grounded and having warrant of the word of God." And, which is more considerable, the parliament, anno 1648, did disclaim any such power of judging in church matof judging in church matters, and took it for an unjust challenge and charge to say that they took an antecedent judgment in matters 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 alleged 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 look upon themselves as an incompetent judge in matters of faith or religion primo instanti, or antecedently unto the decision and 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 council (which is a judicature inferior to the parliament by the fundamental laws of that land, having its original power and antiquity from the king's Majesty and the estates of parliament, and so is subordinate thereto, and ought to be accountable to, and censurable by them, according to the 12th act of parl. 2, King James IV: see for this, act 27, parl. 2, of King Charles I., 1640) may become judges whereof; and whether, seeing, by confession of parliament, they can be no less incompetent judges than the parliament itself, it can be truly treasonable to decline them. Though it were granted that that act of parliament, anno 1584, were no way weakened by the other act, anno 1592, which yet is expressly explicatory thereof, yet it could no ways be treasonable in him to decline the council as an incompetent judge to him in that case, because the act, anno 1584, is to be understood in such cases only in which they are proper judges. But it will be replied that the act maketh them 'judges competent to all persons spiritual or temporal in all matters wherein they, or any of them, shall be apprehended, summoned or charged." Ans. True, the act speaks so in the general, and yet it is well known that, notwithstanding thereof, any of his Majesty's subjects might decline them,

when cited for causes the cognition whereof did properly 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 ecclesiastic cannot be understood, because of that which the parliament, anno 1648, said. Parliaments know best what causes belong to their cognition: and what doth not belong to a parliament will never belong to a privy council. If it be replied again, that the meaning of the parliament, anno 1584, was to give the council power in church matters, because this act was devised of purpose to hinder ministers to protest against the king and his council, as they had done before,-Ans. That is true; but that will say nothing now when the parliament, anno 1648, hath declined to be judges in such matters, and parliaments can best expound their own laws and acts, and can best explain the extent of their own power, and, consequently, can best declare what causes those are of which the privy council is competent judge, and what not; and when they declare that themselves are not competent judges in matters of doctrine and religion, they do more than sufficiently declare that the privy council is not a competent judge in those matters. But for all this this worthy man must die, and 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 committee of estates, there was a proclamation, which they caused be read at all the church doors of the kingdom upon the Lord's day, in which they discharged ministers to speak or preach anything against them or their proceedings: and this was to command them to handle the word of the Lord deceitfully, to become false prophets, and to preach smooth things and to prophesy deceits,whereby the malicious and ill-affected people who did not love their ministers were encouraged to give in delations of such and such things as they thought good to allege against them, as uttered in their sermons,

and bring in any profane persons they pleased for witnesses. By which means 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 committee of estates and by the parliament, being imprisoned or confined, and otherwise hardly used, though little of what was alleged could be proved against them. Moreover, there was one minister, who, after the parliament had annulled the covenant, and passed many other acts against the work of reformation, thought himself bound in conscience to give faithful and free warning, and to show the greatness of the sin of backsliding and defection from the cause and truth of God, and to protest publicly, in a ministerial way, for his own exoneration, after the example of Samuel at the commandment of God, against the course of defection carried on, and all acts made in prejudice of the covenanted work of reformation: for which cause he was summoned before the parliament, and at length condemned of treason and sedition only upon that account, and thereafter wa banished out of all his Majesty's dominions. And if any say that ministers should have been silent, and not meddled with state affairs, let answers which the famous Dr Voetius giveth in his Polit. Eccles., p. 982, 983, &c., be considered, which are these: 1. It is the duty of ministers to give faithful warning unto people, Ezek. ii. 17, 22; 2. This was not to meddle with the polity, but with the abuse of it by men in power; 3. Rulers, no less than others, must be touched when they provoke God to wrath by their carriage, 1 Thess. v. 11; James v. 20; 1 Sam. xv. 14; Isa. lviii. 1; 4. Then they should never speak to a hundred places of Scripture which do speak so directly against magistrates abusing their power. See what he saith further to this purpose there, in answering the rest of the objections, and how he cleareth it from Acts vii. 51; Hos. ii. 1; Dan. iii., vi.; Acts iv., v., vi.; Hos. iv. 15; Jude 23.

About this same time there is another minister banished indicta causa; for while he was going towards Ireland upon some particular occasion, he was brought back by the command of the committee of estates, and committed to prison until the meeting of parliament, and then receiveth summons of treason, to which, when he had desired some time to answer, he is sent back to pri

son, and, when he expecteth to be called upon to give in his defences, he was sentenced with banishment out of his Majesty's dominions.

And, which is more to be wondered at, neither these two ministers, nor any other who were afterwards banished, as shall be shown, could ever to this day get an extract of their sentence, which no judicature in the world could ever have refused in equity and justice; yea, because the power of the parliament and council of Scotland could reach no further than their own bounds, and so could banish none any further than out of Scotland, they devise another way, and draw up a bond, wherein the subscriber bindeth himself, under the pain of death, to remove out of all his Majesty's dominions betwixt and such a day, and not to return without license, under the pain of death; and this bond they caused the banished ministers subscribe before witnesses; which they were all necessitated to do to save themselves from worse. Judge, reader, if this was not both cruel and unreasonable.

Among other acts of the first session of parliament, there is one for a solemn anniversary thanksgiving, wherein they statute and ordain, "That in all time coming the 29th day of May (which was the day of his Majesty's birth and restoration to his government) be set apart as a holiday unto the Lord, and that in all the churches of the kingdom it be employed in public prayers, preaching, thanksgiving, and praises to God, for so transcendant mercies, and that all trade, merchandise-work, hand-labour, and other ordinary employments, be forborne, and the remaining part of the day spent in such lawful divertisements as are suitable to so solemn an occasion." Unto which act many of the ministry did give obedience through fear, but others could not in conscience yield, not only because it is not in the power of any under heaven to appoint anniversary holidays, the Creator alone having reserved that power into his own hand, to consecrate any portion of time

he pleaseth, and make it holy, so as holy duties must attend it, as holy duties and acts of worship attend the Sabbath-day, the only holiday 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 thanksgiving, set some time apart for these duties of praying or rejoicing, but then the time doth attend the duties called for, and the duties do not attend the time, as they do the Lord's day,) but also because of the grounds and reasons of the solemnising of that day, which are contained in the narrative of the act, unto which no man who had not made shipwreck of faith and 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 estates of parliament of the kingdom of Scotland, taking to their consideration the sad condition, slavery and bondage this ancient kingdom hath groaned under during these twenty-three years' troubles, in which, under the specious pretences of reformation, a public rebellion hath been, by the treachery of some, and mispersuasions of others, violently carried on, against sacred authority, to the ruin and destruction, so far as was possible, of religion, the king's Majesty and his royal government, the laws, liberties, and property of the people, and all the public and private interests of the kingdom, so that religion itself hath been prostituted for the warrant of all these treasonable invasions made upon the royal authority, and disloyal limitations put upon the allegiance of the subjects," &c. By which, and what followeth, it may be obvious to all who read and consider the said act, that none could so much as preach on that day, or give any countenance to such a work, unless they would condemn all which had been done for twenty-three years' space in carrying on the work of reformation, as being the height of treachery and rebellion, designedly and purposely carried on under the specious pretexts of reformation; and what faithful minister durst adventure on that, to condemn king and parliament, church and state, and themselves, too, as traitors and rebels, unworthy to live any longer? Can any expect that ministers, before they be convinced of a fault, should be so rash and unadvised as to go to pulpits with ropes about their necks, and declare before all that they had been so long (and possibly all

their days, as to some young men) living a life of rebellion against the lawful magistrate, carrying on a course of rebellion, to the ruin of religion, king and kingdom? 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 compliance? Neither let any say that it was out of disrespect to his Majesty that any minister did refuse to countenance the work of that day, for all of them did willingly keep a day of solemn thanksgiving at his coming home, and presbyteries and synods did cheerfully appoint days for that effect. That which the famous and learned Voetius observeth concerning such days in his Polit., p. ult., namely, That it may come to pass that the time when such an anniversary day should be kept may be a time when God calleth for fasting and mourning, then such may look for that woe (Isa. xxii. 12, 13), as rejoice when they should mourn," is considerable; and whether it was a fit season then to rejoice or not, let the reader judge, when he considereth that, upon the Monday before that anniversary day, the famous Marquis of Argyle was executed, and, upon the Saturday thereafter, faithful Mr Guthrie was put to death. And that also which he saith against ministers keeping a sinful fast, p. 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 and evasions, to reconcile themselves unto the public laws, resolved, with the primitive Christians, to hazard their reputation of loyalty (as Stillingfleet showeth in his Origines Sacræ, p. 321) rather than to countenance such impiety.

SECTION VIII.

THE GROUNDS WHY MINISTERS REFUSED TO GO TO THE PRELATES' COURTS CLEARED.

A little after his Majesty's return, he was pleased to write unto the presbytery of Edinburgh (who were to communicate it unto the rest of the presbyteries of the kingdom) a gracious letter, as it was called, wherein he promised to own and countenance the government of the church as it was

established by law, whereby many took him to mean presbyterian government; but others feared a design to overturn presbyterian government, and to introduce Prelacy (as afterward it came to pass); and when the parliament did rescind all acts and statutes made in favour of presbyterian government, and did devolve the power of settling the government of the church upon his Majesty, they did, by their 16th act, allow the present administration by sessions, presbyteries and synods, for a time; but at length Mr James Sharp (a man who had formerly been intrusted by several of the ministry, and confided in as one who would prove most faithful unto the presbyterian interest, but now had betrayed his most intimate brethren, and laid down a course for overturning his mother church, and thereby declared that he was a most unnatural child of that church), and other three ministers with him, went up to London, where, first being made and ordained deacons, and after that presbyters, they are consecrated bishops upon the day of

1661; and, withal, there is a proclamation from his Majesty, of the date, at Whitehall, the 6th of September, 1661, declaring "his royal pleasure to be for restoring of the government of the church by archbishops and bishops, as it was exercised in the year 1637; and that he had nominated and presented persons to the several bishoprics of the kingdom of Scotland of whom some have been lately consecrated and invested with the same dignities, church power and authority, which was formerly competent to the archbishops and bishops in the reigns of his royal grandfather and father, of blessed memory, and that the allowance of presbyterial 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 their respective synods, presbyteries, and sessions, by the appointment and authority of the archbishops and bishops according to their privilege and practice." In obedience to which proclamation, the privy council, Jan. 9, 1662, did make public "intimation thereof, and discharge all ecclesiastical meetings in synods, presbyteries and sessions, until they be authorised and ordered by the archbishops and bishops, upon their entry unto the government of their respective sees, which is to be done speedily." Whereupon, at the time of the meeting of the pro

vincial synods, noblemen and others were sent to raise them by force.

But, thereafter, when these four return from London, and consecrate the rest, there were acts made in the second session of parliament, namely, 1662, "redintegrating them to the exercise of their episcopal function, and to all their privileges, dignities, jurisdictions, and possessions due and formerly belonging thereunto;" as also there is an act "ordaining all ministers to repair unto the diocesan assembly, and concur in all the acts of church discipline as they should be thereunto required by the archbishops or bishops of the diocese, under the pain of being suspended from their office and benefice till the next diocesan meeting, for the first fault, and, if they amended not, to be deprived, and the church to be declared vacant." But, notwithstanding of this act, all such ministers as were resolved to keep a good conscience, did forbear to go unto these meetings, or unto the other meetings which they call exercises, in which meetings the prelate, and such as he named, did not only preside, but ruled as they pleased,—not only because the privileges of the judicatories were encroached upon and wronged by the prelate presiding at his own hand, without the consent of the rest, contrary to the constant practice of that church, and because a constituent member of these judicatures, namely, the ruling elder, was excluded, contrary to the principles of presbyterian government, the practice of that church from the beginning, the practice of all other reformed churches, and of the primitive church, and 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 than those three mentioned by the author of The Seasonable Case, p. 11, as of another judgment), but also because these meetings now differ from the meetings and judicatories which the church had before, not only in name (they being now called diocesan meetings, and not synods and presbyteries), but also in thing. The former judicatories are razed and overturned, and these new meetings are erected upon a new basis, the king's power and prerogative to settle what form of church government he thinketh best; and they are now authorised and ordered by the prelates, and so they are pieces and

H

parts of the prelatical government, and therefore they are distinct from what they were before; so that no minister that made conscience of his covenant and vow for presbyterian government, and against prelatical, could, with peace and freedom, keep or countenance these meetings.

It is replied by the prelates' procurator, the new Casuist, in his pamphlet called The Seasonable Case, &c., p. 12, "That the meetings, now and before, are of the same constitution, nothing altered, nor any more. holding of bishops, now when the king's Majesty hath taken off the restraint which for a time he put on, than if he had not at all restrained them." But this is no satisfactory answer. His mere denial will not avail much with indifferent men of understanding; for the difference is clear, because, 1. Formerly church judicatories had power within themselves to nominate and appoint their own moderator; now it is not so. 2. Formerly church judicatories and church power did flow from the Lord Jesus Christ immediately, as being the only head of his church; now they flow from another fountain, namely, the king as the fountain of of all church power, and therefore is the government called "his Majesty's government ecclesiastical" in the act of council, July 10, 1663; and the prelates, in the discharge of their office, are said to do "service to his Majesty in the church," in the act of council, January 9, 1662. 3. Formerly church judicatories did meddle with every scandal'; now they must meddle with no more than the prelate pleaseth. 4. Formerly presbyteries had power to voice and to determine by their decisive suffrage; now they are but the prelate's counsellors, of whose council and advice he maketh what use he thinketh fit. 5. Formerly there was none, in those judicatories, who had a negative voice; now the bishop hath it, and the rest are but ciphers. 6. Formerly, in these judicatories, there were ruling elders, but now that constituent member is not admitted, which particular alone will sufficiently evidence that the face and 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 the king and upon the prelate, who hath a negative voice in them, and whose diocesan meetings they are, being now modelled conform to the number of prelates, while as before, in some dioceses,

there were three provincial synods. Moreover, the passage which was cited before out of the proclamation, January 15, 1662, cleareth this abundantly; for there it is said expressly, that the administration of the church, in the way it had been (that is, the administration of presbyterian government), is inconsistent with that which is now established, or episcopal government; and the council is better to be believed than this man who speaketh without ground. Again, why did king and council discharge those meetings? but because they were making way for the settling of episcopacy. And, finally, why is the jurisdiction and exercise of church discipline, which was allowed for a time, set in opposition (to the jurisdiction and exercise of church government ordered in the respective synods, presbyteries and sessions, by the appointment and authority of the archbishops and bishops thereof, according to their known privilege and practice conform thereto), if not to clear this differ

ence?

He objecteth, p. 8, and saith, "That the supreme magistrate hath undoubted power to convocate synods when he seeth it needful-and no Protestant minister would refuse to come at his command; nor is there any rank or degree of subjects that can, without the stain of sinful disobedience, refuse to meet upon his Majesty's command, and ministers cannot plead exemption from the common duties of subjects." It is answered, 1. It is true ministers are subjects no less than others, and are obliged, in conscience, to subject themselves unto the civil magistrate, in the Lord, no less than others; but, 2. Neither ministers nor others are bound, at the magistrate's command, to sin against God, it being always better to obey God than man; and here, in obeying this command, ministers should have heinously sinned against God; for, 1. They should have thereby acknowledged, upon the matter, that the magistrate's power, in church matters, is such, as that he may appoint what form of government he will, which no Presbyterian in conscience could yield to, without wronging of Christ, the head and king of his church, as shall in due time be made further to appear. 2. They should have thereby testified and acknowledged their approbation of episcopal government, contrary to their oath and subscription; for this was pressed as a badge of conformity and sign of subjection unto episcopal go