Selected quad for the lemma: state_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
state_n	duke_n	king_n	savoy_n	1,314	5	11.4006	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

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

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 si●e lege Senatus edictus esset habereturque Vtique Coss Magistratus potestatem imperium curationemve cuivis rei petenti Senatui populoque Romano commendaverit quibusve suff●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

the honour of God the Salvation of the King for if the Kingdome perish or miscarry the king as king must needs perish with it the maintenance of his Crowne supported onely by the maintenance of the kingdomes welfare and the Salvation and common profit of all the Realm and this being one of the first solemne judgements if not the very first given in Parliament after the making of the statute of 25 E. 3. which hath relation to its clause of levying war must certainely be the best exposition of that Law which the Parliament onely ought to interpret as is evident by the statute of 21. R. 2. c. 3. It is ordained and stablished that every man which c. or he that raiseth the people and riseth against the King to make warre within his Realme and of that be duly attainted and judged in the Parliament shall be judged as a Traytor of High Treason against the Crowne and other forecited Acts and if this were no Treason nor Rebellion nor Trespasse in the Barons against the king or kingdome but a warre for the honour of God the salvation of the king the maintenance of his Crowne the safety and common profit of all the Realme much more must our Parliaments present defensive warre against his Majesties ill Councellors Papists Malignants Delinquents and men of desperate fortunes risen up in Armes against the Parliament Lawes Religion Liberties the whole Kingdomes peace and welfare be so too being backed with the very same and farre better greater authority and more publike reasons then their warre was in which the safety of Religion was no great ingredient nor the preservation of a Parliament from a forced dissolution though established and perpetuated by a publike Law King Henry the 4 th taking up Armes against King Richard and causing him to be Articled against and judicially deposed in and by Parliament for his Male-administration It was Enacted by the Statute of 1. Hen 4. cap. 2. That no Lord Spirituall nor Temporall nor other of what estate or condition that he be which came with King Henry into the Realme of England nor none other persons whatsoever they be then dwelling within the same Realme and which came to this King in aide of him to pursue them which were against the Kings good intent and the COMMON PROFIT OF THE REALME in which pursuit Richard late King of England the second after the Conquest was pursued taken and put in Ward and yet remaineth in Ward be impeached grieved nor vexed in person nor in goods in the Kings Court nor in none other Court for the pursuites of the said King taking and with-holding of his body nor for the pursuits of any other taking of persons and cattells or of the death of a man or any other thing done in the said pursuite from the day of the said King that now is arived till the day of the Coronation of Our said Soveraigne Lord Henry And the intent of the King is not that offendors which committed Trespasses or other offences out of the said pursuits without speciall warrant should be ayded nor have any advantage of this Statute but that they be thereof answerable at the Law If those then who in this offensive Warre assisted Henry the 4 th to apprehend and depose this persidious oppressing tyrannicall king seduced by evill Counsellors and his owne innate dis-affection to his naturall people deserved such an immunity of persons and goods from all kinds of penalties because though it tended to this ill kings deposition yet in their intentions it was really for the common profit of the Realme as this Act defines it No doubt this present defensive Warre alone against Papists Delinquents and evill Counsellors who have miserably wasted spoiled sacked many places of the Realme and fired others in a most barbarous maner contrary to the Law of Armes and Nations and labour to subvert Religion Laws Liberties Parliaments and make the Realm a common Prey without any ill intention against his Majesties Person or lawfull Royall Authority deserves a greater immunity and can in no reasonable mans judgement be interpreted any Treason or Rebellion against the king or his Crowne in Law or Conscience In the 33. yeare of king Henry the 6 th a weake Prince wholly guided by the Queene and Duke of Somerset who ruled all things at their wills under whose Government the greatest part of France was lost all things went to ruine both abroad and at home and the Queene much against the Lords and Peoples mindes preferring the Duke of Sommerset to the Captain ship of Calice the Commons and Nobility were greatly offended thereat saying That he had lost Normandy and so would he do● Calice Hereupon the Duke of Yorke the Earles of Warwicke and Salisbury with other their adherents raised an Army in the Marches of Wales and Marched with it towards London to suppresse the Duke of Sommerset with his Faction and reforme the Governement The king being credibly informed hereof assembled his Host and marching towards the Duke of Yorke and his Forces was encountred by them at Saint Albanes notwithstanding the kings Proclamation to keepe the Peace where in a set Battell the Duke of Somerset with divers Earles and 800. others were slaine on the kings part by the Duke of Yorke and his companions and the king●● a manner defeate The Duke after this Victory obtained remembring that he had oftentimes declared and published abroad The onely cause of this War to be THE ADVANCEMENT OF THE PUBLIKE WEALE and TO SET THE REALME IN A MORE COMMODIOVS STATE and BETTER CONDITION Vsing all lenity mercy and bounteousnesse would not once touch or apprehend the body of King Henry whom he might have slaine and utterly destroyed considering that hee had him in his Ward and Governance but with great honour and due reverence conveyed him to London and so to Westminster where a Parliament being summoned and assembled soone after It was therein Enacted That no person should either judge or report any point of untruth of the Duke of Yorke the Earles of Salisbury and Warwicke For comming in Warlike manner against the King at Saint Albanes Considering that their attempt and enterprise Was onely to see the Kings Person in Safeguard and Sure-keeping and to put and Alien from Him the publike Oppressors of the Common wealth by whose misgovernance his life might be in hazard and his Authority hang on a very small Thred After this the Duke and these Earles raised another Army for like purpose and their owne defence in the 37 and 38 yeares of H. 6. for which they were afterwards by a packed Parliament at Coventree by their Enemies procurement Attainted of high Treason and their Lands and Goods confiscated But in the Parliament of 39. H. 6. cap. 1. The said attainder Parliament with all Acts and Statutes therein made were wholly Reversed Repealed annulled as being made ●y the excitation and procurement of seditious ill disposed Persons for the

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 Fern● 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

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

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