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
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
objections how he cleareth it from Act. 7 51. Hos. 2 1. Dan. 3. 6. Act. 4. 5. 6. Hos. 4. 15. Iud. v. 23. About this same time there is another minister banished indictâ causà for while he was going towards Irland upon some particular occasion he was brought back By the command of the committee of Estates committed to prisone untill the meeting of Parliament then receiveth summones of treason to which when he had desired some time to answere he is sent back to prisone when he expecteth to be called upon to give in his defences he was sentenced with banishment out of his Maj. dominions And which is more to be wondered at Neither these two ministers nor any other who were afterward banished as shall be showne could ever to this day get an extract of their sentence which no judicature in the world could ever have refuised in equity justice yea because the power of the Parliament Councell of Scotland could reach no furder then their own bounds so could banish none any further then out of Scotland they devise another way draw up a bonde where in the subscriber bindeth himself under the paine of death to remove out of all his Maj. dominions betwixt such a day not to returne without license under the paine of death this bond they caused the banished ministers subcribe before witnesses which they were all necessitated to do to save themselves from worse Judge reader if this was not both cruell unreasonable SECTION VII Concerning their sufferings who refuised to observe the Anniversary Day AMong other Acts of the first Session of Parliament there is one for a solemne anniversary thankesgiving wherein they statute ordaine That in all time coming the twenty ninth day of May which was the day of â—…his Maj. birth restauration to his government be set a pairt as a holy Day unto the Lord that in all the Churches of the Kingdome it be imployed in publick prayers preaching thankesgiving praises to God for so transcendent mercies that all trade merchandise work handy-labour other ordinary imployments be forborne the remaineing part of the day spent in such lawful divertishments as are suiteable to so solemne an occasion Unto which Act many of the ministry did give obedience out of fear But others could not in conscience yeeld thereunto not only because it is not in the power of any under heaven to appoint anniversary holy Dayes the Creator alone having reserved that power into his own hand to consecrate any portion of time he pleaseth make it holy So as holy duties must attend it as holy duties acts of worship attend the Sabboth-day the only holy Day which is now warranted by the Word of God It is true the Church may when God by his providence is calling to mourning to fasting or to thankesgiving set some time a pairt for these duties of praying or rejoiceing but then the time doth attend the dutyes called for the duties doe not attend the time as they do the Lord's Day But also because of the grounds reasons of the solemnizeing of that Day which are contained in the narrative of the act unto which no man who had not made shipewrak of faith of a good conscience could consent as every one may see who will but ponder the Act a part whereof to give but a taste of the whole followeth The â—…states of Parliament of the Kingdome of Scotland taking to their câ—…sideration the sad condition slaverie bondage this ancient Kingdome hath groaned under durcing these twenty three years troubles in which under the specious pretences of reformation a publick rebellion hath bâ—…en by the treachery of some mispersuasion of others violently carryed on against sacred authority to the ruine destruction so far as was possible of Religion the Kings Maj. his Royal Government the laâ—…es liberties property of the people all the publick private interests of the Kingdome So that Religion it self hath been prostitute for the warrand of all these treasonable invasions made upon the Royall Authority And disloyal limitations put upon the alleagiance of the subjects c. By which what followeth it may be obvious to all who read consider the said Act. That none could so much as preach on that day or give any countenance to such a work unlesse they would condemne all which had been done for twenty three yeers space in carrying on of the work of Reformation as being the height of treachery rebellion designedly purposely carryed on under the specious pretexts of Reformation And what faithfull Minister durst adventure on that to condemne King Parliaments Church State themselves too as treatours rebells unworthy to live any longer Can any expect that Ministers before they be convinced of a fault should be so rash unadvised as to goe to pulpites with ropes about their necks declare before all that they had been so long possibly all their dayes as to some young men living a life of rebellion against the lawfull Magistrat carrying on a course of â—…rebellion to the ruine of Religion King Kingdome And can it be expected in reason that such as refused to countenance that day should be condemned by any who shall but seriously consider what are the consequences of such a complyance Neither let any say that it was out of disrespect to his Maj. that any Minister did refuise to countenance the work of that day For all of them did willingly keep a day of solemne thankesgiving at his coming home And Presbyteries Synods did chearfully appoynt dayes for that effect That which the famous learned Voetius observeth concerning such dayes in his Polit. Pag. ult viz. That it may come to passe that the time when such an anniversary day should be keeped may be a time when God calleth for fasting mourning then such may look for that woe Isa. 22 12 13. As rojoyce when they should mourne is considerable whether it was a fit season then to rejoyce or not let the Reader judge when he considereth that upon the Monday before that anniversary day the famous Marquis of Argile was executed upon the Saterday thereafter Faithfull Mr Guthry was put to death And that also which he sayeth against Ministers keeping a sinfull fast Pag. 993. Holdeth good here for Ministers were clear that this was against the common cause of God And therefore many who could not satisfy themselves with some fine distinctions evasions to reconcile themselves unto the publick lawes resolved with the primitive Christians to hazard their reputation of loyalty as Stillingslcet sheweth in his Origines Sacra Pag. 321. rather then to countenance such impiety SECTION VIII The grounds why Ministers did resuise to goe to the Prelats Courts cleared A Little after his Maj. returne he was pleased to write unto the Presbytery of
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
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