« 上一頁繼續 »
quits the town, and
WHIT. However, the tumult not being over, sir Alexander Hume, Abp. Cant. provost of the town, though then sick, came into the street,
and by his dexterity prevailed with the people to lay down their
arms and disperse. The king
To make the story as short as may be, the king, perceiving
the ministers and their adherents extravagant in their demands, carries offwent off with his council to Linlithgow: and immediately after justice. a proclamation was published at the market-cross of Edin
burgh. It was to this effect: “ That the king, considering the late treasonable tumult stirred up by certain factious ministers of Edinburgh, who after behaving themselves seditiously in the pulpit, had drawn several noblemen and barons together, and sent some of their body to his majesty in the upper house of session, treated him in an unbecoming undutiful manner, and prevailed with a great number of the burghers to put themselves in arms, with an intention to murder the king and his council; for these reasons, his majesty thought that town an improper place for the seat of justice, and therefore had ordered the lords of session, the sheriffs, and others
of the civil list, to leave Edinburgh, and repair to such places 654. as should be appointed, commanding all noblemen and barons
to retire to their respective houses, and not to presume to meet, either there or elsewhere, without leave from his majesty."
This lively motion of the government proved a serviceable effort, and gave the cause a turn. The people now began to
cool in their ferment, and grow sensible they had gone too far. The minis- But the ministers scorned to relent; bore
with their former resolution ; did their utmost to keep the noblemen and barons
together; and moved to send into the country and reinforce faction.
themselves. To this purpose an association was drawn up, and signed by some few. When it was put to the common council, they made a civil excuse ; and thus the instrument did little business. Notwithstanding this disappointment, the courage of the ministers was not to be baffled. Several of them at a debate moved for excommunicating the lord president of the council, and the lord advocate; but it was at last resolved to leave this censure to the assembly: that by being issued from thence, it might be executed with greater force and solemnity. In the mean time, to amuse the people, and
ters endeavour to reassure the
treasonable Rev. ii.
keep them from recovering their understandings, a 'fast was proclaimed through the city, and sermons appointed in all churches.
One Welsh, preaching in the cathedral, and taking his text. Welsh's out of part of the letter to the angel of the Church of Ephesus, sermon. railed hideously upon the king. He said, “ he was possessed with a devil ; and that one devil being put out, seven worse were entered in his room ; and that the subjects might lawfully rise and take the sword out of his hand." This wretched assertion he endeavoured to make good, by the instance of Id. p. 430. “a father falling into a frenzy, who, during his distraction, might be seized by the children and servants, and bound hand and foot.” “A most execrable doctrine,” says archbishop Spotswood, “and directly repugnant to the holy Scriptures. And yet (as this prelate continues) the parallel was well received, and the poison swallowed by a great part of the audience."
The ministers having dispatched a messenger to the lord Hamilton to come and join them, this nobleman at first seemed to promise compliance; but, upon recollection, he went to the court at Linlithgow, and carried a copy of the ministers' letter with him. This letter was treasonable to the last degree; for having set forth the oppression the Church lay under by the malice of some councillors, these extraordinary sentences followed :—“That the people, animated by the word and motion 4 treasonof God's Spirit, had gone to arms; and that the godly barons sent to the and other gentlemen that were in town had convened them- lord Hamilselves, and taken on them the patrociny of the Church and her cause. Only they lacked a head, and special noblemen to countenance the matter; and since with one consent they had made choice of his lordship, their desire was, that he should come to Edinburgh with all convenient diligence, and utter his affection to the good cause, accepting the honour which was offered unto him.”
This letter, written by Mr. Bruce, was signed by him and Balcanquel. This was plain soliciting for a rebellion, and an open revolt from the government; and therefore the king had great reason to draw the sword of justice, and punish the defiance. To this purpose an order was sent to the provost and bailiffs of Edinburgh to commit the ministers ; but they,
their submission to the
WHIT- having notice given them, made their escape to Newcastle in A bp. Cant. England. The same day, the town sent some of their body to
wait upon the king. Their business was to purge themselves from the imputation of the late tumult, and to offer their submission. His majesty, not allowing any justification, told them that “good words were no sufficient excuse for a misbehaviour of that size; and that he would come to them ere long, and let
them know he was their king." The burgh- And now, perceiving the late disorders would not be easily ers of Edinburgh make passed over, the provost, bailiffs, and common council waiting
on the king, presented him with a very humble petition, and king, and resigned themselves wholly to the award of his majesty and are refused.
council ; protesting, at the same time, that the mutiny was neither concerted nor countenanced by them. This protestation having too much the air of an apology, might probably make their submission be refused. What reserves of punishment the king might have, is uncertain ; but some noblemen advised him to demolish the town, and erect a pillar to mark the rebellion. Others suggested milder revenge ; but at present nothing was resolved. Not long after, the queen of England sent him a softening letter, and interceded for gentler punishment. The king was glad of the colour of so considerable an intercession, to come off from extremities with a saving of his honour. For he was far from a vindictive humour, and desired no more than to quiet the people, and secure the government. But of this more afterwards.
The king, having made the faction begin to bend, ordered a general assembly to be convened at Perth. For now it was thought the juncture presented fair for correcting the disorders in the Church, and bringing off the ministers from the encroachments upon the State. And that they might be the better apprized of the matter they were to go upon, the king ordered some articles to be drawn up and printed. In his preface his majesty appeals to God, that he had no intention to disturb the Church, by putting intricate questions, nor to stretch his regale to an arbitrary and tyrannical excess. His meaning was only to have some doubts and ambiguities cleared, which might otherwise prove occasions of dispute ; that by a fair discussion of controversies of this nature, a lasting harmony between himself and the ministry might be settled.
The articles were fifty-five in number, and drawn up by way ELIZAof question, as follows:
1. May not matters relating to the external government of Questions the Church be argued without any prejudice to points of faith, the governand the fundamentals of religion?
discipline of 2. Is the authority of making orders for the government the Church of the Church solely vested in the king, or in the pastors; or the king. have each of them a joint share ? If the latter, in what manner are they to combine their respective powers for this purpose ?
3. Is not the consent of the greatest part of the parishioners, and likewise of the patron, required for the election of pastors ?
4. Is it lawful for the pastor to quit his flock against their inclination, provided he has the consent of the presbytery for going off? And for what reasons ought the presbytery to give their consent?
5. Is it lawful for a minister to make use of any application foreign to the edification of his own flock? Or is the whole world within the charge of every particular pastor ?
6. Is he a lawful minister who had no imposition of hands at his ordination ?
655. 7. Is it lawful for pastors to name privy-councillors, magistrates, or any others in the pulpit ? or to point them out so plainly, that the people may understand them by the description ? and are such marking strokes of satire to be used without notorious immorality, and private admonition before given?
8. What vices and irregularities are those which will justify the ministers in reprimanding a magistrate in the pulpit, when either absent or present?
9. Is the application in pulpits lawful, which stands only upon rumours and reports, suspicion or supposition, the probability or improbability of events? The reason of this question is, because the grounds of such application may be all false, and by consequence the inference made upon them? And therefore should not all applications of disadvantage be founded on uncontested fact, and notoriety of misbehaviour ?
10. Is the text read in the pulpit to be the basis of the doctrine, and give measures to the sermon? Or may any discourse, though never so remote, be grafted upon any text, so that the naming it is only matter of form?
WHIT- 11. May a private pastor exercise any branch of jurisdiction
12. Is his session a competent judge of his doctrine ?
13. Should not all those who have a right to vote in the session, and particularly the moderator, be annually chosen?
14. May the session be fairly chosen by ministers only, without the consent of the whole congregation?
15. Why should not elders and deacons of particular sessions be elected to hold their offices durante vita ?
16. How many presbyteries will serve for the whole country, in what places are they to be fixed, and of how many pastors is every presbytery to consist ?
17. Are the elders and deacons of every parochial session to vote in presbyteries, or does this privilege belong to none but pastors ?
18. What is the business proper to the jurisdiction of the presbytery, and what cases are too big for the cognizance of particular sessions?
19. What should be the forms of process in libelling and citation? In what manner are the trials to be managed, and what evidence is requisite at parochial sessions and presbyteries?
20. What causes are those which belong to the cognizance of synods, and which presbyteries are not to meddle with?
21. Should not all those who have a right of suffrage in presbyteries or parochial sessions, have likewise a vote in synodal assemblies ?
22. Should every university or college, or every particular master or regent, within such societies, have a vote in presbyteries and synods in the town and precincts where they live? And in what manner and proportion are they to vote in general assemblies ?
23. Is it lawful to convene a general assembly without a licence from his majesty, since he cannot be denied the character of a pious and Christian magistrate ?
24. Must the reasons for calling a general assembly be drawn from business relating to the whole Church?
25. Have not all men of orthodoxy and learning a right to vote in general assemblies ?
26. Is every particular pastor obliged to go to the general assembly? Or are commissioners from every particular session, presbytery, or synod, sufficient for this purpose ?