Selected quad for the lemma: england_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
england_n	hold_v	king_n	scotland_n	4,230	5	8.8042	4	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

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

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 A●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 Cha●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 Edmond●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 w●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

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 th●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 s●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 a●n●cessary defensive Warre is not properly a Warre but a meere Defence against an unlawfull Violence And ther●fore m●st of necessitie be acknowledge lawfull because directly opposite to and the onely remedy which G●d and Nature have giuen men against T●rannicall and unjust invasions which are both s●●n●full and unlawfull And so can be no Treason no Rebellion no crime at all thou●● our Princes or Parents be the unjust assail●nts Of which see more in Hugo Gro●ius de Iure Belli l. 2. c. 1. I shall close up the Civillians and C●no●●●s Opinions touching the lawfulnesse of a Defensive Warre with the words o● A●beric●●●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. ca● 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

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 Pop●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-weal● 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

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