upon the King See what the rationall Scotch-man speaks to this purpose and if he speakes not truth beleeve him not he proves by various arguments that the King is under the La◠as King amongst which arguments one is this Lex Rex pag. 183 c. Else the Lord in making a King to preserve his people should give liberty without all Politick restraint for one man to destory many which is contrary to Gods end in the Fifth Commandement if one man have absolute power to destroy soules and bodies of many thousands Againe That the King should be under one Law of God to be executed by men viz. the Guardian Law of property and not under another Law Royallists are to shew a difference from Gods Word Deut. 17.20 The King on the Throne remaineth a Brother Psal 22.22 and so the Judges or three Estates are not to accept of the Person of the King for his greatnesse in Judgement Deut. 1.16 17. and the Judge is to give out such a sentence in Judgement as the Lord with whom there is no iniquity Pag. 235. c. Againe pag. 235. If God have provided that the King who is a part of the Common-wealth shall be free of all punishment though he be an habituall destroyer of the whole Kingdome seeing God hath given him to be a Father Tutor Saviour Defender thereof and destinated him as a meanes for its safety then must God have worse not better provided for the safety of the whole then of the part Againe if all the sins and oppressions of the Prince be so above the punishments that men can inflict they are not sins before men by which meanes the King is loofed from all guiltinesse of the sins against the second Table for the Ratio formalis why c. And lastly the Prelate taketh it for confessed saith our Author that it had bin Treason in the Santiedrin and States of Israel to have taken on them to judge and punish David for his Adultery Pag. 241. and for his Murther but he giveth no reason for this nor any Word of God and truly though I wil not presume to goe before others in this Gods Law Gen. 9.5 compared with Numb 35.30 31. seemeth to say against them nor can I think that Gods Law or his Deputies the Judges are to accept the persons of the great because they are great 2 Chron. 19.6 7. and we say we cannot distinguish where the Law distinguisheth not the Lord speaketh to under Judges Levit. 19.15 Thou shalt not respect the person of the poore nor honour the person of the mighty or of the Prince for we know what these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mean I grant it is not Gods meaning that the King should draw the Sword against himselfe but yet it followes not that if we speake of the DEMERIT OF BLOOD that the Law of God accepteth any Judge great or small and if the Estate be above the King as I conceive they are though it be an humane Politick constitution that the King be free of all co-action of Law because it conduceth for the peace of that Common-wealth yet if we make a matter of Conscience for my part I see no exception that God maketh if men make I crave leave to say A facto ad jus non sequitur thus far that honest publique Advocate We see all Scotch-men are not of the bloud Royall and when we heare this mans reasons Junius Brutus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I. M. senure of King c. and those which other men have brought against exempting the King from the Co-action of the Law answered we shall then thinke men have some cause and ground for their hainous resentment of the proceedings against the late King and for that great stirre they make in the world about them But suppose say they the King notwithstanding his place to be liable to capitall punishment by the Parliament it remaines to be clearly prov'd that they who did it were qualified with that power Ans We must conceive plowing with their owne Heifer that by that power they meane Parliamentary power and this is the power that they who did it were chosen to and enabled to act till they dissolved themselves that they are essentially Judges and so men competent and quallified to doe Justice is solidly asserted and demonstrated by the above-cited strenuous Author Lex Rex and though the House hath been dismembred for that we know these Ministers hint at taking the excluders for Presbyterian when indeed they were royall Martyrs though it be not so full and formall a power as we could wish yet we say againe an injury takes not away a right the remnant of them after the seclusion of some and the defection of others farre exceeding that number which by Law as we are informed makes an house and till they unhouse themselves retaine that authority to which they were elected supposing the proceedings were in some respect extraordinary yet here againe the Scotch-man who ecchoes well in Lancashire will helpe us out Elias causeth to kill the Prophets and Priests of Ball saith he 1 King 18.19 according to Gods expresse Law t is true it was extraordinary but no otherwise extraordinary then it is at this day when the supreame Magistrate will not execute the Judgement of the Lord those who made him a supreame Magistrate under God who have under God Soveraigne liberty to dispose of Crownes and Kingdomes are to execute the JVDGEMENT OF THE LORD when wicked men make the Law of God of none effect so Samuel Killed Agag whom the Lord commanded expresly to be killed because Saul disobeyed the voyce of the Lord 1 Sam. 15.32 But in the last place if this be made to appeare say the Ministers yet by vertue of religious Oathes and Vowes which have been taken we conceive the King ought to have been exempred from that proceeding Ans It was the Kings choyce ‖ See his answer to the Pet. of Right Maxime that he owed account of his actions to none but God and these men swallow it roundly of late but this Prerogative being destructive to the end of Magistracy and rendring it an inconceiveable discommode considering the corruption and temptations of great ones rather then an advantage to any people is absolutely incompatible in its owne nature to any mans person though in supreame trust this being cleare the supervention of Oathes for the preserving his person alters not the case if any such Oath or Vow be lawfull we conceive it must be conditionall since the declared minde and Lawes of God are the boundaries which men may not step beyond In priviledging their Kings if they lift them up by Oath higher then they ought to doe or invest them with impunity whatever their demerits and mis deserts may be even by destroying the Nation habitually the matter of that Oath we doe insist is res illicita and so it falls a peeces
for many Centuries of yeares this attempt we thinke few quiet and undesigning spirits will be forward to ingage themselves in but what besotting interests have wrought men to we see and seeing have cause to bewaile the fruits of their distempers shaking and indangering the publicke bottome that hath gone a nine years voyage for peace and is now within view of harbor our having been wounded is not so much as that our wound should be perpetuall Jer. 15.18 8.15.22 14.19 and still kept open by the sons of peace official healers if here you acquit your selves Sirs t is well Quisquis vel quod potest arguendo corrigit vel quod corrigere non potest salvo pacis vinculo excludit vel quod salvo pacis vinculo excludere non potest equitate improbat firmitate supportat August hic * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Clem. Alexan. strom l. 5. pacificus est Wee have insisted somewhat largely in our rejoynder to that exception commenc'd against our Argument touching the being of the present Authority over us from God both because it is of confessed importance and because it much facilitates our retargation of what followes under this head To proceed therefore To this explanation of our Position viz. That frames of Government are resolved by God into the peoples wills as the immediate cause of their specification They answer pag. 3. 1 That People destitute of a lawfull Magistracie have an elective Power in the constitution of Government but standing in the relation of Subjects they have not a privative or innovative power Wee Answer if at any time people are enabled to chuse what forme they will be governed under Answ then when necessitated they may lawfully innovate the very being or ordination of Magistracy for their good warrants the one as well as the other and though that Mode of Government from which they change be lawfull yet power tyrannically and injustifiably exercised justifies their election of those meanes for their comfort and security which the law of nature owned by the word Grot Nunquam aliud natura aliud sapientia dicit Juv. dictates to them Necessitas enim summa reducit res ad merum jus naturale Take away a peoples privative power in this case and their elective power serves onely to make them perpetuall slaves before their choyce of such a Governour or Government they were free to provide for their liberties and naturall immunities but after their choyce made they must be content it seemes with what falls out though to the destruction of these for ever this is to enable people to make themselves miserable and there to leave them remedilesse but the Lord has provided more mercifully for them ordaining Magistracy and Order as their accumulative freedome not destroying by his postuate institution what by that generall Statute that unrestrain'd Charter the Law of Nature he had before granted to them yet if a people have no greater cause to desire a change of Government amongst them then Israel had when they cryed ‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Sam. 8.19 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Joseph Antiq. li. 8. Act. 26.18 Make us a King we shall never plead their excuse in endeavouring it 2 They say Some kinde of Governments are unlawfull in their owne nature so is that of the beast Rev. 17. and the ten Kings giving their power and strength to the beast these cannot be said to be approved of God Answ 1. The power of those ten Kings or Kingdomes is lawfull in its owne nature the text notes its abuse and suggests thus much to those that alledge it viz. That regall Government is apt above all other modes whatsoever for the service of the beast this is neither only nor also for their purpose 2 That beastiall power they instance in is but an equivocall power that sway of Satan in the hearts of the children of disobedience is called a power too but what hinders this that God may not approve all civil frames of Government upon the Earth how various soever every Ordinance of man which is confest to be only an Application or a Modification of the generall Ordinance of God These are capable of his owning sure notwithstanding this out-leape or essay of theirs touching a power Antichristian in its very essence and of an hellish Parentage our Position reaches to no such power when we say What kinde of Government a people doe will for their owne good the Lord sets his seale upon it Their instances indeed under the next Head and our instance in 1 Sam. 8 9 10 12. Chap. prove that God dis-ownes the sinfulnesse of their wils who are given to change and transgresse without a cause not that hâ— dis-approves the Government they desire It is ordinary for mâ—n to abuse their Liberty and that latitude of choyce which God allowes them in things of this kinde but to conclude that ergo God gives not a People liberty of change and that he resolves not frames of Government into their wils because some men have and others may sinne in erecting new Models and changing their constitutions is like dashing out a mans braines to cure the Megrime or like that practicall Logick of Lycurgus who prohibited the planting of Vines because men used to be drunke with the Grapes 3 We say That in all changes of Government the prevailing not the over-borne Party may lay claime to the signature of Divine approbation this they conceive contradicts our former Position which entitled the Peoples will to the specification of Government and the seale of Gods approvall We all know say they the Peoples wills may goe one way a prevailing Party another contrary to it c. Answ We need not labour much to shake off that contradiction which is pinn'd upon us gratis for though the wills of some people yea of most people may goe one way and the prevailing Party another way yet we all know that the prevailing will goes but one way and which way this will goes that way goes the divine approvall otherwise we had never been commanded to obey EVERY ORDINANCE of man FOR THE LORDS SAKE 1 Pet. 2.13 Though men may sinne in the motions of their wils yet God dis-owns not the power and priviledges he has given them but to hitch on a little These Gentlemen fight notably with their owne shadowes from hence all along till our second Medium as they call it gives them the opportunity of a new encounter proceeding from a supposition which is no grant of ours nor educible from any thing we have yet said viz. that the prevailing Party is owned of God quatenus prevailing hence they frame mountainous absurdities and lay them to our charge as the consequences of our Principles but we know that supposito quo libet sequitur quid libet if any Minister of this combination should deliver such a Doctrine as this The doers of Gods will not the hearers only may lay claime to salvation
the supposition may passe would he thinke himselfe fairely dealt with all if some wilde Antinomian should charge him with teaching that those whom God saves he saves them because they are doers or for their deeds We doubt he would hardly bear such a mis-construction or indulge the liberty of such an interpretation as this so we say the prevailing Party layes claime to Gods approbation in the contests about Government among the Sons of men but will it thence follow that we hold God approves them because they prevaile surely he may doe it upon another account but whatever that be their prevailency may beare witnesse that he does owne them Pro hic nunc whatever the ends be that his holy will makes use of those powers for we make God the great Arbiter in all Quarrels and prevailency in contests of this nature shewes us for whom he Arbitrates 1 Chro. 5.2 Judah prevailed (a) Hence comes Gibbor Nimrods stile that mighty Hunter Gen. 10.8.9 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was strong above his Brethren and of him came the chiefe Rulers but the birth-right was Iosephs the least that we can give to Iudah's prevailency is this to attest the Lords designement of that Tribe to beare rule and his actuall disposition of authority to it and wil it now follow 1 That we make force the infallible umpire betwixt Parties claiming interest in the constitution of Government or 2 That the same Government and cause without any alteration of its institution and demeanour may lay claime to divine approbation as its strength varieth That Absolons and Zimries authority were good before God during the time of their prevailence Sirs those instances are not of cases Arbitrated but in Arbitration David had then a considerable Army when he fled from his Sonne with which the Lord of Hosts pleaded his cause against that rebellious Absolon in the day of Battell so when Zimries wickednesse was heard of it presently came to umpeirage all Israel made Omri the Captaine of the Host King over Israel THAT DAY in the camp 1 King 16.16 and when upon the death of Zimri the people were divided into two parts 't is said the people that followed Omri PREVAILED against the people that followed Tibui the Sonne of Ginah so Tibui dyed and OMRI REIGNED ver 22. I wonder what witnesse we have of the Divine Authorization of many that were Kings over Israel setting aside theirs and the peoples prevailency that cleaved to them it wil be easily granted that Menahem Pekah and Hosea 〈◊〉 Kings over Israel and reigned till God cut them off for their abominations but how came they to be Kings what Titles had they how neare of kin to the Scepter the text tels us they were Captaines of the Host men of power and we say God disposed of the Kingdome into their hands but how will this be proved why they prevailed upon what score or to what purpose the Lord owned them we are unworthy to know but owne them he did as Kings and his people owned them too upon their prevailency this was the needle that drew after it the thread of Allegiance The like we say touching Jerobohams and Omri's Enthronment these dissenters acknowledge that Jerobohams reigning over the Ten Tribes was from God only they say that the businesse betwixt them and the Two Tribes adhering to Rehoboham was not debated by the Sword and so the two Tribes were not the worsted and over-borne party As if there could be no worsting or prevailency unlesse it be by the sword 1 Kings 12.22 23. True God tooke up that difference by the mouth of his Prophet he is not tyed to manifest his approvall onely one way this takes nothing therefore from our assertion touching prevailency it may be a testimony of Gods good pleasure in every contest about the disposall of power where he interposeth not more immediately notwithstanding this Concerning Omri they tell us that Gods not approving him and the people is but a slender argument that he approved their actions God sometimes will not suffer his Prophets to be reprovers Answ 1. Why then do these men take such paines to bend severall Texts in Hosea and Micah to a reproofe of them such Texts too as will then suit their purpose when the councells of the house of Ahab and the Statutes of Omri are proved to be the powers of Ahab and Omri the submission of Gods Prophets to Ahab and so many of Gods people to Omri would hardly have been gained if this had been to walk in the Statutes of Omri Micah 6.16 and to keep the councells and works of the house of Ahab 2 Those sinnes in the Kings of Israel which were of such a reach and influence upon the people under them as to involve the whole Nation in a miserable guilt never as we know of escaped reproofe the sins of Ahab Ahaz Jeroboham and Manasseth that were of this impliâ—ancy came all under the lash yea the sinnes of Omri too 1 King 16.26 yet he is not reproved for usurpation though by their principles it involves every one in his sinne who submitted to his power 3 T is the abuse of Gods patience and that line upon line he has given them which causeth him to stop his prophets mouthes I will make thy tongue cleave to the roofe of thy mouth that thou shalt be dumb and shall not be to them a man reproving for they are a rebellious house Ezek. 3.26 this sin these Ministers lay not to the charge of the people who chose Omri for their King as we can see In the close of their exceptions against our first medium though they thinke they have us fast enough yet they complaine they know not where to hold us we doe so contradict and thwart our selves here only say they we wish them to consider if the superinduction of a power against the wills of many yea of most men which in our plea we justifie be not a selfe-contradiction in reflexion upon that position of theirs viz. Frames of Government are by God resolved into peoples wills And in answer hereto we wish them to consider that this contradiction vanisheth as easily as the former if the case prove ever such as that the will of the most people happen not to be the prevailing will it will be hardly proved that that halfe of the people which made Omri King were the greater halfe though they were the prevailing halfe thus we see this other contradiction falls into accord without any helpe from Sancta clara or Scotus de duno And now having sufficiently as it should seeme broken the bones of our first argument brought to prove the being of these present powers over us from God they proceed to give their sence on our second taken from Rom. 13.2 and then discant upon it First they tell us if the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here used for Divine Ordination bee any where used for the Lords Ordination of a power which
any more in their former capacity ours have the liberty to resume their places if they please as many have repented and done so that the Scotch Authority does not only depend upon a Force but upon a greater Force then ours in England 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Our in ference from this Force in Scotland so usefull to the Kirk there and so in-offensive as it seems to the Ministers in Lancashire Cheshire that they judge it no force was this Hence we conceive that Parliament priviledges may be sometimes looked at as formalities rather then sacred and indispensible rights viz. when the greater number of Parliament men set themselves in a way of utter ruining rather then of building up and establishing a Nation on the sure foundation of peace and righteousnesse Certainly Sirs if any Priviledges should enable a Parliament to ruine us as good we sate content under the mercies of a Lawlesse-Royall-Prerogative as of a Parliament so priviledged yet this inference of ours the Gentlemen take too much to heart that even 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it stirres them out of measure Theecr so that incontinently they fall into a fierce Parexysme This glosse say they calls not so much for an answer as for admiration and execration and aske Is this all the reverence and force which we give to Vowes Protestations and Oathes truly as little as they say we reverence them we yet reverence them as highly as the Kirke of Scotland does which are sometimes we see dispenced with in its respect to Parliament Priviledges we Covenant for them as servants not as Masters to the Publique good though they be not such light formalities but they may be lawfully Covenanted for what is a sacred thing in its place becomes a shadow if mis-plac'd and unduly preferr'd it may be Sacriledge to pursue that which zeale and duty well inform'd let goe as inconfistent with what is most sacred the Scots allow of a subordination in the matters of the most solemne Covenant as we shew'd in our Plea and subordinates we know are in a sense formalities dispensable withall surely if set in ballance with the more sacred and superiour ends encovenanted for so are Parliament Priviledges though in themselves grave and grand realities if they stand in competition or be compared with reformation publique liberty and safety those SANCTA SANCTORUM of the Covenant And now let wise men judge whether this inference or glosse of ours as the Ministers call it be such an execrable heinous one as they would render it and whether it be a dangerlesse and religionlesse excuse of the Armies force 1 Is there danger in preferring publique good before the priviledges of any particular men or any sort of men whatsoever this would implead not only the Armies force but also the Selfe-denying Ordinance Sirs 2 Religion lets us not know to give flattering titles to men Job 32.21 22. much lesse to indulge them with undue Seraphicall inrespective priviledges this is reall and transcendent adulation how comes it to be religionlesse then to give publique weale and safety an higher roome in our Covenant then Parliament Priviledges every publique spirit savours such ir-religion as this Covenants are conservatories of these Priviledges whiles improv'd to publique service otherwise men might ruine a Nation cum privilegio and plead Covenant for their justification but this is prevented by that limitation in our Solemne League and Covenant viz. in the preservation and defence of the true Religion and Liberties of the Kingdome This we alledge in answer to that question of these Ministers whother there be such a condition as we speake to reserv'd out of the covenanted preservation of Parliament priviledges yea or no The letter of the Covenant notes out this reservation or condition providing for Parliament Priviledges as things subordinate and sub-servant to Religion and Liberty but say they Doe we finde any where in Scripture that subjects are dis-engaged from subjection to and maintaining of the rights or the Authorities lawfully placed over them in case of their maeleadministration Ans There were many such texts of Scripture to be found eight or nine yeares agoe when men cryed out To thy tents O Israel and Ministers cryed Curse ye Meroz c. Subjection was not with drawne from King Charles nor Armes raised against him and he beaten from one place to another without some Scripture warrant but if men vomit up their principles and build again what they destroyed they are to be dealt with upon another score 2 There are some rights or particular priviledges belonging to Magistrates in all constitutions we conceive which may undergo a dominution yea be pessundated Salva authoritate personall rights may at some feasons interfer with common safety and peace which authority never doth therefore in the question propounded there is fallacia compositionis But 3 T is a thorny solemne point and we dare not rush on unheedily in it let the grave and bold Lapinian lead us the way in his Treatise touching peoples withdrawing subjection from their King or otherwise called the Soveraigne power of Parliaments and Kingdoms he thus expresseth himself it can hardly seem probable much lesse credible that any * Negari non potest quin populus aliquis necessitate coactus possit se vendere Regi ut omnes sint plâ—ne servi ipsius Gen. 47.23 sed neque hoc unquam praesumi debet quando non est manifestum quia contra mores est contra naturae inclinationem neque licitè honesteve ab ullo principe quaeri potest quia ejus officium est communem utilitatem populi praecipué spectare neque denique civitas aut politia esset quae illum in modum constitueretur sed herile dominium servitium monstrosum Ames cas consc lib. 5. cap. 25. free people whatsoever when they voluntarily at first encorporated themselves into a Kingdom or set up an elective or hereditary King over them would so absolutely resign up their soveraign popular originall authority power and liberty to their Kings c. as to give them an absolute irrevocable uncontrolable supremacy over them superiour to irrestrainable irresistable or unalterable by their own primitive inherent national soveraignty out of which their regall power was derived for this had been to make the creator in ferior to the creature c. a most bruitish sottish inconsiderate rash action not once to be imagined of any people and had our Ancestors or any other nations when they first erected Kings and instituted Kingly government been askt this question whether they meant thereby to transfer all their National Authority Power and Priviledges so far over to their Kings c. as not still to reserve the supremest power and jurisdiction to themselves to direct limit restrain their Princes supremacy and the exorbitant abuses of it when they should see just cause or so as not to be able ever after TO ALTER or diminish this forme of Government upon any occasion
of Right put an end to that Soveraignty or no concernes us very little unlesse by the Engagement we should be drawne to a participation in the act which they neither prove in the first nor second part of their Discourse certaine it is that they have done it and consequently either these Gentlemens Allegiance is expir'd or else if they continue to pay it and pay it not to the Powers that be they pay it to a Non ens or an Jshbosheth a King without a Kingdome 2 We are so fully perswaded of their power and competency to dis-mantle and lay aside King-ship so fully instructed in their sufficiency who have done it that if engaging be a guarding the doore that none enter into that Office more as they insinuate we dare stand in that doore to guard our present Rulers and in so doing thinke our Allegiance duly paid We never sware Allegiance to Kingly Power but to our Royall Protectours neither can we be termed his Leige people who is not actually our Leige Lord. Touching that Maxime viz. The King cannot dye we thus expresse our dis-relish A King dethron'd is dead in Law and a King lay'd aside or dead dyes in Law otherwise there could be no such thing as an Inter-regnum c. but we are told hereupon that such as the laying aside of a King is such is the inter-regnum which happens by that meanes viz. it is de facto and not of right and therefore alters not at all the point of title or property when you make good and lawfull the present laying aside then we shall embrace the inter-regnum Ans 1. We affirme not that there is an inter-regnum now and never may we have more cause to call it so nor are they desired to owne the present Authority as a Chas'me or intervall of regall power a Common-wealth sounds as well as a Kingdome every whit and may we live under a Democracy we shall never much lust after a Faelicitatem ego sic definio reditum uniuscujusque rei ad suum principium Mirand Heptap the happinesse of a Monarchy againe we know that the kindes of b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Diog. Laert. in Plat. Magistracy are humane Creature for the Creators glory one of them as lawfull as another and that successive Royalty is next of kin to tyranny neither doe we beleeve any of the Royall Progeny to be such * Du Plessis progres 62. ex Abb. Urspurg Zisca's that we should deeme our selves Orphans without them 2 We told them in our Plea that the Parliaments Declaration satisfied us touching the equity and necessity of the change of Government amongst us we judge it needlesse and mis-becomming us to meddle any further then we have done What can the man doe saith Solomon that commeth after the King Eccles 2.12 yet we trust that ere long we shall see their cause pleaded better and far more convincingly then they themselves have pleaded it But to goe on We ever thought the Kings Coronation to be his actuall investiture with power c. this the Ministers say was but a Complement then say we his Coronation Oath was no more and thus it seemes we were complemented into Slavery but Sirs from the beginning it was not so all the antiquity in Bodley's Library will attest this yet being they so please let it passe for a complement now since we are like to have no more such fooling or complementing amongst us till Vrsa Major and Vrsa Minor meet together Lastly Page 22. If any of the Kings Children doe de facto succeed him as King say we or Heire his Power we shall be their Leige people but for a succession DE JVRE as we are made no Judges of any such thing so c. Hence the Replyers draw mickle advantage and sugaciously redargue us of sinning against Conscience in keeping our Allegiance we know not from whom If we be the Leige People of any of them upon such a succession as you expresse say they is it because your Allegiance and Oath would binde you to it Assuming this as granted they conclude from it that the Oath of Allegiance is acknowledged in force by us Ans 1. In case any of the late Kings Children should de facto succeed they will be then the powers that are their regnancies being embrac'd by our representatives would create them a title to our Allegiance till then their claimes if ever they had jus ad rem are dead as dead can be that Soveraignty to which they pretend having laine in the Grave severall yeares already 2 'T is none of our Callings to judge of that succession de jure to which any great ones of the world may pretend for rule over us neither does the Lord put submitting Consciences upon such an Inquest as we conceive 'T is not morally possible saith one for private men to have a true insight into such a businesse because all claimes amongst men depend upon the concurrence of many circumstances which in the way of justice give to one and take away from another a right to the same the incidences of which circumstances changing the nature of rights and claimes to places private men cannot possibly in their ordinary way wherein they are bound to stand and walke come to any certaine knowledge of and consequently such rights cannot be suppos'd to fall under their Umpirage But waving this Plea at present as being a reserve whereof we stand in no great need these two particulars the summe of what we have dogmatiz'd in this point are to us cleare as the day 1 The foundation or reason of our Allegiance as payable to Kings or Queenes of England ceaseth we receiving protection from no such persons 2 The Relativum formale of that Oath is extinct that Soveraignty under which the Oath was exacted being devolved into their hands who neither owne the name nor thing of Kingship Hence we conclude our selves alleviated and assoil'd of its obligation unlesse by that Oath we stand bound to make a King or a Queen to heire our Allegiance which designe the letter of the Oath is no whit guilty of forcing upon us Now in the last place we must re-examine how wonderfully the Covenant befriends these Royalists That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 behinde and whether Monarchy the Goard they are so fond of grow in this Garden or no formerly when this Covenant was entred into Monarchicall power humbled and prostituted cry'd out thus Call me no more Naomi Ruth 1.20 but call me Mara and Covenanters were then its bitterest enemies how come they now so passionately to court this Helena and make the Covenant serve for a Spokesman is Monarchy another thing or is there a fresh glosse now upon neglected Royalty Juven surely Facies non uxor amatur well we shall not aske why Spaniels when they are beaten fawne upon us but how the Covenant comes to strike up a Match betwixt Presbyterie and Monarchy if it
addresses to him Did he so well but did he grant enough peradventure those who treated with him had no minde to aske what they should have ask'd so we are told those Members proceeded to make such Propositions to the King at the Isle of Wight for a safe and well-grounded peace Dâ—clar Jan. 15. 1648. as if they had been granted and kept of which there was no probability would have returned the people againe to their former slavery c. yea this Treaty was entertained upon such Propositions as the King himselfe also should make which was formerly held to be so destructive to any well setled peace as neither the Houses of Parliament nor the Commissioners for the Kingdome of Scotland did thinke fitting to admit when he was in his greatest height of power whether now is here seene the Kings bounty to the Treaters or their prodigality to him he never would yeeld to recall Ormonds Commission as we are informed granted in the time of the Treaty nor that Episcopacy should be abolished only suspended Oh! royall bounty nor lastly that any one Delinquent should be capitally punished one only according to the Covenant no doubt being offered unto him namely poore David Jenkins in the meane time the worthy Treaters let him alone with his negative voyce and Booke of Common Prayer c. brave daubing so that the Scottish Consistories had cause to lift up their voyces against acquiessing in the Kings Concessions at Newport as being destructive to Religion and Covenant But the House voted these Concessions a ground to proceed upon for the settlement of the peace of the Kingdome Ans We have heard of such a Vote indeed but 't was to us a mysterious Caball we could never get acquainted with the reason of it no more then with their reasons for re-calling those Votes of non-addresses to the King made upon such and so many reasons of great weight unto the least of which there was never any answer given designing Statists use not it seemes to play above board but the reasons of adnulling that Vote for proceeding upon the Kings Concessions are visible Parliament Votes and Parliament reasons doe well together unlesse we should deny the goodnesse of our Cause saith the Parliament which God hath adjudged on our side Declar. Jan. 15 1648. by the gracious blessings of so many signall Victories unlesse we should betray our friends who have engaged with us upon our Votes of Non-addresses to the hazzard of their lives and fortunes unlesse we should value this one man the King above so many Millions of people whom we represent and unlesse we should scorne and contemne any peace which the great God of Heaven and Earth our assured helpe in our greatest distresses hath given us and that we must relye only upon such a peace which the King a Mortall man and our implacable enemy shall allow us unlesse we should give up our selves to the slaughter and suffer our owne Members to undermine the Parliament and Kingdomes Cause unlesse we should stake all to the Kings nothing and Treat with him who hath not any thing to give us c. And lastly unlesse we should value the bloud of so many Innocents and the Army of so many Martyrs who have dyed in this Cause lesse then the bloud of a few guilty persons by what name or title soever stiled we could doe no lesse then repeale those Votes before specified as being highly repugnant to the glory of God greatly dishonourable to the proceedings of Parliament and apparently destructive to the good of this Kingdome And here we should cut off our Web but that for a close we must needs remember what in a margicall note they tell us we forgot viz. That Scripture Job 34.18 and that Morall rule De mortuis nil nisi bonum and why because we call the Kings persistency by no softer a name then inexoriblenesse and implacability plaine dealing is a jewell Sirs the vile person shall be no more called liberall nor the Churle said to be bountifull Isa 32.5 1 Therefore we did not forget that text in Job but these gentle Doctors forgot to take in the 17 vers with the 18. we read them both together and then they expound one another and chide the Classis for putting them asunder Job 34.17 18. Shall even he that hateth right governe and wilt thou condemne him that is most just Is it fit to say to a King thou art wicked and to Princes ye are ungodly If Princes be just God forbid they should be evil spoken of It is not fit to strike Rulers for equity but what if they hate right must no Prophet come within the Princes Chappel must not Kings know their Names Am. 7.13 Thou prophane wicked Prince of Israel saith Ezekiel Thou and thy Fathers house hath troubled Israel saith Elijah Ezek. 21.25 1 King 18.18 2 Chron 16.9 1 Sam. 15. Luk. â—3 32 Herein thou hast done foolishly saith the Seer unto Asa this is plaine dealing Did Samuel spare Saul when he rebelled against the Lord Did our blessed Master the Lord Jesus spare Herod In a word did the generall Assembly of the Kirke of Scotland spare King Charles or might they charge him as a Sabbath-breaker an Idolater a Murtherer and is it a Piaculum or any blasphemy for us poore Mortals to call him an inexorable man the Heathen Lawyer Papinian boldly reproved the Emperour Caracalla for his Parricide and are Kings yet more sacred We are perswaded that sometime within the memory of Man divers Ministers of Lancashire and Cheshire though they opened not their mouthes as Papinian did against Caracalla yet have spoken as grosly of King Charles as ever the Northerne Subscribers did Non enim Sacerdotale est quod Sentias non dicere Ambros 2 Neither did we forget that saying De mortuis nil nisi bonum to speake the truth of the dead is to speake what is ‖ Bonum et verum convertuntur good and if we have spoken otherwise let the World beare witnesse of the evill that rule requires Charity but not in dispendium veritatis The names of the wicked shall rot saith the surer Word so did the names of Ahab Omri and Jeroboam though Kings and how unsavoury doth the Spirit of God make the memory of Ahaz by that brand upon his bones that inscription upon his Grave 2 Chron. 28.22 This is that King Ahaz these Ministers we presume are no strangers to Nazianzens invectives where the deceased * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c Orat. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ibid. Paulo post 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Orat. 19. Julian is drawn to the life to flatter the dead is to wrong the living and to strengthen the hands of wicked men in evil wayes the great discommode of funerall Panegyricks were it not better that a Spade were called a Spade then to say King Charles of blessed memory unlesse there was cause for it truly this Princes Fate is observeable for many who made no more of him either in Presse or Pulpit when hee was alive then one would doe of a dead Dogge a Panaeb Regis defuncti corpus terrâ condunt caput abscindunt inaurant in sacris collocanâ— Causs Hierogl l. 5 c 58. now can hardly beare a word spoken against him See Prov. 24.24 Suet. in Otho Quiescat Obba parum Mantu but upon all occasions rise up as his compurgators but there is no new thing Thus Suetonius tells us it was with Otho Magna pars hominum incolumem gravissime detestata mortuum laudibus tulit but we shall provoke these Royalists indignation no further Here let our Pitchar stand farewell Now the Lord of peace himselfe give us peace alwayes by all means 2 Thes 3.16 FINIS