The grounds ends of this undertaking SECTION 1. Pag. 5. Sheweth When the Christian religion began first in Scotland That Palladius was the first prelate in Scotland No prelats among the Culdees How when reformation from popery began Superintendents no prelats Nationall Assemblies from the beginning of the reformation How the Tulchan Bishops came in over the Church her belly The Church wrestleth till these be put away presbyterian Government be setled in all her judicatories Anno 1592. The King thereafter incroacheth upon the privileges of the Church Prevaileth with some of the Ministers who betray the Church yeeld to Parliament-Bishops hinder the Church from enjoying her privileges liberties in her free Assemblies The faithfull Zealous are persecuted Parliaments carry on the King's designe with violence Corrupt Assemblies are convocated to further his Maj. designe to give Church power unto these Parliamentary Prelats Parliaments ratifie all The Church protesteth striveth against all this what she can The prelats being now inthroned tyrannize over oppresse the faithfull laboure to have ceremonies imposed upon the Church with force acts made in Parliament for bringing in the surplice Corner cap unto which some worthy nobles could not assent Anno 1633. Who are therefore accounted rebels traitours And Balmerino is condemned The prelats rage without all law draw up a service book book of canans c. SECT 2. Pag. 44. Sheweth How the use of the service book was hindered in Edenburgh Ministers people from all parts of the Kingdome petitioned against it The King favoureth not the petitioners They not withstanding continue in petitioning against the service book high Commission prelats c. Renew the nationall Covenant thorow the whole land The King intendeth a war An Assembly is indicted at Glasgow Nov. 21. And opened up This Assembly condemneth anulleth severall pretended Assemblies the book of common prayer the book of canons the book of consecration ordination the high commission court the ceremonies excommunicateth some deposeth all the prelats War is prepared against them They defend themselves A pacification is concluded another Assembly promised a Parliament thereafter The Assembly is opened up The Parliament is convocated but quickly adjourned Commissioners are sent to London imprisoned A new war is raised by the King Scotland prepareth for defence A new pacification The Parliament meeteth ratifieth all which the Covenanters had done Those acts are againe ratified The Parl. of Engl. beginneth a work of reformation entereth into a Covenant with Scotland the two nations joyntly proceed in the begun work of reformation A party in England strengthen themselves alter the judicatures take away the King's life Scotland bringeth home the prince who sweareth the Covenants is overcome by the Englishes in battell keeped in bondage ten yeers till the exiled King returned Anno 1660. SECT 3. Pag. 69. Sheweth Why these Ministers others who met Agust 23. 1660 were incarcerated what their supplication was And how unjustly they suffered upon that account SECT 4. Pag. 77. Sheweth What were the grounds upon which the Marquise of Argilâ—… suffered how insufficient in poynt of law from severall considerations SECT 5. Pag. 83. Sheweth What were the grounds upon which the life of precious Mr Guthry was taken how insufficient Either in law or conscience SECT 6. Pag. 86. Sheweth Upon what account other Ministers were persecuted And how unjustly Some banished for righteousnesse sake some indictâ causâ An extract of the sentence was refused to thosâ—… to all others SECT 7. Pag. 88. Sheweth The grounds why conscientious Ministers could not observe the anniversary day SECT 8. Pag. 91. Sheweth The reasons why Ministers could not observe the prelatâ—… meetings The author of the seasonable case c. Answered SECT 9. Pag. 101. Sheweth The reasons why ministers could not seek presentations from patrons nor collations from prelats The author of the seasonable case answered SECT 10. Pag. 114. Sheweth The true sense of the oath of alleagiance which was tendered Anno 1661. c. Compared with the former how it holdeth forth a great civil supremacie in the King cleared by the act 11 parl 1661. Which at least is much to be questioned from nine severall grounds And cannot lawfully be acknowledged because of ten dreadfull consequences which shall necessarily follow thereupon The former proceedings of the Church state of Scotland vindicated cleared SECT 11. Pag. 140. Sheweth The lawfulnesse of Scotlands defensive war first from the former practices of Scotland other Kingdomes King Iames King Charles confessions of adversaries next from a true clearing of the state of that war in Six Particulars which obviat all the objections of adversaries And lastly from lawyers adversaries the law of nature the law of nations the law of God sound reason SECT 12. Pag. 169. Sheweth What is the meaning of the oath of alleagiance as to its Ecclesiasticall part What way the King's supremacy over Church persons in Church causes began was carryed on in England How the same was advanced to a great height in Scotland What sense this King the late Parliament did put upon the oath of alleagianee by their Acts Actings How it were sinfull to acknowledge by taking the oath That so much Church power belongeth unto the civil Magistrate cleared by Nineteen particulars SECT 13. Pag. 200. Sheweth The groundlesnesse of Mr Stilling fleet 's notion concerning the divine right of formes of Church governement by making it appear how he overturneth his owne grounds how he misstateth the question the practice of the Apostles ground a jus divinum here Christ's institution the institution of the Apostles is for a particular species Christ's faithfulnesse in his office speaketh much for this The hazard is great in leaving the species undetermined The confession of the faith of severall Churches for a Species How he misseth his pretended end arme And how unseasonable his book is at this time uselesse so long as the league Covenant standeth in force though his notion were true in thesi SECT 14. Pag. 254. Sheweth How weak the Reasons are which plead for the taking of the oath of alleagiance by answereing Sixteen of them SECT 15. Pag. 270 Sheweth How unlawfull it is to owne acknowledge the curats foâ—… lawfull Ministers by fourteen reasons Foure objections answered SECT 16. Pag. 298. Sheweth That it is lawfull for Ministers banished from their owne flocks by a sentence of the civil Magistrate to preach in publick or private as God calleth by Eight reasons Thrâ—… objections are answered SECT 17. Pag 305. Sheweth That it is lawfull for Ministers though censured by the pretended prelate to preach as God giveth a call whether in publick or in private by Six reasons Foure objections are answered SECT 18. Pag. 310. Sheweth That it is lawfull for people to meet together for hearing honest Ministers preach publickly or privately And for other Christian duties notwithstanding of Acts made against it by severall reasons One objection answered SECT 19. Pag. 316. Sheweth How unlawfull it is to acknowledge the high commission court by compeering before it by Eleven reasons Foure or five objections are answered SECT 20. Pag. 327. Sheweth How dreadfull a sin it is to abjure the Covenant a sin aggravated by twelue particulars SECT 21. Pag. 347. Sheweth What judgements perjury hath brought on in all ages out of history sacred prophane SECT 22. Pag. 359. Sheweth The lawfulnesse binding force of the solemne league Covenant notwithstanding of all which the author of the seasonable case c. hath said against it SECT 23. Pag. 391. Sheweth The lawfulnesse of the nationall Covenant as it was sworne subscribed Anno 1638 1639 c. Notwithstanding of all which the author of the seasonable case c. Hath said to the contrary The CONCLUSION Pag. 416. Sheweth What the now afflicted Church of Scotland expecteth from strangers what use they should make of this sad dispensation c. FINIS Whence may not men destruction feare Who with deceitfull hearts do sweare This age wherein we live is void of faith For writes are signed twelue witnesses before The notar writt'th both time place what more Yet come'th a man of words who all deny'th King's words have weight great respect More then all oaths which men exact
flee About this time in other pairts of the Kingdome the ministers honest people who were urged could not give obedience resolved to follow a more regular way and to supplicat the Councell to give in a note of the errours contained in these books which accordingly they did so from severall pairts of the Kingdome there came Ministers professours with supplications sheweing how erroâ—…ons both the liturgy the other books were how dangerous a thing it was to bring in Innovations in a Church how the Reformed Churches of Austria were undone by the violent obtiusion of a liturgy how in the time of Charles the Great the Church was miserably rent some adhering to the Ambrosian Liâ—…gy others choosing the Romane of Oregorian Liturgy how dangerous it was to change the Worship bring in a worse how the King foure years before at his Coronation did solemly swear that he would alter nothing in the Kingdome of Scotland without the free consent advice of those having Interest Unto these Supplications the Councill at first gave a favourable answere told that it was not their minde to presse the publick use of these books that they had forbidden the Bishops to presse the use of these books any more that they had signified their minde to his Maj were expecting a returne The petitioners likewise sent their supplications to his Maj. with the Duke of Lennox who was then returning to London withall did wreastle with God by prayer faâ—…ing that he would incline the Kings heart to hearken unto their just desires would frustrate the endeavours of their adversaries But when the expresse cometh from his Maj. all the answere they get is an Edict published Octobr 18. commanding them to go out of the towne of Edenburgh within few hours under the paine of Rebellion When the Petitioners see this the next day they resolve to act all together joyntly that his Maj. might know it was not a few Puritanes as the impure Prelats were pleased to nickname them but a great mulitude of his Maj. most loyall subjects of all ranks who were dissatisfied And they draw up a complaint against the prelats desire liberty of the Councell to pursue them legally as being the onely authors of the Book of Canons liturgy which containe the seeds of Superstition Idolatry as being guilty of many other crimes that under the highest perrill And withall they shew the Councell that they could not leave the towne untill they saw some course taken for delivering the land from the present imminent dangers When the Councell saw that the number of the Petitioners was great dayly increasing fearing the worst they desired the petitoners would choose some of their number as their Commissioners to prosecute their business that the multitude might depairt this was yeelded unto But ere long the Councell is discharged by an Expresse from his Maj. to meddle any more in that matter Whereupon the Supplicants are necessitated to draw up a Protestation declaring that if any tumult arose through their prosecution of the Cause the Councell onely might be blamed as refusing justice When the Counsell heareth of this they resolve to hear the desire of the Commissioners advise the Bishops to withdraw themselves When the Commissioners compeer they show their Intention was to prosecute their business against the Prelats whom they would prove guilty of grievous crimes under the highest perrill therefore desired the prelats might be excluded it not being fit that parties should be judges The Councell because of the forementioned Expresse might do nothing Onely they write to his Maj. who thereafter sendeth for the Earle of Traquair but he for fear of the Prelats did misrepresent the Cause of the Supplicants returned with a Proclamation from his Maj. which he caused publish at Sterlin where the Councell was sitting in Febr. 1638 In which Proclamation the King owned the books which the petitioners did supplicat against and condemned the meetings of the Supplicants as conspiracies contrary to the lawes of the Land Against this the petitioners prepared a Protestation a copy wherof was affixed at the Crosse of Sterlin herein protested against these Books as full of errours as Innovations against their refusing to receive libells against the Prelats against the High Commission Court obtruded on Scotland contrary to the fundamentall lawes of the land without any Municipall law That prelate should not be judges in their own cause And that all their own meetings were lawfull And that they could not forbear with a good conscience unlesse they should wrong the Glory of God the honour of his Maj. the liberties of kirk Kingdome And because they were commanded to depart forth of the town of Sterlin they go together towards Edenburg there after serious thoughts they finde the maine procureing cause of all these calamities to be the violation of the Nationall Covenant therefore unanimously they resolve to renew that Covenant accordingly they draw it up with some explicatory additions confirmations out of the acts of Parliament binde themselves to adhere unto defend the true Religion forbearâ—…g the practise of all novations already introduced in the matters of the worship of God or approbation of the corruptions of the publick government of the Kirke or civill places power of Kirkmen till they be tried allowed in free Assemblies in Parliaments to labour by all meanes lawfull to to recover the purity liberty of the Gospell as it was established professed before the foresaid Innovations promise swear to continoâ—… in the profession and obedience of the foresaid Religon â—…resist all contrarie errours and corruptions ând that they had no intention to attempt any thing that might turne to the dishonour of God or to the diminution of the Kings greatness and authority and to defend themselves mutually in the same cause c. When the Covenant is thus drawn up it was subscribed by all present copies thereof were sent to such as were absent being read in the Churches was heartily embraced sworne subscribed with tears great joy Great was this day of the Lords power for much willingness chearfulness was among the people so as in a short time few in all the land did refuse except some Papists some aspiring Courteours who had no will to displease the King some who were addicted unto the English rites Ceremonies some few Ministers who had sworne the oath at their entry which was mentioned Anno 1612. Yea such willingness was among the nobles others that they had their own copies of the Covenant subscribed by others of the Nobles Barons ministry laid up in their Charter chists where possibly many of them are at this day When matters are at this passe the Prelats do animate his Maj. to a war and the Covenanters desireing his Maj. might be rightly
fit necessary it is for the honour service of almighty God the good quyet of the Church the better government thereof in unity order That there be a National Synod Assembly duely constitut within this kingdome Hath therefore appoynted declared by these presents appoynts declares That there shall be a National Synod of the Church of Scotland And that this Synod for the lawfull members thereof shall consist be constituted of the Archbishops of St Andrews Glasgow the remanent Bishops of these two Provinces of all Deanes of cathedrall Churches Archdeacons of all the moderators of meetings for exercise allowed by the Bishops of the respective dioeceses of one Presbyter or Minister of each meeting to be chosen elected by the moderator plurality of the Presbyters of the same And of one or two from the University of St Andrews one from Glasgow one from the King's colledge one from Marshells colledge of Aberdeen one from Edinburgh And this Synod thus constitut is to meet at such times in such places as his Maj. by his proclamation shall appoynt And is to debate treat consider consult conclude determine upon such pious matters causes things concerning the doctrine worship discipline governement of this Church as his Maj. under his Royal hand shall deliver or cause be delivered to the Archbishop of St Andrews president of the said Nationall Assembly to be by him offered to their consideration The Estates of Parliament do humbly recognosce acknowledge his Maj. Royall power prerogative afore said with the piety justice prudence of his Maj. resolution therein Like as his Maj. with their advice consent doth hereby establish ratify confirme this constitution of a Nationall Assembly as the lawfull constitution of the Nationall Synods Assemblies of this Church His Maj. or his Commissioner without whose presence no Nationall Synod can be keeped being alwayes present declareth that no Act canon order or ordinance shall be owned as an ordinance of the Nationall Synod of the Church of Scotland so as to be of any effect force or validitie in law to be observed keeped by the Archbishops Bishops the inferiour Clergy all other persons within the realme as far as lawfully being members of this Nationall Church it doth concerne them but that which shall be considered consulted agreed upon by the president major part of the members above specified It is alwayes hereby provided that nothing be enacted or put in execution by authority of a Nationall Synod within this Kingdome which shall be contrary to his Maj. Royall prerogative or to the lawes of the Kingdom that no act matter or cause be debated consulted concluded upon but what shall be allowed approved confirmed by his Maj. or his Commissioner present at the said Nationall Synod In which Act these things are remarkable 1. That Church Assemblies may not meet without his warrand 2. The King or his Commissioner are essentiall constituent members thereof 3. That the King hath power to appoynt the very constituent members of the Synod 4. Ruleing elders are excluded out of Church judicatories 5 That the constant moderator hath a more then ordinary voice in the exercise for the member to be chosen there must be elected by him the major part of the rest 6. Nothing can be agreed upon without the consent of the Archbishop of St Andrews thus he hath a negative voice 7. Nothing must be debated either concerning doctrine worshipe discipline or government but what his Maj. pleaseth 8. Nothing must be concluded but what his Maj. or his commissioner doth approve confirme 9 All this is founded on his supremacy 10. And his supreme authority over all persones in all causes his prerogative royall are declared to be all one 5. There is another commission granted for the heigh commission a part whereof followeth Our Soveraigne Lord ordaines a commission to be passed exped under his Maj. great seall of the Kingdome of Scotland making mention That in consideration of the multiplicity weight of Church affaires of the Estate incumbent upon the Lords of privy councell so as they cannot attaine the due execution of the lawes to the effect that the disorders contempt of authority may be timeously suppressed His Maj. by vertue of his prerogative in all causes over all persons as well ecclesiastike as civill has given granted like as his Maj. by the tenor hereof giveth granteth full power commission to the Archbishop of St Andrews The Lord chancellour L. treasurer archbishop of Glasgow Duk Hamilton Marques of Monâ—…se c. or any five of them an Archbishop or Bishop being one of the number To summon and call before them all contemners of the discipline of the Church for that cause suspend deprive and excommunicat all keepers of conventicles c. to appoynt ministers to be censured by suspension and deposition and punished by fineing confineing and incarcerating them and all other persons who shell be found transgressours as aforesaid c. Out of this Act these things are remarkable 1. Here is a mixed court made up of Church men civill men 2. A court medling both with civil ecclesiastick punishments for they have power of deposeing excommunicating fineing and imprisoneing 3. A court founded upon his Maj. prerogative in all causes over all persons as wel ecclesiasticke as civil 4. An Archbishop or Bishop is sâ—…e quo non one of those with four others may do all themselves By what is said something of the meaning of this oath according to their sense who tender it may be discovered the bussinesse being so clear much time needeth not be spent in handling that long tedious controversie concerning the Magistrats power in Church matters Onely a hint at some few things as reasons why this oath thus tendered explained could not be taken will be sufficient 1. By this meanes they should upon the matter have affirmed that the King was head of the Church for it is clear that he assumeth to himself power of appoynting new officers in Christ's house new courts judicatures which Christ did never appoynt of committing Church power to whom he will of appoynting what forme of Government in the Church he thinketh fit modelling the constitution of Church idicatories appoynting who shall be members who not who members siue quibus non of limiting the bounds of their procedour by appoynting what they shall treat of what not of puting life in their canons constitutions c. Thus all Church power shall flow from him he shall become the head of the Church under Christ the same way that he is head of the commonwealth under God And indeed the prelate their creatures are not ashamed in their publick prayers to stile the King head of the Church Now could any faithfull
excellent Voâ—…t ubi suprâ—… Pag. 189. Quaest. 11. 9. That no Church canon or ordinance hath any effect force or validity but what shall be approved confirmed by him or his commissioner for so much doth the fore cited Act import now who but he who hath drunken in the opinions of Erastus Arminians will assent unto this It is true the canons ordinances of a Church judicatory cannot have the strength of a municipall law without the Magistrat's civill sanction But yet they may have the strength of Church Canons whether he approve of them or not as the Acts of the Councell at Ierusal Act 15. of all other Synods Assemblies which the Church had dureing the first three hundered yeers had Otherwise the Church should be in a hard case when the civill Magistrat did refuse his concurrence as hath been oft hinted in a better case under heathens then under Christian Magistrats Therefore this could not be assented unto 10. That all Church Canons are his proper Acts flow natively from him his power for the meeting is but for Counsell advice to him all which they say is without force unlesse he approve it as the Act sayeth so all their Acts Canons are his only not theirs But this could not be granted because 1. what ever he doth as supreme Governour or Magistrat is a civill Act no Church Act so no Church Canon 2. No Church Canon can be made by any but by Church Officers who are impowered by Iesus Christ for that effect but the Magistrat as such is no Church Officer 3. This power is without all warrand of Scripture therefore can not be acknowledged Thus you see what incroachments upon the Privileges of the Church the taking of this oath thus sensed by them carryeth along with it albeit there be some Erastians others who take these for no incroachments but trutâ—…es Yet reformed divines such as famous worthy Voetius Apollonius others have sufficiently manifested them to be grosle errours because the end designed in this undertaking is satisfaction to orthodox reformed sound divines with whose principles the present suffering Church of Scotland doth accord it is accounted sufficient only to mention those things which the taking of this oath as explained by their Acts deeds who tender it would clearly import an assenting unto But to proceed 15. By this oath They should grant that the Church is very imperfect so long as she wanteth a Christian Magistrat for she wanteth a chief Officer And hence it will follow that the Church in the dayes of the Apostles some hundereds of Years thereafter was imperfect as to its Constitution wanting this supreme Governour Otherwise they must say that Nero Caligula the rest of the Roman persecuting Emperours did sufficiently fill up this place And that the Apostles did upon the matter would not have refused plainely to have affirmed that these persecuting heathens were supreme Governours over all persones in all causes Civill Ecclesiastick But none of those can be affirmed with any probality or shew of reason 16. Yea by taking this oath They should grant that the Apostles primitive Church walked not regularly in the matter of governing the Church Because they acted with no such subordination unto the supreme Magistrat who then was they derived no power from him as their supreme Governour in causes Ecclesiastick To say that necessity did put them to this is but a poor defence for then out of necessity the primitive Church did rob the Magistrat of his power or else this power agreeth not to all Magistrats but only to Christian Magistrats it so it cannot be a power or Privilege annexed to the Crown And further it doth not agree to them as Christians nor yet as Magistrats otherwise it should agree to all Christians to all Magistrats which is false therefore i cannot agree to them as Christian Magistrats for as learned renowned Doct. Vâ—…us sayeth Polâ—…t Eccles. Pag. 137. Duo subjecta principia formalia quae non sunt unum auâ—… unâ—…a per se non possunt fundare effectum formalem per se unum sc. ex gr Homo unus si sit Consul Patâ—…r non poteâ—… dici habere potestatem consularem in cives qua Consul-paâ—…er nec potestatem patriam in sâ—…ium quâ Pater-consul 17. By taking of this oath They should yeeld unto the opening of a door unto the utter destruction overthrow of all Church judicatories for by their judgment who tender that oath the King is the fountaine of all Church power who ever executeth any Church power executeth it as his Commissioner he may imploy in this bussinesse whom he pleaseth by the Act for the heigh commission he imployeth civill persones who are no Church Officers in deposeing Ministers in excommunicating so he may imploy such persons alwayes only such for he is at liberty to imploy whom he will so at length he may put aside all Church Officers so lay aside all Church judicatures handle all Church bussinesse in civill courts But what Christian could yeeld to this See Voetius ubi supra Pag. 146 Arg. 11. 18. By this oath they should grant unto the Civill Magistrat power to erect new courts which have no warrand in the word such courts as the Church had not all the dayes of the Apostles nor many centuries of years thereafter for by vertue of his supremacy he erecteth this new court called a Heigh or Grand Commission wherein civill persons meddle with Church matters execute Church censures Church-men meddle with civill matters civill censures But to yeeld to this should be to destroy all Church power to condemne the Apostles for not leaving behinde them the example of such a court the primitive Church for not setting up such a court By Presbyterian principles no judicature must be acknowledged for a court of Christ but that which hath Christs warrand 19. By taking this oath They should yeeld unto the lawfulnesse of appealing from a Church judicature unto the civil Magistrat for it is lawfull to appeal from an inferiour judicature unto a superiour by the tenderers of the oath the supreme Magistrat is a superiour judicature It is lawfull to appeall from the Commissioners unto such as have given them that commission And Ministers in these judicatories are but his Commissioners But sound divines writting against Erastus the Arminiant will justify their refuseing to yeeld to this if they should have yeelded to this they should have condemned the Generall Assemblies that declared such as appealed from a Church judicature unto the King his Councell censurable with the sentence of excommunication And approved of such perverse troublers of the Church as took this corrupt course to keep themselves from censure Moreover there is no example of any such lawfull appellation for Paul's
upon morall lasting grounds 3. If even those actions binde upon the ground of a parity of reason much more will these binde upon the same account for whatever ground or reason be given why the Apostles followed such a modell of Government in their dayes will stand good now evince that the same modell ought to be followed 4. And where as he sayeth before an acknowledged Apostolicall practice be looked on as obligatory it must be made appear that what they did was not according as they saw reason cause for the doing of it depending upon the severall circumstances of time place and persones but that they did it from some unalterable law of Christ or from indispensable reasons as will equally hold in all times places persons he confirmeth what is now answered for the reasons of their erecting such a species of Government do equally hold in all times places nothing can be said for the dependence of such a forme upon the severall circumstances of time place persons As for the particulars mentioned by him It is answered 1. For Celebat Christ himself Mat. 1 9 v. 12. restricteth it to such as have the gift of continency it bindeth none else 2. The Community of goods was for that time only for the contrary is practised in after times by all other Churches Christians for when Paul is pressing the Corinthians unto a contribution he never mentioneth this as an argument moving thereunto 3. Their preaching from house to house was for want of conveniency of more publicke places yet when they had liberty they went to the temple to Solomons porâ—…h to Synagogues 4. As for that Act 15 concerning the abstaineing from blood things strangled things offered to idols it was only for that time of the scandall not alwayes for Paul taketh off this 1. Cor 10 25 when he sayeth whatsoever is sold in the shambles that eat asking no question for conscience sake againe when he sayes 1. Tim 4 3 4 5. Every creature of God is good nothing to be refused if it be received with thanks giving But there is nothing of this kinde that can be showne in the matter of the species of Government as shall further appear when his alledgances are answered afterward 3. He sayes officers that were of Apostolick appoyntment are growne out of use in the Church as widowes 1 Tim. 4 9. or diaconisses Rom 16 1. Ans. These Diaconisses were not Church-officers having any Ministeriall charge or office in the Church for there is nothing spoken of their ordination But they were poor eleemosynaries indigent women taken in for some service unto sick strangers or propter horam balnei aut visitationis quando nudatum fuiâ—… corpus mulieris as sayeth Epipâ—… rius lib. 3. Tom. 2. haeres 79. And so their work was for those â—…ote countreyes because now there is no such necessitie for their work themselves are laid aside But 2. are there not severall other officers laid aside as Apostles Prophets Evangelists will he hence conclude that therefore nothing of their practice obligeth 3. If this ground be followed forth that Apostolick practice even in the matter of officers instituted by them is not of an obligatory nature then may all Church officers be laid aside so his formerly mentioned position concession touching the government of the Church by officers only of divine appoyntment will fall to the ground If he say that divine institution is one thing bare examples are another thing Ans. Then his reason here is impertinent for all Church officers are of divine institution these Diaconisses among the rest must be of divine appoyntment then what hath this to do here where the examplary practices of the Apostles are only spoken of which yet to presbyterians in the case of Government will speak faire for a divine institution finally if it could be cleared what was ought to be the proper work of these Widowes that it were of a lasting necessity unto the Church in all places at all times of which the scripture is altogether silent as may be seen concerning other standing officers of the Church respect should be had to that ordinance of God as well as to others 4. He sayeth Rites customes apostolicall are altered 〈◊〉 dipping in baptisme love feasts holy kisse therefore men do not think that apostolical practice doth binde Ans. 1. He still argueth à particularâ—… which is very unsure fallacious because in some things men look not upon the practice of the Apostles as bindeing therefore in nothing This argument will not hold 2. There is a great difference betwixt rites customes which are alterable such such formes of Government which be of a more lasting nature As for dipping in baptisme It is no where commanded nor was it constantly practised by the Apostles nor other Church officers It is true they were commanded to Baptize but this will not necessarily import baptizing by dipping for baptizing any thing may be otherwise then by dipping as these places do cleare Mark. 7 4. Heb. 9 v. 10. with Numb 8 7â—… 1. Cor. 10 v. 1. Rev. 19 13â—… compared with Isa. 63 3. Mat. 3 11. compared with Act. 2 17. And next it is severall times found that they baptized when where they could not get Dipping used as Act 2 41. 4 4. Where such multitudes could not be gotten dipt especially in the streets so Act 9 18 19. This was in a lodging when Paul was sick weak so unfit for Dipping So Act 16 33. This was in the night in a privat lodging when Paul Silas by reason of their sores were unable for dipping And therefore all that can be said in this is that sometimes they used Dipping sometimes sprinkling as occasion offered this will speak nothing for the Apostles continuall practiseing of dipping so it will not speak home to the case in hand 4. As for love feasts if they were ordinary seasts amongst private Christians it was but an Act of civility to use these they needed no institution from the Apostles practice a custome it is that continueth yet But if it be meaned of the feasts which they keeped at the Lord's suppâ—… when rich persons brought some meat with them to make a feast of at that time This was not constantly practised by the apostles of whose practices we are now speaking not yet was it warranted by them yea Paul writting to the Corinthians Epist. 1. c. 11. v. 22. sayeth have yee therefore no houses to eat drink in And so would have them forbearing that custome which they had so much abused Their custome was to keep those feasts in the place of the assembly he would have them if so they would feast keeping those feasts at home in their own houses therefore this is nothing to the purpose in hand 5. As for the Holy
before him which was sufficiently answered by worthy learned Mr Gillespy in his Aarons rod blossoming though he will not so much as once take notice of his replyes The ancients did so understand the place particularly Orig. Tract 6. in Mat. But that it may be cleared how there is a foundation here laid down for a way of removing of scandals by Church officers in communi associated together in a judicature so how there is a way laid down for presbyterian Government let those particulars be considered 1. From the beginning of the chapt the Lord is speaking of scandals first of scandals given as is clear v. 6 8 9. after he hath used some arguments to presse his followers to beware of that evill he cometh v. 15. with an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which may be rendered but if thy brother to another case about the same purpose or head viz. to cleare this question what shall be a christians carriage when his neighbour stumbleth or offendeth him by his unchristian carriage in his ordinary walk So Galvin Aretius others so he is speaking of reall scandals for 1. They are Brethren or Church members with whom this course must be taken 2. The offending brother is to be rebuked or convinced of his fault 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 importeth such a convinceing as ' is for sin Ioh. 8 9 46. so the LXX use it Lev. 19 17. where sinnes scandals are spoken of 3. He sayes if he hear thee not if he repay thee the wrong he hath done or if he be reconciled 4. Then he is gained now 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Stillingfleet himself confesseth is used for conversion turning others from sin 1. Cor. 9 19. 1. Pet. 3 1. compared with Iam 5 20. Hence 2. It would be considered that the Christian's scope in this bussinesse should be to gaine the man's soull for this cause he is to assay all calme peaceable gaineing private meanes to bring the offending brother to conviction acknowledgment of his fault so first speak to him alone then take some others with him to be witnes both of his Christian carriage towards him in desireing to have him gained of his unwillingnesse to be gained that so they may bear witnesse of both unto the Church judicature 3. When privat means do not worke he is to be delated unto the Church judicature for the person offended must tell the Church What Church He must tell that Church unto which the witnesses will be usefull that is a judicature for to that witnesses have a relation That Church which is able to convince if any do it That Church whose sentence is the last remedy Thâ—… Church which hath power to binde loose That Church which hath power to binde loose with a promise of the ratification of what they do in heaven That Church which hath the keyes Mat. 16. power authoritatively to pardon retaine sinnes Ioh. 20 23. That Church which hath power to pronunce that sentence after which the man is to be looked upon as a heathen a publican 4. And when this Church judicature can not get him convinced they must passe a sentence upon him this sentence is the sentence of excommunication as learned Mr Gillespy hath abundantly shewed Aaron's rod. book 3. c. 2. 3. Hence it is clear 5. That here is set downe the way of taking away Church scandalls by inflicting Church censures And this by Christ's appoyntment is not to be done by any one person but by the Church officers in communi collegiatly for it was never heard of to this day either in sacred or prophane writtings that one man was called a Church or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And this is a good basis for Government yea for presbyterian Government or the Government of the Church communi consilio presbyterorum here there is not only a foundation for graduall appeals as himself confesseth here though part 2. cap. ult § 8. he would say that presbyterians found their subordination of courts Upon the principles of humane prudence for Church censures for the lawfull use of excommunication as he confesseth also But also for the species or modell of Government Or for the manner of the constitution of the judicatures which should excommunicat take notice of Church scandalls for it is called the Church so cannot be meaned of a prelat who is no where so called and yet arrogateth to himself all the power of jurisdiction But Mr Stilling fleet hath two arguments whereby he endeavoureth to prove that Christ did never intend to institute any one forme of Government in the Church part 2. c. 4. § 4. 5 6. c. This is a great undertaking and his arguments must needs be very strong but whether so or not the reader may judge The summe of the first is this If there be any such institution of Christs as a standing law it must either be expressed in direct termes which cannot here be showne Or deduced by a necessary consequence and no consequences can make new institutions but only apply one to particular cases And then the obligation of what is drawne by a necessary consequence must be expressed in scripture Ans. It hath been showne that the practice of the Apostles was for a forme of Government and from their practice a law may by necessary consequence be drawne considering their place office how they were sent forth to plant Churches to set up officers to appoynt unto each of them their proper work c. And for this cause were endued with extraordinary qualifications assistence confirming their commission by many signes wonders And this carryeth an obligation in its bosome There hath been showne also a standing law of Christ's from which a forme of Governement may be deduced a standing law about the removing of scandals which will found a species of Governement by Church officers in common as well as appeals Church censures excommunication from thence there is an obligation for the one as well as for the rest 2. But if all this will not satisfie let Mr Stilling fleet satisfie himself with the standing obligation of the moralitie of the first day Sabbath he shall with all satisfie himself as to the standing obligation of the moralitie of a species of Church Governement He can produce no law for the first day Sabbath but a law deduced by necessary consequence without any obligation expressed in scripture concerning that which is so drawn by consequence if this be enough in the case of the first day Sabbath why not also in the case of Governement If he say in the bussinesse of the Lord's day there was only an application of an institution to a particular case It is Ans. So is it in the matter of Church Governement for there was a law for a Governement in genere this law drawn by consequence from the
oath it self as worded will take in all their sense meaning For it giveth to him a supremacy of power both over Civill Ecclesistick persones causes all persons all causes will take in both supreme Governour over all these persons in all these causes will take in a great power a very large supremacy Yea the very grammaticall construction of the oath will bear this large sense fully enough Any of understanding may easily see these three things here 1. That the King is the same way supreme Governour over Church men as he is over Civill men 2. That he is made the same way Governour in Church causes as in Civill causes And 3. That he is the same way Governour over Church men in their Church capacity or in their Church causes actions as over Civil men in their civil capacities in their Civill causes actions 6. Obj. The sense can be no other then this That he is supreme Governour over all persons what ever action they be about as if he were in a ship he should be supreme Governour over all the persons there what ever their trade or occupation were of the Governour of the ship among the rest And yet it will not follow that he is the supreme Governour of the action of guideing the ship but only that the Governour of the ship while he is guideing her is a subject And just so is it here as to Churchmen Ans. Even his supremacy over civill persons in civill causes is much to be questioned as hath been said But to wave this here their Acts deeds which are more authentick interpretations of the oath then any privat conjectures speak some other thing were the oath worded thus he is supreme Governour over all Persons this objection would have some colour but when it is said in all causes yea in all causes all is wrong Next it is certane from what hath been said Sect. 10 11. that they intend more as to the civill part then that he is supreme Governour over civill persons that they remaine subjects while about civill Actions For he is made supreme Governour over civill persons in civill causes And must it not be so likewise as to the Church part seing the oath puteth no difference lesse or more betwixt them 3. One maine end of the oath was to shoulder out the Pope his power this was an immediat cognition of Church affaires a power not only over persons but over causes And what was taken from the Pope with the one hand was devolved on the King with the other 4. The simile is a plaine dissimile as it is set down but make the parallel run thus There is a forraigner within the ship challenging power of making lawes to all persons within it particularly to the pilote power of judging him in his actions as pilote betwixt whom the Prince the debate cometh to that height that he is ejected to the end he may never be re-admitted the Prince imposeth an oath upon all within the Vessâ—…ll particularly upon the pilote seamen That they should acknowledge him to be their only supreme Governour in all their actions causes And then any of ordinary capacity may discerne whether or not the pilot be not bound by his oath to acknowledge some thing more then that he is a civill subject while he is about his calling work But all this is to no purpose now seing their Acts actings make the bussinesse clear enough as is shown above 7. Obj. Where a Civil Magist. is affirmed to be Govern of his dominions by common intendment this must be understoodof a civil government may not be extended to that of another kinde Ans. With all due respect to the reverend author of this reply viz. Bishop Vsher in his speach concerning the oath of supremacy in the Starre Chamber in Irland This doth not satisfie because by the same reason might one who were clear for the primacy of Scotland lawfully swear that the Archprelat of Saint Andrews were supreme Governour of Scotland over all persons in all causes because by parity of reason when the governement of a Church officer is spoken of by common intendment this must be understood of an Ecclesiastick governement may not be extended to that of another kinde And yet no doubt this oath would be scrupled at notwithstanding of that common intendment But 2. Their acts deeds destroy that common intendment respect must be had to their intendment not to the common intendment 3. Even as to this common intendment in respect of the civil part it hath been showne what just ground of scruple there was 8. Obj. No other thing can be understood for he is capable of no more the predicat can agree no further to the subject then its capacity will permit Ans. This is a shift for Children but for none else For. 1. Such subjects are seen to assume to themselves more then they are truely by any law of God capable of 2. By this meanes one might swear that the civil Magistrat were Head husband King saviour of the Church without all hazard of perjurie for these predicats can agree to him no further then he is capable As also one might lawfully swear that the Pope were supreme civil judge of the King's Dominions yea swear the greatest untruths imaginable but such Salvo's will prove too narrow to cover perjury in the day of accounts 3. Oaths are the end of controversies but this oath should then decide no controversie For the King's power should be as uncertaine as ever it was for all this oath 4. The question is not so much what power doth really appertaine unto the civil Magistat but another thing founded on this viz. what power may one lawfully say swear doth indeed belong to him And will any be so prophane grosse as to say It may be acknowledged by oath that he hath more power then indeed he hath Such like metaphisicall distinctions will not defend from the wrath of God in the day when he shall be a swift witnesse against all false swearers 9. Obj. Is it faife to contend with heigher powers about such things bring on such sad sufferings Ans. Christians should be most taken up with duty should not value sufferings They should buy the truth by no means sell it this matter under debate is no small bussinesse whatever some may think Not to mention here the sad consequences of this oath as to the civil part thereof if the Ecclesiastick part therof be only noticed it will appear to be a matter of greater moment then every one will beleeve as may appear from the reasons mentioned Sect 12. Men who would be accounted loyal subjects unto a King of clay will think it their duty to stand contend for a small inconsiderable bit of a thing going under the name of
Church is lawfull when the case so falleth out that union cannot be keeped up with her with out sin much more will a forbearing to hant the ordinances in such a particular parish to attend the Ministerie of such a particular person be iustified as no sinfull separation when the contrary cannot be done without siâ—… so it is in this case as hath been showne above Reverend Famous Doct. Voâ—…tius 〈◊〉 Eccles. Pag. 68. Quaest. 17. Granteth that upon some such occasion one may â—…bstean from explicite communion with a particular Church for these reasons 1. Such communion is not absolutly Necessary necessitaâ—… Mediâ—… nor yet necessitaâ—… praeceptâ—… when the Christian shall have more peace of conscience free exercise of Christian duâ—… else where 2. such persons may keep communion with other purer Churches in other places And Famous Mr Rutherford in his due right of presbyteries Pag. 253. Pag. 254. Where he is laying down some considerations about the degrees of separation sheweth us That there is a separation negative or a non union as That in Augustin's time when the faithfull did separate from the Donaâ—…sts which is lawfull landable now if there be a separation here it can only be a negative separation not a positive separation He sheweth us againe ibid. That there is a separation from the Church in the most worst part a separation from the least best part that these who separate from the worst greatest part do notwithstanding remaine a part of a part in the visible Church because they do not separate from the Church according to the least best part thereof as the godly in England who refused the popish ceremâ—…nies Aâ—…tichristian Bishops Hence it will follow that though now people should withdraw from communion with the greatest part of the Church which is now corrupted they cannot be accounted separatists because they hold still communion with the better though lesser part Moreover he sayeth Pag. 254 255. That there may be causes of non-union with a Church which are not sufficient causes of a separation as before the jewes came to blaspheme openly as they did Act 1â—… 44 45 46 18. 16. there was no just cause why any should have joyned to the Church of the jewes seing there was a cleaner Church to which converts might joyne themselves Act 2 40 41 42. And whether or not the reasons formerly laid down will be a just cause of non union which is all we plead for let the reader judge Lastly he tels us ibid Pag. 255. When the greatest part of a Church maketh defection from the truth the lesser part remaineing sound the greatest part is the Church of separatists though the manyest greatest part in the Actuall exercise of discipline be the Church yet in the case of right discipline the best though fewest 〈◊〉 the Church For truth 〈◊〉 like life that retireth from the manyesâ—… members unto the heart there remaineth in its fountaine in case of dangere So that it is the Major part which hath made defection that is to be accounted separatists not such as stand to their principles though they cannot complye of joyne with the corrupt majoriti Hence it is aboundantly clear that such as refused to obey this Act cannot be accused as guilty of sinfull separation It will be objected thirdly That by refuseing to obey that Act they declare they look not on these men as Ministers if they account them no Ministers they must say that their baptizeing is no baptizeing also that the Church of Scotland now is no organicall Church And that such do well who refuse to bring their Children unto them to be baptized Ans. 1. Though it were affirmed positively as it is not that all of these men were no Ministers Yet it would not follow that the Church of Scotland were no organicall Church because all these ministers who are now violently restrained from exerceing their Ministeriall function are Ministers officers of the Church of Scotland though bound up from exerceing their office for as no deed of a Magistrat can loose a Minister's relation so long as his life is in him unto the Church universall so no deed of the Magistrats can loose a Ministers relation to the nationall Church whereof he is a member so long as he remaineth â—…vis regnâ—… is not banished out of that Kingdome Yea reverend Apollâ—…nius in his jus Majestatis circa sacra Par. 1. Pag. 331. thinketh that when a Minister is wrongously put from his charge by a Magistrat he remaineth still a Minister of that Church from which he is banished jure divino Because of his call hath a right to exerce all his Church power there as a wife ravished from her husband remaineth still his wife because of the marriage covenant which is inviolable therefore all these Ministers who are yet within the Kingdom are reall officers of the Church of Scotland full compleat officers as to the power only they are violently restrained from the actuall exercise of that power And therefore the Church of Scotland is still an organicall Church as a man is an orgâ—…nicall body when bound hand foot so as he can neither work nor walk But 2. Whatever may be thought ofsome of these men whose being reall officers in the Church of God as was said may much be questioned what sad consequences may follow upon the nulling of their office let these see to it who either send such forth or imploy them Yet as to all of them this forbearing to yeeld obedience unto this Act will not ground the consequence alledged For there is a difference betuixtthe not owneing dis-countenanceing of a man as no Minister at all or no Minister of the Church universall And dis-owneing or dis-countenanceing him as not being their minister in particular or as pastor of such a particular flock It is certane a man may be a Minister of the Church universall yet not the Minister of such or such a particular place It is certane a man's relation unto such or such a particular flock may be Changed by transportation when his relation unto the Church universall abideth And so it is certane that a denying of one to be a Minister of such or such a particular flock will not by any good consequence be a denying of him to be a Minister at all Many things may loâ—…se a Minister's relation to such or such a particular congregation which will not a null his relation unto the Church universall And when his relation to such a particular flock is loosed that particular flock is loosed from being a flock owneing him as their Minister for relata se muâ—…uo ponunt et tollunt And when such or such particular persons refuse to owne such a man as their pastor in particular it cannot be inferred that therefore they deny him to be a Minister at all Unlesse this consequence
admonish one another Rom. 15 13. Presse or urge a thing upon the minde of another so instruct them aright as children are instructed this sayeth they must often be together for this end 9. They must teach and admonish one another in psalms and hymnes and spirituall songs Col 3 16. can this be done unlesse they assemble together 7. They must be kinde or profitable one to another Ephes. 4. last this sayeth they must not be strangers to other 8. They must serve one another in love Gal. 5. 13. that is they should spend themselves for one another for their spirituall advantage that in love should they not then assemble together 9. They must receive one another Rom. 15 7. that is receive with affection imbrace one another And must they then scarre at the company of one another And not rather receive other into their intimate fellowship 10. They must be subject one to another Ephes. 5 21. 1 Pet. 5 5. every one ready to give to take reproofs to from another to do service to other as called thereto this sayeth they must not live as strangers to other 11. They must confesse their sinnes to one another and pray for another Iam. 5 16. 12. They must ministere their gifts to one another 1 Pet. 4 v. 10. Obj. It will be objected that this is sedition opposeing of established lawes made for the good of the common wealth against such conventicles therefore such controvâ—…ers cannot be justified Ans. It is not for fear of any disturbance to the peace of the common wealth that such Acts are made for a few women who in all likelihood are able to do little that way may not meet together 2. The heathens did pretend this when they made lawes against the meetings of the primitive Christians And therefore their meetings were called Factions And conventicles And yet the primitive Christians did not forsake the assembling of themselves together notwithstanding of all these edicts albeit that severall times they were put to suffer upon that account seâ—… this fully made out by the learned Mr Stilling fleet in his Origines sacrâ—… Lib. 2 cap. 9. Pag. 316. c. And who then will condemne these Zealous Christians now for so doing SECTION XIX The unlawfulnesse of compeering before the high Commission Court demonstrated TO the end that the forementioned persecution of the saints servants of God might be the better carryed on There is a high commission court erected consisting of the two arch prelats some other prelats of some noble men some Magistrats of brughs some souldiers others And this number or any five of them a prelate being alwayes one of the five have power granted to them from the King who appoynteth them by vertue of his prerogative royall supremacy over all persons in all causes ecclesiastiek as was shown above Sect. 12. To suspend deprive excommunicate as also to punish by fineing consineing committing incarcerating all keepers of conventicles all Ministers who contrare to the lawes acts of Parliament councell remaine or introduce themselves upon the exercise of the function of the Ministery in those parishes bounds inhibited by those acts all preachers who come from England Irland without sufficient testimonialls or leave of the Bishops of their dioceses all such persons who keep meetings fasts at the administration of the sacrament of the Lord's supper which are not approven by authority All who speak preach write or printe to the scandall reproach detriment of the Estate or government of the Church Kingdom as it is now established All who contemne molest injure ministers who are orderly setled All who do not ordinarily attend divine worship administration of the word sacraments performed in their respective parishes by ministers legally authorized for taking the cure of these parishes All such who without any lawfull calling as bussy bodies goe about houses places for corrupting disaffecting people from their alleagiance respect obedience to the lawes And generally without any prejudice to the particulars specified all who expresse their dissaâ—…sfaction to his Maj. authority by contraveening the acts of Parliament Councell in relation to Church affaires etc. This court appeareth terrible unto the godly for the persecution of whom of none else no not the most flagitious prophane it is erected seemeth to be as a new court of inquisition But that which is more lamentable is this That there lyeth hid here a dreadfull snare for tender consciences For it is such a court as tender hearted Christians cannot but scruple to acknowledge or compeer before without a declinature the giving in of which would be accounted laese Majesty therefore in such a case such as resolved to keep a good conscience in this day of tryall defection saw a necessity of withdrawing of not compeering at their summonds even though they might have pleaded them selves innocent of any crime laid to their charge Now if any would desire to know the reasons why such a court cannot in conscience be owned acknowledged or submitted unto as a lawfull judicature let him consider these particulars lay them together he shall see clear reason for either declineing or withdrawing 1. This is a judicature meddling with censures purely ecclesiastick such as suspension deposition of Ministers excommunication both of Ministers people therefore must be acknowledged to be a Church judicature Now there is no warrand for any such Church judicature in all the new testament nor is there any precedent of the like to be found in the Gospell Christians must acknowledge no Church judicature but what hath a speciall warrand from Christ's law testament 2. This is a Church judicature having its rise power commission only from the King the King granteth this power to this Commission authorizeth this court by vertue of his royall prerogative over all persons and in all causes as well ecclesiasticke as civil So that none can acknowledge this court but withall they must acknowledge the Kings prerogative royall supremacy in all causes over all persons particularly they must acknowledge that pure proper church power doth properly reside in the person of the supreme Magistrat that he hath proper power to suspend depose ministers also to excommunicate so hath power to Commiâ—…sionat any of his subjects he thinketh good for that effect But what presbyterian yea what sound protestant who is not devoted to Erasius's Antichristian notions will or can acknowledge this 3. In this judicature civil persons as such viz. the Chancellour Thesaâ—…rer duk Hammilton Marquis of Montrose Earles Lords others who are no Church officers have power in Church matters viz to suspend depose excommunicate But this is against all the Discipline lawes of Christ's house for Christ will have the affaires of his house governed by
dayes of their life And among other things referred to the determination of the Generall assembly this concerning the civil places power of Kirk men was one And accordingly the Generall Assembly did determine act sess 25 Decemb. 19. 1638. That it was both inexpedient unlawfull for pastors separated unto the Gospell to brook civil places offices the next day there was an act made for subscribing of the covenant accord ing to this determination for say they it is found by the confession of faith that the five articles of Perth and the civil places and power of Kirkmen are declared to be unlawfull The assembly alloweth and approveth of the same in all heads and articles thereof and ordaineth that all ministers masters of universities colleges schoolâ—… and all others who have not already subscribed the said confession and covenant shall subscribe the same with these words prefixed to the subscription viz. The article of this covenant which was at the first subscription referred to the determination of the Gen. assembly being now determined at Glasgow in Dec. 1638. And thereby-the civill places power of Kirkmen being declared to be unlawfull We subscribe according to the determination of the same free lawfull generall assembly So that it is most clear that none can owne this judicature without the breach of this covenant so explained because they cannot acknowledge this judicature but withall they must acknowledge the civil power places of Kirkmen It will be objected That the Commissioners of that court and particularly the prelats may be owned as his Maj. Commissioners so it will be lawfull enough to compear be fore them Ans. If they be looked on as his Maj. Commissioners Then either as his commissioners in spirituall matters or in civill matters If as his commissioners in Church matters then no Minister or Christian could owne them as cloathed with such a power because his Maj. hath no such power from God therefore they can have no power from him by vertue of this Commission moreover compearing before them under that notion as having power of Church censuras by vertue of a commission from the King is an acknowledging of such a power in the King which is contrary to truth as is showne above If as his commissioners in matters civil then Church men should be owned as having civil power which were contrary to the clear word of Christ to the expresse determination of the Assembly also contrary unto the nationall covenant But it will be objected in the next place That upon the same ground no man might lawfully compear before the High court of Parliament because prelats are now made constituent members thereof so compearing before them would be an acknowledging of the lawfulnesse of the Church men their having civil places power Ans. It is true they may do nothing that may be an approving of their having civil places civil power therefore thâ—…ough they might not decline the court of Parliament in a civil businesse yet at their first compearance they would be necessitated to declare that they do not acknowledge nor approve of Church men their having civill places and power to protest that by their compearance before the High court of Parliament they might not be looked upon as approving thereof which protestation might in this case salve the conscience but no wayes in the other case of appearing before the High commission that because the Parliament is a full compleat court without the prelats so that though they were laid aside the Parliament would be a Parliament still but without the prelats the high Commission is no court for one of them at least is sine quo non so that lay these all aside you have no high commission courtâ—… therefore they being essentiall members of the court it is impossible to compear protest that in compearing you do not acknowledge their civil power without a self contradiction for in your protestation you have them virtually laid by as no constituent members if they be no constituent members there is no court yet your compearance sayeth that they are a court so it would be a palpable contradiction to protest against these as no constituent members yet stand before them answere as before a court But as to the Parliament the case is far different for when the prelats are there laid aside there is a full compleet court remaineing before which you may stand answere for your selfe the Parliament hath been may be a full compleat Parliament without prelats but the high commission never was a court without prelats may be a court with full power authority when there are no other constituent members beside prelats Some may object in the third place say This High commission court doth not meddle with Church censures therefore cannot be looked on as a Church judicature meddleing with Church causes Church censures but is only a civil court medleing with civil causes viz. the putting of the Acts of parliament to execution Ans. 1. Though this were granted Yet there is ground enough of scrupleing at the owneing of the same as may be seen in the 4 7 9 10 11. reasons formerly adduced But. 2. It is not very materiall to consider either how little or how much of their power they do put unto execution but the maine thing is to see what power they may exerce Now the best way to finde out this is to look to their commission which will abundantly cleare us in this Their commission sheweth how far their power doth reach or what actions or causes fall within the compasse of their power And by this we can best take up the nature of the judicature So that if their commission give them power to suspende depose excommunicate every one must look upon them as a judicature having that power whether they should alwayes or never exerce it And that their commission granteth to them this power will not be denyed by any who hath ever seen the same And that part of it which was cited doth cleare it suffeciently And therefore it is a mixed judicature being as well Ecclesiastick as civil If it be replyed That properly they have no power of suspending deposeing excommunicating immediatly But the meaneing is they are to cause the respective Church judicatures to suspende depose excommunicate for the Act or commission containeing their power sayeth they have power to appoynt ministers to be censured by suspension or depâ—…ion It is Answered 1. They have power to appoynt Ministers to be censured by suspension or deposition the same way that they have power to appoynt them others to be punished by fineing confineing committing incarcerating but this power they execute not by putting other civil judicatures to do it but they themselves immediatly do it therefore so have they power granted to them to do the other immediatly
because of the palpable breach of a Covenant Or such a peace as is very consistent with the curse vengeance of God pursueing the quarrell of a broken Covenent But whoever he be he tryeth his skill strength in pulling down both the solemne league Covenant with which he both beginneth endeth the nationall Covenant which he fighteth against on the bye his strength in this matter must be tryed In dealing with the Solemue league covenant he layeth downe three maine grounds The first is this pag. 22. That an oath howsoever in it self lawfull yet the case may be such that by something following after it may cease to binde yea the case may be such that it can not lawfully be keeped It will not be necessary to examine this at any length as it is here set down but it will be sufficient to examine it in so far as it maketh for the purpose in hand that will be by examineing Whether the cases wherein he alledgeth this holdeth good will suite the Covenant now under consideration He mentioneth three cases The first is this When the matter of an oath is such as doth belong unto a superiour to determine in then the oath of the inferiour ceaseth to â—…blige when the superiour consenteth not to what is sworne This is both agreeable to reason because no deed of the inferiour can prejudge the right of the superiour also sound divines do acknowledge this upon the common equitie of that law Numb 30 4. Unto which these things may be replyed 1. Whether the relation betwixt subjects Magistrats be so strait as is the relation betwixt parents Children betwixt huâ—…band wife may be some what questioned as to the matter in hand the one being naturall the other but politicall the one such as cannot be changed at will the other such as may A man may Choose to live under what Magistrat he will but a woman cannot cast off her parents her husband when she will take others therefore there may be a greater latitude allowed in the one case then in the other whether Magistrats subjects come within the compasse of that text Numb 30 May be questioned also seing there is nothing in the text hinting at this Yea though Moses be speaking to the heads of the tribes concerning the Children of Israel yet he maketh no mention of this case nor of any other except of two viz. a woman under a husband a woman not sorisfamiliat though analogies may be allowed in some cases yet there ought to be a clear ground out of the word for such analogies as will founde an argument against the obligeing force of oaths such analogies as will warrand consciences in this case had need to be very clear undoubted 2. Though this analogie were ganted yet this case will speak nothing to the poynt in hand unlesse it were proved that there were no civil Magistrats in Scotland beside the King that all Even the Estates of Parliament convâ—…ened in Parliament were subjects nothing else but subjects so though the Parliament all the land at the command of the Parliament should take an oath it should not binde if the King dissented therefrom But there is enough said above to show that supreme soveragnitie did never so reside in the Kings of Scotland as that Parliaments even in their Parliamentary capacity were no sharers thereof And this one thing is enough to disprove this phancy viz. That the legislative power which is an eminent part of severaignitie did alwayes in paâ—…t at least belong unto the Parliament of Scotland for they statute ordaine together with their soveraigne Lord therefore they are called the Acts of Parliament Yea without a Parliament the King can make no lawes yea nor can he make a law without all the Estates of Parliament But of the power of the Parliaments of Scotland in making lawes yea over the King himself enough hath been said therefore this case doth not concerne the matter in hand 3. Let this be given though it cannot be granted Yet this case will not help his cause because it can hold good in no other things but such in which the inferiour is subordinat to the superiour is by the law of God subject unto him as the doughter in the matter of her marriage or the like is subjected unto her parents the married wife in the disposall of domestick goods affaires is subjected unto her husband but in matters of religion in morall duties no wife is so subjected unto her husband nor doughter unto her parents as that they can loose the obligation of their vowes promises Yea in this case it will be easily ganted that inferiours may vow Covenant not only without but even against the command of superiours for it is alwayes better to obey God then men Now it hath been showne above that these Covenants are about morall duties matters of religion wherein inferiours are not to waite upon their superiours But must advance whether they will or not But to this he replyeth Pag. â—…3 That such as plead the obligation of the Covenant in the matter of Episcopacy must suppone that it is indifferent or not unlawfull for if by God's word 〈◊〉 be found unlawfull then whether there had been a Covenant against it or not it cannot be allowed It is Answered 1. It will not be a fit place here to lanch forth into the disput concerning Episcopacy more is already said against it by many famous worthie divines then is or in haste will be Answered as for what this Author is pleased to say for it against presbyterie else where in his pamphlet it is but that which hath been said said over againe by others before him who knew to put their arguments in a better dresse then he doth is sufficiently answered by others but if he had brought any new arguments forth to the field it had then been fit to have taken some notice of them But 2 whereas he thinketh that such as plead the Covenant obligation must suppon that Episcopacy is a thing indifferent that presbytery is nothing else he runeth alone without the company of any casuist or divine for all do grant that an oath may be de re lâ—…cita possibili concerning a matter lawfull and possible and particularly that it may bâ—… about a matter morally good that in things morally good an oath hath an obligeing force ad quae praestanda sayeth D Sander sâ—…n de jur prâ—…m obl pâ—…ael 3. § 6 vel injurati tenemur jurati multo tenemur magis accedente sciliceâ—… ei quaepraefuit ex praecepto nova obligatione ex jureâ—…urando i e. for the doing of those things which we are bound to do though not under an oath being under an oath we are much more bound for to the former obligation ariseing from the command there
is a new obligation added ariseing from the oath Had not the Covenants oaths which the children of Israel swore concerning morall dutyes the law the worshipe of God an additionall tye obligation Ier. 50 5. Ios. 24. Deut. 29 3. By this meanes this author would take away this piece of God's worship service of vowing swearing unto him for it must either be about things necessary or about things indifferent But he will have no oath or vow made about things necessary because sayes he that is needlesse nor will he have any oath or vow made about things indifferent as shall be seen afterward so if he speak truth there ought to be no vowes or oaths at all 4. But why may not people look even to the Covenant obligation in things determined by the word Doth not God lay the breach of Covenant oftentimes unto the charge of his people doth not this say that they were bound to look to their promises obligations It is true that oaths Covenants should not be the only ground upon which to plead the lawfulnesse of such or such things yet these promises vowes Covenants ought to have their own secondary place So then it is a poor thing to say that such as plead for the standing force obligation of the Covenant must suppone that Episcopacy is a thing indifferent for by this same reason they must suppone also that the other great duties which are engadged to in that Covenant relating to true religion a holy life from which himself sayeth Pag. 37. no power on earth can loose to which they are indispensably tyed are of an indifferent nature which were most reasonlesse absurd 5. This is a hard case unto which this author would bring the Covenanters viz. That either they must quite the obligation of the Covenant or else say that all those particulars sworne to in the second article which is the article he mainely instanceth are but matters of indifferency and consequently say that not only prelacy in it's height as Hierarchicall but poperie heresie schisme every thing which is contrary to sound doctrine the power of godlinesse are matters of indifferencie But would he say so in his own case If one who had taken the oath of alleagiance or fidelity to his lawfull prince or the oath de fideli administratione in some office or other should afterward alledge that these bondes did not binde him for either the matter there obliged to was a thing indifferent if so he was not bound to wrong his liberty or else duties antecedent to the oath then the oath hath no force on him he is no way perjured though he crosse a hundered of those oaths Now what will this author reply in this case hath he not as it is usuall for such as pleaâ—…d for error in seeking to wound the Covenanters killed himself what evasions he findeth out for subjects to reject all the bondes of oaths imposed by superiours every one seeth And whether in so doing he doth his Maj. good service Acteth the part of a loyall subject and faithfull casuist any may judge But to proceed in the examination of the case set downe 4. Let this also be given unto this Author though it may not be granted he will not gaine his cause for let it be supponed that Episcopacy is a thing indifferent will it thence follow that the Church may not determine in a matter of indifferencie concerning Church government without the supreme Magistrat's expresse consent Whether is the Church or the Magistrat the fittest judge of that government which best suiteth the Church tendeth most to edification is most expedient whether are the Churches that live under the Turk more able to judge of the most expedient edifying way of Church government or the Turk himself If he reply That he speaketh of Christian Magistrats It is answered That heathens are as essentially Magistrats as Christians are that text Numb 30. groundeth no more an analogy for Christian Magistrats then for heathens And if that be a law then he would remember that non est distinguendum ubi lex non distinguit that Christians may be subjects unto heathen Magistrats is beyond all question And therefore if this argueing hold good a Christian Church living under the Turk might not vow to maintaine and follow such a forme of Church government as they judged most agreeable to the word of God most advantagious for the ends of government because forsooth it were a prejudging of the right of the great Turk their superiour If he reply that the case is altered because of the Turk 's granting liberty unto these Churches to do in these things as they think meet Ans. Then the Turk is a better friend unto the Church then the Christian Magistrat it were better for the Church to be under the Turk then under a Christian Magistrat 5. Let all this be yet granted by way of supposition he will not gaine his poynt for their oath in this Covenant doth not prejudge the right of the superiour because they sweare only to endeavour in their severall places callings such such alterations what incroachment can this make upon the superiours right May not a wife or a doughter sweare in their places according to their callings to endeavour the alteration of such or such a thing in the family yet never attempt it without the consent of the parent or husband May not here oath be lawfull binde hâ—…re to use all faire lawfull meanes to move incline the parent or husband there unto So that what ever he be pleased to say of the way of Scotland their carrying on that businesse in which how sowlely he erreth may be showne hereafter were it granted to him will make nothing against the Covenant concerning the obligation of which is the difference now Till then he make it appear that the Covenant as worded did directly prejudge the right of the superiour his alledgiance is frivolous groundlesse 6. This might be granted to him also which yet cannot be done his cause gaine no advantage that for this reason Because that place Numb 30. Exponed accord-to his owne glosse commentary maketh for the Covenanters every way For. 1. They had no open dissent declared It is true there is mention made of a proclamation declareing it unlawfull to enter into that Covenant but Mr Crofton in his Analepsis Analephthe Pag. 120. sayeth that it was not regular being done without the advice of his Councell who are vailed by the session of Parliament sheweth also how it was a breach of privilege But as to that this may satisfie That as that proclamation did not anull the act but only prohibite it so it did not concerne them in Scotland Now if the parent or husband hold his peace the oath is confirmed requiritur sayeth doct Sanders de jur prom obl
Governours under the King as well as the King himselfe He speaketh of such as are God's Ministers which is a generall word comprehending all civill Governours He speaketh of all such to whom tribute custome honour or fear is due so he must take in all Magistrats otherwise this text should not concerne commonwealths which are ruled without a King He speaketh of such as are revengers by office to execute wrath on them that do evill thus are a terrour to evill doers and a praise to such as do well And this agreth to all Magistrats therefore this place cannot be understood as speaking of any single person or of Nero concerning whom it is a great question among lawyers if at this time he had the heighest soveraigne power in the Roman State as learned Prin sheweth in his soveraigne power of Parliaments c. part 3. pag 109 110 111 112. 2. Inferiour judges do judge for the Lord are deputed of him therefore they are endued with power from him for that effect 2 Chron. 19 v. 6 7. Deut. 1 17. 3. Inferiour judges are commanded to rule well they are threatened rebuked for mal-administration See Ier. 5 v. 1. Isa. 1 17 21 5 7. 10 2 59 v. 14. Ier. 22 3. Ezek 18 8. Amos 5 7. Micah 3 9. Levit. 19 v. 15. Deut. 17 11. Exod. 32 2. Now would God command those inferiour Magistrats to relieve the oppressed to judge the fatherlesse to plead for the widow if they had not the power of the sword for this effect or would he challenge them for neglecting this duty if they had not been impowered by him for that effect doubtlesse not So then if inferiour Magistrats be endued with power of the sword they ought to defend the fatherlesse the widow the oppressed subjects by the help of the sword they ought to rescue them from the hands of their oppressours And therefore when Popish malignant enemies rise up in armes seek to destroy the Land Man Wife Childe the inferiour Magistrats much more the Parliament may lawfully draw the sword which God had given them for the relief of the innocent defence of the countrey of their lives lands goods Religion all that is dear to them against malicious open enemies 2. Buchanan a man well acquainted with the lawes constitutions of Scotland in his Book De Iure Regni apud Scotos sayeth that the Kings of Scotland had no power of peace or warre without the Parliaments consent So that a warre raised by the Parliament against the common enemy in defence of the Kings honour the saifty of the people the purity of Religion cannot be condemned as unjust illegall 3. The renowned Historian Buchanan sheweth also that the Kings of Scotland have been oftintimes resisted by armes which a few instances will evidence when Durstus the 11. King banished all his Fathers Friends became loose dissolute he was pursued by the Nobles till he was forced to professe his repentance promise amendement afterward when he had cut off many of his Nobles by treachery the rest did rise up in arme against him kill him in battel So they rose in armes against Gillo for his wickednesse against Even 3. who was a most viâ—… wicked man So with one consent they arose against Darâ—…an slew his wicked servants who had been instruments of much evill They routed his forces tooke himself prisoner When Mogaldus grew odious by reason of his vices they rose up in armes against him So did they levy forces against Athirco when Romach had become cruell and had put many to death they rose in armes against him when Ferquard 1. turned tyrant he was summoned before a Parliament when he refuised to come they levied forces against him pursued him they stormed his castle in which he thought to shelter himself at length he was taken prisoner So did they purpose to rise in armes against Ferquhard 2. If they had not been diverted Likewise when King Iames the 3. had been seduced by his evill courteours had plotted the murther of the nobles they raised an army against him at length killed him So did the nobles take up armes against Bothwell the Queen pursued her untill she rendered herself prisoner The nobles wrote unto the queen regent Anno 1560. for removing of the french forces did adde as Buchan sayeth Lib. 17 Which tearmes if they be rejected we take God men to witnesse that we take armes from no innate malice or hatred but sore against our wills are forced to assay the last remedy least we should expose our selves our fortunes and our posterity to the worste of colamities Hence it is clear that it was the common practice of the Parliaments of Scotland and lex currit cum praxi to rise in armes against their Kings when they turned tyrants And therefore the Parliament their late taking up of armes in their own sinlesse self defence can no wayes be condemned let court sycophants speak what they please to make that bussinesse odious they both bewray their malice ignorance of the fundamental constitution of that kingdome 4. Though for all that is said the Parliaments interest in warre should be questioned yet their late defensive warre may be justified upon clear undenyable grounds for there is no such connexion betwixt these two but they are rather two distinct questions naturall sinlesse self defence may belong to such as have not propperly in stricke law the power of warre 5. The practice of other protestant princes Magistrats sheweth that their practice was not so odde nor odious as men who have taught their tongues to speak lies would make the world beleeve it was for Sleidan lib. 8. 21. 22. Bilson out of him in his difference c. part 3. pag. 274. sayeth that the German princes levied warre against the Emperour viz. the Duke of Saxon the Landgrave of Hesse the Magistrats of Magdeburgh together with other Princes cities joyning in the warre who having had the advice resolution of lawyers after mature deliberation did conclude That the lawes of the empire permitted resistence of the Emperour in some cases That the times were then so dangerous that the very force of conscience necessity did lead them to armes to make a league to defend themselves though Caesar or any in his name would make warr against them and That if the Emporour had keeped his bonds covenants they would have done their dutyes but because he made the first breach the fault was his For since he attempteth to root out religion subvert our liberties he giveth us cause enough to resist him with a good conscience The matter standing as it doth we may say they resist as may be shewed both by sacred prophane histories Vnjust violence is not Gods ordinance Nether are we bound to him by any
other reason then if he keep the conditions on which he was created emperour By the lawes themselves it is provided that the superiour Magistrat shall not infringe the right of the inferiour and if the supriour Magistrat exceed the limits of his power and command that which is wicked not onely we need not obey him but if he offer force we may resist him Upon these grounds did those worthies resolve to defend themselves by armes 2. Next they have the exemple precedent of the protestants in France who in the reigne of Francis 2. Anno 1559. being oppressed with the Guisian faction assembled themselves consulted lawyers divines concerning resisting of the king in that case it was resolved That they might lawfully oppose themselves against the governement which the house of Guise had usurped when needfull take armes to repulse their violence If the princes who in this case are borne magistrats or some one of them would undertake it being ordered by the states of the realme or by the sounder part thereof See Gen. history of France pag. 682. 683. So Anno 1614. The prince of Condee with other princes Peers dukes noblemen officers of the crown conveening at Meziers wrote to the Queen compleaning of diverse grievances wrongs sought remedy redresse by the assembly of the three estates protesting that they desired nothing but peace and the good of the realme that they would attempte nothing to the contrary unlesse by the rash resolution of their enemies who covered themselves with the cloak of state under the Queen regents authority they should be provoked to repell the injuries done unto the King state by a naturall just and necessary defence see the continuation of the life of Lewis the 13. pag. 59. c. So in the reigne of Charles 9 when all Acts of pacification were broken after many fruitlesse petitions and vaine promises they take up armes whereupon a bloody civill warre ensued when this King contrary to his oath An. 1572. caused that massacre at Paris the protestants in Languedoc Rochel other parts took up armes in their own defence So when Henry the 3 came to the crown the protestants saw a necessity of standing to their defence being assaulted they manfully defended themselves againe when the peace which was now concluded was broken by the instigation of the Catholick Leaguers The King of Navarre the Prince of Condee the Marshall of Montmorancy others resolved to defend themselves whereupon followed a sixt civill warre which ended in a new peace Anno 1580. So in the reigne of Lewis his son when the Queen mother who was then regent would give no redresse unto the protestants just grievances The prince of Condee divers others raised forces in their owne defence the duke of Rhoan other protestants did joyne with them A peace was concluded Anno 1616. but the very next year the prince of Condee is seized upon whereupon the princes meeting at Soyssons resolved to defend themselves by warre which continued Anno 1621 1622. at last a peace was concluded but it lasted not long by cardinal Richelien's meanes 3. They have in the third place the practice of the Netherlands mentioned in the Generall history of the Netherlands Lib. 9 p. 369 c. who being oppressed in bodies states by the duk of Alva the Spanyards tyranny their consciences tyrannized over by the spanish inquisition introduced of purpose to extirpat religion after serious deliberation consultation with lawyers divines learned men of all sorts did unanimously conclude to enter into a solemne covenant to defend religion lives liberties by force of armes and Anno 1572. the Prince of Orange his confederats published a protestation shewing the grounds of their riseing up in armes viz. for zeal to the countrey for the glory of God because of the inhumanities and oppressions and more then barbarous and insupportable tyranny and incroachments upon their privileges liberties and freedâ—…mes 4. They have the practice of the Waldenses in Piemont Anno 1558 1561. who being persecuted by the Lords of Trinity other Popish soveraignes assembled solemnely together to consult how they might prevent danger after long prayer calling upon God they concluded to enter into a solemne mutuall Covenant for defence of themselves their Religion did so with successe obtaining many notable victories against their persecutors See Fox Acts Mon. Vol. 2. pag. 208 209. So Anno 1571. Nov. 11. There is a league made for mutuall assistance of each other in times of persecution a copy whereof is to be seen in Mr Morland's History of Piemond pag. 252 253. 5. They have the practice of the people of Arragon mentioned by Blanca in his Comment pag. 661 652. An. 1286. in the dayes of Alphonso 3. who when there fell out a contest betwixt him the Parliament through the evill counsell of his courteours resolved to associat themselves together to raise forces it being lawfull for the common cause of liberty to contend not only with words but with armes and their suprarbiense forum or Iustitia Aragoniae which was erected of purpose to with stand the tyranny of Kings had power to resist their King with force of armes So Anno 1283. they tell Pedro 3. their King that if he would not containe himself within the Limites of the lawes they would pursue him by armes 6. They have the practice of other Spainyards as may be seen in the generall History of Spaine lib. 13 14 15. who rose in armes severall times against Pedro the I. King of Castile 7. They have the practice of the Hungarians Anno. 1608. in the dayes of Mathias for when he denyed free exercise of Religion unto the Protestants of Austria they took up armes in their own defence assembling at Horne sent a protestation unto the Estates of Hungary requireing assistance conforme to the offensive defensive League See Grimstons Imp. Hist. pag. 730. c. 8. They have the practice of the Polonians who oftintimes levied warre against their Kings as Grimstone in his Hist. Imp. Chytraeus in Chron. Sax. shew 9. They have the practice of the Danes riseing in armes against Christierne the 2. who Anno 1524. was solemnely deposed as may be seen in Chytraeus Chron. Sax. lib. 10. 10. They have the practice of the Sweds riseing up in armes against Christierne the I. for breach of his Covenant made at his coronation this was about the year 1499. See Chythraeus ubi supra 11. They have the practice of the Helvetians first three of their Cantons viz. The Suitians Vrjaus Vndervaldians Anno 1260. levied warre against their oppressing Nobles did prosecute the same twelve years Anno 1308. They joyne in Covenant to defend themselves against the House of Austria defended themselves most resolutely against the hudge armies of their adversaries upon the 16 of Nov. 1315.