chosen or refused, are no longer to be used then while they are subservient to their proper ends; and when they oppose them, are absolutely ly to be rejected; left what was meant for Medicine turn to payson.

A great part of the filth cast upon the late actions, is directed against your Honours in special, and our victorious Army: But, as God hath born itnes to their integrity, by giving victory over the adversaries after solemn appeals to his decision: So your Honours have hitherto so managed your trust, and bin so signally saved by the Lord, the shield of your help, and the sword of your Excellency, that all your enemies have been found Lyars.

Deut. 33.29

Go on (Right Honourable) to do worthily in and for our Land, and the good Lord suggest to you more and more efficacious means for the advancement of his glory, and the welfare of our Nation, (support you with courage and vigour, that your Councils may be brought to the wished effect; That England which hath been lookt upon as a Nation forsaken of her God, may (by the good hand of God on your care and wisdom) be made a praise in the ear h, and set up in perfect beauty; and that your memorial in after ages may be, These are the repairers of the breach, the restorers of pathes to dwell in; which is the humble prayer of

(Right Honourable)

Your most humble Servant,

EPHRAIM ELCOCK.

T

To the worthy Authour of these Animadverſions.

SIR,

T
He reiterated thanks wherein you have expressed a great sense of
the small pains, which I freely took, to make your Animadverſi-\ons publick; doth oblige me to apologize for the long delay of
this publication ; for I think it just that the publick should know that
your part of this work was long agoe performed : Seeing it is at left (if
I mistake not) 9. or 10. Moneths since ; I saw the Manuscript Where-
by you were delivered of this birth: but the want of fit addresses (you
being unacquainted with the way) to appear in publick, hath almost
flifled this Infant, since it had life : as left it comes now into the world
almost out of due time.

For my own part, I had without your knowledge accidentally the per-
mal thereof; and although I found (as then I told the party who shew-
ed it unto me) something more sharp in it then my Genius did affect; yes
finding it also a piece both judicious, accurate and solid as to the mat-
ter, and also full of learning, of good reading, and of quickneſs of spirit,
as to your manner of handling that matter, I thought my self bound in
love to the truth, and to the publick good, to lend it the hand of a Mid-
Wife, in bringing it to the Preſse; which could be done but very flow-
ly, partly because of the lets which the Stationers and Printers, to
whom application was made, did cast us; partly because of other occa-
sions which took me off from minding this deſign; wherein the publick
cause, is much beholden to you, and such as are ingenuous, will no leſſe
acknowledge it, then doth

Your loving Friend

and Servant in Chrift,

J. D.

ERRATA.

Page 13. line 10. for ſofua read Hesen, p. 31. 1. 21. for is r
p. 34. 1. 28. for teoting r. footing, p. 39. 1. 2. for Tithes r. Titles.
for either r. neither, 1. 28. for or r. nor?

(1)

A Preface in answer to Non-scribers Apology.

T was a good observation of Seneca's up-
on the title of Macenas a great stickler
for Augustus his tyranny, That the ill-
structure and uncouth compoſure of his
words, argued his manners to be naugh-
tily singular. The fame observation may
be made upon the many battologies of
theſe Advocates for Tyranny: but their
ſaſtidious vanity is especially viſible in
the Title of their Book, they call Non-ſcribers, which laſt word
was never before this attempt of theirs naturalized English: a
word it is of as abfurd derivation, as that Anticomarita; concerning
which, Eraſmus was fain to bring in a Synod of Grammarians, to
know whence it came, and what it meant; whereof one ſaid it was
an Herbe, another a Fift, a third a woman, &c. The elegancy of
their etymologie, together with the perplexedneſs of the Syntax
will require a Synod of themselves to resolve us. Non-ſcribers,
( take it in the beſt ſence) are thofe that write not, and had they
meant themselves, it had been fitter to have called their Book, the
plea of Non-ſcribers, then for Non-ſcribers: ſo that it may be
thought, that they intended it for a plea for them that were illi-
terate, and could not write for themselves. The next thing in the
front of your Book is their pretence to modety; to the vindica-
ing of which vertue to themselves, they make an Eſtay in theſe
rds, -- what we ſhall ſay may like the words of wife men, Plea. &c.
though we boaft not to be ſuch) be heard in ſecret. Yet as if Pag. 2.
an had forgotten what their Title promiſeth, load the opinion
are about to impugne, and the perſons with whom they con-
with many condemnatory invectives; before they produce Ibid. p. 2.
fatter ſament, calling engaging ſin; Engagers, ſuch as are going & 3.

Eraſmus. Colloqu. Synod. Grammaticorum.

A 2

on

(2)

on in their sin; and the Engagement, the *Helem* of the Northern
Subscribers. What modelty it is to condemn an action, opinion,
or person for sinful, before proving them such, I care not to let
the most impudent judge. It hath been ever held to be modelty
for a man that entereth into controverfie, to think humbly of him-
felf, at least-wife not to be his own Trumpeter; yet these men
that before disclaimed boasting of their wisdom, tell us, that they
are the peaceable of the Land, the very words of her whom the
Scripture calls a wife woman, and point us to the place, least the
Reader should doubt of their wisdom. And in another place they
intimate, that had we wanted this product of a Parturient Moun-
tain, the English Preſſe had been no leſſe injurious to poſterity,
then the Egyptian Midwives had been, had they obey'd Pharaoh's
Edict, for ſtrangling the Israelitish males; as if what they writ only
had masculine ſtrength, and the fruits of all others were but ſemi-
nine productions of the Scriptures, which Garniſh their frontispie-
ce, the first returns in their book, the ſecond makes nothing for
them, ſince no Agrippa gave them leave to ſpeak; and there is
much difference between licensed publick ſpeaking to the ſatist-
faction of a Judge, and unlicensed pamphleting to the stirring up
of the people.

Plea &c.
pag. 7.

2 Sam. 20.
16. 19.

Plea &c.
pag. 4.

Yet this their way (after some few intimations of their de-
liberation to that purpose) they defend as lawful by four rea-
sons.

Plea &c.
pag. 2.

1. Because it is a weighty case of Conſcience.

1. Because concerning many, and among others themselves,
and those in relation to them.

2. Because difficult to resolve. To this we answer, that if weigh-
ty cases of Conſcience, because concerning many, and difficult of
resolution, oblige Minifters to give a publick testimony of their
opinions, it obliges them in all such things: and by this ſhift i
will not be lawful for the Magiſtrate to make any new Law, b
fore the Minifters have caſt in their verdict: at least wife, nor
to obey before they have declared. If nothing of a religiou
duction must be ordained by the Magiſtrate, but what is ap-
by these Cenſors, what is the Magiſtrate but the meer Li
the Minifters?

Plea &c.
pag. 3.

2. Because the Engagement is not left voluntary, but
ed under a penalty, and they ought to ſpeak before t

(3)

judged. To which we say, 1. That this liberty of speech is their
due, when they are particularly accused, or have personal actions
before a Judge, not where they are suffered to be at quiet. 2. That
it is a liberty of speech particularly to be used to the Magistrates,
before whom they are convented, face to face, and not to be scat-
tered by stealth among the people. 3. That it is a liberty to answer
concerning the crimes that are laid to their charge, which is to be
allowed, but not to question the Authority of the Magistrate, be-
fore whom they are convented. These things concur in them
whom Non-subscribers pretend to be their examples. Chrift's per-
son was aimed to be taken, the High-Priefts pronounced his hea-
kers accursed, *Nicodemus* pleads that he might face to face anſwer
the crimes that he was charged with. Chrift when called before
the High-Priefts, questioned not their power, but anſwered to
their queſtions, concerning that which they thought his crime.

John 7. 32.

49. 50.

Mat. 26.

63. 64.

3. Because they have no other way to plead their cause. Yes, 1. Plea &c. Before them that tender the Engagement, when they are personally called to it. 2. Before the Judges, in case they have any action before them, wherein the refusal of their Engagement is pleaded : and I doubt not, but if they modestly propose their doubts, the Judges and Justices will to their power endeavour to satisfie them. Besides, suppose there be no other way to plead their cause, yet this should have been avoided, because not a suitable meanes to accomplish their end, this being like rather to exasperate the Magistrate against them. They either mistake, or else speak spitefully, when they say, that all their pleas are shut up, upon pleading of their denial of the Engagement : there is no denial (for ought I know) of their liberty of pleading, that they are not satisfied in it, and the Judges have (as I hear) particular instructions in their charges to clear its Justice.

page 4.

4. Because they that write for it publish their Reasons. By Plea, &c. this Argument *Campian* might have argued it lawful to have written invectives against the right of Queen *Elizabeth*, because many did defend it. In those things wherein difference in opinion cannot hurt the publick welfare, it is but just that men of both fides should have liberty to print ; but in the things that concern the publick peace, the Magistrate hath reason to encourage them to endeavour to promote it, and to discourage them who would faze theiranger it. Upon this ground the King of Spain forbid the

page 4.

Paul Servita
History of the
inquisition,
page 76.

A 3

pub-

["publishing of the 11. Tome of Baronius his Annals in his Dominions, because it tended to the weakening of the Sicilians fidelity, and he is for this commended by one zealous enough for the liberty of the Ecclesiasticks.", "From hence they proceed to apologize for themselves, wherein they endeavour to clear themselves from four sorts of imputations laid upon them. The first of which is their being &c. &c. &c. &c. &c. &c. &c. &c. &c

(5)

it were the Kings Court, Ergo, the Cheshire and Lancashire Mini-
ters, are not buſie-bodies, if they determine of Tithes in the State;
an Argument à Baculo ad Angulum.

The next imputation that they endeavour to clear themselves Plea &c.
from, is a prosecuting of some ſelf-intereſt: to which end (after page 6.
some good words and Proſtations of your innocency) they tell
us, That if they ſtood upon any ſuch deſigns, they might obtain
thoſe ends by compliance, for they are not ſo ſtupid as not to
know which way the ſtream was. The 12. Bishops that declared
the Parliaments actions null without their preſence, ſaw (no
doubt) as well as Non-ſcribers, which way the ſtream run, and
how probable it was that their tyranny was at a period: They (no
doubt) had many intereſts that would have perſwaded them to
ſilence, yet for all this they run themſelves into a Premunire. A
man may have many luſts and intereſts, whereof one may keep
down another. He that is covetous enough may ſometime be pro-
fuse, and ſeem eareleſs of his riches, being overprized by the great-
crſway of ambition. So that notwithstanding their proſeffions
and this ſhadow of reaſon, they muſt ſeek better Arguments be-
fore they can excufe themſelves from being the P rophets of A.
hab's Son, (for he that was the Abab of our Ifrael, hath now ſhed
his blood, where he began to ſhed the blood of Naboth) Micajah
is neither their Patron or Pattern, they are liker the Iron-horned
Zedekiah, who cry throughout all their book, to that bloody and
Idolatrous house, Go up and proſper.

Eikovonkλασμα

Page 37.

I Kings 22.

11.

Plea &c.

page 7.

Cyprian.

The third charge they anſwer to is apoſtacy and malignancy. In
anſwer to which they tell us, That they have committed nothing
againſt the custom of their Fathers. So the Pharisees were earneſt
for the tradition of their Fathers : they know, conſtinetudo ſinė ve-
ritate, vetuſtas erroris eſt.

But those good Fathers, whence they ſay they're born,
The Commons never, so as they, did ſcorne.

As non ille
Satum quo re
mentiris A-

chilles talis a-
rat--- Virgil.

If they mean Mr. Knox, Learned Buchanan, Mr. Calvin, it will not ſhewed them that they walk not in their wayes: but if they on Father Maxwel with his ſacro-fancla Regnum Majestas and Deacon Ferne, we will confefs what they ſay to be very true. tell us, that they ſeek and practife what they can, that the people.

(6)

1 Tim. 3:1.2. people of the Land may live a quiet and a peaceable life in all godlines and honesty; but not a word of praying for them in Authority, which the Apostle points as a medium to those ends. They would perswade us of their innocency in the things that are laid to their charge, by these Arguments.

1. Because they are hated by Malignants, Incendiaries, Tyrants, &c. And we believe them: It's natural to hate those who are讃, though they love the Treason. Besides, such have revengeful hearts, and let them stroke them never so much, will (if ever they get power) remember their former oppositions; their present compliance with them will not save them.

2. They appeal to their former actions; A weak Argument: Joab turned after Adonijah, though he turned not after Absalom.

Plea &c.
page 8.

1 Kings 2,28 lom.

3. To the continued tenour of them and their constant walkings: some that know these Ministers think otherwise of their constancy then they do themselves. Sure I am, a great part of them were so constant to their first principles, that they neither prayed for Divine assistance against Hamilton and his Army, nor gave thanks for deliverance from them. Tales may be told how some pleaded for the expunging of a passage against that Army, which is in the Chefsire Ministers Attestation. And another answered one that asked why he omitted thanks for that deliverance, that he knew not whether it were a mercy or no: yet the Kirk of Scotland declared against them. If this be constancy, what is liberty?

Attestation
of the Che-
shire Minis-
ters. p.30.

Besides, Dr. Ames will tell them, that to Christian constancy is required, not only a perpetual continuation of the same purpose and disposition, and a frequent reiteration of the same Acts; but progress and proficiency also in the way of vertue. The Heathens are taxed as relapsers, because they withheld the truth in unrighteousness: and Israel as forfakers of God, because they followed him not fully. So there is a sort of men, who in the beginning of civil Wars against Tyrants, are hot and active; but through floatish and unconstancy, and weaknes of spirit, either fainting or the own pretences, though never so just, be half attained, or through an inbred falshood and wickedness, betray ofimes to destruct men of Noblest temper, joyned with them for causes, which in their rash undertakings were not capable of; and that they are such, they themselves may see, if they would view the

Ames.deCa-
sib: Conscien.
lib. 3. cap.13.

Rom. 1.13.
Numb. 14.
22. 24.

Tenure of
Kings and
Magistrates.
page 3.

in the Glasse held up to them by this worthy Authour, to answer
whose Reasons I must refer them.

4. They urge their present standing out against the Engagement, as an Argument of their conftancy to their first principles. A strange confidence, hardly to be parallelled, unless it be in that paflage of the *Popes* Bull to the Catholiques of England, to diftade them from the Oath of Allegiance. We in the mean time will pray the Father of lights, that he will not suffer the heart of the English King to be blinded, who certainly ought to learn, how great credit is to be given to his Catholique Subjects, in the things which you can promife, who rather would lose their lives, then let go a word that might oblige them to perjury.

5. They tell us that they are not changed, but the thing called Malignity: If this were so, others have done but as Non-scribers themselves, what they formerly called Tyranny, they now call fundamental Government. But Malignity is still the fame as it was, viz.: disaffection to the Common-wealth and enmity against liberty.

Lastly, they say, the Maligaants take the Engagement. So they did the Covenant, yet it never the worse, no though Hamilton, Ormond, Inchiqueen, Langdale said, they fought for it. A returning enemy is much better then a revolting Brother.

Lastly, they say they are charged with morality, wilfulneſs, discontent, and prepoſſession; from which they would vindicate themselves by urging their many near and dear concernments lying upon them, which they will not be thought so careleſs of, as not to regard, if conscience would permit. They know that Pharaoh had many engagements upon him by divers concernments, which might have caused him to let Israel go: yet his wilfulneſs was ſuch, as to run him into the deſtruction of his people, Servants and ſelf also at the laſt. Impotent wilfulneſs makes a man forget all ſelf-intereſt. The late King from whom they borrowed this Argument (as indeed this Book of theirs makes that Image of the Beaſt (ſo a * King, and the King of Kings all Tyrants) to live and give it power to ſpeak, and threatens with death them that will not receive it) he in his book ſaith, My own and my Childrens Intereſts gave me many obligations to seek and preſerve the love of my ſaſerl. From waging a bloody Warre against his people to ſatisfie his exorbitant

Nos interea
Patrem lu-
minum omni-
bus, nè exca-
carî patiatur
cor Anglican
Regis, qui
certè discere
debebit,
quanta in igitur
que pollicerit
poteritis, fides
adhibenda ſi
Catholicis
ſubditis, qui
nè ſe perjuri-
alligent, ma-
lunt ſpiritu-
emittere
quam vocem.
Introduction
to the Arch
Bishops Try-
al. page 82.

Plea &c. p. 8.

Exodus at
the beginning

* Proverbs

28. 15.

Luke 13. 32.

Eikòn
Bexillikn

Med. 1.

page 2.

B

(8)

Plea &c. p.9. exorbitant wilfulnels. They say it is pure conscience that is their motive: we wish it were so, and believe it is so in some that are led by them, and much pitty the credulity of such: but what Conscience the leaders among them have (for there are some among Ministers that pin their faith upon other mens sleeves) shall be shewed hereafter in examining their grounds to which they appeal. You would little think that these men that thus plead for

Conscience, were the promoters of a Petition against all separate
Congregations, and desired that no Members of such might be ad-
mitted to any place of publick trust. Yet instead of seeing in this
their affliction, which in their delivered Consciences, (if they be
conscientious) will not suffer them to do what is lawful, and ac-
knowledging with Adonib zek that God is righteous, they ob-
liquely perfecute others by censuring their Consciences, nay and
plainly say, that they are angry with them, because they have not
so great a swallow as themselves. Of these we may say as the holy
Chronicler of Ahaz. These are the Ministers, who when they
were afflicted, did yet more wickedly. Had their Apology been
modest, I should not have troubled the Reader with thus much;
but since they deal in proud wrath, Solomon, as he tells them their
name, so he directs us how to deal with them, that the simple may
be wife, and beware.

Judges 1. 7.
2 Chronicles
28 23.
Prov. 21.24.
Prov. 19.25.
Prov. 21.11.
compared.

The Ministers in their Appendix answer some Arguments which
are made by others for the Engagement. I shall not stand upon
their Answer to any Argument, that I make not use of my self: But
leave the Northern Subscribers, and the Authority of the grand
case of Conscience to speak for themselves; for they have both
age and abilities; which I may more truly say of them, then these
men of their Baal Berith: which terme I desire that it may not
be understood as if I derogated from the Covenant, but as setting
forth the abuse of it by these men, who make it a perfect and com-
pleat directory for all things sacred and civil. It cannot be a disho-
nour to it to be called so, in respect of the abuse, no more then it
was to the Brazen Serpent to be called Nehustan, when it was I-
dolized.

2 Kings
18. 4.

Animadversi

(9)

## Animadversions on a Book, called a Plea for Non-scribers.

It always hath been the practice of men that delight in vitilitigation to obscure things in themselves plain, by their devising of many fences for them. This do the Non-scribers (for I shall hereafter use this name which themselves have imposed on themselves) charging the Engagement with a *Protean* ambiguity; from which diversity of interpretation may bear a warrant in it. A desire fit for Non-scribers modelty, who as youthful *Aseanius* weary of chafing fearful *Deere*,

*Wished a foaming Boare (his Game to mend)*
*Or Lion from the Mountain to descend.*

*Sputnantem-*
*gus dari(pe-)*
*cora inter in-)*
*ertia) votis*
*Optat A-)*
*prum, aut)*
*fulvum de-)*

So they dare Authority: all other reason is but *impar congres- scendere* *fus Achilli*. Yet to let them see that the Engagement is not of *monte* *Leo- new*. *Virgil*. *Aenead.* such a *Protean* ambiguity; but that an engager may agree with them in that fence, which they say is most plain, proper and equitable, I shall (after rectifying a few mistakes of theirs) close with lib. 2. them in the main of their construction.

1. By the Common-wealth of England they understand a particular form of Government: But here is the matter with its *Pag. II.* form, the people or community of England, in the form of a Common-wealth: as the Kingdom of England was the people of England under that form of Monarchy. This they might have faſer'd in the Acts they quote themselves, where they find men- *Plea &c.* *Kuſt* of the Nation under this present Government, and the well *pag. 10.* in Govern- the Margin.

B 2

(10)

* As they say,
Appendix.
P. 34.

Government thereof in a way of Common-wealth or free State : so that when it is laid the Common-wealth of England, England is not * a whole abstracted from all forms, but cloathed with its form of a Common-wealth or free State.

Arift. polit.

l. 6.

εν μεροι

ἀρχαία
καὶ ἀρχεῖν

καὶ ἀρχεῖν

2. They understand that this is invested in certain persons: but this betrays their ignorance in the nature of a Common-wealth, or free State: it being proper to a Common-wealth, that in viciffitudes, the same persons both command & obey: And therefore, when we engage to a Common-wealth, we understand the viciffitudes of Magistrates: we engage to this Parliament for the present, and to all other Representatives of the people hereafter to be chosen; and to the people we engage to preserve their liberty of chusing their Representatives. For, a πολιτικός or Common-wealth is αρχαῖ ἡ ἀνθρώποι· σοι a Government in which the people Govern, which they could not be made to do, had they not the liberty to elect their Supreme Magistrates. Upon these mistakes many of their Arguments are grounded; and hence it followes, that in many things they fight against a man of

Arift. Polit.

lib. 3.

straw, that themselves have set up.

Quæ enim
populi partes

In the matter and form of the Engagement, I agree with them, and confes it is not in the power of the Engagers, as single private persons, to put a period to its duration; but in the hands of the engaged to, viz. the people of England, in the form of a Common-wealth. It lies I say, in their power to chuse to themselves what other form shall hereafter most tend to their own being and wel-being, which is the end of all civil society. The whole sense of the Engagement is this, I declare and promise, that I will be true and faithful, not only negatively, but positively, to the people of England, as now moulted in the form of a Common-wealth, without a King or House of Lords.

in civitate, fit
jure suffragii

in creandis
Magistris-

bus & nego-
tiis similibus

deftitatur ?

Vbbo Emmius
De script. Re-
ipub. Atheni-
enſis pag. 12.

Let us hear their Plea against it. In the first place they argue thus. A power unjust in attainment and possession, we cannot be either positively or negatively faithful to: But, the power in the Engagement is such: Ergo Neither of these propositions are undeniably true; the weaknesses of the Major and its supporters, hath been sufficiently evinced, by a most able and learned Authour, if answer to the exercitation concerning usurped Powers. I purport to bear to answer it (not out of doubt of its infirmity, but cause of the specious pretences that such as Non-scribers

Plea &c.

pag. 11.

(ii)

See Plea &c.

from defense of the lawfulness of submission and obedience to pag. 34.
Powers unjust in attainment, to be patter the present power, as Plea &c.
confessed to be unjust by its defenders. Of which fault, of wrest- pag. 19. 20.
ing suppositions into concessions, the Non-scribers are not inno-
cent.

Appendix.

page 3.

Come we then to the examination of the Minors strength: for * Every par-
the confirming of which they argue from two mediums. The pre- ticular per-
sent power (lay they) is unjust in its attainment.

* Son standing

1. In regard of its removal, disposition, and subversion of the in the related
ancient established Government, which was a multiformed or on of a Sub-
compound Magistracy of King, Lords, and Commons, coordinate just; but the
the one to the other. I expected in a charge of this nature, that community is
they should have brought another sort of Argument, and have e- in the power
vinced, That it was unlawful for a free people, upon any grounds and dignity
whatsoever, to have changed their forms of Magistracy. This above the
seems to be their opinion,* which they express in these words. For Magistrates.
a private or innovative power to be in them ( that is in the Numb. 11.
people) * when they stand in the relation of Subjects, that is, 16.
have an actual and legitimate supreme Magistracy over them, we Hos Judices
cannot yet see any warrant for. I shall help them therefore to some in magnis
spectacles, through which they may discern this truth. That the mortibus ne-
Community may change their form of Magistracy upon which the ceffitas crea-
whole controversie depends. The people of Israel, before they vit. Dici
had Kings, were under an actual and legitimate Magistracy, viz. Dictators.
The Council of 70. Elders, instituted by divine Authority, they poterante
were governed in a way of Policy or free State, by these their Re-
presentatives, chosen from among the people. The Judges were μοραρχαις
an extraordinary kind of Officers, raised up by God upon emer-
gent occasions, otherwise in the intervalls of Judges Israel had no nomen etiam
Magistracy. Now for this asfertion, learned Cunæus is evident Ne- Sylla, Cynna,
ceffity created these Judges in great conclusions of State. And he Marióque
faith further, They may be called Dictators, (and mean Historians: & alis
know that the Dictators power was extraordinary ) but Josephus Dictatoribus
calls them Monarchs, which name the Greeks gave to Sylla, Cinna, Romanis Gra-
Marius, and other Roman Dictators. The same Authour shewes ci dedere.
that the Council of 70. remained ever in the Hebrew Common- Petrus Cu-
falfer, from its first institution, and handled those things that næus de Re-
Kauf, the summe petestat. of the supreme Authority. Mr. Calvini is a pub. Hebra-
, ar witness too. God ordained (faith he) among the Israelites lib. 1.

B 3

an cap. 12.

Ariftocrati-
am Politie
vicinam

[Deus] apud
Israelitas
inſtituit, cum
optimâ con-
ditione res
habere vel-
let. Calvin.
Jnſt. cap. 20.
Seft. 7. Edit.
1553. I have
noted the E-
dition, be-
cause it is not
divided into
Bookes.

(12.)

an Ariftocracy near a free State, when he would have them be in
the best condition. And it was very near indeed to a free State;
for the Elders were choſeu by lot, equally out of all the Tribes.
Thus I have evinced, that Israel was when firſt formed and orga-
nized into a political body, under a Magiſtracy different from that
they had under Kings. Now that it was lawful for them to change
this form of Magiſtracy, is evident.

1. From the Scripture, Deut. 17:14, 15. When thou art come to the Land which the Lord thy God giveth thee, and ſhalt poſſeſs it, and ſhalt dwell therein, and ſhalt ſay, I will ſet a King over me, like as all Nations that were aboutme : Thou ſhalt in any wife ſet him over thee, &c. In which Text you may ſee.

1. That the power of keeping or parting with their preſent Magiſtracy is put in the people's will, if thou ſay, I will ſet a King over me, &c.

2. That God directs them in a circumſtance for the exception of this power. *Thou ſhalt choose one from among thy Brethren, &c.* which regulation of a circumſtance had been in vain, had they not had power to dispoſeſs the Magiſtracy then in poſſession.

3. From their actual changing of their Magiſtracy, Israel choſe them a King when they had Samuel for their ſupreme lawful Magiſtrate: and Samuel had a ſpecial Command from God to yield to them, *Hearken unto the voice of this people, in what they ſhall ſay unto thee* : But (ſay Non-ſcribers) the Lord both by his word and ſign maniſeſted his disapprobation and anger against their ſeeking a King, when they had Samuel to their Judge, even to their conſiſtention. To which I rejoyne, that it was not the change of Magiſtracy which was the cauſe of that divine anger.

1 Sam. 8, 7.

1. God was angry because they did it in such an unfeasonable time, when it was ſo inexpedient, they having ſo juſt a Judge as Samuel; as is evident, by comparing 1 Sam. 12. at the beginning, with the 19. verſe.

2. Because they did it in diſtrust of divine affiſtance, which had helped them by Judges extraordinarily raſed in time of danger; whereas they then put more truſt in a King of their own chufing, then in God that alwayes raſed Saviourſ for them, as appeareth, 1 Sam. 12. 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12. compared with the 19. before quoted.

3. Because they did it out of deſire of the pomp of their Nei-

bour Nations, who were under Kingly Government: Because they would rather be conformed to the Heathen, then acquiesce in what was immediately given them by God. The milting of an action, and doing it upon base grounds, may make an action otherwise lawful, to become unlawful. *Quia Genti-libus conformari malint*

But (say Non-scribers) God hath sometimes disowned and condemned exprefly the peoples Act, in setting up a Government over them, which hath been in *specie* lawful. To their Testimonies out of Samuel, (which are 1 Sam. 8. 8. & 12. 16, 17.) I have answere already. Thofe out of Josua 8. 4. & 13. 10, 11. speak, the latter of the election of Saul, the former of Jerobeam's erection. To them all I answer, That the Common-wealth of Israel was (as is well noted by Cuneus out of Josephus) a Theocracy, of which God was in a peculiar manner, the Governour and Law-giver. As God would be consulted in all ceremonials, so, would he in all great matters of State. Israel in the Wildernes had intimation

that in the Land whither they were going, the Lord would chuse some one place to put his name there, when he would have a set led Habitation, as well as they had intimation, that then they should have Kings, but yet if David (notwithstanding his enqury of the private opinion of Nathan the Prophet and his encounter of him to the work) had built the Temple, it would have been a building which God would have difavowed, for God would have the ordering of all circumstances in that to come from himself: he would have no house till he had commanded it himself. So when Israel would have had their Magistracy changed, they should have consulted with God first, and when your 10. Tribes turned away from the House of David, they should have asked Council of God. Because they did not: therefore God vitatem faith, they set up Kings, but not by him; they asked not his advice, but tumultuously rufhe into those changes, wilfully and prafes rectorobtinately crying, give us a King and Princes. But to make this que solus De-stretch to all Nations is absurd, since other Nations have not God us fit. De Rep. for their Law-giver so particularly, nor can enjoy his immediate Hebraorum. answers, as Israel might have done; but are to be guided by the lib. 1. cap. 1. Law of Nature, and the Rules of right reafon. Thus have I Deut. 12. 5. proved that it was lawful for the Israelites to change their efta- 1 Chron. 17. plished Government for a King, and consequently, it may be 1. to 14. lawful for a people upon good grounds, to change their Kingly

Go-

(14)

*Arift. Polit.* Government for any other, unlefs they will say that only Kingly lib. 1. Government hath a privilege to be unchangeable, which is an Amefi de caſibus consci- absurdity that Court Parasites would hardly own.

en. lib. 5.
cap. 25.

I may addreafon to prove this, and I argue,

1. From the definition of a politick body, which is this, Apo- litick body is a Society of men, according to nature, having in it Lex, Rex, q. ſelf an autxiputice or ſufficiency for preſervation of it ſelf, conſti- 19. p 158. tuted for being and well-being. Or ſhorter thus. A Society ſuffi- 1 Pet.2.13. cient in it ſelf to all things conducible to well-being, or commo-

Monarchia dious life. Now the form of Magiftracy, may oft-times prove the ſi justa eſt, greateſt hinderance to the happineſs and well-being of the pub- Regnum, ſi lick body, and it cannot be a ſociety, having a ſufficiency for all injuſta, Ty-things conducible to its own civil happineſs, had it not a power to vannis eſt. remove theſe preſures.

Deinde ex

2. From the limitation that is upon the power of the Magiftrate.

Tyrannidis
destructione

The Magiftrates power is not absolute, but limited 1. By the will of God. 2. By the will of the People contained in those Lawes and

nascitur. A-conditions in which the power of rule is founded. Now the poli- ristioeratia, tick body hath a Nomothetick faculty, and ſo is not properly un- etc. Tandem der a Law, but may change and abrogate those Lawes which are in obligarchi- hurtful and pernicious, and conſequently may abrogate the forms am definit et. of Magiftracy which are pernicious, as well as the Lawes, by which Ubiverò ini- they only ſtand, and in which their power is placed. 3. Forms of quitas & in- Magiftracy are called the Creatures of men by the Apoſtle, though juſtifia eo- Magiftracy in genere be the Ordinance of God, yet in ſpecie it is rum qui pre- the Creature of man, and conſequently may be deſtroyed by them ſunt per mnl- that made it. I ſhall ſhut up the proof of this with the words of tiruadinem irâ a man famous in his Generation. Monarchy if juſt, is a Kingdom, percitam è if unjuſt a Tyranny, out of the deſtruction of Tyranny arifeth Ari- medio tollitur ſtocracy, in which the Reines are committed to the moſt juſt mutatur oli- and prudent among the Nobles: this ends in an Oligarchy, in garchia in which a few unwife and unjuſt great ones get power. The iniqui- Democrati- ty and injustice of whom being taken away by the angry multi- am, etc.---ſic tude, the Oligarchy is turned into a Democracy, in which all things ſunt tria are ordered by the people, according to their Countrey Cuſtoms, Magiſtratu- and certain Lawes, the change of this is into an Ochlocracy, in um paria, in which the multitude take licence to do what they lift. So there quorum ſin- are 3 paires of Magiſtrates in every one of which, the firſt is legi- gulia qui pri- timate, the ſecond illegitimate. Kingly, Ariftocratical, Democr or, legitimus,

qui poſterior, illegitimus reſtè cenſetur. Musculus. loc. com. page 622.

( 15 )

tical Governments are lawful: Tyranny, Oligarchy, Ochleratry
unlawful. You may plainly see, he approves of the charge of cor-
rupted Governments. Let this be the first step to prove, that the
meer dispossession of a former Government, cannot make the suc-
ceeding Government unlawful to be obeyed or engaged to.

Now let us go a little more closely along with Non-scribers. Plea, &c.
The Question that is most material is not ( say they ) whether a page 20.
form of Government may be dispossessed; but whether it be law-
fully done by them; for if they have unlawfully put out, and still
keep out the said lawful Government, then is their power unjust-
ly gotten and held. I shall gratifie them so farre as to grant, that
it is not always expedient for a people to change their forms of
Magistracy, & quoted non expedit, quatenus non expedit, non licet. Let
us see then how they prove it unlawfully done. In reference to
this enquiry ( say they ) that which will be considerable, is not
their goodneſs or expediency of the fact, but the warrant and Au-
thority for it in them that did it; and they that travel about the
goodneſs and conveniency of the things, but lead them out of the
way, which aſſertion of theirs is an evidence of most putid hypo-
crisie. Muscalus notes it to be the practice of Pleudo-Bishops to
enquire concerning the person and Authority of the Teacher, be-
fore they enquire the truth or falſhood of their Doctrine. So
these that keep such a coyle about titular righteousness, despite
real righteouſneſs: they that teach others to keep their Law,
through breaking of the Law, diſhonour God. God (who is moſt
eminently and exemplarily just, who ruleth in the Kingdom of
men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will) is pleased to give a cap. 1.
reason of the dispoſſession of Powers, drawn principally from their
demerits, who govern unrighteously. The Prophet Isaiah pub-
lishing his Edict for the transferring of the Kingdom from the
Babylonians to the Medes and Persians, expresseth it thus. Thou
ſhalt not be joyned with thy Fathers in burial, because thou haſt
destroyed thy Land, and lain thy people, the ſeed of evil doers
ſhall never be renouned: prepare ſlaughter for his Children for
the iniquity of their Fathers, that they do not rife nor poſſeſs the
Land, nor fill the face of the world with Cities. And the Prophet
Jeremiah denouncing the diſposſion of the Kingly line of Judah
ſaferth, Thine eyes and thy heart are not; but for thy covetousneſs,
Kuſſ for to shed innocent blood, &c. which he makes the reason
c. and

and

(16)

Ezekiel 21. an i found of the following sentence. Ezekiel alio threatning
24, 25, 26. the same judgement, faith, Because you have made your iniquity
to be remembred, in that your transgression is discovered, so that
Plea, &c. in all your doings, your fins appear, because, I say, that ye are come
pag. 21. to remembrance, ye shall be taken with the hand: And thou pro-
Nec expen-ditur hodie phane wicked Prince of Israel, whose day is come, when iniquity
quâ culpâ shall have an end. Thus faith the Lord God, remove the Diadem,
exciderint and take off the Crown: this shall not be the same. Nebuchadne-
possessione, zer had no lawful superior power over the King of Judah, nor the
gnam bonam Medes and Persians over the King of Babylon; but the demerits
de se spem of the Kings of Judah and Babylon, made their dispossession just
prebeant, before God. These Apostate Non-scribers have oft presented the
quam inte-gros in admi-Tyrant, and yet now he is blamelesse. We never heard yet alled-
nistratióne ged (say they) nor do acknowledge good reason or ground (on
futuros ex-mans part) for the matters to have been done. These men sin, be-
istment, quos ing condemned of themselves. We may justly say as Albertus
susceperint Krantzius faith in a like case. Christiern the second King of Den-
tuendos: Una mark and his Son, were expelled out of the Kingdom for Tyrant-
causa satis ny, both of them breathed out threatnings against them that had
fuerit, propin-exiled them: yet many favour'd them in their deferved misery,
quus est, Rex who detested them in their exorbitant Domination. It's not re-
natus est, re-garded now (faith he) by what fault they fell out of possession,
petit nativum what hope of future amendment may be expected, how just
titulum; De-they will be in governing, by them that have undertaken to de-
nique in po-fend them; but one thing is enough, he is a Kinsman, a King born,
stremis habe-he endeavours to recover his native Title. Lastly, none considers
tur, cui popu-to whom the fault of the peoples afflicted State, and of the im-
laris status pendent utter ruine of the Common wealth is to be imputed. The
afflicti, & Re-blood which hath been shed by the two last Kings, (which a
ipub. funditus Scotch Writer of no mean credit, faith to be more then was shed
collabentis by the Roman Emperors in the ten primitive persecutions) the
culpa impu-guilt whereof might have lain upon the Nation, might the prero-
tetur. Exci-gative Lords and cajoled Commons have had their will: this
dium Hol-blood (I say) of so many precious Saints and Martyrs, as Non-
mense p. 505, scribes have often called them, is now no more regarded by
Truths ma-them, then the blood of so many Dogs in a time of pestilence
nifeſt. p. 23. Yet since they put the question upon this illue, that the
rant of persons is requisite to make an action lawful, I shall

(17)

offence with them in this particular, hoping not to be non-suited at
the Bar of reason. To evidence the want of Authority in the per-
sons, they lay down this proposition. If a Government be made *Plea, &c.*
up of three Estates, every of them being fundamental to the con-
stitution, one of them cannot take away another. I distinguish of
fundamental powers, there are two forts of foundations. 1. A natu-
ral foundation, as the ground, soyle, earth, or native Rock is to an
house. 2. Artificial, as the stones, that are first laid upon that soyle
or natural foundation. So there are two forts of Estates, funda-
mental to the constitution of every publick body that deferves to
be called free. 1. Those that are originally fundamental, viz. a
common supreme Council of Deputies, or Representatives freely
chosen by the people, in whom the power of making Lawes, con-
stitutions and offices refts. 2. Those that are ascititiously funda-
mental, or derivatively, builded up upon the originally fundamen-
tal estate, who have a power judicial or executive committed to
them. Those fundamental Estates, which are derivatively so, may
not take away one another; but the estate which is properly fun-
damental, may take away the other, and be blamelesse, in case of
breach of trust, or abuse of power entrusted to them.

But Non-scribers apprehend the powers they speak of to be e. Plea, &c. qually Coordinate, so that the whole force of the fence of their argumment is this, Coordinate Powers have no power to take away each other: King, Lords, and Commons, are coordinate Powers: Ergo. I deny both propositions, and shall shew first, the erroneouſes of the Minor. In so doing I shall shew them, 1. That the Rights of the power of the King was not a coordinate power with that of the Kingdom. Representatives of the people, not an absolute and perfect coordinate, p. 86. & absolute, which appears, 1. From the nature of the Kings power. Cur bi poffim. Lawyers divide the powers of this Nation into Original, Judicial, and Executive, and affirm that the Kings power was but executive. To make executive power coordinate with the nomothetical and original, were to make the Executioner equal Rights of the with the Law-maker. 2. From the Coronation-Oath, wherein Kingdom, the King ſware fealty to the State and Lawes, as his higher Lords, p. 19. that I may ſpeak, as the Author of the Rights of the Kingdom : in which Oath the King ſware to held and guard, confirm and de-

Sovereign
ſaſerd the Lawes which the Commons ſhould chufe. De tuendo & Power of
Kaufsodiendo justas Leges & confuetudines Eccleſiæ, ac de faciendo Parliaments,
eo. ipſume Dominum Regem, eas eſſe protegendas, & confirmandas, part. 2. p.75.

( 2

quas

(18)

quod velimus justè & rationabiliter elegem, as Mr. Prinne gives us that clause of the King's Oath, out of a Parlia ment Roll, and out of the Book of Clarendieux Hanley, in English thus, Will you grant, fulfill & defend all rightful Laws & Customs which the Commons of the Realm shall chuse? The King shall answ er, I grant and believe, That power cannot be coordinate with the Law-giving power, which is obliged to all, and cannot alter an apex or Title of those Lawes that another Estate shall choose. The mutual stipulation between

King and people, was that which was constituted; a King of England, before this past, he was but Regni candidatus. Non-scribers tell us that the Kings of this Realm are legally and actually Kings, upon the death of their respective Predecessors, and this (say they) Lawyers and Historians will satisfie; among whom they chose Speed to urge; in which quotation (I profess) I admire, that men brought up in the study of good Arts, (to say nothing of the science they pretend to) should so over-shoot themselves, as not to be able to distinguish between what Speed relates as an Historian, and what corrupt glosses he puts upon our ancient Chronologists; for immediately before the passage they quote, he acknowledges that before Richards Coronation, most writers call him not a King, and then he holds that Sycophantical glosses, which Non-scribers make use of. A Lawyer, and that a friend of their own, tells us from Walsingham (a farre more authentique Historian then the Merchant-Taylor) that in the Coronation of Richard the 2d. when the King had taken his Oath, Archiepiscopus præcedente eum, &c. the Arch-Bishop (Henry Percy the Marshal of England going before him) turned himself to all the parts of the Church, and acquainted the people with the Kings Oath, asking them whether they would obey such a Prince? and it was answered by all the people, with a loud voice, that they would; which custom (faith he) hath bin constantly before and since observed. And another of

Speed, Rich. 1. S. 3.

his profession, faith, That the King ought to take his Oath, before he should require his Subjects homage, & when any Subjects have sworn homage, before the King had done his homage & sworn fealty to the State & Law, it hath been observed by Historians, as some kind of Comet or Prodigy in State politiques, so that notwithstanding, that for peace take, the next of the blood hath usually succeeded; yet he could not require homage before he had first sworn to the Lords, the Commons, & confquently hath his Kingly being from that stipulation. He cannot then be coordinate with them, whose swearing obedience to the Lawes they shall chuse

Appendix.
page 48.

Sovereign
power of Par-
liaments,
part. I. p. 75.

Rights of the
Kingdom.
P. 32

g

gives him his Kingly power and dignity. 3. Those who make a King, and have power to make him, in point of misgovernment, must be above the King in point of Government: But the Parliament makes Kings, and Kings make not Parliaments: the Kings power is fiduciary, and put in his hands upon trust, and must be ministerial, and borrowed from those who put him in trust, his power must then be leffe. When the King hath received power from them, they have the whole power they had before, that is to make Lawes, and resigned no power to the King, but to execute Lawes, and his convening them is an act of royal duty, &c. Lex, Rex. all this is Mr. Rutherford's, and therefore should take more with quest. 24. Non-scribers. And again, the Parliament is coordinate with the p. 210.

King ordinarily; but the coordination on the King's part is by derivation, on the Parliaments part, originaliter and fontaliter. In ordinary there is a coordination; but if the King turn tyrant, the Parliament is to use their fountain power, and that of the Law, Par in parem non habet potestatem, is no better from his pen (faith Mr. Rutherforda), that is from the excommunicate Bishops of Rosse, then from Barclay, Grotius, Arn士 us, Blackwood, &c. We hold the Parliament that made the King at Hebron, to be above their Creation, the King. See then ( Reader ) who are the Patriarchs and Prophets of Non-scribers, faft Cavaliers, excommunicated Prelates. But what say Non-scribers to this Argument? Even, run themselves into the height of Cavalierisme. The Authour of the Engagement vindicated, faith, the people chuse their Representatives, and they set up Kings, who are therefore meerly the peoples Creatures, depend upon continuation of their pleasures: Ejus est inſtituere, ejus est deſtituere. To this they anſwer, This is spoken as if it were undeniably true, that Kings with us have been wont to be set up by the Representatives of the people; but we have neither been nor read of any such custome in England, we have not any one preſident of a King, created meerly by a Representative. Is this their knowledge of Hiftories, to which they ſend us elsewhere for ſatisfaction? Sir Thomus Smith calls the Parliament the Representative body of all England, wherein every Englishman is presumed to be either by himself, or by his Proxie. And many Kings have been made by this. Who made William the first King? his Conqueſt (Non-scribers will ſay) was no just title, the right ſuccessive heir of the Crown Edgar Etheling surviving? who made William the 2. and Henry the 1. Kings, while their elder Brother Robert was alive?

Appendix.
p. 350.

(20)

What Title had King John by succession, as long as Arthur and Anne, the Children of his elder Brother George Frey, Duke of Brittain lived? the latter of which Anne, lived in the Reign of Henry the third Son of John. The Arch-Bishop Hubert at the Coronation of John spake thus, *Noverit discretio vestra, &c.* Be it known to your discretion, that none hath right or any fore-title to succeed another in a Kingdom, unless first he be (with invocation for grace and guidance of God's spirit) by the body of the Kingdom thereunto chosen.

So Mr. Prinne out of Hoveden, to which all the Assembly consented, *scientes quod non fine causa sic definiverat* as the Author of the rights of their Kingdom, out of Matthew Paris and Wendover, compared with Hoveden and others: which

Authour tells us, that if Bracton and Fleta, 2 ancient Judges, may be made Judges of our Kings Titles, they will tell us that in their times our Kings were elective. And one of them lived in Henry the third time, the other son what after. Edward the 3. was

made King by the same power that his Father was depofed by, and what that was, Speed will tell you, the sentence was pronounced by William Truffel, of all the men in England, and of the Parliament Procurator. Henry the 4. was chosen and made King of England by the people, for the rightful manhood they found in him,

as the old Fructus Temporum. But to conclude, who made Henry the 7. King? not succession; for by his Father he was a meer stranger to the Royal Line, and by his Mother of such a prout of the Family of Lancafter, as was excluded from succession to the Crown, by that Law which made it capable of succeeding to ordinary Inheritances, as Speed confesseth. By his wife he had it not;

for he exercised all the Acts of Royal Power before he was married. His Conquest Non-scribers will deny to be a Title, it must

then follow, that it was from the Parliament he had his Title, unless they will say (with Speed) he had it by election of the people in the field at Befworth: But I believe, Non-scribers will say that

Act was more valid, which was done by an orderly Parliament, then that which was done by the Souldiers in the height and heat of their victory. If they have not seen or heard these things, they are strangers in English History. But it was not the obscurity of these things in our Histories, that made them say thus; but to make the King absolute supreme, and giver of life and being to Parliaments, as is evident from that of theirs: we have no ground

to

Sovereign power of Parliaments.

part. 1. p. 54.

Rights of their Kings. p. 70.

Speed. Ed. 2.
S. 74.

Fructus Temporum.

part. 7.

Rich. 2.

Speed. Hen.

7. S. 1.

Speed. Rich.

3. S. 53.

(21)

to think Reprefentatives antecedent to Kings, which is the rotten Appendix. ground of Ferne, the Authour of Offorianum, &c. as Mr. Rutherford will tell them. Again, they tell us that the Peoples constitution of their Government, either collectively or by Proxies by way queft. 215 of election and consent, is no valid argument of any superintendent power in the people to make or unmake Kings. To this I Lex, Rex. say, that the people do not constitute their Governours by a bare queft. 6. election and consent; but they are their efficient cause, and give them their civil power and agency. Kings and other Magistrates are the effects of the people, and therefore inferior to them. This nail is driven home to the head by the fore-named, learned Scotchman, they know the common principle, Quod efficit tale eſt magis tale, and for their comparisons of Servants and Pастors, I must refer them to the place quoted in the Margin, where they may be satisfied. 2. The Lords were not coordinate with the Representatives of the people: I ſhall not stay (for I ſhall soon diſmifs them) here to relate the firſt rifing of the like dignities in other places. Námgne munus illud, quâ vi, quâ gratiâ & favore, imo qua pretio deniqs, et corruptelâ, hominumque That learned Hiftorian Guicciardin tells us, that after Lotharius the conditione, & Emperor had divided the Empire into three parts among his three ſub ſpecie Sons, they out of floath, began to give up divers Lands to their ſendi, aliifq; Palatines, who before were as Judges, ſent to govern them, and divers preſfrom hence came up to many Earles, as now we ſee, what by force, textibus, in what by favour, what by price and corruption, under divers pre-peculium-texts the Office of Palatines was turned into a propriety, and of tandem con-temporary became hereditary. Nor ſhall I inſtult upon honesſt and verſum eſt, learned George Buchanan's verdict concerning this kind of men, & ex tempore who informs us that Malcolm the 2. was the firſt who brought rario hæredithem into Scotland, rather for vain ambition then any uſe, and afterwards complains, There is now no meaſure in new names of Etum. Guice: honour, and no uſe of their names, beſides the empty Title. To Descrip. come to our own Lords, The Dakes which were among our Saxons. Anceſtors, I cannot conceive to be any other then the Hereto-p. 440. chii, that are mentioned in the Confessors Lawes, who were the Nunc nullus Captains of the Kingdoms Militia, choſen by the people in their in honorem Folcmotes; for Hertzog is the teame by which the Dutch (of nominibus eſt whom the Saxons were a branch) expeſs a Duke to this day: a modus, neque word derived from Here an Army, and toget to leid, and fit præter inally expeſſing the Latine Dux, the fountain of our word Duke. nem titulum, Earle a name of honour, as Grave, of Age, was wont to denote a nullus Nomongſt them the principal Judge of a shire, which was alio e-num ufus lective.

(22)

Buchanan, lective. The Norman brought in the Title Baron, and the Norman
Rerum Scoticarum. Barons, were nothing else but the great Free-holders of the Nat-
on. All the Peers are laid by Lawyers to sit in the house as Barons,
lib. 6. in which right the Bishops also sat, as being Barons by tenure: as
Verstegan. also other Barons were before any was so by Pattent, which man-
cap. 10. ner of Creation, viz. by Pattent is not much elder then Edward
Rights of the the 3. and indeed, was one of the prime plots of our Kings,
Kingdom. whereby they strengthned their Tyranny: they saw the great Free-
p. 92. holders that were Barons by tenure, were vigorous Patrons of the
peoples Liberties: they therefore gratified many of their own
Creatures with Pattents for that Honour, that they might gratifie
them with their mercinary Votes. Now, the most, if not all of the
Lords, were no other then the Kings Pattentees, whereof some
had bought their Title, others were called to it, to draw them off
the service of the Common-wealth, as Strafford, Digby, &c. O-
thers raised out of the Kings private affection, so that they were
no other then bubbles, blowen up by the breath of exorbitant
prerogative. These things premised, I shall demonstrate, that the
Lords were not coordinate with the Commons by 3. mediums. 1.
The power which they had was but Judicial, and that over the
King onely. Rex non habet superiorem in terris prater Deum & Le-
gem & Curiam Comitum & Barokum, qui ideo dicuntur Comites,
quia sunt socii Regis, faith Bracton, quoted by Mr. Prinze, and their
Office is that debent ei frarum ponere. Nay, the last King in a De-
claration of his (as I well remember I have read, though now I
have it not at hand) faith, that the Lords were as bankes between
him and the Commons, to restrain the excesſes of prerogative. Le-
giflative power at the first they had none, & should we grant that
since their good ſervices for the people, they had a ſhare of legiſa-
tive power allowed them, yet this would not prove them coordi-
nate with the Commons. For, the modi of Parliaments (faith an
able Lawyer) will not only tell us, that the Commons have better
and ſtrenger Votes then the Lords, but that there may be a Par-
liament without the Lords, which he proves and defends against it
Rights of the and Objections. Which I athour tells us, that the Lords loſt this Judi-
Kingdom. cial power, by accepting Pattents from the King, and ſo becoming
p. 88. 89, 90. incorporate with him, his personal Commiffioners, who was not
Idem, ibidem able to constitute Judges, when himself was a party.
p. 82.

Sovereign
power of Par-
liaments.
part. 1.p.5.in
the Margin.

Nay,

( 23 )

Nay, should I grant, that Power to the House of Lords, that they were by office the Patrons of the people against the Undations of Tyrannie, yet will not this make them coordinate with the Commons. The means are subordinate to the end. The Patron is but an honorary servant to his Client. As, if a Patron, having bargained with his Clients adverfarie for a share of the profits, should betray his Clients cause, he would not hurt his Clients rights; So, the conspiracie of great ones to the hurt and destruption of the people, cannot detract any thing from the Peoples right; They will fall into the punishment the Law ordains against prevaricators, and the Law will permit the people to choose another Patron, and pursue their own right. Thus *Junius Brutus*. If the House of the Lords then refuse to judge Hamilton's Army publick Enemies, if they continue in a destructive Treaty with a Tyrant, their Judiciall power which themselves defers is lost: The legislative power may deprive them of that power for the future.

2. The Fountain of this power considered will show them not to be coordinate with the Commons. The fore-praised Author, out of the British Antiquities, and an old Law-book called, *The Mirror*, shews, that the Lords were raised out of, and by the Commons; of late they have been made by the King. Now if the King be not coordinate with the Representatives of the People, much less can they be that have their Honor from him. The Kings of England heretofore have been constrained by Parliament, to lessen the number of their minerall Servants. And, although the late Kings might be tolerated to make much from Lords to furnish out a Court-jigge, or a Coronation-Pomp; yet could they make none to equall them, who gave Laws to them both, the Commons of England. 3. The Lords sit in a personal capacitie onely, not so much as representing their own Families, thence were their Brethren and Sons Members of the House of Commons, as Denzill Hollis, Nathaniel Fienes, &c. So many single Persons can be, yet equall the Representatives of the whole people. The Senate sit in Rome (who had a greater power then the House of Lords) but not equal to the Colledge of the Tribunes of the people.

m.o.a. 14. So, Lipsius de Magift. Pop. Rom. cap. 15.

Non secus ac Patronus, cum clientis adverfario de quotæ litis pactus, &c. Clientis causam prodidisset, &c. minimè noceret, non potest ita sane ifta Magnatum in damnum necemque populi inita conspiratio, quidquæ ejus juri detraxere: Verum & illi in pœnam legis quæ in prævaricatores latae est incident, & his ac fit res omnino integra effet, & Patronum alium elegere, & jus juum denuo persequi Lex permittit. Vindiciæ contra Tyrannos.

Quæst. 3. pag. 98.

Rights of the Kingdom, p. 87. 88.

Valer. Max. li.

2. cap. 2.

*Antiquitus* [Tribuni Plebis ante valvas positis sub selliis decreta patrum perpendebant, & si quæ ex iis improbâffent rata effe non finebant.

Janus, Gulielmus de Magift.

D

Neither

(24)

Neither should we grant, that there were an equalitie of
Power between the King, Lords and Commons, would it fol-
low, that therefore they have no power one over the other.
There are exceptions from the generall rule, *Par in Parem non
habet potestatem*. Neither will their *Major* be firm should we
keep the terme coordinate : For, 1. The End of Coordina-
tion of Powers, is, that if one should prove pernicious to the
Common-wealth, there might not be wanting a Power to re-
strain it, and if necessity require the taking of it away, there
might be a face of publick Authority remaining. 2. Superi-
ors may become obnoxious to their Inferiors, when by con-
tract they make themselves so. Much more may coordinates
become obnoxious to each other, if they be all bound to pur-
fue one end and some prevaricate. 'Tis to be confest indeed
that ordinarily Coordinates have no privitive power over
one another, but yet the Rule holds not in all cases, where
one Coordinate endeavors to destroy the End for which it
was ordained, the other Coordinate may remove it. The End
of both their Coordination being to be preferred before the
means conducing to it, and it being (not onely dangerous to
let the remedie fall into the hands of the multitude, but) un-
lawfull for the innocent coordinate to quit his station. Con-
stantine the great, and *Licinius* were both of them Emperors
in one Common-wealth, of equall power, and that vulgar
faying is well known, *Par in parem non habet potestatem*; yet not-
withstanding, when *Licinius* banished, vexed, killed many
Christians, and among them many Noble ones, either be-
cause of their Religion, or under that pretence, *Constantine*
waged war upon him, by force procures for the Christians
free exercise of their Religion, and at last puts *Licinius* to
death at *Theffalonica*, who had broken his promise, and re-
turned to his former cruelty; so *Junius Brutus*, who also adds,
that when the Empire was divided between *Constantines* three
Sons, and *Constantine* the eldest maintained the *Arrians*, Con-
fans the yongest the orthodox, the younger threatned the
elder to force him to reftore *Athanaius*, whom he had banifh

Pari potestate
præditi: notum
verò est, quod
wu'go dicitur,
Par in parem
non habet im-
perium; nibil-
ominus tamen
Constantinus
Licinium,
Christianos, in
τίſque nobiles
plæroſque reli-
gionis ſive cau-
sâ, ſive præ-
textu, re'egan-
tem, divex-
antem, con-

trucidantem, bello petit, religionis liberum cultum Christianis vi impetrat, fidem deniq, frangent. & ad pristinam ſavitiam revertentem Theſſalonicæ morte mulctari jubet. Vindiciæ contra rannos. Quæ. 4. pag. 204.

(25)

ed. The Confuls were set up at *Rome*, left a power without companion should turn to Tyranny, the Confuls therefore were coordinate, yet, when *Cæsar* affected Tyranny, his Collegue *Bibulus* proscribed him, and had he had strength would, doubtlesse, have executed the sentence he pronounced.

But yet there is another flumbling block. Thoſe that removed the King and Lords are not an Houſe of Commons, they are but a parcell of one of the Eſtates, the majority being excluded by them, and kept from them by force of Arms.

Ne potest as ſoltudine corrumperetur. Florus 1. 1. c. 9.
Suet. in Julio, cap. 49.
Plea,&c.p.21.

To which I anſwer. 1. By denying that the Houſe did excludethe Members that were excluded at the firſt, the force that was uſed in excludſion of them, was not by the conſent of their fellow-Members, as appears by their Meſſage to the Generall and Councell of War. Neither doth the omission of the proſecution of the Authors of it argue their conſent. The puniſhment of an Error (ſuppofe that this we ſpeak of be one) may be omitted by Authority, if ſuch puniſhment be dangerous to the Publick Peace, but of this the Exercitation Anſwered ſpeaks ſufficiently. 2. By denying that they are kept out by force, but by Order of the Houſe, which hath power to puniſh its offending Members. The majority of the Houſe that followed the King to *Oxford*, were excluded by Vote. The Houſe paſt ſeverall Votes to exclude them that would not take the *Covenant*, yet none ever queſtioned the remaining part to be an Houſe, unleſſe it were the *Oxford* Cavaliers. The majority of the Lords Houſe were excluded by Vote, and kept out by the minor part, and yet the *Lancashire* Minifters call this minor part, *The Houſe of Peers*, in their Petition, and their Anſwer received *August*, 25. 1646. the Anſwer of the Houſe of Peers. And, I can conceive no reaſon, why the exclusion of ſome Members out of the Houſe of Commons ſhould make them no Houſe, and the excludſion of the major part of the Houſe of Peers not make them no Houſe, unleſſe it be, that *Non ſcribers* have forſaken their former principles. But, this Vote by which the majority was excluded, was contrary to the Vote of that majority, therefore they were unjustly excluded. Lend me this argument, and but ſuppofe that the majority of the Lords and Commons that followed the King to *Oxford*, had had the hearts to have ſtayed in the Houſes, till

Page 9. 10.

Petition of 12500. &c.

Plea,&c.p.23.

D 2

by

(26)

Potier SANIORD; pars, alteram compellere in negorio aperto potest. De jure Magift in subditos. Quæſt. 7 Seaſonable Teſtimony againstſ Tolerance, p. 12.

Simp'e Cobler,
page 58.

Si Regibus impotenter grafſanribus & humani p ebeculæ influantibus conniveant, eorum diffimulationem nefariai perfidiâ non cature affixemem: quia populi libertatem ejus se Dei ordinatione autores positos norunt, fraudulenter produnt. Inſt. ca. 20. §. 30.

by the moſt voices they could have Voted it unlawful to reſist the King though he turned Tyrant, and I can by the fame prove all our defensive wars to be unlawful. Meliority not majority is in this case to be reſpited. The Vote which was thus diſanuſſed was, That the Kings Conſeſſions in the ſle of Wight were firm grounds for the Eſtablishment of the Peace and Safety of the Nation. Of which Conſeſſions the judge-ment of the Kirk of Scotland was this, The Lord is highly diſpleased with those proceedings in the Treaty at Newport in reference to Religion and Covenant: Concerning which they accepted of ſuch Conſeſſions from his Maſeſtie, as being acquiſced in were dangerous and deſtructive to both. And, Non-subſcribers can not deny that in the Propoſitions that were made to the King there, the King was ſtill ſuffered to have continued his Nega-tive voice, ſo long oppoſed. Now the Kings Advisera was (as a now friend of theirs expoſtulates) the Gravamen of the Nation, to Religion and Peace. Indeed, to grant it were to ſuffer a King to be as absolute as the great Turk: there being no way to eſtablish a neceſſary Law, if a wilſull King ſhall reſuſe, no way to eſtablish the Safety of a Nation, if he muſt ever have the liberty to pretend diſ-ſatisfaction, and ſay he would advise, when State-danger cals rather for action then Counſell. To conclude, it had been to give away the legislative power, and to loose the King of his obligations at Coronation, wherein he ſwore to defend and confirm the Laws quas Vulgus elegerit. Calvin will tell them what popular Magiſtrates are that collude with a Tyrant. If (aſtithey connive at Kings impotently oppreſſing, and trampling on their poore people, I ſhould aſſirm that this diſſimulation wants not wicked Treachery, because they fraudulently betray the Liberty of the people, of which, by the ordinance of God, they know themselves to be appointed Defenders. The prevarication of excluded Members in receiving ſuch Conſeſſions as were deſtructive to Religion and Liberty, and voting them ſufficient grounds for the eſtablishing of both, could not deprive the innocent Members of their power of voting. Injury cannot take away a right. The revolting of abundance of the Members now from the intereſt of the Common-wealth, can no more invalidate the Right of the others, then the flying of ſo many to Oxſtrd, as made a mu-

(27)

grel Parliament there, could take away the right of them
that remained at Westminſter. So that (notwithstanding what
the Plea hath ſaid to prove the contrary) the Houſe of Com-
mons is ſtill a whole Houſe legally, which, ex abundanti, might
be proved. 1. Because they are in number above what the
Law acknowledges an Houſe. 2. Because they have a law-
full call from the people to be their Repreſenters, unrevoked.
3. Because they never gave their ſent to their diſſolution.
4. Because the Law by which they fit is unrepealed: And nei-
ther a face from without, nor the prevarication of their own
Members can make them ceaſe to be an Houſe.

Thus it being proved that the King, Lords and Commons
were not coordinate, and that granting they were coordi-
nate, yet in case of neceſſuy faulty coordinate powers may be
excluded from truſt by their coordinates, it will follow that
the Power that dispoſeſſed the King and Lords is warrant-
able, notwithstanding what hitherto Non-ſcribers have ſaid to
prove the contrary.

But it was not the Houſe of Commons, that did Enact the Plea, &c. page removal of the King and house of Lords (ſay Non ſcribers): because that is contrary to the Engagements of the ſaid Houſe in their Declarations. To this I anſwer. 1. By the ſame reaſon, it was not the Houſe of Commons that voted a Treaty with the King at Newport, because it was contrary to their Votes of Non-addreſſes, and the Reaſons given in their Declaration to the whole Nation, and their Engagement to ſettle the State without him. 2. What was properly fundamental in our Government, the Houſe doth maintain, what was artificial or adventitious their being the Supreme Law-givers of this Nation, bound them to abrogate if they found it dangerous to the people's safety and liberty, notwithstanding their Engagement. That Magiſtrates are bound to prefer the safety of the people before any other Engagements of their own, King James is a Witneſſe, his Majefy intends really to perform that he hath promiſed, the ſuspension of the Laws againſt Catholic Subjects, but with this Proſtation, that if they be his favour to the embroyleing of his State and Government, the safety of the Common-wealth is in this case Su- K. James his Declaration in the introdu- K. James his Declaration in the introdu-
lex, and his Majeftie muſt, notwithstanding his Oath triall. pag. 47.

Archbifhops

K. James his
Declaration in
the introdu-
ction to the
Archbishops
trial. pag. 47.

fate, the safety of the Common-wealth is in this case Su-
Ker, Lex, and his Majestie muſt, notwithstanding his Oath
proceed

proceed

(28)

proceed againſt the offendors, &c. 3. The Declaration of April 17. 1646. ſaith, Our intentions are not to change the Ancient form of Government, but to attend the end of the primitive institution of all government: which onely infers thus much: That they would not make any change in the Government, if they could without it keep the Nation in ſafe-tie; but infers not, that when that Eſtablished government came in competition with the Peoples ſafety, they either might not, or would not change it. 4. All your other Teſti-monies infer nothing else, but, 1. That the Commons truly and ſeriously defired the late Kings ſafetie, and the continu-ance of his Government, if it might conſiſt with the good of the people that entruſed them. 2. That they were unwilling to make any change, till they ſaw all other means of the Peoples ſafetie uneſſe tuall. 3. That they did not out of ma-lice or ambition ſeek the Kings life, or depoſing (as he and his Cavaliers charged them) but onely the preſervation of them that entruſed them. All which are far ſhort of making this conclusion, Therefore they did not, or had no power to take away abuſed Royalty and Domination, although it were never ſo pernicious to the Common-wealth.

Nor will their Teſtimonies out of the Armies Declarations, ſtand them in that ſtead, which they ſuppoſe. 1. The Army (ſay they) conſeſſes that their breaking the House of Com-mons was irregular. To which may be anſwered, 1. That conſeſſed irregularity cannot take away the Right of the re-maining Members. 2. That whatsoever is irregular is not pre-ſently unlawful. Davids eating the ſhew-bread was irregular, but not unlawful. Man's Laws muſt all ſtoop in caſe of neceſſi-ty to the divine Law of Nature, and to the ſafety of the peo-ple, the Supreme Law. When Gracchus endeavoured to ſub-vert the Romane State, & the Conſul Scævola reſuſed to oppoſe him by force, Scipio Nafica ſaid, because the Conſul, while he followes the ordinary course of Law, ſuffers the Romane Em-pire with all its Laws, to be in danger of perifhing, I a private man will be your Captain; & accordingly (though a private man) he repuſed Gracchus with his complices. So Scipio canus when the publique treasury ſhould have been open for the neceſſary uſe of the Common-wealth, and the

Plea, &c. p. 25.

Matth. 12. 3, 4.

Quoniam, in-quit, Conſul dum juris ordi-nem ſequitur, id agit ut cum omnibus Legi-bus Romanum imperium cor-ruat, egomet privatus volun-tati veſtrae me Ducem offero.

(29)

because they did think it forbidden by Law, refused it; Scipio
(I say) being a private man took the keyes and opened the
Treasury, and made the Laws Stoop to the publique benefit.
Nor will the irregularity of hindring Magistrates from doing
unlawfull Acts be lesse defensible. The peoples act in rescuing
Jonathan from Saul will justify it. They had professed their
Subjection to Saul, yet they hindred him from oppressing his
Son who had wrought deliverance in Israel. The Army then
might well and lawfully, (though extraordinarily, and there-
fore irregularly in reference to ordinary rules) hinder the
Members of the House from Voting such a Peace, as would
have oppreft not only one but all our Jonathans, who had
wrought deliverance for our Israel. 3ly. Non-scribers say that
the Army affirmed, the Judgement of the House of Commons
incompetent and inconclusive, in their constitution, before
they were purged. Which may be thus answered, That the
Army affirmed the Parliament morally incompetent and in-
conclusive at that time, because so many had shuffled them-
selves so far into the Kings interest, as to prefer it before the
Publique interest, not Politically incompetent and inconclu-
sive. There is no reason why Non-scribers should be angry
that the Army calls the House of Commons the Parliament,
it is such language as Mr. Prinne teaches. The Parliament
(Saith he) is elective, confifting, for the most part, of the prin-
cipall men in every County, City, Burrough, &c. And again,
The Parliament confifting of the ablest men of all Counties,
&c. And in another place, whatsoever the people of Rome
might do either Genturiatis comitiis, or Tribunitiis, is and may
be done by the Authority of Parliament. The Lords were not
elected out of Cities, Counties, Burroughs: Cannot resemble
the Romane Comitia: therefore, in Mr. Prinnes Judgement, not
so fitly to be called the Parliament.

These things considered, Non subscribers had small rea-
on to parallel the depofition of the King and Lords, with
L. A& of Corah, Datban, and Abiram, as they do, borrowing
fimilitude from the late Tyrant, and fulfilling the pre-
fale of the Pulifher of that fine piece of Hypocrifie, Vota da-
Kerue Bella negârunt. For, 1. Moses was innocent in the ad-
nation of his Government, the King and Lords betray-
ed

Valer. Max. li.
3. cap. 2.

Valer. Max. li.
3. cap. 7.

1 Sam. 19. 40.
45.

Soveraigne
Power of Par-
liaments, part.
2. page 40.

Soveraigne
power of Par-
liaments, part.
1. page 39.

Plea, &c. page
22,23.

Pleas of the
Apol. Med. 28.

(30)

In seditione
enim, duas om-
nino partes esse
necesse est, quæ
cum de contra-
dictoris plerun-
que certent, uni-
us justam, alte-
rius injunctam
caufam esse con-
sequitur. Juſta
(inquit Barto-
lus) quæ tyran-
nicum regimen
deponere volet:
injusta, quæ ju-
ſtum. Licita,
quæ ad bonum
publicum, illici-
ta quæ ad pri-
vatum tendit.
Itaque, ait Tho-
mas, quia reg-
num Tyrannicu-
quod non ordi-
natur ad bonum
publicum fed
privatum regen-
tis, non est juſtù,
perturbatio iſti-
us Regni non
habet rationem
ſeditionis. Vin-
diciæ contra
Tyrannos.
Quæſt. 3. pag.
178,179.
Appendix to
Souveraign
Power of Par-
liaments, page
187.
Mr. Perkins on
the Epistle of
Jude, ver. 8.

ed the truſt repoſed in them. 2. The men that acted then,
were not the Supreme Magiſtrate, nor so much as coordinate
with Aſes: The houſe of Commons, the faithful part of them
I mean, which are proved before to be legally a Houſe, are the
Supreme Magiſtrates. 3. The cauſe was ambition in Corah
and the reſt: in the Parliament, the ſafety of the people. 4.
The Action of Corah and his complices was ſedition: but in
oppoſing a Tyrant, the Tyrant and his complices are the ſe-
ditious perſons. For in ſedition (that I may uſe Junius Bru-
tus) it is neceſſary that there be alwayes two parties, who
when they ſtrive about contradictory things, it muſt follow,
that the ones cauſe is juſt, the others unjuſt. That is juſt (Faith
Bartolus) that would depoſe a tyrannicall Government, that
is unjuſt, which would depoſe a juſt Government: That is
lawfull, which tends to the Publique good, that unlawful
which tends to a private good only. Therefore, ſaith Thomas,
becauſe a tyrannical rule which is not ordered to the pub-
lick good, but to the private benefit of the Ruler is not juſt,
the overthrowing of ſuch a rule hath not the reaſon of ſedi-
tion: unto which Mr. Prinne adds out of Aquinas, That it is
the Tyrant rather that is ſeditious. As for that place out of
the Epitole of Jude, wherein the error of ſome Chriſtians is
paralleld with Corah's ſedition, it makes nothing for Non-ſcri-
bers. For, 1. These Chriſtians were meer private men, and
the meaner ſort of private men. 2. The Power they would
have depoſed was хειότητα, and Arisſtle understands, by хρείον
τῶν πολεων, the Supreme Power in a Common-wealth; they
muſt therefore venter another ſtrain of Criticifme about that
word, as well as they do about αἰτία, which when they un-
derſtand, we ſhall tell them that the Laws of England, and the
People in their Representatives, the Maſters and Makers of
thoſe Laws have the хειότητα. 3. The ſin by the Apoſtle there
reproved, is the putting down of all Magiſtracie in generall,
not the depoſing of faulty Magiſtrates, or changing inconve-
nient forms for thoſe that are better. So that all Non-ſcri-
bers. big words are but bruta fulmina: yet the People of Eng-
land might do well to take notice, in what a miſerable caſe
Eccleſiastick and Civill Liberties were, if ſuch men's (a
ſcribers) domination, were not strietly limited, and na-
confined.

( 31 )

But what will Non-scriber say, if I prove that the former constitution of the Government of the Nation was not deposed or dispoſſeſſed by the preſent power. The constitution of this Nation was a multiformed Government, ſay Non-scribers, and I adde, that if it was a mixture of juſt ſpecies, it was of Royalty, Optima-cy and Polity, properly ſo called. The Powers that were diſpoſſeſt were, Tyranny of a Scarlet die in the late King, Oligarchy in a Company of Patteatee-Lords, and Ochlocracy in the ſeditious Commons, who voted a Treaty with the Tyrant, they complying with the ſeditious Surrey and Kentiſh Petitioners. Now Tyranny, Oligarchy, and Ochlocracy, are ſpecifically different from limited and lawful Royalty, Arisſtocracy and Polity. And consequently the preſent power diſpoſſeſt a meer novel power. The former Government being diſpoſſeſt by the King turning Tyrant, the Lords accepting Patteats, and the Commons that are excluded, abetting Tyranny and Tamults. Set the Saddle on the right Horſe, and let Non-scribers judge who diſpoſſeſt their former Government. Nay, yet further, the Non-scribers and their beloved party, were they who, even according to their own principles, depoſed the King, House of Lords, and Majority of the Commons. The civil being of a King is in his Royal Power, this Non-scribers Friends had taken from him, and made him not only leſs then a King, but then a private free-man, their Captive. The Majority of the Lords house they kept out, and according to Non-scribers principles, the Majority of a house is legally, and as to action and power, the whole house. The like they did by the Commons who followed the King to Oxford, who were (for ought I can learn) the Majority of that house. All theſe things they did by no leſſe force then was used in that Non-scribers ſo much quarrel. It's a familiar practice although we do not ſo ſeere, nihil in that Non-scribers ſo much quarrel. It's a familiar practice although we do not ſo ſeere, nihil mong ſome men; to pardon themſelves in every thing, others in alijſ remit nothing, and to caſt the envy of actions upon other men, which am I, & invidi- when it ſtood with their own will and advantages they did them- selves.

Plea, &c.
pag. 24.

Familiare
eſt hominibus
omnia ſibi sig-
noveere, nihil
aliis remitte-
re, & invidi-
non ad cau-

But go to, let us see whether Non-scribers aſſord us not an Ar-ſam, ſed ad gument to prove the diſpoſſeſſion of the King and House of voluntaſtem Lords, and his other Adherents lawful. In their Appendix they perſonaſque dui eſt paſſage: ſome kinds of Governments are in their own dirigere. Vel-ſaſe unlawful; ſo is that of the Beaſt, Rev. 17. And the 10. leius Pater-K. [or Kingdoms many underſtand] giving their power and culus. Vol.

E.

Strengſh Postersius...

(32)

strength to the beaſt. Suppose now that it can be proved, that the
King and those who would have reduced him in his impenitency,
did give up their power to the Beaſt, (as I doubt not to prove
that they did) will it not then follow, that their power was in its
nature unlawful? and that it was lawfully dispoſeſt, which was a

power of its ſelf unlawful and not to be submitted to? go to
then, let us see whether the King did not give up his power to the
beaſt. I shall not here ſtand upon King James his Declaration
(wherein he undertakes to ſuspend the execution of all Lawes a-
gainſt Papifts, and to hinder the making of any more) though
published by Mr. Prinne: nor upon King Charles his Letter ſent
from Spain to the Pope, wherein he not only calls the Pope moſt
holy Father, but averrs himself to have been alwayes farre from
encouraging of novelties, or being a Partizan of any ſaction a-
gainſt the Catholique, Apostolique, Roman Religion: upon which
paſſage Mr. Prinne notes that our Religion was deemed but a no-
velty and ſaction by the King. He that dispatched a Commission

Introduction
to the Arch-
Bishops Try-
al pag. 47-

Popish Royal
Favorite.

pag. 41.

Truths ma-
nifeſt. p. 20.

Kings Cabi-
net opened.

let. 8. p. 7.

Ibidem. let.

19. p. 19.

Popish Royal
Favorite.

p. 1. to 30.

Introduction
to the Arch-
Bishops Try-
al. p. 84. 85.

Cabinet o-
pened. let. 7.

p. 7.

under the great Seal of Scotland, to the Rebels in Ireland, to im-
power them to Maſſacre the English Protestants: He who did
give his Popish Wife Authority in his name to promise that he
would take away all penal Lawes againſt the Roman Catholiques,
as ſoon as he was able: He that commanded his Lieutenant in
Ireland to promise the like to the Irish Rebels: He that was al-
wayes an uxorious obſerver of a Romiſh wife; that hath employed
all his power to free Priefts and Jefuites from danger; that to gra-
tifie their French King a Papift, lent him his Ships againſt the
poor Protestants of Rochel, and hath armed many thousands of
English Papifts, besides Irish Rebels, againſt his Protestant Parlia-
ment: He that avoweth his conſtancy to Bishops, and all his own &
the Queens friends, whom Non-scribers have oft called Atheiſts
and Papifts: the man (I ſay) that hath done all this, hath given
his power to the Beaſt: which power he hath by inſtigation of
the Beaſts Emissiaries employed againſt the Lambe and his follow-
ers. They who would have ſet this man over us again, without a-
ny provision againſt his negative voice, or any taſte of repentance,
gave up their power to the Beaſt, in giving themselves up to him

that was the Beaſts Client. Nor is the ſtate now changed, the i-
terest of the Irish Rebels is now one with that of the decla-
Kings of Scotland, as they have publickly teſtified to the wor!

Declaration
of the Irish
in Ulſter.

(33)

that all that strive to reduce him serve the Anti Christian Interest,
and it is remarkable, how the Irish Rebels, Scots and Non-scribers,
agree in their opinions concerning our present Government. To
conclude, such a power being unlawful in its nature, as Non-scri-
bers tell us, is lawfully dispossessed by any that hath the power of a
Magistrate, and hates the Beasts, and all that refuse to exercise
their power in destroying the Beasts Government, may well be
concluded under the curse of Meroz, because they reward not the
whore as he hath dealt with the Saints.

The second Medium whereby Non-scribers would prove the
Common Wealth of England to be an unlawful power, is in regard
of its erection. And here they kindle like Dr. Cole against the Bi-
shop of Lincoln, for saying the Children of the Common-wealth,
we live (faith Heylin) in a Monarchy not under a Democracy So
they cry, at the first fight, it looks like that which they call a De-
mocracy. If they would have consulted Aristotle, he would have
told them what that is which looks like a Democracy, and is
none; he layes it down as the mark of a perfectly mixt Polity, to
be so mixt of Oligarchy and Democracy, that its doubtful whe-
ther the form of the Common-wealth be Oligarchical or Demo-
cratical. So is the Common-weale of England mixt, the peoples
election of their Delegates is Democratical, the Government of
these Delegates is Oligarchical, they being chosen out of the weal-
thief of every County: and both these put together, make up a
Polty as Aristotle calls it; but as Plato (whose termes differ
from Ariftottles) πληθως αἰσιωκρατία To prove the ereci-
on of this unlawful, they much labour; but that toyl of
theirs might very well have been spared. The people of this Land
have in all ages had a supreme power over their King and Lords,
which was exercisef by their Representatives; who by old Lawes
were to meet twice a year, and by a latter Statute once a year,
though the Tyranny of wicked Kings had brought that of late
away the Peoples right. Its vulgarly faid, That no preſcription lies
againſt the Kings Exchequer, much leſs can a preſcription lie a-
gainſt the People, who are greater then the Prince, and for whose
preſcriptionem nocere, multo vero minus univerſo populo,
qui Rege potior eſt, eu-
duſque gratià Princepids privilegium habet. Vindicie contra Tyrannos. Quæſt. 3.
ſale g. 96. Appendix. pag. 36.

E 2

fake

Dicores qua-
tuor effe in
quibus fita eft
tota vis &
Majestas Re-
ipublicæ, ni-
mirum, jus
Magistratu-
nm crean-
dorum, De-
liberationes
omnes de Pa-
ce & de Bel-
lo, Legum la-
tiones, tan-
demque Pro-
vocationes.

Donatus fa-
nottius de Re-
pub. Venetâ-
pag. 59.

Speed. Book
5, Chap. 5.
Suma imperii bellig; ad-
ministrandi,
communi con-
cilio committà
est Caffivela-
une... No-
stro adventu
commotu Brit-
tani, hunc to-
ti bello, impe-
rióque præ-
cerant.Cæsar
Commenter.

lib. 5.

Spe. d. lib. 7.
cap. I. S. 6.

fake the Prince hath that privilege, faith Julius Brutus. The form
of Government is that which dat esse & operari, as Non scribers
fay, and natural order and reason requires that propria operationes
propriae formae respondent: if therefore it be proved, that the Re-
presentatives have ever had de jure a power to do the Acts proper
to the supreme power, it will follow that the supreme power was
formally in them, and that they were a Common-wealth, having
supreme Authority in themselves. Let me here use the words of a
learned Florentine, I fay (faith he) that there are four things, in
which the whole power and Majefty of every politique body is
placed, the power of creating Magistrates, all deliberations con-
cerning Peace and Warre, making of Lawes, and the last appeales:
If therefore the Representatives of the people have had the right,
to create all general Magistrates, to consult of Peace and Warre,
to make and abrogate Lawes, and the privilege of the last appeal
to be made to them, they have been the supreme power. That
they have had these Rights, I shall prove and begin first with Cre-
ation of Magistrates. Julius Caesar (before whose entrance into
this Island, the times are obscure, through whose milts no Eagles
eyes can pierce, as the beloved Hiftorian of Non-scribers, Speed
confesseth) found the supreme power of electing Magistrates, in a
Common-Councel of the people. The chief power of Rule, and
adminiftring the Warre, was by a Common Councel committed
to Caffivellaune. And again, the Britains being troubled at our
landing, fet him (that is Caffivellaune) over the whole Warre and
Empire. The Common Councel then that made Caffivellaune King
and General, was a Pan-Britanicum, an Assembly representing all
Britain. And when the Romans quitted their tooting here, the
Britains being invaded by the Picts, joyntly united their meanes
and powers, and with one consent elect a King to manage those
affairs which was Vertigerne, whom afterwards they deposed and
elected his Sonne Vortimer. But I must for further satisfaction in
this point refer them to the Authour of the Rights of the King-
dom, who after many Examples of such Creation of Kings, con-
cludes thus: We see the Law, at left the custom of those times,
both for electing, anointing, judging and executing of Kings them-
selves, among our Britsh Anceftors. Concerning our Saxon An-
ceftors (faith the same Authour) the Mixor is very clear, that the
did elect or cluse their Kings from among themselves, who well

["grees therein with the witnesses of Tacitus, who speaking of the ancient Germans (of whom the Saxons were a branch) said, they had faith in their Kings, but not in their Leadership, and that is why they were called the *Kingdom of the Romans*. In the Teutonic Order, which was a Christian entity, some of their leaders were chosen as *Dignitaries*, while the rest were *Dignitaries in waiters*. The King had absolute power over the Crown, but he was subject to the law of the land, which was制定 by the King. The King could not rule without the approval of the Council of State, which was composed of the King, his Council, and the Dignitaries. The King could not rule without the approval of the Council of State, which was composed of the King, his Council, and the Dignitaries. This meant that the King could not rule without the approval of the Council of State, which was composed of the King, his Council, and the Dignitaries. This was known as the *Prinsepschutzgut*. In 1548, King Philip II. of Spain was the King of the Netherlands, but he was unable to rule without the approval of the Council of State, which was composed of the King, his Council, and the Dignitaries. This led to the War of the Thirty Years' War, which ended with the Peace of Westphalia in 1648. The Peace of Westphalia規定 that the King could not rule without the approval of the Council of State, which was composed of the King, his Council, and the Dignitaries. This led to the English Civil War, which ended with the English Civil War Parliament in 1648. The Parliament was able to pass laws without the approval of the King, but this was eventually stopped by the English Civil War Parliament in 1648. The Parliament was able to pass laws without the approval of the King, but this was eventually stopped by the English Civil War Parliament in 1648.\n\nIn 1648, King Charles II. of England was able to pass laws without the approval of the King, but this was eventually stopped by the English Civil War Parliament in 1648. The Parliament was able to pass laws without the approval of the King, but this was eventually stopped by the English Civil War Parliament in 1648.\n\nThe English Civil War Parliament was able to pass laws without the approval of the King, but this was eventually stopped by the English Civil War Parliament in 1648. The Parliament was able to pass laws without the approval of the King, but this was eventually stopped by the English Civil War Parliament in 1648.\n\nThe English Civil War Parliament was able to pass laws without the approval

the King, were of right elected by the Representative body of the
Realm of England, to whom they were accountable for their mis-
demeanors.

Rights of the
Kingdom.
p. 77. 78.

2. All consultations of Peace and Warre, of right appertain to the Commons of England. It was the great Council (faith the Authour of the Rights of the Kingdom) that treated with and againt the Romans at all times, and when the Romans could not attend the Britains feare, it was this that called in their Neighbours first, and after the Saxons. All military Affairs (faith Mr. Prinne) of the Kingdom heretofore, have originally of right (for their original, determining, councelling, disposing part) bin ordered by the Parliament, the Ministerial only by the King. The Act of 28. E. 1. settles the Militia in the subject (faith Mr. Derham) and addes, the absolute and general power of the Militia, and the Militia positive or regulated by positive Lawes, are both by Law invervested in the people, or the Representative body, the Parliament. And again, the same Authour (whose whole book tends to vindicate the supreme power of the Peoples Representatives) faith, We may safely conclude, that the Subjects right, and consequently of their Representative body to dispose of the Militia and great Offices of the Kingdom, remaineth yet undoubted to this day. In a word, neither King nor Lords, joyntly nor feverally, had any power to mould or manage a new Militia, or raise a man, or leavy a farthing towards the payment of an Army, before the Commons by their Legislative power had decreed a Warre, the proportion of Men and Horses to be raised, and of money to be leavied, so that though we grant the King and Lords as Heretoches, &c. to have had an executive power, as General, Colonels, Captains, &c. yet the Commons ever had power to decree Peace and Warre, and the supreme power over these their Ministers.

Sovereign
power of
Parliaments.
pars. 2. p. 5.

Manuel of
the Rights of
Parliament.
p. 95. 98.

3. The interest of the Commons in the supreme legislative power, hath been evidenced already out of the Coronation-Oath, to which may be added that of Fortefone, quoted by Mr. Prinne. The King who is head of that politique body, cannot change the Lawes of that body, neither can withdraw from the said people their proper substance, without their wills and consents; for such a King of a Kingdom politique, is made and ordained for the defense of his Subjects Lawes, and of their Bodies and Goods, whereunto he receiveth power of his people, so that he cannot govern his

Sovereign
Power of
Parliament.
pars. 1. p. 38.

(37)

his people by any other Law. The Authority of the Rights of the
Kingdom tells us, that if we look to the old Writ of *Summon*, we the
Commons called *ad consentiendum & faciendum*, and *pag. 89*.
shall find the Commons called *quod quilibet & omnes de Comitatu facerent*

the old Writ added, *quod quilibet & omnes de Comitatu facerent, vel faceret, & personaliter interefferent, as it is in the medus of Parliament, with sufficient intimation, that without the Commons nothing could be done*: which the late Writ expresses thus, *Ita ut dicta negotia infecta non remaneant pro defectu potestatis*: but the Lords are called, *de quibusdam arduis tractaturi & consilium impenfuri, &c.* only as Councillors, not as Law-makers; for the very fame words are in the Writs for *Judges* and others coming to Parliament, although they do not vote in making Laws. And if it *Sovereign should be replied, that Statutes are said to be enacted by the King power of Par- and Lords, as well as the Commons, I shall answer, that the Kings liament, consent is required ex debito, by vertue of his Office, to every Law p. 47. & 51.* the Commons make, and he cannot alter one title of it: nor hath *the first he any negative voice in matters of common Justice, and that Laws part.* might have been made if all the Lords had been absent, as Mr. *Ibidem.* Prinne telleth us from *Vowel*: whereas the Commons were neither bound to give consent to what the King and Lords proposed, *43.* nor could the King and Lords act any thing without their consent.

4. The privilege of the last appeal, was *de fure*, the right of the Commons. Mr. Prinne calls the Knights, Citizens and Burgeſes of the Parliament, the ſupreme Councillors and Judges of all others, to whom all other Courts, Councillors, Officers, Judges are responsible, for their actions, judgements, advice. Appeals arise, either from obſcurity of Lawes, and who ſo fit to interpret Lawes, as they that make them? or from new cales not yet by Law determined, and then the Legiſlative power muſt only interpose: or from the corruption of officers and errors in judgement, and then none are ſo fit to judge as they who have the Fountain-Power, and derive it to all other Officers.

Sovereign
power of Par-
liament.

part. 2. p. 24.

Thus having shewed that the ſupreme power hath appertained
of right to the Representatives of the people, it will follow that
the *Common-wealth of England* is not a thing of yesterdayes e-
rection; but the *Common-wealth* which hath heretofore been,
doth now more clearly appear; we have the proper fundamen-
tals of our most ancient Government ſtill standing: the alterati-

on

(38)

Commutatis on or abolishing of some Offices and names of Magistrates, doth not make a new kind of Government, as long as the supreme primum nonnunquam power, and the soule (as I may call it) which moves and bus atq; efficiis non jsta-quickens the whole politique body, remains one and the same. Let tim alia Res-Britannick's) that the effence of the Roman Common-wealth publica est; perfished, when the Kings being driven out, the Majesty passed to dum vissum the Optimates: much leffe, is a new form of Government erected ma imperii where the Majesty remains in the same Subjects that ever it did. primaque The Kings power being but executive, the Lords judicial, both porestas, & poestas, & illa, ut ita dicam, mens ed its Government and erected a new one, then a Master of a Faque corpus mily that turns away a wasteful Steward, and some other unfathomne movet ful Servants, and falls thriftily to oeconomize himself, can be said atq; continent, to change the form and nature of his Family-Government.

una maneat

From what hath been said it appears.

atq; eadem. 1: That the House of Commons had a power to lay aside the Grotius. E-King and House of Lords, in case of breach of trust.

pist. Dedic. 2. That their power by taking of them away is not lost, that ante libellum house being as a soule to the body, without whom the King and de Antiqua Re-House of Lords were a livelefs trunck, and could do nothing.

ipub.Batavi- 3. That the power which at present they enjoy, is that se. Nec est wherewith they were invested by the people, when they sentiam Re-chose them to be their Representatives, so that their power ep. Romane is not of themselves, as calumniating Non-scribers would perfwade concidisse us. Neither will what they quote from the armies Declaration be quis dixerit, of any avail to them. We lay (with the Army) that the continu- cum exactis ance of the same Representatives is not fit to be drawn into ordi- Regibus, nary presidents, least their power should be corrupted by length Majestas ad of time: yet in times of extraordinary danger, when a great parte Optimates of the people are disaffected to the meanes of their own safety, transfret. Ja-and elections are like to be made of such as would return us (it cibus Lam-may be) to our former slavery, it is not unjuft that power be con- radius Tract.tinued in the hands of the present faithful Representatives, who de Repub. yet are not to be looked upon as those that must ever, continue Romano-Ger-in that power: that which we engage to is to the Common- man. par. 1. wealth of England, which intimates (as was said before) successt. S. 6c. on of Representatives.

Plea, &c. pag. 27. 28. Plea, &c. pag. 29.

No

(39)

Non-SCRIBERS adde to prove the power UNJUST. 1. That it is 30.
against the Ancient and indubitable legal Rights and Tithes

of the King, Prince and Peers, to their respective hereditary
dignities and powers. To this may be answered. 1. That those
powers and dignities in their first institution were not here-
ditary: this hath been proved already. And further, things
properly transmittable from Father to Son as Inheritances,
are only bona fortuna; Kingdoms and dignities are not so
communicable. Solomon was no King till the people had the
second time anointed him, notwithstanding his designation
by his Father. Abaziah notwithstanding the death of his Fa-
ther and elder Brethren, was not King till the Inhabitants of
Jerusalem had made him so. Nor doth the setting the King-
dom succession upon a line by a Law, make the Kingdome
the Kings Inheritance. Axius faith, that the Son hath not
the right of reigning as the patrimony of the people, but as
a propriety given him by the Law of the Kingdom by his pa-
rents; which assertion (Faith Mr. Rutherford) is all one as it he
said, the Son hath not the right of reigning as the patrimo-
nie of the people, but as the patrimony of the people, which
is good non-fence: for the propriety of reigning given from
Father to Son by the Law of the Kingdom is nothing but a
right to reign, given by the Law of the people, and the very
gift and patrimony of the people. He adds many arguments
to prove that Kingdoms go not as a heritage from Father to
Son. To whom I may add Junius Brutus, who denies, and
that upon good grounds, that the King is either proprietary,
or so much as the usufructuary of his Kingdom: much leffe
hath he such an interest in it, as a man hath in his Inherit-
ance. An Inheritance may be sold, pawned, changed, none
of these can be attempted by a King to be done to his King-
dome without losing his right to it. For the Lords, Mr. Ru-
therford faith, That the King can make heritable Judges more
then he can communicate faculties and parts of judging, I
doubt. Riches are of Fathers, but not promotion, &c. Honour
is properly the reward of vertue, and consequently not pro-
perly communicable to posterity. Our Lords were at first
faught by the People, and enobled for their virtues. 2. Though
We should grant, that the Kings had the Kingdom, and the

1 Chron. 23. 1.
with 1 Chron.
29. 22.

2 Chron. 22. 1.

Lex. Rex.
Quest. 10. pag.
76.

Vindiciæ contrae
Tyrannos.
Quæst. 3.

Grotius. de iure
belli & pacis. 1.
1. cap. 4. §.
10.

F

Lords

(40)

Lords their dignities as Inheritances, yet the right to an In-
heritance may be loft, may be seized. Where God hath not
bound conscience, men may not binde themselves and their
poferity; but God hath not bound any Nation irrevocable
to any Royall line or form of Government: Ergo, No Nation
can binde their conscience, or the conscience of poferity ei-
ther to one Royal line, or irrevocably and unalterably to
Monarchy. So Mr. Rutherford, Junius Brutus tels us that a Ty-
rant doth In populum tanquam in Feudi Dominum feloniam com-
mittere, commit Felony againft the People as againft the Lord
of his fee; and adds from Bartolus, that he may be depofed,
and punifhed by his Superior, and his Superior is the whole
people, or they that repreſent them. Treaſon according to
our Laws taints the blood, and makes the children of Tray-
tors uncapable to ſucceed in any thing of inheritance. The
Kings of England were as much ſubjeſt to Law as any private
Subjeſt. Though in exhibendo jure he were maximus, yet in
ſuſcipiendo jure (Faith Braſon in Mr. Prinne) minimo de Regno ſuo
comparatur. He was to be obedient to ſuffer right, as well as
others of his people, ſaith another Lawyer out of the Mirror,
an ancient Law-book. No wrong therefore is done to King
or Prince, they having committed Treaſon againſt their own
Crown and dignity, by raſing war againſt their people, and
ſo falling from all right to their hereditary dignities. Had
it been true that Naboth had blaſphemed God and the King,
it had been no ſin in Ahab to have ſeized upon his vineyard,
though the inheritance of his father. Non ſcribers brethren
that call themselves a Pack of old Puritans, ſhew themselves
to be a Pack of Epiſcopaturient Parasites, by their making
the King as innocent as Naboth, and the Kingdom as much
his Inheritance as Naboth's vineyard was to him. The Lords
also by denying concurrence with the Commons in proceed-
ings againſt the Tyrant and his friends, betrayed as much
as in them lay the Common wealth, and therefore are de-
fervedly removed from that Authority they had. The great
Charter ſaith, Nulli negabimus, nulli vendemus, nulli differemus
justitiam. The Lords denying justice, broke that which is (if
any be) a fundamentall Law of the Nation, and for that a,
juſtly puniſhed by the Commons their Superiors. A JUDG-
delayin

Lex.Rex. que.
10. pa.78.

Superior vero
universus popu-
lus, quive eum
repræſentant.
Vindiciæ con-
tra Tyrannos,
Quæ. 3. p. 178.

Sovereign
power of Par-
liaments, part.
1. pag 34.

Rights of the
Kingdom, p.
31.

( 41 )

delaying, or denying justice, may be deprived of his office,
and why not the Lords? whose office (if they be not of the na-
ture of those officers who have nec munus nec usum) was judi-
cial onely, as was shewed before.

2. That it is againſt the Houſe of Commons; but to prove that they bring nothing but the crambe bis coelia, of the En-gagement of the Declaration of April 17.16.6. the putting of the name of the Houſe upon a part, and the proſtitution of privilegedges; all which have been ſpoken to already.

3. That it is injurious to the people. 1. In bereaving them of their Ancient Authority, & impoſing a new, without and againſt their wilſ. The removal of what authority is taken away is juſtified: no new one is impoſed, as hath been proved. What is done is ſo far from being againſt the people's wilſ, that the belt of them rejoyce at it, & pRAiſe God for it: the belt that would have colluded with the Tyrant, are not to be ac-counted Members of any civil ſociety, because they are vio-laters of, or traytors to humane ſocietie. 2. In debarring from the Houſe of Commons, Knights, Citizens, and Burgeſſes choſen by them; yet the people were not wronged by debar-ring from the Houſe of Commons thofe that denied the Co-venant. The Houſe may exerciſe Authority over their own Menbers, without wrong to the people: to whom it is the greatest bleſſing, to have thofe puniſhed that would betray them, that truſted them. 3. In bringing things upon them which the Scripture makes a curſe. To this I ſay 1. That things done by Law, as the Kings execuſion, and the aboli-tion of Kingly and Lordly power were, cannot be ſaid to be done violently. 2. That all the violence that was uſed was juſtifiable againſt him that violently affaulted their Houſe, and raiſed up Arms againſt his Parliament and people. 3. It is no curſe to be freed from a Tyranny, I deny a Tyranny to be a Kingdom. 4. Kingly Rule is not a more eſpeciall bleſſing then any other Government. God when he ſetled Israel in the beſt condition gave them a Common-wealth: and Chriſt notes thofe Nations to be milerably Lorded over, who had Kings, though ſuch ſlaves, as Non ſcribers, called them Bene-faſtors, and tels his diſciples, it should not be ſo among them. Kings are fore-told of as being the horns of the Beaſt, and

Plea,&c. ibid.
In civium num-
mero non ſunt
habendi, vio-
tores enim ſunt
humane ſocieta-
tis, aut certa
proditores.
Buchanan. de
Jüre Regni
apud Scotos.

Num'. 11. 6,
17.
Luk. 22. 25,
26.
Rev.17.12,13.

F 2

that

(42)

Mera somnia
certa signa
hominis labo-
rantis febri Mo-
narchicâ. Bellar-
min. enervatus.
lib 3. cap. 1.
Raro in aulis
Regum Deo ha-
beri justum
honorem. Mar-
lorat. In Matt.
27. 14.

Hiftorical vin-
dication of
the Kirk of
Scotland, part.
1.p.66.

Voluptatum il-
lecebris tracti
& falsâ specie
honoris decepti.

De Jure Regni
apud Scotos.
G. Buchanan.
Epig. lib. 1.
De Cæsare &
Codro.

that time we are yet under, few Kings being not the Beasts
flaves. Dr. Ames tels Bellarmine (who held Monarchy to be
the beſt of Governments) that his commendation of Monar-
chy was an idle and foolish ſpeculation, and this his proofs
of it (which are ſomewhat like in ſtrength to Non-ſcribers
ſweet ſtuffe) were nothing eſſe but meer dreams of one ſick of
a Monarchical Fever. Marlorate out of Calvin nores, that
God is ſeldome duly honoured in Kings Courts. Mr. Cather-
wood, an eminent Scotch Divine, the Author of Altare Damaſ-
cenun, wrote and publifhed, that in all Kings naturally there
is an hatred to Chrift: which Mr. Baily doth vindicate and
approve, though he over-mollifies Mr. Catherwood's ſence.
Buchanan affirms, that the Kings of his dayes were ſuch as
would never yield to be defined by thofe things that were
neceſſary to the definition of a King, and describes them as
thofe that are broken with the allurements of pleatures, and
deceived with a falſe ſhew of honour. An Epigram he hath
to this ſence.

Pre patriæ in ſtrictos Cod. us ruit impiger enfes:

In patriam flammas Cæsar & arma tulit.

Ille ſuo patrias firmavit ſanguine leges:

At patriæ peperit ſanguine Cæsar opes.

Nemo tamen regum jactat ſe nomine Codri:

Cæsareum nemo non ſibi nomen avet.

Quæ ratio ? in promptu eſt: nam qui nunc regna tuentur,
Illius oderu it, ifiius acta probant.

Cod. us for's Countrey ruſht on ſwords of foes:

Cæsar by fire and ſword wrcught's Countrey's woes.

By Cod. us death his Countrey's Laws firm ſlood:

Cæsar (to rob his Countrey) ſpilt much blood.

Yet no King boasteth of Cod. us his Name:

But all think Cæsar's ſtle adds to their fame.

Why ſo? the realton's plain : for all Kings now

Cæsar's acts love, Cod. us his diſavow.

What inſtruments of the Churches good our late Kings have
been, old Puritans can tell: Non-ſcribers (I beleeve) but claim
brotherhood with old Puritans. Many a ſad heart hath been
powred out by them that were really old Puritans, for the an-
guifh

(43)

guish of theirSouls,and their cruelbondage under our late
Kings. Mr. Prinne,I beleeve,will not refuse the name of an
old Pwitan,and yet he tels us that we could have no afflu-
nce of the laft Kings maintaining Protestant Religion,
which he draws as a Corollary or conclusion from all the
Engagements,Oaths,Promises and Tyes, wherein he had Popish Royal
tyed himself to the Popish party. From all this it is evident,
that the Parliament hath not deprived the people of any
thing truly a bleffing,but rather freed them from the curse
and snare of the reign of Hypocrites:as the laft perjured Ty-
rant was,and the King of Scotland little better, who under-
hand upheld Montroſſe,and publickly diſa vowed him; who
took the Covenant,and then refused to tettifie his humiliati-
on for the blood that lay upon himself and house, ſhed in
acting againſt the grounds & ends of the Covenant;who fained
such a humili ation at laft,& yet is lately declared by a party
in Scotland,to be walking in oppofition to God and the Cove-
nant. 4ly, Non-ſcribers ſay the people are wronged by endan-
gering of them to a war either civil or forrein. But who could
have promised that if the King and Lords had continued we
ſhould have been free from war? The Army in thei Decla-
ration of Novemb 16. 1648. evidence beyond all reply the cer-
taintie of thofe troubles and commotions which would have
enfued upon compliance with the King,( where they also
tettifie their Humiliation for the Paſſages Non-ſcribers urge,
and I nould think it not very Chriſtian-like dealing to pleard
that as a man ſtellimony which he profefſes his repentance
of.) To what purpofe eſſe were his Commissions continued
to the late Prince, Montroſſe and Ormona, if he kept them not

Favourite,p.
72.

to the late Prince, *Montroſſe* and *Ormona*, if he kept them not
as a reſerve to war upon us, when he had once mounted the
Throne again? Beſides, a war with liberty is a far better con-
dition then quiet with ſlavery: ſo much the better, by how
much a people may more easily reſift profefſed oppoſitions,
then burdens and grievances masked under the name of
publick Authority, and backed with force. Our Neighbors of
*Holland* have been ſo far froſt nking the continuing of the
war a wrong to them, that they have been great gainers by
it. When the people of *Rome* had ſhaken off hei Kings, its a
wonder to ſay (faith Saluſt) how the City grew in a ſhort
*Space*,

Auſt dq, cum
bello jama &
opes. Grotius,
Epist. vid. an-
te Ant. Reip.
Bat.

Civitas, incre-
dibile memora-
tu, a ceptâ liber-
tate, quantum
brevi creverit.
Salust. Bellum
Catilinar.

have
claim
been
an-
guifh

Judg.3.27,28. Space having gotten liberty. Ebud wronged-not Israel, when after he had flain Eglon, he blew the Trumpet, and called the people, by War, quite to shake off the Moabitish yoak. Would such as Non-scribers cease to abuse the Parliaments lenity, and the Peoples credulity, we should leſſe fear civil commotions: and for forraig enemies (bleſſed be God) he hath delivered us, and we hope will yet deliver. Lastly, Non ſcribers lay the people are wronged, because the force, Bond, and ſecurity of all the Laws, are changed by this change. To this I ſay, That the Laws are the peoples Laws, they chufe them, they make them their repreſentatives, are the ſupreme Magistrates, who have the ſupreme Authority, to make and confirm a Law, and as long as the people want not theſe, the ſecurity of the Laws can never fail: but their ſecurity is ſo much the more provided for, by how much any power that pretends intereſt, in the making or confirming of a Law, beſides the Repreſenters of the people is curbed. So that the Peoples Laws are more ſecure now, being out of danger of being hindred in their making by a royall advisera, or in their execution, by protections against Law, flowing from an unlimited prerogative. And whereas Non-scribers ſay, that the Parliament hath violated the Legal, and molſt foundational property of their Superiors; I would have them know, that the people of England represented in Parliament, have no Superiors under God, which is a truth of ſuch force, as drew from King James himself a confession, that he was no other then the great Servant of the Commonwealth. The puniſhment against ſuch as engage not (which Non ſcribers urge to prove, that the ſecurity of Law is loofed) is no other then the Rational practice of all our Law-Courts. viz: To deny them the benefit of the Law, who deny the jurisdiction of the Court: And they deny the jurisdiction of all Courts which is but derivative, who deny the Supreme power of the Commonwealth of England, which is in reſpect of other Courts, Original and fountain power.

Plea,&c.P.33.

Plea,&c.p.34.

Plea,&c.pag.
35,36.

I have thus done with their first Argument, which militated (tis Non-scribers pædantique word) against the Engagement abfraantly considered, I shall come now to a view of their ſecond ground which concerns them, (they ſay) as English men; As Iuc, ſay they, are pre-ingaged, and in regard of precedent obligations,

(45)

Plea, page 37.

Ligations, it would be perfidie (another of their Elegancies) to
engage in this; Their engagements are two-fold, as Subjects,
as worn under that relation. Their first argument in pursuance
of this second reason is this. If the type of Subjects to Magistrates
is upon us, in relation to an Authority and Government,
which cannot be said to be a Common-wealth, without
a King and house of Lords, then we cannot engage; but such
a tie is upon us, Ergo. I deny the Minor, there is no such tie upon
them, or any English man. The power to which they say they
were obliged, was not a power confitting of three coordinate
estates, as they suppose, but, of a Polity or Common-wealth,
the University of the people, being represented by their chosen
delegates, in whom all Majesty and supreme power of
the Common-wealth resided, the King, an honorary Servant
of the Common-wealth, to see its Laws put in execution, and
the Lords, as Judges appointed to judge between the Common-
wealth and King. When the Commons say, that the fundamental
Government confits in the King, Lords and Commons, fundamental
is to be taken in its largest sense, and
we must distinguish between what is properly, what is actually
fundamental. That a people inhabiting together in one
Land, be a Common-wealth having all power to themselves,
for self-preservation, and are to be governed by whom themselves
shall choose, is natural, and properly fundamental: that
they get a King to execute their Edicts, and Lords to judge him
in case of miscarriage, is voluntary and improperly fundamental.
If therefore the Representatives of the people, by
the peoples fountain-power, which they neither can, or do
give up to any King or Lord, do take away the King and Lords,
to whom the people cannot be given up irrevocably, the King
and Lords so taken away are no more a power, have no more
Authority. Let us now hearken how they prove, that this authority
of the King and Lords remaines, (for that the House of
Commons is still a legal representative of the people, hath
been proved already: and I shall avoid repetitions, as far, as
following Non scribes, in their wild goofe chance will give me
leave.) They say, The only wayes of diffolving Government
appliable to the occasion are, either that it must be done by
some Act of choice in power to do it, or by forcible and violent
ejection.

Plea, &c. p. 38.

(46)

ejection. That what was done, was done by unjust violence, I deny: that it was done by them, who had lawfull power to do it, I affirm. Non scribers strive to prove that they which did it, (for they confesse acts of repeal to have been made) were not qualified with power to do it, by two Medium's. 1. Because they never had such power committed to them, nor did any of their capacity ever exercise such a power. To this I confidently reply, that the Representatives of a Nation, (in all Nations that have had the happiness to enjoy such) have a power to depose their Tyrannicall Magistrates, by what name or title soever they be called, (Proof of which may be seen at large in Junius Brutus, and the Author of the Treatise, De jure Magistratus in subditos,) and that by a Law, which is of kind to those sanctions, which are not obnoxious to the changes of times, but were at the beginning of mankind, ingraven upon the minds of men, and approved by the mutual consent of all Nations, and (together with nature it self) are irrefragable and eternal, ruling over all, subject to none. I borrow the expression of some honourable Scotch Lords Ambalard to Queen Elizabeth, in justification of their ejection of Many Grandmother to our late Tyrant. And for their ignorance of any such principle in Scripture, it argues their carelessness search of it. There they might find Israel using their native liberty, in deposing Samuel, and fetting up a King, though Samuel was innocent, and God himself was intereffected: As also the defection of Libnah, (one of the Priests Cities) from under the hand of Jehoram, because he had forfaken the Lord God of his Fathers: and if one City for themselves may reject a King, much more the representatives of a whole Nation. 2. They lay, the legislative power, was seated in three estates, therefore the Abrogative: The falfhood of which affection I have sheved before. Kings of politicke kingdoms as (England was in Fortescue's Judgement) cannot change the Laws, but the people are to be ruled by Laws only of their own making. If the Representatives of the people have by the Law of nature, a power over their Magistrates, and have exercised in it almost all Nations, and the legislative power in England reft in them, they had a power sufficient to take away the King, and House of Lords, and the powers that are taken away by their lawfull superiors

De illarum Sanctionum generem, quæ mutationibus temporum non sunt obnoxiæ, sed in primo generis humani natu in mentes hominum incise sunt, & mutuo propè omnium gentium consenju comprobatæ, & una cum renum natura, irrefragabiles & sempiternæ perennent, ipseque nullius imperiis obnoxia omnibus dominentur & imperent. Bunce. Rerum. Scotic.lib.20.

2 Chronicles 21. 10.
Sovereign
power of Parliaments. Part.
page 37.

riers

( 47 )

riors are noe Power, nor doth any tye lie upon their quendum
Subjects to obey them.

What they adde ex abundanti, to prove the power of King
Eccles. 5. 1,
and Lords still to remain, is from such abundance, as their sacrifice
2, 3.
is, whole voice is known by a multitude of words; indeed, meere
Plea, &c.
Battology.
page 41.

They say 1. The Sanction of that Government from God is not
difanulled, they bufie themselves to find out a way how it may be
said to be diffolved. I shall tell them, God commanding obedience
to powers, commands to give every one their due; and learned
limitari
Ames will tell them, that obedience ought alwayes to be limited,
semper debet,
according to the limits of the power of the ſuperior commanding;
secundum litiem potes
whence he concludes that the bond of obedience to an inferiour
power ceafes, when the ſuperior power commands it not to be o-
ſtatic, quam
beyed. We may safely conclude then, that the Sanction of obe-
habet ſuperi-
dience to King and Lords is diſanulled by the taking a way of their
or precipiens.
Offices by the Representatives of the People of England, their
Medulla
lawful Superiours.
Theol. lib. 2.

2. They would perſwade us that the original constitution of
cap. 17.
the people, in King, Lords and Commons coordinate is not
Theſ. 54.
made void. But the people never constituted ſuch a Lordly King
Plea, &c.
and Kingly Lords as they dream of, they never gave them a joint
page 42.
power with themselves. Non-ſcribers are pittifully miſtaken, in
ſaying, that the people chofe their Delegates to confult and con-
currently act with the King in Parliament. They were choſen ad
faciendum, as the writ of Summons ſpeakes, to make Lawes for
Kings and Lords as well as others, not to be only Councellors, or
concurrent actors with them. For their Reaſons (which they ſay
they would produce to prove that it is unlawful for a people to
depoſe their ſupreme Magiſtrate) they would be very impertinent
at the preſent; for the ſupreme Magiſtrate is not depoſed as long
as the Houſe of Commons ſtands, and (I doubt) unconſclusive, un-
leſſe they fully anſwer what Mr. Rutherford and Mr. Prinne two of
their own friends, have ſaid in aſſerting the peoples power in that
particular.

3. Lawes (ſay they) are not repealed, that give the ſway of
Government to certain perſons and their iſſue. To which I an-
ſwer, that ſuch Lawes, (if ſuch there were) are at leftwife virtu-
ally repealed in the Acts for taking away the Kingly Office and
Plea, &c.
page 43.

G

Houſe

( 48 )

House of Lords, and such repeales are lawful, the whole legislative power being in the Representatives of the people, who (as an House) are above all our common Law and positive Statutes, and may change, alter, and abrogate them, as they see most rationally convenient for the publick utility of the people. These things considered, engaging will appear nothing contrary to the Scriptures they quote (page 37.) The Senate was above Cæsar, and our Representatives of greater power then the Roman Senate, the Parliament and people are the highest power. No King is dishonoured by a Tyrants depofition, no Ordinance of God is violated, since God never ordained Tyranny in Exercise more then in Title. Non-scribers are the men given to change, who joyned with the Parliament in Armes against the King ere a while, and one of the highest Acts of Soveraignty is the voting and making Warre) and now are ready to joyn, with his hopelesse brood against the Parliament.

Plea, &c.
page 44.

In Fudeos
& Mahu-
metifts as

Sub Christia-
nismo lati-
tantes exer-
ceri solet.

Grotius. An-
tiqu. Reip.

Bat. c. 6.
Paul Servita,
*History of the*
*Inquifition.*
page 12.

Their second Argument to prove that they are preingaged, is grounded upon their Oathes, Protestations, Covenants. Of which they affirm. 1. Their contrariety to the Engagement. 2. Their unremitted obligation. In the entry to the answer of this Argument, I cannot but observe, that Non-scribers make the same use of the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy, Protestation and Convenant, which the Spaniards make of the Inquifition-Office, which being at the first erected for the purging out of Jews and Moores, professed enemies to Christianity, is now used for the keeping out of all power of Christianity from coming amongst them: so those Oaths and Obligations which were at first imposed to secure us against the enemies of our State, and to discover Priests, Jesuites, and Cavaliers, are now urged in the favour of a party, who hath interwoven their interest so, with that of the Romanifts and Malignant Royalifts, that (should they be observed with Non-scribers interpretation) our Religion and Liberties are likely utterly to be subverted, at left-wife we should be put into as dangerous contels for them, as we have (through God's assistance) waded through, in our late commotions. Should we grant them that those former Engagements are opposite to the Engagement (which well may be denied, in the proof of which negative some of late have worthily travelled) yet it will not thence follow, that the Engagement is unlawful, if it may be made appear that the obligation

ligation of them is ceased. Non-scribers confess, that an Oath may be rendred void. Plea, &c. page 52.

1. By the revocation of a Superior, having lawful power in the matter of the Oath. The lawfulness of the superiority of the Peoples Representatives over the King, &c. hath been proved, and if they had power over the Powers to whom the Oath is made, so that they might lawfully divest them of their power, they had power over allegiance, the matter of the Oath. Neither is this power of theirs over the matter of the Oaths weakened by any thing that Non-scribers lay. For 1. Notwithstanding the Oath of Supremacy, acknowledges the King to be supreme Governor, yet the Parliament and Kingdom are the supreme power, paramount to him, faith Mr. Prinne. He was the supreme executioner of publick justice, had a supreme executive power, but not a supreme legislative power, that still was retained by the Representatives of the people. To this we may add what Mr. Prinne faith, that the Supremacy given to the King, relates to the Popes and forraign Princes Authority formerly furped, not to Parliaments part. 1. page and their jurisdiction, with whom Mr. Rutherford well agrees, who 104. 105. Soveraign Power of Parliaments

Sefaning how the King is called supreme, faith he is called so in opposition to all forraign jurisdictions, and over all Perſons and Eſtates ſeparatims, but not over Lawes, or over Eſtates taken conjunctim, as convened in Parliaments. The King was Major ſingulis; but minor universis: so that afferting him supreme in the Oath of Supremacy, infers not that his power and conſequently allegiance, was not under the power of any other: for though he was ſupreme in reſpect of every ſingle perſon, yet the Representatives of their whole Nation were above him. 2. Notwithstanding all the Knights and Burgeſſes of the Houſe of Commons took the Oath of Allegiance themselves, it will not follow that they had no power over allegiance, they took that Oath as private men, not as Representatives of the Majefty of the people. As Parliament-men, they cannot fall under the notion of ſingulars, they vote not as ſingulars, but as publick Representative perſons, as those who have the power of the Counties and Towns they repreſent intruſted to them: they therefore repreſenting the community of the whole Nation are not, were not properly Subjects. Every ſingular perſon was a Subject to the King; but the whole Community or University of the Nation is

G 2

a

a Common-wealth, having a Nomothetique power in it self, Para-
mount to all its Magistrates; and this University is represented by
the House of Commons. They therefore as Representatives might t
vote, as a Parliament might enact the abrogation of allegiance. As
for that evasion of Non-scribers, That the privilege of a Superi-
our to unloose the Oath or Vow of his inferior is expressly re-
strained by the Law of God to the immediate declared diffent of
the Superior. I answer, that granting this were so, the Parliament
never gave way to the taking off the Oaths of Allegiance and Su-
premacy in Non-scribers fence, they never intended to make the
King above Parliaments, they never gave him an irrecoverable
power, as I have shewed before out of Mr. Private. They aflent-
ed that the Oaths should be taken, whereby the King was ac-
knowledged the supreme executer of the Lawes, it will not follow
from hence that they made him free from all Lawes, that he
should not be as a Subject to them, as the meanest of his Subjects,
as by ancient Lawes he ought to be: nay, they could not do this,
it had been a giving up the power intrusted by the people to them,
and could not have obliged the people, et si parendum in omnibus

Sen. Contr.
lib.2.Cont.9.

Patri, in eo non parendum est, quo efficitur ne Pater est, The Parlia-
ment gave the King a power to execute Lawes made and to be
made by them the makers of all Lawes: the King by force, en-
deavours to cut in sunder the Lawes which he ought to have pro-
tected, and raises Arms against the Parliament his superior, to the
dissolution of their Government, as they voted May 23. 1642.he
hereby becomes guilty of High Treason, the Law excludes Tray-
cors iflue from all hereditary suceedions : here is no need of dif-
sent to the Oathes once taken for upholding his Authority, it
was forfeited by himself, his Superiours by Law executed him, by
Law judge his posterity uncapable of succession, the Subjects are
free from obligations, unlefs we must fay, that the King is above
all Lawes, as Court-Parasites have done. Non-scribers therefore
abuse the world, when they fay a diffent came too late to that
which was never Sworn to by any Englishman, the Oaths were ne-
ver allowed to be taken, but with the neceflary implyed Salvo, fa-
ving our obedience to the Lawes and Common wealth. Nor do
they deale any better in the cafe of the House of Lords. We are
bound by Covenant to preſerve the privileges of Parliament.
Now (fay they) we are confident that at the taking of the Pro-
testation

Plea, &c.
p. 47.

51)

testation and Covenant, there was no usage of the word Parliament, either in written Lawes, Statutes, or other Records, but what necessarily intended the House of Lords, as one main and separable part: but they must be believed upon this their confidence; for besides confidence, (I might say impudence) they have nothing to prove it. One of Mr. Prinn's Authours was as confident on the other side, that there were Parliaments in England, when there was neither Bishop, Earl nor Baron: so that the Privileges of Parliament may be safe, and yet neither Bishop, Earl nor Baron be in any power. The House of Lords were not intended as a main and inseparable part of the Parliament, but as Judges in all plaints against the King and his Children; with whom, when faulty, if they collude, and neglect their trust, the Commons might differcard them; nor will it stand with the Rule of Christian obedience, that any private persons should defend them against the just sentence of the Commons their superiors, whose privileges were above theirs, and therefore are to be respected before them.

Sovereign
Power of
Parliaments.
part. 1. p. 43.

2. Non-scribers grant, that Oathes cease to oblige by the cefſation of the matter ſworne. The matter is ceaed. The King pag. 53. and House of Lords are ceaed to be a power, in regard of right, as I have ſhewed before. Thus by their owne concessions, it is evident, that the former Oathes are no just barre to hinder them from taking the Engagement. I might adde other wayes how an Oath may be rendered unobliging: but I ſhall content my ſelfe with their owne concessions, and leave what they ſay in their Appendix, to such who are engaged already, by Non-scribers quarrelling with their principles.

Plea, &c.

It were but to waste Paper, to anſwer what else they ſay about Plea, &c. the duration of the obligation of those Oathes: we require no pag. 51. Pop: nor other power to abſolve us from them: we are not 53. 54. drawne aside by any changes: we fee the powers to which the Engagements were made, taken away by their Superior power, and now being a nullity, which is in Non-scribers language, a civil Idol, we are fure nothing can oblige us to that which is not, either in being or right. Nor are the Powers of the King and Lords, hinc & munc, lawfull: they were lawfull heretofore, because eſtablished by the Legislative power: now the fame power hath abrogated them, and are to us as if they had not bin. Neither is it poffible to

ſet

G 3

(52)

Lucius Florus. lib. I. cap. 9.

Let them up again, I meane, to any meerly private. Illud poſſumus quod jure poſſumus. I dare not owne the poſſibility of that which is unlawfull. Brutus put his two Sons to death, for endevouring to reduce Tarquin, the reaſon was not because Kingly power was unlawfull, but because it was at that time unlawfull to them, the Lawes of the Roman State forbidding it. I with Non ſcribers so much wisdom and morality as that heathen Comne had: for in all their Plea there is want of found reaſon to maintaine what they call the dictate of their conſcience: nor in deed bring they any thing but Sophiſtry and jingling about words to the Bar on their owne behalfe, and ſuch quirks ſhall then deferve to be called conſcience, when ſcience falſly so called ſhal deferve to be called good Divinity.

If, therefore, the Power in the Engagement be neither unjuſt in its returne, or diſpoſſion of others, nor preingagements hinder (which I have ſhewed) the Engagement may lawfully be taken by any Englishman (notwithstanding what Non-ſcribers ſay to the contrary) which was the thing to be demonstrated.

I have done with Non-ſcribers Doctrin, and ſhould have ſpared their Application, if it had not bin as full of Calumnies, as their Doctrine of ignorance and error. Their Application is a threefold Exhortation.

Plea, &c.
page 57. 58.

1. To the Impoſers of the Engagement, whom they exhort to ſtop their course and descend to reaſon it out with them, as if the supreme Authority of the Nation had nothing to do; but to reſgue with a Company of jugling Sophiſters, who muſt have ſatistaction not ſatisfaction, and whom non perſuaſeris etſi millies perſuaſeris. Yet I doubt not but these Gentlemen (which is the beſt team that these proud men can afford the Representers of the Maſety of the People) are able and will be willing to diſcourse with them; but what little hopes of ſucces there is in ſuch a condeſcension, is evident from the virality of their addresses here to the Impoſers of the Engagement. These Paraſtes (that can in deſence of the late Tyrant quote that of Elibu, ſob 34. 18. Is it fit to ſay to a King, thou art wicked?) are bold to tell the Parliament, that their actions are unjuſt, ſcandalous, perjurious, &c. There is little hope that reaſon should prevail over them, who call evil good, and good evil, put light for darkneſs, and darkneſs for light, and fin being condemned of themſelves. But let us hear the motions they put this exhortation on by. The impoſing of the Engagement

Appendix.
pag. 54.
Margin.

(53)

 engagement (say they) is scandalous. So the jingling Cavalier that
calls himself their Majesties Vassal, with the *Candenians*, that is,
*Scots* rising against the King, cast a brand upon the *Ensebian*, the
Protestant Profession, in loosing the bands of *passive* obedience.
And the Tyrant himself tells us, that he feared such motions (as
the Parliaments just Armes) would be an alienation of mind, and
divorce of affection of his Queen from our Religion. I would
know to whom the imposing of the Engagement is scandalous.
*Non-scribers* intimate that it will be so to the *Sticklers* in the Ty-
rants quarrel. And I say, that this is the fairest dealing in all their
Book, to acknowledge their good friends the *Cavaliers*, and to
plead against offending them. But I have learned from Mr. *Calvin*,
that there are two forts of scandals; *Scandala infirmorum*, which
*Institution*.
we must carefully avoid, & *Scandala Phariseorum*, this which they
cap. 12. S. 11.
would make of the latter fort, and therefore it may be said of the
*Cavaliers* and *Non-scribers* their *Patrons*, as our Saviour said of the
*Pharisees*, when the Disciples told him that they were offended,
let them alone, &c. But *Non-scribers* will prove it scandalous.
*Mat. 15.* 14.
How? Thus, The *King* laid an aspersion upon the *Parliament*,
that their intention was to destroy *Monarchy*, and pull down the
House of Lords, the *Parliament* abhorred the imputation, and en-
gaged the contrary.

To this I answer, That it is no marvel, though Tyrants suspect
the just events of their Tyranny before they come upon them, and
if the Parliament had profest against the Government of himself,
his Pomerity and Court-Minions, they had done nothing scandal-
lous. They stood too long shaking hands with what they should
have shaken off. Besides, the Engagements the *Parliament* made
in favour of him, took not away those Lawes which made him and
his Heires lyable to lose of their Crown and dignity, and there-
fore it could be no scandal to execute those Lawes, or to bind the
People to be faithful to them, having done what was righteous.
Though *Non-scribers* cannot, (yet it is possible to) defend against
the *Cavaliers* the justice of our Warres, notwithstanding the a-
bolishing of *Kingly* Government. We entred into contest with
them. The just party did maintain the liberty of the People,
the unjust, the Tyrants exorbitancies. The just parties first
desire was to regulate those exorbitancies, thinking they had pro-
ceeded from bad Council only; but when it appeared that the Ty-
rant

rant was his own work Councillor, and all other meanes (even after Conqueſt of him) were ineffectual, and that by the restleſs machinations of the Tyrant and his Partizans, the danger was growen so great, that had the Tyrant remounted, an utter deſtruction of the peoples Liberties would have followed, it was but juſt to take away the Spring of those destroying differences, especially the Engagements made in favour of the King, being but conditionally made, that he and his Authority should be preferred, if we, our Religion, and Liberties might have been ſecured. But when those were like to be ruined, it was as juſt, rebus fic ſt antibms, to abolifh Kingly Government, as it was at first to ſeeke by force to reſtrain prerogative inundations; if that therefore were not ſcandalous in its time, neither is the impoſing of an Engagement againſt Kingly Government now ſcandalous, there is the ſame reaſon of both. It were indeed ſcandalous to our Nation, that there should be found among us a prevailing party that should transcend the Romaniſts in their falsifications and State-underminings. But (if there be any ſuch party among us) it is Non-ſcribers and their party, who having ſworn the defence of the peoples liberties, would bring upon us one whom they would ſet in ſupreme Authority from a forſtaign Nation, who having ſworn to bring Delinquents to condigne puniſhment, maintain the unqueſtionableneſs of the Architecſt of our miſeries, and canonize him for a Martyr, who ſuffered forevil doing of a ſcarlettincture. And if to ſet up a Nation in a Nation, professedly underan Authority contrary to the Authority in rightful poſſession, be not the very Romaniſts State-undermining, I know not what it is; & this I am ſure is Non-ſcribers endeavour.

But Non-ſcribers mean, that good men in other Nations will be offended at the late actions in ours, and the present Engagement, considering former Engagements. But, I have a more charitable opinion of our good Neighbors, and hope that they being not interreſſed, and consequently free from what may divert their judgements from right, will juſtifie the righteous actions of our Nation, and cannot but continue in this hope, as long as I see other Nations have done the like actions, notwithstanding the like obligations to our former ones upon them. In the year 1572, William Prince of Orange and his Confederates in Arms proteſted againſt the Duke of Alva; yet withall, engaged themselves to hold the Countrey of the Netherlands, under the obedience of their Prince and natural Lord, as they ought to do; for so are the words of their

Sovereign
Power of
Parliaments.
part. 3.
pag. 146.

their protestation, in Mr. Privne's Book: yet in the year 1581, Hugo Grotius, they solemnly abjured the King of Spaine who was the Hereditary Earle of Holland. And the Earles of Hekland were tig. Reip. not in any thing short of a justly regulated King, and had as much Batavice. Authority there, as the Kings of England among us, as the cap. 5. Authors in the Margin inform us. The States of Sweden in the Paulus Meuryard, changed their Elective Kingdom into an Hereditary Kingdom, which they entayled upon Ericus the eldest Son of Gustavus their Reip. King then, and his issue male, and if such issue failed upon John via Diatriba, the Kings second Son and his heirs male, and in like manner upon Johannes de Magnus, and Charles Duke of Sudermannia the Kings younger Laet. DeChildren, to this they were solemnly. Yet Ericus for his Tyranny scrip. Belg was deposed by the States, and John the second Brother crowned; cæ. tit. Holhe dying and leaving Sigismund King of Poland and John Duke of landia. cap. 7. Oſtrogothia his 2. sons behind him. Sigismund was crowned King Henricus Second of Sweden; yet because he endeavoured to destroy the Protestant terus. Suecia. Religion established among them, and Warred upon them, he was pag. 131. & deposed by an Act of the States Assembled at Stockholm, in the Seq. & pag. year 1599, and in the year 1600, both he & his posterity excluded 202. 206. from all government in Sweden, by a Decree of the States af- 216.

Assembled at Lincop: nay more, they excluded from the Kingdom, John Duke of Oſtrogothia, the brother of Sigismund, because they feared, left he, out of natural love to his brother, should enter into any part or Covenant with Sigismund and his heires which might bring detriment to their countrey: and then they chose Charles Duke of Sudermannia for their King. And if the States of Holland might abjure their Earl and not be scandalous to us, nay, and we join with them, as our Nation did in Queen Elizabeth's: dayes if the States of Sweden might abjure Sigismund, his brother and issue, and not be scandalous to us; nay more, and we hacententia help Gustavus the Son of Charles, whose right was built upon constanter Sigismund's ruine, I can see no cause why our actions and engagement should be scandalous to any honest man among them or any runt, posse, other Nation, that approved the equity of those actions in Holland or Sweden. Scotland (it may be) will frowne, because the stratum sub current of Penſions from England is Stopt: but they that laid leges vi cogi. the foundation of Reformation in Scotland were of another mind Buchanan. then their present Kirkmen: Mr. Knox defended the Lawfulness Rerum. Scot, of putting Tyrants to death in a General Assembly. In the Scotch lib. 17.

H

Queen

Buchanan.
Rerume Scot.
lib. 20.

Magis for-
midamus ni-
mie lenita-
tis apud om-
nes bonos re-
prehenſio-
nem, quam
apud malos
trudelitatis
calumniam.

Actio contra
Mariam
Scotorum
Reginam.
pag. 100.

Plea, &c.
page 60.

Festus Hom-
xius.col. An-
zi-Bellarmi-
nianum.

Disp. 31.

Theſ. 4.5.

Sam. Bolton.
Arraigment

of error. pag.
335. 336.

Plea, &c.

pag. 61.

Queen Maries dayes, the Minifters were conſtant in this opinion,
that the Magiftrate, might be brought by force under the Lawes :
and the Earl of Morton and other Scotch Lords Ambaſladors to
Queen Elizabeth justified their depoſition of Mary, and affirmed
that they might by the Law of Nature and their Countrey, have
dealt more severely with her, and that her life and the ſuccessors
of her Son depended upon their clemency: their Oration which
was preſented to Queen Elizabeth, a Latin Printed Copy where-
of I have, ends thus, We more ſeare to be reprehended by good
men for our over-much Lenity, then we do to be ſlandered by the
bad with cruelty. Were Scotlands Kirkmen the true ſuccessors
of Mr. Knox and Bushanan, we could not offend them; but we be-
ing their ſuccessors in the trutheſ they profefſed, and the Scots
Apoſtatizing, we may well caſt them in with Non-ſcribers, and
contemne the offences they take againſt us, with, Let them
alone, &c.

But the impoſing of the Engagement ( ſay Non-ſcribers ) is
ſcandalous, because it takes away the Liberty of Conſcience, which
the Impoſers profetſedly maintain, and they cannot ſee any rea-
ſon but that they ſhould leave Conſcience free in Civill matters,
who would have it free in matters of Religion. But, beſides that
the Impoſers of the Engagement, have not ( for ought I know )
owned the Patronage of ſo vaſt a Libertinifme in matters of Re-
ligion as Non-ſcribers would father upon them, their Argument
may be retorted upon themſelves. It is ſcandalous, that they who
hold tolleration of difference in outward ſormes of Discipline un-
lawfull, ſhould claime a tolleration in Civill matters : and it would
be ſcandalous in the Magiftrate to tollerate any thing, or to grant
any privilege, which by the Privileged is looked upon under
the Notion of ſin; and Learned Presbyterians ( into the number
of whom Non-ſcribers itch to be received ) rank opinions de-
ſtructive to the publike Peace with ſuch as are blaſphemous, and
contrary to Fundamentall trutheſ, and allow the Magiftrate an
equall, nay greater Power to puniſh them that are ſeditions, then
them that are ſo erroneous.

Concerning the Agreement of the People, I have this only to ſay
that the Parliament never owned it; and therefore Non-ſcribers do
meerly Calumniate them, in laying it at their doores. But their new
ſtrain of Poetry, wherein they would make Sphynx a resolver of
riddles.

(57)

riddles, I must say that, for ought I have read, the propofing of Iſt i quidem
riddles is onely attributed to Sphynx, the refolution to Oedipus. orationi Oe-
And for the Riddle it ſelf, ſince Non-ſcribers a e the Sphynges, dipe opus con-
I will make them (according to their own Poetry) the unriddlers. jectori eſt,
Non-ſcribers call the Goverment by Kings, Lords and Commons, qui Sphynge
the constitution of the People, yet make the People ſubject to it. interpres fu-
So that the people(by their own conſeſſions) may have a radicall it. Plantus in
virtuall Power of Soveraignty, which when they have derived, Panulo. Aſt.
and it is in the Magiſtrate formally, they are to obey the Magi-
ſtrate made by them. The people as a Community gave their Plea, &c.
Power to their Representatives, as ſingulars are required to En-
gage. They who aggately, as a Community are the Originall
of power, may feverally and perſonally be the Recipients of it.
page 42.

The reſt of their Rhetorick is ſpent in bewayling the Tyranny, Plea, &c.
oppression, Injuſtice, which our Nation ( as they ſay ) is under, page 61.
notwithſtanding the impofers of the Engagement, proſeſſe op-
poſition to Tyranny, and make Juſtice and Liberty their Motto.
page 62. 64.

But, that you may know how good Polititians or Moraliſts they
are, inſtance only ( to make all theſe accuſations good ) in the
Act for taking the Engagement. Theſe ſervile Souls never knew
what true publike Liberty is. It is an &υλονοια, whereby a Nation
hath freedom to make and change their own Lawes, without
being hindred by any ſingle man ſaſſer, or the colluſions of
enflaved Robes and Coronets: this we have: and the Non-ſcribers
ſay that we want; but they want Liberty. I know none they
want, but a Liberty of deſtroying themſelves and the Nation.
The Act which they ſo accuſe doth Enact, that in case a Non-
ſcriber ſue any debter, and the debter plead their not subscribing
the Engagement, further proceedings in the ſuit ſhall be ſupε-
ſeded : In the cloſe whereof it is provided, that no perſon com-
plained of for Treason, Felony, breach of the peace or good
behaviour ſhall have any benefit by pleading the Plainriſſe not to
have ſubſcribed : ſo that this neither amounts to Outlawry, they
being under the protection of the Law, onely the payment of
Debts being ſuperseded till they ſubmit to the Supreme Autho-
nty, nor gives the money to the Debter, but he is ſtill lyable to
ſuit upon the Repentance of the Non-ſcriber, nor doth it lay
them open to loſſe of Limb, Life, Eſtate or Liberty, they having
Freedome to ſue any even for breach of the peace or good be-
haviour.

Act for subscribing the Engagement.

H 2

haviour.

Plea, &c.
page 65.

Gen. 4. 14.

Superfedeo
te habere si-
vem tanti
manneris im-
pium estima-
torem: abi i-
gitur & eſto
ſervus, quo-
niam liber
eſſe nefciſti.

Val. Max.

lib. 2, cap. 6.

haviour. So that as many invectives as there are against the Act, so many false and wicked calumnies there are; but none viler then that wherein they parallell their cafe, with the fewes cafe under the feare of Haman, and intimate plots to be layd for their lives. A calumny so unbeleeming Christians, as it argues the Authors of it to be Acted by him who is the accuser of the brethren, a lyar and the father of it, and upon whom as the guilt of Cain's sin lyes ( they having made themselves guilty of their brethrens blood by justifying them that shed it ) so Cain's curse lies upon them also, they fear every one that meetes them will kill them. A calumny to be answered only with just indignation against and execration of their malicious jealousy. Their hopes that deliverance would come unto them from some other place are in part defeated already, and he that hath delivered, doth, ye and will deliver us, from Non-scribers Brethren.

Much may be said for the Justice of that light punishment,
that is enacted against Non-scribers, but more, if we look upon
them as such as these Cheshire and Lancashire ones would per-
swade us, that they themselves be, viz. Such as adhered to the
Parliament in the late Warres against the Tyrant; in such refusall
of the Engagement is a fin.

1. Of great ingratitude, they therein denying their fidelity to them, who freed them from the yoke of Episcopacy, High Commission-Court, Star-Chamber, ( for these cannot be said to be the Tyrants benefits, he striving by his sword to bring a greater slavery upon them, then he had freed them from by his word of affent to those Bills ( whose Authority armed them with Power to defend themselves against the Tyrants Emiſtaries : in a word, whose continued labours for the recovery and continuance of their Liberties deferve to be written with letters of gold in monumentall Marble, or what else is more durable. The Athenians had a cuſtome, that if the freed ſervant were ingratefull to his Patron, he was deprived of his Liberty. I account not thee a Citizen ( said the Maſter ) who art an unthanfull eſteemer of so great a benefit; Go therefore & be a slave, because thou knoweſt not how to be free. Were Non-scribers deprived of their Liberty, it might be justified by the example of this much moralized Nation.

2. It's a fin of Apoſtafe; for what else, but wilful back-sliding
can it be, for them who acknowledged the ſupreme Authority of
the

(59)

the Representatives of the people in a matter of supreme power, Manlius ed
viz. the power of the Sword againſt an incroaching Tyrant, to de
ny obligations to them, and what they repreſent, and that in ſa-
vour of the Tyrants pretended Heirs and abettors? It may be well
ſaid to them as to Manlius, who after he had defended the Roman
Peoples liberties againſt the Gaules, endeavoured to enslave them,
Thou waſt Manlius to me, when thou overthrewest the Senones;
ſince thou beganſt to be changed, thou art become of the Senones
thy ſelf. Their lives themſelves had been forfeited in that Com
mon-wealth. They were favourably dealt with, if the Parliament
only dealt with them as Solemon with Abiathar, whom he would
not put to death, becauſe he had been afflicted with David in all
his afflictions, yet thrust him out from the Priſt-hood for follow-
ing Adonijah. Very little reaſon have they to complain, who find
milder dealing then any of the forementioned, whose crimes they
equall.

Their ſecond exhortation is to the takers of the Engagement, Plea, &c.
whom they exhort to consideration of what they have done, and page 67.
to return back to their former ſlavery. By their ſulminations, they
endeavour to make the hearts of the righteous ſad, whom God
Ezek. 13. 22.
hath not made ſad, and to ſtrengthen the hands of the Cavaliers,
that they ſhould not return from their ſlavish principles. To this
purpose they uſe inducements, taken (they ſay) from the matter
of engaging, wherein they charge them.

1. With rathneſs and precipitancy; perhaps becauſe ſome of Plea, &c.
their ſlocks consulted no more before they took the Engagement, page 68.
with theſe pragmatical Confessors, then Andrew and Peter did
with the High Priſts before they became Chriſts Disciples. There
were principles and books enough to ſatisfie Conſcience about a
buſineſs of this nature, before the Engagement was thought of.
Mr. Rutherford and Mr. Prinne were ſufficient, with whom (I am
ſure) ſome ſeriously conſuſed about it, and ſome Congregations
were prepared by their peaceable Minifters to the ſubſcribing of
it. For the conſtruction which Non-ſcribers put upon Books writ-
ten in defence of the Engagement, it ſavours too much of that SPI-
rit that taught them to brag of their skill in ſoule-Phyſick. Cer-
tainly, I ſhould think it a work as much to the ſatisfaction of
Conſcience, to defend a controverted truth, as to preach the first
principles of truth to them that never before heard them.

H 3

2. Non-

(60)

2. Non-scribers charge the takers of the Engagement, with
sleight grounds. I will not say but some might engage upon such
fandy foundations as Non-scribers speak of; but I dare withall
confidently aver, that the most of such are to be found in Non-
scribers Folds, whose Pulpit-stuffe, both first and last, hath been
the Doctrine and perpetual infusion of Slavery and wretchedneſs
to all their Hearers, that I may use the judicious censure of our I-
conoclafkes. Et Turpe eſt Doctori, cum culpa redarguit ipſum, it is
such guides fin and ſhame, that their people in the midft of such
Canon. 36. of contentions for liberty, are no more acquainted with the nature
of it; which ignorance is the caufe why some remain in the infer-
nal vaſſalage of a mis-informed Conſcience, and others fin in do-
ing good things doubtfully: How their third inducement should
be taken from the manner and circumſtance of engaging is more
then I can ſee; but Non-scribers ſay it is so, in my eyes it was an
Argument taken from the noxious event of engaging. Non-ſcri-
bers ſay, they have heard of ſome perplext for engaging. But hear-
troubled for ſay is no ſound proof with understanding men; and if there be any
neglecting a - ſuch, they ſhow more tender-heartedneſs to Non-scribers, whose
my voluntary ſorrow for ſubſcription when they entred into Orders, (as they
call it) wherein they affirmed the Book of Common Prayer, and of
ordering Bishops, Priefts and Deacons, to contain nothing but what
to the word of God: few or no men, or Churches
ever heard of, no not though they covenanted the extirpation of
Epifcopacy, as contrary to ſound Doctrine and the power of God-
lineſs. Furthermore,* a misinformed Conſcience may feel wrack, a-
gony and anguifh for that which is not really fin. Mr. Bolton's re-
canting of his opinion concerning ſeparate Churches, Non-
of God. Dr. ſcribers will ſay was not fin; yet the fin of this ſo dog-
ged his Conſcience, that he laid violent hands on himself:
and I ſhould think Conſcience then to be in its greatest agony,
when it drives to defperation and ſelf-murther. The terrors that
Mr. Cotton,
fall upon an erroneus Conſcience, for finning againſt that error,
way of Con-
which it is conſciencious in, is no Argument to prove that what-
gregational
ſoever is contrary to that error, is either fin or falſhood.

Laſtly, they addreſſs themſelves to their own dear Disciples, to
whom they give Councel that might be called good, if they had
not before taught them to call evil good, and good evil. Conſtan-
cy in ignorance and error is ſo farre from being commendable, that
it is a high aggravation of fin where it is wilſul. It is the cauſe, not

(61)

the suffering that makes a Martyr. They that suffer as enemies to Authority, are so far from being followers of what is good, that they suffer as evil doers. But the Epiphonema of their Book, which is also the motive they use to build up their Miriones in their ob- finacy, is most ridiculous, Be true ( say they ) to just principles (that is the Non-scribers and Dr. Ferne's) and powers (that is the declared King of Scots and Pattentee-Lords) and ye shall not be without a King and Lord in Heaven. With such sweet allusions do Non-scribers feed their Sheep, and truly, were they not some- thing like the Thistle-eating beast that made the man smile who never laugh't before, their lips would not endure such lettuces. I had rather believe Paul then all the Non-scribers in England, and he tells me, that he that submits not to present posseffing powers, that attend on the busines of ruling, receives to himself damnati- on; and I must make bold to tell Non-scribers and their misled followers, that if ever they come to Heaven, they shall find no such Kings there as Non-scribers patronize. Tophet was of old prepared for such, and Hell opens its mouth upon them, as upon Isa. 30. 33. the Babylonian Monarch that had slain his people, and very few of Isa. 14, 9. their kind of Lords will be there. Not many Noble are called; but 1 Cor. 1. God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the 26. 27. things that are mighty: Unto which God I humbly bow my knees, beseeing him who causeth light to shine out of darknes, to open the eyes of Non-scribers, and the seduced by them, that they together with us, may under the present Authority, live a quiet and peaceable life in all godlinefs and honesty. And for our 1 Tim. 2. 2. Nation I pray, that it may long flourish under that Government, which God established among his own people, when he would have them best governed, that it may be thank- ful for its great deliverance, and walk worthy of them, that God may delight to dwell in it, be a wall of fire round about it, and the glory in the midft of it; even so, Amen.

FINIS.

10.