Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	good_a	just_a	law_n	2,761	5	4.7834	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A91298	The third part of The soveraigne povver of parliaments and kingdomes. Wherein the Parliaments present necessary defensive warre against the Kings offensive malignant, popish forces; and subjects taking up defensive armes against their soveraignes, and their armies in some cases, is copiously manifested, to be just, lawfull, both in point of law and conscience; and neither treason nor rebellion in either; by inpregnable reasons and authorities of all kindes. Together with a satisfactory answer to all objections, from law, Scripture, fathers, reason, hitherto alledged by Dr. Ferne, or any other late opposite pamphleters, whose grosse mistakes in true stating of the present controversie, in sundry points of divinity, antiquity, history, with their absurd irrationall logicke and theologie, are here more fully discovered, refuted, than hitherto they have been by any: besides other particulars of great concernment. / By William Prynne, utter-barrester, of Lincolnes Inne. It is this eighth day of May, 1643. ordered ... that this booke, ... be printed by Michael Sparke, senior. John White.; Soveraigne power of parliaments and kingdomes. Part 3	Prynne, William, 1600-1669.; England and Wales. Parliament. House of Commons.	1643 (1643)	Wing P4103; Thomason E248_3; ESTC R203191	213,081	158

the estate that it is now the title of Empire being little more then that of the Duke of Venice the soveraingty writes the Historian in the Margin remaining in the States of the Empire All that is objected against the premises is that passage of Tertullian much insisted on Colimus ergo Imperatorē sic quomodo nobis licet ipsi expedit ut hominem à DEO SECUNDUM quicquid est à Deo consecutum SOLO DEO MINOREM Hoc et ipse volet Sic enim OMNIBUS MAJOR EST DUM SOLO VERO DEO MINOR EST. Sic ipsis Diis major est dum ipsi in poteste sunt ejus c. To which I answer that these words onely prove the Emperour in the Roman State to be the highest Officer and Magistrate under God of any one particular person not that he was the Soveraigne highest power above the Senate and people collectively considered And the occasion of these words will discover the Authors intention to be no other which was this The Christians in that age were persecuted and put to death by Scapula President of Carthage to whom Tertullian writes this Booke because they refused to adore the Emperour for a God to sweare by his Genius and to observe his solemnities and triumphs in an Ethnicall manner as is evident by the words preceding this passage Sic circa Majestatem Imperatoris infamamur c. and by sundry notable passages in his Apologeticus In answer to which accusation Tertullian reasons in the Christians behalfe that though they adored not the Emperour as a God yet they reverenced him as a man next under God as one onely lesse then God as one greater then all others whiles lesse onely then the true God and greater then the Idol Gods themselves who were in the Emperours power c. Here was no other thing in question but whether the Emperour were to be adored as God not whether he or the Roman Senate and people were the greatest highest Soveraigne power And the answer being that he was but a man next under God above any other particular officer in the Roman State is no proofe at all that he was paramount the whole Senate and people collectively considered or of greater Soveraigne power then they which the premises clearely disprove Adde that this Father in his Apologie thus censures the Pagan Romans for their grosse flattery of their Emperours whom they feared more then their Gods appliable to our present times Siquidem majore formidine callidiore timiditate Caesarem observatis quam ipsum de Olympo Jovem c. adeo in isto irreligiosi erga dees vestros deprehendimini cum plus timoris humano Domino dicatis citius denique apud vos per omnes Deos quam per unum genium Caesaris pejeratur Then he addes Interest hominis Deo cedere satis habeat appellari Imperator grande hoc nomen est quod a Deo tradetur negat illum imperatorem qui deum dicit nisi homo sit non est imperator Hominem se esse etiam triumphans in illo sublimissimo curru admonetur Suggeritur enim ci a tergo Respice post te hominem memento te Etiam hoc magis gaudet tanta se gloria coruscare ut illi admonitio conditionis suae sit necessaria Major est qui revocatur ne se deum existimet Augustus imperii formator ne Dominum quidem dici se volebat et hoc enim Dei est cognomen Dicam plane Imperatorem Dominum sed more communi sed quando non cogor ut Dominum Dei vice dicam Concluding thus Nullum bonum sub exceptione personarum administramus c. lidem sumus Imperatoribus qui vicinis nostris Male enim velle male facere male dicere male cogitare de quoquam ex aequo vetamur Quodcunque non licet in Imperatorem id nec in quenquam quod in neminem eo forsitan magis nec in ipsum qui per deum tantus est c. From which it is evident that the Christians did not deifie nor flatter their Emperours more then was meet and deemed they might not resist them onely in such cases where they might resist no others and so by consequence lawfully resist them where it was lawfull for them to resist other private men who did injuriously assault them If then the Roman Emperors were not the highest Soveraigne power in the Roman State when Paul writ this Epistle but the Roman Senate and State as I have cleared and if the Parliament not the King be the supremest Soveraigne power in our Realme as I have abundantly manifested then this objected Text so much insisted on by our opposites could no wayes extend to the Roman Senate State or our English Parliament who are the very higher powers themselves and proves most fatall and destructive to their cause of any other even by their owne Argument which I shall thus doubly discharge upon them First that power which is the highest and most soveraigne Authority in any State or kingdome by the Apostles and our Antagonists owne doctrine even in point of conscience neither may nor ought in what case soever say our opposites to be forcibly resisted either in their persons ordinances commands instruments offices or Armed Souldiers by any inferiour powers persons or subjects whatsoever especially when their proceedings are just and legall under paine of temporall and eternall condemnation But the Senate among the Romans not the Emperour and the Parliament in England not the King really were and are the higher Powers and most soveraigne Authority Therefore by the Apostles own Doctrine even in point of conscience they neither may nor ought to be disobeyed or forcibly resisted in any case whatsoever either in their Persons Ordinances Commands Instruments Officers or Armed Souldiers by the King himselfe his Counsellors Armies Cavaliers or by any inferiour powers persons or Subjects whatsoever especially when their proceedings are just and legall as hitherto they have beene under paine of temporall and eternall condemnation I hope the Doctor and his Camerads will now beshrew themselves that ever they medled with this Text and made such a halter to strangle their owne treacherous cause and those who have taken up armes in its defence Secondly that Power which is simply highest and supreame in any State may lawfully with good conscience take up Armes to resist or suppresse any other power that shall take up armes to subvert Religion Lawes Liberties the Republike or the just Rights and Priviledges of the Subject or of this higher power This is our opposites owne argumentation Therefore the Parliament being in verity the highest supreame Power in our State may lawfully with good conscience take up Armes to resist or suppresse his Majesties Malignant Popish Forces or any other power which already hath or hereafter shall be raised to subvert Religion Lawes Liberties the Republike just Rights and Priviledges of Parliament

accomplishment of their owne Rancor and Covetousnesse that they might injoy the Lands Offices Possessions and Goods of the lawfull ●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 Le●ter of Sir Iohn Brooks giving advise to thus purpose to his Majestie and this Assembl● 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 ●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 assi●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

all Ministers being of Gods owne institution by one and the same commission is one and the same But the regall power and jurisdiction of all Kings and Monarchies in the world is not equall nor the same for some have farre greater authority then others there are many different sorts of Kings in the world some onely annuall others for life others hereditary others at will deposible at the peoples pleasures when ever they offended Such were the Kings of the Vandalls in Africk of the Gothes in Spaine cum ipsos deponerent populi quoties displicuissent such the Kings of the Heruli Procopius Gothicorum Of the Lombards Paulus Warnafredi l. 4. 6. Of the Burgundians Ammianus 11. lib. 28. Of the Moldavians Laonichus Chalcocandylas the King of Agadis among the Africans Joannis Leo lib. 7. Of the Quadi and Jazyges in excerptis Dionis with sundry others hereafter mentioned Some elective others successive some conditionall others absolute as I have plentifully mentioned in the Appendix Therefore they are not of divine ordination in the objectors sense Fiftly If Kings were of divine ordination in this sense then their kingdomes and people upon their Elections Institutions and Coronations could not justly prescribe any conditions oathes or covenants to them upon promise of performance whereof they onely accept of them to be their Kings refusing else to admit them to reigne over them and such conditions oathes covenants would be meere nullities since men have no power at all to detract from Gods owne divine institutions or to annex any conditions or restrictions to them But our Antagonists themselves dare not averre that Kingdomes and Nations upon their Kings Coronations Institutions and elections may not lawfully prescribe conditions oathes and limitations to them upon promise of performance whereof they onely submitted to them as their Soveraignes it being the received practise of our owne of all or most other Kingdomes whatsoever especially elective ones and confirmed by divine Authority 2 Chron. 10. 1. to 19. Therefore they are not of divine institution in the objected sense Sixthly All Lawyers and most Orthodox Divines determine that Kings have no other just or lawfull royall Authority but that which the Lawes and customes of their Kingdomes allot them and that the Law onely makes them Kings from which if they exorbitate they become Tyrants and cease to be Kings Their Royall authority therefore is of humane institution properly not Divine from their people who both elect constitute them Kings and give them all their regall Authority by humane Lawes enacted not from God as the onely efficient cause Seventhly All Kingdomes Monarchies Policies are mutable and variable in themselves while they continue such yea temporary and alterable into other formes of Government by publicke consent if there be just cause without any immediate command or alteration made by God himsele or his divine authority There being no positive Law of God confining any Nation whose humane earthly condition is still variable to a Monarchicall or any other constant forme of government only much lesse for perpetuity without variation Therefore they are not of divine institution in this sense Eightly St. Peter expressely defines Kings and Monarchies in respect of their institution to be humane creatures or institutions 1 Pet. 2. 13. Submit your selves to every ORDINANCE OF MAN for the Lords sake whether it be to the King as supreame c. And they are common to Pagans who know not God as well as to Christians Therefore they are not simply divine but humane Ordinances Ninethly Our Antigonists will yeeld that other formes of Government whether Aristocraticall Oligarchicall Democraticall or mixt of all three are not absolutely and immediately of divine institution nor yet Dukes Principalities with other inferior Rulers though the Apostle in this Text makes them all equally Gods Ordinance and Divine Therefore Monarchy Kings and Kingdomes are not so Tenthly The very Text it selfe seemes to intimate that Royalties and higher powers are not of God by way of originall or immediate institution or command for the Apostle saith not that all powers whatsoever were originally instituted and ordained by God himselfe but There is no power but of God The powers that be are not were at first ordained or rather ordered of God that is where powers and Governments are once erected by men through Gods generall or speciall providence there God approves and orders them for the good of men 2. If Monarchies and Kings themselves be not of divine institution and Gods ordinance in the former sense as is most apparent Aristotle Plato all Politicians grant Then they are so onely in some other sense in what I shall truely informe you First They are of God and his Ordinance by way of imitation as derived from Gods owne forme of Government which is Monarchicall Whence he is called The only God God alone the King of Kings and Lord of Lords Secondly By way of approbation He approves and allowes this kinde of Government where it is received as well as other formes Thirdly by way of direction he gives divers generall rules and directions to Kings and to other Rulers and Magistrates also as well as them in his sacred word how they ought to demeane themselves towards him and their Subjects and likewise to Subjects how they should carry themselves towards their Kings and all other Rulers and Governours temporall or spirituall in which sense they may be properly said to be ordered and ordained too of God Fourthly By way of speciall providence and incitation God excites and moves some people to make choyce of Kings and Monarchicall formes of Government rather than others and to elect one man or family to that dignity rather than others yea his providence mightily rules and swayes in the changes the elections actions counsels affaires of Monarchies Kingdomes Kings States to order them for his own glory the Kings the Subjects good or ill in wayes of Justice or Mercy as is evident by Dan. 2. 21. c. 4. 17. 25. Hos 13. 11. Jer. 27. 5 6 7. Isa 45. 1 2 3. c. 10. 5. to 20. Psal 110. 5. Psal 113. 7 8. Job 12. 18. to 25. Dan. 5. 26. 28. The genuine drift of all these Texts Fifthly Kings may be said to be of God and his Ordinance because they and so all other Rulers Judges Magistrates as well as they in respect of their representation and the true end of Government are said to be Gods to be Gods Ministers and Vicegerents to sit upon Gods Throne and ought to reigne to judge for God and to rule Gods people according to Gods Word with such justice equity integrity as God himselfe would Governe them Exod. 22. 28. 2 Chron. 9. 8. Rom. 13. 4 5. 2 Sam. 23. 3. Psal 78. 72 73 74 2 Sam. 5. 2. Prov. 8. 15 18. Psal 82. 1. 1 Cor. 8. 5. Isa 32. 1. c. 9. 7. c. 16. 5. Deut. 1. 17. Sixthly Ill Kings and Tyrants may be said

THE THIRD PART OF THE SOVERAIGNE POWER OF PARLIAMENTS and KINGDOMES Wherein the Parliaments present Necessary Defensive Warre against the Kings offensive Malignant Popish forces and Subjects taking up Defensive Armes against their Soveraignes and their Armies in some Cases is copiously manifested to be Just Lawfull both in point of Law and Conscience and neither Treason nor Rebellion in either by inpregnable Reasons and Authorities of all kindes Together With a Satisfactory Answer to all Objections from Law Scripture Fathers Reason hitherto alledged by Dr. Ferne or any other late opposite Pamphleters whose grosse Mistakes in true Stating of the present Controversie in sundry points of Divinity Antiquity History with their absurd irrationall Logicke and Theologie are here more fully discovered refuted than hitherto they have been by any Besides other particulars of great concernment By WILLIAM PRYNNE Utter-Barrester of Lincolnes Inne 2 Sam. 10. 12. Be of good courage and let us play the men for our People and for the City of our God and the Lord doe what seemeth him good Esther 9. 1 2. 5 10. In the day that the enemies of the Jewes hoped to have power over them the Jewes gathered themselves together into their Cities through out all the Provinces of King Ahashuerus to lay hand on those that sought their lives and no man could withstand them for the feare of them fell upon all people Thus the Jewes sinote all their enemies with the stroke of the sword and slaughter and destruction and did what they would with those that hated them but on the spoile laid they not their hand It is this eighth day of May 1643. Ordered by the Committee of the House of Commons in Parliament for Printing that this Booke Intituled The third Part of the Soveraign Power of Parliaments and Kingdomes be Printed by Michael Sparke senior John White Printed at London for Michael Sparke Senior 1643. TO HIS EVER-HONOVRED NOBLE KINDE FRIENDS THE Right Honourable Lord Ferdinando Fairfax the Right Worshipfull Sir William Waller and Sir William Bruerton Knights Commanders in Chiefe of the Parliaments Forces in severall Counties Deservedly Renowned Worthies YOUR Incomparable Valour Zeale Activity Industry for the preservation of Your Dearest Country Religion Lawes Liberties and the very being of Parliaments all now endangered by an unnaturall generation of Popish and Malignant Vipers lately risen up in Armes against them in diverse parts of this Realme and those many miraculous Victories with which God hath beene lately pleased to Crowne your cordiall endeavours to promote his glory and the Publicke safety as they have justly demerited some gratefull generall Acknowledgements from the whole Representative Body of the State so they may in some sort challenge a private gratulatory Retribution from Me who have formerly had the happinesse to participate in your Christian Affections and now reape much Consolation by your Heroick Actions Having therefore seasonably finished this Third part Of the Soveraigne Power of Parliaments and Kingdoms copiously Vindicating the Lawfulnesse Iustnesse of the Parliaments present Necessary Defensive Warre in which you have had the Honour to be imployed not onely as Chiefe but which is more as most successefull Commanders in your severall Countries in point both of Law and Conscience and fully wiping off those blacke Aspersions of TREASON and REBELLION which the opposite party really guilty of these crimes against both King and Kingdome as I have elsewhere manifested and here lightly touched have out of Malice Ignorance or both conjoyned most injuriously cast upon your Loyall honourable proceedings which rejoyce the soules of all true Philopaters who cordially affect their Country or Religion I could not without much ingratitude yea injustice have published it to the world but under the Patronage of your ever-honored resplendent names who have so valorously so successefully pleaded this Cause already in the Field that it needs the lesse assistance from the Presse My many inevitable interruptions and straites of time in its contexture which may happily detract something from its perfection shall I hope derogate nothing from your Honourable Friendly acceptation whom I have thus conjoyned in the Dedication because the Parliament hath united you in their present Warlike employments and God himselfe joyntly honoured you with successe even to admiration among the Good indignation amidst Malignants envy with the Malicious and I trust to an active sedulous emulation in all your Fellow Commanders imployed in other Quarters in the selfesame Cause Your present busie publike and mine owne private Imployments prohibite me to expatiate Wherefore earnestly beseeching the Glorious Lord of Hosts to be ever mightily present with your severall Noble Persons Forces and to make you alwayes eminently active Valorous Victorious as hitherto he hath done till Peace and Truth Tranquillity and Piety by your severall triumphant Proceedings shall once more lovingly embrace and kisse each other in our divided unreformed sinfull Kingdomes And till the effect of these just warres You manage shall be quietnesse and assurance to us and our Posterities after us for ever I humbly recommend your Persons Proceedings to his protection who can secure you in and from all dangers of warre and rest Your Honours Worships most affectionate Friend and Servant WILLIAM PRYNNE To the Reader Christian Reader I Who have beene alwayes hitherto a Cordiall Desirer endeavourer of Peace am here necessitated to present Thee with a Discourse of Warre to justifie The Lawfulnesse of the Parliaments present taking up of necessary Defensive Armes Which neither their Endeavours nor my with many others Prayers could with any safety to our Priviledges Persons Religion Liberty Realmes now forcibly invaded by his Majesties Popish and Malignant Cavallieres hitherto prevent or conjure downe To plead the Justnesse of a Warre of an unnaturall Civill warre the worst of any of a Warre betweene the Head and Members may seeme not onely a Paradox but a Prodigie in a Land heretofore blessed with an aged uninterrupted Peace And Lucans Bella per AEmathios plusquam civilia Campos c. now most unhappily revived among us being but Historicall and Poeticall may passe the world with lesse admiration and censure than this harsh Peece which is both Legally Theologically like the Subject matter Polemicall But as the ayme the end of all just War is and ought to be onely future setled Peace so is the whole drift of this Military Dissertation not to foment or protract but end our bloody Warres which nothing hath more excited animated lengthened in the Adverse party than a strong conceite if not serious beliefe that The Parliaments Forces neither would nor lawfully might in point of Law or Conscience forcibly resist or repulse their invasive Armes without danger of High Treason and Rebellion which Bug-beare I have here refuted removed and the In-activity the much admired slownesse of many of our Forces in resisting in preventing their vigorous Proceedings which a little timely vigilance and diligence had easily controlled It is a more than

undertaken because something is denied to to be granted which nature it selfe affords and therefore because the Law of nature is violated Warre is undertaken We say there is a three fold Defence one Necessary another Profitable a third Honest yet wee shall deeme them all Necessary He who defends himselfe is said to be necessitated neither will Baldus have us distinguish whether he defend himselfe his goods or those under his charge whether neere or remote His defence is necessary and done for necessary defence against whom an armed enemy comes and his against whom an enemy prepares himselfe and to such a one the same Baldus truly teacheth ayde is due by compact whom others likewise approve This warre we may say was anciently undertaken against Mithridates and against his great pre●aations Neither ought wise men to expect till he had professed himselfe an enemy but to looke more into his deeds then words Thus whiles we say necessity we speake not properly but we understand that necessity which is not rare in humane affaires and hath wont to bee called neede which yet precisely is not that true necessity c. It is a most unjust conflict where the one side being agent the other is onely patient There is a just defence and slaying although the slayer might flee without danger and so save himselfe whether the slayer who defends himselfe be of that condition that it would be a disgrace to him to flee or whether it would be no disgrace Which opinions are received in the causes of private men and to mee are much more approved in publike causes Defence even in Bruites is a Law of nature it is perswaded and constituted in us not by opinion but by a certaine imbred faculty and it is a necessary Law for what is there saith Cicero that can be done against force without force This is the most approved above all Lawes All Lawes all Rights permit to repell force with force There is one Law and that perpetuall to defend safety by all meanes All mean●s are honest of preserving safety this reason to the Lea●ued necessity to B●rbarians cust me to Nat●ons nature it selfe to wilde Beasts hath prescribed and this is no written but borne or native Law Likewise to defend our Estates is a necessary defence and this is a just cause of defending if wee bee assaulted by warre though wee our selves have demerited the warre which thing others and Paulus Caestrensis have taught And it will follow and adde this reason because the Law or Force of warre is not ended by obtaining the things first demanded but walkes according to the conquerers pleasure Who is content to repay so much revenge onely as he hath received wrong saith Augustine and all know it This arbitrary power all not subdued may justly decline and therefore defend themselves against it with Armes Witnesses Iudges who are enemies are repelled although they against whom they proceed gave the cause of the enmity To one in Armes he gives all things w●o denies just things said Caesar Neither doe we heare make question of that blamelesse moderation where there is no superior These things therefore are avoyded and therefore the cause of Romulus shall be said right to me who defended himselfe by war against the invading Sabines albeit he had given them cause of warre and offence by the rape of their women The force of necessity is so great when men are pr●ssed with Armes that those things which are unjust may seeme most just as Bodin well warre is just to whom it is necessary piae arma quibus nulla nisi in armis relinquitur spes and Armes are pious to those to whom no hope is left but in Armes Extreame necessity is exempted from all Law And yet I restraine not the present definition to extreame necessity or take extreame according to the condition of mens affaires for be it so let it be no necessitie which may be no necessity Romulus might have avoyded warre by restoring the ravished women yet he might likewise defend himselfe against the enemies even soone after marching against him I stay not in this definition for that is a question belonging to Citizens He who being banished may be hurt without danger yet he may defend himselfe CHAP. XIIII De utili Defensione He proceedes thus I Call that a profitable defence when we move warre fearing least we our selves should be warred upon no man is sooner oppressed then he which feares nothing and security is the most frequent beginning of calamity This first Next we ought not to expect present force it is more safe if we meete that which is Future There is more hope and more courage in him that infers force then in him who repels it he hath more courage who inferres danger then he who repulseth it Livy and Vigetius if the enemie should once prevent all things are disturbed with feare it behoves them therefore saith Nicephorus an historian of no contemptible authority who would live without danger to meete with and prevent impendent evills and not to delay or expect that thou mayst revenge the received injury with danger if for the present thou maist cut out the root of the growing plant and suppresse the endeavours of an enemie who thinkes ill And Suidas yea Demosthenes warre is not to be delayed but urged least being first injured we be compelled to repulse force This as the Latin De nosthenes Cicero saith is likewise a disgrace that if thou mayst prevent future thou wouldest rather redresse Present evils That rude youth likewise so hath nature it selfe prescribed this Law I would rather looke to our selves then I would be revenged having received injury But Philo most excellently that we presently slay a serpent at the first sight although he hath not hurt us nor perchance will hurt us so carefull are we of our selves before he move himselfe Am I not over-tedious to thee in naming these Authors which yet are none of ours But the consent of various and many authors is great reason c. Neither yet omit I things held in lieu of proverbes and therefore prove much what they signifie Meete the approaching disease Withstand beginnings else medicines are provided over-late Neglected fires are wont to get strength Behold something out of the Authors of Law It is better to keepe Lawes unviolated then afterwards to seeke remedy It is lawfull to prevent One providing to offend I offend lawfully and others of this nature which are more defined to humanity and approved by mens judgements No man ought to expose himselfe to danger no man ought to expect himselfe to be smitten or slaine unlesse he be a foole We ought to meete the offence not onely which is in act but that likewise which is in possibility to act Force is to be repelled and propulsed with force

gods have this Law none of us will crosse the desire of him that willeth but wee yeeld alwaies one to another Which being the fictions of very wise men are applyed unto Princes of the earth But even without any circumstance at all the Corinthians speake thus to the Athenians We doe plainely deny that any is forbidden to punish his owne for if thou shalt defend those that have offended even your owne Subjects will defend themselves from you Yet I thinke not Subjects of other men are altogether strangers from that neerensse of nature and union of Society you doe also cut off the unity of mankinde whereby life is sustained as excelently Seneca And if we make not Princes lawlesse tyed to no Lawes nor Conditions It is necessary that there be some to admonish them of their duty and may hold them fast bound which reason I expounded in the second Booke of Embassies Neither will I heere infer any confusion of kingdomes or any inspection of one Prince over another Prince neither doe I suffer those things to bee distinguished which are most firmely glued together by nature I meane that kinred with all among all Neither here otherwise may one Prince have inspection over another Prince but such as may happen by every other Warre wherein one Prince carries himselfe as a judge both of himselfe and of another If a question were among private men it were most unjust to goe to a Forraigne Prince about it Also if there arise a difference betweene a private man and his Soveraigne there are Magistrates appointed which may be sought unto But when the controversie is touching the Common-wealth there neither are nor can be any judges in the City I call that a publike matter when such and so great a part of the Subiects is moved that now there is need of Warre against those that defend themselves by Warre And as if those should come into part of the Principality of the publike and are Peeres to the Prince who can doe so much as hee Even as one King is said to be equall to another who can resist another offering wrong however greater and more powerfull although I say not these things of the Subjects themselves unlesse it be in respect of Forraigne Princes which will ayde the Subject against their Soveraigne and who can ayde them no otherwise then in a controversie as I have expounded of the Common-wealth f And indeede if the Subjects be used more cruelly and unjustly this opinion of defending is approved even of others who both bring that laudable example of Hercules the Lord of Tyrants and Monsters There is also the example of Constantine who ayded the Romans against Maxentius as I noted before We defend Sonnes against injust Fathers Adde now those golden Sayings of Seneca That being cut off whatsoever it was whereby he did cleave unto me the Society of humane right is cut off If he doe not impugne my Countrey but is burdensome to his owne and being bannished my Countrey doth vexe his owne yet so great naughtinesse of minde hath cut him off although it maketh him not an enemy yet hatefull unto mee And the reason of the duty which I owe unto mankinde is both more precious and more powerfull with me then that which I owne to one single man Thus verily or else we make all men forreigners to all Princes if we determine that they can doe according to their pleasure and lust Now what if the cause of the Subject be unjust The foresaid Authors deny that men ought to ayde uniust Forraigne Subjects least any by so ayding introduce the same Law into his owne Kingdome which the Corinthians did before Yea Aristotle thinkes that neither a wicked Father is to be loved nor assisted with helpe But this is false of a Father as I taught in a certaine Disputation perhaps it is more true that those may be defended of us by war who are unjust For if it be a just warre which is to repulse a wrong although they that repulse an injury have given occasion to the warre the same it seemes may be determined in the defence of others even of Subjects for the same reason Surely there is that iniquity in Warre that it will make the same man to pronounce law to himselfe in his owne cause or verily willing to pronounce it Vpon which pretence another Prince may bring ayde on the contrary side that things may more civelly be composed without warre And this is that which Pyrrhus did when he came to ayde the Tarentines against the Romanes he admonished them first that they would by their owne endeavour put an end to the Controversie although neither the Romans would not unjustly hearken unto the King or because they might deservedly suspect him as being sent for by enemies armed with enemies ready to fight for enemies and of kinne to enemies Hee that stands armed with another is said to bring helpe and ayde unto him neither is there neede to proove any thing against that at all Even he that armes himselfe is beleeved to thinke upon warre And if he that is the friend of an enemie bee excluded from being a witnesse much more from being a Iudge For it is easier if any be received for a witnesse then a Iudge The friend of my enemy is not presently ment my enemy as neither my friends friend is my friend but there is a great suspition of them both and of the friend of an enemy the more But I returne to the question We are bound both to defend justly unjust Sonnes against the cruelty of a Father or Servants against the cruelty of a Master and we laudably indeavour that by fury here is Warre no not wicked men should be chastened and punished for fury and warre have no measure And he that led by humanity or pitty or any other approved and just cause hath received another mans Servant is not bound by the Statute of a corrupt Servant and that reception is accompted in the nature of good c. Even he is commended who being angry with his servants committed them to be punished by another this commendation being added because he himselfe was angry Therefore a good Prince will have the Liberty of rage against his own Subjects to be taken from him being angry as a good Father as a good Master and he will alwaies judge That Kingdomes were not made for Kings but Kings for Kingdomes which is most true This also of Plato availeth that we ought to use Eloquence chiefely to accuse our friends to whom it is the best thus to be drawn from future evils And so I thinke that we may defend unjust Forreigne Subjects yet to this end onely for the keeping off immoderate cruelty and too severe punishment Seeing it is not inhumane to doe good to those that have offended Yet I dare affirme that this reason of bringing helpe doth seldome stand

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 abs●l●tely ●d arburarily which should have according to the Principles of those dayes beene astro●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 des●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 ●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 Prerog●tive of the ●ews not Liberty of Christians exempts them from due subjection to l●wfull hea he ● 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 t●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

poenitentia pium quam imperto scoelest●●m 〈…〉 confessus A memorable story of a zealous stout Prelate and of a pen●tent submissive wild Prince I shall only adde to this some few domestick president● of our Welch Kings Teudur king of Brecknock for his periury and murther of Elgisti● another King of that Countrey was solemnly excommunicated by Gurcan the 10. Bishop of Landaffe and his Clergy in a Synod assembled for this purpose by uncovering the Altars casting the Crosses and Reliques on the ground and depriving him 〈◊〉 Christian communion Whereupon Toudur unable to undergoe this malediction and rigorous iustice with a contrite heart and many teares powred forth craved pardon of his crimes and submitted himselfe to the penance imposed on him according to his quality and greatnesse King Clotri slaying Iuguallaun treacherously contrary to his League and Oath Berthgwin the 14. Bishop of Landaffe hearing thereof assembled a Synod of his Clergy at Landaffe and solemnly excommunicated the King with all his Progeny and Kingdom by uncovering the Altars casting down the Crosses on the earth and depriving the Countrey both of Baptisme and the Euch●rist Whereupon the King unable to endure so great an excommunication with great deiection submitted himselfe to the Bishop and leaving his Kingdom went on pilgrimage into forraign parts for a long space after which returning by the intercession of king Morcant he obtained absolution from the Bishop to whose enioyned penance he submitted himself conferring divers Lands upon the Church And in another Synod at Landaffe under this Bishop King Gurcan for living incestuously with his Mother-in-law was solemnly excommunicated in form aforesaid whereupon he craved pardon resolved to put away his Mother-in-law promised satisfaction by K. Iudhail his Intercessor upon which he was absolved upon promise of amendment of life with fasting prayer and almes after which he bestowed divers Lands on the Church Houell king of Gleuissig contrary to his Oath League trecherously circumverring and slaying Gallun hereupon Cerenlyir the 18. Bishop of Landaffe calling a Synod solemnly excommunicated him by laying all the crosses on the ground overturning the Bells taking the Reliques from the Altar and casting them on the ground depriving him of all Christian communion under which excommunication he remained almost a whole yeers space After which this king came bare-foot to the Bishop imploring his absolution from this sentence with many teares which he obtained after publke penance enoyned Not long after the same Bishop and his Clergy in another Synod for the like crime in the self-same former excommunicated Ili sonne of Conblus till he came bare-footed with teares and prayed absolution which upon performance of enjoyned penance promise of future reformation with prayers fasting almes and the setling of some Lands on the Church was granted him by the Bishop So Loumarch son of Cargnocaun was in a full Synod excommunicated by Gulfrid the 20. Bishop of this See for violating the patrimony of the Church and king Brochuail with his family convented before a Synode threatned Excommunication enjoyned Penance and satisfaction by the Synode for some injuries offered to to Ciueilliauc the two and twentieth Bishop of Landaffe Mauric King of of Glamorgan was excommunicated by Ioseph the eigth and twentieth Bishop of Landaffe for treacherously putting out the eyes of Etguin during the truce between them After which he was again publikely excommunicated in a Synode for violating the Sanctuarie of the Church of Landaffe and hurting some of this Bishops servants and not absolved till he made his submission and did his Penance and gave some lands to the Church for satisfaction of these offence Thus Calgucam King of Morganauc and his whole family were solemnly excommunicated by Her●wald the nine and twentieth Bishop of Landaffe in a Synod of all his Clergy onely because one of the Kings followers being drunk laid violent hands upon Bathutis the Bishops Physitian and Kinsman on Christmas day Anno 1056. Whereupon all the Crosses and Reliques were cast to the ground the Bells overturned the Church doors stopped up with thorns so as they continued without a Pastor and Divine Service day and night for a long season till the King though innocent submitted himself to the Bishop and to obtain his absolution gave Henringuinna to him and his Successors for ever free from all secular and royall services in the presence of all the Clergie and people So Richard the tenth Bishop of Bangor excommunicated David ap Lhewelin Prince of Wales for detaining his brother Griffith prisoner contrarie to his Oath repairing to him upon the Bishops word for his safe return who never left vexing him till he had delivered him up to to the King of Englands hands Many such presidents of Prelates censuring and excommunicating their Kings occur in Storie which for brevity I pretermit onely ' I shall inform you that Iohn Stratford Archbishop of Canterbury in the 14. year of K. Edw. 3 contesting with this King and excommunicating divers of his followers and all the infringers of the Churches Liberties presumed to write thus unto his Soveraign There are two things by which the world is principally governed The sacred Pontificall authority and the royall power of which the Priesthood is by so much the more weighty ponderous and sublim● by how much they are to give an account of kings themselves at the Divine audit And therefore the kings Majesty ought to know that you ought to depend on their judgement not they to be regulated according to your will For who doubteth that the priests of Christ are accounted the FATHERS AND MASTERS of Kings Princes and all faithfull Christians Is it not known to be apart of miserable madnesse if the son should endeavour to subjugate the Father the servant the master to himself The Canonicall authority of Scriptures testifieth that diver Pontiffs have excommunicated some of them Kings others Emperours And if you require somewhat in speciall of the persons of Princes Saint Innocent smote the Emperour Archadius with the sword of excommunication because he consented that Saint John Chrysostom should be violently expelled from his See Likewise Saint Ambrose Archbishop of Millain for afault which seemednot so hainous to other priests excommunicated the Emperour Theodosius the great From which sentence having first given condigne satisfation he afterwards deserved to be absolved and many such like examples may be alleaged both more certain for time and nearer for place Therefore no Bishops whatsoever neither may nor ought to be punished by the secular Power if they chance to offend through humane frailtie For it is the duty of a good and religious Prince to honour the Priests of God and defend them with greatest reverence in imitation of the Pious Prince of most happy memory Constantine saying when the cause of Priests was brought before him You cannot be iudged by any to wit of the secular judges who are reserved to the iudgement of God alone according

an Oath of execration by an ancient Law in memory whereof they instituted a speciall annuall Feast on the 23. of February called Regifugium the hatred of which Title continued such that Tully and Augustine write Regem Romae posthac nec Dii nec Homines esse patiantur And Caesar himself being saluted King by the multitude perceiving it was very distastfull to the States answered CAESAREM SE NON REGEM ESSE which Title of Caesar not King the Scripture ever useth to expresse the Emperour by witnesse Matth. 22. 17 21. Mark 12. 14 16 17. Luke 2. 1. chap. 20. 22 24 25. chap. 23. 2. John 19. 12 15. Acts 11. 28. chap. 17. 7. chap. 25. 8 10 11 12 21. chap. 26. 32. chap. 27. 24. chap. 28. 19. Phil. 4. 22. Which Texts do clearly manifest that no Title was ever used by the Apostles Evangelists Jewes to expresse the Emperour by but that of Caesar not this of King Therefore Peters Text speaking onely of the King not Caesar cannot be intended of the Romane Emperour as ignorant Doctors blindly fancie Fifthly This Epistle of Peter the Apostle of the Jews was written onely to the dispersed Jews thorowout Pontus Galatia Cappadocia Asia and Bythinia 1 Pet. 1. 1. over whom Herod at that time reigned as King by the Romane Senates and Emperours appointment who had then conquered the Jews and made them a tributarie Province as is evident by Matth. 27. 17 21. Mark 12. 14 16 17. Luke 20. 22 24 25. chap. 23. 2. Acts 17. 7. chap. 25. 8 10 11 12 21. chap. 27. 24. chap. 12. 1. to 24. compared together and by Josephus the Century writers Baronius Sigonius and others The King then here mentioned to be supreame was Herod or King Agrippa or some other immediate King of the Jews who was their supreame Governour not absolutely but under the Romane Senate and Emperours and made so by their appointment whence called in the Text an Ordinance of man not God Now this King of the Jews as is evident by Pauls Appeal to Caesar from Festus and King Agrippa as to the Soveraign Tribunall Acts 25. and 26. by Josephus Philo Judaeus de legatione ad Caium and the consent of all Historians was not the absolute Soveraigne Power but subordinate to the Romane Emperour and Senate who both created and bad power to controll remove and censure him for his misdemeanours yet Peter calls him here Supreame because the Highest Governour under them as we stile our Kings Supreame Governours under Christ Therefore having a Superiour Governour and Power over him to which he was accountable and subordinate Supreame in the Text cannot be meant of a King absolutely Supreame having no Power Superiour to him but God but onely relatively Supreame in respect of under-Governours there actually residing whose Supremacie being forcibly gained onely by conquest not free consent and the ancient native Kings of the Jews being inferiour to their whole Senates and Congregations and to do all by their advice as Josephus Antiq. Jud. lib. 4. cap. 8. 2. Sam. 18. 3 4. Jer. 38. 45. 1. Chron. 13. 1. to 6. attest will no way advantage our Opposites nor advance the Prerogative of Kings since it extends onely to the King of the Jews that then was who was not simply Supream but a Subject Prince subordinate to the Romane State and Empire and one appointed by a Conquerour not freely chosen and assented to by the people So as all the Argument which can hence be extracted for the absolute Soveraigntie and irresistibility of Kings over their whole Kingdomes and Parliaments is but this The King of the Jews was in Peters time the Supreame Magistrate over that Nation by the Romane Senates and Emperours appointment to whom yet he was subordinate and accountable the Romanes having conquered the Jewes by force and imposing this government upon them without their consents Therefore the Kings of England and all other Kings are absolute Soveraigne Monarches Superiour to their whole Parliaments and Kingdomes collectively considered and may not in point of conscience be forcibly resisted by them though they endeavour to subvert Religion Laws Liberties How little coherence there is in this Argument the silliest childe may at first discern From these Scriptures I descend to Reasons deduced from them against resistance which I shall contract into three Arguments The first is this Kings are the Fathers Heads Lords Shepherds of the Common-wealth Ergo They ought not to be resisted in any their exorbitant proceedings it being unlawfull unseemly for a Son to resist his Father the Members the Head the Vassals their Lord the Flock their Shepherd To this I answer First They are Fathers Shepherds Lords Heads onely in an improper allegoricall not genuine sence therefore nothing can thence be properly inferred They are and ought to be such in respect of their loving and carefull affection towards their Subjects not in regard of their Soveraigne Power over them Therefore when their Tyrannie makes them not such in regard of care and affection to their people their people cease to be such in regard of filiall naturall and sheep-like submission When these Shepberds turn Wolves these Fathers Step-fathers the Subjects as to this cease to be their Sheep their Children in point of Obedience and Submission Secondly If we consider the Common-weal and Kingdom collectively Kings are rather their Kingdoms children then Parents because created by them their publike servants ministers for whose benefit they are imployed and receive wages not their Soveraigne Lords their subordinate Heads to be directed and advised by them not Tyrannically to over-rule them at their pleasure Therefore Paramount and able in such cases to resist them Thirdly Parishioners may no doubt lawfully resist the false Doctrines and open assaults of their Ministers though they be their Spirituall Shepherds Citizens the violent oppressions of their Maiors though they be their Politique Heads Servants the unjust assaults of their Masters though their lawfull Lords who may not misuse their very Villaines by Law And if Parents will violently assault their naturall children Husbands their Wives Masters their Servants to murther them without cause they may by Law resist repulse them with open force Fourthly A Son who is a Judge may lawfully resist imprison condemne his naturall Father A Servant his Lord A Parishioner his Pastour a Citizen his Major a meer Gentleman the greatest Peer or Lord as experience proves because they do it in another capacity as Judges and Ministers of publike Justice to which all are subject The Parliament then in this sence as they are the representative Body of the Realm not private Subjects and their Armies by their authority may as they are the highest Soveraign Power and Judicature resist the King and his Forces though he be their Father Head Shepherd Lord as they are private men Fifthly This is but the common

exploded Argument of the Popish Clergy To prove themselves superiour to Kings and exempt from all secular Jurisdiction because they are spirituall Fathers Pastors Heads to Kings who ought to obey not judge and censure them as Archbish Stratford and others argue But this plea is no ways available to exempt Clergy men from secular Jurisdiction from actuall resistance of parties assaulted nor yet from imprisonment censures and capitall executions by Kings and Civill Magistrates in case of capitall Crimes Therefore by like reason it can not exempt Kings from the resistance censures of their Parliaments Kingdoms in case of tyrannicall invasions We deride this Argument in Papists as absurd as in sufficient to prove the exemption of Clergy men I wonder therefore why it is now urged to as little purpose against resistance of Tyrants and oppressing Kings and Magistrates The second reason is this The Invasions and oppressions of evill Kings and Tyrants are afflictions and punishments inflicted on us by God Therefore we ought patiently to submit unto them and not forcibly to resist them I answer First The invasions of Forraign Enemies are just Judgements and punishments sent upon men by God as were the invasions of the Danes Saxons and Normans in England heretofore of the Spaniards since Ergo we ought not to resist or fight against them The present rebellion of the Papists in Ireland is a just punishment of God upon this Kingdom and the Protestant party there Ergo Neither we nor they ought in conscience to resist or take Arms against them Every sicknesse that threatens or invades our bodies is commonly an affliction and punishment sent by God Ergo We must not endeavour to prevent or remove it by Physick but patiently lye under it without seeking remedy Injuries done us in our persons estates names by wicked men who assault wound rob defame us are from God and punishments for our sins Ergo We may not resist them Yea Subjects Rebellions Treasons and Insurrections against their Princes many times are punishments inflicted on them by God displeased with them as the Statute of 1 Ed. 6. c. 12. resolves and the Scripture too Ergo Kings ought not to resist or suppresse them by force of Arms If all these Consequences be absurd and idle as every man will grant the objection must be so likewise I read That in the persecution of the Hunnes their King Attila being demanded of by a religious Bishop of a certain Citie who he was when he had answered I am Attila the scourge of God The Bishop reverencing the divine Majesty in him answered Thou art welcome ô Minister of God and ingeminating this saying Blessed be he that cometh in the Name of the Lord Opened the Church door and let in the persecutor by whom he obtained the Crown of Martyrdom not daring to exclude the scourge of the Lord knowing that the beloved sonne is scourged and that the power of the scourge it self is not from any but God Will it hence follow That all Christians are bound in conscience to do the like and not to resist the barbarous Turks if they should invade them no more then this Bishop did the bloudy Pagan Hunnes because they are Gods wrath I trow not One Swallow makes no Summer nor this example a generall president to binde all men The third reason is this Saints forcible resistance of Tyrants begets civill warres great disorders and many mischiefs in the State Ergo It is unlawfull and inconvenient I answer First That this doctrine of not resisting Tyrants in any case is farre more pernicious destructive to the Realm then the contrary because it deprives them of all humane means and possibilities of preservation and denies them that speciall remedy which God and nature hath left them for their preservation Laws denyall of Subsidies and such like remedies prescribed by Doctor Ferne being no remoraes or restraints at all to armed Tyrants Wherefore I must tell thee Doctor Theologorum utcunque dissertissimorum sententiae in hac controversia non sunt multo faciendae quia quid sit Lex humana ipsi ignorant as Vasquius controvers Illustr 81. .11 determines Secondly The knowledge of a lawfull power in Subjects to resist Tyrants will be a good means to keep Princes from Tyrannicall courses for fear of strenuous resistance which if once taken away there is no humane bridle left to stay the Inundation of Tyranny in Princes or great Officers and all Weapons Bulwarks Walls Lawes Armes will be meerly uselesse to the Subjects if resistance be denyed them when there is such cause Thirdly Resistance only in cases of publike necessity though accompanied with civill warre serves alwayes to prevent farre greater mischiefs then warre it self can produce it being the only Antidote to prevent publike ruine the readiest means to preserve endangered to regaine or settle lost Liberties Laws Religion as all ages witnesse and to prevent all future Seditions and Oppressions Fourthly Desperate diseases have alwayes desperate remedies Malo nodo malus cuneus When nothing but a defensive warre will preserve us from ruine and vassalage it is better to imbrace it then hazard the losse of all without redemption Ex duobus malis minimum All Kingdoms States in cases of necessity have ever had recourse to this as the lesser evill and why not ours as well as others The last and strongest Objection as some deem it is the sayings if some Fathers backed with the examples of the primitive Christians to which no such satisfactory answer hath hitherto been given as might be The first and grandest Objection against Subjects forcible resistance and defensive warre is that speech of Saint Ambrose Lib. 5. Orat. in Auxentium Coactus repugnare non audeo dolere potero potero flere potero gemere adversus arma milites Gothos Lachrymae meae arma sunt talia sunt munimenta sacerdotum A LITER NEC DEBEO NEC POSSVM RESISTERE This chiefe Authoritie though it makes a great noise in the world if solidly scanned will prove but Brutum fulmen a meer scar-crow and no more For first Ambrose in this place speaks not at all of Subjects resisting their Princes or Christians forcible resisting of the persecuting Romane Emperours but of resisting Valentine and the Arms and Souldiers of the Gothes who at that time over ran Italy and sacked Rome being mortall Enemies to the Romans the Roman Emperours Saint Ambrose and Millain where he was Bishop This is evident by the expresse objected words I can grieve I can weep I can mourn to wit for the wasting of my native Country Italy by the Invading Enemies the Gothes against Armes Souldiers GOTHES marke it my tears are Weapons c. If any sequell can be hence properly deduced it must be that for which the Anabaptists use it from whence our Opposites who tax the Parliaments Forces for Anabaptists when themselves are here more truly such

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

not have done in point of Law Iustice Honour Conscience had they beene Rebells or Traytors for standing on their guards and making defensive Warres onely for their owne and their Religions preservation but likewise by two severall publike Acts of Parliament the one in England the other in Scotland declaring the Scots late taking up Armes against him and his evill Counsellors in defence of their Religion Lawes Priviledges to be no Treason nor Rebellion and them to bee his true and loyall Subjects notwithstanding all aspertions cast upon them by the Prelaticall and Popish Party because they had no ill or disloyall intention at all against his Majesties Person Crowne and Dignity but onely a care of their owne preservation and the redresse of th●se Enormities Pressures grievances in Church and State which threatned desolation unto both If then their seizing of the Kings Fortes Ammunition Revenues and raising an Army for the foresaid ends hath by his Majesty himselfe and his two Parliaments of England and Scotland beene resolved and declared to be no Treason no Rebellion at all against the King by the very same or better reason all circumstances duely pondered our Parliaments present taking up Armes and making a Defensive Warre for the endes aforesaid neither is nor can be adjudged Treason or Rebellion in point of Law or Iustice In fine the King himself in his Answer to the 19. Propositions of both Houses Iune 3. 1642. Confesseth and calleth God to witnesse That all the Rights of his Crowne are vested in him for his Subjects sake That the Prince may not make use of his high and perpetuall power to the hurt of those for whose good he hath it nor make use of the name of publike Necessity for the gaine of his private Favourites and Followers to the detriment of his people That the House of Commons may impeach those who for their owne ends though countenanced with any surreptitiously gotten Command of the King have violated that Law which he is bound when he knowes it to protect and to protection of which they were bound to advise him at least Not to serve him in the Contrary let the Cavalleers and others consider this and the Lords being trusted with a Iudiciary power are an excellent screene and banke betweene the King and people to assist each against any Incroachments of the other and by just Iudgements to preserve that Law which ought to be the Rule of every one of the three Therefore the power Legally placed in both Houses Being more then sufficient to prevent and restraine the power of Tyranny by his Majesties owne Confession it must needs be such a power as may legally inable both Houses when Armes are taken up against them by the King or any other to subvert Lawes Liberties Religion and introduce an Arbitrary government not onely to make Lawes Ordinances and Assessements but likewise to take up Armes to defend and preserve themselves their Lawes Liberties religion and to prevent restraine all forces raysed against them to set up Tyranny else should they want not onely a more then sufficient but even a s●fficient necessary power to prevent and restraine the power of Tyranny which being once in armes cannot bee restraned and prevented repulsed with Petitions Declarations Lawes Ordinances or any Paper Bulwarkes and Fortifications or other such probable or possible meanes within the Parliaments power but onely by Armes and Militarie Forces as reason and experience in all Ages manifest From all which pregnant punctuall domesticke Authorities and resolutions of Ancient Moderne and present times I presume I may infallibly conclude That the Parliaments present taking up necessary Defensive Armes is neither Treason nor Rebellion in iudgement of Law but a iust and lawfull Act for the publicke benefit and preservation of King Kingdome Parliament Lawes Liberties Religion and so neither their Generall Souldiers nor any person whatsoever imployed by them in this War or contributing any thing towards its maintenance are or can be Legally indicted prosecuted or in any manner proceeded against as Traitors Rebels Delinquents against the King or Kingdome and that all Proclamations Declarations Indictments or proceedings against them or any of them as Traitors Rebels or Delinquents are utterly unlawfull iniust and ought to be reversed as meere Nullities It would be an infinite tedious labour for me to relate what Civilians and Canonists have written concerning Warre and what Warre is just and lawfull what not In briefe they all generally accord That no Warre may or ought to be undertaken cut of covetousnesse lust ambition cruelty malice desire of hurt revenge or for booty propter praedam enim militare peccatum est Whence Joh Baptist Luke 3. 14. gave this answer to the Souldiers who demanded of him what shall we doe Doe violence to no man neither accuse any man falsly and be content with your wages Ne dum sumptus quaeritur praedo grassetur Which prooves the Warres of our plundring pillaging Cavalleers altogether sinnefull and unjust And that such a Warre onely is just which is waged for the good and necessary defence of the Common-wealth by publike Edict or consent or to regaine some thing which is unjustly detained or taken away and cannot otherwise be acquired or to repell or punish some injury or to curbe the insolency of wicked men or preserve good men from their uniust oppressions which Warres ought onely to be undertaken out of a desire of Peace as they prove out of Augustine Gregory Isidor Hispalensis and others In one word they all accord That a necessary defensive Warre to repulse an Injury and to preserve the State Church Republike Freedomes Lives Chastities Estates Lawes Liberties Religion from unjust violence is and ever hath beene lawfull by the Law of Nature of Nation yea By all Lawes whatsoever and the very dictate of Reason And that a●n●cessary defensive Warre is not properly a Warre but a meere Defence against an unlawfull Violence And ther●fore m●st of necessitie be acknowledge lawfull because directly opposite to and the onely remedy which G●d and Nature have giuen men against T●rannicall and unjust invasions which are both s●●n●full and unlawfull And so can be no Treason no Rebellion no crime at all thou●● our Princes or Parents be the unjust assail●nts Of which see more in Hugo Gro●ius de Iure Belli l. 2. c. 1. I shall close up the Civillians and C●no●●●s Opinions touching the lawfulnesse of a Defensive Warre with the words o● A●beric●●●entilis Professor of Civill Law in the Vniversitie of Oxford in Queene Elizabeths Raigne Who in his learned Booke De Jure Belli Pacis Dedicated to the most illustrious Robert Devoreux Earle of Essex Father to the Parliaments present Lord Generall determines thus Lib. 1. ca● 13 pag. 92. c. Although I say there be no cause of warre from nature yet there are causes for which we undertake warre by the conduct of nature as is the cause of Defence and when warre is