A Hind Let Loose, Part 3 · Head 2 (2 of 5)

A Hind Let Loose · Part 3 · Head 2 (2 of 5)

p. 31312. As I said before; wary Prudence, in waving such an impertinent & Ticklish Question, cannot be condemned: p. 314since what ever he may be in conscience, no man in Law can be obliged, so far to surrender the common Priviledge of all Mankind, to give an account of all his inward thoughts, which are alwise said to be free. And as in nothing they are more various, so in nothing they can be more violented, than to have our opinion & sentiments of the current Government extorted from us; a declining of which Declaration of thoughts, where no overt Act in project or practice can be proven against it, cannot be Treason in any Law in the world: So a Cautelous Answer, in such a ticklish & entrapping imposition, cannot be censured in point of Lawfullnesse of expediency, even though much be concedded, to stop the Mouths of these bloody Butchers, gaping greedily after the blood of the Answerer; if he do not really oune, but give them to understand he cannot approve of, this Tyranny. But as these poor faithful Witnesses, who were helped to be most free, have alwise been honoured with the most signal Countenance of the Lord in a happy issue of their Testimony: So those that used their Prudentials most, in seeking shifts to sh…n severity, and studying to satisfie these Inquisitors with their stretched Concessions, were ordinarly more exposed to snares, and found less satisfaction in their Sufferings, even though they could say much to justify, or at least extenuate their Shiftings. I knew one, who had proof of this, who afterwards was ashamed of this kind of Prudence. A short account of whose managing of Answers to this Question, because it may conduce somewhat to the explication of it, may here be hinted. The question moved after the usual forme, was, Do ye onne the Authority of King Iames the 7? In answer to which, he pleaded first, for the immunity of his thoughts, which he said were not subject to theirs or any Tribunal. When this could not be an evasion from their extortions, he objected the ambiguity of the termes in which the Question was conceived, being capable of diverse senses: And inquired, what they meant by Authority? what by ouning Authority? By Authority, whether did they mean the Administration of it, as now improved? if so, then he was not satisfied with it: or the right as now p. 315established? if so, then he was not clear to give his opinion of it; as being neither significant nor necessary, and that it was fitter for Lawyers, and those that were better acquaint with the Arcana Imperii, than for him to dispute it. Again he asked, what they meant by ouning? either it is Passive subjection; that he did not decline: or Active acknowledgment of it; and that he said he looked upon as all the suffrage he could give to its establishment in his station, which he must demur upon some scruple. The replies he received were very various, and some of them very rare, either for ignorance or imposture. Sometimes it was answered: To oune the Kings Authority, is to take the Oath of Allegiance; this he refused. Some answered, it is to engage never to rise in Armes against the King upon any pretence whatsoever; this he refused likewise. Others explained it to be, to acknowledge his right to be King: To this he answered, when the Authority is Legally devolved upon him by the Representatives of both Kingdoms, it was time enough for him to give account of his sentiments. Others defined it, to oune him to be Lawful King by succession: To this he Answered, he did not understand succession could make a man formally King, if there were not some other way of Conveyance of it; it might put him in the nearest Capacity to be King, but could not make him King. Some did thus Paraphrase upon it, that he must oune him to be his Soveraign Lord under God, and Gods vicegerent, to be obeyed in all things Lawful: To this he answered, whom God appoints, and the People choose according to Law, he would oune. When those shifts would not do, but from time to time being urged to a Categorical Answer; he told them, he was content to live in subjection to any Government Providence set up, but for ouning the present Constitution as of God and according to Law, he durst not acknowledge it, nor oune any Mortal as his Lawful Soveraign, but in termes consistent with the Covenant securing Religion and Liberty. This not satisfying, when he came to a more pinching Trial; he declared, he ouned all Lawful Authority according to the Word of God, and all Authority that was p. 316the Ordinance of God by His Preceptive Will, and he could be subject to any; but further to acknowledge it, he behooved to have more clearness, for sometimes a Nation might be charged with that, ye have set up Kings and not by me &c Further he conceded, he ouned his providential Advancement to the Throne; he ouned as much as he thought did oblige him to subject himself with patience; he ouned him to be as Lawful as providence possessing him of the Throne of his Ancestors, and Lineal succession, as presumed next in blood & line, could make him: But still he declined to oune him as Lawful King, and alledged that was all one, whether he was Lawful or not, he refused not subjection, distinguishing it always from Allegiance. But all these concessions did not satisfie them, & they alledged he might say all this of a Tyrant: & therefore commanded him to give it under his hand, to oune not only the Lineal but the Legal succession of King Iames the 7. to the Croun of Scotland: which he did, upon a fancy that Legal did not import Lawful, but only the formality of their Law; withal protesting, he might not be interpreted to approve of his succession. But this was a vain Protestatio contra factum. However by this we see, what is ouning this Authority, in the sense of the Inquisitors. The result of all is, to acknowledge Allegiance to the present possessor, and to approve his pretended Authority as Lawful, Rightful, & Righteous: which indeed is the true sense of the Words, and any other that men can forge or find out is strained. For, to speak properly, if we oune his Authority in any respect, we oune it to be Lawful: for eyery Authority, that is ouned to be Authority indeed, is Lawful; Authority alwayes importing Authorization, and consisting in a Right or Call to rule, and is formally & essentially contradistinct to Usurpation: wherever the place of power is meerly usurped, there is no Authority but verbo tenu…; A Style without truth, a barely pretended nominal equivocal Authority, no real denomination: if we then oune this Mans Authority, we oune it to be Lawful Authority: And if we cannot oune it so, we cannot oune it at all. For it is most suitable, either to manly ingenuity, p. 317or Christian simplicity, to speak properly, and to take words always in the sense that they to whom they are speaking will understand them, without equivacating.

These Preliminaries being thus put by, which do contribute to clear somewhat in this Controversie, and both furnish us with some Arguments for, and solutions in most of the objections against, my Thesis in answer to the Question above stated. I set it doun thus. A people long oppressed with the Encroachments of Tyrants & Usurpers, may disoune all Allegiance to their pretended Authority, and when imposed upon to acknowledge it, may & must ratber chuse to suffer, than to oune it. And consequently we cannot as matters now stand oune, acknowledge, or approve the pretended Authority of King Iames the 7. as Lawful King of Scotland; as we could not as matters then stood oune the Authority of Charles the 2. This consequence is abundantly clear from the foregoing deduction, demonstrating their Tyranny & usurpation. In prosecuting of this General Thesis, which will evince the particular Hypothesis: I shall. 1. Adduce some Historical Instances, whence it may be gathered, that this is not altogether without a precedent, but that people have disouned Allegiance to Tyrants & Usurpers, before now. 2. Deduce it from the Dictates of reason. 3. Confirme it by Scripture Arguments.

I. Albeit, as was shewed before, this Question as now stated, is in many respects unprecedented; yet the practice, which in our day hath been the result of it, to wit, to disoune or not to oune Prevailing Dominators Usurping the Government or abusing it, is not so alien from the examples of History, but that by Equivalency or consequence it may be collected from, & confirmed by instances.

1. To begin at home, besides many Passages related already for confirmation, we may adde (1) That for about 1025. years, the people had in their choise whom to oune ar admit to succeed in the Government, even though the Kingdom was hereditary; and used to elect, not such who were nearest in blood & line, but these that were judged most fit for Government, being of the same progeny p. 318of Fergus, Buchan. Rer. Scot. lib. 6. pag. 195. in vita Kennethi. 3. This continued until the dayes of Kenneth the 3. who to cover his villanous Murder of his Brothers Son Malcolm, and prevent his and secure his oun sons succession, procured this Charter for Tyranny, the settlement of the succession of the next in line from the Parliament: which, as it pretended the prevention of many inconveniences, arising from Contentions & Competions about the succession; So it was limited by Lawes, Precluding the succession of Fools or Monsters, and preserving the peoples liberty to shake off the yoke, when Tyranny should thereby be introduced: Otherwise it would have been not only an irrational surrender of all their oune Rights, & enslaving the posterity, but an irreligious contempt of Providence, refusing & anticipating its Determination in such a case. However it is clear, before this time, that as none but the fittest were admitted to the Government; So if any did usurpe upon it, or afterwards did degenerate into Tyranny, they took such order with him, as if he had not been admitted at all; as is clear in the instances of the first Period, and would never oune every pretender to hereditary succession. (2) As before Kenneths dayes, it is hard to reckon the numerous Instances of Kings that were dethroned, or imprisoned, or slain, upon no other account than that of their oppression & Tyranny: So afterwards, they maintained the same power & priviledge of repressing them, when ever they began to encroach. And although no Nation hath been more patient towards bad Kings, as well as Loyal towards good ones; yet in all former times, they understood so well their Right they had, and the duty they owed to their oun preservation, as that they seldom failed of calling the exorbitantly flagitious to an account. And albeit, in stead of condoling or avenging the death of the Tyrannous, they have often both excused & justified it, yet no Kingdom hath inflicted severer Punishments upon the Murderers of just & righteous Princes: And therefore, though they did neither enquire after, nor animadvert upon those that slew Iames the 3. a flagitious Tyrant, yet they did by most exquisite Torments p. 319put them to death who slew Iames the 1. a vertuous Monarch. Hence, because these & other instances I mind to adduce of deposing Tyrants, may be excepted against, as not pertinent to my purpose, who am not pleading for exauctoration & deposition of Tyrants, being impracticable in our case: I shall once for all remove that, and desire it may be considered. [1] That though we cannot formally exauctorate a Tyrant; yet he may ipso jure fall from his right, and may exauctorate himself, by His Law by whom Kings reign; and this is all we plead for as a foundation of not ouning him. [2] Though we have not the same power, yet we have the same grounds, and as great & good if not greater & better reasons to reject & disoune our Tyrant, as they whose example is here adduced had to depose some of their Tyrannizing Princes. [3] If they had power & ground to depose them, then a fortiori they had power & ground to disoune them; for that is less & inculded in the other, and this we have. [4] Though it should be granted, that they did not disoune them before they were deposed; yet it cannot be said that they did disoune them only because they were deposed: for it is not deposition that makes a Tyrant; it only declares him to be justly punished, for what he was before. As the sentance of a Judge does not make a man a murderer or Thief, only declares him convict of these Crimes, & punishable for them; its his oun committing them that makes him Criminal: And as before the sentance, having certain knowledge of the fact, we might disoune the Mans innocency or honesty; So a Rulers Acts of Tyranny & Usurpation make him a Tyrant & Usurper, and give ground to disoune his just & legal Authority; which he can have no more than a Murtherer or Thief can have innocency or honesty. (3) We find also examples of their disouning Kings undeposed; as King Baliol was disouned with his whole race, for attempting to enslave the Kingdoms Liberties to forreign power. And if this may be done for such an attempt, as the greatest Court parasites & Sycophants consent; what then shall be done for such as attempt to subject the people to Domestick or Intestine Slaverie? Shall we p. 320refuse to be slaves to one without, and be, & oune our selves contented Slaves to one with in the Kingdom? It is known also that King Iames the 1. his Authority was refused by his subjects in France, so long as he was a Prisoner to the English there, though he charged them upon their Allegiance, not to fight against the party who had his person Prisoner: They answered, they ouned no Prisoner for their King, nor owed no Allegiance to a Prisoner. Hence Princes may learn, though people submit to their Government; yet their resignation of themselves to their obedience is not so full, as that they are obliged to oune Allegiance to them, when either Morally or Physically they are incapacitate to exerce Authority over them. They that cannot rule themselves, cannot be ouned as Rulers over a people.

2. Neither hath there been any Nation, but what at one time or other hath furnished examples of this Nature. The English History gives account, how some of their Kings have been dealt with by their Subjects, for impieties against the Law & Light of Nature, and encroachments upon the Lawes of the Land. Vortigernu… was dethroned for incestously marying his oun Sister. Neither did ever Blasphemies, Adulteries, Murders, Plotting against the lives of Innocents, and taking them away by Poison or Razor, use to escape the animadversion of men, before they were Priest-ridden unto a belief that Princes persons were sacred. And if men had that generosity now, this man that now reigns might expect some such animadversion. And we find also King Edward, & Richard the 2. were deposed, for Usurpation upon Lawes & Liberties, in doing whereof the people avowed. They would not suffer the Lawes of England to be changed. Surely the people of England must now be far degenerate, who having such Lawes transmitted to them from their worthy Ancestors, and they themselves being born to the possession of them without a Change, do now suffer them to be so encroached upon, and mancipate themselves, & leave their Children vassals to Poperie, & slaves to Tyranny.

3. The Dutch also, who have the best way of guiding p. 321of Kings of any that ever had to do with them (witness their having so many of them in Chains, now in Batavia in the East Indies) are not wanting for their part to furnish us with examples. When the King of Spain would not condescend to govern them according to their Ancient Lawes, and rule for the good of the people, they declared him to be fallen from the Seigniorie of the Netherlands, and so erected themselves into a flourishing Common-wealth. It will not be amiss to transcribe some of the words of the Edict of the Estates General to this purpose. It is well known, (say they) that a Prince & Lord of a Countrey is Ordained by God to be Soveraign & Head over his subjects, to preserve & defend them from all injuries, force, & violence, and that if the Prince therefore faileth therein, and in stead of preserving his subjects, doth outrage & oppress them, depriveth them of their Priviledges & Ancient Customs, commandeth them and will be served of them as slaves; they are no longer bound to respect him as their Soveraign Lord, but to esteem of him as a Tyrant, neither are they bound to acknowledge him as their Prince, but may abandon him &c. And with this aggrees the answer of William Prince of Orange to the Edict of Proscription, published against him by Philip. the II. There is, sayes he, a Reciprocal Bond betwixt the Lord & his vassal; so that if the Lord break the Oath, which he hath made unto his vassal, the vassal is discharged of the Oath made unto his Lord. This was the very Argument of the poor suffering people of Scotland, whereupon they disouned the Authority of Charles the Second.

4. The Monarchy of France is very absolute; yet there also the State hath taken order with their Tyrants; not only have we many instances of resistances made against them, but also of disouning, disabling, & invalidating their pretended Authority & repressing their Tyranny. So was the two Childerici served: So also Sigebertus, Dagabertus, and Lodowick the II. Kings of France.

5. The great body of Germany moves very slowly, and is inured to bear great burdens: yet there also we find Ioan…a of Austria Mother of Charles the 5. was put to perpetual p. 318duplicate page p. 319duplicate page p. 320duplicate page p. 321duplicate page p. 322sonment: which example is adduced by the Earle of Mortoun, in his discourse to the Queen of England (whereof I rehearsed a part before) vindicating the deposing & disouning Queen Mary of Scotland. If, saith he, we compare her with Ioanna of Austria—what did that poor wretch commit, but that she could not want a litle lustful pleasure, as a remedy necessary for her age? And yet poor Creature, she suffered that punishment, of which our Dame convicted of most grievous Crimes now complains— Buchan. Rer. Scotic. l. b. 20. pag. 748. The Duke of Saxon, the Landgrave of Hesse and the Magistrats of Magdeburgh, joined in a war against her Son Charles the 5. and drew up a conclusion by resolution of Lawyers, wherein are these words—Neither are we bound to him by any other reason, than if he keep the conditions on which he was created Emperour. By the Laws themselves it is provided, that the Superior Magistrate shall not infringe the right of the inferior, & if the Superior Magistrate exceed the Limits of his power, and command that which is wicked, not only we need not obey him, but if he offer force we may resist him. Which Opinion is confirmed by some of the greatest Lawyers, and even some who are Patrons of Tyranny, Grotius none of the greatest enemies of Tyrants, de jure belli lib. 1. cap. 4. n: 11. sayth out of Barclaius, & with him, that the King doth loss his power when he seeketh the destruction of his subjects. It was upon the account of the Tyranny of that bloody house of Austria over the Helvetians, that they shook off the rule & Government of that family, and established themselves into a Republick. And at this present time, upon the same accounts, the Tyranny & Treachery of this Imperial Majestie, the Hungarians have essayed to maintain & justify a revolt in disouning the Emperour, now for several years.

6. Polland is an Elective Kingdom, and so cannot but be fertile of many instances of casting off Tyrants. Henricus Valesius, disouned for fleeing, and Sigismuadus for violating his faith to the States, may suffice. Lex Rex Q. 24. Pag. 217.

p. 3237. In Denmark, we find Christiernus their King, was for his intollerable Cruelty put from the Kingdom, he and all his Posterity, and after twenty years did end his life in Prison.

8. In Swedland, within the Compass of one Century, the people deposed & banished the two Christierns, and dethroned & imprisoned Ericus, for their oppressions & Tyranny, and for pursuing the destruction of their Subjects.

9. The Portugieses, not many years ago, laid aside and confined Alphonsus their King, for his rapines & Murders.

10. Some Dukes of Venice have been so disouned by these Common-wealths men, that laying aside their Royal honours as private men, they have spent their dayes in Monasteries. Buchan. de jure regni apud Scotos.

11. If we will revolve the old Roman Histories, we shall find no small store of such examples, both in the time of their Kings, Consuls, & Emperours. Their seventh King Tarquinius Superbus, was removed by the people, for his evident Usurpation: Neque enim ad jus regni quicquam praeter vim habebat, ut qui neque populi jussu, neque Patribus Authoribus, regnavit, sayth Livius i.e. for he had nothing for a right to the Government, but meer force, and got the rule neither by the peoples consent & choise, nor by the Authority of the Senators. So afterwards the Empire was taken from Vitellius, Heliogabulus, Maximinus, Didius Iulianus, Lex Rex, ub, supra.

12. But it will be said. Can there be any Instances of the Primitive Christians adduced? Did ever they, while groaning under the most insupportable Tyranny of their Persecuting Emperours, disoune their Authority, or suffer for not ouning it? To this I answer. 1. What they did or did not of this Kind, is not of moment to inquire: seeing their practice & Example, under such disavantages, can neither be known exactly, nor what is known of it be accommodated to our case: for (1) they were never forced to give their judgement, neither was the question ever put to them, whether they ouned their Authority or p. 324not: if they transgressed the Lawes, they were lyable to the punishment, they craved no more of them. (2) They confess themselves to be strangers, that had no establishments by Law, and therefore they behoved to be passively subject, when in no capacity to resist; there was no more required of them. Yet Lex Rex Quest. 35. pag. 371. cites Theodoret affirming, Th…n evil men reigned through the unmanlyness of the sub…ects. (3) Their examples are not imitable in all things: They were against resistence, which we doubt not to prove is Lawful against Tyrannical vio…ence: Many of them refused to flee from the fury of Persecuters: They ran to Martyrdom, when neither cited nor accused; And to obtain the Croun thereof they willingly yeelded up their lives & Liberties also to the rage or Tyrants. We cannot be obliged to all these. 2 Yet we find some examples not altogether unapplicable to this purpose. When Barochbach, the pretended King of the Iewes, after the destruction of Ierusalem, set himself up as King in Bitter a City in Arabia; the Christians that were in his precincts, refused to oune him as King; which was one great cause of his persecuting them. Its true he persecuted them also for other things, as for their not denying Christ; So are we persecuted for many other things, than for our simple disouning of the King: yet this is reckoned as a distinct cause of their suffering, by Mr Mede on the Revel. Part. 1. Pag. 43. Gees Magist. Origin. ch. 10. Sect. 7. Pag. 361. The same last cited Author shewes, that when Albinus, Niger; & Cassius, successively usurped the Empire, having none of them any Legal investure, the Christians declined the recognition of their Claim, and would not oune them; and that upon this Tertulian sayes, Nunquam Albiniani, nec Nigriani, vel Cassiani, inveniri potuerunt Christiani, that is, the Christians could never be found to be Albinians, or Nigrians, or Cassians, meaning they were never ouners of these men for Magistrats. And so may we say, Pudet inveniri inter Carolinianos & Iacobinianos hujus temporis. Not unlike is the passage of Ambrose, who in favors of Valentinia… the rightful Governour, contested against Maximus the Tyrant, and not only disouned him but excommunicated him, for which p. 325he was threatened with death. And yet it is observable, that when Maximus offered to interpose his power in defence of Ambrose, that he might not be banished by Iustina the Empress, he would not accept of the help of Maximus, whose power he disallowed & disouned. Whence I observe, that it is not without a Precedent for a Minister to disoune a Tyrant, to refuse favour from him, yea and to excommunicate him, yea even without the concurrence of his fainting brethren; for all which some of our faithful Ministers have been much condemned in our day, especially Mr Donald Cargil for excommunicating Charles the Second & Iames Duke of York, as if such a thing had never been done before: Whereas we see what Ambrose did to Maximus. And this same faithful Minister Ambrosius Minister at Millain, in Italy, did also hold out of the Assembly of the Christians Theodosius the Emperour though a most vertuous Prince, for that grievous Scandal committed by him, against the innocent people at Thessalonica, in killing so many of them in a Passionate transport. But 3. since this objection of the Primitive Christians is much insisted on, both against this and the head of defensive Armes: I shall further take notice of several distinctions, that do make the difference between their case & Ours very vast. (1) There is a great difference betuixt a Prince of the common Religion of his Subjects, but distinct from some of them, whom yet he does not seek to entice to his Religion, but gives them liberty & the benefite of the Law as other Subjects: (which was the case of many in these primitive times sometimes.) And a Prince by all means, both foul & fair, pressing to a revolt from the true and to embrace a false Religion. In this case (which is ours with a witness) it must be granted we should be wary, that we neither engage with him, nor oune Allegiance to him, when he would withdraw us from our Allegiance to God. (2) There is a great difference betuixt a Prince, persecuting the true Religion, which only a few of his subjects here & there did profess, who in regard of their Paucity were never in capacity to be looked upon as the body of the people, impowering him as their publick Servant: (which p. 326was their case) And a Prince persecuting that Religion… which was professed by the body of the Nation, when they sett him up. In this Latter case, men of great sense have denyed he should be ouned for a Prince, because then he is stated against the Common good. This was our case under the former King, and yet under this, though all Professors be not now persecuted, the publick Religion & Ancient Reformation is persecuted in a few, whom he intends to destroy, and in their destruction to bury it. (3) There is a difference, betwixt a Prince Persecuting Religion publickly ouned & received of his subjects, yet never approved nor confirmed by Law (as it was not in the primitive times) And a Prince persecuting Religion ratified & established by the Laws of the Land, which is our case. It will seem clear to every soul, not benighted with Court darkness, that he then de…acto and ipso jure falleth from his right in this case, because now he is not only stated against the common good, but against the very Laws by which the Subjects must be ruled. Then he ruleth not as a Prince▪ to whom the Law giveth his Measures & Bounds, but rageth as a Tiger & Tyrant, and ought to be carried towards as such. (4) There is a difference, betwixt a Prince suppressing that Religion established by Law, which he never professed, nor never gave his consent to these Laws (as might be the case of some of the Arian Emperours) though it be unlawful for any people to set up any Mortal over them, who is not in this case bound to the good behaviour; And a Prince, opposing, & oppressing that Religion, which himself hath professed and is ratified by Laws with his oun consent: which was our case under the former King, who did give the most solemn Ratification of them that ever was given, but afterwards most perfidiously retracted it. As also this Apostate Papist, did somtime profess himself Protestant, and consented to the Laws establishing it, and the Penal Statutes against Papists, though now he is going about to raze all, and ruine that alone valuable Treasure of our Nation, Religion. (5) There is a difference, betwixt a Prince consenting to Laws establishing Religion which he now persecuteth (which might have p. 327been the case of Iulian the Apostate) And a Prince who not only consented to these Laws, but who did upon these very terms & no other get & receive his Croun & Scepter, that he should preserve the Religion as Reformed, and protect as a Father the Professors thereof, and maintain the Laws establishing it, which yet he perfidiously & perniciously, being once settled in the Government, Breaks, Casts, Cassats, & Overturns (which was done by Charles) Or, And a Prince who will neither be bounded by the Laws he consented to, nor be bound to the Observation of any Laws whatsoever; but challenges it as his prerogative Royal, to be absolute above all Laws, and denying all Security upon terms, is free to destroy Religion & Liberty, and all the valuable Interests of the Nation, when he pleases. This is Iames his Character (6) There is a difference, betwixt a Prince breaking the main & only Article of his Covenant, in a fit of fury & rage, being transported upon some Mistakes (which was the case of Theodosius the Emperour) And a Prince not only violating this upon deliberation, but plainly Declaring, that neither Oath nor Declaration can or will bind him, but these being made void, he will destroy without restraint all these Covenanted priviledges (This was the case of Charles) Or, And a Prince, who, as he never will come under the bond of a Covenant with his people, So thô he make never so many fair promises with the greatest Solemnities, maintains a principle that he will keep no promises, but when & with whom he pleases, and can get a Dispensation to break all when he likes. (This is Iames his Ingenuity.) Sure in this case, Such as are so Characterized Declare themselves so far from being Princes, that they profess befor the world, they are no more men to be conversed with: for if neither their words, Writs, vowes, promises, Oaths, Declarations, nor Protestations, can bind them; what Society can be had with them? Are they not to be looked upon & carried towards as Common Enemies of Morality, Religion, Righteousness, Liberty, Humanity, yea even of Mankind it self? Now then, let the world be Judge, if the people of Scotland can be judged p. 328in Conscience, Reason, Prudence, Policie, or any imaginable way, bound to oune their Authority, being so Stated, and by the Act Rescissory all humane ground rescinded, that ever it shall be otherwise. let them go seek other slaves where they can find them, for we will not sell our selves & posteritie to Tyrants as slaves, nor give up our Religion and the exercise of it to the Mouldings of the Court.

II. In the Second place: It being clear from these forementioned Instances, that Tyrants & Uusurpers have been disouned; And it being also as clear as light can make any thing, from the foregoing Account of their Government, and all the Characters of Truculency Treachery, & Tyranny conspicuously relucent therein, that these two Gentlemen whose Authority we are pressed to oune, were Tyrants & Usurpers: It remains therefore to prove from all dictates of Reason about Government, that their pretended Authority could not nor cannot be ouned. For the Argument runs thus; The Authority of Tyrants & Uusurpers cannot be ouned: But the Authority of Charles & Iames was & is the Authority of Tyrants & Usurpers: Ergo their Authority cannot be ouned. Now its the Major of this Syllogisim that I under take to prove. The Minor being so clear from their History, that to prove it by witnesses were actum agere.

1. All Authority to be ouned of men must be of God, and ordained of God: for so the Apostle teacheth Expressly Rom. 13. 1. &c. Which is the alone formal reason of our Subjection to them, and that which makes it a damnable sin to resist them, because it is a resisting the Ordin…nce of God. The Lord ounes Himself to be the Author of Magistrats, Prov. 8. 15. By me Kings reign and Princes decree Iustice. As He is the Author of man and hath made him a sociable Creature so He is the Author of the Order of humane Society which is necessare for the Preservation of Mankind He being the God of Order & not of Confusion. And this must hold not only of the Supreme Authority, but of subordinate Magistrates also; for they must be included in the higher Powers to whom we must be subject Rom. 13. p. 329And they that resist them resist Gods Ordinance too. Their judgment is Gods, as well as the judgment of the Supreme Magistrate Deut. 1. 17. 2 Chron. 19. 6, 8. They are called Gods among whom the Lord judgeth, Psal. 82. 1. He speaketh not there of a Congregation of Kings. We are to be subject to them for the Lords sake, as well as to the Supreme Magistrat 1. Pet. 2. 13. Therefore all Magistrats superior & Inferior are ordained of God in the respective Places. Its true, Peter calls every degree of Magistracy, an Ordinance of man, not that he denies it to be an Ordinance of God (for so he would cantradict Paul Rom. 13.) but termes it so Emphatically, to commend the worth of obedience to Magistrats though but men, when we do it for the Lords sake: Not effectively as an invention of men, but subjectively because exercised by men, & created & invested by humane suffrages considered as men in Societie, and objectively for the good of man, and for the external Peace & safety of man thereby differenced from the Ministry, an Ordinance of Christ, for the spiritual good of mens souls. Hence, Those Rulers that are not of God nor ordained of God, cannot be ouned without sin: But Tyrants & Usurpers are the Rulers, that are not of God nor ordained of God, but are set up and not by Him &c. Hos. 8. 1-4. Therefore they cannot be ouned without sin. I refer it to any man of conscience & Reason to judge, if these Scriptures proving Magistracy to be the Ordinance of God, for which alone it is to be ouned, can be applyed to Tyrants & Usurpers: How will that Rom, 13. read of Tyrants? let every soul be subject to Tyrants, for they are ordained of God as His Ministers of Iustice &c. and are a terror to evil works and a praise to the good, would not every man nauseate that as not the Doctrine of God? Again, how would that sound Prov. 8. By me Tyrants reign & Usurpers decree injustice? harsh to Christian ears. Can they be said to be Gods among whom the Lord judgeth? If they be, they must be such as the witch of Endor saw, Gods coming out of the earth, when she raised the Devil; in a very Catichrestical meaning, as the Devil is called the God of this world. And indeed they have no more power, nor otherwise p. 330to be ouned, than he hath: for this is a Truth, Tyranny is a work of Satan & not from God; because sin either habitual or actual is not from God; Tyranny is sin in habit & act: Ergo—The Magistrate as Magistrate is good in nature & end, being the Minister of God for good, A Tyrant as a Tyrant is quite contrary. Lex Rex saith well A power Ethical, Politick, or Moral, to oppress, is not from God, and is not a power but a Licentious deviation of a power, and no more from God but from sinful Nature & the old Serpent, than a licence to sin, Quest. 9. Pag. 59. Hence sin, a Licence to sin, a Licencious sinning, cannot be from God: But Tyranny, Usurpation, absolute power encroaching upon all Liberties, Laws, Divine & humane, is sin, a Licence to sin, a Licencious sinning. Ergo—But to make this clear, and to obviate what may be said against this: let it be Considered how the powers that be are of God & ordained of God. Things are said to be of God and ordained of God two wayes; by His purpose & providence, and by His Word & Warrant. Things may be of God, either of His Hand working or bringing them about ordaining & ordering them to be to His Glory; either by a holy overruling Providence, as Samsons desire of a wife was of God Iudg. 14. 4. and Amaziahs insolent & foolish rejection of Ioash his Peaceable overture 2 Chron. 25. 20. Or by a powerful effective providence, So Rom. 11. 36. Of Him & through Him are all things 1 Cor. 8. 6. One God of whom are all things. Or things be of God of His Word warranting & Authorizing. So we are commanded to try the spirits whether they be of God (1 Iohn. 4. 1.) So in this sense, sin, tentation, lust, Corruptions of the world are not of God Iam. 1. 13. 1 Iohn. 2. 16. Again, things are ordained of God, either by the order of His Counsel or Providential will, either effectively by way of Production or Direction, or Permissively by way of non-impedition: Or they are ordained by the order of His Word & Preceptive will▪ The former is Gods Rule, the latter is ours: The former is alwise accomplished, the latter is often contradicted: The former orders all actions even sinful, the latter only that which is good & acceptable in the sight of God▪ By the former p. 331Israel rejected Samuel, by the latter they should have continued Samuels Government, and not sought a King: By the former, Athaliah usurped the Government, by the latter, she should have yeelded obedience & resigned the Government to the posterity of Ahaziah: By the former all have a physical subordination to God as Creatures, subject to His All-disposing will; by the latter, Those whom He approves have a moral subordination to God, as obedient subjects to His Commanding will. Now Magistrats are of God and ordained by Him both these wayes, Tyrants but one of them. I say, Magistrats, the higher Powers, to whom we owe & must oune subjection are of God both these wayes, both by His purpose & Providence, and that not meerly eventual but effective & executive of His Word, disposing both of the Title & Right, & Possession of the power, to them whom He approves, and bringing the People under a consciencious subjection, And by His Word & warrant. So Adonijah the Usurper (though he had the pretence of Hereditary right, and also possession by Providence) was forced to oune King Solomon in these termes upon which only a Magistrate may be ouned: The Kingdome, sayes he, was mine, and all Israel set their faces on me that I should reign, howbeit the Kingdom is turned about and become my brothers for it was his from the Lord, 1 King. 2. 15. He had both Providence turning about the Kingdom to him, and also the Warrant of the Lords Approbative & preceptive will. But Tyrants & Usurpers are only of God and ordained of God, by His overruling purpose & permissive Providence, either for performing His holy purpose towards themselves; as Rehoboams professing he would be a Tyrant, and refusing the Lawful desires of the people was of God 2 Chron. 10. 15. Or for a judgment & vengeance upon them that are subject to them, Zech. 11: 6: whereby they get a power in their hand, which is the Rod of the Lords Indignation, and a Charge & Commission against a Hypocritical Nation Isa. 10. 5. 6. This is all the power they have from God, who gives Iacob to the spoil & Israel to the Robbers, when they sin against Him Isa. 42. 24. This doth not give these Robbers any right, no more than p. 332they whose Tabernacle prosper, into whose hand God bringeth abundantly Iob. 12. 6. Thus all Robbers, and the great Legal Robbers, Tyrants, and their Authorized Murderers, may be of God, to wit, by His Providence. Hence those that are not ordained of Gods preceptive will, but meerly by His Providential will, their Authority is not to be ouned: But Tyrants & Usurpers are not ordained of Gods Preceptive, but meerly by His Providential will. The Minor needs no proof: yet will be cleared by many folowing Arguments. The Major will be afterwards more demonstrated. Here I shall only say, They that have no other ordination of God impowering them to be Rulers, than the devil hath, must not be ouned: But they that have no other than the ordination of Providence, have no other ordination of God impowering them to be Rulers than the devil hath: Ergo they that have no other than the ordination of Providence must not be ouned.

2. But let us next consider, what is comprehended in the Ordination of that Authority which is to be ouned as of God: And it may be demonstrated there are two things in it, without which no Authority can be ouned as of God, viz. Institution & Constitution: So as to give him, whom we must oune as Gods Minister, Authority both in the Abstract & Concrete, that is, that he should have Magistracy by Gods Ordination, and be a Magistrate by & according to the will of God. All acknowledge that Magistracy hath Gods Institution, for the Powers that be are ordained of God: which contains not only the Appointment of it, but the qualification & forme of it. That Government is appointed by Divine Precept all agree, but whether the Precept be Moral Natural, or Moral Positive, Whether it was appointed in the State of Innocency, or since disorder came in the world, Whether it be Primario or Secundario, from the Law of nature is not agreed upon, It may possibly be all these wayes; Government in the General may be from the Law and light of Nature appointed in Innocency, because all its relative duties are enjoined in the fifth Command, and all Nations Naturally have an esteem of it, Without which ther could be no order, distinction, or Communion p. 333in humane Societies, But the Specification or Individuation may be by a Postnate Positive & Secundary Law, yet Natural too, for though ther be no reason in Nature why any man should be King & Lord over another, being in some sense all Naturally free but as they yeeld themselves under Jurisdiction: The exalting of David over Israel is not ascribed to Nature, but to an act of divine bounty which took him from following the Ewes and made him feeder of the People of Israel, Psal. 78. 70, 71: yet Nature teacheth that Israel and other People should have a Government, and that this should be subjected to. Next, not only is it appointed to be, but qualified by Institution, and the Office is defined, the End prescribed, and the measures & Boundaries thereof are limited, as we shall hear. Again the formes of it, though Politically they are not stinted, that People should have such a forme & not another: yet Morally, at least Negatively, whatever be the forme, it is limited to the Rules of equity & justice, and must be none other than what hath the Lords Mould & Sanction. But there is no Institution any of these wayes for Tyranny. Hence, that Power that hath no Institution from God, cannot be ouned as His ordinance: But the Power of Tyrants is that Power, being contrary in every respect to Gods Institution, and a meer deviation from it, & eversion of it. Ergo—To the Minor it may be replyed; Though the Power which Tyrants may exerce & Usurpers assume, may be in Concret… contrary to Gods Institution, and so not to be ouned: yet in abstracto, it may be acknowledged of God. Its but the abuse of the Power, and that does not take away the use. We may oune the Power, though we do not oune the abuse of it. I ans. 1. I acknowledge the distinction as to Magistrats is very pertinent: for it is well said by the Congregation in a Letter to the Nobility, Knox Hist. of Scot. lib. 2. That there is a great difference betwixt the Authority which is Gods ordinance, and the persons of these who are placed in Authority; the Authority & ordinance of God can never do wrong, for it commandeth that vice be punished & virtue maintained; But the Corrupt Person placed in this Authority may offend—Its certain higher Powers are p. 334not to be resisted but some persons in Power may be resisted. The Powers are ordained of God, but Kings commanding unjust things are not ordained of God to do such things. But to apply this to Ty…ants, I do not understand: Magistrats in some Acts may be guilty of Tyranny, and yet retain the Power of Magistracy; but Tyrants cannot be capable of Magistracy, nor any one of the Scripture Characters of Righteous Rulers. They cannot retain that which they have forefeited, and which they have overturned; And Usurpers cannot retain that which they never had. They may act & enact some things materially just, but they are not formally such as can make them Magistrats, no more then some unjust actions can make a Magistrate a Tyrant. A Murderer, saying the …ife of one & killing another, does not make him no Murderer: Once a Murderer ay a Murderer, once a Robber ay a Robber, till he restore what he hath robbed: So once a Tyrant ay a Tyrant, till he make amends for his Tyranny, and that will be hard to do. 2. The Concrete does specificate the Abstract in actuating it, as a Magistrate, in his exercising Government makes his Power to be Magistracy; a Robber in his robbing, makes his Power to be Roberie; an Usurper in his usurping makes his Power to be Usurpation; So a Tyrant in his Tyrannizing can have no Power but Tyranny. As the Abstract of a Magistrate is nothing but Magistracy, So the Abstract of a Tyrant is nothing but Tyranny. Its frivolous then to distinguish between a Tyrannical power in the Concrete, & Tyranny in the Abstract; the power & the abuse of the power: for he hath no power as a Tyrant, but what is abused. 3. They that objects thus, must either mean, that power in its general Notion is ordained of God, but this particular Power ab…sed by Tyrants, and assumed by Usurpers, is not ordained: Or they must mean, that the very Power of Tyrants & Usurpers is ordained of God, but the way of holding & using it is not of God. If the first be said, they grant all I plead for: for thô the Power in general be ordained, yet what is this to Tyrants & Usurpers? would not this Claim be ridiculous for any man to say, God hath ordained Governments p. 335to be, therefore I will challenge it? God hath ordained Marriage, therefore any may cohabit together as man & wife, without formal Matrimony? If the Second be alledged, that the Power of these prevailing Dominators is ordained, but not their holding & using of it: This is Non-sense, for how can a Power be ordained and the use of it be unlawful? For, the abuse & use of Tyrannical Power is all one and reciprocal: an Usurper cannot use his Power but by Usurpation. Again is it not plain, that the Abstract & the Concrete, the act or habit, and the subject wherein it is, cannot have a contrary Denomination? if Drunkenness and Thieft, Lying or Murder, be of the Devil; then the Drunkard, the Thief, the Lyar, & the Murderer, are of the Devil too: So if Tyranny and Usurpation, or the use or abuse of Tyrants & Usurpers, be of the Devil; Then must the Tyrants & Usurpers also be of him: None can say, the one is of the Devil, and the other of God. Wherefore it is altogether impertinent to use such a Distinction, with application to Tyrants or Usurpers, as many do in their pleading for the ouning of our Oppressors: for they have no power, but what is the abuse of power.

3. As that Authority which is Gods Ordinance must have His Institution: So it must have His divine Constitution from Himself and by the people. Wherever then there is Authority to be ouned of men, there must be these tuo, Constitution from God and Constitution from the people. For the first, God hath a special Interest in the Constitution of Authority, both Immediatly & Mediatly. Immediatly, He declares such & such formes of Government to be Lawful & Eligible, and does order whom & who and how people shall erect Governours. And so, He confers Royal Graces & Enduements & Gifts for Government on them, as on Ioshua & Saul: So they become the Lords Anointed, placed & set on the Throne of the Lord, 1 Chron. 29. 23. and honoured with Majestie as His deputies & vicegerents, having their Croun set on by God Psal. 21. 3. But in regard now He doth not by any special Revelation determine, who shall be the Governours in this or that place; Therefore p. 336He makes this Constitution by mediation of men; giving them Rules how they shall proceed in setting them up. And seeing by the Law of Nature He hath enjoined Government to be, but hath ordered no particular in it with application to singulars, He hath committed it to the positive transaction of men, to be disposed according to certain General Rules of Justice. And it must needs be so, for 1. without this Constitution, either all or none would be Magistrats: if He hath ordained Civil Power to be, and taken no order in whom it shall be, or how it shall be conveyed, any might pretend to it; and yet none would have a right to it, more than another. If then He …ath affixed it to a peculiar having & holding, by virtue whereof this man is enstated & entitled to the office, and not that man, there must be a Law for Constituting him in Authority, which will discover in whom it is. 2. If it were not so, then a resisting of a particular Magistrate would not be a resisting of the ordinance of God, if a particular Magistrate were not Constitute of God, as well as Magistracy is Institute of God: for still it would be undetermined, who were the Power; and so it would be left as free & Lawful for the resister to take the place, as for the resisted to hold it; the institution would be satisfied if any possessed i…: therefore there must be Constitution to determine it. 3. No Common Law of Nature can be put into practice, without particular Constitution regulating it. That Wives & Children oune their superior relations, is the Law of Nature; but there must be such a relation first fixed by humane transaction, before they can oune them; there must be Marriage Authorized of God, there must be Children begotten, and then the Divine Ordination of these relative duties take place. So the Judges of Israel for 450 years were given of God, Act. 13. 20. not all by an immediate express designation, but a mediate Call from God by men, as Iephthah Iudg. 11. 6. 11. Inferior judges also are Magistrats appointed by God, yet they have their Deputation from men. Our Saviour speaks of all Magistrats, when he applies that of the 82. Psalm to them, I said ye are Gods; and shewes how they were Gods, because unto them the Word of God p. 337came, Iohn. 10. 35. that is, by His Word & Warrant He Authorized them, not by immediate designation in reference to the most of them, but the Word of God comes to them, or His Constitution is past upon them, who are advanced by men according to His Word. When men therefore do act according to the Divine Rule, in the Moulding & Erecting of Government & Governours, there the Constitution is of God, though it be not immediate. And where this is not observed, whatever power (so named or pretended) there may be, or what-soever persons there be that take upon them to be the power, and are not thereto appointed or therein instated, and do exerce such a power as God hath not legitmated, they are not a power ordained of God. Hence, whatsoever power hath no Constitution from God, eather Immediate or Mediate, cannot be ouned: But the Authority of Tyrants & Usurpers, is a power that hath no Constitution from God, either Immediate or Mediate: Ergo it cannot be ouned. The Major is cleared above. The Minor is also undenyable: For, either they must pretend to an Immediate Constitution by revelation, that Iames Duke of York, a vassal of Antichrist, had by all his plots & pranks Merited the Crown of Britain, and therefore must be Constitute King: And this I hope they will not pretend to, except the Pope hath gotten such a Revelation from Pluto's Oracle: Or they must have recourse to the Mediate Constitution by men: And if so; Then, either this Mediate Constitution of God is left undetermined, indefinitely & absolutely giving way to any that will assume what power they please & can: And then, I confess, Tyrants may have a Constitution; but this confusion cannot be of God: Or else, it is fixed by a Rule, regulating the succession or Constitution of the Governours, and obliging the people to oune the Government so constituted, with exclusion & disallowance of any other. And so, if in that Constitution there be a Substantial Deviation from the Rule, as when incompetent or unallowed persons be the advancers of themselves, or others, into that place by illegal & sinistrous means, in as much as in that case there is the Divine p. 338disapprobation, it may be said there is no Ordinance of God, but a Contradiction & Contraordination to Gods Order. Gee's Magist. Origin. chap. 5. Sect. 4. subject 3. pag. 135. This will shake off this of ours, and all other Tyrants & Usurpers, that come into the Government, & hold it not according to Gods Rule.

4. It is clear also in the second place, that the Authority which we can oune out of conscience, must have Constitution by the people. The special way by which men should be called into the place of Soveraign power, may perhaps not be found so expressly defined in Scripture, as mens Call to the other Ordinance of the Ministrie is; yet in this two things are essentially necessary to the Constitution of a Magistrate, The peoples consent & compact either formal or virtual. And without these we can oune consciencious subjection & Allegiance to no man living. That the first is necessary will be evident, from the Law of Nature & Nations, and from Scripture. First the light & Law of Nature dictates, that the Right & Interest of Constituting Magistrats is in the Elective vote or suffrage of the people. This will Appear. 1. If we consider, The Original of Government among men, especially after they were so multiplied, that there was a necessity of a reduction into diverse Communities; which, whatever was before the flood, yet after it, behoved to be by a Coalition with consent under an Elective Government. The Scripture makes it more than probable, that the first partition of Common-wealths was in Pelegs dayes, in whose time the earth was Divided Gen. 10. 25. occasioned by the Confusion of Languages at Babel which did dissolve their union and scatter them abroad upon the face of all the eath Gen. 11. 9. Then was it that we may conceive, as Buchanan sayes de Iure Regni apud Scot. the time was, when men dwelt in cottages & caves, and as strangers did wander to & fro without Laws, and such as could converse together of the same language assembled together as their humors did lead them, or as some common Utilitie did allure them▪ A certain instinct of Nature did oblige them to desire Converse & Societie. But this confusion of Languages, p. 339and Communion of Language, in several divided Parcels, could not incorporate these several Parties into Communities; that behoved to be the effect of some other cause: & what should that be, but the joint will, consent & aggreement of the severally Languaged? It could not be by Consanguinity; for there is no direction from Nature for a confinement of that into such & such degrees, to make out the bounds of a Common-wealth, or Possibility of knowing all with in such degrees; besides all within these degrees might not be of the same Language. Now the Scripture sayes, they were divided every one after his tongue, after their families, in their Nations Gen. 10. 5. Next it could not be by Cohabitation: for how that must go to be the boundaries of a Common-wealth, inclusively or exclusively, is not defined by nature, nor can it be otherwise determined than by humane choise. Then, it could not be by mens belonging to such a Soveraign: for after that Division & Confusion, they could not all be under one Soveraign, nor under the same that they were subject to before; and a Soveraign cannot be before the aggregation of the Subjects whereof he is head, they must first be a Common-wealth before they can belong to it. Again it cannot be founded upon the Right of fatherhood: for in that scattering, such a Right could not be uninterruptedly preserved: And then Noah should also have been the Universal Magistrate, which he could not be in these multiplied secessions. And further if it be refounded on the Right of fatherhood; either every Company had one Common Father over all, or every Father made a Common-wealth of his oun Children: The Latter cannot be said, for that would multiply Common-wealts in infinitum: Neither can the first be said, for if they had one Common Father, either this behoved to be the Natural Father of all the Company, which none can think was so happily ordered by Babels confusion: Or else the eldest in age, and so he might be incapable for Government, and the Law of Nature does not direct that the Government should alwise be astricted to the eldest of the Community: Or else finally he behoved to be their Political Father, by consent. For before p. 340this consent, they were uningaged as to common order of Government; none of the Community having any legal Claim to Soveraignity more than the rest. When therfore they were forced to conclude upon Association for their Mutual Preservation, they must be thought to act rationally, and not to make their condition worse but rather better by that conclusion, and, if they found it worse, to resume their radical Right which they had conferred upon men, subject to Law not to Tyrannize over them: And in this case, certainly they had the power of choosing what Kind of Government suited most to their advantage, and would best preserve their Liberties, and how far this should be extended, and who should be assumed into this Combination; still with a reservation of the Priviledge to their oun safety, if their Associates should not do their duty: And so they might also reserve to themselves a Liberty, to alter the forme when they found it productive of more prejudice than advantage, and never to leave their condition remedieless; And to pitch upon this way of succession and not another, the way of free election of every successor, or of definite election limited to one line, or to the nearest in line, And e contra with a reserve still of their primeve Priviledges, to secure themselves from the inconveniences of that determination, or to change it; And to make choise of such a family & line and not another, and whether the eldest alwise of that family or the fittest is to be chosen: And however it be, yet still by the peoples consent: And in all this to have respect to some good, great, & Necessary Ends, which if they should be disappointed of, and find these means useless or destructive to, they were to be loosed from their obligation to use or to oune them. See Ius populi vindicat. ch. 5. pag. 80. &c. 2. If we consider how Nature determines the peoples Interest in the constitution of Governours: whence comes it that this man and not that man, this race & family and not that, is invested with that Title? It will be found there is no Title on earth now to the Crowns to families, to persons, but the peoples suffrage: for the Institution of Magistracy in general does, not make Iames p. 341Stewart a King, no more than Iohn Chamberlain: Neither do qualifications make one, otherwise there might be many better than is this day extant, for there are many men better qualified: And there is no Prophetical or immediate Callings to Kingdoms now: And as for Conquest without consent, and having no more for a Title, it is no better than Royal Latrocinie. It is certain God would not Command us to obey Kings, and leave us in the Dark that we should not know him that hath a reall call to …: And if he have not the peoples Call, where shall we find another? It remains therefore they must have it from the people, who have it to give Radically & virtually; having a power to preserve themselves, and to put it in the hands of one or more Rulers, that they may preserve themselves by them. All men are born alike as to Civil power (no man being born with a Croun on his head) and yet men united in Society may give it to this man & not to that man, therefore they must have it virtually; for they can not give what they have not. And as Cities have power to choose their Magistrats, so many Cities have power to creat an Universal Ruler over them all. The people also have power to Limit the Magistrats power, with conditions; so that the present Ruler shall not have so much prerogative as his predecessor, as Royalists cannot deny, therefore they must have given that power which they can Limit See Lex Rex Quest. 4. pag. 10. &c. Secondly the Scripture also gives Light in this particular. 1. In giving directions & Rules about their Orderly calling their Governours; Impowering them, to take wise men, & understanding, & known among their tribes, to be made Rulers D…ut. 1. 13. To make Judges & Officers in all their gates Deut. 16. 18. To set one among their brethren King over them and not a stranger Deut. 17. 15. To what purpose are these Rules given them, if they had no interest to choose their Magistrats? Would God command them to set a King over them, if they had not power to do it? And to set such a man over them and not such an one, if they had no influence in making one at all? And accordingly that wise Statist sayes very well 2 Sam. 16. 18. Hushai to A…salem, p. 342Nay, but whom the Lard & this people and all the men of Israel choose, his will I be, and with him will I abide. Which will also hold in the Negative, whom the Lord & the people and all the men of the Kingdom do not choose, his we will not be, nor with him will we abide. 2. The Scripture expressly attributeth the making of Kings to the people. All the people of Iuda took Azariah and made him King, instead of his Father Amaziah, whom they had executed 2 King. 14. 21. They came with a perfect heart to make David King in Hebron 1 Chron. 12. 38. So they made Ioash King 2 Chron. 23. 11. 3. Even these that were particularly designed of God & chosen to be Rulers, yet were not formally invested with power, before the people conferred it upon them. Gideon was called of God to it, but was not Judge till the people said, Rule thow over us, both thow & thy Son, giving him an hereditary right for his Children, Iudg. 8. 12. Saal was appointed to be King, and therefore Samuel honoured him, because he was marked out of God to be King, 1 Sam. 9. 24. and anointed him with oyl 1 Sam. 10. 1. after which he was gifted & qualified for Government, God gave him another heart vers. 9. yet all this did not make him King, till the people met for his inauguration vers. 17. &c. and Crowned him & made him King in Gilgal 1 Sam. 11. ult. David was anointed by Samuel, and yet was a persecuted fugitive for several years, and never acknowledged formally King, till the men of Iudah came & anointed him 2 Sam. 2. 4. for if he had been King before, then there were two Kings in Israel at one time, and David failed of his Royal duty in not punishing the Murderer Saul; whereas himself sayes, he would not touch the Lords …. Therefore the people made all these Kings, and that by choise & consent, without which they were no Kings. Hence I argue, If the consent & choise of the people be so essentially necessary to the making of Kings; then they who set up themselves against the consent of the body of the Land, and without the choise of any, must be Usurpers, not to be acknowledged for Lawful Kings: But the former is true as is proven above: Ergo—Now Plain it is that this Duke set up himself p. 343against the consent of the body, being excluded from the Government by the Representatives of England, and generally hated of all; who disdaining to wait upon the formall choise of any, but after he had paved his passage to the Throne upon his Brothers blood, did usurpe the Title without all Law.

5. The second thing necessary for the Legal Constitution of a King by the people, is their Compact with him: which must either be Express or Tacite, Explicite or Implicite. Two things are here to be proven, that will furnish an Argument for disouning both the Brothers. First, That there must be a Conditionall reciprocally obliging Covenant between the Soveraign and the Subjects, without which there is no such relation to be ouned. Secondly That when this compact is broken in all or its chiefest conditions by the Soveraign, the peoples obligation ceases. The first. I shall set doun, in the words of a famous Author, our Renouned Country man Buchanan in his Dialogue de Iure Regni apud Scotos. Mutua igitur Regi cum Civibus est pactio &c. There is then (or there ought to be) a Mutual compact between the King and his subjects &c. That this is indispensibly necessary & essential to make up the Relation of Soveraign & Subjects, may be proved both from the Light of Nature, & Revelation. First it may appear from the Light of Natural reason. 1. From the Rise of Government, and the Interest people have in erecting it by consent & choise (at is shewed above) If a King cannot be with out the peoples making, then all the power he hath must either be by compact or gift: If by compact, then we have what we proposed: And if by gift, then if abused they may recall it or if they cannot recover it, yet they may & ought to hold their hand, and give him no more that they may retain, that is no more honour or respect, which is in the honourer before the honoured get it. Can it be imagined, that a people acting rationally would give a power absolutely without restrictions to destroy all their oun rights? Could they suppose this boundless & Lawless Creature, left at Liberty to Tyrannize, would be a fit mean to procure the the ends of Government? p. 344for this were to set up a rampant Tyrant to rule as he listeth, which would make their condition a great deal worse then if they had no Ruler at all, for then they might have more Liberty to see to their safety. See Ius populi ch. 6. pag. 96. 97. 2. This will be clear from the nature of that Authority, which only a Soveraign can have over his Subjects; which whatever be the Nature of it, it cannot be absolute, that is against Scripture, Nature, & Common sense, as shall be proven at more length. That is to set up a Tyrant, one who is free from all conditions, a roaring Lyon & a ranging Bear to destroy all if he pleases. It must be granted by all, that the Soveraign Authority is only fiduciarie, entrusted by God & the people with a great Charge: A great Pledge is impauned & committed to the Care & Custody of the Magistrate, which he must take special care of, and not abuse; or waste, or alienate or sell (for in that case Royalists themselves grant he may be deposed) He is by Office a Patron of the Subjects Liberties, and Keeper of the Law both of God & Man, the Keeper of both Tables. Sure he hath no power over the Lawes of God but a Ministerial power, he may not stop & disable them as he pleases; Of the same nature is it, over all other Parts of his Charge. He is rather a Tutor, than an Inheritor & proprietor of the Common-wealth, and may not do with his pupils interest what he pleases. In a word the Nature & whole significancy of his power lyes in this, that he is the Nations publick Servant, both Objectively in that he is only for the good of the people, and Representatively in that the people hath impauned in his hand all their power to do Royal Service. The Scripture eaches this, in giving him the Titles of Service, as Watchman &c. allowing him Royal wages for his Royal work Rom. 13. he is Gods Minister attending continually on this thing, There is his work, for this cause pay yow tribute also, There is his wages & maintinance. He is called so in that transaction with Rehoboam; The old men advised him to be a Servant unto the People, then they should be his Servants 1 King. 12. 7. There was a conditional bargain proposed: As to be a Servant, or Tutor, or Guardian upon Trust, always p. 345implies Conditions & Acconntableness to them that entrust them. 3. It must needs be so otherwise great absurdities would follow. Here would be a voluntary contracted Relation, obliging as to relative duties, to a man that ouwed none correlative to us, and yet one whom we set over us. It were strange, if there were no Condition here; and no other voluntarly suscepted Relations can be without this, as between Man & Wife, Master & Servant &c. This would give him the disposal of us & Ours, as if both we and what we have were his oun, as a mans goods are, against which he does not sin whatever he do with them. So this would make a King that could not sin against us; being no ways obliged to us, for he can no otherwise be obliged to us but upon Covenant conditions; he may be obliged & bound in duty to God otherwise, but he cannot be bound to us otherwise: And if he be not bound then he may do what he will, he can do no wrong to us to whom he is no wayes bound. This also is point blank against the Law of God, which is the Second way to prove it, by the Light of Revelation or Scripture. 1. In thevery directions about making & seting up of Kings, the Lord shewes what conditions shall be required of them Deut. 17. 15. &c. and in all directions for obeying them, the qualifications they should have are rehearsed as Rom. 13. 3, 4. Therefore none are to be set up but on these conditions, and none are to be obeyed but such as have these qualifications. 2. In His promises of the succession of Kings, He secures their continuation only Conditionally, to establish the Kingdom if they be constant to do His Commandments & Judgements 1 Chron. 28. 7. There shall not fail a man to sit upon the Trone yet so that they take heed to their way to walk in Gods Law, as David did 2 Chron. 6. 16. Now He was not otherwise to perform these promises, but by the action & suffrage of the people seting him up, (which He had appointed to be the way of calling Kings to Thrones) if therefore the Lords promise be conditional, the peoples actions also behoved to be suspended upon the same conditions. 3. We have many express Covenants, between Rulers & Subjects in Scripture. Iephthah p. 346was fetcht from the Land of Tob, and made the head of the Gileadites by an explicite mutual stipulation, wherein the Lord was invocated as a Witness, Iudg. 11. 6, 8, 9, 10, 11. So all the Elders of Israel came to make David King, and King David made a League with them in Hebron before the Lord, and then they anointed him over Israel 2 Sam. 5. 3. he made there a Covenant with them before the Lord 1 Chron. 11, 3. He was no King before this Covenant, and so it was a Pactional Oath between him & the Kingdom, upon termes according to the Law Deut. 17. he was only a King in fieri; one who was to be King, but now actually inaugurate a Covenanted King upon termes that satisfied them. Its true they came to recognosce his Right from the Lord; But so did they recognosce Rehoboams Right, and came to Shechem to make him King 1 King. 12. 1. and yet when he would not enter in Covenant terms with them, to satisfie their just demands, the people answered the King, saying, what portion have we in David, neither have we inheritance in the Son of Iesse, to your tents O Israel vers. 16. They refused to acknowledge such an Usurper, and we find no Prophets ever condemning them for it. So when Iehoash or Ioash was Crowned, Iehojada made a Covenant between the Lord and the King & the people, that they should be the Lords people, between the King also and the people 2 King. 11. 17. 2 Chron. 23. 11, 16. From all these Reasons & Scriptures, It is clear there must be a Mutual Compact. between the Subjects and every Soveraign they oune subjection to, which if he refuse, and usurp the Sword, they are under an Anterior obligation to substract their Allegiance, and to make use of their Sword, if they be in capacity, to pull it out of his hands and use it against him. And of this we are put in mind by the Motto of our old Coronation pieces, which have these Words about the Sword. pro me, si mereor in me, that is, for me but if I deserve against me: And surely to him that hath it now in his hands, it may be said, tu meruisti & adhuc meres. We see then, the Allegiance that this Usurper alledges is his due, wants a bottom, to wit a compact with the people. Whence I argue, If there must of necessity be a compact p. 347between the King & the people when, he is advanced to the Government; then he that advances himself, without & against this compact, is an Usurper not to be ouned: But the former is true: Ergo he that advances himself without & against this compact, is an Usurper not to be ouned. And who more Notoriously deserving such a signature, than Iames the 7/2 who hath made horns of his oun strength, or the Popes Biills, to push his Brother out and himself in to the Throne, upon no termes at all, or any security for Religion & Liberty. One Objection is to be removed here: Can the Customs of the Iewes be binding to all Nations? The Kings of Iudah made such Covenants, shall therefore all Kings do so? Ans. why not this Custom, as well as Crowing, which they used likewise? These Rules are not Typical or Cermonial, nor only so Iudicial as to be peculiarly Iudaical, but are matters of moral equity, bearing a standing reason founded upon that Law Deut. 17. 15. &c. Limiting the Prince to stand to conditions. If we cast at Divine Laws for Rules of Government, where wil we find better Laws? It is recorded of the first of the British Kings who was Christian, that writing to Eleutherius Bishop of Rome (before Antichrist took that seat) for the Roman Laws, he received this Answer; By Divine Clemency ye have received the Law & faith of Christ, yow have the Old & New Testaments, out of them in Gods Name by Counsel of your State take Laws, & Govern your Kingdom. And of another, that he began his Laws thus, God speake all these words &c. And so repeated the Laws of God. The Second thing I undertook to prove, is that Assertion of Buchanan ubi supra, de Iure Regni. Qui prior a Conventis recidit &c. There being a paction between the King & Subjects, he who first recedes from what is Covenanted, and doth Counteract what he hath Covenanted, he looses the contract; and the bond being loosed which did hold fast the King with the people, whatever right did belong to him by virtue of that compact, he looses it, and the people are as free as before the stipulation. Which is also asserted by the Author of Ius populi ch. 6. pag. 112. It is no less clear, that when the Soveraign doth p. 348not performe the principal main & most necessary conditions, condescended & aggreed upon, de jure he falleth from his Soveraignity: and pag. 117. when the Prince doth violate his compact, as to all its conditions, or as to its chief main & most necessary condition, the subjects are de jure free from subjection to him, and at Liberty to make choise of another. This is so clear that it needs no labour to prove it, that upon this head we were loosed from all Allegiance ro the former Tyrant, who was admitted upon terms of an explicite Covenant, the conditions whereof he did as explicitely break. There are two cases wherein Subjects are loosed from Covenanted Allegiance to their Princes. 1. When the Prince remitts the obligation of the Subjects, and refuses Allegiance upon that basis; then he can no more demand it by virtue of that compact. He that remitts & will not have that Allegiance, that the Subjects Covenanted upon such & such conditions to him, these Subjects should not give it that they so Covenanted, for they should not prostitute it to a Refuser & Remitter: But Charles the Second remitted and would not have that Allegiance, which we Covenanted upon such & such conditions viz. upon the terms of the Covenant, which he cassed, & annulled, and made Criminal to oune: Ergo to him we should not have given it, which we so Covenanted. 2. When the Prince did enter into a Mutual Covenant with the people upon Mutual conditions, and does not only cease to performe the conditions, but simply denies all obligation to do it, and makes it a quarrel to insinuate so much, yea persecutes all who dare assert the obligation of that Covenant; and yet demands Allegiance, not upon the obligation of that Covenant which he hath remitted, but absolutely upon the grounds of his prerogative. In this case it will be evident also, the subjects are not bound either to oune their formerly Covenanted Allegiance to him, Or that which he demands on other grounds. Grotius de Iure belli is clear as to this Lib. 1. Cap. 4. Num. 12. Si ex Clausula posita in ipsa delatione Imperii, ut si Rex hoc aut hoc faciet subditi omni obedientiae vinculo solvuntur, tunc quoque Rex in privatam personam recidit. If p. 349there be such a Clause or condition in the very devolution of the Government upon a Prince, as if he do so & so the subjects shall be loosed from all bonds of obedience, then when he does so he becomes a meer private person. Grotius there supposes the power is transferred upon a resolutive condition, that is if he transgress the condition the power shall be resolved into its first fountain: much more if it be transferred expressly also upon a suspensive condition, that he shall continue to maintain the ends of the Covenant, defend Religion & the Liberties of the Subjects, in the defence whereof we shall oune Allegiance to him, otherwise not in that case if he do not maintain these ends, plain it is our obligation ceases; for how can it stand upon a conditional obligation, when his performance of the condition sists? But whatever be the conditions Mutual, it flowes Natively from the Nature of a Mutual compact, that qui non praestat officium promissum cadit beneficio hac lege dato, he who doth not perform the conditions aggreed upon hath no right to the benefite granted upon condition of performance of these conditions; especially if he performe not, or violate these conditions upon supposition whereof he would not have gotten the benefite: It were very absurd to say, in a Mutual conditional compact one party shall still be bound to perform his conditions, though the other perform none but break all. Were it the act of rational Creatures to set up a Soveraign, upon conditions he shall not play the Tyrant, and yet be bound to him thô he Tyrannize never so much? We have the Nature of Mutual compacts in the Spies Covenant with Rahab Iosh. 2. 20. If thow utter this our business, then we will be quite of thine Oath, which thow hast made us to swear: if she should break condition, then the obligation of the Oath on their part should cease. But next all the stress will ly in proving that the Covenant, on such & such conditions between a Prince & Subjects, doth equally & mutually oblige both to each other: for if it equally oblige both, then both are equally disengaged from other by the breach on either side, and either of them may have a just claim in Law against the other for breach of the conditions. But Royalists & Court-slaves p. 350alledge, that such a Covenant obliges the King to God; but not to the people at all; so that he is no more accountable to them, than if he had made none at all. But the contrare is evident: For [1] If the compact be Mutual, and if it be infringed on one side, it must be so in the other also; for in contracts, the parties are considered as equalls, whatever inequality there may be betwixt them otherwise: I speak of contracts among men. [2] If it be not so, there is no Covenant made with the people at all: And so David did no more Covenant with Israel. than with the Chaldeans: for to all with whom the Covenant is made it obliges to them. Otherwise it must be said, he only made the Covenant with God, contrary to the Text; for he made it only before the Lord as a Witness, not with Him as a party. Ioashs Covenant with the Lord is expresly distinguished from that with the people. [3] If it be not so, it were altogether non-sense to say, there were any Covenant made with the King, on the other hand: for he is supposed to be made King on such & such terms, and yet by this after he is made King he is no more obliged unto them, than if there had been no compact with him at all. [4] If he be bound as King, and not only as a man or Christian, then he is bound with respect to the people; for with respect to them he is only King: But he is bound as King, and not only as a man or Christian, because it is only with him as King that the people Covenant, and he must transact with them under the same consideration. Next, that which he is obliged to, is the specifical act of a King, to defend Religion & Liberty, & Rule in Righteousness; And therefore his Covenant binds him as King. Again, if he be not bound as King, then as a King he is under no obligation of Law or Oath, which is to make him a Lawless Tyrant, yea none of Gods subjects. It would also suppose that the King as King could not sin against the people at all, but only against God: for as King he could be under no obligation of duty to the people, and where there is no obligation there is no sin; by this he would be set above all obligations to love his neighbour as himself, for he is above all his neighbours, and all mankind, p. 351and only less than God; and so by this doctrine he is loosed from all duties of the Second Table, or at least he is not so much obliged to them as others. But against this it is Objected: both Prince & people are obliged to performe their part to each other, and both are obliged to God, but both are not accountable to each other; there is not mutual power in the parties to compell one another to performe the promised duty; the King hath it indeed over the people, but not the people over the King, and there is no indifferent Judge Superior to both to compell both, but God. Ans. 1. What if all this should be granted? yet it doth not infringe the proposition: what if the people have not power to compell him? yet Iure he may fall from his Soveraignity, though de facto he is not deposed: he loses his right to our part, when he breaks his part. 2. There is no need of a Superior Arbiter: for as in contracting they are considered as equal, so the party keeping the contract is Superior to the other breaking it: 3. There may be Mutual Coactive Power, where there is no Mutual relation of Superiority & Inferiority: yea in some cases Inferiours may have a Coactive Power by Law, to compell their Superiours failing in their duty to them; As a Son wronged by his Father may compel him to reparation by Law; And independent Kingdoms, nothing inferior to each other, being in Covenant together, the wronged may have a Coactive power to force the other to duty, without any Superior Arbiter. 4. The bond of suretyship brings a man under the obligation to be accountable to the Creditor, though the surety were never so high and the Creditor never so low: Solomon sayes in General without exception of Kings, yea including them because he was a King that spake it Prov. 6. 1, 2. My son if thow be Surety for thy friend—thow art snared with the words of thy Mouth. Now a Kings power is but fiduciary; And therefore he cannot be unaccountable for the power concredited to him. And if the Generation had minded this, our Stewarts should have been called to an account for their Stewardship ere now. Hence I argue, If a Covenanted Prince, breaking all the Conditions of his compact, doth p. 352forfeit his right to the Subjects Allegiance, then they are no more to oune him as their Soveraign: But the former is proved, that a Covenanted Prince breaking all the conditions of his compact doth forfeit his right to the Subjects Allegiance: Ergo—And Consequently when Charles the Second, expressly bound by Covenant to defend & promote the Convenanted Reformation & Liberties of the Kingdom, to whom only we were bound in the terms of his defending & promoting the same, did violently & villainously violate & vilify these conditions, we were no more bound to them. Somewhat possibly may be Objected here. 1. If this be the sense of the Covenant, then it would seem that we were not bound to oune the King, but only when & while he were actually promoving & carrying on the ends of the Covenant. Ans. It does not follow, but that we are obliged to preserve his Person & Authority in these necessary intervalls, when he is called to see to himself as a man; for we must preserve him as a mean, because of his aptitude & designation for such an End, albeit not alwayes formally prosecuting it: we do not say, that we are never to oune him, but when actually exercised in prosecuting these ends: but we say, we are never to oune him, when he is Tyrannically & Treacherously abusing his Authority for destroying & overturning these ends, and violating all the conditions of his compact. It may be Obj. 2. Saul was a Tyrant, and a breaker of his Royal Covenant, and persecuter of the Godly, and Murderer of the Priests of the Lord, usurper upon the Priests Office, and many other wayes guilty of breaking all conditions: And yet David and all Israel ouned him as the Anointed of the Lord. Ans. 1. Saul was indeed a Tyrant, rejected of God, and to be ejected out of his Kingdom in His oun time & way, which David a Prophet knowing would not anticipate. But he was far short, and a meer Bungler in acts of Tyranny in comparison of our Grassators: he broke his Royal Covenant in very gross particular acts, but did not cass & rescind the whole of it, did not burn it, did not make it Criminal to oune its obligation, nor did he so much as profess a breach of it, nor arrogate an Absolute p. 353prerogative, nor attempt arbitrary Government, nor to evert the fundamental Laws and overturn the Religion of Israel, & bring in Idolatry, as Ours have done: He was a Persecuter of David upon some private quarrels, not of all the Godly upon the account of their Covenanted Religion: He Murdered 85 Priests of the Lord, in a transport of fury, because of their kindness to David; but he did not make Laws adjudging all the Ministers of the Lord to death, who should be found most faithful in their duty to God & His Church, as Ours have done against all Field Preachers: He Usurped upon the Priests Office, in one elicit act of Sacrificing; but he did not usurp a Supremacy over them, and annex it as an inherent right of his Crown. 2. He was indeed such a Tyrant, as deserved to have been dethroned & brought to condign punishment, upon the same accounts that Amaziah & Uzziah were deposed for afterwards: And in this the people failed in their duty, and for it they were plagued remarkably; shall their Omission be an Argument to us? 3. As the question was never put to the people, whether they ouned his Authority as Lawful or not? So we do not read, either of their Universal ouning him, or their positive disouning him: However, Thats no good Argument, which is drawen a non facto ad faciendum; because they did it not, therefore it must not be done. 4. They ouned him; but how? as the Minister of God, not to be resisted or revolted from under pain of damnation? (as all Lawful Magistrats ought to be ouned Rom. 13. 2, 4.) This I deny: for David & his six hundred men resisted him resolutely; And though the body of the Nation did long Lazily lye & couch as Asses under his burden, yet at length, weary of his Tyranny, many revolted from under him, and adjoined themselves to David at Ziklag, while he kept himself close because of Saul the Son of Kish 1 Chron. 12. 1. who are commended by the Spirit of God for their valour vers. 2. &c. and many out of Manasseh fell to him, when he came with the Philistims against Saul to battel vers. 19. This was a practical disouning of the Tyrant, before the Lord deposed him. 5. David did indeed pay him & his Character some deference, as having p. 354been the Anointed of the Lord; yet perhaps his honouring him with that title, the Lords anointed 1 Sam. 24. 1 Sam. 26. and calling him so often his Lord the King cannot be altogether Justified, no more than his using that same language to Achish King of Gath. 1 Sam. 29. 8. I shew before how titles might be allowed: but this so circumstantiate, does not seem so consistent with his imprecatory prayer, for the Lords avenging him on him. 1 Sam. 24. 12. and many other imprecations against him in his Psalms; in some of which he calls the same man, whom here he stiles the Lords anointed, a Dog; as Saul & his Complices are called Psal. 95. 6, 14. and the evil violent & wicked man Psal 140. 1, 4. and the vilest of men Psal. 12. ult. However it be, there can be no Argument from hence, to oune the Authority of Tyrants & Usurpers.