Anglia Liberata, OR, THE RIGHTS Of the People of ENGLAND, MAINTAINED AGAINST the Pretences of the SCOTISH King, As they are set forth in an ANSWER TO THE LORDS AMBASSADORS PROPOSITIONS of ENGLAND. Which ANSWER was delivered into the Great Assembly of the United Provinces at the Hague, by one MACDONNEL, who entitles himself Resident for his Majesty, etc. June 28/18 1651: And is here published according to the Dutch Copy. WHERETO IS ADDED A TRANSLATION OF CERTAIN Animadversions upon the Answer of Macdonnel.  
Written by an ingenious Dutchman. AS ALSO AN ADDITIONAL REPLY To all the pretended Arguments, Insinuations and Slanders, set forth in the said SCOTISH ANSWER Written a while since by a private Pen, and now presented to the PUBLIC.  
London, Printed by T. Newcomb for Richard Lowns, at the White Lion in Paul's Churchyard near the West end, 1651.   

The Publisher to the READER.  
THou hast here first, the Answer of Macdonnel (whom in the Dutch they call Macdowel) to the Propositions of our English Ambassadors, as it was delivered by him, in the Great Assembly of the United Provinces; which having been published beyond Sea in Dutch, and translated since into an English Print, is here presented to a more public view, with a few Correctives added thereunto to prevent the poison. And therefore in the second place, thou hast also a Transcript of certain ANIMADVERSIONS upon Macdonnel's Answer, written by an honest Dutchman in his own Language, and now translated into English.  
Those ANIMADVERSIONS are indeed very pithy, pertinent, and ingenious; but because they are only the Hints of Things, and not Discourses so drawn at full, as to convince such as are not easily persuaded of the Truth of matters in Controversy; therefore it was thought fit in the third place, to bring up the Rear with an Additional Reply; partly to discuss the main points more fully; and partly, to touch upon many other particulars of Macdonnels Answer, wholly neglected by the Dutch Animadvertor.  
The truth is, these Papers have lain by for some time, by reason of the late disturbances, they having been all ready prepared for the Press before, except the latter part of the fourth Chapter of the Additional Reply, which was licked up, upon the close of this last grand determination of Affairs at Worcester. Perhaps, some expressions therein touching the Power of the Sword, at the first sight, may not please all; but that all may be pleased, let them know, the Rights of the people are no way wronged, as long as the Sword is asserted, and acknowledged to be in the hands of the Parliament; who by the Law of the Sword have so nobly over-turned the Law of the Prerogative, and recovered the good old Laws, Liberties, and Privileges of the people. And whereas it is here endeavoured to prove our English Relation to the old Treaties made without Neighbours of Holland; know the intent is not in any wise to court that Nation to maintain Amity, but only to refel the futility of those Arguments of the Royal Party, who pretend to prove, that by virtue of those Treaties, the Dutch are tied still to the late King's Family, as if they stood radicated in full force, in the person of the present young Pretender.  
If there be any fault then in the Author of the Additionall Reply, it is only his presumption, that a private Pen should meddle with matters of a public Import: But the henest Dutch man having shown him the way, he could not choose but follow him, and lay hold upon this opportunity, throughly to canvasse the princpall Points, Parts, and Pretences, that pass up and down by Tradition, to support the cause and interest of the Common Enemy.  
Perhaps they may at present seem as dead to some, having been Thunder struck by the late fatal blow at Worcester, and therefore this Piece by way of Reply, may be supposed now also to be of the less use and consideration. But let such consider, that though the Cause, and many of its grand Abettors be laid flat, yet as long as so many Pretenders of the Family are in being, they will be always upon every opportunity, reviving and setting on foot the same pretences; so that if we subdue these by Reason, as well as their Persons and Partisans by Force, they will be the less able to drive on future designs, and draw Parties, either here or abroad, to the disquiet of England.   

AN ANSWER TO THE PROPOSITIONS MADE BY THE ENGLISH AMBASSADORS (as they style themselves) the 30/20 of March, In the great Assembly of the High and Mighty Lords, the State's General of the United Provinces.  
AS ALSO, To their Memorials of the 27/17 of April, and 20/10 of May 1651. respectively.  
And likewise, To the 36. Articles of the desired Treaty.  
As it was delivered by the Honourable Sir William Macdowel Knight, Resident for his Majesty of Great Britain, after his return to Holland, in the said Great Assembly, June 28/18 1651.  Prov. 24. verse 21, 22. 
My Son, fear thou the Lord and the King, and meddle not with them that are given to change.  
For their calamity shall rise suddenly, and who knoweth the ruin of them?  
HAGH, Printed by Samuel Brown, English Bookseller, 1651.   

AN ANSWER TO the Propositions.  
THe said pretended Ambassadors have offered, and withal required a strict Confederacy & Holy League (as they term it) betwixt the Commonwealth of England, and the United Provinces, alleging to that end, 

I. The ancient and successive Contracts, and mutual Friendship betwixt both.  
II. The advancement of Trade and Traffic.  
III. A Conformity in the Reformation of Religion.  
iv The like Success and Blessings upon both.  
V An answerable change in the condition of both States; as likewise, in the restored Liberty of the People. Hinc inde.    
Which specious motives, and inducements, viewed aright, and laid in a just balance, will appear (by their favours) to have no warrantable ground: For the clearing of which, the High and Mighty States are desired to look back, and consider:  
I: That formerly, all Contracts, have been made, betwixt the successive Kings of England, their lawful Heirs, and the High and Mighty State General, and not with England, as is alleged: Not to look further back, the Sovereignty of these Countries was offered to Queen Elizabeth, of happy memory, in the year 1585., which she in wisdom thought fit to decline; but, withal, assisted the States, with 5000. Foot, and 1000 Horse, as likewise advanced to their Lordships before the year 1596 in the space of eleven years, eleven hundred thousand pounds Sterling, according to the calculation of her Majesty's Councillors, and high Treasurer for the time.  
Her Royal Successors, James and Charles, of Immortal memory, in the years 1608, 1614, 1635, respectively, have not only assisted these States in their great straits, in a very considerable way, but also engaged with their Lordships, offensiuè and defensiuè, and that without the least communication had with the people of England concerning it. And, if a ratification of such an alliance, should be concluded with a factious Commonalty here, and that they might at pleasure disturb the Republic, and turn matters upside down, what an Anarchy and woeful confusion would ensue, as now alas, we see too plainly follows in England? Truly, if that people had been so inclined, and governed, as they now are, (by those who Regni causa have violated the rights; and to make purchase of the Lords Vineyards, have murdered him, and oppose with their utmost power and malice, the enthronement of his lawful Heir their undoubted Sovereign) the Low Countries should not have obtained such real friendship and advantage from them.  
Besides that, the now prevailing Party is not the hundreth part of the people in England, in comparison of those, both of the Clergy, Nobility, Gentry, and Commons, who cordially adhere to the King's just interest, and passionately groan to be delivered from the continued oppressions of those cruel Taskmasters, whose little finger lies heavier upon them, than all their Kings whole loins:  
And an eminent Member of the late House of Commons, (formerly a sufferer) in his Memento affirms, that there is in the three Kingdoms, ten thousand to one, who firmly and affectionately cleave to his Majesty.  
In Kingdoms and Republics (as Politicians speak) it is the very same people now, as those that lived an hundred years ago; as likewise that it is the same ship, although all the planks be renewed; but if the Keel be destroyed, and the form of Government and Fundamental Laws be utterly abolished, non idem populus, nec eadem navis, it is not the same people, nor the same ship.  
Moreover, by all proofs it is sufficiently known, that the Predecessors of the now prevailing Party in England, were then so mean and inconsiderable among the people, that they were thought utterly uncapable of having the least hand in the former favours shown to these States.  
II. Trade and Traffic (which they call (the Common interest of a State) are Juris Gentium, common to all Nations; consequently, not to be carried on by Monopolies, and damage of a third party especially the eldest, and sometime the most considerable ally of this Estate. Amicitias (faith Polybius) it a institui par est, ne qua vetustior amicitia, & societas violetur.  
It is remarked by most of the Authors of the Netherlands History, that their Lordship's Predecessors upon a time, being more moved by the Impositions of the Duke of Alva, of the 10. and 100 penny respectiuè, then for the violence offered to Religion, (and therefore compared to the Gargasens, who proffered their swine before their Saviour) were the more severely punished by God.  
And shall the High and Mighty States now hazard their religious and high esteem in the savour of those, who in regard of Commerce, enlarging of their limits and usurped power, are big with such monstrous mysteries: and of whom it was said long before their troubles.  
Gens tacit is praegnaus arcanis ardua tentans.  
Who derive their power and authority merely from themselves, as formerly hath been said, in the dominion of the Chaldeans over the jews, and of Cinna and Carbo amongst the Romans, who in the time of Sylla made themselves Consuls without any Court election; Violenta imperia (saith one to Caesar) sunt magis acerba quam diuturna. The rather because no Nation under the Sun is so subject to a change as England, even while they lived under their lawful Sovereigns. The Earl of Warwick (called the Titular King) in eleven days, Edward the fourth in twenty, Henry the seventh in one day, (as a Caesar veni, vidi, vici) brought the English successively to their obedience.  
Commerce and Traffic are plausible pretences, but often accompanied with great jealousies, especially betwixt neighbouring Republics; the which like Twins struggling for the primogeniture, are in a continual emulation for profit and pre-eminence. And therefore compared to an Alluvie, where the increase of one is the decrease of the other. Insomuch, that grave and judicious Statesmen have judged it would he more safe, and profitable to these States, that England continued a Monarchy, then to be tumbled into a Commonwealth, confirmed by a Prognostication of a person of credit with them, living at London, given out the 16 of October last, alleging and applying with much confidence, against the United Provinces, jerem. 51. vers. 13.  
III. Concerning the pretended conformity in Religion in the third place, which, under the blessed and glorious Government of Kings, as a Palladium and Lamp, did outshine all other Nations, is alas, now become a Pandora, out of which, tanquam ex equo Trojano, do issue so many monstrous Sects, Heresies and Blasphemies, and is consequently so deformed, (as being utterly destitute of Discipline, and differing in most points of Doctrine) that it is nothing like the Religion here professed, nor indeed Religion itself.  
A good Religion, as an upright and lively faith, issues forth into good Works; insomuch that in the Primitive Church, the Christians were discerned from the Infidels only by their holy life, according to the proverb, Christiani non sunt Cassiani; but alas, how many not only Cassii, but also Albii, and Nigri, are now adays to be seen, witness, besides the Treaties entitled; Defensio pro Carolo Rege, Vindiciae pro capite Regis Angliae, Elenchus motuum, Master. Prinns Memento, Theatrum Tragicum, Vox Veritatis, and others, two Declarations also of the 18. of january, 1648. (long before that lamentable Catastrophe) by divers Preachers and learned Divines, in and about London, subscribed by 126 of them, mourning over, and complaining of horrible and scandalous abuses; as in the Church, so in the Civil, or rather Military Government, and strongly refuting their flattering of themselves in their continued success, which may next be considered of.  
iv For as Solomon saith, That there be just men, to whom it happeneth, sometime, according to the work of the wicked: So again, there be wicked men, to whom it happeneth according the work of the righteous.  
Successes often are a punishment, as sometimes given for a blessing, where only those are to be valued, whose principal aim appears to be, the true advancement of Gods revealed will in his word; which, as it strictly commandeth obedience to Kings, and those in authority under them, so it doth severely punish sedition and rebellion against them, not sparing the curse of condemnation to those, who comply with, and adhere unto them. Neither hath the great Turk come far short of (that undoubted blessing) good success, the now prevailing party justify their cause, and measure its righteousness by, though they may seem to disavow him.  
Finally, the resemblance made from the manner of the recovered liberty of both States (to use the expression of a great personage) is not more different than Mike and Ink, both in regard of the ancient condition of the people on both sides, and the way of attaining to it.  
The Law Country men, (especially the Batavi) have been reputed by all ancient Writers, for a free people, neither subject to the Romans, (whom they did acknowledge only Civilli, as Tacitus saith) nor to any Directors, Counts and Governors, which were constituted by themselves.  
The English have more than a thousand years been governed by Kings, all sprung from the same Royal Stock, to whom they have successively sworn Obedience and Loyalty.  
The King of Spain, after a war of almost eighty years, hath in two solemn Treaties (the one before the twelve year's Truce, and the other in the late concluded peace) acknowledged the United Provinces to be a Free State, and that privative. Whereupon his Catholic Majesty for himself and his Successors, hath disclaimed all Pretences of Sovereignty here.  
Whereas Charles the first, that blessed Martyr (whose innocent blood (like that of Abel's, cries loud to the highest Heaven for vengeance against those who now sit upon his Throne) not only was, but was ever by them acknowledged for their lawful Sovereign, instead of disclaiming his Royalty over them, (as must be if the resemblance stand complete) was both devested of his power, deprived of his life, and his Princely Successor (so far as in them lieth) kept back and disenabled from the exercise of his undeniable power over them, whereof let them find an absolute parallel from the Creation until now.  
In Israel King Ahab did tyrannize, and (as a man sold unto sin) above others provoked Gods wrath against him. In Rome there was Nero, more like a Monster then a Man. Amongst the Christians, Christiernus in Denmark, Wencelaus in Bohemia, (who was likewise Emperor) behaved themselves so wickedly, that it was said of them, that they had east off humane nature; Not much unlike to them was Richard the third, called the Tyrant of England, yet none of all these was ever condemned to die by the sentence of their subjects: Insomuch that it is observed, that the Israelites after they had deserted their King Rehoboam (although an oppressor) never enjoyed a happy hour, but were infested with continual wars, both civil and foreign, till at last they were utterly destroyed, and carried captives into Babylon.  
Of Nero it was said, primum damnati Principis exemplum, I add postremum, non mactati tamen, as in this case. The Confederate Provinces were first forced in their Religion, their persons and goods seized, and 100000. of them killed; The prevailing party in England, (after those insolent and high affronts done to his Majesty, ere his constrained removal from his Court at Whitehall,) took up Arms, gave out Commissions, levied men, according to his Majesty's last true and undeniable words) and seized upon the Regalia, before He once put himself into a posture of defence.  
In the Low Countries their liberty was More Majorum, fully restored to them without prejudice to any man.  
In England Religion and Liberty are shamefully trampled under foot, and the House of Commons so dismembered, and its privileges violated, that the eighth part of ten, were beyond all parallel cast out, as the Declaration and Protestation of the secluded members, Feb. 13. 1648. doth testify.  
The proceed of the High and Mighty States, are approved and justified by all the World; on the contrary, those of the English condemned and abhorred, and by themselves confessed as irregular and unwarranntable; a most pregnant proof and probatio probata, of their wrong, as is contained in the said Declaration of the Ministers.  
The which premises the High and Mighty States being pleased to take into serious consideration, according to their accustomed wisdom and justice, and calling to mind those divers Treaties betwixt the King's Royal Predecessors, and their Lordships, (in his Majesty's person yet firmly standing.) And seeing likewise divers of their Lordships resolved for a punctual observation of a neutrality, since the year 1642. betwixt the late King, his Majesty's Father of blessed memory, and his Parliament, the which by the partial confederacy with the one party, now laboured for, will in all appearance be violated and infringed.  
Therefore their Lordships are earnestly entreated not to hearken to the said Propositions, as being prejudicial to the King my gracious Master's interests, and dangerous to this State; likewise that the acknowledging them for a free Republic, (which possibly the condition of the times, and benefit of Trade, hath occasioned,) be not drawn into a further consequence, much less an occasion given thereby, (forgetting josephs' sufferings,) that the afflicted be yet more afflicted, their Liberty retarded, and their calamity lengthened.  
His Majesty's affairs (God be praised) are yet in a very good and hopeful condition, fare better than some of his Royal Predecessors, who have notwithstanding run through all difficulties, and became considerable to their friends, as formidable to their enemies.  
King Robert the Bruce, about three hundred years ago, being likewise by the Rebellion of his subjects, and the disloyalty of the Balliol and Cumming, and their adherents, fiercely assailed by King Edward of England, who at once was possessed, of most of the Towns, and strengths in Scotland, kept a Parliament in Saint Andrews, took his Queen prisoner, killed four of his brethren, amongst whom were those duo fulmina belli, defaced or removed all the Monuments, and Registers of that Kingdom, was constrained with one or two servants to hid himself among the Hills; yet notwithstanding all this, in a short time after, recovered his whole Kingdom was Crowned with Honour, and Glory, and forced his insolent Enemy in confusion to fly from Sterling to Dumbarr, and thence in a Fisherboat, (Xerxes like) escaped narrowly with his life. I say Sterling, Invictum, & fatale Scotorum propugnaculum: Of which 'tis said: Hìc latium remorata est Scotia cursum.  
His Majesty's Royal Grand Father, Henry the fourth, King of France and Navarre, (yet of fresh memory) was in a lower condition, and had less power to resist those of the League and the powerful King of Spain; yet at last became victorious, in the overthrow of his enemies, to the great advantage, and very considerable succour of the Netherlands.  
The distressed condition of the Predecessors of the High and Mighty State's General, whom after so many changes the Almighty God hath (to the admiration of the whole World) brought into a safe Haven, (however Sirius a Spanish Writer jesting with those of Holland and their confederates, did say, What can the Hollanders do against the King of Spain? as, now, some scoffingly ask, how can the Scots stand against the powerful English?) Is an eminent, and visible example, that it is all one, with the Lord, to help with few or with many, and that when all strength, and humane hopes do fail, he will arise Gloriously, for the deliverance of the righteous, crowning them in the end, with honour and good success.  
I. Shall we then look upon the present successes, and prosperity of that party, as alone unchangeable, for the which such strange grounds are by them pretended, as are not where found, being so Diametrically opposite, according to the Declaration of the said Divines, in, and about London. TO 

I. Gods holy word.  
II. The instinct of nature.  
III. Natural reason.  
iv The Laws of all Nations.  
V The constitutions particularly of the Kingdom of England (who above all other people most obsequiously, and affectionately regard and reverence their Kings) as in those maxims of their Law. Rex non moritur, Rex nulli facit injuriam, etc.  
VI The Judgement of all Casuists.  
VII. Their Oaths of Fealty, Supremacy, and Allegiance, repeated particularly at the admission of every Member into the House of Commons, their Protestation, their Covenant, their Solemn League and Covenant, and an hundred Declarations (besides the Pulique Faith of the Kingdom of England, solemnly given to the Commissioners of the Kingdom of Scotland, upon their receiving his Majesty at Newcastle) in all which, they professed to the world, that they would maintain and preserve, with their lives, and Estates, the King's Person, Honour, Rights, and Royal Posterity.    
II. Or, shall we rest satisfied in the Sophistry of those Sectaries? who out of Christ's answer to the subtle question of the Herodians and Pharisees, (if it were lawful to give tribute to Cesar,) answered, ostendite mihi numisma, cujus habet imaginem? infer, that fide implicitâ, the party now in England, is to be acknowledged, without any further enquiry, or examination, since our Saviour's answer speaks nothing for their advantage. But on the contrary, his commanding Tribute to be given to Cesar (whom the Jews formerly acknowledged to be their King) confirmeth, and establisheth lawful power, and consequently condemneth sedition and rebellion; else David should have submitted unto, and acquiessed in the usurped power of Absolom, who was possessed of all the land, even unto jordan, and carried away all Israel after him, and Solomon in the power of Adonijah, jehoiada in Athalia's, and the Maccabees in the power of Antiochus Epiphanes the grand enemy of the jews, yea the Estates of the United Provinces should have then obeyed the force of the Duke of Alva, who by the emblem of his Statue formerly set up in Antwerp, did signify that he had invested himself with the absolute power. It is well said, by one of the Ancients, Omnis potestas est à Deo; sed acquisitio potestatis, furto, raepina, incendio, aut perduellione, non est à Deo, sed ab hominum affectibus & Satanae malitiâ.  
III. Or, may we suffer ourselves to be abused by the examples and precedents, which the said Sectaries allege of the Kings, Edward the second, and Richard the second, who, by reason of their incapacity, were forced to resign their Crowns, the one to his son, the other to his Competitor King Henry the fourth, but neither of them to an inconsiderable, small remainder of an house of Commons, or the People. Only in a full Parliament both their resignations were confirmed, and neither executed, but were always afterwards honourably entertained; yea, one Roger Mortimer (which is worth the observing) the chief Author and actor in deposing of Edward the second, and Crowning his son Edward the third in his father's place, (according to which Precedent his Majesty, Charles the second, aught by these to have been Crowned) was by a Parliament four years after, together with his fellow-murtherers, condemned as a Traitor, and enemy to the King and Kingdom, because he killed the said deposed King in Berkley Castle.  
Besides, the now prevailing Party, by Solemn Protestations, did publish and declare to all the world, that they did not intent to follow those accursed Precedents, although they should suffer never so much by the King and his Party: Exact. Collect. p. 69.  
iv Should we not rather deeply apprehend, and with fear look upon those exemplary punishments inflicted upon perjury, and Covenant-breaking in Gods holy word, as may be seen (to omit others, in the person of Saul, who together with his posterity, as also the whole Kingdom of Israel, was so severely punished because he destroyed the Gibeonits', against the Covenant made with Joshua, above 200 years before, notwithstanding they procured the same deceitfully. As likewise in the History of England, and other Kingdoms, many pregnant examples to that purpose might be alleged; particularly that of William Thorpe, Chief Justice of the King's Bench in that Realm, who for taking a bribe of 80 pounds Sterling, was put to death, and all his goods confiscated to the King's use, in regard that in so doing he violated the Oath of a Judge as the words run, Quod Sacramentum Domini Regis, quod erga populum habuit custodiendum, fregit malitiose, falso & rebelliter. Parl. 23. Edw. 3d.  

An Answer to their Memorials ..  
THe Memorials I pass over, as monstrous, and which by inevitable consequence, not only tend to cut off all Treaties and alliances betwixt the King's Majesty and this State, and all commerce with his loyal and faithful Subjects, but likewise in some cases to the not suffering of them to dwell or reside in these parts.  
A demand which is against the band of common society amongst men, the Sovereignty of the united Provinces, and Liberty of the same, which have ever been a Sanctuary for honest men, and a receptacle of all Nations whatsoever: In a word such, quale victor victo dare, non socius socium rogare solet. The cruelty of Tiberius, Nero, Domitian, and others hath for the most part been confined within the walls of Rome, or the borders of Italy, without persecuting their opposers, in a strange land as an, omnibus umbra locis adero.   

Concerning the thirty six Articles of the Treaty.  
The thirty six Articles evidently bend, 

I. TO hinder his Majesties Just Right, and Restitution to his hereditary Crown, and Kingdom of England.  
II. To involve the High and Mighty State's General in a Labyrinth and great inconveniencies, who at present have no enemy.  
III. To encourage and strengthen the King's irreconcilable enemies, and Rebels, as the 4, 5, 6, and 31 Articles do import.  
iv Against the forementioned resolutions of the High and Mighty States, in the year 1642, concerning the keeping a Neutrality betwixt his Majesty's Father of blessed memory, and his Parliament of England, namely those of the 1 of November, and 30 of December 1642 and the 6 of November 1648.  
V Against a Declaration and Protestation of the Noble and Mighty States of Holland and West-Friesland, dated the 6 of November 1649 to the same purpose.  
VI Against all former Treaties, and Alliances betwixt his Majesty's Royal Predecessors and this State.    
As amongst others, that of the 14 of February 1593. (likewise consisting of 36 Articles) betwixt King Henry the 7 of England, his Heirs and Successors, made in his name, and by his Authority (as the words of the said Treaty do bear) and Philip Arch Duke of Austria, and Duke of Burgundy, which bind and oblige to this very day, divers of the United Provinces, and the chief Members and Towns thereof, to assist the said King Henry the 7 and his Heirs (which unquestionably pleadeth for my Master, Charles the second, he being the sixth from him in descent in linea recta) and to afford them all favour and friendly assistance, as well by Sea as by Land, and prohibiteth any Treaty and Alliance to be made with the Rebels, and the Enemies of one another.  
Whose undoubted right, according to God's sacred word, the Laws, and the Fundamental Constitutions of the Kingdom of England as, (Rex non moritur, etc.) is firmly radicated in his Majesty's Person, however he by violence be kept from it.  Non unquam perdidit ordo Mutato sua Jura loco. 
In so much that the ancient Romans by the light of nature did refuse to enter into any Alliance with Nabis the Usurper of Lacedaemon, but continued the same with the Just and lawful King Pelopides. Amicitia & societas nobis nulla tecum est saith Tit: Quintius in the behalf of the Roman Empire, apud Livium lib. 34.) Sed cum Pelopide Rege Lacedaemoniorum justo & ligitimo facta est.  
Finally against the renewed Treaty in the year 1550. December 15. made at Bins in Henegow (called the Perpetual Treaty) betwixt the tutors of Mary Q of Scotland, in her minority, and Queen Mary of Hungary, Regent for Charles the fifth in the Low-countrieses, renewed again in solenni forma (word by word) at Edinburgh 1594. betwixt King James the sixth and the High and Mighty States, after the Baptism of the Late Prince Henry, his Majesty's son, celebrated at Sterling.  
In the which it is promised and agreed upon, inviolably to maintain and preserve mutual friendship one with another, for all ages to come, and as fare as in them lay, to prevent, and hinder any damage that may befall either of them, that they shall Traffic in safety and security, and likewise, that they shall assist each other with Ships, and all sort of Ammunition, as may be seen at length in the Treaty itself, inserted by Peter Borr in his 30 book.  
But how opposite this is to their 4, 5, and 31 Articles propounded to your Lordships, appeareth clearly out of the words there contained, where they not only deny to the King and his Subjects, privatiuè, all favour, friendship, and provision of War, but likewise endeavour to oblige your Lordships, De facto, to infest and make war upon them, as having now no other Enemies (as they themselves give out) but Scotland.  
But expecting better things of the High and Mighty States, and a Religious observation of all Treaties, Resolutions, Protestations, and Declarations; Your Lordships are entreated not to give ear to the said Propositions, and Memorials, as also that the said 36 Articles perishing in their birth, may not be taken into any further Consideration.  
The Lord will reward every one according to his works, and I wish that he may ever bless the High and Mighty States with his Fatherly Protection, and keep them from contracting any League and Alliance, which may be attended with Dishonour and Damage unto them.   
THE END.   

ANIMADVERSIONS UPON A CERTAIN SCOTTISH ANSWER, SET FORTH AGAINST The Propositions & Memorandums OF THE English Ambassadors, etc. SERVING For a right Information of the plainer Sort.  ROM. 13.1. 
Let every Soul be subject to the Higher Powers: For there is no Power but of GOD, and the powers which are, are ordained of GOD.  PROV. 24.21. 
Fear the King, [that is to say] All Magistrates.  
Written and printed first in Dutch by a Gentleman of Holland, and now translated into English.  
London, reprinted 1651.   

Animadversions Upon a certain Scottish Answer, put forth against the Propositions and Memorandums of the English Ambassadors, etc.  
THe Answerer hath this expression in the Title of his Answer, [By the English Ambassadors, as they style themselves] just as if no body else did acknowledge them for such. Such an untruth appearing presently in the Front, makes every one guess the House is alike furnished within. Not they themselves, but the K of Spain, the K. of Portugal, the State of Venice, the Duke of Florence, the Republic of Genua, do thus acknowledge them. And the Answerer himself knows very well, that the supreme power of this Place hath done the same.  
From the Text, Fear God and the King, the Answerer would fain infer, that they ought both to be feared in one and the same degree, taxing thereby this very State as much as the English, We must fear God more than men. The King is a man: the Scots themselves did understand it so, when as in the late troubles they persecuted their King by war, and at last delivered him up unto the English for money; as the said King himself professeth in the 23 Chapter of his printed Book of Meditations.  
In the beginning of the Discourse the Answerer alleges, That the ancient Contracts and Friendships were not made between England and this State, but between the Kings of England and this State. And wherefore saith he not, between the Kings of England and Spain respectively? but that he is convinced that State, that is to say, the Representatives of the Countries, and the People, are 
* A Dutch phrase.  the Bride for whom is danced, The King or Prince is for the people's sake, not the people for the King's sake.  
The King of Denmark said likewise in the beginning: He and his Predecessors had contracted with the Duke of Burgundy, with the King of Spain, not with the States; he knew no States, and denied any treaty with them. But his Majesty hath been better informed since, having of his own accord often desired a Treaty with these States, as other Kings and Potentates have done, who thereby do and must acknowledge, that a King or Prince doth and aught to do all in dealing, treating, or transacting, propopulo, pro salute populi: For the people, for the weal of the people (which is the supreme Law) not for himself. That the name of the King or Prince is used therein, no otherwise but Nomine procuratorio, vel tutorio, as a Trustee, or Guardian. So their Lordships the Sta●es understood it also, when on May 2. last past, they presented unto the English Ambassadors, the ancient Treaty of 1495. made in the Names of the King of England, and the Archduke of Austria. King James of Scotland implied as much when he sought in Anno 1594. to renew the old Treaty (with the State's General) formerly made in the name of Queen Mary of Scotland, 1541, which agreeth in every respect with the practice of all other Princes.  
The Answerer saith, That the States in Anno 1584., did offer the Sovereignty of these Countries to Q. Elizabeth. To what purpose he utters this, I cannot imagine; For, it will not follow thence, that this State cannot be allowed to treat with the State of England, though there be no King; since the said Queen, and the Kings after her treated with us, even after we had cast off our King, as the English have now done theirs:  
If this State made offer of the Sovereignty to Q. Elizabeth, doubtless it was on certain conditions; which if she or her Successors had not kept, we should not have scrupled to have recovered the same into our hands again, even as the English have done. Among the Barbarians and Savages it is confessed indeed, that their Kings will be bound to no Laws, (though ofttimes they far accordingly: For, how many have there been even in our times, of Turkish & other Heathen Emperors & Kings made away?) But among Christians no King or Prince was ever heard of, but he must swear to maintain the Laws. If any Prince prove perjured and break them, so soon as the breach is made, the people are freed from their obedience.  
The supply both of men and money which the Queen sent for our relief, came from the people themselves, and out of the people's purse; the people did consent unto it, and grant it. Untrue therefore it is, which the Answerer affirms, that the said succour and assistance was sent without the co-operation or consent of the people of England.  
If the people of England had any Monarch at this instant, to whom they had given up the power of Treating, than our addresses of Treaty should be made to him; but there being no such thing, and we not able to subsist without the friendship of England, therefore we must treat with England as it is now governed.  
And truly the late Summers proceed and attempt in this Country, (when our own Freedom ran greatest hazard) may well awake us to circumspection, and cause us to rejoice that England is no Monarchy now, but a Free State, of the same constitution with ours, and to wish that thus it may continue; For, all the dependants and kindred of the young Prince of Orange, maintain still, we ought, must, & are bound both by the merits of the House of Nassau, and for our own subsistence sake, to take the young Prince again for our Head, General and Governor: And were the King of Scotland master of England, he would maintain it as strongly as any, and seek to force the child upon us.  
As for the favours and assistances that King James and Charles afforded us, they do not merit naming; we had more hurt then good by them. And King Charles never kept touch with us, as is well known. If in those times the people or Parliament had been in Government, as now they are, they would have better managed the Revenues of England (which Kings waste, or play away) to procure our effectual liberty, such as now both England and we enjoy, but not after the method that Leicester intended.  
The Answerer saith, that the prevailing party make not up the hundreth part of the people of England. Why truly then the Ninety-nine Royalists that suffer one Parliamenteer to domineer it over them, must be very notable Cowards.  
I am sure there were seven or eight Royalists at the hague made a shift to dispatch one Dorislaus, and at Madrid only five or six did murder Ascham; but an hundred to be overcome and kept under by one, how is it possible? This Tale hath for these many years been pined to our sleeves; yet still the Parliamenteers get the better, and keep the better.  
England's greatest Power, the flower of the Parliaments Forces, is now in Scotland; I marvel the ninety-nine to one are so tame and quiet still in England; as nowhere to show themselves.  
The comparison of England with a ship, doth hold as good a proportion as the ninety-nine to one. The English people and Nation is and abides the same it was; the individuals decay, the species remains. A Ship and a People fit as well as a Cat and a Duck; but I conceive the Answerer means the Trees whereof the ship is built: for they do propagate and multiply according to their kind, like men, and that is more suitable to the opinion of some soothing Court-Parasites, such as our Answerer proves himself, that subjects are no otherwise then trees: others compare them to beasts, as if a Prince were so much better than the subjects, as another man is better than a beast: that is to say, The beasts are beasts to men, but the subjects are their Prince's beasts; A beastly opinion.  
The intercourses of Commerce, saith the Answerer, are common to all Nations; Why then the King of Scotland doth very ill in stopping and molesting the free and common commerce of all Nations from the Sillies, jersie, Ireland, Dunkirk, etc. to so great prejudice of the Seamen, that the damage in this kind can no longer be endured. The English have the same aim with us, for clearing of the sea. I cannot tell what he means by his Gargazens Trade. Navigation is the life of this State: Religion and Trade do not destroy one another, as it seems he would infer; and how doth he talk of Religion? He himself is professedly against the Episcopal way (which all the Royalists and the Princess Royal, and the Queen of Bohemia are still addicted to) and holds with the Presbyterians; with whom our own people (for matter of Excommunication and Discipline) do not agree. He saith farther, Violent Governments are not lasting: By that rule, no Monarchical Government should be lasting; for their Sword only doth support them. He saith England is subject to great alterations, yea, more than any Country under the Sun. He means under Kingly Government: But by and by he sow's jealousies, by saying, that England continuing a Commonwealth, it is like to increase mightily in Trade and Navigation, and that the increase of Trade in England, will make ours to decay in Holland. These assertions do mightily thwart one another. First, he says; There is 100 Royalists to one Parliamentier; then, England is extremely subjects to changes and alterations; within the space of 11 or 20 days, it hath been lost and won; and then presently after he saith, England continuing a Republic, will make our Trade decay. Ergò his mind and fear prompts him, that the English Republic may well endure somewhat more than 11 or 20 days. These Passages of his contradicting each other, are an Argument of a short memory, or that he goes about to abuse us with flim flam tales. For, how doth it appear that our Trade shall be spoiled by the English? They send and offer us real assistance and protection against the manifold depredations we suffer by others.  
If both these Republics were well united, yet the number of Monarchies round about them, will find work enough for both to maintain their Negotiations jointly: How much less than is England alone like to get all the Trade to themselves? The English may be struggling a good while yet, before a secure settling; they will not want enemies at home and abroad, to make attempts upon them; as the Answerer himself confesseth.  
The Prognostic of October 16 which he speaks of, is an insinuation of the same nature with those Victories, successes, and advantages which he daily forged, and printed here last Summer, which by the Blow at Dunbar evaporated all immediately. Those that tell us of Almanacs and Prognostics, show they have but few and slender Reasons left them to produce. I could reply to him out of Spinrock's Gospel.  
Religion, saith he, was wont to shine forth under the Kingly Government. How comes this Answerer to praise the King's Religion, when as himself as well as the rest of his Scots Countrymen, have not only made the first insurrection against the King's Religion; but entered into a Covenant and raised war, and at last sold the King for money (according to the Kings own published profession; Principally against the King's Religion, or against the innovation thereof at least. And what the King said further of the Scots Religion, and consequently of the Answerers' Religion, you may read at large in the 14 and 16 Chapters of his printed Book. It is well known what harsh and bitter Sermons and Books were made but lately at Breda and the Hague, against the Reformed Religion, whom they still hatefully termed Calvinists. Are there in England divers Sects? there are here also not a few, God mend it; and even as the Governors here would gladly see it otherwise, so likewise those in England; in the mean time, we are assured, that in England divers books are forbidden, and were burnt by the Hangman, which here pass up and down yet every where.  
The Ambassadors have in the Name and behalf of the whole English Government, declared the Conformity of their Religion with ours. They tolerate some others; and so do we; only we allow more and greater toleration than they: Neither we nor they approve of a Spanish Inquisition.  
They do not allow the Church an absolute power of Excommunication; no more do we; and the Scottish Kirk also was fain to remit it now themselves. So that the Presbyterians rage and roaring against Sects and Sectaries is groundless; for between themselves and the Independents (so named) there is not difference in the main of Religion, or profession, besides Discipline; but it should seem the Presbyterian Boutefeus', aim at a Papal Power, to administer the Jus Clavium at pleasure, as the Scots have: But their young King hath already taught them another Lesson; disapproving thereby also the English Presbyterians, It were much to be wished indeed, that all men were of one mind; that there were but one Religion: Our Answerer I believe knows as little how to advise or compass it, as others. Nay, he himself refusing to go to the same Church where the King went, during his abode here, and the Queen of Bohemia and the Princess Royal, and all the Royalists, doth thereby sufficiently evidence, that there are sects and divisions, as well between his party and the Kings, as there is between the English and the Presbyterians. That which he mentioneth of the good life of his Royal Christians, I profess, I understand not: If by a good life he means, a merry, jovial life, (dum vixit, vixit bene) I yield, that at Court they live more merry and frolic then elsewhere; and thence it is, that at London they have put down all the Playhouses, and such like places and practices of profane and scandalous recreation. That otherwise the life and fruitful Conversation of the Royalists should be more holy and exemplary, then that of the English Independents, as they call them, I never heard of before. Were they not the King's evil Councillors, his flatterers, and seducers (whom I return to the Answerer for his Albii, Cassii, Nigri) that made as well the Presbyterians, as the rest, complain so much against him from time to time?  
And I pray, were not the Presbyterians the first and the only men, that took the King to task? The Answerer himself was one of them, and of those Covenanters, that supplanted the King, for his maintaining the Episcopal Hierarchy: And when the Presbyterians afterwards went about to introduce the Presbyterian Hierarchy (changing only the Name, and maintaining the Substance) then said the others whom he calls Independents, Soft my Masters; we have freed ourselves from the Bishop's Yoke; shall we put our necks under the Presbyterians? The Answerer allegeth some other books which make for him. How many other blue books might easily be produced against the same, and to his prejudice?  
The King himself complains in his book ch. 15. and 21. how much hurt these books did him; so that I know not why the Answerer so highly esteems these blue books, and that publicly in print too now, as well as in the General Assembly; odiously checking the Sovereign Government here, for having begun to treat with the English; and presumptuously spreading the same abroad among the Commons; as though the Magistrates were regardless of their Office; and as if he intended to incense and raise the Commons against the Governors▪ contemning the public Ordinances in this behalf. As for the Successes; the Answerer knows well enough that several other Kings, Republics, Princes and Potentates had beforehand acknowledged the Republic of England and honoured the same with their Ambassies, and Credentials: And England also sent first unto this State, before this State sent to England. We have not looked upon the successes, but upon the Example of others.  
The Answerer saith, that the English themselves do disavow the great Turk: Again, the Gentleman throws it beyond my reach, or he knows not what he avers himself. I never heard of any such Disavowing; but this I know well on the contrary, that all Christian Potentates, acknowledge the Turk for what He is, and accordingly honour him with their Ambassies: The Answerer's King himself, scrupled not to send to the Turk; no more doth the English Republic. Men, Laws, Governments, must every where be taken and used as they are. As long as the Answerer and his King are forced to let the Government remain as it is, so they must give us leave to do the same.  
The Answerer saith, that there is as much difference between the English Government and Liberty, and that of ours, as there is between Milk and Ink, according to the saying of one Salmasius, calling him a great Personage. Sure the Answerer knows well that Salmasius his Book, where he had this crotchet, is publicly declared a Libel and scandalous here. Do great Personages use to write Libels?  
Furthermore, He saith, That the Batavians or Hollanders, have been a Free Nation from all ages, and under the subjection of none. Certainly he is a dreaming; or else he hath the art to make white black, and black white, at pleasure: or, Milk and Ink is all one to him. What, hath not Holland been under Earls above eight hundred years? And lastly, under the House of Burgundy, Austria, and Spain? Indeed the Earls were tied to Laws, and so were the Kings of England; if he say, an Earl is no King; I answer, England is divided in more than fifty Counties, or Earldoms; so France is divided into many principalities and Counties. He that gets the command over them, soon gets a Title, King, Prince, Earl, or Lord; it comes all to one, if they have no Superiors. But all of them are bound to their Oaths, and the Laws. Neither in France, nor in Spain, nor anywhere else, are Kings allowed an unlimited power. The Examples in France are too fresh to rehearse them.  
The Kings of Spain have been Earls of Holland, and acknowledged no superiors; now being freed from Spain, there is none appearing that pretend any right to Holland. Nevertheless he was bound to the laws by an oath.  
So that King of England was Earl of Essexshire, Sussex, Yorkshire, and of all the rest, compendiously called King of England, Scotland, Ireland, but bound to the Laws.  
They of Holland perceiving their King had infringed the Laws, thereupon they opposed him, and fought themselves free; Bene & feliciter (saith the King of Spain's Ambassador Count Pigneranda) pro libertate pugnastis; ea vobis debetur. The English in like manner perceived their King had trespassed against the laws, and falsified his oath, whereupon they opposed him till they fought themselves into the same condition of Freedom.  
I could say somewhat more here: That the King of England outdid Spain. He of Spain had sworn to the Roman Religion, and conceived himself bound to protect it according to his Oath: but the King of England being sworn to the Protestant Religion, is charged to have acted against it, innovated it, and had he gotten the mastery, would have changed it.  
That this Assertion (owned as well by the Scots as the English) is most true, appears by the Covenant, first made by the Scots, and afterwards embraced also by the English: Look upon Chapt. 14. of the King's Book, see what he saith there himself of the Covenant: Again, the Covenant very expressly showed, that the King had an intent to alter Religion and Laws. The Answerer himself was a Covenanter and Parliamenteer, and blue as fiercely and zealously as any against the King's design of Innovation, as they termed it. The second and third Article of the Covenant speaks very plain. And there have been a thousand books written both by the Scots & English Presbyterians on that subject. Nay, the Scots themselves have even since the late King's death, excommunicated all that had and did adhere to the King (calling them Engagers) and declared them Given over to the Devil. And for this cause they put poor Montrosse to death, and refused him Absolution. And what afterwards the King himself, and Hamilton, Middleton, Lauderdale, & others of this party, have suffered, is notorious to all the world. Also, how this King was fain to do penance, and to confess the blood guiltiness of his Father's House. How ever, all the difference betwixt the Kings of England, and Spain, was only this; that He of England did more, and He of Spain, less against the Religion that each of them was sworn to.  
It is well known, that the Scots were the first, that made a Covenant, and thereupon took up arms, even as the Nobility heretofore in the Netherlands, made a League or Union, and took up arms to defend it. The Scots having cleared their own Land of all the Royal designs and adherents, were not content therewith, but proceeded to assist the English, who were as eager to be rid of the same encumbrances. Which being effected, and the King brought to this pass, that he saw no remedy left him, than he betook himself to the Scots at last, his own Country men, as confiding more in them. Why did not the Scots then take him home along with them? They said, it was not expedient; the King might easily put Scotland into new broils, as the English found afterwards among themselves; for then broke first out those differences betwixt Presbyterians and Independents; the former would have a new Hierarchy introduced, like that of the Scots; the later would have the Reformed Religion maintained, as it now stands among them, only they would bear with tender consciences, and some others, as we do likewise here.  
The King of Spain hath given up his Right, and acknowledged this a Free State: had the King of England done the like, or would this King content himself yet with the Scottish Crown, as his Forefathers did, the war would soon be at an end. And herein Philip shown himself more reasonable and righteous, then Charles, whom nevertheless he styles, that Blessed Martyr, so highly wronged and persecuted, not remembering, at least concealing, that they were the Scots, who began this violent dealing with him. But none of this concerns us, not can we help it. If the Scots will begin troubles and war, and the Neighbour Kings and Potentates, will wink at it, what is that to us?  
What is farther said by the Answerer, about the King's death, concerns not us of Holland at all. If a King wageth war with his subjects, he must needs resolve to run the hazard. Kings and Princes are flesh and blood, and mortal as well as others. As much might have been done in a Charge by the Sword of a private soldier, as was afterwards by the hand of the Executioner. The Quality or Majesty of a King or Prince, is of no consideration to the steel or lead of the meanest soldier, & nostro sequitur de vulnere sanguis. Majestate nihil contemtius, nec infirmius, si sint qui contemnant. A living Dog is better than a dead Lion. A Peasant, owner of some Land, is better than a King, without Land. He that will not submit himself to the Discretion of a Conqueror, should not run the hazard of being conquered. The Conquering party saw no other Expedient, no farther trust given; even during the King's restraint, there was faction upon faction, division upon division, insurrection upon insurrection raised. The meanest creature, the poorest worm seeks for self-preservation. How much more a Man? If there had been any means left under Heaven, whereby a firm confidence could have been recovered, it is very probable, the Prevailing party would have yielded to it. But to put all their Fortunes, Reputation, Freedom, Life, and Being, upon a new hazard again, no Reason could advise them.  
Now, as to the matter of deposing, and destroying of Kings, it is so common, both in England and Scotland, that I admire, why the Answerer makes it so strange and prodigious. But all these things are so largely set forth in printed Boooks and Pamphlets, that the Answerer hath little reason to make a wonder of it. Omnia jam vulgata.  
To make an alliance with England were unnecessary if our Commerce and Liberties were not in danger. We are bound to look to their preservation. The Depredations are unsupportable! We do not afflict the afflicted; but those whom he calls the afflicted, afflict us.  
As for the affliction of Joseph, we know not what it means, unless he make Joseph a Cavalier; and under that notion the Scots themselves were the first that persecuted him. And that party in Scotland which the Answerer himself doth esteem the honester, viz. the church party, they abhor the Royalists, calling them Malignants. The English Ambassadors have declared here in their first Proposition, they came not out of necessity, but to show, they were willing to choose this State for their best friends. They have not desired to engage us against the Scots. But it is well known both to them and us, what practices and mighty endeavours, the Royal party hath used these many years to engage this State against the Parliament, now the Commonwealth of England. What partial proceed were there a foot? All that came from the King, had audience at pleasure; the Parliament none. The Statesmen of war, were (though mostly besides the State's knowledge) employed in the service of the King and his Party, as if they had been his own. What would have been the issue think you, if they had engaged us to make war against the Parliament, but to sacrifice our Power, our Treasure, our Freedom, for the enslaving both the Parliament and ourselves? Is it forgotten already, what passed here among us last Summer? Had Amsterdam, and the Bank of Amsterdam, been but surprised once, nay, had but one man continued alive, we should have been in a case sad and bad enough.  
After that this danger was over, and we had called the Grand Assembly together, for the settlement of our Freedom, they acknowledged the Commonwealth of England, and resolved to send an Ambassador to them; the Parliament shown themselves so honourable and civil, that they prevented us, concurring with our own desires, of settling both these Republics, in a posture against all that should at any time attempt aught against them. They considered who was their present Enemy, and how near the King of Scots was allied to him, that by his late practices disclosed so much of his Designs against Holland, Amsterdam, and the whole State. Also what special correspondence there past between these two, to reduce both Republics to a plenary Subjection. Afterwards when the English had gotten the start of their Adversary, by the great Victory at Dunbar: Then it is to be observed, that they came out of a cordially zeal and affection to deliver us likewise, and to further the settlement of our State, and by an union with them, render us secure at home, and feared abroad. How, and by whom the effect thereof hath been protracted hitherto, is well known; namely, by those who still are Preaching to us, that we should submit ourselves under the young Prince of Orange; that is to say, under the sister of the King of Scotland, the Guardianess of him, whom they would fain force upon us for our Head and Guardian.  
The following both Scripture and profane Allegations and Histories registered by the Answerer, are to no purpose, being a thousand times refuted. God's holy Word, the instinct of Nature, right reason, the Laws, the Judgements of the Casuists, the Oaths, Covenants, and all these are things the Parliament allege for themselves, with more reason and advantage, than the Royalists. Those say, Rex non moritur, & Rex nulli facit injuriam, are known to be rank flatteries, and neither in England, nor in any other Kingdom allowed of. I wonder how this man durst avert such things in the face of this Republic.  
As also, that he durst call that a Sophis●●e, which the States of Holland had made use of, to induce the rest of the Provinces to the Acknowledgement of the English Republic, viz to give unto Cesar, (that is, the present Possessor or Incumbent) that which is Caesar's. Why did he not first make known this subtle solution of that Sophism to Spain, Portugal, Venice, Florence, Genua? (France would fain come on too.) Did they understand the Date Caesari thus? we had more reason for it.  
As for those other allegations, taken out of several Sermons, I shall direct him to infinite other Sermons, that were and are daily made in the behalf of the Parliament. The Answerers, and others wresting of the Scriptures, like a Nose of wax to serve their turns, is a kind of Profanation.  
The Memorandums he calls Monstrous things. A bold expression. They contain the very words, set down in the Treaty of Anno 1495. and consequently the States own words, delivered unto the English Ambassadors, May 2 last, which are not monstrous, but grounded on very weighty Reason. For, we do plainly find, that for divers years now all along, the English and Scots Malignants, do not only seek to imbroil us in war, but labour likewise daily here to reduce us again under the subjection or Guardianship of the young Prince of Orange, that needs a Guardian himself: So that it seems Lex Julia de ambitu, lies asleep. Otherwise this State ought to rid themselves of those strangers, that seek to obtrude a new Domination upon us. And the English deserve our thanks, for having reached forth their helping hand thus unto us.  
In the Rear now our Answerer falls upon the thirty six Articles, and says, That the same do prejudice or hinder his Kings Right to the Crown of England. All the Kings and Potentates, which acknowledge England a Republic, do in effect the same thing: But indeed neither any of those Kings and Potentates, nor we ourselves, but the King's ow● evil Councillors, or Proceed, are the cause of all this. When the Anserer, the rest of his partners, the Scots and Covenanters, have hurried their Wagon into precipices of ruin, it is passed our redress. To enter into alliance against those that go about to ruin our Commerce, and bereave us of our Freedom, as much as in them lies, is both necessary and commendable. If some will needs live under a King, let them; as for our parts, we are resolved by God's help, to maintain our Freedom.  
A League with England will not bring us into a Labyrinth, nor make us subjects of Depradation and Slavery; but free and secure us from both.  
The Resolutions of Neutrality, which he mentioneth, are limited with conditions; in case the Scots, Irish, and other Pirates, perform Neutrality to us also.  
All the former alliances are between the Nations; so their Lord ships the States understand it; so also do all the Kings and Potentates understand it, that Treat here with the States upon the ancient Treaties, as made in those times under the name of the Duke of Burgundy, and Austria. The Answerer himself implies as much above, where he takes the Treaty with Duke Philip, Anno 1495. as made with their Lordships the States; and so likewise the renewed Treaty with Scotland, in Anno 1594. which Queen Mary had made, as Governess in the Netherlands, and the King of Scotland notwithstanding renewed it with their Lordships Non populi propter Regem sed Rex propter populum. Kings & Princes enter into Treaties, as Representers of the People, for the people's sake. This King's forefathers were contented with the Crown of Scotland. It grieves the Scots to see themselves involved in war about a quarrel that doth not concern them; but only for the King's sake, who by Pr. Rupert, and by other Pyratical ships and other ways, plaguing and provoking the English, did force them at last, to fall with an Army into Scotland, for to prevent that Kings falling into England. Even so did the great Gustave of Sweden; he came with an Army into Prussia, and forced the King of Poland his Cousin, to relinquish his pretensions to the Crown of Sweden.  
To conclude, the English well knowing, that the Scots joined with English Fugitives, and Malignants, seek nothing but on the one side to engage us against the parliament, or to make us still subject to their depradations; and on the other side, to bring us again under the subjection of the Prince of Orange: Therefore they very lovingly came and invited us to mutual union, to prevent both the one and the other.  
This, in effect, is the Sum and Truth of the Business.   

AN ADDITIONALL REPLY TO All the pretended Arguments, falls Insinuations and Slanders, set forth in the Printed Answer OF MACK-DONNELL the Scotish RESIDENT, To the Propositions of the Ambassadors of the Commonwealth of ENGLAND; Presented at the Hague, March 30/20. 1651:  

CHAP. I. The Necessity, Nature, and several Forms of Embassy, stated.  
IT being impossible to preserve Intercourse and Amity betwixt Nations, for their mutual weal and safety, without the intervention of such a person, or persons, that may represent the sense of either, so as to beget a right understanding betwixt them: And because if the Supremacy be delegated or invested in one single Person (whether a King, Duke, or Emperor) it were for many reasons most inconvenient that he should quit his Charge at home to treat personally abroad in foràin Parts; Or if the Supremacy be entrusted in the hands of divers Persons, it were absurd to imagine they should all undertake a Voyage upon the like occasion: Therefore it must needs be obvious to every man's reason, how great a necessity lies upon the Nations of the world, to make choice of some intermedial Person or Persons, to be commissionated with full Power, and sent abroad with such justructions, as may enable them, on the behalf of their respective Countries, to confer and debate with foreign States and Princes, of such matters as tend to mutual Commerce and Communication. Without such a course as this, saith Petrus Aerodius (an old Author) no League can be made, nor any thing determined touching Peace or War; Enmities would prove immortal; Murders, Violence, and Treachery, would perpetually alarm the world with new Combustions. Hence it is, that in regard of the necessary use of such Ministers, and in regard they represent the Majesty of the State that sends; them, a kind of sanctity hath been annexed to their Persons; they have in all Ages and Nations been had in special Veneration, indulged with large Privileges and Immunities, even among the Heathen, and secured from the reach of violation, by as high a reverence as they paid to their very Gods and Temples, as may be seen in an Epistle of King Philip the Macedonian, to the people of Athens. A Legate or Ambassador is  
Sanctum populis per saecula nomen:  
As for the several Forms of Embassy, or Ambassadors, though they pass by divers names, yet they are specifically one and the same Office or Function, having all the same reason, aim, or end; which is, to transact affairs abroad, for the good of the Commonwealth, according to the directions of those that send them. In ancient time, a Legate or Ambassador, many times passed under the name of an Orator; according to that of Virgil 11. Aeneid.  
Jámque Oratores aderant ex urbe Latinâ.  
And he usually retained this name, either from the nature of his employment, in case he were sent to desire or deprecate any matter, or else from his Eloquence, which is the prime requisite and glory of an Ambassador. The other usual name of old, was that which the Pope still retains, viz. the Nuntio, which in English is a Messenger, according to that of Livy, lib. 34. Rhodios Nuntios in Orb terrarum arbitria belli pacisque agere, which was spoken in contempt of the Rhodians, or rather indignation, that so inconsiderable a people should be so busy and meddling; for, those usually they called Messengers, that were sent from such as either were not acknowledged Supreme in power, or were but an inferior Nation, or who came with small pomp about matters of the lesser concernment; or for the delivery of some dispatches, about which they made no long stay.  
But those old titles being antiquated, we have new a succession of new ones, which are thus divided, according to the pesent custom of Nations, viz. the Agent, or Ambassador in ordinary, and the Ambassador extraordinary: both which, are one and the same in effect, differing only in pomp and splendour, but equal in privilege. The Agent or Ambassador in ordinary, is usually a person eminent for prudence; one that undertakes and performs the Embassy with less outward ostentation; who if he be Commissionated to reside with any Prince or Republic, is then called a Resident. But this R●sident being for the most part as a Spy, to pry into the Affairs of those to whom he is sent, it were far better if that custom of Residence were rather exploded, then continued any longer, it tending more to the prejudice, than the benefit of Nations. But of all others, the Resident ought to be avoided, and not admitted in new and unsettled states and Commonweals, if they mean to be safe, or preserve their reputation. For this cause it was, and in this case, that of old, Ambassadors had a retinue assigned them by the State where they resided, under pretence of honour and respect to their Embassy, but really to keep an eye over them; and so strictly, that they could not so much as drink, or do any other necessary, but with the privity of these Attendants. Procop. l. 1. de Bello Goth. It was the same reason also, wherefore our Henry 7. cared so little for their company here in England, at the beginning of his unsettled Government: And questionless, it was in him a most notable point of Prudence; in all parallel cases most worthy of imitation. Now he whom we call the extraordinary Ambassador, is (for the most part) a Person of some higher rank and interest in the Commonwealth, and therefore a far greater stipend and retinue is assigned him, to uphold a Majestic Port, answerable to his own Quality, and for the honour of his Nation. The former (according to the common acception) are styled ordinary Ambassadors, Agents, and Residents; the later Extraordinary, sent usually upon eminent and extraordinary occasions. Thus you see all the difference betwixt them is only  and formal, in respect of Ceremony; but de Jure, according to the nature and end of the thing, they have the same  value, and an equal right to the same immunities and privileges. An example of the former we have in the late Agencies of those two Learned, but unfortunate Gentlemen, Doctor Dorisla, and Master Anthony Ashcam, the one most barbarously assassinated in Holland, the other in Spain. And of the later, in the late solemn Embassy into Holland, performed by two Honourable persons, the one being Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, but both of the Parliamentary or Senatorian Order. Now if you would know the reason why we have thus briefly discussed the Point of Embassy under the several Forms, it is partly for Method sake, as an Introduction to the other Chapters which follow; but especially to let both the Dutch and Spaniard understand, that the English have as much reason to expect justice and satisfaction for the butcheries of their two Agents, as if they had appeared in as glorious and solemn an Equipage, as the greatest Ambassadors in the world. And truly, their expectations might be the more heightened in this particular to hear from the Spaniard, in regard the matter hath been so plainly laid open by a Doctor of their own, of no mean rank and abilities, by name Don Augustin de Hierro, Knight of the Order of Calatrava, and Fiscal (or Attorney General) of the Council Royal, in a Charge by him exhibited against the Murderers of Master Ashcam; in which Charge, he thus determins it: That whether the person sent lately by the Parliament of England, was an Ambassador, an Agent, or Resident, as the Murderers term him, or most properly an 
* Master Ashcam was verus Legaius.  Orator, (for, he came (saith he) to deprecate Peace.) Or, whether he were all these, or any of these, it matters not; for, any of these may style him a Legate, & make him deserv that title; and the same security is due unto all those titles, the same Privilege, the same Immunity. And therefore, since the same Doctor hath also very clearly proved, that the Church cannot give sanctuary to the Murderers of the meanest of Public Ministers, (who are all equal in point of indemnity) the more highly it reflects upon Spain, that the Rights of Ambassadors should receive so high a violation, and yet that there should have been so long a delay of justice (upon an unjustifiable pretence) against Master Ascham's Murderers.   

CHAP. II. That All Supreme Powers in possession (Jure vel Injuriâ) have a Right to send Agents or Ambassadors, to negotiate with Foreign States and Princes.  
BEcause, upon perusal of the Printed Answerer, set forth by that Scot, who entitles himself the Lord Mac Donnel, and Resident of the King of Great Britain; it appears he will not vouchsafe our late Ambassadors at the Hague, to wear the style of English Ambassadors, but in his Title page disdainfully calls them the English Ambassadors [as they style themselves.] And in the beginning of his pretended Answer, nicknames them Ab-Legats in the Diminutive, and calls them pretended Ambassadors, as if they merited not the title of true Legates or Ambassadors; it cannot be amiss therefore, to show this Scot, and all the world, upon what frail terms, both his Lordship and the Residentship must needs stand, having so airy a foundation to support them, as his Master's Kingship of Great Britain; for we suppose it will be a hard matter for him to prove his Residentship, till his young Master can make good the Kingship; it being a Maxim received by all Civilians and Statesmen, that the Right of Embassy in all Countries, as do all the other Rights of Supremacy, ever follow such as are in possession. Hugo Grotius (lib. 2. de Jur. bell. cap. 18.) is very positive to this purpose, where he tells you, Reges qui bello solenni victi, regnóque exuti sunt, cum alis Regni bonis & jus Legandi perdiderunt, that is, Kings who submit their Fortunes to the trial of a set-war, and then are driven out of the kingdom by force of arms, as they forfeit all other right of sovereignty, so also they lose the very right of Embassy. The reason to me is evident, because the chief end of Ambassies (for the most part) is to make Contracts; and it is absurd to imagine, that one man will contract with another, when it is not in the power of that other to make good the Contract, because there is a third Power in possession, which will hinder him from the performance. Now, all States and Princes measure the points of Embassy and Negotiation by convenience and Reason of State. They consider not what right or wrong is done to a Brother-Prince, in his title, in the great Revolutions of Government, but how to frame themselves after the motion of the Great Wheel, as may tend most to the security of their own titles, and advantage of their own estates: For, if in stead of receiving Ambassies and Addresses from Foreign Powers, they should first require satisfaction touching the rights of those which send, than the whole time of Princes would be spent in admitting mutual appeals to and from one another, to no purpose; since if that were admitted, there would be no end of dispute in the world touching titles; which were they all ravelled to their Originals, would puzzle the ablest headpieces under Heaven to prove their equity and innocence in the Cradle. Very suitable hereunto is that passage of Cardinal D'Ossat in one of his Epistles, who tells you, That Princes, when Ambassadors are addressed to them, never inform themselves of the rights and titles of those Princes from whom they are sent; But whether they have possession of the Forces and Power of those places from whence the Ambassadors are employed. For, it would be an endless task, and require an infallible true History of the world (which is not to be made by man) if all the Ambassadors, before their Receptions, should be obliged first to prove clearly to the world, the just right by which their masters derive those Titles and Jurisdictions, which they assume to themselves.  
Thus far it seems by reason of State, that the right of Embassy unquestionably follows such only as are in possession; let us confirm it farther (as briefly as may be) by testimonies of Writers, with the practices of States and princes, both ancient & modern, who never used to inquire who they were that sent, but whether the senders of an Ambassage were invested with a Power to command the places from whence they sent: In this case, they always treat with the Power, but never dispute it, well knowing few of their own Dominions have had an unquestionable beginning, Respectu primae Causae omnia Imperia legitima esse concedo, sed si quer as de causis intermediis, etc. All Governments (saith Bodin, l. 1. c. 6.) are lawful in respect of the first cause, viz. God; but if we regard secondary causes, most Governments have had their foundation upon Force and Violence: which must needs be granted, considering how from time to time the Sword hath given Law to all the world. Whereupon, the Civilians, weighing, that the course of Government hath run altogether in this Channel, have proportioned their Maxims more suitable to the necessities and public conveniencies of mankind, then satisfactory to the reasons of private and particular men; because, will they, nill they, such must be concluded within the rules of submission, to what form of Government soever shall be erected by those that carry the Sword. For, in this case, if a Parliament, or Senate, that hath the Sword, shall resolve one way, and those that are un-armed, resolve another, than there can be no Government at all, but all will be left at random, to a continued succession of discontents contests, and confusions, which must needs end in the ruin of the unarmed party. Wherefore, it is a Rule with them, That the ancient Majesty of a Kingdom or Commonweal, continues no longer, if it be changed either by a greater Power, or by consent of the People: where you see, Force and Power are put in equal balance with popular consent, in relation to Government. And as if it were the best pedigree of Supremacy, they define the Supreme Authority to be that which holds claim from God and the Sword; and therefore is as it were the Author of its own Original, without dependence on any other; so that (say that) every Commonwealth, be it never so small, which acknowledges no Superior, but God and the Sword, hath a right of Majesty, or Political Supremacy. So saith Besoldus, de Juribus Majest. cap. 1. Arnisaeus, de Majest. cap. 1. and Cammonus de Majest. Disput. 1. Thes. 70.75. etc. with many others.  
Seeing therefore, that an uncontrollable Power of the sword, in plenary possession of any Nation, instates him or them who's Sword it is, with all the rights of Majesty, much more than may they be claimed by the Parliament of England, to whom God hath given a commanding Sword, which they lawfully hold in the behalf, and by consent of the people. And therefore questionless, no State, or Prince, where he seethe such an established Power, can in reason question those rights, or pretend ground not to own the Power, as in all other rights, so more especially in the right of Embassy, which is one of the fairest Flowers in the Garland of Majesty. For, (as it hath been observed by the Oracle of our Laws, 4. Instit. c. 26.) they, and none but they, who enjoy the rights of Majesty, or Supremacy, have a right of Embassy. It must be from a Sovereign, to a Sovereign Power and Authority.  
Thus far now, our Assertion stands unquestionable; therefore, for illustration, it must needs be much more clear, if we consider, that the benefit of Embassy hath been often allowed, even to such as were not solely Supreme, nor in the plenary possession of any Nation. Thus in a Nation divided by Civil War, where the Supreme Power is in Controversy, both the Parties are allowed an equal right of Embassy, by Hugo Grotius, l. 2. c. 18. Thus in a popular division at Syracuse, the one Party within the City sent an Ambassage to the other Party without, under the command of Andronodorus. The like was done by Caius Manlius, one of Catiline's Fellows, to Q. martin's; and by Brutus and Cassius to Lepidus and Antony, Livius, l. 14. Sallust Catil. who give them that were sent the name of Legates, which were the same that we now call Agents and Ambassadors. Also, according to this Rule, during the late Contest here betwixt King and Parliament, it was, that the Hollander made no scruple to entertain Agents equally from both the Parties. Nor hath this Privilege been allowed those only, who in National sidings, have had some tolerable pretence to a formal Authority; but hath been indulged also to mere Outlaws, such as the Mountaineers in the Alps, the Assassins' of old, the Pickeroons in France, the Banditi in Italy, the Tories in Ireland, and the Mosse-Troopers in the Marches between England and Scotland. Q. Curtius, lib. 7. tells us of twenty thousand such Fellows, that were got into a Body to make Head against Alexander the Great, and it came to a Fight, in which Alexander himself being wounded in the Forlorn, it came to a Parley. Itaque postero die miserunt Legatos ad Regem. Whereupon, the next day they sent Ambassadors to the King, who received them with all Ceremony, and caused them to sit in his presence. This were the more to be admired, but that we find Cesar himself, lib. 3. bell. civ. giving the like honour to those Fugitives, that lurked in the Straits and Passes of the Pyrenaean Mountains, and affirming it lawful. Yet questionless, these instances are not to be drawn into custom, but may be imitated and approved, only upon the like occasional accidents, and emergents of necessity.  
How ever, in regard some have openly in Print endeavoured to abridge us in England of our right and interest in this particular, it is requisite we should draw the Lines of Embassy, in its utmost Extent and Latitude, that our Inferences and Inductions may arise the more easy: For, if they who upon the occasion of a National Rupture, can (at the most) lay claim to no more but the name of a Party, have been, and are admitted into a participation of this right by States and Princes: and if so be, that an irregular number of Outlaws, and Renegades, form into a formidable Body, have been received likewise into the same Privilege by the greatest Monarches, then à minori ad majus, the Argument must needs hold good as to those in England, who are actually, and justly invested with the Supreme Power, and settled in the Noblest form. If scattered Recollections of Fugitives, Malcontents, and frighted Remnants, have assumed this honour to themselves much more may this Noble Nation of England, who though she grew old, crooked, and deformed, under the pressures and oppressions of successive Tyrants, yet having shaken them off, baffled them beyond recovery, and settled herself in the condition of a Sovereign Free State, seems now to renew her Age again like the Eagle, under the sweet Influences of Liberty. She is now herself, in full possession of her own; therefore let the world know in this case she understands, that Possession is more than eleven points of the Law. For, why was it, that the late King of England (as one observes) having sworn a League with the King of Spain, expressly also as he was King of Portugal, did notwithstanding receive divers Ambassadors from the new King of Portugal, yet was not judged, either in England or Spain, to have broken his former Oath and League? Why was it (I say) but only to show that Contracts and Oaths made betwixt Political persons, are made in a Political sense, viz. with a tacit condition of holding their Possessions? These being gone, their Public Relations and Concernments immediately expire. How came it to pass that the Spaniard being driven out of the United Provinces, and they by him declared Rebels, that yet they assuming to themselves a right of Embassy, had their Ambassadors so readily received by Henry of France, and Elizabeth of England, but that both those Princes well understood the lawfulness of the action, and that they had Jure Gentium, a right so to send, the Spaniard being dispossessed there? It was the same reason too, that moved the Hollander to entertain Agents and Ambassadors from this State; before the death of the Tyrant, for that part which we then possessed; and since his death, for the whole now in possession; in this acknowledging possession a sufficient ground for us to send, as for themselves to receive our Ambassadors. The acknowledgements given us likewise by the Ambassadors and Agents of Spain, Portugal, Venice, Florence, and Genoa, do declare the same.  
How then comes it to pass, that the name of a King of Great Britain, hath been so rife among the Provinces, when they know the young Scot, is so fare from having a Foot in the Noblest part of Britain, England, that he is in a manner outed too in Scotland? What face too, (but that a Scot can face any thing) had this Scot, to deny our Ambassadors the name of English Ambassadors, and dub himself with a Title including a Right to England, where, his Master is never like to take the Air again, if (he have his due) unless it be upon a Scaffold? But well may he own the Title, when some of the Dutch have been so forward to give it; yea, and under that name, do more than give him Audience in their great Assembly.  
Though they have many Bodies of Supremacy in the Netherlands, yet we can acknowledge but one Supreme in England, which is the Parliament; who being seated with full Power in the People's Right, can admit of no Competitor, nor permit any other Nation to impose one upon them, or dispute their Title; but have reason to expect the same acknowledgements, that ever have been given to all Supreme Powers in possession, according to the Custom of Nations; which if any Nation shall deny, or take occasion to prevaricate in this point, they may in time understand, that England, established in this new Form, stands fully possessed, not only by Right of War, but also according to the Right of Nature, and the ancient Laws and Customs of the Nation, being eminently adorned with all the Rights and Privileges of the People; And that she may now have as great abilities as ever, to assert her own Independency upon other Powers, and make herself as considerable, either in enmity, or friendship, as the proudest of her enemies.   

CHAP. III. That Contracts and Alliances made betwixt States and Princes, do not relate singly and personally to themselves; but are made Jure Populi, in the behalf, and for the benefit of the People.  
Where as it hath been alleged by the Resident of the King of Scots, that the ancient and successive Contracts and Friendships betwixt England and the United Provinces, were made between them and the successive Kings of England, and not with England otherwise considered; whereby he seems to affirm, that the validity of such Contracts depends upon, and expires with the persons of the Kings of England, or with the Kingly Government, excluding the interest of the People from being Principal in them; therefore it cannot be inexpedient in that point, to manifest the ignorance of this Scot, with the absurdity of his Pretence, which so highly reflects upon the Majesty and main Concernments of the People.  
For, without question, it is to be understood, that as all the acts of Government ought to tend; so Governors themselves, (by what names on titles soever they be called) are erected and intended only for the behalf and benefit of the people. Even Kings themselves (notwithstanding all their flourishes) can arrogate nothing to their Persons or Families, separate from the People's Interest: For, a King is no more but a Creature of the People, by them created for their good; He is their servant, for which they give him a Salary, or Revenue, adorning him with splendid Titles of Majesty, and with all the Immunities, Privileges, and Prerogatives of Government, which are no way inherent in his own Person or Family, but Ornaments bestowed upon him, as the People's Livery, in reward of his service.  
The truth of this very evidently appears in the Coronation-solemnities of Kings, which all the world over are the same in substance; and here in England the custom was thus. First, the agreement was made between the people and him that was to be entertained as their King: he was made acquainted with the work and service of the Commonwealth, which was to regulate himself and his Charge according to such Laws, (that is, such Rules and Direction) as were or should be appointed by the people; and for the true performance of this an Oath was given him. Then the people's consent being asked, and had (which in old time here was wont to be demanded thrice) he was immediately taken into the service, and his Livery given him, viz. The Royal Robes, the Sword, the Ring, the Sceptre, and the Crown. This hath been the manner of admission in England, most solemnly performed in receiving all the Kings and Queens from the days of Edward the Confessor, and long before: So that you see the relation wherein a King stands to the Commonwealth, or Kingdom, is the same with that of a Servant to his Master; only here is the difference betwixt Kings and private Servants, That those public honorary Servants having great honour conferred upon them by the service, are necessitated to maintain a large retinue, and hold many in pension and employment, for which purpose they are allowed an extraordinary proportion of wages for their pains and expense in the performance of their duty, with a surplusage of Subsidies or Supplies (many times) upon emergent occasions of necessity.  
This will further appear if we consider, that Kings hold not the possession of a Kingdom by the same right as private men do their patrimonies. But yet it is not meant, as if Kings might not have possessions as other men have; for that is allowable, and hath been known here in England, as may be seen in the time of Henry the fourth, who from the Title of Duke of Lancaster, arriving to that of a King, enjoyed still an inheritance in his own rights, as Duke of Lancaster, distinct from that of the Crown; and fearing the return of Lex talionis upon himself and Family, that as he had dispossessed others of the Kingdom, so his heirs might in time be dispossessed again, therefore out of a prudent forecast he so ordered the matter, as to keep the Revenues of his Duchy entire, and settled them in such a way, as might preserve them distinct from those of the Crown, that in case any new Turn should happen, his posterity might (if they lost the Kingship) know where to lay claim unto their ancient Patrimony. So then, we do not deny but Kings may have possessions of their own, as well as other men, by inheritance or purchase; but those which they hold in the right of the Kingdom, or Kingship are none of their own: The Patrimony of the Public Exchequer is one thing, that of the Prince another, Henry the fourth held the Duchy of Lancaster, as he was Henry, but the revenues of the Crown as he was the King, or public servant of the Kingdom, not out of any peculiar propriety that he had in them. Nor can it in reason be imagined, that Kings should have any thing of Propriety in what concerns the Kingdom, seeing in the first place the Regal dignity is no more but a Function, or Office, and he himself is but supremus officiarius, the highest Officer of the Kingdom, and you known, an Officer hath no right to what he is entrusted with for the benefit of another. Besides, we know, that if any man be invested with a Propriety, he hath a power to alienate or sell away his right; but Kings have no such power as to alienate any part of the public Revenue. Kings that have endeavoured it in England, have been restrained; and not only in that, but even in their immoderate expenses, by Parliament. Nor is it so only in England, but many laws have been made and renewed against it in Poland, Hungary, Scotland, France, Spain, and the Empire; for we read what Wenceslaus the Emperor, Malcolm of scotland, and Henry the sixth of France, suffered by attempting it, and what miseries they brought thereby upon themselves and the people. Innumerable testimonies might be produced against this power of Alienation in Kings, but that of Grotius, lib. 2. de Jur. bell. c. 6. may the better pass instead of all the rest, in regard he is in most other particulars a little too rank of the Royalist. Patrimonium populi, cujus fructus destinati sunt, ad sustentanda reipub. aut regia dignitatis onera, à regibus alienari, nec in totum, nec in partem potest. The patrimony of the people (saith he) whose revenues are appointed to ease the burdens of the Commonwealth, and support the Recall dignity, cannot be alienated by Kings, either whole, or in part. Num & in hoc jus majus fructuario non habent. For in this, (viz. the people's public Patrimony) they have no more than the right of an Vsufructuary, who indeed receives the rents and profits, but hath no propriety in the lands.  
Seeing now it appears that a King is no more but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Ordinance of man, (a creature of man's making, as is to be inferred from the words of St. Peter;) seeing he is but a servant to the people, bargains with them to do their work according to Laws (or Directions) & to that end wears their Livery, and receives wages from them; seeing also that the right and propriety of the Kingdom remains in the people, not in him; and that the most which can be made of him, is but an Officer, or an Vsufructuary, one that hath no right in what he possesseth, save only to receive the Profits, or Revenues, in lieu of service to be done for some other, viz. the Community; than it may plainly be inferred, that the ends of Kingly Government, and consequently all the acts of it, do in no wise relate to the Person, Kingship, or Family of any King, but are terminated jure populi, in the right or behalf, and for the benefit of the people.  
Thus far our Assertion stands undeniable; and therefore for application of it to the present matter in question between us the Scottish Resident, let us consider, that if Kings are not for themselves, but for the people, if they be Kings publico jure, in the people's right, not in any particular personal qualification of their own, than it merrily follows, That as the Office, so all the Acts of Government, and consequently the making Peace or War, the allaying of enmities, the making Contracts and Alliances with foreign States and Princes, are founded and concluded in the right of the people. It is they which treat, contract, & confederate, only they agree that he shall transact and sign it: The power is originally, really, and fundamentally in themselves; it is but Ministerially in the King, as a Public servant; it is for the public benefit, not his own private, that he is entrusted to make a Contract; so that whether you consider the public relation he stands in, without which he can be no king, nor contract, nor do any other act of Government. Or whether you consider the public end and scope of the Contract, it must needs follow, that his own particular, or the interest of his Family, cannot be separately or singly concerned in the business, though it run in his name, seeing all is done by the right, and for the good of the Community.  
But our Scotch Resident alleges out of Grotius, l, 2. c. 16. That a league made with a King holds firm to him, though he be driven by his subjects out of the Kingdom: For the right of the Kingdom remains with him, though he have lost the possession, according to that of Lucan 
— Non unquam perdidit ordo  
Mutato sua jura loco.—   
To this I answer in the first place; that if you consider what is said before, it must be granted that the right and propriety of a Kingdom remains in the people always, be the King in or out of possession. Secondly, it is much to be wondered that Grotius should so fare forget himself, as in this place to set down a position quite contrary to what he affirms in another, viz. c. 18. in that instance before cited, where he saith, That Kings, who submit their fortunes to the trial of a set-warre, and then are driven out by force of Arms, do not only lose the right of Embassy, but all other rights of Sovereignty. And if so, then without question also a King loseth all claim or pretence to any Foreign Contracts or Alliances made with him, in the behalf of the Kingdom while he stood possessed: For by the same reason that he loseth or forfeits one right, he loseth all.  
Besides, in another place (viz lib. 1. cap. 18.) he enumerates no less than seven or eight casts, wherein a King may forfeit, and be justly driven out of his Kingly interest and Kingdom; As in case a King assume more to himself then of right belongs to him: Or in case he infringe those laws that he was sworn to: Or encroach upon the Senaticall part and right of the people: Or if he relinquish the Helm of government: Or give over the protection of the people: Or make war against them: Or behave himself as a Tyrant or public enemy of the Nation. In all these Cases, Grotius grants, that a King may justly be deprived; and not any of these, but might be verified upon the late King of England, and his Son the Young Pretender; who not only lost all Right, as being the Son of such a Father; but by tracing him actually in the same steps of enmity, hath made the forfeiture complete, both for himself and the whole family: whereby, as he loses all other interests, so without question, his interest in all those foreign leagues and contracts, that were made with his Father while he was in possession.  
But to return where we left; the rights and acts of Government (as we have proved) being properly the interest and acts of the Community or People, and relate no farther to the King, than as a delegated Person, a Deputy or Trustee, to treat and transact in their behalf; then, without question, when this Officer the King, shall either for maladministration, or treachery in his trust, be put to death, or banished, with his whole family, the Treaties, Contracts, and Alliances, made in his name with any Foreign State, must needs continue in full force and power, to all intents and purposes, as long as the People and Community are in being, whose Contracts they are. To this accords that of Grotius likewise, l. 2. c. 15. Si cum Rege contractum sit, non statim personale erit censendum foedus, i.e. If a League be made with a King, it must not be presently looked upon as a personal League. For, as he saith in the same place, after Pedius and Ulpian, plerumque persona pacto inseritur, non ut personable pactum fiat, sedut demonstretur cum quo pactum est. The person of the Prince is usually mentioned in the League, not that the League should become personal, but only to show with whom it was made. But it may be objected, that the League with Holland, extends not only to the King, but to his Successors also. 'Tis true, it doth hold, as to the succession; that is, as long as the succession holds; for, Leagues must hold to the persons of Princes and their successors, as all other Political Compacts between them do, viz. with a tacit condition of holding their possessions. If the King of Scots can with the people's consent, make good his succession in England, than he may lay claim to the Treaties made betwixt England and Holland; but in the mean time, He and his Family being driven out for their Tyranny, all the Right to those Contracts is to be exercised by another Succession and Form of Government, that is established in the Right, and by Authority of the people.  
Nor can this Alteration of Government any whit alter the Case, it being a right naturally inherent in all Nations, to alter their respective Governments (upon occasion) into what form they please. As long as the people remain the same specifical (I do not mean the same individual) people of England, that they were when the right of Treaty was used, and the Treaty with Holland made and ratified by the King in their behalf, so long the effects of the Treaty or Treaties are in force, to the same ends and purposes that they were at first intended: Seneca saith, by way of comparison, Manet idem flumen, aqua transmissa est, the River remains the same, though the water pass away; and Aristotle 3. lib. Pol c. 2. traceth him in the same acquaint way of allusion, likening the People to a River which retains its old name, and is said to be the same that it was long since, though a continued succession of new waters do flow in the Channel; so the People that is now, is the same in specie, that it was an hundred or perhaps a thousand years since, and is so called and reputed; except it lose the name and estimate of a Nation, by being captivated and carried away from their Country, as the Jews were all in time from Jerusalem, and the Holy Land; or enslaved in their own Country by some Foreign Power, that holds them in Vassalage, as the Olynthians were under Philip, the Thebans under his son Alexander, the Capuans under the Romans; or as the old Britain's were under the Saxons, the Saxons under the Danes, and afterwards under the Tyranny of the Norman Conqueror: When their National Power and Authority is once extinct, they no longer retain their former interest, privilege, or dignity. But none of these exceptions (blessed be God) can be verified upon the people of England, who are seated pleno Jure, in their own fortunate Island, and established now in a greater measure of Honour, Power, and Freedom, than ever we enjoyed for many hundred years before; Foelices nimiùm, bone si sua nôrint. And therefore, of necessity, they must be accounted specifically the same Nation or people, that they were, when the Treaties were made and concluded betwixt England and the Netherlands, though they be not the very same Individual People and Government. No matter (saith Grotius, l. 2. c. 9) how the Nation be governed, whether by a King, or by many, or by the multitude: For, the people of Rome remained the same still, in the various changes of Government, under Kings, Consuls, and Emperors. When the former is extinct, a new form ever succeeds, with power to govern, act, and transact, in and for the behalf of the people; who being still the same, not tied to Forms, nor altered by Time, overlook all Circumstances, and lay hold upon the Substantials of their Interest and Government, as they stand qualified, and related, both at home and abroad. And truly, it is very pleasant to observe in this particular, how even Princes themselves acknowledge as much in their Practices towards each other in the changes of Government: For, the Duke of Burgoin having concluded amity with England in the person of Henry the 6. no sooner was Henry dispossessed, and Edward the 4. invested, but he immediately renews the same League with England in the person of Edward: Afterwards, Edward happening to be driven out, it was so brought about by Burgoin, that the Truce formerly concluded betwixt him and King Edward, should in all things be ratified and confirmed, the King's name only changed to Henry. At length, Edward made shift to recover all again, and then Henry was once more dethroned; which was no sooner done, but Burgoin sent again a solemn Embassage, to renew the Treaty, and establish a firm League with England in the person of Edward? It is to be observed likewise that during all these Changes, Ambassadors went to and fro, and all Foreign Contracts and Alliances were kept entire, without the least question, on either side; which may serve to inform us of these two particulars; That in National quarrels about Title to Government, Princes use not to dispute who is in the right, or wrong, but apply themselves (without farther scruple) to the parties in possession. And secondly, that however the Governors of a Country may be changed, yet all the points of Alliance and Contract, being centred in the right and benefit of the people, continue unchangeable and entire under every alteration. It were endless to reckon up all the examples that might be derived from the practices of States and Princes to confirm this particular; we might show you how the matter of Government being in dispute betwixt Queen Mary and her son James, (or rather his Guardians) though Mary were dethroned, and her Sons Guardians got the better, yet the amity betwixt us and Scotland continued firm, notwithstanding the deposition of the person of Mary: But because the Scottish Resident seems to grant that Leagues may hold entire in State-Ruptures, though a particular Prince be laid aside, but not so, if the frame of Government be altered; therefore he may be pleased to consider, that in the various revolutions of the Florentin Government, when the whole frame was changed, yet most of their old Alliances and Contracts were renewed still, and retained in full force and vigour, as well with the States and Princes of Italy, as those of other Nations. And as for the Hollanders, though of late they boggled with us in the main, yet they would gladly have renewed so much of the old Treaties with the people of England, as might have served their own turns, & not have engaged them too far; the reason why they kept off, seems not to have been from any strength of Argument used by this Statizing Pretender; but they had a stronger Argument of their own, whose Premises and Conclusion lay a long time in Scotland, from whence every Post they expected a resolution.  
I shall close all with the testimony of that Learned Spanish Doctor Don Augustin de Hierro, Attorney General of the Council Royal in Spain, etc. produced by him in his late Charge against the Murderers of Master Ashcam; where insisting upon the point of Friendship betwixt England and Spain, he proceeds thus: That England (saith he) should be our Friend in statu quo nunc, and that Peace should be continued with her, proceeds from right; For, Peace is not only made with the King, but with the Kingdom also, and though the first expires, the last remains. For, put case, that Peace be concluded with a Country, without including the King, either b● carelessness, or some other accident, yet the Peace stands good; For, so the Polish Magistrates answered the Emperor Ferdinand the second. Faltando el Ray, se conservan con el Reyno, i. e. the King failing, yet Peace is to be conserved with the kingdom. So Bodin holds, and urgeth a pregnant example to this purpose, lib. de repub. cap. 4. fol. 63. where he allegeth the Answer which the Ambassadors of France, made to Edw. the 4. King of England, desiring aid from France against some rising subjects of his, that had driven him out of possession, and this desire he pressed by virtue of the League between them; Which Answer was, that the King of France could not help him, in regard the confederations betwixt France and England, were made betwixt the Kings and Kingdoms, so that though King Edward was dispossessed thereof, yet the league & amity remained still with the kingd. & with the King Regnant. Just so, the Peace 'twixt the Kings and Kingdoms of Spain and England, though Charles Stuart the King be wanting, yet it may be kept entire with the Kingdom: And his Majesty himself insinuates so much unto us, continuing still his Ambassador in England; For, when a Peace is established 'twixt Kings and Kingdoms, People, Persons and Vassals, though the King fail, and the Kingdom receive a differing Form of Government, yet the Peace holds good still, because it aimed principally at the people and persons of both Nations; and upon these terms the Peace was renewed 'twixt Spain and England, in the year 1630. as the French Mercury relates it.  
The Result of all then, out of the foregoing reasons, testimonies, and examples, will be undeniably this; that Contracts made betwixt States and Princes, do not relate singly and personally to themselves, but are made Jure Populi, in the behalf, and for the good of the Community. Though Governors and their Families may fail, yet their Treaties are as eternal, as the people's interest, which is their moving cause, and their ultimate end.  
And therefore, as to our particular, it must undeniably follow, that those former Treaties made betwixt our Kings and the United Provinces, belong to us now of right, if we please to claim, or renew them, having been ratified at first, in respect only to the people of England. No King can lay any claim of this nature, but as he is an Officer of the people; For, that relation being once extinct, there remains no Foundation for any future pretences.   

CHAP. IU.  
THE two former Chapters, being as the two Hinges, whereupon hangs the main of the Controversy; and having therein vindicated the principal points of the people's interest in England, our design in the next place is, briefly to refute all the petty falsehoods and insinuations, which lie scattered here and there, in the pretended Answer of our Scottish Pretender.  
That which occurs in the first place, is this; where he tells the States of the United Provinces, that the Predecessors of the present Governors in England, were very inconsiderable in those days when the Treaties were made; and that they had neither part nor participation, in any of the favours and friendship afforded to the Netherlands: This he saith, by all circumstances may strongly be presumed. A very strong presumption indeed, it must needs be, till he can name those Circumstances. The Parliaments of England, which were the Predecessors of our present Governors, were not so considerable indeed, as now they are, and will be, we shall easily grant; because their glory and freedom was eclipsed by those unbounded Prerogatives, which Kings and their House of Peers, did usurp unto themselves, over the Commons, who naturally, really, and properly, were to be esteemed the Parliament; because they only sat, and represented the people in their rights; whereas the Lords sat only in their own rights, or rather by virtue of that pretended right, which Kings (forgetting whose servants they are, and for what end they were made) had arrogated unto themselves, in and over the people: This was the reason, why the Commons of England became more inconsiderable then by right they ought to have been. Yet take them in their most inconsiderable state, or in the lowest ebb of their Fortunes, and we never see them so low, but we find them admitted as partners in enacting of Laws, and reputed as principal in granting Subsidies, and other Supplies, for the necessities and support of the Crown, insomuch that no Aid-monies could be required of the people, but by the Commons consent. In Queen Elizabeth's time, they were brought low enough, as appears by her strange proceeding against Wentworth, that was one of their Members; which (perhaps) had not been so tamely taken from a Prince, that had less influence upon their affections: yet, as low as they were, the ancient Treaties betwixt Elizabeth and those Provinces, were not made and renewed; nor were the favours and supplies, both of men and money, afforded unto that State, but in the behalf of the Community, out of the Purses of the Commons, in whose name and right they were granted: so that we leave the world to judge, how nearly those Treaties did concern the the Commons; and whether they being the undeniable Predecessors of the present Governors in England, did not both partake, and participate, yea, and were the Principal Party concerned in those tokens of favour and friendship, which were then sont unto the Low-Country Provinces?  
But to fright them from our friendship, he tells them a strange Tale, How big we are grown with monstrous mysteries of enlarging our Trade and Power. 'Tis more than probable, that England, in this new form, will improve its self fat beyond its wont wealth and interest; forasmuch as for these many hundred years, it hath continued labouring and struggling under the yoke of a Tyrant, so that it could not possibly arrive to such a height and measure of happiness, as it may now attain in a condition of Liberty. But why should England's happiness be counted an eye-fore to the Netherlands, as our Scot would have it? Surely the world is wide enough for them both; and questionless, if England shall thrive (as the enemies of it fear) in this new form the Dutch will then see it much more concerned them (both in honour and interest) to have settled with us in the relation of a friend, then remain in a state of neutrality. 'Tis but a crude supposition, that they shall lose any thing by our Amity; but very probable they may lose much without it. Yet in another place he alleges to the States, that their Lordships having no enemy at present, will by uniting with us, involve themselves in a labyrinth. But their Lordships may be pleased rather to consider, it were a strange Wild-goose-chace, to be led about by the way of Scotland, to settle an interest for themselves in England, upon the uncertain favour of a subtle Tyrant and his followers, who in times passed at Court here were wont to dart the name of Rebel as freely at them, as they do now against us; being men of opposite principles to Freedom, such as hated the very name of the United Provinces; And if the States please to remember the carriage of King James, they will find that he himself was of the same humour and opinion, and the first that set an edge upon the tongues of the Courtiers. In vain therefore doth this Resident tell them, that their Lordships have no Enemy at present: For, however, our English Fugitives and Desperadoes (for present ends) may seem to court them; yet if they had a while since regained possession in England, and should the young Prince of Orange have lived to see it, it would have appeared to purpose, that they are the very worst of all their enemies. How much more secure than had it been for their Lordships to have embraced the late offer of England in its present establishment, as a sure friend, then to depend upon the good will of a deceitful Enemy. And whereas it is insinuated, that a League with us would draw enmities upon them elsewhere, they having no enemy at present; it will concern them to remember, what a friend they have of the French, who only gives fair words, but hates them mortally in heart, as appears by the continual depredations made upon them at Sea, by those of the French Nation. Also, it were worthy consideration, upon what ticklish terms they stand with Denmark and Sweden; and in manifest discontent (especially) with Portugal. Not any of these will, or can, be more a friend or enemy, for the sake of the King of Scotland: they are all swayed by their own interest, and accordingly measure both their love and hate, not out of respect to any single Person or Family: Therefore it will concern the States more rationally to weigh what advantages they might have reaped by an union with England; which had it been concluded upon such terms as were offered, would have rendered them so considerable in the eyes of the world, that not any of all the Friendly Pretenders round about, but would have been the more inclined to continue their Pretences, and the less apt to break them. Most absurd therefore is that affirmation of the Scotish Resident, in saying, The States may promise themselves more profit, repute, and security in Commerce, England abiding a Kingdom, then being transformed into a Republic: For, as a Kingdom, the actions both of James and Charles will tell them, Kings were no cordial friends, nor indeed can they be; whereas being in the form of a Republic the Provinces (had they embraced our offers) might have been admitted into a nearer union and complication of interests, than ever they can hope for from a Monarchy.  
He tells us farther, there is a wide difference betwixt the Hollanders and us, in the manner of acquiring our Freedom, The Hollanders (saith he) were a free people time out of mind but we in England have been under Sovereign Kings for a thousand years, and were bound to them by oaths. Besides, he saith, the K. of Spain after a tedious war of 80. years, hath declared the Provinces free, etc. But the case is otherwise with us in England. To this we say, If the Hollanders have of old been a free people, so have we been in England, and both they and we in the same manner. They were of old under Earls or Princes, but such as were limited by the laws. Auctoritas Principum erat plurimis pro libertate legibus repetitis definita, saith the Author de Statu Belgii 1650. So were we in England under Princes called Kings, but such only as were limited by laws. It was a Political Kingship, not Despotic or Tyrannic, as may be seen in all our Law-books. Let one or two old instances serve for all. Bracton l. 2. c. 16. Fletal. 1 c. 17. say, that the King of England hath the Law and the Parliament for his superiors; and therefore if the King have the reins lose, and be without a Bridle, they ought to bridle him: For (as Bracton saith again, l. 3. c. 9) The King can do nothing but what the Law permits him. Thus only, and with this limitation implied, we we sworn to our Kings, as the Hollanders were first to their Earls, and afterwards to the King of Spain; but finding the Spaniard to oppress them contrary to Law and Liberty, therefore they conceived themselves acquitted of their former Oaths. Et Philippi, simul & omnium Principum Imperium ejuravere, and (as our former Author saith) bound themselves by a new Oath to abjure the Government not only of Philip, but of all Princes for ever; which course exactly parallels our case here in England: all the difference now then, is only in a circumstance of Time; We have not had 80 years' War to make good our Freedom; but (alas) this altars not the verity of the thing: For, as the Freedom of the provinces (being really free from the very first moment wherein they drove out Philip) did not depend upon the Spaniards acknowledgement; so neither doth ours upon the acknowledgement and declaration of Charles, or any future Pretender of the Family. Yet notwithstanding this, the Resident saith, our case, in reference to the recovery of our Freedom, is no more like to the Hollanders, than Milk is like Ink. But for illustration, take this farther; were they oppressed in matter of Religion? So were we; tied up to strange forms and innovations. Were they crucified with an Inquisition? So were we with a High Commission. Were they squeezed with Impositions? So were we; such as Ship-money, Privy-seals, Coat and Conduct, Monopolies, and a thousand other devices. Besides, the Priests proclaimed at Court in their Sermons, that All was the Kings, no man had any propriety in what he possessed: so that the less credit is to be given to the Declaration of those pious Ministers (as they are called) against the Parliament, whose partial testimony is so much applauded by the Resident of Scotland. Did Philip of Spain endeavour (through his Agent D'Alva) to settle his Tyrannies over the Provinces by force of Arms? so did the late Tyrant Charles in England, first plot a war, and then set up his Standard, and put the Parliament upon the Defensive, as appears by the whole Series of his Counsels and Actions; whereto more credit is to be given, than to his Posthume Book of Meditations, which the Resident hath quoted with more affection than discretion.  
Lastly, are our Proceed in England distasted by some of our neighbours, through the malice and misrepresentation of our English Fugitives? So were those of the Hollanders, through the malicious subtlety of the Spanish Agents and Ministers, who laboured to incense all Christendom and draw the world about their ears, till Foreign Princes came to have a right understanding of the business: So that you see Master Resident might have spared his Milk and Ink too; for, nec Ouum ovo similius; one Egg cannot more exactly resemble another, than the case of England, in all particulars, doth that of Holland, in the manner of acquiring our Liberties and Freedoms.  
Now he rails at our judging and beheading the late King, and banishing his Family, calling it abominable violence, and such as the like was never heard of since the beginning of the world. Therefore, to rectify the ignorance and malice of himself, and his deluded party in this particular, some few Instances and Examples shall be here inserted, to show, it is no new thing, that Kings have been, and may be deprived or punished with death, for their crimes in Government. We read of Amon King of Judah, that was slain by a part of the people, because he walked not in the way of the Lord; and though another part of the people were angry at it, and avenged his death upon those that did it; yet without question, the execution was just, according to the Law of God, which was (without respect of persons) that the Idolater should die the death; and no doubt, the punishment had been inflicted by a Judicial Process, had not so great a party of the people been addicted to his ways, & opposed it: which opposition of their, is usually the cause, in all cases of this nature, why Kings are not to be attached, as well as other Malefactor's, by an ordinary course of Justice.  
Consider Ahab likewise, who though he were taken off himself by divine Justice in the battle at Ramoth-Gilead, and so escaped punishment by man for his idolatry and cruelty; yet it was executed afterward to the full by John, upon his Queen and the whole Family, who were utterly rooted out, and a blessing annexed to him and his heirs that performed the execution. But some may say, this fact was extraordinary, being done by immediate command from God, and so not fit for ordinary imitation. Yet, for Answer, it is sufficient, I say, that it had a Legal ground, viz. the ground of God's ordinary judgement, which commanded, that all offenders of the same nature, should die the death. God's extraordinary command, being superadded to his ordinary Law, doth (as to us) rather confirm then weaken the equity and justice of such a proceeding. In like manner we read, that the whole people took Amaziah King of Judah, and slew him for his idolatry: whether they did it by a way of Judicial process, or not, is not material, but done it was: and if it were done without process, then much more are they to he justified, that have the courage to imitate such noble acts of Justice, by a solemn and serious proceeding. The like had been executed upon Joas, the father of Amaziah, by a part of the people, for his Murder and Apostasy. Profane stories, both ancient and modern, are full likewise to the purpose. Romultes, the first King of Rome, was for his tyranny cut in pieces by the Senate; and Tarquin (their last King) was with his whole family, cashiered, the form of Government changed, by the same power, and upon the same occasion. Many years after, Nero the Roman Emperor, was sentenced to death by the Senate; which was not primum damnati Principis exemplum, as the Resident alleges out of Suetonius. The Senate being afterward in time cowed down by Heliogabalus their Emperor, so that they could not take the ordinary course with him, used means by corrupting the soldiery, (upon whose strength he depended) to put him to death.  
The two famous changes made in the Royal line of France, depend upon two such noble pieces of Justice; executed upon their Kings; the first upon Childerick, the third King of France, who being judicially deposed by the Nobility and Clergy in Parliament, the succession was then cut off from the family of Pharamont, and confirmed to the race of Pepin, till Charles of Lorraine, the last of Pepin's race, was in the like manner chastised by Parliament, and the Crown translated to the successors of Hugh Capet, who hold the same to this day; though two of them likewise, viz. Lewis the third, and Charles le Gross, have been judicially proceeded against in Parliament. And though the people were so tender towards them, as not to put them to death; yet they were buried alive, being mewed up within the melancholy walls of some Monastery, or else closely confined within the Castle of Orleans.  
In Spain too we read of Suintila, Don Alonson, the eleventh, and Don Pedro, judicially proceeded against; the first by the fourth National Council of Toleao; the second by public Act of the Estates of the Realm in the Town of Validolid; the third, by the Estates of Castille, all for their Tyrannical Government.  
The like proceeding also was had against Don Sancho the second of Portugal: also against Henry of Poland, that was King of France: Henry of Swethland: Christiern of Denmark, and Wenceslaus of Bohemia: as also Edward the second, and Richard the second of England.  
These last are mentioned by the Resident himself; but that which he mainly insists upon, is, that neither Christiern, Wenceslaus, Edward, nor Richard, were beheaded upon a Scaffold, as was the late Tyrant Charles.  
However, it is sufficient they were judged more worthy of a Scaffold, than the Throne: and therefore it must needs be more honourable (after the late Heroic Example of England) that the Judgements of God should be executed in public before all the world, than that they should be stifled in a Dungeon, or the Majesty of them be lessened by paltry private Assassinations, or poison, acted upon Royal Tyrants and Offenders.  
Even the practice of Scotland itself, will furnish us with Examples enough of this nature; where no less than fifty of their Kings have been punished with death; and the greatest part of them by a solemn judicial Proceeding: as it is set forth by Buchanan, their own Historian, who affirms it to be, More Majorum, according to the custom of their Ancestors: So that of all other men in the world, this Scot Resident, hath the least reason to wonder at our Capital Proceeding against a Tyrant, as a thing never heard of before in the world, since it hath been (from all Antiquity) the common practice of his own Country.  
Whereas, he farther allegeth, the Parliment's manifold reiterated Oaths, and their Covenants, with above an hundred Parlimentary Declarations and Protestations, to protect the King's Person and Posterity, etc. This must be understood, with that tacit Supposition, which is naturally included in all those Oaths and Protestations, viz. That he do not by any enormous crimes and continued Acts of Tyranny, divest himself of his Kingly capacity. And in the Covenant itself, as much as this comes to is implied by undeniable consequence, the whole scope of it being qualified with this special clause [In the preservation of Religion and Liberty] to show, that if the King should proceed so far, as to render himself an irreconcilable enemy to both, the Covenant did no longer oblige the Covenanters, in any relation to him; or his Posterity.  
But he saith, The Laws of England favour Kings above the Laws of all other Nations; and for this he alleges the parasitical maxims used by Courtiers, Rex non moritur, Rex nulli facit injuriam: Whereto let us oppose others out of our old Laws more rational and sound; Non debet esse rege major quisquam in exhibitione Juris; minimus autem esse debet in judicio suscipiendo, si peccat. Rex habet superiores, Legem; per quam factus est Rex, & Curiam suam, etc. Nihil aliud potest Rex, nisi id solum quod de Jure potest, say Bracton and Fleta. and whereas he is up again with his pious Divines in and about London, whose Declaration he much boasts of in the behalf of the late Tyrant and his Cause; In Answer to this, he must give us leave to reply in such a sense as out own experiences have taught us; that those whom he calls Divines, were the greatest Carnalists, Formalists, and fanatics, that ever appeared in any Nation; Court parasites, Trumpets of Tyranny; the only Patrons and Promoters of Slavery, both Spiritual and Tempporall. They were such (as most of the same Tribe ever have been and are) men ignorant in the more necessary and solid parts of Learning (both Sacred and Civil) who make a Trade and Traffic of certain Set-forms, and maxims of Divinity; wherein being Travelled, as in a Road, they cannot out of their old way, but immediately they lose themselves and their senses. If a Truth (though never so bright and glorious) come to clash with any of those trading notions which they call Orthodox, then immediately like the men of Ephesus, they grow stark mad, and can sing no other Tune to all the world, but Great is their Diana. Therefore, In those high and weighty Controversies which arise concerning the Rights and Concernments of Commonweals and Kingdoms (where their motions are eccentrical) little regard is to be had to their frigid Conceptions, where in they are wont, even in Luce meridianâ, toto coelo err are; and in this particular it might be made good (contrary to their Affirmations and Invectives) even as clear as the Sun, According to the holy word of God; the Instinct of Nature; Right Reason; The Laws of all Nations, and particularly of England; That Parliaments, or other Supreme Assemblies, have a Power of Jurisdiction (both coercive and punitive) over their Kings, and of altering Forms of Government, according to the Public exigents and Conveniences of their respective Nations, In the meantime this Scot may do well, since he often quotes William Prynn, to consult that great Scotiser; in his Book entitled, The Sovereign power of Parliaments; as also his own Countryman Rutherford in his Lex, Rex: who will give him another Account, than the raw Pulpiteers of London. Next, he affirms, that the saying of our Saviour which commands the paying of Tribute to Caesar, confirmeth and establisheth Lawful Power. Herein we agree with him; For, though the means whereby that Power of the Caesars was gained were unlawful, and the manner of its Acquisition unjust; yet it being once established beyond the control of any Public Power, and having all Authority seated within itself, it immediately became lawful by way of dispensation, having a right to the dispensing of Justice, and to the exercise of all Acts of Jurisdiction concerning private and particular Persons. But then (saith he) should David have acquiessed in the usurped power of Absolom, and Solomon in the power of Adonijah; Jehoiada in Athalia's, and the Maccabees in the power of Antiochus Epiphanes. Alas, the case of these is far different; for neither Absolom, nor Adonijah, were ever seated in a plenary possession, nor had they been acknowledged Supreme, as were the Caesars; nor had the Jews made any recognition of Antiochus his Authority, nor did he ever bring them under a total Subjugation, as afterwards did the Roman power, to whom they then paid a final submission, though they refused it before to Antiochus: As for that of Athaliah, we find she had a submission paid for no less than 6 years, though her power were usurped; and one main reason why the people denied it afterward was, because she had aggrieved the whole Nation with her practices of Idolatry and Tyranny: for which cause, she was lawfully deposed and put to death in a full Assembly of the Princes and People. 2. Kings 11. after which, they reduced the Government into its former course of succession. Thus much we thought fit to answer, as to this particular: But what hath this Scottish Resident to do to introduce these Instances of Absolom, Adonijah, and Athaliah, as Arguments against us in England? They touch not the matter at all, there being as vast a disproportion betwixt them and us, as betwixt light and darkness; for they were single Usurpers over the People; but here in England the People have recovered their own Rights, by ridding away an old Tyrannical Usurpation.  
He compares also the Religion that was under Kings in England, with the present, and saith that in the King's time it shone as a Lamp, more clear than in any other Nation: But that now it is nothing like the religion professed in Holland, nor indeed Religion itself. What the state or religion was in the King's time, I suppose we need not now dispute, it having been long since condemned, not only by our Presbyterians themselves, but in the judgement also of Foreign reformed Churches, as a profane medley of superstitious Innovations. And as to the present, though we glory not in an external pretended National Uniformity (the great Diana of the Clergy, and wherein they place all religion, because it makes for their profit) yet it bears a proportionable conformity to the mind of Christ, and the tenor foe his Gospel, which teacheth us to gather Believers into Congregations by the power of the Word, and not force men promiscuously into a pretended Church-relation by the power of the sword, or commands and constitutions of any worldly Power. This, together with a prudent Toleration of different opinions, is the present state of Religion in England; so that whosoever takes a view of the practices of both Nations, will easily grant a conformity of profession betwixt us, and our neighbours of the United Provinces.  
He alleges farther, It would be more safe and profitable for the States, that England should continue a Monarchy, than become a Republic, for that the increase of England in a free State would be the decrease of the other. See here, O ye people of England, what a Confession here is out of the mouth of the Common Enemy, of the possibility of that increase, both in wealth and honour, which our Nation may expect in the settled Form of a Free State, or Commonwealth. And if so, then by consequence it follows, that all this stir for a Royal Family, and Monarchy, is not out of any respect to the increase of the public weal, but only to satisfy the ambition of a single Tyrant and his Followers. And rather than not be so satisfied, he here (by the mouth of his Orator, Macdonnel) offers up the future interest and glory of England, as a prey unto the Dutch, in hope to allure them unto his party, for the restoring of him into a Tyranny: so that you see clearly, it is a thirst of Dominion and Revenge, not the people's benefit, that transports him in all his undertake. It is here acknowledged by himself, that his own restitution will be a means to keep England from growing richer and greater; the fear whereof, he useth as an argument to provoke the jealousy and emulation of Holland. The inference therefore is natural and easy, out of his own mouth; that the interest of himself, and family, is inconsistent with the increase, and interest of the English Nation:  
In the next place, he endeavours to darken the glory of God in our many wondrous successes; saying, they are no good argument to justify a cause, because the Turk hath had as great successes as any. But what ever this Babbler saith, we cannot be so ignorant of the good hand of God upon us, as to let those glorious works of Providence, whereby he hath pleaded the Cause of this Parliament and Commonwealth, pass under the common title of Fortune de la guerre; The Lord having carried on this marvellous work for time and place, with a concurrence of such remarkable circumstances, that the very enemies have at length acknowledged it to be digitus Dei, as did D. Hamilton (before his death) and others, who saw the stretched out arm of God in the late defeat at Worcester. We justify not our cause by successes; but only behold them as the effects of God's mercy and goodness, owning us in a just engagement, against the enemies of himself and people. The Turks design was to propagate Tyranny in Christendom; ours to pull it down. His, only to increase his own Dominion; ours, to exalt the Dominion of Jesus Christ. What he did, was by main strength, multitudes, and help of human policy. What we have done, hath been by a despised remnant, inconsiderable, both for knowledge & number, against all the wise and mighty men of this generation, who to their power & wisdom, have had so many great advantages from time to time, that the decision of every success, in our behalf, hath been so manifestly written with the finger of God, that all must confess, it could be no other hand but his that did it: witness the great advantage the Enemy had of us at Naisby; the miraculous sally at Dublin, with the many glorious defeats that followed in Ireland; the great deliverances wrought in 1648, when by a small army divided into two handfuls, we with one part quieted South-Wales, and vanquished Hamiltons' galiant army; and with the other part, suppressed the many numerous Insurrections in Kent, Essex, etc. Witness also that glorious deliverance (beyond all reason) given last year at Dunbar, when by a poor handful of sick men, wearied out with watch, hunger, and incessant marches in tedious weather, & at length impounded within a narrow neck of Land, surrounded by the sea, they did notwithstanding (in the strength of God) defeat the numerous Scottish Army, it being accommodated with all necessaries and advantages, and one of the best accomplished armies, that ever appeared in Scotland. Add tothese (omitting many other) the late memorable defeat at Worcester, attended with a series of many other wondrous successes: and it is so much the more observable, in regard of that miraculous power of God upon the hests of the people, fastening them to the Government, in a most notable time of trial, to the shameful confutation of this shameless Resident, who had the impudence to affirm, that not the hundreth part, or (as he saith a little after) not the thousandth part of the people, but do cordially adhere to the Royal Interest, and passionately groan to be delivered from the prevailing party in England, as he is pleased to call the Parliament: whereas, all the time of the Scot's King being among us (which was about 28 days) court and wooding the people with all manner of insinuations, entreaties, and pretences, he was not owned by any considerable number of his old friends, or his new-reconciled Enemies of the Presbyterian party. From all which particulars, (what ever other men may deem) we cannot but see the hand of God reached out unto us, for the upholding of this Government, in a peculiar manner, contrary to all the expectations and reasonings os worldly wisdom. Since the drying up of the red sea, with the wonders that were wrought in Egypt, and in the Wilderness, never have there been more glorious appearances of God's presence, than among his people in England: And therefore, none but a profane heart will presume so much to detract from the glory of these dispensations, as to rank them among the ordinary passages of a permissive, or Turkish Providence.  
The last that we shall take notice of, is one of the principal arguments that he useth to hold the Dutch to his young Master's party; hinting unto them by way of insinuation, that no Nation is so subject to change as England; that the Earl of Warwick in 11 days, Edw. 4. in 20, and Hen. 7. in 1 day, successively subdued the English Nation. 'tis true, England hath received many a sudden change, but never such a change as now. Heretofore, the poor people toiled themselves, in shifting one Tyrant out of the saddle to set up another; but now they have driven out, not only the Tyrant, but Tyranny itself, and cashiered not only a single King, but all Kings for ever. It is an easy matter for particulars to supplant one another in Government, because the interest stands deposited in a single hand; but when the whole frame of Government is altered from what it was, and the interest of State lies diffused in the hands of the people, it is almost impossible to alter it again, without such a tract of time, as may produce new dispositions and opportunities for the effecting a new alteration. Besides, it is very rarely observed in the whole course of History, that ever Kingly Government was suddenly restored in any Country, after it had been once cashiered by the people.  
As for Robert Bruce, his recovery of all Scotland, 300 years ago, out of the hands of the English; you know it could not be effected as long as Edw. 1. lived; but advantages being taken the infirmities, debaucheries, and civil broils of Edw. 2. the Scots made a shift to shake off the yoke; wherein they were more beholding to that Prince's vanity, than the valour and virtue of their own Nation. And whereas he calls Sterlin the unconquered, and fatal Bulwark of Scotland, and tells us, that there they stopped the current of the Roman Victories; yet their own Historian Buchanan confesseth, that both Edw. 1. and 2. were possessed of Sterlin by force of arms: and both their and our Historians will be able to relate in time to come how that the Commonwealth of England hath done more than Rome, and made another Conquest, not only of Sterlin, but far beyond it; which I dare be bold to second with this Omen: That as Scotland's happiness will be promoted by a subjection to England; so now it is the design of God, for the better carrying on of his great work, and the good of that people, to bring them into an universal submission to the Laws and Government of the English Nation.  — Nec sit Terris Vltima Thule.  
FINIS.