Therefore to plead for an owning of him in this case, were only concludent of this, that the generation had dreamed themselves into such a distraction, as may be feared will be pursued with destruction, and make such dreamers the detestation of posterity, and cause all men proclaim the righteousness of God, in bringing ruin upon them by that very power and authority they owned in such circumstances. 4. It is a known maxim, 'He that does not fulfil the conditions, falls from the benefit of it, and whoso remits the obligation of the party obliged upon condition, cannot exact it afterwards.' So then it is evident, that the subjects of Scotland were by king Charles II. his consent, yea express command, disengaged from so much of that covenant as could be alledged in favours of himself: so that all that he did, by burning and rescinding these covenants, and pursuing all who endeavoured to adhere to them, was a most explicit liberating his subjects from, and remission of their allegiance to him, (and in this we had been fools if we had not taken him at his word;) yea he rescinded his very coronation, by an act of his first parliament after his return, which did declare null and void all acts, constitutions and establishments, from the year 1633 to that present session, not excepting those for his own coronation, after which he was never recrowned, and therefore we could not own that right, which himself did annul. But as for his royal brother, James the VII. and II. we cannot indeed make use of the same reasons and arguments to disown him, as we have now adduced; yet, as we shall prove afterwards, this covenant does oblige to renounce him. So it is so clear, that it needs no illustration, that there lies no obligation from this covenant to own him. 1. Because, as he is an enemy to the whole of our covenant, and especially to these terms upon which authority it is to be owned therein: so he will not come under the bond of this covenant, nor any other compact with the people, but intrude himself upon the throne, in such a way as overturns the basis of our government, and destroys all the liberties of a free people, which by covenant we are bound to preserve, and consequently, as inconsistent therewith, to renounce his usurpation. For, a prince that will set himself up without any transactions with the people, or conditions giving security for religion and liberty, is an usurping tyrant, not bounded by any law but his own lusts. And to say to such an one, reign thou over us, is all one as to say, come thou and play the tyrant over us, and let thy lust and will be a law to us: which is both against scripture and natural sense. If he be not a king upon covenant terms, either expresly or tacitely, or general stipulations according to the word of God, and laws of the land, he cannot be owned as a father, protector, or tutor, having any fiduciary power entrusted to him over the common wealth, but as a lawless and