blood c. which he makes the reason and foundation of the following sentence Ezekiel 21.24 25 26. Plea c. pag. 21. Nec expenditur hodie quâ culpâ exsiderint possessione quam bonam de se spem praebeant quam integroriâ— administratione futuros existimens quos susceperint â—uendos Vna causa satis fuerit propinquus est Rex natus est repeâ—it nativum â—uulum Denique in postremis habetur cui popularis status afflicti Reipub funditus collabentis culpa imputetur Excidium Holmense p. 505. Truths manifest p. 23. Ezekiel also threatning the same judgement saith Because you have made your iniquity to be remembred in that your transgression is discovered so that in all your doings your sins appear because I say that ye are come to remembrance ye shall be taken with the hand And thou prophane wicked Prince of Israel whose day is come when iniquity shall have an end Thus saith the Lord God remove the Diadem and take off the Crown this shall not be the same Nebuchadnezer had no lawful superior power over the King of Judah nor the Medes and Persians over the King of Babylon but the demerits of the Kings of Judah and Babylon made their dispossession just before God These Apostate Non-scribers have oft presented the late King before God as a man of blood as a perjured oppressing Tyrane and yet now he is blameless We never heard yet alledged say they nor do acknowledge good reason or ground on mans part for the matters to have been done These men sin being condemned of themselves We may justly say as Albertus Kranâ—zius saith in a like case Christiern the second King of Denmark and his Son were expelled out of the Kingdom for Tyranny both of them breathed out threatnings agâ—inst them that had exiled them yet many favour'd them in their deserved misery who detested them in their exorbitant Domination It 's not regarded now saith he by what fault they fell out of possâ—ssion what hope of future amendment may be expected how just they will be in governing by them that have undertaken to defend them but one thing is enough he is a Kinsman a King born he endeavours to recover his native Title Lastly none considers to whom the fault of the peoples afflicted State and of the impendent utter ruine of the Common wealth is to be imputed The blood which hath been shed by the two last Kings which a Scotch Writer of no mean credit saith to be more then was shed by the Roman Emperors in the ten primitive persecutions the guilt whereof might have lain upon the Nation might the prerogative Lords and câ—joled Commons have had their will this blood I say of so many precious Saints and Martyrs as Non-scribers have often called them is now no more regarded by them then the blood of so many Doggs in a time of pestilence Yet since they put the question upon this issue that the warrant of persons is requâ—site to make an action lawful I shall joyn issue with them in tâ—is particular hoping not to be non-suited at the Bar of reason To evidence the want of Authority in the persons they lay down this proposition Plea c. Pag. 21. If a Government be made up of three Estates every of them being fundamental to the constitution one of them cannot take away another I distinguish of fundamentalness there are two sorts of foundations 1. A natural foundation as the ground soyle earth or native Rock is to an house 2. Artâ—ficial as the stones that are first laid upon that soyle or natural foundation So there are two sorts of Estates fundamental to the constitution of every publick body that deserves to be called free 1. Those that are originally fundamental viz. a common supreme Councel of Deputies or Representers freely chosen by the people in whom the power of making Lawes constitutions and offices rests 2. Those that are ascititiously fundamental or derivatively builded up upon the originally fundamental 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 fundamental may take away the other and be blameless in case of breach of trust or abuse of power entrusted to them But Non-scribers apprehend tâ—e powers they speak of to be equally Coordinate Plea c. page 22. so that the whole force of the sence of their argument 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 erroneousness of the Minor In so doing I shall shew them 1. Rights of the Kingdom p. 86. alibi passim That the power of the King was not a coordinate power with that of the Representatives of the people not an absolute and perfect coordinate which appears 1. From the nature of the Kings power Our 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 Rights of the Kingdom p. 19. were to make the Executioner equal with the Law-maker 2. From the Coronation-Oath wherein the King sware fealty to the State and Lawes as his higher Lords that I may speak as the Authour of the Rights of the Kingdom in which Oath the King sware to hold and guard Soveraign Power of Parliaments part 2. p. 75. confirm and defend the Lawes which the Commons should chuse De tuendo custodiendo justas Leges consuetudines Ecclesiae ac de faciendo per ipsum Domirum Regem eas esse protegendas confirmandas quas vulgus juste rationabiliter elegerit as Mr. Prinne gives us that clause of the Kings Oath out of a Parliament Roll and out of the Book of Clarencieux Hanley in English thus Will you grant fulfill defend all rightful Laws Customs which the Commons of the Realm shâ—ll chuse The King shall answer 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 chuse The mutual stipulation between King and people Appendix page 48. 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 conscience they pretend to should so over-shoot themselves as not to be able to distinguish between what Speed relates as an Historian Speed Rich. 1. S. 3. and what corrupt glosses he put upon
our ancient Chronologers 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 glosse which Non-scribers make use of A Lawyer and that a friend of their own tells us from Walfingham 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 praecedente 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 saith he hath bin constantly before and since observed And another of his profession saith Soveraign power of Parliaments part 1. p. 75. 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 Rights of the Kingdom p. 32 that for peace sake the next of the blood hath usually succeeded yet he could not require homage before he had first sworn to the Lords the Commons consâ—quently hath his Kingly bâ—ing from that stipulation He cannot then be coordinate with them whose swearing obedience to the Lawes they shall chuse gives him his Kingly power and dignity 3. Lex Rex quest 21. p. 177. 178. Those who make a King and have power to unmake him in point of misgovernment must be above the King in point of Government But the Parliament makes Kâ—ngs 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 lesse 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 quest 24. p. 210. all this is Mr. Rutherford's and therefore should take more with Non-scribers And again the Parliament is coordinate with the 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 saith Mr. Rutherford that is from the excommunicate Bishops of Rosse then from Barclay Grotius Arnisaeus Blackwood c. We hold the Parliament that made the King at Hebron to be above their Creature the King See then Reader who are the Patriarchs and Prophets of Non-scribers fast Cavaliers excommunicated Prelates But what say Non-scribers to this Argument Even run themselves into the height of Cavalierisme Appendix p. 35. The Authour of the Engagement vindicated saith 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 cujus 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 seen 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 Histories to which they send us elsewhere for satisfaction Sir Thomas 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 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 Gods spirit by the body of the Kingdom thereunto chosen Soveraign power of Parliaments part 1. p. 54. Rights of their Kingdoms p. 70. So Mr. Prinne out of Hoveden to which all the Assembly consented scientes quod non sine causa sic defini verat as the Authour 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 thirds time the other soâ—ewâ—at after Edward the 3. was made King by the same power that his Father was deposed by and what that was Speed Ed. 2. S. 74. Speed will tell you the sentence was pronâ—unced by William Tâ—ussel of all the men in England and of the Parliament Procurator Fractus Temporum part 7. Rich. 2. 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 â—prout of the Family of Lancaster as was excluded from succession to the Crown by that Law which made it capable of succeeding to ordinary Inheritances Speed Hen. 7. S. 1. 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 Speed Rich. 3. S. 53. 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 Bâ—sworth 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
Democratical the Government of these Deligates is Oligarchical they being chosen out of the wealthiest of every County and both these put together make up a Pol ty as Aristotle calls it but as Plato whose termes differ from Aristottles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To prove the erection 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 exercised 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 into a disuse Which prescription notwithstanding cannot take away the Peoples right It s vulgarly said That no prescription lies against the Kings Exchequer much less can a prescription lie against the People who are greater then the Prince and for whose sake the Prince hath that priviledge Dicores quatuor esse in quibus sita est tota vis Majestas Reipublicae nimirum Jus Magistratuum creandorum Deliberationes omnes de Pace de Bello Legum lationes tandèmque Provocationes Donatus Janottius de Repub Venetâ pag. 59. Speed Book 5. Chap. 5. Suma imperii bellique administrandi communi concilio commissa est â—assivellauâ—e Nostro adventu commoti Britani hunc toti bello imperióque praefecerant Caesar Commenter lâ—b 5. Spe. d. lib. 7. cap. 1. S. 6. saith Junius Brutus The form of Government is that which dat esse operari as Non-scribers say and natural order and reason requires that propriae operationes propriae formae respondeant if therefore it be proved that the Representatives 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 say saith he that there are four things in which the whole power and Majesty of every politique body is placed the power of creating Magistrates all deliberations concerning 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 priviledge 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 Creation of Magistrates Julius Caesar before whose entrance into this Island the times are obscure through whose mists no Eagles eyes can pierce as the beloved Historian 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 administring the Warre was by a Common Councel committed to Cassivellauâ—e And again the Britâ—ains being troubled at our landing set him that is Cassivellaune over the whole Warre and Empire The Common Councel then that made Cassivellaune King and General was a Tan-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 affairâ—s which was Vortigerne 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 Kingdom who after many Examples of such Creation of Kings concludes thus We see the Law at lest the â—ustom of those times both for electing anointing judging and executing of Kings themselves among our British Ancestors Conceâ—ning our Saxon Ancestors saith the same Authour the Minor is very clear that they did elect or chuse their Kings from among themselves who well agrees therein with the witness of Tacitus Rights of the Kingdom p. 55. Rights of the Kingdom p. 35. Reges ex nâ—bilitate duces ex virtute sumunt Tacitus de moribus Germanorum Soveraign Power of Parliaments part â— p 78. Soveraign Power of Parliaments part 2. p. 41. Soveraign Power of Parliaments part 1. p. 91. who speaking of the ancient Germans of whom the Saxons were a branch saith they chose their Kings for their Nobility their Leaders for their vertue which Testimony informs us that they enobled some for their vertues and out of them chose their Kings Concerning the Normans I have spoken already To conclude with the Testimony of Mr. Prinne who tells us That our Parliament and Kingdom observe the opposition anciently have both claimed and exercised a Supreme Power over the Crown of England it self and that we may be sure what he meanes by Parâ—iament in another place he saith out of Fortescue Chancellor of England in Henry the sixth's time that Kings were created and elected at first by the general Votes of the people from whom alone they receive all their lawful Authority having still no other or greater lawful power then they conferred on them only for the defence of Lawes Persons Liberties Estates and the Republicks welfare which they may regulate augment or diminish for the common good as they see just cause Neither did the setting of Kings over them divest them of the supreme power it self if Mr. Prinne while a defender of Parliaments may be credited I doubt not saith he but our Parliaments Kings and all other Nations would say they never intended to erect such an absolute eternal unlimited Monarchy over them and that they ever intended to reserve the absolute original soveraign jurisdiction in themselves that if their Princes should degenerate into Tyrants they might have a remedy to preserve themselves An impregnable evidence that the whole Kingdom and Parliament representing it observe what is a Parliament the Representative of a Kingdom and then not the Lords that represent no body are the most Soveraign power and above the King because having the supreme jurisdiction in them at first they never totally transferred it to the King but reserved it in themselves I should tire my Reader should I say all that might be said concerning the Commons Creation of other Magistrates Soveraigâ— Power of Parliaments part 2. p. 7. Mr. Prinne brings in Sir Edward Cook affirming that the Lord Chancellor Treasurer privy Sealâ— Lord chief Justice Privy Councellors Heretoches Sheriffs with all Officers of the Kingdom of England and Constables of Castles were usuâ—lly elected by the Parliament to whom of ancient right their election belonged who being commonly stiled the Lord Chancellor Treasurer chief Justice c. of England not of the King were of right elected by the Representative body of the Realm of England to whom they were accountable for their misdemeanors 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 Councel saith the Authour of the Rights
of the Kingdom that treated with and against 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 saith Mr. Prinne of the Kingdom heretofore have originaâ—ly of right for their original Soveraign power of Parliaments part 2. p. 5. 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 saith Mr. Derham and addes the absolute and general power of the Militia and the Militia positive or regulated by positive Lawes Manuel of the Rights of Parliament p. 95. 98. are both by Law invested 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 saith 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 severally 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 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 Fortescâ—e Soveraign Power of Parliament part 1. p. 38. 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 â—f 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 people by any other Law Rights of the Kingdom pag. 89. The Authour of the Rights of the Kingdom tells us that if we look to the old Writ of Summonâ— we shall find the Commons called ad consentiendum faciendum and the old Writ added quod quilibet omnes de Comitatu facerent vel faceret si personaliter interessent as it is in the modus 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 impensuri c. only as Councellers not as Law-makers for the very same words are in the Writs for Judges and others coming to Parliament although they do not vote in making Laws Soveraign power of Parliament p. 47. 51. of the first part Ibidem part 1. pag. 43. And if it should be replyed that Statutes are said to be enacted by the King and Lords as well as the Commons I shall answer that the Kings consent is required ex debito by vertue of his Office to every Law the Commons make and he cannot alter one tittle of it nor hath he any negative voice in matters of common Justice and that Laws might have been made if all the Lords had been absent as Mr. Prinne telleth us from Vowel whereas the Commons were neither bound to give consent to what the King and Lords proposed nor could the King and Lords act any thing without their consent 4. The priviledge of the last appeale was de Jure the right of the Commons Mr. Prinne calls the Knights Soveraign power of Parliament part 2. p. 24 Citizens and Burgesses of the Parliament the supreme Councellers and Judges of all others to whom all other Courts Councellers Officers Judges are responsible for their actions judgements advice Appeales arise either from obscurity of Lawes and who so fit to interpret Lawes as they that make them or from new cases 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 Thus having shewed that the supreme power hath appertained of râ—ght to the Representatives of the people it will follow that the Common-wealth of England is not a thing of yesterdayes erection but the Common-wealth which hath heretofore been doth now more clearly appear we have the proper fundamentalls of our most ancient Government still standing the alteration or abolishing of some Offices and names of Magistrates Commutatis Magistratuum nominibus atque officiis non statim alia Respublica est dum vissumma imperii primáque potestas illa ut ita dicam mens qua corpus omne movet atque continet una maneat atque eadem Grotius Epist Dedic ante libellum de Antique Reipub Batavicae Nec essentiam Reip Romanae concidisse quis dixerit cum exactis Regibus Majestas ad Optimates transiret Jacobus Lampadius Tract de Repub. Romano-German par 1. S. 60. Plea c. pag. 27.28 Plea c. pag. 29. doth not make a new kind of Government as long as the supreme primary power and the soule as I may call it which moves and quickens the whole politique body remains one and the same Let no one say saith a learned politique Councellor of the Duke of Brunswick's that the essence of the Roman Common-wealth perished when the Kings being driven out the Majesty passed to the Optimates much lesse is a new form of Government erected where the Majesty remains in the same Subjects that ever it did The Kings power being but executive the Lords judicial both but fiduciary and upon trust the Common-wealth laying them both aside for breach of trust can no more be said to have changed its Government and erected a new one then a Master of a Family that turns away a wasteful Steward and some other unfaithful Servants and fulls thriftily to deconomize himself can be said to change the form and nature of his Famiâ—y-Government From what hath been said it appeares 1. That the House of Commons had a power to lay aside the King and House of Lords in case of breach of trust 2. That their power by taking of them away is not lost that house being as a soule to the body without whom the King and House of Lords were a liveless trunck and could do nothing 3. That the power which at present they enjoy is that wherewith they were invested by the people
assertion I have shewed before Kings of politique kingdoms as England was in Fortescue's Judgement cannot change the Laws 2 Chronicles 21.10 Soveraign power of Parliaments Part. page 37. 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 Magistates and have exercised in it almost all Nations and the legislative power in England rests 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 are noe Power nor doth any tye lie upon their quondam Subjects to obey them What they adde ex abundanti Eccles 5.1 2 3. Plea c. page 41. Rom. 13.7 to prove the power of King and Lords still to remain is from such abundance as their sacrifice is whose voice is known by a multitude of words indeed meere Battology They say 1. The sanction of that Government from God is not disanulled they busie themselves to find out a way how it may be said to be dissolved I shall tell them Obedientia limitari semper debet secundùm limites potestatis quam habet superior praecipiens Medulla Theol. lib. 2. cap. 17. Thes 54. Plea c. page 42. God commanding obedience to powers commands to give every one their due and learned Ames will tell them that obedience ought alwayes to be limited according to the limits of the power of the superior commanding whence he concludes that the bond of obedience to an inferiour power ceases when the superior power commands it not to be obeyed We may safely conclude then that the Sanction of obedience to King and Lords is disanulled by the taking away of their Offices by the Representatives of the People of England their lawful Superiours 2. They would perswade us that the original constitution of the people in King Lords and Commons coordinate is not made void But the people never constituted such a Lordly King and Kingly Lords as they dream of they never gave them a joint power with themselves Non-scribers are pittifully mistaken in saying that the people chose their Delegates to consult and concurrently 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 unconclusive unlesse 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 answer that such Lawes Plea c. page 43. if such there were are at lestwise virtually repealed in the Acts for taking away the Kingly Office and 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 Caesar 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 deposition 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 hopeless brood against the Parliament Plea c. page 44. In Judaeos Mahumeristas sub Christianism◠latitantes exerceri solet Grotius Antiqu Reip. Bat. c. 6. Paul Servita History of the Inquisition 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 Covenant which the Spaniards make of the Inquisition-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 Romanists and Malignant Royalists that should they be observed with Non-scribers interpretation our Religion and Liberties are likely utterly to be subverted at lest-wise we should be put into as dangerous contests for them as we have through Gods 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 of them is ceased Non-scribers confess Plea c. page 52. that an Oath may be rendred void 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 say For 1. Notwithstanding the Oath of Supremacy acknowledges the King to be supreme Governour yet the Parliament and Kingdom are the supreme power paramount to him saith Mr. Prinne He was the supreme executioner of publick justice had a supreme executive power but not a supreme legislative power Soveraign Power of Parliaments part 1. pag◠104.105 that still was retained by the Representatives of the people To this we may adde what Mr. Prinne saith that the supremacy given to the King relates to the Popes and forraign Princes Authority formerly usurped not to Parliaments and their jurisdiction with whom Mr. Rutherford well agrees who scaning how the King is called supreme saith he is
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 think Represeâ—tatives anâ—ecedent to Kings Appendix page 35. Lex Rex quest 21. page 177 Lex Rex quest 6. 19. Námque munus illud quâ vi quâ gratiâ favore imo quo pretio denique et corruptelâ pro temporum hominumque conditione sub specie feudi aliisque diversis praetextibus in peculium tandem conversum est ex temporario haereditarium factum Guicc Descrip Hannoniae p. 440. Nunc nullus in honorum nominibus est modus neque praeter inanem titulum ullus Nominum usus Buchanan Rerum Scoticarum lib. 6. Verstegan cap. 10. Rights of the Kingdom p. 9â— which is the rotten ground of Ferke the Authour of Oâ—soriaâ—um c. as Mr. Rutherford will tell them Agâ—in they tell us that the Peoples constitution of their Gâ—vernment either collectively or by Proxies by way of election and consent is no valid argument of any superintendent power in the people to make or unmake Kings To this I say that the people do not constitute their Governours by a bare 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 inferiour 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 Pastors I must refer them to the place quoted in the Margin where they may be satisfied 2. The Lordâ— were not coordinate with the Representatives of the people I shall not stay for I shall soon dismiss them here to relate the first rising of the like dignities in other places That learned Historian Guicciardin tells us that after Lotharius the Emperor had divided the Empire into three parts among his three Sons they out of flâ—ath began to give up divers Lands to their Palatines who before were as Judges sent to govern them and from hence came up so many Earles as now we see what by force what by favour what by price and corruption under divers pretexts the Offiâ—e of Palatines was turned into a propriety and of temporary became hereditary Nâ—t shall I insist upon honest and learned Geâ—rge Buchanan's verdict concerning this kind of men who informs us that Malcolme the 2. was the first who brought theâ— into Scotland rather for vain ambition then any use and afterwards complains There is now no measure in new names of honour and no use of their names besides the empty Title To come to our own Lords The Dukes which were among our Saxon Ancestors I cannot conceive to be any other then the Heretochii that are mentioned in the Confessors Lawes who were the Captains of the Kingdoms Militia chosen by the people in their Folcmotes for Hertzog is the tearm by which the Dutch of whomâ—thâ— Saxons were a branch express a Duke to this day a word derived from Here an Army and togeâ— to lead and fitly expressing the Latine Dux the fountain of our word Duke Earle a name of honour as Grave of Age was wont to denote amongst them the principal Judge of a shire which was also elective The Norman brought in the Title Baron and the Norman Barons were nothing else but the great Free-holders of the Nation All the Peers are said by Lawyers to sit in the house as Barons in which right the Bishops also sat as being Barons by tenure as also other Barons were before any was so by Pattent which manner of Creation viz. by Pattent is not much elder then Edward the 3. and indeed was one of the prime plots of our Kings whereby they strengthned their Tyranny they saw the great Free-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. Others 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 I. The power which they had was but Judicial and that over the King onely Soveraign power of Parliaments part 1. p. 5. in the Margin Rex non habet superiorem in terris praeter Deum Legem Curiam Comitum Baronum qui ideo dicuntur Comites quia sunt socii Regis saith Bracton quoted by Mr. Prinâ—e and their Office is that debent ei fraenum ponere Nay the last King in a Declaration of his as I well remember I have read though now I have it not at hand saith that the Lords were as bankes between him and the Commons to restrain the excesses of prerogative Legislative power at the first they had none should we grant that since their good services for the people they had a share of legislative power allowed them yet this would not prove them coordinate with the Commons For the modi of Parliaments saith an able Lawyer will not only tell us that the Commons have better and stronger Votes then the Lords Rights of the Kingdom p. 88.89 90. Idem Ibiâ—â—â— p. 82. but that there may be a Parliament without the Lords which he proves and defends against Objections Which â—uthour tells us that the Lords lost this Judicial power by accepting Pattents from the King and so becoming incorporate with him his personal Commissioners who was not able to constitute Judges when himself was a party Nay should I grant that Power to the House of Lords Non secus ac Patronus cum clientis adversario de quota litis pactus si Clientis causam prodidisset si minimè noceret non potest ita sanè ista Magnatum in damnum necémque populi inita conspiratio quidquaÌ„ ejus juri detrahere Verum illi in poenam legis quae in praevaricatores lata est incident his ac si res omnino integra esset Patronum alium eligere jus suum denuâ— persequi Lex permittit Vindiciae contra Tyrannos Quaest 3. pag. 98. Rights of the Kingdom p. 87.88 Valer. Max. li. 2. cap. 2. Antiquitus Tribuni Plebis ante valvas positis subselliis decreta patrum perpendebant si quae ex iis improbâssent rata esse non sinebant Janus Gulielmus de Magist Pop. Rom. ca. 14. So Lipsius de Magist Pop. Rom. cap. 15. that they were by office the Patrons of the people against the Inundations of Tyrannie
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 â—he peoples wils that the best of them rejoyce at it praise God for it the rest that would have colluded with the Tyrant are not to be accounted Members of any civill society because they are violaters 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 debarring from the House of Commons those that denyed the Covenant The House may exercise Authority over their own Members without wrong to the people to whom it is the greatest blessing to have those 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 execution and the abolition 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 assaulted their House and raised up Arms against his Parliament and people 3. It s 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 Numâ— 11.6 17. Luk. 22.25 26. Rev. 17.12 13. and Christ notes those Nations to be miserably Lorded over who had Kings though such slaves as Non scribers called them Benefactors and tels his disciples it should not be so among them Kings are fore-told of as being the horns of the Beast and that time we are yet under few Kings being not the Beasts slaves Mera somnia certa signa hominis laborantis febri Monarchicâ Bellarmin enervatus lib 3. cap. 1. Rarò in aulis Regum Deo haberi justum honorem Marlorat In Matt. 27.14 Historical vindication of the Kirk of Scotland part 1. p. 66. Voluptatum illecebris tracti falsâ specie honoris decepti De Jure Regni apud Scotos G. Buchanan Epig. lib. 1. De Casare Codro Dr. Ames tels Bellarmine who held Monarchy to be the best of Governments that his commendation of Monarchy 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 else but meer dreams of one sick of a Monarchical Fever Marlorate out of Calvin notes that God is seldome duly honoured in Kings Courts Mr. Catherwood an eminent Scotch Divine the Author of Altare Damascenum wrote and published that in all Kings naturally there is an hatred to Christ 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 those things that were necessary to the definition of a King and describes them as those that are broken with the allurements of pleasures and deceived with a false shew of honour An Epigram he hath to this sence Pro patriae in strictos Codrus ruit impiger enses In patriam flummas Caesar arma tulit Ille suo patrias firmavit sanguine leges At patriae peperit sanguine Caesar opeâ— Nemo tamen regum jâ—ctat se nomine Codri Caesareum nemo non sibi nomen avet Quae ratio in promptu est nam qui nunc regna tuentur Illius oderu it istius acta probant Codrus for 's Countrey rusht on swords of foes Caesar by fire and sword wrought's Countrey 's woes By Codrus death his Countrey 's Laws firm stood Caesar to rob his Countrey spilt much blood Yet no King boasteth of Codrus his Name But all think Caesar 's stile adds to their fame Why so the reason 's plain for all Kings now Caesar 's acts love Codrus 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 anguish of their souls and their cruel bondage under our late Kings Mr. Prinne I beleeve will not refuse the name of an old Puritan and yet he tels us that we could have no assurance of the last Kings maintaining Protestant Religion which he draws as a Corollary or conclusion from all the Eâ—gagements Oaths Promises and Tyes Popish Royal Favourite p. 72. wherein he had 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 blâ—ssing but rather freed them from the curse and snare of the reign of Hypocrites Job 34.30 as the last perjured Tyrant was and the King of Scotland little better who underhand upheld Montrosse and publickly disavowed him who took the Covenant and then refused to testifie his humiliation for the blood that lay upon himself and house shed in acting against the grounds ends of the Covenant who fained such a humiliâ—tion at last yet is lately declared by a party in Scotland to be walking in opposition to God and the Covenant 4ly Non-scribers say the people are wronged by endangering 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 Declaration of Novemb. 16. 1648. evidence beyond all reply the certaintie of those troubles and commotions which would have ensued upon compliance with the King where they also testifie their Humiliation for the Passages Non-scribers urge and I should think it not very Christian-like dealing to plead that as a mans testimony which he professes his repentance of To what purpose else were his Commissions continued to the late Prince Montrosse and Ormona if he kept them not as a reserve to war upon us Auctáque cum bello sama opes Grotius Epâ—st v d. ante Ant. â—cip Bat. Civitas inâ—redibilc memoratu aâ— epiâ— liâ—ertate quantum brevi creverit Salust Bellum Catilinar when he had once mounted the Throne again Besides a war with liberty is a far better condition then quiet with slavery so much the better by how much a people may more easily resist professed oppositions then burdens and grievances masked under the name of publick Authority and backed with force Our Neighbors of Holland have been so far froÌ„ th nking the continuing of the r war a wrong to them that they have been great gainers by it When the people of Rome had shaken off theâ—r Kings it s a wonder to say saith Salust how the City grew in a short space having gotten liberty Judg. 3.27 28. Ehud wronged-not Israel when after he had slain Eglâ—n he blew the Trumpet and called the pâ—ople by