speech delivered at the Visitation of Downe and Conuer by the right reverend and most learned Bishop of Down for he holdeth that the Common-wealth is in the Church and not the Church in the Common-wealth and therefore as a wiseman will not frame his house to his hangings but his hangings to his house so the Church is not to bee fitted to the Common-wealth but the Common-wealth to the Church This gear goeth right for then as there is a paritie in the Church for so you will have it there must be also a parity in the State and so let Kings and Bishops goe together Thus King Iames knew full well the mysterie of your Religion whilst he made these convertible no King no Bishop no Bishop no King And in your third argument you tell that the people makes the Magistrate and you may be without him and by all appearance you have that I may use your owne words rid your selves of him too as an author and executioner of your woes and have set up a new sort of Government of 26. Governours yearly changeable for managing the affaires of the Kingdome consisting of Nobles Barrons and Burgesses which government will trouble all our Politicians to give it a name for it 's neither a Monarchie nor Aristocracie not Democracie nor Oligarchie c. And you will offend if we call it Anarchie When there was no King in Israel every man did what seemed good in his fight Covenanter It 's objected that although upon the former reasons it cannot be denyed but it must be lawfull for subjects to defend themselves by armes against the unjust invasion or oppression of the Magistrate yet the matters presently debated betwixt the King and his people are neither fundamentall in Religion nor of that importance that wee should enter into a bloudie warre which bringeth with it so many certaine evils and whereof the event is uncertain Wee answer 1. No matter of Religion hath so great weight in the mindes of worldly men that they will hazard their worldly Estates for any thing of that kind Gallio careth for none of these things Festus sayes that the Iewes had certaine questions against Paul of their owne superstition and of one Iesus which was dead whom Paul affirmeth to be alive if we receive him the Romanes will come and destroy our place and our Citie hath been a prevailing Maxime in policy 2 The greatest questions of Religion carrie sometimes a small shew witnesse the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Electinomen and Electi participium which are small in appearance but great in substance 3 There is a great mistaking about fundamentall points of Religion for if we call that fundamentall the knowledge whereof is necessarie for salvation a point may be fundamentall and necessarie to be knowne at one time or in one Kirk which at another time or in another Kirk is not thus necessarie for although the foundation it selfe bee necessarie for the edification of everie soule yet of things fundamentall and necessary to salvation wee must judge according to the different degrees and measure of Revelation There is also a mistaking about the smallest matters of Religion for obstinacie in resisting the light and following darkenesse rather than the knowne light in the smallest matters brings certaine condemnation Jt was audaciously enacted by the Councell of Constance Non obstante Christi institutione The Kirk of Scotland having from the certaine knowledge of the Vnlawfulnesse of Episcopall government were it of never so little moment abjured it diverse times and spued it out we must not returne to our vomit 4. Though the question were about the name of the Bishop to be retained in our Church as the crafty without any warrant give it out yet were it most impertinent for the question must be taken either of the naked name which no man is so silly to imagine since we acknowledge it to be common to all the Ministers of the Gospell or the question is about the place and office signified by the name which is to be a Pastor of Pastors without a particular flocke to have the authority of Ordination and jurisdiction to be a Lord of Session Parliament Councell Conuention and Exchequer which either the Bishop must be or else as they say themselves they cannot serve the Kings turne He is willingly blinded who sees not how materiall this is for besides the sinne in the office it selfe it bringeth with it the ruine of all religion by denuding the citie of her Walls and the Vineyard of her hedge It is either ignorance or deception to speake of Caveats for if the Office be of Divine institution Why should it be limited more then another office or further then the Word of God doth require Jt ought to bee rejected as a presumptuous usurpation upon the Kingdome of Christ in appointing chiefe Office-bearers in his house without warrant from him and an intollerable derogation to his full and perfect Wisedome as if hee had not accomplished his House with Offices and Office-bearers but left them to the determination of the Wisdome of men which not onely in the Mysterie of Godlinesse but in the matters of Ecclesiasticall Government is enmitie against the Wisdome of God We have already had experience of Caveats and now to hazzard shipwrack the second time by making such Pyrats againe to bee Pilots were desperate madnesse 5. But the Proclamation tels us there are other matters of difference then Episcopacie And lastly the question is now whether wee shall have a free nationall Kirk or any other Religion hereafter but such as is commanded by armes the onely mid and Argument now used for that which is intended and whether we shall any longer enjoy our Civill Liberty for if base slaves be advanced to Honour they will labour to please the corrupt humours of those who advance them these creatures must serve their maker Time was when the Pope was master and then they served him This time past they have beene agents for Poperie and as they have given lamentable experience that they too well know the way to Rome so may we looke no lesse then that being re-advanced they shall carrie both Prince and people home againe to their old master except wee stand fast by our Libertie wee can looke for nothing but miserable and perpetuall slavery Anticovenanter These Objections are forged in your own brain that you may the more easily answer them There is no matter now debated of small importance it 's neither Episcopacy nor the Service-Booke but of the Monarchie and Supreme Authoritie of his Maiesty So that upon your part there is no shadow of reason to take vp armes but to yeeld all due obedience as it becommeth and so farre as it concerneth his Majesty there is a necessity of armes for the recoverie of his authoritie And hee is not onely worldly minded but treasonably minded to take up armes against Authoritie under
them to such rebellion but only to serve God and their King And now many of them are exclaiming that they are deceived and must be perjured if they take armes against their King And how many are groaning under this and would gladly bee freed and yet dare not for your terrours and affrightments 2. They are many who have subscribed the Kings Covenant who will be loath to be in that Categorie with you For I hope they know that beside the sinne of Rebellion they will also incurre Perjurie if they runne with you in your evill way For they are obliged by their bond to take up defensive armes in defence of the King Religion and Lawes and that only when by Authoritie they are commanded so to do But your covenant obliges you to take up armes against his Majestie even though he forbid you if by common consent you think it should be done Your fifth difference is of the same nature too Betweene a people holding fast their alleagiance c. If you be such as you call your selves his Majestie hath no quarrell against you but herein yet you must be judges in your owne cause and the King must stand to your sentence Saul was righteous in his owne conceit and did obey the Commandement of God but the bleeting of the sheepe and the lowing of the oxen belied him Your daily practises beare witnesse whether you be such men as you call your selves 3 You say that ye have suspended your judgement and practise about things controverted till they be determined by a lawfull assembly Answer 1. You did not suspend your judgment and practise but by your covenant have abjured these things controverted as heads of poperie as the learned Doctors of Aberdeen most clearely have showen which yee were never hitherto able to answer and if this bee to suspend your judgement you are worse than the wife of Bodwell who first spake and then advised you have first sworne to the one part of the controversie and then take it to consultation 2. If we will grant you that ye have only suspended your judgements and practise c. consider how absurd you are herein first ye with an implicite faith sweare to believe and practice what shall bee determined in a lawfull assembly though ye know not whether it shall approve or condemne those things 2 You fall head-long in another point of Poperie in making the generall assemblie an infallible Iudge at whose determination ye sweare to stand in judgemen and practice for if yee did acknowledge that the assembly might erre it had beene great folly in you to sweare to stand to the determination of one who is not of infallible judgement 3. I demand of you who are the strict Non-conformists What if the assembly had determined contrary to your expectation and declare that those things controverted were not heads of Popery would ye have condescended to them and if the assemblie had not been made up of conjured persous but of free Ministers it had beene so concluded Your last two differences may be joyned in one you professe your selves to be zealous in religion and that the Kings Majestie is urging the swearing to the true religion of his Subjects c. Who then is to hurt our religion who is comming by armes to destroy it if his Majestie be for you who is against you You have the King a Patterne and Patron of Piety and why did you protest against the covenant because hee commanded it But all this tends to no other sense then to brand so worthy a King with perjurie and dissimulation You have therefore most wickedly stared the question especially since his Majestie by many published Proclamations hath often assured you that he is so far from thinking of any innovation of religion that he is resolved constantly to maintaine the same as it is established by law in this Kingdome of Scotland and hath beene so ready to give all full satisfaction that he hath in a manner granted all that was petitioned for of his Majestie reade his Majesties Proclamation and Declaration dated the 27. of Febr. where ye shall finde the state of the question rightly set downe and clearely see that he is so farre from intending the ruine and subversion of this his Kingdome that he takes God and the world to witnesse that he is at last forced to take armes and that for his owne right and our good to reclaime us from our daring and encreasing insolencies and for the re-establishing of his royall authority amongst us againe And therefore the question is now Whether he be our King or not Yea the question must be now not Whether you may take defensive armes against the King But Whether or no the Kings Majestie may take defensive armes against a disloyall and rebellious people for doe not you invade his loyall subjects besieging his cities by armies of men because they remaine obedient and loyall to their King have not you by force and fraud taken his Castles led captive his captaines and other subjects and laid hold upon all whom ye know loyall subjects to ward them and compell them to runne your crooked course you spare not the Lords owne Day in time of Gods service in the house dedicated to his worship to take his Majesties servants and keepe them in ward and dispone upon the Kings forts and castles as you thinke good putting in and putting out whom you please drinking and carouzing in his Castles quasi jam partâ victoriâ I you have triumphed leading the Kings Crowne captive with Tuck of Drumme in great solemnitie through the street of your Citie of Confusion and afterward have not onely appointed your office-men of warre for resisting of authoritie but also as I am credibly informed have erected a new government of 26. Governours of Nobles Barons and Burgesses yearely changeable for the government of the Kingdome As for his Supremacie then no wonder that it be gon for in your last pretended generall assembly you are not far from that which Optatus sayes of the Donatists Ille solito furore accensus dicit Quid imperatoricum ecclesia he being kindled with his wonted furie Contra Parm. lib. 3. sayes What hath the Emperour to doe with the Church In your protestations you give him no more a-doe but to be present among you that as an inferior officer he may attend you and see that no tumult or outward disorders be among you who are the supreme Iudges in causes Ecclesiasticall You will admit of no appellation from you to the King but have deprived them that thus appealed whilst even the Iewes in an Ecclesiasticall matter admitted Pauls lawfull appeale to a Pagan Emperour Acts 25.11 and whereas generall assemblies should ever carrie libertatem judicandi non necessitatem credendi as Augustine saies and the acts thereof are only Canons August contra Faust Directions and Rules without any power to be lawes till they be confirmed 〈◊〉 and allowed by the Supreme
Magistrate Qui servit Christo Leges ferendo pro Christo who serve Christ making Lawes for Christ as Augustin saies yet you make them to be lawes of coactive power by vertue wherof ye depose and excommunicate whom you please summon before your Committees whom and when you please and because they did not appeare before your Committee though forbidden by his Majesties Proclamation they have suspended them from their Ministeriall function Thus Attributing to their Assembly not only Directive but also Coactive power not only without but also against supreme Authority It remaines then that ye conclude with Emanuell Sa in his Aphorisme Clericirebellio in regem non est crimen laesae Majestatis The rebellion of Church-men against the King is no treason quia non sunt subditi regis because they are not subject to the King in Church matters And that ye rob him of his Supremacy in matters civill it will be cleare in the dispute following And therfore notwithstanding of all your specious words that ye intend no change of Governement scelera reclamant and your protestations are contrariae factis But if you will perswade the people on the contrary that his Majesty intends the ruine of Church and policy you must not thinke it enough to say it so boldly but to make it good or els how can ye escape the wrath of God Who dare thus affirme of your King in Word and Writ in Pulpit and els-where against whom you ought not to thinke evill in your bed-chamber And how can you escape the wrath of a King Prov. 16.14 20.2 which is as the Messenger of death and as the roaring of a Lion who so provoketh him to anger sinneth against his owne Soule But though it were so that his Majesty who is the most religious King in Christendome were an enemy to religion and were by armes seeking that which you affirme he doth can you shew any reason why ye ought not to be subject unto him Obedience is not to be given but subjection must never be denied I come then to your reasons Covenanter 1. Argument The first is taken from the unreasonablenesse and absurdity of such Court Parasites as for their own base ends maintain the absolute Soveraignty and unlimited authority of Princes to the great hurt both of Prince and people by loosing all the bonds of ciuill societies while the Prince against the strongest bands of oathes and lawes may do what he please to the ruine of Religion the Kirk and Kingdom the Lawes and liberties of some or of all the Subjects and the people shall do nothing but either fly which is impossible or suffer themselves to be massacred and out off Anticovenanter You begin with unreasonablenesse and absurdities and so may you end for all is absurd all is unreasonable which you say If any would have proponed this question before this uprore came amongst us in Ahasuerus words Who is he and where is he that durst presume in his heart to say so Ester 7.5 Surely we would never have dreamed that such a Cockatrice could be bred in the brest of a Protestant which doctrine is abominable even to many of the Jesuites I say of these arguments as Augustin did of the Donatists In lucem traxisse est vicisse To bring them to the light is to overcome them One Cherilus a Poet wrot a book of Poesie wherof all the verses were faulty except seven for the which he received seven peeces of Gold and for every evill verse which were many he received one stripe If your arguments were thus tryed and examined for every argument ye would receive a stripe and as the fault exceeds so should the punishment but I wish you may not receive according to your demerits If your reasons were set down in Syllogismes their weaknesse would appeare but we must answer as ye set them downe first I deny that the Kings power is absolute and unlimited in respect of God who hath set such Marches to him that he ought not to transgresse but in respect of men the Kings power must be absolute and unlimited so that their subjects may not resist them but be subject unto them according to the Scripture Rom. 13.1 Let every soule be subject unto the higher powers and he that resisteth resisteth the ordinance of God And that of Salomon Eccles 8. Where the word of a King is there is power and who may say unto him What doest thou To this purpose Ambrose in Enaraction in Psal 51. saies on these words Tibisoli peccavi Vtique rex erat null is ipse legibus tenebatur quia liberi sunt reges à vinculis delictorum neque enim ullis ad poenam vocantur legibus tuti impery potestate sed quamvis tutus devotione tamen fide erat Deo subditus legi ejus subjectum se esse cognoscens peccatum suum negare non poterat That is David said That he had sinned against God because he was a King and not bound to any law because Kings are free from the bonds of Crime c. So saies Arnobius Cassiodorus Beda Glossa ordinar Didimus Cyrillus Nicaetas in aurea catena besides all sound modern Protestant Divines So saies Chrysostome also in Psal 118. Octon 17. Rex etsi leges in potestate habet ut impunè delinquat Deo tamen subditus est Albeit the King have the Law so in his power that he may sin without controlement yet he is subject to God sufficit illi in poenam quod Deum expectet ultorem I hope they will not call these Authors Court Parasites Again if their power were not absolute there would be some other power above them which is absurd that the supreme power under God can have any supreme power above it but only God Super Imperatorem non est nisi solus Deus qui fecit Imperatorem saies Optatus lib. 3. contra Parmeman And therfore in Synodo Regiaticana under Lothorinus the Emperour cap. 16. It 's said Imperatores summi ac principes minimè nunc judicantur sed in futuro judicio à Deo I conclude this point than with that grave saying of Yvo Carnotensis Episcopus Epist. 171. Si reges aliquando potestate sibi concessa abutantur non sunt à nobis graviter exasperandi sed ubi sacerdotum admonitionibus non acquieverunt divino sunt judicio reservandi ubi tanto districtiùs sunt puniendi quanto minùs fuerint divinis admonitionibus obnoxy What then is the Vnreasonablenesse of this absolute authority in respect of men Great hurt say you both to Prince and people Ans 1. It 's no question but great hurt may fall out both to Prince and people while the Prince presuming upon his authority abuseth the same and makes himself liable to the wrath of God But much more hurt would follow upon the other hand if the Princes power were subject to the inferior subjects that would breed great confusion and turn all upside
down to make the Supreme under his Inferiours everse hoc ordine publicae tanquilitatis nervum incidi totamque humanae societatis compagem laxari ac disturbarinecesse est saies Tilen When ever the subjects pleased they would be raising commotions and seditions Corah Dathan and Abiram would say Numb 16.3 You take too much upon you Moses Absalom would strive to steal the hearts of the people away from the King The University of Paris though Papists in Censura lata die 4. Iuny 1610. is of this same judgement calling it Seditiosum impium ac haereticum quocunque quaeito colore à quocunque subdito vassallo aut extraneo sacris Regum ac Principum personis vim habere A seditious wicked and hereticall thing that violence should be offered to the sacred persons of Kings and Princes upon whatsoever pretexts or colour by whosoever vassall or forrainner They say further that it is a seditious doctrine Regni optimates proceres ad foedissimam desertionem populum ad generalem defectionem atque seditionem specioso quidem sed fucato Religionis Catholicae retinendae atque conservanda praetextu hortans excitans impellans A doctrine exhorting stirring up and thrusting forward the great men and Nobles of the Land to a most filthy desertion the people to a generall defection and sedition under a glorious indeed but yet fained pretext of retaining and conserving the Catholik religion And therfore I conclude with M. Geor. Froger in dicta Censura Nè subjecti domino nostre regi abripi se sinant affrice pestilentis istius dectrina vento Let not the Subjects of our Soveraign Lord the King suffer themselves to be violently carried away with the Affrick wind of this pestilent doctrine And finally if there were such power in the people above the Prince the supreme Majesty would be rather in the people than in the Prince But you say if we resist not Church and state will go to ruine An 1. There is no danger to Church or Kingdome from his Majesty who is only to put away disonders and to restore the Church to her liberty 2. Though there were such dangers threatned yet unlawfull means such as is the resisting superiour powers for good ends ought not to be used suffering is commanded and commended unto us in Scripture resisting is forbidden By resisting Tyrants are more enraged by patient suffering they are mitigated resisting brings ruine to a Church suffering causeth it to flourish the bloud of the Saints is the seed of the Church and it 's observed by the learned that so long as the Churches in the primitive times used sua arma their own weapons prayers and teares against the persecuters they flourished but when they took aliena arma strange armour then they came to ruine as it is this day under the dominion of the Turkes and Infidels It 's well said that Peccata pepuli sunt vires tyrannorum The sins of the people are the strength of tyrants and therfore when by patience by teares and supplications we seek God God pardons our sins and our sins being remooved the strength of Tyrants is abated and God can put a hook in their mouth and draw them back from persecuting his Church But when we resist we augment our sins and usurpe Gods place to whom only it belongs to take order with wicked Kings since they have none above them but God Covenanter 2. From that line and order of subordination Argument wherin the Magistrate is placed under God the great Superiour and the Subjects are placed under God the Great and under the Magistrate the lesse Superiour When the Magistrate commands contrary to God and goeth out of his order and line especially so farr as to invade by armes if they obey not the subjects keeping of their own line and order and defending themselves is not disobedience to the Magistrate but obedience to God who in this point so long as the Magistrate runneth this course becomes their immediate Superiour And as under the Magistrate they ought to defend themselves from all violence without so in this abuse of God and his ordinance from all violence within otherwise they sin against God and their own soules One inferiour officer ought to keep his own station in the army even when the Captain goeth out of his line and order and taketh part with the enemy and in this case is bound no lesse than before under his Coronell or Generall to fight for himself and for the safety of the whole army against his own Captain It were against sense and reason to say that he must give his neck to the sword of the Captaine without regard of his Generall the whole army and his own life Anticovenanter This Argument is not so specious as false no man doubts but when the Magistrate goeth out of his order and by Armes commands what God forbids that in that case man is not tied to obedience But to take up armes to resist is the point in question which you call obedience to God and not disobedience to the Magistrate but you beg the question and cannot prove it except from that that God forbids to resist superiour Powers 2. You deny the King in this case to be your Superiour so long as he commands contrary to Gods Commandement and God only becommeth your immediate Superiour before this time I never heard so much seditious and treasonable doctrine Did ever a Jesuit say so much This justifieth their doctrine for they hold that though Kings were never so wicked Tyrants yet till the Pope declare them incapable of Authority they remaine their lawfull Superiours and if the false ground of this doctrine were true to wit that the Pope is above Kings their doctrine even so farr were good But that inferiours should by their own usurped authority and insolency disclaime their Superiours making God their only immediate Superiour is a most brutish doctrine not worthy to be answered with words As God sometimes sets up Kings to be nursing fathers to the Church as long may it be we have one so somtime he will raise wicked men to be a scourge to his Church to both these we ought obedience in all things lawfull and subjection when obedience is not lawfull and never disclaime their authority So the Christians under Iulian the Apostate fought his battels and obeyed him when he commanded things lawfull but when he commanded things unlawful they did not obey yet never resisted though powerful to resist but were ever in subjection to their temporal Lord for their eternal Lords sake So sayes Augustin in Psal 124. Quando volebat ut idola colerent ut thurificarent praeponebant illi Deum quando autem dicebat producite aciem ite contra illam gentem statim obtemperabant distinguebant Dominum aeternum a Domino temporali tamen subditi erant propter Dominum aeternum etiam Domino temporali That which you cannot prove by reason you would proove by a similitude of
a Captain and his Souldiers but you know that 1. Theologia symbolica non est argumentativa 2. The comparison is not alike but halteth down-right for the authority of the Captain is limited and bounded by his Prince or Generall that he must not transgresse in the least point of his Commission otherwise the souldiers are no more bound to follow him then they know his Commission from their common Prince As for example the King of France sends his armies to fight against the Spaniards Now if the Captain of this army make defection from the King and go to the Spanish army then they become as Spaniards enemies to their own King now here sense it selfe leads the army to fight against their Captain who are turned enemies for they certainly know that it was the Kings will to fight against the Spaniards and all that would take their part in that battell and therfore they haue their Kings warrant to fight against their captaines who now ipso facto ceaseth to be their captaine and become enemies But if the King did give these his Captains absolute and unlimited power over the armies commanding the souldiers not to resist them by armes whither they did right or wrong whither they should turn to the enemy or not in this case indeed as the souldiers ought not to turne away after them to the enemy against their Soveraigne so they ought not to fight against them but fly home to their Prince whose will they know Thus stands the case between God and the King his Deputy God hath given him such authority that all under him must be subject unto him without resistance and though he should doe many things contrary to Gods Word yet ipso facto he ceaseth not to be King and we must not obey him in evill but yet be subject unto him for Conscience sake The Covenanters seeing the weaknesse of this their argument and the strength of reason against it from the Apostles Direction Rom. 13.1 they strive but unhappily to answer that objection thus Covenanter It 's objected Rom. 13.1 Let every soule be subject unto the higher powers Answer Tyranny and unjust violence is not the ordinance of God and he that resisteth it resists not the ordinance of God they are rulers contrary to good workes not to evill they are not the Ministers of God for good neither in this can we be subject unto them for conscience sake The whole course of the Apostles argument runneth against the resistance of lawfull power commanding things good and lawfull We must either acknowledge Tyranny to be the ordinance of God and for our good or els exclude it from the Apostles argument admitting the resistance therof to be lawfull at least by the shield for defence if not by the sword for invasion Anticovenanter In this you declare either much weaknesse or else much malice and I may say both No man will affirme that Tyrannie and violence are Gods ordinance but those to whom God hath given lawfull authority may abuse it tyrannically and they remaine the Ministers of God for thy good in tuum bonum saies Augustin licet sibi in malum for all things work together for the best to them that love God For the Lord will raise up Kings sometimes as Isaiah saies to be The rod of his anger and staffe of his indignation Isai 10 5. to afflict an hypocriticall people to take the spoyle and the prey and to tread them downe like the mire in the streets Howbeit he meaneth not so neither doth his heart thinke so saith the Lord but it is in his heart to destroy nations not a few And when tyrants thinke thus to doe evill to us yet it turneth to our good to humble us under Gods hand and cause us repent This is all the fruit to take away our iniquity saith the Lord Isai 27 9. and thus Tyranni sunt ministri Dei tibi in bonum licet sibi in malum and to resist them is to fight with God and pull the rod out of his hand Your inference then is most childish that either we must admit tyrannie to be Gods ordinance or else we may resist it For you see that he who hath a lawfull power from God may abuse it tyrannically and we must not resist Gods ordinance lawfull authority because such and such men exercise it tyrannically Our superiors power is not Gods ordinance because he is a good man that hath it as David was neither is the authority not Gods ordinance because he is an evill man that hath it as Saul was but the authority is Gods ordinance because he who hath it is the lawfull superior He that was Emperour when Paul writ this Epistle was Nero a tyrant Nero sayes learned Moulin was a monster in nature the shame of humane kinde and the first Emperour that began to persecute the Church neverthelesse the Apostle Rom. 13. speaking of that power which then was in being saith that it was ordained by God and that whosever resisted the same resisted the ordinance of God c. So sayes Aug. De civit Dei lib. 5. cap. 21. Where he declares that the authority of wicked Emperours was from Gods ordinance as well as of good Emperours Qui Mario Caio Caesari qui Augusto ipse Neroni qui Vespasianis vel patri vel filio suavissimis imperatoribus ipse Domitiano crudelissimo ne per singulos ire necesse sit qui Constantino Christiano ipse apostatae Iuliano Did not Paul acknowledge the authority of Nero when he did appeale to him and that lawfully I stand at Caesars judgement seat where I ought to be judged Act. 25.10 And Christ himselfe acknowledged the Authority of Pilate over him to be from above Neither was it lawfull for Christs Disciples to resist and by armes to defend their Master against such matchlesse cruelty and tyrannie And here by the way I gather one argument against your course which I pray you answer It was not lawfull for Christs Disciples to defend Christ by armes against the tyranny of those who invaded him and crucified him Therfore it s not lawfull for us to take desensive armes against tyrants Ye will answer Christ suffered them not to resist because it was his will to suffer This is true indeed he was most willing to suffer but yet the reason wherefore he hinders Peter to defend him is because it was not lawfull for him to defend by armes therefore he sayes Put up thy sword into his place for he that takes the sword shall perish with the sword He that drawes the sword must doe it by the authority of him that hath power Consider also the 13. Chap. of the Revelation in the 7 ver It 's said that the beast with the seven heads and ten hornes had power given him over all kinreds tongues and nations to make war with the Saints What shall the Saints doe then under their persecuters May they not take up armes Nor for in
the next words the Spirit of God sets down the manner of the Saints defence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 First tels what must not be done and then what they must doe first they must not resist and take their persecuters either captive or kill them because they have not that power therefore sayes the Text He that leadeth in captivity shall goe into captivity he that killeth with the sword shall be killed with the sword then he sheweth that they must suffer Here is the patience and faith of the Saints sayes the Text. Patience is requisite to endure tribulation and faith to continue constant to the end I pray you consider this my Brethren of the Ministery and be not the kindlers of this unlawfull war against not a Tyrant but the most religious Prince in the world An evill man seeketh only rebellion Prov. 17.11 therfore a cruell messenger shall be sent unto him sayes Salomon Remember Bernards saying Epist 134. Non est meum hortar ad pugnam Est tamen securus dic advocati ecclesiae arcere ab ecclesiae infestatione Schismaticorum rabiem est Caesaris propriam vindicare coronam ab usurpatore Siculo Finally You make it questionable whether you may invade Tyrants or not at least by the shield of defence if not by the sword for invasion say you not determining what may be done and therefore you shew too much choler to call it a divellish and dispitefull calumnie of disnatured enemies if they make the question about invasion of his Majesties Kingdomes Your irresolution in this question at least if not is resolved by your practice who are the invaders and our Gratious King must be the defender The author of the Dialogue of white divelt goeth clearly to work affirming if Kings hinder the bringing in of their Discipline they are Tyrants and being Tyrants they may be deposed by their Subjects and do not you maintaine that the Kings authority and true Religion are so firmely joyned together that if he fall from his Religion he falleth also from his authority and so is no more your King when you judge him contrary to Religion by common consent neither are you more bound to him then he defends the true Religion that is which you think the true Religion Covenanter From the end of magistracie 3. Argument the Lord hath ordained Magistrates to be his ministers for the good of his people whence have proceeded these principles of Policie Princes are principally for the people and their defence and not the people principally for them the safety and good of the people is the supreme Law magistracie is the inferiour and subordinate law the people make the Magistrate but the Magistrate maketh not the people the people may be without the Magistrate for the world was governed in another way till that Cain building a Citie made the godly first take this order for their defence the Magistrate cannot be without the people the body of the Magistrate is mortall the body of the people immortall and therfore it were a direct overturning of all the foundation of policie and government to preferre subjection to the Prince to the preservation of the Common-wealth or to expose the publike wherein every mens person family and private estate is contained to be a prey to the furie of the Prince rather than by all our power to defend and preserve the Common-wealth Anticovenanter There is nothing here but most odious and contemptible words against the Authority of our supreme Magistrate preserring the people by many degrees above the Prince I say with Bernard De consider lib 3. cap. 4. Situr ques Deus conjunxit non sunt separandi sioneâ— quâ—s subjuâ—â—it comparandit moustrum 〈◊〉 si 〈◊〉 submovens digitam facis peudere de capite You doe not so you separate the King and Subjects whom God hath conjoyned and you compare the people who are subjoyned to the Prince farre above the Prince But I come to examine the particulars You say well that God hath 〈◊〉 Princes for the good of his people but what gather ye hence that therfore the people may take up armes that is a strange consequent Certainly if the Prince faile in the doing what God commandeth God his Master will take order with him and not the people whom you here make the Kings Master The Scripture tells us Rom. 13.4 That he is the Minister of God for thy good but with your leave he must be your Commander and not one of your creatures your Minister 2 You say Princes are principally for the people and not the people for the Prince Ans You should say for people subjects if you doe not disdaine to be called Subjects Now the King and Subjects are relative and they are for other the one to Command and governe the other to be subject and led Now what is all this for resisting of authority 3 You say The good of the people is the supreme Law c. This is the second time that you have ignorantly abused that saying Salus populi suprema lex esto Goe to the learned Doctors of Aberdeen and learne out of their Duplies the meaning of it It belongeth to the Magistrate who is the onely Law giver The case may fall out that for the good of his Subjects he must not stand upon the ordinary Law but let that stand for a Law which in such exigence shall see me to him fittest for the safety of the people But you odiously apply it to the people who are destitute of authority and can make no law Let the people see what is most conducible for their owne safety though it should be with the losse of the supreme Magistrate let him perish rather then his Subjects as who would say rather then let the members of the body suffer such hazzard out off the Head 4 Ye say the people makes the Magistrate c. You declare now what people you are for ye will not call your selves Subjects even great enemies to Monarchs Is your doctrine so Jesuiticall and rebellious to thinke that the Kings authority is of humane institution by positive lawes and not from God if you say so Treply with Bernard Si sie sontis dissentis ab co qui dicit non est potestas nisi a Deo We have maintained this doctrine too long against the adversary to passe from it now upon your naked word without probation It 's the Lord that places Kings in their throne saies Iob. Job 36.7 Prov. 8.15 By me Kings raigne saies the Wisedome of God Non tribuamus dands regni atque imperij potestatem nisi Deo vero August These cannot properly be called Kings who have their power from the people because publike Governement is onely proper to God who giveth it to whom he pleaseth And seeing it is contrary to reason that any can have supreme power over himselfe it followeth that the people wanting a King cannot have the supreme power over it selfe and therefore cannot
bestow it upon any man to be their King for none can give that to another which they have not themselves 5. Ye say the people may be without the Magistrate Answer So have you made us this yeare and more in stead of a King we have had the Ephori of Sparta and the Roman Tribunes over-ruling us strange Lords rule over us to the great contempt of our own King Dominis parere superbis cogimur 2. The world was not without a King till Cain's time for Adam was King his Empire was paternall and therfore Monarchicall for albeit at first he did not actually exercise politicall Government before the people did multiply yet ex vijuris naturae by the force of the law of nature it was due to the first progenitor Adam to be governour of his posterity and thus habitually he was King from his first creation and therfore that assertion of the Monarchomachists is not alwaies true the King is not without a people as the people are without a King I see you think you may be well without our King what remaineth then but with the Bishops let Kings go too and lay a ground for Anabaptisme 6. You say the body of the Magistrate is mortall I pray you what kind of people are you Qui genus unde demo Are you only the off-spring of God I reade in Scripture that God saies to Kings Psal 82.6 7. I have said ye are gods but to which of you is this name given and if you will assume that to you take the rest of the Text with you but ye shall die like men It 's an old saying Rex nunquam maritur The King never dieth But one generation goeth and another commeth Let it content you that tho King and you are of one mettall Now in the end having thus many waies preferred your selves to the King you make this monstrous conclusion It 's adirect over-turning of all foundation of Policie to preferre subjection to the Prince to the preservation of the common-wealth Answ Here you separate that which God hath joyned together and make these two opposite which ever must go hand in hand together for Subjection to the Prince is the only way to preserve the Common-wealth where Subjection is not Gods ordinance is contemned the foundation of policie over-turned and the Common-wealth exposed to ruine as is cleare in the answer to your first Argument Covenanter From the Covenant betwixt God and the people 4. Argument for the people and the Magistrate are joyntly bound in Covenant with God for observing and preserving the Commandements of the first and second tables as may be seene in the bookes of Samuel Kings and Chronicles As the fault of the people will not excuse the Magistrates negligence so the fault of the King will not excuse the people if they resist not his violence pressing them against the Covenant of God this argument is strongly pressed by sound and religious politicians Anticovenanter You should declare how King and people are both jointly bound Will you have King and Subject of equall power about the observation and preservation of the Tables You are bound to keep the Commandements of God as well as your King but the King is bound to do more to wit to be carefull that all his Subjects keep them and to punish transgressours I have read the whole Scripture of God but I could never find this power given to Subjects It 's enough for them to keep the Tables themselves but they have no authority to command others much lesse doth it belong to them to resist the Magistrate If the King presse the people to the breach of the Law they must not obey since God his Superiour commands the contrary but yet they must not resist since God both their Superiours forbids You poorely beg here the question affirming that the people will sin if they resist not but you will never prove it You say it is strongly pressed by sound politicians but you presse it most weakly and unfoundly not nominating one sound Politician for you For no Wiseman will confound the Princes authority with the people and turne a Monarchie into a Democracie Covenanter From the subordination of Powers appointed by God 5. Argument The same law and order that appoints to obey the supreme Magistrate rather than his Deputie appoints us also to obey God rather than man and the same law and order that leadeth us to defend the supreme Magistrate against the invasion of his Deputie commandeth us also to defend Gods right and to preserve the peoples peace against the unjust invasion of the supreme Magistrate who can be thought no lesse subordinate to God then his Vicegerent is to him Anticovenanter This Argument is builded upon sand you dreame that whatsoever meanes may be used for preservation of the Prince against his Deputies the same may be used for the preservation of Gods right and the peoples peace But you erre not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God Both by Gods Law and mans law Subjects are bound to defend their Prince But Gods Law commands not to defend his right by armes the weapons of our warfare are spirituall and not carnall Patience Faith with other graces are our Armour we must be subject for conscience sake and not take Gods place to represse our Superiours If any inferiour judge wrong me I must not resist him but appeale to his Superiour and from him again to his Superiour even to the King the Supreme and if he will be unjust and wrong me I must not resist but commit my cause to God to whom vengeance belongeth It is a point of Atheisme and distrusting of Gods providence to think that God will not help against Tyrants and therfore men will be their owne judges and revenge themselves But the Lord hath said Psal 12.5 For the oppression of the poore and the sighing of the needy now I will arise and set him in safety c. Then take Salomons counsell Prov. 20.22 Say not thou I will recompense evill but wait on the Lord and he will save thee Suffer me then to attest you my deare Countrey-men What thinke you to doe O yee Covenanters for God and the King You undertake armes not for God who desires nothing but peace You publish Rebellion He commands Obedience You trouble the rest and quiet of a King he willeth us to endure hardnesse though at the hand of a Pagan You doe it for God whose name yee call upon and deny his Power You doe it for God who detesteth your actions and knowes your thoughts And you doe it for that God who will confound all those who breed confusion among his people You undertake warre for Religion against the Defender of Religion You raise armies for Religion and nothing hindereth it so much as warres You fight for holinesse and your weapons destroy the Church authorize blasphemie plant Atheisme impiety and despising of Devotion in all places You march under
pretence of Religion and you spoyle the Clergie of Tithes Stipend burden the Kings Subjects with impositions ransack the Kings houses Pardon me I pray you to tell you that this fortresse which you build will be your overthrow this fire you kindle will burne you these weapons ye forge will be tempered in your own intrails and that thereby you will neither leave of your selves nor your Covenant ought but a shamefull memory Covenanter If a private man be bound by the Law of nature to defend himself cum moderamine inculpatae turelae 6. Argument against the Prince or Iudge as a private man invading him by violence and not pursuing him judicially and by order of law and may repell violence with violence If a chaste Matron may defend her owne body that it be not defiled by the Adulterer were his place never so great If children may resist the violent invasion of their parents against themselves their mother or others of the family notwithstanding the strict obligation betweene parents and children If servants may hold the hands of their masters seeking to kill them in their rage If the Marriners and passengers may save themselves by resisting him who sits at the helm and would drive the Ship against a rocke or by hindering the Prince himselfe not only by supplication of mouth but by strength of hand to mis governe the ship to their certaine Shipwracke much more may the body defend it self against all invavasion whatsoever Anticovenanter You are put to poore shifts when for arguments you bring crooked comparisons yet good enough for ignorants As for your first supposition the question is not whether a private man may defend himself against his Superiour with inculpata tutela But whether or not defence by armes be culpata or inculpata tutela His Majesty denieth you not lawful defence by Law but your taking up of armes to resist his Authority is damnable 2. Tell me when doth a Prince become a private man as the Popes infallibility is left in his Chaire so you make the Kings authority to reside in his Throne When Saul was in the wildernesse persecuting David with great violence was he then a private man you will have it so But I trust David better then you all who would not defend himselfe by armes but fled from him as from the Lords Anointed who can touch the Lords Anointed and be innocent It is altogether against the Law of Nature that private men should take armes against their Superiors seeing it 's against the Law of nature that a privat man should be judge in his own cause as Luther learnedly disputes in the 5. book of Sleidens Commentaries Your second supposition is as idle It becommeth a chast woman to defend her Chastity even against the King but how I pray you by taking up of armes not at all but by not yeelding her selfe into his armes and though he being stronger than she force her yet she hath defended her chastity and only the King is the adulterer Thus in Augustints judgement Lucretia that chaste Matron lost not her Chastity albeit Tarquinius the Emperour by force lay with her only she drew no sword to resist his violence but here was her lamentable fault that the fact sore against her will being done she took armes against her self and killed her selfe Your third supposition is no better for there is no Law that authorizeth Children to resist their Parents by armes 2. Rules of prudency cannot be set down for every circumstance therfore in such cases prudency will find out lawfull means either to pacifie or at least to escape by flight the parents fury 3. If the case were so that either the Parent must kill the child or the child kill the Father I think it becommeth the child who hath his being of the Father rather to suffer than to destroy the fountain whence he sprang 4. Parents have not so great power over their children as Kings over their Subjects Kings have power of life and death which Parents have not And your fourth comparison is yet more weak for the masters power over the servants is lesse than Parents over their children Your last supposition is true in part the Mariners and Passengers may resist the Pilot for Pilots are not Kings over the rest in the ship you do too basely esteem of Authority But what if the King will drive the ship on the rock himself Answer 1. By doing of this the King is no more seeking the ruine of the Marriners and Passengers then his own aestruction and in this case they are bound to save their King from death in such submissive and humble manner as it becommeth and not by armes with swords musquets pikes and Cannons which are most offensive weapons 2. If the King would be thus desperate it cannot be but he is gone mad and quite out of his wits and so interpretativè they have a warrant to hinder him to undo all which he wil allow when he commeth to himself again Well al this may be done without taking of armes But then say ye may not the Church defend it self from suffering shipwrack against a Tyrant who is seeking that Answer It cannot be so done the comparison is much unlike You speak as if the one case were as obuious to the sense as the other They must be apparant rocks not supposed only Both sense and reason tell that if the Prince be not hindered by the Mariners he and all must perish But the Church of Christ which is builded on a Rock against the which all Tyrants violence no nor the gates of hell cannot prevaile is a gainer by suffering and every drop of their blood begets new believers and so resisting being an unlawfull meanes may bring ruine to the Church but suffering not so If the Jewes in the daies of Ahasverus had been of this new Scottish humor when an utter extirpation was intended by Haman both of themselves and their Religion they would have taken armes but their prayers and teares were their defence in their greatest extremity This was the constant practice of the Primitive Church also even when they were most able to defend themselves against their persecutors to this purpose Chrysost exposition on Psal 147. saith well that God compasseth his Church with the crosse to suffer not with wals for defence Ecclesiam inquit munist validius quà m Ierusalem non vectibus portis se â—eruce circumseptam renunciatione propria voluntatis cùm dixis Porta inferorum non pravalebant adversm 〈◊〉 In principio itaqueâ—eges Imperatores populi civitates damonum phalanges ipsa diaboli Tyrannis alia innumerabilia invaserunt Ecclesiaem illa tamen omnia fracta dissoluia sunt interierunt ipsa tamen crevit in'tantam provect a est altitudinem ut ipsos etiam coelos superaverit For God hath guarded his Church more strongly then Jerusalem not being environed with gates and barrs but with the crosse and the
denyall of her self when he said The gates of hell shall not prevaile against her Therfore in the beginning Kings and Emperours people and cities troups of Divels yea and the very Tyranny of Satan invaded the Church yet all these things were undone and dissolved and perished but the Church increased in so much that she reached unto the heavens and all this was by suffering for as the Arke of Noah the more the floods increased the nearer it was to Heaven so the more the Church is tossed with the waves of affliction the nearer it goeth to Heaven Covenanter 7. From Examples in Scripture 1. Sam. 14 45. 2. Chr 7. Argument 26.17.2 Kings 11.1 Sam. 23. Where Davia bath six hundereth men for his defence against the King himself and would have kept Keilah against him neither himself nor the Priest doubting of the lawfullnes therof only suspecting the treachery of the Keilites Examples of the reformed Kirks in Germany the Low-countries Sweden and the Examples of our own Reformers Anticovenanter It 's a token that you put small confidence in Scripture because you have not begun with it but left it in the end For certainly there is nothing here to prove your tenet All your testimonies are out of the Old Testament but not one out of the New Testament What if I would grant it lawful under the Law and that your testimonies are good for your purpose but can ye shew it lawfull under the Gospell where suffering is only commanded Mat. 10.23 When they persecute you in one city fly to another not go take the cities and castles of your periecuting Superiours and defend your selves But as there is no help for you from the New Testament so you shall have none from the Old Testament as shall be cleare in answering your testimonies In your first testimony the people hindered Saul to kill Ionathan but how did they it Not by armes but by entreary with sound reasons Shall Ionathan die say they who hath wrought this great salvation in Israel God forbid But you will say they opposed themselves in contradictory termes saying as the Lord liveth there shall not one haire of his head fall to the ground c. Ans In the originall it is not so but by way of interrogation as the most famous Interpreters Tremellius and Iunius do translate it Vt vivit Iehova an cadere debet ullus è capillis capitis ejus as the LORD liveth should there fall any haire of his head to the ground The people adjure Saul and appeale his Conscience before the living God say these learned Interpreters ut posthabitâ juramenti ratione juris habeat rationem as if they had said is it reason that he should receive the least hurt from the people who following the Lord hath wrought so great Salvation to the people Then they defended Ionathan not by armes but by sound reason which kind of defence is most willingly granted by his Majesty to all that now cry for armes Your next testimony is no more worth The people of Israel were put to no small strait when there was no Smith in Israel but were forced to go down to the Philistines to sharpen their shares their axes and mattocks This is also your case you must here go to the enemies and from the Papists borrow weapons to defend your cause in the examples of Vzziah and Athaliah Wherby they maintain the Supremacy of Pope over Kings and you now use them to maintain the Power of the people over Kings But let us consider them The first is of Vzziah the King who contrary to Gods Commandement went into the Temple of the Lord to burn incense upon the Altar And Azariah the Priest went in after him and withstood him c. Answ 1. By this example you must either maintaine that the Subjects are above the Prinee giving them the Popes usurped authority or if not you must help to answer this your selves so loose the knot which your selves have knit The Papists say 2 Chron. 26. That the High-Preist thrust the King out of the Temple when he usurped the Priests office ergo the Pope is above Kings the reason of the inference is because no Inferiour hath power to lay hands on a Superiour and by coactive power to compell them to doe their duty or repell them Now you say the same The High-Priest thrust the King out of the Temple therefore it 's lawfull for the people to resist Kings Bellar. de Pont. Rom. lib. 15. cap. 6. What reason can you give of this inference except you acknowledge the peoples superiority above the Prince and certainely in your comparing the King and his Subjects you seem to hold it so 2. The Priest thrust out the King not by taking armes but with rebuke and admonition as the Text is cleare It pertaineth not to thee Vzziah to burne incense and bad him depart out of the Sanctuary This became the Priest to doe But what did the King He was indignabundus he was wroth disdained their rebuke and took the Censer in his hand to burn incense What followed upon this The Priests admonitions being contemned then the Lord tooke order with him to whom it onely belonged While the King was wroth with the Priest sayes the Text the leprosy rose up in his forehead before the Priests then no man needed to bid him depart for the Text sayes He himselfe hasted to goe out because the Lord had smitten him It was not then violence from the priests but the punishment from God that thrust him out But you will say the Text sayes also that the Priest thrust him out so it doth but it was by admonition and rebuke for the Text sayes The Priests looked on him and behold he was leprous and they thrust him out from thence yea he himselfe hasted to goe out He knew not that he was so till the priests seeing it told him and without-doubt rebuked him sharply telling him of the judgement of God upon him Thus doth Iosephus testifie Lib. 1. de Antiquit. Iud cap. 11. Whom Cajetan followeth Visâ leprâ sacerdotes regem ad festinè egred endum monent The leprosie being seen the Priests admonish him to make haste to go out So doth Chrysostam and giveth the reason of it saying The office of a Priest is only to reprove and freely to admonish not to move armes nor to use bucklers nor to shake a launce neither to bend a bow and shoot forth darts All then that can be drawne from this example is 1. That when Kings break the Commandements of God by any scandalous fact it 's the Preachers duty to rebuke him 2. That when Princes will not regard the admonitions of Gods Servants they must be left to God who sometimes will visibly punish them I retort then your Argument Azariah did not by armes defend Gods right as you call it ergò you ought not to take up armes though you had an Vzziah to deale
with Your next example is of Iehojada who commanded Athaliah to be slaine 2 King 11. The very bare reading of the History answers you sufficiently Athaliah was an usurper of the Crowne which by right belonged to Ioash which was hid six yeeres from her cruelty After Iehojada the High-Priest Ioash's Uncle and Tutor with the Captaines and Hundreds with the Levites and chiefe Fathers of Israel had brought forth Ioash and put on him the Crowne and declared him King then by authority of Ioash the King thus seated in his throne Iehojada caused slay that bloudy usurper of the Kingdome Athaliah So this was done by the authority of the King Now nothing can be gathered from this but if any Subjects for certaine yeeres have taken upon them Royall authority if the righteous King doe recover his own authority he may command the usurpers to be slaine This point shall not be denied you Your last example from Scripture is also against you cōcerning the men of Keilah If you wil without prejudice judiciously consider the place you shall see that if you will prove the lawfulnesse of your defence it must be from Davids flying from Saul I have often seene both in the Fathers and modern Writers Davids example produced for to shew the unlawfulnesse of resisting Princes but never till now for the lawfulnesse of resistance Consider first then in generall that as Saul was ever invading David so he was ever flying from him 2. That where David did hide himselfe he found oft-times treacherous men to discover him promising to deliver him unto Saul So the Ziphits ran to Saul saying Doeth not David hide himselfe with us in strong holds in the wood in the hill of Hachilah Now therefore come downe and our part shall bee to deliver him into the Kings hand And thus being oft betrayed he was forced to forsake the Kingdome altogether to goe to the King of Gath. Now for the men of Keilah they were much obliged to David for delivering them from the Philistims and therefore the place being indebted to him and also farre from Saul he desired to remaine there so long as he might as having no certaine dwelling place else-where Saul hearing that he was there said God hath delivered him into mine hand for hee is shut in by entring into a towne that hath gates and barres By all appearance it was some of Keilah that brought Saul this newes shewing him what advantage he now might have of David being in such a close towne As for David being wise as the Angel of God when he heard of his discoverie to Saul he foresaw that if the men of Keilah would bee unthankfull they might keepe him within the towne to the King and not suffer him to flie away Therefore he enquires of God first if Saul would come there to seeke him for hee had no purpose to goe from Keilah if Saul were not to come for poore man he had no place to goe to Secondly hearing that Saul would not faile to come downe hee began to suspect the men of Keilah of deceit that they would shut the gates and keep him in till the King should take him having such advantage of the gates and barres that hee could not flie as his usuall custome was Therefore hee demands of God the second time Will the men of Keilah deliver me 1 Sam. 23 12. and my men into the hand of Saul that which is here translated deliver in the originall is shut up Will the men of Keilah shut mee up as is also exponed in the Margent of the Bible in that place So the meaning is not as you most seditously expound it Will the men of Keilah not defend mee but deliver me to Saul who am resolved to keepe this walled Citie against him But this is the meaning Will the men of Keilab not let mee goe away but shut me up close the gates that I cannot eseape by flying This lets us see that David had a purpose to flie from Saul which makes him so carefull to try whether the men of Keilah would hinder him by shutting their gates that finding them deceitfull he mightflee in time And therefore it 's without warrant you say that David with his six hundred men purposed to defend themselves in the citie agaist the King If hee had purposed to keepe the towne he would have beene well pleased how close soever the gates had been shut and would rather have enquired Lord will the men of Keilah open the gates and let in the King then will they shut the gates upon me 2 Though your exposition were true that David purposed to keepe the towne against the King the question yet remaineth Whether he ought to have done so or not a facto ad jus non valet consequentia 3 It proveth not your conclusion David was but one man who tooke an army of six hundred men to defend himselfe against the King as you dreame Therefore when the King persecuteth a private man he may gather an army and resist the King which I hope you will not at least cannot sustaine and yet you must sustaine this or else passe from your Argument Finally if any of you were in the case that David was in to be the Anointed of God and appointed by God to succeed Saul it feares mee you would take more upon you then David did for ye have done more already and some of you are not ashamed to call the Nobility Ephori and that they put on the Crowne with the King in his Coronation turning all to a finistrous and seditious sense As for your examples from reformed Churches since we live not by Examples but by Lawes I will not stand upon them as not knowing the Lawes and Government of forraigne Kingdomes If they have Lawes for their resistance you produce these examples most impertinently 2. From facts to prove the Lawfulnesse of resisting is ridiculous 3. None of these by resisting gained so much as by suffering as experience too late doth shew Covenanter From Testimonies not onely of Popish Writers 8. Argument but of the Divines of the reformed Churches even such as will bee strong pleaders for Monarchie Neither is Calvin against us but for us From the testimonies of most judicious Lawyers and learned men who have written contra-Monarchomachos Anticovenanter I grant Iesuites yet not all are for your tenet for herein you agree contrary to the Doctrine of al sound Divines ancient and moderne You name not any Protestant Divine but Calvin who is flat against you for this purpose I referre you to learne it out of the Duplie of the most learned Doctors of Aberdeen You nominate no judicious Lawyers I know your Advocate Master Iohnstone is for you but the question is too Deepe for his shallow brain Covenanter From the mutuall contract betweene the King and the people as may be seene in the Acts of Parliament 9. Argument and Order of Coronation Anticovenanter Answ 1. To this I give
a Reall and Royall answer from the most gratious and most learned King Iames of Blessed memory in his Booke intituled Ius Liber a Monarchiae pa. 193. Nego ego tempore Coronationis inter regem subditos pactum iniâ—i c. I deny sayes he that in the time of the Coronation there is any such covenant betweene the King and his Subjects But this is manifest that at that time or at the beginning of his raigne sponte suá of his owne accord the King promiseth to discharge honestly and faithfully that charge which God hath committed and entrusted him with 2 Though it were granted that there were such a mutuall contract yet his Majesty demonstrates most clearely that it cannot helpe this cause If the King sayes hee shall not keepe his part of the Covenant who shall be judge between these parties there is none who hath but attained to a smal taste of the civill Law who knoweth not that the contract cannot be esteemed violated by the one partie nor the other absolved of his part of the contract before that it be made manifest by the cognition and Tryall of the ordinarie judge which of the parties hath departed from the Contract For this is the caution of every civill and municipiall Law otherwise what could hinder but that every man in his owne cause may be both Judge and partie then the which there can bee nothing thought more absurd Now in that contract between the King and his Subjects without all controuersie onely God is Iudge to whom alone the King is bound to give acount of his administration because in that oath at the Kings inauguration both the judgement and vengeance of his perfidious dealing is given onely to God Therefore since God alone is the judge between the parties and since the try all and vengeance onely doth belong to him it must necessarily follow that God must first pronouce the sentence against the King before the people can be thought free of their part of the Covenant of obedience and subjection And so there is no man so blind but he may see how unjustly you make your selfe judge in your owne cause and usurpe the place of God 3. From this your mutuall contract you must shew that his Majesty not only obligeth himselfe to performe his Kingly office but also giveth power to the people when they judge that he failes in his part to resist him by force of armes or else you are idle to alleadge such contract And if you will produce this I have no more to say but that the King hath denuded himselfe of Royall authority and devolved it into the peoples hands he onely in name and the people in effect being King and supreme judge in their owne cause and so the King must stand Vt magna nominis umbra But you would doe well to produce such a contract out of the Vtopia of your owne braine Covenanter From Acts of Parliament ratifying the three Estates Authority 10. Argument and from our owne ecclesiasticall and civill Historie Anticovenanter 1 There can be no Acts of Parliament but those the King sets downe with advice of his Estates 2 And can you shew any Act of Parliament for the lawfulnes of resisting Princes or can you shew that there is any Act of Parliament giving authority to the Estates to resist His Majesty to execute Iustice 4 Doe you attribute any authoritie to these which ye cal the three Estates without the King You must know that the King is the onely Law-giver the Parliament is but his extraordinarie Councell and the Estates thereof are his extraordinarie Counsellours by whose advice hee enacts Lawes Consider also there was no Law in the Kingdome of Scotland before the Kings of it for before Fergusius his dayes we were but like Salusticus Aborigenes Genus hominum agreste liberum atque solutum sine legibus sine imperio But when the first King did conquer this Land he and his Successours gave Lawes divided the whole Land which was their owne and distinguished the orders of men and did establish a politicall government This is clear by our Chronicles and Ex archivis regijs in quibus antiquum primaevum jus asservatur satis constat Regem esse Dominum omnium bonorum directum omnes subditos esse ejus vassallos qui latifundia sua ipsi doÌ„ino referant accepta sui nempé obsequij servitij praemia 4 If you attribute such incompatible power to these Estates Why did not you by vertue thereof conclude this warre You ought first to hold a Parliament and then conclude warre But pardon me you have done so Your three Tables is for Your three Estates which hath ordained this warre 5. Which are these three Estates now Episcopacie is thrust from you and over-ruling Elders are in their place who are busie Bishops in another mans Diocesse and have been too busie in my parish And shall they supply their place in Parilament As for your Ecclesiasticall and civill Historie if that be Knox Buchanans regni jus expresly condemned by Act of Parliament you may be ashamed to name them and ought to have covered their nakednesse if you had respected them You have published in print to the great disgrace of Knooe that he called kneeling at the Communion An Invention of the Divell and will you here make him a Doctor of Treason Covenanter From our Covenant lately sworne and subscribed 1. Argument binding us to defend the Kings Majesties person in defence of the true Religion and to defend the true Religion against all persons whatsoever Anticovenanter This is indeed Ilias malorum your Covenant binds you to it and to much more even to whatsoever shall seem good to the most part of you by coÌ„mon consent were it never so hainous For that clause of your Covenant wherein you are obliged to whatsoever shall seeme meete by common consent is a great Ocean a blanke to be filled up with what you please it seemeth good to you already for the keeping of the first Table to break the second in working the works of unrighteousnesse As to with-hold from Ministers their Stipend as conducible for your ends to threaten them with big words to lay violent hands on them in the discharge of their calling in pulpit 〈◊〉 which I have suffered and which is more to contemne and disobey Supreme Authoritie yea to take up armes against it and if you by common consent shall thinke meete to remove that blocke of authoritie out of your way you are obliged to it by your Covenant for certainely this is very conducible to your ends For if your Calder wood be true Kings are enemies to Religion in his Altare Damascenum he affirmeth that Natura insitum est omnibus regibus odium in Christum And so King James of Blessed memorie is called by him Infestissimus ecclesiae hostis And your Master-man Cartwright layeth down a ground for this overthrow of Kings as you may reade in the
rebellion into an humble submission to God and your King To my Brethren of the Presbyterio of DVNBARTAN Reverend Brethren I Have received your Summons the Tenor whereof is thus I Iames Thome Officer in that part constitute summon you M. Iohn Corbet Minister of Bonyl to compeer before the Presbyterie of Dunbartan the 16 day of April instant to heare and see your selfe further censured for your former absence from the Presbyterie and further contumacie and contempt to the Presbyterie and other points both of unsoundnesse of opinions and disobedience to the ordinance of the generall assemblie as is evident by your manifest adhering to and avowing of your declinator of the same in your last presumptuous and sedicious letter sent to the moderator and remanent Brethren of the said Presbyterie written and subscribed with your hand of the date the 1. of April with cortification if you continue in your contumacie and compeer not you shall be simpliciter deposed from the function of the Ministerie at a person altogether unworthy of the sanit But I pray you Brethren have me excused that I cannot compeer since I have received your summons out of due time and there is no passage between Scotland and Ireland because of the great stormes from your coasts which are so great Psal 55.6 8. that I wished the wings of a dove to stie away and be at rest and by Gods good helpe I have hastned my escape from the windie storme and tempest Psal 57.1 and come to Ireland where in the shadow of the Lords wings I shall make my refuge untill these calamittes be over-past Esa 33.17 20. and may see the King in his beautie and Ierusalem a quiet habitation For this is the day of the Lords vengeance Esay 34.8 and the yeare of recompences for the controversies of Zion In the meane time if this my Treatise can finde passage by any meanes and come to your hands it wil either justifie me or augment my fault the one if you be not prejudicated but the other if you be yet in your passions My Epistle which I desired you to put on record ad futuram rei memoriam as being able to make good what I have sayd doth contain these opinions following which you most unsoundly call unsound and my letter presumtuous and seditious My 1. unsound opinion is that I cal taking up of arms against the Lords Anointed a doctrin of unrighteousness My 2. unsound opinion is threefold that J said I take God to witnesse that I cannot subscribe your covenant except I would 1. sin against God 2. contemne Authority 3. and abjure my Christian Liberty For the 1. I cannot but sin against God if I keepe not the oath of God and obey the commandement of my King Eccles. 8.1 against whose Authoritie Commandement this covenant is subscribed 2 There must bee contempt of Authority and this is too milde a word let me call it by it's owne name Rebellion if I subscribe your covenant for these 5 Reasons 1 because all covenants are expresly discharged by Act of Parliament without his Majesties privie consent be obtained thereto 2 because this covenant is expresly forbid by his Majesties Proclamations 3 because this your covenant containeth many unlawfull things amongst which is that unlawfull Band against the Lords Anoynted 4 Though your covenant were good and lawfull yet except you prove that it 's absolutly necessary to be subscribed how dare any subscribe it being forbidden by authoritie without high contempt 5. Since I have subscribed the Kings Covenant I cannot subscribe yours without perjurie as is clear in this treatise And since you hindered your flocks to subscribe the Kings Covenant saying they would be perjured if they did it how can I subscribe both without perjurie The third point That by subscribing I must abjure my Christian libertie wherein I shall stand fast I pray you since your covenāt doth abjure things indifferent such as the Articles of Perth are c. as heads of Poperie Doe I not thus far abjure my Christian liberty if I subscrib My last unsound opinion is of your assemblie I was content shall still remain to passe from my protestation against your assemblie these 3 grounds being proved 1. That by acknowledging the authority of it I be not obliged to beleeve the lawfulnes of it's acts for it cals evill good and good evill 2. That it be proved by the laws of the kingdom that when the King dischargeth the assembly to sit it ought to refuse and sit still 3. That it be made good that when controversie is between the King and the assembly the assembly must be judge In my presumptuous and seditious letter I called these grounds absurd and altogether derogatory to Royall authority renting the Kings supremacy And I appeale the conscience of every one of you whether these my opinions be unsound and I for them judged unworthy of the Ministry which if you do your presbytery is the seat of violence Amos 6.3 to the which I will not come neare where when judgement should run downe as water and righteousnesse as a mighty streame Amos 5.24 you turn judgement into gall and the fruit of righteousnesse Amos 6.12 into Hemlock Howbeit all reformed Churches in Europe are condemning your course yet you say you are wise Ier. 8.8 and the Law of God is with you yet certainly except ye amend and change your opinions and waies Ier. 7.28 truth is perished and cut off from your mouths Ier. 23.14 5. This is the cause that from you the Prophets of Jerusalem wickednesse hath gone over all the land and the hand of evill doers is strengthened that none doth returne from his wickednesse Isa 33.15 but goe on with a revolting and rebellious heart it is good to walke righteously and speake uprightly which is a hard thing to doe with you when men must be over-rul'd with ignorant lay-Bishops to whose humor all must preach who remember not that one day in proper persons we must give account to God how we have taught our people to serve God and the King against whom too many of you incessantly stir up the people as against a Nero. I exhort you my brethren that when you are Evening and Morning in private with God in your prayers to remember and consider whether your course be good or evill which you continue in and if your conscience accuse you I pray God ye may be as earnest to ungird that armour as you have been in putting it on And may shake off Pusill animity having your faces strong against their faces Ezek 3.9 who are seditious and your foreheads strong against their foreheads not fearing them nor being dismaid at their looks though they be a rebellious house Thus at last becomming valiant for the truth Ier. 9.3 FINIS
they themselves denounce Warre against their owne sinnes as their greatest enemies and submit themselves obediently to follow their Leaders whom God at this time hath largely furnished with counsell and courage for the good of his Kirk and Kingdome Anticovenanter The people needeth not to bee troubled with warres Rom. 13.3 if they be loyall Subjects for his Majesty is not a terror to good workes but to the evill Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power doe that which is good and thou shalt have the praise of the same For he is the Minister of God to thee for good but if thou doe that which is evill bee afraid for hee beareth not the sword in vaine for he is the Minister of God a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evill 2. It 's needlesse to perswade them not to be afraid of shadowes for shadowes flie away But what meane you by shadowes the Kings power his armie Well it may be that these shadowes become bodies Zebul perswaded Gaal who conspired against Abimelech that Abimelech's army was but the shadow of the mountaines and not men Iudg. 9.36 But when Gall saw them come downe by the middle of the land and another company come along by the plaine in Meonenim he found that a shadow to be feared when Zebul said where is now thy mouth wherewith thou saydst Who is Abimelech that we should serve him Is not this the people that thou hast despised Goe out I pray now and fight with him Howbeit you regard not this shadow yet let all these in his Dominions that feare God esteeme His Majesties power under God to be especially in these evill times a hiding place from the wind a covert from the tempest Esa 32.2 a shadow of a great rocke in a wearie Land 3. Whereas you desire men not to be deceived with promises c. You would doe well to make this cleare Will the King promise faire and then faile Will you like railing Rabshakeh disswade Israel to trust Hezekias and say 2 King 18.29 Let not the King deceive you hearken not unto him GOD give you better mindes I dare bee bold to promise in His Majesties name these words of the Prophet Esay Say to the righteous Esa 3.10 that it shall bee well with him for they shall eate the fruit of their doings Woe unto the wicked it shall be evill with him for the reward of his hands shall be given unto him 4. It 's well advised to urge the people to make war with sinne God further this worke but I pary you urge them to denounce warre against the reigning sinne amongst you against rebellion and resisting of superiour Powers Let the Leaders of Gods people lean them in the paths of righteousnesse bring not strange fire to Gods Altar warme not your pulpits with the strange doctrine of unrighteousnesse that you may at the day of account say Lord I have done as thou hast commanded and if wee have beene deceived thou hast deceived us and be not blind leaders of the blind till you both fall in the ditch Covenanter 5. That is be remembred what hath been our manifold defections in discipline Sacraments worship and doctrine through the want of lawfull Nationall assemblies and the usurpation of the Prelats these many yeeres by past and that a greater mercie could not be showne to this Land than a free and full Naetionall assemblie such as is that which was indicted by His Majestie and holden at Glasgow ridding this Kirke of the Prelates the Authors and Executioners of all our woes That they may bee earnest with God in their Prayers that as he hath beene pleased to set up our reformation againe with a stretched out hand hee may bee graciously pleased to uphold his own work and make the Kings Majesty a nursing Father to the Kirke in this Land Anticovenanter Let these things be remembred in Gods Name Tell them that the defections of Discipline is great in that the antient Apostolik Government is by a lawles Covenant abjured and by violence removed and another of a baser coin put in it's place Tell them of the profanation of the Sacraments and of their superstitious opinion who make some gesture essentiall to the Lords Supper and others idolatrous Let them be told too that the Lord is wronged in his worship by those who condemne set prayers in his Service Tell them likewise that the Doctrine is corrupted especially concerning the authority of the Supreme Magistrate But call not ye the Prelates the authors and executioners of your woes who are become so great enemies to them you ought also to be afraid to father your disorders upon God as a work of reformation thereby speciously making him the author and fautor of all your misdemeanours After a contemptus species est dicere falsum Vtque fidem facias divine numine abuti And finally it 's a most odiously spoken by you to pray that the King His Majestie may be a nursing father to his Church for in your sense you seeme to make him a stepfather an enemy yea a Tyrant to the Church as you declare your selves in the stating of the question and answering to the 13. Rom. for except he be a Tyrant you declare it 's unlawfull to resist him and if mercy clemency and all Royall vertues which are in him be Tyranny then His Majestie is the greatest Tyrant that ever was Covenanter 6 That the Ministers and Professors acquaint themselves with the acts of Assemblie especially that against Episcopacie with the protestation and answers to the Declaration made by the Commissioner and the Declinator of the Assemblie by the Bishops That from these they may be able promptly to answer the objections of the Adversaries That the last supplication be read in publike that the Commons may see how falsly we are traduced and how reasonable our desire is Anticovenanter It were more sit that you should studie to prudencie and to keepe these things close and to desire that these things should not be told in Gath not published in Askelon especially that monstrous Act concerning Episcopacie lest by publishing these your follies in print you make your selves Opprobrium Coeli ludibriumque soli And get your Assembly branded with that of the Councell of Trent Non fuit liberum Concilium Sibrand de Concil Excep 8. sed combinatio conjuratorum Covenanter 7 The stating of the Controversie at this time betweene the King and his Subjects must be cleared to the people thus that all men may know how unjustly we are invaded and how just and necessary our defence shall be The question is not whether we ought honour to the King for we a knowledge him to be Gods Deputie and Vicegerent or whether we ought to obey the King for God hath given him Power and Authority to Command or whether we ought to given unto Caesar that which is Caesars for that we desire to doe most cheerfully or whether we
ought to feare the King for he is set over us to doe Justice Neither is the question whether Honour should be given to evill Superiours for as our Adversaries by moving of such questions at this time under pretext of dutie doe wrong and dishonour to the Kings gracious Majestie so we professe in the generall that the wickednesse of man cannot avoid Gods Ordinance and therefore although we had froward and wicked Superiours yet obedience and honour is to be given unto them as being set up by God as it were in his wrath Hos 13.11 Neither is the question whether we ought absolute obedience to an evill Magistrate for our adversaries whatsoever be their judgement and practice doe not affirme that malo in malo or ad malum est obediendum but that Kings are to be obeyed so farre as their Commandements are not contrary to Gods and if God command one thing and they the contrary in this case it 's better to obey God than man Neither is the question about the invasion of the King or any of his Kingdomes which is the despitefull and divellish calumnie of the disnatured enemies of this Kirk and Kingdome But the question is meerly and simply about our owne defence And in this also wee would put difference betweene the King resident in this Kingdome and by opening his eares to both parties rightly informed and the King farre from us in another Kingdome hearing the parties and misinformed by our adversaries Between the King as King proceeding Royally according to the lawes of the Kingdome against rebells and the King comming downe from his Throne at the feet whereof the humble supplication of his subjects yet lyeth ananswered furiously to invade his loyall and well-meaning people Betweene a King who is a stranger to religion and tyed no further but according to his owne pleasure to the professors of Religion within his Dominion and our King professing with us the same Religion and obliged by his fathers deed and his owne oath to defend us his owne Subjects our lives religion liberties and lawes Again difference would be put betwixt some private persons taking armes for resistance and inferiour Magistrates Counsellors Iudges Nobles and Peeres of the Land Parliament-men and Barons Burgesses and the whole body of the Kingdome except some few Courtiers States-men papists or popishly affected Betweene subjects rising or standing out against law and reason that they may be free from the yoake of obedience and a people holding fast their alleageance to their Soveraigne and in all humilitie supplicating for Religion and Iustice. Betweene a people labouring by Armes to introduce innovations in religion contrary to Gods Word and a people seeking nothing so much as against all novations to have the same Religion ratified which hath beene professed since the reformation and hath not onely beene sworne to solemnly long since by the Kings Majestie and the whole Kingdome both of old and of late but also commanded by the Kings Majestie to be sworne by his Councellors and all people as it was professed at first Betweene a people pleading for their owne fancies follies and inventions and a people suspending their judgement and practice about things controverted till they should be determined in a Nationall assemblie the only proper and competent jurisdiction and after determination receiving and standing for the Acts of the Assemblie The question then is whether in this case matters thus standing betwixt the King and this kingdome defensive warre be lawfull or whether the people ought to defend themselves against extreame violence and oppression bringing utter ruine and desolation upon the Kirk and Kingdome upon themselves and their posteritie That it is lawfull for us to take up Armes for our defence against such unjust violence it is manifest by these reasons following Anticovenanter I Many Tautologies are here used in stating the Controversie and you remove that which is the question and makes that the question which I am perswaded you know to be not the question 2. You multiply words to affect the ignorant the question is not say you whether we ought to honour obey or feare the King or whether we ought to give Caesar that which is Caesars Know you not that the last question comprehends all these is not honour feare and obedience Caesars due 3. You are very charitable that you say whatever be out judgement and practice yet we affirme in word that absolute obedience in evill is not to be given to wicked men 4. You make many differences about defensive armes to no effect The first difference betweene the King resident in the Kingdome hearing impartially the complaint of both parties c. I pray you tell me if the King were here resident and did impartially heare you and gave sentence against you would you not then resist Would you not even then be judges in your owne cause and take up defensive armes Whether the King be at home with you or abroad he shall still be one partiall and unequall judge so long as he goeth not with you Your second difference is of the like stuffe Between the King proceeding by lawes and the King comming furiously against his Subjects His Majestie was still well pleased and so remaineth to proceed according to the Laws but you will not stand to his judgement but must be judges in your owne cause and now if his Majestie after so long contempt of him and his Lawes bee forced to draw the sword of Iustice you cry out hee commeth furiously against you Your third difference is of the same nature Betweene a King who is a stranger to religion and a King who is of the same with us What make you the difference herein Will you not resist a stranger to religion if he invade you by armes The stranger to religion by the Law of God and his calling is bound to defend the Religion within his Dominions aswell as our King onely this our King is more obliged by his generall calling of Christianitie and by his owne fact and deed and blessed be God he will ever do it Your fourth difference is of no purpose also Betweene a private man and the whole bodie of a Kingdome for the most part c. Tell me then doe you grant that one private man ought not to defend himselfe against the Supreme Magistrate by armes albeit it bee true that he may not and you doe here deny it yet you must be forced to acknowledge the lawfulnes of it for afterward your reason shall make it good that you maintain the lawfulnesse of a private mans taking up of armes against the Lords anointed You doe no small in jurie to our Nation to affirme that the whole bodie of the Kingdome except a few c. 1. For it 's notorious that the whole body of the Kingdome for the most part did never dreame of such a thing as to take up armes against the Lords anointed but were most deceitfully parswaded that their covenant did not carry