[A1661/1/69]*[print] [email] [cite] [preceding] [following]
First, the commissioners of the general assembly in their solemn and seasonable warning of 19 December 1646, printed at Edinburgh, page 4 have these words: 'So long as his majesty does not approve in his heart and seal with his hand the league and covenant, we cannot but apprehend that, according to his former principals, he will walk in opposition to the same and study to draw us to the violations thereof'.
Secondly, the kirk of Scotland did before the treaty with the king in many of their public declarations and papers hold forth that the king's interest was subordinate to the interest of God and of religion, and that it was a sin to prefer the king's interest to the interest of God and religion. And therefore we find this subordination held forth and engaged to both in the National Covenant and in the Solemn League and Covenant, which does oblige us to mention and defend the king's person and authority in the defence and preservation of true religion and liberties of the kingdoms. Upon which consideration, the commissioners of the general assembly in their humble representation to the honourable estates of parliament of 28 April 1648 printed etc. do take notice of a new interpretation of the declaration of the parliament puts upon this article of the Solemn League and Covenant and tells their lordships that no such interpretation has been made by the assemblies of the kirk of the Solemn League and Covenant as their lordships are pleased there to make of it.
The commissioners of the general assembly in their printed declaration at Edinburgh, 1 March 1648 do declare that although in the covenant the duty of defending and preserving the king's majesty, his person and authority be joined with and subordinate to the duty of preserving and defending the true religion and liberties of the kingdoms, and that although from the beginning of this cause the good safety and security of religion have been principally sought after and insisted upon, yet solicitations, persuasions and endeavours have not been nor are wanting for his majesty's restitution to the exercise of his royal power and for espousing his majesty's quarrel, notwithstanding his not granting of the public desires concerning the covenant and religions. And this course is clearly contrary say they to the declared resolution of the parliament of this kingdoms, after advice desired from us upon the case concerning the king then proposed to us, and it is no less contrary (say they) to the principals and professions of the convention and of the committee of estates before any such advice was desired or had from us.
The commissioners of the general assembly in the year 1650 in their answer to the estates' observations upon the assembly's declaration printed speak thus, page 23: 'Concerning the subordination to the civil power to the good of religion it is granted by their Lord and that is is a great sin in kings to do otherwise, but that if kings fail in religion the subjects are notwithstanding tied to obedience in things lawful, we conceive that it will not be denied (say the commissioners) that subjects are also straitly tied to a subordination of all to God, as the king is. Does not the word oblige all men whether king or subjects to prefer the glory of God and the good of religion to all things, to seek it in the first place, to postpone it to nothing whatsoever?' And again, page 28 of the same answer: 'We are sorry (say they) to see other interests still so carefully provided for and so little security for religion, which indeed was the main and principal cause of our engagement in the late wars'. The declaration also of the general assembly in the year 1648 printed speaks thus: 'Whereas the duty of the defence of his majesty's person and authority is by the third article of the covenant qualified with and subordinate to the preservation and defence of the true religion and liberties, there is no such qualification nor subordination asserted in the present engagement but is so carried on as to make duties to God and for religion conditional, qualified and limited and duties to the king absolute and unlimited'. And again in the same declaration: 'Malignancy is revived in spreading of specious pretences of vindicating wrongs done to his majesty, we define not to be mistaken as if respect and love to his majesty were to be branded with the infamous mark of malignancy, but we warn all who would not come under this foul stain not only in that speech and profession but really in their whole carriage not to own nor prefer their own nor the interests of any creator whatsoever before the interests of Christ and religion'.
The representation also of the commissioners of the general assembly of 28 April 1648, page 4, printed, speaks thus: 'Your lords are obliged by the third article of the covenant to defend his majesty's person and authority in the defence and preservation of the true religion and liberties of the kingdom; we suppose your lords should not demand from nor press upon the kingdoms of England his majesty's restitution except with that qualification in the covenant and with subordination to religion and the liberties of the kingdom; and how can this subordination according to the covenant be said to be observed in your lords' demand as it stands for if his majesty be brought with honour, freedom and safety etc. without security for establishing of religion and peace. We then leave it to your lords' consciences whether his majesty shall not be restored to his honour before Jesus Christ, be tailored to his honour and set upon his throne of government before Jesus Christ, be set upon his throne of government of his church, and his majesty put in a condition of liberty before the ordinances of Christ, have a free course and whether his majesty's safety shall not be provided for and secured before either church or kingdoms can say that they are in a condition of safety; and is this to endeavour the settling of religion before all worldly interests or rather to come after the king's interest'.
The same representation in the 26th page speaks thus: 'We only put your lords in mind that the National Covenant does join with his majesty's safety and his good behaviour in his office, saying that the quietness and stability of our religion and kirk does depend upon the safety and good behaviour of his majesty as upon a comfortable instrument of God's mercy granted to this country for the maintenance of this kirk and administration of justice; otherwise if a king does not do his duty for the maintenance of true religion and the administration of justice, it is not his safety alone that makes the people to be in quietness and happiness with all; as our quietness and happiness depends on his majesty and his doing of his duty as an instrument and minister of God for good, so the honour, greatness and happiness of the king's royal majesty and the welfare of his subjects does depend upon the purity of religion as is well expressed in your lords' oath of parliament'.
In the printed answer of the commission to the estates' observations on the assembly's declaration, August 1648, page 19, are these words: 'Their lords entreat doing duties to his majesty, namely: his restoring to honour, freedom and safety, notwithstanding of the fear of any bad consequence. How much more ought we to do duties to God, namely, to see to the security of religion before his majesty's restitution, whatever danger or bad consequence?'
In the declaration of the general assembly to England in the year 1648, printed, are these words: 'We are not against the restoring of his majesty to the exercise of his power in a right and orderly way, but considering the great expenses of blood and pains this kingdom has been at for maintaining their just liberties and bringing the work of reformation this length, and considering his majesty's averseness from the reformation and his adhering to episcopacy, we trust that security shall yet be demanded for religion etc'.
And which is yet more considerable, not only is it acknowledged to be a sin in the solemn acknowledgement of public sins and breaches of the covenant condescended upon by the commissioners of the general assembly and approved by the committee of estates in October 1648, afterwards by the parliament, and solemnly kept with a day or two of solemn public humiliation by all the ministers and congregations of the land, that some amongst ourselves have laboured to put into the hands of our king an arbitrary and unlimited power, and that under a pretence of relieving and doing for the king whilst he refuses to do what is necessary for the house of God, some have overthrown and violated most of all the articles of the covenant, but also in the solemn engagement to duties condescended upon by the commissioners of the general assembly and approved by the committee of estates and parliament and solemnly sworn by the whole land at the time of the renewing of the covenant, we are all of us solemnly obliged in the first article of that engagement: that because religion is of all things the most excellent and precious, the advancing and promoting the power thereof against all ungodliness and profanity, the securing and preserving the purity thereof against all error, heresy and schism and carrying on the work of uniformity shall be studied and endeavoured by us before all worldly interests, whether concerning the king, ourselves or any other whatsoever.
Secondly, there are many things to be found in the public papers of the kirk of Scotland arguing the sinfulness of restoring the king to the exercise of his royal power whilst continuing in known opposition to the work of reformation, or before necessary security given for religion from the great end and duty of magistracy itself from the mutual covenants and contracts between the king and his people from the oath of coronation, which is ratified by act of parliament and is to be taken by all the kings that reign over this realm at the time of their coronation and receipt of their princely authority, whereby they are obliged to be of one perfect religion or to serve the same eternal God to the utmost of their power according as he has required in his most holy word; and to maintain the true religions of Jesus Christ, the preaching of his holy word and the due and right administration of the sacraments now received and preached within this realm; and that they shall abolish and withstand all false religion contrary to the same and from the danger of arbitrary and unlimited power and sundry other grounds and reasons of that kind which would be tedious to repeat, with the passages of the public papers wherein they are mentioned thereof, passing other papers emitted by the kirk concerning these things we do only refer to the printed declaration of the general assembly of 1649 in which we will find a brief summary of the arguments and reasons that are more largely scattered in former papers to this purpose, with a conclusion drawn from there concerning the sinfulness of admitting the king to the exercise of his royal power before the obtaining of real security for religion; which security could not be obtained, he continuing in his former known opposition to the work of reformation, which declaration in so far as concerns this business is repeated in the book of the causes of wrath in the enlargement of the fifth step of the ninth article.
In the third place it is to be remembered what the commissioners of the general assembly in the years 1649 and 1650 do hold forth in their instructions and letters relating to the treaty with the king concerning this purpose: firstly, in their instructions of 1649 they do require their commissioners effectually and seriously to represent to the king's majesty the evil counsels and designs of the popish, prelatical and malignant party; and to labour to persuade him to forsake their counsels and courses and to cleave to those who would be faithful to God and to his majesty. And in their instructions of 1650 they are instructed to desire him to take course that his council and family may consist only of such as are of known integrity and affections to the cause of God and of a blameless and Christian conversation, which they say there is the more reason to urge because most of the evils that have afflicted the king's house and his people have issued in a special way from the king's council and family, their disaffection and looseness.
The commissioners of the general assembly, upon report of closing of the treaties with the king at Breda in the year 1650 by an express sent from there for that effect, they do in a large letter written to their commissioners of the date May 20 1650 profess their dissatisfaction therewith, in which letter are these passages: 'We cannot (say they) but profess ourselves to be exceedingly unsatisfied with his majesty's concessions as coming short of many of the material and important desires of this kirk and kingdom concerning the security of religion and the peace of the kingdom'. And in another place of that letter: 'Albeit (say they) we conceive ourselves bound with all cordial affection heartily to invite and welcome his majesty upon complete satisfaction to the desires of kirk and kingdom, yet it is matter of stumbling to us that he should not only have been invited without such satisfaction so far as we could determine, but that assurances are also given to him in matters of great importance not yet determined by the parliament of this kingdom or general assembly or commissioners of this kirk'. And again in the same letter: 'As we earnestly pray for and desire to endeavour a sound agreement with his majesty, so we conceive ourselves bound to discover and avoid the evil of such an agreement as will prove dangerous and destructive to the work of God in our hands, and therefore as we are confident that you will not be short in any duty that you owe as the king or that may procure a right understanding or happy settling between his majesty and this kirk and kingdoms, so we also persuade ourselves that you will take head of snares and determine well of the counsels of all those who have been involved in the late defection and are not yet convinced of nor humbled for the offence given thereby'.
The commissioners of the general assembly did at the same time send this particular instruction to their commissioners at Breda: 'You shall not fail for preventing and removing of all questions and doubts anent the king's oath to declare by a paper to his majesty that it does not only import his allowance and approbation of the National Covenant and of the Solemn League and Covenant to his subjects, but also that his own swearing and subscribing the same; and in the words subjoined thereto signifies his allowance and approbation of all the heads and articles thereof in his own particular judgement and his engagement to every one of them as much as the oath of any of the subjects thereto imports their approbation and engagement'.
By these things we hope it is manifest and clear that the kirk of Scotland did require in the king a discontinuing from his former opposition to the work of reformation before admitting him to the exercise of his royal power as a thing necessary for the security of religion, and that they judged it not duty but sin to do otherwise.
Fourthly, we shall show this to have been the common received doctrine and public judgement of the kirk of Scotland after the treaty with the king or after the king's home-coming into Scotland which appears first from the printed declaration of the commissioners of the general assembly of 13 August 1650, which speaks in this manner: 'The commission of the general assembly, considering that there may be just ground of stumbling from the king's majesty's refusal to subscribe and emit the declaration offered to him by the committee of estates and commissioners of the general assembly concerning his former carriage and his resolution for the future in reference to the cause of God; and the enemies and friends thereof, do therefore declare that this kirk and kingdoms do not own nor espouse any malignant quarrel or interest, but that they fight merely upon their former grounds and principals, and in defence of the cause of God and of the kingdom, as they have done these 12 years past; and therefore as they disclaim all the sin and guilt of his house, so they would not own him nor his interest otherwise than with subordination to God and so far as he owns and prosecutes the cause of God and the covenant, and likewise all the enemies and friends thereof'. Secondly, it appears from the causes of the fast at Stirling condescended upon first by the presbytery with the army and afterwards approved by the commissioners of the general assembly at Stirling a little after the defeat at Dunbar, in which it is asserted that: 'We ought to mourn for the manifold provocations of the king's house which we fear are not thoroughly repented of nor forsaken by him to this day, together with the crooked and precipitant wages that were taken by sundry of our statesmen for carrying on the treaty with the king'. Secondly, the commissioners of the general assembly in a remonstrance of theirs to the estates of the date at Perth, 29 November 1650 do exhort that they would: 'Seriously lay to heart any sin or guiltiness through sinful precipitancy and unstraight designs or carnal policy in appointing addresses for treating with the king and in the way of carrying on and closing the same; and what upon serious search you shall find, your lords may give glory to God in an ingenuous confession and acknowledgement thereof and sincere humiliation before him for the same'. Thirdly, the causes of the fast at Perth condescended upon by the commissioners of the general assembly for the king and his family on 26 December 1650, in which causes, besides what relates to the king, his royal father and his royal grandfather, are these things relating to the king himself: the present king's entering to tread the same steps by closing a treaty with the popish Irish rebels who had shed so much blood, and granting them not only their personal liberty, but also the free exercise of the popish religion so that he might use them against his Protestant subjects. Secondly, by commissioning [...] James Graham, [earl of Montrose] again to invade this kingdom which was striving to be faithful to the cause and to his majesty and to give commissions for sundry at sea and land for that end. Thirdly, by his refusing for a time the just satisfaction which was desired by this church and kingdom. Fourthly, his entertaining private correspondence with malignants and enemies to the cause contrary to the covenant, whereupon he was drawn at last to a public and scandalous deferring of the public judicatories of this kingdom so contrary to the treaty, his oath, declarations and confessions, whereupon followed many offences and inconveniences, and to join with malignants and perverse men who were by his warrant encouraged to take arms at such a time to the hazarding of the cause, fostering of jealousies and the disturbing of the peace of this kingdom. These things say the commissioners of the general assembly in these causes of humiliation being sensibly laid out before the Lord, he is with fervent prayers to be entreated to do away with the controversies he has against the king or his house for these transgressions, and that he may be graciously pleased to bless the king's person and government. These causes of fast at Stirling and Perth and the remonstrance cited are to be found in the registers of the kirk.
In the last place we shall bring some things which may also prove the same to have been the public judgement of this state or kingdoms of Scotland. First, the parliament 1648 in their declarations concerning their resolutions for religion, king and kingdoms, in pursuance of the ends of the covenant as they do all along acknowledge the first motive of these kingdoms engaging in a Solemn League and Covenant to have been for reformation and defence of religion, so in the sixth page of that declaration as it stands printed in the acts of parliament they do expressly declare that they resolved not to put in his majesty's hands or any other whatsoever any such power whereby the ends of the covenant or any one of them may be obstructed or opposed, religion or presbyterial government endangered; but, on the contrary, before one agreement or condition to be made with his majesty, having found his majesty's late confessions and offers concerning religion not satisfactory, that he give assurance by his solemn oath under his hand and seal that he shall for himself and his successors give his royal assent and agree to such an act or acts of parliament and bills as shall be presented to him by his parliaments of both or either kingdoms respectively, by enjoining the league and covenant and fully establishing presbyterial government, directory of worship and confession of faith in all his majesty's dominions; and that his majesty shall never make any opposition to any of these, nor endeavour any change thereof. Secondly, the parliament of 1649 as they do in their second act of 5 January 1649 approve of the solemn public confession of sins and engagement to duties, so do they in their fourth act of the date 16 January 1649 approve of the desires, supplications, remonstrances and declarations of the kirk and representation of the commissioners of the general assembly against restoring the king without sufficient security first had from him concerning religion; and do condemn the unsound gloss that is put upon the covenant and acts of the general assembly in the close of the declaration of the parliament of 1648 in these things that concern our duty to the king. Thirdly, the parliament of 1649 in their act of 7 February anent the securing of the covenant, religion and peace of the kingdom does provide that before the king's majesty who now is, or any of his successors, shall be admitted to the exercise of his royal power shall not only swear the oath of coronation and his allowance of the National Covenant and obligation to prosecute the ends thereof in his station and calling; and that he shall for himself and his successors consent and agree to acts of parliament enjoining the same and fully establishing presbyterial government, confessions of faith and catechisms of this church and parliament of this kingdom in all his majesty's dominions; and that he shall observe these in his own practice and family, and that he shall never make opposition to any of these, nor endeavour any change thereof; but it is also decreed and ordained in the same act that before the king who now is be admitted to the exercise of his royal power, he shall leave all counsel and councillors prejudicial to religion and to the National Covenant and to the Solemn League and Covenant. Fourthly, the parliament at Edinburgh 18 May 1650, taking into consideration the invitation that was given to his majesty by their commissioners at Breda in their explanation of that invitation, does declare that the assurance given to his majesty therein does include the condition of his majesty performing satisfaction to the desires of the kingdom according to the four demands which they sent with that explanation; and in their instructions sent at that time to the commissioners they do expressly instruct them that they shall not fail for removing all questions and doubts anent the king's oath, to declare by a paper to his majesty that it does not only import that the National Covenant and the Solemn League and Covenant are taken by his subjects, but also that his own swearing and subscribing of the same and the words subjoined thereto signifies his approbation of all the heads and articles thereof in his own particular judgement and his engagement to every one of them, as much as the oath of any of the subjects imports their approbation and engagement thereto. And it is considerable that in these instructions that they do require clear satisfaction from his majesty to their necessary designs, and that they do declare that without each satisfaction, not only will that joy and cheerfulness with which all his majesty's good subjects desires to receive him be impeded, but also his coronation delayed and this kirk and kingdoms be necessitated to declarations, which will be inconvenient both for his majesty and them. For instructing of these things we refer to the registers of the kingdom. Lastly, as the parliament and committee of estates of this kingdom did not for a good while after his majesty's coming into Scotland admit the king to the exercise of his royal power, so the committee of estates, in order for the necessary security of religion, did, with advice of the general assembly, judge it necessary to desire him to subscribe a declaration concerning his former carriage and resolutions for the future in reference to the cause of God and the enemies and friends thereof. And upon his majesty refusing to subscribe that declaration of the commissioners of the general assembly of 13 August 1650, did approve of the declaration and heartily concur therein as is evident from their own act subjoined thereto and published therewith.
From these things we hope it is manifest that it was the common received doctrine of this church and the public judgement of this kingdom† concerning the necessary security of religion that it was not our duty but our sin to close a treaty with the king for investing him with the exercise of his royal power, he still continuing in his former known opposition to the work of reformation.†