reports that Symon after his death grew famous by many miracles which for feare of the King came not in publicke Thus this Historian thus Robert Grosthead the most devout and learned Bishop of that age who most of any opposed the Popes Vsurpations and exactions determine of the justice and lawfulnesse of the Barons Warres Walter Bishop of Worcester concurring in the same opinion with Grosthead The same author Rishanger records that the Earle of Glocester a great stickler in these warres against the king with whom at last he accorded signified to the King by his Letters Patents under his seale that he would never beare Armes against the King his Lord nor against his Sonne Prince Edward NISI DEFENDO but onely in his Defence which the King and Prince accepting of clearely proves that defensive Armes against King or Prince were in that age generally reputed Lawfull by King Prince Prelates Nobles People I may likewise adde to this what I read in Matthew Westminster that Richard Bishop of Chichester the day before the battle of Lewis against King Henry and his sonne who were taken prisoners in it by the Barons and 20000. of their Souldiers slaine absolved all that went to fight against the King their Lord from all their sinnes Such confidence had he of the goodnesse of the cause and justnesse of the warre In one word the oath of association prescribed by the Barons to the King of Romans brother to King Henry the third in the 43. yeare of his Raigne Heare all men that I Richard Earle of Cornewall doe here sweare upon the holy Evangelists that I shall be faithfull and diligent to reforme with you the Kingdome of England hitherto by the councell of wicked persons overmuch disordered and be an effectuall Coâ—djutor TO EXPELL THE REBELLS and disturbers of the same And this Oath I will inviolaby observe under paâ—ne of losing all the lands I have in England So helpe me God Which Oath all the Barrons and their associates tooke by vertue whereof they tooke up armes against the Kings ill Councellors and himselfe when he joined with them sufficiently demonstrates their publicke opinions and judgements of the lawfulnesse the justnesse of their warres and of all other necessarie defensive armes taken up by the Kingdomes generall assent for preservation of its Lawes Liberties and suppression of those Rebels and ill Councellors who fight against or labour to subvert them by their policies In the third yeare of King Edward the 2 d this king revoking his great Mynion Piers Gaveston newly banished by the Parliament into Ireland and admitting him into as great favour as before contrary to his oath and promise the Barrons hereupon by common consent sent the King word that he should banish Piers from his company according to his agreement or else they would certainâ—ly rise up against him as a perjured person Vpon which the King much terrified suffers Piers to abjure the Realme who returning againe soone after to the Court at Yorke where the king entertained him the Lords spirituall and temporall to preserve he liberties of the Church and Realme sent an honourable message to the King to deliver Piers into their hands or banish him for the preservation of the peace Treasure and weale of the Kingdome this wilfull King denies their just request whereupon the Lords thus contemned and deluded raised an army and march with all speede towards New-Castle NOT TO OFFER INIVRIE OR MOLESTATION TO THE KING but to apprehend Peirs and judge him according to Law upon this the King fleeth together with Peirs to Tinemouth and from thence to Scarborough Castle where Piers is forced to render himselfe to the Barrons who at Warwicke Castle without any legall triall by meere martiall Law beheaded him as a subvertor of the Lawes and an OPEN TRAITOR TO THE KINGDOME For which facts this King afterwards reprehending and accusing the Lords in Parliament in the 7 th yeare of his Raigne they stoutly answered THAT THEY HAD NOT OFFENDED IN ANY ONE POINT BVT DESERVED HIS ROYAL FAVOVR for they HAD NOT GATHERED FORCE AGAINST HIM though he were in Piers his company assisted countenanced and fled with him BVT AGAINST THE PVBLICKE ENEMIE OF THE REALME Whereupon there were two acts of oblivion passed by the King Lords and Commons assembled in that Parliament Printed in the 2 d Part of old Magna Charta The first that no person on the Kings part should be questioned molested impeached imprisoned and brought to judgement for causing Pierce to returne from Exile or harboring councelling or ayding hiâ—â—ere after his returne The second on the Barons part in these words It is provided by the King and by the Archbishops Bishops Abbots Priors Earles Barâ—s and Commons of the Realme assembled according to our Command and unanimously assented and accorded that none of what estate or condition soever he be shall in time to come be appealed or challenged for the apprehending deteining or death of Peirsde Gaveston nor shall for the said death be apprehended nor imprisoned impeached molested nor grieved nor judgement given against him by us nor by others at our suite nor at the suite of any other either in the Kings Court or elsewhere Which act the King by his Writ sent to the Judges of the Kings Bench commanding that this grant and concord shall be firme and stable in all its points and that every of them should be held and kept in perpetuitie to which end he commands them to cause this act to be there inrolled and firmely kept for ever A pregnant evidence that the Barons taking up Armes then against this Traytor and enemie of the Realme in pursuance of the Act and sentence of Parliament for his banishment though the King were in his company and assisted him all he might was then both by King and Parliament adjudged no Treason nor Rebellion at all in point of Law but a just honorable action Wherefore their taking up Armes is not mentioned in this Act of oblivion seeing they all held it just but their putting Piers to death without legall triall which in strictnesse of Law could not be justified Now whether this be not the Parliaments and kingdomes present case in point of Law who tooke up armes principally at first for defence of their owne Priviledges of Parliament and apprehention of delinquents who seducing the king withdrew him from the Parliament and caused him to raise an Army to shelter themselves under its power against the Parliament let every reasonable man determine and if it be so we see this ancient Act of Parliament resolves it to be no high Treason nor Rebellion nor offence against the King but a just lawfull act for the kings the kingdomes honour and safety Not long after this the two Spensers getting into the kings favour and seducing miscouncelling him as much as Gaveston did the Lords and Barrons hereupon in the 14 th and 15 th yeares of his raigne confederated
the King had entred my Land and so I did injurie to the King for which I ought to implore his mercie least others should take example thence to raise up Armes against the King I answer that I was not there in person and if any of my Family were thereby chance they invaded onely the Family of the King not the person of the King which yet if they had done it were no wonder seeing the king came with his Army into my Land that he might invade me and oppresse me by all the meanes he could which may appeare to all by the tenor of his Letters by which hee made a generall assembly throughout England against my Army And since the premises objected against mee are false and it is true that the King hath treated me worse since the time I expected his mercy then any time before and doth yet use the same Counsell as then and since he endeavours precisely to follow their Counsels in all things by whose advise I suffer all the premised grievances I ought not to prostitute my selfe to his mercy Neither would this be for the Kings honour that I should consent unto his will which is not grounded upon reason Yea I should doe an injury to him and to Iustice which he ought to use towards his Subjects and to maintaine And I should give an ill example to all by deserting Iustice and the prosecution of right for an erronious will against all Iustice and the injury of the Subjects For by this it would appeare that we loved our worldly possessions more then Iustice it selfe And whereas the Kings Counsellours object that wee have combined with the Kings capitall enemies namely the French Scots Welsh out of hatred and dammage to king and kingdome That of the French is altogether false and that of the Scots and Welsh too excepting the king of Scots and Leoline Prince of Northwales who were not the kings enemies but faithfull friends untill by injuries offered them by the King and his Counsell they were by coertion against their wills alienated from their fidelitie as I am And for this cause I am confederated with them that we may the better being united then separated regaine and defend our rights of which we are unjustly deprived and in a great part spoiled Whereas the Kings Counsell propose that I ought not to confide in my Confederates because the King without any great hurt to his Land can easily separate them from my friendship Of this I make no great doubt but by this the iniquity of his Counsellors doth most of all appeare that in some sort they would cause the King to sustaine losse by those whom he specially calls capitall enemies to injure mee who have alwaies beene his faithfull Subject whiles I remained with him and yet would be so if he would restore to me and my friends our right Whereas the said Counsellors say that the Pope and Church of Rome doe specially love the King and kingdome and will Excommunicate all his adversaries which thing is even at the dores because they have already sent for a Legate It pleaseth mee well said the Marshall because the more they love the King and Kingdome by so much the more will they desire that the King should treat his Realme and Subjects according to justice And I am well pleased they should excommunicate the adversaries of the Kingdome because they are those who give Counsell against Iustice whom workes will manifest because Iustice and Peace have kissed each other and because of this where Iustice is corrupted Peace is likewise violated Also I am pleased that a Legate is comming because the more discreet men shall heare our justice by so much the more vilely shall the adversaries of Iustice be confounded In which notable discourse we see the lawfullnesse of a necessary defensive Warre yeelded and justified both by the King his Counsell and the Earle Marshall as well against the King himselfe if he invade his Subjects first as any of his Forces who assist him After which the Marshall slew many of his Enemies by an Ambuscado while they thought to surprise him and wasted and spoiled their goods houses lands observing this generall laudable rule which they made to doe no hurt nor ill to any one but to the Kings evill Counsellors by whom they were banished whose goods houses woods Orchards they spoiled burnt and rooted up The King remaining at Glocester heard of these proceedings of the Marshall but his forces being too weake he durst not encounter him but retired to Winchester with Bishop Peter confounded with over much shame leaving that Country to be wasted by his adversaries where innumerable carcases of those there slaine lay naked and unburied in the wayes being food to the beasts and birds of prey a sad spectacle to passengers which so corrupted the ayre that it infected and killed many who were healthy Yet the Kings heart was so hardned by the wicked councell he followed against the Marshall that the Bishops admonishing him to make peace with him WHO FOVGHT FOR IVSTISE he answered that he would never make peace with him unlesse comming with an halter about his necke and acknowledging himselfe to be a Traytor he would implore his mercy The Marshall both in England and Ireland professed that he was no Traytor that his warre being but defensive was just immutabiliter affirmant quod liâ—uit sibi de jure quod suum crat repetere posse Regis Consiliorum suorum modis omnibus quibus poterat infirmare William Rishanger in his continuation of Matthew Paris speaking of the death of Simon Monfort Earle of Leycester slaine in the Battle of Evâ—sham the greatest Pillar of the Barrons warres useth this expression Thus this magnificent Earle Symon ended his labors who not onely bestowed his estate but his person also for releiefe of the oppression of the poore for the asserting of Iustice and the right of the Realme he was commendably skilfull in learning a dayly frequenter of divine Offices constant in word severe in countenance most confiding in the prayers of Religious persons alwayes very respectfull to Ecclesiasticall persons He earnestly adheared to Robert Grosthead Bishop of Lincolne and committed his children to his education By his advise he handled difficult things attempted doubtfull things concluded things begun specially such things whereby he thought he might gaine desert Which Bishop was said to have enjoyned him as he would obtaine remission of his sinnes that he should undertake this cause for which he contended even unto death affirming that the peace of the Church of England could never be established but by them materiall sword and constantly averring THAT ALL WHO DIED FOR IT WERE CROWNED WITH MARTYRDOME Some say that this Bishop on a time laying his hand on the head of the Earles eldest sonne said unto him O most deare sonne thou and thy father shall both dye on one day and with one hand of death YET FOR JUSTICE AND TRVTH Fame
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
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
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
he offered to render unto him his Kingdome and to hold the same by tribute from him as his Soveraigne Lord to forgoe the Christian Faith as vaine and to receive that of Mahomet imploying Thomas Hardington and Ralph Fitz-Nicholas Knights and Robert of London Clerke Commissioners in this negotiation whose manner of accesse to this great King with the delivery of their Message and King Johns Charter to that effect are at large recited in Mathew Paris who heard the whole relation from Robert one of the Commissioners Miramumalim having heard at large their Message and the Description of the King and Kingdome governed by an annointed and Crowned King knowne of old to be free and ingenuous ad nullius praeterquam Dei spectans dominationem with the nature and disposition of the people so much disdained the basenesse and impiety of the Offerer that fetching a deepe sigh from his heart he answered I have never read nor heard of any King possessing so prosperous a Kingdome subject and obedient to him who would thus willingly ruine his Principality as of free to make it tributary of his owne to make it anothers of happy to make it miserable and to submit himself to anothers pleasure as one conquered without a wound But I have heard and read of many who with effusion and losse of much blood which was laudable have procured liberty to themselves modo autem audio quod Dominus vester miser deses imbellis qui nullo nullior est de libero servus fieri desiderat qui omnium mortalium miserrimus est After which he said That the King was unworthy of his Confederacie and looking on the two Knights with a sterne countenance he commanded them to depart instantly out of his presence and to see his face no more whereupon they departing with shame hee charged Robert the Clerke to informe him truely what manner of person King Iohn was who replied That he was rather a Tyrant then a King rather a Subverter then a Governour a Subverter of his owne Subjects and a Fosterer of Strangers a Lyon to his owne Subjects a Lambe to Aliens and Rebels who by his sloathfulnesse had lost the Dutchy of Normandy and many other Lands and moreover thirsted to lose and destroy the Kingdome of England An unsatiable Extortioner of money an invader and destroyer of the possessions of his naturall people c. When Miramumalim heard this he not onely despised as at first but detested and accursed him and said Why doe the miserable English permit such a one to raigne and domineer over them Truely they are effeminate and flavish To which Robert answered the English are the most patient of all men untill they are offended and damnified beyond measure But now they are angry like a Lion or Elephant when he perceives himselfe hurt or bloody and though late they purpose and endeavour to shake the yoake of the Oppressor from their necks which lie under it Whereupon he reprehended the overmuch patience and fearefulnesse of the English and dismissed these Messengers who returning and relating his Answer to King Iohn he was exceeding sorrowfull and in much bitternesse of Spirit that he was thus contemned and disapointed of his purpose Yet persisting in his pre-conceived wicked designe to ruine his Kingdome and people and hating all the Nobility and Gentry of England with a viperous Venom he sets upon another course and knowing Pope Jnnocent to be the most ambitious proud and covetous of all men who by gifts and promises would be wrought upon to act any wickednesse Thereupon he hastily dispatcheth messengers to him with great summes of Money and a re-assurance of his tributary Subjection which shortly after he confirmed by a new Oath and Charter to procure him to Excommunicate the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Barons whom he had formerly favoured which things he greedily desired that he might wrecke has malice an them by Dis inheriting Imprisoning and Spoiling them being Excommunicated Which things when he had wickedly plotted he more wickedly executed afterwards In the meane time the Barons foreseeing that nothing was to be obtained but by strong hand assemble an Army at Stamford wherein were said to be two thousand Knights besides Esquires and marched from thence towards Oxford where the King expected their comming to answer their demands And being come to Brackley with their Army the King sends the Earle of Pembroke Mariscall and the Archbishop of Canterbury with others to demand of them what were those Lawes and Liberties they required to whom they shewed a Schedule of them which the Commissioners delivered to the King who having heard them read in great indignation asked Why the Barons did not likewise demand the Kingdome and swore he would never grant those Articles whereby himselfe should be made a Servant So harsh a thing is it to a power that is once gotten out into the wide libertie of his will to heare againe of any reducing within his Circle Vpon this answer the Barons resolve to seize the Kings Castles constitute Robert Fitz-walter their Generall entituling him Mariscall of the ARMY of GOD and of HOLY CHVRCH A Title they would never have given their Generall or Army had they deemed this Warre unlawfull in Law or Conscience After which they tooke divers of the Kings Castles and are admitted into London where their number daily increasing they make this Protestation Never to give over the prosecution of their desire till they had constrained the King whom they held perjured to grant them their Rights Which questionlesse they would not have done had they not beleeved this Warre to be just and lawfull King Iohn seeing himselfe in a manner generally forsaken of all his people and Nobles having scarce 7. Knights faithfull to him another strong argument that the people and Kingdome generally apprehended this taking up armes against the King to regaine to preserve their hereditary Rights and Liberties to be lawfull counterfeits the Seales of the Bishops and writes in their Names to all Nations That the English were all Apostates and whosoever would come to invade them hee by the Popes consent would conferre upon them all their Lands and Possossions But this device working no effect in regard they gave no credit to it and found it apparently false the King seeing himselfe deserted of all and that those of the Barons part were innumerable cum tota Angliae Nobilitas in unum collecta quasi sub numero non cadebat writes Mathew Paris another argument of the justice of this cause and warre in their beliefes and consciences at last condescended to grant and confirme their Liberties which he did at Running-Meade in such sort as I have formerly related And though the Pope afterwards for his owne private ends and interest bribed by King Iohn who resigned his Kingdome to him and became his Vassall without his peoples consent which resignation was judged voide excommunicated the Barons withall their assistance Qui Iohaâ—nem illustrum Regim
them battle but his wisest councellors disswaded him affirming that the King should gaine no benefit if hee vanquished them and should sustaine great dishonour and losse if he were conquered by them In the meane time Hugh Linne an old Souldier who had lost his senses and was reputed a foole comming in to the Councell the King demanded of him in jest what hee should doe against the Nobles met together in the said Parke who answered Let us goe forth and assault them and slay every mothers sonne of them and by the eyes of God this being finished THOU HAST SLAINE ALL THE FAITHFVLL FRIENDS THOU HAST IN THE KINGDOME Which answere though uttered foolishly yet wise men did most of all consider At last is was resolved by the mediators of Peace that the Lords should meete the King at Westminster and there receive an answere to the things for which they tooke Armes thither they came strongly Armed with a great guard for feare of ambuscadoes to intrap them where the Chauncellour in the Kings name spake thus to them My Lords our Lord the King hearing that you were lately assembled at Harenggye Parke in an unusuall manner would not rush upon you as he might have easily done had he not had care of you and those who were with you because no man can doubt if he had raised an Army he would have had many more men than you and pâ—rchance much blood of men had beene spilt which the King doth most of all abhorre and therefore assuming to himselfe patience and mildnesse he hath made choyce to convent you peceably and to tell him the reason why yoy have assâ—mbled so many men To which the Lords answered That THEY HAD MET TOGETHER FOR THE GOOD OF THE KING AND KINGDOME AND THAT THEY MIGHT PVLL AWAY THOSE TRAITORS FROM HIM WHICH HE CONTINVALLY DET AINED WITH HIM The Traytors they appealed were the foresaid ill Councellors and Nicholas Brambre the false London Knight and to prove this appeale of them true casting down their gloves they said they would prosecute it by Duell The King answered This shall not be done now but in the next Parliament with we appoint to be the morrow after the Purification of the blessed Virgin to which as well you as they comming shall receive satisfaction in all things according to Law The Lords for their owne safety kept together till the Parliament and in the meane timed feated the Forces of the Duke of Ireland raised privately by the Kings Command to surprise them The Parliament comming on the 11. yeare of Richard the second these ill councellors were therein by speciall Acts attainted condemned of High Treason and some of them executed and these defensive Armes of the Lords for their owne and the Kingdomes safety adjudged and declared to be no Treason but a thing done to the honour of God and Salvation of the King and his Realme witnesse the expresse words of the Printed Act of 11 R. 2. c. 1. which I shall transcribe Our Soveraigne Lord the King amongst other Petitions and requests to him made by the Commons of his said Realme in the said Parliament hath received one Petition in the forme following The Commons prayed that whereas the last Parliament for cause of the great and horrible mischiefes and perills which another time were fallen BY EVILL GOVERNANCE WHICH WAS ABOVT THE KINGS PERSON by all his time before by Alexander late Archbishop of Yorke Robert de Veere late Duke of Ireland Michael de la Pole late Earle of Suffolk Rober Trisilian late Iustice and Nicholas Brambre Knight with other their adherents and others Whereby the King and all his Realme were very nighâ— to have beene wholly undone and destroyed and for this cause and to eschew such perils and mischiefes for the time to come a certaine statute was made in the same Parliament with a Commission to diverse Lords for the weale honour and safeguard of the King his regalty and of all the Realme the tenour of which Commission hereafter followeth Richard c. as in the Act. And thereupon the said Alexander Robert Mighill Robert and Nicholas and their said adherents seeing that their said evill governance should be perceived and they by the same cause more likely to be punished by good justice to be done and also their evill deedes and purposes before used to be disturbed by the sayd Lords assigned by commission as afore made conspired purposed divers horrible Treasons and evils against the King and the said Lords so assigned and against all the other Lords and Commons which were assenting to the making of the said Ordinance and Commission in destruction of the king his Regalty and all his Realme Whereupon Thomas Duke of Glocester the kings Vncle Richard Earle of Arundle and Thomas Earle of Warwicke perceiving the evill purpose of the sayd Traytors did assemble themselves in forcible manner for the safety of their persons to shew and declare the said Treasons and evill purposes and thereof to set remedie as God would and came to the Kings presence affirming against the said 5. Traytors appealed of High Treason by them done to the King and to his Realme upon which appeale the king our Soveraigne Lord adjourned the said parties till this present Parliament and did take them into his safe protection as in the record made upon the same appeale fully appeareth And afterwards in great Rebellion and against the said protection the said Traytors with their said adherents and others aforesaid continuing their evill purpose some of them assembled a great power by letters and Commission from the King himselfe as Walsingham and others write to have destroyed the said Duke and Earles appellants and other the kings lawfull leige people and to accomplish their Treasons and evill purposes aforesaid Whereupon the said Duke of Glocester Henry Earle of Darby the sayd Earles of Arundell and Warwicke and Thomas Earle Marshall seeing the open Destruction of the King and all his Realme if the said evill purposed Traitors and their adherents were not disturbed which might not otherwise have beene done but with strong hand for the weale and safeguard of the King our Soveraigne Lord and of all his Realme did assemble them forcibly and rove and pursued till they had disturbed the said power gathered by the said Traytors and their adherents aforesaid which five Traytors be attainted this present Parliament of the Treasons and evills aforesaid at the suite and appeale of the said Duke of Glocester Earles of Darby Arundle Warwicke and Marshall That it would please our redoubled Soveraigne Lord the King to accept approve and affirme in this present Parliament all that was done in the last as afore and as much as hath beene done since the last Parliament by force of the statute Ordinance or Commission aforesaid and also All that the said Duke of Glocester Earles of Arundell and Wâ—rwicke did and that the same Duke and Earles and the said Earles of Derby and Marshall or any
accomplishment of their owne Rancor and Covetousnesse that they might injoy the Lands Offices Possessions and Goods of the lawfull â—ords and liege People of the King and that they might finally destroy the laid lawfull Lords and Liege People and their Issues and Heires for ever as now the Kings ill Counsellors and hungry Cavalleers seek to destroy the Kings faithfull Liege Lords and People that they may gaine their Lands and Estates witnesse the late intercepted Leâ—ter of Sir Iohn Brooks giving advise to thus purpose to his Majestie and this Assemblâ— was declared to be no lawful Parliament but a devillish Counsell which desired more the destruction then advancement of the Publike weale and the Duke Earles with their assistants were restored and declared to be Faithful and Lawful Lords and Faithful liege People of the Realme of England who alwaies had great and Fathfull Love to the Preferrement and Surety of the Kings Person according to their Duty If then these two Parliaments acquitted these Lords and their companions thus taking up Armes from any the least guilt of Treason and rebellion against the King because they did it onely for the advancement of the publike weale the setting the Realme in a better condition the removing ill Counsellors and publike oppressors of the Realme from about the King and to rescue his person out of their hands then questionlesse by their resolutions our present Parliaments taking up defensive armes upon the selfe-same grounds and other important causes and that by consent of both Houses which they wanted can be reputed no high Treason nor Rebellion against the King in point of Law and no just no rationall Iudge or Lawyer can justly averre the contrary against so many forecited resolutions in Parliament even in printed Acts. The Earle of Richmund afterward King Henry the seventh taking up armes against Richard the third a lawfull King defacto being crowned by Parliament but an Vsurper and bloody â—yrant in Verity to recover his Inheritance and Title to the Crowne and ease the Kingdome of this unnaturall blood-thirsty Oppressor before his fight at Boswell Field used this Oration to his Souldiers pertinent to our purpose If ever God gave victory to men fighting in a just quarrell or if he ever aided such as made warre for the wealth and tuition of their owne naturall and nutritive Countrey or if he ever succoured them which adventured their lives for the reliefe of Innocents suppression of malefactors and apparent Offenders No doubt my Fellowes and Friends but he of his bountifull goodnesse will this day send us triumphant victory and a lucky revenge over our proud Enemies and arrogant adversaries for if you remember and consider the very cause of our just quarrel you shall apparently perceive the same to be true godly and vertuous In the which I doubt not but God will rather ayde us yea and fight for us then see us vanquished and profligate by such as neither feare him nor his Lawes nor yet regard Iustice and honesty Our cause is so just that no enterprise can be of more vertue both by the Laws Divine and Civill c. If this cause be not just and this quarrell godly let God the giver of victory judge and determine c. Let us therefore fight like invincible Gyants and set on our enemies like untimorous Tygers and banish all feare like tamping Lyons March forth like strong and robustious Champions and begin the battaile like hardy Conquerors the Battell is at hand and the Victory approacheth and if wee shamefully recule or cowardly fly we and all our sequele be destroyed and dishonoured for ever This is the day of gaine and this is the time of losse get this dayes victory and be Conquerours and lose this dayes battell and bee villaines And therefore in the name of God and Saint George let every man couragiously advance his standard They did so slew the Tyrannicall Vsurper wonne the Field And in the first Parliament of his Raigne there was this Act of indemnity passed That all and singular persons comming with him from beyond the Seas into the Realme of England taking his party and quarrell in recovering his just Title and Right to the Realme of England shall be utterly discharged quit and unpunishable for ever by way of action or otherwise of or for any murther slaying of men or of taking and disporting of goods or any other trespasses done by them or any of them to any person or persons of this his Realme against his most Royall Person his Banner displayed in the said field and in the day of the said field c. Which battell though it were just and no Treason nor Rebellion in point of Law in those that assiâ—ted King Henry the 7 th against this Vsurper yet because the killing of men and seising their goods in the time of Warre is against the very fundamentall Lawes of the Realme they needed an Act of Parliament to discharge them from suits and prosecutions at the Law for the same the true reason of all the forecited Acts of this nature which make no mention of pardoning any Rebellions or Treasons against the King for they deemed their forementioned taking up of Armes no such offences but onely discharge the Subjects from all suites actions and prosecutions at Law for any killing or slaying of men batteries imprisonments robberies and trespasses in seising of Persons Goods Chattels What our Princes and State have thought of the lawfulnesse of necessary Defensive sive Warres of Subjects against their oppressing Kings and Princes appeares by those aides and succours which our Kings in former ages have sent to the French Flemmings Almaines and others when their Kings and Princes have injuriously made Warres upon them and more especially by the publike ayde and assistance which our Queene Elizabeth and King James by the publike advise and consent of the Realme gave to the Protestants in France Germany Bohemia and the Netherlands against the King of France the Emperour and King of Spaine who oppressed and made Warre upon them to deprive them of their just Liberties and Religion of which more hereafter Certainely had their Defensive Warres against their Soveraigne Princes to preserve their Religion Liberties Priviledges beene deemed Treason Rebellion in point of Law Queene Elizabeth King James and our English State would never have so much dishonoured themselves nor given so ill an example to the world to Patronize Rebells or Traitours or enter into any solemne Leagues and Covenants with them as then they did which have been frequently renued and continued to this present And to descend to our present times our King Charles himself hath not onely in shew at least openly aided the French Protestants at Ree and Rochel against their King who warred on them the Germane Princes against the Emperour the Hollanders and Prince of Orange to whose Sonne hee hath married his elstest Daughter against the Spaniard and entred into a solemne League with them which hee could
of Charity those that say care ought to be had of Citizens deny it of strangers these men take away community and society of mankinde Also Cicero which Lactantius both citeth and hath approved And the same Cicero It is a filthy opinion of them who referre all things to themselves filthy indeede for man is borne for society and it is his duty to helpe others and not live to himselfe onely and for this cause Cicero condemned the Philosophers because while they lacked one kinde of justice and as another holy man writes fulfilled indeede the greatest part of equity not to hurt any they offended against the other because they forsooke the society of life and so forsooke this part of justice to profit when thou canst Dost thou not see how the world it selfe the most beautifull of all workes doth binde it selfe with love we are bound by the Law of nature so sayes the interpreter of the Law to be profitable every way and the same men deliver an equall defence of their owne and of strangers but specially of confederates from whom we must keepe off an injury and that this defence is both of divine and humane law Plato thinkes he ought to be punished that keepes not back an injury offered to another Now that which Plato and these Interpreters say of private Citizens we may very well apply to Princes and people for what reason there is of a private man in a private City there is the same in the publicke and universall City of the world of a publique Citizen that is of a Prince of the people of a Prince As a private man hath relation to a private man so a Prince to a Prince saith Baldus A man is a Citizen to a man in the greater City and borne for mutuall succour saith Seneca And because we are one body if one member will hurt another member it is meete the others should helpe that which is hurt because it concerneth the whole even that which hurteth that the whole be preserved So men should helpe men for society cannot be preserved but by the love and safety of the people Vespatian cannot be approved who denies ayde I know not to whom upon this pretence because the care of other mens affaires appertained not to him for what good man is there who doth nothing but for his owne sake Cicero againe even to Lazius King of Persia that he is not therefore just because he doth nothing unjustly unlesse also he defended the unjustly oppressed and by that meanes they obtained helpe and bands of Souldiers against the Romans for it is not a strange thing amongst men for a man to defend the estates and safety of men Cicero had said the same he should have respect if not of the man yet of humanity which is due to every one from every one for this very cause because they are equally men and humane nature the common mother of all men commends one man to another It is a noble example of the barbarous King of Mauritania who when he heard that his enemie Alfonso king of Castile was pressed and almost oppressed by the Armies of his sonne hee sent a hughe masse of gold unto Alfonso he himselfe went over with a great Armie of Souldiers into Spaine judging it a most unworthy thing that his Sonne should expell his Father from his Kingdome adding withall that the victory obtained he would be an enemie againe unto the same Alfonso What doe I feare the Barbarians enemies also and bringing gifts That the deed of an enemy should be taken in the worst sence doth Guiceardine say truth that these things are not done of any but in hope of some profit The saying of Guicciardine is dispraised by noble Mountaygn in those his Noble examples I demand of what right it is It is a question if any be bound by Law to defend another when he can and they seeme commonly to deny this and the Law sometimes saith that we may without offence neglect other mens affaires but our proper question is if any can thus justly defend another wherein no man denieth just defence even for the defence of a stranger it is lawfull to kill another by the opinion which is approved of all Doctors yea the defence of him is approved that neglects to defend himselfe yea that refuseth to be defended by another whether a friend defend him or another even an enemie and thus it is called the rule of humanity and so a benefit to be conferred often times upon the unwilling So also there be many other definitions Also they conclude by an argument not firme enough that way in another question that a man may take money for defending another which he should receive dishonestly if he were bound to defend him by law for may not a servant get a reward from him whom yet notwithstanding he might not neglect without punishment neither is it dishonestly given nor dishonestly taken in way of thankefulnesse So it is not ill taken of a Citizen from a Citie nor by a sonne from a father for truely it is manifest that many things cannot be done without offence and therefore if done they are worthy of rewards yet not of punishment if they be not done Againe somethings on the contrary neglected indeed contract offence but reformed they merit not glory so Bernard to which I adde a meane that there be some things which being neglected contract offence and fulfilled deserve reward But also even in the Court of conscience they will have a man to be bound to defend a man But conscience is the will of a good man yea of the best but they deliver this also even in the way of honesty and we follow honesty here and that arbiterment but both in Civill and Canon Law against the rest Bartolus inclines thus Albericus Igneus Decius Alciatus Molineus so teach and Baldus elegantly that it is a fault to omit the defence of another of himselfe a treachery which also in another place he determines Plato is also of this mind and thus also Siracides free him to whom injury is done out of the hand of the injurious I also am of the same minde especially if which the forenamed interpreters adde defence be not made with the danger of the defender For no man is bound to put himselfe in danger no man is bound so to assist against a fire Otherwise thou hearest Constantine say that they which live by the rule of Gods Law account an injury done to another to be their owne Behold that thus also he ayded the Romans against Maxentius Heare againe Baldus his Lawyer he that defends not nor resists an injury is as well in fault as he that forsakes his parents or friends or Country and if these be true in private men how much more will they be in Princes These
Theology which others have wholly omitted may seasonably be here supplyed to satisfie Consciences yet unresolved of the justnesse of the present and all other necessary Defensive Warres I shall not over-sparingly or cursorily passe through it without a competent debate Now lest the Consciences of any should bee seduced ensnared with generalities or cleere mistakes through the mis-stating of the points in question with which devise many have beene hitherto deluded by the Opposites who cumbate onely with their owne mishapen fancies discharging all their Gunshot against such Tenets as are not in question and no waies comming neere the White in Controversie I shal for my own orderly proceeding and the better satisfaction of ignorant scrupulous seduced consciences more punctually state the Question then formerly in the Legall Part first Negatively next Positively and then proceede to its debate Take notice therefore First that this is no part of the question in dispute Whether the Parliament or any Subjects who soever may actually disobey or violently with force of Armes resist the Kings or any other lawfull Magistrates just commands warranted either by Gods Word or the Lawes of England it being out of controversie readily subscribed by all of both sides that Such commands ought not so much as to be disobeyed much lesse forcibly resisted but cheerefully submitted to and readily executed for Conscience sake Rom. 13. 1. to 6. 1 Pet. 2. 13 14. Tit. 3. 1. Hebr. 13. 17. Iosh 1. 16 17. 18. Ezra 7. 26. Eccles 8 2 3 4 5. the onely thing these objected Scriptures prove which come not neere the thing in question though our Opposites most rely upon them Secondly Neither is this any branch of the dispute Whether Subjects may lawfully rise up or rebell against their Prince by way of Muteny Faction or Sedition without any just or lawfull publicke ground or for every trifling injury or provocation offered them by their Prince Or whether private men for personall wrongs especially where their lives chastities livelihoods are not immediatly endangered by actuall violent unjust assaults may in point of Conscience lawfully resist or rise up against their Kings or any other lawfull Magistrates Since all disavow such tumultuous Insurrections and Rebellions in such cases yet this is all which the oft objected Examples of Korah Dathan and Abiram with other Scriptures of this Nature doe or can evince Thirdly nor is this any parcell of the Controversie Whether Subjects may lay violent hands upon the persons of their Princes wittingly or willingly to deprive them of their Lives or Liberties especially for private Injuries or in cold blood when they doe not actually nor personally assault their lives or chastities or for any publike misdemeanours without a precedent sentence of Imprisonment or death against them given judicially by the whole States or Realmes where they have such Authority to araigne and judge them For all unanimously disclaime yea abominate such Traitorous practises and Iesuiticall Positions as execrable and unchristian yet this is all which the example of Davids not offering violence to King Saul the 1 Sam. 24. 3. to 22. cap. 26. 2. to 25. 2 Sam. 1. 2. to 17. or that perverted Text of Psal 105. 15. the best Artillery in our Adversaries Magazines truely prove Fourthly Neither is this the thing in difference as most mistake it Whether the Parliament may lawfully raise an Army to goe immediately and directly against the very person of the King to apprehend or offer violence to him much lesse intentionally to destroy him or to resist his owne personall attempts against them even to the hazard of his life For the Parliament and their Army too have in sundry Remonstrances Declarations Protestations and Petitions renounced any such disloyall intention or designe at all for which there is no colour to charge them and were his Majestie now alone or attended onely with his Ordinary Courtly Guard there needed no Army nor Forces to resist his personall assaults Yet this is made the principall matter in question by Doctor Ferne by An appeale to thy Conscience and other Anti-parliamentary Pamphlets who make this the sole Theame of their Discourses That Subjects may not take up Armes Against their Lawfull Soveraigne because he is wicked and unjust no though he be an Idolater and Oppressor That Suppose the King will not discharge his trust but is bent or seduced to subvert Religion Lawes Liberties yet Subjects may not take up Armes and resist the King it being unwarrantable and according to the Apostle damnable Rom. 13. Yea this is all the questions the G. valleers and Malignants demand of their Opposites in this cause What will you take up Armes will you fight against or resist the King c. Never stating the question of his Forces his Army of Papists Malignants Delinquents but onely of the King himselfe abstracted from his invading depopulating Forces against whom in this sence of theirs the Parliament never yet raised any Forces nor made the least resistance hitherto These foure particulars then being not in question I shall here appeale to the most Malignant Conscience Whether Doctor Ferne and all other our Opposites pretenders of Conscience haue not ignorantly if not maliciously made shipwracke of their good Consciences had they ever any by a wilfull mistating of the Controversie concerning the present Defensive Warre in the foure preceding particulars which they make the onely Questions when not so much as one of them comes within the Verge of that which is the reall Controversie and never once naming that in all or any of their Writings which is the point indeed Secondly Whether there bee any one Text or Reason in all their Pamphlets particularly applied to any thing which concernes the present Warre but onely to these foure particulars which are not in debate And if so as no Conscience can gaine-say it then there is nought in all the wast Papers they have published which may either resolve or scruple any Conscience That the Parliaments Defensive Armes and resistance are unlawfull in point of Divinity or Conscience which is steered by the Scriptures Compasse But if these particulars be not in question you may now demand what the knot and true state of the present Controversie in point of Conscience is In few words take it thus Whether both Houses of Parliament and the Subjects by their Authority for the preservation of their owne Persons Priviledges Lawes Lives Liberties Estates Religion the apprehension of Voted coâ—tumatious Traitors and Delinquents the rescuing his seduced Majestie out of the power of Popish pernicious Counsellours and Forces who end avour the Kingdomes subversion by withdrawing him from and incensing him against his Parliament may not lawfully with a good Conscience take up necessary defensive Armes and make actuall Warlike resistance against his Majesties Malignant ill Counsellors and invading Popish Forces who now Murther Rob Spoile Sacke Depopulate the Kingdome in a most Hostile manner to set up Tyranny Popery and an
violence And his Speech to Pilate after his taking plainely iustifies the lawfulnesse of such a forcible defence with Armes to preserve a mans life from unjust execution Iohn 18. 36 If my Kingdome were of this world Then would my Servants fight in my Defence and Rescue that I should Not be delivered to the Iewes but now my kingdom is not from hence All which considered clearely justifies the Lawfulnesse of resisting the Kings or higher Powers Officers in cases of apparant unjust open violence or assaults and withall answers one grand argument against resistance from our Saviours present Example namely Christ himselfe made no resistance when hee was unjustly apprehended Ergo Christians his Followers Ergo no Kings no Magistrates too as well as Christ the King of Kings and Lord of Lords for they are Christians as well as subjects ought not to make any forcible resistance of open violence Which argument is a meere inconsequent because the reason why Christ resisted not these Pursevants and High Priests Officers was onely that his Fathers decree and the Scriptures foretelling his Passion might be fulfilled as himselfe resolves not because hee deemed resistance Vnlawfull which he even then approved though hee practised it not as these Texts doe fully proove Fourthly The lawfulnesse of a defensive Warre against the invading Forces of a Soveraigne is warranted by the example of the City Abel which stood out and defended it selfe against Ioab Davids Generall and his Forces when they besieged and battered it till they had made their peace with the head of Sheba who fled into it for shelter 2 Sam. 20. 14. to 23. And by that of Ester Ch. 8. 8. to 17. chap 9. 1. to 17. pertinent to this purpose Where Haman having gotten the Kings Decree to be sent unto all Provinces for the utter extirpation of the whole Nation of the Iewes the King after Hamans Execution through Gods great mercy and Mordecaies and Queene Esters diligence to prevent this bloody massacre by their Enemies granted to the Iewes in every City by Letters under his Seale To gather themselves together and to stand for their lives to destroy to slay and to cause to perish all the power of the people and Province That would Assault them both litle ones and women and to take the spoile of them for a prey and that the Iewes should be ready against the day to avenge themselves of their enemies Hereupon when the day that the Kings Commandment and Decree for their extirpation drew neere to be put in execution in the day that the enmies of the Iewes hoped to have power over them the Iewes gathered themselves together in their Cities throughout all the Provinces of King Ahasuerus to lay hand on such as sought their hurt and no man could withstand them for the feare of them fell upon all people And all the Rulers of the Provinces and the Lieutenants Deputies and Officers of the King helped the Iewes because the feare of Mordecai fell upon them So the Iewes smote all their enemies with the stroake of the Sword and slaughter and destruction and did what they would unto those that hated them In the Palace they slew eight hundred men and Hamans tenne sonnes on severall dayes And the other Iewes that were in the Provinces gathered themselves together and Stood for their Lives and had rest from their enemies and slew of their foes seventy and five thousand but they laid not their hands on the prey Loe here a Defensive war justified and granted lawfull by the Kings owne Letters to the Iewes against their enemies who by former Charters from him had Commission wholly to extirpate them Neither had this licence of the King in point of Conscience been lawfull had their defence and resistance of the Kings former Commission been wholly unlawfull And the reason of the Kings grant to them to resist and slay their Enemies that would assault them was not simply because their resistance without it and standing for their lives had beene unlawfull by reason of the Kings first unjust Decree which they ought not in Conscience to submit to without repugnancy But onely to enable the Iewes then Captives and scattered abroad one from another in every Province with more convenience securitie boldnesse and courage now to joyne their forces together to resist their malicious potent enemies to daunt them the more thereby Nature it selfe yea and all Lawes in such a bloody Nationall Butchery as this without any just cause at all both taught and enabled every one of the Iewes to stand for his life his Nations Religions preservation even to the last drop of blood Therefore the Letters of the King did not simply enable them to resist their enemies which they might have done without them but give them Authority to destroy and slay the Wives and little children of their Enemies and to take the spoile of them for a prey which they refused to doe because they deemed it unjust notwithstanding the Kings permission and concession which as to these particulars was illegall and more then hee could justly grant This generall Nationall resistance of Gods own people then of their assaulting cruell Enemies even among Strangers in the land of their Captivity under a forraigne Enemy with the former and other following precedents will questionlesse more then conjecturally prove if not infallibly resolve The lawfulnesse of a necessary Defensive Warre and opposition by free Subiects against their Kings assailing Forces which seekes their ruine though armed with their Kings Commission and that without any Ordinance of Parliament authorising them to resist much more then when enabled to oppose them by Ordinances of both Houses as the Iewes were to resist and slay their enemies by this Kings Letters and Authority Thirdly That kind of resistance which hath no one Text nor Example in Scripture to impeach its lawfulnesse but many Texts and precedents to countenance it must doubtlesse be lawfull in point of Conscience But the resisting of Kings invading pillaging destructive Forces who have nothing to plead to justifie all their Villanies but a void illegall Warrant hath no one Text nor example in Scripture to impeach its lawfulnesse for ought I can finde and if there be any such I wish the Opposites would object it for Rom. 13. as I shall shew hereafter doth no waies contradict but approve it But it hath many Texts and precedents to countenance it as the premises and sequell attest Therefore it must doubtlesse bee-lawfull in point of Conscience Fourthly it is confessed by all men yea those who are most intoxicated with an Anabaptisticall spirit condemning all kind of warre refusing to carry Armes to defend themselves against any Enemies Theeves or Pirates that it is lawfull not onely passively to resist their Kings unlawfull Commands and invading Forces but likewise by flight hiding or other pollicies to evade and prevent their violence which is warranted not onely by Moses Davids and Elijahs
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
meant of Kings not God First the text saith not that a king may lawfully doe what he pleaseth but he doth whatsoever pleaseth him Solomâ—n himselfe committed idolatry built Temples for Idolatrous worship served his idolatrous wives Gods married with many idolatrous wives greivously oppressed his people c. for which God threatned to rent the kingdome from himself as he did the ten Tribes from his son for those sinnes of his David committed adultery and wilfully numbred the people and what King Jeroboam Manasseh Ahab other wicked Kings have done out of the pleasure and freedome of their lawlesse wills to the infinite dishonour of God the ruine of themselves their posterities Kingdomes is sufficiently apparent in Scripture was all therefore just lawfull unblameable because they did herein whatsoever they pleased not what was pleasing to God If not as all must grant then your foundation failes that Kings may lawfully doe whatsoever they will and Solomons words must be taken all together not by fragments and these latter words coupled with the next preceeding Stand not in an evill matter and then Pauls words will well interpret his Rom. 13. 4. But if thou doe that which is evill be afraid for he beareth not the sword in vaine for he is the minister of God a revenger to execute wrath upon them that doe evill So that the genuine sence of the place is and must be this Stand not in an evill matter for the king path an absolute power to doe whatsoever he pleaseth in way of justice to punish thee if thou continue obstinate in thy evill courses to pardon thee if thou confesse submit and crave pardon for them Ergo the king and his Cavalleeres have an absolute power to murther plunder destroy his Subjects subvert Religion and he and his Forces must not herein be resisted is an ill consequent from such good premises The third is this Where the word of a King is there is power and who may say unto him what dost thou that is expostulate with censure him for doing justly as Iob 34. 17. 18. 19. expound it Ergo the king or his Forces may not be resisted in any case they might rather conclude Therefore neither Kingdome nor Parliament nor any Subject or person whatsoever ought to demand of the king to what end or why he hath raised Forces and Armed Papists against the Parliament and Protestant Religion These Court-Doctors might as truely conclude from hence If the king should command us to say Masse in his Chappell or our Parishes to adorne Images to turne professed Masse-priests c. to vent any Erronious Popish Doctrines to pervert the Scriptures to support Tyrannie and lawlesse cruelty we must and will as some of us doe cheerefully obey for where the word of a King is there is power and we may not say unto him what dost thou If a King should violently ravish matrons defloure virgins unnaturally abuse youth cut all his Subjects throates fire their houses sacke their Cities subvert their liberties and as Bellarmine puts the case of the Popes absolute irresistible authority send millions of soules to hell yet no man under paine of damnation may or ought to demande of him Domine cur ita facis Sir what doe you But was this the holy Ghosts meaning thinke you in this place If so then Nathan was much to blame for reprehending king Davids Adultery Azariah and the 40. Priests who withstood King Vzziah when he would have offered incense on the incense Altar and thrust him out of the Temple telling him it pertaineth not to thee Vzziah to burne incense to the Lord c. Were no lesse then Traytors John Baptist was much over-seene to tell King Herod It is not lawfull for thee to have thy brothers wife The Prophet who sharpely reprehended Amaziah for his Idolatry and new altar 2 Chron 25. 15. 16. was justly checked by the king Eliiah was to be rebuked for telling Ahab so plainely of his faults and sending such a harsh message to King Ahaziah Elisha much to be shent for using such harsh language to King Jehoram 2 Kings 3. 13. 14. yea Samuel and Hanani deserved the strappado for telling King Saul and Asa That they had done foolishly 1 Sam. 13. 3. 2 Chron. 15. 9. The meaning therefore of this Text so much mistaken unlesse we will censure all these Prophets and have Kings not onely irresistible but irreprehensible for their wickednesse is onely this No man may presume to question the kings just actions warranted by his lawfull royall power this text being parallel with Rom. 13. 1. 2. 3. 4. What then Ergo None must question or resist his or his Cavalleers unjust violence and proceedings not the Parliament the supremest Iudicature and Soveraigne Power in the Kingdome is a ridiculous consequence yet this is all this Text doth contribute to their present dying bad cause The 5. is that usually objected Text of Psal 105. 14 15. Touch not mine annointed Ergo the King and his Cavaleers must not be so much as touched nor resisted I wonder they did not as well argue Ergo none must henceforth kisse his Majesties hand since it cannot be done without touching him neither must his Barber trim him nor his Bedchamber-men attire him for feare of high Treason in touching him And the Cavaleers must not henceforth be arrested for their debts apprehended for their robberies and murthers neither must the Chyrurgion dresse their wounds or pock-soars or otherwise touch them so dangerous is it to touch them not out of fear of infection but for fear of transgressing this sacred Text scarce meant of such unhallowed God-dammeeâ— Such conclusions had been more literall and genuine then the first But to answer this long since exploded triviall Objection not named by Dr Ferne though revived by others since him I say first that this Text concernes not kings at all but the true anoynted Saints of God their Subjects whom kings have been alwayes apt to oppresse and persecute witnesse Psal 2. 2. c. Act. 4. 26. 27. Act. 12. 1 2 3 with all sacred and Ecclesiasticall Histories ancient or moderne This is most apparent first because these words were spoken by God to Kings themselves as the Text is expresse Psal 105 14 15. 1 Chron. 16. 20 21. He suffered no man to do them wrong but reproved even KINGS for their sakes saying even to king themselves namely to king Pharaoh an king Abimâ—lech Gen. 12. 10. to 20. Chap. 20. and 26 1. to 17. 29 Touch not mine Anointed and do my Prophets no harm Therefore not meant of kings Secondly because these words were spoken directly and immediately of Abraham Isaac Iacob their wives and families as it is evident by Verse 6. the whole series of the Psalme which is Historicall the forecited Texts of Genesis to which the words relate the punctuall confession of Augustine and all other Expositors on this Psalm Now neither they
both But this anointing in subiects can neither exempt their persons from necessary iust resistance if they unlawfully assault or war upon their Superiours equalls inferiours nor free them from arrests imprisonments arraignments deprivations or capitall censures if they offend and demerit them as we all know by Scripture and experience Therefore it can transfer no such corporall immunities or exemptions from all or any of these to kings but onely exempt them from unlawfull violence and injuries in point of right so far forth as it doth other Subjects In a word this annointing being common to all Christians can give no speciall Prerogative to Kings but onely such as are common to all Subiects as they are Christians Secondly admit it be meanâ— of an actuall externall anoynting yet that of it self affords Kings no greater priviledge then the inward unction of which it is a type neither can it priviledge them from just resistance or just corporall censures of all sorts First it cannot priviledge them from the iust assaults invasions resistance corporall punishments of other forraign kings Princes States Subiects not subordinate to them who upon any iust cause or quarrell may lawfully resist assault wound apprehend imprison slay depose iudge censure forraigne kings even to death as is apparent by Sâ—hon King of the Amorites and Og the king of Bashan slain the King of Ai hanged by Ioshua the five kings of Canaan that besieged Gibeon on whose ne-ks Ioshua made his men of war to put their feet then smote slew and hanged them upon five trees Who also assaulted resisted imprisoned condemned slew executed divers other kings of Canaan to the number of thirty one in all by king Adonibezek Eglon Agag with other Heathen Kings imprisoned stabbed hewen in pieces by the Israelites If any obiect These kings were not actually annoynted which they cannot prove since Cyrus an Heathen King is stiled Gods annoynted no doubt Saul was an annoynted King if not the first in the world 1 Sam. 10. 1. yet he was justly resisted wounded pursued by the Philistines 1 Sam. 31. 3. Iosiah an annoynted good King was slain by Pharaoh Necho King of Egypt whom he rashly encountred King Ahab was slain by an Archer of the King of Assyria King Ioram and Ahaziah were both slain by Iehu by Gods command Iehoaaz was deposed by the King of Egypt Iehoiakim and Iehoiakin both deposed fettered and kept prisoners by the King of Babylon bylone who also y appâ—eherded dâ—posed judicially condemned King Zedechiah put out his eyes and sent him prisoner to Bâ—hylon bound with fetters of brasse So Manasses was deposed bound with fetters of brasse and carryed captive by the Captaines of the King of Assyria Amaziah King of Iudah was taken prisoner by Iehoash King of Israel Infiâ—ite are the presidents in stories where kings of one Nation in just warrs have been assaulted invaded imprisoned deposed slain by Princes and Subjects of another Nation and that justly as all grant without exception neither their annointing nor Kingship being any exemption or priviledge to them at all in respect of forraigners in cases of hostility to whom they are no Soveraigns no more then to any of their Subjects Whereas if this royall annointing did make their persons absolutly sacred and inviolable no forraign Princes or Subjects could justly apprehend imprison smite wound slay depose or execute them Secondly Kings who are suborordinate Homagers and Subjects to other Kings or Emperours though annointed may for Treasons and Rebellions against them he lawfully resisted assaulted imprisoned deposed judged to death and executed because as to them they are but Subjects notwithâ—â—anging their annointing as appears by sundâ—y presidents in our own and forraign Histories and is generally confessed by the learned Thirdly the Roman Greek and German Experours though annointed the ancient Kings of France Spain Arragon Britain Hungary Poland Denmarke Bohemia India Sparta and other places who were not absolute Monarchs have in former ages been lawfully resisted imprisoned deposed and some of them judicially adjudged to death and executed by their owne Senates Parliaments Diets States for their oppression mal-administration tyranny and that justly as Bodin Grotius with others affirm notwithstanding any pretence that they were annointed Soveraigns Fourthly Popes Bishops and Priests anciently were and at this present in the Romish Churches are actually annointed as well as Kings and we know the Popish Clergy and Canonists have frequently alledged this Text Touch not mine annointed and doe my Prophets no harme in Councels Decretalls and solemâ— debates in Parliament to prove their exemption from the arrests judgements capitall censâ—res and proceedings of Kings and secular Iudges for any crimes whatsoever because forsooth they were Gods annointed intended in this Text not Kings therefore Kings and Seculars must not touch nor offer any the least violence to their persons no not in a way of justice By colour of this Text they exceedingly deluded the world in this particular for â—undreds of yeeres But in the seventh yeer of Hen. the 8. in Dr. Standish his case debated before a Committee of both Houses of Parliament and all the Iudges of England this Text being chiefly insisted on to prove the Clergies exemption Jure Divino was wholly exploded in England and since that in Germany France other Realms and notwithstanding its protection many Fopes Bishops and Clergy-men in all Kingdomes ages for all their annointing have for their misdemeanors not only been resisted apprehended imprisones but deprived degraded hanged quartered burned as well as other men Yea Abiathar the High Priest was deposed by S. â—omon for his Treason against him notwithstanding his Annointing their annointing giving them not the smallest immunity to doe ill or not to suffer all kinds of corporall capitall punishments for their misdemeanors If this actuall annointing then cannot lawfully exempt or secure Priests and Prelates persons nor the Pope himselfe from the premises how then can it justly priviledge the persons of Kings Fifthly among the Papists all infants either in their baptisme or confirmation are actually annointed with their consecrated Chrisme and with extream unction to boot at last cast which they make a Sacrament and so a thing of more divine soveraign Nature then the very annointing of Kings at their inauguration which they repute no Sacrament as being no where commanded by God But neither of these actuall unctions exempt all or any of those annointed with it from resistance or any corporall punishments or just censures of any king therefore the very annointing of Kings cannot doe it Sixthly the Ceremony of annointing kings as Cassanaeus with others write is peculiar onely to the German Emperor the King of Ierusalem the King of France the King of England and the King of Sicily but to no other kings else who are neither annointed nor crowned as he affirmes so that it cannot give any priviledge
my hand against my Lord for he is the Lords anoynted Moreover my father see yea see the skirt of thy Robe in my hand for in that I cut off the skirt of thy Robe and KILLED THHE NOT know then and see that there is neither evill nor transgression in mine hand and I have not sinned against thee yet then huntest my soul to take it The Lord judge between me thee and the Lord avenge me of thee but mine hand shall not be upon thee and plead my cause and deliver me out of thine hand And after this upon the second advantage he useth like words The Lord render to every man according to his right consnes faithfulnes for the Lord delivered thee into my hand to day but I would not stretch forth my hand against the Lords annointed And behold as THY LIFE WAS MVCH SET BY THIS DAY IN MY EYES so let my life be much set by in the eyes of the Lord and let him deliver me out of all tribulations Wherein David declared that God had given up Sauls life into his power that it was his owne meer goodnesse that moved him to spare Saul contrary to his Souldiers and Abishaies minds who would have slain him without any seruple of conscience that the reasons he spared him were First because he was Gods Annointed that is specially designed and made King of Israel by Gods own election which no kings at this day are so this reason extends not so fully to them as to Saul Secondly Because he was his Father and Lord too and so it would have been deemed some what an unnaturall act in him Thirdly because it had favoured onely of private self-revenge and ambitious aspiring to the Crown before due time which became not David the quarrell being then not publike but particular betwixt him and David onely who was next to succeed him after his death Fourthly because by this his lenity he would convince reclaim Saul froÌ„ his bloody pursuit and cleare his innocency to the world Fifthly to evidence his dependence upon God and his speciall promise that he should enjoy the Crown after Saul by divine appointment and therefore he would not seem to usurp it by taking Saul life violently away Most of which consideration faile in cases of publike defence and the present controversie Thirdly that Saul himselfe as well as Davids Souldiers conceived that David might with safe conscience have slain as well as spared him witnesse his words 1. Sam. 24. 17 18 19 Thou art more righteous then I for thou hast rewarded me good where as I have rewarded thee evill And thou hast shewedme this day how thou hast deals well with me for asmuch as when the Lord had delivered me into thine hand THOU KILLEDST ME NOT. For if a man finde his enemy WIL HE LET HIM GO WEL AWAY Wherefore the Lord reward three good for that thou hast done unto me this day c. And in 1. Sam. 26. 21. Then said Saul I have sinned returne my sonne David for I will no more do thee harm because my solve was precious in thine eyes this day behold I have played the fool exceedingly c. But the former answers are so satisfactory that I shall not pray in ayd from these much lesse from that evasion of Dr. Fern who makes this and all other Davids demeanors in standing out against Saul EXTRAORDINARY for he was annointed and designed by the Lord to succeed Saul and therefore he might also use all extraordinary wayes of safe guarding his persons which like wise insinuaâ—es that this his scruple of conseience in sparing Sauls life was but extraordinary the rather because all his Souldiers and Abishai would have slain Saul without any such scruple and Saul himselfe conceived that any man else but David would have done it and so by consequence affirms that this his sparing of Saul is no wayes obligatory to other subjects but that they may lawfully in Davids case kill their Soveraigns But Davids resistauce of Saul by a guard of men being only that ordinary way which all subjects in all ages have used in such cases and that which nature teacheth not onely men but all living creatures generally to use for their own defence and this evasion derogating exceedingly from the personall safety of Princes yea and exposing them to such perils as they have cause to con the Dr. small thanks for such a bad invention I shall reject it as the extraordinary fansie of the Dr. other loyalists void both of truth and loyalty The 7. Objection out of the Old Testament is this 1. Sam. 8. 11. Samuel tells the people how they should be oppressed under kings yet all that violence and injustice that should be done unto them is no just cause of resistance for they have NO REMEDY LEFT THEM BVT CRYING TO THE LORD v. 18. And ye shall cry out in that day because of the King which ye shall have chosen you and the Lord will not hear you in that day To this I answer 1. that by the Doctors own confession this text of Samuel much urged by some of his fellows to prove an absolute divine Prerogative in Kings is quite contrary to their suggestion and meant onely of the oppression violence and injuâ— not lawfull power of Kings which should cause them thus to cry out to God This truth we have clearly gained by this objection for which some Royallists will renounce their champion 2. It is but a meer fallacie and absurdity not warranted by the Text which saith not that they shall onely cry out or that they shall use no remedy or resistance but crying out which had been materiall but baâ—ely ye shall cry out in that day c. Ergo they must and should onely crie out and not resist at all is a grosse Non-sequitur which Argument because much cryed up I shall demonstrate the palpable absurdity of it by many parrallell instance First Every Christian is bound to pray for Kings and Magistrates 1 Tim. 2. 1 2. Ergo they must onely pray and not fight for them nor yeeld tribute or obedience to them Kings and their Subjects too are bound to crie out and pray to God against forraign enemies that come to war against them as Moses did against Pharaoh and his Host David against his enemies Hezekiah against Sennacherib and his Hoste Asa against his enemies Abijah and the men of Iudah against Ieroboam and the Israelites their enemies and as all Christians usually do against their enemies Yea I make no doubt but the Doctor and other Court-Chaplains inform his Majesty and the Cavalleers that they must cry to God against the Parliamenteers and Round heads now in Arms to resist them Ergo they must onely pray but in no wise resist or fight against them All men must pray to God for their daily bread Ergo they must onely pray and not labour for it Sick persons
must pray to God to restore their health Ergo they must take no Physick but onely pray All men are expresly commanded to crie and call upon God in the day of trouble Ergo they must use no meanes but prayer to free themselves from trouble pretty Logick Reason Divinity fitter for derision then any serious Answer This is all this Text concludes and that grosly mistaken Speech of Saint Ambrose Christians weapons are Prayers and Tears of which anon iâ— its due place In one word prayer no more excludes resistance then resistance prayer both of them may and sometimes when defence is necessary as now ought to concurre so that our Court Doctors may as well argue as some Prelates not long since did in word and deed Ministers ought to pray and Gods House is an Oratory for prayer Ergo they must not Preach atleast â—ery seldom or make his House an Auditory for Preaching Or as rationally reason from this Text That Subjects must cry out to God against their kings oppressions Ergo they must not petition their Kings much lesse complain to their Parliament for relief as conclude from thence Ergo they may in no case resist the king or his invading Forces though they indeavour to subvert Religion Laws Liberties as the Doctor himself states the controversie whose arguments will hardly satisfie conscience being so voyd of reason sence yea science The eighth is this None of the Prophets in the old Testament reprehending the Kings of Israel and Iudeh for their grosse Iaolatry cruelty oppression did call upon the Elder of the people for the duty of resistance neither do we finde the people resisting or taking up Arms against any of their kings no not against Ahab or Manasseh upon any of these grounds Ergo resistance is unlawfull To which I must reply first That none of the Prophets did ever forbid resistance in such cases under pain of Damnation as our new Doctors do now Ergo it was lawfull because not prohibited Secondly that as none of the people were then inhibited to resist so not dehorted from it therefore they might freely have done it had they had hearts and zeal to do it Thirdly Iosephus resolves expresly That by the very Law of God Deuter. 17. If the King did contrary to that Law multiply silver gold and horses to himself more then was fitting the-Israelites might lawfully resist him and were bound to do it to preserve themselves from Tyrannie Therefore no doubt they might have lawfully resisted their Kings Idolatry cruelty oppressions Fourthly Hulderichus Zuinglius a famous Protestant Divine with others positively affirms That the Israelites might not onely lawfully resist but likewise deposeâ— heâ—r Kings for their wickednesses and Idolatries yea That all the people were justly punished by God because they removed not their flagitious idolatrous Kings and Princes out of their places which he proves by Ierem 15. where after the four Plagues there recited the Prophet subjoynes the cause of them saying Verse 4. I will give them in fury to all the Kingdoms of the Earth that is I will stirre up in fury all the kings of the earth against them because of Manasseh the son of Hezekiah king of Iudah for that which he did in Ierusalem This Manasseh had committed many wickednesses by Idolatrie and the stedding of innocent blood as we may see in the one and twentieth Chapter of the second of the Kings for which evills the Lord grievously punished the people of Israel Manasseh shed overmuch innocent blood untill he had filled Ierusalem even to the mouth with his sins wherewith he made Iudah to sinne that it might do evill before the Lord Therefore because Manasseh King of Iudah did these most vile abominations above all that the Amorites had done before him and made the Land of Iudah to sin in his undeanesse therefore thus saith the Lord God of Israel Behold I will bring evill upon Ierusalem and Iudah that whosever shall hear both his ears shall tingle c. In summe if the Iews had not thus permitted their King to be wicked WITHOVT PVNISMENT they had not been so grievâ—â—nsly punished by God We ought to pull and crost away even our eye that offends so a hand and foot c. If the Israelites had thus DE OSED Manassch by consent and suffrages of all or the greatest part of the multitude they had not been so grievessly punished of God So Zuinglius with whom even B. Rilson himself in some sort accords who in de ending interpreting his opinion câ—ntesseth That it is a question among the Learned What Soveraignty the whole people of Israel had over their Kings confessing that the peoples resouing Ionathan that he died not when Saul would have put him to dâ—â—th Davids speech to the peoâ—le when he purposed to reduce the Arke all the Congregations speech and carriage toward Rehoboam when they came to make him King with the pâ—ople speech to Ieremy Thou shalt die the death have perswaded some and might lead Zuingliâ—s to think that the people of Israel notwithstanding they called for a King yet REâ—ERVED TO THEMSELVES SVFFICIENT AVTHORITY TO OVERRVLE THEIR KING IN THOSE THINGS WHICH SEEMED EXPEDIENT AND NEEDFVLL FOR THE PVBLIKE WLLFARE else God would not punish the people for the kings iniquity which they must suffer and not redresse Which opinion if as Orthodox as these learned Divines and Iosephus averre it not onely quite ruines our Opposites Argument but their whole Treatises and cause at once But fiftly I answer that subjects not onely by command of Gods Prophets but of God himself and by his speciall approbation have taken up Arms against their Idolatrous Princes to ruine them and their Posterities A truth so apparent in Scripture that I wonder our purblinde Doctors discern it not For did not God himself notwithstanding his frequent conditionall Promises to establish the Kingdom of Israel on David Solomon and their Posterity for Solomons grosse Idolatry occasioned by his Wives tell Solomon in expresse terms VVherefore for as much as this is done of thee and thou hast not kept my Covenant and my Statutes which I have commanded thee I will surely REND THE KINGDOM FROM THEE and will give it to thy servant Notwithstanding in thy dayes I will not do it for David thy fathers sake but I will rend it out of the hand of thy son Did not the Prophet Abijah in pursuance hereof rending Ierohoams garment into twelve pieces tell him Thus saith the Lord the God of Israel behold I will rend the Kingdom out of the hand of Solomon and will give ten tribes to thee And I will take the Kingdom out of his sons hand and will give it unto thee even ten Tribes and I will take thee and thou shalt reign according to all that thy soul desireth and shalt be King over Israel and I will for this afflict the Seed of David y Yea
no private persons will abuse to iustifie any disloyalty sedition Treason Rebellion or taking up of Arms against their lawfull Princes though never so evill without the publike consent and authority of the representative bodies or major part of their severall Realms by assed with no sinister nor private respects but ayming onely at Gods glory and the publike weale security peace of Church and State Thus much in answer to the principall Objections out of the Old Testament The ninth and most materiall Objection on which our Opposites principally relie is that noted Text in the new Testament Rom. 13. 1 2. Let every soul be subject unto the higher Powers for there is no Power but of God the Powers that be are Ordained of God Whosoever therefore resisteth the Power resisteth the Ordinance of God and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation From whence Dr. Fern concludes 1. That the King is the Supreme or Highest Power here intended 2. That all persons under the Highest Power are expressely forbidden to resist 3. That in those dayes there was astanding and continuall great Senate which not long before had the Supreme Power in the Roman State and might challenge more by the fundamentalls of that State then our Great Councell will or can But now the Emperour being supreme as S. Peter calls him or the Higher Power as S. Paul here there is no power of resistance left to any that are under him by the Apostle 4 Was there ever more cause of resistance then in those dayes Were not the Kings then not onely conceived to be inclined so and so but even actually to be enemies of Religion had overthrown Laws and Liberties And therefore if any should from the Apostles reasons that he gives against resistance in the 3 4 5 Verses for Rulers are not a terror to good works but evill and he is the Minister of God to thee for good replie That Rulers so long as they are not a terror to the good but ministers for our good are not to be resisted the consideration of those times leaves no place for such exception because the Powers then which the Apostle forbids to resist were nothing so but subverters of that which was good and just The Emperors did then indeed rule absâ—lâ—tely â—d arburarily which should have according to the Principles of those dayes beene astroâ—ger motive to resist But how did they make themselves of Subjects such absolute Monarchs was it not by force and change of the Government and was not the right of the People and Senate according to the Principles of these dayes good against them with as much or more reason then the right of the people of this Land is against the Succession of this Crown desâ—nding by three Conquests 5. The prohibition doth not onely concern Christians but all the people under those Emperors and not onely Religion was persecuted but Liberties also lost the people and Senate were then enslaved by Edicts and Laws then inforced on them by Nero and other Roman Emperours yet notwithstanding the Apostle prohibits them to resist By all which conscience will clearly see it can have no warrant in Scripture for resistance to wit of the King or his invading Forces by way of necessary defence So the Doctors and other Objectors hence conclude To give a satisfactory Answer to this grand Objection I shall in the first place inquire Whether there be any thing in this Text prohibiting subjects to resist with Force the armed unjust violence of their Princes persons or instruments especially when they are bent to overthrow Religion Laws Liberties the Republike and turn professed Tyrants And under correction I conceive there is not the least syllable or shadow in this Text for any such inhibition as is pretended Not to insist upon the words higher Powers odained of God c. which extend not unto Tyrannie and illegall exorbitant oppressions of which hereafter I shall deducemy first Demonstrations to prove this negative Assertion from the occasion inducing the Apostle to insert these objected Verses into this Epistle Dr Willet recites 7. Reasons of it all fortifying my assertion I shall mention onely the three most probable most received of them and apply them as I go First the Roman Magistrates being then infidels the new converted Christians among them either did or might take themselves to be wholly exempted from any subjection or obedience to them reputing it a great incongruity that Christians should owe any subjection to Pagans To refute which error the Apostle informs them that though the Magistrates themselves were Ethnicks yet their Authority and Power was from God himselfe therefore their profession of Christianitie did rather oblige them to then exempt them from subjection Thus Haymo Soto Calvin Guather Marlorat Willet Pareus with others on this Text. Turn this Reason then into an Argument and it will be but this Non sequitur Christianity exempts not subjects from due obedience to iust Pagan Magistrates Ergo Tyrants may not be resisted neither ought the Parliament and their Forces to resist the King Cavallcers unjust assaults as the case is formerly stated Pretty Logick and Divinity 2. The Gaulonites as Iosephus records with other lews being Abrahams seed held it unlawfull for them to yeeld any subjection or tribute to the Roman Emperors or other Heathen Princes reigning over them whereupon they demanded this question of Christ himself It is lawfull to pay tribute to Caesar Matth. 12. which error perehance spread it self into the Christian Church by reason of Evangelicall Libertie grounded on Ioh. 8. If the Son shall make you free then are ye free indeed Mat. 17. Then are the Children free and Ro. 6. We are not under the Law but under Grace â—o refell this mistake the Apostle inserted these passages into this Epistle Thus Soto Calvin Peter Martyr Willet and others Whence nothing but this can be properly concluded Neither the Prerogâ—tive of the â—ews not Liberty of Christians exempts them from due subjection to lâ—wfull hea he â— Magistrates because they are Gods Ordinance Ergo No Subjects can with safe conscience defend themselves in any case against the unjust invasions of Tytannicall Princes or their Armies A palpable Inconsequent Thirdly the Apostle having formerly tâ—ught that Christians might not avenge themselves lest some might have inserred thereupon as many Anabaptists have done that it was not lawfull for Christians to use the Magistrates defence against wrongs nor for the Magistrate himself to take vengeance of evill doers To prevent this the Apostle argues That the Magistrates are Gods Ministers appointed by him to punish Malefactors and take vengeance on them So Gualther Willet and others To conclude from this ground Oppressed Subjects may seek redresse of their grievances from the Magistrates who may lawfully punish Malefactors Ergo they may not resist with force Tyrannicall bloody Magistrates or their wicked Instruments when they actually make war upon them to ruine spoyl
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
high ruleth in the kingdome of men and giveth it to whomsoever he will and setteth up over it the basest of men with Hos 13. 11. 1 Sam. 10. 1. Jer. 27. 5 6 7. Isay 45. 1 2. and other Texts To answer this question distinctly and dissipate these grosse erroneous Paradoxes we must distinguish First betweene Government it selfe in generall and kingly or other kindes of government in speciall as our opposites distinguish betweene a Sabbath and the Sabbath the first they say is morall and of divine institution the later not Secondly betweene the Regall power of Kings the persons invested with this power the manner of obtaining and the administration of their power Thirdly of Gods manner of instituting and ordaining things which is twofold immediately by himselfe mediately by others And these institutions of both kinds are either universall extending to all places Nations or particular concerning some Countries and Nations onely and not others Perpetuall for ever or temporall onely for some set time Immutable not capable of the least alteration or mutable and that either at the pleasure of God onely or at the will of men when they shall see just cause either in part or in whole Fourthly in what severall senses things may be said to be of God First in respect of his owne immediate institution Secondly of his generall or speciall commands Thirdly of his generall or speciall disposing providence without any speciall institution or command Fourthly of his approbation of assent unto and blessing on the meere institutions of men Fiftly of his permission onely To apply these distinctions to the present occasion First it is cleare that power and government in generall are Gods owne institution who as he hath appointed in the great fabricke of the world a certaine constant forme of government and subordination of one creature to another so he hath for the good of mankinde appointed that there should be some forme of government or other among men in the world which in respect of families hee hath specially and universally decreed as that the wife should be subject to the husband the children to the parents the servants to their masters but in regard of Commonweales or Nations hee hath left it arbitrary and indefinite leaving every Nation and Country free liberty to elect such a publike politike forme of government as themselves should judge most expedient for their publike good and that mutable since all humane things are so as they should see just occasion not prescribing any sempiternall immutable forme of government to any particular Nations Regions much lesse to all the world Secondly government in generall being thus of God but the kindes of it thus left arbitrary to mens institution and free election the particular governments instituted by any Nation for the better regulating of their lives the preservation of humane society and advancement of Gods glory may be truely said in some sense to be of God though instituted invented by men Not because God himselfe did immediately ordain or prescribe them by speciall command to all or any one people or because God himself did immediately ordaine or prescribe them by speciall command to this all or any one people but because hee by his generall or speciall providence did direct this Nation to make choyse of such a government or gave them wisedome to invent and settle it as most commodious for their republike till they should see cause to alter it or because he blessed and approved it when invented and received by them Thirdly Kingly powers Kingdomes Kings the things now in question are and may be said to be of God and ordained of God in no other manner or sense then all other particular Governments or Magistrates are For this Text of the Romans speaking onely of the higher powers the powers that are and of Rulers as doth that place of Titus 3. 1. And the Text of Prov. 8. 15 16. so much relied on by the objectors extending as well to all subordinate Rulers as Kings witnesse the subsequent words By me Kings reigne and Princes decree justice by me Princes rule AND NOBLES yea ALL THE JUDGES OF THE EARTH that is all Magistrates whatsoever it cannot but be yeelded that all and every lawfull kinde of government all lawfull Rulers and Magistrates of what fort soever are of Gods ordination and his ordinance as farre forth as Monarchies are and what is truely affirmable of the one is of the other too These generalls thus premised as indubitable I say first of all That Monarchy or regall power is not of God nor yet Gods ordinance by way of immediate divine institution or speciall command from Gods owne free motion as our opposites affirme it For first God himself never immediately instituted a royall Monarchicall government in any Nation whatsoever no not among his owne people whose government was at first Paternall and Patriarchicall next Aristocraticall then Regall not by Gods immediate institution and voluntary designation but by the peoples earnest importunity contrary to the good liking of God and Samuel as is evident by 1 Sam. c. 8 and 9 and 10 and 11. Hos 8. 4. and the Appendix Secondly All Politicians and Historians grant that the originall crection of all Monarechies was either by the peoples free consent and ordination or by Tyranny and usurpation or be conqest none by divine institution or speciall command from God And it must needs be so because most kingdomes were primitively erected either among Pagan Nations and States who knew not God nor his Word or among Christian States since speciall commands and Revelations from heaven ceased which if our opposites deny I shall desire them to instance in any one Monarchy in the world instituted immediately by God himselfe or by speciall command from his owne free motion Till this be done all their asseverations will be accounted fabulous Thirdly if Regall power be Gods ordinance by way of divine immediate institution and command then this institution of Regall Monarchy with the severall Prerogatives and boundaries of it would appeare in some Text of Scripture and this government would be specially and perpetually prescribed either to all or some particular Nations by God himselfe But this institution with the generall Prerogatives and bounds of Regall Authority are no where extant in Scripture neither this forme of government therein prescribed but left arbitrary to all or any Nation in particular for ought any man can demonstrate Those Texts which concerne the Kings of the Israelites in point of soveraignty and Prerogative being judiciall onely and peculiar to that Nation nor morall or extending unto others Therefore it is not Gods ordinance by way of divine immediate institution or command Fourthly if it were of divine ordination in this sense then the Regall power and authority of all Kings and Monarchs in the world should bee equall yea the very same and there should be no different kinde of Kings as the divine authority of
some to be Apostles some Prophets some Evangelists c. So that by their determination Ministers are more Gods Ordinance and more jure Divino then Kings yea but few years since they all professed themselves to be as much if not more Gods anointed then Kings and some of our Archest Prelates made publike challenges in the open Court That if they could not prove their Lordly Episcopacy to be Iure Divino they would presently burn their Rochets and lay down their Bishopricks though they never made good their promises to doubt whether the Pope and his supreme Authoritie be iure Divino by Christs own immediate institution deserves a fagot in the Roman Church Yet notwithstanding all this Divine Right and institution our Opposites will grant That if Popes Archbishops Bishops Priests Ministers preach false Hereticall doctrines oppresse wound slay rob plunder the people committed by God to their cares or attempt with force to subvert Religion Laws Liberties or commit any capitall offences they may not onely with safe conscience be resisted repulsed by their people but likewise apprehended arraigned deprived condemned executed by Lay Iudges as infinite examples in our Histories manifest and the example of Abiathar the High Priest 1 Kings 2. 26 27 And if so then why not Kings as well as they or other temporall Magistrates notwithstanding any of the obiected Texts Either therefore our Opposites must grant all Bishops Priests Ministers yea all other Magistrates whatsoever as irresistable uncensurable undeprivable uncondemnable for any crimes whatsoever as they say kings are which they dare not do or else make Kings as resistable censurable deprivable and lyable to all kindes of punishments by their whole Kingdoms consent in Parliament as far forth as they notwithstanding all the former Objections which quite subverts their cause Thirdly Kings and Kingdoms are not so Gods Ordinance as that they should be universall over all the world and no other Government admitted or so as any one Nation whatsoever should be eternally tyed to a Monarchiall Government without any power to alter it into an Aristocracy or other form upon any occasion or so as unalterably to continue the Soveraign power in one family alone as not to be able to transfer it to another when the whole State shall see just cause Hereditary Kingdoms being but Offices of publike trust for the peoples good and safety as well as elective most of them were elective at first and made hereditary onely either by violent usurpation or the peoples voluntary assents and institution and not by any immediate divine Authority and so alterable by their joynt assents as Zuinglius Buchanon Mariana observe and the Histories of most Kingdoms the experience of all ages evidence Which truths being generally confessed by all Polititians Historians Statists by many judicious Divines contradicted by no one text of Scripture that I have met with which our Opposites have objected hitherto they will finde all Monarchies upon the matter to be meer humane Institutions alterable still by that humane Power which did at first erect them and subordinate still thereto as the Creature to its Creator and to be Gods Ordinance onely in regard of speciall providence and the like as other inferiour Magistrates Rulers are who may be justly resisted altered removed censured notwithstanding the objected Text. From which whiles some men earnestly presse that every soul by Gods own Ordinance ought to be subject to some publike civill power which others safely deny fince the Patriarks the first families of most Nations and Countries were not so and all Nations all people before setled publike governments were erected which in many places are not very ancient since those whose Parents are dead and are not by them subjected to a Government are naturally free and none bound to part with their freedom to any other unlesse they see a necessitie a great advantage and that upon such terms and conditions as they deem meet they involve even Kings and Emperours themselves by Gods own Ordinance in a subiection to a superiour earthly civill power to wit to their Laws Parliaments Kingdoms which I have proved Paramount them collectively considered according to the common proverbe Omne sub Regno graviore Regnum est and that of Solomon concerning oppressing Kings and Judges He that is higher then the Highest considers and there be higher then they And so make kings not onely resistble by their whole Kingdoms the supreme Soveraign power but likewise subiect to their Realms superiour commands and uncapable to resist their lawfull power and Forces even in point of Conscience by vertue of this very Text. And so much for the fourth Question For the fifth and last What kinde of resistance of the Higher powers is here prohibited I answer briefly That resistance is here forbidden which is contrary to subiection or obedience as the words Let every soul be subject to the higher Powers coupled with the ensuing reason Whosoever therefore resisteth that is disobeyeth or is not subiect to the Power resisteth the Ordinance of God and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation In the Greek there are two distinct words used 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Latine English French Dutch use them both as one without distinction The first word signifies properly disordered counter-ordered or ordered against as Paraeus Willet and others observe and it is thus used by the Apostle 2 Thess 3. 6 7 11 or disobedient 1 Tim. 1. 9. The later word signifieth properly to resist withstand or oppose in which sence it is used Matth. 5. 39. Luke 21. 1 5. Act. 6. 10. Rom. 9. 19. Gal. 2. 11. 2 Tim. 3. 1. Hebr. 12. 4. Iam. 4. 7. chap. 5. 6. 1 Pet. 5. 9. and applied indifferently both to a spirituall corporall and verball resistance of the Holy Ghost the Devill or men Since then the Apostle in this Text useth the Hebrew phrase Soul not Man Let every Soul be subject to the Higher Powers because as Haymo Tollet Willet Soto and most other Interpreters observe we ought willingly and cheerfully to submit to the higher Powers not only with our bodies but soules and spirits too I may hence cleerly inferre that the resistance of the higher Power hee prohibited as contrary to this subjection is not only that which is corporall and violent by force of armes as the Objectors glosse it but that likewise which is verball mentall spirituall in the soule it selfe without the body and no more then a meer passive resistance or not obeying For not to doe what the higher Powers enjoyn is in verity actually to resist to withstand them as not to doe the will not to yeeld obedience to the motions dictates of the Holy Ghost or devill is really to resist them even in Scripture phrase Yea corporall resistance or opposition by way of force is only an higher degree of resistance but not the onely or proper resistance here prohibited which
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
Pauls Peters objected inhibitions then à fortiori they may be with corporall which are lesse noxious and prevalent he that may with most successeful meanes resist vanquish and overcome his tyrannizing oppressing Soveraigne may likewise doe it by the lesse noxious Armes If Christians may repulse and subdue a Tyrant with their Prayers Teares then why not with their Swords Doth God or the Scripture make any such distinction that we may and must resist them under paine of damnation with these kind of weapons and shall it be no lesse then Treason Rebellion Damnation to resist them with the other what difference is there in point of Allegiance Loyalty Treason Conscience to resist an oppressing tyrannizing Prince and his Forces with a Praier or with a Sword with a Teare or with a Speare Are they not all one in substance By the Statutes of 26 H. 8. c. 13. 1 E. 6. c. 14. 5 E. 6. c. 11. 1 Eliz. c. 6. 13 Eliz. c. 1. words against the King delivered even in Preaching are made and declared to be high Treason as wel as bearing Armes and striking blowes yea the Statute of 1 2 Ph. Ma. c. 9. makes certaine prayers against this persecuting Queen high Treason and by the Statute of 25 E. 3. c. 2. it is high Treason for any man to COMPASSE OR IMAGIN the death of the King Queen Prince as wel as to slay or leavy warre against them If then we may by the Objectors confession the practises and examples of the Primitive Christians against Iulian and others fight with our Tongues Prayers Teares Imaginations against our Soveraignes who turne Tyrants and Persecutors and thereby suppresse conquer confound them of which none make scruple though our Statutes make it no lesse then high Treason in some cases then questionlesse they may by the selfe same reason and ground resist them with open force notwithstanding any inhibition in Scripture We may not must not resist any lawful King or Magistrate in the just execution of his office so much as with a repugnant wil thought prayer teare we may yea must resist an oppressing persecuting Tyrant with all these therefore with any other Armes meanes Hezekiah David Moses Abijah Asa resisted their invading enemies and conquered them with their prayers but yet they provided to repulse and vanquish them with other externall Armes The Christians resistance and vanquishing their Emperour Iulian with the one is an infallible argument they might doe it with the other too there being no such distinction in the objected Scriptures that we may fight against and resist them with our prayers teares not armes Fourthly this Father saith not that it was unlawful for the Christians to use any other weapons but teares against Iulian the onely thing in question No such syllable in the Oration but onely that they had no other Armes to resist and conquer him with being utterly destitute and spoyled of all other humane helpe Therefore their want of other Armes and helpe not the unlawfulnesse of using them had they had them was the onely ground they used prayers and teares not armes To argue then those who are destitute of all Armes but prayers and teares must use them onely Ergo those who have other Armes besides prayers and teares may not lawfully use them to resist a Tyrant is but Scholastical Nonsence yet this is the very uttermost this authority yeelds our opposites In one word this Father informes us that this Apostate Emperour Iulian would not make open warre at first upon the Christians because this would altogether crosse the end he aimed at marke the reason Nos enim si vis inferatur acriores obstinatioresque futuros ac tyrannidi obnixum pietatis TUENDAE STUDIUM OBJECTUROS cogitavit Solent enim fortes generosi animi ei QUI VIM AFFERRE PARAT CONTUMACITER OBSISTERE non secus ac flamma quae a vento excitatur quo vehementius perflatur eo vehementius accenditur Which argues that the Christians would have forcibly resisted him had he at first with force invaded them therefore he weakened subdued disarmed them first by policy and then fell to persecute them with force when they had no meanes of resistance left The third authority is that of Bernard Epist 221. to King Lewis of France Quicquid vobis de Regno vestro de animâ coronâ vestrâ facere placeat NOS ECCLESIAE FILII matris injurias contemptum conculcationem omnino dissimulare non possumus Profecto STABIMUSET PUGNABIMVS USQUE AD MORTEM si ita oportuerit pro matre nostrâ ARMIS QUIBUS LICET non scutis gladiis SED PRECIBUS ET FLETIBUS AD DEUM Therefore it is unlawfull for Christians to resist with force of Armes I answer first Bernard was both a Monke and Clergie-man prohibited by Scripture and sundry Canons to fight with military Armes against any person or enemy whatsoever and he utters these words of himselfe as he was a Clergie-man servant and sonne of the Church in the selfesame sence as Saint Ambrose did before It was then onely his Calling not the cause which prohibited him forcibly to resist King Lewis Secondly I answer that this authority is so farre from prohibiting resistance of oppressing Princes endeavouring with force of Armes to subvert Liberties Lawes Religion that it is an unanswerable proofe for it even in our present case King Lewis to whom Bernard writes had then raised a civil warre in his Realme against Theobald and others who desired peace which the King rejecting Bernard doth thus reprehend him in the premisses Verum vos nec verba pacis recipitis nec pacta vestra tenetis nec sanis consiliis acquicscitis Sed nescio quo Dei judicio omnia vobis ita vertitis in perversum ut probra honorem honorem probra ducatis tuta timeatis timexda contemnatis quod olim sancto glorioso Regi David Ioab legitur exprobrasse diligitis eos qui vos oderunt odio habetis qui vos diligere volunt Neque enim qui vos instigant priorem iterare maliciam adversus non merentem quaerunt in hoc honorem vestrum sed suum commodum imò nec suum commodum SED DIABOLI VOLUNTATEM ut Regis quod absit potentiam concepti furoris habeant effectricem quem suis se posse adimplere viribus non confidunt INIMICI CORONAE VESTRAE REGNI MANIFESTISSIMI PERTURBATORES Our present case in regard of the Kings evil seduding Counsellors Then immediately followes the objected clause At quicquid vobis c. After which he gives him this sharpe reproofe Non tacebo quod cum excommunicatis iterare faedus societatem nunc satagis quod in necem hominum combustionem domorum destructionem Ecclesiarum dispersionem pauperum raptoribus predonibus sicut dicitur adhaeretis juxta illud Prophetae si videbas furem currebas cum eo c. quasi non satis per
would favour and bring to a good end SO HOLY AND NECESSARY AN ENTERPRIZE This their defensive Warre yet continuing hath been justified by many and in speciall maintained to be just and honorable BOTH IN LAW AND CONSCIENCE in a particular Book De jure Belli Belgici printed at the Hague with the States approbation 1599. to which I shall referre you Fifthly which comes neerest to our present case of any story I have met with Alphonso the 3. king of Arragon in the year 1286. through the ill advise of some bad Counsellors and Courtiers about him departed in discontent from the Parliament of the Estates of Arragon then assembled at Saragossa and posted to Osca because the Parliaments took upon them to make Lawes to reforme and order his Court his Courtiers which he denyed but they affirmed they had just right and power to doe Hereupon the businesse being put unto greater difficulty the Estates affirmed A Comitiis intempestive discedere Regi NEFAS ESSE That IT WAS A WICKED ACT FOR THE KING THVS VNSEASONABLY TO DEPART FROM THE PARLIAMENT NEITHER WAS SO GREAT A BREACH OF THEIR PRIVILEDGES AND RIGHTS TO BE PATIENTLY ENDVRED Whereupon they presently raised up the Name and FORCES OF THE VNION or Association formerly made and entred into between the Nobility Cities and people mutually to aid and assist one another to preserve the Peace and Liberties of the Realm even with force of Armes IT BEING LAWFVLL for the common cause of Liberty Non Verbis solum SED ARMIS QVOQVE CONTENDERE not onely TO CONTEND with words BVT ALSO WITH ARMES Vpon this king Alphonso desirous to prevent the mischiefs them present and incumbent by advise of his Privy Counsell published certaine good Edicts at Osca for regulating his Court Counsell Iudges Officers by which he thought to have ended all this Controversie but because they were promulged onely by the Kings own Edict not by the whole Parliament as binding Lawes they still proceeded in the Vnion till at last after various events of things this King returning to the Generall Assembly and Parliament of the Estates at Saragossa in the year 1287 condessended to their desires and confirmed the two memorable priviledges of the Vnion with the Soveraign power of the Iustice of Aragon which could controll their very Kings Of which see more in the Appendix I shall close up this of the lawfulnesse of a necessary defensive warre with the speech of the Emperour Alexander Seuerus recorded by Herodian l. 5. He who first infers injuries hath no probable colour but he that repulseth those who are troublesome to him EX BONA CONSCENTIA sumit fiduciam assumes confidence FROM A GOOD CONSCIENCE and good hope of successe is present with him from hence that he offers not injury but removes it Thus have I now at last waded thorow this weighty controversie of the lawfulnesse both in point of Law and Conscience of the Parliaments present and all other subjects necessary Defensive Warres against their Soveraigns who invade their lawes liberties Religion Government to subvert them by open force of Armes in which I have freely and impartially discharged my conscience not out of any turbulent seditious or disloyall intention to forment or perpetuate the present or raise any future destructive unnaturall warres between king Parliament and People or to countenance to encourage any tumultuous rebellious factious ambitious traiterous spirits to mutiny or rebell against their Soveraigns for private injuries or upon any false unwarrantable ends or pretences whatsoever let Gods curse and mens for ever rest upon all those who are in love with any warre especially a Civill within their own dearest Countries bowels or dare abuse my loyall sincere Lucubrations to any disloyall sinister designes to the prejudice of their Soveraignes or the States wherein they live but only out of a cordiall desire to effect such a speedy honourable safe religious semplternall peace between king and Parliament as all true Christian English hearts both cordially pray long for and endeavour by informing his seduced Majesty his evill Counsellors his Popish Malignant Forces that if they will still proceed unnaturally and treacherously to make war against their Native Countrey Religion Lawes Liberties and the Parliament which to doe I have elsewhere manifested to be no lesse then high Treason Rebellion against both King and Kingdome they may in point of conscience and Law too be justly opposed resisted repulsed even by force of Armes without any guilt of Treason Rebellion or feare of temporall or eternall condemnation as publike Enemies Rebels Traytors to the Realm whatevever they have hitherto been informed of to the contrary by temporizing Lawyers or flattering illiterate Court Divines and by assuring all such noble generous publike spirits who shall willingly adventure their lives or fortunes by the Parliaments command in the present necessary defensive warre for the ends premised that for this good service they shall neither in the Courts of Law nor Conscience incurre the least stain or guilt of Treason Rebellion sedition or any such like odious crime much lesse eternall condemnation the panick feare whereof frequently denounced against them by many sottish Malignants Royalists ill-instructed Lawyers and Theologasters hath frighted kept back and withdrawn multitudes from yea cooled corrupted many in this honourable publike duty service which they now owe of Right to God and their Countrey in which to be treacherous perfidious sloathfull negligent cold uncordiall or timerous as too many hitherto have been to the greater honour of those who haue been faithfull actiue Valiant and sincere especially now after so many late horrid treacheries most happily discouered and a new Couenant solemnly entred into demerits a perpetuall brand of infamy and reproach To dye fighting for ones dearest bleeding dying Countrey hath in all ages been honoured with a Crown of Martyrdome to liue or dye fighting against it hath ever deserved the most capitall censures ignominies and heaviest execrations Let both sides therefore now seriously ponder and lay all the premises close to their soules consciences and then I doubt not through Gods blessing but a happy peace will speedily thereon ensue Nation shall not lift up sword against Nation Countrey against Countrey Englishman against Englishman Brother against brother any more as now they doe neither shall they learn such an unnaturaall cursed kind of Civill Warre any more but beat their swords into Plow-shares and their speares into pruning hooks and greet one another with a kisse of holy peace and charity Which desired end and issue of these present bloudy warres God in his mercy hasten and accomplish to the joy of all our Soules I should now according to former engagements proceed to other remaining particulars but because this part hath already farre exceeded its intended bounds out of a desire to give full satisfaction in a point of highest present and future concernment every way I shall reserve the residue with the Appendix for another
the Romans and Italians being forsaken of the Emperour Constantine when they were invaded by Aistulfus King of the Lumbards Elected Charles the Great for their Emperour and created a new Empire in the West distinct from that of Constantinople in the East which Bishop Bilson himselfe concludes they might lawfully doe in point of conscience So Childerick being unfit to governe and unable to repulse the enemies of the French which invaded his territories thereupon by the advise of Pope Zachary and of a whole Synod and Parliament in France they deposed Childericke and elected Pipin for their King who was both able and willing to protect them Vpon this very ground the Emperours Charles the third and Wenceslius were deposed as being unable and unfit to defend and governe the Empire and others elected Emperors in their steeds Thus Mahomet the blinde King of Granado was in the yeare 1309. deposed by his owne Brother Nobles and Subjects who were discontented to be governed by a blinde King who could not lead them to the warres in person And Ethodius the 2 d king of Scotland being dull of wit given to avarice and nothing meete to governe the Realme thereupon the Nobles tooke upon them the governmeÌ„t appointing Rulers in every Province so continued them all his reigne leaving him nothing but the bare title of a King not depriving him thereof out of the respect they gave to the family of Fergusius but yet taking away all his regall power And not to multiply cases or examples of this nature Andrew Favine in his Theatre of Honour out of the Chronicle of Lauresheâ—m and Aimonius in his 4 th Booke of the History of France relates a notable resolution given by the Parliament Estates of France in this very point In the yeare 803. Lewes the Debonnaire king of France holding his Parliament in May there came thither from strange Provinces two Brethren kings of Vuilses who with frank free good will submitted themselves to the judgement of the said Parliament to which of them the kingdome should belong The elder of these two brethren was named Meligastus and the younger Celeadraus Now albeit the custome of the said kingdome adjudged the Crowne to the eldest according to the right of Primegeniture allowed and practised by the Law of Nature and of later memory in the person of the last dead King Liubus father to the two contendants yet notwithstanding in regard that the Subjects by universall consent of the kingdome had rejected the elder brother FOR HIS COWARDISE AND EVILL GOVERNMENT cum secundam ritum ejus gentis commissum sibi Regnum parum digne administraret and had given the Crown to the younger brother FOR HIS VALOVR DISCREETE CARRIGE after full hearing of both parties BY SENTENCE of PARLIAMENT the Kingdome was adjudged to the younger Brother statâ—it ut junior frater delatam sibi à Populo suo pot flatem haberet c and thereupon the eldest did him homage with oath of Alleigance in the said Parliament and submitted to this sentence And upon this very ground in some of our ancient British and Saxons Kings Reignes when the right heire to the Crowne was an infant unable to defend his kingdome and people against invading enemies the Crowne hath commonly descended to the Vncle or next heire of full age who was able to protect them and repulse their enemies till the right heire accomplished his compleat age as I have elsewhere manifested If then a Kingdome by generall consent may elect a new King to defend and preserve it in case of invasion and eminent danger of ruine by forraigne enemies when their present King either cannot or will not doe his duty in protecting them from their enemies and exposeth them for a prey to their devastations as these examples and authorities conclude they may though I will not positively determine so Then certainely by equall semblable and greater reason subjects may lawfully take up necessary defensive Armes against their Kings when they shall not onely desert but actually invade and wage warre against them destroy and wast them in an open Hostile manner and handle them as cruelly as the worst of enemies such a wilfull unnaturall Hostile invasion being farre worse than any cowardly or bare desertion of theÌ„ when they are invaded by a forraign enemy And if Kings in case of sottishnesse or Lunacy may be lawfully deposed from their kingdomes by common consent of their Realmes when they are altogether unfit or unable to governe as Bâ—shop Bilson asserts and I have manifested else where then much more may they be lawfully resisted by force without guilt of Treason or Rebellion when they wilfully and maliciously contrary to their oath and duty cast off their Royall governments the protection of their subjects and wage open warre against them to enslave or ruine them If a Father shall violently and unjustly assault his sonne a husband his wife a master his servant a Major or other inferior Officer a Citizen to murther maime or ruine them They may in such a case by the Law of Nature God man resist repulse them in their owne defence without any crime at all as dayly practise experimentally manifests yea they may sweare the peace against them and have a Writ de securitate Pacis in such cases Therefore by the selfesame reason they may resist the King and his Army in like cases there being no more humane nor divine Law against resistance in the one case than in the other Finally it is the resolution of John Bodin and others who deny the lawfulnesse of Subjects taking up Armes against their Soveraigne Prince or offering violence to his person though he become a Tyrant That if a Soveraigne Prince or King by lawfull election or succession turne a Tyrant he may lawfully at his Subjects request be invaded resisted condemned or slaine by a forraigne Prince For as of all Noble acts none is more honourable or glorious then by way of fact to defend the honour goods and lâ—ves of such as are unjustly oppressed by the power of the more mighty especially the gate of Iustice being shut against them thus did Moses seeing his brother the Israelite beaten and wronged by the Egyptian and no meanes to have redresse of his wrongs So it is a most faire and magnificall thing for a Prince to take up Armes to releive a whole Nation and people unjustly oppressed by the cruelty of a Tyrant as did the great Hercu'es who travelling over a great part of the world with wonderfull power and valour destroyed many most horrible monsters that is to say Tyrants and so delivered people for which he was numbred among the gods his posterity for many worlds of yeares after holding most great Kingdomes And other imitators of his vertue as Dio Timoilion Aratus Harmodius Aristogiton with other such honourable Princes bearing Titles of chastisers and correctors of Tyrants And for that onely cause
Tamerlain Emperour of the Tartars denounced warre unto Bajazet King of the Turkes who then besieged Constantinople saying That he was comming to chastise his Tyrannie and to deliver the afflicted people and vanquishing him in battle routed his Army and taking the Tyrant prisoner he kept him in chains in an Iron Cage till he dyed Neither in this case is it materiall that such a vertuous Prince being a stranger proceede against a Tyrant by open force or fiercenesse or else by way of justice True it is that a valient and worthy Prince having the Tyrant in his power shall gaine more honour by bringing him unto his tryall to chastise him as a murtherer a manqueller and a robber rather than to use the Law of Armes against him Wherefore let us resolve on this that it is lawfull for any stranger Prince to kill a Tyrant that is to say a man of all men infamed and notorious for the oppression murder and slaughter of his subjects and people And in this sort our Queene Elizabeth ayded the Low-Countries against the Tyrannie and oppressions of the King of Spaine and the King of Sweden of late yeares the Princes of Germany against the Tyranny and usurpations of the Emperor upon their sollicitation If then it be thus lawfull for Subjects to call in forraigne Princes to releeve them against the Tyrannie and oppressions of their kings as the Barons in King Iohns time prayed in ayde from Philip and Lewis of France against his tyrannie and those Princes in such cases may justly kill depose or judicially condemne these oppressing Kings and put them to death I conceive these whole kingdomes and Parliaments may with farre better reason lesse danger and greater safety to themselvs their Kings and Realmes take up defensive Armes of their owne to repulse their violence For if they may lawfully helpe themselves and vindicate their Liberties from their Kings encroachments by the assistance and Armes of forraigne Princes who have no relation to them nor particular interest in the differences betweene their kings and them which can hardly be effected without subjecting themselves to a forraigne power the death or deposition of the oppressing King much more may they defend and releeve themselves against him by their owne domesticke Forces if they be able by generall consent of the Realme because they have a particular interest and ingagement to defend their owne persons estates liberties which forraigners want and by such domesticke Forces may prevent a forraigne subjection preserve the life of the oppressing Prince and succession of the Crowne in the hereditary line which forraigne Armies most commonly endanger And certainely it is all one in point of Reason State Law Conscience for Subjects to relieve themselves and make a defensive warre against their Soveraigne by forraigne Princes Armes as by their owne and if the first be just and lawfull as all men generally grant without contradiction and Bracton to l. 2. c. 16. I see no colour but the latter must bee just and lawfull too yea then the first rather because lesse dangerous lesse inconvenient to King and Kingdome From Reasons I shall next proceed to punctuall Authorities Not to mention our ancient Brittons taking up of armes by joint consent against their oppressing tyrannizing Kings Aâ—chigallo Emerian and Vortigern whom they both expelled and deposed for their tyranny and mis-government nor our Saxons ray sing defensive Forces against King Sigebert Osfred Ethelred Beornard Coolwulfe and Edwyn who were forcibly expelled and deprived by their Subjects for their bloody cruelties and oppressions which actions the whole Kingdome then and those Historians who recorded them since reputed just and honourable and no Treason nor Rebellion in Law or Conscience being for the Kingdomes necessary preservation and the peoples just defence which Histories I have elsewhere more largely related Nor yet to insist long on the fore-mentioned Barons warre against king Iohn and Henry the 3 d. for regaining establishing preserving Magna Chaâ—ta and other Liberties of the Realme which our Kings had almost utterly deprived them off I shall onely give you some few briefe observations touching these warres to cleare them from those blacke aspersions of Rebellion Treason and the like which some late Historians especially Iohn Speed to flatter those Kings to whom they Dedicated their Histories have cast upon them contrary to the judgement of our ancienter Choniclers and Matthew Paris who generally repute them lawfull and honourable First then consider what opinion the Prelates Barons and Kingdome in generall had of these Warres at first Anno 1414. in a Parliament held at Pauls the 16. yeare of King Iohns raigne Steven Langton Archbishop of Canterbury produced a Charter of King Henry the First whereby he granted the Ancient Liberties of the Kingdome of England which had by his Predecessors beene oppressed with unjust exactions according to the Lawes of King Edward with those emendations which his Father by the counsell of his Barons did ratifie which Charter being read before the Barons they much rejoyced and swore in the presence of the Archbishop that for these Liberties they would if need required spend their blood which being openly done in Parliament they would never have taken such a publike solemne Oath had they deemed a Warre against the King for recovery or defence of these their Liberties unlawfull and no lesse then Treason and Rebellion in point of Law or Conscience After this the Barons assembling at Saint Edmondâ—bury conferred about the said Charter and swore upon the high Altar That if King Iohn refused to confirme and restore unto them those Liberties the Rights of the Kingdome they would make Warre upon him and withdraw themselves from his Allegiance untill he had ratified them all wâ—th his Charter under his great Seale And further agreed after Christmas to Petition him for the same and in the meane time to provide themselves of Horse and Furniture to be ready if the King should start from his Oath made at Winchester at the time of his absolution for confirmation of these Liberties and compell him to satisfie their demand After Christmas they repaire in a Military manner to the King lying in the new Temple urging their desires with great vehemencie the King seeing their resolution and inclination to warre made answer That for the matter they required he would take consideration till after Easter next In the meane time he tooke upon him the Crosse rather through feare then devotion supposing himselfe to bee more safe under that Protection And to shew his desperate malice and wilfulnesse who rather then not to have an absolute domination over his people to doe what he listed would be any thing himselfe under any other that would but support him in his violences he sent an Embassage the most base and impious that ever yet was sent by any free and Christian Prince unto Miramumalim the Moore intituled the great King of Affrica Morocco and Spaine wherein
Anglorum Cruce signatum ET VASALLVM ROMANAE ECCLESIAE an honourable Title indeed for a King pers quuntur molientes ei Regnum auferre which this Pope him selfe did but few yeares before giving his Crown and Kingdome it selfe to King Phillip of France which to save he sordidly resigned up to the Pope quod ad Romanam Ecclesiam dignoscitur pertinere Yet this Excommunication thus procured by bribery proceeding not out of Conscience to preserve the Kings due Rights but selfe-respects to support the Popes usurped interest and Title to the Realme and being a wicked plot of the King more wickedly executed by the Pope who as Matthew Paris writes was AD OMNIA SCELERA pro praemijs datis vel promissis cercus proclivis and the Londoners Barons with divers Prelates then contemning it as pronounced upon false suggestions and especially for this cause that the ordering of temporall affaires belonged not to the Pope Cum Petro Apostolo ejus Successoribus non nisi Ecclesiasticarum dispositio rerum a Domino sit collata potestas And using likewise these memorable Speeches in those blind daies against the Pope and his usurped Supremacy with liberty Vt quid ad nos se extendit Romanorum insatiata cupiditas Quid Episcopis Apostolicis Militiae nostrae Ecce successores Constantini non Petri non imitantur Petrum in meritis vel operibus nec assimulandi sunt in Potestate Prob pudor marcidi ribaldi qui de armis vel literalitate minime norunt jam toti mundo propter excom nunicationes suas volunt dominari ignobiles usurarij Simoniales O quantum dissimules Petro qui sibi Petri usurpant partem c. I conceive this Excommunication rather justifies then disproves the lawfulnesse of this their taking up of armes and the warre insuing it being but for their owne just defence when the King afterwards with fire sword and bloody barbarous Forraigne Forces wasted his Realme in a most inhumane tyrannicall maner Factus de Rege Tyrannus imo in bestialem prorumpens feritatem c. which necessitated the Barons for their own preservation and the Kingdoms devoted by this unnaturall Prince to Vassallage and utter desolation to elect Lewis of France for their King Who together with the Peeres and Estates of France assembled at Lions concerning this Election resolved it to be just and lawfull and the Barons Defensive Warres against and rejection of King Iohn for his Tyranny and oppressions to be just and honourable since they did but flee to these extraordinary remedies and seeke for justice abroad when they were denied it by him that should give it them in as ordinary way at home chosing a King in place of a Tyrant as Matthew Paris with the generall History of France written by Iohn de Serres and Englished by Edward Grimston more largely manifest Secondly the Lawfulnesse and justnesse of the Barons Warres in Defence of Magna Charta with other their Hereditary Rights and Liberties appeares most evidently by the resolution of all those Parliaments summoned by King Henry the 3 d. Edward the 1 0 2. 3. Richard the 2 d. and other our succeeding Kings which have many times even by force of Armes or Menaces and sometimes by faire termes caused these Kings by new Acts of Parliament to ratifie Magnae Charta the Charter of the Forest with other Fundamentall Liberties thus forcibly extorted from King Iohn at first and constrained them to confirme him with their Oathes and solemne publicke Excommunications to be published by the Bishops in their Dioâ—esse twice every yeare oft solemnly vowing and protesting both in and out of Parliament to defend these Lawes and Liberties with their estates armes lives blood which their ancasters had purchased with their blood as I have manifested in the two first parts of this Discourse All which they would no doubt have forborne had they deemed it high Treason or Rebellion in point of Law to take up armes against their Kings in defence or these Lawes and Privileges neither would our Kings and Parliaments in times of Peace have so frequently confirmed these Lawes and Immunities as just and necessary for the peoples welfare had they reputed their former purchases and confirmations by warre and armes no lesse then Treason or Rebellion And if it were neither Treason nor Rebellion in the judgements of our Ancestors and those Parliaments which procured and ratified Magna Charta to take up armes in defence thereof much lesse can it be Treason or Rebellion in the Parliament and Subjects now by Votes by Ordinances of both Houses with force of armes to preserve not only these their hereditarie Charters Lawes Priviledges but their very Lives Estates yea the Privileges and being of Parliaments themselves which are now invaded endangered What opinion the world had of the lawfulnesse of most of the Barons Warres in King Henry the 3 d. his Raigne against this troublesome persidious King in defence of their Lawes Liberties Estates appeares first by the Dialogue betweene Agnellus a Frier minorite one of King Henry his Counsell purposely sent to the Earle Marshall then in armes against the King and this Martiall Earle in the Abbey of Morgan Anno 1233. I will first relate the true state of that Warre and then their Dialogue concerning it King Henry by the ill counsell of Peter Bishop of Winchester removed all his English Officers Counsellors and Servants from his Court and put Poictovines and Forraigners in their places being ruled wholly by them withall he puts the English Garisons out of all his Castles and substitutes Forraigners in them which dayly arived both with Horse and armes in great multitudes and much oppressed the people calling them Traitors so that the power and wealth of the Realme was wholly under their Command The Earle Marshall seeing the Noble and Ignoble thus oppressed and the rights of the Kingdome like utterly to be lost provoked with a zeale of Iustice associating to himselfe other Noble men goes boldly to the King reproves him in the hearing of many For calling in those Poictovines by evill Counsell to the oppression of the Kingdome and of his naturall Subjects and likewise of Lawes and Liberties Humbly beseeching him hastily to correct these excesses which threatned the imminent subversion both of His Crowne and Kingdome which if he refused to doe he and the other Nobles of the Realme would withdraw themselves from his Counsell as long as he harboured those Strangers To which Peter of Winchester replyed That the King might lawfully call in what strangers be would for the Defence of his Kingdome and Crowne and likwise so many and such as might compell his proud and rebellious Subjects to due Obedience Whereupon the Earle Marshall and other Nobles departing discontented from the Court when they could get no other answer promised firmely one to another That for this cause which concerned them all they would manfully fight even to the separation of Soule
and Body After which they seeing more Strangers arrive with Horse and armes every day sent word to the King That hee should foorthwith remove Bishop Peter and all his Strangers from his Court which if he refused they all would BY THE COMMON CONSENT OF THE WHOLE REALM drive him with his wicked Counsellours out of the Realme and consult of chusing them a new King After these and some other like passages the King raysing an Army besiegeth one of the Earles Castles and not being able to winne it and ashamed to raise his Seige without gaining it he sent certaine Bishops to the Earle and requested him that since he had besieged his Castle and hee could not with Honour depart without winning it which he could not doe by force that the Earle to save his Honour would cause it to be surrended to him upon this condition That hee would restore it certainely to him within 15. dayes and that by advise of the Bishops he would amend all things amisse in his Kingdome for performance of which the Bishops became his Pledges and the King appointed a meeting at Westminster on a set day betweene Him and the Lords whereupon the Earle surrendred the Castle to the King upon Oath made by the Bishops that it should be restored at the day But the King refusing to deliver the Earle the Castle according to promise and threatning to subdue his other Castles the Earle hereupon raiseth his Forces winnes his Castle againe routs divers of the Kings Forraigne Forces at Gorsemond Monmouth and other places and invaded the lands of his Enemies Vpon this occasion Frier Agnellus or Lambe acquaints the Earle what the King together with his Counsell and Court thought of his proceedings to wit that the King said he had proceeded over traiterously and unjustly against him yet he was willing to receive him into favour if he would wholly submit himselfe to his mercy and that others held it not just safe and profitable for him to doe it because he had done wrong to the King in that before the King had invaded his Lands or Person he invaded and destroyed the Kings Lands and slew his men and if he should say he did this in defence of his body and inheritance they answered no because there was never any plot against either of them and that were it true yet he ought not thus to breake forth against the King his Lord untill hee had certaine knowledge that the King had such intensions against him ET EX TVNC LICERET TALIA ATTEMPTARE and from thenceforth he might lawfully attempt such things by the Courtiers and Friers owne Confessions Vpon which the Marshiall said to Frier Lambe To the first they say that I ought to submit my selfe because I have invaded the King it is not true because the King himselfe though I have beene ever ready to stand to the Law and judgement of my Peeres in his Court and have oft times requested it by many messengers betweene us which he alwaies denied to grant violently entred my Land and invaded it against all justice whom hoping in humility to please I freely entred into a forme of peace with him which was very prejudiciall to me wherein he granted that if on his part all things were not punctually performed toward me I should be in my pristine state before that peace conclnded namely that I should be without this homage and absolved from my allegiance to him as I was at first by the Bishop of Saint Davids Seeing then hee hath violated all the Articles of the Peace IT WAS LAWFVLL FOR ME According to my agreement to recover what was mine owne and to debilitate his power by all meanes especially seeing he endeavoured my destruction dis-inheritance and seizing of my Body of which I have certaine intelligence and am able to prove it if neede be And which is more after the 15 daies truce before I entred Wales or made any defence he deprived me of the Office of Marshall without judgement which belongs to me and I have enjoyed by Inheritance neither would he by any meanes restore mee to it though required Whence I have plainely learned that he will keepe no peace with me seeing since the Peace hee handles me worse then before Whereby I ceased to bee his Subject and was absolved from his homage by him Wherefore it was and is lawfull for me to defend my selfe and to withstand the malice of his Counsellors by all meanes And whereas the Kings Counsellors say it is profitable for me to submit to the Kings mercy because he is more rich and powerfull then I am It is true the King is richer and more potent then I but yet he is not more powerfull then God who is Iustice it selfe in whom I trust in the confirmation and prosecution of my right and of the Kingdomes And whereas they say the King can bring in Strangers of his kinred who are neither Scots nor French nor Welsh who shall make all his foes his Foot-stoole and come in such multitudes as they shall cover the face of the earth and that he can raise seven men to my one I neither trust in Strangers nor desire their confederaciei nor will I invoke their aide Vnlesse which God forbid inopinata immutabilis fuero compulsus necessitate I shall be compelied by a sudden and immutable necessity and I beleeve by his Counsells ill advise he will quickly bring in such multitudes of Strangers that he will not be able to free the Kingdome of them againe for I have learned from credible men that the Bishop of Winchester is bound to the Emperour that he will make the Kingdome of England subject to him which God in his providence avert And whereas they say That I may confide in the King and his Counsell because the King is mercifull credible c. It may well be that the King is mercifull but he is seduced be the Counsell of those by whom we feele our selves much hurt and he is Noble and credible whom God long preserve so as much as in him lies but as for his Counsell I say that no one promise made to me was ever yet kept and they have violated many corporall Oathes made to me and the Oathes they tooke for observing Magna Charta for which they remaine excommunicate and perjured Yea they are enjured concerning the faithfull Counsell which they have sworne to give to our Lord the King when as they have wilfully given him the Counsell of Achitophel against justice and corrupted the just Lawes they have sworne to keepe and introduced unusuall ones for which and for many other things for which neither God nor man ought to trust them or their complices are they not every one excommunicated Rumor de veteri faciet ventura timeri Cras poterunt fieri turtia sicut heri Falix quem faciunt aliena pericula cautum Whereas the said Counsellors of the King say that I invaded the Kings body at Gorsmund Castle before