JUS POPULI VINDICATUM, OR The People's Right, to 〈…〉 and their Covenanted R 〈…〉  
Wherein the Act of 〈…〉 and Vindication, which was interprised Anno 1666. is particularly justified: The lawfulness of private Persons defending their Lives, Libertyes and Religion, against manifest Oppression, Tyranny and violence, exerced by Magistrates Supreme and Inferior, contrare to Solemn Vows, Covenants, Promises, Declarations, Professions, Subscriptions, and Solemn. Engagements, is de●●●strate by ●any Arguments.  
Being a 〈◊〉 Reply to the first pa●● of the Survey of Naph. 〈…〉 &c▪ By a Friend to true Christian Liberty.  PSAL. LXXIV. Ver. 20, 21, 22, 23▪ 
〈…〉 e unto the Covenant; For the dark places of the earth are full of the habitations of cruelty. O let not the oppressed return ashamed. Let the poor and needy praise thy name. Arise o God, plead thine own cause: Remember how the foolish man reproacheth thee daily. Forget not the voice of thine Enemies; the tumult of these that rise up against increaseth continually.  HOS. I. ver. 7. 
But I will have mercy upon the house of Juda●, and will save them by the Lord their God; and will not save them by bow, nor by sword, nor by battle, by horses, nor by horsemen.  
Printed in the Year, MDCLXIX.   

CHRISTIAN READER.  
IT will not (I suppose) be very necessary, to make any full Relation or large Deduction of the occasion and first rise of this debate, The same, being not only fresh and recent to all both Friends and foes, who have been Spectators of the great and wonderful workings of God in our Land; but the memory thereof (if it could be so soon obliterate) is revived a fresh, by the constantly renewed acts of Tyranny and oppression, which, from year to year, The Powers, acted by the same Spirit of Enimity to the Cause and Interest of Christ, are exerceing, upon the account thereof: So that the Continual rage and Constant opposition, which the ingrained adversaries of the Glory and Kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ are daily acting and making against all who desire to keep a conscience void of offence both towards God and Man, and to remember with some sense and fear their solemn vows and Sacred engagements unto the Most High, will not suffer us to forget, how that After our Land was solemnly de●●uted unto God, by Solemn Covenants and indissoluble 〈◊〉; and the defence of the Reformed Religion, in Do 〈…〉, worship, Discipline and Government, become 〈◊〉 condition, yea the basis, of our political constitution; The King not only by his solemn and sacred oath swearing, and by his hand writing subscribing, and so fully owneing and approving the same; but upon these terms and conditions accepting the Royal Crown and Sceptre, in the day of his solemn inauguration. The People also upon the same terms promiseing all subjection and obedience in the Lord: And afterward in full Parliament confirming, ratifying, and approving the same; and thereby giving all the security, which either Reason, Law, or Religion could expect or require, That all the Ends of these holy Covenants should have been, in all time coming, really, sincerely and constantly prosecuted by King and Nobles, and all ranks of persons within the Land, with one heart and mind; and consequently That the evils, particularly That accursed Hierarchy, fully and for ever abjured in these Everlasting Bonds, should never be countenanced, owned or favoured, far less reintroduced and established: and after, for our owneing of these necessary things, and of the King's interest in subordination thereunto, we were invaded by the English, and (the Lord, who for his his own holy Ends, saw it necessary, and doth whatsoever he will in Heaven and in Earth, so disposeing) overcome, and brought into bondage full Ten Years; and at length, The King, who was forced to flee out of all his Dominions, returning, in such a remarkable and signal way, without blood, as might have engaged his heart more firmly than ever unto that God, who had done such rare, and unexpected things for him, and made him more than ever fixedly resolve to own Him and his holy Interests, according to his former Vows, Oaths, Subscriptions, Covenants, and Declarations; and rationally ascertaned his Subjects, that these necessary and good things, should not only never be overturned and ranversed; but also with greater Zeal, and resolution established, confirmed and prosecuted, then ever formerly: & how, instead of this, No sooner did the report of his Majesty's return come abroad, but all the generation of malignants, who had ever been heart enemies to the work of God, which was carried on in the Land, did lift up thei● head, insult over the People of God with all their might according to their ordinary insolency, spew out their Venom against the work of God, and at length obteaning power, did raze the same unto the very foundations, annul and rescind all Acts, all Covenants, all Resolutions and Conclusions, which had been made and taken for settling and securing the Reformed Religion in Doctrine, worship, Discipline, and Government; condemn all which had been done in carrying on the Work of Reformation, as pure and manifest Rebellion; and having reintroduced and established abjured Prelacy with all it's concomitant abominations, did enact and enjoin most tyrannically a full conformity unto all these abominations, and press, in a most horrid and arbitrary manner, the faithful Servants and seekers of God, to a compliance with these accursed and ever to be abhorred, courses; and upon their simple refusal, did violently and barbarously eject the faithful Servants of Christ, banishing some out of all the three Dominions, incarcerating others, (after thev had embrued their hands in the blood of the best of our Nobility, and Ministry) and chaseing by their irrational and brutish acts multitudes of them from their flocks and familiars; and then having in an antichristian manner, thrust in upon the People a crew of the basest and naughtiest wreatches the Earth did bear, & by their cruel and tyrannical acts, compelled & constrained the couscientious seekers of God, to accept of, countenance, own, and constantly hear such, as lawful Ministers, lawfully called and sent of God; and when honest People, considering both the way of their entry to be Antichristian, their doctrine false and erroneous, their conversation scandalous and abominable, their qualifications rather such as suit the public Ministers of Satan, than the called Servants of God, their whole deportment a manifest demonstration to all onlookers, that they were never called of God unto that work; and considering how iniquously their own faithful Pastors and Fathers had been thrust from them, and how by their solemn Oath they stood obliged to the constant keeping of a perfect antipathy, unto every part and pendicle of that abjured Hierarchy, and unto what was contrary to sound doctrine and to the power of godliness, and to the work of Reformation and Reformed Religion in Doctrine, worship, Discipline, and Government, did forbear to yield obedience unto these antichristian and iniquous Laws, did, by their arbitrary and barbarous executions, what by their High commission or inquisition-court (arbitrarily and illegally erected) what by cruel & bloody Soldiers commissionated without Law or order for that effect, oppress, pillage, plunder, harasse, imprisone, fine and confine, impoverish, beat, bind like beasts, the faithful and loyal Subjects of Christ, and make their life more bitter unto them, then if they had been under the feet of Turks or Pagans. Under which intolerable, incredible and unexpressible bondage the godly of the Land, especially in and about Galloway, did for a long time groan, & cried unto him who heareth the cry of the oppressed, that he would judge and plead their cause, and open some door of outgate, that they might be delivered from under the feet of those cruel task Masters, and have an opportunity put into their hands of vindicateing the Liberty of their Reformed and Covenanted Religion, and of useing their lawful and vowed endeavours to free the Land of this horrible defection and Apostasy, that the fierce anger and wrath of God might be turned away there from, and Church and State settled upon their former solid and Christian foundations. At length the wonderfully wise God thought good to put them once to the trial to see what they would hazard and venture for the recovering of the interests of Christ, together with their own Liberty; and unexpectedly in his holy and divine Providence seemed to them to impose a necessity upon them, both to run together, in their own necessary defence, and to endeavour, with the extirpation of the abjured abominations, the bringing back of the captivated ark of God: For about the midst of November 1666. When two or three Country Men providentially passing by, did see a poor old Man bound hand & foot like a beast by the Soldiers, sent out for that Effect by Sr. James Turner that bloody Atheist, being commoun with passion did calmly and friendly desire the Soldiers to lose him, but they accounting this such a High indignity, in their rage & fury assault them with drawn swords, whereupon the Country Men were necessitate to their defence, & in their defence did wound one of the Soldiers, at which the rest cast down their arms: And being certanely persuaded that for this necessary defence they would be persecuted to the death, the next day with 6. or 7. more they seize upon other 10. or 12. of the Soldiers, whereof one was killed, the rest rendering their arms: Hereby the Country about being alarmed, & knowing that their tyrannous oppressors would be enraged more than ever, & account this a crime scarce expiable by the blood and ruin of the whole Country free & unfree gather together to the number of 54 Horsemen & some few footmen & advance to Dumfries, where they quietly seize upon Sir james Turner and the rest of the Soldiers who were there, without any harm except the wounding of one who obstinately did resist. Thereafter by divine providence they were led towards Air, & while within the Sheri●dome of Air, where they stayed the space of seven days, several of the Country groaning under the same oppression, & longing for an opportunity of public appearing for the cause & interest of Christ, against the Popish Prelatical & malignant faction, laid hold on this occasion, to join with their Brethren to help the Lord against the mighty; so that their number was increased, though not to such a quantity as would have been expected, partly through the want of sufficient previous advertishment, (not withstanding of what diligence had been used, from the day of their appearance at Dumfries, to give notice to all who cordially loved the welfare of Zion, of their present distress) partly throw the dissuasion of one who had been a chief instrument in apprehending Turner, & thereafter had deserted them, & partly through other discouragements, seeing few yea very few landed Gentlemen or Ministers appearing with them or for them, which had no little influence also on the discourageing of several who came, together with the impetuous reins which lasted night & day, which made many wonder that they did not wholly break & dissolve. Yet the mighty power of God on their Spirits, and the lively sense of their duty, made the most part to hold on, and others to come unto them (beside some who were upon their way and invincibly hindered from coming at them) as they marched thorough Clidsdale, where at Lanreck they solemnly renewed the Covenant, and thereafter marched Eastward to Bathgate & Colingtoun the enemy in the mean time pursueing them at the heels: While they were there, there came two Gentlemen unto them, pretending a verbal commission from the Enemy (the one of which Gentlemen, they thought should have come alongs with the rest of that Country, & joined himself with them, as a favourer of the godly,) to press their disbanding upon promise of indemnity, & this they urged, but they saw no call of God to desert the work so: At length that Gentleman conveyeth the other, Early in the morning before break of day, thorough their guairds towards the Enemy, who (as many think) advertised the Enemy of the way they were to march to morrow; yet not withstanding before they marched, they sent with that Gentlem. a letter to the General of the King's forces, showing the occasion of their being together in that place and in that postour, to wit, to present their grievances unto the Council (seeing there was no other access for petitioning) and therefore desiring a blank pass to such of their number, as they would send with their supplication unto the Council. When the Gentleman (who had told the Honest party, that he had taken upon him, in their name (though without their warrant) to promise unto the General that, He engageing not to move further towards them, until he returned the next morning, They should do the like) returneth to the General with this letter, he found him marching contrare to his promise: The honest party, having not engaged to stay, marched as they saw opportunity Westward toward Pentland. The enemy being advertised, very probably, as is said, cast themselves in their way, so that they came shortly in the view of other. The honest party, at this time were hardly 700 horse and foot, among the Horsemen scarce one hundereth were fixed in arms, The Footmen, beside some swords, had only some broken picks, ill appointed fire locks or muskets, many corn forks, and some had syths: And at this time all of them, were much wearied with long & toil some marches, hunger (for these parts of the Country, thorough which they came, can bear witness to their sobriety and moderation, refuseing even to take what was offered, because they had not money to pay for it) and cold (by reason of the continual and exceeding great rain;) while they are thus in the view of other, The Enemy sendeth forth a party of choice men, who were met with by a troup of the honest party, and after some disput, mostly by swords, were put to the flight, and fled alongs the edge of the hill by sheep-rodes, so that there was no access to pursue by horses, but a party of foot was commanded to follow the pursuit, whereupon the Enemy's horses were forced to quite their ground and betake themselves to other ground no less inaccessible by the honest party. After near two hours, the Enemy, perceiveing that neither party could approach to other as they stood, because of a precipice betwixt them, came towards a plain at the foot of the hill, and drew up in battalye. The honest party now seeing that the Enemy was willing to offer battle, and that if they should withdraw, the Enemy would be encouraged, and many of themselves unavoidably discouraged, & if they should delay till tomorrow (the sun being now near setting) feared that many should faint & flee away in the night time, and others should be less able to fight thorough hunger & cold, seeing no way how to relieve themselves with necessaries at that exigent, resolved to embrace that occasion, & see what the Lord of Hosts would be pleased to do; and therefore resolved after prayer to draw off the hill towards the Enemy, keeping still what advantage of ground they could: when thus they have approached, the Enemy send forth a troup, which was rancountered with another of the honest party and beat into their body, somewhat (as some think) inconsiderately upon the part of the pursuers. Thereafter the Enemies send off another party to relieve the former, which was met with by another of the Honest party, But with some disadvanva●tage to the Honest party, because they were to approach near unto the very body of the Enemy, ere they could prove a relief unto their ●ormer party: Yet through the help of the Lord, they made their made their adversare-party flee shamefully. The enemy perceiving how they had been beaten three times in end, in fight by parties, and seeing how the strength of the Honest party, stood in those troops which had not as yet rallied, nor returned to their ground in order, advanced with their whole body of horse, in a full breast, with a pretty gallop, upon the two troup● as they were scattered, and drove them back upon the body and thus, (the only wise God, who doth all things after the council of his own will, ordering it) in a short time broke them all. And yet it is observable that more were killed by the country men in their escapeing, then on the fields, The Enemy stayed on the fields all night and buried their dead, who were not a few, The prisoners which were taken were carried into Edinbrough, and though by these in power, in humanely enough used, yet by some, (whose labour of love both towards the dead on the fields & to the prisoners, the Lord will not forget) tenderly provided and cared for, though in a clandestine way. Of these prisoners who were taken on the fields, & others afterward apprehended by Countery men, there were Six and Thirty or thereby publicly hanged at Edinbrough, Glasgow, Aire and other places; and their heads and other members of their members of their body are upon poles unto this day, to keep the memory of this Noble exploit fresh upon the Hearts of the Godly. I shall not further recapitulat what is said concerning this by Naphtali: Only I would say this, That though many might have been tempted to think, & possibly the Enemy might have imagined, That now their cause was confirmed with a witness, & the honest patriots condemned by God the righteous judge; yet after experience made it appear, that the honest cause was never more confirmed then by the death and sufferings of these, whom they cruelly murdered as traitors and rebels, The Lord so visibly owneing them to the conviction of on lookers, that they were no more afraid of death then of a quiet rest in their beds, being ascertaned of the Lord's accepting of them and their weak endeavours, to restore the Kingdom, however He, who is wise in counsel thought it not for his glory, to prosper them in their undertaking, at that time: And this very consideration did much help to restrain the remainder of the wrath of the adversary, who were so enraiged, that few thought they should ever have sisted, till they had executed all who were their captives.  
Yet the generation of the prelatical and Malignant faction, (judicially hardened by this dispensation, because as so many carnal sensualists, if they believe at all that there is a God, they measure him and his ways by their own yaird, and judge of his approving or disproveing of actions by outward dispensations, to whom I shall say no more, but Careat successibus opto, quisquis ab eventu facta not and a puter) did not cease to ●ant after the determinations of the cruel & bloody Council, and cry out upon those Noble and worthy patriots, (whose memory shall be in everlasting remembrance) as Traitors and Rebels justly condemned and executed. Whereupon the author of Naphtaly thought himself called of God, to write in justification of these innocents'. And because he saw it was the same Spirit of madness and malignnancy, which had raged against the work of Reformation, from the very beginning, that did act those in power against these worthies; and that there was no material or substantial difference betwixt the way which these late worthies took, and the way which our forefathers, in the valiant maintaineing the interests of Christ, and promoveing the work of Reformation in our land, had followed in their generation; therefore he thought it necessary and useful to make a clear deduction of the opposition, which that poor Church met with at the hands of a Popish Prelatical, and Malignant faction; And of the constancy, valour and Zeal of the Lovers of God and of his interest, in adhering thereto, and maintaineing the same, against all the rage and fury of the adversary; & of the Lord's blessing their Noble endeavours with special and remarkable success: And all alongs did clear their innocency, and vindicate them from the aspersions that wicked Enemies could lay against them; and their actions from such objections as wickedness itself did or could make against them; And at length after a clear representation of the furious genius of the Malignant Apostate generation of this age, by their public and avowed acts and actings, and of the sad calamities, which the honest adherers to the cause and Covenant of God hath suffered, did show the rise and progress of that loyal enterprise, and did fully vindicate the actors therein, from the crime of Sedition, or Rebellion, with which they were most unjustly charged, and for which cruelly and tyrannically executed.  
But the Mensworne generation of prelatical Apostats, finding themselves nearly concearned in that affair, thought it of their concernment to try, what could be said in defence of this tyranny (exerced mostly for them, and at their instigation) set some on work to write against that book. And therefore they published to the world. The I. Part of a Survey of that book entitled Naphtali, and of several doctrines in Lex Rex and the Apolog: (which had been at rest for some considerable time, especially Lex Rex, after they had been burnt into ashes, as being judged no otherways answerable but by a fiery faggot, till this Man began to rake in the ashes of these dead Martyrs, and find some bones of doctrines yet unburnt, which he thinketh now to honour with a more solemn burial.) But with what evidence and demonstration of truth, he hath managed the questions handled in this first part, thou mayest judge by what is here replied, in vindication of that solemn truth, which he endeavoureth, according to his poor strength, to dethrone and tread under foot.  
Though we have not followed the Surveyors Method, disireing to be as succinct as might be, and to clear that main question controverted, touching the lawfulness of private persons defending themselves and their Covenanted Religion, from the manifest violence, tyranny and intolerable oppression of the Sovereign and inferior Magistrates to the edification of all; yet we have not dealt with him, as he hath done even with Naphtali, the book which mainly he setteth himself against: For he is so far from answereing that book of which he offereth a survey, that the most part of the grounds, and arguments made use of there, to prove the thing intended, are not so much as touched by him in all this voluminous pamphlet: But we have fully examined and answered all which he hath asserted, leaving not one material sentence, which was to the purpose, in his whole book, untouched. The judicious Reader will find this true upon search; And no man will think we were called to answer the same thing oftener than once, though he was pleased to fill up many pages with mere repetitions. The method we have followed, all who know what it is to clear controversies, will acknowledge, to be the most solid, satisfying, succinct and perspicuous; and such, against which no man can justly except. We suppose also That we have been as plain and clear as the nature of this controversy would suffer us; (and some possibly will think We have been too too plain; but they know whom to blame, for giving us this occasion,) for we made it our design, to bring this question, which did concern common people no less than the learned, (seeing it was a matter of life and death unto them, no less then unto others) home, so far as was possible, to the capacity of the meanest, that they might know, and be distinct in the knowledge, and persuaded of the lawfulness, of the grounds of their acting in such a vindication of their Religion and libertyes. The truth we have confirmed by many arguments, reduceing them to their several heads, the better to clear and confirm the matter, and to settle the judgements of all in the apprehension of the Truth: and all of them we have so framed, that every one of the lowest reach, may see how they plainly and peremptorily force home the point cotroverted, with a demonstrative perspicuity, and irrefragable strength. So that whosoever shall undertake to draw this saw again, must not think to leave any one of all the arguments which are here adduced (& if he reckon aright he will find more than a hundereth, which I shall make good if put to it) un-examined; for if any one hold, (And I am not afraid that many of them shall be found feeble) the cause which we contend for is uncontrovertably yielded, seeing one reason, which is unanswerable, is enough to captivate the judgement unto an assent unto the truth: & one argument deserted of the adversary, declareth his cause desperate.  
We have also dealt faithfully and ingenuously, touching on every thing, which was offered to us, and which we thought might conduce unto the clearing of this contraversy: & because we find some thing belonging unto this question, said by the author of the Second part of the Survey (which is now come to hand) in the last chapter Pag. 263. &c, We shall a little touch upon that here, reserving the examination of the rest of this 2. Part until a fitter opportunity, when, if the Lord will, we shall discover the weakness of all his reasonings, and vindicate the truths which he setteth himself against, with as much clearness and succinctness, as may be.  
He cometh, in the place now named, to consider the defence made by the impanelled unto what was objected, or what further defence, Naphtali (whom after the old manner he styleth the Lybeller) makes for them. And 1. He tells us. [They were posed, where they had learned, that under pretence of Religion, it is lawful for Subjests, to rise in Rebellion against lawful authority.] And then addeth. [That to this Queree, this advocate declines to give a direct answer, where such a thing, is read or could be instructed.] Answ. Who doth not see, That this was a Queree utterly unbecomeing such as pretended to occupy the places of lawful judges in such matters, to propose to people Empanelled upon their life; it being nothing but a mere caption, like unto that which is called Multiplex interrogation, unto which, both the impanelled, and this Advocate (as he calleth him) might lawfully have declined to give a direct answer: Because it supposed 1. That their rising was against lawful authority Whereas it was rather a rising for lawful authority, while against persons abuseing their authority, and not walking in the right line of subordination unto the Supreme Magistrate and Governor of Heaven and Earth, but rebelling against him in making laws contrary to his laws, and executing them contrary to his will and command. 2. That their rising was in rebellion while as it was rather in loyalty to God and the Country, against such as had erected a Standart of rebellion against the High and mighty Prince Jesus Christ our Lord and Supreme Governor, and were destroying his interests: And in loyalty to that Supreme law The saifty of the People, defending themselves against manifest and intolerable tyranny. 3. That it was in pretence of Religion, when as it was really and unquestionably for the re-establishing of our religion reform in doctrine, worship, discipline, & government, confirmed, ratifyed and approved, by Solemn Covenants, Subscriptions, vows, oaths, engagements, declarations, professions, public actings, acts and Statutes, of King, Nobles, persons of all ranks, Parliaments and judicatories Higher & Lower: Whereas the true Queree was this Where they had learned to rise in their own defence, and in the defence and maintenance of the true reformed Religion, against Such in power who were tyrannically oppressing them, and destroying the Established Religion, contrare to Vows, Covenants, Promises, Compacts, Declarations, Protestations, Solemn Engagements, Subscriptions, etc. And if the Queree had been thus proposed, it might have received a direct answer, To wit, That they had learned this from the law of God, the law of Nature, the civil law, the law of Nations, Sound reason, and the practices of Christians, both under the law, and under the gospel not only at home but also abroad.  
When Naphtali said That it was a clear beging of the question to suppose that the late rising was only in pretence of Religion. This Surveyer answereth That it is a very poor quirk. And why so? He should know (says he) that in ordinary language, a thing is said to be done under pretence of another, whether the pretention be yet dubious or under controversy, or whether it be falsely made or trely? Answ. Such language as this may be ordinary with him, it may be, and his complices, that corrupt fraternity, with whom pretences are real, and real things are pretences; but sure to all such, as understand plain language, this queree did praesuppose that the rising was not really but in pretence for Religion: Did ever these in power, make it out, or offer to make it out, that it was not really for Religion? Naphtali said more over That the Queree itself seemed to imply and grant, That for subjects to rise in arms really, for the defence of Religion, against the invasion of the powers, under the pretence of lawful authority, is both lawful and laudable. This, says the Surveyer, is as vain a quirk How so? for, (says he) let it be so, that the objection was meaned only of rising upon mere pretences of Religion, will this infer, that therefore there might be a rising upon real intentions for Religion, against the Magistrate? Answ. Sure to all of common sense, it says that the proposers of the objection did yield so much, having hinted nothing to the contrary. Did they say giving but not granting it lawful to Subjects to rise in arms really in defence of Religion, etc. Why then might it not have been taken for granted, that the objecters durst not condemn this, especially seeing the main stress did lie upon that supposed pretence. Ay but he tells us, That he affirmeth That upon neither of the two, insurrection against the Magistrate is lawful,— and that these people did not rise really for Religion, but to maintain themselves in the course of atheistical contempt of Religion and God's ordinances, to pull down all authorities in the ●and (as their advocate pr●fesses and justifies their so d●ing) and to destroy these in their innocency whom they had apppointed to death.] Answ. His affirmations and assertions, are but weak and beggarly proofs, though he strengthen them with manifest and notorious lies: And whether there be a truth in what he here affirmeth or not, we leave the Reader to judge, when he hath read, and considered what we have said in the following vindication.  
Next Some texts of Scripture were objected, as 1. that 1 Sam. 15: ver. 25. Rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft. To which (says Naphtali Pag. 156.) One of themselves did roundly and clearly answer, that, the sentence being spoken by the Prophet to the King, because of his disobedience and contempt of the command of God, and not to Subjects, would sooner conclude his accusers then himself to be a rebel. This the Surveyer, Pag. 264. calleth a very poor answer. And yet so pertinent and plump that it stopped the mouth of the accusers, & filled their faces with shame: But why was it such a poor answer? For albeit, (says he) that high rebellion immediately againsi God be principally meaned, yet the sovereign Magistrate being the Lord's deputy, and bearing the image of his Sovereignty upon Earth, whom he commands to reverence and obey, and of whom he hath said, ye are Gods▪ Psal. 82. the despiser of the Sovereign Magistrate, & a rebel against him doing his duty, is a rebel against God Answ. Those words Doing his duty were very well added: But sure when such are rebelling against God, enacting things diametrically opposite to his law and testimony: persecuting the Subjects because of their adherence to the laws of God, to their vows and Covenants; and by force, & cruelty overturning the covenanted Religion, destroying the interests of Christ, the true and lawful liberties of the people, and the common good, they are not doing their duty, nor carrying themselves as the deputies of God, bearing the image of his Sovereignty, but rather as manifest and avowed Rebels to God. And therefore, what ever can be said from this place to prove it rebellion, and as the sin of witchcraft, for subjects to despise the Sovereign Magistrate, and to rebel against him doing his duty, neither from this place nor any other can it be demonstrate, that the late Risers were guilty of Rebellion. Did not the author of Naphtali tell him. 2. That rising up against authority itself, the Ordinance of God, and disobeying the powers therewith vested, standing and acting in their right line of subordination, is indeed rebellion, and as the sin of witchcraft; but to resist and rise up against persons abuseing sacred authority, and rebelling against God the Supreme, is rather to adhere to God as our liege Lord, & to vindicate both ourselves, & his abused ordinance, from man's wickedness and tyranny, What meaned he then to say the same thing which Naphtaly had said? Is this to answer his adversary? And not rather to yield the cause? Ay, but left we should take these words doing his duty as importing any confession. He addeth. Yea suppose, we are never to follow the Magistrate, when his commands are contrary to God (for that were to leave our line● of subordination to God,) yet when he swerves and goes out of his line, to take the sword against him, is but to study to cure his sin by our own; And because the King one way leaveth his line of subordination to God, therefore to leap out of our own line in that subordination in another way. Answ. This Man speaketh contradictions, when he maketh a supposition that we are not to follow the Magistrate, when his commands are contrary to God, and yet sayeth if we do follow, we leave our line of subordination to God. We see what the Man's Spirit would have carried him to, if he durst have vented it. But how proveth he that this is our sin or a leaping out of our line of subordination, to resist tyranny, and men abuseing their authority to the subversion of Religion, libertyes, and the common good of the Subject? we have proved the contrary, and answered all, which he or his colleague, the author of the former part hath said, and shall be ready to say more when any new ground is given.  
The next passage of Scripture which was objected, was Mat. 26: 52. To which (said Naphtaly) it was sufficiently answered (without any reply) by one of these impeached (whom they accounted distracted, though without the least appearance of impertinency, by opponeing Luke 22: 36.] What now faith the Railing pamphleter? Certanely (says he) [This libeler seemeth not to be far from some measure of distraction, while he alloweth the distracted man's answer as sufficient: Who of sound judgement will think that a scripture is sufficiently answered by producing another, which seemeth contradictory thereto? This is not to solve an argument from scripture, 〈◊〉 to set the Scriptures by the ears together.] Answ. Naphtaly did not ●●ok upon that man as, nor yet say that he was, distracted, and sure his answer being so apposite and pertinent, as that it did confound the objecters, so as they had not what to reply, might have more then sufficiently convinced them of their error, seeing thereby they might have perceived, that when they little regairded the solid and unanswerable confutations which God suggested to such, as they could not but suppose both wise and sober, God would prompt one whom they accounted distracted, to give such a rational, solid, and binding answer, as all their wit & learning could not frame a reply unto; It seemeth if this Surveyer had been riding on Balaam's ass, he would have been more furious and mad after the reward, than was that wicked wretch, and would have thought himself more brutish than the ass, to hearken to what the Lord did put in the mouth of the ass to say, by way of rebuke. Thinks he that no man of sound judgement will think a scripture sufficiently answered, by producing another; And that this is but to set the scripture by the ears? Then it seemeth with him, no man of a sound judgement must think that our Lord Jesus did sufficiently answer that passage of Scripture which Satan abused, by adduceing another, Mat. 4. But that Christ did nothing but set the scriptures by the ears, is this far from blasphemy? I wonder where was the devil's wit that he had not this reply to make unto Christ's answer, which this Surveyer here maketh? It seemeth our Surveyer can easily out-vvit the devil himself, and declare himself better worthy of the chair. But enough of this here, seeing it is obviated Chap, XVII. Obj. 15. The author of Naphtali did further give these answers. 1. That from the place itself, & all the Evangelists, it is most evident, that that command was given, and these words spoken by our Lord, only for to testify his voluntare submission unto the father's will, by laying down of his life for fulfilling the Scripture, as is clear From Math. 26. ver. 54. and Joh. 18: 11. Otherwise the context being considered, (that notonly in Luke. 22: 36. cited, He, forewarning his disciples of hazard to come, adviseth them to provide swords and weapons. And Mat. 26. asserts his power to have called 12 Legions of angels to his assistance, which clearly implies the lawfulness thereof) this Scripture objected doth more confirm then impugn the lawfulness of defensive arms.] What sayeth our Surveyer to this? He says 1. That passage, Luke. 22: 36. is perverted by him. Why so? Because Beza, Diodat, and jansenius acknowledge that speech to be wholly allegoric. And then addeth, that in very dead it cannot sustain that Christ should here enjoin them to buy swords of outward metal, seeing it was not Christ's mind that at that time they should use such swords, no not in defence of his own person, would he have them sell their clothes to buy swords, and then not use them? Answ. Though we have obviated this reply, in the place cited Chap. XVII. and fully vindicated our argument from this passage Chap. XII. Arg. 13. beginning Pag. 260. Yet we shall add this, that sure Christ's Disciples took him to be speaking of weapons & swords of outward metal, when they said to him here are two; and as sure it is, that Christ's reply saying it is enough, hinteth at no spiritual armour otherwise we must say that his Disciples at this time were sufficiently fortified against all Spiritual wars and combats; and yet after experience proveth the contrary: And no less sure is it that if Christ had here meaned Spiritual armour, he would have been loath to have left his Disciples in such a mistake, which was of so great concernment for all time coming, now especially when he was shorthly to be taken from them: And where do we find him rectifying this mistake of the Disciples, or saying, That he meaned no such swords; his saying it is enough, Importeth some other thing, as is said: Again, if this speech be wholly allegoric, what way will they expone these words, But now he that hath a purse let him take it, and likewise his Scripe? But as we see no ground for an allegroy here, so we may not expone Scripture by allegories when we please; all know how dangerous it is to do so without clear warrant. And as for this Surveyer's reason added, it is of no weight to force us to accept of such an interpretation, for though it was not our Lord's mind, that they should use those swords further at that time; yet he might have taught the lawfulness of self defence in other cases where there was no positive command to the contrary, by thus saying unto them, He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one, Since he had not made use of such forcible defence before, to have shown them the lawfulness thereof, as he did of flight, which also at this time, he would not make use of; and that they might see how voluntaryly and of his own accord he laid down his life, in obedience to the command which he had received of his Father, who would not make use even of that mean which he had declared lawful, by adviseing them to provide swords. Again the Surveyer replieth, The question is now anent the lawfulness of private men's useing defensive arms against all Magistrates, without any shadow of authority: And to prove this he alleges that God by his absolute power might send 12. Legions of Angels to help Christ: God hath authority above all authorities in the World, and he may employ Angels or Men, as ●hse pleaseth, and then they have a good warrant and authority: But what makes this for any private men's useing the sword against the Magistrate, without authority either from God or Men? It is wonder us reasoning from God's absolute power, & the efficacy of Christ's prayer,— to argue the lawfulness of private men's resistance of the lawful Magistrate without any warrant from God. Answ. This is to us, no strange way of replying, seeing we have met with the like so often before. No Man sayeth, let be undertaketh to prove whether by this or any other argument, that it is lawful for private persons, yea or for Kings and all in authority, to resist whether lawful Magistrates or others, without a warrant from God. What a nonsensical contradictory conclusion, should this be? But this we say, That it is not in every case unlawful nor wanteth it a warrant from God, even for private Subjects to defend themselves from the Tyranny of those in power, by forcible resistance, notwithstanding that Christ would not suffer his followers to make use thereof, in his case, which was singular: And, among other things, his saying, that he could obtain by prayer of the Father 12 Legions of Angels, for his succour, doth confirm it: For if he might not make use of men's help, neither might he seek the help of Angels: So that we argue not from God's absolute power, but from Christ's professing, he might, if he would, obtain the help of Angels, we show that in itself abstract from a particular positive command to the contrary, it was not unlawful, for the Disciples to defend themselves and their Master, nor for Christ to make use of their help, as it was not in itself unlawful to make use of the help of Angels. Which yet in that case he would not do. 3, He replieth, Albeit one part of our Lord's design, is to testify his willing submission, to the pleasure of his Father, yet that is not all; for any occasion of this prohibition to Peter, he giveth a general rule to all his Disciples being private Men, and to all private Men, that they should not take the sword, God not giving them Authority: Answ. If he mean by Authority, public Magistratical authority, He but begs the question; and if he mean a lawful warrant, we grant all: For though private persons have not the Magistratical power of the sword; yet we have sufficiently proved that they have a warrant, in cases of necessity, to make use of the sword of defence or resistance, in their own defence: And Christ's Word speaks nothing against this. And if he should say, That Christ's sentence being general admits of no such exception, I would glad know, how he will salve the lawfulness of public persons taking the sword, for Christ speaks in general to his Disciples, He who taketh the sword shall perish by the sword: and I suppose he will not exclude Kings & Magistrates from the roll of Christ's Disciples. If he say, he meaneth all these unto whom God giveth no authority Magistratical. How shall he prove this? If he say he speaketh to his Disciples who were private Persons. True, but it is as true, That he speaketh to his Disciples who were Ministers. Ergo shall it concern only Ministers? And that he speaketh to his Disciples who were Christians. Ergo it must also concern all Christians & Magistrates as well as others. Thus we see his evasions are naught: And the true meaning is, that all such as make use of the sword, without God's warrant (which the Disciples now wanted, having God's mind revealed to the contrary in that particular,) shall perish by the sword: and with this restriction we admit of it, and he cannot reject it: And then it will make nothing against us, as is said & proved. Naphtaly answereth 3. Is it possible that men should be so far demented by flattery, as to think that it was unlawful for jesus Christ, the mighty God and Lord over all, to have defended himself by the assistence of his Disciples, against the horrid wickedness and insurrection of the vilest of his creatures, had it not been that it was necessary that the Scriptures concerning him should be accomplished? The surveyer sayeth, He is insolent in saying so: Why so? Because, albeit it be true, Christ as God, could have destroyed by himself or his instruments all the vile creatures that rose up against him; yet Christ as Man, submitting himself in our nature to fulfil all righteousness, submitted himself to Magistracy, as the ordinance of God— and whatever by God's Law was unlawful for a subject to do, (as rebellion against lawful powers is) the Son of God in the state of his humiliation submitted that the same should be unlawful to him as Man etc. Answ. It is true Christ as Man became Subject to the Law and to Magistracy as the ordinance of God. But to say that therefore He might not defend himself against the vilest of his creatures, who rose up to take his life, though abstract from that particular case wherein he had a particular command of God to lay down his life, because that would have been rebellion, is but to beg the question, and we have said enough to prove the contrary. Naphtaly had a 3. answer thus. Where our Lord sayeth in the place objected, all they that take the sword etc. as he thereby only condemneth unjust and offensive war; So the saying itself by its later part, doth tacitly imply the lawfulness & justice of both defensive & vindicative arms, the same being otherwise justly founded. Unto this The Surveyer replieth 1. That the first part is false; for then, says he; That sentence should not be pertinently applied to Peter's fact or fault, for his useing of the sword was defensive and objectively just on his part, to wit, in defence of his master, whom they did invade; yet he is reproved as wanting lawful authority. Answ. Peter's wanting a warrant for any further use of the sword, made, it is true, his war unjust yea and offensive, for all lawful war (except where God giveth a particular command to destroy a nation or people, as he commanded the Israelites to destroy the Canaanites, and Saul to destroy the Amaelekites,) is in a manner merely defensive, as sundry politicians aver, thinking no ordinare war lawful, but what is defensive: And so this war being contrare to the revealed will of God, was unlawful, and so condemned by this sentence. But to gather hence, that every defensive war of Subjects is hereby condemned, is to put more in the conclusion, then is in the premises. His 2 reply is That the later is most falsely concluded, if he mean defensive and vindictive arms against the Magistrate, for albeit defensive and vindictive arms be otherways justly founded, the defect of a lawful authority makes them unjust and sinful: And it is utterly against Christ's mind, and scope of the text, to allow defensive as well as vindictive arms against the Magisirate, for Peter was defending himself and his Master, and revenging the invasion made by Malchus the Magistrates servant upon Christ, and yet he is reproved for both. Answ. To say that the defect of a lawful authority (as he understandeth it) maketh a defensive war in subjects against their Magistrates, otherwise lawful, is but to beg the question, and is not proved by any reproof Peter goat, because as we have often told him, that was a particular case, it being necessary that the Scriptures concerning Christ should be accomplished, which is only added by our Lord, as the ground of his discharging Peter to proceed: Christ never tells him that it was against the lawful Magistrates, and therefore might not lawfully be: Yea that which made Peter's Defence in this case unlawful, would not Permit I. C. to pray to his father for aid or deliverance: now if he will conclude from Christ's discharge of Peter to make use of the sword, that it is simply unlawful for persons not clothed with public Authority, in any case, to defend themselves from the unjust violence of Magistrates, then let him conclude also from Christ's example that it is unlawful for them to pray for help from God when they are oppressed: for Christ gives on reason for both. We are willing to grant him all that can be drawn from the scope of the place, to wit, that when God hath so plainly declared by his providence, that there is not so much as place left for praying that the thing where with we are threatened may be avoided, but that we must suffer, and that then it is our duty to seek to be strengthened with all might, according to his glorious power, etc. That in this case, to take the sword is unlawful, this I say we willingly grant; but if he would wrest the words further to make them say what he would have them he erreth not knowing the scriptures nor attending to their scope: Yea, it may be questioned if the Chief Priests, Scribes and Elders who sent out that band of soldiers, were lawful civil Magistrates, at this time, having power and authority from God, to use such civil force and coaction, and not rather usurpers. But we need press this no further, having ground sufficient, to maintain what we assert, even yielding this unto the adversaries.  
After that Naphtali had considered these passages of Scripture which were objected to the impaneled, He proposed two other to be examined: The first was joh. 18: 36. If my Kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight that I should not be delivered to the jews, Unto which Naphtaly answered thus. As the intent & scope of our Lord's answer was to clear himself of that calumny objected against him by the jews, that he made himself a King in opposition to Caesar; So the meaning of it is plain and obvious, to wit, That our Lord's Kingdom is not of the Nature, and for the Ends, for which other Kingdoms of this World were instituted; but wholly spiritual, for declareing the Truth, & thereby gaining souls unto glory: Whence as our Lord would there inferred, that he came not to conquer to himself disciples by outward force, and thereby to gain followers to the spoiling of Caesar, and other Princes; So it is without all shadow of connexion, thence to conclude, that a people having received the blessing of the gospel, and Kingdom of Jesus Christ, should without resistance suffer themselves (to the manifest dishonour of God, and the hazard of the eternal damnation of themselves and their posterity) to be impiously and sacrilegiously spoiled and deprived thereof, when they are in capacity to defend the same. This the Surveyer accounteth Pag. 268. an extravagant exposition; and why? Is not (says he) Christ's plain meaning, to declare the nature of his Kingdom to be spiritual, by this, that none of his servants were engaged merely upon this account, and under this formality, that they were his Servants, to fight violently for him? This was security enough to Caesar, & all Magistrates for ever, that none of his subjects should take up arms in his quarrel against them, but should only do so when Religion came to be a Lawright, defensible under the Magistrates protection against all foreigners; But there is not the least hint of his saying, that he came not to conquer disciples to himself by outward force, his intention being merely to give assurance, that violent resistance to our proper Magistrates, even in his behalf, is unsuitable to his Kingdom.] Answ. 1. Mr Hutcheson on the place tells us, that Christ's scope here is expressly to answer to the accusation concerning his Kingdom, and speaks so much of it negatively, as might satisfy Pilate, That it might well enough consist with the saifty of the Roman State. Therefore he showeth that his Kingdom was not a worldly Kingdom; and for proof thereof, he instanceth how far he was from aspireing to a Kingdom by force of arms, in that he would not so much as permit his servants to fight in his defence, as they offered to do, when the jews came to take him.]. This, in my apprehension, is not one and the same with the Surveyer's gloss, and less discrepant from Naphtali's gloss, then is his. 2. What though it should be granted, that none of Christ's servants were engaged, merely upon that account, and under this formality, to fight violently for him? Will it hence follow that Christians in a Kingdom, may not stand to the defence of the professed Religion, received and sworn to by King and all ranks, against manifest tyranny and oppression? I see not the consequence, seeing they may do all this as civil Subjects, good country men, and loyal patriots: and this is enough for us. 3. Himself dar not deny, but even Christians, sujects of Christ, may take up arms in his quarrel, in some cases, for he granteth it may be in this case, when religion cometh to be a Law right defensible under the Magistrate's protection against foreigners; But, is there any ground for this exception alone in all Christ's answer? 2. If there be no ground more for this then for others, why may not we put in our exception, as well as our adversary putteth in his? 3. If it become a Law right, why may it not as well be defended by private subjects, as other Law rights and civil libertyes, are and may be, even against Magistrates? 4. Shall it not be defended even when it becometh a Law right, against foreigners, but under the protection of the Magistrates? Then, if Magistrates will not concur, private persons may not defend their Religion by force of arms, against an army of Turks Papists or Heathens, coming to press all to Mahometanisme, Idolatry or Heathenism? What height of absurdity were here? 5. Since Christian Magistrates are Servants to Christ, as well as Christian subjects: Why shall it be more lawful for them to engage in Christ's quarrel under this formality, that they are his servants, then for mere subjects; seeing Christ maketh no exception here, of one or other, nor distinction among his Servants; and seeing this seemed to be as little security for Caesar as the other, if the scope mentioned by the surveyer be the true scope? 4. The particular mentioned by Naphtali is more suitable to the true scope, than this which the Surveyer mentioneth: For the question was not touching resistance to our proper Magistrates in Christ's behalf. But whether Christ was a King or not: to which Christ answered That howbeit He was a King, yet his Kingdom was consistent with Caesar's Kingdom: And as he come not to conquer Subjects to himself by outward force, so he minded not to erect a temporal Kingdom by arms.  
Naphtaly did add further. The truth whereof, together with the hypocrisy of our adversaries, may soon be discovered, if the question be but stated in the terms of one foreign and independent princes invading another, merely upon the account of the Christian faith; and whatever solution or evasion they shall herein make, will as exactly quadrate to the case in hand, it being almost ridiculous to conceive, that the greatest-aggravations of invasions of this kind, to wit, that it is made by a prince upon his own subjects, (whose profession he himself is principally bound to maintain) should import any speciality and difference in the cases. Unto this I find no answer in special returned by the Surveyer, unless Pag. 267. he mean Naphtaly when he says, But the Apolog. very paradoxically will maintain Pag. 159. That there is more reason to resist our own Magistrates— then foreigners, because our own being bound to maintain our profession, his invasion upon the same is aggravate, and he is rather to be resisted by violence than others,] for I find no such thing in that place of the Apolog. by him cited, and that which I just now mentioned out of Naphtali is indeed in Pag. 159. and though he miscite the words, and wrist them after his wont manner, yet the Reader may see it probable that he intendeth Naphtaly. However let us see what he answereth; Thinks●e (says he) That it were sound said that if parents should make disorder in the house, that the children, and rest of the family, should use violence rather against them, when they miscarry or waste the goods of the family, then against a thief or a robber breaking in into the house Answ. To pass by the unsuteablenesse of this Reply unto Naphtali's answer, as if Naphtaly had concluded that there was much more reason for resisting our own Magistrates than Foreigners, while as an equality would have satisfied him, as his words clearly import; We say this to his reply, That when he hath demonstrated to us that Children and Servants, have as great right unto the goods of the family, and as great power and privilege in setting up their Parents the heads of the family, and of calling them to account for their mismanagement, as we have proved Subjects have in the common good, and in setting up of Sovereigns, and in calling them to an account, then shall his reply be noticed as having some parallel; but till then we dismiss it with this answer, that the simile, as to our point, is prorsus dissimile, and can conclude nothing: Yea, let us turn is own weapon against himself and say, Seing Children and Servants may lawfully, with force, with hold the heads of the family, when they, in a fit of frenzy, are labouring to destroy all, to burn the house above their heads, or to cast all the goods in the house into a fire, and resist them no less than open enemies and robbers, thinks he if sound said, That if Kings in a fit of madness & Tyranny shall seek to destroy the common wealth & wholly overturn all Religion, to set up idolatry & heathenism, the Subjects may not withstand them, & prevent their own ruin, and the ruin of Religion, with force of arms, when no other means can avail? What will he say to this? Will he deny this consequence? If not, have not we enough? But he addeth, The Author's error is this, that he looks merely to the obligation of the Magistrate to us, and not at all to our obligation to him, even when he fails abuseing his power. Answ, He looks merely to the obligation of the Magistrate to us, when he mentioneth the aggravation of his guilt of invasion upon that account; And whatever be our obligation to the Magistrate, (which Naphtaly did not forget though he was not called expressly to mentione it then & there,) it will not follow that it is an obligation unto an illimited and stupid Subjection to him, in all cases; and if the Surveyer prove not this (which I suppose he will not do) he will prove nothing against us.  
What more says he to this place of Scripture? Pag. 267. after he hath given us, in his way; the meaning of these words of Christ, to wit, That Christ proves his Kingdom not to be of this world by this Medium, that if it were so, his servants (in the quality of his Servants) should take up outward arms and fight for him, etc. Then he concludes that this text will enforce— that Christ's Subjects (merely as they are in the capacity of his Subjects) are not to use the sword against Magistrates, that are over them, in his behalf. And then says, he allows well of Mr. Hutcheson's note upon the place— Christ sayeth he by hindering his servants to fight, who were but private men, as to any civil power, hath taught that private men are not warranted to draw the sword, were it even in defence of Religion, but they ought to maintain it by suffering, when called to that extremity.] Answ. 1. We have shown already how this man's gloss, and Mr. Hutchesons do not every way quadrate. 2. If this text enforce that Christ's subjects, merely as they are in capacity of his subjects, are not to use the sword in Christ's behalf; then, He must either say that people even under the conduct of a lawful Magistrate can not defend Religion by arms (which yet immediately thereafter he granteth) of say, that when they defend Religion so, they act not merely in the capacity of Christ's subjects. 3. As for Mr. Hutcheson's note which he opposeth to all our rebellious fancies, we say, we wish that that worthy author who hath given great proof of his dexterity in deduceing points of doctrine from the text, had been, after his usual manner, more accurate here, and had guarded his assertion better, that it might have had a more clear rise, every way answering the ground it was deduced from: for sure I am, this ground (if it be at all against defensive arms in matters of Religion) will as much speak against a defence used by Magistrates, upon this account, as by private Subjects; for the ground is the same, to wit, that Christ's Kingdom is not of this world, and alike concerning Magistrates and people, and is no more a temporal Kingdom in regaird of Magistrates, then in regaird of private persons. And upon the ground that Christ would not suffer his Disciples to fight for him, at that time, upon the same ground he would not have suffered even Magistrates to fight for him, for he behoved to drink the cup that his father gave him: And neither Magistrates nor private persons, could have hindered that by force, or would have been permitted to do it, by him: And if it be said that from other passages it is clear, that Magistrates, who are nursing parents to the Church, are allowed to use the sword. We answer That we have also proved from scripture and reason, that people, in some cases, may use the sword of defence for Religion. Again it if be said, that his Disciples were but private persons, as to any civil power, and therefore it is only to be understood of these. It is answered▪ That it will as well follow, That because they were fishermen, therefore it is to be meaned only of these, and of none else; or that because they were Church officers, therefore, only they must not use the sword, and so all others may.  
The last place which Naphtaly mentioned, was Math. 5: v. 27. to the end, where it is said, Resist not evil but whosoever shall smite thee etc. with the parallel places, specially, Rev. 13: v. 10. Unto which he answered, That as these places do enjoin either patience, when the clear call and dispensation of God do inevitably call unto suffering, without which patience were no patience but rather stupidity of etc.— So thence to infer that Men should give way to all violence and sacrilege (to the subverting of Religion and righteousness) is after the manner of Satan, to cheat and abuse men by the holy Scriptures. The Surveyer replieth thus, (I meddle not with his impertinent reflections, and scurrile gibes, nor with his groundless inferences, which we have so oft met with in the former part.) The scope is, to show the unlawfulness of private revenge, for injuries done to us,— and the place will condemn plainly enough violent retaliating the Magistrate, when we think he doth us wrong. Answ. The scope of the place is obvious; and doth no more condemn private persons retaliating the Magistrate, than Magistrates retaliating private Subjects; unless Magistrates be exempted from this precept, and consequently be not to be reckoned among Christ's followers. And as from this place, it will not follow, that one independent King may not make war against another, and thereby defend his rights, nor that one private person may not defend his rights and just possessions against an invader, no more will if follow, that Subjects may not defend themselves and their Rights, Libertyes, and Religion, against the violent oppression and Tyranny of Magistrates. Next says the Surveyer, Pag. 269. That every Man in his calling ought to withstand violence and Sacrilege to the subverting of Religion and Righteousness, is granted: Yea private Men may resist the unjust violence of private Persons, and being under the conduct of the Magistrate, may resist any that offereth violence, in lesser concernments than these are: But we still maintain that this text forbids all revenge or violent retaliation upon the Magistrate though he abuse his power. Answ. The question is not what he will still maintain that this text doth forbid; but what he can evince that this text will prove against us. How will he prove that this text doth more forbid private persons, to resist the unjust violence of Magistrates, then to resist the unjust violence of private persons, or to resist the unjust violence of any, having Magistrates to conduct them? Is there any exception in the text? Doth not the text speak to all in reference to all? To wit, that they should resist none out of a Spirit of private revenge? Again though the text forbid all revenge or violent retaliation upon the Magistrate, though he abuse his power; will it therefore forbid private Subjects to defend themselves by force, in case of necessity, from manifest and unjust violence and Tyranny? No: no more than because the text doth forbid even Magistrates to revenge or retaliate, from a Spirit of revenge, wicked Malefactors, It doth therefore forbid them to execute justice upon them.  
Naphtaly did add, that this was [grossly to exceed that signal rule mainly in these places intended, to wit,] that we should be perfect even as our Father which is in Heaven is perfect; [Who though he filleth the Earth with his goodness,— yet doth he love righteousness and helpeth and delivereth the oppressed, and commandeth the Zeal of his own glory (wherein he himself doth often eminently appear) by the hand of his people, to take vengeance on his adversaries. To this the Surveyer replieth. (What strange argueing is this, that because God Almighty executeth vengeance upon his adversaries, therefore private persons should follow his perfection in doing the like albeit they have not his warrant or command Answ. Naphtaly's Argument ran mainly upon [helping and delivering the oppressed] Neither doth he conclude what private persons may do without God's warrant or command. This he supposed because he had evinced it. Then Naphtaly closeth saying, [Let us therefore in the consideration of what is said, Rev 13: v. 10.) He that leadeth into captivity shall go Into captivity. He that killeth with the sword &c., [Both possess our souls in patience under all the former sufferings, and hope and rejoice in the faith of the succeeding delivery there subjoined.] Upon this (sayeth the Surveyer) he would found the consolation, and patience of his party in all former sufferings, and his hope and joy in the succeeding delivery.] Answ. And why might he not? [That word (says he) Rev. 13. toucheth not, nor threatens the Magistrate in the executeion of justice; but rebels, who use the sword without God's warrant, against the Magistrate, may read their reward in this text.] Answ. We say not that it threatens the Magistrate executing justice. But let such see to it, who instead of executing justice, pervert justice, and execute the innocent people of God. And, after the manner of the Beast there spoken of, maketh war with the Saints: And so may all rebels against God who use the sword without his warrant. But as for private subjects defending themselves by the sword of innocent self defence, against unjust violence, and intolerable tyranny and oppression, we have proved that they want not God's warrant, and therefore they may look for another reward. And as for his hope and confidence after expressed, we let it pass as not worth the mentioning; for when the hope of the Hypocrite perisheth, his is like to give up the Ghost.  
Having thus answered all which this surveyer hath said, whether in his first part▪ or now in his second, against the truth which we have maintained, we may saifly say that these valiant worthies were basely and unworthily murdered, & that there was no just cause to take their lives. This man pag. 260. etc. Will not have them justified, and adduceth, for the most part, such reasons, as make me doubt whether he can be the same man, that drew up the first part of this Survey, because they are the very same things we heard before in the first part; and is it possible the man could have forgotten himself, or think that we could so soon have forgotten what we heard in the first part, and had answered; And if he be a distinct person; I wonder what the man meaned, to give us the same thing over again: did he ever read these in the first part, or had he forgotten that ever he saw them? Or thought he that they would have the weight of gold coming from his Mouth, while they had not the weight of stubble being uttered by his colleague? He beginneth that discourse with palpable untruths, saying That they suffered not upon the account of owneing the covenant. Whereas the main Argument of their indictment was. That all convocations and rising in arms, or subjects entering in leagues without or against the King's authority are treasonable. Then he tells us. That all which they can say for their rising was that the Magistrate, by moderate penaliyes according to law, was pressing them to attendance upon the ordinance of God, which is an indispensible duty. This we heard before and is answered Chap. XVI. pag. 348. etc. Neither was the penalties moderate, nor were they exacted according to law, not were they thereby pressed to attend that ordinance which is an indispensible duty; But they were pressed to a sinful compliance with abjured prelacy, contrare to their vow and Covenant, by barbarous tyranny. Then he says. Their lives were not sought upon any terms. See the place now mentioned where that is spoken to also: and to all of common sense it was notour, that their case was a case of most in exorable necessity, their misery being so much the greater that their lives were left them to see themselves miserable, as if the barbarous enemy had intended only to make them liveto see it. Neither was there any flying for a whole country side, with their wives and children, and therefore what Lex Rex sayeth Pag. 327, 328. 329. confirmeth the lawfulness of this. As to their not supplicating mentioned by him next, it is spoken to also in the place cited: And however he may think now to incrustate that tyrannical and irrational act, forbidding all joint supplications: yet the whole land knoweth, that if that oppressed Country had attempted any such thing, they had been accounted guilty of Laese Majesty. And had gotten no other relief of all the illegal impositions which inferior officers did lay on. Thereafter he calls it a notable contradiction to say that their rise was indeliberate, and yet Lawful, Just, holy, exemplary, necessary: And that the godly ancients never enroled them among martyrs, who by their own rashness had occasioned their own sufferings. Answ. As if an action might not be both lawful just And necessary, though the first rise thereof might have been unexpected, and a mere surprisal of providence: And as if every action were sinfully rash which were not long and deliberately before contrived. So then by their rashness they did not occasion their sufferings; but, by a surprisal of providence. being called to their own defence, and to a vindication of their libertyes and Religion, while they were murdered upon that account, they may very lawfully be enroled among the Martyrs. Then Pag. 261. he says. They were the first-aggressors, and first slew one of the King's servants. This was told us in the first part, and is answered: And who knoweth not that the first aggressor may be first killed. See what is said to this Pag. 350. Then he says the Novatians & Donatists were not accounted Martyrs albeit sometimes they were drawn to death by persecuting pagans-such a foul Stain did they see in Schism. Answ And indeed upon the same ground, if any of this corrupt apostate facton, which hath made defection from the received Religion, reform in doctrine worship discipline and Government, and sworn unto by our whole Church, were drawn to death by pagans, under the common notion and name of Christian, they could not be accounted Martyrs, because of their sinful and perfidious renting of the body of Christ. They, and not the honest party who adhere to their principles, are the schismatics, The Novatians and Donatists who departed from the truth, & not the honest Christians who remained constant, were the true schismatics, Nor doth Naphtaly fix them in a schism when he teacheth, that they were indispensibly tied by the Covenant, to abhor a compliance with these courses of defection, more than the honest fathers of old did fix the honest party in a schism, by teaching that they were not to embrace the principles and practices of the Donatists and Novatians. The 6. And last particular which he mentioneth Pag. 262. is but a heap of groundless calumnies, to wit, that their design was to put down all authority, to destroy all who would not accept of their sense of the Covenant. to place themselves in the chair of authority, of which stuff we have had enough in the former part, and shall say no more now, but that it is plain, their cause is desperate and gone, when they must flee to lies for refuge, but to show how perfectly they are assimulat to the spirit which drives him, they will be both liars and murderers.  
And now. Noble patriots (for to you would I speak a word ere I close) though I have, in some weak measure, endeavoured, to vindicat the lawfulness of your noble and heroic enterprise, to raise up the Virgin of Israel, who was fallen, and forsaken upon her land, yet you stand not in need of the help of any such weak advocate, as I am, your witness is in Heaven, and your record on high: It is he who justifyeth, and therefore though now you be hunted, as partridges on the Mountain and be a People robbed and spoiled, snared in holes, hid in prison houses, and be for a prey, and none delivereth, for a spoil, and none sayeth restore, you need not be troubled who condemn you, This being your rejoicing, even the testimony of your conscience, that in simplicity and godly sincerity, not with fleshly wisdom, but by the grace of God, you have had your conversation in the world, and more abundantly in this particular. And therefore may you depart from the presence of Councils (when brought before them, upon this account) rejoicing that you are counted worthy to suffer shame or what else, for his name. Stumble not at the wise dispensations of God, nor think it strange concerning the f●●rytryal which is to try you (and daily experience telleth us that this continued trial maketh new discoveries) as if some strange thing happened unto you, what ever strangers to God and such as judge of him, and of his holy, sublime and wise dispensations by carnal sense, may think, but rejoice in as much as ye are partakers of christs suffering. That when his glory shall be revealed (if not in this world dureing our days, yet in the world to come) you may be glad also with exceeding joy: Yea if you be reproached for the name of christ, much more if you be put to harder sufferings, happy are ye, for the spirit of glory & of God resteth on you; since it is undeniable, that on their part who are your Enemies, he is evil spoken of, but on your part he is glorified. Though men think that you suffer as murderers, or as thiefs, or as evil doers, or as busy bodies in other men's Matters. Yet having an undoubted ground of persuasion, that you suffer as Christians, for owneing Christ's interest, and his Covenanted work in the land, you need not be ashamed, but have cause to glorify God on this behalf. And since you suffer according to the will of God, commit the keeping of your souls to him, in well doing as unto a faithful Creator. Bewar of snares and sinful bonds, for the same spirit of Malignancy and enmity to the interests of Christ, acteth in these, which acted in that bloody persecution: the same design is carried on, to wit, the constant banishing of Christ and his interests out of the land, and the establishing of these grand images of jealousy which provoke to jealousy. O for that truly divine zeal which would more eat us up, for the house of God which is desolate, and his precious interests which are perfidiously sold, and wickedly trodden under foot, and which would make us never to sit down satisfied with any concessions, or favours, how specious soever, until we saw our King restored to his own, and brought back to his throne and Kingdom with shoutings and acclamations of joy. O dearly beloved stand fast: And beware I say of snares; but having done all stand with your loins girt about with truth, and your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace; as you have not been frowned out of your integrity, so take head ye be not flattered out of it, be not so simple as to believe every word that is spoken; for he must shut his eyes and love to be blindfolded, who doth not perceive, that while the men that lie in wait for your halting, and design to draw you into a compliance with their course of opposition to the work of God, speak fair, there are seven abominations in their heart. Let your eyes be in your head: Hold fast what ye have, that no man take your crown? The devil is changing weapons upon you, with a design to give you a parting blow: be vigilant, resist him under every shape whereinto he transformeth himself, that he may assault & overcome you; so shall he at last flee from you, and ye shall be more than conquerors through him who hath loved you: your Exit, though upon a scaffold, will be unspeakably joyous, and full of glory, and when ye have made it appear (if called there to) that ye love his interests so well, that ye continue not to love your own lives unto the death; then shall ye be associate with your blessed brethren, and fellow sufferers, who overcame the same enemy that continues to make war with you and the remnant of the woman's seed, be the blood of the lamb, & the word of their testimony? Ye have not only the advantage of all your persecuters, but of many of the professed yea real friends of the work, a great many of whom, when called by the same providence to appear with you, unto the help of the Lord against the mighty, did couch under their burdens, and abode amongst the sheepfolds, to hear the bleat of the flocks, while like true Naphtalis ye jeoparded your lives in the high places of the field, some of whom it may be have added grief to your sorrow, & have condemned your rising, to justiy their own sinful shifting, and sitting that opportunity; against whom we know ye meditat no other revenge, than still to love many of them as brethren, & pray that their leaving you alone may never be laid to their charge. And of some also who pretending respect to the cause, did a great deal worse, by associating themselves with that enemy, who with open mouth did come upon you to eat you up, the expectation of whose heart may be dreadful, when he cometh to make inquisition for the blood of his saints, and they may tremble at the thoughts of being led out width these workers of iniquity, with whom they joined themselves in the day of your distress. I wish that repentance may prevent this ruin: ye have I say the advantages of these, & have obtained mercy of the Lord, to do and suffer for his sake while many of your brethren have fainted and fled. keep your ground, for ye are satins great eye sore; he seeks you, to shake and winnow you with the smooth & flattering insinuations of the men whose great design is to secure and settle themselves on the ruins of the work of God, and seem to offer some thing, if ye will give them security for your keeping the public peace, that is, if ye will never offer to put out your hand to strip them of the spoils of Christ's honour, wherewith they have clothed themselves; this is to keep their public peace, to let them live in a peaceable possession of what they with wicked hands have taken from Jesus Christ, and never to trouble that watch which they have set about the grave of his buried interests, for fear of its resurrection. But I hope that he who hath delivered your soul from death, and preserved you while they hunted for your precious life, will also deliver your feet from falling, that ye may, holding still your integrity, walk before God in the light of the living.  
And though the Lord think good to hide his face for a time, Let us wait on him who hideth his face from the house of Israel, and let us look for him, who knows but he be waiting that he may be gracious, and that he will be exalted that he may have mercy upon us: For the Lord is a God of Judgement, blessed are all they that wait for him. who knoweth but the vision be only for an appointed time, and at the end it shall speak and not lie, therefore though it tarry, let us wait for it; because it will surely come and will not tarry. Then they who are our enemies shall see it; and shame shall cover them who said unto us, where is the Lord your God? Our eyes shall behold them, and they shall be trodden down as the mire of the streets, we shall no more be termed forsaken, neither shall our land be termed any more desolate, but we shall be called Hephzibah, and our land Beulah, when our Lord shall delight in us, and our land shall be married: Let our King come, and make haste. To him be glory for ever and ever. AMEN.   

ERRATA.  
PAg. 3. Lin. 34. Read sincerely, p. 12. l. 18. r. there may. p. 34. l. 6. for this r. his. p. 38. l. 21. r. from a: Ibid. l. 22. r. difference. p. 71. l. 20. r. mightily. p. 79. l. 27. r. precedents. p. 83. l. 23. r. Aristocracy. p. 98. l. 34. r. Kings. p. 1, l. 17. r. at. p. 151. l. penult. for is r. his. p. 188. l. 4. r. politician. p. 224. l. 13. r. precipice. p. 237. l. 33. for only r. chief. p. 256. l. 15. r. absurd. p. 311. l. 13. for vermilion r. nitre. p. 429. l. 31. r. his cause. p. 437. l. 7. r. this.   

READER,  
IF in some Copies thou find some moe such like, or some other, through the transposition of Points or Letters, or one Letter for another; as n. for u. or t. for r. or s. for f or the like, that will not readily mar the sense; thou mayest be pleased to correct these, as thou readest.   

JUS POPULI VINDICATUM.  
OR The People's right, to defend themselves and their covenanted Religion, vindicated.  

CAP. I.  
The Question cleared and stated.  
THE Surveyer, taking but an overlye, slight and superficial vieu to the books, he would make the world believe, he confuteth, measureth out and treadeth down (as any of ordinary capacity, compareing his wordy but unworthy pamphlet, with what, is orderly & methodically set down, and strongly and unanswerably confirmed (as the event shall demonstrate) in these books, which he unmanlike snarleth at, rather than answereth) thinketh it of his advantage (as it is the advantage of all who desire not to be seen in their own colours, nor to have plain truth discovered, and their pernicious errors and practices suitable thereunto, unfolded, to cast a mist before the eyes of such as would observe them, or raise some ignis fatuus to misguide them, & take them off the way) to use his out-most endeavour to deceive his unwarry marry & inadvertant reader, & lead him, (who is so simple as to believe every thing which he and his fraternity say, though they have manifestly and undeniably forefaulted all faith and credit, with all who know what is the fundamental bond of all society and commerce) into the same sinful and irrational abhorrency, of an exploit and enterprise so consonant to scripture, law, equity and reason, and to the practice of worthy Zelots abroad, and at home, from the very beginning of the work of reformation; and for this cause, as he hath foolishly and ignorantly paralleled these worthies, (whose late practice we shall, godwilling, abundantly vindicate, from all which this flaunting and windy adversary, who cometh forth to shake his spear, as if he were another Goliath, hath said here against it) with the irrational, furious, and brutish rabble of Anabaptists who followed Knipperdoling and john of Leyden; So all alongs in his discourse; he hath not only snarled at, picked out, and miserably wrested some expressions in these books he would confute, especially in the Naphtali, and then run away with a cry veni, vidi, vici, as if he had gained the day; which way of dealing with an adversary, is, to all men of judgement and understanding, very unfair, base and puerile, no way beseeming a man pretending to plead for truth, and to discover verity, as he pretendeth to do; yea judicious persons will, from such disingenuous & unhandsome way of answereing, easily perceive on whose side truth stands firm & unshaken; But (which is yet more palpable and gross) he hath either ignorantly, or fraudulently, perverted the true state of the question, both in Thesi and in Hypothesi, which is a sufficient proof of the disperatnesse of the cause which he would maintain, and of the man's purpose to wrangle, when he can not answer, and to busk up an adversary of straw to himself to fight against, when he cannot, dar not, look his real adversary in the face; and a ground more than sufficient to make wise men judge, that he hath rather confirmed the hands of his adversaries and strengthened their cause, then, in the least, weakened the same, for all his hideous outcries, and dexterous heaping up of many words to little or no purpose, unless to take with such, as think the best cause is on their side, who have the manyest, most daring, big and plausible expressions, but are not able to judge righteous judgement, nor discern whether or not there be true ground for such confident exclamations, and bold assertions. I am confident that all who have not prostituted their judgements and understandings, to a blind and irrational belief of what, such as have un-manned themselves, and voluntarily given away that masculine constancy and fidelity, which men, but of ordinary spirits, would account the height of baseness; and have now adorned themselves with a more than fëminine levity, yea, and embroidered themselves with such a dale of intolerable falsehood, unfaithfulness, impiety and perjury, as would make Heathens, (though none of the best refined) account them unworthy of humane society, do, with more than ordinary confidence, and bold audacity, assert and maintain.  
That I may not, after the a methodical method of this disputer, who loveth to walk in byways, still keep the Reader in the dark, I shall first clear the true state of the question, confirm the truth, and vindicate it from what he here asserteth, answereth, or objecteth, that is apposite to the purpose; forbearing once to take notice of his many scurrilous, base, unchristian, yea and unmanly expressions, which show what spirit he is of: and afterward I shall consider and examine his excursions which have not such a close connexion with the present question, as he would make his Reader believe, lest he should vaunt, as having spoken that which no man can answer.  
That it may appear what is the true state of the question, we would premite these few things as necessary to be considered.  
First. That the whole body of the people of Scotland were engaged to God, by solemn Covenants, vows, purposes and promises, frequently renewed, to own and endeavour, really, sincerily, and constantly, through the grace of God, in their several places and callings, with the hazard of life, lands goods, and all what they had, the preservation of the reformed Religion in the Church of Scotland in doctrine, worship, discipline and government; and without respect of persons, the extirpation of Popery, Prelacy, Superstition, Heresy, Schisms profaneness, and whatsoever shall be found to be contrary to sound doctrine, and the power of Godliness, lest they should partake in other men's sins, and thereby be in danger to receive of their plagues: and that they should mutually, with the Privileges of Parliaments, preserve and defend the libertyes of the Kingdo me: and in this common cause of religion, liberty, & peace, assist and defend all those, who would enter into these bonds, in the maintaining and pursueing thereof.  
Secondly. Not only did the body of the commonalty subscribe, and solemnly with hands lifted up to the Most High God, swear these Covenants and engagements, at the command of Magistrates; But the Magistrates themselves, both superior and inferior, did take on them, in a most solemn manner, these same vows and engagements, and solemnel promised, as they should answer to God in the great day, to promove this covenanted work of Reformation, and to prosecute, in their places, stations and capacities, the Ends of the Covenant.  
Thirdly. When this King (who did swear and subscribe these Covenants, before he came to Scotland) was crowned, and solemnly inaugurated, He not only renewed these solemn vows and engagements; But upon these terms and conditions, was he admitted; the people declared their willingness to admit of him, as King, the sword was put in his hand and accepted, the People did swear fidelity, and allegiance, according to these Covenants; the like did the Nobles one by one, viz swear to be true and faithful to him, according to the national, and solemn League and Covenant. And all this was afterwards, when the King attained the age of 21 years complete, in a full and free Parliament, ratified, concluded, and enacted by King and all the Estates of Parliament: where by as Naphtals' Pag. 72. well observeth, the same did pass into a perpetual law, and became one of the principal fundamental laws of the constitution of our Kingdom, whereupon all the rights and privileges. either of King or People, are principally bottomed and secured. These things, as to matter of fact, cannot be denied.  
Fourthly. Whatever was done of late, by King or Parliament, or enacted, and concluded contrary to these covenants, vows and engagements, was (as unlawful, so) a real and formal subversion of the fundamental constitution of our Christian and reformed Kingdom; This none will deny who knoweth the true nature of these covenants, and the real interest they had, and yet have de jure, in our constitution, before this late revolution, as was now expressed.  
Fiftly. Notwithstanding of all that hath been done by King and Parliament, of late, in rescinding, abjuring, and looseing of the obligation of these National bonds, and divine covenants, yet they remain Covenants, and National ties perpetually obliging, before God, the King, Nobles, & People of all ranks; and will do, so long as Scotland is Scotland. This is abundantly made out, by the Apologist; and is a fixed and everlastingly confirmed truth, in the hearts of all who fear God, and look for his appearing as a swift witness against all such as swear falsely.  
Sixtly. That nothing was allaiged or allaigeable, against those people in Galloway, and places adjacent, as ground, or cause, or occasion of all that extremity and rigour of iniquity, that was exercised against them, but their simple nonobedience to the act enjoining conformity and obedience to the Ecclesiastical authority then established, which was diametrically opposite unto their vow and promise, in their solemn and National covenants. So that really, upon the matter, their suffering was merely because of their conscience making, and faithful endeavouring to adhere, through the grace of their God, unto their covenants and engagements solemnly sworn and taken.  
Seventhly. It will be easily granted by all rational persons, That in all Kingdoms and Commonwealths, a free people not redacted unto a state of base bondage and slavery, should be ruled and governed civilly, according to the civil and municipal laws of the land, and not by military force and cruelty. Tyrant's use to lay aside the wholesome and established laws of the land, and to rule in an arbitrary manner, by the cruel and merciless sword, because they neither intent, nor seek the good of their subjects; But only their own ambition and base ends; But Magistrates who ought to seek the good of the commonwealth and prefer it to their own particular ends, will have respect to the laws, and accordingly rule their subjects, and not by an aribitrary cruelty, and force of arms, which are used against enemies.  
Eightly. The very law enjoining this conformity, prescribeth the way how the same shall be put to due execution, viz. [That for this end the Council shall call before them all such persons, as after admonition of the Minister, in presence of two sufficient witnesses, and by himso attested, shall be given up to the Council as transgressors of this act— and the same after hearing of parties, being duly found, to decern & inflict the censures and penalties] And although the very law itself be so iniquous and intolerable, as would undoubtedly bring sudden ruin, to all such as would not obey the same, and that in a very short time; yet if this legal manner of procedure, had been followed, the execution, (though cruel, and sufficiently barbarous, the penalty having no suitable correspondence with, nor proportion unto, the supposed transgression; for, can any think that a persons absenting himself twice or thrice from his own parish Church, can be a transgression of such a high nature, as no penalty less than the fourth pairt of his Estate, can compensate?) had not seemed so arbitrary or tyrannical; but when such a grievous law, is more grievously executed, and that arbitrarily, and illegally, is not this a very intolerable oppression?  
Ninthly It is notourly known and unquestionably clear, and alas too too well demonstrated by black, Tragical and inde lible characters of ruin, extirpation, and beggary of many honest families, yea, and of landed and sufficiently provided Gentlemen and others, so that none will, or can, (if he hath not resolved to believe neither what he seeth, nor what he heareth) deny it: That Sir james Turner, and his soldiers, under pretence of executeing this law, used such inhuman crueltyes, savage barbarities, unparallelable exorbitancies, by illegal amercements, fineings, quarterings, plunderings, beat, dragging to prisons, wounding, binding men like beasts, chaseing them to moors and mountains, laying waste their lands, houses, and habitations, devouring what they could with horse, dogs, & men, burning plenishing, utensils and other necessaries in houses, and thus laying whole parishes and almost countreysides waste and desolate, and that without respect had to conscience humane, let be Christian, to law divine, civil, or municipal grievous or not grievous, yea without respect had to people guilty or not guilty; for when they had consumed the Landlord, they oppressed the Tenants though not guilty, & when they had ruined the Tnenants, fell upon the Landlord though a conformist, avowing and professing they came to destroy, and they would destroy; nor having any respect to poor or rich, widows or married persons, old or young, yea, or to such as stooped for-age, to sick, or bedrid creples, or to one or other; yea and did sesse and quarter, till persons were forced to pay such sums, as the civil judges, before whom the cause was depending, had not determined to be justly addebted by them. All which is fully, and particularly laid open by Naphtaly, and will appear to all who have not renunced humanity, to be more then lesser injuries, as the Surveyer pag. 70 is pleased to account them, and to be most unjust, though he make a question thereof, yea and such grievous and intolerable oppressions, the hundereth part whereof (as Naphtaly said well.) would make him and his complices curse both God and their King.  
Tenthly. To all these forementioned cruelties and barbarities, He added this, that he would suffer no man to complain to him of any wrong they had suffered by the brutish and barbarous soldiery, nay nor supplicate for relief, and if they did, their cause was helped by doubling their miseries, yea, and which might exceed all belief (if its notoriety were not undeniable) forced them, after all these horrid, dreadful, inhuman, and brutish outrages and oppressions, to subscribe an acknowledgement, That he had used them civilly and discretly; and there by necessitated them to deny what was as not our as the sun at noonday, and their very common sense and feelings, and also to prejudge themselves of all hope or possibility of getting redress by law.  
Eleventhly Though this forementioned acknowledgement had neither been asked nor granted, yet their condition was irremediable: for neither they, nor any in the land, might Supplicat King or Council, either for relaxation of the rigorousness of the laws, or for a more civil, moderate, yea or for a strike and legal execution of the iniquous and grievous laws made, under the pain of treason and less Majesty. Though it was an old received maxim, and is to this day, where tyranny is not avowedly exercised, that cuivis licet supplicare & protestari: yet the late Parliament concluded, contrary to the law of nature and nations, That petitions were seditious and treasonable. So that how arbitrarily soever King or Parliament yea or Council, or any deputed by them, did rage, or should opprresse & injure the Subjects, whether in conscience, body or goods, there was no remedy, nor hope of redress, no petition or supplication how humble soever, might be once presented by the grieved subjects: yea nor durst they meet together to pour out their complaint unto the God of heaven, the hearer of prayers, & the righteous judge of heaven & earth. What height of opprression & tyranny this is, Let all the world judge.  
Twelvethly. It is uncertain, yea much doubted, if Sr. james Turner, that singular instrument of barbarous cruelty, had any commission form King or Council, impovvering him to such illegal exorbitancies (whatever he might have had, under hand, from some Members of Council who had most sold themselves to cruelty, and to the utter extirpation of all who would not run with them, to the same excess of riot) sure if any such thing be, the records will manifest it; but since they cashired him and some of his associates, and made an offer of causeing him answer for what he had done, it is very probable, he had no formal commission for what he did; and yet since he and others are permitted to live, after such crueltyes, barbarities, and un heard of wickednesses, and no reparation made to the people injured, it is certain he is but too well approved in all he did, and of what use this shall be, will appear afterward.  
Thirteenthly. The intent and design of those poor people who rose in arms, was not to dethrone the King, to enjure him, or to lessen his just and legal authority; but to resist, repel, and defend themselves from, unjust violence and oppression▪ and to seek reparations of the wrongs done them; and the removal of that detestable and abjured Hierarchy, the establishing and upholding of which, as it was, & is a great provocation of the anger of God against the land, so it was the fountain and rise of all these horrid oppressions which they suffered, and of the making of such grievous statutes, and establishing iniquity into a law, and was to be a lasting cause and occasion of violent. unjust and illegal oppressions, and intolerabel vexations to all the faithful of the land; and withal, to have security for their lives, lands, libertyes, consciences, and Religion, conform to the agreement made with his Majesty, and the National Covenant, and the Solemn league and covenant, which he solemnly swore once and again, and vowed and promised to defend and prosecute, in all their ends: and that for this end, all such laws made for prelacy, and against the work of God and the reformation, which through God's blessing we had attained to, might be repealed, annulled and rescinded. This and nothing else could be the intent and design of these valiant though naked worthies. That they intended no harm to the King, or to his just & lawful government & authority, is notoure by the last speeches & testimonies of such as were apprehended & publicly executed; & the petition Which they sent in to the Council with William Lauwry Tutor of Blakewood doth abundantly testify that they would have had the free exerciso of their covenanted Religion & freedom from the domeneering tyranny of Prelates & their adherents; their renewing of the League & Covenant doth sufficiently clear that they intended no insurrection or rebellion against the King's just and lawful authority; for they swore to defend the King's Majesty's person and authority, in the preservation and defence of the True Religion, and libertyes of the Kingdoms.  
From these considerations, we shall now lay down the true state of the question, thus.  
Whether or not, when the whole body of a land, Magistrates higher and lower, People, are engaged by solemn vows, made to the most high God, jointly & severally, to promove a reformation, and to extirpate Prelates, & the same covenanted work is become a chief corn stone of the constitution of the Kingdom, and one of the mane conditions, on which the King is installed on his throne; and when these same Magistrates Supreme and inferior, renunce their covenant with God, and with the People, overturn the work of reformation formerly sworn to, make laws and statutes to fortify this defection, & to compel all their subjects to run to the same excess of perjury and wickedness, and execute these laws upon the faithful & steadfastly loyal subjects, not in a civil orderly manner, but most imperiously and tyrannically, with mere force & cruelty, and the edge of the sword of soldiers, levied of purpose for this very end, to crush and oppress all such as made any conscience of their vows and engagements unto God; and when these barbarous soldiers exceed their commission, or oppress, plunder, harash, spoil, rob and pillage the people, and lay waste the land, without law or express order from King or Parliament, yea contraire to the express letter of the law; and when the oppressed have not so much as liberty to supplicate or petition for help or relief; may private persons without the conduct of a Parliament, stand to their own defence, against unjust & illegal oppression and tyranny, and oppose such as, without express commission, endeavour their utter ruin and destruction, though pretending warrant from the superior Magstrats, and allowed of them; and seek a redress of these grievous & intolerable injuries, and liberty for the free exercise of the covenanted reform religion, with the extirpation of abjured Prelates, the spring and fountane of all these miseries already come, and to be feared, while in the mean time they intent no harm to the supreme Magistrat's person or just authority, but swear to maintain the same, in the defence of the true religion, and liberties of the Kingdom? Or a if you will have it shorter.  
Whether or not, when King and Parliament and Council have abjured a covenant, & overturned a reformation, which they solemnly swore to defend, in their places & capacities, and made their subjects do the same, and now with illegal force, compel the subjects to the like perjury and wickedness, may these private subjects, when there is no hope or possibility otherwise of relief, stand to their own defence, and withstand the merciless cruelty of their bloody Emissaries acting without their commission, or with their allowance, yet contrare to express law; and seek relief, and security for Religion, lives, lands and liberties, having no intention, to wrong the King's person or just government?  
That this is the true state of the question, is abundantly clear from the particulars forementioned, and I think no Scottish man, who knew the then state of affairs, and hath not renunced common sense, and resolved to believe nothing (though he should both hear it, see it, and feel it, and it were as not our as the light when the Sun shineth) which is for the vindication of these poor people, will with any face or show of reason, be able to deny this to be the true state of affairs, & of the present question.  
Hence we see, how the Surveyer sophistically & fraudulently presents the state (which he may well call the great Knot, as being no way loosed and laid open by him, as it ought to have been) of the question Pag. 19 when he says [Whether mere private persons, one or moe, separately of jointly, when they are, or think themselves unjustly afflicted, and extremely injuriously handled, by the Magistrate or Supreme power proceeding according to laws agreed to, betwixt himself and the body of the community? Whether or not (upon supposition that these laws are not just and right) may private persons defend themselves, against the violence of the Magistrate thus proceeding, even by violent re-offending; yea, in order to their own defence, cut off the Prince of Magistrate whatsoever, or their Ministers and officers standing in their way, or when they are punishing them and afflicting them according to law?] & again Pag. 21. he says [The true state of the question at this time is, when the corruption of these who are in power leads them to abuse their authority, either on making unjust laws, or punishing according to these, whether mere private subjects should with violence oppose all Magistrates, under whom they are, from the highest to the lowest, together with the plurality of the body of that community where of they are members, yea and in their own defence, destroy them all (if they be in probable capacity for such work, and if they cannot eschew this, and preserve themselves) yea farther, after they have subdued (providence so permitting or ordering) all the magistratical power, and major part of the people, they may use a vindicative, avenging and punishing power upon all? being only persons of private capacity) and to be sure he repeats the same over again Pag. 24. and says Pag. 26. [That the way which we clearly own is, That every private person (when & so long as they are able, or are in probable capacity to act violently against the Magistrate) ought to counter act him violently, when he thinks the Magistrate wrongs him, (for this must be referred to every man's private discretive judgement) and more to this purpose there, and again pag. 27 he tells us [The question is what duty is owed by the subject Unto the Magistrate (especially the Supreme for may there be remedies had against the injuries of the inferior by appellation) In case of his maladministration, & unjust laws and sentences according to these laws, or executions according to sentence; whether they may violate or violent the person invested with authority, and not submit unto him, but counter-act him by force in self defence against his violence. Or if they be bound in conscience, or by any law of God, to submit humbly to what he inflicts (although unjustly) if they can neither move him by their humble petitions, nor can flee from his wrath, or go out of his dominions] and then addeth▪ That the author of Naphtaly and his complices [Maintain, That if the Magistrate abuse his power in making unjust laws, or punishing according to these, any private man▪ or company of men, that think themselves strong enough for the Magistrate ought never to suffer, but use forcible resistance against the Magistrate abuseing his power: & that all the patience that is required of Christians toward oppressing Magistrates, is only to bear suffering patiently, when they are out of capicity of acting, and may not better do, and to suffer patiently when they see they cannot repress the violence of the unjustly- dealing Magistrate with a sufficient contrary violence.]  
That it may appeare● (though none who understandeth the controversy, & readeth what he allaigeth, is the state of the question, can readily be ignorant of his deceit, but may easily perceive his subdolous sohistication) how far he hath misrepresented the business, let these few particulars be pondered.  
1. It is one thing, to say that private persons, may rise and take the sword of defence in their hand, and resist their Magistrates, upon the ground of supposed wrongs, or when they think in their private judgements of discretion, that the Magistrate injureth them: It is another thing to say, This way of defence may be used when the injuries are real, and not supposed, or judged so by their private and erring judgement or discretion only. He cannot have the forehead to say that we maintain the former; nor can he with any colour of half a reason infer, that such a maintain this last, do consequentially maintain the former, as men of understanding will easily perceive, and shall be more fully spoken to afterwards in due place. yea suppose that such a consequence could be drawn, it were not fair, but utterly disingenuous, and unbecomeing a fair disputant, to bring a consequent which he wire-draweth from his adversaries position or assertion, into the state of question, and make the world believe, that his adversary doth, positively, clearly & avowedly assert, what indeed he doth not affirm, nay nor granteth to follow from what he holdeth.  
2. It is one thing, to speak of resistance made to laws iniquosly made, and yet but tending to the hurt of some private persons in smaller matters: it is a far other thing, to speak of resistance made to laws, whereby the established religion, and the fundamental rights, and basis of the constitution of the realm is overturned; and so not only only men's goods, or smaller matters, but their liberties, religion, consciences, lives, and every thing that is dear unto them, is in inevitable hazard: it were an impudent calumny to say that we maintain the former.  
3. It is one thing, to say that any private person alone, and severally, may resist, and repel unjust violence offered by the Magistrates of the land: and another thing, to say, that a considerable company, joining together, upon just grounds, may endeavour their own faifty. Though the laws of our land will suffer a private subject to hinder any, in the King's name, to possess themselves of his heritage, or of any thing he possesseth, till the question be discussed by the civil judges; yet we state not our disput concerning what a private single person may do, in case of oppression.  
4. It is one thing, to speak of unjust laws in the general: and another thing, to speak of unjust laws made by Magistrates, preingadged by solemn vows and Covenants never to make such laws, and who have given the people all the security imaginable, that they should never be troubled with such iniquous laws: This last is our case.  
5. It is one thing, to speak of laws (though iniquous and grievous, yet) executed legally, civility, by way of formal legal procedure. But it is another thing, to speak of laws, in themselves grievous and iniquous, yet executed in an unformal, illegal, arbitrary, tumultuous, cruel and bloody way, by armed, merciless and bloody soldiers, which looketh rather like the execution of a bloody act, for massacreing, then of a law made for the good of the Commonwealth. This last toucheth our case, as was showed.  
6. It is one thing, to speak of resisting and offering violence to the very person of the Magistrate: and another thing, to speak of resisting his bloody Emissaries.  
7. So, it is one thing, to speak of resisting his bloody Emissaries clothed with a commission to exact the penalty imposed by law: But it is a distinct thing, to speak of resisting his bloody Emissaries, exorbitantly exacting what they please, without any regaird had to the standing unrepeled law, though sufficiently grievous.  
8. It is one thing, to speak of what private persons may, or aught to do when injured & oppressed, & there is some door open to get themselves eased of these oppressions, by complaineing, or appealing to the superior Magistrates, or by simple petition and supplications. But it is a far other thing to speak of what a People may do, when all door of hope is closed, and when simple supplicating would make them liable to the crime of less Majesty, which was their case.  
9 It is one thing, to speak of what a company of private persons may do, in their own particular case, without the concurrence of the rest of the community, who are not concerned in their case, nor particularly engaged to help and concur with them, in that particular: and another thing to speak of what private persons, though the minor part of a community, may do, in a case which concerneth not themselves alone, but is common to all; though it ma● be, they suffer most of the heat of persecution, upon the account of that common cause, and in a case, wherein all the whole community is bound and obliged to other, to stand to, and maintain one another, in the defence of that common cause, and that by solemn bonds, vows and Covenants. Now this was their case.  
10. It is one thing, to say that the minor pairt of a community may rise in arms, against all the Magistrates, and seek to exauctorate them, and overturn their power; and against all the rest of the body, and press them to be of their mind: and another thing, to say they may take arms in their own self defence, when tyrannically oppressed for adhering to that Covenant and cause, which the whole body of the land was engaged to maintain, with lives and fortunes, no less than they, without any intention to wrong the Magistrat's Just power and authority, or to do the least injury to any of the community, who would not carry in a hostile manner towards them: Now such was the case and carriage of that poor people.  
11. It is one thing, to say that private persons when injured by unjust laws, and when able to resist and oppose the Magistrate, may never submit unto undue penalties, (which he salsly fathereth on Naphtaly.) But it is a far other thing▪ to say that in some cases hic & nu●c private persons may resist the unjust and illegal force of Magistrates, or▪ that it is false to say that in no case imaginable private persons may resist unjust violence offered to them by Magistrates. Or, which is all one, that in every case whatsomever, it is the duty of private persons, to submit unto the most iniquous, illegal, and tyrannical impositions, penalties, and exactions; or unto tyrannical and unjust laws. Now this is the true state of the question in thesi, and if this be granted, we seek no more, as to that, being persuaded the hypothesis will follow clearly from the thesis, and hang on it, without many knots of arguments to fasten it.  
12. It is one thing, to say that private persons may call their superior Magistrates, when making defection, to an account, judicially process them, and formally give out sentence against them, which he injuriously allaigeth upon Naphtaly, as any, who will impartially consult the places by him cited, will find. But it is a far other thing, to say that private persons in some cases in way of defence and maintenance of the reformed Religion, may stand to its vindication: and this is all the vindicative power which Naphtali, Pag. 18, 19 (the places which he citeth) speaketh of, as incumbent to private persons.  
From these things it is apparent to any of an ordinary reach, in those matters, how far that which he maketh the knot of the question, is from the true, plain, full and real state of the business now controverted, which we have laid down. And what unfair dealing we way expect, thorough the rest of his pamphlet, any may judge by what we here find, in the very stateing of the controversy. But he will say, that the Author of Naphtali (whom he ignorantly, termeth the libeler, but in truth, the honest vindicator of the innocency of the suffering people of God) hath so stated it, in his book. It is true, this Surveyer sayeth so Pag. 21. But why did not he direct his reader unto the page where such a state of the question was to be found? I appeal to any who ever read that book, to judge, whether this man speaks truth or not. Ay but you will say, He hath cited Pag. 13, & 14. Naphtalies' very words, and hath cited the pages where these are to be found, out of which words, the State of the controversy as by him proposed, may be drawn. I Answer It is one thing to draw conclusions or consequences from the words of an adversary while he is prosecuting his arguments, and out of these raise a state of a controversy; and another thing, to say that his adversary doth so state the controversy, while as he speaks no such thing: now both these are soloecismes, the one in morality, the other in way of disputing: and of both he is guilty, first it is an un truth, to say that Naphtali doth so state the question as he allaigeth he doth; and it is no better, to say that Naphtali doth so state the question because here and there in his book, he hath some expressions that seem to look there away: Again, it is an absurd way of disputing, and intolerable, to draw the state of a question out of a man's expressions here & there uttered in the prosecution of his arguments; Whereas the state of the controversy is that which all his arguments prove & conclude. But what if all these expressions which he hath raked together out of Naphtaly, will not bottom his assertions, or the state of the question as he proposeth it? sure every one must take him for a mere wrangler, & animpudent ignoramus in the matter of handleing a controversy, if it be so. And whether it be so or otherways let us now try. The words he citeth first, are out of Pag. 8. viz. these (which I shall not curtail as he doth, but set down fully,) And it will also appear that the necessity of convocations and combinations (though not only without, but even against authority, yet being in order to such necessary and just ends) did sufficiently warrant them before God and all men, from the breach of any law or act then standing against the same, wherewith they might have been charged.] But what can he hence infer? Will he infer that the Author of Naphtaly, either sayeth or thinketh. That any part of the people, (though no Magistrate be amongst them) may take arms against all Magistrates, and violently resist them, when they think their laws either unjust, or the punishment executed unjust, (as he sayeth he doth. Ibid. Pag. 13.) By what medium will he couple the antecedent and consequent together? May not a man disallow that any part of the people, though they had all the Magistrates with them, except the Supreme, may take up arms against the Supreme, and violently resist him, whensoever they think that the laws are unjust, or the punishment executed unjust (as I verily think the Author of Naphtaly will) and yet say, That when strong and inevitable necessity urgeth, in order to necessary and just ends, people may have their own convocations, even against authority, and de jure be guilty of the breach of no standing law against the same, seeing all know that salus populi est supreme lex, and that no law or act, when the strike observation thereof, tendeth to the detriment of the Republic, (for the good of Which, all laws are made,) is of force. The next passage he citeth is out of Pag. 14. were Naphtaly hath these words: [That the right and privilege of self-defence, is not only founded in, but is the very first instinct of pure nature, and spring of all motion and action. 2. That it was competent to, and exercised by, every individual, before that either society or government were known. 3. That it was so far from being surrendered and supperssed by the erecting of these, that it was and is the great end, and motive, for which all voluntary societyes and policies were introduced, and are continued. 4. That it is a principal (and not the principal as he misciteth it) rule of righteousness, whereunto that great command of love to our neighbour, by the law of God, and by the Lord himself, is resolved, and whereby it is interpreted.] And then addeth, [So it doth infallibly follow, that the same right and privilege, is yet competent to all men whether separately or jointly, and needeth no other pre-requisite, but that of intolerable injury (which for a man to suffer under pretence of the good of the Commonwealth, would be, for the delusion of an empty name, only for the lust of other, really to deprive himself of his whole share & interest therein) and is completed for excercise by such a probable capacity, as may encourage the asserters thereof, to undertake it.] Thus I have set down his words, truly and wholly, and I would fain know what is there here, that will ground the foresaid thesis? Must a man that sayeth thus, necessarily say, That it is lawful for private subjects to take arms against their Magistrates (when they are in a probable capacity to carry thorough their matters,) and the major part of the people, when they think the laws are unjust, or the punishments executed are unjust? Let him the next time, I pray, prove this consequenc. For I, and many more, do and will deny it. His next passage is out of Pag. 15. the words are these, [The propelling by force of such injuries (that is, to be violented in the matters of Religion) was the justest cause and quarrel, that men in their primeve liberty, could be engaged in.] which surely is a very innocent and harmless assertion, and such as he, nor no rational man, who knoweth to prefer the interest of the soul, unto the interest of the flesh, can contradict; and from whence, no man that knoweth what the exercise of reason is, can infer his forecited thesis. The next passage he miserably curtaileth out of Pag. 16 17. but though we should take it as he hath set it down) excepting that parenthesis which he hath foisted in, in the same character, to deceive the sample Reader, what could he infer from it? When once sayeth [That combinations for assistance, in the same common cause of just and necessary defence, whereunto the force of extreme necessity, through the perversion of that mean of government, appointed for their preservation, doth ultimately reduce them, are warranted by the principle of humanity, etc. and God's glory, etc. and by this, that whole Cities Kingdoms and Empires, for the violation of this duty, in not relieving the innocents' from unjust tyranny, even of lawful powers, have been overtaken therefore by fearful judgements, to their utter ruin and subversion.] Must he needs be thought to say and assert, That private subjects may combine together and make insurrection against the lawful Magistrate, when they, in their private judgement of discretion, think the ends of government are perverted? What sharp sighted man can be able to see where these two shall meet? He tells us next that Pag. 18, 19 it is said [That not only power of self-defence, but vindicative and reforming power is in any part of the people, against the Whole, & against all Magisirates; and if they use it not, judgement cometh on (supposeing their capacity probable to bear them forth,) and they shall be punished for there connivance, & not acting in way of vindication of crimes, and reforming abuses.] But who shall read the place cited, will be forced to acknowledge a very great injury done to Naphtaly, & that his words are miserably represented; and yet he cannot draw out of them, even as he hath minced the, and thrawne them so that they look with another face, than their own, That, Napbtaly asserteth, That private persons may, when they think or imagine, in their private judgement, that the Magistrates and the rest of the land are in a defection, arise in arms against them, vindicate Religion, judge and condemn such as are guilty; and so use imperat acts of reformation by vindication. Sure these words in Naphtaly, [of necessity both from the principles deduced, and from the most visible judgements of God agreeable thereto, there must be a superior and antecedent obligation, to that of submission, incumbent upon all, both jointly & separately, for the maintenance, vindication, and reformation of religion, in order to the promoting of these great ends of the public profession of truth, and true worship, which the Lord doth indispensably require] to sober, judicious, intelligent, and impaitial readers, will have a far other import. So, what can he infer from that which Naphtali said Pag. 28. viz. [That none pleadeth for absolute submission in the people, and exemption in the prince, but such as have prostrated their consciences to the Prince's arbitrement, in a blind and absolute obedience] and that [seeing subjection is principally enjoined, for, and in order to obedience, what soever reason or authority can be adduced to persuade an obsolute and indispersible subjection, will far more rationally and plausibly infer an illimited and absolute obedience] Can he, with any colour of sense or reason, infer that he maintaineth that passive subjection to unjust laws and punishments, where there is power to make active violent resistance, is a greater sin than active obedience to unlawful commands of Magistrates? Is this a fair way of disputing, to say that one maketh that the state of the question, which he draweth from the assertion of his adverry? Naphtaly allaigeth that absolute subjection is as repugnant to reason, as absolute obedience; doth he therefore make this the state of the question, (or give ground for it,) That absolute subjection is more sinful than absolute obedience? Again, what can he draw out of these words of Naphtaly Pag. 157. [Secondly it is answered That rising up against authority itself, the ordinance of God, and disobeying the powers therewith vesied, standing and acting in their right line of subordination, is indeed rebellion, and as the sin of witchcraft; but to resist and rise up against persons abuseing sacred authority, and rebelling against God the Supreme, is rather to adhere to God, as our Liege Lord, and to vindicate both curselves and his abused ordinance form man's wi●kednnesse and tyranny] Can he hence infer that Naphtaly judgeth it no rebellion, for private subjects, to disobey Powers acting in a right subordination, when they in their judgements of discretion, judge that they deviat from that line of subordination? Sure he must have some needle head that can sow these two together.  
These are the particulars whereupon this Surveyer thinketh to bottom his falsely-stated question, and by this we may judge (ut ex ungue leon●m) what faith he is worthy of, when he sayeth immediately thereafter Pag. 14. [But what needs insisting on his justifying of any number of private persons rising up and resisting the whole Magistrates, & Body of the people, when ever they think they have cause? Seeing this is the main scope of his book, and more too, even to state them in a punitive power of all who are against them, and a power to pull down all authorities, that are in their way.] Alas! poor soul, such impudent untruths, will not much strengthen his cause, in the judgement of such as are judicious, and many will think that such way of dealing declares him to be unworthy of his wages: for, may not all who read that book, see a clear other scope there intended then what he here fancyeth; and know that from no sentence in all that book, can such conclusions be drawn, as he here sayeth is the main scope of it. O! but he must be audacious and affronted, to say that the author of Naphtaly [not only makes a proclamation to all mere private people (not having any Nobles and Magistrates amongst them) to make insurrections against all Magistrates from the highest to the lowest, and against the plurality of the people (if they think themselves in probable capacity,) and not only so, but giveth to them a liberty to pull all Magistrates out of their seats, to install themselves, and to punish Magistrates, who (as he says) have forfauted their right by the abuse thereof] as he doth Pag 21. What will not such shameless boldness adventure to aver, with the greatest confidence? but such as are wife will not believe every thing, that such as have made shipwrak of faith and of a good conscience, and have possessed themselves of a debauched conscience, have the impudence to affirm without blushing.   

CAP. II.  
Three Arguments proposed, taken I. from the Concessions of Adversaries. 2 The resistance of Parliaments: 3. The Light & Law of Nature.  
Having thus cleared the true state of the question, we shall now fall about the confirming of the affirmative; and so take occasion to examine what this Surveyer sayeth, as he cometh in our way: and though there should not be great necessity to confirm our hypothesis, or the present question under debate, unto such, as have not prostituted their soul unto a brutish belief of an absolute and indispensible subjection, or submission in all cases whatsomever, unto the lusts and rage of men abuseing their power and places, and overturning that good order which God only wise established in his love and favour, for the good mankind; yet because this seemeth to be an age, wherein the spirits of many of sunk below that of beasts; and men of no consciences, or, at best, debauched consciences, have willingly surrendered their privilege as men, and assumed the slavish disposition of bondmen, that for their own base ends, a little maze of pottage, they may gratify such as are nothing less, than what they ought to be; it will be necessary to speak a little more to it.  
Our first argument than shall be taken from the concessions of adversaries, and from what this same surveyer, seemeth (if not expressly and directly to grant, yet) not to deny or condemn altogether Barclarius contra Monarchom: lib. 1. c. 8. granteth to the people liberty to defend themselves from injury, and to resist quando immani savitia petuntur and lib. 4. c. 16. he doth fully an plainly acknowledge [That the king falleth from the right to this Kingdoms, & that the people may not only resist him, & refuse obedience unto him but many also remove him from the throne, if without the subjects consent he should subject the Kingdom to another, or be transported with an hostile mind against the Commonwealth. [Doct▪ fern also acknowledgeth [That personal defence is lawful against the sudden and illegal assaults, of the King's messengers, yea of the Prince himself, thus far, to ward his blows, to hold his hands; so when the assault is inevitable] and else where he grants it lawful [to resist the King's cutthroats.] So Arnisaeus de author: princip. Cap. 2. n. 10. granteth it lawful to private persons, to resist the King, when he acteth extrajudicially. And Crotius de jur. bell. & pac. lib. I. c. 4. n. 7. seemeth to say that the law of non-resistence doth not oblige, in certain & extreme danger, seeing some divine laws, though generally proposed, have this tacit exception of extreme necessity; and giveth this for a ground. That the law of non-resistence seemeth to have flowed from them, who first combined together into a society, and from whom such as did command, did derive their power: now if it had been asked of such, Whether they would choose to die, rather than in any case to resist the Superiors with arms, I know not (sayeth he) if they would have yielded thereunto, unless with this addition, if they could not be resisted, but with the greatest perturbation of the Commonwealth, and destruction of many innocents'. And a little thereafter He hath these words [Att●men indiscriminatim damnare, AUT SINGULOS, AUT PARTEM MINOREM, quae ultimo necessitatis praesidio sic utatur, ut interim, & communis boni respectum non deserat, vix ausim] It is true, in the end of that Section, he seemeth to say that nothing is now left to christians, but flight, yet § 10. & 11. he assenteth to Barclaius his concessions. Let us next see what our Surveyer seemeth to yield Pag. 23. 24. [Whatever may he said (sayeth he) of moral of legal self defence, against the sovereign, by way of petition, or plea in court, for saifty of a man's person or Estate; and whatever may be said of warding off, and defensively putting back, personal injurious assaults, to the manifest and immediate peril of life; without any colour of deserving, of reason, of law, or judicial proceeding; or of a Woman's violent resisting attempts, against the honour of her chastity (dearer to her then life) and tending to ensnare her also in sin, againss God (whereof her non-resistence makes her formally guilty) and whatever may be done in the case of most habited, notoure and complete tyranny, against all appearance of law, manifesily tending to the destruction of the body of a people, or greater part thereof, by hostile furious actions, or in the case of violent attempts, or destruction of all known legal libertyes, and the being of Reliagion, according to law; or in the case of vendition, alienation of, and giving a whole Kingdom to foreigners, or strangers, or some such like; whatever I say in such horrid cases (which for most part cannot befall a prince, in his natural and right wits, (a case wherein provision may be made, that he hurt not himself, nor his dominions) may be done, comes not at all within the compass of our question; although most disingenuously, the discontented and seditious, do strive on all occasions, to aggravate matters so, that the case concerning them, may seem co-incident with these, or the like, that so they may justify their violence against the powers.]  
But howbeit this Surveyer think that these concessions make little for our advantage; yet to understanding persons, it will be clear in general.  
1. That He, and the rest of the Royal society of Court parasites and slatterers, speak most inconsequentially unto themselves; They cry up in their writings an absolute, and indispensible subjection, unto the Supreme Magistrate, due by all his subjects; and yet when they are sore pinched, they must clap their wings closer, And draw in their fair sails, & grant that in such & such cases, not only his E missaries & such as have his commission, but Himself may be resisted not only by the Ephort, & Primores Regni, but by very private subjects. Did we not but just now hear our Surveyer crying out against Naphtaly, for saying That what reasons could prove an absolute & indispensible subjection, will also prove an abosolute & unlimited obedience, as being unwelling to hear any thing spoken against an absolute & vast, subjection; and yet behold here, he is as willing as the rest, to clip the wings of this inviolable sovereignty, & set forth unto us a limited & retrenched subjection due to the Supreme Magistrate, even by private persons.  
2. That by these concessions, He and the rest cut the sinews of their own arguments, and cause them to halt ere they assault us, and teach us away of rejecting or answereing them; For, when they produce their arguments, whether from reason, or authorities, they cannot but make them conclude universally, and then they are necessitated themselves to answer these universal arguments, or otherwise retract their concessions; and whatever way they think to evade with their concessions, and supposed cases, we will find room enough to escape with our case; as for exemple, when this Surveyer urgeth that subjection spokento, Rom. 13. He must either grant, that it must be restricted to such and such cases, or else plead for an universal, absolute, unlimited and indispensible subjection, and so retract his concessions; and if he take the liberty to use his restrictions, and so interpret the place, as that it shall not reach his cases excepted, he must grant us the same liberty, to say that our case is not there meaned, or condemned.  
3. By these concessions we have this advantage, that the distinction which is made, in this question of resistance, betwixt the Magistrate as such, and the person or man, who is the Magistrate, is not so absurd and ridiculous, as the Royalists give it out to be; for here we find them forced to use the same, so that if it be a defileing distinction they cannot be clean, more than we: and we see that resistance may be used against the person of, or the man who is, the Magistrate, without the least contempt, or wrong done unto the holy Ordinance of God, otherwise they must of necessity say, that in all the forementioned cases, they very Ordinance of God is resisted; and how then they shall reconcile that, with Rom. 13. I see not.  
4. We see also, That the Prerogative Royal, which they screw up unto a transcendent absoluteness and supremacy above law, is but a mere chimaera, which themselves must abominate as a loathsome brat.  
5. We see that salus populs est suprema lex, the people's saifty is such a royal thing, that the King himself, and all his prerogatives, yea and municipal laws too, must veil the cap unto it themselves being judges.  
6. We see also, that they must grant a court of necessity, in which private people, may judge the Supreme Magistrate, in order to their resisting of him; for, I hope, they will grant, that in these cases, the people act with judgement, and as rational men; and if so, they must say, that the people must first judge and condemn the Supreme Magistrate, as erring, and doing amiss, before they can lawfully resist him.  
7. We have this advantage, That the Arguments by which, They can prove it lawful to resist the Magistrate, in the cases granted by them, will not be a little steadable to us, in our case; and for shame they will not condemn their own arguments, because in our mouths.  
8. It will be easily granted by all, that our case, which we have truly stated, will come nearer the cases, which adversaries do except, than the case which he hath set down; and so, However he think the cases mentioned by him, do not come within the compass of the question which he hath set down; yet understanding people will see, they are not altogether without the compass of that which is the true question, and true state of the controtroversy; and that he hath no just cause to faith, that we (however he account us discontented and seditious) do most disingenuosly strive, on all occasions, to aggravate matters, so that the case concerning us, may seem co-incident with these or the like.  
But next, more particularly, These concessions are much for our advantage. For,  
1. If it be lawful for a private person to defend his life or estate in a moral or legal way, by petition, or plea in court, against the Sovereign, (yea and by actual force, if the Sovereign, or any in his name, shall come to poind, or take possession illegally, as our laws will allow,) why shall it be unlawful, for a considerable part of the land, to defend their Lives, and Estates, their Libertyes and Religion, by forcible resistance, made unto the Magistrat's Emissaries, cruel, bloody soldiers, when that moral resistance by petition, (which yet no rational man can account resistance, it being rather an act of subjection) is, contrare to all law and equity, denied; and also, the legal resistance, by plea in court, is not admitted? Doth the municipal law of the land permit the one resistance, and will not the law of nature and nations (which no municipal law can infringe) be a sufficient warandice for the other, in case of extreme necessity? If it be said, The Sovereign hath law and right upon his side, in this case, which he hath not in the other, till the law discuss it. Ans. The Law and Right which he hath on his fide in this case, is but merely pretended, as in the other case; and is lis sub judice Neither is he, to be both judge and party in this case, more than in the other: again, if it be said that in this case, He acteth as a Sovereign, executeing the laws, but in the other case, he acteth only, as a private person. It is answered. 1. That even in the other case He may pretend to be acting as a Sovereign, following & executeing the laws, as well as in this. 2. The Sovereign as Sovereign cannot oppress nor do wrong, & therefore even in this case, when he doth manifest injury unto the subjects, contrare to his place, vow and promise, he acteth but as a private person, and not as Sovereign.  
2. If it be lawful for private person to ward off, and defensively put back personal injurious assaults, to the manifest and immediate peril of life, without any colour of deserving, of reason, of law, or judicial proceeding. Why shall it not also be lawful for private persons to ward-off, and defensively put back, the injurious assaults of Emissaries, to the manifest peril of Life, Libertyes, States, Livelihoods, Consciences and Religion, without any rational, or real colour of deserving, of reason of law, of God, or nations, or judicial proceeding? Shall it be lawful for one private person, in the defence of his own life, to ward off such illegal, extrajudicial and irrational assaults of the Sovereign himself; and shall it be unlawful for a body of a land, or a considerable part thereof, in the defence of their livelihoods, and so of their own lives, and of the lives of their posterity, of their Consciences, of their Libertyes and Religion, all secured unto them by all bonds, vows, Covenants, Statutes and Acts imaginable, to ward off the irrational, furious, illegal, extrajudicial and mad assaults of the Sovereign's bloody Emissaries? Sure rational men will see that whatever reason will evince the law fullness of the resistance in the former case, the same will more strongly and plausibly, conclude the lawfulness of resistance in this case.  
3. If it be lawful for a private woman to defend her chastity, dearer to her then life, by violent resisting the Sovereign's attempts, lest by nonresistance, she should be guilty (and oh if all the women of the nation were of this temper.) Shall it not also be lawful for private persons to defend their Lives, Liberties, Consciences and Religion, dearer to them then their Lives; yea and defend their chastity too, by violent resisting of the furious attempts of the Sovereign's bloody Emissaries, sent of purpose to constrain and compel them to perjury, when their non-resistence, according to their power and opportunity, could not but be interpreted a voluntary and base quiteing of the cause and truth, which they were bound before God, to maintain with their lives and fortunes?  
4. If it be lawful to resist habited, notour and complete tyranny, against all appearance of law, manifestly tending to the destruction of a body of a people, or a greater part thereof, by hostile furious actions: Shall it be utterly unlawsul to resist notour tyranny, yea complete and habited (though not as to reiterated acts, yet as to the ground laid down of a most complete and habited tyranny) against all appearance of divine law, or just and right humane laws, which should be consonant thereunto, tending to the destruction of the Covenanted-libertyes, privileges and Religion, of the whole body of the people; and also unto the actual destruction of the libertyes, states, lives and lively hoods of a great part thereof, by hostile furious actions?  
5. If resistance be lawful in the case of violent attempts, or destruction of all known legal libertyes, and the being of religion according to law: Shall resistance in our case be unlawsul, when all the true libertyes of the subjects, once established by laws, re enforced by vows, Covennants, solemn engagements, and all bonds imaginable; and the very being of our Religion, as reform in doctrine, worshipe, discipline and government, ratified, approved, established, and confirmed by laws, oaths, Covenants, vows and promises, which laws so re enforced with oaths, protestations, attestations, declarations, solemn vows and Covenants, are, by all right divine and humane, irrepelable, being not only in themselves good and necessary, but also becoming hereby sacred vows to God, which must be paid, & being also fundamental terms of the constitution of the reformed Republic?  
6. If in the case of Vendition, Alienation of, and giving the Kingdom to strangers, violent resistance be allowed; shall it not also be allowed in our case, when a land that was solemnly devoted, consecrated, and given away to God by solemn vows and Covenants, and the same owned, approved, ratified and confirmed by public acts, edicts, proclamations, declarations, laws and statutes of plenary, and (even as to all formalities) complete Parliaments, made up of all the Estates of the Realm, and the King also, is now treacheroussly, and iniquosly, forced to depart from their former principles, to abjure their former vows and Covenants, to change their God, to condemn his work; and by most abominable, and ever to be-abhorred acts and statutes, sold and alienated unto a popish prelatical and malignant faction and design, under which, the faithful and true seekers of God's face, have, and can expect, less liberty for their consciences, then if the whole Kingdom were delivered up into the hands of the great Turk.  
Thus we see these concessions help our cause, & weaken the adversaries not alittle: let us now proceed to speak to another particular which will help us also.  
2. The authors of Lex Rax, and of the Apologetical Relation have sufficiently proved, that the late war carried on by the Parliament of Scotland against the King, was lawful, both in point of law and conscience; And if that was lawful (as it was, and shall be found to be, when he and all his complices have done their utmost with all their lying cavils, false calumnies, reproaches, and what not, that Hell can hatch, to disprove & condemn the same;) a war raised by the subjects in their own sinless self defence, without the conduct of their representative, cannot in every case be condemned; particularly not in our case now.  
The antecedent, I say, is abundantly proved in the books mentioned, which this windy man thinks needless to run out upon (but he might rather say, he thinks impossible to answer, and beyond his poor strength to grapple with) as he sayeth Page. 20. we must then take some notice of what, in that Page (which he thinks sufficient to oppose unto the many arguments produced by them) he is pleased to present; [what sense (says he) the people of Scotland (when they have come to liberty) have of these arms, their late representative have declared, and it were to be wished, that the memory of such ways, were buried, that the posterity might never look upon them as exemplary; Their progenitors have so deeply drunk of the bitter fruits of the same, the result of them having been so much sin, shame and sorrow, vastation confusion and destruction to Princes and People.] I answer, 1. What that liberty is, which the people of Scotland are now come to, who can see it, for the perfect slavery and bondage they are sold unto? A freedom he talks of, when all our libertyes are sold, and we given up as bond men and bond women unto the lust of a Man, and are denied the very liberty, which is the privilege of all free subjects, yea and that which is the birthright and native privilege of all men, viz. to supplicate, petition or to pray: what liberty can he then mean, unless the liberty (which is licentiousness) to forsake God and our Covenant, to turn Apostats from his truth and our profession, to swear & foresweare, to drink, debauch, whore, commit sodomy, & all sort of wickedness, without curb or control? Is this the liberty he understandeth? Sure, all true christians and such as fear the Lord account that devilish slavery and bondage. 2. We know what this late Representatives have done, but whether therein they have acted the part of Representatives, and given the true sense of the people of Scotland, will (it may be) be considered, when He and I both are rotten. Sure they never had any express, yea nor tacit commission from the people of Scotland, to give up all their necks to the stroke the axe, as traitors and rebels, for doing nothing but standing to their own defence, against manifest tyranny, and oppression of both soul and body; and to condemn them and their worthy progenitors who valiantly stood for the truth, and the libertyes of Church and State, to the loss of their lives and fortunes; and to proclaim and declare themselves guilty before God and Men, of all the blood that was shed in that war, though most lawful and laudable. 3. We are persuaded, let him with what he will, the memory of these memorable ways shall never be buried, but shall stand as exemplary monuments to succeeding generations, when God shall think it meet to animate them with the spirit of courage, to free the land of tyranny, and of domineering abjured prelates, withal their tail and train: and wise men will think that his Representatives have not taken a course fit for burying the memory of these ways; but rather a way to revive afresh the memory of them, and to commend them more to the thoughts and hearts of all who love and pray for the coming of our Lord's Kingdom. 4. What bitter fruits these are, which, he sayeth, our progenitors have drunk so deeply of, we know not, They lived and died, such of them as owned, and steadfastly adhered to that cause and Covenant, in honour and peace; and their names shall be in perpetual remembrance, when his, and the names of the rest of this perjured, Malignant apostate faction shall rot. We needed not have feared that either sin, shame, sorrow, vastation, confusion, or destruction, should have come to Prices or People, if we had prosecuted the ends of our Covenants, with zeal and faithfulness according to our manifold vows, promises, solemn oaths and engagements: But what ever of these have followed, should be, and will be rightly fathered on our defection and lose of zeal: And what sin and shame, and sorrow, & vastation, & confusion, & destruction shall now follow both to Princes and People (if they repent not) upon this unparallelable defection & Apostasy, whereof now they are avowedly guilty, none, who is not an utter stranger unto God, his faithful word, and dispensations, but may, without any extraordinary Spirit of Prophecy, foretell.  
Next he tells us, That these disputes proceed upon a most untrue and malicious misrepresentation of matters of fact, & upon two false hypotheses: Let us hear what are those? [As if (says he) the King had been the first invader of the Nation, whereas it is known, his authority was first invaded, his laws trodden upon, kiss proclamations openly despised, his castles violently seized; his arms he took were notinvasive against the Nation, but defensive of his own authority, of his laws, and the people of orderly walking subjects, and for reduceing these who strayed from their duty.] Answ. Quis tulerit Gracchos de seditione querentes? Who would suffer such a manifest notorious liar to say, that others made misrepresentations of matters of fact? But, 1. Do not all who then lived, and yet read the public papers, and other acts that passed then, know that through the instigation of some false, perfidious, fugitive Prelates, the King was stirred up to make war on Scotland, ere ever they thought of any such thing? Was not war concluded both by sea and land? Was not free tradeing taken away? Were not the Scottish Nobility at court made to abjure the National Covenant, and the General Assembly at Glasgow? was there not a declaration emitted Feb. 27. & publicly read in all the Churches of England, wherein the faithful subjects and Covenanters in Scotland were termed Rebels? Were not Berwik and Carlisle frontier cities strongly fortified and garrisoned? Was not the Earl of Huntly made Governor of the North of Scotland, and had some four or five thousand men in arms, for the King? Was not Aberdeen fortifying itself, to take in the King's navy of ships, when it should come? Was not the Marquis of Douglas, & Lord Haris ready to rise with the Papists in the South of Scotland? Was not the Deputy of Ireland prepareing men to land them in the West of Scotland? Was not the Earl of Arundale made the King's General? and was not the King to have his rendezvouz at York in april, and all the English Nobility commanded to attend him there by a letter written jan. 26. before the faithful People of Scotland had any army in readiness? What impudence is this then to say, the King was not the first invader of the Nation? And as for the second expedition, Anno Dom. 1640. managed, and carried on, by the Parliament, it was abundantly verified by their public papers, that it was purely defensive. And it is notour, that before the levy was made, and appointed, the King had violated the conditions made; had caused burn by the hand of the Hangman a paper containeing explications of some terms used by him in the treaty of Peace; had denied access to their commissioners, & afterward, when he had signified his willingness to hear such as they should send, such as were sent were committed to prison, and one of them, viz. The Lord Lowdon ordained secretly to be beheaded in the tower of London; and, in the mean while, war was concluded against the Realm of Scotland, in the King's Council; The Earl of Northumberland was made General, a Parliament was convocated, both in England and Irland, for raising of subsidies, to the carrying on of this war; The Deputy of Irland with some there, had promised much assistence. The Prelates of England had offered great sums to carry on this Bellum Episcopale, as they named it; Scottish ships were intercepted, their goods taken away, and the seamen cast into prifsones and miserably handled; The sea ports were closed up with frigates; The castle of Edinbrugh oppressed the City with their shot, and killed many both young and old. Were all these things no beginnings of a war, nor no acts of hostility? How can he, or any else then, say that the King was not the first aggressor, or that Scotland's war was not purely defensive? 2. As to these things wherein he would make his reader believe, that the Honest people of Scotland, were the first invaders, what a malicious fool doth he manifest himself to be; for 1. How or what way was his authority invaded? was it, because they would not receive a mass book in English, obtruded upon them by his sole authority without the concurrence of Church or State? 2. What laws were trodden upon? Weknow no laws, but acts and statutes of a lawful Parliament, made for the glory of God, and the good of the land: and what such were trodden upon? 3. What way were his proclamations despised? Is it to despise a King's proclamation, for free subjects to vindicate themselves of what is unjustly laid to their charge in this proclamations, by faithful and humble protestations of their innocency? 4. What were those castles seized upon? Some be like in Utopia; for, before this war was begun Anno 1639. The Covenanters seized upon none of the King's castles: When they see the King bore a hostile mind against them and intended no good, they watched the castle of Edinbrugh that more ammunition and provision should not be carried into it: And this was all they did, until they were necessitated to put themselves, into a posture of defence, & then they seized upon some houses here & there, the lawfulness of which, is demonstrated by Lex Rex, & the Apology. 5. What illegal courts were those which were set up? Sure those tables, as they were called, were no courts assumeing to themselves any judicial determination in any matter of State civil or Ecclesiastical, nor conventions: for disturbance of the peace, or usurpation against authority; but mere meetings (allowed by the light and law of nature) for consultation and advice anent the matter and manner of supplications, which they were to present to his Majesty, and his Council; and of propositions to be presented to the lawful State and Church-judicatories. 6. Who were those subjects walking according to the laws, who were persecuted? We know of none, who were troubled at that time, except the Prelates, the Troublers of our Israel, and all the persecution they met with, was that the honest Covenanters did give in complaints against them, and offered to make good what they allaiged, upon the highest peril, and did supplicate the Council (whereof some of them were Members) that they might not fit there as judges, but stand as Rëi, and answer for themselves, and that the General assembly indicted by his Majesty, after mature deliberation, and full examination, did excommunicate them, for high and notorious crimes, to be seen in the registers of that Assembly. But 2 will these things, to judicious persons, lay the ground of a lawful war by the Magistrate, against his own subjects? Are these who cannot yield obedience unto unlawful commands, who humbly protest for their own innocency, who meet together for drawing up supplications, and ordering matters thereanent, and who give in complaints against the Pests & Troublers of the land, and exerce Church censures upon the scandalous, invaders of the Sovereign's authority? And when a King upon these grounds invadeth his subjects, with an army of armed men, can any man of common sense think that his war is not an invasive war? Hath not Magistrates other lawful ways to defend their own authority and laws and orderly subjects, and to reduce the disorderly, than fire and sword? Sure, for a King to cut off his subjects, is to diminish and annihilate his authority and laws both: And for a King to wage war against the Body of a land, to pleasure Fourteen of a few of the basest and most unworthy of all the subjects, would seem to be the result of no grave and sage Council; nor would it appear to be much for the King's honour, to have his Sovereign authority embarked with a few abjects, so as if they did sink to the bottom of the sea, It could not swim.  
The next thing, (and that is the 2 hypothesis) he allegeth is. [That they represent him, in their virulent (he should say nervous) writings, as Nerone ipso Neronior, a great persecuter of Religion, intending the total ruin and destruction of the protestant profession, and the total ruin and destruction, of the whole people of the land.] Answ. They represent him no otherways, than his own public, owned, and avowed deeds, and declarations did represent him to all the world. What was his secret intentions God knoweth, but his deeds did declare that he minded no good to the poor Church and State of Scotland; for, to pleasure a few abjects, that had drunken in much Popery, and Arminianism, and stirred him up to urge upon our Church 2 Popish public service, book of canons, and ordination, Popish ceremonies, and such Romish trash, he sought, by fire and sword to reduce us to ashes. We shall not now trouble his Urn, by speaking to what this Surveyer sayeth afterward: This we know, That he died; but whether as a glorious Martyr for the true Religion of God (which yet may admit several senses, so ambiguous is it, though we let it pass in the best) and laws and liberties of the people, (as he sayeth) many doubt. At length he closeth his digression thus. [If there was any thing that could not have a favourable interpretation in that unhappy book that gave therise to the troubles, how timely was it retired, and great satisfaction and security given for religion? If through default of Ministers of State, any thing had creeped in, that could not abide the test of law, how willingly was ●treformed? yet all could not sister begun course of violence, till through God's dreadful indignation against a sinful people, his fatal end might be brought on, not because he had been a Tyrant, but because he had not been such] Answ. That book which was unholy, as well as, unhappy in giving the rise to such troubles, had not only somethings in it, that could not bear a favourable interpretation, but the whole of it, was the extract and quint essence of the Romish mass book, book of rituals, etc. And how slowly it was retired, and satisfaction and security given, for our religion, and how soon conditions covenanted and condescended upon, were broken, the history of those times doth sufficiently declare; as also how unwillingly any thing was reform that had creeped in, whether through the default of Ministers of State or others, But how can this base calumniator insinuat that the King's loyal subjects in Scotland had a hand in bringing him to his fatal end, seeing even the late Representatives, though they would willingly have raked hell for it, could not find a man, in all Scotland, to be charged with that crime. That he came to his fatal end, we know; but that it was through God's dreadful indignation against a sinful people (if he mean the faithful and honest Covenanters) I know none, except base ignorant sycophants, that will say it: That it was not because he had been a Tyrant, many will doubt. And when he says, that it was because he had not been a Tyrant. I am sure, he giveth non ca●sam pro causal: and who can understand how God in his dreadful indignation against a sinful people, doth take away a Prince who was not a Tyrant, seeing upon that account he giveth such Tyrants sometimes.  
Having thus vindicated the Antecedent from what this Surveyer had to say against it, we shall now speak a word to the consequence of the argument. And 1. The whole Cabal of the Royalists will grant it; for, with them, both Representatives and People are put into one and the same category, viz. of mere subjects; so that if the Antecedent stand good, (as it shall, for all which they have said, or all which this their new colleague or young raw disciple, can say to the contrary) the argument is good ad hominem. 2. Such as grant it lawful for a Land having their Representatives with them, to defend themselves against tyranny; But deny it to private subjects, in case of necessity, when they cannot have the conduct and concurrence of their Representatives, can adduce no argument against this last, but such, as will weaken their assertion in the former: As for exemple Hoenonius politic. disp. 9 thes. 55. disproveth resistance in this last case, by these arguments. 1. because, Subjects are obliged to pay to their own Magistrates, the duty of fidelity and obedience, 2. Because, by this means a gap would be opened to seditions and rebellions. 3. Because the scripture commandeth subjects to pray for their Magistrates. 4. The son may not wrong his father how wicked so ever he be. 5. Violence done to the head, though sickly, tendeth to the ruin of the whole body. 6. It is better to have a sickly head than none. 7. There is greater danger to Cast off a Tyrant, then to Tolerate him. 8. A Tyrant cannot be resisted but destruction will follow to the resisters. 9 God punished the wicked kings of the jews by strangers. 10. Jeremias did not stir up the jews against Nebuchadnezar but allowed them to pray. 11. Christ commanded to pay tribute unto the Prince. 12. Paul will not have an evil Prince to be cursed with words. 13. King's are from God, and such like. But who seeth not, that these, if of any force, (as indeed they are of none, as shall afterward be made appear, in due time) conclude as much against a people's opposeing and resisting a Tyrant, even when they have their Representatives with them, as when they are left alone: and yet this same Hoenonius ubi supra thes. 45. granteth it lawful yea and necessary for the Ephori and the Estates of a land to resist the Tyrant. 3. If our Surveyer will grant the case different now, from what it was then, when the primores Regni were engaged in the opposition, (as he doth Pag. 21.) and grant that when the primores Regni concur, the opposition is lawful (as he must grant, in case the Sovereign become Tyrannnical, and be the first-aggressor, because only upon the contrary supposition he condemneth the last resistance, which was made to the King by Scotland) He must of necessity seek out other arguments then what we see he hath, to condemn this resistance of Private persons, in case of necessity; or otherways contradict himself; for, as may easily be seen, this being granted, all his arguments shall be easily discussed. 4. If he grant the case now, to be much different from what it was then, so as then, it was a lawful resistance, but not so now (as he must grant, otherwise, we cannot see what this is to the point, and wherein his much difference doth sly) how can he save himself a from contradiction; for he must put a diffence betwixt a resistance made by the people with their primores, and a resistance made by the People with their Representatives in Parliament; or else say, That whatever the Nobles of a land do, is the same with what a Parliament doth; and that wherever they are, there is a Parliament, and the people's Representatives: Now this he dare not say, left he should be hissed at; and therefore he must grant it lawful, for a people to defend themselves, when they want the conduct and concurrence of their Representatives, acting authoritatively; or else retract, what he hath said, and plainly confess That the case to be noticeed now, is not different from what it was then. 5. I hope no man will say that a war carried on, or a resistance made against the Sovereign, by the Representatives of a people, Is eo ipso lawful, unless the ground of the war, or resistance, be real and valide: And if the ground be valid, and good whereupon a People unjustly oppressed and tyrannised over are allowed to defend themselves, having their Representatives to go before them, why shall not the same ground stand valid and sufficient, to warrant them to defend themselves, when they have not the concurrence of their Representatives? I would gladly hear a reason, making the defence in the one case lawful, and not in the other, seeing the ground remains the same, the same necessity abideth, yea, it rather increaseth when the Representatives, who should be a screen unto the people, betray their trust, and either neglect to vindicate with their authority and conduct, the innocent oppressed people, or turn adversaries to them, and oppressors of them, themselves. 6. Since parliaments are the people's Representatives, no man will say That de jure their power is privative, or destructive; but rather cumulative and helpful; so that the people's Representative cannot, the jure, make them more liable to irremediable tyranny and oppression, than they were: they being properly exnatur a rei and ex institutione, & instituentium intention, ordained and apppointed, for the greater faifty, and good of the people. And therefore, if the Representatives betray their trust, the People, in so far, are as if they had no Representatives, and may no less defend themselves in extreme necessity, then if the officers of their army, whom they had chosen and apppointed to defend them, against an invadeing enemy, should revolt to the enemy, they might lawfully rise up in their own defence, and oppse the adversary. 7. The law sayeth that deterior conditio domini per procuratorem fieri non debet L. ignorantis ff. de procuratoriburs. The procurator or advocate his knavery, cannot prejudge the Client or wrong his cause. And why then shall the perfidy of the people's Representatives, or their betraying of their trust, wrong their cause, and prejudge them of their just right? 8. All will grant, That it is as lawful, for an oppressed people to defend themselves from the injuries of a Parliament, as from the injuries of a Sovereign, if not more: and if it be lawful for a people to defend themselves against the Tyranny of a Parliament (as is more than sufficiently proved by all such arguments as have hitherto, by any, been made use of, to prove it lawful, to resist a Sovereign oppressing and tyrannising) no man of common sense, will deny it lawful to a people to defend themselves against oppression and tyranny, when they but want the concurrence or countenance of these Parliaments. 9 If any should allaige that this is against the law of the constitution of the Kingdom. We know no such law: beside, that though there were any such; yet necessity knoweth no law: and in cases of necessity, such laws are not to be observed, sayeth the law L. ut gradatim §. I. de muner: & honour. The laws of nature are irrevocable and cannot be rescinded by municipal laws: for the law tells us that civilis ratio jur● nature alia corrumpere non pote st L. eas oblige. D. de cap. private. Now the law of nature allowing self defence against unjust violence, addeth no such restriction, viz. that it be done by the conduct, and concurrence of the Primores or Parliaments. 10. The very concessions of our adversaries forementioned, will confirm this consequence, for in these cases, they will grant the same liberty to a People without, as to a People with their Representatives, to defend themselves: for the weight and ground is not laid upon the manner, or way of conduct, or managing of the resistance and defence; but upon the cause, and that is always the same. Yea, the necessity (as was said) is greater (though, it may be, the difficulty is also greater) when Representatives desert such as they do represent, and instead of helping them with counsel and conduct, in their necessity, do either desert them, or turn enemies unto them.  
Our 3 argument is taken from the law and light of nature which alloweth to beasts, power and ability to defend themselves, against violence. An argument made use of, not only by Lex Rex and the Apology,▪ but by Divines, Canonists, Lawyers and others who write of this subject. The civil law itself tells us That his necessary defence of life, floweth from the law of nature L. ut vim. ff. de just. & jure. But here cometh out a green statist, and takes on him to cry shame on all who ever wrote on that subject, and avows Pag. 15. That it is too gross divinity to bring such an argument from beasts. We must therefore see whether this Man be rational in rejecting such an argument taken from beasts; and not rather more irrational than a Brute, to deny that to a Rational creature, which he cannot but grant to Beasts, and Creatures without life, as we see he doth Pag. 14. 15. We shall readily grant vvith'him, That God hath given this self defending or preserving power and propension, otherways to Men, then to inanimate creatures, or unto beasts, which are under no law, but that of mere nature, and therefore, they are not to defend themselves coeco impetu, but rationally; and aught to subordinate this natural propension to self defence unto, and limit it, by the higher laws of reason and of God. Doth he think that such as make use of this argument, do suppose That in every case and in every manner of way, men are to use and exercise this natural propension to self defence, in which and after which, Beasts are to use it? Sure he is in a great mistake, and he wrongeth the authors of Lex Rex and of the Apolog. etc. when he sayeth Pag. 15. [That they bring arguments from beasts, (who being under no law of reason nor grace, to limit their propensions, may always, in all imaginable cases, defend themselves with force) to persuade men, that they may do the like, and that their propension for their external preservation, is no more under any restraineing rule, to stoup the exercise of it, then that of Beasts is;] For, they intent no such thing, nor are they, in the least, necessitated, to use that argument so: They only make use of it to disprove That irrational, and more than brutish position and maxim of absolute, unlimited and indispensible subjection of subjects to their Sovereign, so that in no case, they may or can resist, which all the Cabal and royal society of Royalists, parasites, court flatterers and cavaliers, who, because they themselves, in hopes of some crumbs of allowance, have brutishly, without regaird had to the Law of God, or right reason, sold and devouted themselves, not only in matters concerning their body, but in soul matters, unto the mere lust and pleasure of a creature of clay, think all others should play the beasts with them, do furiously & obstinately maintain. And as to this, the argument hence deduced is most rational and irrefragable: for it is irrational to think That God (who taketh much more care of man; then of beasts 1 Cor. 9: 9 Mat. 6: 30.) should allow and give unto the inanimate creatures, and to the beasts, a power and propension to defend themselves against violence, and should deny the same to Man; so that in no case he should be allowed to exerce that natural propension, to defend himself, and to resist unjust violence with violence. So then we might let his restrictions pass, as being no thing to the present purpose; for, it is but his groundless imagination to think that we would equalise Men with Beasts, because we will not, with him and his party, depress them into a condition below beasts; yet we shall shortly run over them. His first is this, when it is seen to be to no purpose, by reason of a phisical force. But alas doth he think this restriction of the natural propension for self preservation is upon men only, & not upon Beasts also? did he not say in the same Page, the Major vis and a greater phisical force would hinder this even in Beasts? His next restriction is this, A man justly condemned to death, both according to a just law, and by a just process according to law, may not use violent self defence against the Magistrate, with re-offending him. Ans. It is granted, what then? will it therefore follow, that this principle of self preservation is so restricted, as that a whole Land, or a considerable part thereof, being unjustly condemned, both by an unjust law, and by an unjust process according to, or without that unjust law, may not defend themselves against the Magistrate's Emissaries, sent to destroy, without respect had either to law or conscience? Then he tells us That Lex Rex is too bold and cometh too near to blaspheme God, by saying [That it were a mighty defect in divine providence, that men should not have as large a liberty to defend themselves violently, as Beasts have; and that men were in a worse condition than beasts, if as Beasts have always power to defend themselves violently, with their horns, heels, teeth etc. So men should not have as large a liberty, in every case to use violence upon Magistrates, putting them to vexation, or perhaps troubling them in life states etc.] But where finds he these words in Lex Rex▪ The author of Lex Rex sayeth Pag. 334. [It were a mighty defect in providence to man, if dogs, by nature, may defend themselves against Wolves, Bulls against Lions, doves against hawks; If a man in the absence of the lawful Magistrate, should not defend himself against unjust violence, but one man might raise armies of papists sick for blood, to destroy innocent men] but this is far from [as large a liberty, in every case] and cometh no way near to blasphemy, but is a real truth. Suppose Lex Rex had said so (which I find not) it had not been apposite to his point now, while he is speaking of opposeing Magistrates not putting to vexation, or perhaps troubling in life, state, etc. but rightly executeing a just law, against a malefactor, which the worthy author of Lex Rex would never have owned, but would have said, That the Magistrate was bound to execute God's Law against mensworne Apostats, such as he and his fraternity are, & that they were bound to submit to the stroke of justice. thirdly he says Pag, 16. may not the exercise of self defence and violent resistance, be restrained by the grace of God, and the power of his command for submission, abiding upon a man's spirit? as in Isaac's case, who did not resist his aged father going to sacrifice him. Ans. Whether Isaac made any forceable resistance or not, we know not, scripture is silent; but it tells us his father bound him, we acknowledge God is Lord of life, but no man is; and he may restrain by his will and working on the spirit, so as a man who lawfully might flee, and save his life, shall not have power to do so, but abide and glorify him by giving a faithful testimony unto his truth when questioned. But thinks he that such instances are binding precedents▪ Sure, than he shall contradict his own doctrine, Cap. 4. Or thinks he, that a Body of a people or a considerable part thereof, shall not exercise lawfully this privilege of self defence & violent resistance, when neither the Law of God, nor such extraordinary force or restraint of God on the Spirit, but the vain plead of Court Parasites, would have it restrained? Fourthly Pag. 17. He says, May not the defence of our temporal life, in some case, cease, for the preservation of the eternal life of our Neighbour, when it comes to that, that the defence of the one shall be the certain loss of the other? Ans. True, and therefore He and the rest of the perjured clergy should much more cease from the preservation, or ratherusurpation, of their places, livings, and dignities, when so long as they domineer, there is certain ruin to Religion, and to the souls of many thousands. And again, if a man may lay down his natural life, for the preservation of of the soul of his Neighbour, much more may he with others, hazard the same in opposeing unjust violence, for the defence of the pure Religion, whereby thousands of souls may be eternally preserved. But doth he think that a Nation or a whole countrey-side is to give up their lives to the sword of the King's merciless Emissaries, for to preserve the vain pomp, and to fill the bellies of a few drons, whose God is their belly, though they should account that their eternal life, and all their felicity? Fiftly, says he, doth not this obligation cease, for the public good and preservation of the Commonwealth. Answer: What then▪ doth it follow That Men should renunce their privilege of self defence, when their doing of that shall be so far, from promoving the public good, and preservation of the Commonwealth, that upon the contrare, their doing so shall tend directly to the ruin of the public good and destruction of the Commonwealth? Sure if this be true, that a man should lay down his life for the good of the commonwealth. It is also true, that more should hazard their lives for the good of the Commonwealth, and violently resist violence. And doct Aims case mentioned Cas. Consc. Lib. 5. c 31. q. 3. would suit the Prelates well, and their adherents: so that if he and they loved the good of the Church and Kingdom of Scotland, they should give up their necks to the stroke of justice, that the wrath of God may be turned away from the land: for till these be removed, we can not expect any thing, but judgement upon judgement from the Lord, till we be destroyed. Neither doth Naphtaly cross D. Ames, for Naphtaly only speaks of a man's suffering intolerable and inevitable injuries, under pretext of the good of the Commonwealth; which indeed for a man to do, would be, for the delusion of an empty name, only for the lust of others, really to deprive himself of his whole share and interest therein, neither would he have ground of hope of getting a better share, seeing it were a great question and doubt; if, in that case, he were in the way of his duty. What he addeth, Pag. 18. of a soldiers going to a dangerous post, at the command of his General, is utterly impertinent; Nature's instinct will teach some dog to stand in the gap to keep out the Bare. His last restriction is this That it must cease to preserve the King, the Head of the Commonwealth, when the case is so, that the King must either lose his life or the private man his. Ans. I grant Lex Rex sayeth [I think that a private man should rather suffer the King to kill him, then that he should kill the King, because he is not to prefer the life of a private man, to the life of a public man,] But I doubt that it is so agreed among the learned. Sure P. Voetius de Duellis Cap. 20. Pag. 162. thinketh otherways, and proveth that self defence is lawful to a private person against the Magistrate, for the law which alloweth to repel violence with violence, maketh no distinction betwixt a public person and a private person, and the law of Nature alloweth it against every one; for it knoweth no difference: And as to that which some would say, That his death would be hurt full to the Commonwealth. He answereth, [That he who resisteth the Prince doth intend no hurt to the Republic, and it is not per se, but per accidens, that he standeth in the way of the good of the Commonwealth; and if he should suffer himself to be killed, he should transgress against the Law of Nature.] Yea I much doubt if the Surveyer himself, would not rather kill, in this case, as be killed, and with Naphtaly account Self-defence a principal rule of righteousness, however now he would disprove this assertion if he could: And would let that pass of loving himself more ad finem suum ultimum, and suam virtutem. Finally; what he sayeth against this assertion of Naphtaly is to no purpose; for the Author of Naphtaly will readily grant that in some cases, not only a man, but a compavy of men, may, yea ought to prefer the preservation of others, unto the preservation of their own life, because of a divine command to defend Religion, Libertyes, Posterity and Country, from the unjust invasion and violence offered by wicked Emissaries. But he shall never prove, That the Body of a land or a considerable part thereof, is to hold up their throats, to be cut by the King's cutthroats, when he & they are seeking to root out the Covenanted-work of Reformation, to destroy the Libertyes of the land, and to make all perfect slaves, both in soul and body.   

CAP. III.  
A fourth Argument Vindicated, taken from Scripture-instances.  
Our fourth argument shall be taken from instances of opposition and resistance, made unto the Sovereign, or his bloody Emissaries, by private subjects, without the conduct or concurrence of their Representatives, recorded in scripture, and which we find not condemned by the Spirit of the Lord: So that whosoever shall condemn the late vindicators, must also condemn these instances.  
As. 1. They must condemn the jews standing for their lives against their Enemies armed against them, with a commission from King Ahasuerus, sealed with his ring, which no man might reverse, in the days of Mordecai & Esther. But some will say. That they had the King's commission, which did warrant them to take the sword of defence against any that should assault them, under pretence of the former decree, I Answer. If their having of the King's commismission did in point of conscience warrant them, It had been utterly unlawful for them, to have withstood the King's butchers, if they had not abstained that commission and warrant: But what man of common sense will say this? This later decree did, in point of law, warrant them to gather together with saifty and security, that they might the more easily, not only defend themselves from their Adversaries assaulting them; but also to destroy, to stay, and to cause to perish, all the power of the people and province, that would assault them, both little ones & women, and to take the spoil of them for a prey Esth 8: 11. But didnot, could not, make their selfdefence against such manifest & bloody cruelty, lawful in point of conscience, if, otherwise it had been unlawful. Though every instance will not in all points quadrate (for nullum simile est idem) yet we have here in this instance these things for our purpose, 1. private subjects without their Ephori or Representatives, arming themselves for defence: & that 2. against bloody Emissaryes of the King: & 3. bloody Emissaries armed by a formal commission, decree and warrant from the King. 4. A commission formally never reversed, but standing in force, as the decrees of the Medes and Persians that might not be altered. 5. and this defence, as lawful in itself in point of conscience, (for if it had not not been so, the King's warrant had never made it so) so declared lawful in point of law, by a decree from the King, after better thoughts. In imitation of which, It had been a commendable practice in the King and Council, if they had been so far from condemning these innocent self-defenders, (since, as they thought, in point of honour and credit, they would not retract or reverse their decrees and commissions once granted) that they would have authorized them, and absolved them in point of law, since in point of conscience, no man could condemn them, for standing to the defence of their Estates, Lands, Libertyes, Lives and Consciences, unjustly oppressed by merciless Emissaries.  
2. They must condemn the people their rescueing of jonathan from the sentence of death, unjustly given out against him, by King Saul 1 Sam. 14: 44. In answer to this instance, our Surveyer sayeth Pag. 65. [That the people used no violence against Saul when he went about to put to Death innocent Jonathan, but in the heat of soldiery boldness, do effectually interpose with Saul, and mediate for the life of Jonathan, moving Saul to Wave respect to his rash oath, and to regaird what was just and right. Answ. 1. The matter came not the length of violence; but had the King pertinaciously adhered to his rash and sinful resolution, and, by force, had offered to draw the innocent Man to death, that which they did, spoke clearly, they would have resisted him; for, whether the King would or not, yea contrare to his oath, they swear in the face of the King, that jonathan should not die, 2. It is but gratis dictum, that only in the heat of a soldiery boldness, they did mediate; beside, that there seemeth to be a material contradiction here, for soldier's mediating and interposing especially in the heat of souldiery-boldnesse, useth not to be with humble supplications & entreaties, but with violence or with what will usher in violence. 3. We hear of no arguments they use to move bloody Saul to change his purpose, but this, as the Lord liveth there shall not one hair of his head fall to the ground. He says Pag. 66. That [the people did not oppose an oath to Saul's oath, for Junius exposition may pass well; that they spoke not by way of swearing, but by way of reasoning, abhorring the destruction of such a person, absit, ut vivit Jehovah, an cadere debet.] Ans. The word which they use is no other way translated here, by junius, then elsewhere; and elsewhere it hath clearly the import of an oath, as may be seen judg. 8. 19 1 Sam. 19: 16. and 20. 3, 21, 25, 26. and in many other places. 2. The People spoke these words, as Saul spoke them, ver. 45. and therefore they are directly an oath of the people opposed to Saul's oath. 3. junius himself sayeth, that they opposed a just oath to Saul's hypocritical oath. Sanctius in locum, sayeth, [the people opposed to the King's oath, a public oath, & swore that they would not suffer that any evil should be done unto him.] The dutch Annotat call it an abrupt kind of oath in use among the Hebrews. But (says he) [It is a wonder to see understanding men argue from this place, for violence and forcible resistance to Kings, especially when acting according to laws, consented to by private people] Ans. This place proveth clearly that princes may be resisted, and resisted when they use violence and oppression, and that by private people, even when the oppression, or iniquity is acted according to a pretended law, or something equivalent to a law. Let us see where the difference lieth. Here (says he) the King is not acting according to law, but prosecuting the execution of a foolish and rash oath] Answ: 1. Neither did our King's bloody Emissaries act according to law, but were prosecuting the execution of a devilish and rash resolution, to root out and destroy a whole Country side, 2. If Royalists speak truth, Saul's word, let be his oath, was as good as a law: and Sanctius sayeth it was Decretum decreed. And whatever it was formally, it was materially a law, unto which they had all tacitly assented, v. 24. & which they durst not transgress v. 26. [Here (says he) the opposition made to the King is by way of intercession & earnest reasoning that he ought to regaird what was right more than his rash oath.) Answ. No reasoning we hear but a peremptour telling of the King, to his face, that he should not get his will, not one hair of Ionathan's head should fall to the ground, if he should attempt any thing, against jonathan, it should be over their bellies: Their words look like club-agruments. [Here (says he) their opposition was acceptable and welcome, acquiesced in and yielded to] Answ. It is like it was condescension by force and constraint, for whether he would or not, he see he could not get his will, and therefore passed from what he intended, 2. His acquiescence says the resistance was more forcible than mere intercession would be; for, he was another sort of bloody Tyrant, then to yield to petitions, when he thought his honour stood upon it [Here (says he) the opposition is made by the Princes of the land, Captains of Thousands etc.] Answ. The text says The people rescued jonathan. Who ever they were & whatever they were, they acted not here as the Supreme Sanhedrin, nor as a court of judicatour having power of government, but as private people, according to their power and capacities. And so all this makes much for a party of private people (for here was not all the land) their resisting of the King's bloody emissaries executing cruelty, not so much as according to an iniquous law, but contrare to all law, right and reason [Let (says he) Peter martyr be looked upon this place, and he speaks not ably well, his own words will discover how notourly he is falsified by L. R. p 349.] Answ. Lex Rex. dealt ingenuously with his reader concerning him, telling him, in the margin that with adoubt he said, si ista seditiose fecerunt nullo modo excusari possunt. And that he said they might Suffragiis. with their suffrages free him. Why did not the Surveyer set down his words? did Lex Rex falsify also chrysostom homil. 14. ad Pop. Antioch. junius: Corn, a lapide: Sanctius: Lyra: Hugo Cardin. josephus L. 6. antiq. c. 7. and Althus. Polit. c. 38. n. 109.  
3. They must condemn David, for his resisting of King Saul, with armed men, which yet the spirit of God doth not condemn, but rather approve, in commending such as helped him I Chron. 12: 1. 2. 8. etc. and inspireing Amazia who was chief of the captains to say Thine are we David, and on thy side, peace, peace be unto thee, and peace be unto thy helpers, for thy God helpeth thee. So did he intend to keep out the city Keila against the King, and consulted God thereanent, and had his answer, that the city would betray him. Now if it had been unlawful for him to have defended himself by such forcible resistance, we cannot think that he would have gotten such answers as he goat. Grotius himself approveth this deed of David's. All which this Surveyer sayeth against this Pag. 67. is, That David's unction did so distinguish him from private persons, as that it made it lawful for him to resist violence with violence: But, the law of nature restricteth not this lawful self-defence to anointed persons. 2. If his anointing made him no private person, what did it make him? it could not make Him King, otherwise he might not only have resisted Saul, but have taken his life as a traitor; or else we must say, there were two Kings at once in Israel. 3. David never pleads this as the ground of his resistance, nor is there any hint of this in the text.  
4. They must condemn the city Abel 2. Sam. 20. which resisted joab, David's General, and his forces, when they besieged it, till the matter came to a capitulation, joab should have offered terms unto the city, before he had threatened to destroy it; and should have communed with the Magistrates, concerning the delivering up of the Taitour, before he had resolved to destroy the whole city, for one Traitors cause: and therefore justly did they defend themselves against his unjust invasion notwithstanding he was armed with a commission from the King: and remarkable it is, that after the capitulation, they were never challenged for traitors in resisting, with closed gates, and fenced walls, the King's General and army. So that here is a private city standing out for a time, against the King's soldiers, unjustly seeking to destroy them, because of one Traitor among them.  
5. They must condemn the Prophet Elias for resisting Ahaziah's bloody Emissaries sent by him, in an angry mood, to apprehend him and to compel him, in a spite full manner, and to take him prisoner, as say the Dutch Annot. on the place, For speaking such things as he did, unto the messengers of the King, who were sent to Baal zebub the God of Ekron, to inquire if he should recover of his disease; and to bring him to the King by violence, if he would not come willingly, as josephus sayeth antiq. Lib. 9 C. 2. 2 King. 1. Now he resisted such as were sent, and killed two Captanes & their fifties, with fire from heaven, which instance doth sufficiently declare that it is lawful for private subjects, in some cases, to resist the unjust violence of the King's Emissaries, though armed with his commission. It is true, the manner of his resistance, and of killing these, was extraordinary, by way of a miracle; yet the resistance itself, was not extraordinare, as we have seen by other instances, and shall see cleared by more.  
6. They must condemn the prophet Elisha who resisted both the King and his Emissaries in his own defence 2 Kings 6: 32. saying to the Elders who sat with him see ye how this Sun of a murderer hath sent to take away my head? look where the Messenger cometh, shut the door, and hold him fast at the door, is not the sound of his Master's feet behind him? Here was unjust violence offered to the innocent Prophet, an Emissary sent to kill him without cause: and the Prophet resisteth his violence, causeth hold him at the door, and violently press him, or press him betwixt the door and the wall, which speaketh violent resistance: keep him (say the Dutch Annot.) by force at the door: yea josephus thinketh that the King followed quickly after, left the Prophet should have killed his servant. This clearly says that it is lawful for private people (for the Prophet was no other but a private subject) to resist unjust violence offered them by the King or his Emissaries, and with violente resistance, to defend themselves.  
7. Much more will they condemn other instances of greater opposition, made to the rage and tyranny of Princes, which we find recorded in scripture, and not condemned.  
As. 1. That opposition made by the Ten tribes to Rehoboam, when they revolted from him, after they had a rough and tyrannical answer unto their just and lawful demands 1 King. 12: 1. etc. 2 Cbron. 10: & 11. They desired nothing, upon the matter, but that He would engage to Rule over them according to the law of God, and He gave a most harsh and tyrannical answer, and avowed that he would tyrannize over them, and oppress them more than any of his predecessors, and that his little finger should be heavier than their loins; whereupon they fell away from him, and erected themselves into a new Commonwealth, and choosed a new King: And we find nothing in all the text condemning this; for, it was done of the Lord, the cause was from the Lord, that he might perform his saying which he spoke by Ahijah; and when Rehoboam raised an army to reduce them again under his power and command, the word of God came unto Shemaiah saying speak unto Rehoboam etc. and say thus sayeth the Lord, ye shall not go up, nor fight against your brethren, the children of Israel, return every man to his house, for this thing is from me. It was done by the will of God sayeth josephus Antiq. Lib. 8. c. 11. And there is not one word, in the text importing that this was condemned by the Spirit of the Lord; for, as for that word 1 King. 12. 19 So Israel rebelled against the house of David. It may be as well rendered, as it is in the margin, they fell away; and so doth the dutch render it, and lunius defecerunt, they fell away, or made defection, and the original word is of a larger signification than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which properly signifieth to rebel, yea though the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 had been here used, it would not have imported a sinful rebellion and defection, more than 2 King. 18. 7. where Hezekiah is said to have rebelled against the King of Assyria, and this was a fruit and effect of the Lords being with him, and prospering him, whithersoever he went forth. The Surveyer Pag. 66. can say nothing but [That no sound man will think the sudden and furious rebellion of the ten Tribes from David's house, upon the furious and rash answer of a young King, was justifiable.] But whatever he say or think, it doth not weigh much with us; had he showed us out of the Text, that this was condemned by the Spirit of the Lord, as sinful upon the matter, we should heartily have acquiesced, but since we see more hinting at an approbation thereof, we must rest there, till we see stronger reasons, than his naked assertions. But says he [It would be considered that these who made the secession were the major part of the body of the people, but what is all this to justify the insurrections of any lesser party of private people against the Magistrate, and all Magistrates supreme & subordinate.] Ans. By what right, this Major part of the Body did make secession, by that same right, might the equal half, or the lesser part have made secession; for the ground of the lawfulness of this secession, is not founded upon their being the major part, but upon the reasonableness of their demand, and the tyrannicalnesse of the King's reply. 2. This says much for us; for, if it be lawful for a part of the people, to shake off the King, refuse subjection unto him, and set up a new King of their own, when he resolveth to play the Tyrant, and not to rule them according to the law of the Lord, but after his own tyrannical will; than it cannot be unlawful for a part of the people to resist his unjust violence, and defend themselves against his illegal tyranny, and oppression. The consequence cannot be denied, seeing they who may lawfully do the more, may do the less also: So that seeing this people might lawfully refuse subjection and homage unto Rehoboam and all his subordinat Magistrates, They might also lawfully have defended themselves against his tyranny, and the tyranny of all under him: and if They might lawfully have done so, so may we.  
2. They should far more condemn the revolt of the city of Libnah 2 Chron. 21. 10. This wicked King jehoram when he was risen up to the Kingdom of his father, strengthened himself, and slew all his brethren with the sword, and divers also of the Princes of Israel v. 4. and walked in the ways of the Kings of Israel, like as did the house of Ahab, for he had the Daughter of Ahab to wife, & he wrought that which was evil in the eyes of the Lord v. 6. and he made him high places in the mountains of judah and caused the inhabitants of jerusalem to commit fornication, and compelled judah there to v. 11. 13. and because he had thus forsaken the Lord God of his fathers, did the city Libnah revolt from under his hand. Commentators clear this to have been the reason as Cornel. a. lap. in loc. propter impietatem Regis defecit ab eo Libna. Sancitus on 2 King 8. 22. Lobnah recessit ne esset sub manus illius, dereliquer at enim dominum patruum suorum. & Pet. Martyr on 2 King. 8. v. 22. [Causa in Paralip. describitur, ob Regis impietatem qui suos nitebatur cogere ad idololatriam, quod ipsi Libnen ses pati noluerunt, & merito: principibus enim parendum est, verum usque ad arras, & cum illam terram inhabitandam a deo, eo foedere, habuissent, ubi illum juxta ejus verbum colerent, jure ejus idololatriam admittere, non debuerunt,] Thus he approveth of their revolt in this case. What says our Surveyer to this [This (says he) imports not the impulsive cause of the revolt, or motive which they had before their eyes (for, in that same verse & period, it is said the Edomites also revolted from him, because he had forsaken the Lord God of his Fathers, and the Edomites loved not the true Religion) but the meritorious cause on Jehorams part is pointed at.] Answ. The text itself and Commentators, to whom we may add jackson on 2 King 8. & the Dutch Annot. Ibid. give this as the impulsive cause, and only motive which they had before their eyes. 2. Any who read the text will see his reason very unsound; for v. 8. it is said, that in his days the Edomites revolted from under the dominion of judah, and made themselves a King; and no word of this, as the impulsive cause there of; & v. 10. mention again is made of their revolt upon occasion of jehorams seeking by force, to reduce them under his dominion; and then in a new period, mention is made of Libnah's revolt, with the cause and only motive thereof; Because he had forsaken the Lord God of his Fathers. Then he asks if his adversary [thinks that the laying aside of the presbyterian frame, is the forsaken of the Lord God of our Fathers, and a sufficient cause for any one Town in the Kingdom, to revolt from the King, (though he do not persecute them, nor force them to his way, as there is no evidence that Libnah was so used) shall a Kings swerving in that one point, or if there be greater infidelity, be sufficient ground of defection from him?] Ans. I nothing doubt, but all such as have embraced this present course of apostasy are guilty of a grievous revolt, having impudently and avowedly departed form a sworn Covenant, from a covenanted & sworn Religion, reform in Doctrine, worship, Discipline, & Government; and have in a great part forsaken the God of our Fathers, that covenanted God whom our Fathers, and we both owned, and embraced as our God; and is sufficient cause for any City, or Company of men, so far to revolt from the King, as to refuse to concur with him, in this horrible defection and course of perjury, and resist his unjust violence pressing and compelling them to a sinful compliance. 2. As it is more than probable, that Libnah was no better used, then were the people of judah, by this Tyrannous King, and is asserted by the Dutch Annot. on 2 Chron. 21: 10. So whatever this liar suggesteth, it is notour that the King hath persecuted and doth persecute and force honest people, to follow his way, and apostatise with him, contrare to their consciences and sworn allegiance unto God, and if he add this clause as an exception, than (seeing the truth of the thing is notour) he fully accords, that there is sufficient cause given, for any Town in the Kingdom to revolt, which is more than we desire. At length he tells us. That their revolt was sinful. But when not only thi● revolt is recorded as done, but such and impulsive cause and motive is added by the Spirit of the Lord, without the least hint of any expression condemning the same, we dar not be so bold, as is this Surveyer; Nor are we so foolish as to receive his word, contraire to the testimony of so many expositors.  
Hence we have a strong argument: For▪ if it be lawful for a part of the people, to revolt from a tyrannous Prince, making defection from the true and received Religion, and forcing his subjects to a sinful defection and compliance with him in his apostasy: It must also be lawful for a part of the people to defend themselves by force against the Emissaries of a King departing from his faith and foresaking the Religion, which He hath sworn to own and maintain, sent forth by him, or any under him, to force, by cruel oppression and violence, them to a compliance with his sinful way. And the antecedent is clear in this place.  
3. They must much more condemn Azariah, and the fourscore Priests who being commended as me of courage & valour, resisted Vziah the King, 2 Chron. 26: 17. etc. they expelled him with force, stood against him; the lxx. say they resisted him; deturbarunt eum ex eo loco, sayeth Vatablus: they forced him forth, and compelled him to go out; they caused him make haste, sayeth Ar. Mont. festinate expulerunt eum, sayeth Hieron. When he went in the temple to burn incense, upon the altaar of incense, on some solemn day (as josephus thinketh.) So that there is more than a resistance of him by words, as some Royalists say; even resistance by force and violence. Hence we argue; if private subjects may by force resist, withstand, and with violence hinder the King from transgressing the Law of God; Then may they much more lawfully resist him, and his bloody Emissaryes, when He seeketh to oppress unjustly and to draw people off from the ways of the Lord. If any say with doct Ferne, that because of an express Law of God, being a leper, he was put out of the congregation: Then we see, that the Prince is subject to Church-censure, and so Subjects may judge him and punish him; we see also that Princes were subject to ceremonial laws, as well as any of the subjects; and why not also to the moral Laws; and if because of a ceremonial Law, the King was to be ceremonially punished, why also, for the breach of moral Law, may he not be punished morally? Hence will it undoubtedly follow, That a Prince raging and tyrannizeing contrare to all equity and reason, may be resisted and his violence repelled with violence, even by private subjects. Worthy Mr Knox, in his debate with Lithengtoun, doth form this instance gather; That subjects not only may, but also aught to withstand and resist their Princes whensoever they do any thing that expressly repugns to God, his Law, or holy Ordinance. Lithingtoun objected That [they were not private subjects, but the priests of the Lord and figures of Christ, and such have we none this day, to withstand Kings if they do any thing wrong.] He answered that though the High Priest was a figure of Christ, yet he was a subject. [For (said he) I am assured that he, in his Priesthood, had no prerogative above these that passed before him; now so it is, that Aaron was subject to Moses, and called him Lord: Samuel being both prophet, and Priest, subjected himself unto Saul, after he was inaugurated of the people; Sadoc bowed before David, etc. And whereas you say, we have no such Priests this day, I might answer, that neither have we such Kings this day, as then were anointed by God's commandment, and sat upon the seat of David, and were no less the figures of Christ jesus, in their just administration, than were the Priests, in their appointed office; and such Kings (I am assured) we have not now, no more than we have such Priests, for Christ jesus being anointed in our nature, of God his Father, both King Priest, and Prophet, hath put an end to all external unction: and yet I think you will not say, that God hath now diminished his graces from these whom he appoints Ambassadors betwixt him and his people, than he doth, from Kings and Princes, and therefore, why the Servants of jesus Christ may not also justly withstand Kings and Princes who this day no less offend God's Majesty, than Uzziah did, I see not; unless that ye will say, That we in the bringhtnesse of the Evangel, are not so straight bound to regaird God's glory, nor his commandments, as were the Fathers who lived under the dark shadows of the Law.] And when Lithingtoun said, That they only spoke unto him without further violence intended. He answered, [That they with stood him, the text assures me, but that they did nothing, but speak, I cannot understand, for the plame text afformes the contrary, viz. That they caused him hastily to depart from the sanctuary, yea and that he was compelled to depart; which manner of speaking (I am assurred) in the Hebrew tongue importeth more than exhorting, or commanding by word.] And when Lethingtoun lastly objected that they did that after he was espied to be leprous. He answered, [They withstood him before, but yet their last fact confirms my proposition, so evidently, that such as will oppose themselves unto it, must needs oppose themselves unto God; for my assertion is, That Kings have no privilege, more than hath the people, to offend God's Majesty, and if so they do, they are no more exempted from the punishment of the law, then is any other subject; yea, and that subjects may not only lawfully oppose themselves to their Kings, whensoever they do any thing that expressly oppugnes God's Commandment, But also that they may execute judgement upon them, according to God's Law; so that if the King be a murderer, an adulterer, or an Idolater, he should suffer, according to God's Law, not as a King, but as an offender: and that the People may put God's Law in execution, this History clearly proveth; for so soon as the leprosy appeared in his forehead, He was not only compelled, to depart out of the Sanctuary; but also he was removed from all public society, and administration of the Kingdom, and was compelled to dwell in a house apart, even as the law commanded, and goat no greater privilege in that case, than any other of the people should have goat: And this was executed by the People— & therefore yet again I say that People ought to execute God's Law, even against their Princes, when their open crimes by God's Law deserves punishment, but especially when they are such as may infect the rest of the multitude.] Thus that worthy Servant of God, and hence any may see, how this passage doth more than confirm what we are now about to prove.  
4. They must much more condemn such as arose against Amaziah when he turned away from following the Lord, & pursued him to Lachish and flew him there, 2 Chron. 25: 21. Concerning which I shall only set down what famous and worthy Mr Knox said in that forementioned debate, which he had with Lithington, [The whole people (says he) conspired against Amaziah, King of judah, after that he had turned away from the Lord, and followed him to Lachish, and slew him, and took UzZiah and anointed him King instead of his father. The people had not altogether forgotten the League and Covenant, which was made betwixt their Kings and them, at the inauguration of joas his Father, to wit, that the King and the People should, be the People of the Lord, and then should they be his Faithful subjects, from which Covenant, when first the Father and afterwards the Son had declined, they were both punished with death, joas by his own Servants, and Amaziah by the whole People, when Lithingtoun (said) he doubted whether they did well or not. He answ. [It shall be free for you to doubt as you please, but where I find execution according to God's law, and God himself not to accuse the doers, I dar not doubt of the equity of their cause. And further it appeareth to me; that God gave sufficient approbation, and allowance of their fact, for he blessed them with victory, peace and prosperity, the space of fifty two years after] and when Lithingt: replied That prosperity doth not always prove that God approveth the facts of Men. He answered (Yes, when the facts of Men agree with the law of God, and are rewarded according to his own promise expressed in his law, I say that the prosperity succeeding the fact, is a most infallible assurance, that God hath approved that fact: Now so it is, that God hath pronounced in his law, That when the people shall exterminate and destroy such as decline from him, that he will bless them, and multiply them, as he hath promised unto their fathers. But so it is, that Amasia turned from God, for so the text doth witness, and plain it is, that the People slew their King, and like plain it is, that God blessed them. Therefore yet again I conclude that God himself approved their fact: and so far as it was done according to his commandment, it was blessed according to his promise.) And when Lithingtoun replied again That he thought not the ground so sure as he durst build his conscience thereupon. He answered [I pray God that your conscience have no worse ground than this is, when soever you shall begin the like work, which God in your own eyes hath already blessed.] And if so (as is very probable) and learned Althus. pol. C. 38. n 106. is of the same judgement with Mr Knox, we need not trouble the reader with forming an argument thence to our purpose, the same being so obvious and clear, that he who runneth may read it.   

CAP. IU.  
Our Argument from other approved instances, and authorities, both abroad, and at home.  
THis practice, however it be now condemned by a generation of perfidious Prelates, and Malignants, enemies to the glorious work of Reformation, from the beginning, & a company of base Sycophants and Court flatterers, as an unparallelable act of rebellion and sedition; yet, as it as abundantly confirmed by precedents in scripture, as we have seen, so is it by the practice of others; whom none, but men of the same stamp, will condemn; and by authorities of Divines abroad and at home, as we shall now show. And,  
1. The history of the Maccabees, mentioned in that story, is a clear example of private persons resisting and defending themselves frm the iniquous assaults of the Sovereign, or his Emissaries; for when Antiochus Epiphanes was compelling them to forsake God, and tyrannising over them, Mathias a priest, and his sons made open resistance; and afterward Mattathias & those with him, hearing how Mathias, out of an overnice superstition, would not fight in their own defence, on the Sabbath day, resolving upon all occasions to defend themselves, their Lives, and Laws, and to take all advantages of the Enemy, did accordingly assault them, and recovered their Cities Laws and Libertyes, fight many battles with good success. And Osiander Enchirid. controv. c. 9 de mag. pol. testifieth that this was done by the encouragement and assistance of the Spirit of God. And if any should reject this instance as impertinent, because they suppose Antiochus was not their lawful Supreme Magistrate, but only a Tyrant without title, let them hear what Grotius de jure belli & pacis lib. 1. c. 4. n. 7. sayeth to this? Like unto this appeareth that deed of the Maccabees; for whereas some think to defend these arms, upon this ground, that Antiochus was not King but an invader, it seemeth foolish to me, seeing in all the history of the Maccabees, and of such as took their part, they never name Antiochus any thing else, but their King, and that not without ground; for long before this, the jews had acknowledged the authority of the Macedonians, unto whose power and place Antiochus did succeed. & as to that that the law forbiddeth that any stranger should be set over them, that is to be understood of a voluntary election and not of what the people might through necessity be forced to do. And, whereas others say that the Maccabees used only the right of the people cui 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 deberetur. Neither is that solid, for the jews being at first overcome by Nebuchadnezar, and subjected to him, by the law of war, by the same law they did obey the Medes and Persians, who succeeded unto the Chaldeans, and all this empire came at length into the hands of the Macedonians: hence it is, that Tacitus reckoneth the jews amongst basest of such as served these Assyrians, Medes and Persians: Nor did they require any thing by stipulation from Alexander and his successors, but without any condition gave themselves up unto their power, as formerly they had been under the command of Darius. And if at any time the jews were permitted to use their own rites, and laws, that was but a begged right, which they had through the indulgence of the Kings, but not through any imperial law. So that there is nothing that can defend the Maccabees but most imminent and certain danger] thus he.  
2. The constant practice of the Waldensian protestants in Piedmont, doth show that this late practice is not so strange & uncouth, as adversaries would give it out to be; for, they never had a Representative to be a screen betwixt them, and the tyranny of their princes, and yet how oftintimes have they valiantly with stood such, as came to oppress them, in goods and lives, though clothed with commission from the princes? In the year 1580. being persecuted by the Lord of Trinity, and their popish Sovereigns, they assembled solemnly together, to consult how to prevent the imminent dangers, and after prayer and calling upon God for his grace, and spirit of counsel and direction, they resolved to enter into a solemn mutual Covenant, and to join in a League together, for defence of Themselves and their Religion and so accordingly did assist one another, in their defence, which they did with good success; And that always since whenever they were assaulted by the bloody Emissaries of the Duke of Savoy, as any may see fully in their history. So that whosoever will condemn the late defence, must also condemn these poor oppressed protestants, who have no other mean to keen them from utter extirpation, but this innocent mean of self defence, and of repelling unjust violence with violence; for Bonds, Promises & Covenants bind their Prince, as such obligations use to bind some others viz. no longer than they see it for their advantage. Neither have they any Representative, Prince, or Noble man, among them, to head their matters; but mere necessity puts them to use the best expendient they can, and forcibly to resist their oppressing Superiors, when they send to spoil them of their goods, lives and libertyes.  
3. Some particular cities in Germany did defend themselves against the Emperor unjustly invadeing their libertyes, and assaulting them, as may be seen in the history of Germany, particularly the Cities of Madenburgh and Breme.  
4, So in France, the Cities of Montobane and Rochel and the Isle of Ree with stood the King, when he was seeking to oppress them. And no man will condemn these for acts of rebellion and sedition, unless they will also condemn our Kings, who, at least undertaken, and offered to help and assist them.  
5. It was this opposition and resistance of private persons when tyrannised over, by Superiors, that hath brought the Cantons of Helvetia unto that state of freedom and liberty, which they have enjoyed for many years, and do enjoy this day; being now a free Republic, as Simlerus showeth in his history of that Republic.  
6. But that we may come home, we find some remarkable instances of this nature, which no man in reason, who shall condemn this late defence, shall be able to defend: and to begin with what may be most recent in our memories. In the year 1648. There are two signal Instances. The one was that violent resistance used against the Parliaments forces at Mauchlin moor. Here was not only a resistance, in defence of the truth and cause of God, then sought to be borne down and oppressed, by a prevalent Malignant faction in Parliament, without the concurrence of conduct of the Representatives of the land, but directly against them: Here was a defence used by way of resistance, by mere private persons without the company or concurrence of one Noble man; And yet a resistance that never was condemned by any, to this day, expect ingrained Malignants; but was approved and commended highly, by the Parliament anno 1649. the best Parliaments Scotland did see for many years. Again thereafter in that same year 1648, The forces of the west Country arose in defence of the Cause and Covenant of God; and that not only without the conduct of a Parliament, but against their resolutions. It is true, there were some Nobles & Parliament-men among them, and countenancers of them; but these acted not, nor could act, by virtue of any Parliamentary power; but only as private subjects, having, by reason of their greater interest in the land, a greater obligation to lay out themselves, and to improve their authority and influence in the country, for the good thereof, and for the cause of God. They had it is true, by their places and stations, greater influence upon the Country, and a greater backing, and so being leading men, were in a greater capacity to defend the oppressed truth; but all this gave them no public Magistratical power, nor put them in the capacity of a real and formal Representative: and yet all this was afterward approved, ratified and confirmed by Parliament, as good and necessary service to the country, and to the cause of God, A third notable instance is that Anno 1639. There was then no public civil judicatory carrying on that defence, but Nobles and others, each in their capacity, and according to their power, concurred, for the promoveing of that necessary work of defence. They did not act under the notion of any such judicature, nor did they assume to themselves any such power and authority. It is true, there were then a great number of Noble Patriots, and renowned Nobles, who laid the work of reformation to heart, and laid out themselves to the utmost of their power for the same, and because of their concurrence, the work was the more feazible and easy to be carried on; but I think the stress of the lawfulness of that defensive war, did not lie wholly upon their shoulders; so that if they had with drawn, all the rest of the body of the land, had been bound in conscience, to have deserted the same also. It is true, it was of great advantage unto the cause, that God stirred up the spirit of the Nobles to own the same (and is so always) upon many accounts, and their concurrence had its own auxiliary force, to justify the enterprise, for abundans cautela non nocet: But I remember not that the lawfulness of that defensive war, was stated only or mainly on that particular. It is true, They are Primores Regni be virtue of their particular places and stations, and be virtue of their eminency over others, and power by reason of their eminency; and so are engaged beyond others, to see to the good of the Land, and of Religion, for the good of the souls of such as are under them, and on whom they have or may have influence; And, be reason of this, may authoritatively even as such, do many things, when there is no other constitution of a Supreme Representative: But when a constitution of a Supreme Public Representative is condescended upon and settled, it is certain, they cannot separately, yea nor jointly act in the power and capacity of a formal Supreme Representative, but when they are, with others, constituent members of that Representative; and out of that Representative (unless by power and commission from it) they cannot act judicially, or authoritatively, nor in any other capacity formally, then as private people, though as persons of greater interest, and share in the Commonwealth, and so under greater obligations, both by the Law of God and of nature, to bestir themselves more effectually for the good of the same; and as persons of greater influence and conduct; yet still under the notion of private persons, private persons I mean, as opposite to persons clothed with public authority and Parliamentary power. I grant they are borne-Heads and Magistrates of the Country, as being in eminency above others, and as being by birth, conform to our constitution, borne-Members of Parliament, and so in potentiâ proximâ, and in a nearer capacity than others are, to vote and act in Parliament: but still I say, considered out of Parliament, or when there is no Parliament, they cannot exerce any Parliamentary power, conclude or determine any thing of that nature, more than others: It is a truth also, that they have, by reason of our law and constitution, a Magistratical power, limited to such and such causes over such and such particular places; but that is only and inferior, and subordinat civil power, and cannot extend beyond that limited bounds, more than the power of Magistrates in Broughs, or Sheriffs in Shires, or Baylies in Baylieryes, or the like, and is no part of that Magistratical power which is commonly called the power of war. I grant, that they and all other inferior Magistrates, are to seek to promove the good of the whole land, and to concur, according to their power, for the same, even because of their interest and share of that subordinat power: But they cannot act under that notion, nor do any thing be virtue of that particular power, nor exerce any acts thereof, out of the bounds of their several jurisdictions; But all they do, is by virtue of that fundamental power belonging to all the members of the Commonwealth, according to their several places and relations. Hence therefore it it clear, that our worthies then acted not, as a public judicatory, or as public persons clothed with public authority. So that whosoever shall condemn this late act of defence, upon the account, that it was managed by mere private presons, must also, in reason, condemn that which these worthies did; and so conspire with the Malicious Malignants, ingrained in wickedness, and enmity to the way and work of God. A fourth and last instance, is that of our first reformers in the days of Mr. Knox: for, at the beginning of the reformation, there were but very few Nobles, who concured, as Mr. Knox testified in his sermon Nou. 7. 1559. in these words [when we were a few in number, in comparison of our Enemies, when we had neither Earl nor Lord (a few excepted) to comfort us, we called upon God, and took him for our protector, defence and only refuge.] And, in the following words, he showeth that it fared rather better with them, then worse, when they wanted the concurrence of Nobles: For, sayeth he, [amongst us was heard no bragging of Multitude, nor of our strength and policy, we did only sob to God, to have respect to the equity of our cause, and to the cruel pursuit of the tyrannical enemy; but since that our number hath been thus multiplied, and chiefly since the Duke with his friends hath been joined with us, there was nothing heard, but this Lord will bring these many hundred spears, This man can persuade this country, if this Earl be ours, no man in such bounds will trouble us: And thus the best of us all, that before felt God's potent hand to our defence, hath of late days put flesh to be our arm] And as Mr. Knox said, so it was, much of their business was carried on without the concurrence of many Nobles. We hear of no nobles with the gentlemen of the west, when they came from the border to the Queen, and when james Chalmers of Gaitgirth said to her (when they had heard. that she had caused summon the protestant preachers) (Madam, we know that this is the Malice of the jewels, and of that bastard (meaning the Bishop of S. Andrews) that standeth by you, but we shall make a day of it. They oppress ●s, and our tenants, for feeding of their idle bellies, they trouble our preachers, and would murder them and us, Shall we suffer this any longer; No Madam, it shall not be. Nor was there any of the Nobles present, when that abomination of carrying an idol on S. Giles day, was opposed. There were buy four Nobles that subscribed the first bond at Edinburgh Decemb 3. 1557, Where the whole congregation resolved, by the grace of God, to apply themselves, their whole power, substance, and lives, to maintain, set forward, and establish the most blessed word of God, and his congregation etc. So four of five only subscribed the second bond at Perth may last 1559. We find not many Nobles with them, when they petitioned the parliament. And there protested [that they would worship God, according to the right manner: That none of them therefore should incur any danger. That if upon this account any tumult should arise no crime might be imputed unto them, but unto such as refused their just Demands.] And when they wrote that letter May 22. 1559. Wherein they said [That except the cruelty were stayed, they would be compelled to take the sword of just defence against all that should pursue them, for the matter of Religion, and that the cruel, unjust, and most tyrannical murder intended against Towns and Multitudes was and is the only cause of their rouble from their accustomed obedience.] And when they wrote that other unto the Nobility, where in they said [By your fainting and extracting of your support, the Enemies are encouraged, thinking that they shall find no resistance: in which point, God willing, they shall be deceived, for if they were Ten thousand, and we but One thousand, they shall not Murder the least of our brethren.] From all which, and from the whole story of these times, it is undeniably apparent, that they acted for the defence of the truth, and of their oppressed brethren, and for the carrying on of the work of reformation, for some considerable time, without the concurrence and conduct of a Parliamentary Representative. From all which Instances of our predecessors, I would have these thing observed.  
1. It is remarkable That when God was to begin any word of reformation in our Land, whether from Popery or Prelacy, the powers then in being, were standing in a stated opposition thereunto. This is notoure both in the days of Mr Knox, & in the year 1639. King, or Queen, and councils were stated against it, and opposeing the same, what they could.  
2. The only wise God, who is wonderful in counsel, and excellent in working, thought fit, not to begin with the Spirits of the Powers in being, to cause them first appear for the work; but thought it more to his honour and glory, to make use of foolish things to confound the wise; and of weak things, to confound the things that are mighty; and base things, and things which are despised, and things which are not, to bring to nought things which are. It seemed good in his eyes, who doth all things after the counsel of his own will, to employ the least of the flock in that business according to that word jer. 49. 20. and 50. 45. and to raise up mean, and contemptible instruments, that the work might more conspicuously appear to be his, and the glory thereof redound to himself alone.  
3. As they would have been glade, (had it so seemed good in the Lords eyes) if the standing Representatives, would have not only concurred and countenanced that work, but would have, according to their places, led on the vaune, and showed themselves pours apppointed for God and his glory, by exerceing the power which God had put into their hands, for God and his interest; So the want of their encouragement and conduct, did not, in the least, brangle their confidence of the lawfulness of their interprize, of so discourage them, as to give over their work, as desperate and hopeless.  
4. Nor did they ever assume to themselves any authoritative and Magistratical power, to legitimate their actions; as if they had thought, that without that formality, their resolutions and motions had been condemned as unlawful in the Court of God, and Nature: but walked upon the ground of that fundamental right, granted to all both higher and lower, to maintain the Truth of God, upon all hazards, and to stand to the defence thereof, and of themselves, when unjustly persecuted, because of their adherence thereunto, according to their power, and as God in his providence called them thereunto.  
5. Nor did their adversaries objecting, that their actions were treasonable and seditious, as being contrare to authority and established laws, scar them from their purposes, in the least, having the testimony of a good conscience with in them, that they had not the least purpose or project, to cast off lawful authority, or to diminish its just right and power; and knowing that the Powers out of whatever principle, and upon whatsoever motives, relinquishing their duty, and opposeing that truth and way, which by their places and callings, they were obliged, before God, to maintain, preserve, and promove, did not lose their obligation, and exeem them form that duty, which God and nature had laid upon them; but rather did press them to prosecute their business more vigurously, as seeing the necessity much more urgent, and the difficulty so much the greater: And knowing that whatever laws are made, in a Christian Common wealth, should be for the glory of God, and the good of the souls of the subjects mainly, and for their external wellbeing only in subordination unto these great Ends; and when the observation of the strike letter of the law, did cross the main good, which principally de jure they aimed at, they were eo ipso, in so far, null and void before God; because it always holdeth good. that it is better to obey God, than Man, and men's commands or laws, unto which obedience cannot be yielded, without contempt of, and treason committed against the Highest of all, who is King of Kings, are as no commands before God, and disobedience unto these, is no disobedience unto the lawful authority, but faithful allaigance unto the most Supreme.  
6. These poor weak beginnings, how base and contemptible so ever they appeared, yet God was pleased, when the time to favour Zion was come, so to own, countenance and prosper, that the same work at length came to be owned, by Public Representatives, and Parliaments, yea and the Kings themselves were brought to a public owneing and approving of the same. And who knoweth, but, if God had thought good to bless this late act with success, it might have been followed with the like consequent? But his time was not come.  
7. It is also observable, That whatever disaster, or disappointment they did meet with, in prosecution of the Reformation, and in the preservation and defence of themselves, in the owneing of the truth of God; though it put them to mourn for their iniquities before God, and to acknowledge, among other sins, their too much relying upon the arm of flesh, and not resting with a pure faith on his power and protection; yet it never made them question their call, or suspect the lawfulness of their work and business, as to its substance, and end: for they knew well, that the work was the Lord's and that their call was divine, though for his own holy ends, that they might be more humbled, and taught do depend with a single heart, on his word and promise, and to purge out such evils as provoked the eyes of God's jealousy; he suffered them to fall.  
8. When the work came at length to be owned by Parliaments and Higher Powers, what was formerly done by persons not in that capacity, was not condemned either as unlawful or illegal, nor did the valiant actors stand in need of any indemnity, as if they had been transgressors; but all was either virtually or expressly approved: and the worthy actors praised and highly commended, as indeed they did deserve.  
9 None ever condemned these actions as treasonable and rebellious, but such as were known to be real and heart-enemies to the work it self; no tongues were ever loosed against them, except the embittered tongues of sworn adversaries, ingrained Malignants, Enemies to God and godliness, & haters of the power of it. These and none but these who are of their father the devil, durst condemn the same. And many hollow hearted professors (among whom this Surveyer deserveth to be reckoned) were forced against their hearts, to approve of the same & join in with the favourers & maintainers of that noble cause, so forceable was the light, and the power of that Spirit that acted the worthies in these days, who now have turned open Apostates from that truth and cause, & have adjoined themselves unto that ever accursed, Popish, Prelatical, and Malignant faction. Yea remarkable it is that God did so overpower the pen of that Arch-Enemy Spotswood, that though he would have said all which Hell itself could have prompted him unto; yet durst say no more of these first courses and practices, but that they were Violent and disorderly. And this Rabshaketh the Surveyer, who, in the end of his book (having reserved the dregs of what he had to exscreate against the work of God and his worthies, until then Pag. 118. etc. would outstripe his predecessors, and spew out his venom, like another adder of the same spawn; yet the overruleing providence of God, hath so kerbed him, that he goat not liberty to run the full length he would, and therefore he says [We cannot justify all courses that were used then for carrying on the work of reformation] and again [if some instruments thereof were guilty of sedition, or sacrilege, or self seeking] and again [if sinful courses were then used by men] and again Pag. 119. [Let us not stand superstitiously upon the justifying of all their deeds] Who sees not this wicked man's Mouth bridled, by the restraineing power of God, so that he cannot, he dar not, plainly and expressly call these courses seditious or rebellious; but cometh on with his Ifs and if some instruments, and all their courses cannot be justified: as if, in the most laudable work, to which men might have a most clear call, some accidental or circumstantial actions, might not abide the test: and as if among a company, some might not have by-ends, while a good work was laudably and lawfully, as to the main, carried on. Ay, but this good man, you will say, is mighly in love with the work of reformation, and blesseth God for it Pag. 118. 119. True, we find him say so in words, but God knoweth his heart: But is it not strange, that since, he sayeth, he approveth the work, he will be more blind than was that poor man in the gospel whom he mentioneth, who had his eyes opened joh. 9 for that blind man, did see a divine power in the work wrought and said v. 33. If this man were not of God he could do nothing, and will not only, not see the mighty hand of God in the instruments, but tells us, he is not much concerned to inquire. But what needeth him much doubt of a divine call, considering the work itself, it's end & the direct tendency of the means unto this end, & the real & christian intentions of the instruments, which he will not see in the instances he bringeth viz. of the wicked hands crucifying Christ, of profane and unfaithful Ministers preaching, of a leprous hand soweing seed, of acts of fornication and adultery? Why then doth he adduce such Instances so impertinent? Will he proclaim himself a fool of the first magnitude in so doing? Ay, but he would have us following the practices of the primitive christians, who never used any undutyful resistance to, or violence upon the Magistrates, rather than the precedents in these dregs of time. But why will he not follow their practices himself? Was it their practice to abjure a lawful Covenant sworn for the maintenance of the Truth? Was it their practice to renunce their former profession, and turn Apostates from the truth, which once they avowed? Was it their practice to turn their back on Christ and his interest, for the will of creatures, and for a mess of pottage? Was it their practice to change their Religion with the court? Concerning the practice of the primitive christians, in this point, and how imitable we shall speak afterward. If these were the dregs of time, wherein there was so much faithfulness, Zeal, constancy, piety, singleness of heart, contempt of the world, what dregs of dregs of time are we now fallen in, wherein there is so much infidelity, atheism, perjury, falsehood, lukwarmnesse, inconstancy, imbraceing of this present world, and all sort of wickedness and profanity? [But (says he, Pag. 119.) let it be so that much of the way of these, who were at first instrumental in the reformation in this Land, were justifiable upon the account of purging the Church, from the horrid grossness of idolatry, corruption of doctrine, tyranny and usurpation over poor souls wherewith the man of sin, had for many ages defiled and burdened the poor Church; and upon the account of the open hostility to the truth, wherein Magistrates than stood, together with the inbringing of foreign furious forces upon us, even to the heart of our Land; How unlike was the case then, to what it is now? and how unable is the case now to bear the burden of a conclusion for such practices as then were used?] Answ. But truly wise judicious Men will not see the case then, so far different from what it is now, as that the case now shall not be so able to bear the burden of a conclusion for the same practices; Seing there is, this day, as much horrid grossness of idolatry in the Land, as hath been at any time, these hundereth years: And, as for corruption of doctrine, alas! Who doth not hear it, and see it, that heareth these locust-curates preach down all piety and godliness, and harden people in defection and apostasy from God? It is as great a corruption in doctrine, as needs to be, to pervert therein the right ways of the Lord, & to lead people into the broad way which leadeth unto destruction: again, what greater tyranny and usurpation over poor souls would he have, then is now exercised, since the perjured Prelates the kindly brood of the Man of sin, have defiled and burdened our poor Church. The Apology and Naphtaly have abundantly manifested and daily experience confirmeth it, That the tyranny and usurpation is insupportable, and as grievous, as it was them. Moreover, is not the open hostility to the truth as manifest in the Magistrates, this day, & as legible by such as run, on all their acts and actings, as it was then? who seeth not this, but he who can not see the wood for trees? And as for the inbringing of foreign furious forces, into the heart of our Land, It were needless, seeing we had raised up in our own bosom, as cruel, bloody merciless, furious and mad forces, as any foreigners could be, or these were: wherein lieth the difference then? O (sayeth he) [We can avow it, in the presence of God, that we contend for that same Faith and Religion, that our predecessors stood for, against the Powers of that time: and will maintain the same, against all Novators, who upon account of a piece of Church order (allowed by our Reformers) now reestablished, instigate any private persons, who have power enough, to destroy all Magistracy and order in the Land, because of the owning thereof.] It is not much matter what such men, say, they can avow in the presence of God, who have openly and avowedly broken their vows, and renunced that Covenant, which they swore oftiner then once, with hands lifted up to the Most High God. No wise Man will think that such will stoutly contend for the Faith and Religion, who have renunced all faith and Religion, and abjured these Covenants, which were strong bulwarks, to guaird and defend that Faith and Religion. Ay, but he will maintain it against Novators, as he calleth them. That is indeed a new way of maintaining truth, to maintain it against such as stand for the defence thereof, and all the bulwarks thereof against him and his fraternity, who are dismantling the walls, undermining them opening the gates to adversaries & entertaining them kindly in their bosom. He speaks an untruth, when he says, that the Reformers owned such a Church order (rather Church-bane, and Church-confusion) as these worthies are now contending against, and is now reestablished. So when he says, that these Novators, and that Naphtaly do instigate any private people, who have power enough, to destroy all Magistracy and order in the Land, and to occupy their Rooms. We hope there shall be a Magistracy and good order, in the Land, when that abjured Hierarchy, the bane of that Church and State, shall be utterly abolished, with all it is adherents, I must not let that pass which he hath Pag. 119. [Some (says he) have said, Religion would never have been reform, if violence had not been used upon Magistrates: But why should men take on them to limit God? Hath he not showed his power in several parts of the world in working on the hearts of the Supreme Magistrates, and causing them to go before others in reformation of abuses?) Answ. We know no violence● was used then upon Magistrates, only with violence the godly withstood the unjust violence of Magistrates, so as they goat not their furious purposes executed: we shall be far from limiting the Holy Oe of Israel, & therefore dar not say, but he hath more ways than one, of bringing about his holy purposes: And, as at the first spreading of the Gospel, it was not his way, to work on the hearts of the Supreme Magistrates, and cause them to go before others, in the reformation; so a way may be his way, which is different from that way, whereunto he would limit the Lord. We do not deny but God may, when he thinks good, stir up Magistrates to go before others in that work; but it hath not been his way of recovering us from Popery, and we have not found the Supreme Magistrates ever since so cordial, as we could have wished, for the work of Reformation; And yet God hath carried on his own work, whether they would or not: And he who wrought then is the same God yet, as mighty and powerful as ever. I wish he would take the following words to himself, and his party, for they quadrate well, [Men are too apt, to be bold in anteverting God's way, and to follow their own carnal prudence and affections, in that which they are set upon, and thereupon (when they prosper) to fancy a divine approbation of their way: So self-loving are men Ordinarily.  
From these particulars mentioned, and from what we have replied unto this Surveyer, It is put beyond contradiction, That whosoever shall condemn this late act of defence, in maintenance of Religion and Libertyes, must of necessity also condemn what was done Anno 1648. and Anno 1638, 1639. Yea and what was done at the beginning of the Reformation in the days of Mr Knox, and strick in with all the rabble of the sworn Enemies of our Church and Reformation, and speak the language of the Ashdodites, ingrained Malignants, our inveterate adversaries; and speak down right, what this bitter apostate, the Surveyer, dar not in plain terms express; And so condemn all those worthies who valiantly ventured, and hazarded all for the truth, as Traitors and Rebels; and say, that such of them as lost their lives in that cause, died as fools die, in rebellion, and under the crime of treason; and that all the blood of those who valiantly died in the bed of honour, in the maintenance of their Religion and Christian Privileges, or who jeoparded their lives in the high places of the fields, in defence and prosecution of that cause, is to be required at the hands of Mr Knox, and other noble reformers, who actively bestirred themselves in this matter, then, and of late: Yea they shall condemn all the Prayers, Tears, Sighs, Groans, Fast, Supplictions, and other such like means, as were used in these exigences: Which guilt, wise Men will well advise, ere they take unto themselves.  
The next thing is to adduce some authorities Pareus on the Rom. Cap. 13. dub. 4. Hath this fourth proposition [It is lawful for private subjects, if the Tyrant set upon them as a robber, or ravisher, and they can neither obtain help of the ordinary powers, nor shun the danger, in that present exigent, to defend themselves and theirs, against the Tyrant, as against a private Robber. 1. Because, against whomsoever a defence is lawful by the help of Magistrates, against the same, private defence, in case of necessity, is also lawful, when the defence by Magistrates cannot be had: because in such cases, Kings themselves do arm private persons. But in the case of necessity, defence by the inferior Magistrate against the Superior, is lawful. Therefore also private defence is lawful 2, Because if we take away both public and private defence, against the cruel rage of Tyrants, the boundless licentiousness of Tyrants should be strengthenned, & hereby the civil society should be openly destroyed, yea and chiefly the Church; bacause the most wicked part should destroy the better. But without doubt, the Law of God doth not so establish the licentiousness of Tyrants, as that thereby, humane society, should be destroyed. Therefore, God doth not forbid, in all cases, resistance to Tyrant's oppressing people in their lives, and saifty, to satisfy their lusts.] Thus Herald But it may, be, Out Surveyer will reckon him in amongst his Pseudomartyres, because his book was confuted by a Hangman and a fiery faggot, at the command of King james: Yet, both the book, and the Author are in great esteem with the reformed, and his praise is in all the Churches, and whatever come of the book his reasons stand firm and valide. In the History of our Reformation, Pag. 397, 398. (edit. in 4 to Edinb.) we find that john Knox had the Apology of Magdeburgh subscribed by the Ministers there, declareing the defence of the town against the Emperor, to be most just and lawful, and offered it to Secretary Lithingtoun, who then was disputing against him, to read.  
And having now made Mention of Mr. Knox, what was his judgement in this point, that history doth abundantly demonstrate. His words to the Queen are remarkable (see history of Reformation, Pag. 317.) When she asked him if he thought, That subjects having power might resist their princes: He answered If princes do exceed their bounds, and do against that, wherefore they should be obeyed, there is no doubt, but they may be resisted, even by power; for there is Neither greater honour; nor greater obedience to be given to Kings and Princes, than God hath commanded to be given to Father and Mother. But so it is That the father may be stricken with a frenzy, in the which he would stay his own children: Now if the children arise, join themselves together, apprehend the father, take the sword or other weapon from him, and finally, bind his hands, and keep him in prison, till that his frenzy be overpast, think ye Madam (said he) that the children do any wrong, or will God be offended with them that have stayed their father from committing wickedness? It is even so with princes that would murder the people of God, that are subject unto them: their blind zeal is nothing but a very mad frenzy, and therefore to take the sword from them, to bind their hands, and to cast them into prison till that they be brought to a more sober mind, is no disobedience against princes, but just obedience, because it agreeth with the word of God) thus he, who known not what is was to fear the face of any breathing, in the defence of his Master's cause and interest: and was an eminent divine, a holy Man of God, living in near communion with God, and was far above the reproaches and calumnies of his adversaries. And it is considerable, that this was a particular which he had frequent occasion to be thinking upon, and no doubt, this holy Man would be often reflecting upon the matter, and upon his own judgement; and consulting God and his word there anent, that he might know whether his grounds were such, as he would not have cause to be ashamed of, when he was to appear before his judge, being oft called to show his judgement concerning that matter: And his constant practice being consonant thereunto: And yet we never find that his heart reproached him, for maintaineing any such opinion, while living, or while dying, nor did he ever change his judgement thereof; yea, not when the maintaineing thereof might have been a sufficient ground of an accusation: and doubtless he would before hand examine, if he would lay down his life upon such a ground, yet constant was he in that, cost him what it would, or could; he was no changeling, nor had he so drunken in truth. Yea in the end of that conference with Lithingtoun he told them that he was not only fully resolved inn conscience, but also had heard the judgements of the most godly and learned that he known in Europe in that particular, and in all other things that he had affirmed [I came not (says he) into this realm, without their resolution, and for my assurance I have the hand-writeing of many▪] Neither was this his judgement alone, but also of Mr Georg Hay whom the Earl of Mortoun would have had disputing against Mr Knox. But (said he) I will not oppose myself unto you, as one willing to impugn or confute that head of Doctrine, which not only ye, but many others; yea and myself have affirmed; far be it from me, for so should I be found contrarious to myself.] And of Mr Craig, Mr Knox's colleague, who told what a conclusion he heard defended at Bonnonia, Anno 1554. by Thomas de Finola Rector of the University, and approved by Vincentius de Placentia, as agreeable both to the law of God and man viz. [That all Rulers be they Supreme or inferior, may & aught to be reform, or bridled, by them, by whom they are chosen or admitted to their office, so oft as they break that promise made by oath to their subjects; because that the prince is no less bound by oath to the Subjects, than the Subjects to the Princes, & therefore ought it to be keeped & reform equally according to law, and condition of the oath that is made of either party] and when some said that Bonnonia was a Republic. He answered [My judgement is that every Kingdom is, or at least should be a Commonwealth, albeit that Every Commonwealth be not a Kingdom: and therefore I think that in a Kingdom, no less diligence ought to be taken, that laws be not violated, then in a Commonwealth; because that the tyranny of Princes who continue in a Kingdom is more hurtful to the subjects, then is the misgovernment of those that from year to year are changed, in free Commonwealths; but to assure you and all others, that head was disputed to the utter-most; and then in the end, was concluded, That they spoke not of such things as were done in divers Kingdoms and Nations, by Tyranny and negligence of people, but what ought to be done in all Kingdoms and Commonwealths, according to the law of God, and unto the just laws of Man: and if by the negligence of the People, by the Tyranny of Princes, contrary laws have been made, yet may that Same people, or their posterity justly crave all things to be reform according to the original institution of Kings and Commonwealths; and such as will not do so, deserve to eat the fruit of their own foolisnesse, thus he: see, Hist. of Reform. Pag. 399. 400. (Edit. in 4. Yea this was the judgement of all the reformed preachers at that time, as we see witnessed by the Congregation, vindicating the doctrine of their preachers, concerning obedience to be given to Magistrates, in these words (see Hist of reform Pag. 184.) [In open audience they declare the authority of Princes and Magistrates to be of God, and therefore they affirm, that they ought to be honoured feared and obeyed, even for conscience sake, provided that they command, nor require nothing expressly repugning to God's commandment, and plain will revealed in his word. Moreover they affirm. That if wicked people abuseing the authority established by God, move Princes to command things manifestly wicked, That such as can & do bridle the inordinate appetites of misled Princes, cannot be accused as resisters of the authority which is God's good ordinance. To bridle the rage and fury of misled Princes, in free Kingdoms and Realms, they affirm it appertaineth to the Nobility sworn and borne Councillors of the same; And also (NB) to the Barons and People: whose votes and consents are to be required in all great and weighty matters of the Commonwealth, which if they do not, they declare themselves criminal with their misled Princes, and so subject to the same vengeance of God which they deserve, for that they pollute the seat of justice, and do, as it were, make God author of iniquity.]  
Thus we see this late practice is not without laudable and approved procedents, nor wanteth it the approbation of the valiant worthies of our land, who if they were living this day, would set to their seal to this truth, and be ready to seal it with their blood; and the testimony of one Mr. Knox, is more to be valued, than the contrare assertions, of all the perfidious Prelates in Britain, and of all their underlings, yea then of all the time-serving, and men-pleasing court parasites, who first have debauched their consciences into a stupid silence, and their judgement into the atheists belief that there is no God, and then devouted soul, body, religion and all, unto the lust os a sinful creature.   

CAP. V.  
Of the People's power, in erecting Governors: and several Arguments thence deduced.  
WE shall willingly grant, with the Surveyer Pag. 1. That God hath made man a Rational creature, and fit for society: And that God hath apppointed, besides oeconomical societyes, the coalition of people into greater bodies, consisting of many families under one kind of government, and political head, for their mutual good in their necessities, and for protection of the whole body, and every Member thereof: That Magistracy is God's ordinance, he having apppointed Superior Heads and Governors, to rule these bodies that they might be preserved from ruin and destruction: And that the hath put this instinct and dictate of reason into all; so that even barbarous people are led together into such politic associations, under their Governors, for their subsistence in general, for the mutual help one of another, and for the protection of the weaker against the injuries of the stronger: And therefore we willingly say with worthy Calvin Lib 4. Inst, c. 20, §. 4. That [Nulli jam dubium esse debet, quin civilis potestas, vocatio sit non modo coram Deo sancta & legitima, sed sacerrima etiam, & in tota mortalium vita, long omnium honestissima.  
Yet as to the right understanding of the people's interest in the constitution and erection of civil Government, and of civil Governors, unto whom they subject themselves, we would have those Particulars considered.  
1. It will be readily granted, that there was a time when such people, as are now embodied in a politic state, were not so embodied; but were either living separately in a wandering condition, or by providence cast together in one place, and cohabiteing together, and throw process of time, increaseing in number, and filling that place of ground with their posterity and issue; in which condition living without any established civil order common to all, every one saw to his own matters the best he could, and governed these, according to his best advantage having no other law to square his actions by, than the moral law, or law of nature.  
2, Among this multitude or company, while in this condition, there was none, who by birth, or any other lawful claim, could challenge to himself any civil dominion, power or authority over the rest, or could exercise any Magistratical power, whether by making civil laws, or by executing the same. I speak here of a civil power for I deny not, but in that condition, parents had power over their children, husbands over their wives, masters over their servants; and, in some respect, the Elder might have had some power over the younger, the more strong and power full over the more weak, the wiser over the more foolish and ignorant, and upon that account, a sort of natural pre-eminence: but this neither did, nor could entitle them unto a civil superiority, an civil Magistracy over these, far less over all the rest. I grant that even in that state of affairs. Some being endued of God with gifts and qualifications beyond others, and so more fitted for Government, then others who wanted those advantages, might look liker the persons whom they ought to pitch upon and call for that work; but notwithstanding of these enduements and abilities, They could not upon that sole ground, lay claim unto Sovereignty, and assume unto themselves a civil power and jurisdiction over the rest: so that as to any actual, and formal right unto Magistracy, and supreme government, all are by nature alike, though not alike qualified thereunto, and so, not in alike near capacity for reception thereof. This, I suppose, will not need proof, since I am here speaking of the first, and most undoubtedly lawful, and ordinary constitutions of Commonwealthes, and abstracting from that question, What Magistratical power he may have, and assume to himself, who transporteth and erecteth colonies; as also, from that question, what title or right to government, pure conquest by arms, or a lawful conquest upon a lawful war, may give, as being of no affinity with our case, though this Surveyor be pleased now to account us little better than a conquest, of which afterward.  
3. When a multitude in this condition, do associate together, and considering, through the instinct of nature, how necessary it is, that some way be condescended upon, for the common saifty and preservation of the whole body from foreign adversaries, and intestine divisions, and for the saifty and preservation of every one in particular, from mutual injuries, and acts of injustice, do think of establishing some civil government and governor's, we cannot rationally suppose, that they go about such a business of moment, rashly, brutishly, inconsiderately and irrationally; If reason teach them that a government must be erected, for their well being, and move them to think of falling about it, we cannot rationally suppose them to act in this matter irrationally, They being rational creatures, & not a company of brutes, and through the instinct of reason taught that this was a business both necessary and of great concernment, cannot but be supposed to act rationally in this matter.  
4. It will not need much disput to prove, that by this constitution of a Policy, and of Politic Governors, they should not be redacted unto a worse condition, then that was, into which they were, before the constitution was condescended upon; far less can it be supposed, that by this change they enjoy no more the common privilege of rational creatures, but degenerate into beasts, or are depressed into a condition, equal unto, if not worse then that of beasts. Sure it must be granted that they remain Rational creatures, and that Rational Creatures would never rationally yield unto such a change as should deteriorate their condition, let be brutify them, or make them rather choose to be beasts. And that such a change into a civil state, if accompanied with such consequents, could never be the instinct of pure nature; nor can we suppose, that such a thing can be the ordinance of God, apppointed for the good of mankind. Therefore this must stand, as a firm truth, that the condition of a people modelled into a civil state, is not worse than it was before, but rather better.  
5. It will be no less readily yielded, That such, one or more, as are chosen by the Community, to act the part of Magistrates, notwithstanding of that change made in their condition, abide men of the like passions and infirmities with the rest (yea and subject to more temptations and so in greater hazard to miscarry, then formerly) This change doth not Transform them into Angels, or put them beyond the reach of injuries (as all will grant) nor beyond a capacity of doing injury, even to these over whom they are set. No humane power can set any above God's Law, or lose him from the binding power thereof: and till this be; or They out of a capacity or transgressing God's Law (which no humane act can do) He Or They are still obnoxious to the sin of injuring their neighbour, and transgressing the law of righteousness, no less than others;  
6. It is Left to the People, in this case, to condescend upon what form of government they think most expedient, and most suitable to their temper, and to the condition providence hath cast them into, whether it be Monarchy or Arosticracy or Democracy, or a mixed kind: for though God and Nature hath instituted Government, yet not having determined any one form, to be the only lawful form; People are it liberty to walk here upon rational grounds, and to consult their own advantage, next the glory of God; and to make choice of that, which, all things considered, promiseth most probable felicity unto them, and of the several forms or Kinds of government, (all lawful in themselves) to pitch upon what Kind they think most expedient and conduceing to their ends. This is assented unto by all Politians: and so it followeth, That it is merely from the People, that this form and not another is made choice of.  
7. As neither God nor Nature hath determined the particular form of government under which Men must live, but hath left it, as was said, to their free choice; so it is not determined how large or how little, every politic society should be; nor whether a people living at some considerable distance from other, or more contiguously, should join together in one, and make up one body politic; or whether they should erect moe, distinct, and independent Commonwealthes though possibly of the same extract, and language. Nature sayeth not that all in one Island, of one extract, or of one language, should become one Politic Body under one politic head. We have heard of the time when there have been many Kings, distinct and independent, in one England: And how many Kings there was at one and the same time, in the land of Canaan, no vast territory, scripture tells us. Nor hath Nature determined that distinct bodies of people, living in distinct and far separated places, yea having distinct customs, and languages, may not when they see it for their advantage, associate for setting up one Supreme Sovereign over all. So that this also is left to the free choice and determination of the People.  
8. When a free People have rationally and deliberately condescended upon the form, it is in their power to condescend upon the time, how long that form shall endure, and either prefix a certain time, at which it shall vanish, if they see it not expedient to continue it: or reserve to themselves a liberty to alter it when they will. Each of the sormes being in themselves lawful, People may choose which they think best; and though one Kind of government will agree to some People, better than another, yet Bodies of people, being liable to causal changes, and these requireing forms suitable, A people at the beginning guided with reason, may rationally foresee such changes, and accordingly determine the first form condescended on to continue, longer or shorter time, definite, or indefinite. It is not to my present purpose to determine, what a people may do as to this, after their predecessors have once embraced a form, and engaged themselves by oath never to change it. Or whether it be lawful to swear unto any one form.  
9 It is from the People, that such people, and no other people, are made choice of to Govern according to that form, which they have condescended upon: before this deed of the People, no man can pretend to it, all being equal, and none over another by nature, in any political capacity no man coming out of the womb into this world, with a crown on his head, and a sceptre in his hand: and God (as we here suppose) immediately and particularly designeing none, nor without the least concurrence of the People instaleing any into that place of jurisdiction: and therefore the People must do something in order to this, and upon their deed it followeth, that such as before were no lawful Magistrates, nor had any formal political power, are now Magistrates and Governors, having lawful power and authority to exerce the function of a Magistrate: for though the People do not institute the office of Magistracy, and though the proper essential Magistratical power, be from God and not from the People; and though the parts and qualifications wherewith the Magistrate ought to be, and the person which the people do pitch upon, is actually endued, be from God; yet till the People do some thing, all these do not formally clothe a man with Magistratical power, nor make him a lawful Magistrate, nor authorise him, to assume that place & charge: for, the present condition and temper of a people may call for a Monarchy, as most fit, and there may be among the Community, now associated & combined into one body, more people than one, alike well qualifyed for the charge; yet no man will say, that these, because of their qualifications, become eo ipso Monarches, nor can one create himself; for what right and power hath he more than his neighbour as well qualified as he? Therefore it must be granted that the People create the Magistrate, and make this man King and not that man: Hence we often read in scriptures of the People's making Kings judg. 9: 6, I Sam. 11: v. 15. 2 King. 10: 5. 1 Chron. 12: 38. judg. 11: 8, 11. 2 King. 14: 21. 1 Sam. 12: 1. 2 Chron. 23: 3. The Surveyer seemeth to yield this, Pag. 102. See Gerhard. de Magistratu, §. 49, & 89. Pag. 718, 719. Althus. Politic. Cap. 19 number. 103, etc.  
10. It is from the People that this way of election, and not another is pitched upon: There being several ways, how in constituted Republiks', or Kingdoms, the Supreme Magistrates do succeed to other: Some, at the death of the former, succeed by way of free election, and he is chosen who possibly hath no relation to his predecessor; Some are chosen, who are of the same family, but not as nearest in line, but at most fit to exerce the office of the Sovereign, as it was for a considerable time in Scotland; In some places the nearest in line, are chosen, if they be Males, as in France, where, by the old Salicque Law, a Woman must not command in chief; in other places the nearest in line succeed whether Male of Female, as in ●r●anne now a days. Now whence floweth this diversity of ways of instaling the succeeding Magistrate, or of filling the place when vacant? Doth it not flow alone from the People? Might they not have pitched upon a way of conveyance of the Kingdom, by lineal succession, when they made choice of continual election; or when they pitched on that, might they not have made choice of this? And who will say that a Supreme Magistrate of Magistrates, chosen by election are not as essentially Soveraigens, as these who came to the place by lineal succession seeing by all politicians, Election is made one of the ordinary ways of constituteing of Magistrates, and by many, preferred to Succession? And seeing the first of that Race had it by free election, he must be as essentially and lawfully the Supreme Magistrate, as any of his Successors.  
11. Even where the way of lineal succession is condescended upon and established, the new Sovereign, though he seem to be full and complete heir, haeres ex ass, unto his Father or Predecessor; Yet originally, and radically he is constitute, and chosen by the People. For, whence cometh it but from the People's free choice that such a family, or line is chosen, and not another; and that the Eldest, or nearest in the line is made choice of as Successor, and not he, of that line, who is mostly qualified for that place and function? So that in this case the Son hath not his Kingdom from his Father; for he doth not succeed jure haereditario, sed vi legis per quam primogenitus, vel alius preximus succedere jube●ur, as sayeth, Boxhornius de Magistrate Regum, Pag. 11, and 12. Now the Authors of this Law and constitution, are only the people. See Althus. Polit. Cap. 19 n. 90.  
12. In all this, the People must be supposed to have some certain good End before their eyes: for a Rational People must act rationally, and rationally they cannot act, unless they have before their eyes some certain good End; Now this end which they Intent as men, must be their outward Peace & Tranquillity, freedom from oppression from strangers or one from another, and the like; and as Christians, the glory of God, the good of Religion, and of their souls. Therefore the People setteth Magistrates over themselves, to promove the glory of God, the good of Religion, and their temporal felicity: And if they saw that this means had not a tendency unto these Ends, they would never have condescended upon it; far less if they had seen that it had a tendency to destroy these Ends: and therefore, in so far as that mean is preverted, and actually abused to the destruction of those high and noble Ends, they must be interpreted as Non-consenters, and eatenus de jure, in no worse condition, than they would have been into if they had not erected such a constitution, or set such over themselves.  
It is like the Surveyer, will from some or all of these, draw scuh Conclusions as he hath done from some innocent expressions of Naphtaly ill understood by him, and as ill applied; and say that we drive at nothing else, but to have all the parishes of the land cantonized into so many free Republics, or little Kingdoms of Ivetot. But is he an able, or if able, a faithful maintainer of the Union and integrity of his Majesties, dominions, who vvresteth expressions, far contrary to the intent of the Author and starteth questions in Hypothesi, according to his fancy, and that he may confute the Hypothesis, falleth foul upon the Thesis which he supposeth (without ground) was the intent and design of the Author of Naphtali, and which will be granted by all Politicians and Lawyers. Sure, as in this he hath showed himself weak in his Politiks, so he hath bewrayed himself as weak in his prudentials: and wise Statesmen will think, that (to use his own expressions else where, or the like,) since he raised the Devil, he should have laid him better than he hath done, both in his first and in his third Chapter: and some will think, that since he had no clear call to meddle with those questions, policy should have taught him either to have forborn, or to have confuted them better; And that for his very cause, he should be punished as an ignorant Traitor, and his pamphlet condemned to a fire, whereof it is much more worthy, than severals that have goat that measure. But of his foolish and unfair dealing in those particulars, we shall speak more afterward▪ and shall now go on & draw some arguments for our purpose, from what hath been said.  
And 1. If People at the first erection of Government and Governors, acted rationally, it can never be supposed that they resigned and gave their birth-privilege, and power of self-defence away, so as they might not lawfully stand to their own defence, in cases of necessity, when that Government of these Governors, should either come short of giving the assistence expected in such cases, or prove lets and impediments in their way, far less in case they should prove their avowed and open enemies: for is it imaginable that national men would erect such a Government, of set up such Governors, if it were told them that such Would prove their bane, and that by appointing of them, and proceeding in that business, they should denude themselves of that power of self defence, which now they were in possession of, See Althus. Polit. Cap. 38. num. 32.  
2. If by this constitution, they were not brutified, they cannot after the constitution, be supposed to be in a case worse than Brutes. Therefore Since Brutes may defend themselves against injuries, this liberty & privilege of self defence, against manifest injuries, cannot be taken away from Rational Creatures, by the erection of a Government. Again, if by the erection, and new constitution, the case of the people cannot be supposed to be made worse, if it was, lawful unto them before, to defend themselves against injuries, and to repel violence with violence, it cannot become unlawful afterward: it is true, it is the part of the Magistrate to defend them from injuries, and for this end, was he set up by them, that they might be the more secure and saife, but it he neglect his duty, they are not to forget themselves, or to think that their hands are bound up; much less, if he himself turn an enemy unto them.  
3. If the Erected Magistrates remain men, and sinful men, and men that can do wrong and violence and injustice, can oppress innocents', destroy, pillage, plunder, kill and persecute unjustly: Then the innocents' may no less defend themselves against their violence, injuries, oppressions, murders, etc. then against the violence, oppressions, and injuries of others: for the wrongs and injuries they do, are as real wrongs & injuries (and in some respect greater) as the wrongs and injuries committed by others. Therefore the People are still allowed to use their privilege of self defence even against them, and their unjust violence, in cases of necessity, as well as against others  
4. If it was of the People that this form of Government, and not another was pitched upon and made choice of, no man in reason can think, that their condition should be worse under that form, then under any other, since they acting rationally, made choice of that, as the best and most convenient and conducible to their ends; But that that form should be every was as much for their peace, saifty, welfare, and security, as any other, ought no more to bind up their hands from necessary self defence, when urged thereunto by inevitable necessity, then if they were free from under that form.  
5. If it was of the People's own accord, that they associated with such of such, without any previous determination of Nature, necessitating them thereunto. Then it is rational to infer that their association with such, should not be to their detriment and manifest hurt, nor should it incapacitate them for doing that in their own defence, which, before that association and combination, they were allowed to do. So that if the equal half, major or minor part, should lie by, and refuse to concur with the rest in their necessary defence, Those who desire to stand to their own defence, and repel violence with violence, are not, in point of conscience, justly restrained or bound up. If the equal half, or major or minor part of an army, betray the cause, or revolt to the Enemy, the honest party will be allowed in point of Law and Conscience and Valour, to stand to the cause, and defend themselves and their Country to the last man, yea even though the General himself should become a Head unto that revolting party.  
6. If it was in the People's power to limit the time definitely or indefinitely, how long such a form should continue, and therefore had power (as Politicians will readily grant) to change that form, when the necessity of their condition did require it: Sure it cannot be repugnant to Reason to say, That the People have still a power to defend themselves from the manifest injuries, and intolerable oppression of that form, or of these who are exerceing in that form. If a people may lawfully change a form of Government, when it becometh intolerably grievous, and not only not conduceing to the good of the Commonwealth, but clearly and sensibly tending to its destruction, they may be less (if not more) lawfully defend themselves against the manifest and intolerable injuries thereof. Yea even in case they had by vows or engagements so bound up their hands that they could not alter the form; it were not rational to think that their case should therefore be irremediably the worse, but that rather God and Nature would allow them in that case, so much the more to make use of their primaeve privilege of self defence, because they could not use their power of altering the form, for their security and saifty, as otherwise they might have done.  
7. If the People make Magistrates, and set them over themselves, then, though it were yielded (which yet lawyers and politicians not a few will not grant, see Althus. pol. cap. 38.) n. 35. where he proveth it by l. nemo qui 37. de reg. jur. l 6. solent de offic. procons. l. 3. de re. jud. novel 15. de. of. civ. c. 1 §. 1.) that they had no power to depose them again in case of maladministration, and abuseing the power to the destruction of the Commonwealth; yet) it will undeniably follow, that the people may defend themselves against their manifest iyranny and oppression: for, it will be granted that a People have more power, in creating a Magistrate then in making a Minister; and it will be granted likwayes, that if the Minister; turn heretical, and preach atheism, Mahumetanisme, or the like, the People, though they could not formally depose him, or, through the corruption of the times, could not get him deposed by these who had power, yet they might lawfully guard themselves from his unsound doctirne, and defend their souls from his heresy by withdrawing: and if he should use violence to force them to hear him, & acknowledge him as an orthodox teacher, they might repel violence with violence, and peremptorily maintain the Truth.  
8. If it was from the People, That such a way of conveyance of the Magistratical power, was condescended on, so that when they pitched on this, they might have chosen any other; Then (as Lawyers will grant) they have still power to alter the same as necessity requireth, much more than have they power to defend themselves, against the Tyranny thereof: and if either at the first constitution or afterward something interveened which laid such a restraint upon them, that they could not change that manner of conveyance, than so much the more are they allowed to defend themselves from the tyranny thereof, by recurring, in cases of necessity, unto their primaeve privilege, and this inward wall and bulwark ought to be the more fortified, that they want their outer fortifications.  
9 If even where the conveyance runeth in a line, the Successor cannot pretend to more dominion over the subjects, than his Predecessors had, and the People cannot rationally be supposed to be in a worse condition under the Successor, than they were under his Predecessor, seeing he holdeth the place, not jure haereditario; but jure legali or jure constitutionis: and therefore if they might lawfully resist the unjust violence of his Predecessor, or of the First in the Line; no man, in reason can deny it lawful for them to resist his tyranny, who cometh to that place by virtue of the fundamental constitution: and no otherways.  
10. If upon pregnant considerations, and for good, laudable and necessary ends, the People erected a civil state, and such a form of Government, and such Governors to succeed to other in such a manner of way, as the apparent and probable means, for the sure, saife, speedy and most effectual way of attaineing these ends. It were irrational to think that being disappointed of their expectations and frustrated of their hopes, of attaineing the desired ends by such means, They were in an irremediable case, and had no mean left them of attaineing these necessary ends, no not so much, as that pure product of Nature, self-preservation, and power to repel force with force. No man will say, but that a People are loosed from their obligation to use such means which they formerly pitched upon for these necessary and important Ends, when i they not only prove not useful, as means for attaineing of these ends, but prove destructive, and stand in contra-opposition there unto; and in this case, must be supposed, to have the same liberty to use such means as they were allowed to use in their primeve state, that is, to join together and associate, the best way they can, for repelling of what destroyeth these noble and important Ends, and defend their Religion, Lives and Libertyes.  
But it may be the Surveyer, or some for him will say. That all this is nothing to the purpose; because, The state of our government and constitution is of a distinct and far different nature.  
Ans. As to this, (reserving what is further to be spoken on that subject unto the next chapter, where we shall speak of the obligation of the Sovereign unto the People) these things seem clear and undeniable. 1. That before Fergus the first, was chosen by the People, to be their King and Chiftane, there were a people living in Scotland, managing their own matters, the best way they could. 2. While they were in this condition, we hear on none among them, however possibly excelling others in wealth, power, wisdom and such like enduements, that took upon them the Sovereignty, otherways Fergus had not been the first King. 3. When they thought of sending for Fergus, and of making him King, they were not acted as beasts, but went rationally to work, considering their present hazard from their adversaries, and the advantage they would have by setting such over themselves, and erecting a established policy. 4. After the constitution and erection of the Kingdom, they remained rational creatures, sensible of injuries done unto them, whether by their Kings or others, as after experience manifested. 5. Nor did their Kings, after their election, become Angels, or Creatures above their reach, but for maladministration, oppression or tyranny, were made to know they were Men, as subject to erring and doing wrong, so to examination, trial, and condign punishment for their injuries done to the Commonwealth. 6. When they condescended upon Monarchy, though, as matters than stood, they saw it most for their advantage to have a King; yet none will say, but they might, notwithstanding of that exigent, have chosen an Aristocracy for a standing form of government. 7. When they compacted themselves into a distinct body, and separated both from the Picts and from the Britoneses, they might, had they seen it for their advantage, either joined with the Picts or Britoneses, and made one firm Commonwealth with them; or have divided themselves into two or moe distinct Bodies, and distinct Republiks', as they had seen it convenient: No previous necessity, save that they see if for their only advantage to do as they did, constraining them to the one more than to the other. 8. When they made choice of a King, they might, if they had seen it good, prescribed the time how long that Government should have endured, whether until the death of Fergus, or how long there after. 9 When they made choice of Fergus, who then was in Irland, and sent for him, they might (without any injury done to any man) have chosen any other, they had thought most for their advantage; and before they made choice of him, He could challenge no power or authority, over them, nor could He be accounted their King; and when they made choice of him and made him their King, then, and not till then, was he their King. 10. It was in their power to have named▪ ergus without his successors by line, and so have reserved power to themselves, to choose of new another after his death: and though they did include his successors by line; yet their after practise declared, that they had liberty to choose the fittest of the family, when the nearest in the line, was not judged fit for government, which custom continued above a Thousand years, till the days of Kenneth the third: 11. And, when it afterward came to a lineal constant succession, The soon had no right but by the constitution condescended on, in the days of this Kenneth. 12. That in all these resolutions and constitutions they leveled at nothing, but their own good and saifty is body and soul, is beyond contradiction. And finally, their after practices did declare that they looked not upon themselves, as rendered incapable by all those forementioned resolutions, to defend themselves against manifest and unjust violence, even of the King and his followers; though this Surveyer Pag. 78. accounts these nothing but the i● surrection of Nobles against the Kings, and violent oppressions of such of them, as have been flagitious and tyrannous. Yet they were clear instances of the people's reserving power to themselves, notwithstanding of the constitution, to defend their libertyes and lives, from oppression and tyranny of flagitious and tyrannous Kings, abusing their power and subverting the ends of governments, and destroying what they were bound to maintain and defend.   

CAP. VI  
Of the Covenant betwixt King and People. Our Arguments hence deduced.  
IT is no great wonder to see this Surveyer labouring, to free the King from any covenant-obligation unto his Subjects; when he and his party have proclaimed him exempted from his Covenant-obligation unto God: and since the have put both consciences and wit upon the rack, to find out some plausible grounds of evasion, that the King may be free from the Covenant, which he swore with hands lifted up to the Most High God oftener than once; with which, however they may satisfy such as love licentiousness, and to live above God's Law, as well as man's; yet God will not be so deceived, let men dream what they will; it should be no matter of astonishment to us, to see them useing shifts whereby to bring the King from under any Covenant tie unto his Subjects: But it might seem strange to us (if we knew not the Men) that when lawyers and politicians tell us, that the King, is absolutely bound unto his Subjects, and the People, obliged unto the King condionally, see Hoenonius, disp. polit. 2. and junius Brutus vindiciae contra Tyrannos quaest. 3. and Althus. pol. c. 20. n. 3. 21. & cap. 38. n. 30. They on the contrary should aver, that the people were absolutely bound unto the King, & the King not only not tied conditionally, but not at all, unto the People.  
But, from what was said in the preceding chapter, it will clearly follow, That when a people do institute a Government, and do commit the Supreme Managment of affairs unto one or more, They do it upon certain terms and conditions, which conditions, politicians ordinarily call fundamental laws, others think that name not proper enough, but whether we call them so, or call them terms and conditions of the constitution of compact, it is all one thing. That there are certain terms and conditions on which the Sovereign is chosen, is clear from these grounds. 1. The man who is made Sovereign by the People, can pretend no right to the Sovereignty, (as was showed before) until he be named and chosen by the People. And this constituting of him Sovereign, must be by compact and contract betwixt him and them; for such mutual relations, as are betwixt Prince and People, can arise from no other act then a compact, unless they say, it ariseth from a free donation; but then they must grant that the whole power cometh from the People, and was theirs before and might be given out by them, or not, as they thought fit; for no law can constrain a man to give a gift: & further, if it was from them by free gift, the very nature and end of that Donation puts it beyond debate that it was upon some valueable consideration, of which when frustrated, they might recall their donation; and so still it will be, a virtual compact. But now it being by a real comapct and formal, either explicit or implicit, that this man and not that man is made Sovereign, There must be some conditions on which this mutual compact standeth: for a compact cannot be without conditions. 2. We show that in this Act of constituting a Government ad Governors, the People acted rationally; and carried themselves in this business, not as irrational brutes, but as rational men; and if so, how is it imaginable that they would set any over them with an illi mited power, without any terms and conditions to be condescended unto by him? Would rational men, acting deliberately about a matter of such moment and consequence, not to themselves alone, but to their posterity in after ages, set a Sovereign over them, without any limitations, conditions, or restrictions, so as they might rob, spoil, plunder murder, deflore, do acts of injustice and oppression, and act tyranny as they pleased? 3. We show that in this matter; the People had certain▪ real, good and necessary Ends before them: now, can it enter into the heart of any man to think, that Rational men acting rationally, & laying down ways for attaineing good and necessary Ends, would set a Prince over themselves, without any conditions or restrictions; since otherwise they could not rationally expect, that the mean which they had condescended upon, could ever attain the End? For every one of them might saifly have judged of the Prince by themselves, and seeing they might have found in themselves, an inclination to domineer, to oppress and tyrannize over others, they might rationally have concluded that the Prince was, and would be but a Man of the same passions and infirmities with themselves, and so as ready, if not more, to deborde and to do wrong: & therefore unless they had made him Sovereign upon terms and conditions, they could not have expected that their chooseing of him, could have been a mean fitted and accommodated for attaining the Ends proposed: A Sovereign left at liberty to tyrannyze, to oppress and to destroy the Subject, is no fit mean to procure their welfare, either in soul or body, or to set forward the glory of God. 4. We show that their condition after the constitution, was not to be worse than it was before the constitution. But if they had set up a Sovereign without any conditions, their condition could not but be worse; and rational men could not but for see that their condition would, of necessity, be worse; for, to set up a Sovereign without conditions, is to set up a Tyrant since if they do not limit him to terms and conditions, they give him leave to Rule as he listeth, and his will must be to them for a law; and what is that but to set up a Tyrant; and if a Tyrant be set up over a People, shall not their condition in that case, be worse than when they were at liberty to manage, their own matters, as they could best?  
Moreover this may be cleared from other reasons, as 1. In all other relations, which arise from mutual consent, and compact, there are always, terms & conditions on which the contract or compact is concluded: as in the contract betwixt Man and Wife, Master and Servant, Tutor & Pupil, Master & Scholar, & the like, Here always are presupposed terms & conditions, on which the compact, the only foundation of these relations, is founded: for, no Man marryeth a wife, but upon condition, she carry as a dutiful wife, and no woman marrieth a Husband but upon the like terms. So a Master indenteth with his Servant, and his Servant bindeth himself to him, upon terms. The Tutor, is under obligations to his Pupil, and if he break such or such conditions, he loseth his benefit, and moreover is answerable as law wil So is the Master obliged to perform such and such conditions unto his Scholar, So are there conditions betwixt the Lord and his Vassals, and betwixt Pastor and People. 2. This will be clear from the Nature of that power and authority, which the Sovereign hath over the Subjects, of which afterward. 3. It is against Nature, to set up any Tyrant, or one who is free from all conditions; for, that were, upon the matter, to set up a Waster, an Enemy to the Commonwealth, a bloody Tiger or Lion, to destroy all: see Althus. Pol c. 19 n, 33. 35. 36. 37. 4. To imagine a King free of conditions unto his Subjects is to put them in among bona fortunae: and to say, they are as the King's gold, his sheep, his oxen, his lands and revenues, unto which, he standeth no way obliged. 5. If a People should set a Sovereign over them, without conditions, they should sin against the Law of God, which will have such and such duties performed by them, who are Sovereigns; and they, by setting up Sovereigns without these limitations, should say▪ such and such shall be our Sovereigns, contrare to the limitations of God's Law. 6. This is confirmed by the practice of all Nations, where a free People set up Sovereigns: It is always upon terms and conditions. They Persians (as Xenophon lib. 8. Cyri Paed. tell us) did thus Covenante with Cyrus, that he should send aid to them, out of his own Country, if any should war against them, or violate their laws; and they again did promise, that they should help him, if any would not obey him, defending his Country; and therefore Xenophon calleth this contract or compact 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. So the Spartan King (as the same Xenophon tells us, de Rep. Laced:) did every Month Renew their oath unto the Ephori, & promised to govern them according to the laws of the land, & the Ephori upon the other hand, promised to Establish the Kingdom in their hands. We read of a compact betwixt Romulus, and the people of Rome Dionis. Halicarn. Lib. 1. betwixt the Senate & the Caesars Idem Lib. 2. It is notoure enough that the Emperor when he is chosen, agrieth unto terms and conditions; and also the King of Poland: and histories tells us, what conditions are made betwixt King and People, at the coronation of Kings in England, France, Boheme, Spain, Portugal, Sweden Denmark, etc. 7. The practice of our own Kingdom, doth sufficiently confirm this, of which more, when we consider what this Surveyer sayeth to the contrary. 8. Lawyers, Politicians & Divines tell us, that there are such conditions condescended on in all free Republics. Hoenonius Disp. Pol. 2. Thes. 4. tells us that the Subjects do stipulate from the Magistrates, whether they will rule so as they may lead a peaceable and quiet life under them, and Thes. 5. that the Magistrates do absolutely promise; and the Subjects upon condition promise what is their duty. So Althusius cap. 38. Polit. n. 31. and cap. 19 n. 15. 23. 29. and Timplerus Polit. Lib. 2. Cap. 1. Quest. 5. proveth that there is a mutual obligation betwixt Magistrates and Subjects. See likewise Gerhard de Magistratu, Thes. 94. Pag. 726. Where he proveth that it is no new thing, That Magistrates and Subjects do Covenante with each other.  
Finally, This is cleared, from some Scripture instances, as first The Covenant, which David made with the Tribes of Israel, 2 Sam. 5. 3. 1 Chron. 11. 3. So all the elders of Israel came to the King to Hebron, and King David made a league with them in Hebron before the Lord, and they anointed David King over Israel. Sanches on the place thinketh, He promised to rule them according to the law Deut. 17 15. and that some other things were contained in that Covenant, which did relate to the present state of a affairs, as concerning the war with their near and insolent enemies, concerning an act of oblivion, and other things, which they could think upon, in that troublesome state of affairs: and upon the other hand the People promised fidelity and obedience, and what else is required in well constituted Commonwealths; and that this Covenant was sealed by oath of both parties] Cornel a Lapet: calleth it a mutual promise, wherein David Covenanted to govern the Kingdom faithfully, according to the law of God Leut. 17. 16. etc. &. Israel, on the other hand, promised to be obedient and faithful to him: The Surveyer trieth many shifts to make this, no mutual Covenant, or conditional Covenant Pag. 94. 95. He cannot deny but there was a Covenant here agreed upon, betwixt David and these Tribes of Israel. But he says [the Quaestion is, what was the nature, the matter and import of that Covenant, The Scripture says not it was such a Covenant (as these men would have it) I shall rule you rightly, if you obey medutifully, otherwise not (upon the King's part) and (upon the people's part) we shall obey you and be subject to you, if ye rule us rightly, otherwise we will not, but use our coactive power upon you, to dethrone, and destroy you, and punish you.] Ans. If it be granted that here was a mutual contract, wherein the King accepted of conditions and obliged himself thereunto, it is enough for our present purpose, (& the Dutch Annotators on 2 Sam. 5. 3. say hereby they were bound on both sides by oath, to perform their duties to other) for we are not yet speaking of the nature and import of such Covenants, and what right or power the party keeping, hath over the party failing. 2. The Text doth not tell us what was the particular matter of this Covenant, but from the Text, we may clearly see, that this was a conditional Covenant, a Covenant wherein the King promised such and such things, as satisfied them, and induced them to accept of him as King, and anoint him: so that if the terms had not pleased them, they would not have accepted of him as King, If the King had said, I will be an Absolute Prince to account you still mine Enemies, and kill such of you, as I will, and keep a live such of you as I will, and so play the Tyrant, be like he had goat the answer that Rehoboam goat To your tents ● Israel: What portion have we in David? 3. How can he prove, That they did not mind to offer themselves to David upon such terms, [They (says he Pag. 95) recognose, his right of reigning over them is of the Lord, and that he was not subject to be removed by them, for they say The Lord said to thee, thou shalt feed my people Israel, and thou shalt be Ruler over them, and it is added Therefore they came, etc.] Ans: 1. All this will not prove that this Covenant was not conditional, or that David did not oblige himself to such and such conditions; for if these reasons have any force, they will as well say, that they should not have made a Covenant with him it all, but submitted without Covenant: and they knew his right by promise to the throne, before this, and yet for all that, they refused to come till now, and now when they come, David must make a Covenant with them. 2. The same Tribes of Israel did recognosce Rehoboam's right to reign; for they came to Shechem to make him King▪ 1 King. 12. 1. 2. Chron. 10. v. 1. & yet when Reh●boam would not agree unto the terms proposed, They refused to acknowledge him King. 3. That 1 Chron. 11. 3. Therefore came is but the same with So came, 2 Sam. 5. 3. and it may be as well rendered, also or and came, for in the Original it is in both places 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and it is there told, that also the Elders of Israel came, who were not mentioned before. 4. God's promise to David, gave him no power to play the Tyrant, nor was it to be fulfilled but such a way, God's purposes concerning the End includeth the Means with the End, and his purpose or promise was not that David should obtain the throne without the People's consent, or that the People was obliged to submit unto him notwithstanding he should refuse to Covenant with them, or promise to Rule them in righteousness, and not to play the Tyrant over them: and hence it appeareth that it is not false that the People gave the Kingdom to David conditionally (as he sayeth Pag. 101.) for, if He say these promises or purposes of God, did lay obligations of the People to accept Such upon any terms, he cannot condemn the Ten Trybes for accepting of jeroboam, as he doth elsewhere! 5. As for their coactive superiority over him, we speak not of it now, it not being our present business, but sure his reasons will not validely conclude the contrair: for if such a promise or purpose of God, gave David such a right, as that in no case, suppose he had turned the greatest Tyrant imaginable, & had sold the Land of Canaan unto the Uncircumcised, or done some such thing; the Elders of Israel had had no coercive power to have withstood him, and dethroned him, than they might not now have refused to have submitted unto him: And by the same reason, The elders of Israel might not have refused to have submitted to jeroboam who also had a promise, which I know he will not grant. But it is enough to our present purpose, if it be granted that David agreed with them upon terms. This he cannot get well denied, but sayeth. [All the Covenant that can be supposed here, is upon the people's part, an engagement to humble subjection and homage; & upon the King's part, a Covenant of indemnity for former oppositions to him, wherein they had need to be comfortably secured.] Ans. If it was such a Covenant, than it secured all the People of Israel, and their Elders with them, and David was bound to have keeped it, and did keep it. He did not then execute thereafter some of them upon scafsolds, and set up their heads upon poles, as Traitors. 2. We find nothing in the Text, of their acknowledging a crime done, so as they needed an act of indemnity: it is like David in a piece of holy policy, meet for that time, to gather together the scattered people of God, (to use the Surveyer's words, Pag. 94.) Would have been content to have passed an act of oblivion, as less irritateing, than an act of indemnity. 3. If they were now coming to be his Subjects who were not so before, but were under another King (as he says himself Pag. 94.) what necessity was there, either for an act of indemnity or yet an act of oblivion? Ay [but it was fit (says he ibid. to give them security, touching his good mind toward them, they having so long stood it out, in arms against him.] Ans. But was there no more requisite to secure them touching his good mind towards them, and his willingness to accept of them as subjects, who before were enemies, except this act of indemnity? Since they were in open hostility one against another, and if upon this ground, the Covenant on David's part was of indemnity, why should it not be also a Covenant of indemnity on their part; seeing, as he confessed, they were not his subjects before, but under another King? But now, when they come to be subjects who were not so before, and engage to humble subjection, and homage, must not David in this Covenant engage to something corresponding to this? we shall not repugn (sayeth he) if it be called a Covenant both of protection & right ruleing them.] Answ. That is all I am seeking, to have David here obliged by Covenant, unto his Subjects, to such and such terms, as to Protect and Rule them a right. Ay but he adds [Yet so, as not subjecting himself to their censures, or co-action, or that they should be his subjects only upon that condition, being otherwise free to fall upon him.] Answ. This is not to our present business. But yet how can he prove this? Is it enough to say so? Will his adversary take that for an answer? Is there not here a mutual Convenant, wherein each party is bound to other? Are not the terms condescended upon? And is it not granted by all, that in mutual Covenants the observer hath a jus against the breakers? But says he [a Covenant may be to mutual duties, & yet on neither side conditional, but absolute, eath party obliging themselves to their own duty absolutely, but not on condition that the other party do their duty.] Ans. Then it seems Israel was bound to David, whether he would be a King to them or not; Yea even though he would sell them to morrow to the Philistines for slaves and bond men for ever, and David was bound to Protect and Rule them a right, whether they would be Subjects or not. 2. How can he prove that this was such a Covenant? 3. Yea, how can he prove that there is any such Covenant among men; or how can he explain such a Covenant? [As if (says he) a man bind himself by oath, to give me one hundereth pounds, & I bind myself again by oath to him, to give him one hundereth pounds, without conditional provision that he pay me the money he promised me; albeit he should fail in his oath, & not pay me; yet must not I fail in mine but must pay him: because my oath is separate from his & independent upon it, and hath a separate obligation absolute, which no faileing of the other party to me, can lose] Answ. It is true manus manum fricat, and if this Surveyer give to one a hundereth pounds. He will know it is for an hundereth pounds again, or something better: and I wish he should think himself as well bound by his oath, to pay the thing, he promised to God absolutely, as he thinks he is bound to pay to man what he had promised absolutely. But to our business, what sort of mutual Covenants can those be, which he here speaketh of? We hear to Pactions or Covenants where there are promises without a stipulation, but of a Covenant or Paction betwixt two, concerning mutual duties to be performed by each to other, wherein there is no stipulation, or which is no conditional Covenant, I have not yet heard. 2. Where hear we that such a transaction (if it can have that name) wherein one person promiseth absolutely to another to give him such or such a sum of money; and that other person again promiseth absolutely to give to the first another sum, is called a Covenant? 3. Lawyers tell us that even Promissiones, promises, if complete and not mere Policitations, will give a jus a right unto the person, to whom they are made to call for the performance, and sue the promiser at Law: And if this be granted (as it cannot be denied) he will lose his cause: For when the question cometh betwixt the Magistrate and the Subjects, it is the same case, as when the question cometh betwixt two distinct Nations: For as there is not a Superior Judge over both Nations to determine the controversy; so nor is there a Superior ordinary Judge to decide the question that falleth out betwixt King and Subjects: And therefore, as the sword must determine it, in the one case, so in the other. 4. But how shall he evince that the Covenant, betwixt King & People is not a reciprocal contract of things to be done by each to other upon conditions? It is true, he tells us that subjection is not promised to Kings conditionally, but absolutely; but in so saying, he doth only beg the question. A better Politician than he, Althusius Polit. c. 19 num. 6, 7. calleth it a mutual compact betwixt Prince and People upon certain conditions, and calleth it Contractum mandati, and he tells us, that in this contract the Prince is a Mandataruis, and his obligation precedeth as the obligation of the Mandatarius and promiser, useth to do, and then followeth the obligation of the People secundum naturam mandati, whereby they promise obedience and fidelity to him governing the Commonwealth according to the conditions prescribed.  
Another Scripture instance is 2 King. 11: v. 17. 2 Chron. 23: v. 3. 16. where jehojadah made a Covenant betwixt the King and the People, which (as the English Annotators and the Dutch also on the place say) was a civil Covenant betwixt them, viz. That the King should govern then well, They should obey him in the lord Peter Martyr, also sayeth that [not only King and People covenanted with God; but the King also with the People; and the People with the King] and thereafter that [the King was bound to rule the People according to the Laws, & equity, Secundum jura & Leges, and the People promised to obey him.] [Zanches more fully tells us, there was a Covenant betwixt the King and the People, as uses to be betwixt the Prince and Commonwealths: The Prince undertaketh to defend the Kingdom, Laws, Equity, and to be a keeper and defender of the Country, and of Religion: And upon the other hand, People promise obedience, and fidelity and such expenses, as are necessary for keeping up the Majesty of the Prince, etc.] Now what says our Surveyer to this? He tells us Pag. 96. That it was also made upon an extraordinary occasion; & extraordinaryes cannot sound ordinary rules] Answ. How doth he prove that it was merely upon the extraordinarynesse of the occasion that this Covenant was made? he might as well say that the crowning of him, & giving him the testimony, & making him King, and making a Covenant betwixt the Lord and the King, were extraordinary, and so could not found ordinary rules: yea and that it was extraordinary for the People to swear allegiance unto him. But he hath two things remarkable to his purpose as [1. That he is crowned & made King before the Covenant is made, which crosseth the antimonarchists, who assert, the King cannot be made King, until he make the Covenant with the People, & that he gets the crown and royal authority covenant wise, and conditionally] Answ. Antimonarchists properly so called, are against all Monarches limited or absolute, or doth he account them all antimonarchists who say that the King is a limited Magistrate? then we know what to think of the Monarchists and Royalists, of him and his party. 2. He knoweth himself that the series or order of the relation of a complex business, is not always just according to the series of the things done; but be it so, this maketh for us in the former instance of David's Covenanting with Israel, Which is mentioned, before their making of him King. 3. But suppose the King had refused to enter into Covenant with the Lord, or with the People (for mention is made of both Covenants after his Coronation) might they not for all their solemnities in crowning of him, have refused to have ownned him, as King? 4. But to put the matter beyond all debate, we find, compareing the two places together, That beside the Covenant betwixt jehojadah, and the Rulers of Hundereds etc. mentioned 2. King. 11. 4, and 2 Chron. 23. 1. which was rather a Covenant betwixt themselves, to depose Athalia, and to set up joash; to put down Idolatry, and to set up the true worship of God, (as the English annotations & the Dutch say) than a Covenant of fidelity or allegiance to the King, as he would have it, we find 2 Chron. 23. 3. a Covenant made betwixt the Congregation and the King, and this was, before he was crowned or made King, which Covenant (as the English annotators say) [was a mutual stipulation, betwixt the King, and Them, That the King should maintain the true worship of God, the peace of the Kingdom, and privilege of the subjects; and that the People should maintain the King, and yield unto him his due.] The next thing he sayeth is [That it is not told us what the tenor of this covenant is, Dioda● seems to say that jehojadah made them swear allegiance and fidelity to the King but how shall it be cleared that it was conditional, & with a reserve of coactive, & punitive power over him?] Answ. Of this coactive power over Kings, we are not now speaking, and he but playeth the fool to start such questions without ground. 2. That it was a conditional Covenant, the scope of the place cleareth: for, if they had not expected tha● their condition had been better under his reign then under Athaliah, be like they had never resolved to have ventured their lives, and estates for him: and if the Covenant had not been conditional, they could have had no rational expectation of the bettering of their condition from the young King, Again, if it was not a conditional Covenant. The King could with no more certainty have expected their dutyful obedience, than They his faithful government. 3. It is true, the matter and tenor of the Covenant is not expressed; but the nature of the act, doth abundantly clear what it was, and that it was such as the English annotators have expressed. 4. If Diodat say it was nothing else, but the People's swearing allegiance, he speaketh without ground, for it was a mutual Covenant, a Covenant betwixt King and People, But says he, suppose [all the Kings of Judah made such covenants with the People, yet will any judicious man force the Particular customs of that Nation on all Nations? that might be best for that Nation, that was not simply best; their customs without a law of God bearing a standing reason, cannot be obligatory on others, lest we judaize too much] Answ. 1. We are not now pressing their practice as our only warrant; but by their practice, we prove the lawfulness of the King's being brought under conditions, and obligations to the people; which Politicians Lawyers, and Divines use to do. 2. He must show why such a practice was best to them, & not also to other nations. 3. We Judaize not more in this, then in crowning and making of Kings (though I grant they do, who use the ceremony of anointing with oil.) 4. We have the Law of Nature, which is the law of God, bearing a standing reason of this▪ as was showed above. 5. Yea that law of God mentioned Deut. 17. 15. etc. Limiting the Prince, showeth that it was the People's duty (unto whom that is spoken) when they were to set a King over themselves, to provide for these conditions: so that as they might not the jure set a stranger over them, neither might they set any over them, who would not engage to keep the conditions which they were to required of him v. 16. 17. 18. 19 and these Conditions of the King being held forth unto them, says that they were impowered to stipulate such of the King, whom they were to create: and that points forth a Covenant to be made betwixt them and their King, & power also in them to restrain the King from transgessing these conditions as josephus tells Ant. Lib. 4. cap. 14. Si autem fuerit alias, etc. ●. e. [But if otherwise a desire of a King shall adhere unto you, let him be of your stock, let him make much of Justice and other virtues, and let him know that there is most wisdom in the laws and in God: let him do nothing without the advice of the High priest, & Elders: neither let him assume to himself many wives, nor seek after abundance of riches nor horses with the pleanty of which things, he may wax proud & despise the laws; but lest he have an earnest study to be more mighty than is convenient for your profit, Prohibeatur (sayeth the copy at Paris) obstandum est (sayeth another) ne potentior fiat quam rebus vestris expedit. ●. e. he is to be incapicat or resisted in case he should do so. But then he tells us that the constant practice of the prophets and people of God speaks clearly that they never had such thoughts etc.] Ans. Though (as I said) it doth not concern us to vindicate such a liberty in the People, as by virtue of this Covenant, to fall with violence on their Kings; our purpose being only to vindicate a liberty in the People to defend themselves against unjust violence; yet he doth but weakly maintain the King's head by this; for he said himself just now, that none with Reason could force the particular customs of that Nation on other Nations; and with more reason it may be said, that none can force the Omissions or non-practices of that Nation, as binding to others. But 2. We know the Ten tribes rejected Rehoboam & we find no Prophets ever condemning them in this, they never suggested that their obligation to subjection unto their Supreme Magistrate or King, was absolute: had this been such a sin as he allegeth, no doubt (to use his own words) God's Prophets would plainly and downright have told them of it, without circumlocutions; but this they never did. Either that was no sin, or the Prophets were not faithful in reproving it. Now let him answer his own argument if he can, and this he must do, or else confess he is an advocate for the King, worth no wages. 3. We find that the Prophets were sent of God, to stir up Subjects against their wicked and tyrannous Kings: as a Prophet was sent to anoint jehu to go against his Master, 2 King. 9 [When at first (says he) that people sought a King from Samuel, they resolved not to take him conditionally, si bene regnaverit, but with all the faults that might follow him, etc.] Ans. It is very like that their importunity made them neglect their duty, in making any express Covenant, or in condescending upon express conditions; but he shall never prove that they did right in this; far less shall he make this example binding unto others; and least of all shall he hence conclude that there was not a tacit and virtual compact, and that Saul was under no terms. 2. Notwithstanding of what he says, we find that the People did actually resist and oppose him, in rescueing jonathan, and that David defended himself with armed men against him, and his fury, and unjust violence, and this is enough to our purpose.  
As for these words Eccles. 8. 2. I Counsel thee to keep the King's commandment, and that in regaird of the oath of God, because they are variously rendered, and by some otherways then by us, as by junius (to which the dutch come near) praestitutum Regis observa, sed pro ratione juramenti Dei. i. e. Obey the King's command, but according as your oath to God will permit, Mercerus rendereth them thus. It is my pairt to observe the King's command and to have respect unto the oath of God, meum est observare praeceptum Regis, & rationem habere juramenti Dei. We shall not much labour to press this Covenant out of them: But if the Surveyer, will hold close to our translation, and fish out from thence the oath of allegaince, we must then say that they will also, clearly suppose on oath of the King unto the People, by which he is bound to them as well as they are bound to him. He granteth that ordinarily among the people, there were not oaths of fidelity and obedience given to their Kings, and where ever we find that the people swore an oath or Covenant to the King, there we find that the king swore and Covenanted to them: and so the Covenant being mutual, he was bound unto conditions as well as they were, and They no more than Herald And if Their chooseing and setting up of a King, did virtually include their engagement to him; so did His accepting of the place virtually lay bonds on him, to acquiesce unto the necessare conditions, & make him obliged to perform these necessary and indispensable conditions, which is all desire now.  
We see some thing more explicit for this, judg. 11. ver. 2, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13. Where there passed conditions betwixt jephthah and the People: See Althus. Polit. Cap. 19 num. 20.  
Thus we have cleared. 1. That lawful Magistrates are admitted to their Thrones conditionally, upon such and such terms. And from what we have said, it is also clear, 2. That the Prince accepting of the Crown doth either explicitly or implicitly promise to fulfil these conditions; because the People have made choice of him as a fit mean to procure those Ends which they did design: But if he should not be engaged to prosecute, so far as lies in his power, those Ends, why did they make choice of him? Or how could they expect that he should prove a fit mean for these Ends? Or how can we think that People acting rationally, would be so far dementat as to choice a mean, which they had no more rational ground to expect, would prove a mean for attaining these necessary Ends: then the very bane of these good & necessary Ends which they proposed unto themselves. The Covenants, which we have now spoken of do clear this also. 3. It is clear likewise from what hath been said, That the Sovereign, in these Compacts and Covenants with his People, is not only bound unto God, to perform what he hath promised, but also unto his Subjects: For 1. As was said, He still remaineth a sociable creature, and under the Laws of God and Nature, and therefore is not above what transactions or compacts he maketh with any, whether equals or inferiors. 2. If by virtue of these Compacts he were not obliged unto his Subjects, neither should they be obliged unto him by these compacts, seeing in erecting the constitution, and condescending upon these terms, He and They are equal, according to that, Contractus non ●netur nisi inter aequales. 3. The People in setting up a King should not act rationally, if the King as King were not bound to stand to his conditions, and really obliged unto them. Could we imagine that Men in their wits, would Covenant with a Man, to make him King, on such and such terms, it after he were made King, he were no more obliged unto them, then if there had been no compact with him? 4. How could they think of attaineing those Ends, which they proposed, if he were not bound unto them, to perform these conditions, which they though necessary to limit him unto for the better & more sure, attaineing these Ends? 5. This compact or Covenant being mutual, concerning conditions to be mutually performed, sure, each party must be formally obliged to other. 6. If this be denied, it must be asserted, that a Sovereign can do no wrong or injury unto his Subjects, can borrow no money from them, can not be engaged by Covenant, Promise, of Bond unto them, which were most ridiculous, and a doctrine as much tending to the real destruction of Monarches and Sovereigns, as any else: for if this hold good, Subjects might never think themselves secure: And moreover that ordinance, could never be an ordinance of God, seeing thereby People could never expect the least rational ground of security for their lives, and what they have.  
But we need not stand on this, seeing our Surveyer perceiving well enough, what a groundless and irrational assertion this of the Royalists is, thinketh best to strike in with Lex Rex and grant Pag. 100 [That where a Covenant is made between a King and a People, the Covenant on the King's part, binds him, not only to God, in relation to the People, as the object of this duty, but doth bind him to the People formally.] 4. It is also clear and undeniable, that in Kingdoms which are commonly called haereditary, the Son is obliged to perform the same conditions which his father was obliged to performe) for as the law sayeth. Conditionalis obligatio transit ad haeredes L. si quis D. de Verborum obligatione. Rational People, condescending rationally upon the constitution, did certanely pitch upon that way of conveyance of the Sovereignty, that might best secure them, as to their Ends, and if none had been obliged unto the conditions agreed upon, but the first in the line, they had not rationally secured these Ends. 5. It is no less clear, That when the Sovereign doth not perform the Principal, main, and most Necessary Conditions condescended and agreed upon, de jure he falleth from his Sovereignty. This all will grant, as flowing natively from the nature of a compact: for, qui non praestat officium promissum, cadit beneficio hâc lege dato. He who doth not preforme the conditions agreed upon, hath no right to the benefit granted upon condition of performance of these conditions. I do not here say that every breach, or violation doth degrade him de jure; but that a violation of all, or of the main, most necessary, and principally intended conditions, doth. 6. Lawyers grant that every conditional promise giveth a right to the party to whom the promise is made, to pursue for the performance: and this is the nature of all Mutual compacts. And therefore by virtue of this mutual compact, the Subjects, have jus against the King, a Right in law to pursue him for performance. The worthy author of Lex Rex told us Pag. 97. [That even the Covenant between God and Man is so mutual I will be your God, and ye shall be my people, that if the people break the Covenant, God is loosed from his part of the Covenant, Zach. 11. 10. and 2 The Covenant giveth to the believer a sort of action of law, and jus quoddam to plead with God in regard of his fidelity to stand to that Covenant, that bindeth him by reason of his fidelity, Esa. 43. 26. & 63. 16. Dan 9 4. 5,] and hence inferred [That far more a Covenant giveth ground of a civil action or claim to a People, and the free Estates, against a King] But says the Surveyer Pag. 101. [It had been better said, That upon this ground they might humbly plead with him, supplicate and reason with him, as God's deputy bearing the impress of his Sovereignty and Majesty on earth: But as God cannot otherwise be pleaded with, upon account of his promise (wherein he is bound not so much to us as to his own fidelity, to evidence it, reddit ille debita nulli debens) and cannot be pleaded with by force or violence: So his deputyes on earth, on whom under himself, he hath stamped inviolable Majesty, whatever they be, are not to be pleaded with by strong hand and force.] Answ. If he had showed. 1. That Migistrates could not miscarry. 2. That Subjects had no hand in making these conditions in the Covenant betwixt Them and the King. 3. Nor any hand in setting up the King and conferring that benefit upon him, on such and such conditions, than his inference had had some colour: but now hath it none. 2. Inferior Magistrates are God's deputyes as well as the Superior, and yet we find no impress of Majesty or Sovereignty on them, but they may be opposed when doing injury. 3. This is a large assertion, which I much doubt if any Royalist will defend That the Supreme Magistrates whatever they be, can in no case be pleaded with by strong hand and force. Sure we heard Cap. 2. some concessions smelling otherwise. 4. Himself will grant that notwithstanding of all his Majesty and Sovereignty, a foreign Prince may resist him by force, and plead his right with a strong hand, how doth he then save his Majesty inviolable? [But (says he Pag: 102.) who will judge it more reason, that these who are plaintiffs, shall be judges of the party they compleane of, more than the party or Prince, judge to them? Is not this a perversion of all judgement, that in one and the same body politic, the accuser and judge shall be co incident, in the same person or persons.] Ans. This makes as much against the king, as against us; for by this reason the King hath no jus over the People, more than they over him, and can no more plead his cause, than they can: for himself cannot be judge and plaintiff both: and if this be the perversion of all judgement, we have seen enough of it, where the King hath been both judge and party pursuer by his advocate. But let him answer this himself, and he will help us to answer also. Again he sayeth in that same Page? [Though it be true, that all Covenants and contracts amongst men, embodied in a society, brings each of the contracters under a law claim, in case of failing (coram judice proprio) before his own and competent judge: yet it is not true, That any contract, betwixt man and man, in one and the same society, giveth the party keeping contract, co-active power over the party breaking.] Answ. He is but a raw lawyer that says so, for if one Man set a piece of land to another, for so many years, for so much yearly, and the other be bound at the expireing of these years, to remove without process of law, The party setter hath by contract a coactive power, and may use Major vis and thrust him out with the broad sword, without further action of law. But (says he Pag. 103.) [There is no judge over all Magistrates, nor the Supreme Magistrate, before whom a complaineing people can plead wrong done to them. This complaint lieth before God only to take order with it.] Answ. When Arnisaeus objected that, The worthy and Learned author of Lex Rex answered, [That the consequence was not necessary, no more than when the King of Judah and the King of Israel make a covenant to perform mutual duties one to another, it is necessary, there should be a King and superior Ruler above both who should compel each one to do a duty to his fellow: King and People are each of them above and below others, in divers respects.] But in cometh this Surveyer Pag. 100 and tells us, there is a great difference [God having allowed lawful wars, allows seeking of reparation, or repelling of wrongs done by one Nation to another, by force of the sword, when no rational means can bring the doers of the wrong to do right, and there being no other remedy, he himself, the Lord of hosts, and God of armies, sits judge and moderator in that great business, and in the use of war, is appealed to as judge, there being no common judge on earth to sit on the causes of these independent Nations. But God having set and established in one Particular Nation and Political society, his own ordinance of Magistracy, to which every soul must be subject, and all subject to the Supreme. etc.] Ans. This says well when the difference or disput is between two subjects, both under one Magistrate; but is says nothing to our case, where the difference is betwixt the Magistrate and the Subjects: for in the other case there is a judge over both established, unto whom both are subjects, but in our case there is no judge on earth Common to both, or who can sit and judge in such causes: for the King must here be no more both judge and party than the People, and so the case is irremediable unless there be an allowance of repelling force with force: for in our case there are no rational means which can be used to bring the Prince to do right unto the injured Subjects: and therefore it God allow war, in the use of which, he is appealed to as judge, betwixt two Nations, he will allow also a necessary defensive war in Subjects against their Sovereign when there is no other remedy, or rational means of redress. This Man dictates but what proveth he? [The Magistrates are by their official power, above the whole Nation, and as absurd it is to say they are above the powers, which God hath set over them (as L. R. pag. 460. sayeth thrasonically he hath proved unanswereably) as to say that every parish is above the Minister, in an ecclesiaslical way, though he hath official power over them all, or that every Lord in Scotland hath their Tenants and vassals above them, a thing which the nobles of Scotland had need to look to; for certainly the principles which lead to subject Kings to People, lead clearly and by undoubted consequence, to Subject them to their vassals, and to all under them, yea and all Masters to servants, and parents to children, and to confound and invert the order of all humane societies.] Ans. 1. The law will tell us That in mutual compacts the party observer is Eatenus in so far, superior unto the party who faileth. 2. The author of Lex Rex sayeth truly and not Thrasonically (as this Thraso, and windy man, allaigeth, who would make the world believe that his one word is enough to confute all which that learned author hath solidly proved with such reasons that he thought (with the little wit he hath) it was more wisdom to forbear once to name then to offer to answer) that he hath proved unanswereably (if not, let this windy Thraso try his hand in confuteing his reasons) the People's power above the King. 3. This man's reasons are as weak as water. For 1. the Paroche is so above the Minister, that, in case he teach haeresy, & there be no ecclesiastic or civil power to put him away, they may save their own souls, thrust him out, and choose another more Orthodox. 2. All know that the Lord is bound to the Vassals, as well as they are to him, and that the Lord may not oppress them, or if he transgress the bounds and limits prescribed him, they will get action of law yea in some cases be free to renunce him as their Supreme, and choose another. Let the nobles take heed they drink not in this Man's doctrine: for if they arrogate to themselves a power to oppress, pillage, plunder, murder, Massacre, their vassals, (as this man pleads for such power to the King, without control) I fear their vassals let them know they are not slaves. 3. What a poor Politician is this? He speaks this, to move them so much the more to own the King's cause, but who seeth not, that he is either a false or a foolish advocate for the King in this matter, for if the King get no more on his side but the Superior Lords, & if all the Vassals and Tenants be against him, he will have the weaker party by far, on his side. 4. I would desire Nobles & all to take notice of this, that he would here seem to give to the king, as much power over them and all the lands, as Masters have over their Tenants, who have their lands only from them upon certain conditions, and may be removed when these conditions are broken. 5. What a fool is he to put Tenants and Vassals together? doth he not know that Lords have more power over their Proper Tenants, then over their Vassals? 6. Doth he think that Servants may not in some cases be above their Masters; a noble man's son may be an apprentice to a very mean man; But thinks he that Servants will get no action of law against their Masters, or if there be no law or judge, over him and his Master, he may not defend himself, against his Master's unjust violence? 7. As for the subjection of parents to Children it is impertinent in this case, as shall be showed in due time, and yet we know that the father hath been a subject, and the son a King over him, and we know also that, in case of necessity, the children may defend themselves against their father taken with a mad frenzy. Then he adds [This truth we must cleave to, that in one and the same civil society, where God hath apppointed Rulers and Ruled, Subjects cannot without sacrilegious intrusion and contempt of God, snatch the sword out of the Magistrates hands to punish him with it (though in some partilars he abuse it) neither can a war intended for this end by mere, private people, be lawful against their head or heads.] Answ. We may let him cleave to this truth, and this truth cleave to him, and be no losers: for we speak not of Subjects taking the sword of justice to punish the King; we speak of no war raised by the subjects for this end: we plead only for a power in private Subjects to defend themselves, in cases of necessity, against their head or heads, (and he, nor none of his party, have the forehead to deny this to be lawful in some cases) especially if the Magistrate abuse his power, not in some particulars only, but in many, and in many main particulars, if not in all.  
Having thus cleared and vindicated the 6. thing. The 7. And last is this, which followeth also from the former: viz. That when the Prince doth violate his compact, as to all its conditions, or as to it's chief, main, and most necessary condition, the Subjects are de jure free from subjection to him, and at liberty to make choice of another. The very nature of a compact doth clear this: For it is absurd to say, that in a mutual conditional compact, one party shall still be bound to perform his conditions, though the other performeth none of his conditions, or performeth not the main and principal one. It is absurd to say, that when one hath given a benefit upon a certain condition, that he is still bound to bestow that benefit, though the condition on which he promised it, be no way performed. Were it the rational act of rational creatures to set up Sovereigns upon these terms? or to say, we choose thee, to be our Sovereign upon condition thou rule us according to justice and equity, and not tyrannize over us, and yet we shall always hold thee for our Prince and lawful Sovereign, Though thou should transgress all laws of equity, humanity, and reason; and deal with us as so many sheep, kill whom thou will, for thy sport and lust, etc. will any body think that rational men would do so? The law tells us L. si fund. c. de pactis, etc. That cessante causâ, propter quam res est data, pignus debet reddi.  
Before we come to draw our arguments from what is said, we shall first roll out of our way what this Surveyer speaks further against these Covenants, Pag. 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, & 93. He hath five particulars which he toucheth on.  
The first is this, [It is easily conceded (says he) that there is a mutual obligation betwixt Magistrates and Subjects, to mutual duties, which is indeed essential to the constitution of the politic body; but his obligation ariseth not from any tacit or express Covenant betwixt them, but from the ordinance and will of God, enjoining them these duties in these relations, in that society, wherein they are combined.] Answ. 1. Subordinata non pugnant. This mutual obligation may arise both from the Law of God, and from the Covenant, without any repugnancy. 2. If this obligation arise only from the Law of God, neither parties shall be formally obliged unto other, but both obliged only unto God; and yet we heard himself say Pag. 100 that [Where a Covenant is made betwixt a King and a People, that the Covenant on the King's part, binds him not only unto God, in relation to the People as the object of the duty, but doth bind him to the People formally.] Now, whence ariseth this formal obligation, if not from the Covenant? 3. By this means the obligations of fidelity in the subjects unto their Princes, have no rise from their oath of allegiance, which he elsewhere calleth Foedus unilaterum. 4. To what purpose then are Covenants and compacts made, If by virtue of these, each party be not formally obliged unto other? For if David's Covenant with the People of Israel laid no obligation upon him, he could not be said to have made a Covenant with them, more than with the Phalistimes, and yet the Scripture tells us, he made a Covenant with Israel: And King joash made a Covenant with the People. 5. I do not well understand, how an obligation to future duties can be called essential to a constitution, which neither floweth from the constitution, nor giveth a being to the constitution. 6. Again, if there be no obligation unto these mutual duties, until there be a constitution by compact, and if then the obligation be essential, how is it imaginable that the obligation shall have no subordinat rise from the constitution; or compact whereupon the constitution is founded?  
The 2. thing he sayeth, is, That though this obligation be mutual, yet is it not conditional, and how proves he this? [There is (says he a mutual obligation to mutual duties betwixt Parents and Children, but it is not conditional, that if Parents be undutiful, Children shall be loosed from their duty, or on the contrary.] So is it (says he) betwixt King and People, and the citeth Calvin. Inst. Lib. 4. Cap. 20. §. 29. But it is easily answered. That there is a vast disparity betwixt the rise of that relation, which is betwixt King and People, and that which is betwixt Father and Son: And this being once discovered the parity disappeareth: And 1. Subjects come not out of the loins of their King, as Children do out of the loins of their Fathers. 2. The Son createth not the Father as the Subjects create the King. 3. Yea Children do not so much as give their consent that such an one shall be their Father, before the relation have being, yet Royalists will grant this much, unto the People, in relation to their King. 4. The relation betwixt Father and Son hath no dependence less or more upon any act of will in the Son, or upon any Covenants, Agriements or Compact, express or tacit, betwixt the Father & the Son, it is not so as to the relation betwixt King and People; for before this mutual relation arise, there must be a constitution, and this constitution includeth, at least, some act of the will in subjects, some previous consent. 5. This relation can never cease, so long as both are in life, but the other may, by a Subject's chooseing to live under another Sovereign. 6. Let the Father do what he will, the relation betwixt him and his Son shall never be loosed or weakened. But the greatest Royalists will grant, that in some cases, the King may be made no King, and his relation either wholly taken away, or much diminished. So then the consequence is null, that because Children are not bound to their Parents conditionally; therefore Subjects are bound conditionally to there Prince: For Children have no hand in making up that relation, betwixt Parents and them; their consent is not so much as required; but in making up the relation betwixt King and Subjects, there is a previous compact, required, in which compact, the People have their great share: Children give not paternity unto their Parents; but Subjects give the Kingship, at least instrumentally, under God; and they set up Kings, when they might set up Nobles, and set up his Man, when they might have set up Another, can Children do so? How then shall the case be alike, And the one be no more conditional than the other? Next, as for Calvin we willingly with him grant, that Subjects are to obey evil Magistrates, and to do their duty to them, though the Magistrates should come short of theirs, as Wives, & Children are bound to love and be Subject unto undutiful Husbands and Fathers. But Calvin will not say, that in no case a Wife is loosed from Subjection to her Husband: adultery and wilful desertion will give ground for a divorce, and that says that the Wife's subjection is not absolute, but conditional; though we say not, that every breach of some of the conditions, looseth the obligation. Neither will Calvin. say ' That in no case, the Sovereign may be opposed or resisted: or, that in no case the obligation can be loosed; for ibid. §. 31. He granteth liberty to the Estates of a Land (whom yet our Surveyer putteth in one category with private Subjects,) to stand for the libertyes of the People against the rage and Tyranny of Princes, Yea he sayeth they are bound to do so, as they would not presidiously, betray their trust.  
The 3. thing is, that [the fancy of a tacit virtual natural Covenant betwixt King and People, overthrows the distinction that all sound protestant Divines and Politicians make, betwixt a limited or pactional Prince and an absolute Prince, or one who is integrae Majestatis.] And then he citeth Rivet. in Psal 68 Gerhard de Magistratu, Pag. 13 11. mihi (or 935.) And therein, he says, they agree with Calvin in the place cited. Answ. That there are absolute Princes de facto, who come to the Sovereignty by false and corrupt means, or by conquest, we deny not, but we are speaking of Princes, de jure, and of Princes set up by the People, which is only to our purpose. It is true, Rivet (a very short sum of all the sound Protestant Divines, though he join Gerhard with him too, who is but Lutherian Protestant, and for his Politicians we see none) make use of such a distinction, but assert not positively that such an absolute Prince is lawful. Calvin maketh use of no such distinction, and if they agree with him, they say no more than he sayeth, and what he said, we have heard. But says our Surveyer it is [False to say that an absolute Prince is contrary to the Word of God: for as our Laws allows our Kings to be ahsolute, in express terms Jam. 1. (he should say Jam. 6.) Parl. 18. Anno 1606.] Answ Our Laws and especially of that Parliament, and the like, are evil proofs of what is jure Divino, or not contrary thereunto. But of that Supermacy granted to the King, by that act and others, the Apology hath spoken enough. Further he addeth, [So the Scripture is not against an absolute Prince, as our Laws and we understand him?] But how is that? May he Rule as he lifts? No, for [He is subordinate (says he) unto God and his Laws, and he ought also to walk according to the particular good Laws he hath made with consent of his People.] This is more than other Royalists would grant to us, for he acknowledgeth him not only not above the Law of God, but also not above the municipal Laws, and consequently not above the fundamental conditions of the constitution: And we are sure in this, This King hath foully broken, whatever he doubt of. But how is he absolute? [He is absolute (says he) that if he deviate he is not under coactive power of Subjects, that they should have Law-claime against him, and in their courts of nature and necessity, pronounce judgement upon him, to destroy him, far less that by virtue of this supposed tacit Convenant, any minor private party of the People, may pull King and all Magistrates out of their seat, punish them, and possess themselves in their rooms, as Naphtaly says] Answ. What he layeth to Naphtali's charge shall be considered afterward. 2. To say that Subjects have no law claim against a King, who breaketh the main and principal condition, or all the conditions of the Covenant made betwixt Him and the People, is to destroy the nature of the mutual compact, made between Him and the People as we have showed. 3. By this it seemeth all the absoluteness that he says is due to the King, is, that he is from under the co-active power of Subjects, but though this were granted to him, (which yet we cannot, because of what we have said already) we should suffer no loss, as to our intendment: for if this be all his absoluteness, than he may be withstood, and resisted (though not brought to the bar) even by private subjects, when he contraveeneth his principal conditions, and breaketh Covenant unto his people: and this is all we contend for.  
The sum of what he says in the 4 place, is this [Where there is freedom of Election (as in Germany and Poland, where there is but personated and painted Kings) there may possibly be express limiteing conditions allowing some to coerce deviating sovereignty. But in all proper Monarchies, there is neither tacit nor express Covenants impowering any to be judges over the King. Some Kingdoms are attained by a conquest in a just war (which is a sufficient title) & this power being hereditarily transmitted, the successors receive power from the Parents and not from the People, nor is there any shadow of tacit or express Covenant in this matter.] Answ. 1. If he be not well pleased with what Lex Rex hath said, concerning conquest giving a sufficient title to crowns, he should have considered and answered the arguments there made use of, and not jejunely have told us he is of another judgement; for they are either fools, or mad who will believe his bare word, better than the worthy author of Lex Rex his assertions baked & confirmed with many solid & unanswereable arguments, 2. This though true, speaks nothing to our purpose: for we supposed always that our Kingdom was not founded upon a conquest, and we never heard any say it was, till this unnatural abject arose to speak non sense, of which more presently: We never heard a King challenge it upon that account, nay, nor say that our Kingdom was ever conquered by any of their predecessors, except King james, who in his basilicon doron, allaiged that Fergus the first, was a conqueror, contrare to the testimony, of all approven historio-graphers: what meaneth the large long roll of the King's predecessors, that is read over at the coronation; doth any of our laws speak such a thing? or do they found his absolute power upon such a dream? It would seem the cause is desperate and gone, when he can get no other bottom to his absoluteness, but a fiction of his distempered brain, which may deservedly make him odious to all true scottish men, and may (and possibly will) make his cause odious also, to all who are acquanted with the true, genuine and ancient constitution of the Kingdom. 3. This raw. Statist exscreats his raw notions, as he pleaseth, but they must be rude and unskilful in this matter, that will think to digest them. He tell's us that the Emperor of Germany and the King of Poland are but painted Kings, and Monarches, and to confirm this, tells us that, there are no monarchs, or proper princes, but such as are absolute: What will then become of the Distinction, of all sound protestant divines and politicians, which he mentioned in the preceding page? Do they think that all the limited and pactional princes, are but cyphers, or as painted men are men, so are they but painted princes? Sure none of the divines he named take such princes for no true princes. 4. If in proper Monarchies, there be such Covenants and compacts tacit or express, which will gave a law claim unto the Subjects against the King, and a Ius against him, as a formal transgressor of his Covenant made with them, and liberate them from subjection to him, we could have enough for our business, though it should be granted, that there is no Covenant impowering others to be his judges. Though it should be granted (which some politicians Doubt of) that in Kingdoms purchased by conquest, the power haereditarily transmitted, should be received from the parent, and not from the people; yet in kingdoms founded upon a lawful and free constitution, the successor, (as we showed above) hath his power not from his predecessor, but from the constitution, or the people condescending upon the constitution,  
But he thinks to obviate all this by what he says in the 5. place viz. That our Kingdom is not founded on any such Covenant, but rather on a conquest, of which he giveth five remarkable instances. The first is, That Fergus the first, was not admitted upon conditions, but the Subjects, by their oath confirmed the Kingdom to him, and his posterity: and that the black book of pasley says, Fergus made himself King. Answ. 1. What that black book of pasley (which neither he nor I ever saw) sayeth, is not worth the inquiry to search, Seing all other historians, such as john Fordon, john Major, Boëthius, Hollanshade, beside Buchanan, say, that he was freely chosen by the People. And the story tells us, that he was then in Irland, when the Scots sent for him, how could he then make himself King? 2. If he had been a conqueror, he might have transmitted the Kingdom unto his soon, without the consent of the People, and yet we see this was not done; yea we find that the People would suffer none of his sons to enjoy the place after him, because unfit for government, but made choice of a third person: and when his eldest son did afterward challenge the Kingdom as his own, he was made to understand himself better. 3. It is true Buchanan mentioneth no oath of the King, but that will not say, that there was no compact betwixt Him and the People, There might be conditions communed and condescended upon, though the King was not put to swear them. But however, that there was an implicit and tacit Covenant, at least, betwixt them, Is clear from the oath of the People confirming the Kingdom unto him; for it says that all the right he had unto the Kingdom, was from the People, and that he could not be secured in it but by them, and seeing they gave him the Kingdom, and did secure him in it, Nature and Reason will say, that it was upon good terms, particularly, that he and his should not tyrannize over them, but should rule them aright: and though there be no written contract concerning this, extant, yet their constant after-practice doth abundantly clear it; for, though they confirmed the Kingdom by oath to him, and his posterity yet their chooseing of Feritharis his brother, passing by both his sons, says, that this condition was tacitly understood, viz. provideing that they, should be able for government and to discharge the place, and accordingly they did then establish it, in a standing law for time to come: and after this manner, and according to these terms did choose their Kings until Kennethus the third, by force or fraud, obtained a change. So their taking course with such of their Kings, as did tyrannize, sayeth, that this was an other condition of the compact, viz. That they should not tyrannize, but govern righteously: Thus we see these after practices are clear standing commentaries, sufficiently explaineing the nature and main conditions of that compact.  
His 2 instances: is of Fergus the second, the 40 King. [Who by his valour, under the conduct of divine providence, & by the help of Danes and others, with some small remainder of Scots, recovered the Kingdom and was not beholden to the People for it, nor had it by paction with them.] Answ. Buchanan tells us, that he was called home ad regnum avitum suscipiendum, to take upon him the Kingdom which belonged to him, according to the ancient constitution, as being of the family of Fergus, and then giving proof of his prowesse, and ability for government, and accordingly being then in Scandia or Norway took the offer, and came home, accompanied with the banished Scots, and some Danes: and after he came home, after the wont custom, more patrio, he was created King by a Parliament; for, comitiis peractis, the Parliament being ended, he falleth about his work, and at length freeth the Kingdom of its adversaries: Now, how can he be accounted a conqueror, obtaineing his right to the crown by conquest, who had it by a fair, free, and full call of the People, who might have chosen any other of that race, that had been remaineing, and qualified for their purpose? This is strange doctrine, to say, that every Prince who cometh to his Kingdom, by the free consent of his People, in a troublesome time, because that through their help and concurrence, he freeth the land of Enemies, and restoreth peace to the inhabitants, is a conqueror, and hath no right to the Crown, but by his sword. He will not say that every conquest will give a just title, but a lawful conquest, now what right had Fergus to conquer these adversaries? What title or claim could he lay to that crown from whence he and his forebears were banished or constrained to flee, if not by the ancient grant made by the People unto Fergus the first and to his race? So then, his right was not obtained by the sword, but only the peaceable possession thereof, and the practice of the people afterward when his son Constantinus came to reign, and turned vicious, declared whether they looked upon this Fergus the second, as a Conqueror, and upon what terms he and his successors had the crown: for because of his viciousness, and refuseing to amend his manners, when admonished by the Nobles, they were almost at waging war against him and of revolting from him, had not Dougall of Galloway dissuaded them.  
His 3 instance is Kenneth the first the 50 King (He should have said Kenneth the 2 the 69 King, for Kenneth the first died within a year after he was made King.) [Who destroyed the picts, and enlairged his Kingdom by the accession of theirs, purchaseing more and better lands, than he had before, which he distributed to his Subjects, he held not his purchased Kingdom of them by contract or paction] Ans. What right a Prince hath unto lands, which he purchaseth by conquest or war, is not the matter of our disput, but what right Kenneth had to the crown. Now, sure it is that before this conquest made, he was crowned, upon the same ground, that his predecessors were: his future conquest, then uncertain, could not alter the ground of his receiving of the crown, when his father Alpin died 2. What ever superiority, he might challenge over these Subjects unto whom he gave these new conquest lands, it had no influence upon his holding of the crown: and that his very next successor and brother Donald knew, who being given to his pleasures, lost a noble victory which they had obtained over the Englishes, and after he returned from captivity, following his old life, was cast in prison by his own Subjects. And his Son knew it also, for he was put by the crown conform to the old law, until this Donald died. So that notwithstanding of all this new purchase, the people knew that the conveyance of the crown did still run in the old channel, and was held of them after the old tenor.  
His 4. Instance is of Robert Bruce, whom our Laws of Regiam Majestatem call Conquestor Magnus, [He reconquered the Kingdom after the Nobility of Scotland had first at Berwick, then at S, Andrew's, in plain Parliament, sworn homage to the King of England, who will assert there were pactions betwixt him and the People?] Answ. We know out of History, what a miserable condition the Land was brought unto, through occasion of that division and sad disput that was in it, concerning the nearest in the line: and this was the bitter fruit, that Scotland reaped of the change of that laudable custom established near the beginning of he constitution; whereas had not that been changed in the days of Kenneth the third, the fittest person to govern might have been chosen, and that had prevented all this confusion and misery, which the Land was brought unto. 2. Though Bruce at length recovered the Kingdom, yet he received not his crown upon that account, but before he attempted its recovery, out of the hands of the Englishes, he was crowned King at Scone, in april 1036. and there received the Kingdom from the Scots, upon the old account, and according to the old tenor. 3. Though he be termed a great conqueror, as having recovered the Land, out of the hands of the Englishes, as if it had been a conquest, when as it was really, but a recovering of what, he was bound by his place and power, to recover; yet we never find that he claimed a right to the Land, upon that ground of conquest, but stood upon the old basis.  
His fifth & last instance is of this King, [It is known (says he) our Nation was totally subdued by the English, and continued so, for the space of then years, The Representatives of Shires, and Cities, and Towns combined into a Commonwealth government, and sent their commissioners to the meeting thereof at London, where the King's interest was disclaimed; yet in a wonderful way God brought him in again, and finding us at his coming, a fully conquered and subdued nation, restored us to our freedom, from the bondage of foreigners.] Answ. 1. Through too great haste, he hath forgotten a main particular of this Instance. Before we were totally subdued by the Englishes, the King was crowned at Scone in as solemn a manner, as ever any of his Predecessors, except that he was not anointed with holy Oil, nor goat the Pop's benediction; and while crowned, was solemnly engaged to the People by Covenants, vows and oaths, to defend Religion according to the National Covenant, and Solemn League and Covenant, and to prosecute the ends of these Covenants, and upon these conditions took his Crown and Sceptre: Were we a conquest then? 2. Ay but we were conquered afterward, and our Representatives disclaimed the King's interest. But how many were there of these Representatives? And had these Representatives power & commission from the Land, to renunce his Interest? Or were these all accounted Enemies to the King? How is it then, that so many of them are now accounted his most loyal Subjects, and more loyal than such as suffered much, because they would not take that Tender, disclaiming his interest? how comes it, that that Arch-knave Sharp (sufficiently now known by that name and notion both to King, Court and Country) who was the only Minister (so far as I know) in all Scotland, that took that tender, is advanced unto (in stead of a gallows) an arch-prelacy, and primacy? But 3 when the King returned, did he make a re-conquest of us? what meaned then that compact betwixt Monck and the Nobles and others of Scotland, whom he sent for, unto the borders, and to the end he might more closely carry his business, made them all to abjure Charles Stewart and his interest (a sad presage of what would be our Epidemic distemper, when our change or turn began with manifest perjury) did he not a acquante them with his design? and had he not their concurrence? and if he had wanted this, and had thought that Scotland would have been an adversary unto his design, would he or dursl he have attempted it? 4. What way did the King restore us seeing (if he would speak the matter as it was, it was Monck that restored him and us both, as to any restauration we goat: were not we and he restored together? What did he for our restauration? was He not as passive as we were and some what more? 5. Hence than it is false that he found us at his coming a fully conquered and subdued nation. He rather left us so, as found us so, for we were restored, to what we goat pari passu, with himself. 6. It is true at his coming (though not by him) we were freed from the bondage of foreigners, but as for the freedom we were restored unto, we are yet ignorant of it, and see and feel heavier bondage both as to Church and State, than we did under strangers of foreigners. But he addeth. [If any will say, That it was upon his account the Nation was brought to the suffering of that bondage; and that there did lie bands upon him, as our sworn King to free ws, when he should be in capacity to do it. It may be answered. 1. It is known that when the fa●al stroke that sunk us into bondage was given, there was an express disowneing of his right, by public judicatories of the land, in the quarrel with the English Sectaryes, before Dumbar.] Answ. He should first have removed this objection. It was upon the King's account that the English army did invade us: had we forborn to have sent commissioners to have called Him home, The Englishes would never have invaded us: for that was their only quarrel; Because we had taken the Head of the Malignant faction Into our bosom: and so, had we forborn to have owned his quarrel, we had neither been invaded, nor subdued by them, and there had not been so much of our blood shed, as there was. And is this all the thanks that now we get for our vast expense of blood, oppression, and Ten years' bondage, that we must be declared a conquest and a subdued Nation? 2. It is a manifest lie▪ to say that his interest was expressly disowned by the public judicatories of the land, before Dumbar fight: for that act of the West Kirk (to which I know he looketh) was not an express disowning of his interest, as may be seen by the act itself, which was as followeth, [Westkirk the 13 day of August. 1650. The commission of the General Assembly considering, that there may be just ground of stumbling from the King's Majesties refuseing to subscribe and emit the declaration offered unto him by the commmitee of Estates, and commissioners of the General Assembly, concerning his former carriage, and resolution for the future, in reference to the cause of God, & Enemies & Friends thereof; doth therefore declare that this Kirk and Kingdom, do not own nor espouse any Malignant party or quarrel, or interest; but that they fight merely upon their former grounds and principles, and in defence of the cause of God, and of the Kingdom, as they have done these twelve years past, and therefore as they do disclaim all the sin and guilt of the King, and of his house; so they will not own Him, nor his interest, otherwise then with a subordination to God, and so far as he owns and prosecutes the cause of God; and disclaims his and his father's opposition to the work of God, and to the Covenant, and likewise all the Enemies thereof; and that they will with convenient speed take in consideration the papers lately sent unto them from Oliver Cromwell, and vindicate themselves from all the falsehoods contained therein, especially in these things, wherein the quarrel betwixt us & that party is mis-stated, as if we owned the late King's proceeding's and were resolved to prosecute and maintain his present Majesty's interest, before and without acknowledgement of the sins of his house, and former ways, and satisfaction to God's People in both Kingdoms] Which when the committee of Estates had seen and considered, they did approve the same, and heartily concurred therein: and what could this honest and most seasonable declaration import, but only that if the King would not by a declaration, acknowledge his sorrow, for his, & his father's carrying on a course destructive of the work of God, and his renunceing of the Malignant interest, and all who would own the same, and his purpose to adhere unto the Covenants, they would not espouse a Milignant quarrel, but fight upon the same grounds and principles, that they had done for twelve years before, and only own him with a subordination to God, and in so far as he did own the cause of God, and renunce Malignancy and Milignants, and that they would take into consideration Oliver Cromwel's papers, for their own vindication, and clearing of the true state of the quarrel, Which was necessary, before they did engage in fight? And would this Malignant Gnatho have had the Land and the public judicatories thereof, contrare to their Covenants, & many Purposes, Resolutions, Vows & Engagements, postponing Christ's interests unto man's and hazard Religion, Libertyes & all, for one, who would not declare himself a friend to Christ, and his interest; but would persist in a stated opposition to Christ and his cause? 3. But let him make of this, what he will, sure his interest was owned, when he, upon second thoughts emited that declaration at Dumfermline upon his refusal of which, this act made at the Westkirk passed, and this was before Dumbar fight. So was his interest sufficiently owned, with the subordination requisite, when he was crowned, which was not very long after that stroke a Dumbar, and after which we goat blows enew, and were redacted at length to bondage. What says he next to this? [2. What ever engagements were upon him for the good of the Nation; yet if these men's principles were to be followed they could have had no force on him, to move him to labour our vindication into liberty, for do not they teach that in the mutual contract and Covenant betwixt King and People, the People are loosed from their duty, if the King fail in his, frangenti fidem fides frangatur eidem; and why then in not the King loosed, if the people fail on their part? It is known that (although the Nobles and body of the people were well enough affected to the King, and cordially loved him, when they were over powered and could do nothing) yet by their Representatives, he was disowned (which in law would be reckoned their own deed: and if a sworn people desert and disclaim their King by their Representatives, may not the King also have the benefit of the conditional Covenant, and leave them as he found them in bondage to foreigners. But such was his Majesty's graciousness and wisdom as well as conscience of duty, that although the Nation had failed much to him, he would not walk after the counsel of these men? And we may (all things considered) assert that the people of Scotland do rather owe their liberty to him, than he doth owe his authority to them, or by virtue of any Covenant with them.] Answ. 1. By what he hath been formerly saying, and by the instances which he hath brought, we see what is the scope he driveth at, viz. To have us now a formal conquest, that so the King may tyrannize over us, and deal with us, as he seeth good, jure conquestus, as being now free from all bonds and obligations, which ever passed betwixt Him and the People. For the fifth particular which he undertook to clear by these five instances, was, that the constitution of this Kingdom neither was, not is, founded on a Covenant betwixt King and People: and yet we see the poor man so straitened that he knoweth not what to say: He would sane lose the King from all Bonds and Covenants, and former obligations, and yet he dar not positively and clearly assert it, but only says if the King would follow our principles, he would account himself loosed from all: but unless, he assert it, clearly and positively, that the King, is really loosed from all his former obligations, he speaks nothing to he point, but must grant, that at least as to this King, the constitution is founded upon a conditional Covenant; and though we should yield all therest, if he grant this to us, we need desire no more, for all our Ends. But 2. in good earnest, let him tell us, Whether the former engagements which were upon the King at his coronation, be loosed or not? If they be loosed and made null, because of what these supposed Representatives did: Then 1. we have a new ground of dissolving the sacred obligations of the Oaths and Covenants, which the King made with God, and with his People, which was not thought upon till this needle-headed man did invent it. The King himself at his return, gave no such ground. 2. If he think that these Representatives (having no express commission to renunce Charles Stewart and his interest, from the land▪ did break their allaigance, why did not the King execute the law against them as traitors (as he did against some under that pretext, but really for their faithfulness to the Covenant, as is made out by the Apologist) why did he seem to approve what they did, by Countenanceing them so much, as he hath done since his return? 3. Doth not himself say that the Nobles and Body of the Land were well enough affected to the King, and cordially loved him, when they were overpowered and could do nothing? Sure then the land did not break, whatsoever some men did. Ay but, says he, in law this would be reckoned their deed. Very hardly, since they gave no commission for such a deed. If he say that they virtually gave such a commission, in that they sent their commissioners unto the commonwealths' Parliament. It may be answered, that not only that was a constrained and extorted act, but, that as matters than stood, no lawyer, no politician, nor divine would condemn such a deed as sinful or unlawful, or as prejudicial to the King's interest, to send commissioners to a meeting, at command of the Conqueror, to labour for a mitigation of their bondage, and for proposeing some things for the good of the land, when their own King was banished from them, without all hope of a return, and they, for his sake, without any treachery or perfidy in them, reduced to a state of bondage. 3. But since the King at his return laid claim to no new right, but stood upon the old ground, and upon this account was crowned in England where he had not been crowned before, and was not crowned in Scotland, because he had been crowned there formerly, all these quirks are to no prupose: for the King returning upon the old claim, acknowledged the former constitution, and re-assumed his ancient Kingdom upon the same terms he did before, which is also further confirmed by the act of indemnity, which he passed; and other acts and deeds, which were needless now to mention. 4. We shall easily grant, that when a sworn People desert and disclaim their King by their Representatives: The King also may take the benefit of the conditional Covenant and leave them. and so might King Charles have done, and never owned us more: and if he had done so, and gone to some other part of the world, to have spent his days, as some would not have been grieved, so, I think both lawyers and divines would have thought him loosed from his obligation to the people, though not wholly from his obligation to God: But now since he did not so, but took the first occasion that was feisible, and returned to his old station and relation, all the old bonds and engagements, which he took in these relations, recurred with their former force and vigour, and he became no less bound than ever, yea, before the Lord, rather more: because the goodness of God in restoreing him without blood, should have engaged his heart so much the more unto God, & to his former vows and Covenants. 5. What way he laboured our vindication into liberty, I know not; and if it be his Majesty's graciousness and wisdom, as well as his conscience of duty, that would not let him walk after the counsel of these men, (as he sayeth) many think that we are yet to see these commendable dispositions; for the effect mentioned is not visible: for after the counsel of whomsoever he hath walked, sure we are, he hath broken the Bonds and Engagements which he took on him, both before, and on the day of his coronation: He hath rejected the Covenant, which he made with God upon his knees, with his hands lifted up unto the Most High, and overturned that which was the Chief of our fundamental laws, or terms of our constitution, as we see this day: and this is known, that of these who are most injured by him now, and presecuted, there were fewest that failed to him in that day; and therefore his graciousness and wisdom and conscience of duty, should have caused him remember these, who could not, out of conscience of their obligation to him, by virtue of their Covenant, take that Tender, which, others, to save themselves from a little suffering, swallowed down without much difficulty; and not have made them the objects of his ire and indignation, as he hath done, and is doing to this day. 6. He tells us, that He may assert, that the People of Scotland do rather own their liberty to him, than he his authority to them. But what this bold assertor sayeth, is not much to be valued; who these People of Scotland are, who own their liberty to him, I know not, unless he mean the abjured Prelates, and their base naughty, scandalous Underlings, the scum of the earth, the shame of the Church, and the disgrace of the Ministry, who now have freedom from Church-Discipline, and civil censures, and licence to corrupt the word of God, to destroy souls, to tyrannize over consciences, to oppress the People, to enslave the subjects, and to lead back the People into Egypt: And the dyvour Lords and others, who because of their licentious, luxurious, sensual and brutish lives, which they lead like so many Epicures, having devoured their own Estates, and are now so drowned in debt, that if the poor could have but liberty to seek their own, and if justice were running like a stream, durst not be seen, must now have acts made in their favours liberating them from the sentence of the law, and allowing them to press upon their creditors, the most barren, fruitless, and useless of their lands, and that at twenty years' purchase, after they have by manifest iniquity, withheld aught years annualrent, which is near the equal half of the principal sum; and such others acts of that nature. Is this the liberty he talks of, That a few shall have liberty to drink away and with debauchery, destroy the substance of the land, and waste it upon whores and cups? If these own that liberty, unto him, I am sure he will have little reason, ere all be done, to own his standing unto them, When the anger of God shall beginner to kindle, and his wrath shall be revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men. But lastly, what if we should grant him, what he dar not in plain terms require: viz. That the King ruleth over us now jure conquestus? Sure he must then be Tyrannus sine titulo, a Tyrant without a title: for his old title, being gone and expired, he had no new title whereupon to ground the lawfulness of his conquest, and therefore by his scope and drift here, he proclaimeth a liberty to all the People of Scotland to carry towards him, as an usurper; to seek to dethrone him, and to cut him off: for Politicians will grant that a Tyrant without a title may be so dealt with: And thus we fee that if he lose the old fundations, he shakes the throne more than he is a war of; And as in many other things through this pamphlet so in this, he doth his Master no good service, notwithstanding of the great fee he hath goat for his pains.  
The sum of what followeth, Pag. 92, 93. is this [That none before King James 6. did at their installing enter into Covenant with the People, (except what one sayeth of Gregory the great, who swore to defend the libertyes of the Christian Religion, etc. which then was Popery) and neither did King James himself do it, but only Morton and Hume in his name promised somehing like it; nay it is doubted, if King Charles the first did swear that oath, of if he did, he was the first, and yet he was aught year's our King before, and it is to be believed on good ground, that if he had thought his taking of that oath, should have subjected him to the coactive and punitive power of the Subjects, in every case, wherein they or any party of them) being mere private persons) might think him deficient, he would rather have endured any death. but it shall be avowed, that he did never shrink from the observation of that Godly oath, neither hath his Majesty who now reigneth swerved from the observation of that oath hitherto, and we are hopeful, God's grace shall preserve him hereafter, from any such thing.]  
Answ. 1. We cannot expect that Buchanan, studying much brevity, would set down all the formalityes that were used at the coronation of the Kings, he only satisfying himself with a series of the succeeding Kings, and with a relation of some of the most remarkable passages: And therefore, it is no good argument to conclude that no such thing was; because he doth not make mention thereof. 2. other historians name some other Kings beside that Gregory, who took an oath at their coronation, as Corbred the 21. King, who swore se majorum consiliis acquieturum. That he should be ruled by the counsel of a Parliament, whom he accounted his Superiors. So in Macbethus his days, it was ordained by the Estates, that the King should swear to maintain the community of the Realm. 3. Whether they did actually swear an oath at their coronation or not, it is not much to the matter; for a virtual and implicit Covenant will ground all which we desire, and that there was this much, cannot be denied, seeing Kings, who could not reign, was laid aside; others who corrupted government, were pursued, sentenced, punished, imprisoned, and killed in battle, or otherwise made to promise amendment; And seeing we find bonds laid upon Kings, as that in the days of Finnanus the 10. King. [That Kings thereafter should do nothing of any great concernment, without the authority of their public Council, and should not rule the Kingdom according to the Counsel of his Domestics; That he should manage no public business which belonged to the King, without the advice and conduct of the Fathers, and should neither make peace or war, enter into Leagues, or break Leagues by himself, without the concurrence and command of the Fathers & Heads of tribes.] This was a fundamental Law of the Kingdom, and all who accepted of the crown thereafter must have accepted it upon these terms, though they had not been in plain terms expressed, So Durstus his Successor did swear the same, and therefore in Mogaldus the 23. King his days, this is called the ancient custom, for he ad consilia Seniorum omnia ex prisco more revocavit, did all by a Parliament according to the ancient and received custom: And because Conarus the 24. King neglected, or refused to follow this received custom, he was cast into prison; So that the not observing of these conditions made them obnoxius unto the coactive power of the People. So was Romachus censured by the Parliament for the same crime. So we read of many others censured for their misdemanurs as Constantine the 43. King, Ferchardus the first the 52. King, Ferchardus the 2. the 54. King, Eugenius the 62. King, Donaldus the 70. King, all which instances & many such like, do abundantly clear that the Kings of old were under bonds and obligations, if not explicit, yet tacit unto the People. 4. Whatever can be said concerning the ancient Kings; yet now it is past doubt that all our Kings are bound to swear an oath at their coronation, and so are under conditions and Covenant-tyes and obligations, and this is enough for our present purpose. 5. It was thought suffificient in point of formality & legality that the Earl of Mortoun and Hume should swear in name of the King, at this coronation. [That he should observe the Laws, and according to his power should preserve the doctrine, and rites of Religion, which were then taught, and publicly received, and oppose himself to all which was repugnant thereunto.] And this was the very sum of that oath, which was afterward concluded in Parliament, to be received by all Kings at their coronation. And the reason why they did not put King james to that oath thereafter, was because, he was but once crowned, and the oath was to be sworn at the coronation: and when King james was crowned, It was done by others for him, as is said. 6. Though this man make a question, whether King Charles did swear this oath or not at his coronation, yet it is notoure that he did, and though he believeth, that if the King had thought, that his taking of that oath, should have been so far mistaken by his Subjects, as that he should have been thought thereby, to have submitted himself to their coactive and punitive power, in every case, wherein they or any part of them might think him deficient, he would rather have endured any death, than so to have cast himself away, at the pleasure of malcontented parties, amongst the People, taking advantage against him by that oath: (all which we may give him good leave, to believe, for we assert no such thing) yet he must suffer us to believe also, upon as good ground, That if King Charles had absolutely or peremptoriely refused to have taken that oath, or had said, That he would rule as he listed, and have no regaird to the established laws; and whould bring in what Religion he pleased, though it were Machometanisme or Popery; or that he did not account himself obliged to the Subjects by any oath he could take, The Nobles and others would have scrupled to have given him the Crown, and acknowledged him King. And their after practices declared that they looked upon him, as a King obliged by terms and conditions unto them: which when he broke, they maintained their right against him, with their sword, when no other mean could prevail. 7. Though it be true, that King Charles the first was acknowledged King sometime before he was crowned, yet that was with respect to the same conditions, unto which he was, by his taking the place, virtually obliged; and therefore afterward, when he came to be crowned, and formally installed, he did also formally and expressly take on the obligation. And whether he did ever shrink from the observance of that godly oath, let this perfidious man avow what he will, many will assert it as certain, in some points, and too too probable in other. 9 But though he should doubt whether any King, before King Charles' the second, did swear any oath or Covenant with the People; yet he cannot doubt of what this King Charles the second did: It being being beyond all denial and contradiction, That he swore both that Oath which was enjoined in King james the si●t his days; and also the National Covenant, and the Solemn League and Covenant: and that according to these, the Subjects did swear obedience unto Him: Here was then a mutual conditional Covenant, explicitly, and in plain terms, with all the solemnities imaginable, entered into: and what needs more to clear all which we have said, and to ground all which we would infer, to justify the late action: For as for his vain inferences, they concern not us, and more shall be spoken of them afterward. 10. Though this Surveyer be ready to avow that this King hath never swerved from the observation of that oath enjoyed Anno 1567. yet all the World seeth, that he hath not, as he ought to have done, maintained the true Religion, nor right preaching, and administration of Sacraments; Neither hath he, according to his power, abolished and withstood all false Religions contrary to the same, as appears by the great indulgence, and toleration, if not countenance, granted to Popery and Papists. Neither hath he ruled us, according to the will of God, but rather persecuted us for adhering to the Word of God: nor hath he ruled us, by the laudable Laws and constitutions of the realm, but hath with a packed Parliament, principled to his mind, overturned our laws & libertyes, & hath framed & established iniquity by a law. 11. But what says he to the Nat. Cou. & League & Cou.? Dane he avow that he hath not broken these? If he had not, we had not been troubled this day, with a Popish Prelatical and Malignant faction, nor had we seen these abjured and foresworn Prelates, nor had we seen the work of reformation of religion, in worship, Doctrine. Discipline and Government, so overthrown, overturned and trodden upon, as it is this day. 12. So then, seeing he cannot deny, but the King took and solemnly swore these Covenants, and that now he hath openly, and avowedly broken them, it is undeniable that he hath broken the conditions on which he was made King: yea, seeing these were the main conditions, and the only conditions considerable, and were become the fundamental law of our constitution, he hath violated the principal and only conditions covenanted, and what we shall hence infer, we shall now show.  
Having thus vindicated and cleared the premises, we shall draw out our arguments and conclusions thence, and,  
1. If People propose conditions and terms unto Princes, to be by them acquiesced in, and submitted unto, and upon which they are to accept their Crown and Sceptre; Then, if the Prince of King violate these conditions which he once accepted, and contrare of his promise and engagement, destroy what he promised to build up; The People may very lawfully defend themselves, and these good ends, which they endeavoured to have secured, by proposeing these conditions unto the Prince, when he is seeking to destroy all, even by force when there is no other remedy. But such is our case. The King was formally and expressly engaged by Compacts and Covenants to secure the Reformed Religion in Doctrine, worship, Discipline, and Government; to secure all these who owned the same, and adhered to the Covenants; and to ratify and approve all laws made for these Covenants, and for the security of such as entered into these Covenants: and now notwithstanding of these conditions agreed unto by him, the Covenant and work and all is overturned, People persecuted merely upon the account of their adhering to these Covenants, all conditions are violated, all Covenants, Vows, Compacts, Engagements and what could be devised for security of the reformation and of the owners thereof, are broken. Who then can condemn even private persons if they stand to their defence in this case? See Althusius polit. cap. 38. n. 30.  
2. If People may lawfully and laudably defend the fundamental laws of the Kingdom, on which the constitution of the Kingdom standeth, and on which the security of what is dear to them as men, and as Christians, relveth. Then the late act cannot be condemned; because, in defending themselves, they stood for that which was the main and principal term of our constitution. But the former is true: because the Prince violating these, destroyeth the constitution, and because He cannot do this as a Prince, having already engaged as a Prince to maintain the constitution, he must do it as a private person, or an enemy to the constitution and whole body of the land. Therefore he may well be resisted, even by private people, see this fully made out by Althus. Pol. cap. 38. n. 37. both out of Lawyers and Divines.  
3. If a People, even by resistance, may defend their personal libertyes and rights, secured unto them by Compacts with the Prince, or by the fundamental laws of the land, which the Prince as Prince is bound to maintain. Then the late act cannot be condemned: because by it they were but defending that, which the King had secured unto them, by his compact, and which was secured unto them by the fundamental law of the land. But the former is true: because a private person is allowed by law to maintain his Lands and Rights, even though some, in the King's name, should come, under whatsoever pretext, to robe and dispossess him, and shut him to the door. Therefore, this late act, though of private people, cannot be condemned.  
4. If a Prince violating all, or he main conditions, upon which he was made Prince, becometh stricto jure no Prince, but falleth from his benefice, not having done the offices, in consideration of which, he goat that benefice conferred upon him [non enim (sayeth Althus. ubi supra) commodum debet sentire ex contractu quem vel omittendo vel committendo quis impugnat.] Then lawfully enough such an one may be resisted, even by Private people; as is clear. But the former is made clear above: and such is our case now; for the King hath broken, palpably and avowedly, the main and principal conditions, on which he was made King, having overturned the work of reformation, which, if he had not promised, vowed and covenanted to maintain, he had never been crowned or admitted to the exercise of that Government. Who then can blaime a People standing to their own defence, when oppressed and tyrannised over by his emissaries, who hath thus violated the principal and only conditions of the compact, and is forcing them to the same excess of wickedness and perjury? [deficiente hâc conditione sayeth Althus. Pol. c. 38. n. 40.) desinit ●bligatio, & fidem non servanti, fidem ei quoque non servari aquum est. Nam qui non facit quod debet, nec recipit quod oportet, nec p●tere potest, quod ei ideo ab alio debetur: quam naturam esse conventionum in quibus utraque pars contrahens obligatur, testatur Tiraq. de Legib. Connub. Gloss. 1. part 13. n. 42. & la●è Mascard. Concl. 1387. per Alleg. Ibid. Rolland. a Val. Consil. 69. Vol. 4. & Consil. 53. Vol. 1. quando ergo una pars promissa non praes; that, facit eo ipsout & altera liberetur. Dynus Alexander & Jason, in L. cum proponas C. de pactis.]  
5. If when a Prince violateth the main and principal conditions, on which he was installed, a People be siricto jure liberated from subjection unto him. Then much more may they resist him, when he by his emissaries oppresseth, and unjustly violenteth them. But we have cleared the former to be true. Therefore, so is the later. The consequence cannot be denied: for if stricto jure a people may disowne a prince, then much more may they repel his unjust violence. If law admit the more, it will admit the less also. The application of this is clear from the former.  
6. If the Covenant or Compact, which is betwixt Prince and People give law-clame to the People to pursue the Prince., in case of failing in the main and principal thing covenanted: Then, sure the People may resist unjust violence; for they who pursue, for a broken Compact, according to their claim, may far more defend their claim when invaded by force, contrare to the compact. The application of this is also clear.  
7. Since by this compact, it is clear as Althusius tells us Pol. Cap. 19 n. 12. that the People or Kingdom are the full Lords proprietors of all the power, and have free liberty to dispose of it, the fruit and emolument thereof redounding to themselves, having full power no less than any private person to manage dispose, and dispense in their own matters as they please. Then when they find the person to whom the Government is committed by compacts, administrating the same to their hurt and destruction, they may see to their own good, and not suffer themselves to be destroyed, but resist him who instead of a mandatarius and servant, turneth a Tyrant and Enemy.  
8. Since, as the same Althusius sayeth Ibid. n. 13. by this compact it is apparent, that the Ius the power or authority, which is given to the Supreme Magistrate is not his own, & is less than the Ius of the People & inferior to theirs; because it dependeth upon the free will & prescription of the People, & endeth with the death of the prince, who is Mandatarius; as other contractus Mandati use to do, and recurreth to its own proper Master and Lord. Then it cannot be unlawful for the People the commander here, to see to their own safety, and provide that their own free gift destroy them not, and so to resist the Prince abuseing that power to their destruction.  
9 If it be certain (as it is to Althus. Pol. c. 19 n. 47.) that the Prince hath no more power given to him by the People, than what is contained in the conditions upon which he undertaketh the government, and what more he assumes, he usurpeth by tyranny from the People. Then when he usurpeth more power than was given to him, he may be resisted: and the People are allowed to preserve their own: and when he ruleth contrare to the conditions, and destroyeth these, it is certain He arrogateth to himself a power which was never given to him, yea which was virtually prohibited and discharged to him: and in that case may lawfully be resisted, as is undeniable. The antecedent Althusius proveth in the forecited place n, 48. saying [aequitas hujus rei naturalis demonstrari potest ex natura mandati, quod dicitur contractus bonae fidei, obligans eum qui alienorum negotiorum administrationem suscepit, ne limits & fines mandati excedat, sed contineat se intraterminos praescriptos a mandante, ut latius docent J. CC. quibus addendus Vasq. Illustr. Quaest. L. 1. c. 47. n. 13.   

CAP. VII.  
Of the Nature of the King's Power over his Subjects. Our Arguments hence.  
FRom what hath been said in the two former chapters, we may saifly gather these conclusions concerning the nature of the power of a Sovereign over his Subjects, which will yield us so many arguments, confirming the point in hand.  
1. The Soveraigne's power over his Subjects, is not properly a parental power, that is, not such a power as parents have over their children: for 1. The Soveraigne's power over the Subjects ariseth from a voluntary compact, and consent of the Subjects, as was showed; but the Father's power requireth no such previous consent or compact. 2. The Soveraigne's power may be restricted to so many degrees by the Subjects; so cannot the Father's by the Children. 3. The Subject's obedience and subjections to the Sovereign may be conditional; as we have proved, and our adversaries will grant it, in limited Princes: but so cannot the subjection of Children be. 4. Whethersoever Children go, they keep always the same relation to the same Parents: but Subjects may change their Sovereigns, by changing the places of their habitation. 5. Children can in no case break that relation, which is betwixt their Fathers and them; but in many cases, Royalists themselves will grant, Subjects may shake off the King. 6. Children cannot change their Fathers: but Subjects may change their Sovereigns; for Royalists will grant that such as are under an Aristocracy may make choice of a Monarch. 7, Children hold their natural being of their Parents, but Sovereigns are designed only for the political or civil wellbeing of the Subjects. 8. Subjects may choose what Sovereigns they will, whether Monarchical or Aristocratical, and what people in this, or that form: Children can not choose what Parents they shall have. 9 Subjects can condescend upon the time how long such an one shall be their Sovereign, ad vitam or culpam: but Children can not set bounds unto their Parent's power. 10. Sovereign's have not begotten all their Subjects, nor doth their relation or power flow form such an act: but Paternal power doth. 11. If the Soveraigne's power were paternal only, than he should not have power of life and death, because parents as such have not that power over their Children▪ 12. The Surveyer himself granteth this Pag. 29. in these words. [Kings are not fathers of our flesh, or by generation, nor can they be truly called so, political and parental power are different things.] So then the Soveraigne's power is paternal only in a metaphorical sense: because They should have a Fatherly care and inspection over their Kingdoms, and should nourish, cherish, love and govern them tenderly and carefully; and as Parents in some respects, love their children better than themselves, so should they prefer the good of the commonwealth unto their own: and upon this account are styled Fathers Gen. 20. 2. judg. 5. 7. 1 Sum. 24. 12. Isa. 49. 23. as also Pastors are.  
2. The Soveraigne's power is not properly Marital, or such as Husbands have over their Wives, for. 1. Wives cannot limit their Husband's power, as Subjects may limit their Soveraigne's. 2. Wives cannot prescribe the time how long such an one shall be their Husband, as Subjects may do with their Sovereigns. 3. Wives cannot change their Husbands, as Subjects may change an Aristocracy into a Monarchy. 4. Wives are apppointed for an help to the Husband, but the Sovereign is rather for the Commonwealth, than the Commonwealth for him. 5. If the Soveraigne's power were such, than he could not have power of life and death; for a Husband as such hath not that power over his Wife. 6. Though the Husband and the Wife be in distinct Kingdoms, the relation standeth, and is not broken upon that account, but if a subject go out of one Kingdom, to live into another, he changeth his Sovereign, and hath a relation to a new Sovereign.  
3. So he is but metaphorically, and not properly called the Head of the Commonwealth: for 1. the head is not made Head by the free choice of the Members: but the Sovereign is chosen by the People. 2. The Members have not so much as a consent in setting up the Head: but Subjects, at least, have this much, in setting up of Princes 3. the Members can never change the Head, but Subjects may change their Sovereigns. 4. The Members can make no compact with the Head, as Subjects may do with their Princes. 5. The Members cannot limit the power of the Head, as Subjects can limit the power of their Princes. 6. The Members cannot destroy the Head and live themselves, but Subjects can destroy the Monarch and choose another. 7. The Head communicateth life, sense & motion to the rest of the members; so doth not the Prince unto his Subjects. 8. The same individual life is in Head and Members; but not in King and Subjects. 9 Head and Body die and live together, but there is no such connexion betwixt King and Subjects. So then he is but a metaphorical Head, so called, because of his supereminency, He is over the civil body to rule and guide it aright.  
4. The Sovereign hath no Lordly, dominative, or masterly power over the Bodies of his Subjects. For 1. this government is founded upon the law and light of pure nature, but this masterly dominion is a fruit of sin. 2. Slavery being against nature, & a bondage, which all would willingly shun, we cannot suppose that rational people would choose that life, if they could help it: but they willingly, & not out of constraint, choose government & governor's 3. The people in setting up a Soveratigne propose their own good & have their own ends, but if the Soveraigne's power were properly a masterly power, they should propose rather his good then their own in setting him up. 4. If his power were a masterly power, their condition after the government were established should be worse, than it was before: for their state of liberty was preferable to their state of bondage. 5. They had not acted rationally, if to be free of oppression of others, they had willingly given up themselves unto an oppressor, endued with masterly dominion and power. 6. Master's might sell their servants for gain Gen. 9 25. and 20. 14. and 26. 14. 1 King. 2. 32. 2. King. 4. 1. Neh. 5. 8. Eccles. 2. 7. job. 1. 3, 15. But the prince cannot sell his Kingdom. 7. Sovereign's have not such a power as this, from God, but only a power to feed, to rule, to defend, and to watch over the people for their good, 1 Tim. 2. 2. Ps. 78. 71. 2 Sam. 5. 2. 1 Chron. 11. 2. and 17. 6. Neither have they it from the People; for they cannot give such a power, whereby to make themselves slaves. 8. If it were so, Princes should not be a blessing unto a People, but rather a curse contrare to 1 King. 10. 9 Esa. 1. 26. jer. 17. 25. Hos. 1. 11. 9 It is a blessing to be free of slavery Exod. 21. 2, 26, 27. Deut. 15. 12. jer. 34. 9 joh. 8. 33. 1 Cor. 9 19 But it is not a blessing to be free of government, but a curse and judgement rather, judg. 19 1, 2. Esa. 3. 1, 6, 7. Hos. 3. 4. 10. Subjects are the King's brethren, Deut. 17. 20. and so not his slaves. The Surveyer Pag. 30. 31. granteth that there is a great difference betwixt Magistratical power and Masterly, and giveth three main differences. 1. That the Master of slaves had his own profit mainly before his eyes, and the profit of the Slaves only secondarily: But the Magistrate's power is premarily ordinated to the Public good of the Community itself, and only secondarily and consequentially to the good of Himself. 2. That Masters had a greater power over the bodies and goods of these, who were their Slaves, than a Magistrate can claim over Subjects. 3. The Master had the slaves in subjection to him, more out of fear and constraint, than love or delight: But a King hath his Subjects under him, in a civil, free, liberal, voluntary, and loving subjection. Thus we see this point is clear and undeniable by him, though other Royalists will not grant so much: but sure if they were his slaves, they behoved to be taken in war or bought with money.  
5. Neither hath he a despotic & masterly power over the go●ds of his Subjects, what ever use may be allowed to make of them, in case of necessity (when, in some respect, all things are common) for the Common good, and good not only of the owners, but also of all the Community. Yet the Subjects are righteous proprietors of their own goods. For 1. the People make choice of him, for this very end to preserve them in their rights, to keep their rights inviolated, to keep them from oppression and injuries of others; so that it cannot be imagined that rational People would make choice of one great robber, to preserve them from lesser robbers. 2. Their case should be rather worse as better, by the erecting of a civil government, if the Sovereign were the only proprietor of all their goods for before the erection they had a just right and title unto their own goods. 3. Sovereign's should not be a blessing unto a People, but a curse: Which is false. 4. Then they could wrong no man take what they would from him, contrare to Zeph. 3: 3. Esai 3: 14, 15. and 58: 4, 6. Mich. 3: 3. see Timpl. pol. lib. 5. cap. 1. quaest. 3. 5. The law, Deut. 17. contradicteth this masterly power over the Subject's goods. 6. Ahab was blaimed for taking Naboths Vineyaird. 7. This is the very character of a Tyrant, 1 Sam. 8. 8. The Kings of Egypt had not his propriety, Gen. 45. 9 No man might then defend his own right by law against the Sovereign, but he might take what he pleased, from whom he pleased, and give to whom he pleased. 10. Then the King could not properly buy or sell with his Subjects. 11. Nor could Subjects make any barganes amongst themselves without his consent. 12. Nor could they exerce any acts of charity; because charity must be of men's own, Esa 58: 7. Ecc. 11: 1. 13. Yea, Subjects could neither perform a duty, nor fail in a duty, in the matter of goods, if all were his. 14. Subjects could not be enjoined to pay tribute unto the Prince, contrare to Rom. 13: 6. 15. It is contrare both to the Law of God and nature: see Timpl. ubi supra.  
6. Hence Sovereigns are not proper proprietors of their Kingdoms: Because 1. there are other qualifications required of them, than is required of ordinary proprietors. 2. The People then could never change their Sovereigns. 3. The Sovereign might sell and dispone his Kingdoms, as he pleased, which Royalists themselves will not grant. 4. Kingdom's then should come in amongst bona fortuna. 5. His place should not be properly a function or office, but a proper possession. 6. Several Kings both in Scotland & elsewhere, have been hindered from dilapidating the revenues of the crown, or by gifts and other contracts deteriorating the Kingdom, and punished for so doing. 7. Would rational men give themselves up for a prey to one, that they might be saife from becoming a prey to others? 8. How should then a Sovereign be chosen for the good of the Kingdom, if he might do with it what he pleased, sell it, or dispone it to the Turk: or such like. 9 Paul, by commanding that tribute & custom be given to him, supponeth some other thing: see Althus. poli. cap. 24. n. 35, 37.  
7. Nor so much as usufructuaryes: For 1. they may not lay their Kingdoms in pledge, as an usufructuary may do. 2. Nor can they give them freely away. Nor 3. may they do with them what they please, as usufructuaryes may do with what they have by that right: See jun. Brut. vind. cont. Tyr. q. 3. p. (mihi) 205.  
8. The Soveraigne's power is properly a fiduciary power, such as the power of a Tutor of Patron, for to this end & purpose was He created of the People that he might defend them from injuries and oppressions. He is apppointed over them by God for their good, and is to seek that mainly. 2. though he hath his power by way of compact, yet it is not a compact ex condigno, such as betwixt buyer and seller, upon valuable prices and considerations 3. His power is limited & restricted and he is bound to conditions, as we showed. 4. He may not (as was said) dispose of his Subjects, and of their lives as he pleaseth. 5 if he sell his Kingdoms, Royalists grant he may be dethroned; therefore he hath no other power then of a Tutor, Public Servant, or Watchman, 6. His power is over his Subjects, as it is over the law of God and religion, but over those he hath no other power, but a ministerial Tutorypower: He is to take care for them ex officio, as a special pawn committed to his trust, to see that they be not wronged or violated: see Althus. polit. cap. 24. n. 43, 44, 45. Adrian the Imperour used to say Ita se Remp. gesturum ut sciret Populi esse. non suam.  
Hence we draw these arguments for resistance of Sovereigns by mere private Subjects, in cases of necessity.  
1. If it be lawful for Children to resist their Father, when enraged against them, and seeking in his fury, to destroy and cut them off, without any violation of the Law of God enjoining Children to obey, and be subject to, their Parents in the Lord; Then it is lawful for Subjects though private persons, to resist the fury of their enraged Sovereign, when he is seeking, in his cruelty and rage, contrary to compact, oaths and vows, to destroy Them and their Religion. But the former is true. Therefore etc. The Assumption cannot be denied by any rational person. It being most just and rational, that when the Father is taken with a distemper in his brain, and in his madness seeketh to destroy or cut the throats of his Children, They may join together, bind his hands, pull the weapon out of his hand and defend themselves the best way they can. The connexion of the proposition is certain; for, the most the adversaries can make of the Sovereign's power is that it is paternal, and that he is parens patriae the Father of the Commonwealth: & yet seeing natural Fathers may be resisted by their natural Children, in case of necessity, without the help or conduct of Magistrates: Why may not also private Subjects, without the conduct of a Parliament, defend of themselves, in case of necessity, against the fury and rage of their civil father, when he by his bloody emistaries, is seeking to undo them? But next we may draw the argument from the less to the more. If it be lawful for Children, in cases of necessity, to defend themselves against, and to resist the unjust violence of their enraged Father: Then much more is it lawful, for private subjects, in cases of necessity, without the conduct of Parliament, to defend themselves against and to repel the unjust violence of their Sovereign. For there is not such a connection betwixt the Sovereign and his Subjects, as betwixt Parents and their Children, as we have abundantly cleared: And again, if some of the Children may resist the unjust violence of their Parent and of others of their Brethren, joining with their enraged Father to cut them off, that they alone may enjoy the whole inheritance or for some such ends: Then far more may a part of the Commonwealth resist the Prince's unjust Tyranny, though he hath the other parts of the Commonwealth concurring with him, to their destruction: For the argument followeth, as I said, à; minori ad majus, from the less to the more: And the union, tye & relation betwixt Brethren, Sons of the same Father, is as great, yea greater, than the tye, union and relation betwixt one part of the Commonwealth & another; this relation being but political and in itself no ways indissoluble, but the other natural and indissoluble.  
2▪ If Wives may lawfully defend themselves against the manifest and unjust violence of unnatural and enraged Husbands, and repel, in case of necessity, violence with violence, without the conduct or concurrence of other Magistrates. Then it is no less, yea much more, lawful for mere Private Subjects, in cases of necessity, to resist without the help and conduct of a Parliament, the furious and unjust assaults of their enraged Sovereign. But the former is true, as all will grant. Therefore, etc. The proposition is clear from this. That there is not so great a tye betwixt Prince and Subjects, as betwixt Husband and Wife: And say that he had an equal power over his Subjects, with that which the Husband hath over his Wife (which is false,) yet the connexion will be firm, as to a lawfulness in this case, as well as in the other.  
3. If there be not such a connexion betwixt the Sovereign and his Subjects, as is betwixt the natural Head, and the Body. Then it can no more yea, far less, be an unnatural thing for Subjects to defend themselves against the violence of distempered Princes, Who seek directly to destroy the Commonwealth, when necessity doth urge; Then it is for the members of the Body, to defend and fortify themselves against danger, pain or sickness, occasioned by a distemper of the brain, yea and with violence seek to cure & remove that distemper in the head, that is like to destroy the whole body.  
4. If the Sovereign hath not a Lordly domination, & masterly power over his Subjects, but they be is Brethren & not his Slaves; and, if the very Law will allow Servants to defend themselves against their Lords and Masters, L. Minime 35. de Rel. & sumpt. funer. and no man with us will account it unlawful for servants to defend themselves against the unjust and violent assaults of their Lords and Masters. Then far less can it be accounted unlawful for private Subjects to defend themselves, when constrained with necessity, against the unjust assaults of the Sovereign or his emislaries. But the Antecedent is cleared, and confessed. Ergo.  
5. If the Sovereign have no despotic or Masterly power over the goods and heritage's of his Subjects, as we have proved. Them very lawfully may they defend their lands goods and heritage's, from the violent and unjust oppressions; of the Prince or his emissaries, sent out to plunder, rob, destroy their corns, cattle, goods, land sums of money, etc.  
6. If the Kingdom be not his proper heritage, nor he proprietor thereof, as was showed; Then when He or his Emissaries come to destroy a considerable part of the Kingdom, and to alienate the profits and emoluments thereof unto others, than the proper owners and proprietors, unjustly. Then may that part of the Kingdom lawfully resist these unjust oppressors and invaders, & defend their own.  
7. If He be not so much as an usufructuary of the Kingdom: then when He laboureth by his Emissaries to waste and destroy the Kingdom or any part thereof, by unjust violence, private Subjects may resist that unjust violence, and oppose his oppressing Emissaryes. If a Master may hinder his usufructuary tenants who would deteriorate the land, which they possess by compact; Then much more may subjects resist the Prince's Emissaries when labouring utterly to spoil, and lay waste these lands, whereof he is not so much as an usufructuary:  
8. If the King's power be only fiduciary as is showed. Then when that power is manifestly abused, and the pawn which he hath goat to keep, in imminent and manifest danger, lawfully enough may he be resisted; When the Lives, the Liberties of the People, or their Religion is committed unto him, as to a public Tutor, Watchman, or Servant; & He what through negligence, what through wilful wickedness, laboureth to destroy, and undo, and overturn all, very lawfully may Subjects, in that case of extreme necessity, seek to secure the Necessary and desirable things, and resist his fury and unjust violence, who contrare to his oath and promise, seeketh to have all overturned and ruined. Althusius pol. cap. 38. n. 39 speaketh well to this, saying [Octava ratio sumitur a natura contractus mandati, quo summa Magistratui administratio est delata à populo, ad hoc ut Reip pro●it non ut noceat, Rom. 13. Vasq. lib. 1. c. 44. n. 6. etc. 1. & 2. Illust. Contr. quando igitur mandatarius fines mandatiexcedit non illi obligatus est mandator, § 15. qui Just. de Mand. Luc. 16: 1, 2, 3, etc. & quando conditio, status & fortuna mandatarii mutatur in deterius L. si quis cum de procur. L. cum quis desolut. Aut mandatum a mandante revocatur, vel ipse mandans agere & tractare negotium incipit ut tradunt J. CC. Vide Vasq. Lib. 1. c. 43. n. 5. etc. 4, n. 12. Illust Controu.] What he addeth is worth the reading.   

CAP. VIII.  
The People's saifty is the supreme Law. The King is not absolute. Hence some More Arguments.  
THat salus populi est suprema Lex is asserted by the law of the 12 Tables. The worthy author of Lex Rex hath fully confirmed this truth, and vindicated it from the exceptions, and false glosses, of the Royalists, Quaest. 25. And therefore we need say less to it, especially seeing this Surveyer, hath nothing against it, that I have observed.  
That it is a truth, That the people's saifty is the cardinal law, hence appareth, 1. That the attaineing of this end, was the main ground and motive of the people's condescending upon the constitution. 2. They leveled at his end, in making choice of such a form, and not of another; for had they thought another fitter for their temper, and more conduceing for their good, they had not pitched on this, but on that. 3. with an eye to the saife and sure attaineing of this end proposed and designed, they made choice of such people, and of none else. 4. upon this account, did they condescend upon that manner of conveyance of the supreme authority, which they thought best, 5. For no other end, was it, that the Prince was limited and bound unto conditions. 6. The end being always preferable to the means as such, The People's saifty, which is the end, must be preferred to all such things as are made use of as means conduceing to this end. 7. By the very Law and institution of God, the Magistrate is ordained for the People's good, Rom. 13. ver. 4. and to this end, (next to the glory of God, unto which we always give the preference) is he direct all his public actions as a Magistrate, and by this, is he to stir his course, in governing the helm of the Republic. 8. Hence it is that all the municipal laws of the Land, are made, renewed, corroborated, explained, or rescinded and annulled, so as they most conduce to this great end which is ever anima & ratio Legis. 9 Hence also it is, that no law in its letter tending to the hurt and detriment of the Realm, is or can be of force. 10. Hence it is, that the Sovereign in cases of necessity, may neglect the strike observation of the letter of the laws, and for the good of the community, neglect private men's interests. Finally the very law of nature requireth this, as Boxhornius Inst. Polit lib. 1. Pag. 25. tells us.  
Doctor Sanderson in his book dc obligation conscientiae praelect. 9 & 10. laboureth to put another gloss upon this axiom: But he may be easily answered: for we shall readily grant with him, that by saifty here is not meaned dignity, or liberty in some small and inconsiderable trifles, unto which some small and inconsiderable hurt is opposite: nor shall we say that any extraordinary thing is to be attempted in a Commonwealth, against the laws, whensoever any leading popular man or bold rhetoricator or a Démagog shall say that Princes and Magistrates, have violated the laws, done injuries to the people, and neglected their duty; yet he must give us leave to say, That the saifty of the people, is in hazard, when it is manifest and notour, so as they who run may read it, that laws, once established, and for the future good and through security of the subject, by Oaths and Covenantes corroborated, and made irrepelable, by any Magistrate higher or lower, are annulled, condemned, and rescinded; nay the Covenants whereby the land was devouted to God, and their Religion secured to them, and the fundamental law or ground of the Constitution, and condition on which the Sovereign was admitted to his throne, overturned, and trod under foot: All forced to condemn their former actions and Covenants, Vows, Oaths, Prayers, Tears, Fast, Fightings &c. by subscribing contradictory, condemnatory, and rescissory acts, and declarations, and forced to run counter their own oaths and Solemn Engagements, otherwise to be exposed to ruin by arbitrary mulcts, fineings, imprisonements, quarterings, cruel and inhuman usages, plunderings, vastations, depopulations and the like. Is not this equivalent to incursions of foreign adversaries? Is not this depredation committed by wicked subjects? Is there not here impious and horrible acts of tyranny? But he will have the word People taken for the Prince distinct from the People, or in a collective sense, for Prince and People together. He must be a strong rhetoricator indeed that will persuade any to believe this, seeing there is no reason in the world for it: For though we should grant that among the Romans it was sometimes used to design, not only the plebeians, but also the equestral crder conjunctly, as in that axiom Senatus populusque Romanus. The senate and the people of Rome: And that sometimes it did design the Fathers, the knights, and the Plebeians conjunctly, yet it will not follow that it is so it is so taken in this axiom; for if we should follow his own rule, viz. That collective words should be collectively taken, unless the opposite which is annexed, require otherwise: And with all, make use of this own words prael. 10. §. 19 A romana gente &c, 1. e [I have told that this axiom is come to our hands from the Romans, and now I add, that in the 3 book of Cicero de legibus that sentence is frist found, for any thing I know; yet, as he testifieth himself, taken out of the ancient laws of that nation, and copied out of the very letter of the law. Now this Cicero after he hath described and explained, in the preceding book, the laws pertaining to Religion and the worshipping of the Gods, at length? in the third book, he comes to rehearse these laws which concearne the Republic and the Magistrates, where these words are to be found. Regio Imperio duo sunto, iique praeeundo, judicando, consulendo, praetores judices consules appellantor, militiae summum jus habento, nemini parento, ollis (i.e. illis) salus populi suprema lex esto he says, to these the chief law should be the people's saifty: Now who are these? those, viz. Who were endued with King'ly power, and had the chief disposal of the militia, etc.] It will then be as clear as can be, that the opposite which is added or annexed, doth sufficiently show that the word People in this axiom, is to be taken for the People, as contradistinguished from the Magistrates, and not for People and Magistrate conjunctly; far less for the Prince as distinct from the People. And doth not this same sentence of Cicero's fully confirm our Gloss, and say that Princes and Magistrates, as such, ought mainly to design the good of the People, over whom they are set, & to have that for their end in all their public actings, whether in making, or in executing laws? How then can he say that this axiom is rather to be understood of the Prince alone, then of the People alone? But for this he tells us, That the ancient Fathers did esteem of them as next unto God ad inferior to him only, and that the People of Israel, 2 Sam. 18: 3. Did prefer the saifty of the King unto the saifty of all the rest, and in the Lament. 4: 20. He is called the breath of our nostrils. To all which it is easily answered, 1. That all this will not prove, that Princes are bound by reason of their office, only to seek their own good, greatness and power; or to prefer that unto the good of the People; and not rather design, as their proper and principal end, the promoving of the good and saifty of the People committed to their charge. 2. The Fathers might have spoken so of the Emperors, as they were then the facto and in regaird of their supereminency, but notwithstanding of that, they and their supereminency both, was subordinate unto the good of the People, and was ex natura rei, but a mean for that main and great good. 3. It is true in some cases, and at such a nick of time, as that was 2 Sam. 18. The loss of a good King, when he is the main person hunted for by the adversaries, would prove more destructive to the Commonwealth, than the loss of ten thousand, and this rather confirmeth the axiom than weakeneth it, for it was upon the account of the public good of the Commonwealth, that the life of King David was preferable to the lives of many. 4. It is not said, that His life was better then, and preferable to, the lives of the whole body of the Commonwealth. 5. That metaphorical expression Lament. 4. she weth only how useful & steadable the King would be unto them; even a necessary mean to keep them in a politic life as to a Commonwealth; and so it sayeth that, his whole design as a Magistrate should be to procure their good. 6. Moses a good Prince did prefer the People's life unto his own: and David did the same 1. Chron 12: 17. and these do abundantly confirm our sense. He replieth further; That it was no wonder that among the Romans from whom we have this axiom, the People's saifty was the principal law, seeing in that democratical government, the People were the Supreme powers. Ans. This is but a mere shift; for even in a democrat. governm. the People's saifty is distinguished from the Supreme power which is to levelly all to this main end, the saifty of the People. 2. Cicero told us that the Consuls and Praetors were bound to propose this end unto themselves; & so we find that the People, whose saifty is the Supreme law, are distinguished from these who, whether in a Popular or Aristocratical govern. excerced the supreme power. 3. This same is insert in the law of the XII tables, & so it was in force whatever form of government was exerced. But syes he Prael. 9 §. 19 Hence it will not follow, That People may, when they perceive, or cry out that they perceive their libertyes hurt in some things; take arms without the Prince's leave, and violate all laws and duties, and so raise tumults and seditions. Ans. Neither do we say so, nor resolve to draw any such conclusions therefrom; but this is clear, that when the covenanted work of reformation is overturned, laudable laws establishing the same, contrary to oath, and solemn Engagement, rescinded, libertyes palpably violated, People in humanely persecuted for adhering to their Covenants, etc. and unjustly oppressed by the King's emissaries, people may then take arms in their own defence, though the King should refuse to consent, or should countenance the oppressors, & carry on that enslaving course. Again, he says let any read, and read over again that sentence of Cicero and search every pairt of it, where will he find any warrant for Subjects to rise up against princes, to injure them or dethrone them. Ans We do not intend to search the sentence for that end, it will suffice us, if hence we find ground to conclude the lawfulness of People's defending themselves against tyrannizeing Princes, in cases of necessity: and let him, or any for him, read, and better read that whole period, and narrowly consider and examine every sentence and word in it, and see if he can find this condemned.  
Ere I come to speak to the other particular, I shall from this draw some few things useful for our purpose, and,  
1. It is irrational, and mere flattery to cry up and exalt the Sovereign's prerogative, in prejudice, and to the destruction of that, for which both He and His Prerogatives are, and were apppointed, as subservient means, the saifty of the People. That being the jure his main end, and it being for this cause end, that he is endued with such power, and hath such privileges and prerogatives conferred upon him, and allowed unto him, He and his Prerogatives both, should veil unto this Supreme Law the saifty of the People: so that when they come in competition, The People's saifty of right, is to have the pre-eminence.  
2. Since all other laws municipal, made and established in a free Realm, must be subordinate unto this Principal, and Cardinal law, and have tendency to promove, corroborate and establish it: Then, when any of these Laws, in their letter, strick directly at the root of the saifty of the People, and thoward and cross that main and highest law, That law is Eaienus null, and really no law. So that it is but childish scrupulosity, to start at the letter of a law, when the Commonwealth is in hazard: and it is but brutish ignorance to object the letter of a low against such as are endeavouring the saifty of the people, which is the main business, and to preserve the Commonwealth from ruin; and destruction, against which no law is, or can be, of any force or value, but null and of no effect, for here it holdeth true, that summum jus is summa injuria.  
3. Since Laws themselves, when in their letter they cross this main law, must be accounted as no allows really, and de jure; and may saifly be neglected and passed over, when the People's saifty is in no small hazard by the strike adhering to the letter thereof? Then, much more may punctilios, and law formalities be laid aside, when the Commonwealth is in danger. When there is a fire in a City, all the formalities of order are not strictly to observed.  
4. Since The privileges, and lawful prerogatives of the Sovereign must veil, in cases of necessity, unto this High and Supreme Law, the saifty of the People. Then no less must the privileges of a Parliament yield unto this: for whatever privilege they enjoy, it is in order to this end, and the means must always have a subserviency unto the end, and when they tend to the destruction of the end, they are then as no means unto that end, nor to be made use of for that end.  
5. Though King and Parliament both should conspire together against the good of the Land, yet di jure they have no power or authority to destroy that End, and whatever they enact or do, tending to the ruin of this main and principal good, which they should have before their eyes, as their end, is ipso facto null.  
6. When acts and actings of King and Parliament tend directly, and are made and done of purpose, to destroy and overthrow the work of reformation in doctrine, worship, discipline and government; which was owned, and established by laws, with all formalities of law, and was avowed by solemn vows, Covenants, attestations, protestations, declarations, and engagements of all ranks of People, from the highest to the lowest: and courses are laid down, to force and constrain People to renunce their Covenant with God, to turn perjured apostates; and when by acts and actings, the fundamental terms & conditions of our reformed constitution, confirmed by unrepelable laws, by the King's accepting of his Crown and Sceptre, and all other Magistrates accepting their places, upon these terms, are overturned; and when by an arbitrary and illegal tyranny, no man hath security for his life, his lands, his libertyes, nor his religion, is not the saifty of the People in danger? No man needs to say who shall be judge, The Magistrates or the people? For all who have eyes to see may judge, whether the Sun be shineing or not, and all who have common sense may judge in this case. When these things are done and avowed, they cannot be denied, and no man of reason or religion will deny the inference.  
Hence than it is clear, that no man in reason can condemn the late act of defence, which was the only mean left for preserving of that which all government and Governors should levelly at, viz. The saifty of the People, both in soul and body, their Religion, Lives, Liberties, Privileges, Possessions, Goods, and what was dear to them as men, and as Christians, howbeit it wanted the formality of the authority of Sovereign, Parliament or Council. No man who will not deny this axiom, can condemn them as Traitors, seeing they were noble Patriots and loyal to that Supreme law, The saifty of the People.  
As to the other particular, concerning the absolute power of the Soveragne, We say.  
1. That the Sovereign is under obligations to his People, and bound & limited by conditions, we have showed above: which conditions he is bound to observe, see Hoen Disp. Pol. 9  
2. That the Sovereign is not exempted from the laws of God, none but profane graceless, wreatches will deny; since he is a creature of God's and a subject to him, and his servant, Rom. 13. and therefore must not transgress his laws, under the pain of high treason and laese Majesty. It was but a base saying of an impudent whore julia to her step soon Antonius Caracalla, si libet licet, an nescis te imperatorem esse, and no less impious was that saying of Anaxarchus to Alexander the Great, when he had Killed Clitus in a rage, Nesus adsess●rem jovi justitiam, & fas esse quo quicquid actum a dominante fuerit, id jus & fas sit, as if for sooth Alexander could do no wrong. It was an abominable saying of these judges to Cambyses. That though they could find no law permitting a brother to marry his sister, yet they knew of another law, whereby it was lawful to the Kings of Persia to do whatsoever they pleased. All Divines will grant this: and so do Lawyers and Politicians: See Bodine de Repub. lib. 1. cap. 8. Hoenon. Disp. Polit. 9 Thes. 7. Paul. Voetius jurispr. Sacra. Gerhard de Magist Polit. §. 119. Althus. Polit. cap. 19 n. 9, 10, 11. Timpl. Polit. lib. 5. cap. 1. Our Surveyer grants this, pag. 57, 58. and elsewhere.  
3. Neither is he exempted from the Laws of Nature and Nations; for the law of nature is the very Law of God, and God hath no where Subjected his Law unto the will of Princes.  
4. Neither is the exempted from all the civil Laws, sayeth Hoenon. ubi supra. For, says he, many civil Laws are but declarative of the Law of nature, and consectaryes thereof, and what power he hath, he hath from the People, and the People are certanely bound by these Laws: Yea as Boxhornius sayeth, Instit. Polit. lib. 1. pag. 33. Principi tantummodo licet quantum populus ei voluit licere: No more is lawful for him then the People will. The Surveyer in the forecited place sayeth, [It is a Royal thing for a King to live by the same good Laws, which are given by him to the People, and it is of efficacious influence upon them; to move them to walk in their duties orderly: Rex tenetur servare Leges, si non ut Leges tamen ut rationes. But he might know that our King is bound to observe the Laws, even as Laws, and must pay his debt, and submit to the decision of Judges as well as others.  
5. Our Surveyer confesseth, Pag. 75. That the King is bound before God to rule his People according to the Law of God, of reason and nature; yea and to take his directions in government, from the rational Laws of the Kingdom (which are deductions from, or determinations of, the Law of God, reason and nature, to particular circumstances) agreed to by the consent and good liking of his People. Hence it followeth, 1. That he cannot dispense, by his prerogative Royal, with a just Law, according to his sole pleasure, and so pardon such as deserve death? 2. He cannot kill and slay whom he will, but according to law. 3. Nor can he alone make laws. 4. Nor can his will stand for a law. 5. Nor is he the sole interpreter of the law. 6. Nor in interpreting of the law, hath he a dominion over it to expone it as he will: for if these be not granted, it cannot be granted that he is bound to rule us by the Law of God, of reason, and of nature, or by the Laws of the Kingdom, but according to his mere will and pleasure.  
6. It must be a most unreasonable thing to say, That the Sovereign's power is absolute, which Royalists contend so much for, and say that he is above all law of man; for than he might do what he pleased without control. But 1. did ever the People set a Sovereign over themselves, upon these terms? Did ever People set him over themselves to rage at random, to kill, murder, massacre, and do what seemed good in his eyes? 2. Their condition should necessarily, be worse after the constitution than it was before. 3. The saifty of the People should not be the supreme Law. 4. He might then break all bonds and oaths, and keep no conditions which he had made. 5. If so, a Prince as a Prince, should be a great plague and judgement to a People. 6. All his Subjects should be formal Slaves unto him, their lives & all they have should be at his devotion. 7. He should not then be the Servant of God for the good of the People, contrare to Rom. 13: 4. 8. If this power agree to him as King, than it is from God, and so God should give him a power to sin and tyrannize, which is most false. 9 Then there could be no Tyrants. 10. Yea a King as a King, should be a Tyrant in actu signato, and a Tyrant should be nothing but a King in actu exercito. 11. Yea if so, they might not so much as be rebuked by the messengers of the Lord, for their enormities, contrare to the many instances in the Old Testament of Prophets rebuking Princes 12 if his power were absolute, laws would become no laws, neither were there need of laws, nor should the making of laws be a mean to promove the good of the Realm: all which are most absurd.  
And as for for our King That he hath no such prerogative Royal, as puts him above all limitations is already sufficiently evidenced by Lex Rex and by the Apology though this Surveyer is pleased to say Pag. 11. That his prerogative Royal is disputed down most weakly and foolishly in the Apology: Yet he will not see so much weakness and folly there, as he imagineth, when ever he cometh to handle that disput. But I grant it is easier to him to say, that all is weak and foolish, which pleaseth nor him, then to undertake the confutation thereof. It is enough to him, that he show his teeth once, and then run away. But if he will afterward undertake that debate, let him consider the particulars there mentioned, and also these 24 particulars Mentioned by Lex Rex. Quaest. 23. pag. 205. 206. Unto which I shall add (that he may make one work of all) these particulars, which will further serve to confirm what is there said, and prove our point.  
1. As it is not proper and peculiar to the Kings of Scotland to make laws, and to explain and interpret laws: so nor is it peculiar unto them, to appoint punishments unto transgressors, & to liberate and free from the stroke of the law, As the late Parliament declared by their deed, in murdering some, and in liberating others guilty of Treason, more than such as were executed: and this by politicians is made a part of the Sovereignty See Bondin. de repub. (mihi Edit. Gall.) pag. 236. Volgm. in Synop, de jure principum, pag. 58. Hoen. Disput Polit. pag. 124. Timpl. Polit. Lib. 5. c. 1. q. 2.  
2. The last appeal cometh not always to our King: and yet this is reckoned among the royal prerogatives by Bodin ubi supra, Pag. 321. and Heen. Pag. 127. Timpl. Pol. Lib. 5. Cap. 1. quaest. 2.  
3. It is not proper and peculiar to the King to appoint new imposts, customs, and taxes: but Parliaments do this, Act. 277. Parl. 15. jam. 6. c. 2. Parl. 23. jam. 6. Act. 1. Parl. 1. Char. 1. and act. 14. 15. of the same parl. act. 13. parl. Anno 1661. Charl. 2. and this is reckoned by the forementioned politicians among the prerogatives. Volgm. pag. 57 Hoen. pag. 129. Bodin. pag. 244. Timpl. ubi supra.  
4. Nor doth it belong to him alone to appoint the value of money, as is clear by our acts. act. 67. parl 8. jam. 3. act. 93. & 97. parl. 13. jam. 3. act. 23. parl. 1. jam. 1. act. 33. parl. 8. jam. 2. act. 59 parl. 13. jam. 2. act. 2. parl. 1. jam. 4. act. 17. parl. 2. jam. 4. act. 40. parl. 4. jam. 4. act. 17. parl. 1. jam. 6. act. 20. of the same parl. act. 249. parl. 15. jam. 6. c. 9 parl. 16. jam. 6. & yet the forecited authors reckon this also, among jura Majestatis.  
5. He must not rule us by his mere will, but by the laws of the land, act. 79. parl. 6. jam. 4. act. 130. 131. parl. 8. jam. 6. and not by any special grant or private privileges act. 48. parl. 3. jam. 1.  
6. He is not the proper judge of all causes in the first instance act. 45. parl. 2. jam. 1. act. 62. parl. 8. jam. 3.  
7. Some causes are fully exempted from his judgement and determination act. 105. parl. 14. jam. 3.  
8. The Lords of the Session may finally decide causes, according to the act. 65. parl. 3. jam. 1. without any liberty granted to the party to appeal to the King act. 63. parl. 14. jam. 2. and this privilege of the Session in ratified act. 93. parl. 7. jam. 5. act. 1. parl. 2. Mar. act. 170. parl. 13. jam. 6. act. 183. of the same parl. act. 211. parl. 14. jam. 6. act. 23. parl. 1. Carol. 1. act. 23. parl. Anno 1661. Charl. 2. Yea the judges are allowed to discern according to equity notwithstanding of any write of the King's to the contrary, act. 92. parl. 6. jam. 6. act. 47. parl. 11. jam. 6. act. 79. of the same parl.  
9 He is limited in granting remissons sic act. 46. parl. 2. jam. 1. act. 51. parl. 3. jam. 1: act 75. parl. 14. jam. 2. act. 42. parl. 6. jam. 3. act. 94. parl. 13. jam. 3. act. 62. & 63. parl. 6. jam. 4. act. 174. parl. 13. jam. 6.  
10. He is limited in alienating of lands, possessions or movable goods act. 2. parl. 1. jam. 2. act. 41. parl. 11. jam. 2. act. 70. and 71. parl. 9 jam. 3. act. 112. parl. 14. jam. 3. act. 5. parl. 1. jam. 4. act. 10. parl. 2. jam. 4. act. 22. ejusd. parl. act. 50. parl. 4. jam. 4. act. 90. parl. 6. jam. 4. act. 84. parl. 6. jam. 5. act. 115. and. 116. parl. 7. jam. 5. act. 6. parl. 9 jam. 6. act. 176. parl. 13. jam. 6. act. 159. ejusdem parl. act. 203. and 204. parl. 14. jam. 6: act. 236. parl. 15. jam. 6. act. 242. and 243. ejusdem parl. act. 1. parl. 16. jam. 6. cap. 4. parl. 23. jam. 6. act. 10. parl. 1. Carol. 1.  
11, So is he limited in erecting Royal brughs act. 43. parl. 11. jam. 2.  
12. He is limited in appointing public offices for admininistration of justice, act. 44. parl. 11. jam. 2.  
12. He may not pass gifts, signatures, or remissions, but with the consent of the privy Council, act. 12. parl. 2. jam. 4.  
14. He hath been aftentimes admonished of his duty by the Parliament: see act. 23. parl. 1. jam. 1. act. 5. and. 6. parl. 3. jam. 2. act. 14. parl. 6. jam. 2. act. 92. parl. 13. jam. 3. act. 8. parl. 2. jam. 4. act. 29. parl. 3. jam. 4. act. 17. parl. 1. jam. 6.  
If this Surveyer hath a mind to defend the King's civil prerogative royal, or his absolute power, Let him take all these particulars to his consideration: but we go on to our purpose.  
From what hath been said concerning this limited power of the Kings we draw these particulars for our purpose.  
1. If the King be a limited Prince, Then he may in some cases be lawfully resisted. Gerhard himself the Magistrate. Pol. §. 484. pag. 1303. in answering of that quaestion what shall Subjects do, if a Magistrate, who is an infidel or an haeretick, doth force them unto a false religion, sayeth That such a Magistrate who hath absolute and unlimited power, and is under no compacts may not be resisted, by such as are mere Subjects: So that he would grant in this case That it is lawful, for mere private Subjects to resist a limited Prince, who is bound by compacts and contracts. It is true when he cometh afterward to speak of resisting a Tyrant, and proponeth the quaestion §. 486. whether such who have absolute power and turn Tyrants may be resisted, after he hath cited some sayings of Papists, he tells us §. 487. That all the arguments of iunius Brutus, Rossaeus, Buckerius are solidly answered by Barclaius Albericus Gentilis, Cunerus and Arnisaeus, and this passage our Surveyer bringeth in Pag. 89. But who seeth not, that it cometh not at all home to our purpose, seeing our King is not a King of absolute power, though he hath his Kingdom by succession, but is limited by conditions, and stipulations. And further every one may see the weakness of Gerhard's reasons, and how inconsistent he is with himself: For. 1. Sayeth he, such is only under God's jurisdicton. But alas 1. May not I resist, a person, who is not under my jurisdiction? 2. Royalists will say the same of all Princes, even Barclaus and Arnisaeus. Again he says The People have translated their whole power unto such a Prince & cannot recall it. But 1. They have never translated over unto him a power to enslave themselves, for that was not in their power to do. Nor 2. Could they ever give away the power of self defence, which is their birth right. 3. Says he, Subjects, in this case, want God's command and a Superior power. But 1. They have God's command in nature, no less than these who are under limited Princes. 2. They have a superior virtual power in cases of necessity. 4. Says he, He is a Father of the Republict and not a Tutor only, and therefore as Children have no power over their Parents, no more have Subjects over their Princes. But, 1. Are not even limited Princes, as well Fathers to the Commonwealth? So that by this argument, it shall be as unlawful to resist these, which he will not say. 2. Yea such absolute Princes Look rather to be Tigers, and stated enemies unto the Commonwealth, than Fathers. 3. They have no proper Parental power, as we showed, but Metaphorical. 4. Even natural parents may be resisted Ergo much more they. 5. We are not speaking of giving judgement against Tyrants but of resisting of them: and if he grant this, we have our desire. And his question was touching resistance §. 485. Quest. 4.  
2. A Limited and pactional Prince may be legally resisted, Ergo also with force when a legal resistance cannot be had. The antecedent is true and no Scottish man will deny it, as to our king: For if he or any for him should pretend a right to their inheritance and intend an action of law against them, they may defend themselves by law; or if he should take possession without a sentence of law, They might pursue him and his tenants, or who ever came in his name, to take violent possession, and procure letters of ejection, and the like: Yea by force they might withstand any that should come to take violent and illegal possession. The consequence is hence clear, That whatever ground a man hath to defend his rights and possession by law, the same ground he hath to defend his right by force, when he cannot use the legal means; for if the King had real right, and not he, unto what he possesseth, it were as unlawful to withhold the King from possession of his own, by quirks of law, as by force. Again, This legal resistance is no resisting of the Ordinance of God, but of the man, who seeketh no enjure. No more is this violent resistance a resisting of the ordinance of God, but only of the man, who abuseth his power. Hence,  
3. If the King have not absolute power to do and command what he will: Then, when he crosseth the rules prescribed by God's law and Man's law, without any injury offered to the ordinance of God, he may be resisted by his Subjects, over whom he thinketh to exerce an absolute, arbitrary and tyrannical power. The reason is because. That power, which is not the ordinance of God, may be resisted, without the least injury done unto the true ordinance of God. But this absolute power is no ordinance of God, it is not apppointed of him, nor allowed of him. Therefore, etc. But say Royalists, Though that absolute and Tyrannical power be not simply from God; yet it is so from God, that no man can lawfully resist it Answ, 1▪ If it be so from God, as that it may not be resisted, than it is from God, and is the ordinance of God: for it is the ordinance of God that cannot, must not, be resisted. But says the Surveyer Pag. 37. [It may be easily seen that subjection to the power (opposite to resistance) is all alongs enjoined (viz. Rom. 13.) whether the power be rightly used or otherwise: If it be rightly used, subjection without refuseing active obedience is required: if it be not rightly used, subjection without resistance, violent or forcible repelling of the power, is required upon this formal reason and ground; Because even when the power is abused, it remains a power ordained of God; (although the abuse of it be not ordained) even as a man's eye remains his eye, although sometimes it is not rightly used. The formal reason of the subjection, and non-resistence pressed, is not the right use of the power, but because it is a power ordained of God (however perverted in the use by man) Answ.] 1. By this man's doctrine, The King might not be resisted if he should turn another Nero or Caligula, or should deal with us all, as the Turk doth with his subjects, or the King of Spain, with his slaves in America. If he should fill ditches with his living subjects, and to satisfy his lust and pleasure should tumble them be thousands down a precipice into the midst of the sea: yea though he should bring in an army of Turks or Tartars to destroy all his subjects young and old; Though he should sell and give away the whole land unto the Turk or any foreign Tyrant, and become the most habited not our and complete Tyrant: and should against all appearance of law, manifestly seek the destruction of the whole land, man, wife and child, and of the very being of religion, according to law, and of all known libertyes, and should force and compel, with armed heathens, all his subjects great and small, to offer sacrifice to the Heathen Gods; and the like: For in all this and the like, there is but an abuse of the power, and the power is still of God however it be abused, and because it is a power ordained of God, this abuse must be submitted unto, without the least resistance, is not this sufficient to make all men abhor this man's principles? 2. He must say that it is not possible to resist the abuse of the power, but the power itself must be resisted, and so, such as do resist the most dreadful tyranny imaginable, do resist the ordinance of God, which is most false and absurd. 3. If the abuse of the power be not from God, than such as resist this abuse, do not resist that which is ordained of God, but that which is not ordained of God. And therefore resisting of the abuse of the power, is no resisting of the ordinance of God. 4. Subjection is only required to that which is the ordinance of God, because subjection is required when and where, and so far as resistance is prohibited: Now resistance to the ordinance of God, is only prohibited, and not resistance to the carnal and bloody lusts of men, which is rather the ordinance of the devil then the ordinance of God. 5. The wrong use or abuse of the eye may be resisted, hindered, and obstructed, without any injury done to the eye itself. So may the wrong use or abuse of Magistratical power be resisted, without any wrong done unto the power which is of God. 5. It is false to say that all resistance of the abused power, is forbidden upon this formal reason and ground, because even when the power is abused it remains a power ordained of God: Because the abused power is not at all ordained of God, nor never was, it is no part of that power which God ordained: a power to murder the innocent, to kill the widow and fatherless, and to oppress the people of God, is not of God: God never appointed that power of David's to murder Vriah and to commit adultery with Bathshebah. These were no acts of the Magistratical power ordained of God, but acts of lust the wickedness. 7. If this reason hold good, we must never resist by refuseing active obedience, let him command what he will: for his sinful and unjust commands are but the abuse of that power which is ordained of God, and the power even when abused by giving out edicts, and mandates, (according to this man) remaineth a power ordained of God, as a man's eye remains his eye, though sometimes it is not rightly used. Now how will he lose his own argument? what ever answer he give here, it will helps us out. Sure, if a man many refuse obedience to an unjust command, of an abused power, without doing injury unto the power which is ordained of God, it will be no less clear, that a man may refuse subjection to and resist abused power, without doing hurt unto the power which is ordained of God. And I Desire that the Reader would seriously notice this, and see how all he objecteth is answered by it, & the wicked ensnared in the work of his own hands.  
4. If the King have not absolute power, but be limited both by the laws of God, and by the laws of Man: Then when he transgresseth the bounds prescribed to him, he may be resisted. The reason is because. He who is no Magistrate many be resisted. But the King going beyond his bounds is no Magistrate. Therefore he may be resisted, The proposition cannot be denied: for he who is not a Magistrate, is not that ordinance of God, which we are forbidden to resist. The assumption is granted by Arniseus de auth: princi. c. 2. n. 10. saying, Dum contra officium facit Magistratus, non est Magistratus, quip a quo non injuria sed jus nasci debeat. while the Magistrate doth against his office, he is no Magistrate; because a Magistrate should do no wrong but right, l. miminerint 6 c. unde vi. c. quod quis 24.  
5. If the King's power be not absolute, and if he cannot do whatsoever he pleaseth: Then when he makes his lust a law, and followeth the dictate of his tyrannical corrupted will, he may be resisted: because, what power he never goat from the People to exerce, if he exerce it, he may be, by them resisted. But the People never gave him a power to rule as he listeth, and to do what his miss understanding and enraged will did prompt him to do. Ergo they may resist him when he exerceth no power given him, but a power assumed to himself, through the corruption of his heart and wicked will.  
6. If the King's power be not absolute, than the People are not denuded of the power of self defence. Royalists, and such as trade their steps think, that an absolute prince, or a prince integrae Majestatis, as they call him, hath gotten all Power from the People, even that power of self defence (which yet is false) but though this were granted, it will not follow, that a limited Prince hath goat away that power of self defence from the People, and left them naked to his tyrannical will, to be disposed of, as he thinketh good.  
7. The King's power being limited, and not absolute, says that, by the constitution and limitation, more regaird was had to the security of the People, then to the King's mere will and pleasure; and that the King's mere will and pleasure should not be followed, but resisted, when thereby the good of the People and their saifty was in hazard: all men are bound to look more to the end then to the means, and to hinder such things as are destructive of the end.  
8. If the King's power be no absolute; then the Parliament's power is not absolute: And if the King may be resisted in cases of necessity, because his power is not absolute: Then the Parliament also may be resisted, upon the same ground, when they do violence and oppress the innocent: And if the Parliament may be resisted by Subjects, than it cannot be unlawful for, Subjects, in the cases of necessity, to defend themselves against the unjust violence of their limited Prince, albeit they want the concurrence, countenance and conduct of a Parliament or Public Representatives.  
9 If King and Parliament both be limited, they cannot make what laws they wil Nay, themselves declare that they cannot make any particular act or ratification in prejudice of the lawful rights of a third party, and therefore in the end of their Parliaments or Sessions of Parliaments they usually pass an act salvo jure cujuslibet. And if their particular acts are no force, in so far as they prejudge the rights of a third person, nor to be submitted unto nor obeyed, Then their other acts made in prejudice of the glory of God, of the good of his Church, and of the interest of Christ in the land, are of no force, nor to be obeyed and submitted unto: and, if in the former case particular persons are allowed to defend their rights, notwithstanding of these acts: Then much more may private People be allowed to defend Christ's rights, and their own rights, as to their soul & consciences, notwithstanding of any act or law general or particular made to the contrary, the best way they can, when all formal legal ways are taken from them.  
10. If the King be not absolute. He cannot execute the Laws made, according to his own lust and pleasure: nor may any inferior judictory do so: For that is a piece of tyranny: and when he or they, following their own tyrannical wills, transgress the Laws and Bounds prescribed, and take an arbitrary way of executeing their cruelty, They may in that case be resisted: Because that power is no proper magistratical power, but tyranny, and an arbitrary ebullition of rage, no power ordained of God, but the lawless will of corrupt creatures.  
11. Since He hath not absolute power to execute the Laws after an arbitrary manner according to his own lust & pleasure, if when he is doing so, he may be resisted; then much less can be Empower his Emissaries with an arbitrary, tyrannical, lawlese cruelty, under pretence of executing the Laws; or if he do, the resisting of such in that case, can be no resistance of the Ordinance of God. Neither God nor Man ever gave him power to confer on others a Lawless licence to oppress, rob, spoil, plunder & tyrannize over innocents'. And therefore the resisting of such bloody executioners, without any lawful power, tyrannyzing over the subjects, can be no sin or rebellion, condemned by God or his Law.  
12. Since the King may not by an absolute power command what he will. His Subjects are not bound to an absolute obedience, but always in the Lord: It being better to obey God then Man; and when his Subjects are not bound to obey, he cannot Lawfully inflict punishment on such, as contraveeing his Laws, obey the Laws of God: Because just punishments are for transgressions of just Laws: And when he inflicts punishment where God alloweth a reward. he goeth directly against his commission, which is to be a terror to evil works, and not to good Rom. 13: ver. 3. And when a Servant, or public Messenger goeth contrare to his commission, it is no disloyalty to the King, to refuse subjection unto such. So nor is it distloyalty to the King of Kings, to refuse Subjection unto his Minister, when he runeth cross to his own express commission. And therefore the Late Act of defence, being the defence of innocents' in the case of extreme and inevitable necessity, against illegal commissions, contrary to the Law of God, cannot be branded with rebellion, but accounted an Act of lawful self-defence.   

CAP. IX.  
Of the People's Power in the works of Reformation. Our Argument hence.  
THe Author of Naphtaly, Pag. 18. 19 had these words, [As we have already cleared, that in case either the People, or any part of them be violented to a compliance, or be wickedly persecuted for adhering to God, in the profession and practice of the contrary duties, they may lawfully defend themselves, and are mutually bound to assist and deliver one another: So it now comes to be considered that, seeing the maintenance of truth, and the true worship of God, were and are the principal ends and motives of contracting of Societyes, and erecting of Governments, whereunto both the People and Rulers, are not only separately every one for himself, but jointly obliged for the public advancement and establishment thereof: And that God doth therefore equally exact, and avenge the sin of the Rulers only, or of the People only, or of any part of the People only, upon the whole body of Rulers and People, for their simple Tolerance and connivance, without their active compliance with the transgressors; of necessity, both from the principles deduced, and from the most visible judgements of God agreeable thereto, there must be a supeperior and antecedent obligation to that of submission, incumbent upon all both jointly and separately, for the maintenance, vindication, and reformation of Religion, in order to the promoving of these great ends of the public profession of truth, and true worship, which the Lord doth indispensibly require.] By which any, who read with judgement and attention, and consider what precedeth, and what followeth, may see what was that Author's scope and intention, viz. to show in few words, the lawfulness of People's standing to the maintenance and defence of truth, and the true Worship of God, when violated and enjured by these, who, by their places and callings, should endeavour the establishing and perfect security thereof, both from adversaries within and without; as well as to the defence of their people and libertyes, when wickedly persecuted for adhering to God: And that, as it was not his scope and intention; so nor will the words give ground to any (who is not utterly blinded with prejudice, and resolved to pervert the fairest and smoothest expressions that can be used, to the end they may pervert truth, & deceive the simple who readily believe every thing) to think that he pleadeth for any magistratical authority, and power to give out mandates, and enjoin execution upon transgressors in point of reformation of Religion, unto private people: Far less, that he pleadeth for a power due unto them, to rise against, and throw down King and all Magistrates, supreme and subordinate, and to use the vindicative punishing & reforming power of the sword, even in case of defection in matter of Religion. If any will but look to the end of that Paragraph, they shall see this fully confirmed, where he is applying what he said, to the purpose he was upon, viz. in vindication of what was done by our first Reformers, in the days of Mr Knox (of whom only he is speaking in that part of his book) for thus he speaketh [and had not our Reformers great reason to fear and tremble, lest the manifest toleration of proud cruel and flattering Prelates, who had perverted the lawful powers into bloody persecutors; and of idolatrous Priests, whose wickedness and idolatry had corrupted the whole Land, might involve not only themselves, but the whole Nation in destroying and overflowing indignation.] Was there any such thing pretended, or assumed by these Reformers, but a power to defend, and maintain the true reformed Religion, and their reformed Preachers, against the malice of powers perverted and enraged against them, by the bloody and pestilent counsel of the these idolatrous locusts, and to hinder open and avowed idolatry, which provoked God against the whole Land? Did they ever arrogate to themselves the magistratical, vindicative, punishing and reforming power of the sword against all Magistrates Supreme and Subordinate? Or doth Naphtaly say any such thing? And yet this Surveyer because he cannot confute what is there nervously vindicated, asserted and demonstrated; That he may not be seen to do nothing for his hire, he will thraw Naphtaly's words as he thinketh best, and falsely and most impudently assert Pag. 83. That Naphtali sayeth [Any party of mere private people may rise against, resist, throw down King and all Magistrates, Supreme and Subordinate; and in their Phinehas-like motions, use the vindicative, punishing, reforming power of the sword, especially in case of defection in matter of Religion: and that there is a joint obligation laying upon the people, and every party thereof, to vindicate and reform Religion, in a public punitive way, even against all Magistrates and Nobles, and against the plurality of the people. So that if any part of the people do think the Magistrates, all of them, or the plurality of the people, patrons of abominations, any private party that think they have power enough, may flee to the vindicative, punishing and reforming sword, and fault upon all Rulers and other, whom they think to be in a defection, and will boldly say that in truth they are so.] Who seeth not what perverting of truth is here? When Naphtali only asserts, that in case the Magistrate, to whom the vindicative, and (in case of backslideing) the reforming power is committed, and who should make this his main work, shall turn the principal perverter, and chief patron of these abominations, some other thing is required of the people than submission, & there lieth upon them some obligation antecedent to that, even an obligation to the maintenance, vindication, and reformation of Religion: Which may be, and is, something distinct from that vindication and reformation, which is incumbent on Magistrates, even a vindication and reformation, by way of maintenance of the received truth, and hindering of idolatry and blasphemy, or what is dishonourable to God, pernicious to the commonwealth, & opposite to the true reformed Religion: which may be done without arrogateing in the least, that power which God hath committed to the Magistrates: And this is far from useing the sword against the Magistrate, and from throwing him down. It is incumbent to the Magistrate, to defend private subjects from Robbers; and if they spoil and robe a man's house, to recover what is by robbery taken away: but if he neglect this, and rather patronise such Robbers; It is a duty on the subject, to defend his own, and vindicate and recover his goods, the best way he can: and who will say that it is an usurping of the Magistrates sword, whereby he should punish Robbers, defend the innocent, and recover the goods of the spoilt; or a rising up against the Magistrate to dethrone him. There is a private maintaining, vindicateing and recovering of goods stolen, which yet is active, and may be effectual: and there is a public, authoritative and magistratical defending, vindicating and recovering. The other may be incumbent to private people in some cases, when yet they do not usurp this. So in the Matters of Religion, there is a private, yet active and real maintaining, vindicating and reforming of Religion when corrupted, and there is a public, authoritative and Magistratical maintaining, vindicating and reforming. The former may be assumed by private persons, in some cases, without the least hazard of encroaching upon this, far more without the hazard of calling Magistrates to account, judging, condemning, and dethroning them, and the like.  
Having thus cleared how little ground he hath, to cry out so against Naphtaly and his party, as the sanguinary faction (as he doth Pag. 83.) and to prosecute that dispute as he doth in the following Pages, we will not have much difficulty in answering what he hath said: but first let us prosecute our own business, and show what real power People have, without their Magistrates, in the maintaining and reforming of Religion: And,  
1. It is lawful, yea necessary, for every private person, whether the Magistrates Superior and Inferior give their countenance, concurrence, or consent thereunto, or not, to purge their hearts, and reform their lives, and to walk in all the ways of God's Commandments. Our Surveyer himself granteth this, Pag. 84. for says he, every one is bound to amend one, and so all will be more easily amended. Very true: And if this were done, our work were at an end, and himself would be a Hangman to his own pamphlet, unless he think himself exemed from that duty of reformation, and that he hath a dispensation to lie, slander, calumniate, and blaspheme the work, ways, and People of God.  
2. It is the duty of all private people, notwithstanding that idolatry, superstition, or any other corruption in the worship of God be established by authority, or countenanced and encouraged; or conformity there to pressed, to keep themselves pure from such courses as provoke the eyes of God, who is a jealous God, and will not give his glory to another; This is undeniable by all who are not professed Atheists, and who know another God, than a clay creature, and who know that it is better to obey God, than a Man. Our Surveyer granteth in the forecited place [that every one of the people ought to reform themselves from all real corruptions in the worship of God.] But, it may be, he maketh this real, an open door for him and his fraternity, to escape by; and so conclude that he and they are arrived at the height of perfection, (because forsooth they are fallen backward, and have a mind to go backward, and never to advance) and so fall not under the compass of this duty. But corruptions will be real corruptions, though they account them perfections.  
3. It is the duty of private persons to rebuke, admonish, exhort, reprove, observe, edify and provoke one another to love and good works Leu. 19 17. Mat. 18. 15, 16. Rom. 15. 13. Col. 3. 16. 1 Thes. 5. 11. Heb. 3. 13. and 10. 24. 25. And thus instruct one another in the right ways of the Lord, persuade move and induce them by motives and arguments, and all means possible, to embrace the truth, and to forsake error, or any false way, Even though the Magistrates should prohibit and discharge this, and by their command and authority should establish error and corruption, and banish truth with their edicts and proclamations. Our Surveyer granteth Pag. 84. [that no man should say, am I am brother's keeper, but by faithful instruction, warning, reproof, strive to save others from the evil of the time and places wherein they live] And yet he knows who are persecuted upon this account, of meeting together for these and such like ends, to strengthen the hands one of another, that they faint not in this evil day, and to save one another from the evils of these times, as keepers of conventicles, and seditious disturbers of the peace.  
4. When there is any corruption in the reformed Religion, whether in doctrine, worship, discipline, or government crept in; or any corrupt sinful practice come in use, and abounding in a land, and these corruptions not only connived at by the Magistrates, but also countenanced, approved and authorized; it is the duty of all the faithful Ministers of Christ, to be laying out themselves to the utmost, in their pastoral functions, for the suppressing of these corruptions and enormities, notwithstanding of any prohibiton of the Magistrate, whose power is not privative in this case, to the contrary. Though this be abundantly cleared and confirmed by the practice of all the faithful Prophets and Apostles of the Lord, both under the Old, and under the N. Testament; yet we all know how impiously and tyrannically this is denied to the honest Ministers of Scotland, who, left they should speak any thing against the raging evils and abounding corruptions, both in matters of opinion and practice, which hasten the curse and wrath of God upon the land, and make us ripe for destruction, are not permitted to preach uncontroverted truths, and the undeniable grounds of Christianity. But however this piece of tyranny and persecution be established by law, yet the law of God stands unrepealed & in full force and vigour, & by this law, all who have a trumpet and a mouth should set the trumpet to their mouth, and cry aloud and not spare, and both privately and publicky labour thus to reform the grievous abuses, that abound in the land.  
5. Private people may, let Magistrates command or discharge what they will, yea are bound to, obey the whole some exhortations and admonitions of Ministers and others, who faithfully declare the mind of God, and discover abominable corruptions, & crying abominations: & notwithstanding of any law to the contrary, Embrace, and practise the true Religion, and reject the corruptions. This is certain, for it is God's mind and will that his commands be obeyed rather than man's; and if Ministers, and private persons be bound to exhort, rebuke, warn, reprove, admonish, move and persuade, it is People's duty to hearken to, and obey these good and necessary exhortations, rebukes, warnings, reproofs, admonitions and persuasions. God's mind should be followed, hold it forth who will, especially when it is declared by his Ambassadors, who in a special manner are authorized by him for that effect. We know what a dreadful plague and judgement came upon judah 2 Chron. 36: 16. 17. because they mocked the messengers of God, and despised his words, and misused his Prophets, the wrath of God arose against his People, till there was no remedy. And it was this, which occasioned the Non-churching of the Church of the Jews Act. 13: 46. Sure when People's ear is so uncircumcised that they will not hear, and the Word of the Lord is a reproach unto them, and they have no delight in it, then is there ground to fear the verification of that sad threatening jer. 6: 11, 12. that wrath shall be poured out upon the children abroad, and upon the assembly of young men together, so that even the husband with the wife shall be taken, the aged with him that is full of days, and their houses shall be turned unto others, with their fields, and wives together; for I will stretch out my hand upon the inhabitants of the land, sayeth the Lord.  
6. From what is said, it is apparent, that all who would have peace with God, and peace in their own consciences, and joy in the day of their accounts, should embrace, profess, and practise the truth of God, and the true Religion reform in doctrine, worshipe, discipline and government, Though King, Parliament, and Council should reject and condemn the same, and countenance, or command and authorise the practice of idolatry, superstition, or any false way in the worshipe of God, or in the doctrine and discipline. For, no law of man can warrant iniquity, no act or constitution of any Magistrate under Heaven, can rescind or invalidate the mandates of the King of Kings, or exempt People from obedience due thereunto. No true Christian (whatever court flatterers & atheists may do) can deny this.  
7. Nor can it be denied, That in Kingdoms or Commonwealths where once the True Religion, reform in doctrine, worshipe, discipline and government, hath been received, publicly embraced, approved and countenanced by authority, ratified by laws, statutes, acts, declarations, proclamations, oaths, vows and engagements. Though the Magistrates Superior and inferior should turn Apostates from that Reformed and received Religion, and by their laws condemn the same, and establish corruptions, and enforce corrupt practices by penalties; yet it were the duty of all Subjects, who had any regaird to the matters of their own salvation, to adhere to the truth once received and established, and worshipe and Serve God, after the right manner, and refuse to obey these iniquous laws. Will any deny such a truth as this, except such as have sold soul, consciences and all, unto the lust of Men; or think there is no Religion, but what King and Parliament will have, and consequently if they should enjoin the imbraceing of Mahomet's Religion, or the worshipping of Sun, Moon, and Stars, or of Satan himself, obedience must be yielded.  
8. If in the forementioned case, The Magistrates Superior and inferior should combine together, and conspire against Christ and his interest, and should not only, by their acts and statutes, banish him, and his glorious interests out of the Kingdom; but also, by their cruel executions, labour to force, constrain and compel all their subjects or a part of them, to the renunceing of the formerly received and avowed truths, and to the imbraceing of the introduced corruptions, and so to run with themselves unto the same excess of iniquity, perjury and abomination: Then it is lawful for these Subjects so oppressed, persecuted and abused for their constancy in adhering to the truths once received, contrare to all engagements, vows and Covenants, to defend themselves against that unjust tyranny and rage, and maintain the reformed truth, which is unjustly & violently taken from them, by force, when there is no other probable mean left for them to essay; nay when liberty to supplicate or petition is inhumanely and severely, under the very pain of Treason, discharged. The reasons are 1. because, we have showed above, that it is most lawful for Subjects to maintain their lives, persons, and Estates, against the unjust violence and tyrannical oppression of their enraged Magistrates: And if that be lawful, this must also be much more lawful; for as the soul is much more precious than the body, so matters that concern the soul, should be preferred to such things as concern the body. And therefore Religion, which is necessary for the life of the soul, should be with no less Zeal, care and industry, maintained and preserved pure and uncorrupted, than what concerneth the lives of our bodies. 2. It is lawful for Subjects to maintain their natural and civil libertyes, by force, when no other way can be used, lest they, and their posterity after them, should be redacted unto a state of perfect slavery and bondage, worse than that of the Israilites in Egypt: And shall it be unlawful to fight for the defence of Religion, wherein is comprised all true and desirable liberty, and to save posterity from tyranny and bondage in their souls and consciences, much more dreadful and terrible, than the most insupportable and bitter bondage of the body imaginable? Shall men be allowed to fight to preserve their own bodies, and the bodies of their posterity from the slavery of men, and shall they not be allowed to fight that they may preserve their own souls and the souls of their posterity, from the tyranny of Satan? Who but such, as either think they have no souls, more than beasts, or know not the worth of their souls, will deny this consequence? 3. It is lawful for Subjects to defend their lives and libertyes, in order to the defence of the true Religion, and the interests of Jesus Christ's, when their losseing of these should certanely tend to the loss of Religion. Ergo It cannot be unlawful to defend Religion, which is the main and principal thing. 4. If it be lawful to maintain the interests of a King against an usurper, whether a stranger, or an inferior Magistrate, who is under the King, and is seeking to eject him and his interest, contrare to his faith and trust: Then much more must it be lawful, to defend Christ jesus and his interest, when King and Parliament, contrare to their sworn allaigance unto him, have rebelled; and are seeking to dethrone him, by their wicked Laws and Ordinances, and to banish him and his interests out of the Kingdom, by their tyrannical cruelty & inhuman and merciless executions. Will any deny this but ingrained Atheistical Malignants, whose chief character hitherto hath been, to prefer man's interest unto Christ's? Or such as have renounced all faith and loyalty unto the King of Kings, and have set up a creature as their only God, whom they mind to worship and adore, and for whom they mind to fight against all breathing, and against the God of heaven also: But their weapons shall fall out of their hands when They shall feel the lighting down of his arm, with the indignation of his anger, and with the flame of a devouring fire, and with scattering and tempests and hailstones, and when he shall cause his glorious voice to be heard. If any should Object, That because Christ's Kingdom is not of this World, therefore his Servants should not fight for him. It is easily answered. That, as hence it will follow, that Religion cannot be forced by the sword upon any; So it will not follow that Religion should not be defended; for then Magistrates should not defend Religion, nor Christians should not defend their Religion against the Turks. Which is false. And hence, 5. If it be lawful for People to defend their Religion against an army of infidels, Mahometans, or Papists, invadeing the Land of purpose to spoil us of our Religion, and to force us to embrace heathenism; Turkism, or Popery: Then it must be lawful to defend the same true Religion against King and Parliament, when they seek to rob the People thereof, and force corruptious upon them: because King and Parliament have no more authority from God, to oppress the consciences of their Subjects, to corrupt Religion, and force corruptions upon them; then the Turk or the Pope hath: and therefore, no less lawfully may they be resisted. 6. If private persons may resist and withstand the Prince and Parliaments, when they sell them, and their land and heritage's, unto a foreigner, to the Turk or such an adversary: Then much more may they withstand them, and defend their Religion, when they are selling it by their apostatical acts, and thereby selling them and their Souls unto Satan the God of this World.  
9 When Religion, by the constitution of the Kingdom, is become a fundamental law, and a main article and cardinal condition of the established Polity, and upon which, all the Magistrates Supreme and Inferior, are installed in their offices: Then may that Religion be defended by private subjects, when their Magistrates have conspired together to destroy the same; & to enforce the corruptions of their own brain. The reasons are 1. because, it is lawful to defend the just and laudable constitution of the Realm, & in so far, as Religion, which is a principal fundation-stone of this constitution, is subverted, the constitution is wronged, and the fundations thereof are shaken. 2. In so far, the Magistrates are no Magistrates: And therefore they may be resisted. Magistrates, I say, in so far as they overturn the constitution, are not Magistrates; for that is a main pairt of their work, to maintain it: For upon the constitution hang all the libertyes and all the good and necessary Ends, which People have set before their eyes, in the setting up of government, and His own being as such; & the subversion of that, subverts all, and declareth the subverter to be an enemy to the Commonwealth, and an overturner of the polity: and this is inconsistent with being a Magistrate. 3. In so far as they overturn or shake the fundations, they cannot be seeking the good of the Community, but their own, with the destruction of the Common good, and this is the mark and true character of a Tyrant: And when they seek not the good of the Community, they cannot be looked upon as Magistrates doing their duty▪ but as Tyrant's seeking themselves, with the destruction of the Commonwealth. Therefore, in so far they may be resisted. 4. In so far, The compact, the ground of the constitution, is violated, and as Magistrates, in this case, in so far, fall from their right, in so far also, are People liberated from their obligation, so that if They become no Magistrates, the Subjects become no Subjects; for the relation is Mutual, and so is the obligation, as was showed above. Therefore, in this case Subjects, may lawfully resist, and defend their Religion, which is become the principal condition of their constitution, and of the compact betwixt King and Subjects.  
10. Where Religion is universally received, publicly owned, and countenanced by people in authority, ratified, approved and established by the laws, and authority of the land; There, every person is bound and obliged before God, to maintain and defend that Religion, according to their power, with the hazard of their lives and fortunes against all, who under whatsoever colour and pretence, seek to subvert and overturn the same; and to hinder any corruption that King or Parliament at home, or adversaries abroad, would, whether by subtlety, or power and force, bring in; and lay hold on the first opportunity offered to endeavour the establishment of Truth, and the overturning of these corrupt courses, which tend to the perverting thereof: And the reasons are, because. 1. When the True Religion is once embraced, and publicly received, That land or Commonwealth is really dedicated and devouted unto God, and so in a happy condition; which happy condition, all loyal subjects and true Christians, should maintain and promove, & recover, when nearby or altogether lost. And therefore, should do what they can, to hinder any course that may tend to recall this dedication, to deteriorate the happy condition of the Realm, and to give up the land, as an offering unto Satan. 2. By this means, they endeavour to avert the wrath and anger of God, which must certanely be expected to go out against the land, if defection be not prevented and remedied: For if but a few should depairt, wrath might come upon the whole, much more if the Leaders turn patroness of this defection. But of this more in the next chapter.  
11. Much more, must this be allowed in a Land where Reformation of Religion in doctrine, worship, discipline and government, is not only universally owned, publicly received, and embraced: nor yet only approved, authorized, ratified and confirmed, by public authority, and the laws of the Land. But also corroborated by solemn vows and Covenants, made and sworn unto God, by all ranks and conditions of People, from the King to the meanest of the subjects, in a most solemn manner, and that several times reiterated: in which Covenants, all swear to Maintain and defend this Riligion, with their lives and fortunes, and to labour, by all means lawful, to recover the purity and liberty of the gospel; and to continow in the profession and obedience of the foresaid Religion, defend the same, and resist all contrary errors and corruptions, according to their vocation, and to the uttermost of that power that God puts in their hands, all the days of their life: as also mutually to defend and assist one another, in the same cause of maintaining the true Religion, with their best Counsel, bodies, means and whole power, against all sorts of persons whatsoever. And [Sincerely, really and constantly, endeavour, in their several places and callings, the preservation of thereformed Religion in doctrine, worship, discipline and government. The extirpation of Popery, Prelacy, Superstition, Heresy, Schism, profaneness, and whatsoever shall be found to be contrary to sound doctrine and the power of godliness. And to assist and defend all those that enter into the same bond, in the maintaining & pursueing thereof. And shall not suffer themselves directly or indirectly, by whatsoever combination, persuasion or terror, to make defection to the contrary party, or to give themselves to a detestable indifferency, or neutrality in this cause, which so much concerneth the glory of God, the good of the Kingdoms, and the honour of the King; but shall, all the Days of their lives, Zealously and constantly, continue therein, against all opposition, and promote the same, according to their power, against all lets and impediments whatsoever.] Now I say, in such a case as this, when after all these engagements and covenants, a court of defection is carried on, by a strong and violente hand, by King and Parliaments, and there is no mean left unto Private People, when violented and constrained to a compliance, by acts, and tyrannical and arbitrary executions, of either preventing their own destruction in soul and body, or preserving the reformation sworn unto, or recovering the same when corrupted, and of purging the land of that dreadful sin of perjury and defection. They may lawfully take the sword of just and necessary defence, for the maintenance of themselves and of their Religion. This is abundantly clear from what is said, and shall be further cleared and confirmed, when we examine what this Surveyer allaigeth against it.  
12. Scripture giveth us ground to believe, that in such a case as this, when a defection in a covenanted land, and a land devoted to God, is carried on, more is required of Private People, then to mourn and sigh in secret: as,  
1. Deut. 13: 12, 13, 14, etc. If thou shall hear say in one of thy cities, which the Lord thy God hath given thee to dwell there, saying, certain men the children of Belial are gone out from among you, and have with drawn the inhabitants of their city, saying, let us go and serve other Gods, which ye have not known. Then shall thou inquire and make search, and ask diligently, and behold, if it be truth, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought among you, thou shall surely smite the inhabitants of that city, with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly and all that is therein, and the cattle thereof, with all that is therein, etc. Which words were undeniably spoken to the People, to whom the rest of that chapter was spoken and particularly directed: So the dutch annot. in the contents of that chapt. say, that the way is showed how the People of God were to demean themselves to wards a city that was fallen off: and though, we readily grant, that these words do not empower private people to act the part of Magistrates, and brevi manu judge and condemn, or put to death such as are guilty of the crime mentioned; nor to fall upon the execution without previous judging and trial of the cause; yet it will be no wire drawing of Scriptures, whatever this Surveyer allaige, to say, That this place will warrant private people to defend their Reformation, when by oppression and violence, it is taken from them, and when defection is carried on in a land devoted to God, and Magistrates either neglect to take course therewith, or countenance the same. The Zeal of the Lord should stir up people to do more for vindicating the glory of God, and saving the land from an universal apostasy, then privately mourn in secret. Sure this being spoken to the people, says, they should manifest and declare their Zeal otherways; seeing by this, they might have sufficiently known how detestable such a defection was unto the Lord, and that no less would pacify his wrath against that part corrupted, then utter exterminion and overthrow of young and old in it, with their cattle and goods: Will not any readily yield, that they had been bound, to have concurred with the Magistrate in this execution; and that if the Magistrate had been negligent, to have remonstrated the matter unto him; and if either that had not prevailed, or Magistrates being chief actors and patrons thereof, they durst not have remonstrated the matter, they might lawfully have joined together, and with their swords in their hands, have moved the Magistrate to purge out that abomination, and to have granted them security, that the contagion should not have spread, nor they be infected therewith, left the fierce-anger of God had not been turned away from them? And if this be granted (which cannot easily be denied) we have our purpose, and Naphthali hath all which he desired, And certanely, to say, That this course was only to be taken, when one city was infected, and not when more, when ten or twenty, or possibly the major part, were but to elude Scripture, as Naphtali said: seeing the same reason will hold in these cases, which holdeth in the cases instanced: and whatever the Surveyer say pag. 56. such a cleaving to the literal meaning of Scripture, as will not admit consequential arguments to be drawn therefrom, to the like cases, nor an argument drawn a minori ad majus, from the case instanced, is neither the Doctrine of Christ, nor of found Divines: nor is the following of Christ's example and of the Apostles, who made use of such consequences, a making a nose of wax of the holy Scriptures, nor a wring or wresting them, to bring in our own fancies, nor a covering of our crooked courses with such a cloak: (however we be branded by him, for this, and as being men of blood and violence, but his falsely rubbing that aspersion on the innocent, will never wipe that right name off him and his party, whose violence and thirsting after blood, is more than sufficiently known) yea himself in his 3 Answer pag. 57, 58. will allow something to be done by virtue of this text, where the major part is corrupt, and the minor part found, saying [Though the lesser part is not to acquiesce in the way of the greater, running into rebellion against God, but by all means competent to them, bear witness against that way, and study to keep themselves pure, when they cannot prevail to have matters rectified, as to the whole body] And yet the carnal luckwarmnesse and indifferency of this latitudinarian Politician in the matters of God, appeareth. That after he had said that [there is no coming to an accommodation in this matter whether the True God, or other Gods should be served.] he presently addeth, in a parenthesis [and yet this man would be very severe, if no Nation in the world, might (having before been embodied in a Kingdom or State) continue and abide in their peaceable communion in civil interests, upon supposition of such an equal division ariseing amongst them.] It seemeth this meek peaceable man, would suffer Satan to be worshipped in the same State with the true and living God: and that (if he apply this to the purpose) if the equal half of the Kingdom of Israel had worshipped, the devil, he would not have been severe, but advised the other half to abide united with them in civil communion. But, leaving these and the like, which are not much to our purpose, let us see what he says, to the thing. He tells us Pag. 57 [That no exposition of a text can subsist, that is either contrary to other texts of Scripture, or to sound reason.] This is granted: But how showeth he that the exposition given, is contrary to either? [It is contrary to Scripture; because (says he) the Scripture committeth the vindicative and punishing sword only to the Magistrate, who only is the sword bearer. Rom. 13.] But this is not against us or our exposition: Naphthali speaks only of private persons taking the defensive sword, and thereby keeping the land pure, and labouring (still in their private way, not in a judicial authoritative and magistratical way) to purge out corruption, and maintain Reformation; can he show us Scripture against this? Again says he [this is poynt-blank contrary to reason, remedyles●y tending to dissolve humane Societies, and all Kingdoms and Comon-wealths.] Than it seemeth though Magistrates should concur, with the minor and sounder part, to purge out the corruption of the greater; or concur with the equal half, to purge the other, or with a greater part to purge the lesser, if a considerable part, it might not be; because, that were a way to dissolve humane Societies, and all Kingdoms and Commonwealths. Ay, but he meaneth that it is so [To teach that any mere private people, or any part of a People, who think themselves strong enough, should take on them to sit and act as punishing judges, over all Magistrates Supreme and Subordinate, yea and upon the Major part of the People themselves, and upon their own fancies, led with their own lusts, draw the Magistratical sword.] Answ. But then against whom doth he fight? Naphtaly spoke not so: Nor doth our cause require that we should say so. We say not, that private people should take up the Magistrat's sword, and with Magistratical power and authority judge and execute the whole body of the People, and the Magistrates Supreme and Subordinate; far less do we say, That they should do this upon their fancies, or when led with their own lusts. This is nothing else but to fancy an adversary to himself, when he cannot answer or stand against his proper adversary: and after he hath busked him up in as ugly a shape, as he can, than he may well cry out [Oh horrid confusion, to be detasted of all rational and Christian hearts!] But this is not fair dealing, yet suitable enough to him and his cause, which he can get defended no other way? But then he tells us Pag. 59 [That though the words be spoken to the People; yet it is always to be understood, that the People's concurrence in the punishing of an Apostate city, was to be within the bounds of their calling, and under the conduct of the Magistratical power set over them: As when inticers to idolatry are, in the former part of the chapter, enjoined to be taken order with, (however nearly they were related to People) and to be stoned, it is not to be supposed that the charge is given to every private person brevi manu to do this, but judgement was to be execute on them after judicial conviction, and sentence given by the Magistrate, as sayeth Diodat. on v. 8. and Pelargus on v. 14.] Answ. 1. That the People's concurrence was to be within the bounds of their calling, we grant: But the question is how far the bounds of their calling did extend: Did it extend no further then to go out when called thereto of the Magistrate, to punish that Apostate city? Then if the Magistrate neglected to call them out, they were not so much as to mourn for that Apostasy, by this text; Nor to use any other means to have the Matter rectified, nay nor to bear witness against that way: For if the Magistrate was to preceded, and they only to go under his conduct, if he called them not forth, they were exonered, all that was required of them, being only to be willing and ready at a call. But sure this interpretation is not consonant to other texts of scripture, as we shall show. 2. If we look to the other particulars spoken to in that chapter, we will find that there was more required than that, or a simple mourning in secret; for no man will think they were exonered, if they had been only willing to execute the sentence of the Magistrate upon the false Prophet and dreamer, that sought to draw them after other Gods. Seing they were not to hear him. So as to the enticer, they were not only not to hearken unto him, but they were not to pity him, nor to conceal him v. 8. but now, what in case the Magistrate should have refused to have done his duty, to have examined the Matter; or, what in case the Magistrate should have countenanced and encouraged such an one, was there no more required of them, but to have made offer of their Son, Daughter, Wife, or Brother unto justice, and when justice could not have been gotten executed upon them take them home again to their house and into their bosom, & live as formerly good friends together? I fear such cleaving to the letter of the scripture shall be found a mere eludeing of scripture, and a mocking of the holy ghost by whom it was given. 3. Yea that which Diodat says, is more, for he says, [They were to procure vengeance on him, in way of justice accusing him to the Magistrate by information or sufficient proof.] And if the Magistrate refused to do justice, I suppose, they might have provided for their own security, and shot him or her out of doors with violence, that was seeking to draw them a way from the true God. So that granting what the Surveyer would be at, the place will make for us: For though the Magistrate was bound to examine, judge and sentence the Apostate city, in a judicial authoritative manner; yet in case the Magistrate should have connived at, or countenanced such apostasy, they were to use other means to have the land purged of that crying obhomination, then simple mourning in secret, even to have taken the sword in their hand, in case the defection was approaching to themselves, and Magistrates were forcing them to a compliance with that evil, or apostasy; and never to have laid it down, till not only themselves were secured as to theirpart, but the land were purged of that idolatry & the idolaters executed according to the law, Their Zeal in this case should have carried them without doors, though not to an assumeing of the Magistrates juridical authoritative and punishing sword.  
2. Esai. 59: v. 4. None calleth for justice, nor any pleadeth for truth. Where the Prophet among the rest of the evils whereof that People was guilty, and for which heavy calamities did press them, reckoneth this, that there was none who called for justice, or did plead for truth; that is, there was none who endeavoured to relieve, and right the wronged, or to redress what was amiss, see the English Annotat. no man owned the right cause, or took God's part against falsehood and wickedness, [No man (say the Duth Annotat.) to dehort them that deal unjustly, or to maintain a just cause, and the truth to the utmost of his power.] So that by this we see what was required of People, in a day of defection, even to call and cry aloud, that justice might be executed, and deal with such as were Magistrates to do their duty, and not to bring and keep on the wrath of God upon the Land; And this is more than the Surveyer will have to be the only duty of private people in a day of general defection, Pag. 52. viz. To keep themselves pure without any degree of acting these sins, to mourn and sigh for the evils that are done, to be earnest in prayer that God may convert others, to admonish faithfully, and study to reclaim these who are out of the way. But this will be more clear by the following passages.  
3. Esay. 59: 15, 16. [Yea truth faileth and he that departeth from evil maketh himself a prey, and the Lord saw it, and it displeased him that there was no judgement, and he saw that there was no man, and wondered that there was no intercessor.] Truth and the cause of God was so at under, that a man could not get leave to live, if he depairted from evil, he was a prey unto the persecuters, so general and universal was this defection; and at this time, he saw that there was no man, and wondered that there was no intercessor to interpose, none that would stand up and lay out themselves to the utmost, to set things in order, none that would bestir himself for truth and the right, which was then oppressed: see the English Annot. on the place: the word is used 2 Sam. 22. 17. where it is said the servants of Saul would not fall upon the Priests of the Lord. So Exod. 5. 3. lest he fall upon us etc. So that we see, there was some positive thing required of them, some effectual mediating, and interposeing, and hindering of these iniquities; some public owneing and avowing of the truth, and by public testimonies, or other ways of interposeing, & falling-into impede, and stand in the way of that course of wickedness.  
4. So jer. 8: 6. [I harkened and heard but they spoke not a right no man repented him of his wickedness saying what have I done] It is not probable that there was none penitent among them, where then was Baruch and Ebedmelech Cap. 38. 7, 9 and others that stood for the Prophet Cap. 26, 8, 16, 17, 24. But there must be some other thing imported, viz. That there was few or none repenting of national evils, and labouring to remove these, no man was standing up and opposeing these public land defections, & labouring by this means to raise up the virgin of Israel who was fallen Amos. 5. 2.  
5. Ierm. 9: 3. [And they bend their tongues like their bows for lies, but they are not valiant for the truth upon the earth.] that is, they were ready enough, all of them, to employ their power to the utmost, for the evil cause, to establish error and a false way; but they used no valour for the oppressed cause and truth of God, they did not their utmost to have Truth established, and the true Religion: They did not put out themselves, or make use of their strength, for the maintenance of truth, and equity in the land, say the English Annot. and they make it parallel with Esa. 59: 4. This was their guilt, and hereby we see what was the duty even of private persons (for of such this is to be meaned, as the context cleareth.) in such a general day of defection, viz. to be valiant owners and maintainers of Truth against all opposers.  
6. jer. 5: v. 1. [Run ye to and fro throw the streets of jerusalem, and see now and know, and seek in the broad places thereof, if ye can find a man, if there be any that executeth judgement, that seeketh the truth, and I will pardon it.] We can hardly think, that there were no mourners in secret in all jerusalem, though it is like they were very few: but there was none to own the good cause, that was now trodden under foot, none bestirring themselves, to oppose and hinder the carried on course of defection. If that had been, the Lord says, he would have spared the place; which shows, how desirable a thing this was, and how acceptable it would have been in the Lords eyes, that for that cause he would have forborn to have destroyed them or to have cut them off.  
7. Ezech. 22: 30. [And I sought for a man among them, that should make up the hedge, and stand in the gap before me, that I should not destroy it, but I found none.] There were some even at this time sighing and mourning in secret, for these abominations, who were marked Cap. 9 but there were none to make up the hedge, which their provocations had made, none to redress the public defection and Apostasy, and stand for the truth and the suppressing of error and iniquity. So is it laid to the charge of their Prophets Cap. 13: 5. that they did not go up into the gaps, neither made up the hedge, for the house of Israel to stand in the battle in the day of the Lord, Whereby we see, that by this standing in the gape and making up the hedge, more is meaned then a secret mourning, even a faithful and public owneing of the truth and opposeing of defection, and putting a stoup unto it, as Moses did when he stood in the breach, Exod. 32. (though with authority, as a Magistrate, which private people have not) he not only prayed and wrestled with the Lord v. 11, 12, 13. but in great zeal took the calf, which they had made, and brunt it in the fire, and ground it to powder, and strawed it upon the water, and made them to drink of it v. 20. If there had been any who thus effectually would have stood in the breach, the Lord says, he would have spared them: so acceptable would such a work have been to him.  
8. So that word jer. 13: 18. [Say unto the King and to the Queen, humble yourselves sit down, for your principalities shall come down, even the crown of your glory.] Will import something more; it being spoken to all indefinitely, giveth a warrant to all, to deal with King and Queen, to prevent the sad days which were coming by reason of the defection and abounding sins.  
9 So that word Hos. 2: 2. [Plead with your mother, plead, for she is not my wife,] which is spoken to private people, and so is a warrant to them, to contend in judgement (as the word doth import) against the Church, which was corrupted, and had forsaken the Lord, and his ways; and so to stand to the defence of truth, and to plead for the cause of God, against their very Mother the Church, The body of the Nation, that not only they might exoner their own consciences, but also get things reform, so far as lay in their power; and keep the memory of the cause of God afresh that it should not be buried.  
These places and the like, though we bring them not to prove immediately our main Question (as it may be the Surveyer, who useth to take but half a look of matters, will suppose) yet when duly considered, in their just latitude and extent, they will clearly evince; That more is required of private persons, in a general day of defection, then to keep themselves free of the same, or to mourn in secret, or the like. And if we lay them together, they will clearly prove it the duty of private people, in such a day of defection, to be publicly declareing their abhorrence of the wicked courses which are carried on: to be actually and effectually interposeing with King and Great ones, that a stoup may be put unto the course of wickedness, and God's wrath averted: that they would plead Zions' cause against all opposers, and thus stand up in the gape, and make up the hedge by public and avowed owneing of the oppressed truth and cause of God: and valiantly seek and plead for the truth, and with their Mother the Church, when all is corrupted, left a bill of divorce be given her: And this is something more than our Surveyer will allow. And what way this shall help us, we shall see afterwards. Now we must examine What the Surveyer sayeth.  
He Pag. 46. after some rambling after his wont manner, & misrepresenting of the thing which was said in Naphtaly, (as any judicious reader will perceive, so that we need not trouble ourselves to discover the same unfair dealing so oft as we meet with it, lest we should waste paper and pains, as he hath done, in repeating the same things over and over again,) He tells us That [It is not to be doubted that Religion is the chief interest, that men and Christians should look after, and where it becomes a legal right, and the Magistrate who bears the sword leads the way, no doubt private people may follow in the violent defence of it, against all opposeing the Magistrate, the law, and themselves in owneing of it.] Answer. This cold laodicean will give Religion the best word, but no more: He granteth that it is the chief interest that men and Christians should look after; and yet so cautious is he in showing the manner how they should look after it, that in effect he doth postpone it unto many other lower concernments: For 1. it must become a legal right, ere they defend it. 2. And when it is become a legal right, they cannot defend it unless the Magistrate lead the way. But what if a virgin hath not a legal right unto her chastity, by such a law as that lecherous King Ewen the 3. made, shall she not be allowed to defend the same? And if she shall, shall not men be allowed to maintain their Religion, though some iniquous act of Parliament take the legal right of it away? Yes doubtless if it be the chief interest. Again, what if an unjust act take away a man's right to his heritage, shall he not be in case to defend it against robbers? 2. By his second caution it would appear, that if an army of Turks or Tartars were landing in Scotland to robus of our Religion, we might not resist, unless the Magistrate did lead the way. But might we not in that case defend our lives and lands? If he should deny it, I know few that will be of his opinion, and if he grant it, he must not account Religion the chief interest. Again, what if the Magistrate shall permit Subjects to defend their Lives and Libertyes against invaders, though he should not lead the way? Will he allow it in that case? Then he must prefer these unto Religion; for Religion, he says, must must not be defended, but when the Magistrate leads the way: [Neither (says he) can it enter into a Christian heart, that it is to be surrendered unto the arbitrement or pleasure of any power in the world, nor of any Magistrate over us, as this man wickedly suggests is done] Answ. The Surveyer is this wicked person, who not only suggests, but upon the matter affirms it, and avows it; for what is it else, then to surrender our Religion to the arbitrement of Magistrates, to say, that we may not stand to the defence thereof, unless they will both authorise it with their law, and also lead the way when any oppose it? That which we will not maintain without the approbation and conduct of another, we wholly give up to the disposeing and pleasure of that other. What he says concerning our present case, shall be considered in end, once for all. Then Pag. 47. [Whatever may be said concerning private men's resisting the powers that urge them to idolatry, or false worship, or invading their lives, if they will not so do, comes not home to the present case.] Answ. He would do well to speak plain, and not look with a double face; Either he thinks it lawful, in this case to resist, or he thinks it unlawful; if he think it unlawful to what purpose doth he make mention of it, as a different case from what is presently under debate; And will not any see that if he deny this to be lawful, our Religion is wholly given upto the arbitrement of the Magistrate? If he think it lawful, he must then grant that Religion may be defended, even when the Magistrate who bears the sword, doth not lead the way, and why then it should not come home to our present case, I do not see; for he doth not lay the stress of his answers on the inconsiderableness of the ground of the resistance, (though here and there He hint at that) but upon the unlawfulness of resisting the Magistrate, who bears the sword: Now this ground faileth him here. But he adds [Yet Lactantius word, Lib. 5. c. 20. is to be well remembered by all private people, Defendenda est Religio a privatis omnibus, non occidendo, sed moriendo] Answ. Then according to Lactantius it must be unlawful to defend Religion, even when the Magistrate urgeth to idolatry, invading lives if they will not do it: yea if this be generally received as a truth, The People of Scotland might not defend their Religion against an army of Pagan's Turks or Tartars, if the Sovereign should not concur: Which I know not who would assent unto.  
But he will come off with a few notes Pag. 47. etc. That whereas Naphtali said That to be violented in Religion (which cannot be without an unjust force, either on men's persons, or on their goods) is the most wicked and insupportable of all injuries He thinks such a word should have been better guarded, lest all coactive power of the magistrate in matters of Religion, might seem to be disowned, which would favour such, as are for absolute toleration. But what needed this? Could he think that the author of Naphtaly did imagine, That to be violented in any Religion whether true or false, was such an insupportable injury? Or that it was his mind to plead for an universal toleration? What ground had he for so thinking? Sure that had been prejudical to his hypothesis, which this Surveyer himself will not call a false Religion: will it not suffice to say, he meaned a violenting in the true Religion? [No (says he) for what Sectary will not pretend, that he is violented for the true Religion, which he will avow is so, according to his conscience,— and it is this man's principle, that every man in his discretive judgement, is judge of the justice or in justice of his own sufferings, and accordingly must determine a nent his resistance to the violence] Answ. 1. Then it seemeth his guairding of it, in his own words, saying [It is true, to use violence upon any in their persons or goods, to bring them to an external false Religion, or to drive them from the true (otherwise Religion cannot be violented) is the greatest of injuries] Is not sufficient to salve the Magistrates co-active power in matters of Religion; for notwithstanding of what he says, the pleaders for universal toleration have the same door open they had. 2. If he will deny this discretive judgement in matters of sufferings, he must deny it also in matters of acting; for if no man must judge, whether the violence offered him be just or unjust, why should a man judge, whether the commands enjoined him be lawful or unlawful? And so, as he may not so judge of the violence offered him in the matters of Religion, as to repel unjust violence with violence, neither must he judge of the lawfulness of the commands concerning Religion, so as to refuse obedience to unjust commands: And then it will follow, that subjects must yield blind obedience to all the commands of the Magistrate in matters of Religion, and never question any of them: This, I grant, is not to plead for absolute toleration, but it is clearly to plead for absolute tyranny over consciences, fit to be heard and received by Atheists, but by none else. 3. We know the most lawful thing may be abused, and he dar not say that every one who pleads for a lawful thing, pleads also for the abuse of it. He who says a man must not change his true Religion, at the command of the Magistrate, doth not say that a man must not change that Religion, which he thinketh in his conscience is the true Religion, and is not, at the command of the Magistrate: So he who faith a people may defend their true Religion, when the Magistrate is violenting them in it, Sayeth not that every Sectarian company may defend that Religion, which they take to be true, and is not, when the Magistrate is violenting them in it. We say not that an erring conscience obligeth, or that a man's thinking that he is injured in the true Religion, is sufficient ground to engage him in violent resistance. And he himself dar not say, the Religion as reform in doctrine, worship, discipline, and government (which the late defenders owned) is a false Religion: Nor dar he say, that the corruptions which they opposed, were the only true and necessary Religion. He seems to chant some other thing here and there, in this part of his pamphlet; but we look for more in the following parts, where we shall have his mind more fully. Sure the Religion they owned, and we stand for, was the Religion he himself once owned, and all the Magistrates, Supreme and inferior sealed and approved, with their oaths and subscriptions: And the corruptions they and we oppose, were once by himself, and all ranks of people of the land, abjured oftener than once▪ So that all this is but to raise dust in people's eyes, to the end they may mistake the way [Again (says he) does not this man plainly profess to stir up all, with whom he can prevail, to violente others, Magistrates, Churchmen, people and all, in the matter of their profession?] Answ. Their profession is manifest and professed perjury; for they have renunced the reformed Religion which they once owned, and avowed with hands lifted up to the Most High, and their extant subscriptions bear witness against them; and all the congregations and public meetings, in which this Religion was owned, are witnesses above all exception. And they have with the dog licked up their vomit, which once they spewed out with an oath of abjuration. 2. But wherein are they violented? Do they that stand to the defence of their Religion, and labour or endeavour to have corruptions formerly abjured, purged out, incur the crime of violenting others? Yes for (says he) even private men are stirred by bloody exhortations, to be revenged on, and punish all Magistrates and others, whose blood they thirst for, because of their not being of their way, which they call Religion.) Answer. This is but one of many of his bloody assertions, savouring neither of Christianity, nor prudence, but much of cruelty and tyranny: and we see his teeth, and his tongue both; But the judge of the innocent heareth and seeth. 2, Did not this perjured wretch and his fraternity call this way, Religion, and the true Reformed Religion, when they swore those Covenants, & will he now come & speak thus? O but he must have a brazen face & an abdured conscience! Ay but he tells us afterward, Pag. 48. that [Whether truth lie on our side or his, as to the points of Church government is the question, and if we will not admit public powers and authorities to be judges in that matter, far less have they reason to admit of private people.] Answ. 1. It seemeth it is past question with him, that the vomit which he hath licked up, is the most fattening morsel, that ever he goat; but the most fattening food is not always the most wholesome: And I fear this shall prove so to him, if he repent not, when for it, the wrath of God and the long & broad curse shall enter into his dwelling place, and into his very soul. 2. We are content the stress of the business lie upon that question, and shall be glade to hear what spirits his new food hath put into him, to maintain that condemned and abjured cause. 3. We look not upon our public powers and authorities as Judges competent in that matter, nor did they judge, as Judges should have done, when they set up that abomination; but as men mad on their idols, so did they run, to please, he knoweth, whom. 4. This is the very thing which Papists say anent the judge of controversies, save that he puts the civil Magistrate, in place of the Pope. 5. This controversy is not to be judged till now, and private people may be sufficient judges of what was sworn and subscribed by King, and all ranks of People, and must have more solid grounds and motives to induce then to renunce what they have been fully persuaded was truth, and have owned as such, under the pain of damnation, by their solemn Oaths and vows; then the mere will and command of a Creature, as obnoxious to error & mistakes as another. And as for what he hath a mind to say upon that head, it is now a little too too late, unless he be able to do, what never one before hath done, viz. prove that form of government; the only necessary government, jure Divino, perpetually binding all, in all ages: but the vulgar will have a sufficient antidote against all, which he can say, by seeing & hearing, what they have seen and heard these years bygone, both when this abomination was but about to be introduced, and since it hath goat up to its pinnacle, though nothing should be said, of the abominable & scandalous carriage of such as have embraced that Antichristian course, a true historical relation of which would make the ears of all true Christians to tingle.  
His 2. note is upon the probable capacity which Naphtaly spoke of: this brings to his mind Bellarmin's excuse why the ancient Christians took not arms against Nero, because they wanted temporal strength. But might not that excuse be good in itself though Bellarmine made use of it? I suppose upon second search, it will be found, that they had not such a capacity, as he, it may be, supposeth: But of this afterward. It brings to his mind also what Creswel the Jesuit said against the Edict of Q. Elizabeth. But all this is nothing to the purpose, for neither we, nor Naphtaly join with the Jesuits (whatever he say) as to the deposeing and throwing down of Princes, and all Magistrates, and punishing them by private hands. But if he think this condition, in private persons resisting of violence, jesuitical, viz. if they be in a probable capacity to do it. He must give us leave to say, It is very rational, and he is more than brutish to think otherwise: For will he say, that it is an indispensable duty, for Ten private people, though they had their Magistrates with them, to go and resist an army of Ten Thousand, unless they have an extraordinary particular & peremptory call of God? Sure then he but shows his folly to carp at such things as these, let him read, Luk. 14: 31.  
Next let us see what he hath Pag. 84. 85. 86. Where he sayeth 1. (That albeit it be God's holy will, that in erections of civil government, his Truth, sincere worship and glory in these, should be mainly minded and intended by men, and it is men's duty so to do; yet it is clear that in many places de facto it is not so; although men in the general profess aiming at Truth, and right worship, yet there are aberrations in the particular.] Answ. 1. This is very true, and not only do we see that it is so de facto; but also that where conscience hath been made of minding God's truth, sincere worshipe, and glory, and these so twisted in, and interwoven with the constitution of the civil government, that they became to the subject, a piece of their National patrimony, secured by all means imaginable, not only these necessary things are not minded, but they are sought to be overturned and destroyed. 2. Since he grants that it is men's duty so to do, how can he condemn what the honest Parliaments of Scotland did, and what the king consented to, and owned? Was that any thing else but to establish and secure the reformed Religion in Doctrine, worship, discipline and government, for the glory of God, and the good of the nations?  
Next he says, [Albeit there be in the point of truth, and the worship of God, anotable perversion and swerving, that doth not at all invalidate the authority, nor break the obligation thereunto, although it be injurious, to favourers of Truth and right worship: for although Religion be not minded, as it ought to be, God will not have the Commonwealths, where justice between Man and Man is maintained, for his glory, casten lose; nor have men think themselves loosed from obligation to the government— for neither must they be heard, who hold that civil dominion is founded on grace, nor they who say, That infidel, heretical, or excommunicate Magistrates fall from their power, or that the subjects obligation to them ceaseth.] Answ. 1. Yet where the maintenance of Truth, and of the right worshipe is a fundamental pillar of the constitution, and a main article of the compact betwixt Magistrates and subjects, a failing here is a losing of the government, and of the Subjects obligation, if not in whole, yet in so far; 2. A pleading for the observation of the compact and maintenance of the Truth and worship of God, conform to sworn compacts, is no breaking of the obligation, but rather a way to have it strengthened and made more firm: Much less can they be charged with this, who plead only for a liberty of defence of the same Truth and worship, against manifest injuries, contrary to Covenants, vows and compacts. 3. Such as resist the unjust violence of Magistrates, do not thereby lose themselves from the obligation to government, otherwise every woman who in defence of her chastity resisted the prince, should die as a Traitor, 4. We abhor both that opinion, that dominion is founded on grace, and that other of the Papists: we stand upon other grounds, as hath been, and may yet be, further showed.  
The sum of what he says in the 4 place (for what he hath said in the 3 place is but some concessions, which are touched already) is this [That to reform in a public coactive way, by the use of the vindicative and punitive sword, belongeth alone to the Magistrate, so that people of mere private capacity, cannot use that sword against all Magistrates, and their fellow subjects, to violent them in matters of Religion, or which they account Religion, and punish them for not being, of their Religion.] Answ. It is but his groundless calumny, to say that Naphtaly says all this, and so it is nothing to the question in hand, which is concerning private persons maintaineing their Religion, and endeavouring to have corruptions removed, which may well be, without the least encroachment upon the Magistrates; and since he speaks not to this, he either declares himself unable to confute what we say; or he foully prevaricates, to the palpable betraying of his own cause; or both.  
Then he tells us further. [That the great mistake in all this matter is, That we think the Magistrate & People, are, as to their Covenant with God, debtors bound in a band conjunctly and severally, for one sum, so that in the deficiency of the one. the other must pay all, and hath power to distress the deficient— whereas they bind, but for their several moieties of a sum— so that if the People reform themselves, and keep themselves pure from abominations, the Magistrates deficiency (which they tolerat with grief) shall not be imputed to them: Because God giveth them not a calling to intrude into the Magistrate's office— there lies no obligation on them to force the King, or their fellow subjects to external means of Worship and Religion.] Answ. This is the sum of what he spendeth many words about, but it may be easily answered. For 1. By this simile he will wrong the Magistrate: for as the People may not press the Magistrate to pay his moiety, how may He press the Subjects to pay their moiety? 2. If the Magistrate break to God, and will not pay his moiety of the sum, he cannot press the Subjects to break also, and not to pay their part; but whether he will or not, they are bound to keep Covenant: and if he force them▪ his violence is unjust and illegal (for no law can warrant People to break their Covenant with God) and may lawfully be resisted; and this is enough for us. 3. A better lawyer than he Althusius pol. cap. 28. n. 18. tells us that in those Religious Covenants, Magistrates and People are bound conjunctly and severally, so that the whole sum may be required of either of the corrëi: Ita sunt corrëi (says he) ut in solidum & in continenti ab unoquoque promissum peti possit, tanquam a principalirëo. l. poen. de duob. rëis stip. 2 Chro. 33. 2 King. 24. 4. Deut. 29.) And his reason is, because God would not commit to one the care of his Church, and worship; but to the whole People, whom their servants King and Parliaments do represent, which also he proveth from jer. 17: 20. and again Num. 19 He tells us that one of the corrëi must answer for the other and partaketh of his guilt, if he do not oppose and resist him as much as he can, and so hinder him from breaking: Which he proveth from 1 King. 14: 16. and Num. 23: 24. He answers Barclaius alleging the same thing which this Surveyer allegeth saying, [Concedo Barclaio in duobus rëis promittendi observari, ut uno solvente quod promisit, alter liberetur, Ergo quando Rex vel Populus ob delictà sua arque foederis initi transgressiones, poena â Deo est affectus, alter liberabitur. Verum haecregula, uno corrëo solvente, alterum, liberari, exceptionem patitur in casu quo non insolidum & in tot●m corrëus solvit. sed pro parte, uti hîc, unus ex corrëis poenas persolvens, Deo non in solidum solvere potest. Deinde haec regula non procedit in delictis; In his enim uterque corrëus delinquens & criminis socii puniuntur in solidum, neque unus poenas luendo, alterum liberare potest, 1 Sam. 12: ver. 27. Et docent id late ICC. Denique praedicta regula non procedat in casu qnando uterque corrëus se in solidum obligavit ad idem factum, uti in hoc foedere accidit, 2 Chron. 15: ver. 13: Vbi de poena subditorum & Regis loquitur, ut, 1 Sam. 12: ver. 7. 4. But now the question is what is the People's duty, in a day of defection? He says it is only to keep themselves pure from the abominations, and reform themselves. But we have showed above that the scripture requireth more, even some active endeavour, to have the National Corruptions removed, though not to usurp the Magistrate's place. But says he [The late Covenant itself, doth bind private persons in their places and callings (which certanely are private, and to be managed by private means) to endeavour reformation, & doth not bind any number of private persons to pull the sword out of the Magistrate's hand, when they think he useth it otherwise then he should, and then they would have him use it— if the Covenant be passive of such commentaries, as this man puts upon it, That whatever any private party accounts Reformation, they may use the vindictive punishing sword against all, of all degrees, that stand in their way to advance the same, we have little reason to be in love with it; and just cause to cast it by, till it be cleared of such corrupt glosses. [Answer. I fear the Surveyer be so out of love with it, and have so cast it by, that were it never so cleared (as it is clear enough) he hath no mind to take it up again, and he best knoweth what it was that moved him to cast it off. But 2. as Naphtaly said well, That clause annexed can not be so restrictive, as this Surveyer would have it; for certanely it cannot bind up private men's hands, from doing of these things, which otherwise were commanded them to do. Now whether this Covenant had been or not, more would have been required of private persons, in a time of great and universal or a national defection, then at other times. Every man is bound according to his place and station to preserve he King's person and authority. Now put the case that some party or faction should captivate him, This man will grant that private people, without the conduct of inferior Magistrates, may join together, if they be in a capacity to break thorough impediments, & through the interprize, and labour his vindication and delivery, and restauration: Would he in this case condemn these men, as acting without their sphere, or as usurpers: I suppose not: Let him then apply this to our case. and he will easily see the parallel. So it is the duty of burgesses in their places and stations, to promove the good of the society: Now suppose a fire kindle, and such as are appointed to oversee the quenching of fires either are absent, or careless, or half willing the Town should be burnt, shall private people hands be bound up from doing what they can, in what order they may, to save the Town? shall they be accounted transgressors, or Usurpers of the Magistrat's place, though they should materially occupy his room for that exigent? No certanely, they should rather be accounted faithful citizens, mindful of their oath and promise. So when an army is engaged with the Enemy, if the Commanders should perfidiously betray their trust, and leave their station, or seek the destruction of the army, in their station, It would be accounted no usurpation, in any private persons, who could best fill these rooms and places, for these exigents, to do what they could, for the saifty of the army: Nor would this be thought contrare to their oath. When a Master of a Shipe either through sottishness, or wickedness, would run the ship against the rock, any private Seaman in that case of necessity, may, to save his own life and the lives of all who are in the ship, do the best he can, to prevent destruction, without any sinful transgressing the bounds of his calling. Whence we may understand, that in cases of extreme necessity, private people may do more, then in ordinary cases; and yet not sinfully go beyond their places and callings: and though materially, they, for that exigent, occupy the places of Superiors, who sinfully, unfaithfully, and basely, either neglect or betray their trust; yet they cannot be accounted Usurpers: nor is it rational to say, that such as plead for the lawfulness of this, do plead for the lawfulness of private persons pulling the sword out of the Magistrate's hands, whensoever they think he useth it otherwise then he should, or whensoever he useth it otherwise then they would have him use it; and useing the vindictive punishing sword against all Magistrates and others, that stand in their way. By this also, we may see what injury he doth to Naphtaly, when he draweth such consequences from what he said Pag, 151. and there did show by the simile adduced, that such a thing was to be done only in extreme inevitable and urgent necessity. And what the Surveyer hath said Pag. 116. and 117. needeth no other answer.  
This is not all, he must harp on this string again Pag. 103. where he says [That it is to ruin all order, to teach that the advancing Religion, not only actibus elicitis but actibus imperatis, which belong to the Magistrate, may be meddled with by the people-extraordinary necessities are more easily pleaded then justified, as ground sufficient for some actions, whereto there is no extraordinary call] Answ. Though this be sufficiently answered before, yet we say, 1. That order is already ruined, when the Magistrate destroyeth what he should preserve, and so crosseth his commission: and who teach that in such an extraordinary case, when God's order is violated and broken, and all in hazard to be overturned, such things might be done, which needed not to be done, if God's order and appointment were observed, do not take a way to ruin all order, but rather to preserve that, which order itself is apppointed, as a mean, to preserve. 2. We plead not for such formal imperate acts, in matters of Religion, as due to private people (as we have said.) But for a power, according to the ability God putteth into their hands to hinder him from being dishonoured, to defend their own profession and Religion, to hinder an universal apostasy, and to endeavour in their capacities, to have things righted, which are out of order. And when private people are carrying themselves thus, we deny that they are running out of their rank and calling; nor can he prove it. 3. Will he say that no actions can be sufficiently justified because done in extraordinary necessities and without an extraordinary call? Then he shall condemn the Covenants which David made with the men of Israel, 2 Sam. 5. and which jehojadah made betwixt the King & the People: For he told us that both these were in extraordinary occasions, and he cannot show us any extraordinary call. He addeth [If Magistrates be deficient— private persons are sufficiently discharged, if they keep themselves pure, and do what possibly they can, for advancing Religion in their private capacities and by their Elicit acts— if a man's eyes be put out his ears, or other senses will go as far to supply that defect, as may be; yet, cannot help the body by elicit acts of seeing. So whatever length private persons may go, for the good of the body, they must not go to exercise and exert formally, acts magistratical.] Answ. All alongs we hear nothing but dictatings: This and this he says, and there is an end, a noble patron of a desperate cause, and worthy of a great hire. But. 1. The question still abideth undiscussed how far private persons capacity doth reach; for that they must do more than keep themselves pure we have shown. 2. If they may do what possibly they can, for advancing Religion in their capacities, they may do more than he will have them doing; for than they may defend Religion with the sword, and with violence hinder idolatry and superstition, and what of that nature provocketh God to wrath. All this and more is within their capacity and possibility, as he would easily grant, if the Magistrate would but countenance it, yea and though he should oppose, say we. But he will say, these are not elicite acts. And will he grant nothing else to private subjects but elicit acts? Then he will not grant them liberty to disput for Religion, to exhort, rebuke and admonish etc. for these are not elicite acts, more than disputing with the sword, and so with his Philosophic distinctions, he would charm us into a perfect acquiescence with what Religion the King will enjoin. 3. Ears and other senses never set up the eyes, and gave them power to see for their good: But the People set up the Magistrates, and may do, when the Magistrate layeth down his sword, or avowedly betrayeth his trust, what they might have done before they made choice of him. 4. By this Simile it would follow that the People cannot only not do the Magistrate's Imperat acts, but not so much as the Elicite acts which he may do, which is false. 5. Though they cannot exert or exercise Formally acts Magistratical, if they may do it Materially, we seek no more. In end he tell us. That it is a dangerous and destructive tenant to be held forth to be believed by People That in all cases whether concerning Religion or Liberty, when they account the Magistrate to pervert the government, that they are Eatenus in so far, even as if they had no King, and that the royalty hath recurred to themselves, and they may act and exercise it formally as if they had no King at all] and this he tells us is the express doctrine of Lex Rex Pag. 99 100 Now that all may see what a shameless and impudent man this is, and how little reason any have to give him credit, I shall recite the authors very words. [But because (sayeth he) the Estates never gave the King power to corrupt Religion, and press a false and I dolatrous worship upon them; Therefore when the King defendeth not true Religion, but presseth upon the People a false and Idolatrous Religion (this is some other thing then when they account the Magistrate to pervert etc.) in that they are not under the King, but are presumed to have no King eatenus so far, & are presumed to have power in themselves, as if they had not apppointed any King at all— If an incorporation accused of Treason & in danger of the sentence of death, shall appoint a lawyer to advocate their cause,— if he be stricken with dumbness, because they have loosed their legal and representative tongue, none can say, that this incorporation hath loosed the tongues that nature hath given them, so as by nature's law they may not plead in their own just and lawful defence, as if they had never apppointed the foresaid lawyer to plead for them. The King— is made by God and the People King, for the Church and People of God's sake, that he may defend true Religion, for the behoof and salvation of all: If then he defend not Religion— (NB) in his public and Royal way, It is presumed as undeniable, That the People of God who by the law of nature, are to care for their own soul, are to defend (NB) in their way, true Religion, which so nearly concerneth them and their eternal happiness.] Now let any judge if this be so dangerous and destructive a tenant, As he would make his reader believe. But it is easy for him who hath no shame, to pervert sentences which he cannot confute, and then call them dangerous and destructive: and thus he will make the rabble of the degenerate clergy and other simple ones believe, that he hath confuted Lex Rex. And thus dealeth he with Naphtaly as we have showed already.  
Having thus considered all which the Surveyer hath here and there spoken against that which we have said, let us now come to apply what hath been said, unto our present purpose, of vindicating the late act of defence; which, by what we have said, we find cannot be justly condemned as treasonable or rebellious, but rather approved and commended as loyal service to God and the Country.  
For 1. Thereby they were professing their constancy, in adhering to the reformation of Religion in doctrine, worship Discipline and Government, which was consonant to the word of God, and publicly received with all solemnities imaginable, notwithstanding of acts and laws made to the contrary: and no true Christian will say, That subjects should embrace any Religion which Magistrates will countenance and prescribe, be what it will, or upon that account.  
2. As they were thereby declareing their soul abhorrence of these corruptions, which were countenanced and authorized by sinful acts and statutes; so they were defending, to the utmost of their power, the reformed Religion, according to their Covenant, and vow to God. And that such a defence as this, is lawful, we have showed.  
3. They were defending themselves against intolerable and manifestly unjust violence, offered because of their adhering to the cause of God, and to the reformed Religion, which King, Parliament, and all ranks of People in the land, were solemnly sworn to own, and avow, all the days of their lives, really, sincerely and constantly▪ as they should answer to God, in the great day; no less than they.  
4. They were minding their Oath and Covenant made with God, with hands lifted up, with solemn attestations, and protestations; the Covenants which they did make and renew in the presence of Almighty God, the Searcher of all hearts, with a true intention to perform the same.  
5. They were endeavouring in their places and stations (according to the latitude allowed in times of such necessity, and in matters of such weight and moment) to have the Church and Kingdom purged of these abominable and crying corruptions, and grievous abominations, which provoke the Lord to wrath, against the whole Church and Kingdom.  
6. They were defending the main fundamental law and constitution of the Kingdom, and that main article of Agreement and Compact betwixt Sovereign and Subject, which all the members of the Nation, were no Less bound unto, than they.  
7. They were joining together, as detasteing that detestable indifferency and neutrality abjured, to defend and assist one another in the same cause of maintaining their reformed Religion, with their best counsel, bodies, means, and whole power, against the old, inveterate and Common enemy, that malignant spirit and rage; according to their Covenants.  
8. They were repenting of their National sin, in complying (by their sinful silence, & not giving open, faithful, and fair testimony, when the Truth of God was openly and violently trodden under foot) with that dreadful course of backslideing, which was violently carried on. They were calling for justice, and valiantly pleading for truth, sinfully and tyrannically borne down and oppressed. They were with zeal and courage valiantly interposeing, & labouring to put a stop to the begun and far-carryed-on defection, when truth was failing, and he who depairted from evil made himself a prey, that God might pardon, and look in mercy on the land. They were endeavouring to stand in the gape and make up the hedge; and pleading with their Mother Church, or a malignant faction in her, shamefully departing from God, when there was no other way or mean to be followed, or essaved.  
When all these things are duly considered and laid together, It will appear to impartial and unbiased people, That the late act which is so much condemned and cried our against, is not so heinous and unpardonable a crime, as this Surveyer and his wicked party would give it out to be: but was a noble and laudable interprize, for the glory of God, the good of Religion, Church and Kingdom; beside that it was a most necessary and unavoidable act of self defence. Since the Scriptures formerly cited will allow more unto private persons, than what this Surveyer restricketh them unto, (as we have shown) in a time of defection: Then when there was no other way left to do these duties there required, and when with all several other things did call aloud to a mutual conjunction in arms for defence of one another, and repelling of unjust violence, and prosecuteing the holy and necessary ends of the Covenants which they sworn, no man in reason can suppose that such a work is repugnant to Scripture or right reason, but rather most consonant to both.  
And though many do and will condemn the same, even as to this interprize of Reformation, upon what grounds and motives themselves best know, yet Our worthy and Noble Reformer famous Mr Knox if he were living this day, would be far from speaking after the language of such. For he in his appellation Pag. 22. etc. hath these words [The second is, that the punishing of such crimes, as are idolatry blasphemy, & others that touch the Majesty of God, doth not Appertain to the Kings and chief rulers only; but also to the whole body of the People, and to every member of the same, according to the vocation of every man, and according to that possibility and occasion which God doth minister, to revenge the injury done against his glory, when that impiety is manifestly known: And that doth Moses plainly speak Deut. 13: v. 12, 13, 14, 15, 16. in these words, if in any of the cities etc.— plain it is that Moses speaketh not, nor giveth charge to Kings, Rulers, and judges only; but he commandeth the whole body of the People, yea and every member of the same, according to their possibility: And who dar be so impudent, as to deny this to be most reasonable and just; for, seeing that God had delivered, the whole body from bondage; and to the whole multitude had given his law; and to the twelve Tribes had he so distributed the inheritance of the land of Canaan! that no family could complain that it was neglected; was not the People and every member addebted, to acknowledge, and confess the benefits of God? Yea, had it not been the part of every man, to have studied to have keeped the possession which he had received? Which thing God did plainly pronounce they should not do, except that in their hearts they did sanctify the Lord God; that they embraced, and inviolably keeped his Religion established; and finally except, they did put away iniquity from amongst them, declareing themselves earnest Enemies to these abominations, which God declared himself so vehemently to hate, that first he commanded the whole inhabitants of that Country to be destroyed, and all monuments of their idolatry to be broken down.— But in such cases Gods will is, that all creatures stoup, cover their faces, and desist from reasoning, when commandment is given to execute his judgement. Albeit I could adduce divers causes of such severity; yet will I search none other than the holy ghost hath assigned; first, that all Israel hearing of the judgement, should fear to commit the like abomination; and secondly, That the Lord might turn from the fury of his anger, might be moved towards the People with inward affection, be merciful unto them, & multiply them, according to his oath made unto their Fathers: Which reasons as they are sufficient in God's children to correct the murmuring of grudging flesh; so ought they to provoke every man, as before I have said, to declare himself an enemy to that which so highly provoketh the wrath of God against the whole People: For where Moses sayeth Let the city be burned, etc. he plainly doth signify that by the defection and idolatry of a few, God's wrath is kindled against the whole, which is never quenched till such punishment be taken upon the offenders, that whatsoever served them in their idolatry be brought to destruction, because that it is execrable and cursed before God; and therefore he will not that it be reserved to any use of his People. I am not ignorant That this law was not put into execution, as God commanded; but what did thereof ensue and follow? Histories declare, viz. plague after plague till Israel and judah were led into captivity, as the Books of the Kings do witness. The consideration whereof maketh me more bold, To affirm that it is the duty of every man, who desireth to escape the plague and punishment of God, to declare himself Enemy to idolatry, not only in heart hating the same, but also in external gesture declareing, that he lamenteth, if he can do no more, for such abominations— of these premises, I suppose, it be evident. That the punishment of idolatry, doth not appertain to Kings only, but also to the whole People, yea to every member of the same, according to his possibility: For, that is a thing most assured that no man can mourn lament and bewail for these things, which he will not remove to the uttermost of his power.] And a little thereafter● And therefore I fear not to affirm that the Gentiles (I mean every City, Realm, Province or Nation, amongst the Gentiles, imbraceing Christ Jesus and his true Religion) be bound to the same league and Covenant, that God made with his People Israel when he promised to root out the Nations before them, in these words Exod. 34: 12, 13, 14.— to this same law and Covenant are the Gentiles no less bound, than some time were the jews, whensoever God doth illuminate the eyes of any multitude, Province, People, or City, and putteth the sword in their own hand, to remove such enormities from amongst them, as before they known to be abominable. Then, I say, are they no less bound, to purge their Dominions, Cities, and Countries, from idolatry, than were the Israelites, what time they received the possession of the Land of Canaan. And moreover, I say if any go about to erect and set up idolatry, or to teach defection from God, after that the verity hath been received and approved, that then not only the Magistrates, to whom the sword is committed, but also the People, are bound, by that oath, which they have made to God, to revenge to the utmost of their power, the injury done against his Majesty.] So in his admonition to the Commonalty of Scotland Pag. 36. [Neither would I that you should esteem the reformation and care of Religion less to appertain to you. because ye are not Kings, Judge's, Nobles, nor in authority. Beloved brethren, you are God's Creatures created and form to his own image and similitude, for whose redemption, was shed the most precious blood of the only beloved soon of God, to whom he hath commanded his gospel and glade tidings to be preached, and for whom he hath prepared the heavenly inheritance; so that ye will not obstinately refuse, and disdainfully contemn the means, which he hath apppointed to obtain the same— for albeit God hath put and ordained distinction betwixt King and Subjects; yet in the hope of the life to come, he hath made all equal— and therefore I say, that it doth no less appertain to you, to be assured that your faith and Religion be grounded and established upon the true and undoubted word of God, then to your Princes or Rulers; for, as your bodies cannot escape corporal death, if with your Princes, you eat or drink deadly poison (although it be by ignorance or negligence) so shall ye not escape the everlasting, if with them ye profess a corrupt Religion— and this is the cause that so oft I repeat, and so constantly I affirm, that to you it doth no less appertain, then to your King or Princes to provide that Christ jesus be truly preached among you, seeing without his true knowledge, you cannot attain to salvation.] More to this purpose may be read there.   

CAP. X.  
Arguments taken from the hazard of becoming guilty of the sin of others, and of partaking of their Judgements. And from the duty of relieving the oppressed, etc.  
IT is not necessary for our purpose to dip much into that question concerning Gods imputing of the sin of one unto others; and therefore we shall shortly hint at some few particulars from Scripture, and after we have considered what this Surveyer sayeth, we shall apply them to our purpose.  
That God doth punish some, and that most justly, for the sins of others, the Scripture doth abundantly verify: Not to insist on the instances of his punishing of whole families, for the sins of the Head of the family: as the family of Pharaoh, Gen. 12: v. 17. of Abimelech, Gen. 20: v. 17, 18. of Corah and his companions, Num. 16: v. 27, 32, 33. of Achan, Ios. 7: v. 24, 25. of jeroboam, 1 King. 14: v. 10, 11. & Cap. 15: 29. of Ahab, 1 King. 21: v. 21, 22, 24. 2 King. 9: v. 8. of Baasha, 1 King. 16: 3, 4. of jehoram, 2 Chron. 21: 14. Nor on the instances of his punishing of Servants for the sins of their Masters, or the Children and Posterity for the sins of their Parents, as in the 2 Command, where he threateneth to visit the iniquities of the Fathers upon the Children, unto the 3 and 4 generation. So also Levit. 26: ver. 38, 39 Deut. 28: v. 18, 32, 45, 46. So the Children of such as were drowned in the flood, Gen. 6, & 7. The posterity of Canaan, Gen. 9: v. 24, 25, 26, 27. The children of the Egyptians, Exod. 11: v. 5, 6. of the Israelites, Num. 14: v. 33. Psal. 106: v. 27. of Dathan and Abiram, Num. 16. of the Canaanites, Deut. 3, & Cap. 20. of the Amalekites, 1 Sam. 15. of Saul, 1 Sam. 21. of Cehazie, 2 King. 5: ver. 27. of the Babylonians, Esai. 14: ver. 21, 22. of Semaia, jer. 24. v. 32. Hence true penitents acknowledge & are humbled for not only their own sins, but the sins of their Fathers, Ezra 9 Dan. 9 Job says Cap. 21: v. 19 God layeth up his iniquity (or the punishment of his iniquity, as it is in the margin) for his children. But to pass these we find moreover.  
1. That People have been punished for the sins of their Pastors, or in hazard to be punished therefore. When Nadab and Abihu had provoked the Lord with their strange fire, Moses spoke unto Aaron and to his other two Sons, and said, Levit. 10: v. 6. Uncover not your heads, neither rend your clothes, lest you die, (N. B.) and left wrath come upon all the People. So that their sin would not only have brought wrath upon themselves, but also upon all the People. So the wickedness of Hophny and Phinehas was part of the cause of that sad discomfiture, that the People of Israel did meet with, 1 Sam. 2: ver. 12. comp: with Cap. 3: ver. 11. and with Cap. 4: ver. 10, 11. So Esai. 43: ver. 27, 28. because the Teachers had transgressed against the lord Therefore was jacob given to the curse and Israel to reproaches. So Lam. 4: v. 13. among other provocations, the sins of her Prophets are mentioned, and the iniquities of her Priests. So Micah. 3: v. 11, 12. Because the Heads did judge for reward, and the Priests did teach for hire, and the Prophets did divine for money, Therefore Zion was to be ploughed as a field and jerusalem to become heaps, and the mountain of the house, as the high places of the forest.  
2. That the sins of a few have procured judgements unto the whole multitude, or put them in hazard thereof. So Deut. 13: v. 12, 17. the Apostate city would kindle the fierceness of God's anger against the whole People: For it is said, The Lord would not turn from the fierceness of his anger, and show them mercy and compassion, and multiply them, until it were destroyed, and all that was within it. So Num. 25. for the sin of these who joined with Baal peor the anger of the Lord was kindled against the whole congregation. So when Moses was speaking unto the two Tribes and half, Num. 32: 14, 15. he sayeth, And behold ye are risen up in your Father's stead— to augment yet the fierce anger of the Lord toward Israel, for if ye turn away from after him, he will yet again leave them in the wilderness, and ye shall destroy all this People. So Ios. 7: ver. 5. for one Ahan's sin, all Israel was troubled, and jos. 22: v. 17. 18. say the commissioners of the whole congregation, unto the two Tribes and half, And it will be▪ seeing, ye-rebel to day against the Lord, that to morrow, he will be wroth, with the whole congregation of Israel. And it was this which moved all the Tribes to go against Benjamin, judg. 20  
3. That the Subjects have suffered sad and dreadful judgements for the sins of their Rulers: As Micah 3: 9, 10, 11, 12. formerly cited: Abimelech's sin, Gen. 20. was like to hazard himself, and all his Kingdom, ver. 7, 9 For Pharaoh's refusing to let Israel go, not only he and his Princes, but his Subjects through all his coasts, did smart, Exod. 6, and 7: & 8, and 9 and 10 Cap. Neh. 9: v. 10. So Saul's sin in seeking to destroy the Gibeonites, brought on three year's famine on the land in the days of David, 2 Sam. 21: v. 1. So David's sin of numbering the people cost the lives of three score and Ten thousand, 2 Sam. 24: v. 1, 2, 15. 1 Chron. 21: 1, 2, 14. So the Lord threatened by the Prophet, 1 King, 14: ver. 16. that for the sins of jeroboam, who did sin, and who made Israel to sin, he would give up Israel, And for Ahab's sin of letting Benhadad go, the Man of God told Ahab, 1 King. 20: ver. 42. Because thou hast let go out of thy hand a man whom I appointed to utter destruction, therefore thy life shall go for his life, and thy People for his People. So for Manassehs sin, jer. 15: ver. 4. The Lord says I will cause them to be removed into all King domes of the Earth, because of Manasseh the son of Hezekiah King of judah for that which he did in jerusaelem. So it is also spoken, 2 King. 21: ver. 11, 12, 13. Because Manasseh King of judah hath done these abominations— therefore thus sayeth the Lord God of Israel, behold I am bringing such evil upon jerusalem and judah that whosoever heareth of it, both his ears shall tingle, etc. And notwithstanding of the reformation that was in the days of josiah. Yet this judgement came to be accomplished, and the Lord sent the bands of the Caldees and of the Syrians: surely, (so it is said, 2 King. 24: v. 3, 4.) at the commandment of the Lord came this upon judah to remove them out of his sight, for the sins of Manasseh, according to all that he did, and also for the innocent blood that he shed, which the Lord would not pardon. And 2 King. 23, 26. Though there was a great work of reformation done in the days of that non-such King (v. 25,) josiah, yet it is said notwithstanding the Lord turned not from the fierceness of his great wrath, wherewith his anger was kindled against judah, because of all the provocations that Manasseh had provoked him with all. Yea, so did this sin of Manasseh provoke the Lord against the land, that how beit Manasseh himself repent, and found mercy, 2 Chron. 33: v. 12. and questionless many of the People turned with him, yet these same sins of Manasseh are mainly taken notice of as the procureing cause of that final stroke.  
Out of these particulars, these few things are very obvious to any.  
1. That People combined into a society have great cause, not only to look to their own carriage, but also unto the carriage of others; Since the carriage of others will bring them in hazard of God's judgements, and hasten down vengeance & wrath from God on all, sure they have need to look about them.  
2. Especially, they have reason to take notice of the public carriage and deportment of Princes and Pastors: seeing in a special manner those heighten the wrath & hasten the judgements of God, as hath been showed.  
3. If these sins in Princes, Pastors and others were not committed, those plagues and judgements which are threatened, and at length executed upon that account, would have been prevented.  
4. If People, considering their hazard by reason of these public transgressions, had actively bestirred themselves, & interposed, as that these iniquities had not been committed, they had not smarted so for as they did, not had they felt the weight of the hand of God's anger, as they were made to do.  
5. It was not enough for them, to have keeped themselves free of these actual transgressions, whereof others were really guilty: for we find some punished, for that iniquity of others, which could not be laid to their charge, as actors.  
6. How ever such as were so punished, were not free of inherent transgressions, and other sins, which deserved judgement at the hands of the Lord; yet when the Spirit of the Lord is pleased to make no mention of these, as the Procureing cause of these plagues, but seemeth to lay the whole or main stress of the business, upon that sin committed by others, we must think that that hath had no small influence, but rather a mine causality in the procureing of these plagues, and it becometh us to be sober in inquireing after other causes hid from us, and rest satisfied with what the Spirit of the Lord is pleased particularly and evidently to point forth unto us, and pitch upon, as the peccant and procureing cause  
7. Though we could not satisfy wrangling wits, touching the equity of this, (which yet the common and ordinary practice of men, forfaulting a whole posterity, for one man's transgression, will not suffer us to account insolent) yet we ought to rest satisfied with what is clearly and undeniably held forth in the word, and believe that for these causes, such and such plagues were inflicted upon distinct and different people, because the spirit of truth sayeth so.  
8. As all Scripture was given by the inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the Man of God, may be perfect, thoroughly furnished, unto all good works, 2 Tim, 3: v. 16, 17. So these particular passages, so particularly described are written for our learning, Rom. 15: ver. 4. and are out examples, that we should not do as they did, 1 Cor. 10: v. 6. and are written for our admonition, 1 Cor. 10: ver. 11. And therefore we must not look slightly upon them, but ponder then narrowly, as so many documents given us for our use and instruction, and particularly, that we may take warning to prevent such evils.  
Now let us hear what the Surveyer sayeth Pag. 51. He lays down two assertions [1. That no man is involved in divine judgements and punishments, for the sins of others, (as the deserving cause of his punishment) if he be no way accessary to these sins of others 2. That no private Subject is accessary to the sins of Rulers, nor involved in the punishments of the same, merely upon the accowt of his tolerating the sins, or not violent resisting the Magistrate in his sinful courses.] Answ. Not to enlairge on these now, because of what he is to say in explication of these, & we are then to speak, I would only at present inquire. 1. What accession had the army of Israel which was defate by the Men of Ai (a stroke, which made josua rend his clothes, and fall upon his face to the Earth, until the even tide, he and the elders of Israel, and put dust upon their heads) unto the sin of Achan? And why doth the Spirit of the Lord say, jos. 7: v. 1. That the Children of Israel had committed a trespass in the accursedthing. And again ver. 10, 11, 12. [And the Lord said unto josua, Get thee up, wherefore liest thou thus upon thy face? Israel hath sinned, and they have also transgressed my Covenant-for they have taken of the accursed thing-and they have put it even amongst their own stuff. Therefore the Children of Israel could not stand because they were accursed, neither will I be with you any more, except ye destroy the accursed from amongst you.] Though we can learn of no accession which they had, unto this particular fact, yet we see the whole body is punished as guilty, and must be legally purified, and sanctified, and purged from that contagion. 2. What accession had all these who suffered in these three year's famine, which was in David's days, unto that bloody act of Saul and his house, which was committed many years before thousands of these who suffered therefore knew the right hand from the left, or were borne possibly? 3. What accession had the children unborn to the third and fourth generation, unto the sins of their forefathers? and yet the holy Lord thinks good to visit their iniquities on them. 4. What accession had the People unto David's sin of numbering, the people doth not David himself say, 2. Sam, 24: ver. 17. But these sheep, what have they done? But let us hear how he explaineth this, [A certain thing it is (says he) that God doth not properly punish any man but in reference to his own personal sins (as the deserving cause of the punishment) albeit he may and often taketh occasion, in his wise providence, to punish men for their own sins, from the sins of others, (and in that only sense, they may be said to be punished for the sins of others.) But every soul suffers for his own sin. Divine justice finding causes of punishment, in every one that is punished, either their personal accession to the sins of others (which is their own sin) or else some other sins, for which he may in justice inflict the punishment upon them, albeit the impulsive cause, or occasion rather, for punishing in such a manner and time &c, be from the sins of others.] Ans. 1. Though we desire to be wise unto sobriety in this matter, and not to meddle with matters beyond our reach, yet we think it saifer to speak in the language of the Holy Ghost, then in the words of this Surveyer, who giveth us no Scripture for what he says. The expressions of Scripture hold forth some thing more than a mere occasion: It seemeth strange to say that Ahan's sin should have been only an occasion of that discomfiture: when the Spirit of the Lord says, that Israel had sinned, and therefore could not stand before their Enemies, because they were accursed, and that till this accursed were taken from amongst them he would not be with them any more. 2. He would do well to explain to us, what he meaneth by a proper punishment, and what is the opposite term thereunto? 3. We grant divine justice findeth deserving causes of punishment in all, in whom is original sin, but we suppose that when that is not mentioned as the procureing cause of such a stroke, but the sin committed by another, we ought to look on that mainly, as having a procureing causality in that affliction. 4. How ever, we see he granteth one may be punished for the sin of another (or upon occasion of the sin of another, as he loveth to speak.) to which he hath no personal accession. 5. If these sins of others, were only the occasion of punishing in such a manner or time, how cometh it that the very punishment itself is removed, upon the taking away of that sin, according to God's appointment, and God is pacified toward the whole, as he was with Israel when Ahan was killed, and Seven of Saul's sons hanged up? 6. But whether we take these sins of others, as impulsive causes, or occasions of such punishments. This is clear. That, if these sins had been prevented, these punishments had been prevented also: so that if Saul had not gotten liberty to have stain the Gibeonites, in his bloody rage, contrare to oath and Covenant, these three year's famine had not come: And if David had been hindered from numbering of the people, and had not gotten his will, these Seventy thousand had not died then as they did: And seeing no other cause or occasion is rendered of this, it would clearly warn all in a Community and Society, to labour, by all means, according to their power and places, to hinder the Committing (or removing when committed) of these sins, which bring heavy plagues on the Community. The Dutch. Aunot. on 2 Sam. 21: 1. say that so for this offence, all the land was punished because at least (as it oft happeneth) the people had not hindered it.  
Then Pag. 52. he cometh to explain his other assertion (It is no less certain (says he) to us that if the Magistrate do not connive at the sins of Subjects, nor neglect to curb and punish them, the sins of the people shall no way be imputed to him (he not being thereunto accessary in any way) nor shall be punished for their sins, which in his place and calling he is wrestling against] Answ. Yet we know, that for the transgression of a land, many are the princes thereof Prov. 8. v. 2. And that for a punishment to people, God may even cut the days of a good prince, and though we should grant, that it were no proper punishment unto the good Prince, yet materially and in itself it is a stroke. But he addeth. [Also it is alike certain. That private persons shall not have the sins of Magistrates, or of the body of the people imputed unto them, nor be punished for the same, if so be they honestly endeavour to do all things against these sins, which in their private calling they are bound to do.] Answ. Be this granted, The main question will be if people can be said to have honestly endeavoured to do all things against these sins, which in their private callings they are bound to do, if having power to withstand the committing of these evils, or to remove them after they are committed, yet they forbear, and suffer these things to be done, and labour not to remove them. He addeth [If they keep themselves without any degree of acting these sins, or any way of accession to them. if they mourn and sigh for evils that are done; if they be earnest in prayer▪ that God may convert others from their evil way, if they (as they can have opportunity) faithfully admonish and study to reclaim those who are out of the way, and do such like Christian duties. God will never enter in judgement with them for not doing violence to the authorityes that are above them.] Answ, If the Surveyer would do no more than this, he ought neither to be accounted a good Christian, nor a loyal subject: For, if he saw the King about to cut his own throat with a knife, or about to do as Saul did, fall upon his own sword, or running down a precipice to break his neck, would any think he had had done his duty, and exonered his conscience; if he should not lead his hand unto that mischief, nor thrust him down the principice, but should roar and cry God save the King, and admonish and study, with fair words, to reclaim the King from that cruel deed? would any think but he might have done more, even if he had had strength enough have holden his hands, and keeped him back from breaking his neck, and yet never have been in any hazard or sinfully touching the Lord's anointed, or doing violence to the authority that God had set over him. 2. And if Kings may beresisted, and with violence hindered from putting hands in themselves, or from drinking a cup of poison, or doing some such deed, which will or may prove destructive to their life and posterity, without doing violence to the authority apppointed of God; why may they not also be hindered from doing that which will ruin their souls, and prove destructive to their Kingdoms, and bring on the curse and vengeance of God upon young and old, without doing any sinful violence unto the authority? And as in the former case, a man could not but be guilty of the King's death, who knew that it was a cup of poison which he was to drink, and did not, having power to do it, hinder him from drinking it: So in this case, they that have power to hinder the Magistrate from drinking poison, or doing what may be deadly to thousands of his innocent subjects, and bring down the curse of God upon him and his posterity, and do it not, cannot but be guilty of that sin before God, and so cannot expect to be free of the punishment which God will inflict because of that sin, as not having done, even in their private callings, what they were bound to do, viz. not having used their power for the glory of God, the good of the Sovereign and his posterity, nor for the good of the Commonwealth, which they were bound to do.  
He tells us moreover concerning that instance of Manasseh, jer. 15: v. 4. [That the people were punished, because they were shares of the guiltiness (not by not violent resisting, which they were never exhorted to) but by direct or indirect accession otherways, Hos. 5: ver. 11. jer. 5: v. 31.] Ans. 1. How could young children be accessary, either by consent or any otherways to these courses of Manasseh? 2. It were hard to say that even all who were come to the use of reason, were guilty of accession unto these wickednesses, who yet were carried away captive, such as Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azaria, and others. 3. That there were many, yea the far greatest part of the People who were guilty, of heinous sins, when the final stroke came, cannot be denied; but, that they were at that same height of wickedness, which they were at, in Manassehs days is doubted, 4. We shall grant with Calvin on the place. That Manasseh alone was not in that transgression, but had many of the People consenting; Yet, as Manasseh himself was dead, long ere the stroke came, so were they; and yet for that sin of theirs, the posterity suffered: Yea even notwithstanding that there interveened a National repentance and mourning for that National sin, and National Reformation of these idolatrous courses, in the days of josiah, 5. Though it be true that the People after Iosiah's days, returned to their vomit, and had wickedness enough of their own, for which God might have punished them; yet it is very remarkable, how that sin of Manasseh is particularly mentioned, as if there had not been another, to procure that stroke: and certanely all who read the places cited before, will easily observe that there is something more in them, than an occasion taken to remember that dreadful time of Manasseh, when the wickedness began, as the Surveyer sayeth in the following words. 6. It was their sin, I grant, that they did consent; and that sayeth that they should not have consented, but have refused obedience unto the King idolatrous mandates, and have hindered in their places, an according to their power, the setting up of these abominations, and should have adhered to the truth and worship of God, as it was practised in the days of good Hezekiah his Father. 7. He needs not say, they were not exhorted to this violent resisting; for it was but folly to speak of resistance, to these, who so willingly walked after the commandment, and would not do so much as disobey. 8. That place of Hoseah speaking of Ephraim's willingly walking after the commandment, proves not what the people of Iudah's carriage was in the days of Manasseh; albeit we grant the thing was too true of the greatest part, even of them, then: Neither doth the place, Ier, 5: v. 31. speak of the days of Manasseh: for jeremiah was not then a Prophet; for he began to prophesy in the 13 year of josiah, jer. 1: 2.  
Then the cometh, Pag. 53. and giveth some reasons: But first we must take notice how he wordeth the principle which he accounteth so dangerous If it be once admitted (says he) that the sins of Rulers & Governors involve the People in sin, & make them obnoxious to judgement, (albeit they be not accessary thereto directly only they toler at what they cannot amend abiding within the bounds of their calling) neither can the consciences of people, nor the state of the commonwealth have any true peace or quietness.] Ans. We might grant him what he desireth, & acknowledge, that this principle is not sound: we do not say so, for we shall grant that (excepting the Lord's Sovereignty of doing as he did in the case of Ahan & such like,) that the People who are come to age must be directly or indirectly guilty of the sin of Rulers, in which they are involved. But so they are guilty, when they tolerate what they might amend, abideing within the bounds of their calling. But here the difference betwixt him & us lieth. That he thinketh it is beyond the bounds of the calling of private people, to hinder Princes from committing such 〈…〉 which would ruin them & their subjects both, which we deny, and we have not yet seen him prove it: yea we have showed the contrary above. But now we proceed to his two reasons. [For 1. (says he) Once grant this than what a continual puzzle should tender hearted Christians be in, anent the actions of their Rulers and Magistrates, and they behoved to meddle with and examine all their proceedings— matters of government not probably or morally possible for them to know.] Answ. We do not, neither need we extend that principle to all the private or personal sins of Magistrates, or to such acts which are beyond the reach of the capacity of the vulgar, wherein their invincible ignorance, whether as to the jus or factum, may excuse them from any accession direct or indirect. If he will grant it to us, in sins public, heinous, and which People can well discern both as to jus and factum, we desire no more: and if it be limited to these, we will gain our point (for our case is as clear as the Sun) and tender consciences will be free of all puzzle or perplexity. What is his 2. [Would not this (says he) be a perpetual Seminary of unavoidable sedition of the Commonwealth, and of exposeing the Magistrate to violence, no less when he is acting justly, then when unjustly.] Answ. Then this loyal Subject, if he saw an house or a great millstone falling upon the King's head, he would not pull him from under it, lest others under pretence of that, should use violence to the Magistrate, when he is in no hazard. Or if he saw the King putting a cup of poison to his head, or a Knife to his throat, he would not hinder him, lest others under that pretence should hinder him from taking wholesome food, & so starve him; or should under pretence of saving the King, put hands in his Majesty, and stob him under the fiftrib. But 2. doth he not know, that the best things may be abused, and will any, that is wise, say, that he pleadeth for the abuse of a thing, who pleadeth only for its use? 4. By this same reason, he might plead against refuseing to give obedience unto the King in all his most sinful commands; for may not seditious and unquyet spirits easily pretend that his commands are unjust, and that if they obey these they are involved in sin and judgement, and so disobey him, even when he commandeth most just and necessary things. If he be not for universal obedience, let him answer this inconvenience in that case, and we shall make use of his answer in this case.  
In the next place he cometh to speak of these scriptures, which he allaigeth Naphtaly doth abuse. The first is jer. 26: v. 15. If ye put me to death shall surely bring innocent blood upon yourselves, and upon this city, and upon the inhabitants thereof, concerning which two things (he says) are to be remarked. [1. That Jeremiah is speaking to the Princes and all the People, warning them not to meddle with his blood; The Princes that they should not unjustly condemn him, The People that they should not consent to, nor cooperate with an unjust sentence, as to the execution thereof (as the manner of execution was amongst that People, stoning &c.) And 2. He certifieth both that if they consented and co-operated to his death, they should bring innocent blood upon themselves, and upon the City, and inhabitants thereof. He doth not at all incite the People to rise up and rescue him by violence out of the hands of Rulers, if they should give sentence of death against him, (neither did ever any of the holy Prophets instigate People to use violent resistance agàinst their perverse Magistrates, nor did they ever reprove directly or indirectly that sin of non-violent resistance to Magistrates, as some excessively bold do aver) but only warns Princes and People both, that they be not by consent and concurrence accessary to his death] Answ. 1. Here is enough for us: For 1. He granteth the People were not to consent to, nor cooperate with an unjust sentence; but if they should have refused to have co-operated, the sentence had not been executed; and so jeremiah had been really rescued from the sentence, and decree of the Magistrates; so that there needed no other resistance to have been used, innocent blood would not have been shed, and this was sufficient. 2. He needed not to have incited them further unto a violent rescueing of him, for though they should have given sentence of death against him, yet if none would have executed it, he had been sufficiently rescued. But what needed more incitation, then to tell that by shedding of his blood they should bring innocent blood upon the whole city, and upon the inhabitants thereof. 3. It was little wonder that the Prophets did not instigate People to use violent resistance unto perverse Magistrates, seeing it was usually such Prince such People, and the People as forward unto wickedness as the Princes, and yet we find the duty of delivering the oppressed urged upon People conjunct with their Rulers: Because both, in their places, should have concurred hereunto; which says, that people, though they were not formally to execute Magistratical power, yet they were to concur to have Justice, executed, and to have the oppressed delivered, out of the hands of oppressors. And these were judges as well as others, but more of this afterward. 4. This place doth abundantly clear, That the shedding of innocent blood by Magistrates bringeth judgement on the Subjects: for jeremiah says, that if they should have killed him, they should have brought innocent blood not only to themselves, who gave out the sentence, and did execute it; but on the whole city, and on the inhabitants thereof. To this he hath many words Pag. 55. but little answer. The sum is this (for it were wearisome to transcribe all his needless tautologies and repetitions, which if taken away, his pamphlet of a 120 pages, might be reduced to 20) [All who were defiled behoved to be accessary either by doing, or not hindering what they were called and capacitated to hinder, which was not by violent resistance: nor doth the Prophet mean, that all the absents should be guilty and properly deserve God's wrath upon that account, but only that the actors, and such as were accessary, should be guilty, and others should, upon this occasion, fall under wrath, though for other sins: and yet the judgement on the People might be a punishment to the Rulers, for that same particular sin; for God may punish Princes or Fathers, in the punishment of Subjects and Children; and yet these same Subjects and Children have no reason to quarrel with God, or to say as it is, Exech. 18. v. 2. Answ. We grant God may and doth punish Princes and Parents, in their Subjects and Children; and That these same Subjects and Children so punished, have no just cause to say that their Fathers have eaten sour grapes and that their teeth are set on edge, as if there were no sin in themselves. But that God may not visit the iniquities of the Fathers upon the Children, who have not formally acted these evils, nor consented thereto, we dar not peremptorily assert, against so many clear scriptures. 2. Sure this place seemeth to hint something else, then that this sin of shedding jeremiahs' blood should be an occasion of God's visiting the City, for their other sins: For he says you shall bring innocent blood upon this city: so that by this Murder, they should have brought innocent blood as well on the other inhabitants, as on themselves, who were to be actors: the text maketh no difference. 3. If the People here had done all which in their calling and station, they were capacitated to have done, for hindering of this shedding of blood, they would have hindered it effectually; and further violent resistance was needless. If a wicked Magistrate should condemn an innocent person, and make this his sentence, that he should not have the benefit of a lodging within the land, The People need do no more to resist the Magistrat's unjust sentence, but, notwithstanding thereof, receive the innocent into their house, and entertain him friendly. And still we say, the People were to do all that lay in their power, to hinder innocent blood to be shed, that so innocent blood might not be laid to their charge: And in so far as they came short in this, they made themselves guilty be accession, notwithstanding of any thing he hath said.  
The next place he speaketh to, is Deut. 13. which we have already vindicated, and must observe this further, That in all his long answer he speaketh nothing to that which now we are upon, viz. the hazard that People in such a case are into, both of sin, and of judgement, if effectual course be not taken to suppress idolatry, and apostasy from God, and to put that crying evil away from amongst them: For v. 17. it is clearly held forth, that till this city and all which was within it, was rooted out: the Lord would not turn from the fierceness of his anger, nor show them mercy, nor have compassion upon them, nor multiply them, as he swore unto their Fathers. So that their not doing their utmost to execute this sentence of God, made them liable to the constant abideing of the fierce anger of God upon them, and closed the door of Mercy and compassion, so that they could not expect the blessings promised and Covenanted.  
Then Pag. 59 he cometh to speak to Ios. 22: ver. 17, 18, 19 and tells us That they were not private people that transacted that business with the Children of Reuben: for the body of the People concurred with the Magistrates Supreme and Subordinate. What makes all this for the encroachment of mere private persons upon the use of the Magistrates avenging sword?] Answ. It is true the Magistrates and major part of the People were here concurring; but why doth he not take notice of the words cited by Naphtaly (which clearly hold forth the end of his adduceing that passage) If ye rebel to day against the Lord, to morrow he will be worth with the whole congregation of Israel, which do clearly hold forth, that the defection of a part (though a minor part) will bring wrath upon the whole Nation and Society. And may not any see hence; That each are to concur in their places and stations, according to their power, to prevent this defection, or to remove it, even when the major part is infected with it; yea even though Magistrates should be remiss, and should rather encourage then discountenance such rebellion against God? Seeing the reason holdeth à fortiori, for it upon the defection of a minor part, wrath will come upon the whole, much more will wrath come upon the defection of a major part, and of the Magistrates too: And therefore if in the former case, private persons be bound to concur with Magistrates, for rooting out of that provoking sin of a few, than it cannot be unlawful for private people, in this later case, to do what they can, to stir up Magistrates to their duty, if it be possible; and to prevent their own destruction from that wrath of God, kindled against all; and to remove the provokeing cause of that anger: And, as we have said, they may take an effectual course for this, without encroaching upon the use of the Magistrate's avenging sword, or exercing any formal Magistratical power.  
The next place he speaketh to, is judg. 20. where Israel warreth against Benjamin because of a notorious crime acted there, and countenanced and defended by that whole Tribe, to the end that such a crying abomination might be purged out of the land, To which he answereth in short (to let pass his unchristian gibes) thus [Though this was when there was no King in Israel, yet it is likely they retained somewhat of their Sanhedrin apppointed Deut. 17. which in such a horrid case might draw together in an extraordinary meeting: It was the body or the major part of the People, that useth the sword against the lesser; which maketh nothing for the minor parts using the sword to punish Magistrates & the major part of the People also.] Answ. Though I should grant that they retained yet something of the Sanhedrin, yet in all this passage, there is no mention made thereof; but it is said v. 1. That all the Children of Israel went out, & the Congregation was gathered together as one Man, to Mizpeh; and resolved not to return to their own houses, ver. 8. until these Children of Belial in Gibeah had been executed, and evil was put away from Israel, Cap. 13: v. 2. To say that this speaks not to our case, is but to wrangle; for sure if we should suppose that Benjamin had been maintaining their integrity, and the true worship of God, against the generality of the People, who had turned idolaters, and had raised war against them, because they would not depart from their profession; would he have condemned the minor part for standing to their defence in this case? Or if they should have joined together to have hindered the defection of the major part, or removed the corruptious that were prevailing; would he have condemned them? Sure this is not improve Scripture a right, but rather to elude it; for there is not the least shadow, that the stress of the matter is laid on this, that they were the major part.  
Finally he cometh to Achan's case, Jos. 7. and tells us, [That there is nothing in it, to justify private people rising against the Magistrates, and plurality of the people, to avert the judgements of God; for what was done to Achan was done by the Supreme Magistrate Josua.] Answer. But Naphtaly only maketh use of this place, to show that our reformers had great reason to fear and tremble, lest the manifest toleration of proud, cruel, flattering Prelates, and idolatrous Priests, whose wickedness and idolatry, had corrupted the whole land; might involve the whole Nation in destroying indignation; since the wrath of God for the hidden and secret sin of one poor Achan suddenly and fearfully overtook the whole People, and all the congregation of Israel, so that that man perished not alone in his iniquity. Now can any body deny this consequence? But our Surveyer layeth down again his peremptory assertions without further proof, and we have spoken to them already, and need not repeat things so oft as he gives us occasion so to do, otherwise we should follow this fool in his folly, and weary the reader as he doth, in repeating almost whole pages verbatim, let any look and he shall find the whole 61 page, (except some groundless gibes which do not help his cause) nothing almost but repetitions. We shall then go on, and draw forth our arguments from what is said, to show that the late act ought rather to be praised then condemned.  
For 1. Thereby they were endeavouring, according to their power and places, (as that exigent required) when all doors were closed from essaying any other mean, not only to defend themselves against manifest and intolerable injury and oppression, but to save themselves, their posterity, and the whole land (so far as lay in their power) from the wrath and vengeance of God, and the dreadful plagues and judgements that were and are to be expected, for the dreadful and unparallelable apostasy and defection of a corrupt ministry. Did God threaten that Zion should be ploughed as a field, and jerusalem become as a heap, That jacob should be given to the curse, and Israel to reproaches, for the sins of a corrupt ministry; and when our eyes did never see a more corrupt company, who have partly apostatised from their sworn profession, and partly are thrust in over flocks, to the ruineing of their souls, the corrupting of the truths of God, and to be a standing occasion of dreadful persecution unto them; and when, for this cause, nothing could or can be looked for, from the hands of a just and jealous God, but wrath without remedy, and judgement after judgement, till we become as ploughed fields, and as heaps: Can or ought these to be blamed, who standing to their sworn profession, were labouring in the integrity of their hearts, to purge the land of these plagues and locusts, that we might become a holy and pure Church unto the Lord, and that the Lord might delight to dwell among us; and for this end, took their lives in their hands, and essayed that now sole remedy, seeing there was no other mean left unto them, whereby to attain this noble End.  
2. When one Apostate city not taken course with, according to the command of God, would provoke God to anger against the whole assembly of God's People, so that till it was destroyed, he would not have mercy or compassion upon them; was there not much more reason to fear, that God's anger should burn against Scotland his covenanted People, and that he should have no more mercy on us, since there was such a dreadful defection in it, whereof not only one city, but many cities were in an eminent manner guilty, having so foully departed from their sworn truth and profession, and openly and avowedly revolted from God and his ways, and since there was no other way imaginable to prevent this heavy indignation of God? Shall any condemn these, who our of Zeal to God's Glory, and for the good of the poor land, whereof they were members, took their lives in their hands, and did what lay in their power, to have that corruption and apostasy removed, and God restored to his honour, and the land to it's Covenanted integrity?  
3. Since the backslideing and defection of a few members of a Society, joined together in a Covenant to God as his People, brings wrath upon the whole; if timeous remedy be not used, as the forecited places show: Shall any condemn these who endeavoured according to their power, to prevent the destruction that was and is to be feared, for the defection not of a few, not of one poor Achan, but of multitudes, and that of all ranks and conditions?  
4. Did the people of Israel go out as one man, to prevent apostasy, when they heard some rumore thereof in a part of their number; and to take course with, and purge the land of a crying evil that was committed in one of their cities: & who shall condemn these who lately went out with one heart and spirit, to do what in them lay, to remove the far-carryed-on defection, and the dreadful evil of perjury and many other heinous crimes, that did & yet do abound, whereof Many of all ranks were guilty, even such as should have been, by their public places and stations, eminently appearing on the head of these worthies, for the glory of God, and the good of the whole Church and Kingdom.  
5. Seeing the public transgressions of Kings and Princes, do hazard the whole Realm and Commonwealth, as the instances formerly adduced do clear; How much reason have People of all ranks, qualities and conditions, to be doing what lieth in their power, either to prevent and hinder that these iniquities be not committed, which prove destructive unto the Land, or labour by all means to have them done away when committed, before the fierce anger of the Lord break forth? And since it is not our and undeniable how our Kings and Nobles, and other judges have revolted from a sworn Covenant, Truth and Profession, and openly and avowedly, renunced the interest of Christ, and conspired against his truth and cause; can any blame these worthies who endeavoured according to their power, to have these crying abominations remedied, that the wrath of God should not consume us root and branch, and burn so as it should not be quenched?  
What can be replied to these reasons, is sufficiently answered already; and I would further propose this to be seriously considered by all: let us put the case, That King and Princes should conspire together, to poison all the fountains of water in the Land, and lay down a course, how they should be keeped so, and people should be forced to drink of these poisoned waters; would not any rational man think, that when no means else could prevail, People might lawfully with force, see to their own lives, and to the lives of their little ones? And shall we be allowed to use violent resistance, for the lives of our bodies, and not also for the lives of our souls? shall people be allowed to run together, & with force, when they can no otherways, keep the springs of water clear, for their own lives or healths, and of their posterity also; and shall they be condemned for running together to keep their Religion as it was reform, pure and uncorrupted? Who but Atheists will say this? Again put the case. That the Magistrates of some Brugh or City were about to do, or had already done, some public prohibited bited action, which would so irritate the Sovereign or Prince, that he would come with an huge army and cut off the city, man, wife and child: would any in this case, condemn the private inhabitants of that Brough or City, if, when no other mean could be essayed effectually to hinder the same, they should with force, either hinder them from doing that irritating action, or if done, should endeavour to remedy the matter the best way they could, for the good of the City, to prevent its ruin and overthrow, and for their own saifty, and for the saifty of their posterity? And why then shall any condemn the late defenders, who, when the Magistrate, by their many sinful and public actions, had provoked the King of Kings to anger and jealousy against the whole land, so that in justice they could expect nothing but the wrath and vengeance of God to root them out and their posterity, laboured what they could, to have the wrath of the King of Kings pacified, and the wicked deeds provoking him remedied? Would the Sovereign in the former case account these private persons traitors to their Magistrates, and not rather more loyal Subjects to him, than the Magistrates themselves? And shall we think that the King of Kings shall account the late act, disloyalty to the King and Magistrates, and not rather commendable loyalty to him, and faithful service?  
There is another argument much of the Nature with the preceding, taken from the grounds of Christian love and affection, whereby each is bound to preserve the life and welfare of another, as he would do his own: and as each would have another helping him, in the day when he is unjustly wronged and oppressed, so he should be willing to help others when it is in the power of his hand to do it according to that royal law of Christ's, Mat. 7: ver. 12. Luk. 6: ver. 31. Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so them, for this is the law and the prophets. It is unnatural and unchristian both, to say am I my brother's keeper. Sure he who helps not his brother against a murderer, when he may do it, is before God, guilty of the man's blood. Meroz and the inhabitants thereof were to be cursed bitterly, because they came not out to the help of the Lord and his People, against the mighty, judg. 5. Was not David helped thus against the Tyranny and wickedness of King Saul? And honest jonathan rescued from the hands of his bloody Father? Prov. 24: ver. 11, and 12. If thou forbear to deliver them that are drawn unto death, and these that are ready to be slaine: If thou sayest behold we know it not, doth not he that pondereth the heart considerit? And he that keepeth thy soul, doih not he know it? And shall not herender to every man according to his work? Now the text maketh no difference whether they be drawn to death unjustly by private persons or by Magistrates: They are (if they can do it) with force to rescue such; for so the word imports as I Sam. 30: 18. 2 King. 18: 34. 1 Sam. 17: 35. Hos. 5: 14. And this did famous Mr. Knox avow unto Lithingtoun, in his discourse with him, registrated in the history of reformation. Hence it is that jeremiah Cap. 22: 23. cryeth to the People as well as to the King, execute judgement and righteousness and deliver the spoiled out of the hand of the oppressor: and though it be true, as Calvin on the place sayeth, that this did chiefly belong to the judges and Magistrates; Yet, when their proceeding in this course of oppressing of the stranger, the fatherless and the widow, and of shedding innocent blood, would provoke God to execute what he threateneth with an oath, ver 5. And make that house a desolation, and prepare destroyers against it and the whole city ver. 7: 8. and when all this is spoken in the ears of the people, it would seem to import, that even they should have stood in the way of such oppression, and delivered the spoiled out of the hands of the oppressor; & not have suffered innocent blood to have been shed, especially when inferior as well as Superior Magistrates were oppressing and tyrannising, and were the only oppressors and wolves as we see Esa. 1: 21. and. 3, 12, 14, 15. Micha. 3: 9, 10. Ezech. 22: 27. And many of the people conjoined with them in the like, as encouraged by their practice ver. 29. see further for this Isa. 1: ver. 10, 17. jer. 5: ver. 2, 5, 6. But says our Surveyer Pag. 53. [That such prophetical preachings uttered to the body of Rulers and People, are to be understood as reproveing what was amiss in every one, in their respective calling, and as enjoying such duties as might be done by every one, saluâ justitiâ, salvo ordine, & modulo vocationis— but to say that they minded to condemn in People, the grand sin of non-resistence to the oppressing Magistrates, or to incite private people to pull the sword out of the Magistrat's hand, & relieve the oppressed, & execute judgement on the oppressors, even Magistrates (as Lex Rex doth say Pag. 367,) is not only a most fearful perverting of the most holy scripture— but a doctrine that tends directly to horrid confusion & utter subversion of humane societies] Ans. We shall easily grant, that in those sermons, every one was reproved for what was amiss in his respective calling, and all were enjoined to do, what might be done by them according to their places and callings, and without wronging of justice: But we aver, that it was the duty of private people, to hinder, so far as lay in their power, the shedding of innocent blood, the oppressing of the innocent, and wronging the widow and fatherless. If a Magistrate in a rage run upon an innocent person going by, to kill him, It is the part of any private person that is next, to hinder the Magistrate from committing manifest murder, without breach of justice, order, or the extent of his calling: Bacause in that case he is not acting the part of a judge. So a judge perverting judgement, and manifestly oppressing the innocent, is no judge authorized of God for that; but a private person, and may as justly be withheld from murdering or oppressing, as any other Man. 2. They might press them to relieve the oppressed though they did not incite them to pull the sword out of the Magistrat's hand: viz by hindering, according to their power, oppression to be committed; and this might be without the least violence done to the Magistrate's power and authority, as is shown: So might they move them to execute judgement not formally but materially, by hindering justice according to their power, or labouring to have the law executed according to God's word. 3. Lex Rex speaketh no such thing in that place, as any will see who read it. 4. It is but his ignorance to say, that in this we fearfully pervert the holy scripture. 5. How will he show that this doctrine tends to horrid confusion? He tells us Pag. 50. [That such pretences will not be wanting to the worst of men, and the best Magistrate, proceeding most legally, shall never have security from seditious parties] Answ. But sure his doctrine tendeth more to confusion; for, by it every Magistrate of the land hath power to kill and destroy whom he will: and thus Magistrates should be formally constituted wolves. 2. But how oft will he put us to tell him, that the best truth may be abused? 3. But let him speak in earnest, what would he do if he saw his wife carried away by some drunken officers, before a judge drunk as a beast, so as he could neither hear nor speak sense, who yet without further process, would condemn her to be brunt as a witch, or executed as a harlot, would he not labour, if he had power, to relieve his innocent wife out of the hands of these bloody oppressors? What would he then do with his pretences? Would these scar his tender conscience? I suppose not. And what if he saw the King, without ground, or colour of reason, possibly upon a mistake, running in a rage to kill his wife, or only son, would he not help the innocent in that case, and hold the King with force? Or would he only assist them by prayers to God for them, by consolatory words, by giving counsel to them, or by supplications to the Magistrate with all dutiful respects, and if nothing could avail, sit down as having discharged his duty; and would not resist more? (which he thinketh is all which is required of private people Pag. 49.) If so, many might think he were accessary to the death of his wife or child, and so possibly might the King, when he came to himself, and his rage was off him, and he convinced of his mistake. And if he would hinder innocent blood to be shed (as rational people will easily think he might) how shall he salve the matter, for the worst of men may resist the best Magistrate, proceeding most legally, upon pretences, that the King is in a rage, he hath no shadow of law or reason for him, he is mistaken of the people etc. And would he think, that in this case, there were a necessary connexion betwixt resistance and revenge? and if he should have the upper hand in the matter of resistance, could he not sit down satisfied? If he could: then he may think that these two, may be separated in exercise and practice, in other cases, as well as in his own, unless the fault be on the Magistrate's side. Thus is answered also what he hath P ag. 49. for it is but the same thing which he hath in the place before considered, He is tedious in his repetitions, and therefore we Proceed to our arguments.  
And. 1. If Humanity, Brotherly Affection, Christian Love. Tenderness and Compassion to a suffering injured brother, call for help and relief at the hands of others, according to their power and capacities: Then none can justly blame or condemn the late risers for endeavouring in their places, & according to their power, the relief of their oppressed brethren, with violence, when no other mean was left feasible or practicable. Their Solemn covenants did engage them to account each injury done unto any Covenanter, upon that account, as done unto themselves; And to vindicate and maintain the libertyes of the Subjects, in all these things, which concern their Consciences, people, and Estates, and who can blame them for paying their vows unto God▪  
2. If this same duty was expressly required of the people of God of old, that they should endeavour to relieve the oppressed, and to prevent the shedding of innocent blood: Then none can justly blame those late valiant vindicators of justice, and relievers of the oppressed. But the former is true, as the places above cited do show. Therefore etc.  
3. If their forebearing had made them guilty before God, of the oppression and bloodshed committed, when it was in their power to help it: Then they could not forbear to do what they did, without sin. But the former is true. The very Egyptians knew so much by the light of nature, when by their law, such as did not relieve the oppressed, when it was in their power, were accused upon their head; and if they were not able to help, they were bound to accuse the oppressor, or else they were to be whipped, & to endure three day's hunger.  
I shall close this chapter, as I did the former, with a testimony of famous Mr. Knox, that it may be seen to be no new doctrine of ours. In his admonition to the Commonalty of Scotland he hath these words, near the end, [These vain excuses I say, will nothing avail you, in the presence of God, who requireth no less of the Subjects, then of their Rulers— and if ye think that ye are innocent, because you are not the chief actors of such iniquity, ye are utterly deceived, for God doth not only punish the chief offenders, but with them, doth he condemn the consenters to such iniquity, and all are judged to consent, that knowing impiety committed give no testimony that the same displeaseth them. To speak this matter more plain: As your Princes and Rulers are criminal with your Bishops, of all Idolatry committed, and of all the innocent blood that is shed, for the testimony of Christ's truth: and that because they maintain them in their tyranny: So are ye (I mean so many of you, as give no plain confession to the contrary) criminal and guilty with your Princes and Rulers, in the same crimes; because you assist and maintain your Princes in their blind rage, and give no declaration that their tyranny displeaseth you. This doctrine I know is strange to the blind world, but the verity thereof hath been declared in all notable punishments from the beginning; when the Original world perished by water; when Sodom and Gomorah were punished by fire; and finally, when jerusalem was horribly destroyed, doth any think that all were alike wicked before the world? Evident it is, that they were not, if they be judged according to their external facts; for some were young and could not be oppressors, nor could defile themselves with unnatural, and beastly lusts; Some were pitiful and gentle of nature, and did not thirst for the blood of Christ, and his Apostles: but did any escape the plagues and vengeance which did apprehend the multitude? let the scripture witness, and the histories be considered, which plainly do testify that by the waters, all flesh on●arth at that time, did perish, (Noah and his family reserved) That none escaped in Sodom and in the other cities adjacent, except Lot and his two daughters; And evident it is that in that famous city of jerusalem, in that last and horrible destruction, none escaped God's vengeance, except so many as before were dispersed. And what is the cause of this severity, seeing that all were not alike offenders? let flesh cease to disput with God, and let all men by these examples learn betimes to flee and avoid the society and company of the proud contemners of God, if that they list not to be partakers of their plagues. The cause is evident, if we can be subject, without grudging, to God's judgements, which in themselves are most holy and just; for in the original world none was found that either did resist tyranny, nor yet that earnestly reprehended the same. In Sodom was none found that did gain-stand that furious and beastly multitude that did compass about and besiege the house of Lot— and finally in jerusalem was found none that studied to reprepresse the tyranny of the priests who were conjured against Christ and his Evangel; but all fainted (I except ever such as gave witness with their blood, or flying, that such impiety displeased them) all keeped silence, by the which all approved iniquity, and joined hands with the Tyrants, and so were arrayed and set, as it were, in one battle against the almighty, and against his Son Christ Jesus; for whosoever gathereth not with Christ, in the day of his harvest, is judged to scatter, and therefore of one vengeance temporal, were they all partakers,— will God in this behalf hold you as innocents', be not deceived dear Brethren, God hath punished not only the proud tyrants, filthy people, and cruel murderers, but also such as with them did draw the yoke of iniquity, was it by flattering their offences, obeying their unjust commands, or in winking at their manifest iniquity. All such, I say, God once punished, with the chief offenders. Be ye assured brethren, That as he is immutable in nature, so will he not pardon you in that which he hath punished in others, and now the less, because he hath plainly admonished you of the dangers come, and hath offered you his mercy, before he pour forth his wrath and displeasure upon the disobedient.] So in his Exhortation to England, P ag. 107. [No other assurate will I require that your plagues are at hand, and that your destruction approacheth, then that I shall understand that ye do justify yourselves in this your former iniquity: absolve and flatter you who list, God the Father, His son Christ Jesus, his holy Angels, the creatures sensible and insensible in heaven and earth, shall rise in judgement and shall condemn you, if in time you repent not. The cause why I wrap you all in idolatry, all in murder, and all in one and the same iniquity, is, that none of you hath done his duty, none hath remembered his office and charge, which was to have resisted to the uttermost of your power, that impiety at the beginning, but you have all followed the wicked commandment, and all have consented to cruel murder; in so far as in your eyes, your Brethren have most unjustly suffered, and none opened his mouth to complain of that injury, cruelty and Murder. I do ever except such as either by their death, by abstaining from Idolatry, or by avoiding the realm for iniquity in the same committed, and give testimony that such an horrible falling from God did inwardly grieve them. But all the rest even from the highest to the lowest, I fear no more to accuse of idolatry, of treason committed against God, and of cruel Murdering of their brethren, than did Zecharias the son of jehojadah. 2 Chron. 24: ver. 20. fear to say to the King, Princes and People of judah. Why have ye transgressed the commandments of the Eternal God? it shall not prosperously succeed unto you, but even as ye have left the Lord, so shall he leave you] And, again Pag. 109. [., But let his holy and blessed ordinances commanded by Jesus Christ to his Kirk, be within the bounds so sure and established, that if Prince King or Emperor would enterprise to change or disannul the same, that he be the reputed enemy of God, and therefore unworthy to reign above his people? Yea that the same Man or Men that go about to destroy God's true Religion once established, and to erect idolatry which God detasteth, be adjudged to death, according to God's commandment: The negligence of which part, hath made you all (these only excepted which before I have expressed) murderers of your Brethren, deniers of Christ Jesus, and manifest traitors to God's Sovereign Majesty: Which horrible crimes if ye will avoid in time coming, then must ye (I mean the Prince's Rulers and People of the realm) by solemn Covenant renew the oath betwixt God and you, in that form and as Asa King of judah did in the like case 2 Chron. 15.— This is thy duty, & this is the only remedy O England to stay God's vengeance, which thou hast long deserved, and shall not escape, if his Religion and Honour be subject to mutation and change, as oft as thy Rulers list.] The-reader may consider also what he says to this in his discourse with Litingtoun, who was of this Surveyer's judgement, History of Reformation, Lib. 4.  
This is consonant likewise unto our confession of faith authorized by King james and Parliament Anno 1567. Act. 14. where among good works of the 2 table, these are mentioned To honour Father, Mother, Princes, Rulers, and Superior powers; To love them, to support them, yea to obey their charge (not repugning to the commandment of God) to save the lives of innocents', to repress tyranny, to defend the oppressed, etc.] the contrary whereof is [To disobey or resist any that God hath placed in authority (while they pass not over the bounds of their office) to murder, or to consent thereunto, to bear hatred, or to let innocent blood be shed if we may withstand it, etc.] Citeing in the Margin, Ezech. 22: 1, 2, 3, 4. etc. where the bloody City is to be judged, because she relieved not the oppressed out of the hand of bloody Princes v. 6.  
And to what Ambrose sayeth the office. Lib. 1. c. 36. saying qui non repellit a socio injuriam si potest, tam est in vitio quam ille qui facit. i e. he who doth not repel an injury from his brother when he may, isas guilty as he who doth the injury: And this he cleareth by Moses his deed, defending the Hebrew against the Egyptian.   

CAP XI.  
Of our qualified alledgiance to the King.  
Our Arguments hence.  
THe author of Naphtaly Pag. 177, said [That all powers are subordinate to the Most high, and apppointed and limited by his holy will and commandment, for his own glory, and the People's good; and our allegiance was and standeth perpetually and expressly thus qualified, viz. in defence of Religion and Liberty, according to our first and second Covenants- all allegiance & obedience to any created power whatsoever (though in the construction of charity apparently indefinite, yet) in its own nature is indispensably thus restricted.] By which words, any, who will duly consider the scope which that author doth drive at, will see, That his meaning was, That as obedience and allaigeance is to be given to Magistrates only in the Lord, So the same aught to be promised with this qualification or limitation, so far as it is not contrary to Religion and Liberty of the Subject: & thus we all swore to defend his Majesty's person and authority in the preservation and defence of the true Religion, and Libertyes of the Kingdoms; and it is plain to all who will not shut their eyes, that the foresaid author putteth no corrupt gloss upon that necessary clause and qualification; for while he is dissuadeing from taking of that bond, which was urged upon the People of Edinburgh, he useth the words cited, & further addeth [To renew the same; or take any the like oath of allegiance purely, and simply; purposely omitting the former and due restriction, especially when the powers are in most manifest, & notorious rebellion against the Lord & opposition to his cause and Covenant, is in effect, equivalent to an express rejecting and disowning of the same limitation, and of the Sovereign prerogative of the Great God and King over all, which is thereby reserved; & as much as in plain terms to affirm, That whatever abused authority shall command or do, either as to the overturning of the work of God, subverting of Religion, destroying of Rights and Libertyes, or persecuting of all the faithful to the utmost extremity, we shall not only stupidly endure it, but actiuly concur with, and assist in all this tyranny] What could have been spoken either more full, or plain, both for explicating the genuine import of that restriction or qualification, or the author's Orthodox sense thereof? Yet behold how this wrangling pamphleter, because he can get nothing to say against the truth asserted, must wrest words and sense and all, that he may have something to say against the straw-adversary of his own setting up. Therefore he tells us Pag. 6. [Can this assertion subsist that neither alledgiance, or fidelity, nor obedience is to be given to any created power, but in defence of Religion and Liberty? As if Naphtaly had meaned, That no alledgiance, fidelity or obedience was due, or to be given to the created powers, but when and in so far as, they did actually own, and contribute their utmost for the promoving or establishing of Religion and the Liberties of the People. Whileas his meaning is clearly seen to have been this, That as all powers are subordinate unto God the great King over all; So all alledgiance, fidelity, or obedience is to be promised and given unto them, with a reserve of the allegiance, fidelity and obedience due to God the Highest of all; and that man's interest is not to be preferred unto God's, but always acknowledged in subordination thereunto: So that when earthly powers are stated Enemies to Christ and his interest, no absolute allegiance, fidelity, or obedience is to be promised, But always with this restriction, or limitation: Neither are the Subjects bound to concur, or assist them, while in such a stated course of opposition to the King of King's, and while actively endeavouring to destroy his great interest in the world. But what says our Surveyer further [That obedience is not to be given unto any creature on earth, against Religion or the revealed will of God, shall be easily granted; we ahhore the very thought of so doing.] Ans. Though he abhor the very thought of so doing; yet many will say that he hath not abhorred to do it: It is against God's express and revealed will to commit perjury, and renunce a Covenant sworn with hands lifted up to the most high God, and yet he knows who is guilty of this, & maketh the will of a creature the Law of the Conscience, when the appendix is a full belly. [Again (says he) it shall not be said that obedience is to be given to powers against the liberty competent to us as subjects, and consistent with Sovereignty; yet so that the measure of that liberty must not be made by every man's private will, but by the declarature of the Parliament, representative of the Subjects, which best knows what thereunto belongs.] Answ. This royal liberal man would seem to yield something in favours of the liberty of the People, but with his annexed clause and restrictions, he takes all back again: For 1. says he, it must be consistent with Sovereignty, and how wide a mouth this Sovereignty hath, in his and his complices estimation, many know, and we have seem in part, even so wide as that is shall swallow up all the People's liberties; like one of Pharaohs lean kine that eats up the fat and yet is never the fatter. Then 2. it must be determined by the Representatives, as if the Representatives were not ex officio bound and obliged to maintain the Liberties of the People, which belong to the People, ere the Representatives have a being; and as if it were in the power of the Representatives to sell and betray the Libertyes of the People; or as if no more were competent to the Subjects de jure than what they will: Hath a man no more right to his lands and heritage's then what his advocate, who betrayeth his trust for a larger sum of money, alloweth him or declareth? We know Parliaments can basely betray their trust, and sell away the Libertyes of a People, contrare to their vow and oath to God, and their obligation to the People, whose trusties they should be; and shall People have no more liberty competent to them, than what a perfidious company conspired against the good of the Commonwealth, to pleasure a sinful Creature, determineth by their declarature? This is hard if true, for then a Parliament might sell them and their posterity for bondmen and bond women to the Turk for ever. But we see no more reason, for asserting an infallibility, or absoluteness of power in Parliaments, then in Princes. What further? [But to say, that all (not only obedience but) allegiance and fidelity, due to any created power is indispensably restricted to this qualification in defence of Religion and liberty, viz. of the Subjects, is a most false assertion.] Answ. He said not restricted to this qualification, but thus qualified, and thus restricted. This must be either ignorance, or worse in this pamphleter, thus to wrong the author. But, what was the author's meaning we have shown. Let us hear The pamphleting Prelate [It is known (says he) that a restriction excludes all other cases which are not in the restrictive proposition included, etc. Answ. All this is founded upon his either wilful or ignorant mistake; for the author took not the restriction, so (as we have seen) as to exclude all fidelity or obedience, except in things tending immediately and directly unto the good of Religion and Liberty of the Subject: But so as that we might do nothing in prejudice of Religion and Liberty, nor yield obedience to him in any thing tending to the hurt of either: & thus is our obedience to be restricted, or qualified. We deny not obedience, even when the act of obedience, cannot be properly & directly said to be either in defence of Religion or the liberty of the subject: So that we cross not what the ministers said unto the doctors of Aberdeen: for we take not that clause as exclusive, that is, that we shall never defend his person and authority but when he is actually & actively defending Religion & Libertyes; but only as a restriction or qualification, thus, that we shall defend his person & authority, so far as may consist with Religion & Libertyes: And thus we agree also with the general assembly 1639. for we say it is the Subjects duty to concur with their friends and followers, as they shall be required, in every cause that concerns his Majesty's honour, yet so as that they do nothing to the prejudice of Religion or Libertyes But further (says he) as to the point of allegiance or fidelity, that is another matter then obedience.] Answ. True, when men will become very critical; but the scope of the place showeth in what sense he took it, not only as includeing an owneing of him as lawful and rightful King etc. but as includeing also a promise of active concurrence in defending of him and his interest: and so while this is urged in an absolute, illimited, unqualified or un- restricted way, he made it all one with obedience. It is true, a man may keep allegiance or fidelity to the King, when he cannot obey his commands; yet the clause of the Covenant respects allegiance as well as obedience, in so far, as we are not to defend his person and authority absolutely, but in defence of the true Religion and Liberties of the Subjects. Allegiance then is a comprehensive thing, not only taking- in an owneing of the King as rightful King, and fidelity to his person crown and dignity against conspiracies and treasons; but also an active concurring to promove his honour and dignity, and to defend his person and authority: And so all who say allegiance must be qualified according to this restriction, do not mean every thing in allegiance, but that which is expressed in the Covenants. So that it is his ignorant inference, to say. That that which Naphtals' sayeth is contrary to the confession of saith Cap. 23. §. 4. which sayeth is difference in Religion doth not make void the Magistrates just and legal authority, nor free the people from their due obedience to him, unless he think the article of the Covenant, interfereth with the confession of faith, which he dar not assert; but if he do assert it, let us hear by his next what he will say to the Apologetical Relation, Pag. 386. 387. 388. 389. 390. where that clause of the Covenant is vindicated. He addeth [It is the Lord's way for keeping humane societies from gross disorders, to allow to such as are in supreme power by lawful calling, the honour due unto their place, although in the main things they pervert the Ends of government, dishonouring him by a false Religion, or seduceing others to their evil way.] Answ. Do we say that honour is not due unto Magistrates of another Religion, because we say that we must promise allegiance and obedience to them in the Lord; and must not concure with them, nor contribute our power unto them, to the manifest detriment of Religion and Libertyes? This is like the rest of this Man's foolish inferences. Or doth he think that we cannot give to Caesar the things which are Caesar's, unless we give him also, the things which are God's, and are the People's? Then he citeth Calv. Instit. Lib. 4. c 20. §, 25. 27. But He speaketh nothing contrare to the business we are upon: Doth he think that Calvin was of the judgement that People are bound to swear absolute Subjection, allegiance or fidelity and obedience to all wicked princes, whatever right they may have to the place? That subjects are bound to obey, and to swear allegiance in the Lord unto wicked Kings who denyeth? do we say that wicked Kings, because wicked, are eo ipso no Kings; nor to be acknowledged as Kings? What then doth this testimony make against thus? But 2. will he stand to what Calvin sayeth? Then he must condemn what King and Parliament have done, in taking the life of the Marquis of Argyle; and say that they are guilty of innocent blood; for by what Calvin here sayeth, we were as much bound to acknowledge Cromwell then, when he did Reign, as now to acknowledge the King: for he speaks of all qui quoquo modo rerum potiuntur. How will he then free himself from treason? For sure in Calvine's judgement, Argile did but his duty, though he had done more, and yet he was condemned as a Traitor: can he reconcile this with Calvine's judgement?  
So then our promiseing and swearing allegiance, fidelity, and obedience to the King, being with a reserve of our allegiance, fidelity, and obedience unto the Supreme King of Kings and Lord of Lords, and according to that due subordination, and thus limited and restricted, that we may do nothing against God, or in prejudice of his interests; no person can with any colour of law or conscience, challenge or accuse any of Treason or Rebellion against the King, when they prefer the interest of God unto Man's, and labour to secure Religion and the interest of Christ, unto which they are absolutely, and indispensably obliged, and from which obligation and allegiance, no authority of man can lose them, notwithstanding that in so doing, they postpone the authority of man, and their allegiance thereunto, and lay it by; seeing it is of no force, when it cometh in competition with the authority of God, and is stated against that Religion, which by divine authority they are bound to maintain, with hazard and loss of their lives, goods and fortunes; And therefore the late act of defence being, according to their sworn allegiance to God, a necessary defence of Religion, cannot be condemned of Treason or Rebellion, though it wanted that formality of the authority of Subordinat powers: As postponing the authority of inferior Magistrates, in act of obedience, and duty of allegiance unto the Superior, can be no proper disloyalty or rebellion; so nor can the postponing of the authority, of Superior and inferior Magistrates, in point of obedience, and performing allegiance unto the most Supreme, be really treasonable, seditious, or rebellious.  
2. If we be sworn to maintain the King's person and authority, in the defence of the liberties of the subject: Then who ever prefer the Liberties of the Subject unto his person and authority, are not Traitors or Rebels: And so the late act of defence, being for the liberties of the subject, when they were basely betrayed, sold, and given away, by a company conjured into a conspiracy against the same, and were trodden upon, and violently plucked away, cannot in conscience, or in the law of God, or according to any just law of man, be accounted, or condemned as; an act of Treason or Rebellion.   

CAP. XII.  
Some more Arguments Briefly proposed and Prosecuted.  
WE have in the preceding Chapters proponed and considered such arguments as gave us occasion to meet with what this Surveyer allaidged. We shall here, ere we come to consider his objections, briefly sum up other arguments.  
The worthy author of Lex Rex Quest. 28. and 31. hath some, which we shall here set down, partly because that book is not in every man's hand, and partly because this windy man pretends to have answered much of that book, though he hath not so much as offered to make a reply unto the six hundereth part thereof.  
1. Pag. 261. thus he argueth, [That power which is obliged to command and rule justly and religiously, for the good of the subjects, and is only set over the people on these conditions, and not absolutely, cannot tie the people to subjection without resistance, when the power is abused to the destruction of laws, religion, and the subjects. But all power of the law is thus obliged Rom. 13: ver. 4. Deut. 17: ver. 18. 19 23. 2 Chron. 19: ver. 6. Psal. 132. ver. 11. 12. and 89. ver. 30. 31. 2 Sam. 7: ver. 12. Jer. 17: ver, 24, 25, And hath been & may be abused by Kings, to the destruction of Law's Religion, and Subjects. The proposition is clear, for the powers that tie us to subjection, only are of God. 2. Because to resist them is to resist the ordinance of God. 3, Because they are not a terror to good works but to evil. 4. Because they are God's ministers for our good: But abused powers are not of God but of men, are not ordinances of God, they are a terror to good works not to evil, they are not God's ministers for our good.]  
2. ibid.) [That power which is contrary to law, and is evil and tyrannical, can tie none to subjection, but is a mere tyrannical power and unlawful; and if it tie not to subjection, it may lawfully be resisted. But the power of a King abused to the destruction of Laws, Religion, and subjects, is a power contrary to law, evil and tyrannical, and tieth no man to subjection; wickedness by no imaginable reason, can oblige any man. Obligation to suffer of wicked men, falleth under no commandment of God, except in our Saviour. A Passion as such, is not formally commanded, I mean a physical passion, such as is to be killed. God hath not said to me in any moral law, be thou killed, tortured, beheaded, but only be thou patient if God deliver thee to wicked men's hands to suffer these things.  
3. (Ibid) There is not a stricker obligation moral, betwixt King and People, then betwixt parents and Children, Master and Servant, Patron and Cliant, Husband and Wife, The Lord and the Vassal, between the pilot of a shop, and the passengers, the Physician and the Sick, the doctor and the Scholar: But law granteth, 1. minime 35. De Relig. & sumpt. funer. If those betray their trust committed to them, they may be resisted? If the Father turn distracted and arise to kill his Sons, his Sons may violently apprehend him, bind his hands, spoil him of his weapons, for in that, he is not a father Vasq. lib. 1. illustr. quaest. Cap. 8. n. 18. Si dominus subditum, enormiter & atrociter oneraret; princeps superior vasallum posset ex toto eximere a sua jurisdictione, & etiam tacente subdito & nihil petente. Quid papa in suis decis: parliam. great. decis. 32. Si quis Baro. abutentes dominio privari possunt. The Servant may resist the Master, if he attempt unjustly to kill him; So may the wife do to the Husband: If the pilot should wilfully run the ship on a roke to destroy himself, and his passengers, they might violently thrust him from the helm. Every Tyrants is a furious Man, and is morally distracted, as althus. sayeth, polit cap. 28. n. 30. & seqq.  
4. Pag. 262. That which is given as a blessing and a favour and a scrine betwixt the People's Liberty, and their bondage, cannot be given of God as a bondage and slavery to the People. But the Power of a King is given as a blessing & favour of God to defend the poor & needy, to preserve both tables of the law, and to keep the People in their libertyes, from oppressing and treading on upon another. But so it is, that if such a power be given of God to a King, by which actu primo he is invested of God to do acts of Tyranny, and so to do them, that to resist him in the most innocent way, which is self defence, must be resisting of God, and rebellion against the King his deputy; Then hath God given a royal power, as incontrollable by mortal men by any violence, as if God himself, were immediately and personally resisted, when the King is resisted, and so this power shall be a power to waste and destroy irresistably, and so in itself a plague and curse; for it cannot be ordained, both according to the intention and genuine formal effect and intrinsical operation of the power, to preserve the tables of the Law, Religion and Liberty, Subject and laws; and also to destroy the same. But it is taught by Royalists, That this power is for Tyranny, as well as for peaceable government, because to resist this royal power put forth in acts either of Tyranny or just government, is to resist the ordinance of God, as Royalists say, from Rom. 13: 1, 2, 3. We know to resist God's Ordinance and God's deputy formaliter as his deputy, is to resist God himself 2 Sam. 8. ver. 7. Mat. 10: ver. 40. as if God were doing personally these acts that the King is doing; and it importeth as much as the King of Kings doth these acts, in and through the Tyrant. Now it is blasphemy to think or say, That when a Kings is drinking the blood of innocents', and wasting the Church of God, That God if he were personally present, would commit the same acts of Tyranny (God avert such blasphemy) and that God in and through the King his lawsul deputy and vicegerent, in these acts of Tyranny, is wasting the poor Church of God. If it be said, in these sinful acts of tyranny, he is not God's formal vicegerent, but only in good and lawful acts of Government, yet he is not to be resisted in these acts, not because the acts are just and good, but because of the dignity of his royal person. Yet this must prove that these who resist the King in these acts of Tyranny, must resist no ordinance of God, but only that we resist him who is the Lord's deputy. What absurdity is there in that, more than to disobey him, refuseing active obedience to him who is the Lord's deputy, but not as the Lord's deputy, but as a man commanding beside his Master's warrant?  
5. (Pag. 263.) That which is inconsistent with the care and providence of God in giving a King to his Church, is not to be taught. Now God's end in giving a King to his Church, is the feeding, saifty, preservation, the peaceable and quiet life of his Church, 1 Tim. 2: 2. Esai. 49: ver. 23. Psal. 79: 7. But God should cross his own end in the same act of giving a King, if he should provide a King, who by office were to suppress Robbers, Murderers, and all oppressors and wasters in his holy mount, and yet should give an irresistible power to one crowned Lion a King who may kill a Thousand Thousand protestants for their religion, in an ordinary providence, and they are by an ordinary law of God to give their throats to his Emissaries, and bloody executioners. If any say, the King will not be so cruel. I believe it, because, actu secundo it is not possible in his power to be so cruel; we owe thanks to his good will that he killeth not so many, but no thanks to the genuine intrinsical end of a King, who hath power from God to kill all these, and that without resistance made by any Mortal man: Yea no thanks (God avert blasphemy) to God's ordinary providence, which (if Royalists may be believed) putteth no bar upon the illimited power of a Man inclined to sin, and abuse his power to so much cruelty. Some may say, the same absurdity doth follow if the King should turn papist, and the Parliament and all were papists, in that case, there might be so many Martyrs for the truth put to death, and God should put no bar of providence upon this power, more than now; and yet in that case. King and Parliament should be judges given of God actu primo, and by virtue of their office obliged to preserve the people in peace and godliness. But I answer. If God gave a lawful official power to King and Parliament to work the same cruelty upon Millions of Martyrs, and it should be unlawful for them to defend themselves, I should then think that King & Parliament were both ex officio and actu primo judges and Fathers, and also by that same office, Murderers and butchers, which were a grievous aspersion to the unspotted providence of God.  
6. (Pag. 331.) Particular nature yields to the good of universal nature; for which cause heavy bodies ascend, aery and light bodies descend: If then a wild bull or a goring Ox may not be let loose in a great market confluence of people; and if any man turn so distracted, as he smite himself with stones, and kill all that pass by him, or come at him; in that case the man is to be bound and his hands fettered, and all whom he invadeth may resist him, were they his own sons, and may save their own lives with weapons. Much more a King turning a Nero, King Saul vexed with an evil spirit from the Lord, may be resisted: and far more if a King endued with use of reason, shall put violent hands on all his subjects, kill his soon and heir: yea, any violently invaded, by nature's law, may defend themselves; & the violent restraining of such an one is but the hurting of one Man, who cannot be virtually the Commonwealth, but his destroying of the community of men, sent out in wars as his bloody Emissaries, to the dissolution of the Commonwealth.  
7. (Pag. 335.) By the law of Nature, a Ruler is apppointed to defend the innocent: Now by Nature, an infant in the womb defendeth itself first, before the parents can defend it; Then when parents and Magistrates are not (and violent invading Magistrates are not, in that, Magistrates) Nature hath commended every man to self defence.  
8. (Ibid) The law of nature excepteth no violence, whether inflicted by a Magistrate or any other; unjust violence from a Ruler is thrice injustice 1. He doth injustice as a man, 2. As a member of the Commonwealth. 3. He committeth a special kind of sin of injustice against his office. But it is absured to say we may lawfully defend ourselves from smaller injuries, by the law of Nature, and not from greater, etc.  
These and many more, to this purpose, may be seen in that unanswerable piece: But I proceed to add some mo● here.  
9 If it be lawful for the people, to rise in arms to defend themselves, their Wives and Children, & their Religion, from an invadeing army of cut throat Papists, Turks or Tartars, though the Magistrates Superior and inferior, should either, through absence, or some other physical impediment, not be in a present capacity to give an express warrant or command, or through wickedness, for their own private ends, should refuse to concur, and should discharge the people to rise in arms: Then it cannot be unlawful to rise in arms and defend their own Lives, and the lives of their Posterity, and their Religion; when Magistrates, who are apppointed of God to defend, turn enemies themselves, and oppress, plunder, and abuse the innocent, and overturn Religion, & press people to a sinful compliance there with. But the former is true. Therefore etc. The assumption is clear: Because all the power of Magistrates, which they have of God, is cumulative, and not privative and destructive, it is a power to promove the good of the Realm, and not a power to destroy the same, whether by acting and going beyond their power, or by refuseing to act and betraying their trust. 2. No power given to Magistrates, can take away Nature's birth right, or that innate power of self defence. 3. It can far no worse with people in this case, then if they had no Magistrates at all; but if they had no Magistrates at all, they might lawfully see to their own self defence. 3. The power given to Magistrates can not lose the obligation of people unto God's moral law; but by the moral law they are bound, in this case of imminent danger, to defend themselves, their Wives and Children, and their Religion: these are acts of charity, which Magistrates cannot lose them from; otherwise Magistrates might command us to kill the innocent, the widow and the fatherless, and we might lawfully do it at their command; which is most false and absurd: therefore neither can their express prohibition hinder us from relieving such, whom we are bound to relieve, nor exeem us from the guilt of Murder, before God, if we do it not, but obey their prohibition. The connexion of the proposition I clear thus. 1. The law of self defence is no less valide in the one case, then in the other. 2. The law of charity obligeth in the one case, no less then in the other. 3. Magistrates are no more apppointed of God to destroy the people themselves, then to suffer others to destroy them; and so the resisting of their violence in the one case, is no more a resisting of the ordinance of God, than the resisting or counter-acting of their prohibition, or silence, in the other case. 4. Magistrates are no less to be accounted, in so far, no Magistrates, when they counter-act their commission, then when they sinfully betray their trust, and neglect their commission. 5. Unjust violence offered in Lives, Liberties and Religion, is no less unjust violence, when offered by Magistrates themselves, then when offered by strangers, Magistrates permitting or conniveing.  
10. If it be lawful for private Subjects to join together in arms, and defend Themselves, their Lands, Liberties, Wives, Children; Goods, and Religion, against a foreign Enemy, invading the land to conquer and subdue the same, with the Magistrates approbation, or express warrant. Then it is also lawful to resist domestic Enemies animated by the same power and authority. But the former is true, because Magistrates, in that case, do profess and avow themselves tyrants, seeking the destruction of the whole Realm: and therefore are not Magistrates. Therefore etc. The consequence is cleared abundantly in the preceding argument, and cannot be denied: for, a domestic enemy is more unnatural, unjust, ihhumane; illegal, hurtful and dangerous, than a foreign enemy.  
11. Such acts of unjust violence, which neither Magistrates themselves may immediately commit, nor may any subject under them, without sin and disobedience to God, execute, may lawfully be resisted by private people, when committed in a rage, or cruelly executed by inseriours. But such are acts of oppressing, plundering, spoiling Subjects of their libertyes, because of their adhering to their sworn Covenanted Religion. Therefore etc. That Princes and Magistrates may not oppress, and wrong the People, is clear 1 Sam. 12: 3, 4, 5. 2 Sam. 23: 3. 1 King. Cap. 21. and 22. 2 Chron. 9: 8. Psal. 105: 14, 15. Esa. 1: 23. and 3: 12, 13, 14, 15. and 14: 15, to 23. and 9: 7. and 16: 5. and 32: 1, 2. and 49: 23. jer. 22: 3, to 32. Zeph. 2: 8. and 3: 3. Micah. 3: 1. to 12. Obad. v. 2, 10, to 17. Ezech. 22: 6, 7, 27. and 45: 8, 9 It is contrare to their express commission Rom. 13: 4, 5. That their unjust mandates for oppression and useing of violence, are not to be obeyed, is no less clear from Exod. 1: 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20. 1 Sam. 22: 17, 18. Psal. 52: 5. So likewise it cannot but be clear, That it must also be lawful to resist that violence when wickedly and unjustly acted and executed: For, what power Magistrates can not themselves put into execution, is not of God nor ordained of God; and therefore the resisting of that, cannot be the resisting of any power ordained of God: And again, what power subjects cannot lawfully put into execution can be no lawful Magistratical power apppointed of God: For, if it were, a refuseing to put the same into execution were a real resisting of the ordinance of God: And so a resisting of this, when wickedly put into execution, is no resisting of the ordinance of God, which causeth damnation.  
12. That it is just and lawful to flee from the violence of Magistrates will not be denied. But if that be lawful, when subjects have no power or means whereby to resist, or oppose unjust violence with violence, It cannot be simply unlawful to resist the same unjust violence with force, when neither flying, nor hideing, nor other such like means of saifty are practicable: Because it is the principle of self defence against violence, that makes flight lawful, when there is no possibility of resistance; and the same principle of self defence will make resistance lawful, when the other is not practicable. Again, the principle of charity to their Wives and Children and other Relations, makes flight lawful, when they can not otherwise avoid the unjust violence of Tyrants; and the same principle will animate to resistance, when practicable, & when they cannot flee with wives and children and old decrepit parents etc. Thirdly, the same principle of conscience, viz that they may keep their Religion and Conscience free and undefiled, which will prompt to a flight, when there is no other remedy, will prompt also to resistance, when flight is not practicable. I remember, The Surveyer Pag. 41. calleth this [a monster of a stoical paradex which the pair of pseudo- martyrs brought forth; whereas flight is only a withdrawing from under his dominion, and putting one's self under another dominion where his power reaches not: and so by flight and withdrawing from the Kingdoms, the man ceaseth to be a subject to him, whose subject he was, and comes to be under other Lords and laws.] Answ. This must be a monster of men, whose eyes must be of a magnifying glass of a paradoxical quality; and he must have a strange stoical fancy, who imagineth that such a thing is a paradex, and a stöical paradox, and a monster of a stöical paradox: what could his stoical brain have said more paradoxically? Flight and nonobedience both are a resisting of the abused power; and if the cause be just which is pressed by the Magistrate, flight on that account, & nonobedience, is a resistance of the powers ordained of God, condemned Rom. 13. for such an one is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he is out of due order. But. 2. As we have seen, the consequence will hold, and we seek no more; we need not make it a resistance equal with forcible resistance. 3. He speaketh of a flight out of the King's dominions, but what says he to a flight, when the people flying keep still within the dominions? Will he grant that this is liker unto a resistance? And he must, if his reasons hold; for in this case, the man ceaseth not to be a subject nor cometh he to be under another Lord: and if he grant this, our argument will stand as firm as ever. 4. The man, for all the money he hath gotten from his majesty for his pains, or pain, is not afraid to rub, by what he says here, upon his sacred Majesty and his Royal Council; for, if persons withdrawn and out of the Kingdom, cease to be subjects to the King. How could the King and council summon home the Scottish officers who served under the States of the Netherlands, and were servants to them, and under their pay, and had been in their bounds, all most all their days, yea some of them were borne under the States; and yet for not coming to the King's dominions upon his call and charge, they were denunced rebels & fore faulted, and stand under that sentence to this day, for any thing I know; which, though I account the most unjust, inhuman, barbarous & irrational act, that can be, so that it may well be reckoned, among the Surveyer's monsters of stöical paradoxes; yet I think tenderness to his Majesty's honour and credit, should have made him spare to have set down this parenthesis: But, some men, it seems, have liberty to say what they can or will, if it may help the desperate cause, though it should reflect upon King and Council both. Let a friend go with a foe.  
13. It was not to Parliaments or inferior Magistrates, that Christ said, alittle before he was to be apprehended, Luk. 22: 36, 38. But nowhe that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one— and they say Lord here are two swords, and he said unto them, it is enough. Here is enough to evince the lawfulness of resisting with force unjust oppressors; for if Christ had thought it simply unlawful, why would he have desired his naked private disciples, to buy swords, which are weapons for forcible resistance and defence, and that at such a time? It is true, he would not suffer them to make use of them as they would, not because it was simply unlawful for them to rescue him out of the hands of that band of robbers; for he useth no such argument to dissuade them: but because, he was commanded of the father, to yield and to lay down his life, of his own accord; and therefore was it also that he would not use the help of angels, as he might have done, in his own defence; therefore said he joh. 18: ver. 10, 11. put up thy sword into the sheath, the cup which my father hath given me shall I not drink? (& Matthew addeth Cap. 26: 52, 53.) thinkest thou that I cannot pray to my father, and he shall presently give me, more than twelve legions of angels: God had revealed his will, that Christ behoved to suffer Mat. 16: ver. 21, 22, 23. joh. 20: 24. and that was sufficient to restrain this act of self preservation hic & nunc: which was otherwise lawful; as well as it did restrain from flight, a mean which Christ at other times used, for his preservation: Neither did his word to Peter import that this self defence was unlawful; but the reasons of it were (as River says in decal. 6. praec.) 1. Because it had a kind of revenge in it; for so few could not repel such an army as came to take Christ. 2. He waited not Christ's answer. 3. He could have defended himself another way. 4. It was contr●re to God's will revealed to Peter.]  
14. That doctrine cannot be of God, which to the eye of sound reason, & to all rational people, doth remedylesly & avoidable, tend to overthrow and destroy polities, all order, and all humane society, and open a gap and wide door to all confusion, disorder, tyranny, oppression, cruelty, and injustice. Our Surveyer cannot deny this proposition; seeing he maketh use if it, or of one very like unto it Pag. 43. But to say that a poor oppressed people may not defend themselves, in extreme necessity, against the oppression and tyranny of Magistrates, and resist unjust violence with violence is to all rational people a remediless and unavoidable course laid down, for utter overturning of all Society, & is an opening of a door to all confusion, disorder, tyranny, oppression, Murders, cruelty, injustice, etc. for when Magistrates turn Tyrants, oppressors, set themselves to seek the ruin and destruction of their Kingdoms, and of all their Subjects, in bodies, goods, and Consciences, and sell themselves to do such villainy and wickedness, there is no remedy, by this doctrine; the Commonwealth is utterly gone; oppression and Murders are increased; all is overthrown and overturned; and there is no help. Thus God shall have given a power to one man to kill and massacre millions of Christians, to destroy whole Commonwealthes, and to root them out, and all their memorial, that no more mention should be made of them. But who can believe this? Yea if this were received as a truth, what encouragement were it to tyranny and oppression? And what mischief would not wicked hearts contrive and execute, if they did not fear opposition and resistance? This Surveyer tells us Pag. 103. That it is enough to keep Kings right, to tell them they must answer to God, But we see that for all this, there are moe evil and wicked Kings, then good; and it is more than probable, that that alone would no more suppress their tyranny, and keep them from wickedness, than the fear of the gallows would keep thiefs from stealing and robbing; if they knew that no body would resist them, or oppose them with force, when they came to steal and rob.  
15. By this doctrine, People should be in the most miserable condition imaginable when under governor's; for not only should they be liable to all the oppressions of Magistrates tyrannising over them, and have their hands bound up, so that they could not help themselves; but also unto the opression and tyranny of every one who could but say, he had a commission from his Majesty to kill and murder all whom he pleased: For they might not resist whether he had a real commission or not, lest they should resist the ordinance of God, in resisting a servant sent of the King to execute his lust and cruelty, with express warrant and commission: & thus there would be as many irresistible tyrants, armed with absolute and irresistible power, as one Tyrant will, and the people might no more use violent resistance against them, then against him. A doctrine, I am sure, point blank contrary to all reason and equity.  
16. If foreign princes may lawfully help a poor people oppressed by their own Sovereign: Then people may lawfully, if they be able, hold in the pains of these foreign princes, and defend themselves. But the former is granted by casuists and politicians. Therefore etc. The consequence cannot be denied: for foreigners have no more power or authority over another sovereign, than the people have themselves: and what justice, or equity of the cause could warrant them to come to their relief and succour, the same will warrant the people injured to help themselves, if they be able.  
17. As the law of Nature will allow this self defence even to private persons, in cases of necessity, So will the law of Nations, and the Civil law; for it maketh no distinction betwixt self defence used by private persons alone, and that which is used by private persons having their Representatives concurring: And where the law distinguisheth not, we should not distinguish. As all law permits to repel violence with violence; so doth it give this allowance to all persons whatsoever l. Liberam C. quando licet unicuique sine judic.  
18. To maintain, that in no case it were lawful for Private subjects, to resist the unjust violence, and to defend themselves from the tyranny of Princes, would be a direct condemning of our own Princes K. james, and K. Charles, who helped the private Subjects of other Princes against them: and is it not unreasonable to plead for more absolute subjection, than princes themselves will plead for: Or to condemn that resistance which even they will approve of, countenance and encourage to?  
16. If it were not lawful for private persons to defend themselves against the manifest tyranny of a Sovereign, without the concurrence or conduct of a Parliament, or their Representative: Then the condition of such as live under such a government where there are Ephori, or where there is a Representative constituted, should be worse, then is the condition of these, who want such Representatives. But that were absurd. Therefore etc. The consequence of the Major is hence cleared: Because, all the arguments, which have been adduced by any, for proving the lawfulness of resistance in cases of necessity, will evince that a people, who have no formal Representative, may resist the tyranny of their Prince: But now if this were not allowed unto a People having Representatives, their case should certanely be worse: Because their hands should be bound up from that necessary defence, which otherwise they might have used viz. when Representatives should betray their trust, and comply with a tyrannous Prince against the people. The Minor is most certain, because Parliaments or Representatives have been instituted for the good & advantage of the people: And therefore should not prove hurtful and destructive, otherwise they cease to be a benefit and a blessing. A benefit should not prove onerous, sayeth the law, si filiusf ff. ut legator nom. caveaetur.  
20. If it be lawful for private persons to resist the Tyranny of Parliaments, and other inferior Magistrates: Then it cannot be unlawful for them to resist the Tyranny of others, without their concurrence and conduct. But the former is true, as all the arguments used by divines and politicians to prove resistance, will evince; and as several of our adversaries will very readily grant, though they will stiffly maintain, that no resistance is to be used against the Sovereign. Therefore etc. The connexion is hence clear, That to whom the greater is lawful, the less is also lawful: Now it is a greater matter to resist a Parliament, then to wave them, and miskend them, or to resist others without their help; as all may see and will easily grant. There is not a more express command for Subjects to do nothing without the concurrence of a Parliament, than not to resist them and oppose them: Nor are people more obliged to the one, then to the other.  
21. Private persons without the concurrence of Parliaments, may resist and oppose the Prince, yea and bind his hands, when in a fit of frenzy, of a distempered brain and madness, he would seek to cut his own throat, or with Saul would run upon his sword. Therefore they may also resist oppose him, when in madness and fury, he would not only endanger his own life in soul and body, but would destroy the inheritance of the Lord, and cut off his faithful and innocent subjects, and destroy the land. The connexion is clear: Because more respect is to be had unto the life of Thousands, then to the life of one Man. The antecedent is certain, because otherwise they should be guilty before the Lord, of his death, if they would not hinder it, when it was in the power of their hands; for he who hindereth not a mischief when he may, he willeth it, and so is formally guilty before God.  
22. Private persons, without the concurrence of inferior Magistrates, may resist the Sovereign, when in a rage he runeth upon an innocent man passing by, and with Saul, when an evil spirit from the Lord came upon him, would cast his javelin or deadly instrument at the innocent david's. This no rational person will deny, who knoweth what a hazard it is to partake of other men's sins: Love to the Prince should press to this perserving of him from shedding innocent blood; and who doth not this when he may, consenteth to that murder. Therefore they may also, no less, yea much more, resist him, when in his madness and distemper, he is seeking to destroy millions of the people of God: And again, much more may we resist him, when he is seeking to destroy ourselves, we being much more bound to love and defend ourselves, then to love and defend others.  
23. If it be lawful for private subjects, without the Command or allowance of Parliaments or their Representatives, to resist a Tyrant, or the Tyranny of a Prince, with tears and prayers: Then also, in cases of necessity, it shall be lawful for them to resist his violent Tyranny and tyrannical violence, with violence, But the former is true. Therefore, etc. The minor is clear: For Royalists themselves will grant that praeces and lachrymae may be opposed to Tyranny; Thus did the ancient Christians resist their tyrannical Emperors with earnest cries and prayers to God, especially julian the Apostate, whom they ordinarily styled Idolianus, Pisaeus, Adonaeus, Tauricremus, alter Hieroboam, Achab, Pharaoh, etc. And we are allowed to pray against the Enemies of Christ's Kingdom, against the Turk, the Pope that great Antichrist, and all the little Antichrists that make war against the Lord and his interest. Therefore we may also resist a Prince Tyrannically oppressing the People of God, destroying the mountain of the Lord, making havoc of his Church, when we are in probable capacity for that work. The reason is because, the one is no more condemned in Scripture then the other. 2. The one is no more a sinful resisting of the Ordinance of God, then is the other. 3. Adversaries themselves will grant that resistance by prayers and tears is more powerful and effectual, than the other. 4. This personal resistance is as consistent with that command, let every soul be subject to higher powers, as the other is with that, 1 Tim. 2: ver. 1, 2. 1 exhort that supplications, prayers and intercessions be made for Kings, and for all in authority. 5. If the Prince be good, the one is as unlawful as the other, and a sinful resistance of the ordinance of God, no less than the other: Therefore when he becometh a Tiger, a Lion, a waster of the inheritance of the Lord, an Apostate, as I may not pray for him, except conditionally, but against him, as an enemy of Christ's; so I may also lawfully resist him with violence. 6. It is clear from other perfsons or things against whom or which, I may lawfully pray, as inward or outward Enemics, foreign or domestic, be they inferior or superior, against these I may use resistance, in my own sinless defence. 7. The laws of the land make the one treasonable as well as the other, and that deservedly, when the Prince is doing his duty: but when he turneth Tyrant, neither can justly be condemned. 8. We have seen the one practised in Scripture and other Histories, as well as the other.  
24. If it be lawful for mere private persons to refuse obedience unto the unjust and iniquous commands of Princes: Then it is also lawful for them to resist the unjust and illegal Tyranny of such. But the former is undengable. Therefore so is the latter. The connexion is clear. For 1. Subjection is no more expressly pressed in Scripture, then is obedience, to Superiors: Therefore if not withstanding of this command, nonobedience be allowed yea and necessary, why not also non-subjection or resistance? 2. The law of God doth not press this as more absolute and unlimited, than the other. 3. Nonobedience to the power commanding just things is a resisting of the ordinance of God, as well as non-subjection thereunto: if notwithstanding hereof nonobedience to unjust commands be allowed, why also shall not non-subjection to tyranny be allowed? 4. The one doth no more derogate from the lawful authority of the Sovereign, than the other. 5. The one is no more a wronging of the Minister of God as such, than the other; because he is no more the Minister and vicegerent of God in acts of Tyranny, then in commanding unjust things. And therefore 6. such as resist unjust violence, can no more procure to themselves damnation, than the such as disobey unjust commands.   

CAP. XIII.  
The Surveyer's grounds taken from Scripture, for absolute Submission to Suffering, examined.  
HAving thus proved the lawfulness of private people resisting, in cases of necessity, the unjust violence of Superior powers, by many arguments; and having vindicated the same from what this Surveyer had to say against them, We come now to examine his grounds for the contrary assertion. Out of Scripture he adduceth Three grounds Pag. 28. etc.  
The first is taken from the duty of Children toward Paents unjustly afflicting them Heb. 12: ver. 9, 10. where, their reverend subjection under unreasonable and unjust dealing is commended: and from the duty of Servants to suffer at the hands of unjust and froward Masters 1 Pet. 2: 18, 19, 20. To which we answer,  
1. That these examples are so far from making against us, that they fully comfirme our point, as we have showed above: For, notwithstanding of what is said in these places, he cannot deny, but Parents may be resisted by their Children, in several cases, and Masters by their Servants. It would be strange, if he should press this subjection so close home, that now no Servant might lawfully resist and withstand the fury of his Master; nor no Child might hold his furious Father's hands, and defend himself against his unjust acts of cruelty. And Althusius Pol. c. 38. n. 88, 89. tells us that in several cases, the father lòseth the right of his fatherly power over Children; & master's power, from the law Tit. lust quib. mod. jus Pat. Pot. amit. § Domin, lust. de his qui sunt sui vel alieni juris l. 5. § sivel Par. de agant. vel alend. lib. L. necfilium Cap. de Patr. potcst. L. 2. L. 3. Cap. de Inf. expos. Novel 115. Cap. 3.  
2. If these simititudes be hardly pressed, it shall not now be lawful for Subjects to resist so much as by flying; for the reverence and subjection required of Children unto their parents, will not suffer that to evite every small injury from their parents, they should ran away from under their power and subjection; nor might servants in those days run away from their Masters, who had another dominion over them, than Masters now have over their Servants, who are free to go off when they will; himself acknowledgeth this Pag. 31.  
3. We have showed above what a vast difference there is, betwixt the power of Parents over their Children; and the power of Magistrates over their Subjects: And he himself doth confess there is a difference; yet says he, Pag. 29. There is a full parity and agreement in this, that in the inflicting of evils upon these who are under them (such as are competent to them to inflict within their sphere) a patient reverend subjection is due from their inferiors, even when they abuse their power.] Ans. This is the question, if the parity hold even here in all points; for seeing these Relations are different one from another, even in their nature and ground, it is but rational to think, that there must also be some difference betwixt them, as to the consequent or result that floweth from that relation, else it would follow that as Children are so Subject, as that they can never but be subject, to their Parents; so Subjects could never be free of their Superiors; and yet himself tells us, that they may, by going under another government, or removing to other dominions. 2. Who shall be judge, whether the Superior keepeth within his spear, yea or not? If the Superior, then there is no remedy at all; for when he doth most exceed his bounds, he may judge that he keepeth within bounds, and so whether he keep within his sphere or not, there must no resistance be used, but a stupid subjection. 3. Whether may the Superior be resisted by the inferior, when he doth what is not incumbent to him to do within his sphere, or not? If he may not, then why is this parenthesis added, As a restriction or limitation of the Subjection required? If he may be resisted when he really goeth without his sphere, than this makes for us; for he must grant that the Magistrate doth nor prescribe the limits of his own power, but God and nature, and the constitution of the Realm. Now God hath never put it in the power of Princes to press their subjects to perjury, or to a compliance with a sinful abominable and abjured course; so that whn he doth thus, he goeth beyond his sphere: His sphere is to rule for God and the good of the land, and not to destroy the interest of Christ, and the Commongood: and if he may be resisted, when he goeth beyond this sphere, than we have all we ask. It was never within his sphere, to break his compact with his People: and when he doth so, he is without his sphere and may be resisted, and this is also for us. Again he tells us in the 2 place. That though Kings are not fathers by generation; yet as Kings and Magistrates should have fatherly hearts to their subjects, (they being a sort of official fathers to them, to procure their good, and defend them from evil) so subjects ought to have such hearts to their King, as Children have to their fathers, giving them speical reverence, subjection and obedience, from their very soul and inward affection.] Answ. All this says that as Kings are metaphorical Fathers, so Subjects, are metaphorical Children. But as it doth not say, that Kings should become Tyrants, & not carry fatherly affection towards their Subjects; so it doth not say, that Subejcts may not resist their tyrannical rage and fury, wherein they act not as fathers, but as Tigers. 2. It is true, special reverence subjection & obedience is due to Magistrates, but always in the Lord; The relation is mutual, if they carry not as official fathers seeking the good of the subjects and defending them, but as devouring Lions seeking the destruction of their Subjects both in soul and body, they cannot expect, according to what he sayeth, that hearty subjection and obedience, which otherwise they might have. 3. Being but official fathers apppointed by the subjects, and set over them by their will and consent, they must have less power to wrong the Subjects, than Parents have to wrong their Children, who have not that relation by virtue of any formal compact with, or consent of their Children. So that when they do injuries, Subjects are in a greater capacity to help themselves, than Children are; when their Parents to injure them. He addeth [Although some times they are not such as they ought to be, yet they ought to account their persons (sealed with God's ordinance, and the image of of his Sovereignty) sacred and inviolable, resolving to suffer any thing of them rather than be guilty of parricide (although under the colour of self defence) God's law in the fifth command hath enjoined reverence & subjection to Princes under the title of Parents Calv. justit. Lib. 4. Cap. 8. etc. [Answ. We are not speaking of doing violence unto the persons of Sovereigns, or of committing parricide, but only of the matter of resistance, and of natural sinless self defence, which is far different from Killing of Kings: If he think the one of the same nature with the other, he wrongeth the King's life, more than he is ware of. Though Children as Children may not Kill their parents, yet they may defend themselves from their unjust violence. 2. We grant Kings are comprehended in the fifth commandment under the title of parents, as Calvin doth; and not only Kings, but all Superiors: & yet he will not say, I suppose, that we are not to resist the unjust violence of any superior, but that they are all so sacred and inviolable, as that in all things, they must be subjected unto, without the least resistance: and therefore what he addeth is not to the point.  
4. We have showed above, that there is a vast disparity betwixt Masters and Kings, in reference to their slaves and subjects; He himself acknowledgeth this, Pag. 31. [Yet (says he) though there be these differences betwixt the dominative or masterly, and the Royal or Magistratical power, the inferiors subjection in suffering (even wrongfully, if God permit in his providence the power to be abused) is no less under the one power, then under the other, by virtue of Divine Law. Subjects serve the Sovereign, (though they be not slaves:) and not only conquered people are called Servants, 2 Sam. 8: v. 14. but also ordinary subjects, 2 Sam. 11: V. 24. 1 King. 12: V. 4.— Though he also be in a sense their servant (not in relation of an inferior to a superior, for so the Magistrate is only the Minister of God for the People's good, and never called their Minister) but in relation of the means to the end— as Angles are ministering spirits for the heirs of salvation, and Ministers are Servants to the People, etc.] Answ. That the subjection is alike in both these relations, can with no colour of reason be asserted; for it is absurd to say, that Subjects who set up the Magistrate, who limit his power, who bind him by Covenants, and design their own good in setting him up, & do it in a voluntary way, are the same way subject to their Princes,; as slaves, who are as other goods for the profit of the Master, & are, both in bodies & goods, otherwise subject unto their Masters, and that in a manner against their will, either being sold, or redeeming their life in war, by giving themselves up as slaves. 2. As there are various Kinds of Superiors, so the relation varyeth, and is more or less close and efficacious, and the subjection must accordingly vary: I am not alike subjected to every one that is over me, as I am subjected to my Sovereign; nor am I so subjected to him, as to my natural parents, or as a wife is to her husband. 3. Though the Subejcts in some sense call themselves servants to the sovereign, (which yet is often a term of civil respect; for Naaman called himself Elisha's servant 2 King. 5: 15. and Obadiah said the like to Elijah 1 King. 18: 9) yet if they be not slaves; they must have more allowance than slaves have, and so have more power to resist unjust violence than they had. 4. If the Magistrate be the people's servant in relation of the means to the end; then the relation betwixt him and his Subejcts, is not such a relation as is betwixt Parents and Children, or betwixt Masters and Slaves; for the end of these relations, is not the good of Children and slaves: And next, Subejcts must have more power allowed them to see to the end, which is their own good, and to see that the means prove not destructive of the end: and if the means prove no means, the relation falleth, and he is no more a servant seeking their good, but a Tyrant seeking his own. 5. It is sooner said then proved, that the People who set up the King are not superior to the King: He should have aswered Lex Rex as to this: but it is like, he thinketh that his saying thus, is more firm and irrefragable, then Lex Rex reasonings to the contrary: But I know not who will think so with him. 6. There is a great difference betwixt Angels serving the saints, or rather serving God that way; and the King serving his People: The saints have no hand in setting up angels to protect them, as People have in setting up Magistrates. 7. If they be servants as ministers are, then, though in regard of their official power they should not be subject to the People, yet they may be resisted, as was shown above: and this is all we press for.  
5. There is a great difference betwixt suffering of Buffet, and correction, and such like petty, private, personal injuries, at the hands of Parents or Masters; and the suffering of loss of Liberties, Life, Lands, Religion, and such like, which tend to the ruin of the Commonwealth. To this our Surveyer replieth two things Pag. 32. as, 1. [The grounds that such men go upon for private people violent resisting the Magistrate (viz. the abuse of his power) if they hold good, will as effectually evince a non-subjection & violent resistance to Parents and Masters in abusing their power.] Answ. We say not that the Magistrate's abuse of his power is the only ground of resistance; this should have been showed, and not said barely, as it is here: But when other things give ground of resistance, yea and a call thereunto, it is enough for us to say, that we resist not the power, but the abuse of the power. 2. Though we walked upon no other ground (which is false, as is clear from what is said) yet his consequence would be null, unless he should affirm, which yet he dar not, That the Magistrate is under no other obligation to his Subjects, than Parents are to their Children, and Masters to their Slaves. But what says he? 2. [as death is not, so no punishment unjustly inflicted is eligible, where lawfully it can be warded off. But this is the state of the question, if private people may lawfully violente the Magistrate abuseing his power: if in greater evils unjustly inflicted, there is always a liberty for inferiors violently to re-offend the powers above them? Why not in less evils too? These gradual differences of inflicted evils cannot make such variation, in the point of duty, seeing the grounds hold equally strong; if a man may resist the Magistrate for abuse of his power, he may do so also against his father, or Master on the same grounds, and if he may not so deal with them, he may not deal so with the Magistrate neither] Answ. It is true that no punishment unjustly inflicted is eligible where lawfully it can be warded off; but there may be more said, for the lawfulness of warding off of death, then for warding off a little blow. And 2 there may be more said for warding off a blow, then for warding it off by violenting the Superior: We speak not of violenting the Superior, but of warding off the blaes and bitter blows, and such other iujuries equivalent to death, done by his bloody emissaries, which may be done without violent re-offending the powers above us. 3. When the injuries are great and grievous, and not easily reparable, God and nature will allow, a warding of these off, even by violence, when they can no otherwise be shuned. Though a Child may willingly Subject himself unto correction, though he do not really deserve it, yet if his father in stead of taking a whip to chastise him, shall take a sword to hew him in pieces, or a knife to cut his throat. I suppose in that case, the Child may refuse hearty subjection, and either flee away, or if he cannot, save his life so long as he can, either by calling for help, or with his own hands if he be able. And here he will grant, I suppose, that the gradual difference of inflicted evils will make a variation in point of this duty of resistance. So in smaller injuries subjects may be patient, and bear a little, for redeeming more, and rather suffer the loss of little then hazard all, but when it comes to an extremity; and Life, and Religion and Liberty, and all that is dear to them as men as Christians, is in eminent and unavoidable hazard, than they may lawfully stand to their defence, and resist that abused power, not merely, nor only, nor formally, because it is an abused power, but because it is so abused, as that it destroyeth the ends for which it was apppointed, and destroyeth all that is dear unto them, and which they are bound to defend, upon any hazard, if it be in their power; because the loss is irreparable. Though a gradual difference of evil inflicted do not vary the spece of evil inflicted, the least evil inflicted being an evil essentially as well as the greatest, to him who doth inflict it; yet it may alter the ground of resistance, not only of superiors, but also of equals and inferiors; for I may bear with a small injury at the hand of mine equal and inferior, and not so much as seek reparation by law, when I see that either the matter is not tanti, or that I shall expend more in regaining my own, than all my loss was: But will he think that upon this ground it will follow, that if mine equal or inferior shall endeavour by fraud or falsehood, to take from me my whole estate, I may not then sue him at the law, and vindicate my own? Sure it were irrational to say so.  
6. This will speak as much against resisting of the inferior powers, as resisting of the Supreme: For they are metaphorical Fathers too, and superiors over us, as well as the Sovereign, and the comparison will hold in the one, as well as in the other. Now if he think that the concurrence or command of the Inferior Magistrate, will not warrant Subjects to resist the Supreme; He must also say that the concurrence or command of the Superior, will not warrant a resisting of the inferour; and so it shall be alike unlawful to resist any, if this comparison hold, according to his urging of it: For it was not lawful for the Child to resist the Mother, but to suffer patiently her chastisement, though the Father should have been indulgent, and would have pardoned the Child, or extenuated and excused the Child as not guilty of the fault alleged. So was the child also obliged to be Subject unto his Father's corrections, though the indulgent Mother would have taken the Child's part against the Father.  
7. The Servant was to bear buffets patiently 1 Pet. 2. & after Christ's example was not to buffet again; for Christ being reviled did not revile again, and so the place speaketh not against resistance for self defence; but against buffeting again, which is no formal warding off of blows, & floweth not from sinless nature seeking to defend itself; but rather from a spirit of revenge: So that, for all this, the Servant might have warded off blows, and saved his head with his arms, when his cruel Master was seeking to break his head.  
8. It is one thing to speak of what a Child may do, who hath no power to resist his father, or what a slave is called to, who hath no power or probable way to resist his Master; & another thing to speak of what a Nation, or a Considerable part of a Nation may do against a few, whose unjust violence they are able to resist.  
9 The main ground of this argument is a mistake; for he thinketh that patient suffering is inconsistent with resisting. But Lex Rex quaest 30. Pag. 281. hath showed a consistency, (but it is his best, according to his usual custom, to pass over such things as he cannot answer.) So that the consequence is a mere nullity: for because servants are to suffer unjust buffet, at the hands of their wicked Masters, It will not follow, That therefore they are obliged in conscience to non-resistence: for as Lex Rex showeth, The Church of God was to bear with all patience the indignation of the Lord because she had sinned Micah. 9 10, 11, 12. and yet she was not obliged to non-resistence; but rather obliged to fight against here Enemies. David bear patiently the wrong that this Sun absolome did to him, as is clear by 2 Sam. 25: ver. 25, 26. and Cap. 16: v. 10, 11, 12. Psal. 3: v 1, 2, 3. Yet did he lawfully resist him and his forces. So we are to bear sickness, pains, and torments, which the Lord sendeth on us; and yet very lawfully may we labour and use all lawful means to be freed from them.  
10. Christ's Rule to us; Math. 5: v. 39 is, that whosoever shall smile us on the right cheek, we should turn the other to him also, and what more patient subjection can be required by a Magistrate of his subjects? and yet this will not make it altogether unlawful for private people to defend themselves from unjust violence offered them, by their equals or inferiors. No more will it follow from that patient subjection that we owe to Rulers, that in no case we may resist their unjust violence, and defend ourselves there from.  
11. I hope notwithstanding of any thing, that is spoken in these passages, he will allow children when wronged by their Parents, and Servants when injured by their Masters, liberty to complain to Magistrates who are over both, and yet this is the useing of a legal resistance, and as much opposite (if at all opposite) to the patience and subjection enjoined, as is violent resistance, when that legal resistance cannot be had; as suppose, when Father and Son, and Master and Servant are living in no Community, where there are Rulers and Judges over them: and if this be lawful in this case (as it cannot be denied) then must it also be lawful for subjects to repel the unjust violence of Princes with violence: Because there is no political Rulers over both King & People. But People must make use of that Court and tribunal of necessity, which nature hath allowed, and by innocent violence, repel the unjust violence of Princes, seeing there is no other remedy.  
His second ground out of Scripture is taken from Mat. 5: ver. 10. 1 Pet. 4: ver. 14, 17. and the like places; [Where there is a commended suffering for Christ and Righteousness sake, and consequently a sort of commanded suffering: a suffering contradistinct from suffering for evil doing, even a cleanly submission to suffer in and for well doing (when God in his providence permits Rulers so to abuse their power) which passive subjection or submission is not grounded on the Rulers abuse of his power through his corrupt will, but upon the peculiar command of God enjoining submission in such cases.]  
Answ. 1. These & the like speak nothing at all to the point: For, as we may be persecuted for righteousness sake by equals, Yea and by inferiors; so we are to suffer that persecution, when God in his providence calleth us thereunto, with patience and humble submission of Spirit. But is this a good argument, to prove that it is unlawful for us to resist and repel injuries offered to us by equals or inferiors? And if it will not prove it unlawful for us to resist our equals or inferiors, neither can it hence be inferred that it is unlawful for us to resist Superiors. 2. By this same reason the King if a Christian, is bound to submit as well to his subjects, as they to him; at least, he is not bound to resist a foreign King invading him for Religion, which I know not who will grant. 3. That God always calleth us to submissio nor passive subjection, when in his providence he permits Rulers to abuse their power, is the thing in question, and this argument doth no way prove it. 4. We grant, that God calleth us to suffer for righteousness sake, patiently and Christianly, whether at the hands of Superiors, or at the hands of equals or inferiors, when in his providence we are so stated, as that we must either suffer, or sin by denying a testimony for his truth and cause: But that, when a door is opened for eshewing suffering, and God in his providence seemeth not to call us thereunto (as he never doth, when he giveth a fair way of preventing it) we are called to suffer, and bound to choose suffering at the hands of any, is denied and not proved by him.  
But further he tells us. That [Lex Rexquaest. 30. Leers at passive obedience, as a chimaera, as a dream, and as involving a contradiction: And he thinks (says he) he speaketh acutely, in saying, God never gave to any a command to suffer for well doing, nor at all to suffer (suffering depending on the free will of another without us, and not on our own free will; and so not falling under any command of God to us,) but he reasons (says he) very sophistically, inferring that because mere suffering, which necessarily depends on the action of another, is not commanded to us, therefore subjection to suffering, or passive obedience is not commanded, when the Magistrate inflicts suffering.] Ans. The worthy Author of Lex Rex was there answering the objection of Royalists, who alleged such places, where, they supposed, we were commanded to suffer, and among several assertions, which he laid down to solve this, he had this assertions, That suffering formally as suffering, nor non-resisting passive, could fall under no formal law of God, except in two cases, 1. in the point of Christ's passive obedience, and 2. indirectly and comparatively, when it cometh to the election of the witness of jesus, whether he will suffer or deny the truth of Christ, so that this alternative must be unavoidable, otherways (said he) no man is to expect the reward of a witness of jesus, who having a lawful possible mean of eshevving suffering, doth yet cast himself into suffering needlessly. Now what a mere wrangler must this be, who sayeth, that that worthy Author did reason sophistically in so inferring, whileas he is only answering the objection: and hereby he doth it sufficiently; for if it be evinced (as he hath unanswerably evinced it) that passive obedience or passive subjection is not formally commanded; then their arguments proving this passive subjection to be our duty, are null; and so they cannot hence infer, that non-subjection passive is forbidden. And what have they gained then out of these places? Can this Surveyer affirm that passion as passion, or suffering formally as such, cometh under a command of God? no, he dar not, but must with Lex Rex say, that it is impossible that mere passion, (as to be whipped, to be hanged, to be beheaded should be the object of an affirmative or perceptive command of God. Why then is he offended with Lex Rex? Why jeers he at that worthy Author, saying he thinks he speaks acutely? is this to answer Lex Rex to jeer at what is there said, and then be forced (or speak nonsense) to affirm the same thing that is there asserted? But says he, Pag. 34. [Subjection to the passion may fall under a command, and this is called passive obedience, which implies more than mere passion or suffering; even a disposition and motion of the heart to lie under that lot with an eye to God, whose ordinance is used upon the sufferer; only it is called passive obedience, because as to the precise suffering the punishment, there is no external action done, enjoined by the law or command of the Magistrate, as there is in active obedience, although there be some dispositive or preparatory actions in order to suffering (not inferring a direct preparation to a man's own suffering) which he may and aught to do, as going to a gallows on his own feet, or up a ladder, or laying down his head on a block, that it may be strucken off.] Answ. That subjection to the passion might fall under a command was granted in some cases by Lex Rex, as was said; but that it falleth under a command when God openeth a fair door to eshew it, he is not able to prove. 2. How proper it is to call that submission passive obedience, is not worth the while to inquire, Lex Rex told us (and he cannot confute it) that it was repugnantia in adjecto to call it obedience, since obedience properly so called, is relative essentially to a law: Now there is no moral law enjoining this, for no man is formally a sinner against a moral law, because he suffereth not the evil of punishment, nor are these in hell formally obedient to a law, because they suffer against their will. 3. As for that disposition and motion of heart, which he speaketh of, that is nothing but what Lex Rex said viz. That modus rei the manner of suffering, was under a command, and indeed obedience to that was and is obedience to a moral law. But the Surveyer called it an error to say that only the modus rei is commanded or forbidden, and why? because (says he,) That same command that forbids resisting the Magistrate in doing his duty, enjoineth submission and passive obedience to him, although we were able by force to deliver ourselves, out of his hand.] Answ. Then by him, there is no medium betwixt this submission to passive obedience, and positive resistance: And so, either he must say that flying is resisting, (which yet Pag. 41. he calleth a monster of a Stoical paradox) or he must say, that flying and refuseing to submit to this passive obedience, is a submitting to this passive obedience: And whether this will not rather look like a monster of a Stöical paradox, let all men of common sense judge. 2. Is the guilty person bound by any moral law, to suffer death or whipping, if the Magistrate will not execute the sentence upon him? Or is every one in that case bound to deliver up himself to the Magistrate, & accuse himself, and pursue the accusation until the sentence be executed? If not, how doth this passive submission fall under a moral law? If he say, when he is apprehended or in hands, he is not to resist, but submit to the stroke. Answer. 1. Will not any see, that then the res ipsa is not commanded, but the modus rei, and so Lex Rex said true, Pag. 318. That passive obedience to wicked Rulers was enjoyed Rom. 13. only in the manner, and upon supposition that we must be subject to them, and must suffer against our wills all the evil of punishment that they can inflict, Then we must suffer patiently. But 2. Though we be bound to submit to the Magistrate doing his duty, and inflicting just punishment, will it follow that therefore we are bound to submit to the Magistrate doing not his duty, but inflicting unjust punishment? Or doth the same passive obedience to powers punishing unjustly fall under the moral law? How doth he prove either the consequence or the consequent? [We assert (says he Pag. 53.) That a private person though wrongfully afflicted by the lawful Magistrate proceeding according to law, (let it be so that it is lex malè posita or an evil law) is hound not only to Christian patience in suffering— but unto a submission without repelling of violence by violence; and that in conscientious respect to the ordinance of God, wherewith the lawful Magistrate is invested (although abuseing it in this particular) and with a tender regard to the prevention of seditions and confusions in humane societies.] Ans. 1. This is dictator-like to prove the conclusion, by asserting it; what a ridiculous fool is he to come with his assertions, and yet give us nothing but the very thing controverted? Is not this a very hungry empty man, to beg (when he cannot better do) the very thing in quaestion? 2. Then it seemeth, he will grant that a private person may resist the lawful Magistrate, when proceeding contrary to law; where is then the conscientious respect to the Ordinance of God, wherewith the lawful Magistrate is invested; and that tender regaird to prevent sedition, etc. which he talketh of? Sure in the one case, the Ordinance is but abused, as it is in the other. 3. Let me ask, if there were a just judge sitting, who would execute justice and judgement for God, and were summoning him to answer for his perjury, apostasy, and other villannies which he is conscious to himself of, and some others are privy to, and could witness against him; would he compeare, or rather would he not run from under the reach of justice, and secure himself? or if apprehended, would he not labour an escape to save his neck from the rope? If so (as all who know him will veryly belveeve he would) where would then this submission be which is due unto the Magistrate? And where would his conscientious respect to the Ordinance of God not abused, but very rightly used in that particular, be? 4. If a Magistrate abuseing his power to the destruction of the Subjects, should be resisted, what inconvenience would follow thereupon? [Seditions (says he) and confusions would be unavoidable, if every one, as he thinks himself wronged, shall be allowed to use force upon the lawful Magistrate proceeding by law; the greatest Malefactors being ready to justify themselves, and to violate the justest Megistrates in their just proceedings.] Ausw. This is but the old song chanted over and over again to us, and may therefore be dismissed with a word: viz. That as the Magistrat's abuse of his power in a particular, will not make the power itself unlawful (as he will grant,) so nor will the abuse of this resistance in a particular, make resistance itself unlawful. 2. We plead not for resistance by every one who thinketh himself wronged, but for resistance when the wrongs are manifest, notour, undeniable, ● grievous and intolerable, and done to a whole land, to God's glory, to Christ's interest, to a Covenant sworn and subscribed by all, to the Fundamental laws of the land, to the compact betwixt King and Subject, to Religion, Laws, Libertyes, Lives, and all which is dear to People. These wrongs as they are no petty injuries, so nor are they quaestionable or uncertane, but as manifest as the sun at the nonetide of the day. 3. What if the Magistrate or his Emissaryes proceed not according to law? And what if the law, which they pretend, be no law de jure, or a law made a non habente potestatem (as shall be manifest to be our case) should there no resistance then be used but a stupid submission, out of a pretended and supposed regaird to the prevention of seditions and confusions? 4. Since he thinks that so much regaird is to be had to the prevention of seditions and confusions in societies, sure he should think that as much regaird is to be had unto the prevention of the utter ruin & destruction of societies. Now, if magistrates abuseing their power to the destruction of Societyes, might not be resisted; how shall they be preserved from utter ruin, which is much more carefully to be prevented, than seditions and confusions in societies: And since he thinks, without ground, that our doctrine is so evil and scandalous, and openeth a vvide gap for all wicked seditious people to work confusion in the Commonwealth, and to overthrew the best and justest Magistrates; we have just ground to think that his doctrine is not only evil and scandalous, but most perverse, wicked and adhominable, opening a vvide door to all tyranny, oppression, cruelty; and an encouraging of all wicked Tyrants to deal with their Subjects as so many Brutes or worse, without all fear of opposition; and to destroy utterly all Commonwealths, or make them mere prison-houses for slaves, etc. And, if this doctrine of his tend not more to libertinism, then ours, let all judge.  
His last ground out of scripture is that known passage Rom. 13: ver. 1, 2. with 1 Per. 2: Ver. 11. (I think it should have been ver. 13.) Concerning which, he says, [Such subjection is there commanded to the Powers then existing or in being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (such as were Caligulae. Nero, Domitian, monstrou Tyrants. enemies and persecuters of God's People) as is opposed to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to stand in order against them (the word is from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a military term) every soul is commanded to be subject or to stand in order under them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and for bidden to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to stand in military order against them either defensive or offensive: By powers which are not to be resisted are clearly meant the persons in power, as the Apostle afterward extones himself v. 3, 4. calling them Rulers, and Ministers of God, he means undoubtedly certain supposita and her sons invested with power, and cannot mean the abstract ordinance of God, etc.]  
Answ. 1. That subjection here required is a standing in order under them, and is opposite to the resisting or contraordinatnesse here meaned, is granted; For 1. we do not say, that Christianity destroyeth Magistracy, or exempteth Christians from subjection unto Magistracy and Magistrates: As some Heretics than did, abuseing their Christian liberty, to destroy Magistracy; & as Heathens objected unto Christians ' as Gerhard de Magist. Polit. n. 34. thinketh, which (as some think) was the occasion of Paul's asserting the ordinance of Magistracy. Nor 2. do we say, That it is unlawful for Christians to be subjects unto Heathen Magistrates, which, because Christian Gentiles might have drunk in from some jews, particularly the Gaulonites, who held it unlawful to yield any subjection unto Roman Emperors, or to strangers, might have been the occasion of Paul's discourse of this Ordinance. And therefore to confute these mistakes, The Apostle says Let every soul be subject unto higher powers, etc. that is, acknowledge even such lawful Magistrates, though they be heathens, and ye christians, whether jews or gentiles, and think nor yourself exemed from the duty of subjects towards such. So that this makes nothing against us, and the subjection here required, upon this account, is not the subjection now in quaestion; for a resisting of open and notour tyranny, otherwise unavoidable, doth well consist with this subjection, viz. an acknowledgement of Magistrates as lawful powers ordained of God, for the good of the Subjects.  
2. The word subjection being thus taken in a general comprehensive sense, as containing in it all that duty which is required of Subjects toward their Superiors, The opposite term resistance, or counter-orderednesse must also be taken in a general comprehensive sense, as including all the contrary evils. Now, as obedience is a special point of subjection unto Superiors, So disobedience is a special point of contra ordinatnesse. But, as an universal and unlimited obedience, in all points, is not here required, so neither can an universal and unlimited subjection to suffering be here required: for as it can not be proved, that every act of disobedience is a resistance here condemned; & that every act of obedience, is a part of the subjection here required; So nor can it be proved, that every act of resisting or refuseing passive obedience is here condemned, and that every act of submitting to passive obedience is here commanded. But only that that obedience is commanded, which is due to Magistrates; and that resistance which is unlawful, & is opposite unto that subjection required, is prohibited. So that this place cannot prove that all resistance is unlawful; because nonobedience is resistance, or a contraordinatnesse; and yet all nonobedience is not here prohibited. Again, the subjection comprehends that honour and respect, which is due unto Superiors, and which is both inward in the heart, mind and thought, and outwardly expressed in words, gestures, carriage, etc. So must the word resistance comprehend within itself, all that is opposite there unto. Now, as by this place, it cannot be evinced that it is unlawful to resist abused power, or persons abuseing their power to tyranny and oppression, in our thoughts, and by our words: for than it should be unlawful to abhor, & detest the oppression and tyranny of cruel tyrants; or for the Messengers of the Lord to rebuke them for the same; or for People to pray & supplicat to God against them, which is utterly absurd and false: So nor can it be evinced by this place, that it is unlawful to resist such abuseing their power, by bodily force; for the text speaketh no more against this, then against the other; and yet the other is lawful; and therefore so may this be, for any thing that is here said: The one is resistance as well as the other, though not so great, but majus & minus non variant speciem. And therefore, if this text to not condemn all resistance, it cannot be evinced that it condemneth the resistance wespeak of.  
3. Not withstanding of the Resistance that here seemeth to be prohibited; yet we know that the Senate not only resisted Nero, but proceeded against him by way of open justice, deposed him, and condemned him for tyranny, adjudging him to have his head fastened to a fork & so to be publicly whipped to death, and then precipitated from a rock, but he escaped & killed himself (as historians say:) and in this fact they are approved by learned politicians, and lawyers. See Bod in de Repub. lib. 2: c. 5. So that either he must say that Nero was not the higher power, who might not be resisted, but that the Senate was above him; or that such as justify the Senate are in an error, and so he must condemn them for what they did, without any colour of reason.  
4, This text will no more plead against resisting of Superious powers, then against resisting of inferior Magistrates: For the text speaks of all in any supereminency: It speaketh of powers in the plural number: see the dutch annot on the place: & Peter mentioneth inferiors as well as the Supreme. Now will the Surveyer say, that in no case, it is lawful to resist even by force, the inferior Magistrates? will he say that we may not oppose them when abuseing their power: And if he grant that in some cases, inferior Magistrates may be resisted, he must also grant that this text doth not forbid or condemn all resistance to he higher power; but only a resisting of legal and lawful commands, whether by disobedience or by arms.  
5. Though we cannot say, that the Apostle is speaking here always of the ordinance of Magistracy in the abstract, so as altogether to exclude the persons invested there with; yet we think it hardly saife to say, that there is nothing here to be understood of the abstract office; as when he speaketh of the original and rise of the office, and of the end and proper native effect thereof, it is more proper to understand that of the office in abstracto, then of the Supposita so invested. Next whatever is required here as due to the Supposita, it is upon the account of the office, with which they are invested, and in so far, and no further: And therefore though the office and ordinance cannot be resisted, yet the person who is there with invested, may be resisted, not as he is invested, but as he abuseth the power, and so devesteth himself: for as he abuseth the power he cannot be looked on as invested there with, in so far; especially if he abuse it in the main and principal ends for which it was apppointed: for than he is de jure and upon the matter utterly devested thereof. Furder whatever subjection is due to the person, it is upon the account of the office, which he beareth; and no more subjection is due to him upon that account, then is due unto the office itself, or to the civil legal authority which is imported by the abstract word (if so much, seeing, a quo quidquam est tale, id ipsum est magis tale.) Therefore the subjection which is not due to the office, cannot be due to him: Now subjection is due to the office as it is the office: And an abused office is not the office, Ergo that subjection is not required to the abused office which is due to the office. Ergo nor is it due to him who abuseth the office. The office will not warrant a subjection to that which is not the office; and an abused office is not the office.  
6. The submission or subjection here required, is not unto Tyranny, or Tyrants who abuse their power unto the destruction of the Commonwealth, and to the ruin of the Subjects as such: For, such are not the ordinance of God (nor ordained under God, but opposite to God) unto which alone, the subjection here spoken of, is due. Gerhard de magist. polit. n. 54. Tells us that the apostle doth acurately distinguish betwixt the power, and the abuse of the power; and says the power itself, and not the abuse of the power is of God; and also, that he distinguisheth betwixt the office itself, & the person in office: the person oft by fraud, violence & falsehood and other evil means, by cruelty & tyranny, both assumeth the place, & exerceth the office, & in this respect is not of God Hos. 8: 4. 2. The resisting of Tyrants cannot procure damnation unto the resisters, because they have violated no command. 3. Such are not a terror to evil works, therefore submission is not due unto them as such. 4. Such will not give praise to such as do well; but that is the power which is not to be resisted, of which we are to be afraid, and of which we shall have praise while we do that which is good. 5. He is not to be resisted who is the Minister of God for good. But Tyrants, nero's who wished that all the Romans had but one Neck, that he might cut them all off at one blow, are not ministers of God, in so far, but ministers of Satan. 6. Such are not the revenger who beareth the sword to execute wrath upon him that doth evil, but rather employeth the sword to destroy such as do well, to subvert Laws, Religion and all that is good: Therefore it is not of such as such, that the text speaketh, when it says we must yield Submission. 7. As it is not upon the account of their playing the tyrant, and overturning Religion, Liberties & Subjects, that tribute is to be paid to them, so nor is subjection to be yielded unto them, in all points, but as they are God's Ministers attending continually upon this very thing, to suppress wickedness, & promove godliness. 8. Nor is it upon any other account, that fear, honour, and custom is to be given unto them. And so the text considers these powers, to whom subjeciton is due, not as Tyrants, or as abuseing their power to the ruin and destruction of all; but as carrying themselves as the Ministers of God, for the ends apppointed, and not as the Ministers and ordinance of Satan. Therefore not withstanding of any thing in this Text, such may be resisted, or rather their Tyranny may be resisted, which is not, nor never was ordained of God, and which is diretly opposite unto, and no part of that power ordained of God. And though Nero and some others were real Tyrants, yet neither doth the text name him, nor doth it press subjection to tyranny in any, for less to his Tyranny; but only subjection to the powers that are of God, & ordained of him, of which there might have been some who were not Tyrants, even when Nero was playing the Tyrant; And it is as rational to understand the text of those, as of Nero or such like. However we find subjection is pressed to the power which is ordained of God, and that is not the power as it is abused. From all which it is clear, that it is not the supposita, but supposita as such, which are not to be resisted, or such as carry in a due subordination unto God, seeing all the Apostles arguments press only subjection unto such, and not unto Tyrants, who are a terror to good works, and a praise to such as do evil and not the ministers of God, nor revengers to execute wrath upon such as do evil, but rather on such as do good neither do they attend upon this thing whereof the Apostle speaketh, and are so far from being the ordinance of God, that they are resisters Themselves of God's ordinance, by making laws contrary to God's law, and punishing such as observe God's law. It cannot therefore be more sinful to resist such, then to resist a deputy persecuting such as keep the King's laws, and making laws of his own directly contrary to the King's laws; for he is the Rebel and the resister of God's ordinance, and not they who are faithful to their Sovereign.  
To this he maketh some reply Pag. 37. and [(says) It hath been often granted, and still is, that no man or Magistrate on earth, hath a moral power, commission or command from God to do evil, or to afflict any unjustly, 2. The question is not concerning the Magistrat's duty, but anent the Subject's duty, in case through the permission of divine providence, the Magistrate abuse his place and power, in unjust afflicting the innocent; whether the private Subject may use violence against, or upon the Magistrate, or should rather submit to suffering, (though unjustly) not for reverence to the abuse of the power, but in reverence to God, whose ordinance the power (which he abuseth) is] Answ. 1. If Magistrates have no moral power, commission, or command to do evil, The resisting of that evil is no resisting of any moral power from, or commission given by God; as, if they have no power to command evil or sin, resisting of that command by nonobedience, is no resisting of their power or commission. 2. Though the question should not be concerning the Magistrate's duty, yet we are to inquire, what that power is, against which, Subjects may use no violence. 3. If Subjects be bound not to use violence, but rather submit to suffering when the power is abused, not for reverence to the abuse of the power, but in reverence to God, whose power it is: Why shall they not also be bound, rather to yield obedience to, then to resist by nonobedience, unlawful commands, though not for reverence to the abuse of the power, yet in reverence to God, whose ordinance the power which is abused, is; as he says? Sure the text here maketh no difference, and if there be any difference he must prove it from some other text, which we have not yet seen, nor expect to see in haste. 4. We have showed already, that, he says without ground, that the abused power is of God, or his ordinance. But there after, says he, [And although the spirit of God in describing the Magistrate says, he is the minister of God etc. It is not meant that that is the formal reason of subjection to him, (in the full latitude of subjection) nor that the Magistrates then existing and in being, to whom the people are commanded to be subject, and forbidden to resist, were such de facto in all their actings— but what the Magistrate is ex officio, and what he should be de jure.] Answ. 1. He seemeth to distinguish here betwixt a subjection in its full latitude, and a subjection not in its full latitude; but how doth he explain this distinction, that we may know what to make of it? He seemeth also to grant that some subjection, though not subjection in its full latitude, hath that description of the power, for it's formalis ratio, formal reason: But what can his meaning be, seeing the text maketh no difference? Is this his meaning, that subjection active, or active obedience hath that for it's formal reason, so that the subject is to obey no power, but that which is for a praise of the good, and a terror to the evil etc. But subjection passive or passive obedience goeth upon another ground, and must be yielded to a Magistrate even when he is not a minister of God for good? If this be his meaning; it is but a shameful begging of the question: and if he grant, that any subjection is due to the Magistrate, only as he is a minister of God, we are gainers; for he can never prove the other from this text; and subjection here is considered & pressed in its full latitude; and these are laid down as the grounds thereof. This we may saifly aver, until he demonstrate the contrare, which we despair to see done; especially seeing the text fully cleareth the same: For as subjection in its full latitude is pressed, so all the Apostle's arguments, & motives, speak to it in its full latitude: There is no power but from God, presseth whole subjection; because the whole power is from God, & not a part of it alone: & therefore it must speak to all the relative parts of subjection. So the other argument. v. 3; taken from the end of Magistracy, speaketh to the whole of submission in its full latitude: & also the other argument take from the nature of his office: and so the rest. So that all the motives or grounds of subjection, which are here made use of, speak to all the parts of subjection: And therefore if they be the formal reason of one part thereof, they must be the formal reason of the whole. 2. We do not say, that all the Magistrates then existing were de facto such as they were bound to be de jure (nor can we say that they were all like Nero or Caligula) nor dar he say that subjection in its full latitude, as comprehending as well active as passive obedience, commonly so called, was to be given to Nero and his like, or was here commanded to be given: and what hath he then gained? But it is like all alongs he taketh subjection for passive obedience. But 1. can that be subjection in its full latitude? 2. Was that the main thing controverted then? 3. Doth the motives speak to that alone? 4. How will he prove that passive obedience is here spoken to at all; since all the particulars mentioned are actions, and duties of action? What says he further? Pag. 32. [The Apostle speaking of the person invested with power, calling him the Minister of God for good, no terror to good works, but to evil, a praiser of good, etc. shows only what a Magistrate should be ex officio and is de jure; but lays not this as the ground of subjection and non-resistence to him but this, that he is a superior power ordained of God: if he abuse his place, he is to answer to God for it, but the abuse of the power in a particular, doth not nullify the power, or make it no power— he abides invested with authority— subjection of one sort or another is due to him, because he is in officio, not because he abuseth his office.] Answ. The Surveyer giveth us here a new Analysis of the text, that no commentator hath hither to thought upon: no motive, according to him, is here made use of, except one, and yet none can read the place, but they will find it otherways: Sure the causal for, ver. 3, and 4. is as clear a ground of a motive as the for v. 1, 2. By his way all the rest of the arguments used ver. 3, 4. have no influence on the subjection and non-resistence pressed; and yet the text giveth this reason why such as resist the power receive to themselves damnation viz. for Rulers are not a terror to good works but to the evil, etc. and this, with what followeth hath no small force to press submission, and non-resistence. 3. It is true if he abuse his place, he must answer to God for it, but that will no more prove that passive subjection, or obedience (as he calleth it) is always due to him, than it will prove that active obedience is always due unto him. 4. We grant that the abuse of the power in a particular doth not nullify the power; Yet, when the abuse is such, as destroys the main ends of the power, sure if it be not wholly, it is in a great part, nullified the lure. But whether the power be nullified or not wholly, it may be resisted in case of necessity, when it is palpably abused: For then the power which is of God, is not resisted: But only the abuse of the power, or that which is not the power ordained of God. 5. Subjection, it is true, of one sort or another is due to him because he is in officio, and therefore so long as he is in officio, he is to be acknowledge to be in officio, and to be obeyed in things lawful: Honour, reverence, tribute, and custom is due to him, and, in matters of smaller moment, his penalties are to be endured, when there is no fair way to shun them: But hence it will not follow, that he must never be resisted, even when he intends nothing but the destruction of Libertyes and Religion; and overturneth the ends of government, and crosseth the main and principal ends of his office and power. Then he tells us ibid. [That among many things wrong Lex Rex hath that true word Pag. 325. We are to suffer evil of punishment of Tyrants, some other way, and in some other notion, than we are to suffer evil of equals; for we are to suffer evil of equals, not for any paternal authority they have over us, as certanely we are to suffer evil of Superiors Thus he. And this is all we require to suffer evil of the Magistrate or superior, without violating his person, upon the account of his paternal authority, which (though in a particular abused hic & nunc) remains the ordinance of God: and in a respective reverence to that ordinance wherewith they are invested, we are humbly to suffer wrong from them (if we cannot by petitions move their for bearance) neither justifying in our consciences the wrong which they do to us, nor judging them to have a commission from God, as to this wrong doing, but regarding both God's providence, and God's ordinance in their people which ceaseth not to be his, although abused in a particular act towards us.] Answ. 1. It is strange how this corrupt fountain, as he calleth it else where, Lex Rex can send out good and sweet waters? 2. Lex Rex is there answering this quaestion: whether any passive subjection at all be commanded as due to superiors, Rom. 13. And answereth. [1. None properly so called, that is purely passive, only we are for fear of the sword, to do our duty. 2. We are to suffer ill of punishment of Tyrants, ex Hypothesi that they inflict that ill on us, some other way, etc.] Now what it there here that makes for him? Sayeth Lex Rex that we are to suffer absolutely all the evil of punishment, which they would inflict upon us? No such thing sayeth he. 3. If he seek no more than what Lex Rex sayeth here, we are agreed; but sure he must then recall what he hath formerly said. 4. Ay, but sayeth he, this is all we require, to suffer evil of the Magistrate, without violating his person, upon the account of his paternal authority: But 1. there is a difference betwixt suffering evil indefinitely and absolutely, and suffering evil ex Hypothesi that it be inflicted: Lex Rex said this last, and not the former. 2. We may refuse to suffer evil of the Magistrate without violating his person: every resistance of unjust violence offered by Magistrates, is not a violating of his person, nor necessarily accompanied therewith; for the violence resisted, may be, and oft is, committed by his Emissaries. 3. Though we are bound to suffer (ex Hypothesi that we do suffer) of Tytants upon the account of a paternal authority; yet it will not follow that such may not be resisted; for though the Son is to suffer evils at the hands of his father, when he inflicts these, upon a paternal account; yet in some cases, the parent may be resisted, even by the Children, as is said. 4. No respective reverence to the ordinance doth absolutely bind us to suffer; for he will grant we may flee; and here he sayeth, we may by petitions move a forbearance. 5. What if the evil be great and imminent, and flying is not practicable, and not only there is no moving of forbearance by petitions, but very supplicating is discharged under highest pain? Are we then humbly to suffer that wrong, and so give up all our Necks, our Liberties, and our Religion to the lust of a Tyrant, without any resistance? This is the quaestion, and we are waiting for proof of it. 6. It is true when providence so ordereth matters, that we cannot shun suffering, than we are to regaird both God's providence, and respect that ordinance which is abused, and so suffer such evils of these, under another notion, then of equals; and yet it will not hence follow that we are absolutely bound to suffer, and never allowed to resist.  
Thus we see in end, (which I would have the reader specially to notice) that he cannot urge this place against us; but he must the same way hence enforce an absolute and universal obedience in all things whatsomever; and also condemn other Royalists, and it may be himself also; Who, as we heard above, did grant it lawful, in several cases, to resist Tyrants. Yea and condemn that which formerly he durst not positively condemn, viz. resistance by the Parliaments and primores Regni, and thus also condemn Calvin, and other divines, granting, and positively affirming this: all which, though we had said no more, is enough to cut the sinew of any argument which he hath adduced, or yet can adduce from this passage; and so we pass to examine his other grounds for absolute submission.   

CAP. XIV.  
The Surveyors grounds for absolute Submission to suffering, taken from the primitive Christians, and reason, examined.  
Our Surveyer, cometh next to speak of the example of the primitive Christians Pag. 38. etc. and this he must usher in with his ordinaire jeers, and ground less reflections, telling us that His opinion hath been the common sense of the generation of God's children before this fiery iron age; and that their sober examples, are of more weight and imitation, than the furious practices of any of late, whereunto they have been inflamed by the doctrines of popular parasites and fierce demagoges, such as this libeler and his complices. But we have found, & possibly may yet find further, how far he is mistaken in this. And in deed in some respect, this may be well called a fiery iron age; for I believe since Christianity was heard of, there was never so much obduration of consciences, so seared with hot irons, and inflamed with rage against piety, fidelity, truth and uprightness of heart, as is this day: It were well to be wished hat this Surveyer and his complices would take either the example of the Prophets, or Apostles, or of these sober Christians, who lived nearest to the light of the Apostles times, and learn after their example to be more sober, and constant to his principles; sure he will not find in their practices, so much perfidy, treachery, debauchedness, hatred of piety, persecution of truth, and of the godly, as both he and his complices are notoriously guilty of. Will he find among them such court parasites, such patrons of Apostafy, such authors of rebellion against God, such Tyrannogogues, and base flatterers, as he and his fraternity are? Will he find in all their writings such bitter invectives and reproaches against the way of God, and his People, as may be seen in these few sheets? Will he find such commendations of tyranny, oppression, bondage and siavery, as if it were nothing but the compound of justice and equity? But we come to the purpose.  
The sum of his argument is this, That though by the testimony of Tertul. Apolog. cap, 1. 33. and 37, and Cyprian. ad Demetrianum. It is apparent, the Christians wanted not might to raise arms, against the Emperors; yet they never used any resistance either for the defence of themselves, or for therescueing of their oppressed brethren: Yea even after that in Constantin's days, Religion had been legally established, and the Christians able enough to defend themselves, yet they used no violence against the Arrian and Apostate Emperors who succeeded: Under the persecuter Maximinian there was the Theban Legion consisting of 6666. who yet did not resist him: and that the greatest part of the army, under Julian the Apostate, was Christian, appears by their general outcry at the reception of Jovinian, nos sumus Christiani, yet did they never oppose him width force.]  
To which we answer.  
1. Though this Surveyer would appear tobe a man of a very meek and Christian disposition, and cryeth out of such as are not of his opinion, as men of the fiery iron age; yet, though we will not take upon us to judge his heart, any may see part of his scope and intention, in mentioning this argument, to be this, That we may be reasoned into a perfect stupidity and insensibility, and the King encouraged to contrive and prosecute an Eleventh persecutoion, on all who profess the Name of Jesus, in his three dominions: For what end else doth he adduce the example of the primitive Christians, who would not resist the Emperors their bloody Emissaries, sent out to put into execution their cruel, inhuman and barbarous Edicts, and to fulfil their lust and desire, to extinguish the very Name of Christians; but to sing us a sleep, so that if the King will, the may command his bloody and cruel Emissaries, to make amassacre on all that will no abjure Christ and his interest, and cut all their throats in a few days, without the least fear of opposition? If this be not his design, let him tell me, what he would have Christians doing, in case such a thing as this should be? Would he have them resisting, or only holding up their throats to the bloody executioners? If he would not have any resistance made, even in this case, than we see what his principles drive at, and many may judge what a cruel bloody heart he must have. If in this case he would allow a resistance, where is the force of his argument then? To what purpose is their example adduced? and what becometh of his insolent exclamations. O silly, foolish, and feminine Christians then! and o illuminated, masculous and martial Spirits of Christians now!  
2. He may remember what he tells us, when he is speaking to the instances of resistance adduced out of Scripture, Pag. 67. That every example recorded in Scripture is not imitable: And may not we say here, That every example recorded in Church History (far more fallible than Scripture, and far less to be regairded, seeing what things are recorded in Scripture, are written for our instruction) is not imitable. So that reduce this argument into form, it will quickly vanish; for it must stand upon this medium. That what ever the primitive Christians did, layeth a binding obligation upon us; But this is false, as we shall undeniably evince; and where is then the force of the argument? Though it appear plausible and taking, yet when pressed it doth evaporat.  
3. If their practice be a binding precedent in this matter; so must it be in all other things: and particularly it must be unlawful for us now to resist, in our own defence, a raseal multitude, assaulting us with stones in the open streets, against all law and equity; for Tertullian in the same place tells us, that they would not resist the Inimicum vulgus the common people, who was maliciously set against them, and did invade them with stones and fire, suo jure with out any kind of law or judicial procedoure: Yea Tertullian puts no difference betwixt the Emperors and mean persons, in point of resistance; Saying, Idem sumus Imperatoribus, qui & vicinis nostris, malè enim velle, malè facere, malè dicere, malè cogitare de quoquam ex aequo vetamur. Quodcunque non licèt in Imperatorem, id nec in quenquam, we may do no more, whether in word, thought, or deed against any whatsomever, then against the Emperor. But who will say that in this, their practice or judgement is to us a binding precedent? 2. Several of these Father's thought it unlawful to kill in their own defence. See A 〈◊〉 bros. de Offic. Lib. 3. cap. 4. and Augustin also Epistola ad publicolam, 154. and Lib. 1. de Libero Arbitr. cap. 5. And yet this cannot now be maintained as a truth; See the contrare proved by Rivet. in 6. Praec. oper. Tom. 1. Pag. 1391. 3. Private Christians, not only refused to resist violence with violence, but they refused also to flee from the fury of persecuters, when they might saifly have done it, Potuimus (says Tertull. in Apolog.) & inermes nec rebels, sed tantummodo discordes soltus divortii invidia adversus vos dimicasse, etc. That is, naked as they were, they might have removed themselves to some other part of the world, and they would not. Yea Tertullian did condemn flight in time of persecution, in his Book De fugâ in persecutione. But will any condemn this practice now, or think it unlawful, or unbeseeming Christians to flee from the fury of enraged persecuters? Sure this Surveyer doth often grant it to be lawful. It seemeth then that either he hath catched some error in his head, that is not Christian (as he speaks of us, Pag. 39) or all which the primitive Christians maintained in opinion and practice, was not so Christian as to be perpetually obliging. 4. The primitive Christians ran to martydome, when neither cited, nor accused, as is seen in Fox his Acts and Monum. Vol. 1. Will any say that Every Christian is bound and obliged to do so now? How then shall their mere example be obliging in the other practice? 5. The primitive Christians would not bow their knees upon the Sabbath Days nor eat blood. Must that example of theirs perpetually oblige us now? 6. Yea it was the opinion of Ambrose, Libr. 5. Orat. in Auxenti●●, that no arms should be used by him against the Goths who then invaded Italy, to waste and destroy the same, but tears: will it hence follow, That a Churchman may defend himself against open invading enemies, no other way now, but by tears; because he said, Aliter nec debeo, nec possum resis●ere?  
4. The Anabaptists make use of this example of the primitive Christians to disprove the lawfulness of war, as may 〈◊〉 seen in Gerhard upon that head: and would this Surveyer have us yet more Anabaptists, than he (wickedly and falsely) allegeth we are, in his bitter preface? It seems he would join hands with the Anabaptists as to this, and upon that accountwe have as good ground to call him an Anabaptist, as he hath to call us, jam sumus ergo pares.  
5. He cannot show us, that these Fathers did account it unlawful, simply in point of conscience, to resist Emperors wickedly persecuting: They hold forth no scriptural ground condemning the same, but rather seem to say that it was out of a desire of Martyrdom, which (as Sulpitius Sever us sayeth) they sought for more earnestly, then in his day's men gaped for Bishoprics; & therefore they willingly yielded up their lives and all, to the cruel rage of persecuters, that they might obtain the crown of Martyrdom, It is true, Tertullian says, Apud istam disciplinam magis occidi licet quam occidere. But this says not that it is simply sinful t kill in self-defence: but that they choosed rather to be killed or martyred.  
6, Though we shall not go about to call in question the truth of Tercullian's narration concerning the number & power of Christians in his time (and yet Mr Goodwin in his Antica●valierisme makeyth it very probable that he was mistaken in his computation, if he did mean it through the whole Empirre. Or that if it was so, it was not known to the Christians, and so it was all one, as to resisting upon that ground.) Yet we may say, That there might have been many things, which in prudence might have made them to forbear to go to an open war, or rise in arms against the Emperors, even this, that the Emperors always had a greart militia, many and strong armies on foot, against which, for naked persons (though many) scattered up and down the Empire, having few or none to command or lead them forth to battle in their defence, to rise in this case, had been no probable means of saifty to themselves, or of defence; but rather a mean to provoke the Tyrant more, and procure unto themselves more sudden death and destruction. So that not withstanding of their number, their capacity to effectuate such an enterprise, was but small and very improbable.  
7. The ancient Christians were not so utterly ignorant, nor so void of humanity and Christian love and Zeal, that being able to help, they would suffer their brethren to be drawn to death; what ever this Surveyer sayeth: but some times they rescued the oppressed out of the hands of the oppressors: For we read that about the year 235. certain men inhabiteing Ma●ëota with force resued Dion●sius of Alexandria out of the hands of such as were carrying him away. So about the year 342. the good People of Alexandria did with force, defend Athanasius. About the year 387. the People of Caesaria did defend Basil: See Nazianz Orat. 20. And also the People of Samosata purposed to retain their Bishop Eusebius Pius banished at the command of Valens the Emperor, had not Eusebius himself restrained them. And about the year 356. the People of Constantinople did in like manner stand to the defence of Paulus: see for this Blondel's Scholia in Grot. de Imp Sum. Pot. Pag. 65.  
8. Before Constantin's days, none of the Emperor's owned or professed the Christian faith, so that religion was not then established by laws, as our Religion is: and therefore all that Tertullian or Cyprian say, cometh not home to our case: Yea Tertullian sayeth they were but a number of strangers, exteri sumus, says he, & vestra omn●o implevimus.  
9 Though it is true that when Conflantine obtained the Empire, Christian Religion was more secured and established then formerly, yet did not the succeeding Emperors when they came to the throne, swear to maintain the same, and all who owned it; they did not receive the imperial crown on these terms; nor were the subjects bound unto them on these conditions; and so the instances adduced after Constantin's days, suit not our case, wherein Religion is become not only a legal right of the People, but a fundamental right, and the main clause and condition of the compact betwixt Magistrate and Subject, as hath been said.  
10. As for the Christians not resisting the Arrian Emperors, it speaks nothing: For, that controversy was long under debate, even in Constantin's days, and decreased nothing, for all the sentence of the Nicene Council, which passed against it; and hereby Bishop was against Bishop, Province against Province, Council against Council, and at length all the world almost was turned Arrian. What wonder then that there was no general opposition made against these Arrian Emperors, when their Subjects embraced the same delusion? And as for particular oppositions, we shall see some instances afterward.  
11. As for the Theban Legion, their non-resistence speaks nothing to our case, for then Religion was not settled by law. 2. For six thousand, six hundred, sixty six men to interpise a war against the Emperor and all his army, had neither been an act of prudence nor policy. 3. When he tells us that they offered themselves willingly to be butchered, holding up their naked bodies to the emperor's bloody emissaryes, we see what he would have all the honest People of Scotland doing this day, even going with ropes about their necks, and with open breasts, to the King's bloody Emissaryes, that they may murder them all. O But this man must have a bloodthirsty heart.!  
12. That all or ●he most part of Iulian's army was Christian is but supposed not proved; It was but a small part that being deceived by him under colour of a largesse, threw some frankincense into a fire secretly kindled in honour of an idol, and finding the deceit arose from the feast prepared for them, and ran thorough the market place, and cried we are Christians, etc. and called upon the Emperor to kill and behead them, till he was enraged and banished them. And as for that proof of it, that he adduceth, it is a nonsequitur: for it was the soldiers affection to jovinian, and earnest desire to have him Emperor, after Iulian's death, that made them cry our we are Christians, when he was refuseing to accept of the imperial dignity (for they compelled him, sayeth Socrates Lib. 2. Cap. 19) and for this cause to dissuade them from putting that honour on him, Or because of his own unwillingness to command over Iulian's army, which was Profaned with sacrileges, as Ruffinus sayeth in his history Lib. 11: Cap. 1. He told them he was a Christian, and that he would not take on him the command of Heathens. See Historia tripartitae Lib. 7. Cap. 1. and so supposed them to be all heathens: And therefore the sense of their speech was only this: Since ye are a Christian we will be all Christians also, take you the imperial throne notwithstanding of that. Moreover, though the soldiers in Iulian's army should have scrupled at making resistance against their Emperor and General, unto whom they were sworn as soldiers, it speaketh little to the point; for subjects are not so under their Sovereigns, as Soldiers are under their Commanders and Generals, they are under the General's pay, and so his servants, and are hired for his behoove, but the King doth not hire Subjects, nor are they his servants and under his pay, and he stands otherwise obliged unto them, than the Emperor did to his soldiers: finally Nazianzen in his Orat. 2. in julianum seemeth to say that the reason why julian the Apostate was not opposed, was, because they were not able For, says he, Nos autem quibus nulla alia arma, nec Praesidia, praeter spem in Deum reliqua erant, ut pote omni humano subsidio prorsus destitutis & spoliatis, quem tandem alium aut precum auditorem, aut inimicorum depulsorem habituri eramus quam Deum jacob, etc. i. e. what could we do, but betake ourselves to the God of Jacab, since we had no other arms, nor walls, nor strengths, being destitute and spoiled of all humane help: Sure this will not say much against us, nor for our Surveyer▪ Yea he hinteth in his first oration in julianum, That for fear of resistance & of crossing his end, the Apostate julian would not make open war at first upon the Christians, [Nos enim (says he) si vis inferatur, acriores obstinatioresque futuros, ac Tyrannidi obnixum pietatis Tuendae studium objecturos cogitavit: solent enim fortes & generosi animi et qui vim afferre parat contumaciter obsistere, non secus ac flamma, quae a vento excitatur quo vehementius perflatur, eò vehementius accenditur. i.e. [If he had used violence, he knew he had found us more peremptory and refractory, and ready to have opposed to his tyranny a fixed purpose and endeavour to preserve our Religion; for stout and generous spirits use to resist with greater violence such as violently assault them, as a fire blown at by wind, the more the wind beat● upon it, the more it burneth.] Which shewes clearly that if that Apostate had used force at first, he had met with opposition; and therefore he thought it fittest by policy to weaken them, disarm them, and subdue them, and then fall on them with force, and persecute them.  
13 If we shall adduce some instances of the primitive Christians defending themselves and their Religion by force, against the Emperor's Emissaries, whither will our Surveyer then send his soul? while he looked upon them as altogether free of any such charge, he cried out Balaam-like anima mea sit cum animabus veterum Christianorum but ere it come there, he must repent of what he hath done and said: But if their practice was suitable to ours, what will he then do with his soul? for he will not have it with the late Christians, nor can he now have it with the old Christians, and so it must go to a distinct place; and so it will, if he repent not. But to our purpose. 1. Blondel, in the forcited place, tells us, that about the year 310. The Armenians waged war against Maximius, who was come against them with an army, because of their Religion, and defate him. 2. S●crates in his Ecclesiastic history lib. 2. c. 30, (after the English translation) tells us [That by the command of the Emperor, and cruelty of Macedonius, it was proclaimed that the Churches of such as embraced the creed, containing the clause of one substance, should be thrown down even to the fundations,— as soon as the commissioners for suppressing the churches had given the onset, immediately a great number of Novatians, and divers others, which maintained the doctrine of one substance pulled down that Church, removed it to another place, and there erected it again— again Macedonius (like the prelate of Galloway) understanding that there were many both at Pophlagonia, and at Mantinium of the Novation opinion which could by no means be commodiously removed by Ecclesiastical authority, procured that four bands of soldiers at the Emperor's commandment should be sent to Paphlagonia, to the end the inhabitants might be terrified and thereby brought to embrace the Arian heresy. But such as inhabited Mantinium being kindled with an earnest Zeal towards Christian Religion, went against the soldiers with cheerful minds, and valiant courage, after they had mustered together a great host, they all marched forward to battle, some had taken in their hand long hedging bills, some had axes, some other met by chance with rusty armour; when they joined together and came to handigriping, many of the Paphlagonians were beaten down, the soldiers (few only excepted) were slain every one.] Moreover he tells us in the same place, when this Macedonius was about to destroy the temple in which Constantine lay buried, and had a purpose to translate the Emperor's bones, the people withstood his interprize, and when he goat the bones carried into the Church where Acacius the Martyr was buried, the multitude of the contrary side ran thither in haste; and this occasioned a very great slaughter, so that the Church, & the porch, unto the street, was running with blood, & full of dead bodies: & for this Macedonius goat little thanks of the Emperor. 3. in Hisioria tripartita Lib. 11. c. 15. It is told us, How the Christians oppressed by Barabanes or Baratanes King of Persia, did flee to the Romans to seek their help; upon which and some other causes a war arose betwixt the Romans and the said King. It is true they made not head against the King while they remained in his country, because they were not able; otherwise they had not run to the Romans for help. Our Surveyer cannot deny that they sought the Emperor's help, but he saves, This will not necessarily Import that they stirred them up to invade their King in their behalf, but that having come to them, they might have the help and benefit of their protection. But whether they stirred up the Emp●rour or not, is not much to the matter, seeing they came as suppliants and (as Socrat. says Lib. 7. Cap. 18.) craved that they would pity their case, and not suffer them to be so oppressed; and the Emperor made this one cause of the war, which he undertook against him; and was one of the causes (as the history tells us) that made the Romans angry with them: and when the Persian King demanded back his fugitives, it was answered, they would not do that, yea and that not only they would endeavour to set the suppliants at freedom, and deliver them from their oppressors; but also that they would undergo any thing for the good of the Christian Religion and (as socrat sayeth lib. 7. c. 18.) they purposed not only to aid them, but also with all might possible, generally to maintain the quarrel in the behalf of Christian Religion. Again our Surveyer tells us, that the Persian Kings had once submitted to the Romans. Which whether true or false, is not mentioned in all this history, either as the ground moving the oppressed Christians to flee to the Emperor Theodosius for help, or moving Theodosius to wage war against them. And so by this example of theirs, we see that oppressed subjects may run and seek relief from strangers, when they cannot help themselves. Thus we see this Surveyer's argument is many ways weak, and against himself. Moreover, 4. When Athanasius was forced to flee out of Alexandria, and Gregorius was brought thither with armed soldiers, and put in possession of the Church, the Citizens of Alexandria, not withstanding of Syrianus the captane under the Emperor his being there with five thousand armed men, were so displeased with what was done, that they set St. Denis Church on fire See Socrat. Hist. Eccles, Lib. 2. Cap. 8. Or, cap. 11. after the greek copy. 5. When the honest People at Constantinople had chosen Paulus to be their Bishop after the death of Eusebius, the Emperor Constantius sent Hermogenes the captain to thrust Paulus out of the Church, and when he came to execute his commission with force, the People prepared themselves to aid their Bishop, forced the house where Hermogenes was, and pulled him out by the ears and killed him: See Socrat. Lib. 2. Cap. 10. 6. When Paulus was again placed in Constantinople the Emperor sends Philip the precedent to remove him, and to appoint Macedonius the Arian, in his stead. But Philip was so afraid of the People that he went strait unto the public bath called Zenxippus, and sends for Paulus, and being in fear of the multitude, who being suspicious flocked thither, conveys him secretly out a back window: Then he and Macedonius went unto the Church, and were guarded all alongs by soldiers with naked swords, and when they came to the door, the throng was such that they could not enter, till there were some thousands Killed. If Philp the Emperor's Lieutenant had not been afraid of the People; he had not done as he did. So for fear of the People the Lieutenant of Valens the Emperor durst not execute these fowrscore priests, who had come 〈◊〉 supplicate the Emperor in name of all the rest in Nicomedia, and were commanded to be killed by the Emperor; See Socrat. Lib, 4. Cap. 13. all which says it was no rare thing for People to resist even with force the Emperor's Emissaries sent to execute his unjust decrees. 7. Socrates tells us Hist. Eccles. Lib. 7. Cap. 14. how divers Monks inhabiting mont Nitria, espoused Cyril's quarrel, and coming to Alexandria assaulted the Lieutenant in his Chariot with stones, so that his guaird was forced to flee away. 8. About the year 404. when the Emperor had banished Chrisostome, the People flocked together about the palace, so that the Emperor was necessitated to call him back again from his exile, See Hist, Tripare, Lib. 10. Cap. 13. 9 When Ambrose was banished by Valentinian the Emperor, at the instigation of his Mother justina, the People did resist such as came to carry him away, such was their Zeal for the truth, and love to their injured Bishop: see Hist. Tripart. Lib. 9 Cap. 20. and they would rather lose their lives, as suffer their pastor to be taken away by the soldiers, that were sent to pull him out of the Church, and thirst him away by force. See Ruffini Histor. Lib. 11. c. 15.  
Now let the Surveyer tells us what he thinks of their practice? And if he think their practice any other commentary to Rom. 13. then our glosses; and if it be any thing different from our practice, in these dregs of time, as he loveth to speak?  
We proceed now unto his Reasons, which are but the same things we have heard formerly. The sum of the first is this. [That doctrine cannot be of God, which to the eye of sound reason, doth unavoidably (if practised) overthrow God's order for settling Societyes, and open a gap to perpetual seditions against Magistrates,— and will please wicked malefactors well, being a proclamatoin to them, when condemned, to violent the Magistrate— for the matter is referred to each particular person to judge of his own suffering, and his discretive judgement must determine him to resist.] Answ. Here is a heap of words, but no sinews of an argument, This man is good at catching poor simple ones that cannot discern his tallacies: But such as are wise will smile at his confidence in reasoning after this manner: For. 1. His doctrine, not ours, overthroweth God's order: It is God's order that Commonwealths be preserved from ruin and destruction; that Magistrates should lay out themselves, and all their power for the good of the Realm over which they are; for as Ciecro sayeth eo referenda sunt omnia its qui praesunt ali●s, ut ●i qui erunt eorum in imperio sint quam beatissimi, and elsewhere ut gubernatori cursus secundus, medico salus, imperatori victoria, sic moderatori, Reipublica beata Civium vita proposita est. But by his doctrine, if the Sovereign will (and how mutable and inclineable to tyranny the will of Princes is, all ages hath witnessed) The Commonwealth is remedylesty gone; if he will destroy the same, there is no help; if he turn Tyrant (and one wretched Counsellor may in a short time by ass a Prince, that is not otherwise well ballasted, to this) ruin is unavoidable. But by our doctrine, there is a remedy to preserve the commonwealth from ruin; & more regaird is to be had to this, which is the end, then to the Prince who as such, is but a medium to this end▪ 2. Such as plead for the good of humane Societyes, should as much labour to prevent the utter overturning of the same, as to prevent seditions: Good physicians will labour more carefully to prevent death, then to prevent a little distemper or sickness; yea and will cause a distemper to prevent destruction: but this montebank, if he procure with his prescriptions present ease, careth not though the patient die the next day. But 3. How doth our doctrine open a perpetual gap to seditions? Because (says he) by our way every private person is made judge not only his own actions, but of his sufferings, and he must suffer no more than he thinks meet. But 1. would he have all the Subjects becomeing more senseless and stupid than beasts? Would he have them casting away their soul & judgement, that they should have no more use of their reason, to judge what either is commanded or imposed by penalty? If he grant a judgement of discretion in actings, how will he salve the Magistrat's credit and honour, and prevent rebellion and sedition, if there be such a necessary connexion betwixt the exercise of this judgement and the consequent he dreameth of? For disobedience is a resistance, as well as non-submission to the punishment. 2. Though we allow to every one a judgement of discretion, yet we allow no man's judgement to be the rule of his walking: We say not that an erring judgement is a rule to walk by, and therefore we say that a subject is bound to obey the Magistrates lawful commands, though he in his private judgement should account them sinful; so we say he is bound to submit to punishment, which is just and justly inflicted, though he judge otherways: Yea we grant further, he is bound to submit to unjust sentences patiently, when he cannot by fair and possible means eat them. Yea moreover we grant that in matters of smaller moment, he may lawfully bear with the loss of a little to redeem more, or save more from hazard. But our question is, if the Body of a land or a considerable part thereof, ought stupidly to submit to the loss of Life, Lands, Libertyes and Religion, when not only they judge these to be in hazard; but when all who have eyes in their head see it & it is undeniable, being written on all the Acts & actings of these in power, & palpably & too too sensibly felt by all such as desire to keep a good conscience, & to be keeped free from the raging wickedness & aposrasy of this generation. 4. Though I know few malefactors, who, when attached, arraigned & condemned, would not do what they could to deliver themselves from death, though this question had never been started; yet our doctrine will not warrant such to do violence to the Magistrate: For we judge it not enough that they say they are innocent and deserve on punishment. Our case is a case that is manifest and not our, and a public injury avowed and maintained: And will he think that because a Malefactor justly condemned to die, may not resist the Magistrate executing his office, Therefore a Land may not defend themselves, against the King's Emissaries sent out to execute unjust sentences, tending to the ruin and destruction of Religion and Liberties?  
His 2. Reason Pag. 44. is in sum this [That by this way Magisirates in doing their duty cannot be secured: for it is not enough to say, let Magistrates rule rightly, and not oppress, because that in the holy permissive providence of God, oft the best princes are not best used— some crossing of the will of a forward, and furi●●s party, may move them to fancy their Prince a Tyrant, and thereupon account themselves free to offer violence: And from resistance they will go to revenge (the fury of evil consciences instigating them)— in histories it will be found, that hardly did ever people resist a prince, but in end it came to revenge; and of times the best princes have been worst used, at least as evil as the naughtiest, as may be seen a 'mong the Roman Emperors, and Christian Emperors and Kings: and amongst our own Kings etc.] Answ. Lend us this argument, and we shall see what to make of it. By his doctrine people can never be secured from unjust violence, or from continual oppression and slavery; for it is in vain to say, let them do that which is right, and Magistrates will do their duty, for albeit it be true that faithful and honest subjects, may in the way of their duty, expect from God that he will incline the hearts of Magistrates to respect and encourage them; yet in the holy permissive providence of God, it comes often to pass that the best people are not best used by their princes: And this all histories both ancient and modern abundantly demonstrate. This court divine is all for the securing of the Prince in all his tyrannies & oppressions; and speaks nothing for guarding the saifty of the people, which is the end, for which Magistrates were apppointed: And this is to pervert the order of nature, so to secure the mean as to destroy the end: For that is to make the mean the end, and no more the mean. 2. We justify not Subjects as are unruly & seditious against good Magistrates doing their duty; nor do we plead for Subjects rising up in arms against their Magistrates, for every small injury, or when they deviate in a little from the right way: Let him grant to us, That subjects may oppose their Magistrates, and resist unjust violence with violence, when, in stead of being Magistrates they become wolves and Tigers; and in stead of being pastors of the people, they become lions seeking to destroy and devour them; and when they overturn the ends, for which they were apppointed, and destroy the liberties of the Subject, & overturn the Religion, which they were obliged & sworn to defend, in their place and according to their power, and we desire no more. 3. If any under pretext of repelling of violence, shall unjustly injure the Magistrate, we approve not such, we justify them not, let them answer for that themselves. This is nothing to our question: if he say that our doctrine openeth a gap to this, He is mistaken, for such as say that the sinful and unjust commands of Magistrates should not b e obeyed, do not open a gap to all disobedience, even in the most just commands. And since he will grant that unjust commands ought not to be obeyed, let him close the door here, so that from this there shall be no hazard of mocking the Magistrate, when commanding just and necessary duties; And with the same engine shall we close the door, so that when we say that Magistrates destroying Religion, Libertyes and what is dear to Subjects, may be resisted, we shall secure the Magistrate from violence and opposition, when he keepeth within his sphere, and doth his duty. 4. If the matter pass from resistance to revenge, we approve it not; if the pride and haughtiness of the spirit of Princes be the cause of this, let them see to it, and labour to prevent it, by condescending to the just & equitable demands of their oppressed and grieved subjects. 5. We do not deny but God may stir up an Absolome and other conspirators against a Gracious David, for his own holy ends. But, in ordinary providence it is to be seen, that good Princes, while alive and when dead, have had more respect of their Subjects; then others, who have been most flagitious and wicked: The books of the Kings & Chronicles demonstrate this. That good Kings have been much honoured and reverenced while living, and much lamented when dead; and upon the contrare, wicked King's have either been cut off, or when dead have not been desired, nor burned with the burnings of their fathers, nor buried in the sepulchre of their fathers, whatever forced submission & outward respect they might have had while living. 6. As for the difference that God in his providence hath put betwixt Heathenish and Christian Kings see what Evagrius sayeth Eccles. histor. cap. 41. speaking against Zosimus, he hath these words worth the marking. [Let us see if thou will, how the Emperors which were Hethnickes and Panimes maintainers of Idolatry and paganism, and how on the contrary, such as cleaved unto the Christian faith, ended their reign: was not Cajus Julius Caesar the first Emperors, slain by a conspiracy? did not certain soldiers with naked swords dispatch Cajus the nephew of Tiberius? was not Nero murdered by one of his familiar and dear friends? Had not Galba the like end, Otho & Vitellus, who all three reigned only Sixteen months? what shall I speak of Titus whom Domitianus poisoned, although he was his own brother? what sayest thou of Commodus?— what shall I say of Marcinus? did not the soldiers use him like a captive, about Byzantium, and cruelly put him to death?— what shall I say of Maximinus whom his own army dispatched— were not Gallus, and Volusianus murdered by their own army? had not Aemilianus the like miserable end— But since Constantine began to reigne-was there any one Emperor in that city (Julian a man of thine own Religion-only excepted) that was murdered by his own subjects?] It were an endless work to run thorough histories, and show, how for the most part, (contrare to what he says) these Kings who have been resisted by their Subjects, whether in the time of Heathenism, or since Christianity was professed, have been most flagitious and wicked? Sure, if we should go no further but to our own history, we shall find this put beyond all question, the Surveyer himself being witness, who says Pag. 78. that the instances of opposition made unto the Scotish Kings adduced by the Apolog. were but [the insurrection of Nobles against the Kings, and violent oppressions of such of them, as have been flagitious and tyrannous.] And thus he contradicteth, what he just now said. But to what purpose is all this stir? He says, but can he prove, that we assert, That any party of the people, when strong enough, may get up against the King and all Magistrates, when they judge that they deal wrongously and injuriously with them? Sure the thing which we affirm is far contrary to this, as hath been often times showed. We know that [the evil wit of a seditious party can soon paint the Best King as a black and ugly Tyrant] and we know also, that the evil wit of a hired court-parasite, and bese flatterer can paint out the blackest Nero, or Caligula, or a Heliogabalus, as a brave and virtuous prince. And this is nothing to our case, when the acts of Tyranny and oppression, are as legible, as if written with the sunbeams: It behoved to be strange vermilion that would serve to make the apostasy, perjury, oppression and tyranny of the now Prince and Rulers, appear whit and comely; and he needs no great wit who would paint out these gross acts under the form of ugly Tyranny: Yet with all we shall willingly grant to him, that, [All the fearers of God should rather endure some acts of real tyranny, then by doctrine or practices of resistance, open a door to the destruction of good Kings (by a party not of their spirit, but lurking under their pretences) and to the continual dissolution, concussion, and desolation of humane societies] for this is not the thing we are against: Some acts of Tyranny we are willing to endure, provideing he will grant us liberty both to teach & practise resistance, when the acts of tyranny are not one or two, but many; nor acts of Tyranny in smaller and less considerable matters; but such as tend to the destruction of the true Libertyes of the Subject, to the overturning of a Covenanted work of Reformation, sworne-to by all ranks and degrees of people; howbeit men of corrupt principles, and of another spirit, should lurk under these pretences. Is it not reasonable, that we also demand of this Surveyer while he is in a good mood, That he would evidence so much fear of God, as not to condemn resistance unto real tyranny, so as to open a gap to all the ingrained & bloody Nerves and such prodigious Canibales, to waste & destroy at pleasure the best of Subjects. What followeth concerning obedience active and Subjection passive, hath been spoken to formerly, and it is needless fill up pages with repetitions, as he doth: only whereas he citeth Apolog. Pag. 376, & 377. granting that subjection is necessary, and supposeth that this is repugnant to what Naphtali sayeth, He would know that he is in a great mistake, for the question there is concerning obedience in things indifferent, or of submitting to the penalty, and that by a few private people; and though in this case a single person, who will not obey the Magistrate in these matters must yield the penalty, and so acknowledge his subjection, it will not follow that a multitude or a Community, forced under intolerable penalties to acts of impiety and heinous transgression, and who can defend their rights and just privileges palpably and iniquously violated, may not repel such unjust force with force; & resist intolerable tyranny, abusing the ordinance of God to all acts of wickedness, and to the overturning & destroying the very ends of government? And to this Naphtaly speaketh Pag. 28. So that he but gives vent to his profane Spirit, to cry out, as he doth Pag. 46. and say [Good God to what times are we reserved? to see so certain truths, that may be reckoned among the immovables of Religion, and the ancient land marks removed, by an upstart furious Crew, who by their new principles (as false as new) seek to confound both Church and State? The lawfulness of private men's counter acting, and violent resistance to a whole Church & a whole State, is a main article of their new faith, & to do so is one of their new commands added to God's.] For 1. It never was a certain truth, nor ever was reckoned among the immovables of Religion (except by Court divines, & base flattering Sycophants, whose main and only Religion was and is, to please the King, that he might full their bellies) that absolute and illimited subjection was due to Princes by the whole body of the People, so that if he should send our Emissaries, like so many wild Bears, to kill Man, Wife, and Children, Without colour and pretence of Law or reason, People should do nothing but cast open their breasts, and hold up their throats, that they may be devoured at once: what sound Divine sayeth so? What sound Divine putteth this brutish subjection among the ancient land marks? Yea what sober Royalist (that is not with this surveyer intoxicate with Royal gifts, till his brains be cracked, and his rationality brutified) dar positively aver that this is to be put among the immovables of Religion? 2. This principle which he calleth new, and as false as new, is an old truth verified by the practices of all ages, and is as true as old; which he might easily see, if his new dignities and gifts had not blinded his eyes, and made him as false and perfidious, as he is notour. 3. He tells that our principle tends to confound both Church and State; because we plead against Tyranny either in Church or State; a pretty reason: Because we plead for that, which tendeth to the preservation of Church and State, in being and purity; therefore we plead for confounding Church and State? whereas his principle of Tyranny, in Church and State, is the readyest way imaginable to destroy both, as hath been seen by many sad and dreadful examples, before our days. 4. This man who hath perfidiously renunced his Covenant with God, and avowed his perjury to all the World, and his palpable breach of, and casting behind his heels the third command, talks of our adding new articles to our faith, and a new command to God's; because we will not deny the principles of nature, nor grant that freeborn subjects are slaves or brutes: And with him, Tyranny is the ancient Landmark, and the chief point of his Religion, and a main article of his faith, and one of the grand commands of the time. But many know at whose girdle his faith and his Religion hangs: But we will choose none of his Religion, principles, articles of faith, or commands; For they change with the Court: and we know Court Divinity is a coat of many colours, fair and fashionable, but such as will neither keep from cold, nor cover our nakedness, far less save from God's wrath in the day of accounts.   

CAP. XV.  
Some other Particulars, alleged by the Surveyer, against us, examined.  
HAving in the two preceding Chapters answered his main & Cardinal Arguments, our labour will not be great in confuteing what followeth.  
He says Pag. 22. We shake hands with any Papists, asserting that any person, unjustly pursued by Magistrates, may defend himself by arms, and slay them if he cannot otherwise escape, no less than Robbers or cutthroats. Thus Becan. Tom. 2. contr. Tract. 3. quaest. 8. & Swarez. contra Reg. Angl. Lib. 6. cap. 4. §. 6. So Aquin. 2. 2. qu. 70. Art. 4. c.] To which we answer 1. That the question, which these Papists speak to, is different from ours: We speak not concerning what a private single person may do when arraigned and unjustly condemned, but concerning what a community may do, when unjustly oppressed & persecuted by Magistrates, contrare to their trust and oath; 2. We speak not of private persons killing Magistrates at their own hand; but of private persons or a community their defending themselves against unjust violence: and this truth which we maintain, was owned and practised before ever any Papist put pen to Paper.  
Next he tells us, That Mr Calusn is of another judgement, Inst. Lib. 4. cap. 20. § 26, 31. To which we answer 1 Mr Calvin is asserting that wicked men may be Magistrates, and that such, though wicked, while they are in office, should be acknowledged as God's deputyes; for, (so says he §. 25.) [In homine deterrimo honoreque omni indignissimo penes quem modò sit publica potestas, praeclaram illam & Divinam potestatem residere, quam Dominus justitiae ac judicit sui Ministris verbo suo detulit: proinde à subditis eâdem in reverend: â & dignatione habendum, quantum ad publicam obedientiam attinet, qua optimum Regem, si daretur, habituri essent.] And in the following Sections showeth that such aught to be so accounted who are in the possession of the Throne, whatever way they have attained to it, as Nabuchadnezzar (who yet was but the hammer of the earth, jerem. 50: ver. 23.) Belsazer, and the rest, of that Kind, and therefore §. 29. he sayeth [Hunc reverentiae atque adeo pietatis affectum debemus ad extremum prafectis nostris omnibus qualescunque tandem sint.] And would have us §. 31. careful not to rub contempt upon, or to violent the office, or ordinance of God, even in such; which we easily assent unto: Because that this is not repugnant to a sinless self-defence, and resistance made to their open Tyranny, when seeking to destroy Religion, Libertyes, and every thing that is previous and dear unto the Subjects. It is true, somewhere his expressions seem to condemn resistance, but that which we have mentioned is the main thing he presseth: and he doth not speak to the case of resistance particularly. 2. Though we should grant that in this particular Calvin is not ours; yet the Surveyer must know that §. 31. he is against him also, for the Surveyer putteth Parliaments & all inferior Magistrates in the same condition with private Subjects; and yet Calvin sayeth that such as are as the Ephori among the Lacedæmonians; the Tribune's of the people among the Romans; and the Demarchi among the Athenians; and the Estates of Parliament, may and aught to suppress the Tyranny of Princes: And so in this matter Calvin shall be more for us then for him. 3. It would be noted, both in reference to the testimony cited out of Calvin, and to the testimonies of other following, That the case which they speak to, is different far from ours: For with us, both King and Subject are bound in a solemn Covenant to God, to maintain and promote a work of Reformation, and upon these terms did out King embrace the Sceptre, and became obliged by conditions unto his People: And sure more may be said for our defending ourselves, our Covenant, and our Religion, when unjustly persecuted by the King, then for other private Subjects, who are (by God's Providence) under Heathen Princes, or conquerors, or under Princes of a different Religion, and who have no security or immunity covenanted unto them by these Princes.  
Then the citeth some passages out of Peter Martyr's Loc. Com. Class. 4. Cap. 20. Pag. 680. etc. To which we answer, 1. The question which he moveth Pag. 680. doth not concern us: For there he says that mere private people may not depose Kings or Princes, or rise against them for this end, Vt eos à dignitate, seu gradu suo deturbent. Now this is not our question, which is concerning necessary self-defence in cases of extreme necessity. 2. He grants it lawful to inferior Magistrates, who set limits to the Prince, if the Prince violate his compacts, and break his Covenant, to force him to stand to his conditions, eum in ordinem cogere, ac vi redigere, ut conditiones & pacta quae fuerat pollicitus, complete, idque vel armis cum aliter fieri non possit. Our Surveyer will not assent to this which Martyr sayeth, notwithstanding he account him one of the most learned of our Protestants. 3. It is true Pag. 682. he would have private people enduring a Tyrant, who commands contrary to equity, and good laws, and suffer him patiently, as we are to suffer patiently sickness. But who seeth not, that notwithstanding of this patient submission, we may use resistance, as we may use resistance, by all lawful means, to sickness and diseases. 4. Though we should yield that such a Tyrant as he described should not be resisted, viz. such an one as commandeth contra aequum bonum ac leges, yet our case is different: For not only are there such acts of iniquity commanded; but also Subjects are compelled by mere force and cruelty, to consent to, and approve iniquous courses; and our Magistrates are in a singular manner obliged to prosecute the Ends of a sworn Covenant, which the Subjects desire to adhere unto, and for adherence thereunto, are persecuted in a most inhuman and cruel manner. So that this is tyranny of a higher nature, than what Peter Martyr speaketh of.  
In the next place he citeth Rivet. in Decal. Pag. 233. and 235. But we answer. 1. Rivet granteth it lawful unto all, vim vi repellere to repel force with force, a proveth it. 2. In the place by him cited, he is speaking of a private man's resisting the violence of another, who, if (under pretext of exponeing the law of Nature) should avenge himself, privato appetitu vel contumaciâ, or raise seditions against the Magistrates, he should but abuse his power and liberty, and this we grant. But our case is of a Community, to which Rivet speaketh nothing. Yea 3. in the other place, though he will not have a private person kill his Father or a Magistrate, in his own defence; yet he granteth it lawful to resist, so far as can be, to hinder our own destruction [Id (says he) nos absolute sontimus de Parent & Principe; quibus licet quidem resistere, quantum id fieri potest, cum invadunt injust; eo fine ut impediamus perniciem nostram.] Whence it appeareth that Rivet is much for us; for he acknowledgeth it lawful for a private single person to defend himself, as much as is possible, from the unjust assaults of Princes, Much more than shall it be lawful for a community to defend themselves against the King's Emissaries.  
After Rivet he citeth D. Ames cons, cas. Lib. 5. cap. 20. But Doct. Ames speaketh nothing against us, for he is summarily holding forth what is the duty of Superiors towards their inferiors, and of inferiors towards their Superiors; and among the duties of inferiors, he reckoneth subjection and obedience, but what calleth he this subjection? Doth he mean thereby a stupid and absolute submission to all acts of Tyranny and opression? No, but such an acknowledgement of their power & authority as hath with it a care to preserve the same unhurt. Now this is consistent with resistance in cases of necessity: A community may defend themselves from unjust violence of Magistratees, and yet attempt nothing against their just power and authority, but labour tenderly to preserve the same. 2. It is true, that he sayeth all violent insurrection is opposite hereunto, and also contempt: But that is violent insurrection against the power and authority, and not against the person who is abuseing his power to the ruin and destruction of the Commonwealth; for no body will deny but tyranny, and the Tyrant as such, may be despised and undervalved, without wrong to the power and authority if self. So may that be resisted without violation of the power. 3. It is true he sayeth that subjection may be, where there is not obedience, but wherein sayeth he doth this subjection consist? In submissâ recusatione obedientiae, quando illicitum esse constat quod a superiore mandatur; in a submissive refuseing to give obedience. And this is some other thing, than a stupid submission to all acts of Tyranny. 4. This same Aims Cap. 25. where he is speaking of Maagistrates and Subjects, and showing the duty of subjcets unto them, putteth subjection and obedience together §. 16. Wherefore, as hence it cannot follow, because obedience is due unto them, when they command things just and agreeable to God's Law; that therefore obedience is due unto them, when they command things unjust and repugnant to the Law of God: So nor will it follow, that because subjection is due unto them, when their power is not abused to the destruction of the Commonwealth; therefore subjection is due unto them or non-resistence, when they tyrannize over the consciences, states and bodies of their subjects, and labour to overturn all. 5. It is true he sayeth Cap. 31. §. 10. that the person invading may be such, and there may be such other circumstances, as that the person invaded may rather choose to die, as to Kill: But that speaks nothing to our case, which is a resisting to the King's bloody emissaries, not by one private person, but by a Community: And since D. Ames in the same Chapt. §. 4. 5. etc. thinks it lawful for a private person to defend himself even by killing the aggressor, when there is no other remedy, he will abundantly justify our practice. And likewise he alloweth this defence even in the behalf of others. §. 9 Rectè etiam extenditur ad defensionem non tantum nost●um, sed & aliorum innocentium: Hoc enim postula lex, ut proximum diligamus sicut nosipsos! And therefore Amesius is much for us.  
As for the two Papists Estius and Tollet whom he citeth▪ they speak not against us, who plead for the Liberty of self defence unto a Community against the Magistrate, and not to every private single person; neither plead we for a power of Killing Kings. And if they were against us he could not have much reason to say, that we joined hands with Papists. Thus are all his authorities from divines answered, let us see what he sayeth further.  
He tells us Pag. 25. 26. [That when Lex Rex had in severral places (such as Pag. 313. 314. 322. 463.) vented that principle in reference to the civil government, That no man is bound in conscience to subjection passive under unjust punishments inflicted by the Magistràte, more than to active obedience unto unlawful commands; and that passive obedience under unjust sentences comes under no command of God? Yea that it is a sin against God's command to be passively subject to unjust sentences, and that it it an act of grace and virtue, for a man to resist the Magistrate violently, when he does him wrong: and a self murder against the sixth command, not to resist when he offers to take away the life without cause, though not without law: They were quickly applied to the Church by this man and his party, who pleaded for non-submission unto, and counteracting of all the judicatories, Whensoever the people injured thought the sentence wrong— and how well their practices in the Church do homologate with their practices as to the State, we may now see; for it is the way which they clearly own, that every person (when and so long as they are able, or are in probable capacity, to act violently against the Magistrate) ought to counter-act him violently, when he thinks the Magistrate wrongs him (for this must be referred to every man's private descretive judgement, as Naphtaly tells us Pag. 141.— How contrary such principles and practices of private men's non-submission to, and counteracting of Church Judicatories (supposed to do wrong) are unto the Word of God; how subversive of Church government; how introductory of schism, heresies and all mischiefs into the Church, is well discovered by the learned Reviewer of the pamphet entitled presbytery no papacy, etc. And with equal reason, may the same grounds be made use of against this man's inciteing all private persons, to counteract the Magistrate violently, when they think he doth them wrong, or when they account their sentences unjust.]  
Answ, 1. It is a poor defence of a weak and tottering cause, to follow such courses as this Surveyer doth. To wrest and wiredraw the sayings of his adversaries, is neither a fair way of confirming his own opinion, nor a solid way of confuteing his adversaries. He sets down some sentences here, as assertions of Lex Rex: And if any will consult the places cited, they will discover unhandsome dealing. I shall only set down what Lex Rex sayeth, and the Reader, when he compareth, may judge. Lex Rex sayeth Pag. 313. [That patient bearing of evil and resistance, are not incompatible in one & the same person] Pag. 314. He sayeth [one act of grace and virtue is not contrary to another, Resistance is in the Children of God, an innocent act of self preservation, as in a patient suffering, and therefore they may well subsist in one.] And ibid. [Neither suffering formally as suffering, and so neither can non-resisting passive fall under any moral law of God, except in two cases] Pag. 322. [when a man may preserve his own life, and doth not that which Nature's law alloweth him to do, rather to Kill as be Killed, he is guilty of self murder; because he is deficient in the duty of lawful self defence.] And Pag. 463 [It is not dishononrable to the Majesty of the Ruler, that we deny Passive subjection to him, when he punisheth beside his warrant, more than it is against his Majesty and Honour, that we deny active obedience, when the Commandeth illegally.] I shall not trouble the Reader with words, to discover the difference betwixt what Lex Rex sayeth, and what this Surveyer allegeth he did say; seeing the judicious and observant Reader will Sine monitore easily perceive it.  
2. What the Surveyer driveth at in making this parallel now, may be obvious to any, even to embark with himself and his party, the few of those who were for the Public Resolutions, that have hitherto gotten grace of the Lord to abide faithful, and not to say a confederacy with all, with whom this Apostate generation hath now basely conspired, against christ and his interests. But we hope that those few will be so far from entertaining their former prejudices against their faithful and affectionate Brethren, who withstood these Resolutions, and owned the Protestations; that on the contrare, perceiving themselves mistaken as to what they feared, concerning the Protesters, as if they had intended to overturn all discipline and Church government, and to side with Sectaryes; since themselves have now seen some of them owneing the same unto death, and becomeing a martyr upon the account of Church privileges, & all the rest (scarce three of four excepted) abideing faithful, and suffering upon that account unto this day; and since with all they see the fears of the Protesters, concerning the inclination to Malignancy and Prelacy, of the far greater part of these, who stiffly maintained these Resolutions, now verified beyond all contradiction; and that their objecting, that the major part of the Ministry was then corrupted, was too too true, and too well grounded, which things, if these faithful men who now stand, had but suspected then, as now they see with their eyes, they would, (we are confident) have forborn to have sided with them in these debates, and much more heartily have concurred with the honest proposals of the Protesters, for a through way of purging the church of such corrupt naughty people, as have now most basely betrayed the interest of Christ, and departed from their profession and Covenant, and made that Church a hissing and a byword to all nations, by returning with the Sow to the puddle and with the dog to their vomit. These worthy men, I say, perceiving now how far they have been mistaken not to their grief but to their joy (as famous and zealous Mr Wood one of their number, did before his sickness, after some heavy groans, plainly profess and declare to a credible person, yet on life to verify the same, if any should question it) will be so far from owning this man and his principles, that they will rather, (we hope) condemn their former practices, if not altogether yet in so far at least, as it is now visible they did tend, to the setting up of a arbitrary government and tyranny in the Church, and are now improved by this Surveyer to confirm a Tyranny in the state. Sure they now see, what some at least of these, who were very active and forward to screw up that debate to the hieght, and to press and absolute subjection, might have been driveing at under hand, though they made such fair professions of their firm purpose to adhere to presbyterian government, as moved others to entrust them with the management of their affairs at Court, and while entrusted therewith, destroyed and overturned the whole government, so that now they will be loath to say as the Reviewer did Pag. 5, 6. [That the innocency of his agency, to prevent the evils the protesters were endeavouring to bring upon this Church, and his carriage and integrity in managing that Trust, are so well: known at home and abroad, that we believe he needs not write Apolog●ticks against the slanders of their tongue or pen.] And rather blush when they read or remember this: & we are hopeful that such and the like perfidious practices well pondered, will not only contribute much to reunite them in hearty affection, unto their faithful Brethren now in the same furnace with themselves, for the same cause and interest; but also cause them reflect upon their former proceedings, & consider what a native tendency, that which gave the rise to all that debate, had unto this, which is to day our sin, our shame, and our Sorrow, that they may join with the Rest of the faithful of the land, in mourning for such national sins, Whereby the wrath of God may be turned away from us, and the Church restored to her former beauty and integrity, in the Lord's good time.  
3. It is Manifest, that this Surveyer, who ever he be, & some others with him, had some other thoughts in their heads at that time, than they durst express; & finding the far greater part of the Ministry corrupted, would have had the rest resolving upon an absolute submission to all their determinations, though they had been openly & avowedly to introduce prelacy, yea & popery, & to have submitted to their summar censures of deposition, & what else they thought good to inflict, without the least resistance or counteracting, & thus to have patiently submitted, to see Christ & his royal truths banished out of the land by ecclesiastical acts, & Popery & Prelacy reestablished by horrible iniquity: Though we were ever confident, such as now through grace abide steadfast, had no such thoughts or intentions.  
4. This Surveyer dealeth with all alike: as he misrepresented Lex Rex in the civil debate, so doth he now misrepresent the protesters in the Church-debate; for when or where did they say, That people were not bound to submit, but to counter-act the judicatories of the presbyterial government, whensoever they thought the sentence wrong & unlawful? Did they ever assert that a man's own conscience, was the only warrant and ground of his submission or non-submission, or of his obedience or disobedience?  
5. So doth he abuse & misrepresent Naphtaly, as any will see who considereth his words in the place cited, which are these. Now how a discretive judgement in these cases, both of unrighteous commands, & wicked violence, & specially in the later, which is (by far) the more sensible, doth necessarily remain with the people, & in what manner the same is to be determined & cautioned, so as neither to licence disobedience against authority, nor create seditions in the Commonwealth, is already fully cleared.] This is some other thing then to say, that all is to be referred to every man's private discretive judgement, without any caution or limitation added or supponed.  
6. Because it is not our purpose to revive that debate which was betwixt the Protesters & the Public Resolutioners; but as we wish it had never been heard of, so we desire it may buried in perpetual oblivion; & that hence forth there may be hearty joining in the cause & covenant of God, for prosecution of all the ends thereof, according to our several capacities, That so we may become one stick in the hand of the Lord, & renunce this apostasy, & all courses tending thereunto, & so go on as before that un happy difference broke out, with zeal, & unanimity. Therefore we shall forbear to examine what that Reviewer, of presbytery no papacy, said: And though we find that much of what the Surveyer sayeth here, is borrowed from that Reviewer, & is answered already as to our purpose; yet we find the Reviewer grant several things, which will quite destroy the parallel, as to our case, & show the Surveyer to have been but a fool in mentioning that pamphlet now. For 1. He Pag. 104. sayeth [We do not urge submission, in this matter betwixt us, in matters of doctrine, or articles of faith, in morshipe, government, nay nor rules of discipline.] And so insinuats as much, as that if the Dogmatic and Diatactick power of Christ's courts be abused, and corrupt doctrine and practices pressed, he would not be for submission: And therefore upon this ground, waves the arguments of the protesters, taken from the instance of Athanasius not submitting to the Arians, deposeing him for asserting the divinity of the Sun of God; and the 11. Arg. making a supposition of enacting the Mass, and all the heresies of Rome, saying [For when Church judicatories deny homage to the Sun of God and return to Rome, We shall not debate the point of non-submission only with them, but shall run from them as from synagogues of Satan.] Upon this same ground he waves the argument 13. which did show that this submission was prelatical: And the passage of our confession of faith ratified An. 1567. which is thus, art. 12. [So far as the Council proveth the determination and commandment that it giveth, by the plain word of God, so soon do we reverence and embrace the same; but if men under the name of a Council, pretend to forge unto us new articles of our faith, or to make constitutions repugning to the word of God, then utterly we must refuse the same, as the doctrine of devils, which draweth our souls from the voice of our only God, to follow the doctrines & constitutions of Men.] So doth he upon this ground lay by what they said Pag. 49. [That by this submission there was no remedy, but that, at one stroke, the precious interests of Christ and truths of God must be borne down, and buried in oblivion, and the Saints and Ministers of the gospel be buried under the rubbish thereof.] As also their Arg. 15. which did show, that this unlimited submission did [Leave the Church destitute of all Ecclesiastical remedies, in the case of a general defection, and open a wide door for making the government of the house of God degenerate into Tyranny, etc.] And their 2 Argum showing how contrary it was to Scripture, and how hard it was to say that a man duly qualified, being suspended from the Sacrament, or from the exercise of his Ministry, or excommunicated, because of his pressing and holding forth some precious Truth of God, which a Church judicatory condemneth for a lie, should submit: And also their 8. Arg. Pag. 108. which was this [What is denied jure to Oecumenick Councils, and so lawfully called Prophets and Ministers of the gospel, to Nathan, to David, to Paul, to an Angel from heaven Gal. 1: ver. 18. cannot warrantably be given to General Assemblies. If— they teach or decree not according to the word of the Lord, we are to counteract, and to contradict Gal. 1: ver. 8. Therefore, etc.] Now in all these cases the Reviewer would not plead for submission to Church judicatories: Why then doth this Surveyer plead for absolute submission and unlimited to civil powers, since he is pleased to draw a parallel betwixt them? But we see that evil men and seducers wax worse and worse. So that by the Reviewer's concessions, we are not bound to submit when the higher powers persecute us for truth's sake, deny homage to the Sun of God, press the approving of corruptions in the point of government, destroy the precious truths of God, and interests of Christ, make a general defection and Apostasy: And in a word, turn Enemies to the liberties of the People, destroy the Covenanted work of God, oppress the Subjects in bodies, States, and Consciences; and so cross the very ends for which they were apppointed. 2. The Reviewer Pag. 109, 110. though he would have submission, in the matter of discipline, where the hazard is only personal, and a man's suffering is not tanti as to disturb a well settled national Church, where doctrine and worshipe are in their integrity; yet he thinks the case is of greater moment, when a National Church in her judicatoryes introduceth false doctrine, and corrupt worshipe, to be imposed upon a Church: And so dar not affirm that submission is in this case due. Why will not the Surveyer take notice of this & grant so much in our case? We should readily grant to him, that submission might be yielded in smaller matters, when the hazard was only personal, and the suffering of one, or of a few, was not tanti as therefore to disturb the settled State, wherein the main matters were keeped in their integrity. But he cannot in reason demand more of us, (if the parallel hold) or seek submission, when Higher powers are overturning the precious Truths of God, and interests of Christ, are destoying a glorious work of reformation, are pressing all to open and avowed perjury, are destroying the fundamental rights, libertyes and privileges of the Christian Subjects, and tyrannising over their Estates, their Bodies and their consciences. 3. So tender was the Reviewer that Pag. 115. he would not urge submission to sentences of inferior courts, when appeals from one judicatory to another could not be had; yet so untender is our Surveyer that he will have absolute and unlimited submission yielded, when he knows that not only is there no liberty of appeal granted, but not so much as liberty to petition and supplicate, to get any thing that is amiss righted. Thus he would have the whole land submitting to mere and cruel tyranny. 4. Pag. 129. the Reviewer said [We never asserted a judicatory might be contra-acted in no case, as we cleared before] far less will be affirm, that a judicatory may not be contradicted in any case, ibid. How cometh it then, that our Surveyer doth not follow the Reviewer's footsteps; but pleadeth for absolute and illimited submission, in all cases whatsomever. 5. Pag. 131. when he comes to that argument taken from the Tyranny which would hereby be introduced in the Church, which would consequently condemn defensive arms used against Tyranny in the State: He only says [That no learned man would ever allow people to rise (far less a party only) against a prince upon the account only of the unjust sufferings of particular people, whole yet the affairs of Church and State were well ordered-while yet they adhered unto & overturned none of the righteous things in a nation.] Sure then it will be allowed by him, that people, though the lesser part, defend themselves against Tyranny; when not only particular people are unjustly suffering, but the righteous things once concluded and confirmed by laws, Oaths Vows, Covenants, Acknowledgements, Declarations, & Protestations, are overturned; the work of God razed to the foundation; perjury and breach of Covenant established; Conrses laid down for a constant exercise of tyranny and oppression etc. again. 6. pag. 134. [let once (says he) a judicatory grow so corrupt as to condemn the duties of preaching Christ, and participation of public ordinances, in the very nature and kind, and as to all sorts of persons universally— and in that case we shall without scruple conclude them no true courts of Christ, & consequently not to be submitted unto; yea in case such decrees were published, we should hold it a case of confession for ministers to preach▪ and people to frequent ordinances so long as they had liberty or opportunity.] How then can submission be given to these in power, who now have destroyed the interests of Christ, and will suffer none to plead or contend for Christ and his oppressed truth, or speak against perjury and dreadful defection, where of the land is now guilty? But enough of this, we proceed.  
Another particular which we shall here examine is that discourse he hath concerning I Sam. 8: ver. 10. Pag. 63: 64. The sum of what he sayeth is this. [It is true (says he) the place, I Sam. 8: ver. 10. neither contradicts nor repeals that law Deut. 17: ver. 14.— But it is false that only the tyranny of a King is there spoken of by way of mere dissuasive: Moses and Samuel agree: The one shows what a King should do ex officio and de Jure, The other what a King may do, by the power he hath, and yet not be ●b●oxious to punishment, from Subjects,— or what a people should suffer of an evil King, without attempt of violence upon him. The one sets out God's approbative law, The other his permissive law— as albeit the Lord approve not divorce, yet by a permissive law, Deut 24: ver. I. Husbands had liberty to put away their Wives, without being obnoxious to humane punishment— The fact it the manner of Tyranny, but the permissive power without punishment from subjects, is the just right of all lawful Kings— Though Samuel might have here intended to dissuade the people; yet his main intention was to show the people their duty under a King's oppression, what they were to suffer without resistance; for to what purpose should he have written the Manner of the King in a book, and laid it up before the Lord, 1 Sam. 10: ver. 25. But to teach the people their beheaviour to the King? So that this was not the law of the King, Deut. 17. which was already keeped in the Ark.]  
Answ. 1. It is well that he granteth that this ●us Regis Or the manner of the King is de facto the manner of tyranny; and so that it was no ways lawful for the King to do these things there mentioned, which yet other Royalists do peremptorily, deny and aver hence, that Kings have full, absolute and illimited power over the Subject's persons and goods. And thus as to the King's part, he must grant that what is here spoken, is contrary to what is said, Deut. 17.  
2. All the circumstances of the text show, that this tyranny of the King is spoken of merely in way of dissuasive; for it was a King to judge them like unto the Kings of other Nations, which they were seeking, and this displeased Samuel ver. 6. and the Lord said to Samuel, that hereby they had rejected not Samuel, but himself, that he should not reign over him, ver. 7. and the Lord commanded him solemnly to protest against them, and then show them the manner of the King: and what else was this for, but to bring them off their purpose, and dissuade them from prosecuteing it any further? But it is said, ver. 19 Nevertheless the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel. now what else was the voice of Samuel then a dissuasion? Let him look the English and Dutch Annot. upon the place, and other Commentators, and he will find it so  
3. That which he takes the meaning of this manner of the King to be, is the old saying of Barclaius long since exploded by Althusius in his Politic. cap. 19 num. 58. thus [Impunity (says he) in committing wickednese can make no right: Princes have no power to do evil, but only to help, comfort, and to promove the good and profit of the people, Vasq. Lib. 1. cap. 1. and 2. c. 26. num. 2, 3. contr. Illustr.— To do evil is no act of power, but of infirmity that cannot abstean from doing evil, Vasq. D. L. C. 27. for so a company of Thiefs, and Incendiaries, which can do many things, which they ought not, should be said to do these things by a kingly right, and if this Jus Regium be understood of permission, which de facto cannot be hindered, That is common to others, as well as to Kings; for both a King and a private person may be free of punishment, either because the fact cannot be proved, or because they cannot be gotten punished, or because these evils are permitted by law L. non omne 144. de Reg. Jur. Tyranny is not to be reckoned among these things which are to be permitted; for Tyrants are Adulterers, Ravishers, Murderers, and such as are guilty of other capital crimes; whom Scripture styles, Lions, Bears, Dragons, Wolves, Prov. 28: ver. 14. Ezech. 22: 27. Dan. 2, etc. and the like, Pfal. 58. Esa. 13: ver. 11. and Cap. 33. v. 1.] Let him consider also what famous and learned Voetius sayeth to this, Disp. select. part. 4. pag. 222. Where he tells us that to do evil with impunity, is not Ius, doth found no Ius Or right, neither is founded on the law of God, of Nature, of Nations, nor on the civil law. And as to that which the Surveyer sayeth, that it is a Ius, because it shows what people were to endure willingly, and might not resist. He answereth, Pag. 223. That then the people should be the subject of this right or Ius, and not the King; and so it could not be called the manner of the King, but the manner of the People. Again he says, evil, loss, vexation, passion, and not to hinder evil, in Scripture phrase, is rather called somewhat opposite to Ius, than Ius or right, viz. a privation of it.  
4. As for his simile of a permission granted to men to put away their Wives, it is not of the same nature with the former evils (sayeth Althusius in the place above cited.) And the Author of Lex Rex, pag. 137. said well, [If so, a power to sin, and a power to commit acts of Tyranny, yea and a power in the King's Sergeants, and bloody Emissaries, to waste and destroy the People of God, must ●e a lawful power given of God; for a lawful power it must be, if it cometh from God, whether it be from the King in his own person or from his Servants at his command, and be either put forth in acts, as the power of a bill of divorce, was a power from God, exempting either the husband from punishment before men, or freeing the Servant who at the husband's command should write it, and put it into the hands of the Woman. I cannot believe that God hath given a power and that by law, to one man, to command Twenty Thousand cut throats to destroy and kill all the children of God, & that he hath commanded his children to give their necks and heads to Babel's sons without resistance. This I am sure is another matter then a law for a bill of divorce to one woman, married by free Election, of a humorous and inconstant Man. But sure I am God gave no permissive law from Heaven, like the law of divorce; for the hardness of heart, not of the jews only, but also of the whole Christian and heathen Kingdoms under a Monarch, That one Emperor may, be such a Law of God as the law of divorce, kill by bloody cut throats all the nations that call on God's name, men, women, and sucking infants.]  
5. The reason which he giveth Pag. 64. is the same that Barclaius gave viz. [To what purpose should he have written the manner of the King in a book, and laid it up before the Lord after the King is set over them 1 Sam. 10: ver. 25. When there was no please for repentance, no remedy, no use of terrifying or dissuading them, the only use of recording it, was to teach the people their beheaviour towards their King, and patience under him, and that it should not be free for them to shake off the yoke of his government, or to offer violence to him albeit he should overstretch his power too far. This recorded was not the law of the King, Deut. 17. which was already keeped in the ark with therest of the law.] Answ. 1. Though the King was set over them, he had need to have had his duty written before him in a book, and keeped to posterity, no less than the People should have stood in need to have had their duty so recorded. 2. To say that it was to teach the People their duty, is but a begging of what is in question: And it is not probable that Samuel would write the rules of Tyranny in a book, and lay it up before the Lord in the Ark of the Covenant, seeing he was to teach both King and People, The good and right way, 1 Sam. 12: ver. 23, 24, 25. 3. The English Annotators tell us on the place, that this manner of the Kingdom which Samuel written, was [Not as it is commonly practised, Chap. 8. ver. 9,— 18. but as it-ought to be in a lawful and free Monarchy apppointed by God himself, according to the fundamental laws of the Kingdom, teaching what duties the King ought to perform in the government of his people, and the people in their subjection and obedience to their King, according to that description of a King set down by Moses, Deut. 17: ver. 14, etc. Ezech. 45: ver. 9, 10. & Cap. 46: ver. 16. Rom. 13. v. 1. 1. Tim. 2: v. 2.] The Dutch Annot. say, [This is not of the way, manner and custom of actings which Kings sometimes take up contrary to law, but of the laws which Samuel by God's instinct made or enacted, concerning the government of Kings; see Deut. 17: ver. 18. Or of the ordinances for to instruct as well the King as the Subject. And jackson in his notes on the place sayeth, [That it was both the duty of the King towards his Subjects, and of the Subjects toward their King; and these were the fundamental laws of the Kingdom: and this book was carefully laid up before the Lord, sayeth he, 1. for the sure preservation of it, 2. to signify that even these civil laws were the ordinance of God, which men were bound to obey, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake, Rom. 13. ver. 2, 5. 3. To intimate that God would take care of these laws, to uphold and maintain them, and to punish these that should vilify and break them] Cornel. à Lap. and Lyra say the same upon the matter, Deodat tells us that▪ (it was the fundamental laws of the Kingdom, inspired by God to temper Monarchy, with a liberty befitting God's People & equity toward a nation— to withstand the abuse of an absolute power.] But this Suru. sayeth that all this is but a guess without ground. But what are his reasons? [Haddit there (says he) been any such special fundamental laws, the Ten Tribes had a fair ground of pleading upon the same, before their revolt, but no such thing is heard of, and it is as easy to deny it, as it is to affirm, that there was any such fundamental law] Answ. Whether the Ten Tribes did plead this in terminis or not, is not, it is true, asserted or heard of, but it is undeniable that they did plead it upon the matter, when they required nothing but what was consonant unto the law Deut. 17. and because it was refused, they thought themselves free to make choice of another King. 2. What more force hath his denial than ours? we bring approved authors for what we say, and he satisfyeth himself with his own word, and thinks that that is sufficient to confute all commentators, even such as himself a little thereafter citeth and approveth in other things viz Deodat. What says he more? [The People claimed no vote in such fundamental laws— and it was their interest to be consulted with in the matter.] Answ. The People were so bend to have a King upon any terms, that they consulted little their own welfare and faifty. But Samuel was more tender of them, and they might have concredited that matter unto him, being a Man of approven integrity, and known to be one that sought their good, and had no good will to set a King over them. But says he, [had they thought of any such Covenants or laws fundamental, wherein liberty might be left them to resist their Kings, or take order with them, how easily could they have showed the weakness of Samuel's dissuasion, and said, if the King be evil, we will resist him] Answ. This was done after the matter was past remedy, and a King they would have, and a King God would give them in his wrath. 2. We find chap. 14. that they did resist him, when he was going to shed innocent blood, whether according to these fundamental laws or not, is not much matter.  
6. Though all which he desireth here, should be granted to him, he would not gain his point, unless he should prove that this was a standing precedent to all nations in all time coming. Which ere he do, he must consider and confute what worthy and renowned D. Voetius hath said to the contrary, in his book before cited, disp. de jure Regio Hebraeorum §. 1.  
What he sayeth; Pag. 68 shall be considered in the next chapter, and what he sayeth Pag. 69. 70. 71. is already answered: for this windy man would seem to be voluminous, by filling many pages with the same things repeated over and over again, that if he cannot say much for his hire, he may seem to be at some pains to say many words, and waste much paper. And therefore we proceed to take notice of some other objections.   

CAP. XVI.  
Three Principal Objections Answered.  
THere are three grand objections which the Surveyer, here and there throw his pamphlet, maketh use of, and which seem to militate against some of our forementioned arguments; as. 1. That there were not (in the case now under debate) inferior Magistrates, a Parliament, or the primores Regni, or the Epiori, and States of the Realm, concurring in that defence: and whatever may be said in the defence of a war carried on by these, against the illegal violences and extreme oppressions of a prince, will not warrant the insurrection of mere private persons. 2. That in the case now controvetted, it was not the Body of the land or the whole Community that made this opposition to Magistrates Superior and inferior; But only a small inconsiderable company, in respect of the whole land: and so though it should be lawful for the whole body of a land to join together, to defend themselves against the tyranny and oppression of a Prince, without the conduct and concurrence of inferior Magistrates; yet it will not hence follow, That it is lawful for any part thereof, to use such resistance. 3. That the party, which lately made opposition, had no sufficient ground to take arms, suppose it had been lawful in its own nature, there being no such provocking cause or occasion given by the Prince. And though it should not be thought very necessary to insist on these now, seeing this last was spoken to in the clearing of the question, and the first was touched also formerly cap. 2. And all our arguments conclude for a People without their primores or Parliaments; and So do many both of our arguments and instances adduced, speak clearly & undeniably, unto the case of a considerable part, though not the whole of the community, defending themselves against manifest and unjust violence; yet that the matter in hand may be fully cleared, we shall speak alittle further to these three objections here.  
As to the first (though the surveyer be in malâ fide to make use of it, unless relinquishing all his brethren the Royalists, he grant it lawful for people with a Parliament to resist, which neither will he nor dar he do; And therefore we shall speak to this objection, rather for the satisfaction of others.) We desire these things may be considered.  
1. That as necessity did put people at first, upon the constitution & election of a Parliament, to manage their affairs, which they could not so conveniently do themselves, without confusion, discords, and other inconveniences, which would neccessarily attend a communities meeting together, for carrying of these matters: So it was the certain expectation of their profit and advantage, that did prompt them unto the settling of this frame and constitution.  
2. Whatsoever power these Commissionated, according to that frame and model condescended upon, had or have, is not in and from themselves, but from the People, no less than the Prince hath his power from the People; as was showed above: For no man can imagine any difference, as to the subordinate and instrumental rise of the power, of the Prince and of the Ephors: So that as his power is from the People under God, so is the power which they have. [These public Ministers of the Kingdom (sayeth Althus. Pol. c. 18. n. 3.) are chosen by the united and consociated body of the People preserve the whole associated body, and her rights; and are instructed with necessary power and authority, which to perform they are obliged by oath.]  
3. Hence, really the power of the People is greater than the power of any delegated or constituted by them; for the cause is more than the effect: and the Parliament doth represent the People, but the People do not represent the Parliament. Therefore the power of the People must be more. His power who doth constitute another, or depute him as a guardian to some business, or to oversee some of his matters, is greater than any power, which that other deputed or constituted Curator hath. Parliaments then being but as Tutors and Curators unto the People, must have less power than the People have [mandans vero) sayeth Althusius pol: c. 18. n. 92.) vel injungens alii rerum suarum procurationem, est instar imperantis, rogantisve, suscipiens vero talem administraetionem, instar obtemperantis, inservientis, & officium suum alteri praestantis.] So that the Parliament is but a servant to the People: and the power of a Master is always superior to the power of a Servant as such.  
4. It is irrational to think, that the People in chooseing the Ephori or Parliament-members, and committing the administration of their weighty affairs unto them, did denude themselves of all that innate and radical power, which they had to manage their own matters; seeing no urgent necessity could compel them to it, nor any foreseen advantage or profit, which thereby could redound unto them, move them and persuade them thereunto: but on the contrary, much hazard and disadvantage might at the very first appear upon such a surrender as this. Much less could they denude themselves of that power of self defence, which by no law of God or man they might law fully give away.  
5. Whatever power Parliaments have, it is to be exerced and put in practice for the good and advantage of the People. Their power is for the profit, and not for the hurt of the People, and to this scope and end should they levelly all their labours, travails, pains, endeavours, cares, thoughts, consultations, conferences, votes, deliberations and conclusions, L. Imperial. C. de nuptijs L. been a Zenone C. de quadr. L. 8. C. de legibus. L. praecipimus 34. C. de appell. (See Althus. pol. c. 18. n. 7: 17.  
6. Hence Their power is not absolute, infinite, or unlimited; but hath its own bounds and limits over which it cannot lawfully pass. They are to rule and do all, for God and the good of the Realm, whose servants they are. They are the Ministers of God for the People's good Rom. 13. 4.  
7. When they transgress) their true limits (which no man will say is impossible) by commanding what God hath forbidden, or forbidding what God hath commanded in his holy law: or when they seek not the public good of the Land, but their own private advantage, They are not, but cease to be, the Ministers of God and of the People, and become private persons, who ought not, in these particulars wherein they go beyond their bounds, to be obeyed: As sayeth Althusius ubr supra n. 41. and proveth by many authors: And the reason is clear, for no inferior can disannul God's Law, or free us from subjection thereunto. They have no power to command sin, God never gave them such a power: And the People could not give it, for they had it not themselves, neither had they a power to wrong and destroy themselves, and so they could not give this unto them.  
8. If these Ephori or trusties betray their trust, and feel or basely give away the libertyes and privileges of the people, which they were entrusted with, the people cannot thereby be brought into a remediless condition, or lose their privileges without all hope of recovery. If a Tutor waste and destroy the Pupil's Estate, the law provideth a remedy for the Pupil: If a commissioner or deputy betray his trust, the master's loss thereby is not irremediable: If an advocate betray a client's cause, The client will find some relief. [The peoples right (sayeth althusius ubi supra. n, 124) suffereth no prejudice, nor doth the Prince— obtain any more tyrannical power, by the negligence, perfidy, deceit, collusion, treachery, prevarication, and conspiracy of the Ephori or primores regni, with the prince— for it is unjust & absurd to affirm that the Ephori (or parliament-men) can transfer unto the Tyrant, what they never had themselves, or can destroy or alienate the rights of the Community, in prejudice of the whole Realm, and that contrare to the fundamental laws of the land, or such, as the prince swore to maintain, and which contain the spirits and life of the Commonwealth.]  
From these irrefragable truths, so consonant to right reason and attested by learned politicians, it will clearly follow. 1. That the People's case is not worse by Parliaments, than it would have been without them. 2. That Parliaments, cannot tyrannize by any law or right over People. 3. That no treachery or perfidy of Parliaments, neglecting their duty or betraying their trust, can prejudge the people of their due rights and privileges. 4. Parliaments not concurring with the People in their necessary defence, cannot lose them from the obligation of nature, to defend themselves from tyranny and intolerable oppression. 5. If Parliaments in stead of acting the part of trusties, Tutors, Curators, Delegates and Servants, shall turn Tyrants, wolves, Tigers, and Enemies to the Commonwealth themselves, of conspire, join, or enter into a confederacy with a Tyrant, and so seek the destruction of the community; The community is allowed to see to the preservation of their own rights and privileges, the best way they can. 6. And so in some cases, when the hazard is great, the loss irreparable, private people may defend themselves against manifest Tyranny and oppression, without Parliaments.  
All this seemeth to be clear and undeniable In thest. Let us next see what way this shall suit, or what more can be said for, our case, In hypothest.  
And. 1. It is beyond contradiction, that the late Parliament did basely betray its trust: for politicians tell us, That it belongeth to these Ephori. To vindicate and maintain the compact and Covenant which is betwixt the Prince and the People. To keep the prince or the supreme administrator of justice, within his bounds and limits, that he turn not a tyrant, or an oppressor of the People. To hinder him from violating the law of God. To restrain and coërce him from violating the laws of the land, and the rights of the kingdom. To hinder the execution of the unjust and illegal decrees and mandates of the Prince. To defend the proper and incommunicable rights and privileges of the People. To cognosce whether the Supreme Magistrate hath done his duty or not, and to hinder him from committing Tyranny. See for these particulars Althusius, Pol. c. 18. n. 48, 55, 63, 65, 68, 83, 84. Where all these are abundantly confirmed. Now, it is not our to all who consider either what they did, or what was enacted by them, and stands registrated to all generations, how the late Convention (which hardly can be accounted a lawful Parliament) not only came short of their duty in these particulars, but stirred a direct contrary course, as we shall show in a few words. For 1. So far were they from maintaining that compact and Covenant, which was betwixt the King and the People. That they declared these Covenants and engagements null: declared the very Parliament and committees, that called him home and crowned him, null: condemned the very transactions that were had with the King before he came home. 2. So far were they from keeping the Prince within his bounds and limits; That they screwed up his prerogatives to the highest peg imaginable, and did investe him with such an absolute unlimited and infinite power, that he might do what he pleased without control. 3. So far were they from hindering him from transgressing the laws of God, That they concurred with him, to enact laws diametrically opposite to the Law of God, to condemn and overturn the work of God, To set up an abjured prealcy, and force conformity thereunto, beside other acts which they made to hinder the course of justice. 4. So far were they from hindering him from violating the wholesome well settled and established laws of the land, that they concurred with him to overturn these, to the great loss and detriment of the Nation. 5. So far were they from preserving the rights of the Kingdom, That they made a voluntary and base surrender of these unto the pleasure and arbitrement of the Prince, in annexing to the crown The sole choice and appointment of the officers of State and privy Councillors, and the nomination of the Lords of Session; in dischargeing all meetings, Counsels, conventions, or assemblies of the People, without the King's command or express licence: In giving away to him as his right, the sole power of raiseing the Subjects in arms; of commanding, ordering, disbanding and otherwise disposeing of them; And of all strengths, forts, or garrisons within the Kingdom: all which politicians will grant to be the proper native rights of the Kingdom: 6. So far were they from hindering the execution of his unjust decrees and mandates, that whatsoever he pleased to command, was by them embraced yea and fortified, strengthened and corroborated, and put into a standing law, how dishonourable so ever it was to God, how repugnant to equity and reason, and how noxious soever it might prove to the Nation. 7. So far were they from descending the Libertyes and Privileges of the People, that they basely gave them away, by denying them to have any power to defend themselves against manifest oppression, or power to call Parliaments or other meetings for their advantage, in cases of necessity; by giving away to the King yearly forty Thousand pound Sterline, to the impoverishing of the Nation and redacting it to slavery: And by Tendering unto him all the lives and fortunes of the subjects, to maintain his interest; and offering Twenty Thousand foot men, and two Thousand horsemen sufficiently armed and furnished with forty day's provision, to be in readiness as they shall be called for by his Majesty, to march to any part of his three dominions, for any service wherein his Majesty's honour, authority or greatness might be concerned: Which how ever it may be coloured with specious pretexts; yet, all circumstances considered, was nothing but a real mancipation of the liberties of the People unto the will and pleasure of a Prince. 8. And so far were they from calling the King to any account, and from impedeing Tyranny, that in effect they declared the King exempted from all such trial or examination, and that he might exerce what tyranny and oppression he pleased without control: For they gave unto him absolute and unlimited power over all people and in all causes; They declared him to have absolute power to call, hold, prorogue, and dissolve Parliaments and Conventions and Meetings of the Estates: And That no acts, sentences, or statutes to be passed in any of these meetings, can be binding or have the authority and force of laws, without his authority and approbation interponed, at the very making thereof.  
2. It is notour to all who read their acts, How they have enacted and concluded things most unlawful and unjust, repugnant to the Law of God and right reason: Condemning Solemn Covenants sworn by all ranks of People in the land, in the most solemn manner; introduceing abjured Prelates; Establishing tyranny in the Church; condemning and razeing to the foundation the Covenanted work of God; enjoining a conformity unto corrupt courses; pressing perjury and Apostasy, by forcing all in public places, and others, to subscribe declarations and oaths, contrary to their former sacred and inviolable Covenants and oaths made to God.  
3. By confirming, ratifying and approveing these courses of Apostasy and defection, and establishing these into laws, and binding and forcing the People unto obedience, by their irrational and insupportable penalties annexed, They have laid down a constant course for tyranny and oppression of the People in Estates, bodies, and consciences, without all hope of remedy or redress.  
4. As Parliaments with us are not constant and fixed courts, but ambulatory and occasional, so they have laid down a course, that we shall never have a Parliament that shall redress the wrongs, injuries, oppressions and tyranny of Princes; or hear the just grievances of the Subjects: For when the Prince oppresseth the People, and turneth a Nero and a Caligula; there shall be no remedy, because they have given him absolute power to call Parliaments, and who can expect he will call a Parliament in that case? or if he do call, he hath absolute power to raise them and dismiss them when he will; and is it probable that he will suffer them to sit when they are doing any thing against him? Or if he should suffer them to sit, what can they do? None of their sentences or acts have power, unless he will add his authority, and will he ratify or approve any thing that is against himself, and his tyrannous will? Beside, that they have denuded themselves of all power of suppressing tyranny, by declareing his power so absolute and infinite, as that no bounds can be set unto it, no power can suppress his tyranny, or call him to an account.  
5. Not only have they laid down a course that we shall have no Parliament to interpose for the relief of the People, & to suppress Tyranny; But also they have laid down a course that there should be no Magistrates in shires or brughs, that should help, according to their power and place, the oppressed and grieved Subject, and concur for their relief: Because all such, ere they be admitted to their places, must conform unto this abominable course of defection, and by subscribing declarations, Binding themselves by oaths impious and opposite to the solemn Covenants, under which the Land standeth bound and obliged before the Lord, conspire with them in this Apostasy, against the interest of God in the Land.  
From all which we think these things will clearly follow.  
1. That it may be much doubted if this last convention can be accounted, by any law either of God or Man, a lawful Parliament, having so palpably betrayed their trust, in ruleing not for God and his interest, but against him, end enacting things to his dishonour; in selling and giving away the old and undoubted Privileges of Parliament; and in betraying, dilapidating, disponeing, and giving away the native and unquestionable Rights and Privileges of the People; and in overturning the fundamental laws of the Land; and annulling the fundamental article of the compact betwixt King and People. Seeing Politicians will grant, that such are to be accounted but private people: though we should make no mention of other informalities which usually weaken or annul the constitution of a judicature of that nature, in point of formality; as liberty denied to some shires to choose such members as they thought good; prelimitation used to all; the admission of some as members not capable of an election, according to our ancient and received custom; the denying of free liberty of debateing, reasoning, dissenting and protesting, which is allowed in all free Judicatories, and the carrying on of matters in a headstrong, violent, and tyrannical manner, without such previous deliberation, or serious consideration, and pondering the weight and moment of matters, as would have become a judicature by its constitution and nature so sage and honourable.  
2. The native, ancient and undoubted Privileges of the People are de jure entire and inviolated, notwithstanding of any thing done by this late meeting, which had no power to do what they did: And therefore could not wrong the rights and Privileges of the People.  
3. That there is no hope, or human probability now left, that ever the People of Scotland shall have a Parliament by the course laid down or inferior Judges to resent the injuries, oppression and Tyranny done to and exercised upon them; but that still their bands shall be made stronger, and the yoke of oppression and Tyranny wreathed closer about their necks. So that there was not, neither is there any hope (so long as this course of defection standeth and is not overturned) that Parliaments now, or the Primores Regni, or inferior Judges, shall concur for the suppressing of Tyranny, bearing down of oppression, defection and apostasy, according as they ought.  
4. That while matters are so, the People of Scotland are as if they had no Parliaments, nor inferior Judges, for that end; and cannot be supposed or imagined to be in a worse condition, then if they never had had my such, to protect them from the tyrannical and arbitrary lust and domination of Princes. And therefore must be allowed to use the privilege and liberty which nature hath granted unto them, to defend themselves from unjust tyranny and oppression of Princes, Parliaments, and inferior Judicatories, when their Representatives palpably betray them into the hands of their adversaries, yea and conspire with their adversaries against them, and their Privileges; and instead of Patrons and defenders of their rights and privileges, turn enemies thereunto, and take courses utterly to destroy all.  
By this, I suppose, the first Objection is sufficiently answered, yet I shall add this word more, and would desire that all who are of a contrary judgement would answer this quaeree. Whether or not would they think it unlawful, for private persons without a Parliament, privy Council, or other inferior Magistrates, to resist a Prince, or his Emissaries, if he with the consent of these should transfer unto himself the proper and immediate right unto all the Lands, Rents, Tenements, possessions, Heretages, and goods within the whole Land, with full power to sell, dispone, and give away the same unto whom he pleased; and presently upon the passing of that act, 'cause eject, dispossess and remove all the present heretours and possessors, or put them to buy it of new of him, or take tacks thereof as taksmen, fermers or tenants? If they think that in this case they might lawfully resist such horrid tyranny, Then why not in our case, when the People, contrary to all law, oaths and vows, are put out of the possession of their Covenanted Religion, reform in doctrine, worship, discipline & government, & that by mere violence and tyranny? Sure such matters as touch Soul and consciences, aught to be as dear to People, as what concerneth their bodies and estates. Or if we should put the case, That the King were about to sell the whole Land unto the Turk, or unto Irish bloody Papists, & by bribes or promises, should procure the consent of a Parliament, & the concurrence of Council and other judicatories (as really upon the matter, walking according to the acts they have made, he may) Might it be unlawful for People in this case, without the concurrence of inferior Magistrates, who had now sold them, and basely betrayed their trust, to stand to their own defence, and to the defence of their posterity, and their lives, rights, liberties and privileges? And if this cannot be asserted by any man, who hath not made a perfect surrender of his own reason, unto the will and lust of another, why can resistance in our case be condemned: Seing soul matters are of infinite more worth, than these outward things; And it were less bitter to know and see our posterity redacted into a state of perfect slavery unto foreigners, as to their outward privileges, them to see them shut up into a close prison of soul slavery and bondage, destitute of the pure and lively ordinances of salvation, and frustrated of the glorious and excellent liberties and effects of a purely preached gospel, and so shut up in a dungeon of ignorance, superstition, and all Profanity, that they should never know what true liberty meaneth?  
As for the next objection taken from this, that they were not the Whole Body of the land, but only a part thereof, which cannot be so well justified. It may easily be answered. That it being lawful for a single person, in some cases, to defend himself from unjust violence: It will be much more lawful for a considerable part of a Kingdom to defend themselves, though they get not help of others. Though all be bound to help a ravished maid, yet though none should help, she may resist and defend herself. But to leave this, because we have adduced many arguments that concludes the case lawful even for a part of the Kingdom, we shall speak to the complex case, not only as it was a defence but also a probable mean to put a stop unto the course of defection. Which was and is carried on; and to redeem the land from spiritual bondage and slavery, as well as bodily. And to this we say. That when the case is a public case concerning all the land, no less than these who jeoparded their lives for the same, no man in reason can condemn these few that undertook the enterprise, the profitable effects of which would have redounded to the whole: When a city is on fire, no man will think the few that hazard their lives, to quench the same, are to be blamed, though the rest do lie by, and will not concur. The men of Ephraim, Benjamin and Issacher, who followed Deborah and jeoparded their lives upon the high places of the field, that they might deliver the whole land from under the Tyranny of jabes King of Canaan, though Reuben God and Zebulon did not concur, according to their duty, were not the more to be blamed, but are the more praised and commended; and such as came not put to the help of the Lord against the mighty were under a bitter curse. The common tye of Christianity and brotherhood and other supervenient obligations did oblige all the Land (as was showed above) to concur as one man, to endeavour the deliverance of he Land from dreadful oppression and tyranny, and because the greatest part, like Issacher in an other case, loved to couch under the burden, and refused to contribut their help for their own delivery, and proved enemies, shall these few who ventured their lives and Estates, and all which they had, for the liberation of the land, be the more, upon that account, condemned? What height of absurdity were this? Had the Men of Ephraim good reason to challenge jephthah judg. 12: ver. 1, 2. etc. because he fought with the Midianites without them, when he says, that he had called them and they would not come out? If an Enemy invade the land, and such provinces as are furthest from danger shall neglect or refuse to concure with the rest to expel them, yea shall strengthen the invadeing enemy, shall these be blamed who are next to the danger, to take the alarm at the first, and do what in them lieth, for their own saifty and the saifty of the whole land? Therefore, seeing the cause which these few owned was of common concernment, and equally respecting the whole land, since the rest would not concur, as they were bound to do, they are more praiseworthy than blame-worthy that ventured all for the good of the whole land, and did what in them lay, to redeem the whole land from that oppression and bondage, under which it was lying. If it had been some small petty particular of their own, it had been more liable to the censures of men; but the cause being Common, which they did own, (a Covenant sworn by all ranks of People, and a Covenanted work of reformation, and liberty from tyranny both in Church and State, was a cause not peculiar unto them, but common to all the land,) it is the height of absurdity, illegality, yea and inhumanity, to accuse them of Treason of sedition, or to condemn their enterprise upon that account. So that though the major part of the land turn so corrupt, as to embrace a corrupt abjured course, see their privileges taken from them, the work of God overthrown, laws ratifying and approving Religion reform in doctrine worshipe discipline and government, and securing people in their peaceable and Christian possession of these, now abolished rescinded and annulled; their libertyes, as civil scotish men, and as Christians, sold away; their fundamental compact, and the cardinal clause of that contract betwixt King and Subject, canceled and shamefully brocken; Tyranny and oppression of consciences, bodies and Estates established; and no legal remedy or redress apparent or probable; and shall notwithstanding of all this, love to sit still & not to be stir themselves, according to their places & power, for securing Religion, laws, & libertyes; For extirpating abjured prelacy, and malignancy; and restoreing the Ordinances of Christ to their wont purity, & delivering the land from slavery & bondage, & from stupenduous apostasy & defection, at which the Heavens may stand astonished, and all men and angels may wonder: Shall their negligence and deficiency in duty, bind up the hands of the well affected, and render them utterly incapable in law, to mind themselves and the good of the whole land, the good whereof they are obliged by many bonds and obligations to seek by all fairy means possible? Neither doth the laws of Nature, the laws of God, nor particularly the bond of Christian love to their Native land, to their Mother Church, and to their Christian oppressed brethren, nor the bond of their Covenants, solemn vows and engagements, so limit this duty, and lose them from all endeavour after a performance. But by the contrare, if God give any probable capacity, upon all these considerations, they are the more obliged to lay out themselves to the utmost, and to account themselves the more indispnesably obliged thereunto, that as the hazard is greater, the loss is the more certain and irrecoverable. Wherefore, seeing the ground and ends of the rising of these few, was not particular, but general and national, the good and benefit of the enterprise redounding unto all, no less then to themselves, and being that whereunto all, no less than they, were obliged by solemn vows and moral bonds, their case must be otherwise considered, than the case of a few malcontented persons, who because of some particular injuries done to themselves and for some particular ends proper and peculiar to themselves alone, arise in rebellion against the lawful Magistrate. The Royalists themselves allow it lawful for any private person to kill an usurper or a Tyrant sine titulo, and why? But because the good of this action doth redound not to himself alone. But to the whole Land; So in some places a reward is promised to all such as shall kill a Bear, or any such noisome beast, because the good and fruit of this action concerneth moe than themselves, and therefore though all were bound to do what they did▪ yet they are not blamed but rewarded for what they have done. So should these rather have been rewarded then blamed or condemned, for what they did enterprise, for the universal and national good of the whole Land.  
As for the third Objection, so much hath been spoken of that already; whether we mean the particular sufferings and oppressions of the People of Galloway, (The Naphtaly is full to this purpose,) or the general calamity, by reason of apostasy, defection, perjury & oppression in Religion and libertyes, which is so noture that none who hath not renunced common sense together with Religion & honesty, can deny it, or pretend ignorance thereof, that we need do no more here, but give a short reply to what the Suru. hath said to this matter: only we would add this. That if That learned lawyer Althusius in his politikes Cap. 38. n. 5. etc. give the right characters of a Tyrant, and of Tyranny, we may have good ground to say that our land beareth many blae marks of that tyranny: for, sayeth he [there is one kind of Tyranny, which consisteth in violating, changing or removing of fundamental laws, specially such as concern Religion: & such, says he, was Athalia, Philip the King of Spain, who contrare to the fundamental Belgic laws, did erect an administration of justice by force of arms; and such was Charles the IX. of France that thought to overturn the Salicque law] and whether our King be not in this guilty in overturning the fundamental laws, concerning our reformed Religion, let the world judge. Next says he [when he keepeth not his faith and promise, but despiseth his very oath made unto the people.] and who is more guilty of this then King Charles the 2 ● n. 9 He giveth us this mark [when the supreme Magistrate marketh use of an absolute power, and so breaketh all bands for the good of humane society] and are not the bonds both of piety and justice now violated? n. 11. He tells us a Tyrant doth take away from one or more member of the Commonwealth, free exercise of the orthodox Religion: and n. 12. that for corrupting of youth he erecteth stageplayss, whore houses, and other playhouses, and suffers the colleges, and other seminaries of learning to be corrupted, and n. 15. that living in luxury, whoredom, 'greed and idleness, he neglecteth, or is unfit for his office.] How these suit our times we need not express, Then n. 16. He says [he is a Tyrant who doth not descend his Subjects from injuries when he may; but suffereth them to be oppressed] and what if he oppress them himself? n. 19 [who (says he) by immoder at exactions, and the like, exhausts the subjects Jer. 22: ver. 13. 14. Ezech. 34. 1 King. 12: 19 Psal. 14: 4.] and n. 10 [who hindereth the free suffrages of Members of Parliament, so that they dare not speak what they would.] & how much of this we find to be true, in needless here to express. Then n. 23, 24, etc. he tells us [he is a Tyrant who takes away from the people all power, to resist his tyranny, as arms, strengths, and chief men, whom therefore though innocent, he hateth, afflicteth and persecuteth, exhausts their gods, and livelihoods without right or reason] all which he confirmeth by several Scriptures: And how apposite these are to our present case, all know who is not an utter stranger to our matters, So that when we have so many things to allege, none can justly blame us for saying, that we are oppressed and borne down with insupportable tyranny; and now we go on to consider what he says.  
And as to the first he tells us, Pag. 68 [That their life and blood was not sought upon any terms, there was no forcing them to idolatry, nor false worship, nor frighting them to any thing of that kind, upon pain of their lives; only for contempt of the outward ordinances of God, purely administered in an orthodox Church, they were put to pay such moderate fines, as the public laws had apppointed: Without any actual invasion of them or their people. They were the first aggressors, murdering the King's Servants, and seiseing on his chief officer. They had never before that assayed supplicating, (which was not forbidden them to do, if so be they would have done it without tumults and combinations) but flew to the sword and marched on to mock authority with armed petitions, as they mocked God by sinful prayers, to prosper their evil course.] Answ. 1. What intention there was to seek the life and blood of these People, God koweth: But sure all who knew their case, saw that their life was only left them, that they might feel their misery. So were they oppressed and harassed, that death would have been chosen rather than life. Were they not beaten, wounded, and bound as beasts, their goods and substance devoured before their eyes? were not their lands and tenements laid waste, and many redacted to beggary? Besides other inhuman barbarityes, which they were made to suffer. 2. We see he would allow it lawful to resist, if the King should force to idolatry and false worship, and what will he do then with his arguments, which will not allow that exception, as they are urged by him? He must necessarily grant that they are inconcludent, & that it holdeth here Argumentum nih●l probat quod nimium probat. 3. How beit they were not forced to idolatry; yet by the same law, reason and equity (or rather Tyranny and inquity) they might have been forced to that, as to what they were forced. That is by the law of Tyranny and violent oppression. They were pressed to own and countenance perjured profane wicked and debauched Curates, thrust in upon them contrare to their Privileges, as lawful and duly called Ministers, and thereby to own and approve of Prelacy which was abjured, and cast out of the Church with detestation, and so to concur in their places and stations with, and give their testimony unto, a most wicked and unparallelable course of defection and Apostasy from God, and his holy ways and works; and thereby to condemn the Reformation of Religion in doctrine, worship, Discipline and Government, which God had wonderfully wrought amongst us, and which all ranks of People were solemnly sworn to maintain and defend. 4. He talketh of the outward ordinances of God purely administered; when all know how these profane wretches, made all who, ever known what the service of the true and living God was, to abhor the offering of the Lord: For they despised the Name of the Lord, and offered polluted bread upon his altar, and made the table of the Lord contemptible, they offered the blind, the lame, and the sick, and torn, and thus they vowed & sacrificed unto the Lord a corrupt thing: Yea their administration of ordinances was, and is to this day, rather like histrionick acts, and scenes, than the service of the true and living God: And what sober serious Christian, yea what soul that hath any believing apprehensions of the Majesty of God, can be witness, let be a concurring actor in, and consenter unto, such abomination and idol-like worship? 5. He talks of an orthodox Church, wherein perjury and such like abominations are approved and countenanced, maintained and avowed; and wherein the work of Reformation of Religion, in Doctrine, worship, Discipline and Government is condemned; a Covenant abjureing Popery, Prelacy, profaneness, Schism and Heresy, and whatsoever is contrary to sound doctrine, and the power of godliness, condemned and annulled; and wherein Atheism, wickedness, ignorance, licentiousness, and all sort of profanity, yea and blasphemy aboundeth, and wherein there is so much Popery and idolatry countenanced and connived at, and such abominations reigneing. Our first confession of faith recorded in Parliament Cap. 18. giveth this as one note of a true Church viz. That in it Ecclesiastical Discipline be uprightly ministered, as God's Word prescribeth, whereby vice is repressed & virtue nourished! But now there is a discipline repugnant to God's Word administered, whereby vice is nourished & virtue suppressed. 6. He says that the fines were moderate? But more immoderate fines, and exorbitant penalties, were never imposed by Rulers, except such whose design was to Tyrannize over the souls and consciences of poor people: and to the payment of these transcendently exorbitant penalties, they were constrained, not in a legal manner, as it ought to be in a civil and free republic, but in a military, compulsive constraineing way, whereby their people and goods were tyrannically and inhumanely invaded, plundered, destroyed, and ruined. 7. It is true, providence so ordered it, that the first that was wounded was one of the soldiers: But Naphtali tells him that the country men were necessitated thereto in their own defence; for when they but desired the soldiers to lose the poor man, whom they had bound hand and foot like a beast, they were assaulted with drawn swords; and so first and last they were invaded, and provocked, & were not the first aggressours: & beside, that was but a mere accidental emergent: & though they had formally, without that occurrent provocation, joined together to have repelled unjust violence, none in reason could have called them the first aggressours, being so long before that time, at two inroads, beside this last, so barbarously and inhumanely used by Sir james Turner that bloody executioner of illegal tyranny, and brutish beastly Doeëg, who having renunced all humanity & compassion, raged like a wild bear to the laying waste of that country side. So that here was no violent re-offending used without a previous actual invasion, made by companies of armed men, sent to eat up, root out and destroy a worthy and precious countrey-side An imminent danger says the law, is a sufficient ground to take up arms, and that is not previous strokes but the terror of armour or threatening L. sed & si. ff. ad Leg. Aquil. l. 3. quod qui armati ff. de vi & vi armâta. Sure here was enough to warrant a Community to stand to their defence, and to prevente their utter ruin and destruction, which was certanely expected, and this was to them the last and most inexorable case of necessity: And so the places which he citeth out of Lex Rex do partly confirm this, and partly are not to the purpose, being spoken of a single person buffeting his master after he hath been buffeted, or having received deaths wounds, seeketh to revenge himself on his aggressor. 8. He tells us they should have first supplicated these in power: But they had supplicated already Sir james Turner, and their case was made worse and not the better thereby, and all joint petitioning was condemned as treasonable, and what could they then have done? The most peaceable manner of supplicating, if it had been in a joint manner, that could have been devised, had been interpreted tumultuous. And Since it was so, what could they do, but after the example of our progenitors, advance with arms in the one hand and a petition in the other? 9 The Profane man talks of their mocking God by their prayers, and of their spoiling loyal persons: but as they have the testimony of all among whom they were, that they were not to be charged with plundering, taking nothing unless it were a few horses, and such things as were necessary for the defence of their lives, and for the welfare of the Country, wherein many do suppose they were but too too spareing, seeing the benefit was common to all, and they were to venture their lives, not for themselves alone, but for the whole Country: So the Lord gave proof that he hath accepted their endeavours, though it was not his appointed time to restore our Kingdom, in that he did so signally own and countenance such as were honoured with martyrdom, for the Testimony of jesus, and for his interest and cause. But this man speaks like himself when he addeth that both they and others have cause to bless God that they had no success, which might have been a snare and stumbling block to them and others also. For we know indeed that it is no small mercy, not to thrive in an evil way, and therefore we think that He and his wicked fraternity, on whom the Lord is raineing snares, by suffereing them to thrive, have great cause to lament the black day that is coming, and to tremble both for the imminent judgements, and for the dreadful plague and judgement of hardness of heart, with which they are already visited of the righteous God; Yet we know That a way may be his way, which he will not prosper for a time, till the cup of the Amorites be full, and he hath attained his other holy ends, which he designeth in casting his Church into a furnance: And if he judge of causes always by the event, he showeth himself a stranger to the Sovereign way of the Lord, in all ages.  
As to other thing, he speaketh Pag. 10. and sayeth (doth not the true protestant Religion as it is held forth inscripture, and was publicly confessed by our first reformers (which confession is Registered Parl. 1. K. James 6.) through God's mercy continue with us, without variation from it in the least? Doth not the King's majesty protect and advance this blessed Truth of the Saving Gospel, and encourage and invite all, according to his power, to embrace it? Is he not willing and desirous that the laws be vigorously executed against papists, and all perverters of this sound doctrine? are any spoiled of their lawful civil libertyes? What one thing hath he done without consent of the People's Representatives in Parliament, at which any may except as a grievance? what burden hath he laid upon their Estates, but by law or by their own consent, in a necessary exigence? Answ. 1. If the protestant Religion continue without variation, in the least, what meaneth then the bleating of the sheep and lowing of the oxen; in every one's ears? what meaneth the many Jesuits, and Seminary Priests that go up and down the land? what meaneth the many masses that are used in several parts of that land, and in the very heart thereof, in and about Edinbrough? What church discipline is used against these? belike the Prelates have no will to trouble their old brethren, the native and faithful children of their catholic Mother, the whore of Rome, because they mind, yet once again, to take a drink of the cup of her fornications, and to return as prodigal Children unto their former dear Mother, the bloody harlot, the mother of fornications. And how cometh it that one Mr. Tyry, formerly a known papist, is admitted to a prefessorshipe in St. Andrew's, who not only cannot be reconciled to that minister who motioned the giving to him, that Head to handle de anticbristo Romano, but even in his theses did assert that the Pope was not Antichrist. But what is become of the Religion of the Church of Scotland, as it was reform in doctorine, worship, discipline and government? What is become of these Covenants which were our strong bulwarks against propery? and what is become of the many acts of Parliament ratifying and approving these Covenants? Are not all these cast away? are not we cast open unto the assaults of that bloody Beast? what meaneth the great increase of the number of papists, so that the very Parliament itself, in their statute 8. sess. I. (a mok-act never put into execution) said that the number of Jesuits, Priests, and Papists did now abound more, than ever they did under the Government of his father and grand father? What meaneth the rescinding and anulling the first act of the 12. parl of K. james 6. holden Anno 1592. in all the heads clauses and articles thereof, in their act. 1 sess. 2. whereas that act did not also ratify and approve presbyterial government; but did also ratify and approve all privileges, libertyes, immunityes, and freedoms, granted by his hieghnesse his Regent's, in his name, or any of his predecessors, to the true and holy Kirk established within the Realm, and declared in the first act of Parliament Anno 1597. and all and whatsomeever acts of Parliament and statutes, made before by his Highness and his Regent's, anent the liberty, and freedom of the said Kirk; and particularly the first act of parl Anno 1581. and all other particular acts there mentioned: and this act Anno 1581. ratifieth all preceding acts, particularly that made in the reign of Queen Mary, Anno 1567. anent abrogating all laws, acts and constitutiones, canons civil and municipal, with other constitutions contrare to the Religion then professed, and all posteriour acts namely such as abolished the Pope and his uspurped authority; that annulled the acts made against God's word and for maintenance of Idolatry, the act ratifying the confession of faith of the protestants of Scotland; the act abolishing the Mass, and for punishing hearers and sayers of the same: acts made, anent the admission of them that shall be presented to benefices having cure of ministry; anent the King's oath to be given at his coronation; anent such as should bear public office hereafter; anent teachers of schools; anent the jurisdiction of the Kirk; anent the true and holy kirk; anent the ratification of the liberty of the true Kirk of God and Religion; anent such as are declared not to be of the true Church: And also the said act Anno 1592. ratifieth all other acts made in favours of the Kirk, since the year 1581. So that by this late Act made Anno 1662. all the acts made in favours of the Church and of the protestant Religion, are annulled and rescinded; for there is no exception added, but the said act in all its heads, clauses and articles, is declared null and void. Where is then our legal security for our protestant Religion, and Libertyes of the Church? Sure these things presage no good to the protestant Religion. But 2. What way the King doth advance this blessed truth of the saving gospel (if he mean hereby the protestant Religion) we are to learn: For his publishing in print that the Papists have been faithful subjects to him and his father, whilst others, under pretence of Religion, had involved the Kingdoms in blood; and by these Papists meaning with others the irish rebels, who, for promoving the Romish bloody design, executed that bloody Massacre in Irland: the report whereof made all protestants to tremble and to stand astonished, giveth us but small hopes, that so long as he is of that mind, he shall ever do any thing effectually for promoving or maintaineing the Protestant interest: His advancing of Papists to greatest places of public power and trust England, in Parliament, Council, Court, Counteyes, and the Army, speaks rather an encourageing and inviteing of persons to turn Roman Catholics: His provideing a house for Fathers and friars speaks out no good intention and design. Let the Surveyer read what is said to this purpose in the Preface to Naphtaly. 3. He tells us that the King is willing and desirous, that the laws be put in execution against Papists and perverters of sound doctrine; But how cometh it then, that there are no sayers of Mess and seminary Priests sentenced, according to the law? Did ever the King write to the Council for suppressing of Popery. as effectually as he hath done for suppressing of conventicles? Or did he ever chide the Council, or depose any member thereof, or any other inferior Magistrate, upon the account of their negligence in this? But be it whose fault it will, sure we are there is more care taken to search out conventicles, than the meetings of Papists or Quakers: Is the Town of Edinburgh under such a bond to suppress meetings for Mass, and others of the like nature; as they are for suppressing of honest Protestants, meeting for the worship of God according to the purely reformed Religion? Did ever any Arch-Prelate procure an order from his Majesty to stir up the leazye council to diligence in this matter? Wherein I pray doth either the King's willingness, or the willingness of the Council, or of other Inferior Magistrates to have the laws against Priests vigorously put into execution, appear? And where are we then, when all Magistrates from the highest to the lowest connive at, if not encourage countenance and approve of Papists, and Popish idolatry; and the true Worshippers of God are hunted out, cast into prisons, banished into America and Tangyr, and made to suffer such inhuman Barbarities, and all to pleasure the perjured Prelates, who are more afraid of a few honest seekers of God, then if legions of Papists were swarming in the Land, knowing how soon, they would be willing to embrace these serpents in their bosom, and join with them to root out the Protestant interest; whileas they hate the truly godly with a perfect hatred, as being of principles irreconcilable with theirs, and having ends before their eyes diametrically opposite to what these intent? Yea, where are we, when almost all the Rules proposed by Adam Contzens the Jesuit, for introduceing of Popery, in his Polit. Lib. 2. Cap. 18. are so exactly followed: as when he adviseth that. 1. They proceed as musicians do in tuneing their instruments, gradually, and piece by piece. 2. That they press the Examples of some eminent Men as a mean to draw the rest. 3. That Arch-heretikes (that is most Zealous Protestants) be banished all at once, or if that cannot be done saifly, by degrees. 4. That such be put from their dignities, and all place & power of trust. 5. That Protestant Religion be made odious, by loading such of their opinions, as are most obvious to a harsh construction. 5. That they foment the quarrels that are among Protestant, and strengthen that party that is most ready to comply with Rome. 7. That they discharge and hinder all private conventicles of Protestants. 8. That severe Laws be made, and rigorously executed (though not against all, yet) against the most dangerous. Who seeth not, what a conformity there hath been and yet is, betwixt the practices of this Apostate, Popish, Prelatical and Malignant faction, which hath now destroyed the work of God, and those Rules mentioned? And what lieth latent under board the Lord knoweth. 4. He asketh the question if any of the People of the Land be spoiled of their lawful civil libertyes? As if a man should inquire if the Sun were risen at twelve hours of the day. Our Religion reform in doctrine, worship, Discipline and Government, which was one of our main civil & most lawful libertyes, is taken from us. The liberty of supplicating, which the Law of God, the Law of Nature, and the Law of Nations allow, it taken from us. The liberty of free election of Members of Parliament, was taken away. Liberty of protesting in Parliament was taken away. The King's prerogative is screwed up to such a hieght, that it overturnes the true native libertyes of the Subjects Many honest Subjects are cast into prison, no transgression being once alleged far less proved against them. The due exercise of their Religion as was covenanted, is taken away, Laws are not executed in a civil manner, as they ought to be among free Subjects. judicatories are set up and erected without the consent of the People, or their Representatives. Libertyes and Privileges of brughes and such incorporations are taken away, unless they will renounce and abjure a lawful, religious, and necessary Covenant. The free exercise of justice especially against Nobles, is stopped. The Liege's are not ruled by the Laws of the Land, but by the arbitrary will and lust of few Prelates and the privy Council. Will he ask now if our libertyes be taken from us? or will he call these unlawful? 5. He asketh in the next place, what one thing the King hath done, without consent of the People's Representatives in Parliament, at which any may except as a grievance. It seemeth he is either of a very short Memory, or he thinks the High commission-court a very small inconsiderable business; for the consent of Parliament was never had unto this inquisition-court, neither of old, nor of late: And yet this was such an heavy yoke of bondage, that made all the land to groan, and against which, as a most intolerable grievance, all the corners of the country could give in their exceptions. And as for this late Representative (so called,) they have enacted many things contrare to their power and turst, as we have showed: No power under heaven could enact what they have enacted: No power under heaven could anul, condemn, and rescind lawful Covenants made with the most high God: They were not in tuto to rescinde and annul unalterable laws, more firm and fixed, than any Laws of the Medes and Persians; For laws confirmed with oaths, and solemn vows to God, are not ambulatory, as other politic laws. And therefore all the laws being good and necessary in their own nature, by the supervenient addition of an oath confirming and ratifying the same, became absolutely unalterable by any Man or company of Men whatsoever. So that all the laws made by King and Parliament to the prejudice of the Covenanted work of reformation, are intolerable grievances, dishonourable to God, and prejudicial to the welfare of the Subject; and to which, neither People, nor their Representatives real of supposed, could ever lawfully consent. 6. He asketh what burden he hath laid upon their Estates, but by Law? But this is a vain flourish, seeing all that know what that Parliament was, know how prone and ready it was, to devote (if it could) unto the lust of the King, the Souls, Consciences, Estates, and all which the Subjects had, little regairding either the true liberty or real advantage of the People.   

CAP. XVII.  
The Objections of others examined.  
WE have now examined all which this Surveyer hath said against us, in the point of resistance; yet that we may satisfy (if possible) all persons and parties touching the lawfulness of this act, of private persons defending themselves and their Religion from manifest Tyranny and oppression, we shall remove likewise such other objections, as some others are pleased to make use of; and which our Surveyer hath possibly forgotten to adduce.  
1. Obj. Subjects are obliged to perform all duties of obedience and fidelity unto their Magistrates, and albeit the Magistrates turn a manifest Tyrant, every one cannot lose that obligation at his own hand. Hoen. Disp. Pol. 9 Thes. 55. Ans. 1. Subjects, as we have seen, are but conditionally obliged to perform these duties unto the Magistrate, and not absolutely, whether he play the Tyrant or not, by Hoenonius his own confession. 2. Though each particular person can not lose the obligation when he will; yet when a Tyrant hath, by his acts of tyranny, loosed the obligation, upon his part, a body of a People or a considerable part thereof, may defend themselves against his tyranny, as if there were no obligation betwixt him and them. 3. Though the obligation stand uncancelled, and not abrogated, resistance may be granted; for a Sun may resist his Father, and a Wife her Husband, though the obligation continue firm and not dissolved.  
Obj. 2. By this means a window should be opened to all seditions, conspiracies and rebellions, Hoen. ubi supra Ans. Incommodum non tollit argumentum. The abuse of a liberty doth not destroy the liberty. 2. By this argument absolute and unlimited obedience might be pressed, lest if private people might refuse obedience, a door for all sedition and disobedience should be opened. 3. By the contrare assertion, a door shall be opened to all Tyranny and oppression, which should tend not only to disquyeting of the peace, but to the ruin and destruction of the Commonwealth.  
Obj. 3. Subjects are to pray for their Magistrates, Hoen. ibid. Answ. True, but the consequence is naught. Therefore I may not resist them, when they tyrannize and oppress unjustly, it doth not follow. I must pray for my equals and inferiors, and open enemies, whose unjust violence, I may notwithstanding resist.  
Obj. 4. A son may not do violence to his Father though never so unworthy; for no impiety can be punished by parricide: Far less may violence be done to the Prince, who is the Father of the Country, Hoen. ib. Answ. 1. This simile helteth as we have showed. 2. If the Father abuse his power, the law will deprive him of it, L. 6. Lenones, L. 7. C. de Inf. expos. L. 2. C. de Parent. qui Fil. distrax. L. 2. de his qui sunt sui vel alieni juris §. sed Domin. Iust. D. Titul. L. ult. si quis a Parent manumissus. 3. The simile is for us who plead only for resistance, as we showed, not for killing and destroying Tyrants. 4. If the Sun be a Judge and the Father a malefactor, the Son must execute judgement on the Father.  
Obj. 5. Destroying of the head, though it be sickly and tender, tends to the destruction of the whole body, Hoenon. ibid. Answ. There is no such connexion betwixt King and Subjects, as betwixt Head and Members of our natural bodies. A Tyrant may be, and often hath been, destroyed, and the body of the Republic hath remained entire and in better condition then formerly. 2. Opposition may be so made to the Head, that it destroyed not the noble parts, with defluxions sent down thence; and it must, to prevent the destruction of the body, be purged: so may a Tyrant be resisted for the saifty of the Commonwealth.  
Obj. 6. It is better to have a sick head, than no head. id. ibid. Ans. Datur tertium, there is a third, a sound wholesome head. 2. A commonwealth needs not want a head long.  
Obj. 7. There is greater hazard in casting out a Tyrant, then in suffering tyranny, idem ibid. Ans. 1. resistance may be without destroying or casting out of a Tyrant. 2. That hazard speaks not to the lawfulness or unlawfulness of the thing, but only to the expediency or inexpediency of it; which is a different question: An interprize may be hazardous and yet lawful. 3. It will not always be found to be such a hazardous thing, even to cast away Tyrants; as to suffer them to tyrannize.  
Obj. 8. A Tyrant can never be destroyed, without the ruin of these who have destroyed him, for some of his posterity will avenge the quarrel, id. ibid. Ans. 1. We have many instances to the contrary in the Book of God: See the Books of the Judges and Kings: who of Jorams posterity avenged his death, on Jehu or his posterity? 2. A Tyrant may be resisted lawfully notwithstanding of such difficultyes.  
Obj. 9 God punished the wicked Kings of the Jew's not by the Jews, but by strangers, id. ibid. Answ. This is contrare to many examples in Scripture. Jehu was not stranger. 2. We speak not of punishing wicked Kings, but of resisting their unjust violence.  
Obj. 10. David spared Saul, 1 Sam. 24, and 26. Whom he might lawfully have killed, as some think, because he had given David's Wife to another, had banished him and his Parents out of the country, and had killed the Priests, id, ibid. Answ. If David was a public Judge, and might lawfully have killed Soul for his injustice, murder, and oppression, and did it not. I see not how he can be justified: But to me it is a question if David was any other than a private person, so long as Saul lived: and his resisting of Saul, and defending himself with armed men against his fury, doth abundantly confirm what we say.  
Object. 11. jeremiah doth not arm the jews against Nebuchadnezar with a sword, but with prayers for him Id. Ibid. Answer. 1. We have not jeremiahs now to reveal God's mind to us extraordinarily. 2. If this were a standing precedent, The Supreme Magistrate might not defend himself and his subjects, against a foreign Enemy, coming to destroy and conquer the land: for jeremiah commanded the King to submit to Nebuchadnezar  
Object. 12. Christ commandeth tribute and not poison to be given to Princes. Id. Ibid. Answ. We plead not for Poisoning of Princes, but for resisting their unjust violence, against which Christ doth not speak: but rather he ought to have remembered these words Let him that hath no sword sell his coat and buy one.  
Obj. 13. Paul Act. 23: ver. 5. Will not have an evil Prince so much as cursed Id. Ibid. Answ. Then no Magistrate, no not an inferior should be resisted: for such may not be cursed, doing their duty. 2. We may not curse nor revile any of out equals or inferiors Mat. 5: v. 44. Rom. 12: v. 14. Livit. 19: ver. 14. and 20: v. 9 1 Cor. 6: ver. 10. and yet such useing violence against us may be resisted; we may not curse the rich Eccles. 10: 20. and yet they may be resisted, when violently and injuriously they assault us.  
Obj. 14. War is not lawfully undertaken without the warrant of the Superior: But Subjects have no superiority of authority over the Magistrate. Gerhard de Magist. Pol. §. 483. Answ. 1. A war defensive may be undertaken without the express warrant of the Superior. 2. Defence may be used by such as are inferior to the aggressors, as by a Wife, a son, a Servant, as is showed; yea the injurer is ever eatenus inferior to the injured, in Law.  
Obj. 5. Christ said Mat. 26: ver. 52. that such as took the sword should perish by the sword. Id. Ibid. Answ. That is true of such as useth the sword, further than God hath allowed, or contrare to his express revealed will, but not of such as have a lawful call thereto by the Law of Nature, and use it in their sinless defence, when there is no countermand of God. Which place we have abundantly vindicat already, where we showed that his commanding them to sell their coat to buy swords sufficiently warrandeth this self defence: And though some do take that speech to be allegoric, yet the whole context cleareth that it is meaned of swords of steel; for they said, Here are two swords, and he said it is enough. Sure these were swords of outward metal, as the event proved: And to answer Mat. 26: ver. 52. with Luk. 22: ver. 39 is not to set Scriptures by the ears, but a solid way of answering an argument brought from abused Scripture, as Christ's practice teacheth us, answering the devil's argument taken from Psal, 91. 11. by producing another passage Deut. 6. 16. see Mat. 4: 6, 7.  
Obj. 16. The example of the saints in the Old and New Testament is against it; neither the Prophets nor Apostles gave this Command, but rather prescribed unto them patience, and prayers. That Citizen of Nieomedia, was condemned of all, who tore in pieces the Emperor's edict against the Christians, Id. Ibid. Answ. 1. We have seen instances both in the time of the Old Testament, and in the days of the New Testament, making for us. 2. We find not the Prophets nor Apostles forbidding this. 3. Their pressing to patience and prayers is not repugnant to this innocent res istence: we may pray against foreign invaders, yet may we resist them. 4. Tearing of the Emperor's edict is no act of self defence.  
Obj. 17. This would close up the way of people acquireing the crown of Martyrdom, Id. Ibid. Answ. If upon this account private persons might not resist Magistrates, neither might inferior Magistrates resist the supreme, which yet he will not condemn. Yea. 2. If this ground hold, the Supreme Magistrate might not resist an army coming to destroy him and all his Kingdom, for Religion, but He and all were bound to hold up their throats that they might receive the Crown of Martyrdom. 3. It is good to wait for this Crown in God's way, and not to run to the stake without a clear call: and if People may fairly and with a clear conscience, deliver themselves, it is a question if they be called to suffer.  
Obj. 18. Some adduce that place Eccles. 8. ver. 2, 3, 4. I counsel thee to keep the King's command and that in regaird of the oath of God— he doth whatsoever pleaseth him, where the word of ● King is there is power, and who may say unto him what dost thou? Ans. I. Will it hence follow that we must obey all the Kings unjust, unlawful and iniquous commands? No true Christian can say so. Neither will it hence follow, that in no case he may be resisted. 2. King's way not the jure do what they please, but they have power to execute the Law in way of justice, which is the thing that they as Kings should and do please: And therefore, we should not stand in an evil matter. 3. Notwithstanding of this, Princes have been rebuked, 2 Sam. 12: ver. 7. and resisted 2 Chron. 27: ver. 17, 18, 19, 20. and so the meaning is, no man must question his just actions warranted by his lawful authority. Or, it is but folly for a man to strive with such an one, as is able to execute his cruelty and to do what he will: see the English notes on the place, and Mr. Iackson's: but as this doth not justify Kings in their oppressing; so neither doth it condemn a resisting of their tyranny, more than the resisting of the oppressing violence of some mighty robber, who hath power to do what mischief he will, whom yet lawfully we may resist if we be able.  
Obj. 19 The author of an appeal to conscience adduceth that place Psal. 105: ver. 15. Touch not mine anoyneted. Answ. Hence it clearly followeth that Kings and Princes should not enjure the Saints and Servants of God; for this was meaned of Abraham, Isaac, and jacob, and of their Wives and Families, who were sojourning as strangers from Nation to Nation, as the context cleareth, and the words following and do my Prophets no harm. And so relateth to what we hear Gen. 12: v. 10, to 20. & 20: 1. etc. & 26: 1. etc. & is not meaned of Kings and Princes as such. So that this anointing is such as is common to Priests and Prophets, & to all the saints who are spiritually anointed, and so become Kings & Priests unto God 1. Pet. 2: 5. Rev. 1: 6. and 5: 10.  
Obj. 20. D. Ferne, Resolvig of conscience would prove from 1 Sam. 8: ver. 18. that subjects may do nothing against Tyrants, but cry to the Lord. So Grotius. Answ. Subordinata non pugnant. We may both cry to the Lord and resist, as judg. 10. Exod. 14. 2 Chron. 32: v. 20. 2 King. 19 2 Chron 14: v. 9 etc. and 13: 14, 15, * 16. 2. The text saith not, they should have no other remedy left them but crying; or that it should be lawsul for them to do no other thing. We find that they resisted this King, when he was about to kill innocent jonathan. 3. The words at most but import a prohibition of attempting to have the government changed from King to judges 4 Suppose it were so; yet, it importing only a punishment unto them for their importunate and headstrong affecting of a King, will not in reason reach other Nations not guilty of this crime. Yea 5. This predication could not bind up their own hands from a defence; but at most import, That all their resistance or defence should be in vain, through God's not hearing or helping them in resisting.  
Obj. 21. The author of an appeal to thy conscience proposeth this argument. That evil Kings and Tyrants are afflictions and punishments inflicted on us by God. Therefore we should submit patiently, and not resist. Answ. The consequence is nought, for so are foreign enemies, the rising up of inferiors against us, sickness and pains on our bodies, and the like, and yet these may very lawfully be resisted.  
Obj. 22. Equals have no power over equals, much less have inferiors over Magistrates Alber. Gentil. in. dispp. regalib. Answ. Superiority, is not requisite to lawful defence, as is said: 2. A Tyrant as such is no Magistrate, but a private person.  
Obj. 23. No punishment for Tyrants but vexation of conscience id. ib. Answ. All evil doers may expect that punishment as well as Tyrants, and yet they may be resisted, yea and punished with civil punishments.  
Obj. 24. The removing of a Tyrant occasioneth civil wars, which makes the remedy worse than the disease id. ib. Answ. 1. We speak not of removing Tyrants; but of resisting them. 2. This is the way to prevent ruin and destruction to the Commonwealth, even to resist Tyranny. 3. A civil war may be more advantageous, for Religion and the libertyes of the subjects, and so preferable to a brutish submission to illegal tyranny: And every kind of evil is not to be endured for avoiding a worse in probability? 4. Desperate diseases must have desperate cures; and it is better to hazard some thing in a war, then lose all: We know not what the event may be, we are bound to defend Religion, and the libertyes of the country, and commit the event to God. 5. It hath been found that the putting away of a Tyrant, hath proved very advantageous to the Country, and to Religion: and hereby all their loss by war was more than abundantly repaid: yea and sometimes this hath been obtained without much shedding of blood.   

CAP. XVIII.  
How weakly & foolishly The Surveyer maintaineth the Union of his majesty's Dominions, is cleared.  
HAving thus discussed all which the Surveyer hath in his railing pamphlet said, against this truth which we have maintained; and having (sufficiently as we suppose) vindicated the People's right to defend themselves, and their Covenanted Religion, from manifest and intolerable violence and oppression, we might without the least injury imaginable to our cause, wave the examination of what he Principally aimeth at Cap. 1. & 3. & 4. as being extrinsic to the present question, and because we are not necessitated to maintain these opinions which he setteth himself against in those chapters, our question being distinct from those, and easily maintained without touching upon those rocks. But yet because this windy man would fain make his Majesty believe that he had not gotten his reward for nothing, but that he had done some notable piece of service worthy of it; And had discovered some rare secret, the discovery of which, is of no small advantage, but of great use both for the preservation of the union of his majesty's dominions, and for the saveing of his life from the stroke of adversaries; we shall manifest how little ground he hath to father any of these assertions on Naphtali, and then discover how weakly and foolishly he maintaineth his majesty's cause, in both these; that all the world may see, that he hath come short of performing that service to his Maj. which he here undertaketh; & that he hath been so far from laying the devil after he had raised him, that he hath done his Maj. no small piece of disservice in starting questions so dangerous to his Majesty's Kingdoms and life, when he had no ground given him; and after he had moved the question, left it worse than he found it; and so did little less than invite such as pleased, to do what he allegeth Naphtaly and his complices had a mind to do.  
The first question which he speaks to Chap. 1. Is touching the dissolving of humane societies, which in some cases politicians will yield to see Althus. pol. c. 38. n. 76. And the thing he driveth at, is to fasten on the honest party a resolution and design, to dissipate and dissolve the immemorially settled frame (as he loveth to speak Pag. 9) of that Nation and Kingdom, which through divine providence hath in many generations subsisted under our lawful Sovereigns, for the common benefit of subjects at home, and to the honour and renown of the Nation abroad; yea and to the glory of divine providence, which hath through many storms in several ages; preserved us in this comfortable constitution. And this he deviseth of his own wicked heart, of purpose to make these cordial lovers of Religion and of their Country, hateful to all the world, if he could; and therefore he would represent them as men of strange principles, & purposes. But woe to such as make lies their refuge! This man thinketh to make the King glade with his lies, but we know that the mouth of such as speak lies shall be stopped.  
But sure one would think that he behoved to have some clear ground to walk upon in asserting this of us, and especially when he is at the pains to spend a whole chapter, to confute it. And yet when he hath rambled up and down that book of Naphtali, to seek out a ground for this assertion, he can not adduce any one sentence, that even with half an eye doth look there away, except one, which yet hath no such design or import. The sentence is this Pag. 150. [That through the Manifest and notorious perversion of the great ends of Society, and government, the bond thereof being dissolved, the persons one or moe thus liberated therefrom, do relapse into their primeve liberty and privilege, and accordingly as the similitude of their case, and exigence of their cause doth require, may upon the very same principles again join and associate for their better defence and preservation, as they did at first enter into Societyes.] For clearing of which these things would be observed.  
1. That the author there is only adding a few observations, to clear the innocency of these noble witnesses, who died owneing the interest and cause of Christ, and to show how free they were of the crime of rebellion, with which they were charged. Now all know that as these worthies, had no design, of erecting themselves into a distinct commonwealth, nor to make such a civil politic separation from the rest of the land; so the way which they took, did directly tend to have the whole land united unto God, and among themselves, as one for God and to God, in the bond of the solemn league and covenant. Had they designed such a separation, they behoved also to have chosen more apposite & fit means, than these were which they did use, as any of half a judgement may perceive.  
2. That as the main and only design of these worthies, was to defend themselves and their Covenanted Religion, from manifest oppression and tyranny, and to have the land recovered from that woeful course of backsliding and departing from the Lord, whereof it was guilty, and wherein it had lain for many days: So, This author is only clearing their innocency, as to that: and therefore in the first observation Pag. 147. He cleareth the native ground of self preservation: and in the 2. How the perverting of the ends of government doth not destroy this native right, but that then people are as free to defend themselves as ever, even against the oppressing Powers, who in that case, according to King james his testimony and practice, become Tyrants, and are to be resisted: and in the 3. How all powers are obliged, if not expressly, yet tacitly, to walk in a due subordination to God, and to prosecute these great ends of government: and particularly in the 4. How our king is bound by the laws of the land, and by his coronation covenant oath, to Rule for God and the good of the People: And in the 5. How all even the most Malignantly affected, would assent to this, as an undoubted truth, in their own particular cases: And cometh in the 6. Place to the words cited, which must have the same import and tendency, to wit, to clear the innocency of private persons self-defence, and defence of Religion, when the powers which should mind and study according to their place & power, to promove the great ends of society and government viz. the glory of God, and the good of the Subjects in soul and body, do manifestly and notoriously pervert these ends, and prefer themselves, and their own lusts, unto the will and glory of God; and to the good of the People. The same is also clear from the following observations, which do manifestly point at the clearing of people being bound in duty to defend themselves and their Religion, conform to their engagements vows and Covenants, which still stand in force, notwithstanding of any thing done to the contrary of late, in their acts rescissory and condemnatory.  
3. The very words themselves, to any who is not utterly blinded with prejudice, can import no more than that, when through the notorious and mainfest perversion of the great ends of society and government, the bond thereof is dissolved, and the persons now relapseing into their Primeve liberty and privilege, may no less now join and associate together, to defend Themselves and their Religion, then at first they entered into societes: For, as their entering into societies was for this end, and their setting up of Magistrates over themselves was for this end; so when the Magistrates cross their end and rule, and thereby annul the relation, or make it invalide for the ends, they may join together now for these ends, as they might have done before the formal institution of Government. And who can deny this to be a truth? Or who can hence infer (but he who is of a perverse spirit, and for his perverse ends seeketh to pervert all things) that he pleadeth for the lawfulness of People's crumbling together in lesser fractions and petty commonwealthes.  
4. Suppose the words should be capable of that gloss ' which the Surveyer putteth upon them; yet as they lie connected with what precedeth and with what followeth they can, at most, be but a Medium for proving the intended conclusion; and so must be considered as founding an argument a Majori ad minus, from the more to the less; to this purpose: if when through the manifest and notorious perversion of the great Ends of society and government, the bond thereof is dissolved, and persons relapse into their primeve liberty, so that according as the similitude of their case, and exigence of their cause requireth, upon the same principles, they may again associate and combine into new and distinct Societies and Commonwealthes, for their defence and preservation: Then much more may they lawfully now join and associate together for their defence and preservation, without making any such rupture, or new erections: but endeavouring to keep the old Society firm and entire, undissolved, and unweakened. So that though his gloss should be admitted, he doth but bewray the ignorence of his capricious brain, to take the Medium for the conclusion. And the antecedent will be granted by politians, and is expressly asserted by Althusius, Polit, Cap. 20. Num. 20. in case the Prince keep not his promise, but violate his faith and Covenant.  
5. Suppose also that this which he allegeth had been the authors positive assertion, can he hence inferred with any colour of reason, that it was or is the design of the author and his party, to dissipate and dissolve the old settled frame of this Kingdom, and erect new Commonwealthes' with new distinct Sovereigns? Seeing every one knoweth, that many things are lawful, which are not expedient, convenient nor necessary; & that it were the result of no mature deliberation, but of madness and folly, to intend and design such a thing. which (though lawful in itself, yet) all things considered were, very inexpendient and unnecessary, yea not only not advantageous to their ends and purposes, but quite destructive thereof.  
Now since the Surveyer hath drawn in this controversy by the ears, and set it in the front of his learned and elaborat pamphlet, we must suppose him one who is well versed in this topic, and can give a good account of his politic notions touching this quaestion. But alas if he had a real adversary to deal with (as now he doth but feign one to himself: & it is easy fight against a man of straw, or one of our own making) his ridiculous and yet audacious folly, would easily be made to appear: his adversary would laugh (as indeed he would have cause) at the shakeing of his spear.  
He maketh this the thesis which he undertaketh to confirm. That [when politic bodies are settled in voluntary associations, or whatever way in the course of divine providence, they have been reduced to live under the same laws and authorities, and have continued long in the union of a common interest, under the protection of magistracy, to break off from the body in seditious secessions, cannot but be displeasing to God; and they are no other than firebrands, confounders of humane society, fighters against God and his ordinance, who instigate People to cut off themselves from the body of the Common wealth whereof they are members.] But would not his adversary tell him that he had granted as much in the words immediately preceding, as would make him and his position both ridiculous: For he hath granted That the Lord hath not by any precept particularly determined the bounds of every embodied Political society, There being some greater, and some lesser, acting under their several heads and sovereign Magistrates. And seeing neither God nor Nature hath determined the quantity and extent of each Republicki or embodied Politic Society, what more affinity hath it with sinful sedition, to say, that greater bodies may be divided and subdivided into lesser Republics, then to say that moe lesser bodies may associate together to make one greater, especially seeing Politicians tell us that the ends of government are more easily attained in a lesser Republic, then in a greater; and that a mid way commonwealth neither too larg●, nor too little, is the best, as being less subject to vices and greater calamities, as was to be seen in the Roman Republic before it was enlarged in the days of Marius, Sylla, Pompey, and Caesar, and is to be seen this day in the Commonwealth of Venice, and the like, as Althusius shows us, Polit. Cap. 9 num. 11. The time was when all the World was under one head, and after they were multiplied, they became distinct Republics without any sinful or seditious secession. The time was when all thess western parts were under one Emperor, and was nothing but a seditious secession, caused by firebrands, the ground of their becoming many and distinct Republics? The time was when Scotland, England, and Irland, were distinct Kingdoms, and under distinct Sovereign Magistrates, and what repugnancy were it either to the Law of God or nature, to say they might be so again? So were there once Seven Kings in England at once: and more than one King in Scotland at once: and by no reason can he prove that it should always be, as it is at present, but by the same reason his adversaries could prove him guilty of treason; for he behoved to say, that because we were once all under one Emperor, we ought to be so still, and that the King must either hold his crown of the Emperor, or be an usurper and a seditious rebel; for in the course of providence we were then reduced under the same Laws and Authorities, and continued in the union of a common interest for some good space of time, Yea and observe many of these civil Laws yet. Thus we see whither this advocate will drive the matter, and how little service he doth his Majesty for all his rich recompense.  
But it may be his arguments are cogent and binding: He hath many words, Pag. 4, & 5. to prove that this is contrary to Religion, The sum is this. [Never greater perversion of government then in the times of many of the Prophets, and in the days of Christ, and his holy Apostles, and primitive Christians, and yet this was never their doctrine or sense.] Answ. Is this all that he can say, to prove that this is contrary to Religion? Sure his adversary will think that he hath little Religion who saith so, and that he hath farlesse loyalty to his Master the King of Great Britain; for why? Because contrare to the doctrine of Christ and the Apostles, and the sense of all the primitive Christians, he acknowledgeth the King of Britain to be a distinct King from the Roman Emperor, and not to depend upon him. They never taught that Britain and Irland should be ruled by a King distinct from him, and that these Islands should be separate from the Roman Empire, and so the King holds his Crown by usurpation, and by an irreligious secession from the Empire, which neither Christ nor his Apostles ever taught, and must not this man and not we, acknowledge judas of Galilee, and Theudas to be his Masters: For they taught (especially the first, as josephus, and Ruffinus out of him show us) that no tribute should be given to the Roman Emperor; and he will do the same, and say that it should be paid to king Charles the II. Next his adversary would tell him, that if this were held and maintained as a point absolutely necessary to salvation, than his argument would say something; But seeing it is only held as lawful, and according as providence determineth it to be convenient or inconvenient, to be practicable, it is sufficient if the doctrine of the Prophets and of Christ and his Apostles, do not condemn it, as simply sinful: And that by this argument of his, it should be utterly unlawful now for Frame and Holland, and other adjacent Countries, to join together in one: and proclaim King Charles their Sovereign Lord and King: because neither Prophets nor Apostles taught any such doctrine, that many several societies should join together under one head: And who is a friend to the King's greatness now? If this man be worthy of his wages, let all the World judge. Moreover they would tell him, that in the days of some of the Prophets, there was a greater dissipation and secession, than any that is now desired, when the Ten tribes separated themselves from the other two, in the days of Rehoboam and erected themselves in a distinct Republic, under a distinct Supreme Magistrate; and we find not this reproved by any of the prophets, yea we find a Prophet sent to tell jeroboam that God would give him Ten Tribes, 1. King. 11: ver. 21. etc. and when Rehoboam would go and reduce them under his subjection by the power of the sword, we find another Prophet sent to dissuade him, in the Name of the Lord, 1 King. 12: ver. 22, etc. and saying that that was from the Lord. And sure this positive is as forcible, as his negative. And further, even in the days of the primitive Christians, the Roman Empire was divided, and how it is now subdivided and re-subdivided into many fractions, we all know: and can he show us where any of the godly zealous Christians and servants of God spoke against this as a seditious practice?  
But is may be that he will prove this assertion, though not dissonant to Religion; yet dissonant to sound reason. Let us hear how he doth it? [For (says he Pag. 5.) it hath a clear tendency to break in pieces all humane societyes— which no wit of man can preserve from dissolution, if this principle be drunk in: For by this Man's opinion, the judgement of the pervesion of the ends of government is put over to the discretion of the sufferers of prejudice, and they are accordingly to determine their actions, and nothing should hinder them but want of probable capacity to through their work.] But poor Man, as he hath made shipewrack of faith and of a good conscience, so hath he made shipwreck of his reason also; for his adversary would now think the cause wone: For grant once that a secession and separation may be made, when the ends of government are manifestly perverted, and they will seek no more, for they will readily grant it ought not to be, when there is no just cause, suppose that a great part should in their discretion judge there were real cause; And where is he now? Where is the position that is so dissonent to Religion and Reason? Will he also own it? Did Naphtaly say that when ever a few of a society thought in their judgement of discretion, that the ends of government were perverted, they were replased into their primaeve state of liberty, and free to make separations from the old society and associate into new combinations? And since he did not say so, how can this advocate make his position appear dissonant either to Religion or Reason? But the man, let him be never so well hired, is obliged to reason no better than he can. Let him grant (and he cannot well deny it) that it is lawful for a great society to divide into two or moe lesser, when the ends of government are really and manifestly perverted, in that greater society so united, and his adversaries will soon satisfy him (if he be rational, or a man fit for society who will be ruled with reason) concerning the judgement of that perversion. He but exposeth himself to pity, when he cryeth out (taking also God's name in vain) [Too what times are we reserved, wherein the unmeasureable and aciousnesse of Men dar present such poison to a Christian People, and to attempt the breaking them in pieces by such doctrines which both Religion and sound Reason abhors.] For no body hath either seen Religion nor found Reason alleged against that position (which he sayeth Naphtaly setteth down.) But we will see more of this vain Man's ridiculous ranting in the following words [Dar this libeler (so speaketh this nonsensical railer) say that this is a fundamental constitution of political societies, that at the arbitrement and lust of any minor part of private persons, pretending a perversion of the ends of government (a pretence that will never be wanting to Malcontents and Malapert wicked ones, Even Katherine's and highlandish thiefs, and it is real to them if they themselves be admitted judges) they may make secession from the society in which they are embodied, and renunce their obligation to the government thereof.] Now he soars high in his scurril rhetorik, and as ornaments of his discourse, he must bring in his Katherine's and Highlandish thiefs, but to what purpose is all this superfluity of vain empty words? Where or when said Naphtaly, That that was the fundamental Constitution of politic societies? What rational Man ever said so? Is this the only thing which he denyeth? Sure he is an ill maintainer of the union of his Majesty's dominion; for his adversaries will grant all this, and yet say and be able to maintain (for any thing that he hath said) that when the Ends of government are manifestly and notoriously perverted, people relapseing into their primaeve liberty and privilege, may, according as the exigent of their case requireth, associate into new societies for their defence and preservation. But he addeth pag. 6. [Suppose there be a breaking off, upon that pretention (which will never be wanting to cover sedition and confusion) of perversion of the ends of government, the party making secession may haply meet with the same measure they gave, for if a minor party arise among them with the same accusations, must they not have the same privilege? And where shall there be a stand?] His adversaries would soon reply, that whatever be in that absurdity, it doth not concern them, for they plead not for a dissolution upon a mere pretention of this perversion: And beside, they plead not for it, even where there is a real and not our perversion, as a thing necessary, which they must go about, never once consulting whether it be expedient or inexpedient, and whether they see a more feasible way of attaineing the ends of government, without such perversion, after the separation is made, them before, or not: But only as a thing lawful, which may be done when they see it most convenient for the ends of government: And when they walk by this rule and principle, they will soon see where to make a stand. For they will find that the crumbling of Societies into too many and too small bodies, would put them as far from attaineing the ends of governments, as they were while associated in a greater body. And this is all which he hath to this purpose. For as touching his application of this pag. 9 and 10. all alleging that there is no perversion of the Ends of government now, it hath been spoken to already, and his adversaries in this position (if there be any such, which I am ignorant of) will think and make out, that the ends of government are so far perverted, that if there were no other thing lying in the way of a secession, than what he hath said, they would think it of concernment to mind this outgate, which they had no thoughts of before. And the King should then think himself little obliged to this man and his defences, and wish that he had been sleeping when he wakened such a debate, and himself had bestowed his gold another way: For sure, if such a thing were upon the heart of people now (as I hope & am confident it is not) they will profess themselves obliged to this Surveyer, for putting it into their head first, and that all which he hath said against it, would rather invite and encourage them to it, then discourage them from it.  
May not then this Man be ashamed to take his Majesty's Money, and do so bad service for it, as he hath done? But Some will possibly say what could any persons have said more; Well, though some should think me officious to take his Majesty's part and defend his cause, un-hired, yea and undesired, yet I will propose one thing, which I am confident, shall be more effectual, for preserving the immemorially settled frame of this Nation, and the union of all his Majesty's Dominions, to all generations, without dissipation or dissolution, or any hazard or fear thereof; Then what this Pamphleting Prelate hath said, Or will say, though he should write volumes, at this rate: What is that, you will say? It is no great secret, yet if heartily followed, it shall prove infallibly effectual. Let his Majesty Turn to the Lord with all his heart, and repent of his fearful perjury and defection, and mind his oath made unto the great God, and perform his vows, and fulfil his Covenant which he swore with hands lifted up to the most high God, and solemnly promised to own and prosecute, as he should answer to God, in that day, when the secrets of all hearts shall be disclosed; and execute judgement on the Apostate Prelates, by hanging them up before the Sun, that the fierce anger of the Lord, evidenced by more as twice three Years famine of the word, may be removed, and on all others who have been authors and abettors of this norrible course of defection, and unparallelable apostasy, which makes these lands an hissing and a byword to all nations; and let him honestly and with an upright heart prosecute the ends of these holy Covenants, and with that Godly King Asa. 2. Chron. 15. Enter into a Covenant, that whosoever will not seek the Lord God of Israel, shall be put to death, whether small or great, whether Man or woman: And let his successors follow his footsteps in this, and he and they shall find, no imaginable bond so sure to tie his Kingdoms together perpetually, as an indissoluble Society, than these holy Covenants, particularly that solemn league and Covenant. In which all his subjects in Scotland, England, and Ireland, did swear in a most solemn manner, to maintain and promove reformation of Religion in worship, Doctrine, Discipline, and Government, and endeavour to bring the Churches of God in the Three Kingdoms, to the nearest conjunction, and uniformity, in Religion, Confession of faith, Form of Church government, Directory for worship and Catechiseing, etc. that they and their posterity after them, may as brethren live in faith and love, and the Lord may delight to dwell in the midst of them— and that the Lord may be one and his name one in the three Kingdoms; and to endeavour the discovery of all such as have been, or shall be incendiaries, Malignants, or evil instruments, by hindering the Reformation of Religion, divideing the King from his People, or one of the Kingdoms from another, or make any faction or parties among the People, contrary to this League and Covenant, that they may be brought to public trial and receive condign punishment: And that they should each one of them, according to their place and interest, endeavour that the Kingdoms may remain conjoined, in firm peace and union to all posterity: And that they shall not suffer themselves directly nor indirectly, by whatsoever combination, persuasion or terror, to be divided & withdrawn from this belssed union and conjunction. Now what bond more strong to unite and keep together his majesty's Dominions can the wit of Man imagine? And shall not the owneing and prosecuting of this Covenant, Appear to all rational persons the most infallible mean to effectuate this indissoluble union and lasting Conjunction, that can be invented?   

CAP. XIX.  
How weakly and foolishly the Surveyer defendeth his majesty's Life, is showed.  
THe surveyer, finding how poorly he had defended the cause now mainly controverted. viz. The unlawfulness of People's defending themselves, and maintaining their Religion against manifest and intolerable oppression. Cap. 2. That he might do something for his money, would start another question, wherein he thought he should do his Majsome acceptable piece of servicé, and secure his life, when all came to all: Though he could not cudgil with his railing (for he can move none with his reason) the People into a stupid, and irrational subjection, so that let the King rage worse than ever Nero did, they should not lift a hand to resist and withstand him; He thinks he shall do the next best, viz. he shall fortify his majesty's person, and set such a guard of impregnable reasons about him, that no man, no company of men, yea no judicatoure, shall ever approach to touch his sacred person, or to spoil him of his life; a guard of reasons like lion rampants, belike he thought them, more invincible and saife, than a legion of the most valiant Champions that his majesty's kingdoms can aford. But poor man, he may dream that such arms are impenetrable and proof, because they are the best in his armoury, or that his dull head could hammer out: But no man of reason will think so; yea all who know that belongeth to this controversy, and are not professed adversaries (yea and the most ingenuous of them too) will upon second thoughts be forced to say, That never any put pen to paper in the King's quarrel, who hath so foolishly and childishly, managed that disput; and how little he deserveth thanks (let be a reward) for his pains, such as are sober will judge, when they consider how little ground, he had to move such a question now, seeing the wronging of the King's Person or his just authority, was not intended by those worthies who arose for the maintenance of Religion; as such of them who were publicly put to death, did openly upon the scaffold confess and avow; and consider also how the Author of Naphtaly hath been miserably misunderstood by him.  
It is not our purpose, nor our present business, to speak unto this head, and show for what causes, or by whom kings are to be questioned, deposed, or executed: Far less is it our purpose to defend the taking away of the late King's life, though this railing Pamphleter thinks to fasten this upon Naphtaly. And therefore we might palse what he sayeth to this purpose, Chap. 3. Yet as in the preceding Chapter, we have showed how ill he hath maintained the union and conjunction of his Majesty's Dominions; So in this, we shall show how weakly he hath guarded his life, against such as would oppose themselves unto him, in this question.  
But first, we would take notice whether Napthtali hath given him such ground to fasten upon him the justification of the murder of the late King, as he allegeth. [The matter (says the Surveyer) in dealing with Magistrates (according to Naphtali's mind) rests not in a mere resistance of them by mere private persons, but goes on to a retaliating and revenging upon them wrong supposed to be done— for his man again jeers at the Sovereign Powers Privilege, and Impunity of Divine exemption.] Ans. Doth this man know what he writeth? Doth Naphtaly say, That private persons may revenge wrongs upon the Supreme Magistrate, because he jeers at such as plead for such a Privilege and impunity unto Sovereign Powers, as will exempt them from all trial and punishment, both of God and Man? What meaneth he else by this impunity of divine exemption? Then he tells us, pag. 71, and 77. That Naphtaly Pag. 29. reflects not obscurely upon the horrid murder of our late Sovereign. Let us hear Naptaly's words, then shall we better judge, [And as these inferior Princes (says Naphtaly, Pag. 29.) Do often forget their subordination to the most High in their unjust commands, and would usurp his throne, by an uncontrollable Sovereignty: So the Lord by the warrant of his Word and approbation of his providence, and also of the People (when by them oppressed, but by himself animated & strengthened) hath declared & made void this their pretended exemption & impunity, & removed the carcases of such Kings, and broken their sceptre: amongst which precedents, the instance of these times, whereof we now speak, is worthily recorded, and deserveth better to be remembered] Now Naphtali is speaking of what fell out betwixt the year 1494. and the year 1560. in that place, and makes no mention of what fell out an 1560. and afterward till he come to Pag. 31. etc. Sure then, the times he is speaking of being before the year 1560. are far from the times wherein King Charles the first was executed. But says he, there was no such thing as murdering of Kings or dethroning of them, at that time, Answ. Yet the Lord, at that time, declared and made void the pretended exemption and Impunity of Princes and Sovereign Governors, by removing in his providence their carcases, and by the approbation of the people, when by them oppressed, & by himself animated, breaking their sceptre; as we find was done to the Q. Kegent anno 1559. when she was by the People, the Nobles, Barons and Burgesses assembled to deliberate upon the affairs of the commonwealth, Octob. 20. deposed from her Regency, and upon the ninth of I●n the next year, God removed her carcase by death, so that the land was no more troubled with her.  
Who may not now see what a poor ground this Railer had, to father such a tenet on Naphtali, as he doth? And what advantage the King's cause hath gotten by this, we shall now see. He tells us Pag. 72. [That most of the venom this man (meaning Naphtali▪) hath against the powers ordained of God, he hath sucked out of the breasts of Lex Rex. It were not right to dig up all the pestilent untruths of that piece, set forth in most impertinent and sophistical reasonings, mixed with infinite humane bitterness, against the late King: Only as it were to be wished that such errors, might be buried in eternal oblivion; so it is to be regretted that too too many of the Ministry and others in Scotland have been poisoned with such principles, and the same not being very like to be suddenly extirpate, the more need have the powers above us to be watchful] Ans. The author of Lex Rex and of Naphtaly also, ascribe as much to the powers ordained of God, as God's word will allow; and are no way opposed unto them, but only unto Tyranny, which is no Ordinance of God: and this Man rather spiteth venom in the face of the power ordained of God, when he goeth about to patronise and defend their illegal and iniquous exorbitances, as if these were the ordinance of God, which are rather the ordinance of Satan: Sure this is not far from blasphemy, to call such courses the Ordinance of God. 2. He hath taken a short cut. I confess, to answer that unanswerable book Lex Rex. To say, that it is full of pestilent untruths, set forth in most impertinent and sophistical reasonings. Had King Charles the first, when he read that book, remembered this, or thought upon it, he would not have said he feared (as is reported he did) that it should not have been answered. But what Man, who hath not denuded himself of all wit and reason, will take, upon this perjured Apostates word, these Truths which Lex Rex hath demonstrated (& which this Man was so unable to answer, that I much question if he well understood many of them, or if his lumpish brain could discern betwixt a sophistical reason and a true and real reason) to be untruths; and these truths so wholesome and useful to all Republics, and necessary to be known and well digested by all who consult the welfare of commonwealths, to be pestilent untruths, and his unanswerable reasons, to be impertinent and sophistical? 3. I am sure all the Cavaliers, and the Malignant squade would have thought him well worth his gold, if he had in a sober rational manner discovered the impertinencies and sophistical reasonings in that book, which yet is like to speak after it is burned, and under a legal restraint, though he should have spent the most part of his days upon it; it may be, the Royal cabal would have thought it Dignum opus, and have canonised him for it, and advised the King of Remember the issue of such a worthy & singular pillar of the tottering throne. But the man knew how far his stock would reach, and that all the gold in the King's treasures could not make his head stronger than it was, how ever it might superabundantly fortify his purse; and therefore, seeing his short horns could reach no further, his Majesty must rest satisfied with this: And Lex Rex must be declared, as it is, to be further unanswereable. 4. Seing he wisheth that such errors might be buried in oblivion, why did not his work follow his wish? Why did he dig up the untruths (if such) again, when he was not able to bury them dead nor alive? Prudence (if he were not innocent of it) might have taught him silence, seeing he knew he could answer no better. 5. Such as have received these principles find them more wholesome food than his sour leaven. 6. He needs not stir up the Powers to more cruelty and tyranny then already they exerce, neither will that be a way to extirpate these principles, but rather a way to root them more deeply in the heart.  
But now what says he to the thing. He tells us in the first place: That [The God of order hath in all humane political Societyes apppointed under himself a supreme power, whether subjected in a single person, or in a complex company, which order the whole body, having nothing before or above it, in the nature and order of civil authority, and governs all in the society, and is governed by none therein: to say that a person is chief, and yet hath a Superior or equal is to speak contradictions: wise men have said, that a multitude of Gods is the nullity of Gods, and multitude of infinites so called makes none of them infinite, so a multitude of supreme powers in one civil society destroys divine order.] Answ. 1. It is true, God hath apppointed in all humane political societies, a supreme power. But I suppose, the Surveyer will grant, that this may as well be a Parliament, as the King, and what hath he then said for security of the King's life, by this argument? 2. What ever supreme power, whether in one or more persons, God hath apppointed over politic societies, he hath done it by the People; and so the People, who make and set up, under God, these supreme powers, are above these supreme powers; If he will not take my word for this, let him read and consider how it is proved in Lex Rex, in many places, specially quaes; t. XIX. And if he will not rest satisfied therewith, let him try his hand, And answer what is there said, if he can. 3. Politicians will tell him that the King's supremacy of power, is only in respect of the administration, and execution of the laws, according to the power committed unto him, by the People: let him read and consider well Althusius his politics, as to this. 4. And so, though in respect of this executive administration, he be chief, and governeth all: yet in respect of the royal fountaine-power of Government, the People are above him, because they give this out to him, and may, in cases of necessity, recall it, and give it to another; So that still they reserve a fountaine-power over him, to be exerced in cases of necessity: and therefore, there is no contradiction here, because non ad idem: the father is above the soon, and yet subject to him, if he be a judge. The Emperor is above the prince palatine, and yet in some cases that Prince's is his judge; as the Tutor hath the supreme executive power, and the pupil can not act without him; Yet in case of male administration, the pupil hath a power to call him to a account. But finally what if his adversaries should say, that the King is not that Supreme power in Scotland, but that a Parliament, as the People's Representatives are above him? He may see much said to prove this in Lex Rex, and in the Apology. And how shall he be able to confute that? And if Parliaments have power to depose Princes in Scotland (as hath been often practised) how hath he saved the King's Sceptre and Person? But he addeth, as a short answer to cut all off that is said, [A chimaera of idle distinctions is whelped by the late Masters of confusion of coordinate and collateral Sovereigns in one Kingdom, the fountality of Royalty in the People (resumable at their pleasure) is talked of, also Kings and People there being mutual Magistrates to punish one another,— and courts of necessity and tribunals of nature, where People are judges accusers and all, are bigly talked of; but these are only cloaks of fig leaves to cover horrid rebellion & disorder.] Ans. Every thing must go for a new whelped Chimaera, which this blunt head cannot understand: Can he confute such of these distinctions as Lex Rex maketh use of? Why doth he it not then? How doth this master of disorder blow away these figleaves, yea or discover them to be such? Is this the way he takes to salve his Master's life? By his calling such distinctions Chimaeraes and figleaves; he will not save a tyrannical Magistrate from deposition or worse, by that power which is cleared by these distinctions. 2. As for these courts of necessity, etc. Royalists must grant them, who grant power in some cases to People to resist and depose Kings, viz. when they turn habitual tyrants, sell the Commonwealth and the like: and in such cases, when the Prince doth such horrid things, which himself Pag. 24. thinks can hardly befall a Prince in his natural and right wits: How shall these things be judged, if he allow no courts, but the ordinary courts of justice, and no court of necessity? Ay, but he says thereafter [That it is certain Supreme power is indivisible and incommunicable to distinct subjects, in any one political Society.] Though the supreme executive power of administration be so, either in one, called a Monarch, or in the plurality of best and chiefest, as in Aristocracy, etc. yet the fountain power of government (which Lex Rex tells him is distinct from the power of governing Pag. 50.) abides entire in the People, by which they may call the Governors to account, depose them, and set up others to execute the laws▪ 2. Grotius will tell him that the King may have one half of the Sovereign power, and the Senate or Parliament the other, and if the King assume that part which is not his, he may be resisted, where is then the indivisibility or incommunicability of this power, which he talketh of? Thinks he that there is no mixed Monarchy? And if part of the Sovereignty belong to the Parliamet, as the People's Representatives (as is certain in our constitution) the King cannot be so Supreme as he would have him. Therefore he addeth. [But why should we doubt that where there is a King (one truly so) his Sovereignty is matchless on earth, when the Scripture calls him supreme. 1. Pet. 2: ver. 13. is there any equal to the Supreme, in order of civil government, by whom he is judgeable or punishable? if any, he is not not Supreme not the government Royal.] Answ. This Chimaerical Man gives us a distinction of Kings, some truly so and some falsely so: And what, and who are these? It is like the King of Poland and the Emperor of Germany are not Kings truly so, as he said, because forsooth they are not absolute above all Law and coercion. But what if more learned politicians then ever he was, say, that such are most truly Kings? And what if his adversaries say and prove also, that the King of Britain is not such a King, as he accounts truly so? His saying that the King of Britain is absolute, will note prove that he is so, and will be found but a weak defence for his life, if he be not able to prove him above all judgement and punishment, which we have not yet seen, and despair to see, done. 2. These words 1. Pet. 2: ver. 13. may be as well rendered, The King as supereminent, and can import no more, but one who had a supreme or supereminent place in the administration of government, notwithstanding whereof he might be & was accountable to the Senate of Rome: for learned politicians and lawyers prove that the supreme power of government was in the Senate, even at this time, which clearly appeared in their judging and condemning Nero, and other impious and tyrannical Emperors. So that even hence we see that one may be supreme in order of civil government, and yet both judgeable and punishable. 3. His adversaries will not much care how he call that government, Royal or not; and whether he call the government of Britain Royal or not. Names in these matters and titles, which go much by fashion or fancy, are but weak arguments; and he will never be able to stop the mouth of his adversaries, who would plead for calling King Charles to account and for judging him and punishing him, by saying he is a King, and the government is a Royal government, they would account these but thin walls, and useless cloaks of fig leaves to preserve and defend intolerable tyranny. Hath this man no better arguments than these wherewith to defend his majesty's Royal life and person? Or hath the King no better advocate to defend his cause? But it may be this profound Statist will speak more nervously in the following observations. Therefore,  
Let us hear what he says in the 2 place, [It is certain (says he) no man can be judged or punished but by his own judge, who is above him, and hath authority over him, by lawful commission from God; or from men authorized by God to give such commission, now who shall be judge to these invested with Sovereign Majesty, seeing Every soul under them is commanded to be subject to them▪ Rom. 13: ver. 1. and seeing the Supreme Power of the sword is committed unto them, and not to others, but by deputation and in dependence upon them— in a true Monarchy there must be an exemption and impunity (as to subjects) of the person invested with Sovereignty and Majesty: God's Law, Nature's Light, and sound reason, are all for this, that such as are invested with Sovereign Majesty, having the legislative power; the jurisdictional power, the coërcive and punitive power originally in himself, must enjoy exemption and impunity (as to subject's actings against them) the contrary tenet overthrows the order of God And Nature, and precipitates humane societies in a gulf of endless confusions.] Answ. 1. Here is enough to satisfy his adversaries: For 1. They will tell him, that he hath not yet proved the government of Britain a true Monarchy, in his sense; and so he but begs the thing in question here. 2. They will tell him, that the King hath not the sole legislative power, nor sole jurisdictional power, nor sole cöercive and punitive power; far less, all these solely and originally in himself: And it is but to such Sovereigns that he pleads for this exemption & impunity. Doth not his Advocate deserve a singular reward; who pleadeth his Master's cause so dexterously, by proving an uncertanty, by that which is more uncertane, & founding all upon his bare word? A noble champion forsooth, or rather a Monster, whose word must be a law, & an irrefragable reason too. Thus it seems, what ever power he give to the King there is the Dictator's power that the thinks is solely in himself, and that originally: but for all this he hath one disadvantage, that he is of little authority and of as little credit, with sober rational persons. 2. He will grant that such Monarchies, as he accounts only true, are not every where, no not where there are persons called Kings and Emperors: How cometh it then that the order of God and nature is not overthrown in these Dominions and Republics, and that their Societyes are not precipitated into a gulf of endless confusions? Shall nothing preserve the order of God and nature, but that which is the most ready mean to destroy it, viz. an uncontrollable power in one Tyrant, to destroy all his Kingdom, Man, Wife and Child. 3. Politicians will tell him, that the Ephori, the Parliament are his judges; and that the People who by a lawful commission from God made him King and authorized him, are above him and have authority over him, in case he turn a Tyrant and pervert the ends of government. 4. Though it be requisite there be an ordinary standing judge to cognosce of controversies which fall out betwixt one private person and another; yet it is not always necessary there be one condescended on, to judge betwixt the Sovereign and the People, when the controversy falleth out betwixt them, more than that there should be a standing ordinary judge to decide controversies falling out betwixt two distinct and independent Kingdoms. 5. What commission from Man authorized by God had the high Priest, and such as joined with him, when they deposed and killed Athaliah? if he say, she was an usurper True, yet she possessed the place six years peacably without molestation; and who was judge, whether she was an usurper or not? Had the matter been referred to her, she would have been as far from calling herself an usurper, as a Tyrant now will be from judging himself a Tyrant: And so as in this case, the Tyrant sine titulo had a judge above her, though she was invested with Sovereign Majesty, so in the other case, The Tyrant exercitio, though invested with Sovereign Majesty, hath a judge above him. 6. The place Rom. 13. is to be understood (as was showed above) of inferior Magistrates as well as of the supreme: And it says of all in authority, that such as are under them should be subject unto them, In so far as they are subjects unto them: so in point of administration of justice according to equity, all are subject to the supreme or supereminent governor; but when he becometh a Tyrant, he becometh subject unto them, who gave him that power, and set him up, under God. 7. He insinuats that inferior Magistrates are not essential Magistrates, but deputation from and in dependence upon the King. But Lex Rex, Quest. 20. hath by many clear and unanswereable arguments evinced the contrary.  
In the third place he citeth some sentences of Tertullian, calling the Emperor's second unto God, and above all men, and only subject unto God: Of Optatus saying, that none are above them but God. And of jerom speaking of Psal. 51. against thee thee only have I sinned, saying that David spoke so because he feared none; And of Ambrose, on the same words saying, that he was King, and under no Law— and therefore he did not sin against man.] But all this is no purpose: For 1. himself will grant that all Kings are not thus exempted, and his adversaries will prove the King of Britain one of these limited, and restricked Kings, that are obnoxious to examination, and punishment; and these sayings cannot prove that all Kings are so, yea or aught to be so. 2. Tertullian, to vindicate the Christians who would not acknowledge the Emperor to be God, and to show how notwitstanding they respected him according to his place, would give him as high titles as he could, though not out of flattery, and so make him the highest person in the Empire, and above the heathen Gods; yet he did not set him above all the People in their Representative the Senate, or if the did, the Senate proved him to be in a mistake, by taking course with several of these lewd and wicked Tyrants. 3. David's single act of adultery and murder were no such acts of Tyranny, as are censurable with deposition, and so it speaketh not to the case. 4. It might be that de facto he did not fear another, as Jerome says. But that will not say, that David might have destroyed the inheritance of the Lord without control, or that other Princes are, or should be, exempted from restraint and punishment, if they turn ingrained and habituated Tyrants. 5. Himself will not stand to what Ambrose says, for he addeth immediately, [There is no doubt but David was sensible both of the horrid injury he had done to Uriah (the occasion of that Psalm) and of the scandal he had given to God's People, in which sense, he might be well said to sin against both.] 6. The words of the text will not bear that weight. viz. That he had no other judge but God, or that (as Deodate sayeth) he was exempted from all punishment of men, & was obnoxious to no humane tribunals; but as other commentators say, the words are to be taken in a comparative sense, that this was the greatest aggravation of his guilt, that it was such a heinous trasgression, in his sight who was privy to it, however he did conceal it from all others, so far as he could: see the Dutch Annot. on the place: and therefore to express his spiritual sense of the sin committed against God (against whom properly sin as sin is committed) he useth this rhetorical ingemination: And if the words should have imported what the Surveyer would have them to import, they had not been apposite to express his spiritual grief & sense of the heinousness of the crime committed. Then he tells us what excellent Mr Calvin sayeth Instit. Lib. 4. cap. 20. § 27. and 31. and then says [It is a wonder how many who pretend respect to Calvin should dar to violate the sacrosanct Majesty of Kings, if they will but read over that chapter.] But is it not a wonder, how this man who seemeth to have read over that chapter and particularly §. 31, should pass by what worthy Calvin sayeth in the end of that section, or should have so little respect unto that worthy man (whom he himself accounts to be worthy of respect, and but deservedly) as to plead for an incontrollable power in Kings, When yet famous Calvin tells us there that if the Ephori or States of Parliament, connive at the King's tyranny, and suffer him to oppress and insult over the poor People, they are wickedly perfidious, and palpably betraying their trust.  
Then in the 4 place he tells us [That it is not denied, that the King is bound before God to rule his People according to the Law of God; and that it is gross to say, Regi quicquid libet licet.] This is good, but what then? What if he deviate? [We maintains (says he) that as sure truth That impunity (as from subjects) necessarily attends Sovereignty by the Law of God, reason, and nature: For no man can be judged or punished but by a judge above him; and the Supreme hath none such, etc. Answ. But Mr Prelate, your adversaries will maintain the contrare, as a sure truth: We looked for a fourth proof and not for the thing in question, or a repetition of what is said: The same thing repeated six times will not make six arguments; Mr Bishope give a new proof, if you can, of this firm truth which you maintain? We maintain, by the Law of God, Nature, and Reason, No man hath an uncontrollable power to destroy millions, to cut off the heritage of the Lord, to destroy his Interest: And we have showed our grounds for this. 2. How was Athaltah judged? And what a judge was jehu? 3. It hath been told him, that the supreme governor hath a supreme power above him: The power of the People that made him Supreme governor, is above him, and can depose him, and put another in his place. He may be a Supreme governor & dispensator, and yet their servant, accountable unto them, and censurable by them, when he deviates and turns a Tyrant, and a Wolf, and a Tiger. When one King wrongeth another, that other will both judge and punish him, if he be able, and yet is not properly a judge above him. Much more may the Representative of the People; who set him up and impowered him, both judge him and punish him.  
But the good man thereafter would advise Kings not to abuse this inviolableness, but so much the more to fear sadder punishments from God; and for this cause would have them reading the 6 chapter of Apocryphal Book of Wisdom. But was there no texts in all the divine Word of God, that he would put into the King's hand to read, that he must send him to the Apocrypha? It is true Kings would do well to remember that they have a God above them, who will not be mocked, but will bring them to an account of their doings, though they should escape men's hands: and to the end they may be put in remembrance of this, they stand in need of other monitors, than the Men who have forgot it, and send them to Apocrypha to find it: And this should keep them within the boundaries of God's Law. But as the fear of punishment from Man, will restrain some from stealing, whom the fear of God would little overawe; So it may be the fear of punishment from Men, would have no small influence to make some Kings walk by a rule. And Sub●rdi●a●a non pugnant▪ He would do well to mind them of both, and it is like he would find that more effectual to suppress Tyranny, then to tell them, that their sacred people are inviolable as to Men, but yet they would do well to read the 6 chapter of Wisdom.  
He cometh Pag. 77. to speak particularly to what Naphtaly said, and allegeth that [It is most falsely and wickedly said, that God's providence or God's Word approves the murdering or deposing of Princes by Subjects, who are not his judges: And what his word approves not, his providence doth not approve: To say that God animates his People to such actions, is blasphemy, albeit he extraordinarly may stir up the spirits of some to actions not according to the ordinary rule (as in the times of the judges) but they were sure of their warrant from him, the like whereof none have ground to wait for now▪] Answer. Certainly God's Word declareth that the persons of Kings (how sacred soever he account them) are not inviolable, when it threateneth destruction unto them, whether by their own Subjects or by strangers; and when these same judgements are executed, his providence declares that they are not uncontrollable or inviolable. 2. His adversaries will tell him, that the deposeing of Tyrants, or the executing of justice on them, is no sinful Murder nor sinful deposeing of Princes. 3. If he had once proved that such actions as these, were horrid and sinful, than he might say that it were blasphemy to say, that God animates People unto them. 4. How did God animate Ieh●jada and these with him, to depose and kill Athaliah? To say she was an usurpers, will not help the cause: for he will not have usurpers killed by the Subjects now, seeing we have no ground to expect such an express warrant to rise against them, as the judges had; and yet certanely these against whom the judges were animated, were Tyrants without title. And thus we see this Surveyer out stripeth all the Royalists, that ever wrote before him, and not only will have the persons of lawful princes, though flagitious and tyrannous, sacred and inviolable; but also the people of the most manifest usurpers; for he says, that it was not according to any ordinary rule, that God stirred up the spirits of some, to make head against these Tyrants that oppressed the people of God, in the days of the judges, but extraordinare, which motions we have no ground to wait for now. And so this advocate cometh at last, to plead as much for the exemption of Cromwell, as of the King: And if this be a faithful advocate let all the world judge, and let the author of the pamphlet entitled Killing no Murder rebuke him, for his impertinency and ignorance.  
He tells us thereafter how [The Apologist labours to produce many instances of the Parliaments of Scotland punishing Princes for their enormities, all which he setteth forth as laudable and imitable precedents and examples.] Answ. The author of that Apologetical relation driveth at no such design there, but only cleareth thereby, that the Kings of Scotland have not a supremacy above Parliaments; but that rather Parliaments are above them; for they have punished them. He addeth [The most that all of them amount to is nothing, but the insurrection of Nobles (Proceres as Buchanan calleth them) against the Kings, and violent oppressions of such of them, as have been flagitious and tyrannous-but neither Buchanan, Nor this Apolog▪ can produce any one instance of our lawful Parliaments or Peoples, taking on them in a judicial way, in cold blood, and under forms of process, to punish or destroy their Kings.] Answ. What if his adversaries shall be contented with a shorter process, & shall supersede many forms of legality, which use to be followed with other notorious Malefactors? Is not this a brave Goliath that cometh out to defend the King's sacred person, when all which he at length can do, is to defend him, from being adjudged in a formal mode, to loss his head and his Crown; that he shall not be called publicly (as other Malefactors are) to the judges bar, and there be impanelled as a Tyrant and Traitor to God and the Country? If this man deserve his wages, let wise Men judge; seeing all know that there is greater difficulty in taking away Tyrants, then in taking away other Malefactors: And that hardly can such a legal way with all its formalities be followed with them, which is followed with others: And that sometimes, some Malefactors, though they were never Princes, must be sentenced in a more brief manner and privately also, and yet it is all one upon the matter, if the man be guilty and really condemned by his judges. And so it is all one, if a Tyrant be adjudged worthy of death or deposition, by a Parliament the Representatives of the People, and accordingly cut off from government, or out of the land of the living, whether it be done by a public Messenger, with sound of Trumpet, and by the hand of a public lictor and executioner, on a public scaffold; or by force of arms, when the former means cannot be saifly used, nor so securely. And it was not the insurrection of nobles as such, but as proceres and primores Regni that were instanced, and of lawful Parliaments (such as were used in these days) sentenceing and condemning Kings for tyranny, and other misdemeanours. Let him read the History of these times written by Buchannan and Grafton, and he will find it so; particularly, let him see and consider how Ferlegus was adjudged worthy of death, but for Fergusius his Father's sake, was only imprisoned; and thereafter with the unanimous consent of all, being suspected guilty of the death of Feritharis, put from the Crown: see why Therëus, when he had filled the land with robberies, fled to the Britoneses? Was it not because the Governors had a mind to punish him? Was not Even the 3. put in prison? Was not Dardan, for his wickedness and blood, pursued by nobles and People, his head cut off, his corpse thrown into a jacks? Luctatus at length was apprehenped and executed. His soon Conarus in face of Parliament accused, apprehended, and shut up into a hall, with some few attendants, his ill counsellors executed and a Viceroy chosen till the People should meet to make a new King? Were not the Prim●res Regni about to have deposed Constantine the first, for his vices, had not Douglasse dissuaded them, because of their wars with the Britons and Saxons? Was not Ferquard the 52 King summoned to compear before the Parliament, and because he refused was he not brought to judgement against his will, and accused of many crimes, and not being able to purge himself was he not cast into prison? This looks like an act and execution of justice done in cold blood under form of process, So did the Primores Regni intent to have punished Ferquard the second, had not Bishop Colman dissuaded them. Was not Eugenius the VIII. for his filthy lusts and vices, covetousness and cruelty, slain by the general consent of his Lords assembled? By whom, and for what was Donald the 70. King cast into prison? Who forced Ethus brother to Constantine the II. (and for what) to renunce the Kingdom, and shut him up in prison? Was not Culenus summoned to compeare before a Parliament at Scone?  
Now the Surveyer is in his strength, and disdaining to meddle with the libeler (as he calleth him) he will go and reflect upon the magazine, (as he speaketh) to Lex Rex, who Quaest 26. proveth by unanswerable arguments, that the King is not above the Law; but this Surveyer for all his big words dar not meddle with that debate; but quarrelleth with a word Pag. 241. where that worthy Author is answering the objection of that Apostate Prelate Maxwel the Author of Sacrosancta Regum Majestas, stolen from Arnisaeus; which was this, [Why might not the People of Israël, Peers or Sanhedrin, have convened before them, judged or punished David, for his Adultery and Murder.] Unto which he answered thus, [He taketh it for confessed, that it had been treason in the Sanhedrin and States of Israël to have taken on them to judge and punish David, for his Adultery and Murder; but he giveth no reason for this, nor any Word of God; and truly though I will not presume to go before others in this, God's Law, Gen. 9: ver. 6. compared with, Numb. 35: ver. 30, 31. seemeth to say against them. Nor can I think that God's Law, or his Deputy the judges are to accept the persons of the great, because they are great, Deut. 1: ver. 17. 2 Chron, 19: ver. 6, 7. and we say we cannot distinguish, where the Law distinguisheth not. The Lord speaketh to under judges, Levit. 19: ver. 15. Thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honour the person of the mighty, or of the Prince, for we know what these names 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 meaneth. I grant it is not God's meaning, that the King should draw the sword against himself; but yet, it followeth not, that if we speak of the demerit of blood, that the Law of God accepteth any judge, great or small. And if the Estates be above the King▪ as I conceive they are, though it be a humane politic constitution that the King be free of all coaction of Law, because it conduceth for the peace of the commonwealth; yet if we make it a matter of conscience, for my part, I see no exception, that God maketh; if men make, I crave leave to say à facto adjus non sequitur.] Thus that worthy Author; and could he have uttered his judgement more spareingly and soberly, in a matter that was not of great Moment to the question in hand, so that though he had forborn to have spoken any thing to this at all, his cause had not been, in the least, weakened; and though we should grant that the Sanhedrin could not have judged David for these facts (which yet we can cannot do) what loss shall we have? Seing we may easily grant and Lex Rex with us Pag. 243. that Tyranny only must unking a Prince; and these acts were not acts of Tyranny, and what shall this vain Surveyer gain then? Why would he not examine other things which that worthy Author said, more apposite to the cause? Will not wise men laugh at this dealing, and account him a fool in the first magnitude, in handleing such a cause, which so nearly concerneth his Majesty's life, after such a manner, that a very schoolboy may smile at? Then he addeth, [So Pag. 348, and 428, and 238. and often elsewhere, he (that is Lex Rex) will have the Estates executing the moral Law (as he calls it) on the King, and punishing him, and why? because he says most thrasonically, Pag. 460. I have unanswerably proved that the Kingdom is superior to the King, and the People may be their own judge in the tribunal of necessity.] Answ. Lex Rex in two at least of these pages cited, speaketh no such thing, and if this Surveyer were not more windy and vain then ever Thraso was, he would not speak so of that Author, till first he had discovered the answereablenesse of these arguments, which neither he nor any of his complices shall ever be able to do. But this, Epicompothrasibombomachides will force a belief upon the world, that with this very adverb thrasonical, diffavit omnes in Castris Gurgustodianis, and cry to his enchanted fraternity to sing Jo pan at his invention. But what says he to all this? [1 (says he) what should he mean to make it conducible to the peace of the commonwealth, that the King be free of the coaction of Law; and yet not so, if it be made a matter of conscience; is the preservation of the peace of the commonwealth, no matter of conscience to him? Or is not the constitution freeing the King from coaction of Law (for that end) warrantable?] Ans. Doth not this ignoramus know that a question of this nature may be considered and answered politically and theologically: And that many things may be tolerated or forborn in point of policy, upon politic grounds and ends, which, if considered stricto jure, according to conscience, should not be forborn, nor tolerated. David in point of policy, did forbear to execute the Law upon the Murderer Joab, whom yet in point of conscience, he accounted a man of death, and therefore recommended the execution of the Law of God, unto his Son Solomon: and this toleration or forbearance may be lawful or unlawful, according to the weight of the matter tolerated, or forborn, and the nature and weight of the grounds in policy, upon which this forbearance is determined. So that though we should suppone it lawful for a Commonwealth to enact and determine in Law, that their King should not be questioned for one single act of Murder or Adultery, as other people are: Yet in point of conscience, if the question be stated in thesi, whether a King may be questioned for one single act of Murder and Adultery, as another private person, it may be answered affirmatively, because the Law of God, makes no exception of people. 2. It may be made a matter of conscience, to make the King free of the coaction of Law, in some small and inconsiderable particulars, because of the probable hazard into which the Commonwealth may be brought by coërcing of him, which all the value of the particular anent which the coaction is exerced, will not countervail. But it will never be allowed, in point of conscience, to make him free of all coaction of Law, so as he may without control, murder millions, destroy and waste Religion: For that were not conducible to the peace of the Commonwealth, but a ready way to destroy all: So that a constitution freeing the King from all coaction of Law, how ever pretended for the preservation of the peace of the Commonwealth, can never be warrandable. For that were to make him actu primo, and in actu signato a Tiger, a Lion, & a waster of the Commonwealth; & if his good Nature should incline him to good & peaceable things; yet no thanks to the constitution. Whereas he would make his reader believe that the Kings of the jews were under no coërtion let, him consider what Zuinglius sayeth explan. art. 42. Tom. 1. oper. where he expressly sayeth. [That the Kings of the jews and others, when they dealt perfidiously, contrare to the law of God, might be lawfully deposed by the people.] Yea he tells us, that whiles wicked princes and Kings were not removed, all the people were punished of God, which he proveth by jer. 15: 1. to ver. 6. and a little thereafter, tells us that [if the children of Israel had thus deposed Manasseh, they had not been so grievously punished with him.] Yea Schikcardus in his jus regium hebraorum. Cap. 2. Theor. 7. tells us Pag. 56. 57 out of the Rabbins, that the Kings of the jews might have been called to an account, & punished for transgressing of the law, by the Sanhedrin, especially if they took more wives, and more horses than were allowed, and heaped up riches; for these causes, he proveth Pag. 60. out of Hal. melach. c. 3. §. 4. Halach. Sanhedr. cap. 19 Talmud cap. Kohen gadol. Siphri pars: schoph. That they were to be scourged. And histories show us, How this Sanhedrin, even in their weak and declineing times, were loath to quite with this power, and therefore did question Herod, who was set over Galilee by the Romans, for some murder committed by him, see the history set forth by josephus Antiq. lib. 14. c. 17. And if any should object that Casaubon ad. annal Eccles. exerc. 13. n. 5. hath proved the contrary out of the Talmud. The forecited learned Shikchardus. Pag. 63. 64. showeth out of the very places cited by Casaubon, how he was mistaken, and how the Kings of David's line both did judge, and were judged.  
2. (Says he) It is good that this Metaphisical Statist was no Chief Priest or member of the Sanhedrin in David's time; for he would have afforded a corrupt exposition of the Law to cut off the King. What sots were the Priests & Prophets at that time that did not instigate the Sanhedrin? This man could have told them that they were above him, and they were bound to execute the Law upon him.] Answ. It was good that this superlatively irrational parasite., and infraphysical fool was not breathing in these days; for he would have told Kings, you may Kill, murder, massacre, destroy all the land, Man, Wife and Child, without the least fear of resistance; and have told the People, the Sanhedrin, and all the Elders of Israel, though your Kings turn butchers and destroyers of the People of God, worse than ever Nimrod or any that ever breathed since his days, you have no more to do, but hold up your throats, or flee to the uncircumcised out of the inheritance of the Lord. But what says all this to the thing? Doth this pove that David or any King was excepted in the Law of God? Where, In what chapter, or what verse shall we find this? Good Master prelate tell us, or where we shall find it in your book of wisdom? 2. We find not that any of the Priests or Prophets reproved David for spareing joab that murderer, who shed the blood of war in peace, 2 King. 2: ver. 5. was it therefore right in David to have spared him? Sure they might well have told David, that though joab was a great man, yet he was above him, to punish him as well as another Man, for his sin; and in point of conscience, and by God's Law he was bound to do it. These sinful acts of joab were more notoure than what David had done in secret: And because we find not that he was reproved upon this account, shall we therefore use this Man's dialect; and say, What's sots or coldrife senseless Men were the Priests and the Prophets of that time, who did not instigate David to execute the Moral Law on joab, that wrath might be turned away from the Land?  
3. He tells us, that the author of Lex Rex [Utterly mistakes the meaning of the Word of God, Gen. 9: 6. (as for the other texts they clearly concern Magistrates only toward such over whom they have power, but does neither instigate the inferior Magistrates against the Superior, nor the People against any of them) where it is said, he that sheds man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed.] Ans. 1. The author of Lex Rex doth not say that these places do instigate the inferior Magistrates against the superior, nor the people against both; but that they point forth the Magistrate's duty to judge righteous judgement, and to accept no Man's person, be he a Prince, or be he a poor Man. And if they concern Magistrates toward such over whom they have power, The author of Lex Rex seeketh no more; for he had proved, (and this vain windy man hath not the head, though he want not a heart and good will to it, to answer his arguments) that the Estates and Representative of the People, have power over the Prince. 2. It is a hard censure to say that he hath utterly mistaken the meaning of Gen. 9: ver. 6. Let us hear how? [Concluding hence, (says he) that there is here a precept that the blood of every man (though he be in the supreme power) should be shed by his inferiors, if he shed blood innocently and without cause.] Answ. But this is not the conclusion that Lex Rex draweth from the place, He only sayeth. That in this place there is no exception made of the Prince, though he be the Supreme power: And can this Man for all his skill demonstrate the exception? Lex Rex said not that his blood should be shed by his inferiors, but by the Estates of the land, who are his superiors, what way then hath he mistaken the meaning of this word? What further [Supposeing (says he) this word not only to be predictional— but also diatactick and perceptive, there must be meet limitations of the sentence, both in the subject and attribute] Grants all, what limitations will he have in the subject, that sheds man's blood? [It is to be understood (says he) only of such as have no authority, and do it out of private revenge; for we must not own the fancies of Photinians and Anabaptists that condemn lawful wars, and capital punishments.] Answ. This is good and granted, for we say that even the King, when murdering unjustly, acteth as a private person, and is prompted by his revenge: did he suppose that Lex Rex was a Photinian or Anabaptist? If not, why did he trouble himself with this? But what says he to that which he calls the attribute? [Certanely (says he) taking the word as a precept, It is not meant that it is the duty of every man or any man indifferently, to shed the blood of the person who sheds innocent blood; but of the Magistrate who is judge above him. All interpreters are agreed, that here is (if not the institution yet) the approbation of the office of the civil magistrate.] Answ. Did the author of Lex Rex say that it was the duty of any man indifferently, to punish capitally shedders of innocent blood? said he any thing against agreement of interpreters concerning the institution or approbation of the office of the civil Magistrates? Sure when he said, and elsewhere proved, that the Estates of the Realm were above the King, he fully agreed with these authors, touching the meaning of that place; so that that Surveyer might have spared his pains in reciteing their words, for he says nothing against what either Pareus, Pet. Martyr, Musculus, Bezelius, Diodate, or the Chaldee Paraphrase say. Let us hear how he applieth this to the purpose? [But (says he) if the persons invested with Supreme power of the sword, abuseing their power become guilty of shedding innocent hlood, who (in that society where of they are heads) shall judge or punish them? who is superior over the supreme to punish him?— It is inexplicable how any in whom the Sovereign Majesty, & Magistratical power resides, should, according to order, be punished by subjects.] Answ. This is the knot of all, but it is nothing else than what we have heard again and again, and hath been spoken to already. But yet, because it is to him inexplicable, and a Gordian Knot, let us see if we can lose it without Alexander's sword. He will grant (or if he will not, but retract what he hath elsewhere granted, speaking of a legal resistance, all the lawyers in Scotland will grant it) that if any in the King's name shall seek to dispossess a Man of his inheritance, the man may defend his right by law, and the King by his advocate must plead his cause before the ordinary judges; and these ordinary judges, must judge righteous judgement according to law, and give out a decreet in favours of the subject against the King, and so condemn the King of injury and oppression intended against the subject: Now who but the ordinary judges, in civil Matters, are judge here to the Supreme? & yet these judges, in another respect, are but subjects: doth he not now see how such as are mere subjects in one respect, may judge and punish him who is invested with Sovereign Majesty and Magistratical power, and so in another respect are above him. And what if I say, that as, in civil Matters, the ordinary judges may judge the King, so the justice general or his deputy constitute ordinare judges in criminals or capitals, may judge him when he committeth a capital crime? let him or any Man else show me a reason, why the one should be, and the other may not be, in point of conscience. But if we speak of a Parliament the Representatives of the People, the case is so clear that there is no difficulty; for that is a judge always above him, and so even according to his limitations, if the King shed innocent blood, by them may his blood be shed.  
Then Pag. 81. he says [When the Apostle Rom. 13. says let every soul be subject to Superior powers, that (every soul) doth not comprehend the supreme power itself (for how can the Man invested with it, be subject to a superior power?) but it is meant that every soul under the superior power or supreme, should be subject to it.] Answ. Yet again the same thing which we heard before. Is he not able to understand this, how one who is supreme, in one respect, may be inferior, in another respect? The father hath a Supreme paternal power over the Son, yet the soon, being a judge or Prince, may be over him, as David was over jesse, and Saul over Kish. But (says he) Let men (as they will) indulge themselves in their seditious Notions, they must at last sister in some supreme power on Earth which is not judge able or punishable by any.] Answ. Be it so, what hath he gained for the King his Master? Must either he be the supreme power on earth which is not judgeable or punishable by any, or must there be none? His adversaries will soon deny the consequence: And he, let him indulge himself in his Tyrannical Notions, as much as he will, shall never be able to confirm it. How then shall he defend the sacred person and life of the King? What sayeth he further? [If sovereign Majesty be placed in Parliament or People (who may be guilty of shedding innocent blood, as well as the King) who shall shed their blood when they transgress? Shall this be reserved to the sounder and smaller part of the People (as this Man speaks Pag. 240.] then there is ground enough laid for Eternal confusion] Answ. The Surveyer either subtly or ignorantly confounds things here, which should be considered distinctly, and leadeth his unwarry reader off the way: Wherefore we would have the Reader (though all this is nothing to the purpose in hand to prove the King uncontrollable, or unpunishable and unjudgeable for any of his acts) take notice of these few things which will help to clear the matter. 1. That there is a not-judgeablenesse (to speakso) and not-punisheablenesse de facto, which may be said of some notorious rebels and outlaws, whom neither Law nor power of authority can cöerce, and there is a non-punishablenesse and non-judgeablenesse the ●ure, when one is exemed from Law-judgment and Law-sentence, so that he is above all trial and sentence of Magistrates: Cases may fall out wherein such as are punishable & judgeable de jure, according to an ordinary way laid down or allowed by God, may notwithstanding be unpunishable and not-judgeable de facto, either through corruption prevailing over all, or prevalency of power in the punishable person or persons: And this, though in an ordinary way irremediable, yet speaks not against the Ordinance and appointment of God and Nature. 2. That there is a difference betwixt personal faults of Governors, or such as are invested with authority and power, as was that act of Murder and Adultery in David; and public miscarriages in point of governm. & in exerceing the power wherewith they are invested: of personal faults, speaketh Lex Rex in the place now under consideration; and upon this, have we vindicated that worthy Author, from what this perverter of all things hath said. But here he mixeth these, and confoundeth them, that according to his way, he may pervert the truth. 3. There is a difference betwixt simple acts of maladministration in lesser matters; and betwixt such acts of maladministration, as pervert the ends of government. 4. There is a difference betwixt palpable, clear, and undeniable miscarriages; and betwixt such as are not so clear nor unquestionable. 5. There is a difference to be made betwixt ordinary standing cases; and an extraordinary emergent: in an extraordinary case, while the disease is desperate, a desperat-like and extraordinary remedy may be used without overturning the ordinary way, which is to be used in ordinary cases, These things will help us to nnravel his confused discourse. And so we Answer. 1. If Parliament-members or private persons among the People shed innocent blood it is no difficulty to know who should judge them. 2. If a Parliament as the People's Representatives Murder the innocent, I see not why they may not be called to an account by a posterior Parliament, as when a beanch of judges in civil matters, conspire together to oppress, by their unlawful and unjust decreets, palpably such and not our to all; when they are deposed and others put in their places, the oppressed may get his cause righted, and reparation of damage of them: Or when a justice general manifestly & palpably murdereth the innocent, he may be made to answer before another put in his place: if this may be done (as I judge in point of conscience it may) so may the other be done with Parliaments. 3. If Parliaments conspire to overturn Religion, Laws, Liberties, and thus destroy the Republic, I judge with L. R. Pag. 240. that the sounder part, if they be able, may resist and hinder, so far as they can, that destruction and ruin of the Republic. Neither ever shall he prove that this is a ground for Eternal confusion: O says he, [Any lesser part, when they have or think they have will and strength enough to through their business, will undoubtedly call themselves the sounder part, and labour to bear down the corrupt plurality.] Answ. This remedy to prevent destruction and ruin to the Commonwealth, may be of the Lord, though it should be abused by sinful men; for the best thing may be abused: And it is not the mean allowed by God and Nature which layeth a ground for eternal confusion; but the abuse of the mean maintained, whereof we are not guilty. But we have had abundance of such rotten consequences from him, who knoweth better what it is to deceive the simple with sophistications, then to satisfy the judicious with solid reasons. Then he addeth, [But the Christian Reader may easily see how hard this Author is put to it; and for all his saying that according to God's Law, Kings must be punished as well as others, yet is he forced to acknowledge a Supremacy of power in some, not punishable by any but by God.] Ans: This is but what we heard just now, and whether true or false, it helpeth him nothing: Have that Supremacy of power, which is not punishable by any but by God, who will, if the King have it not, the King's life is not secured: And if he say, if any have it the King must have it. True, if this rotten malignant and parasitical ignoramus can make no bad inferences; but he hath already so often discovered vanity in this way of argueing, that we cannot account him infallible: And therefore let him prove his consequence; for we know him better than to take any thing from him upon trust. Well, what way doth he clear this, of Lex Rex? [For (says he) Pag. 389. when he hath given all power to the Parliament over the King, he objecteth to himself; who shall punish and coërce the Parliament, in case of exorbitance: He answers, posterior Parliaments, and Pag. 211. he sayeth, by the people and conscience of the people are they to be judged, let all our Nobles and Parliaments hearken to this.] Answ. In the first place cited, Lex Rex is not speaking of Parliaments power over the King (as this squinteyed Surveyer thinketh,) but is handling that question whether or not Monarcy is the best of governments? And is showing in what respects it is best, and in what respects it is vvorste; and showeth how a mixed Monarchy is best; and then answereth some objections: And to that which some might object, That Parliaments might exceed their bounds, and who should coërce them? He answered, That posteriour Parliaments might do it; and so there was a salvo in that mixture of governmemt 2. In the other place he is showing what relation the King hath to the Law, and that he is not the sole Law maker, nor sole supreme judge: And answereth that objection, That the three Estates as men and looking to their own ends, not to Law and the public good, are not fundamentals, & are to be judged by the King. viz. That they are to be judged by the people and the conscience of the people. Why calleth ●e the Nobles and Parliaments to hearken to this? What absurdity inn reason is here? [Who ever head of this (says he) that one Parliament posteriour should punish the prior? Their acts they may retract indeed, but to punish them for their acts, is most absurd, because the prior Parliament in the capacity of that judicatory, had as much power as the posterior. State's men will wonder at this doctrine, that Members of a Parliament should be punished for their free votes, by a succeeding Parliament, and far more at the subjecting them to the conscience of the People.] Answ. 1. It is no small punishment and cöertion to a Parliament, to have all their designs, consultations, and conclusions overturned, which may be done by posteriour Parliaments 2. If Parliaments, by their free votes, sell Religion, and the Liberties of the land unto the Turk, and so destroy the same, and betray their Trust, I see not why they ought not be punished for their pains. If they should enact and put to execution the act, when made; That all who will not bow and burn incense to an idol should be brunt quick, I see not, why they may not by a posteriour Parliament be questioned and punished for that innocent blood which they have shed. 3. His reason to the contrary, is not good; for they never had power or commission for overturning the ends of government, and destroying the Commonwealth: if the Magistrates of a Brugh betray their trust, dilapidate the rents and revenues of the city, sell and dispone the rights and privileges thereof, may not the succeeding Magistrates call them to an account for that, notwithstanding that in the capacity of that judicatory, they had as much power (if any) as the posteriour 4. Wonder at it who will, that which is right is right: and it is consonant to equity, that the consciences of the People be so far judges of what is done by their Representatives, as not to suffer them, in their name, and by any power borrowed from them, to destroy the Commonwealth and to overturn the fundations of Religion and Liberty, etc. [But then (says he) another objection he makes posteriour Parliaments and People both may err. He answeres, All that is true: God only must remedy that.] What can he make of this? [Well then (says he) if Parliaments or People destroy or murder persons innocently, God only must remeed that; there is no power on Earth to call them to an account: Who sees not that at length the author is driven to acknowledge a power, which if it deviate cannot be judged by any on earth.] Answ. Lex Rex is not there speaking of particular acts of injustice Or iniquity; but of the whole ends of government: And so if Parliaments and People concur and join together to overturn all, the world sees that there is no remedy on Earth: Neither needed he to say that he was driven to this, seeing it was so obvious to all who have eyes in their head. Though God hath apppointed means & ordinary rules to help abuses that are ordinary; yet when corruption is universal the ordinary means cannot avail, God himself must help that: & who knoweth not that extraordinary supposeable cases cannot infringe, or invalidate the ordinary rules for ordinary cases. Now all this is but vain idle work, and of no advantage to his cause; for he shall never hence prove though he should argue till his eyestrings break, that this Sovereign uncontrollable power, which is not censurable nor punishable, is only in the King: And if he do not this, how stops he the Mouth of his adversaries? How salves he his majesty's life, or the King from all hazard of censure? But then he adds to as little purpose, That [It may be seen that his principles lead him to own a mere democracy (which is the worst of governments) as the only lawful government: he placeth and fixeth the unpunishable sovereignty there.] Answ. This is a gross mistake: For this Man understands not what a democracy is. He takes democracy to be where all govern: But that is no government, where there is none to be governed, but all are governor's. Democracy is where some are chosen out of all the People by turns, without respect had to birth, means or other privileges, to govern the rest. And Lex Rex will not say that these governor's have an uncontrollable soveveraignity, but may be opposed & resisted, by the body of the People who choose them, as well as the King in a Monarchy, or the Primores Regni in an Aristocracy; because under all speces of governments, the fountain power and Majesty abides in the People, and is resumeable, in cases of necessity.  
Thus we have seen how poorly and weakly this vain man hath maintained the King's life and sacred person, and how by his foolish sophistications, and his weak and impertinent answers and assertions, he hath put the King's life in greater hazard than it was; for these poor people never had a thought of wronging his majesty's person, or of spoiling him of his life, but now when he hath started the question without any provocation or just ground and occasion given; and can say no more than he here hath said for that cause, hath he not invited people to think of what they might do? And I am sure if they have no other restraint to bind up their hands, all which he hath said, will be but like the new ropes to Samson. That which followeth in his third Chapter touching the Covenants betwixt King and People, is impertinent to his present purpose: For Naphtaly maketh use of these to prove the lawfulness of resistance, as may be seen Pag. 19, and 30. and for that end, we have vindicated them in our former discourse from all his corrupt glosses and evasions. And wise Men will think him so far from deserving a reward, for what he hath done, that they will think he rather deserveth to be whipped, for his mismanageing this question of so great consequence, which he undertook to defend; and particularly for bringing the arguments, which are adduced to evince the lawfulness of resistance, as if they did with equal force strick against his majesty's life and person; whereas many will be clear for resisting, that will not be so clear for punishing or executing the Prince: and since by his folly, and imprudent impertinency, making the same arguments prove both, people shall see that by what right they may resist, by the same right they may capitally punish the Prince, they will be so far from being scared form resistance, which natures light doth so evidentlly demonstrate to be lawful and necessary; that they will be more emboldened thereunto, perceiving how they may do more, which possibly would never else have come into their mind: and sure all which Naphtaly hath said, could not have suggested such a thing unto them, or occasioned their thoughts thereabout, as impartial Readers will judge.  
If any ask what he hath left undone for secueing his majesty's person and life? I am sure to name no moe he hath forgotten one thing, and that is, the pressing of the Solemn League and Covenant on the People; but knowing what he hath both said and done against this, he thought he could not fairly retract and condemn his own tongue and actions; yet if he think himself obliged to venture his life for the life of his Majesty, he might have also thought it his duty, to take shame to himself, to repent of what he had done, and recant what he had said, for the securing of his majesty's life and person. Now that the pressing of this Covenant upon the People, would be a sovereign remedy to preserve his majesty's life, his majesty's Royal father knew it, when being in the isle of Wight, & fearing that violence should have been done unto him by these in whose custody he was, he sent for Mr. jeremiah French minister of that place to which Carisbrook castle belonged, and desired him to preach the Covenant and press it upon the People, that thereby they might be engaged to rescue him, in case any such thing should be attempted by that part of the army: See for this the postscript to the Covenanters Plea. And sure I am, if his Majesty would (as I said before) faithfully mind this Covenant, and cause the People stand to it, form the highest to the lowest, he would find, that there could not be a more effectual mean imagined, for securing his person, then that would be. If he would faithfully own, and according to his power lay out himself, for settling and securing the main things contained in that Covenant, and walk in that due subordination unto the Supreme governor of heaven and earth; The very conscience of these great and main things, would press a conscientious respect to, and a faithful care of his majesty's person, in reference to these great Ends. Which would prove more effectual for this end, than volumes of railing sophistications, which this perjured, Profane and malignant Prelate and anticovenanter could write and send abroad.   

CAP. XX.  
The Surveyer's discourse concerning the fact of Phineas examined.  
THE Surveyer being good at weaving Spiders webs, whereby he would catch flees, but is not able to hold stronger bodies, spends a whole Chapter on a discourse in Naphtaly, obiter cast in, rather to prevent an objection, by showing what difficultyes such behoved to meet with and roll our of his way, who would assert the utter unimitablenesse of the fact of Phineas, in executing judgm. on the Israelitish Prince and his Midianitish whore, to stay the plague and Judgement of God, which was broken out on the whole congregation, because of their defection to Midianitish whoredom and idolatry; then to assert any thing positively thereanent: & because any who considereth the place, & seeth how little is there positively asserted, & how much is set forth rather problematickly, and by way of doubt, will easily perceive that the Author's scope▪ was not such as this perverse scribbler giveth it out to be, we might let it pass, especially seeing our cause doth not hang thereupon, but may stand, whatever be said of that passage; yet lest this Surveyer should glory Without ground, and become too too wise in his own eyes, we must discover his folly in this his enterprise.  
Though he hath been at much Pains in this business, probably because it was his own particular, to prevent, if he could, another shot, Which might come as near to his heart, as the last came to his hand, though not intentionally, but per accidens because of ill company; yet, lest he should think that we Were stirring up any to the like enterprise, whether against him, or any of his perjured fraternity, whom we look upon as far below the indignation of any heroik person, we shall not insist on this, as we have done on what he hath said in the foregoing Chapters, but shall cursorily run over what he sayeth to this purpose.  
We grant that every man should walk in his own calling with God, 1 Cor 7: ver. 20. and study to be quiet and do his own business, 1 Thess 4: ver. 11. But when He and his Party have perfidiously forsaken their calling, and have not loved the honour to be quiet to do their own business, but have ambitiously usurped the honour and dignity of abjured prelacy, and become Lords and Councillors and Parliament-men, and thereby brought the wrath of God upon the land, for our defection and Apostasy, and are persecuting all who will not hold them in their saddle, and bear up their riding mantles, to the wronging of their own souls and consciences; other persons must mind their general calling as Christians and good Countrymen, and endeavour an averting of the wrath of God, and a setting on foot again a work of reformation according to their power: Ay but says he, [Satan can drive men under several colours of extreme necessity, lawfulness of the matter of actions, the goodness of ends and intentions, the want of others to do the work, and men's own probable capacity to do it? to act such things, whereof God will say I never required them at your hands.] Answ. This is true, but what will he hence prove? Will he hence conclude that God may not animate some, to some rare enterprises, in a time of real extreme necessity, the matter of the action being unquestionably lawful, their ends and intentions really good and commendable, there being also a deficiency of others to do the work, and themselves in some probable capacity for it? His consequence will be denied. [This vain Orator Naphtaly (says he) will have the instance of Phineas a precedent for any private persons, (such as lately did rise) under colour of high pitches of zeal and fortitude, to execute justice on all powers and people of the land, as being fallen in such a fearful Apostasy, as (keeping the true Protestant Religion,) do vary from them, in the external ordering of the Ministry of the Church, and imbraceing that way and order, against which there is no command of Christ, yea for the consonancy whereof to his word, much and very much may be said, & hath been.] Ans. He would fain mince the defection, whereof he and the rest are guilty, and tell us that they keep the true protestant Religion; but how we have heard before: and that all the difference is about an external ordering of the ministry of the Church, against which there is no command of Christ, and for which much may be said, & hath been said. But this is not the place to speak of the abjured prelacy, occasion may given further in his following part: only we would say that much more hath been said against it, to show it utterly unlawful, than he òr all his fraternity will be able to answer: And unless he prove it absolutely necessary, and no other form lawful, which he dar not so much as undertake to prove, he shall never clear the land of fearful Apostasy and defection, in renunceing a Covenant sworn by all ranks of people. And because his fears are most about himself and other Apostates, he supposeth that that discourse in Naphtaly is brought in of purpose to incite some to execute justice on him, and such as he is; whereas any may see that it is cast in among other things adduced to justify our first Reformers: And so timorous is he, that because that fact of Phineas is not simply and positively declared not imitable, he thinks it is held forth as a precedent to incite: Whereby we see what an ill conscience is. Ay but (says he) [Though he turn himself Proteus. like into many shapes— he cannot put a sufficient bar against confusions under such pretexts.] And who such a Protëus as this Surveyer, and his fraternity, a company of base changelings: But thinks he it possible that any doctrine can be so clearly and distinctly asserted as none will ever abuse to error and confusion? The Scripture is plain enough against Lordly Prelates, and Covenant breaking, and yet we know how some can abuse these truths of Scripture, to defend defectiion, and the overturning of the work of God in his Church, and so confound and overturn all. Thereafter he tells us, [That when this discourse was first looked upon— men of judgement considered that as the former bloody insurrections, were endeavoured to be justified by him, So he was laying down grounds for some merciless Massacre, and horrid assassinations, on persons in power and others— for now no man can have security of his life.] What these men of judgement could be, who could either suppose the former, if they considered the place where that discourse stood; or could fear the later, if they considered the discourse itself, I cannot tell: But it is like, he and the rest of the Apostates, are accounted the Men of judgement; & indeed as these might have fancied the former, so they might have feared the later: for were this fact of Phineas asserted to be as much imitable as any other uncontrollable example in scripture, all persons, notwithstanding thereof, would have sufficient security of their life, except such as were guilty of dreadful apostasy, causing, the plague of God to break out upon the land: And we know the best examples may be abused. And therefore that which he sayeth pag. 106: & 107. concerning Munster madness, and the Murderers of the two Henry's of France the 3. and 4. and the gunpowder Traitors, and Arthington Coppinger and Hacket in Queen Elizabeth's days, is nothing to the point: for neither hear we that any of these founded their actions upon Phineas' fact: and though they had done so, It would not have proved that it was not imitable, in any cases: for why? Wicked Magistrates have persecuted innocents', in all ages, shall therefore the examples of good Magistrates executing justice on wicked apostates, and flagitious people and idolaters, be declared altogether un-imitable, because some corrupt Magistrates under that pretext abuse that power, and persecute such as they should rather honour and highly reward? would not any body smile at such a consequence? And yet such is his here. Let him make it to appear, that the matter of the actions of these persons was lawful, and the necessity extreme, and the case was the same as to the deficiency of others to do the work, and that they were in a probable capacity to do it, & then he shall speak more home to the case. He needs not tell his readers, Pag. 107. [That such abominable courses carried on under pretext of heroic motions, and rare exitations of the spirit, should make the fearers of God very cautelous against the principles of this Man, which lead this way.] For that man neither approveth these courses, nor any such like, nor doth his principles lead that way, whatever he imagine; nor doth he assert (as he allegeth,) [that there needs no standing upon an external call, if men think they have his internal call to use the sword for vengeance against Apostate Magistrates— and Reform an Apostate Church, their zeal is a sufficient call to rise up in a Phineas like fortitude, without further,] as any will see who reads over that discourse. Nor needeth he to say, [that if people be so principled, it were better living under the great Turk, where no man is to loss his life but by Law, then in Scotland,] For he doth not expose any to the fury of private persons, who can pretend rare and heroic excitations of the Spirit to execute justice on men, when they think there is cause (as he supposeth in the following words) nor could he rationally be supposed to do so, though he had clearly and positively asserted that that fact of Phineas was, in all points & always, imitable; far less when he is loath to assert so much, as this Surveyer himself acknowledgeth in the following words, Pag. 108. confessing that he said, we hold no such instances as regular precedents for all times and persons universally. What displeaseth him then? [But where is (says he) the caution that is put in against any that will pretend heroïcal excitations by the spirit, as a sufficient call: he hath opened a door but how will he close it again? Answ. What could himself say more to bar a heady People from such pretensions of Phineas-like motions, then that it was not a regular precedent for all times and Persons? Is it not possible (as hath been said) yea and often seen, that the most clear and approved examples have been abused? And what can be said to this, but that such must run their own hazard and bear their own guilt? God only can prevent all confusion in all cases. It is false which he addeth that [This man hath proclaimed this libertinism to private persons, upon pretence of heroïck excitations of Zeal &c. to rise up against all powers above them; for they are made judges in their own private discretion, when it is fit to fall in hand with such irregular practices; and when it is that such heröick excitations are upon their spirits, and when it is that matters are so far out of order that they cannot be amended without their violent interposeing, and pulling down of powers: All this is referred to private persons discretion.] Ans. No such thing is there said, and Phineas instance will give ground for no such thing, though it were pressed as a most regular precedent. As we grant with him, that Quakers and Ranters, etc. may start up, and plead their impulses, and that People (when they mind changes) will not want pretexts: But what says that against the thing, seeing the best things may be abused? Ay but Naphtaly (says he) holds [That Magistrates when patronisers of abominations ought without doubt be suppressed by all means; so that if there be not probable capacity for arms, a dag or a dagger, a pistol or a poisoned poinard, a spanish fig or some secret applications, may do the business with some great ones] Answ. Naphtaly in the place cited Pag. 18. is speaking of open idolatry, blasphemy, perjury, venting and spreading of heresy, and such like abominations, which being most dishonourable to God, & pernicious to all Commonwealths, aught, says he, by all means to be suppressed, that is by all fair and possible means, for illud tantum possumus quod jure possumus, and so, had he not been too captious, be reason of (it is like) his green wound, he might have spared the rest, and to his liturgical prayer following [That the life our dread Sovereign may be bound up with the Lord his God in the b●undle of life, and also that the same great and good God may be a shield and buckler to his servants (who desire in honouring of the King, to fear him the King of Kings above all) against the generation of Men of blood and violence.] We shall desire him to add this Litany: from perjury, pride, profaneness, blasphemy, impenitency, atheism, and all manner of uncleanness, good Lord deliver us and our King. And to prevent all these fears, let is Majesty and other Magistrates, reform their ways, and turn to the Lord, and execute judgement on him and his complices, and all the rest, who now pretend to honour the King, and to fear God, but in effect to deify a creature and renunce their homage to the King of Kings, and so provoke him to destroy both them and their King, by their apostasy and wicked defection, and that openly before men and Angels, as David hanged up the Sons of Saul before the sun; and then they need not fear either dag or dagger, pistol or poisoned poinard, a spanish fig, nor any such secret applications.  
Thereafter Pag. 109. he comes more particularly to consider that discourse, and gives us there and in the following Pages 7. or 8. Answers The first is [That it is much doubted if Phineas was a mere private person, being the high Priests son, and a chief priest, and a Prince in his tribe Numb. 31: 6. Jos. 22: 31, 32. one of the great Council Num. 1: 16. and 16: 2. who did in that dismaltime, Numb. 25: 6, meet with Moses the chief Magistrate to lament the ab hominable idolatry, and bodily filthiness committed at that time, and to consult and advise, about the authoritative restraining of this wickedness: In the mean time when the great council are humbled before the Lord, Zimri with his Midianitish woman, are in their very sight going in to the tent, and Josephus says, that before Moses and the Council, he justified the fact, and pleaded frowardly to have and retain her. In this case of so effronted wickedness, Phineas then one of the congregation or great Council v. 6. rose from among the congregation (or great Council which shows he was sitting amongst them) & under the eye & knowledge and approbation of Moses the supreme Magistrate, pursued them both to the tent, and thrust them thorough.] Answ. 1. Then it seems this fact of Phineas was a laudable act of judice in a Magistrate, and so must be a precedent example for judges and Magistrates in all time coming, and by this example, any member of the Council might lawfully rise up, and execute judgement on this wicked wretch and his cursed fraternity, who have brought, by their apostasy and defection from the Covenant and cause of God, the wrath and curse of God upon the land. 2. That Phineas was the High Priest's soon, we know; and that he was afterward High priest himself, is truth; but that he was at this time a public Magistrate, or a member of the great Sanhedrin, we see not. It is true there were some Princes of the tribes, men of renown Numb. 1. ver. 16. but he is not mentioned among those; neither were these the great Sanhedrin. So these princes of the assembly Numb. 16: 2. were not the Sanhedrin, which did consist but of 70 Members, Numb. 11. Nor was Phineas one of them. And that congregation of the children of Israel mentioned, Numb. 25: 6. amongst whom Phineas was ver. 7. was not the Sanhedrin, which we never find (as I remember) so called; but the whole body of the People, who were then mourning partly for the sin committed, and partly for the execution, when the heads of the People were hanged up, and a thousand more killed by the judges, at Moses his command: for Paul 1 Cor. 10: ver. 8. says there died of the plague twenty three thousand, and here we find there fell in all twenty four thousand. Again it is remarkable that this single act of Phineas in killing two persons is so much rewarded and taken notice of by the Lord, yea more than the many who were killed by the judges ver. 5. So that it seems he was no public Magistrate: and that he did it with the approbation of Moses, is probable; but that Moses did command him, we see not; only we find that the Zeal of God moved him, and therefore is he highly rewarded, though he was but the son of Eleazar the son of Aaron. Yea that which the Surveryer citeth out of Deodat rather confirmeth this, for Deodat calleth it an act of extraordinary zeal & motion of God's Spirit, and he addeth that Moses the Supreme Magisstrate did approve it; but what needed this, if he had been a Magistrate, seeing there was a command given to the Magistrates ver. 5. and a command is more than an approbation, Aquinas and Gerhard call him, it is true, a judge, but we see no proof, unless they could evince that he was a member of the Sanhedrin of which Gillespy speaks in his Aaron's rod. lib. I. c. I. The Dutch Annotat. on Psal. 106: 31. Suppose him to have been no Magistrate, but say that this fact was beside his ordinary calling.  
His 2. answer is Pag. III. That suppose he had been a mere private person, yet it could prove nothing, because he did it with the approbation and good liking of Moses, and so he is but the executor of that unanimous sentence. Answ. But not only is this not written, but the scripture giveth another ground of his fact, than any warrant or command of Moses: And so his answer in rebus facti, a non scripto ad non factum non valet consequentia is not to the purpose. Now I say the scripture giveth another ground viz. his zeal for his God, which is not spoken of the other judges who ver. 5. were commanded of Moses to execute judgement, yea that word Psal. 106: 30. than stood up Phineas and executed judgement clearly hinteth at more than his being a mere satelles Magistratus, and the ample reward which was given him, and the Lord's counting it to him for righteousness, speak some other thing, then that he had a call of the Magistrate, and was his executioner.  
In the 3 place, he says. [The cases are different; for than was horrible idolatry and villainous whoredom committed avowedly, and with a high hand, in the sight of the Sun, and in way of open doing despite to God, but it is not so now.] Answ. Prudence might have taught him to have concealed this, for it were easy to draw such a parallel as would make him afraid, if any did intend to follow that example: For I am sure what ever he account of the present apostasy, and how ever he mince it, as no doubt zimri would have minced his uncleanness, when he justified the fact before the Council, as he told us josephus said; yet the apostasy and perjury is open, avowed, abominable and villainous, committed in the sight of the Sun, in despite of God, and maintained as right and lawful, howbeit it be such as the very heavens may be astonished at: For such open, avowed, malapert wickedness, defection and perjury (all things considered) was never heard of in any generation. How our reformation, and confession of faith is maintained, we have heard; and albeit he make all the change to be only a change of the exterior form of Church government, yet when he is before his judge, he shall find in the cup of this iniquity, manifest & avowed perjury, overturning of the work of God, destroying of the interest of Christ, blasphemy, near unto that unpardonable sin (if not the very same,) in fathering the works of the right hand of the Most high, on Satan; open and avowed persecution of godliness; opening of a gap to all licentiousness, horrid iniquity, increase of idolatry; villainous and avowed whoredom, Sodomy, atheism and devilry, and more wickedness than tongue can tell, or pen can paint out, but is on clear record before the Lord.  
4. (Says he) [Let it be so, that he was a mere private man, and had no warrant from the Supreme Magistrate to do what he did, his fact cannot warrant Men to attempt the doing of such acts, unless they can show as good war and and approbation from God as he could.] Answ. That he had God's warrant and approbation we do not doubt; but that it was such an approbation as was peculiar to extraordinary un-imitable acts, is the thing in question, we grant with him. That God is the Lord of all Magistrates, and of all men's lives, can (when it pleaseth him) cross ordinary rules, and apppoynt some to execute his judgements extraordinarily, but the question is whether every thing, which the Suru. accounteth extraordinary, is so indeed. [He may (says he) send Moses to kill the Egyptian Eglon to kill Ehud (he should say Ehud to kill Eglon) Elias to destroy companies of men with fire from heaven, or to kill Baal's Priests: He may command Abraham to kill his soon Isaac: he may excite David to a bloody duëel & Samson to murder himself.] Ans. Will the Surveyer account these instances alike extraordinary and unimitable? Sure Royalists will think that Ehud's killing of Eglon may warrant any private person now, to kill a tyrant without title. But I lay more weight upon john Knox his distinction in this matter, in his debate with Lithingtoun, hist. of reformation, Pag. 390. (edit in fol.) [And as touching (says Mr. Knox) that ye allege that the fact was extraordinary, & is not to be imitated. I say That it had the ground of God's ordinary judgement, which commandeth the Idolater to die the death: and therefore I yet again affirm, that it is to be imitate of all these that prefer the true honour of the true worship and glory of God, to the affection of flesh, and wicked Princes.] and when Lithingtoun replied. That we are not bound to follow extraordinary examples, unless we have the like commandment and assurance (the same which this Surveyer sayeth.) He answered [I grant if the example repugn to the law, as if an avaricious and deceitful man would borrow Silver; Raiment, or other necessaries from his Neighbour, and withhold the same, alleging that so he might do, and not offend God, because the Israelites, at their departure out of Egypt, did so to the Egyptians, The example served to no purpose, unless that they could produce the like cause, and the like commandment, that the Israelites had: And that because their fact repugned to this commandment of God Thou shall not steal: But where the example agrees with the law, and is, as it were, the execution of God's judgement, expressed within the same, I say that the example approved of God stands to us in place of a commandment; for as God, in his Nature is constant and immutable, so can he not condemn in the ages subsequent, that which he hath approved in his servants before us; but in his servants before us, he in his own word confounds all such as crave further approbation of God's will, than it already expressed within his scriptures; for Abraham said, They have Moses and the Prophets etc. Even so I say, that such as will not be taught what they ought to do by the commandment of God once given, and once put in practice, will not believe nor obey, albeit that God should send Angles from heaven to instruct that doctrine.] Now sure I am this fact of Phineas was according to the law, and to the express mind of God, and why then might it not be imitated in the like case? what warrant, command nor commisssion had Phineas which none now can expect? 1. (says he) [He had the Motion and direction of God's Spirit, which was loco specialis mandati.] Answ. We know men must need the Motions and directions of God's spirit to ordinary and allowed duties: How shall these make this fact altogether un-imitable? It is true Calvin sayeth it was singular and extraordinare motion, which may not be drawn to a common rule, but notwithstanding thereof, I see not how it should be altogether un-imitable or useless. But grant it were so, as Calvin sayeth, unless he say that it is never to be imitated, in no case, and that no such thing is ever to be expected, which I suppose he will not say, how will he prevent confusions thorough the abuse of corrupt men, who can pretend as well these singular and extraordinare Motions, as the examples of Phineas? As for what he tells us Augustin and Bernard say of Samson's case, is not to the point: Because according to that solid distinction of Mr. Knox, that was contrare to an express law, Thou shall not kill, and such also is the example of Abraham. 2. He tells us, That [Phineas had not only a large reward of his fact, Numb. 25: ver. 12, 13. but an ample approbation of it. Psal. 106: sver. 31: it was accounted to him for righteousness. i e. as a righteous action, both as to the intention of it (God's honour) and as to the ground and warrant of it (God's direction) God doth not approve or remuner at any action, which one way or other he doth not command.] Ausw. This is all granted; and as it sayeth that Phineas was no public person or Magistrate, otherwise there had been no doubt anent its being accounted to him for righteousness, though it had not been expressly mentioned by the Spirit of God, for it sayeth that sometimes private people are allowed of God, to do what he requireth in ordinary to be done by Magistrates. [There are none of these extraordinary actions (says he) mentioned in Scripture, but either God's stirring up men to the same, or his approbation of the same, one way or other is noted: See Judg. 3: ver 10. and 5: ver. 7. and 10: ver. 23. and 3: ver. 9, 15. and 2: 16, 18.] Answ. Will he say that all these instances were extraordinary and not imitable? Whence will Royalists then prove, that privaate persons may kill a Tyrant without title? And if they be not altogether unimitable, than the cause is here yielded; for God may be said to raise up, and to stir up men's Spritis even to imitable actions; & so he hath given us no reason as yet to prove Phineas fact altogether unimitable; nor will the real rebukes, which he saith God gave the late risers, proclaim that they had not his approbation, unless he say that God's approbation of actions must always be interpreted by the event, which is not consonant to true Divinity.  
In the 5. place he tells us, [That if once men come to press the imitation of this instance, they must say, first, that even when the Magistrate is godly and zealous and willing to execute judgement, (as Moses was) private perssons may do it, and without any legal process, 2. go to men's tents and chambers and stob them, and 3. that though such things be done inconsulto pio Magistratu, yet the doer must not be challenged.] Answ. It will be sufficient if it be granted, when the case is every way the like, or whose: It is true, Moses was not unwilling, but it is like at present in capacitated, through the want of assistence of inferior Magistrates, many of whom were guilty, and many had been executed; and through grief, while lying mourning before the Lord. 2. There needed no legal process; for both the law and the sentence was written with characters of blood upon the carcases of thousands; & this Man's fact was notour and avowed, to all the Congregation. 3. He had the interpretative consent of that pious Magistrate: why then may not the like be done in the like case, where the Ius, and the factum is as clear and undeniable as here, and the Magistrate, who should execute the sentence is out of a present capacity, and the matter admitteth of no delay as here, (for till this was done, the plague was never stayed,) much more if he will not, and wrath is still poured out from the Lord; and the Magistrate by his place is bound to assent, & approve of the thing. If such a fact were done in the like case, would any think that the person should be challenged and not rather approved by the Magistrate?  
In the 6. Place he giveth us, the distinction betwixt extraordinary and heröical acts, telling us that a heroic act doth not deviat from the rule of a common virtue, but only proceeds from a more intense disposition to a high pitch of virtue and of the acts thereof: But an extraordinary action goes beyond any ordinary rule of common reason or divine word, as that Abraham should kill his Sun Isaac.] Answ. We shall not contend with him much about this, since he will grant that heroic actions are imitable, as not being contrary to a rule of common virtue; though extraordinary actions, which are rather contrary to the rule of common virtue, may not be imitated: And he hath not yet proved, neither can he prove that Phineas' fact was so far beyond any ordinary rule of common reason or divine word, as was that of Abraham, and the like. We shall grant with him. That [Extraordinary actions, are such as are done upon special mandate of God, and are not within the compass of ordinary acts of obedience according to the rule, that is set.] And that [men may have heroic motions & actions within the bounds of an ordinary calling, as Luther had; as sometimes, though they have an extraordinary calling, they may want heroical motions, as Peter when he dissembled. [But what says this to Phine as his fact? [Phineas (says he) had not only excitations of zeal and heröical motions, but (supposeing him a mere private person) he is to be looked upon as having extraordinary calling from God.] Answer. Doth this man give a distinct sound? He complained of the Author of that discourse concerning Phineas, that he turned himself Protëus. like into many shapes, and we find himself doing little better here: He dar not say positively whether he was a mere private person or not, but if he was such, than the action was extraordinary; but what if he was not? Then the action was neither extraordinary nor heröical, and thus we are no wiser than we were; for we know not what to make of the action; nor what to make of the person, but we must judge of the person by the action; And of the action by the person. That is to say, if he was a Magistrate then the action was ordinare, but if he was a private person than the action was extraordinary: and è contra, if the action was extraordinary, he was a private person, and if it was ordinare and imitable, Then he was a public person. Is not this a singularly satisfactory way of answereing? But it is observable that he dar not here say that Phineas' fact was extraordinary, but that he is to be looked upon as having an extraordinary call, now a man may have an extraordinary call to an action imitable, as the Apostles had an extraordinary call to preach the Gospel, and yet that action of theirs is imitable. But how proves he this extraordinary call? [It is (says he) fully enough insinuated both by God's approving and rewarding him Numb. 25. (and he rewards not our will- service, nor approves it, but what he hath enjoined himself) and also by P sal. 106. where it is said Emphatically it was imputed to him for righteousness: though judging according to ordinary Rules, it might be imputed to him for sin (supposeing him for a mere private man) yet, having God's warrant, whose will is the rule of righteousness, the deed was imputed to him for righteousness] Answ. It is true, God rewards not, nor approves not wil-service, yet he approves and rewards other actions, than such as are extraordinary and not imitable. 2. God's imputing it unto him for rightoeusnesse, says clearly he was a private person, and that God accepted of his service as a noble act of holy zeal for God and his glory, and rather speaks out an encouragement to all, to do the like in the like case, than any extraordinary call he had, which none now can expect.  
Then in the 7 place he speaks of Callings & says that [Every calling a man hath to any work Must be either Mediate or immediate (there is no mids betwixt these two, as there is not between contradictories) if they be not called by the intervention of men, & their allowance, they must plead an immediate calling from God.] Ans. Beacause ay mind not to enter into a Logomachy, or debate about words, & terms; I would dear him to tell me, what call men have to run together to extinguish a fire in a city, when the Magistrates through wickedness or negligence will not, or do not, call People forth unto that work. They have not Man's call, nor have they an immediate call from heaven, and yet they have a lawful call from God, Nature and necessity, to save the city, their houses, goods & little ones, from being burnt into ashes. And what ever name he give to this call, we will allow it to private persons to defend Religion and a land form ruin and destruction, when Magistrates do not nor will not do their duty. And when men, whether out of secret impulses, heroical motions, or out of mere sense & conscience of duty, do this, they do not desert their own calling and state, like these spirits lord. ver. 6. Nor do they intrude upon the Magistrate's office, though they do materially that work for that exigent, which Magistrates by office were bound to do, being called thereto by God, by Nature, and the call of inevitable necessity, which knoweth no humane law, and to which some divine positive laws will cede. But then he says Pag. 115. [Why is not also sufficient for the office of the Ministry without a call from men externally?] Answ. And doth he think that necessity will not allow a man sufficiently gifted and qualified to exerce that office without an external call from men, in some cases? What if a company of Men be cast out on an island, having no correspondence nor possibility of correspondence with other places, whence they might have some lawfully called Minister; and there be one among them qualified for the work, might not he in that case think himself called of God to exerce that function? And when we grant this, we need not yield unto Anabaptists, Enthusiasts photinians, or the like, who are against an external call at any time, alleging that gifts are sufficient [And (says he) how shall be refuse to admit women to Baptise Children in case of necessity?] Answ. He shall not refuse providing he show the necessity, which he shall not be able to do unless he turn Papist, and then he will embrace the consequent also, without our admission.  
In the 8 place he comes to tell us that [It is in vain to say that God's hand is not shortened, etc. for our question is not of that, but if now after the Canon of holy Scripture is perfected sealed and consigned, we have warrant to look for any extraordinary persosones, having Gods secret and special Mandates, to do works which any ordinary calling doth not interest them in?] Answ. Prophecies and predictions of future events, are not works, which any ordinary calling men have, by allowance and approbation of Men, according to the rules of common reason and the word, doth interest them in; and doth he think God's sealing and perfecting the Canon of Scripture hath so bound him up, as that he will not, or cannot now give such a Spirit unto any? 2. The question rather is; Whether now when the Canon is sealed and perfected, examples of Zeal and valiant acting for God and his glory, in times of corruption and wickedness, in actions not contrary to the Law of God, registrated in Scripture, be not for our use and instruction, and imitable?  
When Naphtaly wished that all God's People were as Phineas He concurreth with him [In wishing that they may be filled with zeal to his glory as Phineas was; but not that they should have the same exercise of zeal, unless they could be certified of their warrant and calling to do so, as he was.] Ans. That he was certified of his calling & warrant we doubt not, but that he had such a call as no man now is capable of, is the question; & he hath not yet cleared it. [The Apostles of Christ (says he) are to us examples of zeal for God in their Ministry; but who will say that the acts which they Zealously did, by virtue of their extraordinary calling, as Peter's killing Ananias, are for our imitation.] Answ. Peter killed Ananias and Sapphira by a power of miracles, which none now have. Phineas did not kill the Prince and his whore, by a power of miracles. Their examples are imitable according to our power and the exigence of the like necessity; and therefore Ministers should now out of zeal, use Church censures, against such dissemblers when discovered: And so we grant that to follow at the facts of them who have been truly Zealous for God, were indeed an evil Zeal, like the zeal of the Disciples Luk. 9: ver. 54. and we shall willingly hearken to Peter Martyr's his words Loc. Com. Class. 2. Cap. 9 and grant-that We must beware to confirm any thing which we vehemently and extraordinarily desire by the exemple of predecessors. And that, when we attempt the doing of any thing contrary to ordinary commands of God, it is not enough to produce the example of others, but we must search by what Spirit we are led, lest under a specious pretext we follow carnal affection and prudence. And yet say, that in some cases private persons may execute ●udgement on Malefactors, after the example of the Prophet Elias killing Baal's Priests, 1 King. 18. Which fact Peter Martyr in the same place, n. 4. defendeth thus [I say it was done by the Law of God: for Deut. 18. God discerned that the false Prophet should die, and Cap. 17. the same is said of private Men and Women who would worship idols. But Cap. 13. not only is death threatened against a seduceing Prophet, but a command is added, that no man should spare his brethren, the Son of his Mother, nor his son or daughter, nor his dearest or most intimate friends: Thirdly it is commanded that the whole city, when it becometh idolatrous should be cut off by fire & sword: And Leu. 24. it is statuted, that the blasphemer should not live; to which we may add the Law or equity of Taliation; for these Prophets of Baal caused jezebel and Ahab kill the servants of the Lord.] He says (it is true) that King Ahab being present did consent, and did not withstand; but we see nothing in the text showing that the Prophet founded his fact upon that consent. It is true, the King might have been so astonished by that prodigious sight, that he durst not spurn against the Prophet, and all the People: But that for all this, he gave any express command, either through fear, or desire to have rain; or that the Prophet either sought, or had his warrant and command for what he did, we see no ground for it in the text, More than Samuel had warrant of Saul when he killed Agag before his eyes, whom he should have killed himself according to the command of God.  
Thus have I answered all which this pamphleter hath said concerning Phineas his fact: for what followeth to the end of his pamplet, is not much to this matter, & hath been spoken to formerly: and though I have done so, I would not have the Reader to think, that I do look upon that example of Phineas as a binding precedent in all times to all persons, unless it be every way so circumstantiated as it was then. And further I suppose it will fully satisfy this Surveyer and stoup his Mouth abundantly, if I shall secure him from any such dag or dagger. To which End, because I can do no more, I do heartily wish, That none of God's People do in that manner defile their fingers on him or on any of his cursed fraternity, to whom God is reserving (if they repent not) the vengeance of hell fire, and possibly a visible stroke of justice on Earth, in a way which will be more to the glory of God, and to the satisfaction of all such as love his cause and his coming.   

CAP. XXI.  
Some Animadversions upon the Surveyer's Virulent preface and Title-page.  
WHen thus we have fully examined and confuted what this Enemy hath said, in this part of his Survey. It will not be amiss, till we see what he says further in the following part or parts of this infamous work of his, to touch a little upon his Title-page and his most bitter, and satiric preface, which is a perfect proof of the man's Spirit: for he cometh forth in his own colours, & with his tongue speaketh no flattering words, nor words of butter, but both heart and tongue are full of gall and worm word; So that his Name should not be Honeyman but Wormwood-Man or Man of gall.  
1. He calleth his work a Survey. Or rather a Superficial view: For No man, who ever put pen to paper, took such an overly look, of the books which he pretended to answer, as this Man doth of these books which he mentioneth in the title page of his scurril pamphlet, as hath been abundantly already showed: And if he do no more in the following part or parts, than he hath done in this first part, he may deservedly bear the name of a Superficial prelate superficially viewing his adversaries forces, & superficially managing the tottering cause; for which he should have been superficially rewarded.  
2. A Survey of what? Of the insolent and infamous libel, Entitled, Naphtali etc. But whether his railing pamphlet, or Naphtali do best deserve the title of an insolent and Infamous lybel, let the Reader judge when he hath considered, first, that as Naphtali came forth without the author's or printer's name prefixed, (for which every one may be convinced there was sufficient reason, seeing such hath been and is the wickedness and cruelty of corrupted tyrannical Courts, and of none more than our Court now in being, that none durst without manifest hazard openly rebuke in the gate, or in print show the iniquity of their ways. Yea Or vindicate such as oppose their tyranny and cruelty. So doth this Survey, whose author could be under no rational fear from the powers now in being, for his advocating their cause; seeing he hath been so richly rewarded for the same, as is sufficiently known: And therefore, his Survey deserveth much more to be termed Libellus Famosus; seeing notwithstanding of the warrant, Yea & reward of the Magistrates, he dar not own it, by prefixing his name to it; Nor dar the very printer prefix his name. Next the nature of Naphtali's discourse is but an historical deduction of the troubles, the Church of Scotland, in her reformation, hath met with at the hands of a popish, prelatical and Malignant faction, with a necessary vindication of the truth, which is allowed to all historians, that thereby, truth may be the more cleared, and the Readers more edified by the history. And who ever heard such a fair and clear deduction of Matters of Fact, together with a few reasons here and there cast in for the Readers further satisfaction; called an Infamous lybel, till this impudent ignoramus arose? And as for his pamphlet, do not all see, who consider either its scope, or its method, or the whole strain of the discourse, that it can be termed nothing else, than a most impudent, insolent and infamous libel, being not only larded, with bitter invectives against the Cause and People of God, and railing speeches more suitable (if suitable for any rational creature) for open scolds and brawling wives, then for a man, (unless he except such a man, as hath by perjury and more than feminine levity, declared himself, by his own grant, to be one of a debauched conscience) but also tending most falsely to father on the honest people of God such things as never came into their minds: Whereby this railing Rabshakeh proveth himself, to all sober judicious persons, to be an impudent lying calumniator; and his pamphlet, a more then ordinarily insolent, base, lying, and infamous libel.  
3. He tells us, that in his Survey, several things falling in debate in these times are considered. But by what we have said, we have seen, that such things as he hath in the preceding chapters considered, for the most part, are either such things as should be put beyond debate, by all who have not renunced Humanity, Reason, & Religion; or such things concerning which himself hath needlessly and foolishly (as it may be his rewarders will find) moved the debate; unless he bring some other things above board, in the next part or parts, than we see in this?  
4. Moreover, he tells us, that [hear some doctrines in Lex Rex & Apol. Narration (he should have said relation) are brought to the touch stone.] But if in what he hath further to say, he mention not some other doctrines, than what we see in 〈…〉 every rational Man will see that he hath rather brought some drops than doctrines of these books to any touch stone, yea even to the touch stone of his own unsolid and buttery fancy, for his Reason hath no palate to taste truth aright.  
5. In this 1. part he tells us that [He Represents the dreadful aspect of Naphtali's principles upon the powers Ordained of God, and detects the horrid consequences in practice, necessarily resulting from such principles. But more truly, the dreadful state of his own distempered brain, both in his judgement, misunderstanding what Naphtaly says, and in his ratiocinative faculty, giving us nothing but non-sequitur's for clear consequences, And the manifestly dreadful aspect, which his own principles have on all Commonwealthes, and on all Rational and Religious persons, together with the affected stile of a base & ignorant gnatho, Time serving parasite & Royally rewarded court flatterer, who having a latitudinarian's conscience, or rather a conscience utterly (I wish, not irrecoverably) debauched, maketh no conscience what he sayeth, if he can please King and Court: And how pernicious such Sycophants have been to Kings in all ages, histories sufficiently declare.  
6. Then he praefixeth, job 13: ver. 7, 9, 11. will you speak wickedly for God, etc. A passage which most fitly quadrats with him (unless he say he intendeth not to plead for God, but for a creature, yea and upon the matter, for the devil) who, as Job's Friends conspired against job, and maintained a wrong thesis, & erred no less in the hypothesis or in the application to job; so he conspireth with other Royalists to defend erroneous and long-since discarded theses, and maketh as evil applications to our present case, as hath been showed. His discourse showeth to all that he is an accepter of persons, not secretly indeed, but openly; and so this forger of lies speaks wickedly for the King, who is (very like) all his God: But we are confident, God shall search him out and reprove him. Then he prefixeth, Psal. 144: ver. 10. It is he that giveth Salvation unto Kings, who delivereth David his Servant from the hurtful sword. A noble truth, which all Kings would look to, and if they expected any good of this good word, would ●ay out themselves for this God and this 〈◊〉, and not stand in opposition against him, lest they since that he who is terrible to the Kings of the Earth, Psal. 76: ver. 12. And Made higher than the Kings of the Earth, Psal. 89: ver. 27. Shall not spare but strike thorough Kings in the day of his wrath, Ps. 110: 5. And find a way to make good that, Psal. 149: v. 5,— 9 [For the Lord takes pleasure in his people, he will beautify the meek with salvation, let the saints be joyful in glory, let them sing aloud upon their beds, let the high praises of God be in their mouth, and a two edged sword in their hand, to execute vengeance upon the heathen, and punishments upon the people. To bind their Kings with chains, and their Nobles with fetters of iron. To execute upon them the judgement written: This honour have all the saints, praise ye the Lord.] But it is to be observed, that by his bringing forth of this place of scripture, he world make the would believe, that the party he opposeth is thirsting for the life of the King, which is but this false calumniator's fiction: & we shall make use of the very next words of that same Psal. 144. v. 11. & say [Rid us and deliver us from the hand of strange Children whose mouth speaketh vanity, and their right hand is a right hand of falsehood.] And in the last place prefixeth Proverb. cap. 24: ver. 21, 22. My Son fear thou the Lord and the King, and meddle not with them that are given to change, etc. And doth he account himself and his party, fearers of God, who have so Apostatised, and palpably perjured themselves? and doth he think, that such as fear not God can ever fear the King aright? If he do, he is mistaken. And who are most given to changes, They or we, let the World judge. What was this impudent man's brazen face doing while he wrote down this passage? What was his debauched conscience doing? Was there no blushing? Was there no conviction? Did not this text flee in his face? If not, sure his conscience must be extremely debauched, and I fear fea●ed with a hot iron. And therefore let us take notice of this, and meddle not with such as are given to change, knowing that the following word shall be made good. 〈◊〉 calamity shall rise suddenly and who knoweth their ruin? Our King liveth, and he shall come. Even so come Lord Jesus, and let all thine Enemies perish.  
But now let us come to his preface, that master piece of verulency.  
1. He tells us it hath been, and is the lot of the militant Church to be as it were grinded betwixt the two millstones of a 〈◊〉 and Atheistical world, and of a party pretending highly for truth and piety. And amongst the last (by whom he meaneth the Sect of the Anabaptists) he would reckon the faithful of the land, who adhere to their Covenants, and are constantly set against that abjured hierarchy. But when we mark his scope, we see what he would say in plain terms, if he durst for shame, viz. That they are now the only militant Church of the Lord in Scotland. This is a great change, I confess, when Christ shall have no other Church in Scotland, but the perjured, apostatical, popish, prelatical and malignant faction, that hath been from the beginning, an heart and avowed enemy to the Church and People of God, and never more wicked and debauched then it is this day: And yet so holy is it, that it must arrogate to itself alone, the name of the Church. But what Church? Belike the Synagoge of Satan which call themselves jews but are not, or that coetus malignantium (as the vulgar hath it) Psal. 26: v. 4. The congregation of evil deors which should be hated and not joined with. They the Church, who have banished Christ out of the Church, abjured his interests, persecuted to the death his brethren and followers? Must they be the Church, who are a company of perjured Apostats, profane ranters, Men of debauched consciences, wicked lives, corrupt principles, prodigiously licentious, and running to all excess of riot & iniquity? They the only Church, whose chief Fathers are Apostate Prelates, sensual, brutish, latitudinarian Epicures, void of the faith, Enemies to piety, carnal worldings, whose God is their belly, who mind earthly things, & whose end shall be destruction, dogs, evil workers, and the concision, of which we should b●●are? Phil. 2: ver 2. Are these Prelate Bite-sheep, rather than Bishops, blameless, the husbands of one wife? Are they Vigilant, unless when they have much wine to devour, or a feast to hold to Bacchus? Are they sober, who glut themselves in sensuality? Are they of good beheaviour, whose carriage is abominable to all sober persons? Are they given to hospitality, who, if they could effectuate it, would not suffer a godly person to have the benefit of one nights Lodging in all the land? Are they apt to teach, who have rejected Christ and his truth, and cry up and commend Socinian brats and empoisoned books? Are not they given to wine? Witness all who converse with some of them. Are they no strickers, who are ringleaders in persecution, and stir up the powers to spew out their venom, against the small remnant of the honest covenanters in the land? are not they greedy of filthy Lucre, who oppress all under them, & for a Bishop's benefice have made shipewrack of their faith, soul and conscience? Are they patient who are so soon saddled; are not they Brawlers? Witness this pamphleting prelate? Are not they Covetous? Witness all who have to do with them. Do they rule well their own house, having their Children in Subjection with all gravity; when all see that their families are nurseries of pride, vanity, pomp prodigality, idleness, profanity and sensuality? And as for their Underling-curats, the scum of Mankind, who seeth not their nakedness? Is this the Church, when they who say they sit in Moses seat, are such patrons of profanity, and patronizers of wickedness, and unworthy to be accounted Members in any tolerably reformed Church? Are they the militant Church, who triumph in their silks and velvets, riding with foot mantles in Parliaments, sitting in Councils and Sessions? I fear many, of them shall never see another triumphant Church. If they be the corn grinded betwixt two millstones, where is the professedly profane, and atheistical world which trouble them? Sure, seeing these are the only members of their Church, they must be nothing else but the Nether millstone: Nay the poor afflicted people of God find them the upper millstone too: for by them and at their instigation, are they brocken in pieces, persecuted to the death, scattered into corners; and banished to other nations. And as he cannot give us the professedly profane and atheistical world distinct from themselves, So he shall never be able to rank the truly godly, who are persecuted this day for righteousness sake, among the wild seck of Anabaptists. As shall be showed afterward. Ay but Pag. 5. he says [As Whitgift and Hooker these godly, sage, and sagacious persons (forsooth) considering the tendency and consequence of some of their principles, who were vehement for Discipline, feared the breaking out of that evil; so now they see it is come to pass for that Mystery of iniquity which worketh to the confusion of humane societies, to the bringing of divine ordinances into contempt, and to the introduceing of Libertinism, Quakerism, Rantisme, and Atheism, can shroud itself under divers external forms of Church government.] But sure if we may judge of the cause by the effect, there being more Libertinism, Quakerism, Rantisme and Atheism. this day in Scotland, then was all the while that presbyterian government was in vigour, we must say that Prelates and Prelatical principles usher in these evils, which shrowded more under their lap, then under presbyterians: Anabaptists: he tells us out of Ames Fresh Suit Pag. 93. had their own Bishops, but where finds he that they had Presbyterian government? It seemeth then that prelacy can comply better with Anabaptism, than presbytery; and so it will indeed: For they being two of Satan's devices must not discord. It would appear that neither Whitgift nor Hooker have been so sage or sagacious, nor himself so sharpsighted, as to see such furious Spirits lurking under our lap; we and all see them rather swarming under his own lap.  
2. This instrument of Satan cometh next to sow some tares, Pag. 5, 6. and pretending much tenderness to some moderate men (as he calleth them) of our way, he adviseth them for God's glory, the honour of his reformed Churches, compassion to seduced souls, and true interest of their own reputation, to disclaim by some public deed, what Naphtaly says, left they be accounted partakers of the guilt. But wise and sagacious persons will easily see this snare, and will not lay much weight upon all this perjured wretches fair pretensions, and will readily be convinced that there is no such vile things issueing from Naphtaly (when what he says is rightly understood, and not wiredrawne and miserably thrown with prejudice) nor such doctrines or practices, there asserted or maintained, How ever this railer call them scandalous and shameful, as they need to be ashamed of, and that it will neither be for the glory of God, the honour of his Churches, the good of souls, nor their own credit, to dance to this man's pipe, to follow divisive motions, contrare to our Covenants, to joyne-in with malignant Apostates, constant and sworn enemies to the work of reformation, to make the heart of the people of God sad whom the Lord would not have made sad; & to fortify & strengthen the hands of the wicked. Verbum sapienti fas est, we know the proverb, it is not good for the lambs, when the fox preacheth.  
3. This meek man tells us next, That it is not his design to offend the generation of the humble, meek, self denied seekers of God's face, partakers with him of the same precious faith, and running to obtain the same prize of the inheritance. O! who can decyphere unto us these persons; who are these humble meek, self-denied seekers of God's face, whom this man will not grieve? Are these the latitudinarian Atheists, the Gallioes, the coldrife Laôdiceans, who care not what Religion be professed? It is like men of that principle, will not be much grieved by any thing which he hath said O! but he meaneth some of those who differ from him in judgement in some particulars: but what are these particulars? Meum and tuum? I fear he take not such for meek humble or self denied persons, and they will have as little reason to take him for such an one. Are these particulars, Church Government? And who are these who differ from him in that point, whom he accounts humble meek and self denied? Possibly the few honest public resolutioners. But I suppose these faithful Men desire none of his commendations. Neither will they look upon themselves as partakers of the same precious faith with him and his fraternity, who have made shipewrak of their faith. Nor do they mind to run to obtain the same prize with him and his perjured fraternity▪ which will be the broad roll, the long & broad curse, which will enter into the house of him that sweareth falsely, and the heavy wrath and vengeance of God due to apostates; as they like not to turn Prelates, and swallow down bishoprics which, is all the prize, and all the inheritance, which some run over light and conscience and all, to obtain. Doth this wicked Man still intend to sow sedition, and to widen that difference? Is he ignorant of the original of that sad contest? Is he yet to be informed that the rational fears and foresight of not a few of these Ministers and Professors who obtained mercy to be jealous for the Lord, did impose a necessity upon them (in order to the preventing of a re-establishing and re-introduceing of these abjured abominations) to Dissent from, and protest against, the course which was at that time taken, in public judicatories: And upon the other hand these godly men (whom, with much sorrow of heart, and the greatest of reluctancies, they did oppose, as knoweing how really dear the precious interests of Christ were to them) being Conscious of their own integrity and straightness, in the matters of God, and measureing others by themselves, (or thinking it hardly possible; yea rather morally impossible; that the very same men, who had joined with them in so solemn an engagement to God, and by whom, the souls of his People thorough the Land, had been brought under the bond of the Covenant, could, while pretending to their former straightness be such miscreants and monsters, that neither any Conscience toward God, nor shame before the world, could bind them to the good behaviour, and tie them up from returneing to their former vomit) did mistake their brethren in that opposition, and became jealous of them; and did likewise by a sad overplus of ill grounded Charity, mistake the enemies of the work of God for friends; and because they had once with them engaged to pluck up that unhallowed plant of prelacy, as none of Gods planteing, under an Anathema Maranatha, they were not suspicious that this accursed thing was still with them, or that after they had joined with them, in commending the good ways of God, and crying Grace Grace upon the building, they should with the same breath, cry out Crucify Crucify all the friends of the work of God; and by an unparallelled dissimulation, only be watching for an opportunity of bursting his bonds asunder, and casting away his cords from them: He cannot be ignorant, I say, that this gave the rise to all these sad debats; and therefore, I am hopeful and confident, that when that mystery of iniquity which was then working, is now manifest; and when that Conspiracy against God; which did then lurk and lay hide under the veil of friendship to the work of God, is now broke forth to the height of rebellion against him who is King in Zion, that all the Controversies which henceforth shall be betvveen these brethren, shall be buried in this one blessed contest, who shall love God most, and one another best; who shall most earnestly and eagerly contend for the faith once delivered to the saints, who shall be most forward in following the Lord fully, and peremptory in adhering to the least have of the precious truths of Christ, now trampled upon by these overturners and supplanters: Yea, I am confident, that these godly men who have been most deceived and cheated into a credulity of the honesty and integrity of them, who are now gone out from them, because they were never of them, will judge that they are more particularly and especially concerned to set themselves in opposition to these dissembling Apostats, and use all lawful means to overturn these treacherous overturners, and put the Church of Sotland in Statu quo prius, since by the intrusting of the cause to these men of perfidy, the cause hath been lost, and themselves are Lorded over, together with the rest of the inheritance of the Lord: Let me once more say that, I hope, this shall be the effect, which his second attempt to a further division amongst the remnant, who stand in opposition to the way of these wicked men, shall have amongst his Servants, and that the divider shall live to see his design misgive and hear a sweet harmony (after all former jarring discords) amongst the servants of the Lord, in singing a Higgajon selah because this wicked man with his complices are ensnared in this and other works of their own hands.  
4. He goeth on in his fascination (but in vain is the net spread in the sight of any bird) and would persuade us, that he can not take these humble, meek, self denied seekers of God, as partakers with Naphtaly and his adherents: For why? [who can imagine (says he) that a meek people, who hath the promise of God's teaching, should be so far transported, as to take the circumstantials of Religion, for the greater and weighty matters of Law and Gospel, without which known and believed, none can come to God?] Can we think, or can any but this wretch, who feareth not God, think, that the observing of sacred Covenants, made about the life and substantials of Religion, as well as more external things, is no great and weighty matter of the Law? No humble understanding seeker of God, but, though he knoweth there is a difference betwixt the circumstantials of Religion, and the weightier matters of Law and Gospel, yet, as He will not account every thing circumstantial, which this circumstantially substantial Prelate, will call so; so, He will have a tender regard to every thing, which Christ hath apppointed in his house. But, I pray, who can take his Man for one of these meek people who hath the promise of God's teaching, who to obtain a bishopric, a circumstantial in his account, (but really to him and his colleagues a substantial sappy thing, & to sensual carnal Epicures and bellygods, and to such as care for no other portion, but one in this life) hath sold and given away the most weighty matters of Law and Gospel both? And how he shall then come to God, unless he repent, I see not; It may be the needle headed casuist hath found out a new way, and (if not sure and saife, yet) to his experience easy and honourable, viz. by ascending from a Presbyter to a Prelate: But whither next? Exitus acta probat, either backward, or headlong down the precipice. Again [Who can think (says he) that an intelligent people should account, that the concerns of Christ's Kingdom and their own salvation, do lie with so much stress upon this point, that the weakest and most ignorant Minister shall have a potestative parity, with the Man of greatest gifts, learning, and knowledge; that the minister weakest in his prudentials, should have equal authority in the managing of the matters of God's house, with the wisest and one of the most noted prudence; that the youngest, rawest and most unexperienced Minister should have as much power in ruleing the house of God, as the Man fullest of years, whose judgement is consolidated and ripened for government, and who hath for a long time given such documents of good and wise behaviour, that makes him fitter to rule the younger sort, then to be ruled by them?] Answ. No doubt but ye are the people and wisdom shall die with you, ye are the Men of greatest gifts, learning and knowledge, viz. to devour cups, lose the knots of Govenants, and to lead people the broad way to hell; you are the wisest and most noted for prudence, in that carnal wisdom, which is enmity to God, and in that worldly way of selling soul and conscience, to purchase, greetings in the high ways, high places, honours, revenues, Court stations, Court rewards, and Court compliments, etc. You are the Men fullest of years, whose judgement is consolidated & ripened for government, giving for along time documents of good and wise behaviour, having not only your judgements stupidly blinded, but consciences seared and ripened for a dreadful plague; and of this, have you for a long time given sufficient documents, by showing how chamelion-like you can change all colours, and how wittily you can turn with all tides, and have a behaviour suitable for all companies, but the company of God's people. O ye Seraphical Divines, or or rather Dunces! O ye sufficiently qualified for a bacchus barrel! O ye sublime Doctors of the black art of perjury! O ye learned Clerks in the mysteries of the Kingdom of Darkness! O ye whose prudence is to sail with all winds! O ye Men of judgement consolidated into a stone, having no conscience, and far less piety? Doubtless you are the Men, the only Men fit for the sole possessing of that potestative power and authority, to manage the matters of God's house, and to rule the young stirplings▪ But every tree is known by its fruit, and whether your singular Antichristian supereminency, or the Apostolic parity, hath best managed the matters of Christ's house, the present overflowing and abounding of Idolatry, Superstition, Sodomy, Adultery, Uncleanness, Drunkenness, Atheism, Ignorance, Profanity, malignancy, hatred of piety, persecution of godliness, and such like abominations, and the villannies of these debauched creatures the Curates, will, to all serious and sober● onlookers, determine: And by the present face of affairs, together with all that, which what is already come doth presage, compared with what was seen while Presbyterian government was in any vigour and integrity, will make all that fear the Lord, see that more of the concerns of Christ's Kingdom and their own salvation, lieth upon that very point of the discipline of Christ's house, then by many hath been thought, and will be a sufficient confirmation, that this parity, and not their domineering superiority, was the only form of government established by Christ and his Apostles. Moreover he says, [Or who can see the prejudice to Christ's Kingdom, and precious souls, if such a worthy person (as is described) be entrusted with inspection over other Brethren and Churches, in a reasonable bounds, not with a dominative or lordly power, but paternal and fatherly; not to do after his own arbitrement, and as one unchallengeable in his actions, but to be regulated by acts of the Church and Land, and to be responsible to his Super tours in case of maleversation; not to rule solely, but with the consent and Counsel of Presbysers;] Answ. By this Tyranny in the Church, all may see what prejudice doth daily come to Christ's Kingdom, and to precious souls, who will but open their eyes. By what authority should any claim that power of inspection over others, and that in a most unreasonable bounds? Is the power of the present Lordly Lord Prelates paternal? Sure they must be step Fathers then, and that of the cruelest kind? Have not the present Lordly Prelates, as much dominative and Lordly power, as ever they had in Scotland? And do they not rule and domineer in the Church after their own arbitrement? Who is to control them, unless the good King but a gentle curb in some or their jaws to make way for greater rage and Tyranny? What acts of the Church are these which regulate them? Belike the laws & acts which their own lusts make, within their own breasts; for they are the Church, the holy Clergy, and who but they? Who are over them as Superiors? Sure none but the King, in their account; and to him must they be responsible; and if they forget not the Court-art, but labour to keep some chief courtiers on their side, they know all will be well, and they will hear no rebukes, but well done good and faithful Servant; but no Church judicatory is over them. But Zion's King is above them and their Superior also, and he will call them to an account for their usurpation and Tyranny. He tells us, they rule with the consent and Counsel of Presbyters; but when? And where? And how? What? Will they walk by the consent and Counsel of the weakest and most ignorant of Presbyters, weakest in their prudentials, Youngest, rawest, and most unexperienced stirplings? Sure they being men of greatest gifts, learning and knowleldge, the wisest, and most noted for purdence, Men fullest of years, whose judgement is consolidated and ripened for government, will think it below them to rule with the consent and counsel of those; And experience doth prove it.  
5. This noble disputant will come in the following words Pag. 7. and prove the Ius divinum of prelacy, not only against us, who hold it to be jure Antichristi; but against King, Parliament and all the Malignant cabal, who hold it only jure Caroli: But the man's judgement is so consolidated, and he is so well read in his prudentials, that he must draw bridle, and speak spareingly, and only whisper out what he would fain be at, and say. [Can this way be disrelished by sober Christians, being so strongly pleaded by the light of sound reason.] Nay rather, by the light of ambition, vanity, vain glory, love of money, luxury, covetousness, love of this present world more than the love of God, and the edification of his Church; As all who are not sworn slaves to the perjured prelate's will confidently aver sub rosa. [Making so much (says he) for the comeliness and order of Chrisi's Church.] Rather so much for the deformity, confusion and destruction of the Church, and of all true Church-order, as not only all who have eyes in their heads will grant, but the present fruits and effects cry out to all the world. [Being (he addeth) so suitable and correspondent to the ancient government of the Church of Israel wherein there we Priests, and chief Priests, and several ranks of Ministers, an order which was neither typical nor temporal; but hath a standing reason reaching us.] O so bravely as this advocate pleads for the Pope! hath he goat the promise of a Cardinal's cap for his pains? Because there was one high Priest over all the Church, must we have also one Pope? Good Master Prelate prove your consequence, for we see no such standing reason reaching us, as to this; nor as to what you would conclude, the case being the same. [Being (says he) so conform to the beginnings of Christ's ordering the New Testament Ministry, where there were Apostles above the seventy disciples.] Nay rather so conform to Antichrist's ordering of his Church; for, as the seventy Disciples were to be no standing officers in Christ's house, so the Apostles had no superiority of order or jurisdiction over them, they were entrusted with no inspection over these. Let our Master Bishope with all his gifts, learning, and knowledge show this if he can? Being (says he further) so agreeable to the Apostles constitution of the government of the Churches of the New Testament, which was in an imparity of power in Ministers, as is luculently exemplified in the power of Timothy, and Titus, who were not Evangelists, nor ever accounted so by the spirit of God.] It seemeth then Paul was not acted by the spirit of God, when he said to Timothy 2 Tim. 4: 5. do the work of an Evangelist: and since all the proof which he can bring of this, is this example of Timothy and Titus, let his consolidated and ripened judgement, taking to help, the greatest of his gifts, learning and knowledge, answer what Prinne hath said in his Unbishoping of Timothy and Titus: and let him not thus stoup our mouth with his raw and blunt assertions, lest wise men think he hath neither gifts, learning, knowledge, prudence, nor judgement, but a rarifyed windy brain, swelled to a great bulk with vanity and conceit, as who but he, who can confute all books how full soever of unanswerable reasons, with his bare I say otherwise. [And finally, (says he) our ascended glorious Saviour having honoured persons with that precedency by letters, written by his secretary john unto them Revel 2, and 3. Chapt, wherein he showeth the approbation of their office and power, reproving their neglects, yet honouring them with the stile of Angels to the Churches, or his Messengers in special manner, which cannot, without notable perversion of the Scripture, be otherwise understood, but of single persons presideing over presbyters.] Can no single person preside over prebyters, except my Lord Prelate? Or are all precedents or moderators of presbyteries Prelates? Nay he will be loath to say so. And what can he prove from thence (though it were granted to him that this Angel was once single person, which cannot be till Holy and profound Mr Durham's arguments be confuted, which will be ad c●lendas Graecas) but at most, that this Angel was a moderator of the meeting? Was he therefore the Lord Prelate? No, master Bishop; your wit and learning both will not prove this. And hath your new Order and dignity, to which you are advance, O Lordly Prelate, infused no new gifts into you, that you might fasten your chair with some new nails or arguments; or are you so consolidated into the old temper of your predecessors, that you must rest satisfied with what they said, as having neither gifts, learning, knowledge nor wit, to invent new things? But could your lordly brain think of no reply to the solidanswers, which poor, weak, ignorant and unexperienced presbyters gave long ago unto these arguments? Why then did you chant over the old song again, to make yourself but ridiculous? Did you think that your word would have more weight, than the solid reasons of that solid and Eminent divine Holy Mr Durham in his exposition of that place? If so, you must have a wonderful high esteem of yourself, which will make all wise Men to esteem the less of you. [And this order (says he) Christ's Church & dear spouse, having since that time retained in all places, where Churches were constitute, without exception, in all times without interruption, until this last age, wherein, through hatred of corruptions adhering thereto under Popery, and because of the enmity of the Popish Bishops to the reformation, some have utterly without any reason rejected the office itself.] O irrefragable dictator! Ex tripod he dictates like another uncontrollable Master. What better is this out of your Mouth, than it was out of old Bishop Hall'● the Remonstrator, and confuted by Smectymnuus? is this man able to answer all which Blondel hath said against this, or learned Calderwood in his Altar. Damasc. or yet to answer what his dearer friend Stilling fleet hath said to this purpose, in this Irenicum? Why hath he not once noticed that which the author of Apologetical Relation hath said Sect. 1. Where he showed out of History and by reason, that Palladius was the first prelate that ever Scotland saw? And this solifidian giveth us non causam pro causâ, when he says that it was only the corruptions of the Prelates, that made some without reason reject them, whereas it was their want of an institution of Christ, that made all, with the irrefragability of reason, reject them as no officers of Christ: And we shall willingly conclude this with his words following [Who can think that a Christian People will not readily follow the footsteps of the flock in former generations.] Provideing he will suffer us to add this [In so far, and so long, as they walked after their master Christ, and followed his institutions.]  
6. Then Pag. 8. He says it is not [His intention Either to provock any fearers of God, who have been perhaps, in an hour of tentation, miscarried to irregular courses, following too readily, in the simplicity of their hearts, cunning leaders, who have had too much dominion over their faith; these we judge worthy of greatest tenderness in dealing with them.] But who are those? Sure, by the carriage of the present powers, enraged and animated by the perfidious Prelates, we hear of none who meet with any tenderness, though he judge them worthy of greatnest tenderness, And what are these irregular courses? Is it an irregular course to refuse to run with this perjured Prelate & his fraternity, to the same excess of apostasy, and as far from their sworn allegiance to God, as his debauched conscience hath carried him? What was the tentation which made them stand fast? He knows better what tentations (and whether they lasted for a day or for an hour) they were, which drew him off; sure they had none such to move them to stand fast, but the fear of God (which he stoke off) made them mindful of their Covenants. What are these cunning leaders which he says had dominion over their faith? They follow no leader but their Master Christ. But because he hath hung his faith at the King's girdle, and hath no other principles to walk by, he supposes all others to be of his stamp, and must needs hang on some body: But he will find them to be persons of conscience, and not so ready to follow any man in the simplicity of their hearts, as he suppo●eth. Then being in a good mood he lets out a flash of hope, saying [Nor are we without hope that God who stills the noise of the seas, etc. Psal. 65: ver. 7. will in time allay their animosities, and rebuke the stormy wind and seas of their passions, that they may be still; and that he will bring them to consider their ways, wherein they have exceeded, and give them to know how ill and bitter a thing it is to forsake their own mercies, in the ordinances of God, for the want or having of this or that form of external government.] Now we see that the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel, when we see the tendency of the best of the wishes and hopes of this Man, when he is in his best mood. But we are confident, his hopes shall perish, as doth the hope of the Hypocrite, because it is not bottomed on faith, and he hath no ground to believe that such as have hitherto kept themselves pure, shall at length turn in with them to the swineish puddle. We believe That that God who stills the noise of the seas, the noise of the waves, and the tumult of the People, shall in due time make this true of them, when he shall show himself the hearer of prayers, and when he shall have purged away our transgressions, and shall satisfy us with the goodness of his house, and even of his holy temple, and so prove himself to be the God of our Salvation Psal. 65: ver. 2, 3, 4, 5. We hope also he shall bring us to consider these ways, wherein indeed we have exceeded; and make us know how ill and bitter a thing it is to forsake our own Mercies, in not adhering to all the ordinances of God, so faithfully, as we vowed in our Covenants to do, even to that external form of government, which Christ hath instituted, and hath so signally owned as his ordinance, by his rich blessing following thereupon, amongst us, whatever this indifferent-laodicean-latitudinarian think of the matter.  
7. To whom then would this Man reach a blow [These we aim at (says he) in this parallel with Anabaptists, are the Naphtalian party, i e. the furious sort of these who under the conduct of this teacher and his like, make sport of rebellion's murders, assassinations.] Now the man is in his element, dipping his pen in gall, and spewing out the venom of his heart against the zealous maintainers of the interests of Christ; & therefore his tongue is ready to utter his mischievous calumnies, and his anile rhetoric floweth over all its banks: for (says he) they are [a furious sort that make sport of rebellion's murders assassinations (we know what this aims at; but he might say woe to ill company) that they have hardened and harnessed their heart (O rare thetorick!) (as appears by their writings and deeds) that they have become stout in a dedolent greediness (O soaring elequence!) to commit any wickedness, which they account meet to serve their design, as if their supposed good cause could legitimate the worst course (all which he must confirm with lies, and say) who make no reckoning, as their Doctor here professeth, of overturning thrones, of making the land drunk with the blood of the inhabitants, multiplying fatherless and widows in the midst thereof and introduceing greatest confusion and calamites (because forsooth they would have the order which Christ hath established in his Church introduced, and Antichristian confusion, with all the calamities that attend it and support it, ejected and extirpated) that may make all faces gather blackness, and all to smite on the thigh, crying alas for the day.] (No: he needs not fear that any face should gather blackness, or that any should have cause to cry alas for the day, but the cursed crew of apostate perjured prelates, with their underlings, supporters and adherents.) Then he proceeds like himself [If so be (says he) they may upon the ruins of all, erect the idol of pretended parity of Ministers, which when they have set up, the imperious agitators will (as▪ they have done formerly) baffle, if any offer be, to levelly them to other: and howsoever the weaker brethren must be Enterteaned with fair words and noddified with notional disputs anent their parity with the best, that they may think themselves some what; Yet how disdainfully was it, and yet would be taken, if these low shrubs should assay a practical parity with the tall cedars in the government of affairs.] We see at what this wormwood man aimeth: It is a wonder what peace he hath now, seeing he looketh on himself as Lord prelate, as well as the best, that he is not advanced to be a member of Council and Lord of the Session with others. It seemeth he is content now to be noddified with a notional disput anent his parity, seeing he hath gotten the fat portion he gaped for, the only desirable thing, viz. his bishopric. Be like the thing that moveth his spleen now to write thus, is because his quondā●brethren baffled him down among the weak, and did not so intrust him as they did that Arch-deceiver, his late companion in fear and perplexity: And so it would seem, he is only grieved, that he had not an equal hand with that Archtraitor sharp, in cutting his Mother's throat: O strange! But, to his sorrow let him know, God will take the desire for the dead. Then he closeth that paragraph with a quirk, saying, [Imparity was then without tittle now it is with it, and there is our change and great defection, and surely, that which hath been, will be, & there is no new thing under the Sun.] And so may the Pope say, There was an imparity among the Apostles, (for Peter and some others were pillars) without a title, but now it is with a title: Is not this well pleaded O Prelatical Advocate? But whence is your title Mr Prelate? Or who gave you than name? The King your God Father? Well, then by that right you must enjoy it. but whence cometh the blessing and ratification? Not from above, but from—. He hath forgotten one great change; but that possibly he will account no great defection, viz. that, by which he from Mr Presbyter, wherein he was in no great account, yet noddyfied by some, is turned my Lord Prelate; And now laboureth to noddi●y all into a consent & congratulatory acquiescence in his advancement and dignity. But Ca●aphas cometh to tell us, that surely that which hath been will be; and so, as formerly perjured and abjured Prelates, have been cast out of Church and Commonwealth with abomination, they shall be yet again cast out with more abhorrence than ever▪ Esto. The Lord hasten it in his time.  
8. Then he tells us Pag. 9 [That this furious Napht. coming ●n upon the back of the Apology, another envenomed egg, hatched (be like) by one and the same cockatrice; the second justifying the rebellion to which the first did instigate, and inflaming to more, may let them who will not shut their own eyes, see the mystery of Anabaptistical confusion working and spreading.] This man measureth others by his own foot, thinking that the labours of others, for the justifying of the people of God, in defending themselves against not only invenomed principles, but also envenomed practices, of such as look rather like cockatrices then any other thing▪ being good for nothing but to destroy, to be invenomed eggs hatched by cockatrices, because his pamphlet hatched by a cock-prelate, hath undisputably the venom of such an egg in it. The Apology did instigate to no rebellion▪ Nor doth Napht. justify any action truly so chargeable: As hath been showed. But his egg (now sufficiently crushed, and put beyond the hazard of endangering any who are wise & rational) if brought to perfection, had brocken forth into a cockatrice, and had endangered King and Kingdoms, and all Commonwealths: And because it was full of this venom, should be condemned to the fire, by all who love their own welfare and the welfare of Societies, and of the Church of God. But how can any see here the mystery of Anabaptistical confusion working? [for (addeth he) although the author pretendeth highly for presbytery, which he and his complices (hauks of the right nest) have long ago hewed down in this Church, as to the practice of it.] We know what this lying calumniator meaneth, and these with whom, unworthily, he was sometimes reckoned (being as is now apparent, a bird of another nest) who have found grace to be faithful hithertil, will now acknowledge (I suppose) that such as were opposite to them in that debate, did strengthen and fortify the pillars of presbyterian government. [Yet (says he) evident it is that his pretences for presbytery, are but prefaces to some further great design of michief to Church and State.] To whom is this evident? Sure, I think, to none but to himself & his complices, whose plague is (and as yet but in part) to be in fear where no fear is: How can he make this out? [For (says he) having sold himself to work confusion & rebellion, he goes about to overthrow all powers ordained of God, in a most cyclopic boldness displaying a banner against all invested lawfully with any degree of civil or Church-power.] This author is like the Tinker's dog, which (according to our country proverb) would gladly be among good company. He foists in his Antichristian usurped tyrannical power and dominion over the Church, among the lawful powers ordained of God. But when he says that Naphtali displayeth a banner against the powers ordained of God, he but showeth his cyclopic boldness in averring untruths, or his astrangement to cyclopedeja, in drawing such inferences; but both suitable to that execrated order of abjured Prelacy, in which there useth to be but few either civil or learned, as this day putteth beyond debate. Then he would make us believe that [The Author doth not behave himself like Naphtaly, the hind let lose which giveth goodly Words, etc. Genes. 49: ver. 21. Deut. 33: ver. 23. But as in his heart there are evil treasures of wickedness, so in his lips and pen there is a burning fire, he strives to inflame all with the rage of his tongue, and runs upon all sorts of authorities, f●om the highest to the lowest, like a savage Beast or wild Bear, let loose to waste and confound miserably both the visible Kingdom of Christ in the Land, and the civil Kingdom thereof settled upon the best foundations.] The Book answered its name: for it was a hind let loose and gave goodly words, for God, his Cause, and people; and it is not to give goodly words, to flatter Princes or Prelates, howbeit he who judgeth like a sensualist would account such, words of goodliness, fairness and pleasantness. Naphtaly was satisfied with favour, and full of the blessing of the Lord: And so was this book though condemned to a fire, by such as would care little to cast the Bible into a fire too: But their favour or blessing in never expected. And when he says that in the Author's heart, there were evil treasures, etc. He still measureth others by himself, Naphtaly runeth not upon all sorts of authorities or any sort of authorities truly so called: He was so far from wasting and confounding the visible Kingdom of Christ in the Land, that he was pleading for the same against all adversaries, and defending it, especially from these savage Beasts and Bears, who have already laid it waste and desolate; and if the Lord prevent it not, shall make it the visible Kingdom of Antichrist. He was so far from troubling the civil Kingdom settled upon the best foundations, that it was that, at which he was driving, to have the Kingdom settled upon its old, sure, and best basis, the Covenants, and Religion reform in worship doctrine discipline and government. Then he must tell us that the book wants nothing of the completeness of an infamous lybel, and why? Because [it falls upon particular persons by name, to asperse then credit, the constant integrity of whose conversation will easily stop his foul lying mouth, in the Consciences of God's people who know them.] If these persons get no other Orator to set forth their praises, than this man (who is a black raven of the same nest.) I fear their conversation shall never stop all men's mouths. For my part I shall, and I suppose that author will be content, to refer the determination of this, to the consciences of all God's people who know them: And let such judge whether they be men of integrity, or men of constant integrity: we could tell stories of some, but we shall for bear; it may be a volume will be made of their profane practices, when such as know them best, and observe their ways, shall help us to a legend of their ways & courses: And when the world seeth this, It will judge of the integrity of their conversation: but enough of this trash here.  
9 In the following paragraph, beginning Pag. 10. he is at some demur, not knowing well what course to take with that book, which this true Cretian calleth a bundle of impudent lies and falsehoods, gross slanders and revilings, not one of which hath he as yet discovered. But where lay the difficulty? [Upon the one hand says he) it was thought best to neglect the rage of this man (if one that hath so much renunced humanity, as he is here seen to do, may be so termed) lest by being noticed he might think himself some what.] A very hard censure, to make a supposition, if one who speaketh with so much weight of reason, as transcendeth the reach of this animal, may be termed a man, If the supposer were not known, to be no acute judge, being animal amphibion bipes a double faceed gentle man, who hath turned his coat & his tongue too. But why would he grudge poor Naphtali this? Or doth he think that his taking notice of him, will make him esteem the more highly of himself? Not one white: a stout man will never think himself the more valiant, 〈◊〉 a foolish child set upon him with a straw. Was there no other reason. [Especially (says he) lest People (who as they affect are ordinarily opinionated) might have too much matter 〈◊〉 ●eed their humour, to furnish their light discourses, 〈◊〉 to ensnare their souls, by representing to them the matters of this libel (worthy to be buried in oblivion) they being too apt (whatever Salvo might be added) to receive the poison without the antidote, according to their prejudices.] This was a good consideration, and if the Man had been as tender as he pretendeth to be, hes hold not have digged up what deserved to be buried, especially since he might have known he was not able to prepare a sufficient antidote: But thought he that his silence would have hindered any to have pondered that book? I believe indeed his silence had done more good to the King and his cause, than all his hot work is like to do; and he hath done more to ensnare souls (if it be to ensnare them) than Naphtaly did, I do not mean by representing some other things to the consideration of people; but by his adding so weak and inconsiderable a Salvo, that he fixed what Naphtaly said more deeply in their hearts, if judicious Readers did not account it unanswerable before they did see his weak & non-answereing Reply. What further, [It seemed also (Says he) a matter full of tediousness to a well composed heart, to enter into a fire of endless strife and continual reciprocation of altercations, wherein a Man is not likely to find more truth than he hath already (truth in the most important matters in the book having been of old fully vindicated by learned hands, and nothing now opposed, but old songs chanted over and over again) although like enough to lose much of that charity and calm and composed temper of heart which he had before.] Then it seemeth his heart was not a well composed heart; for it did not seem tedious unto him, to enter into this fire of endless strife and continual reciprocation of altercation, and to spend so much time, and paper, and pains in vain: And we must pity his case now, who hath lost much of that charity and calm and composed temper of heart, which he had formetly, Sed qui nihil habet, nihil amittit, a little stock is soon wasted. By whom to this day was Lex Rex answered? And doth not himself say that Naphtaly out stripes his Masters, even as to the most important matters of the book? How is it then that he says there is nothing but old songs chanted over and over again? This Man is sui similis, As yet as inconsistent with himself in his words, as in his walk. But seeing he had the help of so many old Vindicators, how comes it that he hath acted his part so childishly, and vindicated the King's cause worse than any Man that ever put pen to paper; as is showed? Why did not this pigmay set himself upon their shoulders that he might have seemed something? What was there more on this hand? [What Man is he (says he) that knowing how much more important work he hath upon his hand for his own salvation, and honouring God in his station in the World, would willingly engage in endless contests with persons, whose idleness gives them too great opportunity of evil doing, and who having cast by the Lord's work in building his Church, are too much set to do Satan's work in dissipating the same.] Then this Man thinketh it is inconsistent with one to mind the work of his wne salvation, and to defend the King's cause, which is very true, Let the King and his party notice this. But it is strange, that seeing he thought the work of his opposers Satan's, he should not think it incumbent to a tender soul to do what he can to destroy the works of the Devil: we see also that the love of money is the root of all evil, and hath caused him run greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, for to purchase the hire, he hath cast by the important work of his salvation, and laid aside the honouring of God in his station. This is the Man's constant integrity. As for those Men whose idleness he talks of, if he mean Ministers, he knoweth who hindereth them from doing the work of the Lord in building his Church, and they will answer for it, and he also for his share in that, and for this work of Satan which a little money hath prompted him to: and when they are wrestling and pleading for Zion and the cause of her King, God will not account them idle nor evil doers nor setters up of Satan's work: What further! [It seemed honourable enough (says he) to decline this contention and strife, which is like the letting out of waters, in expectation that either Mansconscience (if it be not infinitely corrupted) may the confute him in most of his assertions, and standers, or that his manifest unchristian dealing, may help to open the eyes of such as he labours to delude, and bring them to abhor his way; or that the really Religious and righteous dealings of Church and State, may more forcibly put him to silence then words or writings can.] It had been indeed more advantageous to the King's cause, (and less dishonourable to himself) to have been silent, then thus to have let out waters to the King's great prejudice, and his own discredit. If he had any expectation that the Man's conscience would have confuted him in most of his assertions, why did he hinder that work, by confirming him in the truth of his assertions by his weak and foolish replies? Praestat otiari quam nihil agere: and why did he not more manfully discover these unchristian dealings, the better to undeceive such as he supposeth were deluded? What are these manifest unchristian dealings of his? Sure the event hath and shall further, we hope, declare that his own dealing hath been much more manifestly unchristian▪ by labouring to blind the eyes of such as see before. But I suppose he may talk at leisure of his proselyts. When the really religious and righteous dealings of Church and State shall forcibly confute what is there said, we know not. Sure, when ever their actions become really Religious, and righteous, they will condemn his pamphlet to the fire, and himself to the correction-house, and approve of all which is said in Naphtaly, [Sometimes (says he) keeping silence is seasonable, the Man according to God's own heart would not suffer Shimei's revilings to be repaid upon the head of that dead dog; Hezekiah discharged to answer a word to railing Rabshakeh; jeremiah the Prophet, contradicted by the false Prophet Hananiah, went his way and said nothing: The wise Solomon forbids to take heed to all words, that are spoken, and to answer a fool according to to his folly; The Lord of Kings and Prophets sometimes answered not his accusers a word] True, sometimes silence is not only seasonable but 〈◊〉; and so would the King's cause have found it now and by his answering, not withstanding of what he here says, it would seem that Naphtaly is no Shimes, Rabshakeh, Hananiah, nor fool, nor an enemy to Christ. Or that the King is not like the Man according to God's heart, nor like good Hezekiah: Nor is this Pamphleter like jeremiah, nor hath followed either Solomon's advice, or Christ's example. But I see not why both may not be true. Yet further: [So it seemed fit to let alone an insolent and forward railer and mocker, and not to lavish out precious time, which might be better bestowed, upon one that gives such visible evidences both of a reasonless and unchristian Spirit, whose libel may be reckoned amongst the things, quae spreta exolescunt, and worthy to be answered with nothing but silence & contempt,] Then it seemeth he expecteth a reward also from the Author of Naphtaly, for lavishing out so much of his precious time to keep in memory such a book, which if he had miskend, would have died out of mind, and which he hath honoured with another answer then silence; but all the reward he can expect will be but par pari refer, payment without putting any thing in his purse, and yet a payment in his own coin. Then, to him it is a lavishing of precious time to maintain the King's cause: it seemeth also that he hath lavished out much time upon it, and what will not money do? The greedy gapeing after which, will make a Man, not only lavish out precious time needlessly, But also put honour and respect on what he accounteth worthy of contempt.  
10. Let us see what did preponderat and bring this tossed Man to a firm resolution, and determine him to bring this brate to light, this product of his ill composed heart, and not well tempered brain. [Upon the other hand (says he) it seemed something hard (especially in such a distempered time) to suffer an insolent person, in whose mouth is a road of pride, to cast the truth down to the ground, without control, and to tread upon, and triumph over a holy and righteous cause, and upon honourable persons of all ranks, engaged in the maintenance thereof in so abusive, despiteful and intolerable a way, and not give him any check. Not to put some stop to this furious driver, who again and again assaults this Church with vile lies and reproaches, looked like the betraying and deserting of an honest and honoruable cause, or like the hirelings seeing the Wolf, and flying and leaving the flock to be destroyed with delusion, fugisti quia tacuisti. There is an evil silence that leaves Men in sin, as well as an evil speaking that leads Men to sin; and we are not only to give an account pro atio so verbo, but pro otioso silentio, for idle silence; when God, and the public necessity of the Church, or Society whereof we are members, Calleth for a valiant (not brutishly violent and forcible way, such as this man's pleads for) and rational contending for the truth. It is sinful pusillanimity, and not warrantable prudence to see truth fall in the streets and not lift it up. And verily this man seems to be amongst these of Whom Solomon says Prov. 26: v. 5. who must be answered lest he seem wise in his own conceit, and to be amongst these Tit. 1: v. 10, 11. unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, whose mouths must be stopped that the gangrene of his words may not creep further to the consumption & subversion of Church & State.] Fair words ad faciendum populum, qui si decipi vult, decipiatur. But he hath this disadvantage, that few that know him will believe, that these or any of these are the true cause of this undertaking: But that rather which he thought good to conceal, viz. The Three hundereth pound sterling brought to him by the greater rogue & the better rewarded, ja: Sharp deceiver of that ilke: for if these things here mentioned had been his end, and motive, why was he feared that this should have wronged a well composed heart, and Should not have been a honouring of God in his station, but a needless lavishing out of precious time, which might be better bestowed? Nay there was reason for all this; for whether he saw it or not, he (who together with his complices distempered the times and all things) in whose mouth there being a road of pride, did insolently cast the truth down to the ground, as they could, and endeavoured to tread upon and triumph over a holy righteous cause, and all the maintainers thereof, in an abusive, despiteful, and intolerable way, and laboured to lift up an exploded, depised and cursed falsehood, once dethroned with shoutings and great exclamations of joy (but we have seen his horns have been but short) He is truly (as the sober will judge) the furious driver who again and again doth assault the true Church and cause of God with lies and reproaches. He (whether he had meddled with this work or not) & the rest with their underlings, are the true hirelings & wolves, destroying the flock of God: & in this work, thought there be not otio sum silentium, there are otio sa verba and worse & praetereanihil, and an unvaliant, impudent, affronted pleading for untruth, tyranny and wickedness, which is neither a product of prudence, nor magnanimity. And when he hath cited Prov. 26: 5. and Tit. 1: 10, 11. he hath adduced his own Doom, and accordingly he is answered, and his mouth (let it be is vvide as it will) gauged and stopped, not with butter (which is unfit to stop a breathing mouth) but uviht more solid stuff, so that we are confident the gangraene of his words shall not creep far, not infect such as are clean; and as for such as are unclean, they owe their infection to some other, not so innocent in vvi● and parts as he is.  
11. Now the die being cast, and he resolved to say something, he is as much perplexed anent the way of handling this business. Yea he says, [There is a greater difficulty in dealing with this Man of no forehead (or if he have any, it is of the hardest metal) of little conscience, but of infinite loquacity, and of a most unbridled tongue, which is a treasure of all reviling language.] Yet he finds him and will possibly yet more find him, a man whose forehead is of harder metal, (though not in impudence & shameless audacity) than he is able to stand against; and a man of more conscience then to contradict himself either in words or deeds, (as this verlumnus, a man of a debauched conscience, doth) a man not of infinite loquacity or of an unbridled tongue, who repeateth not the same thing over and over again ad nauseam us que nor one who speaketh nonsense at random (as this poor pamphleter doth) but a man of more solid reason, and nervous succinct expressions, than he was able to comprehend: And who so shall compare the two together shall find he hath put the saddle on the wrong horse. But where did the difficulty lie? [The great difficulty was (says he) how to moderate and temper a stile of writing toward such an one, difficile est satyram non scribere contra satyrum; for hardly can a man meet in any book, with more bitter invectives against all authorities and dignities apppointed and approven of God, then are here to be found; all that have gone that way before him, seem but Children in wickedness, in comparison of him: he deserves to be in the first class of these Judas v. 8. Who despise dominion and speak evil of dignities.] Answ. Naphtaly, it is true, is no base sycophant nor slatterer; nor is he, because of free and faithful holding forth of the wicked and sinful carriage of these in authority, and of these who have usurped authority, to be accounted a writer of Satyrs or of invectives, else the Prophet's writings shall not escape that sharp censure. Nor is he upon this account to be reckoned among, far less to be put into, the first class of these who despise dominions, etc. unless by this ignoramus who knoweth no medium betwixt base flattering of dignities, and speaking evil of them. Yet in the following part of that Paragraph, he says he deserveth well, because of his plainness; though it be but his sancy to think that Either King or Nobles are in hazard to be dispossessed by private persons in a Phine as like Spirit, yet he is truly and especially afraid of the ministry; and mainly of the Bishops, because such strokes approach near to himself, and the burnt Child feareth the fire, And his fear blindeth his eyes, so that he cannot see to read Naphtaly a right. And I think no heroik person, will desire to imbrue their hands in their blood, who are far below the wrath of a man, far more, the indignation of an Heroik person, though they shall never be found innocent, be pursued when they will. He but lieth when he sayeth in the following words [That Naphtaly with his tragical oh's awakeneth the rage of the rudest multitude (which becals Zeal of God) to execute judgement on them, that the fierce angco of God may be turned away.] Nor doth he tell them if they do not so they are plagued with. stupidity and blindness. It is true which he says that [All soris of Rulers in the land may see their dittay and their doom drawn in that book.] But no otehrwise then as the word of God giveth warrant, and there they would read it, and repent in time, lest they finde it verified. He is but like himself a false liar when he says that Naphtaly [Discovereth the malicious cruel and bloody designs of his party.] For they have no malicious cruel nor bloody designs, their only designs being to maintain their integrity and their reformed Religion, which Enemies combined against Christ are seeking to destroy. This man imagineth a snare where there is none; but seeth not the snare which Satan and his own hands are setting for his soul, neither will he and the rest take warning, though the word of the Lord do clearly discover wrath and vengeance at hand, and whether then they be worthy of a fair hood and bells, Let any judge: but sure I am, they shall one day see their folly and madness, and write Abner's Epitaph over themselves. But we wish them rather repentance and to be wise in time, not against their will, but willingly.  
12. And further ibid. Pag. 13. he tells us [It were irksome and unsuitable to one who desireth to keep the constant compsure of a Christian Spirit to indulge an humour of retaliating.] And that he is at a great disadvant age, because it almost transcends (in his apprehension) humane patience to treat mildly with such an insolent one. O! Who would not pity this man who is put off the constant composure of a Christian Spirit? But can he be in the composure of a Christian Spirit, who is so easily moved off it, by that which should rather settle him in it? Can his patience be good, which is so stirred by hearing of truth told? And who can think that he hath been of any composure of a Christian spirit, who hath not indeed indulged an humour of retaliating but of brawleing in a transcendently insolent manner without ground given, being transported beyond the bounds of humanity, let be humane patience? Then Pag. 14. he showeth what reason he hath to use, a more than ordinary vehemency of a keen stile, saying [Shall Masters of consusi●n (as if he were not a Davus) Indulging themselves in their proud moro suy, ●unworthyly demean themselves toward the sober defenders of the truth, (but who are these?) And will not this be a sufficient Apology for them to put forth some sting?] But good Sir I fear your sting be gone long since, because you are become a drone: We have seen your good will to shoot your sting but it wanted its point, as for your sting in your tail it will not hurt much, and we know who is King over such locusts, even the angel of the bottomless pit, Rev. 9: ver. 11. Now this stinging locust comes to compare Naphtaly to Hecuba, but any who reads Naphtaly find him not barking as a mad bitch, but speaking the words of truth and soberness, with such strength of reason as transcendeth this distempered man's capacity to understand, otherwise he had never made such a comparison. Then he tells us that [A toothless defence might possibly tend to harden him and his complices, and breed suspicion of some signs of diffedence, distrust and timorousness in owning of the cause against him.] I believe this defence hath as many teeth as he could put in it; but for all that, it can be called nothing else then a toothless defence, because it is nothing but a bundle of sharp toothed words without any reason; and because we see now all that he and his party can say, against the truth which we maintain, we are indeed thereby, the more confirmed therein; and we do not suspect him of diffidence, distrust and timorousness, that his cause is not better defended, knowing how bold and audacious he is: but we know that an ill cause cannot be well defended, though never man hath defended it worse than he hath done, though better rewarded then many.  
13. The good man turns Neptune at length saying, Sed motos praestat componere fluctiu; and then says, [It will be fitter to consider what becomes us to utter then what he is worthy to hear.] Then it seemeth we should expect a very calm sea; but the waves of his passions have not been settled for all his Neptun authority. [Therelyes (says he) a tentation in these name less writings (which therefore it is to be wished, were not in use) to exceed in passions, and to utter words (incognito) that will not be stood to.] The iniquity of the times, and the rage of princes who will not hear the truth, is a just, cause why some should speak and write agaist them incognito, which likewise was the cause moving Elisha to suspend the sending of his free & faithful letter to jehoram a bloody Tyrant, till after his own death: but why this man should send out a nameless writing, none can tell, unless because either he was ashamed of the cause, or of his weak managing of it; or else because he hath a mind to exceed in passion, and nons-sense, and none should know that it was, A. H. P. O. who spoke so. But he tells us that he hath not so learned Christ, as to render reviling for reviling knowing that man's wrath works not the righteousness of God. The contrary whereof every reader of his pamphlet will see, & therefore he doth well, to add [some times it is for people's edification, to see the due characters of such as lead them out of the way.] But why should he then be offended, if any should show his characters, who is a manifest perverter of the right ways of the Lord, and laboureth what he can to lead people out of the good old way, wherein our fathers and we have formerly walked with peace comfort and joy? But this is our advantage that he and his fraternity are already so well known, and their characters so legible, that few or none are in great hazard to be led away with them. Then he tells us that [so far as kumane infirmity permits, the truth shall be searched after & spoken to in love; all bitterness, wrath, anger & clam ●nr with all malice being put away.] But sure we are then, his humane infirmity is very great and strong, which carrieth him to search rather after error, and to speak it in hatred; all bitterness, wrath, anger, clamour, with all malice, being returned and that in their strength; of which, the man's conscience was in part convinced, when he addeth. [But if any thing (he should have said a most every thing) aculeat & pungent (he should have said bitter and invective) do escape (or rather of choice be affirmed) It not being used in any private cause or quarrel, but in the public concerns of truth, (rather error) of the Church of God, (really of the coetus Malignantium, the apostate crew of the popish prelatical and malignant faction) and of the sat of the commonwealth (rather against the commonwealth, and for tyranny the bane of all commonwealths) nor proceeding from any private revenge (if not from this, which many will doubt of, yet certanely from the love of gold or Balaam's reward) it will at least be excused by the judidicious and wise.] Sure we are, excuse it who will, the righteous judge, will call him to an account for it, and we are persuaded that none either truly judicious or wise, will think him excuse worthy. But to show that he hath no private reveinge, he addeth in a parenthesis, [That there is room enough in his fraternal affection for any who will leave their unchristian sanguinary and inhuman ways.] But his affection is like the devils, who would have all damned with himself; and we are sure come to his way who will, they shall leave their Christian peaceable & humane ways, and choice unchristian, sanguinary, and inhuman ways. Then the falleth a wishing that his aculeat sayings may prick the libeler to repentance for these things. But he should know that charity beginneth at home, and he should rather wish that himself were brought to repentance for him shameful apostasy and perjury, and his thus studying to maintain a corrupt course, whereby he hath indeed exposed himself to shame, though the hardness of his heart be such as that the knoweth not what it is to blush.  
14. In his following discourse he laboureth to show how palpably and closely Naphtaly trades in the footsteps of the old Anabaptists, though [He will not say that he and his complices are arrived to the owneing of the highest mysieries of that sect in the point of Enthusiasm, and Libertinism, nor that they are so cruel as to exclude Christian infants from their birthright privilege of Baptism.] Yet he says [It is worthy to be considered how far the common demand of express command or example in Scripture for Episcopacy, may reach the Anabaptists conclusion concerning infants.] And so with him, all who require either command or example for any new ordinance of Christ so alleged, must be Anabaptists. This man is of very lax principles certanely, and more than a latitudinarian, that will not suffer us to inquire after a command or example of Episcopacy, when he and his party allege that it is an ordinance of Christ: must we take all things for ordinances of Christ, which he and his old father the Pope of Rome say are ordinances of Christ? But why doth he call from us for any express command or example in Scripture for resistance of Magistrates? Doth not this also reach the Anabaptists conclusion? But his eyes seeth not itself. Further he tells us That Naphtaly [Doth let fall such tenets as smell too rankly of the foul scum of the high flown Anabaptistical and Enthusiastical way, while he says, Pag. 21. etc. That mere private men may now a days take their impulses of Zeal, as a sufficient call to pull down all Magistrates from their seats, which they abuse; to execure judgement upon them, and to place themselves in their rooms.] But of what spirit this man, who is of his father the devil who was a liar from the beginning, is, we have seen; And this particular will abundantly discover to such as look the place and consider what we have said. And no better is the next particular which he citeth out of Pag. 105. Where the author is opposeing, that notion of an external call, not unto lawful ordination, which presupposeth it; but unto such a mock ordination, whereby such are put into the ministry, who have no visible evidence of the call of Jesus Christ, as in reason or charity can oblige any to receive such as truly sent. Thereafter he draweth the parallel in five particulars. The first is this, That the Anabaptists laboured to overthrow Magistracy, and deny them to have any power in Church matters. But can he, or dar he, say that we do so? do we say, with them, that the office of the Magistrate is not necessary among Christians? Do we say that Magistracy is not the ordinance of God? Do we say that Kingly government is unlawful, as they said, abuseing that place, 1 Sam. 8: 7. Do we say that a Christian may not exerce the office of a Magistrate? Do we say that a heathen may not be a Magistrate? Do we say that an ungodly Magistrate is no Magistrate? Do we press that place Luk. 22. The Kings of the gentiles, etc. Any otherways then against superiority among Church men? With what face then can be draw a parallel here? The next is That they studied to overthrow the ordinance of the ministry declaiming most bitterly against all in that function as Hirelings Thiefs Wolves, etc. But can he say that we cry down a ministry, as no ordinance of Christ, or as not necessary? can he say that we affirm an external call to the ministry needless? Is it our work to exclude faithful ministers from the esteem of God's people? How can the impudent man allege this of us? Be like because we cry out against him and his fraternity and their reptilia, profane wretches of the second-order, as no lawful ministers of Chriist, being perjured profane apostates, never called of God to that functction, nor duly and orderly called of Man? But in this he and his party come nearer to the Anabaptists, than we, The. 3. Is that they work division in the Church of God; and move people to forsake Church meetings, and to follow them in private conventicles? But than it seemeth all protestants Who press Papists to forsake their Mass Assemblies and Mass Priests, and rather meet with the Orthodox and that in conventicles are Anabaptists: And it seemeth this man would not press Heathens to leave their public idol worship, and serve God in secret conventicles, such a public and peaceable Man is he, lest he should be accounted an Anabaptist. But we see no connexion betwixt our being Anabaptists, and pressing People to forsake Their assemblies, and to hear the true and faithful servants of Christ in private, who cannot have liberty to preach in public. The 4 is That they were above all men arrogant and proud, despisers of such as were not of their way, as being men without God in the world, reprobate and wicked denying to them even common civilities. But doth not he and his party, the most proud and arrogant people imaginable, deal with us all, as cursed fanatics knipperdolians? etc. What is the 5. When any of theirs were punished for errors, felony or rebellion, they cried them up for martyrs, and complained tragically that truth and godliness was oppressed, and that men who would have all things done according to God's Word were persecuted? But might not Heathens and Papists have objected so against the true Christians and protestants, who said and did all this, when they were persecuted, and some of them murdered & massacred? And were, or are, all who call & account such as die for the Testimony of Jesus, martyrs persecuted to the death. Anabaptists? I fear that in so saying he shall be found to befriend the Anabaptist, more than we desire to do: If he hath no more to say, He shall never make it appear that either Naphtaly or the Apology, do approach unto the manners of that odious sect, in any particular peculiar to that Sect, or wherein that Sect deviateth from truth.  
Then he addeth Pag. 17. When the Spirit that stirreth in these furious writings, (especially in Naphtaly) is considered, how much confusion may be seen to be portended to Church and State, if hearts be infected with the doctrines therein held forth? By whom I pray, shall these evils be seen to be portended, by any thing that is said in these writings? Sure by no rational sober understanding person, but only by such who consult the oracle at delphos, and mind their belly and wormeaten carcases, more than they consult the oracle God and of sound reason, and mind the real good of either Church or State. For there are no doctrines there of any malignant quality, but all of them anti-Malignant, solid, Plain, Sure and immovable truths, having a direct tendency unto, and necessary influence upon, the solid and sure establishing of Church and State, upon a firm and lasting basis. And therefore, if it were right applied, his following wish were good. viz. That the Lord would give his people such understanding, that they be not ignorant of the wiles of Satan, who driveth a deeper design against this poor Church and Land, than the subversion of this or that exterior form of Church government, For indeed the design that Satan hath now on foot, reacheth further, even to the utter overturneing of all the precious interests of Christ in the Land; of destroying not only the outward Libertyes and Privileges of the People, which have cost them no small expense of blood; to the end they may be made perfect slaves: But to the overturning of the whole work of God, of banishing the Gospel, and of introduceing Atheism and all sort of profanity and wickedness, that we should no more become the People of the Lord, but a visible Kingdom of Satan; And all the People, Subjects, and Slaves to him. But we know what his meaning is, and therefore he addeth. The controversy rests not in matters touching a Bishope or a Presbytery: But what thinks he of this controversy? He says, If men's passions or prejudices might permit, it might be, for the advantage of the gospel, well consolidated by their mutual paying of due respects one to another; the Episcopal inspection not abrogating, but strengthening the due right of presbyters, and presbyters not despiseing that lawful inspection; but all concurring together in a kindly mutual assistence, and amicable conjunction, for carrying on the real interests of Christ's Kingdom, without imperiousness one the oneside, and without srowardly disorderlynesse on the other. Now he turneth a peace maker, and such a notable reconciler is he that would cause fire and water agree: But he hath sold his Zeal and Conscience, for, he knoweth, what. He hath forgot, that there is no communion betwixt light and darkness, nor betwixt Christ and Belial. But he must know that we will neither pack nor peel with him, nor his accursed fraternity, but will come out from among them, and be separated from them, and touch none of their unclean things, that God may receive us according to his promise; 2 cor. 6: ver. 17. If the Men of that accused Hierarchy were not led away with intolerable passion & prejudice, and acted by a fury of hell, to destroy the gospel, they would consolidare this controversy by extirpating themselves; For as long as they stand in that accursed order, they shall never carry on the real interests of Christ's Kingdom, but effectually, so far as lieth in them, destroy the same; (as former and daily experience proveth) what by their imperious antichristian dominion, over the Church of God and the Officers thereof, which were ordained of Christ; and what by their laying out of themselves, according to their usurped power and places, to destroy & banish piety, knowledge and the fear of God out of the land, and to bring all the true seekers of God under the same guilt of manifest perjury and apostasy with themselves. If it were a lawful inspection, presbyters would neither despise it, nor carry themselves frowardly or disorderly under it; but it being an unlawful dominion, so destructive to the Kingdom and interests of our Lord Jesus Christ, it can neither alone nor in conjunction with any other, promove the interest of Christ's Kingdom, and therefore must be abhorred as an antichristian brate, and never submitted unto.  
But whither now doth the matter go? The design (says he) this libel runs upon is to open a gap to endless rebellions, under what soever Church government: And not only to bring all our Magistrates from the highest to the lowest under disgrace, which is the nex● step to destruction, and to make them a sacrifice to the fury of th●●wicked people.) But to ruin Kingly Authority and Magistracy, the ordainance of God.] This is but a frequently renewed calumny we have oftentime met with in his first part, and have showed how groundless, it is, and therefore we need say no more here. All who have not, with this Man, willingly shut their eyes, may see That the design is only to prevent intolerable Tyranny, the ruin of humane Societyes and Kingdoms, and to keep the true Divine Authority which God hath clothed his own civil officers with, from contempt and disgrace, which Magistrates degenerating into Tyrants expose themselves unto, by changing the ordinance of God into the ordinance of Satan, and in stead of acting and carrying as Ministers of God for the good of the People, walk and act as Ministers of Satan, laying out themselves to the utmost for the destruction of the People both in soul and body. Who seeth not then that when they thus forget themselves, and forget what they are both bound, and have promised, to be, they do expose themselves to disgrace, and to the contempt of these who otherwise would most willingly honour them as God's vicegerents. But when they carry as avowed Servants of Satan, as Tigers, and destroy the inheritance of the Lord, which they were to nourish and protect, can they expect to be looked upon as God's Deputyes while they do so? And sure, who ever maintaineth that such who have cast behind their back all Vows, Promises, Compacts, Subscriptions, Oaths, and solemn Engagements; and break overall bonds of humanity and Christianity, that they may satisfy their own cruel and base lusts; and so carry towards Subjects, as if they were so many Slaves or Brutes, or Worse, may lawfully be resisted, is very far from opening a gap to endless rebellions, under any Church government; that he rather layeth down a course to prevent rebellions: For if Kings remembered that their Subjects might lawfully and would oppose them, when they turned Tyrants, they would walk more soberly, and forbear to vent their tyrannical cruelty, and so give less occasion to Subjects to think of opposeing them. And However this Pamphleter may look upon himself as one who hath deserved well at the hands of the King: Yet the judicious who consider the matter right, will find him really a greater Enemy to the throne, than either Lex Rex the Apology or yet Naphtali were, or are. Seing they must be greater Enemies to the real wellbeing of Kings, and to the Establishing of thrones, who would have them settled upon the alone basis of blood, tyranny, opprossion, or proclaim an impunity unto Tyrants to do what they will, which is but to blow at a fire which burneth fast enough of its own accord; then such as would have them settled on equity and righteousness and not suffered to go without their due bounds.  
There is a great noise (says he) (it may be it is not causeless, and it were to be wished Rulers looked to it) of the increase of Popery. Doth he think there is a noise made about this matter, and a great noise, and that without ground? Or can he arrive at no more certanety, but of a may be that it is not causeless? Sure the Representatives (as he calleth them) several years ago were beyond a may be, that it was increased above what ever it had been, either in the days of King james, or of King Charles the first: And hath their mock-act never executed, affrighted it so out of sight, that this Man who possibly would be accounted no mean Father, and over seer in the Church, cannot perceive it, at least so clearly, as positively to say that there is just ground for that noise? But where dwelleth this Man? or what way doth he stoup his ears? Is he one of those who see and perceive not, who know and yet carry as if they knew not? What is he and his fraternity doing to day? What are the men with the Episcopal inspection doing? Are they so occupied in persecuteing the truly godly, the faithful Ministers and People of the Land, and in stirring up the Council to be more cruel than they are, and severely to execute the unjust and most iniquous Laws made to banish all piety and fear of God out of the Land, that they have no Leisure to look about them to mark what Papists, Seminary Priests and Jesuits (who are swarmning up and down the Land) are doing? When did He or They advise the Council to take such an effectual course for suppressing mass meetings, as they have done for suppressing of conventicles, or meetings of better reformed and founder Protestants then ever he or they were? Was there any mass monger fined to this day? Yet we know that precious & worthy Christians, have been rigidly & inhumanely handled and mulcted, for hearing an honest and worthy Minister of the Gospel preaching the Gospel in a private place. Ay, but now he thinks, he hath exonered himself, and discharged a piece of duty both for himself and all his fraternity, by saying, It were to be wished Rulers looked to it. And is this all the remedy he prescribeth? What will He do? May he not, dar he not, grieve or vex his Elder Brethren? What shall we then say of his inspection? Is it lawful, or is it of Gold, which is wholly employed and exercised in persecuteing of the honest seekers of God's face, and countenanceth and encourageth Papists? No certanely, That power whose proper work is, to root out piety, as having that only in commission, and which fostereth and encourageth profanity and Idolatry, is a power of Satan, tending to advance his work and interest in the Earth, and to establish and enlarge his Kingdom. What further? But truly (says he) when she Spirit of such writings as this, is considered, it will be found there is cause to fear (unless the wisdom and goodness of Cod; and the prudence of the King and Governors under him prevent it,) That as one way the Roman Antichrist may come in; So some furious Successor of John of Leyden, under pretence of a Phineas— like Spirit, come in another way, upon our Church and Land to lay it waste, and to make it a field of confusion and blood. Answ. Were there no Papists in Scotland, or was there no appearance of the approaching of the Roman Antichrist before these books came abroad? What a Spirit, I pray, is that which is in these books, which can give any cause of fear, that the Roman Antichrist may come in upon that account? What tendency, I pray, hath any thing that is asserted in these books, to the introduceing of Popery? His needle head shall never be able to point this forth. Yea let the true design of these books be once obtained, and I promise him, that ere few weeks pass, there shall be few or none in all Scotland, who shall be so bold as to profess either Popery or Prelacy. These must be strange books which open two contrary doors at once, upon the one hand a door for the Roman Antichrist, and upon the other hand, a door for some furious Successor of john of Leyden, but both are alike true, that is, both are manifestly false Though his fear for the coming in of the Roman Antichrist be first named, yet it is the least of the two with him; for the thing which most affrighteth him, is this last; but he needeth not fear it, let King and inferior Governors join piety; and true divine Zeal for God & his glory, with their prudence, and set themselves to establish the covenanted Religion, as it was reform in Doctrine, worship, Discipline & Government & purge out such things as offend, especially that bitter root of Prelacy, which we abjured, and prosecute the ends of the Covenants, and the wisdom and goodness of God shall preserve both Church and State. But so long as there is no repentance of the horrible Apostasy and defection, whereof King and all ranks are guilty: And particularly that Apostate pack which care neither for Church or State, King or Country, but in subordination to their own bellies and beses lusts, is not extirpated withal their adherents, we have no ground to expect that God shall preserve either Church or State from destruction and ruin: Because we have forsaken the Lord God of our Fathers, we can not but fear that he shall forsake us, and cast our carcases upon the carcases of our idols, and his soul shall abhor us, and he shall lay our cities waste, bring our Sanctuaryes into desolation, and shall not smell the Savour of our sweet odours, yea and shall scatter us among the heathen, and draw out a sword after us, and our Land shall be desolate, and our Cities waste etc. Though we had all the security imaginable that never one of the furious brood of john of Leyde, should arise to lay the Land waste; as indeed nothing asserted in these books, may put rational Men in fears thereof, from that hand, though his lying mouth addeth, that the seeds of future miseries, being too visibly sown, by this Man and his Complices, whose mouths are full of blasphemies, as their hearts and ●ands are full of blood and in so saying is like the whore in the common proverb, who calleth her honest Neighbour whose first whole mouths are more full of blasphemies, their or ours, all may judge who either read their writings, or hear their speeches in public or in private: And whose hearts and hands are more full of blood, theirs or ours, daily experience will suffer no Man of common sense who marketh both, once to put it to a question.  
At length he apologizeth for his slowensse in coming forth with his Survey, telling us, That this libel and like are not more quickly followed, with meet animad vertsions, is not to be marvelled at by any, who knows they are like the pestilence, that walks in darkensse, and that hardly do they come to the hands of any, but such as are willing to be deceived by them, being intended for the blinding of these, not for the opening of the eyes of others. But truly, He might have for borne to have made such an Apology: For it may be, some who have most employed him, and rewarded him too, for his pains, will think that he hath but too quickly followed with his animadversions, and possibly shall wish, that they had never seen the light, since he hath done so little good by them to the cause, which he becometh a Patron unto, both in starting needless and dangerous debates, for the King's Throne and Kingdoms, yea & for his Life; & in managing these debates so poorly as he hath done, to speak nothing of his weak defending of the main cause controverted, which is abundantly discovered by this vindication: Whereby also he hath occasioned the more accurate ripeing up of that debate touching defensive arms, and laying it open and naked unto the judgement and capacity of the meanest, so that the truths which he endeavoured to shake, and overturn, are now more firmly than ever, riveted in the hearts of all who search after truth: Yet sure, had be been able, he ●ight have brought forth this brood of his brain, sooner to light, for he had time enough, after the public Proclamation was made, that such a book was come forth, by the fire prepared of purpose, at the cross of Edenbr●ugh to consume it into asses, before which time, I suppose, very few known of such a thing: And by this solemn fiery Proclamation, the curiosity of some was kindled to inquire after the book, who otherwise would have used no great diligence, to have obtained one of them, yea possibly would never have learned that there was such a book in the World, and so could have been in no hazard to have been infected thereby: And before this time that they met with this solemn recaption, there was not (as is sufficiently known) many of them abroad; for it came but too soon into the hands of such as put that honour on it, which was expected, and thereby helped forward the Author's design. Is it, any wonder that such pieces must keep themselves as long as they can, out of such fiery hands. Seeing the first salutation they meet with is a brief sentence of condemnation by the Council, and a 〈…〉, or execution rather by the hand of the Hangman, in the ●●repared of purpose for that solemn Disput? Let him, if he ●ar or can procure a free imprimatur for such necessary and useful books, and liberty for stationer's to expose them to open sale, and then it will be seen, whether they or his shall hide themselves longest in the corner of shopes, and be at length laid aside for other uses, then at first they were intended for. He says they were intended for the blinding of these into whose hands they come, not for the opening of the eyes of others. But he speaks like himself. They were really intended for the opening of the eyes of all who would but read and seriously consider what is said, and would not willingly shote out their own eyes. And as for his Pamphlet, I verily believe what ever was his intention, it shall deceive none, but such as are already deceived, or very willing to be deceived, & shall open the eyes of none, unless per accidens, by making them to apprehend more clearly, then formerly they would, truth upon the other side, by discovering the childish, frivolous and weak evasions and exceptions, which he is necessitated to make use of.  
In the last Page He giveth us a short hint of what he mindeth to do in the following part of this his elaborate work, where we are like to find him as impudent and shameless a Patron of perjury, as here we have found him a pleader for Tyranny. But we, shall forbear to say more at this time, till God offer an opportunity of considering and answering what he shall say further upon these heads and digressions.  
The Lord establish truth in the Earth & visit his own inheritance, and send a plentiful rain to confirm the same when it is weary, for his own names sake. AMEN.   
FINIS.