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
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
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
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
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
colour of Religion 2. You say the greatest matters of Religion carrie sometimes a small shew What is this to the purpose I know no great question in Religion but for the matter it selfe it must carry still a great shew and no small you bring grammaticall and nominall similitudes of words but for reall differences they are very great So Authoritas Regis and authoritas gregis carry great similitude in words but the reall difference is as great as betweene Monarchie and Democracie But you make all the question to be concerning Episcopacie certainely herein the question is neither small in shew nor substance for the question is 1. Whether Episcopall Government be Antichristian and your new Presbyteriall government that which Christ hath ordained in his Church 2. Whether wee within the Church of Scotland are bound now to beleeve under the paine of damnation your tenet concerning the government of the Church and you hold that it is a point necessary to Salvation now in our Church after such degrees of light and Revelation to beleeve your sayings 1. But that is a miserable light of yours that non can see but your selves your light is like ignis fatuus which as the learned say flyeth from those that follow it and followes those that flie from it When we came to your Commissioners at Glasgow Master Retherfort and Master Cant to aske resolution of our doubts your light fled from us your answer was Yee must denie reason and learning and helpe Christ a lift But while you were in Pulpit you made the people to beleeve that you could solve all doubts as having commission from Christ so to do let your light shine that we may see Are all other Churches yet fitting in darknesse not knowing rightly what is the Church Government and you only a shining Goshen in the midst of Egypt 2 If the knowledge of the unlawfulnesse of Episcopacy and the lawfulnesse of your Presbyteriall Government be a point now so necessary what is the cause that God never revealed how his Church should be governed all the time by-past for you must have this by a revelation and yet it must not be a divine revelation because it 's contrary to Gods Word The Prophet that hath a dreame Ier. 23.28 let him tell a dreame and hee that hath my word let him speake my word faithfully Hath not the Church of Christ that hath this 15. or 16. hundred yeeres been governed by Diocesian Bishops beenlawfully governed I am sure if God had ordained your Government he would not suffer his Church from the beginning to this time to have been blindly led But for this point I remit you to the learned Writers for Episcopacie As for your malicious aspersions upon that Apostolike Government because you speak at randome without reason I leave you in your choller to cry out against them as enemies to al Religion Pirats and misguiding Pilots And may it not content you what you have done you have done worse than the Pagan mariners did with Ionah to cast these your Pilots over board into the Sea and how shall you govern the Ship in this storme you have done worse than the Souldiers would have done with the Apostle Paul Acts 27.42 who would kill him for you have had such relation with Satan in this work that you have given them as a sacrifice to Satan as Satan would have given all the Kingdomes of the world unto Christ Luke 16.28 but if you have really delivered them unto him and he hath received them there is a deepe gulfe wherein they are that you need not fear their return to your Ship Acts 27.31 neverthelesse I say unto you with Paul That except these abide in the ship you cannot be saved And you should studie to know what that is to deliver over to Satan 1. Cor. 5.5 But you say You have spued them out of the Church and cannot receive them Ans 1. The Sea hath not been calme but a great storme hath wrought that excesse of loathing in your stomack 2. The Church spued out all Popish errours and amongst the rest the Popish Hierarchie and all Popish Bishops that hung upon the Pope their Head but they did not condemne the lawfull and laudable calling of Episcopacy which is more ancient than the Pope as ancient as the Apostles 3. If the Church hath spued out this lawfull calling as I hope you will not make it good she hath been in a great distemper and you should have covered that fault as Sem and Japhet did their fathers nakednesse rather than Cham-like to declare the same unto the world it 's our Scottish proverbe They are scant of newes that tels their Father was hanged Further you say The question is now whether we shall have a free nationall Kirk c. Answ 1. Are you beginning now to state the question when you have ended your dispute 2. With such a question How long will you wrong his Majesty who is so farre from taking armes against the Religion we now have to establish any other that he will still defend our true Religion You speake of base Slaves and cannot suffer that his Majesty should advance them But you speake too basely and whence are you with your Nobilitie you master Ministers with a Pope in your heart you despaire of your advancement with Aerius and cannot endure others Such as he who said Make me a Lord above my Lady and offered to leade a blinde Bishop that after his death he might be preferred to his place The heels once murmured because they had not the place of the head The Asse would climbe upon a Velvet Cushion to fawne upon his master like a Spaniel I pray you whosoever you be who envie the advancement of learned men or any others to consider that the Kings subjects are as Counters in the Kings hand whereof he makes one a 100. another a 1000. a third 10000. according to his pleasure And must he be countable to your humor Or must you be his directer You say you must stand fast to your liberty to withstand the re-advancement of Bishops Take Peters counsell Vse not your liberty for a cloake of maliciousnesse 1 Pe. 2.16 17. but as the Servants of God Honour all men Love the brotherhood Feare God Honour the King You began your reasons with absurdity and unreasonablenesse and you conclude with these last words That you can looke for nothing but for miserable and perpetuall slavery So they deserve that hold such absurdities Pondus adest verbis vocem futa sequentur And you must perish in the gainesaying of Core Iude 11. Rom. 13.2 and receive to your selves condemnation except ye repent which I pray God to grant you And as heretofore You have fasted for strife and debate and to smite with the fist of wickednesse So now I exhort you in the name of God to fast and pray that God would lighten your eyes in this Controversie and turne your