Covenanters instructions.
The times require that the points following be pressed upon the people, both by the Preachers in publicke, and understanding and well-affected Professors in private conferences.

1. BEcause our chiefe adversaries, who are enemies to the Gospell of Christ, to the salvation of the peoples soules and to the peace of this Church and Kingdome, have from the beginning advanced their ungodly and Antichristian course, by lies and persecution, by craft and cruelty, which have beene their most subtill and strongest arguments. And now when by excommunication they are given over to Sa­tan who hath been a lier and murtherer from the beginning, have put away all conscience, countenance, and naturall affe­ctions to their Country, the people would bee dealt withall that their fraudulent lies and crafty devices be not beleeved, nor their force and threatned violence be feared by the peo­ple [Page 4]of God, remembring their Hellish Maxime: ‘Flectere si nequeo superos, Acheront a movebo.’

Anticovenanter.

Though much might bee said against this most unchristi­an and uncharitable divellish saying, which I might justly retort, especially in perswading the people to sweare to serve the King, which service you now cause stand in resisting; Yet with Michael the Archangell, disputing with the De­vill about the body of Moses, I will bring no railing accusa­tion, Iude 9. but I say, The Lord rebuke thee.

Covenanter.

2. That Ʋnitie bee earnestly recommended, as that which strengthens the cause, and which being fast holden with veritie, will make us invincible: and on the contrary, that Division is by all meanes to bee avoyded, as that which from the begin­ning hath beene principally intended, and many wayes sought for by our enemies, and which once having place, will bring us to a certaine ruine, and make us of all people the most contempti­ble and miserable; exposing our selves and our posteritie, to the wrath of God, for our perfidious dealing in his Covenant, to the mercilesse crueltie of our enemies, to be a hissing and reproach to all Nations about us, and to be a griefe to all godly, who have beene continually in their prayers and praises to God for us all this time.

Anticovenanter.

1. You have great cause to urge unitie, for if even Satans kingdome be divided, it cannot stand. 2. Let unitie with the head be urged, and not of the members against the head; to recommend unitie, and not with the head, is in effect, to urge separation and division, to scatter in Israel, and divide in Ia­cob; which thing you here doe unhappily presage, male [Page 5]ominatis parcite verbis. 3. No division hath beene intended, but the right union hath beene sought for, which is between the head and the rest of the body, the King and his subjects, which you now have so much withstood, seeking only uni­on of the members without the head, which is to make one monster of many heads, as is seene amongst us this day.

And certainely, there is such Antipathie in this your con­sederation, that you cannot be well united; you are like un­to Nebuchadnezars image, not all of one mettall, gold, silver, brasse, yron and clay, of which simples, none can compound a perfect body: you of the young Nobility, who will be the golden head, you of the Gentrie, who will be the brest of silver, you Burgesses, who will be the brazen thighes, you silly Ministers, who are placed in the foot by the order of your Covenant, to be yron, mixt with the Commons, the clay; whose dwelling is of the clay, and habitation of the dust, how can you have any durable union? If you march forward, your foot of clay must faile you, and you must fall and breake your golden heads, like Dagon before the Arke, and nothing be left, but a stump of antipathizing mettall,

Covenanter.

3. That it be frequently remembred, how the finger and power of God by many and admirable evidences hath beene manifest in this great worke of reformation, and how the Lord either by blowing upon all the devises of our enemies; or by turning them backe upon themselves, hath turned all their wisedome into foolishnesse, that we may have confidence for time to come, belee­ving, and saying with the Prophet, Jsa. 26. Lord, thou wilt ordaine peace for us.

Anticovenanter.

[Page 6] It's ever esteemed foolishnesse to argue of the goodnesse of any enterprize from the successe thereof. Diagoras the Atheist was confirmed in his opinion that there was no God, because he came with a faire gale of wind through the Sea without shipwracke.

Polycrates the Tyrant of Samos was renouned above all that ever I read in prophane History, for his prosperity and good successe in all his businesse, and when by his friends he was desired to seeke adversity in some thing, because they thought it ominous, never to taste of troubles; he threw a most precious ring into the river, the losse whereof grieved him much, but the next morning his Cook found the ring in the belly of a fish, which confirmed the Tyrant in his opini­on of perpetuall prosperity, but yet in the end he was taken by Orontes, and hanged. Men ought not to blesse themselves in any evill way, and say in their hearts we shall never bee moved. Reade the League of France, and you shall see how they prosper'd in al their affaires. The Lacqueies of the Duke of Guize had more credit with the people then his Majesties principall Servants: so is it now with you, your cup is not yet full, behold the end. The Kings Clemency hath made you insolent, if hee at the beginning had showne himselfe like a blazing Star, you had all evanished as smoak, but his Majesty being a follower of God his Master hath thought by clemen­cie and indulgence to gaine you, and now seeth that Iustice must succeed to clemency, to bring you to subjection; neither shall you escape by iniquity, and the further ye proceed in an evill way, the neerer is your ruine.

Covenanter.

4. That the people bee not troubled when they heare of wars, nor affraid of shadowes, nor be deceived with promises, nor mo­ved with remonstrances were they never so specious, but they themselves denounce Warre against their owne sinnes, as their greatest enemies, and submit themselves obediently to follow their Leaders, whom God at this time hath largely furnished [Page 7]with counsell, and courage, for the good of his Kirk, and King­dome.

Anticovenanter.

The people needeth not to bee troubled with warres, Rom. 13.3. if they be loyall Subjects, for his Majesty is not a terror to good workes, but to the evill. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the pow­er? doe that which is good, and thou shalt have the praise of the same. For he is the Minister of God to thee for good: but if thou doe that which is evill, bee afraid: for hee beareth not the sword in vaine: for he is the Minister of God, a revenger to ex­ecute wrath upon him that doth evill.

2. It's needlesse to perswade them not to be afraid of sha­dowes, for shadowes flie away. But what meane you by shadowes? the Kings power? his armie? Well, it may be that these shadowes become bodies. Zebul perswaded Gaal who conspired against Abimelech, that Abimelech's army was but the shadow of the mountaines, and not men. Iudg. 9.36. But when Gall saw them come downe by the middle of the land, and another company come along by the plaine in Meonenim: he found that a shadow to be feared, when Zebul said, where is now thy mouth, wherewith thou saydst, Who is Abimelech, that we should serve him? Is not this the people that thou hast despised? Goe out, I pray now, and fight with him. Howbeit you regard not this shadow, yet let all these in his Dominions that feare God, esteeme His Majesties power under God to be, especially in these evill times, a hiding place from the wind, a covert from the tempest, Esa. 32.2. a shadow of a great rocke in a wearie Land.

3. Whereas you desire men not to be deceived with promi­ses, &c. You would doe well to make this cleare. Will the King promise faire, and then faile? Will you like railing Rabshakeh disswade Israel to trust Hezekias? and say, 2 King. 18.29. Let not the King deceive you, hearken not unto him: GOD give you better mindes. I dare bee bold to promise in His Majesties name these words of the Prophet Esay. Say to the righteous, Esa. 3.10. that it shall bee well with him: for they shall eate the fruit of [Page 8]their doings. Woe unto the wicked, it shall be evill with him, for the reward of his hands shall be given unto him.

4. It's well advised to urge the people to make war with sinne, God further this worke; but I pary you, urge them to denounce warre against the reigning sinne amongst you, against rebellion, and resisting of superiour Powers. Let the Leaders of Gods people lean them in the paths of righteous­nesse; bring not strange fire to Gods Altar; warme not your pulpits with the strange doctrine of unrighteousnesse; that you may at the day of account, say, Lord, I have done as thou hast commanded, and if wee have beene deceived, thou hast deceived us: and be not blind leaders of the blind, till you both fall in the ditch.

Covenanter.

5. That is be remembred, what hath been our manifold defecti­ons, in discipline, Sacraments, worship and doctrine, through the want of lawfull Nationall assemblies, and the usurpation of the Prelats these many yeeres by past; and that a greater mercie could not be showne to this Land, than a free and full Nae­tionall assemblie; such as is that which was indicted by His Majestie, and holden at Glasgow, ridding this Kirke of the Prelates, the Authors, and Executioners of all our woes. That they may bee earnest with God in their Prayers, that as he hath beene pleased to set up our reformation againe with a stretched out hand, hee may bee graciously pleased to uphold his own work; and make the Kings Majesty a nursing Father to the Kirke in this Land.

Anticovenanter.

Let these things be remembred in Gods Name. Tell them, that the defections of Discipline is great, in that the antient Apostolik Government is by a lawles Covenant abjured, and by violence removed; and another of a baser coin put in it's place. Tell them of the profanation of the Sacraments: and [Page 9]of their superstitious opinion, who make some gesture essen­tiall to the Lords Supper, and others idolatrous. Let them be told too, that the Lord is wronged in his worship, by those who condemne set prayers in his Service. Tell them likewise, that the Doctrine is corrupted, especially concern­ing the authority of the Supreme Magistrate. But call not ye the Prelates, the authors and executioners of your woes, who are become so great enemies to them: you ought also to be afraid to father your disorders upon God, as a work of reformation, thereby speciously making him the author and fautor of all your misdemeanours.

And finally, it's a most odiously spoken by you, to pray that the King His Majestie may be a nursing father to his Church; for in your sense, you seeme to make him a stepfa­ther, an enemy, yea, a Tyrant to the Church, as you declare your selves in the stating of the question, and answering to the 13. Rom. for except he be a Tyrant, you declare it's un­lawfull to resist him: and if mercy, clemency, and all Royall vertues, which are in him, be Tyranny, then His Majestie is the greatest Tyrant that ever was.

Covenanter.

6 That the Ministers and Professors acquaint themselves with the acts of Assemblie, especially that against Episcopacie, with the protestation and answers to the Declaration made by the Commissioner, and the Declinator of the Assemblie by the Bishops: That from these, they may be able promptly to answer the objections of the Adversaries. That the last sup­plication be read in publike, that the Commons may see how falsly we are traduced, and how reasonable our desire is.

Anticovenanter.

It were more sit that you should studie to prudencie, and [Page 10]to keepe these things close, and to desire that these things should not be told in Gath, not published in Askelon, espe­cially, that monstrous Act concerning Episcopacie; lest by publishing these your follies in print, you make your selves, Opprobrium Coeli, ludibrium (que) soli. And get your Assembly branded with that of the Councell of Trent. Non fuit libe­rum Concilium, Sibrand de Con­cil. Excep. 8. sed combinatio conjuratorum.

Covenanter.

7 The stating of the Controversie at this time betweene the King and his Subjects must be cleared to the people thus: that all men may know how unjustly we are invaded, and how just and necessary our defence shall be. The question is not, whe­ther we ought honour to the King, for we a knowledge him to be Gods Deputie and Vicegerent: or whether we ought to obey the King, for God hath given him Power and Authority to Command: or whether we ought to given unto Caesar, that which is Caesars, for that we desire to doe most cheerfully: or whether we ought to feare the King, for he is set over us to doe Justice. Neither is the question, whether Honour should be given to evill Superiours, for as our Adversaries, by moving of such questions at this time under pretext of dutie, doe wrong and dishonour to the Kings gracious Majestie; so we professe in the generall, that the wickednesse of man cannot avoid Gods Ordinance: and therefore although we had froward and wicked Superiours, yet obedience and honour is to be given unto them, as being set up by God, as it were, in his wrath, Hos. 13.11. Neither is the question, whether we ought absolute obedience to an evill Magistrate, for our adversaries (whatsoever be their judgement and practice) doe not affirme that malo in malo, or ad malum est obediendum, but that Kings are to be obeyed so farre as their Commandements are not contrary to Gods, and if God command one thing, and they the contrary; in this case, it's better to obey God, than man. Neither is the questi­on about the invasion of the King, or any of his Kingdomes, which is the despitefull and divellish calumnie of the disnatured [Page 11]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; [Page 12]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 [Page 13]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 [Page 14]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 [Page 15]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 [Page 16]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 [Page 17]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 [Page 19]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. Ʋti (que) rex erat, null is ipse legibus tenebatur, quia liberi sunt reges à vinculis deli­ctorum, ne (que) 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, [Page 20]divino sunt judicio reservandi, ubi tanto districtiùs sunt puniendi, quanto minùs fuerint divinis admonitionibus obnoxy. What then is the Ʋnreasonablenesse of this absolute authori­ty in respect of men? Great hurt, say you, both to Prince and people.

Ans. 1. It's no question but great hurt may fall out both to Prince and people, while the Prince presuming upon his authority, abuseth the same, and makes himself liable to the wrath of God. But much more hurt would follow upon the other hand, if the Princes power were subject to the inferior subjects; that would breed great confusion, and turn all up­side down, to make the Supreme under his Inferiours: everse hoc ordine, publicae tanquilitatis nervum incidi, totam (que) huma­nae societatis compagem laxari, ac disturbarinecesse est, saies Tilen. When ever the subjects pleased they would be raising commotions and seditions, Corah, Dathan and Abiram would say, Numb. 16.3. You take too much upon you, Moses. Absalom would strive to steal the hearts of the people away from the King. The University of Paris (though Papists) in Cen­sura lata. die 4. Iuny 1610. is of this same judgement, cal­ling it Seditiosum, impium, ac haereticum, quocun (que) quaeito colore à quocun (que) subdito, vassallo, aut extraneo, sacris Re­gum ac Principum personis vim habere: A seditious, wicked and hereticall thing, that violence should be offered to the sacred persons of Kings and Princes, upon whatsoever pre­texts or colour, by whosoever, vassall, or forrainner. They say further, that it is a seditious doctrine, Regni optimates & proceres ad foedissimam desertionem, populum ad generalem de­fectionem at (que) seditionem, specioso quidem, sed fucato Religi­onis Catholicae retinendae at (que) conservanda praetextu, hortans, excitans, impellans. A doctrine exhorting, stirring up, and thrusting forward the great men and Nobles of the Land to a most filthy desertion, the people to a generall defection and sedition, under a glorious indeed (but yet fained) pre­text, of retaining and conserving the Catholik religion. And therfore, I conclude with M. Geor. Froger in dicta Censura. Nè subjecti domino nostre regi, abripi se sinant affrice [Page 21]pestilentis istius dectrina vento. Let not the Subjects of our Soveraign Lord the King, suffer themselves to be violently carried away with the Affrick wind of this pestilent do­ctrine. And finally, if there were such power in the people above the Prince, the supreme Majesty would be rather in the people, than in the Prince.

But you say, if we resist not, Church and state will go to ruine. An 1. There is no danger to Church or Kingdome from his Majesty, who is only to put away disonders, and to restore the Church to her liberty. 2. Though there were such dangers threatned, yet unlawfull means (such as is the resisting superiour powers) for good ends, ought not to be used, suffering is commanded and commended unto us in Scrip­ture, resisting is forbidden. By resisting, Tyrants are more en­raged, by patient suffering, they are mitigated; resisting brings ruine to a Church, suffering causeth it to flourish; the bloud of the Saints is the seed of the Church: and it's obser­ved by the learned, that so long as the Churches in the primi­tive times used sua arma, their own weapons, prayers and teares against the persecuters, they flourished: but when they took aliena arma, strange armour, then they came to ruine; as it is this day under the dominion of the Turkes and Infi­dels. It's well said, that Peccata pepuli sunt vires tyranno­rum, The sins of the people are the strength of tyrants: and therfore, when by patience, by teares, and supplicati­ons we seek God, God pardons our sins, and our sins be­ing remooved, the strength of Tyrants is abated: and God can put a hook in their mouth, and draw them back from persecuting his Church. But when we resist, we augment our sins, and usurpe Gods place, to whom only it belongs to take order with wicked Kings, since they have none above them, but God.

Covenanter.

2. From that line and order of subordination, Argument. wherin the Magistrate is placed under God the great Superiour, and the [Page 22]Subjects are placed under God the Great, and under the Ma­gistrate, the lesse Superiour. When the Magistrate commands contrary to God, and goeth out of his order and line, especially so farr as to invade by armes, if they obey not; the subjects keeping of their own line and order, and defending themselves, is not disobedience to the Magistrate, but obedience to God, who in this point, so long as the Magistrate runneth this course, becomes their immediate Superiour. And as under the Magistrate they ought to defend themselves from all violence without: so in this abuse of God and his ordinance, from all vio­lence within; otherwise, they sin against God and their own soules. One inferiour officer ought to keep his own station in the army, even when the Captain goeth out of his line and order, and taketh part with the enemy; and in this case, is bound no lesse than before under his Coronell or Generall, to fight for himself, and for the safety of the whole army, against his own Captain. It were against sense and reason to say, that he must give his neck to the sword of the Captaine, without re­gard of his Generall, the whole army, and his own life.

Anticovenanter.

This Argument is not so specious, as false; no man doubts, but when the Magistrate goeth out of his order, and by Armes commands, what God forbids; that, in that case, man is not tied to obedience. But to take up armes to re­sist, is the point in question, which you call obedience to God, and not disobedience to the Magistrate; but you beg the que­stion, and cannot prove it, except from that, that God forbids to resist superiour Powers. 2. You deny the King, in this case to be your Superiour, so long as he commands contra­ry to Gods Commandement; and God only becommeth your immediate Superiour: before this time, I never heard so much seditious and treasonable doctrine. Did ever a Je­suit say so much? This justifieth their doctrine, for they hold, that, though Kings were never so wicked Tyrants, yet till the Pope declare them incapable of Authority, they remaine their lawfull Superiours: and if the false ground [Page 23]of this doctrine were true, to wit, that the Pope is above Kings, their doctrine even so farr were good. But that inferiours should by their own usurped authority and inso­lency disclaime their Superiours, making God their only immediate Superiour is a most brutish doctrine, not worthy to be answered with words. As God sometimes sets up Kings to be nursing fathers to the Church, (as long may it be, we have one) so somtime he will raise wicked men to be a scourge to his Church: to both these, we ought obedience in all things lawfull; and subjection, when obedience is not lawfull, and never disclaime their authority. So the Chri­stians under Iulian the Apostate fought his battels, and o­beyed him, when he commanded things lawfull: but when he commanded things unlawful they did not obey, & yet ne­ver resisted (though powerful to resist) but were ever in sub­jection to their temporal Lord, for their eternal Lords sake. So sayes Augustin in Psal. 124. Quando volebat ut idola co­lerent, ut thurificarent, praeponebant illi Deum: quando au­tem dicebat, producite aciem, ite contra illam gentem, statim obtemperabant, distinguebant Dominum aeternum a Domino temporali, tamen subditi erant propter Dominum aeternum, etiam Domino temporali. That which you cannot prove by reason, you would proove by a similitude of a Captain and his Souldiers, but you know that 1. Theologia symbolica non est argumentativa. 2. The comparison is not alike, but hal­teth down-right: for the authority of the Captain is limi­ted and bounded by his Prince or Generall, that he must not transgresse in the least point of his Commission; otherwise the souldiers are no more bound to follow him, then they know his Commission from their common Prince. As for example, the King of France sends his armies to fight against the Spaniards: Now, if the Captain of this army make de­fection from the King, and go to the Spanish army, then they become as Spaniards, enemies to their own King; now here sense it selfe leads the army to fight against their Cap­tain, who are turned enemies; for they certainly know, that it was the Kings will to fight against the Spaniards, and [Page 24]all that would take their part in that battell, and therfore they haue their Kings warrant to fight against their cap­taines, who now ipso facto ceaseth to be their captaine, and become enemies. But if the King did give these his Captains absolute and unlimited power over the armies, comman­ding the souldiers not to resist them by armes, whither they did right or wrong; whither they should turn to the ene­my or not; in this case indeed as the souldiers ought not to turne away after them to the enemy against their Sove­raigne, so they ought not to fight against them; but fly home to their Prince, whose will they know. Thus stands the case between God and the King his Deputy, God hath gi­ven him such authority, that all under him must be subject unto him without resistance; and though he should doe many things contrary to Gods Word, yet ipso facto he cea­seth not to be King, and we must not obey him in evill, but yet be subject unto him for Conscience sake.

The Covenanters seeing the weaknesse of this their argu­ment and the strength of reason against it from the Apostles Direction, Rom. 13.1. they strive (but unhappily) to answer that objection, thus.

Covenanter.

It's objected Rom. 13.1. Let every soule be subject unto the higher powers. Answer. Tyranny and unjust violence is not the ordinance of God, and he that resisteth it, resists not the ordinance of God: they are rulers contrary to good workes, not to evill, they are not the Ministers of God for good, neither in this can we be subject unto them for conscience sake. The whole course of the Apostles argument runneth against the resistance of lawfull power, commanding things good and law­full; We must either acknowledge Tyranny to be the ordinance of God, and for our good, or els exclude it from the Apostles argument, admitting the resistance therof to be lawfull, at least by the shield for defence, if not by the sword for invasion.

Anticovenanter.

In this you declare either much weaknesse, or else much malice; and I may say both. No man will affirme that Ty­rannie and violence are Gods ordinance, but those to whom God hath given lawfull authority, may abuse it tyrannically; and they remaine the Ministers of God for thy good, in tuum bonum (saies Augustin) licet sibi in malum: for all things work together for the best to them that love God. For the Lord will raise up Kings sometimes (as Isaiah saies) to be The rod of his anger and staffe of his indignation, Isai. 10 5. to afflict an hypocriticall people, to take the spoyle and the prey, and to tread them downe like the mire in the streets: Howbeit he meaneth not so, neither doth his heart thinke so, saith the Lord, but it is in his heart to destroy nations, not a few. And when tyrants thinke thus to doe evill to us, yet it turneth to our good to humble us under Gods hand, and cause us repent. This is all the fruit, to take away our iniquity, saith the Lord: Isai. 27 9. and thus, Tyranni sunt ministri Dei tibi in bonum, licet sibi in malum: and to resist them is to fight with God, and pull the rod out of his hand. Your inference then is most chil­dish, that either we must admit tyrannie to be Gods ordinance, or else we may resist it. For you see that he who hath a lawfull power from God, may abuse it tyrannically, and we must not resist Gods ordinance, lawfull authority; because such and such men exercise it tyrannically. Our superiors power is not Gods ordinance, because he is a good man that hath it, as David was: neither is the authority, not Gods ordinance, because he is an evill man that hath it, as Saul was: but the authority is Gods ordinance, because he who hath it, is the lawfull superior. He that was Emperour, when Paul writ this Epistle, was Nero, a tyrant. Nero (sayes lear­ned Moulin) was a monster in nature, the shame of humane kinde, and the first Emperour that began to persecute the Church, neverthelesse the Apostle, Rom. 13. speaking of that power which then was in being, saith, that it was ordained by [Page 26]God, and that whosever resisted the same, resisted the ordinance of God, &c. So sayes Aug. De civit Dei lib. 5. cap. 21. Where he declares that the authority of wicked Emperours was from Gods ordinance, as well as of good Emperours, Qui Mario, Caio, Caesari, qui Augusto ipse & Neroni; qui Ve­spasianis, vel patri vel filio suavissimis imperatoribus, ipse & Domitiano crudelissimo: & ne per singulos ire necesse sit, qui Constantino Christiano, ipse & apostatae Iuliano. Did not Paul acknowledge the authority of Nero, when he did ap­peale to him, and that lawfully, I stand at Caesars judgement seat, where I ought to be judged: Act. 25.10. And Christ him­selfe acknowledged the Authority of Pilate over him to be from above. Neither was it lawfull for Christs Disciples to resist, and by armes to defend their Master against such matchlesse cruelty and tyrannie.

And here by the way, I gather one argument against your course, which I pray you answer. It was not lawfull for Christs Disciples to defend Christ by armes against the tyranny of those who invaded him, and crucified him. Ther­fore, its not lawfull for us to take desensive armes against ty­rants. Ye will answer, Christ suffered them not to resist, because it was his will to suffer. This is true indeed, he was most willing to suffer, but yet the reason wherefore he hin­ders Peter to defend him, is, because it was not lawfull for him to defend by armes, therefore he sayes, Put up thy sword into his place, for he that takes the sword shall perish with the sword. He that drawes the sword, must doe it by the autho­rity of him that hath power.

Consider also the 13. Chap. of the Revelation, in the 7 ver. It's said, that the beast with the seven heads and ten hornes had power given him over all kinreds, tongues, and nations, to make war with the Saints. What shall the Saints doe then un­der their persecuters? May they not take up armes? Nor, for in the next words, the Spirit of God sets down the manner of the Saints defence [...]: First, tels what must not be done, and then what they must doe; first, they must not resist, and take their persecuters either captive, [Page 27]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. [Page 26] [...] [Page 27] [...]

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, sione [...] qu [...]s subju [...]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 [Page 29]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 [Page 30]God. Non tribuamus dands regni atque imperij potestatem, nisi Deo vero. August. These cannot properly be called Kings, who have their power from the people, because publike Governement is onely proper to God, who giveth it to whom he pleaseth. And seeing it is contrary to reason, that any can have supreme power over himselfe; it followeth that the people wanting a King cannot have the supreme power over it selfe; and therefore cannot bestow it upon any man to be their King, for none can give that to another which they have not themselves.

5. Ye say the people may be without the Magistrate. Answer. So have you made us this yeare and more; in stead of a King. we have had the Ephori of Sparta, and the Roman Tribunes over-ruling us, strange Lords rule over us to the great con­tempt of our own King. Dominis parere superbis, cogimur. 2. The world was not without a King till Cain's time: for Adam was King, his Empire was paternall, and therfore Monarchicall; for albeit, at first he did not actually exercise politicall Government before the people did multiply; yet ex vijuris naturae, by the force of the law of nature, it was due to the first progenitor Adam, to be governour of his po­sterity, and thus habitually, he was King from his first crea­tion: and therfore that assertion of the Monarchomachists is not alwaies true, the King is not without a people, as the people are without a King. I see, you think you may be well without our King, what remaineth then, but with the Bi­shops, let Kings go too, and lay a ground for Anabaptisme.

6. You say the body of the Magistrate is mortall. I pray you what kind of people are you? Qui genus, unde demo? Are you only the off-spring of God? I reade in Scripture that God saies to Kings, Psal. 82.6, 7. I have said ye are gods, but to which of you is this name given? and if you will assume that to you, take the rest of the Text with you, - but ye shall die like men. It's an old saying, Rex nunquam maritur, The King never dieth. But one generation goeth, and another com­meth; Let it content you that tho King and you are of one mettall.

[Page 31] Now in the end, having thus many waies preferred your selves to the King, you make this monstrous conclusion. It's adirect over-turning of all foundation of Policie, to preferre subjection to the Prince, to the preservation of the common-wealth. Answ. Here you separate that which God hath joyned together, and make these two opposite, which ever must go hand in hand together: for Subjection to the Prince, is the only way to preserve the Common-wealth: where Subjection is not, Gods ordinance is contemned, the foundation of policie over-turned, and the Common-wealth exposed to ruine, as is cleare in the answer to your first Ar­gument.

Covenanter.

From the Covenant betwixt God and the people, 4. Argument. for the peo­ple and the Magistrate are joyntly bound in Covenant with God, for observing and preserving the Commandements of the first and second tables, as may be seene in the bookes of Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles: As the fault of the people will not excuse the Magistrates negligence, so the fault of the King will not excuse the people, if they resist not his violence, pressing them against the Covenant of God, this argument is strongly pressed by sound and religious politicians.

Anticovenanter.

You should declare, how King and people are both joint­ly bound: Will you have King and Subject of equall power, about the observation and preservation of the Tables? You are bound to keep the Commandements of God, as well as your King; but the King is bound to do more, to wit, to be carefull, that all his Subjects keep them, and to punish transgressours. I have read the whole Scripture of God, but I could never find this power given to Subjects. It's enough for them to keep the Tables themselves, but they have no authority to command others, much lesse doth it belong to [Page 32]them to resist the Magistrate. If the King presse the people to the breach of the Law, they must not obey; since God, his Superiour, commands the contrary; but yet they must not resist, since God, both their Superiours, forbids. You poore­ly beg here the question, affirming, that the people will sin if they resist not, but you will never prove it. You say, it is strongly pressed by sound politicians, but you presse it most weakly and unfoundly, not nominating one sound Politici­an for you. For no Wiseman will confound the Princes authority with the people, and turne a Monarchie into a Democracie.

Covenanter.

From the subordination of Powers appointed by God. 5. Argument. The same law and order that appoints to obey the supreme Magistrate, rather than his Deputie, appoints us also to obey God, rather than man: and the same law and order that leadeth us to de­fend the supreme Magistrate against the invasion of his De­putie, commandeth us also to defend Gods right, and to pre­serve the peoples peace against the unjust invasion of the su­preme Magistrate: who can be thought no lesse subordinate to God, then his Vicegerent is to him.

Anticovenanter.

This Argument is builded upon sand, you dreame, that whatsoever meanes may be used for preservation of the Prince against his Deputies, the same may be used for the preservation of Gods right, and the peoples peace. But you erre, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God. Both by Gods Law, and mans law, Subjects are bound to defend their Prince. But Gods Law commands not to defend his right by armes: the weapons of our warfare are spirituall, and not carnall. Patience, Faith, with other graces, are our Armour, we must be subject for conscience sake, and not take Gods place to represse our Superiours. If any inferiour judge [Page 33]wrong me, I must not resist him, but appeale to his Superi­our, and from him again, to his Superiour, even to the King the Supreme; and if he will be unjust, and wrong me, I must not resist, but commit my cause to God, to whom venge­ance belongeth. It is a point of Atheisme, and distrusting of Gods providence, to think that God will not help against Tyrants; and therfore men will be their owne judges, and revenge themselves. But the Lord hath said. Psal. 12.5. For the oppres­sion of the poore, and the sighing of the needy, now I will arise, and set him in safety, &c. Then take Salomons counsell, Prov. 20.22 Say not thou, I will recompense evill: but wait on the Lord, and he will save thee. Suffer me then to attest you, my deare Countrey-men. What thinke you to doe, O yee Co­venanters, for God and the King? You undertake armes, not for God, who desires nothing but peace: You publish Rebel­lion, He commands Obedience. You trouble the rest and quiet of a King, he willeth us to endure hardnesse, though at the hand of a Pagan. You doe it for God, whose name yee call upon, and deny his Power. You doe it for God, who detesteth your actions, and knowes your thoughts. And you doe it for that God, who will confound all those who breed confusion among his people. You undertake warre for Religion, against the Defender of Religion: You raise armies for Religion, and nothing hindereth it so much as warres: You fight for holinesse, and your weapons de­stroy the Church, authorize blasphemie, plant Atheisme, im­piety, and despising of Devotion in all places. You march under pretence of Religion, and you spoyle the Clergie of Tithes, Stipend, burden the Kings Subjects with imposi­tions, ransack the Kings houses. Pardon me, I pray you, to tell you, that this fortresse which you build, will be your overthrow; this fire you kindle, will burne you; these wea­pons ye forge, will be tempered in your own intrails; and that thereby you will neither leave of your selves, nor your Covenant ought, but a shamefull memory.

Covenanter.

If a private man be bound by the Law of nature to defend himself cum moderamine inculpatae turelae, 6. Argument. against the Prince or Iudge, as a private man invading him by violence, and not pursuing him judicially, and by order of law, and may repell violence with violence. If a chaste Matron may defend her owne body, that it be not defiled by the Adulterer, were his place never so great. If children may resist the violent invasion of their parents against themselves, their mother, or others of the family, notwithstanding the strict obligation betweene pa­rents and children. If servants may hold the hands of their ma­sters, seeking to kill them in their rage. If the Marriners and passengers may save themselves by resisting him who sits at the helm, and would drive the Ship against a rocke, or by hindering the Prince himselfe, not only by supplication of mouth, but by strength of hand, to mis governe the ship to their certaine Ship­wracke, much more may the body defend it self against all inva­vasion whatsoever.

Anticovenanter.

You are put to poore shifts, when for arguments you bring crooked comparisons, yet good enough for ignorants. As for your first supposition, the question is not, whether a private man may defend himself against his Superiour with inculpata tutela: But whether or not, defence by armes be culpata or inculpata tutela? His Majesty denieth you not lawful defence by Law, but your taking up of armes to re­sist his Authority is damnable.

2. Tell me, when doth a Prince become a private man? as the Popes infallibility is left in his Chaire, so you make the Kings authority to reside in his Throne: When Saul was in the wildernesse persecuting David with great vio­lence, was he then a private man? you will have it so; But I trust David better then you all, who would not defend [Page 35]himselfe by armes, but fled from him, as from the Lords A­nointed: who can touch the Lords Anointed, and be innocent? It is altogether against the Law of Nature, that private men should take armes against their Superiors, seeing it's against the Law of nature, that a privat man should be judge in his own cause, as Luther learnedly disputes in the 5. book of Slei­dens Commentaries.

Your second supposition is as idle. It becommeth a chast woman to defend her Chastity, even against the King, but how I pray you by taking up of armes? not at all, but by not yeelding her selfe into his armes: and though he being stronger than she, force her; yet she hath defended her cha­stity, and only the King is the adulterer. Thus in ( Augu­stints judgement) Lucretia, that chaste Matron, lost not her Chastity, albeit Tarquinius the Emperour by force lay with her, only she drew no sword to resist his violence; but here was her lamentable fault, that the fact, sore against her will, being done, she took armes against her self, and killed her selfe.

Your third supposition is no better, for there is no Law that authorizeth Children to resist their Parents by armes. 2. Rules of prudency cannot be set down for every circum­stance; therfore in such cases, prudency will find out law­full means either to pacifie, or at least to escape by flight, the parents fury. 3. If the case were so that either the Pa­rent must kill the child, or the child kill the Father, I think it becommeth the child, who hath his being of the Father, rather to suffer, than to destroy the fountain, whence he sprang. 4. Parents have not so great power over their chil­dren, as Kings over their Subjects, Kings have power of life and death, which Parents have not. And your fourth compa­rison is yet more weak: for the masters power over the ser­vants, is lesse than Parents over their children.

Your last supposition is true in part, the Mariners and Pas­sengers may resist the Pilot, for Pilots are not Kings over the rest in the ship: you do too basely esteem of Authority. But what if the King will drive the ship on the rock him­self? [Page 36] Answer 1. By doing of this the King is no more seeking the ruine of the Marriners and Passengers, then his own aestruction, and in this case they are bound to save their King from death, in such submissive and humble manner as it becommeth, and not by armes, with swords, musquets, pikes and Cannons, which are most offensive weapons. 2. If the King would be thus desperate, it cannot be but he is gone mad, and quite out of his wits, and so interpretativè, they have a warrant to hinder him to undo all, which he wil allow when he commeth to himself again. Well, al this may be done without taking of armes.

But then say ye, may not the Church defend it self from suffering shipwrack against a Tyrant, who is seeking that? Answer. It cannot be so done, the comparison is much unlike. You speak as if the one case were as obuious to the sense as the other. They must be apparant rocks, not suppo­sed only. Both sense and reason tell that if the Prince be not hindered by the Mariners, he and all must perish. But the Church of Christ, which is builded on a Rock, against the which all Tyrants violence, no, nor the gates of hell cannot prevaile, is a gainer by suffering, and every drop of their blood begets new believers: and so resisting, being an unlawfull meanes, may bring ruine to the Church, but suffering not so. If the Jewes in the daies of Ahasverus had been of this new Scottish humor, when an utter extirpation was intended by Haman both of themselves and their Reli­gion, they would have taken armes; but their prayers and teares were their defence in their greatest extremity. This was the constant practice of the Primitive Church also, even when they were most able to defend themselves against their persecutors: to this purpose Chrysost. exposition on Psal. 147. saith well, that God compasseth his Church with the crosse, to suffer; not with wals for defence Ecclesiam (in­quit) munist validius quàm Ierusalem non vectibus & por­tis, se [...]eruce circumseptam, & renunciatione propria volun­tatis, cùm dixis, Porta inferorum non pravalebant adversm [...]. In principio ita (que) [...]eges & Imperatores, & populi, & ci­vitates, [Page 37]& damonum phalanges, & ipsa diaboli Tyrannis, & alia innumerabilia invaserunt Ecclesiaem; illa tamen omnia fracta & dissoluia sunt, & interierunt, ipsa tamen crevit, & in'tantam provect a est altitudinem, ut ipsos etiam coelos supe­raverit. For God hath guarded his Church more strongly then Jerusalem, not being environed with gates and barrs, but with the crosse, and the denyall of her self, when he said The gates of hell shall not prevaile against her. Therfore in the beginning, Kings and Emperours, people and cities, troups of Divels, yea and the very Tyranny of Satan, inva­ded the Church: yet all these things were undone and dis­solved and perished; but the Church increased, in so much that she reached unto the heavens, and all this was by suffe­ring; for as the Arke of Noah, the more the floods increa­sed the nearer it was to Heaven, so the more the Church is tossed with the waves of affliction, the nearer it goeth to Heaven.

Covenanter.

7. From Examples in Scripture, 1. Sam. 14 45. & 2. Chr, 7. Argument 26.17.2. Kings 11.1. Sam. 23. Where Davia bath six hun­dereth men for his defence against the King himself, and would have kept Keilah against him, neither himself nor the Priest doubting of the lawfullnes therof, only suspecting the treachery of the Keilites. Examples of the reformed Kirks in Germany, the Low-countries, Sweden, and the Examples of our own Refor­mers.

Anticovenanter.

It's a token that you put small confidence in Scripture: because you have not begun with it; but left it in the end. For certainly there is nothing here to prove your tenet. All your testimonies are out of the Old Testament, but not one out of the New Testament. What if I would grant it lawful under the Law, and that your testimonies are good for your [Page 38]purpose? but can ye shew it lawfull under the Gospell, where suffering is only commanded? Mat. 10.23. When they persecute you in one city, fly to another: not go take the cities and castles of your periecuting Superiours, and defend your selves. But as there is no help for you from the New Testament, so you shall have none from the Old Testament, as shall be cleare in answering your testimonies. In your first testimony, the people hindered Saul to kill Ionathan: but how did they it? Not by armes, but by entreary with sound reasons. Shall Ionathan die, say they, who hath wrought this great salvation in Israel? God forbid. But you will say, they opposed them­selves in contradictory termes, saying, as the Lord liveth, there shall not one haire of his head fall to the ground, &c. Ans. In the originall it is not so, but by way of interrogation, as the most famous Interpreters Tremellius and Iunius do translate it. Ʋt vivit Iehova, an cadere debet ullus è capillis capitis ejus? as the LORD liveth should there fall any haire of his head to the ground? The people adjure Saul, and ap­peale his Conscience before the living God (say these lear­ned Interpreters) ut posthabitâ juramenti ratione, juris habeat rationem: as if they had said, is it reason that he should re­ceive the least hurt from the people, who following the Lord hath wrought so great Salvation to the people? Then they defended Ionathan not by armes, but by sound reason; which kind of defence is most willingly granted by his Ma­jesty to all that now cry for armes.

Your next testimony is no more worth. The people of Israel were put to no small strait, when there was no Smith in Israel, but were forced to go down to the Phi­listines, to sharpen their shares, their axes, and mattocks. This is also your case, you must here go to the enemies, and from the Papists borrow weapons to defend your cause, in the ex­amples of Vzziah and Athaliah: Wherby they maintain the Supremacy of Pope over Kings, and you now use them to maintain the Power of the people over Kings. But let us consider them. The first is of Vzziah the King, who contrary to Gods Commandement, went into the Temple [Page 39]of the Lord to burn incense upon the Altar. And Azariah the Priest went in after him, and withstood him, &c. Answ. 1. By this example, you must either maintaine, that the Subjects are above the Prinee, giving them the Popes usurped authority; or if not, you must help to answer this your selves, & so loose the knot which your selves have knit. The Papists say, 2 Chron. 26. That the High-Preist thrust the King out of the Temple, when he usurped the Priests office, ergo, the Pope is above Kings; the reason of the inference is, because no Inferiour hath power to lay hands on a Superiour, and by coactive power. to com­pell them to doe their duty, or repell them. Now you say the same, The High-Priest thrust the King out of the Temple, therefore it's lawfull for the people to resist Kings. Bellar. de Pont. Rom. lib. 15. cap. 6. What rea­son can you give of this inference, except you acknowledge the peoples superiority above the Prince; and certainely, in your comparing the King and his Subjects, you seem to hold it so. 2. The Priest thrust out the King not by taking armes, but with rebuke and admonition, as the Text is cleare, It per­taineth not to thee Ʋzziah to burne incense, and bad him de­part out of the Sanctuary. This became the Priest to doe. But what did the King? He was indignabundus, he was wroth, disdained their rebuke, and took the Censer in his hand to burn incense. What followed upon this? The Priests admonitions being contemned, then the Lord tooke order with him, to whom it onely belonged. While the King was wroth with the Priest (sayes the Text) the leprosy rose up in his forehead, before the Priests: then no man needed to bid him depart, for the Text sayes, He himselfe hasted to goe out, because the Lord had smitten him. It was not then violence from the priests, but the punishment from God, that thrust him out. But you will say, the Text sayes also, that the Priest thrust him out, so it doth, but it was by admonition and re­buke; for the Text sayes, The Priests looked on him, and be­hold he was leprous, and they thrust him out from thence, yea, he himselfe hasted to goe out He knew not that he was so, till the priests seeing it, told him, and without-doubt, rebuked him sharply; telling him of the judgement of God upon him. [Page 40]Thus doth Iosephus testifie. Lib. 1. de Antiquit. Iud, cap. 11. Whom Cajetan followeth. Visâ leprâ, sacerdotes regem ad fe­stinè egred endum monent. The leprosie being seen, the Priests admonish him to make haste to go out. So doth Chrysostam, and giveth the reason of it, saying; The office of a Priest is only to reprove, and freely to admonish, not to move armes, nor to use bucklers, nor to shake a launce, neither to bend a bow, and shoot forth darts. All then that can be drawne from this example is, 1. That when Kings break the Commandements of God by any scandalous fact, it's the Preachers duty to re­buke him. 2. That when Princes will not regard the admo­nitions of Gods Servants, they must be left to God, who sometimes will visibly punish them. I retort then your Ar­gument, Azariah did not by armes defend Gods right, as you call it, ergò, you ought not to take up armes, though you had an Ʋzziah to deale with.

Your next example is of Iehojada, who commanded Athaliah to be slaine. 2 King. 11. The very bare reading of the History answers you sufficiently. Athaliah was an usurper of the Crowne, which by right belonged to Ioash, which was hid six yeeres from her cruelty. After Iehojada the High-Priest, Ioash's Uncle and Tutor with the Captaines and Hundreds, with the Levites and chiefe Fathers of Israel, had brought forth Ioash, and put on him the Crowne, and declared him King; then by authority of Ioash the King thus seated in his throne, Iehojada caused slay that bloudy usurper of the King­dome Athaliah. So this was done by the authority of the King. Now nothing can be gathered from this, but if any Subjects for certaine yeeres have taken upon them Royall authority, if the righteous King doe recover his own autho­rity, he may command the usurpers to be slaine. This point shall not be denied you.

Your last example from Scripture is also against you, cōcer­ning the men of Keilah. If you wil without prejudice judici­ously consider the place, you shall see that if you will prove the lawfulnesse of your defence, it must be from Davids flying from Saul. I have often seene both in the Fathers, and mo­dern [Page 41] Writers, Davids example produced for to shew the unlawfulnesse of resisting Princes, but never till now, for the lawfulnesse of resistance. Consider first then in generall, that as Saul was ever invading David, so he was ever flying from him. 2. That where David did hide himselfe, he found oft­times treacherous men to discover him, promising to de­liver him unto Saul. So the Ziphits ran to Saul, saying, Doeth not David hide himselfe with us in strong holds in the wood, in the hill of Hachilah? Now therefore, come downe, and our part shall bee to deliver him into the Kings hand. And thus being oft betrayed, he was forced to forsake the King­dome altogether, to goe to the King of Gath. Now for the men of Keilah, they were much obliged to David for deli­vering them from the Philistims; and therefore, the place being indebted to him, and also farre from Saul, he desired to remaine there so long as he might, as having no certaine dwelling place else-where. Saul hearing that he was there, said, God hath delivered him into mine hand: for hee is shut in by entring into a towne that hath gates and barres. By all ap­pearance, it was some of Keilah that brought Saul this newes, shewing him what advantage, he now might have of David, being in such a close towne. As for David, being wise as the Angel of God, when he heard of his discoverie to Saul, he foresaw that if the men of Keilah would bee un­thankfull, they might keepe him within the towne to the King, and not suffer him to flie away. Therefore he enquires of God, first, if Saul would come there to seeke him, for hee had no purpose to goe from Keilah, if Saul were not to come; for, poore man, he had no place to goe to. Secondly, hearing that Saul would not faile to come downe, hee began to su­spect the men of Keilah of deceit, that they would shut the gates, and keep him in, till the King should take him, having such advantage of the gates and barres, that hee could not flie, as his usuall custome was. Therefore hee demands of God the second time, Will the men of Keilah deliver me, 1 Sam. 23, 12. and my men into the hand of Saul? that which is here translated (deliver,) in the originall is, shut up. Will the men of Keilah [Page 42]shut mee up? as is also exponed in the Margent of the Bible in that place. So the meaning is not as you most seditously expound it, Will the men of Keilah not defend mee, but deliver me to Saul, who am resolved to keepe this walled Citie against him? But this is the meaning, Will the men of Keilab not let mee goe away, but shut me up, close the gates, that I can­not eseape by flying? This lets us see, that David had a pur­pose to flie from Saul, which makes him so carefull to try, whether the men of Keilah would hinder him by shutting their gates, that finding them deceitfull, he mightflee in time. And therefore it's without warrant, you say, that Da­vid with his six hundred men purposed to defend them­selves in the citie agaist the King. If hee had purposed to keepe the towne, he would have beene well pleased, how close soever the gates had been shut: and would rather have enquired, Lord, will the men of Keilah open the gates, and let in the King, then will they shut the gates upon me?

2 Though your exposition were true, that David purposed to keepe the towne against the King, the question yet re­maineth, Whether he ought to have done so, or not? a fa­cto, ad jus non valet consequentia.

3 It proveth not your conclusion. David was but one man, who tooke an army of six hundred men, to defend him­selfe against the King, as you dreame. Therefore, when the King persecuteth a private man, he may gather an army and resist the King: which I hope you will not, at least, cannot sustaine: and yet you must sustaine this, or else passe from your Argument.

Finally, if any of you were in the case that David was in, to be the Anointed of God, and appointed by God to succeed Saul, it feares mee you would take more upon you then David did, for ye have done more already: and some of you are not ashamed to call the Nobility, Ephori, and that they put on the Crowne with the King in his Coronation, turn­ing all to a finistrous and seditious sense.

As for your examples from reformed Churches, since we live not by Examples, but by Lawes, I will not stand upon [Page 43]them as not knowing the Lawes and Government of for­raigne Kingdomes. If they have Lawes for their resistance, you produce these examples most impertinently. 2. From facts to prove the Lawfulnesse of resisting is ridiculous. 3. None of these by resisting, gained so much as by suffering; as experience too late doth shew.

Covenanter.

From Testimonies not onely of Popish Writers, 8. Argument. but of the Di­vines of the reformed Churches, even such as will bee strong pleaders for Monarchie: Neither is Calvin against us, but for us; From the testimonies of most judicious Lawyers and learned men, who have written contra-Monarchomachos.

Anticovenanter.

I grant Iesuites (yet not all) are for your tenet, for herein you agree, contrary to the Doctrine of al sound Divines, an­cient and moderne. You name not any Protestant Divine, but Calvin, who is flat against you; for this purpose, I re­ferre you to learne it out of the Duplie of the most learned Doctors of Aberdeen. You nominate no judicious Lawyers. I know your Advocate Master Iohnstone is for you, but the question is too Deepe for his shallow brain.

Covenanter.

From the mutuall contract betweene the King and the peo­ple, as may be seene in the Acts of Parliament, 9. Argument. and Order of Coronation.

Anticovenanter.

Answ. 1. To this, I give a Reall and Royall answer from the most gratious and most learned King Iames of Blessed me­mory, in his Booke intituled, Ius Liber a Monarchiae, pa. 193. [Page 44] Nego ego tempore Coronationis inter regem & subditos pa­ctum ini [...]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 [Page 45]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, Ʋt 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 at (que) 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, [Page 46]qui latifundia sua, ipsi dōino 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 cōmon 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 [Page 47]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 [Page 49]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 Ʋineyard 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 [Page 50]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 [Page 51]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 [Page 52]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 [Page 53]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, Ʋse 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.

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 rebellion, into an humble submission to God and your King.