Again he asked, what they meant by owning? Either it is passive subjection, that he did not decline; or active acknowledgment of it and that he said he looked upon as all the suffrage he could give to its establishment in his station, which he must demur upon some scruple. The replies he received were very various, and some of them very rare, either for ignorance or imposture. Sometimes, it was answered: to own the king's authority, is to take the oath of allegiance; this he refused. Some answered, it is to engage never to rise in arms against the king, upon any pretence whatsoever; this he refused likewise. Others explained it to be, to acknowledge his right to be king: to his he answered, when the authority is legally devolved upon him by the representatives of both kingdoms, it was time enough for him to give account of his sentiments. Others defined it, to own him to be a lawful king by succession. To this he answered, he did not understand succession could make a man formally king, if there were not some other way of conveyance of it; it might put him in the nearest capacity to be king, but could not make him king.
Some did thus paraphrase upon it, that he must own him to be his sovereign Lord under God, and God's vicegerent, to be obeyed in all things lawful. To this he answered, whom God appoints, and the people choose according to law, he would own. When those shifts would not do, but from time to time being urged to a categorical answer; he told them, he was content to live in subjection to any government providence set up; but for owning the present constitution as of God, and according to law, he durst not acknowledge it, nor own any mortal as his lawful sovereign, but in terms consistent with the covenant securing religion and liberty. This not satisfying, when he came to a more pinching trial; he declared, he owned all lawful authority according to the word of God, and all authority that was the ordinance of God by his preceptive will, and he could be subject to any; but further to acknowledge it, he behoved to have more clearness; for sometimes a nation might be charged with that, 'Ye have set up kings, and not by me,' &c. Further he conceded, he owned his providential advancement to the throne; he owned as much as he thought did oblige him to subject himself with patience; he owned him to be as lawful, as providence possessing him of the throne of his ancestors, and lineal succession, as presumed next in blood and line, could make him: but still he declined to own him as lawful king, and alledged that was all one, whether he was lawful or not, he refused not subjection, distinguishing it always from allegiance.
But all these concessions did not satisfy them, and alledged he might say all this of a tyrant; and therefore commanded him to give it under hand, to own not only the lineal, but the legal succession of king James VII. to the crown of Scotland; which he did, upon a fancy, that legal did not import lawful, but only the formality of their law; withal protesting, he might not be interpreted to approve of his succession. But this was a vain protestation against fact. However, by this we see, what is owning this authority, in the sense of the inquisitors.
The result of all is, to acknowledge allegiance to the present possessor, and to approve his pretended authority as lawful, rightful and righteous; which indeed is the true sense of the words, and any other, that men can forge or find out, is strained. For, to speak properly, if we own his authority in any respect, we own it to be lawful: for every authority, that is owned to be authority indeed, is lawful; authority always importing authorization, and consisting in a right or call to rule, and is formally and essentially contradistinct to usurpation: where ever the place of power is merely usurped, there is no authority but according to his word; a stile without truth, a barely pretended nominal equivocal authority, no real denomination: if we then own this man's authority, we own it to be lawful authority: and if we cannot own it so, we cannot own it all. For it is most suitable, either to manly ingenuity, or Christian simplicity, to speak properly, and to take words always in the sense, that they to whom they are speaking will understand them, without equivocating.
These preliminaries being thus put by, which do contribute to clear somewhat in this controversy, and both furnish us with some arguments for, and solutions in most of the objections against my thesis, in answer to the questions above stated. I set it down thus: A people long oppressed with the encroachments of tyrants and usurpers, may disown all allegiance to their pretended authority, and when imposed upon to acknowledge it, may and must rather chuse to suffer, than to own it. And consequently we cannot, as matters now stand, own, acknowledge, or approve the pretended authority of king James VII. as lawful king of Scotland; as we could not, as matters then stood, own the authority of Charles II. This consequence is abundantly clear from the foregoing deduction, demonstrating their tyranny and usurpation. In prosecuting of this general thesis, which will evince the particular hypothesis, I shall, 1. Adduce some historical instances, whence it may be gathered, that this is not altogether without a precedent, but that people have disowned allegiance to tyrants and usurpers before now. 2. Deduce it from the dictates of reason. 3. Confirm it by scripture arguments.
I. Albeit, as was shewed before, this question, as now stated, is in many respects unprecedented; yet the practice, which in our day hath been the result of it, to disown, or not to own prevailing dominators usurping the government, or abusing it, is not so alien from the examples of history, but that by equivalency or consequence it may be collected from and confirmed by instances.
1. To begin at home, besides many passages related already for confirmation, we may add, (1.) That for about 1025 years, the people had in their choice whom to own, or admit to succeed in the government, 'Even though the kingdom was hereditary; and used to elect, not such who were nearest in blood and line, but these that were judged most fit in government, being of the same progeny of Fergus,' Buchanan's History of Scotland, book vi. pag. 195. in the life of Kenneth III. This continued until the days of Kenneth III. who to cover his villainous murder of his brother's son Malcolm, and prevent his, and secure his own son's succession, procured this charter for tyranny, the settlement of the succession of the next in line from the parliament: which, as it pretended the prevention of many inconveniencies, arising from contentions and competitions about the succession; so it was limited by laws, precluding the succession of fools or monsters, and preserving the people's liberty to shake off the yoke when tyranny should thereby be introduced: otherwise it would have been not only an irrational surrender of all their own rights, and enslaving the posterity, but an irreligious contempt of providence, refuting and anticipating its determination in such a case. However it is clear, before this time, that as none but the fittest were admitted to the government; so if any did usurp upon it, or afterwards did degenerate into tyranny, they took such order with him, as if he had not been admitted at all; as is clear in the instances of the first period, and would never own every pretender to hereditary succession. (2.) As before Kenneth's days, it is hard to reckon the numerous instances of kings that were dethroned, or imprisoned, or slain, upon no other account than that of their oppression and tyranny; so afterwards they maintained the same power and privilege of repressing them, when ever they began to encroach. And although no nation hath been more patient towards bad kings, as well as loyal towards good ones; yet, in all former times, they understood so well the right they had, and the duty they owed to their own preservation, as that they seldom failed of calling the exorbitantly flagitious to an account. And albeit, instead of condoling or avenging the death of the tyrannous, they have often both excused and justified it, yet no kingdom hath inflicted severer punishments upon the murders of just and righteous princes: and therefore, though they did neither enquire after, nor animadvert upon those that slew James III. a flagitious tyrant, yet they did, by most exquisite torments, put them to death who slew James the I. a virtuous monarch. Hence, because these and other instances I mind to adduce of deposing tyrants, may be excepted against, as not pertinent to my purpose, who am not pleading for exauctoration and deposition of tyrants, being impracticable in our case: I shall once for all remove that, and desire it may be considered, (1.) That though we cannot formally exauctorate a tyrant; yet he may, by law itself, fall from his right, and may exauctorate himself, by his laws by whom kings reign; and this is all we plead for as a foundation of not owning him. (2.) Though we have not the same power, yet we have the same grounds, and as great and good, if not greater and better reasons to reject and disown our tyrant, as they, whose example is here adduced, had to depose of their tyrannizing princes. (3.) If they had power and ground to depose them, then a fortiori, they had power and ground to disown them; for that is less, and included in the other, and this we have. (4.) Though it should be granted, that they did not disown them before they were deposed; yet it cannot be said that they did disown them only because they were deposed: for it is not deposition that makes a tyrant; it only declares him to be justly punished for what he was before. As the sentence of a judge does not make a man a murderer or thief, only declares him convict of these crimes, and punishable for them; it is their own committing them that makes him criminal: and, as before the sentence, having certain knowledge of the fact, we might disown the man's innocency or honesty; so a ruler's acts of tyranny and usurpation make him a tyrant and usurper, and give ground to disown his just and legal authority; which he can have no more than a murderer or thief can have innocency or honesty. (3.) We find also examples of their disowning kings undeposed; as king Baliol was disowned with his whole race, for attempting to enslave the kingdom's liberties to foreign power. And if this may be done for such an attempt, as the greatest court parasites, and sycophants consent; what then shall be done for such as attempt to subject the people to domestic or intestine slavery? shall we refuse to be slaves to one without, and be, and own ourselves contented slaves to one within the kingdom? It is known also that king James the I. his authority was refused by his subjects in France, so long as he was a prisoner to the English there, though he charged them upon their allegiance, not to fight against the party who had his person prisoner: they answered, They owned no prisoner for their king, nor owned no allegiance to a prisoner. Hence princes may learn, though people submit to their government; yet their resignation of themselves to their obedience is not so full, as that they are obliged to own allegiance to them, when either morally or physically they are incapacitate to exercise authority over them. They that cannot rule themselves cannot be owned as rulers over a people.
2. Neither hath there been any nation, but what at one time or other hath furnished examples of this nature. The English history gives account, how some of their kings have been dealt with by their subjects, for impieties against the law and light of nature, and encroachments upon the laws of the land. Vortigern was dethroned for incestuously marrying his own sister. Neither did ever blasphemies, adulteries, murders, plotting against the lives of innocents, and taking them away by poison or razor, use to escape the animadversion of men, before they were priest-ridden unto a belief that princes persons were sacred. And if men had that generosity now this man that now reigns might expect some such animadversion. And we find also king Edward, and Richard the II. were deposed, for usurpation upon laws and liberties, in doing whereof the people avowed, They would not suffer the laws of England to be changed.
Surely the people of England must now be far degenerate, who having such laws transmitted to them from their worthy ancestors, and they themselves being born to the possession of them without a change, do now suffer them to be so encroached upon, and mancipate themselves, and leave their children vassals to popery, and slaves to tyranny.
3. The Dutch also, who have the best way of guiding of kings of any that ever had to do with them (witness their having so many of them in chains, now in Batavia in the East Indies) are not wanting for their part to furnish us with examples. When the king of Spain would not condescend to govern them according to their ancient laws, and rule for the good of the people, they declared him to be fallen from the seigniory of the Netherlands, and so erected themselves into a flourishing common-wealth. It will not be amiss to transcribe some of the words of the edict of the states general to this purpose. It is well known, (say they) 'That a prince and lord of a country is ordained, by God, to be sovereign and head over his subjects, to preserve and defend them from all injuries, force, and violence; and that if the prince therefore faileth therein, and instead of preserving his subjects, doth outrage and oppress them, depriveth them of their privileges and ancient customs, commandeth them, and will be served of them as slaves; they are no longer bound to respect him as their sovereign lord, but to esteem of him as a tyrant, neither are they bound to acknowledge him as their prince, but may abandon him, &c.' And with this agrees the answer William, prince of Orange, to the edict of proscription, published against him by Philip the II. There is, says he, 'A reciprocal bond betwixt the lord and his vassal; so that if the lord break the oath, which he hath made unto his vassal, the vassal is discharged of the oath made unto his lord.' This was the very argument of the poor suffering people of Scotland, whereupon they disowned the authority of Charles the II.