the Romans and Italians being forsaken of the Emperour Constantine when they were invaded by Aistulfus King of the Lumbards Elected Charles the Great for their Emperour and created a new Empire in the West distinct from that of Constantinople in the East which Bishop Bilson himselfe concludes they might lawfully doe in point of conscience So Childerick being unfit to governe and unable to repulse the enemies of the French which invaded his territories thereupon by the advise of Pope Zachary and of a whole Synod and Parliament in France they deposed Childericke and elected Pipin for their King who was both able and willing to protect them Vpon this very ground the Emperours Charles the third and Wenceslius were deposed as being unable and unfit to defend and governe the Empire and others elected Emperors in their steeds Thus Mahomet the blinde King of Granado was in the yeare 1309. deposed by his owne Brother Nobles and Subjects who were discontented to be governed by a blinde King who could not lead them to the warres in person And Ethodius the 2 d king of Scotland being dull of wit given to avarice and nothing meete to governe the Realme thereupon the Nobles tooke upon them the governmeÌ„t appointing Rulers in every Province so continued them all his reigne leaving him nothing but the bare title of a King not depriving him thereof out of the respect they gave to the family of Fergusius but yet taking away all his regall power And not to multiply cases or examples of this nature Andrew Favine in his Theatre of Honour out of the Chronicle of Lauresheâ—m and Aimonius in his 4 th Booke of the History of France relates a notable resolution given by the Parliament Estates of France in this very point In the yeare 803. Lewes the Debonnaire king of France holding his Parliament in May there came thither from strange Provinces two Brethren kings of Vuilses who with frank free good will submitted themselves to the judgement of the said Parliament to which of them the kingdome should belong The elder of these two brethren was named Meligastus and the younger Celeadraus Now albeit the custome of the said kingdome adjudged the Crowne to the eldest according to the right of Primegeniture allowed and practised by the Law of Nature and of later memory in the person of the last dead King Liubus father to the two contendants yet notwithstanding in regard that the Subjects by universall consent of the kingdome had rejected the elder brother FOR HIS COWARDISE AND EVILL GOVERNMENT cum secundam ritum ejus gentis commissum sibi Regnum parum digne administraret and had given the Crown to the younger brother FOR HIS VALOVR DISCREETE CARRIGE after full hearing of both parties BY SENTENCE of PARLIAMENT the Kingdome was adjudged to the younger Brother statâ—it ut junior frater delatam sibi à Populo suo pot flatem haberet c and thereupon the eldest did him homage with oath of Alleigance in the said Parliament and submitted to this sentence And upon this very ground in some of our ancient British and Saxons Kings Reignes when the right heire to the Crowne was an infant unable to defend his kingdome and people against invading enemies the Crowne hath commonly descended to the Vncle or next heire of full age who was able to protect them and repulse their enemies till the right heire accomplished his compleat age as I have elsewhere manifested If then a Kingdome by generall consent may elect a new King to defend and preserve it in case of invasion and eminent danger of ruine by forraigne enemies when their present King either cannot or will not doe his duty in protecting them from their enemies and exposeth them for a prey to their devastations as these examples and authorities conclude they may though I will not positively determine so Then certainely by equall semblable and greater reason subjects may lawfully take up necessary defensive Armes against their Kings when they shall not onely desert but actually invade and wage warre against them destroy and wast them in an open Hostile manner and handle them as cruelly as the worst of enemies such a wilfull unnaturall Hostile invasion being farre worse than any cowardly or bare desertion of theÌ„ when they are invaded by a forraign enemy And if Kings in case of sottishnesse or Lunacy may be lawfully deposed from their kingdomes by common consent of their Realmes when they are altogether unfit or unable to governe as Bâ—shop Bilson asserts and I have manifested else where then much more may they be lawfully resisted by force without guilt of Treason or Rebellion when they wilfully and maliciously contrary to their oath and duty cast off their Royall governments the protection of their subjects and wage open warre against them to enslave or ruine them If a Father shall violently and unjustly assault his sonne a husband his wife a master his servant a Major or other inferior Officer a Citizen to murther maime or ruine them They may in such a case by the Law of Nature God man resist repulse them in their owne defence without any crime at all as dayly practise experimentally manifests yea they may sweare the peace against them and have a Writ de securitate Pacis in such cases Therefore by the selfesame reason they may resist the King and his Army in like cases there being no more humane nor divine Law against resistance in the one case than in the other Finally it is the resolution of John Bodin and others who deny the lawfulnesse of Subjects taking up Armes against their Soveraigne Prince or offering violence to his person though he become a Tyrant That if a Soveraigne Prince or King by lawfull election or succession turne a Tyrant he may lawfully at his Subjects request be invaded resisted condemned or slaine by a forraigne Prince For as of all Noble acts none is more honourable or glorious then by way of fact to defend the honour goods and lâ—ves of such as are unjustly oppressed by the power of the more mighty especially the gate of Iustice being shut against them thus did Moses seeing his brother the Israelite beaten and wronged by the Egyptian and no meanes to have redresse of his wrongs So it is a most faire and magnificall thing for a Prince to take up Armes to releive a whole Nation and people unjustly oppressed by the cruelty of a Tyrant as did the great Hercu'es who travelling over a great part of the world with wonderfull power and valour destroyed many most horrible monsters that is to say Tyrants and so delivered people for which he was numbred among the gods his posterity for many worlds of yeares after holding most great Kingdomes And other imitators of his vertue as Dio Timoilion Aratus Harmodius Aristogiton with other such honourable Princes bearing Titles of chastisers and correctors of Tyrants And for that onely cause
or the Subjects and every man with safe conscience may chearefully serve in such a warre upon the Parliaments encouragement or command without guilt of treason or rebellion either in Law or Conscience For the third Question Whether Tyrants or unjust oppressing Magistrates as they are such be within the intendment of this Text and not to be resisted in any case I have fully cleared this before from the occasion scope and arguments used in this Chapter that they are not within the compasse of this Text as they are such and may be resisted in their Tyranny and oppressions notwithstanding this inhibition I shall not repeat but onely fortifie this Position with some new reasons and authorities First then that which is not the ordinance of God but rather of the Devill and the meere sinne and enormity of the Governour himselfe not of the Government is not within the intention of this Text and may lawfully bee resisted without any violation of it But Tyrants and unjust oppressing Magistrates as they are such are not Gods ordinance but rather the Devills and their Tyranny and oppression is onely the sinne and enormity of the Governours themselves not of the government A truth granted by all men Therefore they are not within the compasse of this Text and may lawfully be resisted without any violation of it Secondly that which is no point of the Magistrates lawfull power ordained of God but diametrally repugnant to it cannot be within the meaning of this Text and may lawfully be resisted but the tyranny oppression rapine and violence of lawlesse Kings and Magistrates are such as all must and doe acknowledge Ergo they are not within the verge and compasse of this Text and may lawfully bee resisted Thirdly all powers intended in the Text are not only ordained but ordered of God that is Paraeus with others observe they are circumscribed bounded with certain Rules or Lawes of justice and honesty within which they must containe themselves else they exorbitate from Gods ordinance when they passe beyond these limits and become none of Gods This the Greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which Arias Montanus and others render ordinatae and the Margin of our English Bibles are ordered of God doth sufficiently warrant being coupled with the subsequent limitations For rulers are not a terrour to good workes but to evill c. they are Gods Ministers attending continually on this very thing Now the Tyranny and oppression of Kings and other Rulers are meere exorbitances arbitrary illegall actions exceeding the bounds of justice and honesty prescribed by the Lawes of God and men Therefore not within the limits of this Text and resistible Fourthly it is generally accorded by all Commentators that though the lawfull power of Princes or other Magistrates degenerating unto Tyrants be of God and not to be resisted yet the Tyranny it selfe and abuse of this power is of Satan not of God and the vice of the persons onely not of the Power it selfe whence they conclude that Tyrants are not within the meaning of this Scripture So Origen Paraeus Willet with most others on this Text and Zuinglius most expresly Explanatio Artic. 41. Tom. 1. f. 82. 83. where he complaines that many Tyrants cheate steale rob slay plunder and attempt any thing against their subjects to oppresse them assuming a pretext and vayle of their malice from this Text of Paul Yea Dominicus Soto Cajetan Pererius and other Popish commentators on this place observe that Paul addes this Epithet of higher or excelling powers omitted by him in other parallel Texts of purpose to exclude Tyrants who are no excelling Lords nor lawfull Powers reigning oft times by Gods permission for the peoples punishment not by his ordination for their good and blame Bueer for saying that Tyrants power is from God as if he were ths author of sinne and Tyranny This then fully answers that absurd errour of Doctor Ferne wherein all his force is placed That the Power in Pauls dayes which he here prohibits to resist were subverters of that which was good and the Roman Emperors Tyrants where he sottishly confounds the tyranny lusts and vices of the Emperors persons which were detestable with their power it selfe which was good and commendable as if the Imperiall power it selfe was ill because Nero was ill and was therefore justly condemned to death by the Roman Senate as a publike enemy to the Roman State though they approved and continued his just Imperiall principality which lasted in succession for many hundred yeares after his censure death To which I shall onely adde that though Nero himselfe were a Tyrant yet the Roman Senate and all their Inferiour Offices were not Tyrants many of them no doubt being just and upright Magistrates The Precept therefore being thus in the generall and the plurall number Let every soule be subject unto the higher powers nor personall let them be subject to Nero or speciall to the Roman Emperour whom Paul no doubt would have specified had he specially intended them as our opposites fondly dreame we may safely conclude that the Apostle intended it onely of lawfull powers and Magistrates not of Nero or other Tyrants And writ this to Christians onely to whom he dedicates this Epistle witnesse Ch. 1. V. 7. To all that be at Rome beloved of God called to be Saints c. not to Pagan Romans as the Doctor dreames to whom he writes not much lesse to the Roman Senate who were then the soveraigne power and therefore could bee subject to no other but themselves Precepts of obedience to children and Servants concerne not parents and masters as such in point of submission or obedience For the fourth Quere Whether Kings and Kingdomes be Gods ordinance or an institution Jure divino not a humane ordinance instituted Jure humano or how farre divine or humane Is a necessary considerable question grounded on this Text and very needfull to be discussed to cleare the present controversie Some of our opposites are so intoxicated with the divinity of Monarchy as they confidently determine hat the efficient cause of royall Monarchicall power is onely God not the people That Kings receive no power or regall Authority from the people but from God alone That the power of Kings is not a humane but a divine power of which God onely is the efficient cause That the people doe not make the King but God properly and absolutely this power right and authority he hath from God That the King hath no dominion and power from his Subjects by way of trust but from God from whom he hath his kingdome and power so that by Idolatry and oppression he breakes not the trust reposed in him by his Subjects because the people HAVE COMMITTED NOTHING TO HIS CHARGE but God onely c. For proofe whereof they produce Prov. 8. 15. By me Kings reigne Dan. 2. 21. God removeth Kings and setteth up Kings Dan. 4. 17. 25. The most
Tamerlain Emperour of the Tartars denounced warre unto Bajazet King of the Turkes who then besieged Constantinople saying That he was comming to chastise his Tyrannie and to deliver the afflicted people and vanquishing him in battle routed his Army and taking the Tyrant prisoner he kept him in chains in an Iron Cage till he dyed Neither in this case is it materiall that such a vertuous Prince being a stranger proceede against a Tyrant by open force or fiercenesse or else by way of justice True it is that a valient and worthy Prince having the Tyrant in his power shall gaine more honour by bringing him unto his tryall to chastise him as a murtherer a manqueller and a robber rather than to use the Law of Armes against him Wherefore let us resolve on this that it is lawfull for any stranger Prince to kill a Tyrant that is to say a man of all men infamed and notorious for the oppression murder and slaughter of his subjects and people And in this sort our Queene Elizabeth ayded the Low-Countries against the Tyrannie and oppressions of the King of Spaine and the King of Sweden of late yeares the Princes of Germany against the Tyranny and usurpations of the Emperor upon their sollicitation If then it be thus lawfull for Subjects to call in forraigne Princes to releeve them against the Tyrannie and oppressions of their kings as the Barons in King Iohns time prayed in ayde from Philip and Lewis of France against his tyrannie and those Princes in such cases may justly kill depose or judicially condemne these oppressing Kings and put them to death I conceive these whole kingdomes and Parliaments may with farre better reason lesse danger and greater safety to themselvs their Kings and Realmes take up defensive Armes of their owne to repulse their violence For if they may lawfully helpe themselves and vindicate their Liberties from their Kings encroachments by the assistance and Armes of forraigne Princes who have no relation to them nor particular interest in the differences betweene their kings and them which can hardly be effected without subjecting themselves to a forraigne power the death or deposition of the oppressing King much more may they defend and releeve themselves against him by their owne domesticke Forces if they be able by generall consent of the Realme because they have a particular interest and ingagement to defend their owne persons estates liberties which forraigners want and by such domesticke Forces may prevent a forraigne subjection preserve the life of the oppressing Prince and succession of the Crowne in the hereditary line which forraigne Armies most commonly endanger And certainely it is all one in point of Reason State Law Conscience for Subjects to relieve themselves and make a defensive warre against their Soveraigne by forraigne Princes Armes as by their owne and if the first be just and lawfull as all men generally grant without contradiction and Bracton to l. 2. c. 16. I see no colour but the latter must bee just and lawfull too yea then the first rather because lesse dangerous lesse inconvenient to King and Kingdome From Reasons I shall next proceed to punctuall Authorities Not to mention our ancient Brittons taking up of armes by joint consent against their oppressing tyrannizing Kings Aâ—chigallo Emerian and Vortigern whom they both expelled and deposed for their tyranny and mis-government nor our Saxons ray sing defensive Forces against King Sigebert Osfred Ethelred Beornard Coolwulfe and Edwyn who were forcibly expelled and deprived by their Subjects for their bloody cruelties and oppressions which actions the whole Kingdome then and those Historians who recorded them since reputed just and honourable and no Treason nor Rebellion in Law or Conscience being for the Kingdomes necessary preservation and the peoples just defence which Histories I have elsewhere more largely related Nor yet to insist long on the fore-mentioned Barons warre against king Iohn and Henry the 3 d. for regaining establishing preserving Magna Chaâ—ta and other Liberties of the Realme which our Kings had almost utterly deprived them off I shall onely give you some few briefe observations touching these warres to cleare them from those blacke aspersions of Rebellion Treason and the like which some late Historians especially Iohn Speed to flatter those Kings to whom they Dedicated their Histories have cast upon them contrary to the judgement of our ancienter Choniclers and Matthew Paris who generally repute them lawfull and honourable First then consider what opinion the Prelates Barons and Kingdome in generall had of these Warres at first Anno 1414. in a Parliament held at Pauls the 16. yeare of King Iohns raigne Steven Langton Archbishop of Canterbury produced a Charter of King Henry the First whereby he granted the Ancient Liberties of the Kingdome of England which had by his Predecessors beene oppressed with unjust exactions according to the Lawes of King Edward with those emendations which his Father by the counsell of his Barons did ratifie which Charter being read before the Barons they much rejoyced and swore in the presence of the Archbishop that for these Liberties they would if need required spend their blood which being openly done in Parliament they would never have taken such a publike solemne Oath had they deemed a Warre against the King for recovery or defence of these their Liberties unlawfull and no lesse then Treason and Rebellion in point of Law or Conscience After this the Barons assembling at Saint Edmondâ—bury conferred about the said Charter and swore upon the high Altar That if King Iohn refused to confirme and restore unto them those Liberties the Rights of the Kingdome they would make Warre upon him and withdraw themselves from his Allegiance untill he had ratified them all wâ—th his Charter under his great Seale And further agreed after Christmas to Petition him for the same and in the meane time to provide themselves of Horse and Furniture to be ready if the King should start from his Oath made at Winchester at the time of his absolution for confirmation of these Liberties and compell him to satisfie their demand After Christmas they repaire in a Military manner to the King lying in the new Temple urging their desires with great vehemencie the King seeing their resolution and inclination to warre made answer That for the matter they required he would take consideration till after Easter next In the meane time he tooke upon him the Crosse rather through feare then devotion supposing himselfe to bee more safe under that Protection And to shew his desperate malice and wilfulnesse who rather then not to have an absolute domination over his people to doe what he listed would be any thing himselfe under any other that would but support him in his violences he sent an Embassage the most base and impious that ever yet was sent by any free and Christian Prince unto Miramumalim the Moore intituled the great King of Affrica Morocco and Spaine wherein
together to live and dye for justice and to their power to destroy the TRAITORS OF THE REALME Especially the two Spensers after which they raised an Army whereof they made Thomas Earle of Lancaster Generall and meeting at Sherborne they plunder and destroy the Spensers Castles Mannors Houses Friends Servants and marching to Saint Albanes with Ensignes displayed sent Messengers to the King then at London admonishing him not onely to rid his Court but Kingdome of the TRAITORS TO THE REALME the Spensers condemned by the Commons in many Articles to preserve the peace of the Realme and to grant them and all their followers Letteâ—s Pattents of indemnity for what they had formerly done Which the King at first denied but afterwards this Armie marching up to London where they were received by the City he yeelded to it and in the 15 th yeare of his Raigne by a speciall Act of Parliament the said Spensers were disinherited and banished the Realme formis-councelling the king oppressing the people by injustice a vising him to levie warre upon his Subjects making evill Iudges and other Officers to the hurt of the King and Kingdome â—ngâ—ossing the Kings eare and usurping his Royall authority as ENEMIES of the King and OF HIS PEOPLE and by another Act of Parliament it was then provided that no man should be questioned for any felonies or trespasses committed in the prosecution of Hugh â—e de pensers the father and sonne which Act runnes thus Whereas of late many great men of the Realme surmised to Sir Hugh le Despenser the sonne and Father many misdemeanors by them committed against the estate of our Lord the King and of his Crowne and to the disinheritance of the great men and destruction of the people and pursued those misdemeanors and attainder of them by force because they could not be attainted by processe of Law because that the said Sir Hughes had accroached to them the royall power in divers manner the said Grandees having mutually bound themselves by oath in writing without the advise of our Lord the King and after in pursuing the said Hugh and Hugh and their alies and adherents the said great men and others riding with banners displaied having in them the Armes of the king and their owne did take and occupie the Chattels Villages Mannors Lands Tenements Goods and likewise take and imprison some of the Kings leige people and others tooke some and slew others and did many other things in destroying the said Hugh and Hugh and their alies and others in England Wales and in the Marches whereof some things may be said Trespasses and others felonies and the said Hugh and Hugh in the Parliament of our Lord the King sommoned at Westminster three weekes after the Nativitie of Saint John Baptist the 15. yeare of his Raigne for the said misdemeanors were fore judged and banished the Realme by a vote of the Peeres of the Land and the foresaid great men in the said Parliament shewed to our Lord the King that the things done in the pursuite of the said Hugh and Hugh by reason of such causes of necessity cannot be legally redressed or punished without causing great trouble or perchance warre in the land which shall be worse and prayed our Lord that of all alliances trespasses and felonies they might be for ever acquitted for the preservation of peace the avoyding of warre and asswaging of angers and rancors and to make unitie in the land and that our Lord the King may more intirely have the hearts and Wills of the great men and of his people to maintaine and defend his Lands and to make warre upon and grieve his enemies It is accorded and agreed in the said Parliament by our Lord the King and by the Prelates Earles Barrons and Commons of the Realme there assembled by command of our Lord the King that none of what estate or condition soever he be for alliance at what time soever made by deed oath writing or in other manner nor for the taking occupying or detainer of Chattels towns Mannors Lands Tenements and good taken imprisoning or ransoming the Kings leige People or of other homicides robberies felonies or other things which may be noted as trespasses or fellonies committed against the peace of the king by the said great men their allies or adherents in the pursuite aforesaid since the first day of March last past till the thursday next after the feast of the assumption of our Ladie to wit the 19. day of August next ensuing be appealed nor challenged taken nor imprisoned nor grieved nor drawne into judgement by the King nor any other at the suite of any other which shall be in the Kings Court or in any place else but that all such trespasses and Felonies shall be discharged by this accord and assent saving alwaies to all men but to the said Hugh and Hugh action and reason to have and recover their Chattels Farmes mannors Lands tenements wards and marriages according to the Lawes and customes used in the Realme without punishment against the king or damages recovered against the party for the time aforesaid For which end they prescribed likewise a Charter of Pardon annexed to this Act according to the purport of it which every one that would might sue out which Charter you may read in old Magna Charta From which Act of Parliament I shall observe these three things First that this their taking up Armes to apprehend the Spensâ—rs as enemies to the King and kingdom and marching with banners displayd was not then reputed high Treason or Rebellion against the King though it were by way of offence not of defence and without any authority of Parliament for there is not one word of Treason or Rebellion in this Act or in the Charter of pardon pursuing it and if it had beene high Treason this Act and Charters on it extending onely to Fellonie and Trespasses not to Treasons and Rebellions would not have pardoned these transcendent Capitall crimes Secondly that the unlawfull outrages robberies and murders committed by the souldiers on the kings leige people and not on the two Spensers the sole delinquents were the occasion of this Act of oblivion and pardon not the Armed pursuing of them when they had gotten above the reach of Law Thirdly that though this were an offensive not defensive warre made without common assent of Parliament and many murthers robberies and misdemeanors committed in the prosecution of it upon the kings leige people who were no Delinquents yet being for the common good to suppresse and banish these ill Councellors enemies Traytors to King and Kingdome the King and Parliament thought it such a publicke service as merited a pardon of these misdemeanors in the carriage of it and acquitted all who were parties to it from all suites and punishments All which considered is a cleare demonstration that they would have resolved our present defensive warre by Authoritie of both Houses accompanied with no such outrages as these for
not have done in point of Law Iustice Honour Conscience had they beene Rebells or Traytors for standing on their guards and making defensive Warres onely for their owne and their Religions preservation but likewise by two severall publike Acts of Parliament the one in England the other in Scotland declaring the Scots late taking up Armes against him and his evill Counsellors in defence of their Religion Lawes Priviledges to be no Treason nor Rebellion and them to bee his true and loyall Subjects notwithstanding all aspertions cast upon them by the Prelaticall and Popish Party because they had no ill or disloyall intention at all against his Majesties Person Crowne and Dignity but onely a care of their owne preservation and the redresse of thâ—se Enormities Pressures grievances in Church and State which threatned desolation unto both If then their seizing of the Kings Fortes Ammunition Revenues and raising an Army for the foresaid ends hath by his Majesty himselfe and his two Parliaments of England and Scotland beene resolved and declared to be no Treason no Rebellion at all against the King by the very same or better reason all circumstances duely pondered our Parliaments present taking up Armes and making a Defensive Warre for the endes aforesaid neither is nor can be adjudged Treason or Rebellion in point of Law or Iustice In fine the King himself in his Answer to the 19. Propositions of both Houses Iune 3. 1642. Confesseth and calleth God to witnesse That all the Rights of his Crowne are vested in him for his Subjects sake That the Prince may not make use of his high and perpetuall power to the hurt of those for whose good he hath it nor make use of the name of publike Necessity for the gaine of his private Favourites and Followers to the detriment of his people That the House of Commons may impeach those who for their owne ends though countenanced with any surreptitiously gotten Command of the King have violated that Law which he is bound when he knowes it to protect and to protection of which they were bound to advise him at least Not to serve him in the Contrary let the Cavalleers and others consider this and the Lords being trusted with a Iudiciary power are an excellent screene and banke betweene the King and people to assist each against any Incroachments of the other and by just Iudgements to preserve that Law which ought to be the Rule of every one of the three Therefore the power Legally placed in both Houses Being more then sufficient to prevent and restraine the power of Tyranny by his Majesties owne Confession it must needs be such a power as may legally inable both Houses when Armes are taken up against them by the King or any other to subvert Lawes Liberties Religion and introduce an Arbitrary government not onely to make Lawes Ordinances and Assessements but likewise to take up Armes to defend and preserve themselves their Lawes Liberties religion and to prevent restraine all forces raysed against them to set up Tyranny else should they want not onely a more then sufficient but even a sâ—fficient necessary power to prevent and restraine the power of Tyranny which being once in armes cannot bee restraned and prevented repulsed with Petitions Declarations Lawes Ordinances or any Paper Bulwarkes and Fortifications or other such probable or possible meanes within the Parliaments power but onely by Armes and Militarie Forces as reason and experience in all Ages manifest From all which pregnant punctuall domesticke Authorities and resolutions of Ancient Moderne and present times I presume I may infallibly conclude That the Parliaments present taking up necessary Defensive Armes is neither Treason nor Rebellion in iudgement of Law but a iust and lawfull Act for the publicke benefit and preservation of King Kingdome Parliament Lawes Liberties Religion and so neither their Generall Souldiers nor any person whatsoever imployed by them in this War or contributing any thing towards its maintenance are or can be Legally indicted prosecuted or in any manner proceeded against as Traitors Rebels Delinquents against the King or Kingdome and that all Proclamations Declarations Indictments or proceedings against them or any of them as Traitors Rebels or Delinquents are utterly unlawfull iniust and ought to be reversed as meere Nullities It would be an infinite tedious labour for me to relate what Civilians and Canonists have written concerning Warre and what Warre is just and lawfull what not In briefe they all generally accord That no Warre may or ought to be undertaken cut of covetousnesse lust ambition cruelty malice desire of hurt revenge or for booty propter praedam enim militare peccatum est Whence Joh Baptist Luke 3. 14. gave this answer to the Souldiers who demanded of him what shall we doe Doe violence to no man neither accuse any man falsly and be content with your wages Ne dum sumptus quaeritur praedo grassetur Which prooves the Warres of our plundring pillaging Cavalleers altogether sinnefull and unjust And that such a Warre onely is just which is waged for the good and necessary defence of the Common-wealth by publike Edict or consent or to regaine some thing which is unjustly detained or taken away and cannot otherwise be acquired or to repell or punish some injury or to curbe the insolency of wicked men or preserve good men from their uniust oppressions which Warres ought onely to be undertaken out of a desire of Peace as they prove out of Augustine Gregory Isidor Hispalensis and others In one word they all accord That a necessary defensive Warre to repulse an Injury and to preserve the State Church Republike Freedomes Lives Chastities Estates Lawes Liberties Religion from unjust violence is and ever hath beene lawfull by the Law of Nature of Nation yea By all Lawes whatsoever and the very dictate of Reason And that aâ—nâ—cessary defensive Warre is not properly a Warre but a meere Defence against an unlawfull Violence And therâ—fore mâ—st of necessitie be acknowledge lawfull because directly opposite to and the onely remedy which Gâ—d and Nature have giuen men against Tâ—rannicall and unjust invasions which are both sâ—â—nâ—full and unlawfull And so can be no Treason no Rebellion no crime at all thouâ—â— our Princes or Parents be the unjust assailâ—nts Of which see more in Hugo Groâ—ius de Iure Belli l. 2. c. 1. I shall close up the Civillians and Câ—noâ—â—â—s Opinions touching the lawfulnesse of a Defensive Warre with the words oâ— Aâ—bericâ—â—â—entilis Professor of Civill Law in the Vniversitie of Oxford in Queene Elizabeths Raigne Who in his learned Booke De Jure Belli Pacis Dedicated to the most illustrious Robert Devoreux Earle of Essex Father to the Parliaments present Lord Generall determines thus Lib. 1. caâ— 13 pag. 92. c. Although I say there be no cause of warre from nature yet there are causes for which we undertake warre by the conduct of nature as is the cause of Defence and when warre is
desirous of peace and father of peace Laurencius Medices procured alwayes that the affaires of the Itaâ—an Princes should be balanced with equall weights whence both Italy might have peace which both it had whiles he lived and was the preserver of this temper and which peace ceased when he deceased and that temperature The great off-spring of Medices was a great safegard both to his owne City and the rest of Italy doth he not as yet indeavour this that one should not be able to doe all things and all Europe come under the command of one unlesse some be able to resist the Spanyard Europe will certainely fall If any will pull a middle stone out of the wall upon which all relies the rest being carried together will follow No this must never be permitted that the dominion of any should grow so great as neither to doubt before so much as of most manifest injustice which Polybius saith and saith againe whence Hero therefore ayded the Carthaginians against the Mercenaries least the Carthaginians being oppressed the Romans should be able to doe all things This Livie of the diverse conceits of men upon the war of the Romans and Perseus that some favored him some them but there was a third part the best and most prudent who would have neither part to become more powerfull the other oppressed for so themselves should be in the best condition alwayes protecting them from the injuries of the other And these things ingeniously Marcus Cato for the Rhodians who thorow hatred to the Romans by their good will at least or wishes had favoured Perseus They would not that we should have conquered the King but also many other people and many Nations and partly not for reproach sake but because they feared that if there were no man whom we stood in awe of we might doe what we list and every one of us if any thinke any thing to be attempted against his owne estate doth even with his strength contrarily endeavour that it be not attempted against him This the Embassador of Persius had thus discussed before the Rhodians that they ought to endeavour that the right and power of all things be not devolved to one people Cato adds that their will ought not to be punished so much because it ought to be discerned more certainely Caesar doth not contradict who thus disputes of raising of warre against King Ariovistus that he ought to be punished before he became great or should doe any evill even because he had a thought to doe them hurt Neither ought this to be understood of the naked thought and bare will but of that which hath assumed the Act declared in another place that King was now fearefull to the Romans in France and his Armes threatned danger Caesar therfore wisely and justly thought that there was no further delay to be made but that he might restraine Armes with Armes The Switzers lately very wisely that they will favour neither the French nor Emperor but would keepe a league with them both until their Armies should not be hurtful to the Helvetiin Common-wealth But I conclude the defence is just which prevents dangers already meditated of already prepared and also not thought upon but very likely possible yet neither this last simply or would I call it just to endeavour this war as soone as ever any should be made too potent which I doe not affirme For what if any Princes power should be increased by successions by elections wilt thou trouble him with warre because his power may be dangerous to thee Another thing therefore must be added concerning Iustice We will adde to others who what they have thought of a just war attend CHAP. XV. Of Honest Defence IT remaines to speake of honest defence which is undertaken without any feare of danger to us sought for no want of our owne for no profit but onely for other mens sakes and it resteth upon this foundation that as Marcus Tullius saith nature hath ordained among men affinity and love and good will and the bond of good will and that the law of nations is placed in the society of men which therefore is called by Cicero also Civill Thus Verilie the Stoickes would have the City of the whole world to be one and all men to be commoners and townesmen and like one Heard feeding together in a Common ground All this that thou beholdest wherein heavenly and earthly things are contained is one and we are members of one great body and the world it selfe is one body But Nature hath made us allyed seeing she hath begotten us of the same and in the same also endewed us with mutuall love and hath made us sociable e And this our societie is most like the joyning of stones in a wall which would fall if the stones did not withstand and uphold one another as Seneca excellently and which as Gellius consisteth upholden as it were with a mutuall contrariety and support This is the desagreeing concord of things as Horace speakes and we also before And now thou hearest that all the world is one body and all men are members of this one body and thou hearest the world to be an house and to be a City which heare againe for they are beautifull The world is the greatest house of things thus Varro Man is a sociable creature and being borne for the good of all lookes upon the world as one house thus Seneca againe Lactantius saith the world is a Common-wealth having one forme of government and one Law Philo there is one Commonwealth of all and a common City of all Tertullian Minutius and also in Aristotle There is one great City what an harmony is here of wise men Adde touching Society that of Cicero Society in the largest extent which though it be often sayd we must repeate more often is of men towards men more inward of those that are of the same Countrey neerer of those that are of the fare City and in another place We are so borne that there may be a certaine Societie betweene all but greater as any one is nearer Citizens are be terâ—ban strangers kindred han Forriners And thus doth Augustine note there societies the first of the houshold the second of the City the third of the world and saith all the Nations in the world are joyned together by humane societie But what is this society and conjunction Among the good there is as it were a necessary benevolence which spring of freindship is constituted of nature but that same goodnesse belongs also to the multitude for vertue is not inhumane nor cruell nor proud which will not looke upon all people writeth Cicero and Ambrose the law of nature bindes us to all charity that one should beare with another as members of one body and so also Baldus we are borne for our own and for strangers by the bond
their severall flights from the violence of the Egyptians Saul and Iezabel who sought their lives but likewise by Ioseph Mary and Christ himselfe who fled into Egypt to escape the hands and but chery of King Herod by Christs own direction to his Disciples Matth. 10. 23. But when they persecute you in this City flee yee into another and that Prediction of his Matth. 23. 34. Behold I send unto you Prophets and wise men and Scribes and some of them ye shall kill and crucifie and some of them shall you scourge in your Synagogues and persecute them from City to City which was really fulfilled Acts 8. 3. 4. c. 9. 1 2. c 11. 19. c. 13. 50 51. c. 14. 1 to 24 c. 17. 1. to 16. c. 22. 42. c. 26. 11. 12. c. 9. 24 25 26. 2 Cor. 11. 32. 33. Rev. 12. 6. Of which reade more in Tertullian his booke De Fuga in persecutione Hence then I argue thus That unjust violence of Princes and their Armies which Subjects with a safe conscience may decline and flee from when as they want power meanes or convenience to resist it they may no doubt lawfully resist even with force of Armes when they have sufficient meanes and conveniences to resist and cannot flee or submit thereto without the publicke ruine since the same justice and equity which enables them by flight or stratagem to decline unjust assaults of a superior power or its judgements doth likewise enable them to escape and prevent it with resistance when they cannot doe it by flight or other policie If then they may lawfully with a safe conscience hide flee or use lawfull policies to prevent the open injust violence of their kings and their Officers when not guilty of any capitall crime deserving censures because by the very light of nature and Law of Charity they are obliged to preserve themselves from unjust tyrannie and are no wayes bound to subject themselves to the cruelty the unjust assaults or oppressions of others then by the selfesame reason they may lawfully with force of Armes defend themselves against such violent unjust attempts which they are no way obliged to submit unto when as they cannot conveniently secure themselves and the publicke but by such resistance and should both betray their owne the publicke safety and Religion as the Subjects and Parliament should now do in case they did not resist by force of Armes to the utmost of their power and become worse than Infidels who have even thus oft provided for their owne and the Republickes securitie Fiftly God himselfe the fountaine oft justice the God of Order the preserver of humane society who detests of all tyranny cruelty oppression injustice out of his Philanthropie which brought the Sonne of his bosome from heaven to earth would never certainely in point of policy or conscience prohibit that which is the onely probable meanes and apparent remedy to prevent suppresse disorder tyranny cruelty oppression injustice yea confusion in the world and to preserve good order and humane society a truth so apparent that no rationall man can contradict it Therefore questionesse he never prohibited forcible necessary resistance of the highest powers and their instruments in cases of open unjust violence and hostile invasion made upon their people to ruine them or subvert their established government Laws Liberties Iustice Religion There being no other probable ordinary meanes left to any Kingdome Nation People to preserve their government lives Lawes Liberties Religion and to prevent suppresse or redresse tyrannie cruelty disorder confusion yea utter ruine when their Kings and Governors degenerate into Tyrants invading them with open force but onely defensive Armes prayers and teares alone without military opposition by force of Armes being no more able to defend a person City or Kingdome against Oppressing Princes and their Armies then against theeves Pyrates or common enemies whom they must and ought to resist as well with Armes as Orisons with Speares as well as Teares else they should but tempt the Lord and destroy themselves like those c Iewes and Gothes who would not fight upon the Sabbath and so were slaine by their enemies without resistance yea wilfully suffer the Common-weale to be subverted Religion extirpated Lawes trampled under feete their own posterities to be enslaved ruined without any opposition even in a moment For were it utterly unlawfull and no lesse than Treason or Rebellion in point of conscience for any subjects to take up Defensive Armes to resist the Kings army or forces consisting for the most part of Papists Delinquents deboist Athesticall persons of broken fortunes feared consciences and most irreligious lives I appeale to every mans conscience how soone these unresisted Instruments of cruelty would utterly extirpate our protestant Religion and common faith for which we are enjoyned earnestly to contend and strive Jude 3. Phil. 1. 27. 28. And shall we then yeeld it up and betray it to our adversaries without strife or resistance how sodainely would they ruin our Parliament Lawes Liberties subvert all civill order government erect an arbitrary Lawlesse tyrannicall Regency regulated by no Iawes but will and Iust how soone would they murther imprison execute our Noblest Lords Knights Burgesses best Ministers and Commonwealths-men for their fidelity to God their King and Country how many Noble families would they disinherite how many wives widdowes Virgins would they force and ravish what Cities what Countries would they not totally pillage plunder sack ruine consume with fire and sword how soone would our whole Kingdome become an Acheldama a wildernesse a desolation and the surviving inhabitants either slaves or beasts if not devils incarnate Yea how speedy might any private Officers Captaines Commanders by colour of illegall Commissions and commands from the King or of their Offices and all the notorious rogues and theeves of England under colour of being listed in the Kings Army if the people might not in point of Law or Conscience resist them with Armes who came armed for to act their villanies maliciously rob spoyle plunder murther all the Kings leige people without any remedy or prevention and by this pretext that they are the Kings Souldiers sodainely seise and gaine all the armes treasure forts ammunition power of the Realme into their possessions in a moment and having thus strengthned themselves and slaine the Kings faithfull subjects usurpe the crown it selfe if they be ambitious as many private Captaines and Commanders have anciently slaine divers Roman and Grecian Emperours yea sundry Spanish Gothish and Moorish Kings in Spain by such practises and aspired to their Crowns of which there are sundry such like presidents in most other Realmes to prevent redres which severall destructive mischiefes to People Kingdome Kings themselves God himselfe hath left us no other certaine proper sufficient remedy but a forcible resistance which all Kingdomes Nations throughout the world haue constantly used in such cases as I shall manifest more largely in the Appendix
persons If any king shall unjustly assault the persons of any private Subjects men or women to violate their lives or chastities over which they have no power I make no doubt that they may and ought to bee resisted repulsed even in point of conscience but not slaine though many kings have lost their lives upon such occasions as Rodoaldus the 8. king of Lumbardy Anno 659. being taken in the very act of adultery by the adulteresses husband was slaine by him without delay and how kings attempting to murther private Subjects unjustly have themselves beene sometimes wounded and casually slaine is so rise in stories that I shall forbeare examples concluding this with the words of Iosephus who expressely writes That the King of the Israelites by Gods expresse Law Deut. 17. was to doe nothing without the consent of the high Priest and Senate nor to multiply money and horses over much which might easily make him a contemner of the Lawes and if he addicted himselfe to these things more than was fitting HE WAS TO BE RESISTED least he became more powerfull then was expedient for their affaires To these Authorities I shall onely subjoyne these 5. undeniable arguments to justifie Subjects necessary defensive wars to be lawful in point of conscience against the persons and Forces of their injuriously invading Soveraignes First it is granted by all as a truth irrefragable that kings by Force of Armes may justly with safe conscience resist repulse suppresse the unlawfull warlike invasive assaults the Rebellious armed Insurrections of their Subjects upon these two grounds because they are unlawfull by the Edicts of God and man and because kings in such case have no other meanes left to preserve their Royall persons and just authoritie against offensive armed Rebellions but offensive armes Therefore Subjâ—cts by the selfe-same grounds may justly with safe consciences resist repulse suppresse the unjust assayling military Forces of their kings in the case fore-stated though the king himselfe be personally present and assistant because such a war is unlawfull by the resolution of God and men and against the oath the duty of kings and because the subjects in such cases have no other meanes left to preserve their persons lives liberties estates religion established government from certaine ruin but defensive Armes There is the selfe same reason in both cases being relatives therefore the selfesame Law and Conscience in both Secondly It must be admitted without debate that this office of highest and greatest trust hath a condition in Law annexed to it by Littletons owne resolution to wit that the King shall well and truely preserve the Realme and do that which to such Office belongeth which condition our king by an expresse oath to all his people solemnely taken at their Coronation with other Articles expressed in their oath formerly recited is really bound both in Law and Conscience exactly to performe being admitted and elected king by the peoples suffrages upon solemne promise to observe the same condition to the uttermost of his power as I have a elsewhere cleared Now it is a cleare case resolved by Marius Salomonius confirmed at large by Rebussus by 12. unanswerable reasons the Authorities of sundry Civill Lawyers and Canonists quoted by hiâ— agreed by Albericus Gentiles and Hugo Grotius who both largely dispute it That Kings as well as Subjects are really bound to performe their Covenants Contracts Conditions especially those they make to all their Subjects and ratifie with an Oath since God himselfe who is most absolute is yet mostf firmly oblieged by his Oathes and Covenants made to his despicable vile ereatures sinfull men and never violates them in the least degree If then these conditions and Oathes be firme and obligatory to our kings if they will obstinately breake them by violating their Subjects Lawes Liberties Properties and making actuall warre upon them the condition and Oath too would be meerely voyde ridiculous absur'd an high taking of the Name of God in vaine yea a plaine delusion of the people if the whole State or people in their owne defence might not justly take up Armes to resist their kings and their malignant Forces in these persidious violations of trust conditions oaths and force them to make good their oath and covenants when no other means will induce them to it Even as the Subjects oath of homage and allegiance would be meerely frivilous if kings had no meanes nor coercive power to cause them to observe these oathes when they are apparently broken and many whole kingdomes had been much over seene in point of Policie or prudence in prescribing such conditions and oaths unto their kings had they reserved no lawfull power at all which they might lawfully exercise in point of conscience to see them really performed and duely redressed when notoriously transgressed through wilfulnesse negligence or ill pernicious advice Thirdly when any common or publick trust is committed to three or more though of subordinate and different quality if the trust be either violated or betrayed the inferiour trustees may and ought in point of Conscience to resist the other For instance if the custody of a City or Castle be committed to a Captaine Leutenant and common Souldiers or of a ship to the Master Captaine and ordinary Mariners If the Captaine or Master will betray the City Castle or ship to the enemie or Pirates or dismantle the City wals and fortifications to expose it unto danger or will wilfully run the ship against a rocke to split wrecke it and indanger all their lives freedomes contrary to the trust reposed in them or fire or blow up the City Fort ship not onely the Leiutenant Masters Mate and other inferiour Officers though subject to their commands but even the Common Souldiers and Marriners may withstand and forcibly resist them and are bound in Conscience so to doe because else they should betray their trust and destroy the City Fort ship and themselves too which they are bound by duty and compact to preserve This case of Law and conscience is so cleare so common in daily experience that no man doubts it The care and safety of our Realme by the originall politicke constitution of it alwayes hath beene and now is committed joyntly to the king the Lords and Commons in Parliament by the unanimous consent of the whole kingdome The king the supreame member of it contrary to the trust and duty reposed in him through the advise of evill Councellors wilfully betrayes the trust and safety of this great City and ship of the Republicke invades the inferiour Commanders Souldiours Citizens with an Army assaults wounds slayes spoyles plunders sackes imprisons his fellow trustees Souldiers Marriners Citizens undermines the walls fires the City ship delivers it up to theeves Pyrates murtherers as a common prey and wilfully runnes this ship upon a rocke of ruin If the Lords and Commons joyntly intrusted with him should not in this case by
NO DOUBT but that IT IS LAWFULL to proceede against a Tyrant by way of justice if so men may prevaile against him or else by way of fact and OPEN FORCE if they may not otherwise have reason As the Senate did in the first case against NERO and in the other against Maximinus So Bodin who directly resolves that even in Nero his raigne when this Epistle was written the highest soveraigne power was not in the Emperour but in the Senate and people who notwithstanding this objected Text had no doubt a lawfull Right not onely to resist Nero when he turned Tyrant with open force but likewise judicially to arraigne and condemne him even to death as they did for his publike crimes Now that the Soveraigne highest Power remained in the Senate and people notwithstanding this Lex Regia Marius Salamonius an incomparable learned Roman Civilian hath largely proved in his six Bookes De principatu purposely written to refute the contrary common error where he writes First that the Roman Emperors were created and constituted onely by the Senat and people and that the Creature should be superiour to the Creator the child to the parent is absurd Secondly that the Emperours were but the Senates and peoples publike servants therefore they were their Lords and not inferiour but superiour to their servants Thirdly that they were subordinate and inferiour to the Lawes made by the Senate and people and bound by all their Lawes but such as the Senate and people did by speciall Acts exempt them from Fourthly that the people and Senate did by speciall Lawes create limit enlarge or abridge their Emperours power and jurisdiction as they saw cause giving sometimes more or lesse jurisdiction to one Emperour then another which they could not justly doe were they not the highest Soveraigne power Finally he proves it by the very Lex Regia it selfe which because rare and unknowne to most I shall here recite to informe and reforme our ignorant Court Doctors Lawyers with Salamonius his observations from it Lex Regia was not onely one single Law There was not one Law for all Emperours but it was revived for every Emperour yet not with the same conditions The brasse Table which yet hangeth in the Lateran Church proves that the Royall Law was accustomed to be altered in every Princes reigne AT THE PLEASVRE OF THE ROMAN PEOPLE for it is part of the Royall Law of the Empire of Vespatian that it should be altered which had beene voyd if from the beginning of the Empire a perpetuall Law had beene made for all successors the words of the Law are these Faedusve cum quibus volet facere ita ut licuit Divo Augusto Tyber Julio Caesari Aug. Tyherioque Claudio Julio Caesari Aug. Germanico Vtique eum Senatum habere relationem facere remittere Senatus consulta per relationem discessionemque facere liceat ut licuit Divo Augusto Tiberio Julio Caesari Augusto Tyberio Claudio Caesari Augusto Germanico Vtique quum ex voluntate auctoritateue jussu mandatione ejus praesenteve eo Senatus habebitur omnium rerum jus perinde habeatur servetur ac siâ—e lege Senatus edictus esset habereturque Vtique Coss Magistratus potestatem imperium curationemve cuivis rei petenti Senatui populoque Romano commendaverit quibusve suffâ—agationem suam dederit promiserit eorum Comitiis quibusque extra ordinem ratio habeatur Vtique ei fines pomaerii proferre procurare cume Rep. censebit esse liceat uti licuit Tiberio Claudio Caesari Augusto Germanico Vtique quaecunque ex usu Reip. majestate divinar humanar publicar privatarumque rerum esse censebit ea agere facere jus potestasque sit ita uti Divo Aug. Tyberioque Julio Caesari Aug. Tyberioque Claudio Aug. Germanico fuit Vtique quibus legibus Plebisve scitis scriptum fuit ne Divus Augustus Tyberiusve Jul. Caes Aug. Tyberiusve Claudius Caes Aug. Germanicus tenerentur his Legibus Plebisque scitis Imp. Aug. Vespatianus solutus sit quaeque ex quaque Lege Rogatione Divum Aug. Tyberiumve Iul. Caesarem Aug. Tyberiumve Claudium Caes Aug. Germanicum facere oportuerat ea omnia Imperatori Caesari Vespatiano Aug. facere liceat Vtique quae ante hanc legem rogatam acta gesta decreta imperata ab Imp. Caesare Vespatiano Augusto jussù mandatuve ejus a quoque sunt ea perinde justa rata sint ac si populi plebisve jussù acta essent Sanctio Si quis hujusce legis ergo adversus leges rogationes plebisve scita senatusue consulta fecit feceritve sive quod cum ex lege rogatione plebisve scito senatusve consulto facere oportebit non fecerit hujus legis ergo id ei ne fraudi esto neve quid ob eam rem populo dari debeto neve de ea re cui actioneve judicato esto neve quis de ea re apud eum agi sinito This Law first shewes that there was not one royall Law made for all Emperors but that for every severall Emperour severall Lawes were necessary containing the conditions whereupon the Principalitie was collated by the Roman people For to Vespatian it appeares power was granted of enlarging or setling the bounds as it was granted to Germanicus but not to other Princes And in the last Chapter but one which saith And by those things which by any Law c. it is lawfull to doe a larger power is given to Vespatian then to the forenamed Emperours and that they ought to doe some things which Vespatian ought not to doe by Law Likewise by these words Vtique quibus legibus c. solutus sit it appeares that Vespatian was not freed from all Lawes nor yet the Emperour before him Likewise out of the Chapter where it saith Ex usu Reip. Majestate c. it is evident that not an absolute free administration of things was committed to the Emperours but onely such as was usefull that is which should be for the profit and honour of the republike whence is inferred that those things which were not for the benefit and honour of the Commonweale Emperors had no right nor power to doe And in the last Chapter is perspicuously set downe THAT SUPERIOUR POWER OF THE PEOPLE GREATER THEN THE PRINCIPALITY IT SELFE How then doth Vlpian say the Prince is loosed from Lawes he saith not from all Lawes verily that he was exempt from many is no doubt c. yet it was by a speciall clause in the Lex Regia This and much more Salamonius All which considered will infallibly evidence the Roman Senate and People to be the highest power in Pauls time not the Emperour who even at this day as Bodin proves is inferiour to the Germane States who are the Soveraigne power when King Henry the fourth of France Anno 1600. used this speech to the Duke of Savoy If the King of France would be ambitious of any thing greater then his Crowne it might be an Empire but not in
to be of God by way of permission and of Ordination too in reference to the peoples punishment Job 34. 30. Hos 13. 11. 1 Sam. 8. 18. In these regards common to all other Governours and lawfull Governments as well as Kings and Monarchies Kings and Kingly Authority are and may be said to be of God and Gods Ordinance yet not immediately or properly in the first acception here refuted but so as that still they are really the institutions and ordinances of men of humane not divine right and authority As for the objected Scriptures to prove Kings jure Divino as Prov. 8. 15. By me Kings Reigne c. Ergo they are of immediate divine institution and have all their authority from God not from the people and may in no case be resisted censured deposed or put to death for any misdemeanours the consequences thence inferred I answer First That this Text speakes onely of the promotion or Reigne of Kings not of the erections and power of Monarchies and so doe Daniel 2. 21. c. 4. 17. 25. c. 5. 26. 28. with the other objected Scriptures Secondly If it be meant of the rule of Kings then true it is that good Kings Reigne by Gods direction according to his word executing justice and judgement as he enjoynes them But then it is not true of wicked Kings and Tyrants who though they Reigne by Gods Providence or permission yet they rule not by his word and will as he prescribes them Thirdly If it be meant of the meanes and manner of Kings comming to their Kingdomes as I conceive it is and the Texts of Daniel perswade True it is first That some Kings Reigned and came to the Crowne by Gods immediate nomination and designation as Saul David Solomon Jeroboam Jehu and Hazael did But that all or most did heretofore or now doe so especially in Pagan Kingdomes is a notorious falshood Secondly it is true That most lawfull Kings in hereditary or elective Kingdomes come to their Crownes and Reigne though not by Gods immediate nomination yet by his ordinary or speciall providence though it be untrue of Vsurpers and Tyrants who come to Reigne by Treason Murther or other unlawfull meanes and so by Gods permission onely rather than his providence and then the sense of the place is but this That Kings receive their Crownes and Reigne by Gods generall or more speciall providence Which I thinke is the full and proper sense of the place In this sense C. Plinius Secundus a heathen in his admirable Panegyrio to the Emperour Trajan a Pagan Rhetorizeth thus of him Quid enim praestabilius est aut pulchrius munus Deorum quam castus sanctus Diis simillimus Princeps Ac si adhuc dubium fuisset sorte casuque Rectores terris an aliquo numine darentur Principem tamen nostrum liqueret DIVINITUS CONSTITUTUM Non enim occulta potestate fatorum sed ab Jove ipso coram ac palam repertus electus est c. Which Tertullian thus seconds speaking even of the Roman Pagan Emperours Inde est Imperator unde homo antequam Imperator inde Potestas ei unde spiritus Per Deum tantus est So Irenaeus Cujus jussu homines nascuntur hujus jussu Reges constituuntur And Diodorus Siculus of the AEgyptians Existimant non SINE DIVINA QUADAM PROVIDENTIA pervenisse ad summam de omnibus Potestatem So the Esses hold this opinion Non obtingit cuiquam Imperium sine Dei cura speciali So Vitigis Omnis provectus maxime Regius ad Divinitatis munera referendus est and Clemens Romanus too Regem timeto sciens Domini esse electionem Which Grotius de Jure Belli l. 1. c. 3. sect 8. confirmes with other Authorities all concurring in this That Kings and Emperours are such onely by the selfe-same PROVIDENCE OF GOD by which they were men before they were Emperours which gives them no greater Prerogative in respect of irresistibility in unjust exorbitant actions then their being men by the selfe-same providence of God gave them before they were Emperours as Tertullians words most clearely prove But what priviledge this alone should yeeld to Kings more than to any other Magistrates Men or Beasts for my part I cannot yet discerne For doth not the same Text say of Nobles Princes Judges as well as of Kings Prov. 8. 15 16. By me Princes put as contradistinct to Kings decree justice By me Princes Rule AND NOBLES YEA ALL JUDGES OF THE EARTH Doth not David say of all kinde of Promotions whatsoever Psal 113. 7 8. The Lord raiseth the poore out of the dust and lifeteth the needy out of the dunghill that he may set him with Princes even with the Princes of his people And Psal 75. 5 6. Promotion commeth neither from the East nor from the South but God is the Judge he putteth downe one and setteth up another Nay doth not Christ informe us That the very haires of our head are all numbred That two sparrowes are sold for a farthing and yet one of them shall not fall on the ground without our Fathers providence Yea doth not every man yea every Bird Beast Fish Raven and living creature whatsoever as the Scripture expressely resolves receive enjoy their Lives Honours Offices Estates food rayment being preservation by Gods generall and speciall providence as well as Kings their Crownes Honours Lives Estates And is not the providence yea are not the very Angels of God who are all ministring spirits sent forth to minister to them who shal be heirs of salvation as vigilant over every pious Christian though never so mean despicable as over the greatest Monarch in the world If so as all men must necessarily acknowledge there being no respect at all of persons with God who accepts not the persons of Princes regards the rich no more then the poor for they are all the work of his hands then kings reigning by the Providence of God can of it self no more exempt them from resistance censures deprivations for their detestable publike crimes then it exempts any other Nobles Princes Iudges Magistrates Christians or the meanest subiects whatsoever which I shall make good by one more unanswerable demonstration There is not one of our Antagonists but will acknowledge that Priests under the Law and all Ministers under the Gospell if rightly qualified are not made only such by Gods speciall Providence but likewise by Divine institution from God himself Nay Tollet Willet and many others on this very Text of the Romanes make a difference between the civill and Ecclesiasticall Regiment and Powers for the first say they is so from God that yet the institution thereof may be devised and altered by man and therefore Peter calls it the Ordinance of man but the spirituall Power is immediatelly instituted by God and no wayes alterable or determinable by man And therefore the Apostle saith Ephes 4. 11. He gave
MAN not God as I have formerly proved them to be If so I then appeal to the consciences of our fiercest Antagonists whether they do beleeve in their consciences or date take their Oathes upon it That ever any people or Nation in the world or our Ancestors at first did appoint any Kings or Governours over them to subvert Religion Laws Liberties or intend to give them such an unlimited uncontroulable Soveraignty over them as not to provide for their own safety or not to take up Arms against them for the necessary defence of their Laws Liberties Religion Persons States under pain of high Treason or eternall damnation in case they should degenerate into Tyrants and undertake any such wicked destructive designe If not as none can without madnesse and impudence averre the contrary it being against all common sence and reason that any man or Nation should so absolutely irresistably inslave themselves and their Posterities to the very lusts and exorbitancies of Tyrants and such a thing as no man no Nation in their right sences were they at this day to erect a most absolute Monarchie would condescend to then clearly the Apostle here confirming onely the Ordinances of men and giving no Kings nor Rulers any other or greater power then men had formerly granted them for that had been to alter not approve their humane Ordinances I shall infallibly thence inferre That whole States and Subjects may with safe conscience resist the unjust violence of their Kings in the foresaid cases because they never gave them any authority irresistably to act them nor yet devested themselves much lesse their posterity whom they could not eternally inslave of the right the power of resisting them in such cases whom they might justly resist before whiles they were private men and as to which illegall proceedings they continue private persons still since they have no legall power given them by the people to authorize any such exorbitances Fourthly The subjection here enjoyned is not passive but active witnesse ver 15. For so is the will of God that by WELL DOING to wit by your actuall cheerfull submission to every Ordinance of man for the Lords sake c. you put to silence the ignorance of foolish men as free and not using your liberty c. If then this Text be meant of active not passive obedience then it can be intended onely of lawfull Kings of Magistrates in their just commands whom we must actually obey not of Tyrants and Oppressours in their unjust wicked proceedings whom we are bound in such cases actually to disobey as our Antagonists grant and I have largely evidenced elsewhere Wherefore it directly commands resistance not subjection in such cases since actuall disobedience to unjust commands is actuall resisting of them And that these Texts prescribing resistance tacitely should apparantly prohibit it under pain of Treason Rebellion Damnation is a Paradox to me Fifthly This Text doth no way prove that false conceit of most who hence conclude That all Kings are the Supream Powers and above their Parliaments and whole Kingdoms even by Divine institution There is no such thing nor shadow of it in the Text. For first This Text calls Kings not a Divine but Humane Ordinance If then Kings be the Supreamest Power and above their Parliaments Kingdoms it is not by any Divine Right but by Humane Ordination onely as the Text resolves Secondly This Text prescribes not any Divine Law to all or any particular States nor gives any other Divine or Civill Authority to Kings and Magistrates in any State then what they had before for if it should give Kings greater Authority and Prerogatives then their people at first allotted them it should alter and invade the settled Government of all States contrary to the Apostles scope which was to leave them as they were or should be settled by the peoples joynt consent It doth not say That all Kings in all Kingdoms are or ought to be Supreame or let them be so henceforth no such inference appears therein It speaks not what Kings ought to be in point of Power but onely takes them as they are according to that of Rom. 13. 2. The Powers that ARE c. to wit that are even now every where in being not which ought to be or shall be whence he saith Submit to the King as supreame that is where by the Ordinance of man the King is made supreame not where Kings are not the supreamest Power as they were not among the ancient Lacedemonians Indians Carthaginians Gothes Aragonians and in most other Kingdoms as I have elsewhere proved To argue therefore We must submit to Kings where the people have made them supreame Ergo All Kings every where are and ought to be supreame Jure divino as our Antagonists hence inferre is a grosse absurdity Thirdly This Text doth not say That the King is the supreame soveraigne Power as most mistake but supreame Governour as the next words or Governours c. expond it and the very Oath of Supremacie 1. Eliz. Cap. 1. which gives our Kings this Title Supreame Governour within these his Realms Now Kings may be properly called Supreame Magistrates or Governours in their Realms in respect of the actuall administration of government and justice all Magistrates deriving their Commissions immediately from them and doing justice for and under them and yet not be the Soveraign Power as the Romane Emperours the Kings of Sparta Arragon and others the German Emperours the Dukes of Venice in that State and the Prince of Orange in the Nether-lands were and are the Supreame Magistrates Governours but not the Supreame Severaigne Powers their whole States Senates Parliaments being the Supreamest Powers and above them which being Courts of State of Justice and a compound body of many members not alwayes constantly sitting may properly be stiled The Supreame Courts and Powers but not the Supreame Magistrate or Governour As the Pope holds himself the Supreame Head and Governour of the Militant Church and the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury stiles himself the Primate and Metropolitane of all England and so other Prelates in their Provinces yet they are not the Soveraigne Ecclesiasticall Power for the King at least Generall Councells or Nationall Synods which are not properly tearmed Governours but Power are Paramount them and may lawfully censure or depose them as I have elsewhere manifested To argue therefore that Kings are the highest Soveraign Power because they are the highest particular Governours and Magistrates in their Realms as our Antagonists do is a meer Fallacie and Inconsequent since I have proved our own and most other Kings not to be the highest Powers though they be the Supreamest Governours Fourthly This Text speaks not at all of the Romane Emperour neither is it meant of him as Doctour Fernâ— with others mistake who is never in Scripture stiled a King being a Title extreamly odious to the Romanes and for ever banished their State with
all presidents in former ages in High affront of the priviledges honour power of the Parliament and Fundamentall knowns Lawe of the Realme Since which time his Majestie having contrary to his former Proclamations and frequent Printed solemne Declarations entertained not onely divers Irish Popâ—sh Rebels but likewise English and Outlandish Papists in his Army and given Commissions to sundry Arch Popish Recusants to Arme themselves and raise Forces against the Parliament and Kingdom now in the field in all the Northerne parts Wales and other places and that under the Popes owne consecrated Banner as many report in defiance of our Protestant Religion designed by the Popish Party both at home and abroad to no lesse then utter extirpation in England as well as in Ireland if not in Scotland too as some of them openly professe the Parliament are hereupon necessitated to augment and recrute their forces as for the precedent ends at first so now more especially for the necessary defence of the Protestant Religion established among us by law against which they and all others who are not wilfully blinded visibly discerne a most apparant desperate conspiracie which though not cleerely perceived but onely justly suspected at first doth now appeare all circumstances and agents considered to be the very Embrio and primitive cause of this deplorable warre against which the Parliament and subjects are now more necessitated and engaged to desend themselves then ever seeing they have by all possible meanes endeavored to prevent this warre at first and since to accommodate it though in vaine upon just reasonable and honorable safe termes for King and Kingdome The sole Question then in this case thus truely stated will be Whether his Majestie having contrary to his Oath Duty the fundamentall Laws of God and the Realme raised an Armie of Malignants Papists Forraigners against his Parliament Kingdome People to make an Offensive warre upon them to murther rob spoyle deprive them of their peace liberties properties estates to impose unlawfull taxes by force upon them protect Delinquents and evill Councellors against the Parliaments Iustice and violently to undermine our established Protestant Religion the Common-wealth of England legally assembled in Parliament and all Subjects in such cases by Command and direction from both Houses of Parliament may not lawfully and justly without any Treason or Rebellion in point of Law and Conscience take up defensive Armes to preserve the Priviledges of Parliament their Lawes lives liberties estates properties Religion to bring Delinquents and ill Councellours to condigne punishment and rescue his seduced Majestie out of their hands and power though he be personally present with them to assist and countenance them in this unnaturall destructive warre And under correction notwithstanding any thing I ever yet heard or read to the contrary I conceive affirmatively that they may justly do it both in point of Law and Conscience I shall begin with Law because in this unhappie controversie it must direct the conscience First I have already proved in Judgement of Law the Parliament and Kingdome assembled in it to be the Soveraigne power and of greater authority then the King who is but their publike Minister in point of civill Iustice and Generall in matters of warre as the Roman Kings and Emperours were and other forraigne Kings of old and at this day are The Parliament then being the highest power and having principall right and authority to denounce conclude and proclaime warre as I have manifested in the debate of the Militia may not onely lawfully resist but oppugne suppresse all Forces raised against it and the Kingdomes peace or welfare Secondly the principall end of the Kingdomes originall erecting Parliaments and investing them with supreame power at first was to defend not onely with good Lawes and Councell but when absolute necessitie requires as now it doth with open force of Armes the Subjects Liberties Persons Estates Religion Lawes Lives Rights from the encroachments and violence of their Kings and to keepe Kings within due bounds of Law and Iustice the end of instituting the Senate and Ephori among the Lacaedemonians the Senate and Dictators among the Romans the Forum Suprarbiense and Justitia Aragoniae among the Aragonians of Parliaments Dietts and Assemblies of the estates in other forraigne Kingdomes and in Scotland as I shall prove at large in its proper place This is cleare by the proceedings of all our Parliaments in former ages Especially in King Iohns Henry the third Edward the 1. 2. 3. and Richard the seconds Raignes by the latter Parliaments in King Iames his raigne yea of 3. Caroli the last dissolved Parliament and this now sitting whose principall care and imployment hath beene to vindicate the Subjects Liberties properties lawes and Religion from all illegall encroachments on them by the Crown and its ill Instruments by the forecited resolutions of Bracton Fleta the Myrror of Iustices Vowell Holinshed the Councell of Basill and others that the Parliament ought to restraine and bridle the king when he casts off the bridle of the Law and invades the Subjects Liberties especially with open force of Armes in an Hostile manner and by the constant practise of our Ancestors and the Barons Warres in maintenance of Magna Charta with other good Lawes and Priviledges confirmed by Parliament If then the Parliament be instrusted by the Kingdome with this Superlative power thus to protect the Subjects Liberties properties Lawes persons Religion c. against the kings invasions on them by policie or violence they should both betray their trust yea the whole kingdome too if they should not with open Force of Armes when Policy Councell and Petitions will not doe it defend their owne and the Subjects Liberties persons priviledges c. against his Majesties offensive Armies which invade them intending to make the whole kingdome a present booty to their insaciable rapine and a future vassall to his Majesties absolute arbitrary power by way of conquest I reade in Bodin that the Roman Senate being no way able to restraine Caesar tooke their refuge to that ancient Decree of the Senate which was commonly made but in dangerous times of the Common-wealâ— Videant Consules caeteri Magistratus ne quid detrimenti capiat Respublica Let the Consulls and other Majestrates fore see that the Common-weale take no harme With which decree of the Senate the Consulls being armed sodainely raised their power commanding Pompey to take up Armes and raise an Army against Caesar to oppose his violent proceedings by force who after his conquest of Pompey refusing to rise up to the Consulls Pretors and whole Senate out of his pride through his ill Councellors advise and talking with them as if they had beene but private men he so farre offended both the Senate and people that to free the Republicke from his Tyranny and preserve their hereditary Liberties they conspired his death and soone after murthered him in the Senate-house where they gave him
no lesse than 23. wounds And Hieronimus Blanca assures us that the Suprarbiense Forum Iustitia Aragoniae or States of Aragâ—n erected to withstand the tyrannie and encroachments of their kings may by the Laws of their Realme assemble together and RESIST THEIR KING WITH FORCE OF ARMES as oft as there shall bee neede to repulse his or his Officers violence against the Lawes For when they erected this Court they said It would be little worth to have good Lawes enacted and a middle Court of Iustice betweene the King and people appointed if it might not be lawfull to take up Armes for their Defence when it was needfull being agreeable to the very Law of nature and reason Because then it will not be sufficient to fight with Counsell For if this were not so and the State and Subjects in such cases might not lawfully take up armes all things had long ere this been in the power of Kings Therefore no doubt our Parliament and State as well as others may by the very Law of Nature and fundamentall institution of Parliaments now justly take up Defensive armes to preserve their Liberties Lawes Lives Estates Religion from vassallage and ruine Thirdly Our owne Parliaments Prelates Nobles and Commons in all ages especially in times of Popery as well in Parliament as out have by open force of armes resisted suppressed the oppressions rapines vnjust violence and armies of their Princes raised against them Yea incountred their Kings in open Battells taken their persons Prisoners and sometimes expelled nay deposed them from their Royall authority when they became incorrigible open professed enemies to their kingdomes their Subjects seeking the ruine slavery and desolation of those whom by Office Duty Oath and common Iustice they were bound inviolably to protect in Liberty and peace as the premised Histories of Archigallo Emerian Vortigern Segebert Osred Ethelred Bernard Edwin Ceolwulfe King John Henry the 3 d. Edward 1. and 2. Richard the 2 Henry the 6 th our British Saxon English Kings and other examples common in our owne Annalls plentifully manifest Neither are their examples singular but all Kingdomes generally throughout the world in all ages have done the like when their Kings degenerated into Tyrants of which there are infinite precedens in History which actions all ages all Kingdomes have alwaies reputed lawfull both in point of Policy Law Religion as warranted by the very Lawes of Nature Reason State Nations God which instruct not onely particular persons but whole Cities and Kingdomes for their owne necessary defence preservation the supportation of humane Societie and Libertie to protect themselves against all unlawfull violence and Trranny even of their Kings themselves or their Ministers to whom neither the Lawes of God Nature Man nor any civill Nation ever yet gave the least authority to Murther Spoile Oppresse enslave their Subjects or deprive them of their lawfull Liberties or Estates which resistance were it unlawfull or unjust as many ignorant Royallists and Parasites now teach some few oppressing tyrannizing wilfull Princes might without the least resistance ruine murther enslave the whole world of men overthrow all setled formes of civill government extirpate Christian Religion and destroy all humane Society at their pleasures all which had beene effected yea all States and Kingdomes totally subverted long agoe by ambitious Tyrannizing lawlesse Princes had not this Lawfull Naturall Hereditary power of resisting and opposing their illegall violence inherent in their Parliaments States Kingdomes restrained and suppressed their exorbitances of this kinde Now that this necessary Defensive opposition and resistance against open Regall Hostile violence which hath beene ever held lawfull and frequently practised in all Kingdomes all ages heretofore as just and necessary should become sodenly unlawfull to our Parliament and Kingdome onely at this instant seemes very unreasonable unto me Fouthly It is the expresse resolution of Aristotle Xenophon Polibius Pope Elutherius in his Epistle to our first Christian King Lucius King Edward the Confessor in his established Lawes c. 17. the Councell of Paris Anno 829. and Isiodor cited by it Iohn Bodin Iohn Mariana and generally of all forraigne Divines and Polititians Pagan or Christian yea of Bracton Fleta Fortescue and King Iames himselfe that a King governing in a setled Kingdome ceaseth to be a King and degenerates into a Tyrant so soone as hee leaves to rule by his Lawes much more when he begins to invade his Subjects Persons Rights Liberties to set up an Abitrary power impose unlawfull Taxes raise Forces and make Warre upon his Subjects whom he should Protect and rule in peace to pillage plunder waste and spoile his Kingdome imprison murther and destroy his people in an hostile manner to captivate them to his pleasure the very highest degree of Tyranny condemned and detested by God and all good men The whole State and Kingdome therefore in such cases as these for their owne just necessary preservation may lawfully with force of Armes when no other course can secure them not onely passively but actively resist their Prince in such his violent exorbitant tyrannicall proceedings without resisting any kingly lawfull royall Authority Vested in the Kings person for the kingdomes preservation onely not destruction because in and as to these illegall oppressions tyrannicall actions not warranted but prohibited by the Lawes of God and the Realme to whom he is accountable and by whom he is justly censurable for them he is no lawfull King nor Majestrate but an unjust oppressing Tyrant and a meere private man who as to these proceedings hath quite denuded himselfe of his just Regall authority So that all those wholsome Lawes made by the whole State in Parliament for the necessary preservation and defence of their Kings Royall Person and lawfull Soveraigne power the suppression of all Insurrections Treasons Conspiracies and open Warres against them whiles they governe their people justly according to Law as all good Princes are obliged to doe by oath and duty or the open violent resisting of their Lawfull authority and Commands to which all Subjects both in point of Law and Conscience ought cheerfully and readily to Submit will yeeld no publike Countenance Encouragement or Protection at all to Kings in their irregall tyrannicall oppressions or violent courses especially when they turne professed publike enemies to their people proclaime open Warre against them invade their Lawes Liberties Goods Houses Persons and exercise all acts of Hostilitie against them as fatre forth as the most barbarous Forraigne Enemies would doe It being against all common sence and reason to conceive that our Parliaments Lawes which strictly inhibit and punish the very smallest violations of the publike peace with all kinds of Oppressions Robberies Trespasses Batteries Assaults Bloodsheds Fraies Murthers Routs Riots Insurrections Burglaries Rapes Plunderings Force-able Entries Invasions of the Subjects Liberties or Properties in all other persons and greatest publike Officers whatsoever
whose Delinquences are so much the more hainous execrable and censurable as their persons honours and places are more eminent should so farre countenance justifie or patronize them onely in the King the Supreame fountaine of Iustice ad tutelam Legis corporum bonorum erectus as Fortescue and Sir Edward Cooke resolve Cujus Potestas Iuris est non Injuriae cum sit author Iuris non debet inde injuriarum nasci occasio unde Iura naseuntur as Bracton and Fleta determine as not to permit the Subjects under paine of Rebellion and high Treason by force of Armes upon expresse command and direction of the whole Kingdome in Parliament so much as to defend their Persons Goods Estates Houses Wives Children Liberties Lives Religion against the open violence of the King himselfe or his Malignant plundring murthering Papists Caveleers When as Kings of all others as Bracton For escue and Mariana prove at large both by Oath and Duty ought to be more observant of and obedient to the Laws of God and their Realmes which are no respectors of Persons then the very meanest of their Subjects That Precept then of Paul Rom. 13. 1. 2. 3. Let every Soule be subject to the higher Powers c. And the Statute of 25. E. 3. c. 2. with other obsolete Acts which declare it High Treason to levy Warre against the King in his Realme must needs be intended of and quallified with these subsequent just limitations sutable to their genuine sense and meaning to wit That as long and so farre foorth as Kings justly and uprightly doe execute their just Royall power conferred on them by God and their people according to the Law of God and their Realmes to the Protection encouragement and praise of all their good Subjects and the deserved punishment onely of Malefactors they must and ought to be cheerefully obeyed and quietly submitted to as Gods owne Ministers without the least resistance private or publike neither ought any private men upon any private injuries of their owne authority to raise up in Armes against them seeing they are publike Magistrates in whom all the Kingdome have an interest without the generall assent and authority of the whole State and Kingdome or of both Houses of Parliment which represents it But if Kings degenerate into Tyrants and turne professed enemies to their Kingdomes Parliaments People by making open Warre against them by spoyling murthering imprisoning maiming sacking destroying or putting them out of their Protections without any just or lawfull grounds endeavouring by force of Armes to subvert their Lawes Liberties Religion and expose them as a prey to their mercilesse blood-thirsty Souldiers or bring in Forraigne Forces to conquer them our present case I dare confidently averre it was never the thought nor intention of Paul or the Holy Ghost much lesse of our Nobles Prelats and Commons in Parliament which enacted these Lawes who so oft tooke up Armes aswell offensive as defensive against our Kings in such like cases heretofore to inhibit Subjects Kingdomes Parliaments especially by direct Votes and Ordinances of both Houses under paine of damnation high Treason or Rebellion by defensive Armes to resist Kings themselves or any of their Cavalliers and if this question had beene put to Paul Peter or any of those Parliaments which enacted these objected Lawes Whether they ever meant by these Precepts or Statutes totally to prohibite all Subjects by generall assent in Parliament to take up such defensive Armes or make any forceable resistance against their Kings or their Armies in such cases of extremity and necessity as these under the foresaid penalties I make little question but they would have clearely resolved that it was never so much as within the compasse of their thoughts much lesse their plaine intention to prohibite such a resistance in this or such like cases but onely according to the precedent exposition of their words and that they never imagined to establish in the world any Vnresistable Lawlesse Tyranny or any such spoile or butchery of Kingdomes of Subjects execrable to God and man in all persons all ages which have resisted them even unto blood but rather totally to suppresse them There being scarce any more pregnant Text against the Tyranny the boundlesse Prerogatives the illegall proceedings of Kings and Higher Powers in all the Scripture then that of Romans 13. 1. to 7. if rightly scanned as Pareus and others on it manifest Therefore the Parliaments and peoples present defensive Warre and resistance against their seduced King and his Malignant Popish Cavalliers is no violation of any Law of God of the Realme but a just necessary Warre which they have to the uttermost endeavoured to prevent and no Treason no Rebellion at all within the meaning of any Law or Statute unlesse we should thinke our Parliaments so mad as to declare it high Treason or Rebellion even for the Parliament and Kingdome it selfe so much as to take up Armes for their owne necessary preservation to prevent their inevitable ruine when they are openly assaulted by Royall armies which none can ever presume they would doe being the very high way to their owne and the whole Kingdomes subversion Fiftly admit the King should bring in Forraigne forces French Spanish Danes Dutch or Irish to destroy or Conquer his Subjects Parliament Kingdome as some such forces are already landed and more expected dayly and should join himselfe personally with them in such a service I thinke there is no Divine Lawyer or true hearted Englishman so void of reason or common understanding as to affirme it Treason or Rebellion in point of Law and a matter of Damnation in Conscience or true Divinity for the Parliaments Subjects Kingdome to take up necessary defensive armes for their owne preservation in such a case even against the King himselfe and his army of Aliens but would rather deeme it a just honourable necessary action yea a duty for every English man to venture his life and all his fortunes for the defence of his owne dearest Native Countrey Posterity Liberty Religion and no lesse then a glorious Martyrdome to dye manfully in the Field in such a publicke quarrell the very Heathens generally resolving that Dulce decorum est pro Patria mori Et mortes pro Patria appetitae Non solum gloriosae Rhetoribus sed etiam beatae videri solent In a case of this quallitie Whence that noble Romane Camillus professed to all the Romanes in a publike Oration Patriae deesse quoad vita suppetat alijs turpe Camillo etiam NEFAS EST. And is not there the selfe same equity and reason when the King shall raise an Army of Popish English or Irish Rebels Malignants Delinquents and bring in Forraigners though yet in no great proporation to effect the like designe If armed forceable resistance be no Treason no Rebellion in Law or Conscience in the first it can be no such crime in our present
case Sixtly I would demand of any Lawyer or Divine What is the true genuine reason that the taking up of offensive armes against or offering violence to the person or life of the King is High Treason in point of Law and Divinitie Is it not onely because and as he is the head and chiefe member of the Kingdome which hath a Common interest in him and because the Kingdome it selfe sustaines a publike prejudice and losse by this War against and violence to his Person Doubtlesse every man must acknowledge this to be the onely reason for if he were not such a publike person the levying War against or murthering of him could be no High Treason at all And this is the reason why the elsewhere cited Statutes of our Realme together with our Historians make levying of Warre deposing or killing the King by private persons High Treason not onely against the King but the REALME and Kingdome to Witnesse the Statutes of 5. R. 2. c 6. 11. R. 2. c. 1. 3. 6. 17 R. 2. c. 8. 21. R. 2. c. 2. 4. 20. 3. H. 5. Parl. 2. c. 6. 28. H. 8. c. 7. 1. Mar. c. 6. 13. Eliz. c. 1. 3. Iaco. 1. 2. 3. 4. and the Act of Pacification this present Parliament declaring those persons of England and Scotland TRAITORS TO EITHER REALME who shall take up Armes against either Realme without common consent of Parliament which Enact The levying of Warre against the Kingdome and Parliament invading of England or Ireland treachery against the Parliament repealing of certaine Acts of Parliament ill Counselling the King coyning false Money and offering violence to the Kings person to take away his Life to be high Treason not onely against the King and his Crowne but THE REALME TO and those who are guilty of such crimes to bee High Traitors and Enemies TO THE REALME as well at to the King Hence Iohn of Gaunt Duke of Lancaster being accused in a Parliament held in 7. R. 2. by a Carmelite Frier of High Treason for practising sodainely to surprise the KING and seize upon his Kingdome the Duke denied it as a thing incredible upon this very ground If I should thus said he affect the Kingdome Js it credible after your murder which God forbid that the Lords of this Kingdome could patiently endure me Domini mei ET PATRIAE PRODITOREM being a Traitor both of my LORD and COUNTREY Hence in the same Parliament of 7. R. 2. John Walsh Esquire Captaine of Cherburg in France was accused by one of Navarre DE PRODITIONE REGIS REGNI Of Treason against the King and Kingdome for delivering up that Castle to the Enemies And in the Parliament of 3. R. 2. Sir John Annesley Knight accused Thomas Ketrington Esquire of Treason against the King and Realme for betraying and selling the Castle of Saint Saviour within the Isse of Constantine in France to the French for a great summe of money when as he neither wanted Victuals nor meanes to defend it both which Accusations being of Treasons beyond the Sea were determined by Battle and Duels fought to decide them Hence the great Favourite Pierce Gaveston Tanquam Legum subversor Hostis Terrae Publicus Publicus Regni Proditor capite truncatus est and the two Spensers after him were in Edward the second his Raigne likewise banished condemned and executed as Traitors to the King and Realme ET REGNI PRODITORES for miscounselling and seducing the King and moving him to make Warre upon his people Hence both the Pierces and the Archbishop of Yorke in their Articles against King Henry the fourth accused him as guilty of High Treason and a Traitor both to the King Realme and Kingdome of England for Deposing and murthering Richard the second And hence the Gunpouder Conspirators were declared adjudged and executed as Traitors both to the KING REALME for attempting to blow up the Parliament House when the King Nobles and Commons were therein assembled If then the King shall become an open enemie to his Kingdome and Subjects to waste or ruine them or shall seeke to betray them to a Forraigne Enemy which hath beene held no lesse then Treason in a King to doe who by the expresse resolution of 28. H. 8. cap. 7. may become a Traitor to the REALME and thereupon forfeit his very right and title to the Crowne it can be no Treason nor Rebellion in Law or Theologie for the Parliament Kingdome Subjects to take up armes against the King and his Forces in such a case when he shal wilfully and maliciously rent himselfe from and set himselfe in direct opposition against his Kingdome and by his owne voluntary actions turne their common interest in him for their good and protection into a publicke engagement against him as a common Enemy who seekes their generall ruine And if Kings may lawfully take up armes against their Subjects as all Royallists plead after they reject their lawfull power and become open Rebels or Traitors because then as to this they cease to be Subjects any longer and so forfeit the benefit of their Royal protection By the self-same reason the bond and stipulation being mutuall Kings being their Subjects Liege Lords by Oath and Duty as well as they their Liege people When Kings turne open professed Foes to their Subjects in an Hostile Warrelike way they presently both in Law and Conscience cease to be their Kings de jure as to this particular and their Subjects alleagiance thereby is as to this discharged and suspended towards them as appeares by the Kings Coronation Oath and the Lords and Prelats conditionall Fealty to King Steven so that they may justly in Law and Conscience resist their unlawfull assaults as enemies for which they must onely censure their owne rash unjust proceedings and breach of Faith to their People not their Peoples just defensive opposition which themselves alone occasioned Seventhly It must of necessity be granted that for any King to levie warre against his Subjects unlesse upon very good grounds of Law and conscience and in case of absolute necessity when there is no other remedy left is directly contrary to his very Oath and duty witnes the Law of King Edward the Confessor cap. 17. and Coronation Oathes of all our Kings forementioned To keepe PEACE and godly agreement INTIRELY ACCORDING TO THEIR POWER to their people Contrary to all the fundamentall Lawes of the Realme and the Prologues of most Statutes intirely to preserve and earnestly to indeavour the peace and welfare of their peoples persons goods estates lawes liberties Contrary to the main tenor of all Sacred Scriptures which have relation unto Kings but more especially to the 1 Kings 12. 21. 23. 24. and 2 Chron. 11. 1. 2. Where when King Rehoboam had gathered a very great army to fight against the ten Tribes which revolted from him for following his young Counsellors advice and denying their just request and crowned Ieroboam for their King
other Law-Bookes Therefore the Cavalliers can no waies justifie nor excuse their Wounding Murthering Imprisoning Assaulting Robbing Pillaging and spoiling of his Majesties people and Subjects and making Warre upon them by vertue of any Warrant or Commission from the King but may justly and legally be apprehended resisted and proceeded against as Murtherers Rebels Robbers Felons notwithstanding any pretended Royall Authority to countenance their execrable unnaturall proceedings Secondly It is irrefragable that the Subjects in defence of their own Persons Houses Goods Wives Families against such as violently assault them by open force of Armes to wound slay beate imprison robbe or plunder them though by the Kings own illegall Commission may not onely lawfully arme themselves and fortifie their houses their Castles in Iudgement of Law against them but refist apprehend disarme beat wound repulse kill them in their just necessary defence not onely without guilt of Treason or Rebellion but of Tresspas or the very least offence And Servants in such Cases may lawfully justifie not onely the beating but killing of such persons who assault their Masters persons goods or houses as is expresly resolved by the Statute of 21. E. 1. De malefactoribus in Parcis By 24. H. 8. cap. 5. Fitzherbert Corone 192. 194. 246. 258. 261. 330. 21. H. 7 39. Trespas 246. Stamford lib. 1. cap. 5. 6. 7. 22. Ass 46. 11. H. 6. 16. a. 14. H. 6. 24. b. 35. H. 6. 51. a. 9. E. 4. 48. b. 12. E. 4. 6. a. 12. H. 8. 2. b. Brooke Coron 63. Trispas 217. Therefore they may justly defend themselves resist oppose apprehend and kill his Majesties Cavalliers notwithstanding any Commissions and make a defensive Warre against them when as they assault their persons houses goods or habitations without any Treason Rebellion or Crime all against the King or Law Thirdly It is past dispute That the Sheriffes Iustices of Peace Mayors Constables and all other Officers of the Realme may and ought by our Lawes and Statutes to raise the power of the Counties and places where they live and command all persons to arme themselves to assist them upon their Command when they see just cause which commands they are all bound to obey under paine of imprisonment and fines for their contemptuous disobediene herein to suppresse and withstand all publicke breaches of the Peace Riots Routs Robberies Fraies Tumults Forcible Entries and to apprehend disarme imprison and bring to condigne punishment all Peace-breakers Riotors Trespassers Robbers Plunderers Quarrellers Murtherers and Forces met together to doe any unlawfull-Hostile act though by the Kings owne precept and in case they make resistance of their power they may lawfully kill and slay them without crime or guilt if they cannot otherwise suppresse or apprehend them yea the Sheriffes and all other Officers may lawfully raise and arme the power of the County to apprehend Delinquents by lawfull Warrants from the Parliament or Processe out of other inferiour Courts of Iustice when they contemptuously stand out against their Iustice and will not render themselves to a Legall triall in which service all are bound by Law to assist these Officers who may lawfully slay such contemptuous Offenders in case they cannot otherwise apprehend them All which is Enacted and Resolved by 19. E. 3. cap. 38. 3. Ed. 1. cap. 5. 2. R. 2. cap. 6. 5. R. 2. cap. 5. 6. 7. R 2. cap. 6. 17. R. 2. cap. 8. 13. H. 4. cap 7. 1. H. 5. cap. 6. 2. H. 5. cap. 6. 8. 19. H. 7. cap. 13. 3. E. 6. cap. 5. 1. Mar. cap. 12. 31. H. 6. cap. 2. 19. E. 2. Fitz Execution 247. 8. H. 4. 19. a 22. Ass 55. 3. H. 7. fol. 1. 10. 5. H. 7. fol. 4. Register fâ— 59. 60. 61. Fitz. Coron 261. 288. 289. 328. 346. Stamford lib. 1. cap. 5. 6. Cooke lib. 5. fol. 92. 9. 3. with sundry other Bookes and Acts of Parliament and Walsingham Hist Angliae pag. 283. 284. Yea the Statute of 13. Ed. 1. cap. 38. recites That such resistance of Processe out of any the Kings Courts much more then out of the Highest Court of Parliament redounds much to the dishonour of the King and his Crowne and that such resisters shall be imprisoned and fined because they are desturbers of the Kings Peace and of his Realme And the expired Statute of 31. H. 6. cap. 2. Enacted That if any Duke Marquesse Earle Viscount or Baron complained of for any great Riots Extortions Oppressioâ—s or any offence by them done against the Peace and Lawes to any of the Kings Liege-people should refuse to obey the Processe of he Kings Court under his Great or-privie Seale to him directed to answer his said offenes either by refusing to receive the said Processe or dispiting it on withdrawing himselfe fâ—r that cause and not appearing after Proclamation made by the Sheriffe in the County at the day prescribed by the Proclamation that then hee should for this his contempt forfeit and lose all his Offices Fees Annuities and other Possessions that he or any man to his use hath of the gift or grant of the King or any of his Progenitors made to him or any of his Ancestors And in case he appeares not upon the second Proclamation on the day-therein to him limited that then he shall lose and forfeit his Estate and place in Parliament and also All the Lands and Tenements whâ—ch he hath or any other to his use for terme of his life and all other persons having no Lands not appearing after Proclamation were to be put out of the Kings Protection by this Act. Such a hemous offence was it then reputed to disobey the Processe of Chancery and other inferiour Courts of Iustice even in the greatest Peeres how much greater crime then is and must it be contemptuously to disobey the Summons Processe and Officers of the Parliament it selfe the supremest Court of Judicature especially in those who are Members of it and stand engaged by their Prostestations trusts and Places in it to maintaine its honour power and priviledges to the uttermost which many of them now exceedingly vilifie and trample under feete and therefore deserve a severer censure then this statute inflicts even such as the Act of 21. R. 2. c. 6. prescribed to those Nobles unjustly fore-judged in that Parliament That their issues males now begotten shall not come to the Parliaments nor to the Councells of the King nor his heires nor be of the Kings Counsell nor of his heires Therefore it is undubitable that the Sherifes Iustices of Peace Majors Constables Leivtenantes Captaines and other Officers in every County through the Realme may by their owne Authority much more by an Ordinance and Act of association of both houses raise all the power of the County all the people by vertue of such commands may lawfully meete together in Armes to suppresse the riots burglaries rapines plunders butcheries spoyling robberies and armed violence of his Majesties Cavaleers and apprehend imprison slay arraigne
and in such a case God saith Psal 149. 6. 7. 8. 9. Let a two edged sword be in their hands to execute vengeance upon the heathen and punishment upon the people to biâ—de their Kings with chains and their Nobles with fetters of Iron to execute upon them the judgâ—ment written This honour this priviledge in such cases HAVE ALL THE SAINTS Praise ye the Lord. And very good reason is there for it For as Nature it selfe hath instructed Lyons Beares Wolves Boares Stagges Backes and most other beasts not onely to defend themselves against the violence of one another but even of Men their supreame Lords when they assault and hunt them to take away their lives over which God hath given men a lawfull power much more then may men by natures dictate defend their persons lives against the unlawfull violence of their kings or Armies over which God hath given them no power at all but in a legall way of justice for capitall offences when they assault or make warre upon them to destroy them Not to trouble you with Histories of Stagges and other beasts which have killed men that chased them in their owne defence of which there are infinite examples in the Roman and Spanish Histories in those Amphithreatricall sports and spectacles wherein men encountred and fought with Lyons Tygers Beares Buls and other savage Beasts I shall onely recite some few examples even of Kings themselves who have beene slaine and devoured by such beasts as they have chased Madaâ— King of Britain as Polycronicon Fabien Grafton and others record being in his disport of hunting was slain of the wilde beasts he pursued when he had reigned 40. yeares so was his sonne King Memphis slaine and destroyed in hunting in the same manner Merindus King of Brittaine was devoured by a Sea monster which he encountered and Basilius the 35 Emperour of Constantinople hunting a Stag of an extraordinary greatnesse and thinking to cut off his necke with his sword the Stagge ran fiercely at him gored him with his hornes on which he tossed him bruised his entralls whereof he dyed some few dayes after and had beene slaine immediately on the beasts hornes had not one there present drawne his sword and cut off his girdle by which he hung on the hornes to whom he gave a very ill requitall for this loyall service other stories of kings slaâ—ne by beasts in their owne defence occure in story and examples of kings slaine by men in and for their preservation are almost innumerable that of our king Edmond is observable among others who as our Historians write being at a feast at Pulkers Church on Saint Augustines day espied a theese named Leof whom he had formerly banished sitting in the Hall whereupon he leapt over the Table assaulted Leof and plucked him by the haire of the head to the ground who in his owne defence wounded the king to death with a knife hurt many of his servants and at length was himselfe hewen all in peeces But that of our King Richard the 1. is more remarkeable who being shot in the arme with a barbed Arrow by one Peter Basil or Bertram Gurdon as others name him at the siege of Chaluz Castle in Aquitain which rebelled against him the Castle being taken and the king ready to dye of the wound commanded the person that shot him to be brought into his presence of whom he demanded What hurt â—e had done him that provoked him to this mischiefe To whom he boldly replyed Thou hast killed my father and my two Brothers with thine own hand and now wouldest have slain me take what revenge thou wilt I shall willingly endure what ever torture thou canst inflict upon me in respect I have slaine thee who hast done such and so great mischiefe to the world The king hearing this his magnanimous answer released him from his bonds though he slew the rest and not onely forgave him his death but commanded an hundred shillings to be given him If then bruites by the very law of Nature have thus defended themselves against kings who have violently assaulted them even to the casuall death of the assailants Why men by the selfesame Law may not justly defend themselves against the unjust assailing warres of their Princes and Armies without Treason or Rebellion exceeds my shallow understanding to apprehend and I doubt those very persons who now plead most against it onely to accomplish their owne pernicious designes would make no scruple of such a necessary defensive wars and resistances lawfulnesse were the case but really their own and those Papists and Cavalieers who now take up armes against the Parliament the supreamest lawfull power in the Realme and their owne native Country without checke of Conscience would doubtlesse make no bones at all forcibly to resist or fight against the King himselfe should he but really joyne with the Parliaments Army against them and their designes there being never any Souldier or Polititian but those onely who were truely sanctified and religious that made any conscience of fighting against yea murthering of his naturall king not onely in a lawfull defensive warre but in a Trayterous and Rebellious manner too if he might thereby advantage or promote his owne particular interests as is evident by the councell and speech of Davids souldiers and King Saul himselfe 1 Sam. 24. 4. 5. 6. 7. 18. 19. 21. by the words of Abishai to David 1 Sam. 28. 8. 9. 23. 24. by the Councell of Aâ—â—itophell which pleased Absolon and all the Elders of Israel well 2 Sam 17. 1. 2. 3. 4 and the infinite number of Emperours of Kings which have beene trayterously and rebelliously slaine without any just occasion by their own Souldiers and that in a meere offensive not defensive way above halfe the Roman Grecian and German Emperours dying of such assassinations or poysonings very few of them of meere naturall deathes as the Histories of their lives declare Eightly It is in a manner agreed by Historians Polititians and Divines that if a King will desert the defence and Protection of his people in times of warre and danger and neither ayde nor protect them against their enemies according to his Oath and Duty they may in such a case of extremity for their owne necessary defence and preservation desert him who deserteth them and elect another King who can and will protect them from utter ruin Vpon this very ground the Brittons of this Nation after many hundred yeares subjection to the Roman Emperors rejected their yoake and government when they refused and neglected to defend them against the barbarous Picts and others who invaded them when they had oft craved their assistance electing them other Patriots So the Spaniards being deserted by the Roman Emperors and left as a prey to their enemies abandoned their government and elected them Kings of their owne to protect them which they justified to be lawfull for them to doe And in like manner
he offered to render unto him his Kingdome and to hold the same by tribute from him as his Soveraigne Lord to forgoe the Christian Faith as vaine and to receive that of Mahomet imploying Thomas Hardington and Ralph Fitz-Nicholas Knights and Robert of London Clerke Commissioners in this negotiation whose manner of accesse to this great King with the delivery of their Message and King Johns Charter to that effect are at large recited in Mathew Paris who heard the whole relation from Robert one of the Commissioners Miramumalim having heard at large their Message and the Description of the King and Kingdome governed by an annointed and Crowned King knowne of old to be free and ingenuous ad nullius praeterquam Dei spectans dominationem with the nature and disposition of the people so much disdained the basenesse and impiety of the Offerer that fetching a deepe sigh from his heart he answered I have never read nor heard of any King possessing so prosperous a Kingdome subject and obedient to him who would thus willingly ruine his Principality as of free to make it tributary of his owne to make it anothers of happy to make it miserable and to submit himself to anothers pleasure as one conquered without a wound But I have heard and read of many who with effusion and losse of much blood which was laudable have procured liberty to themselves modo autem audio quod Dominus vester miser deses imbellis qui nullo nullior est de libero servus fieri desiderat qui omnium mortalium miserrimus est After which he said That the King was unworthy of his Confederacie and looking on the two Knights with a sterne countenance he commanded them to depart instantly out of his presence and to see his face no more whereupon they departing with shame hee charged Robert the Clerke to informe him truely what manner of person King Iohn was who replied That he was rather a Tyrant then a King rather a Subverter then a Governour a Subverter of his owne Subjects and a Fosterer of Strangers a Lyon to his owne Subjects a Lambe to Aliens and Rebels who by his sloathfulnesse had lost the Dutchy of Normandy and many other Lands and moreover thirsted to lose and destroy the Kingdome of England An unsatiable Extortioner of money an invader and destroyer of the possessions of his naturall people c. When Miramumalim heard this he not onely despised as at first but detested and accursed him and said Why doe the miserable English permit such a one to raigne and domineer over them Truely they are effeminate and flavish To which Robert answered the English are the most patient of all men untill they are offended and damnified beyond measure But now they are angry like a Lion or Elephant when he perceives himselfe hurt or bloody and though late they purpose and endeavour to shake the yoake of the Oppressor from their necks which lie under it Whereupon he reprehended the overmuch patience and fearefulnesse of the English and dismissed these Messengers who returning and relating his Answer to King Iohn he was exceeding sorrowfull and in much bitternesse of Spirit that he was thus contemned and disapointed of his purpose Yet persisting in his pre-conceived wicked designe to ruine his Kingdome and people and hating all the Nobility and Gentry of England with a viperous Venom he sets upon another course and knowing Pope Jnnocent to be the most ambitious proud and covetous of all men who by gifts and promises would be wrought upon to act any wickednesse Thereupon he hastily dispatcheth messengers to him with great summes of Money and a re-assurance of his tributary Subjection which shortly after he confirmed by a new Oath and Charter to procure him to Excommunicate the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Barons whom he had formerly favoured which things he greedily desired that he might wrecke has malice an them by Dis inheriting Imprisoning and Spoiling them being Excommunicated Which things when he had wickedly plotted he more wickedly executed afterwards In the meane time the Barons foreseeing that nothing was to be obtained but by strong hand assemble an Army at Stamford wherein were said to be two thousand Knights besides Esquires and marched from thence towards Oxford where the King expected their comming to answer their demands And being come to Brackley with their Army the King sends the Earle of Pembroke Mariscall and the Archbishop of Canterbury with others to demand of them what were those Lawes and Liberties they required to whom they shewed a Schedule of them which the Commissioners delivered to the King who having heard them read in great indignation asked Why the Barons did not likewise demand the Kingdome and swore he would never grant those Articles whereby himselfe should be made a Servant So harsh a thing is it to a power that is once gotten out into the wide libertie of his will to heare againe of any reducing within his Circle Vpon this answer the Barons resolve to seize the Kings Castles constitute Robert Fitz-walter their Generall entituling him Mariscall of the ARMY of GOD and of HOLY CHVRCH A Title they would never have given their Generall or Army had they deemed this Warre unlawfull in Law or Conscience After which they tooke divers of the Kings Castles and are admitted into London where their number daily increasing they make this Protestation Never to give over the prosecution of their desire till they had constrained the King whom they held perjured to grant them their Rights Which questionlesse they would not have done had they not beleeved this Warre to be just and lawfull King Iohn seeing himselfe in a manner generally forsaken of all his people and Nobles having scarce 7. Knights faithfull to him another strong argument that the people and Kingdome generally apprehended this taking up armes against the King to regaine to preserve their hereditary Rights and Liberties to be lawfull counterfeits the Seales of the Bishops and writes in their Names to all Nations That the English were all Apostates and whosoever would come to invade them hee by the Popes consent would conferre upon them all their Lands and Possossions But this device working no effect in regard they gave no credit to it and found it apparently false the King seeing himselfe deserted of all and that those of the Barons part were innumerable cum tota Angliae Nobilitas in unum collecta quasi sub numero non cadebat writes Mathew Paris another argument of the justice of this cause and warre in their beliefes and consciences at last condescended to grant and confirme their Liberties which he did at Running-Meade in such sort as I have formerly related And though the Pope afterwards for his owne private ends and interest bribed by King Iohn who resigned his Kingdome to him and became his Vassall without his peoples consent which resignation was judged voide excommunicated the Barons withall their assistance Qui Iohaâ—nem illustrum Regim
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
them battle but his wisest councellors disswaded him affirming that the King should gaine no benefit if hee vanquished them and should sustaine great dishonour and losse if he were conquered by them In the meane time Hugh Linne an old Souldier who had lost his senses and was reputed a foole comming in to the Councell the King demanded of him in jest what hee should doe against the Nobles met together in the said Parke who answered Let us goe forth and assault them and slay every mothers sonne of them and by the eyes of God this being finished THOU HAST SLAINE ALL THE FAITHFVLL FRIENDS THOU HAST IN THE KINGDOME Which answere though uttered foolishly yet wise men did most of all consider At last is was resolved by the mediators of Peace that the Lords should meete the King at Westminster and there receive an answere to the things for which they tooke Armes thither they came strongly Armed with a great guard for feare of ambuscadoes to intrap them where the Chauncellour in the Kings name spake thus to them My Lords our Lord the King hearing that you were lately assembled at Harenggye Parke in an unusuall manner would not rush upon you as he might have easily done had he not had care of you and those who were with you because no man can doubt if he had raised an Army he would have had many more men than you and pâ—rchance much blood of men had beene spilt which the King doth most of all abhorre and therefore assuming to himselfe patience and mildnesse he hath made choyce to convent you peceably and to tell him the reason why yoy have assâ—mbled so many men To which the Lords answered That THEY HAD MET TOGETHER FOR THE GOOD OF THE KING AND KINGDOME AND THAT THEY MIGHT PVLL AWAY THOSE TRAITORS FROM HIM WHICH HE CONTINVALLY DET AINED WITH HIM The Traytors they appealed were the foresaid ill Councellors and Nicholas Brambre the false London Knight and to prove this appeale of them true casting down their gloves they said they would prosecute it by Duell The King answered This shall not be done now but in the next Parliament with we appoint to be the morrow after the Purification of the blessed Virgin to which as well you as they comming shall receive satisfaction in all things according to Law The Lords for their owne safety kept together till the Parliament and in the meane timed feated the Forces of the Duke of Ireland raised privately by the Kings Command to surprise them The Parliament comming on the 11. yeare of Richard the second these ill councellors were therein by speciall Acts attainted condemned of High Treason and some of them executed and these defensive Armes of the Lords for their owne and the Kingdomes safety adjudged and declared to be no Treason but a thing done to the honour of God and Salvation of the King and his Realme witnesse the expresse words of the Printed Act of 11 R. 2. c. 1. which I shall transcribe Our Soveraigne Lord the King amongst other Petitions and requests to him made by the Commons of his said Realme in the said Parliament hath received one Petition in the forme following The Commons prayed that whereas the last Parliament for cause of the great and horrible mischiefes and perills which another time were fallen BY EVILL GOVERNANCE WHICH WAS ABOVT THE KINGS PERSON by all his time before by Alexander late Archbishop of Yorke Robert de Veere late Duke of Ireland Michael de la Pole late Earle of Suffolk Rober Trisilian late Iustice and Nicholas Brambre Knight with other their adherents and others Whereby the King and all his Realme were very nighâ— to have beene wholly undone and destroyed and for this cause and to eschew such perils and mischiefes for the time to come a certaine statute was made in the same Parliament with a Commission to diverse Lords for the weale honour and safeguard of the King his regalty and of all the Realme the tenour of which Commission hereafter followeth Richard c. as in the Act. And thereupon the said Alexander Robert Mighill Robert and Nicholas and their said adherents seeing that their said evill governance should be perceived and they by the same cause more likely to be punished by good justice to be done and also their evill deedes and purposes before used to be disturbed by the sayd Lords assigned by commission as afore made conspired purposed divers horrible Treasons and evils against the King and the said Lords so assigned and against all the other Lords and Commons which were assenting to the making of the said Ordinance and Commission in destruction of the king his Regalty and all his Realme Whereupon Thomas Duke of Glocester the kings Vncle Richard Earle of Arundle and Thomas Earle of Warwicke perceiving the evill purpose of the sayd Traytors did assemble themselves in forcible manner for the safety of their persons to shew and declare the said Treasons and evill purposes and thereof to set remedie as God would and came to the Kings presence affirming against the said 5. Traytors appealed of High Treason by them done to the King and to his Realme upon which appeale the king our Soveraigne Lord adjourned the said parties till this present Parliament and did take them into his safe protection as in the record made upon the same appeale fully appeareth And afterwards in great Rebellion and against the said protection the said Traytors with their said adherents and others aforesaid continuing their evill purpose some of them assembled a great power by letters and Commission from the King himselfe as Walsingham and others write to have destroyed the said Duke and Earles appellants and other the kings lawfull leige people and to accomplish their Treasons and evill purposes aforesaid Whereupon the said Duke of Glocester Henry Earle of Darby the sayd Earles of Arundell and Warwicke and Thomas Earle Marshall seeing the open Destruction of the King and all his Realme if the said evill purposed Traitors and their adherents were not disturbed which might not otherwise have beene done but with strong hand for the weale and safeguard of the King our Soveraigne Lord and of all his Realme did assemble them forcibly and rove and pursued till they had disturbed the said power gathered by the said Traytors and their adherents aforesaid which five Traytors be attainted this present Parliament of the Treasons and evills aforesaid at the suite and appeale of the said Duke of Glocester Earles of Darby Arundle Warwicke and Marshall That it would please our redoubled Soveraigne Lord the King to accept approve and affirme in this present Parliament all that was done in the last as afore and as much as hath beene done since the last Parliament by force of the statute Ordinance or Commission aforesaid and also All that the said Duke of Glocester Earles of Arundell and Wâ—rwicke did and that the same Duke and Earles and the said Earles of Derby and Marshall or any
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
King and Monarch every subject worse than a Turkish slave and exposed to as many uncontrolable Soveraignes as there are Souldiers in the Kings Army be their conditions never so vile their qualitie never so mean and the greatest Peeres on the Parliaments party must be irresistably subject to these new absolute Soveraignes lusts and wills Twelfthly if all these will not yet satisfie Conscience in the Lawfulnesse the justnesse of the Parliaments and peoples present forcible resistance of the Kings Captaines and Forces though Armed with an illegall Commission which makes nothing at all in the case because voyd in Law there is this one Argument yet remaining which will satisfie the most scrupulous malignant opposite Conscience That necessary forcible resistance which is Authorised and Commanded by the Supreamest lawfull power and highest Soveraigne Authority in the Realme must infallibly be just and lawfull even in point of Conscience by the expresse Resolution of Rom. 13. and our opposites owne confession who have no other Argument to prove the Offensive warre on the Kings part Lawfull but because it is commanded and the Parliaments and Subjects Defensive Armes Unlawfull but because prohibited by the King whom they salsely affirm to be the highest Soveraigne power in the Kingdome above the Parliament and whole Realme collectively considered But this resistance of the Kings Popish malignant invading Forces is Authorized and Commanded by the expresse Votes and Ordinances of both Houses of Parliament which I have already undeniably manifested to be the Supreamest Lawfull Power and Soveraignest Authority in the Realme Paramount the King himselfe who is but the Parliaments and Kingdomes Publicke Royall Servant for their good Therefore his Resistance must infallibly be just and Lawfull even in Point of Conscience Thus much for the Lawfulnesse in Court of Conscience of resisting the Kings unjustly assaulting Forces armed with his Commission I now proceede to the justnesse of opposing them by way of forcible resistance when accompanied with his personall presence That the Kings Army of Papists and Malignants invading the Parliaments or Subjects persons goods Lawes Liberties Religion may even in Conscience bee justly resisted with force though accompanied with his person seemes most apparently cleare to me not only by the preceeding Reasons but also by many expresse Authorities recorded and approved in Scripture not commonly taken notice of as First By the ancientest precedent of a defensive warre that we read of in the world Gen. 14. 1. to 24. where the five Kings of Sodom Gomorrah Admah Zeboiim and Zoar rebelling against Chedolaomer King of Nations after they had served him twelve yeeres defended themselves by armes and battle against his assaults and the Kings joyned with him who discomfiting these five Kings pillaging Sodom and Gomorrah and taking Lot and his goods along with them as a pâ—eâ— hereupon Abraham himselfe the Father of the faithfull in defence of his Nephew Lot to rescue him and his substance from the enemie taking with him 318. trained men of his owne family pursued Chedorlaomer and the Kings with him to Dan assaulted them in the night smote and pursued them unto Hoba regained all the goods and prisoners with his Nephew Lot and restored both goods and persons freely to the King of Sodom thereby justifying his and his peoples forcible defence against their invading enemies in the behalfe of his captivated plundred Nephew and Neighbors Secondly by the Example of the Israelities who were not onely King Pharaoh his Subjects but Bondmen too as is evident by Exod ch 1. to 12. Deut. 6. 21. c. 7. 8. c. 15. 15. c. 16. 12. c. 24 18. 22. Ezra 9. 9. Now Moses and Aaron being sent by God to deliveer them from their AEgyptian bondage after 430. yeares captivity under colour of demanding but three dayes liberty to goe into the wildernesse to serve the Lord and Pharoah notwithstanding all Gods Miracles and Plagues refusing still to let them depart till enforced to it by the slaughter of the Egyptians first borne as soone as the Israelites were marching away Pharaoh and the AEgyptians repenting of their departure pursued them with their Chariots and Horses and a great army even to the red Sea to reduce them here upon the Israelites being astonished and murmuring against Moses giving themselves all for dead men Moses sayd unto the people feare ye not stand still and see the Salvation of the Lord which he will shew to you this day for the AEgyptians whom you have seene to day ye shall see them againe no more for ever the Lord shall fight for you c. And hereupon God himselfe discomfited routed and drowned them all in the red Sea I would demaund in this case whether the Isralites might not here lawfully for their owne redemption from unjust bondage have fought against and resisted their Lord King Pharaoh and his invading Host accompanied with his presence had they had power and hearts to doe it as well as God himselfe who fought against and destroyed them on their behalfe If so as all men I thinke must grant unlesse they will censure God himselfe then a defensive warre in respect of life and liberty onely is just and Lawfull even in conscience by this most memorable story Thirdly by that example recorded Iudges 3. 8. 9. 10. where God growing angry with the Israelites for their Apostacie and Idolatry sold them here was a divine title into the hands of Cushan-Rishathaim King of Mesopotamia and the children of Israel served him 8. yeares Here was a lawfull title by conquest and 8 yeeres submission seconding it But when the children of Israel cryed unto the Lord the Lord raised up a deliverer to them even Othniel the sonne of Kenaz and the Spirit of the Lord came upon him and he went out to warre and the Lord delivered Cushan-rishatiam King of Mesopotamia into his hands and his hand prevailed against him so the land had rest 40. yeeres Loe here a just defensive warre approved and raised up by God and his Spirit in an ordinary manner only as I take it by encouraging the Instruments wherein a conquering King for Redemption former liberties is not onely resisted but conquered taken prisoner and his former dominion abrogated by those that served him as conquered subjects Fourthly by the example of Ehud and the Israelites Iudges chap. 3. 11. to 31 where we finde God himself strengthning Eglon King of Moab against the Israelites for their sinnes who thereupon gathering an Army smote Israel possessed their Cities so as the Israelites served this King 18. yeeres Here was a title by conquest approved by God submitted to by the Israelites yet after all this when the children of Israel cryed unto the Lord he raised them up a deliverer namely Ehud who stabbing Eglonn the King in the belly under pretext of private conference with him and escaping he therupon blew the trumpet commanded the Israelites to follow him to the warre slew ten thousand valiant men of
had delegated to Moses and Aaron without any injury or injustice at all once offered to them or any assault upon them Ergo marke the Non-sence of this argumentation no Subjects may lawfully take up meere necessary defensive Armes in any case to resist the bloody Tyrannie Oppression and outrages of wicked Princes or their Cavalleires when they make warre upon them to destroy or enslave them An Argument much like this in substance No man ought to rise up against an honest Officer or Captaine in the due execution of his Office when he offers him no injury at all Therefore he ought not in conscience to resist him when he turnes a theefe or murtherer and felloniously assaults him to rob him of his purse or cut his throate Or private men must not causelesly mutinie against a lawfull Magistrate for doing justice and performing his duty Ergo the whole Kingdome in Parliament may not in Conscience resist the Kings Captaines and Cavalleeres when they most unnaturally and impiously assault them to take away their Lives Liberties Priviledges Estates Religion oppose and resist justice and bring the whole Kingdome to utter desolation The very recitall of this argument is an ample satisfactory refutation of it with this addition These seditious Levites Rebelled against Moses and Aaron onely because God himselfe had restrained them from medling with the Priests Office which they would contemptuously usurpe and therefore were most severely punished by God himself against whose expresse Ordinance they Rebelled Ergo the Parliament and Kingdome may in no case whatsoever though the King be bent to subvert Gods Ordinances Religion Lawes Liberties make the least resistance against the king or his invading forces under paine of Rebellion High Treason and eternall condemnation This is Doctor Fernes and some others Bedlam Logicke Divinity The next is this Thou shalt not revile the Gods nor curse the Ruler of thy people Ex. 22. 28. Eccl. 10. 20. Curse not the King no not in thy thought and curse not the rich in thy bed-Chamber which is well explained by Prov. 17. 26. It is not good to strike Princes for equitie Ergo it is unlawfull for the Subjects to defend themselves against the Kings Popish depopulating Cavaleers I answer the first text pertaines properly to Judges and other sorts of Rulers not to Kings not then in being among the Israelites the second to rich men as well as Kings They may as well argue then from these texts that no Iudges nor under-rulers nor rich men whatsoever though never so unjust or wicked may or ought in conscience to be resisted in their unjust assaults Riots Robberies no though they be bent to subvert Religion Lawes Liberties as that the King and his Souldiers joyntly or severally considered may not be resisted yea these acute disputants may argue further by this new kinde of Logicke Christians are expresly prohibited to curse or revile any man whatsoever under paine of damnation Rom. 12. 14. Mat. 5. 44. Levit. 19 14. Numb 23. 7. 8. 2 Sam. 16. 9. Levit. 20. 9. c. 24 P 1. 14. 23. Levit. 20. 9. Prov. 20. 20. 1 Cor. 6. 10 1 Cor. 4. 12. 1 Pet. 2. 23. Jude 9. Ergo we ought to resist no man whatsoever no not a theefe that would rob us cut-throate Cavaleers that would murther us lechers that would ravish us under paine of damnation What pious profitable Doctrine thinke you is this All cursings and railings are simply unlawfull in themselves all resistance is not so especially that necessary we now discourse of against unlawfull violence to ruine Church and State To argue therefore all resistance is simply unlawfull because cursing and reviling of a different nature are so is ill Logicke and worse Divinity If the objectors will limit their resistance to make the Argument sensible and propose it thus All cursing and reviling of Kings and Rulers for executing justice impartially for so is the chiefe intendment of the place objected delinquents being apt to clamour against those who justly censure them is unlawfull Ergo the forcible resisting of them in the execution of justice and their lawfull authority is unlawfull the sequell I shall grant but the Argument will be wholy impertinent which I leave to the Objectors to refine The third Argument is this That which peculiarly belongs to God no man without his speciall authority ought to meddle with But taking up Armes peculiarly belongeth to he Lord. Deut 32. 35. Where the Lord saith vengeance is mine especially the sword which of all temporall vengeance is the greatest The Objector puts no Ergo or conclusion to it because it concludes nothing at all to purpose but onely this Ergo The King and Cavalleeres must lay downe their Armes and swords because God never gave them any speciall commission to take them up Or Ergo no man but God must weare a sword at least of revenge and â—hether the kings and Cavalleers Offensive or the Parliaments meere Defensive sword be the sword of vengeance and malice let the world determine to the Objectors shame The fourth is from Eccles 8. 2. 3. 4. I councell thee to keepe the Kings Commandment and that in regard of the Oath of God Be not hasty to goe out of his sight stand not in an evill thing for he doth whatsoever pleaseth him where the word of a king is there is power and who may say unto him what dost thou This Text administers the Opposites a double Argument The first is this All the Kings Commands are to be kept of all his Subjects by vertue of the Oathes of supremacy alleigance and the late protestation including them both Ergo by vertue of these Oathes we must not resist his Cavalleeres but yeeld our thoates to their swords our purses and estates to their rapines our chastities to their Lecheries our Liberties to their Tyrannies our Lawes to their lusts our Religion to their Popish Superstition and Blasphemies without any opposition because the king hath oft commanded us not to resist them But seeing the Oath and Law of God and those oathes of ours obleige us onely to obey the Kings just legall commands and no other not the Commands and lusts of evill Councellors and Souldiers this first Argument must be better pointed ere it will wound our cause The second this The king may lawfully do whatsoever pleaseth him Ergo neither are He or his Forces to be resisted To which I answer that this verse relates onely unto God the next antecedent who onely doth and may doe what he pleaseth and that both in heaven and earth Psal 135. 6. Psal 115. 3 Esay 46. 10. not to Kings who neither may nor can doe what they please in either being bound both by the Laws of God man and their Coronation Oathes perchance the oath of God here meant rather then that of supremacie or alleigance to doe onely what is lawfull and just not what themselves shall please But admit it
meant of Kings not God First the text saith not that a king may lawfully doe what he pleaseth but he doth whatsoever pleaseth him Solomâ—n himselfe committed idolatry built Temples for Idolatrous worship served his idolatrous wives Gods married with many idolatrous wives greivously oppressed his people c. for which God threatned to rent the kingdome from himself as he did the ten Tribes from his son for those sinnes of his David committed adultery and wilfully numbred the people and what King Jeroboam Manasseh Ahab other wicked Kings have done out of the pleasure and freedome of their lawlesse wills to the infinite dishonour of God the ruine of themselves their posterities Kingdomes is sufficiently apparent in Scripture was all therefore just lawfull unblameable because they did herein whatsoever they pleased not what was pleasing to God If not as all must grant then your foundation failes that Kings may lawfully doe whatsoever they will and Solomons words must be taken all together not by fragments and these latter words coupled with the next preceeding Stand not in an evill matter and then Pauls words will well interpret his Rom. 13. 4. But if thou doe that which is evill be afraid for he beareth not the sword in vaine for he is the minister of God a revenger to execute wrath upon them that doe evill So that the genuine sence of the place is and must be this Stand not in an evill matter for the king path an absolute power to doe whatsoever he pleaseth in way of justice to punish thee if thou continue obstinate in thy evill courses to pardon thee if thou confesse submit and crave pardon for them Ergo the king and his Cavalleeres have an absolute power to murther plunder destroy his Subjects subvert Religion and he and his Forces must not herein be resisted is an ill consequent from such good premises The third is this Where the word of a King is there is power and who may say unto him what dost thou that is expostulate with censure him for doing justly as Iob 34. 17. 18. 19. expound it Ergo the king or his Forces may not be resisted in any case they might rather conclude Therefore neither Kingdome nor Parliament nor any Subject or person whatsoever ought to demand of the king to what end or why he hath raised Forces and Armed Papists against the Parliament and Protestant Religion These Court-Doctors might as truely conclude from hence If the king should command us to say Masse in his Chappell or our Parishes to adorne Images to turne professed Masse-priests c. to vent any Erronious Popish Doctrines to pervert the Scriptures to support Tyrannie and lawlesse cruelty we must and will as some of us doe cheerefully obey for where the word of a King is there is power and we may not say unto him what dost thou If a King should violently ravish matrons defloure virgins unnaturally abuse youth cut all his Subjects throates fire their houses sacke their Cities subvert their liberties and as Bellarmine puts the case of the Popes absolute irresistible authority send millions of soules to hell yet no man under paine of damnation may or ought to demande of him Domine cur ita facis Sir what doe you But was this the holy Ghosts meaning thinke you in this place If so then Nathan was much to blame for reprehending king Davids Adultery Azariah and the 40. Priests who withstood King Vzziah when he would have offered incense on the incense Altar and thrust him out of the Temple telling him it pertaineth not to thee Vzziah to burne incense to the Lord c. Were no lesse then Traytors John Baptist was much over-seene to tell King Herod It is not lawfull for thee to have thy brothers wife The Prophet who sharpely reprehended Amaziah for his Idolatry and new altar 2 Chron 25. 15. 16. was justly checked by the king Eliiah was to be rebuked for telling Ahab so plainely of his faults and sending such a harsh message to King Ahaziah Elisha much to be shent for using such harsh language to King Jehoram 2 Kings 3. 13. 14. yea Samuel and Hanani deserved the strappado for telling King Saul and Asa That they had done foolishly 1 Sam. 13. 3. 2 Chron. 15. 9. The meaning therefore of this Text so much mistaken unlesse we will censure all these Prophets and have Kings not onely irresistible but irreprehensible for their wickednesse is onely this No man may presume to question the kings just actions warranted by his lawfull royall power this text being parallel with Rom. 13. 1. 2. 3. 4. What then Ergo None must question or resist his or his Cavalleers unjust violence and proceedings not the Parliament the supremest Iudicature and Soveraigne Power in the Kingdome is a ridiculous consequence yet this is all this Text doth contribute to their present dying bad cause The 5. is that usually objected Text of Psal 105. 14 15. Touch not mine annointed Ergo the King and his Cavaleers must not be so much as touched nor resisted I wonder they did not as well argue Ergo none must henceforth kisse his Majesties hand since it cannot be done without touching him neither must his Barber trim him nor his Bedchamber-men attire him for feare of high Treason in touching him And the Cavaleers must not henceforth be arrested for their debts apprehended for their robberies and murthers neither must the Chyrurgion dresse their wounds or pock-soars or otherwise touch them so dangerous is it to touch them not out of fear of infection but for fear of transgressing this sacred Text scarce meant of such unhallowed God-dammeeâ— Such conclusions had been more literall and genuine then the first But to answer this long since exploded triviall Objection not named by Dr Ferne though revived by others since him I say first that this Text concernes not kings at all but the true anoynted Saints of God their Subjects whom kings have been alwayes apt to oppresse and persecute witnesse Psal 2. 2. c. Act. 4. 26. 27. Act. 12. 1 2 3 with all sacred and Ecclesiasticall Histories ancient or moderne This is most apparent first because these words were spoken by God to Kings themselves as the Text is expresse Psal 105 14 15. 1 Chron. 16. 20 21. He suffered no man to do them wrong but reproved even KINGS for their sakes saying even to king themselves namely to king Pharaoh an king Abimâ—lech Gen. 12. 10. to 20. Chap. 20. and 26 1. to 17. 29 Touch not mine Anointed and do my Prophets no harm Therefore not meant of kings Secondly because these words were spoken directly and immediately of Abraham Isaac Iacob their wives and families as it is evident by Verse 6. the whole series of the Psalme which is Historicall the forecited Texts of Genesis to which the words relate the punctuall confession of Augustine and all other Expositors on this Psalm Now neither they
at all to any but onely to these 4. not other kings who are not anointed Now seeing only hese 4. kings are actually anointed yea lawfull Kings and their persons sacred even before they are annointed or crowned yea other kings persons as of Spain Hungary Denmark Sweden Poland c. who are not annointed are as sacred as exempt from danger as those who are enoyled And seeing the annointing of kings is at this day a meer arbitrary humane Ceremony not injoyned by diviâ—e authority nor common to all Kings who are Kings before their Coronations it is most certain and infallible that this enoyling in and of it selfe derives no personall Prerogatives or Immunities at all to kings much lesse an absolute exemption from all actuall resistance in cases of unjust invasions on their Subjects or from the censures of their Parliaments for publike distructive exorbitances as most have hitherto blindly beleeved Neither will the frequent next objected speeches of David concerning Soul Impeach the premises 1 Sam. 24. 6. 10. c. 26. 9. 11. 2. 2 Sam. 1. 12. 16. The Lord forbid that I should do this thing unto my Master the Lords Annointed to stretch forth my hand against him seeing he is the Lords Annointed I will not put forth my hand against my Lord for he he is the Lords annointed And David said to Abishai Destroy him not for who can stretch forth his hand against the Lords Annointed and he guiltlesse The Lord forbid that I should stretch forth his hand against the Lords Annointed The Lord delivered thee into my hand to day but I would not stretch forth mine hand against the Lords Annointed How waâ— thou not afraid to siretch forth thy hand against the Lords Annointed Thy blood shall be upon thy head for thy mouth hath testified that thou hast slain the Lords Annointed Which severall Texts seem at first sight to insinuate that Sauls very externall annointing was that which did secure his person from assauls and violence and that it is unlawfull even by way of defence forcibly with Armes to resist a persecuting unjustly invading king because he is annointed But these Texts if duly pondered will warrant neither of these conclusions First then I answer that Sauls bare annointing considered as an externall Ceremony to declare him a lawfull King did not could not adde any immunity to his person against Davids or any other Subjects just violent resistance as the premised reasons manifest but it was onely his royall Soveraign Office conferred on him by God and the people to which his externall annointing by Samuel was but a preparation That which made Saul with other his successours a king was not his bare annointing For Saul himselfe was annointed by Samuel before he was made and chosen King not when he was made King So David Hazael selu with others were annointed before they were actuall Kings and many of their Successors by descent were reall kings before they were annointed some of them being not annointed at all for ought we read therefore their unction made them not kings since neither simply necessary nor essentiall to their being kings Nor did Sauls annointing only preceding his Regality make his person sacred or any other kings persons for then it would follow That if Saul had not been actually annointed or had continued king for some yeeres without this annointing then David in such a case might lawfully have slain him without check of conscience and that the persons of kings not at all annointed and of hereditary kings before their Coronations till they are annointed should not be sacred nor exempt from violence which is both false and perillous to affirm but it was his Soveraign Royall Authority over David then his Son-in-law Servant Subject which restrained him from offering violence to his person Soul then being thus priviledged not because he was annointed but because he was an annointed king and that not quatenus Annointed but quatenus King the true sense and genuine interpretation of these Texts must be That Sauls person was sacred exempt from his Subjects violence not because he was annointed as if that only did priviledge him but because he was a lawfull king appointed by the Lord himselfe the Lords annointed being but a periphrasis or forme of speech wherein the Geremony of annointing is used for the Regality or kingly power it selfe declared not conferred by annointing and in plain words without any figure it is put for the Lords King that is a King appointed by the Lord in which sence God calls Christ my King and David stiles himselfe x Gods King Sauls Royall Authority without his annointing not his annointing predestinating him to his Authority being the ground of this his immunity from Davids violence Secondly Saul was annointed some space before he was made King and David many yeere before hee came to the Crowne I would then demand of any man if Saul or David after their unction and before their election and inauguration to the Crown had invaded or assaulted any of the people in an hostile manner whether they might not have justly resisted repulsed yea slain them to in their own necessary defence If not then one Subject may not repulse the unjust violence of another in an elective kingdome if by possibility he may after wards be chosen king though for the present he be neither actually king nor Magistrate but a Shepheard as David was Psal 78. 70 71. which I presume none will affirm I am certain none can prove If so then it was not Sauls annointing but onely his Royall Authority which made David thus to spare his life his person So that our Opposites pressing this Argument only from his Annointing is both false and idle as all the premises demonstrate But to set the Argument right I answer thirdly That all which these Texts and Davids example prove is but this That Subjects ought not wilfully or purposely to murder or offer violence to the persons of their kings especially in cold blood when they doe not actually assault them Ergo they may not resist repulse their personall actuall assaults nor oppose their cut-throat Cavaleers when they make an unjust warre against them Which Argument is a meer Non sequitur For 1. Davids example extends only to Sauls own person not to his Souldiers who were neither kings nor Gods Annointed and whom David no doubt would have resisted and slain too had they assaulted him though he spared Saul as Dr. Fern himselfe insinuates in these words Davids Guard that he had about him was onely to secure his person against the cut-throats of Saul if sent to take away his life c. He was annoynted and designed by the Lord to succeed Saul and therefore he might use an extraordinary way of safe-guarding his person Therefore he and his Guard would and might doubtlesse have with a safe conscience resisted repulsed Sauls cut-throat Souldiers had they assaulted David to take
my hand against my Lord for he is the Lords anoynted Moreover my father see yea see the skirt of thy Robe in my hand for in that I cut off the skirt of thy Robe and KILLED THHE NOT know then and see that there is neither evill nor transgression in mine hand and I have not sinned against thee yet then huntest my soul to take it The Lord judge between me thee and the Lord avenge me of thee but mine hand shall not be upon thee and plead my cause and deliver me out of thine hand And after this upon the second advantage he useth like words The Lord render to every man according to his right consnes faithfulnes for the Lord delivered thee into my hand to day but I would not stretch forth my hand against the Lords annointed And behold as THY LIFE WAS MVCH SET BY THIS DAY IN MY EYES so let my life be much set by in the eyes of the Lord and let him deliver me out of all tribulations Wherein David declared that God had given up Sauls life into his power that it was his owne meer goodnesse that moved him to spare Saul contrary to his Souldiers and Abishaies minds who would have slain him without any seruple of conscience that the reasons he spared him were First because he was Gods Annointed that is specially designed and made King of Israel by Gods own election which no kings at this day are so this reason extends not so fully to them as to Saul Secondly Because he was his Father and Lord too and so it would have been deemed some what an unnaturall act in him Thirdly because it had favoured onely of private self-revenge and ambitious aspiring to the Crown before due time which became not David the quarrell being then not publike but particular betwixt him and David onely who was next to succeed him after his death Fourthly because by this his lenity he would convince reclaim Saul froÌ„ his bloody pursuit and cleare his innocency to the world Fifthly to evidence his dependence upon God and his speciall promise that he should enjoy the Crown after Saul by divine appointment and therefore he would not seem to usurp it by taking Saul life violently away Most of which consideration faile in cases of publike defence and the present controversie Thirdly that Saul himselfe as well as Davids Souldiers conceived that David might with safe conscience have slain as well as spared him witnesse his words 1. Sam. 24. 17 18 19 Thou art more righteous then I for thou hast rewarded me good where as I have rewarded thee evill And thou hast shewedme this day how thou hast deals well with me for asmuch as when the Lord had delivered me into thine hand THOU KILLEDST ME NOT. For if a man finde his enemy WIL HE LET HIM GO WEL AWAY Wherefore the Lord reward three good for that thou hast done unto me this day c. And in 1. Sam. 26. 21. Then said Saul I have sinned returne my sonne David for I will no more do thee harm because my solve was precious in thine eyes this day behold I have played the fool exceedingly c. But the former answers are so satisfactory that I shall not pray in ayd from these much lesse from that evasion of Dr. Fern who makes this and all other Davids demeanors in standing out against Saul EXTRAORDINARY for he was annointed and designed by the Lord to succeed Saul and therefore he might also use all extraordinary wayes of safe guarding his persons which like wise insinuaâ—es that this his scruple of conseience in sparing Sauls life was but extraordinary the rather because all his Souldiers and Abishai would have slain Saul without any such scruple and Saul himselfe conceived that any man else but David would have done it and so by consequence affirms that this his sparing of Saul is no wayes obligatory to other subjects but that they may lawfully in Davids case kill their Soveraigns But Davids resistauce of Saul by a guard of men being only that ordinary way which all subjects in all ages have used in such cases and that which nature teacheth not onely men but all living creatures generally to use for their own defence and this evasion derogating exceedingly from the personall safety of Princes yea and exposing them to such perils as they have cause to con the Dr. small thanks for such a bad invention I shall reject it as the extraordinary fansie of the Dr. other loyalists void both of truth and loyalty The 7. Objection out of the Old Testament is this 1. Sam. 8. 11. Samuel tells the people how they should be oppressed under kings yet all that violence and injustice that should be done unto them is no just cause of resistance for they have NO REMEDY LEFT THEM BVT CRYING TO THE LORD v. 18. And ye shall cry out in that day because of the King which ye shall have chosen you and the Lord will not hear you in that day To this I answer 1. that by the Doctors own confession this text of Samuel much urged by some of his fellows to prove an absolute divine Prerogative in Kings is quite contrary to their suggestion and meant onely of the oppression violence and injuâ— not lawfull power of Kings which should cause them thus to cry out to God This truth we have clearly gained by this objection for which some Royallists will renounce their champion 2. It is but a meer fallacie and absurdity not warranted by the Text which saith not that they shall onely cry out or that they shall use no remedy or resistance but crying out which had been materiall but baâ—ely ye shall cry out in that day c. Ergo they must and should onely crie out and not resist at all is a grosse Non-sequitur which Argument because much cryed up I shall demonstrate the palpable absurdity of it by many parrallell instance First Every Christian is bound to pray for Kings and Magistrates 1 Tim. 2. 1 2. Ergo they must onely pray and not fight for them nor yeeld tribute or obedience to them Kings and their Subjects too are bound to crie out and pray to God against forraign enemies that come to war against them as Moses did against Pharaoh and his Host David against his enemies Hezekiah against Sennacherib and his Hoste Asa against his enemies Abijah and the men of Iudah against Ieroboam and the Israelites their enemies and as all Christians usually do against their enemies Yea I make no doubt but the Doctor and other Court-Chaplains inform his Majesty and the Cavalleers that they must cry to God against the Parliamenteers and Round heads now in Arms to resist them Ergo they must onely pray but in no wise resist or fight against them All men must pray to God for their daily bread Ergo they must onely pray and not labour for it Sick persons
no private persons will abuse to iustifie any disloyalty sedition Treason Rebellion or taking up of Arms against their lawfull Princes though never so evill without the publike consent and authority of the representative bodies or major part of their severall Realms by assed with no sinister nor private respects but ayming onely at Gods glory and the publike weale security peace of Church and State Thus much in answer to the principall Objections out of the Old Testament The ninth and most materiall Objection on which our Opposites principally relie is that noted Text in the new Testament Rom. 13. 1 2. Let every soul be subject unto the higher Powers for there is no Power but of God the Powers that be are Ordained of God Whosoever therefore resisteth the Power resisteth the Ordinance of God and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation From whence Dr. Fern concludes 1. That the King is the Supreme or Highest Power here intended 2. That all persons under the Highest Power are expressely forbidden to resist 3. That in those dayes there was astanding and continuall great Senate which not long before had the Supreme Power in the Roman State and might challenge more by the fundamentalls of that State then our Great Councell will or can But now the Emperour being supreme as S. Peter calls him or the Higher Power as S. Paul here there is no power of resistance left to any that are under him by the Apostle 4 Was there ever more cause of resistance then in those dayes Were not the Kings then not onely conceived to be inclined so and so but even actually to be enemies of Religion had overthrown Laws and Liberties And therefore if any should from the Apostles reasons that he gives against resistance in the 3 4 5 Verses for Rulers are not a terror to good works but evill and he is the Minister of God to thee for good replie That Rulers so long as they are not a terror to the good but ministers for our good are not to be resisted the consideration of those times leaves no place for such exception because the Powers then which the Apostle forbids to resist were nothing so but subverters of that which was good and just The Emperors did then indeed rule absâ—lâ—tely â—d arburarily which should have according to the Principles of those dayes beene astroâ—ger motive to resist But how did they make themselves of Subjects such absolute Monarchs was it not by force and change of the Government and was not the right of the People and Senate according to the Principles of these dayes good against them with as much or more reason then the right of the people of this Land is against the Succession of this Crown desâ—nding by three Conquests 5. The prohibition doth not onely concern Christians but all the people under those Emperors and not onely Religion was persecuted but Liberties also lost the people and Senate were then enslaved by Edicts and Laws then inforced on them by Nero and other Roman Emperours yet notwithstanding the Apostle prohibits them to resist By all which conscience will clearly see it can have no warrant in Scripture for resistance to wit of the King or his invading Forces by way of necessary defence So the Doctors and other Objectors hence conclude To give a satisfactory Answer to this grand Objection I shall in the first place inquire Whether there be any thing in this Text prohibiting subjects to resist with Force the armed unjust violence of their Princes persons or instruments especially when they are bent to overthrow Religion Laws Liberties the Republike and turn professed Tyrants And under correction I conceive there is not the least syllable or shadow in this Text for any such inhibition as is pretended Not to insist upon the words higher Powers odained of God c. which extend not unto Tyrannie and illegall exorbitant oppressions of which hereafter I shall deducemy first Demonstrations to prove this negative Assertion from the occasion inducing the Apostle to insert these objected Verses into this Epistle Dr Willet recites 7. Reasons of it all fortifying my assertion I shall mention onely the three most probable most received of them and apply them as I go First the Roman Magistrates being then infidels the new converted Christians among them either did or might take themselves to be wholly exempted from any subjection or obedience to them reputing it a great incongruity that Christians should owe any subjection to Pagans To refute which error the Apostle informs them that though the Magistrates themselves were Ethnicks yet their Authority and Power was from God himselfe therefore their profession of Christianitie did rather oblige them to then exempt them from subjection Thus Haymo Soto Calvin Guather Marlorat Willet Pareus with others on this Text. Turn this Reason then into an Argument and it will be but this Non sequitur Christianity exempts not subjects from due obedience to iust Pagan Magistrates Ergo Tyrants may not be resisted neither ought the Parliament and their Forces to resist the King Cavallcers unjust assaults as the case is formerly stated Pretty Logick and Divinity 2. The Gaulonites as Iosephus records with other lews being Abrahams seed held it unlawfull for them to yeeld any subjection or tribute to the Roman Emperors or other Heathen Princes reigning over them whereupon they demanded this question of Christ himself It is lawfull to pay tribute to Caesar Matth. 12. which error perehance spread it self into the Christian Church by reason of Evangelicall Libertie grounded on Ioh. 8. If the Son shall make you free then are ye free indeed Mat. 17. Then are the Children free and Ro. 6. We are not under the Law but under Grace â—o refell this mistake the Apostle inserted these passages into this Epistle Thus Soto Calvin Peter Martyr Willet and others Whence nothing but this can be properly concluded Neither the Prerogâ—tive of the â—ews not Liberty of Christians exempts them from due subjection to lâ—wfull hea he â— Magistrates because they are Gods Ordinance Ergo No Subjects can with safe conscience defend themselves in any case against the unjust invasions of Tytannicall Princes or their Armies A palpable Inconsequent Thirdly the Apostle having formerly tâ—ught that Christians might not avenge themselves lest some might have inserred thereupon as many Anabaptists have done that it was not lawfull for Christians to use the Magistrates defence against wrongs nor for the Magistrate himself to take vengeance of evill doers To prevent this the Apostle argues That the Magistrates are Gods Ministers appointed by him to punish Malefactors and take vengeance on them So Gualther Willet and others To conclude from this ground Oppressed Subjects may seek redresse of their grievances from the Magistrates who may lawfully punish Malefactors Ergo they may not resist with force Tyrannicall bloody Magistrates or their wicked Instruments when they actually make war upon them to ruine spoyl
enslave them is but a ridiculous Non sequitur There is nothing therefore in the occasions of the Apostles words which gives the least colour to disprove the lawfulnesse of such resistance or of the Parliaments just defensive war Secondly this is manifest by the whole Scope of this Text which in summe is onely this That Christians ought in conscience to l be subject to all lawfull higher Powers so farre forth as they are Gods Ordinance Gods Ministers for their good to the praise of the good and punishment of evill doers and notto resist them in the execution of their just Authority Or Christianity exempts not Christians from obedience unto faithfull Civill Magistrates to inferre from thence Ergo it is unlawfull for Christians in point of conscience to resist their Magistrates when they warre upon them to subvert Religion Lawes Liberties slay plunder them is but a meer non-sence deduction Thirdly this appeares most perspicuously from the motives to obedience and reasons against resistance of Magistrates specified by the Apostle in the text it selfe First the higher Powers must be submitted to and not resisted because they are ordained of God and are Gods Ordinance vers 1. 2. But they are ordained of God and his Ordinance so far forth only as they govern according to his Word and preserve protect Religion Lawes Liberties the persons and estates of their people They are not Gods Ordinance but the Devils when they doe quite contrary walking about like roaring Lions seeking whom they may devoure as the Devill doth According to that resolution of Bracton and Fleta Exercere debet Rex potestatem Iuriâ— sicut Dei Vicarius Ministeri in terra quia illa Potestas SOLIVS DEI EST potestas autem injuriae DIABOLI ET NON DEI Cujus horum operum fecerit Rex ejus minister erit Igitur dum facit justitiam vicarius est Regis aeterni MINISTER AVTEM DIABOLI dum declinat ad injuriam Therefore they are so farre forth onely to be obeyed and not resisted as they are Gods Ordinance and lawfull Magistrates not as they are tyrants and the Devils Agents we might have obeyed the evill spirits themselves whiles they continued good Angels Ergo we must not resist them now they are turned Devils is ill Logick course Divinity contrary to the 1 Pet. 5. 8 9. Iam. 4. 7. Secondly because those who resist shall receive to themselves damnation temporall or eternall since they resist Gods Ordinance v. 2. But that subiects should be temporally and eternally damned only for resisting tyrannicall Magistrates or their Cavaleers and that by authority from the Parliament when they with armed violence most impiously set themselves to subvert Religion Lawes Liberty Propertie and take away their lives against all Lawes of God and Man for which they themselves incurre both temporall and eternall damnation is such a Paradox as is no wayes warranted by but directly opposite to the Scripture Therefore it must be intended onely of resisting lawfull Authority and iust commands 3. They must be subiected to not resisted because Rulers are not a terror to good work but to evil v. 3. Now is this a reason why Subiects should not resist tyrannicall oppressing Princes Magistrats or their Instruments who are only a terror to good works not to evill who do evill and only evill continually even with both hands doubtlesse not We must not resist Rulers who are a terror to good works but to evill Ergo we must not resist Rulers who are a terror to good works not to evill as our Opposites conclude hence is to argue poiâ—â— blank against the Apostle Ergo we may and must resist them to our powers lest we be partakers of their sinnes and punishments and become authors of Religions and the Commonwealths subversion is a more proper inference Fourthly the Apostle subjoynes this argument against resistance Wilt thou not then be afraid of the power doe that which is good and thou shalt have praise of the same Vers 3. That power is not to bee resisted which wee need not be afraid of and of whom we shall have prayse whiles we doe that which is good But this onely can bee intended of a lawfull power justly executed not of Tyrants or their ill Ministers bent with force of armes to ruine Religion Lawes Liberties who onely terrifie disgrace discountenance those that are good applaud advance none but those who are evill and as Micah writes Chap. 3. 2. 3. Love the evill and hate the good and pluck off their skin from off them and their flesh from off their bones c. Therefore this inhibition of resistance extends onely to lawfull Magistrates not to ungodly oppressing Tyrants Fiftly he is not to be resisted but obeyed because he is the Minister of God to thee for good Vers 4. But is this true of Tyrants of ungodly Magistrates bent to subvert Religion Lawes Liberties and destroy their people True of Caligula of Nero who wished all the Romans had but one necke that he might cut them all off at one stroke and purposely fired Rome to consume it beholding the flames as a most delightfull spectacle Are such the Ministers of God for our good here intended or not rather the very Pests Judgements Scourges Wolves Cut-throats destroyers of mankind and direct Antinodes to all things that are good If these be not within the Apostles definition they are without his inhibition which extends onely to such who are the Ministers of God to us for good and implies a lawfulnesse of resisting those who are the Devils Ministers to us for evill rather then Gods for good Sixtly He subjoynes this further reason of obedience and not resistance Vers 5. But if thou dost that which is evill be afraid for he beareth not the Sword in vaine for hee is the Minister of God a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evill which no wayes suites with a Tyrant bent to subvert Religion Lawes Liberties For he secures all evill men especially those who are instrumentall to advance his cruelty and oppressions gives liberty to all manner of wickednesses Proclaimes impunity to his ill instruments knowing that of the Poet to be true Libertas scelerum est quae Regna invisa tuetur c. He beareth the sword not onely in vaine in reference to any good end for the promoting of Gods glory and the publike good but likewise draweth it forth and useth it directly against both And is so farre from being a Minister of God or revenger to execute wrath upon them that doe evill that he is the very Minister of the Devill Tertullian Nihil nisi grande aliquid bonum a Nerone damnatum This reason then extends onely to righteous Governours in their execution of justice upon wicked malefactors wherein they must not be resisted Not to bloody gracelesse lawlesse Tyrants and their instruments who by the rule of contraries may and ought to be resisted in
their cruelties oppressions impieties Seventhly the Apostle hereupon concludes Vers 5. Wherefore you must of necessity be subject not onely for wrath but also for conscience sake This conclusion as the word Wherefore demonstrates being inferred from the premised reasons extending onely to extends to all civill Magistrates as well inferiour and subordinate as superiour and many sticke not to straine it even to Ecclesiasticall ones So Origen Ambrose Hierome Remigius Theodulus Chrysostome Theodoret Primasius Haymo Rabanus Maurus Theophylact Oecumenius Haymo Aquinas Anselm Lyra Bruno Gorran Hugo de Sancto Victore Tostatus Luther Calvin Erasmus Melanchthon Gualther Musculus Bucer Hemingius Ferus Fayus Soto Alexander Alesius Peter Martyr Pareus Beza Piscator Zuinglius Tollet Willet Wilson Nacclantus Snecanus Vignerius Wenerichius Winckelman Estius Faber Cornelius a Lapide Salmeron Catharinus Guilliandus Adam Sasbout with sundry others This then being irrefragable hereby it is most apparent First that no resistance of the higher powers is here prohibited but onely in the due and legall execution of their offices For if any inferiour Officers illegally indeavour to subvert Religion Lawes Liberties and unrightly governe the people they may lawfully be resisted by them For example if a Maior Justice of Peace Constable or other officer extravagating from the common course of Law and Justice shall with force of armes in a riotous manner assault any private man or the whole Citie or Village where he lives to beate wound kill plunder dispossesse the inhabitants of their houses goods franchises or assault them on the highway side to take away their purses in these and such like cases both in point of Law and conscience he may not onely be forcibly resisted but repulsed apprehended battered if not lawfully slaine by the people and proceeded against as a delinquent The reason is because these illegall unjust actions are not onely besides without their Commissions but directly contrary to their offices and the Lawes which never gave them authority to act such injustice yet they are higher Powers ordained of God within this Text and no way to be resisted in the due execution of their Offices according to Law If then these inferiour Officers may be thus forcibly resisted repulsed notwithstanding this Text in such cases as these then by the selfe same reason Kings and Emperours may bee thus resisted too since the Text extends indifferently to them both Let then the objectors take their choyce either affirme that no inferiour lawfull Officers whatsoever may be forcibly resisted by the people or repulsed arraigned censured for their misdemeanour by vertue of this Text which would bring an absolute Tyranny Anarchy and confusion presently into the world and make every Constable as great a Tyrant Monarch as the grand Emperor of the Turks or else confesse that this Text condemnes not such resistance even of Kings and Princes when they forcibly war upon their Subjects to subvert Religion Lawes Liberties and ruine the republike since it makes no distinction at all betweene the ones power and the others but equally enjoynes subjection prohibits resistance unto both and that onely in just administration of their severall authorities not in the arbitrary unjust prosecutions of their wils and lusts Secondly it followes that the Kings Souldiers Cavaliers and Forces now raised against Law and armed onely with illegall Commissions voyd in Law as I have proved are none of the high powers ordained of God nor lawfull Rulers or Magistrates within the meaning of this Scripture and so the forcible resisting of them and of the Kings illegall commands and designes executed by them is no resistance of the higher powers here prohibited Thirdly that the Houses of Parliament being in truth the highest powers ordained of God in this Realme and their just legall Ordinances Votes Forces for the necessary defence of Lawes Liberties Religion against the Kings ill Counsellors and Malignant Popish Forces neither may nor ought in conscience to be resisted by the King himselfe or any of his Subjects Souldiers under the perill of that damnation mentioned in this Chapter For the second Whether the Roman Emperor in Pauls time was the highest Soveraign power in the Roman State or not It is taken for granted by Doctor Ferne and other opposites that he was as a thing past doubt the Senate and people as they say having resigned up their power to the Emperour But this no doubt is a grosse errour which I have largely refuted in the Appendix and therefore shall be the briefer here derived from some civill Lawyers who out of Justinian Digest lib. 2. Tet. 2. and Instit Tit. 2. falsly affirme that Lege Regia by the regall Law the Senate and people transferred all their Empire and power unto the Emperour For first the Senate and people as Albericus Gentilis well observes did not by this Law give the Emperour all power and command to dispose of them or the lands and revenues of the Empire as he pleased but onely to governe them according to their Lawes as men not to slay and alienate them as beasts Thus reason dictates so the words of the Law sound Divines are deceived Lawyers flatter who perswade that all things are lawfull to Princes and that their power is highest and free It is ridiculous to affirme that absolute power over the subjects belongs to Popes which belongs not to the Emperours themselves over the Italians from whom they derive it Imagine therefore that the Emperour had a power never so free yet it is not of dominion but of administration And he who hath but a free administration hath not the power of donation e A gardian is then reputed in stead of a Lord cum tutelam administrat non cum pupillum spoliat when he rightly administers his tutelage not when he spoyles his pupill So Gentilis If then the Emperours had onely a free legall administration not an absolute dominion granted them by the people then this soveraigne power still resided in the Senate and people as Justinian Digest lib. 1. Tit. 2. De Origine Juris will sufficiently manifest Secondly John Bodin a learned Civilian clearely proves That the Roman Emperors were at the first nothing else but Princes of the Commonweale The SOVERAIGNTY NEVERTHELESSE STILL RESTING IN THE PEOPLE and THE SENATE So that this Common-wealth was then to have beene called a Principality although that Seneca speaking in the person of Nero his Scholler saith I am the onely man amongst living men elect and chosen to be the Lieutenant of God upon earth I am the Arbitratour of life and death I am able of my pleasure to dispose of the state and quality of every man True it is that he tooke upon him this Soveraigne authority by force wrested from the people and Senate of Rome therefore not freely given him by any Law but IN RIGHT HE HAD IT NOT the State being but a very principalitie WHEREIN THE PEOPLE HAD THE SOVERAIGNTY In which case THERE IS
the estate that it is now the title of Empire being little more then that of the Duke of Venice the soveraingty writes the Historian in the Margin remaining in the States of the Empire All that is objected against the premises is that passage of Tertullian much insisted on Colimus ergo Imperatorē sic quomodo nobis licet ipsi expedit ut hominem à DEO SECUNDUM quicquid est à Deo consecutum SOLO DEO MINOREM Hoc et ipse volet Sic enim OMNIBUS MAJOR EST DUM SOLO VERO DEO MINOR EST. Sic ipsis Diis major est dum ipsi in poteste sunt ejus c. To which I answer that these words onely prove the Emperour in the Roman State to be the highest Officer and Magistrate under God of any one particular person not that he was the Soveraigne highest power above the Senate and people collectively considered And the occasion of these words will discover the Authors intention to be no other which was this The Christians in that age were persecuted and put to death by Scapula President of Carthage to whom Tertullian writes this Booke because they refused to adore the Emperour for a God to sweare by his Genius and to observe his solemnities and triumphs in an Ethnicall manner as is evident by the words preceding this passage Sic circa Majestatem Imperatoris infamamur c. and by sundry notable passages in his Apologeticus In answer to which accusation Tertullian reasons in the Christians behalfe that though they adored not the Emperour as a God yet they reverenced him as a man next under God as one onely lesse then God as one greater then all others whiles lesse onely then the true God and greater then the Idol Gods themselves who were in the Emperours power c. Here was no other thing in question but whether the Emperour were to be adored as God not whether he or the Roman Senate and people were the greatest highest Soveraigne power And the answer being that he was but a man next under God above any other particular officer in the Roman State is no proofe at all that he was paramount the whole Senate and people collectively considered or of greater Soveraigne power then they which the premises clearely disprove Adde that this Father in his Apologie thus censures the Pagan Romans for their grosse flattery of their Emperours whom they feared more then their Gods appliable to our present times Siquidem majore formidine callidiore timiditate Caesarem observatis quam ipsum de Olympo Jovem c. adeo in isto irreligiosi erga dees vestros deprehendimini cum plus timoris humano Domino dicatis citius denique apud vos per omnes Deos quam per unum genium Caesaris pejeratur Then he addes Interest hominis Deo cedere satis habeat appellari Imperator grande hoc nomen est quod a Deo tradetur negat illum imperatorem qui deum dicit nisi homo sit non est imperator Hominem se esse etiam triumphans in illo sublimissimo curru admonetur Suggeritur enim ci a tergo Respice post te hominem memento te Etiam hoc magis gaudet tanta se gloria coruscare ut illi admonitio conditionis suae sit necessaria Major est qui revocatur ne se deum existimet Augustus imperii formator ne Dominum quidem dici se volebat et hoc enim Dei est cognomen Dicam plane Imperatorem Dominum sed more communi sed quando non cogor ut Dominum Dei vice dicam Concluding thus Nullum bonum sub exceptione personarum administramus c. lidem sumus Imperatoribus qui vicinis nostris Male enim velle male facere male dicere male cogitare de quoquam ex aequo vetamur Quodcunque non licet in Imperatorem id nec in quenquam quod in neminem eo forsitan magis nec in ipsum qui per deum tantus est c. From which it is evident that the Christians did not deifie nor flatter their Emperours more then was meet and deemed they might not resist them onely in such cases where they might resist no others and so by consequence lawfully resist them where it was lawfull for them to resist other private men who did injuriously assault them If then the Roman Emperors were not the highest Soveraigne power in the Roman State when Paul writ this Epistle but the Roman Senate and State as I have cleared and if the Parliament not the King be the supremest Soveraigne power in our Realme as I have abundantly manifested then this objected Text so much insisted on by our opposites could no wayes extend to the Roman Senate State or our English Parliament who are the very higher powers themselves and proves most fatall and destructive to their cause of any other even by their owne Argument which I shall thus doubly discharge upon them First that power which is the highest and most soveraigne Authority in any State or kingdome by the Apostles and our Antagonists owne doctrine even in point of conscience neither may nor ought in what case soever say our opposites to be forcibly resisted either in their persons ordinances commands instruments offices or Armed Souldiers by any inferiour powers persons or subjects whatsoever especially when their proceedings are just and legall under paine of temporall and eternall condemnation But the Senate among the Romans not the Emperour and the Parliament in England not the King really were and are the higher Powers and most soveraigne Authority Therefore by the Apostles own Doctrine even in point of conscience they neither may nor ought to be disobeyed or forcibly resisted in any case whatsoever either in their Persons Ordinances Commands Instruments Officers or Armed Souldiers by the King himselfe his Counsellors Armies Cavaliers or by any inferiour powers persons or Subjects whatsoever especially when their proceedings are just and legall as hitherto they have beene under paine of temporall and eternall condemnation I hope the Doctor and his Camerads will now beshrew themselves that ever they medled with this Text and made such a halter to strangle their owne treacherous cause and those who have taken up armes in its defence Secondly that Power which is simply highest and supreame in any State may lawfully with good conscience take up Armes to resist or suppresse any other power that shall take up armes to subvert Religion Lawes Liberties the Republike or the just Rights and Priviledges of the Subject or of this higher power This is our opposites owne argumentation Therefore the Parliament being in verity the highest supreame Power in our State may lawfully with good conscience take up Armes to resist or suppresse his Majesties Malignant Popish Forces or any other power which already hath or hereafter shall be raised to subvert Religion Lawes Liberties the Republike just Rights and Priviledges of Parliament
high ruleth in the kingdome of men and giveth it to whomsoever he will and setteth up over it the basest of men with Hos 13. 11. 1 Sam. 10. 1. Jer. 27. 5 6 7. Isay 45. 1 2. and other Texts To answer this question distinctly and dissipate these grosse erroneous Paradoxes we must distinguish First betweene Government it selfe in generall and kingly or other kindes of government in speciall as our opposites distinguish betweene a Sabbath and the Sabbath the first they say is morall and of divine institution the later not Secondly betweene the Regall power of Kings the persons invested with this power the manner of obtaining and the administration of their power Thirdly of Gods manner of instituting and ordaining things which is twofold immediately by himselfe mediately by others And these institutions of both kinds are either universall extending to all places Nations or particular concerning some Countries and Nations onely and not others Perpetuall for ever or temporall onely for some set time Immutable not capable of the least alteration or mutable and that either at the pleasure of God onely or at the will of men when they shall see just cause either in part or in whole Fourthly in what severall senses things may be said to be of God First in respect of his owne immediate institution Secondly of his generall or speciall commands Thirdly of his generall or speciall disposing providence without any speciall institution or command Fourthly of his approbation of assent unto and blessing on the meere institutions of men Fiftly of his permission onely To apply these distinctions to the present occasion First it is cleare that power and government in generall are Gods owne institution who as he hath appointed in the great fabricke of the world a certaine constant forme of government and subordination of one creature to another so he hath for the good of mankinde appointed that there should be some forme of government or other among men in the world which in respect of families hee hath specially and universally decreed as that the wife should be subject to the husband the children to the parents the servants to their masters but in regard of Commonweales or Nations hee hath left it arbitrary and indefinite leaving every Nation and Country free liberty to elect such a publike politike forme of government as themselves should judge most expedient for their publike good and that mutable since all humane things are so as they should see just occasion not prescribing any sempiternall immutable forme of government to any particular Nations Regions much lesse to all the world Secondly government in generall being thus of God but the kindes of it thus left arbitrary to mens institution and free election the particular governments instituted by any Nation for the better regulating of their lives the preservation of humane society and advancement of Gods glory may be truely said in some sense to be of God though instituted invented by men Not because God himselfe did immediately ordain or prescribe them by speciall command to all or any one people or because God himself did immediately ordaine or prescribe them by speciall command to this all or any one people but because hee by his generall or speciall providence did direct this Nation to make choyse of such a government or gave them wisedome to invent and settle it as most commodious for their republike till they should see cause to alter it or because he blessed and approved it when invented and received by them Thirdly Kingly powers Kingdomes Kings the things now in question are and may be said to be of God and ordained of God in no other manner or sense then all other particular Governments or Magistrates are For this Text of the Romans speaking onely of the higher powers the powers that are and of Rulers as doth that place of Titus 3. 1. And the Text of Prov. 8. 15 16. so much relied on by the objectors extending as well to all subordinate Rulers as Kings witnesse the subsequent words By me Kings reigne and Princes decree justice by me Princes rule AND NOBLES yea ALL THE JUDGES OF THE EARTH that is all Magistrates whatsoever it cannot but be yeelded that all and every lawfull kinde of government all lawfull Rulers and Magistrates of what fort soever are of Gods ordination and his ordinance as farre forth as Monarchies are and what is truely affirmable of the one is of the other too These generalls thus premised as indubitable I say first of all That Monarchy or regall power is not of God nor yet Gods ordinance by way of immediate divine institution or speciall command from Gods owne free motion as our opposites affirme it For first God himself never immediately instituted a royall Monarchicall government in any Nation whatsoever no not among his owne people whose government was at first Paternall and Patriarchicall next Aristocraticall then Regall not by Gods immediate institution and voluntary designation but by the peoples earnest importunity contrary to the good liking of God and Samuel as is evident by 1 Sam. c. 8 and 9 and 10 and 11. Hos 8. 4. and the Appendix Secondly All Politicians and Historians grant that the originall crection of all Monarechies was either by the peoples free consent and ordination or by Tyranny and usurpation or be conqest none by divine institution or speciall command from God And it must needs be so because most kingdomes were primitively erected either among Pagan Nations and States who knew not God nor his Word or among Christian States since speciall commands and Revelations from heaven ceased which if our opposites deny I shall desire them to instance in any one Monarchy in the world instituted immediately by God himselfe or by speciall command from his owne free motion Till this be done all their asseverations will be accounted fabulous Thirdly if Regall power be Gods ordinance by way of divine immediate institution and command then this institution of Regall Monarchy with the severall Prerogatives and boundaries of it would appeare in some Text of Scripture and this government would be specially and perpetually prescribed either to all or some particular Nations by God himselfe But this institution with the generall Prerogatives and bounds of Regall Authority are no where extant in Scripture neither this forme of government therein prescribed but left arbitrary to all or any Nation in particular for ought any man can demonstrate Those Texts which concerne the Kings of the Israelites in point of soveraignty and Prerogative being judiciall onely and peculiar to that Nation nor morall or extending unto others Therefore it is not Gods ordinance by way of divine immediate institution or command Fourthly if it were of divine ordination in this sense then the Regall power and authority of all Kings and Monarchs in the world should bee equall yea the very same and there should be no different kinde of Kings as the divine authority of
all Ministers being of Gods owne institution by one and the same commission is one and the same But the regall power and jurisdiction of all Kings and Monarchies in the world is not equall nor the same for some have farre greater authority then others there are many different sorts of Kings in the world some onely annuall others for life others hereditary others at will deposible at the peoples pleasures when ever they offended Such were the Kings of the Vandalls in Africk of the Gothes in Spaine cum ipsos deponerent populi quoties displicuissent such the Kings of the Heruli Procopius Gothicorum Of the Lombards Paulus Warnafredi l. 4. 6. Of the Burgundians Ammianus 11. lib. 28. Of the Moldavians Laonichus Chalcocandylas the King of Agadis among the Africans Joannis Leo lib. 7. Of the Quadi and Jazyges in excerptis Dionis with sundry others hereafter mentioned Some elective others successive some conditionall others absolute as I have plentifully mentioned in the Appendix Therefore they are not of divine ordination in the objectors sense Fiftly If Kings were of divine ordination in this sense then their kingdomes and people upon their Elections Institutions and Coronations could not justly prescribe any conditions oathes or covenants to them upon promise of performance whereof they onely accept of them to be their Kings refusing else to admit them to reigne over them and such conditions oathes covenants would be meere nullities since men have no power at all to detract from Gods owne divine institutions or to annex any conditions or restrictions to them But our Antagonists themselves dare not averre that Kingdomes and Nations upon their Kings Coronations Institutions and elections may not lawfully prescribe conditions oathes and limitations to them upon promise of performance whereof they onely submitted to them as their Soveraignes it being the received practise of our owne of all or most other Kingdomes whatsoever especially elective ones and confirmed by divine Authority 2 Chron. 10. 1. to 19. Therefore they are not of divine institution in the objected sense Sixthly All Lawyers and most Orthodox Divines determine that Kings have no other just or lawfull royall Authority but that which the Lawes and customes of their Kingdomes allot them and that the Law onely makes them Kings from which if they exorbitate they become Tyrants and cease to be Kings Their Royall authority therefore is of humane institution properly not Divine from their people who both elect constitute them Kings and give them all their regall Authority by humane Lawes enacted not from God as the onely efficient cause Seventhly All Kingdomes Monarchies Policies are mutable and variable in themselves while they continue such yea temporary and alterable into other formes of Government by publicke consent if there be just cause without any immediate command or alteration made by God himsele or his divine authority There being no positive Law of God confining any Nation whose humane earthly condition is still variable to a Monarchicall or any other constant forme of government only much lesse for perpetuity without variation Therefore they are not of divine institution in this sense Eightly St. Peter expressely defines Kings and Monarchies in respect of their institution to be humane creatures or institutions 1 Pet. 2. 13. Submit your selves to every ORDINANCE OF MAN for the Lords sake whether it be to the King as supreame c. And they are common to Pagans who know not God as well as to Christians Therefore they are not simply divine but humane Ordinances Ninethly Our Antigonists will yeeld that other formes of Government whether Aristocraticall Oligarchicall Democraticall or mixt of all three are not absolutely and immediately of divine institution nor yet Dukes Principalities with other inferior Rulers though the Apostle in this Text makes them all equally Gods Ordinance and Divine Therefore Monarchy Kings and Kingdomes are not so Tenthly The very Text it selfe seemes to intimate that Royalties and higher powers are not of God by way of originall or immediate institution or command for the Apostle saith not that all powers whatsoever were originally instituted and ordained by God himselfe but There is no power but of God The powers that be are not were at first ordained or rather ordered of God that is where powers and Governments are once erected by men through Gods generall or speciall providence there God approves and orders them for the good of men 2. If Monarchies and Kings themselves be not of divine institution and Gods ordinance in the former sense as is most apparent Aristotle Plato all Politicians grant Then they are so onely in some other sense in what I shall truely informe you First They are of God and his Ordinance by way of imitation as derived from Gods owne forme of Government which is Monarchicall Whence he is called The only God God alone the King of Kings and Lord of Lords Secondly By way of approbation He approves and allowes this kinde of Government where it is received as well as other formes Thirdly by way of direction he gives divers generall rules and directions to Kings and to other Rulers and Magistrates also as well as them in his sacred word how they ought to demeane themselves towards him and their Subjects and likewise to Subjects how they should carry themselves towards their Kings and all other Rulers and Governours temporall or spirituall in which sense they may be properly said to be ordered and ordained too of God Fourthly By way of speciall providence and incitation God excites and moves some people to make choyce of Kings and Monarchicall formes of Government rather than others and to elect one man or family to that dignity rather than others yea his providence mightily rules and swayes in the changes the elections actions counsels affaires of Monarchies Kingdomes Kings States to order them for his own glory the Kings the Subjects good or ill in wayes of Justice or Mercy as is evident by Dan. 2. 21. c. 4. 17. 25. Hos 13. 11. Jer. 27. 5 6 7. Isa 45. 1 2 3. c. 10. 5. to 20. Psal 110. 5. Psal 113. 7 8. Job 12. 18. to 25. Dan. 5. 26. 28. The genuine drift of all these Texts Fifthly Kings may be said to be of God and his Ordinance because they and so all other Rulers Judges Magistrates as well as they in respect of their representation and the true end of Government are said to be Gods to be Gods Ministers and Vicegerents to sit upon Gods Throne and ought to reigne to judge for God and to rule Gods people according to Gods Word with such justice equity integrity as God himselfe would Governe them Exod. 22. 28. 2 Chron. 9. 8. Rom. 13. 4 5. 2 Sam. 23. 3. Psal 78. 72 73 74 2 Sam. 5. 2. Prov. 8. 15 18. Psal 82. 1. 1 Cor. 8. 5. Isa 32. 1. c. 9. 7. c. 16. 5. Deut. 1. 17. Sixthly Ill Kings and Tyrants may be said
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
to the assertion of the Apostle very ill applied saying The spirituall man is iudged of no man 1 Corinth 2. 15. Not meant of Bishops or Clergie-men but Saints alone endued with Gods Spirit not of judging in courts of iustice but of discerning spirituall things and their own spirituall Estates as the Context resolves Thus and much more this Prelate who notwithstanding this text of the Romanes pleads an exemption of all Bishops and Priests from the kings secular power by Divine Authority and arrogates to Priest and Prelates a iudiciary lawfull power over Kings themselves to excommunicate and censure them for their offences And to descend to later times even since the the Reformation of Religion here Iohn Bridges Dean of Sarum and Bishop of Oxfort even in his Book intituled The supremacy of Christian Princes over all persons thorowout their Dominions in all causes so well Ecclesiasticall as spirituall printed at London 1573. p. 1095. writes thus But who denies this M. Saunders that a godly Bishop may upon great and urgent occasion if it shall be necessary to edifie Gods Church and there be no other remedy flee to this last censure of Excommunication AGAINST A WICKED KING Making it a thing not questionable by our Prelates and Clergie that they may in such a case lawfully excommunicate the King himself And Doctor Bilson Bishop of Winchester in his True difference between Christian subiection and unchristian Rebellion dedicated to Queen Elizabeth her self printed at Oxford 1595. Part. 3. Page 369. to 378. grants That Emperours Kings and Princes may in some cases be Excommunicated and kept from the Lords Table by their Bishops and grants That with Hereticks and Apostates be THEY PRINCES or private men no Christian Pastor nor people may Communicate Neither finde I any Bishop or Court Doctor of the contrary opinion but all of them readily subscribe hereto If then not onely the ill Counsellors and Instruments of Kings but Kings and Emperours themselves may thus not onely be lawfully iustly resisted but actually smitten and excommunicated by their Bishops and Clergy with the spirituall sword for their notorious crimes and wickednesses notwithstanding this inhibition which Valentinian the Emperour confessed and therefore desired that such a Bishop should be chosen and elected in Millain after Auxentius as he himself might really and cordially submit to him and his reprehensions since he must sometimes needs erre as a man as to the medicine of souls as he did to Ambrose when he was elected Bishop there why they may not likewise be resisted by their Laity in the precedent cases with the temporall sword and subjected unto the censures of the whole Kingdoms and Parliaments transcends my shallow apprehension to conceive there being as great if not greater or the very self-same reason for the lawfulnesse of the one as of the other And till our Opposites shall produce a substantiall difference between these cases or disclaim this their practice and doctrine of the lawfulnesse of excommunicating Kings and Emperours they must give me and others liberty to conceive they have quite lost and yeelded up the cause they now contend for notwithstanding this chief Text of Romaves 13. the ground of all their strength at first but now of their ruine The tenth Objection is this that of 1 Pet. 2 13 14 15 16. Submit your selves to every ORDINANCE OF MAN for the Lords sake whether it be to The King AS SVPREAME or unto Governours as unto them that are sent by him to wit by God not the King as the distribution manifests and Rom. 13. 1 2 3 4. For the punishment of evill doers and for the praise of them that doe well c. Feare God Honour the King wee must submit to Kings and honour Kings who are the supream Governours therefore we may in no case forcibly resist them or their Officers though they degenerate into Tyrants To which I answer that this is a meerin consequent since the submission here injoyned is but to such Kings who are punishers of evill doers and praisers of those that do well which the Apostle makes the Ground and motive to submission therefore this text extends not to Tyrants and oppressours who doe quite contrary We must submit to Kings when they rule well and justly is all the Apostle here affirms Ergo wee must submit to and not resist them in any their violent courses to subvert Religion Lawes Liberties is meet non-sence both in Law Divinity and common Reason If any reply as they doe that the Apostle vers 18 19 20. Bids servants 〈◊〉 subject to their Masters with all feare not onely to the good and gentle but also to the froward For this is thank-worthy if a man for conscience towards God endure griefe suffering wrongfully c. Ergo this is meant of evill Magistrates and Kings as well as good I answer 1. That the Apostles speaks it onely of evill Masters not Kings of servants not subjects there being a great difference between servants Apprentices Villaines and free borne subiects as all men know the one being under the arbitrary rule and government of their Master the other onely under the just setled legall Government of their Princes according to the Lawes of the Realme Secondly this is meant onely of private personall iniuries and undue corrections of Masters given to servants without iust cause as vers 20. For what glory is it if when yee be BVFFETED FOR your faults c. intimates not of publike iniuries and oppressions of Magistrates which indanger the whole Church and State A Christian servant or subiect must patiently endure private undue corrections of a froward Master or King Ergo whole Kingdomes and Parliaments must patiently without resistance suffer their kings and evill Instruments to subvert Religion Lawes Liberties Realms the proper deduction heen is but a ridiculous conclusion Secondly This Text enjoynes no more subjection to kings then to any other Magistrates as the words Submit your selves TO EVERY ORDINANCE of Man Or unto Governors c. prove past all contradiction And vers 6. which bids us Honour the King bids us first in direct tearmes HONOVR ALL MEN to wit All Magistrates at least if not all men in generall as such There is then no speciall Prerogative of irresistability given to kings by this Text in injurious violent courses more then there is to any other Magistrate or person whatsoever God giving no man any Authority to injure others without resistance especially if they assault their persons or invade their Estates to ruine them Since then inferiour Officers and other menmay be forcâ—bly resisted when they actually attempt by force to ruine Religion Lawes Liberties the republike as I haue proved and our Antagonists must grant by the self-same reason kings may be resisted too notwithstanding any thing in this Text which attributes no more irresistability or authority to Kings then unto other Magistrates Thirdly Kings are here expresly called AN ORDINANCE OF
an Oath of execration by an ancient Law in memory whereof they instituted a speciall annuall Feast on the 23. of February called Regifugium the hatred of which Title continued such that Tully and Augustine write Regem Romae posthac nec Dii nec Homines esse patiantur And Caesar himself being saluted King by the multitude perceiving it was very distastfull to the States answered CAESAREM SE NON REGEM ESSE which Title of Caesar not King the Scripture ever useth to expresse the Emperour by witnesse Matth. 22. 17 21. Mark 12. 14 16 17. Luke 2. 1. chap. 20. 22 24 25. chap. 23. 2. John 19. 12 15. Acts 11. 28. chap. 17. 7. chap. 25. 8 10 11 12 21. chap. 26. 32. chap. 27. 24. chap. 28. 19. Phil. 4. 22. Which Texts do clearly manifest that no Title was ever used by the Apostles Evangelists Jewes to expresse the Emperour by but that of Caesar not this of King Therefore Peters Text speaking onely of the King not Caesar cannot be intended of the Romane Emperour as ignorant Doctors blindly fancie Fifthly This Epistle of Peter the Apostle of the Jews was written onely to the dispersed Jews thorowout Pontus Galatia Cappadocia Asia and Bythinia 1 Pet. 1. 1. over whom Herod at that time reigned as King by the Romane Senates and Emperours appointment who had then conquered the Jews and made them a tributarie Province as is evident by Matth. 27. 17 21. Mark 12. 14 16 17. Luke 20. 22 24 25. chap. 23. 2. Acts 17. 7. chap. 25. 8 10 11 12 21. chap. 27. 24. chap. 12. 1. to 24. compared together and by Josephus the Century writers Baronius Sigonius and others The King then here mentioned to be supreame was Herod or King Agrippa or some other immediate King of the Jews who was their supreame Governour not absolutely but under the Romane Senate and Emperours and made so by their appointment whence called in the Text an Ordinance of man not God Now this King of the Jews as is evident by Pauls Appeal to Caesar from Festus and King Agrippa as to the Soveraign Tribunall Acts 25. and 26. by Josephus Philo Judaeus de legatione ad Caium and the consent of all Historians was not the absolute Soveraigne Power but subordinate to the Romane Emperour and Senate who both created and bad power to controll remove and censure him for his misdemeanours yet Peter calls him here Supreame because the Highest Governour under them as we stile our Kings Supreame Governours under Christ Therefore having a Superiour Governour and Power over him to which he was accountable and subordinate Supreame in the Text cannot be meant of a King absolutely Supreame having no Power Superiour to him but God but onely relatively Supreame in respect of under-Governours there actually residing whose Supremacie being forcibly gained onely by conquest not free consent and the ancient native Kings of the Jews being inferiour to their whole Senates and Congregations and to do all by their advice as Josephus Antiq. Jud. lib. 4. cap. 8. 2. Sam. 18. 3 4. Jer. 38. 45. 1. Chron. 13. 1. to 6. attest will no way advantage our Opposites nor advance the Prerogative of Kings since it extends onely to the King of the Jews that then was who was not simply Supream but a Subject Prince subordinate to the Romane State and Empire and one appointed by a Conquerour not freely chosen and assented to by the people So as all the Argument which can hence be extracted for the absolute Soveraigntie and irresistibility of Kings over their whole Kingdomes and Parliaments is but this The King of the Jews was in Peters time the Supreame Magistrate over that Nation by the Romane Senates and Emperours appointment to whom yet he was subordinate and accountable the Romanes having conquered the Jewes by force and imposing this government upon them without their consents Therefore the Kings of England and all other Kings are absolute Soveraigne Monarches Superiour to their whole Parliaments and Kingdomes collectively considered and may not in point of conscience be forcibly resisted by them though they endeavour to subvert Religion Laws Liberties How little coherence there is in this Argument the silliest childe may at first discern From these Scriptures I descend to Reasons deduced from them against resistance which I shall contract into three Arguments The first is this Kings are the Fathers Heads Lords Shepherds of the Common-wealth Ergo They ought not to be resisted in any their exorbitant proceedings it being unlawfull unseemly for a Son to resist his Father the Members the Head the Vassals their Lord the Flock their Shepherd To this I answer First They are Fathers Shepherds Lords Heads onely in an improper allegoricall not genuine sence therefore nothing can thence be properly inferred They are and ought to be such in respect of their loving and carefull affection towards their Subjects not in regard of their Soveraigne Power over them Therefore when their Tyrannie makes them not such in regard of care and affection to their people their people cease to be such in regard of filiall naturall and sheep-like submission When these Shepberds turn Wolves these Fathers Step-fathers the Subjects as to this cease to be their Sheep their Children in point of Obedience and Submission Secondly If we consider the Common-weal and Kingdom collectively Kings are rather their Kingdoms children then Parents because created by them their publike servants ministers for whose benefit they are imployed and receive wages not their Soveraigne Lords their subordinate Heads to be directed and advised by them not Tyrannically to over-rule them at their pleasure Therefore Paramount and able in such cases to resist them Thirdly Parishioners may no doubt lawfully resist the false Doctrines and open assaults of their Ministers though they be their Spirituall Shepherds Citizens the violent oppressions of their Maiors though they be their Politique Heads Servants the unjust assaults of their Masters though their lawfull Lords who may not misuse their very Villaines by Law And if Parents will violently assault their naturall children Husbands their Wives Masters their Servants to murther them without cause they may by Law resist repulse them with open force Fourthly A Son who is a Judge may lawfully resist imprison condemne his naturall Father A Servant his Lord A Parishioner his Pastour a Citizen his Major a meer Gentleman the greatest Peer or Lord as experience proves because they do it in another capacity as Judges and Ministers of publike Justice to which all are subject The Parliament then in this sence as they are the representative Body of the Realm not private Subjects and their Armies by their authority may as they are the highest Soveraign Power and Judicature resist the King and his Forces though he be their Father Head Shepherd Lord as they are private men Fifthly This is but the common
exploded Argument of the Popish Clergy To prove themselves superiour to Kings and exempt from all secular Jurisdiction because they are spirituall Fathers Pastors Heads to Kings who ought to obey not judge and censure them as Archbish Stratford and others argue But this plea is no ways available to exempt Clergy men from secular Jurisdiction from actuall resistance of parties assaulted nor yet from imprisonment censures and capitall executions by Kings and Civill Magistrates in case of capitall Crimes Therefore by like reason it can not exempt Kings from the resistance censures of their Parliaments Kingdoms in case of tyrannicall invasions We deride this Argument in Papists as absurd as in sufficient to prove the exemption of Clergy men I wonder therefore why it is now urged to as little purpose against resistance of Tyrants and oppressing Kings and Magistrates The second reason is this The Invasions and oppressions of evill Kings and Tyrants are afflictions and punishments inflicted on us by God Therefore we ought patiently to submit unto them and not forcibly to resist them I answer First The invasions of Forraign Enemies are just Judgements and punishments sent upon men by God as were the invasions of the Danes Saxons and Normans in England heretofore of the Spaniards since Ergo we ought not to resist or fight against them The present rebellion of the Papists in Ireland is a just punishment of God upon this Kingdom and the Protestant party there Ergo Neither we nor they ought in conscience to resist or take Arms against them Every sicknesse that threatens or invades our bodies is commonly an affliction and punishment sent by God Ergo We must not endeavour to prevent or remove it by Physick but patiently lye under it without seeking remedy Injuries done us in our persons estates names by wicked men who assault wound rob defame us are from God and punishments for our sins Ergo We may not resist them Yea Subjects Rebellions Treasons and Insurrections against their Princes many times are punishments inflicted on them by God displeased with them as the Statute of 1 Ed. 6. c. 12. resolves and the Scripture too Ergo Kings ought not to resist or suppresse them by force of Arms If all these Consequences be absurd and idle as every man will grant the objection must be so likewise I read That in the persecution of the Hunnes their King Attila being demanded of by a religious Bishop of a certain Citie who he was when he had answered I am Attila the scourge of God The Bishop reverencing the divine Majesty in him answered Thou art welcome ô Minister of God and ingeminating this saying Blessed be he that cometh in the Name of the Lord Opened the Church door and let in the persecutor by whom he obtained the Crown of Martyrdom not daring to exclude the scourge of the Lord knowing that the beloved sonne is scourged and that the power of the scourge it self is not from any but God Will it hence follow That all Christians are bound in conscience to do the like and not to resist the barbarous Turks if they should invade them no more then this Bishop did the bloudy Pagan Hunnes because they are Gods wrath I trow not One Swallow makes no Summer nor this example a generall president to binde all men The third reason is this Saints forcible resistance of Tyrants begets civill warres great disorders and many mischiefs in the State Ergo It is unlawfull and inconvenient I answer First That this doctrine of not resisting Tyrants in any case is farre more pernicious destructive to the Realm then the contrary because it deprives them of all humane means and possibilities of preservation and denies them that speciall remedy which God and nature hath left them for their preservation Laws denyall of Subsidies and such like remedies prescribed by Doctor Ferne being no remoraes or restraints at all to armed Tyrants Wherefore I must tell thee Doctor Theologorum utcunque dissertissimorum sententiae in hac controversia non sunt multo faciendae quia quid sit Lex humana ipsi ignorant as Vasquius controvers Illustr 81. .11 determines Secondly The knowledge of a lawfull power in Subjects to resist Tyrants will be a good means to keep Princes from Tyrannicall courses for fear of strenuous resistance which if once taken away there is no humane bridle left to stay the Inundation of Tyranny in Princes or great Officers and all Weapons Bulwarks Walls Lawes Armes will be meerly uselesse to the Subjects if resistance be denyed them when there is such cause Thirdly Resistance only in cases of publike necessity though accompanied with civill warre serves alwayes to prevent farre greater mischiefs then warre it self can produce it being the only Antidote to prevent publike ruine the readiest means to preserve endangered to regaine or settle lost Liberties Laws Religion as all ages witnesse and to prevent all future Seditions and Oppressions Fourthly Desperate diseases have alwayes desperate remedies Malo nodo malus cuneus When nothing but a defensive warre will preserve us from ruine and vassalage it is better to imbrace it then hazard the losse of all without redemption Ex duobus malis minimum All Kingdoms States in cases of necessity have ever had recourse to this as the lesser evill and why not ours as well as others The last and strongest Objection as some deem it is the sayings if some Fathers backed with the examples of the primitive Christians to which no such satisfactory answer hath hitherto been given as might be The first and grandest Objection against Subjects forcible resistance and defensive warre is that speech of Saint Ambrose Lib. 5. Orat. in Auxentium Coactus repugnare non audeo dolere potero potero flere potero gemere adversus arma milites Gothos Lachrymae meae arma sunt talia sunt munimenta sacerdotum A LITER NEC DEBEO NEC POSSVM RESISTERE This chiefe Authoritie though it makes a great noise in the world if solidly scanned will prove but Brutum fulmen a meer scar-crow and no more For first Ambrose in this place speaks not at all of Subjects resisting their Princes or Christians forcible resisting of the persecuting Romane Emperours but of resisting Valentine and the Arms and Souldiers of the Gothes who at that time over ran Italy and sacked Rome being mortall Enemies to the Romans the Roman Emperours Saint Ambrose and Millain where he was Bishop This is evident by the expresse objected words I can grieve I can weep I can mourn to wit for the wasting of my native Country Italy by the Invading Enemies the Gothes against Armes Souldiers GOTHES marke it my tears are Weapons c. If any sequell can be hence properly deduced it must be that for which the Anabaptists use it from whence our Opposites who tax the Parliaments Forces for Anabaptists when themselves are here more truly such
rabble if made had been onely singly for defence of their Religion then practised but in corners publikely condemned no where tolerated Our present war is not onely for defence of our Religion established by Law and to keep out Popery but for the preservation of Laws Liberties the very essence of Parliaments the safety of the Realme and that by authority of Parliament the representative body of the Realme The Parliaments defensive warre therefore upon these politicke grounds is just and lawfull though the Primitive Christians perchance in defence of Religion onely as its case then stood would not have been so even as the Roman Senators and States resisting of Nero or any other Tyrannicall Emperors violations of the Laws Liberties Lives Estates of the Senate people were then reputed just and lawfull though the Christians defence of Religion would not have been so esteemed in those times And thus I hope I have satisfactorily answered this objection without shifts or evasions and rectified these mistaken Fathers meanings with which our Opposites have seduced the illiterate over-credulous vulgar I have now through Gods assistance quite run through all Obiections of moment from Scripture Reason Fathers against the lawfulnesse of the Parliaments present defensive war and discovered divers grosse errors yea Impostures in our Opposites writings wherewith they have perverted many mens Consciences and cheated the ignorant seduced world I shall therefore here advise them in the presence of Almighty God as they will answer the contrary before his Tribunall at the Day of Iudgement seriously to consider these my answers and publikely to retract those their Errors false grosse mis-interpretations perversions of Scriptures Authors which I have here discovered And since they pretend nothing but their satisfying and keeping of a good Conscience in by others concerned in this Controversie to shew a syncere ingenuous Conscience therein themselves where they have been mistaken since the contestation pretended is not for Victory Time-serving or Self-seeking but for Truth Gods glory and the publike weal and if I have over-shot my self in any thing I shall promise them a thankfull acknowledgement and ready palinedy upon their information and conviction of any apparent oversights I may casually fall into Now because they shall not deem me singular in my opinion concerning the lawfulnesse of subjects defensive Arms against their Soveraigns bent to subvert Religion Laws Liberties the Republike or deem it is a late upstart Novelty I shall conclude this discourse with such personall naturall and publike authorities as they shall not be able to balance with counter-resolutions in which I shall be as brief as I may be For personall Authorities I shall not be ambitious to remember many especially Papists whose common constant received opinion and practise hath alwayes been and yet is That Subjects upon the Popes command alone and absolution of them from their Soveraigns allegiance may and ought to take up even offensive Arms against their owne naturall Princes excommunicated interdicted deposed or onely declared contumacious Schismâ—ticall or Hereticall by the Pope without yea against their Kingdoms Parliaments privities or consents much more then with their approbation What Papists have determined and practised in this very point you may read at large in Gratiau himself Causa 15. Quaest 6. and Causa 23. in the very Oath of Supremacie and Statut. of 3. Iacobi ch 4. which prescribes it in Bishop Iewels view of a seditious Bull in Doctor Iohn White his Defence of the way Chap. 6. 10. in Abbas Vspergensis Sabellicus Valateranus Grimston and others in the Lives of the Roman and German Emperours in Aventinchis Annalium Boyorum the Generall and Particular Histories of France Spain Germany Italy Sicily Hungary England in Bishp Bilsons third part of the True Difference between Christian Subjection and unchristian Rebellion In sundry Sermons on the fift of November to which I shall refer you In Pope Paschal his letter to Robert Earl of Flanders about the year of our Lord 1107. exorting him to war against those of Leige Henry the Emperour and his Assistants wheresoever he should finde them excommunicated and deposed as an Heretike and enemy to the Church telling him that he could not offer a more gratefull sacrifice to God then to ware against them concluding Hoc tibi Militibus this in peccatorum remissionem Apostolicae sedis familiaritatem praecipimus ut his laboribus triumphis ad Coelestem Hierusalem Domino praestante pervenias Which Letter was excellently answered by those of Leige And in the Councel of Towres in France under Lewes the twelfth Anno 1510. it was unanimously resolved by the Church of France That if the Pope did make war upon temporall Princes in lands which they held not of the patrimony of the Church they might lawfully by force of Arms resist and defend both themselves and other not only repulse this injury but likewise invade the lands of the Church possessed by the Pope their notorious enemy not perpetually to retain but to hinder the Pope from becomming more strong and potent by them to offend both them and theirs And that it was lawfull for such Princes for such notorious hatred and unjust invasion to withdraw themselves from the Popes obedience and with armed force to resist all censures denounced by the Pope against them their subjects and Confederates and that such sentences ought not to be obeyed but are mear nullities in law which obliege no man Yet I must inform you further in brief that Iohn Maior a Popish Schoolman in Lib. 4. Sentent as Grotius writes affirms That the people cannot deprive themselves of the power not onely of resisting but deposing Kings in cases which directly tend to their destruction and that Iohn Barclay a late Scottish Priest though a strenuous defendor of Princes Prerogatives expresly averres That if a King will altenate and subiect his Kingdom to another without his subiects consents or be carried with atrue hostile minde to the destruction of all his people that his Kingdom is thereby actually lost and forfeited so as the people may not onely absolutely resist and disobey but depose him and elect another King to which Hugo Gortius a Protestant freely subscribes and Iohn Bodin alloweth of Subjects resistance yea deposing kings insome Kingdoms absolutely and in some cases gener allyin all De Repub. l. 1. c. 10. l. 1. c. 5 l. 5. c. 5. 6. For Protestant personall authorities we have Huldericus Zuinglius Explanatio Articuli 40 41 42 43. Tom. 1. fol. 82. to 86. who allows not only Subiects actuall resistance but deprivation of Kings Where Princes set themselves to subvert Religion Laws Liberties and that by the common consent of the States in Parliament from whom Kings originally receive their Royall power and authority Martin Luther Bugenhagius Iustus Ionas Ambsdorfius Spaelotinus Melancthon Cruciger and other Divines Lawyers Statesmen Anno 1531. who published a writing in justification of
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
then so dangerous that THE VERY FORCE OF CONSCIENCE AND NECESSITY DID LEAD THEM TO ARMS and to make a League to defend themselves THOVGH CAESAR OR ANY IN HIS NAME WOVLD MAKE WAR AGAINST THEM That if the Emperour had kept his bonds and Covenants they would have done their duties but because he began first to make the breach the fault is his For since he attempteth to root out Religion and subvert our Libertie he giveth us cause enough TO RESIST HIM WITH GOOD CONSCIENE The matter standing as it doth we may resist him as may be shewed by Sacred and prophane Stories Vnjust violence is not Gods Ordinance neither are we bound to him by any other reason then if he keep the conditions on which he was created Emperour BY THE LAWS THE MSELVES IT IS PROVIDED that the inferiour Magistrate shall not infringe the right of the Superiour and so likewise if the superiour Magistrate exceed the limits of his power and command that which is wicked not onely we need not obey him BVT IF HE OFFER FORCE WE MAY RESIST HIM So they in point of Law and Conscience then publikely resolved Secondly that the French Protestants and others in the reign of King Francis the second Anno 1559. being much oppressed by the Guisian faction who had got the K. into their power and wholly swayed him as his Maj. ill Councellors sway him now there upon assembling together to consult of some just defence to preserve the just and ancient government of the Realm They demaunded advice TOVCHING LAW AND CONSCIENCE OF MANY LEARNED LAWYERS AND DIVINES who resolved THAT THEY MIGHT LAWFVLLY oppose themselvs against the Government which the House of Guise had usurped and AT NEED TAKE ARMS TO REPVLSE THEIR VIOLENCE so as the Princes who in this case are born Magistrates or some one of them would undertake it being ordered by the States of the Realm or by the sounder part of them That defence of Religion and Liberties against violence and oppression were iust causes of Warre Et quod pia arma ea sint ultra quae nulla restat spesvitae nec salutis A like resolution and determination was mado by the chief Dukes Peers Nobles and Officers of France Anno 1614. which you may read in the Appendix Thirdly that the Angrognians and Waldensian Protestants of Lucerne and Piedment in the year 1558. to 1561 being persecuted by the Lord of Trinitie and their Popish Soveraigns assembling solemnly together to consult how to prevent the great dangers then at hand after long prayer and calling upon God for his grace and Spirit of direction and Counsell well to manage their weighty affairs and to preserve themselves and the Protestant Religion professed by them concluded in the end to enter into a solemn mutuall Covenant and to ioyn in a League together for defence of themselves and their Religion whereupon they all promised by Gods grace and assistance to maintain the pure preaching of the Gospell and administration of the Sacraments and one to ayd and assist the other c. which they did with good successe obtaining many glorious victories against invading persecuting enemies The like did Zisca the Thahorites and Bohemians heretofore and of later times as the Maginall Authors largely relate resolving it iust and lawfull for them in Law and Conscience to defend themselves and their Religion by force of Arms against their persecuting Soveraignes Fourthly that the Netherland Provinces being oppressed in their Bodies Estates by the Duke of Alua and Spanyards Tyrannie and in their Religion and Consciences by the introduced Irquisition to extirpate Religion did after serious deliberation and consultation with learned men of all sorts unanimously conclude and enter into a solemn Covenant to defend their Libities Religion Laws by force of Arms against the Spanish Tyrannie as you may read at large in their Histories And in the year 1572. The Prince of Orange and his Confederates having levyed a goodly Army to relieve Mons besieged by the Duke of Alua caused this notable Protestation to be printed and published to the World as well in his own name as in his Confederates giving a reason of the Arms which he had taken up as followeth Wee William by the Grace of God Prince of Orange Earle of Nassau c. To all Noble-men Knights Gentlemen and others of what quality soever of these Netherlands which desire the Liberty thereof being miserably tyrannized and oppressed by the Duke of Alva the Spaniards and other their friends TRAYTORS AND MVRTHERERS OF THEIR OWN COVNTREY We declare that everyone of us for a particular love and zeale he beares unto his Countrey and for the glory of God which we desire above all have often sought by all meanes the good and quiet of the Countrey as well by Petitions and other mild meanes as by force of Armes thinking to draw those that were as we are to doe the like sometimes by sighes and prayers unto God having had patience untill that it should please him to mollifie the hearts of the said Tyrants but in the end solicited and called generally and particularly by the inhabitants of the said Countrey by reason of the inhumanities and oppressions We have in the Name of God ACCORDING TO OVR CONSCIENCES TAKEN ARMES protesting before God and his Angels and before all Men present and to come that we have not been moved hereunto by any private passion but with an ardent desire which we have to oppose our selves against this more then barbarous and unsupportable tyranny to the Proclamations Edicts taxes Imposts and charges of the hundreth thirtieth twentieth and tenth penny imposed by the insatiable covetousnesse of the Duke of Alva against the Lawes Liberties Freedomes and ancient Priviledges of the said countrey which Lawes Liberties freedomes and ancient priviledges we mean by the grace of God to restore unto the said countrey holding it under the obedience of their Prince and naturall Lord as we are bound to do affirming and maintaining that all Princes and Noblemen Gentlemen Commonweales or others of what quality soever be they strangers or home-bred that have been moved to give us aide or assistance IN THIS SO IVST AN ENTERPRISE have not don it for any other intent but for true piety and compassion which they have with us of the said miseries and calamities Wherefore we pray and entreat every one both in generall and particular to assure themselves that we intend not to doe wrong to any man nor to attempt upon the good estates or honour of any of what quality soever were he of the Clergy but are ready to aid and assist every one freely and willingly as for his liberty EVERY ONE IS BOVND TO SVCCOR VS BY ALL DVE AND POSSIBLE MEANES In the mean time we will give order that God and the countrey may be served in procuring the preservation of the people and the defence of their houses wives and children Praying to God that he
would favour and bring to a good end SO HOLY AND NECESSARY AN ENTERPRIZE This their defensive Warre yet continuing hath been justified by many and in speciall maintained to be just and honorable BOTH IN LAW AND CONSCIENCE in a particular Book De jure Belli Belgici printed at the Hague with the States approbation 1599. to which I shall referre you Fifthly which comes neerest to our present case of any story I have met with Alphonso the 3. king of Arragon in the year 1286. through the ill advise of some bad Counsellors and Courtiers about him departed in discontent from the Parliament of the Estates of Arragon then assembled at Saragossa and posted to Osca because the Parliaments took upon them to make Lawes to reforme and order his Court his Courtiers which he denyed but they affirmed they had just right and power to doe Hereupon the businesse being put unto greater difficulty the Estates affirmed A Comitiis intempestive discedere Regi NEFAS ESSE That IT WAS A WICKED ACT FOR THE KING THVS VNSEASONABLY TO DEPART FROM THE PARLIAMENT NEITHER WAS SO GREAT A BREACH OF THEIR PRIVILEDGES AND RIGHTS TO BE PATIENTLY ENDVRED Whereupon they presently raised up the Name and FORCES OF THE VNION or Association formerly made and entred into between the Nobility Cities and people mutually to aid and assist one another to preserve the Peace and Liberties of the Realm even with force of Armes IT BEING LAWFVLL for the common cause of Liberty Non Verbis solum SED ARMIS QVOQVE CONTENDERE not onely TO CONTEND with words BVT ALSO WITH ARMES Vpon this king Alphonso desirous to prevent the mischiefs them present and incumbent by advise of his Privy Counsell published certaine good Edicts at Osca for regulating his Court Counsell Iudges Officers by which he thought to have ended all this Controversie but because they were promulged onely by the Kings own Edict not by the whole Parliament as binding Lawes they still proceeded in the Vnion till at last after various events of things this King returning to the Generall Assembly and Parliament of the Estates at Saragossa in the year 1287 condessended to their desires and confirmed the two memorable priviledges of the Vnion with the Soveraign power of the Iustice of Aragon which could controll their very Kings Of which see more in the Appendix I shall close up this of the lawfulnesse of a necessary defensive warre with the speech of the Emperour Alexander Seuerus recorded by Herodian l. 5. He who first infers injuries hath no probable colour but he that repulseth those who are troublesome to him EX BONA CONSCENTIA sumit fiduciam assumes confidence FROM A GOOD CONSCIENCE and good hope of successe is present with him from hence that he offers not injury but removes it Thus have I now at last waded thorow this weighty controversie of the lawfulnesse both in point of Law and Conscience of the Parliaments present and all other subjects necessary Defensive Warres against their Soveraigns who invade their lawes liberties Religion Government to subvert them by open force of Armes in which I have freely and impartially discharged my conscience not out of any turbulent seditious or disloyall intention to forment or perpetuate the present or raise any future destructive unnaturall warres between king Parliament and People or to countenance to encourage any tumultuous rebellious factious ambitious traiterous spirits to mutiny or rebell against their Soveraigns for private injuries or upon any false unwarrantable ends or pretences whatsoever let Gods curse and mens for ever rest upon all those who are in love with any warre especially a Civill within their own dearest Countries bowels or dare abuse my loyall sincere Lucubrations to any disloyall sinister designes to the prejudice of their Soveraignes or the States wherein they live but only out of a cordiall desire to effect such a speedy honourable safe religious semplternall peace between king and Parliament as all true Christian English hearts both cordially pray long for and endeavour by informing his seduced Majesty his evill Counsellors his Popish Malignant Forces that if they will still proceed unnaturally and treacherously to make war against their Native Countrey Religion Lawes Liberties and the Parliament which to doe I have elsewhere manifested to be no lesse then high Treason Rebellion against both King and Kingdome they may in point of conscience and Law too be justly opposed resisted repulsed even by force of Armes without any guilt of Treason Rebellion or feare of temporall or eternall condemnation as publike Enemies Rebels Traytors to the Realm whatevever they have hitherto been informed of to the contrary by temporizing Lawyers or flattering illiterate Court Divines and by assuring all such noble generous publike spirits who shall willingly adventure their lives or fortunes by the Parliaments command in the present necessary defensive warre for the ends premised that for this good service they shall neither in the Courts of Law nor Conscience incurre the least stain or guilt of Treason Rebellion sedition or any such like odious crime much lesse eternall condemnation the panick feare whereof frequently denounced against them by many sottish Malignants Royalists ill-instructed Lawyers and Theologasters hath frighted kept back and withdrawn multitudes from yea cooled corrupted many in this honourable publike duty service which they now owe of Right to God and their Countrey in which to be treacherous perfidious sloathfull negligent cold uncordiall or timerous as too many hitherto have been to the greater honour of those who haue been faithfull actiue Valiant and sincere especially now after so many late horrid treacheries most happily discouered and a new Couenant solemnly entred into demerits a perpetuall brand of infamy and reproach To dye fighting for ones dearest bleeding dying Countrey hath in all ages been honoured with a Crown of Martyrdome to liue or dye fighting against it hath ever deserved the most capitall censures ignominies and heaviest execrations Let both sides therefore now seriously ponder and lay all the premises close to their soules consciences and then I doubt not through Gods blessing but a happy peace will speedily thereon ensue Nation shall not lift up sword against Nation Countrey against Countrey Englishman against Englishman Brother against brother any more as now they doe neither shall they learn such an unnaturaall cursed kind of Civill Warre any more but beat their swords into Plow-shares and their speares into pruning hooks and greet one another with a kisse of holy peace and charity Which desired end and issue of these present bloudy warres God in his mercy hasten and accomplish to the joy of all our Soules I should now according to former engagements proceed to other remaining particulars but because this part hath already farre exceeded its intended bounds out of a desire to give full satisfaction in a point of highest present and future concernment every way I shall reserve the residue with the Appendix for another