did not ALL ISRAEL upon Solomons death when Rehoboam his son refused to grant their iust requests at their coming to Sechem to make him king use this speech to the king What Portion have we in David neither have we inheritance in the son of lesse to your Tents ô Israel now see to thine own house David Whereupon they departed and fell away from the house of David ever after and made Iereboam King over all Israel And doth not the Text directly affirm Whenefore Rehoboam hearkned not unto the people for the cause was from the Lord that he might perform the saying which the Lord spake to Abijah unto Ieroboam the son of Nebat After which when Rehoboam raised a mighty Army to reduce the ten Tribes to obedience the Word of the Lord came to Shemaiah the man of God saying Speak unto Rehoboam and all the house of Iudah and Benjamin Thus SAITH THE LORD Ye shall not go up to fight against your brethren the children of Israel return every man to his house FOR THIS THING IS FROM ME They hearkned therefore to the word of the Lord and returned to depart according to the word of the Lord. Lo here a Kingdom quite rent a way from the very house of David yea a new King and kingdom erected by the People by Gods and his Prophets speciall direction and approbation for King Solomons Idolatry Who is such a stranger to the sacred Story but hath oft-times read how God anoynted Iehu King of purpose to extirpate and out off the whole house of K. Ahab his Lard for his and Iezabels Idolatry and blood-shed in flaying the Prophets and unjustly executing Naboth for his Vineyard in performance whereof he slew his Soveraign King Ioram Ahaziah King of Iudah Queen Iezabel all Ahabs posterity his great men his Nobles and all the Priests and Worshippers of Baal till he left none remaining according to the word of the Lord which he spake by his servant Elijah 2 Kings c. 9. 10. For which good service the Lord said unto Iehu Because THOV HAST DONE WELL in executing that which is right in mine eyes and hast done unto the house of Ahab according to all that was IN MINE HEART thy children of the 4. generation shall sit on the Thron of Israel This fact therefore of his thus specially commanded approved rewarded by God himself must needs be just and lawfull nor Treason nor Rebellion in Iehu unlesse the Opposites will charge God to be the author approver and rewarder of sin of Treason Neither will it serve their turns to Reply that this was an extraordinary example not to be imitated without such a speciall commission from heaven as Iehu had and no man can now a dayes expect For since God hath frequently injoyned all grosse incorrigible Idolaters especially those who are nearest and dearest to and most potent to seduce us to be put to death without any pitty or exception of Kings whose examples are most pernicious and apt to corrupt the whole Nation as the presidents of the Idolatrous kings of Israel and Iudah abundantly evidence if Kings become open professed Idolaters though private persons may not murther them and their families as Iehu yet the representative body or greater part of their Kingdoms as many Pious Divines affirm may lawfully convent depose if not judge them capitally for it and Gods putting zeal and courage into their hearts or exciting them by his faithfull Ministers to such a proceeding is a sufficient Divine Commission to satisfie Conscience if no sinister private ends but meer zeal of Gods glory and detestation of Idolatry be the onely Motives to such their proceedings Thus we read God stirred up Baacha exalted out of the dust and made him a Prince over the house of Israel who slew king Nadab and smote all the house of Jeroboam till he left him not any that breatned because of the sins of Ieroboam which he sinned and which he made Israel sin by his provocations wherewith he provoked the Lord God of Israel to anger who going on after in Ieroboams sins God threatens to out off all his house and make it like the house of Ieroboam which was actually executed by Zimri who slew his Soveraign King Elah son to Baacha With all the house of Baacha and left not one that pissed against the wall neither of his kinsfolks nor of his friends according to the word of the Lord which he spake against Baacha byâ— â—chu the Prophet Which act of Zimri though a just judgement in regard of God on the family of Baacha for their Idolatry was notwithstanding reputed Treason in Zimri because he did it not out of Conscience or zeal against Idolatry being and continuing an Idolater himself but onely out of ambition to usurp the Crown without the peeples consent whereupon all the people made Omri King and then going all to the Royall Palace set it on fire and burnt Omri in it both for his sins Idolatries and Treason which he wrought We read expresly that after the time that Amaziah did turn away from following the Lord they for this conspired a conspiracie against him in Ierusalem and he fled to Lachish but they sent to Lachish after him slew him there and they brought him upon horses and buried him with his fathers in the City of Iudah Then all the people of Iudah took Uzziah who was 16 years old and MADE HIM KING in the room of his father Amaziah and he did that which was right in the sight of the Lord. So Zachariah Shallum Pekahiah Pekah four evill Kings of Iudah successivly acquiring the Crown by murther and reigning evilly in Gods fight were all slain by Gods just judgement on them of one another and Hoshea In few words God himself ever annexed this condition to the Kings of Israel and Iudah that they should serve and fear him obey him Laws keep his Covenant otherwise if they did wickedly for sake him or commit idolatry he would destroy forsake and cast them and their seed off from being Kings When therefore they apparently violated the condition the whole State and people as Gods Instruments lawfully might and sometimes did by Gods speciall direction remov depose and sometimes put them even to death for their grosse iniquities and idolatries and when they did it not it was not as many think for want of lawfull Soveraign Authority remaining in the whole State and people as I shall fully manifest in the Appendix but out of a defect of zeal out of a generall complying with their Kings in their abominable idolatries and sins which brought War Captivity ruine both on their Kings their Posteritie the whole Nation and Kingdoms of Iudah and Israel as the Sacred Story plentifully relates All which considere this object on proves not onely false but fatall to the Obiectors cause who might with more discretion have forborn then forced such an answer to it which I hope and desire
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
and Body After which they seeing more Strangers arrive with Horse and armes every day sent word to the King That hee should foorthwith remove Bishop Peter and all his Strangers from his Court which if he refused they all would BY THE COMMON CONSENT OF THE WHOLE REALM drive him with his wicked Counsellours out of the Realme and consult of chusing them a new King After these and some other like passages the King raysing an Army besiegeth one of the Earles Castles and not being able to winne it and ashamed to raise his Seige without gaining it he sent certaine Bishops to the Earle and requested him that since he had besieged his Castle and hee could not with Honour depart without winning it which he could not doe by force that the Earle to save his Honour would cause it to be surrended to him upon this condition That hee would restore it certainely to him within 15. dayes and that by advise of the Bishops he would amend all things amisse in his Kingdome for performance of which the Bishops became his Pledges and the King appointed a meeting at Westminster on a set day betweene Him and the Lords whereupon the Earle surrendred the Castle to the King upon Oath made by the Bishops that it should be restored at the day But the King refusing to deliver the Earle the Castle according to promise and threatning to subdue his other Castles the Earle hereupon raiseth his Forces winnes his Castle againe routs divers of the Kings Forraigne Forces at Gorsemond Monmouth and other places and invaded the lands of his Enemies Vpon this occasion Frier Agnellus or Lambe acquaints the Earle what the King together with his Counsell and Court thought of his proceedings to wit that the King said he had proceeded over traiterously and unjustly against him yet he was willing to receive him into favour if he would wholly submit himselfe to his mercy and that others held it not just safe and profitable for him to doe it because he had done wrong to the King in that before the King had invaded his Lands or Person he invaded and destroyed the Kings Lands and slew his men and if he should say he did this in defence of his body and inheritance they answered no because there was never any plot against either of them and that were it true yet he ought not thus to breake forth against the King his Lord untill hee had certaine knowledge that the King had such intensions against him ET EX TVNC LICERET TALIA ATTEMPTARE and from thenceforth he might lawfully attempt such things by the Courtiers and Friers owne Confessions Vpon which the Marshiall said to Frier Lambe To the first they say that I ought to submit my selfe because I have invaded the King it is not true because the King himselfe though I have beene ever ready to stand to the Law and judgement of my Peeres in his Court and have oft times requested it by many messengers betweene us which he alwaies denied to grant violently entred my Land and invaded it against all justice whom hoping in humility to please I freely entred into a forme of peace with him which was very prejudiciall to me wherein he granted that if on his part all things were not punctually performed toward me I should be in my pristine state before that peace conclnded namely that I should be without this homage and absolved from my allegiance to him as I was at first by the Bishop of Saint Davids Seeing then hee hath violated all the Articles of the Peace IT WAS LAWFVLL FOR ME According to my agreement to recover what was mine owne and to debilitate his power by all meanes especially seeing he endeavoured my destruction dis-inheritance and seizing of my Body of which I have certaine intelligence and am able to prove it if neede be And which is more after the 15 daies truce before I entred Wales or made any defence he deprived me of the Office of Marshall without judgement which belongs to me and I have enjoyed by Inheritance neither would he by any meanes restore mee to it though required Whence I have plainely learned that he will keepe no peace with me seeing since the Peace hee handles me worse then before Whereby I ceased to bee his Subject and was absolved from his homage by him Wherefore it was and is lawfull for me to defend my selfe and to withstand the malice of his Counsellors by all meanes And whereas the Kings Counsellors say it is profitable for me to submit to the Kings mercy because he is more rich and powerfull then I am It is true the King is richer and more potent then I but yet he is not more powerfull then God who is Iustice it selfe in whom I trust in the confirmation and prosecution of my right and of the Kingdomes And whereas they say the King can bring in Strangers of his kinred who are neither Scots nor French nor Welsh who shall make all his foes his Foot-stoole and come in such multitudes as they shall cover the face of the earth and that he can raise seven men to my one I neither trust in Strangers nor desire their confederaciei nor will I invoke their aide Vnlesse which God forbid inopinata immutabilis fuero compulsus necessitate I shall be compelied by a sudden and immutable necessity and I beleeve by his Counsells ill advise he will quickly bring in such multitudes of Strangers that he will not be able to free the Kingdome of them againe for I have learned from credible men that the Bishop of Winchester is bound to the Emperour that he will make the Kingdome of England subject to him which God in his providence avert And whereas they say That I may confide in the King and his Counsell because the King is mercifull credible c. It may well be that the King is mercifull but he is seduced be the Counsell of those by whom we feele our selves much hurt and he is Noble and credible whom God long preserve so as much as in him lies but as for his Counsell I say that no one promise made to me was ever yet kept and they have violated many corporall Oathes made to me and the Oathes they tooke for observing Magna Charta for which they remaine excommunicate and perjured Yea they are enjured concerning the faithfull Counsell which they have sworne to give to our Lord the King when as they have wilfully given him the Counsell of Achitophel against justice and corrupted the just Lawes they have sworne to keepe and introduced unusuall ones for which and for many other things for which neither God nor man ought to trust them or their complices are they not every one excommunicated Rumor de veteri faciet ventura timeri Cras poterunt fieri turtia sicut heri Falix quem faciunt aliena pericula cautum Whereas the said Counsellors of the King say that I invaded the Kings body at Gorsmund Castle before
reports that Symon after his death grew famous by many miracles which for feare of the King came not in publicke Thus this Historian thus Robert Grosthead the most devout and learned Bishop of that age who most of any opposed the Popes Vsurpations and exactions determine of the justice and lawfulnesse of the Barons Warres Walter Bishop of Worcester concurring in the same opinion with Grosthead The same author Rishanger records that the Earle of Glocester a great stickler in these warres against the king with whom at last he accorded signified to the King by his Letters Patents under his seale that he would never beare Armes against the King his Lord nor against his Sonne Prince Edward NISI DEFENDO but onely in his Defence which the King and Prince accepting of clearely proves that defensive Armes against King or Prince were in that age generally reputed Lawfull by King Prince Prelates Nobles People I may likewise adde to this what I read in Matthew Westminster that Richard Bishop of Chichester the day before the battle of Lewis against King Henry and his sonne who were taken prisoners in it by the Barons and 20000. of their Souldiers slaine absolved all that went to fight against the King their Lord from all their sinnes Such confidence had he of the goodnesse of the cause and justnesse of the warre In one word the oath of association prescribed by the Barons to the King of Romans brother to King Henry the third in the 43. yeare of his Raigne Heare all men that I Richard Earle of Cornewall doe here sweare upon the holy Evangelists that I shall be faithfull and diligent to reforme with you the Kingdome of England hitherto by the councell of wicked persons overmuch disordered and be an effectuall Coâ—djutor TO EXPELL THE REBELLS and disturbers of the same And this Oath I will inviolaby observe under paâ—ne of losing all the lands I have in England So helpe me God Which Oath all the Barrons and their associates tooke by vertue whereof they tooke up armes against the Kings ill Councellors and himselfe when he joined with them sufficiently demonstrates their publicke opinions and judgements of the lawfulnesse the justnesse of their warres and of all other necessarie defensive armes taken up by the Kingdomes generall assent for preservation of its Lawes Liberties and suppression of those Rebels and ill Councellors who fight against or labour to subvert them by their policies In the third yeare of King Edward the 2 d this king revoking his great Mynion Piers Gaveston newly banished by the Parliament into Ireland and admitting him into as great favour as before contrary to his oath and promise the Barrons hereupon by common consent sent the King word that he should banish Piers from his company according to his agreement or else they would certainâ—ly rise up against him as a perjured person Vpon which the King much terrified suffers Piers to abjure the Realme who returning againe soone after to the Court at Yorke where the king entertained him the Lords spirituall and temporall to preserve he liberties of the Church and Realme sent an honourable message to the King to deliver Piers into their hands or banish him for the preservation of the peace Treasure and weale of the Kingdome this wilfull King denies their just request whereupon the Lords thus contemned and deluded raised an army and march with all speede towards New-Castle NOT TO OFFER INIVRIE OR MOLESTATION TO THE KING but to apprehend Peirs and judge him according to Law upon this the King fleeth together with Peirs to Tinemouth and from thence to Scarborough Castle where Piers is forced to render himselfe to the Barrons who at Warwicke Castle without any legall triall by meere martiall Law beheaded him as a subvertor of the Lawes and an OPEN TRAITOR TO THE KINGDOME For which facts this King afterwards reprehending and accusing the Lords in Parliament in the 7 th yeare of his Raigne they stoutly answered THAT THEY HAD NOT OFFENDED IN ANY ONE POINT BVT DESERVED HIS ROYAL FAVOVR for they HAD NOT GATHERED FORCE AGAINST HIM though he were in Piers his company assisted countenanced and fled with him BVT AGAINST THE PVBLICKE ENEMIE OF THE REALME Whereupon there were two acts of oblivion passed by the King Lords and Commons assembled in that Parliament Printed in the 2 d Part of old Magna Charta The first that no person on the Kings part should be questioned molested impeached imprisoned and brought to judgement for causing Pierce to returne from Exile or harboring councelling or ayding hiâ—â—ere after his returne The second on the Barons part in these words It is provided by the King and by the Archbishops Bishops Abbots Priors Earles Barâ—s and Commons of the Realme assembled according to our Command and unanimously assented and accorded that none of what estate or condition soever he be shall in time to come be appealed or challenged for the apprehending deteining or death of Peirsde Gaveston nor shall for the said death be apprehended nor imprisoned impeached molested nor grieved nor judgement given against him by us nor by others at our suite nor at the suite of any other either in the Kings Court or elsewhere Which act the King by his Writ sent to the Judges of the Kings Bench commanding that this grant and concord shall be firme and stable in all its points and that every of them should be held and kept in perpetuitie to which end he commands them to cause this act to be there inrolled and firmely kept for ever A pregnant evidence that the Barons taking up Armes then against this Traytor and enemie of the Realme in pursuance of the Act and sentence of Parliament for his banishment though the King were in his company and assisted him all he might was then both by King and Parliament adjudged no Treason nor Rebellion at all in point of Law but a just honorable action Wherefore their taking up Armes is not mentioned in this Act of oblivion seeing they all held it just but their putting Piers to death without legall triall which in strictnesse of Law could not be justified Now whether this be not the Parliaments and kingdomes present case in point of Law who tooke up armes principally at first for defence of their owne Priviledges of Parliament and apprehention of delinquents who seducing the king withdrew him from the Parliament and caused him to raise an Army to shelter themselves under its power against the Parliament let every reasonable man determine and if it be so we see this ancient Act of Parliament resolves it to be no high Treason nor Rebellion nor offence against the King but a just lawfull act for the kings the kingdomes honour and safety Not long after this the two Spensers getting into the kings favour and seducing miscouncelling him as much as Gaveston did the Lords and Barrons hereupon in the 14 th and 15 th yeares of his raigne confederated
the apprehension of such as have beene voted Traytors and Delinquents by Parliament and stand out in contempt against its justice for the defence of the Priviledges and Members of Parliament the Liberties and properties of the subject the fundamentall lawes of the Realme the Protestant Religion now indangered by Papists up in Armes in England and Ireland to extirpate it and the removing ill Counsellors from his Majestie to be no high Treason Rebellion or offence at all against the king but a just and lawful Act the very miscarriages wherof in the generall except in such disorderly Souldiers for whom martiall Law hath provided due punishments deserve a publike pardon both from King and Kingdome And to put this out of Question as no fancie of mine owne we have an expresse Act of Parliament resolving the taking up of Armes by the Queene Prince both but subjects and capable of High Treason in such a case as well as others the Nobles and people of the Realme against these two Spensers and other ill Counsellors about this king in the last yeare of his raigne though the King himself were in their Company and taken prisoner by the Forces raised against them for the necessary preservation reliefe and safety of the Queene Prince Nobles Kingdome to be no high Treason nor offence at all namely the statute of 1 E. 3. c. 1. 2. 3 which I shall recite at large Whereas Hugh Spenser the Father and Hugh Spenser the Sonne late at the suite of Thomas then Earle of Lancaster and Leycester and Steward of England by the common assent and vote of the Peers and Commons of the Realme and by the assent of King Edward Father to our Soveraigne Lord the King that now is AS TRAITORS ENEMIES OF THE KING OF THE REALME were Exiled disinherited and banished out of the Realme for ever And afterward the same Hugh by evill Councell which the king had about him without the assent of the Peeres and Commons of the Realme came againe into the Realme and they with other procured the said king to pursue the said Earle of Lancaster and other great men and people of the Realme in which pursuite the said Earle of Lancaster and other great men and people of the Realme were willingly dead and disinherited and some outlawed banished and disinherited and some disinherited and imprisoned and some ransommed and disherited and after such mischiefe the said Hugh and Hugh Master Robert Baldâ—cke and Edmâ—nd Earle of Arundell usurped to them the Royall power so that the king nothing did nor would doe but as the said Hugh and Hugh Robâ—rt and Edmond Earle of Arundell did councell him were it never so great wrong during which usurpation by duresse and force against the Will of the Commons they purchased Lands as well by fines levied in the Court of the said Edward as otherwise and whereas after the death of the said Earle of Lancaster and other great men our Soveraigne Lord the King that now is and Dame Isabel Queene of England his Mother by the Kings will and Common Councell of the Realme went over to France to treate of peace betweene the two Realmes of England and France upon certaine debates then moved The said Hugh and Hugh Robert and Edmond Earle of Arundell continuing in their mischiefe encouraged the king against our Soveraigne Lord the king that now is his sonne and the said Queene his wife and by royall power which they had to them encroached as afore is said procured so much grievance by the assent of the said King Edward to our Soveraigne Lord the King that now is and the Queene his mother being in so great jeopardy of themselves in a strange Country and seeing the Destruction Dammage Oppressions and Distractions which were notoriously done in the Realme of England upon holy Church Prelates Earles Barons and other great men and the Commonalty by the said Hugh and Hugh Robert and Edmond Earle of Arundell by the encroaching of the said royall power to them to take as good Councell therein as they might And seeing they might not remedie the same unlesse they came into England with an Army of men of warre and by the Grace of God with such puissance and with the helpe of great men and Commons of the Realme they have vanquished and destroyed the sayd Hugh and Hugh Robert and Edmond Wherefore our Soveraigne Lord King Edward that now is at his Parliament holden at Westmiuster at the time of his Coronation the morrow after Candlemas in the first yeare of his reigne upon certaine Petitions and requests made unto him in the said Parliament upon such Articles above rehearsed by the common councell of the Prelates Earles Barons and other great men and by the Commonalty of the Realme there being by his Commandment hath provided ordained and stablished in forme following First that no great man or other of what estate dignity or condition he be that came with the said king that now is and with the Queene his mother into the Realme of England and none other dwelling in England who came with the said king that now is and with the Queene In ayde of them to pursue their said enemies in which pursuite the King his Father was taken and put in ward and yet remaineth in ward shall not be molested impeached or grieved in person or goods in the kings Court or other Court for the pursuite of the said king taking and with holding of his body nor pursuite of any other nor taking of their persons goods nor death of any man or any other things perpetrate or committed in the said pursuite from the day the said king and Queene did arme till the day of the Coronation of the same king and it is not the kings minde that such offenders that committed any trespasse or other offence out of the pursuites should goe quit or have advantage of this statute but they shall be at their answere for the same at the Law Item that the repeale of the said Exile which was made by Dures and force be adâ—ulled for evermore and the said Exile made by award of the Peeres and Commons by the kings assent as before is said shall stand in his strength in all points after the tenure of every particular therein contained Item that the Executors of the Testament of all those that were of the same quarrell dead shall have actions and recover the Goods and Chattels of them being of the said quarrell whose executors they be as they of the same quarrell should c. Certainely here was an higher pursuite and levying warre against the King and his evill Councellors then any yet attempted by this Parliament and a warre rather offensive then defensive in which the king himself was both taken and detained Prisoâ—r and then forced to resigne his Crowne to his sonne yet this is here justified as a necessary just and lawfull warre by an Act of Parliament never yet repealed and all that bare Armes
against the king and his ill Councellors yea they who pursued apprehended and imprisoned the king himselfe are as to this particular discharged by the king and whole Parliament from all manner of guilt of punishment or prosecution whatsoever against them Which consideration makes me somewhat confident that this King and the Parliament held in the 25. yeare of his Raigne ch 2. Which declares it high Treason to levie warre against the King in his Realme did never intend it of a necessary defensive warre against a seduced King and his evill Councellors especially by the Votes of both Houses of Parliament who doubtlesse would never passe any Act to make themselves or their Posteritie in succeeding Parliaments Traytors for taking up meere necessary defensive Armes for their owne and the Kingdomes preservation for that had beene diametraâ—ly contrary to this statute made in the very first yeare and Parliament of this King and would have lâ—yd an aspertion of High Treason upon the king himself the Queene his Mother their own Fathers and many of themselves who thus tooke up Armes and made a defensive kinde of warre upon King â—dward the 2 d taking him prisoner but onely to Rebellious insurrections of private persons without any publick authority of Parliament or the whole Kingdome in generall and of meere offensive warres against the King without any just occasion hostilitie or violence on the Kings part necessitating them to take up defensive Armes which I humbly submit to the judgement of those grand Rabbies and Sages of the Law and the Honorable Houses of Parliament who are best able to resolve and are the onely Iudges to determine this point in controversie by the expresse letter and provision of 25. Ed. 3. ch 2. of Treasons In the first yeare of king Richard the 2 d. John Mercer a Scot with a Navie of Spanish Scottish French ships much infested the Marchants and Coasts of England taking many prises without any care taken by the king Lords or Councell to resist them Whereupon Iohn Philpot a rich Merchant of London diligently considering the defect that I say not treachery of the Duke of I ancaster and other Lords who ought to defend the Realme and grieving to see the oppressions of the people did at his proper charge hire a thousand souldiers and set out a fleete to take the said Mercers ships with the goods he had gotten by Pyracie and defend the Realme of England from such incursions who in a short time tooke Mâ—rcer prisoner with 15. Spanish ships and all the Booties he had gained from the English whereat all the people rejoyced exceedingly commending and extolling Philpot for the great love he shewed to his Countrey and casting out some reproachfull words against the Nobles and Kings councell who had the rule of the kingdome and neglected its defence Whereupon the Nobility Earles and Barons of the Realme conscious of this their negligence and envying Philpoâ— for this his Noble praise-worthy action began not onely secretly to lay snares for him but openly to reproach him saying That it was not lawfull for him to doe such things without the advise or councell of the King and Kingdome quasi non licuisset benefacere Regi VELREGNO sine consilio Comitum Baronum Writes Walsingham as if it were not lawfull to doe good to the King or Kingdome without the advise of the Earles and Barrons or Lords of the Privie Councell To whom objecting these things and especially to Hugh Earle of Stafford who was the chiefe Prolocutor and spake most against it Iohn Philpot gave this answere Know for certaine that I have destinated my money ships and men to sea to this end not that I might deprive you of the good name and honour of your Militia or warlike actions and engrosse it to my selfe but pittying the misery of my Nation and Country which now by your sloathfulnesse of a most Noble kingdome and Lady of Nations is devolved into so great misery that it lyeth open to the pillage of every one of the vilest Nations seeing there is none of you who will put your hand to its defence I have exposed me and mine therefore for the Salvation of my proper Nation and frteing of my Country To which the Earle and others had not a word to reply From this memorable history and discourse which I have translated verbatim out of Walsingham I conceive it most evident that in the default of king and Nobles it is lawfull for the Commons and every particular subject without any Commission from the king or his Councell in times of iminent danger to take up Armes and raise Forces by Sea or Land to defend the king and his Native Country against invading enemies as Philpot did without offence or crime Then much more may the Houses of Parliament the representative body of the whole kingdome and all private Subjects by their Command take up necessary defensive Armes against the kings Popish and Malignant Forces to preserve the king Kingdome Parliament People from spoyle and ruine In the 8. yeare of King Richard the 2 d. there arose a great difference betweene the Duke of Lancaster the king his young complices who conspired the Dukes death agreeing sodainely to arrest and arraigne him before Robert Trisilian Chiefe Iustice who boldly promised to passe sentence against him according to the quality of the crimes objected to him Vpon this the Duke having private intelligence of their treachery to provide for his owne safety wisely withdrew himselfe and posted to his Castle at Ponfract storing it with Armes and Victualls Hereupon not onely a private but publicke discord was like to ensue but by the great mediation and paines of Ione the kings mother an accord and peace was made betweene them and this defence of the Duke by fortifying his Castle with Armes against the King and his ill instruments for his owne just preservation held no crime If such a defence then were held just and lawfull in one particular Subject and Peere of the land onely much more must it be so in both Houses of Parliament and the Kingdome in case the Kings Forces invade them In the 10 th yeare of King Richard the second this unconstant king being instigated by Michael de la Pole Robert Vâ—ere Duke of Ireland Alexander Nevill ARchbishop of Yorke Robert Trysilian and other ill Councellors and Traytors to the kingdome endeavoured to seize upon the Duke of Glocester the Earles of Arundell Warwicke Derby Notingham and others who were faithfull to the kingdome and to put them to death having caused them first to be indighted of High Treason at Nottingham Castle and hired many Souldiers to surprise them Hereupon these Lords for their owne just defence raised Forces and met at Harynggye Parke with a numerous Army whereat the King being much perplexed advised what was best for him to do The Archbishop of Yorke and others of his ill Councell advised him to gee forth and give
the honour of God the Salvation of the King for if the Kingdome perish or miscarry the king as king must needs perish with it the maintenance of his Crowne supported onely by the maintenance of the kingdomes welfare and the Salvation and common profit of all the Realm and this being one of the first solemne judgements if not the very first given in Parliament after the making of the statute of 25 E. 3. which hath relation to its clause of levying war must certainely be the best exposition of that Law which the Parliament onely ought to interpret as is evident by the statute of 21. R. 2. c. 3. It is ordained and stablished that every man which c. or he that raiseth the people and riseth against the King to make warre within his Realme and of that be duly attainted and judged in the Parliament shall be judged as a Traytor of High Treason against the Crowne and other forecited Acts and if this were no Treason nor Rebellion nor Trespasse in the Barons against the king or kingdome but a warre for the honour of God the salvation of the king the maintenance of his Crowne the safety and common profit of all the Realme much more must our Parliaments present defensive warre against his Majesties ill Councellors Papists Malignants Delinquents and men of desperate fortunes risen up in Armes against the Parliament Lawes Religion Liberties the whole Kingdomes peace and welfare be so too being backed with the very same and farre better greater authority and more publike reasons then their warre was in which the safety of Religion was no great ingredient nor the preservation of a Parliament from a forced dissolution though established and perpetuated by a publike Law King Henry the 4 th taking up Armes against King Richard and causing him to be Articled against and judicially deposed in and by Parliament for his Male-administration It was Enacted by the Statute of 1. Hen 4. cap. 2. That no Lord Spirituall nor Temporall nor other of what estate or condition that he be which came with King Henry into the Realme of England nor none other persons whatsoever they be then dwelling within the same Realme and which came to this King in aide of him to pursue them which were against the Kings good intent and the COMMON PROFIT OF THE REALME in which pursuit Richard late King of England the second after the Conquest was pursued taken and put in Ward and yet remaineth in Ward be impeached grieved nor vexed in person nor in goods in the Kings Court nor in none other Court for the pursuites of the said King taking and with-holding of his body nor for the pursuits of any other taking of persons and cattells or of the death of a man or any other thing done in the said pursuite from the day of the said King that now is arived till the day of the Coronation of Our said Soveraigne Lord Henry And the intent of the King is not that offendors which committed Trespasses or other offences out of the said pursuits without speciall warrant should be ayded nor have any advantage of this Statute but that they be thereof answerable at the Law If those then who in this offensive Warre assisted Henry the 4 th to apprehend and depose this persidious oppressing tyrannicall king seduced by evill Counsellors and his owne innate dis-affection to his naturall people deserved such an immunity of persons and goods from all kinds of penalties because though it tended to this ill kings deposition yet in their intentions it was really for the common profit of the Realme as this Act defines it No doubt this present defensive Warre alone against Papists Delinquents and evill Counsellors who have miserably wasted spoiled sacked many places of the Realme and fired others in a most barbarous maner contrary to the Law of Armes and Nations and labour to subvert Religion Laws Liberties Parliaments and make the Realm a common Prey without any ill intention against his Majesties Person or lawfull Royall Authority deserves a greater immunity and can in no reasonable mans judgement be interpreted any Treason or Rebellion against the king or his Crowne in Law or Conscience In the 33. yeare of king Henry the 6 th a weake Prince wholly guided by the Queene and Duke of Somerset who ruled all things at their wills under whose Government the greatest part of France was lost all things went to ruine both abroad and at home and the Queene much against the Lords and Peoples mindes preferring the Duke of Sommerset to the Captain ship of Calice the Commons and Nobility were greatly offended thereat saying That he had lost Normandy and so would he doâ— Calice Hereupon the Duke of Yorke the Earles of Warwicke and Salisbury with other their adherents raised an Army in the Marches of Wales and Marched with it towards London to suppresse the Duke of Sommerset with his Faction and reforme the Governement The king being credibly informed hereof assembled his Host and marching towards the Duke of Yorke and his Forces was encountred by them at Saint Albanes notwithstanding the kings Proclamation to keepe the Peace where in a set Battell the Duke of Somerset with divers Earles and 800. others were slaine on the kings part by the Duke of Yorke and his companions and the kingâ—â— a manner defeate The Duke after this Victory obtained remembring that he had oftentimes declared and published abroad The onely cause of this War to be THE ADVANCEMENT OF THE PUBLIKE WEALE and TO SET THE REALME IN A MORE COMMODIOVS STATE and BETTER CONDITION Vsing all lenity mercy and bounteousnesse would not once touch or apprehend the body of King Henry whom he might have slaine and utterly destroyed considering that hee had him in his Ward and Governance but with great honour and due reverence conveyed him to London and so to Westminster where a Parliament being summoned and assembled soone after It was therein Enacted That no person should either judge or report any point of untruth of the Duke of Yorke the Earles of Salisbury and Warwicke For comming in Warlike manner against the King at Saint Albanes Considering that their attempt and enterprise Was onely to see the Kings Person in Safeguard and Sure-keeping and to put and Alien from Him the publike Oppressors of the Common wealth by whose misgovernance his life might be in hazard and his Authority hang on a very small Thred After this the Duke and these Earles raised another Army for like purpose and their owne defence in the 37 and 38 yeares of H. 6. for which they were afterwards by a packed Parliament at Coventree by their Enemies procurement Attainted of high Treason and their Lands and Goods confiscated But in the Parliament of 39. H. 6. cap. 1. The said attainder Parliament with all Acts and Statutes therein made were wholly Reversed Repealed annulled as being made â—y the excitation and procurement of seditious ill disposed Persons for the
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
Arbitrary lawlesse Government in case they come armed with his personall presence or commission to execute these their wicked illegall designes Especially when neither the Parliament nor their forces in this their resistance have the least thought at all to offer any violence to the Kings owne person or to oppose his Legall iust Soveraigne Authority Or shorter Whether the Kings Captaines and Souldiers invading the Parliament and Subiects as aforesaid the Parliament or Subjects especially when authorized by an Ordinance of both Houses may not with a safe Conscience forcibly resist these Malignants though armed with the Kings illegall Commissions without his personall presence or with his presence and Commissions too And for my part I thinke it most evident that they may lawfully resist repulse them even by Divine Authority For the better clearing whereof I shall premise these three undeniable Conclusions First That no lawfull King or Monarch whatsoever much lesse the Kings of England who are no absolute Princes have any the least Authority from the Lawes of God or man personally by themselves or instruments to doe any injurie or iniustice to their Subiects how much lesse then by open Force to Murther Rob Plunder Ravish Ruine or Spoile them of their Lawes Liberties Estates Religion all which is plentifully proved by Law Authorities in the premises and punctually confirmed by these ensuing Texts Ezech. 44 15 16 17. cap. 45. 8 9. Psalm 105. 14. 15. Isay 14. 15. to 23. 2 Sam 23. 3. Isay 1. 23. cap. 3. 12. 14. 15. Prov. 28. 15. 16. Ezech. 22. 6. 7. 27. Zeph. 3. 3. Mich. 3. 1. to 12. 1 Sam. 12. 3. 4. 5. 1 King cap. 21. 22. Zeph. 2. 8. Isay 9. 7. cap. 16. 5. cap. 32. 1. 2. cap. 49. 23. 2 Chron. 9. 8. Ier. 22. 3. to 32. Obad. 2. 10. to 16. Rom. 13. 3. 4. 5. 6. 1 Pet. 2. 13. 16. and infinite Scriptures more Secondly That all Subiects and persons whatsoever are obliged both in point of Law and Conscience to disobey resist and not execute the uniust illegall Commissions Mandates of their Kings and other Magistrates This is evident by the Midwiâ—es refusall to murther the Hebrewes Male-children at King Pharoabs command for which God blessed them and built them houses Exod 1. 15. to 20. By Balaams deniall to curse or defie the Israelites at King Balacks intreaty Numb 22. 23. 24. By the refusall of Sauls Guard and Footmen to slay or fall on the Priests a Nob by King Sauls personall command though present and not onely their King but Master too 1 Sam. â—2 17. 18. By Ionathans denyall to kill or consent to the death of David upon Sauls mandate though not onely his Soveraigne but Father although he might have gained the Crowne by it and indangered his owne life by refusing it 1 Sam. 20. 27. to 42. By Sauls Armour-beares forbearance to runne him thorow with his Sword when he fled before the Philistimes though he as his King and Master enioyned him to doe it lest the uncircumcised should come and thrust him through and abuse him 1 Sam. 3â— 4. By Mordechai his denyall to bend the knee to Haman the great Favourite though the King had so commanded Esther 3. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. By Shadracâ— Meshach Abodnego and Daniels refusall to eat of the Kings portion of meat and wine assigneâ— them least they should be desiled Dan. 1. 5. to 12. By their peremptory resolution not To fall downe and worship King Nebuchadnezzars golden Image though twice strictly commanded by the King to doe it and threatned to be cast into the fiery Furance as they were for refusing it Dan. 3. 4 to 30. By Daniels disobeying the Kings and Lords Jdolatrous Decree not to offer a Petition to any God or man for 30. dayes save of King Darius under paine of being cast into the Lyons Denne Dan. 6. 5. to 24. By the Pharises and chiefe Priests Officers neglect to apprehend our Saviour for his Preaching though enjoyned so to doe by their Masters Iohn 7. 32. to 48. By the Apostles refusall to give over Preaching and perseverance in Preaching notwithstanding the High Priests and Councels expresse Inhibitions and doubled Commands seconded with Apprehensions Imprisonments Scourgings and their direct resolutions in this very case That we ought to obey God rather then men Acts 4. 12. to 22 cap. 5. 17. to the end By Peters Preaching to and conversing with the Vncircumcised Gentiles notwithstanding the Christian Iewes dislike Acts 11. 1. to 19. with infinite Presidents of this nature in Ecclesiasticall Histories the very sufferings of all the Martyrs depending on this ground alone which is backed by Matth. 10. 28. 32. 33. Luc. 12. 4. 8. cap. 9. 23. 24. 25. 26. Ezech. 2. 3. to 9. Rev. 13. 3. to the end Rom. 12 1. 2. John 16. 2. 3. 1 Thess 2 14. 15. 16. Exod. 32. 2. Josh 24 15. Psalm 44. 15. to 23. Thirdly That as all Kings illegall unjust commands are void in Law and will no waies extenuate the guilt or justifie the actions of those instruments who execute them in point of Law as I havef formerly cleared so are they likewise meer nullities and insufficient to excuse the executioners of them in point of Conscience as is evident by Psal 52. 5. where God threatens to destroy Doeg the Edomite for ever to take him away plucke him out of his dwelling place and root him out of the land of the Living for executing King Sauls bloody command upon the Priests at Nob 1 Sam. 22. By Gods exemplary punishment upon those Souldiers who by King Nebuchadnezzars speciall command bound the three Children and cast them into the firy Furnace who were slaine by the flames of the Furnaâ—e though these three Martyrs had no harme in the Furnace it selfe Dan. 3. 20. to 28. By Gods consuming the two Captaines and their fifties with fire from heaven who came violently to apprehend the Prophet Elijab by King Ahaziah his commission and unjust command 2 King 1. 9 to 16. By the Precept of Iohn Baptist given to Souldiers themselves Luke 3. 14. Doe violence to no man neither by the Kings nor Generalls Command neither accuse any falsely By 1 Tim. 5. 22. Lay hands sodainly on no man no more in a violent Military then an Ecclesiasticall sense neither be partakers of other mens sinneâ— Compared with the next forecited Scriptures with Rom. 1. 32. Math. 15. 14. Psal 50. 18 21. Prov. 1. 10. to 16. Obaâ— vers 10. to 16 Isay 1. 23. with Isay 9 16. The leaders of this people cause them to erre and those thâ—t are led of them are destroyed What therefore Saint Iohn writes in another case 2 Iohn 10. 11. If there come any unto you be he an Archbishop Bishop Archdeadon Ferne himselfe or any Court Chaplaine whatsoever and being not this Doctrine receive him not into your house neither bid him God speed for he that biddeth him God speed Is partaker of his
evill Deeds I shall apply to this particular of executing Kings unjust Commands against their people they are partakers of their Kings wickednesse if they do but intertaine their unjust Commissions into their Houses or bid them God speed much more if they execute them either voluntarily or against their wills out of an unworthy feare or base respects These three Conclusions being irrefragable My first Argument to justifie resistance from them shall be this That violence against the Subjects persons Consciences Families Estates Properties Priviledges or Religion which neither the King himselfe in proper person nor any his Officers nor Souldiers by command from him have any Autoritie by the Lawes of God or man in Law or Conscience to inflict and which in Conscience ought not to be obeyed but rejected as a meere nulliâ—y even by the instruments enjoyned for to execute it may justly with a safe Conscience be resisted by the Parliament and Subjects there being not one syllable in Gods Word to contradict it But the violence now offered by the Kings Forces to the Parliament and Subjects every where is such Therefore it may justly with a safe Conscience be resisted especially in the Kings Commanders and Souldiers who are neither the King himself nor the Higher Powers ordained by God and no other then plain Theeves and Murtherers in Law and Conscience if they plunder kill spoile their Commissions being but Nullities in both and they in this particular meere private men without any Authority to iustifie their actions as I have already proved Secondly That resistance which is warranted by direct Precedents recorded approved in Scripture even by God himself must questionlesse be lawfull in case of coâ—science But the resistance even of Kings their highest Magistrates officers in the execution of their unjust Commands is thus warranted Therfore doubtles it must be lawfull in point of Conscience The Minor only questionable is thus confirmed First by the notable example of the Prophet Elijah 2 Kings 1. 2. to 16. who sending backe King Ahaziah his Messengers sent by him to enquire of Baalâ—zebub the God of Ekron whether hee should recover of his disease with an harsh Message to the King contrary to his Command which they disobeyed thereupon this King in an angry fume sent two Captaines with 50. men apeece one after another to apprehend the Prophet for this affront as Iosephus with other Interpreters accord who comming with their forces to him said Thou man of God the King hath said come downe quickly To whom he successively answered If I be a man of God then let fire come downe from Heaven and consume thee and thy fifty And there came fire from heaven thereupon and consumed two Captaines and their fifties but the third Captaine and his fifty who humbled themselves to the Prophet and begged the sparing of their lives were spared the Angel of the Lord bidding the Prophet to goe downe with them to the King and not be afraid From which Text it is infallible even by a divine Miracle from heaven doubled by God himselfe That it is lawfull for Subjects in some cases to resist the unjust violence of the Souldiers and Captaines of their Kings though armed with their Regall Commands Secondly by the History of the Prophet Elisha 2 Kings 6. 31 32 33. Who when King Ioram his Soveraigne had sworne unjustly in his fury God doe so to me and more also if the head of Elisha shall stand on him this day and thereupon sent a Messenger before him to Elisha his house to take away his head the Prophet was so farre from submitting to this Instrument of his that he Commanded the Elders sitting then with him in the house to looke when the Messenger came and shut the doore and Hold him fast at the Doore though the sound of his Masters feet the King were behind him whom he stiles the sonne of a Murderer Might these two eminentest Prophets thus openly resist the Captaines Souldiers and unjust Executioners of their Princes with a good Conscience and may not others lawfully doe the like No doubt they may Thirdly If I bee not much mistaken this kind of resistance is warranted even by Christ himselfe and his Apostles For a little before his Apprehention Christ uttered this speech unto his Disciples Luke 22. 36 37 38. But Now he that hath no Sword let him sell his garment and buy one c. And they said Lord behold here are two Swords And he said unto them it is enough Why would Christ have his Disciples buy Swords now unlesse it were for his and their owne better Defence being the time when he was to be apprehended Soone after this Judas and his Band of men sent from the High Priests with Swords and Staves came to seize upon Christ Which when they who were about him saw what would follow They said unto him Lord shall we smite with the Sword His commanding them to buy Swords now was sufficient ground for this question and intimation enough that they might now use them whereupon Christ giving no negative answer One of them which were with Iesus and John directly saith it was Peter smote a servant of the High Priest whose name was Malchus and cut off his right eare Hereupon Jesus answered and said Suffer yee Thus Farre So Luke Marke relates no answer at all reprehending this fact Iohn records his speech to Peter thus Then said Iesus unto Peter Put up thy Sword into the sheath The Cup which my Father hath given me shall I not drinke To which Matthew addes thinkinst thou that I cannot pray to my Father and he shall presently give me more then twelve Legions of Angels But how then shall the Scriptures bee fulfilled that thus it must be So that the reason why Christ bade Peter thus to put up his sword was not because he thought defence of himselfe and Peters smiting now altogether unlawfull in it selfe but onely inconsistent with Gods present providence which it should seeme to crosse Christ was now by Gods eternall decree and the Scriptures prediction which must be necessarily fulfilled to suffer death upon the Crosse for our iniquities should Peter then with the other Disciples have totally resisted his apprehention at this time and proceeded still to smite with the Sword as they began till they had rescued our Saviour he could not then have suffered nor the Scriptures be fulfilled had it not beene for this speciall reason rendred by Christ himselfe to cleare all scruples against the Lawfulnesse of selfe-defence in such cases Peter might still have used his sword to rescue his Master from these Catchpoles violence and if he and his fellowes had beene too weake to withstand them Christ was so farre from imagining that hee might not have lawfully defended himselfe that hee informes them he could and would no doubt have presently commanded whole Legions of Angels from heaven by his Fathers approbation to rescue him from unjust
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
both But this anointing in subiects can neither exempt their persons from necessary iust resistance if they unlawfully assault or war upon their Superiours equalls inferiours nor free them from arrests imprisonments arraignments deprivations or capitall censures if they offend and demerit them as we all know by Scripture and experience Therefore it can transfer no such corporall immunities or exemptions from all or any of these to kings but onely exempt them from unlawfull violence and injuries in point of right so far forth as it doth other Subjects In a word this annointing being common to all Christians can give no speciall Prerogative to Kings but onely such as are common to all Subiects as they are Christians Secondly admit it be meanâ— of an actuall externall anoynting yet that of it self affords Kings no greater priviledge then the inward unction of which it is a type neither can it priviledge them from just resistance or just corporall censures of all sorts First it cannot priviledge them from the iust assaults invasions resistance corporall punishments of other forraign kings Princes States Subiects not subordinate to them who upon any iust cause or quarrell may lawfully resist assault wound apprehend imprison slay depose iudge censure forraigne kings even to death as is apparent by Sâ—hon King of the Amorites and Og the king of Bashan slain the King of Ai hanged by Ioshua the five kings of Canaan that besieged Gibeon on whose ne-ks Ioshua made his men of war to put their feet then smote slew and hanged them upon five trees Who also assaulted resisted imprisoned condemned slew executed divers other kings of Canaan to the number of thirty one in all by king Adonibezek Eglon Agag with other Heathen Kings imprisoned stabbed hewen in pieces by the Israelites If any obiect These kings were not actually annoynted which they cannot prove since Cyrus an Heathen King is stiled Gods annoynted no doubt Saul was an annoynted King if not the first in the world 1 Sam. 10. 1. yet he was justly resisted wounded pursued by the Philistines 1 Sam. 31. 3. Iosiah an annoynted good King was slain by Pharaoh Necho King of Egypt whom he rashly encountred King Ahab was slain by an Archer of the King of Assyria King Ioram and Ahaziah were both slain by Iehu by Gods command Iehoaaz was deposed by the King of Egypt Iehoiakim and Iehoiakin both deposed fettered and kept prisoners by the King of Babylon bylone who also y appâ—eherded dâ—posed judicially condemned King Zedechiah put out his eyes and sent him prisoner to Bâ—hylon bound with fetters of brasse So Manasses was deposed bound with fetters of brasse and carryed captive by the Captaines of the King of Assyria Amaziah King of Iudah was taken prisoner by Iehoash King of Israel Infiâ—ite are the presidents in stories where kings of one Nation in just warrs have been assaulted invaded imprisoned deposed slain by Princes and Subjects of another Nation and that justly as all grant without exception neither their annointing nor Kingship being any exemption or priviledge to them at all in respect of forraigners in cases of hostility to whom they are no Soveraigns no more then to any of their Subjects Whereas if this royall annointing did make their persons absolutly sacred and inviolable no forraign Princes or Subjects could justly apprehend imprison smite wound slay depose or execute them Secondly Kings who are suborordinate Homagers and Subjects to other Kings or Emperours though annointed may for Treasons and Rebellions against them he lawfully resisted assaulted imprisoned deposed judged to death and executed because as to them they are but Subjects notwithâ—â—anging their annointing as appears by sundâ—y presidents in our own and forraign Histories and is generally confessed by the learned Thirdly the Roman Greek and German Experours though annointed the ancient Kings of France Spain Arragon Britain Hungary Poland Denmarke Bohemia India Sparta and other places who were not absolute Monarchs have in former ages been lawfully resisted imprisoned deposed and some of them judicially adjudged to death and executed by their owne Senates Parliaments Diets States for their oppression mal-administration tyranny and that justly as Bodin Grotius with others affirm notwithstanding any pretence that they were annointed Soveraigns Fourthly Popes Bishops and Priests anciently were and at this present in the Romish Churches are actually annointed as well as Kings and we know the Popish Clergy and Canonists have frequently alledged this Text Touch not mine annointed and doe my Prophets no harme in Councels Decretalls and solemâ— debates in Parliament to prove their exemption from the arrests judgements capitall censâ—res and proceedings of Kings and secular Iudges for any crimes whatsoever because forsooth they were Gods annointed intended in this Text not Kings therefore Kings and Seculars must not touch nor offer any the least violence to their persons no not in a way of justice By colour of this Text they exceedingly deluded the world in this particular for â—undreds of yeeres But in the seventh yeer of Hen. the 8. in Dr. Standish his case debated before a Committee of both Houses of Parliament and all the Iudges of England this Text being chiefly insisted on to prove the Clergies exemption Jure Divino was wholly exploded in England and since that in Germany France other Realms and notwithstanding its protection many Fopes Bishops and Clergy-men in all Kingdomes ages for all their annointing have for their misdemeanors not only been resisted apprehended imprisones but deprived degraded hanged quartered burned as well as other men Yea Abiathar the High Priest was deposed by S. â—omon for his Treason against him notwithstanding his Annointing their annointing giving them not the smallest immunity to doe ill or not to suffer all kinds of corporall capitall punishments for their misdemeanors If this actuall annointing then cannot lawfully exempt or secure Priests and Prelates persons nor the Pope himselfe from the premises how then can it justly priviledge the persons of Kings Fifthly among the Papists all infants either in their baptisme or confirmation are actually annointed with their consecrated Chrisme and with extream unction to boot at last cast which they make a Sacrament and so a thing of more divine soveraign Nature then the very annointing of Kings at their inauguration which they repute no Sacrament as being no where commanded by God But neither of these actuall unctions exempt all or any of those annointed with it from resistance or any corporall punishments or just censures of any king therefore the very annointing of Kings cannot doe it Sixthly the Ceremony of annointing kings as Cassanaeus with others write is peculiar onely to the German Emperor the King of Ierusalem the King of France the King of England and the King of Sicily but to no other kings else who are neither annointed nor crowned as he affirmes so that it cannot give any priviledge
some to be Apostles some Prophets some Evangelists c. So that by their determination Ministers are more Gods Ordinance and more jure Divino then Kings yea but few years since they all professed themselves to be as much if not more Gods anointed then Kings and some of our Archest Prelates made publike challenges in the open Court That if they could not prove their Lordly Episcopacy to be Iure Divino they would presently burn their Rochets and lay down their Bishopricks though they never made good their promises to doubt whether the Pope and his supreme Authoritie be iure Divino by Christs own immediate institution deserves a fagot in the Roman Church Yet notwithstanding all this Divine Right and institution our Opposites will grant That if Popes Archbishops Bishops Priests Ministers preach false Hereticall doctrines oppresse wound slay rob plunder the people committed by God to their cares or attempt with force to subvert Religion Laws Liberties or commit any capitall offences they may not onely with safe conscience be resisted repulsed by their people but likewise apprehended arraigned deprived condemned executed by Lay Iudges as infinite examples in our Histories manifest and the example of Abiathar the High Priest 1 Kings 2. 26 27 And if so then why not Kings as well as they or other temporall Magistrates notwithstanding any of the obiected Texts Either therefore our Opposites must grant all Bishops Priests Ministers yea all other Magistrates whatsoever as irresistable uncensurable undeprivable uncondemnable for any crimes whatsoever as they say kings are which they dare not do or else make Kings as resistable censurable deprivable and lyable to all kindes of punishments by their whole Kingdoms consent in Parliament as far forth as they notwithstanding all the former Objections which quite subverts their cause Thirdly Kings and Kingdoms are not so Gods Ordinance as that they should be universall over all the world and no other Government admitted or so as any one Nation whatsoever should be eternally tyed to a Monarchiall Government without any power to alter it into an Aristocracy or other form upon any occasion or so as unalterably to continue the Soveraign power in one family alone as not to be able to transfer it to another when the whole State shall see just cause Hereditary Kingdoms being but Offices of publike trust for the peoples good and safety as well as elective most of them were elective at first and made hereditary onely either by violent usurpation or the peoples voluntary assents and institution and not by any immediate divine Authority and so alterable by their joynt assents as Zuinglius Buchanon Mariana observe and the Histories of most Kingdoms the experience of all ages evidence Which truths being generally confessed by all Polititians Historians Statists by many judicious Divines contradicted by no one text of Scripture that I have met with which our Opposites have objected hitherto they will finde all Monarchies upon the matter to be meer humane Institutions alterable still by that humane Power which did at first erect them and subordinate still thereto as the Creature to its Creator and to be Gods Ordinance onely in regard of speciall providence and the like as other inferiour Magistrates Rulers are who may be justly resisted altered removed censured notwithstanding the objected Text. From which whiles some men earnestly presse that every soul by Gods own Ordinance ought to be subject to some publike civill power which others safely deny fince the Patriarks the first families of most Nations and Countries were not so and all Nations all people before setled publike governments were erected which in many places are not very ancient since those whose Parents are dead and are not by them subjected to a Government are naturally free and none bound to part with their freedom to any other unlesse they see a necessitie a great advantage and that upon such terms and conditions as they deem meet they involve even Kings and Emperours themselves by Gods own Ordinance in a subiection to a superiour earthly civill power to wit to their Laws Parliaments Kingdoms which I have proved Paramount them collectively considered according to the common proverbe Omne sub Regno graviore Regnum est and that of Solomon concerning oppressing Kings and Judges He that is higher then the Highest considers and there be higher then they And so make kings not onely resistble by their whole Kingdoms the supreme Soveraign power but likewise subiect to their Realms superiour commands and uncapable to resist their lawfull power and Forces even in point of Conscience by vertue of this very Text. And so much for the fourth Question For the fifth and last What kinde of resistance of the Higher powers is here prohibited I answer briefly That resistance is here forbidden which is contrary to subiection or obedience as the words Let every soul be subject to the higher Powers coupled with the ensuing reason Whosoever therefore resisteth that is disobeyeth or is not subiect to the Power resisteth the Ordinance of God and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation In the Greek there are two distinct words used 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Latine English French Dutch use them both as one without distinction The first word signifies properly disordered counter-ordered or ordered against as Paraeus Willet and others observe and it is thus used by the Apostle 2 Thess 3. 6 7 11 or disobedient 1 Tim. 1. 9. The later word signifieth properly to resist withstand or oppose in which sence it is used Matth. 5. 39. Luke 21. 1 5. Act. 6. 10. Rom. 9. 19. Gal. 2. 11. 2 Tim. 3. 1. Hebr. 12. 4. Iam. 4. 7. chap. 5. 6. 1 Pet. 5. 9. and applied indifferently both to a spirituall corporall and verball resistance of the Holy Ghost the Devill or men Since then the Apostle in this Text useth the Hebrew phrase Soul not Man Let every Soul be subject to the Higher Powers because as Haymo Tollet Willet Soto and most other Interpreters observe we ought willingly and cheerfully to submit to the higher Powers not only with our bodies but soules and spirits too I may hence cleerly inferre that the resistance of the higher Power hee prohibited as contrary to this subjection is not only that which is corporall and violent by force of armes as the Objectors glosse it but that likewise which is verball mentall spirituall in the soule it selfe without the body and no more then a meer passive resistance or not obeying For not to doe what the higher Powers enjoyn is in verity actually to resist to withstand them as not to doe the will not to yeeld obedience to the motions dictates of the Holy Ghost or devill is really to resist them even in Scripture phrase Yea corporall resistance or opposition by way of force is only an higher degree of resistance but not the onely or proper resistance here prohibited which
relates principally to the Soule and Spirit For as corporall forced obedience against a mans will which still holds out is no true obedience in the esteem of God or men and as the very essence life of all outward obedience consisteth principally in the cheerfull submission or activity of the soule or will So a forced corporall resistance against the mind or conscience is in a manner no resistance and the very malignity quintessence of all inward or outward resistance disobedience rests only in the mind soule will and is here principally forbidden as is evident by the 5. verse Wherefore ye must needs be subject not onely for wrath which relates only to the body which mens wrath can only harm in case of disobedience Mat. 10. 28. but also FOR CONSCIENCE SAKE which principally if not wholly relates unto the soule of which the conscience is a chief-overruling part This then being altogether irrefragable gives our Antagonists with Dr. Fern an eternall overthrow and unavoidably demonstrates the resistance of the Higher Powers here prescribed to be only of iust lawfull powers in their iust commands or punishments which we must neither corporally verbally nor so much as mentally resist but readily submit too with our very soules as well as bodies not of Tyrants or ungodly Rulers uniust oppressions Forces proceedings to subvert Religion Lawes Liberties which all our Opposites all Divines whatsoever grant we are bound in conscience passively to resist and disobey yea with our Tongues to reprehend and our Souls and spirits to oppose detest abhorre hate in the very highest degree of opposition notwithstanding this inhibition And therefore by like reason are no wayes prohibited but authorized by it even forcibly to resist to our utmost power have we meanes and opportunity so to doe as the Parliament now hath That power and proceedings which Christians may lawfully with good conscience yea and are bound to resist with all their souls minds tongues they justly may and must likewise resist with all their corporall might and strength especially if they have good opportunity publike encouragements and meanes to do it as Deut. 6. 12. 1 Pet. 5. 9. Iude 3. 4. Phil. 1. 27 28. 1 Cor. 16. 13. compared together and with the premised Scriptures fully evidence But Christians may lawfully with good conscience yea must resist with all their souls minds tongues the fore-named violent proceedings of kings Oppressors ill Counsellors and Cavaleers and no wayes submit unto them with their souls minds tongues lest thereby they should approve and be partakers with promoters of their execrable designes therefore they may and must with safe conscience resist them with all their corporall might and strength having now opportunity a Parliamentary publike command and sufficient meanes to execute it And thus have I now at last not onely most clearly wrested this sword out of the hands of our great opposite Goliahs but likewise cut off their heads and so routed all their forces with it as I trust they shall never be able to make head againe Yet before I wholly take my leave of this Text to gratifie our Prelaticall Clergy I shall for a parting blow adde this one observation more That all our Popish Clermen herâ—tofore and many of them till this day notwithstanding the universality of this Text Let every soule be subject to the higher Powers c. not only pretended themselves to be of right exempted from the jurisdiction censures taxes of Emperours Kings and aâ— Civill Magistrates Which priviledges some of our late Prelates began to revive as the late cases of Mr. Shervill the Maior of Arundel and some others evidence censured for punishing drunken Priests but likewise held it lawfull to censure excommunicate depose even Emperours and Kings themselves and interdict their Kingdomes witnesse not only the Popes excommunications of many Emperours and Kings by apparant usurpation and injury but of sundry Prelates excommunications of their own Soveraigns as of right and putting them to open penances as K. Suintilla Sancho Ramir in Spain and others elswhere of which you may read divers presidents in my Appendix The History of St. Ambrose his excommunicating the Emperour Theodosius for the bloody murther of those of Thessalonica is so commonly known that I need not spend time to recite it nor yet the excommunications and censures of our King Iohn or Henry the 2. and 3. Suano King of Denmark as Saxo-Grammaticus records was not onely sharply reprehended but excommunicated in a most bold and solemn manner by one of his Bishops for his uncleannesse and murthering some eminent persons of whom he was jealous whiles they were at their devotions in the Church This Bishop instead of meeting this King when he came to enter into the Church with accustomed veneration clad in his Pontificalibus with his Crosier Sâ—affe kept him from entring so much as within the Court thereof calling him not by the name of a King which he suppressed but a shedder of mans blood and not content to chide him he fixed the point of his Staffe in his brest preferring the publike scandall of Religion before private society not being ignorant that the Offices of familiarity were one thing the rights of Priesthood another thing that the wickednesses of Lords as well as servants ought to be revenged nor are Noble-mens crimes to be more partially censured then ignoble ones And not content thus to repulse him he added an execration therunto and denounced a sentence of damnation against him in his presence so as he left it doubtfull whether he repulsed him more valiantly with his hand or voyce Hereupon the King considering this Act to proceed from zeale and publike severity against wickednesse and being confounded with the blush of his guilty conscience forbad any to resist his violence and patiently underwent heard both his repulse and reprehention After which this King laying aside his royall Robes put on old course apparell desiring rather to testifie his sorrow by the deformity of his habit then his contempt by the splendor of it And struck with so sad a sentence of the Bishop he would not indure to carry about the ornaments of Royall Magnificence but casting away the ensignes of Regall Majesty he put on sack-cloth the badge of penitence putting off his power likewise together with his vestment and of a sacrilegious Tyrant became a faithfull reverencer of holy things For returning bare-foot to the Church-porch he cast himselfe prostrate in the entrance thereof and humbly kissed the ground suppressing the griefe which is wont most sharply to be inflicted from contempt with shamefac'tnesse and moderation redeeming the fault of his bloody reigne with shame and penitence After which confessing his fault and craving pardon with teares of the Bishop he was absolved and then putting on his Royall Robes admitted into the Church and brought up to the Altar to the exceeding joy of the people who applauding the kings humiliation and modesty plus
poenitentia pium quam imperto scoelestâ—â—m 〈…〉 confessus A memorable story of a zealous stout Prelate and of a penâ—tent submissive wild Prince I shall only adde to this some few domestick presidentâ— of our Welch Kings Teudur king of Brecknock for his periury and murther of Elgistiâ— another King of that Countrey was solemnly excommunicated by Gurcan the 10. Bishop of Landaffe and his Clergy in a Synod assembled for this purpose by uncovering the Altars casting the Crosses and Reliques on the ground and depriving him 〈◊〉 Christian communion Whereupon Toudur unable to undergoe this malediction and rigorous iustice with a contrite heart and many teares powred forth craved pardon of his crimes and submitted himselfe to the penance imposed on him according to his quality and greatnesse King Clotri slaying Iuguallaun treacherously contrary to his League and Oath Berthgwin the 14. Bishop of Landaffe hearing thereof assembled a Synod of his Clergy at Landaffe and solemnly excommunicated the King with all his Progeny and Kingdom by uncovering the Altars casting down the Crosses on the earth and depriving the Countrey both of Baptisme and the Euchâ—rist Whereupon the King unable to endure so great an excommunication with great deiection submitted himselfe to the Bishop and leaving his Kingdom went on pilgrimage into forraign parts for a long space after which returning by the intercession of king Morcant he obtained absolution from the Bishop to whose enioyned penance he submitted himself conferring divers Lands upon the Church And in another Synod at Landaffe under this Bishop King Gurcan for living incestuously with his Mother-in-law was solemnly excommunicated in form aforesaid whereupon he craved pardon resolved to put away his Mother-in-law promised satisfaction by K. Iudhail his Intercessor upon which he was absolved upon promise of amendment of life with fasting prayer and almes after which he bestowed divers Lands on the Church Houell king of Gleuissig contrary to his Oath League trecherously circumverring and slaying Gallun hereupon Cerenlyir the 18. Bishop of Landaffe calling a Synod solemnly excommunicated him by laying all the crosses on the ground overturning the Bells taking the Reliques from the Altar and casting them on the ground depriving him of all Christian communion under which excommunication he remained almost a whole yeers space After which this king came bare-foot to the Bishop imploring his absolution from this sentence with many teares which he obtained after publke penance enoyned Not long after the same Bishop and his Clergy in another Synod for the like crime in the self-same former excommunicated Ili sonne of Conblus till he came bare-footed with teares and prayed absolution which upon performance of enjoyned penance promise of future reformation with prayers fasting almes and the setling of some Lands on the Church was granted him by the Bishop So Loumarch son of Cargnocaun was in a full Synod excommunicated by Gulfrid the 20. Bishop of this See for violating the patrimony of the Church and king Brochuail with his family convented before a Synode threatned Excommunication enjoyned Penance and satisfaction by the Synode for some injuries offered to to Ciueilliauc the two and twentieth Bishop of Landaffe Mauric King of of Glamorgan was excommunicated by Ioseph the eigth and twentieth Bishop of Landaffe for treacherously putting out the eyes of Etguin during the truce between them After which he was again publikely excommunicated in a Synode for violating the Sanctuarie of the Church of Landaffe and hurting some of this Bishops servants and not absolved till he made his submission and did his Penance and gave some lands to the Church for satisfaction of these offence Thus Calgucam King of Morganauc and his whole family were solemnly excommunicated by Herâ—wald the nine and twentieth Bishop of Landaffe in a Synod of all his Clergy onely because one of the Kings followers being drunk laid violent hands upon Bathutis the Bishops Physitian and Kinsman on Christmas day Anno 1056. Whereupon all the Crosses and Reliques were cast to the ground the Bells overturned the Church doors stopped up with thorns so as they continued without a Pastor and Divine Service day and night for a long season till the King though innocent submitted himself to the Bishop and to obtain his absolution gave Henringuinna to him and his Successors for ever free from all secular and royall services in the presence of all the Clergie and people So Richard the tenth Bishop of Bangor excommunicated David ap Lhewelin Prince of Wales for detaining his brother Griffith prisoner contrarie to his Oath repairing to him upon the Bishops word for his safe return who never left vexing him till he had delivered him up to to the King of Englands hands Many such presidents of Prelates censuring and excommunicating their Kings occur in Storie which for brevity I pretermit onely ' I shall inform you that Iohn Stratford Archbishop of Canterbury in the 14. year of K. Edw. 3 contesting with this King and excommunicating divers of his followers and all the infringers of the Churches Liberties presumed to write thus unto his Soveraign There are two things by which the world is principally governed The sacred Pontificall authority and the royall power of which the Priesthood is by so much the more weighty ponderous and sublimâ— by how much they are to give an account of kings themselves at the Divine audit And therefore the kings Majesty ought to know that you ought to depend on their judgement not they to be regulated according to your will For who doubteth that the priests of Christ are accounted the FATHERS AND MASTERS of Kings Princes and all faithfull Christians Is it not known to be apart of miserable madnesse if the son should endeavour to subjugate the Father the servant the master to himself The Canonicall authority of Scriptures testifieth that diver Pontiffs have excommunicated some of them Kings others Emperours And if you require somewhat in speciall of the persons of Princes Saint Innocent smote the Emperour Archadius with the sword of excommunication because he consented that Saint John Chrysostom should be violently expelled from his See Likewise Saint Ambrose Archbishop of Millain for afault which seemednot so hainous to other priests excommunicated the Emperour Theodosius the great From which sentence having first given condigne satisfation he afterwards deserved to be absolved and many such like examples may be alleaged both more certain for time and nearer for place Therefore no Bishops whatsoever neither may nor ought to be punished by the secular Power if they chance to offend through humane frailtie For it is the duty of a good and religious Prince to honour the Priests of God and defend them with greatest reverence in imitation of the Pious Prince of most happy memory Constantine saying when the cause of Priests was brought before him You cannot be iudged by any to wit of the secular judges who are reserved to the iudgement of God alone according
and fight with this their weapon That it is unlawfull for Christians to fight or make so much as a defensive warre against invading Forraign barbarous Enemies of whom this Father speaks And then if the Irish Rebels Danes Spaniards French should now invade England both against the Kings and Kingdoms Wills we must make no forcible resistance at all against them with Arms in point of conscience but onely use prayers and teares This is the uttermost conclusion which can properly be hence deduced which our Antagonists will confesse to be at least erronious Anabaptisticall if not Hereticall Secondly You must consider who it was that used this speech Ambrose a Minister then Bishop of Millain who by reason of this his function being an Ambassadour of Peace had his hands bound from fighting with any other weapons even against invading forraign Enemies but only with the sword of the spirit prayers and tears and that his calling only was the ground of this his speech is infallible by the latter clause thereof which our Opposites cunningly conceale Prayers are my Armes For such are the Defensive Armour OF PRIESTS Otherwise I NEITHER OVGHT NOR CAN RESIST Why so Because he was a Minister a Bishop and Paul prohibites such to be STRIKERS Tit. 1. 7. 1 Tim. 3. 3. and because Priests under the Law did but blow the Trumpets and never went out armed to the warres Josh 6. Upon which ground Divers Councells Decretalls Canonists expresly prohibit and exempt Priests and Bishops from bearing Arms or going to Warre though many of them have turned great Souldiers and been slain in warres Hence Anno 1267 in a Parliament held at Bury K. H. 3 d. and Ottobon the Popes Legat demanded of all the Bishops and Clergy men holding Barronies or Lay-fees that they should go personally armed against the Kings enemies or finde so great service in the Kings expedition as appertained to so much Lands and Tenants To which they answered That THEY OUGHT NOT TO FIGHT WITH THE MATERIALL SWORD no not against the Kings Enemies But with the spirituall to wit with humble and devoute tears and prayers using these words of Ambrose And that for their benefices they were bound to maintain Peace NOT WARRE Hence our King Richard the first taking the Bishop of Beauvoyes in France his great Enemy armed from top to toe prisoner in the field commanded him to be strictly kept in prison in his arms and would by no means suffer him to put them off for which hard usuage he complained to the Pope and procured his letter to King Richard to free him from his arms and restraint in which Letter the Pope sharply reproves the Bishop for preferring the secular warfare before the spirituall in that he had taken a Speare insteed of a Crosier an Helmet in liew of a Miter an Habergion insteed of a white Rochet a Target in place of a Stole an Iron-sword insteed of a spirituall sword After which the King sent his Arms with this Message to the Pope See whether this be thy sonnes Coat or not Which the Pope beholding answered No by Saint Peter It is neither the apparell of my sonnes nor yet of my Brethren but rather the vesture of the sonnes of Mars And upon this ground Our Bishops anciently when Members of Parliament departed the house when Cases of Treason or Felony came in question because they might not by the Canons have their hands in bloud This then being Ambrose his direct words and meaning That he neither ought nor could use any other Weapons against the invading Gothes and their forces but prayers and tears because he was a Minister not a Bishop a Lay-man The genvine Argument that our opposites can thence extract is but this Priests must use no other Defensive Arms but prayers and tears against invading forraign Enemies Ergo The Priests and Ministers in his Majesties Armies who bear Offensive Arms must now in conscience lay them down and use no other resistance but prayers and tears against the Parliaments forces where as their former inference against resistance Ergo It is altogether unlawfull for the Parliament or any Lay-Subjects by their command to defend Religion Laws Liberties against his Majesties invading forces who intend by force to subvert them is but ridiculous nonsence which never once entred into this Fathers thoughts and can never be extorted from his words Ministers of the Gospel must not use any Arms but prayers and tears to resist a forraigne Enemy Ergo None else may lawfully use them to withstand an invading adversary Is a conclusion fitter for Anabaptists then Royallists who may now with shame enough for ever bid this authority adieu with which they have hitherto gulled the ignorant World And henceforth turn it against the Commission of Array enjoyning Bishops and Clergy men to array and arme themselves as well as other men as the Presidents cited in Judge Cooke his Argument against Ship-money in the Parliaments two Declarations against the Commission of Array and in the Answer published in the Kings name to the first of them plentifully evidence Finally Hence I infer That Clergy men may and must fight against their invading Enemies with prayers tears the Weapons which they may lawfully use as proper for their callings Ergo Lay-men may and must resist and fight against them with corporall Arms since they are as proper for them in cases of needfull defence as these spirituall Arms are for Priests The second Authority is that of Nazienzen Oratio 2. in Julianum Repressus of Julianus Christianorum lachrymis quas multas multi profuderunt HOC VNVM or Solum as Grotius translates it adversus persecutionem medicamentum habentes To which I shall adde by way of supply this other passage Nos autem quibus NVLLA ALIA ARMA nec muri nec praesidia praeter spem in Deum reliqua erant Vtpote OMNI HVMANO SVBSIDIO PRORSVS DESTITVTIS ET SPOLIATIS quem tandem alium aut precum auditorem aut inimicorum depulsorem habituri eramus quam Deum Jacob qui adversus superbiam jurat From whence they conclude that Christians must use no other weapons but prayers and tears against Tyrants and oppressors To which I answer First that it is cleare by this that Christians may use prayers and teares against Tyrants and oppressors Secondly that these are the most powerfull prevailing Armes both to resist and conquer them This the opposites readily grant Therefore by their own confession Christians both may and must resist tyrants by the most powerful effectual means that are Tyrants therefore are not the higher Powers Kings Rulers which Paul and Peter in the fore-objected texts enjoyne men under paine of damnation to be subject and obedient to for conscience sake and no waies to resist since they may resist them with the powerfullest armes of all others prayers and teares Thirdly if they may be lawfully resisted with these most prevailing armes notwithstanding
Pauls Peters objected inhibitions then à fortiori they may be with corporall which are lesse noxious and prevalent he that may with most successeful meanes resist vanquish and overcome his tyrannizing oppressing Soveraigne may likewise doe it by the lesse noxious Armes If Christians may repulse and subdue a Tyrant with their Prayers Teares then why not with their Swords Doth God or the Scripture make any such distinction that we may and must resist them under paine of damnation with these kind of weapons and shall it be no lesse then Treason Rebellion Damnation to resist them with the other what difference is there in point of Allegiance Loyalty Treason Conscience to resist an oppressing tyrannizing Prince and his Forces with a Praier or with a Sword with a Teare or with a Speare Are they not all one in substance By the Statutes of 26 H. 8. c. 13. 1 E. 6. c. 14. 5 E. 6. c. 11. 1 Eliz. c. 6. 13 Eliz. c. 1. words against the King delivered even in Preaching are made and declared to be high Treason as wel as bearing Armes and striking blowes yea the Statute of 1 2 Ph. Ma. c. 9. makes certaine prayers against this persecuting Queen high Treason and by the Statute of 25 E. 3. c. 2. it is high Treason for any man to COMPASSE OR IMAGIN the death of the King Queen Prince as wel as to slay or leavy warre against them If then we may by the Objectors confession the practises and examples of the Primitive Christians against Iulian and others fight with our Tongues Prayers Teares Imaginations against our Soveraignes who turne Tyrants and Persecutors and thereby suppresse conquer confound them of which none make scruple though our Statutes make it no lesse then high Treason in some cases then questionlesse they may by the selfe same reason and ground resist them with open force notwithstanding any inhibition in Scripture We may not must not resist any lawful King or Magistrate in the just execution of his office so much as with a repugnant wil thought prayer teare we may yea must resist an oppressing persecuting Tyrant with all these therefore with any other Armes meanes Hezekiah David Moses Abijah Asa resisted their invading enemies and conquered them with their prayers but yet they provided to repulse and vanquish them with other externall Armes The Christians resistance and vanquishing their Emperour Iulian with the one is an infallible argument they might doe it with the other too there being no such distinction in the objected Scriptures that we may fight against and resist them with our prayers teares not armes Fourthly this Father saith not that it was unlawful for the Christians to use any other weapons but teares against Iulian the onely thing in question No such syllable in the Oration but onely that they had no other Armes to resist and conquer him with being utterly destitute and spoyled of all other humane helpe Therefore their want of other Armes and helpe not the unlawfulnesse of using them had they had them was the onely ground they used prayers and teares not armes To argue then those who are destitute of all Armes but prayers and teares must use them onely Ergo those who have other Armes besides prayers and teares may not lawfully use them to resist a Tyrant is but Scholastical Nonsence yet this is the very uttermost this authority yeelds our opposites In one word this Father informes us that this Apostate Emperour Iulian would not make open warre at first upon the Christians because this would altogether crosse the end he aimed at marke the reason Nos enim si vis inferatur acriores obstinatioresque futuros ac tyrannidi obnixum pietatis TUENDAE STUDIUM OBJECTUROS cogitavit Solent enim fortes generosi animi ei QUI VIM AFFERRE PARAT CONTUMACITER OBSISTERE non secus ac flamma quae a vento excitatur quo vehementius perflatur eo vehementius accenditur Which argues that the Christians would have forcibly resisted him had he at first with force invaded them therefore he weakened subdued disarmed them first by policy and then fell to persecute them with force when they had no meanes of resistance left The third authority is that of Bernard Epist 221. to King Lewis of France Quicquid vobis de Regno vestro de animâ coronâ vestrâ facere placeat NOS ECCLESIAE FILII matris injurias contemptum conculcationem omnino dissimulare non possumus Profecto STABIMUSET PUGNABIMVS USQUE AD MORTEM si ita oportuerit pro matre nostrâ ARMIS QUIBUS LICET non scutis gladiis SED PRECIBUS ET FLETIBUS AD DEUM Therefore it is unlawfull for Christians to resist with force of Armes I answer first Bernard was both a Monke and Clergie-man prohibited by Scripture and sundry Canons to fight with military Armes against any person or enemy whatsoever and he utters these words of himselfe as he was a Clergie-man servant and sonne of the Church in the selfesame sence as Saint Ambrose did before It was then onely his Calling not the cause which prohibited him forcibly to resist King Lewis Secondly I answer that this authority is so farre from prohibiting resistance of oppressing Princes endeavouring with force of Armes to subvert Liberties Lawes Religion that it is an unanswerable proofe for it even in our present case King Lewis to whom Bernard writes had then raised a civil warre in his Realme against Theobald and others who desired peace which the King rejecting Bernard doth thus reprehend him in the premisses Verum vos nec verba pacis recipitis nec pacta vestra tenetis nec sanis consiliis acquicscitis Sed nescio quo Dei judicio omnia vobis ita vertitis in perversum ut probra honorem honorem probra ducatis tuta timeatis timexda contemnatis quod olim sancto glorioso Regi David Ioab legitur exprobrasse diligitis eos qui vos oderunt odio habetis qui vos diligere volunt Neque enim qui vos instigant priorem iterare maliciam adversus non merentem quaerunt in hoc honorem vestrum sed suum commodum imò nec suum commodum SED DIABOLI VOLUNTATEM ut Regis quod absit potentiam concepti furoris habeant effectricem quem suis se posse adimplere viribus non confidunt INIMICI CORONAE VESTRAE REGNI MANIFESTISSIMI PERTURBATORES Our present case in regard of the Kings evil seduding Counsellors Then immediately followes the objected clause At quicquid vobis c. After which he gives him this sharpe reproofe Non tacebo quod cum excommunicatis iterare faedus societatem nunc satagis quod in necem hominum combustionem domorum destructionem Ecclesiarum dispersionem pauperum raptoribus predonibus sicut dicitur adhaeretis juxta illud Prophetae si videbas furem currebas cum eo c. quasi non satis per
defensive Arms by subjects in certains cases Sleidan Hist lib. 8. 18. 22. David Chrytraus Chron. Saxoniae l. 13. p. 376. Richardus Dinothus de Bello Civili Gallico Religionis caeusasuscepto p. 231. 232. 225. 227 c. A book intituled De Iure Belli Belgici Hagae 1599. purposely justifying the lawfulnesse of the Low-countries defensive war Emanuel Meteranus Historia Belgica Praefat. lib. 1 to 17. David Paraeus Com. in Rom. 13. Dub. 8. And. Quaest Theolog. 61. Edward Grimston his Generall History of the Netherlands l. 5. to 17. passim Hugo Grotius de Iure Belli Pacis lib. 1. cap. 4. with sundry other forraign Protestant writers both in Germany France Bohemia the Netherlands and elsewhere Iohu Knokes his Appellation p. 28. to 31. George Bucanon De Iure Regni apud Scotos with many Scottish Pamphlets justifying their late wars Ioh. Ponet once B. of Winchester his Book intituled Politick Govern p. 16. to 51. Alber. Gentilis de Iur. Belli l. 1. c. 25. l. 3. c. 9. 22. M. Goodmans Book in Q. Ma. dayes intituled How superior Magistrates ought to be obeyed c. 9. 13. 14. 16. D. A. Willet his Sixfold Commentary on Romanes 13. Quaestion 16. Controversie 3. p. 588 589 590 608 c. Peter Martyr Com In Rom. 13 p. 1026. with sundry late writers common in every mans hands iustifying the lawfulnesse of the present defensive War whose Names I spare And lest any should think that none but Puritanes have maintained this opinion K. Iames himself in his Answer to Card. Perron iustifieth the French Protestant taking up Defensive Arms in France And Bish Bilson a fierce Antipuritane not onely defends the Lawfulnesse of the Protestants defensive Arms against their Soveraign in Germany Flaunders Scotland France but likewise dogmatically determines in these words Neither will I rashly pronounce all that resist to be Rebels Cases may fall out even in Christian Kingdoms where the people may plead their right against the Prince AND NOT BE CHARGED WITH REBELLION As wherefor example If a Prince should go about to subject his People to a forreign Realm or change the form of the Common-wealth from Impery to Tyrannie or neglect the Laws established by Common consent of Prince and people to execute his own pleasure In these and other caeses which might be named IF THE NOBILITY AND COMMONS IOYN TOGETHER TO DEFEND THEIR ANCIENT AND ACCVSTOMED LIBERTY REGIMENT AND LAWS THEY MAY NOT WELL BE COVNTED REBELS I never denied but that the People might preserve the foundation freedom and forme of the Common-wealth which they fore prised when they first consented to have a King As I said then so I say now The Law of God giveth no man leave but I never said that Kingdoms and Common-wealths might not proportion their States as they thought best by their publike Laws which afterward the Princes themselves may not violate By supertour Powers ordained of God Rom. 13. we understand not onely Princes BVT ALL POLITIKE STATES AND REGIMENTS somewhere the People somewhere the Nobles having the same interest to the sword that Princes have to their Kingdoms and in Kingdoms where Princes bear rule by the sword we do not mean THE PRIVATE PRINCES WILL AGAINST HIS LAWS BVT HIS PRECEPT DERIVED FROM HIS LAWES AND AGREEING WITH HIS LAWES Which though it be wicked yet may it not be resisted of any subject when derived from and agreeing with the Laws with armed violence Marry when Princes offer their Subjects not Iustice but force and despise all Laws to practise their lusts not every nor any private man may take the sword to redresse the Prince but if the Laws of the Land appoint the Nobles as next to the King to assist him in doing right and withhold him from doing wrong THEN BE THEY LICENCED BY MANS LAW AND NOT PROHIBITED BY GODS to interpose themselves for safeguard of equity and innoceucy and by all lawfull AND NEEDFVLL MEANS TO PROCVRE THE PRINCE TO BE RE FORMED but in no case deprived where the Scepter is Hereditary So this learned Bishop determines in his authorized Book dedicated to Queen Elizabeth point-blank against our Novell Court-Doctors and Royallists But that which swayes most with me is not the opinions of private men byassed oft-times with private sinister ends which corrupt their judgements as I dare say most of our Opposites in this controversie have writ to flatter Princes to gain or retain promotions c. But the generall universall opinion and practice of all Kingdoms Nations in the world from time to time Never was there any State or Kingdom under heaven from the beginning of the world till now that held or resolved it to be unlawfull in point of Law or Coscience to resist with force of Arms the Tyranny of their Emperours Kings Princes especially when they openly made war or exercised violence against them to subvert their Religion Laws Liberties State Government If ever there were any Kingdom State People of this opinion or which forbore to take up Arms against their Tyrannous Princes in such cases even for conscience sake I desire our Antagonists to name them for though I have diligently searched inquired after such I could never yet finde or hear of them in the world but on the contrary I finde all Nations States Kingdoms whatsoever whether Pagan or Christian Protestant or Popish ancient or modern unanimously concurring both in iudgement and constant practice that forcible resistance in such cases is both iust lawfull necessary yea a duty to be undertaken by the generall consent of the whole Kingdom State Nation though with the effusion of much blood and hazard of many mens lives This was the constant practise of the Romans Grecians Gothes Moors Indians AEgyptians Vandals Spaniards French Britains Saxons Italians English Scots Bohemians Polonians Hungarians Danes Swedes Iews Flemmins and other Nations in former and late ages against their Tyrannicall oppressing Emperors Kings Princes together with the late defensive Wars of the protestants in Germany Bohemia France Swethland the Low-countries Scotland and elsewhere against their Princes approved by Queen Elizabeth king Iames and our present king Charles who assisted the French Bohemians Dutch and German Protestant Princes in those Wars with the unanimous consent of their Parliaments Clergy people abundantly evidence beyond all contradiction which I have more particularly manifested at large in my Appendix and therefore shall not enlarge my self further in it here onely I shall acquaint you with these five Particulars First that in the Germanes Defensive Wars for Religion in Luthers dayes the Duke of Saxonie the Lantzgrave of Hesse the Magistrates of Magdeburge together with other Protestant Princes States Lawyers Cities Counsellors and Ministers after serious consultation coneluded and resolved That the Laws of the Empire permitted resistance of the Emperour to the Princes and Subjects in some cases that defence of Religion and Liberties then invaded was one of these caeses that the times were
2 King 24. 4. * Estates upon Credit 1 Sect. 378. 379. 2 Part. 1. p. 51. to 74. 2. a Part. 1. p. 51. b De Princip l. 1. 2. 3. 6. c Praefat ad Ruh de collationibus p. 583 584. f Gen. 9. 9. 16. c. 17. 7. 13. Ps 89. 28. 34. Ps 105. 10. Ps 111. 9. Esay 55. 3. Esay 33. 20. 21. Iosh 21. 45. c. 23. 14. Heb 6. 17. 18. d De Iure Belli l. 2. c. 12 13. l. 3 c. 14 15 16. e De Iure belli Pacis l. 2. c. 11. 12 13 24. g Grotius De Iure Belli l. 2. c. 14. Sect. 3. 3. * Caus 23. quest 8. Suri Concil Tom. 3 p. 520. b Cajetan 2â— â—ae qu. 4. ar 1. Ambrose Offic. l. 1. c. 36 Summa Angelica Rosella Sylvester Tit. Bellum and the Clossers on Gratian. Causa 23. qu. 3. u Lev. 19. 18. Mat. 22. 39. Rom 9. 3. c. 14. 4. 1 Cor. 9. 27. Phil. 2. 12. 1 Tim. 5. 8 x Dist 23. qu. 3. to 8. y De Jure Bell. l. 1. c. 14. 15. 16. z Common-weale l. 2. c. 5. l. 5. c. 6. Sect. 2. l. 3. c. 25. Sect. 4. 5. 6. c Caus 23. qu. 1. 2. d 1a 2ae qu. â— art 10. qu. 64. ar 7. dub 4. e l. 4. disp 5. art 10. l. 5 qu. 1. art 8. f lib. 21. c. 9. du 8. g l. 1. Contr Illust 18. h p. 3. i n 2. 2. 2 ae qu. 64 art 〈◊〉 k Verbo Bellum par 〈◊〉 n. 3. p. 2. Homicidium 3. q. 4. l ad l. ut vim Di de Just Iure m In rep l. 1. unde vi n l. 11. c. 3. n. 147. o De Iure Bel. l. 1. c. 13. 14. p De Jure Bel. l. 2. c. 〈◊〉 q 2 2. Ar. 6. 7. q 2. Card. qu. 33. li 1. Petr. Nau. l. 11. Ca 3. n. 147. Grotius de Iure Belli l. 2. c. 1. Sect. 4. r See the Relation of Brainford Object 1. u Dr. Ferne Sect. 2. p. â—0 Answ Object 2. * An appeale to thy Conscience p. 3. 4. 5. Answ Object 3. p An Appeale to thy Conscience p. 2. Answ Object 4. q Appeale to thy Conscience p. 3. Answ r Sam. 23. 3. Esay 32. 1. c. 16. 5. c. 9. 7. 2 Chron. 9. 8. s 1 King c. 11. 12. 2 Chr. c 9. 10. 11. Neh. 13. 26. t 2 Sam. c. 11. 12. 34. u In the bookes of Kings Chronicles Ieremiah and Daniel * See Cassanaeus Catal. Gloriae Mundi pars 5. consid 24. sect 62. p. 22. 2. x De Fontif Rom. l. 4. y 2 Sam. 12. 7. c. z 2 Chro. 27. 17. 18. 19. 20. a 1 King 18. 17. 18. b 2 King 1. 3. 4. 16. Object 5. c An Appeal to thy Conscience p. 4. c. Answer of the Vindication of Ps 105. 14 15 and the Revindication printed at Cambridge 1643. Answ d 1 Sam. 8. 9. 10. see 1 Chron. 1. 43. e See Zeph. 2. 8. Gen. 20. 6. Iob 1. 11. c. 2. 5. c. 19. c. 5. 19. c. 12. 14. Gen. 26. 11. 29. Ier. 12. 14. 1 Ioh. 5. 18. f Matth. 8. 3. 15. c. 17 7. Mar. 6. 56. Luk. 8. 45 46 47 g The Vindication and Revindication of Psal 105. 14 15 h Gratian. causa 23. qu. 3 4 5 6. Where many Fathers are cited to this purpose i Exod. 30. 30. c. 40. 13 15. Levit. 4. 3. 16. 1 King 19. 16. k Eccles. 9 2. c. 8. 14. Ezecâ— 18. 24 26. Ich. 16. 2. l Psal 136. 19 20. Num. 21. 2â— 33 34 35. m Iosh 8. 29. n Iosh 10. 22 23 24 25 26. o Iosh 10. 42. c. 11. 12. 7. to 24. p Iudg 1 26 to 76. q Iudg 3 to â—6 r 1 Sam. 15 32 33. s Isay 45 10 * 2 Chro. 35. t 1 King 22 34 35. u 2 King 9 〈◊〉 27. x 2 Chr. 31. 10. 6 7. y 2 Ki. 2â— 6 7 z 2 Chron 33 11 1â— a 2 King 14 33. b See M. Seldens Titles of Honour l. 〈◊〉 3 sâ—ct 1 2 Bodin Communwal v. 3 l. 2 c. 5. Ioseph De Bello Indaico l. 1. c 10. 15. c Commonw l. 2 c 5. d De Iure Belli l. 1. c. 3 sect 11. 16. e In their titles and cont ovdrsies de Immunitate Cleriâ—erum Bishop Latimers â—ermon at Stamford f. 67 b. f Keilwayes Resorts f. 181. g See par r. p. 88. Fox Act Monuments h 1 King 2 26 27. i See Claudius Eâ—sencaeus Dig. s in Pâ—oâ— â—pist ad Tim. d. c. rismatis usu p. 261 c. k Espencaeus Ibid. See homas it aldensis Bellarmine and others De Sacramento extremae uâ—ctiours and all Schoolmen and Canonists De Sacrame torum Numero Extrunct l Cat. log Gloriae Muâ—di par 5. Consid 35. p. 40. Alber. de Reâ— Super G. of Rubr. F. dâ—sta ho. m Cassanaens Ibid. Consid 19. n Cook 7. â—eport Calvins Casâ—c f. 11. Philoch Arch. De Somnio Ver 〈◊〉 c. 171. Object S. Anâ—sw o 1 Sam. 10. 1 2. 24. p 1 Sam. 16. 1 to 14 q â— king 19. 〈◊〉 16. r 1 king 19. 16. 2 king 9. 1. to 3. s 1 Sa. 15 16 17. c. 10. 1 2 4. t 1 Sam. 12 13. c. 15. 13. c. 16 1 1 Chro. 28. v Psal 2. 6. Psal 18. 50. y 1 Sam. 10. 1 2 24. z 1 Sam. 16. 1. 10 14. a Sect. 2 p. 8. Sect b Sect 2 p. â— c 1. Sam. 2 c. 3. 10 16. d 1. Sam. 26 â— 7. to 25 e 2 Sam. 2. 1 Sam. 26. 23 24. f Sect. 2. p. 2. Object 7. g Dr Fern Resolving of Conscience Sect. 2. p. 10. And others Answer b Exod. 14. i Psa 59. I. 10 and other Psal k 2 Chron. 32. 20. 2 King 19. l 2 Chron. 14. 9 9. to 15. m 2 Chron. 13 14 15 16. n Mat. 16. 11. o Iam. 5. 14 15 16. p Psal 50. 15 * Match 22. 23. Object 8. q Dr ferne Sect. 2 3. An Appâ—al to thy Conscience Answ 1. 2. 3. * Antique Iud. l. 4. c. 8. 4. q Explanat Artit 42. Operum Tom. 1. 84 s Third Part of the True Difference between Christion subjection c p. 513. 514. t 1 Sam. 14. u 1 Chron. 13. x 1 Kin. 12. y Ier. 26. z 1 King 11. 1. to 40. a 1 King 12. 2 Chr. 10. Evasion Reply b Deut. 13. thorowout c. 17. 1. to 8. c 1 Kin. 15â— 27. to 34. 1. 16 1 2. d r Kings 16. 1 to 20. e 2 Chron. 25 27 28. c to 6. 1 King 14. 19 20 21. c 15. f 2 King 15. * 1 Sam. 12. 14. 19 25. 2 Sam. 7. 11 12 14 15 16 Psa 89. 30 31 32 O Chro. 28. 7 8 9. 1 Kin. 11. 9 10 11 12. 32 38. 1 Sam. 19. 23 26 27 28 29 25 c. 16. 1. comfared with Deut. 7. 16 to the end g 1 King 12. 3 c 3. 33. 34. c. 4 to 7. c. 15 to the end