consequence was not necessary no more then when the King of Judah and the King of Israel make a covenant to performe mutual dutyes one to another it is necessary there should be a King and superiour Ruler above both who should compell each one to do a duty to his fellow King and People are each of them above and below others in diverse respects But in cometh this Surveyer Pag. 100. and tells us there is a great difference God having allowed lawful wars allows seeking of reparation or repelling of wrongs done by one Nation to another by force of the sword when no rational meanes can bring the doers of the wrong to do right and there being no other remedy he himself the Lord of hostes and God of armies sits judge and moderator in that great businesse and in the use of war is appealed to as judge there being no common judge on earth to sit on the causes of these independent Nations But God having set and established in one Particular Nation and Political society his owne ordinance of Magistracy to which every soul must be subject and all subject to the Supreme c. Ans This sayes wel when the difference or disput is between two subjects both under one Magistrate but is sayes nothing to our case where the difference is betwixt the Magistrate and the Subjects for in the other case there is a judge over both established unto whom both are subjects but in our case there is no judge on earth Common to both or who can sit and judge in such causes for the King must here be no more both judge and party then the People and so the case is irremediable unlesse there be an allowance of repelling force with force for in our case there are no rational meanes which can be used to bring the Prince to do right unto the injured Subjects and therefore it God allow war in the use of which he is appealed to as judge betwixt two Nations he wil allow also a necessary defensive warre in Subjects against their Soveraigne when there is no other remedy or rationall meanes of redresse This Man dictats but what proveth he The Magistrates are by their official power above the whole Nation and as absurd it is to say they are above the powers which God hath set over them as L. R. pag. 460. sayeth thrasonically he hath proved unanswereably as to say that every parish is above the Minister in an ecclesiaslical way though he hath official power over them all or that every Lord in Scotland hath their Tennants and vassals above them a thing which the nobles of Scotland had need to look to for certainely the principles which lead to subject Kings to People lead clearly and by undoubted consequence to Subject them to their vassalls and to all under them yea and all Masters to servants and parents to children and to confound and invert the order of all humane societies Ans 1. The law will tell us That in mutual compacts the party observer is Eatenus in so far superiour unto the party who faileth 2. The author of Lex Rex sayeth truly and not Thrasonically as this Thraso and windy man allaigeth who would make the world beleeve that his one word is enough to confute all which that learned author hath solidly proved with such reasons that he thought with the little wit he hath it was more wisdome to forbeare once to name then to offer to answere that he hath proved unanswereably if not let this windy Thraso try his hand in confuteing his reasons the Peoples power above the King 3. This man's reasons are as weak as water For 1. the Paroche is so above the Minister that in case he teach haeresy there be no ecclesiastick or civil power to put him away they may save their owne soulls thrust him out and choose another more Orthodox 2. All know that the Lord is bound to the Vassalls as well as they are to him and that the Lord may not oppresse them or if he transgresse the bounds and limites prescribed him they will get action of law yea in some cases be free to renunce him as their Supream and choose another Let the nobles take heed they drink not in this Man's doctrine for if they arrogate to themselves a power to oppresse pillage plunder murther Massacre their vassals as this man pleads for such power to the King without control I fear their vassals let them know they are not slaves 3. What a poor Politician is this He speaks this to move them so much the more to owne the King's cause but who seeth not that he is either a false or a foolish advocate for the King in this matter for if the King get no moe on his side but the Superior Lords if all the Vassalls and Tennants be against him he will have the weaker party by farre on his side 4. I would desire Nobles all to take notice of this that he would here seem to give to the king as much power over them and all the lands as Masters have over their Tennants who have their lands only from them upon certaine conditions and may be removed when these conditions are broken 5. What a fool is he to put Tennants and Vassals together doth he not know that Lords have more power over their Proper Tennants then over their Vassals 6. Doth he think that Servants may not in some cases be above their Masters a noble man's son may be an apprentice to a very meane man But thinks he that Servants will get no action of law against their Masters or if there be no law or judge over him and his Master he may not defend himself against his Master's unjust violence 7. As for the subjection of parents to Children it is impertinent in this case as shall be shewed in due time and yet we know that the father hath been a subject and the son a King over him and we know also that in case of necessity the children may defend themselves against their father taken with a mad phrenzy Then he adds This truth we must cleave to that in one and the same civil society where God hath appoynted Rulers and Ruled Subjects cannot without sacrilegious intrusion and contempt of God snatch the sword out of the Magistrates hands to punish him with it though in some partilars he abuse it neither can a war intended for this end by meer private persones be lawfull against their head or heads Answ We may let him cleave to this truth and this truth cleave to him and be no losers for we speak not of Subjects taking the sword of justice to punish the King we speak of no warre raised by the subjects for this end we plead only for a power in private Subjects to defend themselves in cases of necessity against their head or heads and he nor none of his party have the forehead to deny this to be lawful in some cases especially if
Wife And say that he had an equal power over his Subjects with that which the Husband hath over his Wife which is false yet the connexion will be firme as to a lawfulnesse in this case as wel as in the other 3. If there be not such a connexion betwixt the Soveraigne and his Subjects as is betwixt the natural Head and the Body Then it can no more yea far lesse be an unnatural thing for Subjects to defend themselves against the violence of distempered Princes Who seek directly to destroy the Commonwealth when necessity doth urge Then it is for the members of the Body to defend and fortify themselves against danger paine or sicknesse occasioned by a distemper of the braine yea and with violence seek to cure remove that distemper in the head that is like to destroy the whole body 4. If the Soveraigne hath not a Lordly domination masterly power over his Subjects but they be is Brethren not his Slaves and if the very Law will allow Servants to defend themselves against their Lords and Masters L. Minime 35. de Rel. sumpt funer and no man with us will account it unlawful for servants to defend themselves against the unjust and violent assaults of their Lords and Masters Then farr lesse can it be accounted unlawful for private Subjects to defend themselves when constrained with necessity against the unjust assaults of the Soveraigne or his emislaries But the Antecedent is cleared and confessed Ergo. 5. If the Soveraigne have no despotick or Masterly power over the goods and heritages of his Subjects as we have proved Them very lawfully may they defend their lands goods and heritages from the violent and unjust oppressions of the Prince or his emissaries sent out to plunder rob destroy their corns cattel goods land summes of money c. 6. If the Kingdome be not his proper heritage nor he proprietor thereof as was shewed Then when He or his Emissaries come to destroy a considerable part of the Kingdome and to alienate the profites and emoluments thereof unto others then the proper owners and proprietors unjustly Then may that part of the Kingdome lawfully resist these unjust oppressours and invaders defend their owne 7. If He be not so much as an usufructuary of the Kingdome then when He laboureth by his Emissaries to waste and destroy the Kingdome or any part thereof by unjust violence private Subjects may resist that unjust violence and oppose his oppressing Emissaryes If a Master may hinder his usufructuary tennants who would deteriorate the land which they possesse by compact Then much more may subjects resist the Princes Emissaries when labouring utterly to spoile and lay waste these lands whereof he is not so much as an usufructuary 8. If the King's power be only fiduciary as is shewed Then when that power is manifestly abused and the pawne which he hath gote to keep in imminent and manifest danger lawfully enough may he be resisted When the Lives the Liberties of the People or their Religion is committed unto him as to a publick Tutor Watchman or Servant He what through negligence what through wilful wickednesse laboureth to destroy and undoe and overturne all very lawfully may Subjects in that case of extreame necessity seek to secure the Necessary and desireable things and resist his fury and unjust violence who contrare to his oath and promise seeketh to have all overturned and ruined Althusius pol. cap. 38. n. 39. speaketh well to this saying Octava ratio sumitur a natura contractus mandati quo summa Magistratui administratio est delata à populo ad hoc ut Reip proâ—it non ut noceat Rom. 13. Vasq lib. 1. c. 44. n. 6. c. 1. 2. Illust Contr. quando igitur mandatarius fines mandatiexcedit non illi obligatus est mandator § 15. qui Just de Mand. Luc. 16 1 2 3 c. quando conditio status fortuna mandatarii mutatur in deterius L. si quis cum de procur L. cum quis desolut Aut mandatum a mandante revocatur vel ipse mandans agere tractare negotium incipit ut tradunt J. CC. Vide Vasq Lib. 1. c. 43. n. 5. c. 4 n. 12. Illust Controv. What he addeth is worth the reading CAP. VIII The Peoples saifty is the supreme Law The King is not absolute Hence some Moe Arguments THat salus populi est suprema Lex is asserted by the law of the 12 Tables The worthy author of Lex Rex hath fully confirmed this truth and vindicated it from the exceptions and false glosses of the Royalists Quaest 25. And therefore we need say lesse to it especially seing this Surveyer hath nothing against it that I have observed That it is a truth That the peoples saifty is the cardinal law hence appareth 1. That the attaineing of this end was the maine ground and motive of the peoples condescending upon the constitution 2. They levelled at his end in makeing choyse of such a forme and not of another for had they thought another fitter for their temper and more conduceing for their good they had not pitched on this but on that 3. with an eye to the saife and sure attaineing of this end proposed and designed they made choise of such persones and of none else 4. upon this account did they condescend upon that manner of conveyance of the supream authority which they thought best 5. For no other end was it that the Prince was limited and bound unto conditions 6. The end being alwayes preferable to the meanes as such The Peoples saifty which is the end must be preferred to all such things as are made use of as meanes conduceing to this end 7. By the very Law and institution of God the Magistrate is ordained for the Peoples good Rom. 13. ver 4. and to this end next to the glory of God unto which we alwayes give the preference is he direct all his publick actions as a Magistrate and by this is he to stirre his course in governing the helme of the Republick 8. Hence it is that all the municipal lawes of the Land are made renewed corroborated explained or rescinded and annulled so as they most conduce to this great end which is ever anima ratio Legis 9. Hence also it is that no law in its letter tending to the hurt and detriment of the Realme is or can be of force 10. Hence it is that the Soveraigne in cases of necessity may neglect the strick observation of the letter of the lawes and for the good of the community neglect private mens interests Finally the very law of nature requireth this as Boxhornius Inst Polit lib. 1. Pag. 25. tells us Doctor Sanderson in his book dc obligatiâ—ne conscientiae praelect 9. 10. laboureth to put another glosse upon this axiome But he may be easily answered for we shall readyly grant with him that by saifty here is not meaned dignity or liberty in
vve fee that if he loose the old fundations he shakes the throne more then he is a vvarre of And as in many other things through this pamphlet so in this he doth his Master no good service notvvithstanding of the great fee he hath gote for his paines The summe of what followeth Pag. 92 93. is this That none before King James 6. did at their installing enter into Covenant with the People except what one sayeth of Gregory the great who swore to defend the libertyes of the Christian Religion c. which then was Popery and neither did King James himself do it but only Morton and Hume in his name promised somehing like it nay it is doubted if King Charles the first did sweare that oath of if he did he was the first and yet he was aught yeers our King before and it is to be beleeved on good ground that if he had thought his taking of that oath should have subjected him to the coactive and punitive power of the Subjects in every case wherein they or any party of them being meer private persons might think him deficient he would rather have endured any death but it shall be avowed that he did never shrink from the observation of that Godly oath neither hath his Majesty who now reigneth swerved from the observation of that oath hitherto and we are hopeful God's grace shall preserve him hereafter from any such thing Answ 1. We cannot expect that Buchanan studying much brevity would set downe all the formalityes that were used at the coronation of the Kings he only satisfying himself with a series of the succeeding Kings and with a relation of some of the most remarkable passages And therefore it is no good argument to conclude that no such thing was because he doth not make mention thereof 2. other historians name some other Kings beside that Gregory who tooke an oath at their coronation as Corbred the 21. King who swore se majorum consiliis acquieturum That he should be ruled by the counsel of a Parliament whom he accounted his Superiours So in Macbethus his dayes it vvas ordained by the Estates that the King should sweare to maintaine the community of the Realme 3. Whether they did actually sweare an oath at their coronation or not it is not much to the matter for a virtual and implicite Covenant will ground all which we desire and that there was this much cannot be denyed seing Kings who could not reigne was layd aside others who corrupted government were pursued sentenced punished imprisoned and killed in battle or otherwise made to promise amendment And seing we finde bonds laid upon Kings as that in the dayes of Finnanus the 10. King That Kings thereafter should do nothing of any great concernment without the authority of their publick Councel and should not rule the Kingdome according to the Counsel of his Domesticks That he should manage no publick businesse which belonged to the King without the advice and conduct of the Fathers and should neither make peace or war enter into Leagues or break Leagues by himself without the concurrence and command of the Fathers Heads of tribes This was a fundamental Law of the Kingdome and all who accepted of the crowne thereafter must have accepted it upon these tearmes though they had not been in plaine tearmes expressed So Durstus his Successour did sweare the same and therefore in Mogaldus the 23. King his dayes this is called the ancient custome for he ad consilia Seniorum omnia ex prisco more revocavit did all by a Parliament according to the ancient and received custome And because Conarus the 24. King neglected or refused to follow this received custome he was cast into prisone So that the not observing of these conditions made them obnoxius unto the coactive power of the People So was Romachus censured by the Parliament for the same crime So we read of many others censured for their misdemanurs as Constantine the 43. King Ferchardus the first the 52. King Ferchardus the 2. the 54. King Eugenius the 62. King Donaldus the 70. King all which instances many such like do abundantly cleare that the Kings of old were under bonds and obligations if not explicite yet tacite unto the People 4. Whatever can be said concerning the ancient Kings yet now it is past doubt that all our Kings are bound to sweare an oath at their coronation and so are under conditions and Covenant-tyes and obligations and this is enough for our present purpose 5. It was thought suffificient in point of formality legality that the Earle of Mortoun and Hume should sweare in name of the King at this coronation That he should observe the Lawes and according to his power should preserve the doctrine and rites of Religion which were then taught and publickly received and oppose himself to all which was repugnant thereunto And this was the very summe of that oath which was afterward concluded in Parliament to be received by all Kings at their coronation And the reason why they did not put King Iames to that oath thereafter was because he was but once crowned and the oath was to be sworne at the coronation and when King Iames was crowned It was done by others for him as is said 6. Though this man make a question whether King Charles did swear this oath or not at his coronation yet it is notoure that he did and though he beleevetâ— that if the King had thought that his taking of that oath should have been so far mistaken by his Subjects as that he should have been thought thereby to have submitted himself to their coactive and punitive power in every case wherein they or any part of them might think him deficient he would rather have endured any death then so to have cast himself away at the pleasure of malcontented partyes amongst the People taking advantage against him by that oath all which we may give him good leave to beleeve for we assert no such thing yet he must suffer us to beleeve also upon as good ground That if King Charles had absolutely or peremptoriely refused to have taken that oath or had said That he would rule as he listed and have no regaird to the established lawes and whould bring in what Religion he pleased though it were Machometanisme or Poperie or that he did not account himself obliged to the Subjects by any oath he could take The Nobles and others would have scrupled to have given him the Crowne and acknowledged him King And their after practices declared that they looked upon him as a King obliged by tearmes and conditions unto them which when he broke they maintained their right against him with their sword when no other meane could prevaile 7. Though it be true that King Charles the first was acknowledged King sometime before he was crowned yet that was with respect to the same conditions unto which he was by his taking the place virtually obliged
7. Mat. 10 ver 40. as if God were doing personally these acts that the King is doing and it importeth as much as the King of Kings doth these acts in and through the Tyrant Now it is blasphemy to think or say That when a Kings is drinking the blood of innocents and vvasting the Church of God That God if he vvere personally present vvould commit the same acts of Tyranny God avert such blasphemy and that God in and through the King his lavvsul deputy and vicegerent in these acts of Tyranny is wasting the poor Church of God If it be said in these sinfull acts of tyranny he is not God's formal vicegerent but only in good and lawful acts of Government yet he is not to be resisted in these acts not because the acts are just and good but because of the dignity of his royal persone Yet this must prove that these who resist the King in these acts of Tyranny must resist no ordinance of God but only that we resist him who is the Lord's deputy What absurdity is there in that more then to disobey him refuseing active obedience to him who is the Lord's deputy but not as the Lord's deputy but as a man commanding beside his Master's warrand 5. Pag. 263. That which is inconsistent with the care and providence of God in giving a King to his Church is not to be taught Now God's end in giving a King to his Church is the feeding saifty preservation the peacable and quyet life of his Church 1 Tim. 2 2. Esai 49 ver 23. Psal 79 7. But God should crosse his owne end in the same act of giving a King if he should provide a King who by office were to suppresse Robbers Murtherers and all oppressours and wasters in his holy mount and yet should give an irresistible power to one crowned Lyon a King who may kill a Thousand Thousand protestants for their religion in an ordinary providence and they are by an ordinary law of God to give their throats to his Emissaries and bloody executioners If any say the King will not be so cruel I beleeve it because actu secundo it is not possible in his power to be so cruel we owe thanks to his good will that he killeth not so many but no thanks to the genuine intrinsecal end of a King who hath power from God to kill all these and that without resistence made by any Mortal man Yea no thanks God avert blasphemy to God's ordinary providence which if Royalists may be beleeved putteth no bar upon the illimited power of a Man inclined to sin and abuse his power to so much cruelty Some may say the same absurdity doth follow if the King should turne papist and the Parliament and all were papists in that case there might be so many Martyres for the truth put to death and God should put no bar of providence upon this power more then now and yet in that case King and Parliament should be judges given of God actu primo and by vertue of their office obliged to preserve the people in peace and godlinesse But I answere If God gave a lawful official power to King and Parliament to work the same cruelty upon Millions of Martyrs and it should be unlawful for them to defend themselves I should then think that King Parliament were both ex officio and actu primo judges and Fathers and also by that same office Murtherers and butchers which were a grievous aspersion to the unspotted providence of God 6. Pag. 331. Particular nature yeelds to the good of universal nature for which cause heavy bodyes ascend aëry and light bodyes descend If then a wild bull or a goaring Oxe may not be let loose in a great market confluence of people and if any man turne so distracted as he smite himself with stones and kill all that passe by him or come at him in that case the man is to be bound and his hands fettered and all whom he invadeth may resist him were they his owne sones and may save their owne lives with weapons Much more a King turning a Nero King Saul vexed with an evil spirit from the Lord may be resisted and far more if a King endued with use of reason shall put violent hands on all his subjects kill his sone and heire yea any violently invaded by natures law may defend themselves the violent restraining of such an one is but the hurting of one Man who cannot be virtually the Commonwealth but his destroying of the community of men sent out in warres as his bloody Emissaries to the dissolution of the Commonwealth 7. Pag. 335. By the law of Nature a Ruler is appoynted to defend the innocent Now by Nature an infant in the womb defendeth it self first before the parents can defend it Then when parents and Magistrates are not and violent invading Magistrates are not in that Magistrates Nature hath commended every man to self defence 8. Ibid The law of nature excepteth no violence whether inflicted by a Magistrate or any other unjust violence from a Ruler is thrice injustice 1. He doth injustice as a man 2. As a member of the Commonwealth 3. He committeth a special kinde of sin of injustice against his office But it is absured to say we may lawfully defend our selves from smaller injuries by the law of Nature and not from greater c. These and many moe to this purpose may be seen in that unansvverable piece But I proceed to adde some mo◠here 9. If it be lawful for the people to rise in armes to defend themselves their Wives and Children their Religion from an invadeing army of cut throat Papists Turks or Tartars though the Magistrates Superiour and inferiour should either through absence or some other physical impediment not be in a present capacity to give an expresse warrand or command or through wickednesse for their owne privat ends should refuse to concurre and should discharge the people to rise in armes Then it cannot be unlawful to rise in armes and defend their owne Lives and the lives of their Posterity and their Religion when Magistrates who are appoynted of God to defend turn enemies themselves and oppresse plunder and abuse the innocent and overturne Religion presse people to a sinful compliance there with But the former is true Therefore c. The assumption is cleare Because all the power of Magistrates which they have of God is cumulative and not privative and destructive it is a power to promove the good of the Realme and not a power to destroy the same whether by acting and going beyond their power or by refuseing to act and betraying their trust 2. No power given to Magistrates can take away Natures birth right or that innate power of self defence 3. It can fare no worse with people in this case then if they had no Magistrates at all but if they had no Magistrates at all they might lawfully see to their owne self
when they dealt perfidiously contrare to the law of God might be lawfully deposed by the people Yea he tells us that whiles wicked princes and Kings were not removed all the people were punished of God which he proveth by Ier. 15 1. to ver 6. and a little thereafter tels us that if the children of Israel had thus deposed Manasseh they had not been so grievously punished with him Yea Schikcardus in his jus regium hebraorum Cap. 2. Theor. 7. tells us Pag. 56. 57. out of the Rabbines that the Kings of the jewes might have been called to an account punished for transgressing of the law by the Sanhedrin especially if they took moe wives and moe horses then vvere allowed and heaped up riches for these causes he proveth Pag. 60. out of Hal. melach c. 3. § 4. Halach Sanhedr cap. 19. Talmud cap. Kohen gadol Siphri pars schoph That they were to be scourged And histories show us How this Sanhedrin even in their weak and declineing times were loth to quite with this power and therefore did question Herod who was set over Galilee by the Romans for some murther committed by him see the history set forth by Iosephus Antiq. lib. 14. c. 17. And if any should object that Casaubon ad annal Eccles exerc 13. n. 5. hath proved the contrary out of the Talmud The forecited learned Shikchardus Pag. 63. 64. sheweth out of the very places cited by Casaubon how he was mistaken and how the Kings of David's line both did judge and were judged 2. Sayes he It is good that this Metaphisical Statist was no Chief Priest or member of the Sanhedrin in Davids time for he would have afforded a corrupt exposition of the Law to cut off the King What sots were the Priests Prophets at that time that did not instigate the Sanhedrin This man could have told them that they were above him and they were bound to execute the Law upon him Answ It was good that this superlatively irrational parasite and infraphysical fooll was not breathing in these dayes for he would have told Kings you may Kill murther massacre destroy all the land Man Wife and Childe without the least fear of resistance and have told the People the Sanhedrin and all the Elders of Israel though your Kings turn butchers and destroyers of the People of God worse then ever Nimrod or any that ever breathed since his dayes you have no more to do but hold up your throats or flee to the uncircumcised out of the inheritance of the Lord. But what sayes all this to the thing Doth this pove that David or any King was excepted in the Law of God Where In what chapter or what verse shall we finde this Good Master prelate tell us or where we shall finde it in your book of wisdome 2. We finde not that any of the Priests or Prophets reproved David for spareing Ioab that murtherer who shed the blood of war in peace 2 King 2 ver 5. was it therefore right in David to have spared him Sure they might well have told David that though Ioab was a great man yet he was above him to punish him as well as another Man for his sin and in poynt of conscience and by God's Law he was bound to do it These sinful acts of Ioab were more notoure then what David had done in secret And because we finde not that he vvas reproved upon this account shall vve therefore use this Man's dialect and say What 's sots or coldrife senselesse Men were the Priests and the Prophets of that time who did not instigate David to execute the Moral Law on Ioab that wrath might be turned away from the Land 3. He tels us that the author of Lex Rex Vtterly mistakes the meaning of the Word of God Gen. 9 6. as for the other texts they clearly concerne Magistrats only toward such over whom they have power but does neither instigate the inferiour Magistrates against the Superiour nor the People against any of them where it is said he that sheds mans blood by man shall his blood be shed Ans 1. The author of Lex Rex doth not say that these places do instigate the inferiour Magistrats against the superiour nor the people against both but that they poynt forth the Magistrate's duty to judge righteous judgment and to accept no Mans person be he a Prince or be he a poor Man And if they concerne Magistrates toward such over whom they have power The author of Lex Rex seeketh no more for he had proved and this vaine windy man hath not the head though he want not a heart and good will to it to ansvvere his arguments that the Estates and Representative of the People have power over the Prince 2. It is a hard censure to say that he hath utterly mistaken the meaning of Gen. 9 ver 6. Let us hear how Concluding hence sayes he that there is here a precept that the blood of every man though he be in the supreame power should be shed by his inferiours if he shed blood innocently and without cause Answ But this is not the conclusion that Lex Rex draweth from the place He only sayeth That in this place there is no exception made of the Prince though he be the Supreme power And can this Man for all his skill demonstrate the exception Lex Rex said not that his blood should be shed by his inferiours but by the Estates of the land who are his superiours what way then hath he mistaken the meaning of this word What furder Supposeing says he this word not only to be predictional but also diatactick and perceptive there must be meet limitations of the sentence both in the subject and attribute Grants all what limitations will he have in the subject that sheds mans blood It is to be understood says he only of such as have no authority and do it out of private revenge for we must not owne the fancies of Photinians and Anabaptists that condemne lawful warres and capital punishments Answ This is good and granted for we say that even the King when murthering unjustly acteth as a private person and is prompted by his revenge did he suppose that Lex Rex was a Photinian or Anabaptist If not why did he trouble himself with this But what sayes he to that which he cals the attribute Certanely sayes he taking the word as a precept It is not meant that it is the duty of every man or any man indifferently to shed the blood of the person who sheds innocent blood but of the Magistrate who is judge above him All interpreters are agreed that here is if not the institution yet the approbation of the office of the civil magistrate Answ Did the author of Lex Rex say that it was the duty of any man indifferently to punish capitally shedders of innocent blood said he any thing against agreement of interpreters concerning the institution or approbation of the office of
no conviction Did not this text flee in his face If not sure his conscience must be extreamly debauched and I fear feaâ—ed with a hote iron And therefore let us take notice of this and meddle not with such as are given to change knowing that the following word shall be made good 〈◊〉 calamity shall rise suddenly and who knoweth their ruine Our King liveth and he shall come Even so come Lord Jesus and let all thine Enemies perish But now let us come to his preface that master piece of verulency 1. He tells us it hath been and is the lot of the â—ilitant Church to be as it were grinded betwixt the two milstones of a 〈◊〉 and Atheisticall world and of a party pretending highly for truth and piety And amongst the last by whom he meaneth the Sect of the Anabaptists he would reckon the faithful of the land who adhere to their Covenants and are constantly set against that abjured hierarchy But when we marke his scope we see what he would say in plaine tearmes if he durst for shame viz. That they are now the only militant Church of the Lord in Scotland This is a great change I confesse when Christ shall have no other Church in Scotland but the perjured apostatical popish prelatical and malignant faction that hath been from the beginning an heart and avowed enemy to the Church and People of God and never more wicked and debauched then it is this day And yet so holy is it that it must arrogate to itself alone the name of the Church But what Church Be-like the Synagoge of Satan which call themselves jewes but are not or that coetus malignantium as the vulgar hath it Psal 26 v. 4. The congregation of evil deors which should be hated and not joynd with They the Church who have banished Christ out of the Church abjured his interests persecuted to the death his brethren and followers Must they be the Church who are a company of perjured Apostats prophane ranters Men of debauched consciences wicked lives corrupt principles prodigiously licentious and running to all excesse of riot iniquity They the only Church whose chief Fathers are Apostate Prelats sensual brutish latitudinarian Epicures void of the faith Enemies to piety carnal worldings whose God is their belly who minde earthly things whose end shall be destruction dogs evill workers and the concision of which we should bâ—â—are Phil. 2 ver 2. Are these Prelate Bite-sheeps rather then Bishops blamelesse the husbands of one wife Are they Vigilant unlesse when they have much wine to devoure or a feast to hold to Bacchus Are they sober who glutt themselves in sensuality Are they of good beheaviour whose carriage is abhominable to all sober persons Are they given to hospitality who if they could effectuat it would not suffer a godly person to have the benefite of one nights Lodging in all the land Are they apt to teach who have rejected Christ and his truth and cry up and commend Socinian brats and impoisoned books Are not they given to wine Witnesse all who converse with some of them Are they no strickers who are ringleaders in persecution and stirre up the powers to spew out their venome against the small remnant of the honest covenanters in the land are not they greedy of filthy Lucre who oppresse all under them for a Bishop's benefice have made shipewrack of their faith soul and conscience Are they patient who are so soon sadled are not they Brawlers Witnesse this pamphleting prelate Are not they Covetous Witnesse all who have to do with them Do they rule wel their owne house having their Children in Subjection with all gravity when all see that their families are nurseries of pride vanity pompe prodigality idlenesse profanity and sensuality And as for their Underling-curats the scumme of Mankinde who seeth not their nakednesse Is this the Church when they who say they sit in Moses seat are such patrons of profanity and patronizers of wickednesse and unworthy to be accounted Members in any tolerably reformed Church Are they the militant Church who triumph in their silks and velvets rideing with foot mantels in Parliaments sitting in Councils and Sessions I fear many of them shall never see another triumphant Church If they be the corne grinded betwixt two milstones where is the professedly profane and atheistical world which trouble them Sure seing these are the only members of their Church they must be nothing else but the Nether milstone Nay the poor afflicted people of God finde them the upper milstone too for by them and at their instigation are they brocken in pieces persecuted to the death scattered into corners and banished to other nations And as he cannot give us the professedly prophane and atheistical world distinct from themselves So he shall never be able to rank the truely godly who are persecuted this day for righteousnesse sake among the wilde seck of Anabaptists As shall be shewed afterward Ay but Pag. 5. he sayes As Whitgift and Hooker these godly sage and sagacious persons forsooth considering the tendency and consequence of some of their principles who were vehement for Discipline feared the breaking out of that evil so now they see it is come to passe for that Mystery of iniquity which worketh to the confusion of humane societies to the bringing of divine ordinances into contempte and to the introduceing of Libertinisme Quakerisme Rantisme and Atheisme can shrowd itself under diverse external formes of Church government But sure if vve may judge of the cause by the effect there being more Libertinisme Quakerisme Rantisme and Atheisme this day in Scotland then vvas all the vvhile that presbyterian government vvas in vigour vve must say that Prelates and Prelatical principles usher in these evils vvhich shroud more under their lap then under presbyterians Anabaptists he tells us out of Ames Fresh Sute Pag. 93. had their owne Bishops but vvhere findes he that they had Presbyterian government It seemeth then that prelacy can comply better vvith Anabaptisme then presbytery and so it will indeed For they being tvvo of Satan's devices must not discorde It vvould appear that neither Whitgift nor Hooker have been so sage or sagacious nor himself so sharpsighted as to see such furious Spirits lurking under our lap we and all see them rather svvarming under his ovvn lap 2. This instrument of Satan cometh next to sowe some tares Pag. 5 6. and pretending much tendernesse to some moderat men as he calleth them of our way he adviseth them for God's glory the honour of his reformed Churches compassion to seduced souls and true interest of their ovvne reputation to disclaime by some publick deed what Naphtaly sayes left they be accounted partakers of the guilt But wise and sagacious persons will easily see this snare and will not lay much weight upon all this perjured wretches faire pretensions and will readily be convinced that there is no such vile things issueing from Naphtaly when what he
with the consent and Counsel of Presbyters but when And where And how What Will they walke by the consent and Counsel of the weakest and most ignorant of Presbyters weakest in their prudentialls Youngest rawest and most unexperienced stirplings Sure they being men of greatest gifts learning and knowleldge the wisest and most noted for purdence Men fullest of yeers whose judgment is consolidated and ripened for government will think it below them to rule with the consent and counsel of those And experience doth prove it 5. This noble disputant vvill come in the follovving words Pag. 7. and prove the Ius divinum of prelacy not only against us who hold it to be jure Antichristi but against King Parliament and all the Malignant cabal who hold it only Iure Caroli But the man's judgment is so consolidated and he is so vvell read in his prudentials that he must dravv bridle and speak spareingly and only whisper out what he would faine be at and say Can this way be disrelished by sober Christians being so strongly pleaded by the light of sound reason Nay rather by the light of ambition vanity vaine glory love of money luxury covetousnesse love of this present world more then the love of God and the edification of his Church As all who are not sworne slaves to the perjured prelates will confidently averre sub rosa Making so much sayes he for the comelinesse and order of Chrisi's Church Rather so much for the deformity confusion and destruction of the Church and of all true Church-order as not only all who have eyes in their heads will grant but the present frutes and effects cry out to all the world Being he addeth so suteable and correspondent to the ancient government of the Church of Israel wherein there wee Priests and chief Priests and several rankes of Ministers an order which was neither typical nor temporal but hath a standing reason reaching us O so bravely as this advocat pleads for the Pope hath he gote the promise of a Cardinal's cap for his paines Because there was one high Priest over all the Church must we have also one Pope Good Master Prelate prove your consequence for we see no such standing reason reaching us as to this nor as to what you would conclude the case being the same Being sayes he so conforme to the beginnings of Christ's ordering the New Testament Ministry where there were Apostles above the seventy disciples Nay rather so conforme to Antichrist's ordering of his Church for as the seventy Disciples were to be no standing officers in Christ's house so the Apostles had no superiority of order or jurisdiction over them they were intrusted with no inspection over these Let our Master Bishope with all his gifts learning and knowledge shew this if he can Being sayes he further so agreable to the Apostles constitution of the government of the Churches of the New Testament which was in an imparity of power in Ministers as is luculently exemplified in the power of Timothy and Titus who were not Evangelists nor ever accounted so by the spirit of God It seemeth then Paul was not acted by the spirit of God when he said to Timothy 2 Tim. 4 5. do the work of an Euangelist and since all the proof which he can bring of this is this example of Timothy and Titus let his consolidated and ripened judgment taking to help the greatest of his gifts learning and knowledge answere what Prinne hath said in his Unbishoping of Timothy and Titus and let him not thus stope our mouth with his raw and blunt assertions lest wise men think he hath neither gifts learning knovvledge prudence nor judgment but a rarifyed vvindy braine swelled to a great bulk vvith vanity and conceite as who but he who can confute all books hovv ful soever of unansvverable reasons vvith his bare I say otherwise And finally sayes he our ascended glorious Saviour having honoured persons with that precedency by letters written by his secretary Iohn unto them Revel 2 and 3. Chapt wherein he sheweth the approbation of their office and power reproving their neglects yet honouring them with the stile of Angels to the Churches or his Messengers in speciall manner which cannot without notable perversâ—on of the Scripture be otherwise understood but of single persons presideing over presbyters Can no single person preside over prebyters except my Lord Prelate Or are all presidents or moderators of presbyteries Prelates Nay he will be loath to say so And what can he prove from thence though it were granted to him that this Angel was once single person which cannot be till Holy and profound Mr Durham's arguments be confuted which will be ad câ—lendas Graecas but at most that this Angel was a moderator of the meeting Was he therefore the Lord Prelate No master Bishop your wit and learning both will not prove this And hath your new Order and dignity to which you are advance O Lordly Prelate infused no new gifts into you that you might fasten your chaire with some new nailes or arguments or are you so consolidated into the old temper of your predecessours that you must rest satisfied with what they said as having neither gifts learning knowledge nor wit to invent new things But could your lordly braine think of no reply to the solidanswers which poor weak ignorant and unexperienced presbyters gave long agoe unto these arguments Why then did you chant over the old song againe to make yourselfe but ridiculous Did you think that your word would have more weight then the solid reasons of that solid and Eminent divine Holy Mr Durham in his exposition of that place If so you must have a wonderful high esteem of yourselfe which will make all wise Men to esteem the lesse of you And this order sayes he Christs Church dear spouse having since that time retained in all places where Churches were constitute without exception in all times without interruption until this last age wherein through hatred of corruptions adhereing thereto under Popery and because of the enmity of the Popish Bishops to the reformation some have utterly without any reason rejected the office it self O irrefragable dictator Ex tripode he dictats like another uncontrollable Master What better is this out of your Mouth then it was out of old Bishop Hall'â— the Remonstrator and confuted by Smectymnuus is this man able to answere al which Blondel hath said against this or learned Calderwood in his Altar Damasc or yet to answer what his dearer friend Stilling fleet hath said to this purpose in this Irenicum Why hath he not once noticed that which the author of Apologetical Relation hath said Sect. 1. Where he shewed out of History and by reason that Palladius was the first prelate that ever Scotland saw And this solifidian giveth us non causam pro causâ when he sayes that it was only the corruptions of the Prelates that made some without reason reject them whereas it