all presidents in former ages in High affront of the priviledges honour power of the Parliament and Fundamentall knowns Lawe of the Realme Since which time his Majestie having contrary to his former Proclamations and frequent Printed solemne Declarations entertained not onely divers Irish Popâ—sh Rebels but likewise English and Outlandish Papists in his Army and given Commissions to sundry Arch Popish Recusants to Arme themselves and raise Forces against the Parliament and Kingdom now in the field in all the Northerne parts Wales and other places and that under the Popes owne consecrated Banner as many report in defiance of our Protestant Religion designed by the Popish Party both at home and abroad to no lesse then utter extirpation in England as well as in Ireland if not in Scotland too as some of them openly professe the Parliament are hereupon necessitated to augment and recrute their forces as for the precedent ends at first so now more especially for the necessary defence of the Protestant Religion established among us by law against which they and all others who are not wilfully blinded visibly discerne a most apparant desperate conspiracie which though not cleerely perceived but onely justly suspected at first doth now appeare all circumstances and agents considered to be the very Embrio and primitive cause of this deplorable warre against which the Parliament and subjects are now more necessitated and engaged to desend themselves then ever seeing they have by all possible meanes endeavored to prevent this warre at first and since to accommodate it though in vaine upon just reasonable and honorable safe termes for King and Kingdome The sole Question then in this case thus truely stated will be Whether his Majestie having contrary to his Oath Duty the fundamentall Laws of God and the Realme raised an Armie of Malignants Papists Forraigners against his Parliament Kingdome People to make an Offensive warre upon them to murther rob spoyle deprive them of their peace liberties properties estates to impose unlawfull taxes by force upon them protect Delinquents and evill Councellors against the Parliaments Iustice and violently to undermine our established Protestant Religion the Common-wealth of England legally assembled in Parliament and all Subjects in such cases by Command and direction from both Houses of Parliament may not lawfully and justly without any Treason or Rebellion in point of Law and Conscience take up defensive Armes to preserve the Priviledges of Parliament their Lawes lives liberties estates properties Religion to bring Delinquents and ill Councellours to condigne punishment and rescue his seduced Majestie out of their hands and power though he be personally present with them to assist and countenance them in this unnaturall destructive warre And under correction notwithstanding any thing I ever yet heard or read to the contrary I conceive affirmatively that they may justly do it both in point of Law and Conscience I shall begin with Law because in this unhappie controversie it must direct the conscience First I have already proved in Judgement of Law the Parliament and Kingdome assembled in it to be the Soveraigne power and of greater authority then the King who is but their publike Minister in point of civill Iustice and Generall in matters of warre as the Roman Kings and Emperours were and other forraigne Kings of old and at this day are The Parliament then being the highest power and having principall right and authority to denounce conclude and proclaime warre as I have manifested in the debate of the Militia may not onely lawfully resist but oppugne suppresse all Forces raised against it and the Kingdomes peace or welfare Secondly the principall end of the Kingdomes originall erecting Parliaments and investing them with supreame power at first was to defend not onely with good Lawes and Councell but when absolute necessitie requires as now it doth with open force of Armes the Subjects Liberties Persons Estates Religion Lawes Lives Rights from the encroachments and violence of their Kings and to keepe Kings within due bounds of Law and Iustice the end of instituting the Senate and Ephori among the Lacaedemonians the Senate and Dictators among the Romans the Forum Suprarbiense and Justitia Aragoniae among the Aragonians of Parliaments Dietts and Assemblies of the estates in other forraigne Kingdomes and in Scotland as I shall prove at large in its proper place This is cleare by the proceedings of all our Parliaments in former ages Especially in King Iohns Henry the third Edward the 1. 2. 3. and Richard the seconds Raignes by the latter Parliaments in King Iames his raigne yea of 3. Caroli the last dissolved Parliament and this now sitting whose principall care and imployment hath beene to vindicate the Subjects Liberties properties lawes and Religion from all illegall encroachments on them by the Crown and its ill Instruments by the forecited resolutions of Bracton Fleta the Myrror of Iustices Vowell Holinshed the Councell of Basill and others that the Parliament ought to restraine and bridle the king when he casts off the bridle of the Law and invades the Subjects Liberties especially with open force of Armes in an Hostile manner and by the constant practise of our Ancestors and the Barons Warres in maintenance of Magna Charta with other good Lawes and Priviledges confirmed by Parliament If then the Parliament be instrusted by the Kingdome with this Superlative power thus to protect the Subjects Liberties properties Lawes persons Religion c. against the kings invasions on them by policie or violence they should both betray their trust yea the whole kingdome too if they should not with open Force of Armes when Policy Councell and Petitions will not doe it defend their owne and the Subjects Liberties persons priviledges c. against his Majesties offensive Armies which invade them intending to make the whole kingdome a present booty to their insaciable rapine and a future vassall to his Majesties absolute arbitrary power by way of conquest I reade in Bodin that the Roman Senate being no way able to restraine Caesar tooke their refuge to that ancient Decree of the Senate which was commonly made but in dangerous times of the Common-wealâ— Videant Consules caeteri Magistratus ne quid detrimenti capiat Respublica Let the Consulls and other Majestrates fore see that the Common-weale take no harme With which decree of the Senate the Consulls being armed sodainely raised their power commanding Pompey to take up Armes and raise an Army against Caesar to oppose his violent proceedings by force who after his conquest of Pompey refusing to rise up to the Consulls Pretors and whole Senate out of his pride through his ill Councellors advise and talking with them as if they had beene but private men he so farre offended both the Senate and people that to free the Republicke from his Tyranny and preserve their hereditary Liberties they conspired his death and soone after murthered him in the Senate-house where they gave him
evill Deeds I shall apply to this particular of executing Kings unjust Commands against their people they are partakers of their Kings wickednesse if they do but intertaine their unjust Commissions into their Houses or bid them God speed much more if they execute them either voluntarily or against their wills out of an unworthy feare or base respects These three Conclusions being irrefragable My first Argument to justifie resistance from them shall be this That violence against the Subjects persons Consciences Families Estates Properties Priviledges or Religion which neither the King himselfe in proper person nor any his Officers nor Souldiers by command from him have any Autoritie by the Lawes of God or man in Law or Conscience to inflict and which in Conscience ought not to be obeyed but rejected as a meere nulliâ—y even by the instruments enjoyned for to execute it may justly with a safe Conscience be resisted by the Parliament and Subjects there being not one syllable in Gods Word to contradict it But the violence now offered by the Kings Forces to the Parliament and Subjects every where is such Therefore it may justly with a safe Conscience be resisted especially in the Kings Commanders and Souldiers who are neither the King himself nor the Higher Powers ordained by God and no other then plain Theeves and Murtherers in Law and Conscience if they plunder kill spoile their Commissions being but Nullities in both and they in this particular meere private men without any Authority to iustifie their actions as I have already proved Secondly That resistance which is warranted by direct Precedents recorded approved in Scripture even by God himself must questionlesse be lawfull in case of coâ—science But the resistance even of Kings their highest Magistrates officers in the execution of their unjust Commands is thus warranted Therfore doubtles it must be lawfull in point of Conscience The Minor only questionable is thus confirmed First by the notable example of the Prophet Elijah 2 Kings 1. 2. to 16. who sending backe King Ahaziah his Messengers sent by him to enquire of Baalâ—zebub the God of Ekron whether hee should recover of his disease with an harsh Message to the King contrary to his Command which they disobeyed thereupon this King in an angry fume sent two Captaines with 50. men apeece one after another to apprehend the Prophet for this affront as Iosephus with other Interpreters accord who comming with their forces to him said Thou man of God the King hath said come downe quickly To whom he successively answered If I be a man of God then let fire come downe from Heaven and consume thee and thy fifty And there came fire from heaven thereupon and consumed two Captaines and their fifties but the third Captaine and his fifty who humbled themselves to the Prophet and begged the sparing of their lives were spared the Angel of the Lord bidding the Prophet to goe downe with them to the King and not be afraid From which Text it is infallible even by a divine Miracle from heaven doubled by God himselfe That it is lawfull for Subjects in some cases to resist the unjust violence of the Souldiers and Captaines of their Kings though armed with their Regall Commands Secondly by the History of the Prophet Elisha 2 Kings 6. 31 32 33. Who when King Ioram his Soveraigne had sworne unjustly in his fury God doe so to me and more also if the head of Elisha shall stand on him this day and thereupon sent a Messenger before him to Elisha his house to take away his head the Prophet was so farre from submitting to this Instrument of his that he Commanded the Elders sitting then with him in the house to looke when the Messenger came and shut the doore and Hold him fast at the Doore though the sound of his Masters feet the King were behind him whom he stiles the sonne of a Murderer Might these two eminentest Prophets thus openly resist the Captaines Souldiers and unjust Executioners of their Princes with a good Conscience and may not others lawfully doe the like No doubt they may Thirdly If I bee not much mistaken this kind of resistance is warranted even by Christ himselfe and his Apostles For a little before his Apprehention Christ uttered this speech unto his Disciples Luke 22. 36 37 38. But Now he that hath no Sword let him sell his garment and buy one c. And they said Lord behold here are two Swords And he said unto them it is enough Why would Christ have his Disciples buy Swords now unlesse it were for his and their owne better Defence being the time when he was to be apprehended Soone after this Judas and his Band of men sent from the High Priests with Swords and Staves came to seize upon Christ Which when they who were about him saw what would follow They said unto him Lord shall we smite with the Sword His commanding them to buy Swords now was sufficient ground for this question and intimation enough that they might now use them whereupon Christ giving no negative answer One of them which were with Iesus and John directly saith it was Peter smote a servant of the High Priest whose name was Malchus and cut off his right eare Hereupon Jesus answered and said Suffer yee Thus Farre So Luke Marke relates no answer at all reprehending this fact Iohn records his speech to Peter thus Then said Iesus unto Peter Put up thy Sword into the sheath The Cup which my Father hath given me shall I not drinke To which Matthew addes thinkinst thou that I cannot pray to my Father and he shall presently give me more then twelve Legions of Angels But how then shall the Scriptures bee fulfilled that thus it must be So that the reason why Christ bade Peter thus to put up his sword was not because he thought defence of himselfe and Peters smiting now altogether unlawfull in it selfe but onely inconsistent with Gods present providence which it should seeme to crosse Christ was now by Gods eternall decree and the Scriptures prediction which must be necessarily fulfilled to suffer death upon the Crosse for our iniquities should Peter then with the other Disciples have totally resisted his apprehention at this time and proceeded still to smite with the Sword as they began till they had rescued our Saviour he could not then have suffered nor the Scriptures be fulfilled had it not beene for this speciall reason rendred by Christ himselfe to cleare all scruples against the Lawfulnesse of selfe-defence in such cases Peter might still have used his sword to rescue his Master from these Catchpoles violence and if he and his fellowes had beene too weake to withstand them Christ was so farre from imagining that hee might not have lawfully defended himselfe that hee informes them he could and would no doubt have presently commanded whole Legions of Angels from heaven by his Fathers approbation to rescue him from unjust
King and Monarch every subject worse than a Turkish slave and exposed to as many uncontrolable Soveraignes as there are Souldiers in the Kings Army be their conditions never so vile their qualitie never so mean and the greatest Peeres on the Parliaments party must be irresistably subject to these new absolute Soveraignes lusts and wills Twelfthly if all these will not yet satisfie Conscience in the Lawfulnesse the justnesse of the Parliaments and peoples present forcible resistance of the Kings Captaines and Forces though Armed with an illegall Commission which makes nothing at all in the case because voyd in Law there is this one Argument yet remaining which will satisfie the most scrupulous malignant opposite Conscience That necessary forcible resistance which is Authorised and Commanded by the Supreamest lawfull power and highest Soveraigne Authority in the Realme must infallibly be just and lawfull even in point of Conscience by the expresse Resolution of Rom. 13. and our opposites owne confession who have no other Argument to prove the Offensive warre on the Kings part Lawfull but because it is commanded and the Parliaments and Subjects Defensive Armes Unlawfull but because prohibited by the King whom they salsely affirm to be the highest Soveraigne power in the Kingdome above the Parliament and whole Realme collectively considered But this resistance of the Kings Popish malignant invading Forces is Authorized and Commanded by the expresse Votes and Ordinances of both Houses of Parliament which I have already undeniably manifested to be the Supreamest Lawfull Power and Soveraignest Authority in the Realme Paramount the King himselfe who is but the Parliaments and Kingdomes Publicke Royall Servant for their good Therefore his Resistance must infallibly be just and Lawfull even in Point of Conscience Thus much for the Lawfulnesse in Court of Conscience of resisting the Kings unjustly assaulting Forces armed with his Commission I now proceede to the justnesse of opposing them by way of forcible resistance when accompanied with his personall presence That the Kings Army of Papists and Malignants invading the Parliaments or Subjects persons goods Lawes Liberties Religion may even in Conscience bee justly resisted with force though accompanied with his person seemes most apparently cleare to me not only by the preceeding Reasons but also by many expresse Authorities recorded and approved in Scripture not commonly taken notice of as First By the ancientest precedent of a defensive warre that we read of in the world Gen. 14. 1. to 24. where the five Kings of Sodom Gomorrah Admah Zeboiim and Zoar rebelling against Chedolaomer King of Nations after they had served him twelve yeeres defended themselves by armes and battle against his assaults and the Kings joyned with him who discomfiting these five Kings pillaging Sodom and Gomorrah and taking Lot and his goods along with them as a pâ—eâ— hereupon Abraham himselfe the Father of the faithfull in defence of his Nephew Lot to rescue him and his substance from the enemie taking with him 318. trained men of his owne family pursued Chedorlaomer and the Kings with him to Dan assaulted them in the night smote and pursued them unto Hoba regained all the goods and prisoners with his Nephew Lot and restored both goods and persons freely to the King of Sodom thereby justifying his and his peoples forcible defence against their invading enemies in the behalfe of his captivated plundred Nephew and Neighbors Secondly by the Example of the Israelities who were not onely King Pharaoh his Subjects but Bondmen too as is evident by Exod ch 1. to 12. Deut. 6. 21. c. 7. 8. c. 15. 15. c. 16. 12. c. 24 18. 22. Ezra 9. 9. Now Moses and Aaron being sent by God to deliveer them from their AEgyptian bondage after 430. yeares captivity under colour of demanding but three dayes liberty to goe into the wildernesse to serve the Lord and Pharoah notwithstanding all Gods Miracles and Plagues refusing still to let them depart till enforced to it by the slaughter of the Egyptians first borne as soone as the Israelites were marching away Pharaoh and the AEgyptians repenting of their departure pursued them with their Chariots and Horses and a great army even to the red Sea to reduce them here upon the Israelites being astonished and murmuring against Moses giving themselves all for dead men Moses sayd unto the people feare ye not stand still and see the Salvation of the Lord which he will shew to you this day for the AEgyptians whom you have seene to day ye shall see them againe no more for ever the Lord shall fight for you c. And hereupon God himselfe discomfited routed and drowned them all in the red Sea I would demaund in this case whether the Isralites might not here lawfully for their owne redemption from unjust bondage have fought against and resisted their Lord King Pharaoh and his invading Host accompanied with his presence had they had power and hearts to doe it as well as God himselfe who fought against and destroyed them on their behalfe If so as all men I thinke must grant unlesse they will censure God himselfe then a defensive warre in respect of life and liberty onely is just and Lawfull even in conscience by this most memorable story Thirdly by that example recorded Iudges 3. 8. 9. 10. where God growing angry with the Israelites for their Apostacie and Idolatry sold them here was a divine title into the hands of Cushan-Rishathaim King of Mesopotamia and the children of Israel served him 8. yeares Here was a lawfull title by conquest and 8 yeeres submission seconding it But when the children of Israel cryed unto the Lord the Lord raised up a deliverer to them even Othniel the sonne of Kenaz and the Spirit of the Lord came upon him and he went out to warre and the Lord delivered Cushan-rishatiam King of Mesopotamia into his hands and his hand prevailed against him so the land had rest 40. yeeres Loe here a just defensive warre approved and raised up by God and his Spirit in an ordinary manner only as I take it by encouraging the Instruments wherein a conquering King for Redemption former liberties is not onely resisted but conquered taken prisoner and his former dominion abrogated by those that served him as conquered subjects Fourthly by the example of Ehud and the Israelites Iudges chap. 3. 11. to 31 where we finde God himself strengthning Eglon King of Moab against the Israelites for their sinnes who thereupon gathering an Army smote Israel possessed their Cities so as the Israelites served this King 18. yeeres Here was a title by conquest approved by God submitted to by the Israelites yet after all this when the children of Israel cryed unto the Lord he raised them up a deliverer namely Ehud who stabbing Eglonn the King in the belly under pretext of private conference with him and escaping he therupon blew the trumpet commanded the Israelites to follow him to the warre slew ten thousand valiant men of
their cruelties oppressions impieties Seventhly the Apostle hereupon concludes Vers 5. Wherefore you must of necessity be subject not onely for wrath but also for conscience sake This conclusion as the word Wherefore demonstrates being inferred from the premised reasons extending onely to extends to all civill Magistrates as well inferiour and subordinate as superiour and many sticke not to straine it even to Ecclesiasticall ones So Origen Ambrose Hierome Remigius Theodulus Chrysostome Theodoret Primasius Haymo Rabanus Maurus Theophylact Oecumenius Haymo Aquinas Anselm Lyra Bruno Gorran Hugo de Sancto Victore Tostatus Luther Calvin Erasmus Melanchthon Gualther Musculus Bucer Hemingius Ferus Fayus Soto Alexander Alesius Peter Martyr Pareus Beza Piscator Zuinglius Tollet Willet Wilson Nacclantus Snecanus Vignerius Wenerichius Winckelman Estius Faber Cornelius a Lapide Salmeron Catharinus Guilliandus Adam Sasbout with sundry others This then being irrefragable hereby it is most apparent First that no resistance of the higher powers is here prohibited but onely in the due and legall execution of their offices For if any inferiour Officers illegally indeavour to subvert Religion Lawes Liberties and unrightly governe the people they may lawfully be resisted by them For example if a Maior Justice of Peace Constable or other officer extravagating from the common course of Law and Justice shall with force of armes in a riotous manner assault any private man or the whole Citie or Village where he lives to beate wound kill plunder dispossesse the inhabitants of their houses goods franchises or assault them on the highway side to take away their purses in these and such like cases both in point of Law and conscience he may not onely be forcibly resisted but repulsed apprehended battered if not lawfully slaine by the people and proceeded against as a delinquent The reason is because these illegall unjust actions are not onely besides without their Commissions but directly contrary to their offices and the Lawes which never gave them authority to act such injustice yet they are higher Powers ordained of God within this Text and no way to be resisted in the due execution of their Offices according to Law If then these inferiour Officers may be thus forcibly resisted repulsed notwithstanding this Text in such cases as these then by the selfe same reason Kings and Emperours may bee thus resisted too since the Text extends indifferently to them both Let then the objectors take their choyce either affirme that no inferiour lawfull Officers whatsoever may be forcibly resisted by the people or repulsed arraigned censured for their misdemeanour by vertue of this Text which would bring an absolute Tyranny Anarchy and confusion presently into the world and make every Constable as great a Tyrant Monarch as the grand Emperor of the Turks or else confesse that this Text condemnes not such resistance even of Kings and Princes when they forcibly war upon their Subjects to subvert Religion Lawes Liberties and ruine the republike since it makes no distinction at all betweene the ones power and the others but equally enjoynes subjection prohibits resistance unto both and that onely in just administration of their severall authorities not in the arbitrary unjust prosecutions of their wils and lusts Secondly it followes that the Kings Souldiers Cavaliers and Forces now raised against Law and armed onely with illegall Commissions voyd in Law as I have proved are none of the high powers ordained of God nor lawfull Rulers or Magistrates within the meaning of this Scripture and so the forcible resisting of them and of the Kings illegall commands and designes executed by them is no resistance of the higher powers here prohibited Thirdly that the Houses of Parliament being in truth the highest powers ordained of God in this Realme and their just legall Ordinances Votes Forces for the necessary defence of Lawes Liberties Religion against the Kings ill Counsellors and Malignant Popish Forces neither may nor ought in conscience to be resisted by the King himselfe or any of his Subjects Souldiers under the perill of that damnation mentioned in this Chapter For the second Whether the Roman Emperor in Pauls time was the highest Soveraign power in the Roman State or not It is taken for granted by Doctor Ferne and other opposites that he was as a thing past doubt the Senate and people as they say having resigned up their power to the Emperour But this no doubt is a grosse errour which I have largely refuted in the Appendix and therefore shall be the briefer here derived from some civill Lawyers who out of Justinian Digest lib. 2. Tet. 2. and Instit Tit. 2. falsly affirme that Lege Regia by the regall Law the Senate and people transferred all their Empire and power unto the Emperour For first the Senate and people as Albericus Gentilis well observes did not by this Law give the Emperour all power and command to dispose of them or the lands and revenues of the Empire as he pleased but onely to governe them according to their Lawes as men not to slay and alienate them as beasts Thus reason dictates so the words of the Law sound Divines are deceived Lawyers flatter who perswade that all things are lawfull to Princes and that their power is highest and free It is ridiculous to affirme that absolute power over the subjects belongs to Popes which belongs not to the Emperours themselves over the Italians from whom they derive it Imagine therefore that the Emperour had a power never so free yet it is not of dominion but of administration And he who hath but a free administration hath not the power of donation e A gardian is then reputed in stead of a Lord cum tutelam administrat non cum pupillum spoliat when he rightly administers his tutelage not when he spoyles his pupill So Gentilis If then the Emperours had onely a free legall administration not an absolute dominion granted them by the people then this soveraigne power still resided in the Senate and people as Justinian Digest lib. 1. Tit. 2. De Origine Juris will sufficiently manifest Secondly John Bodin a learned Civilian clearely proves That the Roman Emperors were at the first nothing else but Princes of the Commonweale The SOVERAIGNTY NEVERTHELESSE STILL RESTING IN THE PEOPLE and THE SENATE So that this Common-wealth was then to have beene called a Principality although that Seneca speaking in the person of Nero his Scholler saith I am the onely man amongst living men elect and chosen to be the Lieutenant of God upon earth I am the Arbitratour of life and death I am able of my pleasure to dispose of the state and quality of every man True it is that he tooke upon him this Soveraigne authority by force wrested from the people and Senate of Rome therefore not freely given him by any Law but IN RIGHT HE HAD IT NOT the State being but a very principalitie WHEREIN THE PEOPLE HAD THE SOVERAIGNTY In which case THERE IS
MAN not God as I have formerly proved them to be If so I then appeal to the consciences of our fiercest Antagonists whether they do beleeve in their consciences or date take their Oathes upon it That ever any people or Nation in the world or our Ancestors at first did appoint any Kings or Governours over them to subvert Religion Laws Liberties or intend to give them such an unlimited uncontroulable Soveraignty over them as not to provide for their own safety or not to take up Arms against them for the necessary defence of their Laws Liberties Religion Persons States under pain of high Treason or eternall damnation in case they should degenerate into Tyrants and undertake any such wicked destructive designe If not as none can without madnesse and impudence averre the contrary it being against all common sence and reason that any man or Nation should so absolutely irresistably inslave themselves and their Posterities to the very lusts and exorbitancies of Tyrants and such a thing as no man no Nation in their right sences were they at this day to erect a most absolute Monarchie would condescend to then clearly the Apostle here confirming onely the Ordinances of men and giving no Kings nor Rulers any other or greater power then men had formerly granted them for that had been to alter not approve their humane Ordinances I shall infallibly thence inferre That whole States and Subjects may with safe conscience resist the unjust violence of their Kings in the foresaid cases because they never gave them any authority irresistably to act them nor yet devested themselves much lesse their posterity whom they could not eternally inslave of the right the power of resisting them in such cases whom they might justly resist before whiles they were private men and as to which illegall proceedings they continue private persons still since they have no legall power given them by the people to authorize any such exorbitances Fourthly The subjection here enjoyned is not passive but active witnesse ver 15. For so is the will of God that by WELL DOING to wit by your actuall cheerfull submission to every Ordinance of man for the Lords sake c. you put to silence the ignorance of foolish men as free and not using your liberty c. If then this Text be meant of active not passive obedience then it can be intended onely of lawfull Kings of Magistrates in their just commands whom we must actually obey not of Tyrants and Oppressours in their unjust wicked proceedings whom we are bound in such cases actually to disobey as our Antagonists grant and I have largely evidenced elsewhere Wherefore it directly commands resistance not subjection in such cases since actuall disobedience to unjust commands is actuall resisting of them And that these Texts prescribing resistance tacitely should apparantly prohibit it under pain of Treason Rebellion Damnation is a Paradox to me Fifthly This Text doth no way prove that false conceit of most who hence conclude That all Kings are the Supream Powers and above their Parliaments and whole Kingdoms even by Divine institution There is no such thing nor shadow of it in the Text. For first This Text calls Kings not a Divine but Humane Ordinance If then Kings be the Supreamest Power and above their Parliaments Kingdoms it is not by any Divine Right but by Humane Ordination onely as the Text resolves Secondly This Text prescribes not any Divine Law to all or any particular States nor gives any other Divine or Civill Authority to Kings and Magistrates in any State then what they had before for if it should give Kings greater Authority and Prerogatives then their people at first allotted them it should alter and invade the settled Government of all States contrary to the Apostles scope which was to leave them as they were or should be settled by the peoples joynt consent It doth not say That all Kings in all Kingdoms are or ought to be Supreame or let them be so henceforth no such inference appears therein It speaks not what Kings ought to be in point of Power but onely takes them as they are according to that of Rom. 13. 2. The Powers that ARE c. to wit that are even now every where in being not which ought to be or shall be whence he saith Submit to the King as supreame that is where by the Ordinance of man the King is made supreame not where Kings are not the supreamest Power as they were not among the ancient Lacedemonians Indians Carthaginians Gothes Aragonians and in most other Kingdoms as I have elsewhere proved To argue therefore We must submit to Kings where the people have made them supreame Ergo All Kings every where are and ought to be supreame Jure divino as our Antagonists hence inferre is a grosse absurdity Thirdly This Text doth not say That the King is the supreame soveraigne Power as most mistake but supreame Governour as the next words or Governours c. expond it and the very Oath of Supremacie 1. Eliz. Cap. 1. which gives our Kings this Title Supreame Governour within these his Realms Now Kings may be properly called Supreame Magistrates or Governours in their Realms in respect of the actuall administration of government and justice all Magistrates deriving their Commissions immediately from them and doing justice for and under them and yet not be the Soveraign Power as the Romane Emperours the Kings of Sparta Arragon and others the German Emperours the Dukes of Venice in that State and the Prince of Orange in the Nether-lands were and are the Supreame Magistrates Governours but not the Supreame Severaigne Powers their whole States Senates Parliaments being the Supreamest Powers and above them which being Courts of State of Justice and a compound body of many members not alwayes constantly sitting may properly be stiled The Supreame Courts and Powers but not the Supreame Magistrate or Governour As the Pope holds himself the Supreame Head and Governour of the Militant Church and the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury stiles himself the Primate and Metropolitane of all England and so other Prelates in their Provinces yet they are not the Soveraigne Ecclesiasticall Power for the King at least Generall Councells or Nationall Synods which are not properly tearmed Governours but Power are Paramount them and may lawfully censure or depose them as I have elsewhere manifested To argue therefore that Kings are the highest Soveraign Power because they are the highest particular Governours and Magistrates in their Realms as our Antagonists do is a meer Fallacie and Inconsequent since I have proved our own and most other Kings not to be the highest Powers though they be the Supreamest Governours Fourthly This Text speaks not at all of the Romane Emperour neither is it meant of him as Doctour Fernâ— with others mistake who is never in Scripture stiled a King being a Title extreamly odious to the Romanes and for ever banished their State with
an Oath of execration by an ancient Law in memory whereof they instituted a speciall annuall Feast on the 23. of February called Regifugium the hatred of which Title continued such that Tully and Augustine write Regem Romae posthac nec Dii nec Homines esse patiantur And Caesar himself being saluted King by the multitude perceiving it was very distastfull to the States answered CAESAREM SE NON REGEM ESSE which Title of Caesar not King the Scripture ever useth to expresse the Emperour by witnesse Matth. 22. 17 21. Mark 12. 14 16 17. Luke 2. 1. chap. 20. 22 24 25. chap. 23. 2. John 19. 12 15. Acts 11. 28. chap. 17. 7. chap. 25. 8 10 11 12 21. chap. 26. 32. chap. 27. 24. chap. 28. 19. Phil. 4. 22. Which Texts do clearly manifest that no Title was ever used by the Apostles Evangelists Jewes to expresse the Emperour by but that of Caesar not this of King Therefore Peters Text speaking onely of the King not Caesar cannot be intended of the Romane Emperour as ignorant Doctors blindly fancie Fifthly This Epistle of Peter the Apostle of the Jews was written onely to the dispersed Jews thorowout Pontus Galatia Cappadocia Asia and Bythinia 1 Pet. 1. 1. over whom Herod at that time reigned as King by the Romane Senates and Emperours appointment who had then conquered the Jews and made them a tributarie Province as is evident by Matth. 27. 17 21. Mark 12. 14 16 17. Luke 20. 22 24 25. chap. 23. 2. Acts 17. 7. chap. 25. 8 10 11 12 21. chap. 27. 24. chap. 12. 1. to 24. compared together and by Josephus the Century writers Baronius Sigonius and others The King then here mentioned to be supreame was Herod or King Agrippa or some other immediate King of the Jews who was their supreame Governour not absolutely but under the Romane Senate and Emperours and made so by their appointment whence called in the Text an Ordinance of man not God Now this King of the Jews as is evident by Pauls Appeal to Caesar from Festus and King Agrippa as to the Soveraign Tribunall Acts 25. and 26. by Josephus Philo Judaeus de legatione ad Caium and the consent of all Historians was not the absolute Soveraigne Power but subordinate to the Romane Emperour and Senate who both created and bad power to controll remove and censure him for his misdemeanours yet Peter calls him here Supreame because the Highest Governour under them as we stile our Kings Supreame Governours under Christ Therefore having a Superiour Governour and Power over him to which he was accountable and subordinate Supreame in the Text cannot be meant of a King absolutely Supreame having no Power Superiour to him but God but onely relatively Supreame in respect of under-Governours there actually residing whose Supremacie being forcibly gained onely by conquest not free consent and the ancient native Kings of the Jews being inferiour to their whole Senates and Congregations and to do all by their advice as Josephus Antiq. Jud. lib. 4. cap. 8. 2. Sam. 18. 3 4. Jer. 38. 45. 1. Chron. 13. 1. to 6. attest will no way advantage our Opposites nor advance the Prerogative of Kings since it extends onely to the King of the Jews that then was who was not simply Supream but a Subject Prince subordinate to the Romane State and Empire and one appointed by a Conquerour not freely chosen and assented to by the people So as all the Argument which can hence be extracted for the absolute Soveraigntie and irresistibility of Kings over their whole Kingdomes and Parliaments is but this The King of the Jews was in Peters time the Supreame Magistrate over that Nation by the Romane Senates and Emperours appointment to whom yet he was subordinate and accountable the Romanes having conquered the Jewes by force and imposing this government upon them without their consents Therefore the Kings of England and all other Kings are absolute Soveraigne Monarches Superiour to their whole Parliaments and Kingdomes collectively considered and may not in point of conscience be forcibly resisted by them though they endeavour to subvert Religion Laws Liberties How little coherence there is in this Argument the silliest childe may at first discern From these Scriptures I descend to Reasons deduced from them against resistance which I shall contract into three Arguments The first is this Kings are the Fathers Heads Lords Shepherds of the Common-wealth Ergo They ought not to be resisted in any their exorbitant proceedings it being unlawfull unseemly for a Son to resist his Father the Members the Head the Vassals their Lord the Flock their Shepherd To this I answer First They are Fathers Shepherds Lords Heads onely in an improper allegoricall not genuine sence therefore nothing can thence be properly inferred They are and ought to be such in respect of their loving and carefull affection towards their Subjects not in regard of their Soveraigne Power over them Therefore when their Tyrannie makes them not such in regard of care and affection to their people their people cease to be such in regard of filiall naturall and sheep-like submission When these Shepberds turn Wolves these Fathers Step-fathers the Subjects as to this cease to be their Sheep their Children in point of Obedience and Submission Secondly If we consider the Common-weal and Kingdom collectively Kings are rather their Kingdoms children then Parents because created by them their publike servants ministers for whose benefit they are imployed and receive wages not their Soveraigne Lords their subordinate Heads to be directed and advised by them not Tyrannically to over-rule them at their pleasure Therefore Paramount and able in such cases to resist them Thirdly Parishioners may no doubt lawfully resist the false Doctrines and open assaults of their Ministers though they be their Spirituall Shepherds Citizens the violent oppressions of their Maiors though they be their Politique Heads Servants the unjust assaults of their Masters though their lawfull Lords who may not misuse their very Villaines by Law And if Parents will violently assault their naturall children Husbands their Wives Masters their Servants to murther them without cause they may by Law resist repulse them with open force Fourthly A Son who is a Judge may lawfully resist imprison condemne his naturall Father A Servant his Lord A Parishioner his Pastour a Citizen his Major a meer Gentleman the greatest Peer or Lord as experience proves because they do it in another capacity as Judges and Ministers of publike Justice to which all are subject The Parliament then in this sence as they are the representative Body of the Realm not private Subjects and their Armies by their authority may as they are the highest Soveraign Power and Judicature resist the King and his Forces though he be their Father Head Shepherd Lord as they are private men Fifthly This is but the common
prohibiting but allowing it and these Fathers producing no one text which truly condemnes it this being the very summe of their words That though 〈◊〉 Christians were exceeding many in number of strength and power abundantly sufficient to defend themselves in a warlike manner against their persecuters and had full liberty and no restraint upon them in point of Conscience either to withstand their persecutors with Armes or to withdraw themselves from under the jurisdiction of their persecuters into remote parts to the great weakning and losse of the State yet such was their patience innocency and desire of Martyrdome that they resisted not their Adversaries with force nor retired nor fled away from under their obedience but cheerfully without the least resistance by word deed or thought yeelded up their Bodies Liberties Lives to the cruelties of their Enemies to obtaine that Crowne of Martyrdome which they desired and to offer up themselves a voluntary freewill oblation to the Lord who would certainly avenge all their wrongs This is the sum of all these Authorities which evidence resistance lawfull in it selfe and to these Christians too in their owne judgements and resolutions though the desire of Martyrdome made them freely to forbeare it These Examples and Authorities therefore abundantly corroborate and no wayes impeach our cause Thirdly their examples of not resisting Persecuters being rather voluntary then enjoyned out of a longing desire to be Martyrs and an assurance of divine vengeance to be executed on their Persecuters is no restraint nor ground at all for other Christians now not to use any forcible resistance it being a grosse inconsequent to argue The Primitive Christians voluntarily refused to defend themselves with force of Armes against their Persecuters though they were not bound in point of Conscience from such resistance and had both liberty and power to resist Ergo Christians in point of Conscience ought not to make any forcible resistance against oppressing Lords and Persecuters now For then this their voluntary choice and election should deprive all following Christians of that ability of defence which both themselves then had and since enjoy by Gods and Natures Law Yet this is all the argument which can be ingeniously framed from these Authorities and Examples the absurdity whereof I shall thus further illustrate from like Precedents We know first That the primitive Christians out of a desire of martyrdome not only refused to resist but to flee away from their Persecuters when they might safely doe it some of them holding it unlawfull and dishonourable to flee in such a case by name Tertullian in his booke De fuga in persecutione Will our Opposites from hence inferre Ergo it is unlawfull for Christians not onely to resist but even to flee from their Persecuters or his Majesties murdering plundering Forces Or for them selves to flee not onely from the Parliaments Forces but Justice too as many of them have done yea made escapes against Law to flee therefrom If the Christians not fleeing binde neither them nor us not to flee now why should their not resisting onely doe it Secondly The Primitive Christians ran to the stake of martyrdome when they were neither accused cited persecuted by any freely confessing themselves Christians and rather desiring presently to die Martyrs then live Christians and reputing is worse then death not to be admitted to or delaied the honour of being Martyrs of which we have infinite Presidents in Ecclesiasticall Histories commonly known and over-tedious to recite I shall onely instance in Julian the Apostates Christian Souldiers who being over-reached by him under colour of a largesse to throw some Frankincense into a fire secretly kindled by the Emperour in honour of an Idol they dreaming of no such thing and doing it onely as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 plementall Ceremonie as soon as they heard how the Emperour had over-reached them and given out speeches that they had sacrificed to his Idol presently rising from the feast prepared for them in a fury inflamed with zeale and wrath ran through the Market place and cried out openly Wee are Christians Wee are Christians in minde let all men heare it and above all God to whom we both live and will also die O Christ our Saviour we have not broken our faith plighted to thee If our hand hath any way offended verily our minde followed it not at all we are circumvented by the Emperours fraud with whose gold we are wounded We have put off impiety we are purged by blood After which posting speedily to the Emperour and casting away their gold with a generous and strenuous minde they exclaimed against him in this manner O Emperour we have not received gifts but are damned with death We are not called for our honour but branded with ignominie Give this benefit to thy Souldiers kill and behead us unto Christ to whose Empire onely we are subject Recompence fire for fire for those ashes reduce us into ashes Cut off the hands which we have wickedly stretched out the feet wherewith we have perniciously run together Give gold to others who will not afterwards repent they have received it Christ is enough and more then sufficient unto us whom we account in stead of all The Emperour enraged with this speech refused to slay them openly lest they should bee made Martyrs who as much as in them lay were Martyrs but onely banished them revenging this their contempt with that punishment Will it then follow from these memorable examples That all true Christians now in England and Ireland must come thus and offer themselves voluntarily to the Popish Rebels and Forces now in Arms to extirpate the Protestant Religion in both Kingdoms or that the Members of both Houses must go speedily to Oxford to the King and his evill Counsellors and there let them kill hang burne quarter slay execute torture them subvert Religion Laws Liberties Parliaments without the least resistance Or will our Opposites hence conclude as they may with better Judgement and Conscience doe Ergo all such persons voted Traitors and Delinquents in any kinde by both Houses of Parliament ought now in point of Conscience to avoid the effusion of blood and ruine of the Realm through the civill warres they have occasioned to lay down their Arms and voluntarily resigne up themselves to the impartiall Justice of the Parliament without any the least resistance for the future If no such Doctrinall or Practicall conclusions may be drawne from these their Precedents of voluntary seeking and rendring themselves up to the Martyrdome of their Opposites then the unlawfulnesse of resisting cannot be inferred from this their non-resisting Thirdly how many cowardly Souldiers in all ages and in this too have voluntarily yeelded up Forts Castles Ships Armes Persons to their invading approaching enemies without fight or resistance How many persons have resigned up their Purses to high-way theeves their Lands to disseisors their Houses Goods to riotors their Ships Estates Persons to Turkish and other Pirats
rabble if made had been onely singly for defence of their Religion then practised but in corners publikely condemned no where tolerated Our present war is not onely for defence of our Religion established by Law and to keep out Popery but for the preservation of Laws Liberties the very essence of Parliaments the safety of the Realme and that by authority of Parliament the representative body of the Realme The Parliaments defensive warre therefore upon these politicke grounds is just and lawfull though the Primitive Christians perchance in defence of Religion onely as its case then stood would not have been so even as the Roman Senators and States resisting of Nero or any other Tyrannicall Emperors violations of the Laws Liberties Lives Estates of the Senate people were then reputed just and lawfull though the Christians defence of Religion would not have been so esteemed in those times And thus I hope I have satisfactorily answered this objection without shifts or evasions and rectified these mistaken Fathers meanings with which our Opposites have seduced the illiterate over-credulous vulgar I have now through Gods assistance quite run through all Obiections of moment from Scripture Reason Fathers against the lawfulnesse of the Parliaments present defensive war and discovered divers grosse errors yea Impostures in our Opposites writings wherewith they have perverted many mens Consciences and cheated the ignorant seduced world I shall therefore here advise them in the presence of Almighty God as they will answer the contrary before his Tribunall at the Day of Iudgement seriously to consider these my answers and publikely to retract those their Errors false grosse mis-interpretations perversions of Scriptures Authors which I have here discovered And since they pretend nothing but their satisfying and keeping of a good Conscience in by others concerned in this Controversie to shew a syncere ingenuous Conscience therein themselves where they have been mistaken since the contestation pretended is not for Victory Time-serving or Self-seeking but for Truth Gods glory and the publike weal and if I have over-shot my self in any thing I shall promise them a thankfull acknowledgement and ready palinedy upon their information and conviction of any apparent oversights I may casually fall into Now because they shall not deem me singular in my opinion concerning the lawfulnesse of subjects defensive Arms against their Soveraigns bent to subvert Religion Laws Liberties the Republike or deem it is a late upstart Novelty I shall conclude this discourse with such personall naturall and publike authorities as they shall not be able to balance with counter-resolutions in which I shall be as brief as I may be For personall Authorities I shall not be ambitious to remember many especially Papists whose common constant received opinion and practise hath alwayes been and yet is That Subjects upon the Popes command alone and absolution of them from their Soveraigns allegiance may and ought to take up even offensive Arms against their owne naturall Princes excommunicated interdicted deposed or onely declared contumacious Schismâ—ticall or Hereticall by the Pope without yea against their Kingdoms Parliaments privities or consents much more then with their approbation What Papists have determined and practised in this very point you may read at large in Gratiau himself Causa 15. Quaest 6. and Causa 23. in the very Oath of Supremacie and Statut. of 3. Iacobi ch 4. which prescribes it in Bishop Iewels view of a seditious Bull in Doctor Iohn White his Defence of the way Chap. 6. 10. in Abbas Vspergensis Sabellicus Valateranus Grimston and others in the Lives of the Roman and German Emperours in Aventinchis Annalium Boyorum the Generall and Particular Histories of France Spain Germany Italy Sicily Hungary England in Bishp Bilsons third part of the True Difference between Christian Subjection and unchristian Rebellion In sundry Sermons on the fift of November to which I shall refer you In Pope Paschal his letter to Robert Earl of Flanders about the year of our Lord 1107. exorting him to war against those of Leige Henry the Emperour and his Assistants wheresoever he should finde them excommunicated and deposed as an Heretike and enemy to the Church telling him that he could not offer a more gratefull sacrifice to God then to ware against them concluding Hoc tibi Militibus this in peccatorum remissionem Apostolicae sedis familiaritatem praecipimus ut his laboribus triumphis ad Coelestem Hierusalem Domino praestante pervenias Which Letter was excellently answered by those of Leige And in the Councel of Towres in France under Lewes the twelfth Anno 1510. it was unanimously resolved by the Church of France That if the Pope did make war upon temporall Princes in lands which they held not of the patrimony of the Church they might lawfully by force of Arms resist and defend both themselves and other not only repulse this injury but likewise invade the lands of the Church possessed by the Pope their notorious enemy not perpetually to retain but to hinder the Pope from becomming more strong and potent by them to offend both them and theirs And that it was lawfull for such Princes for such notorious hatred and unjust invasion to withdraw themselves from the Popes obedience and with armed force to resist all censures denounced by the Pope against them their subjects and Confederates and that such sentences ought not to be obeyed but are mear nullities in law which obliege no man Yet I must inform you further in brief that Iohn Maior a Popish Schoolman in Lib. 4. Sentent as Grotius writes affirms That the people cannot deprive themselves of the power not onely of resisting but deposing Kings in cases which directly tend to their destruction and that Iohn Barclay a late Scottish Priest though a strenuous defendor of Princes Prerogatives expresly averres That if a King will altenate and subiect his Kingdom to another without his subiects consents or be carried with atrue hostile minde to the destruction of all his people that his Kingdom is thereby actually lost and forfeited so as the people may not onely absolutely resist and disobey but depose him and elect another King to which Hugo Gortius a Protestant freely subscribes and Iohn Bodin alloweth of Subjects resistance yea deposing kings insome Kingdoms absolutely and in some cases gener allyin all De Repub. l. 1. c. 10. l. 1. c. 5 l. 5. c. 5. 6. For Protestant personall authorities we have Huldericus Zuinglius Explanatio Articuli 40 41 42 43. Tom. 1. fol. 82. to 86. who allows not only Subiects actuall resistance but deprivation of Kings Where Princes set themselves to subvert Religion Laws Liberties and that by the common consent of the States in Parliament from whom Kings originally receive their Royall power and authority Martin Luther Bugenhagius Iustus Ionas Ambsdorfius Spaelotinus Melancthon Cruciger and other Divines Lawyers Statesmen Anno 1531. who published a writing in justification of
no lesse than 23. wounds And Hieronimus Blanca assures us that the Suprarbiense Forum Iustitia Aragoniae or States of Aragâ—n erected to withstand the tyrannie and encroachments of their kings may by the Laws of their Realme assemble together and RESIST THEIR KING WITH FORCE OF ARMES as oft as there shall bee neede to repulse his or his Officers violence against the Lawes For when they erected this Court they said It would be little worth to have good Lawes enacted and a middle Court of Iustice betweene the King and people appointed if it might not be lawfull to take up Armes for their Defence when it was needfull being agreeable to the very Law of nature and reason Because then it will not be sufficient to fight with Counsell For if this were not so and the State and Subjects in such cases might not lawfully take up armes all things had long ere this been in the power of Kings Therefore no doubt our Parliament and State as well as others may by the very Law of Nature and fundamentall institution of Parliaments now justly take up Defensive armes to preserve their Liberties Lawes Lives Estates Religion from vassallage and ruine Thirdly Our owne Parliaments Prelates Nobles and Commons in all ages especially in times of Popery as well in Parliament as out have by open force of armes resisted suppressed the oppressions rapines vnjust violence and armies of their Princes raised against them Yea incountred their Kings in open Battells taken their persons Prisoners and sometimes expelled nay deposed them from their Royall authority when they became incorrigible open professed enemies to their kingdomes their Subjects seeking the ruine slavery and desolation of those whom by Office Duty Oath and common Iustice they were bound inviolably to protect in Liberty and peace as the premised Histories of Archigallo Emerian Vortigern Segebert Osred Ethelred Bernard Edwin Ceolwulfe King John Henry the 3 d. Edward 1. and 2. Richard the 2 Henry the 6 th our British Saxon English Kings and other examples common in our owne Annalls plentifully manifest Neither are their examples singular but all Kingdomes generally throughout the world in all ages have done the like when their Kings degenerated into Tyrants of which there are infinite precedens in History which actions all ages all Kingdomes have alwaies reputed lawfull both in point of Policy Law Religion as warranted by the very Lawes of Nature Reason State Nations God which instruct not onely particular persons but whole Cities and Kingdomes for their owne necessary defence preservation the supportation of humane Societie and Libertie to protect themselves against all unlawfull violence and Trranny even of their Kings themselves or their Ministers to whom neither the Lawes of God Nature Man nor any civill Nation ever yet gave the least authority to Murther Spoile Oppresse enslave their Subjects or deprive them of their lawfull Liberties or Estates which resistance were it unlawfull or unjust as many ignorant Royallists and Parasites now teach some few oppressing tyrannizing wilfull Princes might without the least resistance ruine murther enslave the whole world of men overthrow all setled formes of civill government extirpate Christian Religion and destroy all humane Society at their pleasures all which had beene effected yea all States and Kingdomes totally subverted long agoe by ambitious Tyrannizing lawlesse Princes had not this Lawfull Naturall Hereditary power of resisting and opposing their illegall violence inherent in their Parliaments States Kingdomes restrained and suppressed their exorbitances of this kinde Now that this necessary Defensive opposition and resistance against open Regall Hostile violence which hath beene ever held lawfull and frequently practised in all Kingdomes all ages heretofore as just and necessary should become sodenly unlawfull to our Parliament and Kingdome onely at this instant seemes very unreasonable unto me Fouthly It is the expresse resolution of Aristotle Xenophon Polibius Pope Elutherius in his Epistle to our first Christian King Lucius King Edward the Confessor in his established Lawes c. 17. the Councell of Paris Anno 829. and Isiodor cited by it Iohn Bodin Iohn Mariana and generally of all forraigne Divines and Polititians Pagan or Christian yea of Bracton Fleta Fortescue and King Iames himselfe that a King governing in a setled Kingdome ceaseth to be a King and degenerates into a Tyrant so soone as hee leaves to rule by his Lawes much more when he begins to invade his Subjects Persons Rights Liberties to set up an Abitrary power impose unlawfull Taxes raise Forces and make Warre upon his Subjects whom he should Protect and rule in peace to pillage plunder waste and spoile his Kingdome imprison murther and destroy his people in an hostile manner to captivate them to his pleasure the very highest degree of Tyranny condemned and detested by God and all good men The whole State and Kingdome therefore in such cases as these for their owne just necessary preservation may lawfully with force of Armes when no other course can secure them not onely passively but actively resist their Prince in such his violent exorbitant tyrannicall proceedings without resisting any kingly lawfull royall Authority Vested in the Kings person for the kingdomes preservation onely not destruction because in and as to these illegall oppressions tyrannicall actions not warranted but prohibited by the Lawes of God and the Realme to whom he is accountable and by whom he is justly censurable for them he is no lawfull King nor Majestrate but an unjust oppressing Tyrant and a meere private man who as to these proceedings hath quite denuded himselfe of his just Regall authority So that all those wholsome Lawes made by the whole State in Parliament for the necessary preservation and defence of their Kings Royall Person and lawfull Soveraigne power the suppression of all Insurrections Treasons Conspiracies and open Warres against them whiles they governe their people justly according to Law as all good Princes are obliged to doe by oath and duty or the open violent resisting of their Lawfull authority and Commands to which all Subjects both in point of Law and Conscience ought cheerfully and readily to Submit will yeeld no publike Countenance Encouragement or Protection at all to Kings in their irregall tyrannicall oppressions or violent courses especially when they turne professed publike enemies to their people proclaime open Warre against them invade their Lawes Liberties Goods Houses Persons and exercise all acts of Hostilitie against them as fatre forth as the most barbarous Forraigne Enemies would doe It being against all common sence and reason to conceive that our Parliaments Lawes which strictly inhibit and punish the very smallest violations of the publike peace with all kinds of Oppressions Robberies Trespasses Batteries Assaults Bloodsheds Fraies Murthers Routs Riots Insurrections Burglaries Rapes Plunderings Force-able Entries Invasions of the Subjects Liberties or Properties in all other persons and greatest publike Officers whatsoever
not have done in point of Law Iustice Honour Conscience had they beene Rebells or Traytors for standing on their guards and making defensive Warres onely for their owne and their Religions preservation but likewise by two severall publike Acts of Parliament the one in England the other in Scotland declaring the Scots late taking up Armes against him and his evill Counsellors in defence of their Religion Lawes Priviledges to be no Treason nor Rebellion and them to bee his true and loyall Subjects notwithstanding all aspertions cast upon them by the Prelaticall and Popish Party because they had no ill or disloyall intention at all against his Majesties Person Crowne and Dignity but onely a care of their owne preservation and the redresse of thâ—se Enormities Pressures grievances in Church and State which threatned desolation unto both If then their seizing of the Kings Fortes Ammunition Revenues and raising an Army for the foresaid ends hath by his Majesty himselfe and his two Parliaments of England and Scotland beene resolved and declared to be no Treason no Rebellion at all against the King by the very same or better reason all circumstances duely pondered our Parliaments present taking up Armes and making a Defensive Warre for the endes aforesaid neither is nor can be adjudged Treason or Rebellion in point of Law or Iustice In fine the King himself in his Answer to the 19. Propositions of both Houses Iune 3. 1642. Confesseth and calleth God to witnesse That all the Rights of his Crowne are vested in him for his Subjects sake That the Prince may not make use of his high and perpetuall power to the hurt of those for whose good he hath it nor make use of the name of publike Necessity for the gaine of his private Favourites and Followers to the detriment of his people That the House of Commons may impeach those who for their owne ends though countenanced with any surreptitiously gotten Command of the King have violated that Law which he is bound when he knowes it to protect and to protection of which they were bound to advise him at least Not to serve him in the Contrary let the Cavalleers and others consider this and the Lords being trusted with a Iudiciary power are an excellent screene and banke betweene the King and people to assist each against any Incroachments of the other and by just Iudgements to preserve that Law which ought to be the Rule of every one of the three Therefore the power Legally placed in both Houses Being more then sufficient to prevent and restraine the power of Tyranny by his Majesties owne Confession it must needs be such a power as may legally inable both Houses when Armes are taken up against them by the King or any other to subvert Lawes Liberties Religion and introduce an Arbitrary government not onely to make Lawes Ordinances and Assessements but likewise to take up Armes to defend and preserve themselves their Lawes Liberties religion and to prevent restraine all forces raysed against them to set up Tyranny else should they want not onely a more then sufficient but even a sâ—fficient necessary power to prevent and restraine the power of Tyranny which being once in armes cannot bee restraned and prevented repulsed with Petitions Declarations Lawes Ordinances or any Paper Bulwarkes and Fortifications or other such probable or possible meanes within the Parliaments power but onely by Armes and Militarie Forces as reason and experience in all Ages manifest From all which pregnant punctuall domesticke Authorities and resolutions of Ancient Moderne and present times I presume I may infallibly conclude That the Parliaments present taking up necessary Defensive Armes is neither Treason nor Rebellion in iudgement of Law but a iust and lawfull Act for the publicke benefit and preservation of King Kingdome Parliament Lawes Liberties Religion and so neither their Generall Souldiers nor any person whatsoever imployed by them in this War or contributing any thing towards its maintenance are or can be Legally indicted prosecuted or in any manner proceeded against as Traitors Rebels Delinquents against the King or Kingdome and that all Proclamations Declarations Indictments or proceedings against them or any of them as Traitors Rebels or Delinquents are utterly unlawfull iniust and ought to be reversed as meere Nullities It would be an infinite tedious labour for me to relate what Civilians and Canonists have written concerning Warre and what Warre is just and lawfull what not In briefe they all generally accord That no Warre may or ought to be undertaken cut of covetousnesse lust ambition cruelty malice desire of hurt revenge or for booty propter praedam enim militare peccatum est Whence Joh Baptist Luke 3. 14. gave this answer to the Souldiers who demanded of him what shall we doe Doe violence to no man neither accuse any man falsly and be content with your wages Ne dum sumptus quaeritur praedo grassetur Which prooves the Warres of our plundring pillaging Cavalleers altogether sinnefull and unjust And that such a Warre onely is just which is waged for the good and necessary defence of the Common-wealth by publike Edict or consent or to regaine some thing which is unjustly detained or taken away and cannot otherwise be acquired or to repell or punish some injury or to curbe the insolency of wicked men or preserve good men from their uniust oppressions which Warres ought onely to be undertaken out of a desire of Peace as they prove out of Augustine Gregory Isidor Hispalensis and others In one word they all accord That a necessary defensive Warre to repulse an Injury and to preserve the State Church Republike Freedomes Lives Chastities Estates Lawes Liberties Religion from unjust violence is and ever hath beene lawfull by the Law of Nature of Nation yea By all Lawes whatsoever and the very dictate of Reason And that aâ—nâ—cessary defensive Warre is not properly a Warre but a meere Defence against an unlawfull Violence And therâ—fore mâ—st of necessitie be acknowledge lawfull because directly opposite to and the onely remedy which Gâ—d and Nature have giuen men against Tâ—rannicall and unjust invasions which are both sâ—â—nâ—full and unlawfull And so can be no Treason no Rebellion no crime at all thouâ—â— our Princes or Parents be the unjust assailâ—nts Of which see more in Hugo Groâ—ius de Iure Belli l. 2. c. 1. I shall close up the Civillians and Câ—noâ—â—â—s Opinions touching the lawfulnesse of a Defensive Warre with the words oâ— Aâ—bericâ—â—â—entilis Professor of Civill Law in the Vniversitie of Oxford in Queene Elizabeths Raigne Who in his learned Booke De Jure Belli Pacis Dedicated to the most illustrious Robert Devoreux Earle of Essex Father to the Parliaments present Lord Generall determines thus Lib. 1. caâ— 13 pag. 92. c. Although I say there be no cause of warre from nature yet there are causes for which we undertake warre by the conduct of nature as is the cause of Defence and when warre is
Arbitrary lawlesse Government in case they come armed with his personall presence or commission to execute these their wicked illegall designes Especially when neither the Parliament nor their forces in this their resistance have the least thought at all to offer any violence to the Kings owne person or to oppose his Legall iust Soveraigne Authority Or shorter Whether the Kings Captaines and Souldiers invading the Parliament and Subiects as aforesaid the Parliament or Subjects especially when authorized by an Ordinance of both Houses may not with a safe Conscience forcibly resist these Malignants though armed with the Kings illegall Commissions without his personall presence or with his presence and Commissions too And for my part I thinke it most evident that they may lawfully resist repulse them even by Divine Authority For the better clearing whereof I shall premise these three undeniable Conclusions First That no lawfull King or Monarch whatsoever much lesse the Kings of England who are no absolute Princes have any the least Authority from the Lawes of God or man personally by themselves or instruments to doe any injurie or iniustice to their Subiects how much lesse then by open Force to Murther Rob Plunder Ravish Ruine or Spoile them of their Lawes Liberties Estates Religion all which is plentifully proved by Law Authorities in the premises and punctually confirmed by these ensuing Texts Ezech. 44 15 16 17. cap. 45. 8 9. Psalm 105. 14. 15. Isay 14. 15. to 23. 2 Sam 23. 3. Isay 1. 23. cap. 3. 12. 14. 15. Prov. 28. 15. 16. Ezech. 22. 6. 7. 27. Zeph. 3. 3. Mich. 3. 1. to 12. 1 Sam. 12. 3. 4. 5. 1 King cap. 21. 22. Zeph. 2. 8. Isay 9. 7. cap. 16. 5. cap. 32. 1. 2. cap. 49. 23. 2 Chron. 9. 8. Ier. 22. 3. to 32. Obad. 2. 10. to 16. Rom. 13. 3. 4. 5. 6. 1 Pet. 2. 13. 16. and infinite Scriptures more Secondly That all Subiects and persons whatsoever are obliged both in point of Law and Conscience to disobey resist and not execute the uniust illegall Commissions Mandates of their Kings and other Magistrates This is evident by the Midwiâ—es refusall to murther the Hebrewes Male-children at King Pharoabs command for which God blessed them and built them houses Exod 1. 15. to 20. By Balaams deniall to curse or defie the Israelites at King Balacks intreaty Numb 22. 23. 24. By the refusall of Sauls Guard and Footmen to slay or fall on the Priests a Nob by King Sauls personall command though present and not onely their King but Master too 1 Sam. â—2 17. 18. By Ionathans denyall to kill or consent to the death of David upon Sauls mandate though not onely his Soveraigne but Father although he might have gained the Crowne by it and indangered his owne life by refusing it 1 Sam. 20. 27. to 42. By Sauls Armour-beares forbearance to runne him thorow with his Sword when he fled before the Philistimes though he as his King and Master enioyned him to doe it lest the uncircumcised should come and thrust him through and abuse him 1 Sam. 3â— 4. By Mordechai his denyall to bend the knee to Haman the great Favourite though the King had so commanded Esther 3. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. By Shadracâ— Meshach Abodnego and Daniels refusall to eat of the Kings portion of meat and wine assigneâ— them least they should be desiled Dan. 1. 5. to 12. By their peremptory resolution not To fall downe and worship King Nebuchadnezzars golden Image though twice strictly commanded by the King to doe it and threatned to be cast into the fiery Furance as they were for refusing it Dan. 3. 4 to 30. By Daniels disobeying the Kings and Lords Jdolatrous Decree not to offer a Petition to any God or man for 30. dayes save of King Darius under paine of being cast into the Lyons Denne Dan. 6. 5. to 24. By the Pharises and chiefe Priests Officers neglect to apprehend our Saviour for his Preaching though enjoyned so to doe by their Masters Iohn 7. 32. to 48. By the Apostles refusall to give over Preaching and perseverance in Preaching notwithstanding the High Priests and Councels expresse Inhibitions and doubled Commands seconded with Apprehensions Imprisonments Scourgings and their direct resolutions in this very case That we ought to obey God rather then men Acts 4. 12. to 22 cap. 5. 17. to the end By Peters Preaching to and conversing with the Vncircumcised Gentiles notwithstanding the Christian Iewes dislike Acts 11. 1. to 19. with infinite Presidents of this nature in Ecclesiasticall Histories the very sufferings of all the Martyrs depending on this ground alone which is backed by Matth. 10. 28. 32. 33. Luc. 12. 4. 8. cap. 9. 23. 24. 25. 26. Ezech. 2. 3. to 9. Rev. 13. 3. to the end Rom. 12 1. 2. John 16. 2. 3. 1 Thess 2 14. 15. 16. Exod. 32. 2. Josh 24 15. Psalm 44. 15. to 23. Thirdly That as all Kings illegall unjust commands are void in Law and will no waies extenuate the guilt or justifie the actions of those instruments who execute them in point of Law as I havef formerly cleared so are they likewise meer nullities and insufficient to excuse the executioners of them in point of Conscience as is evident by Psal 52. 5. where God threatens to destroy Doeg the Edomite for ever to take him away plucke him out of his dwelling place and root him out of the land of the Living for executing King Sauls bloody command upon the Priests at Nob 1 Sam. 22. By Gods exemplary punishment upon those Souldiers who by King Nebuchadnezzars speciall command bound the three Children and cast them into the firy Furnace who were slaine by the flames of the Furnaâ—e though these three Martyrs had no harme in the Furnace it selfe Dan. 3. 20. to 28. By Gods consuming the two Captaines and their fifties with fire from heaven who came violently to apprehend the Prophet Elijab by King Ahaziah his commission and unjust command 2 King 1. 9 to 16. By the Precept of Iohn Baptist given to Souldiers themselves Luke 3. 14. Doe violence to no man neither by the Kings nor Generalls Command neither accuse any falsely By 1 Tim. 5. 22. Lay hands sodainly on no man no more in a violent Military then an Ecclesiasticall sense neither be partakers of other mens sinneâ— Compared with the next forecited Scriptures with Rom. 1. 32. Math. 15. 14. Psal 50. 18 21. Prov. 1. 10. to 16. Obaâ— vers 10. to 16 Isay 1. 23. with Isay 9 16. The leaders of this people cause them to erre and those thâ—t are led of them are destroyed What therefore Saint Iohn writes in another case 2 Iohn 10. 11. If there come any unto you be he an Archbishop Bishop Archdeadon Ferne himselfe or any Court Chaplaine whatsoever and being not this Doctrine receive him not into your house neither bid him God speed for he that biddeth him God speed Is partaker of his
persons If any king shall unjustly assault the persons of any private Subjects men or women to violate their lives or chastities over which they have no power I make no doubt that they may and ought to bee resisted repulsed even in point of conscience but not slaine though many kings have lost their lives upon such occasions as Rodoaldus the 8. king of Lumbardy Anno 659. being taken in the very act of adultery by the adulteresses husband was slaine by him without delay and how kings attempting to murther private Subjects unjustly have themselves beene sometimes wounded and casually slaine is so rise in stories that I shall forbeare examples concluding this with the words of Iosephus who expressely writes That the King of the Israelites by Gods expresse Law Deut. 17. was to doe nothing without the consent of the high Priest and Senate nor to multiply money and horses over much which might easily make him a contemner of the Lawes and if he addicted himselfe to these things more than was fitting HE WAS TO BE RESISTED least he became more powerfull then was expedient for their affaires To these Authorities I shall onely subjoyne these 5. undeniable arguments to justifie Subjects necessary defensive wars to be lawful in point of conscience against the persons and Forces of their injuriously invading Soveraignes First it is granted by all as a truth irrefragable that kings by Force of Armes may justly with safe conscience resist repulse suppresse the unlawfull warlike invasive assaults the Rebellious armed Insurrections of their Subjects upon these two grounds because they are unlawfull by the Edicts of God and man and because kings in such case have no other meanes left to preserve their Royall persons and just authoritie against offensive armed Rebellions but offensive armes Therefore Subjâ—cts by the selfe-same grounds may justly with safe consciences resist repulse suppresse the unjust assayling military Forces of their kings in the case fore-stated though the king himselfe be personally present and assistant because such a war is unlawfull by the resolution of God and men and against the oath the duty of kings and because the subjects in such cases have no other meanes left to preserve their persons lives liberties estates religion established government from certaine ruin but defensive Armes There is the selfe same reason in both cases being relatives therefore the selfesame Law and Conscience in both Secondly It must be admitted without debate that this office of highest and greatest trust hath a condition in Law annexed to it by Littletons owne resolution to wit that the King shall well and truely preserve the Realme and do that which to such Office belongeth which condition our king by an expresse oath to all his people solemnely taken at their Coronation with other Articles expressed in their oath formerly recited is really bound both in Law and Conscience exactly to performe being admitted and elected king by the peoples suffrages upon solemne promise to observe the same condition to the uttermost of his power as I have a elsewhere cleared Now it is a cleare case resolved by Marius Salomonius confirmed at large by Rebussus by 12. unanswerable reasons the Authorities of sundry Civill Lawyers and Canonists quoted by hiâ— agreed by Albericus Gentiles and Hugo Grotius who both largely dispute it That Kings as well as Subjects are really bound to performe their Covenants Contracts Conditions especially those they make to all their Subjects and ratifie with an Oath since God himselfe who is most absolute is yet mostf firmly oblieged by his Oathes and Covenants made to his despicable vile ereatures sinfull men and never violates them in the least degree If then these conditions and Oathes be firme and obligatory to our kings if they will obstinately breake them by violating their Subjects Lawes Liberties Properties and making actuall warre upon them the condition and Oath too would be meerely voyde ridiculous absur'd an high taking of the Name of God in vaine yea a plaine delusion of the people if the whole State or people in their owne defence might not justly take up Armes to resist their kings and their malignant Forces in these persidious violations of trust conditions oaths and force them to make good their oath and covenants when no other means will induce them to it Even as the Subjects oath of homage and allegiance would be meerely frivilous if kings had no meanes nor coercive power to cause them to observe these oathes when they are apparently broken and many whole kingdomes had been much over seene in point of Policie or prudence in prescribing such conditions and oaths unto their kings had they reserved no lawfull power at all which they might lawfully exercise in point of conscience to see them really performed and duely redressed when notoriously transgressed through wilfulnesse negligence or ill pernicious advice Thirdly when any common or publick trust is committed to three or more though of subordinate and different quality if the trust be either violated or betrayed the inferiour trustees may and ought in point of Conscience to resist the other For instance if the custody of a City or Castle be committed to a Captaine Leutenant and common Souldiers or of a ship to the Master Captaine and ordinary Mariners If the Captaine or Master will betray the City Castle or ship to the enemie or Pirates or dismantle the City wals and fortifications to expose it unto danger or will wilfully run the ship against a rocke to split wrecke it and indanger all their lives freedomes contrary to the trust reposed in them or fire or blow up the City Fort ship not onely the Leiutenant Masters Mate and other inferiour Officers though subject to their commands but even the Common Souldiers and Marriners may withstand and forcibly resist them and are bound in Conscience so to doe because else they should betray their trust and destroy the City Fort ship and themselves too which they are bound by duty and compact to preserve This case of Law and conscience is so cleare so common in daily experience that no man doubts it The care and safety of our Realme by the originall politicke constitution of it alwayes hath beene and now is committed joyntly to the king the Lords and Commons in Parliament by the unanimous consent of the whole kingdome The king the supreame member of it contrary to the trust and duty reposed in him through the advise of evill Councellors wilfully betrayes the trust and safety of this great City and ship of the Republicke invades the inferiour Commanders Souldiours Citizens with an Army assaults wounds slayes spoyles plunders sackes imprisons his fellow trustees Souldiers Marriners Citizens undermines the walls fires the City ship delivers it up to theeves Pyrates murtherers as a common prey and wilfully runnes this ship upon a rocke of ruin If the Lords and Commons joyntly intrusted with him should not in this case by
enslave them is but a ridiculous Non sequitur There is nothing therefore in the occasions of the Apostles words which gives the least colour to disprove the lawfulnesse of such resistance or of the Parliaments just defensive war Secondly this is manifest by the whole Scope of this Text which in summe is onely this That Christians ought in conscience to l be subject to all lawfull higher Powers so farre forth as they are Gods Ordinance Gods Ministers for their good to the praise of the good and punishment of evill doers and notto resist them in the execution of their just Authority Or Christianity exempts not Christians from obedience unto faithfull Civill Magistrates to inferre from thence Ergo it is unlawfull for Christians in point of conscience to resist their Magistrates when they warre upon them to subvert Religion Lawes Liberties slay plunder them is but a meer non-sence deduction Thirdly this appeares most perspicuously from the motives to obedience and reasons against resistance of Magistrates specified by the Apostle in the text it selfe First the higher Powers must be submitted to and not resisted because they are ordained of God and are Gods Ordinance vers 1. 2. But they are ordained of God and his Ordinance so far forth only as they govern according to his Word and preserve protect Religion Lawes Liberties the persons and estates of their people They are not Gods Ordinance but the Devils when they doe quite contrary walking about like roaring Lions seeking whom they may devoure as the Devill doth According to that resolution of Bracton and Fleta Exercere debet Rex potestatem Iuriâ— sicut Dei Vicarius Ministeri in terra quia illa Potestas SOLIVS DEI EST potestas autem injuriae DIABOLI ET NON DEI Cujus horum operum fecerit Rex ejus minister erit Igitur dum facit justitiam vicarius est Regis aeterni MINISTER AVTEM DIABOLI dum declinat ad injuriam Therefore they are so farre forth onely to be obeyed and not resisted as they are Gods Ordinance and lawfull Magistrates not as they are tyrants and the Devils Agents we might have obeyed the evill spirits themselves whiles they continued good Angels Ergo we must not resist them now they are turned Devils is ill Logick course Divinity contrary to the 1 Pet. 5. 8 9. Iam. 4. 7. Secondly because those who resist shall receive to themselves damnation temporall or eternall since they resist Gods Ordinance v. 2. But that subiects should be temporally and eternally damned only for resisting tyrannicall Magistrates or their Cavaleers and that by authority from the Parliament when they with armed violence most impiously set themselves to subvert Religion Lawes Liberty Propertie and take away their lives against all Lawes of God and Man for which they themselves incurre both temporall and eternall damnation is such a Paradox as is no wayes warranted by but directly opposite to the Scripture Therefore it must be intended onely of resisting lawfull Authority and iust commands 3. They must be subiected to not resisted because Rulers are not a terror to good work but to evil v. 3. Now is this a reason why Subiects should not resist tyrannicall oppressing Princes Magistrats or their Instruments who are only a terror to good works not to evill who do evill and only evill continually even with both hands doubtlesse not We must not resist Rulers who are a terror to good works but to evill Ergo we must not resist Rulers who are a terror to good works not to evill as our Opposites conclude hence is to argue poiâ—â— blank against the Apostle Ergo we may and must resist them to our powers lest we be partakers of their sinnes and punishments and become authors of Religions and the Commonwealths subversion is a more proper inference Fourthly the Apostle subjoynes this argument against resistance Wilt thou not then be afraid of the power doe that which is good and thou shalt have praise of the same Vers 3. That power is not to bee resisted which wee need not be afraid of and of whom we shall have prayse whiles we doe that which is good But this onely can bee intended of a lawfull power justly executed not of Tyrants or their ill Ministers bent with force of armes to ruine Religion Lawes Liberties who onely terrifie disgrace discountenance those that are good applaud advance none but those who are evill and as Micah writes Chap. 3. 2. 3. Love the evill and hate the good and pluck off their skin from off them and their flesh from off their bones c. Therefore this inhibition of resistance extends onely to lawfull Magistrates not to ungodly oppressing Tyrants Fiftly he is not to be resisted but obeyed because he is the Minister of God to thee for good Vers 4. But is this true of Tyrants of ungodly Magistrates bent to subvert Religion Lawes Liberties and destroy their people True of Caligula of Nero who wished all the Romans had but one necke that he might cut them all off at one stroke and purposely fired Rome to consume it beholding the flames as a most delightfull spectacle Are such the Ministers of God for our good here intended or not rather the very Pests Judgements Scourges Wolves Cut-throats destroyers of mankind and direct Antinodes to all things that are good If these be not within the Apostles definition they are without his inhibition which extends onely to such who are the Ministers of God to us for good and implies a lawfulnesse of resisting those who are the Devils Ministers to us for evill rather then Gods for good Sixtly He subjoynes this further reason of obedience and not resistance Vers 5. But if thou dost that which is evill be afraid for he beareth not the Sword in vaine for hee is the Minister of God a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evill which no wayes suites with a Tyrant bent to subvert Religion Lawes Liberties For he secures all evill men especially those who are instrumentall to advance his cruelty and oppressions gives liberty to all manner of wickednesses Proclaimes impunity to his ill instruments knowing that of the Poet to be true Libertas scelerum est quae Regna invisa tuetur c. He beareth the sword not onely in vaine in reference to any good end for the promoting of Gods glory and the publike good but likewise draweth it forth and useth it directly against both And is so farre from being a Minister of God or revenger to execute wrath upon them that doe evill that he is the very Minister of the Devill Tertullian Nihil nisi grande aliquid bonum a Nerone damnatum This reason then extends onely to righteous Governours in their execution of justice upon wicked malefactors wherein they must not be resisted Not to bloody gracelesse lawlesse Tyrants and their instruments who by the rule of contraries may and ought to be resisted in
the estate that it is now the title of Empire being little more then that of the Duke of Venice the soveraingty writes the Historian in the Margin remaining in the States of the Empire All that is objected against the premises is that passage of Tertullian much insisted on Colimus ergo Imperatorē sic quomodo nobis licet ipsi expedit ut hominem à DEO SECUNDUM quicquid est à Deo consecutum SOLO DEO MINOREM Hoc et ipse volet Sic enim OMNIBUS MAJOR EST DUM SOLO VERO DEO MINOR EST. Sic ipsis Diis major est dum ipsi in poteste sunt ejus c. To which I answer that these words onely prove the Emperour in the Roman State to be the highest Officer and Magistrate under God of any one particular person not that he was the Soveraigne highest power above the Senate and people collectively considered And the occasion of these words will discover the Authors intention to be no other which was this The Christians in that age were persecuted and put to death by Scapula President of Carthage to whom Tertullian writes this Booke because they refused to adore the Emperour for a God to sweare by his Genius and to observe his solemnities and triumphs in an Ethnicall manner as is evident by the words preceding this passage Sic circa Majestatem Imperatoris infamamur c. and by sundry notable passages in his Apologeticus In answer to which accusation Tertullian reasons in the Christians behalfe that though they adored not the Emperour as a God yet they reverenced him as a man next under God as one onely lesse then God as one greater then all others whiles lesse onely then the true God and greater then the Idol Gods themselves who were in the Emperours power c. Here was no other thing in question but whether the Emperour were to be adored as God not whether he or the Roman Senate and people were the greatest highest Soveraigne power And the answer being that he was but a man next under God above any other particular officer in the Roman State is no proofe at all that he was paramount the whole Senate and people collectively considered or of greater Soveraigne power then they which the premises clearely disprove Adde that this Father in his Apologie thus censures the Pagan Romans for their grosse flattery of their Emperours whom they feared more then their Gods appliable to our present times Siquidem majore formidine callidiore timiditate Caesarem observatis quam ipsum de Olympo Jovem c. adeo in isto irreligiosi erga dees vestros deprehendimini cum plus timoris humano Domino dicatis citius denique apud vos per omnes Deos quam per unum genium Caesaris pejeratur Then he addes Interest hominis Deo cedere satis habeat appellari Imperator grande hoc nomen est quod a Deo tradetur negat illum imperatorem qui deum dicit nisi homo sit non est imperator Hominem se esse etiam triumphans in illo sublimissimo curru admonetur Suggeritur enim ci a tergo Respice post te hominem memento te Etiam hoc magis gaudet tanta se gloria coruscare ut illi admonitio conditionis suae sit necessaria Major est qui revocatur ne se deum existimet Augustus imperii formator ne Dominum quidem dici se volebat et hoc enim Dei est cognomen Dicam plane Imperatorem Dominum sed more communi sed quando non cogor ut Dominum Dei vice dicam Concluding thus Nullum bonum sub exceptione personarum administramus c. lidem sumus Imperatoribus qui vicinis nostris Male enim velle male facere male dicere male cogitare de quoquam ex aequo vetamur Quodcunque non licet in Imperatorem id nec in quenquam quod in neminem eo forsitan magis nec in ipsum qui per deum tantus est c. From which it is evident that the Christians did not deifie nor flatter their Emperours more then was meet and deemed they might not resist them onely in such cases where they might resist no others and so by consequence lawfully resist them where it was lawfull for them to resist other private men who did injuriously assault them If then the Roman Emperors were not the highest Soveraigne power in the Roman State when Paul writ this Epistle but the Roman Senate and State as I have cleared and if the Parliament not the King be the supremest Soveraigne power in our Realme as I have abundantly manifested then this objected Text so much insisted on by our opposites could no wayes extend to the Roman Senate State or our English Parliament who are the very higher powers themselves and proves most fatall and destructive to their cause of any other even by their owne Argument which I shall thus doubly discharge upon them First that power which is the highest and most soveraigne Authority in any State or kingdome by the Apostles and our Antagonists owne doctrine even in point of conscience neither may nor ought in what case soever say our opposites to be forcibly resisted either in their persons ordinances commands instruments offices or Armed Souldiers by any inferiour powers persons or subjects whatsoever especially when their proceedings are just and legall under paine of temporall and eternall condemnation But the Senate among the Romans not the Emperour and the Parliament in England not the King really were and are the higher Powers and most soveraigne Authority Therefore by the Apostles own Doctrine even in point of conscience they neither may nor ought to be disobeyed or forcibly resisted in any case whatsoever either in their Persons Ordinances Commands Instruments Officers or Armed Souldiers by the King himselfe his Counsellors Armies Cavaliers or by any inferiour powers persons or Subjects whatsoever especially when their proceedings are just and legall as hitherto they have beene under paine of temporall and eternall condemnation I hope the Doctor and his Camerads will now beshrew themselves that ever they medled with this Text and made such a halter to strangle their owne treacherous cause and those who have taken up armes in its defence Secondly that Power which is simply highest and supreame in any State may lawfully with good conscience take up Armes to resist or suppresse any other power that shall take up armes to subvert Religion Lawes Liberties the Republike or the just Rights and Priviledges of the Subject or of this higher power This is our opposites owne argumentation Therefore the Parliament being in verity the highest supreame Power in our State may lawfully with good conscience take up Armes to resist or suppresse his Majesties Malignant Popish Forces or any other power which already hath or hereafter shall be raised to subvert Religion Lawes Liberties the Republike just Rights and Priviledges of Parliament
to be of God by way of permission and of Ordination too in reference to the peoples punishment Job 34. 30. Hos 13. 11. 1 Sam. 8. 18. In these regards common to all other Governours and lawfull Governments as well as Kings and Monarchies Kings and Kingly Authority are and may be said to be of God and Gods Ordinance yet not immediately or properly in the first acception here refuted but so as that still they are really the institutions and ordinances of men of humane not divine right and authority As for the objected Scriptures to prove Kings jure Divino as Prov. 8. 15. By me Kings Reigne c. Ergo they are of immediate divine institution and have all their authority from God not from the people and may in no case be resisted censured deposed or put to death for any misdemeanours the consequences thence inferred I answer First That this Text speakes onely of the promotion or Reigne of Kings not of the erections and power of Monarchies and so doe Daniel 2. 21. c. 4. 17. 25. c. 5. 26. 28. with the other objected Scriptures Secondly If it be meant of the rule of Kings then true it is that good Kings Reigne by Gods direction according to his word executing justice and judgement as he enjoynes them But then it is not true of wicked Kings and Tyrants who though they Reigne by Gods Providence or permission yet they rule not by his word and will as he prescribes them Thirdly If it be meant of the meanes and manner of Kings comming to their Kingdomes as I conceive it is and the Texts of Daniel perswade True it is first That some Kings Reigned and came to the Crowne by Gods immediate nomination and designation as Saul David Solomon Jeroboam Jehu and Hazael did But that all or most did heretofore or now doe so especially in Pagan Kingdomes is a notorious falshood Secondly it is true That most lawfull Kings in hereditary or elective Kingdomes come to their Crownes and Reigne though not by Gods immediate nomination yet by his ordinary or speciall providence though it be untrue of Vsurpers and Tyrants who come to Reigne by Treason Murther or other unlawfull meanes and so by Gods permission onely rather than his providence and then the sense of the place is but this That Kings receive their Crownes and Reigne by Gods generall or more speciall providence Which I thinke is the full and proper sense of the place In this sense C. Plinius Secundus a heathen in his admirable Panegyrio to the Emperour Trajan a Pagan Rhetorizeth thus of him Quid enim praestabilius est aut pulchrius munus Deorum quam castus sanctus Diis simillimus Princeps Ac si adhuc dubium fuisset sorte casuque Rectores terris an aliquo numine darentur Principem tamen nostrum liqueret DIVINITUS CONSTITUTUM Non enim occulta potestate fatorum sed ab Jove ipso coram ac palam repertus electus est c. Which Tertullian thus seconds speaking even of the Roman Pagan Emperours Inde est Imperator unde homo antequam Imperator inde Potestas ei unde spiritus Per Deum tantus est So Irenaeus Cujus jussu homines nascuntur hujus jussu Reges constituuntur And Diodorus Siculus of the AEgyptians Existimant non SINE DIVINA QUADAM PROVIDENTIA pervenisse ad summam de omnibus Potestatem So the Esses hold this opinion Non obtingit cuiquam Imperium sine Dei cura speciali So Vitigis Omnis provectus maxime Regius ad Divinitatis munera referendus est and Clemens Romanus too Regem timeto sciens Domini esse electionem Which Grotius de Jure Belli l. 1. c. 3. sect 8. confirmes with other Authorities all concurring in this That Kings and Emperours are such onely by the selfe-same PROVIDENCE OF GOD by which they were men before they were Emperours which gives them no greater Prerogative in respect of irresistibility in unjust exorbitant actions then their being men by the selfe-same providence of God gave them before they were Emperours as Tertullians words most clearely prove But what priviledge this alone should yeeld to Kings more than to any other Magistrates Men or Beasts for my part I cannot yet discerne For doth not the same Text say of Nobles Princes Judges as well as of Kings Prov. 8. 15 16. By me Princes put as contradistinct to Kings decree justice By me Princes Rule AND NOBLES YEA ALL JUDGES OF THE EARTH Doth not David say of all kinde of Promotions whatsoever Psal 113. 7 8. The Lord raiseth the poore out of the dust and lifeteth the needy out of the dunghill that he may set him with Princes even with the Princes of his people And Psal 75. 5 6. Promotion commeth neither from the East nor from the South but God is the Judge he putteth downe one and setteth up another Nay doth not Christ informe us That the very haires of our head are all numbred That two sparrowes are sold for a farthing and yet one of them shall not fall on the ground without our Fathers providence Yea doth not every man yea every Bird Beast Fish Raven and living creature whatsoever as the Scripture expressely resolves receive enjoy their Lives Honours Offices Estates food rayment being preservation by Gods generall and speciall providence as well as Kings their Crownes Honours Lives Estates And is not the providence yea are not the very Angels of God who are all ministring spirits sent forth to minister to them who shal be heirs of salvation as vigilant over every pious Christian though never so mean despicable as over the greatest Monarch in the world If so as all men must necessarily acknowledge there being no respect at all of persons with God who accepts not the persons of Princes regards the rich no more then the poor for they are all the work of his hands then kings reigning by the Providence of God can of it self no more exempt them from resistance censures deprivations for their detestable publike crimes then it exempts any other Nobles Princes Iudges Magistrates Christians or the meanest subiects whatsoever which I shall make good by one more unanswerable demonstration There is not one of our Antagonists but will acknowledge that Priests under the Law and all Ministers under the Gospell if rightly qualified are not made only such by Gods speciall Providence but likewise by Divine institution from God himself Nay Tollet Willet and many others on this very Text of the Romanes make a difference between the civill and Ecclesiasticall Regiment and Powers for the first say they is so from God that yet the institution thereof may be devised and altered by man and therefore Peter calls it the Ordinance of man but the spirituall Power is immediatelly instituted by God and no wayes alterable or determinable by man And therefore the Apostle saith Ephes 4. 11. He gave
to the assertion of the Apostle very ill applied saying The spirituall man is iudged of no man 1 Corinth 2. 15. Not meant of Bishops or Clergie-men but Saints alone endued with Gods Spirit not of judging in courts of iustice but of discerning spirituall things and their own spirituall Estates as the Context resolves Thus and much more this Prelate who notwithstanding this text of the Romanes pleads an exemption of all Bishops and Priests from the kings secular power by Divine Authority and arrogates to Priest and Prelates a iudiciary lawfull power over Kings themselves to excommunicate and censure them for their offences And to descend to later times even since the the Reformation of Religion here Iohn Bridges Dean of Sarum and Bishop of Oxfort even in his Book intituled The supremacy of Christian Princes over all persons thorowout their Dominions in all causes so well Ecclesiasticall as spirituall printed at London 1573. p. 1095. writes thus But who denies this M. Saunders that a godly Bishop may upon great and urgent occasion if it shall be necessary to edifie Gods Church and there be no other remedy flee to this last censure of Excommunication AGAINST A WICKED KING Making it a thing not questionable by our Prelates and Clergie that they may in such a case lawfully excommunicate the King himself And Doctor Bilson Bishop of Winchester in his True difference between Christian subiection and unchristian Rebellion dedicated to Queen Elizabeth her self printed at Oxford 1595. Part. 3. Page 369. to 378. grants That Emperours Kings and Princes may in some cases be Excommunicated and kept from the Lords Table by their Bishops and grants That with Hereticks and Apostates be THEY PRINCES or private men no Christian Pastor nor people may Communicate Neither finde I any Bishop or Court Doctor of the contrary opinion but all of them readily subscribe hereto If then not onely the ill Counsellors and Instruments of Kings but Kings and Emperours themselves may thus not onely be lawfully iustly resisted but actually smitten and excommunicated by their Bishops and Clergy with the spirituall sword for their notorious crimes and wickednesses notwithstanding this inhibition which Valentinian the Emperour confessed and therefore desired that such a Bishop should be chosen and elected in Millain after Auxentius as he himself might really and cordially submit to him and his reprehensions since he must sometimes needs erre as a man as to the medicine of souls as he did to Ambrose when he was elected Bishop there why they may not likewise be resisted by their Laity in the precedent cases with the temporall sword and subjected unto the censures of the whole Kingdoms and Parliaments transcends my shallow apprehension to conceive there being as great if not greater or the very self-same reason for the lawfulnesse of the one as of the other And till our Opposites shall produce a substantiall difference between these cases or disclaim this their practice and doctrine of the lawfulnesse of excommunicating Kings and Emperours they must give me and others liberty to conceive they have quite lost and yeelded up the cause they now contend for notwithstanding this chief Text of Romaves 13. the ground of all their strength at first but now of their ruine The tenth Objection is this that of 1 Pet. 2 13 14 15 16. Submit your selves to every ORDINANCE OF MAN for the Lords sake whether it be to The King AS SVPREAME or unto Governours as unto them that are sent by him to wit by God not the King as the distribution manifests and Rom. 13. 1 2 3 4. For the punishment of evill doers and for the praise of them that doe well c. Feare God Honour the King wee must submit to Kings and honour Kings who are the supream Governours therefore we may in no case forcibly resist them or their Officers though they degenerate into Tyrants To which I answer that this is a meerin consequent since the submission here injoyned is but to such Kings who are punishers of evill doers and praisers of those that do well which the Apostle makes the Ground and motive to submission therefore this text extends not to Tyrants and oppressours who doe quite contrary We must submit to Kings when they rule well and justly is all the Apostle here affirms Ergo wee must submit to and not resist them in any their violent courses to subvert Religion Lawes Liberties is meet non-sence both in Law Divinity and common Reason If any reply as they doe that the Apostle vers 18 19 20. Bids servants 〈◊〉 subject to their Masters with all feare not onely to the good and gentle but also to the froward For this is thank-worthy if a man for conscience towards God endure griefe suffering wrongfully c. Ergo this is meant of evill Magistrates and Kings as well as good I answer 1. That the Apostles speaks it onely of evill Masters not Kings of servants not subjects there being a great difference between servants Apprentices Villaines and free borne subiects as all men know the one being under the arbitrary rule and government of their Master the other onely under the just setled legall Government of their Princes according to the Lawes of the Realme Secondly this is meant onely of private personall iniuries and undue corrections of Masters given to servants without iust cause as vers 20. For what glory is it if when yee be BVFFETED FOR your faults c. intimates not of publike iniuries and oppressions of Magistrates which indanger the whole Church and State A Christian servant or subiect must patiently endure private undue corrections of a froward Master or King Ergo whole Kingdomes and Parliaments must patiently without resistance suffer their kings and evill Instruments to subvert Religion Lawes Liberties Realms the proper deduction heen is but a ridiculous conclusion Secondly This Text enjoynes no more subjection to kings then to any other Magistrates as the words Submit your selves TO EVERY ORDINANCE of Man Or unto Governors c. prove past all contradiction And vers 6. which bids us Honour the King bids us first in direct tearmes HONOVR ALL MEN to wit All Magistrates at least if not all men in generall as such There is then no speciall Prerogative of irresistability given to kings by this Text in injurious violent courses more then there is to any other Magistrate or person whatsoever God giving no man any Authority to injure others without resistance especially if they assault their persons or invade their Estates to ruine them Since then inferiour Officers and other menmay be forcâ—bly resisted when they actually attempt by force to ruine Religion Lawes Liberties the republike as I haue proved and our Antagonists must grant by the self-same reason kings may be resisted too notwithstanding any thing in this Text which attributes no more irresistability or authority to Kings then unto other Magistrates Thirdly Kings are here expresly called AN ORDINANCE OF
without any resistance when they might have lawfully and easily preserved them by resisting Will it therefore follow that all others must do so that we must not sight against invading Enemies Theeves Pirats Riotors because many good Christians out of fear or cowardise or for other reasons have not done it in all ages I â—ow not Will the Jews refusiâ—g three or four severall times to defend themselves against their insulting enemies on their Sabbath or the Gothes not resisting their invading foes on the Lords Day or will the Alexandrian Jewes example and speech to Flaccus Inermes sumus ut vides tamen sunt qui nos tanquam hostes publicos hic criminantur Etiam eas quas ad nostri tutelam partes dedit natura reâ—rò vertimus ubi nihil habent quod agant corpora praebemus nuda patentia ad impetum eorum qui nos volunt occidere Or that example of the Christian Theban Legion slain without the least resistance for their Religion who as an ancient Martyriologer saith Caedâ—bantur passim gladiis non reclamantes sed depositis armis cervices persecutoribus vel intectum corpus offerentes warrant this deduction Ergo no Christians now must resist their invading enemies on the Sabbath day but must offer their naked bodies heads throats unto their swords and violence If not then these examples and authorities will no wayes prejudice our present resistance Fourthly the Christians not onely refused to resist their oppressing Emperours and Magistrates who proceeded judicially by a kinde of Law against them but even the vulgar people who assaulted stoned slew them in the streets against Law as Tertullians words Quoties enim praeteritis à vobis SUO JURE NOS INIMICUM VULGUS invadit lapidibus incendiis c. manifest without all contradiction and indeed this passage so much insisted on relates principally if not onely to such assaults of the rude notorious vulgar which every man will grant the Christians might lawfully with good conscience forcibly resist because they were no Magistrates nor lawfull higher powers within Rom. 13. 1. 2. or 1 Pet. 2 13 14. Either then our Antagonist must grant that it is unlawfull in point of Conscience forcibly to resist the unlawfull assaults and violence of the vulgar or private persons who are no Magistrates and that it is unlawfull now for any Christians to resist Theeves Pirats or beare defensive Armes as the Anabaptists from whose quiver our Antagonists have borrowed this and all other shafts against the present defensive warre and so make the primitive Christians all Anabaptists in this particular Or else inevitably grant resistance lawfull notwithanding their examples and these passages of not resisting The rather because Tertullian in the next preceding words puts no difference at all between the Emperour and meanest Subjects in this case Idem sumus saith he Imperatoribus qui vicinis nostris malè enim velle malè facere malè dicere malè cogitare de quoquam ex aequo vetamur Quodcunqne non licet in Imperatorem id nâ—c in quenquam Fifthly admit the Christians then deemed all forcible resistance of persecuters simply unlawfull in point of Conscience as being a thing quite contrary to Christian profession and Religion then as it necessarily proves on the one side That even Christian Kings Princes Magistrates must in no wise forcibly resist the tumultuous Rebellions Insurrections and persecutions of their Subjects because they are Christians as well as Rulers and in this regard equally obliged with them not to resist with Armes much lesse then their Parliaments Forces lawfully raised for the publike defence So on the contrary part it follows not that therefore resistance is either unlawfull in it selfe or that the Parliaments present resistance is so For first such resistance being no where prohibited as I have formerly proved their bare opinion that it was unlawfull to them cannot make it so to them or us in point of conscience since God hath not made or declared it so Secondly the primitive Christians held many things unlawfull in point of Conscience which we now hold not so Tertullian and others informe us That the Christians in his time thought it a hainous sinne Nefas to pray kneeling on the Lords day or between Easter and Whitsontide and so by consequence to kneele at the Sacrament praying alwayes standing on those dayes in memory of Christs resurrection Which custome was ratified also by many Councels Yet then it was lawfull no doubt in it selfe for them to pray kneeling and we all use the contrary custome now The Christians then held it unlawfull to eat blood in puddings or any other meats as Tertullian Minucius Felix testifie and many Councels expressely prohibited it since as unlawfull Yet all Churches at this day deem it lawfull and practise the contrary The Christians in Tertullians dayes and he himselfe in a speciall Book De fuga in persecutione held it unlawfull to flee in times of persecution and therefore they voluntarily offered themselves to martyrdome without flight or resistance Yet we all now hold flying lawfull and all sorts practise it as lawfull yea many more then they ought to doe I might give sundry other instances of like nature The Christians opinion therefore of the unlawfulnesse of any armed resistance of Persecuters publike or private held they any such though seconded with their practice is no good argument of its unlawfulnesse without better evidence either then or at this present Thirdly the case of the Primitive Christians and ours now is far different The Emperours Magistrates and whole States under which they then lived were all Pagan Idolaters their Religion quite contrary to the Laws and false Religions setled in those States There were many Laws and Edicts then in force against Christian Religion unrepealed most Professors of Religion were of the lowest ranke not many wise Noble mighty men scarce any great Officer Magistrate or Senator was of that profession but all fierce enemies against it For Christians being but private men and no apparant body of a State to make any publike forcible resistance in defence of Religion against Emperours Senators Magistrates Lawes and the whole State wherein they lived had neither been prevalent nor expedient a great hinderance and prejudice to Religion and as some hold unlawfull But our present case is far otherwise our King Parliament State Magistrates People are all Christians in externall profession our Protestant Religion established Popery excluded banished by sundry publike Lawes the Houses of Parliament and others now resisting are the whole body of the Realme in representation and have authority even by Law to defend themselves and Religion against invading Popish Forces In which regards our present resistance is and may cleerly bee affirmed lawfull though the primitive Christians in respect of the former circumstances might not be so Secondly their resistance especially of the Magistrates not vulgar
THE THIRD PART OF THE SOVERAIGNE POWER OF PARLIAMENTS and KINGDOMES Wherein the Parliaments present Necessary Defensive Warre against the Kings offensive Malignant Popish forces and Subjects taking up Defensive Armes against their Soveraignes and their Armies in some Cases is copiously manifested to be Just Lawfull both in point of Law and Conscience and neither Treason nor Rebellion in either by inpregnable Reasons and Authorities of all kindes Together With a Satisfactory Answer to all Objections from Law Scripture Fathers Reason hitherto alledged by Dr. Ferne or any other late opposite Pamphleters whose grosse Mistakes in true Stating of the present Controversie in sundry points of Divinity Antiquity History with their absurd irrationall Logicke and Theologie are here more fully discovered refuted than hitherto they have been by any Besides other particulars of great concernment By WILLIAM PRYNNE Utter-Barrester of Lincolnes Inne 2 Sam. 10. 12. Be of good courage and let us play the men for our People and for the City of our God and the Lord doe what seemeth him good Esther 9. 1 2. 5 10. In the day that the enemies of the Jewes hoped to have power over them the Jewes gathered themselves together into their Cities through out all the Provinces of King Ahashuerus to lay hand on those that sought their lives and no man could withstand them for the feare of them fell upon all people Thus the Jewes sinote all their enemies with the stroke of the sword and slaughter and destruction and did what they would with those that hated them but on the spoile laid they not their hand It is this eighth day of May 1643. Ordered by the Committee of the House of Commons in Parliament for Printing that this Booke Intituled The third Part of the Soveraign Power of Parliaments and Kingdomes be Printed by Michael Sparke senior John White Printed at London for Michael Sparke Senior 1643. TO HIS EVER-HONOVRED NOBLE KINDE FRIENDS THE Right Honourable Lord Ferdinando Fairfax the Right Worshipfull Sir William Waller and Sir William Bruerton Knights Commanders in Chiefe of the Parliaments Forces in severall Counties Deservedly Renowned Worthies YOUR Incomparable Valour Zeale Activity Industry for the preservation of Your Dearest Country Religion Lawes Liberties and the very being of Parliaments all now endangered by an unnaturall generation of Popish and Malignant Vipers lately risen up in Armes against them in diverse parts of this Realme and those many miraculous Victories with which God hath beene lately pleased to Crowne your cordiall endeavours to promote his glory and the Publicke safety as they have justly demerited some gratefull generall Acknowledgements from the whole Representative Body of the State so they may in some sort challenge a private gratulatory Retribution from Me who have formerly had the happinesse to participate in your Christian Affections and now reape much Consolation by your Heroick Actions Having therefore seasonably finished this Third part Of the Soveraigne Power of Parliaments and Kingdoms copiously Vindicating the Lawfulnesse Iustnesse of the Parliaments present Necessary Defensive Warre in which you have had the Honour to be imployed not onely as Chiefe but which is more as most successefull Commanders in your severall Countries in point both of Law and Conscience and fully wiping off those blacke Aspersions of TREASON and REBELLION which the opposite party really guilty of these crimes against both King and Kingdome as I have elsewhere manifested and here lightly touched have out of Malice Ignorance or both conjoyned most injuriously cast upon your Loyall honourable proceedings which rejoyce the soules of all true Philopaters who cordially affect their Country or Religion I could not without much ingratitude yea injustice have published it to the world but under the Patronage of your ever-honored resplendent names who have so valorously so successefully pleaded this Cause already in the Field that it needs the lesse assistance from the Presse My many inevitable interruptions and straites of time in its contexture which may happily detract something from its perfection shall I hope derogate nothing from your Honourable Friendly acceptation whom I have thus conjoyned in the Dedication because the Parliament hath united you in their present Warlike employments and God himselfe joyntly honoured you with successe even to admiration among the Good indignation amidst Malignants envy with the Malicious and I trust to an active sedulous emulation in all your Fellow Commanders imployed in other Quarters in the selfesame Cause Your present busie publike and mine owne private Imployments prohibite me to expatiate Wherefore earnestly beseeching the Glorious Lord of Hosts to be ever mightily present with your severall Noble Persons Forces and to make you alwayes eminently active Valorous Victorious as hitherto he hath done till Peace and Truth Tranquillity and Piety by your severall triumphant Proceedings shall once more lovingly embrace and kisse each other in our divided unreformed sinfull Kingdomes And till the effect of these just warres You manage shall be quietnesse and assurance to us and our Posterities after us for ever I humbly recommend your Persons Proceedings to his protection who can secure you in and from all dangers of warre and rest Your Honours Worships most affectionate Friend and Servant WILLIAM PRYNNE To the Reader Christian Reader I Who have beene alwayes hitherto a Cordiall Desirer endeavourer of Peace am here necessitated to present Thee with a Discourse of Warre to justifie The Lawfulnesse of the Parliaments present taking up of necessary Defensive Armes Which neither their Endeavours nor my with many others Prayers could with any safety to our Priviledges Persons Religion Liberty Realmes now forcibly invaded by his Majesties Popish and Malignant Cavallieres hitherto prevent or conjure downe To plead the Justnesse of a Warre of an unnaturall Civill warre the worst of any of a Warre betweene the Head and Members may seeme not onely a Paradox but a Prodigie in a Land heretofore blessed with an aged uninterrupted Peace And Lucans Bella per AEmathios plusquam civilia Campos c. now most unhappily revived among us being but Historicall and Poeticall may passe the world with lesse admiration and censure than this harsh Peece which is both Legally Theologically like the Subject matter Polemicall But as the ayme the end of all just War is and ought to be onely future setled Peace so is the whole drift of this Military Dissertation not to foment or protract but end our bloody Warres which nothing hath more excited animated lengthened in the Adverse party than a strong conceite if not serious beliefe that The Parliaments Forces neither would nor lawfully might in point of Law or Conscience forcibly resist or repulse their invasive Armes without danger of High Treason and Rebellion which Bug-beare I have here refuted removed and the In-activity the much admired slownesse of many of our Forces in resisting in preventing their vigorous Proceedings which a little timely vigilance and diligence had easily controlled It is a more than
intending to reduce them to his obedience by force of armes God by his Prophet Shemiah expressely prohibited him and his army to goe up or fight against them and made them all to returne to their owne houses without fighting and to Isay 14. 4. 19. to 22. where God threatens to cast the King of Babilon out of his grave as an abhominable branch as a carcasse trodden under foot marke the reason Because thou hast destroyed thy Land and slaine thy People to cut off from Babylon his name and remembrance and Sonnes and Nephewes as he had cut off his peoples though heathens Yea contrary to that memorable Speech of that noble Roman Valerius Corinus when he was chosen Dictator and went to fight against the Roman conspirators who toke up armes against their Country Fugeris etiam honestius tergumque civi dederis quam pugnaveris contra patriam nunc ad pacificandum bene atque honeste inter primos stabis postulate aequa et ferte quanquam vel iniquis standum est potius quam impias inter nos conseramus manus c. If then a Kings offensive warre upon his Subjects without very just grounds and unevitable occasions be thus utterly sinfull and unlawfull in law and Conscience and most diametrally contrary to the Oath Office trust and duty of a King who by this strange metamorphosis becomes a Wolfe instead of a Shepheard a destroyer in liew of a Protector a publike Enemy in place of a Common friend an unnaturall Tyrant instead of a naturall King it followes inevitably that the Subjects or Kingdomes resistance and defensive warre in such a case both by the law of God of nature of the Realme must be lawfull and just because directly opposite to the only preservative against that warre which is unlawfull and unjust and so no Treason nor Rebellion by any Law of God or man which are illegall and criminall too Eightly It is the received resolution of all Canoniâ—â—s Schoolemen and Civill Lawyers That a defensive warre undertaken onely for necessary defence doth not propâ—ly deserve the nam of warre but onely of Defence That it is no lâ—vying of warre at all which implies an active offenâ—ive not passive defensive raising of forces and so no Treason nor offence within the statute of 25. E. 3. c. 2. as the Parliament the onely proper Iudge of Treasons hath already resolved in point of Law but a faculty onely of defence Cuilibet Omni Iure ipsoque Rationis Ductu Permissa c. permitted to every one By all Law or right and by the very conduct of reason since to propulse violence and iniury is permitted by the very Law of Nations Hence of all the seven sorts of warre which they make they define the last to be A just and Necessary War quod fit se et sua defendendo and that those who dâ—e is such a war caeteris paribus are safe Causa 23. qu. 1. and if they be slaine for defence of the Common-wealth their memory shall live in perpetuall glory And hence they give this Definition of a just Warre Warre is a Lawfull Defence against an imminent or praeceeding offence upon a publike or private cause concluding That if Defence be severed from Warre it is a Sedition not Warre Although the Emperour himselfe denounce it Yea although the whole World combined together Proclaime it For the Emperour a King can no more lawfully hurt another in Warre then he can take away his goods or life without cause Therefore let Commentatoâ—s bâ—awle eternally about Warre yet they shall never justifie nor prove it lawfull Nisi ex Defensione Legitima but when it proceeds from Lawfull defence all Warres being rash and unjust against those who justly defend themselves This Warre then being undertaken by the Parliament onely for their owne and the Kingdomes necessary defence against the Kings invasive Armies and Cavalliers especially now after the Kings rejection of all Honourable and safe termes of Peace and accommodation tendered to him by the Parliament must needs be just and lawfull and so no Treason nor Rebellion in point of Law or Conscience Since no Law of God nor of the Realme hath given the King any Authority or Commission at all to make this unnaturall Warre upon his Parliament his people to enslave their Soules and Bodies or any inhibition to them not to defend themselves in such a case These generall Considerations thus premised wherein Law and Conscience walke hand in hand I shall in the next place lay downe such particular grounds for the justification of this Warre which are meerely Legall extracted out of the bowels of our knowne Lawes which no professors of them can contradict First it is unquestionable that by the Common and Statute Law of the Land the King himselfe who cannot lawfully proclaime Warre against a Forraigne Enemy much lesse against his people without his Parliaments previous assent as I have elsewhere proved cannot by his absolute Soveraigne Prerogative either by verball Commands or Commissions under the great Seale of England derive any lawfull or just Authority to any Generall Captaine Cavalliers or person whatsoever without Legall Triall and Conviction to seize the Goods or Chattels of any his Subjects much lesse forcecibly to Rob Spoile Plunder Wound Beat Kill Imprison or make open War upon them without a most just and in vitable occasion and that after open kostilitij denounced against them And if any by vertue of such illegal Commissions or Mandats Assault Plunder Spoile Rob Beat Wound Slay Imprison the Goods Chattels Houses Persons of any Subject not lawfully convicted They may and ought to be proceeded against resisted apprehended indicted condemned for it notwithstanding such Commissions as Trespassers Theeves Burglarers Felons Murderers both by Statute and Common Law As is clearely enacted and resolved by Magna Charta cap. 29. 15. E. 3. Stat. 1. cap. 1. 2. 3. 42. E. 3. cap. 1. 3. 28. E. 1. Artic. super Chartas cap. 2. 4 E. 3. c. 4. 5. E. 3. cap. 2. 24. E. 3. cap. 1. 2 R. 2 cap. 7. 5 R. 2 ca 5. 1. H. 5. cap. 6. 11. R. 2. cap. 1. to 6. 24 H. 8. cap. 5. 21. Jacob. c. 3. Against Monopolies The Petition of Right 3. Caroli 2. E. 3. c. 8. 14. E. 3. ca. 14. 18. E. 3. Stat. 3. 20. E. 3. cap. 1. 2. 3. 1. R 2. cap. 2. And generally all Satutes against Purveyers 42. Ass Pl. 5. 12. Brooke Commissions 15. 16. Fortesoue c p. 8. 9. 10. 13. 14. 26. 1. E. 3. 2. 2. H. 4. 24. Br. Faux Jmprisonment 30. 28. 22. E. 4 45. a Tr. 16. H. 6. Monstrans de Faits 182 Stamford lib. 1. fol. 13. a. 37. a. The Conference at the Committies of both Houses 3 o. Aprilis 4 o. Caroli concerning the Right and Priviledge of the Subject newly Printed Cooke lib. 5. fol. 50. 51. lib. 7. fol. 36. 37. lib. 8. fol. 125. to 129. Iudge Crooks and Huttons Arguments against Shipmoney with divers
execute them as common enemies to the kingdomes peace and welfare even by the knowne Common Law and Statutes of the Realme and seife Delinquents notwithstanding any royall Commission or personal commands they may or can produce Fourthly it is most certaine that every Subject by the very Common Law of the Realm yea Law of Nature as he is a member of the State and Church of England is bound both in duty and conscience when there is necessary occasion to Array and Arme himselfe to resist the invasions and assaults of open enemies of the Realme especially of Forraigners as is cleare by infinite * Presidents cited by the Kings owne Councell and recited by Judge Crooke in his Argument concerning Ship-money in both the Houses two Remonstrances and Declarations against the Commission of Array and the Answer of the first of them in the Kings name all newly Printed to which I shall referre the Reader for fuller Satisfaction and by the expresse statutes of 1 E. 3. c. 5. 25. E. 3. c. 8. and 4. H. 4. c. 13. The reason is from the Originall compact and mutuall stipulation of every member of any Republicke State or Society of men for mutuall defence one of another upon all occasions of invasion made at their first association and incorporation into a Republike state kingdome Nation of which we have a pregnant example Iudg. 20. 1. to 48. If then the King himselfe shall introduce forraigne Forces and enemies into his Realme to levie war against it or shall himself become an open enemie to it the Subjects are obleiged by the self-same reason law equity especially upon the Parliaments command to Arm themselves to defend their Native Country Kingdome against these forraigne and domesticke Forces and the King himselfe if he joyne with them as farre forth as they are bound to doe it upon the Kings own Writ and Commission in case he joyned with the Parliament and Kingdome against them the necessary defence and preservation of the Kingdome and themselves and of the King onely so farre forth as he shewes himselfe a King and Patron not an enemie of his Kingdome and Subjects being the sole ground of their engagement in such defensive warres according to this notable resolution of Cicero Omnium Societatum nulla est gratior nulla carior quà m ea quae cum Republica est unicuique nostrum Cari sunt pareâ—tes cariliberi propinqui familiares SED OMNES OMNIVM CARITATES PATRIA VNA COMPLEXA EST pro qua quis bonus dubit tâ—mortem oppetere si ei sit prosuturus Qâ—o est detestabilior illorum immanitas qui lacerant omni scelere Patriam nâ—a sunditus delenda occupati sunt fuerunt and seeing kings themselves as well as Subjects are bound to hazard their lives for the preservation of their Kingdomes and peoples safeti and not to endanger the ruine of the Kingdome and people to preserve their owne lives and prerogatives as I have elsewhere manifested it cannot be denyed but that every Subject when the King is unjustly divided against his Kingdome Parliament and People is mere obleiged to joyne with the kingdome Parliament and his Native dearest Countrey who are most considerable against the King than with the king against their and rather in such a case than any other because there is lesse neede of helpe and no such danger of ruine to the whole Realme and Nation when the King joynes with them against forraigne invading enemies as there is when the king himselfe becomes an open intestine Foe unto them against his Oath and Daty and the Peoples safety being the Supremest Law the Houses of Parliament the most Soveraigne Authoritie they ought in such unhappie cases of extremitie and division to oversway all Subjects to contribute their best assistance for their necessary just defence even against the king himself and all his Partisans who take up Hostile Armes against them and not to assist them to ruine their owne Country Kingdome Nation as many as now over-rashly do Fifthly I conceive it cleare Law that if the King himselfe or his Courtiers with him shall wrongfully assault any of his Subjects to wound rob or murther them without just cause that the subjects without any guilt of Treason or Rebellion may not onely in their owne defense resist the King and his Courtiers assaults in such a case and hold their hands as Doctor Ferne himselfe accords but likewise close with and disarme them and if the King or his Courtiers receive any blowes wounds in such a case or be casually slaine it is neither Treason nor Murder in the Defendants who had no Treasonable nor murtherous intention at all in them but onely endeavoured their own just defence attempting nothing at all against the kings lawful Royall authority as is cleare by all Law Cases of man slaughter se defendends and to put this out of question I shall cite but two or three cases of like Nature It hath been very frequent with the Kings of England France and other Princes for triall of their man hood to runne at Iousts and fight at Barriers not onely with forraigners but with their owne valiantest Lâ—rds and Knights of which there are various Examples In these Martiall disports by the very Law of Armâ—s these Subjects have not onely defended themselves against their kings assaults and blowes but retorted lance for lance stroke for stroke and sometimes unborsed disarmed and wounded their Kings our King Henry the eight being like to be slaine by the Earle of Suffolke at a Tilting in the 16. yeare of his reigne and no longer since then the yeare 1559. Henry the 2 d King of France was casually slaine in a loust by the Earle of Mountgommery his Subject whom hee commanded to Iust one bout more with him against his will whose Speare in the counter-blow ran so right into one of the Kings eyes that the shivers of it peirced into his head perished his braine and slew him yet this was Iudged no Treason Fellony nor offence at all in the Earle who had no ill intention If then it hath ever beene reputed lawfull and honourable for Subiects in such militarie exercises upon the challenges of their kings to defend themselves couragiously against their assaults and thus to fight with and encounter them in a martiall manner though there were no necessity for them to answer such a challenge and the casuall wounding or slaying of the King by a Subiect in such a case be neither Treason nor Fellony then much more must it be lawfull by the Law of Armes Nature and the kingdome for the Parliament and subjects in a necessary just unavoydable warre to defend resist repulse the kings and his Cavaleers-personall assaults and returne them blow forblow shot for shot if they will wilfully invade them and if the king or any of his Forces miscarry in this action they must like King Henry the 8 th when endangered by
the honour of God the Salvation of the King for if the Kingdome perish or miscarry the king as king must needs perish with it the maintenance of his Crowne supported onely by the maintenance of the kingdomes welfare and the Salvation and common profit of all the Realm and this being one of the first solemne judgements if not the very first given in Parliament after the making of the statute of 25 E. 3. which hath relation to its clause of levying war must certainely be the best exposition of that Law which the Parliament onely ought to interpret as is evident by the statute of 21. R. 2. c. 3. It is ordained and stablished that every man which c. or he that raiseth the people and riseth against the King to make warre within his Realme and of that be duly attainted and judged in the Parliament shall be judged as a Traytor of High Treason against the Crowne and other forecited Acts and if this were no Treason nor Rebellion nor Trespasse in the Barons against the king or kingdome but a warre for the honour of God the salvation of the king the maintenance of his Crowne the safety and common profit of all the Realme much more must our Parliaments present defensive warre against his Majesties ill Councellors Papists Malignants Delinquents and men of desperate fortunes risen up in Armes against the Parliament Lawes Religion Liberties the whole Kingdomes peace and welfare be so too being backed with the very same and farre better greater authority and more publike reasons then their warre was in which the safety of Religion was no great ingredient nor the preservation of a Parliament from a forced dissolution though established and perpetuated by a publike Law King Henry the 4 th taking up Armes against King Richard and causing him to be Articled against and judicially deposed in and by Parliament for his Male-administration It was Enacted by the Statute of 1. Hen 4. cap. 2. That no Lord Spirituall nor Temporall nor other of what estate or condition that he be which came with King Henry into the Realme of England nor none other persons whatsoever they be then dwelling within the same Realme and which came to this King in aide of him to pursue them which were against the Kings good intent and the COMMON PROFIT OF THE REALME in which pursuit Richard late King of England the second after the Conquest was pursued taken and put in Ward and yet remaineth in Ward be impeached grieved nor vexed in person nor in goods in the Kings Court nor in none other Court for the pursuites of the said King taking and with-holding of his body nor for the pursuits of any other taking of persons and cattells or of the death of a man or any other thing done in the said pursuite from the day of the said King that now is arived till the day of the Coronation of Our said Soveraigne Lord Henry And the intent of the King is not that offendors which committed Trespasses or other offences out of the said pursuits without speciall warrant should be ayded nor have any advantage of this Statute but that they be thereof answerable at the Law If those then who in this offensive Warre assisted Henry the 4 th to apprehend and depose this persidious oppressing tyrannicall king seduced by evill Counsellors and his owne innate dis-affection to his naturall people deserved such an immunity of persons and goods from all kinds of penalties because though it tended to this ill kings deposition yet in their intentions it was really for the common profit of the Realme as this Act defines it No doubt this present defensive Warre alone against Papists Delinquents and evill Counsellors who have miserably wasted spoiled sacked many places of the Realme and fired others in a most barbarous maner contrary to the Law of Armes and Nations and labour to subvert Religion Laws Liberties Parliaments and make the Realm a common Prey without any ill intention against his Majesties Person or lawfull Royall Authority deserves a greater immunity and can in no reasonable mans judgement be interpreted any Treason or Rebellion against the king or his Crowne in Law or Conscience In the 33. yeare of king Henry the 6 th a weake Prince wholly guided by the Queene and Duke of Somerset who ruled all things at their wills under whose Government the greatest part of France was lost all things went to ruine both abroad and at home and the Queene much against the Lords and Peoples mindes preferring the Duke of Sommerset to the Captain ship of Calice the Commons and Nobility were greatly offended thereat saying That he had lost Normandy and so would he doâ— Calice Hereupon the Duke of Yorke the Earles of Warwicke and Salisbury with other their adherents raised an Army in the Marches of Wales and Marched with it towards London to suppresse the Duke of Sommerset with his Faction and reforme the Governement The king being credibly informed hereof assembled his Host and marching towards the Duke of Yorke and his Forces was encountred by them at Saint Albanes notwithstanding the kings Proclamation to keepe the Peace where in a set Battell the Duke of Somerset with divers Earles and 800. others were slaine on the kings part by the Duke of Yorke and his companions and the kingâ—â— a manner defeate The Duke after this Victory obtained remembring that he had oftentimes declared and published abroad The onely cause of this War to be THE ADVANCEMENT OF THE PUBLIKE WEALE and TO SET THE REALME IN A MORE COMMODIOVS STATE and BETTER CONDITION Vsing all lenity mercy and bounteousnesse would not once touch or apprehend the body of King Henry whom he might have slaine and utterly destroyed considering that hee had him in his Ward and Governance but with great honour and due reverence conveyed him to London and so to Westminster where a Parliament being summoned and assembled soone after It was therein Enacted That no person should either judge or report any point of untruth of the Duke of Yorke the Earles of Salisbury and Warwicke For comming in Warlike manner against the King at Saint Albanes Considering that their attempt and enterprise Was onely to see the Kings Person in Safeguard and Sure-keeping and to put and Alien from Him the publike Oppressors of the Common wealth by whose misgovernance his life might be in hazard and his Authority hang on a very small Thred After this the Duke and these Earles raised another Army for like purpose and their owne defence in the 37 and 38 yeares of H. 6. for which they were afterwards by a packed Parliament at Coventree by their Enemies procurement Attainted of high Treason and their Lands and Goods confiscated But in the Parliament of 39. H. 6. cap. 1. The said attainder Parliament with all Acts and Statutes therein made were wholly Reversed Repealed annulled as being made â—y the excitation and procurement of seditious ill disposed Persons for the
alone but that another of necessity and profit may be pretended or truely shewn as is said before Behold now is the greatest question If the English have justly ayded the Hollanders because their cause was unjust the Hollanders were even now Subjects to the Spaniards both which notwithstanding are false It was said that a Warre was to bee undertaken upon that occasion that a good Peace might be obtained of the Spaniard which otherwise as is thought could not have beene had And so truly Warre is lawfully undertaken as our men alledge And the most wise reason of the Physicians maketh for it That if any Feaver be slow which holds the body and which yeelds to no cure then the Disease is to be changed yea to bee augmented and heightned For when it doth not receive cure for the present as it is it may receive that cure which is future But even Warre might have beene undertaken without that evill of an unfaithfull Peace As there be many bonds of neerenesse between the English and the Hollander the ancient friendship with the Dukes of Burgondy the familiarity of these people and the old Consanguinity all the rest which are noted at the end of the former Chapter And therefore with Cicero They thinke not that the nocent are not to be defended if they be the friends of a good man Adde one thing of great moment that the Hollanders overcome in Warre should altogether change their condition and we see it in the conquered part being for the most part cast downe from their ancient Liberty and for the most part oppressed with Garrisons are governed now onely at the pleasure of the Prince But this our Neighbours cannot endure Neither is any other forbidden to favour Libertie But it much behoveth Neighbours to have a Neighbour For if one man hath neede of another man what shall we say that one Neighbour is to another saith a Pindarus and b Callimachus Ill Neighbours are odious to mee and some wise Hebrew The worst of all diseases is an ill Neighbour And another of the same Nation Woe to the wicked and woe to his Neighbour And where may Morall Fables be silent An evill neighbourhood is like a mis-fortune The vicinity of great Men is alwaies to bee shunned of the weaker Good men receive good things from good Neighbours and evill Men evill things c. So * Plato and so Thâ—mistocles When hee sold a piece of ground hee commanded the Crier to Proclaime that it had a good Neighbour Which Interpreters note to the Law And there bee many things of the same kinde Wherefore neither if these neighbouring Subjects would change their condition neither if by reason of a fault committed against their owne King they be compelled to alter it is another Neighbouring Prince compelled to suffer it to whom neither another mans will nor offence ought to bring damage The Venetian Embassadors when they interceded for Sigismund of Maltesta to Pope Pius the second they spake even this that Neighbouring Princes would not have another Neighbour whom furthermore they knew not what he might hereafter be And you may note that Sigismond held Townes from the Church and for his committed offences he ought worthily to lose them Perhaps some will doubt whether these things be true in private mens causes For a private man seemes to have power to doe with his owne what he list if it bee profitable to himselfe and hurt not another Yet these things bee true thus in the causes of Empires For Princes ought to take heed for the future that another if he will may not yet be able to hurt another which is expounded in the Treatise of Profitable defence But even that rule that it is lawfull for any to doe what he list with his owne holds not otherwise then if the condition of a Neighbour bee made neither worse nor more grievous thereby although it be true that no man may take care of the gaine which his Neighbour made and which was owing to him by no obligation But even security and a certaine singular conjunction of love from a Neighbour is due to Empires Now this we know what things are taken away when Neighbours are changed And the same people is not the same that they were if the Common-wealth be not the same that it was For it is not lawfull I say againe to doe all things with the Subjects for that is not lawfull with the Subjects which would be a hurt and a danger to those that are no Subjects It is not lawfull to make Fortes in his owne Land which may be terrible to those that are not his as you shall heare in the third Booke Therefore neither is it lawfull to doe with his owne that which may be a terrour to others How ever these are called equivalent to doe in his own place and towards his own Subjects Whether if my Neighbour should place in his House Gunnes and other things against my House may I neither be carefull for my selfe nor stirre against my Neighbour Thus thus were Preparations made in Holland and that great Noble man Leicester very wisely foresaw that the defence of the Hollanders was very wholesome and necessary for the Common-wealth and he perswaded it to be undertaken least if the Spaniards should break through that Pale of Europe as then very wisely Iustus Lipsius called it there should remaine no obstacle at all to their cruelty And thus farre of Warre Defensive Thus and much more this our learned Professor of the Civill Law Albericus Gentilis whose words I have thus largely transcribed because they not onely abundantly justifie the lawfulnesse of the Parliaments present Defensive Warre in point of Law and their Ordinances of Association and mutuall Defence but likewise fully answer all the cavils and pretences of Royalists and Malignants against the progresse and managing of this warre from principles of Nature Law Humane Reason Equity and humane Authorities THE LAWFVLNES OF THE PARLIAMENTS present Defensive Warre in Point of Divinity and Conscience THe lawfulnesse and justnesse of the Parliaments present necessary Defensive Warre in point of Common Civill Canon Law and Policy having been largely debated in the premises because not hitherto discussed in that kinde by any to my knowledge I shall in the next place proceed to justifie it in point of Divinity and Conscience Wherein though I shall be more concise then I intended because sundry Learned * Divines in many late Printed Bookes common in all mens hands have professedly handled it at large and given good satisfaction unto many unresolved scrupulous Consciences yet because this Treatise may come into diverse hands which have not perused their discourses and those whose judgements may be convinced by the Legall may still have some scruples of Conscience resting in them in reguard of the Theologicall Part and because some things perchance in Point of
Texts authorising men not onely to resist but warre against yea slay their malicious open enemies untill they be subâ—ued or destroyed Exod. 23. 22. 27. Levi. 26. 7. 8. Num. 24. 8. Deut. 20. throughout Iosh c 8. to c. 13. 2 Sam. 22. 38. to 42. 1 Chron. 17. 8. 10. Esth 9. 5. Neither doe the Texts of Mat. 5 39. Luk. 6. 29. But I say unto you that ye resist not evill but whosoever shall smite thee on the right cheekâ— turne to him the other also and him that taketh away thy cloake forbid not to take thy câ—ate also prohibit all actuall resistance of publick violence offered by enemies to our persons goods or lawfull defensive warres which precept as is cleare by the context and resolved by Augustine Gratian Alensis and f others extends onely to some private injuries and revenges and to the inward patient preparation of the mind to suffer two injuries rather theÌ„ maliciously to revenge a single one especially in cases where we want ability to resist not to an actuall bearing of all grosse outward injuries to our persons or estates without resistance which precept being given generally to all Christians to Kings and Magistrates as well as Subjects if it be strictly urged prohibits Kings and Magistrates to resist the violence and injuries of the people as much as the people not to repulse the Armes violence and oppressions of their Princes and Governours and that Text of Iames 5. 6. Ye have condemned and killed the just and he doth not resist you which some thinke is meant of Christ alone proves onely that some just men and many Martyrs have beene condemned and killed without resistance as our Saviour was not that it is unlawfull to resist an open enemy theefe or murtherer who comes to kill rob or plunder us against Law and Conscience I read of Saint Andrew that when the people can together in multitudes to rescue him out of the hands of a wicked man and defend him from the injury of death he teaching them both by word and exemple exhorted them not to hinder his martyrdome yet the people lawfully rescued innocent Ionathan from that unjust death which his Father King Saul twice vowed hee should undergoe Some mens patient suffering death and injuries without resistance is no better an argument that all therefore must so suffer without opposition then that all men ought to yeeld their purses up to high-way theeves or their persons goods ships to Turkes and Pyrates without fight or resistance because some yea many have shamefully done it for want of courage when they were able to resist and so have deservedly lost their purses shippes goods liberties and become Turkish Gally-slaves to the ruine of their estates bodies soules which miseries by a manfull just defence they might have easily prevented All which considered I see no ground in Scripture nor reason but that temporall enemies of all kindes which wrongfully invade our persons or estates by open force of Armes in a warlike manner may be resisted with temporall weapons as well as spirituall enemies with spirituall Armes Eighthly That which all Nations in all ages by the very light of nature have constantly practised as just and lawfull must doubtlesse be lawfull in point of conscience if there be no Law of God to the contrary But selfe-defence against invading Tyrants and their instruments hath by the very light of Nature beene constantly practised by all Nations in all ages as just and lawfull which the premises the Appendix the Histories of all ages evidence theire being never any one Nation or Kingdome for ought I finde that ever yet reputed it a thing unlawfull in point of Conscience to resist the open malicious destructive tyranny violence hostility of their unnaturall Princes or that desisted from any such resistance giving themselves up willingly to their outragious lusts and butcheries without any opposition though some private men and Martyres have sometimes done it upon particular reasons as to avoid the scandall of Religion to beare witnesse to the truth for the confirmation and conversion of others or for want of power or oportunity to resist or to avoyd a generall massacre of their fellow Christians or because they were onely a few private men and their religion directly opposite to the Lawes and government under which they lived or the like not because they judged all resistance simply unlawfull as blinde Doctors falsey informe us which I shall prove hereafter and there is no Law of God at all to prohibite such resistance therefore doubtlesse it must be lawfull even in point of conscience Ninthly that which is directly opposite to what is absolutely illegall and unjust in point of conscience and the chiefe law full obstacle and remedy to prevent or redresse it must certainely be just be lawfull in the court of Conscience since that which is directly opposite to that which is simply ill and unjust must necessarily be good and just But necessary just defence by force of Armes is directly opposite to that open Armed violence and tyranny which is absolutely illegall and unjust in point of Conscience and the chiefe lawfull remedy and obstacle to prevent or redresse it as reason experience and the premises evidence Therefore it must necessarily be just and lawfull even in the Court of Conscience Tenthly That resistance which doth neither oppose the Kings royal person nor lawfull Authority must certainely be lawfull in point of conscience But the resistance of the Kings Forces not accompanied with his person in the execution of his unjust commands is neither a resistance of his Royall person for that is absent and his Cavalliers I hope are no Kings nor yet invested with the priviledges of Kings nor yet of his lawfull Authority his illegall Commissions and Commands being meere nullities in Law transferring no particle of his just Authority to those who execute them Therefore it must certainely be lawfull in point of conscience Eleventhly That resistance which is the onely remedy to keepe not onely Kings themselves but every one of their Officers and Souldiers from being absolute Tyrants Monarchs and the denyall whereof equalizeth every souldier and particular Officer to Kings yea God himselfe whose prerogative only it is to have an absolute unresistable wil must doubtlesse be lawful in the Court of Conscience But this necessary defensive resistance now used by the Parliament and Subjects in such For if they may not resist any of the Kings Officers or Souldiers in their plunderings rapines fierings sackings of Townes beating wounding murthering the Kings leige people and the like will not every common Souldier and Officers be an absolute Tyran equall in Monarchie to the great Turke himself and paramount the King who hath no absolute irresistable Soveraignety in these particulars Either therefore this resistance must be granted not onely as lawfull but simply necessary else every officer and common Souldier wiâ—l be more than an absolute
or the Subjects and every man with safe conscience may chearefully serve in such a warre upon the Parliaments encouragement or command without guilt of treason or rebellion either in Law or Conscience For the third Question Whether Tyrants or unjust oppressing Magistrates as they are such be within the intendment of this Text and not to be resisted in any case I have fully cleared this before from the occasion scope and arguments used in this Chapter that they are not within the compasse of this Text as they are such and may be resisted in their Tyranny and oppressions notwithstanding this inhibition I shall not repeat but onely fortifie this Position with some new reasons and authorities First then that which is not the ordinance of God but rather of the Devill and the meere sinne and enormity of the Governour himselfe not of the Government is not within the intention of this Text and may lawfully bee resisted without any violation of it But Tyrants and unjust oppressing Magistrates as they are such are not Gods ordinance but rather the Devills and their Tyranny and oppression is onely the sinne and enormity of the Governours themselves not of the government A truth granted by all men Therefore they are not within the compasse of this Text and may lawfully be resisted without any violation of it Secondly that which is no point of the Magistrates lawfull power ordained of God but diametrally repugnant to it cannot be within the meaning of this Text and may lawfully be resisted but the tyranny oppression rapine and violence of lawlesse Kings and Magistrates are such as all must and doe acknowledge Ergo they are not within the verge and compasse of this Text and may lawfully bee resisted Thirdly all powers intended in the Text are not only ordained but ordered of God that is Paraeus with others observe they are circumscribed bounded with certain Rules or Lawes of justice and honesty within which they must containe themselves else they exorbitate from Gods ordinance when they passe beyond these limits and become none of Gods This the Greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which Arias Montanus and others render ordinatae and the Margin of our English Bibles are ordered of God doth sufficiently warrant being coupled with the subsequent limitations For rulers are not a terrour to good workes but to evill c. they are Gods Ministers attending continually on this very thing Now the Tyranny and oppression of Kings and other Rulers are meere exorbitances arbitrary illegall actions exceeding the bounds of justice and honesty prescribed by the Lawes of God and men Therefore not within the limits of this Text and resistible Fourthly it is generally accorded by all Commentators that though the lawfull power of Princes or other Magistrates degenerating unto Tyrants be of God and not to be resisted yet the Tyranny it selfe and abuse of this power is of Satan not of God and the vice of the persons onely not of the Power it selfe whence they conclude that Tyrants are not within the meaning of this Scripture So Origen Paraeus Willet with most others on this Text and Zuinglius most expresly Explanatio Artic. 41. Tom. 1. f. 82. 83. where he complaines that many Tyrants cheate steale rob slay plunder and attempt any thing against their subjects to oppresse them assuming a pretext and vayle of their malice from this Text of Paul Yea Dominicus Soto Cajetan Pererius and other Popish commentators on this place observe that Paul addes this Epithet of higher or excelling powers omitted by him in other parallel Texts of purpose to exclude Tyrants who are no excelling Lords nor lawfull Powers reigning oft times by Gods permission for the peoples punishment not by his ordination for their good and blame Bueer for saying that Tyrants power is from God as if he were ths author of sinne and Tyranny This then fully answers that absurd errour of Doctor Ferne wherein all his force is placed That the Power in Pauls dayes which he here prohibits to resist were subverters of that which was good and the Roman Emperors Tyrants where he sottishly confounds the tyranny lusts and vices of the Emperors persons which were detestable with their power it selfe which was good and commendable as if the Imperiall power it selfe was ill because Nero was ill and was therefore justly condemned to death by the Roman Senate as a publike enemy to the Roman State though they approved and continued his just Imperiall principality which lasted in succession for many hundred yeares after his censure death To which I shall onely adde that though Nero himselfe were a Tyrant yet the Roman Senate and all their Inferiour Offices were not Tyrants many of them no doubt being just and upright Magistrates The Precept therefore being thus in the generall and the plurall number Let every soule be subject unto the higher powers nor personall let them be subject to Nero or speciall to the Roman Emperour whom Paul no doubt would have specified had he specially intended them as our opposites fondly dreame we may safely conclude that the Apostle intended it onely of lawfull powers and Magistrates not of Nero or other Tyrants And writ this to Christians onely to whom he dedicates this Epistle witnesse Ch. 1. V. 7. To all that be at Rome beloved of God called to be Saints c. not to Pagan Romans as the Doctor dreames to whom he writes not much lesse to the Roman Senate who were then the soveraigne power and therefore could bee subject to no other but themselves Precepts of obedience to children and Servants concerne not parents and masters as such in point of submission or obedience For the fourth Quere Whether Kings and Kingdomes be Gods ordinance or an institution Jure divino not a humane ordinance instituted Jure humano or how farre divine or humane Is a necessary considerable question grounded on this Text and very needfull to be discussed to cleare the present controversie Some of our opposites are so intoxicated with the divinity of Monarchy as they confidently determine hat the efficient cause of royall Monarchicall power is onely God not the people That Kings receive no power or regall Authority from the people but from God alone That the power of Kings is not a humane but a divine power of which God onely is the efficient cause That the people doe not make the King but God properly and absolutely this power right and authority he hath from God That the King hath no dominion and power from his Subjects by way of trust but from God from whom he hath his kingdome and power so that by Idolatry and oppression he breakes not the trust reposed in him by his Subjects because the people HAVE COMMITTED NOTHING TO HIS CHARGE but God onely c. For proofe whereof they produce Prov. 8. 15. By me Kings reigne Dan. 2. 21. God removeth Kings and setteth up Kings Dan. 4. 17. 25. The most
all Ministers being of Gods owne institution by one and the same commission is one and the same But the regall power and jurisdiction of all Kings and Monarchies in the world is not equall nor the same for some have farre greater authority then others there are many different sorts of Kings in the world some onely annuall others for life others hereditary others at will deposible at the peoples pleasures when ever they offended Such were the Kings of the Vandalls in Africk of the Gothes in Spaine cum ipsos deponerent populi quoties displicuissent such the Kings of the Heruli Procopius Gothicorum Of the Lombards Paulus Warnafredi l. 4. 6. Of the Burgundians Ammianus 11. lib. 28. Of the Moldavians Laonichus Chalcocandylas the King of Agadis among the Africans Joannis Leo lib. 7. Of the Quadi and Jazyges in excerptis Dionis with sundry others hereafter mentioned Some elective others successive some conditionall others absolute as I have plentifully mentioned in the Appendix Therefore they are not of divine ordination in the objectors sense Fiftly If Kings were of divine ordination in this sense then their kingdomes and people upon their Elections Institutions and Coronations could not justly prescribe any conditions oathes or covenants to them upon promise of performance whereof they onely accept of them to be their Kings refusing else to admit them to reigne over them and such conditions oathes covenants would be meere nullities since men have no power at all to detract from Gods owne divine institutions or to annex any conditions or restrictions to them But our Antagonists themselves dare not averre that Kingdomes and Nations upon their Kings Coronations Institutions and elections may not lawfully prescribe conditions oathes and limitations to them upon promise of performance whereof they onely submitted to them as their Soveraignes it being the received practise of our owne of all or most other Kingdomes whatsoever especially elective ones and confirmed by divine Authority 2 Chron. 10. 1. to 19. Therefore they are not of divine institution in the objected sense Sixthly All Lawyers and most Orthodox Divines determine that Kings have no other just or lawfull royall Authority but that which the Lawes and customes of their Kingdomes allot them and that the Law onely makes them Kings from which if they exorbitate they become Tyrants and cease to be Kings Their Royall authority therefore is of humane institution properly not Divine from their people who both elect constitute them Kings and give them all their regall Authority by humane Lawes enacted not from God as the onely efficient cause Seventhly All Kingdomes Monarchies Policies are mutable and variable in themselves while they continue such yea temporary and alterable into other formes of Government by publicke consent if there be just cause without any immediate command or alteration made by God himsele or his divine authority There being no positive Law of God confining any Nation whose humane earthly condition is still variable to a Monarchicall or any other constant forme of government only much lesse for perpetuity without variation Therefore they are not of divine institution in this sense Eightly St. Peter expressely defines Kings and Monarchies in respect of their institution to be humane creatures or institutions 1 Pet. 2. 13. Submit your selves to every ORDINANCE OF MAN for the Lords sake whether it be to the King as supreame c. And they are common to Pagans who know not God as well as to Christians Therefore they are not simply divine but humane Ordinances Ninethly Our Antigonists will yeeld that other formes of Government whether Aristocraticall Oligarchicall Democraticall or mixt of all three are not absolutely and immediately of divine institution nor yet Dukes Principalities with other inferior Rulers though the Apostle in this Text makes them all equally Gods Ordinance and Divine Therefore Monarchy Kings and Kingdomes are not so Tenthly The very Text it selfe seemes to intimate that Royalties and higher powers are not of God by way of originall or immediate institution or command for the Apostle saith not that all powers whatsoever were originally instituted and ordained by God himselfe but There is no power but of God The powers that be are not were at first ordained or rather ordered of God that is where powers and Governments are once erected by men through Gods generall or speciall providence there God approves and orders them for the good of men 2. If Monarchies and Kings themselves be not of divine institution and Gods ordinance in the former sense as is most apparent Aristotle Plato all Politicians grant Then they are so onely in some other sense in what I shall truely informe you First They are of God and his Ordinance by way of imitation as derived from Gods owne forme of Government which is Monarchicall Whence he is called The only God God alone the King of Kings and Lord of Lords Secondly By way of approbation He approves and allowes this kinde of Government where it is received as well as other formes Thirdly by way of direction he gives divers generall rules and directions to Kings and to other Rulers and Magistrates also as well as them in his sacred word how they ought to demeane themselves towards him and their Subjects and likewise to Subjects how they should carry themselves towards their Kings and all other Rulers and Governours temporall or spirituall in which sense they may be properly said to be ordered and ordained too of God Fourthly By way of speciall providence and incitation God excites and moves some people to make choyce of Kings and Monarchicall formes of Government rather than others and to elect one man or family to that dignity rather than others yea his providence mightily rules and swayes in the changes the elections actions counsels affaires of Monarchies Kingdomes Kings States to order them for his own glory the Kings the Subjects good or ill in wayes of Justice or Mercy as is evident by Dan. 2. 21. c. 4. 17. 25. Hos 13. 11. Jer. 27. 5 6 7. Isa 45. 1 2 3. c. 10. 5. to 20. Psal 110. 5. Psal 113. 7 8. Job 12. 18. to 25. Dan. 5. 26. 28. The genuine drift of all these Texts Fifthly Kings may be said to be of God and his Ordinance because they and so all other Rulers Judges Magistrates as well as they in respect of their representation and the true end of Government are said to be Gods to be Gods Ministers and Vicegerents to sit upon Gods Throne and ought to reigne to judge for God and to rule Gods people according to Gods Word with such justice equity integrity as God himselfe would Governe them Exod. 22. 28. 2 Chron. 9. 8. Rom. 13. 4 5. 2 Sam. 23. 3. Psal 78. 72 73 74 2 Sam. 5. 2. Prov. 8. 15 18. Psal 82. 1. 1 Cor. 8. 5. Isa 32. 1. c. 9. 7. c. 16. 5. Deut. 1. 17. Sixthly Ill Kings and Tyrants may be said
exploded Argument of the Popish Clergy To prove themselves superiour to Kings and exempt from all secular Jurisdiction because they are spirituall Fathers Pastors Heads to Kings who ought to obey not judge and censure them as Archbish Stratford and others argue But this plea is no ways available to exempt Clergy men from secular Jurisdiction from actuall resistance of parties assaulted nor yet from imprisonment censures and capitall executions by Kings and Civill Magistrates in case of capitall Crimes Therefore by like reason it can not exempt Kings from the resistance censures of their Parliaments Kingdoms in case of tyrannicall invasions We deride this Argument in Papists as absurd as in sufficient to prove the exemption of Clergy men I wonder therefore why it is now urged to as little purpose against resistance of Tyrants and oppressing Kings and Magistrates The second reason is this The Invasions and oppressions of evill Kings and Tyrants are afflictions and punishments inflicted on us by God Therefore we ought patiently to submit unto them and not forcibly to resist them I answer First The invasions of Forraign Enemies are just Judgements and punishments sent upon men by God as were the invasions of the Danes Saxons and Normans in England heretofore of the Spaniards since Ergo we ought not to resist or fight against them The present rebellion of the Papists in Ireland is a just punishment of God upon this Kingdom and the Protestant party there Ergo Neither we nor they ought in conscience to resist or take Arms against them Every sicknesse that threatens or invades our bodies is commonly an affliction and punishment sent by God Ergo We must not endeavour to prevent or remove it by Physick but patiently lye under it without seeking remedy Injuries done us in our persons estates names by wicked men who assault wound rob defame us are from God and punishments for our sins Ergo We may not resist them Yea Subjects Rebellions Treasons and Insurrections against their Princes many times are punishments inflicted on them by God displeased with them as the Statute of 1 Ed. 6. c. 12. resolves and the Scripture too Ergo Kings ought not to resist or suppresse them by force of Arms If all these Consequences be absurd and idle as every man will grant the objection must be so likewise I read That in the persecution of the Hunnes their King Attila being demanded of by a religious Bishop of a certain Citie who he was when he had answered I am Attila the scourge of God The Bishop reverencing the divine Majesty in him answered Thou art welcome ô Minister of God and ingeminating this saying Blessed be he that cometh in the Name of the Lord Opened the Church door and let in the persecutor by whom he obtained the Crown of Martyrdom not daring to exclude the scourge of the Lord knowing that the beloved sonne is scourged and that the power of the scourge it self is not from any but God Will it hence follow That all Christians are bound in conscience to do the like and not to resist the barbarous Turks if they should invade them no more then this Bishop did the bloudy Pagan Hunnes because they are Gods wrath I trow not One Swallow makes no Summer nor this example a generall president to binde all men The third reason is this Saints forcible resistance of Tyrants begets civill warres great disorders and many mischiefs in the State Ergo It is unlawfull and inconvenient I answer First That this doctrine of not resisting Tyrants in any case is farre more pernicious destructive to the Realm then the contrary because it deprives them of all humane means and possibilities of preservation and denies them that speciall remedy which God and nature hath left them for their preservation Laws denyall of Subsidies and such like remedies prescribed by Doctor Ferne being no remoraes or restraints at all to armed Tyrants Wherefore I must tell thee Doctor Theologorum utcunque dissertissimorum sententiae in hac controversia non sunt multo faciendae quia quid sit Lex humana ipsi ignorant as Vasquius controvers Illustr 81. .11 determines Secondly The knowledge of a lawfull power in Subjects to resist Tyrants will be a good means to keep Princes from Tyrannicall courses for fear of strenuous resistance which if once taken away there is no humane bridle left to stay the Inundation of Tyranny in Princes or great Officers and all Weapons Bulwarks Walls Lawes Armes will be meerly uselesse to the Subjects if resistance be denyed them when there is such cause Thirdly Resistance only in cases of publike necessity though accompanied with civill warre serves alwayes to prevent farre greater mischiefs then warre it self can produce it being the only Antidote to prevent publike ruine the readiest means to preserve endangered to regaine or settle lost Liberties Laws Religion as all ages witnesse and to prevent all future Seditions and Oppressions Fourthly Desperate diseases have alwayes desperate remedies Malo nodo malus cuneus When nothing but a defensive warre will preserve us from ruine and vassalage it is better to imbrace it then hazard the losse of all without redemption Ex duobus malis minimum All Kingdoms States in cases of necessity have ever had recourse to this as the lesser evill and why not ours as well as others The last and strongest Objection as some deem it is the sayings if some Fathers backed with the examples of the primitive Christians to which no such satisfactory answer hath hitherto been given as might be The first and grandest Objection against Subjects forcible resistance and defensive warre is that speech of Saint Ambrose Lib. 5. Orat. in Auxentium Coactus repugnare non audeo dolere potero potero flere potero gemere adversus arma milites Gothos Lachrymae meae arma sunt talia sunt munimenta sacerdotum A LITER NEC DEBEO NEC POSSVM RESISTERE This chiefe Authoritie though it makes a great noise in the world if solidly scanned will prove but Brutum fulmen a meer scar-crow and no more For first Ambrose in this place speaks not at all of Subjects resisting their Princes or Christians forcible resisting of the persecuting Romane Emperours but of resisting Valentine and the Arms and Souldiers of the Gothes who at that time over ran Italy and sacked Rome being mortall Enemies to the Romans the Roman Emperours Saint Ambrose and Millain where he was Bishop This is evident by the expresse objected words I can grieve I can weep I can mourn to wit for the wasting of my native Country Italy by the Invading Enemies the Gothes against Armes Souldiers GOTHES marke it my tears are Weapons c. If any sequell can be hence properly deduced it must be that for which the Anabaptists use it from whence our Opposites who tax the Parliaments Forces for Anabaptists when themselves are here more truly such
force of Armes resist him and his unnaturall instruments there being no other meanes else of safety left them they should sinfully and wilfully betray their trust and be so farre from keeping a good Christian Conscience in not resisting by force that they should highly sinne against Conscience against their trust and duty against their naturall Country yea and their very Allegiance to the king himselfe by encouraging him in and consenting unto these proceedings which would make him not to be a king but Tyrant and destroy him as a king in the spoyle and ruine of his Kingdome thereby endangered to be consumed and tempt God himself as Pope Nicholas and Gratian resolve in these words If there be no necessity we ought at all times to abstaine from warres but if inevitable necessity urge us we ought not to abstaine from warres and warlike preparations for the defence of our selves of our Country and paternall Lawes no not in Lent least man should seeme to tempt God if when he hath meanes he provide not for his owne and others safety and prevents not the Detriments of holy religion Fourthly those injuries which Allies and other neighbour States or Princes may with good Conscience repulse with Armes from Subjects wrongfully oppressed invaded tyrannically by their Soveraignes or their wicked Instruments at or without the Subjects intreaty when they are unable to relieve themselves no doubt the Subjects themselves if able may with better reason and as good Conscience resist and repell because every man is nearer and more oblieged to defend and preserve himselfe and those of his owne Nation Religion blood then strangers are and may with lesse publick danger inconvenience and more speede effect it then Forraigners but Allies and Forraigne Neighbour States and Princes as Gratian oâ—t of the 5. Councell of Carthage Augustine Ambrose Hierom Anastatius Calistus and other Albericus Gentilis John Bodin a Huga Grotius and Generally all â—â—nonists Casuists Schoâ—lemen accord may in many cases with good conscience by forâ— of Arms repulse from Subjects wrongfully oppressed invaded and tyrannically abused the injuries offered them by their Soveraignes and that either at and in some cases without the Subjects intreaty Which they prove by Moses his slaying the AEgyptian that oppressed the Hebrew Exod. 2. 11. to 15. by Joshua his ayding of the Gibeonites against the five Kings that made war against them Josh 10. by the example of Jehoshaphat 1 Kin. 22. 2 Kings 3. Of the chiefe Captaines securing Paul with a gard of Souldiers against the Iews who had vowed his death Acts 23. by Abrahams rescuing Lot Gen. 14. by sundry ancieâ—t and late Examples in story Therfore Subjects themselves no doubt if able may with good reason and conscience lawfully resist and repell their Princes invading Forces though accompanied assisted with his personall presence Fifthly It is yeelded by all Divines Lawyers Canonists Schoolemen as Gratian Banâ—es Seto Lessius Vasquius Covaruviâ—s Aquinas Sylvester Bartolus Baldus Navarre Albericus Gentilis Grotius and others that private men by the Law of God and nature may in defence of their lives chastities principall members and estates lawfully resist all those who forcibly assault them to deprive them thereof yea and slay them to unlesse they be publicke persons of eminencie by whose slaughter the Commonweale should sustaine much prejudice whose lives in such cases must not be willingly hazzarded though their violence be resisted which is cleerely prooved by Iudges 11. 8. 15. to 18. 1 Sam. 17. 41. to 53. Deut. 22. 26. 27. since therefore all these are apparently indangered by an invasive warre and Army more then by any private assaults and no ayde no assistance or protection against the losse of life chastitie estate and other violences injuries which accompany wars can be expected from the Lawes or Prince himself the fountaine of this injustice or legall punishments inflicted on the malefactors whose armed power being above the reach of common justice and injuries countenanced abetted authorised by the Soveraine who should avenge and punish them every subject in particular and the whole state in Parliament assembled in generall may and ought in point of conscience joyntly and severally to defend themselves their neighbours brethren but especially their native Countrey Kingdome whose generall safety is to be preferred before the lives of any particular persons how great or considerable soever which may be casually hazarded by their owne wilfulnesse though not purposely endangered or cut off in the defensive incounter by those who make resistance And if according to Cajetan and other Schoolemen Innocents which onely casually hinder ones flight from a mortall enemie may be lawfully with good conscience slaine by the party pursued in case where he cannot else possibly escape the losse of his owne life because every mans owne life is dearer to him then anothers which he here takes away onely to preserve his owne life without any malicious murtherous intent though others doubt of this case or if innocent persons set perforce in the front of unjust assailants as by the Cavalleires at Brainford and elsewhere to prevent defence and wrong others with more securitie and lesse resistance may casually be slain though not intentionally by the defensive party as I thinke they may for prevention of greater danger and the publicke safety then certainely those of publicke place and Note who wilfully and unnaturally set themselves to ruine their Country Liberty Religion Innocent brethren who onely act the defensive part and voluntarily intrude themselves into danger may questionlesse with safe conscience be resisted repulsed in which if they casually chance to lose their lives without any malice or ill intention in the defendants it being onely through their owne default such a casuall accident when it happens or the remote possibility of it in the combate before it begins cannot make the resistance either unjust or unlawfull in point of conscience for then such a possibility of danger to a publike person should make all resistance unlawfull deprive the Republicke wholly of this onely remedy against tyrannicall violence and expose the whole common-weale to ruine whose weale and safety is to be preferred before the life or safety of any one member of it whatsoever Having thus at large evinced the lawfulnesse of Subjects necessary forcible resistance defensive wars against the unjust offensive Forces of their Soveraignes I shall in the next place answere the principall arguments made against it some whereof for ought I finde are yet unanswered These Objections are of foure sorts out of the Old Testament the New from reason from the example of the primitive Christians backed with the words of some Fathers I shall propound and answere them in order The first out of the Old Testament is that of Numb 16. Korah Dathan and Abiram for their insurrection against that very divine Authority which God himselfe
had delegated to Moses and Aaron without any injury or injustice at all once offered to them or any assault upon them Ergo marke the Non-sence of this argumentation no Subjects may lawfully take up meere necessary defensive Armes in any case to resist the bloody Tyrannie Oppression and outrages of wicked Princes or their Cavalleires when they make warre upon them to destroy or enslave them An Argument much like this in substance No man ought to rise up against an honest Officer or Captaine in the due execution of his Office when he offers him no injury at all Therefore he ought not in conscience to resist him when he turnes a theefe or murtherer and felloniously assaults him to rob him of his purse or cut his throate Or private men must not causelesly mutinie against a lawfull Magistrate for doing justice and performing his duty Ergo the whole Kingdome in Parliament may not in Conscience resist the Kings Captaines and Cavalleeres when they most unnaturally and impiously assault them to take away their Lives Liberties Priviledges Estates Religion oppose and resist justice and bring the whole Kingdome to utter desolation The very recitall of this argument is an ample satisfactory refutation of it with this addition These seditious Levites Rebelled against Moses and Aaron onely because God himselfe had restrained them from medling with the Priests Office which they would contemptuously usurpe and therefore were most severely punished by God himself against whose expresse Ordinance they Rebelled Ergo the Parliament and Kingdome may in no case whatsoever though the King be bent to subvert Gods Ordinances Religion Lawes Liberties make the least resistance against the king or his invading forces under paine of Rebellion High Treason and eternall condemnation This is Doctor Fernes and some others Bedlam Logicke Divinity The next is this Thou shalt not revile the Gods nor curse the Ruler of thy people Ex. 22. 28. Eccl. 10. 20. Curse not the King no not in thy thought and curse not the rich in thy bed-Chamber which is well explained by Prov. 17. 26. It is not good to strike Princes for equitie Ergo it is unlawfull for the Subjects to defend themselves against the Kings Popish depopulating Cavaleers I answer the first text pertaines properly to Judges and other sorts of Rulers not to Kings not then in being among the Israelites the second to rich men as well as Kings They may as well argue then from these texts that no Iudges nor under-rulers nor rich men whatsoever though never so unjust or wicked may or ought in conscience to be resisted in their unjust assaults Riots Robberies no though they be bent to subvert Religion Lawes Liberties as that the King and his Souldiers joyntly or severally considered may not be resisted yea these acute disputants may argue further by this new kinde of Logicke Christians are expresly prohibited to curse or revile any man whatsoever under paine of damnation Rom. 12. 14. Mat. 5. 44. Levit. 19 14. Numb 23. 7. 8. 2 Sam. 16. 9. Levit. 20. 9. c. 24 P 1. 14. 23. Levit. 20. 9. Prov. 20. 20. 1 Cor. 6. 10 1 Cor. 4. 12. 1 Pet. 2. 23. Jude 9. Ergo we ought to resist no man whatsoever no not a theefe that would rob us cut-throate Cavaleers that would murther us lechers that would ravish us under paine of damnation What pious profitable Doctrine thinke you is this All cursings and railings are simply unlawfull in themselves all resistance is not so especially that necessary we now discourse of against unlawfull violence to ruine Church and State To argue therefore all resistance is simply unlawfull because cursing and reviling of a different nature are so is ill Logicke and worse Divinity If the objectors will limit their resistance to make the Argument sensible and propose it thus All cursing and reviling of Kings and Rulers for executing justice impartially for so is the chiefe intendment of the place objected delinquents being apt to clamour against those who justly censure them is unlawfull Ergo the forcible resisting of them in the execution of justice and their lawfull authority is unlawfull the sequell I shall grant but the Argument will be wholy impertinent which I leave to the Objectors to refine The third Argument is this That which peculiarly belongs to God no man without his speciall authority ought to meddle with But taking up Armes peculiarly belongeth to he Lord. Deut 32. 35. Where the Lord saith vengeance is mine especially the sword which of all temporall vengeance is the greatest The Objector puts no Ergo or conclusion to it because it concludes nothing at all to purpose but onely this Ergo The King and Cavalleeres must lay downe their Armes and swords because God never gave them any speciall commission to take them up Or Ergo no man but God must weare a sword at least of revenge and â—hether the kings and Cavalleers Offensive or the Parliaments meere Defensive sword be the sword of vengeance and malice let the world determine to the Objectors shame The fourth is from Eccles 8. 2. 3. 4. I councell thee to keepe the Kings Commandment and that in regard of the Oath of God Be not hasty to goe out of his sight stand not in an evill thing for he doth whatsoever pleaseth him where the word of a king is there is power and who may say unto him what dost thou This Text administers the Opposites a double Argument The first is this All the Kings Commands are to be kept of all his Subjects by vertue of the Oathes of supremacy alleigance and the late protestation including them both Ergo by vertue of these Oathes we must not resist his Cavalleeres but yeeld our thoates to their swords our purses and estates to their rapines our chastities to their Lecheries our Liberties to their Tyrannies our Lawes to their lusts our Religion to their Popish Superstition and Blasphemies without any opposition because the king hath oft commanded us not to resist them But seeing the Oath and Law of God and those oathes of ours obleige us onely to obey the Kings just legall commands and no other not the Commands and lusts of evill Councellors and Souldiers this first Argument must be better pointed ere it will wound our cause The second this The king may lawfully do whatsoever pleaseth him Ergo neither are He or his Forces to be resisted To which I answer that this verse relates onely unto God the next antecedent who onely doth and may doe what he pleaseth and that both in heaven and earth Psal 135. 6. Psal 115. 3 Esay 46. 10. not to Kings who neither may nor can doe what they please in either being bound both by the Laws of God man and their Coronation Oathes perchance the oath of God here meant rather then that of supremacie or alleigance to doe onely what is lawfull and just not what themselves shall please But admit it