Selected quad for the lemma: state_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
state_n	emperor_n	last_v	year_n	2,763	5	9.6053	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

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

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

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 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

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

without any resistance when they might have lawfully and easily preserved them by resisting Will it therefore follow that all others must do so that we must not sight against invading Enemies Theeves Pirats Riotors because many good Christians out of fear or cowardise or for other reasons have not done it in all ages I ●ow not Will the Jews refusi●g three or four severall times to defend themselves against their insulting enemies on their Sabbath or the Gothes not resisting their invading foes on the Lords Day or will the Alexandrian Jewes example and speech to Flaccus Inermes sumus ut vides tamen sunt qui nos tanquam hostes publicos hic criminantur Etiam eas quas ad nostri tutelam partes dedit natura re●rò vertimus ubi nihil habent quod agant corpora praebemus nuda patentia ad impetum eorum qui nos volunt occidere Or that example of the Christian Theban Legion slain without the least resistance for their Religion who as an ancient Martyriologer saith Caed●bantur passim gladiis non reclamantes sed depositis armis cervices persecutoribus vel intectum corpus offerentes warrant this deduction Ergo no Christians now must resist their invading enemies on the Sabbath day but must offer their naked bodies heads throats unto their swords and violence If not then these examples and authorities will no wayes prejudice our present resistance Fourthly the Christians not onely refused to resist their oppressing Emperours and Magistrates who proceeded judicially by a kinde of Law against them but even the vulgar people who assaulted stoned slew them in the streets against Law as Tertullians words Quoties enim praeteritis à vobis SUO JURE NOS INIMICUM VULGUS invadit lapidibus incendiis c. manifest without all contradiction and indeed this passage so much insisted on relates principally if not onely to such assaults of the rude notorious vulgar which every man will grant the Christians might lawfully with good conscience forcibly resist because they were no Magistrates nor lawfull higher powers within Rom. 13. 1. 2. or 1 Pet. 2 13 14. Either then our Antagonist must grant that it is unlawfull in point of Conscience forcibly to resist the unlawfull assaults and violence of the vulgar or private persons who are no Magistrates and that it is unlawfull now for any Christians to resist Theeves Pirats or beare defensive Armes as the Anabaptists from whose quiver our Antagonists have borrowed this and all other shafts against the present defensive warre and so make the primitive Christians all Anabaptists in this particular Or else inevitably grant resistance lawfull notwithanding their examples and these passages of not resisting The rather because Tertullian in the next preceding words puts no difference at all between the Emperour and meanest Subjects in this case Idem sumus saith he Imperatoribus qui vicinis nostris malè enim velle malè facere malè dicere malè cogitare de quoquam ex aequo vetamur Quodcunqne non licet in Imperatorem id n●c in quenquam Fifthly admit the Christians then deemed all forcible resistance of persecuters simply unlawfull in point of Conscience as being a thing quite contrary to Christian profession and Religion then as it necessarily proves on the one side That even Christian Kings Princes Magistrates must in no wise forcibly resist the tumultuous Rebellions Insurrections and persecutions of their Subjects because they are Christians as well as Rulers and in this regard equally obliged with them not to resist with Armes much lesse then their Parliaments Forces lawfully raised for the publike defence So on the contrary part it follows not that therefore resistance is either unlawfull in it selfe or that the Parliaments present resistance is so For first such resistance being no where prohibited as I have formerly proved their bare opinion that it was unlawfull to them cannot make it so to them or us in point of conscience since God hath not made or declared it so Secondly the primitive Christians held many things unlawfull in point of Conscience which we now hold not so Tertullian and others informe us That the Christians in his time thought it a hainous sinne Nefas to pray kneeling on the Lords day or between Easter and Whitsontide and so by consequence to kneele at the Sacrament praying alwayes standing on those dayes in memory of Christs resurrection Which custome was ratified also by many Councels Yet then it was lawfull no doubt in it selfe for them to pray kneeling and we all use the contrary custome now The Christians then held it unlawfull to eat blood in puddings or any other meats as Tertullian Minucius Felix testifie and many Councels expressely prohibited it since as unlawfull Yet all Churches at this day deem it lawfull and practise the contrary The Christians in Tertullians dayes and he himselfe in a speciall Book De fuga in persecutione held it unlawfull to flee in times of persecution and therefore they voluntarily offered themselves to martyrdome without flight or resistance Yet we all now hold flying lawfull and all sorts practise it as lawfull yea many more then they ought to doe I might give sundry other instances of like nature The Christians opinion therefore of the unlawfulnesse of any armed resistance of Persecuters publike or private held they any such though seconded with their practice is no good argument of its unlawfulnesse without better evidence either then or at this present Thirdly the case of the Primitive Christians and ours now is far different The Emperours Magistrates and whole States under which they then lived were all Pagan Idolaters their Religion quite contrary to the Laws and false Religions setled in those States There were many Laws and Edicts then in force against Christian Religion unrepealed most Professors of Religion were of the lowest ranke not many wise Noble mighty men scarce any great Officer Magistrate or Senator was of that profession but all fierce enemies against it For Christians being but private men and no apparant body of a State to make any publike forcible resistance in defence of Religion against Emperours Senators Magistrates Lawes and the whole State wherein they lived had neither been prevalent nor expedient a great hinderance and prejudice to Religion and as some hold unlawfull But our present case is far otherwise our King Parliament State Magistrates People are all Christians in externall profession our Protestant Religion established Popery excluded banished by sundry publike Lawes the Houses of Parliament and others now resisting are the whole body of the Realme in representation and have authority even by Law to defend themselves and Religion against invading Popish Forces In which regards our present resistance is and may cleerly bee affirmed lawfull though the primitive Christians in respect of the former circumstances might not be so Secondly their resistance especially of the Magistrates not vulgar

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

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