over our far more aggravated defections! but if they mourned then for these first degrees of declensions; we may say, 'How heavily would these valiant men groan, who formerly contended so stoutly for the liberty of the church of Scotland, if they beheld this our laziness (that I may call it by no worse name!') I know notwithstanding of all this, that some encourage themselves in a base compliance with the present corruptions of our church, from the practice of these worthies; alledging, they did not scruple to hear and join with prelatical men, dispensing the ordinances. But this objection will be easily refelled, if we consider, first, the period wherein they were but growing up to a more perfect reformation, and therefore might bear with many things which we cannot, after we have been reformed from them: they were then advancing, and still gaining ground, we are now declining, and therefore should be more shy to lose what we have gained. They had then of a long time enjoyed their judicatories, unto which they might recur for an orderly redress of such grievances that offended them; and when they were deprived of them, yet they were still in hopes of recovering them; and so suspended their total secession from that corrupt church, until they should recover them; in the mean time still holding their right, and maintaining their cause against these invaders. But we were, at the very first beginning of this unhappy revolution, totally deprived of our judicatories, and denuded of all expectation of them in an ordinary way, and of all place, but what they are masters of to contend with them that way; therefore must keep ourselves free of their communion. But next, if we consider their practice, we shall find these worthies were not such conformists, as our compliers would make them. What if we find among them meetings, that were called and counted as seditious and schismatic as ours are now? We find a field meeting, yea, a General Assembly at Dumfermline, without and against the king's warrant, when the ports were shut against them, in the year 1585. But that is not so pat to the purpose, as that we find private meetings at Edinburgh, and that in the very time of public service in the churches, discharged by open proclamation in 1624, wherein it is charged, that they had no respect to the ordinary pastors, contemned and impugned their doctrine, disobeyed and controuled their discipline, abstained to hear the word preached, and to participate of the sacraments. And long before that, we find the sincerer sort scrupled to hear Bishop Adamson, notwithstanding that he was absolved in the Assembly. And that afterwards, the doubt being proponed to the Assembly, if it be a slander to a Christian to absent himself from the sermons of them that are suspended from all function in the ministry? The Assembly answered, there is no slander in the case, but rather it is slanderous to resort. And why is not this ground to think it slanderous, or scandalous to resort to them, who deserve to be suspended (all of them by a spiritual cognizance, and some of them to be suspended corporally for their villany) when there can be no access orderly to do it. And the rather, because we find in this period, that sometimes ministers were so faithful and zealous against the corruptions of the ministry, that they decerned ministers to be suspended for far smaller faults, than many now could exempt themselves from, viz. if they were not powerful and spiritual; if they did not apply their doctrine to corruptions; if they were obscure and too scholastic before the people; cold and wanting zeal, flatterers, dissembling at public sins for flattery or fear, &c. As we may read in the advice of the brethren, deputed for penning the corruptions in the ministry, in 1596. I wish our silent prudent ministers now would consider the justness of this censure, and what ground people have to be offended at such censurableness. But not only this may answer the false imputation of conformity on these witnesses of Christ at that time; but I shall set down a part of a letter of one of the banished ministers at that time, discovering his mind about hearing these men, that were then serving the times. Mr. John Welch, writing to Mr. Robert Bruce——'What my mind is concerning the root of these branches, the bearer will shew you more fully. They are no more to be counted orthodox, but apostates; they have fallen from their callings, by receiving an antichristian, and bringing in of idolatry, to make the kingdom culpable, and to expose it to fearful judgments, for such an high perfidy against an oath so solemnly enacted and given; and are no more to be counted Christians, but strangers, apostates, and persecutors; and therefore, not to be heard any more, either in public, or in consistories, colleges, or synods; for what fellowship hath light with darkness?' We see then as to that part of the testimony, they were not dissonant to the witness of the present reproached sufferers.
II. As the matter and manner of their testimony against all the invaders of the church's privileges, did speak forth a great deal of sincere and pure zeal; so their practice was conform, shewing forth a great deal of strictness and averseness from all sinful compliances, even with things that would be now accounted of very minute and inconsiderable consequence, and for which honest sufferers now are flouted at as fools. When that oath was formed for acknowledging the supremacy, there was a clause added which might have been thought to salve the matter, "according to the word of God." I fear many now would not stand to subscribe with such a qualification. Yet the faithful then perceived the sophistry, that it made it rather worse, affirming that that brat of hell was according to the word of God: and therefore, though there were several eminent men to persuade them to it, both by advice and example, yet they could not, in conscience, comply; and pleaded also from the illegality of that imposition, that they should be charged with the subscription of laws, a thing never required before of any subject; if they offended against the laws, why might they not be punished according to the laws? When many honest faithful patriots, for the attempt at Ruthven to deliver the country from a vermin of villains that abused the King, to the destruction of the church and kingdom, were charged to crave pardon, and take remission; they would do neither, judging it a base condemning duty, which puts a brand upon our sneaking supplicators and petitioners, and pardon mongers, as unworthy to be called the race of such worthies, who scorned such baseness; and choosed rather to endure the extremity of their unjust sentences of intercommuning and banishment, &c. And when the Earl of Gowrie accepted of a remission, he afterwards condemned himself for it, and desired that his old friends would accept of his friendship, to whom he had the same favour offered to him, refused altogether, lest so doing he should condemn himself, and approve the courts proceedings: and the brethren, conferring with the counsellors, craving that some penalty should be condescended unto for satisfying his majesty in his honour, would not condescend to any, how light soever; lest thereby they should seem to approve the judicatory and their proceeding. The imprisoned ministers, for declining the counsel, had it in their offer, that if they would, without any confession of offence, only submit themselves to his majesty, "for scandal received, not given," they should be restored to their places: but it pleased God so to strengthen them, that they stopped their mouths, and convinced them in their consciences, that they could not do it without betraying of the cause of Christ. Again, in another case, we have instances of such strictness, as is much scorned now a-days. The ministers of Edinburgh were committed to ward, for refusing to pray for the queen, before her execution in Fothringham castle 1586. They refused not simply to pray for her, but for the preservation of her life, as if she had been innocent of the crimes laid to her charge, which had imported a condemnation of the proceedings against her. Afterwards, in the year 1600. The ministers of Edinburgh would not praise God for the delivery of the king from a pretended conspiracy of the Earl of Gowrie at that time, of which they had no credit nor assurance; and would not crave pardon for it neither. For this Mr. Robert Bruce was deprived of the exercise of his ministry, and never obtained it again in Edinburgh: but now, for refusing such compelled and imposed devotion, to pray or praise for the king, poor people are much condemned. I know it is alledged, that these faithful sufferers in those days, were not so strict as they are now, in submitting to unjust sentences, and obeying and keeping their confinements. I shall grant, there was much of this, and much might be tolerate in their circumstances, when the court's procedure against them was not so illegal, their authority was not so tyrannical, nor so necessary to be disowned, and they were so stated, that they were afraid to take guilt upon them, in making their escapes; whereas it is not so with us. Yet we find very faithful men broke their confinements; as Mr. John Murray, confined at Dumfries, perceiving there was no end of the bishop's malice, and that he would be in no worse case than he was, he resolved without licence, either of king or council, to transport himself: so did also Mr. Robert Bruce.
III. For resistance of superior powers, we have in this period, first the practice of some noblemen at Ruthven, in the [year] 1582. who took the King, and seized on that arrant traitor, enemy to the church and country the Earl of Arran; declaring to the world the causes of it, the King's correspondence with papists, his usurping
