Animadversions on a Book, CALLED, A PLEA FOR NON-SCRIBERS.

Numb. 14.4.

They said to one another, Let us make us a Captain, and let us return in­to Egypt.

Justin. Histor. Lib. 38.

Cappadoces munus Libertatis abnuentes, negant vivere gentem sine REGE posse.

Valerius Maxim. Lib. 2. cap. 9.

Quam impudenter Duronius Rostra conscendit illa dicturus, Fraeni sunt injecti vobis, Quirites, nullo modo perpetiendi: alligati & constricti estis amaro vinculo servitutis: Lex enim lata est, quae vos frugi esse jubet: abrogemus igitur istud horrendae vetustatis rubigine obsitum imperium: etenim quid opus Libertate, si volentibus luxu perire non licet?

Seneca, Epist. 102.

Non debuit hoc nobis esse propositum, argutias serere, & Philosophiam in has augustias de sua Majestate detrahere. Quanto satius est ire aper­tâ viâ & rectâ, quam sibi ipsi flexus disponere, quos cum magnâ mo­lestiâ debeas relegere. Neque enim quicquam aliud istae disputationes sunt, quam inter se peritè captantium lusus.

By EPHRAIM ELCOCK.

LONDON, Printed by John Clowes, for Richard Wodnothe, and are to be sold next dore to the Golden-Hart in Leaden-Hall-street, 1651.

To the Right Honourable, the Councel of State, appointed by the Authority of PARLIAMENT.

Right Honourable,

WHen Lewis of Bavaria (the fifth German Emperor of that name) was sore baited by Pope John the 22. Defende me (O Cae­sar) ab inju­riis Papae en­se tuo, & e­go te verbo, scripto, rati­onibus inso­lubilibus ad­versus eum tuebor. Phil. Mornay. du Plessis. Hi­stor. Papa­tus. p. 451. Psal. 84.11. Psal. 47.9. Anatomy of Melancho­ly. Preface to the Read­er. p. 7. William Oc­kam (our Countrey-man) who merited the name of Dr. A­cutissimus, said to him, defend me (O Caesar) from the injuries of the Pope, by your Sword, and I will defend you by word, writing, and un­answerable Arguments against him. I dare not challenge such acute­ness or efficacy of arguing to my poor Labours here presented to your Honours; and therefore rather humbly crave your Protection of them and their Authour, then dare to think my self your Protector.

Your Honours are under a higher Guard, even his, who is a Sun and Shield to the upright, and to whom the Shields of the Earth (the Rulers and Magistrates) do belong.

Of the Book I may say, as our Democritus, out of Macrobius, of his own works, Omne meum nihil meum: the Collection was mine, the matter other mens; and indeed, it is more then an Echo, an imperfect repetition of more perfect voices.

Yet it is what I have, and since it concernes the late transactions of [...]he Common-wealth, your Motion in a high Orbe therein, moved me to desire your gracious aspect, and your sweet influences upon our Na­tio [...] incourage me to hope acceptation.

Diversions from the common road are usually look't upon as Tres­passes; though reason and our Law allow a Commander in pursuit of publick enemies to march his men through any mans enclosure. So He­roical actions of vertue against Tyrants, and their complices, are scil­ed with unworthy aspersions, by them who adore a form, though cor­rupted, and prefer private tranquillity before publick safety, though God and nature dictate. That meane [...] which might at first have been [Page] chosen or refused, are no longer to be used then while they are subser­vient to their proper ends; and when they oppose them, are absolutely to be rejected; lest what was meant for Medicine turn to poyson.

A great part of the filth cast upon the late actions, is directed against your Honours in special, an [...] our victorious Army: But, as God hath born [...]itness to their integrity, by giving victory over the adversaries after solemn appeales to his decision: so your Honours have hitherto so managed your trust, and bin so signally saved by the Lord, the shield of your help, Deut. 33.29 and the sword of your Excellency, that all your enemies have been found Lyars.

Go on (Right Honourable) to do worthily in and for our Land, and the good Lord suggest to you more and more efficacious meanes for the advancement of his glory, and the welfare of our Nation, support you with courage and vigour, that your Councels may be brought to the wished effect; That England which hath been look't upon as a Na­tion forsaken of her God, may (by the good hand of God u [...]on your care and wisdom) be made a praise in the ear [...]h, and set up in perfect beau­ty; and that your memorial in after ages may be, These are the re­pairers of the breach, the restorers of pathes to dwell in; which is the humble prayer of

(Right Honourable)
Your most humble Servant. EPHRAIM ELCOCK.

To the Reader.

Reader, whoever thou be,

I Will not foretel thy judgement, I could like that Writers might be bound to the same conditions, Ubbo Em­mius de Rep. Ath. p. 35. that they were who pleaded before the Areopagites, viz. that they should plead, [...], neither use exordiums to flatter into a good opinion, nor perorations to move pitty; yet I am necessitated to advertise thee of a few things.

It may be thought that this Treatise is born out of due time, because it took not hold of the heel of what it opposeth. But I beseech thee know, Ad haec faci­le procuran­da magis i­doneum ha­bere nemi­nem possis, quàm Alex­andrum Sar­tium civem tuum, lite­ratum ho­minem, no­stri (que) studi­osum, tum (quod ego in hac re pri­mum puto) neutiquam in amici ne­gotio dor­mitantem. Ang. Polit. Epist. Dedic. ante Herod. latinitate donatum. Tit. 1.13. P. Servita. History of the Inquisi­tion. pag. 61. 62. 1. That the report of the Non-scribers Plea came to my eares, long before the Book it self came to my hands. 2. That I long waited for some of better abilities to undertake it. 3. That it was neither my only, nor greatest business, when undertaken, and therefore went on slowly, as being composed at houres spared from other and higher employ­ments. 4. That when it was perfected, I was timerous of its publicati­on, being conscious of my own weakness, and this being the first parox­isme of writing for the publick view that ever I was taken with. 5. That when it was brought to the birth, it lay long in danger of dying there, for want of a Man Mi [...]wife, I mean such a friend as Alexander Sar­tius was to Angelus Politianus in the publication of his translation of Herodian, till providence found me out such a o [...]e; to whom as I am ir­recompensably engaged, so thou also art obliged for any good that thou receivest hence.

Some things may seem to thee too harsh; but consider, 1. The di­versity of mens tempers, requireth diversity of remedies. Some must be sharply reproved, that they may be sound. 2. The nature of the Contro­versie; he spoke reason that said, Humane Majesty is not offended, but with a certain malice and desire of him that offendeth, and He­resie very often is through ignorance; whence this for the most part de­serves compassion, that never. 3. Some men must be answered in their own way. It's a hard thing for him that deales with Jesuites, not to con­tract some-what of their petulancy, saith the Prefacer to Ignatius his Conclave. Look upon the height of the adverse writing, and thou wilt confess that against such a peece ‘Difficile est Satyram non Scribere.—’

Reader, if thou be candid and ingenuous, I need not beg thy pardon for common frailties: if thou be not, I shall but lose my labour in de­siring it.

Farewel.

To the worthy Authour of these Animadversions.

SIR,

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

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

Your loving Friend and Servant in Christ, J. D.

ERRATA.

PAge 13. line 10. for Josua read Hosea, p. 31. l. 21. for is r. as, p. 34. l. 28. for tooting r. footing, p. 39. l. 2. for Tithes r. Titles, l. 27. for either r. neither, l. 28. for or r. nor:

A Preface in answer to Non-scribers Apology.

IT was a good observation of Seneca's up­on the stile of Macenas a great stickler for Augustus his tyranny, Haec verba tam imprebè structa, tam contra con­suetudinem omnium po­sita, ostendunt mores quoque non minus no­vos & pravos & singulares fuisse. Sen. E­pist. 114. That the ill structure and uncouth composure of his words, argued his manners to be naugh­tily singular. The same observation may be made upon the many battologies of these Advocates for Tyranny: but their fastidious vanity is especially visible in the Title of their Book, they call Non-scribers, which last word was never before this attempt of theirs naturalized English: a word it is of as absurd derivation, as that Anticomarita; concerning which, Erasmus was fain to bring in a Synod of Grammarians, to know whence it came, and what it meant; whereof one said it was an Herbe, another a Fish, a third a woman, &c. Erasm. Col­loqu. Synod. Grammati­corum. The elegancy of the [...]r etymologie, together with the perplexedness of the Syntax will require a Synod of themselves to resolve us. Non-scribers, (take it in the best sence) are those that write not, and had they meant themselves, it had been fitter to have called their Book, the plea of Non-scribers, then for Non-scribers: so that it may be thought, that they intended it for a plea for them that were illi­terate, and could not write for themselves. The next thing in the front of your Book is their pretence to modesty; to the vindica­ting of which vertue to themselves, they make an Essay in these words, — what we shall say may like the words of wise men, Plea. &c. Pag. 2. (though we boast not to be such) be heard in secret. Yet as if they had forgotten what their Title promiseth, load the opinion they are about to impugne, and the persons with whom they con­tend, with many condemnatory invectives; Ibid. p. 2. & 3. before they produce one Argument, calling engaging sin; Engagers, such as are going [Page 2] on in their sin; and the Engagement, the Helena of the Northern Subscribers. What modesty it is to condemn an action, opinion, or person for sinful, before proving them such, I care not to let the most impudent judge. It hath been ever held to be modesty for a man that entereth into controversie, to think humbly of him­self, at least-wise not to be his own Trumpeter; yet these men that before disclaimed boasting of their wisdom, Plea. &c. pag. 7. tell us, that they are the peaceable of the Land, the very words of her whom the Scripture calls a wise woman, and point us to the place, least the Reader should doubt of their wisdom. 2 Sam. 20.16.19. And in another place they intimate, that had we wanted this product of a Parturient Moun­tain, the English Presse had been no lesse injurious to posterity, then the Egyptian Midwives had been, Plea &c. pag. 4. had they obey'd Pharaoh's Edict, for strangling the Israelitish males; as if what they writ only had masculine strength, and the fruits of all others were but faemi­nine productions of the Scriptures, which Garnish their frontis­piece, the first returns in their book, the second makes nothing for them, since no Agrippa gave them leave to speak; and there is much difference between licensed publick speaking to the satis­faction of a Judge, and unlicensed pamphleting to the stirring up of the people.

Plea &c. pag. 2.Yet this their way (after some few intimations of their de­liberation to that purpose) they defend as lawful by four rea­sons.

1. Because it is a weighty case of Conscience.

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

2. Because difficult to resolve. To this we answer, that if weigh­ty cases of Conscience, because concerning many, and difficult of resolution, oblige Ministers to give a publick testimony of their opinions, it obliges them in all such things: and by this shift it will not be lawful for the Magistrate to make any new Law, be­fore the Ministers have cast in their verdict: at leastwise, none is to obey before they have declared. If nothing of a religious re­duction must be ordained by the Magistrate, but what is approved by these Censors, what is the Magistrate but the meer Lictor of the Ministers?

Plea &c. pag. 3.2. Because the Engagement is not left voluntary, but ordain­ed under a penalty, and they ought to speak before they be ad­judged. [Page 3] To which we say, 1. That this liberty of speech is their due, when they are particularly accused, or have personal actions before a Judge, not where they are suffered to be at quiet. 2. That it is a liberty of speech particularly to be used to the Magistrates, before whom they are convented, face to face, and not to be scat­tered by stealth among the people. 3. That it is a liberty to answer concerning the crimes that are laid to their charge, which is to be allowed, but not to question the Authority of the Magistrate, be­fore whom they are convented. John 7.32.49.50. These things concur in them whom Non-subscribers pretend to be their examples. Christ's per­son was aimed to be taken, the High-Priests pronounced his hea­rers accursed, Mat. 26.63, 64. Nicodemus pleads that he might face to face answer the crimes that he was charged with. Christ when called before the High-Priests, questioned not their power, but answered to their questions, concerning that which they thought his crime.

3. Because they have no other way to plead their cause. Yes, 1. Plea &c. page 4. Before them that tender the Engagement, when they are personal­ly called to it. 2. Before the Judges, in case they have any action be­fore them, wherein the refusal of their Engagement is pleaded: and I doubt not, but if they modestly propose their doubts, the Judges and Justices will to their power endeavour to satisfie them. Besides, suppose there be no other way to plead their cause, yet this should have been avoided, because not a suitable meanes to accomplish their end, this being like rather to exasperate the Magistrate against them. They either mistake, or else speak spite­fully, when they say, that all their pleas are shut up, upon pleading of their denial of the Engagement: there is no denial (for ought I know) of their liberty of pleading, that they are not satisfied in it, and the Judges have (as I hear) particular instructions in their charges to clear its Justice.

4. Because they that write for it publish their Reasons. Plea, &c. page 4. By this Argument Campian might have argued it lawful to have written invectives against the right of Queen Elizabeth, because many did defend it. In those things wherein difference in opinion cannot hurt the publick welfare, it is but just that m [...]n of both sides should have liberty to print; Paul Servita History of the inquisition, page 76. but in the things that concern the publick peace, the Magistrate hath reason to encourage them that endeavour to promote it, and to discourage them who would endanger it. Upon this ground the King of Spain forbad the [Page 4] publishing of the 11. Tome of Baronius his Annals in his Domini­ons, because it tended to the weakening of the Sicilians fidelity, and he is for this commended by one zealous enough for the li­berty of the Ecclesiasticks.

From hence they proceed to apologize for themselves, wherein they endeavour to clear themselves from four sorts of imputations laid upon them. 1 Pet. 4.15. The first of which is their being [...] busie bodies in other mens matters, in matters of the State. From which charge they hope to escape, Plea &c. pag. 5. by telling us, that they deal not as States-men; but are not to be confined, if States-mens Af­fairs come under Evangelical Doctrines. This distinction they learnt (it may be) from Thomas Becket, Speed in Hen. 2. S. 30. p. 492. who would not subscribe the Charters confirmed by Parliament; but with this clause, salvo honere Dei, upon which King Henry rightly descanted, when he told the King of France, that whatsoever disliked Becket, he would say that it was against Gods honour. Some moderate men among the Papists say, that the Pope hath no power in temporals, in ordine ad spiritualia: and yet this power hath been so exorbi­tant, Paul Servi­ta, History of the inquisiti­on. p. 21. that (as an Authour of their own saith) when a Potentate hath not the favour of him that commands in Ecclesiastical Cau­ses, Religion is made a pretext to oppress him. So that there is no­thing wanting but ecce duo gladii, with the Canonists interpretati­on, to set these men in the seat of him that exalts himself above all that is called God, notwithstanding their shifting distinction. 2. They cannot be able to resolve mixt controversies concerning State business, Soveraign Power of Parliaments, part. 3. page 134. of a religious reduction (as themselves love to speak) except they deal as Statesmen. Mr. Prin [...]e (who is their fellow-helper in this cause) told their brother Ferne heretofore out of Ʋasquius, Theologorum utcunque disertissimorum sententiae in hac controversia non sunt multum faciendae, quia quid lex humana sit ipsi ignorant. 3. Our Saviour Christ, who affirms his Kingdom not to be of this world, would nor be a Judge between Brethren in dividing inheritances; John 18.36. Luke 12.14. much lesse can we suppose that he hath left a power to his Churches Officers, quâ tales, to decide of rights to the su­preme power in Commonwealths, or can they produce any Theo­logical Rules, Amos 8.13. and Evangelical Doctrines to that purpose. 4. Their instance of Amos his preaching against Bethel, was sure written when they were half asleep, the Argument was thus. It's no being busie-bodies, for the Cheshire and Lancashire Ministers to do as Amos did; but he prophecied against Idolatrous Bethel, though [Page 5] it were the Kings Court, Ergo, the Cheshire and Lancashire Mini­sters, are not busie-bodies, if they determine of Tithes in the State; an Argument à Baculo ad Angulum.

The next imputation that they endeavour to clear themselves from, is a prosecuting of some self-interest: Plea &c. page 6. to which end (after some good words and Protestations of your innocency) they tell us, That if they stood upon any such designs, they might obtain those ends by compliance, for they are not so stupid as not to know which way the stream was. The 12. Bishops that declared the Parliaments actions null without their presence, saw (no doubt) as well as Non-scribers, which way the stream run, and how probable it was that their tyranny was at a period: They (no doubt) had many interests that would have perswaded them to silence, yet for all this they run themselves into a Praemunire. A man may have many lusts and interests, whereof one may keep down another. He that is covetous enough may sometime be pro­fuse, and seem careless of his riches, being overprized by the great­er sway of ambition. So that notwithstanding their professions and this shadow of reason, they must seek better Arguments be­fore they can excuse themselves from being the Prophets of A­hab's Son, (for he that was the Ahab of our Israel, [...] page 37. hath now shed his blood, where he began to shed the blood of Naboth) Micajah is neither their Patron or Pattern, 1 Kings 22.11. they are liker the Iron-horned Zedekiah, who cry throughout all their book, to that bloody and Idolatrous house, Go up and prosper.

The third charge they answer to is apostacy and malignancy. Plea &c. page 7. In answer to which they tell us, That they have committed nothing against the custom of their Fathers. So the Pharisees were earnest for the tradition of their Fathers: they know, Cyprian. constuetudo sine ve­ritate, vetustas erroris est.

But those good Fathers, whence they say they're born,
At non ille satum quo te mentiris A­chilles talis e­rat— Virgil.
The Commons never, so as they, did scorne.

If they mean Mr. Knox, Learned Buchanan, Mr. Calvin, it will be shewed them that they walk not in their wayes: but if they mean Father Maxwel with his sacro-sancta Regum Majestas and Arch-Deacon Ferne, we will confess what they say to be very true. They tell us, that they seek and practise what they can, that the [Page 6] people of the Land may live a quiet and a peaceable life in all god­liness and honesty; 1 Tim. 2.1.2. but not a word of praying for them in Autho­rity, which the Apostle points as a medium to those ends. They would perswade us of their innocency in the things that are laid to their charge, by these Arguments.

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

Plea &c. page 8. 1 Kings 2, 282. They appeal to their former actions; A weak Argument: Joab turned after Adonijah, though he turned not after Absa­lom.

3. To the continued tenour of them and their constant walk­ings: some that know these Ministers think otherwise of their constancy then they do themselves. Sure I am, a great part of them were so constant to their first principles, that they neither prayed for Divine assistance against Hamilton and his Army, nor gave thanks for deliverance frō them. Attestation of the Che­shire Mini­sters. p. 30. Tales may be told how some pleaded for the expunging of a passage against that Army, which is in the Cheshire Ministers Attestation. And another answered one that askt why he omitted thanks for that deliverance, that he knew not whether it were a mercy or no: yet the Kirk [...] of Scot­land declared against them. If this be constancy, what is liberty? Besides, Ames. de Ca­sib: Conscien. lib. 3. cap. 13. Dr. Ames will tell them, that to Christian constancy is required, not only a perpetual continuation of the same purpose and disposition, and a frequent reiteration of the same Acts: but progress and proficiency also in the way of vertue. The Heathens are taxed as relapsers, because they withheld the truth in unrigh­teousness: Rom. 1.18. Numb. 14.22.24. and Israel as forsakers of God, because they followed him not fully. So there is a sort of men, who in the beginning of civil Wars against Tyrants, are hot and active; but through sloath and unconstancy, Tenure of Kings and Magistrates. page 3. and weakness of spirit, either fainting ere their own pretences, though never so just, be half attained, or through an inbred falseness and wickedness, betray of-times to destruction men of Noblest temper, joyned with them for causes, which they in their rash undertakings were not capable of: and that these men are such, they themselves may see, if they would view their faces [Page 7] in the Glasse held up to them by this worthy Authour, Nos interea Patrem lu­minum omni­bus, nè excae­cari patiatur cor Anglicani Regis, qui certè discere debebit, quanta in iis quae pollicer [...] potestis, fides adhibenda sic Catholicis subditis, quia nè se perjurio alligent, ma­lunt spiritum emittere quam vocem. Introduction to the Arch Bishops Try­al. page 82. to answer whose Reasons I must refer them.

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

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

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

Lastly, they say they are charged with morosity, wilfulness, discontent, and prepossession; from which they would vindicate themselves by urging their many near and dear concernments ly­ing upon them, which they will not be thought so careless of, Plea &c. p. 8. as not to regard, if conscience would permit. They know that Pha­raoh had many engagements upon him by divers concernments, Exodus at the beginning which might have caused him to let Israel go: yet his wilfulness was such, as to run him into the destruction of his people, Ser­vants and self also at the last. Impotent wilfulness makes a man forget all self-interest. The late King from whom they borrowed this Argument (as indeed this Book of theirs makes that Image of the Beast (so a Proverbs 28.15. Luke 13.32. [...] Med. 1. page 2. King, and the King of Kings all Tyrants) to live and give it power to speak, and threatens with death them that will not receive it) he in his book saith, My own and my Childrens Interests gave me many obligations to seek and preserve the love and welfare of my Subjects: yet these Interests could not keep him from waging a bloody Warre against his people to satisfie his [Page 8] exorbitant wilfulness. Plea &c. p. 9. They say it is pure conscience that is their motive: we wish it were so, and believe it is so in some that are led by them, and much pitty the credulity of such: but what Conscience the leaders among them have (for there are some a­mong Ministers that pin their faith upon other mens sleeves) shall be shewed hereafter in examining their grounds to which they appeal. You would little think that these men that thus plead for Conscience, Petition of 12500. &c. page 3. were the promoters of a Petition against all separate Congregations, and desired that no Members of such might be ad­mitted to any place of publick trust. Yet instead of seeing in this their affliction, which in their delivered Consciences, (if they be conscientious) will not suffer them to do what is lawful, and ac­knowledging with Adonibezek that God is righteous, they ob­liquely persecute others by censuring their Consciences, nay and plainly say, Judges 1.7. that they are angry with them, because they have not so great a swallow as themselves. Of these we may say as the holy Chronicler of Ahaz. These are the Ministers, who when they were afflicted, 2 Chronicles 28.22. Prov. 21.24. Prov. 19.25. Prov. 21.11. compared. did yet more wickedly. Had their Apology been modest, I should not have troubled the Reader with thus much; but since they deal in proud wrath, Solomon, as he tells them their name, so he directs us how to deal with them, that the simple may be wise, and beware.

The Ministers in their Appendix answer some Arguments which are made by others for the Engagement. I shall not stand upon their Answer to any Argument, that I make not use of my self: But leave the Northern Subscribers, and the Authour of the grand case of Conscience to speak for themselves; for they have both age and abilities; which I may more truly say of them, then these men of their Baal Berith: which terme I desire that it may not be understood as if I derogated from the Covenant, but as setting forth the abuse of it by these men, who make it a perfect and com­pleat directory for all things sacred and civil. It cannot be a disho­nour to it to be called so, in respect of the abuse, no more then it was to the Brazen Serpent to be called Nehushtan, 2 Kings 18.4. when it was I­dolized.

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

IT alwayes hath been the practice of men that delight in vi­tilitigation to obscure things in themselves plain, by their devising of many sences for them. This do the Non-scri­bers (for I shall hereafter use this name which themselves have imposed on themselves) charging the Engagement with a Protean ambiguity; from which diversity of interpretati­on, they require some to free them, Spumantem­que dari (pe­cora inter in­ertia) votis Optat A­prum, aut fulvum de­scendere monte Leo­nem. Virgil. Aenead. lib. 2. whose interpretation may bear a warrant in it. A desire fit for Non-scribers modesty, who as youthful Ascanius weary of chasing fearful Deere,

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

So they dare Authority: all other reason is but impar congres­sus Achilli. Yet to let them see that the Engagement is not of such a Protean ambiguity; but that an engager may agree with them in that sence, which they say is most plain, proper and equi­table, I shall (after rectifying a few mistakes of theirs) close with them in the main of their construction.

1. Plea. &c. Pag. 11. By the Common-wealth of England they understand a par­ticular form of Government: But here is the matter with its form, the people or community of England, in the form of a Common-wealth: as the Kingdom of England was the people of England under that form of Monarchy. This they might have dis [...]erned in the Acts they quote themselves, Plea &c. pag. 10. in the Margin. where they find men­tion of the Nation under this present Government, and the well [Page 10] Government thereof in a way of Common-wealth or free State: so that when it is said the Common-wealth of England, England is not As they say, Appendix. p. 34. a whole abstracted from all formes, but cloathed with its form of a Common-wealth or free State.

Arist. polit. l. 6. [...]2. They understand that this is invested in certain persons: but this betrayes their ignorance in the nature of a Common-wealth, or free State: it being proper to a Common-wealth, that in vi­cissitudes, the same persons both command & obey: And therefore, when we engage to a Common-wealth, we understand the vicissi­tudes of Magistrates: we engage to this Parliament for the pre­sent, and to all other Representatives of the people hereafter to be chosen; and to the people we engage to preserve their liberty of chusing their Representatives. For, a [...] or Common-wealth is [...] a Government in which the people Govern, Arist. Polit. lib. 3. which they could not be made to do, had they not the liberty to elect their supreme Magistrates. Up­on these mistakes many of their Arguments are grounded; and hence it followes, that in many things they fight against a man of straw, Quae enim populi partes in civitate, si jure suffragii in creandis Magistrati­bus & nego­tiis similibus destituatur? Vbbo Emmius Descript. Re­ipub. Atheni­ensis pag. 12. that themselves have set up.

In the matter and form of the Engagement, I agree with them, and confess it is not in the power of the Engagers, as single private persons, to put a period to its duration; but in the hands of the engaged to, viz. the people of England, in the form of a Com­mon-wealth. It lies I say, in their power to chuse to themselves what other form shall hereafter most tend to their own being and wel-being, which is the end of all civil society. The whole sense of the Engagement is this, I declare and promis [...], that I will be true and faithful, not only negatively, but positively, to the people of England, as now moulded in the form of a Common wealth, with [...]t a King or House of Lords.

Let us hear their Plea against it. In the first place they argue thus. A power unjust in attainment and possession, we cannot be either positively or negatively fait [...]ful to: Plea &c. pag. 11. But, the power in the Engagement is such: Ergo Neither of these prppositions are unde­niably true; the weakness of the Major and its supporters hath been sufficiently evinced, by a most able and learned Authour, in answer to the exercitation concerning usurped Powers. I purpose­ly forbear to answer it (not out of doubt of its infirmity, but) be­cause of the specious pretences that such as Non-scribers take, [Page 11] from defense of the lawfulness of submission and obedience to Powers unjust in attainment, to bespatter the present power, See Plea &c. pag. 34. Plea &c. pag. 19.20. Appendix. page 3. as confessed to be unjust by its defenders. Of which fault, of wrest­ing suppositions into concessions, the Non-scribers are not inno­cent.

Come we then to the examination of the Minors strength: for the confirming of which they argue from two mediums. The pre­sent power (say they) is unjust in its attainment.

1. In regard of its removal, disposition, and subversion of the ancient established Government, which was a multiformed or compound Magistracy of King, Lords, and Commons, coordinate the one to the other. I expected in a charge of this nature, that they should have brought another sort of Argument, and have e­vinced, That it was unlawful for a free people, upon any grounds whatsoever, to have changed their forms of Magistracy. This seems to be their opinion, Every par­ticular per­son standi [...]g in the relati­on of a Sub­ject; but the community is in the power and dignity above the Magistrates. Numb. 11.16. Hos Judices in magnis mortibus ne­c [...]ssitas crea­vit. Dici Dictatores poterant. Flavius [...] vocavit, quod nomen etiam Syllae, Cynnae, Marióque & aliis Dictatoribus Romanis Grae­ci dedêre. Petrus Cu­aeus de Re­pub. Hebrae. lib. 1. cap. 12. which they express in these words. For a privative or innovative power to be in them (that is in the people) Every par­ticular per­son standi [...]g in the relati­on of a Sub­ject; but the community is in the power and dignity above the Magistrates. Numb. 11.16. Hos Judices in magnis mortibus ne­c [...]ssitas crea­vit. Dici Dictatores poterant. Flavius [...] vocavit, quod nomen etiam Syllae, Cynnae, Marióque & aliis Dictatoribus Romanis Grae­ci dedêre. Petrus Cu­aeus de Re­pub. Hebrae. lib. 1. cap. 12. when they stand in the relation of Subjects, that is, have an actual and legitimate supreme Magistracy over them, we cannot yet see any warrant for. I shall help them therefore to some spectacles, through which they may discern this truth, That the Community may change their form of Magistrary upon which the whole controversie depends. The people of Israel, before they had Kings, were under an actual and legitimate Magistracy, viz. The Councel of 70. Elders, instituted by divine Authority, they were governed in a way of Policy or free State, by these their Re­presentatives, chosen from among the people. The Judges were an extraordinary kind of Officers, raised up by God upon emer­gent occasions, otherwise in the intervalls of Judges Israel [...]ad no Magistracy. Now for this assertion, learned Cunaeus is evident Ne­cessity created these Judges in great conclusions of State. And he saith further, They may be called Dictators, (and mean Historians: know that the Dictators power was extraordinary) but Josephus calls them Monarchs, which name the Greeks gave to Sylla, Cinna, Marius, and other Roman Dictators. The same Authour shewes that the Councel of 70. remained ever in the Hebrew Common-wealth, from its first institution, and handled those things that were summae potestatis, of the supreme Authority. Mr. Calvin is a clear witness too. God ordained (saith he) among the Israelites [Page 12] an Aristocracy near a free State, Aristocrati­am Politiae vicinam [Deus] apud Israelitas instituit, cum optimâ con­ditione res habere vel­let. Calvin. Just. cap. 20. Sect. 7. Edit. 1553. I have noted the E­dition, be­cause it is not divided into Bookes. when he would have them be in the best condition. And it was very near indeed to a free State; for the Elders were chosen by lot, equally out of all the Tribes. Thus I have evinced, that Israel was when first formed and orga­nized into a political body, under a Magistracy different from that they had under Kings. Now that it was lawful for them to change this form of Magistracy, is evident.

1. From the Scripture, Deut. 17.14, 15. When thou art come to the Land which the Lord thy God giveth thee, and shalt possess it, and shalt dwell therein, and shalt say, I will set a King over me, like as all Nations that were about me: Thou shalt in any wise set him over thee, &c. In which Text you may see.

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

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

2. From their actual changing of their Magistracy, Israel chose them a King when they had Samuel for their supreme lawful Ma­gistrate: and Samuel had a special Command from God to yield to them. Hearken unto the voice of this people, in what they shall say unto thee: But (say Non-scribers) the Lord both by his word and sign manifested his disapprobation and anger against their seeking a King, 1 Sam. 8.7. when they had Samuel to their Judge, even to their con­viction. To which I rejoyne, that it was not the change of Magi­stracy which was the cause of that divine anger.

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

2. Because they did it in distrust of divine assistance, which had helped them by Judges extraordinarily raised in time of danger; whereas they then put more trust in a King of their own chusing, then in God that alwayes raised Saviours for them, as appeareth, 1 Sam. 12.6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12. compared with the 19. before quoted.

3. Because they did it out of desire of the pomp of their Neigh­bour [Page 13] Nations, who were under Kingly Government. Quia Genti­libus confor­mari maliut [Israel] quam sorti a Deo immedi­atè oblatae ac­quiescere. Wendelinus. Christ. The­ol. l. 1. c. 29. Thes. 6. Zanch. Com. in Hos. p. 134. Diodat. in lo­ca. Regiminis quendam modum con­stituit, quem persignifican­ter Flavius adversus A­pionem [...] vocari posse ait, quasi ter ejusmodi ci­vitatem di­xeris cujus praeses rectór­que solus De­us sit. De Rep. Hebraeorum. lib. 1. cap. 1. Deut. 12.5. 1 Chron. 17.1. to 14. Because they would rather be conformed to the Heathen, then acquiesce in what was immediately given them by God. The mistiming of an action, and doing it upon base grounds, may make an action otherwise lawful, to become unlawful.

But (say Non-scribers) God hath sometimes disowned and con­demned expresly the peoples Act, in setting up a Government o­ver them, which hath been in specie lawful. To their Testimonies out of Samuel, (which are 1 Sam. 8.8. & 12.16, 17.) I have an­swered already. Those out of Josua 8.4. & 13.10, 11. speak, the latter of the election of Saul, the former of Jeroboam's erection. To them all I answer, That the Common-wealth of Israel was (as is well noted by Cunaeus out of Josephus) a Theocracy, of which God was in a peculiar manner, the Governour and Law-giver. As God would be consulted in all ceremonials, so would he in all great matters of State. Israel in the Wilderness had intimation that in the Land whither they were going, the Lord would chuse some one place to put his name there, when he would have a set­led Habitation, as well as they had intimation, that then they should have Kings; but yet if David (notwithstanding his enqui­ry of the private opinion of Nathan the Prophet and his encou­ragement of him to the work) had built the Temple, it would have been a building which God would have disavowed; for God would have the ordering of all circumstances in that to come from himself: he would have no house till he had commanded it him­self. So when Israel would have had their Magistracy changed, they should have consulted with God first, and when your 10. Tribes turned away from the House of David, they should have asked Councel of God. Because they did not: therefore God saith, they set up Kings, but not by him; they asked not his advice, but tumultuously rusht into these changes, wilfully and obstinately crying, give us a King and Princes. But to make this stretch to all Nations is absurd, since other Nations have not God for their Law-giver so particularly, nor can enjoy his immediate answers, as Israel might have done; but are to be guided by the Law of Nature, and the Rules of right reason. Thus have I proved that it was lawful for the Israelites to change their esta­blished Government for a King, and consequently, it may be lawful for a people upon good grounds, to change their Kingly [Page 14] Government for any other, Arist. Polit. lib. 1. Amesi de ca­sibus consci­en. lib. 5. cap. 25. Lex, Rex, q. 19. p. 158. 1 Pet. 2.13. Monarchia si justa est, Regnum, si injusta, Ty­rannis est. Deinde ex Tyrannidis destructione nascitur A­ristocratia, etc. Tandem in obligarchi­am definit et. Ʋbiverò ini­quitas & in­justitia eo­rum qui prae­sunt per mul­titudinem irâ percitam è medio tollitur mutatur oli­garchia in Democrati­am, etc.—sic sunt tria Magistratu­um paria, in quorum sin­gulis qui pri­or legitimus, qui posterior, illegitimus rectè censetur. Musculus. loc. com. page 622. unless they will say that only Kingly Government hath a priviledge to be unchangeable, which is an absurdity that Court Parasites would hardly own.

I may adde reason to prove this, and I argue,

1. From the definition of a politick body, which is this, Apo­litick body is a society of men, according to nature, having in it self an [...] or sufficiency for preservation of it self, consti­tuted for being and well-being. Or shorter thus. A society suffi­cient in it self to all things conducible to well-being, or commo­dious life. Now the form of Magistracy, may oft-times prove the greatest hinderance to the happiness and well-being of the pub­lick body, and it cannot be a society, having a sufficiency for all things conducible to its own civil happiness, had it not a power to remove these pressures.

2. From the limitation that is upon the power of the Magistrate. The Magistrates power is not absolute, but limited 1. By the will of God. 2. By the will of the People contained in those Lawes and conditions in which the power of rule is founded. Now the poli­tick body hath a Nomothetick faculty, and so is not properly un­der a Law, but may change and abrogate those Lawes which are hurtful and pernicious, and consequently may abrogate the forms of Magistracy which are pernicious, as well as the Lawes, by which they only stand, and in which their power is placed. 3. Forms of Magistracy are called the Creatures of men by the Apostle, though Magistracy in genere be the Ordinance of God, yet in specie it is the Creature of man, and consequently may be destroyed by them that made it. I shall shut up the proof of this with the words of a man famous in his Generation. Monarchy if just, is a Kingdom, if unjust a Tyranny, out of the destruction of Tyranny ariseth Ari­stocracy, in which the Reines are committed to the most just and prudent among the Nobles: this ends in an Oligarchy, in which a few unwise and unjust great ones get power. The iniqui­ty and injustice of whom being taken away by the angry multi­tude, the Oligarchy is turned into a Democracy, in which all things are ordered by the people, according to their Countrey Customs, and certain Lawes, the change of this is into an Ochlocracy, in which the multitude take licence to do what they list. So there are 3 paires of Magistrates in every one of which, the first is legi­timate, the second illegitimate. Kingly, Aristocratical, Democra­tical [Page 15] Governments are lawful: Tyranny, Oligarchy, Ochlecracy unlawful. You may plainly see, he approves of the change of cor­rupted Governments. Let this be the first step to prove, that the meer dispossession of a former Government, cannot make the suc­ceeding Government unlawful to be obeyed or engaged to.

Now let us go a little more closely along with Non-scribers. Plea, &c. page, 20. The Question that is most material is not (say they) whether a form of Government may be dispossest; but whether it be law­fully done by them; for if they have unlawfully put out, and still keep out the said lawful Government, then is their power unjust­ly gotten and held. I shall gratifie them so farre as to grant, that it is not alwayes expedient for a people to change their forms of Magistracy, & quod non expedit, quatenus non expedit, non licet. Let us see then how they prove it unlawfully done. Plea, &c. page 20. Vel de perso­na vel de au­thoritate▪ do­centis inqui­rentes, cum debeat cum primis inquiri & judicari de doctrina, Comment: in Johannem cap. 1. In reference to this enquiry (say they) that which will be considerable, is not their goodness or expediency of the fact, but the warrant and Au­thority for it in them that did it; and they that travel about the goodness and conveniency of the things, but lead them out of the way: which assertion of theirs is an evidence of most putid hypo­crisie. Musculus notes it to be the practice of Pseudo-Bishops to enquire concerning the person and Authority of the Teacher, before they enquire the truth or falshood of their Doctrine. So these that keep such a coyle about titular righteousness, despise real righteousness: they that teach others to keep their Law, through breaking of the Law, dishonour God. God (who is most eminently and exemplarily just, who ruleth in the Kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will) is pleased to give a reason of the dispossession of Powers, drawn principally from their demerits, who govern unrighteously. Dan. 4.17. Isaiah 40.20.21. The Prophet Isaih pub­lishing his Edict for the transferring of the Kingdom from the Babylonians to the Medes and Persians, expresseth it thus. Thou shalt not be joyned with thy Fathers in burial, because thou hast destroyed thy Land, and slain thy people, the seed of evil doers shall never be renouned: prepare slaughter for his Children for the iniquity of their Fathers, Jer. 22.17. &c. that they do not rise nor possess the Land, nor fill the face of the world with Cities. And the Prophet Jeremiah denouncing the dispossession of the Kingly line of Judah saith, Thine eyes and thy heart are not; but for thy covertousness, and for to shed innocent blood, &c. which he makes the reason [Page 16] 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 inte­grori [...] admi­nistratione futuros ex­istimens, quos susceperint [...]uendos: Ʋna causa satis fuerit, propin­quus est, Rex natus est, re­pe [...]it nativum [...]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 Kran [...]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 ag [...]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 poss [...]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 c [...]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 requ [...]site to make an action lawful, I shall joyn [Page 17] issue with them in t [...]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. Art [...]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 t [...]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, [Page 18] 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 sh [...]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, & cons [...]quently hath his King­ly b [...]ing from that stipulation. He cannot then be coordinate with them, whose swearing obedience to the Lawes they shall chuse, [Page 19] 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 K [...]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 so [...]ew [...]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 pron [...]unced by William T [...]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 [...]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 B [...]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 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 [Page 21] to think Represe [...]tatives an [...]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 deni (que) et corruptelâ, pro temporum hominumque conditione, & sub specie feudi, aliis (que) 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. 9 [...] which is the rotten ground of Ferke, the Authour of O [...]soria [...]um, &c. as Mr. Ruther­ford will tell them Ag [...]in, they tell us that the Peoples constitu­tion of their G [...]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 Lord [...] 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 fl [...]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 Offi [...]e of Palatines was turned into a propriety, and of temporary became hereditary. N [...]t shall I insist upon honest and learned Ge [...]rge Buchanan's verdict concerning this kind of men, who informs us that Malcolme the 2. was the first who brought the [...] 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 whom [...]th [...] Saxons were a branch) express a Duke to this day: a word derived from Here an Army, and toge [...] 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. [Page 22] 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. Prin [...]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, Ibi [...] p. 82. but that there may be a Par­liament without the Lords, which he proves and defends against Objections. Which [...]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, quidquā 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 denu [...] 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, yet will not this make them coordi­nate with the Commons. The means are subordinate to the end. The Patron is but an honorary servant to his Client. As, if a Patron, having bargained with his Clients adver­sarie for a share of the profits, should betray his Clients cause, he would not hurt his Clients rights; So, the conspiracie of great ones to the hurt and destruction of the people, cannot detract any thing from the Peoples right; They will fall into the punishment the Law ordains against prevaricators, and the Law will permit the people to choose another Patron, and pursue their own right. Thus Junius Brutus. If the House of the Lords then refuse to judge Hamilton's Army publick Enemies, if they continue in a destructive Treaty with a Ty­rant, their Judiciall power which themselves desert is lost: The legislative power may deprive them of that power for the future.

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

Neither should we grant, that there were an equalitie of Power between the King, Lords and Commons, would it fol­low, that therefore they have no power one over the other. There are exceptions from the generall rule, Par in Parem non habet potestatem. Neither will their Major be firm should we keep the terme coordinate: For, 1. The End of Coordina­tion of Powers, is, that if one should prove pernicious to the Common-wealth, there might not be wanting a Power to re­strain it, and if necessity require the taking of it away, there might be a face of publick Autho [...]ity remaining. 2. Superi­ors may become obnoxious to their Inferiors, when by con­tract they make themselves so. Much more may coordinates become obnoxious to each other, if they be all bound to pur­suc one end and some prevaricate. 'Tis to be confest indeed that ordinarily Coordinates have no privitive power over one another, but yet the Rule holds not in all cases, where one Coordinate endeavors to destroy the End for which it was ordained, the other Coordinate may remove it. The End of both their Coordination being to be preferred before the means conducing to it, and it being (not onely dangerous to let the remedie fall into the hands of the multitude, but) un­lawfull for the innocent coordinate to quit his station. Con­stantine the great, Pari potestate praediti [...] notum verò est, quod vu [...]go dicitur, Par in parem non habet im­perium; nibil-ominus tamen Con [...]tantinus Licinium, Christianos, in iisque nobiles plaerosque reli­gionis sive cau­sâ, sive prae­textu, re egan­tem, divex­antem, con­trucidantem, bello pe [...]it, religionis liberum cultum Christianis vi impetrat, fidem deni (que) frangentem & ad pristinam saevitiam revertentem Thessalonicae morte mulciari jubet. Vindiciae contra Ty­rannos. Quae. 4. pag. 204. and Licinius were both of them Emperors in one Common-wealth, of equall power, and that vulgar saying is well known, Par in parem non habet potestatem; yet not­withstanding, when Licinius banished, vexed, killed many Christians, and among them many Noble ones, either be­cause of their Religion, or under that pretence, Constantine waged war upon him, by force procures for the Christians free exercise of their Religion, and at last puts Licinius to death at Thessal [...]nica, who had broken his promise, and re­turned to his former cruelty; so Junius Brutus, who also adds, that when the Empire was divided between Constantines three Sons, and Constantine the eldest maintained the Arrians, Con­stans the yongest the orthodox, the yonger threatned the elder to force him to restore Athanasius, whom he had banish­ed. [Page] The Consuls were set up at Rome, Ne potestas so [...] ­tudine corrum­peretur. Florus l. 1. c. 9. Suet. in Julio, cap. 49. Plea, &c. p. 21. lest a power without companion should turn to Tyranny, the Consuls therefore were coordinate, yet, when Caesar affected Tyranny, his Col­legue Bibulus proscribed him, and had he had strength would, doubtlesse, have executed the sentence he pronounced.

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

To which I answer. 1. By denying that the House did ex­clude the Members that were excluded at the first, the force that was used in exclusion of them, was not by the consent of their fellow-Members, as appears by their Message to the Generall and Councell of War. Neither doth the omission of the prosecution of the Authors of it argue their consent. The punishment of an Error (suppose that this we speak of be one) may be omitted by Authority, if such punishment be danger­ous to the Publick Peace, Page 9. 10. but of this the Exercitation Answer­ed speaks sufficiently. 2. By denying that they are kept out by force, but by Order of the House, which hath power to punish its offending Members. The majority of the House that followed the King to Oxford, were excluded by Vote. The House past severall Votes to exclude them that would not take the Covenant, yet none ever questioned the remaining part to be an House, unlesse it were the Oxford Cavaliers. The majority of the Lords House were excluded by Vote, Petition of 12500. &c. and kept out by the minor part, and yet the Lancashire Ministers call this minor part, The House of Peers, in their Petition, and their Answer received August, 25. 1646. the Answer of the House of Peers. And, I can conceive no reason, why the exclusion of some Members out of the House of Commons should make them no House, and the exclusion of the major part of the House of Peers not make [...]hem no House, unlesse it be, that Non-scribers have fors [...]ken their former principles. But, Plea, &c. p. 23. this Vote by which the majority was excluded, was contrary to the Vote of that majority, therefore they were unjustly ex­cluded. Lend me this argument, and but suppose that the majority of the Lords and Commons that followed the King to Oxford, had had the hearts to have stayed in the Houses, till [Page 26] by the most voices they could have Voted it unlawfull to re­sist the King though he turned Tyrant, and I can by the same prove all our defensive wars to be unlawfull. Potior saniòr (que) pars, alteram compeliere in ne­gotio aperto po­test. De jure Magist. in sub­ditos. Quaest. 7 Seasonable Testimony against Tole­ration, p. 12. Meliority not majority is in this case to be respected. The Vote which was thus disanulled was, That the Kings Concessions in the Isle of Wight were firm grounds for the Establishment of the Peace and safety of the Nation. Of which Concessions the judge­ment of the Kirk of Scotland was this, The Lord is highly displea­sed with those proceedings in the Treaty at Newport in reference to Re­ligion and Covenant: Concerning which they accepted of such Concessions from his Majestie, as being acquiesced in were dangerous and destructive to both. And, Non-subscribers can­not deny that in the Propositions that were made to the King there, Simp [...]e Cobler, page 58. the King was still [...]uffered to have continued his Nega­tive voice, so long opposed. Now the Kings Advisera was (as a now friend of theirs expostulates) the Gravamen of the Nation, to Religion and Peace. Indeed, to grant it were to suffer a King to be as absolute as the great Turk: there being no way to establish a necessary Law, if a wilfull King shall re­fuse, no way to establish the safety of a Nation, if he must ever have the liberty to pretend dis-satisfaction, and say he would advise, when State-danger cals rather for action then Coun­sell. To conclude, it had been to give away the legislative power, and to loose the King of his obligations at Corona­tion, Si Regibus im­potenter gras­santibus & hu­mili p ebeculae insu [...]tantibus conniveant, eo­rum dissimula­tionem nefariâ [...]erfidiâ non ca­rere affirmem: quia populi li­bertatem cujus se Dei ordina­tione autores positos norunt, fraudulenter produnt. Inst. ca. 20. §. 30. wherein he swore to defend and confirm the Laws quas Vulgus elegerit Calvin will tell them what popular Magistrates are that collude with a Tyrant. If (saith he) they connive at Kings impotently oppressing, and trampling on their poore people, I should affi [...]m that this dissimulation wants not wicked Treachery, be­cause they fraudulently betray the Liberty of the people, of which, by the ordinance of God, they know themselves to be appointed Defenders. The prevarication of excluded Members in receiving such Concessions as were destructive to Religion and Liberty, and voting them sufficient grounds for the establishing of both, could not deprive the innocent Members of their power of voting. Injury cannot take away a right. The revolting of abundance of the Members now from the interest of the Common-wealth, can no more invalidate the Right of the others, then the flying of so many to Oxfrrd, as made a mun­grel [Page 27] Parliament there, could take away the right of them that remained at Westminster. So that (notwithstanding what the Plea hath said to prove the contrary) the House of Com­mons is still a whole House legally, which, ex abundanti, might be proved. 1. Because they are in number above what the Law acknowledges an House. 2. Because they have a law­full call from the people to be their Representers, unrevoked. 3. Because they never gave their consent to their dissolution. 4. Because the Law by which they sit is unrepealed: And nei­ther a face from without, nor the prevarication of their own Members can make them cease to be an House.

Thus it being p [...]oved that the King, Lords and Commons were not coordinate, and that granting they were coordi­nate, yet in case of necessity faulty coordinate powers may be excluded from trust by their coordinates, it will follow that the Power that dispossessed the King and Lords is warrant­able, notwithstanding what hitherto Non-scribers have said to prove the contrary.

But it was not the House of Commons, Plea, &c. page 23.24. that did En [...]ct the removal of the King and house of Lords (say Non scribers): be­cause that is contrary to the Engagements of the said House in their Declarations. To this I answer. 1. By the same reason, it was not the House of Commons that voted a Treaty with the King at Newport, because it was contrary to their Votes of Non-addresses, and the Reasons given in their Declaration to the whole Nation, and their Engagement to settle the State without him. 2. What was properly fundamental in our Go­vernment, the House doth maintain, what was artificial or adventitious their being the Supreme Law-givers of this Na­tion, bound them to abrogate if they found it dangerous to the peoples safety and liberty, notwithstanding their Engage­ment. That Magistrates are bound to prefer the safety of the people before any other Engagements of their own, K. James his Declaration in the introdu­ction to the Archbishops triall. pag. 47. King James is a Witnesse, his Majesty intends really to perform what he hath promised, the suspension of the Laws against his Catholick Subjects, but with this Protestation, that if they abuse his favour to the embroyling of his State and Govern­ment, the safety of the Common-wealth is in this case Su­prema Lex, and his Majestie must, notwithstanding his Oath [Page 28] proceed against the offendors, &c. 3. The Declaration of April 17.16.6. saith, Our intentions are not to change the Ancient form of Government, but to attend the end of the primitive institution of all government: which onely infers thus much: That they would not make any change in the Government, if they could without it keep the Nation in safe­tie; but infers not, that when that Established government came in competition with the Peoples safety, they either might not, o [...] would not change it. 4. All your other Testi­monies infer nothing else, but, 1. That the Commons truly and seriously desired the late Kings safetie, and the continu­ance of his Government, if it might consist with the good of the people that entrusted them. 2. That they were unwilling to make any change, till they saw all other means of the Peoples safetie un [...]ffectuall. 3. That they did not out of ma­lice or a [...]bition seek the Kings life, or deposing (as he and his Cavaliers charged them) but onely the preservation of them that entrusted them. All which are far short of making this conclusion, Therefore they did not, or had no power to take away abused Royalty and Domination, although it were never so pernitious to the Common-wealth.

Nor will their Testimonies out of the A [...]mies Declarations, stand them in that stead, Plea, &c. p. 25. which they suppose. 1. The Army (say they) confesses that their breaking the House of Com­mons was irregular. To which may be answered, 1. That confessed irregularity cannot take away the Right of the re­maining Members. 2. That whatsoever is irregular is not pre­sently unlawfull. Matth. 12.3, 4. Davids eating the shew-bread was irregular, but not unlawfull. Man's Laws must all stoop in case of necessi­ty to the divine Law of Nature, and to the safety of the peo­ple, Quoniam, in­quit, Consul dum juris ordi­nem sequitur, id agit ut c [...] omnibus Legi­bus Romanum imperium cor­ruat, egomet privatus volun­tati vestrae me Ducem offero. the Supreme Law. When Gracchus endeavoured to sub­vert the Romane State, & the Consul Scaevola refused to oppose him by force, Scipio Nasica said, because the Consul, while he followes the ordinary course of Law, suffers the Romane Em­pire with all its Laws, to be in danger of perishing, I a private man will be your Captain; & accordingly (though a private man) he repulsed Graechus with his complices. So Scipio Afri­canus when the publique treasury should have been opened, for the necessary use of the Common-wealth, and the Quaestors, [Page 29] because they did think it forbidden by Law, refused it; Valer. Max. li. 3. cap. 2. Valer. Max. li. 3. cap. 7. Scipio (Isay) being a private man took the keyes and opened the Treasury, and made the Laws stoop to the publique benefit. Nor will the irregularity of hindring Magistrates from doing unlawfull Acts be lesse defensible. 1 Sam. 19.40.45. The peoples act in rescuing Jonathan from Saul will justifie it. They had professed their subjection to Saul, yet they hindred him from oppressing his son who had wrought deliverance in Israel. The Army then might well and lawfully, (though extraordinarily, and there­fore irregularly in reference to ordinary rules) hinder the Members of the House from Voting such a Peace, as would have opprest not only one but all our Jonathans, who had wrought deliverance for our Israel. 3ly. Non-scribers say that the Army affirmed, the Judgement of the House of Commons incompetent and inconclusive, in their constitution, before they were purged. Which may be thus answered, That the Army affirmed the Parliament morally incompetent and in­conclusive at that time, because so many had sh [...]ffl [...]d them­selves so far into the Kings interest, as to prefer it before the Publique interest, not Politically incompetent and inconclu­sive. Soveraigne Power of Par­liaments, part. 2. page 40. There is no reason why Non-scribers should be angry that the Army calls the House of Commons the Parliament, it is such language as Mr. Prinne teaches. The Parliament (saith he) is elective, consisting, for the most part, of the prin­cipall men in every County, City, Burrough, &c. And again, The Parliament consisting of the a blest men of all Counties, Soveraigne power of Par­liaments, part. 1. page 39. &c. And in another place, whatsoever the people of Rome might do either Centuriatis comitiis, or Tribunitiis, is and may be done by the Authority of Parliament. The Lords were not elected out of Cities, Counties, Burroughs: Cannot resemble the Romane Comitia: therfore, in Mr. Prinnes Judgement, not so fitly to be called the Parliament.

These things considered, Non subscribers had small rea­son to parallel the deposition of the King and Lords, Plea, &c. page 21, 23. [...]. Med. 28. with the Act of Corah, Dathan, and Abiram, as they do, borrowing this similitude from the late Tyrant, and fulfilling the pre­diction of the Publisher of that fine piece of Hypocrisie, Vota da­bunt, quae Bella negârunt. For, 1. Moses was innocent in the ad­ministration of his Government, the King and Lords betray­ed [Page 30] the trust reposed in them. In seditione enim, duas om­nin [...] partes esse necesse est, quae cum de contra­dictoriis plerun­que certen [...], uni­us justam, alte­rius injustam causa [...] esse con­sequitur. Justa (inquit Barto­las) quae tyran­nicum regimen deponere volet: inju [...]ta, quae ju­stum. Licita, quae ad bonum publi [...]um, illici­ta quae ad pri­vatum tendit. Itaque, ait Tho­mas, quia reg­num Tyrannicū quod non ordi­natur ad bonum publicum sed privatum regen­tis, non est justū, perturbatio isti­us Regni non habet rationem seditionis. Vin­diciae contra Tyrannos. Quaest. 3. pag. 178, 179. Appendix to Soveraign Power of Par­liaments, page 187. 2. The men that acted then, were not the Supreme Magistrate, nor so much as coordinate with Moses: The house of Commons, the faithful part of them I mean, which are proved before to be legally a House, are the Supreme Magistrates. 3. The cause was ambition in Corah and the rest: in the Parliament, the safety of the people. 4. The Action of Corah and his complices was sedition: but in opposing a Tyrant, the Tyrant and his complices are the se­ditious persons. For in sedition (that I may use Junius Bru­tus) it is necessary that there be alwayes two parties, who when they strive about contradictory things, it must follow, that the ones cause is just, the others unjust. That is just (saith Bartolus) that would depose a tyrannicall Government, that is unjust, which would depose a just Government: That is lawfull, which tends to the Publique good, that unlawful, which tends to a private good only. Therefore, saith Thomas, because a tyrannical rule which is not ordered to the pub­lick good, but to the private benefit of the Ruler is not just, the overthrowing of such a rule hath not the reason of sedi­tion: unto which Mr. Prinne adds out of Aquinas, That it is the Tyrant rather that is seditious. As for that place out of the Epistle of Jude, wherein the error of some Christians is paralleld with Corah's sedition, it makes nothing for Non-scri­bers. For, 1. These Christians were meer private men, and the meaner sort of private men. 2. The Power they would have deposed was [...], and Aristotle understands, by [...], the Supreme Power in a Common-wealth; they must therefore venter another strain of Criticisme about that word, as well as they do about [...], which when they un­derstand, we shall tell them that the Laws of England, and the People in their Representatives, the Masters and Makers of those Laws have the [...]. 3. The sin by the Apostle there reproved, is the putting down of all Magistracie in generall, not the deposing of faulty Magistrates, or changing inconve­nient forms for those that are better. So that all Non scribers big words are but bruta fulmina: Mr. Perkins on the Epistle of Jude, ver. 8. yet the People of England might do well to take notice, in what a miserable case their Ecclesiastick and Civill Liberties were, if such men's (as Non-scribers) domination, were not strictly limited, and narrowly confined.

But what will Non-scriber, say, if I prove that the former con­stitution of the Government of the Nation was not deposed or dispossessed by the present power. The constitution of this Nati­on was a multiformed Government, say Non-scribers, and I adde, that if it was a mixture of just species, it was of Royalty, Optima­cy and Polity, properly so called. The Powers that were dispos­sest were, Tyranny of a Scarlet die the in the late King, Oligarchy in a Company of Pattentee-Lords, and Ochlocracy in the seditious Commons, who voted a Treaty with the Tyrant, they complying with the seditious Surrey and Kentish Peti [...]ioners. Now Tyranny, Oligarchy, and Ochlocracy, are specifically different from limited and lawful Royalty, Aristocracy and Polity. And consequently the present power dispossest a meer novel power. The former Go­vernment being dispossest by the King turning Tyrant, the Lords accepting Pattents, and the Commons that are excluded, abetting Tyranny and Tumults. Set the Saddle on the right Horse, and let Non-scribers judge who dispossest their former Government. Nay, yet further, the Non-scribers and their beloved party, were they who, even according to their own principles, deposed the King, House of Lords, and Majority of the Commons. The civil being of a King is in his Royal Power, this Non-scribers Friends had ta­ken from him, and made him not only less then a King, but then a private free-man, their Captive. Plea, &c. pag. 24. The Majority of the Lords house they kept out, and according to Non-scribers principles, the Ma­jority of a house is legally, and as to action and power, the whole house. Familiare est hominibus omnia sibi ig­noscere, nihil aliis remitte­re, & invidi­am rerum non ad cau­sam, sed ad voluntatem personásque dirigere. Vel­leius Pater­culus. Ʋol. Posterius. The like they did by the Commons who followed the King to Oxford, who were (for ought I can learn) the Majority of that house. All these things they did by no lesse force then was used in that Non-scribers so much quarrel. It's a familiar practice a­mong some men, to pardon themselves in every thing, others in nothing, and to cast the envy of actions upon other men, which when it stood with their own will and advantages they did them­selves.

But go to, let us see whether Non-scribers afford us not an Ar­gument to prove the dispossession of the King and House of Lords, and his other Adherents lawful. In their Appendix they have this passage: some kinds of Governments are in their own nature unlawful; so is that of the Beast, Rev. 17. And the 10. Kings [or Kingdoms many understand] giving their power and [Page 32] strength to the beast. Suppose now that it can be proved, that the King and those who would have reduced him in his impenitency, did give up their power to the Beast, (as I doubt not to prove that they did) will it not then follow, that their power was in its nature unlawful? and that it was lawfully dispossest, which was a power of its self unlawful and not to be submitted to? Introduction to the Arch-Bishops Try­al pag. 47. go to then, let us see whether the King did not give up his power to the beast. I shall not here stand upon King James his Declaration (wherein he undertakes to suspend the execution of all Lawes a­gainst Papists, and to hinder the making of any more) though published by Mr. Prinne: Popish Royal Favorite. pag. 41. nor upon King Charles his Letter sent from Spain to the Pope, wherein he not only calls the Pope most holy Father, but averts himself to have been alwayes farre from encouraging of novelties, or being a Partizan of any faction a­gainst the Catholique, Apostolique, Roman Religion: upon which passage Mr. Prinne notes that our Religion was deemed but a no­velty and faction by the King. Truths ma­nifest. p. 20. Kings Cabi­net opened. let. 8. p. 7. Ibidem. let. 19. p. 19. Popish Royal Favorite. p. 1. to 30. Introduction to the Arch-Bishops Try­al. p. 84. 85. Cabinet o­pened. let. 7. p. 7. He that dispatched a Commission under the great Seal of Scotland, to the Rebels in Ireland, to im­power them to Massacre the English Protestants: He who did give his Popish Wife Authority in his name to promise that he would take away all penal Lawes against the Roman Catholiques, as soon as he was able: He that commanded his Lieutenant in Ireland to promise the like to the Irish Rebels: He that was al­wayes an uxorious observer of a Romish wife; that hath imployed all his power to free Priests and Jesuites from danger; that to gra­tifie their French King a Papist, lent him his Ships against the poor Protestants of Rochel, and hath armed many thousands of English Papists, besides Irish Rebels, against his Protestant Parlia­ment: He that avoweth his constancy to Bishops, and all his own & the Queens friends, whom Non-scribers have oft called Atheists and Papists: the man (I say) that hath done all this, hath given his power to the Beast: which power he hath by instigation of the Beasts Emissaries imployed against the Lambe and his follow­ers. They who would have set this man over us again, without a­ny provision against his negative voice, or any taste of repentance, gave up their power to the Beast, in giving themselves up to him that was the Beasts Client. Declaration of the Irish in Ulster. Nor is the state now changed, the in­terest of the Irish Rebels is now one with that of the declared Kings of Scotland, as they have publickly testified to the world. So [Page 33] that all that strive to reduce him serve the Anti hristian Interest, and it is remarkable, how the Irish Rebels, Scots and Non-scribers, agree in their opinions concerning our present Government. To conclude, such a power being unlawful in its nature, as Non-scri­bers tell us, is lawfully dispossest by any that hath the power of a Magistrate, and hates the Beast, and all that refuse to exercise their power in destroying the Beasts Government, may well be concluded under the curse of Meroz, because they reward not the whore as she hath dealt with the Saints.

The second Medium whereby Non-scribers would prove the Common wealth of England to be an unlawful power, Coal from the Altar p. 42. Plea, &c. p. 26. Arist. Polit. lib. 4. cap. 9. is in regard of its erection. And here they kindle like Dr. Cole against the Bi­shop of Lincoln, for saying the Children of the Common-wealth, we live (saith Heylin) in a Monarchy not under a Democracy. So they cry, at the first fight, it looks like that which they call a De­mocracy. If they would have consulted Aristotle, he would have told them what that is which lookes like a Democracy, and is none; he layes it down as the mark of a perfectly mixt Polity, Qui concen­tus sanè ad­mirabilis, il­lam exprimit laudatam Platoni Rem­publicam, quam opti­mates re­gunt, cum plebis consen­sione. Hugo Grotius. De Antiquit. Reipub. Ba­tavicae. cap. 1. pag. 38. vulgatum est nullam fisco praescriptionem nocere, multò verò minus universo populo, qui Rege poti [...]r est, cu­júsque gratiâ Princepids privilegium habet, Vindiciae contra Tyrannos. Quaest. 3. pag. 96. Appendix. pag. 36. to be so mixt of Oligarchy and Democracy, that its doubtful whe­ther the form of the Common-wealth be Oligarchical or Demo­cratical. So is the Common-weale of England mixt, the peoples election of their Delegates is 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. Its 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 [Page 34] 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 belli (que) ad­ministrandi, communi con­cilio commissa est [...]assivel­lau [...]e.— No­stro adventu commoti Bri­tani, hunc to­ti bello, impe­rióque praefe­cerant. Caesar Commenter. l [...]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 Cassivellau [...]e. And again, the Brit [...]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 affair [...]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 [...]ustom of those times, both for electing, anointing, judging and executing of Kings them­selves, among our British Ancestors. Conce [...]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 [Page 35] therein with the witness of Tacitus, Rights of the Kingdom. p. 55. Rights of the Kingdom. p. 35. Reges ex n [...] ­bilitate, duces ex virtute sumunt. Tacitus de mo­ribus Ger­manorum. Soveraign Power of Parliaments, part. [...]. 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 Par [...]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. Soveraig [...] Power of Parliaments. part. 2. p. 7. Mr. Prinne brings in Sir Ed­ward Cook, affirming, that the Lord Chancellor, Treasurer, privy Seal [...], Lord chief Justice▪ Privy Councellors, Heretoches, Sheriffs, with all Officers of the Kingdom of England, and Constables of Castles, were usu [...]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 [Page 36] 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 origina [...]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 Fortesc [...]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 [...]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 [Page 37] 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 Summon [...], 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 r [...]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 [Page 38] or abolishing of some Offices and names of Magistrates, Commutatis Magistratu­um nomini­bus at (que) offi­ciis non sta­tim alia Res­publica est; dum vissum­ma imperii primáque potestas, & illa, ut ita dicam, mens qua corpus omne movet at (que) continet, una maneat at (que) eadem. Grotius. E­pist. Dedic. ante libellum de Anti (que) 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 Fami [...]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, when they chose them to be their Representatives, so that their power is not of themselves, as calumniating Non-scribers would perswade us. Neither will what they quote from the Armies Declaration be of any avail to them. We say (with the Army) that the continu­ance of the same Representatives is not fit to be drawn into ordi­nary presidents, least their power should be corrupted by length of time: yet in times of extraordinary danger, when a great part of the people are disaffected to the meanes of their own safety, and elections are like to be made of such as would return us (it may be) to our former slavery, it is not unjust that power be con­tinued in the hands of the present faithful Representatives, who yet are not to be looked upon as those that must ever, continue in t [...]at power: that which we engage to is to the [...]ommon-wealth of England, which intimates (as was said before) successi­on of Representatives.

Non-scribers adde to prove the power unjust. Plea, &c. page 30. 1. That it is against the Ancient and indubitable legal Rights and Tithes of the King, Prince and Peers, to their respective hereditary dignities and powers. To this may be answered. 1. That those powers and dignities in their first institution were not here­ditary: this hath been proved already. And further, things properly transmittable from Father to Son as Inheritances, are onely bona fortunae; 1 Chron. 23.1. with 1 Chron. 29.22. Kingdoms and dignities are not so communicable. Solomon was no King till the people had the second time anointed him, notwithstanding his designation by his Father. Ahaziah notwithstanding the death of his Fa­ther and elder Brethren, 2 Chron. 22.1. was not King till the Inhabitants of Jerusalem had made him so. Lex. Rex. Quest. 10. pag. 76. Nor doth the setling the King­dome succession upon a line by a Law, make the Kingdome the Kings Inheritance. Arnisaeus saith, that the Son hath not the right of reigning as the patrimony of the people, but as a propriety given him by the Law of the Kingdom by his pa­rents; which assertion (saith Mr. Rutherford) is all one as if he said, the Son hath not the right of reigning as the patrimo­nie of the people, but as the patrimony of the people, which is good non-sense: for the propriety of reigning given from Father to Son by the Law of the Kingdom is nothing but a right to reign, given by the Law of the people, and the very gift and patrimony of the people. He adds many arguments to prove that Kingdoms go not as a heritage from Father to Son. To whom I may adde Junius Brutus, who denies, Vindiciae contra Tyrannos. Quaest. 3. and that upon good grounds, that the King is either proprietary, or so much as the usufructuary of his Kingdom: much lesse hath he such an interest in it, as a man hath in his Inherit­ance. An Inheritance may be sold, pawned, changed, Grotius. de jure belli & pacis l. 1. cap. 4. §. 10. none of these can be attempted by a King to be done to his King­dome without losing his right to it. For the Lords, Mr. Ru­therford saith, That the King can make heritable Judges more then he can communicate faculties and parts of judging, I doubt. Riches are of Fathers, but not promotion, &c. Honour is properly the reward of vertue, and cons [...]quently not pro­perly communicable to posterity. Our Lords were at first elected by the People, and enobled for their virtues. 2. Though we should grant, that the Kings had the Kingdom, and the [Page 40] Lords their dignities as Inheritances, yet the right to an In­heritance may be lost, may be seized. Where God hath not bound conscience, men may not binde themselves and their posterity; but God hath not bound any Nation irrevocable to any Royall line or form of Government: Ergo, No Nation can binde their conscience, Lex. Rex. que. 10. pa. 78. or the conscience of posterity ei­ther to one Royal line, or irrevocably and unalterably to Monarchy. Superior verò universus popu­lus, quíve eum repraesentant. Vindicae con­tra Tyrannos, Quae. 3. p. 178. So Mr. Rutherford. Junius Brutus tels us that a Ty­rant doth In populum tanquam in Feudi Dominum feloniam com­mittere, commit Felony against the People as against the Lord of his fee; and adds from Bartolus, that he may be deposed, and punished by his Superior, and his Superior is the whole people, or they that represent them. Treason according to our Laws taints the blood, and makes the children of Tray­tors uncapable to succeed in any thing of inheritance. The Kings of England were as much subject to Law as any private Subject. Soveraign power of Par­liaments, part. 1. pag 34. Though in exhibendo jure he were maximus, yet in suscipiendo jure (saith Bracton in Mr. Prinne) minimo de Regno suo comparatur. He was to be obedient to suffer right, as well as others of his people, saith another Lawyer out of the Mirror, an ancient Law-book. No wrong therefore is done to King or Prince, Rights of the Kingdom, p. 31. they having committed Treason against their own Crown and dignity, by raising war against their people, and so falling from all right to their hereditary dignities. Had it been true that Naboth had blasphemed God and the King, it had been no sin in Ahab to have seized upon his vineyard, though the inheritance of his father. Non-scribers brethren that call themselves a Pack of old Puritans, shew themselves to be a Pack of Episcopaturient Parafites, by their making the King as innocent as Naboth, and the Kingdom as much his Inheritance as Naboth's vineyard was to him. The Lords also by denying concurrence with the Commons in proceed­ings against the Tyrant and his friends, betrayed as much as in them lay the Common-wealth, and therefore are de­servedly removed from that Authority they had. The great Charter saith, Nulli negabimus, nulli vendemus, nulli differemus justitiam. The Lords denying justice, broke that which is (if any be) a fundamentall Law of the Nation, and for that are justly punished by the Commons their Superiors. A Judge [Page 41] delaying, or denying justice, may be deprived of his office, and why not the Lords? whose office (if they be not of the na­ture of those officers who have nec munus nec usum) was judi­cial onely, as was shewed before.

2. That it is against the House of Commons; Plea, &c. p. 31. but to prove that they bring nothing but the crambe bis cocta, of the En­gagement of the Declaration of April 17. 1646. the putting of the name of the House upon a part, and the prostitution of priviledges; all which have been spoken to already.

3. That it is injurious to the people. Plea, &c. ibid. In civium nu­mero non sunt habendi, viola­tores enim sunt humanae societa­tis, aut certà proditores. Buchanan. de Jure Regni apud Scotos. 1. In bereaving them of their Ancient Authority, & imposing a new, without and against their wils. The removal of what authority is taken away is justified: no new one is imposed, as hath been proved. What is done is so far from being against [...]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. Its 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: Num [...]. 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 [Page 42] 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 ope [...]
Nemo tamen regum j [...]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 [Page 43] 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 E [...]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 bl [...]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 humili [...]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, Auctá (que) cum bello sama & opes. Grotius, Ep [...]st. v d. an­te Ant. [...]cip. Bat. Civitas, in [...]re­dibilc memora­tu, a [...] epi [...] li [...]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 frō 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 the [...]r Kings, its a wonder to say (saith Salust) how the City grew in a short [Page 44] space having gotten liberty. Judg. 3.27, 28. Ehud wronged-not Israel, when af­ter he had slain Egl [...]n, he blew the Trumpet, and called the p [...]ople, by War, quite to shake off the Moabitish yoak. Would such as Non-scibers cease to abuse the Parliaments lenity, and the Peoples credulity, we should lesse fear civil commotions: and for forraign enemies (blessed be God) he hath delivered us, and we hope will yet deliver. Lastly, Non-scribers say the people are wronged, Plea, &c. P. 33. because the force, Bond, and security of all the Laws, are changed by this change. To this I say, That the Laws are the peoples Laws, they chuse them, they make them their representatives, are the supreme Magistrates, who have the supreme Authority, to make and confirm a Law, and as long as the people want not these, the security of the Laws can never fail: but their security is so much the more provided for, by how much any power that pretends interest, in the ma­king or confirming of a Law, besides the Representers of the people is curbed. So that the Peoples Laws are more secure now, being out of danger of being hindred in their making by a royall advisera, or in their execution, by protections against Law, flowing from an unlimited prerogative. And whereas Non-scribers say, that the Parliament hath violated the Legal, and most foundational property of their Superiors; I would have them know, that the people of England represented in Parliament, have no superiors under God, which is a truth of such force, as drew from King James himself a confession, that he was no other then the great Servant of the Common-wealth. Plea, &c. p. 34. The punishment against such as engage not (which Non scribers urge to prove, that the security of Law is loosed) is no other then the Rational practice of all our Law-Courts. viz: To deny them the benefit of the Law, who deny the juris­diction of the Court: And they deny the jurisdiction of all Courts which is but derivative, who deny the Supreme power of the Com-monwealth of England, which is in respect of other Courts, Original and fountain power.

Plea, &c. pag. 35, 36.I have thus done with their first Argument, which militated ('tis Non-scibers paedantique word) against the Engagement ab­stractly considered, I shall come now to a view of their second ground which, concerns them, (they say) as English men; As [...]e [...], say they, are pre-ingaged, and in regard of precedent ob­ligations, [Page 45] it would be perfidie (another of their Elegancies) to engage in this; Their engagements are two-fold, as Subjects, as sworn under that relation. Their first argument in pursu­ance of this second reason is this. If the tye of Subjects to Ma­gistrates is upon us, in relation to an Authority and Govern­ment, which cannot be said to be a Common-wealth, without a King and house of Lords, then we cannot engage; but such a tie is upon us, Ergo. I deny the Minor, there is no such tie upon them, or any English man. The power to which they say they were obliged, was not a power consisting of three coordinate estates, as they suppose, but, of a Polity or Common-wealth, the University of the people, being represented by their cho­sen delegates, in whom all Majesty and supreme power of the Commen-wealth resided, the King, an honorary Servant of the Common-wealth, to see its Laws put in execution, and the Lords, as Judges appointed to judge between the Common-wealth and King. When the Commons say, that the funda­mental Government consists in the King, Plea. page 37. Lords and Com­mons, fundamental is to be taken in its largest sence, and we must distinguish between what is properly, what is ascititi­ously fundamental. That a people inhabiting together in one Land, be a Common-wealth having all power to themselves, for self-preservation, and are to be governed by whom them­selves shall chuse, is natural, and properly fundamental: that they set a King to execute their Edicts, and Lords to judge him in case of miscarriage, is voluntary and improperly funda­mental. If therefore the Representatives of the people, by the peoples fountain-power, which they neither can, or do give up to any King or Lord, do take away the King and Lords, to whom the people cannot be given up irrevocably, the King and Lords so taken away are no more a power, have no more Authority. Let us now hearken how they prove, that this au­thority of the King and Lords remaines, (for that the House of Commons is still a legal representative of the people, hath been proved already: and I shall avoid repetitions, as far, as following Non-scribers, in their wild goose chace will give me leave.) They say, Plea, &c. p. 38. The only wayes of dissolving Government appliable to the occasion are, either that it must be done by some Act of those in power to do it, or by forcible and violent [Page 46] ejection. That what was done, was done by unjust violence, I deny: that it was done by them, who had lawfull power to do it, I affirm. Nonscribers strive to prove that they which did it, (for they confesse acts of repeal to have been made) were not qualified with power to do it, by two Medium's. 1. Because they never had such power committed to them, nor did any of their capaci y ever exercise such a power. To this I confident­ly reply, that the Representatives of a Nation, (In all Nations that have had the happinesse to enjoy such) have a power to depose their Tyrannicall Magistrates, by what name or title soever they be called, (Proof of which may be seen at large in Junius Brutus, De illarum sanctionum ge­nere, quae muta­tionibus tempo­rum non sunt obnoxiae, sed in primo generis humani natu in mentes homi­num incisae sunt, & mutuo propé omnium gentium consen­su comprobatae, & unà cum re­rum natura, ir­refragabiles & sempiternae per­ennent, ipsaeque nullius imperiis obnoxia omnibus dominentur & imperent. Bu­can. Rerum. Scotic. lib. 20. and the Author of the Treatise, De jure Magistra­tus in subditos,) and that by a Law, which is of kind to those sanctions, which are not obnoxious to the changes of times, but were at the beginning of mankinde, ingraven upon the minds of men, and approved by the mutual consent of all Na­tions, and (together with nature it self) are irrefragable and eternall, ruling over all, subject to none. I borrow the ex­pression of some honourable Scotch Lords Ambassadour to Queen Elizabeth, in justification of their ejection of Mary Grandmother to our late Tyrant. And for their ignorance of any such principle in Scripture, it argues their carelesse search of it. There they might find Israel using their native liberty, in deposing Samuel, and setting up a King, though Samuel was in­nocent, and God himself was interessed: As also the defection of Libnah, (one of the Priests Cities) from under the hand of Jeboram, because he had forsaken the Lord God of his Fathers: and if one City for themselves may reject a King, much more the representatives of a whole Nation. 2. They say, the legisla­tive power, was seated in three estates, therefore the Abroga­tive: The falshood of which 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 [Page 47] 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 [Page 48] House of Lords, and such repeales are lawful, the whole legisla­tive power being in the Representatives of the people, who (as an House) are above all our common Law and positive Statutes, and may change, alter, and abrogate them, as they see most rationally convenient for the publick utility of the people. These things con­sidered, engaging will appear nothing contrary to the Scriptures they quote (page 37.) The Senate was above 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 [Page 49] 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 called so in op­position to all forraign jurisdictions, Lex. Rex. Quest. 43. page 437. and over all Persons and E­states separatim, but not over Lawes, or over Estates taken con­junctim, as convened in Parliaments. The King was Major singulis; but minor universis: so that asserting him supreme in the Oath of supremacy, infers not that his power and consequently allegiance, was not under the power of any other: for though he was su­preme in respect of every single person, yet the Representatives of their whole Nation were above him. 2. Notwithstanding all the Knights and Burgesses of the House of Commons took the Oath of Allegiance themselves, it will not follow that they had no pow­er over allegiance, they took that Oath as private men, not as Re­presenters of the Majesty of the people. As Parliament-men, they cannot fall under the notion of singulars, they vote not as singulars, but as publick Representative per­sons, as those who have the power of the Counties and Towns they represent intrusted to them: they therefore representing the community of the whole Nation are not, were not properly Subjects. Every singular person was a Subject to the King; but the whole Community or University of the Nation is [Page 50] a Common-wealth, having a Nomothetique power in it self, Para­mount to all its Magistrates; and this University is represented by the House of Commons. They therefore as Representatives might vote, as a Parliament might enact the abrogation of allegiance. As for that evasion of Non-scribers, That the priviledge of a Superi­our to unloose the Oath or Vow of his inferior is expresly re­strained by the Law of God to the immediate declared dissent of the Superior. Plea, &c. pag. 53. I answer, that granting this were so, the Parliament never gave way to the taking off the Oaths of Allegiance and Su­premacy in Non-scribers sence, they never intended to make the King above Parliaments, they never gave him an irrecoverable power, as I have shewed before out of Mr. Prinne. They assent­ed that the Oaths should be taken, whereby the King was ac­knowledged the supreme executer of the Lawes, it will not follow from hence that they made him free from all Lawes, that he should not be as a Subject to them, as the meanest of his Subjects, as by ancient Lawes he ought to be: nay, they could not do this, it had been a giving up the power intrusted by the people to them, and could not have obliged the people, Sen. Contr. lib. 2. Cont. 9. et si parendum in omnibus Patri, in eo non parendum est, quo efficitur nè Pater sit, The Parlia­ment gave the King a power to execute Lawes made and to be made by them the makers of all Lawes: the King by force, en­deavours to cut in sunder the Lawes which he ought to have pro­tected, and raises Arms against the Parliament his superior, to the dissolution of their Government, as they voted May 23. 1642. he hereby becomes guilty of High Treason, the Law excludes Tray­tors issue from all hereditary successions: here is no need of dis­sent to the Oathes once taken for upholding his Authority, it was forfeited by himself, his Superiours by Law executed him, by Law judge his posterity uncapable of succession, the Subjects are free from obligations, unless we must say, that the King is above all Lawes, as Court-Parasites have done. Non-scribers therefore abuse the world, when they say a dissent came too late to that which was never sworn to by any Englishman, the Oaths were ne­ver allowed to be taken, but with the necessary implyed Salvo, sa­ving our obedience to the Lawes and Common wealth. Nor do they deale any better in the case of the House of Lords. We are bound by Covenant to preserve the priviledges of Parliament. Plea, &c. p. 47. Now (say they) we are confident that at the taking of the Pro­testation [Page 51] and Covenant, there was no usage of the word Parlia­ment, either in written Lawes, Statutes, or other Records, but what necessarily intended the House of Lords, Soveraign Power of Parliaments. part. 1. p 43. as one main and se­parable part: but they must be believed upon this their confidence; for besides confidence, (I might say impudence) they have no­thing to prove it. One of Mr. Prinn's Authours was as confident on the other side, that there were Parliaments in England, when there was neither Bishop, Earl nor Baron: so that the Priviledges of Parliament may be safe, and yet neither Bishop, Earl nor Baron be in any power. The House of Lords were not intended as a main and inseparable part of the Parliament, but as Judges in all plaints against the King and his Children; with whom, when faulty, if they collude, and neglect their trust, the Commons might dis­card them; nor will it stand with the Rule of Christian obedience, that any private persons should def [...]nd them against the just sen­tence of the Commons their superiors, whose priviledges were a­bove theirs, and therefore are to be respected before them.

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

It were but to waste Paper, Plea, &c. pag. 51. 53. 54. to answer what else they say about the duration of the obligation of those Oathes: we require no Pope nor other power to absolve us from them: we are not drawne aside by any changes: we see the powers to which the Engagements were made, taken away by their Superior power, and now being a nullity, which is in Non-scribers language, a civil Idol, we are sure nothing can oblige us to that which is not, either in being or right. Nor are the Powers of the King and Lords, hîc & nunc, lawfull: they were lawfull heretofore, because established by the Legislative power: now the same power hath abrogated them, and are to us as if they had not bin. Neither is it possible to [Page 52] set them up again, I meane, to any meerly private. Illud possumus quod jure possumus. Lucius Flo­rus. lib. 1. cap. 9. I dare not owne the possibility of that which is unlawfull. Brutus put his two Sons to death, for endevouring to reduce Tarquin, the reason was not because Kingly power was un­lawfull, but because it was at that time unlawfull to them, the Lawes of the Roman State forbidding it. I wish Non-scribers so much wisdom and morality as that heathen Counsel had: for in all their Plea there is want of sound reason to maintaine what they call the dictate of their conscience: nor in deed bring they any thing but Sophistry and jingling about words to the Bar on their owne behalfe, and such quirks shall then deserve to be called conscience, when science falsly so called shal deserve to be called good Divinity.

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

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

Plea, &c. page 57. 58.1. To the Imposers of the Engagement, whom they exhort to stop their course and descend to reason it out with them, as if the supreme Authority of the Nation had nothing to do; but to ar­gue with a Company of jugling Sophisters, who must have satis­diction not satisfaction, and whom non persuaseris etsi millies per­suaseris: Yet I doubt not but these Gentlemen (which is the best tearm that these proud men can afford the Representers of the Ma­jesty of the People) are able and will he willing to discourse with them; but what little hopes of success there is in such a conde­scension, is evident from the virulency of their addresses here to the Imposers of the Engagement. Appendix. pag. 54. Margin. These Barasites (that can in de­fence of the late Tyrant quote that of Elihu, Job 34.18. Is it fit to say to a King, thou art wicked?) are bold to tell the Parliament, that their actions are unjust, scandalous, perjurous, &c. There is little hope that reason should prevail over them, who call evil good, and good evil, put light for darkness, and darkness fo [...] light, and sin being condemned of themselves. But let us hear the motions they put this exhortation on by. The imposing of the En­gagement [Page 53] (say they) is scandalous. Dodonas Grove in Octavo page 146. [...]. Med. 7. So the jingling Cavalier that calls himself their Majesties Vassal, with the Candenians, that is, Soots rising against the King, cast a brand upon the Eusebian, the Protestant Profession, in loosing the bands of passive obedience. And the Tyrant himself tells us, that he feared such motions (as the Parliaments just Armes) would be an alienation of mind, and divorce of affection of his Queen from our Religion. I would know to whom the imposing of the Engagement is scandalous. Non-scribers intimate that it will be so to the Sticklers in the Ty­rants quarrel. And I say, that this i [...] the fairest dealing in all their Book, to acknowledge their good friends the Cavaliers, and to plead against offending them. But I have learned from Mr. Calvin, that there are two sorts of scandals; scandala infirmorum, Infiitution. cap. 12. S. 11. which we must carefully avoid, & scandala Pharisaeorum, this which they would make of the latter sort, and therefore it may be said of the Cavaliers and Non-scribers their Patrons, as our Saviour said of the Pharisees, when the Disciples told him that they were offended, let them alone, &c. But Non scribers will prove it scandalous. Mat. 15.14. How? Thus, The King laid an aspersion upon the Parliament, that their intention was to destroy Monarchy, and pull down the House of Lords, the Parliament abhorred the imputation, and en­gaged the contrary.

To this I answer, That it is no marvel, though Tyrants suspect the just events of their Tyranny before they come upon them, and if the Parliament had profest against the Government of himself, his Posterity and Court-Minions, they had done nothing scanda­lous. They stood too long shaking hands with what they should have shaken off. Besides, the Engagements the Parliament made in favour of him, took not away those Lawes which made him and his Heires lyable to losse of their Crown and dignity, and there­fore it could be no scandal to execute those Lawes, or to bind the People to be faithful to them, having done what was righteous. Though Non-scribers cannot, (yet it is possible to) defend against the Cavaliers the justice of our Warres, notwithstanding the a­bolishing of Kingly Government. We entred into contest with them. The just party did maintain the liberty of the People, the unjust, the Tyrants exorbitancies. The just parties first desire was to regulate those exorbitancies, thinking they had pro­ceeded from bad Councel only; but when it appeared that the Ty­rant [Page 54] was his own worst Councellor, and all other meanes (even af­ter Conquest of him) were ineffectual, and that by the restless machinations of the Tyrant and his Partizans, the danger was growen so great, that had the Tyrant remounted, an utter de­struction of the peoples Liberties would have followed, it was but just to take away the Spring of those destroying differences, es­pecially the Engagements made in favour of the King, being but conditionally made, that he and his Authority should be preserved, if we, our Religion, and Liberties might have been secured. But when these were like to be ruined, it was as just, rebus sic stantibus, to abolish Kingly Government, as it was at first to seek by force to restrain prerogative inundations; if that therefore were not scan­dalous in its time, neither is the imposing of an Engagement against Kingly Government now scandalous, there is the same reason of both. It were indeed scandalous to our Nation, that there should be found among us a prevailing party that should transcend the Ro­manists in their falsifications and State-underminings. But (if there be any such party among us) it is Non-scribers and their party, who having sworn the defence of the peoples liberties, would bring up­on us one whom they would set in supreme Authority from a forraign Nation, who having sworn to bring Delinquents to con­digne punishment, maintain the unquestionableness of the Archi­tect of our miseries, and canonize him for a Martyr, who suffered for evil doing of a scarlettincture. And if to set up a Nation in a Na­tion, professedly under an Authority contrary to the Authority in rightful possession, be not the very Romanists State-undermining, I know not what it is; & this I am sure is Non-scribers endeavour.

But Non-scribers mean, that good men in other Nations will be offended at the late actions in ours, and the present Engagement, considering former Engagements. But, I have a more charitable o­pinion of our good Neighbors, and hope that they being not inter­ressed, and consequently free from what may divert their judge­ments from right, will justifie the righteous actions of our Nation, and cannot but continue in this hope, as long as I see other Nati­ons have done the like actions, notwithstanding the like obligati­ons to our former ones upon them. Soveraign Power of Parliaments. part. 3. pag. 146. In the year 1572. William Prince of Orange and his Confederates in Arms protested against the Duke of Alva; yet withall, engaged themselves to hold the Countrey of the Netherlands, under the obedience of their Prince and natural Lord, as they ought to do; for so are the words of [Page 55] their protestation, in Mr. Prinne's Book: yet in the year 1581, Hugo Groti­us, de An­tiq. Re [...]p. Batavicae. cap. 5. Paulus Me­rula, de statu Reip. Bata­viae Diat [...]iba. Johannes de Latt. De­scrip. Belgi­cae. tit. Hol­landia. cap. 7. Henricus S [...] ­terus. Suecia. pag. 131. & Seq. & pag. 202. 206. 216. they solemnly abjured the King of Sp [...]ine who was [...]e Here­ditary Earle of Holland. And the Earles of Holland were not in any thing short of a justly regulated King, and had as much Authority there, as the Kings of England among us, as the Authors in the Margin inform us. The States of Sweden in the year 1544, changed their Elective Kingdom into an Hereditary which they entayled upon Ericus the eldest Son of Gustavus their King then, and his issue male, and if such issue failed upon John the Kings second Son and his heirs male, and in like manner upon Magnus, and Charles Duke of Sudermannia the Kings younger Children, to this they sware solemnly. Yet Ericus for his Tyranny was deposed by the States, and John the second Brother crowned; he dying and leaving Sigismund King of Poland and John Duke of Ostrogothia his 2. sons behind him. Sigismund was crowned King of Sweden; yet because he endeavoured to destroy the Protestant Religion established among them, and Warred upon them, he was deposed by an Act of the States Assembled at Stockholm, in the year 1599, and in the year 1600, both he & his posterity excluded from all government in Sweden, by a Decree of the States as­sembled at Lincop: nay more, they excluded from the Kingdom, John Duke of Ostrogothia, the brother of Sigismund, because they feared, lest he, out of naturall love to his brother, should en­ter into any part or Covenant with Sigismund and his heires which might bring detriment to their countrey: and then they chose Charles Duke of Sudermannia for their King. And if the States of Holland might abjure their Earl and not be scandalous to us, nay, and we joyn with them, as our Nation did in Queen Elizabeth's: dayes if the States of Sweden might abjure Sigismund, Ministri in hac sententia constanter permanse­runt, posse, viz. Magi­stratum sub leges vi cogi. Buchanan. Rerum. Scot. lib. 17. his bro­ther and issue, and not be scandalous to us; nay more, and we help Gustavus the Son of Charles, whose right was built upon Sigismund's ruine, I can see no cause why our actions and engage­ment should be scandalous to any honest man among them or any other Nation, that approved the equity of those actions in Hol­land or Sweden. Scotland (it may be) will frowne, because the current of Pensions from England is stopt: but they that laid the foundation of Reformation in Scotland were of another mind then their present Kirkmen: Mr. Knox defended the Lawfulness of putting Tyrants to death in a Generall Assembly. In the Scotch [Page 56] Queen Maries dayes, Buchanan. Rerum Scot. lib. 20. Magis for­midamus ni­miae lenita­tis apud om­nes bonos re­prehensio­nem, quàm apud mal [...]s crudelitatis calumnium. Actio contra Mariam Scotorum Reginam. pag. 100. Plea, &c. page 60. the Ministers were constant in this opinion, that the Magistrate, might be brought by force under the Lawes: and the Earl of Morton and other Scotch Lords Ambassadors to Queen Elizabeth justified their deposition of Mary, and affirmed that they might by the Law of Nature and their Countrey, have dealt more severely with her, and that her life and the successors of her Son depended upon their clemency: their Oration which was presented to Queen Elizabeth, a Latin Printed Copy where­of I have, ends thus, We more feare to be reprehended by good men for our over-much Lenity, then we do to be slandered by the bad with cruelty. Were Scotlands Kirkmen the true successors of Mr. Knox and Buchanan, we could not offend them; but we be­ing their successors in the truthes they professed, and the Scots Apostatizing, we may well cast them in with Non-scribers, and contemne the offences they take against us, with, Let them alone, &c.

But the imposing of the Engagement (say Non-scribers) is scandalous, because it takes away the Liberty of Conscience, which the Imposers professedly maintain, and they cannot see any rea­son but that they should leave Conscience free in Civill matters, who would have it free in matters of Religion. But, besides that the Imposers of the Engagement, have not (for ought I know) owned the Patronage of so va [...] Libertinisme in matters of Re­ligion as Non-scribers would [...]ather upon them, their Argument may be retorted upon themselves. It is scandalous, that they who hold tolleration of difference in outward formes of Discipline un­lawfull, should claime a tolleration in Civill matters: and it would be scandalous in the Magistrate to tollerate any thing, Festus Hom­mius. col. An­ti-Bellarmi­nianum. Disp. 34. Thes. 4.5. Sam. Bolton. Arraignment of error. pag. 335. 336. Plea, &c. pag. 61. or to grant any priviledge, which by the Priviledged is looked upon under the Notion of sin; and Learned Presbyterians (into the number of whom Non-scribers itch to be received) rank opinions de­structive to the publike Peace with such as are blasphemous, and contrary to Fundamentall truthes, and allow the Magistrate an equall, nay greater Power to punish them that are seditious, then them that are so erroneous.

Concerning the Agreement of the People, I have this only to say that the Parliament never owned it; and therefore Non-scribers do meerly Calumniate them, in laying it at their doores. But their new strain of Poetry, wherein they would make Sphynx a resolver of [Page 57] riddles, I must say that, for ought I have read, Isti quidem orationi Oe­dipos epus con­jectori est, qui Sphyngi interpres fu­it. Plautus in Paenulo. Act. 1. Scen. 3. Plea, &c. page 42. the proposing of riddles is onely attributed to Sphynx, the resolution to Oedipus. And for the Riddle it self, since Non-scribers are the Sphynges, I will make them (according to their own Poetry) the unriddlers. Non-scribers call the Government by Kings, Lords and Commons, the constitution of the People, yet make the People subject to it. So that the people (by their own concessions) may have a radicall virtuall Power of Soveraignty, which when they have derived, and it is in the Magistrate formally, they are to obey the Magi­strate made by them. The people as a Community gave their Power to their Representatives, as singulars are required to En­gage. They who aggregately, as a Community are the Originall of power, may severally and personally be the Recipients of it.

The rest of their Rhetorick is spent in bewayling the Tyranny, Plea, &c. page 61. 62. 64. oppression, Injustice, which our Nation (as they say) is under, notwithstanding the imposers of the Engagement, professe op­position to Tyranny, and make Justice and Liberty their Motto. But, that you may know how good Polititians or Moralists they are, instance only (to make all these accusations good) in the Act for taking the Engagement. These servile Souls never knew what true publike Liberty is. It is an [...], whereby a Nation hath freedom to make and change their own Lawes, without being hindred by any single mans Advisera, or the collusions of enslaved Robes and Coronets: this we have: and the Non-scribers say that we want; but they want Liberty. Act for sub­scribing the Engagement. I know none they want, but a Liberty of destroying themselves and the Nation. The Act which they so accuse doth Enact, that in case a Non-scriber sue any debter, and the debter plead their not subscribing the Engagement, further proceedings in the suit shall be super­se [...]ed: In the close whereof it is provided, that no person com­plained of for Treason, Felon [...], breach of the peace or good behaviour shall have any benefit by pleading the Plaintiffe not to have subscribed: so that this neither amounts to Outlawry, they being under the protection of the Law, onely the payment of Debts being superseded till they submit to the Supreme Authori­ty, nor gives the money to the Debter, but he is still lyable to suit upon the Repentance of the Non-scriber, nor doth it lay them open to losse of Limb, Life, Estate or Liberty, they having Freedome to sue any even for breach of the peace or good be­haviour. [Page 58] So that as many invectives as there are against the Act, so many false and wicked calumnies there are; but none v [...]ler then that wherein they parallell their case, Plea, &c. page 65. with the Jewes case under the feare of Haman, and intimate plots to be layd for their lives. A calumny so unbeseeming Christians, as it argues the Authors of it to be Acted by him who is the accuser of the brethren, a lyar and the father of it, and upon whom as the guilt of Cain's sin lyes (they having made themselves guilty of their brethrens blood by justifying them that shed it) so Cain's curse lies upon them also, Gen. 4.14. they fear every one that meetes them will kill them. A calumny to be answered only with just indignation against and execration of their malicious jealousie. Their hopes that deliverance would come unto them from some other place are in part defeated already, and he that hath delivered, doth, ye and will deliver us, from Non-scribers Brethren.

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

1. Of great ingratitude, they therein denying their fidelity to them, who freed them from the yoke of Episcopacy, High Com­mission-Court, Star-Chamber, (for these cannot be said to be the Tyrants benefits, he striving by his sword to bring a greater slavery upon them, then he had freed them from by his word of assent to those Bills (whose Authority armed them with Power to defend themselves against the Tyrants Emissaries: Supersede [...] te habere ci­vem tanti muneris im­pium aestima­torem: abi i­gitur & esto servus, quo­niam liber esse nescîsti. Val. Max. lib. [...]. cap. 6. in a word, whose continued labours for the recovery and continuance of their Liberties deserve to be written with letters of gold in monu­mentall Marble, or what else is more durable. The Athenians had a custome, that if the freed servant were ingratefull to his Patron, he was deprived of his Liberty. I account not thee a Citizen (said the Master) who art an unthanfull esteemer of so great a benefit; Go therefore & be a slave, because thou knowest not how to be free. Were Non-scribers deprived of their Liberty, it might be justified by the example of this much moralized Nation.

2. It's a sin of Apostasie; for what else, but wilful back-sliding can it be, for them who acknowledged the supreme Authority of [Page 59] the Representatives of the people in a matter of supreme powe [...], Manlius e­ras mihi cum praecipites a­gebas Sene­nes, postquam mutari coepi­sti, unus factus es ex Senonibus. Val. Max. lib. 6. cap. 3. 1 Kings 2.26.27. viz the power of the sword against an incroaching Tyrant, to de­ny obligations to them, and what they represent, and that in fa­vour of the Tyrants pretended Heirs and abettors? It may be well said to them as to Manlius, who after he had defended the Roman Peoples liberties against the Gaules, endeavoured to enslave them, Thou wast Manlius to me, when thou overthrewest the Senones; since thou beganst to be changed, thou art become of the Senones thy self. Their lives themselves had been forfeited in that Com­mon-wealth. They were favourably dealt with, if the Parliament only dealt with them as Solomon with Abiathar, whom he would not put to death, because he had been afflicted with David in all his afflictions, yet thr [...]st him out from the Priest-hood for follow­ing Adonijah. Very little reason have they to complain, who find milder dealing then any of the forementioned, whose crimes they equall.

Their second exhortation is to the takers of the Engagement, Plea, &c. page 67. whom they exhort to consideration of what they have done, and to return back to their former slavery. By their fulminations, they endeavour to make the hearts of the righteous sad, Ezek. 13.22. whom God hath not made sad, and to strengthen the hands of the Cavaliers, that they should not return from their slavish principles. To this purpose they use inducements, taken (they say) from the matter of engaging, wherein they charge them.

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

[Page 60]2. Non-scribers charge the takers of the Engagement, with sleight grounds. I will not say but some might engage upon such sandy foundations as Non-scribers speak of; Preface be­fore the An­swer to the Kings Por­traiture. Plea, &c. page 69. Canon. 36. of them that were publish­ed Anno 1603. but I dare withall confidently aver, that the most of such are to be found in Non-scribers Folds, whose Pulpit-stuffe, both first and last, hath been the Doctrine and perpetual infusion of slavery and wretchedness to all their Hearers, that I may use the judicious censure of our I­conoclastes. Et Turpe est Doctori, cum culpa redarguit ipsum, it is such guides sin and shame, that their people in the midst of such contentions for liberty, are no more acquainted with the nature of it; which ignorance is the cause why some remain in the infer­nal vassalage of a mis-informed Conscience, and others sin in do­ing good things doubtfully. How their third inducement should be taken from the manner and circumstance of engaging is more then I can see; but Non-scribers say it is so, in my eyes it was an Argument taken from the noxious event of engaging. Non-scri­bers say, they have heard of some perplext for engaging. But hear­say is no sound proof with understanding men; and if there be any such, they shew more tender-heartedness to Non-scribers, whose sorrow for subscription when they entred into Orders, (as they call it) wherein they affirmed the Book of Common Prayer, and of ordering Bishops, Priests and Deacons, to contain nothing but what was agreeable to the word of God: few or no men, or Churches ever heard of, no not though they covenanted the extirpation of Episcopacy, as contrary to sound Doctrine and the power of God­liness. Furthermore, Superstiti­ous persons are as much troubled for neglecting a­ny voluntary service of mans inven­tion, as if they had of­fended a­gainst the di­rect Com­mandement of God. Dr. Sibs, soules conflict. c. 13. S. 2. Mr. Cotton, way of Con­gregational Churches cleared. p. 4. Plea, p. 69. 70. a misinformed Conscience may feel wrack, a­gony and anguish for that which is not really sin. Mr. Bolton's re­canting of his opinion concerning separate Churches, Non-scribers will say was not sin; yet the sin of this so dog­ged his Conscience, that he laid violent hands on himself; and I should think Conscience then to be in its greatest agony, when it drives to desperation and self-murther. The terrors that fall upon an erroneus Conscience, for sinning against that error, which it is consciencious in, is no Argument to prove that what­soever is contrary to that error, is either sin or falshood.

Lastly, they address themselves to their own dear Disciples, to whom they give Councel that might be called good, if they had not before taught them to call evil good, and good evil. Constan­cy in ignorance and error is so farre from being commendable, that it is a high aggravation of sin where it is wilful. It is the cause, not [Page 61] the suffering that makes a Martyr. They that suffer as enemies to Authority, are so far from being followers of what is good, that they suffer as evil doers. But the Epiphonema of their Book, which is also the motive they use to build up their Miriones in their ob­stinacy, is most ridiculous, Be true (say they) to just principles (that is the Non-scribers and Dr. Ferne's) and powers (that is the declared King of Scots and Pattentee-Lords) and ye shall not be without a King and Lord in Heaven. With such sweet allusions do Non-scribers feed their Sheep, and truly, were they not some­thing like the Thistle-eating beast that made the man smile who never laugh't before, their lips would not endure such lettuces. Rom. 13.2.6. I had rather believe Paul then all the Non-scribers in England, and he tells me, that he that submits not to present possessing powers, that attend on the business of ruling, receives to himself damnati­on; and I must make bold to tell Non-scribers and their misled followers, that if ever they come to Heaven, they shall find no such Kings there as Non-scribers patronize. Tophet was of old prepared for such, and Hell opens its mouth upon them, Isa. 30.33. Isa. 14.9. 1 Cor. 1.26.27. as upon the Babylonian Monarch that had slain his people, and very few of their kind of Lords will be there. Not many Noble are called; but God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things that are mighty: Unto which God I humbly bow my knees, beseeching him who causeth light to shine out of darkness, to open the eyes of Non-scribers, and the seduced by them, that they together with us, may under the present Authority, live a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. 1 Tim. 2.2. And for our Nation I pray, that it may long flourish under that Government, which God established among his own people, when he would have them best governed, that it may be thank­ful for its great deliverance, Zach. 2.5.10. and walk worthy of them, that God may delight to dwell in it, be a wall of fire round about it, and the glory in the midst of it; even so, Amen.

FINIS.

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Text Creation Partnership. Searching, reading, printing, or downloading EEBO-TCP texts is reserved for the authorized users of these project partner institutions. Permission must be granted for subsequent distribution, in print or electronically, of this EEBO-TCP Phase II text, in whole or in part.