to the Doctrine of Paul 1 Cor. 8: 9.10, 11. But take heed lest by any means, this liberty of yours become a stumbling block to them that are weak: for if any man see thee, which last knowledge▪ sit at meat in the Idols temple▪ shall not the Conscience of him, which is weak, be emboldened to eat those things, which are offered to Idols? And through thy knowledge, shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died.  
2. They gave offence unto others, who had not this in their offer, yet Judged the accepting thereof unlawful, upon the ground last mentioned; and therefore should have harkened unto the direction of Paul, in a like case 1 Cor. 10: 28. But if any man say unto you, This is offered in sacrifice unto Idols, eat not; for his sake that showed it, and for Conscience sake— vers 29. Conscience, I say, not thine own; But of the others. And accordingly have refused that Indulgence, seeing there wanted not who told them of the evil, they conceived to lie therein.  
3. They gave ground of offence unto the Godly Professors of the Land, who looked upon that course (as they do to this day) as homologating the Supremacy and as strengthening the Erastian Invasion, and so gave ground to them to think, that they had departed from their Principles, and to be grieved thereupon: The consideration of which should have prevailed with them, to have refused this pretended favour, according to the direction of Paul Rom. 14: 15, 16. But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat for whom Christ died. Let not then your good be evil spoken of.  
4. It was a great ground of offence unto the whole suffering Church of Scotland, in them, thus to withdraw from their Brethren, and leave them in the furnace, contrare to their former Engagements; not to mention the other Particulars, wherein we found their sacred Bonds hereby violated, which necessarily became a ground of great offence unto all: Nor to mention these Particulars, whereby we manifested above, that the accepting of this Indulgence, was injurious unto Christ's Headshipe, unto the Privileges of the Church, & to the Principles of Presbyterian Government, and others; from all which it is undeniably clear, that a palpable ground of stumbling was laid before, and offence given unto all the honest party.  
5. Great offence and matter of grief was hereby given unto the few, that continued at their Master's work, in preaching in Houses, or in Fields, as occasion offered; for, hereby their hands were weakened, the number of the bearers of burden waxing smaller, even while the work was growing upon their hand; and they were made, out of a preposterous tenderness unto them, who had thus stepped off, to forbear preaching in such places, where these were Indulged unto, though formerly they used to meet with some encouragement in those places.  
6. Hereby was offence given unto the Prelates, and to their under Curates, when they were hereby confirmed in their Usurpation and Defection: That action is indeed scandalous, that edifieth not (as the Apostles word is 1 Cor. 8: 10.) or emboldeneth, or confirmeth any, in an evil course; the Particulars hereof were mentioned above, under that Head.  
7. There was hereby a stone of stumbling laid before the Rulers, for they were hereby encouraged to proceed in their Encroachments upon Christ's Prerogatives, and on the Privileges of the Church, when they saw their contrivances for that end so sweetly complied with, and heard nothing of a Plain, Direct, Apposite and Intelligible Testimony given against them, and their proceedings.  
8. There is a stone of stumbling hereby laid, before the Posterity, in all time coming; for if the Rulers shall follow this course, & suffer no Minister to be settled any where, but as they please, & shall plant, & transplants as they please, without any regard had either unto the free Call of the people, or the Trial or Examination & Ministerial Mission of Church-Judicatories, & prescribe unto them what Rules & Instructions, they think good; what shall the Posterity do? Will nor Intrants, in that case, willingly submit, and think themselves obliged to do so, having such a preparative before them?  
9 Will not this be an Afflicting and stumbling Consideration to any, that shall read the History of our Church; when they shall there see, with what Courage, Faithfulness, and Heroic Resolution, the Faithful & Zealous Ministers of Christ, maintained by Petitions, Declarations, Protestations, Declinatures, and Sufferings of all sorts, the Power and Privileges of the Church, against all Encroachments and Invasions, made thereupon by King and Court; and now shall see such a company of Ministers, upon such small Temptations, at least, as to hazard, complying with & submitting to more grievous Usurpations, that ever King james did attempt? We no where read, that ever King james, notwithstanding of all the Supremacy, in Church affairs, and over Church-people and Officers, that was assumed by him, and attribute by Parliament to him, did exerte such a Supremacy over Church. Officers, or Ministers, as to plant them, & transplant them brevi manu, as he pleased. And is it not an heart-breaking thing to think, that now, when this Usurpation hath transcended all imaginable bounds, there should not only be no opposition made thereunto; but even a peaceable compliance with, and quiet submission unto the same, now in its exaltation?  
10. What a stumbling thing is this unto all the Reformed Churches, when they shall hear, that so many Scotish Ministers, who refused to comply with Prelacy, have yet submitted to such an exercise of Erastianisme, as is no where else to be found, through the whole Christian world, for any thing I know? Where shall we find the Magistrate, at his own hand Immediately, planting and transplanting Ministers, as he will, fixing and limiting them, according to his mind? Nay I doubt, if even in the Pala●inat, where this woeful weed of Erastianisme did first grow, such an exercise thereof is to be found: or if it be, what a shameful thing is it, that the like should be found in the Church of Scotland, which the Lord hath honoured from the very beginning, to be tried and exercised, upon the point of Christ's Kingly Power, and Headship over his Church, beyond all other Reformed Churches?    

Objections Answered.  
HAving thus shown how sinful the accepting of this Indulgence was, upon many accounts, it remaineth, that we remove out of the way what we conceive can be said, in the defence thereof; to the end, we may give all Satisfaction possible.  
Obj. 1. May not the Magistrate, for ends known to himself, discharge Ministers to preach, for a time; and thereafter permit them to preach? And seeing the Business of the Indulgence was but of this Nature, why might it not be acquiesced unto? Answ. (1.) That the Indulgence was some far other thing, is manifest from what is said: And beside other Particulars, fully spoken to above, this one may manifest the disparity; That it is one thing to permit Ministers to exerce their Office without molestation; and it is a far other thing to Appoint and Order them, to take upon them such or such particular Charges; and to plant and transplant them, at their pleasure, and subject their Ministry in its exercise unto themselves, by giving Injunctions, Rules and Prescriptions, to regulat them in the same. (2.) We heard above, how Mr Calderwood and Mr Rutherford did account even that discharge a degree of Suspension, which is a Church-Censure, and consequently is to be inflicted only by those, who have the power of the Keys. (3.) Worthy and learned Trochreg, in his Commentary on the Epistle to the Ephesians Chap. 6: V. 20. Pag. (mihi) 1122. proveth solidly, that this Power of discharging Ministers the exercise of their Function, doth neither agree to Heathen Magistrates; nor yet unto Christian Magistrates, who, by their Christianity, have received no new Power or Right over Christ's Servants and Messengers; nor may discharge them from delivering their Message; nor depose them, whom they could not ordain; nor stop their mouth, whose mouth they ●ould not open; nor silence them, whom they could not sendforth to preach. (4.) When the Magistrate silenceth, it must either be for a Civil, or for an Ecclesiastic Crime: If for a Civil Crime, he can only do this consequently and indirectly? as Solomon removed Abiathar from the Priesthood, by banishing and confining him to Anathoth. But then (as Mr. Rutherfoord in his Due Right etc. Pag. 434. saith well) he no more removeth a Minister from his Ministry, than a Master Fashioner, a Sailer, a Plougher, a Soldier, a Father or an Husband, from their Work and Respective Employments, when he causeth imprison, hang or behead them for some Crime; nor doth he at all remove him from the Ministry directly, neither can he do it; for that is a Church-Censure, and the Keys are not committed unto him. Nor can he do it for any Ecclesiastic Transgression, wherein he is no competent judge: Nay nor can he indirectly and consequentially, in this case, remove any Minister from the exercise of his Ministry, where the Church is settled in her Power, except only Causatively, by Commanding the Church-Judicatories to do their Work first; that is, first to judge; for in prima Instantia, he may not do it: or Corroboratiuly, by backing the Sentence of the Church-Judicatory with his Civil Sanction and Authority.  
Obj. 2. Though the Magistrate hath not Power to silence altogether, yet he hath Power to discharge the Public Exercise of their Ministry; and again, when he thinketh fit, to grant that Liberty unto them. Ans. (1.) Though this were granted, it will not help, in the case of the Indulgence, wherein was some far other thing, than a mere grant of Freedom for the Public Exercise of the Ministry, as is seen above. (2.) Illud tantum possumus, quod jure possumus: We can be said to have Power to do that only, which we have right to do. Now, I would inquire, how it can be proved, that the Magistrate hath Power granted of God, to discharge the Messengers of Christ the free and public exercise of their Ministry, Directly, Formally and Immediately? (3.) The Practice of the Apostles tells us, that such Commands are not lawful, nor to be obeyed; for they preached publicly, where occasion offered, notwithstanding of the prohibition of the Magistrate. (4.) The Magistrates lawful Power reacheth private places, as well as public places; as D. Voetius maintaineth against the Arminians: If he may hinder an Heretic from preaching Heresy publicly; so may he hinder him from doing it from house to house. And therefore, by the same Argument that he may hinder public preaching, he may hinder the whole exercise of the Ministry.  
Obj. 3. Our Second Book of Discipline Chap, 10. granteth, That Magistrates may place Ministers, when the Kirk is corrupted, and all things are out of Order: And so it is now with us. Answ. Yet it is added in that same place. [That where the Ministry of the Kirk is once lawfully Constitute, and they that are placed do their Office faithfully, all Godly Princes and Magistrates ought to here and obey their voice, and reverence the Majesty of the Son of God, speaking in them.] And though our Divines grant, that when the Church is not Constituted, or is wholly corrupted, Godly Magistrates, after the example of some Godly Kings of judah, and divers Godly Emperors and Kings also, in the Light of the New Testament (as the words run in the place cited, in the Second Book of Discipline) may do much more, than at other times: Yet I suppose, none, for shame, can make use of such a Concession now; seeing our Church was a Constituted and well ordered Church, and had all her Rights and Privileges ratified and confirmed by Law; and all the Magistrates of the Land, from the highest to the lowest, were under Solemn Vows and Covenants, to maintain her Constitution and Order: And what could be more desired, in order to the settling of a Church? Whence then the Confusion, that now is, is come, we all know. And when the Magistrates with their own hand overturn all, shall this Objection be made use of, to countenance their After-practices? That were indeed to teach Magistrates a way, how to usurp and take to themselves all Church-Power, Viz. Let them once, by Iniquity and Tyranny, break the Glorious Order of the Church, and bring all into Confusion; and then forsooth they may warrantably assume to themselves and exercise all Church Power, according to their mind.  
Obj. 4. Hezekiah did apply his Regal Power to the Reformation of the Levites, and to the purging of the Temple 2 Chron. 29: v. 5. and did also appoint the Courses of the Priests and Levites, every man, according to his Service 2 Chron. 31. So likewise did Iosia● 2 Chron. 35. Answ. Neither of these Kings did destroy the Order and Beauty of the Church, but reform what their Predecessors had corrupted. Neither of these did take away the just and legal Power of the Priests, (as our Rulers have taken away Presbyteries and their Power) that they might exerce it themselves, as our Rulers do immediately what Presbyteries should do, in the matter of the Indulgence. Neither of these Kings gave new Instructions, out of their own Heads, unto the Priests and Levites, that they might thereby formally subject the exercise of the Ecclesiastic Power unto themselves; as our Rulers have done. But beside what hath been said to this before, I shall only subjoine the Answer of Worthy Mr G. Gillespie in his Aaron's Rod Blossoming Pag. 138.139. [Hezekiah (saith he) in exhorting the Levites to sanctify themselves, and to cleanse the Temple, doth require no other thing, than the Law of God did require Num. 8: v. 6, 11, 15. and 18: v. 32. Which Hezekiah pointeth at 2 Chron. 29: 11. And why should nor the Magistrate Command Ministers to do the duties of their Calling, according to the Word of God? As for his appointing of the Courses of the Priests and Levites, he did nothing therein but what the Lord had commanded by his Prophets 2 Chron. 29: 25. The like I answer concerning King josiah; for it is recorded that what he did, was according to the writing of David and Solomon 2 Chron. 25: 4. and according to the Commandment of David and Asaph and Heman and jeduthun, the King's Seer Ver. 15▪ as it is written in the Book of Moses Vers. 12.] thus he; and thus wi●hall we see, how impertinent this is to the present purpose.  
Obj, 5. But what can be said of such of the Indulged, as were sent to their own Charges? Several of the Arguments adduced cannot strike against them. Answer, Though some of the Arguments will not militate against them directly, yet the most part will. And further, let these things be considered, (1.) That it was a mere accidental thing that they were sent to their own Charges, viz. because at that time they were vacant; and so, had they not been vacant, these Ministers had been appointed and ordered either to go elsewhere, or not indulged at all. (2.) They were not barely permitted to go to their own Charges, by rescinding the Act of Glasgow, or taking off the Sentence of banishment, by virtue of which they were put from the Actual Exercise of their Ministry, in their own Congregations, which might easily have been done, if the Council had intended no actual Invasion of the Power of the Church; nor had designed the Subjection of the Exercise of the Ministry unto their own Authority. But (3.) They get the same immediate Right to the exercise of their Ministerial Function, which others goat, who were ordered to other places; and this Right is nothing but the Councils Order and Appointment. (4.) And thus in a manner, their case is worse, than the case of such, as were sent to new flocks; for upon the matter they did renounce their old right to the exercise of the Ministry, in those Congregations, where once they had been settled, according to the Order of the Gospel, and took a new Right from the Magistrate, and acted upon his Order. (5.) And why may they not also repair to the Presbyteries and Synods, upon the Councils Order, as well as to these Congregations, seeing they had a right formerly, to exerce the Ministerial Function in the one, as well as in the other; and the Magistrates discharge can no more invalidate the right to the one, than to the other?  
Obj. 6. If it be a ground sufficient to reject the benefit of this Indulgence, because it is supposed to flow from the Supremacy, then much more might we refuse to preach, if the Magistrate should command it expressly by virtue of his Supremacy: And if this be yielded, than it is manifest, that the Magistrate, if he had a mind to banish all preaching out of his Dominions, needeth use no other medium than only tell the Ministers, that he commanded them to preach by virtue of his Supremacy. Ans. (1.) We do not condemn the accepting of the Indulgence, upon a mere supposal, that it floweth from the Supremacy, having seen and manifested, what a real relation it hath thereunto, and dependence thereupon. (2,) Nor is its being a native result and proper effect of that iniquous, and usurped Supremacy, the only ground whereupon we go, in condemning the acceptance thereof, there being many other Heads of arguments adduced against it, and such as prove it unlawful, as it was circumstantiat, though wholly abstracted from all Consideration of the Supremacy, yea and though granted and enjoined by a Church-Judicatory; and though the Magistrate, in granting of it had expressly said, that he did not grant it by virtue of the Supremacy. (3. Yet I shall say further, That the Command to preach simply, and without Limitations, Restrictions, or sinful Conditions, cannot properly be said to flow from, nor to have such a dependence upon that Usurped Supremacy, as this Indulgence hath: For, to command Ministers to do their duty, in preaching of the Gospel, according to the command of God, belongeth to the power, which God hath granted to the Magistrates; and so, natively floweth from his Office: But to set down Limitations, Restrictions and Conditions, regulating the exercise of the Ministry, doth not so flow; and when ●hey are such, as are opposite to the Rules of Christ, it must of necessity be by virtue of an Usurped and abused power: Whence it is apparent, that this Indulgence, containing such Limitations, Restrictions and Conditions, doth not, neither can natively flow from the Office of a Christian Magistrate, nor is an act of Lawful Magistratical Power; as all will confess, who are not taught in Erastus' school. Therefore, though in the case of simple preaching, the injunction ushered-in with an express mention of the Supremacy, as its ground and rise, would be but a ridiculous scarecrow; yet in this other case (which is the case of the Indulgence) it would be an open spreading of the net in the sight of the bird, & more than a sufficient warning for wise men to beware (4.) Though a Command to preach, according to the Rules of Christ; cannot be accounted to flow from this corrupt Supremacy, even though the Magistrate shall say so much, in plain terms; Yet a command to preach in this place, and not in another place, and to preach so and so, according to such Limitations, Rules and Prescriptions, and according to no other (as it is in the case of the Indulgence) may be said to flow natively from the corrupt Supremacy, even though the Magistrate should say in express terms, that it did not; because it is done by an Usurped Power, viz. a power of judging Ministers Qualifications, of Ministerially sending them, of Regulating them in the exercise thereof etc. All which belong properly to the power of Church-●udicatories; not to mention the spoiling of the people of their power of free Election. Therefore preaching, when simply commanded, cannot be condemned, even though the Magistrate should affirm, that the command is given by virtue of his Supremacy; when the accepting of the Indulgence cannot be justified, though in the granting of it no mention was made of the Supremacy; much less, if this were expressly prefixed. (5.) The visible ends of Magistrates giving forth of commands, which may be known by several Circumstances, may do much to clear and determine Christians, to obey, or not obey, and so a command, materially the same, may in some cases be obeyed, in some cases not. So that, when the Magistrate, manifesting his Intention to root-out the Gospel, shall command all Ministers by virtue of an Usurped Supremacy, to preach the Gospel, the material command may be obeyed, and yet the Magistrate frustrate of his Intentions: But when he commandeth a few, and only a few, by virtue of his Supremacy, to preach here or there, as he pleaseth; and upon such and such terms, as he is pleased to prescribe, and under such and such Limitations and Restrictions, as he is pleased to enjoin, to the manifest hurt and detriment of the Kingdom of Christ, he is to be disobeyed, and frustrated of his pernicious ends. Whence we see, how different the cases are. (6.) When the thing enjoined, and that expressly by virtue of the Supremacy, is not only Lawful, but Necessary by virtue of a command of God, as is the simple preaching of the Gospel; the prefixing of the express mention of the Supremacy cannot alter the Nature of the duty, nor be any ground of laying aside the duty so enjoined. But when the thing enjoined is not only not necessary, but, as circumstantiat, is not Expedient nor Lawful, than the expressing of the Supremacy, as the ground of the command, is to be noticed, and may ex super abundante deter from Obedience: Now this is the case of the Indulgence, as is cleared above. (7.) If that supposed command of preaching the Gospel came forth to Ministers, already settled in their Ministry, the mention of the Supremacy might be sufficiently delete, by a Protestation or Declaration of their preaching, and purposing to continue in preaching by virtue of Christ's Supremacy; & silence as to this, I judge, would be dangerous: But if this command were given to such, who had been by violence ejected, and put from their work, and detained therefrom, until they should thus acknowledge the unlawful Supremacy of the Magistrate, I suppose there might be ground here for a demur.  
Obj. 7. It seemeth then, you would not be for Ministers returning to their own Charges. if the Magistrate should grant such an Order or Permission? Ans. (1.) Either this Order or Permission would be granted with an express mentioning of the Supremacy, as its ground, or not: If the Supremacy be laid down as the ground, and nothing else in the circumstances be observable, to create a scruple; I judge it necessary, that even in that case a plain and positive Protestation against that Supremacy be given in, that it might appear, they would not so much as seem to homologate that sinful Usurpation. (2.) If no mention were made of the Supremacy, but only a simple permission granted to return each to their own Charges; than this liberty would either be granted to all without exception of any, or only to some: If only to some, I must needs say, that as matters now stand, I should think it should not be accepted, even though freed of many other clogs; and that because, the wicked design of further dividing the honest party, should hereby be made manifest and obvious, contrare to our Covenants; and hereby, though the Persons themselves should be freed of trouble, and the Particular Congregations might receive some advantage, if withal freed of the Curates; yet the public good of the Church, which is preferable to any particular good, should be prejudged; & the Rulers should be also confirmed in their Usurpations & Encroachments; which by all means should be guarded against. (3.) If this liberty were granted to all, than it would either be granted with a confinement to these bounds, or without it; if the former were said, than the design would be obvious, to stop the free course of the Gospel, and to prejudge other places of the Land of the benefit thereof; (for ●hough all the outed Ministers, now on life, were restored to their former Charges, many places would remain void of faithful Pastors) Now this should be guarded against, & that the more carefully at this time, when by Reason of the prevailing course of Apostasy, so great a part of the Land hath been drowned in Ignorance, and led away with a prejudice against the work of God: For every Minister of the Church of Scotland is bound before God, to do what in him lieth to remedy this evil. If any should say, what can be more required of a Minister, at any time, than to be faithful in his particular station; seeing he hath no oversight over the whole Church, and he is not to carry, as an Apostle. I Answer, Every Minister hath a prior relation to the Church universal, and a near relation to the particular National Church, whereof he is a Member; and this Relation is antecedent to his relation to a particular flock, in order of Nature. And as in a Church well ordered and constituted, the edification of the whole requireth, that each Minister be particularly fixed, in the ordinary exercise of his Ministry, to a particular Charge, with a capacity to officiat elsewhere, as providence calleth: But in a time of general corruption, the edification of the whole body requireth, that Ministers (when few) be not restricted or limited to particular places, to the manifest and inevitable prejudice of the whole, or of the major part of the Church. Seeing then providence hath n●w loosed these Ministers from the actual exercise of their Ministry, in their respective parochs; I think they are called to consider, how and on what terms they become fixed again; especially to see that their fixing be not to the undeniable prejudice of the Church National, and be not a virtual denying of their relation to the 〈◊〉. Further, by this confinement they should be out of all capacity to meet together for the exercise of discipline in Presbyteries and Synods, conform to our principles; as also to ordain a succeeding Ministry, and to provide for other vacan● places, which this time calleth for; as also they should be out of a capacity to help others at Communions, according to our laudable custom, and to preachto such as are under Soul murderers, and Traitors to Christ and his Interest, in this day of de●ection. (4) If it be without this Confinement, than it will either be with some one or other of the Prescriptions, Rules, Instructions, and Conditions, with which the present Indulgence is clogged; or not: If it be, than the same reasons that militat against the present Indulgence, upon that account, will equally militate against this. 5. If it should be free of all these entanglements and grounds of scrupling, I leave it to Christian prudence to consider; Whether, as matters now stand, the Lord be not rather calling them to preach his name on the mountains, seeing this way hath been so signally blessed of the Lord, and is daily more countenanced of him, than their labouring in their respective Particular Charges usually hath been; and seeing it is undeniable, that the Adversaries are not as yet really repenting of their opposition to the work of God; and therefore, that any such permission (if granted) could not be supposed to flow from any love to the Prosperous progress of the Gospel; but rather from the contrary, as is clear in the Indulgence already granted; and to flow from a purpose to entangle and ensnare, yea and endanger both Soul and Body; if not from a purpose, or design to destroy all at once.  
Obj. 8. The benefit of freedom and liberty of preaching the Gospel, is so great, and the duty is so lawful and necessary, and of so great import to souls, that many things may be warrantably comported with, in order to the obtaining of it. Ans. I willingly grant the lawfulness and necessity of this important duty of preaching the Gospel: But I see not the strength of this Argument; for the Gospel was never in bonds, except by our timorousness and sinful relinquishing of duty, because of a supposed Lion in the way. The Gospel might still have been preached, with no greater Inconvenience, than it was by the Apostles and others in the primitive times, and possibly with much more success, than it hath been done by the Indulgence. And every one may see, that the Indulgence was granted by such, as did not design the Gospel's advancement, but the imprisoning of the same rather with the preachers there of, both by confining the Persons Indulged, and by hindering, so far as they could, the remarkable progress of the Gospel, in the blessed Assemblies, in Fields and Houses. This objection than can have no force, seeing the Gospel was and might s●ill have been preached, without this Indulgence, though it is true, with less ease, peace, and quietness to the preachers and hearers; yet, I am sure, with more inward quietness of mind, and acceptance with God, and with more ground of hope of a rich blessing to follow their pains, as experience hath proven: Unless it be said, that the Gospel should not have been preached, without freedom and liberty granted by the Magistrate; and if this be said, not only shall all those, who have preached at Conventicles (as they are called) be condemned; but even Christ himself and his Apostles, who preached to few Assemblies, but such as might have been called Conventicles, shall be condemned also.  
Obj. 9 The outed Ministers having hitherto groaned under Edicts, which they no otherways acknowledged, than by a submission purely passive, the present licence, abstracted from its offensive circumstances, is such a relaxation, that if only limited to its rigid measures by casual impossibility, it would not be rejected. Wherefore unless it be proven, that the use-making of this favour doth Homologate with these exorbitancies, the rest is nothing material. Ans. The outed Ministers groaning under, and no otherways acknowledging than by submission purely passive such Edicts, as respected their Persons and Estates firstly, and Principally, can say nothing for an active submission unto such Edicts, as more nearly relate to their Office and Function; or for acknowledgement of such Edicts, as are made and emitted by such, as act from a Principle of Usurpation, and in order to the strengthening of themselves in the same; seeing the difference is vast betwixt an Active and a Passive Submission; and an acknowledgement herein, by an Active Submission, contributeth to the iniquous ends, proposed by the Supremacy, which is sufficiently confirmed by the Magistrat's projecting, in this offer made and accepted, his further Establishment in the Usurpation. (2.) Hence we see, that this Licence, (as it is called) if not abstracted from its offensive circumstances, will be granted to be such a Relaxation, that though limited to its rigid measures, even by a casual impossibility, could hardly be accepted: And though in our imaginations, we may abstract Actions from their offensive circumstances; yet in point of Practice of moral Actions, such abstractions cannot be made, as will salve Conscience; seeing it is confessed, that the morality of Actions doth much depend upon circumstances. (3.) Though a licence so abstracted, and limited to its rigid measures by a casual impossibility, may be accepted: Yet, a licence, which cannot be abstracted from all its offensive circumstances, aught to be rejected. And though a Relaxation, made rigid by casual Impossibility, may be accepted; yet that will say nothing in our case, where no casual Impossibility, but a moral transgression, cometh in consideration. A casual impossibility is such a restraint, as may quiet the Conscience, if so be it be not caused or occasioned by our sin; but such hath no place here. (4.) How the accepting of the Indulgence doth homologate with these exorbitancies, hath been seen above.  
Obj. 10. The Rulers did not assign the Ministers to particular Charges by express Deputation, but only appointed them to repair to the parochs designed, permitting and allowing them there to preach and exerce the other functions of the Ministry. Answ. We saw above, that by the Indulgence, there was an express Deputation, and a particular assignment, and a plain warrant and licence granted. Hereby it would seem that none of these Indulged do look upon themselves, as proper Pastors of those places; and so can take no Pastoral Charge of them: And if so, they cannot be offended, if the People own them not as Pastors, but go and hear others, according to conveniency, and look upon them, as such, as are allowed to preach by the Magistrate, without molestation; but not as having any Pastoral Charge over them; and yet forsooth they must enjoy the maintenance of a Lawful Pastor: Which things cannot well hang together.  
Obj. 11. Though to yield to the Magistrate, only appointing as in the Act, would be a sinful compliance, in a settled enjoyment of our Liberty; yet after the ruineing overthrow, given to all Church her Liberties, the acceptance of something, in effect a Relaxation, however sinful upon the Granters Part; yet on our part not burdened with sinful Conditions, cannot be condemned; for the real Opposition of things and determination of events set the periods, according to which, that, which in the beginning of an evil Course, may be duty, in its prevailing and establishment, through change of circumstances, whereon its morality depends, may be impertinent. Answer (1.) Though I yield, that a change of events may, in some cases, call us to the use of other means, more effectual, as matters than stand, for gaining our point, or for keeping our Rights: Yet to assert in general, that the Determination of events setteth the periods to moral Duties, seemeth to me dangerous, especially in our case, wherein the contest is not for our own Rights, Privileges, or Advantages; but for the Prerogatives of our Master's Crown, and the just Privileges of our Mother, the Church, wherein we have no liberty to come and go, as in our own Particulars. (2.) It is then confessed, that the Rulers, by this Indulgence, have made an Encroachment upon the Liberties of the Church; and that to yield unto this appointment had been a sinful compliance formerly, when the Church was in possession of her Liberties, even though the Appointment had not been so burdened with sinful Conditions, as now: Hence we also see, that even this Usurpation is inconsistent with the Church's Liberty, and that it is no maintenance of this to yield to the Usurpation. (3.) Then it must be said, that all our former Engagements, to maintain the Prerogatives of Christ's Crown, and the Privileges of the Church, are now so far annulled, by the overthrow given to both by the Rulers, that we may freely comply with them in that, which formerly had been a betraying of all: This, I confess, would open a door to a large compliance. When a ruineing overthrow was given to our Civil Rights and Government, by an Invading Enemy, the very acceptance of what in effect might have been accounted a Relaxation, was by men accounted a treasonable Compliance, and accordingly punished, at the King's return; and shall we carry thus in sublunary things, which are both alterable in themselves, and under men's Power; and yet be less Zealous and more Indifferent, in the Matters of Christ, which as Christians we are obliged to own; and by the Supervenient Obligation of Vows, Oaths and Covenants engaged to maintain, as well against Erastians', as against Papists, Prelates and Malignants? (3.) This Assertion will condemn the Zeal of our Forefathers, as not being according to knowledge, nor morally good, according to the change of circumstances, and periods, set by the determination of Events. Yea if this be a fixed Rule, that such a change of circumstances will make it impertinent, yea and sinful for us to refuse to do that, which, while matters were entire, had been a sinful compliance; how much more will it make it impertinent and unlawful for us to endeavoure a change: For if it alloweth a compliance, which in so far confirmeth the Usurper, in his unjust Possession, after the ruineing overthrow given, it will certainly not allow of any Opposition. (4.) I grant, when a Robber hath spoiled us, we may lawfully take part again, rather than lose all; or when an Invader overrunneth the land, and spoileth us of all our former Privileges, we may receive some again, though when matters were entire, it had been a compliance to have done so: But that will not answer our case; because we have more Power over our own Particulars, than overChrists Matters: we may in some cases voluntarily give all our own away; but we cannot do so, in the Matters of Christ, and of His Church: And therefore, what at any time would be a sinful compliance, or an unlawful giving away of Christ's, and the Church's Rights, cannot be lawful, even after the Enemy hath overthrown all. (5.) I grant likewise, that after an Universal overthrow of the Privileges of the Church; we may lawfully accept of little, when more cannot be had; yet that little must be such, as was not unlawful, at any time, to be accepted of; and we must accept of it, in another manner, than could ever have been accounted a sinful compliance. (6.) Though what is said in the Objection might have some weight, when that thing can be had no other way, than such, as would formerly have been accounted a compliance: Yet it can have no weight, in the case of the Indulgence; because liberty to preach (which is here called a Relaxation) may be had without this appointment of the Rulers, and that with no less countenance, and approbation of God: So that in the Accepting of the Indulgence, there is a needless compliance with the Usurper, and an unnecessary confirming of him in his wicked Usurpations.  
Obj. 12. That, which in the case of standing Liberty, would be an insufferable Imposition, and its refusal, duty, may, as it is from God, in the case of lost Liberty, be looked upon, as a little reviving in our bondage, and embraced with a sinless Submission; and he, who thus humbly and sincerely layeth hold on it, may be very assured of the Lords Approbation therein. Answ. When a people have been following their Duty, in defence of their Lands and Liberty, and are in Providence broken by an Enemy; their Posterity, or even they themselves, may willingly submit to, and lay hold on that, which formerly had been an insufferable Imposition, and might have been justly refused; but then they must have had no sinful hand, in the loseing of their Liberty, otherwise it shall be but a continued compliance; and we must suppose, that they are now out of case to own and contend for their Liberty. Which holdeth not, as to the Indulgence; for as there was a sinful ceding at the first, in not resisting unto blood, striving against these Usurpers, by Protestations, Declarations and other Means called for, in the like case, whereby this acceptance becometh but a continued compliance, on the matter, in the same Persons: So the manifold Obligations we are under, bind unto a constant and perpetual contending for the Prerogatives of our Prince, and the Privileges of his Church, against all the Enemies thereof: And no case of lost liberty will warrant us, to submit, or accept of that, which formerly we were bound to have refused, and to have looked upon, as an insufferable Imposition. What may be said of the Posterity, born and brought up under that loss of Liberty, cannot advantage us in this Generation, who, when we can do no more, are obliged to transmit the Controversy of Zion, and the Cause, as in foro contradictorio, to the Posterity; that they may see the Cause, though not prevalent, yet not quite sold and given up; and so may serve themselves heirs to our Contending for the Interest of our Lord. And for this cause, ought we to be tenacious of these Rights, and do nothing that may strengthen our Adversares, and weaken our Cause: and this, I suppose, would yield more peace, than the accepting of that, which is called a little reviving, but indeed is a weakening both of the Cause, and of our Party. It is laudable Constancy, in this Case, not to yield or grant one hoof: But what pusillanimity, yea and treachery will it be, by ceding and accepting of such supposed revivings, to put ourselves and our Posterity out of all case to recover our Liberty, and to bury with our own hands the very memory of the good old Cause, for which our Predecessors, and we sometime, have contended with Zeal and Earnestness; especially when, we may have the same thing, which is called a reviving in our bondage, another way, with Approbation of God, with less Scandal to others, with more Advantage to the Cause, and less Advantage to the Enemy, though with more trouble and less quiet to ourselves?  
Obj. 13. Though the Magistrates principal Design, in this matter, be the Establishment of his own Supremacy: Yet the accepting of this favour cannot be so much as an Interpretative yielding thereunto, as may be clear by this Supposition, that the Magistrate, without any change of Principle or Design, had ordered all Ministers to their own Churches. Answ. (1.) This being confessedly the Magistrat's principal Design, in granting this supposed favour, our acceptance cannot but be accounted by him a real contributing of all, that is required of us, thereunto; and as it was circumstantiat, could not but be, on our part, even because of what the Magistrate did rationally account to be unto him, a virtual acknowledgement, and a real Confirmation thereof. (2.) If the sending of the Ministers to their own Congregations, had been by a Civil annulling of the former Sentence of Banishment, as it could not have flowed from the Supremacy; so neither could it have contributed unto his Usurpation: But if the sending of them to their own Charges had been every way, after the manner of this Indulgence, it would not have altered the case to me; for as I said above, his reentry to his Former Charge, after this manner, would have been a virtual annulling of the Ground of his Former Call, and Interest in that place, and over that People, and not a returning with full Freedom and Liberty.  
Obj. 14. The Magistrate proposing this Indulgence by way of Command, not attending my pleasure, my obedience to the Command cannot imply an engagement to the Prescriptions annexed; nor doth the Magistrate discover the least Intention, to oblige me thereunto by consent; nor is in this matter treating with us, expecting our formal consent for his security; and therefore I may accept the favour, without the prescriptions, there being no formal Compact here. Answ. (1.) Though the Indulgence be propounded by way of Command, the Council thinking it below them to Act otherways: Yet both the Nature of the thing, and the concomitant Acts, made of purpose, to Limit, Restrict and Qualify the thing proposed, and to Instruct and Oblige the receiver, saith, that the accepting of the First doth virtually engage to the Second, both making up one complex grant, or one Indulgence so qualified, limited & cautioned. (2.) Though the Council did not call for any formal and express engagement from them, unto the performance of these Injunctions; yet their carriage towards Mr. Blair, upon hisPositive renounceing of these Injunctions, showeth, that they meant these Injunctions for Conditions; & this also they expressly declared in their after Proclamations & Edicts, as we saw above. (3.) Who accepteth a favour, offered with its burdens, must accept it cum onere, howbeit the offerer, being a Superior, doth not expressly require an explicit Consent, but resteth satisfied with his own Intimation: As when a Father granteth to one of his Children such a portion of Land, and withal ●ntimateth, that it is his will and pleasure, that he take on him the burden of so much d●●t; though the Son should not be required to express his consent to the Condition of the Debt; yet his accepting of the benefit thus burdened, obligeth him to take on the Debt: So here, because Mr. Blair did disowne the Conditions, though his formal Consent was not required, he was denuded of the Benefit; and therefore the rest took the Benefit with its burden; and could not, while accepting the favour, account themselves free of the Conditions, or not-obliged to perform them, seeing in accepting the one, they accepted the other, both making up one complex business. Wherefore, though this Indulgence be given by Magistrates, who love to act imperiously, and by way of Edict; yet it being granted as a favour, the accepting of it, both as to the thing itself, and as to the sense and meaning of the Granters, includeth a virtual engagement to the Observation of the Rules and Conditions annexed.  
Obj. 15. Although the Magistrate had expressly prefaced his Supremacy unto the grant of this licence; yet a Protestation on the accepters part against the same, would sufficiently have purged their use-making of the favour, of all sinful concurrence. Answ. (1.) Though this were granted (which yet cannot be) yet it cannot avail the accepters, who made no Protestation. (2.) Though no mention was made of the Supremacy; yet the accepting was so foul, upon many other accounts, that no Protestation against the Supremacy, if mentioned, could have salved the matter, as we saw above; and their after acceptance would but contradict their Protestation.  
Obj. 16. Though the Magistrate hath carried his Supremacy above the highest, yet he never judged the power of Order worth the assuming; so that the allowing to preach mentioned in the Act, joined to permitting, and directed to none but to Ministers, antecedently ordained, cannot be a just ground of scruple. If the Magistrate had simply appointed every other Minister to his own Church, allowing him there to preach, to have offended at the word allowing, would have been an excessive niceness. Ans. Though the Magistrate never judged the power of Order (strictly so called) worth the assuming; yet it may be thought, that he judged that power worth the assuming, whereby the Authority of the Ministry, and the Exercise thereof, should be looked upon as flowing, and as derived from him: And Ministers were, I think, called to be careful and circumspect, lest by doing and accepting of any thing, they might interpretatively and virtually acknowledge and consent to this Power. (2.) Though this allowance was granted to such, as had been ordained Ministers before, yet the same, flowing from the Supremacy, and being more than a mere permission, could not but import their deriving of a power to exercise the function, in such a place, from him; and so prove a most just and weighty ground of scruple. (3.) Nor will the supposition of his sending every Minister to his Church, wholly take away the scruple; for his simple annulling of the prior Act at Glasgow, would have been sufficient for that end; but when, instead of this, he not only did say, he permitted them to preach again to their former flocks; but also that he allowed them, and that after he had invaded the Throne of Christ, and assumed to himself the Fountain of all Church power; so that both as to the exercise of the Ministry, and as to the exercise of it in such a place, they should depend on him, I think there should have some ground of scruple remained: For might it not be thought, that by their ready acceptance, without a previous, full, faithful, plain and public Declaration and Protestation, they had now derived their power from another Head, than formerly, and stood now upon some other new ground? And in this case, I should think, that offending at the word, allowing, were the kindly work of a tender Conscience, zealous for the Glory and Interests of Christ, and careful of the credit of the Ministry; and no excessive niceness.  
Obj. 17. The Ministers Indulged do above all things own their Master's Ordination, as the only proper foundation, whereupon the exercise of their Ministry, by the permission of this licence, doth subsist. All the regard they have to the Magistrates allowance, is, that they look upon it, as the removal, de facto, of his unjust restraints, hitherto Invincible. And neither by form of acceptance, nor by engagement, do they in any sort acknowledge any of the Magistrates wrongs; but are ready by a plain declaration to purge themselves, even of the suspicion of a simple acquiescence. Ans. (1.) I shall willingly yield, that the Persons concerned do own their Ordination; yet we must distinguish the Intention of the work, and the Intention of the worker; though they may have no Intention of invalidating their prior Ordination; yet their accepting of the Indulgence may virtually include this; and so their Practice may contradict their Principles. (2.) Their Masters Mission is only their proper, sure and solid Foundation, whereupon the exercise of their Ministry should subsist; but is it not manifest, that the accepting of the Indulgence doth virtually say, that as to the Ministry they depend upon the allowance of Men; yea of those, who assume to themselves an Headshipe over the Church, and a Fountaine-power, from which this Exercise must natively flow, and be derived. (3.) These restraints of preaching the Gospel were not invincible Physically, nor Moraly: Neither were any such restraints, as such, formally removed, nor a pure permission granted. But the Indulgence contained an Authoritative Enjoining and Warranding, as also a Qualifying, Restricting, and Regulating the exercise of the Ministry; and all this in prosecution and confirmation of an Usurped Supremacy; and this was a far other thing, than a removal de facto of a former restraint. Now their Subjection unto this Encroachment, testified by their accepting of the Indulgence, so conveyed, is much more, than the acceptance of the benefit of a bare Permission: And all know, that they might have exercised their Ministry, without this Indulgence, to the Glory of God, the Edification of the Body, the Confirmation of the Principles of Truth, concerning the Ministry, the Defeating of the corrupt Erastian Designs of the injuriously encroaching Magistrates, and to the offence and scandal of no Person. (4.) Though they do not expressly and in terminis acknowledge any of these Wrongs; yet, by their accepting of the Indulgence, so conveyed, as is said, they may virtually and upon the matter acknowledge this: and their plain Declaration to purge themselves, will be but a contradiction to, and a condemnation of their own deed, because the Imposer can only put a sense and gloss upon his own Injunctions; and the granter of a warrant and favour, on the same; and in his sense it is, at least virtually, accepted by all, who accept of it, if plain dealing be owned; and I suppose Ministers, while dealing with the Council, should not walk upon fallacies, or mental reserves, or on what is equivalent.  
Obj. 18. The accepting of the Indulgence did Import no subjecting of the Ministry to men's arbitrary Disposal, but only a subjecting of the persons, or rather an acknowledgement, that the persons are already in subjection, which by our long silence & sufferings is too apparent: But if we have hitherto thus contentedly acknowledged this, to the restraint of our Ministry, shall we now be so unhappy, as to wrangle about it, in prejudice of a relaxation? Ans. (1.) The act of Indulgence did not only mention Ministers repairing to such or such places; but spoke likewise of the exercise of their Ministry, which it allowed them, and for which prescribed several Rules and Injunctions, limiting and regulating them, in the same; & though this did comprehend a subjection of their persons also; yet it is by virtue of a prior Subjection of their Ministry, as being made liable to punishment for not-observing the Rules and Injunctions prescribed. (2.) These sufferings indeed declared a subjection of their persons; but their silence shall be found (I fear) to have done more; And their former sin can be no ground to justify their present practice, in accepting of this Indulgence, which instead of being a relaxation, is a further wreething of the yoke about our necks.    

A Vindication of such, as scruple to hear and own the Indulged.  
Considering what is said above, both in the Relation, and in the Reasons against the accepting of the Indulgence, whereby the manifold iniquity thereof is manifested, it might seem wholly unnecessary and superfluous to vindicat such, as, beginning to discover the evil thereof, do scruple to look upon those, who are set over them by the Council, as their Ministers, set over them by the Holy Ghost; seeing it may rather seem strange, that any, who adhere to our former Principles, are of another judgement; and that Conscientious Persons did not from the beginning withdraw from them Yet for satisfaction to all (so far as is possible) the grounds of our Vindication of such shall be proposed, in a few questions.  
Only it would be premitted, in what sense we take the question: And therefore. (1.) I do not make this the question. Whether or not these Indulged Ministers, are true Ministers of the Gospel, or aught, in any case, to be acknowledged, & looked upon as such; for in order to our Vindication of such, who withdraw from them, it is not necessary to assert this; for in order to the Vindication of such, as withdraw from the Prelate's Curates, as we do not, so we use not to say, That they are not Ministers, knowing that by saying this, we are engaged consequently to say, that all the Children, whom they have baptised, are yet unbaptised; and that all their Ministerial Acts are null. Nor (2.) Shall I make this the question: Is it not simply unlawful to hear them? For in order to Vindicat the withdrawers from the Curates, we need not assert this, knowing that much more is required to make an action simply sinful, than to make it inexpedient, or unlawful; and if it were granted, that the hearing or owning of the Indulged, as matters now stand, were unlawful, or inexpedient, the Withdrawers would be sufficiently vindicated. Nor (3.) Do I propose this question, whether or not, they may lawfully be heard, at any time, or in any circumstances; as for example, if there were no other to be heard, in all Scotland? For I judge, if no other were to be heard in all Scotland, except the Prelate's Curates, many would not scruple to hear such of them, as were not openly flagitious and profane, or notoriously ignorant; who, as matters now stand, do, and that with Approbation. (4.) I do not think, that such, as are against this withdrawing, will say, that it is necessary, that these Indulged be heard and countenanced, at all times and occasions; and that never, or in no case, such, as are under them, may go and hear others; seeing this was always allowed and permitted, in our best times.  
But I shall simply propose the Question thus. Whether may not people lawfully, as the case now standeth, withdraw from those Indulged, whom the Council hath set over them by the Indulgence; or are they to own them, and submit unto them, as over them in the Lord, and as set over them, to be their Pastors and Overseers, by the Holy Ghost; even when there are others, against whom such Exceptions cannot be made, as against them, and whom the Lord doth own and countenance in a remarkable and wonderful manner, to be heard? Or, whether are such to be condemned, or approven and vindicated, who look upon themselves, as called of God to bear witness against all the sinful Usurpations, manifest in the Indulgence; and the many evils, in the accepting of it, and in the now acting by virtue thereof, by withdrawing from such, that they may hear and countenance others, who preach upon Christ's Call, and not according to Man's Order, but contrary thereto?  
This being the Question, one might think it strange, that there should be any necessity to Vindicate such, as now withdraw, considering what is said above: Yet in Order hereunto, I shall but, in a few words, propose these following Questions, to the Consideration of any, who are of another judgement, in this matter, As.  
1. Seeing by what is said under our First Head of Arguments, it is manifest, that the Indulged, in and by the accepting of the Indulgence, have wronged our Lord Jesus Christ, who is only Head of the Church, and King in Zion; and that in Nine several Particulars: (every one of which might be made use of, as a several Argument, to our present purpose.) How can any blame such, as, out of tenderness to the Royal Prerogatives of Jesus Christ, scruple to own, and hear them, as formerly?  
2. Seeing by the accepting of this Indulgence, the Indulged have receded from our Presbyterian Principles, and wronged the Interest and Privileges of the Church, which Christ, her only King, hath granted to her; and that in five several Particulars, (out of which particular Arguments might be framed severally) as is clear by what is said under our 2 Head of Arguments. How unreasonable is it to condemn such, as, out of a tender care to adhere to their Presbyterian Principles, that not own and hear such, as formerly?  
3. Seeing in Ten Particulars, mentioned under our 3. Head of Arguments, it is made manifest, that the Indulged, by accepting of the Indulgence, have, upon the matter, homologated the wicked Supreamacy, in Church-affairs, whereby our Lord is virtually dethroned, and His Church utterly robbed of her Spiritual Power and Privileges: How can we condemn such, who, in detestation of that Supreamacy, and Usurped Power, withdraw from them?  
4. Seeing by our Principles, the Free Election and Call of the People, giveth ground to the relation, that a Pastor hath to a Flock, as his Charge, and is the way, how the Holy Ghost setteth men over Flocks, in ordinary: How can these be obliged to own such for their Pastors, whom they never called, nor had freedom freely to Elect and Call? And this is the case of not a few, yea in reality the case of all, who had others, than such, as had been their Pastors before, set over them; for as for that image of a call, we have said enough above, and particularly, under our 4. Head of Arguments, to show that it was of no force, and imported rather a prostituting of that Ordinance and Institution, to be subservient to the corrupt Designs of men, than savoured of true tenderness unto the Ordinance of Christ; which should have led the way, in an orderly settlement, and not have been trailed at the heels of the Counsels Order, with which in all Common Sense, it was incompatible, except by way of acknowledging and homologating the Councils Usurpation.  
5. Seeing as is clear from the Seven Particulars, mentioned under our 5. Head of Arguments, the Indulged, in their accepting of the Indulgence, have fortified and established Erastianisme, and Erastian Tenets; how shall we condemn such, as withdraw from them, and rather hear and own such, as adhere by their practice to former Principles?  
6. When we consider the Twelve Particulars, mentioned under our 6. Head of Arguments, (several of which might be here made use of, as Distinct Arguments, if we designed not brevity) whereby it was made manifest, how the Indulged, in accepting of the Indulgence, have acted to the great prejudice of the Church; how can we imagine, that such are to be condemned, who withdraw from them, and countenance such, as are seeking and promoving its good, in the way, countenanced and approven of God?  
7. If we impartially consider the Twelve Particulars, mentioned under our 7. Head of Arguments, (several of which also might be adduced here, as distinct Arguments) whereby it appeared, how these Indulged, in their accepting of the Indulgence, have wronged our Cause, and departed from the grounds, upon which our Church is suffering; we will see cause of approving such, as withdraw from them, as matters now stand.  
8. Seeing by what is said, it is manifest, that the Entry of the Indulged unto their present Places, and Stations, is not consonant, but repugnant to our Former Doctrine, Principles and Practices, owned since the Reformation, and confirmed by our Oaths, Vows, Covenants and Solemn Engagments; besides the Testimonies given thereunto by the Sufferings of our Predecessors, and by our own Sufferings; can we blame and condemn such, who dar not own them, as lawfully entered into these places?  
9 Seeing the Indulged have, by the accepting of the Indulgence, and acting by virtue thereof, in so far, departed from Former Principles and Practices; and a difference ought to be put betwixt them, and other Ministers, who, through grace, have hithertil been preserved from stepping aside, whether to Prelacy, or to Erastianisme, in their Practices; who can condemn such, as withdraw from the one, and adhere to the other?  
10. Is there not a great difference betwixt the ground, whereupon the Indulged do presently exercise their Ministry; and the ground whereupon formerly, before they embraced the Indulgence, they did, and others to this day do, exercise it? Or shall we say, that it is all one, whether Ministers have the Ministerial Potestative Mission unto such or such places, over which they are set, from Presbyteries, authorized thereunto by Christ, which sometimes they had; or have it from the Magistrate, no ways thereunto authorized by Christ; as now they have it only? And if there be a difference, how can any condemn those, who cannot now own them, as they did formerly?  
11. Seeing the difference betwixt these two ways mentioned, is great, and seeing they cannot be compounded in one, nor lawfully made subordinat, the one to the other; is it not undeniable, that these Indulged, betaking themselves now to the Magistrat's Mission, as they have done, have upon the matter, renounced their former Mission, which they had from Presbyteries, acting Ministerially under Christ? And if so, can people be condemned, who do not, nor cannot, own, and countenance them, as formerly they did?  
12. It being apparent from what is said above, on several occasions, that, as the Indulged did deliberately shun to say, that they had their Ministry only of Christ, so they do now Act and Exerce the same, as receiving it not alone from Christ, by the Ministerial Conveyance of the Power and Authority to exerce it, which Christ hath ordained; but either as receiving it from the Magistrate alone; (and if so, they cannot be looked upon as Christ's Servants, but as the Magistrat's Servants;) or from Christ and the Magistrate, as Collateral Heads and Fountains of Church-power; (but thus to speak were blasphemy;) or from the Magistrate, as directly subordinat to Christ; (which is the ground of all Arminian-Erastianisme) How can Men be accounted transgressors, who in Conscience cannot own them, as formerly they did, when they acted and exercised their Ministry as receiving it alone from Christ, by the Ministerial conveyance of the Power & Authority thereto, through the hands of his Servants thereunto appointed?  
13. Is there no difference to be put betwixt such, as exercise the Ministry in subordination unto, and in a dependence upon the Council, as being their Curates, & as accountable to them; and others, who, as they are subordinat unto, so they own their dependence only upon Christ, in the way He hath prescribed, receiving Instructions only from Him, in His appointed way, to regulate them, in the Exercise of their Ministry, and hold themselves accountable only to Him, in that way? And seeing it is manifest, that there is a very great difference; Who can condemn such as withdraw from the Indulged, who have their Instructions, to regulate them in the Exercise of the Ministry, from the Council, (as was manifested above,) as accountable only to them, and to such, as they are directly subordinat unto; that is, the King; and not from Christ Jesus, as only Head of the Kirk?  
14. Seeing by receiving the Indulgence, with their Instructions etc. the Indulged do, upon the matter, recognosce a Supreme Head-Power over the Church, and Church-affairs, in the Magistrates, to the denying of Christ's sole Headshipe, and dethroning of Him (as hath been, on several occasions, cleared above;) how can such be condemned, who scruple to own them, in that case, or to countenance them, while they act so?  
15. Seeing the Indulged, being set over the people, specially designed and appointed them by the Council's order, and not in the way appointed by Christ, can not be said to be set over these people, as their Overseers, by the Holy Ghost; (as hath been evidenced above;) how can such be blamed, who cannot own them, as their Overseers, and as made Overseers to them by the Holy Ghost?  
16. Seing we have made it manifest above, that the entry of the Indulged hath a manifold relation unto the Usurped Supremacy, in Church-affaires; and that, as it floweth therefrom, is secured thereby, and dependeth in its legal being thereupon, as its Charter; so it contributeth to the strengthening, securing and encouraging of the Usurpation and seeing this Supremacy and Sacrilegious Usurpation of the Prerogatives Royal of our Lord Jesus, and Subversion of the Rights and Privileges of the Church, is the Top-point of all our Defection, and the Centre, into which all the Lines of our Apostasy concur and agree; can any, who would not join in this defection, and have a proportionable part of the guilt, charged upon them, give countenance and approbation unto those Indulged, whose entry is so near a kin unto that Supremacy? Or can any, who desire to be free of all compliance with this abominable evil, carry towards those, who are now set over them by virtue of the Supremacy, as formerly?  
17. The Supremacy now regnant, and the grand National sin, being such an evil, as all, that would be keeped free of the plagues, that the same will bring upon the Land, must, in their places and stations, bear witness against the same: And seeing Common people have no other way Patent or Practicable for them, to give this plain and honest Testimony against this heinous Usurpation, in any public manner, but by withdrawing from such, as are set over them by virtue of this Usurped Power; can those be condemned, who, out of Conscience of their duty, zeal to Christ's Prerogatives, Care to keep their garments unspotted with public regnant evils; and out of a desire to mind their duty, in this day of so general a Defection, do withdraw from the Indulged, in order to the giving of this public Testimony, in their Place and Station?  
18. Seeing by the Particulars, mentioned under our 8. Head of Argu. it is manifest, that the accepters of this Indulgence have thereby contributed to the strengthening of the hands of Prelates and Prelacy, which all are obliged by their Covenants, to endeavour, in their Places and Stations, to exstirpat; how can such be condemned, who withdraw from them, while standing thus in a contributing posture?  
19 As upon the one hand, the disowning of the Curates is a disowning of the Prelates and their Power; and a countenancing of them by hearing them, and submitting to their Ministry is accounted by all (as indeed it is) a countenancing of Prelacy; is not also, upon the other hand, an owning of the Indulged, and a Submitting to them and their Ministry, a submitting to the Supremacy; seeing (as is above cleared and confirmed) the Curates (at least such as, were ordained Ministers before the re-establishment of Prelacy, and have submitted thereto) do no more depend upon Prelacy, as to the present exercise of their Ministry, than the Indulged do depend upon the Supremacy, or on the Rulers, acting by virtue of the Supremacy?  
20. Seeing the Act of Glasgow, banishing Ministers from their own Charges, cannot dissolve the relation, that was betwixt the Ministers, and their Flocks; how can such, as stand still related unto their former Pastors, (which is the case of some) accept of others, set over them by the Council, & not withal homologat the Councils deed, and declare the former relation utterly dissolved?  
21. Seeing the Indulged, in accepting of the Indulgence, have in several Particulars violated our Covenant-Obligations (as was shown in the 9 Head of Argu:) Can any be blamed for with drawing from those, who have so entered, in this day, when God is about to plead with the Land, for a broken Covenant?  
22. If all be obliged to resist & withstand Erastianisme, by the Solemn Engagement to duties; what less can be expected of Common People, in their private Stations, in order to an answerable walking unto this Engagement, than a withdrawing from such, as are set over them by a Power, purely Erastian? And can such be thought to mind their Engagement in this particular, who willingly comply with the Erastian Command and Injunction, and accept of such, as are set over them by an Erastian-Order?  
23. Seeing the Indulged, in accepting of the Indulgence, have receded from our Principles, and wronged our Cause as is undeniable by the Twelve Particulars, mentioned under our 7. Head. of Arg.) can they be justly condemned, who now withdraw from them?  
24. Seeing by accepting of the Indulgence, the Indulged have highly prejudged the good of our Church (as is manifest from the Twelve Particulars, mentioned under our 6. Head of Arg.) How can such be condemned, who refuse to countenance them, while thus stated in and by the Indulgence?  
25. Seing, as was cleared above, the Indulgence, was devised of purpose, to annul all Field-and House-meetings; and seeing it cannot be denied, that these Field-and House-meetings, being so eminently countenanced of the Lord, are also to be countenanced of Men; can any say, that they, over whom the Indulged are set by the Council, are not obliged to withdraw from them; and not withal say, that they are not obliged to wait upon these blessed Meetings, though thereby the Minister and other people, should be much discouraged? And would not this be a manifest homologating and concurring with the Council, in carrying-on of this wicked Design? And how can such be condemned, who withdraw from them, who have, in accepting of the Indulgence, acted so prejudicially unto these blessed Meetings, as is evidenced in our II. Head of Arguments?  
26. Seing it is undeniable, and daily experience doth confirm it, that an admirably rich blessing attendeth the labours of such, as preach contrary to Man's Law, upon Christ's sole Warrant and Allowance; what cruelty to Souls were it to say, that they, who have none to preach to them, but such as the Council (none of the best discerners of Ministerial Gifts, nor endued with Power from Christ for that end, to try the Qualifications of Ministers) hath set over them, must not withdraw from these, to seek their food, where God is giving it largely, and is thereby encouraging and inviting all to come? We would, doubtless, think this hard dealing, were we, as to our temporal food, to be kept at a set sober diet, wherein we found little nourishment, and restrained from going to fattening and strengthening feasts. If it be said, That it is the people's fault, that they grow not more under the preaching of such, as are set over them. I need not contradict it, for strengthening of my Argument; but only say, if the blessing be withheld at home, though justly, because of sin; let the people go where they may find the blessing, of God's free grace, notwithstanding of their Provocations, as others have found it: Let them go, I say, where free grace may prevent them. Nay, I think the Indulged themselves, upon this very account, if they desire (as I would hope they do) the Spiritual Edification of the people, should beseech and obtest all their People, to go unto these richly blessed Conventiclers; and desire these Conventicles to come and choice the most convenient place, in all their bounds, for a Field-meeting, that their people might partake of the good thereof; and this Course (if it had been taken) would have, I think, endeared them more unto all, that feared God; and had (no doubt) prevented much of this animosity that is, as I apprehend, betwixt them, and the Field-Preachers; for it would have defeat the Design of the Council, and have contributed to the carrying on of the Work of the Lord.  
27. Seeing all Persons stand obliged by their Covenants, to maintain the Prerogatives of Christ's Crown, the Rights of the Church, and Presbyterial Government; how can they, who would make conscience of the said's Covenants, own such, as are set over them, not according to the Principles of Presbyterian Government, nor in compliance with the Prerogatives of Christ, nor so as the Rights of the Church are so much as pretended to be observed, but in a way rather repugnant unto all these; as hath been manifested above?  
28. Seeing many of these Indulged have a relation to their own Flocks, from which they were thrust by violence; and it will not be said, that what the Rulers did, in that matter, did utterly annul their relation; How can they be related as Pastors to these Congregations, over which they are set by the Council? We do not acknowledge or justify Pluralities. And if they have not the relation of Pastors unto these new Charges, people are not bound to carry, as their flock; and so may lawfully withdraw, and hear others, as well as them.  
29. Seing It is manifest from what is said, that the Indulged, by accepting of the Indulgence, have, upon the matter, condemned all the wrestle of the Church of Scotland, from the very beginning of our Reformation, against the Erastian Usurpations and Encroachments of King and Court, in the Days of King james, who yet, in the height of his Usurpations, and arrogate Supremacy, never did what the Council did, in the Matter of the Indulgence; He never took upon him, to plant and transplant Ministers by himself, or by his Council immediately, and only: yea and have condemned all their sufferings to bonds, banishment & blood, for the Privileges of the Church, and the Crown-Rights of Christ, the only King in Zion; how can people, be pressed or urged, to look on such, as their lawfully settled Ministers, and be condemned for withdrawing? Must not the compliers with them in this, be guilty of the same sin of spitting in the faces of all our ancient witnesses; and saying, their Sufferings were for trifles? Do not they, who do more, than ever these were tempted to do, and that without the least hesitancy, say, that these suffered as fools?  
30. Seeing the entry of the Indulged by the Councils Order is such, as hath not a Parallel, in all the Christian world, for any thing I know; for, no where shall we find Ministers planted in Particular Charges, and transplanted from one to another, immediately by the Magistrate: Yea I doubt, if Ministers were thus placed, in the Palatinate, (now laid waste and desolate, in the righteous judgement of God,) where the hemlock of Erastianisme first grew up; can any blame the reformed Professors of the Church of Scotland, where that weed ha●h been cast over the hedge, with a solemn Vow and Covenant, never to own it again, in resenting this manner of Entry, by withdrawing from those, that are set over them, in such a singular and shameful manner?  
31. Do we not make use of this Argument against the Prelates, that they are chosen, named and deputed solely by the King, notwithstanding of that mock-election, made by the Chapter of the See, which must fall upon the person, nominated by the King, or be null? But where is the strength of it now, when we admit of lesser Bishops, immediately nominated, deputed, and impowered by the Council, notwithstanding of that mock-call by the people, and Election of the same singular person, which was said somewhere to be had?  
32. How can any blame such, as withdraw from those, who, by entering in at the door of the Indulgence, have made way for the wreathing of an yoke upon the necks of the Ministry of Scotland, in all time coming, to the utter subversion of all Ministerial liberty, and of the Freedom and Privilege of the Church: For, if hereafter no man shall be settled in a Church but by the King and his Council immediately, and every Minister shall be wholly at the disposal of the King and Council, to be planted, or transplanted, as they please, where were we? And where should our Church-liberties then be? And whom had we to thank for breaking the ice?  
33. If the Parliament, that carried on the Engagement Anno 1648. had thrust out a number of the Ministers, and thereafter their Committee had planted them elsewhere, up and down the Land, as they pleased; I would ask such as were Ministers, in those days, and were against the Engagement, or were Members of the Assembly 1649. how such Ministers, as willingly would have obeyed the Orders of the Committee of Estates, and gone thither, where they were Ordered to remain, had been looked upon, when the Engagement to duties was drawn up? And whether or not dat faults in Ministers, were not punished with simple Deposition? If then such a fault, as this, had been so abominable then, shall it be so lovely now, that none may discountenance or withdraw from such persons, as have carried so, at this time?  
34. Is it not strange, that people shall not have liberty to withdraw from those, who by their way of entry, and carriage before the Council, have given such open and manifest Scandal unto the Church of God, and unto Strangers, unto Foes and unto Friends, at home and abroad, to the Rulers, to the Prelates and their curate's, to Good and Bad; yea and unto all the Churches of Christ; and have laid such a stumbling block before all the Posterity; as is manifested above, in the 12. Head of Argum.?  
35. When poor people, who have been hitherto in the dark, as to the evils of this Indulgence, both as to its Ground, Rise, Conveyance, Tendency, and designed End, begin now to get their eyes opened, and to see its connexion with, dependence upon, and confirmation of the fearful Usurpation of the Supremacy ● what a grief of heart is it to hear persons pleading against their withdrawing from such, when they see where they are, and how they cannot countenance such, and be free of all accession to the sinful strengthening and confirming of the Encroachments already made, and to the encouraging unto a further progress unto the same evil?  
36. When there is such a combination for upholding of this evil of the Indulgence, and several (as is reported) banding or covenanting together, to keep the Indulgence, in credit, or at least, not so speak against it; how can such, as are convinced of the dreadful evil thereof, not think themselves called of God, to do their best against it? And how can any be urged to hear and countenance them, who are Indulged, when the controversy is thus stated and prosecuted, without being also urged to approve of the Indulgence, contrare to their light:  
37. Seeing the Indulged, by their accepting of this Indulgence, did fall from their former zeal and steadfastness, in choosing suffering rather than sin, and have, upon the matter, condemned what formerly they approved of, and have approved that, which formerly they condemned, as we saw above, in the Six Particulars, mentioned and explained in our 10. Head of Argum. How can those be now condemned, who cannot own them, as they did formerly?  
38. Do we not say, that Countenancing and hearing of the Curates is an Homologating and a virtual approving of their sinful way of Entry? And shall not now, the Countenancing and hearing of the Indulged, be an Homologating and a virtual approving of their sinful way of En●y? How then can such be condemned, who, out of a desire to be kept free of this sin, dar not countenance or hear them, as formerly?  
39 I would gladly know one Argument, that can be made use of to condemn now, as matters stand, withdrawing from and refusing to hear the Indulged, that either hath not been; or may not yet be, with equal force, made use of, to prove it unlawful to withdraw from, & to refuse to hear the Established Curates? And seeing now none dar condemn such, as withdraw from the Curates; why shall these be condemned, who withdraw from the Indulged?  
40. When the question is now so stated, by and among the people, as that countenancing and hearing of the Indulged, is looked upon, as a approving of the Indulgence itself, the people not knowing the use and practice of Metaphysical distinctions; how can such be urged to hear and countenance them, who, by so doing, must look upon themselves, as approving what otherwise they condemn, contrare to Rom. 14: 22, 23?  
Many more Arguments, may be gathered out of the several Particulars, we mentioned above, under the several Heads of Arguments; but we shall satisfy ourselves with these, at present, leaving the Understanding Reader to make his own use of the rest, that are not made use of here.  
For further satisfaction, in this matter, to such, as would have Formal Arguments, I shall only say, That by what Arguments, Principally, we vindicat the People, their withdrawing from the Curates, by the same, mutatis mutandis, by changing or adding such words, as must be changed or added, we shall be able to vindicate the people their withdrawing from the Indulged. I saw lately a Vindication of the persecuted Ministers and Professors in Scotland, written by a faithful Minister of Christ, now in Glory; and found that the Chief of these Arguments, whereof he made use, to vindicate the people their withdrawing from the Curates, were applicable to the question now under debate, concerning the hearing or withdrawing from the Indulged, as I shall make appear by these Instances.  
His first Argument Pag. 75. was this. They, who have no just Authority, nor Right to officiat fixedly, in this Church, as the proper Pastors of it, ought not to be received, but withdrawn from. But the Prelates and their adherents the Curates (add, for our case, the Indulged) have no just Authority or Right to officiat in this Church, as her proper Pastors. Therefore they ought not to be received, but withdrawn from. All the debate is about the Minor, which he thus maketh good. They, who have entered into, and do officiat fixedly in this Church without her Authority and Consent, have no just Authority or Right so to do. But the Prelates and their Curates (add, the Indulged) have entered into this Church, and do Officiat therein, without her Authority and Consent. Therefore they have no just Authority. The first Proposition (saith he, and we with him) is clear, and we suppose, will not be gainsaid by our Antagonists; seeing the power of Mission, of Calling & of Sending of ordinary fixed Pastors, is only in the Church, and not in any other, as all Divines do assert. The Second is evident from matters of fact; for there was no Church-Judicatory called, or convocated, for bringing of Prelates in to the Church; (add, nor for settling of the Indulged over their respective charges) all was done immediately by the King and Acts of Parliament (add, Acts of the Councils) without the Church. A practice wanting a precedent in this, and (for any thing we know) in all other Churches.  
He proposeth an Objection in behalf of the Curates Pag. 78. which I know the Indulged will use for themselves, to wit. They have entered by the Church. And his answer will serve us, which is this. This we deny, the contrare is clear, from confiant Practice; for the Curates (add, the Indulged) came in upon Congregations, only by the Bishop and Patron (add in our case, only by t●e Council and Patron) who are not the Church, nor have any power from her, for what they do, in this: All their right and power is founded upon, and derived from the Supremacy, and Acts of Parliament, and not from the Church; in which the Bishop (add the Council) acts as the Kings Delegat and Substitute, only impowered thereto by his Law (add Letter) So that the Curates (add, the Indulged) having and deriving all their power from the Prelates (add, the Council) cannot have the same from the Church; none gives what he hath not. But. 2. The Prelates (add, the Council) not being the lawful Governing Church, any, that enter Congregations by them, cannot be said to enter by the Church. Read the rest there.  
His second Argument is proposed Pag. 79.80. thus. Those that receive and derive their Church power from, and are subordinat, in its exercise▪ to another Head, than Christ Jesus, should not be received and subjected to, as the Ministers of Christ, in his Church. But the Prelates and their Curates (add, the Indulged) do receive and derive their Church Power from, and are subordinat, in its exercise, to another Head, than Christ Jesus. Therefore they ought not to be received etc. The first Proposition will not be denied: He proveth the second thus. Those Officers in the Church, professing themselves such, that derive their Church-power from, and are subordinate, in its exercise, to a Power truly Architectonick and Supreme in the Church, beside Christ, do derive their Power from, and are subordinat, in its exercise, to another Head, than Christ Jesus. But so it is, that Prelates and their Curates (add, the Indulged) do derive their Church-Power from, and are subordinat, in its exercise, to a Power truly Architectonick and Supreme in the Church, beside Christ. Therefore etc. The Major is evident; for whoever hath a Supreme Architectonick Power in and over the Church, must be an Head to the same, and the Fountain of all Church-power. The Minor is clear from the Act of Restitution (add, the Act Explicatory of the Supremacy.)  
His third Arg. Pag. 8. is long, I shall cut it short thus, that it may serve our case. If Churches required by Law (or, Act of Council) to submit to Prelates, and to their Curates (or, to the Indulged) thus thrust in upon them, had their own Pastor's set over them, conform to God's Word; than it is no sinful Separation, for Churches, in adhering to their Ministers, not to receive, or submit to the Prelates and their Curates (or, to the Indulged.) But the former is true. Therefore etc. The truth of the Major is founded on this, That the obligation betwixt Pastor & People standeth, notwithstanding of the Magistrat's Act. And the Minor is true, (I suppose) as to some Churches, over which the Indulged were placed by the Council.  
His fourth Argument Pag. 90. will serve us; It is thus. The way of the Curates (Indulged) entering into Congregations, puts a bar on our subjection to them, that we dar not own them, for the lawful Pastors of the Church; for as their entry is without the Church, and the way that Christ hath settled in his House for that end; so they have come in on Congregations, in ways, which we judge corrupt, and without all warrant from the Word of God, & the practice of the Primitive times. In search of Scripture and pure Antiquity, we find, that Ordination (add, and Potestative Mission) by Ministers, the Election and Call of the people, was the way, by which Ministers entered into Congregations, and not the Institution and Collation of the Bishop (add, nor the Warrant and Allowance of the Magistrate) nor the Presentation of Patrons. He addeth. 1. This way of their entry by the Bishop's Institution and Collation (add, the Counsels Warrant and Order) doth suppone that their Ordination (add, Potestative Mission) doth not sufficiently empower them to the exercise of the Ministry, (add, in that Particular Charge) without a further licence; which is contrare to the end of Ordination, and the Nature of the Ministerial Power, that by virtue of its ends, and the command of Christ, doth bind the Person, invested therewith, to its Exercise etc. 2. The Patron's Presentation, as it takes away the People's right of Election, so it suppones Ordination to give no right to the maintenance, or at least suspends it etc.  
His fifth Arg. is Pag. 91. thus framed, and may serve us, as to some. Many Congregations, into which the Curates (add, the Indulged) are entered, are under a standing Obligation to their former Pastors; not only on the account of the Pastoral Relation betwixt them, but for the Engagements they came under to such, in their call and reception of them; which is not dissolved by any thing, we have yet seen; Sure we are, the Magistrate cannot do it, etc. (I hope, I need nor, in reference to the Indulged, mention what followeth, in answering of the Objection, taken from Salomon's removing of Abiathar.  
His sixth Arg. Pag. 94. is this. If Congregations have a just Right and Power of Electing and Calling of their Ministers; than those, that come in upon them without this, are not to be esteemed their Pastors, nor to be subjected to, as such, by Congregations, but to be withdrawn from. But here it is so, etc.  
His Seventh Arg. Pag. 95. is this; Hearing of, submitting to and receiving of Ordinances from the Curate's alone (add, the Indulged) and not from others, is enjoined by Law, and required, as the sign of our compliance with and subjecting to the Present Laws, bringing in and establishing of Prelacy (add, Erastianisme and the Supremacy) and other Corruptions, which we dar not own. Hearing and receiving Ordinances from such, hath a twofold bar put upon it to us; an unqualified Instrument or Object; and the respect that by the Law it is made to have to the corruptions obtruded upon this Church, as the sign of our compliance with and subjection to these. The Command of God about hearing doth constitute the Object and Instrument (what and whom) we should hear: As we are not to hear all Doctrines, but these that are sound, so we are not to hear and receive all, that pretend to come in Christ's Name, but those of whose Mission we have some rational evidence, at least, against which we have no just exceptions. This, as to to the Curates, (add, the Indulged) is made out by the former Arguments. But beside this. the sign appointed and determined by Law, and required of all in this Church, is, that they not only withdraw from, and do not hear the Ejected and Nonconform Ministers; but that they hear and submit to Ministers, that comply with and enter into this Church, by Prelates (add, or by the Council) which to us maketh ●earing, and receiving of Ordinances from them, a practical approbation of, and compliance with Prelacy (add, Erastianisme and the Supremacy) and other corruptions contained in the Law, for such is the connexion betwixt the sign and the thing signified, that he that yields to give the sign, doth, in all rational construction, approve the thing signified.  
These are his Principal Arguments, used in defence of such, as cannot, go to hear and subject to the Curates; and whether they will not as forcibly conclude against hearing of and subjecting to the Indulged, the Reader is free to judge.  

Objections Answered.  
If any should Object, whether in behalf of the Curates, or in behalf of the Indulged. That they are Ministers of the Gospel, and therefore are to be heard, and Ordinances should be received from them; for the Ministerial power giveth to the Persons, invested therewith, not only a right to preach the word, and dispense Ordinances, and maketh their Acts valide; but it binds them to the doing of those, and all others to submit to them, in the exercise of their Power; as is apparent in all relations, and the mutual duties, that the Persons under them owe to one another; So that if Ministers be bound to preach the Gospel, and dispense its Ordinances●, the people must likewise be obliged to hear, and receive Ordinances from them. To this objection he answereth (and we with him, as to the case now in question) denying the Consequence: For (1.) The true state of the question is, whether we should receive and submit to them, as the lawfully Called and Appropriate Pastors of this Church; which for the former Reasons we deny; for although Intruders upon the Church be Ministers; yet their Intrusion puts a sufficient bar on People's reception of and submission to them: wherefore in so far as hearing, and receiving of Ordinances from Prelatical Ministers (add, Indulged) is, in our case, an acknowledgement of this, we refuse it. (2.) People's obligation to submission to Ministers, doth not immediately flow from the being of the Ministerial Power and Authority, in those clothed therewith, there are beside this, other things that must concur, to the causing of this Obligation, which, if they be wanting, will make it void, or, at least, suspend it etc.  
If it be further Objected, in favours of the Indulged, That Eminent and worthy Mr Livingstoun, though he saith much against the Indulgence, in his Letter to his Parishioners; yet he adviseth them sometime to hear Mr john Scot, who was Indulged. I Ans I shall readily grant, that several were in the dark, at the first, in the matter, either through want of full information concerning many circumstances, which, if known, would have given greater light in the matter; or through ignorance of the real Design & Intendment of the Rulers, which afterward came more & more to light; or through a fear, that Field-meetings should either cease, or be utterly suppressed; & therefore judged it more safe for people to hear the Indulged, than either to hear none, or none, but the Curates. And though I do not certainly know, which of these grounds moved that Eminent Seer and Servant of Christ, to advise so; yet, considering that in all that Letter (to my remembrance) he doth not speak of their going to the Field Meetings (which I suppose none, that knew him, will think, that he was an enemy unto,) I am apt to think, that the Apprehension he had of the ceasing of the Field-Meetings, at least, in that part of the Country (in which, I doubt, there had been any, or many, at least, before his writing of that Letter) did move him, to advise them sometimes to hear that Indulged Person, as judging that better, than that they should hear none, or none but that wretch, who was obtruded upon them; and as supposing, he would not pervert them by his Doctrine, but would give free and faithful Testimonies unto the Truth, and against all public Corruptions. Further, I suppose, it is well enough known, tha● 〈◊〉 the first, not a few Ministers were in the dark, as to the question of hearing of the Curates, and upon one ground or other, did not perceive, that people were called of God; to withdraw from the obtruded Hirelings, & so durstnot positively advise thereunto; who now, I hope, will be as loath to advise people to forsake other occasions, and go hear the Curates, And what wonder if the matter was so, as to the Indulged, Seven or Eight years ago?  
Obj. 3. But, till of late, that some few inconsiderate Persons, took this in their head, to preach against the Indulgence, and to cry-out against the unlawfulness of hearing of the Indulged, as if that had been the only thing necessary; for which many even of the Non-Indulged are offended with them, there was not so much as a murter heard, but people heard the Indulged without scruple, and were edified by their Ministry. Ans. The Curates might allege the same, as well as the Indulged; But, as it would not help them, so I suppose, It can not well help the Indulged. Whether these Persons be considerate or inconsiderate, I am not fit to judge; to their own Master they stand, or fall; only I wish, that such, who call them Inconsiderate, would examine their grounds, & remember that, judge not lest ye be judged etc. If this be founded upon some expressions of theirs (whether true or false, I know not) I wish that the Expressions of others gave not ground for the same judgement. I know, not a few are offended with them; but considering what is said above, concerning the sinfulness of the Indulgence, etc. I dar not be offended with them; (& I would fain hope, that second thoughts of the matter shall work a change on these Brethren) But must rather bless the Lord on their behalf, & judge them worthy of praise, who, over the belly of so many discouragments, did set the trumpet to their mouth, to show Scotland, & the Ministry, and People thereof, that great sin: and this, I know, is consistent with their insisting upon the one thing necessary; which I hope also their practice declareth, and the fruits of their labour proclaim. But as to the long silence, that hath been, I shall say little; yet it is known, that at the very beginning, people were calling the Indulged the Councils Curates & how it came, that this spark did not break forth into a general flame, I shall not inquire; acquiescing in this, That the Lord had a further discovery to make: For, had the first Ten, who were Indulged, been thus discountenanced, we had seen no more accepting of that supposed favour; yea the first accepters had quickly shaken that onerous favour off their shoulders. It may be also, that some suppressed their judgement, concerning the not-hearing of these Indulged, or did not countenance any such motion, when made, either out of a preposterous affection and tenderness to the Brethren, whom they honoured and much esteemed, and that deservedly, for their eminent Enduements, and sometimes Usefulness unto the Church; or out of a tender care of keeping up of Union, and guarding against all motions apparently tending to troublesome Distractions & Divisions, or upon some other account, best known to themselves. Neither is it unlike, that many were really in the dark, as to the thing: But however, light is light, whoever they be that bring it to us; and as God may Employ whom He will, to this en●, so; how inconsiderable so ever the Instruments be, who are employed; and whether they come sooner or latter, the light, when it is come, should be welcomed, because of Him, that sent it; yea and embraced with thankfulness, and with humble submission.  
Obj. 4. All or most of the Non-Indulged, Faithful, and Zealous Ministers in the Land are for hearing of the Indulged; and only a few, and these of the younger sort, with the ignorant people, are against it. Answ. Though I would hope, few should lay any weight on this Objection: and it were enough to desire such, who did lay any weight thereon, to consider job. 7: v. 47, 38, 49. with Mr. Hutcheson's Notes thereupon, specially the 7. and 9 Yet I shall only say, That an Impartial Observer will find, that for the most part, in all the steps of our trial, since this last overthrow came, God hath made use of the nothings to break the ice to others. Holy is our Sovereign, who doth what He will. This might be made out by Instances; but I suppose, the matter is so manifest, that I need not insist thereupon, the matter about hearing of the Curate's▪ being a sufficient evidence of what I have said.  
Obj. 5. Now when we are in hazard to be overrun with Popery, is it seasonnable, that such questions should be started, to break the remnant in pieces; and thereby to make all a prey for the man of sin? Were it not better that we were all united as one, to withstand that Inundation? Answ. I grant, the apprehensions of the Man of sins' stretching out his wings, & filling the breadth of Immanuel's land, seemeth to me not altogether groundless; yea it is much to be feared, that by Popery and Blood, the Lord shall avenge the quarrel of His Covenant, and the contempt of His Gospel: And therefore I judge, it were our duty this day, to be preparing ourselves to meet the Lord, thus coming to be avenged on a generation of His wrath, with ropes about our necks, giving Him the glory of His Righteousness, and acknowledging ourselves the basest of sinners; that so we may be in case, to say, in the day, when the small remnant of the glory, that is yet to be seen on the mountains, shall depart out of sight, Blessed be the Glory of the Lord from his place. Our Union, while the accursed thing is among us, will be but a conspiracy, and will really weaken us before the Lord. If we be not tender of Christ's Headship, and of what depends thereupon, and of the least pin of his Tabernacle, pitched among us; how can we expect His help, when we are to run with the horsemen? Will they not have most peace in that day, who have been Jealous for the Lord of hosts, and for his Crown Interest- And who knoweth, but they shall find a shelter and a chamber of Protection in the day, when he overflowing scourge shall come, who are now following the Lord, and his Glory, through Mountains and Valleys, and are, upon that account, suffering Toss, Hardships and Harrassing? How little security, I pray, shall the wings of the Supremacy be able to give, in that day? our Union in Duty, and upon the old grounds of our received and sworn Principles and Maxims, would prove our strength, But if this shall not be had, as then every one may certainly conclude, that there is a dreadful stroke at the doors, and that this division, upon such an account, is a certain forerunner of a dark and dismal Dispensation; so, it will be every man's du●y, who would have peace, in the day of God's contending against a generation of Backsliders and Revolters, to be mourning for the abominations of the Land and for this of the Indulgence, among the rest, and to be adhering to the Lord, and unto our Principles▪ which the Lord hath owned and countenanced, though he should, in a manner, be left al●●e. Will not, I pray, many of these, who have complied with Prelacy, and with the courses, that have been carried on, profess an abhorrence at Popery? And is this ground sufficient for us to think of uniting with them, notwithstanding of all they have done, that we may be the more fortified to withstand that torrent? Alas! this our strength will prove our weakness, Let us remember that Esai. 8: ver. 11, 12, 13, 14. For the Lord spoke thus to me, with a strong hand, and instructed me, that I should not walk in the way of this people, saying, Say not a confederacy to all them, to whom this people shall say, a confederacy: Neither fear ye their fear, nor be afraid. Sanctify the Lord of hosts himself; and let him be your fear▪ and let him be your dread. And he shall be for a Sanctuary, etc. It were more suitable for us, to be considering that word Amos 4. v. 12.13. Therefore, thus will I do unto thee; and because I will do this unto thee, prepare to meet thy God, O Israel: for lo, he that formeth the Mountains, and createth the wind, and declareth unto man what is his thought, that maketh the morning darkness, and ●readeth upon the high places of the earth: The Lord, the God of hosts is his Name: And in order to a Christian compliance therewith, to be separating ourselves from every sinful course, mourning for our former miscarriages, and utterly forsaking such ways, whereby we have provoked the Lord to wrath. I shall close with that Zeph. 2: vers. 1, 2, 3. Gather yourselves together, yea, gather together, O Nation not desired. Before the decree bring forth, before the day pass, as the chaff, before the fierce anger of the Lord come upon you, before the day of the Lord's anger come upon you. Seek ye the Lord, all ye meek of the earth, which have wrought his judgement, seek righteousness, seek meekness; it may be, ye shall be hid, in the day of the Lord's anger: And let us all pray, Thy Kingdom come, and thy Will be done, AMEN.   
FINIS.   

Among the persons Indulged, Mr Anthony Shaw indulged to Loudown o● Newmile, and Mr Anthony Murray Indulged to Carmichall are omitted; and possibly some others, through want of full Information, or through the neglect of Transcribers.