II. PART he keeps the first Table, by assisting them. They reform the abuses of the first Table by ordinary right; of the second Table extraordinarily he reforms the abuses against the second Table by ordinary right; and the abuses against the first Table extraordinarily. But can the magistrate, according to their learning, call the 499 synod to an account for any thing they do? Can he remedy the errors of a synod either in doctrine or discipline? No. If magistrates had power "to change, or diminish, or restrain the rights of the Church, . . the condition of the Church should be worse, and their liberties less, under a Christian magistrate than under a heathen";" for (say they) "Parliaments and supreme senates are no more infallible than synods, and in matters of faith and discipline more apt to err" and again, "The magistrate is not judge of spiritual causes controverted in the Church; and if he decree any thing in such businesses, according to the wisdom of the flesh, and not according to the rule of God's Word, and the wisdom which is from above, he must give an account of it unto Gody." Or may the supreme magistrate oppose the execution of their discipline practised in their presbyteries, or synods, by laws or prohibitions? No; it is wickedness; "if he do so far abuse his authority, good Christians must rather suffer extremities than obey him"." Then what remedy hath the magistrate, if he find himself grieved in this case? "He may desire and procure a review in another national synod, that the matter may be lawfully determined by ecclesiastical judgmenta;" yet upon this condition, that "notwithstanding the future review, the first sentence of the synod be executed without delay"." This is one main branch of Popery, and a gross encroachment upon the right of the magistrate. DISCOURSE CHAP. III. THAT THIS DISCIPLINE ROBS THE MAGISTRATE OF THE LAST APPEAL OF HIS SUBJECTS. I. ii. The second flows from this. The last appeal ought to be to the supreme magistrate, or magistrates, within his or their dominions, as to the highest power under God. And where it is not so ordered, the commonwealth can enjoy no tranquillity; as we shall see in the second part of this Discourse. By the laws of England, if any man find himself grieved with the sentence or consistorial proceedings of a Bishop, or of his officers, he may appeal from the highest judicatory of the Church to the king in Chancery, who useth in that case to grant commissions under the Great Seal, to delegates expert in the laws of the realm, who have power to give him remedy and to see justice done. In Scotland this would be taken in great scorn, as a high indignity put upon the commissioners of Christ, to appeal from His tribunal to the judgment of a mortal man. In the year 1582, King James, [A.D.] 1582 by his letter, by his messenger, the Master of Requests, and by a herald at arms, prohibited the assembly at St. Andrew's to proceed in the case of one Montgomery, and Montgomery himself appealed to Cæsar, or to king and council. What [Acts xxv. did our new masters upon this? They slighted the king's letter, his messenger, his herald; rejected the appeal, as “made to an incompetent judge;" and proceeded most violently in the caused. About four years after this, another synod held at [A.D. 1586] St. Andrew's, proceeded in like manner against the Bishop of that see, for voting in Parliament according to his conscience, and for being suspected to have penned a declaration, published by the king and Parliament at the end of the statutes, notwithstanding that he declined their judicature, and appealed to the king and Parliament. When did any Bishops dare to do such acts? There need no more instances; their Book of Discipline itself being so full in the [25 Hen. VIII. c. 19. See Gibson, Codex, tit. xlv. c. 6; and Just Vindication, c. iv.; above in vol. i. p. 144.] d Assemb. St. Andrew's, 1582. [Spottisw., bk. vi. pp. 318, 319. M'Crie. Life of Melville, vol. i. p. 268; e Assemb. St. Andrew's, 1586. [in 11.] PART case; from the Kirk there is no "reclamation, or appellation, to any judge, civil or ecclesiastical, within the realm f." II. [Impunity claimed by Scottish narians for the pulpit, even in cases of treason.] CHAP. IV. THAT IT EXEMPTS THE MINISTERS FROM DUE PUNISHMENT. I. iii. THIRDLY, if ecclesiastic persons, in their pulpits or assemblies, shall leave their text and proper work to turn Discipli incendiaries, trumpeters of sedition, stirring up the people to tumults and disloyal attempts, in all well ordered kingdoms and commonwealths they are punishable by the civil magistrate, whose proper office it is to take cognizance of treason and sedition. It was well said by a king of France to some such seditious Shebas, that if they would not let him alone in their pulpits, he would send them to preach in another climates. In the United Provinces there want not examples of seditious orators, who, for controlling their magistrates too saucily in the pulpit, have been turned both out of their churches and cities, without any fear of wresting Christ's sceptre out of His hand. In Geneva itself, the correction of ecclesiastical persons (qua tales) is expressly reserved to the Signiory. So much our Disciplinarians have out-done their pattern, as the passionate writings of heady men out-do the calmer decrees of a staid senate. But the ministers of Scotland have exempted themselves in this case from all secular judgment, as King James (who knew them best of any man living) witnesseth. They said, he was an "incompetent judge" in such cases, and that "matters of the pulpit ought to be exempted from the judgment and correction of princes." They themselves speak plain enough:-it is "an absurd thing," that "sundry of them" (commissaries), "having no function of the Kirk, should be judges to ministers, and depose them from their rooms." The reason holds as well against magistrates as Second Bk. of Disc., chap. 12. [p. 97.] [See below p. 300.] [See Brandt's Hist. of the Reform. in Low Countries, passim.] i Ordonn. Eccl. p. 14. ["Ainsi que le dernier jugement de la correction soit tousjours reservé à la seigneurie."] Declarat. 1584. [Decl. of Kg. James made in Scotl. Anno Dom. 1584, concerning Ch. Governm., pp. 2, 3, as reprinted in 1646.] k Second Bk. of Disc., c. 11. [p. 95.] 500 Gibson, commissaries. To pass by the saucy and seditious expressions DISCOURSE of Mr. Dury', Mr. Melvil", Mr. Ballcanquell", and their impunity :-Mr. James Gibson in his sermon taxed the king [Mr. James for a "persecutor," and threatened him with a curse, that he A.D. should "die childless, and be the last of his race;" for which, 1587 ] being convented before the assembly, and not appearing, he was only suspended during the pleasure of his brethren (he should have been suspended indeed, that is, hanged); but at another assembly, in August following, upon his allegation, that his not appearing was out of his tender care of the rights of the Church, he was purged from his contumacy, without once so much as acquainting his Majesty°. A. D. 1596. The case is famous of Mr. David Blake, Minister of Master DaSt. Andrew's; who had said in his sermon, that the king had vid Blake, discovered the "treachery of his heart," in admitting the Popish lords into the country; that all kings were "the Devil's bairns ;" that "the Devil was in the Court, and in the guiders of it ;" and in his prayer for the Queen, he used these words, "we must pray for her for fashion's sake, but we have no cause, she will never do us any good." He said, that "the Queen of England" (Queen Elizabeth) was "an atheist;" that the Lords of the Session were "miscreants and bribers;" that the nobility were "degenerated, godless, dissemblers, and enemies to the Church;" that the Council were "holliglasses, cormorants, and men of no religion'." I appeal to all the estates in Europe, what punishment could be severe enough for such audacious virulence? The English ambassador complains of it. Blake is cited before the Council. The commissioners of the Church plead, that "it will be ill taken, to bring ministers in question upon such trifling delations," as inconsistent with the liberties of the Church. They "conclude, that a declinator should be used and a protestation made against those proceedings," saying it was "God's cause, wherein they ought to stand to all hazards." II. PART Accordingly a declinator was framed and presented. Blake desires to be remitted to the presbytery, as his ordinary. The commissioners send the copy of the declinator to all the presbyteries, requiring them, for the greater corroboration of their doings, to subscribe the same, and to commend the cause in hand in their private and public prayers to God, using their best credit with their flocks for the maintenance thereof. The king, justly incensed herewith, dischargeth the meeting of the commissioners. Notwithstanding this in-501 junction they stay still, and send delegates to the king, to represent the inconveniences that might ensue. The king, more desirous to decline their envy than they his judgment, offers peace. The commissioners refuse it, and present an insolent petition, which the king rejects deservedly, and the cause was heard the very day that the Princess Elizabeth (now Queen of Bohemia) was christened. The witnesses were produced. Mr. Robert Pont in the name of the Church makes a protestation. Blake presents a second declinator. The Council decree, that the cause, being treasonable, is cognoscible before them. The good king still seeks peace, sends messengers, treats, offers to remit. But it is labour in vain. The ministers answer peremptorily by Mr. Robert Bruce their Prolocutor, that "the liberty of Christ's kingdom had received such a wound by this usurpation of the rights of the Church, that if the lives of Mr. Blake and twenty others had been taken, it would not have grieved the hearts of good people so much, as these injurious proceedings." The king still wooes and confers. At last the matter is concluded, that the king shall make a declaration in favour of the Church, that Mr. Blake shall only make an acknowledgment to the Queen and be pardoned. But Mr. Blake refuseth to confess any fault, or to acknowledge the king and Council to be any judges of his sermon. Hereupon he is convicted, and sentenced to be guilty of false and treasonable slanders,' and his punishment referred to the king. Still the king treats, and makes propositions unbeseeming his majesty, once or twice. The ministers reject them, proclaim a fast, raise a tumult in Edinburgh, petition, prefer articles. The king departeth from the city, removeth his courts of justice. The people repent. The ministers persist, and seek to engage |