III. For resistance of superior powers, we have in this period, first the practice of some noblemen at Ruthven, in the [year] 1582. who took the King, and seized on that arrant traitor, enemy to the church and country the Earl of Arran; declaring to the world the causes of it, the King's correspondence with papists, his usurping the supremacy over the church, and oppressing the ministers, all by means of his wicked counsellers, whom therefore they removed from him. The King himself emitted a declaration allowing this deed. The General Assembly approved of it, and persuaded to a concurrence with it, and nothing was wanting to ratify it, as a most lawful and laudable action. At length the fox escapes, and changes all, and retracts his former declaration. The lords again rally, and interprise the taking of the castle of Stirling, and gain it; but afterward surrender it: after which the Earl of Gowrie was executed, and ministers are commanded to retract the approbation of Ruthven business, but they refused; and many were forced to flee to England, and the lords were banished. But, in the year 1585, they return with more success, and take the castle of Stirling. The cowardly king does again acknowledge and justify their enterprise, 'that they needed no apology of words, weapons had spoken well enough, and gotten them audience to clear their own cause:' but his after carriage declared him as crafty and false, as he was cowardly and fearful. Again, we have the advice of the General Assembly, for resisting, when the ministers were troubled upon Mr. Black's business, and there was an intention to pull them out of their pulpits; they advised them to stand to the discharge of their calling, if their flocks would save them from violence, and yet this violence was expected from the King and his emissaries. As to that point then there can be no dispute.