Selected quad for the lemma: kingdom_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
kingdom_n	church_n	word_n	world_n	3,040	5	4.5870	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

high ruleth in the kingdome of men and giveth it to whomsoever he will and setteth up over it the basest of men with Hos 13. 11. 1 Sam. 10. 1. Jer. 27. 5 6 7. Isay 45. 1 2. and other Texts To answer this question distinctly and dissipate these grosse erroneous Paradoxes we must distinguish First betweene Government it selfe in generall and kingly or other kindes of government in speciall as our opposites distinguish betweene a Sabbath and the Sabbath the first they say is morall and of divine institution the later not Secondly betweene the Regall power of Kings the persons invested with this power the manner of obtaining and the administration of their power Thirdly of Gods manner of instituting and ordaining things which is twofold immediately by himselfe mediately by others And these institutions of both kinds are either universall extending to all places Nations or particular concerning some Countries and Nations onely and not others Perpetuall for ever or temporall onely for some set time Immutable not capable of the least alteration or mutable and that either at the pleasure of God onely or at the will of men when they shall see just cause either in part or in whole Fourthly in what severall senses things may be said to be of God First in respect of his owne immediate institution Secondly of his generall or speciall commands Thirdly of his generall or speciall disposing providence without any speciall institution or command Fourthly of his approbation of assent unto and blessing on the meere institutions of men Fiftly of his permission onely To apply these distinctions to the present occasion First it is cleare that power and government in generall are Gods owne institution who as he hath appointed in the great fabricke of the world a certaine constant forme of government and subordination of one creature to another so he hath for the good of mankinde appointed that there should be some forme of government or other among men in the world which in respect of families hee hath specially and universally decreed as that the wife should be subject to the husband the children to the parents the servants to their masters but in regard of Commonweales or Nations hee hath left it arbitrary and indefinite leaving every Nation and Country free liberty to elect such a publike politike forme of government as themselves should judge most expedient for their publike good and that mutable since all humane things are so as they should see just occasion not prescribing any sempiternall immutable forme of government to any particular Nations Regions much lesse to all the world Secondly government in generall being thus of God but the kindes of it thus left arbitrary to mens institution and free election the particular governments instituted by any Nation for the better regulating of their lives the preservation of humane society and advancement of Gods glory may be truely said in some sense to be of God though instituted invented by men Not because God himselfe did immediately ordain or prescribe them by speciall command to all or any one people or because God himself did immediately ordaine or prescribe them by speciall command to this all or any one people but because hee by his generall or speciall providence did direct this Nation to make choyse of such a government or gave them wisedome to invent and settle it as most commodious for their republike till they should see cause to alter it or because he blessed and approved it when invented and received by them Thirdly Kingly powers Kingdomes Kings the things now in question are and may be said to be of God and ordained of God in no other manner or sense then all other particular Governments or Magistrates are For this Text of the Romans speaking onely of the higher powers the powers that are and of Rulers as doth that place of Titus 3. 1. And the Text of Prov. 8. 15 16. so much relied on by the objectors extending as well to all subordinate Rulers as Kings witnesse the subsequent words By me Kings reigne and Princes decree justice by me Princes rule AND NOBLES yea ALL THE JUDGES OF THE EARTH that is all Magistrates whatsoever it cannot but be yeelded that all and every lawfull kinde of government all lawfull Rulers and Magistrates of what fort soever are of Gods ordination and his ordinance as farre forth as Monarchies are and what is truely affirmable of the one is of the other too These generalls thus premised as indubitable I say first of all That Monarchy or regall power is not of God nor yet Gods ordinance by way of immediate divine institution or speciall command from Gods owne free motion as our opposites affirme it For first God himself never immediately instituted a royall Monarchicall government in any Nation whatsoever no not among his owne people whose government was at first Paternall and Patriarchicall next Aristocraticall then Regall not by Gods immediate institution and voluntary designation but by the peoples earnest importunity contrary to the good liking of God and Samuel as is evident by 1 Sam. c. 8 and 9 and 10 and 11. Hos 8. 4. and the Appendix Secondly All Politicians and Historians grant that the originall crection of all Monarechies was either by the peoples free consent and ordination or by Tyranny and usurpation or be conqest none by divine institution or speciall command from God And it must needs be so because most kingdomes were primitively erected either among Pagan Nations and States who knew not God nor his Word or among Christian States since speciall commands and Revelations from heaven ceased which if our opposites deny I shall desire them to instance in any one Monarchy in the world instituted immediately by God himselfe or by speciall command from his owne free motion Till this be done all their asseverations will be accounted fabulous Thirdly if Regall power be Gods ordinance by way of divine immediate institution and command then this institution of Regall Monarchy with the severall Prerogatives and boundaries of it would appeare in some Text of Scripture and this government would be specially and perpetually prescribed either to all or some particular Nations by God himselfe But this institution with the generall Prerogatives and bounds of Regall Authority are no where extant in Scripture neither this forme of government therein prescribed but left arbitrary to all or any Nation in particular for ought any man can demonstrate Those Texts which concerne the Kings of the Israelites in point of soveraignty and Prerogative being judiciall onely and peculiar to that Nation nor morall or extending unto others Therefore it is not Gods ordinance by way of divine immediate institution or command Fourthly if it were of divine ordination in this sense then the Regall power and authority of all Kings and Monarchs in the world should bee equall yea the very same and there should be no different kinde of Kings as the divine authority of

vos mala facere valeatis Dico vobis non erit diu inultum si haec ita facere pergitis c. Here this holy man prohibited by his orders to fight against this King his Soveraigne with his Sword fights strongly against and resists his violence with his Penne. And although he may not use a Sword and Buckler in respect of his calling to defend his mother the Church against him yet he is so farre from yeelding obedience to and not resisting him according to Pauls and Peters pretended injunctions that he expresly tels him to his face That HE WOULD STAND AND FIGHT AGAINST HIM EVEN UNTO DEATH if there were need with such weapons as he being a Monk and Minister might use to wit with Prayers and teares though not with Sword and Buckler which were more prevalent with God against him then any other Armes So that he resists him in the very highest straine that may be and clearely admits that Lay-men who might lawfully use Swords and Bucklers might with them justly defend the Church in standing and fighting for it against him even to death as well as he might doe it with prayers and teares his proper Armes Which answers that objection out of his 170. Epistle written to the same King and his 183 Epistle to Conrade King of Romans where he subjects these Kings to the Pope whom he adviseth them to obey and reprehends them for their misdemeanours notwithstanding that text of Rom. 13 which he there recites The fourth authority is the example of the primitive Christians who submitted themselves willingly to their persecuting Emperours without resistance in word or deed For proofe whereof severall passages are recited out of Fathers which I shal conjoyne the first is out of Tertullian his Apologeticus Quoties enim in Christianos d●saevitis partim animis propriis partim legibus obsequentes Quoties etiam praeteritis à vobis SUO JURE NOS INIMICUM VULGUS invadit lapidibus incendiis Ipsis Bacchanalium furiis nec mortuis parcunt Christianis quin illos de requie sepulturae de asylo quodam mortis jam alios jam nec totos avellant dissecent distrahant quid tamen de tam conspiratis unquam denotatis de tam animatis ad mortem usque pro injuria repensatis quamvis vel una nox pauculis faculis largitatem ultionis posset operari si malum malo dispurgi penes nos liceret Sed absit ut aut igni humano vindicetur divina secta aut doleat pati in quo probatu● Si e●im in hostes exortos non tantum vindices occultos agere vellemus de●sset nobis vis numerorum copiarum Plures nimirum Mauri Marcomanni ipsique Parthi vel quantaecunque unius tamen loci suorum finium gentes quàm totiùs orbis Externi sumus vestra omnia implevimus urbes insulas castella municipia conciliabula castra ipsa tribus decurias palatium senatum forum sola vobis relinquimus templa Cui Bello non idonei non prompti fuissemus etiam impares copiis QUI TAM LIBENTER TRUCIDAMUR Si non apud istam disciplinam MAGIS OCCIDI LICERET QUAM OCCIDERE Potuimus inermes NEC REBELLES sed tantummodo discordes solius divortii invidia adversus vos dimicasse Si enim tanta vis hominum in aliquem orbis remoti sinum abrupissemus semus â vobis suffudisset utique damnationem vestram tot qualiumcunque amissio civium imò etiam ipsa institutione punisset proculdubio expavissetis ad solitudinem vestram ad silentium rerum stuporem quendam quasi mortui urbes quaesissetis quibus imperaretis Plures hostes quàm cives vobis remanisissent nunc enim pauciores hostes habetis prae multitudine Christianorum penè omnium civium Which S. Cyprian Tertullians imitator thus seconds Laedere Dei Christi servos persecutionibus tuis desine quos laesos ultio divina defendit Inde est enim quod nemo nostrum quando apprehenditur reluctatur nec se adversus injustam violentiam vestram quamvis nimius copiosus noster sit populus ulciscitur Patientes facit de secutura ultione securitas Innocentes nocentibus cedunt Insontes poenis cruciatibus acquiescunt certi fidentes quod in ultum non remaneat quodcunque perpetimur quantoque major fuerit persecutionis injuria tantò justior fiat gravior pro persecutione vindicta Which Lactantius thus trebles Confidimus enim Majestati ejus qui tam contemptum sui possit vlcisci quam servorum suorum labores injurias Et ideo cum tam nefanda perpetimur ne verbo quidem reluctamur sed Deo remittimuus ulti●n●s Saint Angustine relates the same in these words Neque tunc Civitas Christi quamvis ad huc peregrinaretur in terra haberet tam magnorum agmina populorum adversus impios persecutores pro temporali salute pugnavit sed potius ut obtineret aeternam non repugnavit ligabantur includebantur caedebantur torquebantur urebantur laeniabantur cruciabantur multiplicabantur Non erat iis pro salute pugnare nisi salutem pro salute contemnere The summe of all these Fathers sayings which I have largely cited because I would conceale nothing that might be materially objected is this That the Christians in the primitive Church though they were many in number and sufficiently able to defend themselves against their persecuters by force of Armes did yet refuse to doe it yeelding themselves up to any tortures punishments deaths without the least resistance in word or deed Ergo the Parliament and Kingdome ought now to make no resistance at all against the Kings popish Army and Cavaliers but to expose themselves to their cruelties and rapines without the least resistance in word or deed Because this objection stickes most with many Schollars Statists and tender consciences I shall endeavour to give a satisfactory answer to it without any shifting evasions or questioning the truth of Tertullians and Cyprians assertions concerning the multitude and strength of the Christians and their ability to resist which some have taken great paines to refute First then I say that neither of all these Fathers say That the primitive Christians held it unlawfull muchlesse damnable in point of conscience for them to resist their persecuting enemies no such syllable in any of them And Tertullians Si non apud istam disciplinam MAGIS OCCIDI LICET QUAM OCCIDERE by way of necessary defence implies no such thing but rather proves the contrary that resistance is lawfull because it is lawfull to be slaine as a martyr therefore in this case to slay So as there is nothing in these authorities in point of conscience to condemne the Parliaments present resistance and defensive warre as unlawful Secondly they all seeme to grant that the Christians deemed resistance even by force of Armes to be lawfull for them though they used it not no Text of Scripture

no lesse than 23. wounds And Hieronimus Blanca assures us that the Suprarbiense Forum Iustitia Aragoniae or States of Arag●n erected to withstand the tyrannie and encroachments of their kings may by the Laws of their Realme assemble together and RESIST THEIR KING WITH FORCE OF ARMES as oft as there shall bee neede to repulse his or his Officers violence against the Lawes For when they erected this Court they said It would be little worth to have good Lawes enacted and a middle Court of Iustice betweene the King and people appointed if it might not be lawfull to take up Armes for their Defence when it was needfull being agreeable to the very Law of nature and reason Because then it will not be sufficient to fight with Counsell For if this were not so and the State and Subjects in such cases might not lawfully take up armes all things had long ere this been in the power of Kings Therefore no doubt our Parliament and State as well as others may by the very Law of Nature and fundamentall institution of Parliaments now justly take up Defensive armes to preserve their Liberties Lawes Lives Estates Religion from vassallage and ruine Thirdly Our owne Parliaments Prelates Nobles and Commons in all ages especially in times of Popery as well in Parliament as out have by open force of armes resisted suppressed the oppressions rapines vnjust violence and armies of their Princes raised against them Yea incountred their Kings in open Battells taken their persons Prisoners and sometimes expelled nay deposed them from their Royall authority when they became incorrigible open professed enemies to their kingdomes their Subjects seeking the ruine slavery and desolation of those whom by Office Duty Oath and common Iustice they were bound inviolably to protect in Liberty and peace as the premised Histories of Archigallo Emerian Vortigern Segebert Osred Ethelred Bernard Edwin Ceolwulfe King John Henry the 3 d. Edward 1. and 2. Richard the 2 Henry the 6 th our British Saxon English Kings and other examples common in our owne Annalls plentifully manifest Neither are their examples singular but all Kingdomes generally throughout the world in all ages have done the like when their Kings degenerated into Tyrants of which there are infinite precedens in History which actions all ages all Kingdomes have alwaies reputed lawfull both in point of Policy Law Religion as warranted by the very Lawes of Nature Reason State Nations God which instruct not onely particular persons but whole Cities and Kingdomes for their owne necessary defence preservation the supportation of humane Societie and Libertie to protect themselves against all unlawfull violence and Trranny even of their Kings themselves or their Ministers to whom neither the Lawes of God Nature Man nor any civill Nation ever yet gave the least authority to Murther Spoile Oppresse enslave their Subjects or deprive them of their lawfull Liberties or Estates which resistance were it unlawfull or unjust as many ignorant Royallists and Parasites now teach some few oppressing tyrannizing wilfull Princes might without the least resistance ruine murther enslave the whole world of men overthrow all setled formes of civill government extirpate Christian Religion and destroy all humane Society at their pleasures all which had beene effected yea all States and Kingdomes totally subverted long agoe by ambitious Tyrannizing lawlesse Princes had not this Lawfull Naturall Hereditary power of resisting and opposing their illegall violence inherent in their Parliaments States Kingdomes restrained and suppressed their exorbitances of this kinde Now that this necessary Defensive opposition and resistance against open Regall Hostile violence which hath beene ever held lawfull and frequently practised in all Kingdomes all ages heretofore as just and necessary should become sodenly unlawfull to our Parliament and Kingdome onely at this instant seemes very unreasonable unto me Fouthly It is the expresse resolution of Aristotle Xenophon Polibius Pope Elutherius in his Epistle to our first Christian King Lucius King Edward the Confessor in his established Lawes c. 17. the Councell of Paris Anno 829. and Isiodor cited by it Iohn Bodin Iohn Mariana and generally of all forraigne Divines and Polititians Pagan or Christian yea of Bracton Fleta Fortescue and King Iames himselfe that a King governing in a setled Kingdome ceaseth to be a King and degenerates into a Tyrant so soone as hee leaves to rule by his Lawes much more when he begins to invade his Subjects Persons Rights Liberties to set up an Abitrary power impose unlawfull Taxes raise Forces and make Warre upon his Subjects whom he should Protect and rule in peace to pillage plunder waste and spoile his Kingdome imprison murther and destroy his people in an hostile manner to captivate them to his pleasure the very highest degree of Tyranny condemned and detested by God and all good men The whole State and Kingdome therefore in such cases as these for their owne just necessary preservation may lawfully with force of Armes when no other course can secure them not onely passively but actively resist their Prince in such his violent exorbitant tyrannicall proceedings without resisting any kingly lawfull royall Authority Vested in the Kings person for the kingdomes preservation onely not destruction because in and as to these illegall oppressions tyrannicall actions not warranted but prohibited by the Lawes of God and the Realme to whom he is accountable and by whom he is justly censurable for them he is no lawfull King nor Majestrate but an unjust oppressing Tyrant and a meere private man who as to these proceedings hath quite denuded himselfe of his just Regall authority So that all those wholsome Lawes made by the whole State in Parliament for the necessary preservation and defence of their Kings Royall Person and lawfull Soveraigne power the suppression of all Insurrections Treasons Conspiracies and open Warres against them whiles they governe their people justly according to Law as all good Princes are obliged to doe by oath and duty or the open violent resisting of their Lawfull authority and Commands to which all Subjects both in point of Law and Conscience ought cheerfully and readily to Submit will yeeld no publike Countenance Encouragement or Protection at all to Kings in their irregall tyrannicall oppressions or violent courses especially when they turne professed publike enemies to their people proclaime open Warre against them invade their Lawes Liberties Goods Houses Persons and exercise all acts of Hostilitie against them as fatre forth as the most barbarous Forraigne Enemies would doe It being against all common sence and reason to conceive that our Parliaments Lawes which strictly inhibit and punish the very smallest violations of the publike peace with all kinds of Oppressions Robberies Trespasses Batteries Assaults Bloodsheds Fraies Murthers Routs Riots Insurrections Burglaries Rapes Plunderings Force-able Entries Invasions of the Subjects Liberties or Properties in all other persons and greatest publike Officers whatsoever

the King had entred my Land and so I did injurie to the King for which I ought to implore his mercie least others should take example thence to raise up Armes against the King I answer that I was not there in person and if any of my Family were thereby chance they invaded onely the Family of the King not the person of the King which yet if they had done it were no wonder seeing the king came with his Army into my Land that he might invade me and oppresse me by all the meanes he could which may appeare to all by the tenor of his Letters by which hee made a generall assembly throughout England against my Army And since the premises objected against mee are false and it is true that the King hath treated me worse since the time I expected his mercy then any time before and doth yet use the same Counsell as then and since he endeavours precisely to follow their Counsels in all things by whose advise I suffer all the premised grievances I ought not to prostitute my selfe to his mercy Neither would this be for the Kings honour that I should consent unto his will which is not grounded upon reason Yea I should doe an injury to him and to Iustice which he ought to use towards his Subjects and to maintaine And I should give an ill example to all by deserting Iustice and the prosecution of right for an erronious will against all Iustice and the injury of the Subjects For by this it would appeare that we loved our worldly possessions more then Iustice it selfe And whereas the Kings Counsellours object that wee have combined with the Kings capitall enemies namely the French Scots Welsh out of hatred and dammage to king and kingdome That of the French is altogether false and that of the Scots and Welsh too excepting the king of Scots and Leoline Prince of Northwales who were not the kings enemies but faithfull friends untill by injuries offered them by the King and his Counsell they were by coertion against their wills alienated from their fidelitie as I am And for this cause I am confederated with them that we may the better being united then separated regaine and defend our rights of which we are unjustly deprived and in a great part spoiled Whereas the Kings Counsell propose that I ought not to confide in my Confederates because the King without any great hurt to his Land can easily separate them from my friendship Of this I make no great doubt but by this the iniquity of his Counsellors doth most of all appeare that in some sort they would cause the King to sustaine losse by those whom he specially calls capitall enemies to injure mee who have alwaies beene his faithfull Subject whiles I remained with him and yet would be so if he would restore to me and my friends our right Whereas the said Counsellors say that the Pope and Church of Rome doe specially love the King and kingdome and will Excommunicate all his adversaries which thing is even at the dores because they have already sent for a Legate It pleaseth mee well said the Marshall because the more they love the King and Kingdome by so much the more will they desire that the King should treat his Realme and Subjects according to justice And I am well pleased they should excommunicate the adversaries of the Kingdome because they are those who give Counsell against Iustice whom workes will manifest because Iustice and Peace have kissed each other and because of this where Iustice is corrupted Peace is likewise violated Also I am pleased that a Legate is comming because the more discreet men shall heare our justice by so much the more vilely shall the adversaries of Iustice be confounded In which notable discourse we see the lawfullnesse of a necessary defensive Warre yeelded and justified both by the King his Counsell and the Earle Marshall as well against the King himselfe if he invade his Subjects first as any of his Forces who assist him After which the Marshall slew many of his Enemies by an Ambuscado while they thought to surprise him and wasted and spoiled their goods houses lands observing this generall laudable rule which they made to doe no hurt nor ill to any one but to the Kings evill Counsellors by whom they were banished whose goods houses woods Orchards they spoiled burnt and rooted up The King remaining at Glocester heard of these proceedings of the Marshall but his forces being too weake he durst not encounter him but retired to Winchester with Bishop Peter confounded with over much shame leaving that Country to be wasted by his adversaries where innumerable carcases of those there slaine lay naked and unburied in the wayes being food to the beasts and birds of prey a sad spectacle to passengers which so corrupted the ayre that it infected and killed many who were healthy Yet the Kings heart was so hardned by the wicked councell he followed against the Marshall that the Bishops admonishing him to make peace with him WHO FOVGHT FOR IVSTISE he answered that he would never make peace with him unlesse comming with an halter about his necke and acknowledging himselfe to be a Traytor he would implore his mercy The Marshall both in England and Ireland professed that he was no Traytor that his warre being but defensive was just immutabiliter affirmant quod li●uit sibi de jure quod suum crat repetere posse Regis Consiliorum suorum modis omnibus quibus poterat infirmare William Rishanger in his continuation of Matthew Paris speaking of the death of Simon Monfort Earle of Leycester slaine in the Battle of Ev●sham the greatest Pillar of the Barrons warres useth this expression Thus this magnificent Earle Symon ended his labors who not onely bestowed his estate but his person also for releiefe of the oppression of the poore for the asserting of Iustice and the right of the Realme he was commendably skilfull in learning a dayly frequenter of divine Offices constant in word severe in countenance most confiding in the prayers of Religious persons alwayes very respectfull to Ecclesiasticall persons He earnestly adheared to Robert Grosthead Bishop of Lincolne and committed his children to his education By his advise he handled difficult things attempted doubtfull things concluded things begun specially such things whereby he thought he might gaine desert Which Bishop was said to have enjoyned him as he would obtaine remission of his sinnes that he should undertake this cause for which he contended even unto death affirming that the peace of the Church of England could never be established but by them materiall sword and constantly averring THAT ALL WHO DIED FOR IT WERE CROWNED WITH MARTYRDOME Some say that this Bishop on a time laying his hand on the head of the Earles eldest sonne said unto him O most deare sonne thou and thy father shall both dye on one day and with one hand of death YET FOR JUSTICE AND TRVTH Fame

reports that Symon after his death grew famous by many miracles which for feare of the King came not in publicke Thus this Historian thus Robert Grosthead the most devout and learned Bishop of that age who most of any opposed the Popes Vsurpations and exactions determine of the justice and lawfulnesse of the Barons Warres Walter Bishop of Worcester concurring in the same opinion with Grosthead The same author Rishanger records that the Earle of Glocester a great stickler in these warres against the king with whom at last he accorded signified to the King by his Letters Patents under his seale that he would never beare Armes against the King his Lord nor against his Sonne Prince Edward NISI DEFENDO but onely in his Defence which the King and Prince accepting of clearely proves that defensive Armes against King or Prince were in that age generally reputed Lawfull by King Prince Prelates Nobles People I may likewise adde to this what I read in Matthew Westminster that Richard Bishop of Chichester the day before the battle of Lewis against King Henry and his sonne who were taken prisoners in it by the Barons and 20000. of their Souldiers slaine absolved all that went to fight against the King their Lord from all their sinnes Such confidence had he of the goodnesse of the cause and justnesse of the warre In one word the oath of association prescribed by the Barons to the King of Romans brother to King Henry the third in the 43. yeare of his Raigne Heare all men that I Richard Earle of Cornewall doe here sweare upon the holy Evangelists that I shall be faithfull and diligent to reforme with you the Kingdome of England hitherto by the councell of wicked persons overmuch disordered and be an effectuall Co●djutor TO EXPELL THE REBELLS and disturbers of the same And this Oath I will inviolaby observe under pa●ne of losing all the lands I have in England So helpe me God Which Oath all the Barrons and their associates tooke by vertue whereof they tooke up armes against the Kings ill Councellors and himselfe when he joined with them sufficiently demonstrates their publicke opinions and judgements of the lawfulnesse the justnesse of their warres and of all other necessarie defensive armes taken up by the Kingdomes generall assent for preservation of its Lawes Liberties and suppression of those Rebels and ill Councellors who fight against or labour to subvert them by their policies In the third yeare of King Edward the 2 d this king revoking his great Mynion Piers Gaveston newly banished by the Parliament into Ireland and admitting him into as great favour as before contrary to his oath and promise the Barrons hereupon by common consent sent the King word that he should banish Piers from his company according to his agreement or else they would certain●ly rise up against him as a perjured person Vpon which the King much terrified suffers Piers to abjure the Realme who returning againe soone after to the Court at Yorke where the king entertained him the Lords spirituall and temporall to preserve he liberties of the Church and Realme sent an honourable message to the King to deliver Piers into their hands or banish him for the preservation of the peace Treasure and weale of the Kingdome this wilfull King denies their just request whereupon the Lords thus contemned and deluded raised an army and march with all speede towards New-Castle NOT TO OFFER INIVRIE OR MOLESTATION TO THE KING but to apprehend Peirs and judge him according to Law upon this the King fleeth together with Peirs to Tinemouth and from thence to Scarborough Castle where Piers is forced to render himselfe to the Barrons who at Warwicke Castle without any legall triall by meere martiall Law beheaded him as a subvertor of the Lawes and an OPEN TRAITOR TO THE KINGDOME For which facts this King afterwards reprehending and accusing the Lords in Parliament in the 7 th yeare of his Raigne they stoutly answered THAT THEY HAD NOT OFFENDED IN ANY ONE POINT BVT DESERVED HIS ROYAL FAVOVR for they HAD NOT GATHERED FORCE AGAINST HIM though he were in Piers his company assisted countenanced and fled with him BVT AGAINST THE PVBLICKE ENEMIE OF THE REALME Whereupon there were two acts of oblivion passed by the King Lords and Commons assembled in that Parliament Printed in the 2 d Part of old Magna Charta The first that no person on the Kings part should be questioned molested impeached imprisoned and brought to judgement for causing Pierce to returne from Exile or harboring councelling or ayding hi●●ere after his returne The second on the Barons part in these words It is provided by the King and by the Archbishops Bishops Abbots Priors Earles Bar●s and Commons of the Realme assembled according to our Command and unanimously assented and accorded that none of what estate or condition soever he be shall in time to come be appealed or challenged for the apprehending deteining or death of Peirsde Gaveston nor shall for the said death be apprehended nor imprisoned impeached molested nor grieved nor judgement given against him by us nor by others at our suite nor at the suite of any other either in the Kings Court or elsewhere Which act the King by his Writ sent to the Judges of the Kings Bench commanding that this grant and concord shall be firme and stable in all its points and that every of them should be held and kept in perpetuitie to which end he commands them to cause this act to be there inrolled and firmely kept for ever A pregnant evidence that the Barons taking up Armes then against this Traytor and enemie of the Realme in pursuance of the Act and sentence of Parliament for his banishment though the King were in his company and assisted him all he might was then both by King and Parliament adjudged no Treason nor Rebellion at all in point of Law but a just honorable action Wherefore their taking up Armes is not mentioned in this Act of oblivion seeing they all held it just but their putting Piers to death without legall triall which in strictnesse of Law could not be justified Now whether this be not the Parliaments and kingdomes present case in point of Law who tooke up armes principally at first for defence of their owne Priviledges of Parliament and apprehention of delinquents who seducing the king withdrew him from the Parliament and caused him to raise an Army to shelter themselves under its power against the Parliament let every reasonable man determine and if it be so we see this ancient Act of Parliament resolves it to be no high Treason nor Rebellion nor offence against the King but a just lawfull act for the kings the kingdomes honour and safety Not long after this the two Spensers getting into the kings favour and seducing miscouncelling him as much as Gaveston did the Lords and Barrons hereupon in the 14 th and 15 th yeares of his raigne confederated

violence And his Speech to Pilate after his taking plainely iustifies the lawfulnesse of such a forcible defence with Armes to preserve a mans life from unjust execution Iohn 18. 36 If my Kingdome were of this world Then would my Servants fight in my Defence and Rescue that I should Not be delivered to the Iewes but now my kingdom is not from hence All which considered clearely justifies the Lawfulnesse of resisting the Kings or higher Powers Officers in cases of apparant unjust open violence or assaults and withall answers one grand argument against resistance from our Saviours present Example namely Christ himselfe made no resistance when hee was unjustly apprehended Ergo Christians his Followers Ergo no Kings no Magistrates too as well as Christ the King of Kings and Lord of Lords for they are Christians as well as subjects ought not to make any forcible resistance of open violence Which argument is a meere inconsequent because the reason why Christ resisted not these Pursevants and High Priests Officers was onely that his Fathers decree and the Scriptures foretelling his Passion might be fulfilled as himselfe resolves not because hee deemed resistance Vnlawfull which he even then approved though hee practised it not as these Texts doe fully proove Fourthly The lawfulnesse of a defensive Warre against the invading Forces of a Soveraigne is warranted by the example of the City Abel which stood out and defended it selfe against Ioab Davids Generall and his Forces when they besieged and battered it till they had made their peace with the head of Sheba who fled into it for shelter 2 Sam. 20. 14. to 23. And by that of Ester Ch. 8. 8. to 17. chap 9. 1. to 17. pertinent to this purpose Where Haman having gotten the Kings Decree to be sent unto all Provinces for the utter extirpation of the whole Nation of the Iewes the King after Hamans Execution through Gods great mercy and Mordecaies and Queene Esters diligence to prevent this bloody massacre by their Enemies granted to the Iewes in every City by Letters under his Seale To gather themselves together and to stand for their lives to destroy to slay and to cause to perish all the power of the people and Province That would Assault them both litle ones and women and to take the spoile of them for a prey and that the Iewes should be ready against the day to avenge themselves of their enemies Hereupon when the day that the Kings Commandment and Decree for their extirpation drew neere to be put in execution in the day that the enmies of the Iewes hoped to have power over them the Iewes gathered themselves together in their Cities throughout all the Provinces of King Ahasuerus to lay hand on such as sought their hurt and no man could withstand them for the feare of them fell upon all people And all the Rulers of the Provinces and the Lieutenants Deputies and Officers of the King helped the Iewes because the feare of Mordecai fell upon them So the Iewes smote all their enemies with the stroake of the Sword and slaughter and destruction and did what they would unto those that hated them In the Palace they slew eight hundred men and Hamans tenne sonnes on severall dayes And the other Iewes that were in the Provinces gathered themselves together and Stood for their Lives and had rest from their enemies and slew of their foes seventy and five thousand but they laid not their hands on the prey Loe here a Defensive war justified and granted lawfull by the Kings owne Letters to the Iewes against their enemies who by former Charters from him had Commission wholly to extirpate them Neither had this licence of the King in point of Conscience been lawfull had their defence and resistance of the Kings former Commission been wholly unlawfull And the reason of the Kings grant to them to resist and slay their Enemies that would assault them was not simply because their resistance without it and standing for their lives had beene unlawfull by reason of the Kings first unjust Decree which they ought not in Conscience to submit to without repugnancy But onely to enable the Iewes then Captives and scattered abroad one from another in every Province with more convenience securitie boldnesse and courage now to joyne their forces together to resist their malicious potent enemies to daunt them the more thereby Nature it selfe yea and all Lawes in such a bloody Nationall Butchery as this without any just cause at all both taught and enabled every one of the Iewes to stand for his life his Nations Religions preservation even to the last drop of blood Therefore the Letters of the King did not simply enable them to resist their enemies which they might have done without them but give them Authority to destroy and slay the Wives and little children of their Enemies and to take the spoile of them for a prey which they refused to doe because they deemed it unjust notwithstanding the Kings permission and concession which as to these particulars was illegall and more then hee could justly grant This generall Nationall resistance of Gods own people then of their assaulting cruell Enemies even among Strangers in the land of their Captivity under a forraigne Enemy with the former and other following precedents will questionlesse more then conjecturally prove if not infallibly resolve The lawfulnesse of a necessary Defensive Warre and opposition by free Subiects against their Kings assailing Forces which seekes their ruine though armed with their Kings Commission and that without any Ordinance of Parliament authorising them to resist much more then when enabled to oppose them by Ordinances of both Houses as the Iewes were to resist and slay their enemies by this Kings Letters and Authority Thirdly That kind of resistance which hath no one Text nor Example in Scripture to impeach its lawfulnesse but many Texts and precedents to countenance it must doubtlesse be lawfull in point of Conscience But the resisting of Kings invading pillaging destructive Forces who have nothing to plead to justifie all their Villanies but a void illegall Warrant hath no one Text nor example in Scripture to impeach its lawfulnesse for ought I can finde and if there be any such I wish the Opposites would object it for Rom. 13. as I shall shew hereafter doth no waies contradict but approve it But it hath many Texts and precedents to countenance it as the premises and sequell attest Therefore it must doubtlesse bee-lawfull in point of Conscience Fourthly it is confessed by all men yea those who are most intoxicated with an Anabaptisticall spirit condemning all kind of warre refusing to carry Armes to defend themselves against any Enemies Theeves or Pirates that it is lawfull not onely passively to resist their Kings unlawfull Commands and invading Forces but likewise by flight hiding or other pollicies to evade and prevent their violence which is warranted not onely by Moses Davids and Elijahs

their severall flights from the violence of the Egyptians Saul and Iezabel who sought their lives but likewise by Ioseph Mary and Christ himselfe who fled into Egypt to escape the hands and but chery of King Herod by Christs own direction to his Disciples Matth. 10. 23. But when they persecute you in this City flee yee into another and that Prediction of his Matth. 23. 34. Behold I send unto you Prophets and wise men and Scribes and some of them ye shall kill and crucifie and some of them shall you scourge in your Synagogues and persecute them from City to City which was really fulfilled Acts 8. 3. 4. c. 9. 1 2. c 11. 19. c. 13. 50 51. c. 14. 1 to 24 c. 17. 1. to 16. c. 22. 42. c. 26. 11. 12. c. 9. 24 25 26. 2 Cor. 11. 32. 33. Rev. 12. 6. Of which reade more in Tertullian his booke De Fuga in persecutione Hence then I argue thus That unjust violence of Princes and their Armies which Subjects with a safe conscience may decline and flee from when as they want power meanes or convenience to resist it they may no doubt lawfully resist even with force of Armes when they have sufficient meanes and conveniences to resist and cannot flee or submit thereto without the publicke ruine since the same justice and equity which enables them by flight or stratagem to decline unjust assaults of a superior power or its judgements doth likewise enable them to escape and prevent it with resistance when they cannot doe it by flight or other policie If then they may lawfully with a safe conscience hide flee or use lawfull policies to prevent the open injust violence of their kings and their Officers when not guilty of any capitall crime deserving censures because by the very light of nature and Law of Charity they are obliged to preserve themselves from unjust tyrannie and are no wayes bound to subject themselves to the cruelty the unjust assaults or oppressions of others then by the selfesame reason they may lawfully with force of Armes defend themselves against such violent unjust attempts which they are no way obliged to submit unto when as they cannot conveniently secure themselves and the publicke but by such resistance and should both betray their owne the publicke safety and Religion as the Subjects and Parliament should now do in case they did not resist by force of Armes to the utmost of their power and become worse than Infidels who have even thus oft provided for their owne and the Republickes securitie Fiftly God himselfe the fountaine oft justice the God of Order the preserver of humane society who detests of all tyranny cruelty oppression injustice out of his Philanthropie which brought the Sonne of his bosome from heaven to earth would never certainely in point of policy or conscience prohibit that which is the onely probable meanes and apparent remedy to prevent suppresse disorder tyranny cruelty oppression injustice yea confusion in the world and to preserve good order and humane society a truth so apparent that no rationall man can contradict it Therefore questionesse he never prohibited forcible necessary resistance of the highest powers and their instruments in cases of open unjust violence and hostile invasion made upon their people to ruine them or subvert their established government Laws Liberties Iustice Religion There being no other probable ordinary meanes left to any Kingdome Nation People to preserve their government lives Lawes Liberties Religion and to prevent suppresse or redresse tyrannie cruelty disorder confusion yea utter ruine when their Kings and Governors degenerate into Tyrants invading them with open force but onely defensive Armes prayers and teares alone without military opposition by force of Armes being no more able to defend a person City or Kingdome against Oppressing Princes and their Armies then against theeves Pyrates or common enemies whom they must and ought to resist as well with Armes as Orisons with Speares as well as Teares else they should but tempt the Lord and destroy themselves like those c Iewes and Gothes who would not fight upon the Sabbath and so were slaine by their enemies without resistance yea wilfully suffer the Common-weale to be subverted Religion extirpated Lawes trampled under feete their own posterities to be enslaved ruined without any opposition even in a moment For were it utterly unlawfull and no lesse than Treason or Rebellion in point of conscience for any subjects to take up Defensive Armes to resist the Kings army or forces consisting for the most part of Papists Delinquents deboist Athesticall persons of broken fortunes feared consciences and most irreligious lives I appeale to every mans conscience how soone these unresisted Instruments of cruelty would utterly extirpate our protestant Religion and common faith for which we are enjoyned earnestly to contend and strive Jude 3. Phil. 1. 27. 28. And shall we then yeeld it up and betray it to our adversaries without strife or resistance how sodainely would they ruin our Parliament Lawes Liberties subvert all civill order government erect an arbitrary Lawlesse tyrannicall Regency regulated by no Iawes but will and Iust how soone would they murther imprison execute our Noblest Lords Knights Burgesses best Ministers and Commonwealths-men for their fidelity to God their King and Country how many Noble families would they disinherite how many wives widdowes Virgins would they force and ravish what Cities what Countries would they not totally pillage plunder sack ruine consume with fire and sword how soone would our whole Kingdome become an Acheldama a wildernesse a desolation and the surviving inhabitants either slaves or beasts if not devils incarnate Yea how speedy might any private Officers Captaines Commanders by colour of illegall Commissions and commands from the King or of their Offices and all the notorious rogues and theeves of England under colour of being listed in the Kings Army if the people might not in point of Law or Conscience resist them with Armes who came armed for to act their villanies maliciously rob spoyle plunder murther all the Kings leige people without any remedy or prevention and by this pretext that they are the Kings Souldiers sodainely seise and gaine all the armes treasure forts ammunition power of the Realme into their possessions in a moment and having thus strengthned themselves and slaine the Kings faithfull subjects usurpe the crown it selfe if they be ambitious as many private Captaines and Commanders have anciently slaine divers Roman and Grecian Emperours yea sundry Spanish Gothish and Moorish Kings in Spain by such practises and aspired to their Crowns of which there are sundry such like presidents in most other Realmes to prevent redres which severall destructive mischiefes to People Kingdome Kings themselves God himselfe hath left us no other certaine proper sufficient remedy but a forcible resistance which all Kingdomes Nations throughout the world haue constantly used in such cases as I shall manifest more largely in the Appendix

some to be Apostles some Prophets some Evangelists c. So that by their determination Ministers are more Gods Ordinance and more jure Divino then Kings yea but few years since they all professed themselves to be as much if not more Gods anointed then Kings and some of our Archest Prelates made publike challenges in the open Court That if they could not prove their Lordly Episcopacy to be Iure Divino they would presently burn their Rochets and lay down their Bishopricks though they never made good their promises to doubt whether the Pope and his supreme Authoritie be iure Divino by Christs own immediate institution deserves a fagot in the Roman Church Yet notwithstanding all this Divine Right and institution our Opposites will grant That if Popes Archbishops Bishops Priests Ministers preach false Hereticall doctrines oppresse wound slay rob plunder the people committed by God to their cares or attempt with force to subvert Religion Laws Liberties or commit any capitall offences they may not onely with safe conscience be resisted repulsed by their people but likewise apprehended arraigned deprived condemned executed by Lay Iudges as infinite examples in our Histories manifest and the example of Abiathar the High Priest 1 Kings 2. 26 27 And if so then why not Kings as well as they or other temporall Magistrates notwithstanding any of the obiected Texts Either therefore our Opposites must grant all Bishops Priests Ministers yea all other Magistrates whatsoever as irresistable uncensurable undeprivable uncondemnable for any crimes whatsoever as they say kings are which they dare not do or else make Kings as resistable censurable deprivable and lyable to all kindes of punishments by their whole Kingdoms consent in Parliament as far forth as they notwithstanding all the former Objections which quite subverts their cause Thirdly Kings and Kingdoms are not so Gods Ordinance as that they should be universall over all the world and no other Government admitted or so as any one Nation whatsoever should be eternally tyed to a Monarchiall Government without any power to alter it into an Aristocracy or other form upon any occasion or so as unalterably to continue the Soveraign power in one family alone as not to be able to transfer it to another when the whole State shall see just cause Hereditary Kingdoms being but Offices of publike trust for the peoples good and safety as well as elective most of them were elective at first and made hereditary onely either by violent usurpation or the peoples voluntary assents and institution and not by any immediate divine Authority and so alterable by their joynt assents as Zuinglius Buchanon Mariana observe and the Histories of most Kingdoms the experience of all ages evidence Which truths being generally confessed by all Polititians Historians Statists by many judicious Divines contradicted by no one text of Scripture that I have met with which our Opposites have objected hitherto they will finde all Monarchies upon the matter to be meer humane Institutions alterable still by that humane Power which did at first erect them and subordinate still thereto as the Creature to its Creator and to be Gods Ordinance onely in regard of speciall providence and the like as other inferiour Magistrates Rulers are who may be justly resisted altered removed censured notwithstanding the objected Text. From which whiles some men earnestly presse that every soul by Gods own Ordinance ought to be subject to some publike civill power which others safely deny fince the Patriarks the first families of most Nations and Countries were not so and all Nations all people before setled publike governments were erected which in many places are not very ancient since those whose Parents are dead and are not by them subjected to a Government are naturally free and none bound to part with their freedom to any other unlesse they see a necessitie a great advantage and that upon such terms and conditions as they deem meet they involve even Kings and Emperours themselves by Gods own Ordinance in a subiection to a superiour earthly civill power to wit to their Laws Parliaments Kingdoms which I have proved Paramount them collectively considered according to the common proverbe Omne sub Regno graviore Regnum est and that of Solomon concerning oppressing Kings and Judges He that is higher then the Highest considers and there be higher then they And so make kings not onely resistble by their whole Kingdoms the supreme Soveraign power but likewise subiect to their Realms superiour commands and uncapable to resist their lawfull power and Forces even in point of Conscience by vertue of this very Text. And so much for the fourth Question For the fifth and last What kinde of resistance of the Higher powers is here prohibited I answer briefly That resistance is here forbidden which is contrary to subiection or obedience as the words Let every soul be subject to the higher Powers coupled with the ensuing reason Whosoever therefore resisteth that is disobeyeth or is not subiect to the Power resisteth the Ordinance of God and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation In the Greek there are two distinct words used 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Latine English French Dutch use them both as one without distinction The first word signifies properly disordered counter-ordered or ordered against as Paraeus Willet and others observe and it is thus used by the Apostle 2 Thess 3. 6 7 11 or disobedient 1 Tim. 1. 9. The later word signifieth properly to resist withstand or oppose in which sence it is used Matth. 5. 39. Luke 21. 1 5. Act. 6. 10. Rom. 9. 19. Gal. 2. 11. 2 Tim. 3. 1. Hebr. 12. 4. Iam. 4. 7. chap. 5. 6. 1 Pet. 5. 9. and applied indifferently both to a spirituall corporall and verball resistance of the Holy Ghost the Devill or men Since then the Apostle in this Text useth the Hebrew phrase Soul not Man Let every Soul be subject to the Higher Powers because as Haymo Tollet Willet Soto and most other Interpreters observe we ought willingly and cheerfully to submit to the higher Powers not only with our bodies but soules and spirits too I may hence cleerly inferre that the resistance of the higher Power hee prohibited as contrary to this subjection is not only that which is corporall and violent by force of armes as the Objectors glosse it but that likewise which is verball mentall spirituall in the soule it selfe without the body and no more then a meer passive resistance or not obeying For not to doe what the higher Powers enjoyn is in verity actually to resist to withstand them as not to doe the will not to yeeld obedience to the motions dictates of the Holy Ghost or devill is really to resist them even in Scripture phrase Yea corporall resistance or opposition by way of force is only an higher degree of resistance but not the onely or proper resistance here prohibited which

to the assertion of the Apostle very ill applied saying The spirituall man is iudged of no man 1 Corinth 2. 15. Not meant of Bishops or Clergie-men but Saints alone endued with Gods Spirit not of judging in courts of iustice but of discerning spirituall things and their own spirituall Estates as the Context resolves Thus and much more this Prelate who notwithstanding this text of the Romanes pleads an exemption of all Bishops and Priests from the kings secular power by Divine Authority and arrogates to Priest and Prelates a iudiciary lawfull power over Kings themselves to excommunicate and censure them for their offences And to descend to later times even since the the Reformation of Religion here Iohn Bridges Dean of Sarum and Bishop of Oxfort even in his Book intituled The supremacy of Christian Princes over all persons thorowout their Dominions in all causes so well Ecclesiasticall as spirituall printed at London 1573. p. 1095. writes thus But who denies this M. Saunders that a godly Bishop may upon great and urgent occasion if it shall be necessary to edifie Gods Church and there be no other remedy flee to this last censure of Excommunication AGAINST A WICKED KING Making it a thing not questionable by our Prelates and Clergie that they may in such a case lawfully excommunicate the King himself And Doctor Bilson Bishop of Winchester in his True difference between Christian subiection and unchristian Rebellion dedicated to Queen Elizabeth her self printed at Oxford 1595. Part. 3. Page 369. to 378. grants That Emperours Kings and Princes may in some cases be Excommunicated and kept from the Lords Table by their Bishops and grants That with Hereticks and Apostates be THEY PRINCES or private men no Christian Pastor nor people may Communicate Neither finde I any Bishop or Court Doctor of the contrary opinion but all of them readily subscribe hereto If then not onely the ill Counsellors and Instruments of Kings but Kings and Emperours themselves may thus not onely be lawfully iustly resisted but actually smitten and excommunicated by their Bishops and Clergy with the spirituall sword for their notorious crimes and wickednesses notwithstanding this inhibition which Valentinian the Emperour confessed and therefore desired that such a Bishop should be chosen and elected in Millain after Auxentius as he himself might really and cordially submit to him and his reprehensions since he must sometimes needs erre as a man as to the medicine of souls as he did to Ambrose when he was elected Bishop there why they may not likewise be resisted by their Laity in the precedent cases with the temporall sword and subjected unto the censures of the whole Kingdoms and Parliaments transcends my shallow apprehension to conceive there being as great if not greater or the very self-same reason for the lawfulnesse of the one as of the other And till our Opposites shall produce a substantiall difference between these cases or disclaim this their practice and doctrine of the lawfulnesse of excommunicating Kings and Emperours they must give me and others liberty to conceive they have quite lost and yeelded up the cause they now contend for notwithstanding this chief Text of Romaves 13. the ground of all their strength at first but now of their ruine The tenth Objection is this that of 1 Pet. 2 13 14 15 16. Submit your selves to every ORDINANCE OF MAN for the Lords sake whether it be to The King AS SVPREAME or unto Governours as unto them that are sent by him to wit by God not the King as the distribution manifests and Rom. 13. 1 2 3 4. For the punishment of evill doers and for the praise of them that doe well c. Feare God Honour the King wee must submit to Kings and honour Kings who are the supream Governours therefore we may in no case forcibly resist them or their Officers though they degenerate into Tyrants To which I answer that this is a meerin consequent since the submission here injoyned is but to such Kings who are punishers of evill doers and praisers of those that do well which the Apostle makes the Ground and motive to submission therefore this text extends not to Tyrants and oppressours who doe quite contrary We must submit to Kings when they rule well and justly is all the Apostle here affirms Ergo wee must submit to and not resist them in any their violent courses to subvert Religion Lawes Liberties is meet non-sence both in Law Divinity and common Reason If any reply as they doe that the Apostle vers 18 19 20. Bids servants 〈◊〉 subject to their Masters with all feare not onely to the good and gentle but also to the froward For this is thank-worthy if a man for conscience towards God endure griefe suffering wrongfully c. Ergo this is meant of evill Magistrates and Kings as well as good I answer 1. That the Apostles speaks it onely of evill Masters not Kings of servants not subjects there being a great difference between servants Apprentices Villaines and free borne subiects as all men know the one being under the arbitrary rule and government of their Master the other onely under the just setled legall Government of their Princes according to the Lawes of the Realme Secondly this is meant onely of private personall iniuries and undue corrections of Masters given to servants without iust cause as vers 20. For what glory is it if when yee be BVFFETED FOR your faults c. intimates not of publike iniuries and oppressions of Magistrates which indanger the whole Church and State A Christian servant or subiect must patiently endure private undue corrections of a froward Master or King Ergo whole Kingdomes and Parliaments must patiently without resistance suffer their kings and evill Instruments to subvert Religion Lawes Liberties Realms the proper deduction heen is but a ridiculous conclusion Secondly This Text enjoynes no more subjection to kings then to any other Magistrates as the words Submit your selves TO EVERY ORDINANCE of Man Or unto Governors c. prove past all contradiction And vers 6. which bids us Honour the King bids us first in direct tearmes HONOVR ALL MEN to wit All Magistrates at least if not all men in generall as such There is then no speciall Prerogative of irresistability given to kings by this Text in injurious violent courses more then there is to any other Magistrate or person whatsoever God giving no man any Authority to injure others without resistance especially if they assault their persons or invade their Estates to ruine them Since then inferiour Officers and other menmay be forc●bly resisted when they actually attempt by force to ruine Religion Lawes Liberties the republike as I haue proved and our Antagonists must grant by the self-same reason kings may be resisted too notwithstanding any thing in this Text which attributes no more irresistability or authority to Kings then unto other Magistrates Thirdly Kings are here expresly called AN ORDINANCE OF

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