compendious way if I be not mistaken to meet with any thing he says is to consider what is in his Arguments against the Indulgence for he resumes there what he had remarked on the Kings Letter and what he hath in his Vindication is taken out of these Arguments In these Reasons against the Indulgence he saith the Reader may see at one view what was scattered up and down the foregoing Relation so here we will find all his forces united and drawn up in order Pag. 85. 1. He promises to shew 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 Ans That which the Indulged Ministers accepted was a freedom from or a relaxation of that civil restraint which had hindered the peaceable exercise of their Ministry as was cleared before If he alledge that they accepted of the Instructions c. This is an acceptation of his own making and he may make any thing if he pleases for the Indulged Ministers cannot hinder any body to fight against their own fancies having premised this I come to the particulars of his charge against them 1. Saith he in that hereby they declared they did not hold their Ministry wholly and solely of Christ Jesus How proves he this We saith he saw above how the Indulged did plainly and positively refuse to say that they held their Ministry of Jesus Christ alone where ex professo the word alone was left out See what is remarked on Mr. Hutchesons Speech and what was said in answer to the Informer whâ— was dissatisfied with M. Blair whereby an injury of a very high nature was done unto our Lord Jesus That which is remarked on Mr. Hutchesons Speech is in pag. 24. 9. they say That they received their Ministry from Jesus Christ Buâ— why was it not said as some of them if I am nâ— misinformed desired only from Jesus Christ wheâ— this was designedly and deliberately left out leâ— all the World judge whether in this they carried a faithful Ministers of the Gospel or not For mâ— part I cannot but judge that this was a manifest betraying of the Cause and a giving up of all iâ— the Magistrate for hereby they declared that eitheâ— in their judgment they had their Ministry from others as well as from Christ that is from the Magistrate as well as from Christ and that in an equality and Co-ordination or else that they had it nâ— from Christ immediately but from men from thâ— Magistrate in subordination to Christ And then he reasons against both these and concludes that therefore when they kept out the Word only they did plainly declare that they held their Ministry partly of the Magistrate And after he hath started another Objection about holding the peaceable exercise of the Ministry from the Magistrate he concludes So that use what devices men can to cover this matter a manifest betraying of the Cause will break through and a receding from received and sworn Principles will be visible In the answer to the Informer to which also he refers he saith pag. 71. 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 But again pag. 85. he objects That this fault was but personal and accidental to the Indulgence and so cannot effect the same or make it an encroachment upon Christ of so high a nature He answers That being spoken at that occasion when the King and Council were acknowledged thankfully for granting of the Indulgence and being spâ—ken with understanding it must be granted that it had reference to the Indulgence it self and so saith he 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 He adds afterward 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 Ans This is the Authors great Gun with which he thought fit to begin the battel if this misgive and do no skaith there is no less reason to fear his lesser Ordnance It 's strange that he should have begun with a piece of Ordnance which he knows not whether it be fixed or not he is not sure whether the word only was by some of the Indulged Ministers desired to be added for when he says it he casts in this doubtful Parenthesis If I be not misinformed He got many wrong Informations and this may be one among the rest I do not remember of any such thing and if he be misinformed his first Argument hath neither matter nor form I have heard it alledged that some people by telling uncertainties yea falshoods come themselves to believe them and confidently to add to them I find something like this in this Author 1. We see he speaks doubtfully if I be not misinformed but the oftener he repeats it he grows the more positive and confident for we never hear more of any doubt of his Inforformation yea in repeating he wonderfully amplifies the matter and makes the not saying of this only to say many things For saith he hereby they declared that they did not hold their Ministry wholly and solely of Christ He might have easily perceived that a positive Declaration that they did not hold their Ministry from Christ only is more than a not-saying that they had it from him only A man may truly say I had this gift from my Father though he add not the exclusive word only Who yet cannot positively declare that he had not the gift only from his Faâ—her because he as I suppose received it from â—is Father and not from any other Again he granted that some of the Indulged desired that the word only might be put in sure â—hese did not positively and plainly refuse to say That they held their Ministry from Christ alone and yet here he charges it upon the Indulged generally that they refused to say so This is another of his Amplifications Then he judgeth that this was a manifest betraying of the Cause and refers it to the judgment of the world if they carried as faithful Ministers What shall Ministers be condemned â—as not faithful because they spoke of their Ministry in the words that the Holy Ghost taught Paul to speak Acts 20.24 Shall the using of the Words of God be judged a betraying of the cause of God Suppose that that word was designedly and deliberately left out this might have been the reason that they durst not adventure to add a word to the words of the Apostle who spoke by the Inspiration of God He amplifies yet further This was saith
he a giving up all to the Magistrate That is a wonderful amplification There is no mention made of the Magistrate in that sentence at all nor any giving of any thing to him there but an acknowledgment that they had received their Ministry from Christ and yet he will conclude that by this all was given up to the Magistrate What was nothing given to Christ from whom they acknowledge they had received their Ministry expresly and all given to the Magistrate whom they do not so much as mention there But he will prove that they gave up all to the Magistrate For saith he hereby they declared that in their judgment they had their Ministry from others as well as from Christ Here he eats in again somewhat he had said for even now all was given to the Magistrate but here he leaves something at least to Christ but takes in others with him but who are these others That is saith he the Magistrate as well as from Christ What was there no others but the Magistrate that they might have their Ministry from I think he might rather have supposed that it was the Father and the Holy Ghost than the Magistrate especially when he is speaking of an equality for it was an abominable alledgance of Blasphemy to say that they declared in their judgment that they had their Ministry from the Magistrate as well as from Christ and that in an Equality and Co-ordination Or else saith he that they had it not from Christ immediately but from men from the Magistrate in subordination to Christ But were there no other men beside the Magistrate if he would have dealt candidly he might have supposed that Presbyterians meaned rather the Presbytery than the Magistrate and therefore saith he when they kept out the word only they did plainly declare that they held their Ministry partly of the Magistrate quod erat demonstrandum He is not sure if this word was desired to be put in he knows not whether it was kept out upon design he knows not upon what design it was kept out suppose it had been designedly kept out and how then can he conclude from this That these Ministers declared and that they plainly declared that they held their Ministry of the Magistrate he may conclude any thing he pleases at this rate of reasoning yet I perceive he hath forgotten himself as very ordinarily men who pass the bounds of truth do except they have very good memories for a little before he alledged all was given up to the Magistrate but here he hath reduced him to a part what is cited from pag. 71. relates to the instructions which will come in afterwards That the want of this only was a personal fault or was an encroachment upon Christ or did affect the Indulgence as he speaks he must prove he would make it a fault affecting the Indulgence because it was at that occasion when the King and Council were thankfully acknowledged for the granting of the Indulgence and because it was spoken with understanding but this hath no shew of Reason if it be considered what it was they thankfully acknowledged the freeing of them from the restraint which was upon the publick exercise of their Ministry any who are not blinded with prejudice may see that this was the design of these Presbyterian Ministers to shew that though they acknowledged the Magistrates taking off that restraint yet they did not look on themselves as the Magistrates Ministers but as the Ministers of Jesus Christ who had received their Ministry from him But the thing that he says must be granted whether there be reason or no and so he proceeds in his Amplifications and out of the want of this only he forms a Charrang and Discourse and puts it in these Ministers mouths and so if ye will believe him their Discourse was to this purpose in effect We declare that we hold not our Ministry of Christ alone but of Christ and the Magistrate and therefore do accept of this Indulgence without scruple But which is more strange he will not only have them to say as he says but also believe as he alledges upom them he will not only impose Charrangs upon them but he will impose a Creed upon them For saith he this Discourse of theirs 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 I am sure no judicious person who reads these things will think that they deserve any refutation and I am very apprehensive such will alledge that I had little to do who transcribed them When I was writing this and reflecting upon the wild conceits that the Author hath fallen into upon this supposition that only was purposely kept out and that his amplifications grow still the more remote from truth it put me in mind of a censure which an English man passed upon a Scottish Gentleman with whom he was acquainted this Gentleman told him strange things which the English man could not believe they were so leasing-like This English man having occasion to speak of this Gentleman said of him He is said he a very pretty Gentleman but he amplifies mightily This Author hath amplified mightily upon the word only and if he had been professedly making Romances it had been more tolerable but in a matter of so great importance to give his fancy leave to rove so as to condemn a Scripture-expression made use of by the Indulged Ministers and to draw Treason against Christ and a betraying of the Cause out of a Scripture sentence uttered by the Apostle Paul speaking by the Inspiration of the Spirit and not only to condemn them for using the words that the Holy Ghost useth but to impose words of his own and a Creed of his own devising upon them and then condemn them because of that Faith and Profession is very intollerable insolency His Argument if reduced to a form must be to this purpose Whosoever designedly and deliberately declares that they have received their Ministry from the Lord Jesus and says not that they have not received their Ministry from Jesus Christ only they deny Christ to be alone head of his Church and are guilty of High Treason against the King of kings and betrayers of the Cause and they set the Magistrate in Christs Throne and hold their Ministry of the Magistrate c. but so is it the Indulged have designedly and deliberately declared c. and therefore c. Ans He is not sure of the truth of the matter for he brings in the Story pag. 24. with that doubtful Parenthesis if I be not misinformed many say that it was the Authors mshap that he was many times misinformed and it s like this may be a piece of his bad intelligence it 's doubtful if it was refused by any of the Indulged Ministers to say they received their Ministry from Christ only The Author doubts of the truth of
Lord and are workers together with God And thus whether these Instructions were formally or objectively Ecclesiastical seeing Mr. H. looked upon them as wrong he can never be supposed to have granted to the Magistrate a Power objectively Ecclesiastical to enjoyn these Instructions and therefore though this were supposed that Mr. H. had judged these Instructions to be objectively Ecclesiastical yet he could not be charged with betraying the Cause in granting to the Magistrate a Power objectively Ecclesiastical Yet he will have them guilty of base Treachery though he cannot prove it from any thing they did or said nor yet from any thought which he imagined they had about the nature of these Instructions but the Reader may readily think that it is not possible for him to fasten the charge of betraying the whole Cause upon them whose deeds words thoughts afford no Evidence of Treachery Yet he will do it the Reader who hath observed the mans disposition will readily say that he doubts nothing of his good will to render the Indulged Ministers odious But he thinks it impossible to him to prove out of Mr. H's words that they basely betrayed the whole Cause seeing his words are the very words of Orthodox Anti-erastian Divines when they speak most distinctly of these matters But it seems the Reader knows not the mans might and where his strength in this cause lies when he thinks this impossible for him to fasten this guilt this horrid guilt upon so many honest men What talk you of impossibility He not onely can do it but he can do it very easily and that by a maxime which passes currant without any contradiction a maxime that this Author makes much use of in a mister and when other places of invention fails him the maxime is this Calumniare audacter aliquid adhaerebit when all his why's and how 's and if's have failed him he boldly avers that these Ministers under the pretext of the Magistrates Power objectively Ecclesiastical granted to the Magistrate that which is intrinsecally and formally Ecclesiastical That is they first denyed to him a Power formally Ecclesiastical and then they gave it again to him in granting him a Power objectively Ecclesiastical if ye say that Power objectively Ecclesiastical is ordinarily when it 's ascribed to the Magistrate contradistinguished from Power formally and intrinsecally Ecclesiastical He will Answer that if they had given a Power formally and intrinsecally Ecclesiastical to the Magistrate in plain terms this had been plain dealing above board but their conveying of it to him under a pretext and cover that none would suspect their cunning conveying this intrinsick Power under the cloak of objective Power their slipping the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven into the guards of the Civil Sword or cunningly shouldering them together and so delivering them both together to the Magistrate this was indeed Treachery And say what they will to purge themselves yet do not ye believe them for they who have so basely betrayed the whole Cause are not to be believed or if ye have any Charity to believe them when they say they intended no such thing yet be sure it was the intention of the work though not of the worker intentio operis though not intentio operantis And thus he hath proved that the whole cause was basely betrayed by a demonstration from the Cause for he brings it in with a because under the pretext c. and so by a demonstration which they call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the charge of betraying the whole Cause is strongly concluded 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This Demonstration doth strongly conclude that the Author of it was strangely transported with Passion and Prejudice against the Indulged Ministers but it proves nothing against the Indulged Ministers but by virtue of the foresaid maxime Calumniate boldly and something will stick for whatever was the nature of these Instructions this is a manifest calumny that Mr. H. made a pretext of the Magistrates Power objectively Ecclesiastical to grant that which was intrinsecally and formally Ecclesiastical to the Magistrate For suppose Mr. H. had thought that none of these Instructions were intrinsecally and formally Ecclesiastical yet in granting to the Magistrate a Power objectively Ecclesiastical he did no way approve of the Magistrates giving these Instructions because he had designed these Instructions and impositions burdening Ministers in the matter of their Ministry and so whatever Power he gave to the Magistrate about Ecclesiastick Objects he could not be supposed to yield to him a Power to make these impositions and could no ways be supposed to have a design to grant to the Magistrate a Power intrinsecally Ecclesiastical which he manifestly denied and to make a pretext of a Power objectively Ecclesiastical to cover this design But whither will not Passion and Prejudice carry men when they are once engaged in a wrong Cause For so long as they are under these woful distempers they will make ere they want something to say against their Adversaries I think all who reads these things should be thereby stirred up to pray that they may not be led into temptation But whatever was Mr. H's or Mr. B's or any other of these Ministers judgments concerning the nature of every one of these Instructions I do not know and therefore cannot determine but I perceive the Author of this History hath not been clear himself for if he had been clear to have asserted all the rest besides the confinement intrinsecally Ecclesiastical he would not have failed to have done it in this place and to have proved it with all his pith seeing it would have concluded as he thinks the betraying of the whole Cause which is the conclusion he would have been at with all his heart seeing he makes so many fetches to bring it about but when all is come to all we see it amounts to no more but this That that which is as intrinsecally and formally Ecclesiastical as many other at least are c. which clearly shews that the man hath been in the mist as to the nature of these Instructions for he does not say that all these Instructions were intrinsecally and formally Ecclesiastical or that any one of them was such absolutely but onely that somewhat that was as intrinsecally and formally Ecclesiastical as many other at least are But what if these many other which he means be not intrinsecally Ecclesiastical for he tells us not what these many are nor doth he tell us any one of these many that we might compare them with the Instructions in question and then his adding at least shews that he hath been in the dark in this matter and durst not determine positively or particularly concerning the nature of all or any of these Instructions He durst not determine which of them belonged to the formally Ecclesiastick or which to the objectively Ecclesiastick Power nor durst he determine that they were all intrinsecally and formally Ecclesiastical and if he was in doubt
Information for one of these Brethren relates that the Brother who was chosen to make use of the paper that was drawn as a Directory for what he was to say in their name upon supposition the paper with Instructions were offered did in the face of the Council declare that it was not in the Magistrates Power to make Rules intrinsecally Ecclesiastical to Regulate Ministers in the exercise of their Ministry and that their Lordships knew our Divines say so To which my L. Chancellour answered Sir we know what belongs to our Office as well as you what belongs to your And as to my Lord Chancellours Answer which contained a threatning to punish I related before from the Answer of this History written by a Minister who was present that it was in these words and no other Then Sir we will punish you Unto which Mr. H. did not reply in words but onely in gesture hence says he it 's needless to debate upon things that were not spoken Onely 1. It 's clear by my L. Chancellours reply that he understood these Ministers as refusing Obedience to these Injunctions otherwise he would not have uttered these words 2. That the Historians alledgeance that the punishment threatned by my L. Chancellour might comprehend Ecclesiastical punishment as he calls it is groundless and irrational The Kings Letter grants not to the Council the Power of inflicting Church censures if the King had given them that Power to inflict Censures they would also have had Power to take them off but as he shews in his Answer to the first Remark of the Historian on the Kings Letter they sisted to Indulge some whom they intended to Indulge till the Bishop had taken off the Sentence of Deposition So that the Council did not pretend by virtue of the Kings Letter to impose or remove Church-censures And the Council knew that the Indulged Ministers would not submit to the Bishops Censures and therefore it 's a groundless dream that by punishment Church-censure is meant He adds That the Magistrate might have commanded the Indulged Ministers to inflict Censures upon themselves as they used to do formerly in Presbyterial Courts Page 80. We heard saith the Historian of Rules intrinsecally c. but we heard of no assumption that such were the Rules contained in the paper tendred unto them nor of a conclusion that therefore they could not they might not in Conscience accept of them Answ The Historian hath not considered 1. Who these Ministers were they were not School-boys tyed to the formalities of Arguing Categoricè in modo figura Nor 2. Where they were they were not in the School ingaged in a School-dispute but before the secret Council where formal Syllogisms are accounted pedantry Nor 3. Hath he considered the part they sustained there for they were Defendants and if the Defendant deny and distinguish he does enough and if he give also a reason of his denial he does abundantly Now these Ministers acted all these parts very distinctly and rationally as we have seen already When the Apostles are brought before the Council Acts 4. they get another manner of Injunction than any in the Act of Instructions for they are commanded not to speak at all nor teach in the Name of Jesus This was an Instruction which tended to the destruction not only of the Gospel-Ministry but of all Christianity This was one of the worst Councils and this one of the worst Instructions that ever was for this Council was gathered directly against Christ and this Instruction was for the total destruction of Christianity root and branch and for the total Subversion of the Kingdom of Christ of the Church the Ministry the Gospel and of all private Conference about Christ c. This was worse than any Sect of Erastianism we have yet heard of let be seen and yet the Apostles enter not in debate with that Council about the Councils Authority to meddle in such matters they do not make Syllogisms against the Councils capacity of Acting nor against the Act they had made yea they do not in terminis say they will not obey the Councils command Nor say they in terminis that they would speak and teach in the name of Jesus They forbear a direct and formal Contradiction in terminis but they do that which was less irritating but much better and more for the Advantage of their Cause Their Answer which is in these words Acts 4.19 20. Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God judge ye for we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard is a real and rational refusal to do what the Council commanded and the Council understood it so and therefore threatned them further and such rational qualified Answers which are real refusals of wrong commands are much more to the Conviction and Edification of all that hear them than flat Contradictions not qualified with solid Reasons When the Apostles come to their Company they relate the matter and they are well satisfied with their behaviour they say not why entred ye not a Protestation against that Anti-christian Council that was not gathered in the Name of Christ but against Christ c Why did ye not in express terms say that ye would receive no commands from them Why said ye not in express terms that ye would speak at all occasions and teach in the name of Jesus and so flatly and in terminis contradicted the Councils Injunction Why spoke ye in such general terms of speaking the things that ye had heard and seen Why said ye not in terminis that ye would obey God and that ye would not obey the Council and that the command of the Council was contrary to the command of God Testimonies cannot be too plain ye should have been more particular Why did ye not frame an Argument against them thus When the command of men is contrary to the command of God then it is not to be obeyed but your command that ye have given to us at this time is contrary to the command of God And therefore we will not obey this your command But these good honest Primitive Christians who were Acted by the Spirit of Love were not so captious nor censorious In the 5th Chap. After they had beaten them they commanded that they should not speak in the Name of Jesus and let them go We do not hear that the Apostles said any thing after they were beaten against that new Injunction but they had not a mind to Obey it and they make that clear by their practice for they ceased not to Preach Jesus Christ daily in the Temple and in every House The Disciples do not refuse to hear them because they had given no verbal Testimony against that last Injunction or because they had not the last word seeing they did really disobey that Injunction in Preaching the Gospel they made no quarrel either at their speaking or at their silence when beaten they
that he imagines that they who spoke thus might have scrupled at nothing no not at the Magistrates Rules intrinsecally Ecclesiastical seeing they had expresly declared they could not receive such Rules But says he these may pass under the notion of Civil significations of their pleasure He might have as well said that black may pass under the notion of white and the Magistrate may pass under the notion of the Minister and the State under the notion of the Kirk For Ecclesiastical Canons and Civil significations of the Magistrates pleasure were as clearly contra-distinguished one from another as these things spoken of so that Canons intrinsecally Ecclesiastical coming from the Magistrate to these Brethren could never have passed with them as Civil significations c. except they had passed from what they had presently asserted in the Magistrates hearing and to his face And the coming of these Canons from the Magistrate would not have turned them into Civil significations or the Magistrates pleasure for they had said that they could receive no Ecclesiastical Canons from their Lordships Now if their coming from the Magistrate had turned them into Civil Acts and these Brethren had thought that the Magistrates giving of them would change their nature they would have thought it impossible for the Magistrate to give any Ecclesiastick Canons and so it had been a very ridiculous tale to have told they could not receive that from the Magistrate which it's impossible for the Magistrate to give it had been just as if a man would gravely assert I will drink no water out of the fire for its impossible that fire can give water and as impossible upon the foresaid supposition that the Magistrate can give Ecclesiastick Canons because his very giving them would make them Civil It 's as wild an imagination that he thinks these Brethren by Ecclesiastical Canons meant only Canons framed and given by men in Church Office as if they had said we cannot receive from your Lordships who are Magistrates Canons which ye cannot give because they can onely be given by Kirk-men and your Lordships are not men in Church-Office It 's a foolish thing to follow the Historian in the rest of his Extravagancies Pag. 78. He Argues as if these Brethren made no distinction betwixt the nature of Ecclesiastical Canons and Civil Acts signifying the Magistrates pleasure and as if they had declared that they would receive all which the Magistrate gave under the notion of Civil significations and if ye will grant him these concessions which are manifestly false and contrary to the express words of these Brethren then he will ex concessis prove that the Cause was plainly given up I wonder much how such fancies could enter in his Head but I wonder much more that upon his own groundless imaginations he could conclude such horrid slanders against honest Ministers The Brother who hath Answered this History after he hath solidly cleared these two Brethrens words and vindicate them he concludes Thus our Historian here hood-winks himself again and like a Boy playing at belly blind with a bonnet over his face gropes here and gropes there and makes several false suppositions coyns several false senses sets them up and dings them down bravely and Orthodoxly indeed What the Historian says pag. 79. of these two Brethren that they hinted by their Answers and Distinction that a Power formally Ecclesiastical is denominated so not because it is so in it self but meerly because it is exerted by Church-men is manifestly false This is a hint minted by his own prejudice and erring imagination which was wofully habituated to such false and injurious imaginations For the first part of their Speech which relates to Canons Ecclesiastical makes no mention at all of Church-men nor speaks of any reference of Ecclesiastical Canons to Church-men they onely say they could not receive Ecclesiastical Canons from their Lordships Page 79. The first part of Mr. H's Speech which he resumed as hath been often observed does overturn Erastianism and excludes the Magistrate from making Rules intrinsecally Ecclesiastical whether for Regulating Ministers or Church-members for he who hath not a Power formally Ecclesiastical cannot form Canons which are formally and intrinsecally Ecclesiastical The Historians additional Answer is already Answered As to these words which follow Intimating withal that the Brethren would either observe or not observe their Directions according as they judged of them in their Conscience upon their peril The Historian Answers And was this all Is it all one at whose hands Ministers receive Directions c. to Regulate them in the exercise of their Ministry c. I Answer although the words as they are related by the Informer who was not present but did write no doubt according to his Information will bear a fair construction For if Mr. H. hath spoken as the Informer relates I think it is more than probable that be hath been speaking of the Councils commands in general and indefinitely and I am confirmed in this from the words as they stand The Brother who Answers the History says there were other things spoken beside what the Informer relates and I am very much inclined to think that the speeches which passed betwixt my L. Chancellour and the Ministers and Mr. H. hath carried Mr. H. to speak in the general concerning the Brethrens Obedience to the Councils Directions that they would either observe or not observe their Lordships Directions as they judged of them in their Consciences upon their peril I say I am confirmed in this by the words as they stand for he does not say these Injunctions or Instructions or Rules which are the terms by which these Instructions were expressed But he says Directions and then he says not these Directions but their Directions comprehending all commands which might come from the Council If this was the thing he designed there is no occasion of carping at his words for no person can with any shadow of Reason say that a Subject speaking thus to the Magistrate I will observe or not observe your commands according as I shall judge of them in my Conscience I say none can say that that Subject gives more than enough to the Magistrate But suppose his words relate onely to these Directions yet no Person of Candour can alledge that they were undetermined as to their observing or not observing the Instructions which they judged intrinsecally Ecclesiastical seeing they had declared to the Magistrate they could not receive these from their Lordships that was a thing that they had judged in their Conscience already but the Confinement and it may be the Act for paying the Clerks Fees hath occasioned his Answering in that manner not being peremptory as to such things according as the two Brethren had said before that as to Civil significations c. But from what I find in other papers of Brethren who were present whose words none who know them will question I perceive that the Informer hath not gotten full
Authority That we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all Godliness and Honesty Which shews that the Assembly of Divines at Westminster did not think that the Kingdom of Christ is to be set up by ruining earthly Kings and Kingdoms and that they take not the right way to advance Christs Kingdom who reject the Magistrates countenance and maintenance of the Church Or who by despising and provoking Magistrates to wrath tempts them to discountenance the Church And seeing they look on the Church as Christs Kingdom the Historian hath not taken the right way to advance this Kingdom but hath taken the way to ruine it by dividing it For a Kingdom divided against it self cannot stand And if he had pondered the explication of the third Petition it might have been a mean to have prevented his giving so much place to his own Humour and Will in this History and helped him to more submission unto the Holy Providence of God than doth appear in this History I wish he had ere he began to write this History put up that Petition And lead us not into temptation Or at the close of it put up that Petition And forgive us our sins We have great need ere we begin Debates and Controversies even when they are necessary to pray that we be not led into temptation And great need to close such Debates even when the cause maintained is right with praying Lord forgive us our sins I have examined all that had any appearance of Reason in this History and refuted many things which needed no refutation if it had not been for the sake of simple People who are often deceived by big words where there is no shew or colour of Reason I have often by Reason refuted the unreasonable clamours both of the Author of the Epistle and of the History whereas I might have opposed clamour to clamour for what is founded upon meer clamour may be as easily cried down as it 's cried up Let none because of the Authors errors in this History cast at other useful Books which he hath published nor reject any thing that is true and right in this History Good men have their failings and we may not take our measures of them from their miscarriages under a fit of temptation Job's Friends had a just hatred against Hypocrisie and they mistake Job and falls foul upon him as a Hypocrite and speaks many things that are not right things in the heat of Debate This Author had a just indignation against Erastianism and a Spiritual Supremacy in Magistrates and he apprehended that his brethren had interpretatively homologate this Erastian and Spiritual Supream power in the Magistrate and having mistaken them he hath fallen foully upon them and spoken much evil of them without cause These things which in the Epistle and History are wrong are things for the most part which several people had drunk in and the printing of these errours hath given occasion to rectifie the mistakes of erring people if they will not shut their eyes against the light The Lord who is excellent in working draws good out of evil and maketh all things work together for good to them who love him and are the called according to his purpose he can over-rule the darkness of error so as it shall be subservient to clear the truth In the worst times the Elect hath obtained and shall obtain The Lord reigneth and ruleth in the midst of Enemies he can when men are scattering the dust of Zion be making way for laying a solid foundation in the deep humiliation of his people for building his house The Church hath been before as dry and scattered bones as bones scattered at the graves mouth and yet he who raiseth the dead hath made these bones to come together and live It 's our best to leave the answering of that Question Can these Bones live To the Lord himself to Jehovah who makes things that are not to be who doeth great things and unsearchable marvellous things and without number If we would take shame and confusion of face to our selves and would humble our selves in the sight and sense of our sins our darkness and stumblings and justlings in the dark and justifie the Lord in his judgments that are come upon us and yet ascribe to him the glory of his Mercy and out of our depths and darkness cry to him that he would cause his face to shine and enlighten our darkness and send out his Light and Truth and pour out the Spirit of a sound mind and that he would quicken us by the Spirit of Life that is in Christ Jesus that we might call on his Name and look on him whom we have pierced and mourn that when mens endeavours to gather the scattered sheep are not effectual that he the great Shepherd would seek out his sheep and deliver them out of all places where they have been scattered in the cloudy and dark day And if we would wait on him in the way of his Judgments and hope in his Word his Covenant which he uses to remember for his People and to repent according to the multitude of his Mercies and though we have no ground of hope in our selves yet hope against hope on the Lord who is the hope of Israel and the Saviour thereof in the time of trouble and that because with him there is Mercy and plenteous Redemption And so continue humbly praying hoping waiting for him He could soon redeem us from all our Iniquities and all our Troubles and cure all our distractions and distempers and give Light and Life and Unity and Peace Let us take shame to our selves and give him the glory due to his Name that his Name may endure for ever and be continued as long as the Sun that men may be Blessed in him and all Nations call him Blessed Blessed be the Lord God the God of Israel who onely doeth wondrous things And Blessed be his Glorious Name for ever and ever and let the whole Earth be filled with his Glory Amen and Amen The Conference continued Farmer SIR there are many things considerable in this Answer to the History of the Indulgence which I purpose to consider but there is one thing which not a little troubles me That the withdrawing from hearing the Indulged Ministers is called Schism Now I remember we are by Covenant bound to extirpate Schism and if I have been practising Schism in withdrawing from hearing the Indulged Ministers I have been Acting contrary to the Covenant Minister They who deal truly in the matter of the Covenant will study to fulfill their Vows not onely in some things but in all things Schism is a dissolution of that Union which ought to be among Christians and especially it appears in refusing that Church-fellowship or Ecclesiastical Communion which ought to be observed or in an unwillingness to communicate or to have communion with the true Church in Holy Actions Casuists shew that it is a most grievous