Relation of the Sufferings of Ministers in Scotland Since 1660, Section 11

Relation of the Sufferings of Ministers in Scotland Since 1660 · Section 11

p. 140SECTION. XI.

The former purpose further prosecuted & the lawfulness of Scotlands defensive warre demonstrated.

THere are other two Particulars (or rather one for they are much to one purpose) which virtually would have been condemned, by the taking of this oath thus explained, as to its civill part: viz Scotland their riseing in armes in their owne defence against the King's armies of papists & malignants & their seizing on the castles, which within their owne bosome were threatening their ruine when garisoned with adversaries. These must now be spoken to, and so,

Ninthly, There is no ground to condemne that defensive warre. Though much hath been said by court parasites, & others; who were ambitious of gaine & preferment, to exaggerat & aggraige that supposed crime, & thereby to make them & their cause, odious to all the World; yet rationall & indifferent persones will after serious pondering of a few particulars, forbear to passe any rash sentence. Much hath been already said in the defence of that bussinesse, by the author of Lex Rex, & more then ever could or will be answered. And therefore that book behoved to be answered by a fiery fagot: & by Mr Prins soveraigne power of Parliaments, &c. a book published by authority of Parliament & never answered to this day: And therefore there will not be a necessity of insisting p. 141much on it here, only a short hint at some particulars, will suffice.

1. In point of conscience, it will be hard to prove that the power of warre resideth only in the King, & that he only beareth the sword: For 1. Rom. 13. The sword is given to all Magistrats; for the Apostle there speaketh of heigher powers indefinitely, in the plurall number, without specifying any kinde; & it is certaine Rome had not two or mo… Kings at once: And if the Apostle had intended only Nero, he would have designed him in the singular number. He speaketh of powers that are of God, & are ordained of God, & this agreeth to Inferiour Magistrats, who are God's Deputies, & judge for him, as well as others, 2 Chron 19: v. 6, 7. Deut. 1: v. 16. Numb. 11: 16, 17. He speaketh of Rulers & this name agreeth to inferiour Magistrats, as may be seen, Exod. 18: v. 21, 22, 25, 26. & 16: 22. & 34: 31. 2 King. 10: 1. 1 Chron. 12: v. 14. & 26: 32. He speaketh of such as must not be resisted but subjected unto; & Peter sheweth who these are, 1 Peter 2: v. 13, 14. even Governours under the King, as well as the King himselfe. He speaketh of such as are God's Ministers which is a generall word, comprehending all civill Governours. He speaketh of all such, to whom tribute, custome, honour, or fear is due; & so he must take in all Magistrats, otherwise this text should not concerne commonwealths, which are ruled without a King. He speaketh of such as are revengers by office to execute wrath on them that do evill, & thus are a terrour to evill doers, and a praise to such as do well: And this agreth to all Magistrats, & therefore this place cannot be understood as speaking of any single person, or of Nero concerning whom it is a great question among lawyers, if, at this time, he had the heighest soveraigne power in the Roman State, as learned Prin sheweth in his soveraigne power of Parliaments, &c. part. 3. pag, 109, 110, 111, & 112. 2. Inferiour judges do judge for the Lord & are deputed of him, & therefore they are endued with power from him, for that effect, 2 Chron. 19: v. 6, 7. Deut. 1: 17. 3. Inferiour judges are commanded to rule well, & they are threatened & rebuked for mal-administration: p. 142See Ier. 5: v. 1. Isa. 1: 17, 21, & 5: 7. & 10: 2, & 59: v. 14. Ier. 22: 3. Ezek 18: 8. Amos 5: 7. Micah 3: 9. Levit. 19: v. 15. Deut. 17: 11. Exod. 32: 2. Now would God command those inferiour Magistrats, to relieve the oppressed, to judge the fatherlesse, to plead for the widow if they had not the power of the sword, for this effect, or would he challenge them, for neglecting this duty, if they had not been impowered by him, for that effect? doubtlesse not. So then if inferiour Magistrats be endued with power of the sword, they ought to defend the fatherlesse, the widow, & the oppressed subjects, by the help of the sword, they ought to rescue them from the hands of their oppressours: And therefore when Popish malignant enemies rise up in armes, & seek to destroy the Land, Man, Wife, & Childe, the inferiour Magistrats, much more the Parliament, may lawfully draw the sword, which God had given them, for the relief of the innocent, & defence of the countrey, of their lives, lands, goods Religion, & all that is dear to them, against malicious & open enemies.

2. Buchanan, a man well acquainted with the lawes & constitutions of Scotland in his Book, De Iure Regni apud Scotos, sayeth that the Kings of Scotland had no power of peace or warre without the Parliaments consent. So that a warre raised by the Parliament, against the common enemy, in defence of the Kings honour, the saifty of the people, & the purity of Religion, cannot be condemned, as unjust & illegall.

3. The renowned Historian Buchanan sheweth also that the Kings of Scotland have been oftintimes resisted by armes, which a few instances will evidence, when Durstus the 11. King banished all his Fathers Friends, & became loose & dissolute, he was pursued by the Nobles, till he was forced to professe his repentance, & promise amendement & afterward when he had cut off many of his Nobles by treachery, the rest did rise up in arme against him, & kill him in battel. So they rose in armes against Gillo for his wickednesse, & against Even 3. who was a most vi… & wicked man: So with one consent they arose against Dar…an, & slew his wicked servants who had been instruments of p. 143much evill: They routed his forces & tooke himself prisoner. When Mogaldus grew odious by reason of his vices, they rose up in armes against him. So did they levy forces against Athirco: when Romach had become cruell and had put many to death, they rose in armes against him: when Ferquard 1. turned tyrant, he was summoned before a Parliament, & when he refuised to come, they levied forces against him, & pursued him, they stormed his castle, in which he thought to shelter himself & at length he was taken prisoner. So did they purpose to rise in armes against Ferquhard 2. If they had not been diverted. Likewise when King Iames the 3. had been seduced by his evill courteours, & had plotted the murther of the nobles, they raised an army against him, & at length killed him. So did the nobles take up armes against Bothwell & the Queen & pursued her untill she rendered herself prisoner. The nobles wrote unto the queen regent, Anno 1560. for removing of the french forces & did adde (as Buchan. sayeth Lib. 17) Which tearmes if they be rejected we take God & men to witnesse, that we take armes from no innate malice, or hatred; but sore against our wills are forced to assay the last remedy, least we should expose our selves, our fortunes, and our posterity, to the worste of colamities Hence it is clear that it was the common practice of the Parliaments of Scotland (and lex currit cum praxi) to rise in armes against their Kings, when they turned tyrants: And therefore, the Parliament their late taking up of armes in their own sinlesse self defence, can no wayes be condemned; let court sycophants speak what they please, to make that bussinesse odious, they both bewray their malice & ignorance of the fundamental constitution of that kingdome.

4. Though, for all that is said, the Parliaments interest in warre should be questioned; yet their late defensive warre may be justified upon clear & undenyable grounds, for there is no such connexion betwixt these two, but they are rather two distinct questions, naturall sinlesse, self defence, may belong to such, as have not propperly in stricke law, the power of warre.

5. The practice of other protestant princes & Magistrats sheweth that their practice was not so odde nor odious, as men p. 144(who have taught their tongues to speak lies) would make the world beleeve it was; for Sleidan lib. 8. & 21. & 22. & Bilson out of him, in his difference, &c. part. 3. pag. 274. sayeth that the German princes levied warre against the Emperour; viz. the Duke of Saxon the Landgrave of Hesse, & the Magistrats of Magdeburgh together with other Princes & cities, joyning in the warre who having had the advice & resolution of lawyers after mature deliberation did conclude. That the lawes of the empire, permitted resistence of the Emperour in some cases: That the times were then so dangerous that the very force of conscience, & necessity did lead them to armes & to make a league to defend themselves, though Caesar or any in his name, would make warr against them. and That if the Emporour had keeped his bonds & covenants; they would have done their dutyes, but because he made the first breach the fault was his; For since he attempteth, to root out religion, & subvert our liberties, he giveth us cause enough to resist him with a good conscience: The matter standing as it doth, we may (say they) resist, as may be shewed both by sacred & prophane histories. Vnjust violence is not Gods ordinance: Nether are we bound to him by any other reason, then if he keep the conditions on which he was created emperour. By the lawes themselves it is provided that the superiour Magistrat, shall not infringe the right of the inferiour, and if the supriour Magistrat, exceed the limits of his power, and command that which is wicked, not onelyonly we need not obey him; but if he offer force, we may resist him. Upon these grounds did those worthies resolve to defend themselves by armes. 2. Next they have the exemple & precedent of the protestants in France, who in the reigne of Francis 2. Anno 1559. being oppressed with the Guisian faction assembled themselves, & consulted lawyers & divines concerning resisting of the king in that case, & it was resolved That they might lawfully oppose themselves against the governement which the house of Guise had usurped, & when needfull, take armes to repulse their violence: If the princes, who in this case are borne magistrats, or some one of them would undertake it, being ordered by the states of the realme, or by the sounder part thereof. See Gen. history of France pag. 682. 683. So Anno 1614. The p. 145prince of Condee with other princes, Peers, dukes, noblemen; & officers of the crown conveening at Meziers, wrote to the Queen, compleaning of diverse grievances, & wrongs, & sought remedy & redresse, by the assembly of the three estates, protesting that they desired nothing but peace and the good of the realme, & that they would attempte nothing to the contrary, unlesse by the rash resolution of their enemies (who covered themselves with the cloak of state, under the Queen regents authority) they should be provoked to repell the injuries done unto the King & state, by a naturall, just, and necessary defence: see the continuation of the life of Lewis the 13. pag. 59. &c. So in the reigne of Charles 9 when all Acts of pacification were broken; after many fruitlesse petitions, and vaine promises, they take up armes, whereupon a bloody civill warre ensued: & when this King contrary to his oath, An. 1572. caused that massacre at Paris, the protestants in Languedoc Rochel & other parts, took up armes in their own defence. So when Henry the 3 came to the crown, the protestants saw a necessity of standing to their defence, & being assaulted, they manfully defended themselves: & againe, when the peace which was now concluded was broken by the instigation of the Catholick Leaguers; The King of Navarre, the Prince of Condee, the Marshall of Montmorancy & others, resolved to defend themselves whereupon followed a sixt civill warre which ended in a new peace, Anno 1580. So in the reigne of Lewis his son when the Queen mother who was then regent, would give no redresse unto the protestants just grievances, The prince of Condee & divers others raised forces in their owne defence, & the duke of Rhoan & other protestants did joyne with them: A peace was concluded Anno 1616. but the very next year the prince of Condee is seized upon, whereupon the princes meeting at Soyssons resolved to defend themselves by warre which continued Anno 1621, 1622. at last a peace was concluded but it lasted not long by cardinal Richelien's meanes. 3. They have in the third place the practice of the Netherlands (mentioned in the Generall history of the Netherlands, Lib. 9 p. 369, &c.) who, being oppressed in bodies, & states, by the duk of Alva, & the p. 146Spanyards tyranny, & their consciences tyrannized over, by the spanish inquisition, introduced of purpose to extirpat religion, after serious deliberation, & consultation with lawyers, divines, & learned men of all sorts, did unanimously conclude to enter into a solemne covenant to defend religion, lives, & liberties, by force of armes: and, Anno 1572. the Prince of Orange & his confederats published a protestation shewing the grounds of their riseing up in armes viz. [for zeal to the countrey, for the glory of God, because of the inhumanities, and oppressions, and more then barbarous and insupportable tyranny, and incroachments upon their privileges, liberties, and freed…mes.] 4. They have the practice of the Waldenses in Piemont, Anno 1558, & 1561. who being persecuted by the Lords of Trinity, & other Popish soveraignes, assembled solemnely together to consult how they might prevent danger, & after long prayer & calling upon God, they concluded to enter into a solemne mutuall Covenant for defence of themselves & their Religion, & did so with successe obtaining many notable victories against their persecutors, See Fox Acts & Mon. Vol. 2. pag. 208, 209. So Anno 1571. Nov. 11. There is a league made for mutuall assistance of each other in times of persecution, a copy whereof is to be seen in Mr Morland's History of Piemond, pag. 252, 253. 5. They have the practice of the people of Arragon (mentioned by Blanca in his Comment. pag. 661, & 652. An. 1286. in the dayes of Alphonso 3. who when there fell out a contest betwixt him & the Parliament, through the evill counsell of his courteours, resolved to associat themselves together & to raise forces, it being lawfull, for the common cause of liberty to contend not only with words, but with armes, and their suprarbiense forum or Iustitia Aragoniae, which was erected of purpose to with stand the tyranny of Kings, had power to resist their King with force of armes: So Anno 1283. they tell Pedro 3. their King, that if he would not containe himself within the Limites of the lawes they would pursue him by armes. 6. They have the practice of other Spainyards, as may be seen in the generall History of Spaine, lib. 13, 14, 15. who rose in armes p. 147severall times against Pedro the I. King of Castile. 7. They have the practice of the Hungarians, Anno. 1608. in the dayes of Mathias for when he denyed free exercise of Religion unto the Protestants of Austria, they took up armes in their own defence & assembling at Horne sent a protestation unto the Estates of Hungary requireing assistance conforme to the offensive & defensive League: See Grimstons Imp. Hist. pag. 730. &c. 8. They have the practice of the Polonians who oftintimes levied warre against their Kings as Grimstone in his Hist. Imp. & Chytraeus in Chron. Sax. shew. 9. They have the practice of the Danes riseing in armes against Christierne the 2. who Anno 1524. was solemnely deposed as may be seen in Chytraeus Chron. Sax. lib. 10. 10. They have the practice of the Sweds, riseing up in armes against Christierne the I. for breach of his Covenant made at his coronation, this was about the year 1499. See Chythraeus ubi supra. 11. They have the practice of the Helvetians: first three of their Cantons viz. The Suitians, Vrjaus, & Vndervaldians, Anno 1260. levied warre against their oppressing Nobles, & did prosecute the same twelve years: & Anno 1308. They joyne in Covenant to defend themselves, against the House of Austria, & defended themselves most resolutely, against the hudge armies of their adversaries, & upon the 16 of Nov. 1315. obtained a great victory, & that same year they renewed their Covenant at Brunna; in which Covenant, the other Ten Cantons, at severall times thereafter; being oppressed by their Nobles, did joyne, & at length, by warre brought themselves into that state of liberty, in which they are at this day: See for all this Simlerus de Repub. Helvet. 12. And lastly they have the practice of the Bohemians who in the Dayes of Wenceslaus, & Sigismond waged great warres under the conduct of valiant Zizca. See Fox's acts & monuments Vol. 1. And thereafter in the dayes of Ferdinand they resolved to fight couragiously against all their enemies how great so ever they were. But in case, some should be so bold, as to condemne all those Acts, as treacherous & rebellious, let it be considered.

p. 1486. That some of those same practices are allowed and approved even by the Kings of Britaine, for King Iames in his answer to cardinall perron justifyeth the protestants of France their taking up armes in their own defence. Memorable is that speach which King Iames had in the Parliament house, Anno 1609. a King (sayeth he) governing in a setled Kingdome …easeth to be a King & degenerateth into a tyrant, so soon as he leaveth to rule by his lawes, much more when he begineth to invade his subjects persones, rights, & liberties, to set up an arbitrary power, impose unlawfull taxes, raise forces, & make warre upon his subjects, whom he should protect & rule in peace; to pillage, plunder, waste, & spoile his Kingdom; Imprison, murder & destroy his people, in a hostile manner, to cap…vat them to h…e pleasure. This is a sentence well worthy to come out of a Kings mouth, & to be…ingraven upon the thrones of Kings & princes: and doth more then abundantly justify Scotland, in their late defensive warre. Moreover Queen Elizabeth, & King Iames both, by the publick advice & consent of their realmes, did give publick aid & assistance unto the protestants of France against their King, & to the Netherlands against the king of Spaine, and to the protestants in Germany & Bohemia against the Emperour, & entered into solemne leagues & covenants with them: if they had been traitours, & rebells, & that action of defence, utterly unlawfull, would those princes have joyned with them in this manner? who can think this? So did King Charles the first openly avow to aide the protestants in France at Ree & Rotchell, against their King, who was come in armes against them: & the Germane Princes against the Emperour: & the Netherlands against the King of Spaine; And entered into a solemne league with them, for that end. All which do aboundantly justify the Scottish defensive warres, & free Scotland from the aspersion of disloyalty & rebellion. But moreover,

7. It is to be considered, That King Charles I. himself hath fully freed them of all these aspersions in his publick Acts in his Parliaments declareing, [The Scots late taking up armes against him, & his Consellours, in defence of their religion p. 149lawes, & privileges, to be no treason nor rebellion, & them to be his true & loyall subjects, (notwithstanding of all aspersions cast upon them, by the Prelaticall & Popish party) because they had no evill nor disloyall intentions at all against his Maj. person, crown, & dignity, but only a care of their own preservation, & the redresse of these eno…mities, pressures, & grievances in Church & state which threatened desolation to both.] See the acts of oblivion & pacification. Here is enough to stope the mouthes of all Calumniators & to vindicate them, & to cleare the innocency of their cause before all the Wo…d. And furder King Charles who now is, did approve of the same in his declaration at Dumferml… which is cited Sect 2.

8. Some of their chief antagonists, are forced through the clearnesse of truth, to assert such things, & grant such particulars, as will by clear & undenyable consequence justify their taking up of armes & resisting the armies of their King, when they came against then to destroy Religion, Lives, Lawes, & Liberties. (Beside that all of them are forced to speak most in consequently unto their own principles, & by their concessions do overthrow their own grounds, & arguments as might easily be made to appear if to discourse at length of this subject were designed now.) As 1. Iohn Barclay, Lib. 4. Cap. 16. he sayeth expresly, That if a King will alionate and subjecte his Kingdom to another, without his subjects their consent, or be carryed with a hostile minde to the destruction of all his people, his Kingdom is actually lost, and the people may not only lawfully resist and disobey; but also depose him.) This is more then the Scots could desire for they plead not for deposeing or dethroning of kings, but only for resisting & withstanding them, when they carry a hostile minde against them (whereof a strong army of strangers, marching with armes to their borders, after they were (contrary to all law) declared rebels, is as evident a demonstration as can be) & are seeking the ruine & destruction of their own subjects. They plead only. That in that case the people may, & are bound before God, to defend themselves, when their religion (which ought to be dearer to them, then any thing p. 150else) is sought to be taken away, or altered, & service books, or masse books, & the like, tyrannically obtruded upon them. So Contra Monarch. lib. 3. c. 8. He granteth that [the people have right to defend themselves against great cruelty] & what greater cruelty could be expected by a nation from their King then to be blocked up by sea & land, threatened with utter ruine & exti…pation, unlesse they would sell soull & conscience & all; doth not this speak abundantly for the justifying of them? 2. D. Fern. Part. 3. s. 5. acknowledgeth [that personall defence is lawfull against the suddaine & illegall assaules, of the Kings messingers, or of himself, in so far as to ward off his blowes, to held his hands; and when the assault is inovitable.] Now if resistence be lawfull against suddaine assaults, much more against premediated, deliberated & advised assaults; If resistence of illegall assaults be lawfull, then they cannot be condemned, because the assaults of the King's forces were against all law & reason, for there is no law warranding the King, or any other, having a commission from him, to force popery upon them, by armes: If resistence be lawfull against inevitable assaults, then they are justified; for how could they resist the assault of so many thousand armed men; but with armed men? Yea when he alloweth in such a case that hands may be laid upon the prince, he more then justifieth them, who never did intend harme to his Maj. person, & honour; but wished & sought the saifty & preservation thereof, by all meanes. And againe when he would answere the argument taken from Elisha's resisting of the King, he granteth [that itis lawfull to resist the Kings cutthroats] and what did Scotland more then resist his bloody emissaries? Moreover he alloweth [to privat persones liberty to deny subsidies and tribute to the prince when he imployeth it to the destruction of the common wealth] and is not this a clear resistance & a taking of the sword out of his hand? But what shall a nation do that cannot get pay holden from a plundering army of enemies, & so cannot get them disbanded, but take up armes & force then to it? This is but resistence, & the other is resistence. Majus & minus non variant speciem yea it is a question if it be lawfull to deny to the King any of his tribute though p. 151it be clear enough that it is lawfull for a nation to defend themselves against the King's unjust & illegall commissions. The same Doct. in conscience satified Sect. 5. confesseth that Salus Popul… est suprem… Lex and if so, some meanes must needs be allowed unto the people, to preserve their own saiftie, when it is in hazard; & to recover it when almost lost, by the invasion & tyranny of governours, who instead of levelling all to that end, which should be before their eyes, are taking courses tending to the destruction of the people; To come with an army of armed enemies against a common wealth, is no sit mean to preserve that common wealth, but to common sense speaketh out an intention to destroy the same: & therefore Scotland can not be condemned for preserving it self in such a case. 3. Iohn Bodin de republ. lib. 2. c. 5. granteth. [That if a King turntyrant he may lawfully, at his subjects requ…est be invaded, resisted; condemned or slaine by a forraigne prince] & proveth it at large from severall exemples. And if a forraigne prince may do this why may not the subjects themselves do it if they be able? if the subjects may petition for this help, why may they not forbear to trouble strangers, if they be able to do it themselves? a forraigne prince hath no more superiority nor right, over their prince for that effect, then they havethemselves, yea not so much. And elsewhere in that book viz, lib. 1. c. 10, & lib. 5. c. 5. he alloweth subjects to resist & to depose Kings in some cases: which is more then Scotland doth desire. 4. Arnisaeus de author prinp. c. 2: n, 10. granteth [that if the prince proceed extrajudicialiter, without order of law by violence every private man hath power to resist] much more then may the body & representative of a land resist, when he cometh against them with fire & sword, which is the most extrajudiciall acting imaginable. So c. 16. n. 4. he granteth that [limited princes may be resisted] & such an one is, & alwayes was, the King of Scotland; for they never knew an absolute prince, as is clear from what hath been already said. 5. So Grotius who de Iure belli & pa…is. lib. 1. c. 4. n. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. denyeth that the warr of subjects against superiours is lawfull, & would prove it by the law of nature, the Mosaicall law, the p. 152Gospell, & by the practice of the primitive christians: and n. …. denyeth this not only to private subjects but also to inferiour Magistrats: all which to examine is not the work presently intended; only it is worth the noticeing that even he is forced to grant many things, which serve abundantly to justify the practice of Scotland for ibid. n. 7. He granteth [the law of not resisting doth not binde when the danger is most weighty & certaine] & doth prove it thus; because the lawes of God in some cases admit the exception of extreme necessity, as the law of the sabbath: & further addeth, that this law about resistence hath its …ise, from their will who did first associat themselves in a society, & created governours over themselves; for if they were asked whether they would acknowledg these conditions that they should die rather then resist, in any case, they would not grant it, unlesse in this case when resistence would wrong the common wealth, & occasion the killing of many innocents. He furder proveth it from that passage which was cited out of Barclaius. yea he dar not condemne any, no not the lesser part of the people who rise in armes, in extreme necessity, far lesse would he condemne the body of a land useing this last remedie in the extremity of hazard & danger, furder he proveth this from David who took armed men 1. Sam. 22: 2. &. 23: 13. to resist the violence of Saul after he had learned for certanety that he was seeking his life: and from the Maccabces whom (as he thinketh) nothing else can defend but the great & imminent danger in which they were. And furder n. 8. he granteth that such princes may not only be resisted but also punished by death, who are not absolute. And it hath been showne that the Kings of Scotland have been obnoxious unto their Parliaments & yet they desire not so much as is here granted. Moreover n. 10. he assenteth to Barclaius saying, as hath been cited, that if a King alienate his Kingdome he loseth it: but furder he addeth if …e prince but attempt to do so, and to subject it to another, he may be resisted, and also n. 11. he assenteth to Barclaius saying as hath been cited, that the King doth lose his power when he seeketh the destruction of his subjects. And againe he sayeth, N. 13. If the king hath one part of the supremacy, p. 153& the senat another, then the king may be resisted when he incroacheth upon the senat, & that notwithstanding that it were granted, the King onelyonly had power of war for that is to be understood onelyonly of warre with forraigners. Thus he doth abundantly justify, the late defensive warre of Scotland, against their prince, who was incroaching upon the liberties of Parliament & people.

These particulars seriously pondered will do much to cleare their innocency unto the world, & to vindicat their cause and practice from the many foule calumnies & aspersions which the D…gs of the generation did cast upon them, of purpose to foment the discord, betwixt the king & his faithfull & loyall subjects. And though by what is said, & conceded by their adversaries, the clearnesse & equity of their cause appeareth, both in poynt of law & conscience; yet for furder clearing of the same, these few following particulars may have some weight.

1. There is great difference to be put, betwixt actuall disobeying of, rebelling against, & violently with force of armes resisting, the lawfull Magistrat, doing his duty, & commanding just things warranded by the lawes of God, & the land: And disobeying his unjust Acts, & resisting his violent, tyrannicall, oppressing, plundering, spoiling & killing armies. The former is a resisting of the very ordinance of God, forbidden, Rom. 13. where the Apostle is speaking of the civill Magistrat doing his duty, & in his place, as God's deputy, exerceing the duties of his calling, & executing his office. But in the other case, the Magistrat is out of his function & calling; for God giveth no command to do evill, nor to tyrannize. He is not God's vicegerent when he playeth the tyrant; & therefore he may be resisted & opposed, without any violence done to the office or ordinance of God. As the King's messinger may be resisted & withstood when he crosseth his commission & warrand, without any wrong done to the office or to the King. Every disobedience in things sinfull is not a resisting of the ordinance of God. The office may be owned, & the person in the office honoured, & esteemed, as he ought, when yet his p. 154unjust violence may be resisted, & his sinfull commands disobeyed; for it is onelyonly powers that are ordained of God that must not be resisted, & tyrants, or Magistrats turning tyrants, and exerceing tyranny, cannot be called the ordinance of God; though the office abstracted from the tyranny, be the ordinance of God: And there is no hazard of damnation, for refuseing to obey unjust lawes, but rather hazard of damnation, in willingly following after the command: And so there is no danger in resisting such Acts of tyranny; for tyrants exerceing tyranny, are no terrour to evil doers: But on the contrary they are a terrour to good works, & therefore that place, Rom. 13. cannot be understood of tyrants. It is a true & a worthy saying of famous Mr Knox in his history of So…land Lib. 2. pag. 141. There is a great difference betwixt the authority which is Gods ordinance & the persons of those, who are placed in authority. The authority & God's ordinance can never do wrong; but the corrupt person placed in authority, may offend; So that the King as king is one thing, & the king Acting tyranny is another thing. They plead not for rebelling against the office, or resisting that, which is God's ordinance. They did never intend to destroy Magistracy, or to lessen the Kings Maj. just power & lawfull authority, or to wrong the office in the least. And therefore all the arguments of their adversaries taken from Rom, 13. or the like places, which speak against withstanding & opposeing of the office, & divine appoyntment of God, are of no force, against them, & their cause. Tyranny is one thing, & the office of the King is another thing: And what arguments speak well against resisting the office, or the person duely, & legally dischargeing the duties belonging to that office, will not conclude against resisting of tyranny. So that all the arguments taken from Numb. 16. Exod. 22: 28. Eccles. 10: 20. &. 8: 2, 3, 4 Prov. 17: 26. And the like places, do not speak home to their case.

2. There is also a great difference betwixt riseing up in armes without any just lawfull ground, or for trissles, or matters of small moment, as for the exacting of some more tribute then is due by the law, or the like, & riseing up in armes in extreme p. 155necessity, when religion, lawes, lives, & liberties, & all that was dear to them as men, & as christians were in hazard, and this was their case, for the king came with an army upon them, & blocked them up both by sea & land, & thus, with forraigners, was seeking to subdue them, & so to overturne religion, lawes, liberties & all, was not this extream necessity? What more imminent danger could be expected then an army of bloody papists bent to prosecute their bloody designes coming with fire & sword, encouraged by a commission from the king & so approaching their very borders? Was there not then a necessity, an extreme & inevitable necessity, to rise up in armes, for the saiftie of religion, lawes, lives, & liberties, when all was thus in most imminent danger? Should the Parliament & the whole body of the land give up unto the lust of these bloody irish, popish, prelaticall & malignant enemies, their own lives, & the lives of their wives & children, their liberties as men, & as christians? Should they sell religion & the land, their soulls, & their consciences unto those men because (for sooth) they had a commission from the King? there is no reason in the world for this. Therefore seing there is nothing more dear to people then their religion, their lives, & their liberties, a warre raised in the defence of these, cannot be accounted a warre raised upon trissles, or sedition, faction, or mutiny; but a necessary defensive warre, not raised upon privat injuries & discontents, But upon matters of the greatest importance & necessity, viz to prevent the extirpation of religion, the subversion of lawes, & liberties, & the destruction of lives & all Cicero de officis lib. 2. can tell us that omnium societatum nulla est gratior mella carior quam ea quae cum republica est nui cuique nosirum; cari sunt parentes, cariliberi, propi…qui, familiares, sed omnes omnium caritates patria una complex a est, pro qua quis bonus dubitat mortem oppetere si ei sit profuturus.

3. There is also a difference betuixt a war raised of purpose to force the supreme Magistrat to be of the same religion with the subject, or else to dethrone him; and a war raised to defend that religion, which both Magistrat & subject owneth. Betuixt a war raised in defence of that religion which hath never been p. 156established by the lawes of the land; and a war raised in defence of that religion, which is publickly owned by the lawes of the land & which King & subject both, are sworne to maintaine, & which by the lawes, becometh a civill right & a part of the civill liberty of the subject. Whatever may by said against a war raised in the former case; yet in this last case a war defensive is most warrantable, and this was the very case of Scotland; for they were seeking to defend the religion, which was established by the lawes of the land, & which popish & prelaticall malignants, were seeking to overturn; So that any argument, which adversaries can bring from the practice of the primitive christians, will conclude nothing against them; because the true religion was not then established by law, the emperours had never consented therunto, but it was otherwise in Scotland as hath been abundantly shown Sect. 1. & 2.

4. There is also a difference betuixt a violent laying of hands upon the person of the King, of purpose to destroy, & cut him off, or to denude him of his just power & privilege, & that in cold blood too, by privat persons, for some personall injuries: This they abhore & ever have abhored: and betuixt a sinlesse self defence when unjustly assaulted by armies sent by the King, to destroy & cut them off. In pleading for a sinlesse self defence, they do not plead for an illegall taking away of the life of a King. Their raising of forces in their own sinlesse self defence cannot be condemned; there being an actuall invasion made upon their lives & liberties which made their war to be [tutela vitae proxima] the last refuge for the life, & the only remedie that was left for the saifty of religion, & of all that was dear unto them. So then their case not being a prosecution of adesigne of some privat persons upon some privat injuries received, to destroy' & cut off the King, or to denude him of his just power & privilege; but a nationall defence of religion, lives, & liberties, against the Kings armies unjustly seeking to destroy & violently to overturne all; None of the arguments of adversaries taken from. 1. Sam. 24: 6, 10. & 26: 9, 11, 23. 2. Sam. 1: 12, 16. do conclude against them, or speake to their case.

5. There is also a great difference betwixt a warre contrived p. 157& carryed on, by privat persons when grievously oppressed: And a warre carryed on, by the body of a land in their representatives in Parliament, against a king. Suppose, the first could not well be defended (which yet is not absolutely denyed) yet this last is clear; for a Parliament hath more power over a king then any privat person, or subject how great so ever, hath: judicious Calvin is clear for this in his institutions lib. 4. cap. 20, n, 39. saying if there be inferiour Magistrats, such as the Ephori among the Lacedaemonians; Tribuns among the Romans The demarchi; among the Athenians, and as the Estates of Parliament in kingdomes now, if these connive at the king's oppressing of the people they become persidious because they betray the peoples liberty, which by God's appoyntment they are to protect. Thus Scotland is cleared, for their warre was carryed on by the body of the land in their representatives, by their Parliament, acting in its publick & parliamentary capacity: and so the arguments drawn by adversaries from the practice of the primitive Christians, speak nothing against the Parliament of Scotland Their levying warre against the king in their own defence, & in the defence of the liberties & lawes of the land.

6. There is a difference betwixt a warre raised by a Parliament of purpose to cut off the king, & to depose him from his throne & governement (which hath been severall times practised by the Parliaments of Scotland, when their kings turned tyrants & vitious in their lives, as was showne above) & their case, which was a case of pure defence, there being no intention to offer the least violence to his Maj. person, crowne or dignity: but only to defend religion, & the kingdome, against the popish & malignant, invading, plundering forces, which were sent forth to destroy all: for their armies advanced with petitions seeking redresses of wrongs with all humility, & shewing their willingnesse & readinesse to lay down armes so soon as they were secured in the peaceable enjoyment of the religion sworne to, & freed from the just fears of these bloody invading forces who were seeking the destruction of their lives & liberties. So then when their adversaries reason against riseing in armes against the King they speak not to the poynt; none of p. 158these arguments come near to their case which was a case of naturall sinlesse self defence.

7. It would be considered that the warre did not begin upon the Parliaments side; but they were forced & constrained to it: The King commanded all the English Nobility, with all their power & forces to meet him at York April 1639. that they might advance with him towards Scotland. The Scottish Noble Men who were at court, were also sent down towards Scotland to raise their friends, having some expert forraigne Officers with them: There were three thousand Men sent down with the navy, & six hundered Horsemen were sent down to the Borderes to make incursions, all which preparations of warre did clearly speak out his Maj. intention, & did necessitate them to bestir themselves in their own defence; against those invaders, & to keep their own rights unviolated: And yet with all they had their supplications ready to presente, after the granting of which, viz. a quyet & peacable enjoyment of their Religion, Lives, Lawes, & Liberties, they resolved to lay down armes & accordingly did so; for after the pacification, Iun. 18. 1639. their army was disbanded. Againe when the Parliament which was convocated by his Maj. command conforme to the pacification, was, contrary to the articles, & contrary to the liberties of the land, & privileges of the Parliament, prorogued; the Castles of Edinburgh & Dumbritton, were fortified with men & ammunition; Theis friends travelling to England & Irland were constrained to swear unlawfull oaths; or to góe to prisons; The sea was stopped; & no liberty was granted to trassique, & so the land was blocked up; The articles of pacification were broken; Berwick and Carlile, were fortified; The Commissioners who were sent from the Parliament to the King, were imprisoned, contrary to the law of Nations; The Castle of Edinburgh was killing many, & threatening to destroy the whole city with their cannon; their ships were intecepted by sea, & their merchands spoiled of their goods, sea men were taken prisoners & miserably handled: When matters went thus, were they not constrained to take up armes againe, & to advance towards England p. 159that they might seek peace, from his Maj. not being able to maintaine an army on the borders, after they had been so impoverished, through the long want of fine tradeing, and not to lay downe armes, untill their necessary and just desires were granted? Now let any judge, whether they can be justly blamed for standing to their defence, being thus necessitated as they would not betray the Land, their Lawes, their Liberties, & their Religion, & so sell their soul & consciences & all into the hands of their malitious enemies?

So then, when this shall be made the state of the question whether or not the Parliament, & body of the Kingdome of Scotland, may not lawfully take up armes (having no purpose to wronge his Maj. person, or to spoile him of his just rights & privileges) to defend themselves, Lands, Liberties & (no lesse then) their Religion after it had been setled by law: When the King (in stead of granting their just & necessary desires viz. security, that they should be ruled by lawfull generall Assemblies, & other inferiour Church judicatories in Church matters, according to the ancient discipline of the Church: And by a free Parliament in civill matters, according to the foundamentall lawes of the Land; And that they might be free from illegall courts & alteration in their Religion: & that the articles of agreement should be keeped & that granted which was promised under hand & seal) is raising a strong army of forraigners, Irish, Popish, prelaticall, & malignant enemies to the Church & kingdome of Scotland intending to destroy their Land, Liyes, & liberties, to overturn their Religion, & Privileges; & for this end blocketh them up by sea & Land, fortifyeth Castles in their bosome, giving them commission to destroy all they could & denunceth them all rebells & treatours? Sure it may be supposed that, seing this is the true state of the question it shall easily be granted, that this was a necessary defensive warre, & that Scotland could do no lesse then they did, unlesse they would have willingly betrayed their Religion & all which they had as men, p. 160or as Christians, into the hands of their bloody & cruell adversaries, which no law would have warranded them to do.

But to put a close to this. This their practice is abundantly warranted.

1. By Lawyers affirming that such a defensive warre, Cui libet, omni jure, ipsoque rationis ductu permissa est. Such a warre is warranted to all, by all lawes imaginable. Spigelius tels …s in his Lexicon tit. bellum. That [that is a just warre which is undertaken for defence,] & citeth l…t Vim. ff. de just. & jur. Yea he tels us that if a warre be not undertaken for defence, it is sedition, though carryed on by the Emperour; for he can no more hurt by warre then he can take away a man's life without a cause, & againe he telleth us, that that is a just & necessary warre, Quod sit se & sua defendendo, that is, for defence of a man's life, lands, and goods, and liberties, and what is dear unto him. Hence is that common saying, Vim…i repellere omnia jura permittunt. It is lawfull by all law, to resist violence by force of armes. And, Defendere se est juris naturae & gentium. The law of nature and nations teacheth every man to defend himself. And Cajus the lawyer sayeth, That the very law of nature permitteth a man to defend himself against danger. And Florenti…s, It is right that what ever a man hath done in the defence of his own body, should be accounted lawfully done. Yea Ovid tells us the same, Armaque in armatos sum…re jura sinunt.

To meet arm'd men with armes, all lawes allow.

2. By the concessions of adversaries; for they grant that it is lawfull to flee from the tyranny of abused authority, as Moses did Exod. 2. David, 2 Sam. 19. Elisha, 1 King. 19. Ioseph & Christ, Mat. 2. & this Christ warranteth expresly Mat. 10. Now this flying is a plaine resisting of rulers, & if resisting be unlawful, this must be unlawfull likewise, & if this be not unlawfull, resisting cannot be unlawfull: for the the same justice & equity which warrandeth men by flight to decline unjust assaults, doth also warrand an escapeing of them by resistence, when flight will not do it: (Which was indeed the case of Scotland, for it is not imaginable, how a whole p. 161land, man, wife, & child, old & young, sick, & whole, can flee from their habitations & goe seek their livelyhoods in other Kingdomes; beside, that it is a great question, if the States of a land, the peers & inferiour judges, were bound, by flying to leave the Land, Liberties & all, unto their enemies, if they had power to defend themselves) for if the law of nature oblige men to preserve themselves by flight from tyranny it doth also oblige them to defend themselves by resisting, when they cannot conveniently secure themselves by flight; o… when they cannot flee without betraying of the countrey, Religion & all. All this will be so much the clearer if it be considered that if a tyrant hath legall power from God to kill, he hath the same legall power to summon legally, & siste before his tribunall, such & such persons: And therefore if it be unlawfull to resist his tyrannous murthers, it must be also unlawfull to resist his legall citations to that effect, & so unlawfull to flee; for one & the same power citeth & judgeth: Therefore if the law of defence warrand one to resist his summonds, & not to compeer it warrandeth one to resist his tyranny, if he can be able; It is true the one resistence is more, but majus & minus non variant speciem: And if the one be a fault in conscience, so must the other be: See Lex Rex, Pag. 325, 326. Next, they grant that it is lawfull for subjects to resist a forraigne enemy, invadeing the land with armes; & thus their practice is justified. It is true their enemies had the Kings Commission; but the having or wanting of such a commission, will not alter the case of the land, which is put to defend it self: For whether these enemies have such a commission or not, they are strangers & forraigne enemies to the land, & they come with a hostile minde to destroy, & to conquere the same; & therefore what ever commission they have, the people are bound to defend themselves, their Families, young & old, their Lands, their Liberties, & their Religion, & all which they have. They grant also, that a privat man may defend himself, when violently assaulted, & his life is in danger, & when he can no way escape, he may rather kill as be killed. So Gro…us de …re Belli ac Pacis, Lib. 2. c. 1. §. 3. Si corpus impetatur vi praesente p. 162cum periculo vitae non aliter vitabil…, tunc bellum esse licitum, etiam cum interfectione periculum inferentis. Much more will this hold good in the case of a whole Kingdom, when they are assaulted by cruell enemies & cannot escape with their wives & children; but must needs fall upon the sword of these bloody enemies, unlesse they use an innocent & lawfull resistence Yea ibid. §. 6. He granteth that in case a man be in danger to suffer mutilation he may resist; Seing the losse of a member especially if it be a chief member, is sad, & in some respect comparable to the life; And moreover (sayeth he) it can not be known whether or not the life may not be in danger thereby: Will not this then serve abundantly to justify Scotland, when their enemies came with a purpose not only to mutilat but also to kill? They grant likewise that a maid may resist the King when he is seeking to abuse her; And shall not an army of malignants be resisted, who if they get their will would abuse Virgines, & marryed Women also.

3. By the law of Nature, Nature hath given to beasts & birds power & ability to defend themselves, hence that

——Omnibus hostem

Praesidiumque datum sentire, & noscere teli,

Vimque modumque sui.

'T is given to all, their foe to know,

And how to guaird and warde the blow:

To know their weapon ev'n by sense,

And how to use it in defence.

And that of Horace,

Dente Lupus, corn… Taurus petit, unde nisi in…

Monstratum?

That Wolves with tearing teeth and mouth,

And Buls with pushing horns pursu'th,

Whence is it that this skill they have;

Nature within, it to them ga…e

p. 163And that of Lucretius,

Sentit enim vim quidque suam, quae possit abuti,

Cornna nota prius vitulo, quam frontibus extant:

Illis iratus petit, atque infensus inurget.

Creatures their strength do early know,

Which they may use, abuse also,

The calf his horns doth know, before

On's fore head they shew lesse or more:

Pushing with them in tender age,

And pressing hard as in a rage.

& shall beasts be in a better condition then man? Shall a bull have liberty to defend it self with horns, & shall man have no liberty to defend himself against tyrants, or souldeours in their name coming to kill, plunder, burn, & slay all? Nature alloweth, Vim vi repellere, To resist violence with violence, to all; & against all violence without exception; Nature can put no difference betwixt violence offered by a Magistrat, & violence offered by another person. Defensio vitae necessariae est, & a jure naturali profluit; It is necessary by the law of nature that a Man defend his life. And the reason is because God hath implanted in every Creature, inclinations, & motions to preserve it self. Each are bound to love themselves better then their neighbours, for the love of themselves is the measure of that love which they owe to their neighbour. The law of nature alloweth one rather to kill then to be killed, & to defend himself more then his neighbour, Cicero Lib. 1. De Officiis sayeth [Injustitiae duo genera sunt, &c. There are two kindes of wrongs, one of these who do the wrong, the other of those who when they may hold off the wrong, do it not: He who without cause feteth upon any, being angry, or some other way stirred up, layeth violent hands upon his neighbour; but he who doth not defend nor resist the injury when he may, is as farr in the wrong as if he should desert his parents, his friends, & his countrey.] And againe, cum sint duo genera decertandi; &c. p. 164There are two kindes of contending, one by argueing which is propper to men, the other by force, which is propper to beasts, we must flee to this last when we cannot make use of the former] & againe in his Orat. pro Milone he sayeth, Est haec non scripta, &c. [This law is not a law written, but a law borne with us, we have not learned it, nor acquired it', nor read it, but we have taken it, drawne it, & extracted it from nature it self, to which we are not taught but made, we are not instructed but are endued with it, that if our life be in hazard by snares, by violence, & darts of thieves or enemies all honest wayes must be assayed to free our life. So reason teacheth this to the learned, necessity to the Barbarians & custome to nations, & to beasts nature it self hath prescribed this, that whatever way they can, they should resist all violence & save their lives.] Thus you see nature it self and such as spoke by the light of nature do warrand such a practice.

4. By the law of nations, the actions of some of which have been mentioned already & he who desireth to see more may consult [Prin's Appendix to his soveraigne power of Parliaments, &c.]

5. By the law of God; as we see by many examples. 1. Of David who being but a privat man, & a subject, & now unjustly persecuted by Saul the King, who was seeking his life, is forced to defend himself with armes, by taking to him first 600. men 1. Chron. 12. & then a great host v. 22, 36. & this was warranted of God, for the Spirit of God commendeth them for their valour v. 2, 8, 15, 21. And the Spirit coming on Am…sai v. 18. prompting him to speak what he spoke cleareth it also. 2. of Elisha, 2. King. 6: 32. He keepeth out the house against the King, by force; & resisteth him who was coming to use unjust violence. 3. Of the 80 Priests who resisted Uzziah: 2. Chron. 26. 17. Those are called most valient men & it is said [they withstood Uzziah & they thrust him out.] 4. Of the people their rescueing of Ionathan 1. Sam. 14. unjustly condemned to die. They resisted the Kings act & edict notwithstanding of his oath: Yea they did swear the contradictorie of the Kings oath. 5. Of Libnah revolting from Ichora…. 2. Chron. p. 16521: 10. because he pressed them to idolatry, as is probable from v. 13. so sayeth Lavater, Zanchius & Cornel a lap. see for this also that noble commentator Trochreg on the Ephespag. 923 6. of the city Abell resisting Ioab. 2. Sam. 20. 7. of Elijah. 2. King. 1. killing many hundereds of the Kings men & emissaries sent to apprehend him. 8. By Christ bidding his disciples Luk. 22: 36, 37, 38. Buy swords. Nor is there any thing in scripture contrary to this; for the passages of which the adversaries make use, do either speak against opposeing of lawfull acts of just governours, as Eccles. 8: 2, 3, 4. Numb. 16. Rom. 13. 1 Pet. 2: 13, 14. or against opposeing of inferiour Magistrats, as well as others, & so serve not their purpose, such as 1 Pet. 2:1 4. &c. Rom. 13. Exod. 22:28. Iob 34:18. or speaketh not of a pure defensive warre but of seeking the utter destruction & ruine of the supreme Magistrat, as some of David's expressions, which they make use of.

6. By right reason: for there is no striker obligation betuixt a prince & his subjects then betuixt parents & children, yea not so stricke; & yet if the father become distracted & rise up in a fury to kill his children, the children may lawfull joyn together & resist him, & binde his hands; So may the wife resist the unjust violence of her unnaturall husband, much more may subjects resist the unjust violence of their King. 2. Otherwise a King who was an ordinance of God ordained for a rich blessing; should become the greatest curse imaginable, if actu primo he be invested of God with power to tyrannize; & the people be put out of all capacity to resist, he should become the greatest of curses to a people. 3. This should crosse the end for which people did set up a King over themselves; it was to preserve them, & to keep them from wrongs & not to put power in his hand to kill & murther them as he pleaseth. 4. This would put rationall creatures into a worse condition then the beasts are into for if their King will, he may cut all their throats, destroy all their liberties, ravish all their wives, & doughters, destroy all their lands & livings, & that without any controle or the least resistence imaginable. But who can beleeve this? Yea put the case there were but three or foure Kings in all the world p. 166all the lives of the rest should be at their devotion; so that if they in a fit of fury & madnesse give out the word of command, they may cause kill all, without any resistence: & would not this reflect upon the wisdome & godnesse of God, if he ordered matters so? but the absurditie of this is abundantly clear so that more needeth not be said. He who desireth more satisfaction in this question may peruse Innius Brutus his vindiciae contra tyrannos Quest. 3. a book as yet unanswered by any: and Lex rex which gote never another answer nor a fagot, a quike way forsooth of dispatching an answer, & Mr Prins [Soveraigne power of Parliaments &c.] Where the matter is fully cleared both in poynt of law & conscience, which was published by order of Parliament: and a book intituled de jure Magistratus insubditos: & Trochreg's commentary on the Ephesians where he will finde this question prudently judiciously and satisfactorily handled from pag. 911. to 925.

Thus in some measure is this Ninth particular cleared & the Iawfulnesse of Scotland's defensive warre clearly showne, & hereby the unlawfulnesse of swearing any oath, which might have imported a condemning of that warre, is also demonstrated.

By what hath been said to this Ninth particular, the Tenth & last is likewise cleared viz. The lawfulnesse of Scotland their seizing upon the Castles within themselves: For if it be lawfull for a land to defend themselves; & to use resistence by armes, in their own necessary defence; It is also lawfull for them to seize upon such castles & strengths, as may prove a fit & necessary meane of defence. It is lawfull to possesse these, & keep them out against the enemies of the countrey, who if they had them, would make use of them for the destruction of the land & for the subversion of Religion, Lives, & liberties: What ever law will allow of self defence, will also allow the use of all fit meanes for that end; For the end includeth the meanes leading to the end. Moreover these Castles & Fortifications were originally appointed for the saifty & security of the Kingdome, & of none else, & therefore at the learge treaty, it is concluded in answer to the second demand; [That the Castle of p. 167Edinburgh and other strengths of the Kingdome should with the advice of the Estates of the Parliament, according to their first fundation, be fournished and used for defence and security of the Kingdom.] So that hereby the King approved of all which was done in this businesse, before: & acknowledged that according to their first fundation they were for the Kingdom's advantage. It is true, these Castles were annexed to the Crown Parl. 11. Act 41. King Iames 11. but that was done to guaird against the poverty of the real me, & for all that the King might not give them away in fee or heritage, nor in franck tenement without the advice, deliverance & decreet, of the whole Parliament: And for great, soon, & reasonable causes of the realme, otherwise any alienation or disposition was to be of no avail; And it was enacted that the Kings of Scotland should be sworne at their coronation to keep his statute in all points: & Act 9. Parl. 9. king Iam. 6. sayeth that [These Castles are for the welfare of the realme, as well as for his Maj. behoofe: so Act. 125. Parl. 7. K. Iam. 6. The Castles are called, the keyes of the realme. So though the King hath the custody & command of them, yet it is alwayes in order to the right end, that is, for the saifty & good of the countrey, & if he should make use of them, for the ruine & destruction of the countrey, they should be abused, & might lawfully be taken out of his hand & converted to the right use, as when a father turning mad will kill his children with a sword, the children may lawfully take the sword from him with which, he was bound to defend them, against the common enemy, & make use of it in their own defence. Castles & fortifications are not the King's patrimony, but belong to him as King & Governour of the land, so that he is to make no use of them, but for the countreyes good, he cannot dispone & sell them as he may do other things, that belong to his patrimony: Therefore Scotl. cannot be blamed, for seizing on these for their own saifty, seing this is their native end, & the only thing they were ordained for. Nor can any be blamed for refuseing that oath which would have imported a condemning of this lawfull & necessary deed.

Thus reader thou hast shortly laid before thee a hint of what p. 168clear grounds there were, of stumbling at the taking of this oath as to the very civil part thereof, seing this civil supremacy is & must be the same with his perogative & his prerogative is such as hath been showne. A difference betuixt the supremacy & the prerogative is not imaginable, unlesse it be this. that the supremacy is more comprehensive, & taketh in all the prerogative & something more: yea by some posteriour acts, they are made of one & the same latitude, as in the act for the national Synod, the setling of the external government of the church is said to belong to his Maj. as an inherent right of the crown. & how? by vertue of his prerogative royall and supreme authority: so that, his prerogative royall & supreme authority are made one: & if they be one as to ecclesiastical matters much more must they be one & the same, as to civill matters: & more clearly in the King's commission for the heigh commission, where it is said His Maj. by vertue of his royall prerogative in all causes and over all persons etc: so that any may see that his supremacy over all causes is one & the same thing with his prerogative. Moreover this is certane that who soever do acknowledge & recognosce the King's power & supremacy, in all causes, and over all persons, do acknowledge & recognosce all that which they say agreeth to him as King, and who soever do acknowledge & recognosce this, do acknowledge & recognosce his royall prerogatives: for his royall prerogatives are such things, as agree to him as King, because they are annexed to the crown, as they say. It is true in their 11 act of parl: the acknowledgment of his Maj. prerogative is mentioned beside the oath of alleagiance: But that will nor make them to differ so far; yea the acknowledgment of his Maj. prerogative is but explicatory of a part of that supremacy mentioned in the oath of alleagiance. So that his prerogative over parliaments & over their actions & over all other subjects, is but a part of that supremacy which they say he hath over all persons & in all causes. So in the oath for asserting his majesties prerogative, defensive armes & the Kingdomes entering in a league with England & all their proceedings in the work of reformation are condemned, & this cannot be denyed, though there be an expresse oath afterward conceived of purpose for that end, viz the declaration set forth. …ept. 2. 1662.