it may not be a supersede as to an Act a ground of exemption to the subject from the rigour thereof till the law be revived by a posteriour act which was never yet done lawyers may judge But which is more there is an Act of Parl. Anno 1592. declareing that that former Act shall no wayes be prejudiciall nor derogat any thing to the privilege that God hath given to the spirituall office bearers of the church concerning heads of religion matters of heresy excommunication collation or deprivation of ministers or any such like essentiall censures specially grounded have and warrand of the word of God And which is more considerable The parliament 1648. did disclaime any such power of judging in church matters took it for an unjust challenge charge to say that they took an antecedent judgment in maters of religion for in their letter to the presbyteries of Scotland being their Act 16. May 11. 1648. they have these words Neither can it be with any truth or justice in any sort alleidged that we have in the least measure wronged or violated the true privileges or liberties of the church or any way taken upon us the determination or decision of any matters of faith or church discipline though we be unjustly charged with taking an antecedent judgment in matters of religion By which every one may see that the parliament did looke upon themselves as an incompetent judge in matters of faith or religion Primo instanti or antecedently unto the decision determination of the church And now let lawyers judge whether when the parliament the supreme judicature of that land doth declare themselves incompetent judges in matters of religion The Privy Councell which is a judicature inferiour to the parliament by the fundamentall lawes of that land having its originall power antiquity from the Kings Maj. the estates of parliament so is subordinat there to ought to be countable to censureable by them according to the 12 Act of Parl. 2. King Iames 4. See for this Act 27. Parl 2. of King Charl I. 1640. may become judges thereof whether seing by confession of Parliament they can be no lesse incompetent judges then the parliament it self it can be truely treasonable to decline them Though it were granted that that Act of Parliament 1584. were no way weakened by the other Act 1592. which yet is expressely explicatory thereof yet it could no wayes be treasonable in him to decline the councell as an incompetent judge to him in that case because the Act 1584. is to be understod in such cases only in which they are propper judges But it will be replyed that the Act maketh them judges competent to all persones spirituall or tempâ—…rall in all matters wherin they or any of them shall be apprehended summoned or charged Answ. True the act speaks so in the generall yet it is well known that notwithstanding thereof any of his majesties subjects might decline them when cited for causes the cognition whereof did popperly belong to another distinct judicature such as the court of exchequer or the Lords of the Session so that this all is to be restricted to such causes as do belong to them And under it causes purely ecclesiastike cannot be understood because of that which the Parliament Anno 1648. said Parliaments know best what causes belong to their cognition what doth not belong to a Parliament will never belong to the Privy Councell If it be replyed againe that the meaning of the Parliament 1584. was to give the councell power in church matters because this act was devised of purpose to hinder ministers to protest against the King his counsell as they had done before Ans. that is true But that will say nothing now when the Parliament 1648. hath declined to be judges in such matters and Parliaments can best expound their own lawes and acts can best explaine the extent of their own power and consequently can best declare what causes these are of which the Privie Councell is competent judge what not when they declare that themselves are not competent judges in matters of doctrine religion they do more then sufficiently declare that the Privie Councell is not a competent judge in those matters But for all this this worthy man must die he dieth a martyr for the truth against the Erastian abomination SECTION VI. The sufferings of some other Ministers related AMong other acts of the Committy of Estates there was a proclamation which they caused be read at all the church doores of the Kingdome upon the Lord's day in which they discharged ministers to speak or preach any thing against them or their proceedings this was to command them to handle the word of the Lord deceitfully to become false prophets to preach smooth things and to prophecy deceits wherby the malicious ill affected people who did not love their ministers were encouraged to give in delations of such such things as they thought good to allaidge against them as uttered in their sermones bring in any prophane persones they pleased for witnesses By which meanes some though many were in no hazard thinking it commendable prudence to be silent at such a time were brought to trouble both by the Committe of Estates by the Parliament being imprisoned or confined and other wayes hardly used though litle of what was allaidged could be proved against them More over ther was one minister who after the Parliament had annulled the covenant passed many other acts against the work of reformation thought himself bound in conscience to give faithfull free warning to shew the greatnesse of the sin of backslideing defection from the cause and truth of God to protest publikely in a Ministeriall way for his own exoneration after the example of Samuel at the comandement of God against the course of defection carryed on all acts made in prejudice of the covenanted worke of reformation for which cause he was summoned before the Parliament and at length condemned of treason sedition onely upon that acount therafter was banished out of all his Maj. dominions And if any say that ministers should have been silent not meddled with state affairs let the answers which famous doct Voet giveth in his Politia Eccles. pag. 982. 983. c. be considered which are these 1. It is the duty of Ministers to give faithfull warning unto people Ezek. 3 17 22. 2. This was not to meddle with the politie but with the abuse of it by men in power 3. Rulers no lesse then others must be touched when they provoke God to wrath by their carriage 1 Thes. 5 11. Iam. 5 20. 1 Sam. 15 14. Isa. 58. 1. 4. Then they should never speake to a hundered places of scripture which do speake so directly against Magistrats abuseing their power See what he sayeth furder to this purpose there in answering therest of the
is one that are so intrusted by law to call for such promises engadgments do search into mens apprehensions concerning the grounds of their power or not yet the very promiseing of obedience in things lawfull for in things unlawfull obedience must not be promised to any lawfull power under heaven is an acknowledgment of the lawfulnesse of their power of subjection as due unto them an owneing of them as lawfull officers lawfully installed authorized because this could not be done therefore neither could the other be done He replyeth 1. It is not obedience under a reduplication and as formally obedience they call for If it be obedience materiall they are satisfied Ans. And what more doth the most lawfull power under heaven ask do they search into the principles of mens doing such such acts do they examine the reduplications under which they act But. 2. Whether they call for it under that reduplication or not It is reall obedience they call for and. 3. The promiseing of obedience under whatsoever reduplication hath in its bosome an acknowledging of the lawfulnesse of the authority calling for such obedience He replyeth 2. Suppose it were so that obedience as formally obedience were required yet it were hard to say it could not be promised or that it could not be acknowledged that they have any laâ—…full authority for looking upon them as the Kings Maj. commissioners in causes ecclesiasticke for regulating the externall order of the Church in their severall bounds and impowered by the law of the land so to do the strickest presbyterians will not finde ground to disowne their office in that consideration Ans. Then 1. Prelats are nothing else but the Magistrats commissioners have no power or authority jure divino by any warrant of Gods law more then any other of the Magistrat's commissioners 2. whence had the prelats in the first three hundered yeers if so be there was any such as this author is bold enough to affirme but faileth in his undertaking to prove it their commission had they it from Nero the rest of the persecuting heathenish Emperours and if they had no commission from them whence had they their power or by what commission did they act or how could they be Bishops without such a commission How will this advocat extricate himself out of these difficulties evite a contradiction But. 3. If they be the Magistrat's commissioners in causes ecclesiasticke their power must reach no further then the Magistrats power doth in Church causes viz the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or his externall order If he streach it no surder How then cometh it to passe that they meddle with more then what concerneth the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or will hâ—… say that all the causes which prelats as prelats meddle with are but such ecclesiasticke causes As are for the regulating the externall order of the Church Then he must say that their chief power in ordination their chief if not only power in jurisdiction floweth from the Magistrat by vertue of his commission they act in that sphaere capacity and if he say so he speaketh plainely but without any ground in the word for then Magistrats might ordaine alone at least have a chief hand in ordaineing with others for what they may commissionate others to do in their name they may do themselves But how or what way shall we see this proved Where will he shew any example of any Magistrat as such ordaineing or deposeing Ministers censureing or excommunicating Offenders since the World began What a wilde notion must this be then And if this be the Basis which is so rotten let any judge what the superstructure must be It were tedious here to lanch forth into this debate concerning the Magistrats power in Church matters But sure it was never the doctrine of the Church of Scotland noâ—… of any reformed Church that what power the Prelats challenge to themselves as such did primarily belong unto reside in the hand of the civill Magistrat might be derived by commission from him unto them And this must be granted as a truth if it be once said that prelats Act in Church matters by vertue of a commission from the supreme Magistrat for a commission is distinct from a command the supreme Magistrat may command ministers to preach baptize do what himself cannot do for the doing whereof ministers borrow no power from him but he cannot propperly give them any commission for that effect The giving of a commission importeth the conveyance of a power for effectuating that which is to be done by the commissioner and that the person granting the commission might himself do that which he commissionateth others to do See this consequence fully cleared by famous Voctius Polit Eccles. pag. 146. arg 12. But now if there were no more to hinder any from acknowledging such a power in the prelats this is sufficient that it is granted they have all that power over presbyters by being his Maj. commissioners that they have all that power derived from him consequently that they have no such power at all because he from whom they derive that power by a commission hath no such power himself The confession of faith of the Church of Scotland acknowledgeth no such power in the civill Magistrat The scriptureâ—… by which all are to regulat their actions in the Church of God giveth warrand for no such power No reformed divine except Arminians Erastians doth acknowledge any such power nor any confession of faith of any of the reformed Churches Behold then Reader see what monsters the Prelats are swollen up to that bignesse with mere winde phancies observe by what art they ascend They make the supreme Magistrat beleeve that all the power belongeth unto him to the end he may devolve it back againe over on them by a commission so authorize them according to that Tu facis hunc dominum te facit ille deum Thus you see they derive their power a non-habente potestatem from such as have it not to give therefore their commission is simpliciter null cannot be acknowledged by any faithfull minister or Christian Nor can their power be submitted unto And hence also it is clear what reason these honest Ministers had to refuise this acknowlegment not to take the canonicall oath which was so contradictory unto the oath of the Covenant But he replyeth That there is no contradiction betwixt the covenant and that canonicall oath or promise of obedience to the prelate because Timorcus who is tender in the matter of oaths maintaineth that the ministers who of old took the canonical oath did not swear the contradictory there to when they took the covenant whâ—…nce it will follow necessaryly that they who have taken the Covenant do not contradict that oath if they should take the oath of canonical obedience Ans. Though this canonicall oath should not contradict the second
this Kingdome to have the sole choice appoyntment of the officers of state privy councellours the Lords of the Session That the power of calling holding and dissolving of Parliaments all conventions meetings of the estates doth solely reside in the Kings Maj. his haires successours that as no Parliament can be lawfully keeped without speciall warrand presence of the Kings Maj. or his commissioner so no Acts nor statutes to be past in any Parliament can be binding on the people or have the authority force of lawes without the speciall approbation of his Maj or his commissioner interponed thereto at the making thereof that the power of armes making of peace warre making of treatjes leagues with forraigne princes or states or at home by the subjects among themselves doth propperly reside in the Kings Maj. his heirs successours is their undowbted right theirs alone that it is higâ—… treason in the subjects of this Kingdome or any number of them upon what soever ground to rise or continue in armes to maintaine any forts garisons or strengths to make peace or warre or to make any treaties or leagues with forraigners or among themselves without his Maj. authority first interponed thereto That it is unlawfull to the subjects of whatsoever quality or function to convocat convcen or assemble themselves for holding of Councells conventions assemblies to treat consult determine in any matters of state civill or ecclesiasticke except in the ordinary judgments or to make leagues or bonds upon whatsoever colour or pretence without his Maj. speciall consent approbation had thereunto That the league covenant and all treaties following there upon Acts or deeds that do or may relate thereunto are not obligatory that none of his Maj. subjects should presume upon any pretext of any authority whatsoever to require the renewing or swearing of the said league Covenant or of any other Covenants or publick oaths concerning the government of the Church Kingdome and that none offer to renew or swear the same without his Maj. speciall warrand and approbation This acknowledgment doth sufficiently clear what that supremacy in civil matters is which they grant unto the King as his due which by this oath they would have all to acknowledge also So that there is no great difficulty to clear the grounds ofscrupleing at this oath even upon this account to shew that such as have refuised the same cannot be accounted disloyall for all indifferent persones will see that there both was and is good ground to scruple at this oath thuâ—… sensed by this act if they shall consider these ten Particulars following 1. The Parliaments of Scotland from the beginning have been partakers fellowshareis of supremacy with the King the Kings of Scotland never were the sole subjects thereof as appeareth by their appending of their own seal with distinct from the King 's great seal in treaties with forraigne princes in some important acts sentences at home of which there is one instance yet on recoâ—…d in the acts of Parliament viz act 112. Parl. 14. King â—…am 3. 2. The Parliaments of Scotland have had the power of setling the governement for they did willingly sweaâ—… to Fergus and his posterity and when he died left two young sones â—…erlegus Mainus both unfit for governement they resolved upon a new course That neither a childe should governe nor yet their oath which they made to Fergus be brocken which was this That when the Kings children were young at their fathers decease some other of the posterity of â—…ergus fit for governing should be chosen who should rule the Kingdom all his dayes which law continued 1025. years untill the reigne of Kenneth the 3. and accordingly when Fergusius died they choosed Ferâ—…haris when â—…erlegus came to age he desired to be put in possession of the Kingdome but it was refuâ—…sed so long as Feritharis lived And when Cotbâ—…edus died they passed by his sone Câ—…tbred made choice of Dardaâ—…us the grand childe of Metellan thus did they alwayes unto the dayes of Kenneth the 3. Epropinquis sayeth Buchanan in vita 〈◊〉 Regum defunctorum non proximos sed maxime idoneos modo a Fergusio primo Scotorumrege essent oriundi eligere consueverant And who but they did condescend to that law at length that the Kings eldest son should be called prince should succeed if the son died before the father then the grand childe should succeed unto the grand father that if the King died leaving a young childe to be heire of the crowne a regent should be chose to mannage the affairs of the Kingdome dureing his minority till he were 14. years of age at which time he might choise his curatours was there ever any such thing concluded without the Parliaments consent 3. The Parliaments of Scotland have had a great share of the legislative power Therefore the lawes are stiled the acts of Parliament not the acts of the King they are said to be enacted by the Estates of Parliament So do the many explicatory acts witnesse that they share in the supreme power of interpreting the lawes of the land which demonstrateth their legislative power and both these are no small part of supremacy 4. In the time of Finnanus the 10 King there was a law made Ne quidreges quod majoris esset momenti nisi de publici coucilij authoritate juberent that Kings should command nothing in matters of any moment but according to the authority and command of Parliament And so when Milcolumbus the 92. King was giving away for peace with England Northum Berland the Estates were against it denying jus esse regi quicquam de sinibus regni detrahere nisi omnibus ordinibus consentientibus That the King had any power to give away any part of his dominions without the consent of all the Estates of Parliament 5. The Parliaments of Scotland have regulated the actions of princes have censured punished them for enormities let the lives of Thereus Durstus Ethus Luctatus Mogaldus Conarus Constantin Ferchardus 1. Ferchardus 2. Eugenius Donaldus 8. Culenus others recorded by Buchanan in his chronicles be seen considered the power of the Parliaments of Scotland over their princes will casily appear So at that Parliament in which King Iames the 6. was created King the Earle of Murray setled in the regency it was debated what course should be taken with the Queen concerning whose accesse unto her husbands death there were such shreud toakens And some voted that justice should be executed upon her and others that she should only be keeped in prisone see Buchan lib. 19. 6. The Parliaments of Scotland have had expresse power in some cases to withstand resist even by armes the King if he should break treaties of peace made concluded by him them with forraigne princes
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
obtained a great victory that same year they renewed their Covenant at Brunna in which Covenant the other Ten Cantons at severall times thereafter being oppressed by their Nobles did joyne at length by warre brought themselves into that state of liberty in which they are at this day See for all this Simlerus de Repub. Helvet 12. And lastly they have the practice of the Bohemians who in the Dayes of Wenceslaus Sigismond waged great warres under the conduct of valiant Zizca See Fox's acts monuments Vol. 1. And thereafter in the dayes of Ferdinand they resolved to fight couragiously against all their enemies how great so ever they were But in case some should be so bold as to condemne all those Acts as treacherous rebellious let it be considered 6. That some of those same practices are allowed and approved even by the Kings of Britaine for King Iames in his answer to cardinall perron justifyeth the protestants of France their taking up armes in their own defence Memorable is that speach which King Iames had in the Parliament house Anno 1609. a King sayeth he governing in a setled Kingdome â—…easeth to be a King degenerateth into a tyrant so soon as he leaveth to rule by his lawes much more when he begineth to invade his subjects persones rights liberties to set up an arbitrary power impose unlawfull taxes raise forces make warre upon his subjects whom he should protect rule in peace to pillage plunder waste spoile his Kingdom Imprison murder destroy his people in a hostile manner to capâ—…vat them to hâ—…e pleasure This is a sentence well worthy to come out of a Kings mouth to beâ—…ingraven upon the thrones of Kings princes and doth more then abundantly justify Scotland in their late defensive warre Moreover Queen Elizabeth King Iames both by the publick advice consent of their realmes did give publick aid assistance unto the protestants of France against their King to the Netherlands against the king of Spaine and to the protestants in Germany Bohemia against the Emperour entered into solemne leagues covenants with them if they had been traitours rebells that action of defence utterly unlawfull would those princes have joyned with them in this manner who can think this So did King Charles the first openly avow to aide the protestants in France at Ree Rotchell against their King who was come in armes against them the Germane Princes against the Emperour the Netherlands against the King of Spaine And entered into a solemne league with them for that end All which do aboundantly justify the Scottish defensive warres free Scotland from the aspersion of disloyalty rebellion But moreover 7. It is to be considered That King Charles I. himself hath fully freed them of all these aspersions in his publick Acts in his Parliaments declareing The Scots late taking up armes against him his Consellours in defence of their religion lawes privileges to be no treason nor rebellion them to be his true loyall subjects notwithstanding of all aspersions cast upon them by the Prelaticall Popish party because they had no evill nor disloyall intentions at all against his Maj. person crown dignity but only a care of their own preservation the redresse of these enoâ—…mities pressures grievances in Church state which threatened desolation to both See the acts of oblivion pacification Here is enough to stope the mouthes of all Calumniators to vindicate them to cleare the innocency of their cause before all the Woâ—…d And furder King Charles who now is did approve of the same in his declaration at Dumfermlâ—… which is cited Sect 2. 8. Some of their chief antagonists are forced through the clearnesse of truth to assert such things grant such particulars as will by clear undenyable consequence justify their taking up of armes resisting the armies of their King when they came against then to destroy Religion Lives Lawes Liberties Beside that all of them are forced to speak most in consequently unto their own principles by their concessions do overthrow their own grounds arguments as might easily be made to appear if to discourse at length of this subject were designed now As 1. Iohn Barclay Lib. 4. Cap. 16. he sayeth expresly That if a King will alionate and subjecte his Kingdom to another without his subjects their consent or be carryed with a hostile minde to the destruction of all his people his Kingdom is actually lost and the people may not only lawfully resist and disobey but also depose him This is more then the Scots could desire for they plead not for deposeing or dethroning of kings but only for resisting withstanding them when they carry a hostile minde against them whereof a strong army of strangers marching with armes to their borders after they were contrary to all law declared rebels is as evident a demonstration as can be are seeking the ruine destruction of their own subjects They plead only That in that case the people may are bound before God to defend themselves when their religion which ought to be dearer to them then any thing else is sought to be taken away or altered service books or masse books the like tyrannically obtruded upon them So Contra Monarch lib. 3. c. 8. He granteth that the people have right to defend themselves against great cruelty what greater cruelty could be expected by a nation from their King then to be blocked up by sea land threatened with utter ruine extiâ—…pation unlesse they would sell soull conscience all doth not this speak abundantly for the justifying of them 2. D. Fern. Part. 3. s. 5. acknowledgeth that personall defence is lawfull against the suddaine illegall assaules of the Kings messingers or of himself in so far as to ward off his blowes to held his hands and when the assault is inovitable Now if resistence be lawfull against suddaine assaults much more against premediated deliberated advised assaults If resistence of illegall assaults be lawfull then they cannot be condemned because the assaults of the King's forces were against all law reason for there is no law warranding the King or any other having a commission from him to force popery upon them by armes If resistence be lawfull against inevitable assaults then they are justified for how could they resist the assault of so many thousand armed men but with armed men Yea when he alloweth in such a case that hands may be laid upon the prince he more then justifieth them who never did intend harme to his Maj. person honour but wished sought the saifty preservation thereof by all meanes And againe when he would answere the argument taken from Elisha's resisting of the King he granteth that itis lawfull to resist the Kings cutthroats and what did Scotland more then resist his
bloody emissaries Moreover he alloweth to privat persones liberty to deny subsidies and tribute to the prince when he imployeth it to the destruction of the common wealth and is not this a clear resistance a taking of the sword out of his hand But what shall a nation do that cannot get pay holden from a plundering army of enemies so cannot get them disbanded but take up armes force then to it This is but resistence the other is resistence Majus minus non variant speciem yea it is a question if it be lawfull to deny to the King any of his tribute though it be clear enough that it is lawfull for a nation to defend themselves against the King's unjust illegall commissions The same Doct. in conscience satified Sect. 5. confesseth that Salus Populâ—… est supremâ—… Lex and if so some meanes must needs be allowed unto the people to preserve their own saiftie when it is in hazard to recover it when almost lost by the invasion tyranny of governours who instead of levelling all to that end which should be before their eyes are taking courses tending to the destruction of the people To come with an army of armed enemies against a common wealth is no sit mean to preserve that common wealth but to common sense speaketh out an intention to destroy the same therefore Scotland can not be condemned for preserving it self in such a case 3. Iohn Bodin de republ lib. 2. c. 5. granteth That if a King turntyrant he may lawfully at his subjects requâ—…est be invaded resisted condemned or slaine by a forraigne prince proveth it at large from severall exemples And if a forraigne prince may do this why may not the subjects themselves do it if they be able if the subjects may petition for this help why may they not forbear to trouble strangers if they be able to do it themselves a forraigne prince hath no more superiority nor right over their prince for that effect then they havethemselves yea not so much And elsewhere in that book viz lib. 1. c. 10 lib. 5. c. 5. he alloweth subjects to resist to depose Kings in some cases which is more then Scotland doth desire 4. Arnisaeus de author prinp c. 2 n 10. granteth that if the prince proceed extrajudicialiter without order of law by violence every private man hath power to resist much more then may the body representative of a land resist when he cometh against them with fire sword which is the most extrajudiciall acting imaginable So c. 16. n. 4. he granteth that limited princes may be resisted such an one is alwayes was the King of Scotland for they never knew an absolute prince as is clear from what hath been already said 5. So Grotius who de Iure belli paâ—…is lib. 1. c. 4. n. 1 2 3 4 5. denyeth that the warr of subjects against superiours is lawfull would prove it by the law of nature the Mosaicall law the Gospell by the practice of the primitive christians and n. 〈◊〉 denyeth this not only to private subjects but also to inferiour Magistrats all which to examine is not the work presently intended only it is worth the noticeing that even he is forced to grant many things which serve abundantly to justify the practice of Scotland for ibid. n. 7. He granteth the law of not resisting doth not binde when the danger is most weighty certaine doth prove it thus because the lawes of God in some cases admit the exception of extreme necessity as the law of the sabbath further addeth that this law about resistence hath its â—…ise from their will who did first associat themselves in a society created governours over themselves for if they were asked whether they would acknowledg these conditions that they should die rather then resist in any case they would not grant it unlesse in this case when resistence would wrong the common wealth occasion the killing of many innocents He furder proveth it from that passage which was cited out of Barclaius yea he dar not condemne any no not the lesser part of the people who rise in armes in extreme necessity far lesse would he condemne the body of a land useing this last remedie in the extremity of hazard danger furder he proveth this from David who took armed men 1. Sam. 22 2. 23 13. to resist the violence of Saul after he had learned for certanety that he was seeking his life and from the Maccabces whom as he thinketh nothing else can defend but the great imminent danger in which they were And furder n. 8. he granteth that such princes may not only be resisted but also punished by death who are not absolute And it hath been showne that the Kings of Scotland have been obnoxious unto their Parliaments yet they desire not so much as is here granted Moreover n. 10. he assenteth to Barclaius saying as hath been cited that if a King alienate his Kingdome he loseth it but furder he addeth if â—…e prince but attempt to do so and to subject it to another he may be resisted and also n. 11. he assenteth to Barclaius saying as hath been cited that the King doth lose his power when he seeketh the destruction of his subjects And againe he sayeth N. 13. If the king hath one part of the supremacy the senat another then the king may be resisted when he incroacheth upon the senat that notwithstanding that it were granted the King onely had power of war for that is to be understood onely of warre with forraigners Thus he doth abundantly justify the late defensive warre of Scotland against their prince who was incroaching upon the liberties of Parliament people These particulars seriously pondered will do much to cleare their innocency unto the world to vindicat their cause and practice from the many foule calumnies aspersions which the Dâ—…gs of the generation did cast upon them of purpose to foment the discord betwixt the king his faithfull loyall subjects And though by what is said conceded by their adversaries the clearnesse equity of their cause appeareth both in poynt of law conscience yet for furder clearing of the same these few following particulars may have some weight 1. There is great difference to be put betwixt actuall disobeying of rebelling against violently with force of armes resisting the lawfull Magistrat doing his duty commanding just things warranded by the lawes of God the land And disobeying his unjust Acts resisting his violent tyrannicall oppressing plundering spoiling killing armies The former is a resisting of the very ordinance of God forbidden Rom. 13. where the Apostle is speaking of the civill Magistrat doing his duty in his place as God's deputy exerceing the duties of his calling executing his office But in the other case the Magistrat is out of his function
was a necessary defensive warre that Scotland could do no lesse then they did unlesse they would have willingly betrayed their Religion all which they had as men or as Christians into the hands of their bloody cruell adversaries which no law would have warranded them to do But to put a close to this This their practice is abundantly warranted 1. By Lawyers affirming that such a defensive warre Cui libet omni jure ipsoque rationis ductu permissa est Such a warre is warranted to all by all lawes imaginable Spigelius tels â—…s in his Lexicon tit bellum That that is a just warre which is undertaken for defence citeth lâ—…t Vim ff de just jur Yea he tels us that if a warre be not undertaken for defence it is sedition though carryed on by the Emperour for he can no more hurt by warre then he can take away a man's life without a cause againe he telleth us that that is a just necessary warre Quod sit se sua defendendo that is for defence of a man's life lands and goods and liberties and what is dear unto him Hence is that common saying Vimâ—…i repellere omnia jura permittunt It is lawfull by all law to resist violence by force of armes And Defendere se est juris naturae gentium The law of nature and nations teacheth every man to defend himself And Cajus the lawyer sayeth That the very law of nature permitteth a man to defend himself against danger And Florentiâ—…s It is right that what ever a man hath done in the defence of his own body should be accounted lawfully done Yea Ovid tells us the same Armaque in armatos sumâ—…re jura sinunt To meet arm'd men with armes all lawes allow 2. By the concessions of adversaries for they grant that it is lawfull to flee from the tyranny of abused authority as Moses did Exod. 2. David 2 Sam. 19. Elisha 1 King 19. Ioseph Christ Mat. 2. this Christ warranteth expresly Mat. 10. Now this flying is a plaine resisting of rulers if resisting be unlawful this must be unlawfull likewise if this be not unlawfull resisting cannot be unlawfull for the the same justice equity which warrandeth men by flight to decline unjust assaults doth also warrand an escapeing of them by resistence when flight will not do it Which was indeed the case of Scotland for it is not imaginable how a whole land man wife child old young sick whole can flee from their habitations goe seek their livelyhoods in other Kingdomes beside that it is a great question if the States of a land the peers inferiour judges were bound by flying to leave the Land Liberties all unto their enemies if they had power to defend themselves for if the law of nature oblige men to preserve themselves by flight from tyranny it doth also oblige them to defend themselves by resisting when they cannot conveniently secure themselves by flight oâ—… when they cannot flee without betraying of the countrey Religion all All this will be so much the clearer if it be considered that if a tyrant hath legall power from God to kill he hath the same legall power to summon legally siste before his tribunall such such persons And therefore if it be unlawfull to resist his tyrannous murthers it must be also unlawfull to resist his legall citations to that effect so unlawfull to flee for one the same power citeth judgeth Therefore if the law of defence warrand one to resist his summonds not to compeer it warrandeth one to resist his tyranny if he can be able It is true the one resistence is more but majus minus non variant speciem And if the one be a fault in conscience so must the other be See Lex Rex Pag. 325 326. Next they grant that it is lawfull for subjects to resist a forraigne enemy invadeing the land with armes thus their practice is justified It is true their enemies had the Kings Commission but the having or wanting of such a commission will not alter the case of the land which is put to defend it self For whether these enemies have such a commission or not they are strangers forraigne enemies to the land they come with a hostile minde to destroy to conquere the same therefore what ever commission they have the people are bound to defend themselves their Families young old their Lands their Liberties their Religion all which they have They grant also that a privat man may defend himself when violently assaulted his life is in danger when he can no way escape he may rather kill as be killed So Groâ—…us de â—…re Belli ac Pacis Lib. 2. c. 1. § 3. Si corpus impetatur vi praesente cum periculo vitae non aliter vitabilâ—… tunc bellum esse licitum etiam cum interfectione periculum inferentis Much more will this hold good in the case of a whole Kingdom when they are assaulted by cruell enemies cannot escape with their wives children but must needs fall upon the sword of these bloody enemies unlesse they use an innocent lawfull resistence Yea ibid. § 6. He granteth that in case a man be in danger to suffer mutilation he may resist Seing the losse of a member especially if it be a chief member is sad in some respect comparable to the life And moreover sayeth he it can not be known whether or not the life may not be in danger thereby Will not this then serve abundantly to justify Scotland when their enemies came with a purpose not only to mutilat but also to kill They grant likewise that a maid may resist the King when he is seeking to abuse her And shall not an army of malignants be resisted who if they get their will would abuse Virgines marryed Women also 3. By the law of Nature Nature hath given to beasts birds power ability to defend themselves hence that Omnibus hostem Praesidiumque datum sentire noscere teli Vimque modumque sui 'T is given to all their foe to know And how to guaird and warde the blow To know their weapon ev'n by sense And how to use it in defence And that of Horace Dente Lupus cornâ—… Taurus petit unde nisi inâ—… Monstratum That Wolves with tearing teeth and mouth And Buls with pushing horns pursu'th Whence is it that this skill they have Nature within it to them gaâ—…e And that of Lucretius Sentit enim vim quidque suam quae possit abuti Cornna nota prius vitulo quam frontibus extant Illis iratus petit atque infensus inurget Creatures their strength do early know Which they may use abuse also The calf his horns doth know before On 's fore head they shew lesse or more Pushing with them in tender age And pressing hard as in a rage
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
the work of first preaching propagating the Gospell could be done by none after them when they had done it themselves but that was not their ordinary office if Mr Stillingfleet speak truth here If this office did cease by God's warrand then how can any raise it up againe without his expresse warrand for either it was the Lord's will when he caused it to cease that it should cease till he was pleased to make use of it againe or till men pleased to raise it up at their owne pleasure This last cannot be proved therefore seing God thought fit to lay is aside gave no signification of his minde when the Churâ—… should be at liberty to make use of it againe It must now be aâ—… new office unwarranted of God so unlawfull 4. That rule thâ—… to make a thing unlawfull which was before lawfull there must be some expresse prohibition for bidding any furder use of such power will not alwayes hold in this case because some othâ—… thing may be equivalent unto an exprese prohibition 〈◊〉 when God removeth the speciall propper work of such an office the speciall proper qualifications with which such officers were endued when those cease the office ceaseth God thereby declareth that the office work was extraordinary therefore should not continue As for Example in the primitive Church there were some Prophets these were distinct from Apostles Evangelists Pastors c. so were there workers of Miracles such as had the the gift of healing of speaking with tongues And when God withdrew those gifts fiting those offâ—…cers for the work unto which they were then called did he not therby declare that it was his will that that office should cease was there a necessity for any other expresse probition And because of the want of this expresse prohibition will it be lawfull now for any to set up such officers offices in the house of God when God giveth not the qualifications so giveth not the call thereunto So is it in this case of the Apostles when their qualifications their speciall work ceased their office ceased there will be no call for such officers till there be fit work God give fit qualifications without a call warrand it must be unlawfull to set up such an office againe This will be clearer if it be considered what was the speciall work of an Apostle It was this A planting of Churches setling of the Gospell government in them by insâ—…nteing the standing officers thereof that by an eminent power immediatly granted by Christ to them solely This was their speciall work this ceased with them so did their office with it As also the qualifications And therefore it would be unlawfull now for a Church at here own hand to set up such an officer againe though there be no expresse probition By this it is clear 5. That the power office of Apostles laid no foundation for prelaticall power the work belonging to them as such being altogether extraordinare It is true their power did extend over many Churches pastours but yet 1. They were not fixed to such such particular dioecies as propper to themselves but sometimes moe of them were to gether in one place following their work Nor. 2. Did they account themselves the sole pastors of such or such a Church after other ministers had been ordained there 3. â—…or did they ordaine alone in Churches constituted nor 4 Did they exerce jurisdiction alone but alwayes they joyned others with them in Churches setled 5. They assumed to themselves no negative voice either in ordination or jurisdiction so in them there could be no foundation for prelacy laid even as to their common work or work of a lasting nature which did not properly peculiarly appertaine to them as Apostles 6. Neither finally were they consecrated ordained after the manner that prelats are now consecrated being first made Deacons next Presbyters then Bishops so that there is a vaste disparity But distrusting this answer he giveth a second § 12. to this purpose The extending of any Ministeriall power is not the appoynting of a new office because every Minister hath a relation Actu primo to the whole Church of God the resiraint enlargment of which power is subject to positive determinations of prudence conveniency in Actu secundo The exercise and execution of the power of order belongeth to every one in his personall capacity but as to the power of jurisdiction though it belong habitually and Actu primo to each presbyter yet being about matters of publicke and common concernment the limit ation and exercise of it belongeth to the Church in common such is the power of visiting Churches of ordination and censures and when this is devolved to some particular persons by the rest of the pastors or by the Magisrat quoad executionem it belongeth to them Ans. 1. This contradicteth the former answer for the former answer did suppone that these were distinct officers from presbyters because their office was such as the ordinary office of the Apostles and the Apostles were distinct from other Church officers even by their office not in respect only of their extraordinare mission or power of working miracles But this answer affirmeth them to be one the same with presbyters But. 2. By this answer he might plead for the Pope for every Minister in actis primo hath a relation to the whole Church so might be a Pope if the supreme Magistrat or the rest of the Ministers would devolve upon him the execution of the power of jurisdiction so the Pope is no new officer but a mere presbyter only his power of jurisdiction is enlairged So may he plead for Cardmals Patriarchs Primats Archbishops as well as for Bishops But it will be objected that the Pope pretendeth to some other thing as the warrand of his power even to a jus divinum Ans. so do prelats but with Mr Stillingfleet all is one whether that be pretended unto or not for it is no matter what they say of themselves but what any may feigne of them to the end they may both deceive others be deceived themselves This is as if one would defend a man who had taken upon himself to be a King of such or such a common wealth contrare to the fundamentall lawes of the land and would alledge that he were no distinct officer from any other member of Parliam because for sooth the power of Government as to its execution is subject to positive determinations Parliaments may do commissionat some of their number to some eminent piece of work as to be a Generall or the like he who calleth himself King is nothing else notwithstanding that he rule the commonw with as absolute power unlimited as ever King did Sure any man of understanding would smile at such a defence and just
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
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
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
prael 4. § 6. It is required that there be a clear intimation of this dissent for it is not enough for the father to say he is not well pleased with such a vow but he must openly contradict the same in refuseing he must refuse it in taking it away he must quite take it away as if he had said he must constantly in very deed refuse prohibite the same by his full power and authority 2. Doct. Sanders ubi supra prael 4. § 5. sayeth that a tacite consent will suffice that is to say sayeth he When he who sweareth may in probability presume that the superiour would not refuse it his consent were asked Now had not Scotland this tacite consent when some yeers before the King had ratified Acts of Parliament discharging Church governement by prelats yea more they had a formall expresse consent having an Act of Parliament made by King Parliament against the prelats unto the thing which they did then vow promise 3. This dissent must be presently testified in the very day he heareth thereof if one day passe the oath is ratified for sayeth the forcited Doct. Sanders ubi supra he who signifieth his dissent too late may be thought for some space of time to have consented Now this proclamation was not before the 9. of Octob. 4. This dissent must be constant as sayeth the forecited author for if at any time thereafter he yeeld the oath standeth in force for his former dissenting did not make the oath no oath nor loosed its obligation But only hindered the execution so now the impediment being removed the oath should be followed forth what is promised therein should be performed And the Covenanters have this to say That the King gave his after consent unto the oath when he said in his soliloquies That good men should least offend God him in keeping of it But to put this out of all doubt The King who now is as was showne above did solemnely owne this Covenant approve of all that was done in carrying on the ends of it promised that he would look upon the friends of the Covenant as his only friends the enemies thereof as his enemies And now quod semel placuit amplius displicere non debet that which once pleased cannot againe displease him But to this the author replyeth thus It would be considered if it was the Lord's minde in that law That if Children or wiver having vowed should by some meanes drive their parents or husbands out of the house and bargane with them either to ratify their vowes or never to enjoy these comforts that then the consent so obtained should be irrevocable Ans. 1. He can be in no worse case as to this matter of giving hiâ—… consent then he would be as to his swearing of an oath Now it is granted by Casuists that an oath unto which a man is forced doth binde if the matter be lawfull otherwise all oaths might be evited by alledging that force constâ—…ined to it Even the oath of alleagiance might be questionâ—… upon this account For it hath a penalty annexed to it so the swearers thereof may pretend that they were forced thereunto by the penalty Was noâ—… Zedekiâ—…h's oath to Nebuchadnezzer forced Doct. Saâ—…d his determination in this may satisfie He â—…bi supra Prâ—…l 4 § 5. sayeth 2. If the matter required by force or sad fear be not unlawfull nor injurious to any but only some what disadvantagious to the sâ—…er as if one travailing should fall among robers that with drawne swords would threâ—…ten his life unlesseâ—…e would promise them such a summe of money with an oath In this case it is lawfull both to promise the money to confirme the promise with an oath 3. I say such an oath doth oblige And he giveth these reasons why the oath obligeth 1. Because â—…e sweareth a thing lawfull possible 2. He did choose that which seemed best for that instant 3. What is promised for a certane end should be performed when the end is attained Yea which is more an oath into which one is cheated in which there is lesse reall will then in an extorted oath obligeth as that to the â—…ibeonites So then if an oath into which one is forced doth oblige much more will a consent to an oath stand though extoâ—…ted by fear especially seing the text maketh no such exception But 2. how can he say that such as were for the Covenant did deprive the King of all his worldly comforts seing it was conscience to that Covenant that moved Scotland to call home the King after that the Covenant breakers had taken away his fathers life had banished himself And how can this shamelesse man say as he doth pag. 24. That the Covenant was contrived carryed on as if the designe had been laid to extirpat episcopacy whether the King would consent 〈◊〉 not or whatever course should be taken to force his consent vi armis When he cannot but know that before ever there was a word of this league Covenant of which he is now speak ing prelacy was rooted out of Scotland But he will reply That Scotia d did suspend this King from the exercise of his royall power until he consented which was an unparallel'd way of usage from subjects to their soveraigne Ans. This Gentleman would speak sparingly lest he run himself into a premunire for the Estates of Scotland did nothing but what the lawes of the land allowed them to do There was an act of Parl. Parl. 1. Act. 8. K. Iam 6. enjoyning the King at his coronation to sweare to maintaine the true religion of Christ Iesus to rule the people according to thâ—… loveable lawes coâ—…stitutions received in this reaâ—…me to procure to the uttermost of his power to the Kâ—…K Christian people true perfect peace And this oath King Charles the first did swear what wrong did the Estates of Scotl. when they caused King Charles the II. sweare the same It is true that both the nationall solemne league Covenant were tendered to him also But what was there in either of those different from this oath all the question is about Episcopacy was not Episcopacy abolished fully by act of Parliament by an act of Parliament ratified opproved by King Charles the first himself being personally present Anno 1641 so was not this a received an approved law as full formall as ever any law made by any Parliament in Scotland was And what wrong was it then to put this King to sweare to rule them by their owne approved allowed lawes By this it may be seen that Reverend learned Mr Crofton the authors of the Covenanters plea are mistaken through misinformation when indirecly at least they alledge or take it for granted that the Scots dealt uncivilly disloyally with their prince in this businesse the reader must be intreated
be taken for he said before that an oath hath no force in matters morally good and it is granted by all that an oath hath no force in matters sinfull for it cannot be vinculum iniquitatis here he sayeth a man may not sweare in things indifferent if they be such as come under the compasse of legislators and thus he doth much to banish all religious oaths out of the world 4. Will no oath binde which is against the lawes of the land then what if a man in straite for money shall borrow promise with an oath to give more annual-rent therefore then the law of the land will allow will not his oath binde him What if the law of the land be against the giving of any money unto robbers Shall not a man who is taken with robbers who to save his life promiseth with an oath to give them such a summe of money performe his oath merely because it is against the law of the Land But as to this controversie let the reader consult such casuists as have spoken of it whose names are set down by Timorcus in his Covenanters plea cap. 6. or if he please let him consult Doct Sanders who de jur pro. oblg. prael 4. § 17. proveth it lawfull enough whatever be said of this That which Doct. Saâ—…ders sayeth ubi supra Prael 3. § 9. may be noticed It may be sayeth he that some cases may be given in which an oath which seemeth contrary to some law of a community or calling though it ought not to have been taken yet being taken may oblige as for example in a law whereunto a penalty is annexed disjunctively in this case he thinketh the oath should be keeped the law should not be obeyed but the penalty should be payed this is enough for those who stand for the Cov. 5. If oaths made against the wholsome lawes of the common wealth binde not oaths made against the â—…unwholsome lawes of the common wealth will binde in that case without all doubt people are bound to stand to their oath resolve upon suffering before they yeeld obedience And whether any law made about prelacy be wholsome or unwholsome is sufficiently determined in the premisses by the grounds upon which the legislators did goe when they reseinded all acts made in favours of prelats their power 6. This oath even as to the 2. Article which â—…is most controverted was not against but conforme unto the wholesome lawes of the land for befor that the league cov was sworne there were standing lawes against prelacy acts ratified approved with all formalities published with all usuall solemnities according to the King 's own command warrand therefore this case doth not come home to the case in hand But he sayeth it is not materiall whether the lawes be made before or after the oath And that is a very strange thing for a law not yet made is no law an oatâ—… taken in a particular about which there is no law yet made can not be an oath against a wholesome law of the land And to ' say that a law made afterward may loose the obligation of an oath is a very ready way for opening the door to all perjury to cast all oaths loose for when once a man hath sworne to his own hurt would gladly be rid of his oath he hath no more to do but acquant his superiour he will make a law for the contrary so he is at liberty But will such sigleaves cover the nakednesse of perjurie Or will such shifts satisfy in the day of reckoning Dreame of those things who will God will not be mocked Doct. Sanders a better casuist then he ubi supra Prael 3. § 18. giveth a better resolution saying if after the oath the statute should be abrogated or antiquated the oath as to that statute ceaseth so that he is not bound by the oath to observe that law any more â—…lesse N. B. the very thing contained in the oath be sworne to expresly in that case though the statute be removed the obligation of the oath standeth fast And that is enough for the Covenanters 7. Though it were granted which will not be that inferiours could not take an oath in those matters that fall under the power of legislators to enact lawes about or if they did sweare were not obliged to performe what they swore yet if legislators themselves sweare that such a thing suppon it be but indifferent shall never be enacted in a law will not this oath binde those legislators What will this advocat invente in this case as an open door at which both King Parl may escape for both King Parl. in their kingly parliamentary capacity have abjured prelacy 8. Why may not inferiours sweare when they finde any law grievous burdensome to endeavour according to their place power to have such a law or Act altered why may not such an oath oblige This is not an oath properly against a law because here the dominion of superiours over inferiours is sufficiently reserved this cannot be condemned 9. He mistaketh that case of casuists quando res non permanet in eodem statu When he applyeth it to the purpose in hand for prelacy is the same now which it was when first abjured there is no conveniency or law fulnesse seen in it now which was not seen before Yea on the contrary it appeareth worse then ever So that if he would stand to that rule quando res non permanet in eodem statu when the state of the matter is changed Though they had sworn to maintaine prelacy as now they have abjured it their oath could not binde them now to owne it Because it appeareth now so deforme abhominable a monster a cockatrice seeking the ruine destruction of all which cometh with in its reach 10. what doth this author think of the oath made to the Gibeonites Was there not a change of the Estate of affaires there when within three dayes they were discovered to be lyars that they were not a people that dwelt a far off but such as did dwell among them yet the oath must stand valid firme Yea was there not an expresse prohibition to make any league with these Canaanits Exod. 23 32 33. 34 10. Deut. 7 2. 20 16. was not this a wholsome law And yet the oath must be keeped this law being a particular command so far only to binde the conscience as it might be obeyed without any breach of the morall law as in Rachab's case it is evident as sayeth Mr Iackson in his annotations on Ios. 9 18. How will this advocat reply to these things If he stand to his principles he must condemne Iosua for keeping that oath Moreover was not the oath of Zedekiah against the fundamentall lawes of the land seing it was tendered to him that the Kingdom might
AN Apologeticall Relation Of the particular sufferings of the faithfull Mâ—…nisters professours of the Church of Scotland since August 1660. Wherein severall questions usefull for the time are discussed The King 's preroâ—…gative over Parliaments people soberly enquired into The lawfulnes of defensive war cleared The supreme Magistrats power in Church matters examined Mr Stilling fleet 's notion concerning the divine right of formes of Church Government considered The author of thâ—… seasonable case answered other particulars such as the hearing of the Curats appearing before the high commission court c. canvassed Together with the rise reigne ruine of the former 〈◊〉 lats in Scotland Being A brieff account from History of the Government of the Church of Scotland from the beginning of the many troubles which Prelats have created to her first last For satisfaction of strangers incouragement of present 〈◊〉 By a well wisher to the good old cause JER 50 34. Their Redeemer is strong The Lord of hosts is his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 shall thorówly plead their cause that he may give rest to the land 〈◊〉 quiet the inhabitants of Babylon MIC 7 9 10. I will bear the indignation of the Lord because I have sumed 〈◊〉 him untill he plead my cause execute Iudgement for me â—…e 〈◊〉 bring me fâ—…rth to light I shall behold his righteousnes then sheâ—… that 〈◊〉 mine enemy shall see it shame shall cover her which said unto me 〈◊〉 is the Lord thy God Mine eyes shall behold her now shall she be 〈◊〉 down as the mire of the streets ISA. 51 22 23. Thus saith the Lord thy God that pleadeth the cause of his people Behold I have taken out of thine hand the cup of trembling 〈◊〉 the dregs of the cup of my fury thou shalt no more drink it again But I â—…ll put it into the hand of them who afflict thee which have said to thy soule 〈◊〉 down that we may goe over thou hast laid thy body as the ground 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â—…reas to them that went over Printed in the Yeer 1665 The Epistle to the READER Christian Reader This is a time wherein little or nothing is heard from the Churches of Christ all the world over but lamentation woeâ—… partly by reason of grievous afflictions sore persecution which is none of the worst conditions partly by reason of woefull and shamefull defection falling from former zeale integrity occasioned either by the temptations which usually attend sharpe tryalls of affliction whereby the weakness of many perversness of heart in moe is discovered Or without any such force of externall temptation from an inward decay of life love wearying of God his wayes the Worst condition that a Church can be in which is now the Epidemicall plague of this age Hence it is that the Lord seemeth to be angry with all ready to reject some of his Churches which to him are as a generation of his wrath Have not his people set up their abominations in the house which is called by his name to pollute it And may it not be feared that the curse shall devoure the earth they that dwell therein shall be made desolate because they have transgressed the lawes changed the ordinances broken the everlasting Covenant There appeareth now hanging over the head of the poor little flock of Christ a black dreadfull cloud threatning no lesse then utter ruine overthrow or at least speaking a loude alarme for awaking the secure sleâ—…ping Bride It is most sad to behold how little the Churches of Christ in every place are affected with this imminent stroke ready to light on all to see some of them quiet at rest singing a requiem to themselves as if though dispensations from the Lord doe speak the contrary to all who will but open their eyes their mountaine stood so strong as never to be moved This deadness deepe security when all things speak an approaching storme as it doth evidence a great Judgement spirituall plague from God upon the Spirits of people so it dothpresage no less then remediless â—…uine if God in the riches of his mercy prevent it not What a dreadfull night of confusion astonishment must be at hand when there is such blackness without And such deadness prodigious security within Are not the enemies of the Church as Gebal Ammen Amalek The Philistines those of â—…yre Assur the Children of Lot who are early late at their master's work devising plotting the ruine destruction of the interest Kingdome of Christ Are they not all combined together acted with the same Spirit of Antichrist for this very end purpose to helpe forward as with one shoulder to raise up his fallen interest heale his wound And are they not setting themselves to thrust King Iesus from his throne to put the crowne from his head the scepter out of his hand so to prey upon devour his little flock that if it were possible they should be no more a nation nor their name remembered any more And are they not about the swallowing up of the protestant interest as in a moment And what is the Church of Christ doing all this while Doth she stir up her selfe to call upon her head husband or to awake the watch man of Isreal who neither slumbereth nor sleepeth Is she upon her watch-tower looking out guarding against the approaching enemy or observing his motions Ah not so She is fast a sleepe while the enemy is within the walls And which is more sad lamentable with her own hands she hath helped to make the breach in the wall at which the enemy hath entered now hath faire advantage given him to accomplish his bloody designe against the protestant cause interest So little hath she gained by her sinfull compliance with the opinions practises of Antichristian men whether through base feare or carnall prudence even the cutting of it off And the bringing of his people back againe unto Babylon Who knoweth but though the Lord's enemies shall at last be troden under as straw for the dunghill he shall spread forth his hands in the midst of them as he that swimmeth spreadeth forth his hands to swim bring down their pride together with the spoiles of their hands lay low in the dust bring to the ground even the high fortresse of their wall so make all his enemies know that there is a King in Zion who shall must reigne untill all his foes be made his footstoole the onely wise God who knoweth how to turne every thing to the best may suffer the adversaries to prosper in their device designe so give up many of the people called by his name to the sword of the enemy that others may be alarmed awaked from their sleep put to their prayers even to calling upon God with their whole heart
the times as to condemne their own former proceedings to intertaine strange unbeseeming thoughts of the wonderfull works of the righthand of the most High wrought among them so become ashamed of their cause durst not adventure to speake in their own justification Therefor being consident of the good acceptance which this undertaking shall meet with from compassionate Christianly affected churches people about persuaded that God whose interest Cause this is will in his own good time arise plead the same vindicate his work from all the aspersions calumnies of men by a reviving therof in the middest of the years a best irring of himself for the carying on of the same untill the copstone be put on therby give such ane unanswerable Apologie as shall be sufficient to stop the mouths of all adversaries to confirme his followers comfort the saddened hearts of his sufferers This present piece of worke was the more chearfully undertaken to the end beside what use the present suffering members of that church might make hereof for their own satisfaction incouragement strengthening in the Lord that such of the nighbour churches about whose ears have been filled with the slanderous reports to the vexing of their souls raised by the adversaries of that church caryed on by all the art of hell to the strengthening confirming of their ill cause may be undeceived rightly informed touching the truestate of affaires in that church And to this end it will be sufficient in the first place to give a short clear Historicall relation of the troubles which the former Prelats which were in that church did creat unto her both in their rising when they did come unto their hieght of the wonderfull maner of the Lords bringing them down casting them out of that land church with shame disgrace And then to give some vieu of the present state of that church by mentioning some particulars which are the grounds of the present sufferings of the people of God there clearing the equity justice of their cause who have choysed affliction rathen then sin when by this means it shall be seen from what an exellent desirable state that church is now fallen as in a moment into what a condition of wo lamentation she is now plunged all who are Christianly affected with the afflictions of Joseph may be moved to compassionat her case to sympathize with her if they can do no more be stirred up to minde that bleeding swooning almost expiring church of Scotland at the throne of grace SECTION I. Shewing how the church of Scotland was long governed without Prelats after what maner they did arise to their height there without the Churches consent IT is not unknown that according to the testimonie of Origen Tertullian the Scots did embrace the faith amongst the first probablie as Buchan sheweth they received it from some of Iohn's disciples who fled by reason of the persecution caused by that bloudy Domitian so that about the year 203. which was the 4 year of King Donald the first Christian Religion was publickly professed the King himself his Queen diverse of the Nobles being solemnely baptized after which he purposed to root out Heathenisme out of the Kingdome but was hindered by wars with the emperour Severus There after about the year 277 King Cratilinth intended a Reformation but was much hindered by the heathenish Priests called Druides from their sacrificing in groves under oaks as some suppose who by their subtyle insinuations power had much influence upon the people yet the Lord did seconde the intentions of this good King sent several worthy men both ministers privat Christians from the South parts of Britan where the Nynth Tenth Persecution under Aurelius Disclesian did rage these for their single retired life were called Culdees quasicultores Dei more probably then because of their living in Cels and this work continowed till about the year 360 then did meet with a great interruption by reason of civill wars wherby the land was wasted all thâ—… Scots banished untill about the year 420 when Fergus the second came into Scotland whose son Ewen sent for the exiled Culdees gave them great encouragement they did set themselves to their worke And this continowed untill about the year 452 when Palladius being sent into Britaine by Pope Celestin came into Scotland who by his subtile insinuationâ—… did gaine so much upon the simple people as that in a short time he moved them to consent unto a change of the governement of the church into Prelacy himself became the Arch prelate But befor this Palladius came Scotland never saw a Prelate if our ancient Historiographers be to be beleeved such as Balcus in his Historie of the Britons c. cent 14. cap 6. saying Ante palladium Scoti c. befor Palladius came the Scots had their Bishops ministers by the ministry of the word of God chosen by the suffrage of the people after the custome of those of Asia but those things did not please the Romanes Beda in his History of England Lib. 1. who sayeth Palladiuâ—… ad Scotos c. i. e. Palladius was sent unto the Scots who beleeved in Christ by Celestin the Pope of Rome as their first Bishop Prosper in his Chron ad An. 436 saying Ad Scotos c. i e. unto the Scots then beleeving in Christ Palladius is ordained by Pope Celestin sent thither the first Bishop Iohn Fordon in his Scottish Chronic. lib. 3. c. 8. saying Ante Palladis adventum c. i. e befor the coming of Palladius the Scots had for teachers of the faith ministers of the Sacraments presbiters onely or Monks following the customes of the primitive church Iohannes Major speaking of the same Palladius who sayeth per sacerdotes monaches c. i. e. the Scots were instructed in the Christian faith by Priests Monks without any Bishop and Buchanan who sayeth nam ad id usque tempus c. i. e. to that very time speaking of Palladius coming into Scotland changing the governement the churches were ruled by monks without Bishops It is true Spotiswood in his late History would make the world beleeve that in the dayes of the Culdees there was no governement in the Church of Scotland but Prelaticall because Boetius sayeth that those priests or Culdees were wont for their better governement to elect some out of their number by common suffrage to be chief principall among them without whose knowledge consent nothing was done in any mater of importance that the person so elected was called Scotorum Episcopus farther as if his bare dissenting from Buchan would be enongh to blast the reputation weaken the credite of that Renowned Historian he sayeth p. 7. of his History what warrant he i. e. Buchan
had to write so I know not except he did build upon that which Iohannes Major sayeth But from the instruction of the Scots in the faith to conclude that the Church after it was gathered had no other for me of governement will not stand with reason for be it as they speak that by the travelle of some pions monks the Scots were first converted unto Christ it cannot be said that the Church was ruled by monks seing long after those times it was not permitted to monks to medle with the maters of the Church nor were they reckoned among the Clergy thus he To which it is easily answered 1. That the sole word of a late Historian of an Excommunicated forsworne Prelate speaking in his own cause will have lesse weight with every rationall man then the Testimony of so many famous eminent Historyographers known through the world 2. All the Prelat's logick will not conclude from these words of Boetius that there was Episcopall governement among the Culdees if Boetius himself may be heard whom all are bound to beleeve better then this Prelate who reasoneth according to his skill for he lib. 7. c. 28. sayeth erat Palladius primus omnium c. i. e. Palladius was the first of all who did bear holy Magistracy among the Scots being made Bishop by the great Pope thus he affirmeth clearly that Palladius was the first who had Episcopall Power or exercised a Magistraticall domineering power in Church maters 3. Could Buchanan a man many stages beyond the Arch-prelate know no reason or ground for what he said but what this Archprelat could perceave who had no will to open his Eyes 4. As this Archprelat doeth wrong his own credite as an Historian when without warrant he contradicteth so many famous Historians so doeth he discover much weakness in reasoning for to say that the monks did not governe the Church befor Palladius landed in Scotland because after Palladius came they were putt out of all accompt got not liberty to do so is such a ridiculous consequence as can hardly be paralleled as if one should reason now say the Church of Scotland was not governed by Ministers befor the year 1661. becaus after Bishops got all the power into their hands the Ministers had no power of governement in the Church Much more might be said here against the reasoning of this late Historian were it sitt to insist upon every such frivolous argument of his So then from these forocited Historians from Baronius in his Annal it appeareth that the Church of Scotland was severall hundereths of years without a domineering Prelate after this time that this Palladius came she was still in a decaying condition through the increase of popery which at length did overspread the whole land in which Romish darkness she did ly untill about the year 1494. About which time the Lord began to visite that poor Church with his salvation to cause some light of the Gospel to break up in severall places of the land but no sooner did the light appear but as soon did those Antichristian Prelats vassals of the Pope begin to rage to raise persecution against the young professors of the truth followers of the lamb so with fire faggot they sought to destroy all who prosessed the true Religion untill about the year 1550. when notwithstanding of all this rage cruelty of the Beast his followers the knowledge of the trueth did spread through the land a farther worke of Reformation began to he caryed on by worthies whom the Lord raised up such as famous Mr Knox others who were singularly owned of God in that work Though Mr Spotiswood according to his usuall maner of mistaking the works of God of venting his enmity to piety purity is pleased in the 60. page of his history to say that this Reformation was violent disorderly And albert at that time the Queen was endevouring by all means possible to keep up the Idolatry of Rome to suppresse the Reformed Religion so powerfully did the Lord in his goodness assist these worthves that in the year 1560. there was a large Confession of Faith drawn up at the command of the Parlament which did conveen that year in which Confession all the Popish errours were renounced after it was exhibited to the Parliament there read when it was read the Prelats who were there present had not one word to speak against it which when the Earle of Marshall did perceave he said Seing the Bishops who by their learning can for the zeal they should have to the truth would gain say if they knew any things repugnant say nothing against the said Confession I cannot but thinke that it is the very truth of God Thus this Confession was openly avowed professed by this Parliament as is clear by the act 6. parl 1. King Ja. 6. Au. 1567. act 86. par 6. An. 1579. where these words are found in both acts and decerns declairs that all sundry who either gainesayeth the word of the Evangell receaved approved as the heads of the Confession of faith professed in parliament of befor in the year of God 1560. At this Parliament there are severall acts made against popery as against the Masse against the Popes authority jurisdiction for such as were for the Reformation or the Congregation as they were then called did supplicate that they would condemne the Antichristian doctrine would restore the Discipline of the ancient Church discharge the popes jurisdiction accordingly as was said there is an act made ordaining that the Bishop of Rome called the Pope have no jurisdiction nor authority within the Realme in any time coming and that no Bishop or other prelate of the Realme use any jurisdiction in time coming by the said Bishop of Romes authority under the pain c. which was afterwards ratified by severall acts in the dayes of King James And thus by act of Parliament the Reformed Religion is established the church governement by Prelats is virtually discharged because Prelats then had no power but what they had from Rome when the current is cut off at the head it must needs cease in the streams But this will be the more clear if we consider how the Reformers were dealing for the establishment of Discipline together with the Doctrine knowing that the doctrine would not be long keeped pure if the Popish discipline governement were still retained upon this the great council giveth a charge dated April 29 1560. requiring commanding them in the name of the Eternall God as they would answer in his presence to committ to writing in a book deliver their judgements touching the Reformation of Religion which heretofore in this Realme as in others hath been utterly corrupted According unto which charge the first Booke of Discipline as it was called in which book the governement
professeth repentance with such solemne obtestations as affected the whole Assembly Upon this the sentence is delayed the presbitery of Glasgow is appointed to advertise the provinciall Synod of Lothian who were ordained to excommunicate him in case he relapsed And as they feared so he returned to his vomit with violence intended to enter the pulpit when the presbitery according to the appointment of the Generall Assembly were beginning a processe against him the Laird of Minto provost of the Town presented a warrant from his Maj. to stay the processe when they were going on he pulleth forth Mr. Iohn Howeson minister at Cambuslang Moderator imprisoned him in the Tolbooth But for all this Mr. Montgomery is excommunicated by Mr. Iohn Davidson the same was intimated in all the Churches The council declareth the sentence null against this the Ministers of Edenburgh give open testimonies in their preaching for this cause they are commanded to remove out of the Town within the space of twenty fowre houres At this time there was an Assembly sitting at Edenburgh who send some of their number with a supplication to his Majesty wherein they shew That indeed he was the Head of the Commonwealth but onely a member of the Church as a châ—…f member he should have the chief care thereof but now it was not so thâ—…r decrees are resâ—…inded they are forced by his servants Ministers are drawâ—…e out of pulpits that he was playing the pope usurping both the swords and when they come present it unto the Council the Earle of Arran cryeth out if there were any that durst subscribe the same where upon Mr. Andro Melvin answereth we dare taking a penne out of the clerks hand sayeth to his brethren who were commissionated with him comeforward so he they did subscribe the same This storme is not yet blowne over for the next year 1583. Mr. Andro Melvin is summoned before the Council for saying in his preaching That ministers should presente to princes the example of their predecessours as Daniel did the exemple of Nebuchadnâ—…zar to Belteshar But now if any should hold forth what evill King James the third got by a company of flatterers it would be presently said that he had gone from his text must be accused of treasone But when he compeareth he declineth their judgement affâ—…ming that what was spoken in pulpit ought first to be tried by the presbytery that they could not in primâ instantià medle therewith But they proceed though they could get nothing proven for his declining he is commanded to the Castle of Edenburgh then to Blackness but being advertised of his danger by his friends he retireth unto Berwick Annâ—… 1584. the storme groweth to a height for in May there is a parliament suddainly conveened which dischargeth all Church judicatories giveth the King power over all causes civil and ecclesiastick dischargeth all declining of the King his Council in any mater civil or ecclesiastick under the paine of treason also all Ministers to meddle in sermons with the affairs of his Highness his Estate see act 129 130 131 134. of the 8. parl of King James sixt when Mr David Lindsay Minister at Leith was sent by his brâ—…thren to intreatâ—…the King to paâ—…e no act in prejudice of the Church he is committed to Blackness there detained prisoner 47. weeks And Mrs Andro Polwart Patrick Galloway Iames Carmichel are denounced rebels are forced to flee into England So are the Ministers of Edinburgh forced to retire leaving an Apology behinde them But for all this when the acts of this Parliament were publishing Mr Robert Pont protested taking Instruments that the Church should not be obliged to yeeld obedience thereunto being denounced rebell he fleth into England Now is Mr Montgomery established Bishop of Glasgow one Mr Adamson as naughty vicious as any is setled in St Andrews no sooner get they up their head but as soon they execute their tyranny rage against the rest of the Ministry compelling them to promise obedience to them as their ordinaries under the paine of banishment confinement imprisonement deposition sequestration of their stipends Whereupon many in this day of trial did faint subscribe thinking it a sufficient salvo to adde according to the Word of God but afterward mourned for it Now none durst pray for the Ministers who had fled under the paine of treason so dark a day was this But neer the end of the next year there is a change as Court the Ministers returne a Parliament is called at Lithgow but nothing is done in favours oâ—… the Church At length 1586. the King was desirous to have some setling in the Church appointeth a Conference in February at Halyâ—…od house where some articles were drawne up referred to the General Assembly As 1. That the Bishop should have a care of one flock 2. That some Ministers should be added to him without whose counsell he should do nothing 3. His doctrine should be examined by the meeting 4. His power should be of Order not of Jurisdiction 5. Beside his own Church he might have the inspection of moe when the Assembly meeteth in May they could not assent to all these articles yet at length seeing they could not have all which they desired they accorde to this that both Bishops and Commissioners should be subject to the triall of the Generall Assembly that where they did reside they should moderate provinciall Synods Presbyteries in the meane time the order of the Presbyteries was sett down they proceed to examine the processe of Mr Adamson who had declined the provincial Synod of St Andrews he submitteth And the next year Anno 1587. Mr Montgomery resigned his place so was absolved from the sentence of Excommunication by the Assembly When the Parliament doth conveen this year Anno 1587. there are some Prelats who would sit there in name of the Church but when the Church perceived this Mrs David Lindsay Robert Pont were sent to desire that they might be removed as having no authority from the Church the most of them no function in it at all The prelats finding themselves now in a staggering condition thought it was their best to ingratiate themselves in his Majesties favour thereby secure themselves in their places therefore condiscended unto the Act of Annexation of all the Temporalites of benefices unto the Crown which was a dilapidating of the Church rents It is true Spotiswood putteth another face upon this busines in his History but the man could change with the times speake another thing in his English History then he durst speak in his Latine refutation for there he sayeth In summâ Ecclesiasticorum persidià proximis Comitâ—…is Anno 1587. transacta decreto ordinum actibus intervenientibus insinuata Nam Episcopi durissima quaeque à fratrâ—…bus
passi non aliud perfugium haâ—…bant quam ut Aâ—…licorum libidâ—…i se dederâ—…nt he sayeth The Bishops were so hard put to it that they had no other refuge but thus to satisfie the Court give away their revenues to their lusts Anno 1590. The Generall Assembly doeth abrogate the power of Commissioners devolveth the work on Presbytâ—…ries Anno 1591. The Recantation of Mr Patrick Adamson is presented unto the Assembly where among other things he confessed he had eâ—…red in thinking the governement of the Church was like other civil governements in labouring to have the Church in maters Ecclesiastick subject to the Kings lawes And with all he confesseth that the Earle of Arran had a minde to have burnt the Registers of the Assembly Anno 1584. that at Falkland before they were delivered to his Maj. a Bishop Mr Henry Hammilton took out some leaves which spoke against the Governement by Bishops that he had consented thereunto Anno 1592. in May the Generall Assembly doth meet resolveth on some propoâ—…itions to be presented to the ensuing Parliament As 1. That the Acts of Parliament made Anno 1584. against the discipline liberty authority of the Church be annulled 2. That the Discipline of the Church be raâ—…isied 3. That the Act of Annexation be repealed and 4. That the Abbots Pâ—…iors other Prelats bearing the titles of Church-men giving voice in Parl. in name of the Church without her consent be discharged to vote any more When the parliament conveeneth in June The liberties of the Church are ratified all her Courts Generall provinciall and presbiteriall Assemblies Church Sessionâ—… the Juâ—…sdiction Discipline thero â—…s declared to be just good godly in it self in all time coming not â—…anding of whatsoever sâ—…atutes acts canons â—…vilier municipâ—…ll lawes made in the contrare All acts fomerly made for establishing the Popes authority are abolished It is likeways declared that the 129. act Anno 1584. anent the Kings Supremacy against declining of the King his Councill in Church maters shall be no wayes prejudâ—…iall nor derâ—…gate any thing to the previledge that God hath given to the sâ—…rituall office-bearers in the kâ—…k concerning heads of Religion maters of heresy Excommunication collation or deprivation of Ministers or any such like 〈◊〉 â—…all censures specially grounded having warrant of the word of God Item they abrogate annull that act of parl 1584. which did grant Commission to Bishops other Iudges constitute iâ—… Ecclesiasticaell causes to receive his Highness presentations to benefices to give collation there upon to put order to all causes Ecclesiasticall And they ordaine that all presentations to Benefices be directed to the particular Presbiteries in all time coming with full power to give Collation thereupon to putt order to all maters causes Ecclesiasticall within their bounds according to the Discipline of the Kirk Thus did the Lord cary on his work unto this period notwithstanding of much opposition which was made thereunto by men of corrupt principles wicked lives who loved not to part with the Church rents the sweet morsell which they desired alwayes to enjoy now is the Churâ—…h there become a shineing Church being reformed both in Doctrine in Discipline now is she become a pleasant vineyaird well dressed hedged about defended from the wilde boars of the forrest King Iames himself was convinced of this when he gave this reason to an English divine why that Church was not troubled with heresie viz because if it spring up in a parish there is an Eldership there to take notice of it suppresse it if it be too strong for theÌ„ the psesbitery is ready to crush it if the presbitery cannot provide against the obstinate heshall finde moe witty he ads in the Synod if he be not convinced there the Generall Assembly will not spare him yea seldome or never did any errour trouble all those Courts for usually it was crushed by presbiteries except what some Bishops did maintaine And thus that Church was indeed as an army with banners terrible to the adversaries of the truth Then were there endevours to have a through worke of Reformation caried on the iniquities of the land were searched out corruptions in Ministers other ranks of people were taken notice of effectuall courses were laid down for preventing such abuses in time coming Publick Fasts were indicted keeped whole eight dayes together And thus the Lord created upon every dwelling place of Mount Zion upon her Assemblies a cloud smoak by day the shineing of a flaming fire by night for upon all the glory was a defence Isai. 4. 5. But this faire Summer Suneshine did not long last The infinitely wise God saw it sitt to bring that Church unto a wilderness againe to cause her meet with a dark dreadfull long lasting winter night Satan stirreth up Papists upon the one hand who saw that if this hedg of discipline were keeped up they could not enjoy the liberty peace they desired prophane politicians Courteours upon the other hand who saw that by this Discipline their licentiousnes would be curbed to bestirre themselves against this established discipline And accordingly they use their power with the King at length prevaile to get him to oppose the discipline to prosecute that designe piece piece till at length Prelats were established in all their power as the following discourse will clearly evince When Anno 1596. the Popish Lords who had conspired with Spaine against the countrey and had been upon that acount banished viz Huntly Arrol Angus were called home the Church saw Religion in danger ordained that particular flocks should be advertised hereof indicted a Fast appointed that some out of each Presbitery should concurre with the Presbitery of Edenburgh in considering of the most expedient way for securing of Religion and now because the Church would not consent unto the Kings calling home those popish Lords he is stirred up by his popish Courteours against the Church incroacheth dayly more more upon her liberties For Mr D. Black minister at St Andr. is cited before the Councill for some alledged expressions in his sermon The ministry seeing that the spirituall Governement of the house of God was intended to be quite subverted thought it best that he give in a Declinatour there in shew that though he was able to defend all that he spoke yet seing his answering to that accusation before them might import a prejudice to the liberties of the Church be taken for an acknowledgement of his Maj jurisdiction in maters meerly spirituall he was constrained to decline that Judicatorie 1. because the Lord Jesus had given to him his word for a Rule so he could not fall under any civill law but in so farr as he should be found after triall to have passed from his Instructions which triall belongeth
onely to the prophets 2. The libertie of the Church and Discipline presently exercised was confirmed by diverse acts of Parliament and the office-bearers were now in peaceable Possession thereof And this he did and a Copy hereof was sent through the Presbiteries to see if they would owne the same and in testimonie of their chearfull hearty owning therof it was subscribed by three or fowre hundereth Ministers This displeased the King so that he by open proclamation commanded the Commissioners of the Church to depart out of Edenburgh within twenty fowr houres under the paine of rebellion but notwithstanding of this they resolve to stay to see that the Church priviledges should not be wronged send some of their number to speake to his Mâ—…j unto whom he answered that if Mr. Black would passe from his Declinature or if they would declare that the Declinature was not a generall but onely a particular one used in Mr. Blacks case alone as being a cause of slander pertaining to the judgement of the Church he would passe from the pursuite of Mr. Black But after consultation the Comissioners resolved to adhere unto the Declinature unlesse his Maj. would passe from the processe remitt the same unto the Church Judicatory would make an act of Councill declareing that no minister should be charged for his preaching c. Whereupon the King charged the Commissioners of new to depart caused cite Mr. Black unto the last of November withall dischargeth all Barons Gentlemen others to meet with ministers in their Church assemblies without his licence When the day of Mr Blacks compearance cometh the Commissioners presente a supplication desiring them to remitt the question unto the Judge competent but the Councill goeth on therefore they protest that the processe in hand whatsoever followed thereupon should not prejudge the liberty of the Church in maters of Doctrine Afterward the King sendeth unto the Commissioners shewing he would be content with Mr. Blacks simple declaration of the truth But worthy Mr. Bruce answered That if the mater did touch Mr Black alone they were content but the liberty of Christs Kingdome had received such a wound by the Proclamations published the last Satterday that day by the usurpation of the Council that if Mr Blacks life the life of twenty others had been taken it had not grieved the hearts of the godly so much that either these things behoved to be retreated or they would oppose so long as they had breath Then the King condiscended to publish by a Declaration that he would not diminish any lawfull power or liberty which they or their Assemblies had either by the Word of God or lawes of the land that the proclamation discharging Barons others to meet with ministers was onely meaned of their meeting in armes that the Interloquâ—…tor of the Council should not be used against Mr Black or any other minister untill a lawfull General Assembly providing that Mr Black would declare in his presence the truth of the points libelled before some ministers But afternoon the Kings minde was found changed because Mr Black would not acknowledge an offence he is condemned by the Council his punishment is remitted to the King till his pleasure were known he is confined Then there is a bond devised to be subscribed by all the ministers under the paine of the lose of their stipends The tenor wherof followeth Wee the Pastors ministers of Gods word undersubscribing humbly acknowledging our duty to God obedience to the King our Souveraigne Lord whom for conscience cause we ought to obey Confesse that his Grace is soveraigne Judge to us each one of us in all causes of sedition treason other criminal civill maters to all our speaches which may import the saids crimes albeit uttered by any of us publickly in the pulpits which God forbid or in any other place that the said pulpits nor any other place whatsoever hath not that priviledge immunity to be occasion or pretence to any of us of declining of his Maj judgement in any of the saids civill or criminall causes intended against us in any time coming but rather that our offence is the greater incase which God forbid any of us commit such crimes in the saids pulpits before the people where the word of Gods truth salvation should be preached by us to our flocks In witness wherof of the humble acknowledgement of our duty in the premisses we have subscribed these presents with our hands are content that the famine be registrat in the books of secret Councell in futuram rei memoriam But faithfull ministers refused upon all hazards to subscribe the same seeing that it was a crossing of their Declinatour contrarie to the acts of the Generall Assembly to the acts of Parliament made in favours of the Church yea to the word of God because by this bond they should have acknowledged the King to be both supreme onely Judge over ministers in all causes so to have power of Judging deposing them yea of judging trying their preaching if it be but coloured with treason sedition of schisme in the Church which is sedition and seeing thereby they should be bound up from faithfull dealing in the name of the Lord because they saw it was devysed of purpose as a snare to their consciences After this Anno 1596. the king driveth on his designe indicteth an Assembly at perth formeth 55 problemes by which the Discipline of the Church formerly established was questioned to be there debatéd these problems with the following Historie at more length are to be seen in the Historie penned by Reverend laborious Mr Petry therefore a short relation shall suffice here being perswaded by his Courtiours that he should never gaine his purpose till first he took some course to breake the Union of the Church he prevaileth with Mr Patrik Galloway Mr Iames Nicolson who had been chief a little before in advising Mr Black to decline causeth Sr Patrick Murray deal with the ministers of the North to subscribe the bond to choose such such persons to the meeting at Perth and when the time of meeting cometh these Commissioners from the North were seen going in companies to the king Mr Nicolson was with the king till mid-night They were for all this two dayes in debating whether they were a lawfull Generall Assembly but honest men protested against it The meeting at length condiscendeth to these particulars 1. That no minister should reprove his maiesties lawes acts or ordinances untill such time as first he had by advyce of Presbitery Synod or Assembly complained or sought remedy of the same 2. That none should be named in pulpit except the fault were notour by the persons being fugitive convicted by ane Assise Excommunicated contumacious after citation or lawfull
admonition and none should be vively described except by publick vices alwayes damnable 3. That there should be no summary Excommunication untill the next Generall assembly 4. That there should be no meetings among ministers except in Church judicatories and afterward they appoint fourteen of their number to reason upon the rest of the questions The next year Anno 1597. there is another Assembly at Dundee which being corrupted doth grant 1. That Ministers in their exercises at Presbyteries should make no application of doctrine 2. That Presbyteries should meddle with nothing but what without all question is Ecclesiasticall 3. That summare Excommunication be suspended 4. That Presbyteries should desist upon his Majesties desire Also at the kings desire they choose fourteen of their number giving power to them or any seven of them to advise with his Maj. about a way of setling stipends unto ministers to provide ministers to eminent places of the Countrey to present petitions grievances of the Church to his Maj. to give his Maj. advice in maters serving for the good of the Church These pretexts seemed plausible to many but the event will shew what was really intended For ere long these Commissioners as they were called incroach upon the power of Presbyteries Synods whether the Presbytery of Saint Andrews would or not did put both Mr Wallace Mr Black from the Church of Saint Andrews put in one Mr George Gladstons then at their own hand they did supplicat the Parliament which conveened in December That ministers as representing the Church the third Estate of the Kingdome might have liberty to vote in Parliament an evill under which the Church had been groaning before of a long time The parllament thinking but without ground that the ministers would never take upon them the titles of the former Prelats passed this Act. That such ministers as his Maj should be pleased to provide to the place title and dignity of a Bishop Abbot or other prelate should have that liberty and as concerning their office in the spirituall policy of the Church it was remitted to be advised by his Maj aggreed upon with the Generall Assembly that without prejudice of the spirituall Jurisdiction Discipline of the Church permitted to Generall Assemblies Synods Presbiteries Sessions established by Law Then they move the King to call an Assembly at Dundee before the time appoynted to the end they might get their own deed approven where after much worke after many threatenings to some promises to others made by the King himself who was there present had commanded Mr Melvin Mr Iohnston Professours of Theology in St. Andrewes forth of the town under the paine of banishment their deed is approven But zealous faithfull Mr Davidson arose protested in his own name in name of all the ministers of Scotland who would adhere to his protestation against that Assembly the two last preceeding Assemblies as null not lawfull when he removed severall of the ministers followed him subscribed the same The meeting went on renewed the former Commission unto twenty Commissioners whereof nine should be a quorum among whom was Mrs Iames Nicolson George Gladstones David Lindsay Alexander Lindsay Andro Knox Gavin Hamilton Alexander Douglas whom the king by any means would have named who were all bishops afterward Thereafter there were severall meetings as one at Falkland Iuly 29. 1598. where were some debates about this mater some cautions condiscended on limiting these Parliamentary Ministers To propone nothing without expresse warrant from the Church To be accomptable to the Generall Assembly subject to their Presbitery Synod To usurp no power of Jurisdiction or Ordination but every way else to cary themselves as other ministers the like to all these other points necessary they were bound to swear subscribe But how litle regard was had to these Cautions sworne subscribed may be seen by what Spotiswood sayeth in his History pag. 453. viz That it was neither the Kings intention nor the mindes of the wiser sort to have these Cautions stand in force but to have matters peaceably ended the Reformation of the policy made without any noise they gave way to these conceits So was there another Meeting at Halyrood house in November 1599. but in all these meetings the honest party could prevail nothing the king did so violently cary on his purpose Anno 1600. There is a Generall Assembly at Montrose where the matter is againe debated but no answer made to the arguments of the honest party onely the Kings authority is made use of as an answer to all And so at length what by menaces what by flatterings made by the king himself who was there present the former resolutions are concluded onely they allow of the Cautions condiscended on at Falckland will have these Parliamentary Ministers to give an accompt yearly unto the Generall Assembly lay down their Commission But these Commissioners or Parliamentary ministers being mounted up so high thought it below them to stand to any promise or condition having never resolved so to do as we have heard out of Spotiswood who in his latine pamphlet called Refutatio libelli c. sayeth also the same Conditiones quod attinet quas foede violatas clamitat in nonnullas utpote aequas jujlas facile assensum aliae pro tempore magis quo contentiosis omnis rixands ansa praeriperetur quam animo in perpetuum observandi acceptae that there were some of these Cautions which they never intended to keep onely they did accept of them that more peaceably they might be put in possâ—…ssion of that which they were gapeing for Thus it is undenyable that these men arose to Prelacy by open and avowed perjury as their successours of late have done Anno 1601 1602. The Assemblies follow forth his Maj. designe for there was a complaint given in by the Synod of â—…ife against these Parliamentary ministers as breaking all bounds cautions but they are not heard That assembly 1602. do indict their next meeting at Aberdeen in July 1604. but the Parliamentary ministers fearing that they should be called to an account move the king to prorogue the same unto July 2 An. 1605. yet the Commissioners from St Andrews presbitery viz Mrs Iames Melvin William Erskin William Murray went to Aberdeen the day appoynted presented their Commissions taking Instruments in the hands of two publick Notars before some ministers of the towne others When the next dyet Anno 1605. was approaching they move the King to prorogue againe the Assembly unto an indefinit time therefore from London he sendeth to the Commissioners to stay the meeting of the Assembly untill he gave advertisement wherupon they write to severall Presbiteries in the South pairts adviseing them not to choose Commissioners to meet at Aberdeen the fifth day of July of purpose to deceive
Maj. in his letter viz that there should be constant moderators in presbyteries chosen that where the bishops did reside they should moderate both in Synods presbyteries is concluded some cautions added but to no purpose for there was a clause annexed which did cast all loose viz that if either upon his Maj. advyce proposition to the assembly or upon their own supplication the Generall assembly were moved to grant a relaxation of any of the Caveats that then their promise should make no derogation to their liberty Synods presbyteries refused to owne this Act but at length were charged to obey under the paine of treason Anno 1608. There was another Assembly at Lithgow July 26. but did no good thereafter there were some conferences at Falkland Sterlin but to no purpose the intended businesse was still carried on Anno 1610. Juny 6. There is a meeting at Glasgow unto which resorteth all the constant Maderators who had their hundreth pounds per annum and they bring with them other two ministers such as they liked whom the king desired by his letters The king had three Commissioners there The Earle of Dumber was sent thither with a strong guard to affright the ministers so as severall ministers coming out of the west with a purpose to protest were forced to returne back againe There was also money brought thither to hire votes Mr Spotiswood sayeth it was to pay the constant Moderators their due But Mr Lawder in Coberspath was no moderator yet he came to the Earle complained that though he travailed furdest and had least to live upon though his vote was as good as the best yet he was neglected to whom the Earle replyed that he was too late in coming asking his purse-master what was left he findeth there was nothing but seventeen Shillings Sterlin to give him Come sayeth Mr Lawder let me have it it will help to bear my charges homeward And the Non-liquets got nothing At this corrupt meeting it is concluded 1. That the indiction of all Generall Assemblies belonged to the king by the prerogative of his Crowne without his license all such meetings were unlawfull 2. That Synods should be moderated by the Prelats or some appointed by them 3. No excommunication or absolution without the Bishops approbation direction who is answerable to God to his Maj. for his proceedings 4. All presentations must be directed to the Prelats 5. That he with some associated should silence depose ministers 6 That every minister at his entry should swear obedience to his Maj. to his ordinary as it was ordained Anno 1571. 7. If any minister absente himself from the Bishops visitation he shall be suspended if he amend not deposed 8. That the exercises or quondam presbyteries should be moderated by the bishops or whom they will appoint And 9. That no minister speak against any of the foresaid acts in publick nor dispute about the equality or inequality of ministers This yeer also was the High Commission instituted proclamed by a Herald giving power to the Archbishops to depose excommunicat imprison fine confine for causes Ecclesiastick whether in Doctrine or manners whether in Noblemen ministers or common people When the meeting at Glasgow is dissolved Mr Spotiswood of Glasgow Mr Lamb of Brichen Mr Hamilton of Galloway go to London there are consecrated the 21 of Octob. when they returne they consecrate the rest then all of them domineer over the people over the faithfull ministers Anno 1612. a Parliament conveened which ratified all the acts of that meeting at Glasgow inserted in their Registers the oath which every minister at his admission was to swear thus I A B. admitted to the Kirk of D. testify declare in my conscience that the right excellent right High mighty Prince Iames the sixth by the grace of God King of Scotland c. is the onely lawfull supreme Governour of this Realme as well in matters Spiritual Ecclesiastick as in things temporall that no forraigne Prince State nor Potentate hath or ought to have any Jurisdiction Power Superiority Preheminence or authority Ecclesiasticall or Spirituall within Realme And therefore I utterly renunce forsake all forraigne Jurisdiction Power Superiorities authorities promise that from this forth I shall will bear faith true allaidgeance to his Highnesse his aires lawfull successours And to my power shall assist defend all Jurisdictions Privileges Preheminences authority granted belonging to his Highnesse his aires lawfull successours or united annexed to his Royall Crown And furder I acknowledge confesse to have to holde the said Church possession of the same under God of his Maj. his Crown Royall of this Realme And for the saids possessions I do homage presently to his Highnesse in your presence to his Majesty his aires lawfull successours shall be true So help me God And also I A B. now admitted to the Church of C. promiseth sweareth to E. F. Bishop of that Dioecy obedience to his successours in all things lawfull So help me God Anno 1616. There was a meeting of the ministers at Aberdeen appointing that a book of Common Prayer be made that children should be confirmed by the bishops or visitors in their name But the year before this the former commission for the High commission was renewed instead of the two Courts in the two Provinces of Saint Andrews Glasgow there is one appointed consisting of 55 or 56. one of the Archbishops is sine quo non he other five may do all Such as refuse to compeer are sisted by force by the Sherifs other magistrats They meddle with blasphemie heresy schisme errour Idolatry simony lotry absence from the Liturgy on holy Dayes perjury incest adultery fornication rapes clandestine marriages stricking of clergy men speaking against their meetings They have power to excommunicat silence depose sine imprison confine as long as they please the Secret Councell must pursue the contumacious as rebells Anno 1617. A Parliament conveeneth at which the King himself is present maketh an act That whatsoever his Maj. should determine in the externall governement of the Church with the advyce of the archbishops Bishops a competent number of the ministry should have the strength of a law when the honest ministry hear of this see thereby a door opened for bringing in all the English-popish Ceremonies they give in a Protestation against the same which when the king heareth he causeth the Clerk passe by that act when he was to read all the rest And now the king is violent for the Ceremonies chideth the Archbishops for not receiving the five articles as he commanded the former year and they promise to do it if he would indict a Generall assembly And upon Mr Galleway's undertaking the king indicteth a meeting at St
of one though their own father before their tyrannicall Court Now is there a black cloud over the Church for many years piety is dayly decaying formality profanity increasing the godly are mourning lamenting the wicked rejoyceing But the Prelats have not yet ended their purpose For Anno 1633. when King Charles was present at a Parliament there is an Act carried through but not without some opposition made thereunto by some of the Nobles granting power to his Maj. to command what habits he pleaseth for all men in office whether in Church or State that as a priviledge annexed to the Crowne by this means a door was opened to bring in the Surplice the Corner cap other trash These worthies being traduced by the Prelats as contemners of authority sowers of sedition in Church State procure the kings displeasure by their freedome For the king did not onely chide them openly but with his own hand he wrote down their names as disloyall subjects which made these Nobles thinke of drawing up a supplication which being drawn up by William Haig his Maj. solicitour was committed to the trust of the Earle of Rothes Lord Loudoun to present it as they found conveniency but they perceiving that it would not be well accepted resolved to keep it up But at length some way or other a copy thereof cometh to the Bishops hands they deliver it unto the king withall complaine of those Noble-men as standing in the way of his subjects yeelding chearfull obedience And upon their importunat requeests there is a Commission granted to certaine persons as a committee to proceed against the Authors abettors of that supplication as guilty of sedition treason Whereupon William Haig fleeth all his goods are confiscat Some Noblemen are questioned the Lord Balmerino who had the supplication in his custody is imprisoned at length condemned to die but obtaineth pardon Now the prelats do reigne there being none who durst peep or move a wing against them The Achprelate of Saint Andrews was Chancellour other eight of the prelats were in great places being either Lords of the privy Councell or Lords of the Exchequer being thus lifted up in power honour they are puffed up with pride what durst they not attempt now thinke they Therefore they proceed to do more wickedness draw up a book of Canons which was printed approven by the Kings Maj. all were commanded to obey the Bishops in all points By this book that which remained of presbyterian governement is taken away Parochiall Sessions Classicall Presbyteries are accounted Conventicles Ruleing Elders Deacons are cast out of the Church all Ecclesiasticall causes are brought only to the Pelats tribunall So were they about the drawing up of a Liturgy a Book of Ordination against which before ever they were printed or seen all were discharged to speak under the pain of Excommunication And at length the book of Common Prayer is published imposed on the Church by the kings command as the onely forme of publick divine worship Every Parish is commanded to have two at least of these books under the paine of horning being punished as rebells And a strict command cometh forth enjoyning the same to be used from Pasch forward Anno 1637. But some of the Prelats as of Rose Dumblaine did anticipate the day made use of it in their Cathedralls Others of the Prelats propone the matter to their Synods but the Ministers replyed that such a change should not be made without a Nationall Assembly but it was answered that they were the Representatives of the Church However some prelats gave Ministers liberty to advise untill Octob. but through the furious importunity of some a letter is procured from his Maj. commanding the useing of the Liturgy with all expedition in the Churches of Edinburgh The Ministers being called to see what they would do such as refused are presently suspended SECTION II. The way how the Lord brought down these Prelats the History continued IT was sad lamentable to see what a face the Church of Scotland had now No hedge of Discipline to keep the vineyaird from foxes wilde boars all the Discipline which was was tyrannie over consciences over mens persons estates profanitie was not curbed but encouraged Prelats themselves being chief in all those crying abhominations as will be cleared ere long yea that poor Church was now posteing fast to Rome The Prelats their underlings beside the points of Arminianisme which were accounted speciall pieces of their qualification did avow openly severall points of Popery so that it was taught publickly in the chief Citie That the Pope was not Antichrist And thus all things were growing worse the worship corrupted like to be corrupted more the mindes of people were filled with feares that God would depairt leave that Church altogether so thattheir case looked most deplorable desperat like But asoftentimes the Church people of God have found him who was the hope ofIsrael the Saviour thereof in times of trouble a ready help in time of need so did the poor Church of Scotland finde it now by experience that whē the storme was sorest it was neerest an end that this was as the darke houre before the dawning of the day for now the Lord awaketh as one after wine looketh through the cloud with Compassion on a long tossed sorely afflicted Church which had groaned under oppression of cruell task-masters till they could do no more sheweth that his hand was not shortened that it could not save but that he was the hearer of prayer that now his appointed time was come to take vengeance on his adversaries even the vengeance of his Temple And as ordinariely the Lords great works appear to carnall reason to be despicable at the beginning so the Lord began this great change alteration of affaires in that poor Church in a way that seemed not to promise much yet such a way it was as the hand of God was to be seen in it and seen carrying of it on wonderfully as shall appear In obedience to his Maj. last letter which commanded the reading of the liturgie in all haste the Bishop of Edenburgh the first sabbath day thereafter resolved to do it when he beginneth there ariseth a tumult among the people begun by some women which encreased so as that the prelate when he came out of the Church did hardly escape in the rest of the Churches of Edenburgh the reading was stopped Immediatly after dinner the Secret Counsell did meet resolve to search out the authors of this tumult commanded the use of the service book all to speake reverently of the Bishops but notwithstanding of this the people rage more then ever against the Prelats after the afternoons sermon they set upon the Prelate with stones forced him to
souldeours away captives keepeth them in bondage full ten years Under which oppression they lay groaning wishing for a day of delivery At length after ten years exile the Lord returned their prince without stroake of sword and setled him upon his throne which occasioned great acclamations of joy through the whole land seing that now the yoke of the oppressour was brocken and the Lord had restored to them in a wonderfull unexpected maner their law full judges and governours Now were people filled with hops of good and desirable dayes both for Church and State But alace how suddainly are all their hopes turned into fears and their joy into mourning how are their faces filled with confusion because of the sad disappointment which now they did meet with Their yoke beginneth now to be wreathed more straitly about their necks then ever their bondage and oppression in conscience groweth they see with their eyes the glorious worke of Reformation which had been wonderfully carried on by the mighty power of the most High cemented with the bloud of his Saints who spared not their lives in the defence maintenance of that cause both against malignants Sectaries razed to the very foundation the carved worke thereof brocken down with axes hammers at once and all things growing dayly worse worse Some particulars where of though the calling to minde making mention of such sad doolfull things will occasion fresh sorrow grief to the people of God as the purpose in hand will suffer shall be mentioned in the following Sections SECTION III. The grounds of the sufferings of such as were incarcerated by the Committy of Estates the 23 Day of Agust 1660. discovered AFter God had broken the yoke of the oppressours had restored their own governous it might have been expected that justice should have flowed down as a river and when the committe of Estates which had been nominated Anno 1651. Were commanded by his Maj. to sit order the affaires of the Kingdome untill the ensueing Parliament should meet every one might have been in expectation of some good following their governement But alas their little finger becometh heavier then the loyns of the former oppressours A litle taste of which there is given on the very first day of their sitting downe for upon the 23. Day of August 1660. While there were some faithfull Zealous servants of Christ to the number of Ten Ministers with one Gentleman met in a private house where they resolved to meet that they might give the lesse offence for the drawing up of a supplication unto his Maj. wherein after their congratulating his Maj. returne they in all humility presse exhort him in the fear of the Lord to minde his oaths unto covenants with God a very necessary seasonable work The committee of Estates sent thither some of their number to apprehend those persones to take them to the castle of Edenburgh where they abode for the space of some weeks were afterward except Mr Guthry confined to their chambers in the towne for some considerable time This was a terrible alarme unto the hearts of the godly presaging sad doolfull dayes to follow when at the very first there is so much cruelty exerced against these faithfull zealous servants of Christ who were evidenceing their love respect unto their Prince in mindeing him of his vowes which he had made unto the most high of his duty which he did owe unto God who had so wonderfully delivered him for which no colourable pretence could be allaidged save one of those Either that their meeting was not warranted by the lawes of the land or that they were about a sinfull work The first could not be allaidged with any colour of law because there was no standing law then in force against such meetings for whatever law ther was of that nature before was made null void by posterior acts of Parliament which posterior acts were not as yet resciâ—…ded and further what great wrong was it for so many ministers to meet together in a privat chamber for such an end when as many moe prophane persones will be suffered to meet dayly to drink debauch and what could these worthies have suspected now seing the like liberty was enjoyed while the land was under the feet of oppressours might not they in reason have expected as good quarters at the hands of their own governoursas they gote from stangers enemies But it is like the work they were about gave offence it is true they were pleased to brande it with the names of treason sedition but whether it was so or not the reader will be better able to judge when he hath pondered considered the true copy of their supplication which is here following Most gratious dreed soveraigne We your Maj. most humble subjects considering the duty which as Christians we owe to our Lord Iesus Christ who is king of kings Lord of Lords and which as subjects we owe unto your Maj. as our native lawfull king under him We do hold ourselves bound to tender unto your Maj. this most humble addresse supplication How hatefull the actings of the late usurped powers in offering violence to the Parl. of Engl in their unchristian barbarous murthering of your royall father in their insolent changeing of the ancient civill goverment of the kingdome of Engl. and by armed violence unjustly secluding your Maj. there from In their most unjust invadeing of the kingdome of Scotland inthralling of the same in subjection to themselves and beyond all their impious incroaching on the kingdome of Iesus Christ the liberties thereof and in promoteing establishing a vast tolleration in things religious throughout those nations unto the perverting of the precious truthes of the Gospell defaceing of the ordinances of Iesus Christ opening a wide door to all sorts of evill heresy schisme imprety prophanenesse How abhominable these things were to us the Lord who searcheth the heart tryeth the reâ—…es doth know against which we gave many publike testimonies before the world to witnesse our abhorrence thereof And the same Lord knoweth that as we did earnestly pray for breath after his appearing to witnesse against those so saveing that Christian pity and compassion we owe to the persones of men though our very enemies we rejoyce in his putting down of them that did set up themselves in staineing the pride of their glory in breaking the yoke of their power from off the necke of these Kingdomes We hold our selves also bound thankfully to acknowledge the Lord's signall preserving of your Maj. person in the middest of many fold dangers designes threatening the same these years past And that after long Exile from your own house people he hath been pleased to bring you back to the same And when the foundations of the ancient civill goverment were overthrown againe
to make way for repaireing of the ruines building up the breaches thereof for establishing the same on right sure foundations in your Maj. person family and to do those things when they were so litle expected in so quyet peaceable a way and without the effusion of Christian blood imbroyling the Kingdomes in the misery calamities of a new war And as we adore the wonderfull wise hand of God blesse his name who hath done these things so it is not only our practice for the present but our sincere resolution for the time to come to pouâ—… forth the fervent desires supplicatioâ—… of our soull unto the most high by whom kings reigne for the preservation saiftie of your Maj. person for the multiplication of his spirit increase of it upon you that you may imploy your power to his praise the comfort of his people for the Establishing of your just power greatnesse in subordination to him to be faithfull loyall rendering all the dutyes of honour subjection obedience to your Maj. that are due from humble loving subjects unto their native lawfull prince soveraigne And we desire to be perswaded with confidence to promise to ourselves that your Maj. will accept of those our professions as proceeding from loyall honest hearts allow us the protection countenance incouragement in our station callings that may be expected from a gracious king And considering the great happinesse that ariseth both to kirk and state all the members thereof by the mutuall good understanding betuixt the supreme Magistrat the faithfull of the land when it pleaseth divine providence so to dispose the many calamities miseries that in the holy justice just indignation of God do attend the separating or violating of these only sure foundations of states and 〈◊〉 kingdomes We are bold in the integrity of our hearts in the zeal of the glory of the Lord of the good of his church of your Maj. honour happinesse from the sense of manifold great obligations that be upon us before the Lord so to do particularly that of the Covenant That what lets we are not able of our selves to suppresse and overcome we shall reveal and make known that they may be prevented remedied Humbly to presente unto your Maj. and make known the great danger that threateneth religion and the work of reformation in the churches of God in these kingdomes from the desires and endeavour of the remanent of the popish prelaticall and malignant party therein which is begining to lift up the head not only to render hatefull but to bear downe many of your Maj. good subjects who have been imployed as instruments in the work have keeped within the bounds of their duty in promoveing preserving the same so far as humane frailty would permit but also to overthrow that blessed work it self and to reintroduce prelacy the ceremonies the service book and all these corruptions which were formerly cast out as inconsistent with that pure and spotelesse rule of church governement discipline and divine worshipe delivered to us in the word of God as a yoke of bondage that neither we nor our fathers were able to bear and though we know that that Spirit will not want its specious pretences plausible insinuations for compassing these ends yet as there cannot readily be greater disservice to the church of God to these Kingdoms to your Maj. honour happinesse then actings of that nature so we cannot without horrour of Spirit astonishment of heart think upon what dreadfull guiltinesse King Princes Ministers People shall be involved into what fearfull wrath shall attend them from the face of an angry jealous God if after all the light that he hath made to shine in these kingdomes from his blessed word for discovery of the error Impiety of these things after his hand hath been lifted up so high for casting out of the same after solemne vowes engadgments taken upon themselves before God angels men against them if they should againe lick up the vomit thereof God forbid that we should either hear or see such heart astonishing bitter things which would turne the mirth of the Lords people into mourning their songs into most sad lamentations Neither are we lesse apprehensive of the endeavours of the spirit of errour that possesseth Sectaries in these Nations which as it did at first promove a vast tolleration in things religious and afterwards did proceed to the frameing of mischief into a law so we doubt not but it will still be active unto the promoving procuring of the same under the specious pretext of liberty to tender consciences the effects whereof have in a few years past been so dreadfull that we cannot think of the continuing thereof but with much trembling fear Therefore knowing that to Kings Princes Rulers Magistrats appertaineth the purgation preservation of religion that nothing can contribute more unto the preserving and promoveing of religion the work of reformation then that all places of power trust be filled with men of a blamelesse christian conversation approven integrity known affection to the cause of God We your Maj. most humble supplicants subjects with bowed knees bended affections humbly supplicat your Maj. that you would imploy your royall power unto the preservation of the reformed religion in the church of Scotland in doctrine worship discipline governement for the reformation of Religion in the Kingdome of England Irland in doctrine worshipe discipline goverment and to the carrying on of the work of uniformity of religion in the church of God in the three Kingdomes in one confession of faith forme of church goverment directory of worshipe catechisâ—…ing and to the extirpation of popery prelacy superstition heresy schisme prophanesse whatsoever is contrary to sound doctrine the power of Godlinesse And that all places of trust under your Majest may be filled with such as have taken the Covenant are of approven integrity known affection to the cause of God If in a matter that so much concerneth the honour of God the good of his Church your Maj. honour happinesse we be jealous with a godly jealousy we know your Maj. wisdom lenity to be such as will easily pardon And the sense of our duty to God to your Maj. the fear of those kingdoms transgressions by building up againe the things that were destroyed constraineth us to be petitioners against the same earnestly to intreat that any beginnings of stumbling which already have been given in those things especially in the matter of Prelacy ceremonies the Servicebook in your Majesty chappell and family and other places of your Dominions may be removed and taken away And that there may be no
Edinburgh who were to communicat it unto the rest of Presbyteries of the Kingdom a gracious letter as it was called wherin he promised to owne to countenance the government of the Church as it was established by law wherby many took him to meane Presbyterian government But others feared a designe to overturne Presbyterian government to introduce Prelacy as afterward it came to passe when the Parliament did rescinde all acts statutes made in favours of Presbyterian government did devolve the power of setling the government of the Church upon his Maj. they did by their Act. 16. allow the present administration by Sessions Presbyteries Synods for a time But at length Mr IamesSharpe a man who had formerly been intrusted by severall of the Ministry confided in as one who would prove most faithfull unto the Presbyterian interest but now had betrayed his most intimat brethren laid down a course for overturning his mother Church therby declared that he was a most unnaturall childe of that Church other three Ministers with him went up to London wâ—… first being made ordained Deacons after that Presbyters they are consecrated Bishops upon the day of 1661. with all there is a proclamation from his Maj. of the date at Whitehall the 6 of September Anno 1661. declareing His Royall pleasure to be for restoreing of the government the Church by Archbishops Bishops as it was exercised in the year 1637. that he had nominated presented persones to the severall Bishopricks of the Kingdome of Scotland of whom some have been lately consecrated invested with the same dignities Church power authority which was formely competent to the Archbishops and Bishops in the Reignes of his Royall grand Father and Father of blessed memory and that the allowance of Presbyteriall government is now of itself void and expired as being only for a time c. And so the jurisdiction and exercise of Church government should be ordered in there spective Synods Presbyteries and Sessions by the appointment authority of the Archbishops and Bishops according to their privilege practice In obedience to which proclamation The Privy Councell Ian. 9. 1662. did make publick intimation thereof discharge all ecclesiasticall meetings in Synods presbyteries sessions untill they be authorized ordered by the Archbishops Bishops upon their entry unto the government of their respective seas which is to be done speedily Wherupon at the time of the meeting of the provinciall Synods noblemen others were sent to raise them by force But therafter when these foure returne from London consecrat the rest there were acts made in the second session of Parliament viz. Anno 1662. redintegrating them to the exercise of their episcopall function to all their privileges dignities jurisdictions possessions due formerly belonging thereunto as also there is an act ordaincing all ministers to repaire unto the diocesian assembly concur in all the acts of Church discipline as they should be therunto required by the Archbishops or Bishop of the diocese under the paine of being suspended from their office benifice till the next diocesian meeting for the first fault if they amended not to be deprived the Church to be declared vacand But notwithstanding of this act all such ministers as resolved to keep a good conscience did forbear to goe unto these meetings or unto the other meetings which they call exercises in which meetings the prelate such as he named did not only preside but ruled as they pleased Not only because the privileges of the judicatories were encroached upon wronged by the Prelate presideing at his own hand without the consent of the rest contrary to the constant practice of that Church because a constituent member of these judicatures viz the ruleing elder was excluded contrare to the principles of presbyterian government the practice of that Church from the begining the practice of all other reformed churches of the primitive Church contrary to the judgment of many eminent divines both there and abroad who have clearly made it to appear out of the scriptures that Christ hath instituted such officers and these should have more weight then those three mentioned by the author of the Seasonable case pag. 11. as of another judgment But also because these meetings now differ from the meetings judicatories which the Church had before not only in name they being now called doâ—…sian meetings not Synods Presbiteries but also in thing The former judicatories are razed overturned these new meetings are erected upon a new Basis the Kings power perogative to setle what forme of Church government he thinketh best they are now authorized ordered by the prelates so they are pieces partes of the prelaticall government therefore they are distinct from what they were before So that no minister that made conscience of his covenant vow for presbyterian goverment against prelaticall could with peace freedome keep or countenance these meetings It is replyed by the prelates procurator the new casuist in his pamphlet called the seasonable case etc. pag. 12. That the meetings now before are of the same constitution nothing altered nor any more holding of Bishops now when the Kings Maj. hath taken off the restraint which for a time he putt on then if he had not at all restrained them But this is no satisfactory answere his meet deny all will not availe much with indifferent men of understanding for the difference is clear because 1. formerly Church judicatories had power within themselves to nominat appoynt their own moderator now it is not so 2. Formerly Church judicatories Church power did flow from the Lord Iesus Christ immediatly as being the only head of his Church now they flow from another fountaine viz the King as the fountaine of all Church power therefore is the goverment called his majesties governement ecclesiasticall in the Act of councell Iuly 10. 1663. the prelats in the discharge of their office are said to do service to his Maj. in the Church in the act of councell Ian. 9. 1662. 3. Formerly Church judicatories did meddle with every scandal now they must meddle with no more then the prelat pleaseth 4. Formerly presbyters had power to voyce to determine by their decisive suffrage now they are but the prelates counsellours of whose counsell advice he maketh what use he thinketh fitt 5. Formerly there was none in those judicatories who had a negative voyce now the Bishop hath it the rest are but cyphres 6. Formerly in these judicatories ther were ruleing elders but now that constituent member is not admitted which particular alone will sufficiently evidence that the face frame of the judicature is altered And since it is so any man of understanding may easily perceive such a difference as maketh those meetings now to depend upon
year 1662. or in time comeing as having no right thereto and that they do not acknowledge them for their lawfull pastours in repaireing to their sermones under the paine of being punished as frequenters of private conventicles meetings commanding chargeing the saids Ministers to remove themselves their families out of their parishes betuixt the first day of Novemb. thereafter not to reside within the bounds of their respective presbyteries This was very sad threatening no lesse then ruine to Ministers and their poor families to be put from their houses in the middest of winter to seek new places of abode not having the small stipend which was due to them allowed for to transport their families with all or to provide themselves in necessaries But yet they resolved to cast themselves on Gods providence trusting in his word accounting it better to suffer affliction with the people of God to enjoy peace of conscience then to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season and accordingly did remove themselves By which meanes there were some hundereds of parishes left destitute the shepherds were scattered up down the land seeking a sheltering place for themselves It was a sad lamentable sight to see the sad farewell betwixt the loving pastor his beloved floke the teares the cryes and the bitter groanes that were there Now were the breasts pulled from the mouthes of the young infants the table was drawne the people were made to wander up downe the mountaines seeking the word of the Lord could not finde it they had silent Sabbaths empty pulpites some countrey sides were hereby laid utterly desolate And what could these faithfull Ministers do in this case but sigh groan to God seeing they could not in conscience yeeld obedience unto these commands therefore they resolved to be subject for conscience sake and to submit unto the punishment of banishment out of the bounds of the presbytery where they lived which was afterward made more sad for they were commanded to remove Twenty miles from their own parish Church Six miles from a a cathedrall three or foure miles from a brugh Now judge o reader whether this cruelty would not have more beseemed Turks how little cause there was for all this severity rigour to Ministers who had been endeavouring with some measure of faithfulnesse On their part fruitfulnesse through the Lor'ds blessing on their labours to enlarge the Kingdome of Iesus Christ to build up poor souls in their most holy faith because they would not give obedience unto such Acts as were but snares for the conscience to which obedience could not be yeelded without sin SECTION X. The oath of Alleagiance explained as to its civil part some reasons Against the taking thereof even upon that account adduced The act rescissory his Maj. prerogative canvassed AFter that there were some other Ministers whom the forementioned Acts did not reach removed out of some of the chief cities Brevi manu without any processe There are some wayes devised how moe of these might be removed with some colour or pretext therefore some Six or Seven were called before the Parliament at their second session and because they refused to take the oath which was tendered they were sentenced with banishment by act of Parliament ordained to remove off the Kingdome so soon as his Maj. commissioner should signify his minde the reanent But this sentence was not put in execution possibly because they saw an inconsistencie betuixt this deed an Act which they had made the former year in their first session By which all such as refuised to take that oath were to be uncapable of any publicke trust to be looked upon as persones disaffected to his Maj authority government this was all But in Decemb. 1662. The privy councell called some other Ministers before them tendered the oath unto them because of their refuiseing of the same they banished them out of all his Maj. dominions then gave them a bond to subscribe wherein they did binde themselves to remove out of all his Maj. dominions within a moneth not to returne under the paine of death otherwayes they would commit them to close imprisonment there keep them untill they had occasion to send them elswhere Whereupon these Ministers saw a necessity of subscribeing that bond of banishment Though it was very hard to binde themselves to remove within so short a time that in the midst of winter But strange it is that when the King himself by his oath at his coronation is bound to rule the land by the lawes and constitutions received therein This his councell which by the fundamentall lawes of the land as appeareth by the 12 Act of the 2 parliam of King Iames 4. whereby they are first established is to give his highness a true and essauld counsell in all matters concerning his Maj. and his realnie and to be responsall and accusable to the King and his estates of their counsell so is a judicatory subordinat unto the Parliament accountable to censur able by them would banish such as the lawes of the land did not account worthy of banishment whether they would do right if they should punish with death such a fault as by the Established lawes of the land deserved only to be punished by a fine or a summe of money let lawyers judge whether this be not an arbitrary illegall power which they have assumed any that considereth what is said the act 27. of the 2. Parliam of Char. 1. may judge possibly it was for this cause that they resuised to give an extract of their sentence although it was humbly craved But to clear what good grounds there were yet are for refuiseing to take that oath Let first the oath it self be considered compared with the former oath of alleagiance The oath now tendered is thus worded in the acts of this Parliament severall times I for testification of my faithfull obedience to my most gracious redoubted soveraigne Charles King of Great-Britaine france Irland c. affirme testify declare by this my solemne oath That I acknowledge my said soveraigne only supreme governour of this Kingdom over all persones in all causes that no forraigne prince power or state or person civill or â—…elesiasticke hath any jurisdiction power or superiority over the same and therefore do utterly reâ—…nce all forâ—…aigne power jurisdictions authorities shall at my out most power defend assist maintaine his Maj. jurisdiction foâ—…elaid against all deadly shall never decline his Maj. power jurisdiction as I shall answer to God This is the oath which they call the oath of alleagiance but is indeed very far different therefrom as will easily appear to any who will compare the same with that oath of alleagiance which King Iames treateth of in his dialogue
called God the King lately reprinted published by his Maj. royall proclaâ—…tion for the instruction of all his subjects in their duty alleagiance for thus is that oath worded I A. B. Do truely sincerely acknowledge professe tostifie declare in my conscience before God the world that our Soveraigne Lord King Iames is lawfull and â—…ightfull King of this realme of all other his Maj. dominions countreyes that the pope neither of himself nor by any authority by the Church see of Rome or by any other meanes with any other hath any power or authority to depose the King or to dispose of any of his Maj. dominions or Kingdomes or to authorize any forraigne prince to invade or annoy him or his countreyes or to discharge any of his subjects of their alleagiance obedience to his Maj. or to give license or leave to any of them to bear armes raise tumults or to offer any violence or hurt to his Maj. royall person state or government or to any of his Maj. subjects within his Maj. dominions Also I do swear from my heart that notwithstanding any declaration or sentence of excommunication or deprivation made or granted or to be made or granted by the pope or his successours or by any authority derived or pretended to be derived from him or his see against the said King his 〈◊〉 or successours or any absolution of the saids subjects from their obedience I will beâ—… faith true alleagiance to his Maj. his aires successours him them will defend to the uttermost of my power against all conspiracies attempts whatsoever which shall be made against his or their persones their crowne dignity by â—…easone or colour of any such sentence declaration or otherwise will do my best endeavour to disclose make known unto his Maj. his aires successours all treasons or treitours or conspiracies which I shall know or hear of to be against him or any of them And I do furder swear that I do from my heart abhoâ—…e detest abjure as impious hereticall this damnable doctrine position That princes which be excommunicated or deprived by the pope may be deposed or murdered by their subjects or any other whatsomever And I do beleeve in conscience am resolved That neither the Pope nor any person what somever hath power to absolve me of this oath or any part thereof which I acknowledge by good lawfull authority to be lawfully Ministered unto me And do reâ—…unce all pardons dispensations to the contray And all these things I do planely sincerely acknowledge swear according to these expresse words by me spoken according to the plaine common sense understanding of the same words without any equivocation or mentall evasion or secret reservation whatsoever And I do make this recognition acknowledgment heartily willingly truely upon the true faith of a Christian. So help me God This is the oath of alleagiance how far it differeth from the former which was lately tendered is easily discerned These few words in the short oath only supreme governour in this Kingdome over all persones in all causes containe the main difference betwixt the two the main grounds of scruple for they hold forth two things The King's supremacy in matters civill his supremacy in matters ecclesiasticke It is true Ministers ought both to be to carry duti fully as becometh subjects to refuise nothing lawfull which is required of subjects but oathes being matters about which much tendernesse carefulnesse ought to be used it becometh Ministers to look well to this not to engadge in any oath rashly Advisement deliberation is most requisite here especially in a time when snares abound when there is good ground to suppose that the oath is tendered of purpose to be a snare to the conscience The oath as to it is substance or maine thing intended which lyeth wrapped up in those few words last cited is not as is obvious to any so clear as oaths ought to be yea the imposers themselves will not deny this but are forced to acknowledge that as it is worded in respect of that part thereof which is onely scrupled at which containeth the substance maine thing intended it is at best ambiguous generall for this cause if there were no more every Christian ought to forbear to swear the same And that because every oath must be sworne in truth in judgment in righteousnesse Ier. 4 2. but an unclear ambiguous oath cannot be sworne in truth because it hath no truth in it for what is ambiguous is not true as doctor Sanderson sayeth de jur promis oblig prael 6. § 10. a preposition of an ambiguous indefinite sense before the matter be distinguished is not a true proposition yea nor a proposition at all for a proposition as its definition cleareth should signify either a truth or a falshood without any ambiguity And therefore this proposition that the King is onely supreme governous over all persones in all causes being ambiguous till it be clared by some distinctions cannot be sworne in truth because the truth thereof cannot be known Nor can it be sworne in righteousnesse because such as swear it cannot be sure but that in taking that oath they may be wronging others wronging Parliaments which is worse wronging the Lord Iesus Christ who is King head of his Church Nor can it be sworne in judgment because its meaning cannot be known But now seing the oath in respect of its substantiall part as it is now worded is ambiguous unclear reason would require that the tenderers thereof should explaine the meaning thereof make it as clear as may be But when this is refuised what can such do who are pressed to take that oath but refuise the same partly because of its ambiguity partly because by the sense which by their other Acts Actings they who tender it do put upon it it appeareth to to be most unlawful all divines casuists do grant that an oath must be taken in his sense meaning in whose favours for whose sake faifty it is conceived who tendereth it And therefore it is not only lawfull but necessary to enquire what sense the Acts Actings of the Parliament do put upon it And as to the civill part of the oath which here is to be examined no other explication needeth to be enquired after then what they give forth in their Acts on record all which to cite here at length would be tedious The citeing of the acknowledgement of his Maj. prorogative which is a part of the 11 Act Anno 1661. where the substance of many preceeding Acts is summed up will be a sufficient evidence and here it is declared That it is an inherent privilege of the crown an undowbted part of the royall prerogative of the Kings of
states as is yet to be seen extant in the records of their old treaties of peace with England and France 7. The Estates of Scotland wrote unto the Queen An. 1559. Oct. 23. thus Ex literis tuis ac mandatis c. Buch lib. 16. that is By your letters mandats sent us by a herald we understand how obstinatly you are set against piety towards God and the publick good of our nation the common liberty of all But that we may according to our duty defend all these We in â—…e name of our Kings do suspend prohibite all that publicke admininistration titles and superiorites which you take upon you being certanely persuaded that those things which you â—…ow do are contrary to that constant good will which Kings have carryed towards the welfare of this Kingdome And as you do 〈◊〉 loâ—…k upon us as lawfull subjects of this Kingdome and as a laâ—…full Parliament So nor do we look upon you as regent or as exerâ—…ing any publick Magistracy Especially seing your pâ—…wer if there be any such committed unto you is upon good weigâ—…ty reasons suspended by us in the name of the Kings of this realme So Anno 1567. they put the queen regent mother to King Iames from her regency which deed of theirs is fully vindicated by the earle of Morâ—…on in his discourse to the Queen of England a part whereof out of Buch Lib. 20. because usefull both for clearing of this particular some others before mentioned shall be here transcribed Primum Factum ipsum c. As for the deed it self of punishing Kings or queens The ancient custome of our predecessours will not suffer it to be accounted new for it were not necessary to enumerat how many Kings have been punished by death â—…onds exile by our nobles far lesse were it necessary to confirme this deed of ours by forraigne examples seing there are so many so obvious in ancient histories But now the nation of the Scots have been a free nation from the begining have made Kings to themselves upon these conditions that when necessity required they might dethrone them of which there are many footsteps remaineing fresh unto this day for in the isles about in many places of the continent in which the old language lawes had any abode this custome is followed in the chooseing of their governours to this day And the ceremonies used at the coronation of Kings do clearly demonstrat that the government is nothing else but a mutuall stipulation betuixt King subjects as also the constant tenor of the ancient law by which Kings were inaugurated which remaineth unchanged in the least to this day yea while so many of our Kings have been banished imprisoned or more severely punished there was never one motion made of relaxing the rigour of the law what wonder seing it was not of the nature of those lawes that change with tht time but of those which are fixed in the heart of man by nature consented unto by all nations which being subject to no other lawes do command rule all so that whether we will or not they are before our eyes what ever we be doing stick in our heart This law did our predecessours follow being alwayes armed against violence ready to suppresse tyrants But that I may passe in silence the famous cities of Athens Lacedaemon Rome Venice which keeped this law so long as they keeped their liberty Yea even then when Rome was under tyrants if any good man became emperour he did account it his glory to acknowledg himself inferiour to the people subject to the lawes for when Trajanus gave a sword according to the custome unto the praefectus urbis he said use it for me or against me as I shall deserve and Theodosius a good emperour in these worst times would leave this noble saying among the lawes that he confessed he was under the lawes Neither was this law unknown to barbarous nations as all histories testify But lest I should be thought to gather together examples now out of use I shall onely make mention of two later the one is of Christieris the King of the Dennes who for his intollerable cruelty was put from the Kingdome he all his posterity which is a sadder punishment then ever was inflicted by any of our progenitours what did the mother of Charles the 5 that made her deserve perpetuall imprisonment now what did we but following the examples of so many nations Kingdomes suppresse tyranny which swelled above all law not indeed so severely as our predecessours did in like cases for had we followed their example we had been farr from not onely the fear of danger but also here calumnies Thus he much more is added to this purpose there More over this same Queen regent was told by the Earle of Ruthven that same night that David Rizio was killed as Buch reporteth lib. 17. That the government of the Kings of Scotland was alwayes very lawfull that it was exerted not after the lisst pleasure of any one man but according to the lawes by the consent of the nobles and if any King did otherwayes he suffered accordingly and now Scottish men are not so farr degenerated from the institutions of their predecessours as to suffer the tyranny and slavery of one who is a stranger and whom they look not upon as deserving any honest service 8. Yea in the 8 Parliament of King Iames 6. Act. 2. the honour authority of the Supreme court of Parliament continowed past all memory of men is ratified there it is said That by the court of Parliament under God the Kingdome hath been upholden rebellious and traiterous subjects punished the good and faithfull preserved and maintained and the lawes and acts of Parliament by which all good men are governed are made and established and therefore they statute and ordaine that none take up on hand to impugne the dignity and authority of the estates or to seek or procure the innavation or diminution of their power or authority under the paine of treason It is true that in the preceeding Act they confirme the Kings Royall power and authority over all estates as well spiritual as temporal And therefore their maintaining of the power and privilege of Parliaments is the more remarkable And by the two Acts compared togetheâ—… it is aboundantly clear that the authority mentioned in the first Act of that Parliament which is granted to the king is not over the Estates of Parliament but over private persones whether civill or ecclesiastick And so it is but a granting of him to be singulis major which will easily be granted And this will be more clear if it be considered what occasioned that Act at that time As was shown above in the first Section the Lord was stirring up his servants to act something for the setling of the government of the Church which occasioned the
displeasure of many at court when Ministers were freely rebuking sin in about the court they were accounted railers traitours And being accused of treason before the King his Councill They declined them as incompetent Judges Upon this account in this houre of darknesse by the meanes of the Earle of Arran This Parliament is suddenly called wherby there were two Parliaments in one year 1584. the one meeting May 22. the other which is called the ninth Parliament as the former was called the eight Agust 22. which granteth this supremacy to the King over persones ecclesiastick for formalities sake civil therefore in the end of that act it is declared to be treason to decline his Maj. or his Council in any case So then the question was not betwixt the King the Parliament But betwixt the King or his Councel the Church in spirituall matters It is true also that in the 1. Act of Parliament 18. Anno 1606. His Maj. soveraigne authority Princely power Royall prerogative and privilege of his Crowne over all Estates persones and causes whatsoever is acknowledged But this act is of the same nature with the former no prerogative over above the Estates of Parliament is acknowledged here to belong properly to the Crown And moreover these words are but faire flourishes parliamentary complements Finally the prerogative here spoken of is founded upon personal qualifications where with they say he was endued far beyond his predecessours such as extraordinary graces most rare and excellent vertues singular judgment for sight Princely wisdome the like these may be wanting in one possessing the crowne therefore it could not be the minde of the Parliament to give a supremacy founded upon such qualifications to these who had not those qualifications so they could not annex it unto the Crowne 9. Together with these particulars let this be considered That in 3 Article of the league Covenant they did all swear Sincerly really and constantly in their severall vocations to endeavour the preservation of the rights and privileges of the Parliaments And then it shall appear that there was good ground of scrupleing at that oath which as explained by their acts tendeth to the overturning of those rights privileges For none who desired to make conscience of the oath of the Covenant might swear an oath so apparently opposite thereunto It is true those questions concerning the power of Princes Parliaments are dark ticklish Ministers not being lawyers by profession can not be supposed to be well acquanted with the lawes constitutions of the realme or with the nature extent of the same in all points Yet it concerneth them to see to this that they run not themselves upon the rocks of contradictory oaths And having sworne to endeavour in their places callings the preservation of the rights privileges of Parl. it concerneth them all not alitle to search so far into the rights privileges of Parl. as that they may know when an oath is tendered unto them which crosseth the same being once engadged in an oath in a matter not sinfull not to change or to swear that which destroyeth contradicteth the former oath But leaving those things not laying more weight on them then they will bear other particulars more weighty pressing must be spoken to therefore let it be considered 10. What dreadfull consequences will follow upon the taking of this oath thus explained as to its civil part by the forementioned act concerning the prerogative other acts now to be mentioned as 1. A condemning of the convention of Estates Anno 1643. conform to the Act 6. of this Parliament 2. A condemning of the Parliaments Anno 1640 1641 1644 1645 1646 1647 1648. conforme to their Act 15. as also the committees Parliaments thereafter Anno 1649 1650 1651. conforme to their Act 9. 3. A condemning of all the Acts made by these Parliaments conforme to their Act 3. 4. A condemning of all the meetings Councells Conventions of the subjects at the beginning of the late work of Reformation conforme to their 4 Act. 5. A condemning of the League Covenant conforme to their Act 7. 6. A condemning of Scotlands joyning with helping of England in the day of their straite conforme to their Act 7. 7. A condemning of the renueing of the Nationall Covenant Anno 1638 1639. conforme to the last words of the 11 Act. 8. A condemning of the Generall Assembly 1638 severall others thereafter conforme to their 4 Act. 9. A condemning of Scotlands riseing in armes in their own defence against the Popish Prelaticall malignant Party conforme to their 5 Act. 10. A condemning of their seizing upon forts castles in their own defence conforme to the said 5 Act. Was there not then cause to scruple at the taking of this oath which would have imported a condemning of all those things sure there was as shall be showne in speaking to each of the particulars mentioned Now it is clear that the taking of this oath would have imported a condemning of all these particulars from this That the Parliament doth condemne all these mentioned particulars as the acts specified do clear because done without his Maj consent which ought say they to have been had by vertue of his prerogative royall and supremacy the perogative doth explaine his supremacy in things civill as shall be showne more fully hereafter But to come to the particulars first There was no ground for condemning that convention of Estates 1643. notwithstanding that the Kings consent was not had therto 1. Because in poynt of conscience the Estates of the land being essentially judges are bound when the publict affaires of the Kingdom do require to conveen consult thereanent when Religion lawes liberties are in hazard when the necessitie is such as will admit of no delay pure legall formalities of state must be dispensed with when they cannot be gotten followed as in this case it was clear The true protestant religion his Maj. honour the peace of the Kingdomes were in hazard by papists their adherents in armes in England Irland The King refuised to call a Parliament at that time though he was oftin requeested there unto In this case what could the states of the Land do who were bound by the lawes of God of nature of nations to see to the preservation of the Kingdom to their own interests to religion that should be dearâ—… to them then any thingâ—… else were bound by the law of God to judge governe the land but obey God disâ—…ense with state formalities according to the many examples of the Estates of Scotland before who did conveen in Parliament whether the King would or not as that Parliament which did imprison donald the 70. King the Parliament at Scone which summoned King Culenus before them that Parliament which
warrand Scotland their joyning with England against the common enemy Yea nature hath taught heathens to prevent their own ruine destruction by joyneing their forces with other nieghbours against one who designed nothing but the promoteing of his Empire Thus the Romans warred against Philip left Greece being subdued he should make warre against them Thus the Lacedamoniam warred against the Olyâ—…hii diverse other instances might be given 3. Scotland England used to joyne together before to enter in a league with other princes for the defence of the protestant religion as Anno 1586. againe 1587. 1588. they draw up a league among themselves But it will be replyed that this was with the consent of the supreme Magistrat Ans. True but the want of this consent will not make such aideing and supplying unlawfull so long as the law of nature is to the fore obligeing every man to defend his neighbour and are not Scotland England near nieghbours being in one Island under one King Neither did they waite for the consent of Scotlands supreme Magistrat when they helped them first against the French next against a faction of papists within their own bosome and therefore Scotland should not now waite for the consent of England's King when they were to help them against a popish and prelaticall faction Nor needed Scotland waite for the consent of their own supreme Magistrat because as the law of nature doth oblige every one to defend himself by force of armes against an army of bloody enemies though the King should not consent as shall be showne hereafter so the law of nature will warrand any to defend their brother though the King should not consent especially seing therby they are but defending themselves against such an enemy as would next fall on them 4. The law of God will warrand this communion of saints Prov. 24 11 12. the commendable practice of those who helped David 1. Chron 12 18. 1. Sam. 22 2. Seventhly nor was there ground for condemning the lands renewing of the nationall Covenant Anno 1638. 1639. Because 1. There is no absolute necessitie for asking obtaineing the Kings consent to the same as if a Kingdom once sworne obliged in covenant with God might not renew the same obligation as oft as they thought fit There is no such necessity of having his Maj. expresse consent approbation either to the first making or to the renewing of the same with God as shall be more fully showne hereafter There is no law of God for this 2. Nor is there any municipall law inhibiteing the renewing of that covenant Yea that warrand by which all the land took it at the first viz the King 's his councell's command to Ministers to put their parishoners to take it severall acts of Generall Assemblies stand still in force accordingly in each universitie the Covenant was renewed yearly 3. Moreover the Generall Assembly Anno 1639. enjoyned by ecclesiastical authority the subscription of the same the Assembly presented a supplication unto the privie Councell desireing their ordinance for the subscription of the same by all the subjects of the Kingdome this was granted Agust 30. Anno 1640. the parliament by their act 5. did ratifie the act of the Generall Assembly their supplication the act of Councill thereupon which act of Parliament was approved by the King in the large treaty thereafter by his personall presence at the next session of Parliament where all was ratified So that this deed of renewing the Nationall Covenant wanted nothing either in poynt of law or conscience to make it lawfull therefore it had been unlawfull to have taken such an oath as would have imported the condemning of that deed Eightly nor was there ground for condemning the Church Assemblies at which the King's commissioner was not present or which wanted his speciall approbation 1. Because there is no warrand in the word of God clearing this necessity but much to the contrary 2 No munipiall law of the land is against such meetings because the act 1584. Was taken away rescinded anno 1592. since that time there is no lawanulling all Assemblies which want his Maj. approbation consent 3. It was never either the profession or the practice of that Church as is clear by what is said Sect. 1. It will be a fitter place to speak to this when the ecclesiasticke part of the oath is spoken to which shall be done Sect. 12. SECTION XI The former purpose further prosecuted the lawfulness of Scotlands defensive warre demonstrated THere are other two Particulars or rather one for they are much to one purpose which virtually would have been condemned by the taking of this oath thus explained as to its civill part viz Scotland their riseing in armes in their owne defence against the King's armies of papists malignants their seizing on the castles which within their owne bosome were threatening their ruine when garisoned with adversaries These must now be spoken to and so Ninthly There is no ground to condemne that defensive warre Though much hath been said by court parasites others who were ambitious of gaine preferment to exaggerat aggraige that supposed crime thereby to make them their cause odious to all the World yet rationall indifferent persones will after serious pondering of a few particulars forbear to passe any rash sentence Much hath been already said in the defence of that bussinesse by the author of Lex Rex more then ever could or will be answered And therefore that book behoved to be answered by a fiery fagot by Mr Prins soveraigne power of Parliaments c. a book published by authority of Parliament never answered to this day And therefore there will not be a necessity of insisting much on it here only a short hint at some particulars will suffice 1. In point of conscience it will be hard to prove that the power of warre resideth only in the King that he only beareth the sword For 1. Rom. 13. The sword is given to all Magistrats for the Apostle there speaketh of heigher powers indefinitely in the plurall number without specifying any kinde it is certaine Rome had not two or moâ—… Kings at once And if the Apostle had intended only Nero he would have designed him in the singular number He speaketh of powers that are of God are ordained of God this agreeth to Inferiour Magistrats who are God's Deputies judge for him as well as others 2 Chron 19 v. 6 7. Deut. 1 v. 16. Numb 11 16 17. He speaketh of Rulers this name agreeth to inferiour Magistrats as may be seen Exod. 18 v. 21 22 25 26. 16 22. 34 31. 2 King 10 1. 1 Chron. 12 v. 14. 26 32. He speaketh of such as must not be resisted but subjected unto Peter sheweth who these are 1 Peter 2 v. 13 14. even
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.
calling for God giveth no command to do evill nor to tyrannize He is not God's vicegerent when he playeth the tyrant therefore he may be resisted opposed without any violence done to the office or ordinance of God As the King's messinger may be resisted withstood when he crosseth his commission warrand without any wrong done to the office or to the King Every disobedience in things sinfull is not a resisting of the ordinance of God The office may be owned the person in the office honoured esteemed as he ought when yet his unjust violence may be resisted his sinfull commands disobeyed for it is onely powers that are ordained of God that must not be resisted tyrants or Magistrats turning tyrants and exerceing tyranny cannot be called the ordinance of God though the office abstracted from the tyranny be the ordinance of God And there is no hazard of damnation for refuseing to obey unjust lawes but rather hazard of damnation in willingly following after the command And so there is no danger in resisting such Acts of tyranny for tyrants exerceing tyranny are no terrour to evil doers But on the contrary they are a terrour to good works therefore that place Rom. 13. cannot be understood of tyrants It is a true a worthy saying of famous Mr Knox in his history of Soâ—…land Lib. 2. pag. 141. There is a great difference betwixt the authority which is Gods ordinance the persons of those who are placed in authority The authority God's ordinance can never do wrong but the corrupt person placed in authority may offend So that the King as king is one thing the king Acting tyranny is another thing They plead not for rebelling against the office or resisting that which is God's ordinance They did never intend to destroy Magistracy or to lessen the Kings Maj. just power lawfull authority or to wrong the office in the least And therefore all the arguments of their adversaries taken from Rom 13. or the like places which speak against withstanding opposeing of the office divine appoyntment of God are of no force against them their cause Tyranny is one thing the office of the King is another thing And what arguments speak well against resisting the office or the person duely legally dischargeing the duties belonging to that office will not conclude against resisting of tyranny So that all the arguments taken from Numb 16. Exod. 22 28. Eccles. 10 20. 8 2 3 4 Prov. 17 26. And the like places do not speak home to their case 2. There is also a great difference betwixt riseing up in armes without any just lawfull ground or for trissles or matters of small moment as for the exacting of some more tribute then is due by the law or the like riseing up in armes in extreme necessity when religion lawes lives liberties all that was dear to them as men as christians were in hazard and this was their case for the king came with an army upon them blocked them up both by sea land thus with forraigners was seeking to subdue them so to overturne religion lawes liberties all was not this extream necessity What more imminent danger could be expected then an army of bloody papists bent to prosecute their bloody designes coming with fire sword encouraged by a commission from the king so approaching their very borders Was there not then a necessity an extreme inevitable necessity to rise up in armes for the saiftie of religion lawes lives liberties when all was thus in most imminent danger Should the Parliament the whole body of the land give up unto the lust of these bloody irish popish prelaticall malignant enemies their own lives the lives of their wives children their liberties as men as christians Should they sell religion the land their soulls their consciences unto those men because for sooth they had a commission from the King there is no reason in the world for this Therefore seing there is nothing more dear to people then their religion their lives their liberties a warre raised in the defence of these cannot be accounted a warre raised upon trissles or sedition faction or mutiny but a necessary defensive warre not raised upon privat injuries discontents But upon matters of the greatest importance necessity viz to prevent the extirpation of religion the subversion of lawes liberties the destruction of lives all Cicero de officis lib. 2. can tell us that omnium societatum nulla est gratior mella carior quam ea quae cum republica est nui cuique nosirum cari sunt parentes cariliberi propiâ—…qui familiares sed omnes omnium caritates patria una complex a est pro qua quis bonus dubitat mortem oppetere si ei sit profuturus 3. There is also a difference betuixt a war raised of purpose to force the supreme Magistrat to be of the same religion with the subject or else to dethrone him and a war raised to defend that religion which both Magistrat subject owneth Betuixt a war raised in defence of that religion which hath never been established by the lawes of the land and a war raised in defence of that religion which is publickly owned by the lawes of the land which King subject both are sworne to maintaine which by the lawes becometh a civill right a part of the civill liberty of the subject Whatever may by said against a war raised in the former case yet in this last case a war defensive is most warrantable and this was the very case of Scotland for they were seeking to defend the religion which was established by the lawes of the land which popish prelaticall malignants were seeking to overturn So that any argument which adversaries can bring from the practice of the primitive christians will conclude nothing against them because the true religion was not then established by law the emperours had never consented therunto but it was otherwise in Scotland as hath been abundantly shown Sect. 1. 2. 4. There is also a difference betuixt a violent laying of hands upon the person of the King of purpose to destroy cut him off or to denude him of his just power privilege that in cold blood too by privat persons for some personall injuries This they abhore ever have abhored and betuixt a sinlesse self defence when unjustly assaulted by armies sent by the King to destroy cut them off In pleading for a sinlesse self defence they do not plead for an illegall taking away of the life of a King Their raising of forces in their own sinlesse self defence cannot be condemned there being an actuall invasion made upon their lives liberties which made their war to be tutela vitae proxima the last refuge for the life the only remedie
that was left for the saifty of religion of all that was dear unto them So then their case not being a prosecution of adesigne of some privat persons upon some privat injuries received to destroy ' cut off the King or to denude him of his just power privilege but a nationall defence of religion lives liberties against the Kings armies unjustly seeking to destroy violently to overturne all None of the arguments of adversaries taken from 1. Sam. 24 6 10. 26 9 11 23. 2. Sam. 1 12 16. do conclude against them or speake to their case 5. There is also a great difference betwixt a warre contrived carryed on by privat persons when grievously oppressed And a warre carryed on by the body of a land in their representatives in Parliament against a king Suppose the first could not well be defended which yet is not absolutely denyed yet this last is clear for a Parliament hath more power over a king then any privat person or subject how great so ever hath judicious Calvin is clear for this in his institutions lib. 4. cap. 20 n 39. saying if there be inferiour Magistrats such as the Ephori among the Lacedaemonians Tribuns among the Romans The demarchi among the Athenians and as the Estates of Parliament in kingdomes now if these connive at the king's oppressing of the people they become persidious because they betray the peoples liberty which by God's appoyntment they are to protect Thus Scotland is cleared for their warre was carryed on by the body of the land in their representatives by their Parliament acting in its publick parliamentary capacity and so the arguments drawn by adversaries from the practice of the primitive Christians speak nothing against the Parliament of Scotland Their levying warre against the king in their own defence in the defence of the liberties lawes of the land 6. There is a difference betwixt a warre raised by a Parliament of purpose to cut off the king to depose him from his throne governement which hath been severall times practised by the Parliaments of Scotland when their kings turned tyrants vitious in their lives as was showne above their case which was a case of pure defence there being no intention to offer the least violence to his Maj. person crowne or dignity but only to defend religion the kingdome against the popish malignant invading plundering forces which were sent forth to destroy all for their armies advanced with petitions seeking redresses of wrongs with all humility shewing their willingnesse readinesse to lay down armes so soon as they were secured in the peaceable enjoyment of the religion sworne to freed from the just fears of these bloody invading forces who were seeking the destruction of their lives liberties So then when their adversaries reason against riseing in armes against the King they speak not to the poynt none of these arguments come near to their case which was a case of naturall sinlesse self defence 7. It would be considered that the warre did not begin upon the Parliaments side but they were forced constrained to it The King commanded all the English Nobility with all their power forces to meet him at York April 1639. that they might advance with him towards Scotland The Scottish Noble Men who were at court were also sent down towards Scotland to raise their friends having some expert forraigne Officers with them There were three thousand Men sent down with the navy six hundered Horsemen were sent down to the Borderes to make incursions all which preparations of warre did clearly speak out his Maj. intention did necessitate them to bestir themselves in their own defence against those invaders to keep their own rights unviolated And yet with all they had their supplications ready to presente after the granting of which viz. a quyet peacable enjoyment of their Religion Lives Lawes Liberties they resolved to lay down armes accordingly did so for after the pacification Iun. 18. 1639. their army was disbanded Againe when the Parliament which was convocated by his Maj. command conforme to the pacification was contrary to the articles contrary to the liberties of the land privileges of the Parliament prorogued the Castles of Edinburgh Dumbritton were fortified with men ammunition Theis friends travelling to England Irland were constrained to swear unlawfull oaths or to góe to prisons The sea was stopped no liberty was granted to trassique so the land was blocked up The articles of pacification were broken Berwick and Carlile were fortified The Commissioners who were sent from the Parliament to the King were imprisoned contrary to the law of Nations The Castle of Edinburgh was killing many threatening to destroy the whole city with their cannon their ships were intecepted by sea their merchands spoiled of their goods sea men were taken prisoners miserably handled When matters went thus were they not constrained to take up armes againe to advance towards England that they might seek peace from his Maj. not being able to maintaine an army on the borders after they had been so impoverished through the long want of fine tradeing and not to lay downe armes untill their necessary and just desires were granted Now let any judge whether they can be justly blamed for standing to their defence being thus necessitated as they would not betray the Land their Lawes their Liberties their Religion so sell their soul consciences all into the hands of their malitious enemies So then when this shall be made the state of the question whether or not the Parliament body of the Kingdome of Scotland may not lawfully take up armes having no purpose to wronge his Maj. person or to spoile him of his just rights privileges to defend themselves Lands Liberties no lesse then their Religion after it had been setled by law When the King in stead of granting their just necessary desires viz. security that they should be ruled by lawfull generall Assemblies other inferiour Church judicatories in Church matters according to the ancient discipline of the Church And by a free Parliament in civill matters according to the foundamentall lawes of the Land And that they might be free from illegall courts alteration in their Religion that the articles of agreement should be keeped that granted which was promised under hand seal is raising a strong army of forraigners Irish Popish prelaticall malignant enemies to the Church kingdome of Scotland intending to destroy their Land Liyes liberties to overturn their Religion Privileges for this end blocketh them up by sea Land fortifyeth Castles in their bosome giving them commission to destroy all they could denunceth them all rebells treatours Sure it may be supposed that seing this is the true state of the question it shall easily be granted that this
shall beasts be in a better condition then man Shall a bull have liberty to defend it self with horns shall man have no liberty to defend himself against tyrants or souldeours in their name coming to kill plunder burn slay all Nature alloweth Vim vi repellere To resist violence with violence to all against all violence without exception Nature can put no difference betwixt violence offered by a Magistrat violence offered by another person Defensio vitae necessariae est a jure naturali profluit It is necessary by the law of nature that a Man defend his life And the reason is because God hath implanted in every Creature inclinations motions to preserve it self Each are bound to love themselves better then their neighbours for the love of themselves is the measure of that love which they owe to their neighbour The law of nature alloweth one rather to kill then to be killed to defend himself more then his neighbour Cicero Lib. 1. De Officiis sayeth Injustitiae duo genera sunt c. There are two kindes of wrongs one of these who do the wrong the other of those who when they may hold off the wrong do it not He who without cause feteth upon any being angry or some other way stirred up layeth violent hands upon his neighbour but he who doth not defend nor resist the injury when he may is as farr in the wrong as if he should desert his parents his friends his countrey And againe cum sint duo genera decertandi c. There are two kindes of contending one by argueing which is propper to men the other by force which is propper to beasts we must flee to this last when we cannot make use of the former againe in his Orat. pro Milone he sayeth Est haec non scripta c. This law is not a law written but a law borne with us we have not learned it nor acquired it ' nor read it but we have taken it drawne it extracted it from nature it self to which we are not taught but made we are not instructed but are endued with it that if our life be in hazard by snares by violence darts of thieves or enemies all honest wayes must be assayed to free our life So reason teacheth this to the learned necessity to the Barbarians custome to nations to beasts nature it self hath prescribed this that whatever way they can they should resist all violence save their lives Thus you see nature it self and such as spoke by the light of nature do warrand such a practice 4. By the law of nations the actions of some of which have been mentioned already he who desireth to see more may consult Prin's Appendix to his soveraigne power of Parliaments c. 5. By the law of God as we see by many examples 1. Of David who being but a privat man a subject now unjustly persecuted by Saul the King who was seeking his life is forced to defend himself with armes by taking to him first 600. men 1. Chron. 12. then a great host v. 22 36. this was warranted of God for the Spirit of God commendeth them for their valour v. 2 8 15 21. And the Spirit coming on Amâ—…sai v. 18. prompting him to speak what he spoke cleareth it also 2. of Elisha 2. King 6 32. He keepeth out the house against the King by force resisteth him who was coming to use unjust violence 3. Of the 80 Priests who resisted Uzziah 2. Chron. 26. 17. Those are called most valient men it is said they withstood Uzziah they thrust him out 4. Of the people their rescueing of Ionathan 1. Sam. 14. unjustly condemned to die They resisted the Kings act edict notwithstanding of his oath Yea they did swear the contradictorie of the Kings oath 5. Of Libnah revolting from Ichoraâ—… 2. Chron. 21 10. because he pressed them to idolatry as is probable from v. 13. so sayeth Lavater Zanchius Cornel a lap see for this also that noble commentator Trochreg on the Ephespag 923 6. of the city Abell resisting Ioab 2. Sam. 20. 7. of Elijah 2. King 1. killing many hundereds of the Kings men emissaries sent to apprehend him 8. By Christ bidding his disciples Luk. 22 36 37 38. Buy swords Nor is there any thing in scripture contrary to this for the passages of which the adversaries make use do either speak against opposeing of lawfull acts of just governours as Eccles. 8 2 3 4. Numb 16. Rom. 13. 1 Pet. 2 13 14. or against opposeing of inferiour Magistrats as well as others so serve not their purpose such as 1 Pet. 2 1 4. c. Rom. 13. Exod. 22 28. Iob 34 18. or speaketh not of a pure defensive warre but of seeking the utter destruction ruine of the supreme Magistrat as some of David's expressions which they make use of 6. By right reason for there is no striker obligation betuixt a prince his subjects then betuixt parents children yea not so stricke yet if the father become distracted rise up in a fury to kill his children the children may lawfull joyn together resist him binde his hands So may the wife resist the unjust violence of her unnaturall husband much more may subjects resist the unjust violence of their King 2. Otherwise a King who was an ordinance of God ordained for a rich blessing should become the greatest curse imaginable if actu primo he be invested of God with power to tyrannize the people be put out of all capacity to resist he should become the greatest of curses to a people 3. This should crosse the end for which people did set up a King over themselves it was to preserve them to keep them from wrongs not to put power in his hand to kill murther them as he pleaseth 4. This would put rationall creatures into a worse condition then the beasts are into for if their King will he may cut all their throats destroy all their liberties ravish all their wives doughters destroy all their lands livings that without any controle or the least resistence imaginable But who can beleeve this Yea put the case there were but three or foure Kings in all the world all the lives of the rest should be at their devotion so that if they in a fit of fury madnesse give out the word of command they may cause kill all without any resistence would not this reflect upon the wisdome godnesse of God if he ordered matters so but the absurditie of this is abundantly clear so that more needeth not be said He who desireth more satisfaction in this question may peruse Innius Brutus his vindiciae contra tyrannos Quest. 3. a book as yet unanswered by any and Lex rex which gote never another answer nor a fagot a quike way forsooth of dispatching an answer Mr
Prins Soveraigne power of Parliaments c. Where the matter is fully cleared both in poynt of law conscience which was published by order of Parliament and a book intituled de jure Magistratus insubditos Trochreg's commentary on the Ephesians where he will finde this question prudently judiciously and satisfactorily handled from pag. 911. to 925. Thus in some measure is this Ninth particular cleared the Iawfulnesse of Scotland's defensive warre clearly showne hereby the unlawfulnesse of swearing any oath which might have imported a condemning of that warre is also demonstrated By what hath been said to this Ninth particular the Tenth last is likewise cleared viz. The lawfulnesse of Scotland their seizing upon the Castles within themselves For if it be lawfull for a land to defend themselves to use resistence by armes in their own necessary defence It is also lawfull for them to seize upon such castles strengths as may prove a fit necessary meane of defence It is lawfull to possesse these keep them out against the enemies of the countrey who if they had them would make use of them for the destruction of the land for the subversion of Religion Lives liberties What ever law will allow of self defence will also allow the use of all fit meanes for that end For the end includeth the meanes leading to the end Moreover these Castles Fortifications were originally appointed for the saifty security of the Kingdome of none else therefore at the learge treaty it is concluded in answer to the second demand That the Castle of Edinburgh and other strengths of the Kingdome should with the advice of the Estates of the Parliament according to their first fundation be fournished and used for defence and security of the Kingdom So that hereby the King approved of all which was done in this businesse before acknowledged that according to their first fundation they were for the Kingdom 's advantage It is true these Castles were annexed to the Crown Parl. 11. Act 41. King Iames 11. but that was done to guaird against the poverty of the real me for all that the King might not give them away in fee or heritage nor in franck tenement without the advice deliverance decreet of the whole Parliament And for great soon reasonable causes of the realme otherwise any alienation or disposition was to be of no avail And it was enacted that the Kings of Scotland should be sworne at their coronation to keep his statute in all points Act 9. Parl. 9. king Iam. 6. sayeth that These Castles are for the welfare of the realme as well as for his Maj. behoofe so Act. 125. Parl. 7. K. Iam. 6. The Castles are called the keyes of the realme So though the King hath the custody command of them yet it is alwayes in order to the right end that is for the saifty good of the countrey if he should make use of them for the ruine destruction of the countrey they should be abused might lawfully be taken out of his hand converted to the right use as when a father turning mad will kill his children with a sword the children may lawfully take the sword from him with which he was bound to defend them against the common enemy make use of it in their own defence Castles fortifications are not the King's patrimony but belong to him as King Governour of the land so that he is to make no use of them but for the countreyes good he cannot dispone sell them as he may do other things that belong to his patrimony Therefore Scotl. cannot be blamed for seizing on these for their own saifty seing this is their native end the only thing they were ordained for Nor can any be blamed for refuseing that oath which would have imported a condemning of this lawfull necessary deed Thus reader thou hast shortly laid before thee a hint of what clear grounds there were of stumbling at the taking of this oath as to the very civil part thereof seing this civil supremacy is must be the same with his perogative his prerogative is such as hath been showne A difference betuixt the supremacy the prerogative is not imaginable unlesse it be this that the supremacy is more comprehensive taketh in all the prerogative something more yea by some posteriour acts they are made of one the same latitude as in the act for the national Synod the setling of the external government of the church is said to belong to his Maj. as an inherent right of the crown how by vertue of his prerogative royall and supreme authority so that his prerogative royall supreme authority are made one if they be one as to ecclesiastical matters much more must they be one the same as to civill matters more clearly in the King's commission for the heigh commission where it is said His Maj. by vertue of his royall prerogative in all causes and over all persons etc so that any may see that his supremacy over all causes is one the same thing with his prerogative Moreover this is certane that who soever do acknowledge recognosce the King 's power supremacy in all causes and over all persons do acknowledge recognosce all that which they say agreeth to him as King and who soever do acknowledge recognosce this do acknowledge recognosce his royall prerogatives for his royall prerogatives are such things as agree to him as King because they are annexed to the crown as they say It is true in their 11 act of parl the acknowledgment of his Maj. prerogative is mentioned beside the oath of alleagiance But that will nor make them to differ so far yea the acknowledgment of his Maj. prerogative is but explicatory of a part of that supremacy mentioned in the oath of alleagiance So that his prerogative over parliaments over their actions over all other subjects is but a part of that supremacy which they say he hath over all persons in all causes So in the oath for asserting his majesties prerogative defensive armes the Kingdomes entering in a league with England all their proceedings in the work of reformation are condemned this cannot be denyed though there be an expresse oath afterward conceived of purpose for that end viz the declaration set forth â—…ept 2. 1662. SECTION XII The meaning of the oath of Alleagiance as to its ecclesiastick part opened some reasons why upon that account it could not be taken THe civil part of this oath of alleagiance being thus spoken to in the next place the ecclesiastick part must be handled when this is but explained reasons without much difficulty will appear why as to that part of it it could not then nor as yet can in conscience be subscribed unto In this part as in the other the sense
which the tenderers thereof do put upon it must be searched sought for out of their acts for though it could have been wished both reason religion would have required it that after the example of Abraham they had made the oath as plaine easie as might be so that the sense meaning of it had been obvious to all or had annexed such a glosse meaneing as the words in ordinary construction would bear tender Christians might saifly assent unto yet there was no such thing done yea not being desired to do it would they do it yea nor would they suffer any to enquire at them in what sense they would have the oath taken yea which is more they made an act dischargeing all to offer any sense of the oath under the paine of treason So that there is no way now left to finde out the meaning of the oath as to this part but by their acts actings which when considered together with some other things usefull in this bussinesse will help to cleare the true sense thereof Three things then must be spoken to 1. The rise progresse of this bussinesse which is imported by this part of the oath viz the Kings supremacy over persons ecclesiastick in ecclesiastick causes in England 2. The rise progresse of it in Scotland 3. Some acts deeds of the King Parliament who now tender it As to the first of these It is notour enough what King Henry the Eight did when upon some privat discontents he shook off the Pop's supremacy Anno 1530. for having caught the Clergy in a Premunire for countenanceing some way or other the Pop's legat he would not be satisfied with their payment of 100000. lib unlesse also they would acknowledge him for the supreme head of the Church on earth which after some debate in their Synod both in the upper lower house of convocation was condescended to in forme as followeth cujus c. of which Church viz the Church of England we recognosce his Maj. to be the singular protectour the only supreme Lord so far as Christ's lawes will permitt the supreme head This was subscribed unto by all put into their publicke acts or instruments presented to the King afterward Parl. 24. c. 12. upon this ground it was statuted ordained that all ecclesiasticall suites controversies should be determined within the Kingdom all appeals to Rome were prohibited and Parl. 25. c. 20. The manner of electing of Archbishops Bishops was altered that power given granted to the King and upon this same foundation Parl. 26. c. 1. it was declared that the King is supreme head of the Church of England that he should have all honours preheminences which were annexed unto that title after this there followed another act c. 3. for Tenths first fruits as appertaineing to that head-shipe supreme authority Hence also Anno 1532. The convocation submitting unto the King's Maj. promiseth in verbo sacerdotis That they would never from thence forth presume to attempt allaidge clame or put in ure enact promulge or execute any new canons constitutions ordinances provinciall or others or by whatsoever name they shall be called in the convocation unlesse the Kings most royall assent may to them be had to make promulge execute the same that his Maj. do give his most royall assent authority in that behalfe Which deed of theirs the Parliament did shortly thereafter ratifie in these termes That none of the said clergy from thence forth should presume to allaidge clame or put in ure any constitutions or ordinances provinciall or synodall or any other canons nor should enact promulge or execute any such canons constitutions or ordinances by whatsoever name or names they may be called in their convocations in time coming which alwayes shall be assembled by the Kings write unlesse the same clergy may have the kings most royall assent license to make promulge execute such canons constitutions ordinances provinicall synodall upon paine of evry one of the said clergy doing the contrary to this act thereof convicted to suffer imprisonment and make fine at the king's will 25. Parl. c. 19. So Parl. 35. c. 1. There was another oath devised ratified which was to be imposed upon the subject for the more clear asserting of the King's supremacy By these Particulars any may see that Peter Martyr had good ground to say as he doth on 1. Sam. 8. That King Henry took all that power to himself which the Pope challenged atque hoâ—… fortasse est quod Rex Angliae voluit se secundum Christum appellari caput ecclesiae putavit enim campâ—…testatem quam sibi Papa usur paverat suamesse in reguo suo ad se pertinere i. e he would there fore be called head of the Church next under Christ because he thought that all that power which the Pope did usurpe did belong to him within his own dominions and he had good ground to say that it was a proud title which gave much offence unto the godly Nor was it without reason that judicious Calvin did inveigh so much against that title in his commentary on Amos 7. saying qui juitio tantopere etc. i e. They who at the first did so much extoll Henry king of England were no doubt inconsider as men they gave unto him the supreme power over all and this did alwayes wound me They were blasphemous when they called him supreme head of the Church under Christ. So that Peter Heylyn must not be beleeved when he telleth the world in his discourse of the reformation of the Church of England pag. 13. That thâ—…se statuts which concerne the kings supremacy are not introductory of any new right that was not in the crown before but only declaratory of an old againe pag. 48. 49. That when the supremacy was recognized by the Clergy in their convocation to king Henry 8. It was only the restoreing of him to his propper and originall power invaded by the popes of these later ages for that title of supreme head not only seemed to have some what in it of an innovation as himself is forced to acknowledge in the following words but really had an innovation in it of no small consequence as shall appeare But this title of supreme head gave offence both at home abroad therefore Queen Elizabeth did change it into this of supreme governour over all persons as well in all causes ecclesiastick as civill in these tearms it was keeped is to this day But all this change did not much help the matter for many were offended even there at and what wonder seing it seemed to attribute to her Maj. no lesse spirituall jurisdiction power then what the former oath did importe Whereupon the Queen in the first year of her reigne after the Parliament had condescended on the forementioned oath published an
admonition in her injunctions of purpose to explaine interpret the sense meaning thereof gave it this sense That nothing was is or shall be meant or intended by the same oath to have any other duty alleagiance or bond required by the same then was acknowledged to be due to the most noble kings of famous memory King Henry 8. her Maj. father King Edward 6. her Maj. brother That her Maj. neither doth nor ever will challenge any other authority then that which was challenged lately used by the saids noble kings which is and was of ancient time due to the imperiall crowne of this realme That is under God to have the soveraignity rule over all manner of persones borne within these realmes dominions countreyes of what estate either ecclesiasticall or temporall soever they be so as no other forraigne power shall or ought to have any superiority over them And this was confirmed by Parliament 5. Eliz. cap. 1. But neither did this remove the offence for still the oath did import more then soveraignity over all persones even over all causes also and it was certaine that King Henry 8. did both challenge use more power then that therefore the convocation of the clergy meeting Anno 1562. took notice of the offence saw a necessity of declareing another sense for the satisfaction of all this they did Artic. 37. declaring signifying That there was no authority in sacred matters contained under that title but that only prerogative which had been given alwayes to all Godly princes in holy scriptures by God himself viz That they should rule all Estates and degrees committed to their charge by God whether they be Ecclesiasticall or temporall and to resâ—…raine with the civil sword the stbbâ—…rn and evildoâ—…rs as also to exclude thereby the Bishop of Rome from having any jurisdiction in the realme of England this Article was assented unto by the Parliament 13. of Eliz. c. 12. is insert in the statute book But under favour any may see that this covering was not sufficient to hide the deformites of that oath as worded for all the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome was hereby excluded now the Bish. of Rome's power was more then civil for it was ecclesiastick also the oath gave unto the Queen that which was taken away from the Pope more over supreme governour in causes ecclesiastick importeth more then this explication doth And therefore it had been much better if no more had been intended then this explication saifly taken doth hold forth to have changed the words of the oath made them more conformable to the glosse for every one who readeth seeth this sense will not be able to discerne an harmony betwixt them the oath as worded holding forth more then the glosse hence it was that for all this glosse the English divines were put to much trouble to defend themselves when sorely pressed with the words of the oath they seemed to be at some losse disadvantage were constrained to run from the words of the oath unto the glosse which is a sufficient proof that if no more be intended by the oath then what is held forth in the glosse giveÌ„ the oath ought to be otherwayes worded hence also it is that all the followers of Erastus to this day do look upon the Church of Engl. as wholly of their judgment this puteth such divines as write against Erastianisme to great paines to search out the meaning of the English divines to answere that objection certanely these divines would have wished that the oath had been otherwise worded So that adversaries might have had lesse ground to boast of the Church of Englands being of their judgment Yea Triglandius in dissâ—…rt de Civil Eccles. pot Waveth the English divines in this poynt fearing possibly that he should not be able to extricate himself out of the thicket of difficulties which he might see before him therefore sayeth Cap. 8. Pag. 154 155. Controversiam Anglorum i. 〈◊〉 We owne not the controversie of the Englishes with Papists upon this subject aâ—… owrs for we are not of the judgment of Papists nor are we necessitated to defend our judgment by the judgment of the English divines And again in his Amapologia Pag. 726. Col. 2. Quamvis non diâ—…eamur c. Though we cannot deny but they i. e. the Englishes in respect of the usurped hierarchie there and the King's power over it have extended the King's supremacy furder then it ought to have been And Apollonius in his Ius Majestatis Part. 1. Pag. 11. telleth us that Some reformed divines in the heat of disput against the Papists out of hatred to the Roman hierarchy did turne a little out of the right way that they spoke according to the lawes of that Kingdome common-wealth in which they lived This especially is to be noted in those divines who wrote of the King's supremacy in the Kingdome of England The learned have seen the writtings of Lancelot Tooker Burchill Thomson and Salcobrig c. And the writtings of their adversaries who debated with them concerning the King's supremacy all who are not slaves in their judgments unto the great ones of the World may see clearly that there are failings on both hands And againe out of Didoclave Pag. 43. he telleth us That albeit they did blote out the metaphoricall title of the head of the Church lest it should give offence put in its place the Supreme Governour Yet the sense was the same for Henry of Salisburry sayeth That the King of England is the primat of the Church of England that he is a mixed person having both Ecclesiastick temporal Jurisdiction that in a supreme way proveth from the statute I. Eliz that the jurisdict Eccl. which was or might have been exercised by any spirituall or Church power for visiting the Ecclesiastick state order for reforming bringing into order punishing Churchmen all sort of errors schismes abuses offences enormities within the Kingdome is for ever annexed unto the Crown So that it is too too apparent that severall of the English divines run a furder length give a larger exposition of the supremacy So dangerous a thing is it to admit of oaths which must have strained glosses commentaries for clearing of them which the words will not in a faire construction bear moreover if any consult the later actings of King Parliament there in England they shall see a far other sense put upon it such as plead for the present change of Church government there walk much upon this supremacy particularly the author of the grand case asketh how any man who hath taken or is willing to take that oath can speak against the King's power of setting up what forme of Church government he pleaseth in the Church which whether it may not make Englishmen of a truely tender conscience
scruple now at the taking of that oath let wise men judge Next as to the rise of this power over the Church the occasion of this oath in Scotland seing it may sufficiently be gathered from the short historical narration of the government of the Church set down Sect. 1. a short recapitulation will be sufficient here In the confession of faith which was ratified approved by the Parliament Anno 1560. againe ratified insert in the records Anno 1567 cap. 25. the power in Church matters which is there given unto the civil Magistrat is in these words That to them chiefly and most principally appertaineth the conservation purgation of religion and they are appoynted for the maintenance of the true religion and for suppressing of idolaâ—…ry and superstition in that same Parl. An. 1567 Act 2. there is an act which was made Anno 1560. ratified ordaineing that the â—…ishop of Rome called the Pope have no jurisdiction or authority within this realme and that none of his Maj. subjects suite or desire title or right of the said Bishop of Rome or his sect to any thing within his realme under the paine of banishment c. and that no Bishop use any jurisdiction in time coming by the said Bishop of Romes authority under the paine forsaid whereby the Popes authority was quite rejected not only in civil matters but in Church matters yet there is no expresse word of the Kings being invested with any such power Anno 1568. There was one Thomas Bassenden Printer in Edinburgh who did printe a book intituled the fall of the Roman Church and in that book the King was called the supreme head of the Church This gave great offence moved the generall assembly to cause call in these books to delete that title of the Kings But all this did not preserve the Church from incroachments for when Montgom pretended Archb. of Glasgow was proceeded against the king summoned the whole synod of Lothian before him afterward when this same Mr Montgomery was summoned before the Nationall Assembly there came a Messinger of armes from his Maj. to discharge the Assembly under the paine of rebellion of puting of them to the horne to proceed any furder whereupon the assembly did complaine of this incroachment April 27 Anno 1580. as such the like whereof had never been made before But this availed not for Mr Balcanquell Mr Dury were summoned before the Councell for some freedome which they had used in preaching Of this the Assembly did complaine againe which occasioned a conference betwixt the King some Ministers the result whereof was That in all time coming the tryal of Ministers doctrine should be referred to Church Iudicatories as the only competent Iudge But this was soon forgotten for Anno 1581. Mr Balcanquell was againe accused the privileges of the Church were incroached upon which did put the Church to supplicat Anno 1582. complaine that His Maj. by advice of some consellours was about to take the spirituall Power authority upon himself propperly belonging unto Christ as the King head of his church of the ministery the execution thereof unto such as bear office in ecclesiasticall government so that in his person some men presse to erect a new Popedome as if his Maj. could not be full King head of the commonwealth unlesse the spirituall as well as the temporall power should be put into his hand unlesse Christ be bereft of his authority the two jurisdictions confounded which God hath divided which tendeth directly to the wrecke of all true relig it their next assembly there was an article drawn up to be presented unto his Maj. to this affect That seing the jurisdiction of the Church was granted by God the Father through our Mediator JESUS CHRIST given to those only who by preaching overseeing bear office within the same to be exercised not by the injunctions of men but by the only rule of God's Word That an Act of Parliament concerning the liberty jurisdiction of the Church be so plainely declared that hereafter none other under whatsoever pretence have any colour to ascribe or take upon them any part thereof in placeing or displaceing of Ministers of God's Word in spirituall livings or offices without the Churches admission or in stopping the mouthes of preachers or taking upon them the judgment or tryall of doctrine or of hindering or disannulling the censures of the Church or exeeming any offendour there from By the endeavours of these faithfull worthies any may see what a Spirit was stirring then when the King would assume to himself spirituall power authority so rob Christ of that which belongeth to him as King head of the Church make himself a Pope the fountaine of all power jurisdiction both civill ecclesiastick challenge power to give commission for deposeing ordaineing of Ministers hinder free preaching to try censure doctrine to anull all Church censures as he pleased This was the Spirit that was then stirring at court this is the supremacy to the life this was it which court parasites said did belong unto the crown let the Church say do to the contrary what she could Hence a little after this Mr Melvin was accused for his sermon after he had declined the King his Councell as incompetent judges in that cause was forced to withdraw to Berwick for fear of his life Anno 1584. The Parliament which was suddainely convocated did put the copestone upon this bussinesse gave the King in forme what he had assumed to himself formerly upon the matter in their very first Act give him Royal power and authority over all Estates as well spiritual as temporal within the realme And Statute and ordaine that he and his heires or successours be themselves and their Councels in all time coming judges competent to all persones of whatsoever Estate degree function 〈◊〉 condition they be of spiritual or temporal in all matters that none decline their judgement in the premisses under the paine of treason From this supremacy flowed the impowering of Bishops with Church jurisdiction as commissioners from the King so that when the King wrote unto a Prelat he stilled him Our beloved Clerck Commissioner in Ecclesiastical causes So that by this supremacy the power of Church jurisdiction was made propper to the King the exercise thereof was committed by him to whom he would After this blast was something blown over Anno 1592. Papists others at court stirr up his Maj. against the government of the Church so that when the commissioners of the Generall Assembly had met had sent some of their number to shew the King what offence was taken at his calling home the Popish Lords he was offended asked how they durst meet without his warrâ—…nd But Mr Andrew Melvin answered That there were two Kings two
Kingdomes in Scotland that Christ was a King the Church his Kingdome that he himself was a subject unto Christ a member of his Church neither head nor King thereof that the spirituall office bearers to whom he had committed the government of his Church had power warrant to conveen But the King went on told the Ministers thereafter That there should be no agreement betwixt him them untill the marches of their jurisdiction were rid that they might not speak in pulpit of the affaires of the Estate or Councell that no Generall Assembly should meet without his special command that Church judicatures should meddle with fornication luch like scandalls but not with causes whereupon his lawes do strick shortly thereafter Mr Blake was summoned did decline his declinature was owned by severall hundereds of Ministers when King Iames saw this he laboured to ensnare the Ministery therefore invented the bond which was mentioned Sect. 1. Pag. 27. whereby any may see what was intended designed But when he is in possession of the crown of England then the poor Church findeth his hand heavier then formerly for Anno 1606. Six Ministers were convicted of treason condemned for declineing the councell as an incompetent judge in matters ecclesiastick all by vertue of the Act of Parl. 1584. And the Parliament which did meet that yeer 1606. to make all sure did acknowledge his Maj. soveraigne authority princely power royall perogative privilege of his crown over all Estates persons and causes whatsoever and ratifieth approveth and perpetually confirmeth the same at absolutely amply and freely in all respects and considerations as ever his 〈◊〉 or any of his royall progenitoure Kings of Scotland in any time by gone possessed used and exercised Thus was the copestone of this supremacy put on againe And at that pretended assembly at Glasgow Aâ—…no 1610. it was acknowledged that The indiction of the Generall Assembly did appertaine unto his Maj. by the prerogative of his royall crown And it was ordained that the oath which is set down before pag. 37. be sworne by all ministers at their ordination the Parliament which conveened Anno 1612. ratified all this And finally Anno 1633. in the 1 Parl. of King Charles Act 3. that Act which was made Anno 1606. was againe ratified this conclusion was drawne from it that he hath power to prescribe what apparell he thinketh fit for Kirk men which was done of purpose for this end that his Maj. might with greater facility get the use of the surplice by Ministers established by law and practised And now by all this any may see what is the nature of that supremacy which the higher powers have been all alongs grasping after which the faithfull servants of Christ have been withstanding according to their power But in the last place the sense meaning of this late Parliament which did tender the oath must be sought out of their acts actings out of some commissions granted by his Maj. thereby it shall be seen what ground there was of scrupling at the oath how the feares of such as did then scruple at the oath were not groundlesse seing the after actings of king Parliaâ—… have abundantly confirmed the apprehentions which such had of their giving to the King of his taking more power in Church matters then themselves would then acknowledge or confesse did belong to him Now for clearing what power was then is now assumed by given to the King in Church matters these particulars may be noticed 1. When these Six or Seven Ministers who were cited before the Parliament had offored a sense in which they would willingly have taken the oath they could not be heard though they granted unto him in their sâ—…nse offered as much power in Church matters as the word of God the confessions of faith both of the Church of Scotland of other reformed Churches did allow for they did grant that his soveraignity did retch ecclesiastik causes objectively though in its own nature it was alwayes civill extrinsick But this did not satisfie therefore it was evident enough that they did intend some other thing by that oath then every one could well see 2. In the 4. Act of their first session it is made a part of the Kings prerogative That none of his heighnesse subjects of whatsoever quality state or function presume to convocat conveen or assemble themselves for holding of councells to treat consult determine in any matter of state civil or ecclesiastick except in ordinary judgments without his Maj. speciall command of expresse license had obtained thereto under the paines c. By which it is apparent that they will have no Church judicatories without his command or license otherwise his prerogative is violated so it is a piece of his perogative supremacy to have all these assemblies depending â—…o upon him as civill meetings do that is that they shall be null without his expresse consent and command for this part of the act is in every word conforme relative to that black act Anno 1584. viz act 3. parl 8. King Iam. 6 by which all Church judicatories which had been set up conforme to the second book of discipline viz sessions presbyteries synods were discharged 3. In the 16 Act of the first session concerning religion and Church government they say That as to the government of the Church his Maj. will make it his care to setle secure the same in such a frame as shall be most agreeable to the word of God most suiteable to monarchicall governement most complying with the publicke peace quyet of the Kingdome in the meane time his Maj. with advice consent foresaid doth allow the present administration by sessions presbyteries Synods So that by this act it is clear that they think that there is no particular forme of Church government sâ—…t down in the word 2. That every nation is left at liberty in this to choose what forme they will as most suitâ—…ing to civil government complying with the people temper 3. That he is judge of what forme of government is most agreeable to the word of God 4. That this governement must be some other government then that which is by Sessions Presbyteries and Synods which is but allowed in the interim 4. There is a commission or act from his Maj. for a Nationall Synod ratified by Parliament in their second Session which is worth the noticeing the Act is thus worded For as much as the ordering disposall of the externall government of the Churh the nomination of the persones by whose advice matters relating to the famine are to be setled doth belong to his Maj. as an inherent right of the Crown by vertue of his prerogative Royall supreme authority in causes Ecclesiastick And in prosecution of this trust his Maj. considering how
zealous Christian of servant of Christ consent unto this dreadfull incrouchment usurpation by subscribeing any oath which might import the same Who can but hear of it his heart not tremble Let all the arguments which the reformed divines make use of against the usurped headshipe of the Pope be considered they will with equall strength militat against this usurpation justifie the refuseing of this oath upon that account yea Arminius himself disp de pontif Rom. Thes 3. sayeth that the Church hath but one head otherwise she should be a monster 2. By this meanes they should upon the matter licke up popery which they have abjured againe againe for none will say that they have abjured such a piece of popery only as it was seated in the head of the man with the treeple crown that sitteth at Rome not simply in it self as a blasphemous tenent No reformed divine writeth against the Popes supremacy headshipe as a power usurped by him to the prejudice of some one prince or other but as a heigh insolent usurpation of that which belongeth unto him who is King of Kings Lord of Lords for this were not to speak against an incroachment made upon the privileges prerogatives of the King of his Church but against some civil wrongs done to a neighbour prince or state indeed the adversaries are not ashamed to say that the Pope in his usurpation of this Church jurisdiction wronged not Christ but more immediatly the King Princes unto whom that power did belong of right before therefore they say that King Henry 8. assumed but his own back againe that he neither took nor did the Parliament give him any new power which did not belong to him before So said Heylyn as was showne But if any should assent unto this they should consent only unto the change of the pope but not unto the change of the Popedome should shake off an ecclesiasticall Pope submit unto a civil Pope For Zepp◅rus speaketh with reason when he sayeth P◅lit Eccles. Lib. 3 c. 13. Quando tota Doctrinae cultus c i. e. When all the matter of Doctrine worship as also of the constitution of the Church is ordered according to the pleasure of the Prince alone the counsell advice of the ministers of the word of their synods being despised when such are declared rebels who will not assent unto all that which these polititians do when the whole Government of the Church is made over to them almost by an apostolick authority who only exerce an externall politicall power on the outward main Then doth themagistrat goe beyond his bounds the Popedomeis not taken away but changed yea made twofold worse yea the Arminians in their apologie do call this the very heart marrow of Popery which being granted all his other usurpations do necessarily follow 3 By this means they should grant that ministers is the very discharge of their ministeriall function are subordin◅ unto the supreme Magistat his power acting under him as his servants commissioners This is clear in the exercise of jurisdiction discipline The prelats are his Maj. Commissioners in matters of discipline they receive their commission from him to depose to silence to excommunicate so also they must Acte as his commissioners in lesser censures as in publick rebuking for sin the like seing both the keyes of doctrine discipline were given at once if the key of jurisdiction or discipline come from Christ mediatly from the King immediatly so must the key of doctrine for the scripture sheweth no distinction none may separat the keyes which Christ hath tyed together thus every minister must come forth preach exhort rebuke censure ex communicate not in the name of Christ immediatly but in the name of the King But to this they could not assent therefore they could not take the oath 4. By this meanes they should grant that the supreme Magistrat himself might immediatly in his own person rebuke publickly the scandalous debarr from the sacraments depose suspend excommunicate for what his commissioners do by vertue of a commission from him that he may do himself immediatly But this could no be yeelded to there being not the least warrand for it imaginable out of the word but much against it therefore none except an Erastian or Arminian will condemne such as refuse an oath which would import this see Voetius de politia ecclesi pag. 146. arg 12. 5. By this meanes they should have upon the matter opened a door unto the King 's bringing into the Church what popish rites externall superstitious ceremonies he pleaseth◅ By the act for the nationall Synod he hath as an inherent in the crown the ordering disposall of the externall government of the Church power to settle all things concerning doctrine worship discipline government by the advice of the nationall Synod which is but as his Councell so that the whole power of ordering setling the matter of the worship is in his own hand it was upon this ground that the former prelats did warrand their use of the ceremonies his supremacy was a basis unto this So said Camero in his prael Tom. 1. pag. 370. 371. Tom. 2. pag. 41. That in all things perteineing to externall order in religion Kings may command what they will pro authoritate And thus they should consent unto opening of a door unto all the trash of Rome the significāt ceremonies that are there for if the King have such power what ceremony may he not bring in who is there to controle him in any thing of that kinde who may ask whether lawfull or unlawfull seing no question he himself will call all that which he doth most lawfull he is not without the compasse of his power or authority or calling when he appoynteth the use of those ceremonies if he be thus rector Ecclesiae Now who can acknowledge that any such power doth belong unto the supreme Magistrat to institute any significant ceremony or part of God's worship this being the very sin of Ier◅oam 1. King 12 28 33. It was his fault to devise of his own heart those ceremonies of sacred signes places or persons times And therefore they could not take such an oath be guilt◅sse 6. By this meanes they should have granted that he had power to change the whole frame of religion so give way unto his bringing in the whole body of popery or what he would for by this oath he should have granted unto him the supreme power in matters concerning doctrine worshipe discipline government It was charged upon the Church of England by some adversaries that the great alteration of their religion that was made from popery to the truth back againe to popery so forth in the dayes of Henry 8. Edward
6. Mary Elizabeth in the space of Thirty years waâ—… grounded upoâ—… occasioned by that which is contained in this oath for by vertue of this oath these severall Kings Queens took upon them to alter change as they thought good this is ordinaryly seen in supreme powers when they begin to usurpe So that it is a sad truth which Calvin hath in his câ—…mment on Amos. cap. 7. v 13. hâ—… sacrilegium c i. e. this sacrilege rageth prevaileth with us because they cannot keep within lawfull bounds but they think they cannot reigne unlesse they take away all the authority of the Church become the heigh est judges as well in doctrine as in all the spirituall government Therefore the devil gave to Amaziah this counsell a mediocrity should therefore be keeped because this desease hath alwayes been in princes that they would make religion how according to their owne lust pleasure And this is a part of the Cesario-papatus the state papacy of which Wigandus in his 13 cvill complaineth viz. That they set up a new forme of religion And now seing doolfull experience proveth how ready princes Magistrats are to goe beyond bounds to arrogat to themselves more then is allowed is it fit for Ministers or Christians to blow at that coale of ambition by asserting in words as much as they desire They do not much value the glosses which any may devise afterward to cover the shame of their nakednesse were it not better to hold back such as run too willingly of their own accord to the ruine of religion the interests of Christ It cannot then be saife for any to have a hand in setting up a state Antichrist to the ruine destruction of the Church of Christ And though the gracious disposition of the prince should be otherwise set he should not abuse his power to the hurt of religion yet no thankes to his sycophants who ascribe such power to him as if put into act would ruine religion the Church of Christ which of its own nature tendeth thereunto if it meet not with accidental stops whatever may be said of the power of the supr Mag. concerning determineing appoynting what religion shall be publickly professed within his dominions yet this power agreeth not to him byvertue of his supremacy in Church matters but by vertue of his supreme Magistraticall power by which he is to have a care of all publicke things But this supremacy in Church matters is a far other thing for it giveth intrinsicke Architectonicke power in Church matters this agreeth only to the Lord Jesus who is the alone head of the Church therefore it cannot be said to belong unto the supreme Magistrat 7. By this oath they should grant that the civill magistrat as such should be a Church member because he who hath a chief hand in Church affaires cannot but be a Church member he who is a chief member in Church judicatories cannot but be a Church member He who hath Church power cannot but be a Church member he whose commissioners Ministers are in Church administrations must certanely be a Churchmember Now all these they give unto the King not as a Christian but as a King for they annex them unto the crown and make them part of the royall prerogative But this cannot be assented unto for then every heathen Magistrat should be a Church member because a heathen Magistrat is a Magistrat as essentially as a Christian Magistrat Christianity addeth no Magistratical power it maketh not one more a King or a magistrat then he was it only qualifieth inableth him for the right administration or execution of the power but addeth no new power Moreover magistracy hath nothing to do either with the matter or with the forme of Church member shipe reall grace union with Christ maketh one a member of Christ's mysticall body serjous profession of the true religion maketh one a member of the visible Church but magistraticall power honour dignity hath no interest here no such thing commendeth a man to Christ. 8. By taking of this oath they should have said that the civil magistrat as such is a Church officer because as he is in possession of the crown of the royal prerogatives thereto annexed he hath the disposall of the externall governement of the Church No nationall Synod can hold without him none of their acts hath the power of canons without him He hath power by his commissioners civil ecclesiastick persons to excommunicat depose suspend ministers c. But this cannot be granted for then 1. Heathen magistrats should be Church officers 2. Such as are not Church members should be Church officers 3. Women should be Church officers for such may be Magistrats 4. Then no magistrats should be chosen but such as have the qualifications requisite in a Church officer 5. There is no ground or reason which can be given for this 6. There should be no Church officer but such as are mentioned in the gospell among all the Church officers mentioned in the gospell there is not one word of him 9. By taking of this oath they should say Not only that the supreme magistrat as such is a Church officer but that he is a Church officer of the heighest degree the supreme Church officer next under Christ for he is put above all the ordinary Church officers who act only in subordination unto him pastors Doctors are but his commissioners have their power from him must be accountable to him in their administration But certanely this cannot be true for then 1. This must be also affirmed of a heathen for a qua tali ad de omni valet consequentia 2. It is not credible that Christ should have appoynted such an eminent Church officer who was to continue unto the end of the world never shew us how he should be called nor what his qualifications should be nor the way of his ordination nor his work 3. Then women children might be such eminent Church officers 4 Or none should be supreme Magistrats but such as are fit for such an eminent Charge in the Church But both these are false 10. By taking of this oath They should lay the foundation of a lasting confusion betuixt Church state God hath been pleased in all ages to set clear distinct limits bounds to each of those that they might not be confounded or mixed together In the old testament there was a clear difference be â—…uixt the two so in the new testament Divines writting against Erastus have made it clear that they are distinct toto genere both in the fountaine of their power in the subject matter in the manner of working in the nearest end designed many such like so that it is needlesse to say any thing of it here Now in asserting this supremacy they should lay the ground of this
confusion yeeld that a Church as a Church should be 〈◊〉 commonwealth a commonwâ—… 〈◊〉 ipso that it is a commonw shoud be a Church because a supreme governour in Church matters hath reference unto a Church a supreme governour in civil matters hath reference unto a commonwealth so make the supreme governour of the commonwealth upon that account that he is such a supreme governour the supr gov of the Church then â—…o ipso that he is the supreme governour of the commonwealth he should have reference unto the Church so a Church should be a commonwealth a commonwealth a Church which is most false Moreover this new commission court is another speaking evidence of this mixture flowing from this supremacy for in that court Church officers meddle with civil matters state officers meddle with Church matters both do so as they are such such officers as his Maâ—… commissioners and therefore they could not assent unto this That which Luther sayeth in responso ad Melanth de ceremonijs cited by Voetius ubi supra pag. 174. Is worth the marking Seing it is certane that these administrations are distinct viz. the ecclesiastick and politick which Satan did confound by Popery we must watch and see that they be not againe confounded and if we suffer this we should be guilty of sacrilege and we must rather choise to die then sinso see further what he citeth out of Olevianus pag. 179. and 180. 11. By taking of this oath they should grant that the magistrat as such is a propper competent judge in Church matters a propper competent judge of ministers of their doctrine of other Church matters because it was upon this ground of faithfull ministers their declineing of the King 's his councell their judgement in Church matters that the Parliament 1584. Did grant unto the King this supremacy It was intended for this end that he might have power to call convent judge sentence Ministers for the faithfull discharge of their duty exoneration of their consciences as their lawfull formall competent judge in Church matters though under the notion of treason sedition Moreover he is made propper judge of what is the best forme of Church Government of what is the best constitution of a Church judicature what are the most sit lawfull acts conclusions or canons of Synods he is made propper judge in matters deserving excommunication suspension deposition all these are Church matters Now the falshood of this is so satisfactorily discovered by divines that none can be blamed for refuseing an oath which would import an assenting unto these things as truths Sure every Magistrat is not fit for such matters should no other be a Magistrat but he who is fit for such questions Where is there any precept or precedent for thiâ—… What need is there then for Church Officers for Church matters if the civil Magistrat may do all see learned Voet polit Eccles pag. 146. Arg. 12. yea if they had taken this oath they had condemned their worthy predecessours who took their hazard declined the judgment of the civil Magistrat in Church matters should justifie the severe sentences of imprisonment consinement banishment which passed against them should assent unto the lawfulnesse of all these acts which established iniquitie tyranny by law And how could they have done this with a good conscience 12. By taking of his oath they should grant that Ministers in the discharge of their Ministeriall function were not under Christ immediatly but under the Magistrat for as his commissioners they sit in the high Commission court are accountable to him for their mal administration so are immediatly under him as their immediat superiour Master But this they could not grant Seing 1. As was said these two powers are toto genere distinct so there cannot be a subordination amongst them 2. There is no warrand for Ministers receiving of instructions from the Magistrat 3. Nor for any civil Pope more then for a Church Pope 4. Ministers in scripture are said to have immediat relation unto commission from God not from the Magistrat therefore they are called priests of God 2. Chron. 13 9 12. Men of God 2. Pet. 11 2. Tim. 3 17. And are commissionated from Christ Luk. 10 2. Mat. 20 2. 21 34 25. 22 2 3 10. 24 45. Isa. 6. v. 8 Ioh. 20 21. Gal. 1 1. not from the Magistrat They acte in the name of Christ by power from him 1. Cor. 5. But there is enough spoken to this by judicious Wallaus others writting against Vtenbâ—…gard other Erastians which will abundantly justifie the refuseing of this oath see further learned doct Voetius de polit Eccles. pag. 145. Arg. 10. 13. By the taking of this oath thus tendered they should grant that the supreme Magistrat is exempted from subjection unto the Ministery of the messingers of the Lord for if Ministers in their Ministeriall function acte as commissioners from him as accountable to him then in the same administration they cannot be above him a commissioner in the particular wherein he is a commissioner cannot be over him whose commissioner he is But this they could not grant because there is no warrand for this exemption Kings of old were not exempted from rebukes all are commanded to obey such as are set over them Heb. 13 17. no King is excepted Emperours have submited unto discipline Therefore they could not take this oath 14. By taking of this oath they should yeeld unto many palpable into lerable incroachment made upon the liberties privileges of the Church of Christ Which could not be done without great sin iniquity As 1. That there could be no Church judicatories or assemblies without his warrand or expresse consent for in the act concerning the acknowledging of the royall prerogative among other things annexed to the crown this is one the conveening of his subjects this is explaned Act 4. Where it is ordained that none of his subjects conveen for holding of Assemblies to treat Consult determine in any matter ecclesiasticke And upon this ground doth the act concerning the nationall Synod goe And upon this ground did King Iames take upon him to prorogate assemblies either to definite or indefinite times as he thought good Now no faithfull Minister or Christian could assent to this Because 1. Whatever may be said upon the grounds of prudence at some times yet when the bussinesse is spoken to as a case of conscience according to the rule of the word this is true that though the Church be in the commonwealth yet she is a distinct society from the common-wealth hath power from Christ to hold her own meetings Assemblies for her own government as she did while she was under heathen Emperours in the dayes of the Apostles 2 It hath been showne
before what is the judgment of the Church of Scotland in this particular in their preface to the confession of faith 3. There is no expresse command either for seeking or having his expresse consent The reformers of the Church of Scotland never once thought of this but as oft as conveniently they might as necessity urged they keeped Assemblies not only without the consent of the supreme Magistrat but oftimes against their will thinking it their duty to Assemble for the relief of the Church ay untill some difficulty were laid in their way which they could not win over untill some phisicall restraint or some what equivalent were laid upon them 5. It would neither be fit nor saife for them to condemne the worthies who stood so zealously for the truth keeped that Assembly at Aberdeen which occasioned their banishment 2. That the power of convocating indicting of Synods Assemblies doth belong only unto the Magistrat The act for the National Synod doth abundantly cleare this But to assent to this were a palpable wronging of the Church which hath intrinsick power for this needeth not goe out of her self to seek it The Synod which did meet 〈◊〉 15 was not indicted by any civil Magistrat The Church should then be in an irremediable case when the civil Magistrat is an enemy but God hath provided meanes for the saifty preservation of his Church Even when the higher powers are but small friends unto her as oftimes it falleth out see the judicious learned doct Voet de Pol Eccles Pag. 184. Quaest 5. 3. That the power of delegating unto assemblies doth belong to him alone so as he may appoynt all the constituent members thereof according as he pleaseth as the Act for the nationall Synod sayeth he doth that by vertue of his supremacy But this were a grosse wronging robbing of Churches of their power privilege of delegating such as they think fit according to the Example of Antioch sending Paul Barnabas to that Synod Act 15. the practice of the Church in all ages see Voet ubi supra Pag. 187 Quaest. 7. 8. Yea if so the persones delegated should vote in his name not in the name of Christ or of the Church the meeting should not be a pure Church meeting but either wholly politicall or else politico-ecclesiasticall 4. That he might dissolve Church assemblies Synods when he pleaseth for the fore mentioned Act for the Nat. Synod warrandeth them to meet only at such times as he pleaseth But this were a great wrong done unto the Church privileges See Voet. ubi supra Pag. 190. Qâ—… 13. 14. Synods should be no helps unto the poor Church if they might sit no longeri what ever necessity might urge then his Maj thought good to suffer There is no warrand for any such dependence of Church judicatories upon the civil Magistrat's discretion If Christ hath allowed Synods to his Church for determineing in Church affaires he hath allowed them to sit untill they finish the bussinesse for which they did assemble Yea if they should yeeld to this they should condemne the assembly at Glasgow 1638. which did sit untill they had ended their bussinesse notwithstanding of a command to dissolve 5. That his presence or the presence of his commissioner is necessary unto each nationall assembly for the Act of Parliament ratifying the Act for the nationall Synod sayeth expresly that without the presence of the King or of his commissioner no nationall Synod can be keeped But 1. there is no law of God for this 2. The Synods in the primitive times were held without his presence 3. There were many generall assemblies held in Scotland without his presence 4. The Magistrat as such is no constituent member of the Synod therefore his presence is not necessarily requisite see Voet ubi supra Pag. 188. Quaest. 9. 5. If there be such a necessity for his presence at nationall Synods he must not be absent from lesser assemblies thus there shall be no Church judicature held without his presence which were most absurd See what the learned famous Voetius sayeth to this pol. Eccles. Part. 1. Pag. 199. 200. 6. That Ministers have no proper decisive fuffrage in Synods because the forecited Act sayeth That matters are to be setled only by their advice So that in their Synod they are only the King's counsellers conveened to advise consult a power only to advise is no decisive fuffrage so the Act concluded is the deed of the supreme Magistrat following their advice is not their deed Now this is most absurd destructive to all Synods of all their power thus it should be far worse with Synods now when Magistrats are Christians then when they were heathens Moreover there is no warrand for his having with the rest of 〈◊〉 the commissioners a voice in those Synods far lesse for his having the whole power It is clear that as a Magistat he can have no suffrage or voice in these Synods for then heathens who are no way qualified for such a bussinesse should have it likewise Yea if it were so all the determinations of Synods should be civil Acts no Church Acts being done by one who is no Church officer yea nor a Church member as such let be a Church judicature This was Episcopius the Arminian his judgment in disput de jure Magistratus circa sacra Thes. 16. viz. that he may convocat assemblies choose members prescribe lawes unto them the way of prâ—…cedour aske the suffrages either peremptorily enact or approve what is done that it may passe into a law see Voet. ubi supra pag. 191. Qâ—… 16. 7. That the judicatories of the Church be prelimited for nothing may be enacted by the nationall Synod which is contrary to his Maj. royal prerogative or to the lawes of the land so sayeth the Parliaments ratification of the Act for the nationall Synod But what if iniquity be established by a law what if Christ's royall prerogatives be taken from him given to the King shall the Church in her judicatories do nothing for the truth shall she give no testimony against these usurpations shall the lawes of the land the King's prerogatives be her Cynosura what use shall be made of the word of God then where is there any such caution or limitation given to the Church But enough of this 8. That Church judicatories may not so much as consult debate about any Act matter or cause but what shall be allowed approved by his Maj. or his commissioner for these are the very words of the Act of Parliament But who can assent unto this intolerable jncroachment destructive of all Church judicatures making them no judicatories at all but a company of men conveened for giving advice But where was there ever the like of this Church judicature The nameing of those things is sufficient to discover their vanity see
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
appeal unto Caesar was from a civill court from Festus was in a matter of life death from no Church judicatorie See Voetius ubs supra Pag. 197. Quaest. 24. SECTIO XIII The former purpose further prosecuted fleet 's notion examined THere is one reason more pleading against the taking of the oath as it is now glossed it is this 20. By taking of this oath they should assent unto that power which is given unto the King in the 16 Act of Parliament viz. a power to settle secure Church governement in such a frame as shall be most agreable suiteable unto Monarchicall Governement most complying with the publick peace quyet of the Kingdome And so grant 1. That there is not one forme or modell of Church governement set down in the word obliging Churches in all ages to follow the same 2. That the supreme Magistrat alone may appoynt what forme he thinketh good To speak to this head at length would take a long time in regard that one Mr Stilling fleet hath been at the paines to give the World a proof of his learning reading by engaging in this quarrell in pleading against the privilege prerogative of the Crown of Christ whom God hath made King in Zion who will reigne untill all his enemies be made his footstool He would without all doubt have had more peace when stepping into eternity if he had imployed his partes abilities for Christ his interests as King sole King in his Church Kingdom But yet though the nature of this discourse will not admit so long full an examination of the grounds whereupon this learned man walketh Some thing must be said in short so much the rather because through the injury of the times the labours of such as have fully solidly answered him cannot be gotten printed And therefore till providence so order matters as that both those severall other things against prelats may receive a free Imprimatur Take these few observations upon his whole book which he is pleased to call a weapon salve c. so far as concerneth the bussinesse in hand Obs. 1. He granteth pag. 154. That it is necessary there should be a forme of government in the Church by vertue not only of that law of nature which provideth for the preservation of societies but likewise by vertue of that divine law which takes care for the Churches preservation in peace and unity So then if there be such a divine law for a forme of Church Government iâ—… in the primitive times there was a forme of Church Government followed the poynt is gained by Mr Stillingfleet's own concessions for part 1. c. 1 § 3. He sayeth that there is not the same necessitie for a particular clear revelation in the alteration of a law unrepealed in some circumstances of it as there is for the establishing of a new law as to the former a different practice by persons guided by an infallible Spirit is sufficient which is the case as to the observation of the Lord's day under the Gospell for the fourth command standing in force as to the morality of it a different practice by the Apostles may be sufficient for the particular determination of the more rituall occasionall part of it Now there being a standing morall law for a forme of Church governement the practice of the Apostles who were guided by an infallible Spirit is sufficient for an alteration And so as their practice obligeth now to the observation of the first day Sabbath because of the standing force of the morall law for one day of Seven So their practice obligeth now unto that forme of Governement which they used because of the standing force of the law of God for a forme of Church Governement So that we need not enquire after a particular clear revelation in this case where there is but the alteration of a law unrepealed as to some particular circumstances And thus if the morality of the first day Sabbath stand the morality of the governement of the Church which the Apostles did set up will stand also Their practice altering the last day of Seven into the first will no more oblige then their altering of the ancient governement into a new one which was distinct from the former Obs. 2. Part. 2. c. 1. § 4 5 6. When he is about the stateing of the question he will have a nationall Church to be understood as a Church in which a forme of Government should be setled It is true a nationall society incorporated is a Church It is also true that the notion of a Church agreeth to other societies then nationall as himself sayes wherever the notion of a Church particular is to be found there must be a Governement in that Church so every society which may be called a Church should have a Governement in it But now the question is whether every such society as may be called a Church should have its own liberty to set up what forme of Government it thinketh best or only a nationall Church If only a nationall Church have that liberty then that liberty agreeth not to a nationall Church as it is a Church but under some other notion what is this other notion Is it because they are under one civil Governement But many nations may in some respect be under one civil Government in some respect there is hardly any one nation which in all its parts incorporations cities is governed after one the same manner But further what hath the Church to do with the civill lawes or civill way of Governement especially seing himself granteth that the Church is a quite distinct society from the civil state But next if every Church hath this liberty then in one the same nationall Church there may be many severall sorts of Governements this would occasion the greatest confusion in the world looketh no way like the ordinance of God which neither tendeth to union nor edification but to confusion distraction will make every parochial Church he cannot deny a parochiall Church to be a Church to have its own distinct forme of Government thus porachiall Churches should be like the Cantâ—…ns of Helvetia or distinct Kingdomes ruled by their own lawes after their owne manner If it be said that the unity peace of the nationall Church ought much more to be looked after then the peace unity of any one particular congregation Ans. will it thence follow that every particular congregation in a nationall Church should be Governed after one manner then it will follow also that all nationall Churches being members of the Church universall must be Governed after one the same manner for the peace unity of the Church universall is preferable unto the peace unity of a Nat. Church as the peace unity of a Nat. Church is preferable unto the peace unity of Particular
such an one is Mr Stillingfleet's prelats rule domineer with as absolute unlimited power as ever any did when it is alledged that they account themselves distinct officers from superiour to other presbyters that there is no warrand for any such officers Mr Stillingfleet their new advocat cometh in sayeth They are no distinct officers let themselves say what they will you may take them up as no distinct officers so suffer them to domineer still if you look upon them as no distinct officers there is no hazard all is saife be they Pope be they Prelat let them pretend to never so high speciall commissions as speciall distinct officers yet they may be submitted unto obeyed this mentall conception will make all right 3. When any are disputing against an intruder in the house of God whether is it saifest to take him up in his own colours to look upon him as he holdeth forth himself or to paint him as any think best If any disputant would take liberty to paint him as he pleaseth he should not dispute for truth but deal deceitfully Let Mr Stillingfleet answere this question Whether is it possible that a man may give out himself for a new officer or not or whether is there any hazard that such an one may be acknowledged countenanced as an officer as such an officer as he giveth himself forth to be in the house of God or not If Mr Stillingfleet be consonant to his principles he must answere that it is not possible for really there can be no new officers warranded of God every one is at liberty to take them up under a right notion there is an end then let all the popish rable ten times moe come in they may be submitted unto for really there can be no other officers in God's house but pastours deacons with Mr Stillingfleet every one may look on all the rest as having their power either restricted or enlairged according to the determination of prudence 4. It may be asked whether the Apostles were distinct officers from presbyt yea or not If they were distinct what was it which made them distinct It could not be their different way of mission for Matthias had not such a mission as Iames Iohn Peter the rest had yet all of them were Apostles Matthias no lesse then the rest It could not be their extraordinary qualifications for Prophets workers of miracles speakers with tongues had extraordinary qualifications yet they were not the same with Apostles further distinct qualifications make not distinct officers Or was it a larger extended power Then it is certane that prelats upon the same account must be distinct officers from other presbyters for they have a larger extended power then other presbyters have 5. Doth Mr Stillingfl think that there is no difference betuixt a man who acteth as commissionated from a judicature having his power particular commission from them a man who doth all of himself by his own power having a commission from none that there is no difference betuixt one who receiveth commands from others as accountable to them one who taketh upon him to command them as he thinkest best betuixt the generall of an army sent forth by the Estates of a land ruled without a King having power commission from them a King making use of the Estates or of the Parliament of the Kingdome as his counsellours whose advice he will follow or not follow as seemeth him good commanding all of them aâ—… pleaseth him best If he think that there is no difference betuixt these then indeed he cannot be much blamed for thinking that the prelat whom he busketh is one the same with the prelat of whom the controversie is But in sober sadnesse let it be asked of Mr Stillingfleet If he did satisfie himself with this his fiction notion There is no controversy now about what may be or of a man in the moon but of the prelats who are now in being concerning these it would be asked whether he thinketh that they arâ—… chosen by the Church over which they are that they are impowered by that Church or by the officers of that Church for that effect that they are accountable unto them so that their power may be restrained at the Churches pleasure Or not rather that they choose ordaine the presbyters commissionat them calling them to an account punishing as they think sit usurping useing this power as their owne not borrowing it from the presbyters in whole or in part as being themselves solely invested with all Church power from Christ letting out the same to presbyters as they think meet Now it is of these that the controversy is it is such as are understood when it is said that they are new Church officers there is no controversy concerning Mr Stillingfleet's supposed Commissioners for whether such as he speaketh of be new distinct officers or not it is no matter so long as these of whom the disput is are such without all question for any thing which Mr Stillingfleet hath said to the contrary for the persons he speaketh of are not the same with the persons concerning whom the controversy is Commissioners having all their power derived from others are one thing such as have all the power from with in themselves are another thing But. 6. To put the matter more out of doubt let it be considered that a distinct proper work with a distinct ordination for that effect is enough to make a distinct officer What distinguisheth Presbyters Deaâ—…ns Let ruleing elders be laid a side seing Mr Stillingfleet will not owne them as Church officers but their distinct peculiar work ordination so since prelats assume to themselves as their peculiar work the power of jurisdiction ordination to speak nothing of the power of order they do account themselves so must all take them to be distinct officers All the prelats that ever were yet in the world did look upon themselves as distinct from presbyters all who ever wrote of prelats took them up as such whether Iure Divino or Humano all is one as to this bussinesse of their being distinct till Mr Stlling fleet did vent his new notions 7. That a judicature which acteth joyntly in matters of jurisdiction may in some particulars for facilitating their execution impower one or moe of their number for that effect is easily granted but that they may so Impower them as to denude themselves wholly of the power so enlarge the power of others as to null their owne must be otherwayes proved then by Mr Stilling fleet 's bare assertion Christ's commission taketh in both the power of order jurisdiction alloweth his servants no more to denude themselves of the one then of the other They themselves must answere for
own phancies as to be in paine untill he were delivered of this birth not considering the unseasonablenesse thereof at such a time There is a season a time for every purpose under heaven sayeth the wise preacher Eccles. 3 1. a wise mans heart discerneth both time judgment Ecc. 8 5. But it seemeth he hath been so desirous that the world should see this monstruous birth that 〈◊〉 he wanted a time he would take the most unfit season imaginable for it For it is hardly imaginable that he could have chosen a more unfit time for publishing this his notion Because though his notion in thâ—…si were unquestionably true as it is not yet in hypothesi it could not now be yeelded the Kingdomes being tyed to one of these formes by the oath of God the solemne League Covenant so not at liberty to choose what forme they please His principles will not suffer him to say that Presbyterian governement is utterly unlawfull that Episcopall governement is necessary his learning will soon discover a validity in a Covenant about things not sinfull though not absolutely necessary his piety will grant that conscience should be made of such oathes And now when the Kingdomes were under the oath of God to set up a government most agreable to the Word of God And to endeavour the extirpation of Prelacy could there be a more unseasonable time for venting this his notion touching the indifferencie lawfulnesse of either Presbyterian or Prelaticall For suppone his notion were a truth of what use could it be now when the Churches hands were bound up by a solemne vow Covenant from following their liberty Sure his disputing so much for the liberty of the Church in such a case at this time sayeth that in his judgment the oath of God is of no value otherwise at least he would have casten in this clause of exception some where so have stated the question as a case in Utopia if so be it was as a fire within him that could not be keeped in And now indifferent readers may judge whether intentio operit I shall not say operantis was union peace edification To teach people to break Covenant with God to null their oaths vowes is no way to the good edification of the Church Such an union by perjury will be nothing else but a sinfull conspiracy Peace in such away will be but dreadfull security when the judgments of God are at hand And such edification is nothing but destruction But it seemeth his silence in the matter of the Covenant all alongs sayeth that in his judgment the obligation of the Covenant is null so this weapon-salve of his must be strong that will eat thorow the bones of a Covenant but because it is so dangerous destructive unto the substantials vitals of Religion it is the lesse to be valued whatever vertue he allaigeth it hath for cureing wounds in the flesh Did he think that tender Christians would get the Gordian knot of a Covenant oath vow so easily cut as to think themselves at liberty to choose what forme of governement they pleased Or if he did not presuppose this of what use did he think his book would be Though it were to be wished that this learned man had imployed his talent more for him who gave it Yet seing he would not forbear the publishing of his notions conceptions he might have spoken his minde concerning the obligation of the solemne League Covenant For so long as that Covenant standeth in force his notion will evanish as a cloud without raine But we must end this digression in which we have insisted the longer because it is one of the maine grounds upon which the complyers of this age do walke goe on that we may hasten to some other particular SECTION XIIII Such reasons or objections as are allaidged for taking against refuseing of the oath of alleagiance as it is called Answered BEfore any other particular be entered upon or this concerning the oath which is called though falsly the oath of alleagiance passed from there are some few objections which would seem to militate against the refuseing to swear subscribe the oath as it was tendered which must be rolled out of the way And these are either such as concerne the civill part so seem to weaken the grounds of scrupling at the oath upon that account which were laid downe Sect. 10 11 or such as concerne the Ecclesiastick part so seem to weaken the grounds of scrupleing at the taking of the oath upon that account which were mentioned prosecuted Sect. 12 13. First then as to the civill part it will be objected 1. That there was no ground of scrupleing at taking of the oath upon that account Because it was but the acknowledging of that very power which did properly belong to him before which former Parliaments had recognosced as his due viz. the 18. Parliament of King Iames the V I. which did acknowledge his Soveraigne Autherity Princely Power Royall Prerogative Privilege of his Crown over all Estates persons causes whatsomever Ans. This Objection was sufficiently obviated above Pag. 126. where it was showne that these were but Parliamentary flourishes complements grounded upon personall qualifications And indeed the act seemeth to raise this structure upon his Maj. being put in possession as the righteous inheritour of the famous renowned Kingdomes of England France Irland which far surpasse the wealth power force of the dominons of his progenitours Kings of Scotland thereby having a greater increase of care burden with all upon his extraordinary graces most rare excellent vertues where with he was endued for the discharge of that trust Now any man of understanding may see that the increase of his extensive power authority or of personall qualifications is no sufficient ground for the increase of his intensive power or for the enlargeing of the privileges of the crowne Moreover it is said expresly in the act that they ratifie approve perpetually confirme the same as absolutely amply freely in all respects considerations as ever his Maj. or any of his royall progenitours Kings of Scotland in any time by gone possessed used exercised the same Whence it appeareth that they gave no new power only they did recognosce what he his progenitours had before Now as was showne above neither he nor any of his progenitours had such a supremacy over parliaments as is now allaidged to belong unto the crown For as to that first act parl 8. Anno 1584. it was showne above Pag. 125. how notwithstanding of the supremacy there granted unto the King the privileges of Parliament remaine intire as they had been continued past all memory of man without any alteration or diminution whatsomever And after this Anno 1587. in the 11. Parl. act 33. the ancient order dignity
integrity of the parliament is restored particularly act 40. the King doth faithfully promise to do or command nothing which may directly or indirectly prejudge the liberty of free voteing of the Estates of Parliament But 2. It will be objected That all this supremacy was acknowledged by the Parliament 21. Anno 1612. when the Acts of the Assembly at Glasgow Anno 1610. were ratified among which this was one that Ministers should swear the same oath which was tendered by this Parliament which is there set down Ans. It is true it was appoynted by that pretended Assembly that Ministers at their entry or admission to the Kirk should Testify declare that the King was the only supreme Governour of the realme as well in matters Spirituall Ecclesiasticall as in things temporall c. And it is true this Parliament did ratify approve this deed so that it had the force of a law But 1. There is a great difference betwixt such a civill sanction as this is an other Act of Parliament other Acts stand in force untill they be repealed but when the Church constitution which is the ground Basis of the civill sanction ceaseth the sanction ceaseth the Act perishâ—… without any formall repeall The Act ratifying approveing the deed of a Church judicature standeth in force no longer then the deed of the Church judicature standeth in force the deed of a Church judicature may be altered without any respect had unto the civill sanction or notwithstanding that the civill sanction is not formally removed because the civill sanction did follow depend upon the Church Act the Church Act doth not depend upon the civill sanction 2. It is not incumbent unto a Church judicature to determine the limites of the King 's civill supremacy far lesse to determine the same in the first place this pretended Assembly was more anxious about the King 's Ecclesiastick supremacy then the civill it was his supremacy in Church matters which was here intended by them approved by the Parliament And therefore it is added And that no forraigne Prince State nor Potentat hath or ought to have any jurisdiction power superiority preheminence or authority Ecclesiasticall or Spirituall 3. What ever civill supremacy may be supposed to be here included there is no supremacy over Parliaments acknowledged But any civill power that is here recognosced as his due is in opposition to forraigne Princes States or Potentats not to Parliaments within the Kingdom If it be said that the oath tendered by this Parliament Anno 1661. being every way correspondent unto that oath which is recorded Parliament 21. Anno 1612. can import a recognosceing of no more civill power then that Anno 1612. therefore might lawfully have been sworne It is replyed That the oath Anno 1661. is more expresse for civill power supremacy then that An. 1612. But if there had been no more then the words of the oath Anno 1661. there had not been very great ground of scrupleing at the taking thereof upon the account of the civil part for it is not the words of the oath that ground that scruple upon that account so much as the glosse put upon the words by their other acts particularly by the act for acknowledging his Maj. prerogatives which as a commentary explaineth what they meane by his being supreme governour over states civil in all causes civil Now the like of this was not done by the parliament Anno 1612. Or any other before or since that time till this parliament Anno 1661. which hereby hath put another glosse upon the civil part of the oath then ever was done before But. 3. It will be objected May not Parliaments give more civil power unto the King then he had before so enlarge even intensivè the privileges prerogatives of the crown so denude themselves of that in whole or in part which did formerly appertaine unto them And when the Parliament hath done this annexed such such power unto the crowne can it be unlawfull for privat subjects to acknowledge that the King hath indeed so much power Ans. in poynt of law it will be a very great question whether Parliaments who are but trustees intrusted by the people whose commissioners they are virtually if not expresly bound to maintaine their rights privileges may betray their trust give away the iust ancient privileges of Parliament there with the just ancient liberties of the people It will be agreat question if they at their own hand may alter the foundamentall lawes of the land without the consent of these whose commissioners they are And it will be a greater question in law if this Parliament might have sold or given away the privileges of Parliament liberties of the people seing so much in poynt of law may be objected against its being a free Parliament if the want of freedome of election in shires brughs if prelimitation if the election of such as were not capable by the foundamentall constitution of Parliaments practice of the Kingdome other informalities of that kinde may have any place or weight in the anulling of Parliaments But. 2. In poynt of conscience it is clear that Parliaments may not now give away according to their pleasure dispone of the rights privileges of Parliament for in the third article of the league covenant all the people of the land Parliaments among the rest are sworne to maintaine in their severall places capacities so Parliaments in their Parliamentary capacitie the rights privileges of Parliament 3. Though the Parliament not with standing of the bonde of the covenant should denude themselves of their privileges yet now seing every particular member of the Kingdome is sworne according to his place station to maintaine the rights privileges of Parliament they may not assent unto such a deed of the Parliament by their oath subscription approve of such a wrong for that is the least that private persons who desire to minde make conscience of the oath of God can do at such a time viz. to refuse to give an expresse clear positive assent unto such a wrong done to the rights privileges of Parliament contrary to the covenant But 4. All this is to little or no purpose for there is not the least syllabe in all the Acts of this Parliament which doth import any new deed of gift but all alongs they speak of these prerogatives as formerly inherent in the crown yea as essentiall to it hence it is that they condemne the actings of the Parliaments Kingdome of Scotland these many years by gone because done in such away as was an actuall insolent as they say incroachment invasion upon the privileges prerogatives of the crowne Obj. 4. The acknowledging of the prerogative is distinct from the oath of allegiance therefore seing they were
not put to take that acknowledgement they could not refuse the oath upon the account of these consequences contained in the acknowledgement Ans. So is the Declaration dated Sep. 2 1662. Set down as distinct from the Acknowledgement yet who ever sweareth subscribeth the Acknowledgement doth sweare subscribe the Declaration upon the matter so is it here who ever taketh the oath of alleagiance doth upon the matter take the acknowledgem also for it is not possible to see any discrepancy betwixt them save such as is betwixt the text the commentary for the acknowledgm is nothing else upon the matter then an explication or Exegesis of the oath in the acknowledgem the same thing is said assirmed in plaine full clear tearmes which is but in generall affirmed in the oath By their Acts they declare what things they account privileges of the crowne all these they comprehend under his supremacy so in their account his supremacy over all persons the prerogatives royall or privileges of the crowne are all one Therefore they could not acknowledge this supremacy because they could not acknowledge the prerogatives royall See this objection further answered above Pag. 168. In the next place there are objections of another nature which must be answered as 1. Obj. Such as refuse this oath of alleagiance declare that they are not dutyfull loyall subjects which Ministers Christians ought not to do Ans. It hath been showne at the beginning of the tenth Section what difference there is betwixt this oath the oath of alleagaince there is no Minister or Christian who would scruple at the taking of the pure oath of alleagiance Yea they would account themselves obliged to take the same if there were any necessity or just suspition of disloyalty in them which might occasion the same King Iames in his book called God the King sheweth that those treacherous persones who occasioned the frameing of the oath of alleagiance were the Pope's bloody emissaries following the principles of Rome practiseing unparalleled treacherie against King Queen Parliament among whom none will have the fore head to reckon such as did now refuse the oath as it was tendered It is the supremacy in Church state which only was scrupled at the acknowledging of this supremacy is no part of alleagiance for one may acknowledge his father to be his father though he should not say that he hath power as a father over his soul conscience one may acknowledge the King of Britane lawfull King of his dominions though he should not acknowledge him to have as much dominion power over them as the great Turk usurpeth over his dominions And therefore letnone so interpret that passage of the Apology for the ministers of England pag. 2. Where they prove that they cannot be challenged as guilty of Laese Majestie because they acknowledge that the King is defender of the faith in all causes the supreme head Governour over all persons as well ecclesiastik as civil as if they would assert that all in Scotland who do refuse this oath acknowledgement were guilty of Laese Majesty merely upon the account of their refuseing of the oath seing as hath been showne their case the case of Scotland is not every way the same though they give out this as an evidence of their loyalty yet they do not pitch upon it as proprium quarto modo unto a true loyal subject 2. Obj. Will you allow his Maj. no power in Church matters Ans. yes Even all that power which the first confession of the Church of Scotland doth allow viz. tho conservation purgation of religion the maintenance of the true religion the suppressing of idolatry and superstition as also all that which the later confession concluded by the Assembly of divines at Westminster doth allow As also as much as sound reformed divines grant unto him according to the word of God He hath power over the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 things extrinsecall that properly belong unto the outward man are common to the Church with other societies He is Custos utâ—…sque tabulae in a civill manner must have a care of both the tables of the law It were tedious here to set down all the particulars See Gillespy in his Aarons rod blossoming lib. 2. cap. 3. the CXI Propositions which are full enough to this purpose 3. Obj. Why then was this oath refused seing no more was required thereby Ans. More yea much more was required as appeareth by what hath been said cleared from their Acts actings especially from their refuseing of the sense given in by these Ministers who were detained so long prisoners in the Tolbooth thereafter banished which was large enough possibly larger then some of these who gave it afterward upon second thoughts would approve It is beyond questioning that this Parliament giveth unto the King by vertue of this prerogative as annexed to the crown far more then ever the confession of faith of that Chuch or any other protestant reformed Church did give And as they give so he taketh more as might be evidenced by his letter unto the Archbishop of York if it were now at hand 4. Obj. But whatever they assume to themselves it is not much matter Seing none 〈◊〉 put to affirme that so much power doth belong unto him the oath tendered hath not so much in it in terminis Ans. When an oath is contrived in such generall comprehensive termes as may take in much when there is no other way to finde out the iust latitude meaning of it but by their Acts actings who tender it it is of much concernment to know what sense their actions will put upon it for by their actions the true sense must be learned For it is a received known principle that oaths must be taken according to their known sense meaning of the words who tender the same because oaths were first invented for their security therefore whosoever would deal honestly Christianly in taking an oath must take it in the very sense that it is understood in by such as tender it Otherwise the holy name of God shall be taken in vaine the takers of the oath shall deal deceitfully in frustrating the end of the oath the designe of the tenderers thereof To take an oath Quatenus Eatenus in fo far will not satisfie as worthie D. Voetius judgeth de Pol. Eccl. p. 283. 5. Obj. This shienesse were good in case the oath as worded could bear such a sense as is supposed to be meaned by the tenderers But it is not so here Ans. It is certane the oath as to the part controverted is conceived in generall termes It is certane that their sense who tender it is not sound it is certane that there is nothing in the oath contradicting their sense meaning Yea it is certane that the very
a privilege of the crown to the hazard of life all shall any Christian accounte such things as are reall privileges of the crown of Christ frivolous And not worth the hazarding of any thing for The asserting of Christ to be head King of his Kingdom which is distinct from all other Kingdoms upon earth that he alone hath power to rule this his Kingdom with his own lawes by his own officers And that none may rob him of his crowne scepter or of any part or pendicle thereof seem to be no small matters Who will condemne the generation of the righteous who like valiant souldiours have stood for the defence of their master's prerogatives would not give their consent unto the spoiling of his crown no not in the least even when condemned to death therefore banished out of the land of their nativity The words of famous Mr Welsch in his letter to the Lady fleeming from his prison at Blacknesse Ian. 1606. Are worthy to be noticed keeped on record What am I sayeth he that he should first have called me then constituted me a minister of glad things of the Gospell of salvation these fiftine yeers already and now last of all to be a sufferer for his cause and Kingdom to witnesse that good confession that Iesus Christ is the King of saints that his Church is a most free Kingdom yea as free as any Kingdome under heaven not only to convocate hold and keep her meetings conventions and assemblies But also to judge of all her affaires in all her meetings and conventions among his members and subjects These two poynts 1. That Christ is tho head of his Church 2. That she is free in her governement from all other jurisdiction except Christ's are the speciall cause of our imprisonment being now convict as traitors for maintaining thereof We have been waiting with joyfulnesse to give the last testimonie of our blood in confirmation thereof If it would please our God to be so favourable as to honoure us with that dignity Obj. 10. Howbeit the matter as set forth by you seem considerable yet as comprehended in the oath it seemeth very inconsiderable Were these things expresly affirmed there were some colour of reason for refuseing to acknowledge the same but seing they are only your inferences groundlesse feares there is lesse reason to refuse the oath Ans. It is no new thing for sufferers to be blamed as faulty This is certaine every one may see it that the temptation is stronger for taking then for refuseing of the oath there being much more outward worldly advantage to be had by taking then by refuseing of it and therefore such should be Christianly sympathized with seing the matter they stand upon is not tâ—…ial the bussinesse they contend for is concerning the due bounds marches of the Kingdome of Christ concerning the just extent of the privileges of his crown if they be mistaken it is in this they are mistaken They desire not to rob the civil Mag. of his due but when they apprehend that there is an in croachment made by him upon the privileges of Christ as King head of his Church no tender Christian will blame them for standing upon their ground to be willing for the interest of their Lord master to lose their liberties yea their lives too But. 2. It is sufficiently manifested already that neither these inferences nor their feares were groundlesse so that it were superfluous to adde any more here for cleareing of the same Obj. 11. But the Parliament or Councell would give liberty to persones to explaine themselves to expresse what their meaning of the oath was in what sense they would take it Why was not this favour accepted might they not have taken it in their owne sense seing no doubt that would have been a saife sense Ans. 1. Some indeed reporte that this favour courtesy was conferred on them in private and therefore they had no scruple to take the oath but all had not this in their offer 2. Others as wise judicious would have looked upon such an offer as no savour or courtesie at all indeed it deserveth not the name of a favour to give liberty to any to mock God others themselves Such a liberty could be nothing else but a snare to the conscience For by words to put a glosse upon a written or printed oath which in strick construction it will not bear then sweare it subscribe to it is to mock the most high who will not be mocked To subscribe an oath in terminis as it is offered set down in write or print after it is mentally or verbally glossed is to stumble the truely godly to harden the wicked in the age present to mock posterity who shall see the oath in terminis subscribed but neither see nor hear of the glosse which as a salvo was cast in yea it is to deceive themselves by intangleing themselves into the bonde of a sinfull oath with faire speaches plausible apprehensions or rather dreames But. 3. Why would they not suffer such as they required to take the oath to set down their sense in plaine tearmes before their subscription And why would they not rest satisfied with that which the Six or Seven forementioned ministers did Sure if it had been tendered upon any other account then as a snare to the conscience this would have been granted but it is true the taking of the oath after that manner would not have served their purpose so well as now it will when subscribed as set down in terminis liâ—…ra scripta manet dolus versatur in generalibus 4. Who ever would have fuller satisfaction to this objection let him consult Doct Sanders de jur prom oblig prael 6. § 10. whose words shall be here translated set downe atlength because so full satisfactory dico sayeth he speaking to the same case c. i. e. I say that it may be suspected that there is some deceit â—…rking therefore every pious prudent man should refuse such an oath offered under such termes 1. Because in the oath it self truth is required but a proposition having an indefinit and ambiguous sense before there be a distinction used for clearing is no true proposition yea it is not a proposition at all for a proposition as children know by it's dâ—…ition should signifie either truth or falshood without ambiguity 2. Because of him who tendereth the oath for the proper end of an oath is that he in whose favours it is taken should have some certainty of that whereof he doubted before but there can no certanty be had out of words which have no certaine sense 3. Because of him who sweareth who if he take such an oath on these termes either stumbleth his neighbour or else spreadeth a net for his own feet For to what else should such
but the Church judicature also in so doing should acknowledge the validity of the sentence and consequently the lawfulnesse of the power from which it did slow But it will be objected 1. That that sentence cometh not from the Bishop alone but from a Synod whereof he is only the moderator Ans. Though the sentence be given out at the meeting of such as are underlings to complyers with him Yet the sentence is only his sentence this he is pleased to signifie unto all at their meeting left they should forget it so mistake him themselves both And he indeed maketh a fashion of asking their votes to the end they may be partakers of the guilt of the odium with himself But he acknowledgeth them to have no power unlesse it be to give their counsell advice But. 2. It hath been showne above that such meetings are no lawfull Church judicatures no presbyterian meetings but prelaticall conventions conventicles set up of purpose for his ends for the carrying on of his designes And their not compeering before these meetings sayeth they did not acknowledge them to be lawfull meetings therefore they cannot now acknowledge their sentence It will be objected 2. That though they ought not to be submitted unto as prelats or coâ—…rts of prelats Yet they ought to be submitted unto as the King's commissioners their sentence is in so far to be reverenced Ans. Whether they sit Act there as principall or as commissioners yet any such sentence proceeding from them is a non-habente poâ—…estatem from such as have no power For of themselves they have no such power they can have no such power from the King for nemo pâ—…test dare quod non habet the King can not give them the power which he hath not The King cannot depose a Minister immediatly It is true he may put a lawfull judicature to whom this power doth properly belong to do it or he may imprison or banish consequently put from the exercise in such a place but formally he cannot give out any Church censure of suspension or deposition against any Minister therefore he can commit no such power unto any man whether he be a civil man or a Church man And thus It is still clear that this sentence should not be submitted unto if it were no more but for this one cause because it should be an acknowledgeing of the Magistrat's power in the matter of Church censures which is an assertion unto which no sound reformed divine will assent It will be objected 3. That seing it is certane such shall be put from their Ministerie ere long however for if they submit not unto the sentence the civil Magistrat will either banish or imprisone or some other way put them from it whether they will or not were it not faifer then to prevent further suffering to themselves theirs by submitting in time Ans. It is true that in all probability the civill powers will not suffer such to preach long after such a sentence is dissobeyed But yet it is the duty of all so to carry themselves when suffering is at hand as that they may have most peace of conscience quietnesse under the crosse And it is certane they shall have far more peace who continue preaching as opportunity offereth notwithstanding of any such sentence untill some phisicall restraint or what is equivalent be laid upon them Then such as shall willingly submit unto an unlawfull sentence proceeding from an unlawfull judicature deriveing power from an empty fountaine thereby give offence great scandall both to good bad It will be Objected 4. That submission to judicaturies established by law is necessarie Either obedience active or passive is necessary otherwise there shall be no order Ans. Whatever may be said anent submission or non-submission unto the unjust sentences of lawfull judicatures Yet it will be clear that no submission should be yeelded unto the unjust sentences of unlawfull judicatures For the authors of the review examination of that book intituled Protesters no subverters and Presbytery no Papacy grant Pag. 96. This much saying we plead not for submission to officers judicatories not of Christ's own institution such as not only popes but prelates were no lawfull Church officers so that here their arguments conclude not taken from the practice of Ministers not submitting to the sentences of prelats in the Church So that then all the Church of Scotland as to this particular it seemeth was of one judgment and thought that Ministers should not submit unto prelats passing a sentence of suspension or deposition against them these prelats being no lawfull Church officers so it is clear that this non-submission in this case is no new thing in that Church but was the practice of severall worthy precious men before as the book before mentioned sheweth which instances are worth the noticeing now SECTION XVIII It is lawfull for the people to hear those suffering Ministers to meet for prayer other Christian exercises in private WHen the poor people cannot in conscience attend the ministry of such as are thrust in upon them against their will for the reasons already given their temptation groweth double upon them their trouble increaseth for now when they goe to hear such Ministers as they may lawfully hear either in publict or in private it is a cause sufficient for persecution yea or if they meet two or three together in any privat place for prayer conference or any other Christian exercise they are in hazard to be hailed to prison punished as keepers of conventicles Doubtlesse it cannot be very necessary to speak much for the justification defence of those who either have suffered or may hereafter suffer upon that account seing few who owne Christianity or know the sweet of Christian exercises and of Christian fellowshipe will condemne such as value the good advantage of their souls beyond their bodies yet lest some should be moved to think that at such a time such wayes should be forborn a little must be spoken to justify both those courses And first for their going to heare either in publick or privat such Ministers as are still lawfull Ministers what ever sentence hath passed against them have given a faithfull testimony unto the truth by adhereing to their principles notwithstanding of all the sufferings they do or can meet with much needeth not be said seing 1. They are so expresly often commanded to heare the word of truth to heare what is the minde of the Lord for by the Ministery of his servants doth God manifest his minde unto his people The priests lips should preserve knowledge and the people should seek the law at their mouth who are the messingers of the Lord of hosts It is their duty to waite at the posts of wisdomes doors this will be undenyable 2. There is an innate desire in the saints after the word
officers of his owne appoyntment Who then can acknowledge such a court not with all consent unto this intolerable incroachment upon the privileges of Christ his crowne justling of our Lord out of his rights is not this the fountaine of all disorder confusion tending in end to the utter overthrow of all Church discipline to to the totall overturning of the Established order of Christ's house can any acknowledge such a court seing such sad consequences will follow thereupon 4. In this judicature ecclesiasticke persons have power of civill matters civill punishments for the court hath power to fine coâ—…fine committ and incâ—…rcerat for contraveening the Acts of Parliament But that Church officers should medle with civill matters is diametrically opposite unto Christ's word Mat. 20 25. Luk. 22 25. where he forbiddeth all the exercise of any such power as was exercised by Kings and civill powers on earth saying the princes of the gentiles exercise dominion and they that are great exercise authority but it shall not be so among you so that the very exercise of the power is prohibited if any should think that he meaneth only the â—…anny abuse of the power because he useth the compound words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Luk doth sufficiently take away this objection when he useth the simple words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the scope of the place cleareth it also for the question unto which Christ returneth this answere is concerning primacy power and not concerning the abuse of the power So then whoever do acknowledge this court do approve in so far of this contradiction to Christ's command 5. The acknowging of this court would be upon the matter a justifying of all the Acts of persecution exercised against the worthles of old for avouching the Kingly office power of Christ declineing the civill courts in Church matters so a condemning of the Zeal of those worthies who hazarded life all which was dear to them in giving testimony against the incroachments made upon the crown and privileges of Christ as King But certanely a Christian tender of the glory of God of his cause which hath been is hated persecuted by his enemies would scarre at this 6. Particularly the acknowleding of this court would be a condemning of worthy precious Mr Rutherfoord Mr Dickson who declined the High commission and refused to passe from their declinature on any termes wherein they were singularly eminently owned of God approved by his testimony to their spirits And what tender Christian could do this 7. The acknowledging of this court is a clear breach of the first article of the league covenant in severall particulars as 1. the acknowledging of this court is an overturning of all the principles of Presbytâ—…rian Government so contrary to that oath whereby every one is sincerely really and constantly through the grace of God to endeavoure the preservation of the reformed religion of the Church of Scotland in doctrine worshipe discipline and government And that because 1. It is contrary to the principles of presbyterian Government to have Church power derived in whole or in part from any prince or potent at upon earth but only from Iesus Christ the sole King head of his Church 2. It is contrary to the principles of presbyterian government to have Church censures dispensed by any except Church officers 3. It is contrary to the principles of presbyterian government to have Church officers medling with civill affairs 4. It it contrary to the principles of presbyterian government to have any other Church judicatories then such as are allowed by the Gospell 5. It is contrary to the principles of presbyterian government to have Church power civill power confounded in-distinct 2. The acknowledging of this judicature would be a condemning of the work of reformation in part for this is one piece of the doctrine of the Church of Scotland one piece of the reformation viz. That Church officers should not meddle with civill power or places this was much looked to at the begining of the late work of reformation condemned both by Church and state Anno 1638 1639 1640. And therefore tender Christians could not do this sinne against God 8. The acknowledging of this judicature is a breach of the second article of the same league Covenant Upon this account that it is an acknowledging of the power of prelats in the highest degree of that power which ever they had in Scotland And next upon this account that it is an approving of that which is contrary to sound doctrine the power of godlinesse so a partaking of other mens sinnes a runing the hazard of receiving of their plagues expresly contrary to that article 9. As to the civill part of this court for it is a monster of judicatories viz. two distinct bodies under one head The acknowledging of it would be a crossing of the third article of the league Covenant upon a two fold account 1. In that it is a wronging of the rights privileges of Parliaments â—…o owne a judicature not approved established by any Act of Parliament old or late 2. In that it is a wronging of the liberties of the Kingdome to consent unto an arbitrary power assumed by the prince over them contrary to the fundamentall lawes of the land in setting up what judicatories he pleaseth without consent of Parliament without whose speciall warrant authority the meanest fixed court cannot be erected 10. It is a court unamimously condemned by the Church of Scotland in their assembly 1638. Act Sâ—…ss 14. upon very pregnant considerable grounds for they found that it had been erecâ—…d without the consent or procurement of the Kâ—…rk or consenâ—… the â—…states of Parliament That it did subvert the jurisdiction and ordinary judicatories assemblies of the Kirk sessions presbyteries provinciall and nationall assemblies That it was not regulated by lawes civill or ecclesiasticall but at the descretion and arbitrement of the câ—…mmissioners That it gave to ecclesiasticall persons the power of both tâ—… swords and to persons merely civill the power of the keyes and Kirk censures and therefore did prohibite the use and practice of it as being a court unlawfull in it self and prejudiciall to the liberties of Christ's Kirk and Kingdome and the King's honour in maintaining the Established lawes and judicatories of the Kirk Now how could any true member officer of the Church of Scotland acknowledge this judicature so unanimously dis-allowed condemned by that Church 11. The acknowledging of this court would be a clear breach of the nationall covenant as sworne subscribed Annâ—… 1638 1639. for in that covenant the land was sworne to resist all corruptions according to their vocation to the uttermost of that power which God had put into their hands all the
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
quod sicri non debuit factum valet nor knowing well how to guaird against this deceit which he hideth with a multitude of words his challenges must be answered All which he sayeth on this head is some thing to these three particulars 1. The want of authority in the imposeing 2. The generality of the termes in which it is conceived 3. Some incongruitie in the 3d article The summe of what he sayeth unto the first of these is this To carry on a publick oath without the soveraigne power is without any example among jewes or Christians It is a speciall royalty of the King to have power of imposeing an oath on all his subjects especially where the oath hath a direct aime for raiseing armes Such leagues are inhibited by the lawes of the land Ia. 6â—… Parl. 10. Act. 12. Mary Parl. 9. Act. 75. Now this Covenant was carryed on in England by a meeting of Parliament excludeing one of the Estates and in Scotland by a committee of Estates Ans. what if all this be granted Will it therefore follow that the obligation of the Covenant is loosed Nay himself dar not say so for he addeth Now although this could not nullify the obligation of the Covenant were the matter of it undoubtedly lawfull and otherwise still obligeing yet it were well if unlawfulnesse in regaird of this defect were acknowledged So that all which he would have of the Covenanters now for proof of their sincerity is that they would give as publick testimony against the sinfull way of entering into that bonde as against that siâ—… as they suppose of breaking it But what would this advantage his cause And seeing he saw that it would not advantage his cause why did he spend time paines in vaine He is at a weak passe now when he can bring no arguments but such as himself must needs answere discover the weaknesse of But it is like out of a desire to have it going well with the Covenanters he would have them repenting of the misse which was made But by his favour they must first be convinced of the errour ere they can say that they have erred and ere they be convinced of an errour in that Particular they must see more cogent arguments then any which he hath yet brought For as for that committee of Estates which he sayeth did carry on that Covenant in Scotland it had power for that effect from the convention of Estates their deed was approven in all poynts by the next meeting of Parliament Anno 1644. the lawfulnesse of which convention Parliament hath been shown above and as for the Parliament of England Mr Croften Timorcus have sufficiently spoken to that and as for Scotlands entering into a league with England without the King's consent it hath been vindicated before So hath it been showne how the Parliaments of Scotland do partake of the soveraignity with the King and have power of warre so all which he here sayeth is answered already Only because he desireth some examples of the like among Iewes or Christians though there be no great necessity for this businesse yet some few instances shall be brought first among the Iewes there are two eminent examples one in the dayes of Asa King of Iuda 2. Chron. 15. where many strangers of Ephraim manassâ—…h Simeon fell to Asa out of Israel in abundance when they saw that the Lord his God was with him v. 9. And entered into a Covenant to seek the Lord God of their fathers with great solemnity v. 12 14. that without the consent of their own King Another in the dayes of Hezekiah when he came to the throne which was in the third yeer of Hoshea King of Israel 2. King 18 1. In the first year of his reigne 2. Chron. 29. 3. this was six yeers before the Kingdome of Israel was wasted destroyed by Salmanassâ—…r King of Assyria 2. King 17 6. beginneth a work of reformation said it was was in his heart to maâ—…e a Covenant with the Lord God of Israel 2 Chron 29 10. And he sent to Israell writting letters to Ephraim Manasseh desireing them to come up to the house of the Lord accordingly diverse of Asher Manasseh Zebulon 2. Chron. 30 1 11. joyned with him in that Covenanted work of reformation here are some of the subjects of Basha Hoshea without their consent or approbation joyning in a Covenant or bond with another King Kingdom which would seem more treasonable like then for the subjects of one King to joyn together in Covenant for the good of King Kingdome to carry on a work of reformation no doubt this advocat darre not condemne this deed of those subjects of Hoshea or Basha As for such Covenants among Christians instances in abundance may be given some have already been named as that betwixt the first reformers of Scotland the Queen of England these in France Germany the Low countreyes Helvetia piemont c. so a few moe shall suffice If he had read the History of the reformation of the Church of Scotland he had seen there severall examples of Covenants entered into by Christians without the consent of the supreme Magistrat viz. one Anno 1557 subscribed by Argile Glencarne Morton Lorn others Another at Perth Anno 1559. subscribed by Argile Iohn Stuart Glencarn Boid Vchiltree c. A third at Sterlin that same yeer subscribed by many A fourth at Leth Anno 1560. subscribed by all the nobilite barons gentlemen others professing Christ Iesus in Scotland a fift at Aire Anno 1562. subscribed by severall noblemen gentlemen In Sleidan's commentaries Lib 7. Anno 1529. there is a Covenant betwixt the city Strausbrugh which was under the command jurisdiction of the Emperour three of the cities of Helvetia viz. Tigurum Berna Basil about assisting deseâ—…ding one another in the cause of religion this was without the consent approbation of the emperour as appeareth by the letter written to Strausbrugh from the dyet of the Empire againe An. 1530. there was a Covenant betwixt the Laâ—…dgrave of Hesse those three cities Tigur or Zurich Basil Strausburg anent mutuall defencein the cause of religion That same yeer the protestants meet at Smalcald draw up a Covenant for mutuall defence in religion it was subscribed by Albert Gebert of Mansfeldt by the cities of Magdeburgh Breme Sleidan sheweth also lib. 19. That in February 1547. the nobles of Boheme meeting at Prague entered into a Covenant among themselves for the defence of their liberty whether Ferdinand would or not The second particular is about the generality of the termes wherein the Covenant is expressed The summe of what he sayeth here is this The Covenant was purposely framed in generall and homonymous termes that all the sects might lurck under it And so the Sectarian army when they invaded Scotland did pretend the
Printed records They declare that in their undertakings they should preferre no earthly consideration to their dutâ—…es for preserving of religion in Scotland in doctrine worshipe discipline government as it is already established to endeavvour to setle it in England Ireland according to the Covenant also in their answere to some committees of Shires they declare that they had nothing before their eyes in that undertaking but the preservation good of religion the endeavouring the setling of it in England Ireland according to the Covenant in the first place before all worldly respects his Maj. rescue from â—…his base imprisonment his re-establishment upon his throne in all his just powers the saiftie of this Kingdome from danger on all hands the preservation of the union brotherly correspondence betwixt the Kingdomes under the governement of his Maj. of his royall posterity according to the Covenant So that the gentleman the author of this pamphlet publisheth his mistakes to the world when he would inferre thus was this right that where our alleagiance binds us to duty to a greater latitude this should be held out to people as the only standard of their loyally duty to the King Was it found Doctrine to insinuat to the sense of intelligent men that we were not otherwise bound to defend him Was it well by such a clause to give occasion to wicked men to think they were no furder obliged to him then he should desend that which they accounted religion And that the folly of his consequencesmay furder appear it would be considered that there is a clear difference betwixt these two Owneing of the King defending his authority never but when he is actually owneing active for the cause interest of Christ And owneing of the King defending his authority alwayes but when he is in actuall opposition in a stated contradiction to the work interest of Christ So is there a difference betwixt these two Non-concurrence in defending promoveing of the King's authority when he is opposeing the work of God And actuall anulling diminishing or utter overthrowing of his power authority when he is so stated And so when the Covenanters say That they are not bound to contribute their power in their places capacities to promove or defend his Maj. power authority when he is in a stated opposition to the work of God when the advanceing of him to his full power authority would cetanely tend to the ruine desruction of the cause people of God yet they do not say that they are never bound to defend him but when he is actually promoveing advanceing the work of God according to his full power place Nor do they say that when he opposeth the work of God they are at liberty to destroy his person or to spoile rob him of all his just power authority And therefore both that clause in the Covenant their proceedings may be abundantly justified without laying down any ground for the taking away of the late King's life without clashing with or contradicting the confessions of protestant Churches or of their owne soâ—… still they acknowledge that difference in Religion doth not make void the Magistrat's just legall Authority not free the people from subjection But that this may be a little more clear let this example be considered A Father turneth phrenticke mad seeketh to destroy the whole family calling for a sword liberty to execute his cruelty His sones rise up binde his hands withhold the sword from him withall sweare to stand together in their own defence to defend their Father's just right power in the defence of the family Now in this case can any say that they were undutifull children or that their covenanting so adding that clause in the Covenant sayeth they were free to cast off the relation that is betwixt him them except he guide the family in all poynts as they would have him doing No in no wayes Here then it is clear that their refuseing to put the sword in their Father's hand while under this distemper is no act of undutifulnesse It is no lessening of the Father's just power over the family nor doth it say that they thinke themselves not bound to owne him as a Father except when he is actively promoveing the good of the family far lesse doth it say that they think because of this distemper they may destroy him or that the relation betwixt them him is broken up for ever So then though this Advocat thought he had a faire sield to walk upon a faire occasion to vent his anger against that Church to make her odious to all Churches about yet wise men who easily see that there is no such strong relation betwixt King subjects as betwixt Parents Children will acknowledge that his ranting is without reall ground And that Scotland in their treaties with the King at the Hage at Breda in their actions at home did nothing but what they may hold up their faces for both before God Man doing nothing herein which either contradicteth their own confession of faith or the confession of faith of other Churches Not their own confession of faith For if the large confession of faith be viewed which was approved by the Parliament insert in their registres In that head of the civill Magistrate these words shall be found We confesse and avow that such at resist the supreme power doing that thing which appertaineth to his charge do resist God's ordinance and therefore cannot be guiltlesse furder we affirme that whosoever deny unto them their aide counsell and comfort whiles the Princes and rulers vigilantly travell in execution of their office that the same men deny their help support and counsell to God who by the presence of his lifetenant doth crave it of them So that all the resisting which is there condemned is resisting of him while doing his duty executing his office not while he is seaking to destroy Religion the interests of Christ. Nor the confession of other Churches for in the former confession of Helvetia upon that head of the civill Magistrate they say as it is in the English edition We know that though we be free we ought wholly in a true faith holily to submit ourselves to the Magistrate both with our body and with all our goods and endeavour of minde also to performe faithfulnesse and the oath which we made to him so far forth N. B. as his government is not evidently repugnant to him for whose sake we do reverence the Magistrate So the French in their confession Art 40. say 〈◊〉 must willingly suffer the yocke of subjection although the Magistrats be infidels so that N. B. the soveraigne Authority of God do remaine whole and entire and nothing diminished And which is worth the noticeing the practice of
Scotland in this is consonant to the profession of the Parliament Anno 1648. which did Act most for the King his interest preferring it to the interest of Christ who in their declaration Aprile 29. insert in their Registres Act 17. say That they resolve not to put in his Maj. hands or any others whatsoever any such power whereby the forsaid ends of the Covenant or any of them may be obstructed or opposed Religion or Presbyterian government endangered But on the contrary before any agreement or condition be made with his Maj. having found his late concessions offers concerning religion not satisfactory that he give assurance by his solemne oath under his hand seal that he shall for himself his Successours give his Royall assent agree to such act or acts of Parliament or bills as shall be presented to him by his Parliaments of both or either Kingdoms respectivè for enjoyning the League Covenant fully establishing presbyteriall government directory of worship confession of faith in all his Maj. Dominions And that his Maj. shall never make any opposition to any of these nor endeavour any change thereof What this Author sayeth more in the three last Pages of his pamphlet is but partly a repetition of what he said before so is answered partly obviated by the preceeding discourse SECTION XXIII The nationall Covenant vindicated from the exceptions of the author of the seasonable case caet HIs plea against the Solemne league Covenant being thus examined In the next place his exceptions against the nationall Covenant pag. 30 31. c. must be considered This Covenant is not abjured in the declaration simply in it self but as it was sworne explained in the year 1638. thereafter And so the maine ground whereupon this Covenant is cast off is because of that explication which was then added in which therewas mention made of some things which were referred unto the Generall assembly in these words forbearing the practice of all novations already introduced in the matters of the worshipe of God or approbation of the corruptions of the publick governement of the kirk or civil places or power of kirkmen till they be tryed allowed in free generall assemblies in parliaments And then after the generall assembly had examined these particulars explained the true sense meaning of the Covenant this conclusion was added The article of this Covenant which was at the first subscription referred to the determination of the generall Assembly being determined And thereby the five Articles of Perth the government of the Kirk by Bishops the civill place power of Kirk-men upon the reasons grounds contained in the Acts of the generall Assembly declared to be unlawfull within this Kirk we subscribe according to the determination foresaid Theforesaid pleader for Eaal when he is produceing his grounds against the validity of this oath pitcheth only upon one of these three particulars mentioned viz. the government of the Church by Bishops in reference to this he attempteth two things in his confused discourse 1. He would if he could prove that by this oath as it was at first conceived Anno 1580. 1581 renewed Anno 1590. the governement of the Church by Bishops was not abjured And 2. That the Assembly Anno 1638. did wrong in giving such a glosse sense as they did But he must be followed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lest any thing should escape first what he bringeth to prove that Prelacy was not abjured by this Covenant must be examined He sayeth That if the Ministers who reasoned with the Doctors of Abâ—…rdeen be to be beleeved they were the prime promotters of the Covenant carryed with them the sense of the body of the Covenanters they who subscribed that Covenant knight with great liberty voice in an Assembly concerning Episcopacy without prejudice notwithstanding their â—…ath upon this ground would perswade the Doctors to subscribe the Covenant because in so doing they should not be taken as abjureing Episcopacy as the Doctors thought And he referreth his reader unto their answer unto the 4. 10. demands Unto which it is Ans. 1. That this is but the old answere brought on the field againe for it was alledged by the Prelats in a pamphlet â—…n 1638. emitted under the name of his Maj. commissioner as most if not all which he here alledgeth is borrowed out of that pamphlet what answers were then given may now suffice Viz. That these Ministers who reasoned with the Doctors of Aberdeen denyed indeed that Episcopacy was expresly specifically abjured in the later part of the Covenant which was the addition containeing the application unto the present times But did never say that it was not abjured in the negative confession or nationall Covenant Now it was about that application addition that the debate arose betwixt these Ministers the Doctors The Doctors never refused to subscribe the negative confession as it was called or the Covenant drawne up Anno 1580 1581. for when the privy Councell did emit a declaration enjoyning all to take the Covenant as it was taken Anno 1580 1581 1590 1591. as others did not so neither would they have scrupled at the same But they alwayes refused to subscribe to that part which was added and one of the grounds why they did scruple at the subscribeing of that was this They thought that by that addition they should be bound expresly directly specifically to abjure Episcopacy the ceremonies of Perth which as they sayd they could not in conscience do Because then they should not have liberty to vote freely according to their judgments Concerning those things in the Generall Assembly And unto this the Ministers answered that the words of that addition were purposely so contrived as none might scruple upon that account And indeed as to Prelacy the words run thus that they should forbear the approbation of the corruptions of the publick Government of the Kirk And the reason was because there were severall honest well minded people in the land who could not distinctly clearly see that the ceremonies the Government of the Church by prelats were directly contrary to the confession of faith abjured therein But were waiting for light in those matters from the ensueing Generall assembly who they knew could give most clearnesse in the matter of fact And could best show what was the Government of the Church at that time when the nationall Covenant was first subscribed And also what was the meaning of the reformers as to severall particulars in that Covenant So then though it be true that by taking of the oath or swearing that additionall explication Anno 1638 No man was bound up from reasoning debateing nor from free voteing in the matter of prelacy in the nationall Assembly Yet it will not follow that prelacy was not abjured by the negative confession or nationall
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