The occasion of that Confession.
King Iames the sixth,* having no kinred left in Scotland, of his Fathers side, except the Earl of Lenox, an aged decreped Man, without hopes of issue, sent to France for Es•re Lord Aubigny near in blood, that was to Lenox: And being a young Gentle∣man of a comely personage and sweet disposition, he was made Page 235 first Gentleman of the Bedchamber, then Earl of Lenox (to pre∣serve the house delapsed by right to the King) and then Lord High Chamberlain, Duke of Lenox, and Privy Councellour, with ve∣ry great affection to boot; whom a strong part of the Nobility oppose, and set on some b•utefeu Ministers, to pulpet him a Pa∣pist, and to be sent into Scotland by the House of Guises in France, to pervert the King, and subvert the Protestant Religion, and got Interest with Queen Elizabeth to side with them. The King commends him to Mr. David Lindsay Minister of Leeth (who un∣derstood French) and was by him converted, making his pub∣lique Recantation in St. Giles Church afterwards, the Cathe∣dral of Edinburgh, and constantly came to the duties of the Church: But this they said was done by dispensation from the Pope, so that the King commanded his Chaplain Mr. Craig to draw up that Negative Confession, subscribing it first himself, then the Duke, and after them his whole Houshold. All this would not satisfie the Nobles, nor their factious Ministers; but they seized the King at Ruthen Castle, and enforced him to banish the Duke, who died shortly after a true Protestant at Paris.
3. That the Interpretation which the New Covenanters (with∣out any lawful warrant of publique authority) put upon the Ne∣gative Confession, by making it abjure Episcopacy, and the five Articles of Perth Assembly, anno 1618. was contrary to the former practice of their own Kirk, ever since either of them was deter∣mined, See Grand Declaration, page 364. which proves, by Acts of Parliament, that the Bishops had still votes in Parliament, accor∣ding to former times.
4. That the Negative Confession was an un-hand som way for a King to take, to suppresse a few Mutinous Ministers, appears clearly by common reason, and King Iames his own dissallow∣ing of it afterwards, in his conference at Hampton Court, anno 1603. But his first Ordination thereof was onely pro tempore, & morte Mandatoris expirat Mandatum, unlesse it had been renew∣ed by the present King, it could not be loyal.
5. King Charles by his Coronation Oath 1633. is sworn to maintain the Church as then it was. And all Ministers upon their Admission did take Oath of obedience to their Ordinary Bishops and to the five Articles of Perth, by Acts of Parliament so com∣manded for so many years past; at least these should have been removed by Acts of Parliaments, before they could be renoun∣ced without perjury.
6. Whether the Limitation contained in the third Article of the Page 236 Solemn League and Covenant, viz. To preserve and defend his Majesties Person and Authority in the third place, and conditionally, in the defence of the true Religion, and Liberties of the Kingdoms, (not exprest, nor known in the large extent, as newly interpre∣ted) doth not fetter the subjects Allegiance, and open a back door for them to rebel against the King, if they imagine he doth op∣pose it, which they conceive to be the true Religion and Liber∣ties, though never so falfe? and how this can stand with the three and twentieth Article of the large Confession of Faith, authori∣zed in both Kingdoms 1645. by acts of Synods; Holding forth That Infidelity or difference in Religion, doth not make void the just Authority of the Magistrate, or free the people from their due O∣bedience to him? this being so, how can the Covenanters give answer hereunto?