was petended the true cause was that which made him so famous even his zeal activity for the work of God in his generation for what ever else they had to lay to his charge if he had either opposed the work of God or done as litle for it as many other of the Nobles his life would not have been taken now more then the life of others it is true other things were sought to colour this bussinesse and failing one another failing that a third but in end ther is a comprehensive generall set downe as the ground of the sentence to this purpose That he had been an enemy to the king his interest these 23 yeers or more by past which in effect is as much as to say he had been an active friend for the interest of Christ. But because generalls cannot well be proved they condescended on severall particular actings of his in carrying on in his place station the work of reformation when all these failed they fix upon his complyance with the Englishes after they had subdued the land in battell and forced the king out of his dominions had garrisoned the whole land used it almost as a conquest by sitting in their parliament when chosen by some shire and when the rest of the shires of the land had sent their commissioners thither This his complyance with them at that time by sitting in their judicatories and there concurring with his advice counsel for the good of the land that was now under their feet is the only particular ground upon which his sentence is founded and the particular speciall cause pretended for which he was condemned to lose his head as a traitour to have his head put up on tâ—…e top of the tolbooth as an eminent traitour A sentence which question lesse at first veiu may make all men of understanding astonished to wonder how ever it could have entered into the minde of the parliament of Scotland to sentence unto death such a peer of the land such an usefull member of the Kingdome an ornament upon such a ground and for such a cause But if these foure particulars be considered the matter will yet appear more wonderfull 1. The matter of complyance with the Englishes at that time was so farr from being accounted treasonable that severall of the lawyers among whom was one Sr Iohn Fletcher who was now advanced to be his Maj. advocat did accuse this worthy Nobleman of treason did swear subscribe an oath to be faithfull unto the governement as it was then established without King house of Lords Now if there had been treason really in this deed either by the civill law or by the municipall lawes of the land would not the lawyers have perceived it whose dayly work study the lawes are 2. If this had been the deed of this nobleman alone the mater had been lesse to have been wondered at but it being such a deed whereof few of the nobles of Scotland were altogether free yea whereof many of the members of Parliament his judges were guilty the matter is beyond a parallel It is hard to make secios criminis sit as judges condemne the accused reason would require that the table should be purged Is it not strange for a Parliament to condemne one for such a fault for which many of their own members might with as much justice equity be condemned and is it not strange how they being by their own confession traitours in the heighest degree could fitt judge others It is true it will be replyed That his Maj. might pardon whom he pleased But then it will aboundantly appear that not this But something else was the cause of this worthy nobleman's death Whatever may be said in poynt of law yet it will be a disput in poynt of conscience If kings may pardon such crimes as do deserve death by the law of God or if such crimes which kings may pardon of their own accord according to their own good pleasure do before the Lord deserve death 3. If the Parliament had thought this particular worthy to bear so much stresse why would they have spent so much of their time in searching for other grounds to goe upon 〈◊〉 why did they not make use of this at the first but it is like this had never once been mentioned if they had been able to fasten treason upon any other of his actions this makes it so much the more to be wondered at that they would condemne such a noble man for such a particular which they would never once havâ—… named if they could have done their intended work otherwayes 4. Is it not strange that of all the complyers of Scotland there was not one except this nobleman impannelled upon this account let be put to death yea is it not strange that those noble Men were never once questioned who being desired by Generall Monck when he was entering England with his army to rancounter Lambert did abjure king Charles his interest this Nobleman must die Yea is it not yet more strange that one William Purves who by complying had occasioned almost ruine to many noblemen brughs and gentlemâ—…n should have been absolved by act of Parliament as might be cleared if there were a table of the unprinted acts set down after their acts as is done alwayes in other Parliaments and yet this nobleman must be sentenced to death for complying for the good of the countrey But to speak unto the bussinesse in poynr of law let these foure or five Particular quaere's be considered and then any shall be able to perceive the iniquity of this sentence 1. By what act of Parliament is such a deed as this condemned as treasonable By what municipall law can any member of the Kingdome be challenged upon the account of treason for treating with a conquerour for life liberty for sitting in his councells for the good of the countrey after that he with the rest of the body of the land had foughten in the defence of King countrey till no more could be done after the whole land had been overcome at severall battels and wholly overrun had acted nothing for the advantage of the enemy disadvantage of the king countrey before the victory obtained but in all poynts had carryed as became a loyall subject contributing all the help by armes counsell which was required what act of parliament declareth such a deed as this treasonable such a subject to deserve death as a traitour 2. Was there ever such a Practique in Scotland since ever there was a king in it Severall times was the kingdome of Scotland overrun by the kingdome of England particularly in the dayes of Baliol at that time King Edward caused the Nobles of Scotland swear all aidgeance unto him But when Bruce came to be King was there any of the Nobles questioned for treason upon that account
And seing ther can no instance be produced out of the History of Scotland since ever it was a Kingdome that any subject noble Man or other was accused of high treason for such a cause surely this noble Mans case was unparalleled 3. Is not this strange considering what the principle of Royallists is They say that Conquest giveth a just tittle to a crown So sayeth D. Ferne Aâ—…nisaeus Maxwell in his Sacro Sancta Regum Majestas Cap. 17. And by this principle Cromwell was the lawfull supreme Governour of the Kingdome of Scotland and had just tittle right to the Crowne thereof having now conquered the same if this principle of theirs be true which is much questioned by their opposites no complyance with him could by any law in the World be treason against any Prince whatsomever for obedience unto concurrence with a lawful supreme Magistrat can be treason against no man living How then could this noble Man be challenged upon the account of treason for complyance Let all the Royalists answer this without contradicting themselves if they can 4. Is there any lawyer who can produce such a definition of treason against a Prince or a supreme Magistrat out of the civil law as will condemne the deed of this worthy noble Man make complyance with a conquerour for the good saifty of the countrey after all meanes of defence are broken lost an act of treason And since the civil law can condemne no such deed as treasonable the sentence given out against his noble Man must be without all warrand of law 5. Are there not many countreyes Kingdomes cities that have been overrun by their enemies have had their own lawfull Governours put from them so have been forced to live under the feet of strangers hath it not been usuall for them to comply with such as had the present power in their hand for their own saifty the good of the place And was it ever yet heard that such were accused condemned of â—…reason against their own lawful Governours thrust from them sore against their wills for any such complyance And is it not wonderful that this eminent noble Man should become a preparative unto all the World So then to put a close to this let an appeal be made to all Governours of Commonwealths Statesmen Lawyers Casuists Politicians Canonists Quodlibâ—…tists yea Royalists if they will speak consonantly to their own principles their answer interloquutour be had in point of law unto this question Whether or not when a land is overcome in battel once againe a thrid time a fourth time so aâ—… they are forced to lie under the feet of the conquerour and expect his mercy their own supreme Magistrat is forced to flee away for his life without all hope of returning so they left without all goverment but what they have from the conquerour when it might have been expected that he would have ruled them disposed of them jure conquestus as conquered according to his own pleasure yet he did admit such as they thought sit to choise to sit in his supreme Councel for giving their advice for regulating the affaires of that Kingdom common wealth which is now conquered subdued Can it be treason in any when chosen by the countrey to sit in these Councells advise what they think best for the good of the countrey Or can they or any of them be challenged or accused condemned as guilty of heigh treason when providence bringeth back the prince after ten yeers absence for acting so under the conquerour for the good of the land to prevent its utter ruine destruction And if the answer shall as certainly it will be negative then it is beyond all question that the sentence execution of this worthy noble Man upon this sole account shall be matter of astonishment to all that hear of it know the cause thereof Thus a great prince falleth within five dayes therafter a great prophet falleth as shall be shown in the next section SECTION V. The groundes of the suffering of Mr Iames Guthry Minister at Sterlin who was executed the first Day of Iune 1661. examined AFter the parliament is assembled Mr Iames Guthry minister at Sterlin who was one of those ministers who were incarcerated for the cause above mentioned Sect. 3. who after some weeks imprisonement in the castle of Edenburgh was carryed thence imprisoned in Dundee from thence is sent for by the parliament impannalled before them being accused of high treason He was a man who had been honoured of God to be zealous singularly faithfull in carrying on the work of reformation had carryed himself streightly under all changes revolutions because he had been such an eminent one he must live no longer for he is condemned to die most basely handled as if he had been a notorious thief oâ—… malefactor he is hanged afterward his head is stuck up upon one of the ports of the city of Edinbrugh where it abideth unto this day preaching the shamefull defection of these who dealt thus with him calling to all who goe out in at the gate of the city to remember their covenant with God for which he died a martyr But it is like many will think it behoved to be some great crime for which this eminent servant of the Lord was thus handled but what if it be no such crime yea what if it was a duty for which he was thus put to suffer Reader thou shall hear ir then thou mayest judge Some ten years before he was challenged by the King his councell for a doctrinall thesis which he had maintained spoken to in sermon because he found them incompetent judges in matters purely ecclesiasticall such as is the examination and censureing of doctrinall poynts primo instanti he did decline them upon that account This is his crime for this he is condemned as guilty of high treason this will be the more wonderfull if thou consider how as thou hast heard many worthy precious servants of christ did decline the King his councell in the dayes of King Iames such as Mr Baleanqual Mr Melvin Mr Blake Mr Welch Mr Forbes others as incompetent judges in causes meerly ecclesiasticke and yet ther was never one of them put to death It is true there was an act of Parliament Anno 1584. dischargeing such declinatures under the paine of treason but the very next year Anâ—…o 1585. King Iames himself did emit a declaration shewing that he for his pairt should never that his posterity ought never to cite summond or apprehend any paster for matters of doctrine in religion salvation heresies or true interpretation of scripture but avoucheth it to be a mater meerly ecclesiasticall altogether impertinent to his calling Which though not equivalent to an Act of parliament yet whether
this Kingdome to have the sole choice appoyntment of the officers of state privy councellours the Lords of the Session That the power of calling holding and dissolving of Parliaments all conventions meetings of the estates doth solely reside in the Kings Maj. his haires successours that as no Parliament can be lawfully keeped without speciall warrand presence of the Kings Maj. or his commissioner so no Acts nor statutes to be past in any Parliament can be binding on the people or have the authority force of lawes without the speciall approbation of his Maj or his commissioner interponed thereto at the making thereof that the power of armes making of peace warre making of treatjes leagues with forraigne princes or states or at home by the subjects among themselves doth propperly reside in the Kings Maj. his heirs successours is their undowbted right theirs alone that it is higâ—… treason in the subjects of this Kingdome or any number of them upon what soever ground to rise or continue in armes to maintaine any forts garisons or strengths to make peace or warre or to make any treaties or leagues with forraigners or among themselves without his Maj. authority first interponed thereto That it is unlawfull to the subjects of whatsoever quality or function to convocat convcen or assemble themselves for holding of Councells conventions assemblies to treat consult determine in any matters of state civill or ecclesiasticke except in the ordinary judgments or to make leagues or bonds upon whatsoever colour or pretence without his Maj. speciall consent approbation had thereunto That the league covenant and all treaties following there upon Acts or deeds that do or may relate thereunto are not obligatory that none of his Maj. subjects should presume upon any pretext of any authority whatsoever to require the renewing or swearing of the said league Covenant or of any other Covenants or publick oaths concerning the government of the Church Kingdome and that none offer to renew or swear the same without his Maj. speciall warrand and approbation This acknowledgment doth sufficiently clear what that supremacy in civil matters is which they grant unto the King as his due which by this oath they would have all to acknowledge also So that there is no great difficulty to clear the grounds ofscrupleing at this oath even upon this account to shew that such as have refuised the same cannot be accounted disloyall for all indifferent persones will see that there both was and is good ground to scruple at this oath thuâ—… sensed by this act if they shall consider these ten Particulars following 1. The Parliaments of Scotland from the beginning have been partakers fellowshareis of supremacy with the King the Kings of Scotland never were the sole subjects thereof as appeareth by their appending of their own seal with distinct from the King 's great seal in treaties with forraigne princes in some important acts sentences at home of which there is one instance yet on recoâ—…d in the acts of Parliament viz act 112. Parl. 14. King â—…am 3. 2. The Parliaments of Scotland have had the power of setling the governement for they did willingly sweaâ—… to Fergus and his posterity and when he died left two young sones â—…erlegus Mainus both unfit for governement they resolved upon a new course That neither a childe should governe nor yet their oath which they made to Fergus be brocken which was this That when the Kings children were young at their fathers decease some other of the posterity of â—…ergus fit for governing should be chosen who should rule the Kingdom all his dayes which law continued 1025. years untill the reigne of Kenneth the 3. and accordingly when Fergusius died they choosed Ferâ—…haris when â—…erlegus came to age he desired to be put in possession of the Kingdome but it was refuâ—…sed so long as Feritharis lived And when Cotbâ—…edus died they passed by his sone Câ—…tbred made choice of Dardaâ—…us the grand childe of Metellan thus did they alwayes unto the dayes of Kenneth the 3. Epropinquis sayeth Buchanan in vita 〈◊〉 Regum defunctorum non proximos sed maxime idoneos modo a Fergusio primo Scotorumrege essent oriundi eligere consueverant And who but they did condescend to that law at length that the Kings eldest son should be called prince should succeed if the son died before the father then the grand childe should succeed unto the grand father that if the King died leaving a young childe to be heire of the crowne a regent should be chose to mannage the affairs of the Kingdome dureing his minority till he were 14. years of age at which time he might choise his curatours was there ever any such thing concluded without the Parliaments consent 3. The Parliaments of Scotland have had a great share of the legislative power Therefore the lawes are stiled the acts of Parliament not the acts of the King they are said to be enacted by the Estates of Parliament So do the many explicatory acts witnesse that they share in the supreme power of interpreting the lawes of the land which demonstrateth their legislative power and both these are no small part of supremacy 4. In the time of Finnanus the 10 King there was a law made Ne quidreges quod majoris esset momenti nisi de publici coucilij authoritate juberent that Kings should command nothing in matters of any moment but according to the authority and command of Parliament And so when Milcolumbus the 92. King was giving away for peace with England Northum Berland the Estates were against it denying jus esse regi quicquam de sinibus regni detrahere nisi omnibus ordinibus consentientibus That the King had any power to give away any part of his dominions without the consent of all the Estates of Parliament 5. The Parliaments of Scotland have regulated the actions of princes have censured punished them for enormities let the lives of Thereus Durstus Ethus Luctatus Mogaldus Conarus Constantin Ferchardus 1. Ferchardus 2. Eugenius Donaldus 8. Culenus others recorded by Buchanan in his chronicles be seen considered the power of the Parliaments of Scotland over their princes will casily appear So at that Parliament in which King Iames the 6. was created King the Earle of Murray setled in the regency it was debated what course should be taken with the Queen concerning whose accesse unto her husbands death there were such shreud toakens And some voted that justice should be executed upon her and others that she should only be keeped in prisone see Buchan lib. 19. 6. The Parliaments of Scotland have had expresse power in some cases to withstand resist even by armes the King if he should break treaties of peace made concluded by him them with forraigne princes
bloody emissaries Moreover he alloweth to privat persones liberty to deny subsidies and tribute to the prince when he imployeth it to the destruction of the common wealth and is not this a clear resistance a taking of the sword out of his hand But what shall a nation do that cannot get pay holden from a plundering army of enemies so cannot get them disbanded but take up armes force then to it This is but resistence the other is resistence Majus minus non variant speciem yea it is a question if it be lawfull to deny to the King any of his tribute though it be clear enough that it is lawfull for a nation to defend themselves against the King's unjust illegall commissions The same Doct. in conscience satified Sect. 5. confesseth that Salus Populâ—… est supremâ—… Lex and if so some meanes must needs be allowed unto the people to preserve their own saiftie when it is in hazard to recover it when almost lost by the invasion tyranny of governours who instead of levelling all to that end which should be before their eyes are taking courses tending to the destruction of the people To come with an army of armed enemies against a common wealth is no sit mean to preserve that common wealth but to common sense speaketh out an intention to destroy the same therefore Scotland can not be condemned for preserving it self in such a case 3. Iohn Bodin de republ lib. 2. c. 5. granteth That if a King turntyrant he may lawfully at his subjects requâ—…est be invaded resisted condemned or slaine by a forraigne prince proveth it at large from severall exemples And if a forraigne prince may do this why may not the subjects themselves do it if they be able if the subjects may petition for this help why may they not forbear to trouble strangers if they be able to do it themselves a forraigne prince hath no more superiority nor right over their prince for that effect then they havethemselves yea not so much And elsewhere in that book viz lib. 1. c. 10 lib. 5. c. 5. he alloweth subjects to resist to depose Kings in some cases which is more then Scotland doth desire 4. Arnisaeus de author prinp c. 2 n 10. granteth that if the prince proceed extrajudicialiter without order of law by violence every private man hath power to resist much more then may the body representative of a land resist when he cometh against them with fire sword which is the most extrajudiciall acting imaginable So c. 16. n. 4. he granteth that limited princes may be resisted such an one is alwayes was the King of Scotland for they never knew an absolute prince as is clear from what hath been already said 5. So Grotius who de Iure belli paâ—…is lib. 1. c. 4. n. 1 2 3 4 5. denyeth that the warr of subjects against superiours is lawfull would prove it by the law of nature the Mosaicall law the Gospell by the practice of the primitive christians and n. 〈◊〉 denyeth this not only to private subjects but also to inferiour Magistrats all which to examine is not the work presently intended only it is worth the noticeing that even he is forced to grant many things which serve abundantly to justify the practice of Scotland for ibid. n. 7. He granteth the law of not resisting doth not binde when the danger is most weighty certaine doth prove it thus because the lawes of God in some cases admit the exception of extreme necessity as the law of the sabbath further addeth that this law about resistence hath its â—…ise from their will who did first associat themselves in a society created governours over themselves for if they were asked whether they would acknowledg these conditions that they should die rather then resist in any case they would not grant it unlesse in this case when resistence would wrong the common wealth occasion the killing of many innocents He furder proveth it from that passage which was cited out of Barclaius yea he dar not condemne any no not the lesser part of the people who rise in armes in extreme necessity far lesse would he condemne the body of a land useing this last remedie in the extremity of hazard danger furder he proveth this from David who took armed men 1. Sam. 22 2. 23 13. to resist the violence of Saul after he had learned for certanety that he was seeking his life and from the Maccabces whom as he thinketh nothing else can defend but the great imminent danger in which they were And furder n. 8. he granteth that such princes may not only be resisted but also punished by death who are not absolute And it hath been showne that the Kings of Scotland have been obnoxious unto their Parliaments yet they desire not so much as is here granted Moreover n. 10. he assenteth to Barclaius saying as hath been cited that if a King alienate his Kingdome he loseth it but furder he addeth if â—…e prince but attempt to do so and to subject it to another he may be resisted and also n. 11. he assenteth to Barclaius saying as hath been cited that the King doth lose his power when he seeketh the destruction of his subjects And againe he sayeth N. 13. If the king hath one part of the supremacy the senat another then the king may be resisted when he incroacheth upon the senat that notwithstanding that it were granted the King onely had power of war for that is to be understood onely of warre with forraigners Thus he doth abundantly justify the late defensive warre of Scotland against their prince who was incroaching upon the liberties of Parliament people These particulars seriously pondered will do much to cleare their innocency unto the world to vindicat their cause and practice from the many foule calumnies aspersions which the Dâ—…gs of the generation did cast upon them of purpose to foment the discord betwixt the king his faithfull loyall subjects And though by what is said conceded by their adversaries the clearnesse equity of their cause appeareth both in poynt of law conscience yet for furder clearing of the same these few following particulars may have some weight 1. There is great difference to be put betwixt actuall disobeying of rebelling against violently with force of armes resisting the lawfull Magistrat doing his duty commanding just things warranded by the lawes of God the land And disobeying his unjust Acts resisting his violent tyrannicall oppressing plundering spoiling killing armies The former is a resisting of the very ordinance of God forbidden Rom. 13. where the Apostle is speaking of the civill Magistrat doing his duty in his place as God's deputy exerceing the duties of his calling executing his office But in the other case the Magistrat is out of his function
Governours under the King as well as the King himselfe He speaketh of such as are God's Ministers which is a generall word comprehending all civill Governours He speaketh of all such to whom tribute custome honour or fear is due so he must take in all Magistrats otherwise this text should not concerne commonwealths which are ruled without a King He speaketh of such as are revengers by office to execute wrath on them that do evill thus are a terrour to evill doers and a praise to such as do well And this agreth to all Magistrats therefore this place cannot be understood as speaking of any single person or of Nero concerning whom it is a great question among lawyers if at this time he had the heighest soveraigne power in the Roman State as learned Prin sheweth in his soveraigne power of Parliaments c. part 3. pag 109 110 111 112. 2. Inferiour judges do judge for the Lord are deputed of him therefore they are endued with power from him for that effect 2 Chron. 19 v. 6 7. Deut. 1 17. 3. Inferiour judges are commanded to rule well they are threatened rebuked for mal-administration See Ier. 5 v. 1. Isa. 1 17 21 5 7. 10 2 59 v. 14. Ier. 22 3. Ezek 18 8. Amos 5 7. Micah 3 9. Levit. 19 v. 15. Deut. 17 11. Exod. 32 2. Now would God command those inferiour Magistrats to relieve the oppressed to judge the fatherlesse to plead for the widow if they had not the power of the sword for this effect or would he challenge them for neglecting this duty if they had not been impowered by him for that effect doubtlesse not So then if inferiour Magistrats be endued with power of the sword they ought to defend the fatherlesse the widow the oppressed subjects by the help of the sword they ought to rescue them from the hands of their oppressours And therefore when Popish malignant enemies rise up in armes seek to destroy the Land Man Wife Childe the inferiour Magistrats much more the Parliament may lawfully draw the sword which God had given them for the relief of the innocent defence of the countrey of their lives lands goods Religion all that is dear to them against malicious open enemies 2. Buchanan a man well acquainted with the lawes constitutions of Scotland in his Book De Iure Regni apud Scotos sayeth that the Kings of Scotland had no power of peace or warre without the Parliaments consent So that a warre raised by the Parliament against the common enemy in defence of the Kings honour the saifty of the people the purity of Religion cannot be condemned as unjust illegall 3. The renowned Historian Buchanan sheweth also that the Kings of Scotland have been oftintimes resisted by armes which a few instances will evidence when Durstus the 11. King banished all his Fathers Friends became loose dissolute he was pursued by the Nobles till he was forced to professe his repentance promise amendement afterward when he had cut off many of his Nobles by treachery the rest did rise up in arme against him kill him in battel So they rose in armes against Gillo for his wickednesse against Even 3. who was a most viâ—… wicked man So with one consent they arose against Darâ—…an slew his wicked servants who had been instruments of much evill They routed his forces tooke himself prisoner When Mogaldus grew odious by reason of his vices they rose up in armes against him So did they levy forces against Athirco when Romach had become cruell and had put many to death they rose in armes against him when Ferquard 1. turned tyrant he was summoned before a Parliament when he refuised to come they levied forces against him pursued him they stormed his castle in which he thought to shelter himself at length he was taken prisoner So did they purpose to rise in armes against Ferquhard 2. If they had not been diverted Likewise when King Iames the 3. had been seduced by his evill courteours had plotted the murther of the nobles they raised an army against him at length killed him So did the nobles take up armes against Bothwell the Queen pursued her untill she rendered herself prisoner The nobles wrote unto the queen regent Anno 1560. for removing of the french forces did adde as Buchan sayeth Lib. 17 Which tearmes if they be rejected we take God men to witnesse that we take armes from no innate malice or hatred but sore against our wills are forced to assay the last remedy least we should expose our selves our fortunes and our posterity to the worste of colamities Hence it is clear that it was the common practice of the Parliaments of Scotland and lex currit cum praxi to rise in armes against their Kings when they turned tyrants And therefore the Parliament their late taking up of armes in their own sinlesse self defence can no wayes be condemned let court sycophants speak what they please to make that bussinesse odious they both bewray their malice ignorance of the fundamental constitution of that kingdome 4. Though for all that is said the Parliaments interest in warre should be questioned yet their late defensive warre may be justified upon clear undenyable grounds for there is no such connexion betwixt these two but they are rather two distinct questions naturall sinlesse self defence may belong to such as have not propperly in stricke law the power of warre 5. The practice of other protestant princes Magistrats sheweth that their practice was not so odde nor odious as men who have taught their tongues to speak lies would make the world beleeve it was for Sleidan lib. 8. 21. 22. Bilson out of him in his difference c. part 3. pag. 274. sayeth that the German princes levied warre against the Emperour viz. the Duke of Saxon the Landgrave of Hesse the Magistrats of Magdeburgh together with other Princes cities joyning in the warre who having had the advice resolution of lawyers after mature deliberation did conclude That the lawes of the empire permitted resistence of the Emperour in some cases That the times were then so dangerous that the very force of conscience necessity did lead them to armes to make a league to defend themselves though Caesar or any in his name would make warr against them and That if the Emporour had keeped his bonds covenants they would have done their dutyes but because he made the first breach the fault was his For since he attempteth to root out religion subvert our liberties he giveth us cause enough to resist him with a good conscience The matter standing as it doth we may say they resist as may be shewed both by sacred prophane histories Vnjust violence is not Gods ordinance Nether are we bound to him by any