Jus populi vindicatum, or, The peoples right to defend themselves and their covenanted religion vindicated wherein the act of defence and vindication which was interprised anno 1666 is particularly justified ... being a reply to the first part of Survey of Naphtaly &c. / by a friend to true Christian liberty.

JUS POPULI VINDICATUM.

OR The Peoples right, to defend themselves and their covenanted Religion, vindicated.

CAP. I.

The Question cleared and stated.

THE Surveyer, taking but an overlye, slight and su∣perficial vieu to the books, he would make the world beleeve, he confuteth, mea∣sureth out and treadeth down (as any of ordinary capacity, compareing his wordy but unworthy pam∣phlet, with what, is orderly & methodically set downe, and strongly and unanswe∣rably confirmed (as the event shall demonstrate) in these books, which he unman∣like snarleth at, rather then answereth) thinketh it of his ad∣vantage (as it is the advantage of all who desire not to be seen in their own colours, nor to have plaine truth discovered, and their pernicious errours and practices suteable thereunto, un∣folded, to cast a mist before the eyes of such as would observe them, or raise some ignis fatuus to misguide them, & take them off the way) to use his out-most endeavour to deceive his un∣warry

warry & inadvertant reader, & lead him, (who is so simple as to beleeve every thing which he and his fraternity say, though they have manifestly and undenyably forefaulted all faith and credite, with all who know what is the fundamental bonde of all society and commerce) into the same sinful and irrational abhorrency, of an exploite and interprise so consonant to scri∣pture, law, equity and reason, and to the practice of worthy Zelots abroad, and at home, from the very beginning of the work of reformation; and for this cause, as he hath foolishly and ignorantly paralleled these worthies, (whose late practice we shall, godwilling, abundantly vindicate, from all which this flaunting and windy adversary, who cometh forth to shake his speare, as if he were another Goliah, hath said here against it) with the irrational, furious, and brutish rabble of Anabaptists who followed Knipperdoling and Iohn of Leyden; So all alongs in his discourse; he hath not only snarled at, picked out, and miserably wrested some expressions in these books he would confute, especially in the Naphtali, and then run away with a cry veni, vidi, vici, as if he had gained the day; which way of dealing with an adversary, is, to all men of judg∣ment and understanding, very un-faire, base and puerile, no way beseeming a man pretending to plead for truth, and to discover verity, as he pretendeth to do; yea judicious persons will, from such dis-ingenuous & unhandsome way of answe∣reing, easily perceive on whose side trueth stands firme & un∣shaken; But (which is yet more palpable and grosse) he hath either ignorantly, or fraudulently, perverted the true state of the question, both in Thesi and in Hypothesi, which is a sufficient proof of the disperatnesse of the cause which he would maintaine, and of the mans purpose to wrangle, when he can not answere, and to buske up an adversary of straw to himself to fight against, when he cannot, dar not, look his real adversary in the face; and a ground more then sufficient to make wise men judge, that he hath rather confirmed the hands of his adversaries and strengthened their cause, then, in the least, weakened the same, for all his hidious out-cryes, and dexte∣rous heaping up of many words to little or no purpose, unlesse to take with such, as think the best cause is on their side,

who have the manyest, most darring, big and plausible ex∣pressions, but are not able to judge righteous judgement, nor discerne whether or not there be true groud for such confident exclamations, and bold assertions. I am confident that all who have not prostituted their judgements and understandings, to a blinde and irrational beleef of what, such as have un-manned themselves, and voluntarily given away that masculine con∣stancy and fidelity, which men, but of ordinary spirits, would account the height of basenesse; and have now adorn∣ed themselves with a more then fëminine levity, yea, and em∣broidered themselves with such a dale of intolerable falshood, unfaithfulnesse, impiety and perjury, as would make Heath∣ens, (though none of the best refined) account them un∣worthy of humane society, do, with more then ordinary confi∣dence, and bold audacity, assert and maintaine.

That I may not, after the a methodical methode of this disputer, who loveth to walk in by-wayes, still keep the Reader in the dark, I shall first cleare the true state of the question, confirme the truth, and vindicate it from what he here asserteth, answereth, or objecteth, that is apposite to the purpose; forbearing once to take notice of his many scur∣rilous, base, unchristian, yea and un-manly expressions, which shew what spirit he is of: and afterward I shall consider and examine his excursions which have not such a closse connexion with the present question, as he would make his Reader be∣leeve, lest he should vaunt, as having spoken that which no man can answere.

That it may appeare what is the true state of the question, we would premite these few things as necessary to be consi∣dered.

First. That the whole body of the people of Scotland were engadged to God, by solemne Covenants, vowes, purposes and promises, frequently renewed, to owne and endeavour, really, sincerily, and constantly, through the grace of God, in their several places and callings, with the hazard of life, lands goods, and all what they had, the preservation of the reform∣ed Religion in the Church of Scotland in doctrine, worshipe, discipline and government; and without respect of persons, the

extirpation of Popery, Prelacy, Superstition, Heresie, Schisme•• Prophanesse, and whatsoever shall be found to be contrary to sound doctrine, and the power of Godlinesse, lest they should partake in other mens sinnes, and thereby be in danger to re∣ceive of their plagues: and that they should mutually, with the Privileges of Parliaments, preserve and defend the libertyes of the Kingdo me: and in this common cause of religion, liberty, & peace, assist and defend all those, who would enter into these bonds, in the maintaining and pursueing thereof.

Secondly. Not only did the body of the commonalty sub∣scribe, and solemnely with hands lifted up to the Most High God, sweare these Covenants and engagements, at the com∣mand of Magistrats; But the Magistrats themselves, both superior and inferior, did take on them, in a most solemne man∣ner, these same vowes and engagements, and solemnel pro∣mised, as they should answere to God in the great day, to pro∣move this covenanted work of Reformation, and to prosecute, in their places, stations and capacities, the Ends of the Cove∣nant.

Thirdly. When this King (vvho did svveare and subscribe these Covenants, before he came to Scotland) vvas crovvned, and solemnely inaugurated, He not only renevved these so∣lemne vovves and engagements; But upon these termes and conditions, vvas he admitted; the people declared their vvil∣lingnesse to admit of him, as King, the svvord vvas put in his hand and accepted, the People did svveare fidelity, and alle∣giance, according to these Covenants; the like did the Nobles one by one, viz svveare to be true and faithfull to him, according to the Nationall, and solemne League and Covenant. And all this vvas aftervvard, vvhen the King attained the age of 21 years compleat, in a full and free Parliament, ratified, concluded, and enacted by King and all the Estates of Parliament: vvhere by as Naphtals Pag. 72. vvell observeth, the same did passe into a perpetual lavv, and became one of the principal fundamental lavves of the constitution of our Kingdome, vvhereupon all the rights and privileges. either of King or People, are princi∣pally bottomed and secured. These things, as to matter of fact, cannot be denyed.

Fourthly. Whatever was done of late, by King or Parliament, or enacted, and concluded contrary to these covenants, vowes and engagements, was (as unlawful, so) a real and formal subversion of the fundamental constitution of our Christian and reformed Kingdome; This none will deny who knoweth the true nature of these covenants, and the real interest they had, and yet have de jure, in our constitution, before this late revolution, as was now expressed.

Fiftly. Notwithstanding of all that hath been done by King and Parliament, of late, in rescinding, abjuring, and looseing of the obligation of these National bonds, and divine co∣venants, yet they remaine Covenants, and National tyes per∣petually obligeing, before God, the King, Nobles, & People of all ranks; and will do, so long as Scotland is Scotland. This is abundantly made out, by the Apologist; and is a fixed and ever∣lastingly confirmed truth, in the hearts of all who fear God, and looke for his appearing as a swift witness against all such as sweare falsly.

Sixtly. That nothing was allaiged or allaigeable, against those persones in Galloway, and places adjacent, as ground, or cause, or occasion of all that extremitie and rigour of iniquity, that was exercised against them, but their simple non-obedience to the act enjoyning conformitie and obedience to the Ecclesiasti∣cal authoritie then established, which was diametrically op∣posite unto their vow and promise, in their solemne and Na∣tional covenants. So that really, upon the matter, their suf∣fering was meerly because of their conscience making, and faithful endeavouring to adhere, through the grace of their God, unto their covenants and engagements solemnely sworne and taken.

Seventhly. It will be easily granted by all rational persons, That in all Kingdomes and Commonwealths, a free people not redacted unto a state of base bondage and slavery, should be ruled and governed civilly, according to the civil and municipal lawes of the land, and not by military force and cruelty. Ty∣rants use to lay aside the wholesome and established lawes of the land, and to rule in an arbitrary manner, by the cruel and mercylesse sword, because they neither intend, nor seek the good

of their subjects; But only their owne ambition and base ends; But Magistrats who ought to seek the good of the common∣wealth and preferre it to their owne particular ends, will have respect to the lawes, and accordingly rule their subjects, and not by an aribitrary cruelty, and force of armes, which are used against enemies.

Eightly. The very law enjoyning this conformity, prescribeth the way how the same shall be put to due execution, viz.

[That for this end the Council shall call before them all such persons, as after admonition of the Minister, in presence of two suf∣ficient witnesses, and by himso attested, shall be given up to the Council as transgressours of this act—and the same after hearing of partyes, being duely found, to decerne & inflict the censures and penalties]

And although the very law itself be so iniquous and intolerable, as would undoubtedly bring sudden ruine, to all such as would not obey the same, and that in a very short time; yet if this legal manner of procedour, had been followed, the execution, (though cruel, and sufficiently barbarous, the penalty having no suteable correspondence with, nor proportion unto, the supposed transgression; for, can any think that a persons absenting himself twice or thrice from his owne parish Church, can be a transgression of such a high nature, as no penalty lesse then the fourth pairt of his Estate, can compensate?) had not seemed so arbitrary or tyrannical; but when such a grievous law, is more grievously executed, and that arbitrarily, and illegally, is not this a very intolerable oppression?

Ninthly It is notourly knowne and unquestionably clear, and alas too too wel demonstrated by black, Tragical and inde lible characters of ruine, extirpation, and beggery of many honest families, yea, and of landed and sufficiently provid∣ed Gentlemen and others, so that none will, or can, (if he hath not resolved to beleeve neither what he seeth, nor what he heareth) deny it: That Sr Iames Turner, and his souldiers, under pretence of executeing this law, used such inhumane crueltyes, savage barbarities, unparallelable exorbitancies, by illegal amercements, fineings, quarterings, plunderings, beatings, dragging to prisones, wounding,

binding men like beasts, chaseing them to moors and moun∣taines, laying waste their lands, houses, and habitations, devouring what they could with horse, dogs, & men, burning plenishing, utensils and other necessaries in houses, and thus laying whole parishes and almost countreysides waste and de∣solate, and that without respect had to conscience humane, let be Christian, to law divine, civil, or municipal grievous or not grievous, yea without respect had to persones guilty or not guilty; for when they had consumed the Landlord, they op∣pressed the Tennants though not guilty, & when they had ruin∣ed the Tnenants, fel upon the Landlord though a conformist, avowing and professing they came to destroy, and they would destroy; nor having any respect to poor or rich, widowes or marryed persons, old or young, yea, or to such as stouped for-age, to sick, or bedrid creples, or to one or other; yea and did sesse and quarter, till persons were forced to pay such summes, as the civil judges, before whom the cause was depending, had not determined to be justly addebted by them. All which is fully, and particularly laid open by Naphtaly, and will appeare to all who have not renunced humanity, to be more then lesser injuries, as the Surveyer pag. 70 is pleased to account them, and to be most unjust, though he make a question thereof, yea and such grievous and intolerable oppressions, the hundereth part whereof (as Naphtaly said well.) would make him and his complices curse both God and their King.

Tenthly. To all these forementioned cruelties and barbarities, He added this, that he would suffer no man to complaine to him of any wrong they had suffered by the brutish and barbarous souldiery, nay nor supplicate for relief, and if they did, their cause was helped by doubling their miseries, yea, and which might exceed all beleef (if its notoriety were not undenyable) forced them, after all these horrid, dreadful, inhumane, and brutish outrages and oppressions, to subscribe an acknow∣ledgment, That he had used them civilly and discretly; and there by necessitated them to deny what was as not oure as the sun at noonday, and their very common sense and feelings, and also to prejudge themselves of all hope or possibility of getting re∣dresse by law.

Eleventhly Though this forementioned acknowledgement had neither been asked nor granted, yet their condition was irremediable: for neither they, nor any in the land, might Supplicat King or Councel, either for relaxation of the rigo∣rousnesse of the lawes, or for a more civil, moderate, yea or for a strick and legal execution of the iniquous and grievous lawes made, under the paine of treason and lese Majesty. Though it vvas an old received maxime, and is to this day, vvhere ty∣ranny is not avovvedly exercised, that cuivis licet supplicare & protestari: yet the late Parliament concluded, contrary to the lavv of nature and nations, That petitions vvere seditious and treasonable. So that hovv arbitrarily soever King or Parlia∣ment yea or Council, or any deputed by them, did rage, or should opprresse & injure the Subjects, vvhether in conscience, body or goods, there vvas no remedy, nor hope of redresse, no petition or supplication how humble soever, might be once pre∣sented by the grieved subjects: yea nor durst they meet together to poure out their complaint unto the God of heaven, the hea∣rer of prayers, & the righteous judge of heaven & earth. What height of opprression & tyranny this is, Let all the vvorld judge.

Twelvethly. It is uncertaine, yea much doubted, if Sr. Iames Turner, that singular instrument of barbarous cruelty, had any commission form King or Council, impovvering him to such illegal exorbitancies (whatever he might have had, under hand, from some Members of Council vvho had most sold themselves to cruelty, and to the utter extirpation of all who would not run vvith them, to the same excesse of riot) sure if any such thing be, the records vvill manifest it; but since they cashired him and some of his associats, and made an offer of causeing him ansvvere for vvhat he had done, it is very probable, he had no formal commission for vvhat he did; and yet since he and others are permitted to live, after such crueltyes, barbarities, and un heard of vvickednesses, and no reparation made to the per∣sones injured, it is certane he is but too vvell approved in all he did, and of vvhat use this shall be, vvill appeare afterward.

Thirteenthly. The intent and designe of those poor people who rose in armes, was not to dethrone the King, to enjure him, or to lessen his just and legal authoritie; but to resist, repel, and

defend themselves from, unjust violence and oppression▪ and to seek reparations of the wrongs done them; and the re∣moval of that detestable and abjured Hierarchy, the establish∣ing and upholding of which, as it was, & is a great provocation of the anger of God against the land, so it was the fountaine and rise of all these horrid oppressions which they suffered, and of the making of such grievous statutes, and establishing iniquitie into a law, and was to be a lasting cause and occasion of violent. unjust and illegal oppressions, and intolerabel vexa∣tions to all the faithful of the land; and withal, to have security for their lives, lands, libertyes, consciences, and Religion, con∣forme to the agreement made with his Majesty, and the Na∣tional Covenant, and the Solemne league and covenant, which he solemnely swore once and againe, and vowed and promised to defend and prosecute, in all their ends: and that for this end, all such lawes made for prelacy, and against the work of God and the reformation, which through Gods blessing we had at∣tained to, might be repealed, annulled and rescinded. This and nothing else could be the intent and designe of these valient though naked worthyes. That they intended no harme to the King, or to his just & lawful government & authority, is no∣toure by the last speaches & testimonies of such as were appre∣hended & publickly executed; & the petition Which they sent in to the Council with William Lauwry Tutor of Blakewood doth aboundantly testify that they would have had the free exerciso of their covenanted Religion & freedom from the domeneering tyranny of Prelats & their adherents; their renewing of the Lea∣gue & Covenant doth sufficiently cleare that they intended no insurrection or rebellion against the Kings just and lawful au∣thority; for they swore to defend the Kings Majestyes person and authority, in the preservation and defence of the True Religion, and libertyes of the Kingdoms.

From these considerations, we shall now lay downe the true state of the question, thus.

Whether or not, when the whole body of a land, Magistrats higher and lower, People, are engaged by solemne vowes, made to the most high God, joyntly & severally, to promove a reformation, and to extirpat Prelats, & the same

covenanted work is becom a chief corne stone of the constitu∣tion of the Kingdom, and one of the mane conditions, on which the King is installed on his throne; and when these same Magistrats Supreme and inferiour, renunce their cove∣nant with God, and with the People, overturne the work of reformation formerly sworne to, make lawes and statutes to fortify this defection, & to compel all their subjects to run to the same excesse of perjury and wickednesse, and execute these lawes upon the faithful & stedfastly loyal subjects, not in a civil orderly manner, but most imperiously and tyranni∣cally, with meer force & cruelty, and the edge of the sword of souldiers, leavied of purpose for this very end, to crush and oppresse all such as made any conscience of their vowes and engagements unto God; and when these barbarous souldiers exceed their commission, or oppresse, plunder, ha∣rash, spoile, rob and pillage the people, and lay waste the land, without law or expresse order from King or Parlia∣ment, yea contraire to the expresse letter of the law; and when the oppressed have not so much as liberty to supplicate or petition for help or releefe; may privat persons without the conduct of a Parliament, stand to their owne defence, a∣gainst unjust & illegal oppression and tyranny, and oppose such as, without expresse commission, endeavour their utter ruine and destruction, though pretending warrant from the superiour Magstrats, and allowed of them; and seek a redresse of these grievous & intolerable injuries, and liberty for the free exercise of the covenanted reformed religion, with the extirpation of abjured Prelats, the spring and foun∣tane of all these miseries already come, and to be feared, while in the mean time they intend no harme to the supream Magistrat's person or just authority, but sweare to mantaine the same, in the defence of the true religion, and liberties of the Kingdome?

Or a if you will have it shorter.

Whether or not, when King and Parliament and Council have abjured a covenant, & overturned a reformation, which they solemnely swore to defend, in their places & capacities, and made their subjects do the same, and now with illegal force, compel the subjects to the like perjury and wicked∣nesse,

may these privat subjects, when there is no hope or possibility otherwise of releefe, stand to their owne defence, and withstand the mercylesse cruelty of their bloody Emissa∣ries acting without their commission, or with their allowance, yet contrare to expresse law; and seek releef, and security for Religion, lives, lands and liberties, having no intention, to wronge the King's person or just government?

That this is the true state of the question, is abundantly cleare from the particulars forementioned, and I think no Scottish man, who knew the then state of affaires, and hath not renunced common sense, and resolved to beleeve nothing (though he should both heare it, see it, and feele it, and it were as not oure as the light when the Sun shineth) which is for the vindication of these poor people, will with any face or shew of reason, be able to deny this to be the true state of affaires, & of the present question.

Hence we see, how the Surveyer sophistically & fraudulent∣ly presents the state (which he may well call the great Knot, as being no way loosed and laid open by him, as it ought to have been) of the question Pag. 19. when he sayes [

Whether meer privat persons, one or moe, separatly of joyntly, when they are, or think themselves unjustly afflicted, and extremly inju∣riously handled, by the Magistrate or Supreme power pro∣ceeding according to lawes aggreed to, betwixt himself and the body of the community? Whether or not (upon sup∣position that these lawes are not just and right) may private persons defend themselves, against the violence of the Magi∣strate thus proceeding, even by violent re-offending; yea, in order to their owne defence, cut off the Prince of Magi∣strat whatsoever, or their Ministers and officers standing in their way, or when they are punishing them and afflicting them according to law?] & againe Pag. 21. he sayes [The true state of the question at this time is, when the corruption of these who are in power leads them to abuse their authority, either on making unjust lawes, or punishing according to these, whether meer private subjects should with violence oppose all Magistrats, under whom they are, from the highest to the lowest, together vvith the plurality of the bo∣dy

of that community vvhere of they are members, yea and in their ovvne defence, destroy them all (if they be in proba∣ble capacity for such vvork, and if they cannot eschew this, and preserve themselves) yea farther, after they have subdued (providence so permitting or ordering) all the magistrati∣cal power, and major part of the people, they may use a vin∣dicative, avenging and punishing povver upon all? being only persons of privat capacity) and to be sure he repeats the same over againe Pag. 24. and sayes Pag. 26. [That the vvay vvhich vve clearly ovvne is, That every privat person (when & so long as they are able, or are in probable capacity to acte violently against the Magist••ate) ought to coun∣ter act him violently, vvhen he thinks the Magistrate vvrongs him, (for this must be referred to every mans pri∣vat discretive judgment) and more to this purpose there, and againe pag. 27 he tells us [The question is what duty is owed by the subject Unto the Magistrate (especially the Supreme for may there be remedies had against the injuries of the infe∣riour by appellation) In case of his mal-administration, & unjust lavves and sentences according to these lawes, or executions according to sentence; whether they may vio∣late or violent the person invested vvith authority, and not submit unto him, but counter-act him by force in self de∣fence against his violence. Or if they be bound in consci∣ence, or by any lavv of God, to submit humbly to vvhat he inflicts (although unjustly) if they can neither move him by their humble petitions, nor can flee from his vvrath, or goe out of his dominions] and then addeth▪ That the author of Naphtaly and his complices [Maintaine, That if the Magistrat abuse his povver in making unjust lavves, or punishing according to these, any private man▪ or company of men, that think themselves strong enough for the Magi∣strate ought never to suffer, but use forcible resistence against the Magistrate abuseing his power: & that al the patience that is required of Christians tovvard oppressing Magistrats, is only to beare suffering patiently, vvhen they are out of capi∣city of acting, and may not better do, and to suffer pati∣ently vvhen they see they cannot represse the violence of

the unjustly - dealing Magistrate vvith a sufficient contrary violence.

]

That it may appeare•• (though none vvho understandeth the controversy, & readeth what he allaigeth, is the state of the question, can readily be ignorant of his deceit, but may easily perceive his subdolous sohistication) hovv far he hath mis∣represented the businesse, let these fevv particulars be pon∣dered.

1. It is one thing, to say that private persons, may rise and take the svvord of defence in their hand, and resist their Ma∣gistrats, upon the ground of supposed vvrongs, or vvhen they think in their privat judgments of discretion, that the Magistrat injureth them: It is another thing to say, This vvay of defence may be used vvhen the injuries are real, and not supposed, or judged so by their private and erring judge∣ment or discretion only. He cannot have the fore-head to say that we maintaine the former; nor can he vvith any colour of half a reason inferre, that such a maintaine this last, do con∣sequentially maintaine the former, as men of understanding will easiely perceive, and shall be more fully spoken to aftervvard in due place. yea suppose that such a consequence could be drawne, it were not faire, but utterly disingenuous, and un-becomeing a faire disputant, to bring a consequent which he wire-draweth from his adversaries position or assertion, into the state of question, and make the world beleeve, that his adversary doth, positively, clearly & avowedly assert, what indeed he doth not affirme, nay nor granteth to follow from what he holdeth.

2. It is one thing, to speak of resistence made to lawes ini∣quosly made, and yet but tending to the hurt of some private persons in smaller matters: it is a far other thing, to speak of resistance made to lawes, whereby the established religion, and the fundamentall rights, and basis of the constitution of the realme is overturned; and so not only only mens goods, or smaller matters, but their liberties, religion, consciences, lives, and every thing that is dear unto them, is in inevitable hazard: it were an impudent calumny to say that we maintaine the former.

3. It is one thing, to say that any private person alone, and severally, may resist, and repel unjust violence offered by the Magistrats of the land: and another thing, to say, that a consi∣derable company, joyning together, upon just grounds, may endeavour their owne faifty. Though the lawes of our land will suffer a privat subject to hinder any, in the Kings name, to possesse themselves of his heritage, or of any thing he possesseth, till the question be discussed by the civil judges; yet we state not our disput concerning what a private single person may do, in case of oppression.

4. It is one thing, to speak of unjust lawes in the general: and another thing, to speak of unjust lawes made by Magistrats, preingadged by solemne vowes and Covenants never to make such lawes, and who have given the people all the security imaginable, that they should never be troubled with such ini∣quous lawes: This last is our case.

5. It is one thing, to speak of lawes (though iniquous and grievous, yet) executed legally, civily, by way of formal legal procedure. But it is another thing, to speak of lawes, in themselves grievous and iniquous, yet executed in an un∣formal, illegal, arbitrary, tumultuous, cruel and bloody way, by armed, mercylesse and bloody souldiers, which looketh rather like the execution of a bloody act, for massacreing, then of a law made for the good of the Commonwealth. This last toucheth our case, as was shovved.

6. It is one thing, to speak of resisting and offering violence to the very person of the Magistrate: and another thing, to speak of resisting his bloody Emissaries.

7. So, it is one thing, to speak of resisting his bloody Emis∣saries cloathed with a commission to exact the penalty imposed by law: But it is a distinct thing, to speak of resisting his bloody Emissaries, exorbitantly exacting what they please, without any regaird had to the standing unrepeled law, though sufficiently grevious.

8. It is one thing, to speak of vvhat privat persons may, or ought to do when injured & oppressed, & there is some door open to get themselves eased of these oppressions, by com∣plaineing, or appealing to the superior Magistrats, or by sim∣ple

petition and supplications. But it is a far other thing to speak of what a People may do, when all door of hope is closed, and when simple supplicating would make them lyable to the crime of lese Majesty, which was their case.

9. It is one thing, to speak of what a company of private persons may do, in their owne particular case, without the concurrence of the rest of the community, who are not con∣cerned in their case, nor particularly engaged to help and con∣curre with them, in that particular: and another thing to speak of what privat persons, though the minor part of a commu∣nity, may do, in a case which concerneth not themselves alone, but is common to all; though it ma•• be, they suffer most of the heat of persecution, upon the account of that com∣mon cause, and in a case, wherein all the whole community is bound and obliged to other, to stand to, and maintaine one another, in the defence of that common cause, and that by solemne bonds, vowes and Covenants. Now this was their case.

10. It is one thing, to say that the minor pairt of a commu∣nity may rise in armes, against all the Magistrats, and seek to exauctorate them, and overturne their power; and against all the rest of the body, and presse them to be of their minde: and another thing, to say they may take armes in their owne self defence, when tyrannically oppressed for adhering to that Cove∣nant and cause, which the whole body of the land was engadg∣ed to maintaine, with lives and fortunes, no lesse then they, without any intention to wronge the Magistrat's Just power and authority, or to do the least injury to any of the commu∣nity, who would not carry in a hostile manner towards them: Now such was the case and carriage of that poor people.

11. It is one thing, to say that private persons when injured by unjust lawes, and when able to resist and oppose the Magi∣strate, may never submite unto undue penaltyes, (which he salsly fathereth on Naphtaly.) But it is a far other thing▪ to say that in some cases hic & nu••c privat persons may resist the un∣just and illegal force of Magistrats, or▪ that it is false to say that in no case imaginable private persons may resist unjust vio∣lence

offered to them by Magistrats. Or, which is all one, that in every case whatsomever, it is the duty of privat per∣sons, to submit unto the most iniquous, illegal, and tyran∣nical impositions, penaltyes, and exactions; or unto ty∣rannical and unjust lawes. Now this is the true state of the question in thesi, and if this be granted, we seek no more, as to that, being persuaded the hypothesis will follow clearly from the thesis, and hing on it, without many knots of arguments to fasten it.

12. It is one thing, to say that private persons may call their superiour Magistrats, when making defection, to an account, judicially processe them, and formally give out sentence ag∣ainst them, vvhich he injuriously allaigeth upon Naphtaly, as any, vvho vvill impartially consult the places by him cited, vvill finde. But it is a far other thing, to say that private per∣sons in some cases in way of defence and maintenance of the re∣formed Religion, may stand to its vindication: and this is all the vindicative povver vvhich Naphtali, Pag. 18, 19. (the places vvhich he citeth) speaketh of, as incumbent to private persons.

From these things it is apparent to any of an ordinary reach, in those matters, hovv far that vvhich he maketh the knot of the question, is from the true, plaine, full and reall state of the businesse novv controverted, vvhich vve have laid dovvne. And vvhat unfaire dealing vve way expect, thorovv the rest of his pamphlet, any may judge by what we here finde, in the very stateing of the controversy. But he vvill say, that the Author of Naphtali (vvhom he ignorantly, tearmeth the libeller, but in truth, the honest vindicator of the innocency of the suf∣fering people of God) hath so stated it, in his book. It is true, this Surveyer sayeth so Pag. 21. But vvhy did not he direct his reader unto the page vvhere such a state of the question vvas to be found? I appeale to any vvho ever read that book, to judge, vvhether this man speaks truth or not. Ay but you vvil say, He hath cited Pag. 13, & 14. Naphtalies very vvords, and hath cited the pages where these are to be found, out of which words, the State of the controversy as by him proposed, may be drawne. I Answer It is one thing to draw conclusions

or consequences from the words of an adversary while he is prosecuting his arguments, and out of these raise a state of a controversy; and another thing, to say that his adversary doth so state the controversy, while as he speaks no such thing: now both these are soloecismes, the one in morality, the other in way of disputing: and of both he is guilty, first it is an un truth, to say that Naphtali doth so state the question as he allaigeth he doth; and it is no better, to say that Naph∣tali doth so state the question because here and there in his book, he hath some expressions that seem to look there away: Againe, it is an absurd way of disputing, and intolerable, to draw the state of a question out of a mans expressions here & there uttered in the prosecution of his arguments; Whereas the state of the controversy is that which all his arguments prove & conclude. But what if al these expressions which he hath raked together out of Naphtaly, will not bottome his as∣sertions, or the state of the question as he proposeth it? sure every one must take him for a meer wrangler, & animpudent ignoramus in the matter of handleing a controversy, if it be so. And whether it be so or otherwayes let us now try. The words he citeth first, are out of Pag. 8. viz. these (which I shall not curtaile as he doth, but set downe fully,) And it will also appear that the necessity of convocations and combinations (though not only without, but even against authority, yet being in order to such necessary and just ends) did sufficiently warrand them before God and all men, from the breach of any law or act then stand∣ing against the same, wherewith they might have been charged.] But what can he hence inferre? Will he inferre that the Author of Naphtaly, either sayeth or thinketh. That any part of the people, (though no Magistrate be amongst them) may take armes against all Magistrats, and violently resist them, when they think their lawes either un∣just, or the punishment executed unjust, (as he sayeth he doth. Ibid. Pag. 13.) By what medium will he couple the antecedent and consequent together? May not a man dis∣allow that any part of the people, though they had all the Magistrats with them, except the Supreame, may take up armes against the Supreame, and violently resist him, when∣soever

they think that the lawes are unjust, or the punish∣ment executed unjust (as I verily think the Author of Naph∣taly will) and yet say, That when strong and inevitable ne∣cessity urgeth, in order to necessary and just ends, people may have their owne convocations, even against authority, and de jure be guilty of the breach of no standing law against the same, seing all know that salus populi est supreme lex, and that no law or act, vvhen the strik observation thereof, tend∣eth to the detriment of the Republick, (for the good of VVhich, all lavves are made,) is of force. The next passage he citeth is out of Pag. 14. vvere Naphtaly hath these vvords: [That the right and privilege of self-defence, is not only founded in, but is the very first instinct of pure nature, and spring of all motion and action. 2. That it was competent to, and exercised by, every individual, before that either society or government were known. 3. That it was so far from being surrendred and supperssed by the erect∣ing of these, that it was and is the great end, and motive, for which all voluntary societyes and policyes were introduced, and are continued. 4. That it is a principal (and not the principal as he misciteth it) rule of righteousnesse, whereunto that great command of love to our neighbour, by the law of God, and by the Lord himself, is resolved, and whereby it is interpreted.] And then addeth, [So it doth infallibly follow, that the same right and privilege, is yet competent to all men whether separatly or joyntly, and needeth no other pre-requisite, but that of intolerable injury (which for a man to suffer under pretence of the good of the Commonwealth, would be, for the delusion of an empty name, only for the lust of other, really to de∣prive himself of his whole share & interest therein) and is completed for excercise by such a probable capacity, as may encourage the asserters thereof, to undertake it.] Thus I have set down his words, truely and wholly, and I would faine know what is there here, that will ground the foresaid thesis? Must a man that sayeth thus, necessarily say, That it is lawful for privat sub∣jects to take armes against their Magistrats (when they are in a probable capacity to carry thorow their matters,) and the major part of the people, when they think the lawes are unjust, or the punishments executed are unjust? Let him the next time, I pray, prove this consequenc. For I, and many moe, do and will deny it. His next passage is out of

Pag. 15. the words are these, [The propelling by force of such injuries (that is, to be violented in the matters of Religon) was the justest cause and quarrel, that men in their primeve liberty, could be ingaged in.] which surely is a very innocent and har∣melesse assertion, and such as he, nor no rational man, who knoweth to preferre the interest of the soul, unto the interest of the flesh, can contradict; and from whence, no man that knoweth what the exercise of reason is, can inferre his forecited thesis. The next passage he miserably curtaileth out of Pag. 16 17. but though vve should take it as he hath set it dovvne) excepting that parenthesis vvhich he hath soist∣ed in, in the same character, to deceive the sample Reader, vvhat could he inferre from it? When once sayeth [That combinations for assistance, in the same common cause of just and necessary defence, whereunto the force of extreame necessity, through the perversion of that mean of government, appointed for their preser∣vation, doth ultimatly reduce them, are warranted by the principle of humanity, &c. and Gods glory, &c. and by this, that whole Cityes Kingdomes and Empires, for the violation of this duty, in not releeving the innocents from unjust tyranny, even of lawful pow∣ers, have been overtaken therefore by fearful judgments, to their utter ruine and subversion.] Must he needs be thought to say and assert, That privat subjects may combine together and make insurrection against the lawful Magistrat, when they, in their private judgment of discretion, think the ends of go∣vernment are perverted? What sharpe sighted man can be able to see where these two shall meet? He tells us next that Pag. 18, 19. it is said [That not only power of self-defence, but vindicative and reforming power is in any part of the people, against the Whole, & against all Magisirates; and if they use it not, judg∣ment cometh on (supposeing their capacity probable to beare them forth,) and they shall be punished for there connivance, & not act∣ing in way of vindication of crimes, and reforming abuses.] But who shall read the place cited, will be forced to acknow∣ledge a very great injury done to Naphtaly, & that his words are miserably represented; and yet he cannot draw out of them, even as he hath minced the, and thrawne them so that they look with another face, then their owne, That,

Napbtaly asserteth, That private persons may, when they think or imagine, in their privat judgment, that the Magi∣strats and the rest of the land are in a defection, arise in armes against them, vindicate Religion, judge and condemne such as are guilty; and so use imperat acts of reformation by vindication. Sure these words in Naphtaly, [of necessity both from the principles deduced, and from the most visible judg∣ments of God agreable thereto, there must be a superiour and ante∣cedent obligation, to that of submission, incumbent upon all, both joyntly & separatly, for the maintainance, vindication, and reformation of religion, in order to the promoting of these great ends of the publik profession of truth, and true worshipe, which the Lord doth indispensably require] to sober, judicious, intelligent, and impaitial readers, will have a far other import. So, what can he inferre from that which Naphtali said Pag. 28. viz. [That none pleadeth for absolute submission in the people, and exemption in the prince, but such as have prostrated their consciences to the Princes arbitrament, in a blinde and absolute obedience] and that [seing subjection is principally enjoyned, for, and in order to obedience, what soever reason or authority can be adduced to perswad an obsolute and indispersible subjection, will far more rationally and plausibly inferre an illimited and absolute obedience] Can he, with any colour of sense or reason, inferre that he maintaineth that passive subjection to unjust lawes and punishments, where there is power to make active violent resistence, is a greater sin then active obedience to unlawful commands of Magistrats? Is this a faire way of disputing, to say that one maketh that the state of the question, which he draweth from the assertion of his adver∣ry? Naphtaly allaigeth that absolute subjection is as repug∣nant to reason, as absolute obedience; doth he therefore make this the state of the question, (or give ground for it,) That absolute subjection is more sinful then absolute obe∣dience? Againe, what can he draw out of these words of Naph∣taly Pag. 157. [Secondly it is answered That riseing up against au∣thority itself, the ordinance of God, and disobeying the powers therewith vesied, standing and acting in their right line of subordination, is indeed rebellion, and as the sin of witchcraft; but to resist and rise up against persons abuseing sacred authority, and rebelling against

God the Supreame, is rather to adhere to God, as our Liege Lord, and to vindicate both curselves and his abused ordinance form man's wi••k∣ednnesse and tyranny] Can he hence inferre that Naphtaly judgeth it no rebellion, for privat subjects, to disobey Powers act∣ing in a right subordination, when they in their judgements of discretion, judge that they deviat from that line of sub∣ordination? Sure he must have some needle head that can sowe these two together.

These are the particulars whereupon this Surveyer thinketh to bottome his falsely-stated question, and by this we may judge (ut ex ungue leon••m) what faith he is worthy of, when he sayeth immediatly thereafter Pag. 14. [But what needs insisting on his justifying of any number of private persons riseing up and resisting the whole Magistrates, & Body of the people, when ever they think they have cause? Seing this is the maine scope of his book, and more too, even to state them in a punitive power of all who are against them, and a power to pull downe all authorities, that are in their way.] Alas! poor soul, such impudent untruthes, will not much strengthen his cause, in the judgment of such as are judicious, and many will think that such way of dealing declares him to be unworthy of his wages: for, may not all who read that book, see a cleare other scope there intended then what he here fancyeth; and know that from no sen∣tence in all that book, can such conclusions be drawne, as he here sayeth is the maine scope of it. O! but he must be audacious and affronted, to say that the author of Naphtaly [not only makes a proclamation to all meer private persones (not hav∣ing any Nobles and Magistrats amongst them) to make insurrections against all Magistrats from the highest to the lowest, and against the plurality of the people (if they think themselves in probable capacity,) and not only so, but giveth to them a liberty to pull all Magistrates out of their seats, to instal themselves, and to punish Magistrats, who (as he sayes) have forfauted their right by the abuse thereof] as he doth Pag 21. What wil not such shamelesse boldnesse adventure to averre, with the greatest confidence? but such as are wife will not beleeve every thing, that such as have made shipwrak of faith and of a good conscience, and

have possessed themselves of a debauched conscience, have the impudency to affirme without blushing.

CAP. II.

Three Arguments proposed, taken I. from the Concessions of Adversaryes. 2 The resistence of Parliaments: 3. The Light & Law of Nature.

Having thus cleared the true state of the question, we shall now fall about the confirming of the affirmative; and so take occasion to examine what this Surveyer sayeth, as he cometh in our way: and though there should not be great necessitie to confirme our hypothesis, or the present question under debate, unto such, as have not prostituted their soull unto a brutish beleef of an absolute and indispensible sub∣jection, or submission in all cases whatsomever, unto the lusts and rage of men abuseing their power and places, and overturning that good order which God only wise estabish∣ed in his love and favour, for the good mankinde; yet because this seemeth to be an age, wherein the spirits of many of sunk below that of beasts; and men of no consciences, or, at best, debauched consciences, have willingly surrendered their privilege as men, and assumed the slavish disposition of bond-men, that for their owne base ends, a little mase of pottage, they may gratify such as are nothing lesse, then what they ought to be; it will be necessary to speak a little more to it.

Our first argument then shall be taken from the conces∣sions of adversaries, and from what this same surveyer, seem∣eth (if not expresly and directly to grant, yet) not to deny or condemne altogether Barclarius contra Monarchom: lib. 1. c. 8. granteth to the people liberty to defend themselves from injury, and to resist quando immani savitia petuntur and lib. 4. c. 16. he doth fully an plainely acknowledge [That the king falleth from the right to this Kingdomes, & that the people may not only resist him, & refuse obedience unto him but many also

remove him from the throne, if without the subjects consent he should subjecte the Kingdome to another, or be transported with an hostile minde against the Commonwealth. [Doct▪ ferne also acknowledgeth [That personal defence is lawful against the suddaine and illegal assaults, of the King's messengers, yea of the Prince himself, thus farre, to ward his blowes, to hold his hands; so when the assault is inevitable] and else where he grants it lawful [to resist the King's cut-throats.] So Arnisaeus de author: princip. Cap. 2. n. 10. granteth it lawful to private persons, to resist the King, when he acteth extraju∣dicially. And Crotius de jur. bel. & pac. lib. I. c. 4. n. 7. seemeth to say that the law of non-resistence doth not oblige, in certane & extreame danger, seing some divine lawes, though generally proposed, have this tacite exception of extreame necessity; and giveth this for a ground. That the law of non-resistence seemeth to have flowed from them, who first combined together into a society, and from whom such as did command, did derive their power: now if it had been asked of such, Whether they would choose to die, rather then in any case to resist the Superiours with armes, I know not (sayeth he) if they would have yeelded thereunto, un∣lesse with this addition, if they could not be resisted, but with the greatest perturbation of the Commonwealth, and destruction of many in∣nocents. And a little thereafter He hath these words [Att••∣men indiscriminatim damnare, AUT SINGULOS, AUT PARTEM MI∣NOREM, quae ultimo necessitatis praesidio sic utatur, ut interim, & communis boni respectum non deserat, vix ausim] It is true, in the end of that Section, he seemeth to say that nothing is now left to christians, but flight, yet § 10. & 11. he assenteth to Barclaius his concessions. Let us next see what our Surveyer seemeth to yeeld Pag. 23. 24. [Whatever may he said(sayeth he) of moral of legal felf defence, against the souveraigne, by way of petition, or plea in court, for saifty of a mans person or Estate; and whatever may be said of warding off, and defensively puting back, personal injurious assaults, to the manifest and immediat peril of life; without any colour of deserving, of reason, of law, or judicial pro∣ceeding; or of a Womans violent resisting attempts, against the hon∣our of her chastity (dearer to her then life) and tending to insnare her also in sin, againss God (whereof her non-resistence makes her

formally guilty) and whatever may be done in the case of most ha∣bited, notoure and compleat tyranny, against all appearance of law, manifesily tending to the destruction of the body of a people, or gre∣ater part thereof, by hostile furious actions, or in the case of violent attempts, or destruction of all knowne legal libertyes, and the beeing of Reliagion, according to law; or in the case of vendition, aliena∣tion of, and giving a whole Kingdome to forraigners, or strangers, or some such like; whatever I say in such horried cases (which for most part cannot befal a prince, in his natural and right wits, (a case wherein provision may be made, that he hurt not himself, nor his dominions) may be done, comes not at all within the compasse of our question; although most disingenuously, the discontented and seditious, do strive on all occasions, to aggravate matters so, that the case concerning them, may seem co-incident with these, or the like, that so they may justify their violence against the powers.]

But howbeit this Surveyer think that these concessions make little for our advantage; yet to understanding persons, it will be cleare in general.

1. That He, and the rest of the Royal society of Court parasites and slatterers, speak most inconsequentially unto themselves; They cry up in their writtings an absolute, and indispensible subjection, unto the Supreame Magistrate, due by all his subjects; and yet when they are sore pinched, they must clap their wings closer, And drawe in their faire sailes, & grant that in such & such cases, not only his E missaries & such as have his commission, but Himself may be resisted not only by the Ephort, & Primores Regni, but by very private subjects. Did we not but just now heare our Sur∣veyer crying out against Naphtaly, for saying That what reasons could prove an absolute & indispensible subjection, will also prove an abosolute & unlimited obedience, as being unwell∣ing to heare any thing spoken against an absolute & vast, subje∣ction; and yet behold here, he is as willing as the rest, to clip the wings of this inviolable soveraignity, & set forth un∣to us a limited & retrenched subjection due to the Supreame Magistrate, even by private persons.

2. That by these concessions, He and the rest cut the sinewes of their owne arguments, and cause them to halt

ere they assault us, and teach us away of rejecting or answer∣eing them; For, when they produce their arguments, vvhether from reason, or authorities, they cannot but make them conclude universally, and then they are necessitated themselves to ansvvere these universal arguments, or otherwise retract their concessions; and whatever vvay they think to evade vvith their concessions, and supposed cases, vve vvill finde roome enough to escape vvith our case; as for exemple, vvhen this Surveyer urgeth that subjection spokento, Rom. 13. He must either grant, that it must be restricted to such and such cases, or else plead for an uni∣versal, absolute, unlimited and indispensible subjection, and so retract his concessions; and if he take the liberty to use his restrictions, and so interpret the place, as that it shall not reach his cases excepted, he must grant us the same li∣berty, to say that our case is not there meaned, or con∣demned.

3. By these concessions vve have this advantage, that the distinction vvhich is made, in this question of resistence, be∣tvvixt the Magistrate as such, and the person or man, vvho is the Magistrate, is not so absurd and ridiculous, as the Royalists give it out to be; for here vve finde them forced to use the same, so that if it be a defileing distinction they can∣not be clean, more then vve: and vve see that resistence may be used against the person of, or the man vvho is, the Magi∣strate, vvithout the least contempt, or vvrong done unto the holy Ordinance of God, othervvise they must of necessity say, that in all the forementioned cases, they very Ordinance of God is resisted; and hovv then they shall reconcile that, vvith Rom. 13. I see not.

4. We see also, That the Prerogative Royal, vvhich they screvv up unto a transcendent absolutenesse and supremacy above lavv, is but a meer chimaera, vvhich themselves must abhominate as a loathsome brat.

5. We see that salus populs est suprema lex, the peoples saifty is such a royal thing, that the King himself, and all his prerogatives, yea and municipal lawes too, must vaile the cap unto it themselves being judges.

6. We see also, that they must grant a court of necessity, in which private persones, may judge the Supream Magi∣strat, in order to their resisting of him; for, I hope, they will grant, that in these cases, the people act with judgment, and as rational men; and if so, they must say, that the people must first judge and condemne the Supream Magistrate, as erring, and doing amisse, before they can lawfully resist him.

7. We have this advantage, That the Arguments by which, They can prove it lawful to resist the Magistrate, in the cases granted by them, will not be a little steadable to us, in our case; and for shame they will not condemne their owne arguments, because in our mouthes.

8. It will be easily granted by all, that our case, vvhich vve have truely stated, vvill come nearer the cases, vvhich adversaries do except, then the case vvhich he hath sett dovvne; and so, Hovvever he think the cases mentioned by him, do not come vvithin the compasse of the question vvhich he hath set dovvne; yet understanding persones vvil see, they are not altogether vvithout the compasse of that vvhich is the true question, and true state of the contro∣troversy; and that he hath no just cause to fay, that vve (hovvever he account us discontented and seditious) do most disingenuosly strive, on all occasions, to aggravate matters, so that the case concerning us, may seem co-incident with these or the like.

But next, more particularly, These concessions are much for our advantage. For,

1. If it be lawful for a private person to defend his life or estate in a moral or legal vvay, by petition, or plea in court, against the Souveraigne, (yea and by actual force, if the So∣veraigne, or any in his name, shal come to poind, or take pos∣session illegally, as our lavves vvill allovv,) vvhy shall it be unlavvfull, for a considerable part of the land, to defend their Lives, and Estates, their Libertyes and Religion, by forcible resistence, made unto the Magistrat's Emissaries, cruel, bloody souldiers, vvhen that moral resistence by pe∣tition, (vvhich yet no rational man can account resistence, it being rather an act of subjection) is, contrare to all lavv

and equity, denyed; and also, the legal resistance, by plea in court, is not admitted? Doth the municipal lavv of the land permit the one resistence, aud vvill not the lavv of nature and nations (vvhich no municipal lavv can infringe) be a sufficient vvarandice for the other, in case of extream necessity? If it be said, The Soveraigne hath law and right upon his side, in this case, which he hath not in the other, till the law discusse it. Ans. The Law and Right which he hath on his fide in this case, is but meerly pretended, as in the other case; and is lis sub judice Neither is he, to be both judge and party in this case, more then in the other: againe, if it be said that in this case, He acteth as a Soveraigne, executeing the lawes, but in the other case, he acteth only, as a private person. It is answered. 1. That even in the other case He may pretend to be acting as a Soveraigne, following & executeing the lawes, as well as in this. 2. The Soveraigne as Soveraigne cannot oppresse nor do wrong, & therefore even in this case, when he doth manifest injury unto the subjects, contrare to his place, vow and promise, he acteth but as a private person, and not as Soveraigne.

2. If it be lawful for private person to warde off, and defensively put back personal injurious assaults, to the ma∣nifest and immediat peril of life, without any colour of de∣serving, of reason, of law, or judicial proceeding. Why shal it not also be lawful for private persons to ward-off, and defensively put back, the injurious assaults of Emis∣saries, to the manifest peril of Life, Libertyes, States, Li∣vely-hoods, Consciences and Religion, without any ra∣tional, or real colour of deserving, of reason of law, of God, or nations, or judicial proceeding? Shal it be lawful for one private person, in the defence of his owne life, to warde off such illegal, extrajudicial and irrational assaults of the Soveraigne himself; and shall it be unlawful for a body of a land, or a considerable part thereof, in the defence of their lively-hoods, and so of their owne lives, and of the lives of their posterity, of their Consciences, of their Libertyes and Religion, all secured unto them by all bonds, vowes, Cove∣nants, Statutes and Actes imaginable, to warde off the irra∣tional,

furious, illegal, extrajudicial and mad assaults of the Soveraign's bloody Emissaries? Sure rational men vvill see that vvhatever reason vvil evince the lavv fulnesse of the resistence in the former case, the same vvill more strongly and plausibly, conclude the lavvfulnesse of resistence in this case.

3. If it be lavvfull for a private vvoman to defend her chastity, dearer to her then life, by violent resisting the So∣veraignes attempts, lest by non-resistance, she should be guilty (and oh if all the vvomen of the nation vvere of this temper.) Shall it not also be lavvful for private persons to defend their Lives, Liberties, Consciences and Religion, dearer to them then their Lives; yea and defend their chastity too, by violent resisting of the furious attempts of the So∣veraignes bloody Emissaries, sent of purpose to constraine and compel them to perjury, vvhen their non-resistence, ac∣cording to their povver and opportunity, could not but be interpreted a voluntary and base quiteing of the cause and truth, vvhich they vvere bound before God, to maintaine vvith their lives and fortunes?

4. If it be lavvfull to resist habited, notour and compleat tyranny, against all appearance of lavv, manifestly tending to the destruction of a body of a people, or a greater part thereof, by hostile furious actions: Shall it be utterly un∣lavvsul to resist notour tyranny, yea compleat and habited (though not as to re-iterated acts, yet as to the ground laid dovvne of a most compleat and habited tyranny) against all appearance of divine lavv, or just and right humane lavves, vvhich should be consonant thereunto, tending to the de∣struction of the Covenanted-libertyes, privileges and Re∣ligion, of the vvhole body of the people; and also unto the actual destruction of the libertyes, states, lives and lively hoods of a great part thereof, by hostile furious actions?

5. If resistence be lavvful in the case of violent attempts, or destruction of all known legall libertyes, and the beeing of religion according to lavv: Shall resistence in our case be unlavvsul, vvhen all the true libertyes of the subjects, once established by lavves, re inforced by vovves, Coven∣nants,

solemne engadgments, and all bonds imaginable; and the very being of our Religion, as reformed in doctrine, vvorshipe, discipline and government, ratified, approved, established, and confirmed by lavves, oathes, Covenants, vovves and promises, vvhich lavves so re inforced vvith oathes, protestations, attestations, declarations, solemne vovves and Covenants, are, by all right divine and humane, irrepelable, being not only in themselves good and necessa∣ry, but also becoming hereby sacred vovves to God, vvhich must be payed, & being also fundamentall tearmes of the constitution of the reformed Republick?

6. If in the case of Vendition, Alienation of, and giving the Kingdome to strangers, violent resistence be allovved; shall it not also be allovved in our case, vvhen a land that vvas solemnely devoted, consecrated, and given avvay to God by solemne vovves and Covenants, and the same ovvn∣ed, approved, ratified and confirmed by publick acts, edicts, proclamations, declarations, lavves and statutes of plenary, and (even as to all formalities) compleat Par∣liaments, made up of all the Estates of the Realme, and the King also, is novv treacheroussly, and iniquosly, for∣ced to depart from their former principles, to abjure their former vovves and Covenants, to change their God, to con∣demne his vvork; and by most abhominable, and ever to be-abhorred acts and statutes, sold and alienated unto a popish prelatical and malignant faction and designe, under vvhich, the faithful and true seekers of God's face, have, and can expect, lesse liberty for their consciences, then if the whole Kingdome vvere delivered up into the hands of the great Turk.

Thus vvee see these concessions help our cause, & vveaken the adversaryes not alittle: let us novv proceed to speak to another particular vvhich vvill help us also.

2. The authors of Lex Rax, and of the Apologetical Relation have sufficiently proved, that the late vvarre carryed on by the Parliament of Scotland against the King, vvas lavvful, both in poynt of lavv and conscience; And if that vvas lavv∣full (as it vvas, and shall be found to be, vvhen he and all

his complices have done their utmost vvith all their lying cavills, false calumnies, reproaches, and vvhat not, that Hell can hatch, to disprove & condemne the same;) a vvarre raised by the subjects in their owne sin-lesse self defence, without the conduct of their representative, cannot in every case be condemned; particularly not in our case now.

The antecedent, I say, is abundantly proved in the books mentioned, which this windy man thinks needlesse to run out upon (but he might rather say, he thinks impossible to answere, and beyond his poor strength to graple vvith) as he sayeth Page. 20. vve must then take some notice of vvhat, in that Page (vvhich he thinks sufficient to oppose unto the many arguments produced by them) he is pleased to present; [what sense (sayes he) the people of Scotland (when they have come to liberty) have of these armes, their late representative have declared, and it were to be wished, that the memory of such wayes, were buryed, that the posterity might never look upon them as ex∣emplary; Their progenitors have so deeply drunk of the bitter fruites of the same, the result of them having been so much sin, shame and sorrow, vastation confusion and destruction to Princes and People.] I answer, 1. What that liberty is, which the people of Scotland are now come to, who can see it, for the perfect sla∣very and bondage they are sold unto? A freedome he talkes of, when all our libertyes are sold, and we given up as bond men and bond women unto the lust of a Man, and are denyed the very liberty, which is the privilege of all free sub∣jects, yea and that which is the birthright and native privi∣lege of all men, viz. to supplicate, petition or to pray: what liberty can he then meane, unlesse the liberty (which is li∣centiousnesse) to forsake God and our Covenant, to turne Apostats from his truth and our profession, to sweare & fore∣sweare, to drink, debauch, whore, commit sodomy, & all sort of wickednesse, without curb or controll? Is this the liberty he understandeth? Sure, all true christians and such as feare the Lord account that develish slavery and bondage. 2. We know what this late Representatives have done, but whether therein they have acted the part of Representatives, and given the true sense of the people of Scotland, will (it

may be) be considered, when He and I both are rotten. Sure they never had any expresse, yea nor tacite commission from the people of Scotland, to give up all their necks to the stroke the axe, as treatours and rebels, for doing nothing but standing to their owne defence, against manifest tyrran∣ny, and oppression of both soul and body; and to condemne them and their worthy progenitors who valiently stood for the truth, and the libertyes of Church and State, to the losse of their lives and fortunes; and to proclame and declare themselves guilty before God and Men, of all the blood that was shed in that warre, though most lawful and laudable. 3. We are persuaded, let him with what he will, the memory of these memorable wayes shall never be buried, but shall stand as exemplary monuments to succeeding ge∣nerations, when God shall think it meet to animate them with the spirit of courage, to free the land of tyranny, and of domineering abjured prelats, withal their taile and traine: and wise men will think that his Representatives have not taken a course fit for burying the memory of these wayes; but rather a way to revive afresh the memory of them, and to commend them more to the thoughts and hearts of all who love and pray for the comeing of our Lord's Kingdome. 4. What bitter frutes these are, which, he sayeth, our progenitours have drunk so deeply of, we know not, They lived and died, such of them as owned, and stedfastly adhered to that cause and Covenant, in honour and peace; and their names shall be in perpetual remembrance, when his, and the names of the rest of this perjured, Malignant apostate faction shall rot. We needed not have feared that either sin, shame, sorrow, vastation, confusion, or de∣struction, should have come to Prices or People, if we had prosecuted the ends of our Covenants, with zeal and faithfulnesse according to our manifold vowes, promises, solemne oathes and ingagments: But what ever of these have followed, should be, and will be rightly fathered on our de∣fection and lose of zeal: And what sin and shame, and sor∣row, & vastation, & confusion, & destruction shall now fol∣low both to Princes and People (if they repent not) upon

this unparallelable defection & Apostasie, whereof now they are avowedly guilty, none, who is not an utter stranger unto God, his faithful word, and dispensations, but may, with∣out any extraordinary Spirit of Prophecy, foretell.

Next he tells us, That these disputes proceed upon a most untrue and malitious misrepresentation of matters of fact, & upon two false hypotheses: Let us heare what are those? [As if (sayes he) the King had been the first invader of the Na∣tion, whereas it is known, his authority was first invaded, his lawes trodden upon, kis proclamations openly despised, his castles violently seised; his armes he took were notinvasive against the Nation, but defensive of his owne authority, of his lawes, and the persones of orderly walking subjects, and for reduceing these who strayed from their duty.] Answ. Quis tulerit Gracchos de seditione querentes? Who would suffer such a manifest notorius lyar to say, that others made misrepresentations of matters of fact? But, 1. Do not all who then lived, and yet read the publick pa∣pers, and other acts that passed then, know that through the instigation of some false, perfidious, fugitive Prelates, the King was stirred up to make warre on Scotland, ere ever they thought of any such thing? Was not warre concluded both by sea and land? Was not free tradeing taken away? Were not the Scottish Nobility at court made to abjure the National Covenant, and the General Assembly at Glasgow? was there not a declaration emitted Feb. 27. & publickly read in all the Churches of England, wherein the faithful subjects and Covenanters in Scotland were tearmed Rebels? Were not Berwik and Carlile frontier cities strongly fortifyed and garrisoned? Was not the Earle of Huntly made Governour of the North of Scotland, and had some foure or five thou∣sand men in armes, for the King? Was not Aberdeen forti∣fying it self, to take in the King's navy of shipes, when it should come? Was not the Marquis of Douglas, & Lord Haris ready to rise with the Papists in the South of Scotland? Was not the Deputy of Ireland prepareing men to land them in the West of Scotland? Was not the Earle of Arundale made the Kings General? and was not the King to have his ren∣dezvouz at York in Aprile, and all the English Nobility com∣manded

to attend him there by a letter written Ian. 26. be∣fore the faithful People of Scotland had any army in readinesse? What impudency is this then to say, the King was not the first invader of the Nation? And as for the second expedi∣tion, Anno Dom. 1640. managed, and carryed on, by the Parliament, it was abundantly verified by their publick pa∣pers, that it was purely defensive. And it is notour, that before the leavy was made, and appointed, the King had violated the conditions made; had caused burne by the hand of the Hangman a paper containeing explications of some tearmes used by him in the treaty of Peace; had denyed accesse to their commissioners, & afterward, when he had signified his willingnesse to heare such as they should send, such as were sent were committed to prisone, and one of them, viz. The Lord Lowdon ordained secretly to be behead∣ed in the Towr of London; and, in the meane while, warre was concluded against the Realme of Scotland, in the King's Council; The Earle of Northumberland was made General, a Parliament was convocated, both in England and Irland, for raising of subsidies, to the carrying on of this warre; The Deputy of Irland with some there, had promised much assistence. The Prelates of England had offered great summes to carry on this Bellum Episcopale, as they named it; Scottish shipes were intercepted, their goods taken away, and the seamen cast into prifsones and miserably handled; The sea ports were closed up with frigots; The castle of Edinbrugh oppressed the City with their shot, and killed many both young and old. Were all these things no beginnings of a warre, nor no acts of hostility? How can he, or any else then, say that the King was not the first aggressor, or that Scotlands warre was not purely defensive? 2. As to these things wherein he would make his reader beleeve, that the Honest people of Scotland, were the first invaders, what a malitious fool doth he manifest himself to be; for 1. How or what way was his authority invaded? was it, because they would not receive a masse book in English, obtruded upon them by his sole authority without the concurrence of Church or State? 2. What lawes were troden upon? We∣know

no lawes, but acts and statutes of a lawful Parliament, made for the glory of God, and the good of the land: and what such were trode upon? 3. What way were his procla∣mations despised? Is it to despise a King's proclamation, for free subjects to vindicate them selves of what is unjustly laid to their charge in this proclamations, by faithful and humble protestations of their innocency? 4. What were those castles seised upon? Some be like in Vtopia; for, be∣fore this warre was begun Anno 1639. The Covenanters seised upon none of the King's castles: When they savv the King bore a hostile minde against them and intended no good, they watched the castle of Edinbrugh that more ammunition and provision should not be carryed into it: And this was all they did, until they were necessitated to put themselves, into a posture of defence, & then they seised upon some houses here & there, the lawfulnesse of which, is demonstrated by Lex Rex, & the Apology. 5. What illegal courts were those which were set up? Sure those tables, as they were called, were no courts assumeing to themselves any judicial determination in any matter of State civil or Ecclesiastical, nor conventions: for disturbance of the peace, or usurpation against authority; but meer meetings (allowed by the light and law of nature) for consultation and advice anent the matter and manner of supplications, which they were to present to his Majesty, and his Council; and of propositions to be presented to the lawful State and Church-judicatories. 6. Who were those subjects walking according to the lawes, who were persecu∣ted? We know of none, who were troubled at that time, except the Prelates, the Troublers of our Israel, and all the persecution they met with, was that the honest Covenanters did give in complaints against them, and offered to make good what they allaiged, upon the highest perill, and did supplicate the Council (whereof some of them were Mem∣bers) that they might not fit there as judges, but stand as Rëi, and answere for themselves, and that the General assembly indicted by his Majesty, after mature deliberation, and full examination, did excommunicate them, for high and noto∣rious crymes, to be seen in the registers of that Assembly.

But 2 will these things, to judicious persons, lay the ground of a lawful warre by the Magistrate, against his owne sub∣jects? Are these who cannot yeeld obedience unto unlaw∣ful commands, who humbly protest for their owne inno∣cency, who meet together for drawing up supplications, and ordering matters thereanent, and who give in complaints against the Pests & Troublers of the land, and exerce Church censures upon the scandalous, invaders of the Soveraign's authority? And when a King upon these grounds invadeth his subjects, with an army of armed men, can any man of common sense think that his war is not an invasive vvarre? Hath not Magistrats other lavvfull vvayes to defend their ovvne authority and lavves and orderly subjects, and to re∣duce the disorderly, then fire and svvord? Sure, for a King to cut off his subjects, is to diminish and annihilate his autho∣rity and lavves both: And for a King to vvage vvarre against the Body of a land, to pleasure Fourteen of a fevv of the bas∣est and most unvvorthy of all the subjects, vvould seem to be the result of no grave and sage Council; nor vvould it appeare to be much for the Kings honour, to have his So∣veraigne authority imbarqued vvith a fevv abjects, so as if they did sinke to the bottome of the sea, It could not swime.

The next thing, (and that is the 2 hypothesis) he allegeth is. [That they represent him, in their virulent (he should say ner∣vous) writeings, as Nerone ipso Neronior, a great persecuter of Reli∣gion, intending the total ruine and destrustion of the protestant profession, and the total ruine and destruction, of the whole people of the land.] Answ. They represente him no othervvayes, then his owne publicke, owned, and avowed deeds, and declarations did represente him to all the world. What was his secret intentions God knoweth, but his deeds did de∣clare that he minded no good to the poor Church and State of Scotland; for, to pleasure a few abjects, that had drun∣ken in much Popery, and Arminianisme, and stirred him up to urge upon our Church 2 Popish publick service, book of canons, and ordination, Popish ceremonies, and such Romish trash, he sought, by fire and sword to reduce us

to ashes. We shal not now trouble his Urne, by speaking to what this Surveyer sayeth afterward: This we knovv, That he died; but vvhether as a glorious Martyr for the true Religion of God (vvhich yet may admit several senses, so ambiguous is it, though vve let it passe in the best) and lavves and liberties of the people, (as he sayeth) many doubt. At length he closeth his digression thus. [If there was any thing that could not have a favourable interpretation in that unhappy book that gave therise to the troubles, how timely was it retired, and great satisfaction and security given for religion? If through de∣fault of Ministers of State, any thing had creeped in, that could not abide the test of law, how willingly was ••treformed? yet all could not sist begun course of violence, till through God's dreadful in∣dignation against a sinfull people, his fatal end might be brought on, not because he had been a Tyrant, but because he had not been such] Answ. That book which was unholy, as well as, unhappy in giving the rise to such troubles, had not only somethings in it, that could not bear a favourable interpretation, but the whole of it, was the extract and quint essence of the Ro∣mish masse book, book of ritualls, &c. And how slowly it was retired, and satisfaction and security given, for our re∣ligion, and how soon conditions covenanted and condescen∣ded upon, were broken, the history of those times doth sufficiently declare; as also how unwillingly any thing was reformed that had creeped in, whether through the default of Ministers of State or others, But how can this base ca∣lumniator insinuat that the Kings loyall subjects in Scotland had a hand in bringing him to his fatal end, seing even the late Representatives, though they would willingly have raked hell for it, could not finde a man, in all Scotland, to be charged with that crime. That he came to his fatal end, we know; but that it was through Gods dreadful indignation against a sinful people (if he mean the faithful and honest Co∣venanters) I know none, except base ignorant sycophants, that will say it: That it was not because he had been a Ty∣rant, many will doubt. And when he sayes, that it was because he had not been a Tyrant. I am sure, he giveth non ca••∣sam pro causa••: and who can understand how God in his dread∣ful

indignation against a sinful people, doth take away a Prince who vvas not a Tyrant, seing upon that account he giveth such Tyrants sometimes.

Having thus vindicated the Antecedent from what this Surveyer had to say against it, we shall now speak a word to the consequence of the argument. And 1. The whole Cabal of the Royalists will grant it; for, with them, both Re∣presentatives and People are put into one and the same cate∣gory, viz. of meer subjects; so that if the Antecedent stand good, (as it shall, for all which they have said, or all which this their new collegue or young raw disciple, can say to the contrary) the argument is good ad hominem. 2. Such as grant it lawful for a Land having their Representatives with them, to defend themselves against tyranny; But deny it to privat subjects, in case of necessity, when they cannot have the conduct and concurrence of their Representatives, can adduce no argument against this last, but such, as will weaken their assertion in the former: As for exemple Hoeno∣nius politic. disp. 9. thes. 55. disproveth resistence in this last case, by these arguments. 1. because, Subjects are obliged to pay to their owne Magistrats, the duty of fidelity and obedience, 2. Because, by this meanes a gap would be opened to seditions and rebellions. 3. Because the scripture commandeth subjects to pray for their Magistrats. 4. The son may not wronge his father how wicked so ever he be. 5. Violence done to the head, though sickly, tendeth to the ruine of the whole body. 6. It is better to have a sickly head then none. 7. There is greater danger to Cast off a Tyrant, then to Tolerate him. 8. A Tyrant cannot be resisted but de∣struction will follow to the resisters. 9. God punished the wicked kings of the jewes by strangers. 10. Jeremias did not stirre up the jewes against Nebuchadnezar but allowed them to pray. 11. Christ commanded to pay tribute unto the Prince. 12. Paul will not have an evil Prince to be cursed with words. 13. Kings are from God, and such like. But who seeth not, that these, if of any force, (as indeed they are of none, as shall afterward be made appear, in due time) conclude as much against a peoples opposeing and resisting a

Tyrant, even when they have their Representatives with them, as when they are left alone: and yet this same Hoeno∣nius ubi supra thes. 45. granteth it lawful yea and necessary for the Ephori and the Estates of a land to resist the Tyrant. 3. If our Surveyer will grant the case different now, from what it was then, when the primores Regni were ingadged in the opposition, (as he doth Pag. 21.) and grant that when the primores Regni concurre, the opposition is lawful (as he must grant, in case the Soveraigne become Tyrannnical, and be the first-aggressor, because only upon the contrary supposi∣tion he condemneth the last resistence, which was made to the King by Scotland) He must of necessity seek out other arguments then what we see he hath, to condemne this resi∣stence of Private persons, in case of necessity; or otherwayes contradict himself; for, as may easily be seen, this being granted, all his arguments shall be easily discussed. 4. If he grant the case now, to be much different from what it was then, so as then, it was a lawful resistence, but not so now (as he must grant, otherwise, we cannot see what this is to the poynt, and wherein his much difference doth slye) how can he save himself a from contradiction; for he must put a diffence betwixt a resistence made by the people with their primores, and a resistence made by the People with their Representatives in Parliament; or else say, That what∣ever the Nobles of a land do, is the same with what a Par∣liament doth; and that wherever they are, there is a Par∣liament, and the peoples Representatives: Now this he darre not say, left he should be hissed at; and therefore he must grant it lawful, for a people to defend themselves, when they want the conduct and concurrence of their Repre∣sentatives, acting authoritatively; or else retract, what he hath said, and planely confesse That the case to be notice∣ed now, is not different from what it was then. 5. I hope no man will say that a war carryed on, or a resistence made against the Soveraigne, by the Representatives of a people, Is eo ipso lawful, unlesse the ground of the warre, or resistance, be reall and valide: And if the ground be valid, and good whereupon a People unjustly oppressed and tyrannized over

are allowed to defend themselves, haveing their Represen∣tatives to goe before them, why shall not the same ground stand valid and sufficient, to warrand them to defend them∣selves, when they have not the concurrence of their Repre∣sentatives? I would gladly heare a reason, making the defence in the one case lawful, and not in the other, seing the ground remaines the same, the same necessity abideth, yea, it rather increaseth when the Representatives, who should be a screen unto the people, betray their trust, and either neglect to vindicate with their authority and conduct, the innocent oppressed people, or turne adversaries to them, and oppressours of them, themselves. 6. Since Parliments are the peoples Representatives, no man will say That de jure their power is privative, or destructive; but rather cumulative and helpful; so that the peoples Representative cannot, de jure, make them more liable to irremediable tyranny and oppression, then they were: they being pro∣perly exnatur a rei and ex institutione, & instituentium intentione, ordained and appoynted, for the greater faifty, and good of the people. And therefore, if the Representatives betray their trust, the People, in so far, are as if they had no Re∣presentatives, and may no lesse defend themselves in ex∣treame necessity, then if the officers of their army, whom they had chosen and appoynted to defend them, against an invadeing enemy, should revolt to the enemy, they might lawfully rise up in their owne defence, and oppse the adversary. 7. The law sayeth that deterior conditio domini per procuratorem fieri non debet L. ignorantis ff. de procuratoriburs. The procurator or advocat his knavery, cannot prejudge the Client or wronge his cause. And why then shall the per∣fidy of the peoples Representatives, or their betraying of their trust, wronge their cause, and prejudge them of their just right? 8. All will grant, That it is as lawful, for an oppressed people to defend themselves from the injuryes of a Parliament, as from the injuries of a Soveraigne, if not more: and if it be lawfull for a people to defende themselves against the Tyranny of a Parliament (as is more then suf∣ficiently proved by all such arguments as have hitherto, by

any, been made use of, to prove it lawful, to resist a So∣veraigne oppressing and tyrannizing) no man of common sense, will deny it lawful to a people to defend themselves against oppression and tyranny, when they but want the concurrence or countenance of these Parliaments. 9. If any should allaige that this is against the law of the consti∣tution of the Kingdom. We know no such law: beside, that though there were any such; yet necessity knoweth no law: and in cases of necessity, such lawes are not to be observed, sayeth the law L. ut gradatim §. I. de muner: & honor. The lavves of nature are irrevocable and cannot be rescinded by municipal lavves: for the lavv tells us that civilis ratio jur•• natur alia corrumpere non pote st L. eas oblig. D. de cap. privat. Novv the lavv of nature allovving self defence against unjust vio∣lence, addeth no such restriction, viz. that it be done by the conduct, and concurrence of the Primores or Parliaments. 10. The very concessions of our adversaries fore-mention∣ed, vvill confirme this consequence, for in these cases, they vvill grant the same liberty to a People vvithout, as to a People vvith their Representatives, to defend themselves: for the vveight and ground is not laid upon the manner, or vvay of conduct, or managing of the resistence and defence; but upon the cause, and that is alvvayes the same. Yea, the necessity (as was said) is greater (though, it may be, the difficulty is also greater) when Representatives desert such as they do represente, and instead of helping them with counsel and conduct, in their necessity, do either deserte them, or turne enemies unto them.

Our 3 argument is taken from the law and light of nature which alloweth to beasts, power and ability to defend them selves, against violence. An argument made use of, not only by Lex Rex and the Apology,▪ but by Divines, Canonists, Lawyers and others who write of this subject. The civil law it self tells us That his necessary defence of life, flow∣eth from the law of nature L. ut vim. ff. de just. & jure. But here cometh out a green statist, and takes on him to cry shame on all who ever wrote on that subject, and avovves Pag. 15. That it is too grosse divinity to bring such an argument

from beasts. We must therefore see vvhether this Man be rational in rejecting such an argument taken from beasts; and not rather more irrational then a Brute, to deny that to a Rational creature, vvhich he cannot but grant to Beasts, and Creatures vvithout life, as vve see he doth Pag. 14. 15. We shall readily grant vvith'him, That God hath given this self defending or preserving povver and propension, otherwayes to Men, then to inanimate creatures, or unto beasts, which are under no law, but that of meer nature, and there∣fore, they are not to defend themselves coeco impetu, but rationally; and ought to subordinate this natural propension to self defence unto, and limite it, by the higher lawes of reason and of God. Doth he think that such as make use of this argument, do suppose That in every case and in every manner of way, men are to use and exercise this natural pro∣pension to self defence, in vvhich and after vvhich, Beasts are to use it? Sure he is in a great mistake, and he vvrongeth the authors of Lex Rex and of the Apolog. &c. vvhen he say∣eth Pag. 15. [That they bring arguments from beasts, (who being under no law of reason nor grace, to limite their propensions, may alwayes, in all imaginable cases, defend themselves with force) to perswade men, that they may do the like, and that their propension for their externall preservation, is no more under any restraineing rule, to stope the exercise of it, then that of Beasts is;] For, they intend no such thing, nor are they, in the least, necessitated, to use that argument so: They only make use of it to dis∣prove That irrational, and more then brutish position and maxime of absolute, unlimited and indispensible subjection of subjects to their Soveraigne, so that in no case, they may or can resist, which all the Cabal and royal society of Roya∣lists, parasites, court flatterers and cavalliers, who, because they themselves, in hopes of some crumbs of allowance, have brutishly, without regaird had to the Law of God, or right reason, sold and devouted themselves, not only in matters concerning their body, but in soul matters, unto the meer lust and pleasure of a creature of clay, think all others should play the beasts with them, do furiously & ob∣stinately maintaine. And as to this, the argument hence

deduced is most rational and irrefragable: for it is irrational to think That God (who taketh much more care of man; then of beasts 1 Cor. 9:9. Mat. 6:30.) should allow and give unto the inanimate creatures, and to the beasts, a power and propension to defend themselves against violence, and should deny the same to Man; so that in no case he should be allowed to exerce that natural propension, to defend him∣felfe, and to resist unjust violence with violence. So then we might let his restrictions passe, as being no thing to the pre∣sent purpose; for, it is but his groundlesse imagination to think that we would equalize Men with Beasts, because we will not, with him and his party, depresse them into a condition belovv beasts; yet we shall shortly run over them. His first is this, when it is seen to be to no purpose, by reason of a phisical force. But alas doth he think this restriction of the natural propension for felfe preservation is upon men only, & not upon Beasts also? did he not say in the same Page, the Major vis and a greater phisical force would hinder this even in Beasts? His next restriction is this, A man justly condemned to death, both ac∣cording to a just law, and by a just process according to law, may not use violent self defence against the Magistrate, with re-offending him. Ans. It is granted, what then? will it therefore follow, that this principle of selfe preservation is so restricted, as that a whole Land, or a considerable part thereof, being un∣justly condemned, both by an unjust law, and by an unjust processe according to, or without that unjust law, may not defend themselves against the Magistrate's Emissaries, sent to destroy, without respect had either to law or conscience? Then he tells us That Lex Rex is too bold and cometh too neare to blaspheme God, by saying [That it were a mighty defect in divine providence, that men should not have as large a liber∣ty to defend themselves violently, as Beasts have; and that men were in a worse condition then beasts, if as Beasts have alwayes power to defend themselves violently, with their horns, heels, teeth &c. So men should not have as large a liberty, in every case to use violence upon Magistrates, putting them to vexation, or perhaps troubling them in life states &c.] But where findes he these words in Lex Rex▪ The author of Lex Rex sayeth Pag. 334. [It were

a mighty defect in providence to man, if dogs, by nature, may defend themselves against Wolves, Bulls against Lyons, doves against haukes; If a man in the absence of the lawful Magistrate, should not defend himself against unjust violence, but one man might raise armyes of papists sick for blood, to destroy innocent men] but this is far from [as large a liberty, in every case] and cometh no way near to blasphemy, but is a real truth. Suppose Lex Rex had said so (which I finde not) it had not been apposite to his poynt now, while he is speaking of opposeing Magistrates not puting to vexation, or perhaps troubling in life, state, &c. but rightly executeing a just law, against a malefactor, which the worthy author of Lex Rex would never have owned, but would have said, That the Magistrate was bound to execute Gods Law against men-sworne Apostats, such as he and his fraternity are, & that they were bound to submite to the stroke of justice. Thridly he sayes Pag, 16. may not the exercise of selfe defence and violent resistence, be restrained by the grace of God, and the power of his command for submission, abiding upon a mans spirit? as in Isaac's case, who did not resist his aged father going to sacri∣fice him. Ans. Whether Isaac made any forceable resistence or not, we know not, scripture is silent; but it tels us his father bound him, we acknowledge God is Lord of life, but no man is; and he may restraine by his will and working on the spirit, so as a man who lawfully might flee, and save his life, shall not have power to do so, but abide and glo∣rify him by giving a faithful testimony unto his truth when questioned. But thinks he that such instances are binding pre∣cedents▪ Sure, then he shall contradict his owne doctrine, Cap. 4. Or thinks he, that a Body of a people or a conside∣rable part thereof, shall not exercise lawfully this privilege of self defence & violent resistence, when neither the Law of God, nor such extraordinary force or restraint of God on the Spirit, but the vaine pleadings of Court Parasites, would have it restrained? Fourthly Pag. 17. He sayes, May not the defence of our temporal life, in some case, cease, for the pre∣servation of the eternal life of our Neighbour, when it comes to that, that the defence of the one shall be the certane losse of the other? Ans. True, and therefore He and the rest of the perjured

clergy should much more cease from the preservation, or ratherusurpation, of their places, livings, and dignities, when so long as they domineer, there is certane ruine to Re∣ligion, and to the souls of many thousands. And againe, if a man may lay downe his natural life, for the preservation of of the soul of his Neighbour, much more may he with others, hazard the same in opposeing unjust violence, for the de∣fence of the pure Religion, whereby thousands of soulls may be eternally preserved. But doth he think that a Na∣tion or a whole countrey-side is to give up their lives to the sword of the Kings mercylesse Emissaries, for to preserve the vaine pompe, and to fill the bellyes of a few drons, whose God is their belly, though they should account that their eternal life, and all their felicity? Fiftly, sayes he, doth not this obligation cease, for the publick good and preservation of the Commonwealth. Answer: What then▪ doth it follow That Men should renunce their priviledge of self defence, when their doing of that shall be so far, from promoving the publick good, and preservation of the Com∣monwealth, that upon the contrare, their doing so shall tend directly to the ruine of the publick good and destruction of the Commonwealth? Sure if this be true, that a man should lay down his life for the good of the commonwealth. It is also true, that moe should hazard their lives for the good of the Commonwealth, and violently resist violence. And doct Ames case mentioned Cas. Consc. Lib. 5. c.. 31. q. 3. would sute the Prelates well, and their adherents: so that if he and they loved the good of the Church and Kingdome of Scotland, they should give up their necks to the stroke of justice, that the wrath of God may be turned away from the land: for till these be removed, we can not expect any thing, but judgement upon judgement from the Lord, till we be destroyed. Neither doth Naphtaly crosse D. Ames, for Naphtaly only speaks of a mans suffering intolerable and inevitable injuries, under pretext of the good of the Com∣monwealth; which indeed for a man to do, would be, for the delusion of an empty name, only for the lust of others, really to deprive himself of his whole share and interest there∣in,

neither would he have ground of hope of getting a better share, seing it vvere a great question and doubt; if, in that case, he vvere in the vvay of his duty. What he addeth, Pag. 18. of a souldiers going to a dangerous post, at the com∣mand of his General, is utterly impertinent; Natures in∣stinct vvil teach some dog to stand in the gap to keep out the Bare. His last restriction is this That it must cease to pre∣serve the King, the Head of the Commonwealth, when the case is so, that the King must either lose his life or the private man his. Ans. I grant Lex Rex sayeth [I think that a private man should rather suffer the King to kill him, then that he should kill the King, because he is not to preferre the life of a private man, to the life of a publick man,] But I doubt that it is so agreed among the learned. Sure P. Voetius de Duellis Cap. 20. Pag. 162. thinketh othervvayes, and proveth that self defence is lavvful to a private person against the Magi∣strate, for the lavv vvhich allovveth to repel violence vvith violence, maketh no distinction betvvixt a publick person and a privat person, and the law of Nature al∣loweth it against every one; for it knovveth no diffe∣rence: And as to that vvhich some vvould say, That his death would be hurt full to the Commonwealth. He answereth, [That he who resisteth the Prince doth intend no hurt to the Republick, and it is not per se, but per accidens, that he standeth in the way of the good of the Commonwealth; and if he should suffer himself to be killed, he should transgresse against the Law of Nature.] Yea I much doubt if the Surveyer himself, would not rather kill, in this case, as be killed, and with Naphtaly account Self-defence a principal rule of righteousnesse, however now he would disprove this assertion if he could: And would let that passe of loving himself more ad finem suum ultimum, and suam vir∣tutem. Finally; what he sayeth against this assertion of Naphtaly is to no purpose; for the Author of Naphtaly will readyly grant that in some cases, not only a man, but a compa∣uy of men, may, yea ought to preferre the preservation of others, unto the preservation of their owne life, because of a divine command to defend Religion, Libertyes, Poste∣rity and Countrey, from the unjust invasion and violence of∣fered

by wicked Emissaries. But he shall never prove, That the Body of a land or a considerable part thereof, is to hold up their throats, to be cut by the Kings cut-throats, when he & they are seeking to root out the Covenanted-work of Reformation, to destroy the Libertyes of the land, and to make all perfect slaves, both in soul and body.

CAP. III.

A fourth Argument Vindicated, taken from Scripture-instances.

Our fourth argument shall be taken from instances of opposition and resistence, made unto the Soveraigne, or his bloody Emissaries, by private subjects, without the conduct or concurrence of their Representatives, recorded in scripture, and which we finde not condemned by the Spi∣rit of the Lord: So that whosoever shall condemne the late vindicators, must also condemne these instances.

As. 1. They must condemne the Iewes standing for their lives against their Enemies armed against them, with a com∣mission from King Ahasuerus, sealed with his ring, which no man might reverse, in the dayes of Mordecai & Esther. But some vvill say. That they had the King's commission, which did warrand them to take the sword of defence against any that should assault them, under pretence of the former decree, I Answere. If their having of the King's commis∣mission did in poynt of conscience warrand them, It had been utterly unlawful for them, to have withstood the King's butchers, if they had not abtained that commission and warrand: But what man of common sense will say this? This later decree did, in poynt of law, warrand them to gather together with saifty and security, that they might the more easily, not only defend themselves from their Adver∣saries assaulting them; but also to destroy, to stay, and to cause to perish, all the power of the people and province,

that would assault them, both little ones & women, and to take the spoile of them for a prey Esth 8:11. But didnot, could not, make their selfdefence against such manifest & bloody cruelty, lawful in poynt of conscience, if, otherwise it had been unlawful. Though every instance will not in all poynts quadrate (for nullum simile est idem) yet vve have here in this instance these things for our purpose, 1. private subjects with∣out their Ephori or Representatives, arming themselves for de∣fence: & that 2. against bloody Emissaryes of the King: & 3. bloody Emissaries armed by a formal commission, decree and vvarrand from the King. 4. A commission formally never reversed, but standing in force, as the decrees of the Medes and Persians that might not be altered. 5. and this defence, as lavvful in it self in poynt of conscience, (for if it had not not been so, the King's vvarrand had never made it so) so declared lavvful in poynt of lavv, by a decree from the King, after better thoughts. In imitation of vvhich, It had been a commendable practice in the King and Council, if they had been so farr from condemning these innocent self-defenders, (since, as they thought, in poynt of honour and credite, they vvould not retract or reverse their decrees and commissions once granted) that they vvould have authorized them, and absolved them in poynt of lavv, since in poynt of conscience, no man could condemne them, for standing to the defence of their Estates, Lands, Libertyes, Lives and Consciences, un∣justly oppressed by mercylesse Emissaries.

2. They must condemne the people their rescueing of Ionathan from the sentence of death, unjustly given out against him, by King Saul 1 Sam. 14: 44. In ansvvere to this in∣stance, our Surveyer sayeth Pag. 65. [That the people used no vio∣lence against Saul when he went about to put to Death innocent Jona∣than, but in the heat of souldiery boldnesse, do effectually interpose with Saul, and mediate for the life of Jonathan, moving Saul to Wave respect to his rash oath, and to regaird what was just and right. Answ. 1. The matter came not the length of violence; but had the King pertinaciously adhered to his rash and sinful resolu∣tion, and, by force, had offered to draw the innocent Man to death, that which they did, spoke clearly, they would

have resisted him; for, whether the King would or not, yea contrare to his oath, they sweare in the face of the King, that Ionathan should not die, 2. It is but gratis dictum, that only in the heat of a souldiery boldnesse, they did mediate; be∣side, that there seemeth to be a material contradiction here, for souldiers mediating and interposing especially in the heate of souldiery-boldnesse, useth not to be with humble supplica∣tions & intreaties, but with violence or with what will usher in violence. 3. We heare of no arguments they use to move bloody Saul to change his purpose, but this, as the Lord liveth there shall not one haire of his head fall to the ground. He sayes Pag. 66. That [the people did not oppose an oath to Saul's oath, for Junius exposition may passe well; that they spoke not by way of swearing, but by way of reasoning, abhorring the destruction of such a person, absit, ut vivit Jehovah, an cadere debet.] Ans. The word which they use is no other way translated here, by Iunius, then elsewhere; and elsewhere it hath clearly the import of an oath, as may be seen Iudg. 8. 19. 1 Sam. 19: 16. and 20. 3, 21, 25, 26. and in many other places. 2. The People spoke these words, as Saul spoke them, ver. 45. and therefore they are directly an oath of the people opposed to Saul's oath. 3. Iunius himself sayeth, that they opposed a just oath to Saul's hypocritical oath. Sanctius in locum, sayeth, [the people opposed to the Kings oath, a publick oath, & swore that they would not suffer that any evil should be done unto him.] The dutch Annotat call it an abrupt kinde of oath in use among the Hebrevvs.

But (sayes he)[It is a vvonder to see understanding men argue from this place, for violence and forcible resistence to Kings, especially vvhen acting according to lavves, con∣sented to by private persones]

Ans. This place proveth clearly that princes may be resisted, and resisted vvhen they use violence and oppression, and that by private persones, even vvhen the oppression, or iniquity is acted according to a pretended lavv, or something equivalent to a lavv. Let us see vvhere the difference lyeth. Here (sayes he) the King is not acting according to law, but prosecuting the execution of a foolish and rash oath] Answ: 1. Neither did our King's bloody Emissaries

act according to lavv, but were prosecuting the execution of a develish and rash resolution, to root out and destroy a vvhole Countrey side, 2. If Royalists speak truth, Sauls vvord, let be his oath, vvas as good as a lavv: and Sanctius sayeth it vvas Decretum decreed. And vvhatever it vvas formally, it vvas ma∣terially a law, unto which they had all tacitely assented, v. 24. & which they durst not transgresse v. 26. [Here (sayes he)the opposition made to the King is by way of intercession & earnest reasoning that he ought to regaird what was right more then his rash oath.) Answ. No reasoning vve heare but a peremptour telling of the King, to his face, that he should not get his vvill, not one haire of Ionathan's head should fall to the ground, if he should attempt any thing, against Ionathan, it should be over their bellyes: Their vvords look like club-agruments. [Here (sayes he)their opposition was acceptable and welcome, acquiesced in and yeelded to] Answ. It is like it vvas condescention by force and constraint, for vvhether he vvould or not, he savv he could not get his vvill, and therefore passed from vvhat he intended, 2. His acquiescence sayes the resistence vvas more forcible then meer intercession vvould be; for, he vvas another sort of bloody Tyrant, then to yeeld to petitions, vvhen he thought his honour stood upon it [Here (sayes he) the opposition is made by the Princes of the land, Captains of Thousands &c.] Answ. The text sayes The people rescued Ionathan. Who ever they vvere & vvhatever they vvere, they acted not here as the Supreame Sanhedrin, nor as a court of judicatour haveing povver of government, but as private persones, according to their povver and capacities. And so all this makes much for a party of private persones (for here vvas not all the land) their resisting of the King's bloody emissaries executing cruelty, not so much as according to an iniquous lavv, but contrare to all lavv, right and reason [Let (sayes he) Peter martyr be looked upon this place, and he speaks not ably well, his owne words will discover how notourly he is falsified by L. R. p 349.] Answ. Lex Rex. dealt ingenuously with his reader concerning him, telling him, in the margine that with adoubt he said, si ista seditiose fecerunt nullo modo excusari possunt. And that he said they might Suffragiis. vvith their suffrages free him. Why did not the Surveyer set

dovvn his vvords? did Lex Rex falsify also Chrysostome homil. 14. ad Pop. Antioch. Iunius: Corn, a lapide: Sanctius: Lyra: Hugo Cardin. Iosephus L. 6. antiq. c. 7. and Althus. Polit. c. 38. n. 109.

3. They must condemne David, for his resisting of King Saul, with armed men, which yet the spirit of God doth not condemne, but rather approve, in commending such as helped him I Chron. 12: 1. 2. 8. &c. and inspireing Amazia who was chief of the captaines to say Thine are we David, and on thy side, peace, peace be unto thee, and peace be unto thy helpers, for thy God helpeth thee. So did he intend to keep out the city Keila a∣gainst the King, and consulted God thereanent, and had his answere, that the city would betray him. Now if it had been unlavvful for him to have defended himself by such forcible resistence, vve cannot think that he vvould have goten such ansvvers as he gote. Grotius himself approveth this deed of David's. All vvhich this Surveyer sayeth against this Pag. 67. is, That Davids unction did so distinguish him from private persons, as that it made it lawful for him to resist violence with violence: But, the law of nature restricteth not this law∣ful self-defence to anoynted persons. 2. If his anoynting made him no private person, what did it make him? it could not make Him King, othervvise he might not only have re∣sisted Saul, but have taken his life as a traitour; or else vve must say, there were two Kings at once in Israel. 3. David never pleads this as the ground of his resistence, nor is there any hint of this in the text.

4. They must condemne the city Abel 2. Sam. 20. which resisted Ioab, Davids General, and his forces, when they be∣sieged it, till the matter came to a capitulation, Ioab should have offered tearmes unto the city, before he had threatned to destroy it; and should have communed with the Magistrates, concerning the delivering up of the Taitour, before he had resolved to destroy the whole city, for one Traitours cause: and therefore justly did they defend themselves against his un∣just invasion notwithstanding he was armed with a com∣mission from the King: and remarkable it is, that after the capitulation, they were never challenged for traitours in resisting, with closed gates, and fensed walls, the King's

General and army. So that here is a private city standing out for a time, against the King's souldiours, unjustly seek∣ing to destroy them, because of one Traitour among them.

5. They must condemne the Prophet Elias for resisting Aha∣ziah's bloody Emissaries sent by him, in an angry moode, to ap∣prehend him and to compell him, in a spite full manner, and to take him prisoner, as say the Dutch Annot. on the place, For speaking such things as he did, unto the messengers of the King, who were sent to Baal zebub the God of Ekron, to enquire if he should recover of his desease; and to bring him to the King by violence, if he would not come willingly, as Iosephus sayeth antiq. Lib. 9. C. 2. 2 King. 1. Now he resisted such as were sent, and killed two Captanes & their fifties, with fire from heaven, which instance doth sufficiently de∣clare that it is lavvful for private subjects, in some cases, to resist the unjust violence of the King's Emissaries, though armed with his commission. It is true, the manner of his resistence, and of killing these, vvas extraordinary, by way of a miracle; yet the resistence it self, was not ex∣traordinare, as we have seen by other instances, and shall see cleared by moe.

6. They must condemne the prophet Elisha who resisted both the King and his Emissaries in his ovvne defence 2 Kings 6:32. saying to the Elders who sate with him see yee how this Sone of a murderer hath sent to take away my head? look where the Messenger cometh, shut the door, and hold him fast at the door, is not the sound of his Masters feet behinde him? Here was un∣just violence offered to the innocent Prophet, an Emissary sent to kill him without cause: and the Prophet resisteth his violence, causeth hold him at the door, and violently presse him, or presse him betvvixt the door and the wall, vvich speaketh violent resistence: keep him (say the Dutch Annot.) by force at the door: yea Iosephus thinketh that the King follovved quickly after, left the Prophet should have killed his servant. This clearly sayes that it is lawful for privat persones (for the Prophet vvas no other but a pri∣vate subject) to resist unjust violence offered them by the

King or his Emissaries, and with violente resistence, to defend themselves.

7. Much more will they condemne other instances of greater opposition, made to the rage and tyranny of Prin∣ces, which we finde recorded in scripture, and not con∣demned.

As. 1. That opposition made by the Ten tribes to Rehoboam, when they revolted from him, after they had a rough and tyrannical answere unto their just and lawful demands 1 King. 12: 1. &c. 2 Cbron. 10: & 11. They desired nothing, upon the matter, but that He would engadge to Rule over them according to the law of God, and He gave a most harsh and tyrannical answere, and avowed that he would tyrannize over them, and oppresse them more then any of his predecessours, and that his little finger should be heavier then their loyns; whereupon they fell away from him, and erected themselves into a new Commonwealth, and choosed a nevv King: And vve finde nothing in all the text condemning this; for, it vvas done of the Lord, the cause vvas from the Lord, that he might performe his saying vvhich he spoke by Ahijah; and vvhen Rehoboam raised an army to reduce them againe under his power and command, the vvord of God came unto She∣maiah saying speak unto Rehoboam &c. and say thus sayeth the Lord, yee shall not goe up, nor fight against your brethren, the chil∣dren of Israel, returne every man to his house, for this thing is from me. It vvas done by the vvill of God sayeth Iosephus Antiq. Lib. 8. c. 11. And there is not one word, in the text im∣porting that this vvas condemned by the Spirit of the Lord; for, as for that vvord 1 King. 12. 19. So Israel rebelled against the house of David. It may be as vvel rendered, as it is in the margine, they fell away; and so doth the dutch render it, and lunius defecerunt, they fell avvay, or made defection, and the original vvord is of a larger signification then 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 vvhich properly signifieth to rebel, yea though the vvord 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 had been here used, it vvould not have imported a sinfull rebellion and defection, more then 2 King. 18. 7. vvhere Hezekiah is said to have rebelled against the King of Assyria, and this was a frute and effect of the Lords being with him, and prospering him,

whithersoever he vvent forth. The Surveyer Pag. 66. can say nothing but [That no sound man will think the suddaine and fu∣rious rebellion of the ten Tribes from Davids house, upon the furious and rash answer of a young King, was justifiable.] But vvhatever he say or think, it doth not weigh much with us; had he shewed us out of the Text, that this was condemned by the Spirit of the Lord, as sinful upon the matter, we should heartily have acquiesced, but since we see more hinting at an approbation thereof, we must rest there, till we see stronger reasons, then his naked assertions. But sayes he [It would be considered that these who made the secession were the major part of the body of the people, but what is all this to justifie the insurrections of any lesser party of private people against the Magistrate, and all Magistrates supreme & subordinate.] Ans. By what right, this Major part of the Body did make secession, by that same right, might the equal half, or the lesser part have made se∣cession; for the ground of the lawfulnesse of this secession, is not founded upon their being the major part, but upon the reasonablenesse of their demand, and the tyrannicalnesse of the King's reply. 2. This sayes much for us; for, if it be lawful for a part of the people, to shake off the King, refuse subjection unto him, and set up a new King of their owne, when he resolveth to play the Tyrant, and not to rule them according to the law of the Lord, but after his owne tyrannical will; then it cannot be unlawful for a part of the people to resist his unjust violence, and defend them∣selves against his illegal tyranny, and oppression. The conse∣quence cannot be denyed, seing they who may lawfully do the more, may do the lesse also: So that seing this people might lawfully refuse subjection and homage unto Rehoboam and all his subordinat Magistrates, They might also law∣fully have defended themselves against his tyranny, and the tyranny of all under him: and if They might lawfully have done so, so may we.

2. They should far more condemne the revolt of the city of Libnah 2 Chron. 21. 10. This wicked King Iehoram when he was risen up to the Kingdom of his father, strengthened him∣self, and slew all his brethren with the sword, and diverse

also of the Princes of Israel v. 4. and walked in the wayes of the Kings of Israel, like as did the house of Ahab, for he had the Daughter of Ahab to wife, & he wrought that which was evil in the eyes of the Lord v. 6. and he made him high places in the mountaines of Iudah and caused the inhabitants of Ieru∣salem to commit fornication, and compelled Iudah there to v. 11. 13. and because he had thus forsaken the Lord God of his fathers, did the city Libnah revolt from under his hand. Commentators cleare this to have been the reason as Cornel. a. lap. in loc. propter impietatem Regis defecit ab eo Libna. San∣citus on 2 King 8. 22. Lobnah recessit ne esset sub manus illius, dereli∣quer at enim dominum patruum suorum. & Pet. Martyr on 2 King. 8. v. 22. [Causa in Paralip. describitur, ob Regis impietatem qui suos nitebatur cogere ad idololatriam, quod ipsi Libnen ses pati no∣luerunt, & merito: principibus enim parendum est, verum usque ad aras, & cum illam terram inhabitandam a deo, eo foedere, ha∣buissent, ubi illum juxta ejus verbum colerent, jure ejus idololatriam admittere, non debuerunt,] Thus he approveth of their revolt in this case. What sayes our Surveyer to this [This (sayes he) imports not the impulsive cause of the revolt, or motive which they had before their eyes (for, in that same verse & period, it is said the Edomites also revolted from him, because he had forsaken the Lord God of his Fathers, and the Edomites loved not the true Religion) but the meritorious cause on Jehorams part is poynted at.] Answ. The text it self and Commentators, to vvhom vve may add Iackson on 2 King 8. & the Dutch An∣not. Ibid. give this as the impulsive cause, and only motive vvhich they had before their eyes. 2. Any who read the text vvill see his reason very unsound; for v. 8. it is said, that in his dayes the Edomites revolted from under the dominion of Iudah, and made themselves a King; and no word of this, as the im∣pulsive cause there of; & v. 10. mention again is made of their revolt upon occasion of Iehorams seeking by force, to reduce them under his dominion; and then in a new period, men∣tion is made of Libnah's revolt, with the cause and only mo∣tive thereof; Because he had forsaken the Lord God of his Fathers. Then he asks if his adversary [thinks that the laying aside of the presbyterian frame, is the forsaken of the Lord God of our Fathers,

and a sufficient cause for any one Towne in the Kingdom, to revolt from the King, (though he do not persecute them, nor force them to his way, as there is no evidence that Libnah was so used) shall a Kings swerving in that one point, or if there be greater infidelity, be sufficient ground of defection from him?] Ans. I nothing doubt, but all such as have imbraced this present course of apostasie are guilty of a grievous revolt, having impudently and avow∣edly departed form a sworne Covenant, from a covenanted & sworne Religion, reformed in Doctrine, Worshipe, Disci∣pline, & Government; and have in a great part forsaken the God of our Fathers, that covenanted God whom our Fathers, and we both owned, and imbraced as our God; and is sufficient cause for any City, or Company of men, so far to revolt from the King, as to refuse to concurre with him, in this horrible defection and course of perjury, and resist his unjust violence pressing and compelling them to a sinful compliance. 2. As it is more then probable, that Libnah was no better used, then were the people of Iudah, by this Ty∣rannous King, and is asserted by the Dutch Annot. on 2 Chron. 21:10. So whatever this lyer suggesteth, it is notour that the King hath persecuted and doth persecute and force honest people, to follow his way, and apostatize with him, con∣trare to their consciences and sworne allegiance unto God, and if he add this clause as an exception, then (seing the truth of the thing is notour) he fully accords, that there is sufficient cause given, for any Town in the Kingdome to revolt, which is more then we desire. At length he tells us. That their revolt was sinfull. But when not only thi•• revolt is recorded as done, but such and impulsive cause and motive is added by the Spirit of the Lord, without the least hint of any expression condemning the same, we dar not be so bold, as is this Surveyer; Nor are we so foolish as to receive his word, contraire to the testimony of so many ex∣positors.

Hence we have a strong argument: For▪ if it be lawful for a part of the people, to revolt from a tyrannous Prince, making defection from the true and received Religion, and forceing his subjects to a sinful defection and complyance

with him in his apostasy: It must also be lawful for a part of the people to defend themselves by force against the E∣missaries of a King departing from his faith and foresaking the Religion, which He hath sworne to owne and main∣taine, sent forth by him, or any under him, to force, by cruel oppression and violence, them to a compliance with his sinful way. And the antecedent is cleare in this place.

3. They must much more condemne Azariah, and the fourescore Priests who being commended as me of courage & valour, resisted Vziah the King, 2 Chron. 26: 17. &c. they ex∣pelled him with force, stood against him; the lxx. say they resisted him; deturbarunt eum ex eo loco, sayeth Vatablus: they forced him forth, and compelled him to goe out; they caused him make haste, sayeth Ar. Mont. festinate expulerunt eum, say∣eth Hieron. When he went in the temple to burne incense, upon the altaar of incense, on some solemne day (as Iosephus thinketh.) So that there is more then a resistance of him by words, as some Royalists say; even resistence by force and violence. Hence we argue; if private subjects may by force resist, withstand, and with violence hinder the King from transgressing the Law of God; Then may they much more lawfully resist him, and his bloody Emissaryes, when He seeketh to oppresse unjustly and to draw people off from the wayes of the Lord. If any say with doct Ferne, that be∣cause of an expresse Law of God, being a leper, he was put out of the congregation: Then we see, that the Prince is subject to Church-censure, and so Subjects may judge him and punish him; we see also that Princes were subject to ceremo∣nial lawes, as well as any of the subjects; and why not also to the moral Lawes; and if because of a ceremonial Law, the King was to be ceremonially punished, why also, for the breach of moral Law, may he not be punished moral∣ly? Hence will it undoubtedly follow, That a Prince rageing and tyrannizeing contrare to all equity and reason, may be resisted and his violence repelled with violence, even by private subjects. Worthy Mr Knox, in his debate with Lithengtoun, doth form this instance gather; That subjects

not only may, but also ought to withstand and resist their Princes whensoever they do any thing that expresly repugnes to God, his Law, or holy Ordinance. Lithingtoun objected That [they were not private subjects, but the priests of the Lord and figures of Christ, and such have we none this day, to withstand Kings if they do any thing wrong.] He answered that though the High Priest was a figure of Christ, yet he was a subject. [For (said he) I am assured that he, in his Priesthood, had no prerogative above these that passed before him; now so it is, that Aaron was subject to Moses, and called him Lord: Samuel being both prophet, and Priest, subjected himself unto Saul, after he was in∣augurated of the people; Sadoc bowed before David, &c. And whereas you say, we have no such Priests this day, I might ans∣were, that neither have we such Kings this day, as then were anoynt∣ed by Gods commandement, and sate upon the seate of David, and were no lesse the figures of Christ Iesus, in their just admini∣stration, then were the Priests, in their appointed office; and such Kings (I am assured) we have not now, no more then we have such Priests, for Christ Iesus being anoynted in our nature, of God his Father, both King Priest, and Prophet, hath put an end to all external unction: and yet I think you will not say, that God hath now diminished his graces from these whom he appoynts Am∣bassadours betwixt him and his people, then he doth, from Kings and Princes, and therefore, why the Servants of Iesus Christ may not also justly withstand Kings and Princes who this day no lesse offend Gods Majesty, then Uzziah did, I see not; unlesse that ye will say, That we in the bringhtnesse of the Evangel, are not so straitly bound to regaird Gods glory, nor his commandements, as were the Fathers who lived under the dark shaddowes of the Law.] And when Lithing∣toun sayd, That they only spoke unto him without further violence in∣tended. He answered, [That they with stood him, the text as∣sures me, but that they did nothing, but speak, I cannot un∣derstand, for the plame text afformes the contrary, viz. That they caused him hastily to depart from the sanctuary, yea and that he was compelled to depart; which manner of speaking (I am assurred) in the Hebrew tongue importeth more then exhorting, or command∣ing by word.] And when Lethingtoun lastly objected that they did that after he was espyed to be leprous. He answered, [They withstood him before, but yet their last fact confirmes my proposition,

so evidently, that such as will oppose themselves unto it, must needs op∣pose themselves unto God; for my assertion is, That Kings have no privilege, more then hath the people, to offend Gods Majesty, and if so they do, they are no more exempted from the punishment of the law, then is any other subject; yea, and that subjects may not only law∣fully oppose themselves to their Kings, whensoever they do any thing that expresly oppugnes God's Commandement, But also that they may execute judgment upon them, according to God's Law; so that if the King be a murtherer, an adulterer, or an Idolater, he should suffer, according to God's Law, not as a King, but as an offender: and that the People may put God's Law in execution, this History clearly proveth; for so soon as the leprosy appeared in his forehead, He was not only compelled, to depart out of the Sanctuary; but also he was removed from all publick society, and administration of the Kingdome, and was compelled to dwell in a house apart, even as the law commanded, and gote no greater privilege in that case, then any other of the people should have gote: And this was executed by the People—& therefore yet againe I say that People ought to execute God's Law, even against their Princes, when their open crimes by God's Law deserves punishment, but especially when they are such as may insect the rest of the multitude.] Thus that worthy Servant of God, and hence any may see, how this pas∣sage doth more then confirme what we are now about to prove.

4. They must much more condemne such as arose against Amaziah when he turned away from following the Lord, & pursued him to Lachish and flew him there, 2 Chron. 25: 21. Concerning which I shall only set downe what famous and worthy Mr Knox said in that forementioned debate, which he had with Lithington, [

The whole people (sayes he) conspired against Amaziah, King of Iudah, af∣ter that he had turned away from the Lord, and followed him to Lachish, and slew him, and took UzZiah and anoynted him King instead of his father. The people had not altogether forgotten the League and Covenant, which was made betwixt their Kings and them, at the inau∣guration of Ioas his Father, to wit, that the King and the People should, be the People of the Lord, and then should

they be his Faithful subjects, from which Covenant, when first the Father and aftervvard the Son had declined, they vvere both punished vvith death, Ioas by his ovvne Ser∣vants, and Amaziah by the vvhole People, vvhen Lithing∣toun (said) he doubted whether they did well or not. He ansvv. [It shall be free for you to doubt as you please, but where I finde execution according to God's law, and God himself not to accuse the doers, I dar not doubt of the equity of their cause. And further it appeareth to me; that God gave sufficient approbation, and allowance of their fact, for he blessed them with victory, peace and prosperity, the space of fifty two years after]

and when Lithingt: replyed That prosperity doth not alwayes prove that God approveth the facts of Men. He answered (

Yes, when the facts of Men agree with the law of God, and are rewarded according to his owne promise expressed in his law, I say that the prospe∣rity succeding the fact, is a most infallible assurance, that God hath approved that fact: Now so it is, that God hath pronounced in his law, That when the people shall ex∣terminate and destroy such as decline from him, that he will blesse them, and multiply them, as he hath promised unto their fathers. But so it is, that Amasia turned from God, for so the text doth witnesse, and plaine it is, that the People slew their King, and like plaine it is, that God blessed them. Therefore yet againe I conclude that God himself approved their fact: and so far as it was done ac∣cording to his commandement, it was blessed according to his promise.

) And when Lithingtoun replyed againe That he thought not the ground so sure as he durst build his consci∣ence thereupon. He answered

[I pray God that your con∣science have no worse ground then this is, when soever you shall beginne the like work, which God in your owne eyes hath already blessed.]

And if so (as is very probable) and learned Althus. pol. C. 38. n 106. is of the same judgment with Mr Knox, we need not trouble the reader with forming an argument thence to our purpose, the same being so ob∣vious and cleare, that he who runneth may read it.

CAP. IV.

Our Argument from other approved in∣stances, and authorities, both abroad, and at home.

THis practice, hovvever it be novv condemned by a ge∣neration of perfidious Prelates, and Malignants, ene∣mies to the glorious vvork of Reformation, from the be∣ginning, & a company of base Sycophants and Court flatter∣ers, as an unparallelable act of rebellion and sedition; yet, as it as abundantly confirmed by precedents in scripture, as vve have seen, so is it by the practice of others; vvhom none, but men of the same stampe, vvil condemne; and by authorities of Divines abroad and at home, as vve shall novv shevv. And,

1. The history of the Maccabees, mentioned in that story, is a cleare example of private persons resisting and defending themselves frm the iniquous assaults of the Soveraigne, or his Emissaries; for when Antiochus Epiphanes was compelling them to forsake God, and tyrannizing over them, Mat∣thias a priest, and his sones made open resistence; and after∣ward Mattathias & those with him, hearing how Matthias, out of an overnice superstition, would not fight in their owne de∣fence, on the Sabbath day, resolving upon all occasions to defend themselves, their Lives, and Lawes, and to take all advantages of the Enemy, did accordingly assault them, and recovered their Cityes Lawes and Libertyes, fighting many battels with good successe. And Osiander Enchirid. controv. c. 9. de mag. pol. testifieth that this was done by the encouragement and assistance of the Spirit of God. And if any should reject this instance as impertinent, because they suppose Antiochus was not their lawful Supream Magistrate, but only a Tyrant without title, let them heare what Grotius de jure belli & pacis lib. 1. c. 4. n. 7. sayeth to this?

Like unto this appeareth that deed of the Maccabees; for whereas some think to defend these armes, upon this gronnd, that

Antiochus was not King but an invader, it seemeth foolish to me, seing in all the history of the Maccabees, and of such as took their part, they never name Antiochus any thing else, but their King, and that not without ground; for long before this, the Iewes had acknowledged the authority of the Macedonians, unto whose power and place Antiochus did suc∣ceed. & as to that that the law forbiddeth that any stranger should be set over them, that is to be understood of a vo∣luntary election and not of what the people might through necessity be forced to do. And, whereas others say that the Maccabees used only the right of the people cui 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 deberetur. Neither is that solide, for the jewes being at first overcome by Nebuchadnezar, and subjected to him, by the law of warre, by the same law they did obey the Medes and Persians, who succeeded unto the Caldeans, and all this Impire came at length into the hands of the Macedonians: hence it is, that Tacitus reckoneth the jewes amongst bas∣est of such as served these Assyrians, Medes and Persians: Nor did they require any thing by stipulation from Alex∣ander and his successours, but without any condition gave themselves up unto their power, as formerly they had been under the command of Darius. And if at any time the jewes were permitted to use their owne rites, and law∣es, that was but a begged right, which they had through the indulgence of the Kings, but not through any impe∣rial law. So that there is nothing that can defend the Maccabees but most imminent and certane danger] thus he.

2. The constant practice of the Waldensian protestants in Piedmont, doth shew that this late practice is not so strange & uncouth, as adversaryes would give it out to be; for, they never had a Representative to be a screen betwixt them, and the tyranny of their princes, and yet how oftintimes have they valiently with stood such, as came to oppresse them, in goods and lives, though cloathed with commission from the princes? In the yeer 1580. being persecuted by the Lord of Trinity, and their popish Soveraignes, they assembled solemnely together, to consult how to prevent the immi∣nent

dangers, and after prayer and calling upon God for his grace, and spirit of counsel and direction, they resolved to enter into a solemne mutual Covenant, and to joyn in a League together, for defence of Themselves and their Reli∣gion and so accordingly did assist one another, in their defence, which they did with good successe; And that al∣wayes since whenever they were assaulted by the bloody E∣missaries of the Duk of Savoy, as any may see fully in their history. So that whosoever will condemne the late de∣fence, must also condemne these poor oppressed protestants, who have no other meane to keen them from utter extirpa∣tion, but this innocent meane of felf defence, and of repell∣ing unjust violence with violence; for Bonds, Promises & Covenants binde their Prince, as such obligations use to binde some others viz. no longer then they see it for their advantage. Neither have they any Representative, Prince, or Noble man, among them, to head their matters; but meer necessity puts them to use the best expendient they can, and forcibly to resist their oppressing Superiours, when they send to spoile them of their goods, lives and libertyes.

3. Some particular cityes in Germany did defend themselves against the Emperour unjustly invadeing their libertyes, and assaulting them, as may be seen in the history of Germany, particularly the Cities of Madenburgh and Breme.

4, So in France, the Cities of Montobane and Rochel and the Isle of Ree with stood the King, when he was seeking to op∣presse them. And no man will condemne these for acts of rebellion and sedition, unlesse they will also condemne our Kings, who, at least undertook, and offered to help and assist them.

5. It was this opposition and resistence of privat persons when tyrannized over, by Superiours, that hath brought the Cantons of Helvetia unto that state of freedome and liber∣ty, which they have enjoyed for many yeers, and do enjoy this day; being now a free Republick, as Simlerus showeth in his history of that Republick.

6. But that we may come home, we finde some remarke∣able instances of this nature, which no man in reason, who

shall condemne this late defence, shall be able to defend: and to beginne with what may be most recent in our memo∣ries. In the year 1648. There are two signal Instances. The one was that violent resistence used against the Parlia∣ments forces at Mauchlin moor. Here was not only a re∣sistence, in defence of the truth and cause of God, then sought to be borne downe and oppressed, by a prevalent Ma∣lignant faction in Parliament, without the concurrence of conduct of the Representatives of the land, but directly against them: Here was a defence used by way of resistence, by meer privat persons without the company or concurrence of one Noble man; And yet a resistence that never was con∣demned by any, to this day, expect ingrained Malig∣nants; but was approved and commended highly, by the Parliament anno 1649. the best Parliaments Scotland did see for many yeers. Againe thereafter in that same yeer 1648, The forces of the west Countrey arose in defence of the Cause and Covenant of God; and that not only without the conduct of a Parliament, but against their resolutions. It is true, there were some Nobles & Parliament-men among them, and countenancers of them; but these acted not, nor could act, by vertue of any Parliamentary power; but only as privat subjects, having, by reason of their greater interest in the land, a greater obligation to lay out themselves, and to improve their authority and influence in the countrey, for the good thereof, and for the cause of God. They had it is true, by their places and stations, greater influence upon the Countrey, and a greater backing, and so being leading men, were in a greater capacity to defend the oppressed truth; but all this gave them no publick Magistratical power, nor put them in the capacity of a real and formal Representative: and yet all this was afterward approved, ratified and confirmed by Parliament, as good and necessary service to the countrey, and to the cause of God, A third notable instance is that Anno 1639. There was then no publicke civil judicatory carrying on that defence, but Nobles and others, each in their capacity, and according to their power, concurred, for the promoveing of that necessary work of defence. They

did not acte under the notion of any such judicature, nor did they assume to themselves any such power and authority. It is true, there were then a great number of Noble Patriots, and renowned Nobles, who laid the work of reformation to heart, and laid out themselves to the utmost of their power for the same, and because of their concurrence, the vvork vvas the more feazible and easy to be carryed on; but I think the stresse of the lawfulnesse of that defensive warre, did not lye wholly upon their shoulders; so that if they had with drawne, all the rest of the body of the land, had been bound in conscience, to have deserted the same also. It is true, it was of great advantage unto the cause, that God stirred up the spirit of the Nobles to owne the same (and is so alwayes) upon many accounts, and their concurrence had its owne auxiliary force, to justify the interprise, for abundans cautela non nocet: But I remem∣ber not that the lavvfulnesse of that defensive war, was stated only or mainely on that particular. It is true, They are Primores Regni be vertue of their particular places and sta∣tions, and be vertue of their eminency over others, and power by reason of their eminency; and so are engaged beyond others, to see to the good of the Land, and of Re∣ligion, for the good of the souls of such as are under them, and on whom they have or may have influence; And, be reason of this, may authoritatively even as such, do many things, when there is no other constitution of a Supreme Re∣presentative: But when a constitution of a Supreme Publick Representative is condescended upon and setled, it is certane, they cannot separatly, yea nor joyntly act in the power and capacity of a formal Supreme Representative, but when they are, with others, constituent members of that Representa∣tive; and out of that Representative (unlesse by power and commission from it) they cannot act judicially, or authori∣tatively, nor in any other capacity formally, then as private persones, though as persons of greater interest, and share in the Commonwealth, and so under greater obligations, both by the Lavv of God and of nature, to bestirre them∣selves more effectually for the good of the same; and as per∣sons of greater influence and conduct; yet still under

the notion of private persons, private persons I meane, as opposite to persons cloathed vvith publick authority and Parliamentary povver. I grant they are borne-Heads and Magistrats of the Countrey, as being in eminency above others, and as being by birth, conforme to our constitu∣tion, borne-Members of Parliament, and so in potentiâ prox∣imâ, and in a nearer capacity then others are, to vote and acte in Parliament: but still I say, considered out of Par∣liament, or vvhen there is no Parliament, they cannot ex∣erce any Parliamentary povver, conclude or determine any thing of that nature, more then others: It is a truth also, that they have, by reason of our law and constitution, a Magistratical power, limited to such and such causes over such and such particular places; but that is only and inferiour, and subordinat civil power, and cannot extend beyond that limited bounds, more then the power of Magistrates in Broughs, or Sheriffs in Shires, or Baylies in Baylieryes, or the like, and is no part of that Magistratical power which is commonly called the power of warre. I grant, that they and all other inferiour Magistrates, are to seek to pro∣move the good of the vvhole land, and to concurre, accord∣ing to their povver, for the same, even because of their in∣terest and share of that subordinat povver: But they cannot act under that notion, nor do any thing be vertue of that particular povver, nor exerce any acts thereof, out of the bounds of their several jurisdictions; But all they do, is by vertue of that fundamental power belonging to all the mem∣bers of the Commonvvealth, according to their several places and relations. Hence therefore it it cleare, that our vvorthyes then acted not, as a publick judicatory, or as publick persons cloathed with publick authority. So that vvhosoever shall condemne this late act of defence, upon the account, that it vvas managed by meer private presons, must also, in reason, condemne that which these worthies did; and so conspire with the Malitious Malignants, ingrained in wickednesse, and enmity to the way and work of God. A fourth and last instance, is that of our first reformers in the dayes of Mr. Knox: for, at the beginning of the re∣formation,

there were but very few Nobles, who concu∣red, as Mr. Knox testifyed in his sermon Nov. 7. 1559. in these words [when we were a few in number, in comparison of our Enemies, when we had neither Earle nor Lord (a few excepted) to comfort us, we called upon God, and took him for our protector, defence and only refuge.] And, in the following words, he sheweth that it fared rather better with them, then worse, when they wanted the con∣currence of Nobles: For, sayeth he, [amongst us was heard no bragging of Multitude, nor of our strength and policy, we did only sob to God, to have respect to the equity of our cause, and to the cruel pursute of the tyrannical enemy; but since that our number hath been thus multiplyed, and chiefly since the Duke with his friends hath been joyned with us, there was nothing heard, but this Lord will bring these many hundered spears, This man can perswade this countrey, if this Earle be ours, no man in such bounds will trouble us: And thus the best of us all, that before felt God's potent hand to our defence, hath of late dayes put flesh to be our arme] And as Mr. Knox said, so it was, much of their businesse was carryed on without the concurrence of many Nobles. We hear of no nobles with the gentlemen of the west, when they came from the border to the Queen, and when Iames Chal∣mers of Gaitgirth said to her (when they had heard. that she had caused summon the protestant preachers) (Madam, we know that this is the Malice of the jewells, and of that bastard(meaning the Bishop of S. Andrews) that standeth by yow, but we shall make a day of it. They oppresse ••s, and our tennants, for feeding of their idle bellyes, they trouble our preachers, and would murther them and us, Shall we suffer this any longer; No Madam, it shall not be. Nor was there any of the Nobles present, when that abho∣mination of carrying an idol on S. Giles day, was opposed. There were buy foure Nobles that subscribed the first bond at Edinburgh Decemb 3. 1557, Where the whole congrega∣tion resolved, by the grace of God, to apply themselves, their whole power, substance, and lives, to maintaine, set forward, and establish the most blessed word of God, and his congregation &c. So foure of five only subscribed the second bond at Perth may last 1559. We finde not many

Nobles with them, when they petitioned the parliament. And there protested [that they would worshipe God, according to the right manner: That none of them therefore should incurre any dan∣ger. That if upon this account any tumult should arise no crime might be imputed unto them, but unto such as refused their just De∣mands.] And when they wrote that letter May 22. 1559. Wherein they said [That except the cruelty were stayed, they would be compelled to take the sword of just defence against all that should pursue them, for the matter of Religion, and that the cruel, unjust, and most tyrannical murther intended against Towns and Multi∣tudes was and is the only cause of their r••v••le from their accustomed obedience.] And when they wrote that other unto the Nobi∣lity, where in they said [By your fainting and extracting of your support, the Enemies are encouraged, thinking that they shall finde no resistence: in which poynt, God willing, they shall be deceived, for if they were Ten thousand, and we but One thousand, they shall not Murther the least of our brethren.] From all which, and from the whole story of these times, it is undenyably apparent, that they acted for the defence of the truth, and of their op∣pressed brethren, and for the carrying on of the work of reformation, for some considerable time, without the con∣currence and conduct of a Parliamentary Representative. From all which Instances of our predecessours, I would have these thing observed.

1. It is remarkeable That when God was to beginne any word of reformation in our Land, whether from Popery or Prelacy, the powers then in being, were standing in a stated opposition thereunto. This is notoure both in the dayes of Mr Knox, & in the yeer 1639. King, or Queen, and Counciles were stated against it, and opposeing the same, what they could.

2. The only wise God, who is wonderful in counsel, and excellent in working, thought fit, not to beginne with the Spirits of the Powers in being, to cause them first appeare for the work; but thought it more to his honour and glory, to make use of foolish things to confound the wise; and of weak things, to confound the things that are mighty; and base things, and things which are despised, and things

which are not, to bring to nought things which are. It seemed good in his eyes, who doth all things after the counsel of his owne will, to imploy the least of the flock in that businesse according to that word Ier. 49. 20. and 50. 45. and to raise up meane, and contemptible instruments, that the work might more conspicuously appeare to be his, and the glory thereof redound to himself alone.

3. As they would have been glade, (had it so seemed good in the Lords eyes) if the standing Representatives, would have not only concurred and countenanced that work, but would have, according to their places, led on the vaune, and shewed themselves powers appoynted for God and his glory, by exerceing the power which God had put into their hands, for God and his interest; So the want of their encouragement and conduct, did not, in the least, brangle their confidence of the lawfulnesse of their interprize, of so discourage them, as to give over their work, as despe∣rate and hoplesse.

4. Nor did they ever assume to themselves any authorita∣tive and Magistratical power, to legitimate their actions; as if they had thought, that without that formality, their resolutions and motions had been condemned as unlawful in the Court of God, and Nature: but walked upon the ground of that fundamental right, granted to all both higher and lower, to maintaine the Truth of God, upon all hazards, and to stand to the defence thereof, and of themselves, when unjustly persecuted, because of their adherence thereunto, according to their power, and as God in his providence called them thereunto.

5. Nor did their adversaries objecting, that their actions were treasonable and seditious, as being contrare to autho∣rity and established lawes, scar them from their purposes, in the least, having the testimony of a good conscience with in them, that they had not the least purpose or project, to cast off lawful authority, or to diminish it's just right and power; and knowing that the Powers out of whatever prin∣ciple, and upon whatsoever motives, relinquishing their duty, and opposeing that truth and way, which by their

places and callings, they were obliged, before God, to maintaine, preserve, and promove, did not loose their obligation, and exeem them form that duty, which God and nature had laid upon them; but rather did presse them to prosecute their businesse more vigurously, as seeing the necessity much more urgent, and the difficulty so much the greater: And knowing that whatever lawes are made, in a Christian Common wealth, should be for the glory of God, and the good of the souls of the subjects mainly, and for their external welbeing only in subordination unto these great Ends; and when the observation of the strick letter of the law, did crosse the maine good, which princi∣pally de jure they aimed at, they were eo ipso, in so far, null and voyd before God; because it alwayes holdeth good. that it is better to obey God, then Man, and mens commands or lawes, unto which obedience cannot be yeelded, without con∣tempt of, and treason committed against the Highest of all, who is King of Kings, are as no commands before God, and disobedience unto these, is no disobedience unto the lawful authority, but faithful allaigance unto the most Supream.

6. These poor weak beginnings, how base and con∣temptible so ever they appeared, yet God was pleased, when the time to favour Zion was come, so to owne, coun∣tenance and prospere, that the same work at length came to be owned, by Publick Representatives, and Parliaments, yea and the Kings themselves were brought to a publick owneing and approving of the same. And who knoweth, but, if God had thought good to blesse this late act with suc∣cesse, it might have been followed with the like consequent? But his time was not come.

7. It is also observable, That whatever disaster, or disap∣poyntment they did meet with, in prosecution of the Re∣formation, and in the preservation and defence of them∣selves, in the owneing of the truth of God; though it put them to mourne for their iniquities before God, and to acknowledge, among other sinnes, their too much relying upon the arme of flesh, and not resting with a pure faith on

his power and protection; yet it never made them question their call, or suspect the lawfulnesse of their work and busi∣nesse, as to its substance, and end: for they knew well, that the work was the Lord's and that their call was divine, though for his owne holy ends, that they might be more humbled, and taught do depend with a single heart, on his word and promise, and to purge out such evills as provok∣ed the eyes of God's jealousy; he suffered them to fall.

8. When the work came at length to be owned by Par∣liaments and Higher Powers, what was formerly done by persons not in that capacity, was not condemned either as unlawful or illegal, nor did the valient actors stand in need of any indempnity, as if they had been transgressours; but all was either virtually or expresly approved: and the wor∣thy actors praised and highly commended, as indeed they did deserve.

9. None ever condemned these actions as treasonable and rebellious, but such as were knowne to be real and heart-enemies to the work it felf; no tongues were ever loosed against them, except the imbittered tongues of sworne ad∣versaries, ingrained Malignants, Enemies to God and god∣linesse, & haters of the power of it. These and none but these who are of their father the devil, durst condemne the same. And many hollow hearted professours (among whom this Surveyer deserveth to be rekoned) were forced against their hearts, to approve of the same & joyne in with the favourers & maintainers of that noble cause, so forceable was the light, and the power of that Sprit that acted the worthies in these dayes, who now have turned open Apostates from that truth and cause, & have adjoyned themselves unto that ever accur∣sed, Popish, Prelatical, and Malignant faction. Yea re∣markeable it is that God did so overpower the pen of that Arch-Enemy Spotswood, that though he would have said all which Hell it self could have prompted him unto; yet durst say no more of these first courses and practices, but that they were Violent and disorderly. And this Rabshaketh the Surveyer, who, in the end of his book (having reserved the dregs of what he had to exscreate against the work of God and his

worthyes, until then Pag. 118. &c. would out-stripe his predecessours, and spevv out his venome, like another adder of the same spavvne; yet the overruleing providence of God, hath so curbed him, that he gote not liberty to run the full length he vvould, and therefore he sayes [We cannot justi∣fy all courses that were used then for carrying on the work of reforma∣tion] and againe [if some instruments thereof were guilty of sedi∣tion, or sacrilege, or self seeking] and againe [if sinful courses were then used by men] and againe Pag. 119. [Let us not stand superstitiously upon the justifying of all their deeds] Who sees not this wicked mans Mouth bridled, by the restraineing power of God, so that he cannot, he dar not, plainely and ex∣presly call these courses seditious or rebellious; but cometh on with his Ifs and if some instruments, and all their courses can∣not be justified: as if, in the most laudable work, to which men might have a most cleare call, some accidental or cir∣cumstantial actions, might not abide the test: and as if among a company, some might not have by-ends, while a good work was laudably and lawfully, as to the maine, carryed on. Ay, but this good man, you will say, is mighly in love with the work of reformation, and blesseth God for it Pag. 118. 119. True, we finde him say so in words, but God knoweth his heart: But is it not strange, that fince, he sayeth, he approveth the work, he will be more blinde then was that poor man in the gospel whom he men∣tioneth, who had his eyes opened Ioh. 9. for that blinde man, did see a divine power in the work wrought and said v. 33. If this man were not of God he could do nothing, and will not only, not see the mighty hand of God in the instruments, but tells us, he is not much concerned to enquire. But what needeth him much doubt of a divine call, considering the work it self, it's end & the direct tendency of the meanes unto this end, & the real & christian intentions of the instruments, which he will not see in the instances he bringeth viz. of the wicked hands crucifying Christ, of prophane and unfaithful Ministers preaching, of a leprous hand soweing seed, of acts of fornication and adultery? Why then doth he adduce such Instances so impertinent? Wil he proclame himself

a fool of the first magnitude in so doing? Ay, but he would have us following the practices of the primitive chri∣stians, who never used any undutyful resistence to, or violence upon the Magistrats, rather then the precedents in these dregs of time. But why will he not follow their practi∣ces himself? Was it their practice to abjure a lawful Co∣venant sworne for the maintainance of the Truth? Was it their practice to renunce their former profession, and turne Apostates from the truth, which once they avowed? Was it their practice to turne their back on Christ and his interest, for the will of creatures, and for a mease of pottage? Was it their practice to change their Religion with the court? Concerning the practice of the primitive christians, in this poynt, and how imitable we shall speak afterward. If these were the dregs of time, wherein there was so much faith∣fulnesse, Zeal, constancy, piety, singlenesse of heart, contempt of the world, what dregs of dregs of time are we novv fallen in, vvherein there is so much infi∣delity, atheisme, perjury, falshood, lukwarmnesse, incon∣stancy, imbraceing of this present vvorld, and all sort of wickednesse and prophanity? [But (sayes he, Pag. 119.) let it be so that much of the way of these, who were at first instrumen∣tall in the reformation in this Land, were justifiable upon the account of purging the Church, from the horrid grossnesse of idolatry, corruption of doctrine, tyranny and usurpation over poor soulls wherewith the man of sin, had for many ages defiled and burdened the poor Church; and upon the account of the open hostility to the truth, where∣in Magistrats then stood, together with the inbringing of forraigne fu∣rious forces upon us, even to the heart of our Land; How unlike was the case then, to what it is now? and how unable is the case now to beare the burthen of a conclusion for such practices as then were used?] Answ. But truely wise judicious Men will not see the case then, so far different from what it is now, as that the case now shall not be so able to beare the burthen of a conclusion for the same practices; Seing there is, this day, as much horrid grossnesse of idolatry in the Land, as hath been at any time, these hundereth yeers: And, as for corruption of doctrine, alas! Who doth not heare it, and see it, that

heareth these locust-curates preach downe all piety and god∣linesse, and harden people in defection and apostasy from God? It is as great a corruption in doctrine, as needs to be, to pervert therein the right wayes of the Lord, & to lead people into the broad way which leadeth unto destruction: againe, what greater tyranny and usurpation over poor souls would he have, then is now exercised, since the perjured Prelates the kindely brood of the Man of sinne, have defiled and burthened our poor Church. The Apology and Naphtaly have abundantly manifested and dayly experience confirmeth it, That the tyranny and usurpation is insupportable, and as grievous, as it was them. Moreover, is not the open ho∣stility to the truth as manifest in the Magistrats, this day, & as legible by such as run, on all their acts and actings, as it was then? who seeth not this, but he who can not see the wood for trees? And as for the inbringing of forraigne fu∣rious forces, into the heart of our Land, It were needlesse, seing we had raised up in our owne bosome, as cruel, bloo∣dy mercylesse, furious and mad forces, as any forraigners could be, or these were: wherein lyeth the difference then? O (sayeth he) [We can avow it, in the presence of God, that we contend for that same Faith and Religion, that our predecessours stood for, against the Powers of that time: and will maintaine the same, against all Novators, who upon account of a piece of Church order (allowed by our Reformers) now re-established, instigate any pri∣vate persons, who have power enough, to destroy all Magistracy and order in the Land, because of the owning thereof.] It is not much matter what such men, say, they can avow in the presence of God, who have openly and avowedly broken their vowes, and renunced that Covenant, which they swore oftiner then once, with hands lifted up to the Most High God. No wise Man will think that such will stoutely contend for the Faith and Religion, who have renunced all faith and Religon, and abjured these Covenants, which were strong bulwarks, to guaird and defend that Faith and Re∣ligion. Ay, but he will maintaine it against Novators, as he calleth them. That is indeed a new way of maintain∣ing truth, to maintain it against such as stand for the defence thereof, and all the bulwarks thereof against him and his

fraternity, who are dismantling the walls, undermining them opening the gates to adversaries & intertaining them kindly in their bosome. He speaks an untruth, when he sayes, that the Reformers owned such a Church order (rather Church-bane, and Church-confusion) as these worthyes are now con∣tending against, and is now re-established. So vvhen he sayes, that these Novators, and that Naphtaly do instigate any private persones, vvho have povver enough, to destroy all Magistracy and order in the Land, and to occupy their Roomes. We hope there shall be a Magistracy and good order, in the Land, vvhen that abjured Hierarchy, the bane of that Church and State, shall be utterly abolished, vvith all it is adherents, I must not let that passe vvhich he hath Pag. 119. [Some (sayes he) have said, Religion would never have been reformed, if violence had not been used upon Magi∣strates: But why should men take on them to limite God? Hath he not shewed his power in several parts of the world in working on the hearts of the Supreame Magistrates, and causing them to goe befor others in reformation of abuses?) Answ. We know no violence•• was used then upon Magistrats, only with violence the godly withstood the unjust violence of Magistrates, so as they gote not their furious purposes executed: we shall be far from limi∣ting the Holy Oe of Israel, & therefore dar not say, but he hath moe wayes then one, of bringing about his holy pur∣poses: And, as at the first spreading of the Gospel, it was not his way, to work on the hearts of the Supreame Magi∣strates, and cause them to goe before others, in the reforma∣tion; so a way may be his way, which is different from that way, whereunto he would limite the Lord. We do not deny but God may, vvhen he thinks good, stir up Magi∣strates to goe before others in that vvork; but it hath not been his way of recovering us from Popery, and we have not found the Supream Magistrates ever since so cordial, as vve could have vvished, for the vvork of Reformation; And yet God hath carryed on his ovvne vvork, vvhether they vvould or not: And he who wrought then is the same God yet, as mighty and povverfull as ever. I vvish he vvould take the follovving vvords to himself, and his party, for they quadrate vvell, [Men are too apt, to be bold in ante∣verting

Gods vvay, and to follovv their ovvne carnal pru∣dence and affections, in that vvhich they are set upon, and thereupon (vvhen they prosper) to fancy a divine approba¦tion of their vvay: So self-loving are men Ordinarly.

From these particulars mentioned, and from vvhat vve have replyed unto this Surveyer, It is put beyond contradi∣ction, That vvhosoever shall condemne this late act of de∣fence, in maintainance of Religion and Libertyes, must of necessity also condemne vvhat vvas done Anno 1648. and Anno 1638, 1639. Yea and what was done at the begin∣ning of the Reformation in the dayes of Mr Knox, and strick in with all the rabble of the sworne Enemies of our Church and Reformation, and speak the language of the Ashdodites, ingrained Malignants, our inveterate adversaries; and speak downe right, vvhat this bitter apostate, the Surveyer, dar not in plaine tearmes expresse; And so condemne all those vvorthies vvho valiently ventured, and hazarded all for the truth, as Traitours and Rebels; and say, that such of them as lost their lives in that cause, died as fooles die, in rebel∣lion, and under the crime of treason; and that all the blood of those vvho valiently died in the bed of honour, in the main∣tenance of their Religion and Christian Privileges, or vvho jeoparded their lives in the high places of the fields, in de∣fence and prosecution of that cause, is to be required at the hands of Mr Knox, and other noble reformers, vvho active∣ly bestirred themselves in this matter, then, and of late: Yea they shall condemne all the Prayers, Teares, Sighs, Groanes, Fastings, Supplictions, and other such like meanes, as vvere used in these exigences: Which guilt, vvise Men vvill vvell advise, ere they take unto themselves.

The next thing is to adduce some authorities Pareus on the Rom. Cap. 13. dub. 4. Hath this fourth proposition

[It is lavvful for private subjects, if the Tyrant set upon them as a robber, or ravisher, and they can neither ob∣taine help of the ordinary povvers, nor shun the danger, in that present exigent, to defend themselves and theirs, against the Tyrant, as against a privat Robber. 1. Because, against whomsoever a defence is lavvfull by the help of Magistrates, against the same, privat defence,

in case of necessity, is also lavvful, vvhen the defence by Magistrates cannot be had: because in such cases, Kings themselves do arme private persons. But in the case of necessity, defence by the inferiour Magistrate against the Superiour, is lawful. Therefore also private defence is lawful 2, Because if we take away both publik and pri∣vate defence, against the cruel rage of Tyrants, the boundlesse licentiousnesse of Tyrants should be strengthen∣ned, & hereby the civill society should be openly destroy∣ed, yea and chiefly the Church; bacause the most wicked part should destroy the better. But without doubt, the Law of God doth not so establish the licentiousnesse of Tyrants, as that thereby, humane society, should be destroyed. Therefore, God doth not forbid, in all cas∣es, resistence to Tyrants oppressing people in their lives, and saifty, to satisfy their lusts.]

Thus He. But it may, be, Out Surveyer will reckon him in amongst his Pseudo∣martyres, because his book was confuted by a Hangman and a fiery fagot, at the command of King Iames: Yet, both the book, and the Author are in great esteem with the reformed, and his praise is in all the Churches, and what∣ever come of the book his reasons stand firme and valide. In the History of our Reformation, Pag. 397, 398. (edit. in 4 to Edinb.) we finde that Iohn Knox had the Apology of Magdeburgh subscribed by the Ministers there, declareing the defence of the towne against the Emperour, to be most just and lawful, and offered it to Secretary Lithingtoun, who then was disputeing against him, to read.

And having now made Mention of Mr. Knox, what was his judgment in this poynt, that history doth abundantly de∣monstrate. His words to the Queen are remarkable (see hi∣story of Reformation, Pag. 317.) When she asked him if he thought, That subjects having power might resist their princes: He answered

If princes do exceed their bounds, and do against that, wherefore they should be obeyed, there is no doubt, but they may be resisted, even by power; for there is Neither greater honour; nor greater obedi∣ence to be given to Kings and Princes, then God hath

commanded to be given to Father and Mother. But so it is That the father may be stricken with a phrenzie, in the which he would stay his owne children: Now if the children arise, joyne themselves together, apprehend the father, take the sword or other weapon from him, and finally, binde his hands, and keep him in prisone, till that his phrenzie be over-past, think ye Madame (said he) that the children do any wrong, or vvill God be offended vvith them that have stayed their father from committing wickednesse? It is even so with princes that would murther the people of God, that are subject unto them: their blinde zeal is nothing but a very mad phrenzie, and there∣fore to take the svvord from them, to binde their hands, and to cast them into prisone till that they be brought to a more sober minde, is no disobedience against princes, but just obedience, because it agreeth vvith the vvord of God)

thus he, vvho knevv not vvhat is vvas to feare the face of any breathing, in the defence of his Master's cause and interest: and vvas an eminent divine, a holy Man of God, living in near communion vvith God, and vvas far above the repro∣aches and calumnies of his adversaryes. And it is conside∣rable, that this vvas a particular vvhich he had frequent occa∣sion to be thinking upon, and no doubt, this holy Man vvould be often reflecting upon the matter, and upon his ovvne judgment; and consulting God and his vvord there anent, that he might knovv vvhether his grounds vvere such, as he vvould not have cause to be ashamed of, vvhen he vvas to appeare before his judge, being oft called to shevv his judgment concerning that matter: And his constant practice being consonant thereunto: And yet vve never finde that his heart reproached him, for maintaineing any such opinion, vvhile living, or vvhile dying, nor did he ever change his judgement thereof; yea, not when the maintaineing thereof might have been a suf∣ficient ground of an accusation: and doubtlesse he vvould before hand examine, if he vvould lay dovvne his life upon such a ground, yet constant vvas he in that, cost him vvhat it vvould, or could; he vvas no changeling, nor had he so

drunken in truth. Yea in the end of that conference vvith Lithingtoun he told them that he vvas not only fully resolved inn conscience, but also had heard the judgements of the most godly and learned that he knevv in Europe in that particular, and in all other things that he had affirmed [I came not(sayes he) into this realme, without their resolution, and for my assurance I have the hand-writeing of many▪] Neither was this his judgement alone, but also of Mr Georg Hay vvhom the Earle of Mortoun vvould have had disputing against Mr Knox. But (sayd he) I will not oppose my self unto you, as one willing to impugne or confute that head of Doctrine, which not only yee, but many others; yea and my self have affirmed; farre be it from me, for so should I be found contrarious to my self.] And of Mr Craig, Mr Knox's col∣legue, vvho told vvhat a conclusion he heard defended at Bonnonia, Anno 1554. by Thomas de Finola Rector of the Uni∣versity, and approved by Vincentius de Placentia, as agreeable both to the lavv of God and man viz. [That all Rulers be they Supreame or inferiour, may & ought to be reformed, or bridled, by them, by whom they are chosen or admitted to their office, so oft as they break that promise made by oath to their subjects; because that the prince is no lesse bound by oath to the Subjects, then the Sub∣jects to the Princes, & therefore ought it to be keeped & reformed equal∣ly according to law, and condition of the oath that is made of either party] and when some said that Bonnonia was a Republick. He answered [My judgement is that every Kingdome is, or at least should be a Commonwealth, albeit that Every Commonwealth be not a Kingdome: and therefore I think that in a Kingdome, no lesse diligence ought to be taken, that lawes be not violated, then in a Commonwealth; because that the tyranny of Princes who con∣tinue in a Kingdome is more hurtful to the subjects, then is the misgovernment of those that from yeer to yeer are changed, in free Commonwealths; but to assure yow and all others, that head was disputed to the utter-most; and then in the end, was concluded, That they spoke not of such things as were done in diverse Kingdomes and Nations, by Tyranny and negligence of people, but what ought to be done in all Kingdomes and Commonwealths, according to the law of God, and unto the just lawes of Man: and if by the negligence of the People, by the Tyranny of Princes, contrary lawes have been made, yet may that Same people, or their posterity justly crave all

things to be reformed according to the original institution of Kings and Commonwealths; and such as will not do so, deserve to eate the frute of their owne foolisnesse, thus he: see, Hist. of Reform. Pag. 399. 400. (Edit. in 4. Yea this was the judgement of all the reformed preachers at that time, as we see witnessed by the Congrega∣tion, vindicating the doctrine of their preachers, concerning obedience to be given to Magistrats, in these words (see Hist of reform Pag. 184.) [In open audience they declare the au∣thority of Princes and Magistrates to be of God, and therefore they af∣firme, that they ought to be honoured feared and obeyed, even for conscience sake, provided that they command, nor require nothing expresly repugning to God's commandement, and plaine will re∣vealed in his word. Moreover they affirme. That if wicked persones abuseing the authority established by God, move Princes to command things manifestly wicked, That such as can & do bridle the inordinate appetites of misled Princes, cannot be accused as resisters of the autho∣rity which is God's good ordinance. To bridle the rage and fury of misled Princes, in free Kingdomes and Realmes, they affirme it ap∣pertaineth to the Nobility sworne and borne Councellors of the same; And also (NB) to the Barons and People: whose votes and consents are to be required in all great and weighty matters of the Common∣wealth, which if they do not, they declare themselves criminal with their misled Princes, and so subject to the same vengeance of God which they deserve, for that they pollute the seate of justice, and do, as it were, make God author of iniquity.]

Thus we see this late practice is not without laudable and approved procedents, nor vvanteth it the approbation of the valient vvorthyes of our land, vvho if they vvere living this day, vvould set to their seal to this truth, and be ready to seal it vvith their blood; and the testimony of one Mr. Knox, is more to be valued, then the contrare assertions, of all the perfidious Prelates in Britane, and of all their underlings, yea then of all the time-serving, and men-pleasing court parasites, vvho first have debauched their consciences into a stupide silence, and their judgment into the atheists beleef that there is no God, and then devouted soul, body, religion and all, unto the lust os a sinful creature.

CAP. V.

Of the Peoples power, in erecting Go∣vernours: and several Arguments thence deduced.

WE shall willingly grant, vvith the Surveyer Pag. 1. That God hath made man a Rational creature, and fit for society: And that God hath appoynted, besides oecono∣mical societyes, the coalition of people into greater bodyes, consisting of many familyes under one kinde of government, and political head, for their mutual good in their necessities, and for protection of the whole body, and every Member thereof: That Magistracy is God's ordinance, he having ap∣poynted Superiour Heads and Governours, to rule these bo∣dyes that they might be preserved from ruine and destruction: And that the hath put this instinct and dictate of reason into all; so that even barbarous people are led together into such politick associations, under their Governours, for their sub∣sistence in general, for the mutual help one of another, and for the protection of the weaker against the injuries of the stronger: And therefore we willingly say with worthy Cal∣vin Lib 4. Inst, c. 20, §. 4. That [Nulli jam dubium esse debet, quin civilis potestas, vocatio sit non modo coram Deo sancta & le∣gitima, sed sacerrima etiam, & in tota mortalium vita, longe om∣nium honestissima.

Yet as to the right understanding of the peoples interest in the constitution and erection of civil Government, and of civil Governours, unto whom they subject themselves, we would have those Particulars considered.

1. It will be readily granted, that there was a time when such people, as are now imbodyed in a politick state, were not so imbodyed; but were either living separatly in a wan∣dering condition, or by providence cast together in one place, and cohabiteing together, and throw processe of time, increaseing in number, and filling that place of ground with their posterity and issue; in which condition living with∣out

any established civil order common to all, every one saw to his owne matters the best he could, and governed these, according to his best advantage having no other law to square his actions by, then the moral law, or law of nature.

2, Among this multitude or company, while in this con∣dition, there was none, who by birth, or any other lawful clame, could challenge to himself any civill dominion, power or authority over the rest, or could exercise any Ma∣gistratical power, whether by makeing civil lawes, or by executing the same. I speake here of a civile power for I deny not, but in that condition, parents had power over their children, husbands over their wives, masters over their servants; and, in some respect, the Elder might have had some power over the younger, the more strong and power full over the more weak, the wiser over the more foolish and ignorant, and upon that account, a sort of natural prehe∣minence: but this neither did, nor could intit••e them unto a civil superiority, an civil Magistracy over these, farr lesse over all the rest. I grant that even in that state of affaires. Some being endued of God with gifts and qualifications beyond others, and so more fitted for Government, then others who wanted those advantages, might look liker the persons whom they ought to pitch upon and call for that work; but notwithstanding of these enduements and a∣bilityes, They could not upon that sole ground, lay clame unto Soveraignity, and assume unto themselves a civil power and jurisdiction over the rest: so that as to any actual, and formal right unto Magistracy, and supream go∣vernment, all are by nature alike, though not alike quali∣fied thereunto, and so, not in alike neare capacity for re∣ception thereof. This, I suppose, will not need proof, since I am here speaking of the first, and most undoubtedly lawful, and ordinary constitutions of Commonwealthes, and abstracting from that question, What Magistratical power he may have, and assume to himself, who transporteth and erecteth colonies; as also, from that question, what title or right to government, pure conquest by armes, or a

lawful conquest upon a lawful warre, may give, as being of no affinity with our case, though this Surveyor be pleased now to account us little better then a conquest, of which afterward.

3. When a multitude in this condition, do associat to∣gether, and considering, through the instinct of nature, how necessary it is, that some way be condescended upon, for the common saifty and preservation of the whole body from forraigne adversaries, and intestine divisions, and for the saifty and preservation of every one in particular, from mutual injuries, and acts of injustice, do think of establish∣ing some civil government and governours, we cannot ratio∣nally suppose, that they goe about such a businesse of mo∣ment, rashly, brutishly, inconsiderately and irrationally; If reason teach them that a government must be erected, for their wel being, and move them to think of falling about it, we cannot rationally suppose them to acte in this matter irra∣tionally, They being rational creatures, & not a company of brutes, and through the instinct of reason taught that this was a businesse both necessary and of great con∣cernment, cannot but be supposed to act rationally in this matter.

4. It will not need much disput to prove, that by this con∣stitution of a Policy, and of Politick Governours, they should not be redacted unto a worse condition, then that was, into which they were, before the constitution was conde∣scended upon; farr lesse can it be supposed, that by this change they enjoy no more the common privilege of rational creatures, but degenerate into beasts, or are depressed into a condition, equal unto, if not worse then that of beasts. Sure it must be granted that they remaine Rational creatures, and that Rational Creatures would never rationally yeeld unto such a change as should deteriorate their condition, let be brutify them, or make them rather choose to be beasts. And that such a change into a civil state, if accompanyed with such consequents, could never be the instinct of pure nature; nor can we suppose, that such a thing can be the ordinance of God, appoynted for the good of mankinde.

Therefore this must stand, as a firme truth, that the condi∣tion of a people modelled into a civil state, is not worse then it was before, but rather better.

5. It will be no lesse readyly yeelded, That such, one or more, as are chosen by the Community, to act the part of Magistrates, notwithstanding of that change made in their condition, abide men of the like passions and infirmities with the rest (yea and subject to moe temptations and so in greater hazard to miscarry, then formerly) This change doth not Transforme them into Angels, or put them beyond the reach of injuries (as all will grant) nor beyond a capacity of doing injury, even to these over whom they are set. No humane power can set any above God's Law, or loose him from the binding power thereof: and till this be; or They out of a capacity or transgressing God's Law (which no hu∣mane act can do) He Or They are still obnoxious to the sin of injuring their neighbour, and transgressing the law of righteousnesse, no lesse then others;

6. It is Left to the People, in this case, to condescend upon what forme of government they think most expedient, and most suteable to their temper, and to the condition pro∣vidence hath cast them into, whether it be Monarchy or A∣rosticracy or Democracy, or a mixed kinde: for though God and Nature hath instituted Government, yet not having determined any one forme, to be the only lawful forme; People are it liberty to walke here upon rational grounds, and to consult their owne advantage, next the glory of God; and to make choise of that, which, all things considered, promiseth most probable felicity unto them, and of the se∣veral formes or Kindes of government, (all lawful in them∣selves) to pitch upon what Kinde they think most expedient and conduceing to their ends. This is assented unto by all Politians: and so it followeth, That it is meerly from the People, that this forme and not another is made choise of.

7. As neither God nor Nature hath determined the par∣ticular forme of government under which Men must live, but hath left it, as was said, to their free choise; so it is not

determined how large or how little, every politick society should be; nor whether a people living at some conside∣rable distance from other, or more contiguously, should joyne together in one, and make up one body politick; or whether they should erect moe, distinct, and independent Commonwealthes though possibly of the same extract, and language. Nature sayeth not that all in one Iland, of one extract, or of one language, should become one Politick Body under one politick head. We have heard of the time when there have been many Kings, distinct and independent, in one England: And how many Kings there was at one and the same time, in the land of Canaan, no vast territory, scrip∣ture tells us. Nor hath Nature determined that distinct bodyes of people, living in distinct and far separated places, yea having distinct customes, and languages, may not when they see it for their advantage, associate for setting up one Supreame Soveraigne over all. So that this also is left to the free choise and determination of the People.

8. When a free People have rationally and deliberatly condescended upon the forme, it is in their power to con∣descend upon the time, how long that forme shall endure, and either prefix a certaine time, at vvhich it shall evanish, if they see it not expedient to continue it: or reserve to themselves a liberty to alter it when they vvill. Each of the sormes being in themselves lavvful, People may choose vvhich they think best; and though one Kinde of govern∣ment vvill agree to some People, better then another, yet Bodyes of people, being lyable to causal changes, and these requireing formes suteable, A people at the beginning guyded with reason, may rationally foresee such changes, and accordingly determine the first forme condescended on to continue, longer or shorter time, definite, or indefinite. It is not to my present purpose to determine, vvhat a people may do as to this, after their predecessours have once imbrac∣ed a forme, and engaged themselves by oath never to change it. Or vvhether it be lavvful to svveare unto any one forme.

9. It is from the People, that such persones, and no other persones, are made choise of to Governe according to that forme, which they have condescended upon: before this deed of the People, no man can pretend to it, all being equal, and none over another by nature, in any political ca∣pacity no man coming out of the womb into this world, with a crowne on his head, and a scepter in his hand: and God (as we here suppose) immediatly and particularly designeing none, nor without the least concurrence of the People instaleing any into that place of jurisdiction: and therefore the People must do something in order to this, and upon their deed it followeth, that such as before were no lawful Magistrates, nor had any formal political power, are now Magistrates and Governours, having lawful power and authority to exerce the function of a Magistrate: for though the People do not institute the office of Magistracy, and though the proper essential Magistratical power, be from God and not from the People; and though the parts and qualifications wherewith the Magistrate ought to be, and the person which the people do pitch upon, is actually endued, be from God; yet till the People do some thing, all these do not formally cloath a man with Magistratical power, nor make him a lawful Magistrate, nor authorize him, to as∣sume that place & charge: for, the present condition and tem∣per of a people may call for a Monarchy, as most fit, and there may be among the Community, now associated & combined into one body, moe persones then one, alike well qualifyed for the charge; yet no man will say, that these, because of their qualifications, become eo ipso Monarchs, nor can one create himselfe; for what right and power hath he more than his neighbour as wel qualified as he? Therefore it must be granted that the People create the Magistrate, and make this man King and not that man: Hence vve often read in scriptures of the Peoples making Kings Iudg. 9: 6, I Sam. 11: v. 15. 2 King. 10: 5. 1 Chron. 12: 38. Iudg. 11: 8, 11. 2 King. 14: 21. 1 Sam. 12: 1. 2 Chron. 23: 3. The Surveyer seemeth to yeeld this, Pag. 102. See Gerhard. de Magistra∣tu,

§. 49, & 89. Pag. 718, 719. Althus. Politic. Cap. 19. nu∣mer. 103, &c.

10. It is from the People that this way of election, and not another is pitched upon: There being several wayes, how in constituted Republiks, or Kingdomes, the Suprea∣me Magistrates doe succeed to other: Some, at the death of the former, succeed by way of free election, and he is chos∣en who possibly hath no relation to his predecessour; Some are chosen, who are of the same family, but not as nearest in line, but at most fit to exerce the office of the Soveraigne, as it was for a considerable time in Scotland; In some places the nearest in line, are chosen, if they be Males, as in France, where, by the old Salicque Law, a Woman must not command in chiefe; in other places the nearest in line suc∣ceed whether Male of Female, as in ••r••anne now a dayes. Now whence floweth this diversity of wayes of instaling the succeeding Magistrate, or of filling the place when vacant? Doth it not flow alone from the People? Might they not have pitched upon a way of conveyance of the Kingdome, by lineal succession, when they made choise of continual e∣lection; or when they pitched on that, might they not have made choise of this? And who will say that a Supreame Magistrate of Magistrates, chosen by election are not as es∣sentially Soveraigens, as these who came to the place by lineal succession seing by all politicians, Election is made one of the ordinarie wayes of constituteing of Magistrates, and by many, preferred to Succession? And seing the first of that Race had it by free election, he must be as essentially and lawfully the Supreame Magistrate, as any of his Suc∣cessours.

11. Even where the way of lineal succession is condes∣cended upon and established, the new Soveraigne, though he seem to be full and compleat heire, haeres ex asse, unto his Father or Predecessour; Yet originally, and radically he is constitute, and chosen by the People. For, whence cometh it but from the Peoples free choise that such a fami∣lie, or line is chosen, and not another; and that the Eldest, or nearest in the line is made choise of as Successour, and not

he, of that line, who is mostly qualified for that place and function? So that in this case the Son hath not his King∣dome from his Father; for he doth not succeed Iure haeredita∣rio, sed vi legis per quam primogenitus, vel alius preximus succedere jube••ur, as sayeth, Boxhornius de Majestrate Regum, Pag. 11, and 12. Now the Authors of this Law and constitution, are only the people. See Althus. Polit. Cap. 19. n. 90.

12. In all this, the People must be supposed to have some certane good End before their eyes: for a Rational People must act rationally, and rationally they cannot act, unlesse they have before their eyes some certain good End; Now this end which they Intend as men, must be their outward Peace & Tranquillity, freedome from oppression from strang∣ers or one from another, and the like; and as Christians, the glory of God, the good of Religion, and of their souls. Therefore the People setteth Magistrates over themselves, to promove the glory of God, the good of Religion, and their temporal felicity: And if they saw that this meane had not a tendency unto these Ends, they would never have condes∣cended upon it; far lesse if they had seen that it had a tenden∣cy to destroy these Ends: and therefore, in so far as that meane is preverted, and actually abused to the destruction of those high and noble Ends, they must be interpreted as Non-con∣senters, and eatenus de Iure, in no worse condition, then they would have been into if they had not erected such a constitu∣tion, or set such over themselves.

It is like the Surveyer, will from some or all of these, draw scuh Conclusions as he hath done from some innocent expressions of Naphtaly ill understood by him, and as ill ap∣plyed; and say that we drive at nothing else, but to have all the parishes of the land cantonized into so many free Re∣publicks, or little Kingdomes of Ivetot. But is he an able, or if able, a faithful maintainer of the Union and integrity of his Majesties, dominions, who vvresteth expressions, far contrary to the intent of the Author and starteth questions in Hypothesi, according to his fancy, and that he may confute the Hypothesis, falleth foule upon the Thesis which he supposeth (without ground) vvas the intent and designe of the Author

of Naphtali, and vvhich will be granted by all Politicians and Lavvyers. Sure, as in this he hath shewed himself vveak in his Politiks, so he hath bewrayed himself as weak in his prudentials: and wise Statesmen will think, that (to use his owne expressions else where, or the like,) since he raised the Devil, he should have laid him better then he hath done, both in his first and in his third Chapter: and some will think, that since he had no cleare cal to meddle with those questions, policy should have taught him either to have forborne, or to have confuted them better; And that for his very cause, he should be punished as an igno∣rant Traitor, and his pamphlet condemned to a fire, where∣of it is much more worthy, then severals that have gote that measure. But of his foolish and unfaire dealing in those par∣ticulars, we shall speak more afterward▪ and shall now goe on & draw some arguments for our purpose, from what hath been said.

And 1. If People at the first erection of Government and Governours, acted rationally, it can never be supposed that they resigned and gave their birth-privilege, and power of self-defence away, so as they might not lavvfully stand to their ovvne defence, in cases of necessity, vvhen that Go∣vernment of these Governours, should either come short of giving the assistence expected in such cases, or prove lets and impediments in their vvay, far lesse in case they should prove their avovved and open enemies: for is it imaginable that national men would erect such a Government, of set up such Governours, if it were told them that such Would prove their bane, and that by appointing of them, and proceeding in that businesse, they should denude themselves of that power of self defence, vvhich novv they vvere in possession of, See Althus. Polit. Cap. 38. num. 32.

2. If by this constitution, they were not brutified, they can∣not after the constitution, be supposed to be in a case worse then Brutes. Therefore Since Brutes may defend themselves against injuries, this liberty & privilege of self defence, against manifest injuries, cannot be taken away from Ration∣al Creatures, by the erection of a Government. Againe, if

by the erection, and new constitution, the case of the people cannot be supposed to be made worse, if it was, lawfull unto them before, to defend themselves against injuries, and to repel violence with violence, it cannot become unlawful af∣terward: it is true, it is the part of the Magistrate to defend them from injuries, and for this end, was he set up by them, that they might be the more secure and saife, but it he neglect his duty, they are not to forget themselves, or to thinke that their hands are bound up; much lesse, if he himself turne an enemie unto them.

3. If the Erected Magistrates remaine men, and sinful men, and men that can do wrong and violence and injustice, can oppresse innocents, destroy, pillage, plunder, kill and persecute unjustly: Then the innocents may no lesse defend themselves against their violence, injuries, oppressions, murthers, &c. then against the violence, oppressions, and injuries of others: for the wrongs and injuries they do, are as reall wrongs & injuries (and in some respect greater) as the wrongs and injuries committed by others. Therefore the People are still allowed to use their privilege of self defence even against them, and their unjust violence, in cases of ne∣cessity, as wel as against others

4. If it was of the People that this forme of Government, and not another was pitched upon and made choise of, no man in reason can thinke, that their condition should be worse under that forme, then under any other, since they acting rationally, made choise of that, as the best and most conve∣nient and conduceable to their ends; But that that forme should be every was as much for their peace, saifty, welfare, and security, as any other, ought no more to binde up their hands from necessary self defence, when urged there∣unto by inevitable necessity, then if they were free from under that forme.

5. If it was of the Peoples owne accord, that they asso∣ciated with such of such, without any previous determination of Nature, necessitating them thereunto. Then it is rational to inferre that their association with such, should not be to their detriment and manifest hurt, nor should it incapacitate

them for doing that in their owne defence, which, before that association and combination, they were allowed to do. So that if the equal half, major or minor part, should lye by, and refuse to concurre with the rest in their necessary defence, Those who desire to stand to their owne defence, and repel violence with violence, are not, in poynt of conscience, justly restrained or bound up. If the equal half, or major or minor part of an army, betray the cause, or revolt to the Enemy, the honest party will be allowed in poynt of Law and Con∣science and Valour, to stand to the cause, and defend them∣selves and their Countrey to the last man, yea even though the General himself should become a Head unto that revolt∣ing party.

6. If it was in the Peoples power to limite the time defi∣nitely or indefinitly, how long such a forme should continue, and therefore had power (as Politicians will readily grant) to change that forme, when the necessity of their condition did require it: Sure it cannot be repugnant to Reason to say, That the People have still a power to defend themselves from the manifest injuries, and intolerable oppression of that forme, or of these who are exerceing in that forme. If a people may lawfully change a forme of Government, when it becometh intolerably grievous, and not only not conduce∣ing to the good of the Commonwealth, but clearly and sen∣sibly tending to its destruction, they may be lesse (if not more) lawfully defend themselves against the manifest and intolerable injuries thereof. Yea even in case they had by vowes or engagements so bound up their hands that they could not alter the forme; it were not rational to thinke that their case should therefore be irremediably the worse, but that rather God and Nature would allow them in that case, so much the more to make use of their primaeve privilege of self defence, because they could not use their power of alter∣ing the forme, for their security and saifty, as otherwise they might have done.

7. If the People make Magistrates, and set them over themselves, then, though it were yeelded (which yet lawyers and politicians not a few will not grant, see Althus. pol. cap. 38.)

n. 35. where he proveth it by l. nemo qui 37. de reg. jur. l 6. solent de offic. procons. l. 3. de re. jud. novel 15. de. ef. civ. c. 1 §. 1.) that they had no power to depose them againe in case of male-ad∣ministration, and abuseing the power to the destruction of the Commonwealth; yet) it will undenyably follow, that the people may defend themselves against their manifest iy∣ranny and oppression: for, it wil be granted that a People have more power, in creating a Magistate then in making a Minister; and it will be granted likwayes, that if the Mi∣nister; turne heretical, and preach atheisme, Mahumeta∣nisme, or the like, the People, though they could not for∣mally depose him, or, through the corruption of the times, could not get him deposed by these who had power, yet they might lawfully guard themselves from his unsound doctirne, and defend their souls from his haeresie by with∣drawing: and if he should use violence to force them to heare him, & acknowledg him as an orthodox teacher, they might repel violence with violence, and peremptorily maintaine the Truth.

8. If it was from the People, That such a way of con∣veyance of the Magistratical power, was condescended on, so that when they pitched on this, they might have chosen any other; Then (as Lawyers will grant) they have still power to alter the same as necessity requireth, much more then have they power to defend themselves, against the Ty∣ranny thereof: and if either at the first constitution or af∣terward something interveened which laid such a restraint upon them, that they could not change that manner of con∣veyance, then so much the more are they allowed to defend themselves from the tyranny thereof, by recurring, in cases of necessity, unto their primaeve privilege, and this inward wall and bulwark ought to be the more fortified, that they want their outter fortifications.

9. If even where the conveyance runeth in a line, the Successour cannot pretend to more dominion over the sub∣jects, then his Predecessours had, and the People cannot ra∣tionally be supposed to be in a worse condition under the Suc∣cessour, then they were under his Predecessour, seing he

holdeth the place, not jure haereditario; but jure legali or jure constitutionis: and therefore if they might lawfully resist the unjust violence of his Predecessour, or of the First in the Line; no man, in reason can deny it lawful for them to resist his tyranny, who cometh to that place by vertue of the funda∣mental constitution: and no otherwayes.

10. If upon pregnant considerations, and for good, lau∣dable and necessary ends, the People erected a civil state, and such a forme of Government, and such Governours to suc∣ceed to other in such a manner of way, as the apparent and probable meane, for the sure, saife, speedy and most ef∣fectual way of attaineing these ends. It were irrational to think that being disappoynted of their expectations and frustrated of their hopes, of attaineing the desired ends by such meanes, They were in an irremediable case, and had no meane left them of attaineing these necessary ends, no not so much, as that pure product of Nature, self-preser∣vation, and power to repel force with force. No man will say, but that a People are loosed from their obligation to use such meanes which they formerly pitched upon for these necessary and important Ends, when i they not only prove not useful, as meanes for attaineing of these ends, but prove destructive, and stand in contra-opposition there unto; and in this case, must be supposed, to have the same liberty to use such meanes as they were allowed to use in their pri∣meve state, that is, to joyne together and associate, the best way they can, for repelling of what destroyeth these noble and important Ends, and defend their Religion, Lives and Libertyes.

But it may be the Surveyer, or some for him will say. That all this is nothing to the purpose; because, The state of our government and constitution is of a distinct and far different nature.

Ans. As to this, (reserving what is further to be spoken on that subject unto the next chapter, where we shall speak of the obligation of the Soveraigne unto the People) these things seeme cleare and undenyable. 1. That before Fergus the first, was chosen by the People, to be their King and

Chiftane, there were a people living in Scotland, manage∣ing their owne matters, the best way they could. 2. While they were in this condition, we heare on none among them, however possibly excelling others in wealth, power, wis∣dome and such like enduements, that took upon them the Soveraignity, otherwayes Fergus had not been the first King. 3. When they thought of sending for Fergus, and of making him King, they were not acted as beasts, but went rational∣ly to work, considering their present hazard from their adversaries, and the advantage they would have by setting such over themselves, and erecting a stablished policy. 4. After the constitution and erection of the Kingdome, they remained rational creatures, sensible of injuries done unto them, whether by their Kings or others, as after expe∣rience manifested. 5. Nor did their Kings, after their election, become Angels, or Creatures above their reach, but for male-administration, oppression or tyranny, were made to know they were Men, as subject to erring and doing wrong, so to examination, tryal, and condigne pu∣nishment for their injuries done to the Commonwealth. 6. When they condescended upon Monarchy, though, as matters then stood, they saw it most for their advantage to have a King; yet none vvill say, but they might, notvvith∣standing of that exigent, have chosen an Aristocracy for a standing forme of government. 7. When they compacted themselves into a distinct body, and separated both from the Picts and from the Britones, they might, had they seen it for their advantage, either joyned vvith the Picts or Britones, and made one firme Commonvvealth vvith them; or have divided themselves into tvvo or moe distinct Bodyes, and distinct Republiks, as they had seen it convenient: No previous necessity, save that they savv if for their only ad∣vantage to do as they did, constraining them to the one more then to the other. 8. When they made choise of a King, they might, if they had seen it good, prescribed the time how long that Government should have endured, whether until the death of Fergus, or hovv long there after. 9. When they made choise of Fergus, vvho then vvas in Ir∣land,

and sent for him, they might (without any injury done to any man) have chosen any other, they had thought most for their advantage; and before they made choise of him, He could challenge no power or authority, over them, nor could He be accounted their King; and when they made choise of him and made him their King, then, and not till then, was he their King. 10. It was in their power to have named▪ ergus without his successours by line, and so have reserved power to themselves, to choose of new another after his death: and though they did include his suc∣cessours by line; yet their after practise declared, that they had liberty to choose the fittest of the family, when the nearest in the line, was not judged fit for government, which custome continued above a Thowsand yeers, till the dayes of Kenneth the third: 11. And, when it afterward came to a lineal constant succession, The sone had no right but by the constitution condescended on, in the dayes of this Kenneth. 12. That in all these resolutions and constitutions they levelled at nothing, but their owne good and saifty is body and soul, is beyond contradiction. And finally, their after practices did declare that they looked not upon themselves, as rendered incapable by all those foremention∣ed resolutions, to defend themselves against manifest and unjust violence, even of the King and his followers; though this Surveyer Pag. 78. accounts these nothing but the i•• surrection of Nobles against the Kings, and violent oppressions of such of them, as have been flagitious and tyrannous. Yet they were cleare instances of the peoples reserving power to themselves, notwithstanding of the constitution, to defend their libertyes and lives, from oppression and tyranny of flagitious and tyr∣annous Kings, abusing their power and subverting the ends of governments, and destroying what they were bound to maintaine and defend.

CAP. VI.

Of the Covenant betwixt King and People. Our Arguments hence deduced.

IT is no great wonder to see this Surveyer labouring, to free the King from any covenant-obligation unto his Subjects; when he and his party have proclaimed him exempted from his Covenant-obligation unto God: and since the have put both consciences and wit upon the rack, to finde out some plausible grounds of evasion, that the King may be free from the Covenant, which he swore with hands lifted up to the Most High God oftener then once; with which, however they may satisfy such as love licentiousnesse, and to live above God's Law, as well as man's; yet God will not be so deceived, let men dream what they will; it should be no matter of astonishment to us, to see them use∣ing shifts whereby to bring the King from under any Co∣venant tye unto his Subjects: But it might seem strange to us (if we knew not the Men) that when lawyers and polititians tell us, that the King, is absolutely bound unto his Subjects, and the People, obliged unto the King condi∣onally, see Hoenonius, disp. polit. 2. and Iunius Brutus vindiciae contra Tyrannos quaest. 3. and Althus. pol. c. 20. n. 3. 21. & cap. 38. n. 30. They on the contrary should averre, that the people were absolutly bound unto the King, & the King not only not tyed conditionally, but not at all, unto the People.

But, from what was said in the preceeding chapter, it wil clearly follow, That when a people do institute a Governe∣ment, and do commit the Supreame Managment of affaires unto one or more, They do it upon certane tearmes and con∣ditions, which conditions, polititians ordinarily call funda∣mentall lawes, others think that name not proper enough, but whether we call them so, or call them tearmes and con∣ditions of the constitution of compact, it is all one thing.

That there are certane tearmes and conditions on which the Soveraigne is chosen, is cleare from these grounds. 1. The man who is made Soveraigne by the People, can pretend no right to the Soveraignity, (as was shewed before) until he be named and chosen by the People. And this constituting of him Soveraigne, must be by compact and contract be∣twixt him and them; for such mutual relations, as are be∣twixt Prince and People, can arise from no other act then a compact, unlesse they say, it ariseth from a free dona∣tion; but then they must grant that the whole power cometh from the People, and was theirs before and might be given out by them, or not, as they thought fit; for no law can constraine a man to give a gift: & further, if it was from them by free gift, the very nature and end of that Donation puts it beyond debate that it was upon some valueable considera∣tion, of which when frustrated, they might recal their donation; and so still it will be, a virtual compact. But now it being by a real comapct and formal, either ex¦plicite or implicite, that this man and not that man is made Soveraigne, There must be some conditions on which this mutual compact standeth: for a compact cannot be vvithout conditions. 2. We shevv that in this Act of constituting a Government ad Governours, the People acted rationally; and carryed themselves in this businesse, not as irrational brutes, but as rational men; and if so, hovv is it imaginable that they vvould set any over them vvith an illi mited povver, vvithout any tearmes and conditions to be condescended unto by him? Would rational men, acting deliberatly about a matter of such moment and consequence, not to themselves alone, but to their posterity in after ages, set a Soveraigne over them, vvithout any limitations, condi∣tions, or restrictions, so as they might rob, spoile, plund∣er murther, deflore, do acts of injustice and oppression, and act tyranny as they pleased? 3. We shew that in this matter; the People had certane▪ real, good and necessary Ends before them: now, can it enter into the heart of any man to think, that Rational men acting rationally, & laying downe wayes for attaineing good aud necessary Ends, would

set a Prince over themselves, without any conditions or re∣strictions; since otherwise they could not rationally expect, that the meane which they had condescended upon, could ever attaine the End? For every one of them might saifly have judged of the Prince by themselves, and seing they might have found in themselves, an inclination to domineer, to oppresse and tyrannize over others, they might rationally have concluded that the Prince was, and would be but a Man of the same passions and infirmities with themselves, and so as ready, if not more, to deborde and to do wrong: & therefore unlesse they had made him Soveraigne upon tearmes and conditions, they could not have expected that their chooseing of him, could have been a meane fitted and accommodated for attaining the Ends proposed: A Sove∣raigne left at liberty to tyrannyze, to oppresse and to destroy the Subject, is no fit meane to procure their welfare, either in soul or body, or to set forward the glory of God. 4. We shew that their condition after the constitution, was not to be worse then it was before the constitution. But if they had set up a Soveraigne without any conditions, their condition could not but be worse; and rational men could not but for see that their condition would, of necessity, be worse; for, to set up a Soveraigne without conditions, is to set up a Ty∣rant since if they do not limite him to termes and conditions, they give him leave to Rule as he listeth, and his will must be to them for a law; and what is that but to set up a Tyrant; and if a Tyrant be set up over a People, shall not their con∣dition in that case, be worse then when they were at liberty to manage, their owne matters, as they could best?

Moreover this may be cleared from other reasons, as 1. In all other relations, which arise from mutual consent, and compact, there are alwayes, tearmes & conditions on which the contract or compact is concluded: as in the contract betwixt Man and Wife, Master and Servant, Tutor & Pupil, Master & Scholer, & the like, Here alwayes are presupposed tearms & conditions, on which the compact, the only fundation of these relations, is founded: for, no Man marryeth a wife, but upon condition, she carry as a dutyfull wife,

and no woman maryeth a Husband but upon the like tear∣mes. So a Master indenteth with his Servant, and his Ser∣vant bindeth himself to him, upon tearmes. The Tutor, is under obligations to his Pupil, and if he break such or such conditions, he loseth his benefite, and moreover is answerable as law wil. So is the Master obliged to performe such and such conditions unto his Scholer, So are there conditions betwixt the Lord and his Vassals, and betwixt Pastor and People. 2. This will be cleare from the Nature of that power and authority, which the Soveraigne hath over the Subjects, of which afterward. 3. It is against Nature, to set up any Tyrant, or one who is free from all conditions; for, that were, upon the matter, to set up a Waster, an Enemy to the Commonwealth, a bloody Tyger or Lyon, to destroy all: see Althus. Pol c. 19. n, 33. 35. 36. 37. 4. To ima∣gine a King free of conditions unto his Subjects is to put them in among bona fortunae: and to say, they are as the King's gold, his sheep, his oxen, his lands and revenues, unto which, he standeth no way obliged. 5. If a People should set a Soveraigne over them, without conditions, they should sin against the Law of God, which vvill have such and such dutyes performed by them, vvho are Soveraignes; and they, by setting up Soveraignes vvithout these limita∣tions, should say▪ such and such shall be our Soveraignes, contrare to the limitations of God's Law. 6. This is con∣firmed by the practice of all Nations, where a free People set up Soveraignes: It is alwayes upon tearmes and condi∣tions. They Persians (as Xenophon lib. 8. Cyri Paed. tell us) did thus Covenante with Cyrus, that he should send aide to them, out of his owne Countrey, if any should warre a∣gainst them, or violate their lawes; and they againe did promise, that they should helpe him, if any would not obey him, defending his Countrey; and therefore Xenophon calleth this contract or compact 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. So the Spartan King (as the same Xenophon tells us, de Rep. Laced:) did every Mon∣eth Renew their oath unto the Ephori, & promised to governe them according to the lawes of the land, & the Ephori upon the other hand, promised to Establish the Kingdom in their hands. We reade of a compact betwixt Romulus, and the people

of Rome Dionis. Halicarn. Lib. 1. betwixt the Senate & the Caesars Idem Lib. 2. It is notoure enough that the Emperour when he is chosen, agrieth unto tearmes and conditions; and also the King of Poland: and historyes tells us, what condi∣tions are made betwixt King and People, at the coronation of Kings in England, France, Boheme, Spaine, Portugal, Swe∣den Denmark, &c. 7. The practice of our owne King∣dome, doth sufficiently confirme this, of which more, when we consider what this Surveyer sayeth to the contrary. 8. Lawyers, Polititians & Divines tell us, that there are such conditions condescended on in all free Republicks. Hoeno∣nius Disp. Pol. 2. Thes. 4. tells us that the Subjects do stipulate from the Magistrates, whether they will rule so as they may lead a peacable and quyet life under them, and Thes. 5. that the Magistrates do absolutely promise; and the Subjects upon condition promise what is their duty. So Althusius cap. 38. Polit. n. 31. and cap. 19. n. 15. 23. 29. and Timplerus Polit. Lib. 2. Cap. 1. Quest. 5. proveth that there is a mutual obligation betwixt Magistrates and Subjects. See likewise Gerhard de Magistratu, Thes. 94. Pag. 726. Where he proveth that it is no new thing, That Magistrates and Subjects do Covenante with each other.

Finally, This is cleared, from some Scripture instances, as first The Covenant, which David made with the Tribes of Israel, 2 Sam. 5. 3. 1 Chron. 11. 3. So all the elders of Israel came to the King to Hebron, and King David made a league with them in Hebron before the Lord, and they anoynted David King over Israel. Sanches on the place thinketh, He promised to rule them according to the law Deut. 17 15. and that some other things were contained in that Covenant, which did re∣late to the present state of a affaires, as concerning the war with their near and insolent enemies, concerning an act of ob∣livion, and other things, which they could think upon, in that troublesome state of affaires: and upon the other hand the People promised fidelity and obedience, and what else is required in well constituted Commonwealths; and that this Covenant was sealed by oath of both parties] Cornel a Lap: calleth it a mutual promise, wherein David Coven∣anted

to governe the Kingdome faithfully, according to the law of God Leut. 17. 16. &c. &. Israel, on the other hand, promised to be obedient and faithful to him: The Surveyer tryeth many shifts to make this, no mutual Covenant, or conditional Covenant Pag. 94. 95. He cannot deny but there was a Covenant here agreed upon, betwixt David and these Tribes of Israel. But he sayes [the Quaestion is, what was the nature, the matter and import of that Covenant, The Scripture sayes not it was such a Covenant (as these men would have it) I shall rule you rightly, if you obey me∣dutifully, otherwise not (upon the King's part) and (upon the peoples part) we shall obey you and be subject to you, if ye rule us rightly, otherwise we will not, but use our coactive power upon you, to dethrone, and destroy you, and punish you.] Ans. If it be granted that here was a mutual contract, wherein the King accepted of conditions and obliged himself thereunto, it is enough for our present purpose, (& the Dutch Annotators on 2 Sam. 5. 3. say hereby they were bound on both sides by oath, to performe their dutyes to other) for we are not yet speaking of the nature and import of such Covenants, and what right or power the party keeping, hath over the party failing. 2. The Text doth not tell us what was the particular matter of this Co∣venant, but from the Text, we may clearly see, that this was a conditional Covenant, a Covenant wherein the King promised such and such things, as satisfied them, and in∣duced them to accept of him as King, and anoynt him: so that if the tearmes had not pleased them, they would not have accepted of him as King, If the King had said, I will be an Absolute Prince to account you still mine Enemies, and kill such of you, as I will, and keep a live such of you as I will, and so play the Tyrant, be like he had gote the answere that Rehoboam gote To your tents •• Israel: What portion have we in David? 3. How can he prove, That they did not minde to offer themselves to David upon such tearmes, [They (sayes he Pag. 95) recognose, his right of reigning over them is of the Lord, and that he was not subjecte to be removed by them, for they say The Lord sayd to thee, thou shalt feed my

people Israel, and thou shalt be Ruler over them, and it is added Therefore they came, &c.] Ans: 1. All this will not prove that this Covenant was not conditional, or that Da∣vid did not oblige himself to such and such conditions; for if these reasons have any force, they will as well say, that they should not have made a Covenant with him it all, but submitted without Covenant: and they knew his right by promise to the throne, before this, and yet for all that, they refused to come till now, and now when they come, Da∣vid must make a Covenant with them. 2. The same Tribes of Israel did recognosce Rehoboam's right to reigne; for they came to Shechem to make him King▪ 1 King. 12. 1. 2. Chron. 10. v. 1. & yet when Reh••boam would not agree unto the tearmes proposed, They refused to acknowledg him King. 3. That 1 Chron. 11. 3. Therefore came is but the same with So came, 2 Sam. 5. 3. and it may be as well rendered, also or and came, for in the Original it is in both places 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and it is there told, that also the Elders of Israel came, who were not men∣tioned before. 4. Gods promise to David, gave him no power to play the Tyrant, nor was it to be fulfilled but such a way, God's purposes concerning the End includeth the Meanes with the End, and his purpose or promise was not that David should obtaine the throne without the Peoples consent, or that the People was obliged to submit unto him notwithstanding he should refuse to Covenant with them, or promise to Rule them in righteousnesse, and not to play the Tyrant over them: and hence it appeareth that it is not false that the People gave the Kingdome to David condi∣tionally (as he sayeth Pag. 101.) for, if He say these pro∣mises or purposes of God, did lay obligations of the People to accept Such upon any tearmes, he cannot condemne the Ten Trybes for accepting of Ieroboam, as he doth elswhere! 5. As for their coactive superiority over him, we speake not of it now, it not being our present businesse, but sure his reasons will not validely conclude the contrair: for if such a promise or purpose of God, gave David such a right, as that in no case, suppose he had turned the greatest Tyrant imaginable, & had sold the Land of Canaan unto the Uncir∣cumcised,

or done some such thing; the Elders of Israel had had no coercive power to have with-stood him, and de∣throned him, then they might not now have refused to have submitted unto him: And by the same reason, The elders of Israel might not have refused to have sub∣mitted to Iero••oam who also had a promise, which I know he will not grant. But it is enough to our present purpose, if it be granted that David agreed with them upon tearmes. This he cannot get well denyed, but sayeth. [

All the Co∣venant that can be supposed here, is upon the peoples part, an engagement to humble subjection and homage; & upon the Kings part, a Covenant of indempnity for former oppositions to him, wherein they had need to be comfortably secured.

] Ans. If it was such a Covenant, then it secured all the People of Israel, and their Elders with them, and David was bound to have keeped it, and did keep it. He did not then execute thereafter some of them upon scafsolds, and set up their heads upon poles, as Traitours. 2. We finde nothing in the Text, of their acknowledging a crime done, so as they needed an act of indempnity: it is like David in a piece of holy policy, meet for that time, to gather together the scattered people of God, (to use the Surveyer's words, Pag. 94.) Would have been content to have passed an act of oblivion, as lesse irritateing, then an act of indempnity. 3. If they were now coming to be his Sub∣jects who were not so before, but were under another King (as he sayes himself Pag. 94.) what necessity was there, either for an act of indempnity or yet an act of oblivion? Ay [

but it was fit (sayes he ibid to give them security, touching his good minde toward them, they having so long stood it out, in armes a∣gainst him.

] Ans. But was there no more requisite to secure them touching his good minde towards them, and his will∣ingnesse to accept of them as subjects, who before were en∣emies, except this act of indempnity? Since they were in open hostility one against another, and if upon this ground, the Covenant on David's part was of indempnity, why should it not be also a Covenant of indempnity on their part; seing, as he confessed, they were not his subjects before, but un∣der

another King? But now, when they come to bee subjects who were not so before, and engage to humble sub∣jection, and homage, must not David in this Covenant en∣gadge to something corresponding to this?

we shall not re∣pugne (sayeth he) if it be called a Covenant both of protection & right ruleing them.

] Answ. That is all I am seeking, to have David here obliged by Covenant, unto his Subjects, to such and such tearmes, as to Protect and Rule them a right. Ay but he adds [

Yet so, as not subjecting himself to their censures, or co-action, or that they should be his subjects only upon that condition, being otherwise free to fall upon him.

] Answ. This is not to our present businesse. But yet how can he prove this? Is it enough to say so? Will his adversary take that for an answere? Is there not here a mu∣tual Convenant, wherein each party is bound to other? Are not the tearmes condescended upon? And is it not granted by all, that in mutual Covenants the observer hath a jus a∣gainst the breakers? But sayes he [

a Covenant may be to mutual dutyes, & yet on neither side conditional, but ab∣solute, eath party obligeing themselves to their owne duty absolutely, but not on condition that the other party do their duty.

] Ans. Then it seemes Israel was bound to David, whe∣ther he would be a King to them or not; Yea even though he would sell them to morrow to the Philistines for slaves and bond men for ever, and David was bound to Protect and Rule them a right, whether they would be Subjects or not. 2. How can he prove that this was such a Covenant? 3. Yea, how can he prove that there is any such Covenant among men; or how can he explaine such a Covenant? [As if

(sayes he) a man bind himself by oath, to give me one hun∣dereth pounds, & I bind my self againe by oath to him, to give him one hundereth pounds, without conditional pro∣vision that he pay me the money he promised me; albeit he should fail in his oath, & not pay me; yet must not I fail in mine but must pay him: because my oath is separate from his & independent upon it, and hath a separate obligation absolute, which no faileing of the other party to me, can loose]

Answ. It is true manus manum fricat, and if this Sur∣veyer

give to one a hundereth pounds. He will know it is for an hundereth pounds againe, or something better: and I wish he should think himself as wel bound by his oath, to pay the thing, he promised to God absolutely, as he thinks he is bound to pay to man what he had promised absolutely. But to our businesse, what sort of mutual Covenants can those be, which he here speaketh of? We hear to Pactions or Covenants where there are promises without a stipulation, but of a Covenant or Paction betwixt two, concerning mu∣tual duties to be performed by each to other, wherein there is no stipulation, or which is no conditional Covenant, I have not yet heard. 2. Where heare we that such a transaction (if it can have that name) wherein one person promiseth ab∣solutely to another to give him such or such a summe of money; and that other person againe promiseth absolutely to give to the first another summe, is called a Covenant? 3. Lawyers tell us that even Promissiones, promises, if com∣pleat and not mere Policitations, wil give a jus a right unto the person, to whom they are made to call for the perfor∣mance, and sue the promiser at Law: And if this be granted (as it cannot be denyed) he will lose his cause: For when the question cometh betwixt the Magistrate and the Subjects, it is the same case, as when the question com∣eth betwixt two distinct Nations: For as there is not a Su∣periour Judge over both Nations to determine the contro∣versy; so nor is there a Superiour ordinary Judge to decide the question that falleth out betwixt King and Subjects: And therefore, as the sword must determine it, in the one case, so in the other. 4. But how shall he evince that the Covenant, betwixt King & People is not a reciprocal contract of things to be done by each to other upon conditions? It is true, he tells us that subjection is not promised to Kings conditio∣nally, but absolutely; but in so saying, he doth onely beg the question. A better Polititian then he, Althusius Polit. c. 19. num. 6, 7. calleth it a mutual compact betwixt Prince and People upon certaine conditions, and calleth it Contractum mandati, and he tells us, that in this contract the Prince is a Mandataruis, and his obligation preceedeth as the obligation

of the Mandatarius and promiser, useth to do, and then fol∣loweth the obligation of the People secundum naturam man∣dati, whereby they promise obedience and fidelity to him governing the Commonwealth according to the conditions prescribed.

Another Scripture instance is 2 King. 11: v. 17. 2 Chron. 23: v. 3. 16. where Iehojadah made a Covenant betwixt the King and the People, which (as the English Annotators and the Dutch also on the place say) was a civil Covenant betwixt them, viz. That the King should governe then well, They should obey him in the Lord. Peter Martyr, also sayeth that [not only King and People covenanted with God; but the King also with the People; and the People with the King] and thereafter that [the King was bound to rule the People according to the Lawes, & equity, Secundum Iura & Leges, and the People promised to obey him.] [Zanches more fully tells us, there was a Covenant betwixt the King and the People, as uses to be betwixt the Prince and Common∣wealths: The Prince undertaketh to defend the Kingdome, Lawes, Equity, and to be a keeper and defender of the Countrey, and of Religion: And upon the other hand, People promise obedience, and fidelity and such expenses, as are necessary for keeping up the Majesty of the Prince, &c.] Now what sayes our Surveyer to this? He tells us Pag. 96. That it was also made upon an extraordinary occasion; & extraor∣dinaryes cannot sound ordinary rules] Answ. How doth he prove that it was meerly upon the extraordinarynesse of the occasion that this Covenant was made? he might as well say that the crowning of him, & giving him the testimony, & making him King, and making a Covenant betwixt the Lord and the King, were extraordinary, and so could not found ordinary rules: yea and that it was extraordinary for the People to sweare allegiance unto him. But he hath two things remarkable to his purpose as [

1. That he is crowned & made King before the Covenant is made, which crosseth the antimonarchists, who assert, the King cannot be made King, until he make the Covenant with the People, & that he gets the crowne and royal authority covenant wise, and

conditionally]

Answ. Antimonarchists properly so called, are against all Monarchs limited or absolute, or doth he ac∣count them all antimonarchists who say that the King is a limited Magistrate? then we know what to think of the Mo∣narchists and Royalists, of him and his party. 2. He knoweth himself that the series or order of the relation of a complex businesse, is not alwayes just according to the series of the things done; but be it so, this maketh for us in the former instance of David's Covenanting with Israel, Which is mentioned, before their making of him King. 3. But suppose the King had refused to enter into Covenant with the Lord, or with the People (for mention is made of both Covenants after his Coronation) might they not for all their solemnities in crowning of him, have refused to have own∣ned him, as King? 4. But to put the matter beyond all debate, we finde, compareing the two places together, That beside the Covenant betwixt Iehojadah, and the Rulers of Hundereds &c. mentioned 2. King. 11. 4, and 2 Chron. 23. 1. which was rather a Covenant betwixt themselves, to depose Athalia, and to set up joash; to put down Idolatry, and to set up the true worshipe of God, (as the English annota∣tions & the Dutch say) then a Covenant of fidelity or alle∣giance to the King, as he would have it, we finde 2 Chron. 23. 3. a Covenant made betwixt the Congregation and the King, and this was, before he was crowned or made King, which Covenant (as the English annotators say) [was a mu∣tual stipulation, betwixt the King, and Them, That the King should maintaine the true worshipe of God, the peace of the Kingdome, and privilege of the subjects; and that the People should maintaine the King, and yeeld unto him his due.] The next thing he sayeth is [That it is not told us

what the tenor of this covenant is, Dioda•• seems to say that Iehojadah made them sweare allegiance and fidelity to the King but how shall it be cleared that it was conditional, & with a re∣serve of coactive, & punitive power over him?

] Answ. Of this coactive power over Kings, we are not now speaking, and he but playeth the fool to start such questions without ground. 2. That it was a conditional Covenant, the scope

of the place cleareth: for, if they had not expected tha•• their condition had been better under his reigne then under Athaliah, be like they had never resolved to have ventured their lives, and estates for him: and if the Covenant had not been conditional, they could have had no rational expectation of the bettering of their condition from the young King, Againe, if it was not a conditional Covenant. The King could with no more certainty have expected their dutyful obedi∣ence, then They his faithful government. 3. It is true, the matter and tenor of the Covenant is not expressed; but the nature of the act, doth abundantly cleare what it was, and that it was such as the English annotators have expressed. 4. If Diodat say it was nothing else, but the Peoples swearing allegiance, he speaketh without ground, for it was a mutual Covenant, a Covenant betwixt King and People, But sayes he, suppose [

all the Kings of Judah made such covenants with the People, yet will any judicious man force the Particular customes of that Nation on all Nations? that might be best for that Nation, that was not simply best; their cu∣stomes without a law of God bearing a standing reason, cannot be obligatory on others, lest we judaize too much]

Answ. 1. We are not now pressing their practice as our only warrand; but by their practice, we prove the lawfulnesse of the King's being brought under conditions, and obliga∣tions to the people; which Politicians Lawyers, and Divi∣nes use to do. 2. He must show why such a practice was best to them, & not also to other nations. 3. We Judaize not more in this, then in crowning and making of Kings (though I grant they do, who use the ceremony of anoynt∣ing with oile.) 4. We have the Law of Nature, which is the law of God, bearing a standing reason of this▪ as was shewed above. 5. Yea that lavv of God mentioned Deut. 17. 15. &c. Limiting the Prince, shovveth that it was the Peoples duty (unto whom that is spoken) when they were to set a King over themselves, to provide for these condi∣tions: so that as they might not de jure set a stranger over them, neither might they set any over them, who vvould not engage to keep the conditions vvhich they were to required of him

v. 16. 17. 18. 19. and these Conditions of the King being held forth unto them, sayes that they were impowered to stipulate such of the King, whom they were to create: and that poynts forth a Covenant to be made betwixt them and their King, & power also in them to restraine the King from transgessing these conditions as Iosephus tels Ant. Lib. 4. cap. 14. Si autem fuerit alias, &c. ••. e. [

But if otherwise a desire of a King shall adhere unto you, let him be of your stock, let him make much of Justice and other vertues, and let him know that there is most wisdome in the lawes and in God: let him do nothing without the advice of the High priest, & Elders: neither let him assume to himself many vvives, nor seek after abundance of riches nor horses with the plean∣ty of vvhich things, he may vvax proud & despise the law∣es; but lest he have an earnest study to be more mighty then is convenient for your profite, Prohibeatur(sayeth the copy at Paris) obstandum est (sayeth another) ne potentior fiat quam rebus vestris expedit.

••. e. he is to be incapicat or resisted in case he should do so. But then he tells us that the constant practice of the prophets and people of God speaks clearly that they never had such thoughts &c.] Ans. Though (as I said) it doth not concerne us to vindicate such a liberty in the People, as by vertue of this Covenant, to fall vvith violence on their Kings; our purpose being only to vindicate a liberty in the People to defend themselves against unjust violence; yet he doth but vveakly maintaine the King's head by this; for he said himself just novv, that none vvith Reason could force the particular customes of that Nation on other Nations; and vvith more reason it may be said, that none can force the Omissions or non-practices of that Nation, as binding to others. But 2. We knovv the Ten tribes rejected Rehoboam & vve finde no Prophets ever condemning them in this, they never suggested that their obligation to subjection unto their Supream Magistrate or King, vvas absolute: had this been such a sin as he allegeth, no doubt (to use his ovvne vvords) God's Prophets vvould plainly and dovvnright have told them of it, vvithout circumlocutions; but this they never did. Either that vvas no sin, or the Prophets vvere

not faithful in reproving it. Novv let him ansvvere his ovvne argument if he can, and this he must do, or else confesse he is an advocate for the King, vvorth no vvages. 3. We finde that the Prophets vvere sent of God, to stirr up Subjects a∣gainst their vvicked and tyrannous Kings: as a Prophet vvas sent to anoynt Iehu to goe against his Master, 2 King. 9.

[When at first (sayes he) that people sought a King from Sa∣muel, they resolved not to take him conditionally, si bene regnaverit, but vvith all the faults that might follovv him, &c.]

Ans. It is very like that their importunity made them neglect their duty, in making any expresse Covenant, or in condescending upon expresse conditions; but he shall never prove that they did right in this; far lesse shall he make this example binding unto others; and least of all shall he hence conclude that there was not a tacite and virtual compact, and that Saul was under no tearmes. 2. Notwithstanding of what he sayes, we finde that the People did actually resist and oppose him, in rescueing Ionathan, and that David de∣fended himself with armed men against him, and his fu∣ry, and unjust violence, and this is enoughe to our pur∣pose.

As for these words Eccles. 8. 2. I Counsel thee to keep the Kings commandement, and that in regaird of the oath of God, be∣cause they are variously rendered, and by some otherwayes then by us, as by Iunius (to which the dutch come near) prae∣stitutum Regis observa, sed pro ratione juramenti Dei. i. e. Obey the Kings command, but according as your oath to God will permit, Mercerus rendereth them thus. It is my pairt to observe the Kings command and to have respect unto the oath of God, meum est observare praeceptum Regis, & rationem habere juramenti Dei. We shall not much labour to presse this Covenant out of them: But if the Surveyer, will hold closse to our trans∣lation, and fish out from thence the oath of allegaince, we must then say that they will also, clearly suppose on oath of the King unto the People, by which he is bound to them as wel as they are bound to him. He granteth that ordinar∣ly among the people, there were not oathes of fidelity and obedience given to their Kings, and where ever we finde

that the people swore an oath or Covenant to the King, there we finde that the king swore and Covenanted to them: and so the Covenant being mutual, he was bound unto conditions as well as they were, and They no more then He. And if Their chooseing and setting up of a King, did virtually in∣clude their engagement to him; so did His accepting of the place virtually lay bonds on him, to acquiesce unto the neces∣sare conditions, & make him obliged to performe these ne∣cessary and indispensable conditions, which is all desire now.

We see some thing more explicite for this, Iudg. 11. ver. 2, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13. Where there passed conditions be∣twixt Iephthah and the People: See Althus. Polit. Cap. 19. num. 20.

Thus we have cleared. 1. That lawful Magistrates are admitted to their Thrones conditionally, upon such and such tearmes. And from what we have said, it is also clear, 2. That the Prince accepting of the Crowne doth either explici∣tely or implicitely promise to fulfil these conditions; be∣cause the People have made choise of him as a fit meane to procure those Ends which they did designe: But if he should not be engaged to prosecute, so far as lyes in his power, those Ends, why did they make choise of him? Or how could they expect that he should prove a fit meane for these Ends? Or how can we think that People acting rationally, would be so far dementat as to choise a meane, which they had no more rational ground to expect, would prove a meane for at∣taining these necessary Ends: then the very bane of these good & necessary Ends which they proposed unto themselves. The Covenants, which we have now spoken of do cleare this also. 3. It is cleare likewise from what hath been said, That the Soveraigne, in these Compacts and Covenants with his People, is not only bound unto God, to performe what he hath promised, but also unto his Subjects: For 1. As was said, He still remaineth a sociable creature, and under the Lawes of God and Nature, and therefore is not above what transactions or compacts he maketh with any, whe∣ther equalls or inferiours. 2. If by vertue of these Com∣pacts

he were not obliged unto his Subjects, neither should they be obliged unto him by these compacts, seing in erect∣ing the constitution, and condescending upon these tearmes, He and They are equal, according to that, Contractus non ••netur nisi inter aequales. 3. The People in setting up a King should not act rationally, if the King as King were not bound to stand to his conditions, and really obliged unto them. Could we imagine that Men in their wits, would Covenant with a Man, to make him King, on such and such tearmes, it after he were made King, he were no more obliged unto them, then if there had been no compact with him? 4. How could they think of attaineing those Ends, which they proposed, if he were not bound unto them, to performe these conditions, which they though necessary to limite him unto for the better & more sure, attaineing these Ends? 5. This compact or Covenant being mutual, concerning conditions to be mutually performed, sure, each party must be formally obliged to other. 6. If this be denyed, it must be asserted, that a Soveraigne can do no wrong or injurie unto his Sub∣jects, can borrow no money from them, can not be engaged by Covenant, Promise, of Bond unto them, which were most ridiculous, and a doctrine as much tending to the real destruction of Monarchs and Soveraignes, as any else: for if this hold good, Subjects might never think themselves se∣cure: And moreover that ordinance, could never be an ordinance of God, seing thereby People could never ex∣pect the least rational ground of security for their lives, and what they have.

But we need not stand on this, seing our Surveyer perceiving wel enough, what a groundlesse and irrational assertion this of the Royalists is, thinketh best to strick in with Lex Rex and grant Pag. 100. [That where a Covenant is made be∣tween a King and a People, the Covenant on the Kings part, binds him, not only to God, in relation to the People, as the object of this duty, but doth bind him to the People formally.] 4. It is also cleare and undenyable, that in Kingdomes which are commonly called haeredita∣ry, the Son is obliged to performe the same conditions

which his father was obliged to perfome) for as the law sayeth. Conditionalis obligatio transit ad haeredes L. si quis D. de Verborum obligatione. Rational People, condescending ratio∣nally upon the constitution, did certanely pitch upon that way of conveyance of the Soveraignity, that might best secure them, as to their Ends, and if none had been obliged unto the conditions agreed upon, but the first in the line, they had not rationally secured these Ends. 5. It is no lesse cleare, That when the Soveraigne doth not performe the Prin∣cipal, maine, and most Necessary Conditions condescended and agreed upon, de jure he falleth from his Soveraignity. This all will grant, as flowing natively from the nature of a compact: for, qui non praestat officium promissum, cadit bene∣ficio hâc lege dato. He who doth not preforme the conditions agreed upon, hath no right to the benefite granted upon condition of perform∣ance of these conditions. I do not here say that every breach, or violation doth degrade him de jure; but that a violation of all, or of the maine, most necessary, and principally intend∣ed conditions, doth. 6. Lawyers grant that every condition∣all promise giveth a right to the party to whom the promise is made, to pursue for the performance: and this is the nature of all Mutual compacts. And therefore by vertue of this mutual compact, the Subjects, have jus against the King, a Right in law to pursue him for performance. The worthy author of Lex Rex told us Pag. 97. [That even the Covenant be∣tween God and Man is so mutual I will be your God, and yee shall be my people, that if the people break the Covenant, God is loosed from his part of the Covenant, Zach. 11. 10. and 2 The Co∣venant giveth to the beleever a sort of action of law, and jus quod∣dam to plead with God in regard of his fidelity to stand to that Coven∣ant, that bindeth him by reason of his fidelity, Esa. 43. 26. & 63. 16. Dan 9. 4. 5,] and hence inferred [That farr more a Co∣venant giveth ground of a civil action or claime to a People, and the free Estates, against a King] But sayes the Surveyer Pag. 101. [It had been better said, That upon this ground they might humbly plead with him, supplicate and reason with him, as God's deputy bearing the impresse of his Soveraignity and Majesty on earth: But as God cannot otherwise be pleaded with, upon account of his promise (wherein he is bound not so much to us as to his owne fidelity, to evi∣dence

it, reddit ille debita nulli debens) and cannot be pleaded with by force or violence: So his deputyes on earth, on whom under himself, he hath stamped inviolable Majesty, whatever they be, are not to be pleaded with by strong hand and force.] Answ. If he had shewed. 1. That Migistrates could not miscarry. 2. That Subjects had no hand in making these conditions in the Covenant betwixt Them and the King. 3. Nor any hand in setting up the King and conferring that benefite upon him, on such and such conditions, then his inference had had some colour: but now hath it none. 2. Inferiour Magi∣strates are God's deputyes as wel as the Superiour, and yet vve finde no impresse of Majesty or Soveraignity on them, but they may be opposed vvhen doing injury. 3. This is a large assertion, vvhich I much doubt if any Royalist vvill defend That the Supream Magistrats vvhatever they be, can in no case be pleaded vvith by strong hand and force. Sure vve heard Cap. 2. some concessions smelling othervvise. 4. Himself vvill grant that notvvithstanding of all his Majesty and Soveraignity, a forraigne Prince may resist him by force, and plead his right vvith a strong hand, hovv doth he then save his Majesty inviolable? [But (sayes he Pag: 102.) who will judge it more reason, that these who are plaintifes, shall be judges of the party they compleane of, more then the party or Prince, judge to them? Is not this a perversion of all judgment, that in one and the same body politick, the accuser and judge shall be co inci∣dent, in the same person or persons.] Ans. This makes as much against the king, as against us; for by this reason the King hath no jus over the People, more then they over him, and can no more plead his cause, then they can: for himself cannot be judge and plaintife both: and if this be the perversion of all judgment, vve have seen enough of it, vvhere the King hath been both judge and party pursuer by his advo∣cate. But let him ansvver this himself, and he vvill help us to ansvvere also. Againe he sayeth in that same Page? [Though it be true, that all Covenants and contracts amongst men, embodyed in a society, brings each of the contracters under a law claime, in case of failing (coram judice proprio) before his owne and com∣petent judge: yet it is not true, That any contract, betwixt man

and man, in one and the same society, giveth the party keeping con∣tract, co-active power over the party breaking.] Answ. He is but a ravv lavvyer that sayes so, for if one Man set a piece of land to another, for so many yeers, for so much yeerly, and the other be bound at the expireing of these yeers, to remove vvithout processe of lavv, The party setter hath by contract a coactive povver, and may use Major vis and thrust him out vvith the broad svvord, without further action of lavv. But (sayes he Pag. 103.) [There is no judge over all Magistrates, nor the Supreame Magistrate, before whom a complaineing people can plead wrong done to them. This complainte lyeth before God only to take order with it.] Answ. When Arnisaeus objected that, The worthy and Learned author of Lex Rex answered, [That the consequence was not necessary, no more then when the King of Judah and the King of Israel make a covenant to performe mutual dutyes one to another, it is necessary, there should be a King and superiour Ruler above both who should compell each one to do a duty to his fellow: King and People are each of them above and below others, in diverse respects.] But in cometh this Surveyer Pag. 100. and tells us, there is a great difference [God having allowed lawful wars, al∣lows seeking of reparation, or repelling of wrongs done by one Nation to another, by force of the sword, when no rational meanes can bring the doers of the wrong to do right, and there being no other remedy, he himself, the Lord of hostes, and God of armies, sits judge and moderator in that great businesse, and in the use of war, is appealed to as judge, there being no common judge on earth to sit on the causes of these independent Nations. But God having set and established in one Particular Nation and Political society, his owne ordinance of Magistracy, to which every soul must be subject, and all subject to the Supreme. &c.] Ans. This sayes wel when the difference or disput is between two subjects, both under one Magistrate; but is sayes nothing to our case, where the difference is be∣twixt the Magistrate and the Subjects: for in the other case there is a judge over both established, unto whom both are subjects, but in our case there is no judge on earth Com∣mon to both, or who can sit and judge in such causes: for the King must here be no more both judge and party then the People, and so the case is irremediable unlesse there be an

allowance of repelling force with force: for in our case there are no rational meanes which can be used to bring the Prince to do right unto the injured Subjects: and therefore it God allow war, in the use of which, he is appealed to as judge, betwixt two Nations, he wil allow also a necessary defensive warre in Subjects against their Soveraigne when there is no other remedy, or rationall meanes of redresse. This Man dictats but what proveth he? [The Magistrates are by their official power, above the whole Nation, and as absurd it is to say they are above the powers, which God hath set over them (as L. R. pag. 460. sayeth thrasonically he hath proved unanswereably) as to say that every parish is above the Minister, in an ecclesiaslical way, though he hath official power over them all, or that every Lord in Scotland hath their Tennants and vassals above them, a thing which the nobles of Scotland had need to look to; for certainely the principles which lead to subject Kings to People, lead clearly and by undoubted consequence, to Subject them to their vassalls, and to all under them, yea and all Masters to servants, and parents to children, and to confound and invert the order of all humane societies.] Ans. 1. The law will tell us That in mutual compacts the party observer is Eatenus in so far, superiour unto the party who faileth. 2. The author of Lex Rex sayeth truly and not Thrasonically (as this Thraso, and windy man, allaigeth, who would make the world beleeve that his one word is enough to confute all which that learned author hath solidly proved with such reasons that he thought (with the little wit he hath) it was more wisdome to forbeare once to name then to offer to answere) that he hath proved unanswere∣ably (if not, let this windy Thraso try his hand in confuteing his reasons) the Peoples power above the King. 3. This man's reasons are as weak as water. For 1. the Paroche is so above the Minister, that, in case he teach haeresy, & there be no ecclesiastick or civil power to put him away, they may save their owne soulls, thrust him out, and choose another more Orthodox. 2. All know that the Lord is bound to the Vassalls, as well as they are to him, and that the Lord may not oppresse them, or if he transgresse the bounds and limites prescribed him, they will get action of law

yea in some cases be free to renunce him as their Supream, and choose another. Let the nobles take heed they drink not in this Man's doctrine: for if they arrogate to themselves a power to oppresse, pillage, plunder, murther, Massacre, their vassals, (as this man pleads for such power to the King, without control) I fear their vassals let them know they are not slaves. 3. What a poor Politician is this? He speaks this, to move them so much the more to owne the King's cause, but who seeth not, that he is either a false or a foolish advocate for the King in this matter, for if the King get no moe on his side but the Superior Lords, & if all the Vassalls and Tennants be against him, he will have the weaker party by farre, on his side. 4. I would desire Nobles & all to take notice of this, that he would here seem to give to the king, as much power over them and all the lands, as Masters have over their Tennants, who have their lands only from them upon certaine conditions, and may be removed when these conditions are broken. 5. What a fool is he to put Tennants and Vassals together? doth he not know that Lords have more power over their Proper Ten∣nants, then over their Vassals? 6. Doth he think that Servants may not in some cases be above their Masters; a noble man's son may be an apprentice to a very meane man; But thinks he that Servants will get no action of law against their Masters, or if there be no law or judge, over him and his Master, he may not defend himself, against his Master's unjust violence? 7. As for the subjection of parents to Children it is impertinent in this case, as shall be shewed in due time, and yet we know that the father hath been a subject, and the son a King over him, and we know also that, in case of necessity, the children may defend them∣selves against their father taken with a mad phrenzy. Then he adds [

This truth we must cleave to, that in one and the same civil society, where God hath appoynted Rulers and Ruled, Subjects cannot without sacrilegious intrusion and contempt of God, snatch the sword out of the Magi∣strates hands to punish him with it (though in some parti∣lars he abuse it) neither can a war intended for this end by

meer, private persones, be lawfull against their head or heads.

] Answ. We may let him cleave to this truth, and this truth cleave to him, and be no losers: for we speak not of Subjects taking the sword of justice to punish the King; we speak of no warre raised by the subjects for this end: we plead only for a power in private Subjects to defend them∣selves, in cases of necessity, against their head or heads, (and he, nor none of his party, have the forehead to deny this to be lawful in some cases) especially if the Magistrate abuse his power, not in some particulars only, but in many, and in many maine particulars, if not in all.

Having thus cleared and vindicated the 6. thing. The 7. And last is this, which followeth also from the former: viz. That when the Prince doth violate his compact, as to all its conditions, or as to it's cheef, maine, and most necessary condition, the Subjects are de Iure free from subjection to him, and at liberty to make choise of another. The very nature of a compact doth clear this: For it is absurd to say, that in a mutual conditional compact, one party shall still be bound to performe his conditions, though the other performeth none of his conditions, or performeth not the maine and principal one. It is absurd to say, that when one hath given a benefite upon a certaine condition, that he is still bound to bestow that benefite, though the condition on which he promised it, be no way performed. Were it the ra∣tional act of rational creatures to set up Soveraignes upon these tearmes? or to say, wee choose thee, to be our Soveraigne upon condition thou rule us according to justice and equity, and not tyrannize over us, and yet we shall always hold thee for our Prince and lawful Soveraigne, Though thou should transgresse all lawes of equity, humanity, and reason; and deal with us as so many sheep, kill whom thou will, for thy sport and lust, &c. will any body think that rational men would do so? The law tells us L. si fund. c. de pactis, &c. That cessante causâ, propter quam res est data, pignus debet reddi.

Before we come to draw our arguments from what is said, we shall first roll out of our way what this Surveyer

speaks further against these Covenants, Pag. 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, & 93. He hath five particulars which he touch∣eth on.

The first is this, [It is easily conceded (sayes he) that there is a mutual obligation betwixt Magistrats and Subjects, to mutual dutyes, which is indeed essential to the constitution of the politike bo∣dy; but his obligation ariseth not from any tacite or expresse Cove∣nant betwixt them, but from the ordinance and will of God, enjoyning them these dutyes in these relations, in that society, wherein they are combined.] Answ. 1. Subordinata non pugnant. This mu∣tual obligation may arise both from the Law of God, and from the Covenant, without any repugnancy. 2. If this obligation arise only from the Law of God, neither partyes shall be formally obliged unto other, but both obliged only unto God; and yet we heard himself say Pag. 100. that

[Where a Covenant is made betwixt a King and a People, that the Covenant on the King's part, binds him not only unto God, in relation to the People as the object of the duty, but doth bind him to the People formally.

] Now, whence ariseth this formal obligation, if not from the Cove∣nant? 3. By this meanes the obligations of fidelity in the subjects unto their Princes, have no rise from their oath of allegiance, which he elsewhere calleth Foedus unilaterum. 4. To what purpose then are Covenants and compacts made, If by vertue of these, each party be not formally obliged unto other? For if David's Covenant with the People of Israel laid no obligation upon him, he could not be said to have made a Covenant with them, more then with the Phalistimes, and yet the Scripture tells us, he made a Covenant with Israel: And King Ioash made a Covenant with the People. 5. I do not well understand, how an obligation to future dutyes can be called essential to a constitution, which neither flow∣eth from the constitution, nor giveth a being to the consti∣tution. 6. Againe, if there be no obligation unto these mutual dutyes, until there be a constitution by compact, and if then the obligation be essential, how is it imaginable that the obligation shall have no subordinat rise from the

constitution; or compact whereupon the constitution is founded?

The 2. thing he sayeth, is, That though this obligation be mutual, yet is it not conditional, and how proves he this? [There is (sayes he a mutual obligation to mutual du∣tyes betwixt Parents and Children, but it is not conditional, that if Parents be undutiful, Children shall be loosed from their duty, or on the contrary.] So is it (sayes he) betwixt King and People, and the citeth Calvin. Inst. Lib. 4. Cap. 20. §. 29. But it is easily answered. That there is a vast disparity betwixt the rise of that relation, which is betwixt King and People, and that which is betwixt Father and Son: And this being once discovered the parity disappeareth: And 1. Subjects come not out of the loyns of their King, as Children do out of the loines of their Fathers. 2. The Son createth not the Father as the Subjects create the King. 3. Yea Children do not so much as give their consent that such an one shall be their Father, before the relation have being, yet Roy∣alists will grant this much, unto the People, in relation to their King. 4. The relation betwixt Father and Son hath no dependence less or more upon any act of will in the Son, or upon any Covenants, Agriements or Compact, expresse or tacite, betwixt the Father & the Son, it is not so as to the relation betwixt King and People; for before this mu∣tual relation arise, there must be a constitution, and this constitution includeth, at least, some act of the will in sub∣jects, some previous consent. 5. This relation can never cease, so long as both are in life, but the other may, by a Subject's chooseing to live under another Soveraigne. 6. Let the Father do what he wil, the relation betwixt him and his Son shall never be loosed or weakened. But the greatest Royalists will grant, that in some cases, the King may be made no King, and his relation either wholly taken away, or much diminished. So then the consequence is null, that because Children are not bound to their Parents conditional∣ly; therefore Subjects are bound conditionally to there Prince: For Children have no hand in making up that re∣lation, betwixt Parents and them; their consent is not so

much as required; but in making up the relation betwixt King and Subjects, there is a previous compact, required, in which compact, the People have their great share: Children give not paternity unto their Parents; but Subjects give the Kingship, at least instrumentally, under God; and they set up Kings, when they might set up Nobles, and set up his Man, when they might have set up Another, can Children do so? How then shall the case be alike, And the one be no more conditional then the other? Next, as for Calvin we willingly with him grant, that Subjects are to obey evill Magistrates, and to do their duty to them, though the Magistrates should come short of theirs, as Wiv∣es, & Children are bound to love and be Subject unto unduti∣ful Husbands and Fathers. But Calvin will not say, that in no case a Wife is loosed from Subjection to her Husband: adultery and wilful desertion will give ground for a divorce, and that sayes that the Wives subjection is not absolute, but conditional; though we say not, that every breach of some of the conditions, looseth the obligation. Neither will Calvin. say' That in no case, the Soveraigne may be opposed or resisted: or, that in no case the obligation can be loos∣ed; for ibid. §. 31. He granteth liberty to the Estates of a Land (whom yet our Surveyer putteth in one category with private Subjects,) to stand for the libertyes of the People against the rage and Tyranny of Princes, Yea he sayeth they are bound to do so, as they would not presidiously, betray their trust.

The 3. thing is, that [the fancy of a tacite virtual natural Covenant betwixt King and People, overthrows the distinction that all sound protestant Divines and Politicians make, betwixt a limited or pactional Prince and an absolute Prince, or one who is inte∣grae Majestatis.] And then he citeth Rivet. in Psal 68. Ger∣hard de Magistratu, Pag. 13 11. mihi (or 935.) And therein, he sayes, they agree with Calvin in the place cited. Answ. That there are absolute Princes de facto, who come to the Soveraignity by false and corrupt meanes, or by conquest, we deny not, but we are speaking of Princes, de Iure, and of Princes set up by the People, which is only to our pur∣pose.

It is true, Rivet (a very short sum of all the sound Pro∣testant Divines, though he joyne Gerhard with him too, who is but Lutherian Protestant, and for his Politicians we see none) make use of such a distinction, but assert not positively that such an absolute Prince is lawful. Calvin maketh use of no such distinction, and if they agree with him, they say no more then he sayeth, and what he sayd, we have heard. But sayes our Surveyer it is [False to say that an absolute Prince is contrary to the Word of God: for as our Lawes allowes our Kings to be ahsolute, in expresse tearmes Jam. 1. (he should say Jam. 6.) Parl. 18. Anno 1606.] Answ Our Lawes and especially of that Par∣liament, and the like, are evil proofs of what is Iure Divino, or not contrary thereunto. But of that Supermacy granted to the King, by that act and others, the Apology hath spoken enough. Furder he addeth, [So the Scripture is not against an absolute Prince, as our Lawes and we understand him?] But how is that? May he Rule as he lifts? No, for [He is subordi∣nate (sayes he) unto God and his Lawes, and he ought also to walke according to the particular good Lawes he hath made with consent of his People.] This is more then other Royalists would grant to us, for he acknowledgeth him not only not above the Law of God, but also not above the municipal Lawes, and consequently not above the fundamental conditions of the constitution: And we are sure in this, This King hath fowlely broken, whatever he doubt of. But how is he absolute? [He is absolute (sayes he) that if he deviate he is not under co∣active power of Subjects, that they should have Law-claime a∣gainst him, and in their courts of nature and necessity, pronounce judgement upon him, to destroy him, far lesse that by vertue of this supposed tacite Convenant, any minor private party of the People, may pull King and all Magistrats out of their seate, punish them, and possesse themselves in their roomes, as Naph∣taly sayes] Answ. What he layeth to Naphtali's charge shall be considered afterward. 2. To say that Subjects have no law claime against a King, who breaketh the maine and prin∣cipal condition, or all the conditions of the Covenant made betwixt Him and the People, is to destroy the nature of the mutual compact, made between Him and the People as we

have shewed. 3. By this it seemeth all the absolutenesse that he sayes is due to the King, is, that he is from under the co-active power of Subjects, but though this were granted to him, (which yet we cannot, because of what we have said already) we should suffer no losse, as to our intendment: for if this be all his absolutenesse, then he may be with∣stood, and resisted (though not brought to the barr) even by private subjects, when he contraveeneth his principal conditions, and breaketh Covenant unto his people: and this is all we contend for.

The summe of what he sayes in the 4 place, is this [Where there is freedome of Election (as in Germany and Poland, where there is but personated and painted Kings) there may possibly be expresse limiteing conditions allowing some to coerce deviating soveraignity. But in all proper Monarchies, there is neither tacite nor expresse Co∣venants impowering any to be judges over the King. Some Kingdomes are attained by a conquest in a just warre (which is a sufficient title) & this power being hereditarily transmitted, the successours receive power from the Parents and not from the People, nor is there any shaddow of tacite or expresse Covenant in this matter.] Answ. 1. If he be not well pleased with what Lex Rex hath said, con∣cerning conquest giving a sufficient title to crownes, he should have considered and answered the arguments there made use of, and not jejunely have told us he is of another judgment; for they are either fooles, or mad who will beleeve his bare word, better then the worthy author of Lex Rex his asser∣tions baked & confirmed with many solid & unanswereable arguments, 2. This though true, speaks nothing to our purpose: for we supposed always that our Kingdome was not founded upon a conquest, and we never heard any say it was, till this unnatural abject arose to speak non sense, of which more presently: We never heard a King challenge it upon that account, nay, nor say that our Kingdome was ever conquered by any of their predecessours, except King Iames, who in his basilicon doron, allaiged that Fergus the first, was a conquerour, contrare to the testimony, of all approven historio-graphers: what meaneth the large long roll of the King's predecessours, that is read over at the coronation;

doth any of our lawes speak such a thing? or do they found his absolute power upon such a dreame? It would seem the cause is desperate and gone, when he can get no other bot∣tome to his absolutenesse, but a fiction of his distempered braine, which may deservedly make him odious to all true scottish men, and may (and possibly will) make his cause odious also, to all who are acquanted with the true, genuine and ancient constitution of the Kingdome. 3. This ravv. Statist exscreats his raw notions, as he pleaseth, but they must be rude and unskilful in this matter, that will think to digest them. He tell's us that the Emperour of Germany and the King of Poland are but painted Kings, and Monarchs, and to confirme this, tels us that, there are no Monarches, or proper princes, but such as are absolute: What will then become of the Distinction, of all sound protestant divines and polititians, which he mentioned in the preceeding page? Do they think that all the limited and pactional princes, are but cyphers, or as painted men are men, so are they but painted princes? Sure none of the divines he named take such princes for no true princes. 4. If in proper Monarchies, there be such Covenants and compacts tacite or expresse, which will gave a law claime unto the Subjects against the King, and a Ius against him, as a formal transgressour of his Covenant made with them, and liberate them from subjection to him, we could have enough for our businesse, though it should be granted, that there is no Covenant im∣powering others to be his judges. Though it should be granted (which some politicians Doubt of) that in King∣domes purchased by conquest, the power haereditarily trans∣mitted, should be received from the parent, and not from the people; yet in kingdoms founded upon a lawful and free constitution, the successour, (as we shewed above) hath his power not from his predecessour, but from the constitution, or the people condescending upon the con∣stitution,

But he thinks to obviate all this by what he sayes in the 5. place viz. That our Kingdome is not founded on any such Covenant, but rather on a conquest, of which he

giveth five remarkable instances. The first is, That Fergus the first, was not admitted upon conditions, but the Subjects, by their oath confirmed the Kingdome to him, and his posterity: and that the black book of pasley sayes, Fergus made himself King. Answ. 1. What that black book of pasley (which neither he nor I ever saw) sayeth, is not worth the inquiry to search, Seing all other historians, such as Iohn Fordon, Iohn Major, Boëthius, Hollanshade, beside Buchanan, say, that he was freely cho∣sen by the People. And the story tells us, that he was then in Irland, when the Scots sent for him, how could he then make him self King? 2. If he had been a conquerour, he might have transmitted the Kingdom unto his sone, with∣out the consent of the People, and yet we see this was not done; yea we finde that the People would suffer none of his sones to enjoy the place after him, because unfit for government, but made choise of a third person: and when his eldest son did afterward challenge the Kingdome as his owne, he was made to understand himself better. 3. It is true Buchanan mentioneth no oath of the King, but that will not say, that there was no compact betwixt Him and the People, There might be conditions communed and condes∣cended upon, though the King was not put to sweare them. But however, that there was an implicite and tacite Coven∣ant, at least, betwixt them, Is cleare from the oath of the People confirming the Kingdome unto him; for it sayes that all the right he had unto the Kingdome, was from the People, and that he could not be secured in it but by them, and seing they gave him the Kingdome, and did secure him in it, Nature and Reason will say, that it was upon good tearmes, particularly, that he and his should not tyrannize over them, but should rule them aright: and though there be no written contract concerning this, extant, yet their con∣stant after-practice doth abundantly cleare it; for, though they confirmed the Kingdome by oath to him, and his po∣sterity yet their chooseing of Feritharis his brother, passing by both his sones, sayes, that this condition was tacitely understood, viz. provideing that they, should be able for government and to discharge the place, and accordingly

they did then establish it, in a standing law for time to come: and after this manner, and according to these tearmes did choose their Kings until Kennethus the third, by force or fraud, obtained a change. So their taking course with such of their Kings, as did tyrannize, sayeth, that this was an other condition of the compact, viz. That they should not tyrannize, but governe righteously: Thus we see these after practices are cleare standing commentaryes, sufficient∣ly explaineing the nature and maine conditions of that com∣pact.

His 2 instances: is of Fergus the second, the 40 King. [Who by his valour, under the conduct of divine providence, & by the help of Danes and others, with some small remainder of Scots, recovered the Kingdome and was not beholden to the People for it, nor had it by paction with them.] Answ. Buchanan tells us, that he was called home ad regnum avitum suscipiendum, to take upon him the Kingdome which belonged to him, according to the ancient constitution, as being of the family of Fergus, and then giving proof of his provvesse, and ability for go∣vernment, and accordingly being then in Scandia or Norway took the offer, and came home, accompanyed with the ba∣nished Scots, and some Danes: and after he came home, after the wonted custome, more patrio, he was created King by a Parliament; for, comitiis peractis, the Parliament being end∣ed, he falleth about his work, and at length freeth the Kingdome of its adversaryes: Now, how can he be ac∣counted a conquerour, obtaineing his right to the crowne by conquest, who had it by a faire, free, and full call of the People, who might have chosen any other of that race, that had been remaineing, and qualified for their purpose? This is strange doctrine, to say, that every Prince who cometh to his Kingdome, by the free consent of his People, in a troublesome time, because that through their help and con∣currence, he freeth the land of Enemies, and restoreth peace to the inhabitants, is a conquerour, and hath no right to the Crowne, but by his sword. He will not say that every conquest will give a just title, but a lawfull conquest, now what right had Fergus to conquere these adversaries?

What title or claime could he lay to that crowne from whence he and his forebears were banished or constrained to flee, if not by the ancient grant made by the People unto Fergus the first and to his race? So then, his right was not obtained by the sword, but only the peaceable possession thereof, and the practice of the people afterward when his son Constantinus came to reigne, and turned vitious, de∣clared whether they looked upon this Fergus the second, as a Conquerour, and upon what tearmes he and his successours had the crowne: for because of his vitiousnesse, and refuse∣ing to amend his manners, when admonished by the No∣bles, they were almost at waging war against him and of revolting from him, had not Dougall of Galloway disswaded them.

His 3 instance is Kenneth the first the 50 King (He should have said Kenneth the 2 the 69 King, for Kenneth the first died within a yeer after he was made King.) [Who destroyed the picts, and enlairged his Kingdom by the accession of theirs, purchase∣ing more and better lands, then he had before, which he distributed to his Subjects, he held not his purchased Kingdome of them by contract or paction] Ans. What right a Prince hath unto lands, which he purchaseth by conquest or war, is not the matter of our disput, but what right Kenneth had to the crowne. Now, sure it is that before this conquest made, he was crowned, upon the same ground, that his predecessours were: his future conquest, then uncertaine, could not alter the ground of his receiving of the crowne, when his father Alpin died 2. What ever superiority, he might challenge over these Subjects unto whom he gave these new conquest lands, it had no influence upon his holding of the crowne: and that his very next successour and brother Donald knew, who being given to his pleasures, lost a noble victory which they had obtained over the Englishes, and after he returned from captivity, following his old life, was cast in prison by his owne Subjects. And his Son knew it also, for he was put by the crowne conforme to the old law, until this Donald died. So that notwithstanding of all this new purchase, the people knew that the conveyance of the crowne

did still run in the old channel, and was held of them after the old tenor.

His 4. Instance is of Robert Bruce, whom our Lawes of Regiam Majestatem call Conquestor Magnus, [He re-conquered the Kingdom after the Nobility of Scotland had first at Berwick, then at S, Andrewes, in plaine Parliament, sworne homage to the King of England, who will assert there were pactions betwixt him and the People?] Answ. We know out of History, what a miserable condition the Land was brought unto, through occasion of that division and sad disput that was in it, concerning the nearest in the line: and this was the bitter frute, that Scotland reaped of the change of that laudable custome established near the beginning of he constitution; whereas had not that been changed in the dayes of Kenneth the third, the fit∣est person to governe might have been chosen, and that had prevented all this confusion and misery, which the Land was brought unto. 2. Though Bruce at length recovered the Kingdome, yet he received not his crowne upon that account, but before he attempted it's recovery, out of the hands of the Englishes, he was crowned King at Scone, in A∣prile 1036. and there received the Kingdom from the Scots, upon the old account, and according to the old tenor. 3. Though he be tearmed a great conquerour, as having re∣covered the Land, out of the hands of the Englishes, as if it had been a conquest, when as it was really, but a recovering of what, he was bound by his place and power, to recover; yet we never finde that he claimed a right to the Land, u∣pon that ground of conquest, but stood upon the old basis.

His fift & last instance is of this King,

[It is known (sayes he) our Nation was totally subdued by the English, and continued so, for the space of then yeers, The Representa∣tives of Shires, and Cities, and Townes combined into a Commonwealth government, and sent their commissioners to the meeting thereof at London, where the King's inter∣est was disclaimed; yet in a wonderful way God brought him in againe, and finding us at his coming, a fully con∣quered and subdued nation, restored us to our freedome,

from the bondage of forraigners.

] Answ. 1. Through too great haste, he hath forgotten a maine particular of this Instance. Before we were totally subdued by the Englishes, the King was crowned at Scone in as solemne a manner, as ever any of his Predecessours, except that he was not a∣noynted with holy Oyle, nor gote the Pop's benediction; and while crowned, was solemnely engaged to the People by Covenants, vowes and oathes, to defend Religion ac∣cording to the National Covenant, and Solemne League and Covenant, and to prosecute the ends of these Covenants, and upon these conditions took his Crowne and Scepter: Were we a conquest then? 2. Ay but we were conquered af∣terward, and our Representatives disclaimed the King's in∣terest. But how many were there of these Representatives? And had these Representatives power & commission from the Land, to renunce his Interest? Or were these all accounted Enemies to the King? How is it then, that so many of them are now accounted his most loyal Subjects, and more loyal then such as suffered much, because they would not take that Tender, disclaming his interest? how comes it, that that Arch-knave Sharp (sufficiently now knowne by that name and notion both to King, Court and Countrey) who was the only Minister (so far as I know) in all Scotland, that took that tender, is advanced unto (in stead of a gallowes) an arch-prelacy, and primacy? But 3 when the King re∣turned, did he make a re-conquest of us? what meaned then that compact betwixt Monck and the Nobles and others of Scotland, whom he sent for, unto the borders, and to the end he might more closely carry his businesse, made them all to abjure Charles Stewart and his interest (a sad presage of what would be our Epidemick distemper, when our change or turne begane with manifest perjury) did he not a acquante them with his designe? and had he not their concurrence? and if he had wanted this, and had thought that Scotland would have been an adversary unto his designe, would he or dursl he have attempted it? 4. What way did the King restore us seing (if he would speak the matter as it was, it was Monck that restored him and us both, as to any restau∣ration

we gote: vvere not vve and he restored together? What did he for our restauration? vvas He not as passive as we were and some what more? 5. Hence then it is false that he found us at his coming a fully conquered and subdued nation. He rather left us so, as found us so, for we were restored, to what we gote pari passu, vvith himself. 6. It is true at his coming (though not by him) vve vvere freed from the bondage of forraigners, but as for the freedome we vvere restored unto, vve are yet ignorant of it, and see and feel heavier bondage both as to Church and State, then vve did under strangers of forraigners. But he addeth. [If any will say, That it was upon his account the Nation was brought to the suffering of that bondage; and that there did lye bands upon him, as our sworne King to free ws, when he should be in capacity to do it. It may be answered. 1. It is knowne that when the fa••al stroke that sunk us into bondage was given, there was an expresse disowneing of his right, by publick judicatories of the land, in the quarrel with the English Sectaryes, before Dumbar.] Answ. He should first have removed this objection. It was upon the Kings account that the English army did invade us: had we forborne to have sent commissioners to have called Him home, The Englishes would never have invaded us: for that was their only quar∣rel; Because we had taken the Head of the Malignant faction Into our besome: and so, had we for-borne to have owned his quarrel, we had neither been invaded, nor subdued by them, and there had not been so much of our blood shed, as there was. And is this all the thanks that now we get for our vast expence of blood, oppression, and Ten years bondage, that we must be declared a con∣quest and a subdued Nation? 2. It is a manifest lye▪ to say that his interest vvas expresly disowned by the publick judicatories of the land, before Dumbar fight: for that act of the West Kirk (to vvhich I knovv he looketh) vvas not an expresse disovvning of his interest, as may be seen by the act it self, which was as followeth, [

Westkirk the 13 day of August. 1650. The commission of the Generall Assembly considering, that there may be just ground of stumbling from the King's Majesties refuseing

to subscribe and emit the declaration offered unto him by the commmitee of Estates, and commissioners of the General Assembly, concerning his former carriage, and resolution for the future, in reference to the cause of God, & Enemies & Friends thereof; doth therefore declare that this Kirk and Kingdome, do not owne nor espouse any Malignant party or quarrel, or interest; but that they fight meerly upon their former grounds and principles, and in defence of the cause of God, and of the Kingdome, as they have done these twelue yeers past, and therefore as they do disclame all the sinne and guilt of the King, and of his house; so they will not owne Him, nor his interest, otherwise then with a subordination to God, and so far as he ownes and prosecutes the cause of God; and disclai∣mes his and his father's opposition to the work of God, and to the Covenant, and likewise all the Enemies there∣of; and that they will with convenient speed take in consi∣deration the papers lately sent unto them from Oliver Crom∣wel, and vindicate themselves from all the falshoods con∣tained therein, especially in these things, wherein the quar∣rel betwixt us & that party is mis-stated, as if we owned the late King's proceeding's and were resolved to prosecute and maintaine his present Majesties interest, before and without acknowledgment of the sinnes of his house, and former wayes, and satisfaction to God's People in both Kingdomes]

Which when the committee of Estates had seen and considered, they did approve the same, and hear∣tily concurred therein: and what could this honest and most seasonable declaration import, but only that if the King would not by a declaration, acknowledge his sorrow, for his, & his father's carrying on a course destructive of the work of God, and his renunceing of the Malignant interest, and all who would owne the same, and his purpose to adhere unto the Covenants, they would not espouse a Milignant quar∣rel, but fight upon the same grounds and principles, that they had done for twelue yeers before, aud only owne him with a subordination to God, and in so far as he did owne the cause of God, and renunce Malignancy and Milignants,

and that they vvould take into consideration Oliver Cromwel's papers, for their ovvne vindication, and clearing of the true state of the quarrel, Which vvas necessary, before they did engage in fight? And vvould this Malignant Gnatho have had the Land and the publick judicatories thereof, contrare to their Covenants, & many Purposes, Resolutions, Vow∣es & Engagements, postponing Christ's interests unto man's and hazard Religion, Libertyes & all, for one, who would not declare himself a friend to Christ, and his interest; but would persist in a stated opposition to Christ and his cause? 3. But let him make of this, what he will, sure his interest was owned, when he, upon second thoughts emited that de∣claration at Dumfermline upon his refusal of which, this act made at the Westkirk passed, and this was before Dumbar fight. So was his interest sufficiently owned, with the subordination requisite, when he was crowned, which was not very long af∣ter that stroke a Dumbar, and after vvhich vve gote blowes enew, and vvere redacted at length to bondage. What sayes he next to this? [2. What ever engagements were upon him for the good of the Nation; yet if these mens principles were to be followed they could have had no force on him, to move him to labour our vindica∣tion into liberty, for do not they teach that in the mutual contract and Covenant betwixt King and People, the People are loosed from their duty, if the King fail in his, frangenti fidem fides frangatur eidem; and why then in not the King loosed, if the people fail on their part? It is known that (although the Nobles and body of the people were well enough affected to the King, and cordially loved him, when they were over powered and could do nothing) yet by their Repre∣sentatives, he was disowned (which in law would be rekoned their owne deed: and if a sworne people deserte and disclaime their King by their Representatives, may not the King also have the benefite of the conditional Covenant, and leave them as he found them in bon∣dage to forraigners. But such was his Majesties graciousness and wisdom as well as conscience of duty, that although the Nation had failed much to him, he would not walk after the counsel of these men? And we may (all things considered) assert that the people of Scotland do rather owe their liberty to him, then he doth owe his au∣thority to them, or by virtue of any Covenant with them.] Answ. 1. By vvhat he hath been formerly saying, and by the instances

vvhich he hath brought, vve see vvhat is the scope he driveth at, viz. To have us novv a formal conquest, that so the King may tyrannize over us, and deal vvith us, as he seeth good, jure conquestus, as being novv free from all bonds and obligations, vvhich ever passed betvvixt Him and the People. For the fift particular which he undertooke to cleare by these five instances, was, that the constitution of this Kingdome neither was, not is, founded on a Covenant betwixt King and People: and yet we see the poor man so straitned that he knoweth not what to say: He would saine loose the King from all Bonds and Covenants, and former obligations, and yet he dar not positively and clearly assert it, but only sayes if the King would follow our principles, he would account himself loosed from all: but unlesse, he assert it, clearly and positively, that the King, is really loosed from all his form∣er obligations, he speakes nothing to he poynt, but must grant, that at least as to this King, the constitution is found∣ed upon a conditional Covenant; and though we should yeeld all therest, if he grant this to us, we need desire no more, for all our Ends. But 2. in good earnest, let him tell us, Whether the former engagements which were upon the King at his coronation, be loosed or not? If they be loosed and made null, because of what these supposed Re∣presentatives did: Then 1. we have a new ground of dis∣solving the sacred obligations of the Oaths and Covenants, which the King made with God, and with his People, which was not thought upon till this needle-headed man did invent it. The King himself at his returne, gave no such ground. 2. If he think that these Representatives (having no expresse commission to renunce Charles Stewart and his interest, from the land▪ did break their allaigance, why did not the King execute the law against them as traitours (as he did against some under that pretext, but really for their faithfulnesse to the Covenant, as is made out by the Apologist) why did he seem to approve what they did, by Countenance∣ing them so much, as he hath done since his returne? 3. Doth not himself say that the Nobles and Body of the Land were well enough affected to the King, and cordially loved

him, when they were overpowered and could do nothing? Sure then the land did not break, vvhatsoever some men did. Ay but, sayes he, in lavv this vvould be reckoned their deed. Very hardly, since they gave no commission for such a deed. If he say that they virtually gave such a com∣mission, in that they sent their commissioners unto the com∣monvvealths Parliament. It may be answered, that not only that was a constrained and extorted act, but, that as matters then stood, no lavvyer, no politician, nor divine vvould condemne such a deed as sinful or unlavvful, or as prejudicial to the Kings interest, to send commissioners to a meeting, at command of the Conquerour, to labour for a mitigation of their bondage, and for proposeing some things for the good of the land, vvhen their ovvne King vvas banished from them, vvithout all hope of a returne, and they, for his sake, vvithout any treachery or perfidy in them, reduced to a state of bondage. 3. But since the King at his returne laide claime to no nevv right, but stood upon the old ground, and upon this account vvas crovvned in England vvhere he had not been crovvned before, and vvas not crovvned in Scotland, because he had been crovvned there formerly, all these quircks are to no prupose: for the King returning upon the old claime, acknowledged the former con∣stitution, and re-assumed his auncient Kingdome upon the same tearmes he did before, which is also furder confirmed by the act of indempnity, which he passed; and other acts and deeds, which weer needlesse now to mention. 4. We shall easily grant, that when a sworne People desert and disclaime their King by their Representatives: The King also may take the benefite of the conditional Covenant and leave them. and so might King Charles have done, and never owned us more: and if he had done so, and gone to some other part of the world, to have spent his dayes, as some would not have been grieved, so, I think both lawyers and divines would have thought him loosed from his obligation to the people, though not wholly from his obligation to God: But now since he did not so, but took the first occasion that was feisible, and returned to his old

station and relation, all the old bonds and engagements, which he took in these relations, recurred with their for∣mer force and vigour, and he became no lesse bound then ever, yea, before the Lord, rather more: because the goodnesse of God in restoreing him without blood, should have engaged his heart so much the more unto God, & to his former vowes and Covenants. 5. What way he laboured our vindication into liberty, I know not; and if it be his Majesties graciousnesse and wisdome, as well as his con∣science of duty, that would not let him walk after the counsel of these men, (as he sayeth) many think that we are yet to see these commendable dispositions; for the effect mention∣ed is not visible: for after the counsell of whomsoever he hath walked, sure we are, he hath broken the Bonds and Engagements which he took on him, both before, and on the day of his coronation: He hath rejected the Covenant, which he made with God upon his knees, with his hands lifted up unto the Most High, and overturned that which was the Chief of our fundamental lawes, or tearmes of our constitution, as we see this day: and this is knowne, that of these who are most injured by him now, and presecuted, there were fewest that failed to him in that day; and there∣fore his graciousnesse and wisdome and conscience of duty, should have caused him remember these, who could not, out of conscience of their obligation to him, by vertue of their Covenant, take that Tender, which, others, to save themselves from a little suffering, swallovved dovvne vvith∣out much difficulty; and not have made them the objects of his ire and indignation, as he hath done, and is doing to this day. 6. He tells us, that He may assert, that the People of Scotland do rather ovve their liberty to him, then he his au∣thority to them. But vvhat this bold assertor sayeth, is not much to be valued; vvho these People of Scotland are, vvho ovve their liberty to him, I knovv not, unlesse he meane the abjured Prelates, and their base naughty, scandalous Un∣derlings, the scumme of the earth, the shame of the Church, and the disgrace of the Ministry, who novv have freedome from Church-Discipline, and civil censures, and license to

corrupt the vvord of God, to destroy soulls, to tyrannize over consciences, to oppresse the People, to inslave the sub∣jects, and to lead back the People into Egypt: And the dyvour Lords and others, vvho because of their licentious, luxurious, sensual and brutish lives, vvhich they lead like so many Epicures, having devoured their ovvne Estates, and are novv so drouned in debt, that if the poor could have but liberty to seek their ovvne, and if justice vvere running like a streame, durst not be seen, must novv have acts made in their favours liberating them from the sentence of the lavv, and allovving them to presse upon their creditours, the most barren, frutelesse, and uselesse of their lands, and that at tvventy years purchase, after they have by manifest iniquity, vvithheld aught yeers annualrent, vvhich is near the equal half of the principal summe; and such others acts of that na∣ture. Is this the liberty he talkes of, That a fevv shall have liberty to drink avvay and vvith debauchery, destroy the substance of the land, and vvaste it upon vvhores and cups? If these ovve that liberty, unto him, I am sure he vvill have little reason, ere all be done, to ovve his standing unto them, When the anger of God shall beginner to kindle, and his vvrath shall be revealed from heaven against all un∣godlinesse and unrighteousnesse of men. But lastly, vvhat if vve should grant him, vvhat he dar not in plaine tearmes require: viz. That the King ruleth over us novv jure con∣questus? Sure he must then be Tyrannus sine titulo, a Tyrant vvithout a title: for his old title, being gone and expired, he had no nevv title vvhereupon to ground the lavvfulnesse of his conquest, and therefore by his scope and drift here, he proclaimeth a liberty to all the People of Scotland to carry tovvards him, as an usurper; to seek to dethrone him, and to cut him off: for Polititians vvill grant that a Tyrant vvith∣out a title may be so dealt with: And thus vve fee that if he loose the old fundations, he shakes the throne more then he is a vvarre of; And as in many other things through this pam∣phlet so in this, he doth his Master no good service, not∣vvithstanding of the great fee he hath gote for his paines.

The summe of what followeth, Pag. 92, 93. is this [That none before King James 6. did at their installing enter into Cove∣nant with the People, (except what one sayeth of Gregory the great, who swore to defend the libertyes of the Christian Religion, &c. which then was Popery) and neither did King James himself do it, but only Morton and Hume in his name promised somehing like it; nay it is doubted, if King Charles the first did sweare that oath, of if he did, he was the first, and yet he was aught yeers our King before, and it is to be beleeved on good ground, that if he had thought his taking of that oath, should have subjected him to the co∣active and punitive power of the Subjects, in every case, wherein they or any party of them) being meer private persons) might think him deficient, he would rather have endured any death. but it shall be avowed, that he did never shrink from the observation of that Godly oath, neither hath his Majesty who now reigneth swerved from the ob∣servation of that oath hitherto, and we are hopeful, God's grace shall preserve him hereafter, from any such thing.]

Answ. 1. We cannot expect that Buchanan, studying much brevity, would set downe all the formalityes that were used at the coronation of the Kings, he only satisfying himself with a series of the succeeding Kings, and with a re∣lation of some of the most remarkable passages: And there∣fore, it is no good argument to conclude that no such thing was; because he doth not make mention thereof. 2. other historians name some other Kings beside that Gregory, who tooke an oath at their coronation, as Corbred the 21. King, who swore se majorum consiliis acquieturum. That he should be ruled by the counsel of a Parliament, whom he account∣ed his Superiours. So in Macbethus his dayes, it vvas ordained by the Estates, that the King should sweare to maintaine the community of the Realme. 3. Whether they did actually sweare an oath at their coronation or not, it is not much to the matter; for a virtual and implicite Covenant will ground all which we desire, and that there was this much, cannot be denyed, seing Kings, who could not reigne, was layd aside; others who corrupted government, were pursued, sentenced, punished, imprisoned, and killed in battle, or otherwise made to promise amendment; And seing we

finde bonds laid upon Kings, as that in the dayes of Finnanus the 10. King. [That Kings thereafter should do nothing of any great concernment, without the authority of their publick Councel, and should not rule the Kingdome according to the Counsel of his Domesticks; That he should manage no publick businesse which belonged to the King, without the advice and conduct of the Fathers, and should neither make peace or war, enter into Leagues, or break Leagues by himself, with∣out the concurrence and command of the Fathers & Heads of tribes.] This was a fundamental Law of the Kingdome, and all who accepted of the crowne thereafter must have accepted it up∣on these tearmes, though they had not been in plaine tearm∣es expressed, So Durstus his Successour did sweare the same, and therefore in Mogaldus the 23. King his dayes, this is call∣ed the ancient custome, for he ad consilia Seniorum omnia ex prisco more revocavit, did all by a Parliament according to the an∣cient and received custome: And because Conarus the 24. King neglected, or refused to follow this received custome, he was cast into prisone; So that the not observing of these conditions made them obnoxius unto the coactive power of the People. So was Romachus censured by the Parliament for the same crime. So we read of many others censured for their misdemanurs as Constantine the 43. King, Ferchardus the first the 52. King, Ferchardus the 2. the 54. King, Eugenius the 62. King, Donaldus the 70. King, all which instances & many such like, do abundantly cleare that the Kings of old were under bonds and obligations, if not explicite, yet tacite unto the People. 4. Whatever can be said concerning the an∣cient Kings; yet now it is past doubt that all our Kings are bound to sweare an oath at their coronation, and so are under conditions and Covenant-tyes and obligations, and this is enough for our present purpose. 5. It was thought suffi∣ficient in point of formality & legality that the Earle of Mor∣toun and Hume should sweare in name of the King, at this co∣ronation. [That he should observe the Lawes, and according to his power should preserve the doctrine, and rites of Religion, which were then taught, and publickly received, and oppose himself to all which was repugnant thereunto.] And this was the very summe of that oath, which was afterward concluded in Parliament,

to be received by all Kings at their coronation. And the rea∣son why they did not put King Iames to that oath thereafter, was because, he was but once crowned, and the oath was to be sworne at the coronation: and when King Iames was crowned, It was done by others for him, as is said. 6. Though this man make a question, whether King Charles did swear this oath or not at his coronation, yet it is notoure that he did, and though he beleevet••, that if the King had thought, that his taking of that oath, should have been so far mistaken by his Subjects, as that he should have been thought thereby, to have submitted himself to their coacti∣ve and punitive power, in every case, wherein they or any part of them might think him deficient, he would rather have endured any death, then so to have cast himself away, at the pleasure of malcontented partyes, amongst the People, taking advantage against him by that oath: (all which we may give him good leave, to beleeve, for we assert no such thing) yet he must suffer us to beleeve also, upon as good ground, That if King Charles had absolutely or peremptoriely refused to have taken that oath, or had said, That he would rule as he listed, and have no regaird to the established lawes; and whould bring in what Religion he pleased, though it were Machometanisme or Poperie; or that he did not account himself obliged to the Subjects by any oath he could take, The Nobles and others would have scrupled to have given him the Crowne, and acknowledged him King. And their after practices declared that they looked upon him, as a King obliged by tearmes and conditions unto them: which when he broke, they maintained their right against him, with their sword, when no other meane could prevaile. 7. Though it be true, that King Charles the first was acknowledged King sometime before he was crowned, yet that was with respect to the same conditions, unto which he was, by his taking the place, virtually obliged; and therefore afterward, when he came to be crovvned, and formally installed, he did also formally and expresly take on the obligation. And vvhether he did ever shrink from the observance of that godly oath, let this perfidious man avovv vvhat he vvill, many vvill assert

it as certane, in some poynts, and too too probable in other. 9. But though he should doubt vvhether any King, before King Charles the second, did svveare any oath or Covenant vvith the People; yet he cannot doubt of vvhat this King Charles the second did: It being being beyond all denyall and contradiction, That he swore both that Oath which was in∣joyned in King Iames the si••t his dayes; and also the National Covenant, and the Solemne League and Covenant: and that according to these, the Subjects did sweare obedience unto Him: Here was then a mutual conditional Covenant, ex∣plicitly, and in plaine tearmes, with all the solemnities ima∣ginable, entered into: and what needs more to cleare all which we have said, and to ground all which we would in∣ferre, to justify the late action: For as for his vaine infe∣rences, they concerne not us, and more shall be spoken of them afterward. 10. Though this Surveyer be ready to a∣vow that this King hath never swerved from the observation of that oath enjoyed Anno 1567. yet all the World seeth, that he hath not, as he ought to have done, maintained the true Religion, nor right preaching, and administration of Sacra∣ments; Neither hath he, according to his power, abolished and withstood all false Religions contrary to the same, as ap∣peares by the great indulgence, and toleration, if not coun∣tenance, granted to Popery and Papists. Neither hath he ruled us, according to the will of God, but rather perse∣cuted us for adhereing to the Word of God: nor hath he ruled us, by the laudable Lawes and constitutions of the realme, but hath with a packt Parliament, principled to his minde, overturned our lawes & libertyes, & hath framed & established iniquity by a law. 11. But what sayes he to the Nat. Cov. & League & Cov.? Dar he avow that he hath not broken these? If he had not, we had not been troubled this day, with a Popish Prelatical and Malignant faction, nor had we seen these abjured and foresworne Prelates, nor had we seen the work of reformation of religion, in worship, Doctrine. Discipline and Government, so overthrowne, overturned and trode upon, as it is this day. 12. So then, seing he cannot deny, but the King took and solemnely swore these Cove∣nants,

and that now he hath openly, and avowedly broken them, it is undenyable that he hath broken the conditions on which he was made King: yea, seing these were the maine conditions, and the only conditions considerable, and were become the fundamental law of our constitution, he hath violated the principal and only conditions covenanted, and what we shall hence inferre, we shall now show.

Having thus vindicated and cleared the premises, we shall draw out our arguments and conclusions thence, and,

1. If People propose conditions and tearmes unto Princes, to be by them acquiesced in, and submitted unto, and upon which they are to accept their Crowne and Scepter; Then, if the Prince of King violate these conditions which he once accepted, and contrare of his promise and engagement, destroy what he promised to build up; The People may very lawfully defend themselves, and these good ends, which they endeavoured to have secured, by proposeing these condi∣tions unto the Prince, when he is seeking to destroy all, even by force vvhen there is no other remedy. But such is our case. The King vvas formally and expresly engaged by Compacts and Covenants to secure the Reformed Religion in Doctrine, Worshipe, Discipline, and Government; to secure all these vvho owned the same, and adhered to the Covenants; and to ratify and approve all lavves made for these Covenants, and for the security of such as entered into these Covenants: and novv notvvithstanding of these conditions agreed unto by him, the Covenant and vvork and all is overturned, Peo∣ple persecuted meerly upon the account of their adhereing to these Covenants, all conditions are violated, all Covenants, Vowes, Compacts, Engagements and vvhat could be devised for security of the reformation and of the ovvners thereof, are broken. Who then can condemne even privat persons if they stand to their defence in this case? See Althusius polit. cap. 38. n. 30.

2. If People may lavvfully and laudably defend the fun∣damental lavves of the Kingdom, on vvhich the constitution of the Kingdome standeth, and on vvhich the security of vvhat is dear to them as men, and as Christians, relveth. Then

the late act cannot be condemned; because, in defending themselves, they stood for that vvhich vvas the maine and principal tearme of our constitution. But the former is true: because the Prince violating these, destroyeth the constitution, and because He cannot do this as a Prince, having already engaged as a Prince to maintaine the constitution, he must do it as a private person, or an enemy to the constitution and whole body of the land. Therefore he may wel be resisted, even by private persones, see this fully made out by Althus. Pol. cap. 38. n. 37. both out of Lawyers and Divines.

3. If a People, even by resistence, may defend their per∣sonal libertyes and rights, secured unto them by Compacts with the Prince, or by the fundamental lawes of the land, which the Prince as Prince is bound to maintaine. Then the late act cannot be condemned: because by it they were but defending that, which the King had secured unto them, by his compact, and which was secured unto them by the fun∣damental law of the land. But the former is true: because a privat person is allowed by law to maintaine his Lands and Rights, even though some, in the Kings name, should come, under whatsoever pretext, to robe and dispossesse him, and shut him to the door. Therefore, this late act, though of private persones, cannot be condemned.

4. If a Prince violating all, or he maine conditions, upon which he was made Prince, becometh stricto jure no Prince, but falleth from his benefice, not having done the offices, in consideration of which, he gote that benefice conferred upon him [non enim (sayeth Althus. ubi supra) commodum debet sentire ex contractu quem vel omittendo vel com∣mittendo quis impugnat.] Then lawfully enough such an one may be resisted, even by Private persones; as is cleare. But the former is made clear above: and such is our case now; for the King hath broken, palpably and avowedly, the maine and principal conditions, on which he was made King, having overturned the work of reformation, which, if he had not promised, vowed and covenanted to maintaine, he had never been crowned or admitted to the exercise of that Government. Who then can blaime a People stand∣ing

to their owne defence, when oppressed and tyrannized over by his emissaries, who hath thus violated the prin∣cipal and only conditions of the compact, and is force∣ing them to the same excesse of wickednesse and perjury? [deficiente hâc conditione sayeth Althus. Pol. c. 38. n. 40.) desinit ••bligatio, & fidem non servanti, fidem ei quoque non servari aquum est. Nam qui non facit quod debet, nec recipit quod opor∣tet, nec p••tere potest, quod ei ideo ab alio debetur: quam naturam esse conventionum in quibus utraque pars contrahens obligatur, te∣statur Tiraq. de Legib. Connub. Gloss. 1. part 13. n. 42. & la••è Mascard. Concl. 1387. per Alleg. Ibid. Rolland. a Val. Consil. 69. Vol. 4. & Consil. 53. Vol. 1. quando ergo una pars promissa non praes;tat, facit eo ipsout & altera liberetur. Dynus Alexander & Jason, in L. cum proponas C. de pactis.]

5. If when a Prince violateth the maine and principal conditions, on which he was installed, a People be siricto jure liberated from subjection unto him. Then much more may they resist him, when he by his emissaries oppresseth, and unjustly violenteth them. But we have cleared the former to be ture. Therefore, so is the later. The consequence cannot be denyed: for if stricto jure a people may disowne a prince, then much more may they repell his unjust violence. If law admit the more, it will admit the lesse also. The application of this is cleare from the former.

6. If the Covenant or Compact, which is betwixt Prince and People give law-clame to the People to pursue the Prince., in case of failing in the maine and principal thing co∣venanted: Then, sure the People may resist unjust violence; for they who pursue, for a broken Compact, according to their clame, may farr more defend their clame when invaded by force, contrare to the compact. The application of this is also cleare.

7. Since by this compact, it is clear as Althusius tells us Pol. Cap. 19. n. 12. that the People or Kingdome are the full Lords proprietors of all the power, and have free liberty to dispose of it, the frute and emolument thereof redounding to themselves, having full power no lese then any private per∣son to manage dispose, and dispense in their owne matters

as they please. Then when they finde the person to whom the Government is committed by compacts, administrating the same to their hurt and destruction, they may see to their owne good, and not suffer themselves to be destroyed, but re∣sist him who instead of a mandatarius and servant, turneth a Tyrant and Enemy.

8. Since, as the same Althusius sayeth Ibid. n. 13. by this compact it is apparent, that the Ius the power or authority, which is given to the Supream Magistrate is not his owne, & is lesse then the Ius of the People & inferiour to theirs; because it dependeth upon the free will & prescription of the People, & endeth with the death of the prince, who is Mandatarius; as o∣ther contractus Mandati use to do, and recurreth to its owne proper Master and Lord. Then it cannot be unlawful for the People the commander here, to see to their owne saiftie, and provide that their owne free gift destroy them not, and so to resist the Prince abuseing that power to their destru∣ction.

9. If it be certane (as it is to Althus. Pol. c. 19. n. 47.) that the Prince hath no more power given to him by the People, then what is contained in the conditions upon which he un∣dertaketh the government, and what more he assumes, he usurpeth by tyranny from the People. Then when he usurp∣eth more power then was given to him, he may be resisted: and the People are allowed to preserve their owne: and when he ruleth contrare to the conditions, and destroyeth these, it is certane He arrogateth to himself a power which was never given to him, yea which was virtually prohibited and discharged to him: and in that case may lawfully be re∣sisted, as is undenyable. The antecedent Althusius proveth in the forecited place n, 48. saying [aequitas hujus rei naturalis de∣monstrari potest ex natura mandati, quod dicitur contractus bonae fidei, obligans eum qui alienorum negotiorum administrationem suscepit, ne limites & fines mandati excedat, sed contineat se intraterminos praescriptos a mandante, ut latius docent J. CC. quibus addendus Vasq. Illustr. Quaest. L. 1. c. 47. n. 13.

CAP. VII.

Of the Nature of the Kings Power over his Subjects. Our Argu∣ments hence.

FRom what hath been said in the two former chapters, vve may saifly gather these conclusions concerning the nature of the povver of a Soveraigne over his Subjects, vvhich vvill yeeld us so many arguments, confirming the poynt in hand.

1. The Soveraigne's povver over his Subjects, is not pro∣perly a parental povver, that is, not such a povver as parents have over their children: for 1. The Soveraigne's power over the Subjects ariseth from a voluntary compact, and consent of the Subjects, as was shewed; but the Father's power requireth no such previous consent or compact. 2. The Soveraigne's power may be restricted to so many de∣grees by the Subjects; so cannot the Father's by the Chil∣dren. 3. The Subjects obedience and subjections to the So∣veraigne may be conditional; as we have proved, and our adversaries will grante it, in limited Princes: but so cannot the subjection of Children be. 4. Whethersoever Children goe, they keep always the same relation to the same Parents: but Subjects may change their Soveraignes, by changing the places of their habitation. 5. Children can in no case break that relation, which is betwixt their Fathers and them; but in many cases, Royalists themselves will grant, Subjects may shake off the King. 6. Children cannot change their Fath∣ers: but Subjects may change their Soveraignes; for Royalists wil grant that such as are under an Aristocracy may make choise of a Monarch. 7, Children hold their natural being of their Parents, but Soveraignes are designed only for the political or civil welbeing of the Subjects. 8. Subjects may choose what Soveraignes they will, whether Monarchical or Aristocrati∣cal, and what persones in this, or that forme: Children can not

choose what Parents they shall have. 9. Subjects can condescend upon the time how long such an one shall be their Soveraigne, ad vitam or culpam: but Children can not set bounds unto their Parents power. 10. Soveraignes have not begotten all their Subjects, nor doth their relation or power flow form such an act: but Paternal power doth. 11. If the Soveraigne's power were paternal only, then he should not have power of life and death, because parents as such have not that power over their Children▪ 12. The Surveyer himself granteth this Pag. 29. in these words. [Kings are not fathers of our flesh, or by generation, nor can they be truely called so, political and parental power are different things.] So then the So∣veraigne's power is paternal only in a metaphorical sence: because They should have a Fatherly care and inspection over their Kingdomes, and should nourish, cherish, love and governe them tenderly and carefully; and as Parents in some respects, love their children better then themselves, so should they preferre the good of the commonwealth unto their owne: and upon this account are stiled Fathers Gen. 20. 2. Iudg. 5. 7. 1 Sum. 24. 12. Isa. 49. 23. as also Pastors are.

2. The Soveraigne's power is not properly Marital, or such as Husbands have over their Wives, for. 1. Wives cannot limite their Husband's power, as Subjects may limite their Soveraigne's. 2. Wives cannot prescribe the time how long such an one shall be their Husband, as Subjects may do vvith their Soveraignes. 3. Wives cannot change their Husbands, as Subjects may change an Aristocracy into a Mo∣narchy. 4. Wives are appoynted for an helpe to the Hus∣band, but the Soveraigne is rather for the Commonvvealth, then the Commonvvealth for him. 5. If the Soveraigne's povver vvere such, then he could not have povver of life and death; for a Husband as such hath not that povver over his Wife. 6. Though the Husband and the Wife be in dis∣tinct Kingdomes, the relation standeth, and is not broken upon that account, but if a subject goe out of one Kingdome, to live into another, he changeth his Soveraigne, and hath a relation to a nevv Soveraigne.

3. So he is but metaphorically, and not properly called the Head of the Commonwealth: for 1. the head is not made Head by the free choise of the Members: but the Soveraigne is chosen by the People. 2. The Members have not so much as a consent in setting up the Head: but Subjects, at least, have this much, in setting up of Princes 3. the Members can never change the Head, but Subjects may change their Soveraignes. 4. The Members can make no compact with the Head, as Subjects may do with their Princes. 5. The Members cannot limite the power of the Head, as Subjects can limite the power of their Princes. 6. The Members cannot destroy the Head and live themselves, but Subjects can destroy the Monarch and choose another. 7. The Head communicateth life, sense & motion to the rest of the members; so doth not the Prince unto his Subjects. 8. The same individual life is in Head and Members; but not in King and Subjects. 9. Head and Body die and live together, but there is no such connexion betwixt King and Subjects. So then he is but a metaphorical Head, so called, because of his supereminency, He is over the civil body to rule and guide it aright.

4. The Soveraigne hath no Lordly, dominative, or masterly power over the Bodyes of his Subjects. For 1. this govern∣ment is founded upon the law and light of pure nature, but this masterly dominion is a frute of sin. 2. Slavery being against nature, & a bondage, which all would willingly shun, we cannot suppose that rational people would choose that life, if they could help it: but they willingly, & not out of con∣straint, choose government & governours 3. The people in set∣ting up a Soveratigne propose their owne good & have their owne ends, but if the Soveraigne's power were properly a masterly power, they should propose rather his good then their owne in setting him up. 4. If his power were a masterly power, their condition after the government were establish∣ed should be worse, then it was before: for their state of liberty was preferable to their state of bondage. 5. They had not acted rationally, if to be free of oppression of others, they had willingly given up themselves unto an op∣pressour,

endued with masterly dominion and power. 6. Masters might sell their servants for gaine Gen. 9. 25. and 20. 14. and 26. 14. 1 King. 2. 32. 2. King. 4. 1. Neh. 5. 8. Eccles. 2. 7. Iob. 1. 3, 15. But the prince cannot sell his Kingdome. 7. Soveraignes have not such a povver as this, from God, but only a povver to feed, to rule, to defend, and to watch over the people for their good, 1 Tim. 2. 2. Ps. 78. 71. 2 Sam. 5. 2. 1 Chron. 11. 2. and 17. 6. Neither have they it from the People; for they cannot give such a povver, vvhereby to make themselves slaves. 8. If it vvere so, Princes should not be a blessing unto a People, but rather a curse contrare to 1 King. 10. 9. Esa. 1. 26. Ier. 17. 25. Hos. 1. 11. 9. It is a blessing to be free of slavery Exod. 21. 2, 26, 27. Deut. 15. 12. Ier. 34. 9. Ioh. 8. 33. 1 Cor. 9. 19. But it is not a blessing to be free of government, but a curse and judgment rather, Iudg. 19. 1, 2. Esa. 3. 1, 6, 7. Hos. 3. 4. 10. Subjects are the King's brethren, Deut. 17. 20. and so not his slaves. The Surveyer Pag. 30. 31. granteth that there is a great difference betwixt Magistratical power and Masterly, and giveth three maine differences. 1. That the Master of slaves had his owne profite mainly before his eyes, and the profite of the Slaves only secondarily: But the Magistrates power is pre∣marily ordinated to the Publick good of the Community it self, and only secondarily and consequentially to the good of Himself. 2. That Masters had a greater power over the bodyes and goods of these, who were their Slaves, then a Magistrate can clame over Subjects. 3. The Master had the slaves in subjection to him, more out of feare and con∣straint, then love or delight: But a King hath his Subjects under him, in a civil, free, liberal, voluntary, and loving subjection. Thus we see this point is cleare and undeny∣able by him, though other Royalists will not grant so much: but sure if they were his slaves, they behoved to be taken in war or bought with money.

5. Neither hath he a despotick & masterly power over the go••ds of his Subjects, what ever use may be allowed to make of them, in case of necessity (when, in some respect, all things are common) for the Common good, and good not

only of the owners, but also of all the Community. Yet the Subjects are righteous proprietors of their owne goods. For 1. the People make choise of him, for this very end to preserve them in their rights, to keep their rights invio∣lated, to keep them from oppression and injuries of others; so that it cannot be imagined that rational People would make choise of one great robber, to preserve them from lesser rob∣bers. 2. Their case should be rather worse as better, by the erecting of a civil government, if the Soveraigne were the only proprietor of all their goods for before the erection they had a just right and title unto their owne goods. 3. Sove∣raignes should not be a blessing unto a People, but a curse: Which is false. 4. Then they could wrong no man take what they would from him, contrare to Zeph. 3: 3. Esai 3: 14, 15. and 58: 4, 6. Mich. 3: 3. see Timpl. pol. lib. 5. cap. 1. quaest. 3. 5. The law, Deut. 17. contradicteth this masterly power o∣ver the Subjects goods. 6. Ahab was blaimed for taking Naboths Vineyaird. 7. This is the very character of a Tyrant, 1 Sam. 8. 8. The Kings of Egypt had not his propriety, Gen. 45. 9. No man might then defend his owne right by law against the Soveraigne, but he might take what he pleas∣ed, from whom he pleased, and give to whom he pleased. 10. Then the King could not properly buy or sell with his Subjects. 11. Nor could Subjects make any barganes amongst themselves without his consent. 12. Nor could they exerce any acts of charity; because charity must be of Mens owne, Esa 58: 7. Ecc. 11: 1. 13. Yea, Subjects could neither perform a duty, nor fail in a duty, in the matter of goods, if all were his. 14. Subjects could not be enjoyned to pay tribute unto the Prince, contrare to Rom. 13: 6. 15. It is contrare both to the Law of God and nature: see Timpl. ubi supra.

6. Hence Soveraignes are not proper proprietors of their King∣domes: Because 1. there are other qualifications required of them, then is required of ordinary proprietors. 2. The People then could never change their Soveraignes. 3. The Soveraigne might sell and dispone his Kingdomes, as he pleased, which Royalists themselves wil not grant. 4. Kingdomes then should come in amongst bona fortuna. 5. His place should not be

properly a function or office, but a proper possession. 6. Sever∣al Kings both in Scotland & elsewhere, have been hindered from dilapidating the revenues of the crovvne, or by gifts and other contracts deteriorating the Kingdome, and punished for so doing. 7. Would rational men give themselves up for a prey to one, that they might be saife from becoming a prey to others? 8. How should then a Soveraigne be chosen for the good of the Kingdom, if he might do with it what he pleas∣ed, sell it, or dispone it to the Turk: or such like. 9. Paul, by commanding that tribute & custome be given to him, suppon∣eth some other thing: see Althus. poli. cap. 24. n. 35, 37.

7. Nor so much as usufructuaryes: For 1. they may not lay their Kingdomes in pledge, as an usufructuary may do. 2. Nor can they give them freely away. Nor 3. may they do with them what they please, as usufructuaryes may do with what they have by that right: See Iun. Brut. vind. cont. Tyr. q. 3. p. (mihi) 205.

8. The Soveraigne's power is properly a fiduciary power, such as the power of a Tutor of Patron, for to this end & pur∣pose was He created of the People that he might defend them from injuries and oppressions. He is appoynted over them by God for their good, and is to seek that mainly. 2. though he hath his power by way of compact, yet it is not a compact ex condigno, such as betwixt buyer and seller, upon valuable prices and considerations 3. His power is limited & restricted and he is bound to conditions, as we shewed. 4. He may not (as was said) dispose of his Subjects, and of their lives as he pleaseth. 5 if he sell his Kingdomes, Royalists grant he may be dethroned; therefore he hath no other power then of a Tutor, Publick Servant, or Watchman, 6. His power is over his Subjects, as it is over the law of God and religion, but over those he hath no other power, but a ministerial Tutory∣power: He is to take care for them ex officio, as a special pawne committed to his trust, to see that they be not wronged or violated: see Althus. polit. cap. 24. n. 43, 44, 45. Adrian the Imperour used to say Ita se Remp. gesturum ut sciret Populi esse. non suam.

Hence we draw these arguments for resistence of Sove∣raignes by meer private Subjects, in cases of necessity.

1. If it be lawful for Children to resist their Father, when enraged against them, and seeking in his fury, to destroy and cut them off, whithout any violation of the Law of God enjoyning Children to obey, and be subject to, their Pa∣rents in the Lord; Then it is lawful for Subjects though private persons, to resist the fury of their enraged Sove∣raigne, when he is seeking, in his cruelty and rage, contra∣ry to compact, oathes and vowes, to destroy Them and their Religion. But the former is true. Therefore &c. The Assumption cannot be denyed by any rational person. It being most just and rational, that when the Father is taken with a distemper in his braine, and in his madnesse seeketh to destroy or cut the throates of his Children, They may joyne together, binde his hands, pull the weapon out of his hand and defend themselves the best way they can. The connexion of the proposition is certane; for, the most the adversaries can make of the Soveraignes power is that it is paternal, and that he is parens patriae the Father of the Commonwealth: & yet seing natural Fathers may be resisted by their natural Children, in case of necessity, without the help or conduct of Magistrates: Why may not also private Subjects, with∣out the conduct of a Parliament, defend of themselves, in case of necessity, against the fury and rage of their civil father, when he by his bloody emistaries, is seeking to undoe them? But next we may draw the argument from the lesse to the more. If it be lawful for Children, in cases of necessity, to defend themselves against, and to resist the unjust vio∣lence of their enraged Father: Then much more is it law∣ful, for private subjects, in cases of necessity, without the conduct of Parliament, to defend themselves against and to repel the unjust violence of their Soveraigne. For there is not such a connection betwixt the Soveraigne and his Sub∣jects, as betwixt Parents and their Children, as we have a∣bundantly cleared: And againe, if some of the Children may resist the unjust violence of their Parent and of others of their Brethren, joyning with their enraged Father to cut them off, that they alone may enjoy the whole inheritance or for some such ends: Then far more may a part of the Common∣wealth

resist the Prince's unjust Tyranny, though he hath the other parts of the Commonwealth concurring with him, to their destruction: For the argument followeth, as I said, à; minori ad majus, from the lesse to the more: And the u∣nion, tye & relation betwixt Brethren, Sones of the same Father, is as great, yea greater, then the tye, union and relation betwixt one part of the Commonwealth & another; this relation being but political and in itself no wayes indisso∣luble, but the other natural and indissoluble.

2▪ If Wives may lawfully defend themselves against the manifest and unjust violence of unnatural and enraged Hus∣bands, and repel, in case of necessity, violence with vio∣lence, without the conduct or concurrence of other Magi∣strates. Then it is no lesse, yea much more, lawful for meere Private Subjects, in cases of necessity, to resist without the help and conduct of a Parliament, the furious and unjust as∣saults of their enraged Soveraigne. But the former is true, as all will grant. Therefore, &c. The proposition is cleare from this. That there is not so great a tye betwixt Prince and Subjects, as betwixt Husband and Wife: And say that he had an equal power over his Subjects, with that which the Husband hath over his Wife (which is false,) yet the con∣nexion will be firme, as to a lawfulnesse in this case, as wel as in the other.

3. If there be not such a connexion betwixt the Sove∣raigne and his Subjects, as is betwixt the natural Head, and the Body. Then it can no more yea, far lesse, be an unna∣tural thing for Subjects to defend themselves against the vio∣lence of distempered Princes, Who seek directly to destroy the Commonwealth, when necessity doth urge; Then it is for the members of the Body, to defend and fortify them∣selves against danger, paine or sicknesse, occasioned by a distemper of the braine, yea and with violence seek to cure & remove that distemper in the head, that is like to destroy the whole body.

4. If the Soveraigne hath not a Lordly domination, & masterly power over his Subjects, but they be is Brethren & not his Slaves; and, if the very Law will allow Servants to

defend themselves against their Lords and Masters, L. Mi∣nime 35. de Rel. & sumpt. funer. and no man with us will ac∣count it unlawful for servants to defend themselves against the unjust and violent assaults of their Lords and Masters. Then farr lesse can it be accounted unlawful for private Sub∣jects to defend themselves, when constrained with necessity, against the unjust assaults of the Soveraigne or his emislaries. But the Antecedent is cleared, and confessed. Ergo.

5. If the Soveraigne have no despotick or Masterly pow∣er over the goods and heritages of his Subjects, as we have proved. Them very lawfully may they defend their lands goods and heritages, from the violent and unjust oppressions; of the Prince or his emissaries, sent out to plunder, rob, de∣stroy their corns, cattel, goods, land summes of money, &c.

6. If the Kingdome be not his proper heritage, nor he proprietor thereof, as was shewed; Then when He or his Emissaries come to destroy a considerable part of the King∣dome, and to alienate the profites and emoluments thereof unto others, then the proper owners and proprietors, un∣justly. Then may that part of the Kingdome lawfully resist these unjust oppressours and invaders, & defend their owne.

7. If He be not so much as an usufructuary of the King∣dome: then when He laboureth by his Emissaries to waste and destroy the Kingdome or any part thereof, by unjust vio∣lence, private Subjects may resist that unjust violence, and oppose his oppressing Emissaryes. If a Master may hinder his usufructuary tennants who would deteriorate the land, which they possesse by compact; Then much more may sub∣jects resist the Princes Emissaries when labouring utterly to spoile, and lay waste these lands, whereof he is not so much as an usufructuary:

8. If the King's power be only fiduciary as is shewed. Then when that power is manifestly abused, and the pawne which he hath gote to keep, in imminent and manifest danger, law∣fully enough may he be resisted; When the Lives, the Li∣berties of the People, or their Religion is committed unto him, as to a publick Tutor, Watchman, or Servant; & He what through negligence, what through wilful wickednesse, laboureth to destroy, and undoe, and overturne all, very

lawfully may Subjects, in that case of extreame necessity, seek to secure the Necessary and desireable things, and resist his fury and unjust violence, who contrare to his oath and promise, seeketh to have all overturned and ruined. Althusius pol. cap. 38. n. 39. speaketh well to this, saying [Octava ratio sumitur a natura contractus mandati, quo summa Magistratui ad∣ministratio est delata à populo, ad hoc ut Reip pro••it non ut noceat, Rom. 13. Vasq. lib. 1. c. 44. n. 6. &c. 1. & 2. Illust. Contr. quando igitur mandatarius fines mandatiexcedit non illi obligatus est mandator, § 15. qui Just. de Mand. Luc. 16: 1, 2, 3, &c. & quando conditio, status & fortuna mandatarii mutatur in deterius L. si quis cum de procur. L. cum quis desolut. Aut mandatum a mandante revocatur, vel ipse mandans agere & tractare negotium inci∣pit ut tradunt J. CC. Vide Vasq. Lib. 1. c. 43. n. 5. &c. 4, n. 12. Illust Controv.] What he addeth is worth the reading.

CAP. VIII.

The Peoples saifty is the supreme Law. The King is not absolute. Hence some Moe Arguments.

THat salus populi est suprema Lex is asserted by the law of the 12 Tables. The worthy author of Lex Rex hath fully confirmed this truth, and vindicated it from the exceptions, and false glosses, of the Royalists, Quaest. 25. And therefore we need say lesse to it, especially seing this Surveyer, hath nothing against it, that I have observed.

That it is a truth, That the peoples saifty is the cardinal law, hence appareth, 1. That the attaineing of this end, was the maine ground and motive of the peoples condescending upon the constitution. 2. They levelled at his end, in makeing choyse of such a forme, and not of another; for had they thought another fitter for their temper, and more conduceing for their good, they had not pitched on this, but on that. 3. with an eye to the saife and sure attaineing of this end pro∣posed and designed, they made choise of such persones, and of none else. 4. upon this account, did they condescend upon that manner of conveyance of the supream authority, which they thought best, 5. For no other end, was it, that the Prince was limited and bound unto conditions. 6. The end being alwayes preferable to the meanes as such,

The Peoples saifty, which is the end, must be preferred to all such things as are made use of as meanes conduceing to this end. 7. By the very Law and institution of God, the Ma∣gistrate is ordained for the Peoples good, Rom. 13. ver. 4. and to this end, (next to the glory of God, unto which we alwayes give the preference) is he direct all his pub∣lick actions as a Magistrate, and by this, is he to stirre his course, in governing the helme of the Republick. 8. Hence it is that all the municipal lawes of the Land, are made, renewed, corroborated, explained, or rescind∣ed and annulled, so as they most conduce to this great end which is ever anima & ratio Legis. 9. Hence also it is, that no law in its letter tending to the hurt and detriment of the Realme, is or can be of force. 10. Hence it is, that the So∣veraigne in cases of necessity, may neglect the strick obser∣vation of the letter of the lawes, and for the good of the community, neglect private mens interests. Finally the very law of nature requireth this, as Boxhornius Inst. Polit lib. 1. Pag. 25. tells us.

Doctor Sanderson in his book dc obligati••ne conscientiae prae∣lect. 9. & 10. laboureth to put another glosse upon this axi∣ome: But he may be easily answered: for we shall readyly grant with him, that by saifty here is not meaned dignity, or liberty in some small and inconsiderable triffles, unto which some small and inconsiderable hurt is opposite: nor shall we say that any extraordinary thing is to be attempted in a Commonwealth, against the lawes, whensoever any lead∣ing popular man or bold rhetoricator or a Démagog shall say that Princes and Magistrates, have violated the lawes, done injuries to the people, and neglected their duty; yet he must give us leave to say, That the saifty of the people, is in hazard, when it is manifest and notour, so as they who run may read it, that lawes, once established, and for the future good and through security of the subject, by Oathes and Covenantes corroborated, and made irrepelable, by any Magistrate higher or lower, are annulled, condemned, and rescinded; nay the Covenants whereby the land was devout¦ed to God, and their Religion secured to them, and the fun∣damental

law or ground of the Constitution, and condition on which the Soveraigne was admitted to his throne, over∣turned, and trode under foot: All forced to condemne their former actions and Covenants, Vowes, Oathes, Prayers, Teares, Fastings, Fightings &c. by subscribing contradictory, condemnatory, and rescissory acts, and de∣clarations, and forced to run counter their owne oathes and Solemne Engagements, otherwise to be exposed to ruine by arbitrary mulcts, fineings, imprisonements, quarterings, cruel and inhumane usages, plunderings, vastations, de∣populations and the like. Is not this equivalent to incur∣sions of forraigne adversaryes? Is not this depredation com∣mitted by wicked subjects? Is there not here impious and horrible acts of tyranny? But he will have the word People taken for the Prince distinct from the People, or in a collective sense, for Prince and People together. He must be a strong rhetoricator indeed that will perswade any to beleeve this, seing there is no reason in the world for it: For though we should grant that among the Romans it vvas sometimes used to designe, not only the plebeians, but also the equestral crder conjunctly, as in that axiome Senatus populusque Romanus. The senate and the people of Rome: And that sometimes it did designe the Fathers, the knights, and the Plebeians conjunctly, yet it will not follovv that it is so it is so taken in this axiome; for if vve should follovv his ovvne rule, viz. That collective vvords should be collectively taken, unlesse the opposite vvhich is annexed, require othervvise: And vvith all, make use of this ovvne vvords prael. 10. §. 19. A romana gente &c, 1. e [I have told that this axiome is come to our hands from the Ro∣mans, and now I adde, that in the 3 book of Cicero de legibus that sentence is frist found, for any thing I know; yet, as he testifieth himself, taken out of the ancient lawes of that nation, and copied out of the very letter of the law. Now this Cicero after he hath de∣scribed and explained, in the preceding book, the lawes pertaining to Religion and the worshiping of the Gods, at length? in the third book, he comes to rehearse these lawes which concearne the Republick and the Magistrates, where these words are to be found. Regio Impe∣rio duo sunto, iique praeeundo, judicando, consulendo,

praetores judices consules appellantor, militiae summum jus habento, nemini parento, ollis (i.e. illis) salus populi supre∣ma lex esto he sayes, to these the chief law should be the peoples saifty: Now who are these? those, viz. Who were endued with King'ly power, and had the chief disposall of the militia, &c.] It vvill then be as cleare as can be, that the opposite which is added or annexed, doth sufficiently show that the vvord People in this axiome, is to be taken for the People, as con∣tradistinguished from the Magistrates, and not for People and Magistrate conjunctly; far lesse for the Prince as distinct from the People. And doth not this same sentence of Cicero's fully confirme our Glosse, and say that Princes and Magi∣strates, as such, ought mainly to designe the good of the People, over whom they are set, & to have that for their end in all their publick actings, whether in making, or in executing lawes? How then can he say that this axiome is rather to be understood of the Prince alone, then of the People alone? But for this he tells us, That the ancient Fathers did esteem of them as next unto God ad inferiour to him only, and that the People of Israel, 2 Sam. 18: 3. Did preferre the saifty of the King unto the saifty of all the rest, and in the Lament. 4: 20. He is called the breath of our nostrils. To all which it is easily answered, 1. That all this will not prove, that Princes are bound by reason of their office, only to seek their owne good, greatnesse and power; or to preferre that unto the good of the People; and not rather designe, as their proper and principal end, the promoving of the good and saifty of the People committed to their charge. 2. The Fathers might have spoken so of the Em∣perours, as they were then de facto and in regaird of their su∣pereminency, but notwithstanding of that, they and their supereminency both, was subordinate unto the good of the People, and was ex natura rei, but a meane for that maine and great good. 3. It is true in some cases, and at such a nick of time, as that was 2 Sam. 18. The losse of a good King, when he is the maine person hunted for by the adversaries, would prove more destructive to the Commonwealth, then the losse of ten thousand, and this rather confirmeth the axiome then

weakeneth it, for it was upon the account of the publick good of the Commonwealth, that the life of King David was pre∣ferable to the lives of many. 4. It is not said, that His life was better then, and preferable to, the lives of the whole body of the Commonwealth. 5. That metaphorical expression La∣ment. 4. she weth only how useful & steadable the King would be unto them; even a necessary mean to keep them in a politick life as to a Commonwealth; and so it sayeth that, his whole de∣signe as a Magistrate should be to procure their good. 6. Mo∣ses a good Prince did preferre the Peoples life unto his owne: and David did the same 1. Chron 12: 17. and these do abundantly confirme our sense. He replyeth further; That it was no wonder that among the Romans from whom we have this axi∣ome, the Peoples saifty was the principal law, seing in that de∣mocratical government, the People were the Supreame pow∣res. Ans. This is but a meer shift; for even in a democrat. go∣vernm. the Peoples saifty is distinguished from the Supreame power which is to level all to this maine end, the saifty of the People. 2. Cicero told us that the Consuls and Praetors were bound to propose this end unto themselves; & so we finde that the People, whose saifty is the Supream law, are distinguished from these who, whether in a Popular or Aristocratical govern. excerced the supreame povver. 3. This same is insert in the law of the XII tables, & so it was in force whatever forme of government was exerced. But syes he Prael. 9. §. 19. Hence it will not follow, That People may, when they per∣ceive, or cry out that they perceive their libertyes hurt in some things; take armes without the Princes leave, and violate all lawes and dutyes, and so raise tumults and sedi∣tions. Ans. Neither do we say so, nor resolve to draw any such conclusions therefrom; but this is cleare, that when the co∣venanted work of reformation is overturned, laudable lawes establishing the same, contrary to oath, and solemne Enga∣gement, rescinded, libertyes palpably violated, People in hu∣manely persecuted for adhereing to their Covenants, &c. and unjustly oppressed by the Kings emissaries, people may then take armes in their own defence, though the King should refuse to consent, or should countenance the oppressours, & carry

on that inslaving course. Againe, he sayes let any read, and read over againe that sentence of Cicero and search every pairt of it, where vvill he finde any vvarrand for Subjects to rise up against princes, to injure them or dethrone them. Ans We do not intend to search the sentence for that end, it vvill suffice us, if hence vve finde ground to conclude the lavvful∣nesse of Peoples defending themselves against tyrannizeing Princes, in cases of necessity: and let him, or any for him, read, and better read that vvhole period, and narrovvly con∣sider and examine every sentence and vvord in it, and see if he can finde this condemned.

Ere I come to speak to the other particular, I shall from this draw some few things useful for our purpose, and,

1. It is irrational, and meer flattery to cry up and exalt the Soveraignes prerogative, in prejudice, and to the de∣struction of that, for which both He and His Prerogatives are, and were appoynted, as subservient meanes, the saifty of the People. That being de jure his maine end, and it being for this cause end, that he is endued with such power, and hath such privileges and prerogatives conferred upon him, and allowed unto him, He and his Prerogatives both, should vaile unto this Supreame Law the saifty of the People: so that when they come in competition, The Peoples saifty of right, is to have the preheminence.

2. Since all other lawes municipal, made and established in a free Realme, must be subordinate unto this Principal, and Cardinal law, and have tendency to promove, corro∣borate and establish it: Then, when any of these Lawes, in their letter, strick directly at the root of the saifty of the People, and thoward and crosse that maine and highest law, That law is Eaienus null, and really no law. So that it is but childish scrupulosity, to start at the letter of a law, when the Commonwealth is in hazard: and it is but brutish ignorance to object the letter of a low against such as are en∣deavouring the saifty of the people, which is the maine bu∣sinesse, and to preserve the Commonwealth from ruine; and destruction, against which no law is, or can be, of any

force or value, but null and of no effect, for here it holdeth true, that summum jus is summa injuria.

3. Since Lawes themselves, when in their letter they crosse this maine law, must be accounted as no lowes really, and de jure; and may saifly be neglected and passed over, when the Peoples saifty is in no small hazard by the strick adhereing to the letter thereof? Then, much more may punctilioes, and law formalities be laid aside, when the Commonwealth is in danger. When there is a fire in a City, all the formalities of order are not strickly to ob∣served.

4. Since The privileges, and lawful prerogatives of the Soveraigne must vaile, in cases of necessity, unto this High and Supreame Law, the saifty of the People. Then no lesse must the privileges of a Parliament yield unto this: for what∣ever privilege they enjoy, it is in order to this end, and the meanes must alwayes have a subserviency unto the end, and when they tend to the destruction of the end, they are then as no meanes unto that end, nor to be made use of for that end.

5. Though King and Parliament both should conspire together against the good of the Land, yet di jure they have no power or authority to destroy that End, and whatever they enact or doe, tending to the ruine of this maine and principal good, which they should have before their eyes, as their end, is ipso facto null.

6. When acts and actings of King and Parliament tend di∣rectly, and are made and done of purpose, to destroy and overthrow the work of reformation in doctrine, worshipe, discipline and government; which was owned, and esta∣blished by lawes, with all formalities of law, and was avowed by solemne vowes, Covenants, attestations, pro∣testations, declarations, and engagements of all ranks of People, from the highest to the lowest: and courses are laid doune, to force and constraine People to renunce their Covenant with God, to turne perjured apostates; and when by acts and actings, the fundamental tearmes & conditions of our reformed constitution, confirmed by unrepelable lawes,

by the King's accepting of his Crowne and Scepter, and all other Magistrates accepting their places, upon these tearmes, are overturned; and when by an arbitrary and illegal tyranny, no man hath security for his life, his lands, his li∣bertyes, nor his religion, is not the saifty of the People in danger? No man needs to say who shall be judge, The Magistrates or the people? For all who have eyes to see may judge, whether the Sun be shineing or not, and all who have common sense may judge in this case. When these things are done and avowed, they cannot be denyed, and no man of reason or religion will deny the inference.

Hence then it is cleare, that no man in reason can con∣demne the late act of defence, which was the only meane left for preserving of that which all government and Govern∣ours should level at, viz. The saifty of the People, both in soull and body, their Religion, Lives, Liberties, Privileges, Possessions, Goods, and what was deare to them as men, and as Christians, howbeit it vvanted the formality of the authority of Soveraine, Parliament or Councel. No man vvho vvill not deny this axiome, can condemne them as Trai∣tors, seing they vvere noble Patriots and loyall to that Su∣preame lavv, The saifty of the People.

As to the other particular, concerning the absolute power of the Soveragne, We say.

1. That the Soveraigne is under obligations to his People, and bound & limited by conditions, we have shew∣ed above: which conditions he is bound to observe, see Hoen Disp. Pol. 9.

2. That the Soveraigne is not exempted from the lawes of God, none but profane gracelesse, vvreatches vvill deny; since he is a creature of God's and a subject to him, and his servant, Rom. 13. and therefore must not transgresse his lawes, under the paine of high treason and laese Majesty. It was but a base saying of an impudent whore Iulia to her step sone Antonius Caracalla, si libet licet, an nescis te imperatorem esse, and no lesse impious was that saying of Anaxarchus to Alexander the Great, when he had Killed Clitus in a rage, Nesus adsess••rem jovi justitiam, & fas esse quo quicquid actum a

dominante fuerit, id jus & fas sit, as if for sooth Alexander could do no wrong. It was an abhominable saying of these judges to Cambyses. That though they could finde no law permit∣ting a brother to marry his sister, yet they knew of another law, whereby it was lawful to the Kings of Persia to do whatsoever they pleased. All Divines will grant this: and so do Lawyers and Polititians: See Bodine de Repub. lib. 1. cap. 8. Hoenon. Disp. Polit. 9. Thes. 7. Paul. Voetius Iurispr. Sacra. Ger∣hard de Magist Polit. §. 119. Althus. Polit. cap. 19. n. 9, 10, 11. Timpl. Polit. lib. 5. cap. 1. Our Surveyer grants this, pag. 57, 58. and elswhere.

3. Neither is he exempted from the Lawes of Nature and Nations; for the law of nature is the very Law of God, and God hath no where Subjected his Law unto the vvill of Princes.

4. Neither is the exempted from all the civil Lavves, say∣eth Hoenon. ubi supra. For, sayes he, many civil Lavves are but declarative of the Lavv of nature, and consectaryes thereof, and vvhat povver he hath, he hath from the People, and the People are certanely bound by these Lavves: Yea as Boxhornius sayeth, Instit. Polit. lib. 1. pag. 33. Principi tantum∣modo licet quantum populus ei voluit licere: No more is lawful for him then the People will. The Surveyer in the forecited place sayeth, [It is a Royal thing for a King to live by the same good Lawes, which are given by him to the People, and it is of effica∣cious influence upon them; to move them to walk in their dutyes order∣ly: Rex tenetur servare Leges, si non ut Leges tamen ut ra∣tiones. But he might know that our King is bound to ob∣serve the Lawes, even as Lawes, and must pay his debt, and submit to the decision of Judges as well as others.

5. Our Surveyer confesseth, Pag. 75. That the King is bound before God to rule his People according to the Law of God, of reason and nature; yea and to take his directions in government, from the rational Lawes of the Kingdome (which are deductions from, or determinations of, the Law of God, reason and nature, to particular circum∣stances) agreed to by the consent and good likeing of his People. Hence it followeth, 1. That he cannot dispense,

by his prerogative Royal, with a just Law, according to his sole pleasure, and so pardon such as deserve death? 2. He cannot kill and slay whom he will, but according to law. 3. Nor can he alone make lawes. 4. Nor can his will stand for a law. 5. Nor is he the sole interpreter of the law. 6. Nor in interpreting of the law, hath he a dominion over it to expone it as he wil: for if these be not granted, it cannot be granted that he is bound to rule us by the Law of God, of reason, and of nature, or by the Lawes of the Kingdome, but according to his meer will and pleasure.

6. It must be a most unreasonable thing to say, That the Soveraignes power is absolute, which Royalists contend so much for, and say that he is above all law of man; for then he might do what he pleased without controle. But 1. did ever the People set a Soveraigne over themselves, upon these tearmes? Did ever People set him over themselves to rage at randon, to kill, murther, massacre, and do what seemed good in his eyes? 2. Their condition should necessarily, be worse after the constitution then it was before. 3. The saifty of the People should not be the supreame Law. 4. He might then break all bonds and oathes, and keep no conditions which he had made. 5. If so, a Prince as a Prince, should be a great plague and judgment to a People. 6. All his Subjects should be formal Slaves unto him, their lives & all they have should be at his devotion. 7. He should not then be the Servant of God for the good of the People, contrare to Rom. 13: 4. 8. If this power agree to him as King, then it is from God, and so God should give him a power to sin and tyrannize, which is most false. 9. Then there could be no Tyrants. 10. Yea a King as a King, should be a Tyrant in actu signato, and a Tyrant should be nothing but a King in actu exercito. 11. Yea if so, they might not so much as be rebuked by the messengers of the Lord, for their enormities, contrare to the many instances in the Old Te∣stament of Prophets rebuking Princes 12 if his power were absolute, lawes would become no lawes, neither were there need of lawes, nor should the making of lawes be a

meane to promove the good of the Realme: all which are most absurd.

And as for for our King That he hath no such prerogative Royal, as puts him above all limitations is already sufficiently evidenced by Lex Rex and by the Apology though this Surveyer is pleased to say Pag. 11. That his prerogative Royal is disputed downe most weakly and foolishly in the Apology: Yet he will not see so much weaknesse and folly there, as he imagineth, when ever he cometh to handle that disput. But I grant it is easier to him to say, that all is weak and foolish, which pleaseth nor him, then to undertake the confutation there∣of. It is enough to him, that he shew his teeth once, and then run away. But if he will afterward undertake that de∣bate, let him consider the particulars there mentioned, and also these 24 particulars Mentioned by Lex Rex. Quaest. 23. pag. 205. 206. Unto which I shall adde (that he may make one work of all) these particulars, which will furder serve to confirme what is there said, and prove our poynt.

1. As it is not proper and peculiar to the Kings of Scotland to make lavves, and to explaine and interpret lavves: so nor is it peculiar unto them, to appoynt punishments unto trans∣gressours, & to liberate and free from the stroke of the lavv, As the late Parliament declared by their deed, in murthering some, and in liberating others guilty of Treason, more then such as vvere executed: and this by politicians is made a part of the Soveraignity See Bondin. de repub. (mihi Edit. Gall.) pag. 236. Volgm. in Synop, de jure principum, pag. 58. Hoen. Di∣sput Polit. pag. 124. Timpl. Polit. Lib. 5. c. 1. q. 2.

2. The last appeal cometh not alwayes to our King: and yet this is reckoned among the royal prerogatives by Bodin ubi supra, Pag. 321. and Heen. Pag. 127. Timpl. Pol. Lib. 5. Cap. 1. quaest. 2.

3. It is not proper and peculiar to the King to appoynt new imposts, customes, and taxes: but Parliaments do this, Act. 277. Parl. 15. Iam. 6. c. 2. Parl. 23. Iam. 6. Act. 1. Parl. 1. Char. 1. and act. 14. 15. of the same parl. act. 13. parl. Anno 1661. Charl. 2. and this is reckoned by the forementioned

politicians among the prerogatives. Volgm. pag. 57. Hoen. pag. 129. Bodin. pag. 244. Timpl. ubi supra.

4. Nor doth it belong to him alone to appoynt the value of money, as is cleare by our acts. act. 67. parl 8. Iam. 3. act. 93. & 97. parl. 13. Iam. 3. act. 23. parl. 1. Iam. 1. act. 33. parl. 8. Iam. 2. act. 59. parl. 13. Iam. 2. act. 2. parl. 1. Iam. 4. act. 17. parl. 2. Iam. 4. act. 40. parl. 4. Iam. 4. act. 17. parl. 1. Iam. 6. act. 20. of the same parl. act. 249. parl. 15. Iam. 6. c. 9. parl. 16. Iam. 6. & yet the forecited authors reckon this also, among jura Majestatis.

5. He must not rule us by his meer will, but by the lawes of the land, act. 79. parl. 6. Iam. 4. act. 130. 131. parl. 8. Iam. 6. and not by any special grant or privat privileges act. 48. parl. 3. Iam. 1.

6. He is not the proper judge of all causes in the first in∣stance act. 45. parl. 2. Iam. 1. act. 62. parl. 8. Iam. 3.

7. Some causes are fully exempted from his judgment and determination act. 105. parl. 14. Iam. 3.

8. The Lords of the Session may finally decide causes, ac∣cording to the act. 65. parl. 3. Iam. 1. without any liberty granted to the party to appeal to the King act. 63. parl. 14. Iam. 2. and this privilege of the Session in ratified act. 93. parl. 7. Iam. 5. act. 1. parl. 2. Mar. act. 170. parl. 13. Iam. 6. act. 183. of the same parl. act. 211. parl. 14. Iam. 6. act. 23. parl. 1. Carol. 1. act. 23. parl. Anno 1661. Charl. 2. Yea the judges are allowed to discerne according to equity notwith∣standing of any write of the King's to the contrary, act. 92. parl. 6. Iam. 6. act. 47. parl. 11. Iam. 6. act. 79. of the same parl.

9. He is limited in granting remissons sic act. 46. parl. 2. Iam. 1. act. 51. parl. 3. Iam. 1: act 75. parl. 14. Iam. 2. act. 42. parl. 6. Iam. 3. act. 94. parl. 13. Iam. 3. act. 62. & 63. parl. 6. Iam. 4. act. 174. parl. 13. Iam. 6.

10. He is limited in alienating of lands, possessions or moveable goods act. 2. parl. 1. Iam. 2. act. 41. parl. 11. Iam. 2. act. 70. and 71. parl. 9. Iam. 3. act. 112. parl. 14. Iam. 3. act. 5. parl. 1. Iam. 4. act. 10. parl. 2. Iam. 4. act. 22. ejusd. parl. act. 50. parl. 4. Iam. 4. act. 90. parl. 6. Iam. 4. act. 84. parl. 6. Iam. 5. act. 115. and. 116. parl. 7. Iam. 5. act. 6. parl. 9. Iam. 6. act. 176. parl. 13. Iam. 6. act. 159. ejusdem parl. act.

203. and 204. parl. 14. Iam. 6: act. 236. parl. 15. Iam. 6. act. 242. and 243. ejusdem parl. act. 1. parl. 16. Iam. 6. cap. 4. parl. 23. Iam. 6. act. 10. parl. 1. Carol. 1.

11, So is he limited in erecting Royal brughs act. 43. parl. 11. Iam. 2.

12. He is limited in appoynting publick offices for admi∣ninistration of justice, act. 44. parl. 11. Iam. 2.

12. He may not passe gifts, signatures, or remissions, but with the consent of the privy Council, act. 12. parl. 2. Iam. 4.

14. He hath been aftentimes admonished of his duty by the Parliament: see act. 23. parl. 1. Iam. 1. act. 5. and. 6. parl. 3. Iam. 2. act. 14. parl. 6. Iam. 2. act. 92. parl. 13. Iam. 3. act. 8. parl. 2. Iam. 4. act. 29. parl. 3. Iam. 4. act. 17. parl. 1. Iam. 6.

If this Surveyer hath a minde to defend the King's civil pre∣rogative royal, or his absolute power, Let him take all these particulars to his consideration: but we goe on to our purpose.

From what hath been said concerning this limited pow∣er of the Kings we draw these particulars for our pur∣pose.

1. If the King be a limited Prince, Then he may in some cases be lawfully resisted. Gerhard himself de Magistrat. Pol. §. 484. pag. 1303. in answering of that quaestion what shall Subjects do, if a Magistrate, who is an infidel or an haeretick, doth force them unto a false religion, sayeth That such a Ma∣gistrate who hath absolute and unlimited power, and is under no com∣pacts may not be resisted, by such as are meer Subjects: So that he would grant in this case That it is lawful, for meer private Subjects to resist a limited Prince, who is bound by com∣pacts and contracts. It is true when he cometh afterward to speak of resisting a Tyrant, and proponeth the quaestion §. 486. whether such who have absolute power and turne Tyrants may be resisted, after he hath cited some sayings of Papists, he tells us §. 487. That all the arguments of iu∣nius Brutus, Rossaeus, Buckerius are solidly answered by Barclaius Albericus Gentilis, Cunerus and Arnisaeus, and this passage our

Surveyer bringeth in Pag. 89. But who seeth not, that it com∣eth not at all home to our purpose, seing our King is not a King of absolute power, though he hath his Kingdom by succes∣sion, but is limited by conditions, and stipulations. And further every one may see the weaknesse of Gerhard's reasons, and how inconsistent he is with himself: For. 1. Sayeth he, such is only under Gods jurisdicton. But alas 1. May not I resist, a person, vvho is not under my jurisdiction? 2. Royalists will say the same of all Princes, even Barclaus and Arnisaeus. Againe he sayes The People have translated their whole power unto such a Prince & cannot recall it. But 1. They have never translated over unto him a power to inslave themselves, for that was not in their power to do. Nor 2. Could they ever give away the power of self defence, which is their birth right. 3. Sayes he, Subjects, in this case, want God's command and a Superiour power. But 1. They have God's command in nature, no lesse then these who are under limited Princes. 2. They have a superior virtual power in cases of necessity. 4. Sayes he, He is a Father of the Republict and not a Tutor only, and therefore as Children have no power over their Parents, no more have Subjects over their Princes. But, 1. Are not even limited Princes, as well Fathers to the Commonwealth? So that by this argument, it shall be as unlawfull to resist these, which he will not say. 2. Yea such absolute Princes Look rather to be Tygers, and stated enemies unto the Common∣wealth, then Fathers. 3. They have no proper Parental power, as we shewed, but Metaphorical. 4. Even na∣tural parents may be resisted Ergo much more they. 5. We are not speaking of giving judgment against Tyrants but of resisting of them: and if he grant this, vve have our desire. And his question vvas touching resistence §. 485. Quest. 4.

2. A Limited and pactional Prince may be legally resist∣ed, Ergo also with force when a legal resistence cannot be had. The antecedent is true and no Scottish man vvill deny it, as to our king: For if he or any for him should pretend a right to their inheritance and intend an action of lavv against them, they may defend themselves by lavv; or if he should

take possession vvithout a sentence of lavv, They might pur∣sue him and his tennants, or vvho ever came in his name, to take violent possession, and procure letters of ejection, and the like: Yea by force they might vvithstand any that should come to take violent and illegal possession. The consequence is hence clear, That vvhatever ground a man hath to defend his rights and possession by lavv, the same ground he hath to defend his right by force, vvhen he cannot use the legal meane; for if the King had real right, and not he, unto vvhat he possesseth, it vvere as unlavvful to vvithhold the King from possession of his ovvne, by quircks of lavv, as by force. Againe, This legal resistence is no resisting of the Ordinance of God, but of the man, vvho seeketh no enjure. No more is this violent resistance a resist∣ing of the ordinance of God, but only of the man, vvho abuseth his povver. Hence,

3. If the King have not absolute power to do and com∣mand what he will: Then, when he crosseth the rules pre∣scribed by God's law and Man's law, without any injury offered to the ordinance of God, he may be resisted by his Subjects, over whom he thinketh to exerce an absolute, ar∣bitrary and tyrannical power. The reason is because. That power, which is not the ordinance of God, may be resisted, without the lest injury done unto the true ordinance of God. But this absolute power is no ordinance of God, it is not appoynted of him, nor allowed of him. Therefore, &c. But say Royalists, Though that absolute and Tyrannical power be not simply from God; yet it is so from God, that no man can lawfully resist it Answ, 1▪ If it be so from God, as that it may not be resisted, then it is from God, and is the ordinance of God: for it is the ordinance of God that cannot, must not, be resisted. But sayes the Surveyer Pag. 37. [It may be easily seen that subjection to the power (opposite to resistence) is all alongs enjoyned (viz. Rom. 13.) whether the power be rightly used or otherwise: If it be rightly used, subjection without refuseing active obedience is required: if it be not rightly used, subjection without resistence, violent or forcible repelling of the power, is required upon this formal reason and ground; Because even when the power

is abused, it remaines a power ordained of God; (although the abuse of it be not ordained) even as a man's eye remaines his eye, although sometimes it is not rightly used. The formal reason of the subjection, and non-resistence pressed, is not the right use of the power, but because it is a power ordained of God (however perverted in the use by man) Answ.] 1. By this mans doctrine, The King might not be resisted if he should turne another Nero or Caligula, or should deal with us all, as the Turk doth with his subjects, or the King of Spaine, with his slaves in America. If he should fill ditches with his living subjects, and to satisfy his lust and pleasure should tumble them be thousands downe a precipice into the midst of the sea: yea though he should bring in an army of Turks or Tartars to destroy all his subjects young and old; Though he should sell and give away the whole land unto the Turk or any forraigne Tyrant, and become the most habited not our and compleat Tyrant: and should against all appearance of law, manifestly seek the destruction of the whole land, man, wife and childe, and of the very being of religion, according to law, and of all known libertyes, and should force and compel, with armed heathens, all his subjects great and small, to offer sacrifice to the Heathen Gods; and the like: For in all this and the like, there is but an abuse of the power, and the power is still of God how∣ever it be abused, and because it is a power ordained of God, this abuse must be submitted unto, without the least resistence, is not this sufficient to make all men abhore this man's principles? 2. He must say that it is not possible to resist the abuse of the power, but the power it self must be resisted, and so, such as do resist the most dreadful tyranny imaginable, do resist the ordinance of God, which is most false and absurd. 3. If the abuse of the power be not from God, then such as resist this abuse, do not resist that which is ordained of God, but that which is not ordained of God. And therefore resisting of the abuse of the power, is no re∣sisting of the ordinance of God. 4. Subjection is only re∣quired to that which is the ordinance of God, because sub∣jection is required when and where, and so far as resistence is prohibited: Now resistence to the ordinance of God, is

only prohibited, and not resistence to the carnal and bloody lusts of men, which is rather the ordinance of the devil then the ordinance of God. 5. The vvrong use or abuse of the eye may be resisted, hindered, and obstructed, without any in∣jury done to the eye it self. So may the wrong use or abuse of Magistratical power be resisted, without any vvrong done unto the povver vvhich is of God. 5. It is false to say that all resistence of the abused power, is forbidden upon this for∣mal reason and ground, because even when the power is abused it remaines a povver ordained of God: Because the abused power is not at all ordained of God, nor never vvas, it is no part of that povver vvhich God ordained: a povver to murther the innocent, to kill the vvidow and fatherlesse, and to oppresse the people of God, is not of God: God never appoynted that povver of David's to murther Vriah and to commit adultery vvith Bathshebah. These vvere no acts of the Magistratical povver ordained of God, but acts of lust the vvickednesse. 7. If this reason hold good, we must never resist by refuseing active obedience, let him command what he will: for his sinful and unjust commands are but the abuse of that power which is ordained of God, and the power even when abused by giving out edicts, and mandats, (according to this man) remaineth a power ordained of God, as a man's eye remaines his eye, though sometimes it is not rightly used. Now how will he loose his owne argument? what ever answer he give here, it will helps us out. Sure, if a man many refuse obedience to an unjust command, of an abused power, without doing injury unto the power which is ordained of God, it will be no lesse cleare, that a man may refuse subjection to and resist abused power, without doing hurt unto the power which is ordained of God. And I De∣sire that the Reader vvould seriously notice this, and see how all he objecteth is answered by it, & the wicked insnared in the vvork of his owne hands.

4. If the King have not absolute power, but be limited both by the lawes of God, and by the lawes of Man: Then when he transgresseth the bounds prescribed to him, he may be resisted. The reason is because. He who is no Ma∣gistrate

many be resisted. But the King going beyond his bounds is no Magistrate. Therefore he may be resisted, The proposition cannot be denyed: for he vvho is not a Magi∣strate, is not that ordinance of God, which we are forbid∣en to resist. The assumption is granted by Arniseus de auth: princi. c. 2. n. 10. saying, Dum contra officium facit Magistratus, non est Magistratus, quippe a quo non injuria sed jus nasci debeat. while the Magistrate doth against his office, he is no Magi∣strate; because a Magistrate should do no wrong but right, l. miminerint 6 c. unde vi. c. quod quis 24.

5. If the King's power be not absolute, and if he cannot do whatsoever he pleaseth: Then when he makes his lust a law, and followeth the dictate of his tyrannical corrupted will, he may be resisted: because, what power he never gote from the People to exerce, if he exerce it, he may be, by them resisted. But the People never gave him a power to rule as he listeth, and to do what his missed understanding and enraged will did prompt him to do. Ergo they may resist him when he exerceth no power given him, but a power assumed to himself, through the corruption of his heart and wicked will.

6. If the King's power be not absolute, then the People are not denuded of the power of self defence. Royalists, and such as trade their steps think, that an absolute prince, or a prince integrae Majestatis, as they call him, hath gotten all Power from the People, even that power of self defence (which yet is false) but though this were granted, it will not follow, that a limited Prince hath gote away that pow∣er of self defence from the People, and left them naked to his tyrannical will, to be disposed of, as he thinketh good.

7. The King's power being limited, and not absolute, sayes that, by the constitution and limitation, more regaird was had to the security of the People, then to the King's meer will and pleasure; and that the Kings meer will and pleasure should not be followed, but resisted, when thereby the good of the People and their saifty vvas in hazard: all men are bound to look more to the end then to the meanes, and to hinder such things as are destructive of the end.

8. If the King's povver be no absolute; then the Parlia∣ment's povver is not absolute: And if the King may be re∣sisted in cases of necessity, because his povver is not abso∣lute: Then the Parliament also may be resisted, upon the same ground, vvhen they do violence and oppresse the in∣nocent: And if the Parliament may be resisted by Subjects, then it cannot be unlavvful for, Subjects, in the cases of ne∣cessity, to defend themselves against the unjust violence of their limited Prince, albeit they vvant the concurrence, countenance and conduct of a Parliament or Publick Repre∣sentatives.

9. If King and Parliament both be limited, they cannot make what lawes they wil. Nay, themselves declare that they cannot make any particular act or ratification in prejudice of the lavvful rights of a third party, and therefore in the end of their Parliaments or Sessions of Parliaments they usually passe an act salvo jure cujuslibet. And if their particular acts are no force, in so far as they prejudge the rights of a third person, nor to be submitted unto nor obeyed, Then their other acts made in prejudice of the glory of God, of the good of his Church, and of the interest of Christ in the land, are of no force, nor to be obeyed and submitted unto: and, if in the former case particular persons are allovved to defend their rights, notvvithstanding of these acts: Then much more may private Persones be allovved to defend Christ's rights, and their ovvne rights, as to their soull & consciences, not∣vvithstanding of any act or lavv general or particular made to the contrary, the best vvay they can, vvhen all formal legal vvayes are taken from them.

10. If the King be not absolute. He cannot execute the Lawes made, according to his owne lust and pleasure: nor may any inferiour judictory do so: For that is a piece of ty∣ranny: and when he or they, following their owne tyranni∣cal wills, transgresse the Lawes and Bounds prescribed, and take an arbitrary way of executeing their cruelty, They may in that case be resisted: Because that power is no proper ma∣gistratical power, but tyranny, and an arbitrary ebullition of rage, no power ordained of God, but the lawlesse will of cor∣rupt creatures.

11. Since He hath not absolute power to execute the Lawes after an arbitrary manner according to his owne lust & pleasure, if when he is doing so, he may be resisted; then much lesse can be Impower his Emissaries with an arbitrary, tyrannical, lawlese cruelty, under pretence of executing the Lawes; or if he do, the resisting of such in that case, can be no resistance of the Ordinance of God. Neither God nor Man ever gave him power to conferre on others a Lawlesse license to oppresse, rob, spoile, plunder & tyrannize over in∣nocents. And therefore the resisting of such bloody executio∣ners, without any lawful power, tyrannyzing over the sub∣jects, can be no sin or rebellion, condemned by God or his Law.

12. Since the King may not by an absolute power com∣mand what he will. His Subjects are not bound to an abso∣lute obedience, but alwayes in the Lord: It being better to obey God then Man; and when his Subjects are not bound to obey, he cannot Lawfully inflict punishment on such, as contraveeing his Lawes, obey the Lawes of God: Be∣cause just punishments are for transgressions of just Laws: And when he inflicts punishment where God alloweth a re∣ward. he goeth directly against his commission, which is to be a terrour to evil works, and not to good Rom. 13: ver. 3. And when a Servant, or publick Messenger goeth contrare to his commission, it is no disloyalty to the King, to refuse subjection unto such. So nor is it distloyalty to the King of Kings, to refuse Subjection unto his Minister, when he run∣eth crosse to his ovvne expresse commission. And therefore the Late Act of defence, being the defence of innocents in the case of extreame and inevitable necessity, against il∣legal commissions, contrary to the Lavv of God, cannot be branded vvith rebellion, but accounted an Act of lavvful self-defence.

CAP. IX.

Of the Peoples Power in the works of Reformation. Our Argument hence.

THe Author of Naphtaly, Pag. 18. 19. had these words, [As we have already cleared, that in case either the People, or any part of them be violented to a complyance, or be wickedly perse∣cuted for adhereing to God, in the profession and practice of the con∣trary dutyes, they may lawfully defend themselves, and are mutu∣ally bound to assist and deliver one another: So it now comes to be considered that, seing the maintainance of truth, and the true Worshipe of God, were and are the principal ends and motives of con∣tracting of Societyes, and erecting of Governments, whereunto both the People and Rulers, are not only separatly every one for himself, but joyntly obliged for the publick advancement and establishment there∣of: And that God doth therefore equally exact, and avenge the sin of the Rulers only, or of the People only, or of any part of the People only, upon the whole body of Rulers and People, for their simple Tole∣rance and connivance, without their active complyance with the trans∣gressours; of necessity, both from the principles deduced, and from the most visible judgments of God agreeable thereto, there must be a supe∣perior and antecedent obligation to that of submission, incumbent upon all both joyntly and separatly, for the maintainance, vindication, and reformation of Religion, in order to the promoving of these great ends of the publick profession of truth, and true Worshipe, which the Lord doth indispensibly require.] By vvhich any, vvho read vvith judgment and attention, and consider vvhat pre∣ceedeth, and vvhat follovveth, may see vvhat vvas that Au∣thors scope and intention, viz. to shevv in few vvords, the lavvfulnesse of Peoples standing to the maintainance and de∣fence of truth, and the true Worship of God, vvhen vio∣lated and enjured by these, vvho, by their places and call∣ings, should endeavour the establishing and perfect security thereof, both from adversaries vvithin and vvithout; as vvel as to the defence of their persones and libertyes, vvhen wick∣edly persecuted for adhereing to God: And that, as it vvas

not his scope and intention; so nor will the words give ground to any (vvho is not utterly blinded vvith preju∣dice, and resolved to pervert the fairest and smoothest expres∣sions that can be used, to the end they may pervert truth, & deceive the simple who readily beleeve every thing) to think that he pleadeth for any magistratical authority, and povver to give out mandats, and enjoyn execution upon transgres∣sours in poynt of reformation of Religion, unto privat per∣sones: Far lesse, that he pleadeth for a povver due unto them, to rise against, and throvv dovvne King and all Magistrates, supreame and subordinate, and to use the vindicative punish∣ing & reforming povver of the sword, even in case of defe∣ction in matter of Religion. If any vvill but look to the end of that Paragraph, they shall see this fully confirmed, vvhere he is applying vvhat he said, to the purpose he vvas upon, viz. in vindication of vvhat vvas done by our first Reformers, in the dayes of Mr Knox (of whom only he is speaking in that part of his book) for thus he speaketh [and had not our Reformers great reason to feare and tremble, least the manifest toleration of proud cruel and flattering Prelates, who had perverted the lawful powers into bloody persecutors; and of idolatrous Priests, whose wickednesse and idolatry had corrupted the whole Land, might involve not only themselves, but the whole Nation in de∣stroying and overflowing indignation.] Was there any such thing pretended, or assumed by these Reformers, but a power to defend, and maintaine the true reformed Religion, and their reformed Preachers, against the malice of powers per∣verted and enraged against them, by the bloody and pestilent counsel of the these idolatrous locusts, and to hinder open and avowed idolatry, which provoked God against the whole Land? Did they ever arrogate to themselves the magistrati∣cal, vindicative, punishing and reforming power of the sword against all Magistrates Supreame and Subordi∣nate? Or doth Naphtaly say any such thing? And yet this Surveyer because he cannot confute what is there nervously vindicated, asserted and demonstrated; That he may not be seen to do nothing for his hire, he will thraw Naphtaly's words as he thinketh best, and falsly

and most impudently assert Pag. 83. That Naphtali sayeth [Any party of meer private persones may rise against, resist, throw downe King and all Magistrates, Supreame and Subordinate; and in their Phinehas-like motions, use the vindicative, punishing, reforming power of the sword, especially in case of defection in matter of Re∣ligion: and that there is a joynt obligation laying upon the people, and every party thereof, to vindicate and reforme Religion, in a publick punitive way, even against all Magistrates and Nobles, and against the plurality of the people. So that if any part of the people do think the Magistrates, all of them, or the plurality of the people, patrons of abhominations, any private party that think they have power enough, may flee to the vindicative, punishing and reforming sword, and falt upon all Rulers and other, whom they think to be in a defection, and will boldly say that in truth they are so.] Who seeth not what perverting of truth is here? When Naphtali only asserts, that in case the Magistrate, to whom the vindicative, and (in case of backslideing) the reforming power is committed, and who should make this his maine work, shall turne the principal perverter, and chief patron of these abhominations, some other thing is required of the people then submission, & there lyeth upon them some obligation antecedent to that, even an obligation to the maintainance, vindication, and reformation of Religion: Which may be, and is, some∣thing distinct from that vindication and reformation, which is incumbent on Magistrates, even a vindication and refor∣mation, by way of maintainance of the received truth, and hindering of idolatry and blasphemy, or what is disho∣norable to God, pernicious to the commonwealth, & op∣posite to the true reformed Religion: which may be done without arrogateing in the least, that power which God hath committed to the Magistrates: And this is far from useing the sword against the Magistrate, and from throwing him down. It is incumbent to the Magistrate, to defend private subjects from Robbers; and if they spoyl and robe a man's house, to recover what is by robbery taken away: but if he neglect this, and rather patronize such Robbers; It is a duty on the subject, to defend his owne, and vindicate and recover his goods, the best way he can: and who will

say that it is an usurping of the Magistrates sword, whereby he should punish Robbers, defend the innocent, and recover the goods of the spoyled; or a riseing up aginst the Magi∣strate to dethrone him. There is a private maintaining, vin∣dicateing and recovering of goods stollen, which yet is active, and may be effectual: and there is a publick, authoritative and magistratical defending, vindicating and recovering. The other may be incumbent to private persones in some cases, when yet they do not usurpe this. So in the Matters of Re∣ligion, there is a private, yet active and real maintain∣ing, vindicating and reforming of Religion when corrupted, and there is a publick, authoritative and Magistratical main∣taining, vindicating and reforming. The former may be assumed by private persons, in some cases, without the least hazzard of incroaching upon this, far more without the hazard of calling Magistrats to account, judging, condemn∣ing, and dethroning them, and the like.

Having thus cleared how little ground he hath, to cry out so against Naphtaly and his party, as the sanguinary faction (as he doth Pag. 83.) and to prosecute that dispute as he doth in the following Pages, we will not have much diffi∣culty in answering what he hath said: but first let us prose∣cute our owne businesse, and shew what real power People have, without their Magistrats, in the maintaining and reform∣ing of Religion: And,

1. It is lawful, yea necessary, for every private person, whether the Magistrates Superiour and Inferiour give their countenance, concurrence, or consent thereunto, or not, to purge their hearts, and reforme thier lives, and to walk in all the wayes of God's Commandements. Our Surveyer himself granteth this, Pag. 84. for sayes he, every one is bound to amend one, and so all will be more easily amended. Very ture: And if this were done, our work were at an end, and him∣self would be a Hangman to his owne pamphlet, unlesse he think himself exeemed from that duty of reformation, and that he hath a dispensation to lie, slander, calumniate, and blaspheme the work, wayes, and People of God.

2. It is the duty of all private persones, notwithstanding that idolatry, superstition, or any other corruption in the worshipe of God be established by authority, or counte∣nanced and encouraged; or conformity there to pressed, to keep themselves pure from such courses as provoke the eyes of God, who is a jealous God, and will not give his glory to another; This is undenyable by all who are not profess∣ed Atheists, and who know another God, then a clay creature, and who know that it is better to obey God, then a Man. Our Surveyer granteth in the forecited place [that every one of the people ought to reforme themselves from all real corruptions in the wor∣shipe of God.] But, it may be, he maketh this real, an open door for him and his fraternity, to escape by; and so con∣clude that he and they are arived at the hight of perfection, (because forsooth they are fallen backward, and have a minde to goe backward, and never to advance) and so fall not under the compasse of this duty. But corruptions will be real corruptions, though they account them perfe∣ctions.

3. It is the duty of private persons to rebuke, admonish, exhort, reprove, observe, edify and provoke one another to love and good works Lev. 19. 17. Mat. 18. 15, 16. Rom. 15. 13. Col. 3. 16. 1 Thes. 5. 11. Heb. 3. 13. and 10. 24. 25. And thus instruct one another in the right wayes of the Lord, perswade move and induce them by motives and arguments, and all meanes possible, to imbrace the truth, and to forsake errour, or any false way, Even though the Magistrates should prohibite and discharge this, and by their command and authority should establish errour and corruption, and banish truth with their edicts and proclamations. Our Sur∣veyer granteth Pag. 84. [that no man should say, am I am brothers keeper, but by faithful instruction, warning, reproof, strive to save others from the evil of the time and places wherein they live] And yet he knowes who are persecuted upon this account, of meeting together for these and such like ends, to strengthen the hands one of another, that they faint not in this evil day, and to save one another from the evils of these times, as

keepers of conventicles, and seditious disturbers of the peace.

4. When there is any corruption in the reformed Religion, whether in doctrine, worship, discipline, or government creept in; or any corrupt sinful practice come in use, and abounding in a land, and these corruptions not only connived at by the Magistrates, but also countenanced, approved and authorized; it is the duty of all the faithful Ministers of Christ, to be laying out themselves to the utmost, in their pastoral functions, for the suppressing of these corruptions and enormities, notwithstanding of any prohibiton of the Ma∣gistrate, whose power is not privative in this case, to the contrary. Though this be abundantly cleared and confirmed by the practice of all the faithful Prophets and Apostles of the Lord, both under the Old, and under the N. Testament; yet we all know how impiously and tyrannically this is deny∣ed to the honest Ministers of Scotland, who, left they should speak any thing against the rageing evills and abound∣ing corruptions, both in matters of opinion and practice, which hasten the curse and wrath of God upon the land, and make us ripe for destruction, are not permitted to preach uncontroverted truthes, and the undenyable grounds of Christianity. But however this piece of tyranny and perse∣cution be established by law, yet the law of God stands unrepealed & in full force and vigour, & by this law, all who have a trumpet and a mouth should set the trumpet to their mouth, and cry aloud and not spare, and both privately and publicky labour thus to reforme the grievous abuses, that abound in the land.

5. Private persones may, let Magistrates command or discharge what they will, yea are bound to, obey the whole some exhortations and admonitions of Ministers and others, who faithfully declare the minde of God, and discover ab∣hominable corruptions, & crying abhominations: & notwith∣standing of any law to the contrary, Imbrace, and practise the true Religion, and reject the corruptions. This is certane, for it is God's minde and will that his commands be obeyed rather then mans; and if Ministers, and private persons be

bound to exhorte, rebuke, warne, reprove, admonish, move and perswade, it is Peoples duty to hearken to, and obey these good and necessary exhortations, rebukes, warn∣ings, reproofs, admonitions and persuasions. God's minde should be followed, hold it forth who will, espe∣cially when it is declared by his Ambassadours, who in a special manner are authorized by him for that effect. We know what a dreadful plague and judgment came upon Iudah 2 Chron. 36:16. 17. because they mocked the messengers of God, and despised his words, and misused his Prophets, the wrath of God arose against his People, till there was no remedie. And it was this, which occasioned the Non∣churching of the Church of the Jewes Act. 13:46. Sure when Peoples eare is so uncircumcised that they wil not heare, and the Word of the Lord is a reproach unto them, and they have no delight in it, then is there ground to fear the verification of that sad threatning Ier. 6:11, 12. that wrath shall be poured out upon the children abroad, and upon the assembly of young men together, so that even the husband with the wife shall be taken, the aged with him that is full of dayes, and their houses shall be turned unto others, with their fieldes, and wives together; for I will streach out my hand upon the inhabitants of the land, sayeth the Lord.

6. From what is said, it is apparent, that all who vvould have peace vvith God, and peace in their ovvne consciences, and joy in the day of their accounts, should imbrace, professe, and practise the truth of God, and the true Religion reform∣ed in doctrine, vvorshipe, discipline and government, Though King, Parliament, and Council should reject and condemne the same, and countenance, or command and authorize the practice of idolatry, superstition, or any false way in the vvorshipe of God, or in the doctrine and disci∣pline. For, no lavv of man can vvarrand iniquity, no act or constitution of any Magistrat under Heaven, can rescinde or invalidate the mandats of the King of Kings, or ex∣empt People from obedience due thereunto. No true Christi∣an (whatever court flatterers & atheists may do) can deny this.

7. Nor can it be denyed, That in Kingdomes or Com∣monvvealths vvhere once the True Religion, reformed in

doctrine, vvorshipe, discipline and government, hath been received, publickly imbraced, approved and counte∣nanced by authority, ratified by lavves, statutes, acts, de∣clarations, proclamations, oathes, vovves and engage∣ments. Though the Magistrates Superiour and inferiour should turne Apostates from that Reformed and received Religion, and by their lavves condemne the same, and esta∣blish corruptions, and enforce corrupt practices by penal∣tyes; yet it vvere the duty of all Subjects, vvho had any regaird to the matters of their ovvne salvation, to adhere to the truth once received and established, and vvorshipe and Serve God, after the right manner, and refuse to obey these iniquous lavves. Will any deny such a truth as this, ex∣cept such as have sold soull, consciences and all, unto the lust of Men; or think there is no Religion, but vvhat King and Parliament vvill have, and consequently if they should enjoyne the imbraceing of Mahomet's Religion, or the vvorshiping of Sun, Moon, and Starrs, or of Satan himself, obedience must be yeelded.

8. If in the forementioned case, The Magistrates Supe∣riour and inferiour should combine together, and conspire against Christ and his interest, and should not only, by their acts and statutes, banish him, and his glorious interests out of the Kingdome; but also, by their cruel executions, labour to force, constraine and compel all their subjects or a part of them, to the renunceing of the formerly receiv∣ed and avowed truthes, and to the imbraceing of the in∣troduced corruptions, and so to run with themselves unto the same excesse of iniquity, perjury and abhomination: Then it is lawful for these Subjects so oppressed, persecuted and abused for their constancy in adhereing to the truths once received, contrare to all engagements, vowes and Covenants, to defend themselves against that unjust ty∣ranny and rage, and maintaine the reformed truth, which is unjustly & violently taken from them, by force, when there is no other probable meane left for them to es∣say; nay when liberty to supplicate or petition is inhu∣manely and severely, under the very paine of Treason,

discharged. The reasons are 1. because, we have shew∣ed above, that it is most lawful for Subjects to maintaine their lives, persons, and Estates, against the unjust vio∣lence and tyrannical oppression of their enraged Magistrates: And if that be lawful, this must also be much more lawful; for as the soul is much more precious then the body, so matters that concerne the soul, should be preferred to such things as concerne the body. And therefore Religion, which is necessary for the life of the soull, should be with no lesse Zeale, care and industry, maintained and preserved pure and uncorrupted, then what concerneth the lives of our bodyes. 2. It is lawful for Subjects to maintaine their na∣tural and civil libertyes, by force, when no other way can be used, lest they, and their posterity after them, should be redacted unto a state of perfect slavery and bondage, worse then that of the Israilites in Egypt: And shall it be unlawfull to fight for the defence of Religion, wherein is comprised all true and desireable liberty, and to save posterity from ty∣ranny and bondage in their souls and consciences, much more dreadfull and terrible, then the most insupportable and bitter bondage of the body imaginable? Shall men be allow∣ed to fight to preserve their owne bodyes, and the bodyes of their posterity from the slavery of men, and shall they not be allowed to fight that they may preserve their owne soulls and the souls of their posterity, from the tyranny of Satan? Who but such, as either think they have no soulls, more then beasts, or know not the worth of their souls, will deny this consequence? 3. It is lawful for Subjects to defend their lives and libertyes, in order to the defence of the true Religion, and the interests of Jesus Christs, when their losseing of these should certanely tend to the losse of Reli∣gion. Ergo It cannot be unlawful to defend Religion, which is the maine and principal thing. 4. If it be lawful to main∣taine the interests of a King against an usurper, whether a stranger, or an inferiour Magistrate, who is under the King, and is seeking to eject him and his interest, contrare to his faith and trust: Then much more must it be lawful, to de∣fend Christ Iesus and his interest, when King and Parliament,

contrare to their sworne allaigance unto him, have rebelled; and are seeking to dethrone him, by their wicked Lawes and Ordinances, and to banish him and his interests out of the Kingdome, by their tyrannical cruelty & inhumane and mer∣cilesse executions. Will any deny this but ingrained Athei∣stical Malignants, whose chief character hitherto hath been, to preferre man's interest unto Christs? Or such as have re∣nounced all faith and loyalty unto the King of Kings, and have set up a creature as their only God, whom they minde to Worshipe and adore, and for whom they minde to fight against all breathing, and against the God of heaven also: But their weapons shall fall out of their hands when They shall feel the lighting downe of his arme, with the indignation of his anger, and with the flame of a devouring fire, and with scattering and tem∣pests and hailstones, and when he shall cause his glorious voyce to be heard. If any should Object, That because Christ's King∣dome is not of this World, therefore his Servants should not fight for him. It is easily answered. That, as hence it will follow, that Religion cannot be forced by the sword upon any; So it will not follow that Religion should not be de∣fended; for then Magistrates should not defend Religion, nor Christians should not defend their Religion against the Turks. Which is false. And hence, 5. If it be lawful for People to defend their Religion against an army of infidells, Mahometans, or Papists, invadeing the Land of purpose to spoile us of our Religion, and to force us to imbrace heath∣enisme; Turcisme, or Popery: Then it must be lawfull to defend the same true Religion against King and Parlia∣ment, when they seek to rob the People thereof, and force corruptious upon them: because King and Parliament have no more authority from God, to oppresse the consciences of their Subjects, to corrupt Religion, and force corruptions upon them; then the Turk or the Pope hath: and therefore, no lesse lawfully may they be resisted. 6. If privat persons may resist and withstand the Prince and Parliaments, when they sell them, and their land and heritages, unto a forraigner, to the Turk or such an adversary: Then much more may they withstand them, and defend their Religion, when

they are selling it by their apostatical acts, and thereby sell∣ing them and their Souls unto Satan the God of this World.

9. When Religion, by the constitution of the King∣dome, is become a fundamental law, and a maine article and cardinal condition of the established Politie, and upon which, all the Magistrates Supreme and Inferiour, are in∣stalled in their offices: Then may that Religion be defended by private subjects, when their Magistrates have conspired together to destroy the same; & to enforce the corruptions of their owne braine. The reasons are 1. because, it is lawful to defend the just and laudable constitution of the Realme, & in so far, as Religion, which is a principal fundation-stone of this constitution, is subverted, the constitution is wronged, and the fundations thereof are shaken. 2. In so far, the Magistrates are no Magistrates: And therefore they may be resisted. Magistrates, I say, in so far as they overturne the constitution, are not Magistrates; for that is a maine pairt of their work, to maintaine it: For upon the consti∣tution hang all the libertyes and all the good and necessary Ends, which People have set before their eyes, in the sett∣ing up of governement, and His owne being as such; & the subversion of that, subverts all, and declareth the subverter to be an enemy to the Commonwealth, and an overturner of the polity: and this is inconsistent with being a Magi∣strate. 3. In so far as they overturne or shake the funda∣tions, they cannot be seeking the good of the Community, but their owne, with the destruction of the Common good, and this is the mark and true character of a Tyrant: And when they seek not the good of the Community, they can∣not be looked upon as Magistrates doing their duty▪ but as Ty∣rants seeking themselves, with the destruction of the Com∣monwealth. Therefore, in so far they may be resisted. 4. In so farr, The compact, the ground of the constitution, is violated, and as Magistrates, in this case, in so far, fall from their right, in so farr also, are People liberated from their obligation, so that if They become no Magi∣strates, the Subjects become no Subjects; for the relation is

Mutual, and so is the obligation, as was shewed above. Therefore, in this case Subjects, may lawfully resist, and defend their Religion, which is become the principal con∣dition of their constitution, and of the compact betwixt King and Subjects.

10. Where Religion is universally received, publickly owned, and countenanced by persones in authority, rati∣fied, approved and established by the lawes, and authority of the land; There, every person is bound and obliged before God, to maintaine and defend that Religion, according to their power, with the hazard of their lives and fortunes against all, who under whatsoever colour and pretence, seek to subvert and overturne the same; and to hinder any corruption that King or Parliament at home, or adversaries abroad, would, whether by subtilty, or power and force, bring in; and lay hold on the first opportunity offered to en∣deavour the establishment of Truth, and the overturning of these corrupt courses, which tend to the perverting thereof: And the reasons are, because. 1. When the True Religion is once embraced, and publickly received, That land or Commonwealth is really dedicated and devouted unto God, and so in a happy condition; which happy condition, all loyal subjects and true Christians, should maintaine and promove, & recover, when nearby or altogether lost. And therefore, should do what they can, to hinder any course that may tend to recal this dedication, to deteriorate the happy condition of the Realme, and to give up the land, as an offering unto Satan. 2. By this meanes, they endeavour to avert the wrath and anger of God, which must certanely be expected to goe out against the land, if defection be not prevented and remedyed: For if but a few should de∣pairt, wrath might come upon the whole, much more if the Leaders turne patrones of this defection. But of this more in the next chapter.

11. Much more, must this be allowed in a Land where Re∣formation of Religion in doctrine, worshipe, discipline and governement, is not only universally owned, publickly received, and imbraced: nor yet only approved, authorized,

ratified and confirmed, by publick authority, and the lawes of the Land. But also corroborated by solemne vows and Covenants, made and sworne unto God, by all ranks and conditions of People, from the King to the meanest of the subjects, in a most solemne manner, and that several times re-iterated: in which Covenants, all sweare to Maintaine and defend this Riligion, with their lives and fortunes, and to labour, by all meanes lawfull, to recover the purity and liberty of the gospel; and to continow in the profession and obedience of the foresaid Religion, defend the same, and resist all contrary errours and corruptions, ac∣cording to their vocation, and to the uttermost of that power that God puts in their hands, all the dayes of their life: as also mutually to defend and assist one another, in the same cause of maintaining the true Religion, with their best Counsel, bodyes, meanes and whole pow∣er, against all sorts of persons whatsoever. And [Sincerely, really and constantly, endeavour, in their several places and callings, the preservation of thereformed Religion in doctrine, worshipe, disci∣pline and government. The extirpation of Popery, Prelacy, Su∣perstition, Heresy, Schisme, Prophannesse, and whatsoever shall be found to be contray to sound doctrine and the power of godlinesse. And to assist and defend all those that enter into the same bond, in the maintaining & pursueing thereof. And shall not suffer themselves directly or indirectly, by whatsoever combination, persuasion or ter∣rour, to make defection to the contrary party, or to give themselves to a detestable indifferency, or neutrality in this cause, which so much concerneth the glory of God, the good of the Kingdomes, and the honour of the King; but shall, all the Dayes of their li∣ves, Zealously and constantly, continue therein, against all opposition, and promote the same, according to their power, against all lets and impediments whatsoever.] Now I say, in such a case as this, when after all these engadgments and covenants, a courte of defection is carryed on, by a strong and violente hand, by King and Parliaments, and there is no meane left unto Private Persones, when violented and constrained to a complyance, by acts, and tyrannical and arbitrary execu∣tions, of either preventing their owne destruction in soull and body, or preserving the reformation sworn unto, or re∣covering the same when corrupted, and of purging the land

of that dreadful sin of perjury and defection. They may law∣fully take the sword of just and necessary defence, for the maintainance of themselves and of their Religion. This is ab∣undantly cleare from what is said, and shall be furder cleared and confirmed, when we examine what this Surveyer allaigeth against it.

12. Scripture giveth us ground to beleeve, that in such a case as this, when a defection in a covenanted land, and a land devoted to God, is carryed on, more is required of Pri∣vate Persones, then to mourne and sigh in secret: as,

1. Deut. 13:12, 13, 14, &c. If thou shall heare say in one of thy cities, which the Lord thy God hath given thee to dwell there, saying, certane men the children of Belial are gone out from among you, and have with drawne the inhabitants of their city, saying, let us goe and serve other Gods, which yee have not known. Then shall thou enquire and make search, and ask diligently, and behold, if it be truth, and the thing certane, that such abhomination is wrought among you, thou shall surely smite the inhabitants of that city, with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly and all that is therein, and the cattel there∣of, with all that is therein, &c. Which words were undenyably spoken to the People, to whom the rest of that chapter was spoken and particularly directed: So the dutch annot. in the contents of that chapt. say, that the way is shewed how the People of God were to demeane themselves to wards a city that was fallen off: and though, we readyly grant, that these words do not impower private persones to act the part of Ma∣gistrates, and brevi manu judge and condemne, or put to death such as are guilty of the crime mentioned; nor to fall upon the execution without previous judging and tryal of the cause; yet it will be no wire drawing of Scriptures, whatever this Surveyer allaige, to say, That this place will warrand private persones to defend their Reformation, when by oppression and violence, it is taken from them, and when defection is carryed on in a land devoted to God, and Magistrates either neglect to take course therewith, or countenance the same. The Zeal of the Lord should stirr up people to do more for vindicating the glory of God, and saving the land from an universal apostasie, then privately mourne in secret. Sure

this being spoken to the people, sayes, they should manifest and declare their Zeal otherwayes; seing by this, they might have sufficiently knowne how detestable such a defection was unto the Lord, and that no lesse would pacifie his wrath against that part corrupted, then utter exterminion and over∣throw of young and old in it, with their cattel and goods: Will not any readyly yeeld, that they had been bound, to have concurred with the Magistrate in this execution; and that if the Magistrate had been negligent, to have remonstrat∣ed the matter unto him; and if either that had not prevailed, or Magistrates being chief actors and patrons thereof, they durst not have remonstrated the matter, they might lawfully have joyned together, and with their swords in their hands, have moved the Magistrate to purge out that abhomination, and to have granted them security, that the contagion should not have spread, nor they be infected therewith, left the fierce-anger of God had not been turned away from them? And if this be granted (which cannot easily be denyed) we have our purpose, and Naphthali hath all which he desired, And cer∣tanely, to say, That this course was only to be taken, when one city was infected, and not when moe, when ten or twenty, or possibly the major part, were but to elude Scrip∣ture, as Naphtali said: seing the same reason will hold in these cases, which holdeth in the cases instanced: and whatever the Surveyer say pag. 56. such a cleaving to the literal meaning of Scripture, as will not admit consequential arguments to be drawne therefrom, to the like cases, nor an argument drawne a minori ad majus, from the case instanced, is neither the Doctrine of Christ, nor of found Divines: nor is the following of Christs example and of the Apostles, who made use of such consequences, a making a nose of wax of the holy Scriptures, nor a wringing or wresting them, to bring in our owne fancyes, nor a covering of our crooked courses with such a cloak: (however we be branded by him, for this, and as being men of blood and violence, but his falsly rubbing that aspersion on the innocent, will never wipe that right name off him and his party, whose violence and thirsting after blood, is more then sufficiently knowne) yea himself in his 3 An∣swere

pag. 57, 58. will allow something to be done by vertue of this text, where the major part is corrupt, and the minor part found, saying [

Though the lesser part is not to acquiesce in the way of the greater, runing into rebellion against God, but by all meanes competent to them, bear witnesse against that way, and study to keep themselves pure, when they cannot prevaile to have matters rectified, as to the whole body

] And yet the carnal luckwarmnesse and indifferency of this latitudinarian Politician in the matters of God, ap∣peareth. That after he had said that [

there is no coming to an accomodation in this matter whether the True God, or other Gods should be served.

] he presently addeth, in a pa∣renthesis [

and yet this man would be very severe, if no Na∣tion in the world, might (having before been embodyed in a Kingdome or State) continue and abide in their peaceable communion in civil interests, upon supposition of such an equal division ariseing amongst them.

] It seemeth this meek peaceable man, would suffer Satan to be worshiped in the same State with the true and living God: and that (if he apply this to the purpose) if the equal half of the Kingdome of Israel had worshiped, the devil, he would not have been severe, but advised the other half to abide united with them in civil com∣munion. But, leaving these and the like, which are not much to our purpose, let us see what he sayes, to the thing. He tells us Pag. 57. [

That no exposition of a text can subsist, that is either contrary to other texts of Scripture, or to sound reason.

] This is granted: But how showeth he that the exposition given, is contrary to either? [

It is contrary to Scripture; because (sayes he) the Scripture committeth the vindicative and punishing sword only to the Magistrate, who only is the sword bearer. Rom. 13.

] But this is not against us or our exposition: Naphthali speaks only of private persons taking the defensive sword, and thereby keep∣ing the land pure, and labouring (still in their private way, not in a judicial authoritative and Magistraticall way) to purge out corruption, and maintaine Reformation; can he shew us Scripture against this? Againe sayes he [

this is poynt-blank contrary to reason, remedyles••y tending to dis∣solve

humane Societies, and all Kingdomes and Comon∣wealths.

] Then it seemeth though Magistrates should con∣curre, with the minor and sounder part, to purge out the corruption of the greater; or concurre with the equal half, to purge the other, or with a greater part to purge the lesser, if a considerable part, it might not be; because, that were a way to dissolve humane Societies, and all Kingdomes and Commonwealths. Ay, but he meaneth that it is so [To teach that any meer privat persones, or any part of a People, who think themselves strong enough, should take on them to sit and act as punish∣ing judges, over all Magistrates Supreme and Subordinate, yea and upon the Major part of the People themselves, and upon their owne fan∣cyes, led with their own lusts, draw the Magistratical sword.] Answ. But then against whom doth he fight? Naphtaly spoke not so: Nor doth our cause require that we should say so. We say not, that private persones should take up the Magistrat's sword, and with Magistratical power and authority judge and execute the whole body of the People, and the Magistrates Supreme and Subordinate; far lesse do we say, That they should do this upon their fansies, or when led with their owne lusts. This is nothing else but to fansy an adversary to himself, when he cannot answere or stand against his proper adversary: and after he hath busked him up in as ugly a shape, as he can, then he may well cry out [Oh horrid confusion, to be detasted of all rational and Christian hearts!] But this is not faire dealing, yet suteable enough to him and his cause, which he can get defended no other way? But then he tells us Pag. 59. [That though the words be spoken to the People; yet it is alwayes to be understood, that the Peoples concurrence in the punishing of an Apostate city, was to be within the bounds of their calling, and under the conduct of the Ma∣gistratical power set over them: As when inticers to idolatry are, in the former part of the chapter, enjoyned to be taken order with, (however nearly they were related to People) and to be stoned, it is not to be supposed that the charge is given to every private person brevi manu to do this, but judgment was to be execute on them after ju∣dicial conviction, and sentence given by the Magistrate, as sayeth Diodat. on v. 8. and Pelargus on v. 14.] Answ. 1. That

the Peoples concurrence was to be within the bounds of their calling, we grant: But the question is how far the bounds of their calling did extend: Did it extend no further then to goe out when called thereto of the Magistrate, to punish that Apostate city? Then if the Magistrate neglected to call them out, they were not so much as to mourne for that A∣postasy, by this text; Nor to use any other meanes to have the Matter rectified, nay nor to beare witnesse against that way: For if the Magistrate was to preceed, and they only to goe under his conduct, if he called them not forth, they were exonered, all that was required of them, being only to be willing and ready at a call. But sure this inter∣pretation is not consonant to other texts of scripture, as we shall shew. 2. If we look to the other particulars spoken to in that chapter, we will finde that there was more requir∣ed then that, or a simple mourning in secret; for no man wil think they were exonered, if they had been only willing to execute the sentence of the Magistrate upon the false Pro∣phet and dreamer, that sought to draw them after other Gods. Seing they were not to hear him. So as to the enticer, they were not only not to hearken unto him, but they were not to pity him, nor to conceale him v. 8. but now, what in case the Magistrate should have refused to have done his duty, to have examined the Matter; or, what in case the Magistrate should have countenanced and encouraged such an one, was there no more required of them, but to have made offer of ther Son, Daughter, Wife, or Brother unto justice, and when justice could not have been gotten executed upon them take them home again to their house and into their bosome, & live as formerly good friends together? I feare such cleav∣ing to the letter of the scripture shall be found a meer elude∣ing of scripture, and a mocking of the holy ghost by whom it was given. 3. Yea that wich Diodat sayes, is more, for he sayes, [They were to procure vengeance on him, in way of justice accusing him to the Magistrate by information or sufficient proof.] And if the Magistrate refused to do justice, I suppose, they might have provided for their owne security, and shot him or her out of doores with violence, that was seeking to

draw them a way from the true God. So that granting what the Surveyer would be at, the place will make for us: For though the Magistrate was bound to examine, judge and sentence the Apostate city, in a judicial authoritative manner; yet in case the Magistrate should have connived at, or countenanced such apostacy, they were to use other meanes to have the land purged of that crying obhomina∣tion, then simple mourning in secret, even to have taken the sword in their hand, in case the defection was approach∣ing to themselves, and Magistrates were forceing them to a complyance with that evil, or apostasy; and never to have laid it downe, till not only themselves were secured as to theirpart, but the land were purged of that idolatry & the ido∣laters executed according to the law, Their Zeal in this case should have carryed them without doors, though not to an as∣sumeing of the Magistrates juridicall authoritative and pu∣nishing sword.

2. Esai. 59: v. 4. None calleth for justice, nor any pleadeth for truth. Where the Prophet among the rest of the evils wher∣of that People was guilty, and for which heavy calamities did presse them, reckoneth this, that there was none who call∣ed for justice, or did plead for truth; that is, there was none who endeavoured to relieve, and right the wronged, or to redresse what was amisse, see the English Annotat. no man owned the right cause, or took God's part against fals∣hood and wickednesse, [No man (say the Duth Annotat.) to dehort them that deal unjustly, or to maintaine a just cause, and the truth to the utmost of his power.] So that by this we see what was required of People, in a day of defection, even to call and cry aloude, that justice might be executed, and deal with such as were Magistrats to do their duty, and not to bring and keep on the wrath of God upon the Land; And this is more then the Surveyer will have to be the only duty of private persones in a day of general defection, Pag. 52. viz. To keep themselves pure without any degree of acting these sinnes, to mourne and sigh for the evils that are done, to be earnest in prayer that God may convert others, to admonish faithfully, and study to reclame

these who are out of the way. But this will be more cleare by the following passages.

3. Esay. 59: 15, 16. [Yea truth faileth and he that departeth from evill maketh himself a prey, and the Lord saw it, and it dis∣pleased him that there was no judgment, and he saw that there was no man, and wondered that there was no intercessour.] Truth and the cause of God was so at under, that a man could not get leave to live, if he depairted from evil, he was a prey unto the persecuters, so general and universal was this defection; and at this time, he saw that there was no man, and wondered that there was no intercessour to interpose, none that would stand up and lay out themselves to the utmost, to set things in order, none that would bestirre himself for truth and the right, which was then oppressed: see the English Annot. on the place: the word is used 2 Sam. 22. 17. where it is said the servants of Saul would not fall upon the Priests of the Lord. So Exod. 5. 3. lest he fall upon us &c. So that we see, there was some positive thing required of them, some effectual medi∣ating, and interposeing, and hindering of these iniquities; some publick owneing and avowing of the truth, and by publick testimonies, or other wayes of interposeing, & falling-into impede, and stand in the way of that course of wickednesse.

4. So Ier. 8: 6. [I hearkened and heard but they spake not a right no man repented him of his wickedness saying what have I done] It is not probable that there was none penitent among them, where then was Baruch and Ebedmelech Cap. 38. 7, 9. and others that stood for the Prophet Cap. 26, 8, 16, 17, 24. But there must be some other thing imported, viz. That there was few or none repenting of national evils, and labouring to remove these, no man was standing up and opposeing these publick land defections, & labouring by this meanes to raise up the virgin of Israel who was fallen Amos. 5. 2.

5. Ierm. 9: 3. [And they bend their tongues like their bowes for lies, but they are not valient for the truth upon the earth.] that is, they were ready enough, all of them, to imploy their power to the utmost, for the evil cause, to establish errour and a false way; but they used no valour for the oppressed

cause and truth of God, they did not their utmost to have Truth established, and the true Religion: They did not put out themselves, or make use of their strength, for the maintainance of truth, and equity in the land, say the En∣glish Annot. and they make it parallel with Esa. 59:4. This was their guilt, and hereby we see what was the duty even of privat persons (for of such this is to be meaned, as the context cleareth.) in such a general day of defection, viz. to be valient owners and maintainers of Truth against all oppos∣ers.

6. Ier. 5: v. 1. [Run yee to and fro throw the streets of Ierusalem, and see now and know, and seek in the broad places thereof, if ye can finde a man, if there be any that executeth judgment, that seeketh the truth, and I will pardon it.] We can hardly think, that there were no mourners in secret in all Ierusalem, though it is like they were very few: but there was none to owne the good cause, that was now troden under foot, none be∣stirring themselves, to oppose and hinder the carryed on course of defection. If that had been, the Lord sayes, he would have spared the place; which shewes, how de∣sirable a thing this was, and how acceptable it would have been in the Lords eyes, that for that cause he would have forborne to have destroyed them or to have cut them off.

7. Ezech. 22: 30. [And I sought for a man among them, that should make up the hedge, and stand in the gap before me, that I should not destroy it, but I found none.] There were some even at this time sighing and mourning in secret, for these ab∣hominations, who were marked Cap. 9. but there were none to make up the hedge, which their provocations had made, none to redresse the publick defection and Apostasy, and stand for the truth and the suppressing of errour and iniquity. So is it laid to the charge of their Prophets Cap. 13: 5. that they did not goe up into the gaps, neither made up the hedge, for the house of Israel to stand in the battel in the day of the Lord, Where∣by we see, that by this standing in the gape and making up the hedge, more is meaned then a secret mourning, even a faithful and publick owneing of the truth and opposeing of

defection, and putting a stope unto it, as Moses did when he stood in the breach, Exod. 32. (though with authority, as a Magistrate, which private persones have not) he not only prayed and wrestled with the Lord v. 11, 12, 13. but in great zeal took the calfe, which they had made, and brunt it in the fire, and ground it to powder, and strawed it upon the watter, and made them to drink of it v. 20. If there had been any who thus effectually would have stood in the breach, the Lord sayes, he would have spared them: so ac∣ceptable would such a work have been to him.

8. So that word Ier. 13:18. [Say unto the King and to the Queen, humble your selves sit downe, for your principalities shall come downe, even the crowne of your glory.] Will import something more; it being spoken to all indefinitely, giveth a war∣rand to all, to deal with King and Queen, to prevent the sad dayes which were coming by reason of the defection and a∣bounding sinnes.

9. So that word Hos. 2: 2. [Plead with your mother, plead, for she is not my wife,] which is spoken to private persones, and so is a warrand to them, to contend in judgment (as the word doth import) against the Church, which was cor∣rupted, and had forsaken the Lord, and his wayes; and so to stand to the defence of truth, and to plead for the cause of God, against their very Mother the Church, The body of the Nation, that not only they might exoner their owne consciences, but also get things reformed, so far as lay in their power; and keep the memory of the cause of God afresh that it should not be buryed.

These places and the like, though we bring them not to prove immediatly our maine Question (as it may be the Sur∣veyer, who useth to take but half a look of matters, will sup∣pose) yet when duely considered, in their just latitude and extent, they will clearely evince; That more is re∣quired of private persons, in a general day of defection, then to keep themselves free of the same, or to mourne in secret, or the like. And if we lay them together, they will clearly prove it the duty of privat persones, in such a day of defection, to be publickly declareing their

abhorrence of the wicked courses which are carryed on: to be actually and effectually interposeing with King and Great ones, that a stope may be put unto the course of wickednesse, and God's wrath averted: that they would plead Zions cause against all opposers, and thus stand up in the gape, and make up the hedge by publick and avowed owneing of the oppressed truth and cause of God: and valiently seek and plead for the truth, and with their Mother the Church, when all is corrupted, left a bill of divorce be given her: And this is something more then our Surveyer will al∣low. And vvhat way this shall help us, vve shall see aftervvard. Novv vve must examine What the Surveyer sayeth.

He Pag. 46. after some rambling after his wonted manner, &misrepresenting of the thing wich vvas said in Naphtaly, (as any judicious reader will perceive, so that we need not trouble ourselves to discover the same unfaire dealing so oft as vve meet with it, lest vve should waiste paper and paines, as he hath done, in repeating the same things over and over a∣gaine,) He tells us That [It is not to be doubted that Religion is the chief interest, that men and Christians should look after, and where it becomes a legall right, and the Magistrate who beares the sword leads the way, no doubt privat persones may follow in the violent defence of it, against all opposeing the Magistrate, the law, and themselves in owneing of it.] Answer. This cold laodicean will give Religion the best word, but no more: He grant∣eth that it is the chief interest that men and Christians should look after; and yet so cautious is he in showing the manner how they should look after it, that in effect he doth postpone it unto many other lower concernments: For 1. it must be∣come a legal right, ere they defend it. 2. And when it is become a legal right, they cannot defend it unlesse the Ma∣gistrate lead the way. But what if a virgine hath not a legal right unto her chastity, by such a law as that leacherous King Ewen the 3. made, shall she not be allowed to defend the same? And if she shall, shall not men be allowed to main∣taine their Religion, though some iniquous act of Parliament take the legal right of it away? Yes doubtlesse if it be the

chief interest. Againe, what if an unjust act take away a man's right to his heritage, shall he not be in case to defend it against robbers? 2. By his second caution it would ap∣pear, that if an army of Turks or Tartars were landing in Scotland to robus of our Religion, we might not resist, un∣lesse the Magistrate did lead the way. But might we not in that case defend our lives and lands? If he should deny it, I know few that will be of his opinion, and if he grant it, he must not account Religion the chief interest. Againe, what if the Magistrate shall permit Subjects to defend their Lives and Libertyes against invaders, though he should not lead the way? Will he allow it in that case? Then he must preferre these unto Religion; for Religion, he sayes, must must not be defended, but when the Magistrate leads the way: [Neither (sayes he) can it enter into a Christian heart, that it is to be surrendred unto the arbitrement or pleasure of any power in the world, nor of any Magistrate over us, as this man wickedly sug∣gests is done] Answ. The Surveyer is this wicked person, who not only suggests, but upon the matter affirmes it, and avowes it; for what is it else, then to surrender our Religion to the arbitrement of Magistrates, to say, that we may not stand to the defence thereof, unlesse they will both authorize it with their law, and also lead the way when any oppose it? That which we will not maintaine without the approbation and conduct of another, we wholly give up to the disposeing and pleasure of that other. What he sayes concerning our present case, shall be considered in end, once for all. Then Pag. 47. [Whatever may be said concerning private mens resist∣ing the powers that urge them to idolatry, or false Worshipe, or inva∣ding their lives, if they will not so do, comes not home to the present case.] Answ. He would do well to speak plaine, and not look with a double face; Either he thinks it lawful, in this case to resist, or he thinks it unlawful; if he think it unlawful to what purpose doth he make mention of it, as a different case from what is presently under debate; And will not any see that if he deny this to be lawful, our Religion is wholly given up∣to the arbitrement of the Magistrate? If he think it lawful, he must then grant that Religion may be defended, even when the Magistrate who bears the sword, doth not lead the way,

and why then it should not come home to our present case, I do not see; for he doth not lay the stresse of his answers on the inconsiderablenesse of the ground of the resistence, (though here and there He hint at that) but upon the unlawfulnesse of resisting the Magistrate, who beares the sword: Now this ground faileth him here. But he ads [Yet Lactantius word, Lib. 5. c. 20. is to be well remembered by all private persones, Defendenda est Religio a privatis omnibus, non occidendo, sed moriendo] Answ. Then according to Lactantius it must be unlawful to defend Religion, even when the Magistrat urgeth to idolatry, in∣vading lives if they will not do it: yea if this be generally received as a truth, The People of Scotland might not de∣fend their Religion against an army of Pagans Turks or Tartars, if the Soveraigne should not concurre: Which I know not who would assent unto.

But he will come off with a few notes Pag. 47. &c. That whereas Naphtali said That to be violented in Religion (which cannot be without an unjust force, either on mens persons, or on their goods) is the most wicked and insupportable of all injuries He thinks such a word should have been better guarded, lest all coactive power of the magistrate in matters of Religion, might seem to be disowned, which would favoure such, as are for absolute toleration. But what needed this? Could he think that the author of Naphtaly did imagine, That to be violented in any Religion whether true or false, was such an insupportable injury? Or that it was his minde to plead for an universal toleration? What ground had he for so thinking? Sure that had been prejudical to his hypothesis, which this Surveyer himself will not call a false Religion: will it not suffice to say, he meaned a violenting in the true Religion? [No (sayes he) for what Sectary will not pre∣tend, that he is violented for the true Religion, which he will avow is so, according to his conscience,—and it is this man's principle, that every man in his discretive judgment, is judge of the justice or in justice of his owne sufferings, and accordingly must determine a nent his resistence to the violence] Answ. 1. Then it seemeth his guairding of it, in his owne words, saying [It is true, to use violence upon any in their persons or goods, to bring them to an external false Religion, or to drive them from the true (otherwise Religion

cannot be violented) is the greatest of injuries] Is not sufficient to salve the Magistrates co-active power in matters of Religion; for notwithstanding of what he sayes, the pleaders for uni∣versal toleration have the same door open they had. 2. If he will deny this discretive judgment in matters of sufferings, he must deny it also in matters of acting; for if no man must judge, whether the violence offered him be just or unjust, why should a man judge, whether the commands enjoyned him be lawful or unlawful? And so, as he may not so judge of the violence offered him in the matters of Religion, as to repel unjust violence with violence, neither must he judge of the lawfulnesse of the commands concerning Religion, so as to refuse obedience to unjust commands: And then it will follow, that subjects must yeeld blinde obedience to all the commands of the Magistrate in matters of Religion, and never question any of them: This, I grant, is not to plead for absolute toleration, but it is clearly to plead for absolute tyranny over consciences, fit to be heard and received by A∣theists, but by none else. 3. We know the most lawful thing may be abused, and he dar not say that every one who pleads for a lawful thing, pleads also for the abuse of it. He who sayes a man must not change his true Religion, at the command of the Magistrate, doth not say that a man must not change that Religion, which he thinketh in his consci∣ence is the true Religion, and is not, at the command of the Magistrate: So he vvho fayeth a people may defend their true Religion, when the Magistrate is violenting them in it, Sayeth not that every Sectarian company may defend that Religion, which they take to be true, and is not, when the Magistrate is violenting them in it. We say not that an erring conscience obligeth, or that a man's thinking that he is injured in the true Religion, is sufficient ground to engage him in violent resistance. And he himself dar not say, the Religion as reformed in doctrine, worshipe, discipline, and government (which the late defenders owned) is a false Religion: Nor dar he say, that the corruptions which they opposed, were the only true and necessary Religion. He seems to chant some other thing here and there, in this part

of his pamphlet; but we look for more in the following parts, where we shall have his minde more fully. Sure the Reli∣gion they owned, and we stand for, was the Religion he himself once owned, and all the Magistrates, Supreme and inferiour sealed and approved, with their oathes and subscrip∣tions: And the corruptions they and we oppose, were once by himself, and all ranks of people of the land, abjured oftner then once▪ So that all this is but to raise dust in peoples eyes, to the end they may mistake the way [Againe (sayes he) does not this man plainely professe to stir up all, with whom he can pre∣vaile, to violente others, Magistrates, Church-men, people and all, in the matter of their profession?] Answ. Their profession is manifest and professed perjury; for they have renunced the reformed Religion which they once owned, and avowed with hands lifted up to the Most High, and their extant sub∣scriptions beare witnesse against them; and all the congrega∣tions and publick meetings, in which this Religion was owned, are witnesses above all exception. And they have with the dog licked up their vomite, which once they spewed out with an oath of abjuration. 2. But wherein are they violented? Do they that stand to the defence of their Religion, and labour or endeavour to have corrup∣tions formerly abjured, purged out, incurre the crime of violenting others? Yes for (sayes he) even private men are stirred by bloody exhortations, to be revenged on, and punish all Magistrates and others, whose blood they thirst for, because of their not being of their way, which they call Religion.) Answer. This is but one of many of his bloody assertions, savouring neither of Christianity, nor prudence, but much of cruelty and ty∣ranny: and we see his teeth, and his tongue both; But the judge of the innocent heareth and seeth. 2, Did not this perjured wretch and his fraternity call this way, Religion, and the true Reformed Religion, when they swore those Covenants, & will he now come & speak thus? O but he must have a brazen face & an abdured conscience! Ay but he tells us afterward, Pag. 48. that [Whether truth lye on our side or his, as to the poynts of Church government is the question, and if we will not admit publick powers and authorities to be judges in that mat∣ter,

far lesse have they reason to admit of privat persones.] Answ. 1. It seemeth it is past question with him, that the vomite which he hath licked up, is the most fatning morsel, that ever he gote; but the most fatning food is not alwayes the most wholesome: And I fear this shall prove so to him, if he repent not, when for it, the wrath of God and the long & broad curse shall enter into his dwelling place, and into his very soul. 2. We are content the stresse of the businesse lie upon that question, and shall be glade to hear what spi∣rits his new food hath put into him, to maintaine that con∣demned and abjured cause. 3. We look not upon our publick powers and authorities as Judges competent in that matter, nor did they judge, as Judges should have done, when they set up that abhomination; but as men mad on their idols, so did they run, to please, he knoweth, whom. 4. This is the very thing which Papists say anent the judge of controversies, save that he puts the civil Magistrate, in place of the Pope. 5. This controversy is not to be judged till now, and privat persones may be sufficient judges of what was sworne and sub∣scribed by King, and all rankes of People, and must have more solide grounds and motives to induce then to renunce what they have been fully perswaded was truth, and have owned as such, under the paine of damnation, by their so∣lemne Oathes and vowes; then the meer vvill and command of a Creature, as obnoxious to errour & mistakes as another. And as for vvhat he hath a minde to say upon that head, it is novv a little too too late, unlesse he be able to do, vvhat never one before hath done, viz. prove that forme of go∣vernment; the only necessary government, Iure Divino, perpetually binding all, in all ages: but the vulgar vvill have a sufficient antidote against all, vvhich he can say, by seeing & hearing, vvhat they have seen and heard these yeers bygone, both vvhen this abhomination vvas but about to be intro∣duced, and since it hath gote up to its pinacle, though no∣thing should be said, of the abhominable & scandalous car∣riage of such as have imbraced that Antichristian course, a true historical relation of vvhich vvould make the eares of all true Christians to tingle.

His 2. note is upon the probable capacity which Naphtaly spoke of: this brings to his minde Bellarmin's excuse why the ancient Christians took not armes against Nero, because they wanted temporal strength. But might not that excuse be good in itself though Bellarmine made use of it? I suppose upon second search, it will be found, that they had not such a capacity, as he, it may be, supposeth: But of this afterward. It brings to his minde also what Creswel the Jesuite said against the Edict of Q. Elizabeth. But all this is nothing to the purpose, for neither we, nor Naphtaly joyne with the Iesuites (whatever he say) as to the deposeing and throwing downe of Princes, and all Magistrates, and punishing them by private hands. But if he think this condition, in private persons resisting of violence, Iesuitical, viz. if they be in a probable capacity to do it. He must give us leave to say, It is very rational, and he is more then brutish to think otherwise: For will he say, that it is an indispensable duty, for Ten private persones, though they had their Magistrates with them, to go and resist an army of Ten Thousand, unlesse they have an extraordinary particular & peremptory cal of God? Sure then he but shewes his folly to carpe at such things as these, let him read, Luk. 14: 31.

Next let us see what he hath Pag. 84. 85. 86. Where he sayeth 1. (

That albeit it be God's holy will, that in erections of civil government, his Truth, sincere worshipe and glory in these, should be mainly minded and intended by men, and it is mens duty so to do; yet it is clear that in many places de facto it is not so; although men in the ge∣neral professe aiming at Truth, and right worshipe, yet there are aberrations in the particular.

] Answ. 1. This is very true, and not only do we see that it is so de facto; but also that where conscience hath been made of mindeing Gods truth, sincere vvorshipe, and glory, and these so twisted in, and in∣terwoven with the constitution of the civil government, that they became to the subject, a piece of their National patri∣mony, secured by all meanes imaginable, not only these ne∣cessary things are not minded, but they are sought to be over∣turned and destroyed. 2. Since he grants that it is men's

duty so to do, how can he condemne what the honest Par∣liaments of Scotland did, and what the king consented to, and owned? Was that any thing else but to establish and se∣cure the reformed Religion in Doctrine, worshipe, disci∣pline and government, for the glory of God, and the good of the nations?

Next he sayes, [

Albeit there be in the poynt of truth, and the worshipe of God, anotable perversion and swerv∣ing, that doth not at all invalidate the authority, nor break the obligation thereunto, although it be injurious, to favourers of Truth and right Worshipe: for although Re∣ligion be not minded, as it ought to be, God will not have the Commonwealths, where justice between Man and Man is maintained, for his glory, casten loose; nor have men think themselves loosed from obligation to the government—for neither must they be heard, who hold that civil dominion is founded on grace, nor they who say, That infidel, heretical, or excommunicate Magistrates fall from their power, or that the subjects obligation to them ceaseth.

] Answ. 1. Yet vvhere the maintainance of Truth, and of the right vvorshipe is a fundamental pillar of the constitution, and a maine article of the compact betwixt Magistrates and subjects, a failing here is a loosing of the government, and of the Subjects obligation, if not in vvhole, yet in so far; 2. A pleading for the observation of the compact and maintainance of the Truth and Worshipe of God, conforme to sworne compacts, is no breaking of the obligation, but rather a way to have it strengthened and made more firme: Much lesse can they be charged with this, who plead only for a liberty of defence of the same Truth and Worshipe, against manifest injuries, contrary to Cove∣nants, vowes and compacts. 3. Such as resist the unjust vio∣lence of Magistrates, do not therby loose themselves from the obligation to government, otherwise every woman who in defence of her chastity resisted the prince, should die as a Traitor, 4. We abhore both that opinion, that dominion is founded on grace, and that other of the Papists:

we stand upon other grounds, as hath been, and may yet be, furder shewed.

The summe of what he says in the 4 place (for what he hath said in the 3 place is but some concessions, which are touched already) is this [

That to reforme in a publick coactive way, by the use of the vindicative and punitive sword, belongeth alone to the Magistrate, so that per∣sones of meer private capacity, cannot use that sword a∣gainst all Magistrates, and their fellow subjects, to violent them in matters of Religion, or which they account Re∣ligion, and punish them for not being, of their Religion.

] Answ. It is but his groundlesse calumny, to say that Naphtaly sayes all this, and so it is nothing to the question in hand, which is concerning privat persons maintaineing their Reli∣gion, and endeavouring to have corruptions removed, which may wel be, without the least incroachment upon the Ma∣gistrates; and since he speakes not to this, he either declares himself unable to confute what we say; or he fowle∣ly prevaricates, to the palpable betraying of his owne cause; or both.

Then he tells us further. [

That the great mistake in all this matter is, That we think the Magistrate & People, are, as to their Covenant with God, debtors bound in a band conjunctly and severally, for one sum, so that in the defi∣ciency of the one. the other must pay all, and hath power to distresse the deficient—whereas they binde, but for their several moieties of a sum—so that if the People reforme themselves, and keep themselves pure from ab∣hominations, the Magistrates deficiency (which they to∣lerat with grief) shall not be imputed to them: Because God giveth them not a calling to intrude into the Magi∣strates office—there lyes no obligation on them to force the King, or their fellow subjects to external meanes of Worship and Religion.

] Answ. This is the summe of what he spendeth many words about, but it may be easily answered. For 1. By this simile he will wronge the Ma∣gistrate: for as the People may not presse the Magistrate to pay his moyety, how may He presse the Subjects to pay

their moyety? 2. If the Magistrate break to God, and will not pay his moyety of the summe, he cannot presse the Subjects to break also, and not to pay their part; but whether he will or not, they are bound to keep Covenant: and if he force them▪ his violence is unjust and illegall (for no law can warrand People to break their Covenant with God) and may lawfully be resisted; and this is enough for us. 3. A better lawyer then he Althusius pol. cap. 28. n. 18. tels us that in those Religious Covenants, Magistrates and People are bound conjunctly and severally, so that the whole summe may be required of either of the corrëi: Ita sunt corrëi (sayes he) ut in solidum & in continenti ab unoquoque promissum peti possit, tanquam a principalirëo. l. poen. de duob. rëis stip. 2 Chro. 33. 2 King. 24. 4. Deut. 29.) And his reason is, because God would not commit to one the care of his Church, and worshipe; but to the whole People, whom their servants King and Par∣liaments do represent, which also he proveth from Ier. 17: 20. and againe Num. 19. He tells us that one of the corrëi must answere for the other and partaketh of his guilt, if he do not oppose and resist him as much as he can, and so hinder him from breaking: Which he proveth from 1 King. 14: 16. and Num. 23: 24. He ansvvers Barclaius alledging the same thing vvhich this Surveyer alledgeth saying, [Concedo Barclaio in duobus rëis promittendi observari, ut uno solvente quod promisit, al∣ter liberetur, Ergo quando Rex vel Populus ob delictà sua arque foe∣deris initi transgressiones, poena â Deo est affectus, alter liberabitur. Verum haecregula, uno corrëo solvente, alterum, liberari, exceptionem patitur in casu quo non insolidum & in tot••m corrëus solvit. sed pro parte, uti hîc, unus ex corrëis poenas persolvens, Deo non in soli∣dum solvere potest. Deinde haec regula non procedit in delictis; In his enim uterque corrëus delinquens & criminis socii puniuntur in soli∣dum, neque unus poenas luendo, alterum liberare potest, 1 Sam. 12: ver. 27. Et docent id late ICC. Denique praedicta regula non proce∣dat in casu qnando uterque corrëus se in solidum obligavit ad idem factum, uti in hoc foedere accidit, 2 Chron. 15: ver. 13: Vbi de poena subditorum & Regis loquitur, ut, 1 Sam. 12: ver. 7. 4. But now the question is what is the Peoples duty, in a day of defection? He sayes it is only to keep themselves

pure from the abhominations, and reforme themselves. But we have shewed above that the scripture requireth more, even some active endeavour, to have the National Corrup∣tions removed, though not to usurpe the Magistrates place. But sayes he [

The late Covenant it self, doth bind private persons in their places and callings (which certanely are private, and to be managed by private means) to endeavour refor∣mation, & doth not bind any number of private persons to pull the sword out of the Magistrate's hand, when they think he useth it otherwise then he should, and then they would have him use it—if the Covenant be passive of such commentaryes, as this man puts upon it, That whatever any private party accounts Reformation, they may use the vindictive punishing sword against all, of all degrees, that stand in their way to advance the same, we have little reason to be in love with it; and just cause to cast it by, till it be cleared of such corrupt glosses.

[Answer. I feare the Surveyer be so out of love with it, and have so cast it by, that were it never so cleared (as it is cleare enough) he hath no minde to take it up againe, and he best knoweth what it vvas that moved him to cast it off. But 2. as Naph∣taly said vvel, That clause annexed can not be so restrictive, as this Surveyer would have it; for certanely it cannot bind up privat men's hands, from doing of these things, which otherwise were commanded them to do. Now whether this Covenant had been or not, more would have been required of private persons, in a time of great and universal or a national defection, then at other times. Every man is bound accord∣ing to his place and station to preserve he Kings person and authority. Now put the case that some party or faction should captivate him, This man will grant that private per∣sones, without the conduct of inferiour Magistrates, may joyn together, if they be in a capacity to break thorow impe∣diments, & through the interprize, and labour his vindica∣tion and delivery, and restauration: Would he in this case condemne these men, as acting without their sphere, or as usurpers: I suppose not: Let him then apply this to our case. and he will easily see the parallel. So it is the duty of

burgesses in their places and stations, to promove the good of the society: Now suppose a fire kindle, and such as are appointed to oversee the quenching of fires either are ab∣sent, or carelesse, or half willing the Town should be burnt, shall private persones hands be bound up from doing what they can, in what order they may, to save the Towne? shall they be accounted transgressours, or Usurpers of the Ma∣gistrat's place, though they should materially occupy his roome for that exigent? No certanely, they should rather be ac∣counted faithful citizens, mindeful of their oath and promise. So when an army is engaged with the Enemy, if the Comman∣ders should perfidiously betray their trust, and leave their sta∣tion, or seek the destruction of the army, in their station, It would be accounted no usurpation, in any private persons, who could best fill these roomes and places, for these exi∣gents, to do what they could, for the saifty of the army: Nor would this be thought contrare to their oath. When a Master of a Shipe either through sotishnesse, or vvicked∣nesse, vvould run the ship against the rock, any private Sea∣man in that case of necessity, may, to save his ovvne life and the lives of all vvho are in the shipe, do the best he can, to prevent destruction, without any sinful transgressing the bounds of his calling. Whence we may understand, that in cases of extreame necessity, private per∣sones may do more, then in ordinary cases; and yet not sinfully goe beyond their places and callings: and though materially, they, for that exigent, occupy the places of Supe∣riours, who sinfully, unfaithfully, and basely, either neglect or betray their trust; yet they cannot be accounted Usurpers: nor is it rational to say, that such as plead for the lawfulnesse of this, do plead for the lawfulnesse of private persons pull∣ing the sword out of the Magistrate's hands, whensoever they think he useth it otherwise then he should, or when∣soever he useth it otherwise then they would have him use it; and useing the vindictive punishing sword against all Magi∣strates and others, that stand in their way. By this also, vve may see what injury he doth to Naphtaly, when he draw∣eth such consequences from vvhat he said Pag, 151. and there

did shevv by the simile adduced, that such a thing vvas to be done only in extreame inevitable and urgent necessity. And what the Surveyer hath said Pag. 116. and 117. needeth no other ansvvere.

This is not all, he must harpe on this string againe Pag. 103. where he sayes [

That it is to ruine all order, to teach that the advancing Religion, not only actibus elicitis but actibus imperatis, which belong to the Magistrate, may be medled with by the people-extraordinary necessities are more ea∣sily pleaded then justified, as ground sufficient for some acti∣ons, whereto there is no extraordinary call]

Answ. Though this be sufficiently answered before, yet we say, 1. That order is already ruined, when the Magistrat destroyeth what he should preserve, and so crosseth his commission: and who teach that in such an extraordinary case, when God's order is violated and broken, and all in hazard to be overturned, such things might be done, which needed not to be done, if God's order and appoyntment were observed, do not take a way to ruine all order, but rather to preserve that, vvhich order it self is appoynted, as a meane, to preserve. 2. We plead not for such formal imperate acts, in matters of Reli∣gion, as due to privat persones (as we have said.) But for a povver, according to the ability God puteth into their hands to hinder him from being dishonoured, to defend their ovvne profession and Religion, to hinder an universal apostasy, and to endeavour in their capacities, to have things righted, vvhich are out of order. And vvhen private per∣sones are carrying themselves thus, vve deny that they are runing out of their rank and calling; nor can he prove it. 3. Will he say that no actions can be sufficiently justified be∣cause done in extraordinary necessities and vvithout an extra∣ordinary call? Then he shall condemne the Covenants which David made vvith the men of Israel, 2 Sam. 5. and vvhich Iehojadah made betwixt the King & the People: For he told us that both these vvere in extraordinary occasions, and he cannot shovv us any extraordinary call. He addeth [

If Magistrates be deficient—privat persons are sufficiently discharged, if they keep themselves pure, and do vvhat

possibly they can, for advanceing Religion in their privat ca∣pacities and by their Elicite acts—if a mans eyes be put out his eares, or other senses will goe as far to supply that de∣fect, as may be; yet, cannot help the body by elicite acts of seeing. So whatever length private persons may goe, for the good of the body, they must not goe to exercise and exert formally, acts magistratical.

] Answ. All alongs we heare nothing but dictatings: This and this he sayes, and there is an end, a noble patron of a desperat cause, and worthy of a great hire. But. 1. The question still abideth undis∣cussed how far privat persons capacity doth reach; for that they must do more then keep themselves pure we have shevv∣ed. 2. If they may do what possibly they can, for advan∣ceing Religion in their capacities, they may do more then he will have them doing; for then they may defend Religion with the sword, and with violence hinder idolatry and supersti∣tion, and what of that nature provocketh God to wrath. All this and more is within their capacity and possibility, as he would easily grant, if the Magistrate vvould but counte∣nance it, yea and though he should oppose, say vve. But he will say, these are not elicite acts. And vvill he grant noth∣ing else to privat subjects but elicit acts? Then he vvill not grant them liberty to disput for Religion, to exhort, rebuke and admonish &c. for these are not elicite acts, more then disputing vvith the svvord, and so vvith his Philosophick distinctions, he vvould charme us into a perfect acquiescence vvith vvhat Religion the King vvill enjoyne. 3. Eares and other senses never set up the eyes, and gave them povver to see for their good: But the People set up the Magistrates, and may do, when the Magistrate layeth downe his sword, or avowedly betrayeth his trust, what they might have done before they made choice of him. 4. By this Simile it would follow that the People cannot only not do the Magistrate's Imperat acts, but not so much as the Elicite acts which he may do, vvhich is false. 5. Though they cannot exert or exer∣cise Formally acts Magistratical, if they may do it Materially, we seek no more. In end he tell us.

That it is a dangerous and destructive tenent to be held forth to be beleeved by

People

That in all cases whether concerning Religion or Liberty, when they account the Magistrate to pervert the government, that they are Eatenus in so far, even as if they had no King, and that the royalty hath recurred to them∣selves, and they may act and exercise it formally as if they had no King at all] and this he tels us is the expresse doctrine of Lex Rex Pag. 99. 100.

Novv that all may see vvhat a shamelesse and impudent man this is, and how little reason any have to give him credite, I shall recite the authors very words. [

But because (sayeth he) the Estates never gave the King power to corrupt Religion, and presse a false and I dolatrous worshipe upon them; Therefore when the King defendeth not true Religion, but presseth upon the People a false and Idolatrous Religion (this is some other thing then when they account the Magistrate to pervert &c.) in that they are not under the King, but are presumed to have no King eate∣nus so farre, & are presumed to have power in themselves, as if they had not appoynted any King at all—If an incorpora∣tion accused of Treason & in danger of the sentence of death, shall appoynt a lawyer to advocate their cause,—if he be stricken with dumbnesse, because they have losed their legal and representative tongue, none can say, that this incorporation hath losed the tongues that nature hath given them, so as by natures law they may not plead in their owne just and lawful defence, as if they had never ap∣poynted the foresaid lawyer to plead for them. The King—is made by God and the People King, for the Church and People of God's sake, that he may defend true Religion, for the behove and salvation of all: If then he defend not Religion—(NB) in his publick and Royal way, It is presumed as undenyable, That the People of God who by the law of nature, are to care for their owne soull, are to defend (NB) in their way, true Religion, which so nearly concerneth them and their eternall happinesse.

] Now let any judge if this be so dan∣gerous and destructive a tenent, As he would make his reader beleeve. But it is easy for him who hath no shame, to per∣vert sentences which he cannot confute, and then call them

dangerous and destructive: and thus he will make the rabble of the degenerate clergy and other simple ones beleeve, that he hath confuted Lex Rex. And thus dealeth he with Naphtaly as we have shewed already.

Having thus considered all which the Surveyer hath here and there spoken against that which we have said, let us now come to apply what hath been said, unto our present pur∣pose, of vindicating the late act of defence; which, by what we have said, we finde cannot be justly condemned as trea∣sonable or rebellious, but rather approved and commended as loyall service to God and the Countrey.

For 1. Thereby they were professing their constancy, in ad∣hereing to the reformation of Religion in doctrine, worshipe Discipline and Government, which was consonant to the word of God, and publickly received with all solemnities imaginable, notwithstanding of acts and lawes made to the contrary: and no true Christian will say, That subjects should imbrace any Religion which Magistrates will countenance and prescribe, be what it will, or upon that account.

2. As they were thereby declareing their soul abhorrence of these corruptions, which were countenanced and autho∣rized by sinful acts and statutes; so they were defending, to the utmost of their power, the reformed Religion, according to their Covenant, and vow to God. And that such a defence as this, is lawful, we have shewed.

3. They were defending themselves against intolerable and manifestly unjust violence, offered because of their adhereing to the cause of God, and to the reformed Religion, which King, Parliament, and all rankes of People in the land, were solemnely sworne to owne, and avow, all the dayes of their lives, really, sincerely and constantly▪ as they should an∣swere to God, in the great day; no lesse then they.

4. They were mindeing their Oath and Covenant made with God, with hands lifted up, with solemne attestations, and protestations; the Covenants which they did make and renew in the presence of Almighty God, the Searcher of all hearts, with a true intention to performe the same.

5. They were endeavouring in their places and stations (according to the latitude allowed in times of such necessitie, and in matters of such weight and moment) to have the Church and Kingdome purged of these abhominable and crying corruptions, and grievous abhominations, which provoke the Lord to wrath, against the whole Church and Kingdome.

6. They were defending the maine fundamental law and constitution of the Kingdome, and that maine article of Agreement and Compact betwixt Soveraigne and Subject, which all the members of the Nation, were no Lesse bound unto, then they.

7. They were joyning together, as detasteing that dete∣stable indifferency and neutrality abjured, to defend and assist one another in the same cause of maintaining their reform∣ed Religion, with their best counsel, bodyes, meanes, and whole power, against the old, inveterate and Common enemie, that malignant spirit and rage; according to their Covenants.

8. They were repenting of their National sin, in com∣plying (by their sinful silence, & not giving open, faithful, and faire testimony, when the Truth of God was openly and violently trode under foot) with that dreadful course of back∣slideing, which was violently carryed on. They were calling for justice, and valiently pleading for truth, sinfully and ty∣rannically borne downe and oppressed. They were with zeal and courage valiently interposeing, & labouring to put a stop to the begun and far-carryed-on defection, when truth was failing, and he who depairted from evil made himself a prey, that God might pardon, and look in mercy on the land. They were endeavouring to stand in the gape and make up the hedge; and pleading with their Mother Church, or a malignant faction in her, shamefully departing from God, when there was no other way or meane to be followed, or essaved.

When all these things are duely considered and laid to¦gether, It will appeare to impartial and unbyassed persones, That the late act which is so much condemned and cryed our

against, is not so hainous and unpardonable a crime, as this Surveyer and his wicked party vvould give it out to be: but vvas a noble and laudable interprize, for the glory of God, the good of Religion, Church and Kingdome; beside that it vvas a most necessary and unavoydable act of self defence. Since the Scriptures formerly cited vvill allovv more unto private persons, then vvhat this Surveyer restricketh them unto, (as vve have shevved) in a time of defection: Then vvhen there vvas no other vvay left to do these dutyes there required, and vvhen vvith all several other things did call a∣loud to a mutual conjunction in armes for defence of one an∣other, and repelling of unjust violence, and prosecuteing the holy and necessary ends of the Covenants vvhich they svvore, no man in reason can suppose that such a vvork is repugnant to Scripture or right reason, but rather most consonant to both.

And though many do and will condemne the same, even as to this interprize of Reformation, upon what grounds and motives themselves best know, yet Our worthy and Noble Reformer famous Mr Knox if he were living this day, would be far from speaking after the language of such. For he in his appellation Pag. 22. &c. hath these words [The

second is, that the punishing of such crimes, as are idolatry blasphemy, & others that touch the Majesty of God, doth not Appertaine to the Kings and chief rulers only; but also to the whole body of the People, and to every member of the same, according to the vocation of every man, and according to that possibility and occasion which God doth minister, to revenge the injury done against his glory, when that impiety is manifestly knowne: And that doth Moses plainly speak Deut. 13: v. 12, 13, 14, 15, 16. in these words, if in any of the cities &c.—plaine it is that Moses speaketh not, nor giveth charge to Kings, Rulers, and judges only; but he commandeth the whole body of the People, yea and every member of the same, according to their possibility: And who dar be so impudent, as to deny this to be most reasonable and just; for, seing that God had delivered, the whole body from bondage; and to

the whole multitude had given his law; and to the twelve Tribes had he so distributed the inheritance of the land of Canaan! that no family could complaine that it was ne∣glected; was not the People and every member addebted, to acknowledge, and confesse the benefites of God? Yea, had it not been the part of every man, to have studyed to have keeped the possession which he had received? Which thing God did plainly pronounce they should not do, ex∣cept that in their hearts they did sanctify the Lord God; that they embraced, and inviolably keeped his Religion established; and finally except, they did put away ini∣quity from amongst them, declareing themselves earnest Enemies to these abhominations, which God declared himself so vehemently to hate, that first he commanded the whole inhabitants of that Countrey to be destroyed, and all monuments of their idolatry to be broken downe. —But in such cases Gods will is, that all creatures stoup, cover their faces, and desist from reasoning, when commandement is given to execute his judgement. Al∣beit I could adduce diverse causes of such severity; yet will I search none other then the holy ghost hath assigned; first, that all Israel hearing of the judgement, should feare to commit the like abhomination; and secondly, That the Lord might turne from the fury of his anger, might be moved towards the People with inward affection, be mer∣cyful unto them, & multiply them, according to his oath made unto their Fathers: Which reasons as they are suffi∣cient in God's children to correct the murmuring of grudg∣ing flesh; so ought they to provoke every man, as before I have said, to declare himself an enemy to that which so highly provoketh the wrath of God against the whole People: For where Moses sayeth Let the city be burned, &c. he plainly doth signify that by the defection and idolatry of a few, Gods wrath is kindled against the whole, which is never quenched till such punishment be taken upon the offenders, that whatsoever served them in their idolatry be brought to destruction, because that it is execrable and cursed before God; and therefore he will not that it be

reserved to any use of his People. I am not ignorant That this law was not put into execution, as God commanded; but what did thereof ensue and follow? Histories declare, viz. plague after plague till Israel and Iudah were led into captivity, as the Books of the Kings do witnesse. The consideration whereof maketh me more bold, To affirme that it is the duty of every man, who desireth to escape the plague and punishment of God, to declare himself Enemy to idolatry, not only in heart hateing the same, but also in external gesture declareing, that he lamenteth, if he can do no more, for such abhominations—of these pre∣mises, I suppose, it be evident. That the punishment of idolatry, doth not appertaine to Kings only, but also to the whole People, yea to every member of the same, ac∣cording to his possibility: For, that is a thing most as∣sured that no man can mourne lament and bewail for these things, which he will not remove to the uttermost of his power.] And a little thereafter•• And therefore I feare not to affirme that the Gentiles (I meane every City, Re∣alme, Province or Nation, amongst the Gentiles, imbra∣ceing Christ Jesus and his true Religion) be bound to the same league and Covenant, that God made with his People Israel when he promised to root out the Nations before them, in these words Exod. 34: 12, 13, 14.—to this same law and Covenant are the Gentiles no lesse bound, then some time were the jewes, vvhensoever God doth illuminate the eyes of any multitude, Province, People, or City, and puteth the sword in their ovvn hand, to remove such enor∣mities from amongst them, as before they knevv to be abhominable. Then, I say, are they no lesse bound, to purge their Dominions, Cities, and Countreyes, from idolatry, then vvere the Israelites, vvhat time they received the possession of the Land of Canaan. And moreover, I say if any goe about to erect and set up idolatry, or to teach defection from God, after that the verity hath been received and approved, that then not only the Magistrates, to vvhom the svvord is committed, but also the People, are bound, by that oath, vvhich they have made to God, to

revenge to the utmost of their povver, the injury done a∣gainst his Majesty.

] So in his admonition to the Commonalty of Scotland Pag. 36. [

Neither would I that you should esteem the reformation and care of Religion lesse to appertaine to you. because yee are not Kings, Judges, Nobles, nor in authority. Beloved brethren, you are God's Creatures created and formed to his owne image and similitude, for whose redemption, was shed the most precious blood of the only beloved sone of God, to whom he hath com∣manded his gospel and glade tidings to be preached, and for whom he hath prepared the heavenly inheritance; so that yee will not obstinately refuse, and disdainfully con∣temne the meanes, which he hath appoynted to obtaine the same—for albeit God hath put and ordained distin∣ction betwixt King and Subjects; yet in the hope of the life to come, he hath made all equal—and therefore I say, that it doth no lesse appertaine to you, to be assured that your faith and Religion be grounded and established upon the true and undoubted word of God, then to your Prin∣ces or Rulers; for, as your bodyes cannot escape corporal death, if with your Princes, you eate or drink deadly poison (although it be by ignorance or negligence) so shall ye not escape the everlasting, if with them yee professe a cor∣rupt Religion—and this is the cause that so oft I repeate, and so constantly I affirme, that to you it doth no lesse apper∣taine, then to your King or Princes to provide that Christ Iesus be truely preached among you, seing without his true knowledge, you cannot attaine to salvation.

] More to this purpose may be read there.

CAP. X.

Arguments taken from the hazard of becom∣ing guilty of the sin of others, and of partaking of their Judgments. And from the duty of relieving the oppressed, &c.

IT is not necessary for our purpose to dip much into that question concerning Gods imputing of the sin of one unto others; and therefore we shal shortly hint at some few parti∣culars from Scripture, and after we have considered what this Surveyer sayeth, we shall apply them to our purpose.

That God doth punish some, and that most justly, for the sinnes of others, the Scripture doth abundantly verifie: Not to insist on the instances of his punishing of whole fa∣milies, for the sinnes of the Head of the family: as the fami∣ly of Pharaoh, Gen. 12: v. 17. of Abimelech, Gen. 20: v. 17, 18. of Corah and his companions, Num. 16: v. 27, 32, 33. of A∣chan, Ios. 7: v. 24, 25. of Ieroboam, 1 King. 14: v. 10, 11. & Cap. 15: 29. of Ahab, 1 King. 21: v. 21, 22, 24. 2 King. 9: v. 8. of Baasha, 1 King. 16: 3, 4. of Iehoram, 2 Chron. 21: 14. Nor on the instances of his punishing of Servants for the sinnes of their Masters, or the Children and Posterity for the sinnes of their Parents, as in the 2 Command, where he threatneth to visite the iniquities of the Fathers upon the Children, unto the 3 and 4 generation. So also Levit. 26: ver. 38, 39. Deut. 28: v. 18, 32, 45, 46. So the Children of such as were drowned in the flood, Gen. 6, & 7. The posterity of Canaan, Gen. 9: v. 24, 25, 26, 27. The children of the Egyptians, Exod. 11: v. 5, 6. of the Israelites, Num. 14: v. 33. Psal. 106: v. 27. of Dathan and Abiram, Num. 16. of the Canaanites, Deut. 3, & Cap. 20. of the Amalekites, 1 Sam. 15. of Saul, 1 Sam. 21. of Cehazie, 2 King. 5: ver. 27. of the Babilonians, Esai. 14: ver. 21, 22. of Semaia, Ier. 24. v. 32. Hence true penitents acknowledge & are humbled for not only their owne sinnes, but the sinnes of their Fathers, Ezra 9. Dan. 9. Job sayes Cap. 21: v. 19. God layeth up his iniquity (or the punishment of his ini∣quity,

as it is in the margine) for his children. But to passe these we finde moreover.

1. That People have been punished for the sinnes of their Pastors, or in hazard to be punished therefore. When Na∣dab and Abihu had provoked the Lord with their strange fire, Moses spoke unto Aaron and to his other two Sones, and sayd, Levit. 10: v. 6. Vncover not your heads, neither rend your cloathes, lest you die, (N. B.) and left wrath come upon all the People. So that their sin would not only have brought wrath upon themselves, but also upon all the People. So the wickednesse of Hophny and Phinehas was part of the cause of that sad discomfiture, that the People of Israel did meet with, 1 Sam. 2: ver. 12. comp: with Cap. 3: ver. 11. and with Cap. 4: ver. 10, 11. So Esai. 43: ver. 27, 28. because the Teachers had transgressed against the Lord. Therefore was Ia∣cob given to the curse and Israel to reproaches. So Lam. 4: v. 13. a∣mong other provocations, the sinnes of her Prophets are mentioned, and the iniquities of her Priests. So Micah. 3: v. 11, 12. Because the Heads did judge for reward, and the Priests did teach for hire, and the Prophets did divine for money, There∣fore Zion was to be plowed as a field and Ierusalem to become heaps, and the mountaine of the house, as the high places of the for∣est.

2. That the sinnes of a few have procured judgments un∣to the whole multitude, or put them in hazard thereof. So Deut. 13: v. 12, 17. the Apostate city would kindle the fierce∣nesse of God's anger against the whole People: For it is said, The Lord would not turne from the fiercenesse of his anger, and shew them mercy and compassion, and multiply them, until it were de∣stroyed, and all that was within it. So Num. 25. for the sinne of these who joyned with Baal peor the anger of the Lord was kindled against the whole congregation. So when Moses was speaking unto the two Tribes and halfe, Num. 32: 14, 15. he sayeth, And behold yee are risen up in your Fathers stead—to augment yet the fierce anger of the Lord toward Israel, for if yee turne away from after him, he will yet againe leave them in the wildernesse, and yee shall destroy all this People. So Ios. 7: ver. 5. for one Ahan's sin, all Israel was troubled, and Ios. 22: v. 17. 18.

say the commissioners of the whole congregation, unto the two Tribes and half, And it will be▪ seing, ye-rebel to day against the Lord, that to morrow, he will be wroth, with the whole congregation of Israel. And it was this which moved all the Tribes to goe against Benjamin, Iudg. 20

3. That the Subjects have suffered sad and dreadful judg∣ments for the sinnes of their Rulers: As Micah 3: 9, 10, 11, 12. formerly cited: Abimelech's sin, Gen. 20. was like to hazard himself, and all his Kingdome, ver. 7, 9. For Pharaoh's re∣fusing to let Israel goe, not only he and his Princes, but his Subjects through all his coasts, did smarte, Exod. 6, and 7: & 8, and 9. and 10 Cap. Neh. 9: v. 10. So Saul's sin in seeking to destroy the Gibeonites, brought on three yeers famine on the land in the dayes of David, 2 Sam. 21: v. 1. So Da∣vid's sin of numbering the people cost the lives of three score and Ten thousand, 2 Sam. 24: v. 1, 2, 15. 1 Chron. 21: 1, 2, 14. So the Lord threatned by the Prophet, 1 King, 14: ver. 16. that for the sins of Ieroboam, who did sin, and who made Israel to sin, he would give up Israel, And for Ahab's sin of letting Benhadad goe, the Man of God told Ahab, 1 King. 20: ver. 42. Because thou hast let goe out of thy hand a man whom I ap∣poynted to utter destruction, therefore thy life shall goe for his life, and thy People for his People. So for Manasseh's sin, Ier. 15: ver. 4. The Lord sayes I will cause them to be removed into all King domes of the Earth, because of Manasseh the son of Hezekiah King of Iudah for that which he did in Ierusaelem. So it is also spoken, 2 King. 21: ver. 11, 12, 13. Because Manasseh King of Iudah hath done these abhominations—therefore thus sayeth the Lord God of Israel, behold I am bringing such evil upon Ierusalem and Iudah that whosoever heareth of it, both his eares shall tingle, &c. And notwithstanding of the reformation that was in the dayes of Iosiah. Yet this judgement came to be accomplished, and the Lord sent the bands of the Caldees and of the Syrians: surely, (so it is said, 2 King. 24: v. 3, 4.) at the commandement of the Lord came this upon Iudah to remove them out of his sight, for the sinnes of Manasseh, according to all that he did, and also for the inno∣cent blood that he shed, which the Lord would not pardon. And 2 King. 23, 26. Though there was a great work of refor∣mation

done in the dayes of that non-such King (v. 25,) Iosiah, yet it is sayd notwithstanding the Lord turned not from the fiercenesse of his great wrath, wherewith his anger was kindled against Iudah, because of all the provocations that Manasseh had provoked him with all. Yea, so did this sin of Manasseh provoke the Lord against the land, that how beit Manasseh himself repent∣ed, and found mercy, 2 Chron. 33: v. 12. and questionlesse many of the People turned with him, yet these same sinnes of Manasseh are mainly taken notice of as the procureing cause of that final stroke.

Out of these particulars, these few things are very obvious to any.

1. That People combined into a society have great cause, not only to look to their owne carriage, but also unto the car∣riage of others; Since the carriage of others will bring them in hazard of God's judgments, and hasten downe venge∣ance & wrath from God on all, sure they have need to look about them.

2. Especially, they have reason to take notice of the pub∣lick carriage and deportment of Princes and Pastors: seing in a special manner those highten the wrath & hasten the judg∣ments of God, as hath been shewed.

3. If these sinnes in Princes, Pastors and others were not committed, those plagues and judgments which are threat∣ned, and at length executed upon that account, would have been prevented.

4. If People, considering their hazard by reason of these publick transgressions, had actively bestirred themselves, & interposed, as that these iniquities had not been committed, they had not smarted so for as they did, not had they felt the weight of the hand of Gods anger, as they were made to do.

5. It was not enough for them, to have keeped them∣selves free of these actual transgressions, whereof others were really guilty: for we finde some punished, for that iniquity of others, which could not be laid to their charge, as actors.

6. How ever such as were so punished, were not free of inherent transgressions, and other sinnes, which deserved judgment at the hands of the Lord; yet when the Spirit of the Lord is pleased to make no mention of these, as the Pro∣cureing cause of these plagues, but seemeth to lay the whole or maine stresse of the businesse, upon that sin committed by others, we must thinke that that hath had no small influence, but rather a mine causality in the procureing of these pla∣gues, and it becometh us to be sober in inquireing after other causes hid from us, and rest satisfied with what the Spirit of the Lord is pleased particularly and evidently to poynt forth unto us, and pitch upon, as the peccant and procureing cause

7. Though we could not satisfy wrangling wits, touch∣ing the equity of this, (which yet the common and ordinary practice of men, forfaulting a whole posterity, for one mans transgression, will not suffer us to account insolent) yet we ought to rest satisfyed with what is clearly and unde∣nyably held forth in the word, and beleeve that for these caus∣es, such and such plagues were inflicted upon distinct and different persones, because the spirit of truth sayeth so.

8. As all Scripture was given by the inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousnesse, that the Man of God, may be perfect, thorowly furnished, unto all good works, 2 Tim, 3: v. 16, 17. So these particular passages, so particu∣larly described are written for our learning, Rom. 15: ver. 4. and are out examples, that we should not do as they did, 1 Cor. 10: v. 6. and are written for our admonition, 1 Cor. 10: ver. 11. And therefore we must not look slightly upon them, but ponder then narrowly, as so many documents given us for our use and instruction, and particularly, that we may take warning to prevent such evils.

Now let us hear what the Surveyer sayeth Pag. 51. He layes downe two assertions [1. That no man is involved in divine judg∣ments and punishments, for the sinnes of others, (as the deserving cause of his punishment) if he be no way accessory to these sinnes of others 2. That no private Subject is accessory to the sins of Rulers,

nor involved in the punishments of the same, meerly upon the accouut of his tolerating the sinnes, or not violent resisting the Magistrate in his sinful courses.] Answ. Not to enlairge on these now, because of what he is to say in explication of these, & we are then to speak, I would only at present enquire. 1. What acces∣sion had the army of Israel which was defate by the Men of Ai (a stroke, which made Iosua rent his cloaths, and fall upon his face to the Earth, until the even tyde, he and the elders of Israel, and put dust upon their heads) unto the sin of Achan? And why doth the Spirit of the Lord say, Ios. 7: v. 1. That the Children of Israel had committed a trespasse in the ac∣cursedthing. And againe ver. 10, 11, 12. [And the Lord said unto Iosua, Get thee up, wherefore lyest thou thus upon thy face? Israel hath sinned, and they have also transgressed my Covenant-for they have taken of the accursed thing-and they have put it even a∣mongst their owne stuff. Therefore the Children of Israel could not stand because they were accursed, neither will I be with you any more, except yee destroy the accursed from amongst you.] Though we can learne of no accession which they had, unto this particular fact, yet we see the whole body is punished as guilty, and must be legally purified, and sanctified, and purged from that con∣tagion. 2. What accession had all these who suffered in these three yeers famine, which was in David's dayes, unto that bloody act of Saul and his house, which was committed many yeers before thousands of these who suffered there∣fore knew the right hand from the left, or were borne pos∣sibly? 3. What accession had the children unborne to the third and fourth generation, unto the sinnes of their fore∣fathers? and yet the holy Lord thinks good to visite their ini∣quities on them. 4. What accession had the People unto David's sin of numbering, the people doth not David himself say, 2. Sam, 24: ver. 17. But these sheep, what have they done? But let us heare how he explaineth this, [A certane thing it is (sayes he) that God doth not properly punish any man but in reference to his owne personal sins (as the deserving cause of the pun∣ishment) albeit he may and often taketh occasion, in his wise provi∣dence, to punish men for their owne sinnes, from the sinnes of others, (and in that only sense, they may be said to be punished for the sins of

others.) But every soul suffers for his owne sin. Divine justice finding causes of punishment, in every one that is punished, either their per∣sonal accession to the sinnes of others (which is their owne sin) or else some other sinnes, for which he may in justice inflict the punishment upon them, albeit the impulsive cause, or occasion rather, for punishing in such a manner and time &c, be from the sinnes of others.] Ans. 1. Though vve desire to be vvise unto sobriety in this matter, and not to meddle vvith matters beyond our reach, yet vve think it saifer to speak in the language of the Holy Ghost, then in the vvords of this Surveyer, vvho giveth us no Scripture for vvhat he sayes. The expressions of Scripture hold forth some thing more then a meer occasion: It semeth strange to say that Ahan's sin should have been only an occasion of that dis∣comfiture: when the Spirit of the Lord sayes, that Israel had sin∣ned, and therefore could not stand before their Enemies, because they were accursed, and that till this accursed were taken from amongst them he would not be with them any more. 2. He vvould do vvell to explaine to us, vvhat he meaneth by a proper punishment, and vvhat is the opposite tearme thereunto? 3. We grant divine justice findeth deserving causes of punishment in all, in whom is original sin, but vve suppose that vvhen that is not men∣tioned as the procureing cause of such a stroke, but the sin com∣mitted by another, vve ought to look on that mainly, as hav∣ing a procureing causality in that affliction. 4. How ever, we see he granteth one may be punished for the sin of another (or upon occasion of the sin of another, as he loveth to speak.) to which he hath no personal accession. 5. If these sinnes of others, were only the occasion of punishing in such a manner or time, how cometh it that the very punishment it self is removed, upon the taking away of that sin, according to God's appoyntment, and God is pacified toward the whole, as he was vvith Israel vvhen Ahan vvas killed, and Seven of Saul's sones hanged up? 6. But whether vve take these sinnes of others, as impulsive causes, or occasions of such punish∣ments. This is cleare. That, if these sinnes had been pre∣vented, these punishments had been prevented also: so that if Saul had not gotten liberty to have staine the Gibeonites, in his bloody rage, contrare to oath and Covenant, these three

yeers famine had not come: And if David had been hin∣dered from numbering of the people, and had not gotten his vvill, these Seventy thousand had not died then as they did: And seing no other cause or occasion is rendered of this, it vvould clearly warne all in a Community and Society, to labour, by all meanes, according to their power and places, to hinder the Committing (or removing when committed) of these sinnes, which bring heavy plagues on the Commu∣nity. The Dutch. Aunot. on 2 Sam. 21: 1. say that so for this offence, all the land was punished because at least (as it oft hapneth) the people had not hindered it.

Then Pag. 52. he cometh to explaine his other assertion (

It is no lesse certane (sayes he) to us that if the Magistrate do not connive at the sinnes of Subjects, nor neglect to curb and punish them, the sins of the people shall no way be imputed to him (he not being thereunto accessory in any way) nor shall be punished for their sinnes, which in his place and calling he is wrestling against]

Answ. Yet we know, that for the transgression of a land, many are the princes there∣of Prov. 8. v. 2. And that for a punishment to people, God may even cut the dayes of a good prince, and though we should grant, that it were no proper punishment unto the good Prince, yet materially and in it self it is a stroke. But he addeth. [

Also it is alike certane. That private persons shall not have the sinnes of Magistrates, or of the body of the people imputed unto them, nor be punished for the same, if so be they honestly endeavour to do all things against these sins, which in their privat calling they are bound to do.

] Answ. Be this granted, The main question will be if people can be said to have honestly endeavoured to do all things against these sinnes, which in their privat callings they are bound to do, if having power to withstand the committing of these evills, or to remove them after they are committed, yet they forbeare, and suffer these things to be done, and labour not to remove them. He addeth [

If they keep themselves without any degree of acting these sins, or any way of accession to them. if they mourne and sigh for evils that are done; if they be earnest in prayer▪

that God may convert others from their evil way, if they (as they can have opportunity) faithfully admonish and study to reclaime those who are out of the way, and do such like Christian dutyes. God will never enter in judgment vvith them for not doing violence to the authorityes that are above them.

] Answ, If the Surveyer would do no more then this, he ought neither to be accounted a good Christian, nor a loyal subject: For, if he saw the King about to cut his owne throat with a knife, or about to do as Saul did, fall upon his owne sword, or runing doun a precipice to break his neck, would any think he had had done his duty, and exonered his conscience; if he should not lead his hand unto that mischief, nor thrust him doune the principice, but should roare and cry God save the King, and admonish and study, with faire words, to reclaime the King from that cruel deed? would any think but he might have done more, even if he had had strength enough have holden his hands, and keeped him back from breaking his neck, and yet never have been in any hazard or sinfully touching the Lord's anoynted, or doing violence to the authority that God had set over him. 2. And if Kings may be-resisted, and with violence hindered from putting hands in themselves, or from drinking a cup of poyson, or doing some such deed, which will or may prove destructive to their life and posterity, without doing violence to the authority appoynted of God; vvhy may they not also be hindered from doing that which will ruine their souls, and prove destructive to their Kingdomes, and bring on the curse and vengeance of God upon young and old, without doing any sinful violence unto the authority? And as in the former case, a man could not but be guilty of the King's death, who knew that it was a cup of poyson which he was to drink, and did not, having power to do it, hinder him from drink∣ing it: So in this case, they that have power to hinder the Magistrate from drinking poyson, or doing what may be deadly to thousands of his innocent subjects, and bring downe the curse of God upon him and his posterity, and do it not, cannot but be guilty of that sin before God, and so cannot expect to be free of the punishment which God will

inflict because of that sin, as not having done, even in their private callings, what they were bound to do, viz. not hav∣ing used their power for the glory of God, the good of the Soveraigne and his posterity, nor for the good of the Com∣monwealth, which they were bound to do.

He tells us moreover concerning that instance of Manasseh, Ier. 15: v. 4. [That the people were punished, because they were shares of the guiltinesse (not by not violent resisting, which they were never exhorted to) but by direct or indirect accession otherwayes, Hos. 5: ver. 11. Ier. 5: v. 31.] Ans. 1. How could young children be accessory, either by consent or any otherwayes to these courses of Manasseh? 2. It were hard to say that even all who were come to the use of reason, were guilty of ac∣cession unto these wickednesses, who yet were carryed away captive, such as Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azaria, and others. 3. That there were many, yea the far greatest part of the People who were guilty, of hainous sinnes, when the final stroke came, cannot be denyed; but, that they were at that same hight of wickednesse, which they were at, in Manasseh's dayes is doubted, 4. We shalll grant with Calvin on the place. That Manasseh alone was not in that transgression, but had many of the People consenting; Yet, as Manasseh himself was dead, long ere the stroke came, so were they; and yet for that sin of theirs, the posterity suffered: Yea even notwitstanding that there interveened a National repentance and mourning for that National sin, and National Reformation of these idolatrous courses, in the dayes of Iosiah, 5. Though it be true that the People after Iosiah's dayes, returned to their vomite, and had wickednesse enough of their owne, for which God might have punished them; yet it is very remarkable, how that sin of Manasseh is parti∣cularly mentioned, as if there had not been another, to pro∣cure that stroke: and certanely all who read the places cited before, will easily observe that there is something more in them, then an occasion taken to remember that dreadful time of Manasseh, when the wickednesse began, as the Surveyer say∣eth in the following words. 6. It was their sin, I grant, that they did consent; and that sayeth that they should not

have consented, but have refused obedience unto the King idolatrous mandats, and have hindered in their places, an according to their power, the setting up of these abhomina∣tions, and should have adhered to the truth and worship of God, as it was practised in the dayes of good Hezekiah his Father. 7. He needs not say, they were not exhorted to this violent resisting; for it was but folly to speak of resist∣ence, to these, who so willingly walked after the comman∣dement, and would not do so much as disobey. 8. That place of Hoseah speaking of Ephraim's willingly walking after the commandment, proves not what the people of Iudah's car∣riage was in the dayes of Manasseh; albeit we grant the thing was too true of the greatest part, even of them, then: Neither doth the place, Ier, 5: v. 31. speak of the dayes of Manasseh: for Ieremiah was not then a Prophet; for he began to prophe∣cy in the 13 year of Iosiah, Ier. 1: 2.

Then the cometh, Pag. 53. and giveth some reasons: But first we must take notice how he wordeth the principle which he accounteth so dangerous If it be once admitted (sayes he) that the sins of Rulers & Governours involve the People in sin, & make them obnoxious to judgment, (albeit they be not accessory thereto directly only they toler at what they cannot amend abiding within the bounds of their calling) neither can the consciences of people, nor the state of the com∣monwealth have any true peace or quyetnesse.] Ans. We might grant him what he desireth, & acknowledge, that this principle is not sound: we do not say so, for we shall grant that (excepting the Lord's Soveraignity of doing as he did in the case of Ahan & such like,) that the People who are come to age must be di∣rectly or indirectly guilty of the sin of Rulers, in which they are involved. But so they are guilty, when they tolerate what they might amend, abideing within the bounds of their calling. But here the difference betwixt him & us lyeth. That he thinketh it is beyond the bounds of the calling of private persones, to hinder Princes from committing such 〈…〉〈…〉 which would ruine them & their subjects both, which we deny, and we have not yet seen him prove it: yea we have shewed the contrary above. But now we proceed to his two reasones. [For 1. (sayes he) Once grant this then what

a continual puzle should tender hearted Christians be in, anent the actions of their Rulers and Magistrates, and they behoved to meddle with and examine all their proceedings—matters of government not probably or morally possible for them to know.] Answ. We do not, neither need we extend that principle to all the private or per∣sonal sinnes of Magistrates, or to such acts which are beyond the reach of the capacity of the vulgar, wherein their invin∣cible ignorance, whether as to the jus or factum, may excuse them from any accession direct or indirect. If he will grant it to us, in sinnes publick, hainous, and which People can well discerne both as to jus and factum, we desire no more: and if it be limited to these, we will gaine our poynt (for our case is as clear as the Sun) and tender consciences will be free of all puzle or perplexity. What is his 2. [Would not this (sayes he) be a perpetual Seminary of unavoydable sedition of the Commonwealth, and of exposeing the Magistrate to violence, no lesse when he is acting justly, then when unjustly.] Answ. Then this loyal Subject, if he saw an house or a great milstone falling upon the King's head, he would not pull him from under it, lest others under pretence of that, should use violence to the Magistrate, when he is in no hazard. Or if he saw the King putting a cup of poison to his head, or a Knife to his throate, he would not hinder him, lest others under that pretence should hinder him from taking wholsome food, & so starve him; or should under pretence of saving the King, put hands in his Majesty, and stob him under the fiftrib. But 2. doth he not know, that the best things may be abused, and will any, that is wise, say, that he pleadeth for the a∣buse of a thing, who pleadeth only for its use? 4. By this same reason, he might plead against refuseing to give obe∣dience unto the King in all his most sinful commands; for may not seditious and unquyet spirits easily pretend that his commands are unjust, and that if they obey these they are in∣volved in sin and judgment, and so disobey him, even when he commandeth most just and necessary things. If he be not for universal obedience, let him answere this inconvenience in that case, and we shall make use of his answere in this case.

In the next place he cometh to speak of these scriptures, which he allaigeth Naphtaly doth abuse. The first is Ier. 26: v. 15. If yee put me to death shall surely bring innocent blood upon yourselves, and upon this city, and upon the inhabitants there∣of, concerning which two things (he sayes) are to be re∣marked. [1. That Jeremiah is speaking to the Princes and all the People, warning them not to meddle with his blood; The Princes that they should not unjustly condemne him, The People that they should not consent to, nor co-operate with an unjust sentence, as to the ex∣ecution thereof (as the manner of execution was amongst that People, stoning &c.) And 2. He certifieth both that if they consented and co-operated to his death, they should bring innocent blood upon them∣selves, and upon the City, and inhabitants thereof. He doth not at all incite the People to rise up and rescue him by violence out of the hands of Rulers, if they should give sentence of death against him, (neither did ever any of the holy Prophets instigate People to use violent resistance agàinst their perverse Magistrates, nor did they ever reprove directly or indirectly that sin of non-violent resistence to Magistrats, as some excessively bold do averr) but only warns Princes and People both, that they be not by consent and concurrence accessory to his death] Answ. 1. Here is enough for us: For 1. He granteth the People were not to consent to, nor co-operate with an unjust sentence; but if they should have refused to have co-operated, the sentence had not been executed; and so Ieremiah had been really rescued from the sentence, and decree of the Magistrates; so that there needed no other re∣sistence to have been used, innocent blood would not have been shed, and this was sufficient. 2. He needed not to have incited them furder unto a violent rescueing of him, for though they should have given sentence of death against him, yet if none would have executed it, he had been suffi∣ciently rescued. But what needed more incitation, then to tell that by shedding of his blood they should bring innocent blood upon the whole city, and upon the inhabitants there∣of. 3. It was little wonder that the Prophets did not insti∣gate People to use violent resistence unto perverse Magi∣strates, seing it was usually such Prince such People, and the People as forward unto wickednesse as the Princes, and

yet we finde the duty of delivering the oppressed urged upon People conjunct with their Rulers: Because both, in their places, should have concurred hereunto; which sayes, that people, though they were not formally to execute Magistrati∣cal power, yet they were to concurre to have Justice, executed, and to have the oppressed delivered, out of the hands of op∣pressours. And these were judges as well as others, but more of this afterward. 4. This place doth abundantly cleare, That the shedding of innocent blood by Magi∣strates bringeth judgement on the Subjects: for Ieremiah sayes, that if they should have killed him, they should have brought innocent blood not only to themselves, who gave out the sentence, and did execute it; but on the whole city, and on the inhabitants thereof. To this he hath many words Pag. 55. but little answere. The summe is this (for it were wearisome to transcribe all his needlesse tautologies and re∣petitions, which if taken away, his pamphlet of a 120 pages, might be reduced to 20) [All who were defiled behoved to be ac∣cessory either by doing, or not hindering what they were called and capacitated to hinder, which was not by violent resistence: nor doth the Prophet meane, that all the absents should be guilty and properly deserve Gods wrath upon that account, but only that the actors, and such as were accessory, should be guilty, and others should, upon this occasion, fall under wrath, though for other sinnes: and yet the judg∣ment on the People might be a punishment to the Rulers, for that same particular sin; for God may punish Princes or Fathers, in the pu∣nishment of Subjects and Children; and yet these same Subjects and Children have no reason to quarrel with God, or to say as it is, Exech. 18. v. 2.] Answ. We grant God may and doth punish Princes and Parents, in their Subjects and Children; and That these same Subjects and Children so punished, have no just cause to say that their Fathers have eaten sowre grapes and that their teeth are set on edge, as if there were no sin in themselves. But that God may not visite the iniquities of the Fathers upon the Children, who have not formally acted these evills, nor consented thereto, we dar not peremptorily assert, against so many clear scriptures. 2. Sure this place seemeth to hint something else, then that this sin of shedding Ieremiahs blood

should be an occasion of God's visiting the City, for their other sinnes: For he sayes you shall bring innocent blood upon this city: so that by this Murther, they should have brought innocent blood as well on the other inhabitants, as on them∣selves, who were to be actors: the text maketh no diffe∣rence. 3. If the People here had done all which in their calling and station, they were capacitated to have done, for hindering of this sheding of blood, they would have hin∣dered it effectually; and further violent resistence was need∣lesse. If a wicked Magistrat should condemne an innocent person, and make this his sentence, that he should not have the benefite of a lodging within the land, The People need do no more to resist the Magistrat's unjust sentence, but, notvvithstanding thereof, receive the innocent into their house, and intertaine him friendly. And still vve say, the People vvere to do all that lay in their povver, to hinder in∣nocent blood to be shed, that so innocent blood might not be laid to their charge: And in so far as they came short in this, they made themselves guilty be accession, notvvith∣standing of any thing he hath said.

The next place he speaketh to, is Deut. 13. vvhich vve have already vindicated, and must observe this further, That in all his long ansvvere he speaketh nothing to that vvhich novv vve are upon, viz. the hazard that People in such a case are into, both of sin, and of judgment, if effectuall course be not taken to suppresse idolatry, and apostasy from God, and to put that crying evil avvay from amongst them: For v. 17. it is clearly held forth, that till this city and all which was within it, was rooted out: the Lord would not turne from the fiercenesse of his anger, nor shew them mercy, nor have compassion upon them, nor multiply them, as he swore unto their Fathers. So that their not doing their utmost to execute this sentence of God, made them lyable to the constant abideing of the fierce anger of God upon them, and closed the door of Mercy and compas∣sion, so that they could not expect the blessings promised and Covenanted.

Then Pag. 59. he cometh to speak to Ios. 22: ver. 17, 18, 19. and tells us That they were not private persones that transacted that

businesse with the Children of Reuben: for the body of the People con∣curred with the Magistrates Supreame and Subordinate. What makes all this for the encroachment of meer private persons upon the use of the Magistrates avenging sword?] Answ. It is true the Magistrates and major part of the People were here concurring; but why doth he not take notice of the words cited by Naphtaly (which clearly hold forth the end of his adduceing that passage) If yee rebel to day against the Lord, to morrow he will be worth with the whole congregation of Israel, which do clearly hold forth, that the defection of a part (though a minor part) will bring wrath upon the whole Nation aud Society. And may not any see hence; That each are to concurre in their places and stations, according to their povver, to prevent this defection, or to remove it, even when the major part is infected with it; yea even though Magistrates should be remisse, and should rather encourage then discountenance such rebellion against God? Seeing the reason holdeth à fortiori, for it upon the defection of a minor part, wrath will come upon the whole, much more will wrath come upon the defection of a major part, and of the Magistrates too: And therefore if in the former case, private persons be bound to concurre with Magistrates, for rooting out of that provoking sin of a few, then it cannot be unlawful for private persones, in this later case, to do what they can, to stirr up Magistrates to their duty, if it be possible; and to prevent their owne destruction from that wrath of God, kindled against all; and to remove the provokeing cause of that anger: And, as we have said, they may take an effectual course for this, without en∣croaching upon the use of the Magistrate's avenging sword, or exercing any formall Magistratical power.

The next place he speaketh to, is Iudg. 20. where Israel warreth against Benjamin because of a notorious crime acted there, and countenanced and defended by that whole Tribe, to the end that such a crying abhomination might be purged out of the land, To which he answereth in short (to let passe his unchristian jibes) thus [Though this was when there was no King in Israel, yet it is likely they retained somewhat of their Sanhe∣drin appoynted Deut. 17. which in such a horrid case might draw

together in an extraordinary meeting: It was the body or the major part of the People, that useth the sword against the lesser; which maketh noth∣ing for the minor parts using the sword to punish Magistrates & the ma∣jor part of the People also.] Answ. Though I should grant that they retained yet something of the Sanhedrin, yet in all this passage, there is no mention made thereof; but it is said v. 1. That all the Children of Israel went out, & the Congregation was gathered together as one Man, to Mizpeh; and resolved not to returne to their owne houses, ver. 8. until these Children of Belial in Gibeah had been executed, and evil was put away from Israel, Cap. 13: v. 2. To say that this speaks not to our case, is but to wrangle; for sure if we should sup∣pose that Benjamin had been maintaining their integrity, and the true worshipe of God, against the generality of the People, who had turned idolaters, and had raised war against them, because they would not depart from their profession; would he have condemned the minor part for standing to their defence in this case? Or if they should have joyned together to have hindered the defection of the major part, or remov∣ed the corruptious that were prevailing; would he have con∣demned them? Sure this is not improve Scripture a right, but rather to elude it; for there is not the least shaddow, that the stresse of the matter is laid on this, that they vvere the major part.

Finally he cometh to Achan's case, Jos. 7. and tells us, [That there is nothing in it, to justify private persones rising against the Magistrates, and plurality of the people, to avert the judgments of God; for what was done to Achan was done by the Supreame Ma∣gistrat Josua.] Answer. But Naphtaly only maketh use of this place, to shew that our reformers had great reason to feare and tremble, lest the manifest toleration of proud, cruel, flattering Prelats, and idolatrous Priests, whose wicked∣nesse and idolatry, had corrupted the whole land; might involve the whole Nation in destroying indignation; since the wrath of God for the hidden and secret sin of one poor Achan suddenly and fearfully overtook the whole People, and all the congregation of Israel, so that that man perished not alone in his iniquity. Now can any body deny this conse∣quence?

But our Surveyer layeth downe againe his peremp∣tory assertions without further proof, and we have spoken to them already, and need not repeat things so oft as he gives us occasion so to do, otherwise we should follow this fool in his folly, and weary the reader as he doth, in repeating almost whole pages verbatim, let any look and he shall finde the whole 61 page, (except some groundlesse jibes which do not help his cause) nothing almost but repetitions. We shall then goe on, and draw forth our arguments from what is said, to shew that the late act ought rather to be praised then condemned.

For 1. Thereby they were endeavouring, according to their power and places, (as that exigent required) when all doores were closed from essaying any other meane, not only to defend themselves against manifest and intolerable in∣jury and oppression, but to save themselves, their posterity, and the whole land (so far as lay in their power) from the wrath and vengeance of God, and the dreadful plagues and judgments that were and are to be expected, for the dreadful and unparallelable apostasy and defection of a corrupt mi∣nistry. Did God threaten that Zion should be plowed as a field, and Ierusalem become as a heape, That Iacob should be given to the curse, and Israel to reproaches, for the sinnes of a corrupt ministry; and when our eyes did never see a more corrupt company, who have partly apostatized from their sworne profession, and partly are thrust in over flocks, to the ruineing of their souls, the corrupting of the truthes of God, and to be a standing occasion of dreadful persecu∣tion unto them; and when, for this cause, nothing could or can be looked for, from the hands of a just and jealous God, but wrath without remedy, and judgment after judg∣ment, till we become as plowed fields, and as heaps: Can or ought these to be blamed, who standing to their sworne pro∣fession, were labouring in the integrity of their hearts, to purge the land of these plagues and locusts, that we might become a holy and pure Church unto the Lord, and that the Lord might delight to dwell among us; and for this end, tooke their lives in their hands, and essayed that now sole re∣medy,

seing there was no other meane left unto them, where∣by to attaine this noble End.

2. When one Apostat city not taken course with, accord∣ing to the command of God, would provoke God to anger against the whole assembly of God's People, so that till it was destroyed, he would not have mercy or compassion u∣pon them; was there not much more reason to feare, that God's anger should burne against Scotland his covenanted People, and that he should have no more mercy on us, since there was such a dreadful defection in it, whereof not only one city, but many cities were in an eminent manner guilty, having so foulely departed from their sworne truth and pro∣fession, and openly and avowedly revolted from God and his wayes, and since there was no other way imaginable to prevent this heavy indignation of God? Shall any condemne these, who our of Zeal to God's Glory, and for the good of the poor land, whereof they were members, took their lives in their hands, and did what lay in their power, to have that corruption and apostasy removed, and God restored to his honour, and the land to its Covenanted integrity?

3. Since the backslideing and defection of a few members of a Society, joyned together in a Covenant to God as his People, brings vvrath upon the vvhole; if timeous remedy be not used, as the forecited places shevv: Shall any con∣demne these vvho endeavoured according to their povver, to prevent the destruction that vvas and is to be feared, for the defection not of a fevv, not of one poor Achan, but of multi∣tudes, and that of all ranks and conditions?

4. Did the people of Israel goe out as one man, to prevent apostasy, when they heard some rumore thereof in a part of their number; and to take course with, and purge the land of a crying evil that was committed in one of their cities: & who shall condemne these who lately went out with one heart and spirit, to do what in them lay, to remove the far∣carryed-on defection, and the dreadful evil of perjury and many other hainous crimes, that did & yet do abound, where∣of Many of all rankes were guilty, even such as should have been, by their publick places and stations, eminently appear∣ing

on the head of these worthyes, for the glory of God, and the good of the whole Church and Kingdome.

5. Seing the publick transgressions of Kings and Princes, do hazard the whole Realme and Commonwealth, as the instances formerly adduced do cleare; How much reason have People of all rankes, qualityes and conditions, to be doing what lyeth in their power, either to prevent and hinder that these iniquities be not committed, which prove de¦structive unto the Land, or labour by all meanes to have them done away when committed, before the fierce anger of the Lord break forth? And since it is not our and undenyable how our Kings and Nobles, and other judges have revolted from a sworne Covenant, Truth and Profession, and openly and avowedly, renunced the interest of Christ, and conspired against his truth and cause; can any blame these worthies who endeavoured according to their power, to have these crying abhominations remedyed, that the wrath of God should not consume us root and branch, and burne so as it should not be quenched?

What can be replyed to these reasons, is sufficiently an∣swered already; and I would further propose this to be seri∣ously considered by all: let us put the case, That King and Princes should conspire together, to poyson all the fountains of water in the Land, and lay downe a course, how they should be keeped so, and people should be forced to drink of these poysoned waters; would not any rational man think, that when no meanes else could prevaile, People might law∣fully with force, see to their owne lives, and to the lives of their little ones? And shall we be allowed to use violent re∣sistence, for the lives of our bodyes, and not also for the lives of our souls? shall people be allowed to run together, & with force, when they can no otherwayes, keep the springs of water cleare, for their owne lives or healths, and of their posterity also; and shall they be condemned for runing to∣gether to keep their Religion as it was reformed, pure and uncorrupted? Who but Atheists will say this? Againe put the case. That the Magistrates of some Brugh or City were about to do, or had already done, some publick prohi∣bited

bited action, which would so irritate the Soveraigne or Prin∣ce, that he would come with an hudge army and cut off the city, man, wife and childe: would any in this case, condemne the private inhabitants of that Brough or City, if, when no other mean could be essayed effectually to hinder the same, they should with force, either hinder them from doing that ir∣ritating action, or if done, should endeavour to remedy the matter the best way they could, for the good of the City, to prevent its ruine and overthrow, and for their owne saifty, and for the saifty of their posterity? And why then shall any condemne the late defenders, who, when the Magi∣strate, by their many sinful and publick actions, had provok∣ed the King of Kings to anger and jealousy against the whole land, so that in justice they could expect nothing but the vvrath and vengence of God to root them out and their po∣sterity, laboured what they could, to have the wrath of the King of Kings pacified, and the wicked deeds provoking him remedied? Would the Soveraigne in the former case ac∣count these privat persons traitours to their Magistrates, and not rather more loyal Subjects to him, then the Magistrates themselves? And shall we think that the King of Kings shall account the late act, disloyalty to the King and Magistrates, and not rather commendable loyalty to him, and faithful service?

There is another argument much of the Nature with the preceeding, taken from the grounds of Christian love and affection, whereby each is bound to preserve the life and welfare of another, as he would do his owne: and as each would have another helping him, in the day when he is un∣justly wronged and oppressed, so he should be willing to helpe others when it is in the power of his hand to doe it according to that royal law of Christ's, Mat. 7: ver. 12. Luk. 6: ver. 31. Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so them, for this is the law and the prophets. It is un∣naturall and unchristian both, to say am I my brother's keeper. Sure he who helps not his brother against a murderer, when he may do it, is before God, guilty of the man's blood. Meroz and the inhabitants thereof were to be cursed

bitterly, because they came not out to the help of the Lord and his People, against the mighty, Iudg. 5. Was not Da∣vid helped thus against the Tyranny and wickednesse of King Saul? And honest Ionathan rescued from the hands of his bloody Father? Prov. 24: ver. 11, and 12. If thou forbear to deliver them that are drawne unto death, and these that are ready to be slame: If thou sayest behold we know it not, doth not he that pondereth the heart considerit? And he that keepeth thy soull, doih not he know it? And shall not herender to every man according to his work? Now the text maketh no difference whether they be drawne to death unjustly by private persons or by Magistrates: They are (if they can do it) with force to rescue such; for so the word imports as I Sam. 30: 18. 2 King. 18: 34. 1 Sam. 17: 35. Hos. 5: 14. And this did famous Mr. Knox avow unto Lithingtoun, in his discourse with him, registrated in the history of reforma∣tion. Hence it is that Ieremiah Cap. 22: 23. cryeth to the People as well as to the King, execute judgment and righteousnesse and deliver the spoiled out of the hand of the oppressour: and though it be true, as Calvin on the place sayeth, that this did chiefly belong to the judges and Magistrates; Yet, when their proceeding in this course of oppressing of the stranger, the fatherlesse and the widow, and of shedding innocent blood, would provoke God to execute what he threateneth with an oath, ver 5. And make that house a desolation, and prepare destroyers against it and the whole city ver. 7: 8. and when all this is spoken in the eares of the people, it would seem to import, that even they should have stood in the way of such oppression, and delivered the spoiled out of the hands of the oppressour; & not have suffered innocent blood to have been shed, especially when inferiour as well as Supe∣riour Magistrates were oppressing and tyrannizing, and were the only oppressours and wolves as we see Esa. 1: 21. and. 3, 12, 14, 15. Micha. 3: 9, 10. Ezech. 22: 27. And many of the people conjoyned with them in the like, as encouraged by their practice ver. 29. see furder for this Isa. 1: ver. 10, 17. Ier. 5: ver. 2, 5, 6. But sayes our Surveyer Pag. 53. [That such prophetical preachings uttered to the body of

Rulers and People, are to be understood as reproveing what was amisse in every one, in their respective calling, and as injoying such duties as might be done by every one, salvâ justitiâ, salvo ordine, & modulo vocationis—but to say that they minded to con∣demne in People, the grand sin of non-resistence to the oppressing Ma∣gistrates, or to incite private persones to pull the sword out of the Magi∣strat's hand, & relieve the oppressed, & execute judgment on the oppres∣sours, even Magistrats (as Lex Rex doth say Pag. 367,) is not only a most fearful perverting of the most holy scripture—but a doctrine that tends directly to horrid confusion & utter subversion of humane societies] Ans. We shall easily grant, that in those sermons, every one was reproved for what was amisse in his respective calling, and all were enjoyned to do, what might be done by them according to their places and callings, and without wronging of justi∣ce: But we averre, that it vvas the duty of privat persones, to hinder, so far as lay in their power, the shedding of in∣nocent blood, the oppressing of the innocent, and wronging the vvidow and fatherlesse. If a Magistrate in a rage run upon an innocent person going by, to kill him, It is the part of any private person that is next, to hinder the Ma∣gistrate from committing manifest murther, without breach of justice, order, or the extent of his calling: Bacause in that case he is not acting the part of a judge. So a judge per∣verting judgment, and manifestly oppressing the innocent, is no judge authorized of God for that; but a privat person, and may as justly be withheld from murthering or oppressing, as any other Man. 2. They might presse them to relieve the oppressed though they did not incite them to pul the svvord out of the Magistrat's hand: viz by hindering, ac∣cording to their povver, oppression to be committed; and this might be vvithout the least violence done to the Magi∣strate's power and authority, as is shevved: So might they move them to execute judgment not formally but materially, by hindering justice according to their povver, or labouring to have the lavv executed according to God's vvord. 3. Lex Rex speaketh no such thing in that place, as any vvill see vvho read it. 4. It is but his ignorance to say, that in this vve fearfully pervert the holy scripture. 5. Hovv vvill he shovv

that this doctrine tends to horrid confusion? He tels us Pag. 50. [That such pretences will not be wanting to the worst of men, and the best Magistrate, proceeding most legally, shall never have security from seditious partyes] Answ. But sure his doctrine tendeth more to confusion; for, by it every Magistrat of the land hath povver to kill and destroy vvhom he vvill: and thus Magistrates should be formally constituted wolves. 2. But how oft will he put us to tell him, that the best truth may be abused? 3. But let him speak in earnest, what would he do if he saw his wife carryed away by some drunken officers, before a judge drunk as a beast, so as he could neither hear nor speak sense, who yet without further processe, would condemne her to be brunt as a witch, or executed as a harlot, would he not labour, if he had power, to relieve his inno∣cent wife out of the hands of these bloody oppressours? What would he then do with his pretences? Would these scar his tender conscience? I suppose not. And what if he saw the King, without ground, or colour of reason, possibly upon a mistake, runing in a rage to kill his wife, or only son, would he not help the innocent in that case, and hold the King with force? Or would he only assist them by prayers to God for them, by consolatory words, by giving counsel to them, or by supplications to the Magistrate with all du∣tiful respects, and if nothing could avail, sit dovvne as having discharged his duty; and vvould not resist more? (vvhich he thinketh is all vvhich is required of private per∣sones Pag. 49.) If so, many might think he vvere accessory to the death of his vvife or childe, and so possibly might the King, when he came to himself, and his rage was off him, and he convinced of his mistake. And if he vvould hinder in∣nocent blood to be shed (as rational people will easily think he might) hovv shall he salve the matter, for the vvorst of men may resist the best Magistrate, proceeding most legally, upon pretences, that the King is in a rage, he hath no shaddow of law or reason for him, he is mistaken of the persones &c. And would he think, that in this case, there were a necessary connexion betvvixt resistence and revenge? and if he should have the upper hand in the matter of resistence, could he not

sit dovvn satisfied? If he could: then he may think that these tvvo, may be seperated in exercise and practice, in other cases, as vvell as in his ovvne, unlesse the fault be on the Magistrate's side. Thus is answered also vvhat he hath Pag. 49. for it is but the same thing which he hath in the place before considered, He is tedious in his repetitions, and therefore we Proceed to our arguments.

And. 1. If Humanity, Brotherly Affection, Christian Love. Tendernesse and Compassion to a suffering injured brother, call for help and releef at the hands of others, according to their power and capacities: Then none can justly blame or condemne the late risers for endeavouring in their places, & according to their power, the releife of their oppressed brethren, with violence, when no other meane was left feasible or practicable. Their Solemne covenants did engadge them to account each injury done unto any Co∣venanter, upon that account, as done unto themselves; And to vindicate and maintaine the libertyes of the Subjects, in all these things, which concerne their Consciences, persones, and Estates, and who can blame them for paying their vowes unto God▪

2. If this same duty was expresly required of the people of God of old, that they should endeavour to relieve the op∣pressed, and to prevent the shedding of innocent blood: Then none can justly blame those late valient vindicators of justice, and relievers of the oppressed. But the for∣mer is true, as the places above cited do show. There∣fore &c.

3. If their forebearing had made them guilty before God, of the oppression and bloodshed committed, vvhen it vvas in their povver to help it: Then they could not forbeare to do what they did, without sin. But the former is true. The very Egyptians knew so much by the light of nature, when by their law, such as did not relieve the oppressed, when it was in their povver, vvere accused upon their head; and if they vvere not able to help, they vvere bound to accuse the op∣pressour, or else they vvere to be vvhipped, & to endure three dayes hunger.

I shall close this chapter, as I did the former, with a testi∣mony of famous Mr. Knox, that it may be seen to be no nevv doctrine of ours. In his admonition to the Commonalty of Scotland he hath these words, neer the end, [

These vaine excuses I say, will nothing availe you, in the pre∣sence of God, who requireth no lesse of the Subjects, then of their Rulers—and if yee think that ye are inno∣cent, because you are not the chief actors of such iniquity, ye are utterly deceived, for God doth not only punish the chiefe offenders, but with them, doth he condemne the consenters to such iniquity, and all are judged to con∣sent, that knowing impiety committed give no testimony that the same displeaseth them. To speak this matter more plaine: As your Princes and Rulers are criminal with your Bishops, of all Idolatry committed, and of all the inno∣cent blood that is shed, for the testimony of Christs truth: and that because they maintaine them in their ty∣ranny: So are yee (I meane so many of you, as give no plaine confession to the contrary) criminal and guilty with your Princes and Rulers, in the same crimes; be∣cause you assist and maintaine your Princes in their blind rage, and give no declaration that their tyranny displeaseth you. This doctrine I know is strange to the blinde world, but the verity thereof hath been declared in all notable pu∣nishments from the beginning; vvhen the Original vvorld perished by vvater; vvhen Sodome and Gomorah vvere pu∣nished by fire; and finally, vvhen Ierusalem vvas horribly destroyed, doth any think that all vvere alike vvicked before the vvorld? Evident it is, that they vvere not, if they be judged according to their external facts; for some were young and could not be oppressours, nor could defile themselves with unnatural, and beastly lusts; Some were pitiful and gentle of nature, and did not thirst for the blood of Christ, and his Apostles: but did any escape the pla∣gues and vengeance which did apprehend the multitude? let the scripture witnesse, and the histories be considered, which plainly do testify that by the vvaters, all flesh on••arth at that time, did perish, (Noah and his family reserved)

That none escaped in Sodome and in the other cities adja∣cent, except Lot and his tvvo daughters; And evident it is that in that famous city of Ierusalem, in that last and horrible destruction, none escaped God's vengeance, except so many as before were dispersed. And what is the cause of this severity, seing that all were not alike offenders? let flesh cease to disput with God, and let all men by these examples learne betimes to flee and avoyd the society and company of the proud contemners of God, if that they list not to be partakers of their plagues. The cause is evident, if we can be subject, without grudging, to God's judgments, which in themselves are most holy and just; for in the original world none was found that either did resist tyranny, nor yet that earnestly reprehended the same. In Sodome was none found that did gain-stand that furious and beastly multitude that did compasse about and besiege the house of Lot—and finally in Ierusalem was found none that studyed to reprepresse the tyranny of the priests vvho vvere conjured against Christ and his Evangel; but all fainted (I except ever such as gave vvitnesse vvith their blood, or flying, that such impiety displeased them) all keeped silence, by the which all approved iniquity, and joyned hands with the Tyrants, and so were arrayed and set, as it were, in one battle against the almighty, and against his Son Christ Jesus; for whosoever gathereth not with Christ, in the day of his harvest, is judged to scatter, and therefore of one vengeance temporal, were they all partakers,—will God in this behalf hold you as in∣nocents, be not deceived dear Brethren, God hath punish∣ed not only the proud tyrants, filthy persones, and cruel murtherers, but also such as with them did draw the yoke of iniquity, vvas it by flattering their offences, obeying their unjust commands, or in winking at their manifest iniquity. All such, I say, God once punished, vvith the chief offenders. Be ye assured brethren, That as he is immutable in nature, so will he not pardon you in that which he hath punished in others, and now the lesse, be∣cause he hath plainly admonished you of the dangers

come, and hath offered you his mercy, before he poure forth his wrath and displeasure upon the disobedient.]

So in his Exhortation to England, Pag. 107. [

No other assurate will I require that your plagues are at hand, and that your destruction approacheth, then that I shall understand that yee do justify your selves in this your former iniqui∣ty: absolve and flatter you who list, God the Father, His son Christ Jesus, his holy Angels, the creatures sensible and insensible in heaven and earth, shall rise in judg∣ment and shall condemne you, if in time you repent not. The cause why I wrape you all in idolatry, all in murther, and all in one and the same iniquity, is, that none of you hath done his duty, none hath remembered his office and charge, which was to have resisted to the uttermost of your power, that impiety at the beginning, but you have all follovved the wicked commandement, and all have consented to cruel murther; in so far as in your eyes, your Brethren have most unjustly suffered, and none opened his mouth to com∣plaine of that injury, cruelty and Murther. I do ever except such as either by their death, by abstaining from Idolatry, or by avoiding the realme for iniquity in the same committed, and give testimony that such an horrible falling from God did inwardly grieve them. But all the rest even from the highest to the lowest, I feare no more to accuse of idolatry, of treason committed against God, and of cruel Murthering of their brethren, then did Zecharias the son of Iehojadah. 2 Chron. 24: ver. 20. feare to say to the King, Princes and People of Iudah. Why have yee transgressed the commandements of the Eternal God? it shall not prosperously succeed unto you, but even as ye have left the Lord, so shall he leave you] And, againe Pag. 109. [., But let his holy and blessed ordinances commanded by Jesus Christ to his Kirk, be within the bounds so sure and established, that if Prince King or Emperour would interprise to change or disannul the same, that he be the reputed enemy of God, and therefore unworthy to reigne above his people? Yea that the same Man or Men that goe about to destroy God's true Religion once established, and to erect idolatry

which God detasteth, be adjudged to death, according to God's commandement: The negligence of which part, hath made you all (these only excepted which before I have expressed) murtherers of your Brethren, denyers of Christ Jesus, and manifest traitours to God's Soveraigne Majesty: Which horrible crimes if ye will avoyd in time comeing, then must yee (I meane the Princes Rulers and People of the realme) by solemne Covenant renew the oath betwixt God and you, in that forme and as Asa King of Iudah did in the like case 2 Chron. 15.—This is thy duty, & this is the only remedy O England to stay God's ven∣geance, which thou hast long deserved, and shall not escape, if his Religion and Honour be subject to mutation and change, as oft as thy Rulers list.

] The-reader may consider also what he sayes to this in his discourse with Li∣tingtoun, who was of this Surveyer's judgment, History of Re∣formation, Lib. 4.

This is consonant likewise unto our confession of faith autho∣rized by King Iames and Parliament Anno 1567. Act. 14. where among good works of the 2 table, these are mentioned To honour Father, Mother, Princes, Rulers, and Superiour pow∣ers; To love them, to support them, yea to obey their charge (not re∣pugning to the commandement of God) to save the lives of innocents, to represse tyranny, to defend the oppressed, &c.] the contrary whereof is [To disobey or resist any that God hath placed in au∣thority (while they passe not over the bounds of their office) to murther, or to consent thereunto, to bear hatred, or to let innocent blood be shed if we may withstand it, &c.] Citeing in the Margine, Ezech. 22:1, 2, 3, 4. &c. where the bloody City is to be judg∣ed, because she relieved not the oppressed out of the hand of bloody Princes v. 6.

And to what Ambrose sayeth de office. Lib. 1. c. 36. saying qui non repellit a socio injuriam si potest, tam est in vitio quam ille qui facit. i. e. he who doth not repel an injury from his brother when he may, isas guilty as he who doth the injury: And this he cleareth by Moses his deed, defending the Hebrew against the Egyptian.

CAP XI.

Of our qualified alledgiance to the King.

Our Arguments hence.

THe author of Naphtaly Pag. 177, said [That all powers are subordinate to the Most high, and appoynted and limited by his holy will and commandement, for his owne glory, and the Peoples good; and our allegiance was and standeth perpetually and expresly thus qualified, viz. in defence of Religion and Liberty, ac∣cording to our first and second Covenants - all allegiance & obedience to any created power whatsoever (though in the construction of charity apparently indefinite, yet) in its owne nature is indispensably thus re∣stricted.] By which words, any, who will duely consider the scope which that author doth drive at, will see, That his meaning was, That as obedience and allaigeance is to be given to Magistrates only in the Lord, So the same ought to be promised with this qualification or limitation, so far as it is not contrary to Religion and Liberty of the Subject: & thus we all swore to defend his Majesties person and authority in the pre∣servation and defence of the true Religion, and Libertyes of the King∣domes; and it is plaine to all who will not shut their eyes, that the foresaid author putteth no corrupt glosse upon that neces∣sary clause and qualification; for while he is dissuadeing from taking of that bond, which was urged upon the People of Edinburgh, he useth the words cited, & furder addeth [

To renew the same; or take any the like oath of allegiance pure∣ly, and simply; purposely omitting the former and due re∣striction, especially when the powers are in most manifest, &notorious rebellion against the Lord & opposition to his cause and Covenant, is in effect, equivalent to an expresse re∣jecting and disowning of the same limitation, and of the Soveraigne prerogative of the Great God and King over all, which is thereby reserved; & as much as in plaine tear∣mes to affirme, That whatever abused authority shall command or do, either as to the overturning of the work of God, subverting

of Religion, destroying of Rights and Libertyes, or persecuting of all the faithful to the utmost extremity, we shall not only stupidly endure it, but activly concurre with, and assist in all this tyranny]

What could have been spoken either more full, or plaine, both for explicating the genuine import of that restriction or qualification, or the authors Orthodox sense thereof? Yet behold how this wrangling pamphleter, because he can get nothing to say against the truth asserted, must wrest words and sense and all, that he may have something to say a∣gainst the straw-adversary of his owne setting up. There∣fore he tells us Pag. 6. [Can this assertion subsist that neither alled∣giance, or fidelity, nor obedience is to be given to any created power, but in defence of Religion and Liberty? As if Naphtaly had meaned, That no alledgiance, fidelity or obedience was due, or to be given to the created powers, but when and in so far as, they did actually owne, and contribute their ut∣most for the promoving or establishing of Religion and the Liberties of the People. Whileas his meaning is clearly seen to have been this, That as all powers are subordinate un∣to God the great King over all; So all alledgiance, fidelity, or obedience is to be promised and given unto them, with a reserve of the allegiance, fidelity and obedience due to God the Highest of all; and that man's interest is not to be preferred unto God's, but alwayes acknowledged in subor∣dination thereunto: So that when earthly powers are stated Enemies to Christ and his interest, no absolute allegiance, fidelity, or obedience is to be promised, But alwayes with this restriction, or limitation: Neither are the Subjects bound to concurre, or assist them, while in such a stated course of opposition to the King of King's, and while actively endeavouring to destroy his great interest in the world. But what sayes our Surveyer furder [That obedience is not to be given unto any creature on earth, against Religion or the revealed will of God, shall be easily granted; we ahhore the very thought of so doing.] Ans. Though he abhore the very thought of so doing; yet many will say that he hath not abhorred to do it: It is against God's expresse and revealed will to commit perjury, and re∣nunce a Covenant sworne with hands lifted up to the most

high God, and yet he knowes who is guilty of this, & maketh the will of a creature the Law of the Conscience, when the ap∣pendix is a full belly. [Againe (sayes he) it shall not be said that obedience is to be given to powers against the liberty competent to us as subjects, and consistent with Soveraignity; yet so that the measure of that liberty must not be made by every man's private will, but by the declarature of the Parliament, representative of the Subjects, which best knowes what thereunto belongs.] Answ. This royal liberal man would seem to yeeld something in favours of the liberty of the People, but with his annexed clause and restrictions, he takes all back again: For 1. sayes he, it must be con∣sistent with Soveraignity, and how wide a mouth this Soveraig∣nity hath, in his and his complices estimation, many know, and we have seem in part, even so wide as that is shall swal∣low up all the Peoples liberties; like one of Pharaohs leane kine that eates up the fat and yet is never the fatter. Then 2. it must be determined by the Representatives, as if the Re∣presentatives were not ex officio bound and obliged to main∣taine the Liberties of the People, which belong to the People, ere the Representatives have a being; and as if it were in the power of the Representatives to sell and betray the Libertyes of the People; or as if no more were compe∣tent to the Subjects de jure then what they will: Hath a man no more right to his lands aud heritages then what his advo∣cate, who betrayeth his trust for a larger summe of money, alloweth him or declareth? We know Parliaments can basely betray their trust, and sell away the Libertyes of a People, contrare to their vow and oath to God, and their obligation to the People, whose trustees they should be; and shall People have no more liberty competent to them, then what a perfidious company conspired against the good of the Commonwealth, to pleasure a sinful Creature, determineth by their declarature? This is hard if true, for then a Parlia∣ment might sell them and their posterity for bondmen and bond women to the Turk for ever. But we see no more rea∣son, for asserting an infallibility, or absolutenesse of power in Parliaments, then in Princes. What furder? [But to say, that all (not only obedience but) allegiance and fidelity, due to any

created power is indispensably restricted to this qualification in defence of Religion and liberty, viz. of the Subjects, is a most false asser∣tion.] Answ. He said not restricted to this qualification, but thus qualified, and thus restricted. This must be either igno∣rance, or worse in this pamphleter, thus to wrong the au∣thor. But, vvhat vvas the authors meaning vve have shevved. Let us heare The pamphleting Prelate [It is knowne (sayes he) that a restriction excludes all other cases which are not in the restrictive proposition included, &c. Answ. All this is founded upon his either wilfull or ignorant mistake; for the author took not the restriction, so (as we have seen) as to exclude all fidelity or obedience, except in things tending immediatly and directly unto the good of Religion and Li∣berty of the Subject: But so as that we might do nothing in prejudice of Religion and Liberty, nor yeeld obedience to him in any thing tending to the hurt of either: & thus is our o∣bedience to be restricted, or qualified. We deny not obedience, even when the act of obedience, cannot be properly & directly said to be either in defence of Religion or the liberty of the subject: So that we crosse not what the ministers said unto the doctors of Aberdeen: for we take not that clause as exclusive, that is, that we shall never defend his person and authority but when he is actually & actively defending Religion & Liber∣tyes; but only as a restriction or qualification, thus, that we shall defend his person & authority, so far as may consist with Religion & Libertyes: And thus we agree also with the gene∣ral assemblie 1639. for we say it is the Subjects duty to concurre with their friends and followers, as they shall be required, in every cause that concernes his Majesties honour, yet so as that they do nothing to the prejudice of Religion or Libertyes But furder (sayes he) as to the poynt of allegiance or fidelity, that is another matter then obedience.] Answ. True, when men will become very critical; but the scope of the place showeth in what sense he took it, not only as includeing an owneing of him as lawful and rightful King &c. but as includeing also a promise of active concurrence in de∣fending of him and his interest: and so while this is urged in an absolute, illimited, unqualified or un - restricted way, he made it all one with obedience. It is true, a man

may keep allegiance or fidelity to the King, when he cannot obey his commands; yet the clause of the Covenant respects allegiance as well as obedience, in so far, as we are not to defend his person and authority absolutely, but in defence of the true Religion and Liberties of the Subjects. Allegiance then is a comprehensive thing, not only taking - in an owneing of the King as rightful King, and fidelity to his person crowne and dignity against conspiracyes and treasons; but also an active concurring to promove his honour and dignity, and to defend his person and authority: And so all who say allegiance must be qualified according to this restriction, do not meane every thing in allegiance, but that which is ex∣pressed in the Covenants. So that it is his ignorant inference, to say. That that which Naphtals sayeth is contrary to the confession of saith Cap. 23. §. 4. which sayeth is difference in Re∣ligion doth not make voyd the Magistrates just and legal authority, nor free the people from their due obedience to him, unlesse he think the ar∣ticle of the Covenant, interfereth with the confession of faith, which he dar not assert; but if he do assert it, let us hear by his next what he will say to the Apologetical Relation, Pag. 386. 387. 388. 389. 390. where that clause of the Co∣venant is vindicated. He addeth [It is the Lord's way for keeping humane societies from grosse disorders, to allow to such as are in su∣preme power by lawful calling, the honour due unto their place, al∣though in the maine things they pervert the Ends of government, dis∣honouring him by a false Religion, or seduceing others to their evil way.] Answ. Do we say that honour is not due unto Magistra∣tes of another Religion, because we say that we must pro∣mise allegiance and obedience to them in the Lord; and must not concure with them, nor contribute our power unto them, to the manifest detriment of Religion and Libertyes? This is like the rest of this Man's foolish inferences. Or doth he think that we cannot give to Caesar the things vvhich are Caesar's, unlesse vve give him also, the things which are God's, and are the Peoples? Then he citeth Calv. Instit. Lib. 4. c 20. §, 25. 27. But He speaketh nothing contrare to the businesse we are upon: Doth he think that Calvin was of the judgment that People are bound to sweare absolute

Subjection, allegiance or fidelity and obedience to all wicked princes, whatever right they may have to the place? That subjects are bound to obey, and to sweare allegiance in the Lord unto wicked Kings who denyeth? do vve say that vvicked Kings, because vvicked, are eo ipso no Kings; nor to be acknowledged as Kings? What then doth this testi∣mony make against thus? But 2. will he stand to what Calvin sayeth? Then he must condemne vvhat King and Parlia∣ment have done, in taking the life of the Marquise of Argyle; and say that they are guilty of innocent blood; for by vvhat Calvin here sayeth, vve were as much bound to acknovvledge Cromwel then, vvhen he did Reigne, as now to acknowledge the King: for he speaks of all qui quoquo modo rerum potiun∣tur. How will he then free himself from treason? For sure in Calvine's judgment, Argile did but his duty, though he had done more, and yet he was condemned as a Traitour: can he reconcile this with Calvine's judgment?

So then our promiseing and swearing alleagiance, fidelity, and obedience to the King, being with a reserve of our al∣leagiance, fidelity, and obedience unto the Supreame King of Kings and Lord of Lords, and according to that due subordination, and thus limited and restricted, that we may do nothing against God, or in prejudice of his interests; no person can with any colour of law or conscience, challenge or accuse any of Treason or Rebellion against the King, when they preferre the interest of God unto Man's, and labour to secure Religion and the interest of Christ, unto which they are absolutely, and indispensably obliged, and from which obligation and alleagiance, no authority of man can loose them, nothwithstanding that in so doing, they postpone the authority of man, and their alleagiance thereunto, and lay it by; seing it is of no force, when it cometh in compe∣tition with the authority of God, and is stated against that Religion, which by divine authority they are bound to main∣taine, with hazard and losse of their lives, goods and for∣tunes; And therefore the late act of defence being, according to their sworne alleagiance to God, a necessary defence of Religion, cannot be condemned of Treason or Rebellion,

though it wanted that formality of the authority of Subordi∣nat powers: As postponing the authority of inferiour Ma∣gistrates, in act of obedience, and duty of alleagiance unto the Superiour, can be no proper disloyalty or rebellion; so nor can the postponing of the authority, of Superiour and inferiour Magistrates, in poynt of obedience, and performing alleagiance unto the most Supreame, be really treasonable, seditious, or rebellious.

2. If we be sworne to maintaine the King's person and authority, in the defence of the liberties of the subject: Then who ever preferre the Liberties of the Subject unto his person and authority, are not Traitours or Rebels: And so the late act of defence, being for the liberties of the sub∣ject, when they were basely betrayed, sold, and given away, by a company conjured into a conspiracy against the same, and were trode upon, and violently plucked away, cannot in conscience, or in the law of God, or according to any just law of man, be accounted, or condemned as; an act of Treason or Rebellion.

CAP. XII.

Some moe Arguments Briefly proposed and Prosecuted.

WE have in the preceeding Chapters proponed and con∣sidered such arguments as gave us occasion to meet with what this Surveyer allaidged. We shall here, ere we come to consider his objections, briefly summe up other argu∣ments.

The worthy author of Lex Rex Quest. 28. and 31. hath some, which we shall here set downe, partly because that book is not in every mans hand, and partly because this windy man pretends to have answered much of that book, though he hath not so much as offered to make a reply unto the six hundereth part thereof.

1. Pag. 261. thus he argueth, [That power which is obliged to command and rule justly and religiously, for the good of the subjects, and is only set over the people on these conditions, and not absolutely, cannot tye the people to subjection without resistence, when the power is abused to the destruction of lawes, religion, and the subjects. But all power of the law is thus obliged Rom. 13: ver. 4. Deut. 17: ver. 18. 19. 23. 2 Chron. 19: ver. 6. Psal. 132. ver. 11. 12. and 89. ver. 30. 31. 2 Sam. 7: ver. 12. Jer. 17: ver, 24, 25, And hath been & may be abused by Kings, to the destruction of Lawes Religion, and Subjects. The proposition is cleare, for the powers that tye us to subjection, only are of God. 2. Because to resist them is to resist the ordinance of God. 3, Because they are not a terrour to good works but to evil. 4. Because they are God's ministers for our good: But abused powers are not of God but of men, are not ordi∣nances of God, they are a terrour to good works not to evil, they are not God's ministers for our good.]

2. (ibid) [That power which is contrary to law, and is evil and tyrannical, can tye none to subjection, but is a meer tyrannical power and unlawful; and if it tye not to subjection, it may lawfully be re∣sisted. But the power of a King abused to the destruction of Lawes, Re∣ligion, and subjects, is a power contrary to law, evil and tyrannical, and tyeth no man to subjection; wickednesse by no imaginable reason, can oblige any man. Obligation to suffer of wicked men, falleth under no commandement of God, except in our Saviour. A Passion as such, is not formally commanded, I meane a physical passion, such as is to be killed. God hath not said to me in any moral law, be thou killed, tortured, beheaded, but only be thou patient if God deliver thee to wicked mens hands to suffer these things.

3. (Ibid) There is not a stricker obligation moral, betwixt King and People, then betwixt parents and Children, Master and Servant, Patron and Clyant, Husband and Wife, The Lord and the Vassal, between the pilote of a shop, and the passengers, the Phisitian and the Sick, the doctor and the Schollar: But law granteth, 1. minime 35. De Relig. & sumpt. funer. If those betray their trust com∣mitted to them, they may be resisted? If the Father turne distracted and arise to kill his Sones, his Sones may violently apprehend him, bind his hands, spoile him of his weapons, for in that, he is not a father Vasq. lib. 1. illustr. quaest. Cap. 8. n. 18. Si dominus subdi∣tum,

enormiter & atrociter oneraret; princeps superior vasal∣lum posset ex toto eximere a sua jurisdictione, & etiam ta∣cente subdito & nihil petente. Quid papa in suis decis: parliam. grat. decis. 32. Si quis Baro. abutentes dominio privari possunt. The Servant may resist the Master, if he attempt unjustly to kill him; So may the wife do to the Husband: If the pilot should wilfully run the ship on a roke to destroy himself, and his passengers, they might vio∣lently thrust him from the helme. Every Tyrants is a furious Man, and is morally distracted, as althus. sayeth, polit cap. 28. n. 30. & seqq.

4. Pag. 262.

That which is given as a blessing and a favour and a scrine betwixt the Peoples Liberty, and their bondage, cannot be given of God as a bondage and slavery to the People. But the Power of a King is given as a blessing & favour of God to defend the poor & needy, to preserve both tables of the law, and to keep the People in their libertyes, from oppressing and treading on upon another. But so it is, that if such a power be given of God to a King, by which actu primo he is invested of God to do acts of Tyranny, and so to do them, that to resist him in the most innocent way, which is self defence, must be resisting of God, and rebellion against the King his de∣puty; Then hath God given a royal power, as incontrol∣lable by mortal men by any violence, as if God himself, were immediatly and personally resisted, when the King is resisted, and so this power shall be a power to waste and destroy irresistably, and so in it self a plague and curse; for it cannot be ordained, both according to the inten∣tion and genuine formal effect and intrinsecal operation of the power, to preserve the tables of the Law, Religion and Liberty, Subject and lawes; and also to destroy the same. But it is taught by Royalists, That this power is for Tyranny, as wel as for peacable government, be∣cause to resist this royal power put forth in acts either of Tyranny or just government, is to resist the ordinance of God, as Royalists say, from Rom. 13: 1, 2, 3. We know to resist God's Ordinance and Gods deputy formaliter as his de∣puty, is to resist God himself 2 Sam. 8. ver. 7. Mat. 10: ver. 40. as if God were doing personally these acts that

the King is doing; and it importeth as much as the King of Kings doth these acts, in and through the Tyrant. Now it is blasphemy to think or say, That when a Kings is drinking the blood of innocents, and vvasting the Church of God, That God if he vvere personally present, vvould commit the same acts of Tyranny (God avert such blasphemy) and that God in and through the King his lavvsul deputy and vicegerent, in these acts of Tyranny, is wasting the poor Church of God. If it be said, in these sinfull acts of tyranny, he is not God's formal vicegerent, but only in good and lawful acts of Government, yet he is not to be resisted in these acts, not because the acts are just and good, but because of the dignity of his royal persone. Yet this must prove that these who resist the King in these acts of Tyranny, must resist no ordinance of God, but only that we resist him who is the Lord's deputy. What absurdity is there in that, more then to disobey him, refuseing active obedience to him who is the Lord's deputy, but not as the Lord's de∣puty, but as a man commanding beside his Master's war∣rand?

5. (Pag. 263.)

That which is inconsistent with the care and providence of God in giving a King to his Church, is not to be taught. Now God's end in giving a King to his Church, is the feeding, saifty, preservation, the peacable and quyet life of his Church, 1 Tim. 2: 2. Esai. 49: ver. 23. Psal. 79: 7. But God should crosse his owne end in the same act of giving a King, if he should provide a King, who by office were to suppresse Robbers, Murtherers, and all oppressours and wasters in his holy mount, and yet should give an irresistible power to one crowned Lyon a King who may kill a Thousand Thousand protestants for their religion, in an ordinary providence, and they are by an or∣dinary law of God to give their throats to his Emissaries, and bloody executioners. If any say, the King will not be so cruel. I beleeve it, because, actu secundo it is not possible in his power to be so cruel; we owe thanks to his good will that he killeth not so many, but no thanks to the genuine intrinsecal end of a King, who hath power from God to

kill all these, and that without resistence made by any Mortal man: Yea no thanks (God avert blasphemy) to God's ordinary providence, which (if Royalists may be beleeved) putteth no bar upon the illimited power of a Man inclined to sin, and abuse his power to so much cruelty. Some may say, the same absurdity doth follow if the King should turne papist, and the Parliament and all were papists, in that case, there might be so many Martyres for the truth put to death, and God should put no bar of providence upon this power, more then now; and yet in that case. King and Parliament should be judges given of God actu primo, and by vertue of their office obliged to preserve the people in peace and godlinesse. But I answere. If God gave a lawful official power to King and Parliament to work the same cruelty upon Millions of Martyrs, and it should be unlawful for them to defend themselves, I should then think that King & Parliament were both ex of∣ficio and actu primo judges and Fathers, and also by that same office, Murtherers and butchers, which were a grievous as∣persion to the unspotted providence of God.

6. (Pag. 331.)

Particular nature yeelds to the good of universal nature; for which cause heavy bodyes ascend, aëry and light bodyes descend: If then a wild bull or a goaring Oxe may not be let loose in a great market con∣fluence of people; and if any man turne so distracted, as he smite himself with stones, and kill all that passe by him, or come at him; in that case the man is to be bound and his hands fettered, and all whom he invadeth may resist him, were they his owne sones, and may save their owne lives with weapons. Much more a King turning a Nero, King Saul vexed with an evil spirit from the Lord, may be resisted: and far more if a King endued with use of reason, shall put violent hands on all his subjects, kill his sone and heire: yea, any violently invaded, by natures law, may defend themselves; & the violent restraining of such an one is but the hurting of one Man, who cannot be virtually the Commonwealth, but his destroying of the community

of men, sent out in warres as his bloody Emissaries, to the dissolution of the Commonwealth.

7. (Pag. 335.) By the law of Nature,

a Ruler is ap∣poynted to defend the innocent: Now by Nature, an in∣fant in the womb defendeth it self first, before the pa∣rents can defend it; Then when parents and Magistrates are not (and violent invading Magistrates are not, in that, Magistrates) Nature hath commended every man to self defence.

8. (Ibid)

The law of nature excepteth no violence, whe∣ther inflicted by a Magistrate or any other; unjust violence from a Ruler is thrice injustice 1. He doth injustice as a man, 2. As a member of the Commonwealth. 3. He committeth a special kinde of sin of injustice against his office. But it is absured to say we may lawfully defend our selves from smaller injuries, by the law of Nature, and not from greater, &c.

These and many moe, to this purpose, may be seen in that unansvverable piece: But I proceed to adde some mo•• here.

9. If it be lawful for the people, to rise in armes to defend themselves, their Wives and Children, & their Religion, from an invadeing army of cut throat Papists, Turks or Tartars, though the Magistrates Superiour and inferiour, should either, through absence, or some other physical impediment, not be in a present capacity to give an expresse warrand or command, or through wickednesse, for their owne privat ends, should refuse to concurre, and should discharge the people to rise in armes: Then it cannot be unlawful to rise in armes and defend their owne Lives, and the lives of their Posterity, and their Religion; when Magistrates, who are appoynted of God to defend, turn enemies themselves, and oppresse, plunder, and abuse the innocent, and overturne Religion, & presse people to a sinful compliance there with. But the former is true. Therefore &c. The assumption is cleare: Because all the power of Magistrates, which they have of God, is cumulative, and not privative and destru∣ctive, it is a power to promove the good of the Realme, and

not a power to destroy the same, whether by acting and going beyond their power, or by refuseing to act and betraying their trust. 2. No power given to Magistrates, can take away Natures birth right, or that innate power of self de∣fence. 3. It can fare no worse with people in this case, then if they had no Magistrates at all; but if they had no Magi∣strates at all, they might lawfully see to their owne self defence. 3. The power given to Magistrates can not loose the obligation of people unto God's moral law; but by the moral law they are bound, in this case of imminent danger, to defend themselves, their Wives and Children, and their Religion: these are acts of charity, which Magistrates can∣not loose them from; otherwise Magistrates might command us to kill the innocent, the widow and the fatherlesse, and we might lawfully do it at their command; which is most false and absurde: therefore neither can their expresse pro∣hibition hinder us from relieving such, whom we are bound to relieve, nor exeem us from the guilt of Murther, before God, if we do it not, but obey their prohibition. The connexion of the proposition I cleare thus. 1. The law of self defence is no lesse valide in the one case, then in the other. 2. The law of charity obligeth in the one case, no lesse then in the other. 3. Magistrates are no more appoynted of God to destroy the people themselves, then to suffer others to destroy them; and so the resisting of their violence in the one case, is no more a resisting of the ordinance of God, then the resisting or counter-acting of their prohibition, or silen∣ce, in the other case. 4. Magistrates are no lesse to be ac∣counted, in so far, no Magistrates, when they counter-act their commission, then when they sinfully betray their trust, and neglect their commission. 5. Unjust violence offered in Lives, Liberties and Religion, is no lesse unjust vio∣lence, when offered by Magistrats themselves, then when offered by strangers, Magistrates permitting or connive∣ing.

10. If it be lawful for private Subjects to joyne together in armes, and defend Themselves, their Lands, Liberties, Wives, Children; Goods, and Religion, against a forraigne

Enemie, invading the land to conquer and subdue the same, with the Magistrates approbation, or expresse warrand. Then it is also lawful to resist domestick Enemies animated by the same power and authority. But the former is true, because Magistrates, in that case, do professe and avow themselves tyrants, seeking the destruction of the whole Realme: and therefore are not Magistrates. Therefore &c. The consequence is cleared abundantly in the preceeding argument, and cannot be denyed: for, a domestick enemy is more unnatural, unjust, ihhumane; illegal, hurtful and dangerous, then a forraigne enemy.

11. Such acts of unjust violence, which neither Magi∣strates themselves may immediatly commit, nor may any subject under them, without sin and disobedience to God, execute, may lawfully be resisted by private persones, when committed in a rage, or cruelly executed by inseriours. But such are acts of oppressing, plundering, spoyling Subjects of their libertyes, because of their adhereing to their sworne Covenanted Religion. Therefore &c. That Princes and Magistrates may not oppresse, and wronge the People, is clear 1 Sam. 12: 3, 4, 5. 2 Sam. 23:3. 1 King. Cap. 21. and 22. 2 Chron. 9: 8. Psal. 105: 14, 15. Esa. 1: 23. and 3: 12, 13, 14, 15. and 14: 15, to 23. and 9: 7. and 16: 5. and 32: 1, 2. and 49: 23. Ier. 22: 3, to 32. Zeph. 2: 8. and 3:3. Micah. 3:1. to 12. Obad. v. 2, 10, to 17. Ezech. 22: 6, 7, 27. and 45: 8, 9. It is contrare to their expresse commission Rom. 13: 4, 5. That their unjust mandats for oppression and useing of violence, are not to be obeyed, is no lesse clear from Exod. 1: 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20. 1 Sam. 22: 17, 18. Psal. 52: 5. So likewise it can∣not but be cleare, That it must also be lawful to resist that violence when wickedly and unjustly acted and executed: For, what power Magistrates can not themselves put into execution, is not of God nor ordained of God; and there∣fore the resisting of that, cannot be the resisting of any power ordained of God: And againe, what power subjects cannot lawfully put into execution can be no lawful Magistratical power appoynted of God: For, if it were, a refuseing to put the same into execution were a real resisting of the or∣dinance

of God: And so a resisting of this, when wickedly put into execution, is no resisting of the ordinance of God, which causeth damnation.

12. That it is just and lawful to flee from the violence of Magistrates will not be denyed. But if that be lawful, when subjects have no power or meanes whereby to resist, or op∣pose unjust violence with violence, It cannot be simply un∣lawful to resist the same unjust violence with force, vvhen neither flying, nor hideing, nor other such like meanes of saif∣ty are practicable: Because it is the principle of self defence against violence, that makes flight lavvful, vvhen there is no possibility of resistence; and the same principle of self de∣fence will make resistance lawful, when the other is not practicable. Againe, the principle of charity to their Wives and Children and other Relations, makes flight lawful, when they can not otherwise avoide the unjust violence of Tyrants; and the same principle will animate to resistence, when practicable, & when they cannot flee with wives and children and old decrepite parents &c. Thirdly, the same principle of conscience, viz that they may keep their Reli∣gion and Conscience free and undefiled, which will prompt to a flight, when there is no other remedy, will prompt also to resistence, when flight is not practicable. I remember, The Surveyer Pag. 41. calleth this [a monster of a stoical paradex which the paire of pseu••o - martyres brought forth; whereas flight is only a withdrawing from under his dominion, and putting ones self under another dominion where his power reaches not: and so by flight and withdrawing from the Kingdomes, the man ceaseth to be a subject to him, whose subject he was, and comes to be under other Lords and lawes.] Answ. This must be a monster of men, whose eyes must be of a magnifying glasse of a paradoxical quality; and he must have a strange stoical phancy, who imagineth that such a thing is a paradex, and a stöical paradox, and a monster of a stöical paradox: what could his stoical braine have said more paradoxically? Flight and non-obedience both are a resisting of the abused power; and if the cause be just which is pressed by the Magistrate, flight on that account, & non-obedience, is a resistence of the powers ordained of

God, condemned Rom. 13. for such an one is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 he is out of due order. But. 2. As we have seen, the consequence will hold, and we seek no more; we need not make it a resistence equal with forcible resistence. 3. He speaketh of a flight out of the King's dominions, but what sayes he to a flight, when the persones flying keep still within the dominions? Will he grant that this is liker unto a resi∣stence? And he must, if his reasons hold; for in this case, the man ceaseth not to be a subject nor cometh he to be under another Lord: and if he grant this, our argument will stand as firme as ever. 4. The man, for all the money he hath gotten from his majesty for his paines, or paine, is not afrayed to rub, by what he sayes here, upon his sacred Majesty and his Royal Councel; for, if persons withdrawne and out of the Kingdom, cease to be subjects to the King. How could the King and council summon home the Scottish officers who served under the States of the Netherlands, and were servants to them, and under their pay, and had been in their bounds, all most all their dayes, yea some of them were borne under the States; and yet for not comeing to the Kings dominions upon his call and charge, they were denunced rebels & fore faulted, and stand under that sentence to this day, for any thing I know; which, though I account the most unjust, inhumane, barbarous & irrational act, that can be, so that it may well be reckoned, among the Surveyer's monsters of stöical paradoxes; yet I think tendernesse to his Majesties honour and credite, should have made him spare to have set downe this parenthesis: But, some men, it seemes, have liberty to say what they can or will, if it may help the despe∣rate cause, though it should reflect upon King and Council both. Let a friend goe with a foe.

13. It was not to Parliaments or inferiour Magistrates, that Christ said, alittle before he was to be apprehended, Luk. 22: 36, 38. But now-he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one—and they say Lord here are two swords, and he said unto them, it is enough. Here is enough to evince the lawfulnesse of resisting with force unjust oppressours; for if Christ had thought it simply unlawful, why would he have

desired his naked private disciples, to buy swords, which are weapons for forcible resistence and defence, and that at such a time? It is true, he would not suffer them to make use of them as they would, not because it was simply unlaw∣ful for them to rescue him out of the hands of that band of robbers; for he useth no such argument to dissuade them: but because, he was commanded of the father, to yeeld and to lay downe his life, of his owne accord; and therefore was it also that he would not use the help of angells, as he might have done, in his owne defence; therefore said he Ioh. 18: ver. 10, 11. put up thy sword into the sheath, the cup which my father hath given me shall I not drink? (& Mathew addeth Cap. 26: 52, 53.) thinkest thow that I cannot pray to my father, and he shall presently give me, more then twelue legions of angells: God had revealed his will, that Christ behoved to suffer Mat. 16: ver. 21, 22, 23. Ioh. 20: 24. and that was sufficient to restraine this act of self preservation hic & nunc: which was otherwise lawful; as well as it did restraine from flight, a mean which Christ at other times used, for his preservation: Neither did his word to Peter import that this self defence was unlawful; but the reasones of it were (as River sayes in decal. 6. praec.) 1. Because it had a kinde of revenge in it; for so few could not repel such an army as came to take Christ. 2. He waited not Christ's answere. 3. He could have defended himself another way. 4. It was contr••re to God's will revealed to Pe∣ter.]

14. That doctrine cannot be of God, which to the eye of sound reason, & to all rational persones, doth remedylesly & unavoydably, tend to overthrow and destroy polities, all order, and all humane society, and open a gap and wide door to all confusion, disorder, tyranny, oppression, cruelty, and injustice. Our Surveyer cannot deny this proposition; seing he maketh use if it, or of one very like unto it Pag. 43. But to say that a poor oppressed people may not defend them∣selves, in extreame necessity, against the oppression and ty∣ranny of Magistrates, and resist unjust violence with vio∣lence is to all rational persones a remedylesse and unavoy∣dable course laid downe, for utter overturning of all Society, &

is an opening of a door to all confusion, disorder, tyranny, oppression, Murthers, cruelty, injustice, &c. for when Magistrates turne Tyrants, oppressours, set themselves to seek the ruine and destruction of their Kingdomes, and of all their Subjects, in bodyes, goods, and Consciences, and sell themselves to do such villany and wickednesse, there is no remedy, by this doctrine; the Commonwealth is utterly gone; oppression and Murthers are increased; all is over∣throwne and overturned; and there is no help. Thus God shall have given a power to one man to kill and massacre milli∣ons of Christians, to destroy whole Commonwealthes, and to root them out, and all their memorial, that no more mention should be made of them. But who can be∣leeve this? Yea if this were received as a truth, what incouragement were it to tyranny and oppression? And what mischief would not wicked hearts contrive and execute, if they did not feare opposition and resistence? This Surveyer tels us Pag. 103. That it is enough to keep Kings right, to tell them they must answer to God, But we see that for all this, there are moe evil and wicked Kings, then good; and it is more then probable, that that alone vvould no more suppresse their tyranny, and keep them from wickednesse, then the fear of the gallowes would keep theeves from steal∣ing and robbing; if they knew that no body would resist them, or oppose them with force, when they came to steal and rob.

15. By this doctrine, People should be in the most mise∣rable condition imaginable when under governours; for not only should they be lyable to all the oppressions of Magi∣strates tyrannizing over them, and have their hands bound up, so that they could not helpe themselves; but also unto the opression and tyranny of every one who could but say, he had a commission from his Majesty to kill and murther all whom he pleased: For they might not resist whether he had a real commission or not, lest they should resist the or∣dinance of God, in resisting a servant sent of the King to execute his lust and cruelty, with expresse warrand and com∣mission: & thus there would be as many irresistible tyrants,

armed with absolute and irresistible power, as one Tyrant will, and the people might no more use violent resistence against them, then against him. A doctrine, I am sure, poynt blanck contrary to all reason and equity.

16. If forraigne princes may lawfully help a poor people oppressed by their owne Soveraigne: Then people may lawfully, if they be able, hold in the paines of these for∣raigne princes, and defend themselves. But the former is granted by casuists and politicians. Therefore &c. The consequence cannot be denyed: for forraigners have no more power or authority over another soveraigne, then the people have themselves: and what justice, or equity of the cause could warrand them to come to their reliefe and succoure, the same will warrand the persones injured to help themselves, if they be able.

17. As the law of Nature will allow this self defence even to private persons, in cases of necessity, So will the law of Nations, and the Civil law; for it maketh no dist∣inction betwixt self defence used by private persons alone, and that which is used by private persons having their Repre∣sentatives concurring: And where the law distinguisheth not, we should not distinguish. As all law permits to repel violence with violence; so doth it give this allow∣ance to all persons whatsoever l. Liberam C. quando licet uni∣cuique sine judic.

18. To maintaine, that in no case it were lawful for Private subjects, to resist the unjust violence, and to defend them∣selves from the tyranny of Princes, would be a direct con∣demning of our owne Princes K. Iames, and K. Charles, who helped the private Subjects of other Princes against them: and is it not unreasonable to plead for more absolute subje∣ction, then princes themselves will plead for: Or to con∣demne that resistence which even they will approve of, coun∣tenance and encourage to?

16. If it were not lawful for private persons to defend themselves against the manifest tyranny of a Soveraigne, without the concurrence or conduct of a Parliament, or their Representative: Then the condition of such as live

under such a government where there are Ephori, or where there is a Representative constituted, should be worse, then is the condition of these, who want such Representatives. But that were absurd. Therefore &c. The consequence of the Major is hence cleared: Because, all the arguments, which have been adduced by any, for proving the lawful∣nesse of resistence in cases of necessity, will evince that a people, who have no formal Representative, may resist the tyranny of their Prince: But now if this were not allowed unto a People having Representatives, their case should cer∣tanely be worse: Because their hands should be bound up from that necessary defence, which otherwise they might have used viz. when Representatives should betray their trust, and comply with a tyrannous Prince against the people. The Minor is most certane, because Parliaments or Representa∣tives have been instituted for the good & advantage of the people: And therefore should not prove hurtful and destru∣ctive, otherwise they cease to be a benefite and a blessing. A benefite should not prove onerous, sayeth the law, si filiusf ff. ut legator nom. caveaetur.

20. If it be lawful for private persons to resist the Tyranny of Parliaments, and other inferiour Magistrates: Then it cannot be unlawful for them to resist the Tyranny of others, without their concurrence and conduct. But the former is true, as all the arguments used by divines and politicians to prove resistence, will evince; and as several of our adver∣saries will very readily grant, though they will stifly main∣taine, that no resistence is to be used against the Soveraigne. Therefore &c. The connexion is hence cleare, That to whom the greater is lawful, the lesse is also lawful: Now it is a greater matter to resist a Parliament, then to wave them, and miskend them, or to resist others vvithout their help; as all may see and will easily grant. There is not a more ex∣presse command for Subjects to do nothing without the con∣currence of a Parliament, then not to resist them and oppose them: Nor are people more obliged to the one, then to the other.

21. Privat persons without the concurrence of Parlia∣ments,

may resist and oppose the Prince, yea and binde his hands, when in a fit of frenzie, of a distempered braine and madnesse, he would seek to cut his owne throat, or with Saul would run upon his sword. Therefore they may also resist oppose him, when in madnesse and fury, he would not only endanger his owne life in soul and body, but vvould destroy the inheritance of the Lord, and cut off his faithful and innocent subjects, and destroy the land. The connexion is cleare: Because more respect is to be had unto the life of Thousands, then to the life of one Man. The antecedent is certane, because otherwise they should be guilty before the Lord, of his death, if they vvould not hinder it, when it was in the povver of their hands; for he vvho hin∣dereth not a mischief vvhen he may, he vvilleth it, and so is formally guilty before God.

22. Privat persons, vvithout the concurrence of inferiour Magistrates, may resist the Soveraigne, vvhen in a rage he runeth upon an innocent man passing by, and with Saul, vvhen an evil spirit from the Lord came upon him, vvould cast his javelin or deadly instrument at the innocent Davids. This no rational person vvill deny, vvho knovveth vvhat a hazard it is to partake of other men's sinnes: Love to the Prince should presse to this perserving of him from shedding inno∣cent blood; and vvho doth not this vvhen he may, consenteth to that murther. Therefore they may also, no lesse, yea much more, resist him, vvhen in his madnesse and distemper, he is seeking to destroy millions of the people of God: And againe, much more may vve resist him, vvhen he is seeking to destroy ourselves, vve being much more bound to love and defend ourselves, then to love and defend others.

23. If it be lawful for private subjects, without the Com∣mande or allowance of Parliaments or their Representatives, to resist a Tyrant, or the Tyranny of a Prince, with teares and prayers: Then also, in cases of necessity, it shall be lawful for them to resist his violent Tyranny and tyrannical violence, with violence, But the former is true. There∣fore, &c. The minor is cleare: For Royalists themselves will grant that praeces and lachrymae may be opposed to Tyran∣ny;

Thus did the ancient Christians resist their tyrannical Emperours with earnest cryes and prayers to God, especially Iulian the Apostate, whom they ordinarily stiled Idolianus, Pisaeus, Adonaeus, Tauricremus, alter Hieroboam, Achab, Pha∣raoh, &c. And we are allowed to pray against the Enemies of Christs Kingdome, against the Turk, the Pope that great Antichrist, and all the little Antichrists that make warre a∣gainst the Lord and his interest. Therefore we may also resist a Prince Tyrannically oppressing the People of God, de∣stroying the mountaine of the Lord, makeing havock of his Church, when we are in probable capacity for that work. The reason is because, the one is no more condemned in Scripture then the other. 2. The one is no more a sinful resist∣ing of the Ordinance of God, then is the other. 3. Ad∣versaries themselves will grant that resistence by prayers and tears is more powerful and effectual, then the other. 4. This personal resistence is as consistent with that command, let every soul be subject to higher powers, as the other is with that, 1 Tim. 2: ver. 1, 2. 1 exhort that supplications, prayers and inter∣cessions be made for Kings, and for all in authority. 5. If the Prince be good, the one is as unlawful as the other, and a sinful resistence of the ordinance of God, no lesse then the other: Therefore when he becometh a Tyger, a Lyon, a waster of the inheritance of the Lord, an Apostate, as I may not pray for him, except conditionally, but against him, as an enemy of Christ's; so I may also lawfully resist him with violence. 6. It is cleare from other perfsons or things against whom or which, I may lawfully pray, as inward or outward Enemics, forraigne or domestick, be they inferiour or su∣periour, against these I may use resistence, in my ovvne sin∣lesse defence. 7. The lavves of the land make the one trea∣sonable as vvel as the other, and that deservedly, vvhen the Prince is doing his duty: but vvhen he turneth Tyrant, neither can justly be condemned. 8. We have seen the one practiced in Scripture and other Histories, as vvell as the other.

24. If it be lavvful for meer privat persons to refuse obe∣dience unto the unjust and iniquous commands of Princes:

Then it is also lavvfull for them to resist the unjust and illegal Tyranny of such. But the former is undengable. There∣fore so is the latter. The connexion is cleare. For 1. Sub∣jection is no more expresly pressed in Scripture, then is obe∣dience, to Superiours: Therefore if not withstanding of this command, non-obedience be allowed yea and necessary, vvhy not also non-subjection or resistence? 2. The lavv of God doth not presse this as more absolute and unlimited, then the other. 3. Non-obedience to the povver commanding just things is a resisting of the ordinance of God, as well as non-subjection thereunto: if notwithstanding hereof non-obe∣dience to unjust commands be allowed, why also shall not non-subjection to tyranny be allowed? 4. The one doth no more derogate from the lawful authority of the Soveraigne, then the other. 5. The one is no more a wronging of the Minister of God as such, then the other; because he is no more the Minister and vicegerent of God in acts of Ty∣ranny, then in commanding unjust things. And therefore 6. such as resist unjust violence, can no more procure to themselves damnation, then the such as disobey unjust commands.

CAP. XIII.

The Surveyer's grounds taken from Scrip∣ture, for absolute Submission to Suffering, examined.

HAving thus proved the lawfulnesse of private persones resisting, in cases of necessity, the unjust violence of Superiour powers, by many arguments; and having vin∣dicated the same from what this Surveyer had to say against them, We come now to examine his grounds for the contra∣ry assertion. Out of Scripture he adduceth Three grounds Pag. 28. &c.

The first is taken from the duty of Children toward Pa∣ents unjustly afflicting them Heb. 12: ver. 9, 10. where, their

reverend subjection under unreasonable and unjust dealing is commended: and from the duty of Servants to suffer at the hands of unjust and froward Masters 1 Pet. 2: 18, 19, 20. To which we answere,

1. That these examples are so far from making against us, that they fully comfirme our poynt, as we have shewed a¦bove: For, notwithstanding of what is said in these places, he cannot deny, but Parents may be resisted by their Chil∣dren, in several cases, and Masters by their Servants. It would be strange, if he should presse this subjection so close home, that now no Servant might lawfully resist and with∣stand the fury of his Master; nor no Childe might hold his furious Father's hands, and defend himself against his unjust acts of cruelty. And Althusius Pol. c. 38. n. 88, 89. tels us that in several cases, the father lòseth the right of his fatherly power over Children; & masters power, from the law Tit. lust quib. mod. jus Pat. Pot. amit. § Domin, lust .de his qui sunt sui vel alieni juris l. 5. § sivel Par. de agant. vel alend. lib. L. necfilium Cap. de Patr. potcst. L. 2. L. 3. Cap. de Inf. expos. Novel 115. Cap. 3.

2. If these simititudes be hardly pressed, it shall not now be lawful for Subjects to resist so much as by flying; for the re∣verence and subjection required of Children unto their pa∣rents, will not suffer that to evite every smal injurie from their parents, they should ran away from under their power and subjection; nor might servants in those dayes run away from their Masters, who had another dominion over them, then Masters now have over their Servants, who are free to goe off when they will; himself acknowledgeth this Pag. 31.

3. We have shewed above what a vast difference there is, betwixt the power of Parents over their Children; and the power of Magistrates over their Subjects: And he himself doth confesse there is a difference; yet sayes he, Pag. 29. There is a full parity and agreement in this, that in the inflicting of evils upon these who are under them (such as are competent to them to inflict within their sphaere) a patient reverent subjection is due from their inferiours, even when they abuse their power.] Ans. This is the question, if the parity hold even here in all poynts; for

seing these Relations are different one from another, even in their nature and ground, it is but rational to think, that there must also be some difference betwixt them, as to the consequent or result that floweth from that relation, else it would follow that as Children are so Subject, as that they can never but be subject, to their Parents; so Subjects could never be free of their Superiours; and yet himself tells us, that they may, by going under another government, or re∣moving to other dominions. 2. Who shall be judge, whether the Superior keepeth within his spaere, yea or not? If the Superiour, then there is no remedy at all; for when he doth most exceed his bounds, he may judge that he keepeth within bounds, and so whether he keep within his sphaere or not, there must no resistence be used, but a stupide subjection. 3. Whether may the Supe∣riour be resisted by the inferiour, when he doth what is not incumbent to him to do within his sphaere, or not? If he may not, then why is this parenthesis added, As a restriction or limitation of the Subjection required? If he may be resisted when he really goeth without his sphaere, then this makes for us; for he must grant that the Magistrate doth nor prescribe the limites of his owne povver, but God and nature, and the constitution of the Realme. Novv God hath never put it in the povver of Princes to presse their sub∣jects to perjury, or to a complyance with a sinful abhomi∣nable and abjured course; so that vvhn he doth thus, he goeth beyond his sphaere: His sphaere is to rule for God and the good of the land, and not to destroy the interest of Christ, and the Commongood: and if he may be resisted, vvhen he goeth beyond this sphaere, then vve have all vve aske. It vvas never vvithin his sphaere, to break his compact vvith his People: and vvhen he doth so, he is vvithout his sphaere and may be resisted, and this is also for us. Againe he tells us in the 2 place. That though Kings are not fathers by generation; yet as Kings and Magistrats should have fatherly hearts to their subjects, (they being a sort of official fathers to them, to procure their good, and defend them from evil) so subjects ought to have such hearts to their King, as Children have to their fathers, giving them speical reverence, subjection and obedience, from their very soul and

inward affection.] Answ. All this sayes that as Kings are metaphorical Fathers, so Subjects, are metaphorical Chil∣dren. But as it doth not say, that Kings should become Ty∣rants, & not carry fatherly affection tovvards their Subjects; so it doth not say, that Subejcts may not resist their tyrannical rage and fury, vvherein they acte not as fathers, but as Ty∣gers. 2. It is true, special reverence subjection & obedience is due to Magistrats, but alvvayes in the Lord; The relation is mutual, if they carry not as official fathers seeking the good of the subjects and defending them, but as devouring Lyons seeking the destruction of their Subjects both in soul and body, they cannot expect, according to vvhat he sayeth, that hearty subjection and obedience, vvhich othervvise they might have. 3. Being but official fathers appoynted by the subjects, and set over them by their vvill and consent, they must have lesse povver to vvronge the Subjects, then Parents have to vvronge their Children, vvho have not that relation by vertue of any formal compact with, or consent of their Children. So that when they do injuries, Subjects are in a greater capacity to help themselves, then Children are; vvhen their Parents to injure them. He addeth [Although some times they are not such as they ought to be, yet they ought to ac∣count their persons (sealed with Gods ordinance, and the image of of his Soveraignity) sacred and inviolable, resolving to suffer any thing of them rather then be guilty of parricide (although under the colour of self defence) Gods law in the fift command hath injoyned reverence & subjection to Princes under the title of Parents Calv. Iustit. Lib. 4. Cap. 8. &c. [Answ. We are not speaking of doing violence unto the persons of Soveraignes, or of committing parri∣cide, but only of the matter of resistance, and of natural sinlesse selfe defence, vvhich is far different from Killing of Kings: If he think the one of the same nature vvith the other, he vvrongeth the King's life, more then he is avvare of. Though Children as Children may not Kill their parents, yet they may defend themselves from their unjust violence. 2. We grant Kings are comprehended in the fift commande∣ment under the title of parents, as Calvin doth; and not only Kings, but all Superiours: & yet he will not say, I suppose, that

we are not to resist the unjust violence of any superiour, but that they are all so sacred and inviolable, as that in all things, they must be subjected unto, without the least resistence: and therefore what he addeth is not to the poynt.

4. We have shewed above, that there is a vaste disparity betvvixt Masters and Kings, in reference to their slaves and subjects; He himself acknovvledgeth this, Pag. 31. [Yet (sayes he) though there be these differences betwixt the dominative or masterly, and the Royal or Magistratical power, the inferiours sub∣jection in suffering (even wrongfully, if God permit in his provi∣dence the power to be abused) is no lesse under the one power, then un∣der the other, by vertue of Divine Law. Subjects serve the So∣veraigne, (though they be not slaves:) and not only conquered people are called Servants, 2 Sam. 8: v. 14. but also ordinary subjects, 2 Sam. 11: V. 24. 1 King. 12: V. 4.—Though he also be in a sense their servant (not in relation of an inferiour to a superiour, for so the Magistrate is only the Minister of God for the Peoples good, and never called their Minister) but in relation of the meanes to the end—as Angles are ministring spirits for the heires of salva∣tion, and Ministers are Servants to the People, &c.] Answ. That the subjection is alike in both these relations, can with no colour of reason be asserted; for it is absurd to say, that Subjects who set up the Magistrate, who limite his power, who binde him by Covenants, and designe their owne good in setting him up, & do it in a voluntary way, are the same way subject to their Princes,; as slaves, who are as other goods for the profite of the Master, & are, both in bodyes & goods, otherwise subject unto their Masters, and that in a manner a∣gainst their will, either being sold, or redeeming their life in war, by giving themselves up as slaves. 2. As there are various Kindes of Superiours, so the relation varyeth, and is more or lesse closse and efficacious, and the subjection must ac∣cordingly vary: I am not alike subjected to every one that is over me, as I am subjected to my Soveraigne; nor am I so subjected to him, as to my natural parents, or as a wife is to her husband. 3. Though the Subejcts in some sense call themselves servants to the soveraigne, (which yet is often a tearme of civil respect; for Naaman called himself Elisha's servant 2 King. 5: 15. and Obadiah said the like to Elijah

1 King. 18: 9.) yet if they be not slaves; they must have more allowance then slaves have, and so have more povver to resist unjust violence then they had. 4. If the Magistrate be the peoples servant in relation of the meanes to the end; then the relation betvvixt him and his Subejcts, is not such a re∣lation as is betvvixt Parents and Children, or betwixt Ma∣sters and Slaves; for the end of these relations, is not the good of Children and slaves: And next, Subejcts must have more power allowed them to see to the end, which is their owne good, and to see that the means prove not de∣structive of the end: and if the meanes prove no meanes, the relation falleth, and he is no more a servant seeking their good, but a Tyrant seeking his owne. 5. It is sooner said then proved, that the People who set up the King are not superiour to the King: He should have aswered Lex Rex as to this: but it is like, he thinketh that his saying thus, is more firme and irrefragable, then Lex Rex reasonings to the contrary: But I know not who will think so with him. 6. There is a great difference betwixt Angels serving the saints, or rather serving God that way; and the King serving his People: The saints have no hand in setting up angels to protect them, as People have in setting up Magistrates. 7. If they be servants as ministers are, then, though in regard of their official power they should not be subject to the People, yet they may be resisted, as was shevved above: and this is all vve presse for.

5. There is a great difference betwixt suffering of Buffett∣ings, and correction, and such like petty, private, personal injuries, at the hands of Parents or Masters; and the suffering of losse of Liberties, Life, Lands, Religion, and such like, which tend to the ruine of the Commonwealth. To this our Surveyer replyeth two things Pag. 32. as, 1. [The grounds that such men goe upon for private persones violent resisting the Magistrate (viz. the abuse of his power) if they hold good, will as effectually evince a non-subjection & violent resistence to Parents and Masters in abusing their power.] Answ. We say not that the Magistrate's abuse of his power is the only ground of resistance; this should have been shewed, and not said barely, as it is here: But

when other things give ground of resistence, yea and a call thereunto, it is enough for us to say, that we resist not the power, but the abuse of the power. 2. Though we walked upon no other ground (which is false, as is cleare from what is said) yet his consequence would be null, un∣lesse he should affirme, which yet he dar not, That the Ma∣gistrate is under no other obligation to his Subjects, then Parents are to their Children, and Masters to their Slaves. But what sayes he? 2. [as death is not, so no punishment un∣justly inflicted is eligible, where lawfully it can be warded off. But this is the state of the question, if private persones may lawfully violente the Magistrate abuseing his power: if in greater evils unjustly inflicted, there is alwayes a liberty for inferiours violently to re-offend the powers above them? Why not in lesse evils too? These gradual differences of inflicted evils cannot make such variation, in the poynt of duty, seing the grounds hold equally strong; if a man may resist the Magi∣strate for abuse of his power, he may do so also against his father, or Master on the same grounds, and if he may not so deal with them, he may not deal so with the Magistrate neither] Answ. It is true that no punishment unjustly inflicted is eligible where law∣fully it can be warded off; but there may be more said, for the lawfulnesse of warding off of death, then for warding off a little blow. And 2 there may be more said for warding off a blow, then for warding it off by violenting the Superiour: We speak not of violenting the Superiour, but of warding off the blae and bitter blowes, and such other iujuries equi∣valent to death, done by his bloody emissaries, which may be done without violent re-offending the powers above us. 3. When the injuries are great and grievous, and not easily reparable, God and nature will allow, a warding of these off, even by violence, when they can no otherwise be shuned. Though a Childe may willingly Subject himself unto corre∣ction, though he do not really deserve it, yet if his father in stead of taking a whipe to chastise him, shall take a sword to hew him in pieces, or a knife to cut his throate. I suppose in that case, the Childe may refuse hearty subjection, and either flee away, or if he cannot, save his life so long as he can, either by calling for help, or with his owne hands if he

be able. And here he will grant, I suppose, that the gradual difference of inflicted evills will make a variation in poynt of this duty of resistence. So in smaller injuries subjects may be patient, and beare a little, for redeeming more, and rather suffer the losse of little then hazard all, but when it comes to an extremity; and Life, and Religion and Liber∣ty, and all that is dear to them as men as Christians, is in eminent and unavoydable hazard, then they may lawfully stand to their defence, and resist that abused power, not meerly, nor only, nor formally, because it is an abused pow∣er, but because it is so abused, as that it destroyeth the ends for which it was appoynted, and destroyeth all that is deare unto them, and which they are bound to defend, upon any hazard, if it be in their power; because the losse is irrepara∣ble. Though a gradual difference of evil inflicted do not vary the spece of evil inflicted, the least evil inflicted being an evil essentially as well as the greatest, to him who doth inflict it; yet it may alter the ground of resistence, not only of superiours, but also of equals and inferiours; for I may beare with a smal injury at the hand of mine equal and in∣feriour, and not so much as seek reparation by law, when I see that either the matter is not tanti, or that I shall expend more in regaining my owne, then all my losse was: But will he think that upon this ground it will follow, that if mine equal or inferiour shall endeavour by fraud or falsehood, to take from me my whole estate, I may not then sue him at the law, and vindicate my owne? Sure it were irrational to say so.

6. This will speak as much against resisting of the inferiour powers, as resisting of the Supreame: For they are me∣taphorical Fathers too, and superiours over us, as well as the Soveraigne, and the comparison will hold in the one, as well as in the other. Now if he think that the concurrence or command of the Inferiour Magistrate, will not warrand Subjects to resist the Supreame; He must also say that the concurrence or command of the Superiour, will not warrand a resisting of the inferour; and so it shall be alike unlawful to resist any, if this comparison hold, according to his urging

of it: For it was not lawful for the Childe to resist the Mother, but to suffer patiently her chastisment, though the Father should have been indulgent, and would have par∣doned the Childe, or extenuated and excused the Childe as not guilty of the fault alledged. So was the childe also oblig∣ed to be Subject unto his Father's corrections, though the indulgent Mother would have taken the Childe's part a∣gainst the Father.

7. The Servant was to bear buffets patiently 1 Pet. 2. & after Christ's example was not to buffet againe; for Christ being re∣viled did not revile againe, and so the place speaketh not against resistence for self defence; but against buffeting againe, which is no formal warding off of blowes, & floweth not from sinlesse nature seeking to defend it self; but rather from a spirit of revenge: So that, for all this, the Servant might have warded off blowes, and saved his head with his armes, when his cruel Master was seeking to break his head.

8. It is one thing to speak of what a Childe may do, who hath no power to resist his father, or what a slave is called to, who hath no power or probable way to resist his Master; & another thing to speak of what a Nation, or a Considerable part of a Nation may do against a few, whose unjust violence they are able to resist.

9. The maine ground of this argument is a mistake; for he thinketh that patient suffering is inconsistent with resist∣ing. But Lex Rex quaest 30. Pag. 281. hath shewed a con∣sistencie, (but it is his best, according to his usual custome, to passe over such things as he cannot answere.) So that the consequence is a meer nullity: for because servants are to suffer unjust buffetings, at the hands of their wicked Masters, It will not follow, That therefore they are obliged in conscience to non-resistence: for as Lex Rex sheweth, The Church of God was to bear with all patience the indignation of the Lord be∣cause she had sinned Micah. 9 10, 11, 12. and yet she was not obliged to non-resistence; but rather obliged to fight against here Enemies. David beare patiently the wrong that this Sone absolome did to him, as is clear by 2 Sam. 25: ver. 25, 26. and Cap. 16: v. 10, 11, 12. Psal. 3: v 1, 2, 3. Yet did he lawfully

resist him and his forces. So we are to beare sicknesse, paines, and torments, which the Lord sendeth on us; and yet very lawfully may we labour and use all lawful meanes to be freed from them.

10. Christ's Rule to us; Math. 5: v. 39. is, that whosoever shall smile us on the right cheek, we should turne the other to him also, and what more patient subjection can be required by a Magi∣strate of his subjects? and yet this will not make it altogether unlawful for private persones to defend themselves from un∣just violence offered them, by their equalls or inferiours. No more will it follow from that patient subjection that we owe to Rulers, that in no case we may resist their unjust vio∣lence, and defend ourselves there from.

11. I hope notwithstanding of any thing, that is spoken in these passages, he will allow children when wronged by their Parents, and Servants when iniured by their Masters, liberty to complaine to Magistrates who are over both, and yet this is the useing of a legal resistence, and as much opposite (if at all opposite) to the patience and subjection injoyned, as is violent resistence, when that legal resistence cannot be had; as suppose, when Father and Son, and Master and Servant are living in no Community, where there are Rulers and Judges over them: and if this be lawful in this case (as it cannot be denyed) then must it also be lawfull for subjects to repel the unjust violence of Princes with violence: Because there is no political Rulers over both King & People. But People must make use of that Court and tribunal of necessity, which na∣ture hath allowed, and by innocent violence, repel the unjust violence of Princes, seing there is no other remedy.

His second ground out of Scripture is taken from Mat. 5: ver. 10. 1 Pet. 4: ver. 14, 17. and the like places; [Where there is a commended suffering for Christ and Righteousnesse sake, and consequently a sort of commanded suffering: a suffering contradi∣stinct from suffering for evil doing, even a cleanly submission to suffer in and for well doing (when God in his providence permits Rulers so to abuse their power) which passive subjection or submission is not grounded on the Rulers abuse of his power through his corrupt will,

but upon the peculiar command of God enjoyning submission in such cases.]

Answ. 1. These & the like speak nothing at all to the poynt: For, as we may be persecuted for righteousnesse sake by e∣qualls, Yea and by inferiours; so we are to suffer that per∣secution, when God in his providence calleth us thereunto, with patience and humble submission of Spirit. But is this a good argument, to prove that it is unlawful for us to resist and repel injuries offered to us by equals or inferiours? And if it will not prove it unlawful for us to resist our equals or in∣feriours, neither can it hence be inferred that it is unlawful for us to resist Superiours. 2. By this same reason the King if a Christian, is bound to submit as well to his subjects, as they to him; at least, he is not bound to resist a foraigne King invading him for Religion, which I know not who will grant. 3. That God alwayes calleth us to submissio nor passive subjection, when in his providence he permits Rul∣ers to abuse their power, is the thing in question, and this argument doth no way prove it. 4. We grant, that God calleth us to suffer for righteousnesse sake, patiently and Christianly, whether at the hands of Superiours, or at the hands of equals or inferiours, when in his providence we are so stated, as that we must either suffer, or sin by de∣nying a testimony for his truth and cause: But that, when a door is opened for eshewing suffering, and God in his providence seemeth not to call us thereunto (as he never doth, when he giveth a faire way of preventing it) we are called to suffer, and bound to choose suffering at the hands of any, is denyed and not proved by him.

But furder he tells us. That [Lex Rexquaest. 30. Leers at passive obedience, as a chymaera, as a dreame, and as involving a contradiction: And he thinks (sayes he) he speaketh acutely, in saying, God never gave to any a command to suffer for well doing, nor at all to suffer (suffering depending on the free will of another without us, and not on our owne free will; and so not falling under any command of God to us,) but he reasones (sayes he) very sophistically, inferring that because meer suffering, which necessarily depends on the action of another, is not commanded to us, therefore

subjection to suffering, or passive obedience is not commanded, when the Magistrate inflicts suffering.] Ans. The worthy Author of Lex Rex was there answering the objection of Royalists, who alledged such places, where, they supposed, we were commanded to suf∣fer, and among several assertions, which he laid down to solve this, he had this assertions, That suffering formally as suf∣fering, nor non-resisting passive, could fall under no formal law of God, except in two cases, 1. in the poynt of Christ's passive obedience, and 2. indirectly and comparatively, when it cometh to the election of the witnesse of Iesus, whe∣ther he will suffer or deny the truth of Christ, so that this alternative must be unavoydable, otherwayes (sayd he) no man is to expect the reward of a witnesse of Iesus, who having a lavvful possible meane of eshevving suffering, doth yet cast himself into suffering needlesly. Novv vvhat a meer vvrangler must this be, vvho sayeth, that that vvorthy Au∣thor did reason sophistically in so inferring, vvhileas he is only ansvvering the objection: and hereby he doth it suffi∣ciently; for if it be evinced (as he hath unansvverably evin∣ced it) that passive obedience or passive subjection is not for∣mally commanded; then their arguments proving this pas∣sive subjection to be our duty, are null; and so they cannot hence inferre, that non-subjection passive is forbidden. And vvhat have they gained then out of these places? Can this Surveyer affirme that passion as passion, or suffering formally as such, cometh under a command of God? no, he dar not, but must vvith Lex Rex say, that it is impossible that meer passion, (as to be whipped, to be hanged, to be beheaded should be the ob∣ject of an affirmative or perceptive command of God. Why then is he offended vvith Lex Rex? Why jeers he at that worthy Author, saying he thinks he speaks acutely? is this to answere Lex Rex to jeer at what is there sayd, aud then be forced (or speak non-sense) to affirme the same thing that is there asserted? But sayes he, Pag. 34. [Subjection to the passion may fall under a command, and this is called passive obedience, which implyes more then meer passion or suffering; even a disposition and motion of the heart to lye under that lot with an eye to God, whose ordinance is used upon the sufferer; only it is called passive obedience, because as to the precise suffering the punishment,

there is no external action done, enjoyned by the law or command of the Magistrate, as there is in active obedience, although there be some dispositive or preparatory actions in order to suffering (not inferring a direct preparation to a mans owne suffering) which he may and ought to do, as going to a gallowes on his owne feet, or up a ladder, or laying down his head on a block, that it may be strucken off.] Answ. That subjection to the passion might fall under a com∣mand was granted in some cases by Lex Rex, as was said; but that it falleth under a command when God openeth a faire door to eshew it, he is not able to prove. 2. Hovv proper it is to call that submission passive obedience, is not worth the while to enquire, Lex Rex tolde us (and he cannot con∣fute it) that it was repugnantia in adjecto to call it obedience, since obedience properly so called, is relative essentially to a law: Now there is no moral law enjoyning this, for no man is formally a sinner against a moral law, because he suf∣fereth not the evil of punishment, nor are these in hell for∣mally obedient to a law, because they suffer against their will. 3. As for that disposition and motion of heart, which he speaketh of, that is nothing but what Lex Rex said viz. That modus rei the manner of suffering, was under a com∣mand, and indeed obedience to that was and is obedience to a moral law. But the Surveyer called it an errour to say that only the modus rei is commanded or forbidden, and why? because (sayes he,) That same command that forbids resisting the Magistrate in doing his duty, enjoyneth submission and passive obe∣dience to him, although we were able by force to deliver ourselves, out of his hand.] Answ. Then by him, there is no medium betwixt this submission to passive obedience, and positive re∣sistence: And so, either he must say that flying is resisting, (which yet Pag. 41. he calleth a monster of a Stoical para∣dox) or he must say, that flying and refuseing to submit to this passive obedience, is a submitting to this passive obedience: And whether this will not rather look like a monster of a Stöical paradox, let all men of common sense judge. 2. Is the guilty person bound by any moral law, to suffer death or whipping, if the Magistrate will not execute the sentence upon him? Or is every one in that case bound to

deliver up himself to the Magistrate, & accuse himself, and pursue the accusation until the sentence be executed? If not, how doth this passive submission fall under a moral law? If he say, when he is apprehended or in hands, he is not to resist, but submit to the stroke. Answer. 1. Will not any see, that then the res ipsa is not command∣ed, but the modus rei, and so Lex Rex said true, Pag. 318. That passive obedience to wicked Rulers was en∣joyed Rom. 13. only in the manner, and upon supposition that we must be subject to them, and must suffer against our wills all the evil of punishment that they can inflict, Then we must suffer patiently. But 2. Though we be bound to submit to the Magistrate doing his duty, and inflicting just punishment, will it follow that therefore we are bound to submit to the Magistrate doing not his duty, but inflicting un∣just punishment? Or doth the same passive obedience to powers punishing unjustly fall under the moral law? How doth he prove either the consequence or the consequent? [We assert (sayes he Pag. 53.) That a private person though wrong∣fully afflicted by the lawful Magistrate proceeding according to law, (let it be so that it is lex malè posita or an evil law) is hound not only to Christian patience in suffering—but unto a submission with∣out repelling of violence by violence; and that in conscientious respect to the ordinance of God, wherewith the lawful Magistrate is invested (although abuseing it in this particular) and with a tender regard to the prevention of seditions and confusions in humane societies.] Ans. 1. This is dictator-like to prove the conclusion, by assert∣ing it; what a ridiculous fool is he to come with his asser∣tions, and yet give us nothing but the very thing controvert∣ed? Is not this a very hungry empty man, to beg (when he cannot better do) the very thing in quaestion? 2. Then it seemeth, he will grant that a privat person may resist the lawful Magistrate, when proceeding contrary to law; where is then the conscientious respect to the Ordinance of God, wherewith the lawful Magistrate is invested; and that tender regaird to prevent sedition, &c. which he talk∣eth of? Sure in the one case, the Ordinance is but abused, as it is in the other. 3. Let me ask, if there were a just

judge sitting, who would execute justice and judgement for God, and were summoning him to answere for his perjury, apostasy, and other villannies which he is conscious to him∣self of, and some others are privie to, and could witnesse against him; would he compeare, or rather would he not run from under the reach of justice, and secure himself? or if apprehended, would he not labour an escape to save his neck from the rope? If so (as all who know him will ve∣ryly belveeve he would) where would then this submission be which is due unto the Magistrate? And where would his conscientious respect to the Ordinance of God not abused, but very rightly used in that particular, be? 4. If a Ma∣gistrate abuseing his power to the destruction of the Subjects, should be resisted, what inconvenience would follow there∣upon? [Seditions (sayes he) and confusions would be unavoy∣dable, if every one, as he thinks himself wronged, shall be allowed to use force upon the lawful Magistrate proceeding by law; the greatest Malefactors being ready to justify themselves, and to violate the justest Megistrates in their just proceedings.] Ausw. This is but the old song chanted over and over againe to us, and may therefore be dismissed with a word: viz. That as the Magistrat's abuse of his power in a particular, will not make the power it self unlawful (as he will grant,) so nor will the abuse of this resistence in a particular, make resistence it self unlaw∣ful. 2. We plead not for resistence by every one who thinketh himself wronged, but for resistence when the wrongs are ma∣nifest, notour, undenyable, •• grievous and intolerable, and done to a whole land, to God's glory, to Christ's interest, to a Covenant sworne and subscribed by all, to the Funda∣mental lawes of the land, to the compact betwixt King and Subject, to Religion, Lawes, Libertyes, Lives, and all which is dear to People. These wrongs as they are no petty injuries, so nor are they quaestionable or uncertane, but as manifest as the sun at the nonetide of the day. 3. What if the Magistrate or his Emissaryes proceed not according to law? And what if the law, which they pretend, be no law de jure, or a law made a non habente potestatem (as shall be manifest to be our case) should there no resistence then be

used but a stupid submission, out of a pretended and sup∣posed regaird to the prevention of seditions and confu∣sions? 4. Since he thinks that so much regaird is to be had to the prevention of seditions and confusions in societies, sure he should think that as much regaird is to be had unto the prevention of the utter ruine & destruction of societies. Now, if magistrates abuseing their power to the destruction of So∣cietyes, might not be resisted; hovv shall they be preserved from utter ruine, vvhich is much more carefully to be pre∣vented, then seditions and confusions in societies: And since he thinks, vvithout ground, that our doctrine is so evil and scandalous, and openeth a vvide gap for all vvicked sedi∣tious persones to vvork confusion in the Commonvvealth, and to overthrovv the best and justest Magistrates; vve have just ground to think that his doctrine is not only evil and scandalous, but most perverse, vvicked and adhominable, opening a vvide door to all tyranny, oppression, cruelty; and an encouraging of all vvicked Tyrants to deal vvith their Sub∣jects as so many Brutes or vvorse, vvithout all fear of op∣position; and to destroy utterly all Commonvvealths, or make them meer prison-houses for slaves, &c. And, if this doctrine of his tend not more to libertinisme, then ours, let all judge.

His last ground out of scripture is that knovvn passage Rom. 13: ver. 1, 2. vvith 1 Per. 2: Ver. 11. (I think it should have been ver. 13.) Concerning vvhich, he sayes, [Such subjection is there commanded to the Powers then existing or in being 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (such as were Caligulae. Nero, Domitian, monstrou Tyrants. enemies aud persecuters of God's People) as is opposed to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to stand in order against them (the word is from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a military tearme) every soul is commanded to be subject or to stand in order under them 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and for bidden to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to stand in military order against them either defensive or offen∣sive: By powers which are not to be resisted are clearly meant the per∣sons in power, as the Apostle afterward extones himself v. 3, 4. calling them Rulers, and Ministers of God, he meanes undoubtedly certane supposita and her sons invested with power, and cannot meane the abstract ordinance of God, &c.]

Answ. 1. That subjection here required is a standing in order under them, and is opposite to the resisting or con∣tra-ordinatnesse here meaned, is granted; For 1. vve do not say, that Christianity destroyeth Magistracy, or ex∣empteth Christians from subjection unto Magistracy and Ma∣gistrates: As some Hereticks then did, abuseing their Chri∣stian liberty, to destroy Magistracy; & as Heathens objected unto Christians 'as Gerhard de Magist. Polit. n. 34. thinketh, vvhich (as some think) vvas the occasion of Paul's asserting the ordinance of Magistracy. Nor 2. do vve say, That it is un∣lavvful for Christians to be subjects unto Heathen Magi∣strates, vvhich, because Christian Gentiles might have drunk in from some jevves, particularly the Gaulonites, vvho held it unlavvful to yeeld any subjection unto Roman Empe∣rours, or to strangers, might have been the occasion of Paul's discourse of this Ordinance. And therefore to confute these mistakes, The Apostle sayes Let every soul be subject unto higher powers, &c. that is, acknowledge even such lavvful Magi∣strates, though they be heathens, and yee christians, vvheth∣er jevves or gentiles, and think nor yourself exeemed from the duty of subjects tovvards such. So that this makes nothing against us, and the subjection here required, upon this account, is not the subjection novv in quaestion; for a resist∣ing of open and notour tyranny, othervvise unavoidable, doth vvell consist vvith this subjection, viz. an acknovv∣ledgment of Magistrats as lavvful powers ordained of God, for the good of the Subjects.

2. The vvord subjection being thus taken in a general comprehensive sense, as containing in it all that duty which is required of Subjects tovvard their Superiours, The opposite tearme resistence, or counter-orderednesse must also be taken in a general comprehensive sense, as including all the contrary evils. Now, as obedience is a special poynt of subjection unto Superiours, So disobedience is a special poynt of contra ordinatnesse. But, as an universal and unlimited obedience, in all poynts, is not here required, so neither can an univer∣sal and unlimited subjection to suffering be here required: for as it can not be proved, that every act of disobedience is a

resistence here condemned; & that every act of obedience, is a part of the subjection here required; So nor can it be proved, that every act of resisting or refuseing passive obedience is here condemned, and that every act of submitting to passive obedience is here commanded. But only that that obedience is commanded, which is due to Magistrates; and that resi∣stence vvhich is unlawful, & is opposite unto that subjection required, is prohibited. So that this place cannot prove that all resistence is unlawful; because non-obedience is resistence, or a contraordinatnesse; and yet all non-obedience is not here prohibited. Againe, the subjection comprehends that honour and respect, which is due unto Superiours, and which is both inward in the heart, minde and thought, and outwardly expressed in words, gestures, carriage, &c. So must the word resistence comprehend within it self, all that is opposite there unto. Now, as by this place, it cannot be evinced that it is unlawful to resist abused power, or persons abuseing their power to tyranny and oppression, in our thoughts, and by our words: for then it should be unlawful to abhore, & detest the oppression and tyranny of cruel tyrants; or for the Messengers of the Lord to rebuke them for the same; or for People to pray & supplicat to God against them, which is utterly absurd and false: So nor can it be evinced by this place, that it is unlavvful to resist such abuseing their povver, by bodyly force; for the text speaketh no more against this, then a∣gainst the other; and yet the other is lavvful; and therefore so may this be, for any thing that is here said: The one is re∣sistence as vvel as the other, though not so great, but majus & minus non variant speciem. And therefore, if this text to not condemne all resistence, it cannot be evinced that it condemn∣eth the resistence vvespeak of.

3. Not withstanding of the Resistence that here seemeth to be prohibited; yet we know that the Senate not only re∣sisted Nero, but proceeded against him by way of open justice, deposed him, and condemned him for tyranny, adjudging him to have his head fastned to a forke & so to be publickely whipped to death, and then precipitated from a rock, but he escaped & killed himself (as historians say:) and in this fact

they are approved by learned politicians, and lawyers. See Bod in de Repub. lib. 2: c. 5. So that either he must say that Nero was not the higher power, who might not be resisted, but that the Senate was above him; or that such as justify the Senate are in an errour, and so he must condemne them for what they did, without any colour of reason.

4, This text will no more plead against resisting of Supe∣rious powers, then against resisting of inferiour Magistra∣tes: For the text speaks of all in any supereminency: It speaketh of powers in the plural number: see the dutch annot on the place: & Peter mentioneth inferiours as well as the Supreame. Now will the Surveyer say, that in no case, it is lawful to resist even by force, the inferiour Magistrates? will he say that we may not oppose them when abuseing their power: And if he grant that in some cases, inferiour Magistrates may be resisted, he must also grant that this text doth not forbid or condemne all resistence to he higher power; but only a resisting of legal and lavvful commands, whether by disobe∣dience or by armes.

5. Though we cannot say, that the Apostle is speaking here always of the ordinance of Magistracy in the abstract, so as altogether to exclude the persons invested there with; yet we think it hardly saife to say, that there is nothing here to be understood of the abstract office; as when he speaketh of the original and rise of the office, and of the end and proper native effect thereof, it is more proper to understand that of the office in abstracto, then of the Supposita so invested. Next whatever is required here as due to the Supposita, it is upon the account of the office, with which they are invested, and in so far, aud no furder: And therefore though the of∣fice and ordinance cannot be resisted, yet the person who is there vvith invested, may be resisted, not as he is invested, but as he abuseth the povver, and so devesteth himself: for as he abuseth the power he cannot be looked on as invested there vvith, in so far; especially if he abuse it in the maine and prin∣cipal ends for vvhich it vvas appoynted: for then he is de jure and upon the matter utterly devested thereof. Furder what∣ever subjection is due to the person, it is upon the account of

the office, which he beareth; and no more subjection is due to him upon that account, then is due unto the office it self, or to the civil legal authority which is imported by the ab∣stract word (if so much, seing, a quo quidquam est tale, id ipsum est magis tale.) Therefore the subjection vvhich is not due to the office, cannot be due to him: Novv subjection is due to the office as it is the office: And an abused office is not the office, Ergo that subjection is not required to the abused office which is due to the office. Ergo nor is it due to him vvho abuseth the office. The office vvill not vvarrand a subjection to that vvhich is not the office; and an abused office is not the office.

6. The submission or subjection here required, is not unto Tyranny, or Tyrants vvho abuse their povver unto the de∣struction of the Commonvvealth, and to the ruine of the Subjects as such: For, such are not the ordinance of God (nor ordained under God, but opposite to God) unto which alone, the subjection here spoken of, is due. Gerhard de magist. polit. n. 54. Tels us that the apostle doth acurately disting∣uish betvvixt the povver, and the abuse of the povver; and sayes the povver itself, and not the abuse of the povver is of God; and also, that he distinguisheth betvvixt the office it self, & the person in office: the person oft by fraud, violence & falshood and other evil meanes, by cruelty & tyranny, both assumeth the place, & exerceth the office, & in this respect is not of God Hos. 8: 4. 2. The resisting of Tyrants cannot procure damnation unto the resisters, because they have vio∣lated no command. 3. Such are not a terrour to evil works, therefore submission is not due unto them as such. 4. Such will not give praise to such as do vvell; but that is the power vvhich is not to be resisted, of vvhich vve are to be afrayed, and of which vve shall have praise vvhile vve do that vvhich is good. 5. He is not to be resisted vvho is the Minister of God for good. But Tyrants, Neroes who vvished that all the Romans had but one Neck, that he might cut them all off at one blow, are not ministers of God, in so far, but ministers of Satan. 6. Such are not the revenger vvho beareth the sword

to execute wrath upon him that doth evil, but rather imploy∣eth the svvord to destroy such as do vvell, to subvert Lawes, Religion and all that is good: Therefore it is not of such as such, that the text speaketh, when it sayes we must yeeld Submission. 7. As it is not upon the account of their playing the tyrant, aud overturning Religion, Liberties & Subjects, that tribute is to be payed to them, so nor is subjection to be yeelded unto them, in all poynts, but as they are God's Ministers attending continually upon this very thing, to suppresse wickednesse, & promove godlinesse. 8. Nor is it upon any other account, that fear, honour, and custome is to be given unto them. And so the text considers these povvers, to vvhom subjeciton is due, not as Tyrants, or as abuseing their power to the ruine and destruction of all; but as carrying themselves as the Ministers of God, for the ends appoynted, aud not as the Ministers and ordinance of Satan. Therefore not vvithstanding of any thing in this Text, such may be resisted, or rather their Tyranny may be resisted, which is not, nor never vvas ordained of God, and vvhich is diretly opposite unto, and no part of that povver ordained of God. And though Nero and some others vvere real Tyrants, yet neither doth the text name him, nor doth it presse subjection to tyranny in any, for lesse to his Ty∣ranny; but only subjection to the powers that are of God, & ordained of him, of which there might have been some vvho were not Tyrants, even when Nero was playing the Ty∣rant; And it is as rational to understand the text of those, as of Nero or such like. However vve finde subjection is pressed to the povver vvhich is ordained of God, and that is not the power as it is abused. From all which it is cleare, that it is not the supposita, but supposita as such, which are not to be resisted, or such as carry in a due subordination unto God, se∣ing all the Apostles arguments presse only subjection unto such, and not unto Tyrants, who are a terrour to good works, and a praise to such as do evil and not the ministers of God, nor revengers to execute wrath upon such as do evil, but rather on such as do good neither do they attend upon this thing where∣of the Apostle speaketh, and are so far from being the ordi∣nance

of God, that they are resisters Themselves of Gods or∣dinance, by making lawes contrary to God's lavv, and pu∣nishing such as observe God's lavv. It cannot therefore be more sinful to resist such, then to resist a deputy persecuting such as keep the King's lavves, and making lavves of his owne directly contrarie to the King's lavves; for he is the Rebel and the resister of God's ordinance, and not they vvho are faith∣ful to their Soveraigne.

To this he maketh some reply Pag. 37. and [(sayes) It hath been often granted, and still is, that no man or Magistrate on earth, hath a moral power, commission or command from God to do evil, or to afflict any unjustly, 2. The question is not concerning the Magistrat's duty, but anent the Subject's duty, in case through the permission of divine providence, the Magistrate abuse his place and power, in unjust afflicting the innocent; whether the private Subject may use violence against, or upon the Magistrate, or should rather submit to suffering, (though unjustly) not for reverence to the abuse of the power, but in reverence to God, whose ordinance the power (which he abuseth) is] Answ. 1. If Magistrates have no moral power, commission, or command to do evil, The resisting of that evil is no resisting of any moral power from, or commission given by God; as, if they have no power to command evil or sin, resisting of that command by non∣obedience, is no resisting of their power or commission. 2. Though the question should not be concerning the Ma∣gistrate's duty, yet we are to enquire, what that power is, against which, Subjects may use no violence. 3. If Sub∣jects be bound not to use violence, but rather submit to suf∣fering when the power is abused, not for reverence to the abuse of the power, but in reverence to God, whose power it is: Why shall they not also be bound, rather to yeeld obedience to, then to resist by non-obedience, unlavvful commands, though not for reverence to the abuse of the power, yet in reverence to God, whose ordinance the power which is abused, is; as he sayes? Sure the text here maketh no difference, and if there be any difference he must prove it from some other text, which we have not yet seen, nor expect to see in haste. 4. We have shewed already, that, he sayes

without ground, that the abused power is of God, or his ordinance. But there after, sayes he, [And although the spirit of God in describing the Magistrate sayes, he is the minister of God &c. It is not meant that that is the formal reason of subjection to him, (in the full latitude of subjection) nor that the Magistrates then existing and in being, to whom the people are commanded to be subject, and forbidden to resist, were such de facto in all their actings—but what the Magistrate is ex officio, and what he should be de jure.] Answ. 1. He seemeth to distinguish here betwixt a subjection in it's full latitude, and a subjection not in it's full latitude; but how doth he explaine this distinction, that we may know what to make of it? He seemeth also to grant that some subjection, though not subjection in its full latitude, hath that description of the power, for it's formalis ratio, formal reason: But what can his meaning be, seing the text maketh no difference? Is this his meaning, that sub∣jection active, or active obedience hath that for it's formal reason, so that the subject is to obey no power, but that which is for a praise of the good, and a terrour to the evil &c. But subjection passive or passive obedience goeth upon another ground, and must be yeelded to a Magistrate even when he is not a minister of God for good? If this be his meaning; it is but a shameful begging of the question: and if he grant, that any subjection is due to the Magistrate, only as he is a minister of God, we are gainers; for he can never prove the other from this text; and subjection here is considered & pressed in its full latitude; and these are laid dovvne as the grounds thereof. This vve may saifly averre, until he de∣monstrate the contrare, which we despaire to see done; es∣pecially seing the text fully cleareth the same: For as subjection in its full latitude is pressed, so all the Apostle's arguments, & motives, speak to it in its full latitude: There is no power but from God, presseth whole subjection; because the whole power is from God, & not a part of it alone: & there∣fore it must speak to all the relative parts of subjection. So the other argument. v. 3; taken from the end of Magistracy, speaketh to the whole of submission in its full latitude: & also the other argument take from the nature of his office: and

so the rest. So that all the motives or grounds of subjection, which are here made use of, speak to all the parts of sub∣jection: And therefore if they be the formal reason of one part thereof, they must be the formal reason of the whole. 2. We do not say, that all the Magistrates then existing were de facto such as they were bound to be de jure (nor can we say that they were all like Nero or Caligula) nor dar he say that subjection in its full latitude, as comprehending as well active as passive obedience, commonly so called, was to be given to Nero and his like, or was here commanded to be given: and what hath he then gained? But it is like all a∣longs he taketh subjection for passive obedience. But 1. can that be subjection in its full latitude? 2. Was that the maine thing controverted then? 3. Doth the motives speak to that alone? 4. How will he prove that passive obedience is here spoken to at all; since all the particulars mentioned are actions, and dutyes of action? What sayes he further? Pag. 32. [The Apostle speaking of the person invested with power, calling him the Minister of God for good, no ter∣rour to good works, but to evil, a praiser of good, &c. shews only what a Magistrate should be ex officio and is de jure; but layes not this as the ground of subjection and non-resistence to him but this, that he is a superiour power ordained of God: if he abuse his place, he is to answere to God for it, but the abuse of the power in a particular, doth not nullify the power, or make it no power—he abides invested with authority—subjection of one sort or another is due to him, because he is in officio, not because he abuseth his office.] Answ. The Surveyer giveth us here a new Analysis of the text, that no commentator hath hither to thought upon: no motive, according to him, is here made use of, except one, and yet none can reade the place, but they will finde it otherwayes: Sure the causal for, ver. 3, and 4. is as clear a ground of a motive as the for v. 1, 2. By his way all the rest of the arguments used ver. 3, 4. have no influence on the sub∣jection and non-resistence pressed; and yet the text giveth this reason why such as resist the power receive to them∣selves damnation viz. for Rulers are not a terrour to good works but to the evil, &c. and this, with what followeth hath no

small force to presse submission, and non-resistence. 3. It is true if he abuse his place, he must answere to God for it, but that will no more prove that passive subjection, or o∣bedience (as he calleth it) is alwayes due to him, then it will prove that active obedience is alwayes due unto him. 4. We grant that the abuse of the power in a particular doth not nul∣lifie the power; Yet, when the abuse is such, as destroyes the maine ends of the power, sure if it be not wholly, it is in a great part, nullified de lure. But whether the power be nullified or not wholly, it may be resisted in case of ne∣cessity, when it is palpably abused: For then the power which is of God, is not resisted: But only the abuse of the power, or that which is not the power ordained of God. 5. Subjection, it is true, of one sort or another is due to him because he is in officio, and therefore so long as he is in officio, he is to be acknowledge to be in officio, and to be obeyed in things lawful: Honour, reverence, tribute, and custome is due to him, and, in matters of smaller moment, his penal∣tyes are to be endured, when there is no faire way to shun them: But hence it will not follovv, that he must never be resisted, even when he intends nothing but the destru∣ction of Libertyes and Religion; and overturneth the ends of government, and crosseth the maine and principal ends of his office and power. Then he tells us ibid. [That among many things wrong Lex Rex hath that true word Pag. 325. We are to suffer evil of punishment of Tyrants, some other way, and in some other notion, then we are to suffer evil of equals; for we are to suffer evil of equals, not for any paternal autho∣rity they have over us, as certanely we are to suffer evil of Superiours Thus he. And this is all we require to suffer evil of the Magistrate or superiour, without violating his person, upon the ac∣count of his paternal authority, which (though in a particular abused hic & nunc) remaines the ordinance of God: and in a respective reverence to that ordinance wherewith they are invested, we are hum∣bly to suffer wrong from them (if we cannot by petitions move their for bearance) neither justifying in our consciences the wrong which they do to us, nor judging them to have a commission from God, as to this wrong doing, but regarding both God's providence, and God's ordi∣nance

in their persones which ceaseth not to be his, although abused in a particular act towards us.] Answ. 1. It is strange hovv this corrupt fountaine, as he calleth it else vvhere, Lex Rex can send out good and svveet vvaters? 2. Lex Rex is there ansvvering this quaestion: whether any passive subjection at all be commanded as due to superiours, Rom. 13. And an∣svvereth. [1. None properly so called, that is purely passive, only we are for fear of the sword, to do our duty. 2. We are to suffer ill of punishment of Tyrants, ex Hypothesi that they inflict that ill on us, some other way, &c.] Novv vvhat it there here that makes for him? Sayeth Lex Rex that vve are to suffer absolutely all the evil of punishment, vvhich they vvould inflict upon us? No such thing sayeth he. 3. If he seek no more then vvhat Lex Rex sayeth here, vve are agreed; but sure he must then recal vvhat he hath formerly said. 4. Ay, but sayeth he, this is all we require, to suffer evil of the Magistrate, without violating his person, upon the ac∣count of his paternal authority: But 1. there is a dif∣ference betwixt suffering evil indefinitly and absolutely, and suffering evil ex Hypothesi that it be inflicted: Lex Rex said this last, and not the former. 2. We may refuse to suffer evil of the Magistrate without violating his person: every resistance of unjust violence offered by Magistrates, is not a violating of his person, nor necessarily accompa∣nyed therewith; for the violence resisted, may be, and oft is, committed by his Emissaries. 3. Though we are bound to suffer (ex Hypothesi that we do suffer) of Ty∣tants upon the account of a paternal authority; yet it will not follow that such may not be resisted; for though the Son is to suffer evils at the hands of his father, when he in∣flicts these, upon a paternal account; yet in some cases, the parent may be resisted, even by the Children, as is said. 4. No respective reverence to the ordinance doth absolutely bind us to suffer; for he will grant we may flee; and here he sayeth, we may by petitions move a for∣bearance. 5. What if the evil be great and imminent, and flying is not practicable, and not only there is no moving of

forbearance by petitions, but very supplicating is discharg∣ed under highest paine? Are we then humbly to suffer that wrong, and so give up all our Necks, our Liber∣ties, and our Religion to the lust of a Tyrant, without any resistance? This is the quaestion, and we are waiting for proof of it. 6. It is true when providence so ordereth matters, that we cannot shun suffering, then we are to regaird both God's providence, and respect that ordinance which is abused, and so suffer such evils of these, under another notion, then of equals; and yet it will not hence follow that we are absolutely bound to suffer, and never al∣lowed to resist.

Thus we see in end, (which I would have the reader specially to notice) that he cannot urge this place against us; but he must the same way hence enforce an absolute and universal obedience in all things whatsomever; and also condemne other Royalists, and it may be him∣self also; Who, as we heard above, did grant it law∣ful, in several cases, to resist Tyrants. Yea and con∣demne that which formerly he durst not positively con∣demne, viz. resistence by the Parliaments and primores Regni, and thus also condemne Calvin, and other divines, granting, and positively affirming this: all which, though we had said no more, is enough to cut the sinew of any ar∣gument which he hath adduced, or yet can adduce from this passage; and so we passe to examine his other grounds for ab∣solute submission.

CAP. XIV.

The Surveyers grounds for absolute Submis∣sion to suffering, taken from the primitive Christians, and reason, examined.

Our Surveyer, cometh next to speak of the example of the primitive Christians Pag. 38. &c. and this he must usher in with his ordinaire jeers, and ground lesse reflections, telling us that His opinion hath been the common sense of the genera∣tion of God's children before this fiery yron age; and that their sober examples, are of more weight and imitation, then the furious practices of any of late, whereunto they have been inflamed by the doctrines of popular parasites and fierce demagoges, such as this libeller and his complices. But we have found, & possibly may yet finde further, how far he is mistaken in this. And in deed in some respect, this may be well called a fiery iron age; for I beleeve since Christianity was heard of, there was never so much obduration of consciences, so seared with hote irons, and in∣flammed with rage against piety, fidelity, truth and upright∣nesse of heart, as is this day: It were well to be wished hat this Surveyer and his complices would take either the ex∣ample of the Prophets, or Apostles, or of these sober Chri∣stians, who lived nearest to the light of the Apostles times, and learne after their example to be more sober, and constant to his principles; sure he will not finde in their practices, so much perfidy, treachery, debauchednesse, hatred of piety, persecution of truth, and of the godly, as both he and his complices are notoriously guilty of. Will he find among them such court parasites, such patrons of Apostafy, such authors of rebellion against God, such Tyrannogogues, and base flatterers, as he and his fraternity are? Will he finde in all their writings such bitter invectives and reproaches a∣gainst the vvay of God, and his People, as may be seen in these fevv sheets? Will he find such commendations of tyranny, oppression, bondage and siavery, as if it vvere

nothing but the compound of justice and equity? But vve come to the purpose.

The summe of his argument is this, That though by the te∣stimony of Tertul. Apolog. cap, 1. 33. and 37, and Cyprian. ad Demetrianum. It is apparent, the Christians wanted not might to raise armes, against the Emperours; yet they never used any resi∣stence either for the defence of themselves, or for therescueing of their oppressed brethren: Yea even after that in Constantin's dayes, Re∣ligion had been legally established, and the Christians able enough to defend themselves, yet they used no violence agaist the Arrian and Apostat Emperours who succeeded: Vnder the persecuter Maxi∣minian there was the Theban Legion consisting of 6666. who yet did not resist him: and that the greatest part of the army, under Julian the Apostate, was Christian, appears by their general outcry at the recep∣tion of Jovinian, nos sumus Christiani, yet did they never oppose him width force.]

To which we answere.

1. Though this Surveyer would appear tobe a man of a very meek and Christian disposition, and cryeth out of such as are not of his opinion, as men of the fiery iron age; yet, though we will not take upon us to judge his heart, any may see part of his scope and intention, in mentioning this argument, to be this, That we may be reasoned into a perfect stupidity and insensibility, and the King encouraged to contrive and prosecute an Eleventh persecutoion, on all who professe the Name of Jesus, in his three dominions: For what end else doth he adduce the example of the primitive Christians, who would not resist the Emperours their bloody Emissaries, sent out to put into execution their cruel, inhu∣mane and barbarous Edicts, and to fulfil their lust and desire, to extinguish the very Name of Christians; but to sing us a sleep, so that if the King will, the may command his bloody and cruel Emissaries, to make amassacre on all that will no abjure Christ and his interest, and cut all their throats in a few dayes, without the least fear of opposition? If this be not his designe, let him tell me, what he would have Christians doing, in case such a thing as this should be? Would he have them resisting, or only holding up their

throats to the bloody executioners? If he would not have any resistence made, even in this case, then we see what his principles drive at, and many may judge what a cruel bloody heart he must have. If in this case he would allow a resist∣ence, where is the force of his argument then? To what pur∣pose is their example adduced? and what becometh of his insolent exclamations. O silly, foolish, and feminine Christians then! and o illuminated, masculous and martial Spirits of Christi∣ans now!

2. He may remember what he tels us, when he is speak∣ing to the instances of resistence adduced out of Scripture, Pag. 67. That every example recorded in Scripture is not imitable: And may not we say here, That every example recorded in Church History (far more fallible then Scripture, and far lesse to be regairded, seing what things are recorded in Scripture, are writen for our instruction) is not imitable. So that reduce this argument into forme, it will quickly evan∣ish; for it must stand upon this medium. That what ever the primitive Christians did, layeth a binding obligation upon us; But this is false, as we shall undenyably evince; and where is then the force of the argument? Though it ap∣pear plausible and taking, yet when pressed it doth eva∣porat.

3. If their practice be a binding precedent in this matter; so must it be in all other things: and particularly it must be unlawful for us now to resist, in our owne defence, a raseal mul∣titude, assaulting us with stones in the open streets, against all law and equity; for Tertullian in the same place tells us, that they would not resist the Inimicum vulgus the common people, who was malitiously set against them, and did in∣vade them with stones and fire, suo jure with out any kinde of law or judicial procedoure: Yea Tertullian puts no difference betwixt the Emperours and meane persons, in poynt of resist∣ence; Saying, Idem sumus Imperatoribus, qui & vicinis nostris, malè enim velle, malè facere, malè dicere, malè cogitare de quo∣quam ex aequo vetamur. Quodcunque non licèt in Imperatorem, id nec in quenquam, we may do no more, whether in word, thought, or deed against any whatsomever, then against the Empe∣rour.

But who will say that in this, their practice or judg∣ment is to us a binding precedent? 2. Several of these Fathers thought it unlawful to kill in their owne defence. See A〈◊〉〈◊〉 bros. de Offic. Lib. 3. cap. 4. and Augustin also Epistola ad publi∣colam, 154. and Lib. 1. de Libero Arbitr. cap. 5. And yet this cannot now be maintained as a truth; See the contrare prov∣ed by Rivet. in 6. Praec. oper. Tom. 1. Pag. 1391. 3. Private Christians, not only refused to resist violence with violence, but they refused also to flee from the fury of persecuters, when they might saifly have done it, Potuimus (sayes Ter∣tull. in Apolog.) & inermes nec rebelles, sed tantummodo discor∣des soltus divortii invidia adversus vos dimicasse, &c. That is, naked as they were, they might have removed themselves to some other part of the world, and they would not. Yea Tertullian did condemne flight in time of persecution, in his Book De fugâ in persecutione. But will any condemne this pra∣ctice now, or think it unlawful, or unbeseeming Christians to flee from the fury of enraged persecuters? Sure this Sur∣veyer doth often grant it to be lawful. It seemeth then that either he hath catched some errour in his head, that is not Christian (as he speaks of us, Pag. 39.) or all which the primitive Christians maintained in opinion and practice, was not so Christian as to be perpetually obligeing. 4. The pri∣mitive Christians ran to martydome, when neither cited, nor accused, as is seen in Fox his Acts and Monum. Vol. 1. Will any say that Every Christian is bound and obliged to do so now? How then shall their meer example be obligeing in the other practice? 5. The primitive Christians would not bow their knees upon the Sabbath Dayes nor eat blood. Must that example of theirs perpetually oblige us now? 6. Yea it was the opinion of Ambrose, Libr. 5. Orat. in Auxenti••••, that no armes should be used by him against the Goths who then invaded Italy, to waste and destroy the same, but teares: will it hence follow, That a Church-man may defend himself against open invading enemies, no other way now, but by teares; because he said, Aliter nec debeo, nec possum resis∣••ere?

4. The Anabaptists make use of this example of the primi∣tive Christians to disprove the lawfulnesse of warr, as may 〈◊〉〈◊〉 seen in Gerhard upon that head: and would this Surveyer have us yet more Anabaptists, then he (wickedly and falsly) alledgeth we are, in his bitter preface? It seemes he would joyne hands vvith the Anabaptists as to this, and upon that accountvve have as good ground to call him an Anabaptist, as he hath to call us, Iam sumus ergo pares.

5. He cannot shevv us, that these Fathers did account it unlavvful, simply in poynt of conscience, to resist Emperours vvickedly persecuting: They hold forth no scriptural ground condemning the same, but rather seeme to say that it was out of a desire of Martyrdome, which (as Sulpitius Sever us sayeth) they sought for more earnestly, then in his dayes men gaped for Bishopricks; & therefore they willingly yeelded up their lives and all, to the cruel rage of persecuters, that they might obtaine the crowne of Martyrdome, It is true, Tertullian sayes, Apud istam disciplinam magis occidi licet quam occidere. But this sayes not that it is simply sinful t kill in self-defence: but that they choosed rather to be killed or martyred.

6, Though we shall not goe about to call in question the truth of Tercullian's narration concerning the number & power of Christians in his time (and yet Mr Goodwin in his Antica••va∣lierisme makeyth it very probable that he vvas mistaken in his computation, if he did meane it through the vvhole Em∣pirre. Or that if it vvas so, it vvas not knovvn to the Chri∣stians, and so it vvas all one, as to resisting upon that ground.) Yet vve may say, That there might have been many things, vvhich in prudence might have made them to forbeare to goe to an open vvar, or rise in armes against the Emperours, even this, that the Emperours alvvayes had a greart militia, many and strong armies on foot, against vvhich, for naked per∣sons (though many) scattered up and dovvne the Empire, having fevv or none to command or lead them forth to battel in their defence, to rise in this case, had been no probable meane of saifty to themselves, or of defence; but rather a meane to provoke the Tyrant more, and procure unto them∣selves

more suddaine deathe and destruction. So that not with∣standing of their number, their capacity to effectuat such an interprise, vvas but small and very improbable.

7. The ancient Christians vvere not so utterly ignorant, nor so void of humanity and Christian love and Zeal, that being able to help, they vvould suffer their brethren to be dravvne to death; what ever this Surveyer sayeth: but some times they rescued the oppressed out of the hands of the op∣pressours: For vve read that about the yeer 235. certane men inhabiteing Ma••ëota vvith force resued Dion••sius of A∣lexandria out of the hands of such as were carrying him away. So about the year 342. the good People of Alexandria did vvith force, defend Athanasius. About the yeer 387. the People of Caesaria did defend Basil: See Nazianz Orat. 20. And also the People of Samosata purposed to retaine their Bishop Eusebius Pius banished at the command of Valens the Empe∣rour, had not Eusebius himself restrained them. And about the year 356. the People of Constantinople did in like manner stand to the defence of Paulus: see for this Blondel's Scholia in Grot. de Imp Sum. Pot. Pag. 65.

8. Before Constantin's dayes, none of the Emperours owned or professed the Christian faith, so that religion was not then established by lawes, as our Religion is: and there∣fore all that Tertullian or Cyprian say, cometh not home to our case: Yea Tertullian sayeth they were but a number of strangers, exteri sumus, sayes he, & vestra omn••o implevi∣mus.

9. Though it is true that when Conflantine obtained the Empire, Christian Religion was more secured and establish∣ed then formerly, yet did not the succeeding Emperours when they came to the throne, sweare to maintaine the same, and all who owned it; they did not receive the imperial crowne on these tearmes; nor were the subjects bound unto them on these conditions; and so the instances adduced after Constantin's dayes, sute not our case, wherein Religion is become not only a legal right of the People, but a funda∣mental right, and the maine clause and condition of the

compact betwixt Magistrate and Subject, as hath been said.

10. As for the Christians not resisting the Arrian Empe∣rours, it speaks nothing: For, that controversy was long under debate, even in Constantin's dayes, and decreased nothing, for all the sentence of the Nicene Councel, which passed against it; and hereby Bishop was against Bishop, Province against Province, Council against Council, and at length all the world almost was turned Arrian. What wonder then that there was no general opposition made against these Arrian Emperours, when their Subjects imbraced the same delusion? And as for particular oppositions, we shall see some instances afterward.

11. As for the Theban Legion, their non-resistence speaks nothing to our case, for then Religion was not setled by law. 2. For six thousand, six hundered, sixty six men to interpise a warre against the Emperour and al his army, had neither been an act of prudence nor policy. 3. When he tells us that they offered themselves willingly to be butchered, holding up their naked bodyes to the Empe∣rour's bloody emissaryes, we see what he would have all the honest People of Scotland doing this day, even go∣ing with ropes about their necks, and with open brests, to the Kings bloody Emissaryes, that they may murther them all. O But this man must have a blood-thirsty heart.!

12. That all or ••he most part of Iulian's army was Chri∣stian is but supposed not proved; It was but a small part that being deceived by him under colour of a largesse, threw some frankincense into a fire secretly kindled in honour of an idol, and finding the deceit arose from the feast prepared for them, and ran thorow the market place, and cryed we are Chri∣stians, &c. and called upon the Emperour to kil and behead them, till he was enraged and banished them. And as for that proof of it, that he adduceth, it is a non-sequitur: for it was the souldeours affection to Iovinian, and earnest desire to have him Emperour, after Iulian's death, that made them cry our we are Christians, when he was refuseing to accept of the im∣perial

dignity (for they compelled him, seyeth Socrates Lib. 2. Cap. 19.) and for this cause to dissuade them from putting that honour on him, Or because of his owne unwillingnesse to command over Iulian's army, which was Prophaned with sacrileges, as Ruffinus sayeth in his history Lib. 11: Cap. 1. He told them he was a Christian, and that he would not take on him the command of Heathens. See Historia tripartitae Lib. 7. Cap. 1. and so supposed them to be all heathens: And therefore the sense of their speach was only this: Since yee are a Christian we will be all Christians also, take you the imperial throne notwithstanding of that. Moreover, though the souldiers in Iulian's army should have scrupled at making resistence against their Emperour and General, unto whom they were sworne as souldiers, it speaketh little to the poynt; for subjects are not so under their Soveraignes, as Souldiers are under their Commanders and Generalls, they are under the General's pay, and so his servants, and are hired for his behoove, but the King doth not hire Subjects, nor are they his servants and under his pay, and he stands o∣therwise obliged unto them, then the Emperour did to his souldiers: finally Nazianzen in his Orat. 2. in Iulianum seem∣eth to say that the reason why Iulian the Apostate was not opposed, was, because they were not able For, sayes he, Nos autem quibus nulla alia arma, nec Praesidia, praeter spem in Deum reliqua erant, ut pote omni humano subsidio prorsus destitutis & spoliatis, quem tandem alium aut precum auditorem, aut ini∣micorum depulsorem habituri eramus quàm Deum Iacob, &c. i. e. what could we do, but betake ourselves to the God of Ja∣cab, since we had no other armes, nor walls, nor strengthes, being destitute and spoiled of all humane help: Sure this will not say much against us, nor for our Surveyer▪ Yea he hinteth in his first oration in Iulianum, That for fear of resistence & of crossing his end, the Apostate Iulian would not make open war at first upon the Christians, [Nos enim (sayes he) si vis inferatur, acriores obstinatioresque futuros, ac Tyrannidi obnixum pietatis Tuen∣dae studium objecturos cogitavit: solent enim fortes & generosi animi et qui vim afferre parat contumaciter obsistere, non secus ac flamma, quae a vento excitatur quo vehementius perflatur, eò vehementius accen∣ditur.

i.e. [If he had used violence, he knew he had found us more peremptory and refractary, and ready to have opposed to his tyranny a fixed purpose and endeavour to preserve our Religion; for stout and generous spirits use to resist with greater violence such as violently assault them, as a fire blown at by winde, the more the winde beat•• upon it, the more it burneth.] Which she wes clearly that if that Apostate had used force at first, he had met with op∣position; and therefore he thought it fittest by policy to weaken them, disarme them, and subdue them, and then fall on them with force, and persecute them.

13 If we shall adduce some instances of the primitive Christians defending themselves and their Religion by force, against the Emperours Emissaries, whither will our Surveyer then send his soul? while he looked upon them as al∣together free of any such charge, he cryed out Balaam-like anima mea sit cum animabus veterum Christianorum but ere it come there, he must repent of what he hath done and said: But if their practice was suteable to ours, what will he then do with his soul? for he vvill not have it with the late Chri∣stians, nor can he now have it with the old Christians, and so it must goe to a distinct place; and so it will, if he repent not. But to our purpose. 1. Blondel, in the forcited place, tels us, that about the year 310. The Armenians waged warre against Maximius, who was come against them with an army, because of their Religion, and defate him. 2. S••crates in his Ec∣clesiastick history lib. 2. c. 30, (after the English translation) tels us [

That by the command of the Emperour, and cruelty of Macedonius, it was proclamed that the Churches of such as imbraced the creed, containing the clause of one substance, should be thrown down even to the fundations,—as soon as the commissioners for suppressing the churches had given the onset, immediatly a great number of Novatians, and diverse others, which maintained the doctrine of one substance pulled downe that Church, removed it to another place, and there erected it againe—againe Macedo∣nius (like the prelate of Galloway) understanding that there were many both at Pophlagonia, and at Mantinium of the Novation opinion which could by no meanes be com∣modiously

removed by Ecclesiastical authority, procured that foure bands of souldiers at the Emperours commande∣ment should be sent to Paphlagonia, to the end the inhabitants might be terrified and thereby brought to imbrace the Arian haeresie. But such as inhabited Mantinium being kindled with an earnest Zeal towards Christian Religion, went against the souldiers vvith chearful mindes, and va∣lient courage, after they had mustered together a great hoast, they all marched forward to battel, some had taken in their hand long hedging bils, some had axes, some other met by chance with rusty armour; when they joyned together and came to handigriping, many of the Paphlagonians were beaten downe, the souldiers (few only excepted) vvere slaine every one.

] Moreover he tels us in the same place, when this Macedonius was about to destroy the temple in which Constantine lay buryed, and had a purpose to translate the Emperours bones, the people vvithstood his interprize, and vvhen he gote the bones carryed into the Church vvhere Acacius the Martyr was buryed, the multitude of the contrary side ran thither in haste; and this occasioned a very great slaughter, so that the Church, & the porch, unto the street, was runing with blood, & full of dead bodyes: & for this Ma∣cedonius gote little thanks of the Emperour. 3. in Hisioria tri∣partita Lib. 11. c. 15. It is told us, How the Christians oppress∣ed by Barabanes or Baratanes King of Persia, did flee to the Romans to seek their help; upon which and some other causes a war arose betwixt the Romans and the said King. It is true they made not head against the King while they remained in his countrey, because they were not able; otherwise they had not run to the Romans for help. Our Surveyer cannot deny that they sought the Emperour's help, but he saves, This will not necessarily Import that they stirred them up to invade their King in their behalf, but that having come to them, they might have the help and benefite of their protection. But vvhether they stirred up the Emp••rour or not, is not much to the matter, seing they came as suppliants and (as Socrat. sayes Lib. 7. Cap. 18.) craved that they vvould pity their case, and not suffer them to be so oppressed; and the Emperour made this one cause

of the vvar, vvhich he undertook against him; and vvas one of the causes (as the historie tells us) that made the Romans angry with them: and vvhen the Persian King demanded back his fugitives, it vvas ansvvered, they vvould not do that, yea and that not only they vvould endeavour to set the suppliants at freedome, and deliver them from their oppressours; but also that they vvould undergoe any thing for the good of the Christian Religion and (as socrat sayeth lib. 7. c. 18.) they pur∣posed not only to aide them, but also with all might possible, generally to maintaine the quarrel in the behalf of Christian Religion. Againe our Surveyer tels us, that the Persian Kings had once submitted to the Romans. Which whether true or false, is not mentioned in all this history, either as the ground moving the oppressed Christians to flee to the Empe∣rour Theodosius for help, or moving Theodosius to wage vvarre against them. And so by this example of theirs, we see that oppressed subjects may run and seek releef from strangers, when they cannot help themselves. Thus we see this Sur∣veyer's argument is many wayes weak, and against himself. Moreover, 4. When Athanasius was forced to flee out of Alexandria, and Gregorius was brought thither with armed soul∣diers, and put in possession of the Church, the Citizens of Alexandria, not withstanding of Syrianus the captane under the Emperour his being there with five thousand armed men, were so displeased with what was done, that they set St. Denis Church on fire See Socrat. Hist. Eccles, Lib. 2. Cap. 8. Or, cap. 11. after the greek copy. 5. When the honest People at Constantinople had chosen Paulus to be their Bishop after the death of Eusebius, the Emperour Constantius sent Hermogenes the captaine to thrust Paulus out of the Church, and when he came to execute his commission with force, the People pre∣pared themselves to aide their Bishop, forced the house where Hermogenes was, and pulled him out by the eares and killed him: See Socrat. Lib. 2. Cap. 10. 6. When Paulus was againe placed in Constantinople the Emperour sends Philip the president to remove him, and to appoynt Macedonius the Arian, in his stead. But Philip was so affrayed of the People that he went straight unto the publick bath called Zenxippus,

and sends for Paulus, and being in fear of the multitude, who being suspicious flocked thither, conveyes him secret∣ly out a back window: Then he and Macedonius went unto the Church, and were guarded all alongs by souldiers with naked swords, and when they came to the door, the throng was such that they could not enter, till there were some thousands Killed. If Philp the Emperours Lievtenant had not been afraid of the People; he had not done as he did. So for fear of the People the Lieutenant of Valens the Emperour durst not execute these fowrscore priests, who had come 〈◊〉〈◊〉 supplicate the Emperour in name of all the rest in Nicome∣dia, and were commanded to be killed by the Emperour; See Socrat. Lib, 4. Cap. 13. all which sayes it was no rare thing for People to resist even with force the Emperours Emissaries sent to execute his unjust decrees. 7. Socrates tells us Hist. Eccles. Lib. 7. Cap. 14. hovv divers Monks in∣habiting mont Nitria, espoused Cyril's quarrel, and coming to Alexandria assaulted the Lieutenant in his Chariot with stones, so that his guaird was forced to flee away. 8. About the year 404. when the Emperour had banished Chrisostome, the People flocked together about the palace, so that the Emperour was necessitated to call him back againe from his exile, See Hist, Tripare, Lib. 10. Cap. 13. 9. When Ambrose was banished by Valentinian the Emperour, at the instigation of his Mother Iustina, the People did resist such as came to carry him away, such was their Zeal for the truth, and love to their injured Bishop: see Hist. Tripart. Lib. 9. Cap. 20. and they would rather lose their lives, as suffer their pastor to be taken away by the souldiers, that were sent to pull him out of the Church, and thurst him away by force. See Ruffini Histor. Lib. 11. c. 15.

Now let the Surveyer tels us what he thinks of their pra∣ctice? And if he think their practice any other commentary to Rom. 13. then our glosses; and if it be any thing different from our practice, in these dregs of time, as he loveth to speak?

We proceed now unto his Reasons, which are but the same things we have heard formerly. The summe of

the first is this. [That doctrine cannot be of God, which to the eye of sound reason, doth unavoidably (if practised) overthrow God's order for setling Societyes, and open a gap to perpetual seditions against Magistrates,—and will please wicked malefactors well, being a procla∣matoin to them, when condemned, to violent the Magistrate—for the matter is referred to each particular person to judge of his owne suffer∣ing, and his discretive judgement must determine him to resist.] Answ. Here is a heap of words, but no sinewes of an ar∣gument, This man is good at catching poor simple ones that cannot discerne his tallacies: But such as are wise will smile at his confidence in reasoning after this manner: For. 1. His doctrine, not ours, overthroweth God's order: It is God's order that Commonwealths be preserved from ruine and destruction; that Magistrates should lay out themselves, and all their power for the good of the Realme over which they are; for as Ciecro sayeth eo referenda sunt omnia its qui praesunt ali••s, ut ••i qui erunt eorum in imperio sint quam beatissimi, and else∣where ut gubernatori cursus secundus, medico salus, impera∣tori victoria, sic moderatori, Reipublica beata Civium vita pro∣posita est. But by his doctrine, if the Soveraigne will (and how mutable and inclineable to tyranny the will of Princes is, all ages hath witnessed) The Commonwealth is remedy∣lesty gone; if he will destroy the same, there is no help; if he turne Tyrant (and one wreatched Counseller may in a short time by asse a Prince, that is not otherwise wel balasted, to this) ruine is unavoydable. But by our doctrine, there is a remedy to preserve the commonwealth from ruine; &more regaird is to be had to this, which is the end, then to the Prince who as such, is but a medium to this end▪ 2. Such as plead for the good of humane Societyes, should as much labour to pre∣vent the utter overturning of the same, as to prevent sedi∣tions: Good phisitians will labour more carefully to prevent death, then to prevent a little distemper or sicknesse; yea and will cause a distemper to prevent destruction: but this monte∣bank, if he procure with his prescriptions present ease, careth not though the patient die the next day. But 3. How doth our doctrine open a perpetual gap to seditions? Because (sayes he) by our way every private person is made judge not only his owne actions, but of his sufferings, and he

must suffer no more then he thinks meet. But 1. would he have all the Subjects becomeing more senselesse and stupide then beasts? Would he have them casting away their soul & judgment, that they should have no more use of their reason, to judge what either is commanded or imposed by penalty? If he grant a judgement of discretion in actings, how will he salve the Magistrat's credite and honour, and prevent rebel∣lion and sedition, if there be such a necessary connexion be∣twixt the exercise of this judgement and the consequent he dreameth of? For disobedience is a resistence, as well as non-submission to the punishment. 2. Though we allow to every one a judgement of discretion, yet we allow no man's judgement to be the rule of his walking: We say not that an erring judgment is a rule to walk by, and therefore we say that a subject is bound to obey the Magistrates lawful commands, though he in his private judgement should ac∣count them sinful; so we say he is bound to submit to pu∣nishment, which is just and justly inflicted, though he judge otherwayes: Yea we grant furder, he is bound to submit to unjust sentences patiently, when he cannot by faire and pos∣sible meanes shun them. Yea moreover we grant that in mat∣ters of smaller moment, he may lawfully beare with the losse of a little to redeeme more, or save more from hazard. But our question is, if the Body of a land or a considerable part thereof, ought stupidly to submit to the losse of Life, Lands, Libertyes and Religion, when not only they judge these to be in hazard; but when all who have eyes in their head see it &it is undenyable, being written on all the Acts & actings of these in power, & palpably & too too sensibly felt by al such as desire to keep a good conscience, & to be keeped free from the rageing wickednesse & aposrasy of this generation. 4. Though I know few malefactors, who, when attached, arraigned & condem∣ned, would not do what they could to deliver themselvs from death, though this question had never been started; yet our doctrine will not warrand such to do violence to the Ma∣gistrate: For we judge it not enough that they say they are innocent and deserve on punishment. Our case is a case that is manifest and not our, and a publick injury avowed and main∣tained:

And will he think that because a Malefactor justly condemned to die, may not resist the Magistrate executing his office, Therefore a Land may not defend themselves, against the Kings Emissaries sent out to execute unjust sentences, tend∣ing to the ruine and destruction of Religion and Liber∣ties?

His 2. Reason Pag. 44. is in summe this [That by this way Magisirates in doing their duty cannot be secured: for it is not enough to say, let Magistrates rule rightly, and not oppresse, because that in the holy permissive providence of God, oft the best princes are not best used—some crossing of the will of a forward, and furi••••s party, may move them to fancy ther Prince a Tyrant, and thereupon account themselves free to offer violence: And from resistence they will goe to revenge (the fury of evil consciences instigating them)—in histories it will be found, that hardly did ever people resist a prince, but in end it came to revenge; and of times the best princes have been worst used, at least as evil as the naughtiest, as may be seen a mong the Roman Emperours, and Christian Emperours and Kings: and amongst our own Kings &c.] Answ. Lend us this argument, and we shall see what to make of it. By his doctrine people can never be secured from unjust violence, or from continual oppression and slavery; for it is in vaine to say, let them do that which is right, and Magistrates will do their duty, for albeit it be true that faithful and honest subjects, may in the way of their duty, expect from God that he will incline the hearts of Magistrates to respect and encourage them; yet in the holy permissive providence of God, it comes often to passe that the best people are not best used by their princes: And this all histories both ancient and moderne abundantly demonstrate. This court divine is all for the secureing of the Prince in all his tyrannies & oppressions; and speaks nothing for guarding the saifty of the people, which is the end, for which Magistrates were appoynted: And this is to pervert the order of nature, so to secure the meane as to destroy the end: For that is to make the meane the end, and no more the meane. 2. We justify not Subjects as are unruly & seditious against good Magistrates doing their duty; nor do we plead for Subjects riseing up in armes against their Magi∣strates,

for every small injury, or when they deviate in a little from the right way: Let him grant to us, That subjects may oppose their Magistrates, and resist unjust violence with vio∣lence, when, in stead of being Magistrates they become wolves and Tygers; and in stead of being pastors of the people, they become lyons seeking to destroy and devoure them; and when they overturne the ends, for which they were appoynted, and destroy the liberties of the Subject, & overturne the Religion, which they were obliged & sworne to defend, in their place and according to their power, and we desire no more. 3. If any under pretext of repelling of violence, shall unjustly injure the Magistrate, we approve not such, we justify them not, let them answere for that themselves. This is nothing to our question: if he say that our doctrine openeth a gap to this, He is mistaken, for such as say that the sinful and unjust commands of Magistrates should not b e obeyed, do not open a gap to all disobedience, even in the most just commands. And since he will grant that unjust commands ought not to be obeyed, let him close the door here, so that from this there shall be no hazard of mocking the Magistrate, when commanding just and neces∣sary dutyes; And with the same engyne shall we close the door, so that when we say that Magistrates destroying Reli∣gion, Libertyes and what is dear to Subjects, may be resisted, we shall secure the Magistrate from violence and opposition, when he keepeth within his sphaere, and doth his duty. 4. If the matter passe from resistence to revenge, we approve it not; if the pride and haughtinesse of the spirit of Princes be the cause of this, let them see to it, and labour to prevent it, by condescending to the just & equitable demands of their op∣pressed and grieved subjects. 5. We do not deny but God may stir up an Absolome and other conspirators against a Gra∣cious David, for his owne holy ends. But, in ordinary providence it is to be seen, that good Princes, while alive and when dead, have had more respect of their Subjects; then others, who have been most flagitious and wicked: The books of the Kings & Chronicles demonstrate this. That good Kings have been much honoured and reverenced while living, and

much lamented when dead; and upon the contrare, vvicked King's have either been cut off, or when dead have not been desired, nor burned with the burnings of their fathers, nor bu∣ryed in the sepulchre of their fathers, whatever forced submis∣sion & outward respect they might have had while living. 6. As for the difference that God in his providence hath put betwixt Heathenish and Christian Kinges see what Evagrius sayeth Eccles. histor. cap. 41. speaking against Zosimus, he hath these words worth the marking. [Let us see if thow will, how the Emperours which were Hethnickes and Panimes maintainers of Idolatry and paganisme, and how on the contrary, such as cleaved unto the Christian faith, ended their reigne: was not Cajus Julius Caesar the first Emperous, slaine by a conspiracy? did not certane souldiers with naked swords dispatch Cajus the nephew of Tiberius? was not Nero murdered by one of his familiar and dear friends? Had not Galba the like end, Otho & Vitellus, who all three reign∣ed only Sixteen moneths? what shall I speak of Titus whom Domi∣tianus poisoned, although he was his owne brother? what sayest thow of Commodus?—what shall I say of Marcinus? did not the souldiers use him like a captive, about Byzantium, and cruelly put him to death?—what shall I say of Maximinus whom his owne army dispatched—were not Gallus, and Volusianus murdered by their owne army? had not Aemilianus the like miserable end—But since Constantine began to reigne-was there any one Emperour in that city (Julian a man of thine own Religion-only excepted) that was murthered by his owne subjects?] It were an endlesse work to run thorow histories, and show, how for the most part, (contrare to what he sayes) these Kings who have been resisted by their Subjects, whether in the time of Heathenisme, or since Christianity was professed, have been most flagitious and wicked? Sure, if we should goe no further but to our owne history, we shall finde this put beyond all question, the Surveyer himself being witnesse, who sayes Pag. 78. that the instances of opposition made unto the Scotish Kings adduced by the Apolog. were but [

the insurrection of Nobles against the Kings, and violent oppressions of such of them, as have been flagitious and tyrannous.

] And thus he contradicteth, what he just now said. But to what purpose is all this stir?

He sayes, but can he prove, that we assert, That any party of the people, when strong enough, may get up against the King and all Magistrates, when they judge that they deal wrongously and injuriously with them? Sure the thing which we affirme is far contrary to this, as hath been often times shewed. We know that [

the evil wit of a seditious party can soon paint the Best King as a black and ugly Ty∣rant]

and vve know also, that the evil wit of a hired court-parasite, and bese flatterer can paint out the blackest Nero, or Caligula, or a Heliogabalus, as a brave and virtuous prince. And this is nothing to our case, when the acts of Tyranny and op∣pression, are as legible, as if written with the sun-beames: It behoved to be strange virmilion that would serve to make the apostasy, perjury, oppression and tyranny of the novv Prince and Rulers, appear vvhit and comely; and he needs no great vvit vvho vvould painte out these grosse acts under the forme of ugly Tyranny: Yet vvith all vve shall vvillingly grant to him, that,

[All the fearers of God should rather indure some acts of real tyranny, then by doctrine or practi∣ces of resistence, open a door to the destruction of good Kings (by a party not of their spirit, but lurking under their pretences) and to the continual dissolution, concussion, and desolation of humane societies]

for this is not the thing vve are against: Some acts of Tyranny vve are vvilling to endure, provideing he vvill grant us liberty both to teach & practise resistence, vvhen the acts of tyranny are not one or two, but many; nor acts of Tyranny in smaller and lesse con∣siderable matters; but such as tend to the destruction of the true Libertyes of the Subject, to the overturning of a Cove∣nanted vvork of Reformation, svvorne-to by all rankes and degrees of people; hovvbeit men of corrupt principles, and of another spirit, should lurk under these pretences. Is it not reasonable, that vve also demand of this Surveyer vvhile he is in a good mood, That he vvould evidence so much fear of God, as not to condemne resistence unto real tyranny, so as to open a gap to all the ingrained & bloody Ner••es and such prodigious Canibales, to vvaste & destroy at pleasure the best of Subjects. What follovveth concerning obedience active

and Subjection passive, hath been spoken to formerly, and it is needlesse fill up pages vvith repetitions, as he doth: only vvhereas he citeth Apolog. Pag. 376, & 377. grant∣ing that subjection is necessary, and supposeth that this is repugnant to vvhat Naphtali sayeth, He vvould knovv that he is in a great mistake, for the question there is concerning o∣bedience in things indifferent, or of submitting to the penalty, and that by a few privat persones; and though in this case a single person, who will not obey the Magistrate in these matters must yeeld the penalty, and so acknowledge his sub∣jection, it will not follow that a multitude or a Community, forced under intolerable penaltyes to acts of impiety and hainous transgression, and who can defend their rights and just privileges palpably and iniquously violated, may not repel such unjust force with force; & resist intolerable tyran∣ny, abusing the ordinance of God to all acts of wickednesse, and to the overturning & destroying the very ends of govern∣ment? And to this Naphtaly speaketh Pag. 28. So that he but gives vent to his profane Spirit, to cry out, as he doth Pag. 46. and say [

Good God! to what times are we reserved? to see so certane truths, that may be reckoned among the immo∣veables of Religion, and the ancient land marks removed, by an upstart furious Crue, who by their new principles (as false as new) seek to confound both Church and State? The lawfulnesse of privat men's counter acting, and violent resistence to a whole Church & a whole State, is a maine ar∣ticle of their new faith, & to do so is one of their new com∣mands added to God's.

] For 1. It never was a certane truth, nor ever was reckoned among the immovables of Religion (except by Court divines, &base flattering Sycophants, whose maine and only Religion was and is, to please the King, that he might full their bellies) that absolute and illimited sub∣jection was due to Princes by the whole body of the People, so that if he should send our Emissaries, like so many wild Beares, to kill Man, Wife, and Children, Without colour and pretence of Law or reason, People should do nothing but cast open their brests, and hold up their throats, that they may be devoured at once: what sound Divine sayeth

so? What sound Divine putteth this brutish subjection among the ancient land marks? Yea what sober Royalist (that is not with this surveyer intoxicate with Royal gifts, till his braines be crack't, and his rationality brutified) dar positively averre that this is to be put among the immoveables of Religion? 2. This principle which he calleth new, and as false as new, is an old truth verified by the practices of all ages, and is as true as old; which he might easily see, if his new dignities and gifts had not blinded his eyes, and made him as false and perfidious, as he is notour. 3. He tells that our principle tends to confound both Church and State; because we plead against Tyranny either in Church or State; a pretty reason: Because we plead for that, which tendeth to the preservation of Church and State, in being and puri∣ty; therefore we plead for confounding Church and State? whereas his principle of Tyranny, in Church and State, is the readyest way imaginable to destroy both, as hath been seen by many sad and dreadful examples, before our dayes. 4. This man who hath perfidiously renunced his Covenant with God, and avowed his perjury to all the World, and his palpable breach of, and casting behind his heels the third command, talks of our adding new articles to our faith, and a new command to God's; because we will not deny the principles of nature, nor grant that free-born subjects are slaves or brutes: And with him, Tyranny is the ancient Land-mark, and the chief poynt of his Religion, and a maine article of his faith, and one of the grand commands of the time. But many know at whose girdle his faith and his Re∣ligion hangs: But we will choose none of his Religion, prin∣ciples, articles of faith, or commands; For they change with the Court: and we know Court Divinity is a coat of many colours, faire and fashionable, but such as will neither keep from cold, nor cover our nakednesse, far lesse save from God's wrath in the day of accounts.

CAP. XV.

Some other Particulars, alledged by the Surveyer, against us, examined.

HAving in the two preceeding Chapters answered his maine &Cardinal Arguments, our labour will not be great in confuteing what followeth.

He says Pag. 22. We shake hands with any Papists, asserting that any person, unjustly pursued by Magistrates, may defend himself by armes, and slay them if he cannot otherwise escape, no lesse then Robbers or cut-throats. Thus Becan. Tom. 2. contr. Tract. 3. quaest. 8. & Swarez. contra Reg. Angl. Lib. 6. cap. 4. §. 6. So Aquin. 2. 2. qu. 70. Art. 4. c.] To which we answere 1. That the question, which these Pa∣pists speak to, is different from ours: We speak not con∣cerning vvhat a privat single person may do vvhen arraigned and unjustly condemned, but concerning what a community may do, when unjustly oppressed & persecuted by Magistrats, contrare to their trust and oath; 2. We speake not of pri∣vate persons killing Magistrates at their own hand; but of privat persons or a community their defending themselves a∣gainst unjust violence: and this truth which we maintain, was owned and practised before ever any Papist put pen to Paper.

Next he tells us, That Mr Calvsn is of another judgment, Inst. Lib. 4. cap. 20. § 26, 31. To which we answere 1 Mr Calvin is asserting that wicked men may be Magistrates, and that such, though wicked, while they are in office, should be acknowledged as God's deputyes; for, (so sayes he §. 25.) [In homine deterrimo honoreque omni indignissimo penes quem modò sit publica potestas, praeclaram illam & Divinam potestatem residere, quam Dominus justitiae ac judicit sui Ministris verbo suo detulit: proinde à subditis eâdem in reverent: â &dignatione habendum, quantum ad publicam obedientiam attinet, qua optimum Regem, si daretur, habituri essent.] And in the following Sections sheweth that such ought to be so accounted who are in the possession of the Throne, whatever way they have at∣tained to it, as Nebuchadnezzar (who yet was but the hammer

of the earth, Ierem. 50: ver. 23.) Belsazer, and the rest, of that Kinde, and therefore §. 29. he sayeth [Hunc reveren∣tiae atque adeo pietatis affectum debemus ad extremum prafectis nostris omnibus qualescunque tandem sint.] And would have us §. 31. carefull not to rub contempt upon, or to violent the office, or ordinance of God, even in such; which we easily assent unto: Because that this is not repug∣nant to a sinlesse self-defence, and resistence made to their open Tyranny, when seeking to destroy Religion, Libertyes, and every thing that is previous and deare unto the Subjects. It is true, some-where his expressions seem to condemne resistence, but that which we have mentioned is the maine thing he presseth: and he doth not speak to the case of resistence particularly. 2. Though we should grant that in this particular Calvin is not ours; yet the Surveyer must know that §. 31. he is against him also, for the Surveyer putteth Parliaments & all inferiour Magistrates in the same condition with private Subjects; and yet Calvin sayeth that such as are as the Ephori among the Lacedemonians; the Tribuns of the people among the Romans; and the Demarchi among the A∣theniens; and the Estates of Parliament, may and ought to suppresse the Tyranny of Princes: And so in this matter Calvin shall be more for us then for him. 3. It would be noted, both in reference to the testimony cited out of Calvin, and to the testimonies of other following, That the case which they speak to, is different far from ours: For with us, both King and Subject are bound in a solemne Covenant to God, to maintaine and promote a work of Reformation, and upon these tearmes did out King imbrace the Scepter, and became obliged by conditions unto his People: And sure more may be said for our defending our selves, our Covenant, and our Religion, when unjustly persecuted by the King, then for other privat Subjects, who are (by Gods Provi∣dence) under Heathen Princes, or conquerours, or un∣der Princes of a different Religion, and who have no secu∣rity or immunity covenanted unto them by these Prin∣ces.

Then the citeth some passages out of Peter Martyr's Loc. Com. Class. 4. Cap. 20. Pag. 680. &c. To which we answere, 1. The question which he moveth Pag. 680. doth not con∣cerne us: For there he sayes that meer privat persones may not depose Kings or Princes, or rise against them for this end, Vt eos à dignitate, seu gradu suo deturbent. Now this is not our question, which is concerning necessary self-defence in cases of extreame necessity. 2. He grants it lawfull to infe∣riour Magistrates, who set limites to the Prince, if the Prince violat his compacts, and break his Covenant, to force him to stand to his conditions, eum in ordinem cogere, ac vi redigere, ut conditiones & pacta quae fuerat pollicitus, compleat, idque vel armis cum aliter fieri non possit. Our Surveyer will not assent to this which Martyr sayeth, notwithstanding he account him one of the most learned of our Protestants. 3. It is true Pag. 682. he would have private persones enduring a Tyrant, who commands contrary to equity, and good lawes, and suffer him patiently, as we are to suffer patient∣ly sicknesse. But who seeth not, that notwithstanding of this patient submission, we may use resistence, as we may use resistence, by all lawful meanes, to sicknesse and diseases. 4. Though we should yeeld that such a Tyrant as he de∣scribed should not be resisted, viz. such an one as com∣mandeth contra aequum bonum ac leges, yet our case is different: For not only are there such acts of iniquity commanded; but also Subjects are compelled by meer force and cruelty, to con∣sent to, and approve iniquous courses; and our Magistrates are in a singular manner obliged to prosecute the Ends of a sworne Covenant, which the Subjects desire to adhere unto, and for adherence thereunto, are persecuted in a most inhu∣mane and cruel manner. So that this is tyranny of a higher nature, then what Peter Martyr speaketh of.

In the next place he citeth Rivet. in Decal. Pag. 233. and 235. But we answere. 1. Rivet granteth it lawful unto all, vim vi repellere to repel force with force, a proveth it. 2. In the place by him cited, he is speaking of a private man's re∣sisting the violence of another, who, if (under pretext of exponeing the law of Nature) should avenge himself, pri∣vato

appetitu vel contumaciâ, or raise seditions against the Magi∣strates, he should but abuse his power and liberty, and this we grant. But our case is of a Community, to which Rivet speaketh nothing. Yea 3. in the other place, though he will not have a private person kill his Father or a Magistrate, in his owne defence; yet he granteth it lawful to resist, so far as can be, to hinder our owne destruction [Id (sayes he) nos absolute sontimus de Parente & Principe; quibus licet quidem resistere, quantum id fieri potest, cum invadunt injuste; eo fine ut impediamus perniciem nostram.] Whence it appeareth that Rivet is much for us; for he acknowledgeth it lawful for a private single person to defend himself, as much as is pos∣sible, from the unjust assaults of Princes, Much more then shall it be lawfull for a community to defend themselves a∣gainst the King's Emissaries.

After Rivet he citeth D. Ames cons, cas. Lib. 5. cap. 20. But Doct. Ames speaketh nothing against us, for he is summarily holding forth what is the duty of Superiours towards their inferiours, and of inferiours towards their Superiours; and among the dutyes of inferiours, he reckoneth subjection and obedience, but what calleth he this subjection? Doth he meane thereby a stupide and absolute submission to all acts of Tyranny and opression? No, but such an acknowledge∣ment of their power & authority as hath with it a care to pre∣serve the same unhurt. Now this is consistent with resi∣stence in cases of necessity: A community may defend themselves from unjust violence of Magistratees, and yet attempt nothing against their just power and authority, but labour tenderly to preserve the same. 2. It is true, that he sayeth all violent insurrection is opposite hereunto, and also contempt: But that is violent insurrection against the power and authority, and not against the person who is abuseing his povver to the ruine and destruction of the Commonvvealth; for no body will deny but tyranny, and the Tyrant as such, may be despised and undervalued, vvithout vvrong to the povver and authority if self. So may that be resisted vvith∣out violation of the power. 3. It is true he sayeth that sub∣jection may be, vvhere there is not obedience, but wherein

sayeth he doth this subjection consist? In submissâ recusatione obedientiae, quando illicitum esse constat quod a superiore mandatur; in a submissive refuseing to give obedience. And this is some other thing, then a stupide submission to all acts of Tyranny. 4. This same Ames Cap. 25. where he is speaking of Maagi∣strates and Subjects, and shewing the duty of subjcets unto them, puts subjection and obedience together §. 16. Wherefore, as hence it cannot follow, because obedience is due unto them, when they command things just and agreable to God's Law; that therefore obedience is due unto them, when they command things unjust and repugnant to the Law of God: So nor will it follow, that because subjection is due unto them, when their power is not abused to the destru∣ction of the Commonwealth; therefore subjection is due unto them or non-resistence, when they tyrannize over the con∣sciences, states and bodyes of their subjects, and laboure to overturne all. 5. It is true he sayeth Cap. 31. §. 10. that the person invading may be such, and there may be such other circumstances, as that the person invaded may rather choose to die, as to Kill: But that speakes nothing to our case, which is a resisting to the King's bloody emissaries, not by one private person, but by a Community: And since D. Ames in the same Chapt. §. 4. 5. &c. thinks it lawful for a private person to defend himself even by killing the aggressor, when there is no other remedy, he will abundantly justify our practice. And likewise he alloweth this defence even in the behalf of others. §. 9. Rectè etiam extenditur ad defensio∣nem non tantum nost••um, sed & aliorum innocentium: Hoc enim postula lex, ut proximum diligamus sicut nosipsos! And therefore Amesius is much for us.

As for the two Papists Estius and Tollet whom he citeth▪ they speak not against us, who plead for the Liberty of self defence unto a Community against the Magistrate, and not to every private single person; neither plead we for a power of Killing Kings. And if they were against us he could not have much reason to say, that we joyned hands with Papists. Thus are all his authorities from divines answered, let us see what he sayeth further.

He tells us Pag. 25. 26.

[That when Lex Rex had in sever∣ral places (such as Pag. 313. 314. 322. 463.) vented that principle in reference to the civil governement, That no man is bound in conscience to subjection passive under unjust punishments inflicted by the Magistràte, more then to active obedience unto un∣lawful commands; and that passive obedience under unjust sentenc∣es comes under no command of God? Yea that it is a sin against God's command to be passively subject to unjust sentences, and that it it an act of grace and vertue, for a man to resist the Magistrate vio∣lently, when he does him wrong: and a self murther against the sixt command, not to resist when he offers to take away the life without cause, though not without law: They were quickly applyed to the Church by this man and his party, who pleaded for non-submission unto, and counteracting of all the judicatories, Whensoever the persones injured thought the sentence wrong—and how well their practices in the Church do homologate with their practices as to the State, we may now see; for it is the way which they clearly owne, that every person (when and so long as they are able, or are in probable capacity, to act violently against the Ma∣gistrate) ought to counter-act him violently, when he thinks the Magistrate wrongs him (for this must be referred to every man's private descretive judgment, as Naphtaly tells us Pag. 141.—How contrary such principles and practices of privat mens non-submission to, and countera∣cting of Church Judicatories (supposed to do wrong) are unto the Word of God; how subversive of Church govern∣ment; how introductory of schisme, heresies and all mis∣chiefs into the Church, is well discovered by the learned Reviewer of the pamphet intituled presbytery no papacy, &c. And with equal reason, may the same grounds be made use of against this man's inciteing all private persons, to counteract the Magistrate violently, when they think he doth them vvrong, or when they account their sentences unjust.

]

Answ, 1. It is a poor defence of a weak and tottering cause, to follow such courses as this Surveyer doth. To wrest and wire-draw the sayings of his adversaries, is neither a faire way

of confirming his owne opinion, nor a solid way of confute∣ing his adversaries. He sets dovvne some sentences here, as assertions of Lex Rex: And if any vvill consult the places cited, they vvill discover unhandsome dealing. I shall only set downe what Lex Rex sayeth, and the Reader, vvhen he compareth, may judge. Lex Rex sayeth Pag. 313. [

That patient bearing of evil and resistence, are not incompatible in one & the same person] Pag. 314.

He sayeth [

one act of grace and vertue is not contrary to another, Resistence is in the Children of God, an innocent act of self preservation, as in a patient suffering, and therefore they may well subsist in one.] And ibid [Neither suffering formally as suffering, and so neither can non-resisting passive fall under any moral law of God, except in two cases]

Pag. 322. [

when a man may preserve his owne life, and doth not that which Na∣tures law alloweth him to do, rather to Kill as be Killed, he is guilty of self murther; because he is deficient in the duty of lawful self defence.] And Pag. 463 [It is not dis∣hononrable to the Majesty of the Ruler, that we deny Pas∣sive subjection to him, when he punisheth beside his war∣rant, more then it is against his Majesty and Honour, that we deny active obedience, when the Commandeth illegal∣ly.

] I shall not trouble the Reader with words, to discover the difference betwixt what Lex Rex sayeth, and what this Sur∣veyer alledgeth he did say; seing the judicious and observant Reader will Sine monitore easily perceive it.

2. What the Surveyer driveth at in making this parallel now, may be obvious to any, even to imbarque with himself and his party, the few of those who were for the Publick Resolu∣tions, that have hitherto gotten grace of the Lord to abide faithful, and not to say a confederacy with all, with whom this Apostate generation hath now basely conspired, against Chirst and his interests. But we hope that those few will be so far from intertaining their former prejudices against their faithful and affectionat Brethren, who withstood these Reso∣lutions, and owned the Protestations; that on the contrare, perceiving themselves mistaken as to what they feared, con∣cerning the Protesters, as if they had intended to overturn

all discipline and Church government, and to side with Sectaryes; since themselves have novv seen some of them owneing the same unto death, and becomeing a martyr upon the account of Church privileges, & all the rest (scarce three of foure excepted) abideing faithful, and suffering upon that account unto this day; and since with all they see the feares of the Protesters, concerning the inclination to Malignancy and Prelacy, of the far greater part of these, who stifly main∣tained these Resolutions, now verified beyond all contra∣diction; and that their objecting, that the major part of the Ministery was then corrupted, was too too true, and too well grounded, which things, if these faithful men who now stand, had but suspected then, as now they see with their eyes, they would, (we are confident) have forborne to have sided with them in these debates, and much more heartily have concurred with the honest proposals of the Protesters, for a through way of purging the church of such corrupt naughty persones, as have now most basely betrayed the in∣terest of Christ, and departed from their profession and Covenant, and made that Church a hissing and a by-word to all nations, by returning with the Sow to the puddle and with the dog to their vomite. These worthy men, I say, perceiving now how far they have been mistaken not to their grief but to their joy (as famous and zealous Mr Wood one of their number, did before his sicknesse, after some heavy groans, plainely professe and declare to a credible person, yet on life to verify the same, if any should question it) will be so far from owning this man and his principles, that they will rather, (we hope) condemne their former practices, if not altogether yet in so far at least, as it is now visi∣ble they did tend, to the setting up of a arbitrary govern∣ment and tyranny in the Church, and are now improved by this Surveyer to confirme a Tyranny in the state. Sure they now see, what some at least of these, who were very active and forward to screw up that debate to the hieght, and to presse and absolute subjection, might have been driveing at under hand, though they made such faire professions of their firme purpose to adhere to presbyterian government, as

moved others to entrust them with the management of their affairs at Court, and while entrusted therewith, destroyed and overturned the whole government, so that now they will be loath to say as the Reviewer did Pag. 5, 6. [That the innocency of his agency, to prevent the evils the protesters were endeavouring to bring upon this Church, and his carriage and integrity in managing that Trust, are so wel: known at home and abroad, that we beleeve he needs not write Apolog••ticks against the slanders of their tongue or pen.] And rather blush when they read or remember this: & we are hopeful that such and the like perfidious practices well pon∣dered, will not only contribute much to re-unite them in hear∣ty affection, unto their faithful Brethren now in the same fur∣nace with themselves, for the same cause and interest; but also cause them reflect upon their former proceedings, & con∣sider what a native tendency, that which gave the rise to all that debate, had unto this, which is to day our sin, our shame, and our Sorrow, that they may joyne with the Rest of the faithful of the land, in mourning for such national sinnes, Whereby the wrath of God may be turned away from us, and the Church restored to her former beauty and integrity, in the Lord's good time.

3. It is Manifest, that this Surveyer, who ever he be, & some others with him, had some other thoughts in their heads at that time, then they durst expresse; & finding the far greater part of the Ministerie corrupted, would have had the rest resolving upon an absolute submission to all their determinations, though they had been openly & avowedly to introduce prelacy, yea & popery, & to have submitted to their summar censures of deposition, & what else they thought good to inflict, without the least resistence or coun∣teracting, & thus to have patiently submitted, to see Christ & his royall truthes banished out of the land by ecclesiastical acts, & Popery & Prelacy re-established by horrible iniquity: Though we were ever confident, such as now through grace abide stedfast, had no such thoughts or intentions.

4. This Surveyer dealeth with all alike: as he misrepre∣sented Lex Rex in the civil debate, so doth he now misrepre∣sent the protesters in the Church-debate; for when or where

did they say, That persones were not bound to submit, but to counter-act the judicatories of the presbyteriall govern∣ment, whensoever they thought the sentence wrong & un∣lawfull? Did they ever assert that a mans owne conscience, was the only vvarrand and ground of his submission or non-submission, or of his obedience or disobedience?

5. So doth he abuse & misrepresent Naphtaly, as any vvill see who considereth his words in the place cited, which are these. Now how a discretive judgment in these cases, both of unrighteous com∣mands, & wicked violence, & specially in the later, which is (by far) the more sensible, doth necessarily remaine with the people, & in what manner the same is to be determined & cautioned, so as nei∣ther to license disobedience against authority, nor create seditions in the Commonwealth, is already fully cleared.] This is some other thing then to say, that al is to be referred to every man's privat discretive judgement, vvithout any caution or limitation added or supponed.

6. Because it is not our purpose to revive that debate vvhich vvas betvvixt the Protesters & the Publick Resolu∣tioners; but as vve vvish it had never been heard of, so vve desire it may buryed in perpetual oblivion; & that hence forth there may be hearty joyning in the cause & cove∣nant of God, for prosecution of all the ends thereof, ac∣cording to our severall capacities, That so we may become one stick in the hand of the Lord, & renunce this apostacy, & all courses tending thereunto, & so goe on as before that un happy difference broke out, with zeal, & unanimity. There∣fore we shall forbeare to examine what that Reviewer, of presbytery no papacy, said: And though we finde that much of what the Surveyer sayeth here, is borrowed from that Reviewer, & is answered already as to our purpose; yet we finde the Reviewer grant severall things, which will quite destroy the parallel, as to our case, & shew the Surveyer to have been but a fool in mentioning that pamphlet now. For 1. He Pag. 104. sayeth [We do not urge submission, in this matter betwixt us, in matters of doctrine, or articles of faith, in morshipe, government, nay nor rules of discipline.] And so in∣sinuats as much, as that if the Dogmatick and Diatactick power

of Christ's courts be abused, and corrupt doctrine and pra∣ctices pressed, he would not be for submission: And there∣fore upon this ground, waves the arguments of the protesters, taken from the instance of Athanasius not submitting to the Arians, deposeing him for asserting the divinity of the Sone of God; and the 11. Arg. making a supposition of enacting the Masse, and all the heresies of Rome, saying [For when Church judicatories deny homage to the Sone of God and returne to Rome, We shall not debate the poynt of non-submission only with them, but shall run from them as from synagogues of Satan.] Upon this same ground he waves the argument 13. which did shew that this submission was prelatical: And the passage of our confession of faith ratified An. 1567. which is thus, art. 12. [So far as the Council proveth the determination and commandement that it giveth, by the plaine word of God, so soon do we reverence and im∣brace the same; but if men under the name of a Council, pretend to forge unto us new articles of our faith, or to make constitutions repugning to the word of God, then utterly we must refuse the same, as the doctrine of devils, which draweth our souls from the voyce of our only God, to follow the doctrines & constitutions of Men.] So doth he upon this ground lay by what they said Pag. 49. [That by this submission there was no remedy, but that, at one stroke, the precious interests of Christ and truthes of God must be borne downe, and buryed in oblivion, and the Saints and Ministers of the gospel be buryed under the rubbish thereof.] As also their Arg. 15. which did shew, that this unlimited submission did [Leave the Church destitute of all Eccle∣siastical remedies, in the case of a general defection, and open a wide door for making the government of the house of God degenerate into Tyranny, &c.] And their 2 Argum shewing how contrary it was to Scripture, and how hard it was to say that a man duely qualified, being suspended from the Sacrament, or from the exercise of his Ministery, or excommunicated, be∣cause of his pressing and holding forth some precious Truth of God, which a Church judicatory condemneth for a lie, should submit: And also their 8. Arg. Pag. 108. which was this [What is denyed jure to Oecumenick Councils, and so lawfully called Prophets and Ministers of the gospel, to Nathan, to David, to Paul, to an Angel from heaven Gal. 1: ver. 18. cannot

warrantably be given to General Assemblies. If—they teach or decree not according to the word of the Lord, we are to counteract, and to contradict Gal. 1: ver. 8. Therefore, &c.] Now in all these cases the Reviewer would not plead for submission to Church judicatories: Why then doth this Surveyer plead for absolute submission and unlimited to civil powers, since he is pleased to draw a parallel betwixt them? But we see that evil men and seducers waxe worse and worse. So that by the Reviewer's concessions, we are not bound to submit vvhen the higher povvers persecute us for truthes sake, deny homage to the Sone of God, presse the approving of corruptions in the poynt of government, destroy the precious truthes of God, and interests of Christ, make a general defection and A∣postasy: And in a vvord, turne Enemies to the liberties of the People, destroy the Covenanted vvork of God, op∣presse the Subjects in bodyes, States, and Consciences; and so crosse the very ends for vvhich they vvere appoynted. 2. The Reviewer Pag. 109, 110. though he vvould have submis∣sion, in the matter of discipline, vvhere the hazard is only personal, and a mans suffering is not tanti as to disturb a vvell setled national Church, vvhere doctrine and vvorshipe are in their integrity; yet he thinks the case is of greater mo∣ment, vvhen a National Church in her judicatoryes intro∣duceth falfe doctrine, and corrupt vvorshipe, to be imposed upon a Church: And so dar not affirme that submission is in this case due. Why vvill not the Surveyer take notice of this & grant so much in our case? We should readyly grant to him, that submission might be yeelded in smaller matters, when the hazard was only personal, and the suffering of one, or of a few, was not tanti as therefore to disturb the setled State, wherein the maine matters were keeped in their integrity. But he cannot in reason demand more of us, (if the parallel hold) or seek submission, when Higher powers are overturn∣ing the precious Truthes of God, and interests of Christ, are destoying a glorious work of reformation, are pressing all to open and avowed perjury, are destroying the fundamental rights, libertyes and privileges of the Christian Subjects, and tyrannizing over their Estates, their Bodyes and their con∣sciences.

3. So tender was the Reviewer that Pag. 115. he would not urge submission to sentences of inferiour courts, when appeales from one judicatory to another could not be had; yet so untender is our Surveyer that he will have abso∣lute and unlimited submission yeelded, when he knowes that not only is there no liberty of appeal granted, but not so much as liberty to petition and supplicate, to get any thing that is amisse righted. Thus he would have the whole land sub∣mitting to meer and cruel tyranny. 4. Pag. 129. the Re∣viewer said [We never asserted a judicatory might be contra-acted in no case, as we cleared before] far lesse will be affirme, that a ju∣dicatory may not be contradicted in any case, ibid. Hovv cometh it then, that our Surveyer doth not follow the Reviewer's footsteps; but pleadeth for absolute and illimited sub∣mission, in all cases vvhatsomever. 5. Pag. 131. vvhen he comes to that argument taken from the Tyranny which would hereby be introduced in the Church, which would conse∣quently condemne defensive armes used against Tyranny in the State: He only sayes [That no learned man would ever allow people to rise (far lesse a party only) against a prince upon the account only of the unjust sufferings of particular persones, whole yet the af∣faires of Church and State were well ordered-while yet they adhered unto & overturned none of the righteous things in a nation.] Sure then it will be allowed by him, that people, though the lesser part, defend themselves against Tyranny; when not only particular persones are unjustly suffering, but the righ∣teous things once concluded and confirmed by lawes, Oathes Vowes, Covenants, Acknowledgments, Declarations, & Protestations, are overturned; the work of God razed to the fundation; perjury and breach of Covenant established; Conrses laid downe for a constant exercise of tyranny and op∣pression &c. againe. 6. pag. 134. [let once (sayes he) a judi∣catory grow so corrupt as to condemne the dutyes of preaching Christ, and participation of publick ordinances, in the very nature and kinde, and as to all sorts of persons universally—and in that case we shall without scruple conclude them no true courts of Christ, & consequently not to be submitted unto; yea in case such decrees were published, we should hold it a case of confession for ministers to preach▪ and people

to frequent ordinances so long as they had liberty or oportunity.] How then can submission be given to these in povver, vvho novv have destroyed the interests of Christ, and vvill suffer none to plead or contend for Christ and his oppressed truth, or speak against perjury and dreadful defection, vvhere of the land is novv guilty? But enough of this, vve pro∣ceed.

Another particular which we shall here examine is that discourse he hath concerning I Sam. 8: ver. 10. Pag. 63: 64. The summe of what he sayeth is this. [It is true (sayes he) the place, I Sam. 8: ver. 10. neither contradicts nor repeales that law Deut. 17: ver. 14.—But it is false that only the tyranny of a King is there spoken of by way of meer dissuasive: Moses and Samuel agree: The one shewes what a King should do ex offi∣cio and de Jure, The other what a King may do, by the power he hath, and yet not be ••b••oxious to punishment, from Subjects,— or what a people should suffer of an evil King, without attempt of vio∣lence upon him. The one sets out Gods approbative law, The other his permissive law—as albeit the Lord approve not divorce, yet by a permissive law, Deut 24: ver. I. Husbands had liberty to put away their Wives, without being obnoxious to humane punishment— The fact it the manner of Tyranny, but the permissive power without punishment from subjects, is the just right of all lawfull Kings— Though Samuel might have here intended to disswade the people; yet his maine intention was to shew the people their duty under a Kings op∣press••on, what they were to suffer without resistence; for to what pur∣pose should he have written the Manner of the King in a book, and laid it up before the Lord, 1 Sam. 10: ver. 25. But to teach the people their beheaviour to the King? So that this was not the law of the King, Deut. 17. which was already keeped in the Ark.]

Answ. 1. It is well that he granteth that this ••us Regis Or the manner of the King is de facto the manner of tyranny; and so that it was no wayes lawful for the King to do these things there mentioned, which yet other Royalists do peremptori∣ly, deny and averre hence, that Kings have full, absolute and illimited power over the Subjects persons and goods. And thus as to the King's part, he must grant that what is here spoken, is contrary to what is said, Deut. 17.

2. All the circumstances of the text shew, that this ty∣ranny of the King is spoken of meerly in way of disswasive; for it was a King to judge them like unto the Kings of other Nations, which they were seeking, and this displeased Samuel ver. 6. and the Lord said to Samuel, that hereby they had rejected not Samuel, but himself, that he should not reigne over him, ver. 7. and the Lord commanded him so∣lemnely to protest against them, and then shew them the manner of the King: and what else was this for, but to bring them off their purpose, and disswade them from prosecuteing it any furder? But it is said, ver. 19. Neverthelesse the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel. now what else was the voyce of Samuel then a disswasion? Let him look the English and Dutch Annot. upon the place, and other Commentators, and he will finde it so

3. That which he takes the meaning of this manner of the King to be, is the old saying of Barclaius long since exploded by Althusius in his Politic. cap. 19. num. 58. thus [Impunity (sayes he) in committing wickednese can make no right: Princes have no power to do evil, but only to help, comforte, and to promove the good and profite of the people, Vasq. Lib. 1. cap. 1. and 2. c. 26. num. 2, 3. contr. Illustr.—To do evil is no act of power, but of infirmity that cannot abstean from doing evil, Vasq. D. L. C. 27. for so a company of Thieves, and Incendiaries, which can do many things, which they ought not, should be said to do these things by a kingly right, and if this Jus Regium be understood of permission, which de facto cannot be hindered, That is common to others, as well as to Kings; for both a King and a private person may be free of punish∣ment, either because the fact cannot be proved, or because they can∣not be gotten punished, or because these evils are permitted by law L. non omne 144. de Reg. Jur. Tyranny is not to be reckoned a∣mong these things which are to be permitted; for Tyrants are Adul∣terers, Ravishers, Murtherers, and such as are guilty of other ca∣pital crimes; whom Scripture stiles, Lyons, Beares, Dragons, Wolves, Prov. 28: ver. 14. Ezech. 22: 27. Dan. 2, &c. and the like, Pfal. 58. Esa. 13: ver. 11. and Cap. 33. v. 1.] Let him consider also what famous and learned Voetius sayeth to this, Disp. select. part. 4. pag. 222. Where he tells us that to

do evil with impunity, is not Ius, doth found no Ius Or right, neither is founded on the law of God, of Nature, of Nations, nor on the civil law. And as to that which the Surveyer sayeth, that it is a Ius, because it shewes what people were to endure willingly, and might not resist. He answereth, Pag. 223. That then the people should be the subject of this right or Ius, and not the King; and so it could not be called the manner of the King, but the manner of the People. Againe he sayes, evil, losse, vexation, passion, and not to hinder evil, in Scripture phrase, is rather called somewhat opposit to Ius, then Ius or right, viz. a privation of it.

4. As for his simile of a permission granted to men to put away their Wives, it is not of the same nature with the former evils (sayeth Althusius in the place above cited.) And the Author of Lex Rex, pag. 137. said well, [If so, a power to sinne, and a power to commit acts of Tyranny, yea and a power in the Kings Sergeants, and bloody Emissaries, to waste and destroy the People of God, must ••e a lawful power given of God; for a lawful power it must be, if it cometh from God, whether it be from the King in his owne person or from his Servants at his command, and be either put forth in acts, as the power of a bill of divorce, was a power from God, exempting either the husband from punishment be∣fore men, or freeing the Servant who at the husbands command should write it, and put it into the hands of the Woman. I cannot beleeve that God hath given a power and that by law, to one man, to com∣mand Twenty Thousand cut throats to destroy and kill all the children of God, & that he hath commanded his children to give their necks and heads to Babel's sones without resistence. This I am sure is another matter then a law for a bill of divorce to one woman, married by free Election, of a humorous and inconstant Man. But sure I am God gave no permissive law from Heaven, like the law of divorce; for the hardnesse of heart, not of the jewes only, but also of the whole Chri∣stian and heathen Kingdomes under a Monarch, That one Empe∣rour may, be such a Law of God as the law of divorce, kill by bloody cut throats all the nations that call on God's name, men, women, and suck∣ing infants.]

5. The reason which he giveth Pag. 64. is the same that Barclaius gave viz. [To what purpose should he have written the

manner of the King in a book, and laid it up before the Lord after the King is set over them 1 Sam. 10: ver. 25. When there was no pleace for repentance, no remedy, no use of terrifying or disswading them, the only use of recording it, was to teach the people their beheaviour towards their King, and patience under him, and that it should not be free for them to shake off the yoke of his government, or to offer violence to him albeit he should overstretch his power too far. This recorded was not the law of the King, Deut. 17. which was already keeped in the ark with therest of the law.] Answ. 1. Though the King was set over them, he had need to have had his duty writen before him in a book, and keeped to posterity, no lesse then the People should have stood in need to have had their duty so recorded. 2. To say that it vvas to teach the People their duty, is but a begging of vvhat is in question: And it is not probable that Samuel vvould vvrite the rules of Tyranny in a book, and lay it up before the Lord in the Ark of the Cove∣nant, seing he vvas to teach both King and People, The good and right way, 1 Sam. 12: ver. 23, 24, 25. 3. The English An∣notators tell us on the place, that this manner of the Kingdome which Samuel vvrote, vvas [Not as it is commonly practised, Chap. 8. ver. 9,—18. but as it-ought to be in a lawful and free Monarchy appoynted by God himself, according to the fundamental lawes of the Kingdome, teaching what dutyes the King ought to per∣forme in the government of his people, and the people in their subjection and obedience to their King, according to that description of a King set downe by Moses, Deut. 17: ver. 14, &c. Ezech. 45: ver. 9, 10. & Cap. 46: ver. 16. Rom. 13. v. 1. 1. Tim. 2: v. 2.] The Dutch Annot. say, [This is not of the way, manner and custome of actings which Kings sometimes take up contrary to law, but of the lawes which Samuel by God's instinct made or inacted, concerning the go∣verment of Kings; see Deut. 17: ver. 18. Or of the ordinances for to instruct as well the King as the Subject. And Iackson in his notes on the place sayeth, [

That it vvas both the duty of the King tovvards his Subjects, and of the Subjects tovvard their King; and these vvere the fundamental lavves of the Kingdome: and this book vvas carefully laid up before the Lord, sayeth he, 1. for the sure preservation of it, 2. to signify that even these civil lavves vvere the ordinance of God,

vvhich men vvere bound to obey, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake, Rom. 13. ver. 2, 5. 3. To intimate that God vvould take care of these lavves, to uphold and main∣taine them, and to punish these that should vilify and break them] Cornel. à Lap. and Lyra say the same upon the mat∣ter, Deodat tells us that▪ (it was the fundamental lawes of the Kingdome, inspired by God to temper Monarchy, with a liberty befitting God's People & equity toward a nation— to withstand the abuse of an absolute power.

] But this Surv. sayeth that all this is but a guesse without ground. But what are his reasons? [Had there (sayes he) been any such special fundamental lawes, the Ten Tribes had a faire ground of pleading upon the same, before their revolt, but no such thing is heard of, and it is as easy to deny it, as it is to affirme, that there was any such fun∣damental law] Answ. Whether the Ten Tribes did plead this in terminis or not, is not, it is true, asserted or heard of, but it is undenyable that they did plead it upon the matter, when they required nothing but what was consonant unto the law Deut. 17. and because it was refused, they thought them∣selves free to make choise of another King. 2. What more force hath his denyall then ours? we bring approved authors for what we say, and he satisfyeth himself with his owne word, and thinks that that is sufficient to confute all com∣mentators, even such as himself a little thereafter citeth and approveth in other things viz Deodat. What sayes he more? [The People claimed no vote in such fundamental lawes—and it was their interest to be consulted with in the matter.] Answ. The People were so bent to have a King upon any tearmes, that they consulted little their owne welfare and faifty. But Samuel was more tender of them, and they might have concredited that matter unto him, being a Man of approven integrity, and known to be one that sought their good, and had no good will to set a King over them. But sayes he, [had they thought of any such Covenants or lawes fundamental, where∣in liberty might be left them to resist their Kings, or take order with them, how easily could they have shewed the weaknesse of Samuel's disswasion, and said, if the King be evil, we will resist him] Answ. This was done after the matter was past remedy, and a King

they vvould have, and a King God would give them in his wrath. 2. We finde chap. 14. that they did resist him, when he was going to shed innocent blood, whether ac∣cording to these fundamental lavves or not, is not much matter.

6. Though all which he desireth here, should be granted to him, he would not gaine his poynt, unlesse he should prove that this was a standing precedent to all nations in all time coming. Which ere he do, he must consider and confute what worthy and renowned D. Voetius hath said to the con∣trary, in his book before cited, disp. de Iure Regio Hebraeorum §. 1.

What he sayeth; Pag. 68. shall be considered in the next chapter, and what he sayeth Pag. 69. 70. 71. is already an∣swered: for this windy man would seem to be voluminous, by filling many pages with the same things repeated over and over againe, that if he cannot say much for his hire, he may seem to be at some paines to say many words, and waste much paper. And therefore we proceed to take notice of some other objections.

CAP. XVI.

Three Principall Objections Answered.

THere are three grand objections which the Surveyer, here and there throw his pamphlet, maketh use of, and which seem to militate against some of our forementioned argu∣ments; as. 1. That there were not (in the case now under debate) inferiour Magistrates, a Parliament, or the primores Regni, or the Epiori, and States of the Realme, concurring in that defence: and whatever may be said in the defence of a warre carryed on by these, against the illegal violences and extreame oppressions of a prince, will not warrand the insur∣rection of meer privat persons. 2. That in the case now

controvetted, it was not the Body of the land or the whole Community that made this opposition to Magistrates Supe∣riour and inferiour; But only a small inconsiderable com∣pany, in respect of the whole land: and so though it should be lawful for the whole body of a land to joyne together, to defend themselves against the tyranny and oppression of a Prince, without the conduct and concurrence of inferiour Magistrates; yet it will not hence follow, That it is lawful for any part thereof, to use such resistence. 3. That the party, which lately made opposition, had no sufficient ground to take armes, suppose it had been lawful in its owne nature, there being no such provocking cause or occasion given by the Prince. And though it should not be thought very necessary to insist on these now, seing this last was spoken to in the clearing of the question, and the first was touched also formerly cap. 2. And all our arguments conclude for a People without their primores or Parliaments; and So do many both of our arguments and instances adduced, speake clearly & undenyably, unto the case of a considerable part, though not the whole of the community, defending themselves against manifest and unjust violence; yet that the matter in hand may be fully cleared, we shall speak alittle further to these three objections here.

As to the first (though the surveyer be in malâ fide to make use of it, unlesse relinquishing all his brethren the Royalists, he grant it lawful for people with a Parliament to resist, which neither will he nor dar he do; And therefore we shall speak to this objection, rather for the satisfaction of others.) We desire these things may be considered.

1. That as necessity did put people at first, upon the con∣stitution & election of a Parliament, to manage their affaires, which they could not so conveniently do themselves, without confusion, discords, and other inconveniences, which would neccessarily attend a communities meeting together, for carrying of these matters: So it was the certane ex∣pectation of their profite and advantage, that did prompt them unto the setling of this frame and constitution.

2. Whatsoever power these Commissionated, according to that frame and model condescended upon, had or have, is not in and from themselves, but from the People, no lesse then the Prince hath his power from the People; as was shewed above: For no man can imagine any difference, as to the subordinate and instrumental rise of the power, of the Prince and of the Ephors: So that as his power is from the People under God, so is the power which they have. [These publick Ministers of the Kingdome (sayeth Althus. Pol. c. 18. n. 3.) are chosen by the united and consoc••ated body of the People preserve the whole associated body, and her rights; and are instructed with necessary power and authority, which to performe they are obliged by oath.]

3. Hence, really the power of the People is greater then the power of any delegated or constituted by them; for the cause is more then the effect: and the Parliament doth repre∣sent the People, but the People do not represente the Par∣liament. Therefore the power of the People must be more. His povver who doth constitute another, or depute him as a guardian to some businesse, or to oversee some of his matters, is greater then any povver, vvhich that other deputed or con∣stituted Curator hath. Parliaments then being but as Tutors and Curators unto the People, must have lesse povver then the People have [mandans vero) sayeth Althusius pol: c. 18. n. 92.) vel injungens alii rerum suarum procurationem, est instar imperantis, rogantisve, suscipiens vero talem administraetionem, instar obtempe∣rantis, inservientis, & officium suum alteri praestantis.] So that the Parliament is but a servant to the People: and the povver of a Master is alvvayes superiour to the povver of a Servant as such.

4. It is irrational to think, that the People in chooseing the Ephori or Parliament-members, and committing the ad∣ministration of their weighty affaires unto them, did denude themselves of all that innate and radical power, which they had to manage their owne matters; seing no ur∣gent necessity could compel them to it, nor any foreseen advantage or profite, which thereby could redound unto them, move them and perswade them thereunto: but on

the contrary, much hazard and disadvantage might at the very first appeare upon such a surrender as this. Much lesse could they denude themselves of that power of self defence, which by no law of God or man they might law fully give away.

5. Whatever power Parliaments have, it is to be exerced and put in practice for the good and advantage of the People. Their power is for the profite, and not for the hurt of the People, and to this scope and end should they level all their labours, travails, paines, endeavours, cares, thoughts, consultations, conferences, votes, deliberations and conclu∣sions, L. Imperial. C. de nuptijs L. bene a Zenone C. de quadr. L. 8. C. de legibus. L. praecipimus 34. C. de appell. (See Althus. pol. c. 18. n. 7: 17.

6. Hence Their power is not absolute, infinite, or unlimit∣ed; but hath its owne bounds and limites over which it cannot lawfully passe. They are to rule and do all, for God and the good of the Realme, whose servants they are. They are the Ministers of God for the Peoples good Rom. 13. 4.

7. When they transgresse) their true limites (which no man will say is impossible) by commanding what God hath forbidden, or forbidding what God hath commanded in his holy law: or when they seek not the publick good of the Land, but their ovvne private advantage, They are not, but cease to be, the Ministers of God and of the People, and become private persons, who ought not, in these particu∣lars wherein they goe beyond their bounds, to be obeyed: As sayeth Althusius ubr supra n. 41. and proveth by many au∣thors: And the reason is cleare, for no inferiour can disan∣nul God's Law, or free us from subjection thereunto. They have no power to command sin, God never gave them such a power: And the People could not give it, for they had it not themselves, neither had they a power to wronge and destroy themselves, and so they could not give this unto them.

8. If these Ephori or Trustees betray their trust, and feel or basely give away the libertyes and privileges of the people, which they were intrusted with, the people cannot thereby

be brought into a remedilesse condition, or lose their privile∣ges vvithout all hope of recovery. If a Tutor waste and destroy the Pupil's Estate, the law provideth a remedy for the Pupil: If a commissioner or deputy betray his trust, the master's losse thereby is not irremediable: If an advocat betray a client's cause, The client will finde some relief. [

The peoples right (sayeth althusius ubi supra. n, 124) suffer∣eth no prejudice, nor doth the Prince—obtaine any more tyrannical power, by the negligence, perfidy, deceit, collusion, treachery, prevarication, and conspiracy of the Ephori or primores regni, with the prince—for it is unjust & absurd to affirme that the Ephori (or parliament-men) can transferre unto the Tyrant, what they never had them∣selves, or can destroy or alienate the rights of the Commu∣nity, in prejudice of the whole Realme, and that contrare to the fundamental lawes of the land, or such, as the prince swore to maintaine, and which containe the spirits and life of the Commonwealth.

]

From these irrefragable truthes, so consonant to right reason and attested by learned politicians, it will clearly fol∣low. 1. That the Peoples case is not vvorse by Parliaments, then it would have been without them. 2. That Parliaments, cannot tyrannize by any law or right over People. 3. That no treachery or perfidy of Parliaments, neglecting their duty or betraying their trust, can prejudge the people of their due rights and privileges. 4. Parliaments not concurring with the People in their necessary defence, cannot loose them from the obligation of nature, to defend themselves from ty∣ranny and intolerable oppression. 5. If Parliaments in stead of acting the part of Trustees, Tutors, Curators, Delegats and Servants, shall turne Tyrants, wolves, Tygers, and Enemies to the Commonwealth themselves, of conspire, joyne, or enter into a confederacy with a Tyrant, and so seek the destruction of the community; The community is allowed to see to the preservation of their owne rights and privileges, the best way they can. 6. And so in some cases, when the hazard is great, the losse irreparable, private per∣sones

may defend themselves against manifest Tyranny and oppression, without Parliaments.

All this seemeth to be cleare and undenyable In thest. Let us next see what way this shall sute, or what more can be said for, our case, In hypothest.

And. 1. It is beyond contradiction, that the late Parlia∣ment did basely betray its trust: for politicians tell us, That it belongeth to these Ephori. To vindicate and maintaine the compact and Covenant which is betwixt the Prince and the People. To keep the prince or the supreame administrator of justice, within his bounds and limites, that he turne not a tyrant, or an oppressour of the People. To hinder him from violating the law of God. To restraine and coërce him from violating the lawes of the land, and the rights of the kingdome. To hinder the execution of the unjust and illegal decrees and mandats of the Prince. To defend the proper and incommunicable rights and privileges of the People. To cognosce whether the Supreame Magistrate hath done his duty or not, and to hinder him from commit∣ting Tyranny. See for these particulars Althusius, Pol. c. 18. n. 48, 55, 63, 65, 68, 83, 84. Where all these are abundantly confirmed. Now, it is not our to all who consider either what they did, or what was enacted by them, and stands registrated to all generations, how the late Convention (which hardly can be accounted a lawful Parliament) not only came short of their duty in these particulars, but stired a direct contrary course, as we shall shew in a few words. For 1. So far were they from maintaining that compact and Covenant, which was betwixt the King and the People. That they declared these Covenants and engagements null: declared the very Parliament and committees, that called him home and crowned him, null: condemned the very trans∣actions that were had with the King before he came home. 2. So far were they from keeping the Prince within his bounds and limites; That they screwed up his prerogatives to the highest peg imaginable, and did investe him with such an absolute unlimited and infinite power, that he might do what he pleased without controle. 3. So far were they from

hindering him from transgressing the lawes of God, That they concurred with him, to enact lawes diametrically opposite to the Law of God, to condemne and overturne the work of God, To set up an abjured prealcy, and force conformity there∣unto, beside other acts which they made to hinder the course of justice. 4. So far were they from hindering him from violating the wholesome well setled and established lawes of the land, that they concurred with him to overturne these, to the great losse and detriment of the Nation. 5. So far were they from preserving the rights of the Kingdome, That they made a voluntary and base surrender of these unto the pleasure and arbitrement of the Prince, in annexing to the crowne The sole choise and appoyntment of the officers of State and privy Councellers, and the nomination of the Lords of Session; in dischargeing all meetings, Councels, conventions, or assemblies of the People, without the King's command or expresse license: In giving away to him as his right, the sole power of raiseing the Subjects in armes; of command∣ing, ordering, disbanding and otherwise disposeing of them; And of all strengths, forts, or garrisons within the King∣dome: all which politicians will grant to be the proper na∣tive rights of the Kingdome: 6. So far were they from hin∣dering the execution of his unjust decrees and mandates, that whatsoever he pleased to command, was by them im∣braced yea and fortified, strengthened and corroborated, and put into a standing law, how dishonourable so ever it was to God, how repugnant to equity and reason, and how noxious soever it might prove to the Nation. 7. So far were they from desending the Libertyes and Privileges of the People, that they basely gave them away, by denying them to have any power to defend themselves against manifest op∣pression, or power to call Parliaments or other meetings for their advantage, in cases of necessity; by giving away to the King yeerly fourty Thousand pound Sterline, to the im∣poverishing of the Nation and redacting it to slavery: And by Tendering unto him all the lives and fortunes of the sub∣jects, to maintaine his interest; and offering Twenty Thou∣sand foot men, and two Thousand horsemen sufficiently arm∣ed

and furnished with fourty dayes provision, to be in readi∣nesse as they shall be called for by his Majesty, to march to any part of his three dominions, for any service wherein his Majesties honour, authority or greatnesse might be concerned: Which how ever it may be coloured with specious pretexts; yet, al circumstances considered, was nothing but a real manci∣pation of the liberties of the People unto the will and pleasure of a Prince. 8. And so far were they from calling the King to any account, and from impedeing Tyranny, that in effect they declared the King exempted from all such tryal or exa∣mination, and that he might exerce what tyranny and op∣pression he pleased without controle: For they gave unto him absolute and unlimited power over all persones and in all causes; They declared him to have absolute power to call, hold, prorogue, and dissolve Parliaments and Conventions and Meetings of the Estates: And That no acts, sentences, or statutes to be past in any of these meetings, can be bind∣ing or have the authority and force of lawes, without his authority and approbation interponed, at the very making thereof.

2. It is notour to all who read their acts, How they have enacted and concluded things most unlawful and unjust, re∣pugnant to the Law of God and right reason: Condemning Solemne Covenants sworne by all rankes of People in the land, in the most solemne manner; introduceing abjured Prelates; Establishing tyranny in the Church; condemning and razeing to the fundation the Covenanted work of God; enjoyning a conformity unto corrupt courses; pressing perjury and Apostasy, by forceing all in publick places, and others, to subscribe declarations and oathes, contrary to their former sacred and inviolable Covenants and oathes made to God.

3. By confirming, ratifying and approveing these courses of Apostasy and defection, and establishing these into lawes, and binding and forceing the People unto obedience, by their irrational and insupportable penalties annexed, They have laid downe a constant course for tyranny and oppression of

the People in Estates, bodyes, and consciences, without all hope of remedy or redresse.

4. As Parliaments with us are not constant and fixed courts, but ambulatory and occasional, so they have laid downe a course, that we shall never have a Parliament that shall red∣resse the wrongs, injuries, oppressions and tyranny of Princes; or heare the just grievances of the Subjects: For when the Prince oppresseth the People, and turneth a Nero and a Caligula; there shall be no remedy, because they have given him absolute power to call Parliaments, and who can expect he will call a Parliament in that case? or if he do call, he hath absolute power to raise them and dismisse them when he will; and is it probable that he will suffer them to sit when they are doing any thing against him? Or if he should suffer them to sit, what can they do? None of their sentences or acts have power, unlesse he will add his authority, and will he ratify or approve any thing that is against himself, and his tyrannous will? Beside, that they have denuded them∣selves of all power of suppressing tyranny, by declareing his power so absolute and infinite, as that no bounds can be set unto it, no power can suppresse his tyranny, or call him to an account.

5. Not only have they laid downe a course that we shall have no Parliament to interpose for the relief of the People, & to suppresse Tyranny; But also they have laid downe a course that there should be no Magistrats in shires or brughs, that should help, according to their power and place, the oppressed and grieved Subject, and concurre for their relief: Because all such, ere they be admitted to their places, must conforme unto this abhominable course of defection, and by subscribeing declarations, Binding themselves by oaths im∣pious and opposite to the solemne Covenants, under which the Land standeth bound and obliged before the Lord, con∣spire with them in this Apostasy, against the interest of God in the Land.

From all which we think these things will clearly follow.

1. That it may be much doubted if this last convention can be accounted, by any law either of God or Man, a lawful

Parliament, having so palpably betrayed their trust, in ruleing not for God and his interest, but against him, end enacting things to his dishonour; in selling and giving away the old and undoubted Privileges of Parliament; and in betraying, dilapidating, disponeing, and giving away the native and unquestionable Rights and Privileges of the People; and in overturning the fundamental lawes of the Land; and annul∣ling the fundamental article of the compact betwixt King and People. Seing Politicians will grant, that such are to be ac∣counted but private persones: though we should make no mention of other informalities which usually weaken or an∣nul the constitution of a judicature of that nature, in poynt of formality; as liberty denyed to some shires to choose such members as they thought good; prelimitation used to all; the admission of some as members not capable of an election, according to our ancient and received custome; the denying of free liberty of debateing, reasoning, dissenting and pro∣testing, which is allowed in all free Judicatories, and the car∣rying on of matters in a head-strong, violent, and tyranni∣cal manner, without such previous deliberation, or serious consideration, and pondering the weight and moment of matters, as would have become a judicature by its constitution and nature so sage and honorable.

2. The native, ancient and undoubted Privileges of the People are de Iure intire and inviolated, notwithstanding of any thing done by this late meeting, which had no power to do what they did: And therefore could not wronge the rights and Privileges of the People.

3. That there is no hope, or humaine probability now left, that ever the People of Scotland shall have a Parliament by the course laid downe or inferiour Judges to resent the injuries, oppression and Tyranny done to and exercised upon them; but that still their bands shall be made stronger, and the yoke of oppression and Tyranny wreathed closser about their neckes. So that there was not, neither is there any hope (so long as this course of defection standeth and is not overturned) that Parliaments now, or the Primores Regni, or inferiour Judges, shall concurre for the suppressing of Ty∣ranny,

bearing downe of oppression, defection and apostasy, according as they ought.

4. That while matters are so, the People of Scotland are as if they had no Parliaments, nor inferiour Judges, for that end; and cannot be supposed or imagined to be in a worse condition, then if they never had had my such, to protect them from the tyrannical and arbitrary lust and domination of Princes. And therefore must be allowed to use the privi∣lege and liberty which nature hath granted unto them, to defend themselves from unjust tyranny and oppression of Princes, Parliaments, and inferiour Judicatories, when their Representatives palpably betray them into the hands of their adversaries, yea and conspire with their adversaries a∣gainst them, and their Privileges; and instead of Patrons and defenders of their rights and privileges, turne enemies thereunto, and take courses utterly to destroy all.

By this, I suppose, the first Objection is sufficiently an∣swered, yet I shall adde this word more, and would desire that all who are of a contrary judgement would answere this quaeree. Whether or not vvould they think it unlavvful, for private persons vvithout a Parliament, privy Council, or other inferiour Magistrates, to resist a Prince, or his Emis∣saries, if he vvith the consent of these should transferre unto him self the proper and immediat right unto all the Lands, Rentes, Tenements, possessions, Heretages, and goods within the vvhole Land, vvith full povver to sell, dispone, and give avvay the same unto whom he pleased; and presently upon the passing of that act, cause eject, dispossesse and remove all the present heretours and possessours, or put them to buy it of nevv of him, or take tackes thereof as taksmen, fermers or tennents? If they think that in this case they might law∣fully resist such horrid tyranny, Then why not in our case, when the People, contrary to all law, oathes and vowes, are put out of the possession of their Covenanted Religion, reformed in doctrine, worshipe, discipline & government, & that by meer violence and tyranny? Sure such matters as touch Soul and consciences, ought to be as deare to People, as what concerneth their bodyes and estates. Or if we

should put the case, That the King were about to sell the whole Land unto the Turk, or unto Irish bloody Papists, & by bribes or promises, should procure the consent of a Par∣liament, & the concurrence of Council and other judicatories (as really upon the matter, walking according to the acts they have made, he may) Might it be unlawfull for People in this case, without the concurrence of inferiour Magistrates, who had now sold them, and basely betrayed their trust, to stand to their owne defence, and to the defence of their posterity, and their lives, rights, liberties and privileges? And if this cannot be asserted by any man, who hath not made a perfect surrender of his owne reason, unto the will and lust of an∣other, why can resistence in our case be condemned: Se∣ing soul matters are of infinite more worth, then these out∣ward things; And it were lesse bitter to know and see our posterity redacted into a state of perfect slavery unto for∣raigners, as to their outward privileges, them to see them shut up into a closse prison of soul slavery and bondage, destitute of the pure and lively ordinances of salvation, and frustrated of the glorious and excellent liberties and effects of a purely preached gospell, and so shut up in a dungeon of ignorance, superstition, and all Prophanity, that they should never know what true liberty meaneth?

As for the next objection taken from this, that they were not the Whole Body of the land, but only a part thereof, which cannot be so well justified. It may easily be answer∣ed. That it being lawful for a single persone, in some cases, to defend himself from unjust violence: It will be much more lawful for a considerable part of a Kingdome to defend themselves, though they get not help of others. Though all be bound to help a ravished maide, yet though none should help, she may resist and defend herself. But to leave this, because we have adduced many arguments that concludes the case lawful even for a part of the Kingdome, we shall speak to the complex case, not only as it was a defence but also a probable meane to put a stop unto the course of defection. Which was and is carryed on; and to redeem the land from spiritual bondage and slavery, as well as bodily. And to

this we say. That when the case is a publick case concern∣ing all the land, no lesse then these who jeoparded their lives for the same, no man in reason can condemne these few that undertooke the interprise, the profitable effects of which would have redounded to the whole: When a city is on fire, no man will think the few that hazard their lives, to quench the same, are to be blamed, though the rest doe lye by, and will not concurre. The men of Ephraim, Benjamin and Issacher, who followed Deborah and jeoparded their lives upon the high places of the field, that they might deliver the whole land from under the Tyrranny of Iabes King of Canaan, though Reuben God and Zebulon did not concurre, accord∣ing to their duty, were not the more to be blamed, but are the more praised and commended; and such as came not put to the help of the Lord against the mighty were under a bitter curse. The common tye of Christianity and brotherhood and other supervenient obligations did oblige all the Land (as was shewed above) to concurre as one man, to endeavour the deliverance of he Land from dreadful oppression and tyran∣ny, and because the greatest part, like Issacher in an other case, loved to couch under the burden, and refused to contribut their help for their owne delivery, and proved enemies, shall these few who ventured their lives and Estates, and all which they had, for the liberation of the land, be the more, upon that account, condemned? What hight of absurdity were this? Had the Men of Ephraim good reason to challenge Iephthah Iudg. 12: ver. 1, 2. &c. because he fought with the Midianites without them, when he sayes, that he had called them and they would not come out? If an Enemy invade the land, and such provinces as are furthest from danger shall neglect or refuse to concure with the rest to expell them, yea shall strengthen the invadeing enemy, shall these be blamed who are next to the danger, to take the alarme at the first, and do what in them lyeth, for their owne saifty and the saifty of the whole land? Therefore, seing the cause which these few owned was of common con∣cernment, and equally respecting the whole land, since the rest would not concurre, as they were bound to do, they are more praise-worthy then blame-worthy that ventured

all for the good of the whole land, and did what in them lay, to redeem the whole land from that oppression and bondage, under which it was lying. If it had been some small petty particulare of their owne, it had been more lyable to the censures of men; but the cause being Com∣mon, which they did owne, (a Covenant sworne by all ranks of People, and a Covenanted work of reformation, and liberty from tyranny both in Church and State, was a cause not peculiar unto them, but common to all the land,) it is the hight of absurdity, illegality, yea and inhumanity, to accuse them of Treason of sedition, or to condemne their interprise upon that account. So that though the major part of the land turne so corrupt, as to imbrace a corrupt abjured course, see their privileges taken from them, the vvork of God overthrovvne, lavves ratifying and approving Religion reformed in doctrine vvorshipe discipline and government, and secureing people in their peacable and Christian possession of these, novv abolished rescinded and annulled; their liber∣tyes, as civil scotish men, and as Christians, sold avvay; their fundamental compact, and the cardinall clause of that contract betvvixt King and Subject, cancelled and shamefully brocken; Tyranny and oppression of consciences, bodyes and Estates established; and no legal remedy or redresse apparent or pro∣bable; and shall notwithstanding of all this, love to sit still & not to be stirr themselves, according to their places & power, for secureing Religion, lawes, & libertyes; For extirpating ab∣jured prelacy, and malignancy; and restoreing the Ordi∣nances of Christ to their wonted purity, & delivering the land from slavery & bondage, & from stupenduous apostasy & defe∣ction, at which the Heavens may stand astonished, and all men and angels may wonder: Shall their negligence and deficiency in duty, binde up the hands of the wel affected, and render them utterly incapable in law, to minde them∣selves and the good of the whole land, the good whereof they are obliged by many bonds and obligations to seek by all farie meanes possible? Neither doth the lawes of Na∣ture, the lawes of God, nor particularly the bond of Chri∣stian love to their Native land, to their Mother Church, and to their Christian oppressed brethren, nor the bond of

their Covenants, solemne vowes and engadgments, so limite this duty, and loose them from all endeavour after a perfor∣mance. But by the contrare, if God give any probable capacity, upon all these considerations, they are the more obliged to lay out themselves to the utmost, and to account themselves the more indispnesably obliged thereunto, that as the hazard is greater, the losse is the more certane and irrecoverable. Wherefore, seing the ground and ends of the riseing of these few, was not particular, but general and national, the good and benefite of the interprise redounding unto all, no lesse then to themselves, and being that where∣unto all, no lesse then they, were obliged by solemne vowes and moral bonds, their case must be otherwise considered, then the case of a few malcontented persons, who because of some particular injuries done to themselves and for some particular ends proper and peculiar to themselves alone, arise in rebellion against the lawful Magistrate. The Royalists themselves allow it lawful for any privat person to kill an usurper or a Tyrant sine titulo, and why? But because the good of this action doth redound not to himself alone. But to the whole Land; So in some places a reward is promised to all such as shall kill a Bear, or any such noysome beast, be∣cause the good and frute of this action concerneth moe then themselves, and therefore though all were bound to do what they did▪ yet they are not blamed but rewarded for what they have done. So should these rather have been revvarded then blamed or condemned, for vvhat they did interprise, for the universal and national good of the vvhole Land.

As for the third Objection, so much hath been spoken of that already; whether we mean the particular sufferings and oppressions of the People of Galloway, (The Naphtaly is full to this purpose,) or the general calamity, by reason of apostasy, defection, perjury & oppression in Religion and li∣bertyes, which is so noture that none who hath not renunced common sense together with Religion & honesty, can deny it, or pretend ignorance thereof, that we need do no more here, but give a short reply to what the Surv. hath said to this mat∣ter: only we would adde this. That if That learned lawyer Althusius

in his politikes Cap. 38. n. 5. &c. give the right charact∣ers of a Tyrant, and of Tyranny, we may have good ground to say that our land beareth many blae marks of that tyranny: for, sayeth he [there is one kinde of Tyranny, which consisteth in violating, changeing or removing of fundamental lawes, specially such as concerne Religion: & such, sayes he, was Atha∣lia, Philip the King of Spaine, who contrare to the fundamental Belgick lawes, did erect an administration of justice by force of armes; and such was Charles the IX. of France that thought to overturne the Salicque law] and whether our King be not in this guilty in overturning the fundamental lawes, concerning our reformed Religion, let the world judge. Next sayes he [when he keepeth not his faith and promise, but despiseth his very oath made unto the people.] and who is more guilty of this then King Charles the 2 •• n. 9. He giveth us this mark [when the supreme Magistrate marketh use of an absolute power, and so breaketh all bands for the good of humane society] and are not the bonds both of piety and justice novv violated? n. 11. He tels us a Tyrant doth take away from one or moe member of the Commonwealth, free exercise of the orthodox Religion: and n. 12. that for corrupting of youth he erecteth stage∣playes, whore houses, and other play-houses, and suffers the colleges, and other seminaries of learning to be corrupted, and n. 15. that living in luxury, whoredome, greed and idlenesse, he neglecteth, or is un∣fit for his office.] How these sute our times we need not expresse, Then n. 16. He sayes [he is a Tyrant who doth not desend his Sub∣jects from injuries when he may; but suffereth them to be oppressed] and what if he oppresse them himself? n. 19. [who (sayes he) by immoder at exactions, and the like, exhausts the subjects Jer. 22: ver. 13. 14. Ezech. 34. 1 King. 12: 19. Psal. 14: 4.] and n. 10 [who hindereth the free suffrages of Members of Parliament, so that they dare not speak what they would.] & how much of this we finde to be true, in needlesse here to expresse. Then n. 23, 24, &c. he tels us [he is a Tyrant who takes away from the people all power, to resist his tyranny, as armes, strengthes, and chief men, whom therefore though innocent, he hateth, afficteth and persecuteth, exhausts their gods, and lively-hoods without right or reason] all which he confirmeth by several Scriptures: And how ap∣posite these are to our present case, all know who is not an

utter stranger to our matters, So that when we have so many things to alledge, none can justly blame us for say∣ing, that vve are oppressed and borne dovvne vvith in∣supportable tyranny; and now we goe on to consider what he sayes.

And as to the first he tells us, Pag. 68. [That their life and blood was not sought upon any tearmes, there was no forceing them to idolatry, nor false worshipe, nor frighting them to any thing of that kinde, upon paine of their lives; only for contempt of the outward ordinances of God, purely administred in an orthodox Church, they were put to pay such moderate fines, as the publick lawes had appoynt∣ed: Without any actual invasion of them or their persones. They were the first aggressors, murthering the Kings Servants, and seiseing on his chief officer. They had never before that assayed supplicating, (which was not forbidden them to do, if so be they would have done it without tumults and combinations) but flew to the sword and marched on to mock authority with armed petitions, as they mocked God by sinful prayers, to prosper their evil course.] Answ. 1. What intention there was to seek the life and blood of these People, God koweth: But sure all who knew their case, saw that their life was only left them, that they might feel their misery. So were they oppressed and harassed, that death would have been chosen rather then life. Were they not beaten, wounded, and bound as beasts, their goods and substance devoured before their eyes? were not their lands and tenements laid waste, and many redacted to beggary? Besides other inhumane barbarityes, which they were made to suffer. 2. We see he would allow it lawful to resist, if the King should force to idolatry and false worship, and what will he do then with his arguments, which will not allow that exception, as they are urged by him? He must necessarily grant that they are inconcludent, & that it holdeth here Argumentum nih••l probat quod nimium probat. 3. How beit they were not forced to idolatry; yet by the same law, reason and equity (or rather Tyranny and inquity) they might have been forced to that, as to what they were forced. That is by the law of Tyranny and violent oppression. They were pressed to owne and countenance perjured prophane

wicked and debauched Curates, thrust in upon them con∣trare to their Privileges, as lawful and duely called Mini∣sters, and thereby to owne and approve of Prelacy which was abjured, and cast out of the Church with detestation, and so to concurre in their places and stations with, and give their testimony unto, a most wicked and unparallelable course of defection and Apostacy from God, and his holy wayes and works; and thereby to condemne the Reformation of Religion in doctrine, Worshipe, Discipline and Govern∣ment, which God had vvonderfully vvrought amongst us, and vvhich all ranks of People vvere solemnely svvorne to maintaine and defend. 4. He talketh of the outvvard or∣dinances of God purely administred; vvhen all knovv how these profane vvretches, made all vvho, ever knevv vvhat the service of the true and living God vvas, to abhore the offer∣ing of the Lord: For they despised the Name of the Lord, and offered polluted bread upon his altar, and made the table of the Lord contemptible, they offered the blinde, the lame, and the sick, and torne, and thus they vovved & sacrificed unto the Lord a corrupt thing: Yea their admini∣stration of ordinances vvas, and is to this day, rather like histrionick acts, and scenes, then the service of the true and living God: And vvhat sober serious Christian, yea vvhat soul that hath any beleeving apprehensions of the Majesty of God, can be vvitnesse, let be a concurring actor in, and consenter unto, such abhomination and idol-like Worshipe? 5. He talkes of an orthodox Church, vvherein perjury and such like abhominations are approved and countenanced, maintained and avovved; and vvherein the vvork of Re∣formation of Religion, in Doctrine, Worshipe, Disci∣pline and Government is condemned; a Covenant abjureing Popery, Prelacy, Prophanesse, Schisme and Heresy, and whatsoever is contrary to sound doctrine, and the power of godlinesse, condemned and annulled; and wherein Atheisme, wickednesse, ignorance, licentiousnesse, and all sort of prophanity, yea and blasphemy aboundeth, and wherein there is so much Popery and idolatry countenanced and con∣nived at, and such abhominations reigneing. Our first con∣fession

of faith recorded in Parliament Cap. 18. giveth this as one note of a true Church viz. That in it Ecclesiasticall Disci∣pline be uprightly ministred, as God's Word prescribeth, whereby vice is repressed & vertue nourished! But now there is a discipline repug∣nant to Gods Word administred, whereby vice is nourished & virtue suppressed. 6. He sayes that the fines were moderate? But more immoderate fines, and exorbitant penaltyes, vvere never imposed by Rulers, except such whose designe was to Tyrannize over the soules and consciences of poor people: and to the payment of these transcendently exorbitant penal∣tyes, they were constrained, not in a legal manner, as it ought to be in a civil and free republick, but in a military, compul∣sive constraineing way, whereby their persones and goods were tyrannically and inhumanely invaded, plundered, de∣stroyed, and ruined. 7. It is true, providence so ordered it, that the first that was vvounded was one of the souldiers: But Naphtali tels him that the countrey men were necessitated thereto in their ovvne defence; for vvhen they but desired the souldiers to loose the poor man, vvhom they had bound hand and foot like a beast, they vvere assaulted vvith drawne swords; and so first and last they vvere invaded, and provocked, & were not the first aggressours: & beside, that was but a meer accidental emergent: & though they had for∣mally, without that occurrent provocation, joyned together to have repelled unjust violence, none in reason could have called them the first aggressours, being so long before that time, at two inrodes, beside this last, so barbarously and inhumanely used by Sr Iames Turner that bloody executioner of illegal tyranny, and brutish beastly Doeëg, who having renunced all humanity & compassion, raged like a wilde beare to the laying waste of that countrey side. So that here was no violent re-offending used without a previous actual invasion, made by companyes of armed men, sent to eat up, root out and destroy a worthy and precious countrey-side An imminent danger sayes the law, is a sufficient ground to take up armes, and that is not previous strokes but the terrour of armour or threat∣ning L. sed & si. ff. ad Leg. Aquil. l. 3. quod qui armati ff. de vi & vi armâta. Sure here was enough to warrand a Commu∣nity

to stand to their defence, and to prevente their utter ruine and destruction, which was certanely expected, and this was to them the last and most inexorable case of necessi∣ty: And so the places which he citeth out of Lex Rex do partly confirme this, and partly are not to the purpose, being spoken of a single person buffeting his master after he hath been buffeted, or having received deaths wounds, seeketh to revenge himself on his aggressor. 8. He tels us they should have first supplicated these in power: But they had suppli∣cated already Sr Iames Turner, and their case was made worse and not the better thereby, and all joynt petitioning was con∣demned as treasonable, and what could they then have done? The most peacable manner of supplicating, if it had been in a joynt manner, that could have been devised, had been inter∣preted tumultuous. And Since it was so, what could they do, but after the example of our progenitors, advance with armes in the one hand and a petition in the other? 9. The Prophane man talks of their mocking God by their prayers, and of their spoyling loyal persons: but as they have the te∣stimony of all among whom they were, that they were not to be charged with plundering, taking nothing unlesse it were a few horses, and such things as were necessary for the defence of their lives, and for the welfare of the Countrey, wherein many do suppose they were but too too spareing, seing the benefite was common to all, and they were to venture their lives, not for themselves alone, but for the whole Countrey: So the Lord gave proof that he hath accepted their endea∣vours, though it was not his appoynted time to restore our Kingdome, in that he did so signally ovvne and countenance such as vvere honoured vvith martyrdome, for the Testi∣mony of Iesus, and for his interest and cause. But this man speakes like himself vvhen he addeth that both they and others have cause to blesse God that they had no successe, which might have been a snare and stumbling block to them and others also. For vve knovv indeed that it is no small mercy, not to thrive in an evil vvay, and therefore vve think that He and his vvicked fraternity, on whom the Lord is raineing snares, by suffereing them to thrive, have great cause to lament the blak day that is coming, and

to tremble both for the imminent judgments, and for the dreadful plague and judgement of hardnesse of heart, vvith vvhich they are already visited of the righteous God; Yet vve knovv That a vvay may be his vvay, vvhich he vvill not prosper for a time, till the cup of the Amorites be full, and he hath attained his other holy ends, vvhich he designeth in casting his Church into a furnance: And if he judge of causes alvvayes by the event, he shevveth himself a stranger to the Soveraigne vvay of the Lord, in all ages.

As to other thing, he speaketh Pag. 10. and sayeth (doth not the true protestant Religion as it is held forth inscripture, and was publickly confessed by our first reformers (which confession is Re∣gistred Parl. 1. K. James 6.) through God's mercy continue with us, without variation from it in the least? Doth not the Kings majesty protect and advance this blessed Truth of the Saving Gospel, and en∣courage and invite all, according to his power, to imbrace it? Is he not willing and desirous that the lawes be vigorously executed against papists, and all perverters of this sound doctrine? are any spoiled of their lawful civil libertyes? What one thing hath he done without consent of the Peoples Representatives in Parliament, at which any may except as a grievance? what burden hath he laid upon their Estates, but by law or by their owne consent, in a necessary exigence? Answ. 1. If the protestant Religion continue without variation, in the least, vvhat meaneth then the bleating of the sheep and lowing of the oxen; in every ones eares? what meaneth the many Jesuites, and Seminary Priests that goe up and downe the land? what meaneth the many masses that are used in se∣veral parts of that land, and in the very heart thereof, in and about Edinbrough? What church discipline is used against these? belike the Prelates have no will to trouble their old brethren, the native and faithful children of their catholick Mother, the whore of Rome, because they minde, yet once againe, to take a drink of the cup of her fornications, and to returne as prodigal Children unto their former dear Mother, the bloody harlote, the mother of fornications. And hovv cometh it that one Mr. Tyry, formerly a knovvn papist, is admitted to a prefessorshipe in St. Andrewes, vvho not only cannot be reconciled to that minister who motioned

the giving to him, that Head to handle de anticbristo Romano, but even in his theses did assert that the Pope was not Antichrist. But what is become of the Religion of the Church of Scot∣land, as it was reformed in doctorine, worshipe, discipline and government? What is become of these Covenants vvhich were our strong bulvvarks against propery? and vvhat is be∣come of the many acts of Parliament ratifying and approving these Covenants? Are not all these cast avvay? are not vve cast open unto the assaults of that bloody Beast? what meaneth the great increase of the number of papists, so that the very Parliament it self, in their statute 8. sess. I. (a mok-act never put into execution) sayd that the number of Iesuites, Priests, and Papists did now abound more, then ever they did under the Government of his father and grand father? What meaneth the rescinding and anulling the first act of the 12. parl of K. Iames 6. holden Anno 1592. in all the heads clauses and articles thereof, in their act. 1 sess. 2. whereas that act did not also ra∣tify and approve presbyterial government; but did also ratify and approve all privileges, libertyes, immunityes, and freedoms, granted by his hieghnesse his Regents, in his name, or any of his predecessours, to the true and holy Kirk esta∣blished within the Realme, and declared in the first act of Parliament Anno 1597. and all and whatsomeever acts of Par∣liament and statutes, made before by his Highnesse and his Regents, anent the liberty, and freedome of the said Kirk; and particularly the first act of parl Anno 1581. and all other particular acts there mentioned: and this act Anno 1581. ra∣tifieth all preceeding acts, particularly that made in the reigne of Queen Mary, Anno 1567. anent abrogating all lawes, acts and constitutiones, canons civil and municipal, with other constitutions contrare to the Religion then professed, and all posteriour acts namely such as abolished the Pope and his uspurped authority; that anulled the acts made against God's word and for maintainance of Idolatry, the act ratifying the confession of faith of the protestants of Scotland; the act a¦bolishing the Masse, and for punishing hearers and sayers of the same: acts made, anent the admission of them that shall be presented to benefices having cure of ministry; anent the

King's oath to be given at his coronation; anent such as should beare publick office hereafter; anent teachers of schools; anent the jurisdiction of the Kirk; anent the true and holy kirk; anent the ratification of the liberty of the true Kirk of God and Religion; anent such as are declared not to be of the true Church: And also the said act An∣no 1592. ratifieth all other acts made in favours of the Kirk, since the yeer 1581. So that by this late Act made Anno 1662. all the acts made in favours of the Church and of the protestant Religion, are annulled and rescin∣ded; for there is no exception added, but the said act in all its heads, clauses and articles, is declared null and voide. Where is then our legall security for our protestant Religion, and Libertyes of the Church? Sure these things presage no good to the protestant Religion. But 2. What way the King doth advance this blessed truth of the saving gospel (if he meane hereby the protestant Religion) we are to learne: For his publishing in print that the Papists have been faithful subjects to him and his father, whilest others, under pretence of Religion, had involved the Kingdomes in blood; and by these Papists meaning with others the irish rebells, who, for promoving the Romish bloody designe, executed that bloody Massacre in Irland: the report whereof made all protestants to tremble and to stand astonished, giveth us but small hopes, that so long as he is of that minde, he shall ever do any thing effectually for promoving or maintaineing the Protestant interest: His advanceing of Papists to greatest places of publick power and trust England, in Parliament, Council, Court, Coun∣teyes, and the Army, speakes rather an encourageing and inviteing of persons to turn Roman Catholicks: His pro∣videing a house for Fathers and friers speaks out no good in∣tention and designe. Let the Surveyer read what is said to this purpose in the Preface to Naphtaly. 3. He tells us that the King is willing and desirous, that the lawes be put in exe∣cution against Papists and perverters of sound doctrine; But how cometh it then, that there are no sayers of Messe and seminary Priests sentenced, according to the law? Did

ever the King write to the Council for suppressing of Popery. as effectually as he hath done for suppressing of conventicles? Or did he ever chide the Council, or depose any member thereof, or any other inferiour Magistrate, upon the ac∣count of their negligence in this? But be it whose fault it will, sure we are there is more care taken to search out conventicles, then the meetings of Papists or Quakers: Is the Towne of Edinburgh under such a bond to suppresse meetings for Masse, and others of the like nature; as they are for suppressing of honest Protestants, meeting for the Worshipe of God according to the purely reformed Reli∣gion? Did ever any Arch-Prelate procure an order from his Majesty to stirr up the leazye council to diligence in this matter? Wherein I pray doth either the Kings willingnesse, or the vvillingnesse of the Council, or of other Inferiour Ma∣gistrates to have the lawes against Priests vigorously put into execution, appear? And where are we then, when all Ma∣gistrates from the highest to the lowest connive at, if not en∣courage countenance and approve of Papists, and Popish idolatry; and the true Worshipers of God are hunted out, cast into prisones, banished into America and Tangyr, and made to suffer such inhumane Barbarities, and all to pleasure the perjured Prelates, who are more afrayed of a few honest seek∣ers of God, then if legions of Papists were swarming in the Land, knowing how soon, they would be willing to im∣brace these serpents in their bosome, and joyne with them to root out the Protestant interest; whileas they hate the truly godly with a perfect hatred, as being of principles irre∣concileable with theirs, and having ends before their eyes diametrically opposite to what these intend? Yea, where are we, when almost all the Rules proposed by Adam Cont∣zens the Jesuite, for introduceing of Popery, in his Polit. Lib. 2. Cap. 18. are so exactly followed: as when he adviseth that. 1. They proceed as musitians do in tuneing their instru∣ments, gradually, and piece by piece. 2. That they presse the Examples of some eminent Men as a meane to draw the rest. 3. That Arch-heretikes (that is most Zealous Pro∣testants) be banished all at once, or if that cannot be done

saifly, by degrees. 4. That such be put from their dignities, and all place & power of trust. 5. That Protestant Religion be made odious, by loading such of their opinions, as are most obvious to a harsh construction. 5. That they foment the quarrels that are among Protestant, and strengthen that party that is most ready to comply with Rome. 7. That they discharge and hinder all private conventicles of Protestants. 8. That severe Lawes be made, and rigorously executed (though not against all, yet) against the most dangerous. Who seeth not, what a conformity there hath been and yet is, betwixt the practices of this Apostate, Popish, Prelatical and Malignant faction, which hath now destroyed the work of God, and those Rules mentioned? And what lyeth latent under board the Lord knoweth. 4. He asketh the question if any of the People of the Land be spoiled of their lawful civil libertyes? As if a man should enquire if the Sun were risen at twelve houres of the day. Our Religion reformed in do∣ctrine, Worshipe, Discipline and Government, which was one of our maine civil & most lawful libertyes, is taken from us. The liberty of supplicating, which the Law of God, the Law of Nature, and the Law of Nations allow, it taken from us. The liberty of free election of Members of Parliament, was taken away. Liberty of protesting in Parliament was taken away. The Kings prerogative is screwed up to such a hieght, that it overturnes the true native libertyes of the Subjects Many honest Subjects are cast into prisone, no trans∣gression being once alledged far lesse proved against them. The due exercise of their Religion as was covenanted, is taken away, Lawes are not executed in a civil manner, as they ought to be among free Subjects. Iudicatories are set up and erected without the consent of the People, or their Re∣presentatives. Libertyes and Privileges of brughes and such incorporations are taken away, unlesse they will renounce and abjure a lawful, religious, and necessary Covenant. The free exercise of justice especially against Nobles, is stop∣ped. The Lieges are not ruled by the Lawes of the Land, but by the arbitrary will and lust of few Prelates and the privy Council. Will he ask now if our libertyes be taken from us?

or will he call these unlawful? 5. He asketh in the next place, what one thing the King hath done, without consent of the Peoples Representatives in Parliament, at vvhich any may except as a grievance. It seemeth he is either of a very short Memory, or he thinks the High commission-court a very small inconsiderable businesse; for the consent of Parliament vvas never had unto this inquisition-court, neither of old, nor of late: And yet this was such an heavy yoke of bondage, that made all the land to groan, and against which, as a most intolerable grievance, all the corners of the countrey could give in their exceptions. And as for this late Representative (so called,) they have enacted many things contrare to their power and turst, as vve have shewed: No power under heaven could enact what they have enacted: No power under heaven could anul, condemne, and rescinde lawful Covenants made with the most high God: They were not in tuto to rescinde and anull unalterable lawes, more firme and fixed, then any Lawes of the Medes and Persians; For lawes confirmed with oathes, and solemne vowes to God, are not ambulatory, as other politick lawes. And therefore all the lawes being good and necessary in their owne nature, by the supervenient addition of an oath confirming and rati∣fying the same, became absolutely unalterable by any Man or company of Men whatsoever. So that all the lawes made by King and Parliament to the prejudice of the Covenanted work of reformation, are intolerable grievances, dishonou∣rable to God, and prejudicial to the welfare of the Subject; and to which, neither People, nor their Representatives real of supposed, could ever lawfully consent. 6. He asketh what burden he hath laid upon their Estates, but by Law? But this is a vaine florish, seing all that know what that Par∣liament was, know how prone and ready it was, to devote (if it could) unto the lust of the King, the Souls, Con∣sciences, Estates, and all which the Subjects had, little re∣gairding either the true liberty or reall advantage of the People.

CAP. XVII.

The Objections of others examined.

WE have now examined all which this Surveyer hath said against us, in the poynt of resistence; yet that we may satisfy (if possible) all persons and partyes touching the lawfulnesse of this act, of private persons defending themselves and their Religion from manifest Tyranny and oppression, we shall remove likewise such other objections, as some others are pleased to make use of; and which our Sur∣veyer hath possibly forgotten to adduce.

1. Obj. Subjects are obliged to performe all dutyes of obedience and fidelity unto their Magistrates, and albeit the Magistrates turne a manifest Tyrant, every one cannot loose that obligation at his owne hand. Hoen. Disp. Pol. 9. Thes. 55. Ans. 1. Subjects, as we have seen, are but conditionally ob∣liged to performe these dutyes unto the Magistrate, and not absolutely, whether he play the Tyrant or not, by Hoenonius his owne confession. 2. Though each particular person can not loose the obligation when he will; yet when a Tyrant hath, by his acts of tyranny, loosed the obligation, upon his part, a body of a People or a considerable part thereof, may defend themselves against his tyranny, as if there were no obligation betwixt him and them. 3. Though the obligation stand uncancelled, and not abrogated, re∣sistence may be granted; for a Sone may resist his Father, and a Wife her Husband, though the obligation continue firme and not dissolved.

Obj. 2. By this meanes a window should be opened to all seditions, conspiracyes and rebellions, Hoen. ubi supra Ans. Incommodum non tollit argumentum. The abuse of a li∣berty doth not destroy the liberty. 2. By this argument absolute and unlimited obedience might be pressed, lest if private persones might refuse obedience, a door for all se∣dition and disobedience should be opened. 3. By the con∣trare assertion, a door shal be opened to all Tyranny and

oppression, which should tend not only to disquyeting of the peace, but to the ruine and destruction of the Common∣wealth.

Obj. 3. Subjects are to pray for their Magistrates, Hoen. ibid. Answ. True, but the consequence is naught. There∣fore I may not resist them, when they tyrannize and oppresse unjustly, it doth not follow. I must pray for my equalls and inferiours, and open enemies, whose unjust violence, I may notwithstanding resist.

Obj. 4. A son may not do violence to his Father though never so unworthy; for no impiety can be punished by pari∣cide: Far lesse may violence be done to the Prince, who is the Father of the Countrey, Hoen. ib. Answ. 1. This simile helteth as we have shewed. 2. If the Father abuse his power, the law will deprive him of it, L. 6. Lenones, L. 7. C. de Inf. expos. L. 2. C. de Parent. qui Fil. distrax. L. 2. de his qui sunt sui vel alieni Iuris §. sed Domin. Iust. D. Titul. L. ult. si quis a Parente manumissus. 3. The simile is for us who plead only for resistence, as we shewed, not for killing and destroying Tyrants. 4. If the Sone be a Judge and the Father a male∣factor, the Son must execute judgement on the Father.

Obj. 5. Destroying of the head, though it be sickly and tender, tends to the destruction of the whole body, Hoenon. ibid. Answ. There is no such connexion betwixt King and Subjects, as betwixt Head and Members of our natural bodyes. A Tyrant may be, and often hath been, destroyed, and the body of the Republick hath remained intire and in better condition then formerly. 2. Opposition may be so made to the Head, that it destroyed not the noble parts, with defluxions sent downe thence; and it must, to prevent the destruction of the body, be purged: so may a Tyrant be resist∣ed for the saifty of the Commonwealth.

Obj. 6. It is better to have a sick head, then no head. id. ibid. Ans. Datur tertium, there is a third, a sound wholesome head. 2. A commonwealth needs not want a head long.

Obj. 7. There is greater hazard in casting out a Tyrant, then in suffering tyranny, idem ibid. Ans. 1. resistence may be without destroying or casting out of a Tyrant. 2. That

hazard speaks not to the lawfulnesse or unlawfulnesse of the thing, but only to the expediency or inexpediency of it; which is a different question: An interprize may be hazard∣ous and yet lawful. 3. It will not alwayes be found to be such a hazardous thing, even to cast away Tyrants; as to suffer them to tyrannize.

Obj. 8. A Tyrant can never be destroyed, without the ruine of these who have destroyed him, for some of his pos∣terity will avenge the quarrel, id. ibid. Ans. 1. We have many instances to the contrary in the Book of God: See the Books of the Judges and Kings: who of Joram's posterity avenged his death, on Jehu or his posterity? 2. A Ty∣rant may be resisted lawfully notwithstanding of such diffi∣cultyes.

Obj. 9. God punished the wicked Kings of the Jewes not by the Jewes, but by strangers, id. ibid. Answ. This is contrare to many examples in Scripture. Jehu was not stranger. 2. We speak not of punishing wicked Kings, but of resisting their unjust violence.

Obj. 10. David spared Saul, 1 Sam. 24, and 26. Whom he might lawfully have killed, as some think, because he had given David's Wife to another, had banished him and his Parents out of the countrey, and had killed the Priests, id, ibid. Answ. If David was a publick Judge, and might lawfully have killed Soul for his injustice, murther, and oppression, and did it not. I see not how he can be justified: But to me it is a question if David was any other then a private person, so long as Saul lived: and his resisting of Saul, and defending himself with armed men against his fury, doth abundantly confirme what we say.

Object. 11. Ieremiah doth not arme the jewes against Ne∣buchadnezar with a sword, but with prayers for him Id. Ibid. Answer. 1. We have not Ieremiahs now to reveal God's minde to us extraordinarily. 2. If this were a standing precedent, The Supreame Magistrate might not defend himself and his subjects, against a forraigne Enemy, comeing to destroy and conquere the land: for Ieremiah commanded the King to submit to Nebuchadnezar

Object. 12. Christ commandeth tribute and not poyson to be given to Princes. Id. Ibid. Answ. We plead not for Poy∣soning of Princes, but for resisting their unjust violence, against which Christ doth not speak: but rather he ought to have remembered these words Let him that hath no sword sell his coat and buy one.

Obj. 13. Paul Act. 23: ver. 5. Will not have an evil Prince so much as cursed Id. Ibid. Answ. Then no Magistrate, no not an inferiour should be resisted: for such may not be cursed, doing their duty. 2. We may not curse nor revile any of out equalls or inferiours Mat. 5: v. 44. Rom. 12: v. 14. Livit. 19: ver. 14. and 20: v. 9. 1 Cor. 6: ver. 10. and yet such useing violence against us may be resisted; we may not curse the rich Eccles. 10:20. and yet they may be resisted, when violently and injuriously they assault us.

Obj. 14. War is not lawfully undertaken without the war∣rand of the Superiour: But Subjects have no superiority of authority over the Magistrate. Gerhard de Magist. Pol. §. 483. Answ. 1. A war defensive may be undertaken without the expresse warrand of the Superiour. 2. Defence may be used by such as are inferiour to the aggressors, as by a Wife, a son, a Servant, as is shewed; yea the injurer is ever eate∣nus inferiour to the injured, in Law.

Obj. 5. Christ sayd Mat. 26: ver. 52. that such as took the sword should perish by the sword. Id. Ibid. Answ. That is true of such as useth the sword, further then God hath allowed, or contrare to his expresse revealed will, but not of such as have a lawful call thereto by the Law of Nature, and use it in their sinlesse defence, when there is no countermand of God. Which place we have abundantly vindicat already, where we shewed that his commanding them to sell their coat to buy swords sufficiently warrandeth this self defence: And though some do take that speach to be allegorick, yet the whole context cleareth that it is meaned of swords of steel; for they said, Here are two swords, and he said it is enough. Sure these were swords of outward mettal, as the event proved: And to answere Mat. 26: ver. 52. with Luk. 22: ver. 39. is not to set Scriptures by the eares, but a solid way of answering an

argument brought from abused Scripture, as Christ's pra∣ctice teacheth us, answering the devil's argument taken from Psal, 91. 11. by produceing another passage Deut. 6. 16. see Mat. 4:6, 7.

Obj. 16. The example of the saints in the Old and New Testament is against it; neither the Prophets nor Apostles gave this Command, but rather prescribed unto them pa∣tience, and prayers. That Citizen of Nieomedia, was con∣demned of all, who tore in pieces the Emperour's edict against the Christians, Id. Ibid. Answ. 1. We have seen instances both in the time of the Old Testament, and in the dayes of the New Testament, making for us. 2. We finde not the Prophets nor Apostles forbidding this. 3. Their pressing to patience and prayers is not repugnant to this innocent re∣s istence: we may pray against forraigne invaders, yet may we resist them. 4. Tearing of the Emperour's edict is no act of self defence.

Obj. 17. This would close up the way of persones acquire∣ing the crowne of Martyrdome, Id. Ibid. Answ. If upon this account private persons might not resist Magistrates, neither might inferiour Magistrates resist the supreame, which yet he will not condemne. Yea. 2. If this ground hold, the Supream Magistrate might not resist an army comeing to destroy him and all his Kingdome, for Reli∣gion, but He and all were bound to hold up their throats that they might receive the Crowne of Martyrdome. 3. It is good to waite for this Crowne in God's way, and not to run to the stake without a cleare call: and if People may fairly and with a cleare conscience, deliver themselves, it is a question if they be called to suffer.

Obj. 18. Some adduce that place Eccles. 8. ver. 2, 3, 4. I counsel thee to keep the Kings command and that in regaird of the oath of God—he doth whatsoever pleaseth him, where the word of •• King is there is power, and who may say unto him what dost thou? Ans. I. Will it hence follow that we must obey all the Kings unjust, unlawful and iniquous commands? No true Christian can say so. Neither will it hence follow, that in no case he may be resisted. 2. Kings way not de jure do what they

please, but they have power to execute the Law in way of justice, which is the thing that they as Kings should and do please: And therefore, we should not stand in an evil matter. 3. Notwithstanding of this, Princes have been rebuked, 2 Sam. 12: ver. 7. and resisted 2 Chron. 27: ver. 17, 18, 19, 20. and so the meaning is, no man must question his just actions warranted by his lawfull authority. Or, it is but folly for a man to strive with such an one, as is able to execute his cruelty and to do what he will: see the English notes on the place, and Mr. Iackson's: but as this doth not justify Kings in their oppressing; so neither doth it condemne a resisting of their tyranny, more then the resisting of the oppressing vio∣lence of some mighty robber, who hath power to do what mischief he will, whom yet lawfully we may resist if we be able.

Obj. 19. The author of an appeal to conscience adduceth that place Psal. 105: ver. 15. Touch not mine anoyneted. Answ. Hence it clearly followeth that Kings and Princes should not enjure the Saints and Servants of God; for this was meaned of Abraham, Isaac, and Iacob, and of their Wives and Fami∣lies, who were sojourning as strangers from Nation to Nation, as the context cleareth, and the words following and do my Prophets no harme. And so relateth to vvhat vve heare Gen. 12: v. 10, to 20.& 20:1. &c. & 26:1. &c. & is not mean∣ed of Kings and Princes as such. So that this anoynting is such as is common to Priests and Prophets, & to all the saints vvho are spiritually anoynted, and so become Kings & Priests unto God 1. Pet. 2: 5. Rev. 1: 6. and 5: 10.

Obj. 20. D. Ferne, Resolvig of conscience vvould prove from 1 Sam. 8: ver. 18. that subjects may do nothing against Ty∣rants, but cry to the Lord. So Grotius. Answ. Subordinata non pugnant. We may both cry to the Lord and resist, as Iudg. 10. Exod. 14. 2 Chron. 32: v. 20. 2 King. 19. 2 Chron 14: v. 9. &c. and 13: 14, 15, * 16. 2. The text saith not, they should have no other remedy left them but crying; or that it should be lavvsul for them to do no other thing. We finde that they resisted this King, vvhen he vvas about to kill innocent Ionathan. 3. The vvords at most but import a prohibition of attempting to

have the government changed from King to judges 4 Sup∣pose it vvere so; yet, it importing only a punishment unto them for their importunat and headstrong affecting of a King, vvill not in reason reach other Nations not guilty of this crime. Yea 5. This praediction could not bind up their owne hands from a defence; but at most import, That all their resistence or defence should be in vaine, through God's not hearing or helping them in resisting.

Obj. 21. The author of an appeal to thy conscience proposeth this argument. That evil Kings and Tyrants are afflictions and punishments inflicted on us by God. Therefore we should submit patiently, and not resist. Answ. The conse∣quence is nought, for so are forraigne enemies, the riseing up of inferiours against us, sicknesse and paines on our bodyes, and the like, and yet these may very lawfully be resisted.

Obj. 22. Equals have no power over equals, much lesse have inferiours over Magistrates Alber. Gentil. in. dispp. re∣galib. Answ. Superiority, is not requisite to lawful defence, as is said: 2. A Tyrant as such is no Magistrate, but a pri∣vat person.

Obj. 23. No punishment for Tyrants but vexation of con∣science id. ib. Answ. All evil doers may expect that punish∣ment as well as Tyrants, and yet they may be resisted, yea and punished with civil punishments.

Obj. 24. The removing of a Tyrant occasioneth civil warres, which makes the remedy worse then the disease id. ib. Answ. 1. We speak not of removing Tyrants; but of resisting them. 2. This is the way to prevent ruine and de∣struction to the Commonwealth, even to resist Tyranny. 3. A civil war may be more advantagious, for Religion and the libertyes of the subjects, and so preferable to a brutish submission to illegal tyranny: And every kinde of evil is not to be endured for avoyding a worse in probability? 4. Desperat diseases must have desperat cures; and it is better to hazard some thing in a warr, then lose all: We know not what the event may be, we are bound to defend Religion, and the libertyes of the countrey, and commit the event to God. 5. It hath been found that the putting away of a Tyrant, hath

proved very advantagious to the Countrey, and to Religion: and hereby all their losse by warr was more than abundantly repayed: yea and sometimes this hath been obtained without much shedding of blood.

CAP. XVIII.

How weakly & foolishly The Surveyer maintaineth the Union of his Majestie's Dominions, is cleared.

HAving thus discussed all which the Surveyer hath in his railing pamphlet said, against this truth which we have maintained; and having (sufficiently as we suppose) vindi∣cated the Peoples right to defend themselves, and their Co∣venanted Religion, from manifest and intolerable violence and oppression, we might without the least injury imaginable to our cause, wave the examination of what he Principally aimeth at Cap. 1. & 3. & 4. as being extrinsick to the present question, and because we are not necessitated to maintaine these opinions which he setteth himself against in those chap∣ters, our question being distinct from those, and easily main∣tained without touching upon those rockes. But yet because this windy man would faine make his Majesty beleeve that he had not gotten his reward for nothing, but that he had done some notable piece of service vvorthy of it; And had discovered some rare secret, the discovery of which, is of no small advantage, but of great use both for the pre∣servation of the union of his Majestie's dominions, and for the saveing of his life from the stroke of adversaryes; vve shall manifest hovv little ground he hath to father any of these assertions on Naphtali, and then discover hovv vveakly and foolishly he maintaineth his Majestie's cause, in both these; that al the world may see, that he hath come short of perform∣ing that service to his Maj. which he here undertaketh; & that

he hath been so far from laying the devil after he had raised him, that he hath done his Maj. no small piece of disservice in starting questions so dangerous to his Majesty's Kingdomes and life, when he had no ground given him; and after he had moved the question, left it worse then he found it; and so did little lesse then invite such as pleased, to doe what he alledgeth Naphtaly and his complices had a minde to do.

The first question which he speakes to Chap. 1. Is touching the dissolving of humane societies, which in some cases po∣liticians will yeeld to see Althus. pol. c. 38. n. 76. And the thing he driveth at, is to fasten on the honest party a resolution and designe, to dissipate and dissolve the immemorially setled frame (as he loveth to speak Pag. 9.) of that Nation and Kingdome, which through divine providence hath in many generations subsisted under our lawful Soveraignes, for the common benefite of subjects at home, and to the honour and renown of the Nation abroad; yea and to the glory of divine providence, which hath through many stormes in se∣veral ages; preserved us in this comfortable constitution. And this he deviseth of his owne wicked heart, of purpose to make these cordiall lovers of Religion and of their Coun∣trey, hateful to all the world, if he could; and therefore he would represente them as men of strange principles, & pur∣poses. But wo to such as make lyes their refuge! This man thinketh to make the King glade with his lyes, but we know that the mouth of such as speak lyes shall be stop∣ped.

But sure one would think that he behoved to have some clear ground to walk upon in asserting this of us, and espe∣cially when he is at the paines to spend a whole chapter, to confute it. And yet vvhen he hath rambled up and downe that book of Naphtali, to seek out a ground for this assertion, he can not adduce any one sentence, that even with half an eye doth look there away, except one, which yet hath no such de∣signe or import. The sentence is this Pag. 150. [That through the Manifest and notorious perversion of the great ends of Society, and government, the bond thereof being dissolved, the persons one or

moe thus liberated therefrom, do relapse into their primeve liberty and privilege, and accordingly as the similitude of their case, and exi∣gence of their cause doth require, may upon the very same principles againe joyne and associate for their better defence and preservation, as they did at first enter into Societyes.] For clearing of which these things would be observed.

1. That the author there is only adding a few observations, to cleare the innocency of these noble witnesses, who died owneing the interest and cause of Christ, and to shevv hovv free they were of the crime of rebellion, with which they were charged. Now all know that as these worthies, had no designe, of erecting themselves into a distinct common∣wealth, nor to make such a civil politick separation from the rest of the land; so the way which they took, did directly tend to have the whole land united unto God, and among themselves, as one for God and to God, in the bond of the solemne league and covenant. Had they designed such a se∣paration, they behoved also to have chosen more apposite & fit meanes, then these were which they did use, as any of halfe a judgment may perceive.

2. That as the maine and only designe of these worthies, was to defend themselves and their Covenanted Religion, from manifest oppression and tyranny, and to have the land recovered from that wofull course of backsliding and de∣parting from the Lord, whereof it was guilty, and wherein it had lyen for many dayes: So, This author is only clearing their innocency, as to that: and therefore in the first observa∣tion Pag. 147. He cleareth the native ground of self preservation: and in the 2. How the perverting of the ends of govern∣ment doth not destroy this native right, but that then people are as free to defend themselves as ever, even against the oppressing Powers, who in that case, according to King Iames his testimony and practice, become Tyrants, and are to be resisted: and in the 3. How all powers are obliged, if not expresly, yet tacitely, to walk in a due subordination to God, and to prosecute these great ends of government: and particularly in the 4. How our king is bound by the lawes of the land, and by his coronation covenant oath, to

Rule for God and the good of the People: And in the 5. How all even the most Malignantly affected, would assent to this, as an undoubted truth, in their owne particular cases: And cometh in the 6. Place to the words cited, which must have the same import and tendency, to wit, to clear the innocency of private persons self-defence, and defence of Religion, when the powers which should minde and study according to their place & power, to promove the great ends of society and government viz. the glory of God, and the good of the Subjects in soul and body, do manifestly and notoriously pervert these ends, and preferre themselves, and their owne lusts, unto the will and glory of God; and to the good of the People. The same is also cleare from the following observations, which do manifestly poynt at the clearing of people being bound in duty to defend them∣selves and their Religion, conforme to their engagements vowes and Covenants, which still stand in force, notwith∣standing of any thing done to the contrary of late, in their acts rescissory and condemnatory.

3. The very words themselves, to any who is not utterly blinded with prejudice, can import no more then that, when through the notorious and mainfest perversion of the great ends of society and government, the bond thereof is dissolved, and the persons now relapseing into their Primeve liberty and privilege, may no lesse now joyne and associate together, to defend Themselves and their Religion, then at first they entered into societes: For, as their entering into societies was for this end, and their setting up of Magistrates over themselves was for this end; so when the Magistrates crosse their end and rule, and thereby annul the relation, or make it invalide for the ends, they may joyne together now for these ends, as they might have done before the formal institution of Government. And who can deny this to be a truth? Or who can hence inferre (but he who is of a per∣verse spirit, and for his perverse ends seeketh to pervert all things) that he pleadeth for the lawfulnesse of Peoples crum∣bling together in lesser fractions and petty commonweal∣thes.

4. Suppose the words should be capable of that glosse' which the Surveyer putteth upon them; yet as they lye con∣nected with what preceedeth and with what followeth they can, at most, be but a Medium for proving the intended con∣clusion; and so must be considered as founding an argument a Majori ad minus, from the more to the lesse; to this pur∣pose: if when through the manifest and notorious perversion of the great Ends of society and government, the bond thereof is dissolved, and persons relapse into their primeve liberty, so that according as the similitude of their case, and exigence of their cause requireth, upon the same principles, they may againe associate and combine into new and distinct Societies and Commonwealthes, for their defence and pre∣servation: Then much more may they lavvfully novv joyne and associate together for their defence and preservation, without making any such rupture, or new erections: but endeavouring to keep the old Society firme and intire, undis∣solved, and unweakened. So that though his glosse should be admitted, he doth but bewray the ignorence of his capri∣cious braine, to take the Medium for the conclusion. And the antecedent will be granted by politians, and is expresly asserted by Althusius, Polit, Cap. 20. Num. 20. in case the Prince keep not his promise, but violate his faith and Cove∣nant.

5. Suppose also that this which he alledgeth had been the authors positive assertion, can he hence inferred with any colour of reason, that it was or is the designe of the author and his party, to dissipate and dissolve the old setled frame of this Kingdome, and erect new Commonvvealthes vvith nevv distinct Soveraignes? Seing every one knovveth, that many things are lavvful, vvhich are not expedient, con∣venient nor necessary; & that it vvere the result of no mature deliberation, but of madnesse and folly, to intend and de∣signe such a thing. vvhich (though lavvful in it self, yet) all things considered vvere, very inexpendient and unnecessary, yea not only not advantageous to their ends and purposes, but quite destructive thereof.

Novv since the Surveyer hath dravvne in this controversy by the eares, and set it in the front of his learned and elabo∣rat pamphlet, vve must suppose him one vvho is vvell versed in this topick, and can give a good account of his politick notions touching this quaestion. But alas if he had a real adversary to deal vvith (as novv he doth but faigne one to himself: & it is easy fighting against a man of stravv, or one of our ovvne making) his ridiculous and yet audacious folly, vvould easily be made to appear: his adversary vvould laugh (as indeed he vvould have cause) at the shakeing of his spear.

He maketh this the thesis which he undertaketh to confirme. That [when politick bodyes are setled in voluntary associations, or whatever way in the course of divine providence, they have been reduc∣ed to live under the same lawes and authorities, and have continued long in the union of a common interest, under the protection of magi∣stracy, to break off from the body in seditious secessions, cannot but be displeasing to God; and they are no other then firebrands, confoun∣ders of humane society, fighters against God and his ordinance, who instigate People to cut off themselves from the body of the Com∣mon wealth whereof they are members.] But would not his adversa∣ry tell him that he had granted as much in the words imme∣diatly preceeding, as would make him and his position both ridiculous: For he hath granted That the Lord hath not by any precept particularly determined the bounds of every embodied Po∣litical society, There being some greater, and some lesser, acting under their several heads and souveraigne Magistrates. And seing neither God nor Nature hath determined the quantity and extent of each Republicki or embodyed Politick Society, what more affinity hath it with sinful sedition, to say, that greater bodyes may be divided and subdivided into lesser Republicks, then to say that moe lesser bodyes may associate together to make one greater, especially seing Po∣liticians tell us that the ends of government are more easily attained in a lesser Republick, then in a greater; and that a mid way commonwealth neither too larg••, nor too little, is the best, as being lesse subject to vices and greater calamities, as was to be seen in the Roman Republick before it was en∣larged

in the dayes of Marius, Sylla, Pompey, and Caesar, and is to be seen this day in the Commonwealth of Venice, and the like, as Althusius shewes us, Polit. Cap. 9. num. 11. The time was when all the World was under one head, and after they were multiplied, they became distinct Republicks without any sinful or seditious secession. The time was when all thess westerne parts were under one Empe∣rour, and was nothing but a seditious secession, caused by firebrands, the ground of their becoming many and di∣stinct Republicks? The time was when Scotland, England, and Irland, were distinct Kingdomes, and under distinct Soveraigne Magistrates, and what repugnancy were it either to the Law of God or nature, to say they might be so a∣gaine? So were there once Seven Kings in England at once: and moe then one King in Scotland at once: and by no reason can he prove that it should always be, as it is at present, but by the same reason his adversaries could prove him guilty of treason; for he behoved to say, that because we were once all under one Emperour, we ought to be so still, and that the King must either hold his crowne of the Emperour, or be an usurper and a seditious rebel; for in the course of provi∣dence we were then reduced under the same Lawes and Au∣thorities, and continued in the union of a common interest for some good space of time, Yea and observe many of these civil Lawes yet. Thus we see whither this advocate will drive the matter, and how little service he doth his Majesty for all his rich recompence.

But it may be his arguments are cogent and binding: He hath many words, Pag. 4, & 5. to prove that this is contrary to Religion, The sum is this. [Never greater perversion of go∣vernment then in the times of many of the Prophets, and in the dayes of Christ, and his holy Apostles, and primitive Christians, and yet this was never their doctrine or sense.] Answ. Is this all that he can say, to prove that this is contrary to Religion? Sure his adversary will think that he hath little Religion who sayth so, and that he hath farlesse loyalty to his Master the King of Great Britane; for why? Because contrare to the doctrine of Christ and the Apostles, and the sense of all the

primitive Christians, he acknowledgeth the King of Britane to be a distinct King from the Roman Emperour, and not to depend upon him. They never taught that Britane and Irland should be ruled by a King distinct from him, and that these Islands should be separate from the Roman Empire, and so the King holds his Crowne by usurpation, and by an irreligious secession from the Empire, which neither Christ nor his Apostles ever taught, and must not this man and not we, acknovvledge Iudas of Galilee, and Theudas to be his Masters: For they taught (especially the first, as Iosephus, and Ruffinus out of him shevv us) that no tribute should be given to the Roman Emperour; and he vvil do the same, and say that it should be payed to king Charles the II. Next his adversary vvould tell him, that if this were held and maintained as a poynt absolutely necessary to salvation, then his argument vvould say something; But seing it is only held as lavvful, and according as providence determineth it to be convenient or inconvenient, to be practicable, it is suffi∣cient if the doctrine of the Prophets and of Christ and his Apostles, do not condemne it, as simply sinful: And that by this argument of his, it should be utterly unlawful now for Frame and Holland, and other adjacent Countreyes, to joyne together in one: and proclame King Charles their Sove∣raigne Lord and King: because neither Prophets nor A∣postles taught any such doctrine, that many several societies should joyne together under one head: And who is a friend to the Kings greatnesse now? If this man be worthy of his wages, let all the World judge. Moreover they would tell him, that in the dayes of some of the Prophets, there was a greater dissipation and secession, then any that is now desired, when the Ten tribes separated themselves from the other two, in the dayes of Rehoboam and erected themselves in a distinct Republick, under a distinct Supreame Magi∣strate; and we finde not this reproved by any of the pro∣phets, yea we finde a Prophet sent to tell Ieroboam that God would give him Ten Tribes, 1. King. 11: ver. 21. &c. and when Rehoboam would goe and reduce them under his sub∣jection by the power of the sword, we finde another Pro∣phet

sent to disswade him, in the Name of the Lord, 1 King. 12: ver. 22, &c. and saying that that was from the Lord. And sure this positive is as forcible, as his negative. And furder, even in the dayes of the primitive Christians, the Roman Em∣pire was divided, and how it is now subdivided and re-sub∣divided into many fractions, we all know: and can he shew us where any of the godly zealous Christians and servants of God spoke against this as a seditious practice?

But is may be that he vvill prove this assertion, though not dissonant to Religion; yet dissonant to sound reason. Let us hear hovv he doth it? [For (sayes he Pag. 5.) it hath a clear tendency to break in pieces all humane societyes—which no wit of man can preserve from dissolution, if this principle be drunk in: For by this Man's opinion, the judgement of the pervesion of the ends of government is put over to the discretion of the sufferers of prejudice, and they are accordingly to determine their actions, and nothing should hinder them but want of probable capacity to through their work.] But poor Man, as he hath made shipevvrack of faith and of a good conscience, so hath he made shipvvrack of his reason also; for his adversary vvould novv think the cause vvon: For grant once that a secession and separation may be made, vvhen the ends of government are manifestly perverted, and they vvill seek no more, for they vvill readily grant it ought not to be, vvhen there is no just cause, suppose that a great part should in their discretion judge there were real cause; And where is he now? Where is the position that is so dis∣sonent to Religion and Reason? Will he also owne it? Did Naphtaly say that when ever a few of a society thought in their judgement of discretion, that the ends of government were perverted, they were replased into their primaeve state of liberty, and free to make separations from the old society and associate into new combinations? And since he did not say so, how can this advocate make his position appeare dissonant either to Religion or Reason? But the man, let him be never so well hired, is obliged to reason no better then he can. Let him grant (and he cannot well deny it) that it is lawful for a great society to divide into two or moe lesser, when the ends of government are really and manifestly per∣verted,

in that greater society so united, and his adversaries will soon satisfy him (if he be rational, or a man fit for socie∣ty who will be ruled with reason) concerning the judgement of that perversion. He but exposeth himself to pity, when he cryeth out (taking also God's name in vaine) [To what times are we reserved, wherein the unmeasureable and aciousnesse of Men dar present such poyson to a Christian People, and to attempt the breaking them in pieces by such doctrines which both Religion and sound Reason abhorres.] For no body hath either seen Religion nor found Reason alleged against that position (which he sayeth Naphtaly setteth down.) But we will see more of this vaine Man's ridiculous ranting in the following words [Dar this libeller (so speaketh this non-sensical railer) say that this is a fundamental constitution of political societies, that at the arbitrement and lust of any minor part of private persons, pretending a perver∣sion of the ends of government (a pretence that will never be wanting to Malecontents and Malapert wicked ones, Even Katherines and highlandish theevs, and it is real to them if they themselves be admit∣ted judges) they may make secession from the society in which they are imbodied, and renunce their obligation to the government thereof.] Now he soares high in his scurril rhetorik, and as orna∣ments of his discourse, he must bring in his Katherines and Highlandish theeves, but to what purpose is all this superfluity of vaine empty words? Where or when said Naphtaly, That that was the fundamental Constitution of politick societies? What rational Man ever said so? Is this the only thing which he denyeth? Sure he is an ill maintainer of the union of his Majesties dominion; for his adversaries will grant all this, and yet say and be able to maintaine (for any thing that he hath said) that when the Ends of government are mani∣••estly and notoriously perverted, people relapseing into their primaeve liberty and privilege, may, according as the exigent of their case requireth, associate into new societies for their defence and preservation. But he addeth pag. 6. [Suppose there be a breaking off, upon that pretension (which will never be wanting to cover sedition and confusion) of perversion of the ends of government, the party making secession may haply meet with the same measure they gave, for if a minor party arise among them

with the same accusations, must they not have the same privilege? And where shall there be a stand?] His adversaries would soon reply, that whatever be in that absurdity, it doth not con∣cerne them, for they plead not for a dissolution upon a meer pretension of this perversion: And beside, they plead not for it, even where there is a real and not our perversion, as a thing necessary, which they must goe about, never once consult∣ing whether it be expedient or inexpedient, and whether they see a more feazable way of attaineing the ends of govern∣ment, without such perversion, after the separation is made, them before, or not: But only as a thing lawful, which may be done when they see it most convenient for the ends of government: And when they walk by this rule and principle, they will soon see where to make a stand. For they will finde that the crumbling of Societies into too many and too small bodyes, would put them as far from attaineing the ends of governments, as they were while associated in a greater body. And this is all which he hath to this pur∣pose. For as touching his application of this pag. 9. and 10. all alleging that there is no perversion of the Ends of go∣vernment now, it hath been spoken to already, and his ad∣versaries in this position (if there be any such, which I am ignorant of) will think and make out, that the ends of go∣vernment are so far perverted, that if there were no other thing lying in the way of a secession, then vvhat he hath said, they vvould think it of concernment to minde this outgate, vvhich they had no thoughts of before. And the King should then think himself little obliged to this man and his defences, and wish that he had been sleeping when he wa∣kened such a debate, and himself had bestowed his gold an∣other way: For sure, if such a thing were upon the heart of people now (as I hope & am confident it is not) they will professe themselves obliged to this Surveyer, for putting it in∣to their head first, and that all which he hath said against it, would rather invite and encourage them to it, then dis∣courage them from it.

May not then this Man be ashamed to take his Majesties Money, and do so bad service for it, as he hath done? But

Some will possibly say what could any persons have said more; Well, though some should think me officious to take his Majesties part and defend his cause, un-hired, yea and unde∣sired, yet I will propose one thing, which I am confident, shall be more effectual, for preserving the immemorially set∣led frame of this Nation, and the union of all his Majesties Dominions, to all generations, without dissipation or disso∣lution, or any hazard or feare thereof; Then what this Pamphleting Prelate hath said, Or will say, though he should write volumes, at this rate: What is that, you will say? It is no great secret, yet if heartily followed, it shall prove infallibly effectual. Let his Majesty Turne to the Lord with all his heart, and repent of his fearful per∣jury and defection, and minde his oath made unto the great God, and performe his vowes, and fulfil his Covenant which he swore with hands lifted up to the most high God, and solemnely promised to owne and prosecute, as he should answere to God, in that day, when the secrets of all hearts shall be disclosed; and execute judgment on the A∣postate Prelates, by hanging them up before the Sun, that the fierce anger of the Lord, evidenced by moe as twice three Yeers famine of the word, may be removed, and on all others who have been authors and abettors of this nor∣rible course of defection, and unparallelable apostasy, which makes these lands an hissing and a by-word to all nations; and let him honestly and with an upright heart prosecute the ends of these holy Covenants, and with that Godly King Asa. 2. Chron. 15. Enter into a Covenant, that whosoever will not seek the Lord God of Israel, shall be put to death, whether small or great, whether Man or woman: And let his successours follow his footsteps in this, and he and they shall finde, no imaginable bond so sure to tye his Kingdo∣mes together perpetually, as an indissoluble Society, then these holy Covenants, particularly that solemne league and Covenant. In which all his subjects in Scotland, England, and Ireland, did sweare in a most solemne manner, to maintaine and promove reformation of Religion in Worshipe, Doctrine, Discipline, and Government, and endeavour to bring the

Churches of God in the Three Kingdomes, to the nearest conjunction, and uniformity, in Religion, Confession of faith, Forme of Church government, Directory for wor∣shipe and Catechiseing, &c. that they and their posterity after them, may as brethren live in faith and love, and the Lord may delight to dwell in the midst of them—and that the Lord may be one and his name one in the three Kingdomes; and to endeavour the discovery of all such as have been, or shall be incendiaries, Malignants, or evil instruments, by hindering the Reformation of Religion, divideing the King from his People, or one of the King∣domes from another, or make any faction or partyes among the People, contrary to this League and Covenant, that they may be brought to publick tryal and receive condigne punishment: And that they should each one of them, ac∣cording to their place and interest, endeavour that the King∣domes may remaine conjoyned, in firme peace and union to all posterity: And that they shall not suffer themselves di∣rectly nor indirectly, by whatsoever combination, perswa∣sion or terror, to be divided & withdrawne from this belssed union and conjunction. Now what bonde more strong to unite and keep together his Majestie's Dominions can the wit of Man imagine? And shall not the owneing and prosecut∣ing of this Covenant, Appear to all rational persons the most infallible meane to effectuate this indissoluble union and lasting Conjunction, that can be invented?

CAP. XIX.

How weakly and foolishly the Surveyer defendeth his Majestie's Life, is shewed.

THe surveyer, finding how poorly he had defended the cause now mainly controverted. viz. The unlawful∣nesse of Peoples defending themselves, and maintaining their Religion against manifest and intolerable oppression. Cap. 2. That he might do something for his money, would start another question, wherein he thought he should do his Maj∣some acceptable piece of servicé, and secure his life, when all came to all: Though he could not cudgil with his rail∣ing (for he can move none with his reason) the People into a stupide, and irrational subjection, so that let the King rage worse then ever Nero did, they should not lift a hand to resist and withstand him; He thinks he shall do the next best, viz. he shall fortify his Majestie's person, and set such a guard of impregnable reasons about him, that no man, no company of men, yea no judicatoure, shall ever approach to touch his sacred person, or to spoile him of his life; a guard of reasons like lyon rampants, be-like he thought them, more invincible and saife, then a legion of the most valient Cham∣pions that his Majestie's kingdomes can aford. But poor man, he may dreame that such armes are impenetrable and proof, because they are the best in his armory, or that his dull head could hammer out: But no man of reason will think so; yea all who know that belongeth to this controversy, and are not professed adversaries (yea and the most ingenuous of them too) will upon second thoughts be forced to say, That never any put pen to paper in the King's quarrel, who hath so foolishly and childishly, managed that disput; and how little he deserveth thanks (let be a reward) for his paines, such as are sober will judge, when they consider how little ground, he had to move such a question now, seeing the

wronging of the King's Person or his just authority, was not intended by those worthies who arose for the maintenance of Religion; as such of them who were publickly put to death, did openly upon the scaffold confesse and avow; and consi∣der also how the Author of Naphtaly hath been miserably mis∣understood by him.

It is not our purpose, nor our present businesse, to speak unto this head, and shew for what causes, or by whom kings are to be questioned, deposed, or executed: Far lesse is it our purpose to defend the taking away of the late King's life, though this railing Pamphleter thinks to fasten this upon Naphtaly. And therefore we might palse what he sayeth to this purpose, Chap. 3. Yet as in the preceeding Chapter, we have shewed how ill he hath maintained the u∣nion and conjunction of his Majesties Dominions; So in this, vve shall shovv hovv vveakly he hath guarded his life, against such as vvould oppose themselves unto him, in this question.

But first, vve vvould take notice vvhether Napthtali hath given him such ground to fasten upon him the justification of the murther of the late King, as he allegeth. [The matter (sayes the Surveyer) in dealing with Magistrates (according to Naphtali's minde) rests not in a meer resistence of them by meer pri∣vate persons, but goes on to a retaliating and revenging upon them wrong supposed to be done—for his man againe jeers at the Soveraigne Powers Privilege, and Impunity of Divine exemption.] Ans. Doth this man know what he writeth? Doth Naphtaly say, That private persons may revenge wrongs upon the Su∣pream Magistrate, because he jeers at such as plead for such a Privilege and impunity unto Soveraigne Powers, as will exempt them from all tryal and punishment, both of God and Man? What meaneth he else by this impunity of di∣vine exemption? Then he tells us, pag. 71, and 77. That Naphtaly Pag. 29. reflects not obscurely upon the horrid mur∣ther of our late Soveraigne. Let us hear Naptaly's words, then shall we better judge, [And as these inferiour Princes (sayes Naphtaly, Pag. 29.) Do often forget their subordination to the most High in their unjust commands, and would usurpe his throne, by

an uncontrollable Soveraignity: So the Lord by the warrand of his Word and approbation of his providence, and also of the People (when by them oppressed, but by himself animated & strengthened) hath declared & made void this their pretended exemption & impunity, & removed the carcasses of such Kings, and broken their scepter: amongst which prece∣dents, the instance of these times, whereof we now speak, is worthily re∣corded, and deserveth better to be remembered] Now Naphtali is speaking of what fell out betwixt the year 1494. and the year 1560. in that place, and makes no mention of what fell out an 1560. and afterward till he come to Pag. 31. &c. Sure then, the times he is speaking of being before the year 1560. are far from the times wherein King Charles the first was exe∣cuted. But sayes he, there was no such thing as murthering of Kings or dethroning of them, at that time, Answ. Yet the Lord, at that time, declared and made void the pretended exemption and Impunity of Princes and Soveraigne Gover∣nours, by removing in his providence their carcasses, and by the approbation of the people, when by them oppressed, & by himself animated, breaking their scepter; as vve finde was done to the Q. Kegent anno 1559. when she was by the People, the Nobles, Barons and Burgesses assembled to de∣liberate upon the affaires of the commonwealth, Octob. 20. deposed from her Regency, and upon the ninth of I••n the next yeer, God removed her carcasse by death, so that the land was no more troubled with her.

Who may not now see what a poor ground this Railer had, to father such a tenet on Naphtali, as he doth? And what ad∣vantage the King's cause hath gotten by this, we shall novv see. He tels us Pag. 72. [That most of the venome this man (meaning Naphtali▪) hath against the powers ordained of God, he hath sucked out of the breasts of Lex Rex. It were not right to dig up all the pestilent untruths of that piece, set forth in most impertinent and sophistical reasonings, mixt with infinite humane bitternesse, against the late King: Only as it were to be wished that such errours, might be buried in eternal oblivion; so it is to be regrated that too too many of the Ministry and others in Scotland have been poysoned with such principles, and the same not being very like to be suddenly extirpat, the more need have the powers above us to be watchful] Ans.

The author of Lex Rex and of Naphtaly also, ascribe as much to the powers ordained of God, as God's word will allow; and are no way opposed unto them, but only unto Tyranny, which is no Ordinance of God: and this Man rather spitteth venome in the face of the power ordained of God, vvhen he goeth about to patronize and defend their illegal and ini∣quous exorbitances, as if these were the ordinance of God, which are rather the ordinance of Satan: Sure this is not farr from blasphemy, to call such courses the Ordinance of God. 2. He hath taken a short cut. I confesse, to answere that unanswerable book Lex Rex. To say, that it is full of pestilent untruthes, set forth in most impertinent and sophi∣stical reasonings. Had King Charles the first, when he read that book, remembered this, or thought upon it, he would not have said he feared (as is reported he did) that it should not have been answered. But what Man, who hath not de nuded himself of all wit and reason, will take, upon this per∣jured Apostat's word, these Truthes which Lex Rex hath de∣monstrated (& which this Man was so unable to answere, that I much question if he well understood many of them, or if his lumpish braine could discerne betwixt a sophistical rea∣son and a true and real reason) to be untruthes; and these truthes so wholesome and useful to all Republicks, and neces∣sary to be knowne and wel digested by all who consult the welfare of commonwealths, to be pestilent untruthes, and his unanswerable reasons, to be impertinent and sophistical? 3. I am sure all the Cavaliers, and the Malignant squade would have thought him well worth his gold, if he had in a sober rational manner discovered the impertinencies and sophistical reasonings in that book, which yet is like to speak after it is burned, and under a legal restraint, though he should have spent the most part of his dayes upon it; it may be, the Royal cabal would have thought it Dignum opus, and have canonized him for it, and advised the King of Remem∣ber the issue of such a worthy & singular pillar of the tottering throne. But the man knew how far his stock would reach, and that all the gold in the Kings treasures could not make his head stronger then it was, how ever it might superabun∣dantly

fortify his purse; and therefore, seing his short horns could reach no further, his Majesty must rest satisfied with this: And Lex Rex must be declared, as it is, to be furder unanswereable. 4. Seing he wisheth that such errours might be buryed in oblivion, why did not his vvork follovv his vvish? Why did he dig up the untruths (if such) againe, when he was not able to bury them dead nor alive? Prudence (if he were not innocent of it) might have taught him silence, seing he knew he could answere no better. 5. Such as have received these principles finde them more wholesome food then his soure leaven. 6. He needs not stirr up the Powers to more cruelty and tyranny then alrea∣dy they exerce, neither vvill that be a vvay to extirpate these principles, but rather a way to root them more deeply in the heart.

But now what sayes he to the thing. He tells us in the first place: That [The God of order hath in all humane political Societyes appoynted under himself a supreame power, whether subjected in a single person, or in a complex company, which orders the whole body, having nothing before or above it, in the nature and order of civil au∣thority, and governs all in the society, and is governed by none therein: to say that a person is chief, and yet hath a Superiour or equal is to speak contradictions: wise men have said, that a multitude of Gods is the nullity of Gods, and multitude of infinites so called makes none of them infinite, so a multitude of supreame powers in one civil society destroyes divine order.] Answ. 1. It is true, God hath appoynted in all humane political societies, a supream power. But I suppose, the Surveyer will grant, that this may as well be a Parliament, as the King, and what hath he then said for security of the King's life, by this argument? 2. What ever supream power, whether in one or moe persons, God hath appoynted over politick societies, he hath done it by the People; and so the People, who make and set up, under God, these supreame povvers, are above these supreame powers; If he will not take my word for this, let him read and consider how it is proved in Lex Rex, in many places, specially quaes;t. XIX. And if he will not rest satisfied there∣with, let him try his hand, And answere what is there

said, if he can. 3. Politicians will tell him that the King's supremacy of power, is only in respect of the administration, and execution of the lawes, according to the power com∣mitted unto him, by the People: let him read and consider well Althusius his politicks, as to this. 4. And so, though in respect of this executive administration, he be chief, and governeth all: yet in respect of the royal fountaine-povver of Government, the People are above him, because they give this out to him, and may, in cases of necessity, recal it, and give it to another; So that still they reserve a foun∣taine-power over him, to be exerced in cases of neces∣sity: and therefore, there is no contradiction here, because non ad idem: the father is above the sone, and yet subject to him, if he be a judge. The Emperour is above the prince palatine, and yet in some cases that Prince•• is his judge; as the Tutor hath the supreame executive power, and the pupil can not act without him; Yet in case of male administration, the pupil hath a power to call him to a account. But finally what if his adversaries should say, that the King is not that Supreame power in Scotland, but that a Parliament, as the Peoples Representatives are above him? He may see much said to prove this in Lex Rex, and in the Apologie. And how shall he be able to confute that? And if Parliaments have povver to depose Princes in Scotland (as hath been often practised) hovv hath he saved the King's Scepter and Per∣son? But he addeth, as a short ansvvere to cut all off that is said, [A chimaera of idle distinctions is whelped by the late Masters of confusion of co-ordinate and collateral Soveraignes in one Kingdome, the fountality of Royalty in the People (re∣sumable at their pleasure) is talked of, also Kings and People there being mutual Magistrates to punish one another,— and courts of necessity and tribunals of nature, where People are judges accusers and all, are bigly talked of; but these are only cloaks of fig leaves to cover horrid rebellion & disorder.] Ans. Every thing must goe for a new whelped Chimaera, which this blunt head cannot understand: Can he confute such of these distinctions as Lex Rex maketh use of? Why doth he it not then? How doth this master of disorder blow avvay

these figleaves, yea or discover them to be such? Is this the vvay he takes to salve his Master's life? By his calling such distinctions Chimaeraes and figleaves; he vvill not save a tyrannical Magistrate from deposition or vvorse, by that povver vvhich is cleared by these distinctions. 2. As for these courts of necessity, &c. Royalists must grant them, vvho grant povver in some cases to People to resist and depose Kings, viz. vvhen they turne habitual tyrants, sell the Commonvvealth and the like: and in such cases, vvhen the Prince doth such horrid things, vvhich himself Pag. 24. thinks can hardly befal a Prince in his natural and right vvits: Hovv shall these things be judged, if he allow no courts, but the ordinary courts of justice, and no court of necessity? Ay, but he sayes thereafter [That it is certaine Supreame power is indivisible and incommunicable to distinct subjects, in any one po∣litical Society.] Though the supreame executive power of ad∣ministration be so, either in one, called a Monarch, or in the plurality of best and chiefest, as in Aristocracy, &c. yet the fountaine power of government (which Lex Rex tells him is distinct from the power of governing Pag. 50.) abides intire in the People, by which they may call the Governours to ac∣count, depose them, and set up others to execute the lawes▪ 2. Grotius will tell him that the King may have one half of the Soveraigne power, and the Senate or Parliament the other, and if the King assume that part which is not his, he may be resisted, where is then the indivisibility or incommunica∣bility of this power, which he talketh of? Thinks he that there is no mixed Monarchy? And if part of the Soveraig∣nity belong to the Parliamet, as the Peoples Representati∣ves (as is certaine in our constitution) the King cannot be so Supreame as he would have him. Therefore he addeth. [But why should we doubt that where there is a King (one truely so) his Soveraignity is matchlesse on earth, when the Scripture calls him supreame. 1. Pet. 2: ver. 13. is there any equal to the Supream, in order of civil government, by whom he is judgeable or punishable? if any, he is not not Supreame not the government Royal.] Answ. This Chimaerical Man gives us a distinction of Kings, some truely so and some falsly so: And what, and who are these? It is

like the King of Poland and the Emperour of Germany are not Kings truely so, as he said, because forsooth they are not ab∣solute above all Law and coercion. But what if more lear∣ned politicians then ever he was, say, that such are most truely Kings? And what if his adversaries say and prove also, that the King of Britane is not such a King, as he ac∣counts truly so? His saying that the King of Britane is ab∣solute, will note prove that he is so, and will be found but a weak defence for his life, if he be not able to prove him above all judgement and punishment, which we have not yet seen, and dispaire to see, done. 2. These words 1. Pet. 2: ver. 13. may be as well rendered, The King as supere∣minent, and can import no more, but one who had a supreme or supereminent place in the administration of government, notwithstanding whereof he might be & was accountable to the Senat of Rome: for learned politicians and lawyers prove that the supreame power of government was in the Senate, even at this time, which clearly appeared in their judging and condemning Nero, and other impious and tyran∣nical Emperours. So that even hence we see that one may be supreame in order of civil government, and yet both judgeable and punishable. 3. His adversaries will not much care how he call that government, Royal or not; and whether he call the government of Britane Royal or not. Names in these matters and titles, which goe much by fashion or fancy, are but weak arguments; and he will never be able to stop the mouth of his adversaries, who would plead for calling King Charles to account and for judging him and punishing him, by saying he is a King, and the govern∣ment is a Royal government, they would account these but thinne wals, and uselesse cloaks of fig leaves to preserve and defend intolerable tyranny. Hath this man no better argu∣ments then thise wherewith to defend his Majestie's Royal life and person? Or hath the King no better advocate to defend his cause? But it may be this profound Statist will speak more nervously in the following observations. Therefore,

Let us hear what he sayes in the 2 place, [It is certane (sayes he) no man can be judged or punished but by his owne judge,

who is above him, and hath authority over him, by lawful commission from God; or from men authorized by God to give such commission, now who shall be judge to these invested with Soveraigne Majesty, seing Every soul under them is commanded to be subject to them▪ Rom. 13: ver. 1. and seing the Supreame Power of the sword is committed unto them, and not to others, but by deputa∣tion and in dependence upon them—in a true Monarchy there must be an exemption and impunity (as to subjects) of the per∣son invested with Soveraignity and Majesty: God's Law, Natures Light, and sound reason, are all for this, that such as are invested with Soveraigne Majesty, having the legislative power; the jurisdi∣ctional power, the coërcive and punitive power originally in himself, must enjoy exemption and impunity (as to subjects actings against them) the contrary tenet overthrowes the order of God And Nature, and precipitates humane societies in a gulf of endlesse confusions.] Answ. 1. Here is enough to satisfy his adversaries: For 1. They will tell him, that he hath not yet proved the govern∣ment of Britane a true Monarchy, in his sense; and so he but begs the thing in question here. 2. They will tell him, that the King hath not the sole legislative power, nor sole jurisdictional power, nor sole cöercive and punitive power; far lesse, all these solely and originally in himself: And it is but to such Soveraignes that he pleads for this exemption & impunity. Doth not his Advocat deserve a singular reward; who pleadeth his Master's cause so dexterously, by proving an uncertanty, by that which is more uncertane, & founding all upon his bare word? A noble champion forsooth, or rather a Monster, whose word must be a law, & an irrefragable reason too. Thus it seems, what ever power he give to the King there is the Dictators power that the thinks is solely in him∣self, and that originally: but for all this he hath one disad∣vantage, that he is of little authority and of as little credite, with sober rational persons. 2. He will grant that such Monarchies, as he accounts only true, are not every where, no not where there are persons called Kings and Em∣perours: How cometh it then that the order of God and nature is not overthrowne in these Dominions and Repub∣licks, and that their Societyes are not precipitated into a gulf

of endlesse confusions? Shall nothing preserve the order of God and nature, but that which is the most ready mean to destroy it, viz. an uncontrollable power in one Tyrant, to destroy all his Kingdome, Man, Wife and Childe. 3. Po∣liticians will tell him, that the Ephori, the Parliament are his judges; and that the People who by a lawful commission from God made him King and authorized him, are above him and have authority over him, in case he turne a Tyrant and pervert the ends of government. 4. Though it be requi∣site there be an ordinary standing judge to cognosce of contro∣versies which fall out betwixt one private person and another; yet it is not alwayes necessary there be one condescended on, to judge betvvixt the Soveraigne and the People, vvhen the controversy falleth out betvvixt them, more then that there should be a standing ordinary judge to decide contro∣versies falling out betvvixt tvvo distinct and independent Kingdomes. 5. What commission from Man authorized by God had the high Priest, and such as joyned vvith him, vvhen they deposed and killed Athaliah? if he say, she was an usurper True, yet she possessed the place six years peacably without molestation; and who was judge, whether she was an usurper or not? Had the matter been referred to her, she would have been as far from calling herselfe an usurper, as a Tyrant now will be from judging himself a Tyrant: And so as in this case, the Tyrant sine titulo had a judge above her, though she was invested with Soveraigne Majesty, so in the other case, The Tyrant exercitio, though invested with Sove∣raigne Majesty, hath a judge above him. 6. The place Rom. 13. is to be understood (as was shewed above) of inferiour Magistrates as well as of the supreame: And it sayes of all in authority, that such as are under them should be subject unto them, In so far as they are subjects unto them: so in poynt of administration of justice according to equity, all are sub∣ject to the supreame or supereminent governour; but when he becometh a Tyrant, he becometh subject unto them, who gave him that power, and set him up, under God. 7. He insinuats that inferiour Magistrates are not essential Magistrates, but deputation from and in dependence upon

the King. But Lex Rex, Quest. 20. hath by many cleare and unanswereable arguments evinced the contrary.

In the third place he citeth some sentences of Tertullian, calling the Emperours second unto God, and above all men, and only subject unto God: Of Optatus saying, that none are above them but God. And of Ierom speaking of Psal. 51. against thee thee only have I sinned, saying that David spoke so because he feared none; And of Ambrose, on the same words saying, that he was King, and under no Law—and therefore he did not sin against man.] But all this is no purpose: For 1. himself will grant that all Kings are not thus exempted, and his adversa∣ries will prove the King of Britane one of these limited, and restricked Kings, that are obnoxious to examination, and punishment; and these sayings cannot prove that all Kings are so, yea or ought to be so. 2. Tertullian, to vindicate the Christians who would not acknowledge the Emperour to be God, and to shew how notwitstanding they respected him according to his place, would give him as high titles as he could, though not out of flattery, and so make him the highest person in the Empire, and above the heathen Gods; yet he did not set him above all the People in their Represen∣tative the Senate, or if the did, the Senate proved him to be in a mistake, by taking course with several of these leud and wicked Tyrants. 3. David's single act of adultery and murther were no such acts of Tyranny, as are censurable with deposition, and so it speaketh not to the case. 4. It might be that de facto he did not fear another, as Ierome sayes. But that will not say, that David might have destroyed the inhe∣ritance of the Lord without controlle, or that other Princes are, or should be, exempted from restraint and punish∣ment, if they turne ingrained and habituated Tyrants. 5. Himself will not stand to what Ambrose sayes, for he addeth immediatly, [There is no doubt but David was sensible both of the horrid injury he had done to Uriah (the occasion of that Psalm) and of the scandal he had given to God's People, in which sense, he might be well said to sin against both.] 6. The words of the text vvill not beare that vveight. viz. That he had no other judge but God, or that (as Deodate sayeth)

he was exempted from all punishment of men, & was obnox∣ious to no humane tribunals; but as other commentators say, the words are to be taken in a comparative sense, that this was the greatest aggravation of his guilt, that it was such a hai∣nous trasgression, in his sight who was privy to it, how∣ever he did conceale it from all others, so far as he could: see the Dutch Annot. on the palce: and therefore to expresse his spiritual sense of the sin commited against God (against whom properly sin as sin is commited) he useth this rhe∣torical ingemination: And if the words should have im∣ported what the Surveyer would have them to import, they had not been apposite to expresse his spiritual grief & sense of the hainousnesse of the crime commited. Then he tels us what excellent Mr Calvin sayeth Instit. Lib. 4. cap. 20. § 27. and 31. and then sayes [It is a wonder how many who pretend respect to Cal∣vin should dar to violate the sacrosanct Majesty of Kings, if they will but read over that chapter.] But is it not a wonder, how this man who seemeth to have read over that chapter and particu∣larly §. 31, should passe by what worthy Calvin sayeth in the end of that section, or should have so little respect unto that worthy man (whom he himself accounts to be worthy of respect, and but deservedly) as to plead for an incontrol∣lable power in Kings, When yet famous Calvin tels us there that if the Ephori or States of Parliament, connive at the King's tyranny, and suffer him to oppresse and insult over the poor People, they are wickedly perfidious, and palpably betray∣ing their trust.

Then in the 4 place he tels us [That it is not denyed, that the King is bound before God to rule his People according to the Law of God; and that it is grosse to say, Regi quicquid libet licet.] This is good, but what then? What if he deviate? [We maintai•••• (sayes he) that as sure truth That impunity (as from subjects) necessarily attends Soveraignity by the Law of God, reason, and na∣ture: For no man can be judged or punished but by a judge above him; and the Supreame hath none such, &c. Answ. But Mr Prelate, your adversaries will maintaine the contrare, as a sure truth: We looked for a fourth proof and not for the thing in question, or a repetition of what is said: The same thing

repeated six times will not make six arguments; Mr Bishope give a new proof, if you can, of this firme truth which you maintaine? We maintaine, by the Law of God, Nature, and Reason, No man hath an uncontrollable power to de∣stroy millions, to cut off the heretage of the Lord, to de∣stroy his Interest: And we have shewed our grounds for this. 2. How was Athaltah judged? And what a judge was Iehu? 3. It hath been told him, that the supreame governour hath a supreame power above him: The power of the People that made him Supreame governour, is above him, and can depose him, and put another in his place. He may be a Supreame governour & dispensator, and yet their servant, accountable unto them, and censurable by them, when he deviates and turnes a Tyrant, and a Wolfe, and a Tyger. When one King wrongeth another, that other will both judge and punish him, if he be able, and yet is not pro∣perly a judge above him. Much more may the Represen∣tative of the People; who set him up and impowered him, both judge him and punish him.

But the good man thereafter would advise Kings not to abuse this inviolablenesse, but so much the more to fear sad∣der punishments from God; and for this cause would have them reading the 6 chapter of Apocryphal Book of Wisdome. But was there no texts in all the divine Word of God, that he would put into the King's hand to read, that he must send him to the Apocrypha? It is true Kings would do well to remember that they have a God above them, who will not be mocked, but will bring them to an account of their do∣ings, though they should escape Mens hands: and to the end they may be put in remembrance of this, they stand in need of other monitors, then the Men who have forgote it, and send them to Apocrypha to finde it: And this should keep them within the boundaries of God's Law. But as the fear of punishment from Man, will restraine some from stealing, whom the fear of God would little overawe; So it may be the feare of punishment from Men, would have no small influence to make some Kings walk by a rule. And Sub••rdi∣••a••a non pugnant▪ He would do well to minde them of both,

and it is like he would finde that more effectual to suppresse Tyranny, then to tell them, that their sacred persones are inviolable as to Men, but yet they would do well to read the 6 chapter of Wisdome.

He cometh Pag. 77. to speak particularly to what Naphtaly said, and alledgeth that [It is most falsly and wickedly said, that God's providence or God's Word approves the murdering or de∣posing of Princes by Subjects, who are not his judges: And what his word approves not, his providence doth not approve: To say that God animates his People to such actions, is blasphemy, albeit he extraordinarly may stir up the spirits of some to actions not accord∣ing to the ordinary rule (as in the times of the judges) but they were sure of their warrand from him, the like whereof none have ground to waite for now▪] Answer. Certainely God's Word declar∣eth that the persons of Kings (how sacred soever he account them) are not inviolable, when it threateneth destruction unto them, whether by their owne Subjects or by strangers; and when these same judgements are executed, his provi∣dence declares that they are not uncontrollable or inviolable. 2. His adversaryes vvill tell him, that the deposeing of Tyrants, or the executing of justice on them, is no sinful Murther nor sinful deposeing of Princes. 3. If he had once proved that such actions as these, vvere horrid and sinful, then he might say that it vvere blasphemy to say, that God animates People unto them. 4. How did God animate Ieh••∣jada and these vvith him, to depose and kill Athaliah? To say she vvas an usurpers, vvill not help the cause: for he vvill not have usurpers killed by the Subjects novv, seing vve have no ground to expect such an expresse vvarrand to rise against them, as the judges had; and yet certanely these against vvhom the judges vvere animated, vvere Tyrants vvithout title. And thus we see this Surveyer out stripeth all the Roy∣alists, that ever wrote before him, and not only will have the persons of lawful princes, though flagitious and tyran∣nous, sacred and inviolable; but also the persones of the most manifest usurpers; for he sayes, that it was not according to any ordinary rule, that God stirred up the spirits of some, to make head against these Tyrants that oppressed the people of

God, in the dayes of the judges, but extraordinare, which motions we have no ground to waite for now. And so this advocate cometh at last, to plead as much for the exemption of Cromwel, as of the King: And if this be a faithful advo∣cat let all the world judge, and let the author of the pamphlet intituled Killing no Murther rebuke him, for his impertinency and ignorance.

He tels us thereafter how [The Apologist labours to pro∣duce many instances of the Parliaments of Scotland punishing Princes for their enormities, all which he setteth forth as laudable and imitable presidents and examples.] Answ. The author of that Apolo∣getical relation driveth at no such designe there, but only cleareth thereby, that the Kings of Scotland have not a supremacy above Parliaments; but that rather Parliaments are above them; for they have punished them. He addeth [The most that all of them amount to is nothing, but the insurrection of Nobles (Proceres as Buchanan calleth them) against the Kings, and violent oppressions of such of them, as have been flagitious and tyrannous-but neither Buchanan, Nor this Apolog▪ can produce any one instance of our lawful Parliaments or Peoples, taking on them in a judicial way, in cold blood, aud under formes of processe, to punish or destroy their Kings.] Answ. What if his adversaries shall be con∣tented with a shorter processe, & shall supercede many formes of legality, which use to be followed with other notorious Malefactors? Is not this a brave Goliah that cometh out to defend the King's sacred person, when all which he at length can do, is to defend him, from being adjudged in a formal mode, to losse his head and his Crowne; that he shall not be called publickly (as other Malefactors are) to the judges barr, and there be impannelled as a Tyrant and Traitor to God and the Countrey? If this man deserve his wages, let wise Men judge; seing all know that there is greater difficulty in taking away Tyrants, then in taking away other Malefactors: And that hardly can such a legal way with all its formalities be followed with them, which is followed with others: And that sometimes, some Male∣factors, though they were never Princes, must be senten∣ced in a more brief manner and privately also, and yet it is all

one upon the matter, if the man be guilty and really con∣demned by his judges. And so it is all one, if a Tyrant be adjudged worthy of death or deposition, by a Parliament the Representatives of the People, and accordingly cut off from government, or out of the land of the living, whether it be done by a publick Messenger, with sound of Trumpet, and by the hand of a publick lictor and executioner, on a publick scaffold; or by force of armes, vvhen the former meanes cannot be saifly used, nor so securely. And it vvas not the insurrection of nobles as such, but as proceres and pri∣mores Regni that were instanced, and of lawful Parliaments (such as were used in these dayes) sentenceing and condem∣ning Kings for tyranny, and other misdemeanours. Let him read the History of these times written by Buchannan and Grafton, and he will finde it so; particularly, let him see and consider how Ferlegus was adjudged worthy of death, but for Fergusius his Father's sake, was only imprisoned; and thereafter with the unanimous consent of all, being suspected guilty of the death of Feritharis, put from the Crowne: see why Therëus, when he had filled the land with robberies, fled to the Britones? Was it not because the Governours had a minde to punish him? Was not Even the 3. put in pri∣son? Was not Dardan, for his wickednesse and blood, pur∣sued by nobles and People, his head cut off, his corps throwne into a jacks? Luctatus at length was apprehen∣ped and executed. His sone Conarus in face of Parli∣ment accused, apprehended, and shut up into a hall, with some few attendants, his ill counsellers executed and a Viceroy chosen till the People should meet to make a new King? Were not the Prim••res Regni about to have deposed Constantine the first, for his vices, had not Douglasse disswaded them, because of their warres with the Britons and Saxons? Was not Ferquard the 52 King summoned to compear before the Parliament, and because he refused was he not brought to judgment against his will, and accused of many crimes, and not being able to purge himself was he not cast into pri∣son? This looks like an act and execution of justice done in cold blood under forme of processe, So did the Primores

Regni intend to have punished Ferquard the second, had not Bishop Colman disswaded them. Was not Eugenius the VIII. for his filthy lusts and vices, covetousnesse and cruelty, slaine by the general consent of his Lords assembled? By whom, and for what was Donald the 70. King cast into prison? Who forced Ethus brother to Constantine the II. (and for what) to renunce the Kingdome, and shut him up in prison? Was not Culenus summoned to compeare before a Parliament at Scone?

Now the Surveyer is in his strength, and disdaining to meddle with the libeller (as he calleth him) he will goe and reflect upon the magazine, (as he speaketh) to Lex Rex, who Quaest. 26. proveth by unanswerable arguments, that the King is not above the Law; but this Surveyer for all his big words dar not meddle with that debate; but quarrelleth with a word Pag. 241. where that worthy Author is answer∣ing the objection of that Apostate Prelate Maxwel the Au∣thor of Sacrosancta Regum Majestas, stollen from Arnisaeus; which was this, [Why might not the People of Israël, Peers or Sanhedrin, have conveened before them, judged or punished Da∣vid, for his Adultery and Murther.] Unto which he answered thus, [He taketh it for confessed, that it had been treason in the Sanhedrin and States of Israël to have taken on them to judge and punish David, for his Adultery and Murther; but he giveth no reason for this, nor any Word of God; and truely though I will not presume to goe before others in this, God's Law, Gen. 9: ver. 6. compared with, Numb. 35: ver. 30, 31. seemeth to say against them. Nor can I think that God's Law, or his Deputy the judges are to accept the persons of the great, because they are great, Deut. 1: ver. 17. 2 Chron, 19: ver. 6, 7. aud we say we can∣not distinguish, where the Law distinguisheth not. The Lord speaketh to under judges, Levit. 19: ver. 15. Thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honour the person of the mighty, or of the Prince, for we know what these names 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 meaneth. I grant it is not God's meaning, that the King should draw the sword against himself; but yet, it followeth not, that if we speak of the demerite of blood, that the Law of God accepteth any judge, great or small. And if the Estates be above the King▪ as I

conceive they are, though it be a humane politick constitution that the King be free of all coaction of Law, because it conduceth for the peace of the commonwealth; yet if we make it a matter of conscience, for my part, I see no exception, that God maketh; if men make, I crave leave to say à facto adjus non sequitur.] Thus that worthy Author; and could he have uttered his judgment more spareingly and soberly, in a matter that was not of great Moment to the question in hand, so that though he had for∣borne to have spoken any thing to this at all, his cause had not been, in the least, weakened; and though we should grant that the Sanhedrin could not have judged David for these facts (which yet we can cannot do) what losse shall we have? Seing we may easily grant and Lex Rex with us Pag. 243. that Tyranny only must unking a Prince; and these acts were not acts of Tyranny, and what shall this vaine Surveyer gaine then? Why would he not examine other things which that worthy Author sayd, more apposite to the cause? Will not wise men laugh at this dealing, and account him a fool in the first magnitude, in handleing such a cause, which so nearly concerneth his Majesties life, after such a manner, that a very school-boy may smile at? Then he addeth, [So Pag. 348, and 428, and 238. and often elsewhere, he (that is Lex Rex) will have the Estates executing the moral Law (as he calls it) on the King, and punishing him, and why? because he sayes most thrasonically, Pag. 460. I have unanswerably proved that the Kingdome is superior to the King, and the People may be their owne judge in the tribunal of necessity.] Answ. Lex Rex in two at least of these pages cited, speaketh no such thing, and if this Surveyer were not more windy and vaine then ever Thraso was, he would not speak so of that Author, till first he had discovered the answereablenesse of these arguments, which neither he nor any of his complices shall ever be able to do. But this, Epicompothrasibombomachides will force a beliefe upon the world, that with this very adverb thrasonical, diffavit omnes in Castris Gurgustodianis, and cry to his enchanted fraternity to sing Jo pan at his invention. But what sayes he to all this? [1 (sayes he) what should he meane to make it con∣duceable to the peace of the comm••nwealth, that the King be free of the

coaction of Law; and yet not so, if it be made a matter of conscience; is the preservation of the peace of the commonwealth, no matter of conscience to him? Or is not the constitution freeing the King from coaction of Law (for that end) warrantable?] Ans. Doth not this ignoramus know that a question of this nature may be considered and an∣swered politically and theologically: And that many things may be tolerated or forborne in poynt of policy, upon poli∣tick grounds and ends, which, if considered stricto Iure, according to conscience, should not be forborne, nor to∣lerated. David in point of policy, did forbear to execute the Law upon the Murtherer Joab, whom yet in poynt of con∣science, he accounted a man of death, and therefore recom∣mended the execution of the Law of God, unto his Son Solomon: and this toleration or forbearance may be lawfull or unlawful, according to the weight of the matter tolerated, or forborne, and the nature and weight of the grounds in policy, upon which this forbearance is determined. So that though we should suppone it lawful for a Commonwealth to enact and determine in Law, that their King should not be questioned for one single act of Murther or Adultery, as other persones are: Yet in poynt of conscience, if the question be stated in thesi, whether a King may be questioned for one single act of Murther and Adultery, as another private person, it may be answered affirmatively, because the Law of God, makes no exception of persones. 2. It may be made a matter of conscience, to make the King free of the coaction of Law, in some small and inconsiderable particulars, because of the probable hazard into which the Commonwealth may be brought by coërcing of him, which all the value of the par∣ticular anent which the coaction is exerced, will not coun∣tervaile. But it will never be allowed, in poynt of conscience, to make him free of all coaction of Law, so as he may with∣out control, murther millions, destroy and waste Religion: For that were not conduceable to the peace of the Common∣wealth, but a ready way to destroy all: So that a constitution freeing the King from all coaction of Law, how ever pre∣tended for the preservation of the peace of the Common∣wealth, can never be warrandable. For that were to make

him actu primo, and in actu signato a Tyger, a Lyon, & a waster of the Commonvvealth; & if his good Nature should incline him to good & peaceable things; yet no thanks to the constitution. Whereas he would make his reader beleeve that the Kings of the jewes were under no coërtion let, him consider what Zuing∣lius sayeth explan. art. 42. Tom. 1. oper. where he expresly sayeth. [That the Kings of the jewes and others, when they dealt perfidiously, con∣trare to the law of God, might be lawfully deposed by the people.] Yea he tells us, that whiles wicked princes and Kings were not removed, all the people were punished of God, which he proveth by Ier. 15: 1. to ver. 6. and a little thereafter, tels us that [if the children of Israel had thus deposed Manasseh, they had not been so grievously punished with him.] Yea Schikcardus in his jus regium hebraorum. Cap. 2. Theor. 7. tells us Pag. 56. 57. out of the Rabbines, that the Kings of the jewes might have been called to an account, & punished for transgressing of the law, by the Sanhedrin, espe∣cially if they took moe wives, and moe horses then vvere allowed, and heaped up riches; for these causes, he proveth Pag. 60. out of Hal. melach. c. 3. §. 4. Halach. Sanhedr. cap. 19. Talmud cap. Kohen gadol. Siphri pars: schoph. That they were to be scourged. And histories show us, How this San∣hedrin, even in their weak and declineing times, were loth to quite with this power, and therefore did question Herod, who was set over Galilee by the Romans, for some murther com∣mitted by him, see the history set forth by Iosephus Antiq. lib. 14. c. 17. And if any should object that Casaubon ad. annal Eccles. exerc. 13. n. 5. hath proved the contrary out of the Talmud. The forecited learned Shikchardus. Pag. 63. 64. sheweth out of the very places cited by Casaubon, how he was mistaken, and how the Kings of David's line both did judge, and were judged.

2. (Sayes he) It is good that this Metaphisical Statist was no Chief Priest or member of the Sanhedrin in Davids time; for he would have afforded a corrupt exposition of the Law to cut off the King. What sots were the Priests & Prophets at that time that did not instigate the Sanhedrin? This man could have told them that they were above him, and they were bound to execute the Law upon him.] Answ. It was good that this superlatively irrational parasite.,

and infraphysical fooll was not breathing in these dayes; for he would have told Kings, you may Kill, murther, massa∣cre, destroy all the land, Man, Wife and Childe, without the least fear of resistance; and have told the People, the Sanhedrin, and all the Elders of Israel, though your Kings turn butchers and destroyers of the People of God, worse then ever Nimrod or any that ever breathed since his dayes, you have no more to do, but hold up your throats, or flee to the uncircumcised out of the inheritance of the Lord. But what sayes all this to the thing? Doth this pove that David or any King was excepted in the Law of God? Where, In what chapter, or what verse shall we finde this? Good Master prelate tell us, or where we shall finde it in your book of wisdome? 2. We finde not that any of the Priests or Pro∣phets reproved David for spareing Ioab that murtherer, who shed the blood of war in peace, 2 King. 2: ver. 5. was it therefore right in David to have spared him? Sure they might well have told David, that though Ioab was a great man, yet he was above him, to punish him as well as another Man, for his sin; and in poynt of conscience, and by God's Law he was bound to do it. These sinful acts of Ioab were more notoure then what David had done in secret: And because we finde not that he vvas reproved upon this account, shall vve therefore use this Man's dialect; and say, What's sots or coldrife senselesse Men were the Priests and the Prophets of that time, who did not instigate David to execute the Moral Law on Ioab, that wrath might be turned away from the Land?

3. He tels us, that the author of Lex Rex [Vtterly mistakes the meaning of the Word of God, Gen. 9: 6. (as for the other texts they clearly concerne Magistrats only toward such over whom they have power, but does neither instigate the inferiour Magistrates against the Supe∣riour, nor the People against any of them) where it is said, he that sheds mans blood, by man shall his blood be shed.] Ans. 1. The author of Lex Rex doth not say that these places do instigate the inferiour Magistrats against the superiour, nor the people against both; but that they poynt forth the Magistrate's duty to judge righteous judgment, and to accept no Mans person, be he a Prince, or be he a poor Man. And if they

concerne Magistrates toward such over whom they have power, The author of Lex Rex seeketh no more; for he had proved, (and this vaine windy man hath not the head, though he want not a heart and good will to it, to ansvvere his arguments) that the Estates and Representative of the People, have power over the Prince. 2. It is a hard cen∣sure to say that he hath utterly mistaken the meaning of Gen. 9: ver. 6. Let us hear how? [Concluding hence, (sayes he) that there is here a precept that the blood of every man (though he be in the supreame power) should be shed by his inferiours, if he shed blood in∣nocently and without cause.] Answ. But this is not the conclu∣sion that Lex Rex draweth from the place, He only sayeth. That in this place there is no exception made of the Prince, though he be the Supreme power: And can this Man for all his skill demonstrate the exception? Lex Rex said not that his blood should be shed by his inferiours, but by the Estates of the land, who are his superiours, what way then hath he mistaken the meaning of this word? What furder [Supposeing (says he) this word not only to be predictional—but also diatactick and perceptive, there must be meet limitations of the sentence, both in the subject and attribute] Grants all, what limitations will he have in the subject, that sheds mans blood? [It is to be under∣stood (says he) only of such as have no authority, and do it out of private revenge; for we must not owne the fancies of Photinians and Anabaptists that condemne lawful warres, and capital punish∣ments.] Answ. This is good and granted, for we say that even the King, when murthering unjustly, acteth as a private person, and is prompted by his revenge: did he suppose that Lex Rex was a Photinian or Anabaptist? If not, why did he trouble himself with this? But what sayes he to that which he cals the attribute? [Certanely (sayes he) taking the word as a precept, It is not meant that it is the duty of every man or any man indifferently, to shed the blood of the person who sheds innocent blood; but of the Magistrate who is judge above him. All interpreters are agreed, that here is (if not the institution yet) the approbation of the office of the civil magistrate.] Answ. Did the author of Lex Rex say that it was the duty of any man indifferently, to punish ca∣pitally shedders of innocent blood? said he any thing against

agreement of interpreters concerning the institution or ap∣probation of the office of the civil Magistrates? Sure when he said, and elswhere proved, that the Estates of the Realme were above the King, he fully agreed with these au∣thors, touching the meaning of that place; so that that Surveyer might have spared his paines in reciteing their words, for he sayes nothing against what either Pareus, Pet. Martyr, Musculus, Bezelius, Diodate, or the Chaldee Paraphrase say. Let us hear how he applyeth this to the purpose? [But (sayes he) if the persons invested with Supreme power of the sword, abuseing their power become guilty of shedding innocent hlood, who (in that society where of they are heads) shall judge or punish them? who is su∣periour over the supreme to punish him?—It is inexplicable how any in whom the Soveraigne Majesty, & Magistratical power resides, should, according to order, be punished by subjects.] Answ. This is the knot of all, but it is nothing else than what we have heard againe and againe, and hath been spoken to already. But yet, because it is to him inexplicable, and a Gordian Knot, let us see if we can loose it without Alexander's sword. He will grant (or if he will not, but retract what he hath els∣where granted, speaking of a legal resistence, all the lawyers in Scotland will grant it) that if any in the King's name shall seek to dispossesse a Man of his inheritance, the man may defend his right by law, and the King by his advocate must pleade his cause before the ordinary judges; and these ordi∣nary judges, must judge righteous judgment according to law, and give out a decreet in favours of the subject against the King, and so condemne the King of injury and oppres∣sion intended against the subject: Now who but the ordinary judges, in civil Matters, are judge here to the Supreme? & yet these judges, in another respect, are but subjects: doth he not now see how such as are meer subjects in one respect, may judge and punish him who is invested with Soveraigne Majesty and Magistratical power, and so in another respect are above him. And what if I say, that as, in civil Matters, the ordinary judges may judge the King, so the justice general or his deputy constitute ordinare judges in criminals or ca∣pitals, may iudge him when he committeth a capital crime?

let him or any Man else shew me a reason, why the one should be, and the other may not be, in poynt of con∣science. But if we speak of a Parliament the Represen∣tatives of the People, the case is so cleare that there is no difficulty; for that is a judge alwayes above him, and so even according to his limitations, if the King shed in∣nocent blood, by them may his blood be shed.

Then Pag. 81. he sayes [When the Apostle Rom. 13. sayes let every soul be subject to Superiour powers, that (every soul) doth not comprehend the supreme power it self (for how can the Man invested with it, be subject to a superiour power?) but it is meant that every soul under the superiour power or supreme, should be subject to it.] Answ. Yet againe the same thing which we heard before. Is he not able to understand this, how one who is supreme, in one respect, may be inferiour, in another respect? The father hath a Supreme paternal power over the Son, yet the sone, being a judge or Prince, may be over him, as David was over Iesse, and Saul over Kish. But (sayes he) Let men (as they will) indulge themselves in their seditious Notions, they must at last sist in some supreame power on Earth which is not judge able or punishable by any.] Answ. Be it so, what hath he gained for the King his Master? Must either he be the supreme power on earth which is not judge∣able or punishable by any, or must there be none? His ad∣versaries will soon deny the consequence: And he, let him indulge himself in his Tyrannical Notions, as much as he will, shall never be able to confirme it. How then shall he defend the sacred person and life of the King? What sayeth he further? [If soveraigne Majesty be placed in Parliament or People (who may be guilty of shedding innocent blood, as well as the King) who shall shed their blood when they transgresse? Shall this be reserved to the sounder and smaller part of the People (as this Man speaks Pag. 240.] then there is ground enough laid for Eternal confu∣sion] Answ. The Surveyer either subtilly or ignorantly confounds things here, which should be considered distinct∣ly, and leadeth his unwarry reader off the way: Where∣fore we would have the Reader (though all this is nothing to the purpose in hand to prove the King uncontrollable, or un∣punishable

and unjudgeable for any of his acts) take notice of these few things which will help to cleare the mat∣ter. 1. That there is a not-judgeablenesse (to speakso) and not-punisheablenesse de facto, which may be said of some notorious rebels and out-Lawes, whom neither Law nor power of authority can cöerce, and there is a non-punish∣ablenesse and non-judgeablenesse de ••ure, when one is exeem∣ed from Law-judgment and Law-sentence, so that he is above all tryal and sentence of Magistrates: Cases may fall out wherein such as are punishable & judgeable de Iure, according to an ordinary way laid downe or allowed by God, may notwithstanding be unpunishable and not-judgeable de facto, either through corruption prevailing over all, or prevalency of power in the punishable person or persons: And this, though in an ordinary way irremediable, yet speaks not against the Ordinance and appoyntment of God and Nature. 2. That there is a difference betwixt personal faults of Governours, or such as are invested with authority and power, as was that act of Murther and Adultery in David; and publick miscarriages in poynt of governm. & in exerceing the power wherewith they are invested: of personal faults, speaketh Lex Rex in the place now under consideration; and upon this, have we vindicated that worthy Author, from vvhat this perverter of all things hath said. But here he mixeth these, and confoundeth them, that according to his vvay, he may pervert the truth. 3. There is a difference betvvixt simple acts of male-administration in lesser matters; and betvvixt such acts of male-administration, as pervert the ends of government. 4. There is a difference betwixt palpable, cleare, and undenyable miscarriages; and betvvixt such as are not so cleare nor unquestionable. 5. There is a diffe∣rence to be made betvvixt ordinary standing cases; and an extraordinary emergent: in an extraordinary case, vvhile the disease is desperate, a desperat-like and extraordinary remedy may be used without overturning the ordinary way, which is to be used in ordinary cases, These things will help us to nnravel his confused discourse. And so we Answere. 1. If Parliament-members or privat persons among the

People shed innocent blood it is no difficulty to know who should judge them. 2. If a Parliament as the Peoples Re∣presentatives Murder the innocent, I see not why they may not be called to an account by a posterior Parliament, as when a beanch of judges in civil matters, conspire together to op∣presse, by their unlavvful and unjust decreets, palpably such and not our to all; vvhen they are deposed and others put in their places, the oppressed may get his cause righted, and reparation of dammage of them: Or vvhen a justice generall manifestly & palpably murdereth the innocent, he may be made to ansvvere before another put in his place: if this may be done (as I judge in poynt of conscience it may) so may the other be done with Parliaments. 3. If Parliaments conspire to overturne Religion, Lavves, Liberties, and thus destroy the Republick, I judge vvith L. R. Pag. 240. that the sounder part, if they be able, may resist and hinder, so far as they can, that destru∣ction and ruine of the Republick. Neither ever shall he prove that this is a ground for Eternal confusion: O sayes he, [Any lesser part, when they have or think they have will and s••rengh enough to through their businesse, will undoubtedly call themselves the sounder part, and labour to beare downe the corrupt plurality.] Answ. This remedy to prevent destruction and ruine to the Common∣wealth, may be of the Lord, though it should be abused by sinful men; for the best thing may be abused: And it is not the meane allowed by God and Nature which layeth a ground for eternal confusion; but the abuse of the meane maintained, whereof we are not guilty. But we have had abundance of such rotten consequences from him, who knoweth better what it is to deceive the simple with sophistications, then to satisfy the judicious with solid reasons. Then he addeth,

[But the Christian Reader may easily see how hard this Author is put to it; and for all his saying that according to God's Law, Kings must be punished as well as others, yet is he forced to acknowledg a Supremacy of power in some, not punishable by any but by God.

] Ans: This is but what we heard just now, and whether true or false, it helpeth him nothing: Have that Supremacy of power, which is not punishable by any but by God, who will, if the King

have it not, the King's life is not secured: And if he say, if any have it the King must have it. True, if this rotten malig∣nant and parasitical ignoramus can make no bad inferences; but he hath already so often discovered vanity in this way of argueing, that we cannot account him infallible: And therefore let him prove his consequence; for we know him better then to take any thing from him upon trust. Well, what way doth he clear this, of Lex Rex?

[For (sayes he) Pag. 389. when he hath given all power to the Parliament over the King, he objecteth to himself; who shall punish and coërce the Parliament, in case of exorbitance: He answeres, posterior Parliaments, and Pag. 211. he sayeth, by the people and con∣science of the people are they to be judged, let all our Nobles and Parliaments hearken to this.

] Answ. In the first place cited, Lex Rex is not speaking of Parliaments power over the King (as this squint-eyed Surveyer thinketh,) but is handling that question whether or not Monarcy is the best of governments? And is shevving in vvhat respects it is best, and in vvhat respects it is vvorste; and shevveth hovv a mixt Monarchy is best; and then ansvvereth some objections: And to that vvhich some might object, That Parliaments might exceed their bounds, and who should coërce them? He ansvvered, That posteriour Par∣liaments might do it; and so there vvas a salvo in that mixture of governmemt 2. In the other place he is shevving vvhat relation the King hath to the Lavv, and that he is not the sole Lavv maker, nor sole supreme judge: And ansvvereth that objection, That the three Estates as men and looking to their owne ends, not to Law and the publick good, are not fundamentalls, & are to be judged by the King. viz. That they are to be judged by the people and the conscience of the people. Why calleth ••e the Nobles and Parliaments to hearken to this? What abs••••dity inn reason is here?

[Who ever head of this (sayes he) that one Parliament posteriour should punish the prior? Their acts they may retract indeed, but to punish them for their acts, is most absurd, because the prior Parliament in the capacity of that judicatory, had as much povver as the posterior. States men vvill vvonder at this doctrine, that Members of a Parliament should be punished for their free votes, by a succeeding Parliament, and far more at the

subjecting them to the conscience of the People.

] Answ. 1. It is no small punishment and cöercion to a Parliament, to have all their designes, consultations, and conclusions overturned, which may be done by posteriour Parliaments 2. If Parliaments, by their free votes, sell Religion, and the Liberties of the land unto the Turk, and so destroy the same, and betray their Trust, I see not vvhy they ought not be punished for their paines. If they should enact and put to execution the act, vvhen made; That all vvho vvill not bovv and burn incense to an idol should be brunt quick, I see not, vvhy they may not by a posteriour Parliament be que∣stioned and punished for that innocent blood vvhich they have shed. 3. His reason to the contrary, is not good; for they never had povver or commission for overturning the ends of government, and destroying the Commonvvealth: if the Magistrates of a Brugh betray their trust, dilapidate the rents and revenues of the city, sell and dispone the rights and privi∣leges thereof, may not the succeeding Magistrates call them to an account for that, notvvithstanding that in the capacity of that judicatory, they had as much povver (if any) as the posteriour 4. Wonder at it vvho vvil, that vvhich is right is right: and it is consonant to equity, that the con∣sciences of the People be so far judges of vvhat is done by their Representatives, as not to suffer them, in their name, and by any povver borrovved from them, to destory the Commonwealth and to overturne the fundations of Religion and Liberty, &c. [

But then (sayes he) another objection he makes posteriour Parliaments and People both may erre. He ansvveres, All that is true: God only must remede that.

] What can he make of this? [

Well then (sayes he) if Par∣liaments or People destroy or murther persons innocently, God only must remeed that; there is no povver on Earth to call them to an account: Who sees not that at length the author is driven to acknowledge a power, which if it de∣viate cannot be judged by any on earth.

] Answ. Lex Rex is not there speaking of particular acts of injustice Or ini∣quity; but of the whole ends of government: And so if Parliaments and People concurre and joyne together to over∣turne all, the world sees that there is no remedy on Earth:

Neither needed he to say that he was driven to this, seing it was so obvious to all who have eyes in their head. Though God hath appoynted meanes & ordinary rules to help abuses that are ordinary; yet when corruption is universal the ordinary meanes cannot availe, God himself must helpe that: & who knoweth not that extraordinary supposeable cases cannot infringe, or invalidate the ordinary rules for ordinary cases. Now all this is but vaine idle worke, and of no advantage to his cause; for he shall never hence prove though he should argue till his eyestrings break, that this Soveraigne uncon∣trolable power, which is not censureable nor punishable, is only in the King: And if he do not this, how stops he the Mouth of his adversaries? Hovv salves he his Majestie's life, or the King from all hazard of censure? But then he adds to as little purpose, That [It may be seen that his principles lead him to owne a meer democracy (which is the worst of governments) as the only lawful government: he placeth and fixeth the unpunishable soveraignity there.] Answ. This is a grosse mistake: For this Man understands not what a democracy is. He takes de∣mocracy to be where all governe: But that is no govern∣ment, where there is none to be governed, but all are go∣vernours. Democracy is where some are chosen out of all the People by turnes, without respect had to birth, meanes or other privileges, to governe the rest. And Lex Rex will not say that these governours have an uncontrollable sove∣veraignity, but may be opposed & resisted, by the body of the People who choose them, as well as the King in a Mo∣narchy, or the Primores Regni in an Aristocracy; because under all speces of governments, the fountaine power and Majesty abides in the People, and is resumeable, in cases of necessity.

Thus we have seen how poorly and weakly this vaine man hath maintained the King's life and sacred person, and how by his foolish sophistications, and his weake and impertinent answers and assertions, he hath put the King's life in greater hazard then it was; for these poor people never had a thought of wronging his Majestie's person, or of spoyling him of his life, but now vvhen he hath started the question without any

provocation or just ground and occasion given; and can say no more then he here hath sayd for that cause, hath he not invited people to think of what they might do? And I am sure if they have no other restraint to binde up their hands, all which he hath said, will be but like the new ropes to Sampson. That which followeth in his third Chapter touching the Covenants betwixt King and People, is impertinent to his present purpose: For Naphtaly maketh use of these to prove the lawfulnesse of resistence, as may be seen Pag. 19, and 30. and for that end, we have vindicated them in our for∣mer discourse from all his corrupt glosses and evasions. And wise Men will think him so far from deserving a reward, for what he hath done, that they will think he rather deserveth to be whipped, for his mismanageing this question of so great consequence, which he undertook to defend; and particu∣larly for bringing the arguments, which are adduced to evince the lawfulnesse of resistence, as if they did with equal force strick against his Majestie's life and person; whereas many will be cleare for resisting, that will not be so cleare for punishing or executing the Prince: and since by his folly, and imprudent impertinency, making the same argu∣ments prove both, people shall see that by what right they may resist, by the same right they may capitally punish the Prince, they will be so far from being scarred form resistence, which natures light doth so evidentlly demonstrate to be law∣ful and necessary; that they will be more emboldened there∣unto, perceiving how they may do more, which possibly would never else have come into their minde: and sure all which Naphtaly hath said, could not have suggested such a thing unto them, or occasioned their thoughts thereabout, as im∣partial Readers will judge.

If any aske what he hath left undone for secueing his Ma∣jestie's person and life? I am sure to name no moe he hath forgotten one thing, and that is, the pressing of the So∣lemne League and Covenant on the People; but knowing what he hath both said and done against this, he thought he could not fairely retract and condemne his owne tongue and

actions; yet if he think himself obliged to venture his life for the life of his Majesty, he might have also thought it his duty, to take shame to himself, to repent of what he had done, and recant what he had said, for the secureing of his Majestie's life and person. Now that the pressing of this Covenant upon the People, would be a soveraigne remedy to preserve his Majestie's life, his Majestie's Royal father knew it, when being in the isle of Wight, & fearing that violence should have been done unto him by these in whose custody he was, he sent for Mr. Ieremiah French minister of that place to which Carisbrook castle belonged, and desired him to preach the Co∣venant and presse it upon the People, that thereby they might be engaged to rescue him, in case any such thing should be attempted by that part of the army: See for this the postscript to the Covenanters Plea. And sure I am, if his Ma∣jesty would (as I said before) faithfully minde this Covenant, and cause the People stand to it, form the highest to the lowest, he would finde, that there could not be a more effe∣ctual meane imagined, for secureing his person, then that would be. If he would faithfully owne, and according to his power lay out himself, for setling and secureing the maine things contained in that Covenant, and walk in that due sub∣ordination unto the Supreame governour of heaven and earth; The very conscience of these great and maine things, would presse a conscientious respect to, and a faithfull care of his Majestie's person, in reference to these great Ends. Which would prove more effectual for this end, then volumes of railing sophistications, which this perjured, Prophane and malignant Prelate and anticovenanter could write and send abroad.

CAP. XX.

The Surveyer's discourse concerning the fact of Phineas examined.

THE Surveyer being good at weaving Spiders webs, whereby he would catch flees, but is not able to hold stronger bodyes, spends a whole Chapter on a discourse in Naphtaly, obiter cast in, rather to prevent an objection, by shewing what difficultyes such behoved to meet with and roll our of his way, who would assert the utter unimitable∣nesse of the fact of Phineas, in executing judgm. on the Israeli∣tish Prince and his Midianitish whore, to stay the plague and Judgment of God, which was broken out on the whole con∣gregation, because of their defection to Midianitish whore∣dome and idolatry; then to assert any thing positively there∣anent: & because any who considereth the place, & seeth how little is there positively asserted, & how much is set foorth rather problematickly, and by way of doubt, will easily per∣ceive that the Author's scope▪ was not such as this perverse scribler giveth it out to be, we might let it passe, especially seing our cause doth not hang thereupon, but may stand, whatever be said of that passage; yet lest this Surveyer should glory Without ground, and become too too wise in his owne eyes, we must discover his folly in this his interprise.

Though he hath been at much Paines in this businesse, probably because it was his owne particular, to prevent, if he could, another shot, Which might come as near to his heart, as the last came to his hand, though not intentionally, but per accidens because of ill company; yet, lest he should think that vve Were stiring up any to the like interprise, vvhe∣ther against him, or any of his perjured fraternity, vvhom vve look upon as far belovv the indignation of any heroik person, vve shall not insist on this, as vve have done on vvhat he hath said in the foregoing Chapters, but shall cursorily run over vvhat he sayeth to this purpose.

We grant that every man should walke in his owne calling with God, 1 Cor 7: ver. 20. and study to be quyet and do

his owne businesse, 1 Thess 4: ver. 11. But when He and his Party have perfidiously forsaken their calling, and have not loved the honour to be quyet to do their owne businesse, but have ambitiously usurped the honour and dignity of abjured prelacy, and become Lords and Councellers and Parliament∣men, and thereby brought the wrath of God upon the land, for our defection and Apostasy, and are persecuting all who will not hold them in their saddle, and bear up their rideing mantles, to the wronging of their owne souls and consciences; other persons must minde their general calling as Christians and good Countreymen, and endeavour an averting of the wrath of God, and a setting on foot againe a work of re∣formation according to their power: Ay but sayes he, [Satan can drive men under several colours of extreme necessi∣ty, lawfulnesse of the matter of actions, the goodnesse of ends and intentions, the want of others to do the work, and mens owne probable capacity to do it? to act such things, whereof God will say I never required them at your hands.] Answ. This is true, but what will he hence prove? Will he hence conclude that God may not animate some, to some rare en∣terprises, in a time of real extreame necessity, the matter of the action being unquestionably lawful, their ends and inten∣tions really good and commendable, there being also a defi∣ciency of others to do the work, and themselves in some probable capacity for it? His consequence will be denyed. [This vaine Orator Naphtaly (sayes he) will have the instance of Phineas a precedent for any private persons, (such as lately did rise) under colour of high pitches of zeal and fortitude, to execute justice on al powers and people of the land, as being fallen in such a fearful Apostasy, as (keeping the true Protestant Religion,) do vary from them, in the external ordering of the Ministry of the Church, and imbraceing that way and order, against which there is no command of Christ, yea for the consonancy whereof to his word, much and very much may be sayd, & hath been.] Ans. He would fain mince the defection, vvhereof he and the rest are guilty, and tell us that they keep the true protestant Religion; but hovv vve have heard be∣fore: and that all the difference is about an external ordering of the ministry of the Church, against which there is no com∣mand

of Christ, and for which much may be said, & hath been said. But this is not the place to speak of the abjured prelacy, occasion may given further in his following part: only we would say that much more hath been said against it, to shovv it utterly unlavvful, then he òr all his fraternity vvill be able to ansvvere: And unlesse he prove it absolutely necessary, and no other forme lavvful, vvhich he dar not so much as un∣dertake to prove, he shall never cleare the land of fearful Apostasy and defection, in renunceing a Covenant svvorne by all ranks of people. And because his feares are most about himself and other Apostates, he supposeth that that discourse in Naphtaly is brought in of purpose to incite some to execute justice on him, and such as he is; vvhereas any may see that it is cast in among other things adduced to justify our first Reformers: And so timorous is he, that because that fact of Phineas is not simply and positively declared not imitable, he thinks it is held forth as a precedent to incite: Whereby vve see vvhat an ill conscience is. Ay but (sayes he) [Though he turne himself Proteus. like into many shapes—he cannot put a sufficient bar against confusions under such pretexts.] And vvho such a Protëus as this Surveyer, and his fraternity, a com∣pany of base changelings: But thinks he it possible that any doctrine can be so clearly and distinctly asserted as none vvill ever abuse to errour and confusion? The Scripture is plaine enough against Lordly Prelates, and Covenant breaking, and yet we know how some can abuse these truths of Scrip∣ture, to defend defectiion, and the overturning of the work of God in his Church, and so confound and overturne all. Thereafter he tells us, [That when this discourse was first looked upon—men of judgement considered that as the former bloody insur∣rections, were endeavoured to be justified by him, So he was laying downe grounds for some mercylesse Massacre, and horrid assassinations, on persons in power and others—for now no man can have security of his life.] What these men of judgment could be, who could either suppose the former, if they considered the place where that discourse stood; or could fear the later, if they considered the discourse it self, I cannot tell: But it is like, he and the rest of the Apostates, are accounted the Men of

judgment; & indeed as these might have fancyed the former, so they might have feared the later: for were this fact of Phineas asserted to be as much imitable as any other uncontrollable example in scripture, all persons, notwithstanding thereof, would have sufficient security of their life, except such as were guilty of dreadful apostacy, causing, the plague of God to break out upon the land: And we know the best examples may be abused. And therefore that which he sayeth pag. 106: & 107. concerning Munster madnesse, and the Murtherers of the two Henries of France the 3. and 4. and the gunpouder Traitours, and Arthington Coppinger and Hacket in Queen Eli∣zabeth's dayes, is nothing to the poynt: for neither heare we that any of these founded their actions upon Phineas's fact: and though they had done so, It would not have proved that it was not imitable, in any cases: for why? Wicked Ma∣gistrates have persecuted innocents, in all ages, shall therefore the examples of good Magistrates executing justice on wicked apostates, and flagitious persones and idolaters, be declared altogether un-imitable, because some corrupt Magistrates under that pretext abuse that power, and persecute such as they should rather honour and highly reward? would not any body smile at such a consequence? And yet such is his here. Let him make it to appear, that the matter of the actions of these persons was lawful, and the necessity extreme, and the case was the same as to the deficiency of others to do the work, and that they were in a probable capacity to do it, & then he shall speak more home to the case. He needs not tell his readers, Pag. 107. [That such abhominable courses carryed on under pretext of heroick motions, and rare exitations of the spirit, should make the fearers of God very cautelous against the principles of this Man, which lead this way.] For that man neither approveth these courses, nor any such like, nor doth his principles lead that way, whatever he imagine; nor doth he assert (as he alledgeth,) [that there needs no standing upon an externall call, if men think they have his internal call to use the sword for vengeance against Apostate Magi∣strates—and Reforme an Apostate Church, their zeal is a sufficient call to rise up in a Phineas like fortitude, without further,]

as any vvill see vvho reads over that discourse. Nor needeth he to say, [that if people be so principled, it were better living under the great Turk, where no man is to losse his life but by Law, then in Scotland,] For he doth not expose any to the fury of private persons, who can pretend rare and heroick excitations of the Spirit to execute justice on men, when they think there is cause (as he supposeth in the following words) nor could he rationally be supposed to do so, though he had clearly and positively asserted that that fact of Phineas was, in all poynts & alwayes, imitable; far lesse when he is loath to assert so much, as this Surveyer himself acknowledgeth in the following words, Pag. 108. confessing that he said, we hold no such instances as regular precedents for all times and persons uni∣versally. What displeaseth him then? [But where is (sayes he) the caution that is put in against any that will pretend heroïcal excitations by the spirit, as a sufficient cal: he hath opened a door but how will he close it againe? Answ. What could himself say more to bar a heady People from such pretensions of Phineas-like motions, then that it was not a regular precedent for all times and Persons? Is it not possible (as hath been said) yea and often seen, that the most cleare and approved examples have been abused? And what can be said to this, but that such must run their owne hazard and beare their owne guilt? God only can prevent all confusion in all cases. It is false which he addeth that [This man hath proclamed this libertinisme to private persons, upon pretence of heroïck excitations of Zeal &c. to rise up against all powers above them; for they are made judges in their owne private discretion, when it is fit to fall in hand with such irre∣gular practices; and when it is that such heröick excitations are upon their spirits, and when it is that matters are so far out of order that they cannot be amended without their violent interposeing, and pulling downe of powers: All this is referred to private persons discretion.] Ans. No such thing is there said, and Phineas instance will give ground for no such thing, though it were pressed as a most regular precedent. As we grant with him, that Quakers and Ranters, &c. may start up, aud plead their impulses, and that People (when they minde changes) will not want pretexts: But what sayes that against the thing, seing the

best things may be abused? Ay but Naphtaly (sayes he) holds [That Magistrates when patronisers of abhominations ought without doubt be suppressed by all meanes; so that if there be not pro∣bable capacity for armes, a dag or a dagger, a pistol or a poisoned poinard, a spanish fig or some secret applications, may do the businesse with some great ones] Answ. Naphtaly in the place cited Pag. 18. is speaking of open idolatry, blasphemy, perjury, venting and spreading of heresy, and such like abhominations, which being most dishonourable to God, & pernicious to all Com∣monwealths, ought, sayes he, by all meanes to be suppressed, that is by all faire and possible meanes, for illud tantum possumus quod jure possumus, and so, had he not been too captious, be reason of (it is like) his green wound, he might have spared the rest, and to his liturgical prayer following [That the life our dread Soveraigne may be bound up with the Lord his God in the b••undle of life, and also that the same great and good God may be a shield and buckler to his servants (who desire in ho∣nouring of the King, to feare him the King of Kings above all) against the generation of Men of blood and violence.] We shall desire him to add this Letany: from perjury, pride, profanesse, blasphe∣my, impenitency, atheisme, and all manner of uncleannesse, good Lord deliver us and our King. And to prevent all these feares, let is Majesty and other Magistrates, reforme their wayes, and turne to the Lord, and execute judgement on him and his complices, and all the rest, who now pretend to honour the King, and to feare God, but in effect to deifie a crea∣ture and renunce their homage to the King of Kings, and so provoke him to destroy both them and their King, by their apostasy and wicked defection, and that openly before men and Angels, as David hanged up the Sons of Saul before the sun; and then they need not fear either dag or dagger, pistol or poysoned poinard, a spanish fig, nor any such secret appli∣cations.

Thereafter Pag. 109. he comes more particularly to consider that discourse, and gives us there and in the following Pages 7. or 8. Answers The first is [That it is much doubted if Phineas was a meer private person, being the high Priests son, and a chief priest, and a Prince in his tribe Numb. 31: 6. Jos. 22: 31, 32.

one of the great Council Num. 1: 16. and 16: 2. who did in that dis∣maltime, Numb. 25: 6, meet with Moses the chief Magistrate to lament the ab hominable idolatry, and bodyly filthinesse committed at that time, and to consult and advise, about the authoritative restraining of this wickednesse: In the mean time when the great council are humbled before the Lord, Zimri with his Midianitish wo¦man, are in their very sight going in to the tent, and Josephus sayes, that before Moses and the Council, he justified the fact, and pleaded frowardly to have and retaine her. In this case of so effronted wickednesse, Phineas then one of the congregation or great Council v. 6. rose from among the congregation (or great Council which shewes he was sitting amongst them) & under the eye & knowledge and approbation of Moses the supreame Magistrate, pursued them both to the tent, and thrust them thorow.] Answ. 1. Then it seemes this fact of Phineas was a laudable act of judice in a Magistrate, and so must be a precedent example for judges and Magi∣strates in all time coming, and by this example, any member of the Council might lawfully rise up, and execute judgment on this wicked wreatch and his cursed fraternity, who have brought, by their apostasy and defection from the Covenant and cause of God, the wrath and curse of God upon the land. 2. That Phineas was the High Priest's sone, we know; and that he was afterward High priest himself, is truth; but that he was at this time a publick Magistrate, or a member of the great Sanhedrin, we see not. It is true there were some Princes of the tribes, men of renowne Numb. 1. ver. 16. but he is not mentioned among those; neither were these the great Sanhedrin. So these princes of the assembly Numb. 16: 2. were not the Sanhedrin, which did consist but of 70 Members, Numb. 11. Nor was Phineas one of them. And that congre∣gation of the children of Israel mentioned, Numb. 25: 6. amongst whom Phineas was ver. 7. was not the Sanhedrin, which we never finde (as I remember) so called; but the whole body of the People, who were then mourning partly for the sin commited, and partly for the execution, when the heads of the People vvere hanged up, and a thousand moe killed by the judges, at Moses his command: for Paul 1 Cor. 10: ver. 8. sayes there died of the plague tvventy three

thousand, and here vve finde there fell in all tvventy foure thousand. Againe it is remarkable that this single act of Phineas in killing two persons is so much rewarded and taken notice of by the Lord, yea more then the many who were killed by the judges ver. 5. So that it seemes he was no publick Magistrate: and that he did it with the approbation of Moses, is probable; but that Moses did command him, we see not; only we finde that the Zeal of God moved him, and therefore is he highly rewarded, though he was but the son of Eleazar the son of Aaron. Yea that which the Surveryer citeth out of Deodat rather confirmeth this, for Deodat cal∣leth it an act of extraordinary zeal & motion of God's Spirit, and he addeth that Moses the Supreme Magisstrate did ap∣prove it; but what needed this, if he had been a Magistrate, seing there was a command given to the Magistrates ver. 5. and a command is more then an approbation, Aquinas and Gerhard call him, it is true, a judge, but we see no proof, un∣lesse they could evince that he was a member of the Sanhedrin of which Gillespy speaks in his Aarons rod. lib. I. c. I. The Dutch Annotat. on Psal. 106: 31. Suppose him to have been no Magistrate, but say that this fact was beside his ordinary calling.

His 2. answere is Pag. III. That suppose he had been a meer pri∣vate person, yet it could prove nothing, because he did it with the appro∣bation and good liking of Moses, and so he is but the executor of that unanimous sentence. Answ. But not only is this not written, but the scripture giveth another ground of his fact, then any warrand or command of Moses: And so his answere in rebus facti, a non scripto ad non factum non valet consequentia is not to the purpose. Now I say the scripture giveth another ground viz. his zeal for his God, which is not spoken of the other judges who ver. 5. were commanded of Moses to execute judgment, yea that word Psal. 106: 30. then stood up Phineas and executed judgment clearely hinteth at more then his being a meer satelles Magistratus, and the ample reward which was given him, and the Lord's counting it to him for righteous∣nesse, speak some other thing, then that he had a call of the Magistrate, and was his executioner.

In the 3 place, he sayes. [The cases are different; for then was horrible idolatry and villanous whordome committed avowedly, and with a high hand, in the sight of the Sun, and in way of open doing despite to God, but it is not so now.] Answ. Prudence might have taught him to have concealed this, for it were easy to draw such a parallel as would make him afrayed, if any did intend to follow that example: For I am sure what ever he account of the present apostasy, and how ever he mince it, as no doubt zimri would have minced his uncleannesse, when he justified the fact before the Council, as he told us Iosephus said; yet the apostasy and perjury is open, avowed, abhomi∣nable and villanous, committed in the sight of the Sun, in despite of God, and maintained as right and lawful, howbeit it be such as the very heavens may be astonished at: For such open, avovved, malapert vvickednesse, defection and perjury (all things considered) vvas never heard of in any generation. Hovv our reformation, aud confession of faith is maintained, vve have heard; and albeit he make all the change to be only a change of the exterior forme of Church government, yet when he is before his judge, he shall finde in the cup of this iniquity, manifest & avowed perjury, overturning of the work of God, destroying of the interest of Christ, blasphemy, near unto that unpardonable sin (if not the very same,) in fa∣thering the works of the right hand of the Most high, on Satan; open and avowed persecution of godlinesse; opening of a gap to all licentiousnesse, horrid iniquity, increase of idolatry; villanous and avowed whordome, Sodomy, atheisme and devilry, and more wickednesse then tongue can tell, or pen can paint out, but is on clear record before the Lord.

4. (Sayes he) [Let it be so, that he was a meer private man, and had no warrand from the Supreame Magistrate to do what he did, his fact cannot warrand Men to attempt the doing of such acts, unlesse they can shew as good warr and and approbation from God as he could.] Answ. That he had God's warrand and approbation vve do not doubt; but that it was such an approbation as was pecu∣liar to extraordinary un-imitable acts, is the thing in question,

we grant with him. That God is the Lord of all Ma∣gistrates, and of all men's lives, can (when it pleaseth him) crosse ordinary rules, and apppoynt some to execute his judg∣ments extraordinariely, but the question is whether every thing, which the Surv. accounteth extraordinary, is so indeed. [He may (sayes he) send Moses to kill the Egyptian Eglon to kill Ehud (he should say Ehud to kill Eglon) Elias to destroy companyes of men with fire from heaven, or to kill Baal's Priests: He may command Abraham to kill his sone Isaac: he may excite David to a bloody duëel & Sampson to murther himself.] Ans. Will the Surveyer account these instances alike extraordinary and unimitable? Sure Royalists will think that Ehud's killing of Eglon may warrand any private person now, to kill a tyrant without title. But I lay more weight upon Iohn Knox his distinction in this matter, in his debate with Lithingtoun, hist. of reformation, Pag. 390. (edit in fol.) [And as touching (sayes Mr. Knox) that ye alledge that the fact was extraordinary, & is not to be imitated. I say That it had the ground of God's ordinary judgement, which commandeth the Idolater to die the death: and therefore I yet againe affirme, that it is to be imitate of all these that preferre the true honour of the true worshipe and glory of God, to the affection of flesh, and wicked Princes.] and when Lithingtoun replyed. That we are not bound to follow extraordinary examples, unlesse we have the like commandment and assurance (the same which this Surveyer sayeth.) He answered [I grant if the example repugne to the law, as if an avaricious and deceitful man would borrow Silver; Rayment, or other Necessaryes from his Neighbour, and withhold the same, alledging that so he might do, and not offend God, because the Israe∣lites, at their departure out of Egypt, did so to the Egyptians, The example served to no purpose, unlesse that they could produce the like cause, and the like commandement, that the Israelites had: And that because their fact repugned to this commandement of God Thou shall not steal: But where the example agrees with the law, and is, as it were, the execution of God's judgment, expressed within the same, I say that the example approved of God stands to us in place of a commandement; for as God, in his Nature is constant and immutable, so can he not condemne in the ages subsequent, that which he hath approved in his servants before us; but in his servants

before us, he in his owne word confounds all such as crave further approbation of Gods will, then it already expressed within his scriptures; for Abraham said, They have Moses and the Prophets &c. Even so I say, that such as will not be taught what they ought to do by the commandement of God once given, and once put in practice, will not beleeve nor obey, albeit that God should send Angles from heaven to instruct that doctrine.] Now sure I am this fact of Phineas was according to the law, and to the expresse minde of God, and why then might it not be imitated in the like case? what warrand, command nor commisssion had Phineas which none now can expect? 1. (sayes he) [He had the Motion and direction of God's Spirit, which was loco specialis mandati.] Answ. We know men must need the Motions and directions of God's spirit to ordinary and allovved dutyes: Hovv shall these make this fact altogether un-imitable? It is true Calvin sayeth it was singular and extraordinare motion, which may not be drawne to a common rule, but notwithstanding thereof, I see not how it should be altogether un-imitable or uselesse. But grant it were so, as Calvin sayeth, unlesse he say that it is never to be imitated, in no case, and that no such thing is ever to be expected, which I suppose he will not say, how will he prevent confusions thorow the abuse of corrupt men, who can pretend as wel these singulare and extraordi∣nare Motions, as the examples of Phineas? As for what he tells us Augustin and Bernard say of Samson's case, is not to the poynt: Because according to that solid distinction of Mr. Knox, that was contrare to an expresse law, Thou shall not kill, and such also is the example of Abraham. 2. He tells us, That [Phineas had not only a large reward of his fact, Numb. 25: ver. 12, 13. but an ample approbation of it. Psal. 106: sver. 31: it was accounted to him for righteousnesse. i. e. as a righteous action, both as to the intention of it (God's honour) and as to the ground and warrand of it (God's direction) God doth not approve or remuner at any action, which one way or other he doth not command.] Ausw. This is all granted; and as it sayeth that Phineas was no publick person or Magistrate, otherwise there had been no doubt anent its being accounted to him for righteous∣nesse, though it had not been expresly mentioned by the

Spirit of God, for it sayeth that sometimes private persones are allowed of God, to do what he requireth in ordinary to be done by Magistrates. [There are none of these extraordinary actions (sayes he) mentioned in Scripture, but either God's stirring up men to the same, or his approbation of the same, one way or other is noted: See Judg. 3: ver 10. and 5: ver. 7. and 10: ver. 23. and 3: ver. 9, 15. and 2: 16, 18.] Answ. Will he say that all these instances were extraordinary and not imitable? Whence will Royalists then prove, that privaate persons may kill a Tyrant without title? And if they be not altogether unimitable, then the cause is here yeelded; for God may be said to raise up, and to stir up Mens Spritis even to imitable actions; & so he hath given us no reason as yet to prove Phineas fact altogether unimitable; nor will the real rebukes, which he saith God gave the late risers, proclame that they had not his approbation, unlesse he say that God's approbation of actions must alwayes be interpreted by the event, which is not consonant to true Divinity.

In the 5. place he tells us, [That if once men come to presse the i∣mitation of this instance, they must say, first, that even when the Magistrate is godly and zealous and willing to execute judge∣ment, (as Moses was) private perssons may do it, and without any legal processe, 2. goe to mens tents and chambers and stob them, and 3. that though such things be done inconsulto pio Magistratu, yet the doer must not be challenged.] Answ. It will be sufficient if it be granted, when the case is every way the like, or whose: It is true, Moses was not unwilling, but it is like at present in capacitated, through the want of assistence of inferiour Ma∣gistrates, many of whom were guilty, and many had been executed; and through grief, while lying mourning before the Lord. 2. There needed no legall processe; for both the law and the sentence was written with characters of blood upon the carcases of thousands; & this Mans fact was notour and avowed, to all the Congregation. 3. He had the inter∣pretative consent of that pious Magistrate: why then may not the like be done in the like case, where the Ius, and the factum is as clear and undenyable as here, and the Magistrate, who should execute the sentence is out of a present capacity,

and the matter admitteth of no delay as here, (for till this was done, the plague was never stayed,) much more if he will not, and wrath is still poured out from the Lord; and the Magistrate by his place is bound to assent, & approve of the thing. If such a fact were done in the like case, would any think that the person should be challenged and not rather approved by the Magistrate?

In the 6. Place he giveth us, the distinction betwixt extraor∣dinary and heröical acts, telling us that a heroick act doth not deviat from the rule of a common vertue, but only proceeds from a more intense disposition to a high pitch of vertue and of the acts thereof: But an extraordinary action goes beyond any ordinary rule of common reason or divine word, as that Abraham should kill his Sone Isaac.] Answ. We shall not contend with him much about this, since he will grant that heroick actions are imitable, as not being contrary to a rule of common vertue; though extraordinary actions, which are rather contrary to the rule of common vertue, may not be imitated: And he hath not yet proved, neither can he prove that Phineas's fact was so far beyond any ordinary rule of common reason or divine word, as was that of Abraham, and the like. We shall grant with him. That [Extraordinary actions, are such as are done upon special mandate of God, and are not within the compasse of ordinary acts of obedience according to the rule, that is set.] And that [men may have heroick motions & actions within the bounds of an ordinary calling, as Luther had; as sometimes, though they have an extraordinary calling, they may want heroical motions, as Peeter when he dissembled. [But what sayes this to Phine as his fact? [Phineas (sayes he) had not only excitations of zeal and heröical motions, but (suppo∣seing him a meer private person) he is to be looked upon as having ex∣traordinary calling from God.] Answer. Doth this man give a distinct sound? He complained of the Author of that dis∣course concerning Phineas, that he turned himself Protëus.-like into many shapes, and we finde himself doing little better here: He dar not say positively whether he was a meer private person or not, but if he was such, then the action was extraordinary; but what if he was not? Then the a∣ction was neither extraordinary nor heröical, and thus we

are no wiser then we were; for we know not what to make of the action; nor what to make of the person, but we must judge of the person by the action; And of the action by the person. That is to say, if he was a Magistrate then the action was ordinare, but if he was a private person then the action was extraordinary: and è contra, if the action was extraordina∣ry, he was a private person, and if it was ordinare and imi∣table, Then he was a publick person. Is not this a singularly satisfactory way of answereing? But it is observable that he dar not here say that Phineas's fact was extraordinary, but that he is to be looked upon as having an extraordinary call, now a man may have an extraordinary call to an action imi∣table, as the Apostles had an extraordinary call to preach the Gospel, and yet that action of theirs is imitable. But how proves he this extraordinary call?

[It is (sayes he) fully enough insinuated both by God's approving and rewarding him Numb. 25. (and he rewards not our wil - service, nor approves it, but what he hath enjoyned himself) and also by P sal. 106. where it is said Emphatically it was im∣puted to him for righteousnesse: though judging according to ordinary Rules, it might be imputed to him for sin (sup∣poseing him for a meer private man) yet, having God's warrand, whose will is the rule of righteousnesse, the deed was imputed to him for righteousnesse]

Answ. It is true, God revvards not, nor approves not vvil-service, yet he approves and revvards other actions, then such as are extra∣ordinary and not imitable. 2. God's imputing it unto him for rightoeusnesse, sayes clearly he vvas a private person, and that God accepted of his service as a noble act of holy zeal for God and his glory, and rather speakes out an encouragement to all, to do the like in the like case, then any extraordinary call he had, vvhich none novv can expect.

Then in the 7 place he speaks of Callings & sayes that

[Every calling a man hath to any work Must be either Mediate or immediate (there is no mids betwixt these two, as there is not between contradictories) if they be not called by the in∣tervention of men, & their allowance, they must plead an im∣mediat calling from God.]

Ans. Beacause I minde not to enter

into a Logomachy, or debate about words, & tearmes; I would desre him to tell me, what call men have to run together to extinguish a fire in a city, when the Magistrates through wickednesse or negligence will not, or do not, call People forth unto that work. They have not Man's call, nor have they an immediate call from heaven, and yet they have a law∣ful call from God, Nature and necessity, to save the city, their houses, goods & little ones, from being burnt into ashes. And what ever name he give to this call, we will allow it to private persons to defend Religion and a land form ruine and destruction, when Magistrates do not nor will not do their duty. And when men, whether out of secret impulses, heroical motions, or out of meer sense & conscience of duty, do this, they do not desert their owne calling and state, like these spirits lud. ver. 6. Nor do they intrude upon the Magistrate's office, though they do materially that work for that exigent, which Magistrates by office were bound to do, being called thereto by God, by Nature, and the call of inevitable necessity, which knoweth no humane law, and to which some divine positive lawes will cede. But then he sayes Pag. 115. [Why is not also sufficient for the office of the Mi∣nistery without a call from men externally?] Answ. And doth he think that necessity will not allow a man sufficiently gifted and qualified to exerce that office without an externall call from men, in some cases? What if a company of Men be cast out on an island, having no correspondence nor possibility of correspondence with other places, whence they might have some lawfully called Minister; and there be one among them qualified for the work, might not he in that case think himself called of God to exerce that function? And when we grant this, we need not yeeld unto Anabaptists, Enthusiasts photinians, or the like, who are against an external call at any time, alledging that gifts are sufficient [And (sayes he) how shall be refuse to admit women to Baptize Children in case of necessi∣ty?] Answ. He shall not refuse providing he shew the necessity, which he shall not be able to do unlesse he turne Papist, and then he will imbrace the consequent also, without our admission.

In the 8 place he comes to tell us that [It is in vaine to say that God's hand is not shortened, &c. for our question is not of that, but if now after the Canon of holy Scripture is perfected sealed and consigned, we have warrand to look for any extraordinary perso∣sones, having Gods secret and special Mandates, to do works which any ordinary calling doth not interest them in?] Answ. Prophe∣cyes and predictions of future events, are not works, which any ordinary calling men have, by allowance and approbation of Men, according to the rules of common reason and the word, doth interest them in; and doth he think God's seal∣ing and perfecting the Canon of Scripture hath so bound him up, as that he will not, or cannot now give such a Spirit unto any? 2. The question rather is; Whether now when the Canon is sealed and perfected, examples of Zeal and valiant acting for God and his glory, in times of corruption and wick∣nesse, in actions not contrary to the Law of God, registrated in Scripture, be not for our use and instruction, and imi∣table?

When Naphtaly wished that all God's People were as Phineas He concurreth with him [In wishing that they may be filled with zeal to his glory as Phineas was; but not that they should have the same exercise of zeal, unlesse they could be certified of their warrand and calling to do so, as he was.] Ans. That he was certified of his calling & warrand we doubt not, but that he had such a call as no man now is capable of, is the question; & he hath not yet cleared it. [The Apostles of Christ (sayes he) are to us examples of zeal for God in their Ministery; but who will say that the acts which they Zealously did, by virtue of their extraordinary calling, as Peter's killing Ananias, are for our imitation.] Answ. Peter killed Ananias and Sapphira by a power of miracles, which none now have. Phineas did not kill the Prince and his whore, by a power of miracles. Their examples are imitable according to our power and the exigence of the like necessity; and therefore Ministers should novv out of zeal, use Church cen∣sures, against such dissemblers when discovered: And so we grant that to follow at the facts of them who have been truely Zealous for God, were indeed an evil Zeal, like the zeal of the Disciples Luk. 9: ver. 54. and we shall willingly heark¦en

to Peter Martyr's his words Loc. Com. Class. 2. Cap. 9. and grant-that

We must beware to confirme any thing which we vehemently and extraordinarily desire by the exemple of predecessours. And that, when we attempt the doing of any thing contrary to ordinary commands of God, it is not enough to produce the example of others, but we must search by what Spirit we are led, lest under a specious pre∣text we follow carnal affection and prudence.

And yet say, that in some cases private persons may execute ••udgement on Malefactors, after the example of the Prophet Elias killing Baals Priests, 1 King. 18. Which fact Peter Martyr in the same place, n. 4. defendeth thus [

I say it was done by the Law of God: for Deut. 18. God decerned that the false Prophet should die, and Cap. 17. the same is said of private Men and Women who would worshipe idols. But Cap. 13. not only is death threatened against a seduceing Prophet, but a command is added, that no man should spare his brethren, the Son of his Mother, nor his son or daughter, nor his dearest or most intimate friends: Thirdly it is commanded that the whole city, when it becometh idolatrous should be cut off by fire & sword: And Lev. 24. it is statuted, that the blasphemer should not live; to which we may adde the Law or equity of Taliation; for these Pro∣phets of Baal caused Iezebel and Ahab kill the servants of the Lord.

] He sayes (it is true) that King Ahab being present did consent, and did not withstand; but we see nothing in the text shewing that the Prophet founded his fact upon that consent. It is true, the King might have been so astonished by that prodigious sight, that he durst not spurne against the Prophet, and all the People: But that for all this, he gave any expresse command, either through fear, or desire to have raine; or that the Prophet either sought, or had his warrand and command for what he did, we see no ground for it in the text, More then Samuel had war∣rand of Saul when he killed Agag before his eyes, whom he should have killed himself according to the command of God.

Thus have I answered all which this pamphleter hath said concerning Phineas his fact: for what followeth to the end of his pamplet, is not much to this matter, & hath been spoken to formerly: and though I have done so, I would not have the Reader to think, that I do look upon that example of Phineas as a binding precedent in all times to all persons, un∣lesse it be every way so circumstantiated as it was then. And furder I suppose it will fully satisfy this Surveyer and stope his Mouth abundantly, if I shall secure him from any such dag or dagger. To which End, because I can do no more, I do heartily wish, That none of God's People do in that manner defile their fingers on him or on any of his cursed fra∣ternity, to whom God is reserving (if they repent not) the vengeance of hell fire, and possibly a visible stroke of justice on Earth, in a way which will be more to the glory of God, and to the satisfaction of all such as love his cause and his comeing.

CAP. XXI.

Some Animadversions upon the Surveyer's Virulent preface and Title-page.

WHen thus we have fully examined and confuted vvhat this Enemy hath said, in this part of his Survey. It will not be amisse, till we see what he sayes further in the following part or parts of this infamous work of his, to touch a little upon his Title-page and his most bitter, and satirick preface, which is a perfect proof of the man's Spirit: for he cometh forth in his owne colours, & with his tongue speaketh no flattering words, nor words of butter, but both heart and tongue are full of gall and worm word; So that his Name should not be Honeyman but Wormwood-Man or Man of gall.

1. He calleth his work a Survey. Or rather a Superficial view: For No man, who ever put pen to paper, took such an

overly look, of the books which he pretended to answere, as this Man doth of these books which he mentioneth in the title page of his scurril pamphlet, as hath been abundantly already shewed: And if he do no more in the following part or parts, then he hath done in this first part, he may deservedly bear the name of a Superficial prelate superficially viewing his adversaryes forces, & superficially managing the tottering cause; for which he should have been superficially rewarded.

2. A Survey of what? Of the insolent and infamous libel, Entituled, Naphtali &c. But whether his railing pamphlet, or Naphtali do best deserve the title of an insolent and Infamous lybel, let the Reader judge when he hath considered, first, that as Naphtali came forth without the author's or printer's name prefixed, (for which every one may be convinced there was sufficient reason, seing such hath been and is the wicked∣nesse and cruelty of corrupted tyrannical Courts, and of none more then our Court novv in being, that none durst without manifest hazard openly rebuke in the gate, or in printe shevv the iniquity of their vvayes. Yea Or vindicate such as oppose their tyranny and cruelty. So doth this Survey, vvhose author could be under no rational feare from the povvers novv in being, for his advocating their cause; seing he hath been so richly revvarded for the same, as is sufficiently knovvne: And therefore, his Survey deserveth much more to be tearmed Libellus Famosus; seing notwith∣standing of the warrand, Yea & reward of the Magistrates, he dar not owne it, by prefixing his name to it; Nor dar the very printer prefix his name. Next the nature of Naphtali's discourse is but an historical deduction of the troubles, the Church of Scotland, in her reformation, hath met with at the hands of a popish, prelatical and Malignant faction, with a necessary vindication of the truth, which is allovved to all historians, that thereby, truth may be the more cleared, and the Readers more edifyed by the history. And who ever heard such a faire and cleare deduction of Matters of Fact, together with a few reasons here and there cast in for the Readers further ••atisfaction; called an Infamous lybel, till

this impudent ignoramus arose? And as for his pamphlet, do not all see, who consider either its scope, or its method, or the vvhole straine of the discourse, that it can be tearmed nothing else, then a most impudent, insolent and infamous libel, being not only larded, with bitter invectives against the Cause and People of God, and railing speaches more suteable (if suteable for any rational creature) for open scolds and brawling wives, then for a man, (unlesse he except such a man, as hath by perjury and more then feminine levity, declared himself, by his owne grant, to be one of a debauched conscience) but also tending most falsly to father on the honest people of God such things as never came into their mindes: Whereby this railing Rabshakeh proveth himself, to all sober judicious persons, to be an impudent lying calumniator; and his pamphlet, a more then ordinarily insolent, base, lying, and infamous libel.

3. He tels us, that in his Survey, several things falling in debate in these times are considered. But by vvhat vve have said, vve have seen, that such things as he hath in the preceeding chap∣ters considered, for the most part, are either such things as should be put beyond debate, by all who have not renunced Humanity, Reason, & Religion; or such things concerning which himself hath needlesly and foolishly (as it may be his rewarders will finde) moved the debate; unlesse he bring some other things above board, in the next part or parts, then we see in this?

4. Moreover, he tells us, that [here some doctrines in Lex Rex & Apol. Narration (he should have said relation) are brought to the touch stone.] But if in what he hath furder to say, he mention not some other doctrines, then what we see in 〈…〉〈…〉 every rational Man vvill see that he hath rather brought some drops then doctrines of these books to any touch stone, yea even to the touch stone of his owne unsolid and buttery fancy, for his Reason hath no pallat to taste truth aright.

5. In this 1. part he tels us that [He Represents the dreadful aspect of Naphtali's principles upon the powers Ordained of God, and detects the horrid consequences in practice, necessarily resulting from

such principles. But more truely, the dreadful state of his owne distempered braine, both in his judgment, misunder∣standing what Naphtaly sayes, and in his ratiocinative faculty, giving us nothing but non-sequitur's for clear consequences, And the manifestly dreadful aspect, which his owne princi∣ples have on all Commonwealthes, and on all Rational and Religious persons, together with the affected stile of a base & ignorant gnatho, Time serving parasite & Royally rewarded court flatterer, who having a latitudinarian's conscience, or rather a conscience utterly (I wish, not irrecoverably) debauched, maketh no conscience what he sayeth, if he can please King and Court: And how pernicious such Sycophants have been to Kings in all ages, histories sufficiently declare.

6. Then he praefixeth, Iob 13: ver. 7, 9, 11. will you speak wickedly for God, &c. A passage which most fitly quadrats with him (unlesse he say he intendeth not to plead for God, but for a creature, yea and upon the matter, for the devil) who, as Job's Friends conspired against Iob, and maintained a wrong thesis, & erred no lesse in the hypothesis or in the ap∣plication to Iob; so he conspireth with other Royalists to de∣fend erroneous and long-since decarded theses, and maketh as evil applications to our present case, as hath been shewed. His discourse sheweth to all that he is an accepter of per∣sons, not secretly indeed, but openly; and so this forger of lies speaks wickedly for the King, who is (very like) all his God: But we are confident, God shall search him out and reprove him. Then he prefixeth, Psal. 144: ver. 10. It is he that giveth Salvation unto Kings, who delivereth David his Servant from the hurtful sword. A noble truth, which all Kings would look to, and if they expected any good of this good word, would ••ay out themselves for this God and this 〈◊〉〈◊〉, and not stand in opposition against him, lest they fince that he who is terrible to the Kings of the Earth, Psal. 76: ver. 12. And Made higher then the Kings of the Earth, Psal. 89: ver. 27. Shall not spare but strick thorow Kings in the day of his wrath, Ps. 110: 5. And finde a way to make good that, Psal. 149: v. 5,—9. [For the Lord ••aketh pleasure in his people, he will beautify

the meek with salvation, let the saints be joyful in glory, let them sing aloud upon their beds, let the high praises of God be in their mouth, and a two edged sword in their hand, to execute vengeance upon the heathen, and punishments upon the people. To binde their Kings with chaines, and their Nobles with fetters of iron. To execute upon them the judgment written: This honour have all the saints, praise ye the Lord.] But it is to be observed, that by his bringing forth of this place of scripture, he vvorld make the vvould beleeve, that the party he opposeth is thirsting for the life of the King, which is but this false calumniator's fiction: & we shall make use of the very next words of that same Psal. 144. v. 11. &say [Rid us and deliver us from the hand of strange Children whose mouth speaketh vanity, and their right hand is a right hand of falshood.] And in the last place prefixeth Proverb. cap. 24: ver. 21, 22. My Son feare thou the Lord and the King, and meddle not with them that are given to change, &c. And doth he account himself and his party, fearers of God, who have so Apostatized, and palpably perjured themselves? and doth he think, that such as feare not God can ever fear the King aright? If he do, he is mistaken. And who are most given to changes, They or we, let the World judge. What was this impudent man's brazen face doing while he wrote downe this passage? What was his debauched con∣science doing? Was there no blushing? Was there no conviction? Did not this text flee in his face? If not, sure his conscience must be extreamly debauched, and I fear fea••ed with a hote iron. And therefore let us take notice of this, and meddle not with such as are given to change, knowing that the following word shall be made good. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 calamity shall rise suddenly and who knoweth their ruine? Our King liveth, and he shall come. Even so come Lord Jesus, and let all thine Enemies perish.

But now let us come to his preface, that master piece of verulency.

1. He tells us it hath been, and is the lot of the ••ilitant Church to be as it were grinded betwixt the two milstones of a 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and Atheisti∣call world, and of a party pretending highly for truth and piety. And amongst the last (by whom he meaneth the Sect of the

Anabaptists) he would reckon the faithful of the land, who adhere to their Covenants, and are constantly set against that abjured hierarchy. But when we marke his scope, we see what he would say in plaine tearmes, if he durst for shame, viz. That they are now the only militant Church of the Lord in Scotland. This is a great change, I confesse, when Christ shall have no other Church in Scotland, but the perjured, apostatical, popish, prelatical and malignant faction, that hath been from the beginning, an heart and avowed enemy to the Church and People of God, and never more wicked and debauched then it is this day: And yet so holy is it, that it must arrogate to itself alone, the name of the Church. But what Church? Be-like the Synagoge of Satan which call themselves jewes but are not, or that coetus malignantium (as the vulgar hath it) Psal. 26: v. 4. The congregation of evil deors which should be hated and not joynd with. They the Church, who have banished Christ out of the Church, abjured his interests, persecuted to the death his brethren and follow∣ers? Must they be the Church, who are a company of per∣jured Apostats, prophane ranters, Men of debauched con∣sciences, wicked lives, corrupt principles, prodigiously licen∣tious, and running to all excesse of riot & iniquity? They the only Church, whose chief Fathers are Apostate Prelats, sen∣sual, brutish, latitudinarian Epicures, void of the faith, Ene∣mies to piety, carnal worldings, whose God is their belly, who minde earthly things, & whose end shall be destruction, dogs, evill workers, and the concision, of which we should b••••are? Phil. 2: ver 2. Are these Prelate Bite-sheeps, rather then Bishops, blamelesse, the husbands of one wife? Are they Vigi∣lant, unlesse when they have much wine to devoure, or a feast to hold to Bacchus? Are they sober, who glutt themselves in sensuality? Are they of good beheaviour, whose carriage is abhominable to all sober persons? Are they given to hospi∣tality, who, if they could effectuat it, would not suffer a godly person to have the benefite of one nights Lodging in all the land? Are they apt to teach, who have rejected Christ and his truth, and cry up and commend Socinian brats and impoi∣soned books? Are not they given to wine? Witnesse all who

converse with some of them. Are they no strickers, who are ringleaders in persecution, and stirre up the powers to spew out their venome, against the small remnant of the honest co∣venanters in the land? are not they greedy of filthy Lucre, who oppresse all under them, & for a Bishop's benefice have made shipewrack of their faith, soul and conscience? Are they patient who are so soon sadled; are not they Brawlers? Witnesse this pamphleting prelate? Are not they Covetous? Witnesse all who have to do with them. Do they rule wel their owne house, having their Children in Subjection with all gravity; when all see that their families are nurseries of pride, vanity, pompe prodigality, idlenesse, profanity and sensuality? And as for their Underling-curats, the scumme of Mankinde, who seeth not their nakednesse? Is this the Church, when they who say they sit in Moses seat, are such patrons of profanity, and patronizers of wickednesse, and unworthy to be ac∣counted Members in any tolerably reformed Church? Are they the militant Church, who triumph in their silks and velvets, rideing with foot mantels in Parliaments, sitting in Councils and Sessions? I fear many, of them shall never see another triumphant Church. If they be the corne grinded betwixt two milstones, where is the professedly profane, and atheistical world which trouble them? Sure, seing these are the only members of their Church, they must be nothing else but the Nether milstone: Nay the poor afflicted people of God finde them the upper milstone too: for by them and at their instigation, are they brocken in pieces, persecuted to the death, scattered into corners; and banished to other nations. And as he cannot give us the professedly prophane and athe∣istical world distinct from themselves, So he shall never be able to rank the truely godly, who are persecuted this day for righteousnesse sake, among the wilde seck of Anabaptists. As shall be shewed afterward. Ay but Pag. 5. he sayes [As Whitgift and Hooker these godly, sage, and sagacious persons (forsooth) considering the tendency and consequence of some of their principles, who were vehement for Discipline, feared the breaking out of that evil; so now they see it is come to passe for that Mystery of ini∣quity which worketh to the confusion of humane societies, to the bringing

of divine ordinances into contempte, and to the introduceing of Li∣bertinisme, Quakerisme, Rantisme, and Atheisme, can shrowd itself under diverse external formes of Church government.] But sure if vve may judge of the cause by the effect, there being more Libertinisme, Quakerisme, Rantisme and Atheisme. this day in Scotland, then vvas all the vvhile that presbyterian government vvas in vigour, vve must say that Prelates and Prelatical principles usher in these evils, vvhich shroud more under their lap, then under presbyterians: Anabap∣tists: he tells us out of Ames Fresh Sute Pag. 93. had their owne Bishops, but vvhere findes he that they had Presbyterian go∣vernment? It seemeth then that prelacy can comply better vvith Anabaptisme, then presbytery; and so it will indeed: For they being tvvo of Satan's devices must not discorde. It vvould appear that neither Whitgift nor Hooker have been so sage or sagacious, nor himself so sharpsighted, as to see such furious Spirits lurking under our lap; we and all see them rather svvarming under his ovvn lap.

2. This instrument of Satan cometh next to sowe some tares, Pag. 5, 6. and pretending much tendernesse to some moderat men (as he calleth them) of our way, he adviseth them for God's glory, the honour of his reformed Churches, compassion to seduced souls, and true interest of their ovvne reputation, to disclaime by some publick deed, what Naph∣taly sayes, left they be accounted partakers of the guilt. But wise and sagacious persons will easily see this snare, and will not lay much weight upon all this perjured wretches faire pretensions, and will readily be convinced that there is no such vile things issueing from Naphtaly (when what he sayes is rightly understood, and not wiredrawne and miserably throvvne vvith prejudice) nor such doctrines or practices, there asserted or maintained, Hovv ever this railer call them scandalous and shameful, as they need to be ashamed of, and that it vvill neither be for the glory of God, the honour of his Churches, the good of souls, nor their ovvne credite, to dance to this man's pipe, to follovv divisive motions, contrare to our Covenants, to joyne-in vvith malignant A∣postates, constant and svvorne enemies to the vvork of re∣formation,

to make the heart of the people of God sad whom the Lord would not have made sad; & to fortify & strengthen the hands of the wicked. Verbum sapienti fas est, we know the proverb, it is not good for the lambs, when the fox preacheth.

3. This meek man tells us next, That it is not his designe to offend the generation of the humble, meek, self denyed seekers of God's face, partakers with him of the same precious faith, and runing to obtaine the same prize of the inheritance. O! who can decyphere unto us these persons; who are these humble meek, self-deny∣ed seekers of God's face, whom this man will not grieve? Are these the latitudinarian Atheists, the Gallioes, the coldrife Laôdiceans, who care not what Religion be professed? It is like men of that principle, will not be much grieved by any thing which he hath said O! but he meaneth some of those who differ from him in judgment in some particulars: but what are these particulars? Meum and tuum? I feare he take not such for meeke humble or self denyed persons, and they will have as little reason to take him for such an one. Are these particu∣lars, Church Government? And who are these who differ from him in that poynt, whom he accounts humble meek and self denyed? Possibly the few honest publick resolu∣tioners. But I suppose these faithful Men desire none of his commendations. Neither will they look upon themselves as partakers of the same precious faith with him and his fra∣ternity, who have made shipewrak of their faith. Nor do they minde to run to obtaine the same prize with him and his perjured fraternity▪ which will be the broad roll, the long & broad curse, which will enter into the house of him that sweareth falsly, and the heavy wrath and vengeance of God due to apostates; as they like not to turne Prela∣tes, and swallow downe bishopriks which, is all the prize, and all the inheritance, which some run over light and con∣science and all, to obtaine. Doth this wicked Man still intende to sowe sedition, and to widen that difference? Is he ignorant of the original of that sad contest? Is he yet to be informed that the rational feares and foresight of not a few of these Ministers and Professors who obtained mercy to be jealous for the Lord, did impose a necessity upon them (in order to the preventing of a re-establishing and re-intro∣duceing

of these abjured abhominations) to Dissent from, and protest against, the course which was at that time taken, in public judicatories: And upon the other hand these god∣ly men (whom, with much sorrow of heart, and the greatest of reluctancies, they did oppose, as knoweing how really deare the precious interests of Christ were to them) being Conscious of their ovvne integrity and streightnesse, in the matters of God, and measureing others by themselves, (or thinking it hardly possible; yea rather morally impossible; that the very same men, who had joyned with them in so solemne an ingagement to God, and by vvhom, the souls of his People thorovv the Land, had been brought under the bond of the Covenant, could, vvhile pretending to their former streightnesse be such miscreants and monsters, that neither any Conscience toward God, nor shame before the world, could bind them to the good behaviour, and tye them up from returneing to their former vomit) did mistake their brethren in that opposition, and became jealous of them; and did likewise by a sad overplus of ill grounded Charity, mistake the enemies of the work of God for friends; and because they had once with them ingaged to pluk up that unhallowed plant of prelacy, as none of Gods planteing, under an Anathema Maranatha, they vvere not suspicious that this accursed thing vvas still vvith them, or that after they had joyned vvith them, in commending the good wayes of God, and crying Grace Grace upon the building, they should vvith the same breath, cry out Crucify Crucify all the friends of the vvork of God; and by an unparalleled dissi∣mulation, onely be vvatching for an opportunity of bursting his bonds asunder, and casting avvay his cords from them: He cannot be ignorant, I say, that this gave the rise to all these sad debats; and therefore, I am hopeful and confi∣dent, that vvhen that mystery of iniquity vvhich vvas then vvorking, is novv manifest; and vvhen that Conspiracy against God; vvhich did then lurk and lay hide under the vaile of friendship to the vvork of God, is novv broke forth to the hight of rebellion against him vvho is King in Zion, that all the Controversies vvhich henceforth shall be betvveen these

brethren, shall be buryed in this one blessed contest, vvho shall love God most, and one another best; vvho shall most earnestly and eagerly contend for the faith once delivered to the saints, who shall be most forward in following the Lord fully, and peremptory in adhereing to the least hove of the precious truths of Christ, now trampled upon by these o∣verturners and supplanters: Yea, I am confident, that these godly men who have been most deceived and cheated into a credulity of the honesty and integrity of them, who are now gone out from them, because they were never of them, will judge that they are more particularly and espe∣cially concerned to set themselves in opposition to these dissembling Apostats, and use all lavvful means to overturne these treacherous overturners, and put the Church of Sotland in Statu quo prius, since by the intrusting of the cause to these men of perfidy, the cause hath been lost, and themselves are Lorded over, together vvith the rest of the inheritance of the Lord: Let me once more say that, I hope, this shall be the effect, vvhich his second attempt to a further division amongst the remnant, vvho stand in opposition to the vvay of these vvicked men, shall have amongst his Servants, and that the divider shall live to see his disigne mis give and hear a sweet harmony (after all former jarring discords) a∣mongst the servants of the Lord, in singing a Higgajon selah because this vvicked man vvith his complices are insnared in this and other vvorks of their ovvne hands.

4. He goeth on in his fascination (but in vaine is the net spread in the sight of any bird) and would persuade us, that he can not take these humble, meek, self denyed seekers of God, as partakers with Naphtaly and his adherents: For why? [who can imagine (sayes he) that a meek people, who hath the promise of God's teaching, should be so far transported, as to take the circumstantials of Religion, for the greater and weighty matters of Law and Gospel, without which known and beleeved, none can come to God?] Can we think, or can any but this wretch, who feareth not God, think, that the observing of sacred Cove∣nants, made about the life and substantials of Religion, as well as more external things, is no great and weighty matter of the Law? No humble understanding seeker of God,

but, though he knoweth there is a difference betwixt the circumstantialls of Religion, and the weightier matters of Law and Gospel, yet, as He will not account every thing circumstantial, which this circumstantially substantial Pre∣lat, vvil call so; so, He vvill have a tender regard to every thing, vvhich Christ hath appoynted in his house. But, I pray, vvho can take his Man for one of these meek people vvho hath the promise of God's teaching, vvho to obtaine a bishoprick, a circumstantial in his account, (but really to him and his collegues a substantiall sappy thing, & to sensual carnal Epicures and bellygods, and to such as care for no other portion, but one in this life) hath sold and given away the most weighty matters of Law and Gospel both? And how he shall then come to God, unlesse he repent, I see not; It may be the needle headed casuist hath found out a new way, and (if not sure and saife, yet) to his experience easy and honourable, viz. by ascending from a Presbyter to a Prelate: But whither next? Exitus acta probat, either backward, or headlong downe the precipice. Againe [Who can think (sayes he) that an intelligent people should account, that the concernes of Christ's Kingdome and their owne salvation, do lye with so much stresse upon this poynt, that the weakest and most ignorant Minister shall have a potestative parity, with the Man of greatest gifts, learning, and knowledge; that the minister weakest in his prudentialls, should have equal authority in the managing of the matters of God's house, with the wisest and one of the most noted pru∣dence; that the youngest, rawest and most unexperienced Minister should have as much power in ruleing the house of God, as the Man fullest of years, whose judgment is consolidated and ripened for govern∣ment, and who hath for a long time given such documents of good and wise behaviour, that makes him fitter to rule the younger sort, then to be ruled by them?] Answ. No doubt but ye are the people and wisdome shall die with you, yee are the Men of greatest gifts, learning and knowledge, viz. to devoure cups, loose the knots of Govenants, and to lead people the broad way to hell; you are the wisest and most noted for prudence, in that carnal wisdome, which is enmity to God, and in that worldly way of selling soul and conscience, to purchase,

greetings in the high wayes, high places, honours, reve∣nues, Court stations, Court rewards, and Court comple∣ments, &c. You are the Men fullest of years, whose judg∣ment is consolidated & ripened for government, giving for along time documents of good and wise behaviour, having not only your judgments stupidly blinded, but consciences seared and ripened for a dreadful plague; and of this, have you for a long time given sufficient documents, by shewing how chamelion-like you can change all colours, and how wittily you can turne with all tydes, and have a behaviour suteable for all companyes, but the company of God's people. O ye Seraphical Divines, or or rather Dunces! O ye suf∣ficiently qualified for a bacchus barrel! O ye sublime Do∣ctors of the blake art of perjury! O ye learned Clerks in the mysteries of the Kingdome of Darknesse! O ye whose pru∣dence is to saile with all windes! O ye Men of judgment consolidated into a stone, having no conscience, and far lesse piety? Doubtlesse you are the Men, the only Men fit for the sole possessing of that potestative power and authori∣ty, to manage the matters of God's house, and to rule the young stirplings▪ But every tree is known by its frute, and whether your singular Antichristian supereminency, or the Apostolick parity, hath best mannaged the matters of Christ's house, the present overflowing and abounding of Idolatry, Superstition, Sodomy, Adultery, Uncleanesse, Drunkenesse, Atheisme, Ignorance, Profanity, malig∣nancy, hatred of piety, persecution of godlinesse, and such like abhominations, and the villannies of these debauched creatures the Curates, will, to all serious and sober•• on∣lookers, determine: And by the present face of affaires, together with all that, which what is already come doth presage, compared with what was seen while Presbyterian government was in any vigour and integrity, will make all that feare the Lord, see that more of the concerns of Christ's Kingdome and their owne salvation, lyeth upon that very poynt of the discipline of Christ's house, then by many hath been thought, and will be a sufficient confirmation, that this parity, and not their domineering superiority, was the only

forme of government established by Christ and his A∣postles. Moreover he sayes, [Or who can see the prejudice to Christ's Kingdome, and precious souls, if such a worthy person (as is described) be intrusted with inspection over other Brethren and Churches, in a reasonable bounds, not with a dominative or lordly power, but paternal and fatherly; not to do after his owne arbitrement, and as one unchallengeable in his actions, but to be regulated by acts of the Church and Land, and to be responsible to his Super tours in case of maleversation; not to rule solely, but with the consent and Counsel of Presbysers;] Answ. By this Tyranny in the Church, all may see what prejudice doth dayly come to Christ's King∣dome, and to precious souls, who will but open their eyes. By what authority should any clame that power of inspection over others, and that in a most unreasonable bounds? Is the power of the present Lordly Lord Prelates paternal? Sure they must be step Fathers then, and that of the cruelest kinde? Have not the present Lordly Prelats, as much dominative and Lordly power, as ever they had in Scotland? And do they not rule and domineer in the Church after their owne arbitrement? Who is to controle them, unlesse the good King but a gentle curb in some or their jawes to make way for greater rage and Tyranny? What acts of the Church are these which regulate them? Be-like the lawes & acts which their owne lusts make, within their owne breasts; for they are the Church, the holy Clergy, and who but they? Who are over them as Superiours? Sure none but the King, in their account; and to him must they be responsible; and if they forget not the Court-art, but la∣boure to keep some chief courtiers on their side, they know all will be well, and they will hear no rebukes, but well done good and faithful Servant; but no Church judicatory is over them. But Zion's King is above them and their Supe∣riour also, and he will call them to an account for their usur∣pation and Tyranny. He tells us, they rule with the con∣sent and Counsel of Presbyters; but when? And where? And how? What? Will they walke by the consent and Counsel of the weakest and most ignorant of Presbyters, weakest in their prudentialls, Youngest, rawest, and most

unexperienced stirplings? Sure they being men of greatest gifts, learning and knowleldge, the wisest, and most noted for purdence, Men fullest of yeers, whose judgment is con∣solidated and ripened for government, will think it below them to rule with the consent and counsel of those; And ex∣perience doth prove it.

5. This noble disputant vvill come in the follovving words Pag. 7. and prove the Ius divinum of prelacy, not only against us, who hold it to be jure Antichristi; but against King, Parliament and all the Malignant cabal, who hold it only Iure Caroli: But the man's judgment is so consolidated, and he is so vvell read in his prudentials, that he must dravv bridle, and speak spareingly, and only whisper out what he would faine be at, and say. [Can this way be disrelished by sober Christians, being so strongly pleaded by the light of sound reason.] Nay rather, by the light of ambition, vanity, vaine glory, love of money, luxury, covetousnesse, love of this present world more then the love of God, and the edification of his Church; As all who are not sworne slaves to the perjured prelates will confidently averre sub rosa. [Making so much (sayes he) for the comelinesse and order of Chrisi's Church.] Rather so much for the deformity, confusion and destruction of the Church, and of all true Church-order, as not only all who have eyes in their heads will grant, but the present frutes and effects cry out to all the world. [Being (he addeth) so suteable and correspondent to the ancient government of the Church of Israel wherein there wee Priests, and chief Priests, and several rankes of Ministers, an order which was neither typical nor temporal; but hath a standing reason reaching us.] O so bravely as this advocat pleads for the Pope! hath he gote the promise of a Cardinal's cap for his paines? Because there was one high Priest o∣ver all the Church, must we have also one Pope? Good Master Prelate prove your consequence, for we see no such standing reason reaching us, as to this; nor as to what you would conclude, the case being the same. [Being (sayes he) so conforme to the beginnings of Christ's ordering the New Testa∣ment Ministry, where there were Apostles above the seventy disciples.] Nay rather so conforme to Antichrist's ordering of his

Church; for, as the seventy Disciples were to be no standing officers in Christ's house, so the Apostles had no superiority of order or jurisdiction over them, they were intrusted with no inspection over these. Let our Master Bishope with all his gifts, learning, and knowledge shew this if he can? Being (sayes he further) so agreable to the Apostles constitution of the go∣vernment of the Churches of the New Testament, which was in an imparity of power in Ministers, as is luculently exemplified in the power of Timothy, and Titus, who were not Evangelists, nor ever accounted so by the spirit of God.] It seemeth then Paul was not acted by the spirit of God, when he said to Timothy 2 Tim. 4: 5. do the work of an Euangelist: and since all the proof which he can bring of this, is this example of Timothy and Titus, let his consolidated and ripened judgment, taking to help, the greatest of his gifts, learning and knowledge, answere what Prinne hath said in his Unbishoping of Timothy and Titus: and let him not thus stope our mouth with his raw and blunt assertions, lest wise men think he hath neither gifts, learn∣ing, knovvledge, prudence, nor judgment, but a rarifyed vvindy braine, swelled to a great bulk vvith vanity and conceite, as who but he, who can confute all books hovv ful soever of unansvverable reasons, vvith his bare I say otherwise. [And finally, (sayes he) our as∣cended glorious Saviour having honoured persons with that pre∣cedency by letters, written by his secretary Iohn unto them Revel 2, and 3. Chapt, wherein he sheweth the approbation of their office and power, reproving their neglects, yet honouring them with the stile of Angels to the Churches, or his Messengers in speciall man∣ner, which cannot, without notable pervers••on of the Scripture, be otherwise understood, but of single persons presideing over presbyters.] Can no single person preside over prebyters, except my Lord Prelate? Or are all presidents or moderators of pres∣byteries Prelates? Nay he will be loath to say so. And what can he prove from thence (though it were granted to him that this Angel was once single person, which cannot be till Holy and profound Mr Durham's arguments be confuted, which will be ad c••lendas Graecas) but at most, that this An∣gel was a moderator of the meeting? Was he therefore the

Lord Prelate? No, master Bishop; your wit and learning both will not prove this. And hath your new Order and dignity, to which you are advance, O Lordly Prelate, infused no new gifts into you, that you might fasten your chaire with some new nailes or arguments; or are you so consolidated into the old temper of your predecessours, that you must rest satisfied with what they said, as having neither gifts, learning, knowledge nor wit, to invent new things? But could your lordly braine think of no reply to the solidanswers, which poor, weak, ignorant and unexperienced presbyters gave long agoe unto these arguments? Why then did you chant over the old song againe, to make yourselfe but ridi∣culous? Did you think that your word would have more weight, then the solid reasons of that solid and Eminent divine Holy Mr Durham in his exposition of that place? If so, you must have a wonderful high esteem of yourselfe, which will make all wise Men to esteem the lesse of you. [And this order (sayes he) Christs Church & dear spouse, having since that time retained in all places, where Churches were constitute, without exception, in all times without interruption, until this last age, wherein, through hatred of corruptions adhereing thereto under Popery, and because of the enmity of the Popish Bishops to the reformation, some have utterly without any reason rejected the office it self.] O irrefragable dictator! Ex tripode he dictats like another uncontrollable Ma∣ster. What better is this out of your Mouth, then it was out of old Bishop Hall'•• the Remonstrator, and confuted by Smectymnuus? is this man able to answere al which Blondel hath said against this, or learned Calderwood in his Altar. Damasc. or yet to answer what his dearer friend Stilling fleet hath said to this purpose, in this Irenicum? Why hath he not once noticed that which the author of Apologetical Relation hath said Sect. 1. Where he shewed out of History and by reason, that Palladius was the first prelate that ever Scotland saw? And this solifidian giveth us non causam pro causâ, when he sayes that it was only the corruptions of the Prelates, that made some without reason reject them, whereas it was their want of an institution of Christ, that made all, with the irre∣fragability of reason, reject them as no officers of Christ:

And we shall willingly conclude this with his words follow∣ing [Who can think that a Christian People will not readyly follow the footsteps of the flock in former generations.] Provideing he will suffer us to adde this [In so far, and so long, as they walked after their master Christ, and followed his institutions.]

6. Then Pag. 8. He sayes it is not [His intention Either to provock any fearers of God, who have been perhaps, in an houre of tentation, miscarryed to irregular courses, following too readyly, in the simplicity of their hearts, cunning leaders, who have had too much do∣minion over their faith; these we judge worthy of greatest tendernesse in dealing with them.] But who are those? Sure, by the carriage of the present powers, enraged and animated by the perfidious Prelates, we heare of none who meet with any tendernesse, though he judge them worthy of greatnest ten∣dernesse, And what are these irregular courses? Is it an irregular course to refuse to run with this perjured Prelate & his fraternity, to the same excesse of apostasy, and as far from their sworne allegiance to God, as his debauched conscience hath carryed him? What was the tentation which made them stand fast? He knowes better what ten∣tations (and whether they lasted for a day or for an houre) they were, which drew him off; sure they had none such to move them to stand fast, but the fear of God (which he stoke off) made them mindeful of their Covenants. What are these cunning leaders which he sayes had dominion over their faith? They follow no leader but their Master Christ. But because he hath hung his faith at the King's girdle, and hath no other principles to walk by, he supposes all others to be of his stamp, and must needs hang on some body: But he will finde them to be persons of conscience, and not so ready to follow any man in the simplicity of their hearts, as he suppo••eth. Then being in a good mood he lets out a flash of hope, saying [Nor are we without hope that God who stills the noise of the seas, &c. Psal. 65: ver. 7. will in time allay their animosities, and rebuke the stormy winde and seas of their passions, that they may be still; and that he will bring them to consi∣der their wayes, wherein they have exceeded, and give them to know how ill and bitter a thing it is to forsake their owne mercies, in

the ordinances of God, for the want or having of this or that forme of external government.] Now we see that the tender mercyes of the wicked are cruel, when we see the tendency of the best of the wishes and hopes of this Man, when he is in his best mood. But we are confident, his hopes shall perish, as doth the hope of the Hypocrite, because it is not botto∣med on faith, and he hath no ground to beleeve that such as have hitherto keept themselves pure, shall at length turne in with them to the swineish pudle. We beleeve That that God who stills the noise of the seas, the noise of the waves, and the tu∣mult of the People, shall in due time make this true of them, when he shall shew himself the hearer of prayers, and when he shall have purged away our transgressions, and shall satis∣fy us with the goodnesse of his house, and even of his holy temple, and so prove himself to be the God of our Sal∣vation Psal. 65: ver. 2, 3, 4, 5. We hope also he shall bring us to consider these wayes, wherein indeed we have ex∣ceeded; and make us know hovv ill and bitter a thing it is to forsake our owne Mercyes, in not adhereing to all the or∣dinances of God, so faithfully, as vve vovved in our Cove∣nants to do, even to that external forme of government, vvhich Christ hath instituted, and hath so signally ovvned as his ordinance, by his rich blessing follovving thereupon, amongst us, vvhatever this indifferent-laodicean-latitudi∣narian think of the matter.

7. To vvhom then vvould this Man reach a blovv [These we aime at (sayes he) in this parallel with Anabaptists, are the Naphtalian party, i e▪ the furious sort of these who under the con∣duct of this teacher and his like, make sport of rebellions murthers, assassinations.] Novv the man is in his element, dipping his pen in gall, and spevving out the venome of his heart against the zealous maintainers of the interests of Christ; & therefore his tongue is ready to utter his mischievous calumnies, and his anile rhetorick flovveth over all its banks: for (sayes he) they are [a fur••ous sort that make sport of rebellions murders assassina∣tions (vve knovv what this aimes at; but he might say vvoe to ill company) that they have hardned and harnessed their heart (O rare thetorick!) (as appears by their writtings and deeds) that they

have become stout in a ded••lent greedinesse (O soaring elequence!) to commit any wickednesse, which they account meet to serve their designe, as if their supposed good cause could legitimate the worst course (all which he must confirme with lies, and say) who make no reckoning, as their Doctor here professeth, of overturning thrones, of making the land drunk with the blood of the inhabitants, multiplying fatherlesse and widowes in the midst thereof and introduceing greatest confusion and calamites (because forsooth they would have the order which Christ hath established in his Church introduced, and Antichristian confusion, with all the calamities that at∣tend it and support it, ejected and extirpated) that may make all faces gather blacknesse, and all to smite on the thigh, crying alas for the day.] (No: he needs not feare that any face should gather blacknesse, or that any should have cause to cry alas for the day, but the cursed crue of apostat perjured prelats, with their underlings, supporters and adherents.) Then he proceeds like himself [If so be (sayes he) they may upon the ruins of all, erect the idol of pretended parity of Ministers, which when they have set up, the imperious agitators will (as▪ they have done formerly) baffle, if any offer be, to level them to other: and howsoever the weaker brethren must be Enterteaned with faire words and noddified with notional disputs anent their parity with the best, that they may think themselves some what; Yet how disdainfully was it, and yet would be taken, if these low shrubs should assay a practicall parity with the tall cedars in the governement of affaires.] We see at what this wormwood man aimeth: It is a wonder what peace he hath now, seing he looketh on himself as Lord pre∣late, as well as the best, that he is not advanced to be a member of Councel and Lord of the Session with others. It seemeth he is content now to be noddified with a notional disput anent his parity, seing he hath gotten the fat portion he gaped for, the only desireable thing, viz. his bishoprick. Be like the thing that moveth his splene now to write thus, is be∣cause his quondā••brethren baffled him down among the weak, and did not so intrust him as they did that Arch-deceiver, his late companion in fear and perplexity: And so it would seem, he is only grieved, that he had not an equal hand with that Arch-traitour sharpe, in cutting his Mothers throat: O

strange! But, to his sorrow let him know, God will take the desire for the dead. Then he closeth that paragraph with a quirck, saying, [Imparity was then without tittle now it is with it, and there is our change and great defection, and surely, that which hath been, will be, & there is no new thing under the Sun.] And so may the Pope say, There was an imparity among the Apostles, (for Peter and some others were pillars) without a title, but now it is with a title: Is not this well pleaded O Prelatical Advocat? But whence is your title Mr Prelate? Or who gave you than name? The King your God Father? Well, then by that right you must enjoy it. but whence cometh the blessing and ratification? Not from above, but from—. He hath forgotten one great change; but that possibly he will account no great defection, viz. that, by which he from Mr Presbyter, wherein he was in no great account, yet noddyfied by some, is turned my Lord Prelate; And now laboureth to noddi••y all into a consent & congratulatory acquiescence in his advancement and digni∣ty. But Ca••aphas cometh to tell us, that surely that which hath been will be; and so, as formerly perjured and abjured Prelates, have been cast out of Church and Commonwealth with ab∣homination, they shall be yet againe cast out with more abhorrence then ever▪ Esto. The Lord hasten it in his time.

8. Then he tels us Pag. 9. [That this furious Napht. coming ••n upon the back of the Apology, another invenomed egg, hatched (be like) by one and the same cockatrice; the second justifying the rebellion to which the first did instigate, and inflaming to more, may let them who will not shut their owne eyes, see the mystery of Anabap∣tistical confusion working and spreading.] This man measureth others by his owne foot, thinking that the laboures of others, for the justifying of the people of God, in defending them∣selves against not only invenomed principles, but also inveno∣med practices, of such as look rather like cockatrices then any other thing▪ being good for nothing but to destroy, to be invenomed eggs hatched by cockatrices, because his pam∣phlet hatched by a cock-prelate, hath undisputably the ve••ome of such an egge in it. The Apology did instigate to

no rebellion▪ Nor doth Napht. justify any action truely so chargeable: As hath been shewed. But his egg (novv sufficiently crushed, and put beyond the hazzard of endan∣gering any who are wise &rational) if brought to perfection, had brocken forth into a cockatrice, and had endangered King and Kingdomes, and all Commonwealths: And be∣cause it was full of this venome, should be condemned to the fire, by all who love their owne welfare and the welfare of Societies, and of the Church of God. But how can any see here the mysterie of Anabaptistical confusion working? [for(addeth he) although the author pretendeth highly for presbytery, which he and his complices (hauks of the right nest) have long agoe hewed downe in this Church, as to the practice of it.] We knovv what this lying calumniator meaneth, and these with whom, unworthily, he was sometimes reckoned (being as is novv apparent, a bird of another nest) who have found grace to be faithful hithertil, will now acknowledge (I suppose) that such as were opposite to them in that debate, did strengthen and fortify the pillars of presbyterian government. [Yet (sayes he) eviden•• it is that his pretences for presbytery, are but prefaces to some further great designe of michief to Church and State.] To whom is this evident? Sure, I think, to none but to him∣self & his complices, whose plague is (and as yet but in part) to be in fear where no fear is: How can he make this out? [For (sayes he) having sold himself to work confusion & rebellion, he goes about to overthrow all powers ordained of God, in a most cy∣clopick boldnesse displaying a banner against all invested law∣fully with any degree of civil or Church-power.] This author is like the Tinkers dog, which (according to our countrey proverb) would gladly be among good company. He foists in his Antichristian usurped tyrannical power and dominion over the Church, among the lawful powers ordained of God. But when he sayes that Naphtali displayeth a banner against the powers ordained of God, he but sheweth his cyclopick boldnesse in averring untruths, or his astrangement to cyclo∣pedeja, in drawing such inferences; but both suteable to that execrated order of abjured Prelacy, in which there useth to be but few either civil or learned, as this day putteth be∣yond

debate. Then he would make us beleeve that [The Author doth not behave himself like Naphtaly, the hinde let loose which giveth goodly Words, &c. Genes. 49: ver. 21. Deut. 33: ver. 23. But as in his heart there are evil treasures of wickednesse, so in his lips and pen there is a burning fire, he strives to enflame all with the rage of his tongue, and runs upon all sorts of authorities, f••om the highest to the lowest, like a savage Beast or wilde Beare, let loose to waste and confound miserably both the visible Kingdome of Christ in the Land, and the civil Kingdome thereof setled upon the best foundations.] The Book answered its name: for it was a hinde let loose and gave goodly words, for God, his Cause, and people; and it is not to give goodly words, to flatter Princes or Prelates, howbeit he who judgeth like a sensualist would account such, words of goodlinesse, fairnesse and pleasantnesse. Naphtaly was satisfied with favour, and full of the blessing of the Lord: And so was this book though condemned to a fire, by such as would care little to cast the Bible into a fire too: But their favour or blessing in never expected. And when he sayes that in the Author's heart, there were evil treasures, &c. He still measureth others by himself, Naphtaly runeth not upon all sorts of authorities or any sort of authori∣ties truely so called: He was so farr from wasting and con∣founding the visible Kingdome of Christ in the Land, that he was pleading for the same against all adversaries, and defend∣ing it, especially from these savage Beasts and Bears, who have already laid it waste and desolate; and if the Lord prevent it not, shall make it the visible Kingdome of Antichrist. He was so far from troubling the civil King∣dome setled upon the best foundations, that it vvas that, at vvhich he was driving, to have the Kingdome setled upon its old, sure, and best basis, the Covenants, and Religion reformed in worshipe doctrine discipline and government. Then he must tell us that the book vvants nothing of the compleatnesse of an infamous lybel, and why? Because [it fals upon particular persons by name, to asperse then credit, the constant integrity of whose conversation will easily stop his foule lying mouth, in the Consciences of God's people who know them.] If these persons get no other Orator to set forth their praises, then this man

(who is a black raven of the same nest.) I feare their con∣versation shall never stop all mens mouthes. For my part I shall, and I suppose that author will be content, to referre the determination of this, to the consciences of all God's people who know them: And let such judge whether they be men of integrity, or men of constant integrity: we could tell storyes of some, but we shall for beare; it may be a volum will be made of their prophane practices, when such as know them best, and observe their wayes, shall help us to a legend of their wayes & courses: And when the world seeth this, It will judge of the integrity of their conversation: but enough of this trash here.

9. In the follovving paragraph, beginning Pag. 10. he is at some demurre, not knovving vvell vvhat course to take vvith that book, which this true Cretian calleth a bundle of im∣pudent lyes and falshoods, grosse slanders and revileings, not one of which hath he as yet discovered. But where lay the difficulty?

[Upon the one hand sayes he) it was thought best to neglect the rage of this man (if one that hath so much renunced humanity, as he is here seen to do, may be so tearmed) lest by being noticed he might think himself some what.]

A very hard censure, to make a supposition, if one who speaketh with so much weight of reason, as trans∣cendeth the reach of this animal, may be tearmed a man, If the supposer were not known, to be no acute judge, being animal amphibion bipes a double face'd gentle man, vvho hath turned his coat & his tongue too. But why would he grudge poor Naphtali this? Or doth he think that his taking notice of him, will make him esteem the more highly of himself? Not one white: a stout man will never think himfelf the more valiant, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 a foolish childe set upon him with a straw. Was there no other reason.

[Especially (sayes he) lest People (who as they affect are ordinarily opinionated) might have too much matter 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ••eed their humour, to fournish their light discourses, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to ensnare their souls, by representing to them the matters of this libel (worthy to be buried in oblivion) they being too apt (whatever Salvo might be added) to receive the poison without the antidote, according

to their prejudices.]

This was a good consideration, and if the Man had been as tender as he pretendeth to be, hes hould not have digged up what deserved to be buried, especially since he might have known he was not able to prepare a sufficient antidote: But thought he that his silence would have hin∣dered any to have pondered that book? I beleeve indeed his silence had done more good to the King and his cause, then all his hote work is like to do; and he hath done more to insnare souls (if it be to insnare them) then Naphtaly did, I do not meane by representing some other things to the con∣sideration of people; but by his adding so weak and incon∣siderable a Salvo, that he fixed what Naphtaly said more deeply in their hearts, if judicious Readers did not account it unanswerable before they did see his weak & non-answere∣ing Reply. What further,

[It seemed also (Sayes he) a matter full of tediousnesse to a well composed heart, to enter into a fire of endlesse strife and continual reciproca∣tion of altercations, wherein a Man is not likely to finde more truth then he hath already (truth in the most impor∣tant matters in the book having been of old fully vindicated by learned hands, and nothing now opposed, but old songs chanted over and over againe) although like enough to lose much of that charity and calme and composed temper of heart which he had before.]

Then it seemeth his heart was not a well composed heart; for it did not seem tedious unto him, to enter into this fire of endlesse strife and conti∣nual reciprocation of altercation, and to spend so much time, and paper, and paines in vaine: And we must pity his case now, who hath lost much of that charity and calme and composed temper of heart, which he had formetly, Sed qui nihil habet, nihil amittit, a little stok is soon wasted. By whom to this day was Lex Rex answered? And doth not himself say that Naphtaly out stripes his Masters, even as to the most important matters of the book? Hovv is it then that he sayes there is nothing but old songs chanted over and over againe? This Man is sui similis, As yet as inconsistent with himself in his words, as in his walk. But seing he had the help of so many old Vindicators, hovv comes it that he hath

acted his part so childishly, and vindicated the King's cause worse then any Man that ever put pen to paper; as is shewed? Why did not this pigmay set himself upon their shoulders that he might have seemed something? What was there more on this hand? [

What Man is he (sayes he) that knowing how much more important work he hath upon his hand for his owne salvation, and honouring God in his station in the World, would willingly engadge in endlesse contests with persons, whose idlenesse gives them too great opportunity of evil doing, and who having cast by the Lord's work in building his Church, are too much set to do Satan's vvork in dissipating the same.

] Then this Man thinketh it is inconsistent vvith one to minde the vvork of his vvne salvation, and to defend the King's cause, vvhich is very true, Let the King and his party notice this. But it is strange, that seing he thought the vvork of his opposers Satan's, he should not think it incumbent to a tender soul to do vvhat he can to destroy the vvorks of the Devil: vve see also that the love of money is the root of all evil, and hath caused him run greedily after the error of Balaam for revvard, for to purchase the hire, he hath cast by the important vvork of his salvation, and laid aside the honouring of God in his station. This is the Man's constant integrity. As for those Men whose idlenesse he talkes of, if he meane Ministers, he knoweth who hindereth them from doing the work of the Lord in building his Church, and they will ansvvere for it, and he also for his share in that, and for this vvork of Satan vvhich a little money hath prompted him to: and vvhen they are vvrestling and pleading for Zion and the cause of her King, God vvill not account them idle nor evil doers nor setters up of Satans work: What further!

[It seemed honourable enough (sayes he) to decline this contention and strife, which is like the letting out of watters, in expectation that either Mansconscience (if it be not infinitly cor∣rupted) may the confute him in most of his assertions, and standers, or that his manifest unchristian dealing, may help to open the eyes of such as he labours to delude, and bring them to abhorre his way; or that the really Religious

and righteous dealings of Church and State, may more forcibly put him to silence then words or writings can.]

It had been indeed more advantagious to the King's cause, (and lesse dishonourable to himself) to have been silent, then thus to have letten out waters to the King's great pre∣judice, and his owne discredit. If he had any expectation that the Man's conscience would have confuted him in most of his assertions, why did he hinder that work, by confirming him in the truth of his assertions by his weak and foolish re∣plyes? Praestat otiari quam nihil agere: and why did he not more manfully discover these unchristian dealings, the better to undeceive such as he supposeth were deluded? What are these manifest unchristian dealings of his? Sure the event hath and shall furder, we hope, declare that his owne deal∣ing hath been much more manifestly unchristian▪ by labouring to blinde the eyes of such as savv before. But I suppose he may talke at leasure of his proselyts. When the really religious and righteous dealings of Church and State shall forcibly confute what is there said, we know not. Sure, when ever their actions become really Religious, and righ∣teous, they will condemne his pamphlet to the fire, and himself to the correction-house, and approve of all which is said in Naphtaly,

[Sometimes (sayes he) keeping silence is seasonable, the Man according to God's owne heart would not suffer Shimei's revileings to be repayed upon the head of that dead dog; Hezekiah discharged to answere a word to railing Rabshakeh; Ieremiah the Prophet, contra∣dicted by the false Prophet Hananiah, went his way and said nothing: The wise Solomon forbids to take heed to all words, that are spoken, and to answer a fool according to to his folly; The Lord of Kings and Prophets sometimes answered not his accusers a word]

True, sometimes silence is not only seasonable but 〈◊〉〈◊〉; and so would the Kings cause have found it now and by his answering, not withstanding of what he here sayes, it would seem that Naphtaly is no Shimes, Rabshakeh, Hananiah, nor fool, nor an enemy to Christ. Or that the King is not like the Man ac∣cording to God's heart, nor like good Hezekiah: Nor is this

Pamphleter like Ieremiah, nor hath follovved either Solomon's advice, or Christ's example. But I see not why both may not be true. Yet furder:

[So it seemed fit to let alone an insolent and forward railer and mocker, and not to lavish out pre∣cious time, which might be better bestowed, upon one that gives such visible evidences both of a reasonlesse and unchristian Spirit, whose libel may be reckoned amongst the things, quae spreta exolescunt, and worthy to be answered with nothing but silence & contempt,]

Then it seemeth he ex∣pecteth a reward also from the Author of Naphtaly, for lavish∣ing out so much of his precious time to keep in memory such a book, which if he had miskend, would have dyed out of minde, and which he hath honoured with another answere then silence; but all the reward he can expect will be but par pari referre, payment without putting any thing in his purse, and yet a payment in his owne coine. Then, to him it is a lavishing of precious time to maintaine the King's cause: it seemeth also that he hath lavished out much time upon it, and what will not money do? The gredy gapeing after which, will make a Man, not only lavish out precious time needlesly, But also put honour and respect on what he accounteth worthy of contempt.

10. Let us see what did preponderat and bring this tossed Man to a firme resolution, and determine him to bring this brate to light, this product of his ill composed heart, and not well tempered braine.

[Upon the other hand (sayes he) it seemed something hard (especially in such a distemper∣ed time) to suffer an insolent person, in whose mouth is a rode of pride, to cast the truth downe to the ground, without control, and to tread upon, and triumph over a holy and righteous cause, and upon honourable persons of all ranks, engaged in the maintainance thereof in so abu∣sive, despiteful and intolerable a way, and not give him any check. Not to put some stop to this furious driver, who againe and againe assaults this Church with vile lyes and reproaches, looked like the betraying and deserting of an honest and honoruable cause, or like the hirelings seeing the Wolfe, and flying and leaving the flock to be

destroyed with delusion, fugisti quia tacuisti. There is an evil silence that leaves Men in sin, as well as an evil speak∣ing that leads Men to sin; and we are not only to give an account pro atio so verbo, but pro otioso silentio, for idle silence; when God, and the publick necessity of the Church, or Society whereof we are members, Calleth for a valiant (not brutishly violent and forcible way, such as this mans pleads for) and rational contending for the truth. It is sinful pusillanimity, and not warrantable prudence to see truth fall in the streets and not lift it up. And verily this man seems to be amongst these of Whom Solomon sayes Prov. 26: v. 5. who must be answered lest he seem wise in his owne conceite, and to be amongst these Tit. 1: v. 10, 11. unruly and vaine talkers and deceivers, whose mouths must be stopped that the gangrene of his words may not creep further to the con∣sumption & subversion of Church & State.]

Faire words ad faciendum populum, qui si decipi vult, decipiatur. But he hath this disadvantage, that few that know him will beleeve, that these or any of these are the true cause of this undertaking: But that rather vvhich he thought good to conceale, viz. The Three hundereth pound sterling brought to him by the gre∣ater rogue & the better rewarded, Ia: Sharpe deceiver of that ilke: for if these things here mentioned had been his end, and motive, why was he feared that this should have wronged a well composed heart, and Should not have been a honouring of God in his station, but a needlesse lavishing out of precious time, which might be better bestowed? Nay there was reason for all this; for whether he saw it or not, he (who together with his complices distempered the times and all things) in whose mouth there being a rode of pride, did insolently cast the truth downe to the ground, as they could, and endeavoured to tread upon and triumph over a holy righteous cause, and all the maintainers thereof, in an abusive, despiteful, and intolerable way, and laboured to lift up an exploded, depised and cursed falshood, once de∣throned with shoutings and great exclamations of joy (but we have seen his horns have been but short) He is truely (as the sober vvill judge) the furious driver who againe and

againe doth assault the true Church and cause of God with lyes and reproaches. He (vvhether he had medled with this work or not) & the rest with their underlings, are the true hire∣lings & wolves, destroying the flock of God: & in this work, thought there be not otio sum silentium, there are otio sa verba and vvorse & praetereanihil, and an unvaliant, impudent, affronted pleading for untruth, tyranny and vvickednesse, vvhich is neither a product of prudence, nor magnanimity. And vvhen he hath cited Prov. 26: 5. and Tit. 1: 10, 11. he hath adduced his ovvne Doom, and accordingly he is ansvvered, and his mouth (let it be is vvide as it vvill) gaged and stopped, not with butter (which is unfit to stoppe a breathing mouth) but vviht more solid stuff, so that vve are confident the gangraene of his vvords shall not creep far, not infect such as are cleane; and as for such as are uncleane, they owe their infection to some other, not so innocent in vvi•• and parts as he is.

11. Novv the dye being cast, and he resolved to say something, he is as much perplexed anent the way of handling this businesse. Yea he sayes, [

There is a greater difficulty in dealing vvith this Man of no forehead (or if he have any, it is of the hardest metal) of little conscience, but of infinite loquacity, and of a most unbridled tongue, vvhich is a trea∣sure of all revileing language.

] Yet he finds him and vvill possibly yet more finde him, a man vvhose fore-head is of harder mettal, (though not in impudency & shamelesse audacity) then he is able to stand against; and a man of more conscience then to contradict himself either in vvords or deeds, (as this verlumnus, a man of a debauched conscience, doth) a man not of infinite loquacity or of an unbridled tongue, vvho repeateth not the same thing over and over againe ad nauseam us que nor one who speaketh non-sense at ran∣dome (as this poor pamphleter doth) but a man of more solid reason, and nervous succinct expressions, then he vvas able to comprehend: And vvho so shall compare the tvvo together shall finde he hath put the saddle on the vvrong horse. But where did the difficulty lye? [

The great dif∣ficulty vvas (sayes he) hovv to moderate and temper a stile

of vvriting tovvard such an one, difficile est satyram non scribere contra satyrum; for hardly can a man meet in any book, vvith more bitter invectives against all authorities and dignities appoynted and approven of God, then are here to be found; all that have gone that way before him, seem but Children in vvickednesse, in comparison of him: he deserves to be in the first classe of these Jude v. 8. Who despise dominion and speak evil of dignities.

] Answ. Naphtaly, it is true, is no base sycophant nor slatterer; nor is he, because of free and faithful holding forth of the wicked and sinful carriage of these in authority, and of these who have usurped authority, to be accounted a writter of Satyrs or of invectives, else the Pro∣phets writings shall not escape that sharpe censure. Nor is he upon this account to be reckoned among, far lesse to be put into, the first classe of these who despise dominions, &c. unlesse by this ignoramus who knoweth no medium betwixt base flattering of dignities, and speaking evil of them. Yet in the following part of that Paragraph, he sayes he deserveth well, because of his plainnesse; though it be but his sancy to think that Either King or Nobles are in hazard to be dispos∣sessed by private persons in a Phine as like Spirit, yet he is truely and especially afrayed of the ministry; and mainly of the Bishops, because such strokes approach neare to him∣self, and the burnt Childe feareth the fire, And his fear blindeth his eyes, so that he cannot see to read Naphtaly a right. And I think no heroik person, will desire to imbrew their hands in their blood, who are far below the wrath of a man, far more, the indignation of an Heroik person, though they shall never be found innocent, be pursued when they will. He but lyeth when he sayeth in the following words [That Naphtaly with his tragical oh's awakeneth the rage of the rudest multitude (which becals Zeal of God) to execute judgement on them, that the fierce angco of God may be turned away.] Nor doth he tell them if they do not so they are plagued with. s••upidity and blindnesse. It is true which he sayes that [All soris of Rulers in the land may see their dittay and their doom drawne in that book.] But no otehrwise then as the word of God giveth warrand, and there they would read it, and repent in time,

lest they sinde it verified. He is but like himself a false lyar when he sayes that Naphtaly [Discovereth the malicious cruel and bloody designes of his party.] For they have no malicious cruel nor bloody designes, their only designes being to maintaine their integrity and their reformed Religion, which Enemies combined against Christ are seeking to destory. This man imagineth a snare where there is none; but seeth not the snare which Satan and his owne hands are setting for his soul, nei∣ther will he and the rest take warning, though the word of the Lord do clearly discover wrath and vengeance at hand, and whether then they be worthy of a faire hood and bells, Let any judge: but sure I am, they shall one day see their folly and madnesse, and write Abner's Epitaph over themselves. But we wish them rather repentance and to be wise in time, not against their will, but willingly.

12. And furder ibid Pag. 13. he tells us [It were irksome and unsuteable to one who desireth to keep the constant compsure of a Christian Spirit to indulge an humour of retaliating.] And that he is at a great disadvant age, because it almost transcends (in his appre∣hension) humane patience to treat mildly with such an insolent one. O! Who would not pity this man who is put off the con∣stant composure of a Christian Spirit? But can he be in the composure of a Christian Spirit, who is so easily moved off it, by that which should rather settle him in it? Can his patience be good, which is so stirred by hearing of truth told? And who can think that he hath been of any composure of a Christian spirit, who hath not indeed indulged an humor of re∣taliating but of brawleing in a transcendently insolent manner without ground given, being transported beyond the bounds of humanity, let be humane patience? Then Pag. 14. he Sheweth what reason he hath to use, a more then ordinary vehemency of a keen stile, saying [Shall Masters of consusi••n (as if he were not a Davus) Indulging themselves in their proud moro suy, ••unworthyly demeane themselves toward the sober defenders of the truth, (but who are these?) And will not this be a suffi∣cient Apology for them to put forth some sting?] But good Sir I fear your sting be gone long since, because you are become a drone: We have seen your good will to shoot your sting

but it wanted its poynt, as for your sting in your taile it will not hurt much, and we know who is King over such locusts, even the angel of the bottomelesse pit, Rev. 9: ver. 11. Now this stinging locust comes to compare Naphtaly to Hecuba, but any who reads Naphtaly finde him not barking as a mad bitch, but speaking the words of truth and sobernesse, with such strengh of reason as transcendeth this distempered man's capacity to understand, otherwise he had never made such a comparison. Then he tells us that [A toothlesse defence might possibly tend to harden him and his complices, and breed suspicion of some signes of diffedence, distrust and timorousnesse in owning of the cause against him.] I beleeve this defence hath as many teeth as he could put in it; but for all that, it can be called noth∣ing else then a toothlesse defence, because it is nothing but a bundle of sharp tooth'd words without any reason; and be∣cause we see now all that he and his party can say, against the truth which we maintaine, we are indeed thereby, the more confirmed therein; and we do not suspect him of dif∣fidence, distrust and timorousnesse, that his cause is not better defended, knowing how bold and audacious he is: but we know that an ill cause cannot be well defended, though never man hath defended it worse then he hath done, though better rewarded then many.

13. The good man turns Neptune at length saying, Sed motos praestat componere fluctiu; and then sayes, [It will be fitter to consider what becomes us to utter then what he is worthy to hear.] Then it seemeth we should exspect a very calme sea; but the waves of his passions have not been setled for all his Neptun authority. [Therelyes (sayes he) a tentation in these name lesse writtings (which therefore it is to be wished, were not in use) to exceed in passions, and to utter words (incognito) that will not be stood to.] The iniquity of the times, and the rage of princes vvho vvill not hear the truth, is a just, cause why some should speak and write agaist them incognito, which likewise was the cause moveing Elisha to suspende the sending of his free & faithful letter to Iehoram a bloody Tyrant, till after his own death: but why this man should send out a namelesse writting, none can tell, unlesse because either he was ashamed of the cause,

or of his weak managing of it; or else because he hath a minde to exceed in passion, and nons-sense, and none should know that it was, A. H. P. O. who spoke so. But he tels us that he hath not so learned Christ, as to render revileing for revileing knowing that mans wrath works not the righteousnesse of God. The contrary whereof every reader of his pamphlet vvill see, & therefore he doth well, to adde [some times it is for peoples edi∣fication, to see the due characters of such as lead them out of the way.] But vvhy should he then be offended, if any should shew his characters, vvho is a manifest perverter of the right vvayes of the Lord, and laboureth vvhat he can to lead people out of the good old way, wherein our fathers and we have formerly walked with peace comfort and joy? But this is our advantage that he and his fraternity are already so vvell known, and their characters so legible, that few or none are in great hazard to be led away with them. Then he tells us that [so farr as kumane infirmity permits, the truth shall be searched after & spoken to in love; all bitternesse, wrath, anger & clam ••nr with all malice being put away.] But sure we are then, his humane infirmity is very great and strong, which carryeth him to search rather after error, and to speak it in hatred; all bitter∣nesse, wrath, anger, clamour, with all malice, being returned and that in their strength; of which, the man's conscience was in part convinced, when he addeth. [But if any thing (he should have said a most every thing) aculeat & pungent (he should have said bitter and invective) do escape (or rather of choise be affirmed) It not being used in any privat cause or quarrel, but in the publick concerns of truth, (rather errour) of the Church of God, (really of the coetus Malignantium, the apostate crue of the popish prelatical and malignant fa∣ction) and of the sate of the commonwealth (rather against the commonwealth, and for tyranny the bane of all common∣wealths) nor proceeding from any private revenge (if not from this, which many will doubt of, yet certanely from the love of gold or Balaam's reward) it will at least be excused by the judi∣dicious and wise.] Sure we are, excuse it who will, the righ∣teous judge, will call him to an account for it, and we are perswaded that none either truely judicious or wise, will

think him excuse worthy. But to shew that he hath no pri∣vat reveinge, he addeth in a parenthesis, [That there is room enough in his fraternal affection for any who will leave their unchristian sanguinary and inhumane wayes.] But his affection is like the devils, who would have all damned with himself; and we are sure come to his way who will, they shall leave their Christian peacable & humane wayes, and choise unchristian, sanguina∣ry, and inhumane vvayes. Then the falleth a vvishing that his aculeat sayings may prick the libeller to repentance for these things. But he should knovv that charity beginneth at home, and he should rather vvish that himself were brought to repentance for him shameful apostasy and perjury, and his thus study∣ing to maintaine a corrupt course, whereby he hath indeed exposed himself to shame, though the hardnesse of his heart be such as that the knoweth not what it is to blush.

14. In his following discourse he laboureth to shew how palpably and closely Naphtaly trades in the footsteps of the old Anabaptists, though [He will not say that he and his complices are arrived to the owneing of the highest mysieries of that sect in the poynt of Enthusiasme, and Libertinisme, nor that they are so cruel as to exclude Christian infants from their birthright privilege of Bap∣tisme.] Yet he sayes [It is worthy to be considered how far the common demand of expresse command or example in Scripture for Episcopacy, may reach the Anabaptists conclusion concerning infants.] And so with him, all who require either command or ex∣ample for any new ordinance of Christ so alleged, must be Anabaptists. This man is of very lax principles certanely, and more then a latitudinarian, that will not suffer us to enquire after a command or example of Episcopacy, when he and his party alledge that it is an ordinance of Christ: must we take all things for ordinances of Christ, which he and his old father the Pope of Rome say are ordinances of Christ? But why doth he call from us for any expresse command or ex∣ample in Scripture for resistence of Magistrates? Doth not this also reach the Anabaptists conclusion? But his eyes seeth not it self. Furder he tells us That Naphtaly [Doth let fall such tenets as smell too rankly of the foul scum of the high flown Anabapti∣stical and Enthusiastical way, while he sayes, Pag. 21. &c.

That meer privat men may now a dayes take their impulses of Zeal, as a sufficient call to pull downe all Magistrates from their seats, which they abuse; to execure judgment upon them, and to place themselves in their roomes.] But of what spirit this man, who is of his father the devil who was a lyar from the beginning, is, vve have seen; And this particular will abundantly discover to such as look the place and consider what we have said. And no better is the next particular which he citeth out of Pag. 105. Where the author is opposeing, that notion of an external call, not unto lawful ordination, which presupposeth it; but unto such a mock ordination, whereby such are put into the ministry, who have no visible evidence of the call of Jesus Christ, as in reason or charity can oblige any to receive such as truely sent. Thereafter he draweth the parallel in five particulars. The first is this, That the Anabaptists laboured to overthrow Magistracy, and deny them to have any power in Church matters. But can he, or dar he, say that we do so? do we say, with them, that the office of the Magistrate is not necessary among Christians? Do we say that Magistracy is not the ordinance of God? Do we say that Kingly government is unlawful, as they said, abuseing that place, 1 Sam. 8:7. Do we say that a Christian may not exerce the office of a Magi∣strate? Do we say that a heathen may not be a Magistrate? Do we say that an ungodly Magistrate is no Magistrate? Do we presse that place Luk. 22. The Kings of the gentiles, &c. Any otherwayes then against superiority among Church men? With what face then can be draw a parallel here? The next is That they studyed to overthrow the ordinance of the mi∣nistry declaiming most bitterly against all in that function as Hirelings Thieves Wolves, &c. But can he say that we cry dovvne a ministery, as no ordinance of Christ, or as not necessary? can he say that we affirme an external call to the ministery needlesse? Is it our work to exclude faithful ministers from the esteem of Gods people? Hovv can the impudent man alledge this of us? Be like because we cry out against him and his fraternity and their reptilia, profane wretches of the second-order, as no lawful ministers of Chriist, being perjured profane apostates, never called of God to that funct∣ction,

nor duely and orderly called of Man? But in this he and his party come nearer to the Anabaptists, then we, The. 3. Is that they work division in the Church of God; and move people to forsake Church meetings, and to follow them in private conventicles? But then it seemeth all protestants Who presse Papists to forsake their Masse Assemblies and Masse Priests, and rather meet with the Orthodox and that in conventicles are Anabaptists: And it seemeth this man would not presse Heathens to leave their publick idol worshipe, and serve God in secret conventicles, such a publik and peacable Man is he, lest he should be accounted an Anabaptist. But wee see no connexion betwixt our being Anabaptists, and pressing People to forsake Their assemblies, and to hear the true and faithful servants of Christ in private, who cannot have liber∣ty to preach in publick. The 4 is That they were above all men arrogant and proud, dispisers of such as were not of their way, as being men without God in the world, reprobate and wicked denying to them even common civilities. But doth not he and his party, the most proud and arrogant persones imaginable, deal with us all, as cursed fanaticks knipperdolians? &c. What is the 5. When any of theirs were punished for errors, fellony or rebellion, they cryed them up for martyres, and complained tragically that truth and godli∣nesse was oppressed, and that men who would have all things done ac∣cording to Gods Word were persecuted? But might not Heathens and Papists have objected so against the true Christians and protestants, who said and did all this, when they were perse∣cuted, and some of them murthered & massacred? And were, or are, all who call & account such as die for the Testimony of Jesus, martyres persecuted to the death. Anabaptists? I feare that in so saying he shall be found to befriend the Anabaptist, more then we desire to do: If he hath no more to say, He shall never make it appeare that either Naphtaly or the Apology, do approach unto the manners of that odious sect, in any parti∣cular peculiar to that Sect, or wherein that Sect deviateth from truth.

Then he addeth Pag. 17. When the Spirit that stirreth in these furious writtings, (especialy in Naphtaly) is considered, how much confusion may be seen to be portended to Church and State, if

hearts be infected with the doctrines therein held forth? By whom I pray, shall these evils be seen to be portended, by any thing that is said in these writtings? Sure by no rational sober under∣standing person, but only by such who consult the oracle at delphos, and minde their belly and worm-eaten carcases, more then they consult the oracle God and of sound reason, and minde the reall good of either Church or State. For there are no doctrines there of any malignant quality, but all of them anti-Malignant, Solide, Plaine, Sure and immoveable truthes, having a direct tendency unto, and necessary influence upon, the solide and sure esta∣blishing of Church and State, upon a firme and lasting ba∣sis. And therefore, if it were right applyed, his following wish were good. viz. That the Lord would give his people such understanding, that they be not ignorant of the wiles of Satan, who driveth a deeper designe against this poor Church and Land, then the subversion of this or that exteriour forme of Church government, For indeed the designe that Satan hath now on foot, reacheth furder, even to the utter overturneing of all the precious interests of Christ in the Land; of destroying not only the outward Libertyes and Privileges of the People, which have cost them no small expense of blood; to the end they may be made perfect slaves: But to the overturning of the whole work of God, of banishing the Gospel, and of introduce∣ing Atheisme and all sort of profanity and wickednesse, that we should no more become the People of the Lord, but a visible Kingdome of Satan; And all the People, Sub∣jects, and Slaves to him. But we know what his meaning is, and therefore he addeth. The controversy rests not in mat∣ters touching a Bishope or a Presbytery: But what thinks he of this controversy? He sayes, If mens passions or prejudices might permit, it might be, for the advantage of the gospel, well consolidated by their mutual paying of due respects one to another; the Episcopal inspection not abrogating, but strengthening the due right of presbyters, and presbyters not despiseing that lawfull inspection; but all concurring together in a kindely mutuall assistence, and amicable conjuction, for carrying on the real interests of Christs Kingdome, without imperiousnesse one the oneside, and without srowardly disor∣derlynesse

on the other. Now he turneth a peace maker, and such a notable reconciler is he that would cause fire and water agree: But he hath sold his Zeal and Conscience, for, he knoweth, what. He hath forgote, that there is no commu∣nion betwixt light and darknesse, nor betwixt Christ and Belial. But he must know that we will neither pack nor peel with him, nor his accursed fraternity, but will come out from among them, and be separated from them, and touch none of their uncleane things, that God may receive us according to his promise; 2 cor. 6: ver. 17. If the Men of that accused Hierarchy were not led away with intolerable passion & pre∣judice, and acted by a fury of hell, to destroy the gospel, they would consolidare this controversy by extirpating themsel∣ves; For as long as they stand in that accursed order, they shall never carry on the real interests of Christs Kingdome, but effectually, so farr as lyeth in them, destroy the same; (as former and dayly experience proveth) what by their impe∣rious antichristian dominion, over the Church of God and the Officers thereof, which were ordained of Christ; and what by their laying out of themselves, according to their usurped power and places, to destroy & banish piety, know∣ledge and the fear of God out of the land, and to bring all the true seekers of God under the same guilt of manifest perjury and apostasy with themselves. If it were a lawful inspection, presbyters would neither despise it, nor carry themselves frowardly or disorderly under it; but it being an unlawful do∣minion, so destructive to the Kingdome and interests of our Lord Jesus Christ, it can neither alone nor in conjunction with any other, promove the interest of Christs Kingdome, and therefore must be abhorred as an antichristian brate, and never submitted unto.

But whither now doth the matter goe? The designe (sayes he) this libel runs upon is to open a gap to endlesse rebellions, under what soever Church government: And not only to bring all our Magi∣strats from the highest to the lowest under disgrace, which is the nex•• step to destruction, and to make them a sacrifice to the fury of th••••∣wicked people.) But to ruine Kingly Authority and Magistracy, the ordainance of God.] This is but a frequently renewed calum∣ny

we have oftentime met with in his first part, and have shewed how groundlesse, it is, and therefore we need say no more here. All who have not, with this Man, willing∣ly shut their eyes, may see That the designe is only to pre∣vent intolerable Ty••anny, the ruine of humane Societyes and Kingdomes, and to keep the true Divine Authority which God hath cloathed his owne civil officers with, from con¦tempt and disgrace, which Magistrates degenerating into Tyrants expose themselves unto, by changeing the ordi∣nance of God into the ordinance of Satan, and in stead of act∣ing and carrying as Ministers of God for the good of the People, walk and act as Ministers of Satan, laying out them∣selves to the utmost for the destruction of the People both in soul and body. Who seeth not then that when they thus forget themselves, and forget what they are both bound, and have promised, to be, they do expose themselves to dis∣grace, and to the contempt of these who otherwise would most willingly honour them as God's vicegerents. But when they carry as avowed Servants of Satan, as Tygers, and destroy the inheritance of the Lord, which they were to nourish and protect, can they expect to be looked upon as God's Deputyes while they do so? And sure, who ever maintaineth that such who have cast behinde their back all Vowes, Promises, Compacts, Subscriptions, Oathes, and solemne Engadgments; and break overall bonds of hu∣manity and Christianity, that they may satisfy their owne cruel and base lusts; and so carry towards Subjects, as if they were so many Slaves or Brutes, or Worse, may law∣fully be resisted, is very far from opening a gap to endlesse rebellions, under any Church government; that he rather layeth downe a course to prevent rebellions: For if Kings remembered that their Subjects might lawfully and would oppose them, when they turned Tyrants, they would walk more soberly, and forbeare to vent their tyrannicall cruelty, and so give lesse occasion to Subjects to think of opposeing them. And However this Pamphleter may look upon himself as one who hath deserved well at the hands of the King: Yet

the judicious who consider the matter right, will finde him really a greater Enemy to the throne, then either Lex Rex the Apology or yet Naphtali were, or are. Seing they must be greater Enemies to the real welbeing of Kings, and to the Establishing of thrones, who would have them setled upon the alone basis of blood, tyranny, opprossion, or proclaime an impunity unto Tyrants to do what they will, which is but to blow at a fire which burneth fast enough of it's own accord; then such as would have them setled on equity and righteous∣nesse and not suffered to goe without their due bounds.

There is a great noise (sayes he) (it may be it is not causelesse, and it were to be wished Rulers looked to it) of the increase of Popery. Doth he think there is a noise made about this matter, and a great noise, and that without ground? Or can he arrive at no more certanety, but of a may be that it is not causeless? Sure the Representatives (as he calleth them) several yeers ago were beyond a may be, that it was increased above what ever it had been, either in the dayes of King Iames, or of King Charles the first: And hath their mock-act never executed, affrighted it so out of sight, that this Man who possibly would be accounted no meane Father, and over seer in the Church, cannot perceive it, at least so clearly, as positively to say that there is just ground for that noise? But where dwelleth this Man? or what way doth he stope his eares? Is he one of those who see and perceive not, who know and yet carry as if they knew not? What is he and his fra∣ternity doing to day? What are the men with the Episcopal inspection doing? Are they so occupyed in persecuteing the truely godly, the faithful Ministers and People of the Land, and in stirring up the Council to be more cruel then they are, and severely to execute the unjust and most iniquous Lawes made to banish all piety and fear of God out of the Land, that they have no Leasure to look about them to marke what Papists, Seminary Priests and Jesuits (who are swarm∣ning up and downe the Land) are doing? When did He or They advise the Council to take such an effectual course for suppressing masse meetings, as they have done for suppressing

of conventicles, or meetings of better reformed and foun∣der Protestants then ever he or they were? Was there any masse monger fined to this day? Yet we know that precious & worthy Christians, have been rigidly & inhumanely hand∣led and mulcted, for hearing an honest and worthy Minister of the Gospel preaching the Gospel in a privat place. Ay, but now he thinks, he hath exonered himself, and discharged a piece of duty both for himself and all his fraternity, by saying, It were to be wished Rulers looked to it. And is this all the remedy he prescribeth? What will He do? May he not, dar he not, grieve or vex his Elder Brethren? What shall we then say of his inspection? Is it lawful, or is it of Gold, which is wholly imployed and exercised in persecuteing of the ho∣nest seekers of God's face, and countenanceth and encou∣rageth Papists? No certanely, That power whose proper work is, to root out piety, as haveing that only in commis∣sion, and which fostereth and incourageth profanity and I∣dolatry, is a power of Satan, tending to advance his work and interest in the Earth, and to establish and enlarge his Kingdome. What further? But truely (sayes he) when she Spirit of such writeings as this, is considered, it will be found there is cause to feare (unlesse the wisdome and goodnesse of Cod; and the prudence of the King and Governours under him prevent it,) That as one way the Roman Antichrist may come in; So some furious Successour of John of Leyden, under pretence of a Phineas—like Spirit, come in another way, upon our Church and Land to lay it waste, and to make it a field of confusion and blood. Answ. Were there no Papists in Scotland, or was there no appearance of the approaching of the Roman Antichrist before these books came abroad? What a Spirit, I pray, is that which is in these books, which can give any cause of feare, that the Roman Antichrist may come in upon that account? What tendency, I pray, hath any thing that is asserted in these books, to the introduceing of Popery? His needle head shall never be able to poynt this forth. Yea let the true designe of these books be once obtained, and I promise him, that ere few weeks passe, there shall be few or none in

all Scotland, who shall be so bold as to professe either Po∣pery or Prelacy. These must be strange books which open two contrary doors at once, upon the one hand a door for the Roman Antichrist, and upon the other hand, a door for some furious Successour of Iohn of Leyden, but both are alike true, that is, both are manifestly false Though his fear for the coming in of the Roman Antichrist be first named, yet it is the least of the two with him; for the thing which most affrighteth him, is this last; but he needeth not fear it, let King and inferiour Governours joyne piety; and true divine Zeal for God & his glory, with their prudence, and set them∣selves to establish the covenanted Religion, as it was reformed in Doctrine, Worshipe, Discipline & Government & purge out such things as offend, especially that bitter root of Prelacy, which we abjured, and prosecute the ends of the Covenants, and the vvisdome and goodness of God shall preserve both Church and State. But so long as there is no repentance of the horrible Apostasy and defection, vvhereof King and all ranks are guilty: And particularly that Apostate pack which care neither for Church or State, King or Coun••rey, but in subordination to their ovvne bellies and bese lusts, is not ex∣tirpated vvithall their adherents, vve have no ground to ex∣pect that God shall preserve either Church or State from de∣struction and ruine: Because vve have forsaken the Lord God of our Fathers, vve can not but fear that he shall forsake us, and cast our carcases upon the carcases of our idols, and his soul shall abhorre us, and he shall lay our cityes waste, bring our Sanctua∣ryes into desolation, and shall not smell the Savour of our sweet odours, yea and shall scatter us among the heathen, and draw out a sword after us, and our Land shall be desolate, and our Cityes waste &c. Though we had all the security imaginable that never one of the furious brood of Iohn of Leyde, should arise to lay the Land waste; as indeed nothing asserted in these books, may put rational Men in feares thereof, from that hand, though his lieing mouth addeth, that the seeds of future miseries, being too visibly sowne, by this Man and his Complices, whose mouths are full of blasphemies, as their hearts and ••ands are full of blood

and in so saying is like the whore in the common proverbe, who calleth her honest Neighbour whose first whole mouths are more full of blasphemies, their or ours, all may judge who either read their writeings, or heare their speaches in publick or in private: And whose hearts and hands are more full of blood, theirs or ours, dayly experience will suffer no Man of common sense who marketh both, once to put it to a question.

At length he apologizeth for his slowensse in comeing forth with his Survey, telling us, That this libel and like are not more quickly followed, with meet animad vertsions, is not to be marvelled at by any, who knowes they are like the pestilence, that walks in darkensse, and that hardly do they come to the hands of any, but such as are willing to be deceived by them, being intended for the blinding of these, not for the opening of the eyes of others. But truly, He might have for borne to have made such an Apolo∣gy: For it may be, some who have most imployed him, and rewarded him too, for his paines, will think that he hath but too quickly followed with his animadversions, and possibly shall wish, that they had never seen the light, since he hath done so little good by them to the cause, which he be∣cometh a Patrone unto, both in starting needlesse and dan∣gerous debates, for the Kings Throne and Kingdomes, yea & for his Life; & in managing these debates so poorly as he hath done, to speak nothing of his weake defending of the maine cause controverted, which is abundantly discovered by this vindication: Whereby also he hath occasioned the more accurate ripeing up of that debate touching defensive armes, and laying it open and naked unto the judgment and capacity of the meanest, so that the truthes which he endea∣voured to shake, and overturne, are now more firmly then ever, riveted in the hearts of all vvho search after truth: Yet sure, had be been able, he ••ight have brought forth this brood of his braine, sooner to light, for he had time enough, after the publick Proclamation vvas made, that such a book vvas come forth, by the fire prepared of purpose, at the crosse of Edenbr••ugh to consume it into asses, before which

time, I suppose, very fevv knevv of such a thing: And by this solemne fiery Proclamation, the curiosity of some was kindled to enquire after the book, who othewise vvould have used no great diligence, to have obtained one of them, yea possibly would never have learned that there was such a book in the World, and so could have been in no hazard to have been infected thereby: And be∣fore this time that they met vvith this solemne recap∣tion, there vvas not (as is sufficiently knovvn) many of them abroad; for it came but too soon into the hands of such as put that honour on it, which vvas expected, and thereby helped forvvard the Authors designe. Is it, any wonder that such pieces must keep themselves as long as they can, out of such fiery hands. Seing the first salutation they meet vvith is a brief sentence of condemnation by the Coun∣cil, and a 〈…〉〈…〉, or execution rather by the hand of the Hangman, in the ••••repared of purpose for that solemne Disput? Let him, if he ••ar or can procure a free imprimatur for such necessary and useful books, and li∣berty for stationers to expose them to open sale, and then it will be seen, whether they or his shall hide themselves longest in the corner of shopes, and be at lengh laid aside for other uses, then at first they were intended for. He sayes they were intended for the blinding of these into whose hands they come, not for the opening of the eyes of others. But he speaks like himself. They were really intended for the opening of the eyes of all who would but read and seriously consider what is said, and would not willingly shote out their owne eyes. And as for his Pamphlet, I verily beleeve what ever was his intention, it shall deceive none, but such as are already deceived, or very willing to be deceived, & shall open the eyes of none, unlesse per accidens, by making them to apprehend more clearly, then formerly they would, truth upon the other side, by discovering the childish, frivolous and weak evasions and exceptions, which he is necessitated to make use of.

In the last Page He giveth us a short hint of what he mindeth to do in the following part of this his elaborate work, where we are like to finde him as impudent and shamelesse a Patron of perjury, as here we have found him a pleader for Tyranny. But we, shall forbeare to say more at this time, till God offer an opportunity of considering and answering what he shall say further upon these heads and digressions.

The Lord establish truth in the Earth & visite his owne inheritance, and send a plentiful raine to confirme the same when it is weary, for his owne names sake. AMEN.

FINIS.