the Supremacy and the Erastian Designe 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 certaine that the Kings Letter mentioned such and such Instructions to be given to all the Indulged it is also certaine that this Letter was not altogether unknown to them And when the Instructions which the Council in plain Expressions calleth termes 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 Councel Anno 1673. I heard not of their expressing their Dissatisfaction with these Termes so as to quite the benefite or as we say to cast the bargane 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 implicite consent unto these or the like termes 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 then 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 Ministrie they become thereby as formally subject unto them in Matters Ecclesiastick as any inferiour Civil-Officers such as Sheriffs Justices of Peace Baylies c. who yet it may be shall as little observe all their Instructions as the Indulged haue observed theirs this subjecting of the Ministrie 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 Ministrie without the full exercise of Discipline save what was to be had in a sinful way by compliance with Prelacie and so a tacite 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 cruâ—e not having so much as frâ—edome to exerce any part of their Ministrie and so are allowed of God to do all they can when they cannot do all they would and beside it is alledged without ground for with no lesse signal countenance they exercise some Acts of Discipline such as receiving of penitents than they preach and in both are countenanced as His â—mbassadours But the indulged are under the lee sheet of the Supremacie having full peace countenance and protection as much as in our best times and when our Church was most flourishing and yet dispense calmely 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 Ministrie is keeped up and the word committed to faithful men according to Christs Appointment who may serve the Lord in the Work of the Gospel in their Generation How quickly upon the want of this a faithful Ministriâ— shall of necessitie cease every one may see And yet the Indulged have accepted of the exercise of their Ministrie on such termes 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 ordaine some in order to the keeping up of this Ordinance is in so far commendable but is not sufficient to expiat 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 after-wit 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 vvronged THE Lords good hand of Providence having so ordered it that once a considerable Company were willing to endure Hardshipe Want Tribulation for the Truths 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 chargable 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 Choise 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 entrie that so many Ministers were thrust out from their Congregations by the Act of Councel 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 shew 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 Christs to ludibrie 2.
no scruple especially when that one did not shew what his ponderous reasons were I humbly judge the Zeal of God would have determined them another way But there was good cause for this for saith he They judged it not safe but prejudicial to the cause and to unity to break bulk and Act in a divided way when all were ready to concurre in the matter though they differed in the forme and manner And how inconvenient was it saith he that differences about the manner should be seen in publick when they were one upon the matter But what prejudice had come to the cause if a Testimonie had been given-in to the Councel unto which all had assented though it had wanted the subscription of one who was necessarily absent when it was subscribed Yea though it had wanted the subscription of one who was unwilling to subscribe In so doing they did not break bulk but that one if ever he had been within the hold had made the breach by abandoning his Brethren Unity and Harmonie is good I grant but I know not why every man should have a negative voice in all such matters and why nothing should be done by a Company or Society if but one man dissent I know no Divine rule for this nor will Christian prudence teach it and I am sure it is one to an hundered if ever any thing be done of moment or hazard by a company on these termes And I much doubt if when one onely Person yea or two are refractory all the rest of that Society should think themselves exonered in Conscience to forbear a duty clearly called for The forme and manner here was I judge a material thing and who were not clear as to it could not be very clear as to the matter There was another reason of this forbearance Had they saith he 2. been free to subscribe Papers at that time yet they could not look on that Paper as it was hastily and crudely patched up as beseeming so many Ministers of the Gospel to give-in to the State as their mature and formed thoughts In thesi I grant it is good that no man should subscribe a Paper with which he is not satisfied and I think it is exception relevant enough against the subscribing of a Paper called or looking like a Testimony when it is not plaine nor full enough even though what is said be otherwise not reproachable But as to this Paper I think this reason of his very strange when he told us before that the generality was for subscribing of it as it was rude hasty and raw Whence came this change Second thoughts it seemeth have taken place But in soberness I cannot but think strange that so many able Ministers of the Gospel could not after so many dayes debate give their formed and mature thoughts of a Business in which every Minister of the Gospel and Servant of Christ was obliged to be ready alwayes to give upon less than a few houres warning yea at the first demand an account of his Faith especially in this Controversie wherein all were called to be most clear and they especially who could not but know that their silence as to bearing Testimonie to the Truth at their first receiving the Indulgence had given such offence for my part though I cannot judge of the Paper having never seen it and though I see not how all he saith of it can prove it raw and indigested considering the account he gave of it before Yet because of that one clause he tels me was in it and universally assented unto I am as glade it was not subscribed and given-in as he was and upon that account do judge it was unfit to to be a standing thing as he speaketh for friends and foes at home and abroad to descant upon Onely I wonder how this Consideration could prevail with them rather to commit the expressing of the matter unto their chosen Mouth seing words spoken are more liable to Mis-constructions and Mis-representations and other Mistakes than words set down in write and it was one to to an hundered if that one Brother their Mouth should so happily in a set discourse hit upon the very expressions that were onely accomodat to declare all their mindes or if that Brother could have expressed the matter in more lively masculine digested and significant Expressions why might he not have been at so much paines as to have set these down in write and then the Paper being no more raw and indigested might have been subscribed and given in But the plaine Truth is litera scripta manet And it was to be feared that a written Paper would have provoked the Councel more than a transient and volant Expression in a running 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 plaine Testimonie though not set off with the paint of Words and Expressions having all their amiable cadencies and flowrs of Rhetorick would go far with honest well meaning Friends both at home and abroad and have been very acceptable yea and more convincing unto Enemies whether at home or abroad whose angrie descanting upon it would have been a further Confirmation of its honesty and validity There is yet a Third Reason given which is something long There being saith he such a clashing among Ministers and People some being for an utter refusal of any benfite of the late liberty and others being free to make use of it having given a Testimonie in their Station and that Paper relating only to these Instructions and not to the whole cause they could not but foresee that the giving-in of that Paper would have been looked upon as a Testimonie and therefore being so defective relating only to these Instructions and not speaking to other cases it would raise greater debates and heighten differences and this they were confirmed in when a Brother coming-in among them told them expresly their Testimonie as it was called was defective and would do more hurt than good except it were fuller yea certified we were upon good grounds that if that Paper had been given-in more tongues and pens would have been awaked and set on work against it than now are against the forbearing of it In which case albeit I could heartily have wished a full free general unanimous Testimonie were given-in yet I cannot see how their prudence can be blamed for forbearing that which would certainly have ministred fewel to the fire which is like if mercy prevent it no to consume this poor Church and may perhaps burn their fingers who are so eager to kindle and blow at it Not to insist nere on enquiring who were those who were free to make use of that which he calleth Liberty having given a Testimony And what was that Testimony and when and in what Station was it given by such as were free to make use of it Nor on showing how Improbable it was that
Spiritual Institutions 3. That it was not a full and plaine Vindication of the Doctrine of the Church of Scotland Nor an Assertion thereof according to former Vowes Covenants and Solemne Engagments 4. That it was not candide and ingenuous nor pertinent to the purpose in hand as it should have been by holding forth the Iniquity of such Impositions 5. That it was conceived in such General and Scholastick termes that neither they to whom it was spoken could well understand what was the drift thereof nor others conceive what was yeelded or denied in the then present case yea did not some of the Council say plainly they did not understand it 6. That it contained desingenuous Insinuations and unfaire Reflections on honest and worthy Mr A. B. and a tacite Condemning at least in part of his Plaine and Honest Testimony as if it had contained something either as to the matter or expression unjustifiable or at least liable to exceptions 7. That it contained at least as worded a designe too obvious of humoring and pleasing the Magistrates while actually stated in and prosecuting an opposition to Christs Supremacie and to the Right and Power granted to the Church-Office-Bearers 8. That as it speaketh not home to the point so it is not clear in it self opposing unto Giving and Imposing of Rules Intrinsecally and Formally Ecclesiastical a power only Objectively Ecclesiastical whereby the Magistrate judgeth of the matters of Religion in order to his own Act of approving or disapproving of such a way and nothing else And so either accounting all things to be Rules Intrinsecally and Formally Ecclesiastical which is not a meer judging in order to the Magistrates own Act or on the other hand accounting all things in and about Religion to belong to that power which is Objectively only Ecclesiastical and so to be no less competent to the Magistrate than is that Judgment of discretion whereby he judgeth in reference to his own act of Countenancing or Discountenancing such a way which are not real prescribing of Rules Intrinsecally and Formally Ecclesiastical And thus either giving the Magistrate too little or else too much He tels us of another that spoke before it came to Mr H's turn and that this Person told He could not receive Ecclesiastical Canones from their L L. but as for civil significations of their pleasure under the hazard of civil penalties he could say nothing to that that another did homologate this speech But under favoure this is secundum artem violatilizare densa densare volatilia a pretty whim wham good for nothing On a serious solid zealous Minister should have been ashamed to have substitute such Whity Whaties in the place of a plain Testimony clearly called for in the case But these two Persons not onely brake their own Order and might have occasioned some Consternation to the rest as well as Mr B 's speaking did but also spoke indeed nothing to the purpose and might as well have been silent For 1. By this Distinction little better than a mental reservation they might have scrupled at nothing that theMagistrate might attempt to prescribe in Church-Matters no nor at his giving Rules Intrinsecally and Formally Ecclesiastical for these might also passe under the Notion of Civil Significations of their pleasure c. and thus contradict Mr H. their Common Mouth and the Paper also to which they had unanimously agreed For can they say that the Magistrate giveth or can give a Civll Signification of his will onely when he judgeth in order to his own Act of Approving or Disapproving such a way and so exerteth that Power of his which is only Objectivly Ecclesiastical and not also in many other Acts meerly Ecclesiastical even Formally and Intrinsecally Or can they say that all the Intrinsecalness and Formality in Matters Ecclesiastical consisteth in their being done by Church-Officers acting in a Church-Judicatory and that â—here is no Act which in it self can be called Intrinsecally and Formally Ecclesiastical but that the sole ground of that Denomination is their being performed by Men in Church-office and so the very Act of Preaching and of Administrating of Sacraments might be done by the Magistrate as Civil Significations of his pleasure being not Intrinsecally and Formally Ecclesiastick but when done by Church-Oâ—ficers And thus all the Ecclesiastickness of Actions which are Intrinsecally and Formally such floweth from and dependeth upon the Ecclesiasticalness of the Agents Whence it will follow that all which such Ecclesiastical Persons do must be Intrinsecally and Formally Ecclesiastick and so their judging Civil matters condemning Malefactors c. not to speak of other actions should be actions Formally and Intrinsecally Ecclesiastical Ergo it is competent only to Church-Officers And on the contrary this should be a good Argument This man is an Ecclesiastick Person therefore the Action which he doth must be Formally and Intrinsecally Ecclesiastick And as by this meanes there should be no Cause or Action Formally and Intrinsecally Ecclesiastical in it self so there should be no Cause or Action Intrinsecally and Formally Civil in it self but that onely which is done by the Civil Magistrate And this consequence were good This is done by a Civil Magistrate Ergo it is Formally and Intrinsecally Civil and this should be a bad consequence This is an action Formally and Intrinsecally Civil Ergo it is to be done by the Civil Magistrate onely 2. This answere of these two Brethren must either Homologate what Mr H. said or be dissonant therefrom If Dissonant then they did not keep to the Paper which they had owned as Mr H. did Then also Mr H. in his discourse spoke not truth for I suppose these two will think they spoke right and then either the Paper that was agreed on was not right or Mr H. spoke not according to it for I also suppose that these two will say they spoke nothing disagreeing with their Paper If their answere did Homologate Mr. H's discourse then what necessitie was there for it And why used they other expressions if they had a mind to speak And it would seem that all that Mr H. said was this and no more Mr B. and we must be excused if we look not upon the Council as a Church-Judicatory making Ecclesiastical Canons but only as a Civil Court emitting Civil significations of their pleasure under the hazard of Civil penalties 3. This answer seemeth to me a more plaine giving up of the Cause than all which Mr H. said for it is no other in effect than this Let the Magistrates enjoine what they please we need not scruple upon the account of any encroachment made upon the Prerogatives of Christ or Privileges of his Church for this distinction will salve all Let us receive all not as Ecclesiastical Canons but as Civil significations of their pleasure c. and so there is no danger though they should use both a Dogmatick Critick and Diatactick power determine Controversies of faith Appoint Rules of Ordination
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 Enemie 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 shal be but a continued compliance and we must suppose that they are now out of case to owne and contend for their Liberty Which holdeth not as to the Indulgence for as there was a sinful cedeing at the first in not resisting unto bloud striving against these Usurpers by Protestations Declarations and other Meanes 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 binde 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 Controversie 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 Contendings 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 yeeld more peace than the accepting of that which is called a little reviving but indeed is a weakning both of the Cause and of our Party It is laudable Constancy in this Case not to yeeld or grant one hoof But what pusillanimity yea and treachery will it be by cedeing and accepting of such supposed revivings to put ourselves and our Posterity out of all case to recover our Liberty and to burie with our own hands the very memorie of the good old Cause for which our Predecessours 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 Enemie though with more trouble and less quiet to our selves Obj. 13. Though the Magistrats principal Designe in this matter be the Establishment of his own Supremacie Yet the accepting of this favour cannot be so much as an Interpretative yeelding thereunto as may be clear by this Supposition that the Magistrate without any change of Principle or Designe had ordered all Ministers to their own Churches Answ. 1. This being confessedly the Magistrat's principal Designe in granting this supposed favour our acceptance cannot but be accounted by him a reall 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 Magistrat did rationally account to be unto him a virtual acknowledgment and a reall 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 re-entrie 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 Freedome and Liberty Obj. 14. The Magistrat 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 Magistrat 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 otherwayes Yet both the Nature of the thing and the concomitant Acts made of purpose to Limite Restrict and Qualifie 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 Councel 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 sheweth that they meant these Injunctions for Conditions this also they expresly 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 Superiour doth not expresly require an explicite Consent but resteth satisfied with his own Intimation As when a Father granteth to one of his Children such a portion of Land and withall â—ntimateth that it is his will and pleasure that he take on him the burden of so much dâ—â—t though the Son should not be required to express his consent to the Condition of the Debt yet his accepting of the benefite thus burthened 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 Benefite and therefore the rest took the Benefite with its burden and could not while accepting the favour account themselves free of the Conditions or not-obliged to performe them seing 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 it self 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 expresly 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
was made manifest how the Indulged in accepting of the Indulgence have acted to the great prejudice of the Church how can we imagine that such are to be condemned who withdraw from them and countenance such as are seeking and promoving its good in the way countenanced and approven of God 7. If we impartially consider the Twelve Particulars mentioned under our 7. Head of Arguments several of which also might be adduced here as distinct Arguments whereby it appeared how these Indulged in their accepting of the Indulgence have wronged our Cause and departed from the grounds upon which our Church is suffering we will see cause of approving such as withdraw from them as matters now stand 8. Seing by what is said it is manifest that the Entrie of the Indulged unto their present Places and Stations is not consonant but repugnant to our Former Doctrine Principles and Practices owned since the Reformation and confirmed by our Oathes Vowes Covenants and Solemne Engagments besides the Testimonies given thereunto by the Sufferings of our Predecessours and by our own Sufferings can we blame and condemne such who dar not owne them as lawfully entered into these places 9. Seing the Indulged have by the accepting of the Indulgence and acting by vertue thereof in so far departed from Former Principles and Practices and a difference ought to be put betwixt them and other Ministers who through grace have hithertill been preserved from stepping aside whether to Prelacy or to Erastianisme in their Practices who can condemne such as withdraw from the one and adhere to the other 10. Is there not a great difference betwixt the ground whereupon the Indulged do presently exercise their Ministerie and the ground whereupon formerly before they embraced the Indulgence they did and others to this day do exercise it Or shall we say that it is all one whether Ministers have the Ministerial Potestative Mission unto such or such places over which they are set from Presbyteries authorized thereunto by Christ which sometimes they had or have it from the Magistrat no wayes thereunto authorized by Christ as now they have it only And if there be a difference how can any condemne those who cannot now owne them as they did formerly 11. Seing the difference betwixt these two wayes mentioned is great and seing they cannot be compounded in one nor lawfully made subordinat the one to the other is it not undeniable that these Indulged betaking themselves now to the Magistrat's Mission as they have done have upon the matter renounced their former Mission which they had from Presbyteries acting Ministerially under Christ And if so can people be condemned who do not nor cannot owne and countenance them as formerly they did 12. It being apparent from what is said above on several occasions that as the Indulged did deliberatly shun to say that they had their Ministrie onely of Christ so they do now Act and Exerce the same as receiving it not alone from Christ by the Ministerial Conveyance of the Power and Authority to exerce it which Christ hath ordained but either as receiving it from the Magistrat alone and if so they cannot be looked upon as Christ's Servants but as the Magistrat's Servants or from Christ and the Magistrat as Collateral Heads and Fountains of Church-power but thus to speak were blasphemie or from the Magistrate as directly subordinat to Christ which is the ground of all Arminian-Erastianisme How can Men be accounted transgressours who in Conscience cannot owne them as formerly they did when they acted and exercised their Ministrie as receiving it alone from Christ by the Ministerial conveyance of the Power Authority thereto through the hands of his Servants thereunto appointed 13. Is there no difference to be put betwixt such as exercise the Ministrie in subordination unto and in a dependance upon the Council as being their Curats as accountable to them and others who as they are subordinat unto so they owne their dependance onely upon Christ in the way He hath prescribed receiving Instructions only from Him in His appointed way to regulate them in the Exercise of their Ministrie and hold themselves accountable only to Him in that way And seing it is manifest that there is a very great difference Who can condemne such as withdraw from the Indulged who have their Instructions to regulate them in the Exercise of the Ministrie from the Council as was manifested above as accountable only to them and to such as they are directly subordinat unto that is the King and not from Christ Jesus as onely Head of the Kirk 14. Seing by receiving the Indulgence with their Instructions c. the Indulged do upon the matter recognosce a Supream Head-Power over the Church and Church-affairs in the Magistrates to the denying of Christ's sole Headshipe and dethroning of Him as hath been on several occasions cleared above how can such be condemned who scruple to owne them in that case or to countenance them while they act so 15. Seing the Indulged being set over the people specially designed and appointed them by the Council's order and not in the way appointed by Christ can not be said to be set over these people as their Overseers by the Holy Ghost as hath been evidenced above how can such be blamed who cannot owne them as their Overseers and as made Overseers to them by the Holy Ghost 16. Seing we have made it manifest above that the entrie of the Indulged hath a manifold relation unto the Usurped Supremacie in Church-affaires and that as it floweth therefrom is secured thereby and dependeth in its legal being therupon as its Charter so it contributeth to the strengthening securing and encouraging of the Usurpation and seing this Supremacy and Sacrilegious Usurpation of the Prerogatives Royal of our Lord Jesus and Subversion of the Rights and Privileges of the Church is the Top-point of all our Defection and the Center into which all the Lines of our Apostasie concurre and agree can any who would not joyne in this defection and have a proportionable part of the guilt charged upon them give countenance and approbation unto those Indulged whose entrie is so neer a kin unto that Supremacy Or can any who desire to be free of all compliance with this abominable evil carry towards those who are now set over them by vertue of the Supremacie as formerly 17. The Supremacy now regnant and the grand National sin being such an evil as all that would be keeped free of the plagues that the same will bring upon the Land must in their places and stations bear witness against the same And seing Common people have no other way Patent or Practicable for them to give this plaine and honest Testimony against this hainous Usurpation in any publick manner but by withdrawing from such as are set over them by vertue of this Usurped Power can those be condemned who out of Conscience of their duty zeal to Christ's Prerogatives Care to keep