Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	judge_n	king_n	law_n	5,155	5	5.2571	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A19328	The ungirding of the Scottish armour: or, An ansvver to the informations for defensive armes against the Kings Majestie which were drawn up at Edenburgh, by the common help and industrie of the three tables of the rigid covenanters of the nobility, barons, ministry, and burgesses, and ordained to be read out of pulpit by each minister, and pressed upon the people, to draw them to take up armes, to resist the Lords anointed, throughout the vvhole kingdome of Scotland. By Iohn Corbet, minister of Bonyl, one of the collegiate churches of the provostrie of Dunbartan.	Nicanor, Lysimachus, 1603-1641.	1639 (1639)	STC 5753; ESTC S119005	43,296	68

ought to feare the King for he is set over us to doe Justice Neither is the question whether Honour should be given to evill Superiours for as our Adversaries by moving of such questions at this time under pretext of dutie doe wrong and dishonour to the Kings gracious Majestie so we professe in the generall that the wickednesse of man cannot avoid Gods Ordinance and therefore although we had froward and wicked Superiours yet obedience and honour is to be given unto them as being set up by God as it were in his wrath Hos 13.11 Neither is the question whether we ought absolute obedience to an evill Magistrate for our adversaries whatsoever be their judgement and practice doe not affirme that malo in malo or ad malum est obediendum but that Kings are to be obeyed so farre as their Commandements are not contrary to Gods and if God command one thing and they the contrary in this case it 's better to obey God than man Neither is the question about the invasion of the King or any of his Kingdomes which is the despitefull and divellish calumnie of the disnatured enemies of this Kirk and Kingdome But the question is meerly and simply about our owne defence And in this also wee would put difference betweene the King resident in this Kingdome and by opening his eares to both parties rightly informed and the King farre from us in another Kingdome hearing the parties and misinformed by our adversaries Between the King as King proceeding Royally according to the lawes of the Kingdome against rebells and the King comming downe from his Throne at the feet whereof the humble supplication of his subjects yet lyeth ananswered furiously to invade his loyall and well-meaning people Betweene a King who is a stranger to religion and tyed no further but according to his owne pleasure to the professors of Religion within his Dominion and our King professing with us the same Religion and obliged by his fathers deed and his owne oath to defend us his owne Subjects our lives religion liberties and lawes Again difference would be put betwixt some private persons taking armes for resistance and inferiour Magistrates Counsellors Iudges Nobles and Peeres of the Land Parliament-men and Barons Burgesses and the whole body of the Kingdome except some few Courtiers States-men papists or popishly affected Betweene subjects rising or standing out against law and reason that they may be free from the yoake of obedience and a people holding fast their alleageance to their Soveraigne and in all humilitie supplicating for Religion and Iustice. Betweene a people labouring by Armes to introduce innovations in religion contrary to Gods Word and a people seeking nothing so much as against all novations to have the same Religion ratified which hath beene professed since the reformation and hath not onely beene sworne to solemnly long since by the Kings Majestie and the whole Kingdome both of old and of late but also commanded by the Kings Majestie to be sworne by his Councellors and all people as it was professed at first Betweene a people pleading for their owne fancies follies and inventions and a people suspending their judgement and practice about things controverted till they should be determined in a Nationall assemblie the only proper and competent jurisdiction and after determination receiving and standing for the Acts of the Assemblie The question then is whether in this case matters thus standing betwixt the King and this kingdome defensive warre be lawfull or whether the people ought to defend themselves against extreame violence and oppression bringing utter ruine and desolation upon the Kirk and Kingdome upon themselves and their posteritie That it is lawfull for us to take up Armes for our defence against such unjust violence it is manifest by these reasons following Anticovenanter I Many Tautologies are here used in stating the Controversie and you remove that which is the question and makes that the question which I am perswaded you know to be not the question 2. You multiply words to affect the ignorant the question is not say you whether we ought to honour obey or feare the King or whether we ought to give Caesar that which is Caesars Know you not that the last question comprehends all these is not honour feare and obedience Caesars due 3. You are very charitable that you say whatever be out judgement and practice yet we affirme in word that absolute obedience in evill is not to be given to wicked men 4. You make many differences about defensive armes to no effect The first difference betweene the King resident in the Kingdome hearing impartially the complaint of both parties c. I pray you tell me if the King were here resident and did impartially heare you and gave sentence against you would you not then resist Would you not even then be judges in your owne cause and take up defensive armes Whether the King be at home with you or abroad he shall still be one partiall and unequall judge so long as he goeth not with you Your second difference is of the like stuffe Between the King proceeding by lawes and the King comming furiously against his Subjects His Majestie was still well pleased and so remaineth to proceed according to the Laws but you will not stand to his judgement but must be judges in your owne cause and now if his Majestie after so long contempt of him and his Lawes bee forced to draw the sword of Iustice you cry out hee commeth furiously against you Your third difference is of the same nature Betweene a King who is a stranger to religion and a King who is of the same with us What make you the difference herein Will you not resist a stranger to religion if he invade you by armes The stranger to religion by the Law of God and his calling is bound to defend the Religion within his Dominions aswell as our King onely this our King is more obliged by his generall calling of Christianitie and by his owne fact and deed and blessed be God he will ever do it Your fourth difference is of no purpose also Betweene a private man and the whole bodie of a Kingdome for the most part c. Tell me then doe you grant that one private man ought not to defend himselfe against the Supreme Magistrate by armes albeit it bee true that he may not and you doe here deny it yet you must be forced to acknowledge the lawfulnes of it for afterward your reason shall make it good that you maintain the lawfulnesse of a private mans taking up of armes against the Lords anointed You doe no small in jurie to our Nation to affirme that the whole bodie of the Kingdome except a few c. 1. For it 's notorious that the whole body of the Kingdome for the most part did never dreame of such a thing as to take up armes against the Lords anointed but were most deceitfully parswaded that their covenant did not carry

them to such rebellion but only to serve God and their King And now many of them are exclaiming that they are deceived and must be perjured if they take armes against their King And how many are groaning under this and would gladly bee freed and yet dare not for your terrours and affrightments 2. They are many who have subscribed the Kings Covenant who will be loath to be in that Categorie with you For I hope they know that beside the sinne of Rebellion they will also incurre Perjurie if they runne with you in your evill way For they are obliged by their bond to take up defensive armes in defence of the King Religion and Lawes and that only when by Authoritie they are commanded so to do But your covenant obliges you to take up armes against his Majestie even though he forbid you if by common consent you think it should be done Your fifth difference is of the same nature too Betweene a people holding fast their alleagiance c. If you be such as you call your selves his Majestie hath no quarrell against you but herein yet you must be judges in your owne cause and the King must stand to your sentence Saul was righteous in his owne conceit and did obey the Commandement of God but the bleeting of the sheepe and the lowing of the oxen belied him Your daily practises beare witnesse whether you be such men as you call your selves 3 You say that ye have suspended your judgement and practise about things controverted till they be determined by a lawfull assembly Answer 1. You did not suspend your judgment and practise but by your covenant have abjured these things controverted as heads of poperie as the learned Doctors of Aberdeen most clearely have showen which yee were never hitherto able to answer and if this bee to suspend your judgement you are worse than the wife of Bodwell who first spake and then advised you have first sworne to the one part of the controversie and then take it to consultation 2. If we will grant you that ye have only suspended your judgements and practise c. consider how absurd you are herein first ye with an implicite faith sweare to believe and practice what shall bee determined in a lawfull assembly though ye know not whether it shall approve or condemne those things 2 You fall head-long in another point of Poperie in making the generall assemblie an infallible Iudge at whose determination ye sweare to stand in judgemen and practice for if yee did acknowledge that the assembly might erre it had beene great folly in you to sweare to stand to the determination of one who is not of infallible judgement 3. I demand of you who are the strict Non-conformists What if the assembly had determined contrary to your expectation and declare that those things controverted were not heads of Popery would ye have condescended to them and if the assemblie had not been made up of conjured persous but of free Ministers it had beene so concluded Your last two differences may be joyned in one you professe your selves to be zealous in religion and that the Kings Majestie is urging the swearing to the true religion of his Subjects c. Who then is to hurt our religion who is comming by armes to destroy it if his Majestie be for you who is against you You have the King a Patterne and Patron of Piety and why did you protest against the covenant because hee commanded it But all this tends to no other sense then to brand so worthy a King with perjurie and dissimulation You have therefore most wickedly stared the question especially since his Majestie by many published Proclamations hath often assured you that he is so far from thinking of any innovation of religion that he is resolved constantly to maintaine the same as it is established by law in this Kingdome of Scotland and hath beene so ready to give all full satisfaction that he hath in a manner granted all that was petitioned for of his Majestie reade his Majesties Proclamation and Declaration dated the 27. of Febr. where ye shall finde the state of the question rightly set downe and clearely see that he is so farre from intending the ruine and subversion of this his Kingdome that he takes God and the world to witnesse that he is at last forced to take armes and that for his owne right and our good to reclaime us from our daring and encreasing insolencies and for the re-establishing of his royall authority amongst us againe And therefore the question is now Whether he be our King or not Yea the question must be now not Whether you may take defensive armes against the King But Whether or no the Kings Majestie may take defensive armes against a disloyall and rebellious people for doe not you invade his loyall subjects besieging his cities by armies of men because they remaine obedient and loyall to their King have not you by force and fraud taken his Castles led captive his captaines and other subjects and laid hold upon all whom ye know loyall subjects to ward them and compell them to runne your crooked course you spare not the Lords owne Day in time of Gods service in the house dedicated to his worship to take his Majesties servants and keepe them in ward and dispone upon the Kings forts and castles as you thinke good putting in and putting out whom you please drinking and carouzing in his Castles quasi jam partâ victoriâ I you have triumphed leading the Kings Crowne captive with Tuck of Drumme in great solemnitie through the street of your Citie of Confusion and afterward have not onely appointed your office-men of warre for resisting of authoritie but also as I am credibly informed have erected a new government of 26. Governours of Nobles Barons and Burgesses yearely changeable for the government of the Kingdome As for his Supremacie then no wonder that it be gon for in your last pretended generall assembly you are not far from that which Optatus sayes of the Donatists Ille solito furore accensus dicit Quid imperatoricum ecclesia he being kindled with his wonted furie Contra Parm. lib. 3. sayes What hath the Emperour to doe with the Church In your protestations you give him no more a-doe but to be present among you that as an inferior officer he may attend you and see that no tumult or outward disorders be among you who are the supreme Iudges in causes Ecclesiasticall You will admit of no appellation from you to the King but have deprived them that thus appealed whilst even the Iewes in an Ecclesiasticall matter admitted Pauls lawfull appeale to a Pagan Emperour Acts 25.11 and whereas generall assemblies should ever carrie libertatem judicandi non necessitatem credendi as Augustine saies and the acts thereof are only Canons August contra Faust Directions and Rules without any power to be lawes till they be confirmed 〈◊〉 and allowed by the Supreme

a Reall and Royall answer from the most gratious and most learned King Iames of Blessed memory in his Booke intituled Ius Liber a Monarchiae pa. 193. Nego ego tempore Coronationis inter regem subditos pactum ini●i c. I deny sayes he that in the time of the Coronation there is any such covenant betweene the King and his Subjects But this is manifest that at that time or at the beginning of his raigne sponte suá of his owne accord the King promiseth to discharge honestly and faithfully that charge which God hath committed and entrusted him with 2 Though it were granted that there were such a mutuall contract yet his Majesty demonstrates most clearely that it cannot helpe this cause If the King sayes hee shall not keepe his part of the Covenant who shall be judge between these parties there is none who hath but attained to a smal taste of the civill Law who knoweth not that the contract cannot be esteemed violated by the one partie nor the other absolved of his part of the contract before that it be made manifest by the cognition and Tryall of the ordinarie judge which of the parties hath departed from the Contract For this is the caution of every civill and municipiall Law otherwise what could hinder but that every man in his owne cause may be both Judge and partie then the which there can bee nothing thought more absurd Now in that contract between the King and his Subjects without all controuersie onely God is Iudge to whom alone the King is bound to give acount of his administration because in that oath at the Kings inauguration both the judgement and vengeance of his perfidious dealing is given onely to God Therefore since God alone is the judge between the parties and since the try all and vengeance onely doth belong to him it must necessarily follow that God must first pronouce the sentence against the King before the people can be thought free of their part of the Covenant of obedience and subjection And so there is no man so blind but he may see how unjustly you make your selfe judge in your owne cause and usurpe the place of God 3. From this your mutuall contract you must shew that his Majesty not only obligeth himselfe to performe his Kingly office but also giveth power to the people when they judge that he failes in his part to resist him by force of armes or else you are idle to alleadge such contract And if you will produce this I have no more to say but that the King hath denuded himselfe of Royall authority and devolved it into the peoples hands he onely in name and the people in effect being King and supreme judge in their owne cause and so the King must stand Vt magna nominis umbra But you would doe well to produce such a contract out of the Vtopia of your owne braine Covenanter From Acts of Parliament ratifying the three Estates Authority 10. Argument and from our owne ecclesiasticall and civill Historie Anticovenanter 1 There can be no Acts of Parliament but those the King sets downe with advice of his Estates 2 And can you shew any Act of Parliament for the lawfulnes of resisting Princes or can you shew that there is any Act of Parliament giving authority to the Estates to resist His Majesty to execute Iustice 4 Doe you attribute any authoritie to these which ye cal the three Estates without the King You must know that the King is the onely Law-giver the Parliament is but his extraordinarie Councell and the Estates thereof are his extraordinarie Counsellours by whose advice hee enacts Lawes Consider also there was no Law in the Kingdome of Scotland before the Kings of it for before Fergusius his dayes we were but like Salusticus Aborigenes Genus hominum agreste liberum atque solutum sine legibus sine imperio But when the first King did conquer this Land he and his Successours gave Lawes divided the whole Land which was their owne and distinguished the orders of men and did establish a politicall government This is clear by our Chronicles and Ex archivis regijs in quibus antiquum primaevum jus asservatur satis constat Regem esse Dominum omnium bonorum directum omnes subditos esse ejus vassallos qui latifundia sua ipsi dōino referant accepta sui nempé obsequij servitij praemia 4 If you attribute such incompatible power to these Estates Why did not you by vertue thereof conclude this warre You ought first to hold a Parliament and then conclude warre But pardon me you have done so Your three Tables is for Your three Estates which hath ordained this warre 5. Which are these three Estates now Episcopacie is thrust from you and over-ruling Elders are in their place who are busie Bishops in another mans Diocesse and have been too busie in my parish And shall they supply their place in Parilament As for your Ecclesiasticall and civill Historie if that be Knox Buchanans regni jus expresly condemned by Act of Parliament you may be ashamed to name them and ought to have covered their nakednesse if you had respected them You have published in print to the great disgrace of Knooe that he called kneeling at the Communion An Invention of the Divell and will you here make him a Doctor of Treason Covenanter From our Covenant lately sworne and subscribed 1. Argument binding us to defend the Kings Majesties person in defence of the true Religion and to defend the true Religion against all persons whatsoever Anticovenanter This is indeed Ilias malorum your Covenant binds you to it and to much more even to whatsoever shall seem good to the most part of you by cōmon consent were it never so hainous For that clause of your Covenant wherein you are obliged to whatsoever shall seeme meete by common consent is a great Ocean a blanke to be filled up with what you please it seemeth good to you already for the keeping of the first Table to break the second in working the works of unrighteousnesse As to with-hold from Ministers their Stipend as conducible for your ends to threaten them with big words to lay violent hands on them in the discharge of their calling in pulpit 〈◊〉 which I have suffered and which is more to contemne and disobey Supreme Authoritie yea to take up armes against it and if you by common consent shall thinke meete to remove that blocke of authoritie out of your way you are obliged to it by your Covenant for certainely this is very conducible to your ends For if your Calder wood be true Kings are enemies to Religion in his Altare Damascenum he affirmeth that Natura insitum est omnibus regibus odium in Christum And so King James of Blessed memorie is called by him Infestissimus ecclesiae hostis And your Master-man Cartwright layeth down a ground for this overthrow of Kings as you may reade in the

bestow it upon any man to be their King for none can give that to another which they have not themselves 5. Ye say the people may be without the Magistrate Answer So have you made us this yeare and more in stead of a King we have had the Ephori of Sparta and the Roman Tribunes over-ruling us strange Lords rule over us to the great contempt of our own King Dominis parere superbis cogimur 2. The world was not without a King till Cain's time for Adam was King his Empire was paternall and therfore Monarchicall for albeit at first he did not actually exercise politicall Government before the people did multiply yet ex vijuris naturae by the force of the law of nature it was due to the first progenitor Adam to be governour of his posterity and thus habitually he was King from his first creation and therfore that assertion of the Monarchomachists is not alwaies true the King is not without a people as the people are without a King I see you think you may be well without our King what remaineth then but with the Bishops let Kings go too and lay a ground for Anabaptisme 6. You say the body of the Magistrate is mortall I pray you what kind of people are you Qui genus unde demo Are you only the off-spring of God I reade in Scripture that God saies to Kings Psal 82.6 7. I have said ye are gods but to which of you is this name given and if you will assume that to you take the rest of the Text with you but ye shall die like men It 's an old saying Rex nunquam maritur The King never dieth But one generation goeth and another commeth Let it content you that tho King and you are of one mettall Now in the end having thus many waies preferred your selves to the King you make this monstrous conclusion It 's adirect over-turning of all foundation of Policie to preferre subjection to the Prince to the preservation of the common-wealth Answ Here you separate that which God hath joyned together and make these two opposite which ever must go hand in hand together for Subjection to the Prince is the only way to preserve the Common-wealth where Subjection is not Gods ordinance is contemned the foundation of policie over-turned and the Common-wealth exposed to ruine as is cleare in the answer to your first Argument Covenanter From the Covenant betwixt God and the people 4. Argument for the people and the Magistrate are joyntly bound in Covenant with God for observing and preserving the Commandements of the first and second tables as may be seene in the bookes of Samuel Kings and Chronicles As the fault of the people will not excuse the Magistrates negligence so the fault of the King will not excuse the people if they resist not his violence pressing them against the Covenant of God this argument is strongly pressed by sound and religious politicians Anticovenanter You should declare how King and people are both jointly bound Will you have King and Subject of equall power about the observation and preservation of the Tables You are bound to keep the Commandements of God as well as your King but the King is bound to do more to wit to be carefull that all his Subjects keep them and to punish transgressours I have read the whole Scripture of God but I could never find this power given to Subjects It 's enough for them to keep the Tables themselves but they have no authority to command others much lesse doth it belong to them to resist the Magistrate If the King presse the people to the breach of the Law they must not obey since God his Superiour commands the contrary but yet they must not resist since God both their Superiours forbids You poorely beg here the question affirming that the people will sin if they resist not but you will never prove it You say it is strongly pressed by sound politicians but you presse it most weakly and unfoundly not nominating one sound Politician for you For no Wiseman will confound the Princes authority with the people and turne a Monarchie into a Democracie Covenanter From the subordination of Powers appointed by God 5. Argument The same law and order that appoints to obey the supreme Magistrate rather than his Deputie appoints us also to obey God rather than man and the same law and order that leadeth us to defend the supreme Magistrate against the invasion of his Deputie commandeth us also to defend Gods right and to preserve the peoples peace against the unjust invasion of the supreme Magistrate who can be thought no lesse subordinate to God then his Vicegerent is to him Anticovenanter This Argument is builded upon sand you dreame that whatsoever meanes may be used for preservation of the Prince against his Deputies the same may be used for the preservation of Gods right and the peoples peace But you erre not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God Both by Gods Law and mans law Subjects are bound to defend their Prince But Gods Law commands not to defend his right by armes the weapons of our warfare are spirituall and not carnall Patience Faith with other graces are our Armour we must be subject for conscience sake and not take Gods place to represse our Superiours If any inferiour judge wrong me I must not resist him but appeale to his Superiour and from him again to his Superiour even to the King the Supreme and if he will be unjust and wrong me I must not resist but commit my cause to God to whom vengeance belongeth It is a point of Atheisme and distrusting of Gods providence to think that God will not help against Tyrants and therfore men will be their owne judges and revenge themselves But the Lord hath said Psal 12.5 For the oppression of the poore and the sighing of the needy now I will arise and set him in safety c. Then take Salomons counsell Prov. 20.22 Say not thou I will recompense evill but wait on the Lord and he will save thee Suffer me then to attest you my deare Countrey-men What thinke you to doe O yee Covenanters for God and the King You undertake armes not for God who desires nothing but peace You publish Rebellion He commands Obedience You trouble the rest and quiet of a King he willeth us to endure hardnesse though at the hand of a Pagan You doe it for God whose name yee call upon and deny his Power You doe it for God who detesteth your actions and knowes your thoughts And you doe it for that God who will confound all those who breed confusion among his people You undertake warre for Religion against the Defender of Religion You raise armies for Religion and nothing hindereth it so much as warres You fight for holinesse and your weapons destroy the Church authorize blasphemie plant Atheisme impiety and despising of Devotion in all places You march under

pretence of Religion and you spoyle the Clergie of Tithes Stipend burden the Kings Subjects with impositions ransack the Kings houses Pardon me I pray you to tell you that this fortresse which you build will be your overthrow this fire you kindle will burne you these weapons ye forge will be tempered in your own intrails and that thereby you will neither leave of your selves nor your Covenant ought but a shamefull memory Covenanter If a private man be bound by the Law of nature to defend himself cum moderamine inculpatae turelae 6. Argument against the Prince or Iudge as a private man invading him by violence and not pursuing him judicially and by order of law and may repell violence with violence If a chaste Matron may defend her owne body that it be not defiled by the Adulterer were his place never so great If children may resist the violent invasion of their parents against themselves their mother or others of the family notwithstanding the strict obligation betweene parents and children If servants may hold the hands of their masters seeking to kill them in their rage If the Marriners and passengers may save themselves by resisting him who sits at the helm and would drive the Ship against a rocke or by hindering the Prince himselfe not only by supplication of mouth but by strength of hand to mis governe the ship to their certaine Shipwracke much more may the body defend it self against all invavasion whatsoever Anticovenanter You are put to poore shifts when for arguments you bring crooked comparisons yet good enough for ignorants As for your first supposition the question is not whether a private man may defend himself against his Superiour with inculpata tutela But whether or not defence by armes be culpata or inculpata tutela His Majesty denieth you not lawful defence by Law but your taking up of armes to resist his Authority is damnable 2. Tell me when doth a Prince become a private man as the Popes infallibility is left in his Chaire so you make the Kings authority to reside in his Throne When Saul was in the wildernesse persecuting David with great violence was he then a private man you will have it so But I trust David better then you all who would not defend himselfe by armes but fled from him as from the Lords Anointed who can touch the Lords Anointed and be innocent It is altogether against the Law of Nature that private men should take armes against their Superiors seeing it 's against the Law of nature that a privat man should be judge in his own cause as Luther learnedly disputes in the 5. book of Sleidens Commentaries Your second supposition is as idle It becommeth a chast woman to defend her Chastity even against the King but how I pray you by taking up of armes not at all but by not yeelding her selfe into his armes and though he being stronger than she force her yet she hath defended her chastity and only the King is the adulterer Thus in Augustints judgement Lucretia that chaste Matron lost not her Chastity albeit Tarquinius the Emperour by force lay with her only she drew no sword to resist his violence but here was her lamentable fault that the fact sore against her will being done she took armes against her self and killed her selfe Your third supposition is no better for there is no Law that authorizeth Children to resist their Parents by armes 2. Rules of prudency cannot be set down for every circumstance therfore in such cases prudency will find out lawfull means either to pacifie or at least to escape by flight the parents fury 3. If the case were so that either the Parent must kill the child or the child kill the Father I think it becommeth the child who hath his being of the Father rather to suffer than to destroy the fountain whence he sprang 4. Parents have not so great power over their children as Kings over their Subjects Kings have power of life and death which Parents have not And your fourth comparison is yet more weak for the masters power over the servants is lesse than Parents over their children Your last supposition is true in part the Mariners and Passengers may resist the Pilot for Pilots are not Kings over the rest in the ship you do too basely esteem of Authority But what if the King will drive the ship on the rock himself Answer 1. By doing of this the King is no more seeking the ruine of the Marriners and Passengers then his own aestruction and in this case they are bound to save their King from death in such submissive and humble manner as it becommeth and not by armes with swords musquets pikes and Cannons which are most offensive weapons 2. If the King would be thus desperate it cannot be but he is gone mad and quite out of his wits and so interpretativè they have a warrant to hinder him to undo all which he wil allow when he commeth to himself again Well al this may be done without taking of armes But then say ye may not the Church defend it self from suffering shipwrack against a Tyrant who is seeking that Answer It cannot be so done the comparison is much unlike You speak as if the one case were as obuious to the sense as the other They must be apparant rocks not supposed only Both sense and reason tell that if the Prince be not hindered by the Mariners he and all must perish But the Church of Christ which is builded on a Rock against the which all Tyrants violence no nor the gates of hell cannot prevaile is a gainer by suffering and every drop of their blood begets new believers and so resisting being an unlawfull meanes may bring ruine to the Church but suffering not so If the Jewes in the daies of Ahasverus had been of this new Scottish humor when an utter extirpation was intended by Haman both of themselves and their Religion they would have taken armes but their prayers and teares were their defence in their greatest extremity This was the constant practice of the Primitive Church also even when they were most able to defend themselves against their persecutors to this purpose Chrysost exposition on Psal 147. saith well that God compasseth his Church with the crosse to suffer not with wals for defence Ecclesiam inquit munist validius quàm Ierusalem non vectibus portis se ●eruce circumseptam renunciatione propria voluntatis cùm dixis Porta inferorum non pravalebant adversm 〈◊〉 In principio itaque●eges Imperatores populi civitates damonum phalanges ipsa diaboli Tyrannis alia innumerabilia invaserunt Ecclesiaem illa tamen omnia fracta dissoluia sunt interierunt ipsa tamen crevit in'tantam provect a est altitudinem ut ipsos etiam coelos superaverit For God hath guarded his Church more strongly then Jerusalem not being environed with gates and barrs but with the crosse and the