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 preâ—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 meanâ—s are honest of preserving safety this reason to the Leaâ—ued necessity to Bâ—rbarians cust me to Natâ—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 wâ—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 prâ—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
not have done in point of Law Iustice Honour Conscience had they beene Rebells or Traytors for standing on their guards and making defensive Warres onely for their owne and their Religions preservation but likewise by two severall publike Acts of Parliament the one in England the other in Scotland declaring the Scots late taking up Armes against him and his evill Counsellors in defence of their Religion Lawes Priviledges to be no Treason nor Rebellion and them to bee his true and loyall Subjects notwithstanding all aspertions cast upon them by the Prelaticall and Popish Party because they had no ill or disloyall intention at all against his Majesties Person Crowne and Dignity but onely a care of their owne preservation and the redresse of thâ—se Enormities Pressures grievances in Church and State which threatned desolation unto both If then their seizing of the Kings Fortes Ammunition Revenues and raising an Army for the foresaid ends hath by his Majesty himselfe and his two Parliaments of England and Scotland beene resolved and declared to be no Treason no Rebellion at all against the King by the very same or better reason all circumstances duely pondered our Parliaments present taking up Armes and making a Defensive Warre for the endes aforesaid neither is nor can be adjudged Treason or Rebellion in point of Law or Iustice In fine the King himself in his Answer to the 19. Propositions of both Houses Iune 3. 1642. Confesseth and calleth God to witnesse That all the Rights of his Crowne are vested in him for his Subjects sake That the Prince may not make use of his high and perpetuall power to the hurt of those for whose good he hath it nor make use of the name of publike Necessity for the gaine of his private Favourites and Followers to the detriment of his people That the House of Commons may impeach those who for their owne ends though countenanced with any surreptitiously gotten Command of the King have violated that Law which he is bound when he knowes it to protect and to protection of which they were bound to advise him at least Not to serve him in the Contrary let the Cavalleers and others consider this and the Lords being trusted with a Iudiciary power are an excellent screene and banke betweene the King and people to assist each against any Incroachments of the other and by just Iudgements to preserve that Law which ought to be the Rule of every one of the three Therefore the power Legally placed in both Houses Being more then sufficient to prevent and restraine the power of Tyranny by his Majesties owne Confession it must needs be such a power as may legally inable both Houses when Armes are taken up against them by the King or any other to subvert Lawes Liberties Religion and introduce an Arbitrary government not onely to make Lawes Ordinances and Assessements but likewise to take up Armes to defend and preserve themselves their Lawes Liberties religion and to prevent restraine all forces raysed against them to set up Tyranny else should they want not onely a more then sufficient but even a sâ—fficient necessary power to prevent and restraine the power of Tyranny which being once in armes cannot bee restraned and prevented repulsed with Petitions Declarations Lawes Ordinances or any Paper Bulwarkes and Fortifications or other such probable or possible meanes within the Parliaments power but onely by Armes and Militarie Forces as reason and experience in all Ages manifest From all which pregnant punctuall domesticke Authorities and resolutions of Ancient Moderne and present times I presume I may infallibly conclude That the Parliaments present taking up necessary Defensive Armes is neither Treason nor Rebellion in iudgement of Law but a iust and lawfull Act for the publicke benefit and preservation of King Kingdome Parliament Lawes Liberties Religion and so neither their Generall Souldiers nor any person whatsoever imployed by them in this War or contributing any thing towards its maintenance are or can be Legally indicted prosecuted or in any manner proceeded against as Traitors Rebels Delinquents against the King or Kingdome and that all Proclamations Declarations Indictments or proceedings against them or any of them as Traitors Rebels or Delinquents are utterly unlawfull iniust and ought to be reversed as meere Nullities It would be an infinite tedious labour for me to relate what Civilians and Canonists have written concerning Warre and what Warre is just and lawfull what not In briefe they all generally accord That no Warre may or ought to be undertaken cut of covetousnesse lust ambition cruelty malice desire of hurt revenge or for booty propter praedam enim militare peccatum est Whence Joh Baptist Luke 3. 14. gave this answer to the Souldiers who demanded of him what shall we doe Doe violence to no man neither accuse any man falsly and be content with your wages Ne dum sumptus quaeritur praedo grassetur Which prooves the Warres of our plundring pillaging Cavalleers altogether sinnefull and unjust And that such a Warre onely is just which is waged for the good and necessary defence of the Common-wealth by publike Edict or consent or to regaine some thing which is unjustly detained or taken away and cannot otherwise be acquired or to repell or punish some injury or to curbe the insolency of wicked men or preserve good men from their uniust oppressions which Warres ought onely to be undertaken out of a desire of Peace as they prove out of Augustine Gregory Isidor Hispalensis and others In one word they all accord That a necessary defensive Warre to repulse an Injury and to preserve the State Church Republike Freedomes Lives Chastities Estates Lawes Liberties Religion from unjust violence is and ever hath beene lawfull by the Law of Nature of Nation yea By all Lawes whatsoever and the very dictate of Reason And that aâ—nâ—cessary defensive Warre is not properly a Warre but a meere Defence against an unlawfull Violence And therâ—fore mâ—st of necessitie be acknowledge lawfull because directly opposite to and the onely remedy which Gâ—d and Nature have giuen men against Tâ—rannicall and unjust invasions which are both sâ—â—nâ—full and unlawfull And so can be no Treason no Rebellion no crime at all thouâ—â— our Princes or Parents be the unjust assailâ—nts Of which see more in Hugo Groâ—ius de Iure Belli l. 2. c. 1. I shall close up the Civillians and Câ—noâ—â—â—s Opinions touching the lawfulnesse of a Defensive Warre with the words oâ— Aâ—bericâ—â—â—entilis Professor of Civill Law in the Vniversitie of Oxford in Queene Elizabeths Raigne Who in his learned Booke De Jure Belli Pacis Dedicated to the most illustrious Robert Devoreux Earle of Essex Father to the Parliaments present Lord Generall determines thus Lib. 1. caâ— 13 pag. 92. c. Although I say there be no cause of warre from nature yet there are causes for which we undertake warre by the conduct of nature as is the cause of Defence and when warre is
mutually call themselves Cosens Cosen-germans Brothers They are so much the more true in Princes by how much if a private man defend not a private man the majestrate remaines that can both revenge the wrongs and repaire the losses of private men but there is none can peece up the injuries and hurts of Princes but the same Prince who after had rather apply a medicine to the evill than hinder at the first that evill be not done These things are true but that also you may hold with Baldus that although these were not true out of Philosophie of judgements which is of things necessary they are certainely true from Philosophie of manners which consists of things perswaded which Philosophie also we follow in this whole Treatise The Philosophie of Iudgements permits a man to neglect even himselfe as Baldus writes and if besides as it falls out almost alwayes another speciall cause be joyned to this generall rule of honesty it may come neerer to justice Let the opinion verily be true for me that this cause of honesty alone perchance hath never moved any man to that honest defence Guicciardines mouth sayd truely no Prince will make warre for Pesants unlesse perswaded with desire of his owne gaine yet that is ignominous to Princes and savours not of justice but I had rather concurre with Leo the Philosopher We know very few to keepe true love for its sake alone to be stirred up to succour those that are intangled in misery but on the contrary side that the number is very great of those that for hope of getting any thing come to helpe the unworthy which is a more mild saying and I thinke more true But I seeke another thing it is compleate justice which defends the weake so Ambrose and the Canon Law and I seeke for that Iustice The Romans also joyned this cause with others by which they were moved often times to make warre the defence of the Lucans saith Dionysius was the manifest cause of the Samniticall warre which might have a shew of honesty as common and a Nationall custome of the Romans to ayde those that fled unto them but the secret cause which did more urge was the power of the Samnites was great and greater would it have beene if the Lucans had beene subdued so the reason of profit lyes hid and therefore seemes not so good as it is honest and yet we call profitable also good and just and the one is made just by the other therefore what if they be deare unto us whom we should defend Vlpianus saith that for love and friendship for no other reason defence ought not to be omitted The defence of those that ought to be deare unto us is from nature witnesse M. Tullius What if our allies and confederates He that keepes not of an injurie from his fellow when he can is as well in fault as he that doth it Ambrose and even we our selves are hurt when our fellowes are hurt as in Livie Iohn Bodin judgeth amisse that an ally and a confederate is not bound to helpe his fellow if there be no caution of helpe in the league and the contrary is now shewed by us and also shall be shewed in the third booke What if they be of the same stocke and blood Agesilaus made warre against the Persians that he might bring the Greekes of Asia into liberty And the pettie Kings of Germanie by an old custome of the Nation thinke it an haynous offence not to be assistant to those that implore mutuall helpe although there is there besides a certaine body of a Common-wealth as it is reported long since that there was of the Achai What if of the same Religion Nations are joyned together by the tye of Religion more than either by the communion of another law or contract of a league and therefore if we implore nature by communion the law of Nations by covenant the Common-wealth by lawes by common Religion the most powerfull thing of all we implore the bowels of men and of the holy One who is the head of that communion So there was warre with the Persians because their fugitives were not delivered them and they were not delivered by the Romans who would not dispise the humble professors with them of the same religion who fled from the Persian cruelty Thus Justinus answered the Persian that he could not but receive those of the Christian Religion falling away to him from the Persian who compelled them to forsake Christian Religion And our writers doe thus resolve that warre may be made if any converted to Christian Religion should be oppressed by their Lords and that for the right of society contracted from conversion What if neighbours for what had I not very many very just tyes of familiarity of neighbourhood of country of friendship to defend Plancus saith Cicero And here is our case q We are in danger if our neighbours house be on fire for if fire have fiercely taken hold of some houses they will hardly be defended but that the next houses will be burnt which was elsewhere in Salust and now in Ovid. s Fire that is neere is hardly kept off from houses it is good that we abstaine from neere adjoyned places which verses are proverbiall in this thing and proverbes adde some credit This notes something that as it is lawfull to pull our neighbours house downe least the fire should come to us and that question of a house infected is the same although touching this it is answered contrary Yet the House infected with Leprosie was pull'd downe And in many cases it is so that we may doe ill to others that it be not ill with us We must beware of all contagion especially of our neighbours the ill contagions of a neighbouring People are hurtfull The Romans saith Florus as a certaine infection ranne over all and taking in all the neerest people brought all Italy under them and whatsoever Dominion they had Before fire is the vapour and smoake of the Chimney Syracides also So we see smoake from our neighbours fire and will we not runne and put out the fire where it is It is written againe that it is lawfull for any to helpe his neighbour against an injury yea he seemes to be partaker of a fault who doth not ayde his deadly foe even speaking against help nor yet desiring it Concerning which I have noted before and will note further in the Chapter following CHAP. XVI Of ayding Subjects that are Strangers against their Lord. I Demand if wee may justly defend Subjects also that are Strangers against their Lord What if their cause also be unjust Ambrose noteth those three gods Iupiter Neptune and Pluto have thus Articulated lest upon their intrenching on one anothers jurisdiction they might make Warre among themselves they should not usurpe the rule of the Sea c. They say likewise that we
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
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
other Law-Bookes Therefore the Cavalliers can no waies justifie nor excuse their Wounding Murthering Imprisoning Assaulting Robbing Pillaging and spoiling of his Majesties people and Subjects and making Warre upon them by vertue of any Warrant or Commission from the King but may justly and legally be apprehended resisted and proceeded against as Murtherers Rebels Robbers Felons notwithstanding any pretended Royall Authority to countenance their execrable unnaturall proceedings Secondly It is irrefragable that the Subjects in defence of their own Persons Houses Goods Wives Families against such as violently assault them by open force of Armes to wound slay beate imprison robbe or plunder them though by the Kings own illegall Commission may not onely lawfully arme themselves and fortifie their houses their Castles in Iudgement of Law against them but refist apprehend disarme beat wound repulse kill them in their just necessary defence not onely without guilt of Treason or Rebellion but of Tresspas or the very least offence And Servants in such Cases may lawfully justifie not onely the beating but killing of such persons who assault their Masters persons goods or houses as is expresly resolved by the Statute of 21. E. 1. De malefactoribus in Parcis By 24. H. 8. cap. 5. Fitzherbert Corone 192. 194. 246. 258. 261. 330. 21. H. 7 39. Trespas 246. Stamford lib. 1. cap. 5. 6. 7. 22. Ass 46. 11. H. 6. 16. a. 14. H. 6. 24. b. 35. H. 6. 51. a. 9. E. 4. 48. b. 12. E. 4. 6. a. 12. H. 8. 2. b. Brooke Coron 63. Trispas 217. Therefore they may justly defend themselves resist oppose apprehend and kill his Majesties Cavalliers notwithstanding any Commissions and make a defensive Warre against them when as they assault their persons houses goods or habitations without any Treason Rebellion or Crime all against the King or Law Thirdly It is past dispute That the Sheriffes Iustices of Peace Mayors Constables and all other Officers of the Realme may and ought by our Lawes and Statutes to raise the power of the Counties and places where they live and command all persons to arme themselves to assist them upon their Command when they see just cause which commands they are all bound to obey under paine of imprisonment and fines for their contemptuous disobediene herein to suppresse and withstand all publicke breaches of the Peace Riots Routs Robberies Fraies Tumults Forcible Entries and to apprehend disarme imprison and bring to condigne punishment all Peace-breakers Riotors Trespassers Robbers Plunderers Quarrellers Murtherers and Forces met together to doe any unlawfull-Hostile act though by the Kings owne precept and in case they make resistance of their power they may lawfully kill and slay them without crime or guilt if they cannot otherwise suppresse or apprehend them yea the Sheriffes and all other Officers may lawfully raise and arme the power of the County to apprehend Delinquents by lawfull Warrants from the Parliament or Processe out of other inferiour Courts of Iustice when they contemptuously stand out against their Iustice and will not render themselves to a Legall triall in which service all are bound by Law to assist these Officers who may lawfully slay such contemptuous Offenders in case they cannot otherwise apprehend them All which is Enacted and Resolved by 19. E. 3. cap. 38. 3. Ed. 1. cap. 5. 2. R. 2. cap. 6. 5. R. 2. cap. 5. 6. 7. R 2. cap. 6. 17. R. 2. cap. 8. 13. H. 4. cap 7. 1. H. 5. cap. 6. 2. H. 5. cap. 6. 8. 19. H. 7. cap. 13. 3. E. 6. cap. 5. 1. Mar. cap. 12. 31. H. 6. cap. 2. 19. E. 2. Fitz Execution 247. 8. H. 4. 19. a 22. Ass 55. 3. H. 7. fol. 1. 10. 5. H. 7. fol. 4. Register fâ— 59. 60. 61. Fitz. Coron 261. 288. 289. 328. 346. Stamford lib. 1. cap. 5. 6. Cooke lib. 5. fol. 92. 9. 3. with sundry other Bookes and Acts of Parliament and Walsingham Hist Angliae pag. 283. 284. Yea the Statute of 13. Ed. 1. cap. 38. recites That such resistance of Processe out of any the Kings Courts much more then out of the Highest Court of Parliament redounds much to the dishonour of the King and his Crowne and that such resisters shall be imprisoned and fined because they are desturbers of the Kings Peace and of his Realme And the expired Statute of 31. H. 6. cap. 2. Enacted That if any Duke Marquesse Earle Viscount or Baron complained of for any great Riots Extortions Oppressioâ—s or any offence by them done against the Peace and Lawes to any of the Kings Liege-people should refuse to obey the Processe of he Kings Court under his Great or-privie Seale to him directed to answer his said offenes either by refusing to receive the said Processe or dispiting it on withdrawing himselfe fâ—r that cause and not appearing after Proclamation made by the Sheriffe in the County at the day prescribed by the Proclamation that then hee should for this his contempt forfeit and lose all his Offices Fees Annuities and other Possessions that he or any man to his use hath of the gift or grant of the King or any of his Progenitors made to him or any of his Ancestors And in case he appeares not upon the second Proclamation on the day-therein to him limited that then he shall lose and forfeit his Estate and place in Parliament and also All the Lands and Tenements whâ—ch he hath or any other to his use for terme of his life and all other persons having no Lands not appearing after Proclamation were to be put out of the Kings Protection by this Act. Such a hemous offence was it then reputed to disobey the Processe of Chancery and other inferiour Courts of Iustice even in the greatest Peeres how much greater crime then is and must it be contemptuously to disobey the Summons Processe and Officers of the Parliament it selfe the supremest Court of Judicature especially in those who are Members of it and stand engaged by their Prostestations trusts and Places in it to maintaine its honour power and priviledges to the uttermost which many of them now exceedingly vilifie and trample under feete and therefore deserve a severer censure then this statute inflicts even such as the Act of 21. R. 2. c. 6. prescribed to those Nobles unjustly fore-judged in that Parliament That their issues males now begotten shall not come to the Parliaments nor to the Councells of the King nor his heires nor be of the Kings Counsell nor of his heires Therefore it is undubitable that the Sherifes Iustices of Peace Majors Constables Leivtenantes Captaines and other Officers in every County through the Realme may by their owne Authority much more by an Ordinance and Act of association of both houses raise all the power of the County all the people by vertue of such commands may lawfully meete together in Armes to suppresse the riots burglaries rapines plunders butcheries spoyling robberies and armed violence of his Majesties Cavaleers and apprehend imprison slay arraigne
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
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
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
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
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
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
NO DOUBT but that IT IS LAWFULL to proceede against a Tyrant by way of justice if so men may prevaile against him or else by way of fact and OPEN FORCE if they may not otherwise have reason As the Senate did in the first case against NERO and in the other against Maximinus So Bodin who directly resolves that even in Nero his raigne when this Epistle was written the highest soveraigne power was not in the Emperour but in the Senate and people who notwithstanding this objected Text had no doubt a lawfull Right not onely to resist Nero when he turned Tyrant with open force but likewise judicially to arraigne and condemne him even to death as they did for his publike crimes Now that the Soveraigne highest Power remained in the Senate and people notwithstanding this Lex Regia Marius Salamonius an incomparable learned Roman Civilian hath largely proved in his six Bookes De principatu purposely written to refute the contrary common error where he writes First that the Roman Emperors were created and constituted onely by the Senat and people and that the Creature should be superiour to the Creator the child to the parent is absurd Secondly that the Emperours were but the Senates and peoples publike servants therefore they were their Lords and not inferiour but superiour to their servants Thirdly that they were subordinate and inferiour to the Lawes made by the Senate and people and bound by all their Lawes but such as the Senate and people did by speciall Acts exempt them from Fourthly that the people and Senate did by speciall Lawes create limit enlarge or abridge their Emperours power and jurisdiction as they saw cause giving sometimes more or lesse jurisdiction to one Emperour then another which they could not justly doe were they not the highest Soveraigne power Finally he proves it by the very Lex Regia it selfe which because rare and unknowne to most I shall here recite to informe and reforme our ignorant Court Doctors Lawyers with Salamonius his observations from it Lex Regia was not onely one single Law There was not one Law for all Emperours but it was revived for every Emperour yet not with the same conditions The brasse Table which yet hangeth in the Lateran Church proves that the Royall Law was accustomed to be altered in every Princes reigne AT THE PLEASVRE OF THE ROMAN PEOPLE for it is part of the Royall Law of the Empire of Vespatian that it should be altered which had beene voyd if from the beginning of the Empire a perpetuall Law had beene made for all successors the words of the Law are these Faedusve cum quibus volet facere ita ut licuit Divo Augusto Tyber Julio Caesari Aug. Tyherioque Claudio Julio Caesari Aug. Germanico Vtique eum Senatum habere relationem facere remittere Senatus consulta per relationem discessionemque facere liceat ut licuit Divo Augusto Tiberio Julio Caesari Augusto Tyberio Claudio Caesari Augusto Germanico Vtique quum ex voluntate auctoritateue jussu mandatione ejus praesenteve eo Senatus habebitur omnium rerum jus perinde habeatur servetur ac siâ—e lege Senatus edictus esset habereturque Vtique Coss Magistratus potestatem imperium curationemve cuivis rei petenti Senatui populoque Romano commendaverit quibusve suffâ—agationem suam dederit promiserit eorum Comitiis quibusque extra ordinem ratio habeatur Vtique ei fines pomaerii proferre procurare cume Rep. censebit esse liceat uti licuit Tiberio Claudio Caesari Augusto Germanico Vtique quaecunque ex usu Reip. majestate divinar humanar publicar privatarumque rerum esse censebit ea agere facere jus potestasque sit ita uti Divo Aug. Tyberioque Julio Caesari Aug. Tyberioque Claudio Aug. Germanico fuit Vtique quibus legibus Plebisve scitis scriptum fuit ne Divus Augustus Tyberiusve Jul. Caes Aug. Tyberiusve Claudius Caes Aug. Germanicus tenerentur his Legibus Plebisque scitis Imp. Aug. Vespatianus solutus sit quaeque ex quaque Lege Rogatione Divum Aug. Tyberiumve Iul. Caesarem Aug. Tyberiumve Claudium Caes Aug. Germanicum facere oportuerat ea omnia Imperatori Caesari Vespatiano Aug. facere liceat Vtique quae ante hanc legem rogatam acta gesta decreta imperata ab Imp. Caesare Vespatiano Augusto jussù mandatuve ejus a quoque sunt ea perinde justa rata sint ac si populi plebisve jussù acta essent Sanctio Si quis hujusce legis ergo adversus leges rogationes plebisve scita senatusue consulta fecit feceritve sive quod cum ex lege rogatione plebisve scito senatusve consulto facere oportebit non fecerit hujus legis ergo id ei ne fraudi esto neve quid ob eam rem populo dari debeto neve de ea re cui actioneve judicato esto neve quis de ea re apud eum agi sinito This Law first shewes that there was not one royall Law made for all Emperors but that for every severall Emperour severall Lawes were necessary containing the conditions whereupon the Principalitie was collated by the Roman people For to Vespatian it appeares power was granted of enlarging or setling the bounds as it was granted to Germanicus but not to other Princes And in the last Chapter but one which saith And by those things which by any Law c. it is lawfull to doe a larger power is given to Vespatian then to the forenamed Emperours and that they ought to doe some things which Vespatian ought not to doe by Law Likewise by these words Vtique quibus legibus c. solutus sit it appeares that Vespatian was not freed from all Lawes nor yet the Emperour before him Likewise out of the Chapter where it saith Ex usu Reip. Majestate c. it is evident that not an absolute free administration of things was committed to the Emperours but onely such as was usefull that is which should be for the profit and honour of the republike whence is inferred that those things which were not for the benefit and honour of the Commonweale Emperors had no right nor power to doe And in the last Chapter is perspicuously set downe THAT SUPERIOUR POWER OF THE PEOPLE GREATER THEN THE PRINCIPALITY IT SELFE How then doth Vlpian say the Prince is loosed from Lawes he saith not from all Lawes verily that he was exempt from many is no doubt c. yet it was by a speciall clause in the Lex Regia This and much more Salamonius All which considered will infallibly evidence the Roman Senate and People to be the highest power in Pauls time not the Emperour who even at this day as Bodin proves is inferiour to the Germane States who are the Soveraigne power when King Henry the fourth of France Anno 1600. used this speech to the Duke of Savoy If the King of France would be ambitious of any thing greater then his Crowne it might be an Empire but not in
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
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
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
then so dangerous that THE VERY FORCE OF CONSCIENCE AND NECESSITY DID LEAD THEM TO ARMS and to make a League to defend themselves THOVGH CAESAR OR ANY IN HIS NAME WOVLD MAKE WAR AGAINST THEM That if the Emperour had kept his bonds and Covenants they would have done their duties but because he began first to make the breach the fault is his For since he attempteth to root out Religion and subvert our Libertie he giveth us cause enough TO RESIST HIM WITH GOOD CONSCIENE The matter standing as it doth we may resist him as may be shewed by Sacred and prophane Stories Vnjust violence is not Gods Ordinance neither are we bound to him by any other reason then if he keep the conditions on which he was created Emperour BY THE LAWS THE MSELVES IT IS PROVIDED that the inferiour Magistrate shall not infringe the right of the Superiour and so likewise if the superiour Magistrate exceed the limits of his power and command that which is wicked not onely we need not obey him BVT IF HE OFFER FORCE WE MAY RESIST HIM So they in point of Law and Conscience then publikely resolved Secondly that the French Protestants and others in the reign of King Francis the second Anno 1559. being much oppressed by the Guisian faction who had got the K. into their power and wholly swayed him as his Maj. ill Councellors sway him now there upon assembling together to consult of some just defence to preserve the just and ancient government of the Realm They demaunded advice TOVCHING LAW AND CONSCIENCE OF MANY LEARNED LAWYERS AND DIVINES who resolved THAT THEY MIGHT LAWFVLLY oppose themselvs against the Government which the House of Guise had usurped and AT NEED TAKE ARMS TO REPVLSE THEIR VIOLENCE so as the Princes who in this case are born Magistrates or some one of them would undertake it being ordered by the States of the Realm or by the sounder part of them That defence of Religion and Liberties against violence and oppression were iust causes of Warre Et quod pia arma ea sint ultra quae nulla restat spesvitae nec salutis A like resolution and determination was mado by the chief Dukes Peers Nobles and Officers of France Anno 1614. which you may read in the Appendix Thirdly that the Angrognians and Waldensian Protestants of Lucerne and Piedment in the year 1558. to 1561 being persecuted by the Lord of Trinitie and their Popish Soveraigns assembling solemnly together to consult how to prevent the great dangers then at hand after long prayer and calling upon God for his grace and Spirit of direction and Counsell well to manage their weighty affairs and to preserve themselves and the Protestant Religion professed by them concluded in the end to enter into a solemn mutuall Covenant and to ioyn in a League together for defence of themselves and their Religion whereupon they all promised by Gods grace and assistance to maintain the pure preaching of the Gospell and administration of the Sacraments and one to ayd and assist the other c. which they did with good successe obtaining many glorious victories against invading persecuting enemies The like did Zisca the Thahorites and Bohemians heretofore and of later times as the Maginall Authors largely relate resolving it iust and lawfull for them in Law and Conscience to defend themselves and their Religion by force of Arms against their persecuting Soveraignes Fourthly that the Netherland Provinces being oppressed in their Bodies Estates by the Duke of Alua and Spanyards Tyrannie and in their Religion and Consciences by the introduced Irquisition to extirpate Religion did after serious deliberation and consultation with learned men of all sorts unanimously conclude and enter into a solemn Covenant to defend their Libities Religion Laws by force of Arms against the Spanish Tyrannie as you may read at large in their Histories And in the year 1572. The Prince of Orange and his Confederates having levyed a goodly Army to relieve Mons besieged by the Duke of Alua caused this notable Protestation to be printed and published to the World as well in his own name as in his Confederates giving a reason of the Arms which he had taken up as followeth Wee William by the Grace of God Prince of Orange Earle of Nassau c. To all Noble-men Knights Gentlemen and others of what quality soever of these Netherlands which desire the Liberty thereof being miserably tyrannized and oppressed by the Duke of Alva the Spaniards and other their friends TRAYTORS AND MVRTHERERS OF THEIR OWN COVNTREY We declare that everyone of us for a particular love and zeale he beares unto his Countrey and for the glory of God which we desire above all have often sought by all meanes the good and quiet of the Countrey as well by Petitions and other mild meanes as by force of Armes thinking to draw those that were as we are to doe the like sometimes by sighes and prayers unto God having had patience untill that it should please him to mollifie the hearts of the said Tyrants but in the end solicited and called generally and particularly by the inhabitants of the said Countrey by reason of the inhumanities and oppressions We have in the Name of God ACCORDING TO OVR CONSCIENCES TAKEN ARMES protesting before God and his Angels and before all Men present and to come that we have not been moved hereunto by any private passion but with an ardent desire which we have to oppose our selves against this more then barbarous and unsupportable tyranny to the Proclamations Edicts taxes Imposts and charges of the hundreth thirtieth twentieth and tenth penny imposed by the insatiable covetousnesse of the Duke of Alva against the Lawes Liberties Freedomes and ancient Priviledges of the said countrey which Lawes Liberties freedomes and ancient priviledges we mean by the grace of God to restore unto the said countrey holding it under the obedience of their Prince and naturall Lord as we are bound to do affirming and maintaining that all Princes and Noblemen Gentlemen Commonweales or others of what quality soever be they strangers or home-bred that have been moved to give us aide or assistance IN THIS SO IVST AN ENTERPRISE have not don it for any other intent but for true piety and compassion which they have with us of the said miseries and calamities Wherefore we pray and entreat every one both in generall and particular to assure themselves that we intend not to doe wrong to any man nor to attempt upon the good estates or honour of any of what quality soever were he of the Clergy but are ready to aid and assist every one freely and willingly as for his liberty EVERY ONE IS BOVND TO SVCCOR VS BY ALL DVE AND POSSIBLE MEANES In the mean time we will give order that God and the countrey may be served in procuring the preservation of the people and the defence of their houses wives and children Praying to God that he