take up Arms against them under those pretences which is the rebellion of the hand 19. Quest What if the King be in the hands of Evil Counsellors may we not take up Arms to remove them from him Answ. Yes if the Earl of Essex may be Judg whose Father fell into Rebellion under that pretence a ut regnum ab impotenti quorundam dominatu liberaret as to free the Kingdom from some men who had got the Queen into their hands and consequently ingrossed unto themselves the principal managery of the Commonwealth But he had other aims than that as before was told you and so had they that went before him in the self same road When as Watt Tiler and Jack Straw and the residue of that Rascal Rabble had took up Arms against King Richard the second they made the Londoners believe who have been always apt to be deluded by the like pretences that when they had seized on the evil Counsellors b which abused the King and brought them to a legal trial then they would be quiet But under this pretence they broke open Prisons robbed Churches murdered the King's good Subjects and finally arrived to so high an impudence that Watt Tiler did not stick to say that within four days all the Laws of England should proceed from his mouth c And when Jack Cade had drawn the Kentish to Rebel against King Henry the sixth he gave it out that if he could get the King and Queen into his hands he would use them honourably d but if he could lay hands on any of the Traytors which were about them he would take care to see them punished for their misdemeanours But in good truth the end and aim of the Rebellion was to depose King Henry and the House of Lancaster in favour of the title of the Duke of York 20. Quest What if the King assaults a Subject or seek to take away his life may not the Subject in that case take up Arms against him Answ. Yes if e Paraeus may be Judg and some of the Genevian Doctors who have so determined But David's case which commonly is alledged in defence hereof if looked on with the eyes of judgment doth affirm the contrary For David though he had a guard of some friends and followers to save him from the hands of such wicked instruments as Saul in his unjust displeasure might have used against him yet he preserved himself from Saul not by resistance but by flight f by flitting up and down as the King removed and approached near him with his Armies For had he had a thought of War though Defensive meerly 't is probable he would have took the opportunities which were offered to him either of seizing on Sauls person when he had him all alone in the Cave of Engeddi g or suffering Abishai to smite him as he lay asleep in the Hill of Hachilah h or at the least in making sure of Abner and the Host of Saul who lay sleeping by him i But David was not so well tutored in the Art of Rebellion as to secure himself this way and wanted some of our new Masters to instruct him in it If from the practice of a pious and religious Iew we will look down upon the precept of a grave wise and learned Gentile we shall find this rule laid down in Aristotle k {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} that if the Magistrate assault the person of a private Subject the Subject may not strike again nor lift hand against him Finally that you may perceive how much all sorts of men do oppose your Doctrines Calvin himself although no friend to Monarchy doth affirm thus much l qui privatus manum intulerit c. that any private person of what sort soever who shall lift up his hand against his Sovereign though a very Tyrant is for the same condemned by the voice of God 21. Quest Perhaps we may so far agree with you as to disable private persons from bearing Arms and lifting up their hands against Kings and Princes of their own authority But think you that inferiour Magistrates are not inabled by their Offices to protect the People and arm them if occasion be in their own defence Answ. 'T is true that some Divines of the Reformed Churches who either lived in popular States or had their breeding at Geneva or thought the Discipline by them defended could not be otherwise obtruded upon Christian Princes than by putting the Sword into the hands of the People have spared no pains to spread abroad this dangerous Doctrine in which they have not wanted followers in most parts of Christendom But S. Paul knew of no such matter when he commanded every soul to yield obedience and subjection to the higher powers and upon no occasion to resist those powers to which the Lord had made them subject So that although inferiour Magistrates may expect obedience from the hands of those over whom and for whose weal and governance they are advanced and placed by the Prince in chief yet God expects that they should yield obedience to the powers above them especially to the highest of all than which there is not any higher There is a golden Chain in Polities and every link thereof hath some relation and dependence upon that before so far forth as inferiour Magistrates do command the People according to that power and those instruments which is communicated to them by the supreme Prince the Subject is obliged to submit unto them without any manner of Resistance Men of no publick Office must obey the Constable the Constable is bound to speed such Warrants as the next Iustice of the Peace shall direct unto him the Iustices receive the exposition of the Law from the mouth of the Iudges the Iudges have no more Authority but what is given them by the King And thereupon it needs must follow that though the Iudges direct the Iustices and the Iustices command the Constables and the Constables may call the People to their aid if occasion be yet all must yield a free obedience without reluctancy or resistance to the King himself The reason is because as Kings or Supreme Magistrates are called Gods Ministers by S. Paul m so the inferiour or Subordinate Magistrates are called the Kings Ministers by S. Peter n Submit your selves to the King as unto the Supreme next to such Governours as are sent or authorized by him for the punishment of evil doers Besides there is no Inferior Matistrate of what sort soever but as he is a publick person in respect of those that are beneath him so is he but a private man in reference to the powers above him and therefore as a private person disabled utterly by your own rules from having any more authority to resist his Sovereign or bear defensive Arms against him as well as any other of the Common People The government of States may be compared most properly
Precedent to us who are not governed by the Iudicial Law of Moses but by the common Law of England and the ruled cases in that Law And therefore tell me if you can whether our own books of afford you any of the like examples Answ. Our own books do afford us many as viz. in the case of Walker a Citizen g of London and that of Mr. Burdet g an Esquire of Warwickshire both executed in the time of King Edward 4th for words which might be construed to a treasonable and rebellious sense tho perhaps no ill meaning was intended that of the Windsors h Butcher in the reign of King Henry 8th for saying that rather than sell his meat at so mean a rate he would send it to the Rebels in the North and finally of one Oldnoll one of the Yeomen of the Guard in Queen Maries time i who had judgment of death for certain traiterous and seditious words spoken against her Majesty altho no insurrection or Rebellion did ensue upon them For the particulars I must refer you to our law books and the common Chronicles 7. Quest Proceed we now unto your third and last sort of Rebellion and tell me what you mean by the Rebellion of the hand and how many sorts there are of it Answ. The Rebellion of the hand is of two sorts whereof the first is the composing dispersing of false scandalous Books and Pamphlets tending to the dishonour of the King His Subordinate Officers Form of Government of purpose to alienate the affections of his Subjects from him and make them the more apt to Rebel against him And this is punishable with death also by the law of England as may appear by the examples of k Bugnall Scot Heath and Kennington being Sanctuary men in S. Martins Legrand London who had judgment to be hanged drawn quartered in the time of K. Hen. 7th for setting up seditious Bills to the scandal of the King and some of his Council of Penry Udall Barrow Greenwood Studley Billott and Bowdler l zealous Puritans all all of which were condemned and three of them hanged in Q. Elizabeths time for writing treasonable seditious Books by wch the peace of the Kingdom might have been disturbed tho no Rebellion followed on them of Copping and Thacker m who were hanged at S. Edmunds bury in the said Queens time for publishing the Pamphlets writ by Rob. Browne against the Book of Common-Prayer which Compton thus reports in his Lawyers French n Deux executez pour poublier les livres de Robert Browne encontre le livre de common praut And finally witness the example of Mr. Williams o a Barrister of the Middle Temple who was executed in King Iames his Reign for writing a defamatory Book against the said King and his Posterity 8. Quest What is the other sort of that Rebellion which you call the Rebellion of the hand Answ. The other sort of the Rebellion of the hand is that which commonly is called Actual Rebellion and is defined by the Statute of the 25 of King Edward 3. p to be a levying of War against our Sovereign Lord the King in his Realm or an adhering to the Kings Enemies in his Realm giving to them aid and comfort in the Realm or elsewhere And so it is determined also in the Civil Laws by which all those q qui arripiunt arma contra eum cujus jurisdictioni subditi sunt who take up Arms against such Persons to whose authority they are subject are declared to be Rebels Where note that not the open Act only but the attempt machination is brought within the compass of Rebellion Rebellio ipse actus rebellandi est qui non solùm facto sed machinatione committitur as those Lawyers tell us r And it is worth our observation that not only the bearing Arms against the King is declared to be Rebellion by the law of England but that it was declared to be Rebellion by the chief Judges of this Kingdom s at the arraignment of the Earl of Essex the Father of him who now is in the head of this Rebellion for any man to seek to make himself so strong that the King should not be able to resist him altho he broke not out into open act 9. Quest What is the end that Rebels do propose unto themselves when they put themselves into Rebellion Ans. The deposition destruction of the King in possession an alteration of the present Government And so it was determined by the joint consent of all the Judges t at the Arraignment of the Earl of Essex above mentioned by whom it was resolved for Law that in every Rebellion there was a plot upon the life and deposition of the Prince it being not to be conceived that the Rebels would suffer him to live or reign◠who might have opportunity in the change of things to punish them for their Rebellions and avenge himself upon them for their Treasons And this they did confirm by the Civil Laws and further justifie and confirm by the strength of Reason with which it seemed inconsistent ut qui semel Regi jus dixerit that he who had once over-ruled his King by force of Arms should either suffer him to live or recover the possession of his Realm again All which they made good by the sad examples of King Edward the second and King Richard the second who did not long enjoy either life or Crown after they came into the hands of those who rebelled against them 10. Qu. But those Examples which you speak of were in times of Popery have you the like to shew since the Reformation Answ. I would to God we had none such but we have too many For not to look into our neighbouring Realm of Scotland and the proceedings of some there who called themselves Protestants against their Queen the Rebellion plotted by the Earl of Essex in Queen Elizabeths time though there was nothing less pretended was to have ended in the death of the Queen and the alteration of the Government For as was afterwards confessed by some of his Accomplices the secret part of the design was to have seized upon the Queen and secured his Adversaries in the Court whom when he had condemned and executed u Parliamento indicto reipub formam immutare statuit he then resolved to call a Parliament and settle a new form of Government Which how it could be done and the Queen alive I believe you know not And so much was acknowledged by the Earl himself after the sentence of death was passed upon him when he affirmed to certain of her Majesties Council Reginam sospitem esse non posse si ipse supersit x that whilst he lived it was not possible for the Queen to continue in safety Thus have you seen the main design of that Rebellion as of all others whatsoever what his pretences
unto Porphyries Tree in which there is one Genus summum and many Genera subalterna Now 't is well known to every young Logician who hath learnt his Predicabiles that Genus subalternum is a species only as it looks up to those above it a Genus in relation unto these below it If you have so much Logick in you as to make application of this Note to the present case you will perceive inferiour Magistrates to be no Magistrates at all as they relate unto the King the Genus summum in the scale of Govenment and therefore of no more authority to resist the King or call the People unto Arms than the meanest Subject 22. Quest If so then were the Christian Subject of all men most miserable o in being utterly deprived of all ways and means by which to free his Country from Oppression and himself from Tyranny And therefore tell me if you can what would you have the Subject do in these extremities in which you have deprived him of all means to relieve himself Answ. That which the Lord himself prescribed and the Saints have practised When first the Lord acquainted those of the house of Israel how heavy a yoke their violence and importunity in asking for a King had pulled upon them he told them of no other remedy for so much affliction but that they should cry out in that day because of the King whom they had chosen p No casting off the yoke when we find it grievous nor any way to make it lighter and more pleasing to us than either by addressing our Complaints to the Lord our God or tendring our Petitions to our Lord the King Kings are accomptable to none but God if they abuse the power which he gives unto them Nor can we sue them for a Trespass in any other Court than the Court of Heaven Therefore when David had defiled the Wife and destroyed the Husband he thought himself responsal for it unto none but God against whom only he had sinned q as he saith himself And thereupon S. Ambrose gives this gloss on those words of David Homini ergo non peccavit cui non tenebatur obnoxius r David saith he confesseth no offence to man by whom he could not be impleaded but only unto God who had power to judg him St. Gregory of Tours understood this rightly when he did thus address himself to a King of France Si quis de nobis c. s If any of us O King do transgress the Laws thou hast power to punish him but it thou goest beyond thy limits who can punish thee We tell thee of thy faults as occasion serves and when thou listest to give ear thou dost hearken to us Which if thou shouldest refuse to do who shall judg thee for it but he that calls himself by the name of Justice And that you may be sure that it is no otherwise in England than in France and Iewry Bracton a great and famous Lawyer of this Kingdom doth affirm expresly that if the King proceed not in his Government according unto Law and Right there is no legal remedy to be had against him What then is to be done by the injured Subject Locus erit supplicationi quod factum suum corrigat emendet quod si non fecerit satis ei sufficit ad poenam quòd Dominum expecâ—et ultorem t All that he hath to do saith he is that the doth petition him for relief and remedy which if the King refuse to consent unto it will be punishment enough unto him that he must look for vengeance from the hands of God Which said he given this reason for it Because that no man is to call the Kings Acts in question multò fortiùs contra factuâ— suum venire must less to go about to annul and avoid them by force and violence 23. Quest We grant it to be true which you cite from Bracton as it relates to private and particular men but think you that it doth concern or oblige the Parliament which is the representative body of the Kingdom Answ. Hoc sumus congregati quod dispersi u as Tertullian tells us of the Christians in another case We shewed before that Subjects were in no case to resist their Sovereigns in the way of Arms either as private persons on inferiour Magistrates And thereupon we may conclude that the People of this Realm in the diffusive body of it having no power of levying War or raising Forces to resist the King without being punishable for the same as in case of Treason cannot enable the two Houses of Parliament which are the representative body of it to do those Acts which they want power to do themselves for no Man can confer a power upon any other which is not first vested in himself according to that good old rule Nemo dat quod non habet And therefore if it be rebellion in the English Subject out of times of Parliament to levy War against the King in his Realm or to adhere unto his Enemies and be aiding to them I know not how it can excuse the Members of the two Houses of Parliament from coming within the compass of that Condemnation if they commit such Acts in time of Parliament and under the pretence of the power thereof which are judged Treason and Rebellion by the Laws of England 24. Quest But Master Prynne hath learnedly removed that rub x who tells you that the Statute of 25. Edward 3. runs only in the Singular number If a man shall levy War against the King and therefore cannot be extended to the Houses who are many and publick persons What can you answer unto that Answ. That Mr. Prynne having so often shewn malice may have a little leave sometimes to shew his folly and make some sport unto the Kingdom in these useful times for if his learned observation will hold good in Law it is not possible that any Rebellion should be punished in a legal way because so many and some of them perhaps may be publick persons are commonly ingaged in actions of that wicked nature And I suppose that Mr. Prynne with all his learning did never read of a Rebellion that is to say of a War levyed by the Subject against his Sovereign plotted and executed by one man only in the Singular number Had Master Prynne affirmed on his word and credit that the Members of the two Houses were not men but gods he had then said somewhat which would have freed them from the guilt and danger of that dreadful Statute If he admit them to be men and grant them to have levyed War against his Majesty or to be aiding to the Rebels now in arms against him he both conclude them to be guilty of this great Rebellion with which this miserable Kingdom in almost laid desolate His Sophistry and trim distinctions touching their quality and numbers will but little help them 25. Qu. We have
another Plaister which will salve that Sore viz. The difference that is made between the King's Person and his Power by which is it made visible to discerning eyes that though the Parliament have levyed War against the Person of the King yet they do not fight against his Power but defend it rather And 't is not a resistance of the Person but the Power of Princes which is forbidden by Saint Paul How do you like of that distinction Answ. As ill or worse than of the other as being of the two the more serious folly and coming from an Author no less factious but far more learned I confess than your other was For if I do remember right Buchanan was the first that broached this Doctrine in his Book De jure regni apud Scotos in which he tells us that Saint Paul in the place aforesaid doth not speak of Magistrates Sed de functione officio eorum qui aliis praesunt but of the Magistracy it self the Function or Office of the Magistrate which must not be resisted though his Person may Which foolish Fancy serving fitly for a Cloak or Vizard wherewith to palliate and disguise Rebellions hath since been ofen used by those who pursue his Principles though never worn so thred-bare as of late in your treacherous Pamphlets but draweth after it as many and as gross Absurdities as the other did For by this strange division of the King from himself or of his Person from his Power a Traitor may kill Charles and not hurt the King destroy the Man and save the Magistrate the Power of the King in one of the Armies may fight against his Person in the other Army his own Authority may be used to his own destruction and one may lawfully set upon him beat assault and wound him in order to his preservation So that you make the King like Sosia in the ancient Comedy who being well beaten and demanded who it was that did it made answer Egomet memet qui nunc sunt domi z that Sosia who was at home in his Masters House did beat that Sosia which was abroad in his Masters business But questionless Saint Paul did better understand himself than either Buchanan or any of his followers since his time have done Who doth interpret the word power which he useth in the first and second Verses by that of Principes Ministri Rulers and Ministers which be useth in the third and fourth Which as it plainly shews that he meaneth the Magistrate and not the Function or the Office as your Masters tell you so doth it leave you liable to the wrath of God if you endeavour to defend these wicked and rebellious courses by such wretched shifts 26. Quest What say you then if it appear that the two Houses of Parliament for I use your terms are not subordinate to the King but coordinate with him y I hope then you will yield so far that the two Houses have a power if they cannot otherwise provide for the common safety to arm the People of the Realm against Him as against an Equal Answ. We grant indeed that People which have no Superiour but stand on equal terms with one another if injured by their Neighbours and not receiving satisfaction when they do desire it may remedy themselves by force and for so doing by the Law of Nations are esteemed just Enemies but so it is not in the point which is now in question the Realm of England as it is declared by Act of a Parliament being on Empire governed by one supreme Head and King having the Dignity and Royal Estate of the Imperial Crown of the same unto whomâ— Body Politick compact of all sorts and degrees of People divided in â—erms and by Names of Spirituality and Temporality been bounden and ought to bear next to God a natural and humble Obedience Assuredly had the Lords and Commons then assembled conceived themselves coordinate with the King in the publick Government they would not have so wronged themselves and their Posterity as to have made this declaration and acknowledgment so prejudicial thereunto not only in a Parliament time but by Act of Parliament Besides if this Coordination which you dream of could be once admitted it must needs follow thereupon that though the King hath no Superiour he hath many Equals and where there is equality there is no subjection But Bracton tells you in plain terms not only that the King hath no superiour in his Realm except God alone but that he hath no Equal neither Parem autem non habet in regno suo as his words there are b And then he gives this reason of it Quia sic amitteret praeceptum cum par in parem non habet imperium because he could not have an Equal but with the loss of his Authority and Regal Dignity considering that an Equal hath no power to command another Now lest you should object that is spoken of the King out of times of Parliament but that when once the Lords and Commons are convened in Parliament the case is otherwise First you must think that had this Doctrine been on foot in the times preceding it would have been a great impediment unto frequent Parliaments and that our King as others being very jealous even of the smallest points of Sovereignty would not admit of Partners in the Crown Imperial by the assembling of a Parliament having been used to reign alone without any Rivals And Secondly you may call to mind that even sedente Parliamento during the sitting of the Court the Lords and Commons call themselves His Majesties most humble and obedient Subjects which is not only used as a stile of course in such Petitions as they use to present unto him and by the way 't is not the use for men of equal power to send Petitions unto one another but it is the very Phrase in some Acts of Parliament c for which I do refer you to the Book at large And if they be his Subjects as they say they be they cannot be his Equals as you say they are and therefore not coordinate with him but subordinate to him by consequence the levying War against the King no more excusable in them than the meanest Subject 27. Quest You take great pains to make the Parliament or the two Houses as you call them to be guilty of Rebellion against his Majesty without ground or reason For tell me seriously think you the Parliament hath not power to arm the people and put them into a posture of defence against the Enemies of the Kingdom if they see occasion Answ. Yes if the King do give consent and that there be such Enemies against whom to arm them For properly according to the ordinary rules of Polities there is no power of raising Forces and putting the People into Arms but only in the Prince or Supreme Magistrate The Civil Laws have so resolved it Nulli prorsus nobis insciis