THE VNGIRDING OF THE Scottish Armour: OR, AN ANSWER TO THE Informations for Defensive Arms against the King's Majesty, which were drawn up at Edinburgh, by the common help and industry of the three Tables of the rigid Covenanters of the Nobility, Barons, Ministry, and Burgesses, and ordained to be read out of Pulpit by each Minister, and pressed upon the people, to draw them to take up arms, to resist the Lords Anointed, throughout the whole Kingdom of SCOTLAND.  
By john Corbet, Minister of Bonyl, one of the Collegiate Churches of the Provostrie of Dunbartan.  Prov. 24.21. 
My Son fear God and the King, and meddle not with those that are given to change. For their calamity shall rise suddenly, and who knoweth the ruin of them both?  Mat. 26.52. 
Put up thy sword into his place, for he that takes the sword, shall perish with the sword.  
DUBLIN, Printed by the Society of Stationers, 1639.   

Perlegi hunc librum, cui Titulus est, [The ungirding of the Scottish Armour] in quo nihil reperio quo minus cum utilitate publica imprimatur.  
ED. PARRY, Reverendissimi in Christo Patris Archiepiscopi Dublin. Sacellanus. Maii sexto, 1639.   

TO THE RIGHT HONOURABLE, THOMAS, Lord Viscount WENTWORTH, Baron of Wentworth Woodhouse, Lord Newmarsh and Oversley, Lord Precedent of the Council established in the North part of England, Lord Lieutenant of Yorkshire, One of His Majesty's most Honourable Privy Council in England, and Lord deputy General of Jreland.  
Right Honourable,  
SInce the Flood of our Scottish Disorders and Uproars have overflowed the banks of divine and humane Authority, I have been with Jeremy, 
jer. 9.1.  crying out in the bitterness of my soul, O that my head were waters, and my eyes a fountain of tears, that I might weep day and night, for the miseries of my Country people: Whereof a fiery-zealous Faction, have from day to day waxed so insolent; that of equity they may challenge as their own, that description which Jeremy affords in the next words, 
jer. 9.2.  vers. 2. They proceed from evil to evil, and are an assembly of treacherous men. For His Majesty's Clemency hath been to them, 
Prov. 16.15. Prov. 19 12.  as a cloud of the latter rain; and as the dew on the grass; which should have produced many returns of thankfulness. But behold, he hath watered evil ground which bringeth forth briers and thorns the more abundantly. 
Mich. 7.4 3.  The best of them is as a briar; the most upright is as a thorn hedge: they do evil with both hands earnestly; hunting every man his brother with a net. They are gone in the way of Cain, and run greedily after the error of Balaam, and stand in the gainsaying of Core Amongst many passages to prove this, these their informations of war are a most evident demonstration, which caused me continue Jeremy's Elegy and sorrowful Song: Oh that I had in the wilderness a lodging of a way-faring man, that I might leave my people, and go from them. In the mean time, having purchased a copy of these informations, which with their Covenant now at last, with force and violence was to be thrust and pressed upon me, I returned this my Answer, whereof I was to make use with my Brethren at our next meeting (which was the seventh day after I had seen the copy) that they might see that as hitherto I could find no reason to Covenant w th' them, so now much less, when it ends in open Rebellion. But being advertised of the cruel plot, and snares laid for me, I was forced to fly from the virulent and violent fury of the Covenant, as from a Bear rob of her whelps, and to seek friends to virtue among strangers: leaving my wife great with child, melting in sorrow; with four young children, to take a proof of their humanity. When I came to this kingdom of Ireland, I was so ashamed that such treacherous doctrine should have been brought forth by my Countrymen, to the great scandal of the Gospel, and deep wounding of our protestant Religion, and rejoicing of the adversaries, that I was purposing to smother these their informations: But ere I was maturely thus resolved, I found the matter already spread abroad, and with my eyes have seen other copies. This did cut my resolution in the blade, so that I suffered these informations with my answer to them, to enjoy the light. And that for divers reasons. 1. Because some men (not knowing the Mystery of the Covenant, nor that old saying of Luther, In nomine Domini incipit omne malum) have thought it impossible, that such rebellious doctrine could be hatched by the Covenanters, and that it seemeth to be an invention of others, to make them the more odious. This I refute, by publishing the same. Secondly, that this doctrine, whereunto I, one of the least of the Tribe of Levi there, have answered, may not be imputed to that Church and Nation, but to some factious spirits there, who have this hour and power of darkness: For since the most part of them were compelled to subscribe their covenant, shall any man think that they will allow this doctrine of Rebellion? I know the contrary, and dare presume to affirm, that the best of that Kingdom for worth and number, especially of the Ministry, shall assent to that truth which I here maintain, though now they be carried away with this inundation; and the lay-ruling-Bishops their Govenours keep them under. Yea, my charity is so enlarged, that I trust, that the chief Contrivers of these informations shall acknowledge their error: for they have been transported with passions, whilst they were upon this work, by their great swelling words, fully stuffed with calumnies; whereof I hope they will repent in their cold blood, when they forbear to be as the raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame. 
jude 13. Esa. 32.2.  Then the heart of the rash shall understand knowledge. So that I hope the number shall be few, as the grape-gleaning after the vintage, who defend this mad doctrine: 
Acts 28.19.  And I, with Paul, shall have nothing to accuse my Nation of. But if any, after ripe deliberation, shall adhere to this rebellious doctrine, and when they should cry, Nulla salus bello, pacem te petimus omnes, shall change it into Tota salus bello, facem te petimus omnes, I shall be so fare from contradicting those who have called them all mad men, that I shall take up Paul's wish, I would to God that they were both altogether, 
Acts 26.29.  and almost even as Paul, his bonds not being excepted; which bonds I wish not as a punishment, but as a remedy for their brainsick malady: having withal their Campsticks taken from them, 
Pro. 26.18.  as being most dangerous in the hands of mad men, especially for themselves. And as for these Cynic and Lucinian railers, rather than preachers; such as that wiseman who made sport in the Pulpit of Edinburgh, by riding Balaams' ass: and that other madcap who wounded the beast, these are wise enough for their new calling, let them be gone to them. Let the one learn better to play the butcher with beasts, whose Physic for man is naught: and let the other be an Asse-breaker, and if he did formerly thus preach, I am sure an Ass hath done more service to Christ than ever he hath done: an Ass carried Christ to lerusalem, but with his Asinine prattlings he hath brought none to Christ. And therefore I would not that any should brand our Church with such spots, fruitless trees, wand'ring stars, and clouds without water: Let them bear their own shame. It cannot be dennyed, but our Church is now in a great Eclipse, and the mouth of our common adversary is open, and they triumphing over us, cry, Medice te ipsum cura: But, 
Mic. 7.8.  Rejoice not against me, O mine enemy, though I have fallen, I shall arise; though I sit in darkness, the Lord shall be a light unto me. I hope to see our Church flourishing and shining in her former beauty, maintaining again the Orthodox Doctrine toward Monarchy, 
1 Pet. 2.15.  and putting to silence the ignorance of foolish men. And therefore, my third reason in publishing this Treatise is, that all our Orthodox Divines may have these informations, as so many Theses, brought to their hands, who are more able to stop the mouth of the Gainsayers.  
Now, Right Honourable seeing I am a stranger in this Kingdom, and this my mean labour standeth in need of one (in these evil days) who is powerful both for Place, and Learning, for its Patron: I have therefore presumed to lay it at your Lordship's feet, begging your honourable Patronage, in whom both great Authority and Learning, Wisdom and Justice are met; whom this Church and Nation hath found a most gracious Patron. 
Acts 24.10.  Whom I know to have been of many years a governor unto this nation; 
Acts 26.3.  and to be expert in all customs and questions of this nature, which concerneth the civil Magistrate, and especially the Monarchical Government of great King CHARLES. And therefore, though the Author and the workmanship be but mean and rude, yet the matter which I defend, deservedly craveth such a high Patronage for its defence, as is your Lordship; who is as faithful David, among all the King's servants, and honourable in his house; 
1. Sam. 22 14. job. 29.14.  who hath put on Righteousness as a clothing, and judgement as a robe and diadem; whom, when thy ear heareth, it blesseth; and when thy eye seethe, it giveth witness, as to one ready to deliver the poor that cryeth, and the fatherless, and him that hath none to help, and to break the jaws of the unrighteous, and to pluck the spoil out of his teeth. And this is no small addition to his Majesty's happiness, 
Psal. 101.6.  to have one who walketh in a perfect way to serve him, which was David's resolution. As Solomon speaketh of the virtuous woman, 
Prov. 31 11.  The heart of her husband doth safely trust in her, so that he shall have no need of spoil: So may I say of his Majesty's trust in your Lordship, especially in these evil days, which brings to my remembrance the words of Nabal. 
1. Sam. 25.10.  There be many servants now adays, that break away every man from his Master. To put confidence in such, is to trust to a broken tooth, and to a foot out of joint.  
May it please therefore your Lordship favourably to accept these mean labours, which for the Glory of God, Victory of truth, honour of our King, and good will toward my distracted Countrymen, I have brought to light; Humbly beseeching for the shelter of your L. protection, to this Treatise and its Author, who shall begin and remain to be  
Your Lordship's most humble Servant, JOHN CORBET.   

THE VNGIRDING OF THE Scotish Armour.  
THE Elephant traveleth not so long from her conception to her birth, as these chief covenanters have been travelling in their mutual bond of defence against authority, under the Cloak of a Covenant with God, to bring forth this huge, and monstrous birth of informations for resisting the Lords Anointed; who after unparallelled examples of Clemency, is constrained by force of Arms to re-establish his Ancient Authority in SCOTLAND, which is now laid in the dust, and trampled under foot. At this last meeting at Edinburgh, of the Nobility, Barons, and learnedst of the rigid covenanting Mininsterie, for this effect, I looked for some great matter, for some weighty, and powerful arguments and reasons to press the people to Arms, but behold, they have brought forth nought but a lie, as says the Royal Prophet David, Psal. 7.14. not so much as a shadow of any sound reason, to any reasonable man, Parturiunt montes, nascetur ridiculus ●●us.  
And I protest that I am now beyond all Admiration, when I consider how so many men can be carried away with so small appearance of reason from the due subjection to the supreme Governor under God, and not be moved when most sound reasons are brought on the contrary, but rather furiously, with the zeal of jehu, persecute those who upon sound reasons withstand them in great sobriety. This is a great prejudice, and its most manifest that their affections obnubilates their reasons, as sinoake, that they cannot see. For our ministers of the strict and rigid sort have taken only pains in moving the affections, and not in instructing the mind with sound reasons; hereunto like the false teachers, who (as witnesseth Tertullian) priùs suadent quàm docent: Hence it is that in this Pamphlet of theirs, before they allege any reasons of their resisting authority, they propound six points, for the gaining of the affections of the people, and then come to some naughty reasons to persuade war. I know that the times are evil, I have already suffered much thereof, so that Amos counsel, chap 5.13. might seem seasonable, The prudent shall keep silence in that time, for it is an evil time, 
Esa. 59.15.  Yea, so evil a time, that he who departs from evil, makes himself a prey; as Isaias says.  
But when I see hostile arms raised against our dread Sovereign, the Lords Anointed, the breath of our Nostrils; I cannot hold my peace any longer, but as the dumb son of King Croesus suddenly spoke when he saw the sword upon the King his father, crying, O man kill not the King. So when I see the same to be drawn against my father, my King, and Head, I cannot hold my peace, and I cry rather, O Country men, save yourselves from such high rebellion. Save your souls, save your bodies and estates: be afraid to under-take that War which is forbidden by God, adventure not a poor soul upon such an hazard, in resisting superior powers, which is to resist the Ordinance of God, and will you strive with the Almighty? I have considered your reasons, drawn up at your tables for Arms, and I find no reason that any soul may probably lean to. Upon the first sight of them, my duty to God, my King, and Country, suffered me not to sleep till I had returned this short answer, which I wish might come to your hands without suppression, till time and leisure be granted more fully to answer this point. As your arms (you say) are for defence, so is my Pen; let the learned turn their Pen against mine, if they find no satisfaction, and let the sword be against the armies of the Aliens: for my Pen here is not offensive, but defensive, let us first fight with our Pens, and if yours be conquerors, then go to swords. I shall keep this Method, to set down word by word all your instructions without missing a syllable, and then return an answer, not so much as it deserveth, but as I think expedient to answer.  

Covenanters instructions.  
The times require that the points following be pressed upon the people, both by the Preachers in public, and understanding and well-affected Professors in private conferences.  
1. BEcause our chief adversaries, who are enemies to the Gospel of Christ, to the salvation of the people's souls and to the peace of this Church and Kingdom, have from the beginning advanced their ungodly and Antichristian course, by lies and persecution, by craft and cruelty, which have been their most subtle and strongest arguments. And now when by excommunication they are given over to Satan who hath been a liar and murderer from the beginning, have put away all conscience, countenance, and natural affections to their Country, the people would be dealt withal that their fraudulent lies and crafty devices be not believed, nor their force and threatened violence be feared by the people of God, remembering their Hellish Maxim: Flectere si nequeo superos, Acheron a movebo.   

Anticovenanter.  
Though much might be said against this most unchristian and uncharitable devilish saying, which I might justly retort, especially in persuading the people to swear to serve the King, which service you now cause stand in resisting; Yet with Michael the Archangel, disputing with the Devil about the body of Moses, I will bring no railing accusation, 
jude 9  but I say, The Lord rebuke thee.   

Covenanter.  
2. That Unity be earnestly recommended, as that which strengthens the cause, and which being fast holden with verity, will make us invincible: and on the contrary, that Division is by all means to be avoided, as that which from the beginning hath been principally intended, and many ways sought for by our enemies, and which once having place, will bring us to a certain ruin, and make us of all people the most contemptible and miserable; exposing ourselves and our posterity, to the wrath of God, for our perfidious dealing in his Covenant, to the merciless cruelty of our enemies, to be a hissing and reproach to all Nations about us, and to be a grief to all godly, who have been continually in their prayers and praises to God for us all this time.   

Anticovenanter.  
1. You have great cause to urge unity, for if even Satan's kingdom be divided, it cannot stand. 2. Let unity with the head be urged, and not of the members against the head; to recommend unity, and not with the head, is in effect, to urge separation and division, to scatter in Israel, and divide in jacob; which thing you here do unhappily presage, male ominatis parcite verbis. 3. No division hath been intended, but the right union hath been sought for, which is between the head and the rest of the body, the King and his subjects, which you now have so much withstood, seeking only union of the members without the head, which is to make one monster of many heads, as is seen amongst us this day.  
Est bydr a multorum capitum; variabile vulgus,  
Seditione potens.  
And certainly, there is such Antipathy in this your consederation, that you cannot be well united; you are like unto Nebuchadnezars' image, not all of one mettle, gold, silver, brass, iron and clay, of which simples, none can compound a perfect body: you of the young Nobility, who will be the golden head, you of the Gentry, who will be the breast of silver, you Burgesses, who will be the brazen thighs, you silly Ministers, who are placed in the foot by the order of your Covenant, to be iron, mixed with the Commons, the clay; whose dwelling is of the clay, and habitation of the dust, how can you have any durable union? If you march forward, your foot of clay must fail you, and you must fall and break your golden heads, like Dagon before the Ark, and nothing be left, but a stump of antipathizing mettle,   

Covenanter.  
3. That it be frequently remembered, how the finger and power of God by many and admirable evidences hath been manifest in this great work of reformation, and how the Lord either by blowing upon all the devises of our enemies; or by turning them back upon themselves, hath turned all their wisdom into foolishness, that we may have confidence for time to come, believing, and saying with the Prophet, Jsa. 26. Lord, thou wilt ordain peace for us.   

Anticovenanter.  
— Careat successibus opto,  
Quisquis ab eventu facta notanda putet.  
It's ever esteemed foolishness to argue of the goodness of any enterprise from the success thereof. Diagoras the Atheist was confirmed in his opinion that there was no God, because he came with a fair gale of wind through the Sea without shipwreck.  
Polycrates the Tyrant of Samos was renowned above all that ever I read in profane History, for his prosperity and good success in all his business, and when by his friends he was desired to seek adversity in some thing, because they thought it ominous, never to taste of troubles; he threw a most precious ring into the river, the loss whereof grieved him much, but the next morning his Cook found the ring in the belly of a fish, which confirmed the Tyrant in his opinion of perpetual prosperity, but yet in the end he was taken by Orontes, and hanged. Men ought not to bless themselves in any evil way, and say in their hearts we shall never be moved. Read the League of France, and you shall see how they prospered in all their affairs. The Lacqueies of the Duke of Guise had more credit with the people than his Majesty's principal Servants: so is it now with you, your cup is not yet full, behold the end. The King's Clemency hath made you insolent, if he at the beginning had shown himself like a blazing Star, you had all evanished as smoke, but his Majesty being a follower of God his Master hath thought by clemency and indulgence to gain you, and now seethe that justice must succeed to clemency, to bring you to subjection; neither shall you escape by iniquity, and the further ye proceed in an evil way, the nearer is your ruin.   

Covenanter.  
4. That the people be not troubled when they hear of wars, nor afraid of shadows, nor be deceived with promises, nor moved with remonstrances were they never so specious, but they themselves denounce War against their own sins, as their greatest enemies, and submit themselves obediently to follow their Leaders, whom God at this time hath largely furnished with counsel, and courage, for the good of his Kirk, and Kingdom.   

Anticovenanter.  
The people needeth not to be troubled with wars, 
Rom. 13.3.  if they be loyal Subjects, for his Majesty is not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have the praise of the same. For he is the Minister of God to thee for good: but if thou do that which is evil, be afraid: for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the Minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil.  
2. It's needless to persuade them not to be afraid of shadows, for shadows fly away. But what mean you by shadows? the King's power? his army? Well, it may be that these shadows become bodies. Zebul persuaded Gaal who conspired against Abimelech, that Abimelech's army was but the shadow of the mountains, and not men. 
judg. 9.36.  But when Gall saw them come down by the middle of the land, and another company come along by the plain in Meonenim: he found that a shadow to be feared, when Zebul said, where is now thy mouth, wherewith thou saidst, Who is Abimelech, that we should serve him? Is not this the people that thou hast despised? Go out, I pray now, and fight with him. Howbeit you regard not this shadow, yet let all these in his Dominions that fear God, esteem His Majesty's power under God to be, especially in these evil times, a hiding place from the wind, a covert from the tempest, 
Esa. 32.2.  a shadow of a great rock in a weary Land.  
3. Whereas you desire men not to be deceived with promises, etc. You would do well to make this clear. Will the King promise fair, and then fail? Will you like railing Rabshakeh dissuade Israel to trust Hezekias? and say, 
2 King. 18.29.  Let not the King deceive you, harken not unto him: GOD give you better minds. I dare be bold to promise in His Majesty's name these words of the Prophet Esay. Say to the righteous, 
Esa. 3.10.  that it shall be well with him: for they shall eat the fruit of their doings. Woe unto the wicked, it shall be evil with him, for the reward of his hands shall be given unto him.  
4. It's well advised to urge the people to make war with sin, God further this work; but I pray you, urge them to denounce war against the reigning sin amongst you, against rebellion, and resisting of superior Powers. Let the Leaders of God's people lean them in the paths of righteousness; bring not strange fire to God's Altar; warm not your pulpits with the strange doctrine of unrighteousness; that you may at the day of account, say, Lord, I have done as thou hast commanded, and if we have been deceived, thou hast deceived us: and be not blind leaders of the blind, till you both fall in the ditch.   

Covenanter.  
5. That is be remembered, what hath been our manifold defections, in discipline, Sacraments, worship and doctrine, through the want of lawful Nationall assemblies, and the usurpation of the Prelates these many years by past; and that a greater mercy could not be shown to this Land, than a free and full Naetionall assembly; such as is that which was indicted by His Majesty, and holden at Glasgow, ridding this Kirke of the Prelates, the Authors, and Executioners of all our woes. That they may be earnest with God in their Prayers, that as he hath been pleased to set up our reformation again with a stretched out hand, he may be graciously pleased to uphold his own work; and make the King's Majesty a nursing Father to the Kirke in this Land.   

Anticovenanter.  
Let these things be remembered in God's Name. Tell them, that the defections of Discipline is great, in that the ancient Apostolic Government is by a lawless Covenant abjured, and by violence removed; and another of a base coin put in its place. Tell them of the profanation of the Sacraments: and of their superstitious opinion, who make some gesture essential to the Lords Supper, and others idolatrous. Let them be told too, that the Lord is wronged in his worship, by those who condemn set prayers in his Service. Tell them likewise, that the Doctrine is corrupted, especially concerning the authority of the Supreme Magistrate. But call not ye the Prelates, the authors and executioners of your woes, who are become so great enemies to them: you ought also to be afraid to father your disorders upon God, as a work of reformation, thereby speciously making him the author and fautor of all your misdemeanours.  
After a contemptus species est, dicere falsum;  
Vtque fidem facias, divine numine abuti.  
And finally, it's a most odiously spoken by you, to pray that the King His Majesty may be a nursing father to his Church; for in your sense, you seem to make him a stepfather, an enemy, yea, a Tyrant to the Church, as you declare yourselves in the stating of the question, and answering to the 13. Rom. for except he be a Tyrant, you declare it's unlawful to resist him: and if mercy, clemency, and all Royal virtues, which are in him, be Tyranny, than His Majesty is the greatest Tyrant that ever was.   

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

Anticovenanter.  
It were more sit that you should study to prudency, and to keep these things close, and to desire that these things should not be told in Gath, not published in Askelon, especially, that monstrous Act concerning Episcopacy; lest by publishing these your follies in print, you make yourselves, Opprobrium Coeli, ludibriumque soli. And get your Assembly branded with that of the Council of Trent. Non fuit liberum Concilium, 
Sibrand de Concil. Excep. 8.  sed combinatio conjuratorum.   

Covenanter.  
7 The stating of the Controversy at this time between the King and his Subjects must be cleared to the people thus: that all men may know how unjustly we are invaded, and how just and necessary our defence shall be. The question is not, whether we ought honour to the King, for we a knowledge him to be God's Deputy and Vicegerent: or whether we ought to obey the King, for God hath given him Power and Authority to Command: or whether we ought to given unto Caesar, that which is Caesar's, for that we desire to do most cheerfully: or whether we ought to fear the King, for he is set over us to do Justice. Neither is the question, whether Honour should be given to evil Superiors, for as our Adversaries, by moving of such questions at this time under pretext of duty, do wrong and dishonour to the King's gracious Majesty; so we profess in the general, that the wickedness of man cannot avoid God's Ordinance: and therefore although we had froward and wicked Superiors, yet obedience and honour is to be given unto them, as being set up by God, as it were, in his wrath, Hos. 13.11. Neither is the question, whether we ought absolute obedience to an evil Magistrate, for our adversaries (whatsoever be their judgement and practice) do not affirm that malo in malo, or ad malum est obediendum, but that Kings are to be obeyed so fare as their Commandments are not contrary to Gods, and if God command one thing, and they the contrary; in this case, it's better to obey God, than man. Neither is the question about the invasion of the King, or any of his Kingdoms, which is the despiteful and devilish calumny of the disnatured enemies of this Kirk and Kingdom. But the question is merely and simply about our own defence. And in this also we would put difference between the King resident in this Kingdom, and by opening his ears to both parties rightly informed; and the King fare from us in another Kingdom, hearing the parties, and misinformed by our adversaries: Between the King, as King proceeding Royally according to the laws of the Kingdom against rebels, and the King coming down from his Throne, at the feet whereof, the humble supplication of his subjects, yet lieth ananswered, furiously to invade his loyal and wellmeaning people. Between a King, who is a stranger to religion, and tied no further but according to his own pleasure to the professors of Religion within his Dominion; and our King professing with us the same Religion, and obliged by his father's deed and his own oath, to defend us his own Subjects, our lives, religion, liberties and laws. Again, difference would be put betwixt some private persons, taking arms for resistance; and inferior Magistrates, Counsellors, judges, Nobles and Peers of the Land, Parliament-men and Barons, Burgesses, and the whole body of the Kingdom, except some few Courtiers, Statesmen, papists, or popishly affected. Between subjects rising or standing out against law and reason, that they may be free from the yoke of obedience, and a people holding fast their allegiance to their Sovereign, and in all humility supplicating for Religion and justice.. Between a people labouring by Arms to introduce innovations in religion, contrary to God's Word; and a people seeking nothing so much as against all novations, to have the same Religion ratified, which hath been professed since the reformation, and hath not only been sworn to solemnly long since, by the King's Majesty and the whole Kingdom, both of old and of late; but also commanded by the King's Majesty to be sworn by his Councillors, and all people, as it was professed at first Between a people pleading for their own fancies, follies and inventions, and a people suspending their judgement and practice about things controverted, till they should be determined in a Nationall assembly, the only proper and competent jurisdiction; and after determination, receiving and standing for the Acts of the Assembly. The question than is, whether in this case, matters thus standing betwixt the King and this kingdom, defensive war be lawful? or, whether the people ought to defend themselves against extreme violence and oppression, bringing utter ruin and desolation upon the Kirk and Kingdom, upon themselves and their posterity? That it is lawful for us to take up Arms for our defence against such unjust violence, it is manifest by these reasons following.   

Anticovenanter.  
I Many Tautologies are here used in stating the Controversy, and you remove that which is the question, and makes that the question, which I am persuaded, you know to be not the question. 2. You multiply words to affect the ignorant, the question is not say you whether we ought to honour, obey or fear the King, or whether we ought to give Caesar that which is Caesar's. Know you not that the last question comprehends all these? is not honour, fear, and obedience, Caesar's due? 3. You are very charitable, that you say, whatever be out judgement and practice, yet we affirm in word, that absolute obedience in evil is not to be given to wicked men. 4. You make many differences about defensive arms to no effect. The first difference, between the King resident in the Kingdom, hearing impartially the complaint of both parties, etc. I pray you tell me, if the King were here resident, and did impartially hear you, and gave sentence against you, would you not then resist? Would you not even then be judges in your own cause, and take up defensive arms? Whether the King be at home with you, or abroad, he shall still be one partial and unequal judge, so long as he goeth not with you. Your second difference is of the like stuff, Between the King proceeding by laws, and the King coming furiously against his Subjects. His Majesty was still well pleased, and so remaineth, to proceed according to the Laws: but you will not stand to his judgement, but must be judges in your own cause: and now if his Majesty, after so long contempt of him, and his Laws, be forced to draw the sword of justice, you cry out, he cometh furiously against you. Your third difference is of the same nature, Between a King who is a stranger to religion, and a King who is of the same with us. What make you the difference herein! Will you not resist a stranger to religion, if he invade you by arms? The stranger to religion, by the Law of God, and his calling, is bound to defend the Religion within his Dominions, aswell as our King; only this, our King is more obliged by his general calling of Christianity, and by his own fact and deed: and blessed be God, he will ever do it. Your fourth difference is of no purpose also. Between a private man, and the whole body of a Kingdom for the most part, etc. Tell me then, do you grant, that one private man ought not to defend himself against the Supreme Magistrate by arms? albeit, it be true that he may not, and you do here deny it; yet you must be forced to acknowledge the lawfulness of it: for afterward, your reason shall make it good, that you maintain the lawfulness of a private man's taking up of arms, against the Lords anointed.  
You do no small in jury to our Nation; to affirm that the whole body of the Kingdom, except a few, etc. 1. For it's notorious, that the whole body of the Kingdom, for the most part, did never dream of such a thing, as to take up arms against the Lords anointed, but were most deceitfully persuaded, that their covenant did not carry them to such rebellion; but only to serve God, and their King. And now many of them are exclaiming, that they are deceived, and must be perjured, if they take arms against their King. And how many are groaning under this, and would gladly be freed? and yet dare not for your terrors and affrightments. 2. They are many who have subscribed the King's Covenant, who will be loath to be in that category with you: For I hope they know, that, beside the sin of Rebellion, they will also incur Perjury, if they run with you in your evil way. For they are obliged by their bond, to take up defensive arms in defence of the King, Religion and Laws; and that only when by Authority they are commanded so to do. But your covenant obliges you to take up arms against his Majesty, even though he forbidden you; if by common consent you think it should be done.  
Your fifth difference is of the same nature too. Between a people holding fast their allegiance, etc. If you be such as you call yourselves, his Majesty hath no quarrel against you, but herein yet you must be judges in your own cause, and the King must stand to your sentence. Saul was righteous in his own conceit, and did obey the Commandment of God, but the bleeting of the sheep, and the lowing of the oxen belied him. Your daily practices bear witness, whether you be such men as you call yourselves.  
3 You say that ye have suspended your judgement and practice about things controverted, till they be determined by a lawful assembly. Answer 1. You did not suspend your judgement and practice, but by your covenant have abjured these things controverted, as heads of popery; as the learned Doctors of Aberdeen most clearly have shown, which ye were never hitherto able to answer: and if this be to suspend your judgement, you are worse than the wife of bodwel, who first spoke, and then advised; you have first sworn to the one part of the controversy, and then take it to consultation. 2. If we will grant you that ye have only suspended your judgements and practice, etc. consider how absurd you are herein: first, ye with an implicit faith swear to believe and practise what shall be determined in a lawful assembly, though ye know not, whether it shall approve or condemn those things. 2 You fall headlong in another point of Popery in making the general assembly an infallible judge, at whose determination ye swear to stand, in judgemen and practice: for if ye did acknowledge that the assembly might err, it had been great folly in you to swear to stand to the determination of one, who is not of infallible judgement. 3. I demand of you who are the strict Non-conformists. What if the assembly had determined contrary to your expectation, and declare that those things controverted were not heads of Popery, would ye have condescended to them? and if the assembly had not been made up of conjured persous, but of free Ministers, it had been so concluded.  
Your last two differences may be joined in one, you profess yourselves to be zealous in religion, and that the King's Majesty is urging the swearing to the true religion of his Subjects, etc. Who then is to hurt our religion? who is coming by arms to destroy it? if his Majesty be for you, who is against you? You have the King a Pattern and Patron of Piety, and why did you protest against the covenant, because he commanded it? But all this tends to no other sense then to brand so worthy a King with perjury and dissimulation.  
You have therefore most wickedly stared the question, especially since his Majesty by many published Proclamations hath often assured you, that he is so far from thinking of any innovation of religion, that he is resolved constantly to maintain the same, as it is established by law in this Kingdom of Scotland, and hath been so ready to give all full satisfaction, that he hath in a manner granted all that was petitioned for of his Majesty: read his Majesty's Proclamation and Declaration, dated the 27. of Febr. where ye shall find the state of the question rightly set down, and clearly see, that he is so fare from intending the ruin and subversion of this his Kingdom, that he takes God, and the world to witness, that he is at last forced to take arms, and that for his own right, and our good, to reclaim us from our daring and increasing insolences, and for the re-establishing of his royal authority amongst us again. And therefore the question is now, Whether he be our King or not? Yea, the question must be now, not, Whether you may take defensive arms against the King. But, Whether or no the King's Majesty may take defensive arms against a disloyal and rebellious people: for do not you invade his loyal subjects, besieging his cities by armies of men, because they remain obedient and loyal to their King: have not you by force and fraud taken his Castles, led captive his captains, and other subjects, and laid hold upon all whom ye know loyal subjects, to ward them, and compel them to run your crooked course? you spare not the Lords own Day, in time of God's service, in the house dedicated to his worship, to take his Majesty's servants and keep them in ward, and dispone upon the King's forts and castles, as you think good; putting in and putting out whom you please: drinking and carouzing in his Castles, quasi jam partâ victoriâ. I, you have triumphed, leading the King's Crown captive, with Tuck of Drum, in great solemnity through the street of your City of Confusion: and afterward have not only appointed your office-men of war for resisting of authority, but also (as I am credibly informed) have erected a new government of 26. Governors of Nobles, Barons, and Burgesses yearly changeable, for the government of the Kingdom.  
As for his Supremacy then, no wonder that it be gone, for in your last pretended general assembly, you are not far from that which Optatus says of the Donatists, Ille solito furore accensus, dicit, Quid imperatoricum ecclesia? he being kindled with his wont fury, 
Contra Parm. lib. 3.  says, What hath the Emperor to do with the Church? In your protestations you give him no more ado, but to be present among you, that as an inferior officer he may attend you, and see that no tumult or outward disorders be among you, who are the supreme judges in causes Ecclesiastical. You will admit of no appellation from you to the King, but have deprived them that thus appealed whilst even the jews in an Ecclesiastical matter, admitted Paul's lawful appeal to a Pagan Emperor: 
Acts 25.11.  and whereas general assemblies should ever carry libertatem judicandi, non necessitatem credendi, as Augustine says; and the acts thereof are only Canons, 
August. contra Faust.  Directions, and Rules, without any power to be laws, till they be confirmed, 〈◊〉, and allowed by the Supreme Magistrate, Qui servit Christo, Leges ferendo pro Christo, who serve Christ, making Laws for Christ, as Augustin says, yet you make them to be laws of coactive power, by virtue whereof, ye depose and excommunicate whom you please, summon before your Committees, whom and when you please; and because they did not appear before your Committee, though forbidden by his Majesty's Proclamation, they have suspended them from their Ministerial function. Thus Attributing to their Assembly not only Directive, but also Coactive power, not only without, but also against supreme Authority. It remains then that ye conclude with Emanuel Sa in his Aphorism, Clericirebellio in regem, non est crimen laesae Majestatis, The rebellion of Churchmen against the King is no treason, quia non sunt subditi regis, because they are not subject to the King in Church matters. And that ye rob him of his Supremacy in matters civil, it will be clear in the dispute following: And therefore, notwithstanding of all your specious words that ye intent no change of Government, scelera reclamant, and your protestations are contrariae factis.  
But if you will persuade the people on the contrary, that his Majesty intends the ruin of Church and policy, you must not think it enough to say it so boldly, but to make it good, or else how can ye escape the wrath of God? Who dare thus affirm of your King in Word, and Writ, in Pulpit, and elsewhere; against whom you ought not to think evil in your bedchamber. And how can you escape the wrath of a King, 
Prov. 16.14. & 20.2.  which is as the Messenger of death, and as the roaring of a Lion? who so provoketh him to anger, sinneth against his own Soul.  
But though it were so, that his Majesty, who is the most religious King in Christendom, were an enemy to religion, and were by arms seeking that which you affirm he doth, can you show any reason, why ye ought not to be subject unto him? Obedience is not to be given, but subjection must never be denied. I come then to your reasons.   

Covenanter.  
1. 
Argument.  The first is taken from the unreasonableness and absurdity of such Court Parasites, as for their own base ends maintain the absolute Sovereignty, and unlimited authority of Princes, to the great hurt both of Prince and people, by losing all the bonds of civil societies, while the Prince, against the strongest bands of oaths and laws, may do what he please, to the ruin of Religion, the Kirk and Kingdom, the Laws and liberties of some, or of all the Subjects, and the people shall do nothing, but either fly, which is impossible, or suffer themselves to be massacred and out off.   

Anticovenanter.  
You begin with unreasonableness and absurdities, and so may you end: for all is absurd, all is unreasonable which you say. If any would have proponed this question before this uproar came amongst us, in Ahasuerus words, Who is he? and where is he that durst presume in his heart to say so? 
Ester 7.5.  Surely we would never have dreamt, that such a Cockatrice could be bred in the breast of a Protestant: which doctrine is abominable even to many of the Jesuits. I say of these arguments as Augustin did of the Donatists, In lucem traxisse, est vicisse, To bring them to the light, is to overcome them. One Chaerilus a Poet wrote a book of Poesy, whereof all the verses were faulty, except seven; for the which he received seven pieces of Gold; and for every evil verse, which were many, he received one stripe. If your arguments were thus tried and examined, for every argument ye would receive a stripe; and as the fault exceeds, so should the punishment: but I wish you may not receive according to your demerits. If your reasons were set down in Syllogisms their weakness would appear; but we must answer as ye set them down: first I deny that the King's power is absolute and unlimited in respect of God, who hath set such Marches to him that he ought not to transgress: but in respect of men, the King's power must be absolute and unlimited, so that their subjects may not resist them, but be subject unto them, according to the Scripture. 
Rom. 13.1  Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers: and he that resisteth resisteth the ordinance of God. And that of Solomon, Eccles. 8. Where the word of a King is, there is power: and who may say unto him, What dost thou? To this purpose, Ambrose in Enaraction. in Psal. 51. says on these words, Tibisoli peccavi. Vtique rex erat, null is ipse legibus tenebatur, quia liberi sunt reges à vinculis delictorum, neque enim ullis ad poenam vocantur legibus, tuti impery potestate— sed quamvis tutus, devotione tamen & fide erat Deo subditus, & legi ejus subjectum se esse cognoscens, peccatum suum negare non poterat, That is, David said, That he had sinned against God, because he was a King, and not bound to any law, because Kings are free from the bonds of Crime, etc. So says Arnobius, Cassiodorus, Beda, Glossa ordinar: Didimus, Cyrillus, Nicaetas in aurea catena: besides all sound modern Protestant Divines. So says chrysostom also in Psal. 118. Octon. 17. Rex etsi leges in potestate habet ut impunè delinquat, Deo tamen subditus est. Albeit the King have the Law so in his power, that he may sin without controlment, yet he is subject to God: & sufficit illi in poenam quod Deum expectet ultorem. I hope they will not call these Author's Court Parasites.  
Again, if their power were not absolute, there would be some other power above them, which is absurd, that the supreme power under God, can have any supreme power above it, but only God. Super Imperatorem non est nisi solus Deus, qui fecit Imperatorem, says Optatus lib. 3. contra Parmeman. And therefore, in Synodo Regiaticana under Lothorinus the Emperor, cap. 16. It's said, Imperatores summi ac principes minimè nunc judicantur, sed in futuro judicio à Deo. I conclude this point than with that grave saying of Yvo Carnotensis Episcopus, Epist. 171. Si reges aliquando potestate sibi concessa abutantur, non sunt à nobis graviter exasperandi, sed ubi sacerdotum admonitionibus non acquieverunt, divino sunt judicio reservandi, ubi tanto districtiùs sunt puniendi, quanto minùs fuerint divinis admonitionibus obnoxy. What then is the unreasonableness of this absolute authority in respect of men? Great hurt, say you, both to Prince and people.  
Ans. 1. It's no question but great hurt may fall out both to Prince and people, while the Prince presuming upon his authority, abuseth the same, and makes himself liable to the wrath of God. But much more hurt would follow upon the other hand, if the Prince's power were subject to the inferior subjects; that would breed great confusion, and turn all upside down, to make the Supreme under his Inferiors: everse hoc ordine, publicae tanquilitatis nervum incidi, totamque humanae societatis compagem laxari, ac disturbarinecesse est, says Tilen. When ever the subjects pleased they would be raising commotions and seditions, Corah, Dathan and Abiram would say, 
Numb. 16.3.  You take too much upon you, Moses. Absalon would strive to steal the hearts of the people away from the King. The University of Paris (though Papists) in Censura lata. die 4. juny 1610. is of this same judgement, calling it Seditiosum, impium, ac haereticum, quocunque quaeito colore à quocunque subdito, vassallo, aut extraneo, sacris Regum ac Principum personis vim habere: A seditious, wicked and heretical thing, that violence should be offered to the sacred persons of Kings and Princes, upon whatsoever pretexts or colour, by whosoever, vassal, or forrainner. They say further, that it is a seditious doctrine, Regni optimates & proceres ad foedissimam desertionem, populum ad generalem defectionem atque seditionem, specioso quidem, sed fucato Religionis Catholicae retinendae atque conservanda praetextu, hortans, excitans, impellans. A doctrine exhorting, stirring up, and thrusting forward the great men and Nobles of the Land to a most filthy desertion, the people to a general defection and sedition, under a glorious indeed (but yet feigned) pretext, of retaining and conserving the Catholic religion. And therefore, I conclude with M. Geor Froger in dicta Censura. Nè subjecti domino nostre regi, abripi se sinant affrice pestilentis istius dectrina vento. Let not the Subjects of our Sovereign Lord the King, suffer themselves to be violently carried away with the Africa wind of this pestilent doctrine. And finally, if there were such power in the people above the Prince, the supreme Majesty would be rather in the people, than in the Prince.  
But you say, if we resist not, Church and state will go to ruin. An 1. There is no danger to Church or Kingdom from his Majesty, who is only to put away disonders, and to restore the Church to her liberty. 2. Though there were such dangers threatened, yet unlawful means (such as is the resisting superior powers) for good ends, ought not to be used, suffering is commanded and commended unto us in Scripture, resisting is forbidden. By resisting, Tyrants are more enraged, by patiented suffering, they are mitigated; resisting brings ruin to a Church, suffering causeth it to flourish; the blood of the Saints is the seed of the Church: and it's observed by the learned, that so long as the Churches in the primitive times used sua arma, their own weapons, prayers and tears against the persecuters, they flourished: but when they took aliena arma, strange armour, than they came to ruin; as it is this day under the dominion of the Turks and Infidels. It's well said, that Peccata pepuli sunt vires tyrannorum, The sins of the people are the strength of tyrants: and therefore, when by patience, by tears, and supplications we seek God, God pardons our sins, and our sins being remooved, the strength of Tyrants is abated: and God can put a hook in their mouth, and draw them back from persecuting his Church. But when we resist, we augment our sins, and usurp God's place, to whom only it belongs to take order with wicked Kings, since they have none above them, but God.   

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

Anticovenanter.  
This Argument is not so specious, as false; no man doubts, but when the Magistrate goeth out of his order, and by Arms commands, what God forbids; that, in that case, man is not tied to obedience. But to take up arms to resist, is the point in question, which you call obedience to God, and not disobedience to the Magistrate; but you beg the question, and cannot prove it, except from that, that God forbids to resist superior Powers. 2. You deny the King, in this case to be your Superior, so long as he commands contrary to God's Commandment; and God only becometh your immediate Superior: before this time, I never heard so much seditious and treasonable doctrine. Did ever a Jesuit say so much? This justifieth their doctrine, for they hold, that, though Kings were never so wicked Tyrants, yet till the Pope declare them incapable of Authority, they remain their lawful Superiors: and if the false ground of this doctrine were true, to wit, that the Pope is above Kings, their doctrine even so far were good. But that inferiors should by their own usurped authority and insolency disclaim their Superiors, making God their only immediate Superior is a most brutish doctrine, not worthy to be answered with words. As God sometimes sets up Kings to be nursing fathers to the Church, (as long may it be, we have one) so sometime he will raise wicked men to be a scourge to his Church: to both these, we ought obedience in all things lawful; and subjection, when obedience is not lawful, and never disclaim their authority. So the Christians under julian the Apostate fought his battles, and obeyed him, when he commanded things lawful: but when he commanded things unlawful they did not obey, & yet never resisted (though powerful to resist) but were ever in subjection to their temporal Lord, for their eternal Lords sake. So says Augustin in Psal. 124. Quando volebat ut idola colerent, ut thurificarent, praeponebant illi Deum: quando autem dicebat, producite aciem, ite contra illam gentem, statim obtemperabant, distinguebant Dominum aeternum a Domino temporali, tamen subditi erant propter Dominum aeternum, etiam Domino temporali. That which you cannot prove by reason, you would prove by a similitude of a Captain and his Soldiers, but you know that 1. Theologia symbolica non est argumentativa. 2. The comparison is not alike, but halteth downright: for the authority of the Captain is limited and bounded by his Prince or General, that he must not transgress in the least point of his Commission; otherwise the soldiers are no more bound to follow him, than they know his Commission from their common Prince. As for example, the King of France sends his armies to fight against the Spaniards: Now, if the Captain of this army make defection from the King, and go to the Spanish army, than they become as Spaniards, enemies to their own King; now here sense itself leads the army to fight against their Captain, who are turned enemies; for they certainly know, that it was the King's will to fight against the Spaniards, and all that would take their part in that battle, and therefore they have their Kings warrant to fight against their captains, who now ipso facto ceaseth to be their captain, and become enemies. But if the King did give these his Captains absolute and unlimited power over the armies, commanding the soldiers not to resist them by arms, whither they did right or wrong; whither they should turn to the enemy or not; in this case indeed as the soldiers ought not to turn away after them to the enemy against their Sovereign, so they ought not to fight against them; but fly home to their Prince, whose will they know. Thus stands the case between God and the King his Deputy, God hath given him such authority, that all under him must be subject unto him without resistance; and though he should do many things contrary to God's Word, yet ipso facto he ceaseth not to be King, and we must not obey him in evil, but yet be subject unto him for Conscience sake.  
The Covenanters seeing the weakness of this their argument and the strength of reason against it from the Apostles Direction, Rom. 13.1. they strive (but unhappily) to answer that objection, thus.   

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

Anticovenanter.  
In this you declare either much weakness, or else much malice; and I may say both. No man will affirm that Tyranny and violence are God's ordinance, but those to whom God hath given lawful authority, may abuse it tyrannically; and they remain the Ministers of God for thy good, in tuum bonum (says Augustin) licet sibi in malum: for all things work together for the best to them that love God. For the Lord will raise up Kings sometimes (as Isaiah says) to be The rod of his anger and staff of his indignation, 
Isai. 10 5.  to afflict an hypocritical people, to take the spoil and the prey, and to tread them down like the mire in the streets: Howbeit he meaneth not so, neither doth his heart think so, saith the Lord, but it is in his heart to destroy nations, not a few. And when tyrants think thus to do evil to us, yet it turneth to our good to humble us under God's hand, and cause us repent. This is all the fruit, to take away our iniquity, saith the Lord: 
Isai. 27 9  and thus, Tyranni sunt ministri Dei tibi in bonum, licet sibi in malum: and to resist them is to fight with God, and pull the rod out of his hand. Your inference then is most childish, that either we must admit tyranny to be God's ordinance, or else we may resist it. For you see that he who hath a lawful power from God, may abuse it tyrannically, and we must not resist God's ordinance, lawful authority; because such and such men exercise it tyrannically. Our superiors power is not God's ordinance, because he is a good man that hath it, as David was: neither is the authority, not God's ordinance, because he is an evil man that hath it, as Saul was: but the authority is God's ordinance, because he who hath it, is the lawful superior. He that was Emperor, when Paul writ this Epistle, was Nero, a tyrant. Nero (says learned Moulin) was a monster in nature, the shame of humane kind, and the first Emperor that began to persecute the Church, nevertheless the Apostle, Rom. 13. speaking of that power which then was in being, saith, that it was ordained by God, and that whosever resisted the same, resisted the ordinance of God, etc. So says Aug. De civet Dei lib. 5. cap. 21. Where he declares that the authority of wicked Emperors was from God's ordinance, as well as of good Emperors, Qui Mario, Caio, Caesari, qui Augusto ipse & Neroni; qui Vespasianis, vel patri vel filio suavissimis imperatoribus, ipse & Domitiano crudelissimo: & ne per singulos ire necesse sit, qui Constantino Christiano, ipse & apostatae juliano. Did not Paul acknowledge the authority of Nero, when he did appeal to him, and that lawfully, I stand at Caesar's judgement seat, where I ought to be judged: Act. 25.10. And Christ himself acknowledged the Authority of Pilate over him to be from above. Neither was it lawful for Christ's Disciples to resist, and by arms to defend their Master against such matchless cruelty and tyranny.  
And here by the way, I gather one argument against your course, which I pray you answer. It was not lawful for Christ's Disciples to defend Christ by arms against the tyranny of those who invaded him, and crucified him. Therefore, it's not lawful for us to take desensive arms against tyrants. Ye will answer, Christ suffered them not to resist, because it was his will to suffer. This is true indeed, he was most willing to suffer, but yet the reason wherefore he hinders Peter to defend him, is, because it was not lawful for him to defend by arms, therefore he says, Put up thy sword into his place, for he that takes the sword shall perish with the sword. He that draws the sword, must do it by the authority of him that hath power.  
Consider also the 13. Chap. of the Revelation, in the 7 ver. It's said, that the beast with the seven heads and ten horns had power given him over all kindreds, tongues, and nations, to make war with the Saints. What shall the Saints do then under their persecuters? May they not take up arms? Nor, for in the next words, the Spirit of God sets down the manner of the Saints defence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: First, tells what must not be done, and then what they must do; first, they must not resist, and take their persecuters either captive, or kill them, because they have not that power; therefore says the Text, He that leadeth in captivity, shall go into captivity; he that killeth with the sword, shall be killed with the sword, than he showeth that they must suffer. Here is the patience and faith of the Saints, says the Text. Patience is requisite to endure tribulation, and faith, to continue constant to the end. I pray you consider this my Brethren of the Ministry, and be not the kindlers of this unlawful war against not a Tyrant, but the most religious Prince in the world. An evil man seeketh only rebellion; 
Prov. 17.11.  therefore a cruel messenger shall be sent unto him, says Solomon, Remember Bernard's saying, Epist 134. Non est meum hortar, ad pugnam. Est tamen (securus dic) advocati ecclesiae arcere ab ecclesiae infestatione Schismaticorum rabiem, est Caesaris propriam vindicare coronam ab usurpatore Siculo.  
Finally, You make it questionable, whether you may invade Tyrants or not, at least by the shield of defence, if not by the sword; for invasion, say you, not determining what may be done: and therefore, you show too much choler to call it a devilish and espiteful calumny of disnatured enemies, if they make the question about invasion of his Majesty's Kingdoms. Your irresolution in this question, at least, if not, is resolved by your practice who are the invaders, and our Gracious King must be the defender. The author of the Dialogue of white divelt, goeth clearly to work, affirming, if Kings hinder the bringing in of their Discipline, they are Tyrants, and being Tyrants, they may be deposed by their Subjects: and do not you maintain that the King's authority and true Religion are so firmly joined together, that if he fall from his Religion he falleth also from his authority; and so is no more your King when you judge him contrary to Religion by common consent; neither are you more bound to him, than he defends the true Religion, that is, which you think the true Religion.   

Covenanter.  
From the end of magistracy, 
3. Argument.  the Lord hath ordained Magistrates to be his ministers for the good of his people; whence have proceeded these principles of Policy, Princes are principally for the people and their defence, and not the people principally for them; the safety and good of the people is the supreme Law, magistracy is the inferior and subordinate law, the people make the Magistrate, but the Magistrate maketh not the people; the people may be without the Magistrate, for the world was governed in another way, till that Cain building a City, made the godly first take this order for their defence, the Magistrate cannot be without the people; the body of the Magistrate is mortal, the body of the people immortal: and therefore, it were a direct overturning of all the foundation of policy and government to prefer subjection to the Prince, to the preservation of the Commonwealth, or to expose the public, wherein every men's person, family and private estate is contained, to be a prey to the fury of the Prince, rather than by all our power to defend and preserve the Commonwealth.   

Anticovenanter.  
There is nothing here but most odious and contemptible words against the Authority of our supreme Magistrate, preferring the people by many degrees above the Prince. I say with Bernard, 
De consider. lib 3. cap. 4.  Situr ques Deus conjunxit, non sunt separandi, sione● qu●s subju●●it comparandit moustrum 〈◊〉 si 〈◊〉 submovens digitam facis peudere de capite. You do not so, you separate the King and Subjects whom God hath conjoined, and you compare the people who are subjoined to the Prince, fare above the Prince. But I come to examine the particulars. You say well, that God hath 〈◊〉 Princes for the good of his people, but what gather ye hence, that therefore the people may take up arms? that is a strange consequent: Certainly, if the Prince fail in the doing what God commandeth, God his Master will take order with him; and not the people, whom you here make the King's Master. The Scripture tells us, 
Rom. 13.4.  That he is the Minister of God for thy good, but with your leave, he must be your Commander, and not one of your creatures, your Minister.  
2 You say Princes are principally for the people, and not the people for the Prince. Ans. You should say, for [people] subjects', if you do not disdain to be called Subjects. Now the King and Subjects are relative, and they are for other; the one to Command and govern, the other to be subject and led. Now what is all this for resisting of authority?  
3 You say, The good of the people is the supreme Law, etc. This is the second time that you have ignorantly abused that saying, Salus populi suprema lex esto, Go to the learned Doctors of Aberdeen, and learn out of their Duplies the meaning of it. It belongeth to the Magistrate, who is the only Law giver. The case may fall out, that for the good of his Subjects, he must not stand upon the ordinary Law, but let that stand for a Law, which in such exigence shall see me to him fittest for the safety of the people: But you odiously apply it to the people, who are destitute of authority, and can make no law. Let the people see what is most conducible for their own safety, though it should be with the loss of the supreme Magistrate; let him perish rather than his Subjects: as who would say, rather than let the members of the body suffer such hazard, out off the Head.  
4 Ye say the people makes the Magistrate, etc. You declare now what people you are (for ye will not call yourselves Subjects) even great enemies to Monarches. Is your doctrine so Jesuitical and rebellious, to think that the King's authority is of humane institution by positive laws, and not from God? if you say so, Treply with Bernard, Si sie sontis, dissentis ab co qui dicit, non est potestas nisi a Deo. We have maintained this doctrine too long against the adversary, to pass from it now upon your naked word without probation. It's the Lord that places Kings in their throne, says job. 
Job 36.7. Prov. 8.15.  By me King's reign, says the Wisdom of God. Non tribuamus dands regni atque imperij potestatem, nisi Deo vero. August. These cannot properly be called Kings, who have their power from the people, because public Government is only proper to God, who giveth it to whom he pleaseth. And seeing it is contrary to reason, that any can have supreme power over himself; it followeth that the people wanting a King cannot have the supreme power over itself; and therefore cannot bestow it upon any man to be their King, for none can give that to another which they have not themselves.  
5. Ye say the people may be without the Magistrate. Answer. So have you made us this year and more; in stead of a King. we have had the Ephori of Sparta, and the Roman Tribunes overruling us, strange Lords rule over us to the great contempt of our own King. Dominis parere superbis, cogimur. 2. The world was not without a King till Cain's time: for Adam was King, his Empire was paternal, and therefore Monarchical; for albeit, at first he did not actually exercise political Government before the people did multiply; yet ex vijuris naturae, by the force of the law of nature, it was due to the first progenitor Adam, to be governor of his posterity, and thus habitually, he was King from his first creation: and therefore that assertion of the Monarchomachists is not always true, the King is not without a people, as the people are without a King. I see, you think you may be well without our King, what remaineth then, but with the Bishops, let Kings go too, and lay a ground for Anabaptism.  
6. You say the body of the Magistrate is mortal. I pray you what kind of people are you? Qui genus, unde demo? Are you only the offspring of God? I read in Scripture that God says to Kings, 
Psal. 82.6, 7.  I have said ye are gods, but to which of you is this name given? and if you will assume that to you, take the rest of the Text with you,- but ye shall die like men. It's an old saying, Rex nunquam maritur, The King never dieth. But one generation goeth, and another cometh; Let it content you that though King and you are of one mettle.  
Now in the end, having thus many ways preferred yourselves to the King, you make this monstrous conclusion. It's adirect overturning of all foundation of Policy, to prefer subjection to the Prince, to the preservation of the commonwealth. Answ. Here you separate that which God hath joined together, and make these two opposite, which ever must go hand in hand together: for Subjection to the Prince, is the only way to preserve the Commonwealth: where Subjection is not, God's ordinance is contemned, the foundation of policy over-turned, and the Commonwealth exposed to ruin, as is clear in the answer to your first Argument.   

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

Anticovenanter.  
You should declare, how King and people are both jointly bound: Will you have King and Subject of equal power, about the observation and preservation of the Tables? You are bound to keep the Commandments of God, as well as your King; but the King is bound to do more, to wit, to be careful, that all his Subjects keep them, and to punish transgressors. I have read the whole Scripture of God, but I could never find this power given to Subjects. It's enough for them to keep the Tables themselves, but they have no authority to command others, much less doth it belong to them to resist the Magistrate. If the King press the people to the breach of the Law, they must not obey; since God, his Superior, commands the contrary; but yet they must not resist, since God, both their Superiors, forbids. You poorly beg here the question, affirming, that the people will sin if they resist not, but you will never prove it. You say, it is strongly pressed by sound politicians, but you press it most weakly and unfoundly, not nominating one sound Politician for you. For no Wiseman will confound the Prince's authority with the people, and turn a Monarchy into a Democracie.   

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

Anticovenanter.  
This Argument is builded upon sand, you dream, that whatsoever means may be used for preservation of the Prince against his Deputies, the same may be used for the preservation of God's right, and the people's peace. But you err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God. Both by God's Law, and man's law, Subjects are bound to defend their Prince. But God's Law commands not to defend his right by arms: the weapons of our warfare are spiritual, and not carnal. Patience, Faith, with other graces, are our Armour, we must be subject for conscience sake, and not take God's place to repress our Superiors. If any inferior judge wrong me, I must not resist him, but appeal to his Superior, and from him again, to his Superior, even to the King the Supreme; and if he will be unjust, and wrong me, I must not resist, but commit my cause to God, to whom vengeance belongeth. It is a point of Atheism, and distrusting of God's providence, to think that God will not help against Tyrants; and therefore men will be their own judges, and revenge themselves. But the Lord hath said. 
Psal. 12.5.  For the oppression of the poor, and the sighing of the needy, now I will arise, and set him in safety, etc. Then take salomon's counsel, Prov. 20.22 Say not thou, I will recompense evil: but wait on the Lord, and he will save thee. Suffer me then to attest you, my dear Countrymen. What think you to do, O ye Covenanters, for God and the King? You undertake arms, not for God, who desires nothing but peace: You publish Rebellion, He commands Obedience. You trouble the rest and quiet of a King, he willeth us to endure hardness, though at the hand of a Pagan. You do it for God, whose name ye call upon, and deny his Power. You do it for God, who detesteth your actions, and knows your thoughts. And you do it for that God, who will confound all those who breed confusion among his people. You undertake war for Religion, against the Defender of Religion: You raise armies for Religion, and nothing hindereth it so much as wars: You fight for holiness, and your weapons destroy the Church, authorise blasphemy, plant Atheism, impiety, and despising of Devotion in all places. You march under pretence of Religion, and you spoil the Clergy of Tithes, Stipend, burden the King's Subjects with impositions, ransack the King's houses. Pardon me, I pray you, to tell you, that this fortress which you build, will be your overthrow; this fire you kindle, will burn you; these weapons ye forge, will be tempered in your own entrails; and that thereby you will neither leave of yourselves, nor your Covenant ought, but a shameful memory.   

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

Anticovenanter.  
You are put to poor shifts, when for arguments you bring crooked comparisons, yet good enough for ignorants. As for your first supposition, the question is not, whether a private man may defend himself against his Superior with inculpata tutela: But whether or not, defence by arms be culpata or inculpata tutela? His Majesty denieth you not lawful defence by Law, but your taking up of arms to resist his Authority is damnable.  
2. Tell me, when doth a Prince become a private man? as the Pope's infallibility is left in his Chair, so you make the King's authority to reside in his Throne: When Saul was in the wilderness persecuting David with great violence, was he than a private man? you will have it so; But I trust David better than you all, who would not defend himself by arms, but fled from him, as from the Lords Anointed: who can touch the Lords Anointed, and be innocent? It is altogether against the Law of Nature, that private men should take arms against their Superiors, seeing it's against the Law of nature, that a private man should be judge in his own cause, as Luther learnedly disputes in the 5. book of Sleidens' Commentaries.  
Your second supposition is as idle. It becometh a chaste woman to defend her Chastity, even against the King, but how I pray you by taking up of arms? not at all, but by not yielding herself into his arms: and though he being stronger than she, force her; yet she hath defended her chastity, and only the King is the adulterer. Thus in (Augustints judgement) Lucretia, that chaste Matron, lost not her Chastity, albeit Tarqvinius the Emperor by force lay with her, only she drew no sword to resist his violence; but here was her lamentable fault, that the fact, sore against her will, being done, she took arms against herself, and killed herself.  
Your third supposition is no better, for there is no Law that authorizeth Children to resist their Parents by arms. 2. Rules of prudency cannot be set down for every circumstance; therefore in such cases, prudency will find out lawful means either to pacify, or at least to escape by flight, the parent's fury. 3. If the case were so that either the Parent must kill the child, or the child kill the Father, I think it becometh the child, who hath his being of the Father, rather to suffer, than to destroy the fountain, whence he sprang. 4. Parents have not so great power over their children, as Kings over their Subjects, Kings have power of life and death, which Parents have not. And your fourth comparison is yet more weak: for the master's power over the servants, is less than Parents over their children.  
Your last supposition is true in part, the Mariners and Passengers may resist the Pilot, for Pilots are not Kings over the rest in the ship: you do too basely esteem of Authority. But what if the King will drive the ship on the rock himself? Answer 1. By doing of this the King is no more seeking the ruin of the Mariners and Passengers, than his own aestruction, and in this case they are bound to save their King from death, in such submissive and humble manner as it becometh, and not by arms, with swords, muskets, pikes and Cannons, which are most offensive weapons. 2. If the King would be thus desperate, it cannot be but he is gone mad, and quite out of his wits, and so interpretatiuè, they have a warrant to hinder him to undo all, which he will allow when he cometh to himself again. Well, all this may be done without taking of arms.  
But then say ye, may not the Church defend itself from suffering shipwreck against a Tyrant, who is seeking that? Answer. It cannot be so done, the comparison is much unlike. You speak as if the one case were as obvious to the sense as the other. They must be apparent rocks, not supposed only. Both sense and reason tell that if the Prince be not hindered by the Mariners, he and all must perish. But the Church of Christ, which is builded on a Rock, against the which all Tyrant's violence, no, nor the gates of hell cannot prevail, is a gainer by suffering, and every drop of their blood begets new believers: and so resisting, being an unlawful means, may bring ruin to the Church, but suffering not so. If the Jews in the days of Ahasverus had been of this new Scottish humour, when an utter extirpation was intended by Haman both of themselves and their Religion, they would have taken arms; but their prayers and tears were their defence in their greatest extremity. This was the constant practice of the Primitive Church also, even when they were most able to defend themselves against their persecutors: to this purpose Chrysost. exposition on Psal. 147. saith well, that God compasseth his Church with the cross, to suffer; not with walls for defence Ecclesiam (inquit) munist validius quàm jerusalem non vectibus & portis, se ●eruce circumseptam, & renunciatione propria voluntatis, cùm dixis, Porta inferorum non pravalebant adversm 〈◊〉. In principio itaque●eges & Imperatores, & populi, & civitates, & damonum phalanges, & ipsa diaboli Tyrannis, & alia innumerabilia invaserunt Ecclesiaem; illa tamen omnia fracta & dissoluia sunt, & interierunt, ipsa tamen crevit, & in'tantam provect a est altitudinem, ut ipsos etiam coelos superaverit. For God hath guarded his Church more strongly than Jerusalem, not being environed with gates and bars, but with the cross, and the denial of herself, when he said The gates of hell shall not prevail against her. Therefore in the beginning, Kings and Emperors, people and cities, troops of Devils, yea and the very Tyranny of Satan, invaded the Church: yet all these things were undone and dissolved and perished; but the Church increased, in so much that she reached unto the heavens, and all this was by suffering; for as the Ark of Noah, the more the floods increased the nearer it was to Heaven, so the more the Church is tossed with the waves of affliction, the nearer it goeth to Heaven.   

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

Anticovenanter.  
It's a token that you put small confidence in Scripture: because you have not begun with it; but left it in the end. For certainly there is nothing here to prove your tenet. All your testimonies are out of the Old Testament, but not one out of the New Testament. What if I would grant it lawful under the Law, and that your testimonies are good for your purpose? but can ye show it lawful under the Gospel, where suffering is only commanded? 
Mat. 10.23.  When they persecute you in one city, fly to another: not go take the cities and castles of your periecuting Superiors, and defend yourselves. But as there is no help for you from the New Testament, so you shall have none from the Old Testament, as shall be clear in answering your testimonies. In your first testimony, the people hindered Saul to kill jonathan: but how did they it? Not by arms, but by entreary with sound reasons. Shall jonathan die, say they, who hath wrought this great salvation in Israel? God forbidden. But you will say, they opposed themselves in contradictory terms, saying, as the Lord liveth, there shall not one hair of his head fall to the ground, etc. Ans. In the original it is not so, but by way of interrogation, as the most famous Interpreters Tremellius and junius do translate it.  vivit jehova, an cadere debet ullus è capillis capitis ejus? as the LORD liveth should there fall any hair of his head to the ground? The people adjure Saul, and appeal his Conscience before the living God (say these learned Interpreters) ut posthabitâ juramenti ratione, juris habeat rationem: as if they had said, is it reason that he should receive the least hurt from the people, who following the Lord hath wrought so great Salvation to the people? Then they defended jonathan not by arms, but by sound reason; which kind of defence is most willingly granted by his Majesty to all that now cry for arms.  
Your next testimony is no more worth. The people of Israel were put to no small strait, when there was no Smith in Israel, but were forced to go down to the Philistines, to sharpen their shares, their axes, and mattocks. This is also your case, you must here go to the enemies, and from the Papists borrow weapons to defend your cause, in the examples of Vzziah and Athaliah: Whereby they maintain the Supremacy of Pope over Kings, and you now use them to maintain the Power of the people over Kings. But let us consider them. The first is of Vzziah the King, who contrary to God's Commandment, went into the Temple of the Lord to burn incense upon the Altar. And Azariah the Priest went in after him, and withstood him, etc. Answ. 1. By this example, you must either maintain, that the Subjects are above the Prinee, giving them the Pope's usurped authority; or if not, you must help to answer this yourselves, & so lose the knot which yourselves have knit. The Papists say, 
2 Chron. 26.  That the High-Preist thrust the King out of the Temple, when he usurped the Priest's office, ergo, the Pope is above Kings; the reason of the inference is, because no Inferior hath power to lay hands on a Superior, and by coactive power. to compel them to do their duty, or repel them. Now you say the same, The Highpriest thrust the King out of the Temple, therefore it's lawful for the people to resist Kings. 
Bellar. de Pont. Rom. lib. 15. cap. 6.  What reason can you give of this inference, except you acknowledge the people's superiority above the Prince; and certainly, in your comparing the King and his Subjects, you seem to hold it so. 2. The Priest thrust out the King not by taking arms, but with rebuke and admonition, as the Text is clear, It pertaineth not to thee Vzziah to burn incense, and bade him departed out of the Sanctuary. This became the Priest to do. But what did the King? He was indignabundus, he was wroth, disdained their rebuke, and took the Censer in his hand to burn incense. What followed upon this? The Priest's admonitions being contemned, than the Lord took order with him, to whom it only belonged. While the King was wroth with the Priest (says the Text) the leprosy rose up in his forehead, before the Priests: then no man needed to bid him departed, for the Text says, He himself hasted to go out, because the Lord had smitten him. It was not then violence from the priests, but the punishment from God, that thrust him out. But you will say, the Text says also, that the Priest thrust him out, so it doth, but it was by admonition and rebuke; for the Text says, The Priests looked on him, and behold he was leprous, and they thrust him out from thence, yea, he himself hasted to go out He knew not that he was so, till the priests seeing it, told him, and without-doubt, rebuked him sharply; telling him of the judgement of God upon him. Thus doth josephus testify. Lib. 1. de Antiquit. jud, cap. 11. Whom Cajetan followeth. Visâ leprâ, sacerdotes regem ad festinè egred endum monent. The leprosy being seen, the Priests admonish him to make haste to go out. So doth Chrysostam, and giveth the reason of it, saying; The office of a Priest is only to reprove, and freely to admonish, not to move arms, nor to use bucklers, nor to shake a lance, neither to bend a bow, and shoot forth darts. All then that can be drawn from this example is, 1. That when Kings break the Commandments of God by any scandalous fact, it's the Preachers duty to rebuke him. 2. That when Princes will not regard the admonitions of God's Servants, they must be left to God, who sometimes will visibly punish them. I retort then your Argument, Azariah did not by arms defend Gods right, as you call it, ergò, you ought not to take up arms, though you had an Vzziah to deal with.  
Your next example is of jehojada, who commanded Athaliah to be slain. 
2 King. 11.  The very bare reading of the History answers you sufficiently. Athaliah was an usurper of the Crown, which by right belonged to joash, which was hid six years from her cruelty. After jehojada the Highpriest, Ioash's Uncle and Tutor with the Captains and Hundreds, with the Levites and chief Fathers of Israel, had brought forth joash, and put on him the Crown, and declared him King; then by authority of joash the King thus seated in his throne, jehojada caused slay that bloody usurper of the Kingdom Athaliah. So this was done by the authority of the King. Now nothing can be gathered from this, but if any Subjects for certain years have taken upon them Royal authority, if the righteous King do recover his own authority, he may command the usurpers to be slain. This point shall not be denied you.  
Your last example from Scripture is also against you, concerning the men of Keilah. If you will without prejudice judiciously consider the place, you shall see that if you will prove the lawfulness of your defence, it must be from David's flying from Saul. I have often seen both in the Fathers, and modern Writers, David's example produced for to show the unlawfulness of resisting Princes, but never till now, for the lawfulness of resistance. Consider first then in general, that as Saul was ever invading David, so he was ever flying from him. 2. That where David did hide himself, he found ofttimes treacherous men to discover him, promising to deliver him unto Saul. So the Ziphits ran to Saul, saying, Doth not David hide himself with us in strong holds in the wood, in the hill of Hachilah? Now therefore, come down, and our part shall be to deliver him into the King's hand. And thus being oft betrayed, he was forced to forsake the Kingdom altogether, to go to the King of Gath. Now for the men of Keilah, they were much obliged to David for delivering them from the Philistines; and therefore, the place being indebted to him, and also fare from Saul, he desired to remain there so long as he might, as having no certain dwelling place elsewhere. Saul hearing that he was there, said, God hath delivered him into mine hand: for he is shut in by entering into a town that hath gates and bars. By all appearance, it was some of Keilah that brought Saul this news, showing him what advantage, he now might have of David, being in such a close town. As for David, being wise as the Angel of God, when he heard of his discovery to Saul, he foresaw that if the men of Keilah would be unthankful, they might keep him within the town to the King, and not suffer him to fly away. Therefore he inquires of God, first, if Saul would come there to seek him, for he had no purpose to go from Keilah, if Saul were not to come; for, poor man, he had no place to go to. Secondly, hearing that Saul would not fail to come down, he began to suspect the men of Keilah of deceit, that they would shut the gates, and keep him in, till the King should take him, having such advantage of the gates and bars, that he could not fly, as his usual custom was. Therefore he demands of God the second time, Will the men of Keilah deliver me, 
1 Sam. 23, 12.  and my men into the hand of Saul? that which is here translated (deliver,) in the original is, shut up. Will the men of Keilah shut me up? as is also exponed in the Margin of the Bible in that place. So the meaning is not as you most seditously expound it, Will the men of Keilah not defend me, but deliver me to Saul, who am resolved to keep this walled City against him? But this is the meaning, Will the men of Keilab not let me go away, but shut me up, close the gates, that I cannot eseape by flying? This lets us see, that David had a purpose to fly from Saul, which makes him so careful to try, whether the men of Keilah would hinder him by shutting their gates, that finding them deceitful, he mightflee in time. And therefore it's without warrant, you say, that David with his six hundred men purposed to defend themselves in the city against the King. If he had purposed to keep the town, he would have been well pleased, how close soever the gates had been shut: and would rather have enquired, Lord, will the men of Keilah open the gates, and let in the King, then will they shut the gates upon me?  
2 Though your exposition were true, that David purposed to keep the town against the King, the question yet remaineth, Whether he ought to have done so, or not? a facto, ad jus non valet consequentia.  
3 It proveth not your conclusion. David was but one man, who took an army of six hundred men, to defend himself against the King, as you dream. Therefore, when the King persecuteth a private man, he may gather an army and resist the King: which I hope you will not, at least, cannot sustain: and yet you must sustain this, or else pass from your Argument.  
Finally, if any of you were in the case that David was in, to be the Anointed of God, and appointed by God to succeed Saul, it fears me you would take more upon you then David did, for ye have done more already: and some of you are not ashamed to call the Nobility, Ephori, and that they put on the Crown with the King in his Coronation, turning all to a finistrous and seditious sense.  
As for your examples from reformed Churches, since we live not by Examples, but by Laws, I will not stand upon them as not knowing the Laws and Government of foreign Kingdoms. If they have Laws for their resistance, you produce these examples most impertinently. 2. From facts to prove the Lawfulness of resisting is ridiculous. 3. None of these by resisting, gained so much as by suffering; as experience too late doth show.   

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

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

Covenanter.  
From the mutual contract between the King and the people, as may be seen in the Acts of Parliament, 
9 Argument.  and Order of Coronation.   

Anticovenanter.  
Answ. 1. To this, I give a Real and Royal answer from the most gracious and most learned King james of Blessed memory, in his Book entitled, Ius Liber a Monarchiae, pa. 193. Nego ego tempore Coronationis inter regem & subditos pactum ini●i, etc. I deny says he, that in the time of the Coronation, there is any such covenant between the King and his Subjects. But this is manifest, that at that time, or at the beginning of his reign, sponte suá, of his own accord, the King promiseth to discharge honestly and faithfully that charge, which God hath committed and entrusted him with. 2 Though it were granted that there were such a mutual contract, yet his Majesty demonstrates most clearly, that it cannot help this cause. If the King, says he, shall not keep his part of the Covenant, who shall be judge between these parties? there is none who hath but attained to a small taste of the civil Law, who knoweth not, that the contract cannot be esteemed violated by the one party: nor the other absolved of his part of the contract, before that it be made manifest by the cognition and Trial of the ordinary judge, which of the parties hath departed from the Contract. For this is the caution of every civil and municipial Law; otherwise what could hinder but that every man, in his own cause may be both Judge and party, than the which, there can be nothing thought more absurd. Now in that contract between the King and his Subjects, without all controversy only God is judge, to whom alone the King is bound to give acount of his administration; because in that oath at the King's inauguration, both the judgement and vengeance of his perfidious dealing is given only to God. Therefore since God alone is the judge between the parties, and since the try all and vengeance only doth belong to him, it must necessarily follow, that God must first pronouce the sentence against the King, before the people can be thought free of their part of the Covenant, of obedience and subjection. And so there is no man so blind, but he may see how unjustly you make yourself judge in your own cause, and usurp the place of God. 3. From this your mutual contract, you must show that his Majesty, not only obligeth himself to perform his Kingly office, but also giveth power to the people (when they judge that he fails in his part) to resist him by force of arms: or else, you are idle to allege such contract. And if you will produce this. I have no more to say, but that the King hath denuded himself of Royal authority, and devolved it into the people's hands, he only in name, and the people in effect, being King and supreme judge in their own cause: and so the King must stand,  magna nominis umbra. But you would do well, to produce such a contract out of the Utopia of your own brain.   

Covenanter.  
From Acts of Parliament ratifying the three Estates Authority, 
10. Argument  and from our own ecclesiastical and civil History.   

Anticovenanter.  
1 There can be no Acts of Parliament, but those the King sets down with advice of his Estates. 2 And can you show any Act of Parliament for the lawfulness of resisting Princes, or can you show that there is any Act of Parliament, giving authority to the Estates, to resist His Majesty to execute justice? 4 Do you attribute any authority to these, which ye call the three Estates, without the King? You must know, that the King is the only Lawgiver, the Parliament is but his extraordinary Council, and the Estates thereof are his extraordinary Counselors, by whose advice he enacts Laws. Consider also, there was no Law in the Kingdom of Scotland before the Kings of it; for, before Fergusius his days, we were but like Salusticus Aborigenes. Genus hominum agreste, liberum atque solutum, sine legibus, sine imperio. But when the first King did conquer this Land, he and his Successors gave Laws, divided the whole Land which was their own; and distinguished the orders of men, and did establish a political government. This is clear by our Chronicles, and Ex archivis regijs, in quibus antiquum & primaevum jus asservatur, satis constat, Regem esse Dominum omnium bonorum directum, omnes subditos esse ejus vassallos, qui latifundia sua, ipsi dōino referant accepta, sui nempé obsequij & servitij praemia. 4 If you attribute such incompatible power to these Estates, Why did not you by virtue thereof conclude this war? You ought first to hold a Parliament, and then conclude war. But pardon me, you have done so, Your three Tables is for Your three Estates, which hath ordained this war. 5. Which are these three Estates now? Episcopacy is thrust from you, and overruling Elders are in their place, who are busy Bishops in another man's Diocese, and have been too busy in my parish; And shall they supply their place in Parilament? As for your Ecclesiastical and civil History, if that be Knox, & buchanan's regni jus, expressly condemned by Act of Parliament, you may be ashamed to name them, and aught to have covered their nakedness if you had respected them, You have published in print to the great disgrace of Knooe, that he called kneeling at the Communion, An Invention of the Devil, and will you here make him a Doctor of Treason?   

Covenanter.  
From our Covenant lately sworn and subscribed, 
1. Argument.  binding us to defend the King's Majesty's person, in defence of the true Religion, and to defend the true Religion against all persons whatsoever.   

Anticovenanter  
This is indeed Ilias malorum, your Covenant binds you to it, and to much more, even to whatsoever shall seem good to the most part of you by common consent, were it never so heinous. For that clause of your Covenant, wherein you are obliged to whatsoever shall seem meet by common consent, is a great Ocean, a blank, to be filled up with what you please, it seemeth good to you already for the keeping of the first Table, to break the second, in working the works of unrighteousness. As to withhold from Ministers their Stipend, as conducible for your ends, to threaten them with big words, to lay violent hands on them in the discharge of their calling in pulpit 〈◊〉 which I have suffered; and which is more, to contemn and disobey Supreme, Authority; yea, to take up arms against it: and if you by common consent, shall think meet to remove that block of authority out of your way, you are obliged to it by your Covenant: for certainly, this is very conducible to your ends. For if your Calder would be true, Kings are enemies to Religion, in his Altar Damascenum, he affirmeth, that Natura insitum est omnibus regibus odium in Christum. And so King James of Blessed memory is called by him Infestissimus ecclesiae hostis, And your Master-man Cartwright layeth down a ground for this overthrow of Kings, (as you may read in the speech delivered at the Visitation of Down and Conuer, by the right reverend and most learned Bishop of Down:) for he holdeth that the Commonwealth is in the Church, and not the Church in the Commonwealth: and therefore, as a wiseman will not frame his house to his hangings, but his hangings to his house; so the Church is not to be fitted to the Commonwealth, but the Commonwealth to the Church. This gear goeth right, for then, as there is a parity in the Church (for so you will have it) there must be also a parity in the State, and so, let Kings and Bishops go together. Thus King james knew full well the mystery of your Religion, whilst he made these convertible. no King, no Bishop, no Bishop, no King. And in your third argument, you tell that the people makes the Magistrate, and you may be without him, and by all appearance, you have (that I may use your own words) rid yourselves of him too, as an author and executioner of your woes; and have set up a new sort of Government of 26. Governors, yearly changeable, for managing the affairs of the Kingdom: consisting of Nobles, Barons and Burgesses, which government will trouble all our Politicians to give it a name, for it's neither a Monarchy, nor Aristocracy, not Democracie, nor oligarchy, etc. And you will offend, if we call it, Anarchy. When there was no King in Israel, every man did what seemed good in his fight.   

Covenanter.  
It's objected; that although upon the former reasons it cannot be denied, but it must be lawful for subjects to defend themselves by arms, against the unjust invasion or oppression of the Magistrate; yet the matters presently debated betwixt the King and his people, are neither fundamental in Religion, nor of that importance, that we should enter into a bloody war, which bringeth with it so many certain evils, and whereof the event is uncertain. We answer 1. No matter of Religion hath so great weight in the minds of worldly men, that they will hazard their worldly Estates for any thing of that kind. Gallio careth for none of these things. Festus says, that the jews had certain questions against Paul of their own superstition, and of one jesus which was dead, whom Paul affirmeth to be alive; if we receive him; the Romans will come and destroy our place, and our City, hath been a prevailing Maxim in policy. 2 The greatest questions of Religion carry sometimes a small show, witness the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Electinomen, and Electi participium, which are small in appearance, but great in substance. 3 There is a great mistaking about fundamental points of Religion, for if we call that fundamental, the knowledge whereof is necessary for salvation, a point may be fundamental and necessary to be known at one time, or in one Kirk, which at another time, or in another Kirk, is not thus necessary: for although the foundation itself be necessary for the edification of every soul, yet of things fundamental, and necessary to salvation, we must judge according to the different degrees, and, measure of Revelation. There is also a mistaking about the smallest matters of Religion, for obstinacy in resisting the light, and following darkness rather than the known light in the smallest matters, brings certain condemnation. It was audaciously enacted by the Council of Constance. Non obstante Christi institutione. The Kirk of Scotland, having from the certain knowledge of the Unlawfulness of Episcopal government (were it of never so little moment) abjured it, divers times, and spewed it out, we must not return to our vomit. 4. Though the question were about the name of the Bishop to be retained in our Church, as the crafty without any warrant give it out; yet were it most impertinent: for the question must be taken either of the naked name, which no man is so silly to imagine, since we acknowledge it to be common to all the Ministers of the Gospel: or the question is about the place and office signified by the name, which is to be a Pastor of Pastors without a particular flock, to have the authority of Ordination and jurisdiction, to be a Lord of Session, Parliament, Council Convention and Exchequer, which either the Bishop must be, or else, as they say themselves, they cannot serve the King's turn. He is willingly blinded, who sees not how material this is: for besides the sin in the office itself, it bringeth with it the ruin of all religion, by denuding the city of her Walls, and the Vineyard of her hedge. It is either ignorance or deception to speak of Caveats: for if the Office be of Divine institution, Why should it be limited more than another office, or further than the Word of God doth require? It ought to be rejected as a presumptuous usurpation upon the Kingdom of Christ, in appointing chief Office-bearers in his house without warrant from him, and an intolerable derogation to his full and perfect Wisdom, as if he had not accomplished his House with Offices and Office-bearers, but left them to the determination of the Wisdom of men, which not only in the Mystery of Godliness, but in the matters of Ecclesiastical Government, is enmity against the Wisdom of God. We have already had experience of Caveats, and now to hazard shipwreck the second time, by making such Pirates again to be Pilots, were desperate madness. 5. But the Proclamation tells us, there are other matters of difference than Episcopacy. And lastly, the question is now, whether we shall have a free national Kirk, or any other Religion hereafter, but such as is commanded by arms, the only mid and Argument now used for that which is intended? and whether we shall any longer enjoy our Civil Liberty? for if base slaves be advanced to Honour they will labour to please the corrupt humours of those who advance them; these creatures must serve their maker. Time was when the Pope was master, and then they served him. This time past, they have been agents for Popery, and as they have given lamentable experience, that they too well know the way to Rome; so may we look no less, then that being re-advanced they shall carry both Prince and people home again to their old master, except we stand fast by our Liberty, we can look for nothing but miserable and perpetual slavery.   

Anticovenanter.  
These Objections are forged in your own brain, that you may the more easily answer them. There is no matter now debated of small importance: it's neither Episcopacy, nor the Service-Booke, but of the Monarchy, and Supreme Authority of his Majesty; So that upon your part there is no shadow of reason to take up arms, but to yield all due obedience as it becometh; and so fare as it concerneth his Majesty, there is a necessity of arms, for the recovery of his authority: And he is not only worldly minded, but treasonably minded to take up arms against Authority under colour of Religion, 2. You say, the greatest matters of Religion carry sometimes a small show. What is this to the purpose? I know no great question in Religion, but for the matter itself, it must carry still a great show, and no small; you bring grammatical and nominal similitudes of words, but for real differences, they are very great. So Authoritas Regis, and authoritas gregis carry great similitude in words, but the real difference is as great as between Monarchy and Democracie. But you make all the question to be concerning Episcopacy, certainly herein the question is neither small in show nor substance: for the question is, 1. Whether Episcopal Government be Antichristian, and your new Presbyterial government that which Christ hath ordained in his Church, 2. Whether we within the Church of Scotland are bound now to believe under the pain of damnation, your tenet concerning the government of the Church: and you hold that it is a point necessary to Salvation, now in our Church after such degrees of light and Revelation, to believe your sayings. 1. But that is a miserable light of yours, that none can see but yourselves, your light is like ignis fatuus, which (as the learned say) flieth from those that follow it, and follows those that fly from it. When we came to your Commissioners at Glasgow, Master Retherfort, and Master Cant to ask resolution of our doubts, your light fled from us, your answer was, Ye must deny reason and learning, and help Christ a lift. But while you were in Pulpit, you made the people to believe that you could solve all doubts, as having commission from Christ so to do, let your light shine that we may see. Are all other Churches yet fitting in darkness, not knowing rightly what is the Church Government, and you only a shining Goshen in the midst of Egypt? 2 If the knowledge of the unlawfulness of Episcopacy, and the lawfulness of your Presbyterial Government be a point now so necessary, what is the cause that God never revealed, how his Church should be governed all the time bypast? for you must have this by a revelation; and yet it must not be a divine revelation, because it's contrary to God's Word, The Prophet that hath a dream, 
jer. 23.28,  let him tell a dream, and he that hath my word, let him speak my word faithfully. Hath not the Church of Christ, that hath this 15. or 16. hundred years been governed by Diocesian Bishops, beenlawfully governed? I am sure if God had ordained your Government, he would not suffer his Church from the beginning to this time to have been blindly led. But for this point I remit you to the learned Writers for Episcopacy. As for your malicious aspersions upon that Apostolic Government, because you speak at random without reason, I leave you in your choler, to cry out against them, as enemies to all Religion; Pirates, and misguiding Pilots.  
And may it not content you what you have done? you have done worse than the Pagan mariners did with jonah, to cast these your Pilots over board into the Sea, (and how shall you govern the Ship in this storm!) you have done worse than the Soldiers would have done with the Apostle Paul, 
Acts 27.42.  who would kill him; for you have had such relation with Satan in this work, that you have given them as a sacrifice to Satan, as Satan would have given all the Kingdoms of the world unto Christ: 
Luke 16.28.  but if you have really delivered them unto him, and he hath received them, there is a deep gulf wherein they are, that you need not fear their return to your Ship: 
Acts 27.31.  nevertheless I say unto you with Paul, That except these abide in the ship, you cannot be saved. And you should study to know, what that is, to deliver over to Satan, 1. Cor. 5.5.  
But you say, You have spewed them out of the Church, and cannot receive them. Ans. 1. The Sea hath not been calm, but a great storm hath wrought that excess of loathing in your stomach. 2. The Church spewed out all Popish errors, and amongst the rest, the Popish Hierarchy, and all Popish Bishops, that hung upon the Pope, their Head; but they did not condemn the lawful and laudable calling of Episcopacy, which is more ancient than the Pope, as ancient as the Apostles. 3. If the Church hath spewed out this lawful calling (as I hope you will not make it good) she hath been in a great distemper, and you should have covered that fault, as Sem and Japhet did their father's nakedness, rather than Cham-like, to declare the same unto the world; it's our Scottish proverb, They are scant of news that tells, their Father was hanged.  
Further, you say, The question is now whether we shall have a free national Kirk, etc. Answ. 1. Are you beginning now to state the question, when you have ended your dispute? 2. With such a question, How long will you wrong his Majesty, who is so fare from taking arms against the Religion we now have, to establish any other, that he will still defend our true Religion?  
You speak of base Slaves, and cannot suffer that his Majesty should advance them. But you speak too basely, and whence are you with your Nobility, you master Ministers with a Pope in your heart? you despair of your advancement with Aerius, and cannot endure others. Such as he who said, Make me a Lord above my Lady, and offered to lead a blind Bishop, that after his death he might be preferred to his place. The heels once murmured, because they had not the place of the head; The Ass would climb upon a Velvet Cushion to fawn upon his master, like a Spaniel. I pray you, whosoever you be, who envy the advancement of learned men, or any others, to consider, that the King's subjects are as Counters in the King's hand, whereof he makes one a 100 another a 1000 a third 10000 according to his pleasure. And must he be countable to your humour? Or must you be his director? You say, you must stand fast to your liberty to withstand the re-advancement of Bishops. Take Peter's counsel, Use not your liberty for a cloak of maliciousness, 
1 Pe. 2.16, 17.  but as the Servants of God. Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the King.  
You began your reasons with absurdity and unreasonableness, and you conclude with these last words, That you can look for nothing but for miserable and perpetual slavery. So they deserve that hold such absurdities.  Pondus adest verbis, & vocem futa sequentur. 
And you must perish in the gainsaying of Core, 
jude 11. Rom. 13.2.  and receive to yourselves condemnation, except ye repent, which I pray God to grant you. And as heretofore, You have fasted for strife and debate, and to smite with the fist of wickedness: So now I exhort you in the name of God to fast and pray, that God would lighten your eyes in this Controversy, and turn your rebellion, into an humble submission to God and your King.    

To my Brethren of the Presbyterio of DUNBARTAN.  
Reverend Brethren,  
I Have received your Summons, the Tenor whereof is thus: I james Thome Officer in that part constitute, summon you M. john Corbet, Minister of Bonyl, to compeer before the Presbytery of Dunbartan the 16, day of April instant, to hear and see yourself further censured for your former absence from the Presbytery, and further contumacy and contempt to the Presbytery, and other points both of unsoundness of opinions, and disobedience to the ordinance of the general assembly, as is evident by your manifest adhering to, and avowing of your declinator of the same, in your last presumptuous and seditious letter, sent to the moderator and remanent Brethren of the said Presbytery, written and subscribed with your hand of the date the 1. of April, with cortification, if you continue in your contumacy, and compeer not, you shall be simpliciter deposed, from the function of the Ministry, at a person altogether unworthy of the sanit.  
But I pray you Brethren, have me excused, that I cannot compeer, since I have received your summons out of due time, and there is no passage between Scotland and Ireland, because of the great storms from your coasts, which are so great, 
Psal. 55.6, 8.  that I wished the wings of a dove to sty away, and be at rest; and by God's good help, I have hastened my escape from the windy storm and tempest, 
Psal. 57.1.  and come to Ireland, where in the shadow of the Lords wings, I shall make my refuge, until these calamittes be overpast, 
Esa. 33.17, 20.  and may see the King in his beauty, and jerusalem a quiet habitation: For this is the day of the Lords vengeance, 
Esay 34.8.  and the year of recompenses for the controversies of Zion. In the mean time, if this my Treatise can find passage by any means, and come to your hands, it will either justify me, or augment my fault; the one, if you be not prejudicated; but the other, if you be yet in your passions My Epistle which I desired you to put on record ad futuram rei memoriam, as being able to make good what I have said, doth contain these opinions following, which you most unsoundly call unsound, and my letter presumptuous and seditious. My 1. unsound opinion is, that I call taking up of arms against the Lords Anointed, a doctrine of unrighteousness. My 2. unsound opinion is threefold, that I said, I take God to witness, that I cannot subscribe your covenant, except I would 1. sin against God, 2. contemn Authority, 3. and abjure my Christian Liberty. For the 1. I cannot but sin against God, if I keep not the oath of God, and obey the commandment of my King, 
Eccles. 8.1.  against whose Authority & Commandment this covenant is subscribed. 2 There must be contempt of Authority (and this is too mild a word, let me call it by its own name, Rebellion) if I subscribe your covenant, for these 5 Reasons. 1 because all covenants are expressly discharged by Act of Parliament, without his Majesty's privy consent be obtained thereto. 2 because this covenant is expressly forbid by his Majesty's Proclamations. 3 because this your covenant containeth many unlawful things, amongst which, is that unlawful Band against the Lords Anointed. 4 Though your covenant were good and lawful, yet, except you prove that it's absolutely necessary to be subscribed, how dare any subscribe it, being forbidden by authority without high contempt? 5. Since I have subscribed the King's Covenant, I cannot subscribe yours without perjury, as is clear in this treatise. And since you hindered your flocks to subscribe the King's Covenant, saying, they would be perjured, if they did it; how can I subscribe both without perjury? The third point, That by subscribing, I must abjure my Christian liberty, wherein I shall stand fast. I pray you, since your covenant doth abjure things indifferent (such as the Articles of Perth are. etc.) as heads of Popery, Do I not thus far abjure my Christian liberty, if I subscrib? My last unsound opinion is of your assembly. I was content & shall still remain, to pass from my protestation against your assembly, these 3 grounds being proved. 1. That by acknowledging the authority of it, I be not obliged to believe the lawfulness of its acts, for it calls evil, good; and good, evil. 2. That it be proved by the laws of the kingdom, that when the King dischargeth the assembly to sit, it ought to refuse, and sit still. 3. That it be made good, that when controversy is between the King and the assembly, the assembly must be judge. In my presumptuous and seditious letter, I called these grounds absurd, and altogether derogatory to Royal authority, renting the King's supremacy.  
And I appeal the conscience of every one of you, whether these my opinions be unsound, and I for them judged unworthy of the Ministry; which if you do, your presbytery is the seat of violence, 
Amos 6.3.  to the which I will not come near, where when judgement should run down as water, and righteousness as a mighty stream, 
Amos 5.24.  you turn judgement into gall, and the fruit of righteousness, 
Amos 6.12.  into Hemlock. Howbeit all reformed Churches in Europe are condemning your course, yet you say you are wise, 
jer. 8.8.  and the Law of God is with you; yet certainly, except ye amend and change your opinions and ways, 
jer. 7.28.  truth is perished and cut off from your mouths. 
jer. 23.14, 5.  This is the cause, that from you the Prophets of Jerusalem, wickedness hath gone over all the land, and the hand of evil doers is strengthened, that none doth return from his wickedness, 
Isa. 33.15.  but go on with a revolting and rebellious heart: it is good to walk righteously, and speak uprightly, which is a hard thing to do with you, when men must be overruled with ignorant lay-Bishops, to whose humour all must preach, who remember not that, one day in proper persons we must give account to God, how we have taught our people to serve God and the King; against whom too many of you incessantly stir up the people, as against a Nero. I exhort you my brethren, that when you are Evening and Morning in private with God in your prayers, to remember and consider whether your course be good or evil, which you continue in; and if your conscience accuse you, I pray God ye may be as earnest to ungird that armour, as you have been in putting it on: And may shake off Pusill animity, having your faces strong against their faces, 
Ezek, 3.9.  who are seditious; and your foreheads strong against their foreheads; not fearing them nor being dismayed at their looks, though they be a rebellious house. Thus at last becoming valiant for the truth. 
jer. 9.3.   
FINIS.