never either the profession or the practice of that church, as is clear by what is said, sect. 1. It will be a fitter place to speak to this when the ecclesiastic part of the oath is spoken to, which shall be done, sect. 12.

SECTION XI.

THE FORMER PURPOSE FURTHER PROSECUTED, AND THE LAWFULNESS OF SCOTLAND'S DEFENSIVE WAR DEMONSTRATED.

There are other two particulars (or rather one, for they are much to one purpose) which virtually would have been condemned by the taking of this oath thus explained: As to its civil part, namely, Scotland's rising in arms, in their own defence, against the king's armies of Papists and malignants, and their seizing on the castles which, within their own bosom, were threatening their ruin when garrisoned with adversaries. These must now be spoken to; and so,

Ninthly, There is no ground to condemn that "defensive war," though much hath been said by court parasites, and others who were ambitious of gain and preferment, to exaggerate and aggravate that supposed crime, and thereby to make them and their cause odious to all the world; yet rational and indifferent persons will, after serious pondering of a few particulars, forbear to pass any rash sentence. Much hath been already said in the defence of that business by the author of Lex Rex, and more than ever could or will be answered; and therefore that book behoved to be answered by a fiery fagot, and by Mr Prynne's Sovereign Power of Parliaments, &c., a book published by authority of parliament, and never answered to this day; and therefore there will not be a necessity of insisting much on it here, only a short hint at some particulars will suffice :

1. In point of conscience it will be hard to prove that the power of war resideth only in the king, and that he only beareth the sword: for, 1. Rom. xiii., the sword is given to all magistrates; for the Apostle there speaketh of "higher powers" indefinitely, in the plural number, without specifying any kind; and it is certain Rome had not two or more kings at once. And if the Apostle had intended only Nero, he would have designed him in the singular number.

66

He speaketh of powers that are "of God," and "are ordained of God;" and this agreeth to inferior magistrates, who are God's deputies, and judge for him as well as others: 2 Chron. xix. 6, 7; Deut. i. 16; Num. xi. 16, 17. He speaketh of "rulers," and this name agreeth to inferior magistrates, as may be seen, Exod. xviii. 21, 22, 25, 26; xvi. 22; xxxiv. 31; 2 Kings x. 1; 1 Chron. xii. 14; xxvi. 32. He speaketh of such as must not be resisted, but subjected unto; and Peter showeth who these are, 1 Pet. ii. 13, 14. even "governors" under the king, as well as the king himself. He speaketh of such as are "God's ministers," which is a general word comprehending all civil governors. He speaketh of all such "to whom tribute," custom, honour, or fear "is due," and so he must take in all magistrates, otherwise this text should not concern commonwealths, which are ruled without a king. He speaketh of such as are revengers" by office, "to execute wrath on them that do evil;" and thus are "a terror to evil-doers, and a praise to them that do well;" and this agreeth to all magistrates; and therefore this place cannot be understood as speaking of any single person, or of Nero, concerning whom it is a great question among lawyers, if, at this time, he had the highest sovereign power in the Roman state, as learned Prynne showeth in his Sovereign Power of Parliaments, &c., part 3, p. 109-12. 2. Inferior judges do judge for the Lord, and are deputed of him, and therefore they are endued with power from him for that effect, 2 Chron. xix. 6, 7; Deut. i. 17. 3. Inferior judges are commanded to rule well, and they are threatened and rebuked for maladministration. See Jer. v. 1; Isa. i. 17, 21; v. 7; x. 2; lix. 14; Jer. xxii. 3; Ezek. xviii. 8; Amos v. 7; Mic. iii. 9; Lev. xix. 15; Deut. xvii. 11; Exod. xxxii. 2. Now, would God command those inferior magistrates to relieve the oppressed, to judge the fatherless, to plead for the widow, if they had not the power of the sword for this effect; or would he challenge them for neglecting this duty if they had not been empowered by him for that effect? Doubtless not. So, then, if inferior magistrates be endued with power of the sword, they ought to defend the fatherless, the widow, and the oppressed subjects; by the help of the sword they ought to rescue them from the hands of their oppressors. And, therefore, when popish malig

nant enemies rise up in arms, and seek to destroy the land, man, wife and child, the inferior magistrates, much more the parliament, may lawfully draw the sword which God had given them for the relief of the innocent, and defence of the country, their lives, lands, goods, religion, and all that is dear to them, against malicious and open

enemies.

2. Buchanan, a man well acquainted with the laws and constitutions of Scotland, in his book, De Jure Regni apud Scotos, saith, that the kings of Scotland had no power of peace or war without the parliament's consent so that a war raised by the parliament against the common enemy, in defence of the king's honour, the safety of the people, and the purity of religion, cannot be condemned as unjust and illegal.

3. The renowned historian, Buchanan, showeth also, that the kings of Scotland have been oftentimes resisted by arms, which a few instances will evidence: When Durstus, the eleventh king, banished all his father's friends, and became loose and dissolute, he was pursued by the nobles, till he was forced to profess his repentance, and promise amendment; and afterward, when he had cut off many of his nobles by treachery, the rest did rise up in arms against him, and kill him in battle. So they rose in arms against Gillus for his wickedness, and against Evenus III., who was a most vile and wicked man. So, with one consent, they arose against Dardanus, and slew his wicked servants, who had been instruments of much evil: they routed his forces and took himself prisoner. When Mogaldus grew odious, by reason of his vices, they rose up in arms against him. So did they levy forces against Athircus: when Romachus had become cruel, and had put many to death, they rose in arms against him when Ferchard I. turned tyrant, he was summoned before a parliament, and when he refused to come, they levied forces against him, and pursued him, they stormed his castle, in which he thought to shelter himself, and at length he was taken prisoner. So did they purpose to rise in arms against Ferchard II., if they had not been diverted. Likewise when King James III. had been seduced by his evil courtiers, and had plotted the murder of the nobles, they raised an army against him, and at length killed him. So did the nobles take up arms against Bothwell and the queen, and pursued her

:

until she rendered herself prisoner. The nobles wrote unto the queen-regent, 1560, for removing of the French forces, and did add (as Buchanan saith, lib. 17), "Which terms, if they be rejected, we take God and men to witness, that we take arms from no innate malice or hatred, but, sore against our wills, are forced to assay the last remedy, lest we should expose ourselves, our fortunes, and our posterity, to the worst of calamities." Hence it was clear that it was the common practice of the parliaments of Scotland (and lex currit cum praxi) to rise in arms against their kings when they turned tyrants; and, therefore, the parliament's late taking up of arms in their own sinless self-defence, can nowise be condemned. Let court-sycophants speak what they please to make that business odious, they both bewray their malice and ignorance of the fundamental constitution of that kingdom.

par

4. Though, for all that is said, the liament's interest in war should be questioned, yet their late defensive war may be justified upon clear and undeniable grounds; for there is no such connection betwixt these two, but they are rather two distinct questions natural, sinless self-defence, may belong to such as have not properly, in strict law, the power of war.

5. The practice of other protestant princes and magistrates showeth that their practice was not so odd nor odious as men (who have taught their tongues to speak lies) would make the world believe it was; for Sleidan, lib. 8, 21, 22; and Bilson, out of him, in his Difference, &c., part 3, p. 274, saith, that the German princes levied war against the emperor, namely, the Duke of Saxony, the Landgrave of Hesse, and the magistrates of Magdeburg, together with other princes and cities, joining in the war, who, having had the advice and resolution of lawyers, after mature deliberation, did conclude, "That the laws of the empire permitted resistance of the emperor in some cases: That the times were then so dangerous that the very force of conscience, and necessity, did lead them to arms, and to make a league to defend themselves, though Cæsar, or any in his name, would make war against them; and that, if the emperor had kept his bonds and covenants, they would have done their duty; but, because he made the first breach, the fault was his; for since he attempteth to root out religion, and subvert our liberties, he giveth us cause enough to resist him

L

with a good conscience. The matter, standing as it doth, we may (say they) resist, as may be showed both by sacred and profane histories. Unjust violence is not God's ordinance; neither are we bound to him by any other reason than if he kept the conditions on which he was created emperor. By the laws themselves it is provided that the superior magistrate shall not infringe the right of the inferior, and if the superior magistrate exceed the limits of his power, and command that which is wicked, not only we need not obey him, but, if he offer force, we may resist him." Upon these grounds did those worthies resolve to defend themselves by armies. Next they have the example and precedent of the Protestants in France, who, in the reign of Francis II., 1559, being oppressed with the Guisian faction, assembled themselves, and consulted lawyers and divines concerning resisting of the king in that case; and it was resolved, "That they might lawfully oppose themselves against the government, which the house of Guise had usurped, and, when needful, take arms to repulse their violence : If the princes, who in this case are born magistrates, or some one of them would undertake it, being ordered by the states of the realm, or by the sounder part thereof." See General History of France, p. 682, 683. So, 1614, the prince of Conde, with other princes, peers, dukes, noblemen, and officers of the crown, convening at Meziers, wrote to the queen, complaining of divers grievances and wrongs, and sought remedy and redress, by the assembly of the three estates; protesting that they desired nothing but peace and the good of the realm, and that they would attempt nothing to the contrary, unless, by the rash resolution of their enemies (who covered themselves with the cloak of state, under the queen-regent's authority), they should be provoked to repel the injuries done unto the king and state, by a natural, just, and necessary defence. See the Continuation of the Life of Louis XIII., p. 59, &c. So in the reign of Charles IX., when all acts of pacification were broken, after many fruitless petitions, and vain promises, they take up arms, whereupon a bloody civil war ensued; and when this king, contrary to his oath, 1572, caused that massacre at Paris, the Protestants in Languedoc, Rochelle, and other parts, took up arms in their own defence. So when Henry III. came to the

crown, the Protestants saw a necessity of standing to their defence, and being assaulted, they manfully defended themselves; and again, when the peace which was now concluded was broken by the instigation of the Catholic leaguers, the king of Navarre, the prince of Conde, the marshall of Montmorency, and others, resolved to defend themselves, whereupon followed a sixth civil war, which ended in a new peace, 1580. So, in the reign of Louis, his son, when the queenmother, who was then regent, would give no redress unto the Protestants' just grievances, the prince of Conde, and divers others, raised forces in their own defence, and the duke of Rhoan, and other Protestants, did join with them. A peace was concluded, 1616; but the very next year the prince of Conde is seized upon, whereupon the princes, meeting at Soissons, resolved to defend themselves by war, which continued 1621, 1622. At last a peace was concluded, but it lasted not long, by Cardinal Richelieu's means. 3. They have, in the third place, the practice of the Netherlands (mentioned in the General History of the Netherlands, lib. 9, p. 369, &c.), who, being oppressed in bodies and states, by the Duke of Alva and the Spaniards' tyranny, and their consciences tyrannised over by the Spanish Inquisition, introduced of purpose to extirpate religion, after serious deliberation and consultation with lawyers, divines, and learned men of all sorts, did unanimously conclude to enter into a solemn covenant to defend religion, lives, and liberties, by force of arms; and, 1572, the prince of Orange and his confederates published a protestation, showing the grounds of their rising up in arms, namely, "For zeal to the country, for the glory of God, because of the inhumanities and oppressions, and more than barbarous and insupportable tyranny and encroachments upon their privileges, liberties, and freedom." 4. They have the practice of the Waldenses in Piedmont, 1558, and 1561, who, being persecuted by the lords of Trinity, and other popish sovereigns, assembled solemnly together to consult how they might prevent danger; and, after long prayer and calling upon God, they concluded to enter into a solemn mutual covenant for detence of themselves and their religion, and did so with success, obtaining many notable victories against their persecutors: see Fox's Acts and Mon., vol. ii., p. 208, 209. So, Nov. 11, 1571, there is a league made

So,

for mutual assistance of each other in times of persecution, a copy whereof is to be seen in Mr Moreland's History of Piedmont, p. 252, 253. 5. They have the practice of the people of Arragon (mentioned by Blanca in his Comment., p. 661, 652), anno 1286, in the days of Alphonso III., who, when there fell out a contest betwixt him and the parliament, through the evil counsel of his courtiers, resolved to associate themselves together and to raise forces, it being lawful, for the common cause of liberty, to contend not only with words but with arms, and their Suprarbiense Forum, or Justitia Aragonice, which was erected of purpose to withstand the tyranny of kings, had power to resist their king with force of arms. 1283, they tell Pedro III., their king, that if he would not contain himself within the limits of the laws they would pursue him by arms. 6. They have the practice of other Spaniards, as may be seen in the General History of Spain, lib. 13-15, who rose in arms several times against Pedro I., king of Castile. 7. They have the practice of the Hungarians, 1608, in the days of Matthias, for, when he denied free exercise of religion unto the Protestants of Austria, they took up arms in their own defence, and, assembling at Horne, sent a protestation unto the estates of Hungary, requiring assistance, conform to the offensive and defensive league. See Grimstone's Imp. Hist., p. 730, &c. 8. They have the practice of the Polonians, who oftentimes levied war against their kings, as Grimstone, in his Imp. Hist., and Chytræus, in Chron. Sax., show. 9. They have the practice of the Danes' rising in arms against Christian II., who, 1524, was solemnly deposed, as may be seen in Chytræus, Chron. Sax., lib. 10. 10. They have the practice of the Swedes' rising up in arms against Christian I., for breach of his covenant made at his coronation this was about the year 1499. See Chythræus, ubi supra. 11. They have the practice of the Helvetians: first, three of their cantons, namely, the Suitians, Urians, and Underwaldians, 1260, levied war against their oppressing nobles, and did prosecute the same twelve years; and, 1308, they join in covenant to defend themselves against the house of Austria, and defended themselves most resolutely against the huge armies of their adversaries, and upon the 16th of November 1315, obtained a great victory;

and that same year they renewed their covenant at Brunn; in which covenant the other ten cantons, at several times thereafter, being oppressed by their nobles, did join, and at length, by war, brought themselves into that state of liberty in which they are at this day. See for all this Simlerus, de Repub. Helvet. 12. And, lastly, they have the practice of the Bohemians, who, in the days of Wenceslaus and Sigismund, waged great wars, under the conduct of valiant Zisca. See Fox's Acts and Monuments, vol. i. And thereafter, in the days of Ferdinand, they resolved to fight courageously against all their enemies, how great soever they were. But in case some should be so bold as to condemn all those acts as treacherous and rebellious, let it be considered,

6. That some of those same practices are allowed and approved even by the kings of Britain; for King James, in his answer to Cardinal Perron, justifieth the Protestants of France's taking up arms in their own defence. Memorable is that speech which King James had in the parliament house, 1609: "A king (saith he), governing in a settled kingdom, ceaseth to be a king, and degenerateth into a tyrant, so soon as he leaveth to rule by his laws; much more when he beginneth to invade his subjects' persons, rights, and liberties; to set up an arbitrary power, impose unlawful taxes, raise forces, and make war upon his subjects, whom he should protect and rule in peace; to pillage, plunder, waste, and spoil his kingdom; imprison, murder, and destroy his people, in a hostile manner to captivate them to his pleasure." This is a sentence well worthy to come out of a king's mouth, and to be engraven upon the thrones of kings and princes; and doth more than abundantly justify Scotland in their late defensive war. Moreover, Queen Elizabeth and King James, both by the public advice and consent of their realms, did give public aid and assistance unto the Protestants of France against their king, and to the Netherlands against the king of Spain, and to the Protestants in Germany and Bohemia against the emperor, and entered into solemn leagues and covenants with them. If they had been traitors and rebels, and that action of defence utterly unlawful, would those princes have joined with them in this manner? Who can think this? So did King Charles I. openly